Seaport Transportation

[whighlander]

In the meantime, sure. Absolutely. I'm open to suggestions to make the Silver Line significantly improved. The only purpose to GL conversion is to connect the transitway to the broader system, which is the only way it will be a bigger success going forward. It's foolish to "forget" big improvements when going with incrementalist approaches. Always keep the bigger goal in mind and in advocacy.

Buses -- there really is minimal difference between a Silver Line bus in a tunnel and a Green Line train in a tunnel

The key to making the transit from South Station to the Seaport successful is to get the Silver Line off the streets and out of traffic jams

If you have a Silver Line leaving from South Station every 2 minutes with every other bus going in a closed underground loop to Silver Line Way -- then you've gone a long way to making an efficient transit link to the Seaport with South Station as the nexus of: CR, Amtrak, intercity Buses, and the Red Line and potentially water transport via Fort Point Channel

we also need a non-surface traffic interacting route to / from the airport terminals and eventually going through to Chelsea

Let's do that and then after a few years of operations the plans can be reviewed for further enhancements as needed

 

[JohnAKeith]

Excuse me if this has been mentioned previously, but apparently the promised "signal priority" at D Street has been implemented. This, according to the Globe's Nicole Dungca from the Boston Globe.

Except .. apparently, that wasn't what they did, and, apparently, not what they (the state?) promised to do. Apparently, all they promised ot do was modify the length of time the light is red.

That's it.

And, apparently, nothing more is planned.

 

[underground]

That's a pretty strange interpretation from the T of what constitutes signal priority...

 

[cden4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njUp6cgDtGo

 

[whighlander]

Excuse me if this has been mentioned previously, but apparently the promised "signal priority" at D Street has been implemented. This, according to the Globe's Nicole Dungca from the Boston Globe.

Except .. apparently, that wasn't what they did, and, apparently, not what they (the state?) promised to do. Apparently, all they promised ot do was modify the length of time the light is red.

That's it.

And, apparently, nothing more is planned.

John -- after yesterday's announcement -- I'm sure that someones in both DOT and Boston are looking at the potential for air rights over Silver Line Way

That would give the proper incentive to do the "little dig" under D while doing foundation work at Silver Line Way

 

[George_Apley]

Buses -- there really is minimal difference between a Silver Line bus in a tunnel and a Green Line train in a tunnel

Except for increased connectivity in the system and fewer transfers overall... You missed the point entirely.

The key to making the transit from South Station to the Seaport successful is to get the Silver Line off the streets and out of traffic jams

If you have a Silver Line leaving from South Station every 2 minutes with every other bus going in a closed underground loop to Silver Line Way -- then you've gone a long way to making an efficient transit link to the Seaport with South Station as the nexus of: CR, Amtrak, intercity Buses, and the Red Line and potentially water transport via Fort Point Channel

we also need a non-surface traffic interacting route to / from the airport terminals and eventually going through to Chelsea

Let's do that and then after a few years of operations the plans can be reviewed for further enhancements as needed

Sure, I don't disagree with that. The point remains that the transitway was not designed to be a standalone stump. It was designed to tie in to a larger system. The broader bus tunnel system won't ever be built, but LRT tunnels are easier and cheaper. Connectivity is a major improvement that is important in the long run.

 

[whighlander]

Except for increased connectivity in the system and fewer transfers overall... You missed the point entirely.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. The point remains that the transitway was not designed to be a standalone stump. It was designed to tie in to a larger system. The broader bus tunnel system won't ever be built, but LRT tunnels are easier and cheaper. Connectivity is a major improvement that is important in the long run.

Busses -- Yes that was the intent -- but that is not happening anytime in the forseable future

However, If the goal is the functional enhanced transit access to the Seaport and Logan -- then there is plenty of connectivity provided by the weather protected hub at South Station

All that is lacking to making the system significantly more robust and effective is to make the operation of the buses independent of the surface traffic

That in turn can be accomplished by digging under D and making the direct connection from Silver Line Way to the Ted Williams access ramps -- both of those can be realistically accomplished in the next few years

 

[George_Apley]

^ Yes. I just think that the least they can do is have an official conversation and study "not in the foreseeable future" projects, so that when those things become more seeable and more necessary for proper functionality we aren't sitting here with our pants around our ankles like what tends to happen in our society with long-term-planning.

