Redesign the Urban Ring

[vanshnookenraggen]

For those of you who haven't heard of it, the Urban Ring is a transit plan put out by the MBTA to connect all the transit lines (subway, bus, and commuter rail) that come into downtown Boston with a ring of transit. The purpose of this is two fold; the first being to take pressure off of the 4 major downtown transfer points (Park, State, Gov't Center, and DTX), and second to connect large job centers, primarily Kendall Sq and the Longwood Medical Area. The current plan is a three phase process starting with improved crosstown bus service, then moving to Bus Rapid Transit -BRT- (e.g. Silver Line), and finally constructing a subway line either using Orange Line heavy rail or Green Line light rail.

The idea for an urban ring is not new. The first instance of a transit line encircling Boston was put out by Robert Gourlay, a Scottish writer and urbanist. When he first came to the young United States in 1817 he realized that the new nation would be building many new cities and that there had to be a scientific way to do so. He began crafting ideas for cities, making him one of the first urban planners. In his "General Plan, for enlarging and Improving the City of Boston", Gourlay proposed something completely radical: fill in the Back Bay and line the Charles River with a park and train line. He also proposed connecting the Providence, Boston & Worcester, and Fitchburg train terminals with underground tunnels (we don't have this either). Nothing came of Gourlay's plan, though he must have planted a few seeds in the minds of Bostonians.

(I mean to have an image of Gourlay's plan but I can't find it online. You can see it in the book "Inventing the Charles River" by Karl Haglund)

The problem most people have with the current plan is that it doesn't serve enough areas and that it relys mainly on slow moving buses in mixed traffic. I do want to go on record saying that I am all for improved crosstown bus
service but I am not for relying completely on buses. I do believe that any serious transit plan needs to take them into account and to propose ideas that would improve bus traffic (dedicated lanes), but in the end any urban ring proposal needs to center around an actual subway line. Here is my proposal:

To start with, this is not just a proposal for the urban ring but it is a fundamental rethinking of how the Green Line would operate.


What this map shows is a series of rings formed by connecting the ends of the Green Line through Cambridge and Boston. The Green Line as we know it today would function as half of the ring while the other half could go through Harvard and Allston (#1) or Kendall Sq (#2). Since the southern end of the Green Line has multiple branches this gives us more options for where to connect the ring. The first connection would be to Kenmore Sq (#3), either directly under the Charles River or by a new tunnel under Comm. Ave. The next possibility would be under Huntington Ave (#4), connecting Longwood into the ring. The last option would be the most dramatic, connecting the ring to Dudley Sq (#5) where a new tunnel under Washington St would connect the ring into downtown.

What would happen to the trolley service we have now is this:
- B Line would be placed in a tunnel to Brighton where it could terminate or continue to Boston College.
- C Line would cease going to North Station but would instead travel to South Boston via a new tunnel under Essex St (what Silver Line Phase III is planning on building).
- D Line would connect to the Huntington Ave subway and shuttle service would be instituted along the stretch of track connecting Brookline with Kenmore Sq.
- E Line would be truncated or switched to Washington St tunnel.

If two of the connections were built then this would give the T much more room to try different services and to reroute trains if one becomes disabled.

The next phase would be to connect the northeastern suburbs.


Unlike the first phase, these lines would only feed into the new urban ring tunnels, not the Green Line tunnels.
The three options as thus: Construct a new line, both in tunnel and at grade, to connect Lechmere with Everett, Chelsea, and Logan Airport (#1). This proposal is currently in the long term plans for the actual Urban Ring but only as BRT. The next would be to use the under-used Saugus Branch ROW that runs along Everett to Malden and Saugus before terminating in Lynn (#2). Service here could terminate at a Park-&-Ride facility at the interchange at Route 1 or continue to Saugus and Lynn. The last options is a line through Charlestown in a tunnel to Chelsea and on to Revere (#3). This would be the most expensive since express bus service covers this basic route today, but I just threw it in there anyway.

All of these new lines running through the central subway would put tremendous pressure on an already crowded system. The most important part of this whole rethinking is to rebuild the central subway.


