The Official MBTA System Map

[RandomWalk]

Waverley and Valley Road have plans to be made accessible, at that point it’s just Boylston, Bowdoin, and Belmont. Anyone know why there are no plans to make Boylston accessible?

It’s landmarked, which restricts the changes they can make to the station.

 

[cubbe8]

It’s landmarked, which restricts the changes they can make to the station.

At some point it will have to be made accessible, especially after Valley Road and Red-Blue are done, as it will be the only station left.

 

[as02143]

The strip maps at red and orange line stations don’t have the accessibility symbol

They should have a statement that says that all stations are accessible.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The strip maps at red and orange line stations don’t have the accessibility symbol

Because all the stations are accessible. I believe there is a little note in the legend saying as much.

 

[Riverside]

If this isn't final form it's got to be pretty close. Further spaced out the OL/GL-E, plus a minor rework to the northeast quadrant with a straighter 109 and 110.
View attachment 59332

Looks fantastic. Interestingly, the forum software distorted the image in the email preview for me, turning the background black. ("Dark mode.") Not gonna lie, it looked pretty damn good that way too.

The tiniest of nitpicks -- which I imagine you are probably aware of, and for which I'm aware there isn't really a great solution: strictly speaking, the 442 and 455 will not be frequent services themselves; only in aggregate will they reach that territory. (Same as 220/222 and 35/36.) The challenge, of course, is that you have Salem on the map, which means it makes sense to show the 455 serving it, which means you would then have to come up with a whole new piece of visual language to say "half of a high frequency route". I think it wouldn't be the end of the world if you didn't show the 455/442 split, and just left a generic arrow pointing north of Lynn. But I can understand wanting to include the connection at Salem. Could you add text to the end of each of those arrows (455/442, 220/222, and 35/36)? Saying something like:

442 to Marblehead
455 to Salem

On a different note: Frequent Service: Trains every 30 minutes or better raises an interesting question: with a little tweaking, South Station <> Ruggles could fit that criterion as well. Today's schedule actually comes shockingly close -- I think there are only 2 gaps above 30 minutes? (Excluding late evening and early morning.) And IIRC, those gaps are something like ~33 min, which is to say, very close to that threshold.

 

[cubbe8]

Looks fantastic. Interestingly, the forum software distorted the image in the email preview for me, turning the background black. ("Dark mode.") Not gonna lie, it looked pretty damn good that way too.

The tiniest of nitpicks -- which I imagine you are probably aware of, and for which I'm aware there isn't really a great solution: strictly speaking, the 442 and 455 will not be frequent services themselves; only in aggregate will they reach that territory. (Same as 220/222 and 35/36.) The challenge, of course, is that you have Salem on the map, which means it makes sense to show the 455 serving it, which means you would then have to come up with a whole new piece of visual language to say "half of a high frequency route". I think it wouldn't be the end of the world if you didn't show the 455/442 split, and just left a generic arrow pointing north of Lynn. But I can understand wanting to include the connection at Salem. Could you add text to the end of each of those arrows (455/442, 220/222, and 35/36)? Saying something like:

442 to Marblehead
455 to Salem

On a different note: Frequent Service: Trains every 30 minutes or better raises an interesting question: with a little tweaking, South Station <> Ruggles could fit that criterion as well. Today's schedule actually comes shockingly close -- I think there are only 2 gaps above 30 minutes? (Excluding late evening and early morning.) And IIRC, those gaps are something like ~33 min, which is to say, very close to that threshold.

Also they announced 30 min on the Worcester line.

 

[Riverside]

Today SL4 does layover/schedule correction at South Station at the Essex Street stop. Even without schedule correction it is a long dwell stop with everyone exiting then a large crowd from South Station boarding. That is not a very good location for a long dwell stop -- there are only travel lanes on that part of the surface artery.

There are a bunch of possible solutions for that, though. A lane of the Surface Road between Summer and Lincoln could be handed over to transit use. Bear in mind, this will get the full SL4 + SL5 frequencies, currently planned at 4 minute headways at peak. That's a pretty strong argument for reclaiming some of the public ROW.

