Crazy Transit Pitches

Here is something I don't think I have seen discussed here yet. I don't really think this is a super crazy idea, but, I guess for the MBTA it might be. So, I was thinking about how to add capacity (while almost being crushed to death @ DTX) and I thought of the Red Line being lengthened back when the Braintree line was added. It seems like that wouldn't be very easy to do again on the Red Line (considering the half ass job they did the first time for many of the underground stations), but I started to look at the Orange, and it seems like it wouldn't be too terrible to add platform length on most of the line. I realize the new rolling stock will provide better head ways/capacity, and things like extending it also need to happen, but it seemed like a reasonable idea to think they could also lengthen the trains.

It looks like pretty much every station south of Tufts would be easy enough to extend the platforms for - basically any station in the Southwest Corridor. It also looks like (from basically Google Maps aerial views) it extending platforms on stations north of North Station would also be fairly straightforward. That would leave just six (out of 20) stations that would probably be fairly coplex: North Station, Haymarket, State, DTX, Chinatown, and Tufts. Does anyone know if it would be feasible to extend the platforms in these stations? I would expect anything in the Washington St Tunnel to be the worst. Even Half platform stub ends (like the Red Line extension) would probably be OK, but not ideal.

I would think adding enough platform space for even one more pair (2 cars), assuming more rolling stock is purchased to accommodate this, along with the improvements the new rolling stock is bringing (including more sets to run better frequencies) would really go a long way in reducing current and future congestion on the Orange Line.
 
Extending the Orange (or Red) lines to eight cars isn't out of the realm of possibility, but it's unlikely to be necessary. The Orange Line can go as low as four-minute headways and the Red Line as low as 3. That's basically a 50% increase in capacity that's possible, and the new fleets are intended to get partway there. The Orange Line will drop to about 4.5-minute headways; the Red Line will probably stay at 4.5 minutes for most of rush hour, but a few extra trains will drop it to 3-minute headways at the peak of the peak.

The new trains will have better deceleration and acceleration, and changes to the signal system will help pack trains a bit denser. The really important part is controlling headway reliability by aggressive real-time control and by and controlling dwell times. The first part can be helped by modern location data and semi-automated control measures. The second will be helped by the wider doors, although some stations could also be modified for better passenger flow.
 
This comes from the amateur planner blog, and is a few years old, but is still an interesting possibility.

http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2014/03/red-blue-connector-think-outside-tunnel.html

In short: Wouldn't it be cheaper if, instead of tunneling underneath Charles/MGH station to build a red/blue connector, we just re-used the old street level Streetcar portal on Cambridge street to take blue line trains to the surface, elevated the line for two or so blocks, then built an elevated blue line platform right onto the existing red line station?
 
What would you do with the Blue Line if you wanted to extend it further?

I don't think an elevated Blue Line extension would work well with plans to de-highway Storrow Drive and create some riverfront development because it would block riverfront views and create a new barrier between Back Bay and the esplanade.

Frankly though, the Red-Blue Connector is a cheap project if MassDOT were able to honestly assess transit project costs. Ari talks about it here: Link.
 
The EGE said:
The Orange Line can go as low as four-minute headways and the Red Line as low as 3.
Click to expand...

Why can the RL support a lower headway than the OL? I would've expected the OL would have a lower theoretical limit due to its lack of sharp curves.
 
whittle said:
Why can the RL support a lower headway than the OL? I would've expected the OL would have a lower theoretical limit due to its lack of sharp curves.
Click to expand...

Plus the Orange line doesn't have to branch. I always thought the OL could support better headways than the RL, they just never had the need (or rolling stock) to do so - isn't the signaling system pretty much the same ancient ATC system?
 
Wash said:
TWouldn't it be cheaper if, instead of tunneling underneath Charles/MGH station to build a red/blue connector, we just re-used the old street level Streetcar portal on Cambridge street to take blue line trains to the surface, elevated the line for two or so blocks, then built an elevated blue line platform right onto the existing red line station?
Click to expand...

Or, a step further: Re-open the old portal and run the Blue Line trains at street level in a separated reservation down the center of Cambridge Street.

Use the overhead catenary option already existing on the Blue Line cars. No third rail needed.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Or, a step further: Re-open the old portal and run the Blue Line trains at street level in a separated reservation down the center of Cambridge Street.

Use the overhead catenary option already existing on the Blue Line cars. No third rail needed.
Click to expand...

Rather hard to envision how you terminate the line and make an easy connection to Red (the point of the extension). Street level at Charles Circle is kind of busy.
 
whittle said:
Why can the RL support a lower headway than the OL? I would've expected the OL would have a lower theoretical limit due to its lack of sharp curves.
Click to expand...

I think it's more due to a lack of available trains for the OL rather than any physical limitations.

RL is physically limited by the Harvard Curve.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The segment of Mass. Ave. from Central to Putnam Squares is not wide enough to fit in dedicated bus lanes. Unless, of course, on-street parking is eliminated.
Click to expand...

Well, he eliminates a driving lane instead.... with parking eliminated in places where there is a need for a turn lane.
 
dwash59 said:
Well, he eliminates a driving lane instead.... with parking eliminated in places where there is a need for a turn lane.
Click to expand...

There are only 2 lanes of traffic on Mass Ave between Putnam and Central, but Ari was making a proposal for the north of Harvard portion.
 
This is an idea that just popped into my head. No idea how feasible if is, or if its been suggested a million times before: turn the I-93 zipper lane into a bus only lane. Run buses from, say, Braintree and/or Quincy Adams and JFK. Of course, I-93 being the unpredictable monster it is, there's no promise that the buses returning against rush hour traffic won't get held up unreasonably.

Hell, even just adding a bunch of buses on that basic premise (without making it a dedicated bus lane) might be a good idea during the upcoming construction on the Red Line.
 
odurandina said:
what about a DMU stop on the New York Streets on the NEC?
Click to expand...

There is probably room for a platform between Shawmut, Washington, Harrison, along Herald Street. But...

1) What does that do to NEC/Commuter Rail operations -- pretty busy tracks.

2) Silver Line Washington SL4 goes to South Station from the same location.

I think a real Washington Street corridor rapid transit connection is a much better solution.
 
Here's a pitch:

Build a supertall in every neighborhood and then put an El connecting the 100th floor of each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top