Reasonable Transit Pitches

[as02155]

i don't know why you wouldn't do an island platform or if you must do side - offset?

 

[TheRatmeister]

i don't know why you wouldn't do an island platform or if you must do side - offset?

You cannot fit the Ink Block/Peters Park stations with island platforms, travel lanes, and bike lanes. There just is not enough space. (Tufts does barely fit with an Island platform but obviously it makes no sense if you have to then go back to the side.) You're right that staggered platforms would save width but for the Tufts station that's not really workable because it makes the transfer to the Orange Line absolutely miserable and for Herald St it doesn't work because you need to have at least one platform's width available to use, which this section does not. You have to take parking lot space for the former and use a combined sidewalk/platform for the latter. The Peters Park station which I'm working on now does use offset platforms, and somewhere around Monsignor Reynolds Way the plan is to switch to a median for the rest of the route. I've been trying to do some research as to how to make a junction like that not super deadly. From there down to Melnea Cass street width is mostly not a problem.

 

[as02155]

The missing ped refuges would be between - e.g. a turn lane and the transitway. You have to remember that cockamamie designs like this are what kills BRT projects - e.g. Pie IX in Montreal basically lost all BRT for about 20 years because of bonkers pedestrian hostile designs like this.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The missing ped refuges would be between - e.g. a turn lane and the transitway.

The transitway is frankly what I'm least concerned about. In terms of places for pedestrians to wait a few seconds, the transitway is one of the least bad. Vehicles would only be coming about once ever 3 minutes on average, and it's not difficult to put indicators at crossings to alert pedestrians when a vehicle is coming.

You have to remember that cockamamie designs like this are what kills BRT projects - e.g. Pie IX in Montreal basically lost all BRT for about 20 years because of bonkers pedestrian hostile designs like this.

No shit. You'd never choose a design like this if you have a comfortable width for platforms, travel lanes, bike lanes, street parking, and pedestrian islands. (Parts of) Washington St do not have this. So the questions are:

1. How can the 'cockamamie' design be made less bad
2. Are the inevitable tradeoffs that come from the narrow street justified?

The answer to #1 is a work in progress, the answer to #2, in this case and in my opinion, is probably. Light rail service is something generally desired by local leaders, there is existing infrastructure (The Tremont St subway) to take advantage of, and the corridor is very high in terms of transit demand. All of those factors (probably) justify 1/3 mile of street that is less friendly to pedestrians than the 'ideal' street.

 

[JeffDowntown]

You cannot fit the Ink Block/Peters Park stations with island platforms, travel lanes, and bike lanes. There just is not enough space. (Tufts does barely fit with an Island platform but obviously it makes no sense if you have to then go back to the side.) You're right that staggered platforms would save width but for the Tufts station that's not really workable because it makes the transfer to the Orange Line absolutely miserable and for Herald St it doesn't work because you need to have at least one platform's width available to use, which this section does not. You have to take parking lot space for the former and use a combined sidewalk/platform for the latter. The Peters Park station which I'm working on now does use offset platforms, and somewhere around Monsignor Reynolds Way the plan is to switch to a median for the rest of the route. I've been trying to do some research as to how to make a junction like that not super deadly. From there down to Melnea Cass street width is mostly not a problem.

Isn't this why some short sections may need to be tunneled rather than surface?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Isn't this why some short sections may need to be tunneled rather than surface?

That is certainly an option, but I think it's worth avoiding it if possible because god that be a nightmare. Washington St is one of the oldest parts of Boston and the stretch around East Berkeley St has particular historical significance. The original town wall and gate of Boston on the neck was located here, so I have to imagine any digging here would need to be preceded by extensive archeological work. I don't know for certain but I have to imagine that's at least part of why the proposed subway that would have replaced the El used Shawmut Ave instead.

Over a half-mile that's probably $250m+ which is a lot to pay if a surface design is merely 'sub-optimal'.

 

[themissinglink]

If the MBTA ever builds an infill station at Newton Corner, what will the platform setup look like? The station site seems very constrained due to the nearby bridges. A full-length platform might not fit without bridge modifications.

 

[TheRatmeister]

If the MBTA ever builds an infill station at Newton Corner, what will the platform setup look like? The station site seems very constrained due to the nearby bridges. A full-length platform might not fit without bridge modifications.

