Crazy Transit Pitches

[Commuting Boston Student]

Originally Posted by Riverside

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student

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]

Originally Posted by Commuting Boston Student

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.

Originally Posted by bbfen

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
Line 2: Lynn - Riverside / Needham Center
Line 3: Oak Grove - West Roxbury
Line 4: Boston College - Belmont
Line 5: Cleveland Circle - City Point / JFK-UMass
Line 7: Malden Eastern - Forest Hills
Line 9: West Medford - Dedham Mall / Blue Hill Vista-Route 128

[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]

Originally Posted by bbfen

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




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
Line 2: Lynn - Riverside / Needham Center
Line 3: Oak Grove - West Roxbury
Line 4: Boston College - Belmont
Line 5: Cleveland Circle - City Point / JFK-UMass
Line 6: Alewife - Mattapan
Line 7: Malden Eastern - Forest Hills
Line 8: Northgate - Waverley
Line 9: West Medford - Dedham Mall / Blue Hill Vista-Route 128
Line 10: Braintree - Waltham Common
Line 11: Medford City Hall - Watertown Square
Line 12: Circle

And some summary info:

[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:







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]

Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains

^ 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by omaja

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]

Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains

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]

Originally Posted by Matthew

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.