Crazy Transit Pitches

[Teban54]

Here's where I realize I should probably just change my username to "That El Stan."



Of a piece with what I posted above about LRT capacity constraints, I've been wondering for a few months now (and *think* it's possible doing some very, very rough math using Google Maps' measurement tool?) if a viaduct is the answer. The core of the idea is that the GJ ROW gives you a long run-up on either side of the Mass. Ave., Main and Broadway intersections, and the MIT Visitor lot at Vassar and Mass. Ave. gives you the space you need to translate back to the GJ.

View attachment 34410

IDK if you'd want to/have to eliminate the Mass. Ave. stop due to the security theater related to the nuclear reactor (blue circle), and you'd definitely have to fight MIT over the parking and turn lanes on Vassar, whose footprint would be needed to place supporting columns. But it does seem to sidestep the underpinning problem.

Quoting this post from February 2023 for reasons you'll see later.

I recently dug up this study for a Grand Junction multi-use path by Cambridge in October 2014. This might be old news for the forum (idk), but here are some key points:

They propose a rail-with-trail along Grand Junction with the eventual goal of connecting it to Allston. (Yes, that means going under the MIT buildings.)

The parking lot near Mass Ave that @Aprehensive_Words proposed crossing in the comment above is out of question, as it's been reserved by MIT for future development over the tracks (shown below). Although there are currently no concrete plans, the study remarks that it's a "prime development location".

(Remark: Building 44 has already been redeveloped and covers the track.)

The rail-with-trail will most likely still ensure Grand Junction to be double-tracked east of Mass Ave. The trail is planned to be north of the existing track (as shown below), while an additional track is being planned south. However, the second track will significantly affect service routes to the back of many MIT buildings.

Regardless, Cambridge is aware of MassDOT's plans (at that time) to run DMUs along Grand Junction with 15-min frequencies, and also remarked the potential for stations at Mass Ave and Main St, explicitly quoting Urban Ring studies as the source. That would appear to indicate they're aware of both the need for a second track and the need for station sites, so let's hope that it will be integrated into planning and construction more explicitly later.

Quoting from the study:

The good news is that this project has considered traffic signals at Main St and Mass Ave with several alternatives, coordinated with nearby signals (Vassar St for the former, Vassar St and Albany St for the latter). While they will initially be used for the path, it's natural to expect they can eventually accommodate signals for LRT, and possibly even transit signal priority (though doing that with three closely spaced intersections on Mass Ave seems hard).

The study area stopped just west of Pacific St (where the MIT-owned land begins), but did briefly consider further west along BU Bridge, with several alternatives around the rotary. It noted that the rail ROW under Memorial Dr would only be sufficient for a single track and a path, but double tracking will block the path. I'm not particularly concerned about this, though, because the section immediately to the north (where Grand Junction becomes double tracked) is stated to have "insufficient space", thus the need for these different alternatives.

(The figure also confirmed the minimum width for a single CR track is 17'. However, I recall many double-tracked sections don't have as much as 34'?)

 

[Riverside]

It's apparently my week for "Crazy Transit Pitches, Unusual Modes Edition."

The Miami Metromover is one of the few, if not the only, successful APMs deployed within a city core. Miami's heavy rail system, Metrorail, has two stations in downtown, but there are somewhat on the periphery. Metromover connects to Metrorail's Government Center station, and circulates through a few bidirectional loops through downtown, essentially solving the last mile problem, and extending the reach of public transit comfortably throughout all of downtown. Stations are located about 700-1000 feet apart in downtown, with branch lines that extend north and south over divisive highways and a river, with somewhat longer distances between stops.

A rapid transit system that serves the periphery of the employment hub, with distributed destinations that are a little far to walk to from the station? Sound familiar?

The Longwood Automated People Mover, or LAPM:

(Apologies for the janky labels, my bad for not using a lossless strategy there.)