Even with bridge modifications I don't see how you're fitting a full-length platform without quite a lot of mining and/or bridge modifications. 400-500ft would likely be doable with only a little mining of the Bell Corner 'park' and modification of the Washington St bridge. If the line is electrified and frequencies during rush hour are bumped up further that might be okay, for example a train every 15 minutes local to Framingham, 30 mins local after Framingham, 30 mins local to Worcester, and 30 mins express to Worcester. That's 10TPH though so you'd need some extra capacity to come from somewhere. If the OC lines were double-tracked and the Needham line is not replaced by rapid transit, the capacity at South Station would look something like this:

Amtrak	2
Framingham/Worcester	4
Needham	2
Franklin/Foxboro	4
Providence	4
Fall River/New Bedford	4
Kingston	2
Greenbush	2
Fairmount	8
Total	32

With 20 minute turnarounds that leaves around 2 and a bit platforms spare, which while cutting it a little close is probably fine for rush hour. In terms of how to add 6 more Framingham/Worcester trains, I'd probably do it by cutting 1 Foxboro trip, 2 Fairmount Trips, and then figure out some way to turn trains at Back Bay, probably with a pocket track between Tremont St and Shawmut Ave. Whether that part is feasible beyond the space (seemingly) being available, I have no idea.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Even with bridge modifications I don't see how you're fitting a full-length platform without quite a lot of mining and/or bridge modifications. 400-500ft would likely be doable with only a little mining of the Bell Corner 'park' and modification of the Washington St bridge. If the line is electrified and frequencies during rush hour are bumped up further that might be okay, for example a train every 15 minutes local to Framingham, 30 mins local after Framingham, 30 mins local to Worcester, and 30 mins express to Worcester.

Regional Rail locals to Framingham are going to need something longer than 400-500 ft. And if the bus connections (e.g. 71 to Harvard extended to the NC station) are sufficiently enhanced, it'll attract at least a few thru-Worcester runs wanting to stop there at peak. Don't forget, we've thrown in for BEMU's that only seat an anemic 93 people per car, much worse than even our single-levels. You need a maxi-length 7-car train of Stadler KISSes (600 ft.) to hold as many riders as a minimum-length 4-car 173-185 seat Kawasaki/Rotem set (350 ft.). And even at substantially enhanced Framingham all-local frequencies, rush hour still has enough ridership swell to require at least 5-car Kawasaki/Rotem's, if not 6. More if :30 worth of Framingham locals need future-proofing like eventual extension to Northborough or Clinton. MetroWest is that big, its current transit shares that small, and its potential transit shares with service increases that huge. Even something more intermediate in seating capacity like a 110-142 seat self-propelled Alstom MultiLevel is going to require some substantial platform length for the peaks. Newton Corner is not going to be cheap to do, that much is true. But its ridership projects so good it's probably worth doing at a price that mods the bridges to get at least 600+. It's important that the ongoing NC-area transportation study (which is a grab-bag mostly focusing on improving the Pike exit and street configurations, but has requests to take a look-see at a CR station) shows enough positive signal for the infill station that that gets broken out into a full study that tallies up the cost-benefits in detail. Right now we don't have a good handle on what it would structurally cost to do, and only wild-guesses at the topline ridership (especially how that ridership could be accentuated by bus improvements). Those numbers need to be crunched in detailed, digestible form to inform decision-making here.

With 20 minute turnarounds that leaves around 2 and a bit platforms spare, which while cutting it a little close is probably fine for rush hour. In terms of how to add 6 more Framingham/Worcester trains, I'd probably do it by cutting 1 Foxboro trip, 2 Fairmount Trips, and then figure out some way to turn trains at Back Bay, probably with a pocket track between Tremont St and Shawmut Ave. Whether that part is feasible beyond the space (seemingly) being available, I have no idea.

BBY is not going to work as a turnback if the train density significantly increases with Urban Rail routes like 10 TPH on the B&A and god-knows-what-else saturating the NEC even more. Even a staff-assisted shunt in R gear off the platforms and onto the putative pocket track to do the full 10-minute ends-change with FRA-mandated brake checks off the mainline is going to happen slow enough to cause congestion to the abutting interlockings, especially at times when the same platform assignment of the throw-it-in-R return to the station is not available and requires more crossing over. There really is no way around doing some degree of South Station Expansion. It doesn't have to be the full +7 tracks studied if due-diligence ops reform changes things for the better, but you aren't politically cutting anyone's Purple Line service to fit in service increases elsewhere and Amtrak is going to grow by leaps and bounds on both the NEC and B&A. So some degree of track expansion is going to be non-optional, even if it's only a few platforms. We can do that within-cost if the monolithic SSX project with its lumped-in palatial Dot Ave. headhouse, Dot Ave. redevelopment, unrelated Ft. Point Channel public interface elements, and so on got broken into pieces under different authorities so the raw capacity needs could live up to a rational valuation and stay tightly focused.