If You Were God/Goddess | Transit & Infrastructure Sandbox

Yeah, it's been a while since I was reading about this, and I was trying to piece all this together from really incomplete snippets of data, but:

One issue I see past haymarket is the pinch between state st and the blue line tunnel roof. I’m not sure if the grade exceeds 3% but it’s pretty darn close. There’s also the vertical curve right at the pinch which could cause issues for trains.
Yes, it's close, but I am pretty sure it never goes above 3%. That's piecing together lots of partial diagrams, construction photos, and planning documents mentioning depths at certain points, so I have no one document to point you to. It seemed possible it never goes above 2.5%. But, I could never pin that down absolutely certainly, so I'd love if someone just knows that answer. And has a source.

The curve, though, you're right, that could be a problem. I have no idea the minimum allowed curve on a 2-3% incline. I don't know what that turning radius is, there. That might limit the speed there, or might be one of the many things that makes this plan fail.

I believe the photo in the linked post is of the Ted at one of the portals, which definitely has a large height clearance for trucks.

The CA/T, at least at the portals, has nothing between the girders and tunnel ceiling, as evidenced by past strikes by rigs:
Yeah, I should have been clearer. That picture is from I-90, not I-93, but I think all the new Big Dig tunnels were built like that. That was just the clearest picture of what's above the panels. Again, that was hard to confirm for the whole length the tunnels, so if anyone here has a secret stash of CA/T engineering documents (probably) I'd love to look!

As for the picture you posted, yes, some of the portals don't have that ventilation space immediately above, because the highway is too shallow to allow anything above it at that point. But the portals aren't usable for trains anyways. From Kneeland to South Station and from the Zakim to Haymarket, the new highways are 5% grade. That number is pretty clearly documented.

Well the overbuild does span the entire width of the platforms, so I imagine the deep foundations extend the entire width as well. There’s also a major difference between building the stations before building the foundations and going back and beefing them up as part of the underground train shed later.
That makes sense. I guess I was trying to get at a couple of other things, though. 1) When they built the bus station and tower, did they do any kind of provisioning to maybe make it easier to one day build tracks under South Station? and 2) Whether or not they did that, how expensive would it be to build those tracks? Doing that now isn't impossible, but I'm sure it's very expensive. How would that very expensive station compare to, for example, mining a new station 10-15 stories under Fort Point Channel?
 
Yeah, it's been a while since I was reading about this, and I was trying to piece all this together from really incomplete snippets of data, but:


Yes, it's close, but I am pretty sure it never goes above 3%. That's piecing together lots of partial diagrams, construction photos, and planning documents mentioning depths at certain points, so I have no one document to point you to. It seemed possible it never goes above 2.5%. But, I could never pin that down absolutely certainly, so I'd love if someone just knows that answer. And has a source.

The curve, though, you're right, that could be a problem. I have no idea the minimum allowed curve on a 2-3% incline. I don't know what that turning radius is, there. That might limit the speed there, or might be one of the many things that makes this plan fail.


Yeah, I should have been clearer. That picture is from I-90, not I-93, but I think all the new Big Dig tunnels were built like that. That was just the clearest picture of what's above the panels. Again, that was hard to confirm for the whole length the tunnels, so if anyone here has a secret stash of CA/T engineering documents (probably) I'd love to look!

As for the picture you posted, yes, some of the portals don't have that ventilation space immediately above, because the highway is too shallow to allow anything above it at that point. But the portals aren't usable for trains anyways. From Kneeland to South Station and from the Zakim to Haymarket, the new highways are 5% grade. That number is pretty clearly documented.


That makes sense. I guess I was trying to get at a couple of other things, though. 1) When they built the bus station and tower, did they do any kind of provisioning to maybe make it easier to one day build tracks under South Station? and 2) Whether or not they did that, how expensive would it be to build those tracks? Doing that now isn't impossible, but I'm sure it's very expensive. How would that very expensive station compare to, for example, mining a new station 10-15 stories under Fort Point Channel?
The choke point I would be much more concerned about is the Sumner/Callahan interchange. I believe 93S->Callahan has some pretty crazy swings in elevation that you'd need to navigate while also avoiding the Government Center exit and the Sumner ramps.
 