 

[TallIsGood]

Where can I find more information on "the broader bus tunnel system"? I hadn't heard that one was ever proposed other than the transit way that was built.

 

[George_Apley]

The MBTA site on "Silver Line - Phase 3" is no longer active, but here's some info I could scrounge up from old media.

From a 2009 article from the Transport Politic on the removal of consideration for extending the transitway tunnel:

What’s perhaps most interesting about the announcement is that it sidelines the third phase of the original Silver Line project, which was supposed to involve building a new $1.5 billion bus tunnel from Downtown Crossing to South Station, allowing a direct connection between the Washington Street line and the waterfront lines.

This thread on aB: Silver Line - Phase III / BRT in Boston (thread starts in 2006)

This excerpt from a 2005 Sierra Club report on MA transit commitments:

Silver Line Phase III - New England Medical Center to South Station Tunnel

“Pending the ability to secure necessary federal funding, the MBTA will construct a tunnel between the portal connecting to Phase I and South Station.”

Still more variations on the connection of the Phase 3 Core Tunnel Alignment (connecting Boylston and South Stations) with a surface portal connecting Phases 1 and 3 have been recently presented. It’s becoming very clear that the MBTA has, as a very high priority, the successful completion of a Silver Line Core System extending from the Waterfront to Boylston Station. However, the provision of a connection between Boylston Station and Phase 1 of the Silver Line may be more problematic due to the complexities of such a project. It could also result in a long and circuitous routing for Phase 1 service resulting from the choice of a final portal location.

Without such a connection, the much delayed commitment to: Complete Washington Street Replacement Transit will still remain unfulfilled.

Essentially SL Phase III was a boondoggle plan to continue the transitway tunnel under Essex St to Boylston Station, and use the Tremont Tunnel (or blow it up for a replacement) to wrap the busses underground to the Tufts Med Ctr vicinity and spit them out to complete the Washington St run.

Write up from 2006 at nationalcorridors.org:

Proposed new route for MBTA Silver Line
could save money, shorten construction

By DF Staff and
from internet reports
Back of Silver line trolley-bus
Photo: Boston Globe Staff Photo / Wendy Maeda

A Silver Line bus makes its turnaround on Temple Street outside the Downtown Crossing station area. Massachusetts State Transportation Secretary John Cogliano has proposed a new plan to complete the linking of Boston’s now-disjointed Silver Line bus rapid transit system. The suggested plan could save as much as $700 million in costs and shorten the completion time of the project by several years.
The plan has however, managed to ruffle a few feathers in state and city government as well as with local environmentalists who say they were not consulted very much in advance of the announcement.

The MBTA Silver line presently exists in two parts. The surface section runs mostly within a marked bus lane in city traffic, and operates from Boston’s Dudley square to the Downtown Crossing station, a temporary terminus. The second part which was recently completed, operates from Boston’s South Station to Silver Line Way in the South Boston district via a subterranean bus way. In South Boston, the route splits and returns to the surface to serve the waterfront district, South Boston, and a direct connection to Logan Airport by way of the Ted Williams Tunnel. The final phase would connect the Dudley-Downtown section with the subway at South Station.

While operating underground, dual-powered, extra-long articulated busses operate on overhead power lines much like an electric trolley-bus (trackless trolley), and when operating on the surface they switch to a diesel powered generating system.
What has been at odds however is the route that will link these two. Secretary Cogliano’s plan will add a fourth proposed route to those already on the drawing board. Putting forward another plan at this time raises concerns of possible further delays in winning approvals from federal transportation officials and financing from Washington, DC.

Proposed location of Silver line portal in Boston Cogliano’s proposal, as drawn up by state planners was done with the hopes of breaking an impasse on the existing plans. The new plan skips an intersection with the Green line subway at Boylston Station in favor of one with the Orange and Red lines near Downtown Crossing station. The Green line is already ‘connected’ there via an underground city-block long walkway to Park Street station.
The previous proposals called for a deep tunnel under the city’s Chinatown district, but Cogliano said that travel times, as well as transfers to subway lines, under the new proposed route are comparable at one-eighth the cost, or $94 million instead of $800 million.

