Fantasy T maps

[HenryAlan]

View attachment 50346
Finally got this across the finish line (Well, before I find any mistakes anyways.)

Looks great. A quick one that I found is that you have Needham Heights as the label for both the actual station and also for Needham Junction. If I notice anything else, I'll add to this post.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Looks great. A quick one that I found is that you have Needham Heights as the label for both the actual station and also for Needham Junction. If I notice anything else, I'll add to this post.

well that's stupid, how did I not see that?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Also took the opportunity to fix some white borders I missed.

 

[Riverside]

Any way here they are!

MBTA Maxima:

MBTA Maxima (Alt):

Here's the lines on Google Map as Reference (for the first version only).

Alrighty, let's give this a go! Yeah, lots of really fun stuff in here. Are there things that aren't viable? Ehn, probably. Do I care about that for the purpose of this post? Not at all.

In no particular order, here are a number of cool things I noticed and like:

The experimentation with using Silver for the Kenmore Division routes! I feel like that opens some interesting potential in terms of visual language "weight"

The station-naming convention of Ambiguous Local Street/Disambiguating City, like Dedham St/Needham

The Dover High Speed Line

Webster Woods!

The Urban Ring jaunt from Nubian to MLK via Washington is very intriguing. Is there more background to that idea?

The 2 and 5, or 2 and L, to Chelsea + Everett (more on this below) -- very cool to see that fleshed out

The Red X! (Technically, the original idea was to have a "Northern Line" topology, where each northern branch has an OSR to each southern branch and vice versa. But that's definitely a pain to map)

Jefferies Point station!

Running a Dedham extension all the way to 128/University Park is an interesting idea I haven't seen before!

And for some more elaborated thoughts on your 4 and 5 (Blue and Violet) Lines: this really piqued my interest.

For starters, the corridor you carved out from Kendall to Allston to Watertown to Waltham is a solid one for an aggressive build brand-new HRT line. Straight shot, reasonably high density, connects new and emerging employment areas -- checks a lot of boxes.

The Chelsea/Saugus corridor is also solid. I might realign the downtown Chelsea portion to swing a bit closer to the current Belligham Square station -- there's still some pretty strong population density there, and north of the railroad ROW, which could be captured by a subway walkshed. But yeah, as you know I'm a big fan of a radial line through this corridor.

It was interesting to me that you had the Blue and Violet Lines meet but not cross at MGH; generally, my thinking is that it's better for lines to cross rather than converge + diverge because it provides OSRs to the (usually) more popular straight-shot journey, rather than "wasting" OSRs on the roundabout journeys between the legs. Now, in this scenario, that's less acute because the Charles River and the Harbor create some physical barriers that already constrain possible journeys. On the other hand, this design does lack a transfer from your Violet Line to both the Silver and Magenta Lines (also a typical side effect of con- + diverge models).

So, what if you did cross them?

Your Blue Line would become North Shore <> Downtown <> Kendall <> Allston <> Waltham, while your Violet Line would become Saugus <> Chelsea <> Downtown(ish) <> Kenmore (more on that below).

Revised Blue Line: in general, I'm unconvinced about sending the Blue Line to Cambridge. But, if it were done, I would do it like you have here (with the trio of stations at Binney, Technology, and Kendall) -- I might even add a station around Columbia St. The Western Ave/Arsenal corridor is a strong counterweight to the North Shore corridor, and has better connectivity to downtown via the Blue Line tunnel rather than a new subway through the West End.

Revised Violet Line: this is where you really got me thinking. What if, in addition to running the Violet Line down the Riverbank Subway, you also extended it through the Longwood shuttle line? Beyond offsetting the "loss" of the OSR to Kendall from Chelsea/Saugus, this also would create a downtown bypass to Longwood; instead of transferring to the Green Line, some riders would transfer to the Violet Line (e.g. at MGH, or North Station/Haymarket). This would potentially accomplish some of the goals of the Urban Ring, similar to the Grand Junction but on the nearside of the Charles River.

What happens to West Station? You could probably run an Indigo-type service, either as part of a longer service to Auburndale, or as a shorter service pinging back and forth between South and West Stations. You could also extend your Silver Line's Commonwealth Subway to West Station, with a short jog south to pick up the existing branches near Packard's Corner.

Potentially more thoughts later but yeah, this was really cool and really fun!

 

[Riverside]

Also took the opportunity to fix some white borders I missed.
View attachment 50359

What a great week for fantasy T maps!

Once again, lots of really cool stuff here. Some random comments/observations:

• As we've discussed before, I really like your approach to station naming
• I think the Green Line branches look fine -- better than fine, in fact, I think they look solid!
• Yes, I like the crayoned cross-Brookline subway for the Blue Line. Obviously expensive and difficult (probably to the point of infeasible), but I think it reasonably slices through that quadrant, providing a heavy rail spine in much the way the Red Line does for Cambridge. Missing BU and LMA is tough, but OTOH you've offset that with short rides on the Yellow Line
• Love the station names on the Pink Line
• Any particular reason to run the Pink Line to Community College rather than North Station? (Oh, I see, you've added a CR stop at Comm Coll, that's interesting)
• The Bedford Line, with the forced transfer to the Red Line, is an interesting idea. What was your vision on that? How far out would the CR line go? And is there a benefit to a full-out CR line, compared to something like the Needham Trolley? (If you're going to have a forced transfer anyway, why not make the stations smaller and lighter, and the crossings less obtrusive?)
• The confluence of the Green, Yellow, and Pink Lines between the Red Line and the Medford Line is a little tight; could you use some of the empty space above West Medford and Arlington Heights to stretch things out to give those lines a bit more breathing room?
• The Yellow Line to Wonderland has seemed like a stretch to me in the past, though it does now occur to me that it would provide a Blue <> Urban Ring connection that doesn't require traversing Chelsea Creek, and your alignment via the Tobin Bridge would also avoid the roundabout route via Everett
• A little surprised you didn't include a walking connection indication between Bay Village and Tufts Medical -- was that ultimately a concession to tight spacing?
• Where is Weiss station located?
• Love the little touches on the commuter rail arrows -- "Woonsocket/Foxboro Line," "Providence, Newport, New Bedford Lines" etc