Alternatively, a contraflow lane could be added on Lincoln, with buses heading south to pick up the current loop alignment via Essex Street.

Or, given that Summer Street will also be playing host to the high frequency (T)7, we can hope there might be bus lanes and other infrastructure going through Dewey Square, which could allow Silver Line buses to loop around the Federal Reserve Bank Tower (providing better transfers to the Red Line, the commuter rail, and better access to the Seaport).

Or, on that note -- and hear me out on this --, the new SL5 could do a +1 extension to Courthouse:

Seaport jobs are still concentrated more toward the western end, so while this extension would not eliminate all SL5 <> SL1/2/3/W transfers, it would absorb some. Plus, it would actually make good on the promise of a South End <> Seaport connection. Importantly, traversing the Fort Point Channel via bus eliminates one of the more unpleasant elements of walking to the Seaport -- walking across those bridges when the wind chill is frickin' 20 degrees.

 

[KCasiglio]

It’s landmarked, which restricts the changes they can make to the station.

It being landmarked contributing to it being probably the most embarrassing downtown station is a fitting encapsulation of how we get in our own way

 

[BosMaineiac]

There are a bunch of possible solutions for that, though. A lane of the Surface Road between Summer and Lincoln could be handed over to transit use. Bear in mind, this will get the full SL4 + SL5 frequencies, currently planned at 4 minute headways at peak. That's a pretty strong argument for reclaiming some of the public ROW.

Alternatively, a contraflow lane could be added on Lincoln, with buses heading south to pick up the current loop alignment via Essex Street.

Or, given that Summer Street will also be playing host to the high frequency (T)7, we can hope there might be bus lanes and other infrastructure going through Dewey Square, which could allow Silver Line buses to loop around the Federal Reserve Bank Tower (providing better transfers to the Red Line, the commuter rail, and better access to the Seaport).

Or, on that note -- and hear me out on this --, the new SL5 could do a +1 extension to Courthouse:

View attachment 59420

Seaport jobs are still concentrated more toward the western end, so while this extension would not eliminate all SL5 <> SL1/2/3/W transfers, it would absorb some. Plus, it would actually make good on the promise of a South End <> Seaport connection. Importantly, traversing the Fort Point Channel via bus eliminates one of the more unpleasant elements of walking to the Seaport -- walking across those bridges when the wind chill is frickin' 20 degrees.

I like this. It also keeps with the spirit of the silver line phase 3 (albeit above grade). I would consider routing via High st though instead of Atlantic. I recall seeing a proposal to turn that into a bus only road to be shared with the T7, which I think would be pretty cool and useful.

 

[JeffDowntown]

There are a bunch of possible solutions for that, though. A lane of the Surface Road between Summer and Lincoln could be handed over to transit use. Bear in mind, this will get the full SL4 + SL5 frequencies, currently planned at 4 minute headways at peak. That's a pretty strong argument for reclaiming some of the public ROW.

Alternatively, a contraflow lane could be added on Lincoln, with buses heading south to pick up the current loop alignment via Essex Street.

Or, given that Summer Street will also be playing host to the high frequency (T)7, we can hope there might be bus lanes and other infrastructure going through Dewey Square, which could allow Silver Line buses to loop around the Federal Reserve Bank Tower (providing better transfers to the Red Line, the commuter rail, and better access to the Seaport).

Or, on that note -- and hear me out on this --, the new SL5 could do a +1 extension to Courthouse:

View attachment 59420

Seaport jobs are still concentrated more toward the western end, so while this extension would not eliminate all SL5 <> SL1/2/3/W transfers, it would absorb some. Plus, it would actually make good on the promise of a South End <> Seaport connection. Importantly, traversing the Fort Point Channel via bus eliminates one of the more unpleasant elements of walking to the Seaport -- walking across those bridges when the wind chill is frickin' 20 degrees.

Whatever you do differently to make the connections to DTC, South Station and potentially Seaport, it needs to be done as much as possible in dedicated bus lane infrastructure that is enforced. One of the big failures of SL4 and SL5 is they get caught in traffic after Tufts Medical Center (inbound) and hence have completely unreliable schedules for the downtown transfers. This is bothersome for the DTC transfer to subway service, but a total showstopper for transfers to Commuter Rail or Amtrak at South Station. People with time critical transfers simply avoid the service.

