Crazy Transit Pitches

[omaja]

Getting back on track with Crazy Transit Pitches; here's another map I cooked up:

http://g.co/maps/5emb7


Red Line: Burlington Mall-North Stoughton/Rte24
Green Line HRV: Anderson Woburn-Cleveland Circle, Anderson Woburn-Riverside
Orange Line: Reading Heights/I93-Forest Hills, Medford Square-Millenium Park
Blue Line: Salem Depot-Oak Square, Lynn Center-Boston College
Teal Line: Watertown Square-JFK/UMass, Watertown Square-Roslindale Village
Yellow Line: Urban Ring: Airport-Seaport-Andrew-Newmarket-Dudley-Brigham-Fenway-BU-Kendall-Lechmere-Sullivan-Chelsea⟲, Northgate-Urban Ring
Green Line LRV: Wonderland-Forest Hills
Silver Line: Seaport-Mattapan
Brown Line: Urban Ring: Sullivan Square-North Station-Park St-Copley Square-Northeastern-Brigham Circle-Coolidge Corner-Allston Village-Harvard Square-Union Square-Brickbottom ⟲
Indigo Line: Riverside-South Station, Cedar Wood I95-North Station-South Station-Westwood/I95, Cedarwood/I95-Dedham

*Urban ring notations not all the stops, just a general overview of major areas along the route.

Very nice -- lots of similarities between your ideas and mine. I notice is there are a lot of long extensions into the burbs (Salem, Stoughton, Woburn Anderson, Reading) that might be better served by regional lines a la the RER/S-Bahn/Cercanias systems in Europe? Also, what's the thought behind two different rings?

Still working on the stylized map version, but here's the Google Maps version (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204905147240079736190.0004b9d48c8863e79a7b 4&msa=0&ll=42.368691,-71.113815&spn=0.139764,0.338173) I have going now. I've taken a liking to how Paris has its system organized, so what you see is 13 local 'Metro' lines and 4 commuter/express 'RER' lines.

If only we had the political will, community support and budget to give us a true public transportation renaissance. Such a shame we're lacking in the political visionary department.

[Matthew]

Crazy branching omaja. I count 11 on the south side, and 8 on the north side. Presuming 8 run through, I guess you're assuming a quad-tracked N/S link? And why does RER D have such a severe U-shape?

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Thanks. I tossed this one together by heavily modifying an older map that I made (several of my maps are further back in the thread).

Ideally I'd have the whole MBCR electrified. I have an expanded commuter rail map that looks much like your RER system. How does the Paris RER system work? Is it like an EMU version of our Commuter Rail?

I ran the W Medford branch up to Anderson to allow it to spur northeast through Woburn Center before rejoining the Lowell Line. That line could terminate there. I stretched it to Anderson to create more of a transfer hub for those who want local service south from I-95/93 versus those looking for quicker service to Boston. The Red Line extension to the south would serve downtown Randolph; I brought it further southwest to allow a Park and Ride on Rte 24 among the big box strip in North Stoughton. Reading got the Orange Line extension due to my rerouting of the Haverhill Line to Lowell/Wildcat. There's enough space on the RoW for express service to Boston. For Salem, I envision the far end of the Blue Line having several stops through Salem, giving the city some local service with express riders taking the MBCR.

The Yellow Line is a version of my Urban Ring that's present in one form or another in all of my maps. The Brown Line was made kind of in an ad hoc way. It started as a spur off the Hunting Ave Green Line to Coolidge Corner and then I took it up to Harvard. From there I figured "why not?" and connected it with a Charlestown Branch of the Green Line I had made, with this new ring made I changed the color of the line even though it shares track with the Green Line from Government Center to Riverway. The part of the ring from Coolidge Corner to Sulluvan Square matches my original concept for an outer loop portion of the Urban Ring.

A question about your map Omaja: Does it presume the removal of the existing North and South Stations as surface terminals for Commuter Rail service in favor of underground N/S Connector stations?

It's very unfortunate that we don't have the money or the political will to move more projects forward (not even critical upgrades like Red/Blue at Charles/MGH, Blue Line to Lynn, signal priority on the Green Line etc.). The largest obstacle to many of these crazy transit pitches are NIMBYs. Towns like Belmont, Arlington, Winchester and Dedham fight anything they perceive as urbanization even though they're first tier suburbs. The best corridor to Waltham for instance, via the Fitchburg Line is effectively forever blocked by Belmont's stubborn opposition to mass-transit. Arlington did the same thing to Lexington back in the 80s. The best RoW to Dedham (branching south off of the Needham Line) was allowed to be developed into residences! Poor management by an Authority that doesn't fight for expansion only emboldens and enables NIMBYs...

[whighlander]

....

It's very unfortunate that we don't have the money or the political will to move more projects forward (not even critical upgrades like Red/Blue at Charles/MGH, Blue Line to Lynn, signal priority on the Green Line etc.). The largest obstacle to many of these crazy transit pitches are NIMBYs. Towns like Belmont, Arlington, Winchester and Dedham fight anything they perceive as urbanization even though they're first tier suburbs. The best corridor to Waltham for instance, via the Fitchburg Line is effectively forever blocked by Belmont's stubborn opposition to mass-transit. Arlington did the same thing to Lexington back in the 80s. The best RoW to Dedham (branching south off of the Needham Line) was allowed to be developed into residences! Poor management by an Authority that doesn't fight for expansion only emboldens and enables NIMBYs...

Buses -- its not quite that simple -- when there are proposed expansions there have to be justifications to the effect of demographics users and places they want to go, as well as construction feasibility. Then there can be some preliminary designs made and the whole process is repeated with public input -- finally if it can be justified, afforded and built -- there will be a project started.

Studies have been performed over the past decade or so for most of the kinds of extensions which you are mapping -- There's actually a substantial body of information including ridership counts, destination surveys, simulations, etc. which goes into these scoping and concept studies.

Most just can not be justified on the basis of demographics (no growth or even decline in populations) and some such as the Urban Ring or N/S link are just too expensive so after some preliminaries the concepts are in the deep freeze for at least a couple of decades.

However, there are some where the Cost Benefit Analysis comes out favorable enough to support some design work (25% or so). Then comes the task of convincing the Feds of the merit of receiving a New Start or Small Start Financing. For example if you go to the T's projects page -- there is a plan to improve the Fitchburg CR Line -- the area beyond I-495 has the demographic trends such that there can be significant increases in usage of the Line if the speed can be improved a bit -- to date preliminary work is underway -- in a couple of years the work (few hundred Million $) will result in an estimated reduction of 10 minutes in trip from Fitchburg to Porter Sq.-- leading to a significant increase in boardings at Fitchburg

-- for example see the following:

http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/About_the_T/T_Projects/T_Projects_List/AA%20Report.pdf
and
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/T_Projects/T_Projects_List/Fitchburg%20Update%20Presentation%201-13-12.pdf

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ I get all that. Cost/Benefit analysis is the biggest obstacle to widespread enhancements of the T. My point was more that if the cost issue magically vanished, and the State, City and Authority actually pushed expansion rather than fought it, a lot of these expansions would still be pipe dreams. I mean you support a Red Line extension to I-95/Hanscom in the modern era; do you really think that will EVER happen? Even if the financing appears, Arlington will block it, and east Lexington probably will be on their side this time.

[HenryAlan]

If only we had the political will, community support and budget to give us a true public transportation renaissance. Such a shame we're lacking in the political visionary department.

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

[Equilibria]

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

I think Boston has had its 20-year period of creative leadership with regard to transportation, and it went into the Big Dig. With all the crap surrounding that project, some people forget what a visionary and impressive scheme that was, and it took multiple gubernatorial administrations from both parties to get it done, albeit over-budget and with questionable quality.

LA has to build rails out of necessity. The metro area is huge, the freeways are congested, the air is polluted, and the city has a negative reputation as car-centric. The argument for transit become very different when, as here in the Bay Area, it becomes impossible to cross bridges to Downtown at 6am and stays that way for most of the day.

Boston has a reputation as a progressive city with fairly free-flowing freeways compared to other cities and an extensive transit system. Most people don't see the T as lacking (except when they propose service cuts or fare increases), and don't want service if they don't already have it. If all of the people along the path of a line want neither the service nor the new development at the terminus - as is the case with the Red Line - it's difficult to defend forcing it down their throats for the sake of one planner's "vision". That's been done too - it's how the West End was destroyed.

[Matthew]

I agree that there's plenty of work to be done in places that want transit, like Somerville or Lynn, without having to go to extremes with extensions and such into Belmont and other NIMBY-riffic areas. On the other hand, this is the "Crazy Transit Pitches" thread, so I suppose "crazy" is on-topic. Maybe we need a "Reasonable Transit Pitches" thread where ideas are critiqued based on their realistic prospects and proper design.

[Riverside]

On the other hand, this is the "Crazy Transit Pitches" thread, so I suppose "crazy" is on-topic. Maybe we need a "Reasonable Transit Pitches" thread where ideas are critiqued based on their realistic prospects and proper design.

This. Look at it this way: if economic conditions in the Greater Boston changed significantly enough in such a way that meant most residents could not afford a car, then suddenly a lot of these rail-centric proposals seem a lot less crazy.

Imagine, for example, that the price of gas tripled (say, because China and India's markets grow and OPEC decides to really start sticking it to the US so that we get the hell out of the Middle East), alternative auto fuels are not aggressively pursued and that the federal government decides to massively subsidize mass transit projects across the country in a huge effort to get people out of cars. To that end, the feds also impose new taxes that strongly discourage people from owning cars. Carsharing companies like Zipcar get a tax break, so people can still afford cars for occasional use, but people of most socioeconomic statuses become reliant on public transit for everyday stuff.

Okay, now that ^^^ is crazy. (And not something I am advocating, though I, of course, want to see Washington spending money on building stuff here as opposed to blowing stuff up elsewhere.) But if that actually came to pass, and goodness knows, stranger things have, omaja's proposal and the like suddenly look a lot less crazy.

But I agree that it might a good idea for a "Reasonable (but hopefully innovative!) Transit Pitches" thread.

[itchy]

In all fairness, this:

The feds also impose new taxes that strongly discourage people from owning cars. Carsharing companies like Zipcar get a tax break, so people can still afford cars for occasional use, but people of most socioeconomic statuses become reliant on public transit for everyday stuff.

plus this:

(And not something I am advocating, though I, of course, want to see Washington spending money on building stuff here as opposed to blowing stuff up elsewhere.)

suggests a bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

What you're saying is not so much that defense spending should be re-routed toward infrastructure projects, but that taxes should be used to achieve a social and economic outcome (i.e., people cannot afford cars) that you like but which also prevents people from having the mobility they desire.

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the purpose of government to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want in order to achieve the aesthetic or moral goals of others?

I myself haven't owned a car in my entire adult life and currently live in an apartment that allows me to walk to my office; however, I don't think everyone should be forced via punitive taxation to adopt my own life decisions ... people with kids, for instance, have every reason to prefer to have a yard and a car that allows them to easily make multiple trips, don't they?

[Riverside]

In all fairness, this:



plus this:



suggests a bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

What you're saying is not so much that defense spending should be re-routed toward infrastructure projects, but that taxes should be used to achieve a social and economic outcome (i.e., people cannot afford cars) that you like but which also prevents people from having the mobility they desire.

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the government's purpose to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want?

I myself haven't owned a car in my entire adult life and currently live in an apartment that allows me to walk to my office; however, I don't think everyone should be forced via punitive taxation to adopt my own life decisions ... people with kids, for instance, have every reason to prefer to have a yard and a car that allows them to easily make multiple trips, don't they?

Sorry, I should have made my point clearer: I am not advocating anything I mentioned in that second paragraph. I don't think such actions by the federal government would be a good idea, and I wouldn't support them, particularly if they were done so drastically.

That entire second paragraph described a hypothetical "crazy" scenario, parts of which are more plausible than others, in which cars became much less feasible for individual use and ownership. Such a scenario would make these "crazy" transit pitches more realistic.

My general point, however, is that these pitches become more plausible as car ownership becomes less feasible. The way in which car ownership becomes less feasible is beside the point.

My apologies for the lack of clarity.

[Matthew]

Why force people to use a rigid form of transportation that gives them less choice if they don't want it? Is the purpose of government to deprive people of the transportation option they themselves want in order to achieve the aesthetic or moral goals of others?


The implications of this statement are probably much more than you intended. Following it to the logical conclusion, it says that we should pave over everything in order to be sure that government is not denying anyone of their transportation options.

Ultimately, we do make some aesthetic or moral choices about transportation regardless of whether that produces highways, busways or railways. Most people hold the opinion nowadays that it is not morally nor aesthetically worthwhile to bulldoze neighborhoods in order to build superhighways. That was not always the case.

Large numbers of people also find it perfectly acceptable to require the purchase of an automobile in order to access certain locations, even though that takes away from the flexibility and choice of non-drivers. Again, a moral and aesthetic decision.

[whighlander]

I agree, this is a major issue. Whighlander makes a valid point about cost/benefit studies killing many of these ideas, but in some cases, the right leadership can make a difference, especially if the analytical argument is inconclusive. Every time I read about what's going on in L.A., I drool and turn red with envy. It's amazing how much rail construction is actively happening, in the planning stages, or at least being discussed on the big stage. And the creative funding mechanisms they have developed are directly dependent on political leadership. We don't have that here. Part of why, I suppose is that we already have a significantly more extensive rail network than L.A., but when it is arguably still not as good as it should be, the question has to be asked -- where is the leadership?

Henry -- I went to grad school at UT in Austin with a native Angelino -- he still remembered when there were remnants of the Red Cars -- a bit before his time his mother used to travel from the coastal mountains to the beaches without leaving the Inter-Urban Transit system. Today despite a lot of investment LA is no where close to recreating what they had -- and for a huge Metro Region they have far less of their travel per (capia / area) than the T provides to the Hub

[omaja]

Ideally I'd have the whole MBCR electrified. I have an expanded commuter rail map that looks much like your RER system. How does the Paris RER system work? Is it like an EMU version of our Commuter Rail?

While it is EMU, the Paris RER is much, much more than that. It is something of a hybrid between true commuter rail and an express Metro. Because Paris's Metro network has such a high concentration of stations, it wasn't feasible for them to extend the network much outside of the city, so they layered the RER as an express network to serve the suburbs. Thus you have a speedier way to get from major stations in Paris, along with extensive, regular and efficient service to the greater commuting region.

A question about your map Omaja: Does it presume the removal of the existing North and South Stations as surface terminals for Commuter Rail service in favor of underground N/S Connector stations?

Yes, though some surface tracks would probably remain for short turns and the like.

Boston has a reputation as a progressive city with fairly free-flowing freeways compared to other cities and an extensive transit system. Most people don't see the T as lacking (except when they propose service cuts or fare increases), and don't want service if they don't already have it. If all of the people along the path of a line want neither the service nor the new development at the terminus - as is the case with the Red Line - it's difficult to defend forcing it down their throats for the sake of one planner's "vision". That's been done too - it's how the West End was destroyed.

Have I missed the memo about Boston? ;) Free flowing freeways? Boston is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 most congested areas in the country. I'm also not sure who would vouch for the T being adequate for a city and region as large as Boston. It has a very long way to go before it has a size-appropriate network, reliable service and efficient operations.

While I can agree that suburban extensions are certainly lower priority than increasing mobility within the immediate Boston-Cambridge-Brookline-Chelsea-Revere area, infrastructure investments (especially rail) are the type of things that must be positioned correctly. Whereas we have made road improvements a foregone conclusion no matter where we are, we've left out nearly every other mode of transportation from the mix. That's a policy and PR issue that can be fixed with the right leadership.

Crazy branching omaja. I count 11 on the south side, and 8 on the north side. Presuming 8 run through, I guess you're assuming a quad-tracked N/S link? And why does RER D have such a severe U-shape?

All of the lines would run through--you'd just have some branches seeing more service than others based on demand. A quad-tracked North-South link would be a definite. I tried to match up the existing commuter rail lines based on current ridership to align demand across the north and south portions. The Fitchburg and Worcester lines were basically what was left.

But if that actually came to pass, and goodness knows, stranger things have, omaja's proposal and the like suddenly look a lot less crazy.

But I agree that it might a good idea for a "Reasonable (but hopefully innovative!) Transit Pitches" thread.

Thing is, I don't see how a network like any of the ones we've mapped is really all that crazy. Compare to networks in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and the lost goes on and on; Boston is comparable in terms of metropolitan area population an density, certainly deserving of a much more extensive rail network than what it currently has.

All it takes is good leadership and proper messaging to rally communities around rail as a quality of life increase. But alas, we're severely lacking that and, as a consequence, every cost-benefit analysis will come out the same: in favor of the status quo of letting infrastructure decay and never offering more options to mobilize the population.

[whighlander]

Thing is, I don't see how a network like any of the ones we've mapped is really all that crazy. Compare to networks in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Madrid, Munich, Barcelona, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and the lost goes on and on; Boston is comparable in terms of metropolitan area population an density, certainly deserving of a much more extensive rail network than what it currently has.

All it takes is good leadership and proper messaging to rally communities around rail as a quality of life increase. But alas, we're severely lacking that and, as a consequence, every cost-benefit analysis will come out the same: in favor of the status quo of letting infrastructure decay and never offering more options to mobilize the population.

Omaja -- Cost Benefit analyis has been used because it works -- when you don't use it you waste resourses. Thus for a long time the Soviets didn't account for interest as a part of the cost of a project -- so they built huge hydro power projects out in Siberia -- far from the population centers and ignored vast amounts of coal -- why the water power was practically free. Some neo-Com economist introduced the cost associated wih borrowing money -- suddenly no more Siberian hydro projects.

I know that you don't like suburbs and cars -- but in the western developed world the vast majority of people do. They live in the suburbs and commute to the central city or to other suburbs for their employment. Even in the NYC metro region more people live in Connecticut, NJ, Westchester, LI and commute to NYC than live and work indigenously in mostly car-free Manhattan.

[omaja]

You aren't remotely comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about adding options to a developed area with proven demand (see: overburdened MBTA network), not building a Maglev between Framingham and Worcester (the Siberian hydro plants you referenced).

For the record, I own a car and very much enjoy the freedom it provides for certain types of trips. Since when does owning a car and preferring to live in the suburbs automatically make one anti-rail? I want to see more money overall invested in our infrastructure. Just so happens that our road network is vastly superior to our rail one so it makes little sense to keep throwing money on expansion when another mode could greatly improve efficiencies across the board.

[whighlander]

You aren't remotely comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about adding options to a developed area with proven demand (see: overburdened MBTA network), not building a Maglev between Framingham and Worcester (the Siberian hydro plants you referenced).

For the record, I own a car and very much enjoy the freedom it provides for certain types of trips. Since when does owning a car and preferring to live in the suburbs automatically make one anti-rail? I want to see more money overall invested in our infrastructure. Just so happens that our road network is vastly superior to our rail one so it makes little sense to keep throwing money on expansion when another mode could greatly improve efficiencies across the board.

Omaja -- actually since you mention Maglev (for which I did some work back in the 1980's) if you want a "Realistic Crazzy Transit Pitch" -- try this one:

Build a Maglev line from Boston to Springfield (1 hour including stops) with intermediate stations in: Worcester; Westborough on I-495; Framingham; Newton / Waltham on Rt-128 plus one or two in Boston before arriving at South Station

at each of the intermediate stops provide both parking for people boarding the train and also a fleet of all-electric ZipCars for those whose commute beyond the station needs a car.

Make the train run on schedule of half hour departures each way during rush hours and hourly during the middle of the day and throughout the evening

the Worcester and Springfield stations will provide the Hub with plenty of bedrooms both in the city and out in exurbs

[omaja]

That would be crazy (and thus justifiably belonging to this thread :)). But where's the value in doing something like that when traditional light/heavy/EMU rail technologies reaching more areas of the Greater Boston area would spur additional developments and allow for increased densities where people actually want to be?

[Commuting Boston Student]

If we get Commuter Rail to Springfield, can we send all of our old subway stock that-a-way and build the WesT subway system?

I kind of enjoy the sound of hopping onto a train at South Station, getting off at Springfield Union Station and transferring to the Red Line to Six Flags.

And I don't even like thrill rides.

[whighlander]

If we get Commuter Rail to Springfield, can we send all of our old subway stock that-a-way and build the WesT subway system?

I kind of enjoy the sound of hopping onto a train at South Station, getting off at Springfield Union Station and transferring to the Red Line to Six Flags.

And I don't even like thrill rides.

Commute -- don't forget the Basketball Hall of Fame

[cozzyd]

Charles River Shuttle, bane of boaters, route negotiable. Faster than the Green line.

http://i.imgur.com/kwU2S.jpg

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Just to be clear, this is Water Taxi right? Not some elaborate system of tubes? ;)

[cozzyd]

Just to be clear, this is Water Taxi right? Not some elaborate system of tubes? ;)

Yes, water taxi. Though maybe it could be cable towed from underwater or something to make it able to start and stop faster....

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Speaking of cables, why not a cable car?! This is crazy transit pitches after all.

Seriously: Underwater cables would have to beware of pretty heavy boat traffic between the Locks and Mass Ave.

[whighlander]

Charles River Shuttle, bane of boaters, route negotiable. Faster than the Green line.



Move Mass Ave to the MiT side then go to Esplanade at Commissioners Landing then back across to Kendall

as an extension -- continue up the Charles to Watertown Arsenal Park perhaps even to Watertown Sq. -- that get's rid of the people who want to bring the A Green Line back

[HenryAlan]

I kind of enjoy the sound of hopping onto a train at South Station, getting off at Springfield Union Station and transferring to the Red Line to Six Flags.

And I don't even like thrill rides.

To me, the thrill ride would be getting there. I'm still pining for the day when the two commuter rail gaps in the NEC are closed, because I want to take the 'T (and connecting services) to DC.

[HenryAlan]

Speaking of cables, why not a cable car?! This is crazy transit pitches after all.



Cable cars are a good idea in hilly cities or near large bodies of water. I can't even think of a crazy use for one here other than something to cross the harbor.

[whighlander]

Cable cars are a good idea in hilly cities or near large bodies of water. I can't even think of a crazy use for one here other than something to cross the harbor.

Henry --perfect app -- connect Pleasure Bay / Castle Island with Spectacle Island (otherway only accessible by boat)

[F-Line to Dudley]

Cable cars are a good idea in hilly cities or near large bodies of water. I can't even think of a crazy use for one here other than something to cross the harbor.

You're thinking gondola, right? That would have to be equipped with barf bags during Nor'easter season. The angry Atlantic is a little more unpredictably wind-turbulent than your average ski slope.

[omaja]

Cambridge-Arlington-Medford portion of my dream MBTA. Still working on the south/southwestern segments and then will have a full map to show.

http://i.imgur.com/S6vcS.png"]http://i.imgur.com/S6vcS.png

[czsz]

All that rail density and you'd STILL leave Inman Square without train service?

[Matthew]

My guess is "Hampshire" is close enough to Inman.

[cozzyd]

And Prospect to Union!

[omaja]

All that rail density and you'd STILL leave Inman Square without train service?

No. Hampshire is literally at the Cambridge-Inman-Hampshire intersection while Prospect and Union also serve the neighborhood.

[czsz]

Why not call it Inman? Man, even fantasy transit planners seem to want to use the least obvious stop names.

[Commuting Boston Student]

To me, the thrill ride would be getting there. I'm still pining for the day when the two commuter rail gaps in the NEC are closed, because I want to take the 'T (and connecting services) to DC.

I keep procrastinating on finishing my proposal for the Rhode Island Rail (NOT operated by MBTA/MBCR) and have not drawn all of the lines, otherwise I would help with this.

I know that there's no commuter rail between New London and Wickford Junction (and with no Amtrak at Wickford or TF Green, you're effectively forced off Commuter Rail at Providence), but where's the other gap on the NEC?

[cozzyd]

Is there service between Wilmington and Baltimore?

[czsz]

^ Baltimore's MARC Commuter Rail ends at Perryville, MD, near the northern Maryland border. SEPTA ends at Newark, DE, southwest of Wilmington. So the gap is actually smaller than that. The distance along I-95 is 22 miles.

The New London-Warwick gap is actually much longer - 49.3 miles.

After commuter rail, time to rebuild localized transit. In the day you could actually do the entire journey on Interurban Streetcars!

[HenryAlan]

SEPTA ends at Newark, DE, and there is a gap from there through Perryville, MD. The gap is about 20 miles long.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I keep procrastinating on finishing my proposal for the Rhode Island Rail (NOT operated by MBTA/MBCR) and have not drawn all of the lines, otherwise I would help with this.

I know that there's no commuter rail between New London and Wickford Junction (and with no Amtrak at Wickford or TF Green, you're effectively forced off Commuter Rail at Providence), but where's the other gap on the NEC?

Newark, Delaware (southern end of SEPTA territory) to Perryville, Maryland (northern end of MARC territory) is the other gap. A little wider off-peak and weekends because SEPTA doesn't run all the way to Newark/Univ. of Delaware except rush hour. Gap's about 20 miles total. MARC has a proposal to extend to Newark specifically for the SEPTA transfer revenue, so that one's not going to last too much longer.

The RI one will be filled, but by South County Commuter Rail running from Pawtucket to Westerly, and Shore Line east extending from New London to Westerly. CDOT has it on its SLE service plan that they are 100% going to Westerly the second RIDOT gets there. There's a layover yard at the station leftover from the old Conrail Providence-Westerly commuter rail that lasted until 1979, so both services would be able to layover and turnback there. The station's also due to be rebuilt by Amtrak for ADA high platforms and 3 tracks. For CDOT it's a natural because Westerly is only 150 ft. across the state line and as much Stonington, CT's stop as it is Westerly's. And they can't currently go past New London to the existing Mystic stop (with all the tourist revenue from the Seaport and Aquarium) because there's no turnback spot that wouldn't totally screw with Amtrak schedules. So it's a no-build proposition for CT and in-district gap filler to get SLE to the border.

Next step for the Providence Line is extending to Kingston, because several Wickford trains will need to deadhead to Kingston turnback to avoid fouling Amtrak schedules. It's only when there's a schedule gap that they can turn directly at the Wickford platform. So all crews are being trained to Kingston, and they'll add as a revenue stop later. Amtrak is starting heavy construction on it for ADA high platforms and triple-track, so it's going to be in temporary torn-up condition for the next 18-24 months. That's why it's not on the table quite yet. At some point after RIDOT has weaned itself onto its own service and the Pawtucket, Cranston, and Davisville intermediate stops get built it's going to split off into its own Pawtucket-Westerly service. It's just too much for the Providence Line to go that far out-of-market. The T will really want to firm up its district borders and terminate it at T.F. Green once South County's running on its own legs. This is doable for the T right now, but the expansion of the Providence schedule that'll come after South Station's expansion hits a glass ceiling when they have to run that far south of Providence where only scant number of people are commuting to Boston.

Ultimately, better service is going to be MUCH more frequent Providence Line service turning at Providence or T.F. Green but no further, and a full-blown Pawtucket-Westerly schedule in-state. Since RIDOT will be "graduating" to some degree from the MBTA when it launches its own service, it's quite likely they're just going to keep on using the T's fare collection system to avoid the redundancy of starting fresh. At that point...one Charlie on one transfer gets you to Westerly. Which ain't bad at all when you figure how frequent these trains are going to be 10 years down the line.


And, yes, I bet MARC has filled the last gap by then, so by 2020-2022 (at latest...RIDOT is for-reals about this)...MBTA --> RIDOT --> SLE --> Metro North --> NJ Transit --> SEPTA --> MARC --> Virginia Railway Express gets you from South Station to Fredericksburg, VA via NYC and D.C. in one very very long all-day commute without once seeing the inside of an Amtrak train.

[datadyne007]

Omaja, how would Galleria work?

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why stop at TF Green, F-Line? Zone 9 (and beyond) is a pox upon the fare system and there's no way to turn the train at TF Green, is there? Providence is a more logical endpoint. TF Green commuters will have to transfer, but that shouldn't matter. So will Wickford, Kingston and Westerly commuters.

I'd like to see a branch off of Wickford to Newport, too, because there's plenty of room for a new ROW out that way. I'm sure you won't even need to take any houses to build it.

Any plans to terminate Amtrak service to Mystic? Obviously they're keeping Kingston if they plan to rebuild it and you can't axe Westerly service, but something about 3-4 Amtrak changeovers in a row feels wrong.

[Riverside]

Why stop at TF Green, F-Line? Zone 9 (and beyond) is a pox upon the fare system and there's no way to turn the train at TF Green, is there? Providence is a more logical endpoint. TF Green commuters will have to transfer, but that shouldn't matter. So will Wickford, Kingston and Westerly commuters.

I'd like to see a branch off of Wickford to Newport, too, because there's plenty of room for a new ROW out that way. I'm sure you won't even need to take any houses to build it.

Any plans to terminate Amtrak service to Mystic? Obviously they're keeping Kingston if they plan to rebuild it and you can't axe Westerly service, but something about 3-4 Amtrak changeovers in a row feels wrong.

Wait, as in branch off from Wickford to Newport, going across the bay? Going through Jamestown? I don't know... I don't think there's really that much of a Newport-Providence commuter market... Besides, rail service to Newport would be more easily done coming down from Fall River, since the tracks are still there, I would think.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why stop at TF Green, F-Line? Zone 9 (and beyond) is a pox upon the fare system and there's no way to turn the train at TF Green, is there? Providence is a more logical endpoint. TF Green commuters will have to transfer, but that shouldn't matter. So will Wickford, Kingston and Westerly commuters.

I'd like to see a branch off of Wickford to Newport, too, because there's plenty of room for a new ROW out that way. I'm sure you won't even need to take any houses to build it.