Line 1: Longwood <> Boston University Medical Center, via Longwood Ave, Ruggles St, Melnea Cass Blvd, and Albany St (2.5 miles)
Line 2: Kenmore <> Nubian via Brookline Ave, Francis St, and Roxbury Crossing (2.5 miles)

Densely spaced stations in the Longwood core provide near-front-door service for most of the hospitals. Slightly longer stop spacing elsewhere keeps travel times reasonable while still providing service to the neighborhoods that will be impacted by the construction of an elevated APM.

Miami's Metromover (which is a similar overall system length) runs about 25 feet wide between stations and about 50 feet wide at stations. It also has single track segments (including at least one that basically runs right alongside a building), which are able to fit in an envelope less than 15 away from the edge of the building (at least, according to my measurements on Google Maps). This would definitely be a tight squeeze in Longwood.

So, alternatively, the segments over Longwood Ave and Francis St could be made single-track:

(Some stop locations need to be adjusted to be closer to cross-streets if we use one-way services.)

The system can also be simplified, focusing on a Longwood <> Ruggles route (with or without the BU Med Ctr extension depicted below)...:

...or a Longwood <> Nubian route:

(Or even a Kenmore <> Nubian route but I didn't draw that one out.)

Done properly, an elevated APM could also provide improvements to the street below by providing protection from foul weather and relief from summer heat.

~~~

Now, these look cool on a map, of course, and I do think illustrates some ways that Longwood is friendlier to closer stop spacing. Plus, like, those transfers in the two-line system look pretty darn good: radial services on Washington, the SE Corridor, Huntington, and at Kenmore all get a direct transfer to services that get you a short walk away from all the hospitals, and a circumferential service on the Fenway Branch (i.e. from Harvard and/or Kendall) gets an easy transfer to solve its last mile problem.

But... as usually happens when I crayon something like this for Longwood, I come back to: well, if we're gonna build an elevated, why not run conventional light rail on it?

Well, one reason is that -- probably -- you'd want larger stations for light rail (though I suppose you could design the system for single cars exclusively). Light rail may also be a bit louder; I've noticed that APMs often use slightly more boutique technology (e.g. rubber tires), which could make an el more palatable. It's also possible that APMs could handle sharper curves than LRT, though from what I see Miami's system limits itself to 70' curves, which our light rail will continue to comfortably accommodate (I think).

But even if light rail is out... why not run the planned 30 buses per hour on the elevated instead?

Buses can handle tight turn radii (and do so quietly). Buses can run on quiet engines. You might need to use some wrong-way running if you need to resort to center platforms, but that's not super difficult. The biggest challenge would be building loops to allow buses to turn, but that's not insurmountable either.

And (a) grade-separated corridor(s) through Longwood would provide a huge reliability boost for the Dorchester bus network (along with crosstown routes like the T66 and T12) -- an infrastructure improvement whose effects would be felt not just in the local neighborhood, but across the entire system.

So... an APM would be cool, but an elevated busway -- with prepayment, level boardings, sheltered platforms, and all the amenities of modern BRT -- that would be even cooler.

 

[Riverside]

Yeah, maybe, depending what you mean for the Urban Ring. The BRT proposals and some types of train proposals would just use existing road/train bridges, and that could be fine. For most UR-rail proposals, I think, there would need to be a new, dedicated crossing of the Mystic, and you're right, immersed tube tunnel might be the way to do that.

But also, a new Mystic crossing could be a simple bridge. The specific problem with the Chelsea Creek bridge is is has to accommodate large ships underneath, but a new Mystic crossing near Sullivan wouldn't have that requirement. So a new Mystic bridge wouldn't have to be a drawbridge or 150' high or whatever. Generally a bridge is cheaper than a tunnel, but that also depends on how easy it is to connect to whatever approaches from either side of the river. For that, I have no idea in this case.

@ritchiew @JeffDowntown as promised, here is F-Line's sketch of how to cross the Mystic.

 

[Stlin]

