A-Line Reactivation

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Man, it's been a long time since this thread resembled anything about the A-Line restoration...
Click to expand...

Back before whateverthefuckhappened, people were talking about putting the A on N Beacon St versus Cambridge Street. It wouldn't work because its too narrow.

However, what could work is a dedicated ROW through the Honan Projects to get it on alignment with Guest Street, which could be widened to accommodate a trolley reservation (which I'm sure New Balance would LOVE). This alignment would also put it right on track to cross the pike and follow the lane-reduced Nonantum Road to Newton Corner.

fuckhighways.jpg


The downside is is completely misses Brighton Center, St E's, and Oak Square. The up side is it creates better access to areas with new development potential, like lower Market Street and North Brighton; especially the former stockyards site where Martignetti Liquors and all that other garbage is.
 
I like this idea a lot. Transit that spurs development is arguable a better investment from a financial standpoint than transit that serves an already built out location. From a justice standpoint it screws Brighton Center, but from an economic standpoint, it's a better choice. Would it be possible to add a Cambridge St. Spur at least as far as the hospital?
 
Given how close that corridor is to the existing commuter rail line, I think the area would be better served by electrifying the rail line and adding local stops at Cambridge/Franklin and Market (already planned). The reinstated A Line along its original route - at least to Oak Square - would better serve the central Brighton area which is a bit too far from the commuter rail and B Line.

Although, I don't see how Beacon is too narrow. Eliminate the street parking which is highly unnecessary along that corridor and, voila, a trolley reservation can easily fit.
 
omaja said:
Although, I don't see how Beacon is too narrow. Eliminate the street parking which is highly unnecessary along that corridor and, voila, a trolley reservation can easily fit.
Click to expand...

After New Balance opens I could see N Beacon becoming a far more dense mixed use street than it is. Even in its semi-wasteland state there is a pretty good indian resturant, a conveinance store and martys big buys there. If you develop the car dealership and that self storage place it could be a completly different street. I've also heard rumblings about Court Furniture and the brick building across from Gordon St getting renovated in the coming years.

Parallel parking serves a higher purpose than parking - it provides a safety barrier for pedestrians and also calms traffic, as you never know when a door might open, or someone might stop to pull into a space.

As for local service on the Worcester Line, its a nice idea but with the drasticly increased service they are planning on that route (inland regionals, increased springfield and albany service, express/local MBTA commuter trains) it would quickly become a bottleneck on a two track railroad. Especially once they have platforms on both sides through newton. I would much rather see that money go to cutting a new ROW on the opposite side of the pike to get out to newton corner, and possibly even Watertown Square.

It would also open up the oppertunity to cross the charles at the arsenal to access the watertown branch, allowing the A to go out to Waltham. One can dream, eh?

(Ignore spelling errors please, I'm typing from my phone)
 
Parallel parking serves a higher purpose than parking - it provides a safety barrier for pedestrians and also calms traffic, as you never know when a door might open, or someone might stop to pull into a space.
Click to expand...

It's more mixed than that: You never know when a child will dart out from between parked cars.

We do know that people will fight viciously to protect what they perceive to be "their" street parking spaces -- and will go so far as to block development and growth in the neighborhood out of fear of competition. Which is why trying to take away street parking spaces for the "A" will probably not work politically.
 
davem said:
As for local service on the Worcester Line, its a nice idea but with the drasticly increased service they are planning on that route (inland regionals, increased springfield and albany service, express/local MBTA commuter trains) it would quickly become a bottleneck on a two track railroad. Especially once they have platforms on both sides through newton.
Click to expand...

There's more than enough demand to three-track or four-track that area - although the real bottleneck problems are going to be generated by literally every inch of track west of Worcester.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
There's more than enough demand to three-track or four-track that area - although the real bottleneck problems are going to be generated by literally every inch of track west of Worcester.
Click to expand...

I never said there wasn't demand - there is physically no space to add anymore tracks through Newton without some serious reconstruction of the pike corridor.
 
davem said:
I never said there wasn't demand - there is physically no space to add anymore tracks through Newton without some serious reconstruction of the pike corridor.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm saying there's enough demand that reconstructing the corridor is a viable undertaking - the benefits far exceed the cost, especially in the face of enhanced inland routes, Commuter Rail to Springfield, and getting serious about service to Albany, Toronto through Detroit, and Chicago.