The choke point I would be much more concerned about is the Sumner/Callahan interchange. I believe 93S->Callahan has some pretty crazy swings in elevation that you'd need to navigate while also avoiding the Government Center exit and the Sumner ramps.
Yeah, that's roughly the problem section we're talking about: going from a high point as the highway goes over the Blue Line to a low point under the Callahan/Sumner ramps. That should be the steepest part of the CA/T between South Station and Haymarket, but I'm pretty sure it's still less than 3%. It would be a relative roller coaster ride for a train, but maybe, possibly within spec.

The clearest CA/T elevation diagrams I've seen actually come from past NSLR proposals. I wouldn't trust you could be measure grades too accurately from these, but they show roughly how things fit together, and they're neat.

Really what I want is like a 3d model of the tunnels under there. Add in all the ramps and subways, and it's a mess too complicated for me to keep in my head.

1715022036076.png


1715022049576.jpeg
 
Yeah, that's roughly the problem section we're talking about: going from a high point as the highway goes over the Blue Line to a low point under the Callahan/Sumner ramps. That should be the steepest part of the CA/T between South Station and Haymarket, but I'm pretty sure it's still less than 3%. It would be a relative roller coaster ride for a train, but maybe, possibly within spec.

The clearest CA/T elevation diagrams I've seen actually come from past NSLR proposals. I wouldn't trust you could be measure grades too accurately from these, but they show roughly how things fit together, and they're neat.

Really what I want is like a 3d model of the tunnels under there. Add in all the ramps and subways, and it's a mess too complicated for me to keep in my head.

View attachment 50275

View attachment 50276
Screenshot 2024-05-06 at 21.15.31.png

My concern is not necessarily that the grade over the CAT is too steep, it's that this area is to some degree infringed upon by all the ramps, and that makes weaving a tunnel through said ramps without exceeding a 3% grade impossible. You'd for sure need to go under the Callahan tunnel ramps, but I can't tell if there's enough room to also go under the Sumner Tunnel ramps. It seems like there is, but if not that's an immediate dealbreaker, you'd need at least a 4% grade to do an under-over.

The other big concern is North Station. I don't think you can get 800, let alone 1050, straight feet with a <1% grade until about Community College OL station, and a central station might also be off the table. A transfer station here isn't a bad idea in an Urban Ring world, but it's also not a substitute for North Station, and would almost certainly lead to massive overcrowding on the OL and at South Station.
 
Last edited:
My concern is not necessarily that the grade over the CAT is too steep, it's that this area is to some degree infringed upon by all the ramps, and that makes weaving a tunnel through said ramps without exceeding a 3% grade impossible. You'd for sure need to go under the Callahan tunnel ramps, but I can't tell if there's enough room to also go under the Sumner Tunnel ramps. It seems like there is, but if not that's an immediate dealbreaker, you'd need at least a 4% grade to do an under-over.
I'm not sure I follow. To be clear, this was all based on a god-mode proposal to repurpose the CAT tunnels for trains as much as possible. So the trains would be in the current tunnels, following whatever grade they are. I was saying that's maybe remotely possible between South Station and Haymarket.
 
I'm not sure I follow. To be clear, this was all based on a god-mode proposal to repurpose the CAT tunnels for trains as much as possible. So the trains would be in the current tunnels, following whatever grade they are. I was saying that's maybe remotely possible between South Station and Haymarket.
Ah that makes sense, I thought we were talking about effectively bolting a rail layer on top of the existing CAT.
 
Weird question — the north station incline to science park is actually four tracks wide towards the bottom. There’s two tracks that appear to dip under but just end at a wall. Are those storage tracks or are they actually a provision for service points east?
My wish is that the two tracks would continue on to a new portal next to Sorrow Drive between Leverett Circle and Longfellow Bridge, then continue on the surface to Charlesgate alongside a road-dieted Storrow Drive in which the current 6 traffic lanes are reduced down to 4 lanes, with the two (former) lanes made into a GL extension to Kenmore Sq.
 
