Urban Ring

Not in Back Bay landfill. The Central Subway has a breathtakingly complicated army of underground pumps keeping the groundwater out. The entire Back Bay is only capable of supporting big buildings because the entire neighborhood is pumped out 24/7/365/year-in-year-out by pumps. The water table there is still very much "tidal flat" even though the surface is dry. I can't imagine how much more complicated it would be to dig even lower into that saturated fill.

There is nothing overly complicated about deep bore tunneling under the fill layer (down in the Boston Blue Clay). You would have to treat the design as an underwater tunnel, but that is not unreasonable (and should be the case in with any T tunnels in water-table sensitive areas).

The reason why we will never do that in Boston is because local construction contractors do not have deep bore tunneling expertise, so you have to bring in out of town (out of country) experts. And the local trades will never let that happen. This would have been the solution to an easier Silver Line connection across downtown (much less surface disruption). (Not that that connection was a smart idea as BRT!)
 
The reason why we will never do that in Boston is because local construction contractors do not have deep bore tunneling expertise, so you have to bring in out of town (out of country) experts. And the local trades will never let that happen. This would have been the solution to an easier Silver Line connection across downtown (much less surface disruption). (Not that that connection was a smart idea as BRT!)

Baloney. No one in Boston had experience with slurry wall tunnel construction prior to the Big Dig so local guys formed JV's with Obayashi, Kiewit, Bechtel, Skanska, etc., etc.
That's how companies like Cashman, JF White, McCourt, etc. got big. By sharing the risk with a large global player.
 
Just ran across this, transcribed from an 1892 article.

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Rapid_Transit_in_Cities_(1892)

We have said that, owing to the small size of its business centre, the city of Boston is probably suffering more from congestion of traffic than any other American city. The method of rapid transit which we have just described is admirably adapted to give it relief. Through the broad suburban streets the electric cars now move at the rate of eight to ten miles an hour. The congestion of traffic extends for less than one mile, and is chiefly confined to two parallel streets, Washington and Tremont, through which the great tide of travel running north and south, and representing a population of 850,000 souls, passes all day long. The great shopping districts are about in the middle of this mile. The West End Railway Co. finding that their cars take longer to pass over this mile than over three or four miles in the suburban districts, have asked the Rapid Transit Commission to recommend to the Legislature to allow them to construct a short subway running under the Common and a part of Tremont Street, and coming out at Adams Square. The nature of the ground admits of such a subway being connected with elevated lines at each end when desired. The subway would be similar to the short subway in New York under Fourth Avenue, between Thirty-fourth and Forty-Second Streets. It would be lighted at short intervals by openings in the roof, and would be unobjectionable in every respect. Near Park Street Church, where the great crowding shown in the illustration to the article in the May number now takes place, there would be a central underground station, where passengers could take trains to and from all parts of the city and suburbs. This seems to be a simple and reasonable way of relieving the difficulty, for the cars on the new subway would make so much better time than those on the surface of the streets, that the larger part of these would be withdrawn from the streets and take this route. The plan is one that can be quickly carried out, and at a comparatively small cost. The Commission, it is understood, will recommend this, but they go a great deal farther. They follow in the footsteps of Berlin, Paris, and London, and propose a circular or ring railway connecting all the steam railroad stations. Part of the line will be elevated, and it will descend under the Common and Tremont Street as the West End line proposes to do. This ring line will have no rail connection with either the steam railroads, or the street railways. Passengers are expected to change cars, ascend and ride around this circle.

The experience of the European cities, to which I have referred in my former article, has shown that these ring railways, in consequence of their not following the lines of the principal thoroughfares where people want to go, and of trying to induce people to take a circuitous route where they do not wish to go, have been utter failures, and are now being supplemented by lines running across the circumscribed area in all directions, but always on the lines of main streets. It does not appear as if this Boston ring scheme would attract capital, as it would cost ten times as much as the other less pretentious plan, and people would not ride on it even free of charge, for they would have to pay another fare as soon as they left it, and no time would be saved. We have criticized this plan not in a hostile spirit, but present it as an object-lesson of what should be avoided. Of all difficult tasks, there is none more difficult than to make an American take the longest way around, when he can "cut across."

Much, much more on Boston and a variety of cities. Charts, maps and tables from the late nineteenth century, too.
 
Last edited:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I think this was the early plan they refer to.

This, of course, was before they consolidated the terminals into North and South Stations (originally called North Union and South Union).
 
Baloney. No one in Boston had experience with slurry wall tunnel construction prior to the Big Dig so local guys formed JV's with Obayashi, Kiewit, Bechtel, Skanska, etc., etc.
That's how companies like Cashman, JF White, McCourt, etc. got big. By sharing the risk with a large global player.

And we think they did a cost effective job with the execution?

No experience, lots of costly screw-ups.
 
Why are they building tunnels for busses? I know it would be cheeper but when you're already building a tunnel why not just make it for trains? why do we always build these not BRT routs when we could build trains? when will the MBTA learn that Busses simply are not as good as rapid transit?
 
Remember that they're inherently defining buses as rapid transit when they use the term BRT.
 
^ Pretty incredible considering the top speeds of those busses in the tunnels...

It's crazy how the T also thinks that consolidated bus stops and an unenforced bus lane makes a surface bus BRT...
 
Why are they building tunnels for busses? I know it would be cheeper but when you're already building a tunnel why not just make it for trains? why do we always build these not BRT routs when we could build trains? when will the MBTA learn that Busses simply are not as good as rapid transit?