I have a somewhat different crazy pitch for the Chelsea area, which I've been referring to in my head as the Brown X. Blue and Orange do not blend well. The OL and the BL are mostly* dimensionally compatible, once bowdoin station is replaced. The differences are overall set length and 3 inches of floor/ platform height. Some platform lengthening and curve fixes, platform replacements at BL stations or fancy auto air ballast trainsets at blue line dimensions. So why not interline?

I'm envisioning this in a world where BLX to Lynn exists, Red/Blue, etc. it only gets better as the Orange and Blue terminii extend further out. It'd allow someone living in Malden to have a one seat ride to the airport, or someone living in Lynn to have a one seat to back bay. Depending on how you work the routes endpoints, there's lots of journeys available, and if you keep the service feeds symmetrical, you shouldn't affect total trains at the major transfer points like Forest Hills or Wonderland. You also probably wouldn't need that many total tph; if a train is going to the wrong endpoint for your journey, one same platform transfer should be able to get you to where you're going. Capacity decreases would only occur in between the legs.

Plus, it's already mostly grade separated. There's a single digit number of grade crossings that'd need curing. (Necessary bridge mods not withstanding) On the Blue side, From the Airport, fork and eat the grade separated Couglin Bypass until you get to the creek, which you tunnel under, popping out past Cottage Street. The CR line through Chelsea would need grade separation between 2nd st and Arlington, but that's less than a mile of relatively simple C&C or just trenching it. The other Leg north can just share RoW with the Eastern route (Eastern Ave would either need a up or under situation) until it rejoins the Blue at Wonderland.
On the Orange side, you'd need a flyover crossing of the Mystic, branching out either side of Assembly station. Alternatively, tunnel under/swallow/follow the Northern Strand and rejoin the OL north of Malden Center.

 

[Riverside]

^ Can I just extend a word of appreciation for the originality of this idea? While that level of interlining seems infeasible to me, at the very least it represents a novel take in a way that I think is very cool. Nice work!

 

[Riverside]

We need a shitposting thread. (Of the fun variety, not the awful variety.) But until then: I was walking along the Greenway the other day, which, as some on Twitter have noted, still remains dominated by cars and a barrier to pedestrians (even if better than the Central Artery was). I noted the continued empty airspace between skyscrapers on either side, and was reminded of something I’ve been thinking about lately: if highways are still going to tear through the fabric of our cities, why not make the most use of their footprint? The idea of a subway or el along I-93 to Nubian, as well as my idea for an el along 95 in Providence, are in this same vein.

So, the shitpost of an idea is: just say “eff it” and build a multitrack transit viaduct above the Greenway, connecting North and South Station and beyond. The “canyon” is something like 240 feet wide, which by my math would be wide enough for 6 mainline tracks + 3 mainline platforms + 6 rapid transit tracks (and/or BRT lanes) + 3 center platforms for pretty much the whole distance. You’d have to get smashy to actually connect tracks through/around South and North Stations, but hey, this is a shitpost.

You may now prepare your rotten vegetables and catapults.

 

[Charlie_mta]

We need a shitposting thread. (Of the fun variety, not the awful variety.) But until then: I was walking along the Greenway the other day, which, as some on Twitter have noted, still remains dominated by cars and a barrier to pedestrians (even if better than the Central Artery was). I noted the continued empty airspace between skyscrapers on either side, and was reminded of something I’ve been thinking about lately: if highways are still going to tear through the fabric of our cities, why not make the most use of their footprint? The idea of a subway or el along I-93 to Nubian, as well as my idea for an el along 95 in Providence, are in this same vein.

So, the shitpost of an idea is: just say “eff it” and build a multitrack transit viaduct above the Greenway, connecting North and South Station and beyond. The “canyon” is something like 240 feet wide, which by my math would be wide enough for 6 mainline tracks + 3 mainline platforms + 6 rapid transit tracks (and/or BRT lanes) + 3 center platforms for pretty much the whole distance. You’d have to get smashy to actually connect tracks through/around South and North Stations, but hey, this is a shitpost.

You may now prepare your rotten vegetables and catapults.