Cogliano’s plan would also extend Silver Line service from Dudley station into Grove Hall, Mattapan, and Ashmont, with connections to the Fairmount commuter rail line which is under renovation and expansion in Mattapan and Dorchester.

In addition, the proposal calls for a new Silver Line spur from Copley Square to the proposed Essex Street portal, offering what could be a transfer-free, one-seat ride from the Back Bay to South Boston and Logan.

“This new option presents an opportunity to improve service and meet our transit commitments in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible,” Cogliano wrote this week to MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas.

Over time, however, the Dudley-Downtown branch of the Silver Line has come under harsh criticism from riders who say it has become just another bus route, because the dedicated bus lanes have not been kept free of traffic or double-parked cars.
“This may meet transit commitments, but it does not meet the commitment that the T made to provide ‘equal or better’ service when the Orange Line was torn down,” said Sierra Club spokesman Jeremy Marin. “According to T studies, it took eight minutes from Dudley to downtown [via the old elevated Orange line], but the [Silver line] bus currently takes 20 minutes.”

In the mid-80s the old elevated Orange line was demolished and replaced with a new service about one mile to the west, operating adjacent to the existing commuter rail lines that pass through the city. Dudley station had been a major terminal with numerous feeder bus lines that brought passengers to the Orange line El. When the Orange line was relocated, Dudley station remained a major bus terminal but bus routes in the vicinity were extended or altered to meet the Orange line at new stations. Area residents have been pressing the MBTA for some kind of replacement light rail service (such as a trolley line) since then.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat from the North End, whose district is in the bus route and who opposed previous plans, said yesterday he is in “full agreement” with the Cogliano plan.

Mark Slater, president of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, said the new plan appears to meet the transit needs of the city while protecting the fragile homes in Bay Village, which were built on poor soil and sit on pilings whose stability needs ground water levels to remain unchanged. The earlier proposed tunnels, he said, could have played havoc with those levels.

 

[Arlington]

Where can I find more information on "the broader bus tunnel system"? I hadn't heard that one was ever proposed other than the transit way that was built.

Silver Line Phase III was supposed to connect SL phase I to SL Phase II (South Boston Piers Tunnel) by tunneling from Tufts NEMC (Orange Line connection) to Boylston (GL connection) to South Station (as built Red Line connection)

 

[Upstruk]

Here is an idea which I began to form in the Green Line reconfiguration thread, but is probably best to continue here as in this version it does not involve a direct connection to the Green Line. The vehicles could be either buses or light rail with some street running in mixed traffic (only one track would be in mixed traffic as it would be a one way loop.)

The scheme tries to remove the largest cost issues with the Silver Line Phase 3 while still making an efficient connection from the Green and Orange Lines to the Silver Line Waterfront.

The idea is to build the Silver Line phase 3 tunnel from the existing Transit Way at South Station under Dewey Sq and the I 93 south bound tunnel. The tunnel then portals up to grade on Ave De Lafayette. Ave De Lafayette seems like a perfect street to close to car traffic. Restaurants and cafes could have expanded out door seating. The large costs involved with the Silver Line phase 3 to tunnel under the Chinatown and Boylston Stations and through the narrowest parts of Essex Street are eliminated in the scheme.

From the Lafayette portal, a true fare controlled BRT (or light rail station) would be built in the center of the pedestrian and transit only street. Pedestrians enter a fare controlled gate on the short end of the station and enter the buses or light rail trains on the long sides. An example of such a station is shown above.

The bus or light rail then makes a one way loop over to the existing Boylston Street station. Here a new at grade fare lobby for the Green line station would be built with elevators down to the in and out bound Green Line. This allows for handicapped accessibility to the station, the ability to change from inbound to outbound on the Green Line within fare control, and allows for an BRT station all within the fare control lobby of the Green Line Station. This will be important for the anticipated large number of people who will want to transfer to South Station, the Seaport, airport and Chelsea from the Green Line.

From here the bus or light rail train continues down Essex with a traditional surafce stop out side the Chinatown Orange Line Station. With more money the existing Chinatown station could have a below grade pedestrian connection between Boylston station (or the new Lafayette station) which would eliminate the need for a non fare controlled bus stop on this line.

