Crazy Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

Has anyone really studied Newport as part of intrastate service, instead of part of a SCR extension?

Formally it's been studied as a seasonal Aquidneck Island Budd RDC shuttle upgrading the existing tracks. Everything beyond that is placemarked in the RIDOT State Rail Plan as "TBD" for South Coast Rail reaching some sort of resolution.

I can't imagine you can get across Narragansett Bay to Quonset, or to the E. Bay Bike Path running through Bristol to E Prov. (There never was a historical connection there, as I recall.) That path is too physically disconnected on both ends to even contemplate, unless you figure out two very expensive connections on both ends. Though, I think you could make the density/ service argument for that set of towns to work.

Not only that, there was never historically Warren Branch service continuing to Newport. That was electrified service using rickety wood-body ultralight EMU's because of the severely weight-restricted Slades Ferry Bridge. No steam allowed, wires ended at Fall River Depot. NYNH&H thru service went the long way around via Attleboro-Taunton.

(Also, when was the last use of the street running track on Allens Ave/1A?)

Early 90's. But RIDOT has plans to reactivate on-file in the State Rail Plan.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

(Parenthetically, setting aside the question of feeder services from New Hampshire, there's still something intriguing about rail pinging back between Haverhill and Lowell -- that is a lot of active, well-maintained rail running through the hearts of multiple medium-sized cities.)

Well-maintained? On Pan Am? The Lowell Branch is 10 MPH, mostly single-track, with ancient oft-failing signal system. With a southbound wye at Lowell Jct. that's been rotting out-of-service for 25 years. A lot of the freights that interfere with T and Amtrak schedules between Andover and Lawrence shot their OTP load on the Lowell Branch. That's why the T has never thought about leasing rainy-day trackage rights on it for contingencies. It would be an hour slower than Wilmington-Lowell shuttle buses.

CSX has a not-insignificant sum to spend rolling back the state-of-repair neglect to minimally acceptable standards on that branch. There and on the Stony Brook between Ayer and Chelmsford. Same all-of-the-above neglect as Lowell plus a festering modern rep for derailments.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re Quonset Point: no strong disagreement, my point is only that if the landscape ever changed significantly, running a branch to Quonset Point would be relatively easy compared to everything else. (Though, to be fair, the only circumstance that I can imagine is aggressive TOD at Quonset, plus a need for high frequencies to the north [eg to East Greenwich], combined with a reduced need for high frequencies to the south, and thus a need for some short-turn location. Very much a "stars must align thing.")

How in the hell would "branch" service operate there??? Seaview RR divides itself almost fractally into a zillion micro-branches that meander like crazy around warehouse property lines to every nook of the industrial park. There's no prevailing direction of travel on it, and nothing that masses up enough ridership to fill a train frequency. Its layout is very typical of port trackage.

This is EXACTLY the kind of situation the West Davisville mainline infill and a bunch of shuttle buses were designed for. Pulse up some RIPTA frequencies on the transfer for covering denser corners of the park, implant on-demand paratransit vans for the employers in the nooks and crannies.

This isn't a rail transit canvas. Nothing here is begging to be reimagined as such.

 

[Blackbird]

So I'm trying to understand how Manchester, Nashua, Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill relate to each other (and to Boston) in a similar way.

There's also Amesbury and Newburyport. The Merrimack doesn't stop at Haverhill.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

There's also Amesbury and Newburyport. The Merrimack doesn't stop at Haverhill.

And yet...the Essex & Newburyport Branch RR's connecting Haverhill-Newburyport and the Lowell and Lawrence RR connecting the other two were all abandoned by the Depression after years of being loss leaders in B&M's portfolio. The travel affinity between Merrimack cities has been weak at best ever since the Mill Era peaked in New England shortly after the Civil War...and couldn't fill seats on a train even during Peak Train during first 2 decades of the 20th c.