IMG_6904.jpeg

Posting this while stuck on the 69 bus in bumper to bumper traffic. Urban ring is provided for reference. Has this ever been proposed? I feel like if Cambridge were much denser this would be the perfect Manhattan-esque pair of spine routes (along with Red) for the city. You’d probably have to cut and cover a subway.
 
View attachment 50339
Posting this while stuck on the 69 bus in bumper to bumper traffic. Urban ring is provided for reference. Has this ever been proposed? I feel like if Cambridge were much denser this would be the perfect Manhattan-esque pair of spine routes (along with Red) for the city. You’d probably have to cut and cover a subway.
1715206638499.png

Like this?
 
Yeah, that's roughly the problem section we're talking about: going from a high point as the highway goes over the Blue Line to a low point under the Callahan/Sumner ramps. That should be the steepest part of the CA/T between South Station and Haymarket, but I'm pretty sure it's still less than 3%. It would be a relative roller coaster ride for a train, but maybe, possibly within spec.

The clearest CA/T elevation diagrams I've seen actually come from past NSLR proposals. I wouldn't trust you could be measure grades too accurately from these, but they show roughly how things fit together, and they're neat.

Really what I want is like a 3d model of the tunnels under there. Add in all the ramps and subways, and it's a mess too complicated for me to keep in my head.

View attachment 50275

View attachment 50276
Is there a similar
diagram for the Pearl/Congress route?
 
I can't decide if this belongs in "transit ideas so bad they're good", "fantasy t maps", or the "god mode sandbox" thread, so I'm sticking this here (well, I'd like to see perfect lines on the map).

Finally got around to adding all of the Eastern Mass & Middlesex and Boston routes to my fantasy (unrealistic/impractical) map.

The Lynn bus map looks almost unrecognizable after the Blue Line extension to Lynn (the area between Wonderland and Lynn becomes devoid of buses).

(How many other route terminal changes to ex-Eastern Mass bus routes can you spot on this unrealistic fantasy map? Note: The purple RR lines are placeholders if they don't make sense.)
1715830202545.png

(Yes, I eventually got around to deleting the 120 between Wood Island and Orient Heights by restoring the B & RB & L RR's Harbor View station, the most aggressive approach to curtailing surface routes at rapid transit transfer hubs)

Several things still continue to bother me though with this unrealistic god mode sandbox map:

1. What is the best way to link the Grand Junction Line with the East Somerville/Magoun Sq. Line? The two lines only intersect right in the middle of the Inner Belt, which I'd assume probably isn't a great spot for a station. The other alternative is to reroute the East Somerville/Magoun Sq. line onto the GLX ROW until it meets the Fitchburg ROW, and then use that to get to North Station. Right now on my existing fantasy unrealistic map, it uses an inefficent branching system to provide single seat transfers to East Somerville from the Grand Junction. If only one could somehow figure out the best way to get rid of this inefficiency from the fantasy unrealistic/impractical map.
1715830253141.png


2. Hub and spoke bus transfer model, or a grid based bus transfer model for Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham? One of the major issues I have with my fantasy map is that the Quincy Center branch ends at Quincy Center and not at Braintree. The reasoning for this is the 230 bus duplicating the RL extension from Quincy Center to Braintree, and the bus terminals at Quincy Adams and Braintree essentially being unused (it took until late 2019 before the 226 finally was introduced to use it).

Ideally, if rapid transit extends past the major bus terminal, it could allow for streamlined bus operations by curtailing additional surface routes at new HRT stations. It would get rid of situations seen in the following images. Such situations deprive the outer regions' last mile shares of bus headways.

1715830317953.png
1715830524868.png
1715830403472.png


On my unrealistic fantasy map, I have issues with the 505, 553, 554, 556, and 558; five bus routes all duplicating each other and the RR ROW corridor between West Newton and Newton Corner. This would probably deprive the entire Waltham bus terminal of bus headways? I'd assume the only way improve such a fantasy transit map is to extend HRT from Newton Corner to West Newton.

