Crazy Transit Pitches

Deetroyt said:
Would Silverline busses and greenline trolleys both running in the Transitway cause any issues? As has been noted, the Silverline busses move a lot slower than a trolley would, would it cause service disruptions to the greenline?
Click to expand...

Trolleys and buses used to run through the Harvard busway together until they tore up the tracks. There is precedent here in Boston.

Yeah, the buses would keep the trolleys from getting up to top speed in the SL transitway, but they are higher capacity. And it's not like it would be any slower than it is now. This could all be mitigated by giving the SL buses some form of automated control. There are already auto-guide systems that drive by wire or track a painted line, I'm actually surprised it wasn't implemented from the get-go.
 
I was going to post this in the Fairmount thread, but it seemed more appropriate here.


Considering the T could probably construct new lines for the next 20 years and still not be at theoretical "full build", would it make sense to hire an in-house construction crew who could do engineering, tunneling, ROW construction, bridge construction, etc?

I don't know how much bloat is associated with shopping out the design, engineering and construction, but I assume it's a decent amount. If it was brought in house (and properly managed, perhaps a semi-private operation), the cost/mile could perhaps be reduced.

As an added bonus, it would obviously create in-state jobs. Materials procurement could favor New England as well to further boost the economy. Or whatever.

Thoughts?
 
I don't know if it'd be worth it to full build in 20 years. I love your map, but it looks more appropriate for London level population density than Boston. To make it worthwhile, you'd have to be simultaneously building enough housing to get to London level, and convince enough people to move here to get us to London level. And also have the money to finance the whole operation. Bare minimum, I don't think there's ever been a city that grew that comparably fast during that short of a period. But if it did happen? Yeah, in house might save some money.
 
davem said:
I was going to post this in the Fairmount thread, but it seemed more appropriate here.


Considering the T could probably construct new lines for the next 20 years and still not be at theoretical "full build", would it make sense to hire an in-house construction crew who could do engineering, tunneling, ROW construction, bridge construction, etc?

I don't know how much bloat is associated with shopping out the design, engineering and construction, but I assume it's a decent amount. If it was brought in house (and properly managed, perhaps a semi-private operation), the cost/mile could perhaps be reduced.

As an added bonus, it would obviously create in-state jobs. Materials procurement could favor New England as well to further boost the economy. Or whatever.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I like the idea. I think it could work well as an outside company that handles all construction for x amount of time. It could work similar to the way the commuter rail ops are outsourced to Keolis. Outsource all construction projects to a certain company, offer heavy incentives for completing projects on-time with heavy penalties for delays.

I agree with you that if the funding were there, we have a long way to go until an appropriate "full build" is attained. We should have simultaneous construction on two(ish) expansion projects for the foreseeable future. Now that Assembly is wrapping up, GLX and Government Center should be under construction. In a perfect world, once Government Center construction is finished, they should move on to Red-Blue, and so on and so forth.

Continuing at that pace, in 20 years, we'd have Green to College Ave/Porter, Blue to Charles/MGH, Blue Hill Ave Station completion, and Orange to Roslindale, maybe. That's not too much expansion at all.
 
datadyne007 said:
Church of All Nations on Tremont Street is for sale. This is on Eliot Norton Park where the Pleasant St incline used to be.

http://www.universalhub.com/2014/look-its-space-you-always-said-youd-buy-if-you#comments

From an anon commenter (one of you guys???):
Click to expand...

Wow. This is huge. Theyve been stymying this process for years. What terrific news to see one impediment removed - assuming there arent any problems with the buyer.

Edit - well, I clicked the link after posting. That might be advertising for billboard space or leasing. I dont see anything explicitly saying, "for sale".
 
davem said:
I was going to post this in the Fairmount thread, but it seemed more appropriate here.


Considering the T could probably construct new lines for the next 20 years and still not be at theoretical "full build", would it make sense to hire an in-house construction crew who could do engineering, tunneling, ROW construction, bridge construction, etc?

I don't know how much bloat is associated with shopping out the design, engineering and construction, but I assume it's a decent amount. If it was brought in house (and properly managed, perhaps a semi-private operation), the cost/mile could perhaps be reduced.

As an added bonus, it would obviously create in-state jobs. Materials procurement could favor New England as well to further boost the economy. Or whatever.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of how Transport for London works? I thought that certain collections of certain lines were run by different semi-private companies. I imagine the transit in Japan is done somewhat in this fashion as well.
 
15845131276_d3cc02731c_o.jpg
 
I came up with this route for a tunnel to connect the abandoned Tremont Street tunnel with the Silver Line tunnel. It has some advantages over the Essex Street Route.

- It could be cut-and-cover, with fewer utilities to encounter.

- Wouldn't have to cross under any other transit tunnels.

- The southbound Central Artery is basically at or near ground level where this new tunnel would cross under it.

- The northbound Central Artery tunnel is deep enough where the new tunnel would fit over it, under Atlantic Street.

- LRV cars from the Back bay could run directly to South Boston (via the Silver Line tunnel) by using a "sling shot" turnaround on the loop at Park Street Station.

- The new tunnel would be about 4100 feet, cut-and-cover.

15249395034_e0179d7040_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
I came up with this route for a tunnel to connect the abandoned Tremont Street tunnel with the Silver Line tunnel. It has some advantages over the Essex Street Route.

- Wouldn't have to cross under any other transit tunnels.
Click to expand...

The Orange Line? Looks pretty similar to ideas put forward by me, F-Line, and Davem (although each are a bit different). The benefits of such a routing are definitely evident. I wish the state would start actively studying different ways to hook up the GL to the transitway.
 