The map looks awesome! And lots of cool stuff in it!

 

[Teban54]

I'm having an extremely hard time catching up with the flurry of activity all around (both in this thread and on the rest of this forum), but I'll throw in a very quick and very minor comment:

Also took the opportunity to fix some white borders I missed.
View attachment 50359

I believe you mean "Audubon Circle" for the C's St Mary's St, not "Adubon Circle", right?

(I'll try to make some more comments on both your map and @BentFryingPan's map later, but can't promise anything right now... lol.)

 

[TheRatmeister]

Any particular reason to run the Pink Line to Community College rather than North Station? (Oh, I see, you've added a CR stop at Comm Coll, that's interesting)

The purpose of the Pink Line on this map is to provide a dedicated route to get people to/through the Kendall/MIT area from the other lines. Community College has lots of space for a large transfer station, two YL tracks and PL tracks, preferably with cross-platform interchange, and 4 CR platforms to get North-side CR riders onto the YL and PL. But if you just wanted to get from North Station (Or anywhere in downtown, really) to Kendall, it doesn't really make sense to go the long way around, and the space at North Station could be better used for increased CR service.

A little surprised you didn't include a walking connection indication between Bay Village and Tufts Medical -- was that ultimately a concession to tight spacing?

That is just an oversight. I'll add that

The Bedford Line, with the forced transfer to the Red Line, is an interesting idea. What was your vision on that? How far out would the CR line go? And is there a benefit to a full-out CR line, compared to something like the Needham Trolley? (If you're going to have a forced transfer anyway, why not make the stations smaller and lighter, and the crossings less obtrusive?)

It would not be a CR line in the traditional sense, more like the River Line in NJ. The reason I gave it a different treatment than the Needham Trolley is that it doesn't connect two parts of the rapid transit network, it's a radial line that would primarily serve suburbanites heading into and out of Boston.

Where is Weiss station located?

Where Cambridge St meets the GJ

The Yellow Line to Wonderland has seemed like a stretch to me in the past, though it does now occur to me that it would provide a Blue <> Urban Ring connection that doesn't require traversing Chelsea Creek, and your alignment via the Tobin Bridge would also avoid the roundabout route via Everett

I would say the reasoning is 3-fold:

1. Provides a radial(ish) rail link for Chelsea and Revere, two places that badly need such a link
2. It avoids the Chelsea Creek problem and the general kerfuffle that would come from building anything at, above, or under Logan.
3. There's 33 Acres of land up for redevelopment at Wonderland Racetrack. (And potentially a bit more at Bell Circle.) Better connecting it to Revere and to the rest of the transit network is a good way to supercharge that. This is a part of a wider goal for the YL to do that in other places too. Widett Circle, Andrew, the Everett Hellscape™ that I've named "Mystic Landing", and Lower Allston all have large swaths of land that can be build on.

The confluence of the Green, Yellow, and Pink Lines between the Red Line and the Medford Line is a little tight; could you use some of the empty space above West Medford and Arlington Heights to stretch things out to give those lines a bit more breathing room?

Yeah, that's an option. The main way I can see to do that would be to make the stop spacing on the RL wider. That can be a project for another time.

I believe you mean "Audubon Circle" for the C's St Mary's St, not "Adubon Circle", right?

...yes.

 

[Teban54]

I would say the reasoning is 3-fold:

1. Provides a radial(ish) rail link for Chelsea and Revere, two places that badly need such a link

I understand it's tempting to have a "tangential" line that offers circumferential-like service around the core and radial-like service further out (conceptual sketch below). That said, as I elaborated in this comment (motivated by this Alon Levy post), such routes typically underperform in ridership.

For the specific example, it appears that Everett, Chelsea and Revere are much better off with proper radial route(s) in an ideal world, and their densities seem to support that (further analysis needed).

Of course, such a route is reasonable in a "better than nothing" situation if your constraint is "no other routes in downtown" (either due to cost or some other concerns).

 

[TheRatmeister]

I understand it's tempting to have a "tangential" line that offers circumferential-like service around the core and radial-like service further out (conceptual sketch below). That said, as I elaborated in this comment (motivated by this Alon Levy post), such routes typically underperform in ridership.

For the specific example, it appears that Everett, Chelsea and Revere are much better off with proper radial route(s) in an ideal world, and their densities seem to support that (further analysis needed).

Of course, such a route is reasonable in a "better than nothing" situation if your constraint is "no other routes in downtown" (either due to cost or some other concerns).

