Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

[F-Line to Dudley]

Probably that much, given the need for an additional tunnel under Fort Point Channel. No real point in discussing it, though - the diversion would be far too extreme for the line to work.

Green Line through the Transitway is the only plausible scenario where rail transit comes to SBW. DMUs on Track 61 are feasible, but don't connect to Downtown in a way that makes operational sense.

Yup. And the Transitway is designed specifically for LRT conversion, since the platform heights are all equivalent to Green Line ADA platform heights, the overhead is the same voltage, and City Point used to be a real streetcar Green Line branch running through the Central Subway until 1953. All it would take to run buses and light rail through the same tunnel is rails-in-pavement that hug the platforms as they pull into the stations, the current bus turnouts at the stations likewise rail'ed-in-pavement for passing of out-of-service vehicles, the hangers on the overhead power wire to be converted to the dual trolley pole + pantograph hangers that the Green Line had when PCC's and LRV's co-existed, and for the TT return wire to be raised 4-6 inches (well within the stretch distance of the buses' trolley poles) so the trolley pantographs don't short it out. You literally don't have to touch a damn thing on the stations themselves except hanging green-background signage next to the existing silver-background signage. Combo tunnels of that design are done elsewhere in the world, and Harvard bus tunnel used to be in that setup (albeit without pantograph vehicles) when Cambridge still had a mix of trolleys, TT's, and diesel buses using that tunnel in the 40's and 50's.


I can't even imagine how hard it would be to rip the shit out of those stations for high heavy rail platforms. Much less where those trains could possibly continue once they hit the end of the grade separation at SL Way. You definitely could never get cross-Southie rail service like that old City Point streetcar or the south end of the Urban Ring terminating in the Transitway on a mode incapable of operating in mixed traffic. Southie KO'd their Orange Line El branch off the south junction of the Chinatown portal and the Atlantic Ave. El over 100 years ago. That idea sure as hell ain't ever getting revived on those narrow streets. Nor can you possibly get across the Pike tunnel and the under-pinnings of the Seaport portal of the Ted with a new subway tunnel. It's mixed-traffic branching or bust if you want to retain future options in-pocket for any kind of neighborhood rail run out of the Transitway.


And even if you envision a new transit bore being built next to the Ted eons from now for direct Logan terminal subway service out of SS you'd probably still want LRV's using it so they can likewise pool buses and trolleys together on a dual-mode, grade-separated busway/El or something like that that wraps around the upper level of the terminals. So many public and private transit vehicles need a more orderly and grade separated loop around the terminals that such an option would be too good to pass up for one exclusionary mode and one mode only. Such an ElBusway would be Green Line accessible well before a new cross-harbor bore if they built LRT Urban Ring to Logan sooner. Same thing...rails in pavement, dual-hanger power wire and variable-height return wire if SL1 has any future need to switch back to electric mode over there for a hybrid battery recharge.

 

[Brad Plaid]

The potential financial reward of developing here is so great now it's become a matter of build it first, figure out the transit second. The cart is before the horse but damn there's money to be made.

 

[Equilibria]

The potential financial reward of developing here is so great now it's become a matter of build it first, figure out the transit second. The cart is before the horse but damn there's money to be made.

Not really. As far as both the developers and the MBTA are concerned, the transit was figured out 10 years ago. No need to revisit it.

 

[Arlington]

South Boston Waterfront doomsayers need to take a look at the Charlestown Waterfront//Navy Yard, which got seriously built up on the strength of, what? the 93 bus, a water ferry and long walks to the Orange Line! Looking at the lame transit, and writing in the late 1980s, we would have predicted doom there. Sure, it is something of a mystery (or call it a resounding success of live-work mixed use) but it hasn't strangled itself on its connectivity.

SBW is going to be bigger & denser, yes, but the transit is there in proportion: Those parts that aren't well served at Courthouse or WTC or ManuLife end up being very walkable to South Station. And we have to admit it has ideal auto-access from more points of the compass than just about any other "Headquarters" location in the core.

The eastern/Drydock reaches are, yes, a bit starved, but no moreso than Spaulding Rehab out there in Charlestown, and even so the SilverLine goes out there in better style than the 93 reaching into Charlestown.

[The Silver Line really will cut it] As far as both the developers and the MBTA are concerned, the transit was figured out 10 years ago. No need to revisit it.

Agreed. While we can all imagine better service, the same can be said everywhere else in the urban core. We're going to need to more hear stories of "it was so crowded, I waited for the next one" on the SL before we conclude that the Silver Line isn't cutting it...and then, welcome to the built-out-core club.