Any plans to terminate Amtrak service to Mystic? Obviously they're keeping Kingston if they plan to rebuild it and you can't axe Westerly service, but something about 3-4 Amtrak changeovers in a row feels wrong.

No, Amtrak's not giving up those stops. And definitely not short-turning. They may streamline once commuter rail gets going and fills the local need, but you'd be surprised how high the ridership is at Mystic, Westerly, and Kingston so I bet there's some Regionals that keep them. It'll most likely be that no one train will ever stop at all 3 once CR fills in the gaps, and more will express through from New London. Whatever stops at Mystic won't hit Westerly, etc. Kingston is still an ideal Regionals intermediate stop after New London, though.


As for the Providence Line...yes, Providence is probably the logical turnback for most trains. But there's some value in having direct access to a secondary regional airport so limited turnbacks would be worth keeping. Emphasis on the limited. After all, there's so much talk about the long-term value of connecting Manchester Int'l with Boston, and so much talk about Amtrak Inland Regionals offering a Logan/Bradley link. It would be a little incongruous to open up direct access to T.F. Green and then drop it altogether a few years later. There's enough demand for limiteds, especially for people commuting from Sharon/Mansfield south.

Yes, Zone 9 sucks so there's good reason to wean RI off the T's umbilical cord by decade's end. It's serving its purpose lowering the barrier of entry for RIDOT to get its plan off and running incrementally, and that's nicely smart planning. But it's nobody's idea of a permanent commute solution. If RIDOT tags along with Charlie and the Providence Line gets the post-SS expansion headways it needs and equipment that actually can top 100 MPH it's going to be damn easy to transfer and possibly more convenient at some schedule slots to do the transfer vs. a direct.


Wait, as in branch off from Wickford to Newport, going across the bay? Going through Jamestown? I don't know... I don't think there's really that much of a Newport-Providence commuter market... Besides, rail service to Newport would be more easily done coming down from Fall River, since the tracks are still there, I would think.

Exactly. They want Newport, but they want it as an express train blasting around the horn Providence-Attleboro-Taunton-Fall River and being *very* selective about local stops to keep travel times competitive with I-195 on the roundabout route. Like, probably Taunton and downtown Fall River and that's it in MA before it starts serving the local stops in RI. Traffic's awful in the morning on 195 and the bridges, and FR is more or less the eastern edge of the Providence metro job market with a large labor force under stress from gas prices. That's a highly desirable route for them if they can do 100 MPH on the NEC to Attleboro and 80 around the horn expressing through the branches. They preserved the approaches to the demolished Sakonnet River rail bridge when they built the new road bridge and did a study 18 years ago on rebuilding cost/benefit. If South Coast Rail gets built to FR, they're pretty much decided they're goin' for it and reconnecting the active on-island tracks to the mainline.

No way could they ever build a straight route east. Pell Bridge is only 43 years old, new Jamestown Bridge just turned 20. Those aren't being replaced until the 22nd century.

[Riverside]

^^^One thing I've often thought about is building a Providence-Fall River line directly down 195, either in a median and/or elevated above the median. That's 13 miles almost exactly as the crow flies, as opposed to about 38 going via Taunton and Attleboro.

I mean, obviously if SCR happened, it would be a lot cheaper to go the 38 miles, because all the track would be there.

But if SCR doesn't happen (which looks more than possible), wouldn't make more sense just to build a direct route directly paralleling the way people clearly want to go? I have no idea what the numbers would be, but it would be less than 15 miles...

[F-Line to Dudley]

^^^One thing I've often thought about is building a Providence-Fall River line directly down 195, either in a median and/or elevated above the median. That's 13 miles almost exactly as the crow flies, as opposed to about 38 going via Taunton and Attleboro.

I mean, obviously if SCR happened, it would be a lot cheaper to go the 38 miles, because all the track would be there.

But if SCR doesn't happen (which looks more than possible), wouldn't make more sense just to build a direct route directly paralleling the way people clearly want to go? I have no idea what the numbers would be, but it would be less than 15 miles...

Warren Branch used to do exactly that...through the East Providence tunnel, down the Bristol Branch to Barrington, crossing Route 103 at the state line, across Cedar Cove and Lee's River on embankments that are still there, then crossing the Slade's Ferry Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slade%27s_Ferry_Bridge) that used to carry Route 103 across the river to President Ave. halfway between the Brightman St. bridge and Braga Bridge.

What's frustrating is that the Wattupa Branch goes from New Bedford to downtown Fall River (active to Westport, landbanked to FR), but there's a 1/3 mile gap to the Fall River Line now blocked by the City Hall air rights. And it ALWAYS dead-ended there...never a thru rail connection even in historical times. Then the Fairhaven Secondary (landbanked to Mattapoisett, municipal-owned and trailed in Fairhaven, generally all-intact) ran from the Old Colony mainline right by the 195/495 interchange to the docks at Fairhaven. But it never crossed into New Bedford because it went along South St. instead of parallel to Route 6 where it could cross through Fish Island and reach the end of the New Bedford Line. It seems really bizarre that there were those two chintzy little gaps preventing a total one-seat thru ride from Providence to the Cape. Both the Wattupa and Fairhaven stub branches were owned by the Old Colony RR...it's not like they couldn't reach ends back in the 19th century.

At any rate, there's no way to rebuild it now. The Bristol and Warren branches are 100% landbanked and intact in RI with state-owned trails, but the ROW to Fall River in MA had its ownership lapse and is blocked by houses at Cedar Cove. The viaduct to the Providence Tunnel was demolished when the tunnel was abandoned, and could only be put back together as a tunnel extension under Park Row (that has at least been napkin-sketch studied as a way of doing CR on the Bristol Branch to Roger Williams U...in 2050). The only open path to get to the state line from the tunnel is by reactivating the landbanked Bristol Branch...nothing but dense residential along 195 so that reroute impossible. But then, there's no path on the Warren Branch on the MA side of the border that doesn't plow into houses...be it the original route or a new one reaching 195. Slade's Ferry Bridge has been gone 42 years, but at least the Brightman St. bridge looks like it's going to keep standing after its demotion as a thoroughfare route. OK...but you can't reach that and repurpose it as a rail bridge without hitting more residential on the Somerset side getting there.

Then there's the FR Line-Wattupa gap. I suppose if Fall River relocated its not-very-beloved City Hall to the land opening up by the Route 79 demolition that they could re-do the crumbling air rights tunnel with a rail berth off the westbound 195 shoulder. Even with the Wattupa Branch landbanked MassHighway probably would do that future-proofing option because the branch was only cut back from downtown to Westport in the last 10 years. But on the New Bedford end you ain't getting to the much longer-abandoned Fairhaven Secondary without blowing up lots of houses. It would have to be built all-new along the highway median from the Route 18 interchange the NB Line passes under, over a landfill-widened the causeway (won't have any expansion space when they finally widen 195 over it to 6 lanes), then hug the highway to Exit 19 in Mattapoisett where the original ROW finally joins. Any other route is a demolition derby.



Whew...that's an awful lot of very expensive gap-filler for a metro area with a lower-case "m". It really is too bad the Old Colony RR left such baffling gaps in the historical route and that the Warren Branch got abandoned about 10 years too early in MA for the public ownership and landbanking era. There's almost all the pieces available for an east-west thru route Providence-Hyannis. But almost is nothing at all when the blockers are that severe.

[omaja]

Why not call it Inman? Man, even fantasy transit planners seem to want to use the least obvious stop names.

To be honest, it slipped my mind. I was in the mode of looking at street names for the rest of that line. I'll definitely rename it.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I don't see blasting around the horn as an initially viable option regardless of the ultimate fate of South Coast Rail, not when there's nothing but empty space between Wickford and Jamestown. You want guaranteed zero-resistance construction to a brand new ROW? It's right there. Wickford's bizarrely huge parking garage might start looking a bit more appropriate with people parking there to go to Providence, Newport, Westerly, or anywhere else, you shouldn't have to replace either bridge because even building a brand new rails-only bridge is a hell of a lot more doable than getting Fall River to shut up and fall in line.

It's not like having Newport via Wickford is a death sentence for South Coast or South Coast via Attleboro or express around the horn, either. There's no reason RI Rail has to be just one hub and many spokes.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't see blasting around the horn as an initially viable option regardless of the ultimate fate of South Coast Rail, not when there's nothing but empty space between Wickford and Jamestown. You want guaranteed zero-resistance construction to a brand new ROW? It's right there. Wickford's bizarrely huge parking garage might start looking a bit more appropriate with people parking there to go to Providence, Newport, Westerly, or anywhere else, you shouldn't have to replace either bridge because even building a brand new rails-only bridge is a hell of a lot more doable than getting Fall River to shut up and fall in line.

It's not like having Newport via Wickford is a death sentence for South Coast or South Coast via Attleboro or express around the horn, either. There's no reason RI Rail has to be just one hub and many spokes.

Hell of a lot more doable? That's insane. These aren't itty bitty little river bridges...this is Narragansett Bay. Jamestown bridge is 7300 ft. long and over 140 feet tall over a navigable deep shipping channel. Pell is an 11,250 ft. long, 400 ft. high suspension bridge. Do you know how fracking expensive it would be to build a wholly secondary bridge over there for a commuter rail line between a parking lot and a tourist trap? You either have to go as high as the road bridges to minimize the number of piers or do a squat causeway moveable bridge with a bazillion piers in deep water. Try $1B for each span...almost a South Coast Rail per bridge. Just the spans. And you realize Jamestown Bridge is 25 miles from Providence via 95/4 or the NEC/Davisville Industrial? That's pretty freaking around-the-horn itself. And, no, the metropolis that is Westerly is not going to make that a hot centralized location.

Around-the-horn Providence to Sakonnet River Bridge is 40 miles on active track, 2 miles of track in Tiverton to restore, a new 380 ft. ground-level river drawbridge they already want to build, and...more active track to an existing transit center terminal. I think people will live with the extra travel time when it serves a larger population pool in Fall River (pop. 88K), Portsmouth (18K), a stop at Portsmouth side of the Mt. Hope Bridge close to Bristol (22K), and Newport (25K) vs. Jamestown (6K) and Newport (25K). It's also a hell of a lot cheaper, as RI doesn't do anything here until South Coast Rail is already built at 80 MPH to Fall River, and probably also not until the Amtrak Cape Codder is back doing minimum 60 if not 80 between Attleboro and Taunton. They're not thinking big here...they're thinking pounce on complete existing MA infrastructure and complete the link inside their borders on-the-thrift as a value added.

Emphasis on-the-thrift. i.e. $75M in RI-built infrastructure, not $2.5B. Sorry, there's Crazy Transit Pitches and there's INSANE Transit Pitches.

[Riverside]

Warren Branch used to do exactly that...through the East Providence tunnel, down the Bristol Branch to Barrington, crossing Route 103 at the state line, across Cedar Cove and Lee's River on embankments that are still there, then crossing the Slade's Ferry Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slade%27s_Ferry_Bridge) that used to carry Route 103 across the river to President Ave. halfway between the Brightman St. bridge and Braga Bridge.

Yeah, I know about the Warren Branch. As you say later, it's not a feasible option anymore because of the rail trail. (And honestly, aside from East Providence, I'm not sure how much those communities would even want rail service through them.)

Amusing geographical side-note: I had figured that going as the crow flies along 195 would be a much shorter distance than the Warren Branch. Turns out it's only a difference of about 3 miles. About 16 for the Warren Branch, 13 for 195. Of course, 195 is a much straighter corridor, with few likely stops, so that would help service speed.

You make great points, by the way, F-Line, about the rest of that never-existent Providence-Hyannis corridor. What a shame.

I don't see blasting around the horn as an initially viable option regardless of the ultimate fate of South Coast Rail, not when there's nothing but empty space between Wickford and Jamestown. You want guaranteed zero-resistance construction to a brand new ROW? It's right there. Wickford's bizarrely huge parking garage might start looking a bit more appropriate with people parking there to go to Providence, Newport, Westerly, or anywhere else, you shouldn't have to replace either bridge because even building a brand new rails-only bridge is a hell of a lot more doable than getting Fall River to shut up and fall in line.

It's not like having Newport via Wickford is a death sentence for South Coast or South Coast via Attleboro or express around the horn, either. There's no reason RI Rail has to be just one hub and many spokes.

I mean, CBS, I feel like you are underestimating the community opposition one would face for putting in a new ROW there. That's been my experience with South County-ers, anyway.

And we still haven't really addressed the question of whether or not the Providence-Newport corridor is by itself large enough to sustain a route via Wickford. The 195 route and the Attleboro route both combine the Newport market with the Fall River market, which the Wickford route does not.

EDIT: F-Line, I agree with your impromptu cost-benefit assessment. Sorry, CBS.

Though your point, CBS, about not necessarily needing one hub is related to another point I was going to make. In a hypothetical (Newport-)Fall River-Providence route, either via 195 or Warren, how would we get from East Providence to downtown?

Crazy idea: don't. Run it across the old (renovated) bridge to a station just south of East Side Marketplace. Leave a provision for tunnel access and future expansion eastward. Have passengers transfer to an extended streetcar route and/or buses. As the market for the new rail line grows, restoring the tunnel and creating a downtown link become more tenable.

...

Hmm, that's actually really crazy. I'm gonna look at that in the morning and be embarrassed. Ah well.

[Shepard]

Crazy Transit Pitch: "Blue Line eats Green Line"

In today's crazy transit pitch, the BL takes over the entire Central Subway, GLX and D line. How? Government Center station and adjacent tunnels would obviously have to be heavily modified but the result would be that eastbound BL trains through the central subway could continue on either towards Wonderland (or, what the hell, Lynn) or towards North Station and the GLX.

Bowdoin is abandoned, and the issue of the Blue-RedX at Charles MGH becomes moot thanks to the new B-RX at Park.

B line and C line are orphaned as "high speed lines" to Kenmore. (B could also be a BL branch cut and covered to the BU bridge and then an El from there.)

E line is diverted under Stuart Street or under the NEC to South Station and beyond into the Piers Transitway (current SL tunnel) making it a light rail line unto itself.

Crazy or stupid?

[Commuting Boston Student]

I mean, CBS, I feel like you are underestimating the community opposition one would face for putting in a new ROW there. That's been my experience with South County-ers, anyway.

Yes, I would be massively understating the community opposition if there was a community at all in Slocum and Saunderstown to oppose it. There isn't.

According to F-Line, I'm massively underestimating the cost of new rail bridges, which does pose a significant obstacle, but I maintain that waiting for South Coast Rail means nothing happens, ever, since Fall River very clearly does not want it and are simply jerking the rest of us around to avoid outright stating how much they don't want it.

Crazy idea: don't. Run it across the old (renovated) bridge to a station just south of East Side Marketplace. Leave a provision for tunnel access and future expansion eastward. Have passengers transfer to an extended streetcar route and/or buses. As the market for the new rail line grows, restoring the tunnel and creating a downtown link become more tenable.

...

Hmm, that's actually really crazy. I'm gonna look at that in the morning and be embarrassed. Ah well.

First we build a streetcar, then we build some more streetcars, then we bury the streetcars, then we stick them together and call it a subway.

That's also really crazy, but I want a Providence Subway.

Crazy Transit Pitch: "Blue Line eats Green Line"

In today's crazy transit pitch, the BL takes over the entire Central Subway, GLX and D line. How? Government Center station and adjacent tunnels would obviously have to be heavily modified but the result would be that eastbound BL trains through the central subway could continue on either towards Wonderland (or, what the hell, Lynn) or towards North Station and the GLX.

Bowdoin is abandoned, and the issue of the Blue-RedX at Charles MGH becomes moot thanks to the new B-RX at Park.

B line and C line are orphaned as "high speed lines" to Kenmore. (B could also be a BL branch cut and covered to the BU bridge and then an El from there.)

E line is diverted under Stuart Street or under the NEC to South Station and beyond into the Piers Transitway (current SL tunnel) making it a light rail line unto itself.

Crazy or stupid?

It feels like a losing proposition to me, in the sense that we end up with less transit overall to show for it. Doing this blocks Blue Line at Charles/MGH, blocks any future Blue extensions west of the Red Line (ergo blocking Blue to Watertown/Waltham), possibly blocks proper light rail on Washington Street depending on how the E line diversion goes, and nicely screws over the single-seat ride between North Station and Kenmore.

[czsz]

Crazy Transit Pitch: "Blue Line eats Green Line"

In today's crazy transit pitch, the BL takes over the entire Central Subway, GLX and D line. How? Government Center station and adjacent tunnels would obviously have to be heavily modified but the result would be that eastbound BL trains through the central subway could continue on either towards Wonderland (or, what the hell, Lynn) or towards North Station and the GLX.

Bowdoin is abandoned, and the issue of the Blue-RedX at Charles MGH becomes moot thanks to the new B-RX at Park.

B line and C line are orphaned as "high speed lines" to Kenmore. (B could also be a BL branch cut and covered to the BU bridge and then an El from there.)

E line is diverted under Stuart Street or under the NEC to South Station and beyond into the Piers Transitway (current SL tunnel) making it a light rail line unto itself.

Crazy or stupid?

I like it. The B and C can run to Lechmere and then along the Somerville extension, or run alternately there and to the Piers Transitway (the E line could then run to Somerville as well).

[Shepard]

^ Just to clarify, since I think you've misunderstood. The B and C, so long as they remain streetcars, wouldn't be able to go past Kenmore, since the central subway would be BL'd. (That's what makes this rather sort of crazy.)

In other news, power is out in the Back Bay where I'd rather perch here on battery power than descend 25+ flights of stairs into the rain.

[BostonUrbEx]

Frankly, as long as we're talking fantasy here, if you don't combine the E and D lines, you're just crazy.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Frankly, as long as we're talking fantasy here, if you don't combine the E and D lines, you're just crazy.

I would not only combine them, but combine them this way:

1) (this-decade/short-term) D-to-E surface tracks, limited rush hour thru service turning at Brookline Village or Reservoir. Game-day service in a circuit loop to clear out the Kenmore crowds faster. Supplemental service via Reservoir and Chestnut Hill Ave. to BC so they can put in a turnback on the B at Harvard Ave. to load-balance the crowds at the ends during peak hours.

2) Eliminate Copley Jct. with a new subway off the former Lenox St. side of the Tremont tunnel under Marginal Rd. to Back Bay, rejoining the E at Prudential where the tunnel straightens off the curve. Green Line needs a direct BB stop...it's a poor man's North-South Link. Marginal's one of the easiest city streets to tunnel under because you just dig sideways through the Pike retaining wall and basically have it be a surface-level box tunnel with the street supported on "air rights" like the Pike Pru tunnel construction. The surrounded blocks were all obliterated by the Pike in the 60's...there isn't the mess of utilities behind that retaining wall that there is anywhere else in immediate downtown.

3) Huntington subway Phase I: Northeastern-Brigham Circle extension. Another easy dig under the reservation.

4) Huntington subway Phase II: Brigham-Brookline Vill. Harder...Huntington's got a lot of old utilities underneath. But mercifully short. Thru-route the D permanently. Permanent "circuit service" GC-Kenmore via either flank so everything flows like buttah through the Central Subway and it's got the capacity to absorb the whole of the Urban Ring northside as an LRT appendage zigzagging from the Grand Junction (also feeding a short subway extension to BU Bridge), Kenmore, Brookline Vill.

5) N-S Link NEC Portal + SL Phase III LRT in one piggyback double-deck tunnel build from the City Point side of the Tremont tunnel to South Station. Install a wye so JP/Brookline-originating trains can thru-route to Southie at-will in the Transitway (still Airport BRT but now a dual-use subway with rails in the pavement).

6) Surface streetcar branches in Southie off the Transitway to Melnea Cass (reservation-running), Dudley (connecting with Washington St. LRT), and Brookline Vill (either subway flank + D + zigzag to the northside Ring). Transfers at Dudley coming every direction. Yes, some street-running to the south because tunneling there is too hard, but all services are load-balanced to the Dudley midpoint, perform much better than BRT, and offer one-seat subway access at both BV and Southie ends with a straight shot down Washington at the middle terminal.


There...two load-balancing subways, the full Silver Line as originally envisioned, Urban Ring, a cost-contained pooled build of SLIII + the most critical N-S Link feeder tunnel underneath RR land instead of impossible Chinatown streets, one-seat from North Station to South Station or Back Bay on a half-dozen different service configurations. All on one mode, all on one interconnected system. The way it should've been...and used to be before the streetcar network was destroyed by urban renewal. For less cost than the far more limited-utility, separate mode boondoggles actually proposed for SLIII/UR/N-S.

[Matthew]

Any way of providing better service to the Fenway neighborhood itself? It's one of the most densely populated in Boston.

[Equilibria]

^ Just to clarify, since I think you've misunderstood. The B and C, so long as they remain streetcars, wouldn't be able to go past Kenmore, since the central subway would be BL'd. (That's what makes this rather sort of crazy.)

In other news, power is out in the Back Bay where I'd rather perch here on battery power than descend 25+ flights of stairs into the rain.

As long as you're truncating the B/C (and A, since this is Craaaazy), why not just route them onto the Grand Junction? A/B are already there, and C could be rerouted down St. Paul (Longwood/Fenway could cover that neighborhood).

In fact, if you do it that way, you can route them all the way to Lechmere that way. The BL could take the West Medford routing, while the new Green Line LRT could pull the hairpin turn onto the Union Square and Porter track, all the way to Waltham in theory.

Not the best way to reorganize things, IMO, since I maintain that HRT in Newton and Needham (and possibly Brookline) is actually counterproductive to intra-suburban travel in those cities, and you don't get Kenmore as an LRT station that way, so transfers would stink, but it's worth mentioning.

[HenryAlan]

And, yes, I bet MARC has filled the last gap by then, so by 2020-2022 (at latest...RIDOT is for-reals about this)...MBTA --> RIDOT --> SLE --> Metro North --> NJ Transit --> SEPTA --> MARC --> Virginia Railway Express gets you from South Station to Fredericksburg, VA via NYC and D.C. in one very very long all-day commute without once seeing the inside of an Amtrak train.

Technically, there's still a gap between MetroNorth and NJT. After New Rochelle, MetroNorth leaves the NEC to terminate and Grand Central, but NJT runs out of Penn, so you have to add a walk or a hop on the subway to close that gap. It's all rail, but it's not 100% commuter rail. Or will MetroNorth have through service to Penn established by then?

[czsz]

^ Just to clarify, since I think you've misunderstood. The B and C, so long as they remain streetcars, wouldn't be able to go past Kenmore, since the central subway would be BL'd. (That's what makes this rather sort of crazy.)

While we're in the realm of crazy anyway we might as well keep/build new trolley tracks for the B and C in the old central tunnel up to Government Center to permit through service...

[F-Line to Dudley]

Technically, there's still a gap between MetroNorth and NJT. After New Rochelle, MetroNorth leaves the NEC to terminate and Grand Central, but NJT runs out of Penn, so you have to add a walk or a hop on the subway to close that gap. It's all rail, but it's not 100% commuter rail. Or will MetroNorth have through service to Penn established by then?

There are some mega political heavies at the state level pushing MNRR to Penn after East Side Access is open. Long Island RR is fighting it kicking and screaming because the two MTA commuter RR's institutionally hate each other, but Bloomberg and Cuomo are both twisting the screws for it. And ultimately the kingpins with potential Presidential ambitions are going to get what they want.

Tense politics involved, but this will get fast-tracked for 2020 at latest. Intermediate stops along the Amtrak line to come as they come. They have to lay a little bit (1 mile?) of LIRR-style 3rd rail out of Penn because MNRR cars can't handle the weird Amtrak overhead grid D.C.-to-Penn and need 3rd rail territory to reach the voltage break onto the more conventional north-of-NYC overhead. But the new M8 cars are designed out of the box with 3rd rail shoes that can run on both MNRR and LIRR 3rd rail, so they've got their ongoing total fleet replacement ready and waiting for Penn access.

[F-Line to Dudley]

While we're in the realm of crazy anyway we might as well keep/build new trolley tracks for the B and C in the old central tunnel up to Government Center to permit through service...

Kenmore Loop is there because that was exactly the BERy plan in 1932:
-- Central Subway gets heavy-railed with a subway extension up Comm Ave., Brighton Ave. running Blue-style cars. Eventually peeling off onto North Beacon to meet the Worcester Line and go to Riverside.
-- C would stay trolley and loop at Kenmore on the outer tracks. Kenmore's station design is exactly the same as Maverick's was before the 1952 Revere extension: heavy rail on one set of tracks, trolley incline and loop on the other.
-- Huntington Ave. subway (built 1940 to Northeastern) eventually goes to Brookline Village, takes over the then-commuter rail Riverside Line, and both flanks of heavy-rail lines out of downtown meet at Riverside Yard. Of course, back then they were also thinking Copley would get a flying junction instead of that infernal at-grade bottleneck they ultimately penny-pinched.
-- Watertown would be served by a Red Line extension from Harvard under Mt. Auburn St. to an East Watertown station at the Shaw's building (Shaw's is actually an old, half-rebuilt trolley carhouse and still has some ancient streetcar vestiges and buried track in the basement loading area. Watertown Branch and Lexington Branch would get a Mattapan-style high speed line going from H2O Sq. to Alewife/Arlington Heights with the heavy rail transfer in the middle.


Too bad the Great Depression forced BERy to scale back so severely, because this is almost exactly what we've been aiming for on a lot of the fantasy maps in this thread.

[Matthew]

What becomes of Arborway in that scenario?

[Equilibria]

-- Huntington Ave. subway (built 1940 to Northeastern) eventually goes to Brookline Village, takes over the then-commuter rail Riverside Line, and both flanks of heavy-rail lines out of downtown meet at Riverside Yard.

That doesn't surprise me, since at the time the current Green Line and Framingham/Worcester Lines were part of a circuit commuter railway and people were used to trains running the loop.

[F-Line to Dudley]

What becomes of Arborway in that scenario?

There were plenty of streetcar lines still running around on the surface then. The 66, which crossed the C. Every current route out of Forest Hills and Dudley. A couple other overlapping routes through JP Center and Brookline Village that used parts of the same E trackage. There would've been 2 or 3 places to turn trolleys running on South Huntington as a feeder from a heavy rail line. I don't know if they envisioned it going to buses eventually, but it fit the heavy-rail trunks + streetcar nodes setup they were evolving the system into.

[datadyne007]

I found this on Flickr...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carfreejim/4312293667/

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2755/4312293667_b1c1e1dde0_z.jpg?zz=1

Boston "T" Expansion proposal - 1995

Here was my dream transit system for Boston when I lived there from 1992 to 2003. no luck... seems like china will surpass us in quality transportaton real soon.
Comments and faves

carfreejim (27 months ago)

I did this 15 years ago and I wish I could find the original hand drawn version that fits over the city map so If I ever got inspired I could make another version more geographically accurate. Here is some of the reasons from memory why I added the following lines:

COPPER LINE is one of my favorites, it circles the city so you dont have to always go through downtown to get anywhere. goes to UMass, JFK library, Expo, zoo, JP, Brookline, Allston (with a stop at Annas Taquoria on Harvard st), harvard Sq, Sullivan Sq, East Boston and Logan Airport (where they need to replace the car rental diesel buses with a people mover)

YELLOW LINE is an innerloop connects south boston waterfront park, sprawl bigbox mall (southbay plaza) southend, run under traffic-clogged MassAve to MIT and landmark theater (called it tech square) connect to copperline.

PINK LINE is an underground version of the new Silver Bus Line introduced a few years ago. the Pink line connects Airport to North Station, South Station (the big dig was supposed to connect N and S stations with rail before Gov. Weld messed it up) down washington street in southend, dudley square, JP.

SILVER LINE could be called the design line, connects design center with world trade and expo center and L-street gym.

Extended Blue line a few blocks from Bowdoin to connect with redline at Charles making it much easier for Cambridge to get to airport.

Extended Green line from lechmere to copper line

[HenryAlan]

I love that there's a stop called "Anna's Taqueria," although for the most part, I don't think much of this map. It adds too much congestion to some inner zones, places rail in some locations that would be incredibly expensive to build, and fails to extend much service to outlying neighborhoods. I realize the Copper Line handles some of that last issue, but it doesn't enlarge the service area, which is something that I think also needs to happen.

[BostonUrbEx]

What's with all the Pokeballs?

"Gotta build them allll!"

[Shepard]

My eyes exploded. I hereby decree that all fantasy maps may only have 45 degree angles if taking an angular approach, and must use standard curve radii if using a fluid approach.

[datadyne007]

I just thought it was interesting because of the fact that it's a proposal from 1995. Interesting to see where we think the T should go today compared to the outlook in the 90s.

And yeah, the disgusting WMATA stylizing made me almost throw up.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm pretty sure the way that pink line was drawn counts as some kind of crime.

Good grief.

[Riverside]

Yes, although if you look at the routing itself, it may be a bit novel. Though it might be intended to go up Washington Street, it looks like it's actually routed a little more to the east, possibly going up Harrison Ave. (particularly since the Pink Line doesn't intersect the Orange Line but rather goes straight to South Station). While I don't think that's really the best route, at least it's something different.

I think the ideas in the map suffer from planning it from the perspective of a making a "fantasy T diagram"; stuff looks good on the diagram, but when you mentally plot it geographically, it looks awful.

I remember some of the fantasy maps I drew as a (very little) kid; I could draw the spider map by heart, and did so basically every day. Eventually I decided to change it up a bit and extend some lines. I remember one line (a Brown Line) went up Dartmouth Street from the South End into Back Bay, went all the way up Dartmouth Street until it got to Storrow Memorial, at which point it split into two branches, one going east, the other west, one going until Charles Street and the other going until Mass Ave, I believe. Ha, and I drew in a gazillion stops on the Back Bay section, because looking at the system map when I was that little (I was, like 4 or 5), it looked like there were a gazillion streets in Back Bay!

