The Orange Line Thread

The EGE said:
The easiest way to start would be to run the Green Line to Needham Heights, build a cheap station somewhere it wouldn't interfere with the CR station. Let the locals learn that Green Line is far superior, and then they'll happily give up empty CR trains.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, though. It isn't superior. Not for what current transit riders in Needham use it for. For the benefits of GL to be obvious, you have to offer frequent connectivity within Needham and build TOD along Needham St. in Newton. Not things you can do with a simple starter line.
 
Just to put this into perspective, we can't be talking about more than 3,000 daily boardings between the four Needham stations. As a comparison, Riverside alone probably generates that amount of traffic. The demand spurred by a vastly increased schedule will more than make up for the increased travel times between Needham and downtown.

Will eliminating commuter rail to Needham be an incredibly easy sell? No, not likely. An impossible sell? I'm not convinced.
 
Equilibria said:
That's the problem, though. It isn't superior. Not for what current transit riders in Needham use it for. For the benefits of GL to be obvious, you have to offer frequent connectivity within Needham and build TOD along Needham St. in Newton. Not things you can do with a simple starter line.
Click to expand...

This has been studied. Most recently in 2009 by the towns: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/40881. They went with the starter proposal to get to Heights only, since that sidestepped project dependencies and what-if's with the Orange Line and CR mode for a cleaner study area and less-controversial first step.

This is what they came up with:
-- 15,000 daily riders on the LRT mode at Upper Falls, Highlands/128, and Heights and 6,000 new daily transit riders not taking any current mode.
-- The state PMT methodology severely underestimates the traffic utilization on this corridor and pushes the actual ridership way way up over the last official study. It's a good read...whether it's he-said/she-said or not, the state really has to revisit its metrics because this town-commissioned indie study poked a ton of holes in it.
-- Because the undercounts were so dramatic, Newton Highlands-Needham Heights alone justifies the build even if no changes are contemplated for the CR mode. It's the areas that have no rail transit whatsoever that float this extension.
-- Heights, with offset GL and CR platforms, would have LRT boardings comparable to the other stops on the extension. The CR boardings might get a slight boost by the transfer, but not much. NORTH is the prevailing demand direction.
-- Center, if CR were shortened 1 stop and the modes met there, would perform almost identical to Heights due to proximity. 2 stops better than one, but basically the profile doesn't change so long as immediate downtown is served by LRT within 1/4 mile of the density center. For that reason they didn't see a need to truncate CR unless external factors (Millis or OL displacement) forced that hand.
-- Growth south of downtown is relatively static because of the low-density residential land use. There's no TOD to tart Junction (and by virtue Hersey/Great Plain) up. They're always going to be quiet areas.
-- Because of the above, displacement of CR is only recommended if something external forces CR to be severed. Millis CR capacity or Orange Line cannibalization in Boston being the only 2 candidates. LRT performs better as a modal displacement because the frequencies obviously beat the pants off CR's best, but it does not grow the less dense south-of-downtown. That area is of entirely different character and land use.
-- A 1-stop CR extension to Highlands/128 was studied previously by the state. The results found almost no new ridership despite the significantly higher parking capacity and surrounding density. It significantly cannibalized boardings from Heights, Center, and Junction and just spread the existing riders out more diffusely. The CR/eastbound/BBY-SS market doesn't expand geographically into other parts of town, and appears to tilt heavier to the lighter-density, non-growing area south of downtown. The higher-density area downtown, up the Highland Ave. corridor, and into Newton that go hog-wild if this GL extension is built appear by and large to not be taking existing transit modes at all.
-- Related to the above...the T's official Millis CR study showed stops in Dover and Medfield cannibalizing ridership at Junction, Hersey, and Center with the bulk of that branch's all-new ridership coming from the Millis area only. Suggesting lower limits still to the natural E-W ridership south of downtown Needham and more dramatic in-town--and very very off-grid--skew for N-S transit demand. Frankly, who cares if Doverites have to drive further...those NIMBY earth-salters fought to get rid of the CR they had while it was still running.
-- Also related to the above...the NYNH&H kept commuter rail service to Highland Ave. and Upper Falls for a couple years after the trolleys came to Riverside. They cut it back to Heights due to low ridership up there. That may have been the correct decision given all the corroborating evidence above. Those areas lost the places they needed to go when the old Newton 'circuit' service got cut by the D.