The only rotten vegetable I have is a structural one, questioning the ability of the Central Artery tunnel's roof and walls to support the columns of an elevated railway above it.

Other than that, I've always liked the idea.

 

[Riverside]

The only rotten vegetable I have is a structural one, questioning the ability of the Central Artery tunnel's roof and walls to support the columns of an elevated railway above it.

Other than that, I've always liked the idea.

Suspend it from adjacent buildings!

I mean, I guess the other option would be to build the tracks at ground level and build a lot of overpasses (and just say screw it regarding north-south surface auto traffic).

 

[JeffDowntown]

Suspend it from adjacent buildings!

I mean, I guess the other option would be to build the tracks at ground level and build a lot of overpasses (and just say screw it regarding north-south surface auto traffic).

The N-S link we need is the underground thru-running rail link.

Destroying the park because yeah rail, yeah El, yeah something "transitish", seem pretty poor planning.

It reeks of Gondola to the Seaport.

 

[ritchiew]

We need a shitposting thread. (Of the fun variety, not the awful variety.) But until then: I was walking along the Greenway the other day, which, as some on Twitter have noted, still remains dominated by cars and a barrier to pedestrians (even if better than the Central Artery was). I noted the continued empty airspace between skyscrapers on either side, and was reminded of something I’ve been thinking about lately: if highways are still going to tear through the fabric of our cities, why not make the most use of their footprint? The idea of a subway or el along I-93 to Nubian, as well as my idea for an el along 95 in Providence, are in this same vein.

So, the shitpost of an idea is: just say “eff it” and build a multitrack transit viaduct above the Greenway, connecting North and South Station and beyond. The “canyon” is something like 240 feet wide, which by my math would be wide enough for 6 mainline tracks + 3 mainline platforms + 6 rapid transit tracks (and/or BRT lanes) + 3 center platforms for pretty much the whole distance. You’d have to get smashy to actually connect tracks through/around South and North Stations, but hey, this is a shitpost.

You may now prepare your rotten vegetables and catapults.

You call that shitposting??

Don't build an elevated rail. Just repurpose the Central Artery Tunnel for trains!

The entrances to the tunnel are too steep, but the rest is all flat enough. For a NSRL, build portals on the south side, like currently planned, but put the underground South Station right under South Station, then the tracks break through into the current I-93 northbound. You could easily have three tracks in the northbound tunnel alone. Maybe squeeze in quad tracks, or just expand to quad tracks with the space left over when you remove the on/off ramps. Use the southbound highway tunnel for a new rapid transit line right through downtown. Rails and platforms all fit in the southbound tunnel as-is. Extend it south to wherever you want. Nubian? Mattapan? North to Chelsea? Everett? Revere? Use the steep northbound tunnel segment under Atlantic Ave to extend the Silver Line past South Station. And then all of this back to your original point, if you got rid of all the highway on/off ramps, you could just shrink the current surface streets, and make the greenway nicer.

 

[Riverside]

The N-S link we need is the underground thru-running rail link.

Destroying the park because yeah rail, yeah El, yeah something "transitish", seem pretty poor planning.

It reeks of Gondola to the Seaport.

To be clear: this is not a meaningfully serious proposal at all. It is meant mostly as a joke, with some slightly more serious commentary about the continued harm of highways through city centers.

 

[Teban54]

You call that shitposting??

Don't build an elevated rail. Just repurpose the Central Artery Tunnel for trains!

The entrances to the tunnel are too steep, but the rest is all flat enough. For a NSRL, build portals on the south side, like currently planned, but put the underground South Station right under South Station, then the tracks break through into the current I-93 northbound. You could easily have three tracks in the northbound tunnel alone. Maybe squeeze in quad tracks, or just expand to quad tracks with the space left over when you remove the on/off ramps. Use the southbound highway tunnel for a new rapid transit line right through downtown. Rails and platforms all fit in the southbound tunnel as-is. Extend it south to wherever you want. Nubian? Mattapan? North to Chelsea? Everett? Revere? Use the steep northbound tunnel segment under Atlantic Ave to extend the Silver Line past South Station. And then all of this back to your original point, if you got rid of all the highway on/off ramps, you could just shrink the current surface streets, and make the greenway nicer.