The only other things that come to mind about my old extension maps are that I very firmly believed that the proposed Blue-Red Connector should instead go all the way to the Hatch Shell (but only that far!) and that I once designed a Yellow Line that hit all the islands in Boston Harbor! (Like Thompson Island, Long Island, all of those.) I think I recognized even then that such a line was sadly not feasible...

[czsz]

A+ for a stop named "Anna's Taqueria".

F for a stop named "Tea Party" (I know it was 1995, but still.)

[Commuting Boston Student]

F for a stop named "Tea Party" (I know it was 1995, but still.)

I don't get it??

Why wouldn't you name the Tea Party Museum stop Tea Party??

[czsz]

Because "tea party" now also refers to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[Commuting Boston Student]

Because "tea party" now also refers to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Yes, I know.

Why does that matter?

[Riverside]

Yes, I know.

Why does that matter?

Because some would read it as an endorsement, particularly since the name is so charged now.

But politics aside, it's also not a very good name, in my opinion. The Boston Tea Party Museum is not a well-known landmark, and if the museum closed (which I believe it did a few years ago, to reopen this June), the name would have to be changed or just look odd. Better to name the station "Seaport Boulevard" or "Oliver" (after the cross street on the Downtown side). Or even just move it north a bit, and call it "Rowes Wharf."

Tangentially, do people have any sort of "naming philosophies" for new or renamed stations? For example, here is mine:
-names should be concise and, ideally, short
-subway station names should not actually have "station" in them, unless they are at an actual railroad station, like South Station or Back Bay Station
-stations that are named after streets should not have "street" in their name (so, "Green," not "Green Street," or "Morton," not "Morton Street"); ideally, the same goes for stations named after squares
-exception to the above: if it is a streetcar or BRT stop, in which case "Street" or "Square" should be included. Aesthetics aside, if done consistently and widespread, it would help people know what to expect when they are going to a station/stop for the first time
-I feel less strongly about including labels such as "Avenue" or "Road," but my preference is also for those not to be included, unless to do so would create problematic ambiguities (ie. the aforementioned "Tea Party" stop should be renamed "Seaport Boulevard," and not just "Seaport," because it wouldn't actually be in the Seaport)
-piggybacking off of that, I like stops to be named after neighborhoods or localities whenever they are located near the center of them (which is why "Seaport" doesn't work for me for the "Tea Party" example)
-unless completely impossible, I really dislike naming stations after buildings or institutions, particularly those that may undergo name changes (see "NE/Tufts Medical Center")
-if you must name something after an institution, again, try to make it short and concise (ie. go with "Library" rather than "Boston Public Library"); this style seems to be more in line with historical, BERy-era names that I've seen, although that may just be me
-lastly, I like to reuse historical names whenever possible; so if service were ever to be restored on the Saugus line, I would love to see those old names reused, even if in slightly different locations (assuming, of course, that doing so wouldn't misidentify neighborhoods)

Obviously, this is just the set of rules that I use for myself when planning out new stations, and I don't mean to disparage anyone else's name ideas. These rules simply reflect my own sense of aesthetics. :)

[BostonUrbEx]

Maybe in order to strike a balance, we could rename South Station "Occupy Station".

[Commuting Boston Student]

Because some would read it as an endorsement, particularly since the name is so charged now.

The point I was trying to subtly make without being confrontational: people who would equate a subway station name to a political endorsement are wrong and frankly quite stupid. Don't take them into accoun, just go ahead and let them make fools of themselves.

That having been said, I agree with some of your naming conventions, but I reorder them in a different set of priorities:


If the station is near a landmark institution (i.e. Aquarium, Northeastern, Tufts), name it after that institution
If the station is near a non-institution landmark (i.e. parks, memorials, the Esplanade, Castle Island), name it after that landmark
If the station is in or near the center of a district, name it after that district (and include District, i.e. Theater District, Financial District)
If the station is near the center of a neighborhood or similarly sized region (i.e. Downtown Crossing), name it after that neighborhood
If the station is in or near a named square, name it after that square
Name the station after a street only if no other name can reasonably be applied to it


I arranged the hierarchy this way so that, in my opinion, the maximum amount of useful information is contained within the station name.

A street name - and especially in a town like Boston where (for the most part - the major exceptions that come to mind are South Boston / SPID and the Back Bay) the roads are based on cow paths from the 1800s and lack any real naming convention - gives you little to no information about your actual location, especially when factoring in the relative length of some roads. This goes double for people who haven't lived in Boston for a long time.

Maybe in order to strike a balance, we could rename South Station "Occupy Station".

Nah, that doesn't quite work.

Now, Occupy Park Street on the other hand...

[Riverside]

The point I was trying to subtly make without being confrontational: people who would equate a subway station name to a political endorsement are wrong and frankly quite stupid. Don't take them into accoun, just go ahead and let them make fools of themselves.

That having been said, I agree with some of your naming conventions, but I reorder them in a different set of priorities:


If the station is near a landmark institution (i.e. Aquarium, Northeastern, Tufts), name it after that institution
If the station is near a non-institution landmark (i.e. parks, memorials, the Esplanade, Castle Island), name it after that landmark
If the station is in or near the center of a district, name it after that district (and include District, i.e. Theater District, Financial District)
If the station is near the center of a neighborhood or similarly sized region (i.e. Downtown Crossing), name it after that neighborhood
If the station is in or near a named square, name it after that square
Name the station after a street only if no other name can reasonably be applied to it


I arranged the hierarchy this way so that, in my opinion, the maximum amount of useful information is contained within the station name.

A street name - and especially in a town like Boston where (for the most part - the major exceptions that come to mind are South Boston / SPID and the Back Bay) the roads are based on cow paths from the 1800s and lack any real naming convention - gives you little to no information about your actual location, especially when factoring in the relative length of some roads. This goes double for people who haven't lived in Boston for a long time.

Hmm, yeah, I like your hierarchy of naming conventions. I think I actually agree with most of it; it's just that, in the course of planning my own "crazy transit pitches" (some of which I will eventually get around to posting), I've found that many of my stations just end up in places where there really is nothing but the street to identify it pithily.

And as for maximum amount of useful information in a station name... ehn, I dunno. I feel like information is widely available enough now, through internet directions before you go out traveling, smartphone use while you're traveling, and (pretty decent) maps available in stations, that the station name itself doesn't need to be the primary source of information.

I mean, look at some of the station names we have now: State, Park, Boylston, Massachusetts Ave... I mean, unless you've been told that your destination is two blocks south of State Street station, on Congress Street, the name "State" doesn't help you know that that station is closest to Post Office Square.

And let's say you needed to go to 700 Boylston Street, and you don't know Boston (and didn't know how to use Google Maps). You might go to Boylston Station and walk down the street! Of course, by the time you get to 700, you'll have passed Arlington and Copley and you'll feel pretty silly.

My point is that most station names in Boston are basically placeholders. You could rename many of them, and they would have equally useful or useless names. So you might as well make the placeholder as short and memorable as possible.

But I do agree with your point about the unhelpfulness of stations named after streets; I just feel that there often isn't a better alternative.

And your point about "Tea Party" is well taken, though I still think that the name, politics aside, is poorly chosen, odd at best. But I apologize for being obtuse about your subtle efforts. :)

On the note of crazy pitches, however, I must say that I've always liked the idea of linking the city's 4 major transit terminals (Logan, South Station, North Station and Back Bay), and our friend from Flickr does attempt to [partially] do that... though not the way I would do it. I would link Logan directly to South Station, and then run services from South Station to Back Bay and North Station respectively. It's interesting to think, though, that the TWT wasn't open to general traffic when this map was made.

[Commuting Boston Student]

And as for maximum amount of useful information in a station name... ehn, I dunno. I feel like information is widely available enough now, through internet directions before you go out traveling, smartphone use while you're traveling, and (pretty decent) maps available in stations, that the station name itself doesn't need to be the primary source of information.

I mean, look at some of the station names we have now: State, Park, Boylston, Massachusetts Ave... I mean, unless you've been told that your destination is two blocks south of State Street station, on Congress Street, the name "State" doesn't help you know that that station is closest to Post Office Square.

And let's say you needed to go to 700 Boylston Street, and you don't know Boston (and didn't know how to use Google Maps). You might go to Boylston Station and walk down the street! Of course, by the time you get to 700, you'll have passed Arlington and Copley and you'll feel pretty silly.

My point is that most station names in Boston are basically placeholders. You could rename many of them, and they would have equally useful or useless names. So you might as well make the placeholder as short and memorable as possible.

But I do agree with your point about the unhelpfulness of stations named after streets; I just feel that there often isn't a better alternative.

And your point about "Tea Party" is well taken, though I still think that the name, politics aside, is poorly chosen, odd at best. But I apologize for being obtuse about your subtle efforts. :)

On the note of crazy pitches, however, I must say that I've always liked the idea of linking the city's 4 major transit terminals (Logan, South Station, North Station and Back Bay), and our friend from Flickr does attempt to [partially] do that... though not the way I would do it. I would link Logan directly to South Station, and then run services from South Station to Back Bay and North Station respectively. It's interesting to think, though, that the TWT wasn't open to general traffic when this map was made.

It was actually the maps that are in the station right now that I was thinking of when I laid out that hierarchy, since, as you say, the difference is mostly academic when factoring internet/smartphone access.

For people who don't have smartphones or were poor planners or just like looking at the map, the information contained within a station name is more useful - and especially so when dealing with the non-geographically-accurate system map.

You are absolutely correct on there sometimes being no better alternative, though. (Though, let me say for the record that if it was up to me, Park Street would immediately be renamed Boston Common effective immediately.)

No hard feelings about the point. :)

As for linking the four major transit hubs... I would argue that Back Bay doesn't quite count, since it's already linked to North Station via Orange Line and through service between Back Bay and South Station is a trivial thing.

Connecting North Station, South Station and the Airport in a triangle - that'd be the best course to take, I think. I came very close to drafting an AirTrain Boston-Logan that would replace the Silver Bus with an El, but I'm certain it's impossible to get clearance to build a bridge approximately where the Ted Williams Tunnel is right now, and I don't like my chances much better on a bridge over the Chelsea River. (To say nothing of what the public's reaction to that might be...)

[datadyne007]

While we're talking about station naming, does anyone know how the hell "ICA" ended up on "Hynes/ICA?"

Before they built their incredible new space, the ICA was just a little art gallery jammed in a firehouse that violated fire codes. The BPL doesn't even have it's name on a station, but the ICA did...

[bbfen]

While we're talking about station naming, does anyone know how the hell "ICA" ended up on "Hynes/ICA?"

Before they built their incredible new space, the ICA was just a little art gallery jammed in a firehouse that violated fire codes. The BPL doesn't even have it's name on a station, but the ICA did...

Deal struck back in the day to get people to the ICA via the T. (The ICA hosted a Maplethorpe exhibit in 1990.) Mr recollection was a lot of pressure from nABB about parking and because that side of the street is part of their isolation/preservation zone this resulted. It was actually pretty effective and I think brought more traffic to the ICA than the Maplethorpe exhibit did.


A street name - and especially in a town like Boston where (for the most part - the major exceptions that come to mind are South Boston / SPID and the Back Bay) the roads are based on cow paths from the 1800s

The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.

[Riverside]

It was actually the maps that are in the station right now that I was thinking of when I laid out that hierarchy, since, as you say, the difference is mostly academic when factoring internet/smartphone access.

For people who don't have smartphones or were poor planners or just like looking at the map, the information contained within a station name is more useful - and especially so when dealing with the non-geographically-accurate system map.

I see your point. I am not in total agreement, but I don't see a reason to belabor the point nor derail this thread any longer.

You are absolutely correct on there sometimes being no better alternative, though. (Though, let me say for the record that if it was up to me, Park Street would immediately be renamed Boston Common effective immediately.)

Aw, no man! You can't change Park Street, it's historic! ;) No, but seriously, I would not like that. It's the first subway station in the entire US and it's a cool, though I agree, very unhelpful, name.

As for linking the four major transit hubs... I would argue that Back Bay doesn't quite count, since it's already linked to North Station via Orange Line and through service between Back Bay and South Station is a trivial thing.

Connecting North Station, South Station and the Airport in a triangle - that'd be the best course to take, I think. I came very close to drafting an AirTrain Boston-Logan that would replace the Silver Bus with an El, but I'm certain it's impossible to get clearance to build a bridge approximately where the Ted Williams Tunnel is right now, and I don't like my chances much better on a bridge over the Chelsea River. (To say nothing of what the public's reaction to that might be...)

I agree that Back Bay isn't as important, but I think it could/should become more important. If Boston had a more interconnected, less hub-and-spoke style subway system downtown, it might become feasible to terminate some trains at Back Bay instead of South Station. You could route some Old Colony trains across the Fort Point turn, or stop some Providence or Worcester trains short. This would relieve capacity problems at South Station, but would only be feasible, of course, if there was a rapid transit network in place to support it. (And I'm not sure there is such a one now.)

As for your AirTrain, what about an El over the current Blue Line subway? Have the line split at Aquarium, one branch going to North Station, the other to South? Heck, you could easily throw in a N-S Shuttle that way, as well. You could run it from the Airport, over Marginal Street or Summer Street in Eastie, across the harbor, and then up and down Atlantic Avenue.


The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.

I think CBS was exaggerating to make his point. This article had some interesting things to say about Boston's streets: http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/cow-paths.htm

[omaja]

Reworking my crazy pitch map a bit and using these individual line maps as guides. Lines 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are works in progress - Google Maps is being a pain today for some reason. :)

Lines 1, 2, 3 and 9 are heavy rail with Lines 4, 5 and 7 as light rail.

Line 1: Burlington Mall - Roslindale Village (http://g.co/maps/5yssg)
Line 2: Lynn - Riverside / Needham Center (http://g.co/maps/sk6bt)
Line 3: Oak Grove - West Roxbury (http://g.co/maps/6tawy)
Line 4: Boston College - Belmont (http://g.co/maps/xv9x6)
Line 5: Cleveland Circle - City Point / JFK-UMass (http://g.co/maps/29xha)
Line 7: Malden Eastern - Forest Hills (http://g.co/maps/gjf9h)
Line 9: West Medford - Dedham Mall / Blue Hill Vista-Route 128 (http://g.co/maps/w4p3n)

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Nice maps! Your Bedford station is still in Lexington. Guessing you're identifying it by the street name, but it could be confusing for riders who could think they're in Bedford.

[omaja]

I would hope not, sandwiched between a Route 128 stop and Arlington. Changed it anyway, just to be safe. :)

[whighlander]

The roads in Boston have no relationship to cow paths, from the 19th century or any other time.

BBF -- Not quite

There are a number of roads in the olde parte of Bostone that relate to since vanished topography

Generally in the 17th and early 18th Century when there were a fair number of cows in town -- people would lead or urge the cows to pasture on the Boston Common --- if there was a hill in the way the path of least resistance was around the hill. Boston in those days had a lot of smallish and 3 major hills so there were plenty of curving paths which eventurally became streets -- curving streets. In a few cases there was sea water to avoid and so the paths went around it.

Then the fun really begins:

1) in a few cases the streets stayed curving as they got wider to accomdate the growing town and later city -- some are still in existence -- High Street, Quaker lane
2) in nearly all cases the hills were removed to fill the harbor to increase the land area of the town and later city -- Pemberton Hill was leveled but -- Pemberton Square remains
3) in some cases the streets were straightened as they were widened -- buildings were moved
4) in some cases buildings were built with curvature to accomodate the curve in the street the hill having vanished -- the Bulfinch Tontine Crecenst being one of the most notable -- but long since gone -- the Sears Crecent now located on City Hall Plaza is the most relevant where a curving street still exists although the curve is new
5) Most of the buildings were torn down when the streets were widened -- in a few cases the curved buiding remains though the street was widened and straightened -- Kilby St & Liberty Square
6) in a few cases new curves were introduced to connect old streets for new developments such as Government Center and the Charles River Park

Other stage bits of topography involved water that was later filled or mudflat later filled -- these are now mostly manifested in strange names:
1) Dock Square -- formerly the location of the 'Town Dock"
2) Canal Street -- there was a canal
3) Causeway Street -- there was a causeway
4) Fort Point Channel - relates to an old fort attop hill sitting on the harbor -- fort, hill and point are now long since restructured only a small bit of the harbor -- Fort Point channel sill comes close to the original location

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Oldandnewboston.jpg


The exercise is left to the reader & the pedestrian to find others -- its kind of fun

[omaja]

Finally finished each individual line map:
Line 1: Burlington Mall - Roslindale Village (http://g.co/maps/5yssg)
Line 2: Lynn - Riverside / Needham Center (http://g.co/maps/sk6bt)
Line 3: Oak Grove - West Roxbury (http://g.co/maps/6tawy)
Line 4: Boston College - Belmont (http://g.co/maps/xv9x6)
Line 5: Cleveland Circle - City Point / JFK-UMass (http://g.co/maps/29xha)
Line 6: Alewife - Mattapan (http://g.co/maps/8tp3v)
Line 7: Malden Eastern - Forest Hills (http://g.co/maps/gjf9h)
Line 8: Northgate - Waverley (http://g.co/maps/cvfkx)
Line 9: West Medford - Dedham Mall / Blue Hill Vista-Route 128 (http://g.co/maps/w4p3n)
Line 10: Braintree - Waltham Common (http://g.co/maps/uk7u3)
Line 11: Medford City Hall - Watertown Square (http://g.co/maps/s6fuh)
Line 12: Circle (http://g.co/maps/4sytx)

And some summary info:
http://i.imgur.com/PD0SG.png

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why wouldn't line 4 be Heavy Rail?

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ Heavy Rail in Belmont? Never lol.

But since this IS crazy transit pitches, it would make sense for the B Line to be heavy rail were the transit system redesigned today. The density is definitely there.

[omaja]

Because it would share the Kenmore-Boylston segment with Line 5 (former Green Line C branch plus extension to South Boston).

I envision these light rail lines with much more efficient trains, though, like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Montpellier_fg07.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Tram_Barcelona.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/U_25500_Villemomble_fr_01.jpg

Twice as long as the current Type 7s and Type 8s, fully articulated and interlocking design from end to end, better seating layout, etc. etc. Also convert to a proof of payment system outside of the major stations.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ Those are so sexy. Of course Boston doesn't get to have them because we insist on paying more for customized shitboxes, rather than shave a few inches off of a few tunnels... I can't wait for the day when those are running down the Green Line.

[Commuting Boston Student]

^ Heavy Rail in Belmont? Never lol.

Since this is crazy transit pitches, I envision hiring an army of lawyers to crush the NIMBY opposition in Belmont.

[omaja]

^ Heavy Rail in Belmont? Never lol.

But since this IS crazy transit pitches, it would make sense for the B Line to be heavy rail were the transit system redesigned today. The density is definitely there.

I think if the system were left basically as is -- Red, Blue, Orange and Green -- it would make sense to convert it to heavy rail because you're pretty much leaving everything as a hub-and-spoke system centered on downtown. But considering the network density, a lot of the volume that flows only via the B line would instead be routed via other lines.

^ Those are so sexy. Of course Boston doesn't get to have them because we insist on paying more for customized shitboxes, rather than shave a few inches off of a few tunnels... I can't wait for the day when those are running down the Green Line.

I know - so incredibly aggravating because it isn't even remotely logical. Unless, of course, you are a union that wants to see your members paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible. ;)

[BussesAin'tTrains]

I think if the system were left basically as is -- Red, Blue, Orange and Green -- it would make sense to convert it to heavy rail because you're pretty much leaving everything as a hub-and-spoke system centered on downtown. But considering the network density, a lot of the volume that flows only via the B line would instead be routed via other lines.

Good point. The ridership in your system would be much more diffuse than it is now. As it is, the B would be fine if we still had the A drawing riders to the north of Comm Ave.


I know - so incredibly aggravating because it isn't even remotely logical. Unless, of course, you are a union that wants to see your members paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible. ;)

Ugh it's all such a mess.

[Matthew]

Good point. The ridership in your system would be much more diffuse than it is now. As it is, the B would be fine if we still had the A drawing riders to the north of Comm Ave.


While I like the idea of restoring the "A" trolley, it isn't like the corridor goes unserved. The 57 bus attracts 11500 riders a weekday (Feb 09) which is a little less than the "C" receives. I'm sure it turns away some riders, especially with the poor frequencies off-peak, but it definitely is picking up riders who would otherwise go on the "B".

[Equilibria]

While I like the idea of restoring the "A" trolley, it isn't like the corridor goes unserved. The 57 bus attracts 11500 riders a weekday (Feb 09) which is a little less than the "C" receives. I'm sure it turns away some riders, especially with the poor frequencies off-peak, but it definitely is picking up riders who would otherwise go on the "B".

Which is why the T should be upgrading the level of service on this corridor and reassign the buses to a less-served market. It makes more sense to build more expensive infrastructure where you know it will be used.

[omaja]

As bad as the trains are, the bus system seems to be in even worse shape in terms of horrific scheduling, poor service, and limited hours. The fact that the A was allowed to be torn up in the first place was incredibly short-sighted. Traffic along Washington Street and Brighton Avenue is usually ridiculous with no means to really avoid it (signal priority and dedicated right-of-way for trolleys, etc.).

[Matthew]

Buying new buses is easier than buying new trolleys. Especially since the MBTA insists on "special and unique" designs.

I'm pretty confident that even if the "A" existed now that the MBTA would not have installed the signal priority systems and it would be just as bad as the "B". But signal priority and dedicated lanes don't require trolleys. They could do it for the 57 bus just as easily. They kinda sorta half-assed it for the Silver Line, after all.

So, basically, if the MBTA was competently managed and operated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[omaja]

Buying new buses is easier than buying new trolleys. Especially since the MBTA insists on "special and unique" designs.

I'm pretty confident that even if the "A" existed now that the MBTA would not have installed the signal priority systems and it would be just as bad as the "B". But signal priority and dedicated lanes don't require trolleys. They could do it for the 57 bus just as easily. They kinda sorta half-assed it for the Silver Line, after all.

So, basically, if the MBTA was competently managed and operated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

True, but the return isn't as high, either. Bus routes don't attract the level of investment and development that proximity to rail does. Union Square, Brighton Center and Oak Square would likely be significantly denser/mixed use and more vibrant than they are today if the A were still around.

[Matthew]

Those neighborhoods had already formed and calcified by the time the "A" was discontinued. The residential density of Comm Ave near the "B" is nothing new either.

I think that the sparsity near Brighton Center, and particularly Oak Square, is due to politicking by more suburban-minded residents.

[omaja]

Right, but the point I'm trying to make is that the renewed focus on urban living in recent history means the A line would have been far more valuable than the 57 bus ever could be in terms of spurring development in these areas. As it is, the areas surrounding the former A will remain as they are: strangled by poor traffic flow. Of course there is always Boston's trusty NIMBY contingency to contend with that would have likely mucked it up anyway.

[Matthew]

I have trouble squaring this supposition with the general disdain that people have for the "B" line, especially on the BU stretch, where the 57 bus beats it 9 times out of 10. I don't have to say it myself; people tell me about it all the time when venting about the Green line.

The 57 does get stuck at Allston Village and Brighton Center. But so would a street running trolley. You can add signal priority and dedicated lane to a trolley -- but you can also do that for a bus. It hasn't happened for either, here.

[Shepard]

Crazy A Line pitch: to minimize street running, how about branching the A line off the B right after the BU Bridge, onto an ROW under the pike and into Beacon Yards to reconnect with Cambridge Street at Linden, then bringing it down a no-parking Cambridge Street to Union Square (and then beyond, either towards Brighton Center or towards New Balance)

?

[Nexis4jersey]

Various systems of the Northeast in 2012 and 2030...includes Regional Rail , Subway / Metro , Light Rail , Streetcar and Bus rapid Transit

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
System Size in 2012 : 1,193 miles
System Size in 2030 : 1,660 miles
Stations in 2012 : 270
Stations in 2030 : 349
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.3 Million
Projected Ridership by 2030 : 3.7 Million

Metropolitan Transportation Authority - New York & Connecticut
System Size in 2012 : 2,282 miles
System size by 2030 : 2,890 miles
Stations in 2012 : 712
Stations in 2030 : 794
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 11.6 Million
Projected Ridership by 2030 : 15.8 Million

New Jersey Transit / PATH / PATCO / Private Bus operators
System Size in 2012 : 1,390 Miles
System Size by 2030 : 1,720 miles
Stations in 2012 : 690
Stations by 2030 : 803
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.8 Million
Projected Ridership by 2030 : 5.1 Million

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
System size in 2012 : 567 miles
System size by 2030 : 834 Miles
Stations in 2012 : 280
Stations by 2030 : 418
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.5 Million
Projected Ridership by 2030 : 4.2 Million

Maryland Transit Administration
System Size in 2012 : 232 Miles
System size by 2030 : 664 Miles
Stations in 2012 : 90
Stations by 2030 : 216
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 370,000
Projected Daily Ridership by 2030 : 1.5 Million

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority & Northern Virginia Transit
System Size in 2012 : 195 Miles
System Size by 2030 : 428 Miles
Stations in 2012 : 108
Stations by 2030 : 297
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.3 Million
Projected Ridership by 2030 : 4.4 Million

[omaja]

I have trouble squaring this supposition with the general disdain that people have for the "B" line, especially on the BU stretch, where the 57 bus beats it 9 times out of 10. I don't have to say it myself; people tell me about it all the time when venting about the Green line.

The 57 does get stuck at Allston Village and Brighton Center. But so would a street running trolley. You can add signal priority and dedicated lane to a trolley -- but you can also do that for a bus. It hasn't happened for either, here.

I'd say the 57 has a much lower success rate of beating the B; maybe 60 percent of the time it does. But the train is so inefficient because it is doing the job of a bus and competing against a bus doing the job of a bus. From Packards Corner to Blandford -- a distance of 1.5 miles -- there are eight stops. That's an average of one stop every 990 feet, or the distance between Copley and Back Bay stations; Allston-Brighton is dense but certainly not that dense.

That said, it has nothing to do with a train's superior ability to spur economic development.

[Matthew]

In my experience, if the 57 and the "B" arrive at Packard's corner simultaneously, the "B" gets to move first and the 57 follows, according to the light cycle. At that point, there are only two scenarios under which the 57 loses the race to Kenmore: heavy traffic, or unusually long dwell times. And typically the 57 gets to Kenmore with enough time to go downstairs and catch the "B", despite Kenmore bus station's awful design.

But yes, it is due to the bad placement of stops and lack of signal priority on the "B". If those were improved, through stop consolidation or elimination, then the "B" would win more consistently. Although, the 57 has a similar density of stops (this is being addressed in the improvement program) but can usually skip more.

I don't know if the "A" was a better economic "stimulater" than the bus, since we can't re-run the first half of the 20th century in an experiment. But I just think that since 1970 there hasn't been any significant difference in economic development between Brighton along Comm Ave and Brighton Center/Oak Square that can be attributed to "having a trolley" vs not.

[whighlander]

Right, but the point I'm trying to make is that the renewed focus on urban living in recent history means the A line would have been far more valuable than the 57 bus ever could be in terms of spurring development in these areas. As it is, the areas surrounding the former A will remain as they are: strangled by poor traffic flow. Of course there is always Boston's trusty NIMBY contingency to contend with that would have likely mucked it up anyway.

Omaja -- I suggest that you check out "Trolley Square" on Mass Ave in Cambridge @Cameron Ave. Built on the site of a former Trolley storage yard -- this complex and some surroundings depend on the 77 Bus (and the end line of #77A eletric bus) for transit access

[Ron Newman]

The Linear Park bike path connects that development to Davis Square station, which is probably more useful than the #77 for many of its residents.

[whighlander]

The Linear Park bike path connects that development to Davis Square station, which is probably more useful than the #77 for many of its residents.

Ron -- a good hypothesis -- but not borne out by my experience of taking the #77 out of Harvard to Arlington Heights on a weekend when there are no buses to Lexington

A substantial number of folks get off within a couple of blocks of that complex -- there are also some smaller developments along that stretch of Mass Ave.

[whighlander]

...

I don't know if the "A" was a better economic "stimulater" than the bus, since we can't re-run the first half of the 20th century in an experiment. But I just think that since 1970 there hasn't been any significant difference in economic development between Brighton along Comm Ave and Brighton Center/Oak Square that can be attributed to "having a trolley" vs not.

Mathew -- I think what determines the success of transit is predictable, dependable frequent service.

Look at Arlington along Mass Ave. -- nothing like the same road just a few hundred meters further in Lexington.

Along most of Mass. Ave. in Arlington there is lots of multifamily developments -- in fact it could just as easily be Cambridge. Cross the line into Lexington and all you have is single family houses (an occasional duplex).

Why??

The #77 bus leaves Harvard Sq. every 10 minutes enroute to Arlington Heights at the border of Lexington. Cross the line into Lexington and all you have is the #62 bus running once per hour M-F (2x during morning and evening rush hours) with nothing on weekends.

True -- the #77 route to Arlington Heighs used to be street running trolley -- but many of the developments along the way were built in the bus era.

The linear "TOD" nature of Mass Ave. in Arlington I think is possible due to the not quite 24X7 frequency of the bus -- -- i don't think that the vehicle type makes a difference to anyone except incurable romantics.

[Ron Newman]

Oh, the #77 bus is definitely popular and useful! But I don't think Trolley Square would be nearly as successful a development without its proximity to (and traffic-free walk to) the Red Line station.

[whighlander]

Oh, the bus is definitely useful! But I don't think Trolley Square would be nearly as successful a development without its proximity to the Red Line station.

Ron -- see the post above about Mass. Ave. in Arlington -- far from any rail.

[underground]

I lived across the street from Trolley Square about 5 years ago (while it was still being built), and I always walked to Davis unless I saw the 77 come while I was on Mass Ave.

