Search results

It's actually the 9th (I think) busiest, for what it's worth, but about 3x the 71 or 73. Anyways, about 35% of riders outbound riders board at Kenmore, 37% board between Kenmore and Packards Corner and, 26% board between Packards Corner and Oak Sq, and 2% board after Oak Sq. Going inbound 27%...

Of course, but on any double track line headways will be limited to dwell times+emergency braking time. So more and more TPH means distance between trains is decreased, so speeds need to go down to reduce the time it takes to come to a stop. That puts the theoretical limit for headways at about...

But do we actually want to do that? Maximum capacity looks like the GL trunk of today, slow and prone to delays. Something like 7 minutes each for Riverside and Needham and 5 minutes for Nubian only works out to just over 2 minutes between trains, headways shorter than that is really just asking...

As with anything Green Line though, the capacity of the outer portions isn't the problem, it's the trunk. GLRC already puts 2 branches (Riverside/Needham) through the outer tracks, if we want two more branches we're going to need to sacrifice frequency, and if half the people need to wait longer...

People have no problem using the Neponset trail, but you're right that abutters would likely not be happy. Arlington Center is probably more than half the cost of RLX to Arlington Heights. If you're doing that part it makes sense to just do the rest too, and then start from Arlington Heights...

This gets less and less true the further away from Downtown you get. Around Franklin Park the density starts shifting away from BHA more towards Washington St and the 22/23 bus routes at places like Codman Square. Once you get past Talbot Ave the Fairmount Line is pretty much right alongside...

I do need to interject with my 'thing' about this proposal, which is that the time savings is somewhere between 4-5 minutes. It would need to be pretty cheap to justify the added expense. If saving time is important, a subway going the full length from Nubian to Boylston would probably be a...

I believe this is a photo of Egleston station, even with the black and white photo you can really see just how dark Washington St was, especially near stations. For any elevated rail you should really consider the area under it to be lost space, in Paris and Berlin for example it's often...

Washington St is shockingly narrow in a lot of places, it's astonishing they made it work, same for Main St in Charlestown. Narrow streets really amplify the negative effects of elevated rail, and it should really be avoided in these cases whenever possible, you really need almost highway width...

The press release states "The project team expects 70 minutes between trains on weekdays." Assuming that relates to the terminals and not just East Taunton which would be really weird, 8 round trips on each branch is not enough to cover that. In fact it's about half of what's needed.

But if Middleborough service doubles, which I think is a reasonable assumption since currently there are 14 daily round trips and the number given for SCR was 32 in total, then that would suggest at least 4 new trains on the OC mainline during the peak, 2 more than 2019. So I'll ask again, where...

Or a third in-between option, are the late night trains that terminate at Braintree and a new focus on raising line speeds on the Red Line a sign of things to come?

Where are these additional trains coming from? Are they squeezing even more out of the Quincy track, or are Greenbush/Kingston just getting absolutely shafted?

Due to its location right by a level crossing it's probably the easiest (Well, tied with Norwood Depot) station to do on the Franklin Line.

The only change I would propose would be to possibly just cut the route short at Readville, but this would probably be contingent on Readville moving from Zone 2 into Zone 1A.

Or make the trains walk-through and slightly more bendy and then you're basically all the way there.

I think you're forgetting Hanlon's Razor here. It's an interesting "hmm, what if we..." but then you think about it for a bit and realize that no it's not a great plan. That's all.

Following on from this, all the biotech companies haven't just independently decided that Boston is the best for them, Boston is the best for the biotech companies because that's where the biotech companies are, there are benefits to clustering like this and it's not random.

The only reasonable explanation for the design I can think of is that it was intended for storage which this design is very good at, and not for turnarounds. But of course that leaves the big question "Why on earth were they using it for turnarounds?" Considering how hard the state tried to...

Somehow that's less than I thought it was going to be to be honest.