And the SL extension to Chelsea is going to help, isn't it? Both with better Airport/Blue access and with headways in the tunnel? A two-seat ride that gets you to South Station (via Red, CR, or SL4) to connect to SL1/SL2/Chelsea @ Courthouse or Manulife is pretty decent access.

 

[Equilibria]

South Boston Waterfront doomsayers need to take a look at the Charlestown Waterfront//Navy Yard, which got seriously built up on the strength of, what? the 93 bus, a water ferry and long walks to the Orange Line! Looking at the lame transit, and writing in the late 1980s, we would have predicted doom there. Sure, it is something of a mystery (or call it a resounding success of live-work mixed use) but it hasn't strangled itself on its connectivity.

It's not dead, but it's not hopping. It's pretty much an office park with a big tourist site in the middle (accessed, I assume, by tourist trolley bus and foot). No mixed use, no hotels, no cinemas or grocery stores. You could make a solid case that given where it's located, that entire strip should be built up to 200' just like the Seaport is, or for that matter like Kendall is.

Imagine an Orange Line branch under the river and along the path of the City Square Tunnel and Tobin. Would the Navy Yard still be a sedate office village then? Honestly, but for the airport I think developers would be looking up to 500-600' there if there was HRT access.

Agreed. While we can all imagine better service, the same can be said everywhere else in the urban core. We're going to need to more hear stories of "it was so crowded, I waited for the next one" on the SL before we conclude that the Silver Line isn't cutting it...and then, welcome to the built-out-core club.

Well, the Silver Line has it's use: getting people from Logan to South Station and the BCEC. In its current free-inbound configuration, it does this acceptably if the traffic in the tunnel isn't awful. Because it dead-ends at South Station, though, connectivity for the SBW beyond there is quite lacking, particularly from the west where two transfers would be needed to reach it. As an intra-Boston transit service, the Silver Line is horrible. It's so slow between WTC and SS that you're probably better off walking.

The big problem with that is that Logan-SS and Logan-BCEC traffic would be better served by shuttle buses, which could come out of the tunnel and shoot down surface roads to get to those places. Honestly, a loop using Seaport, the Surface Artery and Summer probably is faster than waiting for the dual mode at SLW, the loop-de-loop ramps to get into the tunnel, and the 10mph speed limit in the transitway.

SL1/SL2 is just not an ideal way to do anything. It's not the best way to serve the airport, it's an abysmal way to do transit to the SBW, and for the low, low price of a billion dollars.

 

[Arlington]

The big problem with that is that Logan-SS and Logan-BCEC traffic would be better served by shuttle buses, which could come out of the tunnel and shoot down surface roads to get to those places.

Either that or just friggin make these simple changes:
1) let the SL use the "emergency" down-ramp into the TWT (as is actually shown on the MBTA system map. Control access with the same barrier system as the SL tunnel portal at D Street.
2) Give the SL signal priority crossing D Street (the same system that powers the barriers and tunnel signals just a few feet away). Or just pedestrianize that block of D. Nobody would notice it gone.
3) Consider a short ramp (could even be one of those tinkertoy/galvanized temporary ones such as was used c.1999) or short tunnel to get out of the TWT and "up" to ManuLife

 

[FortPointGuy]

(1) As previously posted, I've seen the official retail slides incorporating the tenants they are in advanced negotiations with. The quantity and quality of the stores, restaurants, exercise facilities and other entertainment venues will put the Pru mall to shame along with much of Boylston Street excluding perhaps the ultra-high end stories for 1%s like Gucci. Louis will look like a brilliant pioneer, as will Mario B. when the announcements are made.

(2) South Station is actually pretty close as mentioned above and there is a Silver Line station...at...the...situs. Silver Line isn't half-bad, especially compared to the Green Line.

(3) There will be underground resident and shopping parking. Latter may make some cringe but you kind of need it when it comes to 3 stories of retail on big parcels.

 

[BosDevelop]

exercise facilities

I have long been hearing rumors that Equinox is considering a smaller version of one of their health clubs in Seaport Square.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

As an intra-Boston transit service, the Silver Line is horrible. It's so slow between WTC and SS that you're probably better off walking.
.

It's a 4 minute ride from South Station to WTC. That's too slow? Really?
Versus a 15 minute walk? Can't argue with it sucking past SLW, but too slow for the first 3 stops?

Just to be clear, after writing my previous post I had a meeting out at Vertex. So, I decided to put this stuff to the test. Normally would have walked.