[Matthew]

Mathew -- I think what determines the success of transit is predictable, dependable frequent service.


You are absolutely right about that. The current difference between the 57 and the "B" is that off-peak, the "B" (11 min) has much better frequency than the 57 (20-25 min). But there's no technological reason that has to be the case.

[HenryAlan]

Meant to post this here, but ended up in the wrong place. Trying again :)

I agree that buses can be very useful and are an important part of the overall transit service. But let's think about Davis Square if the Red Line had not been extended. Would it be what it is today, if only served by several bus lines?

Buses are great for feeding riders into central collection points served by rapid transit. This service is inherently locally oriented. They are not so great as a longer distance, that is to say replacement to RT type of service.

What does this say regarding street running LRT? It's not useful in my mind if it runs on asphalt for any significant distance. The old Arborway service is an example of something that wouldn't work today. But LRT on Blue Hill Ave. might work very well.

[omaja]

Nearing completion, just tinkering around with naming, zones, and other cosmetic things.
http://i.imgur.com/mcF62.png

[Matthew]

Nice map. Couple comments:

'Mountfort'? That doesn't make geographic sense there. It's on the other side of the pike and the other side of St Mary. How about 'Cottage Farm' instead?

Isn't River Works the stop that nobody uses? Why keep it?

The whole Prospect-Union-Inman triangle doesn't make sense. Those three should be in a line. The GLX stop for Union Square will be at Prospect.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Nice map. Couple comments:

'Mountfort'? That doesn't make geographic sense there. It's on the other side of the pike and the other side of St Mary. How about 'Cottage Farm' instead?

Isn't River Works the stop that nobody uses? Why keep it?

The whole Prospect-Union-Inman triangle doesn't make sense. Those three should be in a line. The GLX stop for Union Square will be at Prospect.

River Works is located at and possibly inside the GE Aviation plant. It's forbidden to get on or off the train there unless you're an employee of General Electric.

So, yeah, that stop should be axed, but it's pretty much untouchable.

And I'm not sure I'm happy with creating a second zone at all, or the fact that you renamed Aquarium Station.

[Shepard]

I think this is FANTASTIC. A stylistic note on the lines: I always like when transit maps clearly differentiate between types of transit - the type of line should indicate whether this is a light rail underground, steetcar, heavy rail, DMU/CR, trolleybus, etc. (Another reason why the current SL ticks me off so much.) One should arrive at a station knowing what type of transit to expect based on the system map.

[whighlander]

I think this is FANTASTIC. A stylistic note on the lines: I always like when transit maps clearly differentiate between types of transit - the type of line should indicate whether this is a light rail underground, steetcar, heavy rail, DMU/CR, trolleybus, etc. (Another reason why the current SL ticks me off so much.) One should arrive at a station knowing what type of transit to expect based on the system map.

Shep -- I think you are on to something here -- although too much differentiation will make the map excessively complex to decode

Howabout:
1) Commuter Rail -- i.e. low frequency of service rail with mostly open platforms
2) Underground or Elevated Transit (bus, lightrail or heavyrail) -- e.g Red, Blue, Orange, Green Line Central Subway, Green Line to Leachmere, Silver Line (SS to World Trade Center)
3) surface protected / segregated ROW transit -- e.g. Green Line Huntington @ MFA or Comm Ave @ BU
4) Street running transit (trolley, electric bus, diesel bus) -- Green Line in the street, #77A, #77 bus, Silver Line everywhere else

The above is sufficient -- I don't think it makes a heap of difference whether the wheels and tires are steel, or the wheels are steel but the tires are rubber -- what matters is:
a) frequency of service
b) how busy and sophisticated the stations -- i.e. amenities and overall accessibility
c) how likely are there going to be delays caused by street traffic
d) can you make a transfer within the station without wandering about the city

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't think the Riverworks is a big deal. GE only still has the plant to the west of the tracks. To the east, it's been sold off. Personally I think that parcel to the east, as well as the waterfront wasteland across the Lynnway from it, should be redeveloped into a massive Seaport-esque place. Only without all the flaws, of course.... That would make good use of a station there.

[whighlander]

I don't think the Riverworks is a big deal. GE only still has the plant to the west of the tracks. To the east, it's been sold off. Personally I think that parcel to the east, as well as the waterfront wasteland across the Lynnway from it, should be redeveloped into a massive Seaport-esque place. Only without all the flaws, of course.... That would make good use of a station there.

Urb -- part of the Riverworks was the Navy Reduction Gear Plant from the days of when GE built Marine Steam Turbines in Lynn and the gearing to connect to the propulsion shaft

That part might be owned by the Navy, just as a number of other nominally "private-sector" Military-Industrial-Complex facilities all around the US dating back to WWII

it's undoubtedly also a major industrial clean-up site -- similar to the "Industriplex Site" in Woburn which took decades to clean to the level of "suitable for industrial or commercial use only"

[omaja]

Nice map. Couple comments:

'Mountfort'? That doesn't make geographic sense there. It's on the other side of the pike and the other side of St Mary. How about 'Cottage Farm' instead?

The location I am referring to is at Comm Ave/Mountfort/BU Bridge, not Beacon Street. I suppose it could be named Boston University Bridge, too.

Isn't River Works the stop that nobody uses? Why keep it?

It is listed on all MBTA Commuter Rail maps and serves a very specific purpose, as limited as it may be, which is why I included it.

http://www.mbta.com/images/Commuter-Rail-for-Web2.gif

The whole Prospect-Union-Inman triangle doesn't make sense. Those three should be in a line. The GLX stop for Union Square will be at Prospect.

I designated a new station at Washington Street as "Union" to provide transfer at Line 12. Aside from that, how would you put this in one line?

http://i.imgur.com/XIkSC.png

And I'm not sure I'm happy with creating a second zone at all, or the fact that you renamed Aquarium Station.

I am actually quite surprised we don't already have a second zone at least to cover the Braintree branch of the Red Line. You could probably throw in most of the D out to Riverside as well.

It makes sense: travel farther, you pay more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park -- a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

As far as Aquarium, it's a similar argument a la BPL v. Copley. It makes sense to me that in both cases the prevailing naming convention should be a square, street or other geographic marker. Obviously your mileage may vary. :)

I think this is FANTASTIC. A stylistic note on the lines: I always like when transit maps clearly differentiate between types of transit - the type of line should indicate whether this is a light rail underground, steetcar, heavy rail, DMU/CR, trolleybus, etc. (Another reason why the current SL ticks me off so much.) One should arrive at a station knowing what type of transit to expect based on the system map.

All of the lines are rail (light/heavy/suburban) and in all cases I would want the lines to be in a dedicated street-running right of wway (a la B, C and E to Brigham), elevated or underground. In that way, I don't think it is necessary to clutter up the map with too many different types of lines, etc., especially when each line could transition multiple times between street/underground/elevated. At a minimum, I do plan to differentiate between the commuter lines (letters and thicker lines) and rapid transit (numbers and thinner lines) and at least note which of the rapid transit lines are light rail v. heavy rail.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I am actually quite surprised we don't already have a second zone at least to cover the Braintree branch of the Red Line - you could probably throw in most of the D out to Riverside as well. It makes sense - travel farther, you pay marginally more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park - a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

[whighlander]

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

Commute -- let's bring back Charlie on the MTA -- you pay something to get-on and then you pay to get off depending on how busy the station is that you are using

So if you go HHHHHHHHHAvd to PAAAAAAAAAhk you would pay the more than someone getting on at Back of the Hill on the Green Line E and getting off at South Street on the B Line or Capen St. on the Mattapan Red Line Trolley (with its sub suburban usage)

[omaja]

If it isn't going to be a huge differential, why not just hike fares across the board? It seems like a folly to install the requisite infrastructure for zone fares just to grab an extra, say, $1 per ride from Braintree and Riverside. Instead of going for that, hiking fares by $0.50 across the board probably puts far more money in your pocket overall. The way I see it - fares SHOULD work out to an equitable price for riding the train about halfway through the system. Then, anyone taking longer trips is being subsidized by the 'on at Park, off at DTX' crowd.

The CharlieCard should make fare zones relatively simple to institute, right? Not to mention, over 90 percent of the current system is already in my Zone 1, so we'd really be talking about most of the extensions to farther-out suburbs.

[bbfen]

So the stations with less use are cheaper than ones with high use? Hrm. Interesting..... theory? But was that really how the exit fares worked?

[datadyne007]

It makes sense: travel farther, you pay more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park -- a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

The Braintree branch had exit fares until 2007.

Park St to Braintree is only a travel distance of about 11 miles. That's not a lot at all. We're supposed to be encouraging people to use transit and densifying the transit corridor. Berlin's U and S-Bahn uses roughly an 11-mile radius from Hauptbahnhof as the boundary for Zone B (A+B are one transit ticket). (Hbf<>Honow, Hbf<>Wannsee, etc). I also agree with hiking fares higher across the board a little later down the road once the system covers areas that have densified.

http://mevoyaeuropa.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Berlin-S+U-Bahn.jpg

What's also interesting about Berlin is that they have the ShortTrip ticket which is valid for up to 3 rapid-transit stations or 6 tram or bus stops. Standard AB fare is 2,30 and the ShortTrip ticket is 1,40.

[Commuting Boston Student]

The CharlieCard should make fare zones relatively simple to institute, right? Not to mention, over 90 percent of the current system is already in my Zone 1, so we'd really be talking about most of the extensions to farther-out suburbs.

Really, to me, that just seems like another strike against a multiple zone fare system. If the majority of your system is already within the first zone, why bother with the second zone if it only is going to cover the far flung fringes?

Again, the problem is it seems to me like a folly to hike fares on the extreme fringes - instead of making 10% of the people pay $1 more, you can make 100% of the people pay just $0.10 more. You get the same amount of new money in your pocket and 'fares are going up a dime for everyone' is both equitable and much easier to swallow than 'if you live in Newton, Needham, Braintree or JP, great news! You now have the privilege of paying an extra $1 that nobody else has to!'

So the stations with less use are cheaper than ones with high use? Hrm. Interesting..... theory? But was that really how the exit fares worked?

Not at all. Exit fares are distance priced, this scheme would be demand priced - congestion tolling, if you will.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons congestion tolling can and does work is because there are options to go around the toll - so when peak pricing occurs, people go around the toll, and pricing falls. When pricing falls enough, people take the toll, and the cycle continues. It's load balanced in that way.

Here, there is no option that you can choose to avoid congestion tolling. It would be similar to taking a series of five pipes carrying water to the same place and then jamming four of them, forcing all the water into pipe five, straining it, and driving the prices up - but there's no longer an option to switch from one pipe to another, less jammed pipe. There's no way to apply downward pressure, and so prices keep climbing, and climbing, and climbing.

(I suppose, to be fair, if the bus system is not part of this scheme, you can load balance that way by forcing people onto the bus or onto taxis, but...)

[statler]

I read a lot about NYC's bedrock and how it shaped NYC skyline and transit system. I know almost nothing of Boston's.

I know a lot of Boston is landfill but there must be some bedrock down there. Does anyone know how deep you would have to go to build a new subway system through bedrock?

[datadyne007]

I read a lot about NYC's bedrock and how it shaped NYC skyline and transit system. I know almost nothing of Boston's.

I know a lot of Boston is landfill but there must be some bedrock down there. Does anyone know how deep you would have to go to build a new subway system through bedrock?

Porter (deep-bore) is about 110' below the surface, IIRC...

[omaja]

The Braintree branch had exit fares until 2007.

Which coincided with the institution of outbound fare collection on the Green Line, no? Why they didn't institute outbound fare collection on the Green Line while simultaneously discontinuing exit fares/instituting a separate fare zone for the Braintree branch is beyond me. Would have been a win-win: "cheaper" fares on the Braintree branch (compared to the $2.50 entry fare + $1.25 exit fare) and better revenue capture on the Green Line.

Park St to Braintree is only a travel distance of about 11 miles. That's not a lot at all. We're supposed to be encouraging people to use transit and densifying the transit corridor. Berlin's U and S-Bahn uses roughly an 11-mile radius from Hauptbahnhof as the boundary for Zone B (A+B are one transit ticket). (Hbf<>Honow, Hbf<>Wannsee, etc). I also agree with hiking fares higher across the board a little later down the road once the system covers areas that have densified.

http://mevoyaeuropa.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Berlin-S+U-Bahn.jpg

What's also interesting about Berlin is that they have the ShortTrip ticket which is valid for up to 3 rapid-transit stations or 6 tram or bus stops. Standard AB fare is 2,30 and the ShortTrip ticket is 1,40.

I'm not sure I follow the need for a fare zone A if AB is the same? Maybe allowing for separate zone fares but making a combined 1+2 pass to cover the area inside/along 128 would work. The passes are where most of the money is made anyway.

Speaking of which, I think Boston must be one of the only places where a monthly pass is the same price as four weekly passes. What's up with that?

Really, to me, that just seems like another strike against a multiple zone fare system. If the majority of your system is already within the first zone, why bother with the second zone if it only is going to cover the far flung fringes?

Again, the problem is it seems to me like a folly to hike fares on the extreme fringes - instead of making 10% of the people pay $1 more, you can make 100% of the people pay just $0.10 more. You get the same amount of new money in your pocket and 'fares are going up a dime for everyone' is both equitable and much easier to swallow than 'if you live in Newton, Needham, Braintree or JP, great news! You now have the privilege of paying an extra $1 that nobody else has to!'

Because it doesn't make sense (as noted by the use of fare zones in systems all over the world) for users in the core to completely subsidize service to the fringes. If we're talking about reorganizing and expanding the entire system, fare zones certainly should be a part of the discussion.

[datadyne007]

I'm not sure I follow the need for a fare zone A if AB is the same? Maybe allowing for separate zone fares but making a combined 1+2 pass to cover the area inside/along 128 would work. The passes are where most of the money is made anyway.
I don't understand it either. Zone A is just the bounds of the Ring-Bahn. A+B is just all of Berlin to the city limits. My local friends there couldn't give me an answer either.

Edit: Zone A is necessary because of the necessity of the BC ticket, which is not valid in the urban core (Zone A).

Speaking of which, I think Boston must be one of the only places where a monthly pass is the same price as four weekly passes. What's up with that?

I agree. It's really crazy.

[Riverside]

Omaja, really like the map. Although some of it at the top and bottom seems to be cut off...? :confused:

The fare zones don't bother me; they seem sensible.

I am just fine changing Aquarium to Long Wharf. Emphasize the ferry connection. And in case the New England Aquarium tanks (*rimshot*), we're not left with an anachronistic name.

I love how the 7 and the 11 avoid downtown (no sarcasm). Creative. :)

Some questions:
-any particular reason why the 2 does not run all the way to Needham Junction?
-similarly, why not run the 10 over to Brandeis? Maybe not full service on that extra leg, but I have to think between Brandeis and Roberts, you'd get enough. Or does the D make an (unmarked on this map) stop there and run frequent DMU service inside of 128?
-did you give any thought to extending the 7 across Dorchester to Ashmont as a crosstown line?
-your blue and yellow RER lines, is there a particular reason they don't stop at Sullivan Square? Seems like a logical interchange location.
-does the 9 run in a separate subway from the NSRL through the North End? Or is that station located underneath 93 at Fulton or North Streets?

[BostonUrbEx]

Is anyone able to superimpose the NYC subway map over Boston? Merely out of curiosity. I wonder how far it would reach from the core.

[Riverside]

Is anyone able to superimpose the NYC subway map over Boston? Merely out of curiosity. I wonder how far it would reach from the core.

Well, not precisely what you wanted, although easily available and does sorta answer your question: http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?subways

Estimating using a line-drawing tool on my PDF viewer, it looks like Battery Park to the northern Bronx is roughly equal to Riverside to Wonderland. Of course, NYC's system also branches out at least that far from Battery Park going east into Brooklyn, clearly dwarfing the T.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Because it doesn't make sense (as noted by the use of fare zones in systems all over the world) for users in the core to completely subsidize service to the fringes. If we're talking about reorganizing and expanding the entire system, fare zones certainly should be a part of the discussion.

Au contraire - it makes perfect sense to have the high density, high frequency core subsidizing the fringes - especially here, where 'the fringes' are still being defined as more or less totally within the boundaries of 128. As has been mentioned, that kind of radius is considered a single zone in networks with multiple zones - and New York's system, which is almost certainly as big or bigger than your proposal, manages without multiple zones.

It may be morally 'unfair,' but forcing the edges of the system to pay more creates a usage disincentive in that zone. Why pay more when you can drive into the cheap zone - why stop driving when you're almost already there?

It just doesn't make economic sense to throw up any more reasons for someone to not use the system.

[Riverside]

^^ Ehn, if the fare difference is 50¢ or less, it'd probably cost more to drive into Zone 1 than it does to take the T, don't you think? And that's assuming free parking. And within Omaja's Zone 1, only Alewife and Wellington, I believe, have any sort of large parking arrangements.

[Commuting Boston Student]

^^ Ehn, if the fare difference is 50¢ or less, it'd probably cost more to drive into Zone 1 than it does to take the T, don't you think? And that's assuming free parking. And within Omaja's Zone 1, only Alewife and Wellington, I believe, have any sort of large parking arrangements.

That's assuming a cost differential of $0 or less - i.e. parking in Zone 1 either costs the same or is cheaper than parking in Zone 2. I don't consider 'costs the same' to be an unreasonable assumption to make.

The cost in fuel to drive from a Zone 2 station to the next closest Zone 1 is likely $1 or less. Depreciation is a sunk cost and not worth factoring, but it probably still works out in favor of driving into Zone 1 unless the Zone 2 cost is $0.50 or less - as you've suggested it would be, but again, spreading that half dollar to everyone in the form of a global $0.05 ~ $0.10 fare hike is easier to swallow and puts more money into your pocket.

[Shepard]

Crazy Transit Pitch: Allow Facebook or Google to operate the MBTA and fund system expansion. All rides will be free, but the operating company can gather all sorts of marketing data on each passenger based on commuting patterns and ridership, and can display personalized advertisements adjacent to wherever they're sitting or standing.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Crazy Transit Pitch: Allow Facebook or Google to operate the MBTA and fund system expansion. All rides will be free, but the operating company can gather all sorts of marketing data on each passenger based on commuting patterns and ridership, and can display personalized advertisements adjacent to wherever they're sitting or standing.

Doubleplusgood idea, Comrade Shepard!

http://de027.k12.sd.us/Pictures/1984-Big-Brother-Poster.jpg

[Shepard]

They're tracking your movements via your smartphone anyway, even if you're not dumb enough to voluntarily "check in" to places via Foursquare and Facebook.

[Commuting Boston Student]

They're tracking your movements via your smartphone anyway, even if you're not dumb enough to voluntarily "check in" to places via Foursquare and Facebook.

Difference is the smartphone is a tracking device I can "forget" somewhere, and also, that tracking isn't being used for targeted advertising.

[whighlander]

Difference is the smartphone is a tracking device I can "forget" somewhere, and also, that tracking isn't being used for targeted advertising.

No-one can track your smart phone if you don't want them to do it -- you are in control not Big Brother!

[omaja]

Omaja, really like the map. Although some of it at the top and bottom seems to be cut off...? :confused:

Still tweaking the outskirts as I'm trying to stylize to fit all of the commuter rail stations based on zone (instead of accurate distance).

I love how the 7 and the 11 avoid downtown (no sarcasm). Creative. :)

You mean the 8 and 11? The 10 (north-south crosstown) and 12 (circle) also bypass Downtown, though not as cleverly as the 8 and 11. Lots of places to go that shouldn't require a transfer all the way at Park-Downtown Crossing, Government Center, or state. :)


-any particular reason why the 2 does not run all the way to Needham Junction?
-similarly, why not run the 10 over to Brandeis? Maybe not full service on that extra leg, but I have to think between Brandeis and Roberts, you'd get enough. Or does the D make an (unmarked on this map) stop there and run frequent DMU service inside of 128?

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.

Regarding the 10: the D does continue off the map to a stop at Brandeis/Roberts. The D would provide frequent short-turn service between Brandeis/Roberts and Riverside with more traditional commuter rail headways out towards Worcester and Wachusett. The entire line would be double-tracked and electrified.

-did you give any thought to extending the 7 across Dorchester to Ashmont as a crosstown line?

No, I never really thought of it, but it would definitely be a natural extension down Morton Street and Gallivan Boulevard. I'll look into adding it in my final map. :)

-your blue and yellow RER lines, is there a particular reason they don't stop at Sullivan Square? Seems like a logical interchange location.

You're definitely right - it's a missing link in my map. I guess I was thinking that North Station would suffice with connections to both the 3 and 7 that Sullivan would provide, but Sullivan would certainly be integral in distributing inbound North Shore suburban traffic via transfer to the 12.

-does the 9 run in a separate subway from the NSRL through the North End? Or is that station located underneath 93 at Fulton or North Streets?

It is a separate subway under Atlantic Ave/Fleet St/Bennett St/Sheafe St/Causeway St; the North End station would be at the intersection of Fleet and Hanover.

Au contraire - it makes perfect sense to have the high density, high frequency core subsidizing the fringes - especially here, where 'the fringes' are still being defined as more or less totally within the boundaries of 128. As has been mentioned, that kind of radius is considered a single zone in networks with multiple zones - and New York's system, which is almost certainly as big or bigger than your proposal, manages without multiple zones.

It may be morally 'unfair,' but forcing the edges of the system to pay more creates a usage disincentive in that zone. Why pay more when you can drive into the cheap zone - why stop driving when you're almost already there?

It just doesn't make economic sense to throw up any more reasons for someone to not use the system.

Berlin's 11-mile radius is technically a two-zone system, though that is more for the benefit of suburbanites making intra-suburban travel as datadyne07 noted. I was really working off of the makeup of Paris whereby a six-mile radius covered the entire Metro network; the RER was for purely suburban service. Obviously this doesn't translate perfectly in Boston where geography and municipal boundaries are a bit tougher to cope with. Nevertheless, I could see a zoning system like Berlin working well, but maintain that anything that touches or exceeds 128, or includes massive parking facilities, be excluded from the central-most zones. Though it may be the case that to make zoning politically palatable that anything currently operating be included as zone 1, regardless of distance.

At the end of the day you still have the natural disincentive of traffic and lack of inexpensive city parking which will fuel (pun intended) demand for transit - even if the suburban zones are more expensive. Not to mention, the people in Boston furthest out are the ones who generally have more money to pay for it. This is the reverse of New York where the vast majority of the subway system at the core of Manhattan/Brooklyn is where the median annual incomes are greatest.

[Equilibria]

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.


That's a light rail line? It's colored blue... that was my biggest issue with this map (and almost every other one like it) actually - the suburban service to Newton and Needham works better as light rail in the first place.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ I don't think omaja's colors necessarily correspond to the current system.

[Riverside]

^ I don't think omaja's colors necessarily correspond to the current system.

True, but does that mean that the current Blue Line to East Boston, Revere and Lynn has been converted back to LR? Omaja?


You mean the 8 and 11? The 10 (north-south crosstown) and 12 (circle) also bypass Downtown, though not as cleverly as the 8 and 11. Lots of places to go that shouldn't require a transfer all the way at Park-Downtown Crossing, Government Center, or state. :)

Haha, yeah, the 8. I thought it was interesting how you replaced the 57 from Oak Square to Kenmore with not one, but three transit lines. Have to admit I'm a little less keen on that, tbh, but it certainly works and is interesting to consider.

Here's a crazy, crazy idea: switch the 8 and the 4 west of Mountfort. Make the 4 go from BC to Medford City Hall, and run the 8 from Watertown to Belmont. Yes, it breaks up the B line once and for all, but who cares? The people who live along Commonwealth who want to get into downtown directly can go a few blocks south to the 5 or make an easy transfer anywhere between Packard's Corner and Mountfort.

This decentralizes somewhat service into downtown from Allston/Brighton, and eliminates the three-transfer model for Brighton-Boston passengers:
-5 –> Boston (Seaport and South Boston)
-4 –> Cambridge and Medford (MIT and Kendall)
-8 –> Cambridge and Chelsea (Central and Lechmere)
-11 –> Boston (Government Center and North Station)
-D –> Boston (Financial District)

Hmm, I dunno, looking at it on the screen, it doesn't sound as good as it did in my head! :o Oh well. One other advantage of this alignment is that it would be easy (in the future) to extend the 11 up through Belmont to Waverly and over to Belmont Center to make a nifty (though currently unnecessary) loop. Fun to consider, in any case.

Regarding Needham, it seemed a bit excessive to have two full-service light rail stations within 1500 feet of each other.

Makes sense, but see above; the 2 née Blue Line is LR now?

Regarding the 10: the D does continue off the map to a stop at Brandeis/Roberts. The D would provide frequent short-turn service between Brandeis/Roberts and Riverside with more traditional commuter rail headways out towards Worcester and Wachusett. The entire line would be double-tracked and electrified.


Cool stuff. :)

No, I never really thought of it, but it would definitely be a natural extension down Morton Street and Gallivan Boulevard. I'll look into adding it in my final map. :)


Well, I don't know how good of an idea it is, but I've included it in several of my own maps over the years, and I like it, at the very least aesthetically. It's a nice, logical crosstown route that fills in a gap between your 12 and 1 (which is done very nicely, I might add; that is another crosstown route that I'm fond of). Taken together with their north-south trunk lines, those crosstown routes make a nice net that recall Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan's heritage as streetcar suburbs.

One thought: though it may be hard to swing cartographically, you could definitely (in my mind) have the 1 stop at Blue Hill Ave and transfer to the 6 and 9, if you imagine the 9's platforms as being between Blue Hill Ave and Cummins Highway (which is not unreasonable, imho). But it may not be worth the trouble.

You're definitely right - it's a missing link in my map. I guess I was thinking that North Station would suffice with connections to both the 3 and 7 that Sullivan would provide, but Sullivan would certainly be integral in distributing inbound North Shore suburban traffic via transfer to the 12.

Hmm, you have a point though. I can see how the cost of having an extra stop before downtown Boston might not be offset by the better distribution of traffic as done by the 12. Particularly since most people would need to transfer off of the 12 anyway to one of the "spoke" lines, most of which they'd be able to access downtown. Still, it would reduce the strain on the downtown hub of stations. Tricky call.

It is a separate subway under Atlantic Ave/Fleet St/Bennett St/Sheafe St/Causeway St; the North End station would be at the intersection of Fleet and Hanover.

Ooh, very cool. A subway actually through the North End. Ha, glad I don't have present that proposal to a state board. But seriously, I like it. A good way to service an area of what used to be called "Boston City" (from what I can gather) while somewhat decentralizing the service. Is the 9 HR, LR or D/EMU?

Not to mention, the people in Boston furthest out are the ones who generally have more money to pay for it. This is the reverse of New York where the vast majority of the subway system at the core of Manhattan/Brooklyn is where the median annual incomes are greatest.


Never thought about that, but that's really cool. (Well, in an academic sense. Gap between haves and have-nots? Not so cool. Obviously.)

[Max Power]

Never thought about that, but that's really cool. (Well, in an academic sense. Gap between haves and have-nots? Not so cool. Obviously.)

I think it's a wash though. The have's are all rolling around town in those cabs and black cars anyways.

[Riverside]

Oh, I'm sure, I just meant that it's interesting how the relationship between average income and distance from the urban core is inverted between Boston and NYC in that respect.

EDIT: Although Beacon Hill and Back Bay do spring to mind as counterarguments...

[HenryAlan]

I am actually quite surprised we don't already have a second zone at least to cover the Braintree branch of the Red Line. You could probably throw in most of the D out to Riverside as well.

It makes sense: travel farther, you pay more. For example, it's crazy to think that people who take the Red Line from Braintree to Park -- a distance 3x that of my Washington-to-Park commute on the B Line -- pay the same. It wouldn't be a hugh price differential between zone 1 and zone 2, but it should definitely be there to cover greater operating costs and less passengers to spread those costs around.

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation. It's fair, for example, that somebody riding BART from Oakland pays more, than somebody boarding in SF, because they have to cross the bay. It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

[Commuting Boston Student]

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation. It's fair, for example, that somebody riding BART from Oakland pays more, than somebody boarding in SF, because they have to cross the bay. It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

I have the exact same problem with Zone 1A/1 as I do with the idea of zoning the subway network, really. What's defined as Zone 1A seems pretty much completely arbitrary unless someone knows something I don't.

I understand that there's a point where zoning becomes necessary - and I think that point is when (if) the subways ever cross 128.

Aside: can't you also hop on a bus at Roslindale and ride it to Forest Hills to dodge part of the fare?

[omaja]

True, but does that mean that the current Blue Line to East Boston, Revere and Lynn has been converted back to LR? Omaja?

No, I misspoke there; it is a heavy rail extension of the current Blue Line.

Haha, yeah, the 8. I thought it was interesting how you replaced the 57 from Oak Square to Kenmore with not one, but three transit lines. Have to admit I'm a little less keen on that, tbh, but it certainly works and is interesting to consider.

But what percentage of the 57’s traffic is actually bound for Kenmore? No scientific data on my part, but it seems that the majority are connecting to inbound BCD trains. If the destination is Downtown, there are plenty of single connections to Downtown via the Allston-Franklin (RER D) Central (1) or Sullivan (3) – all of which would probably be faster than the current 57-to-Kenmore-to-BCD train set up now. Having the 8 wouldn’t necessarily preclude the 57 from continuing to run along its current route, though, as it serves many local stops as it is.

Ooh, very cool. A subway actually through the North End. Ha, glad I don't have present that proposal to a state board. But seriously, I like it. A good way to service an area of what used to be called "Boston City" (from what I can gather) while somewhat decentralizing the service. Is the 9 HR, LR or D/EMU?