Yes, this is a concern, but I would say that the main 'meat' of the blog post is "If you're building an orbital line, don't neglect making transfers and orbital connections for the purpose of getting a radial bit in." and I don't think that's really applies here, especially with the Chelsea branch pulling double duty as a radial and orbital route. For most BL trips the transfer downtown will probably be faster than any urban ring route just because of how geography works out, so I don't think there's a major "lost opportunity" for a transfer here. If there was significant demand for an Everett-Revere line then it would be a bigger consideration, but 110 and 112 ridership don't really support that conclusion either.

You're right that there is demand for a proper, radial line. But with an orbital link to the largest secondary job centers, room for capacity increases on the OL and BL, and the entirely different cost beast that is building anything downtown, I just don't think the Cost/Benefit works out favorably. (And if it does work out then the money we spent on that should probably go to NSRL instead.) Obviously you're free to disagree with the my conclusions, I'm definitely making some assumptions here, but that's the philosophy that's guided the making of this map, for better or for worse.

 

[BentFryingPan]

Alrighty, let's give this a go! Yeah, lots of really fun stuff in here. Are there things that aren't viable? Ehn, probably. Do I care about that for the purpose of this post? Not at all.

[Snip]

Really appreciate the feedback from y'all! When I have more time I'll have to integrate these thoughts. Obviously the Line 5 would be a cost blowout, especially with One More Tunnel through downtown hahaha, I can't decide between Everett or Chelsea getting the direct high speed connection.

Any GLXX-Woburn is going to stay bolted to the mainline to Anderson RTC with the Montvale Ave. infill stop providing walking-distance and bus access to Woburn Center. Not ideal, but the best you're going to get.

So this is interesting, in a version of the "full build" you could still follow the tracks that far without property acquistion? I'll probably put it out to Anderson then.

RE: Regional Rail, it definitely needs more express / local service patterns, I was even wondering if something like Concord might simply be better served by Amtrak (with maybe a mountain express for the skiers rather than the MBTA doing daily trips). Definitely get it for the Westerly connection, again with more intercity rail via Amtrak I suppose it makes sense for the Westerly<>PVD route to be a line for RI.

The experimentation with using Silver for the Kenmore Division routes! I feel like that opens some interesting potential in terms of visual language "weight"

Yeah I think the Pink / Green line would ideally be almost completely grade separated ala Seattle with the Silver service being more legacy, hopefully with signal upgrades and priority but definitely a different division. The (Blue) Line 4 would be their express from Kenmore.

The station-naming convention of Ambiguous Local Street/Disambiguating City, like Dedham St/Needham

Yeah I'm assuming these would get better names eventually, but it's nice to have an obvious marker for now for reference.

The Red X! (Technically, the original idea was to have a "Northern Line" topology, where each northern branch has an OSR to each southern branch and vice versa. But that's definitely a pain to map)

Yeah! I think it wouldn't be that bad if they were the same color and you note the service patterns at the end. I kinda figured less interlining would be better for operation here, interested in the thoughts against that though, obviously Ashmont losing a OSR to Kendall is tough but in a world with 3 min freq. a transfer is much easier

Running a Dedham extension all the way to 128/University Park is an interesting idea I haven't seen before!

I sorta envisioned this as one final regional interchange, like Back Bay; lots of connections to the metro and the regional system making it a major hub and reliever for those in the suburbs. It would need way more development but again it felt like a natural end point for everything.

The Urban Ring jaunt from Nubian to MLK via Washington is very intriguing. Is there more background to that idea?

Honestly, it was a wide open reservation and my thought was those from deeper into Roxbury might want a one seat ride into Longwood (plus it fills a gap on the other side of Fort Hill) I'm not sure how the cost/benefit works out obviously!

And for some more elaborated thoughts on your 4 and 5 (Blue and Violet) Lines: this really piqued my interest.

The Line 4 or Line 5 into Kendall just makes sense, I lived in the area for two years and it really needs more connections. The platforms are small for the ridership it gets! I don't have time to respond to each point but I do really like the idea of Longwood getting more rapid transit for sure. An Indigo service is probably enough for West Station and the Newtons!

I have a lot to work on now so much appreciated!!!
.

 

[TheRatmeister]

RE: Regional Rail, it definitely needs more express / local service patterns, I was even wondering if something like Concord might simply be better served by Amtrak (with maybe a mountain express for the skiers rather than the MBTA doing daily trips). Definitely get it for the Westerly connection, again with more intercity rail via Amtrak I suppose it makes sense for the Westerly<>PVD route to be a line for RI.

It really depends on what you think the future of the CR could be. Personally I see a future where the CR is a mix of regional/commuter and intercity rail, and with this context a line to Concord is actually a reasonable length. But if your CR future is a system built around getting people to, through, and around Boston, Concord might not be on the agenda.

Really appreciate the feedback from y'all! When I have more time I'll have to integrate these thoughts. Obviously the Line 5 would be a cost blowout, especially with One More Tunnel through downtown hahaha, I can't decide between Everett or Chelsea getting the direct high speed connection.

I vote Everett, it's better positioned for a radial line through downtown. Chelsea is set up perfectly for an orbital connection over a rebuilt Tobin Bridge, and you can finish the ring at the Airport, Wonderland, or other places if you so desired.

 

[Teban54]

Yes, this is a concern, but I would say that the main 'meat' of the blog post is "If you're building an orbital line, don't neglect making transfers and orbital connections for the purpose of getting a radial bit in." and I don't think that's really applies here, especially with the Chelsea branch pulling double duty as a radial and orbital route. For most BL trips the transfer downtown will probably be faster than any urban ring route just because of how geography works out, so I don't think there's a major "lost opportunity" for a transfer here. If there was significant demand for an Everett-Revere line then it would be a bigger consideration, but 110 and 112 ridership don't really support that conclusion either.