And I thought my current thought process of repurposing part of the I-93 to I-90 ramp for Green Line Reconfiguration was too aggressive...

 

[ritchiew]

And I thought my current thought process of repurposing part of the I-93 to I-90 ramp for Green Line Reconfiguration was too aggressive...

Too much...?

Yeah, too much. Ok, I'll dial that back.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Too much...?

Yeah, too much. Ok, I'll dial that back.

Key facts as well -- the CAT O'Neill Tunnel does not have the height clearance for electrified rail. Minimum clearance is about 16 ft (5 M). More typical is 17 ft (5.5 M).

I think Green Line LRV or Subway would fit in there, but not Regional Rail.

 

[ritchiew]

Key facts as well -- the CAT O'Neill Tunnel does not have the height clearance for electrified rail. Minimum clearance is about 16 ft (5 M). More typical is 17 ft (5.5 M).

I think Green Line LRV or Subway would fit in there, but not Regional Rail.

I don't know how deep we want to go on this, because there are a pile of problems with what I suggested. But I don't think height clearance is one of them. The max allowed height for trucks is 13'6". That's so there is about a foot clearance under the 2-3 foot hanging road signs. That basically gets you your 17" ceiling, just eyeballing it. If that isn't quite enough, you can remove (or raise) what is now the tunnel ceiling and there is a huge amount of space above to roadway currently used for venting car exhaust. You can see just how much if you look at images of the 2006 ceiling collapse. Here are workers standing upright on the tunnel ceiling, so if you removed the panels, the tunnels are easily 20' high.

 

[LexSEDotVille]

How Do We Fix Congestion Around Sullivan Square?

MAPC and other public agencies are releasing recommendations for public transit and transportation infrastructure improvements in the Sullivan Square area.

www.mapc.org

Came across this graphic in the Lower Mystic Regional Working Group "Spring 19" report. (Can it be considered a crazy transit pitch if it was put out by MAPC?)

 

[LexSEDotVille]

Included text:

ORANGE LINE SPUR ORIGINATING AT SULLIVAN SQUARE The Working Group analyzed several versions of an Orange Line spur extending from the existing Sullivan Square station. All three iterations (an extension to Route 1, an extension just to Glendale Square, an extension just to Route 16) that were tested showed robust ridership and reductions in auto mode share from 4 to 5 percent. However, the large cost of the spur alternatives, ranging from $1.25 billion to $5 billion in capital cost with annual operating costs between $35 million and $50 million, made the Working Group believe that this level of investment was much longer term in nature and needed further conceptual study. Additionally, a spur line off the Orange Line would reduce the overall frequency of service for stations north of Sullivan Square, as a percentage of trains are diverted to service the new spur line. The overall cost, feasibility, and impact on the entire Orange Line need additional study to advance this concept. In the meantime, the City of Everett requests that actions are not taken to preclude an Orange Line spur in the future. Specifically, the city requests that the MBTA reserve space at Sullivan Square station to accommodate a conjoining spur line as improvements are made to the station, that space for an expanded train bridge over the Mystic River be maintained, and that the commuter rail corridor west of the casino maintain space for additional rail tracks in the future.

 

[Teban54]

Included text:

On the Alternative 8 page (page 90, where the above figure came from):

Potential Alternative 8: Orange Line Spur to Everett

Alternative 8 would examine the benefits of creating an Orange Line spur through Everett. This major infrastructure project would parallel the existing Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail ROW from Sullivan Station northward to Route 16 before entering a tunnel with a terminus near Route 60 at Copeland Circle. Possible stations could be located at Route 60 at Copeland Circle, Broadway at Mason Street, Glendale Square at Ferry Street, Everett Square at Chelsea Street, and Gateway Center at the Wynn Everett Casino. Figure 9 provides a graphic showing the alignment of the proposed Orange Line Spur.