HRT to bus terminal, hub & spoke bus transfer systemHRT past bus terminal, hub & spoke bus transfer systemHRT past bus terminal, grid based transfer system
ProsSingle location for all bus-bus & bus-subway transfers - no double transfers.
Good for low frequency, clockface bus routes to ensure short transfers.
Timetables may be easier to coordinate first and last bus/subway departure/arrival times.
Extends HRT to south Quincy/Braintree, east Lynn, and west Waltham (& perhaps north Newton)
Local bus-bus transfers still possible w/ only 1 transfer.
Good for low frequency, clockface bus routes to ensure short transfers.
Takes advantage of extended HRT to improve bus headways - a shorter bus route means faster cycle times and more bus frequency/reliability - faster bus rides for last mile bus riders wishing to connect to HRT at the closest station ASAP.
Good for high frequency bus routes, and HRT stop spacing of about 1km
ConsNo HRT for south Quincy/Braintree, east Lynn, or west Waltham.
Transfer hub located in crowded city center, - a busy station may become congested with transfers
HRT extension has limited effect on improving bus headways/operations - existing bus routes duplicate rapid transit & lengthen bus trip times getting to the city center bus terminal.
Stops past the bus terminal depend on walk up ridership - limited or no transferring bus riders
Requires riders transferring from local bus to local bus to make a double transfer (bus - subway - bus, within Lynn/Quincy/Waltham).
May not work well for lower frequency bus routes, or if HRT stop spacing is significantly much larger than 1km.
notesBLX to Lynn often assumes a terminal at Lynn Central Square, at the site of the Lynn bus terminal.Routes 230 and 210 duplicate the RL's Braintree branch (due to extreme stop spacing on the Braintree branch, vastly greater than 1km between stops)Several cases exist within the BERy service area, such as Davis, Harvard, and Central being separate bus terminals.

A rough sketch of Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham (Newton) under 3 fantasy scenarios: It's worth noting that TransitMatters recommends a clockfaced, pulse transfer system for Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham bus routes.
1715830492077.png
 
Last edited:
Quickly jumping on to reply to some of the points here, while I have not given the rest of this proposal the attention that it deserves. Apologies in advance if I miss something because of this.

1. What is the best way to link the Grand Junction Line with the East Somerville/Magoun Sq. Line? The two lines only intersect right in the middle of the Inner Belt, which I'd assume probably isn't a great spot for a station. The other alternative is to reroute the East Somerville/Magoun Sq. line onto the GLX ROW until it meets the Fitchburg ROW, and then use that to get to North Station. Right now on my existing fantasy unrealistic map, it uses an inefficent branching system to provide single seat transfers to East Somerville from the Grand Junction. If only one could somehow figure out the best way to get rid of this inefficiency from the fantasy unrealistic/impractical map.
View attachment 50577
One alternative is what @Riverside suggested as an "East Somerville alignment" for the Grand Junction line, and IMO is probably among the most satisfactory proposals in this area holistically. The idea was originally proposed here, then refined here, and I wrote an evaluation of it and several other possible alignments here (which Riverside himself updated here).

The latest rendering of East Somerville alignment goes like this:
1715834099869.png


Basically, use the freight tracks next to New Washington St (or build an El next to it) to get to East Somerville, then run alongside GLX (possibly taking over its yard leads), and turn towards Grand Junction via a short tunnel under Fitchburg St. An infill station on the D branch near Squires Bridge is typically also proposed to allow transfers.

If commuter rail infills on the Lowell Line (at East Somerville) and Eastern Route (at Sullivan) are also built, this is one of the proposals that enable the greatest number of transfers to radial lines - GLD, GLE, Lowell, Haverhill/Reading, Newburyport/Rockport - and has the highest degree of feasibility. Only Fitchburg misses out, but at least it has a built-in connection to Kendall via Porter, partially offsetting the lost circumferential transfer. (In contrast, most other proposals completely ignore commuter rail transfers or at least have no feasible way to do them. Many of them even ignore GLX transfers, or put forward with infills that are almost certainly infeasible.)