You're right that there is demand for a proper, radial line. But with an orbital link to the largest secondary job centers, room for capacity increases on the OL and BL, and the entirely different cost beast that is building anything downtown, I just don't think the Cost/Benefit works out favorably. (And if it does work out then the money we spent on that should probably go to NSRL instead.) Obviously you're free to disagree with the my conclusions, I'm definitely making some assumptions here, but that's the philosophy that's guided the making of this map, for better or for worse.

My interpretation of Alon's blogpost goes both ways: there's also "If you're building a radial line, don't make it go round and round avoiding the downtown core for the purpose of getting a circumferential bit in." And yes, I've seen various examples elsewhere where such lines underperform in radial ridership (e.g. Shanghai's Lines 3 and 6, which I mentioned in that comment).

I agree with you that for the purpose of the Urban Ring, there's not much transfer opportunities being lost (*); but from the perspective of an Everett or Revere route, there are definitely many lost opportunities for either bigger employment centers or more convenient transfers. (Yes, Kendall is a big hub, but most places downtown are bigger, and your Yellow Line doesn't even reach Kendall.)

I understand if cost of a new downtown route is a concern, but on the other hand, if we're seriously talking about a Blue Line extension to Waltham via Coolidge Corner, Brighton Center and Watertown (which, don't get me wrong, is a creative route itself), it seems that the cost of such a 10-mile route (with many parts plausibly needing TBM to avoid neighborhood impacts) seems to outweigh that of a 1-2 mile line downtown. Meanwhile, I had also toyed around ideas for a less expensive radial Green Line branch to Chelsea via Tobin in the past.

(*) There's one exception, though:

Spoiler: God-mode Urban Ring shortcut that's actually useful for a Blue Line connection

The idea should be self-explanatory. The only problem: Cost.

 

[Delvin4519]

I understand it's tempting to have a "tangential" line that offers circumferential-like service around the core and radial-like service further out (conceptual sketch below). That said, as I elaborated in this comment (motivated by this Alon Levy post), such routes typically underperform in ridership.



For the specific example, it appears that Everett, Chelsea and Revere are much better off with proper radial route(s) in an ideal world, and their densities seem to support that (further analysis needed).

Of course, such a route is reasonable in a "better than nothing" situation if your constraint is "no other routes in downtown" (either due to cost or some other concerns).

The issue of radial vs. circumferential routes is why it's probably best to keep the 111 directed to Downtown. It's also why riders of the 92 bus were/are heavily opposed to having their route cut back to Community College and losing the Haymarket busway connection, as the Orange Line is essentially inaccessible to almost all of Charlestown without the buses running from Sullivan to Haymarket busway. The 92 bus was the original route of the Orange Line El, and with BNRD, there (likely) will be a complete loss of the original Orange Line El's routing.

Ryan said his major concern is that with the elimination of the 92 bus, there are now no routes that go directly past five senior housing developments in Charlestown.

“Charlestown is built into Bunker Hill, that’s why the name Bunker Hill is on everything, but we are also taking away a route that serves five elderly homes, and they are being told that if they want to get to downtown Boston, they just have to climb the hill that is 120 feet above sea level,” said Ryan. “I know that at least 200 people have written in to try to get the T to take another look at the 92 bus, which will end up being the T101 or the T7.”

Su

Surprised there is not a bus linking Charlestown, and specifically Community College OL stop (and to a lesser extent Lechmere area of GL) to Kendall Square. Didn’t see anything in BNR either. It’s technically walkable, but it’s a long walk (30+ minutes from Community College) and it’s a really straight shot down Austin Street/Memorial Drive that seems like it could pick up a lot of OL and GL passengers (not to mention Charlestown folks). One potential barrier is Austin Street which doesn’t leave a good place for buses to serve Community College.

The CT3 route kinda does this from Sullivan, but it’s a circuitous route through Charlestown, E. Somerville, and Cambridge and I think for most people it just pencils out faster to go all the way Downtown and then take the red to Cambridge.

I've always thought the best way at address this missing link is not with this radial-circumfrential-hybrid route that bypasses downtown (the BNRD's proposed T101), but with an outright new route. The Navy Yard isn't a good place for through-running routes (the 93's Navy Yard variant is exceptionally silly and dumb, and thankfully BNRD will delete that, but that upcoming change is so far out and uncertain). As a geographical dead end, it only ever makes sense to have a terminating route for the Navy Yard. A route pinging back and forth from the Navy Yard - City Sq. - Cambridge Crossing - Lechmere - Kendall, fills in essentially all the gaps in today's radial network, and 92 and 111 bus riders wouldn't lose their direct downtown connections, as the 92 bus riders will (probably) be losing under BNRD.

On my hugely impractical/unrealistic fantasy map (this is the fantasy T maps thread), this route easily does its own niche.

If the 111 could be brought back to ground level in Charlestown and start marking local stops, such a route may be partially duplicated, but the street grid still leaves the Navy Yard semi-isolated. It's also worth noting that the Navy Yard has a decent employment density as noted by the T's market analysis.

the Chelsea branch pulling double duty as a radial and orbital route.