Without that reconstruction you are never going to get the kind of service levels that we have on the NEC now, never mind the service we'll have on the NEC of the future.
 
davem said:
I never said there wasn't demand - there is physically no space to add anymore tracks through Newton without some serious reconstruction of the pike corridor.
Click to expand...

A rather simple solution that would save the state millions over the years: convert the Pike to open road tolling and remove the Allston and Weston toll plazas. With this arrangement, the Pike would easily be able to function with a reduced six lanes through Newton, where it would give back the extra right-of-way to two new rail tracks.

Even today, though, the commuter rail could be made to be four tracks wide. It might be a bit expensive, but the stretch where the commuter rail runs north of the Pike could definitely be expanded to four tracks if Washington Street were reduced to the two lane (plus parking lanes) that it should be, and minor land takings were done in the area.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Right, I'm saying there's enough demand that reconstructing the corridor is a viable undertaking - the benefits far exceed the cost, especially in the face of enhanced inland routes, Commuter Rail to Springfield, and getting serious about service to Albany, Toronto through Detroit, and Chicago.
Click to expand...

Where on earth do you get the idea that there's enough demand to support increased inter-city rail between Boston and any of those locations?
 
Adding two tracks through Allston, Brighton and Newton would be a huge project, requiring shifting of the turnpike and tracks in many locations, extensive retaining walls, basically all new bridges and significant property taking. I'm thinking $2 billion cost, minimum, probably more like $4 billion.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the formidable NIMBY's from the affluent neighborhoods along this route. We're not talking Roxbury here.
 
The only way I could see it happening would be if they could get federal funding to fix the whole rotary disaster in newton corner. You would almost certantly have to demolish the sharaton that spans the highway to do it however. An easier solution to fix that exits issues is to get rid of the allbright tolls and build another exit somewhere around where n beacon st goes under the pike in brighton.

Ill attempt to draw up some ideas...
 
Here's a sort of radical proposal which I think is aided by the end of Beacon Yards, although I expect we'll soon hear from various corners about why it isn't possible... here goes...

* Eliminate CR entirely from the Pike Extension corridor and reserve the rail ROW from Back Bay until Auburndale/Riverside exclusively for rapid transit (probably OL branch, but other options too) including new stops around BU, Allston, Brighton and Newton Corner.

* Wither the Worcester Line, you ask? Re-route that CR line onto the Fitchburg track via the median of I-95 - about a 2 mile distance required. In other words, the Worcester Line would route going inbound from Wellesley Farms directly to Brandeis/Roberts and on to North Station.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
Adding two tracks through Allston, Brighton and Newton would be a huge project, requiring shifting of the turnpike and tracks in many locations, extensive retaining walls, basically all new bridges and significant property taking. I'm thinking $2 billion cost, minimum, probably more like $4 billion.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the formidable NIMBY's from the affluent neighborhoods along this route. We're not talking Roxbury here.
Click to expand...

You don't really need new tracks everywhere though, do you?
 
Shepard said:
Here's a sort of radical proposal which I think is aided by the end of Beacon Yards, although I expect we'll soon hear from various corners about why it isn't possible... here goes...

* Eliminate CR entirely from the Pike Extension corridor and reserve the rail ROW from Back Bay until Auburndale/Riverside exclusively for rapid transit (probably OL branch, but other options too) including new stops around BU, Allston, Brighton and Newton Corner.

* Wither the Worcester Line, you ask? Re-route that CR line onto the Fitchburg track via the median of I-95 - about a 2 mile distance required. In other words, the Worcester Line would route going inbound from Wellesley Farms directly to Brandeis/Roberts and on to North Station.
Click to expand...

Removing the Pike CR? Not without the North-South Rail Link, you're not. This also opens you up to the Belmont NIMBYs as opposed to the Newton NIMBYs, and means you've got MORE ROW to 4-track than you would have if you'd kept the Pike as is.