Yeah, it’s a shame that so much of this would either be cost prohibitive or a political nightmare (or both). The 9 would be heavy rail. Here’s what I envision for the whole system:
http://i.imgur.com/J8z9I.jpg

Oh, I'm sure, I just meant that it's interesting how the relationship between average income and distance from the urban core is inverted between Boston and NYC in that respect.

EDIT: Although Beacon Hill and Back Bay do spring to mind as counterarguments...

Radical Cartography (http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?cityincome) has some pretty neat maps to illustrate what I mean. Whereas Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn provide an abundance of wealth at the core, Beacon Hill and Back Bay are only a very tiny fraction of the MBTA’s rapid transit service area. Only once you are outside the MTA’s service area do median incomes rise again (CT, NJ, Long Island, Westchester County, etc.).

http://i.imgur.com/WWdjb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Ox5Py.jpg

We used to have zones on the D and Braintree lines. We also had free outbound on GL surface routes, and I believe at one time you had to pay another nickel to get off of that train. All of these were eventually eliminated because they caused great confusion, and tended to be hugely unfair at the border between one zone and another. For a current example of this concept, look at commuter rail zone 1 compared to 1A. I can board a train in Roslindale, pay $4.25, and ride it a mile to Forest Hills, where somebody will board and sit next to me, paying only $1.70. That's an incredibly expensive mile between Rozzie Square and Forest Hills.

Zone based systems work and can be fair when there is a distinct separation.

The main issue with Boston’s previous ‘zoning’ was that there wasn’t a seamless way to implement it; it was clunky and inefficient all around. The advent of the CharlieCard alleviates much of this. As for the difference in commuter rail fares, that is really a consequence of not having an integrated suburban network that compliments the rapid transit. Not to mention, the commuter rail ‘competes’ for passengers at Forest Hills; no one would pay 2.5x the amount of money to ride the commuter rail in from Forest Hills when the Orange Line is right there and with much more frequent service.

It's not so fair to have the kind of zones you've proposed, even more so when we consider that the system map you've drawn would encourage a significant number of trips that stayed along the outer sections of the map.

That said, I love your map, both stylistically and for what it proposes. If we could get a quarter of this, the 'T would be amazing.

The easily solution to intra-suburban traffic would be something a la Berlin’s ABC zones: the inner-most zone A would need to be determined, but AB would include everything inside 128, and C would be anything outside. As for fare differences, modeling after Berlin’s 30 euro cent increments, it may be something like: AB = $2.50, BC = $2.75, ABC = $3.00. Obviously most people have passes which would need a bit of tweaking to get just right as well.

I have the exact same problem with Zone 1A/1 as I do with the idea of zoning the subway network, really. What's defined as Zone 1A seems pretty much completely arbitrary unless someone knows something I don't.

From what I can tell, 1A is Boston and the immediate surroundings (roughly a six-mile radius from Downtown) and 1 is generally everything inside of 128.

[HenryAlan]

Aside: can't you also hop on a bus at Roslindale and ride it to Forest Hills to dodge part of the fare?

True, and I can save even more by boarding the Orange Line at Forest Hills. But the commuter rail is faster and more comfortable, so I'm willing to pay more for it. I just wish the more was a dollar or maybe dollar and fifty cents, rather than $2.55.

[omaja]

A close view of the southwest with new zones:

A = Inside Line 12 circle line
B = Inside 128
C = Inside 495
D = Remainder of MA
E = RI and NH

http://i.imgur.com/aPfrz.jpg

[Commuting Boston Student]

A close view of the southwest with new zones:

A = Inside Line 12 circle line
B = Inside 128
C = Inside 495
D = Remainder of MA
E = RI and NH

http://i.imgur.com/aPfrz.jpg

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

[Riverside]

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasonal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

Also, this is just me, but I think RIDOT should run Providence-Foxboro service, under the same (but obviously reversed) arrangement that the T currently runs service down to Wickford Jct. I also wish that the current Foxboro train station were renamed "Patriot Place," in the hope that someday, local trains will service a separate "Foxboro" station near that community's downtown. But that is just a pipe dream. (And yes, I know that goes against my rule against naming stations after businesses.)

I do like the extension of the 7, and the additions of Woodhaven and Fairlawn. :)

One aesthetic quibble: I love the typeface and size of the RT station names, but I care less for the station names (and actually the station markers) on the RER lines. Both too small and too indistinct for my taste. Perhaps make the RER lines thicker, and thus the station markers larger?

Oh also: it is my very strong opinion that Plimptonville should be closed. According to the 2010 Blue Book, there were only 30 boardings there on an average day. The only other station (among those designed only to take passengers on, unlike JFK/UMass or Malden) I saw that had fewer boardings was Silver Hill with 21 (which should also be closed). Your call, of course, but that's my feeling.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasonal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.

Newport might not 'want' commuter service yet/ever, but the rest of the state wants it, I imagine Salve Regina and people using the 60 bus want it, and the city of Newport just might need it. And even if they don't want it now, I'm confident they'll be wanting it in the future.

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

[whighlander]

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.
.

Commute -- there is no justification in the Northeast Corridor to go faster than 250 kph -- the distances are short enough -- you just need keep stops to a minimum

Cost of pushing the train start to climb rapidly with top speed running while the total travel time is not much changed as long as you keep the start/stop process to a minimum

[Riverside]

In the future, Interstate corridors will (should) be used as (median running) HSR corridors wherever it is possible to do so, to minimize the impact of HSR service on local/regional trains and to allow for the ROW to be optimized for higher top speeds. Running HSR down Interstate medians also provides great advertising (nothing like a train blowing past your traffic jam at 300+ kmph...), creates potential for rail projects to benefit from highway money, and reinforces the notion that roads and rails can coexist instead of being mutually exclusive. 195 (or, one can hope, future I-82) would therefore be used for a Hartford-Providence-Hyannis HSR line.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea, and I-195 is so straight, it makes perfect sense. Some parts would probably have to be elevated, but it just wouldn't be that hard. I'm just rather pessimistic about the whole thing.

Newport might not 'want' commuter service yet/ever, but the rest of the state wants it, I imagine Salve Regina and people using the 60 bus want it, and the city of Newport just might need it. And even if they don't want it now, I'm confident they'll be wanting it in the future.

Very good points. I'm still skeptical, and think that FR-Newport monies would be better spent on PVD-FR service, but I agree that the former will eventually become necessary. Still, people don't always realize that something is necessary, and sometimes oppose it anyways even if they do.

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

Really? I'm surprised that the ROW is so encroached upon. Looking at Google Maps, it doesn't look that bad. Heck, at least you can see most of the ROW in the satellite images, which is more than you can say some of the time. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just surprised. (Just checking: you do mean the Franklin-Woonsocket corridor [which would technically require some reworking to be feasible], right? The MBTA extension to Forge Park doesn't actually go on that route, instead going on the route that eventually ends up in Bellingham, Milford and I believe up to Framingham in the end.)

I definitely agree about Providence-Worcester, and I actually think this would not be unrealistic in the next 25 years, particularly if service to Woonsocket begins in the next 10. (It's just not that far from Woonsocket up to Worcester, especially for an active ROW.) I do, however, think that it may not be necessary to include a full RIDOT network (including a Worcester line) on Omaja's map.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- there is no justification in the Northeast Corridor to go faster than 250 kph -- the distances are short enough -- you just need keep stops to a minimum

Cost of pushing the train start to climb rapidly with top speed running while the total travel time is not much changed as long as you keep the start/stop process to a minimum

The standard speed to set for HSR in the northeast should be 300 kmph, which gives you a ~4 hour trip between Boston and Chicago, and ~3 hours from Boston to either D.C. or Montreal, factoring in limited stops. 300 kmph trains are in use all over the world right now, no new tech needed.

Anything faster than 300 is excessive for the northeast, yes, but we'll need 400 kmph trains for areas outside outside of the northeast... like D.C. to Miami.

Really? I'm surprised that the ROW is so encroached upon. Looking at Google Maps, it doesn't look that bad. Heck, at least you can see most of the ROW in the satellite images, which is more than you can say some of the time. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just surprised. (Just checking: you do mean the Franklin-Woonsocket corridor [which would technically require some reworking to be feasible], right? The MBTA extension to Forge Park doesn't actually go on that route, instead going on the route that eventually ends up in Bellingham, Milford and I believe up to Framingham in the end.)

I was referring to the Franklin route, yes, which got turned into the Trunkline Trail - which you can't even walk on end to end because most of the bridges (that aren't gone completely) are unsafe for crossing. Part of it is paved over, as well. Though, according to the Woonsocket Commuter Rail report (http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/intermodal/WoonComRailFinalRpt.pdf), the first on a list of challenges to a Forge Park extension is "Unavailable right-of way and encroachment in Woonsocket and Bellingham," so I'm not sure it'd be any easier to go the Forge Park route rather than branching the line.

[F-Line to Dudley]

The ROW that would be used to extend from Forge Park to Woonsocket, as I understand it, is so torn up and encroached upon and problematic that using it for anything is going to be like pulling teeth, but it is worth doing in my opinion. Similarly, a Providence-Worcester line would be great if we can get it.

The RIDOT Boston-Woonsocket study looked at the old-old Boston-Woonsocket route, the Boston & Pascoag main (a.k.a. the Needham Line), which is hacked up to bits between Medway and Bellingham and under dubious ownership inside of Bellingham. A bizarre study choice because, 1) nothing from Bellingham Jct. to Harris Pond is landbanked or even publicly owned, having been abandoned long before the public ownership era; 2) the indirectness of going north to Forge Park and Bellingham to go south to Woonsocket is batty; 3) the changed water level at Harris Pond and required engineering around that (punch it up in HistoricAerials and look how the water level swallows up the old RR embankment over the course of the last 40 years); and 4) how friggin' tight the encroachment is on the abandoned tracks in Woonsocket. It's nonsensical.

The Franklin main to Blackstone is fully landbanked. It junctioned with the P&W on the other side of the Blackstone River. It's a dead-ass straight shot from Franklin Jct., mostly grade-separated, and a former high-speed intercity route to New Haven. And, an easy one to accommodate rail w/trail because it's got an unusually wide vegetation buffer surrounding the ROW (not that the unpaved SNE Trunkline Trail is much to write home about, being disconnected from the rest of the trail system by the Blackstone bridge being out). From what I gather DCR was being pissy to them back in '93 about studying it and that's what caused its demotion from the study options, but that was when the agency fiefdoms were really really fiefdoms. Don't have to bother with the EPA permitting showstopper that would be Harris Pond...go straight to the old MBTA stop in Blackstone on 122, build a new river crossing, rebuild the wye onto the P&W, and go around-the-horn on P&W the 1.5 miles to the Woonsocket stop. That's faster and loads, loads cheaper than trying to bring back the dead/gone/possibly-illegal B&P route. And few abutters en route.

Forge Park will be extended to Milford someday. On the timetables this connection to Woonsocket is dealing with there's no risk of that stop being orphaned. Milford and Woonsocket branches simply fork at Franklin Jct. like they did in olden times.

Look, Ma, it's got freight stakeholders, too: http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/5_meetings_and_events/2_past/2011/pdfs/Freight%20Presentations/Fram%20Rail%20infrastructure%2009%20r4.pdf (p.25 of PDF). Note: I'm a little puzzled as to whose freight interests this exactly serves so I think someone at the MPO might've been brainstorming out loud. But yes, other people have been thinking about this too and giving presentations on it to rooms full of curious citizenry. It maybe doesn't rate at quite the level of must-have as a restored Stoughton Branch at offering up a fistfull of new routing and load-spreading options for the rail system, but there's a whole lot of future action opened up for a lot of different stakeholders (including AMTK, which studied this as a potential--if not likely--inland HSR routing) to get the Franklin Line tied back to the outside world at Blackstone. The pull's going to be inevitable over time for restoring this connection. Only point of debate is just how many decades out that is. If there's a Top 3 list of must-have regional restorations, this slots behind Stoughton and somewhere from close to not-very-close behind Newburyport-Portsmouth on the Eastern Route depending on how hot/cold the freight interests run here (i.e. under what business arrangements would CSX actually be willing to allow P&W into SE Mass...and profit from allowing it).

[whighlander]

The standard speed to set for HSR in the northeast should be 300 kmph, which gives you a ~4 hour trip between Boston and Chicago, and ~3 hours from Boston to either D.C. or Montreal, factoring in limited stops. 300 kmph trains are in use all over the world right now, no new tech needed.

Anything faster than 300 is excessive for the northeast, yes, but we'll need 400 kmph trains for areas outside outside of the northeast... like D.C. to Miami.



Commute -- you do understand that the power necessary to move through the air increases with the cube of the speed. This is not important at low speeds where other losses such as rolling friction are important. Howerver, as you crest 200 kph you are starting to be dominated by air resistance.

On this basis going from 200 to 400 increases the power requirements for overcoming air resistance drag by a factor of 8. Even going from 200 kph to 300 kph increases that aspect of power demand by more than a factor of 3. Of course the time to travel decreases fairly inversely with speed -- assuming keep to a minimum starting and stopping so the net effect with respect to energy consumption is more like 2.25 times greater

Anyway -- I'm hightly skeptical that anyone will build a 400 km per hour train in the US unless it is maglev in an evacuated tube -- in which case might as well go for 600 km per hour or even faster -- I'd like a 1 hour Bos to Wash train -- of course I miss the views

[Semass]

Perhaps it is just semantics, but as we discuss Commuter Rail extensions to Woonsocket, Portsmouth, Westerly, Nashua, Plaistow, New Bedford, Fall River and other far flung locations, aren't we really beyond the scope of "commuter" rail. With Boston as the hub of the system, these are some long rides and perhaps out of range for the workaday commuter. This is not to say I am against these ideas - I am quite in favor - but perhaps we ought to rethink the meaning of the network as the Regional Rail System. Commuter Rail suggests that its purpose is rush hour runs to bring commuters in and out of Boston. Recent projects would indicate that there is much more regional mobility relying on the CR system thank just the am/pm rush.

[whighlander]

Perhaps it is just semantics, but as we discuss Commuter Rail extensions to Woonsocket, Portsmouth, Westerly, Nashua, Plaistow, New Bedford, Fall River and other far flung locations, aren't we really beyond the scope of "commuter" rail. With Boston as the hub of the system, these are some long rides and perhaps out of range for the workaday commuter. This is not to say I am against these ideas - I am quite in favor - but perhaps we ought to rethink the meaning of the network as the Regional Rail System. Commuter Rail suggests that its purpose is rush hour runs to bring commuters in and out of Boston. Recent projects would indicate that there is much more regional mobility relying on the CR system thank just the am/pm rush.

Seamass -- I think that you have a point -- although the majority of the boardings out even at the radius of Fitchburg have Boston or at least Cambridge as their destination.

In fact conincidentaly -- I just spent the better part of an hour looking at a voluminus report on the proposed Foxboro Station / Service. It's quite clear from that report which looked at both the Forge Park and Fairmount (Indigo Line) that based on the actual data collected (2009?) that it still is basically a hub and spoke system.

I would think that today the only cases where its more potentially about regional mobility than strict CR would be:
Providence
Worcester
Lowell

But even wih those large city cores -- the overwhelming flow is inbound to Boston in the AM and out in the PM. Of course the tendancy of the service to be designed to serve as CR tends to bias the data somewhat. However, there are nearly deadhead counter-flow trains used to postition equipment for rush hour and these are generally quite empty.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- you do understand that the power necessary to move through the air increases with the cube of the speed. This is not important at low speeds where other losses such as rolling friction are important. Howerver, as you crest 200 kph you are starting to be dominated by air resistance.

On this basis going from 200 to 400 increases the power requirements for overcoming air resistance drag by a factor of 8. Even going from 200 kph to 300 kph increases that aspect of power demand by more than a factor of 3. Of course the time to travel decreases fairly inversely with speed -- assuming keep to a minimum starting and stopping so the net effect with respect to energy consumption is more like 2.25 times greater

Anyway -- I'm hightly skeptical that anyone will build a 400 km per hour train in the US unless it is maglev in an evacuated tube -- in which case might as well go for 600 km per hour or even faster -- I'd like a 1 hour Bos to Wash train -- of course I miss the views

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

[Kahta]

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

The cost of driving 65 or 75 isn't higher by a factor of 8.

[omaja]

B2 should terminate at Providence - RI will eventually take over in-state commuter rail operation for Westerly-Woonsocket, and there's no reason not to roll back the Providence line to its original terminus at that point.

Why not extend A4 to Newport?

Other than that, it looks good.

I agree about Providence. Perhaps indicate in a separate color the proposed RIDOT network? (I personally like the addition of a Providence-Fall River line along 195, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, sadly.) That said, though, in any case, no Pawtucket station?

A4 to Newport? Ehn, maybe on a seasoanal basis is my feeling. My very strong understanding, as a local, is that Newport wouldn't want commuter rail service, to Fall River, Boston or Providence.

I'm not keen on differentiating operators as I really see it as a regional and intra-metro service that should be operated seamlessly and interchangeably. Pawtucket should definitely be added.

My feeling, though, is that if you are proposing all that expansion of the subway, you should do a little bit of commuter rail expansion as well. I'm surprised, for example, that you kept the B6 ending at Forge Park. Why not connect to a RIDOT network at Woonsocket? It's not that much farther, and it would connect northern RI with Boston. (I personally like the idea of running such a line down through Woonsocket, and out the extra mile to a Park and Ride at Branch Village and Route 146. But that's just me.)

Considering the entire commuter rail network would be revamped and electrified, I think the current footprint plus extensions to Fall River, New Bedford, Plaistow, Manchester/Concord, and Portsmouth is sufficiently comparable to the subway expansion :).

One aesthetic quibble: I love the typeface and size of the RT station names, but I care less for the station names (and actually the station markers) on the RER lines. Both too small and too indistinct for my taste. Perhaps make the RER lines thicker, and thus the station markers larger?

Oh also: it is my very strong opinion that Plimptonville should be closed. According to the 2010 Blue Book, there were only 30 boardings there on an average day. The only other station (among those designed only to take passengers on, unlike JFK/UMass or Malden) I saw that had fewer boardings was Silver Hill with 21 (which should also be closed). Your call, of course, but that's my feeling.

Good points. I will consider other options for the RER station markers, but the station names are uniform across the map ( with the exception of line termini). Plimptonville will be removed and I'll look at the blue book for any other obvious closures.

But even wih those large city cores -- the overwhelming flow is inbound to Boston in the AM and out in the PM. Of course the tendancy of the service to be designed to serve as CR tends to bias the data somewhat. However, there are nearly deadhead counter-flow trains used to postition equipment for rush hour and these are generally quite empty.

I would say that there's more than just a tendency to bias the data - we're talking about a system that, for all intents and purposes, is 95-percent geared toward the AM and PM rushes with little more than token service at off-peak times. The empty 'deadhead' trains are a product of the way the system is organized, not necessarily a symptom of a lack of demand.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm not keen on differentiating operators as I really see it as a regional and intra-metro service that should be operated seamlessly and interchangeably. Pawtucket should definitely be added.

Wickford Junction makes absolutely no sense as a terminus, and makes less than no sense when Kingston is available as a terminal station, with upgrades to full high level platforms and inclusion of a passing track for Acela fully funded and to begin within the year. I'm less informed with regards to Westerly, but I believe that new construction for that station is coming down the tracks (ha) and the trains will reach there eventually. Meanwhile, service Providence-Woonsocket is an eventuality - not a question - at this point.

But it makes no sense for MBTA trains to run Boston-Westerly and Boston-Woonsocket, and it makes no sense to have RIDOT operating a RI rail service under some banner from Westerly-Woonsocket while MBTA is operating a rebranded Westerly/Woonsocket Line, to say nothing about the logistical nightmare such a thing would be. And all this is before the opposition from MA residents, and you can bet there'd be opposition.

A regional and intra-metro service for Boston has no reason to go farther than Providence (or, at the absolute MOST, T.F. Green on a LIMITED basis), and it certainly has no reason to operate the entirety of a neighboring state's network. Especially not when the state in question is ready and willing and WANTS to operate the service on their own terms. Why insist on not letting them do so?

Side question to the crowd: T.F. Green and Wickford both have just one side platform. Is this the new MBTA standard of station construction? Why not an island platform or two sides?

They're built to add those later when needed. T.F. Green's provisioned for Amtrak platforms in the center as well. Once there's a full-time service operating south of Providence instead of the limited schedule today, the plan is to drop in commuter rail platforms on the opposite sides. Extra platforms don't cost very much to tack on when the rest of the station infrastructure is in place.

Okay, that makes sense. Got it.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Side question to the crowd: T.F. Green and Wickford both have just one side platform. Is this the new MBTA standard of station construction? Why not an island platform or two sides?

They're built to add those later when needed. T.F. Green's provisioned for Amtrak platforms in the center as well. Once there's a full-time service operating south of Providence instead of the limited schedule today, the plan is to drop in commuter rail platforms on the opposite sides. Extra platforms don't cost very much to tack on when the rest of the station infrastructure is in place.

[whighlander]

Yes, I understand physics. I'm saying the numbers line up such that the extra expenditure still makes sense - at 300 in the NE, and 400 everywhere else. You take a hit to operating effeciency but recoup that and then some on your passengers.

It's like driving a car - people can get much better fuel economy driving 55 versus driving 65+. Does that mean most people do when given the choice? No - they go faster - because the 'cost' is worth the benefit.

Commute -- that's a false analogy

On a highway -- do you prefer to drive 80 and stop at every exit for 2 minutes or to drive 65 and only stop at the end of your trip?

The starting and stopping is the real killer of high average speed for rail -- for example the Acella can top 150 on a segment between Rt-128 and Providence and another segment just past Providence -- yet it still takes 3.5 hours to go from Boston South Station to NY Penn -- a distance of 231 mi or 370 km ==> average speed = 105 km/hr

Get rid of the slow spots in CT along the shore and cut the number of stops and you could run at peak speed of 250 km/hr and average of 180 km/hr using current Acella technology equipment and have a realistic chance of making the trip in 2 hrs -- the long sought dream to be fully competitive with air.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- that's a false analogy

On a highway -- do you prefer to drive 80 and stop at every exit for 2 minutes or to drive 65 and only stop at the end of your trip?

The starting and stopping is the real killer of high average speed for rail -- for example the Acella can top 150 on a segment between Rt-128 and Providence and another segment just past Providence -- yet it still takes 3.5 hours to go from Boston South Station to NY Penn -- a distance of 231 mi or 370 km ==> average speed = 105 km/hr

Get rid of the slow spots in CT along the shore and cut the number of stops and you could run at peak speed of 250 km/hr and average of 180 km/hr using current Acella technology equipment and have a realistic chance of making the trip in 2 hrs -- the long sought dream to be fully competitive with air.

Except the Acela has a minimum of 4 stops (BOS, NYP, PHL, WAS) it MUST make, and 4 more stops it needs to make in order to provide adequate coverage to the corridor (PVD, NHV, NWK, BAL), making your analogy equally false.

Even then, an average of 180 kmph to cover ~635 km of distance works out to... 3 and a half hours. Not bad, but a far cry from the 2 hours you suggest.

Averaging 250 kmph? 2 and a half hours - top speed of 300 kmph, 250 average is achievable no problem. Hell, keep your dwell times down enough and your top speed ranges wide enough, that 250 starts looking like 270-280 - 2 hours, 15~21 minutes...

As I said, it makes economic sense to run those trains at 300. That's the only way you're going to be competitive with air.

[whighlander]

Except the Acela has a minimum of 4 stops (BOS, NYP, PHL, WAS) it MUST make, and 4 more stops it needs to make in order to provide adequate coverage to the corridor (PVD, NHV, NWK, BAL), making your analogy equally false.

Even then, an average of 180 kmph to cover ~635 km of distance works out to... 3 and a half hours. Not bad, but a far cry from the 2 hours you suggest.

Averaging 250 kmph? 2 and a half hours - top speed of 300 kmph, 250 average is achievable no problem. Hell, keep your dwell times down enough and your top speed ranges wide enough, that 250 starts looking like 270-280 - 2 hours, 15~21 minutes...

As I said, it makes economic sense to run those trains at 300. That's the only way you're going to be competitive with air.

Commute -- Bingo! -- Acella is not the solution

But first -- I was talking only about the Bos South Station to NY Penn Station route (370 km) -- the rest of the corridor to DC is not really relevant at this point when you are competing with air

The solution is something I dubbed "Core-Trans" when I tried to pitch it to Amtrak about 10 + years ago

My system would go point to point -- non stop at a moderate speed of about 150 km/hr -==> 2.5 hours South Station (actually it would probably have to stop at Back Bay) to Penn Station

The keys to Core-Trans:
1) small, ligh weight self propelled vehicles -- single Red Line car size -- but built like a commuter aircraft
2) no tickets, no conductors -- you board the next vehicle as you arrive
3) GPS and WiFi positive control and monitoring of all vehicles at all times (don't really need a driver)
4) main line bypasses all stations -- stations such as Providence and New Haven are all on short loops
5) frequent departures -- say every 15 to 20 minutes at rush hours and 30 minutes mid day and late evening to NYC
a) Providence about the same intervals
b) New London, New Haven, Stamford about 30 minutes peak and 1 per hour off-peak
6) food and drinks, newspapers from vending machines

The system is based on 21st century packet switched communications technology -- no 19th Century concepts need apply

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- Bingo! -- Acella is not the solution

But first -- I was talking only about the Bos South Station to NY Penn Station route (370 km) -- the rest of the corridor to DC is not really relevant at this point when you are competing with air

The solution is something I dubbed "Core-Trans" when I tried to pitch it to Amtrak about 10 + years ago

My system would go point to point -- non stop at a moderate speed of about 150 km/hr -==> 2.5 hours South Station (actually it would probably have to stop at Back Bay) to Penn Station

The keys to Core-Trans:
1) small, ligh weight self propelled vehicles -- single Red Line car size -- but built like a commuter aircraft
2) no tickets, no conductors -- you board the next vehicle as you arrive
3) GPS and WiFi positive control and monitoring of all vehicles at all times (don't really need a driver)
4) main line bypasses all stations -- stations such as Providence and New Haven are all on short loops
5) frequent departures -- say every 15 to 20 minutes at rush hours and 30 minutes mid day and late evening to NYC
a) Providence about the same intervals
b) New London, New Haven, Stamford about 30 minutes peak and 1 per hour off-peak
6) food and drinks, newspapers from vending machines

The system is based on 21st century packet switched communications technology -- no 19th Century concepts need apply

Why wouldn't the remaining stretch to DC be relevant, again? I imagine a significant number of people are boarding those trains for a BOS - PHL or BOS - WAS commute, and the NYP - PHL/WAS crowd is significant too. I'd need to see some numbers for flights from Logan to Dulles but I imagine that those numbers aren't insignificant either.

As for Back Bay... a rehabbed Fairmount Line meets the existing NEC at Readville and provides a convenient routing around Back Bay with a better straightaway for acceleration from what I can see eyeballing the map.

That's assuming the Southeast Expressway is too shot to hell for median-running (probable) and the Old Colonies bottleneck either doesn't get fixed (doubtful) or does get fixed but there's no room to build a flyover into the Yankee Division Highway median to Route 128 station (where another flyover would route around the station and rejoin the existing NEC just afterwards, through to T.F. Green).

Either way, Back Bay won't be a mandatory stop in the future.

[Semass]

In the vein of The MBTA financial woes, would it be possible to spin out Commuter Rail and other MASSDOT held rails into a new statewide authority? Not to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic or anything, but the T has been taking a licking from all sides and it seems like commuter rail and The Ride are at the heart of it in many cases. Get the CR monkey off the MBTA's back and let it concentrate on subway, light rail and bus services in the core service area. Commuter Rail growth over the last 20 years has out paced the ability of the T to manage it. Too many MBTA resources are being devoted to services that serve a proportionately small percentage of users.

A new statewide railway authority would manage commuter services and related contractors. They would get custody of and be responsible for all state-owned non transit tracks. They would get all of the rolling stock. They would have to take on the debt of the expansions such as Greenbush. They would be responsible for future CR projects - Rhode Island, South Coast, New Hampshire. Potential service to Cape Cod and Springfield would live there as part of the statewide nature. Let this division be responsible for paying for it so it is not at the expense of core MBTA service.

There is still a strong case for keeping the sales tax model with MBTA as even without CR they move over 1M people per day. However, the service assessments for CR only towns could go to the new entity. This authority would be able to earn some revenue by developing private freight service on state rails. Use TOD real estate here too, if not subway/light rail related.

Loss of CR revenue to the MBTA should be more than made up by savings from not having responsibility over all of that infrastructure. By offloading this stuff, MBTA core services could probably be brought back to financial health pretty well. The Rail division/authority would need to be more entrepreneurial but would have a good chance for success.

[Commuting Boston Student]

In the vein of The MBTA financial woes, would it be possible to spin out Commuter Rail and other MASSDOT held rails into a new statewide authority? Not to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic or anything, but the T has been taking a licking from all sides and it seems like commuter rail and The Ride are at the heart of it in many cases. Get the CR monkey off the MBTA's back and let it concentrate on subway, light rail and bus services in the core service area. Commuter Rail growth over the last 20 years has out paced the ability of the T to manage it. Too many MBTA resources are being devoted to services that serve a proportionately small percentage of users.

A new statewide railway authority would manage commuter services and related contractors. They would get custody of and be responsible for all state-owned non transit tracks. They would get all of the rolling stock. They would have to take on the debt of the expansions such as Greenbush. They would be responsible for future CR projects - Rhode Island, South Coast, New Hampshire. Potential service to Cape Cod and Springfield would live there as part of the statewide nature. Let this division be responsible for paying for it so it is not at the expense of core MBTA service.

There is still a strong case for keeping the sales tax model with MBTA as even without CR they move over 1M people per day. However, the service assessments for CR only towns could go to the new entity. This authority would be able to earn some revenue by developing private freight service on state rails. Use TOD real estate here too, if not subway/light rail related.