From here the bus travels back to the Lafayette station and into the portal back to South Station and beyond.

This scheme creates a much more cost effective Silver Line connection to the Green and Orange Lines, with very little travel through mixed traffic, and an accessible Boylston Station. The tunnel part of the route avoids the areas with the most car traffic and portals into an area with little traffic and many nearby transit connections.

The Dudley Silver Line would also be able to enter into the portal and continue to South Station and beyond. Future surface lines to the Back Bay, North Station, etc. could also use this portal.

 

[Scipio]

New Boston City Council order following up on signal prioritization:

 

[Balerion]

I'm happy that transit priority is being discussed by city officials, but what immediately jumps out at me is the focus on buses and, in particular, the Silver Line. The D Street crossing has become a cause célèbre among some people on Boston Transit Twitter and it's a worthy project. I just hope that this initiative from the City goes farther than just the one intersection that's gotten some attention in the Globe lately.

The lack of mention of the B and E lines definitely jumps out at me. You want bang for your buck? Sort out signal priority on Comm Ave.

 

[CantabAmager]

I'm happy that transit priority is being discussed by city officials, but what immediately jumps out at me is the focus on buses and, in particular, the Silver Line. The D Street crossing has become a cause célèbre among some people on Boston Transit Twitter and it's a worthy project. I just hope that this initiative from the City goes farther than just the one intersection that's gotten some attention in the Globe lately.

The lack of mention of the B and E lines definitely jumps out at me. You want bang for your buck? Sort out signal priority on Comm Ave.

The B's near/medium-term future is wholly intertwined with BTD's Comm. Ave redesigns. I know that signal priority has been discussed and supported as part of that project's phases. And activated signal priority for the C + E is an MBTA issue mostly, either because the Council has no sway in Brookline or because the E priority can be brought on-line more immediately than [take your pick of hamstrung bus route]. Cambridge is moving 1 Bus Priority up the funding ledger, I don't know the precise aim of the Council (if there is one), but I could feasibly imagine they see the opportunity to infrabank some signals so that if/when the City wants to lobby the MBTA for improvements, they'll have more leverage.

 

[Upstruk]

Here is a scheme that creates a one transfer connection between the Green and Orange Lines to the Seaport Via South Station. This scheme differs with other schemes discussed in that it is not an extension of the Green Line. The advantage is that some of the difficulties in making that connection can be avoided.

The idea is to run a new light rail line through the Silver Line Transitway and to extend it down Essex Street as was planned in the Silver Line Phase III BRT route. However, this light rail connection would end just to the east of the existing northbound Chinatown fare lobby. The complexity of tunneling under the station with a new transit line is eliminated. Further, since this is the terminus station of the line only one track is required. This allows the tunnel width to remain fairly narrow at the station (one track and platform). In the image below the tracks are shown in grey and the platform is shown in yellow.

To provide for connections to the southbound Orange Line a pedestrian tunnel would be constructed below the existing orange line platforms and tracks. This pedestrian tunnel could be extended to Bolyston Street for direct Green Line connections. Alternatively, Green Line connections could be made by walking one block on the surface to Boylston St.

The other end of this new line would be in the area of First Street and E Street/Pappas way. As shown in the image below this station serves a large waterfront area which would be prime for TOD development as well as serving a large area of the traditional South Boston Neighborhood (without entering into existing residential streets with street running light rail).

This scheme does require both west bound and north bound Green Line passengers to transfer to this line at Boylston, however this is not much of a difference in functionality than if some west bound Green Line trains were diverted through the Tremont Street tunnel to Tufts and then on to the Seaport.

[/url][/IMG]

Existing platforms are shown in blue. Optional pedestrian connection between Boylston and Chinatown shown in purple.

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Completely impractical, and completely misses the need that Silver Line Phase III is supposed to address.


1. The whole point of SL Phase III is to save Downtown from choking on its own congestion by eliminating double-transfers. No direct Green transfer from the Seaport means Red and Orange are overloaded doing the SS<-->Park and Chinatown<-->Haymarket double-transfers with the same old platform dwell problems dragging DTX and State down the drain.

You've only nicked the fringes of the Seaport's connectivity problems and the downtown transfer stations' congestion problems by omitting Green. It's not Silver Line Phase III without stringing all 3 together. It's not a starter SL III without stringing all 3 together.