There's really not a big question being begged here. Daily 495 traffic isn't too terrible this many miles north of the Pike+290 chokepoints. If the cities were begging for linkage, express buses on 495 between the RTAs' biggest hubs would probably be the most capacity-appropriate for the job.

 

[Stlin]

Formally it's been studied as a seasonal Aquidneck Island Budd RDC shuttle upgrading the existing tracks. Everything beyond that is placemarked in the RIDOT State Rail Plan as "TBD" for South Coast Rail reaching some sort of resolution.

I'm so lost trying to figure out how that could provides any meaningful transit if you only stay on the island. I feel like it'd just be a cheaper faster "sightseeing activity" jaunt competing with (and probably operated by) the dinner train. Pending MA rail restoration to the state line, at least spend the money to restore the bridge and ~3 miles of track to enable the private operator shuttle thing to Fall River.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm so lost trying to figure out how that could provides any meaningful transit if you only stay on the island. I feel like it'd just be a cheaper faster "sightseeing activity" jaunt competing with (and probably operated by) the dinner train. Pending MA rail restoration to the state line, at least spend the money to restore the bridge and ~3 miles of track to enable the private operator shuttle thing to Fall River.

It would be tourist-oriented and in-season only, just offering regularish transit cross-island. Dinner train folks would be the designated operator. Baby steps.

 

[NoShJFK]

****I POSTED THIS IN “If you were god” on accident. When I meant to post in this section because to me it seems fairly reasonable but with political will and finances as a factor it’s probably more crazy******

I’ll post the remaining either all at once or in parts depending upon reception of this idea:

It was inspired by my time the other night out with the girlfriend and friends in the Seaport. I went to college in the city and know it in and out but I hardly ever did anything in the seaport other than graduate at the pavilion. Well frankly what they’ve done with the seaport is nothing short of breath taking - especially the area near fan pier blvd and seaport blvd. and when I looked up and saw the T entrance I realized - that’s for a bus. That area is so up and coming and full of buisness and entertainment andresidential that it’s criminal there’s no rail there.

So my proposal brings fast and efficient rail to the least served part of the city: South Boston and then brings fast MODERN LRT (similar to LA’s) as opposed to the archaic version we have now (think more TRAIN and less Trolley) to the Seaport District, connects it with downtown - gives another route through the backbay and modernizes what was the Green Lines B route


The Silver Line (Phase 1)

(Cost; $5B; entire project subway: $7B)

L Street (intersection Broadway & L)

*Tunnel follows L street*
(Drydock & MP Haul)

World Trade Center

Seaport (current Courthouse)

South Station (RL)

*Follows Essex St to Boylston*

Theater (GL) (OL) (between Chinatown & Boylston)

Arlington (GL)

*Travels immediately to Comm Ave (subway)*
*Follows Comm Ave (Subway)*

Exeter

Mass Ave

Kenmore (GL) (BL “D”)

*Then follows B line path (at grade)*

Boston University Central

Packards Corner

Alston St

*Stops at mega station at Clev. Circle*
Cleveland Circle (GL) (BL)

*Line turns left into BC campus*
*station adjacent to Alumni St garage*

Boston College / Alumni Stadium

Optional for tunnel or at grade. If at grade NO more grade crossings. Line entirely grade separated. At crucial intersection line goes under new overpass and back to street level (Chestnut Hill Ave, Colborne etc)


NOTE: IMAGE shows stations POST-Kenmore at every location there is currently a “B” station. That was a mistake. Intent of proposal is for spaced out stations roughly a mile apart (BU C, Packards, Alston, Cleveland, BC)

 

[Riverside]

Welcome to the board! I think you'll find a lot of support here for a conversion of the erstwhile Piers Transitway to rail, and a lot of support for modern Los Angeles-style LRT.

You may be interested in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread -- one of the key focus areas in that discussion is the overall conversion of the Green Line to modern LRT, so I think there's a lot there that you'll be keen on.