The big conclusions that can be drawn here are: 1) holy hell is that N-S corridor from downtown to Newton waiting to explode, and 2) CR ridership east and the "convenience" of a Back Bay/SS one-seat has more or less tapped its whole audience. That audience can increase evolutionarily were increased frequencies possible, but it's not going to attract new ridership demographics or travel patterns that weren't already using the commuter rail.

This tidies it up real nice if you don't want to displace CR, or if they can't do it all at once. The Green Line on the north flank more than justifies itself while CR keeps the established pattern static in the static areas of town. But West Roxbury rapid transit is on a whole other level demand-wise, and there is no way to implement that without displacing CR. The Needham study numbers say displacement from Heights--where CR and GL meet--to Junction would faithfully serve the need and incrementally grow the ridership at Center and/or Heights. Good...nobody gets hurt by outright transit loss (not even the Dover freeloaders), and the absorbed ridership at Center and Junction is still league-average for the entire GL. But what about connecting Orange to 128 or Junction?

Where's the extra gear on that ridership when the growth in that part of town is forever static and the local travel patterns don't conform to an E-W direction? Look at Highlands/128...the previous 128 CR extension study pointed to ridership redistribution--not generation--for the BBY-SS oriented trip. The GL studies point to astronomical ridership generation for a Needham-Newton oriented trip at the same place, with the same TOD, and the same parking capacity. That is a hell of a stark difference that frequency alone can't explain.

So when data needs to overpower the lack of connectivity, development, and directional demand that makes that 128 OL stop look iffy and Orange vs. Green boardings at Junction (a non-growth area) looking anemic...these are the kinds of contradictions that need to be overpowered. The official number-crunching ain't showing it. They're arguably not showing much evidence for "Fairmounting" (were those CR frequencies actually possible) the current mode producing much more past West Roxbury than it already is. The un-served demand is all downtown Needham and north, and West Roxbury and Rozzie where they can't throw enough buses out of FH to keep the neighborhood flowing. It does not appear that many for people at Junction or Hersey are going to be inconvenienced if E-W commuter rail gets displaced for the betterment of West Roxbury and Rozzie and they have to 'settle' for light rail.

If there's something missing there that no one's considered, by all means study the shit out of it and find what it is. But the current evidence is lacking, and there are some huge discrepancies in the demand data that have to be squared.
 
Have any studies looked at sending the GL out to west roxbury, meeting the OL there?
 
They, did. It turned out to be quite financially lucrative.

You see, all the pearls in West Roxbury were clutched so hard they were turned into diamonds.
 
davem said:
Have any studies looked at sending the GL out to west roxbury, meeting the OL there?
Click to expand...

That would be kind of pointless. If you're going to cross Cutler Park, straight-line on Orange is the most efficient way to do it...not light rail that bends back on itself.

Engineering and capital cost isn't the issue. That's as straightforward as can be. It's whether adequate demand exists between Junction, Hersey or 128, and West Rox. for it to achieve farebox recovery in the same league as the rest of the system. Maybe it can, but there's a lot of evidence against that that needs to be counterpointed.



As a build strategy, this is probably the most painless way to stage it:

Phase I: OL 1-stop to Rozzie where the ROW is 3-track width. Fund independently. Trade off cannibalization of the FH passing siding with a new passing siding shivved between Rozzie and Bellevue. Put the Rozzie OL station where the current platform is, shift the CR platform to the other side of the bridge. Lengthen the Forest Hills yard tracks so there's an Alewife-y linear storage area for trains going out of service at Rozzie to deadhead back to (same as how Oak Grove works, since they almost never use the tail tracks there and always deadhead OOS trains back to Wellington). Barebones prefab CR platform, since it gets ripped down the second CR gets displaced. Most likely the CR ridership here disappears outright to a couple dozen boardings per day, people heading to W. Rox flock in greater numbers to the buses that are much faster now that they don't require the congested Rozzie-FH slog to get anywhere useful, and rest of Needham Line ridership stays the same.

