F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Important side note for this project. . .
With all the attention on Green Line Transformation (GLT) and the higher-capacity trolleys they'll be ordering, consider how much elimination of Bowdoin Loop in favor of the extension impacts a future "BLT" and the type of cars orderable for Blue service expansion. Right now the line has to use tiny 48.5 ft. long / 35-seat / 2-door cars, some of the smallest in the world for an HRT line. Orange Line by contrast uses 65 ft. / 58-seat cars and will be gaining a third set of doors on this new order.
Whacking the ruling limit on car length by demolishing the loop will open them up to being able to lengthen trains on the next car order long enough to add that all-important set of third doors for dwell management. That'll be huge for throughput as the line gets more crowded. An old messageboard mention of a previous internal study of outright retiring the loop in favor of stub-end turnbacks said that Bowdoin alone was worth +6 ft. of additional train length...more than enough to net the extra door set. Going the rest of the distance to full Orange Line car length & capacity is TBD and dependent on an engineering study of the next dimensional limiter: State St. curve. State curve is not so much tight--cars would clear the tunnel just fine--, but it abuts the platform meaning longer cars would clip the platform tip closest to the curve.
A "BLT" survey just like the one GLT is doing for Green Line station mods can probably mitigate the State issue to push the achievable car lengths to ~60 ft. and within the ballpark of full Orange Line length. Then it's a matter of itemizing the platform extensions for fitting all 6 cars of that increased length...which shouldn't be a problem because nearly all subway stations on Blue still have some extra slack space behind false walls after their last lengthenings a dozen years ago.
The ongoing Blue climate resiliency study is looking right now at 2 other major changes:
It would then be possible...by the time we're ready to load up for bear for the Lynn extension...to just tap CRRC to produce a large supplemental order of Orange Line cars and 'set' one portion of the order for Blue renewal/expansion and one portion of the order for another round of Orange service densification or expansion. While the makes would still not be able to interline because of the 'hard'-set height-suspension differences and possible differing signal computers, the cars could theoretically change lines during their service lives if they went offline for a height adjustment and computer swap-out. And it would consolidate the two HRT lines under one unified make right during the era when both of them need badly to expand outward...Blue to Lynn and Orange to West Roxbury.
At bare minimum, when the 94-car Siemens fleet is no longer enough to keep up with growth from the West End and Suffolk Downs they'll have immediate vehicle-side options for directly addressing train capacity at-will by taking a gander at achievable train lengths, seating, and door flow. All of that gets technically enabled by Red-Blue being built. It's way more than just a missing link...it's a new and exponential capacity expander to tap for the future as demand projects to soar.
With all the attention on Green Line Transformation (GLT) and the higher-capacity trolleys they'll be ordering, consider how much elimination of Bowdoin Loop in favor of the extension impacts a future "BLT" and the type of cars orderable for Blue service expansion. Right now the line has to use tiny 48.5 ft. long / 35-seat / 2-door cars, some of the smallest in the world for an HRT line. Orange Line by contrast uses 65 ft. / 58-seat cars and will be gaining a third set of doors on this new order.
Whacking the ruling limit on car length by demolishing the loop will open them up to being able to lengthen trains on the next car order long enough to add that all-important set of third doors for dwell management. That'll be huge for throughput as the line gets more crowded. An old messageboard mention of a previous internal study of outright retiring the loop in favor of stub-end turnbacks said that Bowdoin alone was worth +6 ft. of additional train length...more than enough to net the extra door set. Going the rest of the distance to full Orange Line car length & capacity is TBD and dependent on an engineering study of the next dimensional limiter: State St. curve. State curve is not so much tight--cars would clear the tunnel just fine--, but it abuts the platform meaning longer cars would clip the platform tip closest to the curve.
A "BLT" survey just like the one GLT is doing for Green Line station mods can probably mitigate the State issue to push the achievable car lengths to ~60 ft. and within the ballpark of full Orange Line length. Then it's a matter of itemizing the platform extensions for fitting all 6 cars of that increased length...which shouldn't be a problem because nearly all subway stations on Blue still have some extra slack space behind false walls after their last lengthenings a dozen years ago.