Now, 2 tracks rapid transit and 2 tracks intercity on the Pike? I'm there, but we're right back to the initial problem of 4-tracking that ROW.

cozzyd said:
You don't really need new tracks everywhere though, do you?
Click to expand...

Not at first. With expanded Commuter Rail and infill stations comes an alleviation opportunity. Coordinated overtakes on pocket tracks at infill stations like New Brighton Landing would eliminate most of the need for four tracking that corridor, especially factoring in relative station proximity.

You might, in fact, be able to get away with ONLY four tracking the stations themselves.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Removing the Pike CR? Not without the North-South Rail Link, you're not. This also opens you up to the Belmont NIMBYs as opposed to the Newton NIMBYs, and means you've got MORE ROW to 4-track than you would have if you'd kept the Pike as is.
Click to expand...

Not if the Fitchburg route from Brandeis to North Station can handle the capacity as it is. F-Line?
 
Shepard said:
Not if the Fitchburg route from Brandeis to North Station can handle the capacity as it is. F-Line?
Click to expand...

This is my first post. I love what you guys do. My two cents:

The Fitchburg route from is single tracked in a few places in Waltham and Belmont and is probably near capacity already, so at least double tracking would need to take place. (i.e. between Waltham Station and Waverley it is single tracked.)

Here is my scaled down proposal:

Upgrade/double track the Grand Junction Railroad (including the bridge over the Charles River) from the Worcester Line to North Station. Reroute the Worcester Line on the Grand Junction Railroad, keeping the New Brighton Landing stop, with an interim stop at BU and maybe MIT before North Station. Run heavy rail rapid transit on the old Worcester Line right of way with the following stops:

South Station
Herald Street (infill)
Back Bay
Yawkey
BU (transfer with Worcester Line)

It would be an abbreviated line, but the demand is there and this would help reduce crowding on the Green Line (especially during Sox games) without any real land acquisition or a massive amount of track laying.

Seeing as I'm a newbie, what do you all think?
 
^ Like. And, you wouldn't even have to truncate the rapid transit line all that far - if you look at the track layout, you can pretty much extend that rapid transit line alongside the CR through Beacon Yards and out to at least Everett Street, and possibly even Market Street.

(One other point, in this case rather than being an all new rapid transit line originating at South Station it would far more easily be an Orange Line branch coming off after Back Bay.)
 
Shepard said:
Not if the Fitchburg route from Brandeis to North Station can handle the capacity as it is. F-Line?
Click to expand...

Fitchburg was a 4-tracker to Alewife (split w/Lexington Branch) and a 3-tracker from Alewife to Beaver Brook in Waltham (split w/Central Mass RR) back in the day. Past there it's only 2 tracks (incl. Waltham Ctr., which has room--and shortish-term but presently unfunded plans--to put the second one back in), and it's very closely-abutted so it's a non-expandable 2 tracks. With a few doozy grade crossings.

The bigger issue, though, is that you just can't go that fast on the Fitchburg Line. It's got sharp curves all over the place in Waltham and Belmont. You might see a brief stretch of 80 MPH open up between Porter and Belmont Ctr. when the ongoing signal system replacement works its way east to completion, but that's it. Until you get past 128 it's as fast as it'll ever be. Worcester is straight and graded at Interstate highway curvature from Auburndale to Back Bay. If upgraded to higher track speeds you could do 80 continuously from 128 to Yawkey on a train skipping the Newton stops. If in the future this got electrified with some HSR-ish treatment, 90+ on commuter rail and 100-125 MPH on Amtrak inside 128. With passing tracks at Beacon Park. I don't think they want to lose that capacity. This is an intercity route of considerable upside and one of the candidate lines for the Amtrak 2040 Inland HSR plan, not to mention the explosively growing CR ridership if they ever run dense enough service to fully capitalize.


Electrify and "Fairmount" the thing with EMU's. Plunk new stations in Allston and Newton Corner, and a stub platform at Riverside for Green Line transfers. That accomplishes 80% of what the 1945 rapid transit expansion plan proposed for this line without crimping the other modes that need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top