I've always found it fascinating how the geographical routings of the railroads essentially required riders from Chelsea and Linden Sq. to first ride their way westbound to meet the B & M mainline along the Malden River for a radial connection downtown. The gap from the Eastern Railway/B & RB & L railroads in the east, and the B & M railroad in the west, is the largest gap of radial routes on the north side, centered along Route 1 and the high ridership 111. The Route 1 corridor, while it never had a proper radial railway ROW to begin with, at least has route 1 itself, as a ROW used for transportation purposes (that being for highway use instead of mass/public transit). The main issue north of Woodlawn is the giant cemetary that essentially cuts away at ridership potential to get to Linden Sq., and most density from Linden Sq., points towards Glendale Sq./Malden Center via the existing Saugus Branch ROW, as opposed to the 111 routing.

There's also the alternative of "L-hook" lines, where it is radial on the inside, and circumferential on the outside. One way I can knock out most of the underserved communities without a dedicated RR ROW on the southside, with a dedicated line, is a radial route to Nubian, then a crosstown routing westwards to Longwood Medical, and hitting Coolidge Corner and Brighton Center/St Elizabeths at the end with a terminal at Brighton Center itself (Washington & Chestnut Hill & Market). (This is a god mode pitch - perfect lines on a fantasy map - idea, probably wildly unrealistic/impractical)

(Also, the main reason I'm sending this wildly insane line to Brighton Center and not Allston, is that Allston would already have HRT (like) service via the B & A (in my wildly insane/absurd idea), this line is intended to catch & serve areas without access to a nearby preexisting RR ROW).

 

[TheRatmeister]

I understand if cost of a new downtown route is a concern, but on the other hand, if we're seriously talking about a Blue Line extension to Waltham via Coolidge Corner, Brighton Center and Watertown (which, don't get me wrong, is a creative route itself), it seems that the cost of such a 10-mile route (with many parts plausibly needing TBM to avoid neighborhood impacts) seems to outweigh that of a 1-2 mile line downtown.

You're right that cost would be greater, but I think the benefit of bringing a subway line to Waltham, Watertown, and Brighton is also much greater than connecting Everett to downtown. (And the cost can potentially be brought down if 50% or more can be built in cuttings/above ground, which I think is actually possible.) You could study this to death though so ultimately though I'm just making the call based on vibes.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So this is interesting, in a version of the "full build" you could still follow the tracks that far without property acquistion? I'll probably put it out to Anderson then.

The NH Main property lines in Medford and Winchester average 80-120 ft. wide, so it can probably all be done within the property lines. The only tricky part would be Winchester Center station itself. GLXX would have to shift sides of the ROW from west to east to avoid the first freight sidings in Winchester, and widening the viaduct is problematic. What you'd probably do in incline-down into the station parking lot, go under in a short subway with a station, then cross under the rotary to under Shore Rd. and incline back up onto the embankment. Winchester Center CR station up on the viaduct can stay or go.

RE: Regional Rail, it definitely needs more express / local service patterns, I was even wondering if something like Concord might simply be better served by Amtrak (with maybe a mountain express for the skiers rather than the MBTA doing daily trips). Definitely get it for the Westerly connection, again with more intercity rail via Amtrak I suppose it makes sense for the Westerly<>PVD route to be a line for RI.

You can handle Concord with the super-express layering that the previous NHDOT study proposed. An Anderson<>Lowell<>South Nashua express skipping most of the MA intermediates would attract riders, no doubt, because of how freaking fast it would be and the extra frequencies it would bring to City of Lowell. It's more about whether NHDOT is willing to subsidize much of a schedule to Concord. The local stops in NH probably don't have thaaaaat much more to give in ridership after :30 Regional Rail implants itself to Manchester, and Concord is a small city (population 44,000) despite its importance as the capitol. Ultimately it's up to them how they want to slice it.

 

[Teban54]

The issue of radial vs. circumferential routes is why it's probably best to keep the 111 directed to Downtown. It's also why riders of the 92 bus were/are heavily opposed to having their route cut back to Community College and losing the Haymarket busway connection, as the Orange Line is essentially inaccessible to almost all of Charlestown without the buses running from Sullivan to Haymarket busway. The 92 bus was the original route of the Orange Line El, and with BNRD, there (likely) will be a complete loss of the original Orange Line El's routing.


View attachment 50361

The interesting twist in this whole discussion of "tangential lines to the north" is that, according to the SLX Alternative Analysis, the SL6 route's alternatives from Everett (Glendale) to Kendall outperformed the alternative to Haymarket in both ridership and public support. I wouldn't necessarily treat that as an indication that Everett residents prefer Kendall over downtown, though, for two good reasons:

• SL6 to Kendall fills a circumferential void, which likely boosted the projected ridership; but in the worlds we're discussing in this thread, this role would obviously be filled no matter what.
• SLXAA may not have considered bus lanes on Rutherford Ave, and definitely did not consider bus lanes on North Washington Bridge or further south. Haymarket is also not ideal as a terminal, being quite far from many downtown offices and rapid transit lines. A hypothetical rapid transit line fixes all these issues, providing a bigger draw for downtown-oriented riders compared to an OL transfer.

As for buses in a reasonable world, I'm not surprised residents want to keep the 92, but I also wonder if MBTA feelt keeping both the 15-min route 7 and an almost parallel route 92 closely together was an inefficient use of resources.