Got off the red, went up one level to the SL. 2 - 3 minutes for the 11:40 to show up. Left immediately at 11:40, and dropped me off at Courthouse before the clock struck 11:42. Still amazed by the size of that station every time I use it.

 

[xec]

(1) As previously posted, I've seen the official retail slides incorporating the tenants they are in advanced negotiations with. The quantity and quality of the stores, restaurants, exercise facilities and other entertainment venues will put the Pru mall to shame along with much of Boylston Street excluding perhaps the ultra-high end stories for 1%s like Gucci. Louis will look like a brilliant pioneer, as will Mario B. when the announcements are made.

Too bad it's going to be so upscale. That means it probably won't get as much foot traffic as it would with more down-to-earth stores.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I think we're stuck with the Silver Line. For all the talk about whether light rail is possible in the tunnel, I don't see how it moves much faster or has a much higher capacity than the buses do, and because it's underground on a guideway a lot of the other benefits of LRT don't apply there. I like the idea for connectivity reasons, but operationally I don't see much improvement, and it's not like there's ever going to be Red Line in the Seaport.

Equilibria, I am a little confused by the concept that an LRT can't beat the speed and capacity of an articulate bus in the transitway.

The stations are long, so you could do a three car tandem LRT. That has to be larger than an articulated bus. And the bus speed limit is 15 MPH in the transitway. You are suggesting that the green line doesn't beat 15 MPH in the tunnels? Really?

 

[Equilibria]

Equilibria, I am a little confused by the concept that an LRT can't beat the speed and capacity of an articulate bus in the transitway.

The stations are long, so you could do a three car tandem LRT. That has to be larger than an articulated bus. And the bus speed limit is 15 MPH in the transitway. You are suggesting that the green line doesn't beat 15 MPH in the tunnels? Really?

Well, it might not beat 15mph in THAT tunnel. The bus speed limit is, I believe, due to the narrowness of the space and of the curves, though it might also have to do with the pavement surface being really bad. IIRC, it was designed that way, though.

The GL trains probably don't top 15mph in their tunnels much, actually. Maybe for a few seconds on long straightaways, but not typically. F-Line will tell you, that's just my guess.

The 3-car comment is reasonable, although the T has yet to actually implement it anywhere despite spending lots of money to make it possible (I know, they're waiting for the Type 9s). Again, though, I wonder if capacity is really going to be your problem here.

Frankly, capacity probably won't be the confounding factor here. Fenway is already much of what this neighborhood wants to be, and the Back Bay is what it dreams of being. Both get by just fine on the Green Line much of the time. It's connectivity that's the issue. You're not going to get rid of that parking demand as long as you can't connect from Blue, Orange or Green to get the place, especially with I-90 right there.

 

[Arlington]

The 3-car comment is reasonable, although the T has yet to actually implement it anywhere despite spending lots of money to make it possible (I know, they're waiting for the Type 9s).

When the T finally has the ability to do 3-car ops, folks will see that that's what we really want basically everywhere (and what other cities are getting when they do light-rail-in-tunnels). But there's an awful lot that stands between the Seaport and rail:

1) Connecting it to the system (a short but freakishly expensive tunnel / portal)
2) Having a place to store vehicles (Its unclear whether the new yard that's part of the GLX will be quickly maxed out just storing the cars needed to get the current system to 3-car trains...and then we'll need another yard to support rail in the SL tunnels)
3) Tunnel roadbed reconstruction
4) Vehicle procurement

The MBTA's Vision 2024, which was all about DMUs (and the GLX) and SL to Mystic Mall does not get us to rail in the seaport. You're looking at 15 to 20 years before we see rail in the seaport.

 

[Equilibria]

The MBTA's Vision 2024, which was all about DMUs (and the GLX) and SL to Mystic Mall does not get us to rail in the seaport. You're looking at 15 to 20 years before we see rail in the seaport.

The MBTA's Vision 2024 contained projects that T planners had thought of and vetted with the higher-ups. This wasn't one of them because SL Phase 3 rightly lost its funding. The route proposed by F-Line and others for the connector tunnel hasn't been in any way proposed to or studied by the T.

I'm not sure why you think people on this thread are proposing that this happen right now. I'm certainly not. I'm only saying that rail transit in the Seaport can only happen this way, and that the Silver Line is a terrible means of doing this or any job. That's it. We're stuck with it for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't make it adequate.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It's not so much the slow speed. It's the fact that it has decayed in the 10 years since the Transitway opened. A combination of the pavement disintegrating to dust and extra caution being exercised with line-of-sight driving due to the lack of a signal system. The Silver Line suffers under load because it's not performing to design speed. Assumptions about the traffic flow within those design speeds that were correct 10 years ago when it opened are no longer accurate, so it gets bottlenecked. Not all the time, but when there's bunching of buses it's painful for a good 20+ minute interval until the clog gets flushed out and settles back down.