This alternative would also examine the possibility of decreasing Orange Line headways to accommodate the necessary trains to serve the new spur and maintain existing service on the main branch. The estimated cost for the Orange Line Spur is $3,200,000,000.

The map above does a terrible job at visualizing this route: it actually largely follows Broadway, and I mapped out the station locations below (except the Sweetser Circle dot which indicates the start of the tunnel).

Overall, it's at least 3 miles of tunneling and they estimated about $1.07 billion per mile. (I think their estimate was probably more like $1 billion per mile and their actual route was 3.2 miles.)

I think the explicit mention of reducing Orange Line frequencies (Wellington and north) makes this a big question mark, especially when the Malden branch will most likely have higher ridership than the Everett branch. However, they did mention an alternative of operating this as a shuttle that ends at Sullivan.

Spoiler: MBTA aims for Orange Line to run 4.5-min headways. Can it run at 3-min headways?

I discussed branching the Orange Line with @TheRatmeister a couple weeks ago. At that time, my #1 issue with any thought of branching the Orange Line is that frequency reduction for Wellington and north will erase the improvements of Orange Line Transformation efforts for those riders.

OLT aims for 4.5-minute headways on the Orange Line and 3-minute headways on the Red Line trunk. It's unclear whether the Orange Line signal upgrades made any provisions for improving it further to 3 minutes. If the signal system limits OL to 4.5-min headways, then branching it is obviously a no-brainer because Malden simply can't live with 9-min headways.

The only source that hints at running 3-min headways on the Orange Line that I can find is, ironically, from the very same Lower Mystic Regional Working Group report that's being mentioned here. They explicitly mentioned further improvements - including signal - will be needed to bring the headways from 4.5 min to 3 min: (Page 30)

On one hand, this seems like they have looked into the details and concluded that it's doable. On the other hand, it does requiring more work (albeit much smaller than a new tunnel itself), and I'm not sure how reliable their claims are.

Note that improving OL to 3-min headways wasn't suggested solely for the OL spur alternative (Alt 8). Alternative 7, "ride, walk, bike", also mentioned improving OL headways to 3 minutes (including Wellington and north), and cited the following benefits:

The Orange Line headway improvements had one of the greatest positive impacts among all the elements modeled as part of the study. According to the model, daily boardings increased by 12,100 and new transit trips increased by 8,000. It also led to a 2% reduction in automobile usage in the Impact Analysis area with reduced traffic delay in Sullivan Square and other locations.

So while I'm more confident about the feasibility of 3-min headways on OL trunk than I was before, I think it's probably too immature to treat it as a guarantee. It's also another question whether 6-min headways are sufficient in serving Malden (and possibly Reading in the future), considering that in most scenarios, it will have higher ridership than the Everett branch, and it already has higher ridership than southside OL.

Edit: Chapter 5 of this 2017 MPO report, which looks at transit capacity, says the following:

The northern section of the Orange Line brings commuters from the north including Charlestown, Everett, Somerville, Medford, Malden, and Melrose. Many of these commuters connect with buses, notably at Wellington, Sullivan Square, and Haymarket.

As seen in Figure 11, in the Base Year the Orange Line is overcrowded during the last half hour of the AM peak period between Sullivan Square and Downtown Crossing, and reaches an unacceptable level of crowding between Haymarket and State. Base-Year crowding is much less severe during the PM peak period, as seen in Figure 12.

The widespread regional growth projected for the No-Build scenario will add substantial ridership to the Orange Line, significantly increasing the Base-Year crowding patterns. Crowding will be unacceptable between North Station and Haymarket for an entire hour, and between 8:30 and 8:45 AM between Assembly and Chinatown.

Many of the 72 large-impact projects summarized in Table 5 and shown in Figure 4 will be served directly by the Orange Line. These include Assembly Row, Assembly Square, North Point, West End, Old Boston Garden, Downtown Crossing, and Northeastern University. The combined impacts of these projected developments would impact the Orange Line severely if it is still operating with today’s capacity, as depicted Figure 11. Indeed, if peak-period Orange Line capacity is not expanded meaningfully, then more than half of the congested situations in the AM peak period will be congested at the unacceptable level. The reciprocal congestion during the PM peak period mirrors the AM peak congestion but at a slightly lower level of severity, as seen in Figure 12.

