archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Design a Better Boston

Design a Better Boston Are you disappointed with the state of Boston's current architecture/development? Think you have a better idea? Post it here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-2019, 10:27 AM   #1761
jbray
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 20
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

This may actually be a crazy pitch or may have been brought up, so excuse me if I'm in the wrong here. Why is GLX going forward without a junction stop in Brickbottom near Twin City Plaza and Inner Belt Road? Could they not build an elevated platform for the D line and a grade platform for the E that connect so that Lechmere is not the last transfer? Could this be infilled?
jbray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 10:35 AM   #1762
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,083
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbray View Post
This may actually be a crazy pitch or may have been brought up, so excuse me if I'm in the wrong here. Why is GLX going forward without a junction stop in Brickbottom near Twin City Plaza and Inner Belt Road? Could they not build an elevated platform for the D line and a grade platform for the E that connect so that Lechmere is not the last transfer? Could this be infilled?
Location's way too complicated to effectively shiv a platform. Too many switches spaced too closely, and actually providing a station facility and egress amidst all the flying infrastructure is a big reach. Would require major redesign of the junction to plausibly work, and the set-back location isn't a great one for the areas served (not awful, just very meh).

Twin City/McGrath would be served as Stop #1 if the Grand Junction were converted to LRT.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 11:01 AM   #1763
whittle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 198
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Location's way too complicated to effectively shiv a platform. Too many switches spaced too closely, and actually providing a station facility and egress amidst all the flying infrastructure is a big reach. Would require major redesign of the junction to plausibly work, and the set-back location isn't a great one for the areas served (not awful, just very meh).

Twin City/McGrath would be served as Stop #1 if the Grand Junction were converted to LRT.
Would GJR light rail even look like through this area if if the light rail conversion continues to Sullivan?
whittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 11:48 AM   #1764
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,083
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by whittle View Post
Would GJR light rail even look like through this area if if the light rail conversion continues to Sullivan?
The NW quadrant would junction off the Union Branch with a flying junction + Fitchburg Line duck-under underneath the McGrath overpass. No alterations necessary to the GLX infrastructure. The NE quadrant (or Sullivan stub if paying on the installment plan) would take the carhouse turnout from Lechmere or the Union-carhouse flyover for thru-routing to/from the NW quadrant. Upgrades would be needed for carhouse reconfig to turn the outermost 2 lead tracks into revenue tracks wrapping around to 3rd Ave., but it wouldn't be too intensive. Mostly mass switch reconfiguration.

To Sullivan would require 1 private grade crossing of 3rd/BET driveway and a small duck-under or cut beneath the freight wye. Then graft on an addition to the existing station. Stub out to tail tracks if that's just a first phase, and maybe extend the C from North Station to terminate there.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 12:01 PM   #1765
jbray
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 20
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Location's way too complicated to effectively shiv a platform. Too many switches spaced too closely, and actually providing a station facility and egress amidst all the flying infrastructure is a big reach. Would require major redesign of the junction to plausibly work, and the set-back location isn't a great one for the areas served (not awful, just very meh).

Twin City/McGrath would be served as Stop #1 if the Grand Junction were converted to LRT.
Looking at the Corridor plan map, I see your point. So, in light of your description of a Grand junction green line, would that potential stop include the D line or, because of the geometry of the viaduct, would the E line be the only transfer if that's even possible? This is why I felt it could be a crazy pitch due to the real underlying question being does not having this transfer point planned out diminish the potential of a grand junction transformation?
jbray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 04:24 PM   #1766
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,083
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbray View Post
Looking at the Corridor plan map, I see your point. So, in light of your description of a Grand junction green line, would that potential stop include the D line or, because of the geometry of the viaduct, would the E line be the only transfer if that's even possible? This is why I felt it could be a crazy pitch due to the real underlying question being does not having this transfer point planned out diminish the potential of a grand junction transformation?
You wouldn't need to have a union station for branch transfers in the middle of that spaghetti junction (a moot point anyway since the space for it doesn't exist). Once you hook the Ring in the service patterns on it are not going to be fixed and monolithic. It's expected that only some trips will stay completely on the Ring (i.e. Sullivan<-->Twin City), while others will thread through Downtown like traditional GL branches (i.e. Twin City<-->Lechmere, Sullivan<-->Lechmere).

This can be accomplished by alternating the routings, such that a person waiting at the Kendall stop wanting to get to North Station will be guaranteed every other train being signed for downtown. Similarly, someone at Chelsea wanting to get to Kendall across the Ring will be guaranteed that every other train is signed for Cambridge. A typical B/C/D/E peak headway is 6 minutes, so if these frequencies are alternating as if it's two branch schedules' worth of interlining it'll never be more than a 6 minute wait to get the train destination you want. Same advertised wait (if less chaotic overall) than if you were standing on the Park St. outbound platform waiting for any one branch. Meanwhile, the overall churn of trains on the Ring stops will be at a 3-minute clip...quite a bit less than the Central Subway but also quite a bit more service density than the branches.

^That's^ a somewhat simplistic view of it. Presence of the Harvard Branch being able to run thru from the Kenmore or Ring ends adds more math to the service calculation. And if demand is radically higher on the NW quadrant through Cambridge than the NE quadrant through Chelsea that could exert force on dividing the frequency pie. But the general idea remains the same: vary up the one-seat destinations and keep the headways brisk so (1) no square-peg transfer station is needed in a hard-to-reach spot, and (2) choosing your adventure on the Ring ends up little different a rider experience in time or familiarity than waiting for the right lettered train at Park St.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2019, 09:41 AM   #1767
jbray
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 20
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Thanks F-Line!

Better Bus Pitch: Northern 88 and 89 changes.
I actually gave this feedback in the survey but I wanted to run it by this group before I continued to push it. There's an A and B plan for changing the 88 and 89 that I think they should consider.

Plan A: Instead of cutting off the 89 at Davis, send all 89 buses through Davis and on to Clarendon Hill along Holland just as the current 87 and 88 bus routes go. This maintains access to CH and Teele riders while also making the 89 go to Davis on every run which is where it should be going. A bonus of this is that the 89 becomes viable for all riders as a means to go to Davis from CH which is a large portion of ridership on the 88 and 87 from that point on.

Plan B: Plan B includes all of plan A but reroutes the 88 along Broadway out to Powder House Square then follows College ave back to its original route. This maintains headways to Davis on Holland as the 88 and 89 have simply swapped places and connects Broadway to Davis by bus (including the new Powderhouse Development). Another tiny byproduct of this is that Powder House Square adds another bus to it's transfer point allowing the 80 and 88 to connect (although much of that overlaps with the 94 route and the 87 now connects to the 80 in Arlington).

Plan A adds the most value as it really makes the CH corridor to Davis the most functional but plan B accommodates ridership on Broadway. while maintaining a similar, if not the same, functionality on Holland.
jbray is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crazy Transit Pitches BostonUrbEx Design a Better Boston 3617 Yesterday 01:12 PM
Gondolas As Serious Transit Arlington Transit and Infrastructure 14 02-18-2012 07:26 AM
Large reasonable priced Family sized condos scarce in Hub whighlander Development Projects 6 11-19-2011 10:54 PM
We don't need Mass Transit!!! JohnAKeith Transit and Infrastructure 1 06-22-2009 03:14 PM
Transit Use in San Francisco and Elsewhere ablarc Transit and Infrastructure 2 06-17-2007 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.