I've always thought the best way at address this missing link is not with this radial-circumfrential-hybrid route that bypasses downtown (the BNRD's proposed T101), but with an outright new route. The Navy Yard isn't a good place for through-running routes (the 93's Navy Yard variant is exceptionally silly and dumb, and thankfully BNRD will delete that, but that upcoming change is so far out and uncertain). As a geographical dead end, it only ever makes sense to have a terminating route for the Navy Yard. A route pinging back and forth from the Navy Yard - City Sq. - Cambridge Crossing - Lechmere - Kendall, fills in essentially all the gaps in today's radial network, and 92 and 111 bus riders wouldn't lose their direct downtown connections, as the 92 bus riders will (probably) be losing under BNRD.

On my hugely impractical/unrealistic fantasy map (this is the fantasy T maps thread), this route easily does its own niche.

If the 111 could be brought back to ground level in Charlestown and start marking local stops, such a route may be partially duplicated, but the street grid still leaves the Navy Yard semi-isolated. It's also worth noting that the Navy Yard has a decent employment density as noted by the T's market analysis.
View attachment 50363

Very interesting route indeed! You can probably also piece this route (the portion from Navy Yard to Kendall) together with any bus route from the west. (The 64 was what I was thinking, but it may be too long. If only the first BNRD draft's route 55 was kept...)

Just to be clear, I'd want such a bus route to supplement the 101 and future SL6 for OL-Kendall, and not be the sole route in this role. Any circumferential route (bus or rapid transit) missing Sullivan will result in some losses, due to Sullivan's prominence as a bus transfer hub. For those who are taking buses to Sullivan - and there are more than just 101 and SL6 - having to hop on OL for just one stop stinks. The YMMV part is how many people require a route like this.

I've always found it fascinating how the geographical routings of the railroads essentially required riders from Chelsea and Linden Sq. to first ride their way westbound to meet the B & M mainline along the Malden River for a radial connection downtown. The gap from the Eastern Railway/B & RB & L railroads in the east, and the B & M railroad in the west, is the largest gap of radial routes on the north side, centered along Route 1 and the high ridership 111. The Route 1 corridor, while it never had a proper radial railway ROW to begin with, at least has route 1 itself, as a ROW used for transportation purposes (that being for highway use instead of mass/public transit). The main issue north of Woodlawn is the giant cemetary that essentially cuts away at ridership potential to get to Linden Sq., and most density from Linden Sq., points towards Glendale Sq./Malden Center via the existing Saugus Branch ROW, as opposed to the 111 routing.

View attachment 50364

The roundabout route for Chelsea to get to downtown Boston likely has to deal with the history of the geography, which @Riverside explained very well here. By the time Tobin Bridge was built in 1948, the era of railroad companies or BERy being able to grab land for their preferred routes was long gone; besides, I'm not sure if anyone really placed much thought into a more direct connection for Chelsea at the time. Even the ambitious 1945 BERy expansion map was totally blank in Chelsea.

As for north of Woodlawn, besides the cemetery, another issue is that points north of Linden Square are very much auto-centric and much less dense, reducing the need to reach Linden Sq in the first place. It appears that "optimal" ways to reach Linden Sq would be from the west (where there's a ROW) or from the east (where you can theoretically build an El along Squire Rd). Both directions see greater density, especially to the west, which roughly follows the established bus corridor of Salem St. That said... You can still enter Linden Sq from Woodlawn with minimal intermediate stations, if Linden Square is deemed important enough of a destination itself -- @Riverside made the argument before (about a Route 1 transit line) that what matters are the stations, not the route itself.

The question is... Is Linden Square that important of a destination in the first place? The density map itself doesn't fully convince me; but in theory, it might be a good anchor for far-far-future extensions (e.g. to Saugus). If anyone has thoughts about Linden's TOD potential or the possibility to density the area(s) further north, I'm happy to hear them.

 

[Teban54]

There's also the alternative of "L-hook" lines, where it is radial on the inside, and circumferential on the outside. One way I can knock out most of the underserved communities without a dedicated RR ROW on the southside, with a dedicated line, is a radial route to Nubian, then a crosstown routing westwards to Longwood Medical, and hitting Coolidge Corner and Brighton Center/St Elizabeths at the end with a terminal at Brighton Center itself (Washington & Chestnut Hill & Market). (This is a god mode pitch - perfect lines on a fantasy map - idea, probably wildly unrealistic/impractical)

View attachment 50371

Regarding your proposed line, the section between Nubian and Longwood (D) makes perfect sense, and I had implicitly suggested a similar L-hook line in the past. Where it worries me in an ideal world is that sections west of Coolidge Corner becomes a tangential line again, as Brighton Center residents have to go all the way to Nubian if they want a one-seat ride downtown. While @Riverside had explored ideas of making the Green Line radiate out from LMA instead of Kenmore, going down to Nubian feels too roundabout.

Just like with @TheRatmeister's map, if you're specifically working with the constraint of linking them with a single line, the routing seems fine (and very innovative!). But I doubt this is what the residents would want if given the choice.

You're right that cost would be greater, but I think the benefit of bringing a subway line to Waltham, Watertown, and Brighton is also much greater than connecting Everett to downtown. (And the cost can potentially be brought down if 50% or more can be built in cuttings/above ground, which I think is actually possible.) You could study this to death though so ultimately though I'm just making the call based on vibes.

Yes, these are very fair statements. I'd say that if I'm specifically tasked with using a single line (the Yellow Line) to serve as many needs as possible, I'd probably come to a similar design as yours in the northeastern quadrant. (This is also exactly what @Riverside did here.)