This is probably a good idea regardless of whether any ring lines are added. What you see here is a track diagram of what the central subway could look like (click here to see what it looks like today).

Here's what would happen:
We would take pressure off the Boylston St tunnel by redirecting D and E branch traffic by one of two ways:
A - Build a new tunnel under the current Boylston St tunnel, eliminating the Copley Junction which is the major choke point in the Green Line (all B and C trains need to stop so an E can pass first). There would be new platforms under Copley station but no new platforms at Arlington.

OR

D - Eliminate the Copley Junction by building a new tunnel under Stuart St through the Back Bay. This new subway would have two new stations and connect to the central subway using the abandoned tunnels south of Boylston St station.

Both of these plans envisions the D branch connecting to the Huntington Ave subway which itself would be extended under Huntington Ave to Brookline.

All of this hinges on the most important element of the plan,
B - Completely rebuild the Boylston St junction and station. Build two tracks that bypass the station and go directly to Park St (lines in black). Also take the two tracks that are there now and drive them under the current station, creating a new platform. This tunnel would then continue to South Station and on to South Boston, there by connecting the hotels, offices, and convention center of the new SBW with the hotels, offices, and convention center of the Back Bay (through the Financial District!) A new Boylston St Upper station would then serve all traffic either from Newton and JP (via the rerouted D and E branches) and/or a new tunnel under Washington St to Dudley Sq (and beyond!)

The last part of the plan is to correct a problem that the Green Line has suffered from since it's inception.
C - Build a second, two track tunnel from Park St to Government Center. Rebuild GC with two parallel platforms and a new loop for the outer tracks, while the inner tracks continue to Haymarket. The Brattle Loop would be sunk and a new platform for the Blue Line would allow passengers from the Blue Line to connect directly northbound Green Line service, which will undoubtedly pick up after the West Medford extension is completed.

----------

This is no simple plan and will most certainly cost billions of dollars. But if you only think about it in terms of how much it's going to cost you then you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The Green Line today is a relic of Victorian era transportation and it is evident every time you ride it. Installing a brand new artery that doesn't funnel people in and out of the city twice a day but circulates them throughout the business areas, residential areas, and entertainment areas will completely change the way people think about living in the city.

The problem with the current plan for the Urban Ring is that it still clings to the transportation theories of the mid 20th century where people come in from the suburbs at 8am and then leave at 5pm. While there will always be commuting into the city, the city cannot grow and prosper when this is the only option. We need a new way of thinking about how mass transit can strengthen a city and I think that these proposals are a good first step.

----------

Well, that's my plan, what are some of your ideas?

 

[ablarc]

I like your emphasis on getting around the inner city. Though small, it's not really well-served by Paris standards; too many destinations are too long a walk.

I like your proposal for a Stuart Street subway, but as long as we're spending money, why abort its newfound freedom by running it into the same old Tremont Street subway?

It could continue in its own tunnel through Theatre District/Chinatown (moving sidewalk transfers to Orange and Green) to a proper Financial District stop at Post Office Square. Then it could stop at Quincy Market (transfer to Blue Line) and the heart of the North End (Hanover/Prince). From there, it could burrow under the harbor to stops at Navy Yard and deep beneath Bunker Hill (large capacity elevator to surface).

 

[Ron Newman]

Hanover and Prince is a very crowded corner with insanely narrow sidewalks. I don't know where you'd put a subway entrance unless you wanted to dig up St. Leonard's Peace Garden.

 

[ablarc]

^ Good idea.

 

[justin]

A few comments:

- What's the benefit of building the Urban Ring as an extension of the Green Line, as opposed to a free-standing line? The longer and more convoluted your routings are, the more likely is the disruption at one end of the system likely to ripple through the rest of it. That's a worry, given the reliability of the T's trolleys. You're probably inspired by NYC's wonderful network, but that's mostly 4-track which makes a world of difference in handling disruptions.