The new tunnel would be at the same elevation as the Mass Pike, so it would cross over the Orange Line, as does the Mass Pike.
 
The OL Tunnel crosses under the Marginal Rd / Shawmut Ave intersection. The type of development around that intersection would allow the streets to be raised 1 or 2 feet at the intersection if needed to provide enough vertical clearance for the new tunnel over the OL line.

If that's not possible, then deep bore under the OL tunnel would be needed, which would make this alignment less attractive.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The OL Tunnel crosses under the Marginal Rd / Shawmut Ave intersection. The type of development around that intersection would allow the streets to be raised 1 or 2 feet at the intersection if needed to provide enough vertical clearance for the new tunnel over the OL line.

If that's not possible, then deep bore under the OL tunnel would be needed, which would make this alignment less attractive.
Click to expand...

Not sure why going under the Orange Line makes the alignment less attractive. Compared to what alternative?
 
So I've been doing some work for a planning class, thought it would be relevant here too.

I've been working on a Springfield-Westfield-Holyoke DMU line, using almost all existing CSX or PVRR trackage. My project was supposed to be Westfield centric, but I'm thinking of this more as one line in a greater Springfield DMU network rather than a standalone commuter service.


2j5grk6.png


Stops would be:

Springfield: Could pretty much be the same, but obviously needs serious rehab sooner than later

West Springfield: Not sure where the best location is for this yet, but I'm thinking roughly halfway between the major yard and the river

"Westfield Depot": Eventual infill station across from the Walmart on US20, I'm envisioning the station as an anchor for a huge real estate development with mostly residential but some office space and mixed use. Also would have a small park and ride lot for commuters.

Downtown Westfield: The station would have to go across the bridge from it's old location so that I have room to build a new curve to the north. I'd have to demo the old station building and rework the bridge to fit the curve on. The station would be mostly bus transfers and pedestrian access as there's not a ton of parking space to work with.

I-90: Now running on PVRR trackage, I'd have a major park and ride stop off of I-90. My thought process is that it would attract Pike traffic into Springfield and Westfield residents who drive to the station.

Holyoke Mall: The entryway to the Holyoke Mall is litterally the PVRR bridge, I'm thinking that either the existing garage could be attached to the station or a new garage could be built on the space by the Macy's lot.

Holyoke: This stop is the only one I haven't seen personally, I'm not sure what the freight usage is like but the tracks running right into downtown seem like a perfect way to nestle in a downtown stop.

I'm new to Westfield/Springfield so I'm sure there's some things in there that are going to be a hassle, but aside from the new curve in Westfield and station construction, the project seems like it would be relatively easy. Also ArcGIS online kicks ass for making transit maps if you guys haven't checked it out already. I'm not sure if you need to have an active subscription or whatever going to use it though.
 
cbrett said:
So I've been doing some work for a planning class, thought it would be relevant here too.

I've been working on a Springfield-Westfield-Holyoke DMU line, using almost all existing CSX or PVRR trackage. My project was supposed to be Westfield centric, but I'm thinking of this more as one line in a greater Springfield DMU network rather than a standalone commuter service.


2j5grk6.png


Stops would be:

Springfield: Could pretty much be the same, but obviously needs serious rehab sooner than later

West Springfield: Not sure where the best location is for this yet, but I'm thinking roughly halfway between the major yard and the river

"Westfield Depot": Eventual infill station across from the Walmart on US20, I'm envisioning the station as an anchor for a huge real estate development with mostly residential but some office space and mixed use. Also would have a small park and ride lot for commuters.

Downtown Westfield: The station would have to go across the bridge from it's old location so that I have room to build a new curve to the north. I'd have to demo the old station building and rework the bridge to fit the curve on. The station would be mostly bus transfers and pedestrian access as there's not a ton of parking space to work with.

I-90: Now running on PVRR trackage, I'd have a major park and ride stop off of I-90. My thought process is that it would attract Pike traffic into Springfield and Westfield residents who drive to the station.

Holyoke Mall: The entryway to the Holyoke Mall is litterally the PVRR bridge, I'm thinking that either the existing garage could be attached to the station or a new garage could be built on the space by the Macy's lot.

Holyoke: This stop is the only one I haven't seen personally, I'm not sure what the freight usage is like but the tracks running right into downtown seem like a perfect way to nestle in a downtown stop.

I'm new to Westfield/Springfield so I'm sure there's some things in there that are going to be a hassle, but aside from the new curve in Westfield and station construction, the project seems like it would be relatively easy. Also ArcGIS online kicks ass for making transit maps if you guys haven't checked it out already. I'm not sure if you need to have an active subscription or whatever going to use it though.
Click to expand...

Nice map, but I think the only traffic pattern that would justify rail of any kind would be Springfield-Holyoke. And probably a light rail would suffice....
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Not sure why going under the Orange Line makes the alignment less attractive. Compared to what alternative?
Click to expand...

Compared to Essex Street, which would have to be mostly deep-bore to pass under the Orange Line Tunnel on Washington Street and the southbound Central Artery tunnel.

I mean, if you have to deep-bore the route that I proposed, why not just go with the Essex Street route instead, which would provide a direct Green Line route between the Back bay and the South Boston waterfront?
 
Charlie_mta said:
Compared to Essex Street, which would have to be mostly deep-bore to pass under the Orange Line Tunnel on Washington Street and the southbound Central Artery tunnel.

I mean, if you have to deep-bore the route that I proposed, why not just go with the Essex Street route instead, which would provide a direct Green Line route between the Back bay and the South Boston waterfront?
Click to expand...

Depends how you plan to hook Essex Street into the Back Bay system. If you have to underpin the existing Boylston St tunnel until you can portal into it, that's difficult as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top