Phase II: Prep work in Boston with CR benefits. Fund bit-by-bit. Full double-track through Highland and Bellevue; re-add the second bridge decks that were ripped out in the 80's. 400 ft. high platforms at both stops built for HRT conversion like the CR platforms at Malden and Oak Grove. Island or opposite-facing...whichever works. Build an ADA overpass between platforms and configure the stations so a prepayment area can be grafted on later. W. Rox doesn't need to be touched since it's pretty likely a future OL station would move from that spot down the street to the Shaw's parcel (unless they want to get the relocation over with and do a convertible new station now).

Phase III: GL to Heights, exactly as that 2009 study specifies. Fund independently. Move the CR platform to the other side of West St. so the two stops are facing each other on opposite sides of the crosswalk. Green recycles the existing low platform since it's already ADA trolley height. Doesn't matter if the new CR platform is a full-high; it's temporary if conversion eventually happens. Just make sure it's bare-bones. CR ridership probably stays flat with some losses to the higher-frequency GL and some gains from simply flushing downtown full of a lot more people. Don't touch Center or Junction; Junction's probably moving off the Millis main and onto the wye when GL comes, and Center would recycle the existing low as an ADA-compliant trolley platform like Heights.

Phase IV: Conversion prep. Fund tied to the Phase V conversion. While CR is still running, start constructing the necessary OL substation on the outer end, doing ground prep work, installing the wide ties that'll hold the third rail supports. Pour concrete and install the overhead support poles in Needham. There's no weekend service to begin with, so this doesn't impact service. Once the Rozzie and Newton-Heights extensions are open and succeeding, it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy for the T to start pining for formally booting the Needham Line off the NEC. That alone is going to be a significant catalyst for pushing this along.

Phase V: Blitz the conversion construction. Have that OL substation ready to plug-and-play when the third rail is installed. Do the layover yard. Get new W. Rox terminal all set. Pre-existing CR double-track is reusable; it only needs the rail grinder machine to change the rail profile from RR wheels to HRT wheels. On Green, do the same: install double track, hook up the overhead, demolish the Heights CR platform and layover yard, add a second low at Center, tear down the Junction wye for a loop, layover, and new station offset from the old one. Plunk a bike path on the vacated 3rd/CR track from FH to Rozzie as an extension of SW Corridor Park. Extend the Junction-Medfield rail trail across Cutler Park to W. Rox terminal. Get the neighborhoods to agree to a max-pain intense construction schedule so this can happen in no less than 18 months. Open Green when new Junction is ready. Open Orange when new W. Rox is ready (if it wasn't previously relocated in Phase II). On Orange, open the stations faster with temp prepayment areas to the existing high platforms and do the finishing work on enclosing with real headhouses after service is running. It'll be a usable construction zone for the first couple years.


Phase VI: When everything is complete and humming along, start kicking around numbers for W.Rox-128 and do a comprehensive study. If and only if the numbers show demand we haven't seen before in previous studies, or turn up unforeseen demand after the extensions open...start doing due diligence for a tack-on OL stop. With its own funding de-coupled from Phase V, sort of like the Route 16 tack-on with GLX. But only if it's slam dunk. Rail trail through Cutler Park can be de-coupled from the ROW and retained, so long as the 128 overpass has a pedestrian berth. There's all sorts of weird little informal paths through the park dipping in/around/under the ROW to upgrade for retaining the ped/bike connection.



Timetable for all this: 15 years from whatever year the Legislature reforms the T's finances. Rozzie is low-hanging enough fruit that a transit-advocate Mayor could bully pulpit it into getting fast-tracked. Newton-Needham will probably some STEP-like advocacy from the towns. I wouldn't bet against that...they want it, the Highland Ave. corridor redevelopment is the #1 key to Needham's future, and they are paying attention to other successful smart growth efforts. I could easily see them templating STEP's organizational discipline and making themselves a very loud and persistent lobby. It'll take a long time for anyone in power to pay attention to them...but it took a long time for STEP, too. Pressure and time, pressure and time. It gets shit done eventually.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
That would be kind of pointless. If you're going to cross Cutler Park, straight-line on Orange is the most efficient way to do it...not light rail that bends back on itself.

Engineering and capital cost isn't the issue. That's as straightforward as can be. It's whether adequate demand exists between Junction, Hersey or 128, and West Rox. for it to achieve farebox recovery in the same league as the rest of the system. Maybe it can, but there's a lot of evidence against that that needs to be counterpointed.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the difference in modes. A six car train at full orange line headways is going to be nearly empty racing across the park, even if the numbers do ultimately justify an extension. It would also likely be for only one stop and contingent on the construction of a 128 park and ride, which might not get much use anyway, and even if it did would primarily serve a 9-5, non local resident crowd (none of which sounds like something Needham wants).