2. A long concourse is not a substitute for a direct transfer. Of all the tens of thousands of people who use DTX and Park every day, a relatively small percentage of Green-to-Orange transferees use the Winter St. concourse to get between trains vs. just staying on till Haymarket. It's convenient for some riders of B's and D's who don't want to hop trains onto a C or E, but it's long enough and has enough stairs to get across that Haymarket usually matches it on time without the physical exertion. It is a drop in the bucket who opt for the exercise. And it'll get smaller when D's get extended through Haymarket for GLX.

Chinatown-Boylston is a longer concourse than Park-DTX, between two much more claustrophobic stations. The percentage of riders who will use such a ped link between Chinatown and Boylston is going to be lower than Winter St. When the convenience of Winter St. is still too low a % diversion to meaningfully offset the platform crowding, Chinatown-Boylston will be an even lower %.


3. A single-track turnback is far too constrained to run current Transitway headways. It is a reduction in frequencies from the buses that don't run frequently enough as-is. And woe for all if a train breaks down on that single platform. No solution that breaks pre-existing transit is ever going to be acceptable.

This was already attempted in Downtown Boston at a major transfer station. The original streetcar Blue Line at Court Street on the other side of the Scollay/GC wall was a single-ended stub platform. It was such a clusterfuck wholly inadequate for the crowds that BERy closed it in less than 10 years and re-dug the whole damn tunnel to build Scollay Under, Bowdoin, and Bowdoin Loop. Learn from history; don't repeat it 120 years later.




Please don't waste time on another 18 renders' worth of rebuttals without first considering what the mission statement of the transit project is supposed to be. This is not a Silver Line replacement, augmentation, or down payment if it bails out before accomplishing the basic-most goals of that unfunded mandate.. No direct service from Red to Orange AND Green means it's not SL Phase III. It's a completely different transit project that doesn't answer the burning demand question being asked by Downtown and the Seaport.

We've been through this page after page before. If the demand Q&A isn't crystal...freaking...clear, there's no coherent "transit pitch" behind the renders. The demand question here couldn't possibly be any clearer: eliminate the double-transfer dance by hitting all 3 lines. Don't eliminate the double-transfer dance by hitting all 3 lines...haven't come close to answering the question.

 

[Upstruk]

Green Line Connection: The concourse between Boylston Street and the new platform is less than 500 ft . The walk is about the length of an orange line platform. As this approximately 2 minute walk will be more convenient than a double transfer I imagine it will be well used. The winter street concourse is 1 of 3 downtown green line orange line transfer points and so it is naturally less used.

The discussed Tremont Street Green Line Elliot Norton Park concourse to Tufts Orange Line is only marginally shorter.

This new concourse could be made wide and spacious and would be at the same level as the Seaport Light rail. You would exit your train see the sign, head down the escalator, walk a short distance straight to the platform. On the subway maps Boylston and Chinatown stations could be renamed with a common name and shown as one station to further encourage use.

Single Track Terminus: A number of transit lines use single track termini, the Vancouver Sky Train Airport stop is one example. Skytrain also has all three of its transit lines dead end at the same downtown station (waterfront station). I first thought of this line as being similar to the 42 Street shuttle in NYC (although it is about the length of the Mattapan High Speed Line). Which just pings back in forth on the same track with two operators (one on each end of the train).

To make transitions easier there should be enough width in Essex Street to have a platform on either side of the single track to allow for "Spanish Solution" boarding. One platform is for exiting only the other is for entrance only. The doors open on the exiting side and once the train is empty the entrance side doors open.

The platform can be made long enough to house 2 train sets so that a disabled train can be pushed to the end of the platform in the event it stalls at the station.

This is just something I came up with and thought some people may be interested in looking at.

 

[CSTH]

I was interested in looking at it. Nice job with the plans, in particular.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Green Line Connection: The concourse between Boylston Street and the new platform is less than 500 ft . The walk is about the length of an orange line platform. As this approximately 2 minute walk will be more convenient than a double transfer I imagine it will be well used. The winter street concourse is 1 of 3 downtown green line orange line transfer points and so it is naturally less used.