Those are fixable issues. Repair the pavement and put in wayside stoplight signals and it does as good and probably better than 10 years ago. Bury that asinine D St. crossing and better still.


Trolleys would probably average similar speed in the existing Transitway because of the stop spacing and vehicle co-mingling. But consider how many more passengers get moved per 2-3 car train vs. per-bus. Bunching doesn't hurt nearly, nearly as much with a crowd-swallower. Especially one on a lighter-traffic GL branchline that isn't holding up the whole Central Subway behind it.

Where the trolleys get much much faster than buses is on the link to the Back Bay if that's built. SL Phase III as designed under Essex St. would have been a pig under BRT, and the Boylston Under loop and 3+ blocks diversion of crazy tunnels to portal-up and link the Washington St. half of SL a schedule killer with how tight those turn radii were. More like 10 MPH, and less than that--probably 6 MPH (the T likes even-numbered bus speed limits for some reason) when doing the circular loop of pain at Boylston Under.

It wouldn't matter if any trolley routing out of Eliot Norton Park looked longer distance on a map between there and its Transitway insertion point on Essex St. @ the South St. block, or did a South End jog around Tufts to get there instead of plowing right under Chinatown. The extra distance the buses have to drive around the crazy curves near the Common makes the actual linear tunneling distance an even match. The Tremont tunnel from Boylston to the old portal was the single fastest stretch of the original 1897 subway. 35 MPH is probably sustainable on that whole stretch with maybe a little slowdown in the middle at the bellmouth tunnel split. Then the rest on your theoretical routing, after your theoretical intermediate stop/Orange transfer (be it at Tufts or a backtrack to Chinatown) won't drop below, say, the speed between Kenmore and Copley if you don't introduce any 90-degree turns.

Which mode is going to get there faster through the same X-quantity of tunnel feet that would have to be built to link it to the rest of the system? No contest. SS-SL Way isn't the consequential segment that tips the balance: the unbuilt BBY link is.

 

[BostonObserver]

Is the new Chelsea Silver Line an extension of the SL1 or will it be it's own line?

 

[datadyne007]

Is the new Chelsea Silver Line an extension of the SL1 or will it be it's own line?

It uses the SL1 route until the airport where it goes to Airport Station instead of the terminals and then goes down the Martin A Coughlin bypass to the Chelsea St bridge, crosses it, and then enters its own ROW. For additional info, see the Silver Line Gateway thread.

 

[underground]

Last time I rode the SL from SS to WTC, the SL1s were routing directly to Logan, so we had to wait for an SL2. For whatever reason they were running about 3 SL1s for every SL2, so the SL2s were promptly crushed. All told, I think I waited about 25 mins at SS to get out to WTC. I don't know if that's an outlier experience (only reason I was on SL to begin with was rain), but it'd be pretty ridiculous if that's the operational norm.

It's not dead, but it's not hopping. It's pretty much an office park with a big tourist site in the middle (accessed, I assume, by tourist trolley bus and foot). No mixed use, no hotels, no cinemas or grocery stores.

I'd agree it's a little sleepy, but you're leaving out the large amount of housing, the Constitution Inn (with the Marriot Residence arguablly part of the larger Navy Yard area), and a couple restaurants. I do agree with you though that it's not a great comparison, but I think really the difference between the Navy Yard/Charlestown Waterfront and the South Boston Waterfront is just scale. We're talking about an area ~2-3x the size with buildings ~2-3x as dense.

 

[datadyne007]

Last time I rode the SL from SS to WTC, the SL1s were routing directly to Logan, so we had to wait for an SL2. For whatever reason they were running about 3 SL1s for every SL2, so the SL2s were promptly crushed. All told, I think I waited about 25 mins at SS to get out to WTC. I don't know if that's an outlier experience (only reason I was on SL to begin with was rain), but it'd be pretty ridiculous if that's the operational norm.

That's definitely a bizarre outlier. Something must have happened earlier and they were trying to correct the headways/get people to Logan. I've never seen an SL1 go express from SS to Logan.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Those are fixable issues. Repair the pavement and put in wayside stoplight signals and it does as good and probably better than 10 years ago. Bury that asinine D St. crossing and better still.

Is there a historical reason why the D St crossing exists? Why wasn't the tunnel extended another 50 feet? This part of D Street is pretty busy during rush hour and I imagine it will only continue to get more so.