The MBTA is planning to procure new Orange Line vehicles jointly with the new Red Line vehicles, which will expand its vehicle fleet by about 25 percent, and vehicle capacity by 10 percent. With better equipment utilization resulting from a much lower average vehicle age, the Orange Line might be able to move 40 percent more passengers during peak periods. This increased capacity will reduce the duration and severity of crowding greatly, but even this amount of added capacity would not eliminate unacceptable levels of crowding completely.

The Orange Line vehicle fleet could be expanded further and operated safely beyond what is planned currently. However, with a more ambitious expansion program, equipment storage and maintenance capacity also would need to be addressed.

The report also includes figures which show that OL's crowding levels, especially for northside OL, are somehow even worse than RL. Keep in mind this is pre-Covid, but still. However, it does imply that much of the increased demand is due to development along the line, which are almost entirely south of Assembly.

(The document is very detailed and worth a read otherwise, which I have yet to do.)

 

[Teban54]

It's apparently my week for "Crazy Transit Pitches, Unusual Modes Edition."

The Miami Metromover is one of the few, if not the only, successful APMs deployed within a city core. Miami's heavy rail system, Metrorail, has two stations in downtown, but there are somewhat on the periphery. Metromover connects to Metrorail's Government Center station, and circulates through a few bidirectional loops through downtown, essentially solving the last mile problem, and extending the reach of public transit comfortably throughout all of downtown. Stations are located about 700-1000 feet apart in downtown, with branch lines that extend north and south over divisive highways and a river, with somewhat longer distances between stops.

A rapid transit system that serves the periphery of the employment hub, with distributed destinations that are a little far to walk to from the station? Sound familiar?

The Longwood Automated People Mover, or LAPM:

Bumping this up because people in r/transit were discussing the Miami Metromover APM recently. While some people claimed the original intention was to help drivers into the city with their last-mile travels -- and I won't be surprised if many people still use it for that purpose -- this thoughtful comment from a Florida resident adds a whole lot of details:

• Metromover's ridership is a "healthy split" between CBD commuters and downtown residents. This is because a lot of skyscrapers in downtown Miami are actually residential.
• A lot of developments -- residential or not -- around Metromover were actually done way after the system opened in 1986. The follow-up comment cited an example of high-rises built between 2014 and 2022. However, I suspect some of the buildings already existed in 1986.
• Yes, Metromover is very convenient. Transferring to it from the HRT Metrorail usually saves you a few minutes compared to walking (thanks to a seamless transfer), even if your destination is within the 10-min walkshed; not to mention walking in Florida heat.
• Each of the three routes runs in about 5-min frequencies, but combined, there are trains every 90 seconds or so. Two-car trains are used quite often.
• The use of rubber tires not only allows the system to fit into narrow streets, tight turns and steep grades, but also makes the system very quiet, reducing the noise impacts on buildings that are immediately adjacent to tracks.

So where does this leave us in terms of applying this to a hypothetical Longwood APM?

• (+) People do use the APM for destinations that are within a 10-min walk from rapid transit stations. This also supports my own analysis of Metromover's ridership (quoted below), which suggests that many APM stations that are reasonably close to HRT stations still experience good ridership.
• (+) Weather protection is indeed a factor in the success of the APM. This applies to Boston too, but in the reverse direction -- for us, it will be helpful during winter.
• (+) The mode choice of rubber-tire APM does have its advantages that may apply to LMA. Narrower tracks are easier to fit into LMA's narrow streets, reduced noise will be helpful for the seas of buildings, and steeper grades help overcome footbridges.