Have to separate out the goals of Urban Ring Phase I from Urban Ring Phase II. All Phase I was was taking the existing Crosstown bus system--CT1, CT2, and CT3--and expanding it to 11 total routes. With additional investment on signal prioritization, curbside ADA, and stop selection akin to the current Key Bus Routes project. CT1, CT2, and CT3 were to get those frills added as well, but the program was aborted before those 3 initial routes even started getting outfitted with those features.

This isn't BRT. It's an express bus. The Phase I plan had predictable mission creep potential on the branding...special paint jobs, excessive SL Washington St. shelters that were form over function...but at its heart it was just an express bus. Unfortunately since the 3 existing routes never got fleshed out all the way and have faded somewhat into obscurity from their incomplete builds we don't have a good reference point for how this would've worked. But it was basically just 11 CTx routes outlining the general footprint of the Ring and covering some of the other key routes. Properly cast Silver Line Washington St. probably should've been one of these routes as well instead of grouped in with the Silver Line Phase III tunnel boondoggle.

Phase II would've taken the Ring footprint and galvanized it as a fixed route, but the Crosstown buses that went off-Ring would've remained and likely been expanded. It was poorly fleshed out how the Phase II Ring busway would've interfaced with the Crosstowns, and of course the whole plan to do it as BRT busways first then come back a decade later and rip it all out to do a rail line was ludicrous. That's the controversial part that killed the project and needs a total reboot should they pick it up again.

But there's nothing controversial at all about the Phase I Crosstown routes. As long as they don't bloat the cost too far with stupid branding aesthetics like SL Washington St. that is a plan implementable today as a next phase in the Key Bus Routes initiative. All it is are 8 more limited-stop CTx routes and finishing the job with CT1-3 with signal priority, ADA stops, and stop placement tweaking. That's it. They can roll out these routes one at a time in a constrained funding environment and put a big dent in the need for better radial circulation. It's utterly baffling that they shelved all 3 phases of the UR at once instead of postponing Phases II and III and allocating the resources to finish Phase I. But apparently branding trumps functionality.

Really...not hard at all to slip this one back into the mix in bite-size chunks. It's an 80%+ ops-only build, not an invasive capital construction project. Look at how many cities have widespread express bus networks, pre-existing and slated for massive expansion (like NYC). Boston has almost nothing comparable. And CT1-3 being relegated to more or less abandonware signals their disengagement at leaving it like that. The decision-makers here just aren't interested enough in purely ops-based improvements. They want steel and concrete. They want monuments. And they have a major case of Big Dig syndrome where the commitment is all-or-nothing with an out to bail on it all at the first sign of complications or compromise. That mentality has to change before we can get useful things on the ops side like an extensive and well-functioning express bus system.
 
Was looking at Google Earth views of Grand Junction and just curious if GJ in Cambridge/Somerville is wide enough now to make it 2 track instead of one. If the Urban Ring was ever implemented as light rail, would it be easy to put a second track on the GJ? Has this been studied already?

Also, if UR was implemented as light rail, would it be easy for a green line train going east on the GJ to get thru the GLX/CR tracks north of Lechemere and over to Assembly Sq area (or whereever UR goes after Lechemere)? It seems kind of a mess of tracks and just curious how light rail would fit in there, if at all.
 
The ROW is two tracks wide for the most part, there might be some encroachment now. Keep in mind that the bridge over the Charles is two tracks wide.

GLX will be grade separated from the Fitchberg line, so I don't think it would be too hard to thread the GJ through there, especially considering how flexible the grade constraints are for the Greenline.
 
GJ is wide enough for two tracks, a bus-way, and a bike path, except through East Cambridge. According to GJ Path advocates.
 
GJ is wide enough for two tracks, a bus-way, and a bike path, except through East Cambridge. According to GJ Path advocates.

Mathew -- there is are a couple of choke points or encroachments both MIT-centric:
1) in the vicinity of Draper Lab, McGovern Brain Science Institute -- near Main & Vasser
2) in the ROW between Albany and Vasser St. East of Mass Ave.

and an strip near the crossing of Binney St.

some of those can probably be remedied, some not so easily to allow 2 track -- as for the width needed to offer two tracks, a bus-way, and a bike path -- not going to happen
 
I am just quoting what was said. I haven't checked it myself.
 
From here
From my limited understanding - no, it can't. It's why the connection from the B & A (Worcester line) was severed from Riverside.

My thoughts as well. I also don't believe that freight would ever be allowed through a NSRL tunnel [nor any other sort of diesel train for that matter]. Whatever freight is going from the Worcester Line along the Grand Junction to points beyond would either need to cease, change origins to a north side line, or reroute somewhere much farther west.
 
From here


My thoughts as well. I also don't believe that freight would ever be allowed through a NSRL tunnel [nor any other sort of diesel train for that matter]. Whatever freight is going from the Worcester Line along the Grand Junction to points beyond would either need to cease, change origins to a north side line, or reroute somewhere much farther west.

When the Grand Junction was out of service, north-south transfers were done via Pan Am's Worcester Main - which connects from Worcester to Ayer. So, it could be done, but I'll leave F-Line and the rest to elaborate, since I'm nowhere close to being educated on the subject.
 
Sorry to ask a question that could be researched online, but.... Is the Urban Ring better as a rapid bus transit or a subway/ground rail subway?
 
What's "better" mean? Honestly, the best urban ring system we can create will probably a network of GLXs and BRT routes.
 

Back
Top