With respect to this specific proposal: the topic of a subway under Essex Street has been discussed a lot, including pretty recently in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread. The long-and-short of it is that it would likely be tricky, maybe impossible; one major problem is threading between the different depths you need to reach in order to clear the Green Line at Boylston (1.5 levels deep), the Orange Line at Chinatown (2 levels deep, stacked), the Central Artery Tunnel and then hook into the Transitway loop at South Station (relatively shallow). That's a lot of up-and-down in a very short distance.

The other wildcard is that Essex Street is very old, which means it's that much more likely to contain undocumented "surprises" underground that would complicate a subway build (think pipes and other utilities). Other parts of Boston, such as the areas that were built on landfill, tend to be more predictable and therefore are somewhat preferable for subway building. That's why a lot of the proposals you'll see here for LRT to Seaport involve an LRT subway along the Mass Pike, where the underground is less of a variable.

I'm curious what the other parts of your proposal are!

 

[NoShJFK]

I've factored in the finances behind most of my proposals (which I will expand upon once I post them all) and it isn't THAT crazy. The political will is whats crazy considering mass transit doesn't seem to be a priority anywhere outside of NYC. With that said: with my proposal the Green Line is reduced to 3 branches ("E" which will travel to Tufts, "D" which will travel to Porter and now.... the "F" branch)

Now in my most recent post regarding modernizing LRT and turning the Silver Line into LRT - a valid point was brought up regarding Essex St tunneling. So this proposal which includes its most obvious route being Essex St at the beginning -would have to be adjusted to tunnel directly North or directly South of Essex St.

Green Line "F" branch


Boylston OR Arlington (GL "C" "E")

(There are numerous options of tunneling in this area including challenging Essex St, Arlington to Stuart to Washington, Etc)

Leather District (pedestrian connection to Chinatown OL SL)

(Following Kingston, Otis, Franklin Streets)

Financial District (Post Office Square)

Aquarium/Atlantic (BL)

North End (Hanover St)

North Station (OL) (GL "C")

(Line comes above ground; takes over Grand Junction)

Lechmere (GL "C" "E")

Cambridge St

Broadway/Main (pedestrian connection: RL)

Mass Ave

Cambridgeport

Note: Black Lines represent multitude of pedestrian tunnel options to buildings or destinations in area. But mostly represent a general idea and not a specific proposal.

 

[bigeman312]

What purpose does the 2nd GL tunnel through Shawmut Penninsula serve? It would limit frequency to both GL tunnels while providing redundant stations in an area well within the walk-shed of many other equal-or-better transit options to their destinations than if you just built the Cambridgeport branch, but kept all GL service in the Tremont Street subway.

The Cambridgeport branch has some merit, though.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Cambridgeport branch has some merit, though.

Not nearly enough if it's just stubbing out in Cambridgeport and not crossing the river on the double-track bridge that's already there. Hello: Urban Ring Major Investment Study?...West Station?...connectivity the existing CT2 provides? What do those things serve that this thing is leaving on the table??? You also won't in the real world ever open the UR in installments to just Cambridgeport, if for no other reason than you simply must interconnect the electrification with the pre-existing 600V DC feeder network on the Boston side of the river that's tripled-up by the paralleling B/C/D branches. That one's whole-hog or no-hog construction on all practicalities.

 

[NoShJFK]

What purpose does the 2nd GL tunnel through Shawmut Penninsula serve? It would limit frequency to both GL tunnels while providing redundant stations in an area well within the walk-shed of many other equal-or-better transit options to their destinations than if you just built the Cambridgeport branch, but kept all GL service in the Tremont Street subway.

The Cambridgeport branch has some merit, though.

Good point on limiting frequency. However itd be a safe assumption that a modernization of the GL would include the ability for more capacity.

Don't share your opinion on the lack of need. There is a fairly decent gap in the financial district where most other parts of Downtown area have stations within a minute or two. ALTHOUGH that could be up for debate I'll admit. What I don't understand is how you don't see a need in the North End. That neighborhood (along with Charlestown - unless you count CC) is vastly underserved. I think a North End rail station would be very popular and would go a long way to the never ending parking chase on summer / weekend nights in the North End.