• (-) However, developments (transit-oriented or not) play a key role in Metromover's ridership. In contrast, the core LMA area is already very densely developed, and short of aggressive eminent domain, I don't see much space available around the APM.
  • (+) But there's another way to look at it: A "Longwood" APM that extends outside of LMA core can possibly find room for TOD. In particular, if the APM extends east to Ruggles and even further along Melnea Cass, not only does it connect to BMC, but it passes by this stretch of Melnea Cass whose current landscape seems ripe for future development. Especially when LMA is hard to expand, this may create a chain of medical facilities all the way between LMA and BMC. While conventional rapid transit can make the trip faster, it will likely not have enough stops. (Such an extension will also likely be needed for a maintenance facility.)
• (-) Metromover's ridership doesn't seem too heavily peak-oriented due to heavy residential development within downtown. While LMA does have some apartment buildings, most of the demand for the APM will come from hospital workers (and to a lesser extend patients), and thus will be much more peak-focused than Metromover.
  • Note that an LMA APM may also draw some demand from employees parking at some garages that are further away from hospital buildings (especially when some hospitals have converted their own parking to patients-only).
• (-) When Metromover was built in the 1980s, downtown Miami was far less dense than it is today, so they likely encountered much fewer political issues with running next to buildings than to be expected in LMA. The newer buildings in downtown Miami were built with the expectation of rails running right next to them. That will not be the case in LMA, so it may be much more politically challenging to build.

Overall, I'm still not convinced that APM is the right choice for LMA, especially compared to an elevated LRT or busway -- if an APM can be built, these two probably can, for the most part. But APM does have some advantages going for it.

I will sketch up some ideas for all three modes later.

Spoiler: My analysis of Metromover's ridership as an outsider

Looks like Miami's Metromover runs every 90 seconds during rush hours. With that kind of frequency and 4 minutes on the ride, a rider will expect to take 5.5 minutes for both the wait and the ride, plus maybe 0.5 minutes for getting upstairs and downstairs from the stations. That (6 mins) still beats the 10-min walk, and offers much greater physical comfort and weather protection, which can be important for encouraging mode shift (as The EGE argued before in the context of LMA).

Ridership on Miami's Metromover and relationship with walking distance
I wanted to look at whether walking distance affects ridership of stations on their system, e.g. one may guess that stations that are closer to the HRT may have lower ridership. So I took a look:

The inner loop stations are colored by their walking distance to Government Center (transfer to HRT Metrorail). Stops that are closer have a lighter shade.

HRT weekday ridership numbers are: Government Center 6,896, Brickell 5,158, Historic Overtown 1,749 (station to the north without APM transfer).

While we'll need some more local knowledge of downtown Miami to make better conclusions, from this alone, I don't think stations that are close to HRT necessarily have low demands for APM. Sure, Bayfront Park (16 min walk) has the highest ridership except HRT transfer stations, but 3 of the 5 stations that are 9 min away also have pretty good ridership above 1K. (The other two, Third St and Knight Center, have their walkshed cut in half.) And while Brightline transfer may account for Wilkie D. Ferguson, I doubt that fully accounts for the station's impressive ridership - despite being a 5-min walk away from two HRT stations.

Note that there's a big discrepancy between Metromover's ridership (22,286) and that of the two HRT stations (12,054). which suggests at least half of the people taking the Metromover do not use it to transfer to HRT. Even accounting for Brightline doesn't account for the discrepancy. I suspect they may be going to parking garages.

Overall, this seems to suggest that even places that are "only" 9-min walk away from rapid transit may still have demand for APMs. However, I'm uncertain about its applicability to Boston and LMA, especially given the ridership discrepancy between APM and the HRT stations.

 

[HenryAlan]

The report also includes figures which show that OL's crowding levels, especially for northside OL, are somehow even worse than RL.

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.