The discussed Tremont Street Green Line Elliot Norton Park concourse to Tufts Orange Line is only marginally shorter.

No...that is a completely spurious comparison to treat all 3 walkways--Winter St., Chinatown-Boylston, and Tufts-Tufts--as interchangeable. This is chasing unrelated fringe elements again that don't go to the core demand question.

Downtown's problem is that Red and Orange congestion is choking off mobility NOT because of trains being over-capacity, but because platform overcrowding at 4 stations in particular are rapidly decaying train schedules with excessive dwell times and harming headways with excessive bunching.

• South Station
• Downtown Crossing
• Park St.
• State St.
  

DTX and Park are highlighted because they are the two stressors dragging down the dwells at their adjacent transfer stations SS or State. The sources of this platform congestion are:

• The surge Seaport and all southside commuter rail traffic who all must change trains a second time at Park St. to reach Green.
• The surge of transferees coming from the Seaport and non-NEC only commuter rail who must change trains a second time at DTX to reach Orange.

To address the problem of dwell decay, any solution must offer all of these:

1. Elimination of the double-transfer required from the Seaport to reach Green, and offering a direct cross-platform or upstairs/downstairs transfer to any Green branch at a station OTHER THAN Park.
2. Elimination of the double-transfer required from the Seaport to reach Orange, and have a direct cross-platform or upstairs/downstairs transfer to Orange at a station OTHER THAN DTX.
3. Divert a majority of southside commuter rail transferees needing to reach any Green westbound branch (Note: B's and D's not available at Haymarket or NS via Orange out of Back Bay or Ruggles) by pulling them off of the Red Line, and have direct cross-platform upstairs/downstairs transfer to any Green branch at a station OTHER THAN Park.
4. Divert a minority of southside commuter rail transferees who do not have direct NEC access to Back Bay or Ruggles to reach Orange by pulling them off the Red Line, and have direct cross-platform upstairs/downstairs transfer to Green at a station OTHER THAN DTX.

If it doesn't do all 4 of those things, it doesn't relieve the bottleneck that's choking Downtown and it's not Silver Line Phase III or a viable replacement. The official BRT plan down Essex had upstairs/downstairs transfers to all 3 lines, tapped Orange and Green stations that were under-capacity but served every service pattern, and successfully pulled away the double-transferees from the Park and DTX platforms that are the Achilles heels of Red's and Orange's heart failure.

Kludging together a half-plan with only 2 of 3 direct line transfers doesn't address all 4 project goals. The number of passengers who will use a 500 ft. walkway is too small a % to outpace congestion growth at Park St. and fails goal #1. The congestion and dwells far outpace the relief, and the war is lost on Red all the same. By failing on core goal #1 it is not a Silver Line Phase III alternative.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Now...how do the LRT alternatives that run thru at Boylston address the core goals, despite different configuration.

• Direct cross-platform transfers from the Seaport and SS/commuter rail at 5 consecutive Green stations: Boylston, Park, GC, Haymarket, North Station. Succeeds at de-clogging Red to Park. Succeeds at load-spreading transfers to any westbound Green branch from the Park platform with additional cross-platform transfers at Boylston or GC. Goals #1 & #3 directly addressed.
• 2 consecutive cross-platform or upstairs/downstairs Orange transfers at Haymarket and North Station, clear of the DTX and State clogs. Goals #2 & #4 directly addressed.

Since engineering constraints are 90% likely forcing a different routing than Essex, we then have to consider what else the feasible modified alignment can offer to sweeten the pot now that Chinatown's out of the mix. Run-thru light rail at Boylston. . .

• Adds an upstairs/downstairs Blue Line single-transfer at Government Center. Further relief from the Seaport and non-NEC southside commuter rail on Red for what today is a triple transfer at Park or DTX. Augments all 4 project goals.
  • Still augments all 4 goals even if Red-Blue gets built at Charles MGH, though R-B obviously takes a much bigger and more meaningful direct share of that relief.
• Adds direct transfer from Seaport to northside commuter rail without needing to double-transfer at Park or DTX. Augments all 4 project goals.