2. Hub and spoke bus transfer model, or a grid based bus transfer model for Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham? One of the major issues I have with my fantasy map is that the Quincy Center branch ends at Quincy Center and not at Braintree. The reasoning for this is the 230 bus duplicating the RL extension from Quincy Center to Braintree, and the bus terminals at Quincy Adams and Braintree essentially being unused (it took until late 2019 before the 226 finally was introduced to use it).

Ideally, if rapid transit extends past the major bus terminal, it could allow for streamlined bus operations by curtailing additional surface routes at new HRT stations. It would get rid of situations seen in the following images. Such situations deprive the outer regions' last mile shares of bus headways.

View attachment 50578 View attachment 50581 View attachment 50579

On my unrealistic fantasy map, I have issues with the 505, 553, 554, 556, and 558; five bus routes all duplicating each other and the RR ROW corridor between West Newton and Newton Corner. This would probably deprive the entire Waltham bus terminal of bus headways? I'd assume the only way improve such a fantasy transit map is to extend HRT from Newton Corner to West Newton.

HRT to bus terminal, hub & spoke bus transfer systemHRT past bus terminal, hub & spoke bus transfer systemHRT past bus terminal, grid based transfer system
ProsSingle location for all bus-bus & bus-subway transfers - no double transfers.
Good for low frequency, clockface bus routes to ensure short transfers.
Timetables may be easier to coordinate first and last bus/subway departure/arrival times.
Extends HRT to south Quincy/Braintree, east Lynn, and west Waltham (& perhaps north Newton)
Local bus-bus transfers still possible w/ only 1 transfer.
Good for low frequency, clockface bus routes to ensure short transfers.
Takes advantage of extended HRT to improve bus headways - a shorter bus route means faster cycle times and more bus frequency/reliability - faster bus rides for last mile bus riders wishing to connect to HRT at the closest station ASAP.
Good for high frequency bus routes, and HRT stop spacing of about 1km
ConsNo HRT for south Quincy/Braintree, east Lynn, or west Waltham.
Transfer hub located in crowded city center, - a busy station may become congested with transfers
HRT extension has limited effect on improving bus headways/operations - existing bus routes duplicate rapid transit & lengthen bus trip times getting to the city center bus terminal.
Stops past the bus terminal depend on walk up ridership - limited or no transferring bus riders
Requires riders transferring from local bus to local bus to make a double transfer (bus - subway - bus, within Lynn/Quincy/Waltham).
May not work well for lower frequency bus routes, or if HRT stop spacing is significantly much larger than 1km.
notesBLX to Lynn often assumes a terminal at Lynn Central Square, at the site of the Lynn bus terminal.Routes 230 and 210 duplicate the RL's Braintree branch (due to extreme stop spacing on the Braintree branch, vastly greater than 1km between stops)Several cases exist within the BERy service area, such as Davis, Harvard, and Central being separate bus terminals.

A rough sketch of Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham (Newton) under 3 fantasy scenarios: It's worth noting that TransitMatters recommends a clockfaced, pulse transfer system for Lynn, Quincy, and Waltham bus routes.
View attachment 50580
One question whose answer would provide more clarity into this issue is: How many intra-city transfers are there in Lynn and Quincy, and what's the demand for such transfer patterns? I don't know the answer to that, but if such demand is high, it would lean more heavily towards hub-and-spoke.

Note that for Lynn in particular, an extension to Swampscott - and even beyond that to Salem - is well-justified before even considering bus transfers. According to the 2003 Program for Mass Transportation, a Lynn-Salem extension has higher ridership per mile than Wonderland-Lynn, and the only reason it hasn't been built is that the Blue Line hasn't been extended to Lynn yet.

As for the 55x series (the reworked 56 and 58 in BNRD), I also suspect the duplication intentionally provides local service between the commuter rail stations.
 
Quickly jumping on to reply to some of the points here, while I have not given the rest of this proposal the attention that it deserves. Apologies in advance if I miss something because of this.