The ongoing Blue climate resiliency study is looking right now at 2 other major changes:
- Converting Airport-Wonderland over to third-rail and retiring the overhead. Blown-down wires are seen as a bigger storm headache than submerged third rail, as turned-off third rail is resilient to rust so long as its feeder cables are kept water-tight.
- Converting the signal system to retire the hardware-intensive mechanical trips and switch heaters in favor of solid-state tech. Could mean Red/Orange-like ATO, could mean Boston's first CBTC installation. But it would be a massive simplification of water-vulnerable hardware and elimination of at-risk copper for water-resistant fiber optic.
It would then be possible...by the time we're ready to load up for bear for the Lynn extension...to just tap CRRC to produce a large supplemental order of Orange Line cars and 'set' one portion of the order for Blue renewal/expansion and one portion of the order for another round of Orange service densification or expansion. While the makes would still not be able to interline because of the 'hard'-set height-suspension differences and possible differing signal computers, the cars could theoretically change lines during their service lives if they went offline for a height adjustment and computer swap-out. And it would consolidate the two HRT lines under one unified make right during the era when both of them need badly to expand outward...Blue to Lynn and Orange to West Roxbury.
At bare minimum, when the 94-car Siemens fleet is no longer enough to keep up with growth from the West End and Suffolk Downs they'll have immediate vehicle-side options for directly addressing train capacity at-will by taking a gander at achievable train lengths, seating, and door flow. All of that gets technically enabled by Red-Blue being built. It's way more than just a missing link...it's a new and exponential capacity expander to tap for the future as demand projects to soar.
HelloBostonHi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,422
- Reaction score
- 3,685
Umm yeah no the orange line has always had three doors...
They could also achieve this by just not going around the Bowdoin loop and just heading out the way they came like every other HRT in Boston. Just need a crossover installed before Bowdoin. Really has very little to do with RL/BL connector.
Thanks, F-Line. I didn't realize/think of that. I have always been under the impression that the Blue Line already has a lot of room for growth in terms of capacity, but I didn't realize that Bowdoin loop was that big of a limiting factor.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
He wrote a letter of support to the FMCB on official House letterhead. He holds the keys to the funding.
Yes yes, I realize. He's also a colossal dipshit (and I say this as a leftist). At least he may come through here (for a change, for selfish reasons - see how corrupt Bobby can get something done when he personally benefits?).
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,261
- Reaction score
- 2,068
21 years??
21 years is a ridiculous amount of time. In the last 21 years, the Beijing Subway has expanded by 20 lines, 350 stations, and about 350 HRT track miles. What the fuck? Can somebody explain why we have so much difficulty building infrastructure that is built very quickly and routinely in other countries like China? We clearly have a major infrastructure construction problem in this country. In terms of cost and time. What gives?
Why can’t we have nice things?
21 years is a ridiculous amount of time. In the last 21 years, the Beijing Subway has expanded by 20 lines, 350 stations, and about 350 HRT track miles. What the fuck? Can somebody explain why we have so much difficulty building infrastructure that is built very quickly and routinely in other countries like China? We clearly have a major infrastructure construction problem in this country. In terms of cost and time. What gives?
Why can’t we have nice things?
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
Don't use China as a comparator, use Europe.
China's an authoritarian state that can build without worrying about property rights or environmental review or community impact or labor issues or anything like that. Of course they're productive. Developed European nations, however, face all the same issues and restraints that the US does, and typically to an even greater degree. But Europe still gets stuff done way faster and cheaper than America.
One could probably devote an entire career to the question of "why is US transit expansion so damn slow and expensive," but for starters read this:
NYTimes: The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
As explicitly mentioned in the post they internally studied exactly this scenario before the last car order. Not going around the loop was calculated to be worth an additional 6 ft. in car length.
However, not going around the loop meant they forfeited all use of tail track storage necessary for dispatching shift changes. The next structurally available crossover spot in the tunnel is at the single crossover between GC and State (which would have to be doubled-up), meaning that disusing the loop would require permanently abandoning Bowdoin and making GC the end of the line.