A two car trolley running at 1/3 the downtown headway, is making better use of the equipment. Also, the trolley typically has tighter stop spacing, so you could keep Hersey open, and allow for a stop at Millenium Park to get some dense TOD in there (its a small site, but its access to two transit lines, 128, a massive park and river views might attract some attention if the zoning allowed super density). It would serve to get Needham residents around their town and into adjacent communities, versus hauling out of town commuters into Boston from a station that happens to be in their town.

That was my thought process at least.
 
davem said:
I was thinking of the difference in modes. A six car train at full orange line headways is going to be nearly empty racing across the park, even if the numbers do ultimately justify an extension. It would also likely be for only one stop and contingent on the construction of a 128 park and ride, which might not get much use anyway, and even if it did would primarily serve a 9-5, non local resident crowd (none of which sounds like something Needham wants).

A two car trolley running at 1/3 the downtown headway, is making better use of the equipment. Also, the trolley typically has tighter stop spacing, so you could keep Hersey open, and allow for a stop at Millenium Park to get some dense TOD in there (its a small site, but its access to two transit lines, 128, a massive park and river views might attract some attention if the zoning allowed super density). It would serve to get Needham residents around their town and into adjacent communities, versus hauling out of town commuters into Boston from a station that happens to be in their town.

That was my thought process at least.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the thought process behind not extending the Red Line to Mattapan? A GL to West Roxbury extension seems pretty similar to that, actually...
 
davem said:
I was thinking of the difference in modes. A six car train at full orange line headways is going to be nearly empty racing across the park, even if the numbers do ultimately justify an extension. It would also likely be for only one stop and contingent on the construction of a 128 park and ride, which might not get much use anyway, and even if it did would primarily serve a 9-5, non local resident crowd (none of which sounds like something Needham wants).

A two car trolley running at 1/3 the downtown headway, is making better use of the equipment. Also, the trolley typically has tighter stop spacing, so you could keep Hersey open, and allow for a stop at Millenium Park to get some dense TOD in there (its a small site, but its access to two transit lines, 128, a massive park and river views might attract some attention if the zoning allowed super density). It would serve to get Needham residents around their town and into adjacent communities, versus hauling out of town commuters into Boston from a station that happens to be in their town.

That was my thought process at least.
Click to expand...

The travel time would suck like no other GL branch. It's going 4 miles west to go 4 miles east. That's not a travel pattern there's any demand for. GL has more throttle-down options on the off-peak, but if the all-day boardings are not there...they're not there. And you will be running empty trains all the same since midday demand probably still calls for 3-car trains Newton-downtown Needham. You have a 2000-car garage sitting inert all hours of the day outside the AM and PM peaks, and nothing around it. That's a rapid transit system loss leader at the extreme whether 6 cars of empty trains are feeding it every 5 minutes or 2 cars of empty trolleys are feeding it every 12 minutes. It doesn't work. The ridership--and ridership curve throughout the service day--have to be in the same league as the other park-and-rides or it doesn't work.


Besides, if you wanted to bend a trolley back on itself it's almost more logical to re-lay streetcar trackage on the 35/36/38, turn Forest Hills back into a streetcar super-terminal with an E transfer, and divvy up the service patterns from 2 flanks meeting at Needham. Back to the 1940's, just with a stretch of dedicated ROW in the Cutler Park dead zone. That's probably not what people have in mind when they think "rapid" transit out here.
 
Equilibria said:
Isn't this the thought process behind not extending the Red Line to Mattapan? A GL to West Roxbury extension seems pretty similar to that, actually...
Click to expand...

No. The projected Mattapan ridership for a RL extension is close to Ashmont in heft, thanks to the 9 connecting buses including the ever-overburdened 28. Probably on the order of 6000 boardings per day. Milton/Central Ave. combo stop somewhere between Shawmut and Fields Corner in the 3000 range since it's got 4 buses hitting one side or the other of that block that could be pulled into the center. It's fully consistent with how the rest of the Ashmont branch breaks out.