 

[NoShJFK]

Of ALL my proposals this one would probably be the most "unlikely". Although its probably the area (outside of Boston/Cambridge) that uses mass transit the most so I'm not sure its really all that ridiculous honestly. In fact most of this line runs through two neighborhoods that are amongst the 50 densest square miles in the area. Especially in a city like Lynn where the potential for subway use is through the roof.

*Its worth noting I considered merely following the rail line but there are parts of the NBPT/RCKPT line that simply doesnt have the room to put a second set of tracks next to it.

*Yes, I realize this is a DEEP extension for a rapid transit line but there is relentless traffic in Lynn, Salem, Peabody, Beverly pretty much from 2pm-7pm every work day. This might go a long way to changing that. But I'm throwing the proposal to the wolves to see what you guys think:



BLUE LINE North Extension (Phase 1)
Estimated Cost: $6B
Approx: 5.3miles of tunneling

Wonderland

Lynnway (Commercial St)

Central Square (CR)

(Tunnel begins)
(Tunnel follows 129 westward for 0.9 Miles)
(Tunnel turns onto Western Ave for 0.6 Miles)

Western Avenue (corner of Western and Chestnut)

(tunnel follows Western for another 0.7 miles)
(tunnel turns onto Eastern Ave)
(tunnel follows Eastern for 1.0 miles)
(tunnel turns onto Essex St)

Swampscott / Essex St (CR)
(Across from SHS, pedestrian walkway to Swamp CR station - approx 3 minute walk)
(Tunnel follows Essex St and Loring Ave for total of 1.1 miles)

Vinnin Square
(where current Vavoline Oil is)

Salem State (290 Canal St)
(Tunnel travels up Canal St for 0.9 miles)

Downtown Salem
(across from Cypress St, adjacent to Police parking lot)


(Potential phase 2 would head toward Peabody and end as park and ride at NS Mall/114)

 

[JeffDowntown]

Of ALL my proposals this one would probably be the most "unlikely". Although its probably the area (outside of Boston/Cambridge) that uses mass transit the most so I'm not sure its really all that ridiculous honestly. In fact most of this line runs through two neighborhoods that are amongst the 50 densest square miles in the area. Especially in a city like Lynn where the potential for subway use is through the roof.

*Its worth noting I considered merely following the rail line but there are parts of the NBPT/RCKPT line that simply doesnt have the room to put a second set of tracks next to it.

*Yes, I realize this is a DEEP extension for a rapid transit line but there is relentless traffic in Lynn, Salem, Peabody, Beverly pretty much from 2pm-7pm every work day. This might go a long way to changing that. But I'm throwing the proposal to the wolves to see what you guys think:



BLUE LINE North Extension (Phase 1)
Estimated Cost: $6B
Approx: 5.3miles of tunneling

Wonderland

Lynnway (Commercial St)

Central Square (CR)

(Tunnel begins)
(Tunnel follows 129 westward for 0.9 Miles)
(Tunnel turns onto Western Ave for 0.6 Miles)

Western Avenue (corner of Western and Chestnut)

(tunnel follows Western for another 0.7 miles)
(tunnel turns onto Eastern Ave)
(tunnel follows Eastern for 1.0 miles)
(tunnel turns onto Essex St)

Swampscott / Essex St (CR)
(Across from SHS, pedestrian walkway to Swamp CR station - approx 3 minute walk)
(Tunnel follows Essex St and Loring Ave for total of 1.1 miles)

Vinnin Square
(where current Vavoline Oil is)

Salem State (290 Canal St)
(Tunnel travels up Canal St for 0.9 miles)

Downtown Salem
(across from Cypress St, adjacent to Police parking lot)


(Potential phase 2 would head toward Peabody and end as park and ride at NS Mall/114)

View attachment 12808

This concept is not crazy at all. It is termed BLX in these discussion threads. It comes up at least once per decade, and has done so for at least 60 years.