Loss of CR revenue to the MBTA should be more than made up by savings from not having responsibility over all of that infrastructure. By offloading this stuff, MBTA core services could probably be brought back to financial health pretty well. The Rail division/authority would need to be more entrepreneurial but would have a good chance for success.

The Commuter Rail is operated by MBCR - the MBTA simply subcontracts out. I'm not sure what the contract specifics are, but I'm doubting that this is such a huge cost-saver. I could be wrong, though.

However, savings or no, from a political and philosophy standpoint this should be done, and is worth doing - especially for the legal snarls it will cut away. Divorcing Commuter Rail should indirectly open the door towards improved regional, cross-state and interstate commuter rail services.

Western MA is still a total transit dead zone and the single-track bottlenecks on the Framingham/Worcester Line aren't helping.

[omaja]

Divorcing commuter rail from the MBTA's rapid transit operations seems to be incredibly logical. This follows the systems in Tokyo, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, and I am sure basically every other major world city, where some sort of city agency (Tokyo Metro, RATP, Madrid Metro, BVG) operates the rapid transit and some sort of regional or national agency (JR East, SNCF, Renfe, Deutsche Bahn) operates the suburban or commuter system.

There are really no synergies to be had by having them under the same agency (different rolling stock, regulations, usage, scheduling, maintenance, etc.). My only thought is that splitting the two would likely show just how much the commuter rail loses on its own relative to the rapid transit. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, and any expansion plan funding can be diverted to existing system maintenance and upgrades.

[Matthew]

The operating expense of the commuter rail was $398 million in 2011 (http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/MBTA%20Audited%20Financial%20Statements%20June%203 0%202011-FINAL.pdf)

The NTD (http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/) database actually has it listed under $300 million (for 2010), and I'm not sure why. If NTD is correct (which I am somewhat doubtful) then MBCR is somewhat cheaper per operating hour than most American agencies.

The Tokyo system is even crazier than that. There's something like 8 operators, 2 of them public, the rest private. All of them profitable. Total ridership = 40 million. Per day!

In terms of splitting up turf, the primary issue to be addressed is retaining integrated ticketing and schedule planning. In many other countries, even when separate agencies or companies run trains, they still manage to work together. In America, even when all the service is under one roof, they still fail at cross-ticketing and planning (Charlie!).

[Commuting Boston Student]

In terms of splitting up turf, the primary issue to be addressed is retaining integrated ticketing and schedule planning. In many other countries, even when separate agencies or companies run trains, they still manage to work together. In America, even when all the service is under one roof, they still fail at cross-ticketing and planning (Charlie!).

Oh, if only there was some kind of 'administration' or something that existed at a federal level and could step in to force all state agencies to fall in line and cooperate with each other.

...oh, wait, that agency is actively malevolent and too preoccupied with concern trolling Amtrak and rolling stock manufacturers to do its stated job.

Oh, if only we could dismantle the FRA and replace it with an agency that didn't suck...

[Matthew]

Well, the FRA is terrible for passenger rail that shares tracks with freight, no doubt. But I'm not even sure they're applicable. They don't have jurisdiction over subways.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Well, the FRA is terrible for passenger rail that shares tracks with freight, no doubt. But I'm not even sure they're applicable. They don't have jurisdiction over subways.

They have jurisdiction over commuter rail, and could force ticketing to become standardized across state lines. Now, if you have a CharlieCard that works on trains in Massachusetts, California and everywhere in between, I like to think most agencies will convert on their own.

If not, commuter rail is half the battle.

[Nexis4jersey]

Northeastern Regional / Intercity Rail Network


The New Haven - Springfield - Brattleboro Corridor is being upgraded to handle speeds of 125mph and will be completely double tracked from New Haven to Vermont which is about 119.08 Miles. The line will stay Diesel for now , but room will be left to Electrify in the future. The Upgrade will also reroute the Vermonter onto a New Route adding 4 new stations and shaving 45-70mins... The line will be rebranded as the Knowledge Corridor and run 10-12 round trip trains between DC/NY to Brattleboro and Interior Vermont. Hartford Union Station could be moved when I-84 is rebuilt as a Tunnel or covered through Downtown Hartford. If this were to happen the station would get 2 Island Platform's and 4 Tracks which would service Boston - NY HSR Trains and Knowledge Corridor trains. Springfield Station would also be rebuilt , although there isn't enough funding to do the master plan yet. New Haven Union Station would receive a European style shield above the platform area. The Projected Ridership for the Commuter and Intercity Rail by 2030 is 64,700....I think that warrants Electrification...which is only expected to cost 150 Million more onto of the 270 Million cost of Upgrading this feeder line.

The Downeaster is being extended 2 stations in Maine , with Maine launching studies to extend it as far North as Bangor. This line will also be upgraded and more sidings added to allow speeds up to 125mph south of Old Orchard Beach via Electrified trains in Push-Pull set. There is no target date for the Speed Increasing projects although the first Extensions to Brunswick,ME should in the Fall of this year. The line will enhancements and Future Commuter Rail and Streetcar feeders in Portland and Massachusetts will see between 6,800 people a day by 2030.

Hudson Valley Empire Service , Will be upgraded to support Speeds of at least 110-125mph , from Schenectady to New York Penn Station. All of the 159 miles between Schenectady and NY will be double tracked and concrete tracks laid to handle the increased speeds. All Stations will receive High Level Platforms and a New Station hall , Schenectady , Hudson & Rhinecliff–Kingston will be upgraded by 2025. A Swing Bridge between Manhattan and The Bronx will have to be replaced to handle all extra trains. New Equipment is being looked into for the faster service whether that is DMUs or the line is Electrified and its push-pulls that haul passengers up and down the line. Projected Ridership with Enhancements and including Hudson line riders by 2030 will be 95,300.

Lackawanna line will run from NewYork Penn or Hoboken Terminal to Binghamton about 195 miles. With 14 stations , a key part of line which will reconnect it to PA is under Construction. Phase 1 will open by 2013 , Phase 2 into PA could be completed by 2019 depending on funding. Once in PA , 70 miles of second track will need to be restored and space made for future Electrification... The Commuter Rail portion will run from New York Penn or Hoboken to Analomink,PA. Amtrak would pick up the rest of the 7 stations which are further apart and in less populated areas to support commuter rail.... The Top speed of this line even with upgrades would be 90mph... The Cost of this line is expected to be between 500-800 Million $ , most of which is the cost of restoring 2 Long viaducts in NJ to handle trains once again. Projected Ridership of the Lackawanna Intercity and Commuter Rail services by 2030 is expected to be 35,600 with seasonal ups and downs. This line would connect the popular Pocono Ski Resorts and Gateway Parks of the NYC region.... Seeing how this line was dead a few years and all the sudden is under construction gives me hope for other lines.

Lehigh line would run from New York Penn or Hoboken Terminal to Harrisburg via Allentown and Reading,PA. This line would be 168 miles long , and have 11 stations. Of the 168 miles , 70 miles needs double tracking to allow Amtrak , Commuter rail and Freight to all move smoothly...and in some areas of NJ 4 tracking is needed. This line would be Diesel....and have a top speed of 110mph. The Commuter Rail portion of the route would be operated by NJT and is an Extension of Raritan Valley line from High Bridge,NJ to Allentown,PA. The Lehigh Service would connect over 9 Colleges and Universities , Service a population of 1.5 Million and link together numerous Tourist traps between Harrisburg and NY/Hoboken. Projected Ridership for the Intercity & Commuter Rail services is expected to be 54,900. In Reading the line would connect to the future Reading line for Service south to Norristown and Philly and in Harrisburg to numerous Commuter rail lines to Lancaster , York and Carlisle,PA.

Keystone Corridor runs between Philadelphia and Harrisburg , its 104 miles long with 20 stations. 8 stations will be replaced or upgraded to include high level platforms , heated and A/C waiting area and some stations will have cafes and other leased space. The Wires along the Keystone line will be replaced by 2020 with constant tension to allow speeds up 125mph. 3 Grade Crossings will be separated later this decade. From Lancaster to Harrisburg a new Commuter Rail service will share the tracks which plans call for 2 tracks to be restored in some areas to allow for Amtrak and Commuter Rail service to pass by without any issues. Another station will be added between the 26 mi gap between Parkersburg and Lancaster to service the Amish Country which is a huge Tourism trap in that part of PA. Another Station is being considered in West Philadelphia and would have Trolley / Tram Connections. Commuter Rail Service which runs from Philadelphia to Thorndale,PA will be restored to Parkersburg when the New Switches to allow train turning is put in. A New Amtrak and Septa yard will be built in Thorndale in a former Freight yard. Downingtown will see its station move 400 ft to the East and the US 30 Underpass replaced to allow trucks and buses under. The New Station will have a Bus Terminal , Waiting Areas , and High Level platforms. In Philadelphia a Flyover that carries commuter rail service will have to replaced along with upgrades to the Zoo Interchange to allow trains to move faster and without conflicting... All Sub Stations will also be replaced , half of the keystone Corridor is already upgraded. Projected Ridership combining the Intercity and Commuter Rail Services is expected to be 110,000 by 2030.

Downstate Corridor service would run from New York Penn Station to Ocean City,MD , this line would be 122 miles along mostly straight track which would be replaced. This service would 12 stations. Trains would run up to 125mph on this corridor and connect the high population areas to the popular Coastal Gateway areas of Delaware and Maryland... There would be no commuter service on this line just Intercity Rail service. The line would merge onto the NEC in Newark,DE and service other cities and towns in Northern Delaware like Churchman's crossing , Wilmington and Claymont before heading to Philadelphia , Trenton , Newark and New York. Projected Ridership of this line would be 9,400 with seasonal ups and downs.

Northwest line will run for 86 miles between Baltimore and Harrisburg and have 8 stations. The line would service the I-83 corridor and the numerous historic sites and towns in between. The line would also connect into MARC service in Baltimore and with Commuter Rail service in Harrisburg and York. The line would have a top speed of 90mph and could be Diesel or Electric... Projected Ridership on this line combined with future commuter Rail ridership would be 13,000.

Virginia Regional Service , will be Upgraded to Speeds of 125mph and Electrified. The System will one day cover all of Virginia with 610 miles of track , with 10-15 round trips per day along the Main Trunk between DC and Richmond. Richmond to Newport News and Norfolk will see between 10-12 trains a day when the full build is completed. Richmond to Norfolk service is expected to start in December. Regional Service will be extended sometime later this decade from Lynchburg to Roanoke,VA. And all stations will be High level platformed to allow faster boarding and ADA accessibility... The Network currently connects various cities and towns in Virginia and is expected to grow to 120,800 daily riders by 2030 factoring Commuter Rail in Northern Virginia and Norfolk which will be running by then along the Norfolk branch.

Misc Northeastern system upgrades and mini projects to be done by 2030


-All Substations to be replaced
-Voltage on the entire Northeastern network to be brought up to 25 kV AC ,60 Hz
-Newark Penn Station Roof , Platform replacement
-Newark Penn Station platform extension to accomendate 22 cars
-European Style Train shield to cover the Platforms at New Haven Union Station
-South Station 5 Track Expansion and Train Shield
-Baltimore Penn Station Platform and train shield replacement
-All Lower Empire Service stations to be High Level platformed and expanded
-All Downeaster Corridors stations to be High Level platformed and expanded
-Downingtown Station will be moved to make way for a redevelopment and replaced
-Coatesville Station will be replaced as part of the long term Coatesville Plans
-Parkersburg Station will be upgraded to ADA compliance and expanded to handle Septa Service
-All Keystone Service stations will be high level platformed and expanded
-The Beast or Dock Bridges repainting
-New LED Signals to the Entire Northeastern Network
-50 New Acela Cars
-70 New Cities Sprinter Locomotives to replace HHP-8 and AME7 locos operating along the NEC and Keystone corridors
-60 New Amfleet cars for Regional Service not including the New cars for the new feeder lines
-Constant Catenary along the Keystone Corridor
-High Level Platforms to all Septa Stations along Amtrak corridors
-High Level Platforms to all MBTA Stations along Amtrak corridors
-High Level Platforms to all MARC Stations along Amtrak Corridors

Shorten list..

Lackawanna Cut-off - 195 Mi - 15 stations - Top Speed : 100mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 9,200
Lehigh Corridor - 170 Mi - 11 Stations - Top Speed : 100mph - Diesel - Projected Daily Riders : 17,400
Keystone Corridor - 104 Mi - 20 Stations - Top Speed (after 2025) : 135mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders by 2030 : 16,800
Downstate Delaware Corridor - 122 Mi - 12 Stations - Top Speed : 135mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 19,400
Northwest line - 86 Mi - 8 Stations - Top Speed : 90mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 14,800
Hudson Valley Empire Service - 159 Mi - 7 Stations - Top Speed : 125mph - Diesel - Projected Daily Riders by 2030 : 29,200
The Downeaster - 135 mi - 10 Stations - Top Speed : 125mph - Electrified by 2035 - Projected Daily Riders by 2030 : 14,200
Knowledge / Vermonter Corridor - 300 Mi - 20 Stations - Top Speed : 125mph - Electrified by 2035 - Projected Daily Riders by 2030 : 25,000
Virginia Railway Network - 610 Mi - 35 Stations - Top Speed : 135mph - Electrified by 2040 - Projected Daily Riders by 2030 : 95,300
Concord Corridor - 70 Mi - 8 Stations - Top Speed : 125mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 8,400
Cape Cod Service - 80 Mi - 11 Stations - Top Speed : 90mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 12,600
Cross England Express - 190 Mi - 9 Stations - Top Speed : 100mph - Electrified - Projected Daily Riders : 16,300

[DominusNovus]

Quick question: What population density do you guys think is generally sufficient enough for light rail and subways?

[Matthew]

0 if zoning permits dense development ;)

What's your goal? Remedial transit? Or something that practically pays for itself? I think you want enough density to support a diverse urban neighborhood with a variety of things going on, jobs, homes, etc. Probably upwards of 60-100 dwelling units per net acre. Jobs can be even denser where commercial activity exists. Basically, if it's a place where people happily walk around for daily life, then it's also a place where people will use the station, and there'll be two-way traffic all day.

[Nexis4jersey]

Quick question: What population density do you guys think is generally sufficient enough for light rail and subways?

It depends , Diesel Light Rail can work with Low to Medium Densities and spread out populations. Where as Electric Light Rail requires Medium to High Densities to work , low densities won't get a good return investment. Subways work best with High to Ultra High Densities...or too connect Semi Dense areas with Ultra Dense areas.

[DominusNovus]

It depends , Diesel Light Rail can work with Low to Medium Densities and spread out populations. Where as Electric Light Rail requires Medium to High Densities to work , low densities won't get a good return investment. Subways work best with High to Ultra High Densities...or too connect Semi Dense areas with Ultra Dense areas.

What would you define low, medium, and high density at, roughly speaking? How many thousand people/sq mile?

[BostonUrbEx]

I personally would probably say:

Rural - Under 1000/sqmi
Low - 2500/sqmi
Medium - 5000/sqmi
High - 10,000/sqmi
Ultra - Over 20,000/sqmi


Rural - not sufficient
Low - debatable
Medium - feasible
High - very feasible
Ultra - you should probably go heavy rail subway

[Matthew]

Ultra is 20,000 ppl/sq mi? Not on a local level. That's 31 people per acre. Housing in the North End easily holds 200 people per acre, ranging up to 400 in some cases.

[omaja]

20,000/sq mi really isn't "ultra" density in any sense. Back Bay, Fenway, South End, Davis, etc. are all over that threshold and I don't think anyone would classify those areas as ultra dense a la Manhattan, Tokyo, Mexico City, Paris, etc.

I posted the below list in the thread about A Line reactivation but this could be useful benchmarking. Seems like really the bare minimum for rail would be 5,000/sq mi, but that would obviously need to be anchored and supplemented by much higher densities across the corridor.

Density (people/square mile) ZIP Code Neighborhood
63,135 02113 North End
36,211 02115 Fenway
27,933 02116 Back Bay
25,340 02118 South End
24,819 02108 Beacon Hill
21,667 02139 Central/Inman/MIT
21,274 02446 Brookline-North
21,069 02144 Somerville-Davis
17,817 02145 East Somerville/Magoun
17,334 02141 East Cambridge
16,129 02143 Somerville-Union
15,460 02140 Cambridge-Alewife
15,276 02134 Allston
14,620 02150 Chelsea
14,498 02135 Brighton
13,539 02127 South Boston
12,672 02138 West Cambridge/Harvard
12,080 02129 Charlestown
9,073 02130 Jamaica Plain
8,358 02453 Waltham-South
7,245 02472 Watertown
5,625 02445 Brookline-South
5,285 02132 West Roxbury
4,992 02109 Financial District
4,048 02452 Waltham-East

[F-Line to Dudley]

20,000/sq mi really isn't "ultra" density in any sense. Back Bay, Fenway, South End, Davis, etc. are all over that threshold and I don't think anyone would classify those areas as ultra dense a la Manhattan, Tokyo, Mexico City, Paris, etc.

I posted the below list in the thread about A Line reactivation but this could be useful benchmarking. Seems like really the bare minimum for rail would be 5,000/sq mi, but that would obviously need to be anchored and supplemented by much higher densities across the corridor.

Density (people/square mile) ZIP Code Neighborhood
63,135 02113 North End
36,211 02115 Fenway
27,933 02116 Back Bay
25,340 02118 South End
24,819 02108 Beacon Hill
21,667 02139 Central/Inman/MIT
21,274 02446 Brookline-North
21,069 02144 Somerville-Davis
17,817 02145 East Somerville/Magoun
17,334 02141 East Cambridge
16,129 02143 Somerville-Union
15,460 02140 Cambridge-Alewife
15,276 02134 Allston
14,620 02150 Chelsea
14,498 02135 Brighton
13,539 02127 South Boston
12,672 02138 West Cambridge/Harvard
12,080 02129 Charlestown
9,073 02130 Jamaica Plain
8,358 02453 Waltham-South
7,245 02472 Watertown
5,625 02445 Brookline-South
5,285 02132 West Roxbury
4,992 02109 Financial District
4,048 02452 Waltham-East

That is awfully small for JP. Do those figures correct for the landmass of the Arboretum and cemetery? Inhabitable JP is way, way, way denser.

[BostonUrbEx]

Ultra is 20,000 ppl/sq mi? Not on a local level. That's 31 people per acre. Housing in the North End easily holds 200 people per acre, ranging up to 400 in some cases.

I guess I was more referring to an entire municipality's overall density. If Boston's total density was 20,000, then I'd say it's ultra when viewed in it's entirety.

[omaja]

That is awfully small for JP. Do those figures correct for the landmass of the Arboretum and cemetery? Inhabitable JP is way, way, way denser.

No, these are raw total population / total land area which, like you mention, will skew areas like JP, Brighton, Charlestown, Harvard, etc. that have larger percentages of their total land area dedicated to civic uses. Not perfect or completely apples-to-apples, but this provides a rough sketch. My guess is inhabitable JP is somewhere in the 20K/sq mi range.

[Matthew]

As you can see, those large grain numbers aren't useful for transportation planning, which needs to look at what's in walking distance of a station. The portion of Allston around Comm Ave has densities on the same order as Back Bay or Fenway, while it's grouped with Oak Square which is semi-suburban.

[czsz]

You can find numbers by census district on the census website, which are generally more accurate as the districts are smaller. I did an analysis of Boston in the early 00s (after the last census) and the numbers were way higher in some cases than the zip code versions. The North End was about the same, ~60k, the north slope of Beacon Hill around 80k. The densest district though was East Fenway, at over 100k ppl/sq mi.

Most of the city clocked in around 20-40k, which was consistent across triple decker and some rowhouse neighborhoods (the South End). Back Bay came in higher, somewhere between the Beacon Hill and South End numbers.

[rdeastcl]

Im assuming this doesn't account for college students in the given area's both in dorms and off campus housing (off campus housing while not being considered residents)

[HenryAlan]

Most of the city clocked in around 20-40k, which was consistent across triple decker and some rowhouse neighborhoods (the South End). Back Bay came in higher, somewhere between the Beacon Hill and South End numbers.

Interesting, that's quite high. I assume the analysis excludes things like parks and water, which means that the populated areas of Boston are generally high density and could certainly work well with more rail transit. Did you also examine Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline?

[Nexis4jersey]

Im assuming this doesn't account for college students in the given area's both in dorms and off campus housing (off campus housing while not being considered residents)

They don't count college students , otherwise the almost 90,000 students living in New Brunswick would 5x the density...

[czsz]

Interesting, that's quite high. I assume the analysis excludes things like parks and water, which means that the populated areas of Boston are generally high density and could certainly work well with more rail transit. Did you also examine Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline?

Yes, I excluded tracts that were mostly parks and/or water in that analysis. I was definitely surprised by how high the densities were in triple-decker Boston and/or that the South End was low enough density to match them (because rowhouses had been turned into single family houses often, maybe?) It definitely makes the case for more rail transit, particularly on the Indigo Line and/or Blue Hill Ave. corridors and into Southie, which was at the upper end of that spectrum.

I don't remember figures for Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline as well but I think they were similar (only for northern Brookline, though, not the more suburbany, southern parts). Harvard Square, if I remember correctly, had tracts around it up to 40k.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yes, I excluded tracts that were mostly parks and/or water in that analysis. I was definitely surprised by how high the densities were in triple-decker Boston and/or that the South End was low enough density to match them (because rowhouses had been turned into single family houses often, maybe?) It definitely makes the case for more rail transit, particularly on the Indigo Line and/or Blue Hill Ave. corridors and into Southie, which was at the upper end of that spectrum.

I don't remember figures for Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline as well but I think they were similar (only for northern Brookline, though, not the more suburbany, southern parts). Harvard Square, if I remember correctly, had tracts around it up to 40k.

North Cambridge probably depresses the Cambridge numbers a bit because a lot of the homes are owner-occupied and not subdivided. And of course Kendall's going to have a little bit of similarity to the Financial District for being so dense for commercial it's got very little residential and turns up almost a zero.

I wish there were a heat map for these sorts of things, because parkland and non-mixed commercial put the numbers through a bit of a funhouse mirror. Needham, for one, always turns up misleadingly low densities because of the enormous land mass of Cutler Park and the reservation land west of Needham Jct. relative to total area of the town. The equal-acreage landmass in between Cutler and Ridge Hill Reservation is hella dense, comparable to densest parts of Newton.

I know somebody who works for City of Cambridge doing GIS work, and they were internally crunching a years-long census project that basically counts occupancy in "3-D" and accounts for building type/floors. That would allow them to weigh things like triple-decker occupancy vs. high-rise vs. lower-occupancy (such as the predominately 2-story, but very closely-packed, area around Lechmere) and return more useful data that accounts for the functional differences in residence types. Haven't talked to her in awhile so I don't know what they are doing with this data and if it will ever become public, but it's the kind of sortable database-cum-Google Maps we'd all salivate over.

[Matthew]

This is the map (https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?viz=MAP&q=select+col7+from+1_F7fZLSSKtJhijQfOfVKhgMcSOY9uL RYWlykaBQ&h=false&lat=42.34949433566922&lng=-71.0716311029588&z=13&t=1&l=col7) I've been looking at. Individual census blocks, within 10km of Park Street, colored by Housing Unit density. You can click on each block for more details.

[BostonUrbEx]

Any idea how that map was made? Where'd you find it?

[Matthew]

I made it by importing census block data into PostgreSQL, using PostGIS to select all geographies within 10km of Park St, and outputting a table with some computed densities. The map canvas is courtesy of Google "Fusion" (a.k.a. "beta" Tables) which lets you import spreadsheets with geography information for visualization.

[omaja]

Been updating my vision for Boston's rapid transit rail network: click the image to see the latest.

http://i.imgur.com/kCmtw.png (http://goo.gl/maps/0ZfE0)

The biggest change is the addition of a northern loop to my circle line to provide a crosstown route connecting East Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville and Cambridge.

[czsz]

Blue Line heavy rail along that route to Needham is a way better proposal than extending the D that way or the Orange Line from the east. It would give the speed of the Orange Line but serve a corridor with many more destinations of interest to Needhamites (you'd struggle to find many people moving between Needham and Roslindale as opposed to Newton).

[Commuting Boston Student]

Blue Line heavy rail along that route to Needham is a way better proposal than extending the D that way or the Orange Line from the east. It would give the speed of the Orange Line but serve a corridor with many more destinations of interest to Needhamites (you'd struggle to find many people moving between Needham and Roslindale as opposed to Newton).

No, I disagree. Needham-Newton Traffic can be served just fine by a light rail service, you won't struggle at all to fill an Orange Line train with Needhamites moving to Back Bay or Ruggles, and if you've already dug up half of Storrow to get the Blue that far, there's no reason not to send it to Oak Square instead (with the eventual goal of restoring transit to Watertown).

Blue-eats-D is a terrible idea.

My only other complaint with that map is that the Mass Ave. Subway / Line 10 splits off of the Red Line at Andrew instead of JFK/UMass, but that's comparatively minor.

[omaja]

No, I disagree. Needham-Newton Traffic can be served just fine by a light rail service, you won't struggle at all to fill an Orange Line train with Needhamites moving to Back Bay or Ruggles, and if you've already dug up half of Storrow to get the Blue that far, there's no reason not to send it to Oak Square instead (with the eventual goal of restoring transit to Watertown).

Blue-eats-D is a terrible idea.

The Needham Line corridor cuts across a rather large swath of protected and uninhabitable land that makes it much less appealing for upgrading to rapid transit, especially considering the D branch would traverse a denser area with a lot of potential around 128. The 1945 MTA plan even had a heavy rail Riverside Line branching to Needham and the Orange Line continuing past West Roxbury to Dedham. Obviously the West Roxbury-Dedham corridor has been compromised, but the extension to West Roxbury would still be wildly successful.

The Blue-D combination just seems so natural. I'd guess that the two lines, meaning D from Riverside to Government Center and the entire Blue, see similar passenger numbers, which would make it a very used line across its whole route. The D may actually have the leg up now, but the Blue Line has massive potential for substantial increases with an extension to Lynn.

My only other complaint with that map is that the Mass Ave. Subway / Line 10 splits off of the Red Line at Andrew instead of JFK/UMass, but that's comparatively minor.

The point there would be to maximize the number of single transfers from the three lines that converge. Otherwise, everyone would have to make a double transfer to get from Line 10 to Line 12 (changing first at JFK/UMass and then at Andrew, or vice-versa)

[Commuting Boston Student]

The Needham Line corridor cuts across a rather large swath of protected and uninhabitable land that makes it much less appealing for upgrading to rapid transit, especially considering the D branch would traverse a denser area with a lot of potential around 128. The 1945 MTA plan even had a heavy rail Riverside Line branching to Needham and the Orange Line continuing past West Roxbury to Dedham. Obviously the West Roxbury-Dedham corridor has been compromised, but the extension to West Roxbury would still be wildly successful.

The Needham Line corridor is also complete and intact, and we can rip it out for Rapid Transit without losing anything of value. Converting its stations is also easy, and, in fact, because of all that protected uninhabitable land, you can speed Orange Line trains between Needham, Hersey and West Roxbury with very little slow down. Stop the Orange Line at Needham Junction and let a branch of the green line handle travel between the Needham Stations.

The Blue-D combination just seems so natural. I'd guess that the two lines, meaning D from Riverside to Government Center and the entire Blue, see similar passenger numbers, which would make it a very used line across its whole route. The D may actually have the leg up now, but the Blue Line has massive potential for substantial increases with an extension to Lynn.

So convert the Green Line into Heavy Rail, full stop. If you're sending Blue that way, all of that prep work - right down to rolling stock appropriation - can easily be shifted to a Green Line Heavy Rail project instead. Make the B a branch of your Line 6, and you've got the right idea with C Branch -> South Station -> Silver Line Bus Tunnel already. Presto, you've got three light rails that still offer the glorious single-seat ride to downtown AND you've got a heavy rail Central Subway AND you can send the Blue Line somewhere it will be far more useful, like Oak Square, Newton Corner, and Watertown.

I'm not seeing how Blue-eats-D is natural at all.

The point there would be to maximize the number of single transfers from the three lines that converge. Otherwise, everyone would have to make a double transfer to get from Line 10 to Line 12 (changing first at JFK/UMass and then at Andrew, or vice-versa)

Just have them change at a station built at Melnea Cass / Mass. Ave. Connector. There has to be a station there anyway if you want a single transfer between 10 and 8.

[Equilibria]

The Blue-D combination just seems so natural. I'd guess that the two lines, meaning D from Riverside to Government Center and the entire Blue, see similar passenger numbers, which would make it a very used line across its whole route. The D may actually have the leg up now, but the Blue Line has massive potential for substantial increases with an extension to Lynn.

As a former resident of Newton who grew up minutes from the D and used it often, it would be awful for Newton (and worse for Needham) to convert that line to HRT. Newton folks tend to use the Green Line to get between parts of Newton more than to get to Boston - I know of very few people who regularly went beyond Chestnut Hill - and for that purpose LRT as it's currently built works fine. This is even more important when talking about the extension to Needham, since that line isn't grade separated and would be pretty well embedded in village centers. Even where HRT exists at grade (I'm thinking about Chicago here), it tends to be ugly and uninviting, with heavy fencing of the ROW due to the third-rail safety issue. LRT is much less intimidating.

People in Needham won't be using this service to get to Boston since they'll have either truncated CR or Orange Line for that, making fewer stops at higher speeds. Similarly, folks from Riverside and points west won't (and don't) go all the way into Boston that way much, since under a full build-out there would be DMU or HRT along the Pike.

As I've said before, the D and Needham lines are primarily intra-suburban lines with redundant faster spokes to Downtown. That's about as clear-cut a context for LRT as you can get.