The only reason why that's never been built is because the Milton money screams bloody murder whenever their precious backyard Butler, Capen, and Valley Rd. stops go on the chopping block...and for 25 years that was His Corruptness Tom Finneran's House district so the money carried a big stick. That's like 250 boardings per day stalling all progress from having nearly 10,000 more Red boardings per day. Yay, rich obstructionists!
 
Two things I've noticed on the Orange Line (focusing primarily on the southern Downtown-Forest Hills segment, though I'm sure these comments ring true for the north as well):

1. There are no signs on the right walls at the center platform stations (Forest Hills-Back Bay) indicating the station name. While I suppose it might be minor nit-picking, the lack of those signs makes it difficult to know which station you're at if (1) the operator doesn't make the announcement, (2) if you don't hear the announcement, (3) if the train is full and the island platform signage isn't readily visible, and (4) any combination of (1), (2) and (3). Instead, they have "Orange Line Outbound / Inbound" signs that are meant to be helpful for people waiting on the platform. Seems like those signs ought to read [Station Name] Outbound / Inbound since the color of the line is already apparent with the orange stripe used in all station name signage.

2. There's a lack of lighting in the stations which makes the spaces even more uninviting than the ugly brick and concrete structures do themselves. This is further compounded by the substandard lighting in the trains (the new ones cannot come soon enough).
 
omaja said:
Two things I've noticed on the Orange Line (focusing primarily on the southern Downtown-Forest Hills segment, though I'm sure these comments ring true for the north as well):

1. There are no signs on the right walls at the center platform stations (Forest Hills-Back Bay) indicating the station name. While I suppose it might be minor nit-picking, the lack of those signs makes it difficult to know which station you're at if (1) the operator doesn't make the announcement, (2) if you don't hear the announcement, (3) if the train is full and the island platform signage isn't readily visible, and (4) any combination of (1), (2) and (3). Instead, they have "Orange Line Outbound / Inbound" signs that are meant to be helpful for people waiting on the platform. Seems like those signs ought to read [Station Name] Outbound / Inbound since the color of the line is already apparent with the orange stripe used in all station name signage.

2. There's a lack of lighting in the stations which makes the spaces even more uninviting than the ugly brick and concrete structures do themselves. This is further compounded by the substandard lighting in the trains (the new ones cannot come soon enough).
Click to expand...

I would agree. As far as I am concerned, every station should be very bright and have great lighting from the platforms, to the parking lots, to the walkways, to the ticketing areas.
 
The generally dark 70s decor of the trains and all the stations doesn't really help either.
 
The signage on the Orange Line indeed needs improvement, but it's not nearly as bad as the darkness and the minimal signage in the Washington Metro. I had the occasion recently to ride their Orange Line from New Carrollton into the District. The PA system was not working. Because of the bright lights inside the train, you could not see the stations' names. The only way was to look out the open door in the hope that it was close to one of the rare signs. I resorted to asking my fellow passengers where we were.
 
Interesting Orange Line data from the TD Garden PNF (3-27):

http://www.bostonredevelopmentautho...s/The Boston Garden/The Boston Garden_PNF.pdf

A.M. Data:
Policy Load Capacity: 6,681
Crush Load Capacity: 11,424
Actual Ridership (Weekday morning peak period): 13,634 (200% of policy load capacity; 120% of crush capacity)

P.M. Data:
Policy Load Capacity: 6,681
Crush Load Capacity: 11,424
Actual Ridership (Weekday afternoon peak period): 11,860 (178% of policy load capacity; 104% of crush load capacity)

Those numbers will only grow in one direction once Assembly Square comes online. Does anyone know if any other T line is operating so far above policy and crush load capacity?
 
What is the limitation to adding capacity on the OL? Can headways be shortened? Is there a bottleneck somewhere?
 
The OL runs well below capacity right now, and there are no bottlenecks. OL's capacity issues come from car shortages.

I'm fairly certain that the Red, Green and Orange are operating well above their crush load capacity during rush hour.
 
I don't ride the orange line much, but it seems this all needs to be done with a little more urgency. These cars aren't even out to bid yet, so you're looking at what- at least 5 years before new cars start rolling? The current fleet is held together by a very flammable string. I'd like to see a little more movement, unless i am missing something.

Also, the link says the red and orange line cars will be built in Mass. Is there any way that will actually happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top