One alternative is what @Riverside suggested as an "East Somerville alignment" for the Grand Junction line, and IMO is probably among the most satisfactory proposals in this area holistically. The idea was originally proposed here, then refined here, and I wrote an evaluation of it and several other possible alignments here (which Riverside himself updated here).

The latest rendering of East Somerville alignment goes like this:


Basically, use the freight tracks next to New Washington St (or build an El next to it) to get to East Somerville, then run alongside GLX (possibly taking over its yard leads), and turn towards Grand Junction via a short tunnel under Fitchburg St. An infill station on the D branch near Squires Bridge is typically also proposed to allow transfers.

If commuter rail infills on the Lowell Line (at East Somerville) and Eastern Route (at Sullivan) are also built, this is one of the proposals that enable the greatest number of transfers to radial lines - GLD, GLE, Lowell, Haverhill/Reading, Newburyport/Rockport - and has the highest degree of feasibility. Only Fitchburg misses out, but at least it has a built-in connection to Kendall via Porter, partially offsetting the lost circumferential transfer. (In contrast, most other proposals completely ignore commuter rail transfers or at least have no feasible way to do them. Many of them even ignore GLX transfers, or put forward with infills that are almost certainly infeasible.)
Yea, there were a few things missed, there's a bit more nuance in my post that weren't taken into account.

1. I am not trying to connect Grand Junction with GLX, GLX from Lechmere doesn't exist on this alternate history/reality/fantasy map (notice the dead end at Lechmere), but instead all rapid transit lines converge on the hugely absurd "mainline ROW rapid transit concept" (yes, it's an absurd concept, but so darn fascinating). The Lechmere Viaduct on my map receives surface routes, and the hypothectical rapid transit routes instead use the NSRL built to receive rapid transit service from all mainline ROWs. This means the track layout may differ quite a bit from present day.

In this concept, the GLX spagetti junction doesn't exist, but one may not take any new land or tunnel for a new subway, however, the current existing or historical ROWs may be widened or tunneled, or the junctions smoothed.

Essentially,that leaves only sites #5 or #6 for a relocated Brickbottom Station (site #6 can be removed since it doesn't go near the Fitchburg rapid transit line, rerouting the B & L rapid transit line would be needed anyways). I'm still not sure whether site #5 is even a proper site for a station to begin with (again, GLX and it's spagetti junction doesn't exist on this map).

1715870272368.png


Kinda annoyed by the fact that the old junction was a crossover/flyover, and the two routes never actually were physically connected. I suppose there'd be room to slot the B & L rapid transit trackage and run alongside/parallel the Fitchburg ROW rapid transit trackage eastwards to North Station.

1715869779170.png



One question whose answer would provide more clarity into this issue is: How many intra-city transfers are there in Lynn and Quincy, and what's the demand for such transfer patterns? I don't know the answer to that, but if such demand is high, it would lean more heavily towards hub-and-spoke.

Note that for Lynn in particular, an extension to Swampscott - and even beyond that to Salem - is well-justified before even considering bus transfers. According to the 2003 Program for Mass Transportation, a Lynn-Salem extension has higher ridership per mile than Wonderland-Lynn, and the only reason it hasn't been built is that the Blue Line hasn't been extended to Lynn yet.

Yea, that's something I'm not aware of how to get easy data on. It's a bit frustrating that the T's market analysis frequencies map does not go all the way to North Beverly's bus terminal, and cuts off right after the Lynn bus terminal, so I can't easily gauge how much demand there is between Lynn and Salem/Beverly.
1715871403515.png


In the case of the Blue Line extension to Salem, Swampscott is about as far as the 441, 435, and the 455 buses can be cut back to. The Eastern ROW misses the 450 and 455 essentially completely between Swampscott and Old Salem stations, meaning that BLX to Salem would not be able to allow curtailing of the surface routes beyond Swampscott. The only route curtailing would be the 455 being cut back from Salem Depot to Old Salem, but that would cause the 451, 465, and the 450 to have longer routings out from Old Salem vs. Salem Depot. Parts of coastal Salem east of Lafayette St. are also too far (>800 meters/.5 mile) of a walk to access Castle Hill and Pickman Park stations, and only have the 455 nearby.