- The studies I've seen for the UR predict a ridership higher than the Blue Line and thus unsuitable for trolleys. That, and provisions for future growth, would argue for an independent heavy-rail line.

- Using the Grand Junction is a mistake. Just because there is one service track there doesn't mean it's a good place to put a subway line. A frequent trolley service crossing Mass Ave. at grade is a recipe for delays and accidents. Even if you just use the ROW for cheaper tunneling, the routing has disadvantages: it's impossible to make a convenient transfer to the Red Line (even a possible added Main St. station would be closer to Mass Ave), and the area around the corridor is at best periferal to centers of activity.

- How exactly do you propose double the number of tracks in the stretch between Park St. and Scollay? The people who built it new of 4-track subways, in fact built one to the west and the north of the said segment, and they had many fewer obstacles to deal with. Your proposal, as drawn, would have to go under some historic properties (like the whatchamacallit hotel and King's Chapel) and - gasp - under two graveyards. I wish I could say that the only good NIMBY is a dead one, but not even that much is true nowdays.

justin

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

- What's the benefit of building the Urban Ring as an extension of the Green Line, as opposed to a free-standing line?

The idea is more about upgrading the Green Line from the antiquated trolley tunnel into a rapid transit network that circulates throughout the city while allowing suburban lines (D Branch, West Medford, etc) to get into and through Park St faster.
The nice thing about this plan is that you can still add point-to-point lines into the system. If you have two ring lines, one will run through the central subway while the other would run from A to B (Lets say Sullivan Sq to Dudley Sq or Columbia Pt.)
A free standing line would go from point A to point B which works great when point A is a Park-&-Ride and point B is Park St or Downtown Crossing. The purpose of the urban ring is to capture the traffic, that would otherwise have to travel all the way into the city just to get back out of the city, and divert it around the CBD getting commuters to their destinations and relieving pressure downtown. This plan allows both.

The longer and more convoluted your routings are, the more likely is the disruption at one end of the system likely to ripple through the rest of it. That's a worry, given the reliability of the T's trolleys. You're probably inspired by NYC's wonderful network, but that's mostly 4-track which makes a world of difference in handling disruptions.

Not all the different routings on the map would need to be operated but if connections were made then there would be different rings through which the trains could travel if something came up. Say a train gets disabled at Copley station. Before all the traffic from the B, C, D, and possibly E lines would be screwed up. With a circular distribution all traffic far enough back would be able to switch to another ring, like the Huntington Ave subway or Washington St subway.
Since it probably wouldn't be worth building express tracks under the current tunnels, a way to better distribute the traffic with more options seems to be the next best thing.

- The studies I've seen for the UR predict a ridership higher than the Blue Line and thus unsuitable for trolleys. That, and provisions for future growth, would argue for an independent heavy-rail line.

Look at the new Green Line platforms at North Station. They are long enough to hold a 4 or 5 car trolley set. The Blue Line was originally built to trolley standards which is why the cars are so small. Most of the current Green Line platforms are long enough since it was planned to convert the line to heavy rail. The only thing that is really holding the T back is the arcane signal system. A new system could allow many more trains through and longer sets.

- Using the Grand Junction is a mistake. Just because there is one service track there doesn't mean it's a good place to put a subway line. A frequent trolley service crossing Mass Ave. at grade is a recipe for delays and accidents. Even if you just use the ROW for cheaper tunneling, the routing has disadvantages: it's impossible to make a convenient transfer to the Red Line (even a possible added Main St. station would be closer to Mass Ave), and the area around the corridor is at best periferal to centers of activity.

I agree totally. I just threw that in because it was one of the ideas on the table. I think running the line through Harvard is better for traffic loads and probably more politically feasible since the line would then connect the main school with the new campus in Allston and the Longwood Medical Area.

- How exactly do you propose double the number of tracks in the stretch between Park St. and Scollay? The people who built it new of 4-track subways, in fact built one to the west and the north of the said segment, and they had many fewer obstacles to deal with. Your proposal, as drawn, would have to go under some historic properties (like the whatchamacallit hotel and King's Chapel) and - gasp - under two graveyards. I wish I could say that the only good NIMBY is a dead one, but not even that much is true nowdays.