Also MassDOT is going to be very resistant to the idea of handing over 1/3 of the flow capacity of Surface Road to a bus lane. The I-93 South ramp to Dewey Square already backs up and impedes through flow in the O'Neill Tunnel and I-90 exit lane. Cutting the flow on Surface is going to make that much worse. The cars are not going away just because you rerouted the Silver Line.

 

[The EGE]

It being landmarked contributing to it being probably the most embarrassing downtown station is a fitting encapsulation of how we get in our own way

I don't think the National Register status is actually that big of a deal for preventing renovations. NYC has dozens of stations on the National Register, many of which they have retrofitted for accessibility. I suspect the MBTA has been avoiding it partially because of the status, and partially the complication of digging in the Common, and partially for other reasons. It's one of the least important underground stations to renovate - it's only 1400 feet from Park Street and 600 from Chinatown, and the only bus transfers are duplicated at Park Street. Until 2010, the MBTA was also planning Silver Line Phase 3, which would have involved much more intense renovations to the station, so it didn't get touched during the time that most of the other downtown stations were renovated.

Honestly, Boylston will require less actual changes for accessibility than most of the other subway stations. It's only one level*, right below the street, with no buildings above. Changes at the platform level are pretty much just raising the platform and basic modernization (lighting, platform edge strips, etc). One of the drums I often beat is how to fit in the elevators and emergency exits: rebuild the former second headhouses. They could exactly match their historic exterior appearance.

* Technically there's an abandoned underpass between the platforms. However, like those at Chinatown and Symphony, it was narrow and underused and will likely not be reactivated in a renovation.

 

[Brattle Loop]

* Technically there's an abandoned underpass between the platforms. However, like those at Chinatown and Symphony, it was narrow and underused and will likely not be reactivated in a renovation.

Weren't some of those filled in at some point when the LRVs came, to deal with the extra weight? I'd swear I read that somewhere (though it'd be nice if I could remember where).

 

[BosMaineiac]

Weren't some of those filled in at some point when the LRVs came, to deal with the extra weight? I'd swear I read that somewhere (though it'd be nice if I could remember where).

I believe @F-Line to Dudley mentioned that on this board at one point

 

[JeffDowntown]

I don't think the National Register status is actually that big of a deal for preventing renovations. NYC has dozens of stations on the National Register, many of which they have retrofitted for accessibility. I suspect the MBTA has been avoiding it partially because of the status, and partially the complication of digging in the Common, and partially for other reasons. It's one of the least important underground stations to renovate - it's only 1400 feet from Park Street and 600 from Chinatown, and the only bus transfers are duplicated at Park Street. Until 2010, the MBTA was also planning Silver Line Phase 3, which would have involved much more intense renovations to the station, so it didn't get touched during the time that most of the other downtown stations were renovated.

Honestly, Boylston will require less actual changes for accessibility than most of the other subway stations. It's only one level*, right below the street, with no buildings above. Changes at the platform level are pretty much just raising the platform and basic modernization (lighting, platform edge strips, etc). One of the drums I often beat is how to fit in the elevators and emergency exits: rebuild the former second headhouses. They could exactly match their historic exterior appearance.


View attachment 59434

* Technically there's an abandoned underpass between the platforms. However, like those at Chinatown and Symphony, it was narrow and underused and will likely not be reactivated in a renovation.

I have to believe part of the delay in rehabbing Boylston is the T trying to figure out what, if anything, they are going to do with the Tremont Street tunnel extension to the Pleasant Street Portal. Any meaningful rehab is going to need to account for future uses of that tunnel, if any. That kind of means they have to have a firm plan first.

Also, given the location in the Common, there is no potential for the T to sucker some real estate developer into paying for the station rehab (and shifting the costs into the real estate rental market). So this is fully on the T and their capital budget.