Note that BNRD is inapplicable for the fantasy map, as it is essentially an alternate history/timeline/fantasy map. The bus network would be completely different if all the mainline ROWs carried rapid transit from the start, perhaps curtailing a lot more surface routes at rapid transit transfer hubs the same way as BERy did. I've essentially opted to stick to pre-BNRD bus routes on my alternate history/reality fantasy map, and optimized them a bit (or added some fantasy ideas to them).

As for the 55x series (the reworked 56 and 58 in BNRD), I also suspect the duplication intentionally provides local service between the commuter rail stations.

In the case of extending rapid transit west of Newton Corner to West Newton, the distance from Newton Corner (Centre St.) to Newtonville (Walnut St.), is 2.02 km (1.25 mi). If an ideal rapid transit stop spacing is 1km (0.625 mi), that would mean an infill station at the site of the 558 bus at Adams St. (there is a grade separated street/RR crossing there), as that site is located exactly halfway between the two stations and would fill the missing gap there (the resulting stop spacing is almost exactly 1000 meters (0.625 mi).

The gap from Newtonville (Walnut St.), to West Newton (Washington St.), is 1.83 km (1.14 mi), which is 1.8x higher than the ideal stop spacing, but there are no good spots for an infill to fill the missing gap, with a lack of a street crossing halfway between them. It's worth noting the T's market analysis indicates very little transit demand on the south side.

During the Highland Branch conversion to LRT rapid transit in the late 1950s, a new infill station was constructed at Fenway, This covered a 1.52 km gap (.9 mi) between Kenmore and Longwood and today provides the rapid transit connection with the 47 bus.

I just find rapid transit extensions that consume/eat away at duplicative bus routes, allows the rapid transit extension to have the most impact at redeploying bus frequencies elsewhere as needed.
 
Ideally, if rapid transit extends past the major bus terminal, it could allow for streamlined bus operations by curtailing additional surface routes at new HRT stations. It would get rid of situations seen in the following images. Such situations deprive the outer regions' last mile shares of bus headways.

Following up on this, RMTransit published a new video talking about why bus routes paralleling and duplicating rapid transit subway lines are almost always a terrible, terrible, bad idea. Funny that the video came out after asking whether it's possible to de-duplicate bus routes from fantasy rapid transit extensions in some of the outer bus hubs.

 
Don't have time to do one of my customary long analyses but, @Delvin4519, you might find this interesting: Boston, Massachusetts 1909: Suggested Ultimate Development of Steam Railroad Systems, Plate II
1717001124061.png


Full-res version on page 171 (of the viewer, not original work) here, with additional details starting on page 114, including counts of mainline inbound trains during morning rush:

1717001253323.png


(For those wondering, this is a 1908 concept for a North South Rail Link, similar to the hypothetical one I discuss in my blogpost here, and which figures in to Delvin's hypothetical maps upthread.)
 
Don't have time to do one of my customary long analyses but, @Delvin4519, you might find this interesting: Boston, Massachusetts 1909: Suggested Ultimate Development of Steam Railroad Systems, Plate II
View attachment 50930

Wow, that 1909 map of an NSRL makes me sad that it was never built. WW I, the Great Depression and then WW II were a triple whammy delaying it until the rise of automobile commuting in the 1950s, which put it in its final grave. Then, the construction of the elevated Central Artery in the 1950s literally placed an immovable roadblock in its path.
 
Wow, that 1909 map of an NSRL makes me sad that it was never built. WW I, the Great Depression and then WW II were a triple whammy delaying it until the rise of automobile commuting in the 1950s, which put it in its final grave. Then, the construction of the elevated Central Artery in the 1950s literally placed an immovable roadblock in its path.
Easiest way to get a project built was to ask engineers from 100 years ago to do it at the costs of the time lol... Read wikipedia and it was like "In 1909, it was decided that a four mile subway would be built. The plans were drawn up and it was dug over the course of two years by several local workers under a major street." Now open the GLX wikipedia article and compare!
 

Back
Top