These extras are what makes up the difference for the engineering feasibility compromise that with 90% likelihood eliminates the Essex routing. Any attempt at a build has to meet ALL project goals. So if a Chinatown underpin isn't engineering-feasible then spreading the field with an array of other value-addeds is how the South End compromise makes up any convenience differences while still meeting all goals.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Whither Tufts?

• The Tufts walkway is not a demerit on the project goals because run-thru from Boylston offers TWO direct Orange transfers at Haymarket and North Station clear of the DTX + State congestion clog for patrons. Especially for those who have accessibility reasons for not doing a 500 ft. walk.

• The Tufts walkway is not a demerit on the project goals because Tufts station is only going to be a preferred single-transfer point to Orange for Seaport riders heading southwest towards Forest Hills.
  • Seaport riders heading north to Oak Grove will stay onboard and do their single-transfer at Haymarket or North Station, cross-platform or upstairs/downstairs.
  • Riders heading to any downtown Orange stations will have flanking stations all around if they don't want to double-transfer. DTX accessible on single-transfer to Red, one-seat to Boylston bookending the Chinatown neighborhood, one-seat to GC two blocks from State.
  • North-end vs. south-end Orange ridership is asymmetric. The Roxbury intermediates have much smaller boardings than the Charlestown, Medford, and Malden intermediates.
  • Commuter rail riders with access to Back Bay aren't going to double-transfer via Tufts to reach Green or Seaport when the single-transfer to light rail at SS does that.
  • Two stops make up the bulk of the Tufts-preferential Orange transfer demand: Forest Hills and Ruggles. Ruggles diminishes significantly in Orange transfer demand when cross-platform Green transfer @ Tufts gets you on the Dudley branch.

The three walkways referenced here are NOT created equal on utilization. Tufts is very small utilization compared to Winter St. And your plan leaves zero choice but for Boylston-Chinatown to be the most load-bearing of them all.

Trying to make equivalencies here is spurious logic when one of these examples is pure augmentation to project goals already met, and the others don't meet the project goals at all.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This new concourse could be made wide and spacious and would be at the same level as the Seaport Light rail. You would exit your train see the sign, head down the escalator, walk a short distance straight to the platform. On the subway maps Boylston and Chinatown stations could be renamed with a common name and shown as one station to further encourage use.

As above, totally irrelevant because the walkway utilizations skew hugely different. This argument is a distraction.

By stacking this one so load-bearing such that any transfer requires a 500 ft. walk with no equivalent cross-platform/upstairs-downstairs alternative, you are also creating an ADA hardship that becomes more of a hardship the more load-bearing the walkway gets. Somebody not physically up to walking 500 ft., or carrying suitcases, or corralling small children is going to be forced to keep doing the double-transfer dance at the most crowded platforms. The core project goals are not addressed at all for them.

The light rail plug-in to Boylston still offers direct cross-platform or upstairs/downstairs transfers at Haymarket and North Station, addressing the accessibility need and checking off the main project goals. One only needs to use Tufts walkway if they're up for shortcutting to the south end of Orange. It's an augmentation serving very asymmetrically lighter demand, not the only option given for 100% of the demand.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Single Track Terminus: A number of transit lines use single track termini, the Vancouver Sky Train Airport stop is one example. Skytrain also has all three of its transit lines dead end at the same downtown station (waterfront station). I first thought of this line as being similar to the 42 Street shuttle in NYC (although it is about the length of the Mattapan High Speed Line). Which just pings back in forth on the same track with two operators (one on each end of the train).

To make transitions easier there should be enough width in Essex Street to have a platform on either side of the single track to allow for "Spanish Solution" boarding. One platform is for exiting only the other is for entrance only. The doors open on the exiting side and once the train is empty the entrance side doors open.

The platform can be made long enough to house 2 train sets so that a disabled train can be pushed to the end of the platform in the event it stalls at the station.

Vancouver Sky Train's Airport branch is not a Silver Line comparison. The two-station 42nd St. Shuttle is not a Silver Line comparison. The headways on each are a universe smaller. These are dishonest comparisons designed to obfuscate the point; please don't do that. There is no stub platform that can absorb existing Transitway headways, no "Spanish Solution" boarding scheme that can absorb Transitway headways and platform crowds. It induces a big service reduction to stub out. Submit a list of every single-track stub in the world you will not find one that's analogous to Transitway headways.