Abandoning Bowdoin (which has been on/off the table many times before) is a no-go for West End commerce without a Red-Blue placement. So yes, it is very much relevant to the project that creeping future capacity needs are increasingly dependent on it.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Alon Levy pretty much has devoted his blogging career to dismantling U.S. construction costs with damning math to back it up; amongst a somewhat mixed-bag of transpo opinioneering that subject is hands-down his most important work. But he's practically nauseous at how unsustainable the Chinese are being with their manifest destiny builds and how little critique that's getting. Especially the more speculative projects that are jumping out way, way ahead of their demand growth. I encourage scouring the Ped Observations archives for China mentions to get a sense. Authoritarianism doesn't cover up that they're burning money at such a fantastic rate with such little regard to efficiency that they are not prepared to bear the ultimate economy-slowing burden of those costs coming due.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 3,755
Two main issues:
- We resist paying for infrastructure;
- We do not like anything that disrupts car flow.
Surface light rail, which costs less and has less disruptive construction is therefore more popular (and vastly less useful).
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
It can be much sooner than 21 years and that's exactly what many members of the State House & Senate along with some members of the FMCB are pushing. It had to be a "next priority" instead of a "we're doing" because the project is not funded/in the current CIP. It can be in the next CIP. Brian Lang on the FMCB urged them to get going on this by securing funding and starting design this year. If we keep up the pressure, we can make this happen.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,261
- Reaction score
- 2,068
Sounds good. How can I help?
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,118
- Reaction score
- 15,014
If this takes 20 years, silver line to rail will take 30, blue to lynn 60, and nsrl 100...
It took substantial contributions from Somerville and Cambridge to push GLX over the line. This is a smaller lift that could really benefit from private contributions. I would advocate that the T or MassDOT establish an interest bearing trust fund for contributions to the project. I would suggest that Transit Matters or another party encourage contributions from the Kendall Square business cluster/MIT/Harvard, etc. that would benefit a lot from much improved access to Logan. Encourage Mass. General to contribute in lieu of physical mitigation for a portion of their project. Get Boston to put their money where their mouth is on transit for once.. Encourage Suffolk Downs developers to contribute to help sell the ease of commuting to MGH/Kendall/Harvard Sq. for their new residents/commercial. If that effort could raise $25-50 million in dedicated funds, it would push the project to the top of the list.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
The Kendall Sq people and Tom O'Brien from HYM (Suffolk Downs) were actually there/submitted comments. We've got them on board.
I wholeheartedly disagree that we should be putting the onus on private developers to fund these things though, like Boston Landing and Assembly. The T (state) needs to be building these things for their citizens without extorting developers.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 335
Tom O'Brien/HYM have done more to promote the Red/Blue connector than the last round of East Boston/Winthrop/Revere elected officials (Sal LaMattina/Carlo Basile/Anthony Petruccelli/Kathi-Anne Reinstein).
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
Honest question:
What about the state issuing municipal bonds to fund this?
-Administered by the state (so, in the end, it's public money)
-Allows anyone who supports the cause to get involved
-Isn't a mere donation because it will pay a (modest) dividend to the investor
-Could allow for both citizen and institutional investors (e.g., companies who stand to gain from the project can actively support it without the project itself becoming privatized).
Datadyne,
If you & TM colleagues agree, it would be great if TM could advance this as a near-term funding model. Muni bonds are nothing new at all, they're issued all the time (e.g., I believe Massport has a history with this)
What about the state issuing municipal bonds to fund this?
-Administered by the state (so, in the end, it's public money)
-Allows anyone who supports the cause to get involved
-Isn't a mere donation because it will pay a (modest) dividend to the investor
-Could allow for both citizen and institutional investors (e.g., companies who stand to gain from the project can actively support it without the project itself becoming privatized).
Datadyne,
If you & TM colleagues agree, it would be great if TM could advance this as a near-term funding model. Muni bonds are nothing new at all, they're issued all the time (e.g., I believe Massport has a history with this)
Submitting comments is free.
I absolutely agree with you in principle but the reality of it is that the T didn't want to do it in the first place, and they will continue to drag as their default position. This will be very low on their TIP list and they will make sure it stays there. All the public pressure, lobbying, and advocacy in the world won't move this because they can and will say that they don't have they money and that it is not programmed in the TIP until 2035.
The only pressure that they have to listen to is cash money. It is unfortunate but that is our new reality for at least the remainder of this administration and probably longer. If it is to get put on the drawing board by 2022 then the proponents will have to pony up. Is it extorting the developers? Not really, more like the opposite. The critical tech, real estate, Higher ed, and health sectors can use their resources to "extort" the T.