[Commuting Boston Student]

As a former resident of Newton who grew up minutes from the D and used it often, it would be awful for Newton (and worse for Needham) to convert that line to HRT. Newton folks tend to use the Green Line to get between parts of Newton more than to get to Boston - I know of very few people who regularly went beyond Chestnut Hill - and for that purpose LRT as it's currently built works fine. This is even more important when talking about the extension to Needham, since that line isn't grade separated and would be pretty well embedded in village centers. Even where HRT exists at grade (I'm thinking about Chicago here), it tends to be ugly and uninviting, with heavy fencing of the ROW due to the third-rail safety issue. LRT is much less intimidating.

People in Needham won't be using this service to get to Boston since they'll have either truncated CR or Orange Line for that, making fewer stops at higher speeds. Similarly, folks from Riverside and points west won't (and don't) go all the way into Boston that way much, since under a full build-out there would be DMU or HRT along the Pike.

As I've said before, the D and Needham lines are primarily intra-suburban lines with redundant faster spokes to Downtown. That's about as clear-cut a context for LRT as you can get.

What about keeping the D as light rail, four-tracking from Kenmore to Park Street what isn't four-tracked already, cutting the D back to Park Street, and converting one of the other Green Line branches to Heavy Rail? You'd get two HRT tracks and two LRT tracks from Kenmore to Park, and cross-platform transfers from heavy rail to light rail. It'd be a bit of an engineering challenge and probably require an elevated ROW, but hey, this is Crazy Pitches.

Would the B branch be better served as Heavy Rail?

[Equilibria]

What about keeping the D as light rail, four-tracking from Kenmore to Park Street what isn't four-tracked already, cutting the D back to Park Street, and converting one of the other Green Line branches to Heavy Rail? You'd get two HRT tracks and two LRT tracks from Kenmore to Park, and cross-platform transfers from heavy rail to light rail. It'd be a bit of an engineering challenge and probably require an elevated ROW, but hey, this is Crazy Pitches.

Would the B branch be better served as Heavy Rail?

To the first point - I am no more of an expert in light rail subway design than you are, so I'd have to defer that question to F-Line, who will show up here at some point. However, in a world where Newton and Needham each have their own higher-speed connection to Boston, I see no real need for the D Branch beyond Park Street. In fact, I don't see much of a need for it beyond Kenmore. As to your second point, again, I know less about that neighborhood than the many other people who have endlessly debated B-Line HRT on this site before, so I'll defer to them, but yes, that route must have higher density and greater transit demand.

In general, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to plan a future MBTA as a set of line pairs that meet at a particular outer station - one taking intra-suburban traffic, the other designed for hub-and-spoke. Just off the top of my head, you could have:

Riverside (EMU/Green D)
Needham Junction (Orange/Green D)
Ashmont (Red/Green F)
Porter (Red/Green ?)
Waltham (HRT through Belmont/Green A from Watertown)
Hartwell Ave (Red down 2 Median/Green on Minuteman ROW)
Wonderland (Blue/Green from Chelsea/Everett)

I realize that some of these might require some folks to drive a short distance to the train, but it allows for functional quieter service between surburban town centers while still allowing communities faster access to Downtown within their borders.

Just a thought. Not well developed.

[F-Line to Dudley]

What about keeping the D as light rail, four-tracking from Kenmore to Park Street what isn't four-tracked already, cutting the D back to Park Street, and converting one of the other Green Line branches to Heavy Rail? You'd get two HRT tracks and two LRT tracks from Kenmore to Park, and cross-platform transfers from heavy rail to light rail. It'd be a bit of an engineering challenge and probably require an elevated ROW, but hey, this is Crazy Pitches.

Would the B branch be better served as Heavy Rail?

A "bit" of an engineering challenge? Try a humongous engineering challenge. That's Back Bay landfill. All the buildings are sitting on wood stilts. You've got hundreds of pumps balancing the water table. There is no freaking way the Central Subway is getting touched between Mass Ave. and Boylston. They could build it in the first place because the landfill was new and there were tons of open lots on Boylston. The filled-in density wouldn't work. At least not on old, unreinforced infrastructure like that. Under Boylston is a lot different than, say, the Pru complex where the landfill was compressed flat to support the weight of the ex-train yards that moved in the second the filling was finished. I mean, the Copley elevator project started causing the church outside to develop masonry cracks. That's how fragile the underground dependencies are under those streets.

If you're going to add extra track capacity to Kenmore...the Riverbank Subway is it. Or Huntington Ave. BERy had both of those proposals going for a reason. The diggable places in town are under the B and E reservations, under the NEC, in the cleared Big Dig fill (under, around, etc.) and on the Pike frontage roads. For the same reason BRT under Chinatown was a batshit insane idea, quadding the Central Subway ain't gonna work without costing billions in overruns and royally, royally screwing up the surface for years on end. For something a parallel route offset several blocks would get them sooner, at half the cost, with a fraction of the frayed nerves.

[Commuting Boston Student]

A "bit" of an engineering challenge? Try a humongous engineering challenge. That's Back Bay landfill. All the buildings are sitting on wood stilts. You've got hundreds of pumps balancing the water table. There is no freaking way the Central Subway is getting touched between Mass Ave. and Boylston. They could build it in the first place because the landfill was new and there were tons of open lots on Boylston. The filled-in density wouldn't work. At least not on old, unreinforced infrastructure like that. Under Boylston is a lot different than, say, the Pru complex where the landfill was compressed flat to support the weight of the ex-train yards that moved in the second the filling was finished. I mean, the Copley elevator project started causing the church outside to develop masonry cracks. That's how fragile the underground dependencies are under those streets.

If you're going to add extra track capacity to Kenmore...the Riverbank Subway is it. Or Huntington Ave. BERy had both of those proposals going for a reason. The diggable places in town are under the B and E reservations, under the NEC, in the cleared Big Dig fill (under, around, etc.) and on the Pike frontage roads. For the same reason BRT under Chinatown was a batshit insane idea, quadding the Central Subway ain't gonna work without costing billions in overruns and royally, royally screwing up the surface for years on end. For something a parallel route offset several blocks would get them sooner, at half the cost, with a fraction of the frayed nerves.

So if I'm following you, everything west of Boylston is a lost cause. However, Boylston to Park Street is already four-tracked, so we could do something like reroute the E branch from Huntington Avenue, under the Pike and then up Tremont Street to Park Street, cut it there, reroute the C and D branches under the Pike from Kenmore and have them join the E at Prudential, and then elevate or bury the B, grab half of Park Street's tracks for heavy rail usage and convert the Central Subway that way, without giving up any of the light rail lines?

[Shepard]

Here's the most practical way of going, in my opinion - I think this will raise some ire, but I model this after real multimodality like you can see in Toronto.

GLX, Central Subway and D Line - complete heavy rail conversion

B and C become street-running light rail OVER the central subway, primarily through the Back Bay in one-way pairs along Newbury and Boylston using one current parking lane of each street. Kenmore's overbuilt bus shelter can now be used for these light rail lines, which, downtown, loop around the Commons to connect at Park Street.

E tunnel from Prudential gets continued cut-and-cover along Stuart Street, rises to a surface median where Stuart/Kneeland widens, and continues up Atlantic into the SL tunnel to South Station and out to the Seaport. The disused Tremont Street Tunnel can be repurposed - its northernmost section as a pedestrian concourse between the Boylston Street heavy rail station and a light rail Stuart/Charles street station; the section south of Stuart Street as an F line light rail branch from the E mainline to Dudley.

Whatcha think? Ready to bring back the streetcars?

[Commuting Boston Student]

Here's the most practical way of going, in my opinion - I think this will raise some ire, but I model this after real multimodality like you can see in Toronto.

GLX, Central Subway and D Line - complete heavy rail conversion

B and C become street-running light rail OVER the central subway, primarily through the Back Bay in one-way pairs along Newbury and Boylston using one current parking lane of each street. Kenmore's overbuilt bus shelter can now be used for these light rail lines, which, downtown, loop around the Commons to connect at Park Street.

E tunnel from Prudential gets continued cut-and-cover along Stuart Street, rises to a surface median where Stuart/Kneeland widens, and continues up Atlantic into the SL tunnel to South Station and out to the Seaport. The disused Tremont Street Tunnel can be repurposed - its northernmost section as a pedestrian concourse between the Boylston Street heavy rail station and a light rail Stuart/Charles street station; the section south of Stuart Street as an F line light rail branch from the E mainline to Dudley.

Whatcha think? Ready to bring back the streetcars?

Personally, I'd much rather bring back the El, but I am too young to remember the old Els, so perhaps my judgment is flawed. Alas...

As it stands, I don't know if I'm ready to get on board with more surface-running.

[bigeman312]

As a former resident of Newton who grew up minutes from the D and used it often, it would be awful for Newton (and worse for Needham) to convert that line to HRT. Newton folks tend to use the Green Line to get between parts of Newton more than to get to Boston - I know of very few people who regularly went beyond Chestnut Hill - and for that purpose LRT as it's currently built works fine.

As somebody who has lived in Newton, within a mile of the D, for the past 21 years, I disagree. I found this used to be the case in the old price structuring, but that all changed in 2007. When it became the same price no matter where you were leaving from/going to, and the free rides going outbound ended, people adapted. Now, I find the majority of trips people I know take are going to Resevoir or beyond, while 5+ years ago it was within Newton.

[Shepard]

Personally, I'd much rather bring back the El, but I am too young to remember the old Els, so perhaps my judgment is flawed. Alas...

As it stands, I don't know if I'm ready to get on board with more surface-running.

Here's the proposed map for heavy rail D/GLX, surface light rail B and C, and subway/surface light rail E (and F) as I described above

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=205961954724594060648.0004c73b31201a7feaf4 a&msa=0&ll=42.354865,-71.071072&spn=0.049918,0.104542

[bigeman312]

Here's the most practical way of going, in my opinion - I think this will raise some ire, but I model this after real multimodality like you can see in Toronto.

GLX, Central Subway and D Line - complete heavy rail conversion

Yes. Agreed.

B and C become street-running light rail OVER the central subway, primarily through the Back Bay in one-way pairs along Newbury and Boylston using one current parking lane of each street. Kenmore's overbuilt bus shelter can now be used for these light rail lines, which, downtown, loop around the Commons to connect at Park Street.

I dislike. Maybe I'm not open-minded enough about this, but the concept of surface street cars running through the Back Bay does not sit well with me. Between the traffic and dense development, I'm inclined to say that there shouldn't be any surface lines east of Mass Ave. I'd rather see elevated, if anything. I'd actually rather see B and C terminate inbound at Kenmore with a transfer to the heavy rail Central Subway line. This, in my opinion, would serve everybody better, transit users or not. I also think it would be cheaper, but hey this is Crazy Transit Pitches so why does that matter.

E tunnel from Prudential gets continued cut-and-cover along Stuart Street, rises to a surface median where Stuart/Kneeland widens, and continues up Atlantic into the SL tunnel to South Station and out to the Seaport. The disused Tremont Street Tunnel can be repurposed - its northernmost section as a pedestrian concourse between the Boylston Street heavy rail station and a light rail Stuart/Charles street station; the section south of Stuart Street as an F line light rail branch from the E mainline to Dudley.

I like. I really do.

[bigeman312]

While we're at it, can we do something to speed the B?

EDIT: Can someone explain why it is scheduled to take 7-8 minutes from Boston University East to Kenmore? That is a distance of 0.5 miles and the B has it's own approach to Kenmore, with one stop in between at Blandford Street. This is 4 miles an hour. Could a 500 foot cut and cover through Silber Way and turning Granby Street into a right turn only lane save riders 6 minutes?

[Equilibria]

As somebody who has lived in Newton, within a mile of the D, for the past 21 years, I disagree. I found this used to be the case in the old price structuring, but that all changed in 2007. When it became the same price no matter where you were leaving from/going to, and the free rides going outbound ended, people adapted. Now, I find the majority of trips people I know take are going to Resevoir or beyond, while 5+ years ago it was within Newton.

I agree that the fare structure has changed things, but again, this is a crazy transit pitch. One would hope that graduated, itinerary-based pricing would have come to Boston by then, so trips in Newton would cost less than a buck each way (adjusted for inflation, of course) and could be paid with a smartphone, or something.

I happen to think that the old way of doing things was ideal (and far longer-lived), so I'm basing my vision on that.

As to the street-running issue: A major problem, in my experience, with newer LRT systems is that they insist on running at-grade in Downtown, which slows traffic and trains while discouraging through-trips. Portland is a huge offender in this way. Boston is lucky to have tunnels for its light rail (along with SF), and I don't think backsliding is the right idea here. I don't remember anyone ever holding Toronto up as a paragon of transit before.

[Shepard]

As to the street-running issue: A major problem, in my experience, with newer LRT systems is that they insist on running at-grade in Downtown, which slows traffic and trains while discouraging through-trips. Portland is a huge offender in this way. Boston is lucky to have tunnels for its light rail (along with SF), and I don't think backsliding is the right idea here. I don't remember anyone ever holding Toronto up as a paragon of transit before.

If you think that a trolley moves faster underground between Hynes and Arlington than it would at grade on Boylston Street (with signal priority etc) then you haven't been on the Green Line enough!

[Matthew]

My favorite part is when you wait 20 minutes for a train and then it stops every 20 feet in the tunnel to wait for the signals to change to green, even though you know there's no possible way something is in front of it.

I think there are three places where the train stops just before Kenmore alone. And only one of those is to check the switch.

[omaja]

As a former resident of Newton who grew up minutes from the D and used it often, it would be awful for Newton (and worse for Needham) to convert that line to HRT. Newton folks tend to use the Green Line to get between parts of Newton more than to get to Boston - I know of very few people who regularly went beyond Chestnut Hill - and for that purpose LRT as it's currently built works fine.

I'm not sure I follow that more service with larger and more capable trains is a bad thing.

This is even more important when talking about the extension to Needham, since that line isn't grade separated and would be pretty well embedded in village centers. Even where HRT exists at grade (I'm thinking about Chicago here), it tends to be ugly and uninviting, with heavy fencing of the ROW due to the third-rail safety issue. LRT is much less intimidating.

I counted only five grade crossings along the Needham extension route; doesn't seem like it would be much trouble to plop a cut-and-cover tunnel or short viaduct over these roads. There's a simple solution for the third rail: overhead catenary. The Blue Line already uses catenary from Airport to Wonderland so the rolling stock is already capable of switching. Not to mention I can't see it being a huge issue to convert the third rail segment from Bowdoin-Airport back to catenary so the line is all one mode.

People in Needham won't be using this service to get to Boston since they'll have either truncated CR or Orange Line for that, making fewer stops at higher speeds. Similarly, folks from Riverside and points west won't (and don't) go all the way into Boston that way much, since under a full build-out there would be DMU or HRT along the Pike.

As I've said before, the D and Needham lines are primarily intra-suburban lines with redundant faster spokes to Downtown. That's about as clear-cut a context for LRT as you can get.

I wouldn't be so quick to count out Needham-Downtown Boston commuters via a Green Line extension. And I can't see Needham ever having both the Orange Line and Green Line serving it. Further, I would think that if a Green Line branch were built, you'd actually see Commuter Rail traffic plummet from Needham as a result of more frequent, reliable service.

Theoretically, it might just be almost identical travel times from Needham to Downtown via either:

Blue-D Combination:
Needham Center-Kenmore: 13 stops, 30 minutes (20 mins from Newton Highlands + 10 mins for Needham extension)
Needham Center-Clarendon: 15 stops, 34 minutes (2 mins for each additional station)
Needham Center-Government Center: 19 stops, 42 minutes (2 mins for each additional station)

Orange Line Extension:
Needham Center-Forest Hills: 7 stops, 18 minutes (current CR blocked at 26 mins - this assumes upgrades to allow for faster travel... YMMV)
Needham Center-Back Bay: 14 stops, 30 minutes (current Orange Line blocked at 12 mins Forest Hills-Back Bay)
Needham Center-State Street: 18 stops, 39 minutes (current Orange Line blocked at 9 mins Back Bay-State Street)

Here's the most practical way of going, in my opinion - I think this will raise some ire, but I model this after real multimodality like you can see in Toronto.

GLX, Central Subway and D Line - complete heavy rail conversion

B and C become street-running light rail OVER the central subway, primarily through the Back Bay in one-way pairs along Newbury and Boylston using one current parking lane of each street. Kenmore's overbuilt bus shelter can now be used for these light rail lines, which, downtown, loop around the Commons to connect at Park Street.

E tunnel from Prudential gets continued cut-and-cover along Stuart Street, rises to a surface median where Stuart/Kneeland widens, and continues up Atlantic into the SL tunnel to South Station and out to the Seaport. The disused Tremont Street Tunnel can be repurposed - its northernmost section as a pedestrian concourse between the Boylston Street heavy rail station and a light rail Stuart/Charles street station; the section south of Stuart Street as an F line light rail branch from the E mainline to Dudley.

Whatcha think? Ready to bring back the streetcars?

Wasn't the original purpose of the subways and els to get rid of streetcars Downtown. ;)

I'm not seeing as much value in converting the Central Subway to heavy rail with prospects like branching service from Boylston towards the east and south, and consequenses like eliminating through subway service on two Green Line branches instead of augmenting what is already there.

It also seems like messing around with those tunnels is flirting with trouble; who knows what kind of craziness might be involved with converting them to heavy rail. I do like the idea of a relocated E Line via Stuart Street. Why not leave the Central Subway as-is for light rail service, with the Riverbank Subway (heavy rail) and Stuart Street Subway (light rail) to better distribute traffic?

While we're at it, can we do something to speed the B?

EDIT: Can someone explain why it is scheduled to take 7-8 minutes from Boston University East to Kenmore? That is a distance of 0.5 miles and the B has it's own approach to Kenmore, with one stop in between at Blandford Street. This is 4 miles an hour. Could a 500 foot cut and cover through Silber Way and turning Granby Street into a right turn only lane save riders 6 minutes?

I feel like speeding up the B Line is a weekly discussion here: signal priority, stop eliminations, communications-based train control... pick any one and we'd see noticeable gains. Do all three (a crazy transit pitch in and of itself) and we'd have a completely different Green Line on our hands.

As for BU East-Kenmore, I think the pocket track switches and the stop signal at the bottom of the tunnel just before Kenmore are enough of a hindrance to warrant that schedule time. It typically doesn't take that long, though, considering most conductors blast through the pocket track area.

[Equilibria]

I'm not sure I follow that more service with larger and more capable trains is a bad thing.

Just because a vehicle is "larger and more capable" doesn't mean it makes sense in every context. If this were true, we'd all be driving Hummers.

I recognize the wonderful work and effort you put in to your proposals, and I love seeing them and analyzing them, but I think you fall into the same trap that everyone does (including me) when considering potential new transportation networks - you get sucked in by the big picture. I totally get that the D-Line looks like the perfect place for a HRT extension. It was built for full-size locomotive-pulled trains, so it has gentle curves and minimal at-grade intersections. It serves some fairly dense areas of Newton and Brookline. I see how it seems obvious.

But read what you're proposing. You claim that at 5 intersections in Needham you would either grade separate or use canternary wires. Those are 5 intersections which exist largely as central squares or lead-ins to village centers, and you're proposing underpasses there? That might keep traffic moving, but it would seriously harm aesthetics in the neighborhood and would create visual and functional barriers for folks in Needham to get to Highland Ave, which more or less functions as "Main St." for that part of town.

As an Urban Planner as well as a Transportation Engineer, I think that you have to consider on a micro scale every consequence of something like a transit line, not just how fast or capable the trains may be. Who knows how frequently someone living near Needham Heights needs to get to Boston, or even to Needham St. in Newton, but I bet it's way less often then they'd like to have a pleasant walk around the neighborhood without dingy underpasses or barbed-wire safety fences.

Speaking of Needham St, I would imagine that any future in which the Needham Line is converted is also a future in which serious redevelopment occurs on that corridor (as Newton already plans to encourage regardless), turning it into a semi-urban commercial center with TOD aspirations if possible. This really would limit the need of folks in Needham to take the line past a potential Upper Falls Station, since fairly dense retail and office uses would be available to them just 3 stops down the line. Getting there on a suburban trolley would be much less intimidating and more attractive, and would only take 10 minutes or so at 30 mph. Put a HRT line along the back of that development, and you build a wall between it and Upper Falls (a study proposed a rail trail parallel to a single LRT track with pedestrian crossings) instead of integrating the new uses for the benefit of the community.

It's tempting to simply take every abandoned ROW in the Boston area and throw a HRT line on it, but it's not necessarily the best solution in every case.

[Matthew]

Nicely said Equilibria. I would also add that this obsession with HRT is counterproductive. LRT is more than capable, and it is much more flexible and adaptable too. Just because Boston's Green Line is slow and malfunctioning doesn't imply that LRT has to be that way.

[omaja]

That's a bit of a straw man, Equilibria. We are talking about the same corridor (http://goo.gl/maps/1Prba), right? I don't see anything near these at-grade intersections (revised count of six - left out the May St one near Needham Center) that would preclude burying the tracks in a shallow, cut-and-cover tunnel a la the curve leading to Shawmut from Fields Corner on the Red Line (http://goo.gl/maps/sW0mE) - though obviously with the one addition of landscaping. I'm not envisioning anything remotely resembling a "dingy underpass" that would create any more of a barrier than already exists with the rail right of way.

All of what you are saying, otherwise, would point to increased usage that would ultimately be better served with heavy rail - we are tying to encourage development, right? And at the end of the day, it isn't only about what local traffic would be served; there is a network effect where the immediate Boston area benefits from increased transit access to Needham and vice-versa.

I guess I'm not sure why everyone is hung up on defining it as light rail versus heavy rail. My thought is that if you're going to have to do at least 75+ percent of the work to get the corridor up to light rail standards a la the current D Line, why not go the extra mile now and get the heavy rail infrastructure in place to support more growth further into the future? As we see with the Central Subway, the build-as-LRT-now-convert-later approach doesn't work out so well.

Edit: For what it's worth - my latest plan is split almost equally route length-wise between HRT and LRT - 5 or 6 lines HRT and 6 or 7 LRT.

[Equilibria]

I hadn't pictured a cut-and-cover like Shuwmut, Omaja, and if that's what you had in mind, it would probably resolve a lot of the aesthetic issues. The cost would be astronomical for the benefit, though. I don't think it's a strawman to put in to words what I immediately thought of when you said "underpass".

I can't imagine that ridership from Needham, even counting that to an expanded Needham St. corridor, would justify the expense of a cut-and-cover tunnel with HRT service (which I don't think is just 125% of a surface LRT line using modified existing tracks and stations and overhead wires), so when you say "more growth further into the future" you are implying that we should be planning for Needham to look like Brookline or Roxbury in the future.

You're making, IMO, 2 unrealistic assumptions. First, you're assuming that Needham will grow density that it isn't zoned for and that the residents don't want, and second, that the primary desired destination of people in Needham by transit will be Downtown Boston for commuting purposes. I'm assuming that Needham stays fundamentally as it is with new denser development in areas already zoned for it along Needham St./Highland Ave and a population working primarily along 128 and shopping/eating/hanging out in the new Needham St. corridor.

Again, I hate to focus you too much on what is a minor segment of a very impressive project, but this has bothered me in many people's Future MBTA proposals.

[davem]

While we're at it, can we do something to speed the B?

EDIT: Can someone explain why it is scheduled to take 7-8 minutes from Boston University East to Kenmore? That is a distance of 0.5 miles and the B has it's own approach to Kenmore, with one stop in between at Blandford Street. This is 4 miles an hour. Could a 500 foot cut and cover through Silber Way and turning Granby Street into a right turn only lane save riders 6 minutes?

The B between Packards and Kenmore is a disaster because of three main factors
1) No traffic signal priority, and there is a crossing every single block.
2) BU screams bloody murder if it even has the slightest inkling there might be a thought of closing one of the stations through their campus. They had a hand in the Comm Ave reconstruction and the shiny new BU Central and East stations, there is no way they will let one close. Its the primary transportation for the precious students.
3) Loss of the ability to do short turns and multiple routing. Back in the day there was a loop at Braves Field, as well as double the amount of trains with both the A and B operating. You also didnt have ten gazillion kids with no idea how to get on a train cramming into every trolley that comes by.

My favorite part is when you wait 20 minutes for a train and then it stops every 20 feet in the tunnel to wait for the signals to change to green, even though you know there's no possible way something is in front of it.

I think there are three places where the train stops just before Kenmore alone. And only one of those is to check the switch.]

There is a safety stop as soon as you go underground where the B goes from "do whatever you feel like" mode to the actual signaled central subway. There is another right before the S curve where it goes from running under Comm to under Newbury. Then of course there are the switches as you mentioned.

[F-Line to Dudley]

So if I'm following you, everything west of Boylston is a lost cause. However, Boylston to Park Street is already four-tracked, so we could do something like reroute the E branch from Huntington Avenue, under the Pike and then up Tremont Street to Park Street, cut it there, reroute the C and D branches under the Pike from Kenmore and have them join the E at Prudential, and then elevate or bury the B, grab half of Park Street's tracks for heavy rail usage and convert the Central Subway that way, without giving up any of the light rail lines?

The Park-GC 2-track is a problem. It was built narrow in 1897 because of the burial ground and the building foundations. It would've been a 4-tracker were it not for that constraint; BERy did it the only way it's possible. When the El trains ran through the Central Subway 1901-1908 all trolley service had to loop at Park and Brattle Loop because they couldn't continue on intermixed with heavy rail (third rail clearance issues, heavy rail-on-trolley collision would be...um...bad). And you can't dig a lower tunnel to double-stack it because of the Red Line bisecting at Winter St. and Blue Line bisecting at Court/Cambridge. I think the best you can do there, if an engineering assessment turns out favorable, is 3-track. Which would allow light rail vehicles on the eastbound side finish their runs on-time with past-GC trains fully segregated, while on the westbound side GC/North Station-turning trains on the beginning of their runs aren't under as much schedule stress and can single-track. Even that build I think is gonna be dubious.

But you cannot mix modes through there. There's no way to build it. You CAN make the existing Green Line run a lot more efficiently. I do think ultimately moving the E onto the Tremont tunnel (possibly with thru-D alt routing) is going to be the answer if the Urban Ring and SL Phase III become part of a larger light rail network. You don't have to dig under the Pike, though. Punch sideways through the retaining wall on the WB side and under Marginal St. is an easy dig. I think that's a very very worthwhile project (realistically) 25 years from now.

You're not building under the Pike, though. Back Bay landfill east of Mass Ave. Notice how the subway at Hynes is above ground on the other side of the Pike retaining wall. Between Muddy River and Mass Ave. is the easterly extent of pre-landfill terra firma.


These west-leaning builds under the Pike are way, way, way overthinking it. BERy had this sorted in 1900. It's called the Riverbank Subway. If we ever blow up Storrow that's probably going to be a trade-in condition. It's on-alignment with the Blue Line. Even if the D does not have the ridership to merit a conversion, the Needham Branch (with grade crossings) is needed, and the Urban Ring zigzag Kenmore-Brookline Village is needed because the cross-Brookline tunnel is no-go...you can still bring the BL to a Kenmore turnback. It would work extremely well for the loads there. I don't think there's any issues with that build.

But, really...Crazy Transit Pitches vs. Impossible Transit Pitches. Really need to apply the filter here a bit because the landfill zone is a total no-go.

[Commuting Boston Student]

The Park-GC 2-track is a problem. It was built narrow in 1897 because of the burial ground and the building foundations. It would've been a 4-tracker were it not for that constraint; BERy did it the only way it's possible. When the El trains ran through the Central Subway 1901-1908 all trolley service had to loop at Park and Brattle Loop because they couldn't continue on intermixed with heavy rail (third rail clearance issues, heavy rail-on-trolley collision would be...um...bad). And you can't dig a lower tunnel to double-stack it because of the Red Line bisecting at Winter St. and Blue Line bisecting at Court/Cambridge. I think the best you can do there, if an engineering assessment turns out favorable, is 3-track. Which would allow light rail vehicles on the eastbound side finish their runs on-time with past-GC trains fully segregated, while on the westbound side GC/North Station-turning trains on the beginning of their runs aren't under as much schedule stress and can single-track. Even that build I think is gonna be dubious.

But you cannot mix modes through there. There's no way to build it. You CAN make the existing Green Line run a lot more efficiently. I do think ultimately moving the E onto the Tremont tunnel (possibly with thru-D alt routing) is going to be the answer if the Urban Ring and SL Phase III become part of a larger light rail network. You don't have to dig under the Pike, though. Punch sideways through the retaining wall on the WB side and under Marginal St. is an easy dig. I think that's a very very worthwhile project (realistically) 25 years from now.

But I don't understand why you would need to mix modes? Both branches of the Green Line north of that problem area are prime candidates for heavy rail, and that's part of the reason why I'm so fixated on Green Line Heavy Rail to begin with.

The only real issue, to me, is what to do with the other branches so that they can stop at Park Street or continue on into a different tunnel, and therefore not become victims of eliminating LRT through the Central Subway in favor of HRT.

Side questions: We can't just build a Porter-style set of stations underneath the Red and Blue Lines? What about light or heavy rail underneath/next to the Orange Line Tufts-State, light rail under/on Essex Street to the Greenway, or going up Park Street, under the State House and down Temple Street to Staniford Street if it's important to preserve the ability to run future light rail branches through North Station?

[F-Line to Dudley]

But I don't understand why you would need to mix modes? Both branches of the Green Line north of that problem area are prime candidates for heavy rail, and that's part of the reason why I'm so fixated on Green Line Heavy Rail to begin with.

The only real issue, to me, is what to do with the other branches so that they can stop at Park Street or continue on into a different tunnel, and therefore not become victims of eliminating LRT through the Central Subway in favor of HRT.