Re: Constructing the Waltham subway, are you able to elaborate a bit on how you imagine it will be done? While digging open the urban streets of the 57 corridor and Kelton St (Brighton Center to Coolidge Corner, coincidentally similar to Delvin's map above) seems technically feasible, I'm concerned about neighborhood disruptions in light of this discussion on construction methods, especially through these relatively rich neighborhoods - before even considering utility relocation.

(I suppose if C&C's combined economical and social impacts are so significant that they become more expensive than TBM, then you'd have to go for TBM for any route you build, in which case you no longer need to be concerned about routing at all. But in that situation, the cost/benefit ratio of building something in the first place becomes questionable.)

(Edit: I'm not doubting the need of a Waltham subway - it has been well-justified in many recent discussions, and I would probably do a similar line for my crayon map. This is mostly about the gap between fantasy maps and realizing them in practice, though I do acknowledge this aspect is less pertinent here in a thread literally called "Fantasy T Maps".)

 

[TheRatmeister]

Re: Constructing the Waltham subway, are you able to elaborate a bit on how you imagine it will be done? While digging open the urban streets of the 57 corridor and Kelton St (Brighton Center to Coolidge Corner, coincidentally similar to Delvin's map above) seems technically feasible, I'm concerned about neighborhood disruptions in light of this discussion on construction methods, especially through these relatively rich neighborhoods - before even considering utility relocation.

Essentially, digging up the streets of Brookline and Brighton is probably not in the cards, nor necessary to get to the 50% number.

A route would be something like:

• Starting from Charles/MGH, dig up Storrow, dig a trench, then cover it over
• At Kenmore dive under the GL for a deeper station before surfacing and reusing the GL-D alignment to Fenway
• Dive into the main bored tunnel, hitting Coolidge Corner, Warren St, and Brighton Center (About 3 miles)
• C&C/Capped Cut along Arsenal St to Watertown Sq and then the Watertown Branch Alignment where possible, Pleasant St where not (Another 2 miles or so)
• Run in a shallow uncoverd cutting (Or elevated if you wanted to) along the rail alignment over the Charles and through the Chemistry
• Dive into one more deep(ish) section under Waltham Station before resurfacing to follow the Fitchburg Line to Brandeis/Roberts

Or alternatively instead of going via the Fenway/Longwood, Coolidge Corner, and Brighton dig a subway under Comm Ave (Maybe bury this bit of the B while you're at it), then surface at West Station and continue elevated above the Pike to North Beacon St and then pick up the route from there. This could let you go all the way from Charles/MGH to Brandeis/Roberts with no major bored sections, but missing Brighton and Coolidge Corner makes it not as useful of a connection closer in.

 

[Delvin4519]

As for north of Woodlawn, besides the cemetery, another issue is that points north of Linden Square are very much auto-centric and much less dense, reducing the need to reach Linden Sq in the first place. It appears that "optimal" ways to reach Linden Sq would be from the west (where there's a ROW) or from the east (where you can theoretically build an El along Squire Rd). Both directions see greater density, especially to the west, which roughly follows the established bus corridor of Salem St. That said... You can still enter Linden Sq from Woodlawn with minimal intermediate stations, if Linden Square is deemed important enough of a destination itself -- @Riverside made the argument before (about a Route 1 transit line) that what matters are the stations, not the route itself.
View attachment 50375

The question is... Is Linden Square that important of a destination in the first place? The density map itself doesn't fully convince me; but in theory, it might be a good anchor for far-far-future extensions (e.g. to Saugus). If anyone has thoughts about Linden's TOD potential or the possibility to density the area(s) further north, I'm happy to hear them.

I've only used Linden Square as a terminal, given it's existing use as the route terminal for the 108 and 109 buses, its location close to edge of the former BERy streetcar network, as well as being the last stop for the 426 bus before going express to Boston. (BNRD will likely shift the 119's terminal to Linden, but at the cost of some parts of NW Revere losing bus service). I mostly use it as a decently located BERy terminal to terminate connecting surface routes at. Woodlawn itself currently doesn't have any outbound connections north of the 111.

If the 426 runs express to Downtown from Linden, I would wonder whether a hypothectical 426 would still need an express portion to make the jaunt from Linden Sq. to Woodlawn, if a Route 1 HRT line terminates only at Woodlawn. The next exit off the highway past Linden is not until Route 16, meaning one would end up with an insane situation where the hypothetical 426 bus would need to run express to downtown from Linden and parallel the entire Route 1 HRT line all the way to downtown. Such situation would only be rectifiable with extending the Route 1 rail line up to Linden Sq. to curtail the express buses back to the BERy terminal at Linden Sq.

On my wildly unrealistic/impractical fantasy map, Linden Sq., is used as a route terminal for rapid transit (like) service along the Saugus Branch RR. Saugus has never been part of BERy's streetcar network, and as such hasn't really developed as a streetcar suburb the same way the rest of the BERy network (+ Lynn/Quincy/Waltham?) had. Just like the aformentioned viewpoint, I am very dubious about a need to extend rapid transit past Linden Sq., beyond the original BERy service area.

The roundabout route for Chelsea to get to downtown Boston likely has to deal with the history of the geography, which @Riverside explained very well here. By the time Tobin Bridge was built in 1948, the era of railroad companies or BERy being able to grab land for their preferred routes was long gone; besides, I'm not sure if anyone really placed much thought into a more direct connection for Chelsea at the time. Even the ambitious 1945 BERy expansion map was totally blank in Chelsea.