Click here for a map of Park St. Park St station would have to be altered but not so much that it would be impossible to get past any landmarks committee. The tunnel would curve north west under Park St and then curve east once it dove deep enough to get past the foundations. I admit that this would be a tricky job but it isn't impossible. If handled with care it could be done (yeah, yeah, I know this is Boston. But I don't let that sentiment get to me when dealing with the engineering). The tunnel would then whip up to Beacon St and cut through Pemberton Sq where it would meet up with the Green Line at Gov't Center. It would be difficult but not impossible.

 

[Charlie_mta]

A parallel tunnel a few blocks west could be built from Park Street to GC, providing 4-track capacity on the Green Line. My proposal is at this link:

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43795&start=15

 

[AdamBC]

Here's my idea from a different thread:

I've put together a urban ring that throws out the MBTA's technique of putting in T lines where there are rail lines (and therefore no density) and putting the line (and stops) where people are.

Don't know if this link will work:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...178923263124985256.0004439d82744915f3bcd&z=13

It would be best if they built it with an express option like NYC's. That works well and makes the system much more efficient.

 

[Chris]

Any chance you're willing to make blank versions of those maps available? or at least how to get them?

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Google Maps + Prt Scrn

 

[belmont square]

I think there are some great ideas in van's proposal and not much I'd disagree with (particularly given the fiscally-unconstrainted nature of this subforum). This is defintely a corridor in need of grade-separated rapid transit (with trolleys or heavy rail). In my opinion, the challenge is that the most needed northside connection (Sullivan to Harvard and new Harvard) does not match up neatly with the most needed southside connection (JFK to LMA and Kenmore). I like the idea of treating them as two different rings, but sometimes the concept of a "ring" gets in the way of this project. What would be so bad about two Urban "Arcs" as I've described? They would go a long way in reducing the pressure on the central subway.

 

[ablarc]

I've put together a urban ring that throws out the MBTA's technique of putting in T lines where there are rail lines (and therefore no density) and putting the line (and stops) where people are.

You did a really nice job of putting the line where people need it --unlike the preposterous Orange Line that hovers perpetually on the periphery (does anyone in Charlestown really want to use it?).

The other virtue of your scheme is frequent stops. Transportation planners would choose to eliminate many of them --and they'd be wrong since no matter how slow a train is it's faster than walking, and since few people will take a really long ride on this line. Speed is less important than accessibility. They know this in Paris.

It would be best if they built it with an express option like NYC's. That works well and makes the system much more efficient.

Yes, that would be perfect.

We can dream, eh?

 

[belmont square]

The other virtue of your scheme is frequent stops.

Depends on your goals. As mentioned at the start of the thread, a big goal for this project is to reduce the burden on the central subway and to improve access to key employment centers (like LMA). Adding intermediate stations will slow the trip--not enough that walking will be faster, but enough that the old fashioned way--via Downtown Xing or Park--will be.

AdamBC's plan, which impressively misses almost every major employment center in the urbanized area, might work well at serving the relatively small number of intra-neighborhood trips, but would seem to do almost nothing to reduce the burden on the central subway.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

In my opinion, the challenge is that the most needed northside connection (Sullivan to Harvard and new Harvard) does not match up neatly with the most needed southside connection (JFK to LMA and Kenmore). I like the idea of treating them as two different rings, but sometimes the concept of a "ring" gets in the way of this project. What would be so bad about two Urban "Arcs" as I've described? They would go a long way in reducing the pressure on the central subway.

I realized after I put this up that I totally forgot about the connection to JFK/UMass which I think is a critical part to any Urban Ring idea. What do you mean by "urban arcs"? As I pointed out this set up gives you flexibility to run a few different arraignments, ones that go through the central subway in a loop and ones that arc around the city.

 

[belmont square]

What do you mean by "urban arcs"?