Why heavy-rail on the same routes? How much extra value-added does that really bring over light rail that's capable today (and maybe pretty soon) of trainlining 4-car? 210 seats vs. 176. Tight, tight station spacing...not dramatically faster than a CBTC-signaled light rail subway would be. Impossible to have a single grade crossing. Billions in tunneling costs to replicate existing service. No way of doing any mixed-traffic surface branches whatsoever on the zillions of possible routes where that would come into play, no way of connecting the Urban Ring. Shreds the per-trip costs of running any streetcar routes with whatever scraps may be left or un-buryable isolated. Meaning Boston gets deprived of routes and route potential heavy rail can't serve, and loses transit on Comm. Ave. Allston and Beacon St. in the hilly terrain where tunnel grades can't rise fast enough to build acceptable-depth stations. Have to have more gentle grades than surface because a brake failure inside a tight tunnel is more dangerous than in open space like a portal incline. You can barely feel the descent into Porter or Aquarium. Keeping up with the hills on the B and C are impossible. Which is why BERy said no frickin' way to those two when it sketched out its A and E/D heavy rail plan.


Why? I am not seeing a benefit here. Make the Green line functioning. We know exactly what that would take from a signaling standpoint. Make it have better connectivity and flex. Consolidate some of these pie-in-sky builds like the UR into stuff that's actually buildable as Green Line appendages. Do the judicious tunnel relocation and traffic shaping where it is engineering-feasible like sending the E to Back Bay under Marginal to eliminate Copley Jct., reconfigure Kenmore so the UR can zigzag around without dying a decisive defeat on the billion-dollar Brookline tunnel, reconfigure GC so there can be some 4-track platform traffic management (since the Park-GC tunnel probably isn't fixable), trudge forward with subways to BU Bridge to link the UR and D-to-E. And so on, and so on.

You don't get to do ANY of that blowing the exact same sum of money to finesse the existing routes with Blue Line cars. That is some perfect ideal that hasn't been possible since the 1930's. Even BERy gave up on it quick. Do we want to get lots of good-enough stuff built, or do we want a perfect integrity of concept and punt the rest until 2060? Funding will never be infinite enough to have cake and eat too on the same timetable.

Side questions: We can't just build a Porter-style set of stations underneath the Red and Blue Lines? What about light or heavy rail underneath/next to the Orange Line Tufts-State, light rail under/on Essex Street to the Greenway, or going up Park Street, under the State House and down Temple Street to Staniford Street if it's important to preserve the ability to run future light rail branches through North Station?

Have a look at Porter now that the ceiling is ripped open for the elevator shaft. Solid...ass...bedrock. North Cambridge is higher elevation than downtown, and the glaciers were kinder to the bedrock out there than the silt debris that fills the Charles basin and ex-bay in the Back Bay. The Common was dry land when Boston was settled. It was bay-waterlogged pre-Ice Age. See Big Dig engineering challenges. Spongy, spongy soil.

Only way you're getting a N-S subway that undercuts E-W Blue and Red is the N-S Link and approach tunnels. E-W you can definitely do on Riverbank Subway since that's really shallow, under the B and E reservations, under Pike frontage roads (shallow) and NEC in the Big Dig-cleared zone. And, yes, it's engineering-feasible through Chinatown and Stuart St., but ghastly ghastly cost.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why heavy-rail on the same routes? How much extra value-added does that really bring over light rail that's capable today (and maybe pretty soon) of trainlining 4-car? 210 seats vs. 176.

If we can actually get 4-car trains up and running, I'll drop my Green Line Heavy Rail advocacy.

[omaja]

I hadn't pictured a cut-and-cover like Shuwmut, Omaja, and if that's what you had in mind, it would probably resolve a lot of the aesthetic issues. The cost would be astronomical for the benefit, though. I don't think it's a strawman to put in to words what I immediately thought of when you said "underpass".

That's just the thing: I didn't say "underpass".

I can't imagine that ridership from Needham, even counting that to an expanded Needham St. corridor, would justify the expense of a cut-and-cover tunnel with HRT service (which I don't think is just 125% of a surface LRT line using modified existing tracks and stations and overhead wires), so when you say "more growth further into the future" you are implying that we should be planning for Needham to look like Brookline or Roxbury in the future.

You're making, IMO, 2 unrealistic assumptions. First, you're assuming that Needham will grow density that it isn't zoned for and that the residents don't want, and second, that the primary desired destination of people in Needham by transit will be Downtown Boston for commuting purposes. I'm assuming that Needham stays fundamentally as it is with new denser development in areas already zoned for it along Needham St./Highland Ave and a population working primarily along 128 and shopping/eating/hanging out in the new Needham St. corridor.

Again, I hate to focus you too much on what is a minor segment of a very impressive project, but this has bothered me in many people's Future MBTA proposals.

My thought to convert the D to heavy rail and branch toward Needham isn't assuming anything like Needham needing to densify to the level of Brookline (I'm assuming the northern section? the southern part of Brookline really isn't all that dense) or Roxbury. In reality, the urbanized area of Needham actually isn't far off from West Roxbury as it is, and I don't think anyone would argue that the Orange Line wouldn't be a natural extension to that area.

I feel like you are shortchanging the value of the network effect here. Seems like you're considering heavy rail here only in terms of serving Needham residents when, in reality, it would be both an origin and destination point for many more people; think about the added connectivity with 128, linking more parts of Newton, and providing a rapid transit route from the rest of the Boston area to/from Needham. In the end, converting the D Line to heavy rail would happen as a result of pressure on Kenmore and the busier Brookline stations, combined with the need to alleviate congestion in the Central Subway via the Riverbank Subway, and potential to join with the Blue Line. Needham as a factor into whether to convert the line would be much more peripheral. If the inner portion warrants conversion, you'll see the whole line convert or splitting the line into light rail spokes from the heavy rail terminus.

In terms of rail service as a whole to Needham, I can't see opting for any major upgrades to Commuter Rail there, or even bringing the Orange Line all the way out because that would mean more track mileage to bring up to rapid transit standards, not to mention service through a significantly less populated area. The rail right-of-way from Newton Highlands to Needham Center is much more attractive in terms of it being shorter and also surrounded by more uniform density. Why clog Back Bay and South Station with Needham Line trains when an upgraded D + D extension + Riverbank Subway + Blue Line would likely result in more connectivity, similar travel times and (most importantly) more regular, frequent service?

Seems like we are agreed that rail to Needham via a D Line branch is a good idea, right? Isn't our disagreement, then, founded in a discussion of whether the D should be connected to the Blue Line, which would necessitate that the D be converted to heavy rail?

[Equilibria]

That's just the thing: I didn't say "underpass"

Now that I look, you said "viaduct", which is basically the same thing. It's a silly semantic argument, and you weren't proposing what I thought, so let's drop it.

I think you're way overestimating the desire of the "network" to get to Needham. What is there in that town they'd want to access? They have banks, bookstores, and charming restaurants where they are. Maybe some people will head out there once or twice to check it out, but hardly in droves.

As for the 2 major attractions along this stretch of the line: Needham St. will be a pretty big draw, but only for people who live elsewhere in Newton and Needham, for the same reason as above. Much of the new development is planned to be mixed use and designed with a neighborhood plan in mind, which means it won't have regional attractions - it's supposed to generate its own demand. Again, a bunch of restaurants, clothing stores, banks, and a Newbury Comics won't bring people in from Somerville or Quincy, and I don't see many people working in the corridor and commuting by train.

Route 128 access is less valuable than you might think, IMO. The general consensus on this board is that every connection you can make to 128 with a park-and-ride is a critical asset. I don't agree in every case. The point of 128 access is to allow those from outside the immediate suburbs to ditch their cars before hitting the urban road network. That means access is only necessary at key choke points a lot of drivers will hit: I-95/128 (Peabody or Salem), US-3/128 (Burlington Mall), 2/128 (Lexington), I-90/128 (Riverside), I-95/128 (128 Station), 24/I-93 (No ROW nearby), and 3/I-93 (Braintree).

Needham sits between two of these points, which means any drivers reaching it would have had to pass at least Riverside or 128 Station. I don't see much demand for park-and-ride. A small lot at the Gould St. station will be fine.

We totally agree that rail through Newton to Needham is a good idea. My argument is simply that demand does not justify the costs to neighborhood aesthetics and cohesion that a surface HRT line would require. This is important, IMO, because the idea of Green Line to Needham isn't as much of a Crazy Transit Pitch as one might think - it's been proposed seriously in both towns and might well happen when Needham St. is developed (will happen soon) and when the T can gets its financial house in order (probably never). My guess is that the CR line will be truncated to Needham Junction at this point, which will provide faster Downtown access to those in Needham who want it, without any need for an Orange Line conversion.

By the way, the Riverbank Subway is a great idea, and I hope it happens someday. It should be extended under one of the streetcar reservations, though. Those branches have the proper density all the way to termini at the historic limits of Boston's inner transit network.

[Riverside]

What if Needham-Newton rail was done as a Mattapan High Speed Line-esque LRT line, terminating at Newton Highlands? The Riverside line could still be converted to HRT, and commuters looking to go into Boston would transfer cross-platform at Newton Highlands. Since it sounds like the demand is in large part village-village out there, I don't think that transfer would be a huge negative.

The main issue, I'd think, would be having to share the ROW between Newton Highlands and the split just south of Route 9. Looking at the satellite images on Google Maps, it doesn't look like the ROW could handle 4 tracks. But maybe 3? How restrictive would 1360 feet of single track at the end of the line be for a Needham-Newton LRT line?

A crazy idea: replace the Riverside (and hypothetical Needham) line(s) west of Reservoir with an LRT extension of the C line. Institute EMU service from Riverside along the B&A to offer a (theoretically) faster route downtown. Maybe expand the Beacon Street median to 3 tracks to run expresses (maybe). Extend the Blue Line through Charles, down a Riverbank subway or redone Storrow Drive (can you really do a subway through the Back Bay landfill?) to Kenmore, have Blue-eat-D through Reservoir, and then have the Blue turn north up Chestnut Hill Ave to service Brighton. From there, it could go any number of places.

I will draw up a map of this later when I have time.

[Equilibria]

A crazy idea: replace the Riverside (and hypothetical Needham) line(s) west of Reservoir with an LRT extension of the C line. Institute EMU service from Riverside along the B&A to offer a (theoretically) faster route downtown. Maybe expand the Beacon Street median to 3 tracks to run expresses (maybe). Extend the Blue Line through Charles, down a Riverbank subway or redone Storrow Drive (can you really do a subway through the Back Bay landfill?) to Kenmore, have Blue-eat-D through Reservoir, and then have the Blue turn north up Chestnut Hill Ave to service Brighton. From there, it could go any number of places.

I will draw up a map of this later when I have time.

I had actually thought of that (without the extension beyond Reservoir), but I'm unsure how one would connect the C to the current D ROW. It would have been easier before the Water Pumping Station redevelopment, but while it's easy enough to run C trains to Reservoir, the end up pointing the wrong direction and can't go very fast.

I'd still have to see the passenger numbers that justify HRT from Newton to Boston before I would get behind your truncation idea. If the issue is Sox game traffic from Riverside or building another HRT connection to 128, that can be accomplished with EMUs on the Pike, and there's other better alignments to serve Brookline.

[F-Line to Dudley]

If we can actually get 4-car trains up and running, I'll drop my Green Line Heavy Rail advocacy.

They're testing it right now. You may by pure chance encounter a random quad in revenue service over the next several weeks. I wouldn't expect it to grow to a majority/plurality of service, but if the test goes OK there probably will be some quads making up a small portion of service within a year-plus.

It'll take some upgrades to power draws to go mass-scale, and some of the non-ADA platforms on the surface are inadequate-length (all subway stops are, although Boylston inbound's a little awkward with that zigzag in the middle). But they did do overbuilt and future-proofed power upgrades to get every line up-to-spec for running triplets of power-hungry 7's and 8's, so they're not far off except for North Station-Lechmere (getting it anyway for GLX) and outer branches. Front-door boarding makes the inadequate platforms a total moot point as long as that asinine policy is in effect.

GLX and the 9's will require a little more on the west end to run D's end-to-end, and the D is unfunded-scheduled for a total 100% overhead replacement on the FY2012-16 cap improvements plan because the infrastructure is at end-of-useful-life. So this will happen, unless they let maintenance defer so badly the Green Line starts having power outages. And that work alone will probably be enough to allow quads to run on every line all the time. I wouldn't expect to see too many of them on the B, C, E because that gets awfully clumsy in mixed-traffic, especially with some of those perilously narrow B platforms up on the hill and street-running past Brigham. But most definitely for the D, subway, and GLX. Not just in our lifetimes, but as a 2020 necessity for things to work at all.

[F-Line to Dudley]

They're testing it right now. You may by pure chance encounter a random quad in revenue service over the next several weeks. I wouldn't expect it to grow to a majority/plurality of service, but if the test goes OK there probably will be some quads making up a small portion of service within a year-plus.

It'll take some upgrades to power draws to go mass-scale, and some of the non-ADA platforms on the surface are inadequate-length (all subway stops are, although Boylston inbound's a little awkward with that zigzag in the middle). But they did do overbuilt and future-proofed power upgrades to get every line up-to-spec for running triplets of power-hungry 7's and 8's, so they're not far off except for North Station-Lechmere (getting it anyway for GLX) and outer branches. Front-door boarding makes the inadequate platforms a total moot point as long as that asinine policy is in effect.

GLX and the 9's will require a little more on the west end to run D's end-to-end, and the D is unfunded-scheduled for a total 100% overhead replacement on the FY2012-16 cap improvements plan because the infrastructure is at end-of-useful-life. So this will happen, unless they let maintenance defer so badly the Green Line starts having power outages. And that work alone will probably be enough to allow quads to run on every line all the time. I wouldn't expect to see too many of them on the B, C, E because that gets awfully clumsy in mixed-traffic, especially with some of those perilously narrow B platforms up on the hill and street-running past Brigham. But most definitely for the D, subway, and GLX. Not just in our lifetimes, but as a 2020 necessity for things to work at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQykcICsJGI

Proof they do exist! It's apparently been done here and there since last year for Red Sox extras. One of the video's commenters also mentions spotting an 8-7-7-8 at GC just last week.

[davem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQykcICsJGI

Proof they do exist! It's apparently been done here and there since last year for Red Sox extras. One of the video's commenters also mentions spotting an 8-7-7-8 at GC just last week.

Isn't the biggest issue they have to bypass Boylston because it's not long enough to platform all four cars? Maybe its time to dust off the Park-Boylston superstation plans from the early 1900s

[F-Line to Dudley]

Isn't the biggest issue they have to bypass Boylston because it's not long enough to platform all four cars? Maybe its time to dust off the Park-Boylston superstation plans from the early 1900s

The platform is long enough (they unload deuces back-to-back sometimes), but people would have to get off at the tips of the station behind the faregates and by the inspector's booth. On the rear inbound side there's open access behind the stairs to the abandoned tunnel as an emergency exit. In a blind spot for any station staff, so that's almost daring people to go exploring.

The solution...security cam the place end-to-end...put an alarmed emergency exit door on the behind-stairs passageway. Not hard. If quads are under serious consideration that's probably exactly what they'll do. You wouldn't be talking more than 5-10 grand in cost.


Technically they could even make the outbound side (not sure about inbound) ADA-accessible by sticking an elevator behind the stairs, relocating that electrical box, and fencing off the walkway behind the faregates from the tracks. But...you know...effort. :rolleyes:

[omaja]

We totally agree that rail through Newton to Needham is a good idea. My argument is simply that demand does not justify the costs to neighborhood aesthetics and cohesion that a surface HRT line would require. This is important, IMO, because the idea of Green Line to Needham isn't as much of a Crazy Transit Pitch as one might think - it's been proposed seriously in both towns and might well happen when Needham St. is developed (will happen soon) and when the T can gets its financial house in order (probably never). My guess is that the CR line will be truncated to Needham Junction at this point, which will provide faster Downtown access to those in Needham who want it, without any need for an Orange Line conversion.

Aren't neighborhood aesthetics and cohesion sacrificed already? The major differences between heavy and light rail would be station presence and trainsets, not too noticeable considering the area is already bisected by a rail right of way.

By the way, the Riverbank Subway is a great idea, and I hope it happens someday. It should be extended under one of the streetcar reservations, though. Those branches have the proper density all the way to termini at the historic limits of Boston's inner transit network.

The B and C may traverse denser corridors, but the B would be incredibly expensive to bury or elevate considering the hills along Comm Ave, and the C is just too short for heavy rail to really make much of a difference. Not to mention, the D is already the second-busiest branch of the Green Line. Like I said, a ~3.5 mile extension to Needham won't be the dealbreaker for whether or not the D is converted to heavy rail. That will be determined by the current D mainline route to Riverside. Riverside, Woodland, Newton Center and Newton Highlands already see decent traffic numbers that would only increase with a reduced trip time into the city.

I suppose, like Riverside suggested, Needham-Newton Highlands could always exist as a shuttle light rail route.

The platform is long enough (they unload deuces back-to-back sometimes), but people would have to get off at the tips of the station behind the faregates and by the inspector's booth. On the rear inbound side there's open access behind the stairs to the abandoned tunnel as an emergency exit. In a blind spot for any station staff, so that's almost daring people to go exploring.

The solution...security cam the place end-to-end...put an alarmed emergency exit door on the behind-stairs passageway. Not hard. If quads are under serious consideration that's probably exactly what they'll do. You wouldn't be talking more than 5-10 grand in cost.


Technically they could even make the outbound side (not sure about inbound) ADA-accessible by sticking an elevator behind the stairs, relocating that electrical box, and fencing off the walkway behind the faregates from the tracks. But...you know...effort. :rolleyes:

Would 4-car trains be necessary if they converted the B and D to all 3-car operations and did rush hour 3-car train support on the E to Brigham? I guess logically the B and D may need some 4-car trains as rush hour/special event support.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Would 4-car trains be necessary if they converted the B and D to all 3-car operations and did rush hour 3-car train support on the E to Brigham? I guess logically the B and D may need some 4-car trains as rush hour/special event support.

They pretty much already are at crush loads. Easiest thing for them to do in the future is 4's on the D/GLX, 3's on the B and C, 2's on the E, 3's backing up the E to Brigham. Space out the headways just a smidge, and let the per-train capacity increase de-clog the dwell times at platforms and eliminate the excess bunching (that means open all the @#$% doors!!!).

Boylston is no constraint in the security cam era. And if any D platforms are too short it's the non-ADA ones they need to stop slacking off on and upgrade already.

[omaja]

Three-car trains still seem pretty rare - last I saw was they were up to 32 trips per day, but that was awhile ago so things may have changed.

[Equilibria]

Aren't neighborhood aesthetics and cohesion sacrificed already? The major differences between heavy and light rail would be station presence and trainsets, not too noticeable considering the area is already bisected by a rail right of way.

There's a massive difference. LRT at 20-30MPH does not, I believe, have to be completely fenced, and can certainly be crossed at grade as current tracks are. Even without a third rail, the conversion for 55MPH service absolutely would require total exclusion of the route (even with your viaducts, that still 5 or 6 intersections that would have to be grade separated). That means that, rather than backing up to a multi-use trail with a single track Light Rail service, new developments on Needham Street would back up to this:

http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/lines/images/Skokie/ROW@SearlePkwy-cta3449.jpg

Instead of this:

http://www.onlineweb.com/rail/photos/usa/norfolk_light_rail_2010/corporate04.jpg

As for the rest of the line, again, where is your proof that there is or ever can be the demand in NEWTON for Heavy Rail's supply? We've established that the need exists in Boston, and I can believe it exists in Brookline, but both of those areas can be served by a tunnel that better serves more important areas of Brookline (of the 3 GL branches, I'd say the D sees the least central stations, even if Brookline Village is technically the center). It doesn't matter how long or difficult it is to build, since these pitches are supposed to be crazy, but crazy shouldn't mean running subway stock wherever it seems easy to put it.

I'd actually be interested to see statistics that I know the T doesn't release: of the people riding the "3rd busiest line", how far are they going? Like the B through BU, the D serves high schools in Newton and Brookline and carries a fair amount of student traffic, particularly in the latter. This is important because the demand for seats can be at GLR levels between any 2 station pairs on a long line even if demand as a whole is comparatively high.

[omaja]

I guess we're assuming two completely different things for that corridor: I was thinking that since the D Line is already fully grade-separated and fenced, a branch to Needham would be given the same treatment - regardless of whether it is light or heavy rail. I don't see the fencing and grade separation as a major issue along the current Riverside-Fenway overground route. Like the current D, the right of way through Needham is already woven into the fabric of development in the area. That's why I don't think comparing what the corridor would look like to Chicago's Yellow Line is fair. The Yellow Line is flanked by massive power lines running along its length that require a significantly larger right of way and absolutely must be surrounded by large fences.

As for demand, there's certainly a lot of intrasuburban traffic handled by the D's outlying stations, but anecdotally, the trains always carried healthy loads traveling out past Reservoir/Chestnut Hill when I lived over in that area. If we consider that a typical Green Line 2-car train has a capacity in the neighborhood of ~500-600 people (with twice the operational overhead with the second car operator), and a Blue Line 6-car train might handle ~1,200 people, it isn't much of a stretch to think that the D, which already sees jam-packed 3-car trains as well, will need to expand further. You don't need a jam-packed train all the way to Needham to make it work; I'm sure the D isn't packed all the way to Riverside, but the demand obviously exists otherwise they'd figure out a way to short turn trains at Reservoir instead of wasting the trip time with every train.

It seems like the only thing really needed to upgrade the current D to heavy rail is redoing the stations and perhaps power substations. F-Line, maybe you have some insight? Not entirely sure what the difference in operational needs would be between, say, running 3-car light rail trains versus all Blue Line rolling stock.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I guess we're assuming two completely different things for that corridor: I was thinking that since the D Line is already fully grade-separated and fenced, a branch to Needham would be given the same treatment - regardless of whether it is light or heavy rail. I don't see the fencing and grade separation as a major issue along the current Riverside-Fenway overground route. Like the current D, the right of way through Needham is already woven into the fabric of development in the area. That's why I don't think comparing what the corridor would look like to Chicago's Yellow Line is fair. The Yellow Line is flanked by massive power lines running along its length that require a significantly larger right of way and absolutely must be surrounded by large fences.

As for demand, there's certainly a lot of intrasuburban traffic handled by the D's outlying stations, but anecdotally, the trains always carried healthy loads traveling out past Reservoir/Chestnut Hill when I lived over in that area. If we consider that a typical Green Line 2-car train has a capacity in the neighborhood of ~500-600 people (with twice the operational overhead with the second car operator), and a Blue Line 6-car train might handle ~1,200 people, it isn't much of a stretch to think that the D, which already sees jam-packed 3-car trains as well, will need to expand further. You don't need a jam-packed train all the way to Needham to make it work; I'm sure the D isn't packed all the way to Riverside, but the demand obviously exists otherwise they'd figure out a way to short turn trains at Reservoir instead of wasting the trip time with every train.

It seems like the only thing really needed to upgrade the current D to heavy rail is redoing the stations and perhaps power substations. F-Line, maybe you have some insight? Not entirely sure what the difference in operational needs would be between, say, running 3-car light rail trains versus all Blue Line rolling stock.

Blue and Green use the exact same overhead, so it's more a power load thing. And the spot where the roof dips low in the C/D portal tunnel, but that's not a hard one to fix.

The D is not fenced in. There are a couple ped grade crossings out in Newton by the golf course. And every single platform has grade crossings to the opposite platform, which means all 12 intermediate stations have to get total rebuilds with cross-platform overpasses, elevators, etc. With some sort of mitigation for Longwood being used as a major ped crossing in/out of the Emerald Necklace. Nothing bloats a project like station costs. Even if the T could learn to stop gorging itself on station overbuilds it's still not cheap to totally remake platform infrastructure with grade separation. So it's missing a lot of the point to say, "Well, the train can physically run on the track so we're good right?"


And it wouldn't be safe to relax the rules about grade crossings. Heavy rail cars aren't designed to be nimble around pedestrians. The electrical guts are underneath and exposed. They're high off the track and don't have the "cow catcher" effect of a trolley bumper to deflect a Darwin Award contender away...it plows them under the vehicle. And they don't have the stopping distance of a trolley. That's why from Day 1 every heavy rail line in Boston has had auto-stop enforcement (mechanical trip arms or electromagnetic ATO) instead of line-of-sight like the Green Line.

[czsz]

Interesting debate I touched off re: Needham. As a former resident, I have to say I'm surprised what hasn't been considered:

- Converting commuter rail to OL will mean extra stops for Needhamites past Forest Hills. Commuters won't want to stop at Roxbury Crossing, etc. OL trains will also be less comfortable. I'm not sure ridership would warrant the service, and there's about 0 potential for densification in Needham itself, so the extra capacity and frequency won't matter much. Looks like a good idea on paper, but doesn't make sense.

- I'm more and more sold on the GL extension from Newton, but many Needhamites will not want to lose the one-seat CR ride from Needham Heights or Center downtown and either have to transfer from a two-stop GL ride or else ride the GL all the way downown. So there's a huge question about what to do with the corridor between Needham Heights and Needham Junction - I'm not sure you could accommodate both GL and commuter trains.

Here's a potentially reasonable transit pitch: branch the Needham CR line to Dover and Medfield. Would there be any ridership to justify?

[F-Line to Dudley]

Interesting debate I touched off re: Needham. As a former resident, I have to say I'm surprised what hasn't been considered:

- Converting commuter rail to OL will mean extra stops for Needhamites past Forest Hills. Commuters won't want to stop at Roxbury Crossing, etc. OL trains will also be less comfortable. I'm not sure ridership would warrant the service, and there's about 0 potential for densification in Needham itself, so the extra capacity and frequency won't matter much. Looks like a good idea on paper, but doesn't make sense.

- I'm more and more sold on the GL extension from Newton, but many Needhamites will not want to lose the one-seat CR ride from Needham Heights or Center downtown and either have to transfer from a two-stop GL ride or else ride the GL all the way downown. So there's a huge question about what to do with the corridor between Needham Heights and Needham Junction - I'm not sure you could accommodate both GL and commuter trains.

Here's a potentially reasonable transit pitch: branch the Needham CR line to Dover and Medfield. Would there be any ridership to justify?

No-go. The T just signed the death warrant for that line 4 weeks ago when it granted its $1/99-year trail lease. Commuter rail to Millis with stops at Dover and Medfield projected out to +4000 riders per day on commuter rail and +2700 new transit riders not taking any mode. And many considered that lowballed by a lot because it assumed it would be stealing, not adding ridership to the existing stops. But Dover NIMBY's are something else. They were trying with vigor to kill off the commuter rail through their town while commuter rail was still running through their town 45 years ago. They're practically dancing in the streets that nothing will ever run through their town again.

And, really, that option was the only compelling argument against not extending the Orange Line because in addition to Millis it would've opened up an alternate route to Framingham via Medfield. Now that that's off the table there is no potential for anything commuter rail beyond the current weird 'tweener of a line that clogs up the NEC and can never get meaningful headways as long as it's clogging the NEC. "Fairmounting" it is not an option because of that, sooo...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3575/3304445209_41a018b44f_z.jpg

Git 'r dun.

[Riverside]

Interesting debate I touched off re: Needham. As a former resident, I have to say I'm surprised what hasn't been considered:

- Converting commuter rail to OL will mean extra stops for Needhamites past Forest Hills. Commuters won't want to stop at Roxbury Crossing, etc. OL trains will also be less comfortable. I'm not sure ridership would warrant the service, and there's about 0 potential for densification in Needham itself, so the extra capacity and frequency won't matter much. Looks like a good idea on paper, but doesn't make sense.

I agree. It might have made more sense 30 or 40 years ago, when development patterns were different, but Orange Line to Needham now doesn't make sense, from a transit perspective nor from a political perspective.

- I'm more and more sold on the GL extension from Newton, but many Needhamites will not want to lose the one-seat CR ride from Needham Heights or Center downtown and either have to transfer from a two-stop GL ride or else ride the GL all the way downown. So there's a huge question about what to do with the corridor between Needham Heights and Needham Junction - I'm not sure you could accommodate both GL and commuter trains.

For what it's worth, in my plan, even if we get one-seat Green Line Needham-Downtown service, I would still try to keep Commuter Rail service to Needham Junction, if only to hold service in place for an eventual extension to Dover/Medfield/Millis. (Though this could get hard if/when the Orange Line is extended to West Roxbury.) On the other hand, of course...

Here's a potentially reasonable transit pitch: branch the Needham CR line to Dover and Medfield. Would there be any ridership to justify?

My impression of this project was that, no, there would not be the needed ridership. The 2004 PMT, on the other hand, disagrees with me, saying,

It would be one of the more successful commuter rail expansion projects in attracting riders, but capital costs would be at the upper end of the mid-range among extensions examined. Therefore it would have a medium rating in terms of capital and operating costs per new transit rider. Some of the new ridership would be attracted by increased frequency and faster travel times at existing Needham Line stations, and the same improvements could be made with- out a Millis extension. Emissions of CO, CO2, and VOC would be reduced, but those of NOx would increase. The overall impact on air quality would be medium. This project would not serve any envi- ronmental justice target communities.

It says there the "Daily Ridership Increase on Mode [Commuter Rail]" would be 4000, while the "Net Increase in Daily Transit Ridership" would be 2700.

To compare, they give figures of 3400 and 500 respectively for GL to Needham, 3100 and 2200 for CR to Nashua, and 1500 and 900 for CR to TF Green.

EDIT: Ach and F-Line beat me to the punch. Though, F-Line, to be fair, this is the Crazy Transit Pitches thread, so I'd say that political challenges such as those you named could be occasionally disregarded.