Yes, the geography of the railroads produces the similar effect for Chelsea as it does for Nubian. The lack of a radial ROW to Nubian causing issues for transit crayon drawing is identical to crayoning a radial route to Chelsea. Nubian is as dependent on the buses, streetcars (or the Main Line El back in the day), to get to downtown, the same way as Chelsea depends on the 111 route for a radial connection to Downtown. Before the Eastern Railroad hooked itself onto the Grand Junction via Chelsea, the railroads had essentially bypassed Chelsea altogether before the Eastern RR rerouted itself to North Station from Eastie. Both Charlestown and Chelsea have had hilly terrain that the railroads usually tried to avoid, plus the fact that the Mystic River, Chelsea Creek, and Boston Harbor all converged at where the Tobin Bridge crossing is today.

Maps from 1867 and 1860

Looking at this map of railroads in 1850, one can notice a decent sized gap between the B & M and the Eastern RR. The railroads essentially only used crosstown connections to fill this gap with the Grand Junction and the Saugus RR. Charlestown and Chelsea had already filled in to the point where the railroads could no longer snatch some land to build out a radial route to Chelsea, leaving Charlestown and Chelsea to contend with slow street running routes (or a traffic congested highway robbing an entire neighborhood of frequent transit service) to get Downtown (unless somehow a new HRT line is built along Route 1).

Also, I'd also like to note how the ambitious 1945 expansion plan of rapid transit, has the notable omissions of the Fitchburg and Fairmount Lines, along with the Eastern RR from North Station being completely absent from the map.

 

[Delvin4519]

Regarding your proposed line, the section between Nubian and Longwood (D) makes perfect sense, and I had implicitly suggested a similar L-hook line in the past. Where it worries me in an ideal world is that sections west of Coolidge Corner becomes a tangential line again, as Brighton Center residents have to go all the way to Nubian if they want a one-seat ride downtown. While @Riverside had explored ideas of making the Green Line radiate out from LMA instead of Kenmore, going down to Nubian feels too roundabout.

Just like with @TheRatmeister's map, if you're specifically working with the constraint of linking them with a single line, the routing seems fine (and very innovative!). But I doubt this is what the residents would want if given the choice.

Yes, I was simply trying to use a single line to serve all the RR ROW underserved areas. In practice, I would probably just extend the Green Line tunnel further.

As the fantasy T maps thread goes, my wildly insane/impractical/unrealistic HRT network, that follows every single mainline RR ROW to the T. As such, in this alternate reality/fantasy/unrealistic scenario, I no longer have any need to extend the Green Line tunnel onto Commonwealth Ave, as my B & A mainline HRT line already services Commonwealth Avenue.

In this case, I would probably try to deal with the RR ROW underserved areas on the south side with 3 extensions of the Green Line tunnel. The Kenmore Branch of the Central Subway would extend onto the C Branch routing on Beacon St., to first hit the major RR ROW underserved area of Coolidge Corner. Then use either Warren St., or Washington St., to hit Brighton Center. Rapid transit tunnel terminates at Brighton Center.

Second extension of the tunnel (eliminating street running and replaced with rapid transit tunnel) would be the Huntington Ave. subway extension, most likely all the way to Brigham Circle or LMA (one of the two). Third extension is the Nubian Line, probably would extend onto Warren St., but I suppose an L hook westwards to connect Nubian with LMA is another possiblity.

In this case, I'd still need a brand new southside crosstown line from scratch. Perhaps I could continue the branching off from Nubian westwards and then follow the 66 much of the way. The RR ROW problem strikes again, as the northside being blessed with the Grand Junction, stands in stark contrast with the vexing problem of crayoning crosstown routes on the southside.

Very interesting route indeed! You can probably also piece this route (the portion from Navy Yard to Kendall) together with any bus route from the west. (The 64 was what I was thinking, but it may be too long. If only the first BNRD draft's route 55 was kept...)

Just to be clear, I'd want such a bus route to supplement the 101 and future SL6 for OL-Kendall, and not be the sole route in this role. Any circumferential route (bus or rapid transit) missing Sullivan will result in some losses, due to Sullivan's prominence as a bus transfer hub. For those who are taking buses to Sullivan - and there are more than just 101 and SL6 - having to hop on OL for just one stop stinks. The YMMV part is how many people require a route like this.

In the confines of the present and future of BNRD, a second route could compliment the T101. It would mean though, that the branching north of Thompson Sq., would cause headway divisions within Charlestown itself, with the T101 splitting part of the headways westwards from Thompson Sq., to Sullivan, and my proposed route reaching its eastern terminal in the Navy Yard. Given this issue, realistically, the T is probably going to stick with what is within BNRD itself, meaning this new route wouldn't materialize in practice. It would cause Thompson Sq. - Kendall ridership to be split among the two routes.

On the aformentioned fantasy map posted above in the initial post, the Grand Junction would already cover the Kendall - Sullivan route, allowing my proposed route to essentially function as part of a grid network outside of Kendall, feeding into the Kendall hub. This fantasy map essentially removes the headway division problem, and the proposed route would function standalone. Such a standalone route would also work better in getting ridership, as there wouldn't be a T101 on my fantasy map to divide headways, or divide ridership, among two routes. The only loss of OSR service is Lechmere - Sullivan, though the other issue would be rerouting my fantasy West Medford HRT line from its preexisting RR ROW in East Somerville, to the Fitchburg Line ROW at Brickbottom, and extending my fantasy Green Line viaduct from Lechmere to Brickbottom. It would still require a transfer, however.