Just segments of a ring rather than a complete one. Whether or not the mode ends up being a Green Line rerouting (as you've suggested) or a new heavy rail line, just focus initially on the short segments of a ring that really get you something. JFK to Kenmore would go a long way to solving the LMA access issue and reduce a lot of downtown transfers. Extensions beyond Kenmore get you much less (they only help Kendall-bound passengers, and since it's already much better located than LMA, the time savings would be much less). It also makes sense to take advantage of Harvard's incentive to have service to its new campus, so an outer arc making connections to some combination of westbound CR, northbound CR, and Orange Line north would be wise. But I'm not sold on the need to connect into all of the Green Lines in A/B, Brookline. (Basically, I'm suggesting splitting your Line 1 into two different services by terminating it from the north in Allston and rerouting it from the south into Kenmore).

No need to have everything connect all the way through to all the lines (at least initially), b/c at some point it becomes quicker for people to just ride through downtown on their original line.

 

[AdamBC]

Depends on your goals. As mentioned at the start of the thread, a big goal for this project is to reduce the burden on the central subway and to improve access to key employment centers (like LMA). Adding intermediate stations will slow the trip--not enough that walking will be faster, but enough that the old fashioned way--via Downtown Xing or Park--will be.

AdamBC's plan, which impressively misses almost every major employment center in the urbanized area, might work well at serving the relatively small number of intra-neighborhood trips, but would seem to do almost nothing to reduce the burden on the central subway.

I figure that the central subway will handle most of the traffic into the major employment areas. (Though it's 128 that has most of the employment areas now). I was primarily looking to serve parts of Boston proper that don't have their own subway connection and tie together the different lines.

From the ring I made, it would be easy to send new subway lines into the areas under-covered by effective public transportation.

 

[belmont square]

I was primarily looking to serve parts of Boston proper that don't have their own subway connection and tie together the different lines.

From the ring I made, it would be easy to send new subway lines into the areas under-covered by effective public transportation.

Ironically, 19 of your 28 stations are already within a 10 minute walk of a rapid transit station.

Providing subway stations where people live is a good idea (Union, Inman, Franklin Park and Uphams Corner can all be considered underserved). But people use the subway b/c they need to get somewhere and that "where" is most frequently their job. By designing a route that bypasses employment centers, you've created a system that would force most users of the new service to transfer.

I know many are biased against buses, but the people in residential Charlestown do have direct bus service to downtown as well as the Orange Line as a decent option. If you were going to provide subway service to the neighborhood proper (and at Manhattan station spacing at that), it had best be going downtown and not to the airport or Union Square.

 

[ablarc]

^ That's the formula for an American city with suburbia surrounding a business core. Transport planners in Paris, London, Moscow, Berlin and (yes!) New York hear a different drummer.

If we're going to influence the city's future shape with transport, the second paradigm shows much greater promise of solving our present environmental and energy problems.

 

[belmont square]

^ Agreed. But the fault doesn't lie with Boston as a region for being shortsighted, the MBTA as an agency for being incompetent, or transportation planning as a profession for not being creative. The fault lies with the fact that the feds aren't shelling out boatloads of $ for new transit like they used to (although the $ for roads continues to flow). And what little $ there is for transit has to be spread out across 50 or 60 cities to please everyone in Congress, even though most of these places have not demonstrated (either at present, or historically) that they will develop in a compact, transit-friendly manner.

It would be great if there were subway stations in the heart of residential Southie, or a crosstown line connecting Allston to JP. People would definitely use it. But these investments would do little to relieve the current pressure on the downtown system, and would also fail to attract anywhere near as many riders as other variations on the Urban Ring as laid out by van that focus on employment centers. In the current funding environment, it would be self-defeating for transit advocates to push MA to get in line for a decade for federal funding (or state funding) to build something that is not going to get you the biggest bang for the buck in terms of ridership.

By the way, what is NYC doing on this front? The only rapid transit, non-CBD oriented line I'm aware of is the G, and that line would have zero chance of getting built today if it did not already exist.

 

[czsz]

^ You might count the Hudson-Bergen light rail, though it's technically outside New York.