The big question mark is choice of route from Wonderland to Lynn, as there are two different rail right-of-way options (western route or eastern route). There is a Blue Line Extension to Lynn thread in the Transit and Infrastructure section (currently slumbering, because we are between the once-per-decade agitation points).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Don't share your opinion on the lack of need. There is a fairly decent gap in the financial district where most other parts of Downtown area have stations within a minute or two. ALTHOUGH that could be up for debate I'll admit. What I don't understand is how you don't see a need in the North End. That neighborhood (along with Charlestown - unless you count CC) is vastly underserved. I think a North End rail station would be very popular and would go a long way to the never ending parking chase on summer / weekend nights in the North End.

The North End is so extremely well-served by rapid transit walkshed that it's only got one local bus--the 4--that ranks 140th out of 169 in Yellow Line ridership and boards fewer than 500 riders per day. Sorry...the evidence is diametrically opposed there. Crazy Pitches may be funding-unconstrained, but still need to be moored in some evidence-backed Purpose & Need.

 

[NoShJFK]

This concept is not crazy at all. It is termed BLX in these discussion threads. It comes up at least once per decade, and has done so for at least 60 years.

The big question mark is choice of route from Wonderland to Lynn, as there are two different rail right-of-way options (western route or eastern route). There is a Blue Line Extension to Lynn thread in the Transit and Infrastructure section (currently slumbering, because we are between the once-per-decade agitation points).

I’m aware of the history of BLX. I vaguely remember being 9 years old in late 1998 and seeing a report on WBZ about a potential BLX all the way to Beverly(?!)

And the extension to Lynn isn’t crazy. But going beyond Central Square (especially in a tunnel) is what’s a little intense).

One might think it’s unnecessary but again a lot of areas along this route are either underserved or amongst the densest sq miles in the area (which itself is the densest area in the country outside NY/LA)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I’m aware of the history of BLX. I vaguely remember being 9 years old in late 1998 and seeing a report on WBZ about a potential BLX all the way to Beverly(?!)

And the extension to Lynn isn’t crazy. But going beyond Central Square (especially in a tunnel) is what’s a little intense).

One might think it’s unnecessary but again a lot of areas along this route are either underserved or amongst the densest sq miles in the area (which itself is the densest area in the country outside NY/LA)

Why are you building a tunnel anywhere here? The Eastern Route is graded for 4 tracks the whole way through the city and well into Swampscott while Downtown Lynn sprays connecting buses in every direction from the terminal. No one has ever pitched BLX dragged off-ROW because there's zero need to. That's begging a question never asked in the real world.

 

[jklo]

The North End is so extremely well-served by rapid transit walkshed that it's only got one local bus--the 4--that ranks 140th out of 169 in Yellow Line ridership and boards fewer than 500 riders per day. Sorry...the evidence is diametrically opposed there. Crazy Pitches may be funding-unconstrained, but still need to be moored in some evidence-backed Purpose & Need.

Do you think it hurts ridership that the 4 goes in two different routes back and forth?

 

[NoShJFK]

The North End is so extremely well-served by rapid transit walkshed that it's only got one local bus--the 4--that ranks 140th out of 169 in Yellow Line ridership and boards fewer than 500 riders per day. Sorry...the evidence is diametrically opposed there. Crazy Pitches may be funding-unconstrained, but still need to be moored in some evidence-backed Purpose & Need.

I just disagree.

One thing you’re forgetting is the attitudes toward the BUS and RAIL is dramatically different. If you’re a young couple living within a few miles of a LRT/HRT station and want to go get dinner in the North End or go to the feast- there’s a reasonable chance you’ll take the T. If the option is to drive or take the bus. You’re going to drive almost always drive.

Wouls it be the busiest station? No. Are there bigger priorities even in a CTP world? Yes. But would it be useful and used enough to justify it? Yes. You may disagree however.