 

[FK4]

If this isn't final form it's got to be pretty close. Further spaced out the OL/GL-E, plus a minor rework to the northeast quadrant with a straighter 109 and 110.
View attachment 59332

Nice work! Slight aesthetic suggestion: straighten out the tips of the B, C, and E, as well as the end of Red at Alewife. Those slight curls at the end occur on angles that are softer and go against the overall “angles aesthetic” used elsewhere in this as well as many spider maps. I see what you were trying to do, and while in a way I like it, it doesn’t go with the map’s style and I think it would be a cleaner look without them.

 

[The EGE]

Weren't some of those filled in at some point when the LRVs came, to deal with the extra weight? I'd swear I read that somewhere (though it'd be nice if I could remember where).

You're probably thinking of the inclines at Northeastern and Blandford Street, which were originally hollow trestles to accommodate potential future subway extension. They were indeed filled in during the 1980s track work to accommodate the LRVs. As far as I know, the underpasses at Symphony, Boylston, and Chinatown are all intact.

I have to believe part of the delay in rehabbing Boylston is the T trying to figure out what, if anything, they are going to do with the Tremont Street tunnel extension to the Pleasant Street Portal. Any meaningful rehab is going to need to account for future uses of that tunnel, if any. That kind of means they have to have a firm plan first.

While it'd be nice to know, I don't think it should actually affect the renovations that much other than whatever fencing is there for the outer tracks. I can't imagine you need much futureproofing other than not precluding reuse of them. Silver Line Phase III is dead as a doornail, so any future reuse would be LRVs.

 

[HenryAlan]

Unfortunately not ADA compliant. (Also it's five including Bowdoin)

I'm pretty sure Hynes is still not accessible, so that would be six.

 

[jbray]

Unfortunately not ADA compliant. (Also it's five including Bowdoin)

The implication here is that the map will never be cleared of this unless every station is ADA compliant? I see you asking about this on reddit, did you ever get a confirmation beyond that reply for the map contest submissions that isn't waiverable? I wonder if a regulation change would be helpful here where a threshold met (75-80% maybe?) could switch to a different symbol to note non-compliant stations?

 

[Riverside]

Re the underpass at Boylston: from what I've read, and what I've seen in pictures, I cannot imagine those ever being opened for public use again. They looked, for lack of a better word, gnarly (and not in the cool way).

[Re the interaction between Boylston renovation and the future of the Tremont Street Subway] While it'd be nice to know, I don't think it should actually affect the renovations that much other than whatever fencing is there for the outer tracks. I can't imagine you need much futureproofing other than not precluding reuse of them. Silver Line Phase III is dead as a doornail, so any future reuse would be LRVs.

I think @JeffDowntown is suggesting that the renovation question potentially becomes trivial (or at least much much easier) if the outer tracks are abandoned and filled in with expanded platforms. That would provide a larger footprint to fit the necessary components in.

While this may seem like a myopic move, I can understand why some officials would see the ADA need as more curent and pressing than keeping open the possibility of a service that is totally unfunded, with little advocacy, and with no recent studies.

 

[astroTrain27]

I have to say, I miss the “Long D” option you posted earlier as it addressed my biggest pet peeve of the current map design. Namely: the failure to depict the “Reservoir Re-convergence” of the B, C, and D Lines.

While I generally agree that readability should be prioritized over geographic accuracy, I do think there is some value in depicting in some way that:

a) after diverging at Kenmore B, C, and D do not keep diverging into the suburbs as one might assume, but actually re-converge to within walking distance of one another near Cleveland Circle before the B and D diverge again

b) the D has much wider stop spacing (and thus runs faster)

Granted, I don’t think many people will be using this as a true walking transfer (i.e. getting off one GL train and walking over to another branch to resume their trip), but for trips that start or end near Reservoir/Cleveland Circle, it would clue someone in that they could choose to make their trip via a less intuitive branch to avoid either a transfer at Kenmore or a gap in the schedule, if they’re willing to walk a bit extra.

I don’t think it makes sense to clutter up the map by depicting every single possible walking transfer in the system, but I do think that it’s worthwhile to highlight some that are partially useful and/or unexpected.