Crazy Transit Pitches

RE: the discussion on HRT to Everett. It could be done at least a lot closer to Everett by rerouting the Orange Line, not branching it. Here's my idea, with stations as orange circles. The Orange Line tracks from Sullivan to Wellington would be retained and serve as a non-revenue access to the Wellington Yards, which would remain in place. The large parking lot on th e east side of the Wellington station could be used for riverside residential/office development. The only political issue I see with this is the displacement of the Northern Strand Community Trail along the segment taken over by the OL reroute,

51577157292_b84130f439_o.jpg
 
Charlie_mta said:
RE: the discussion on HRT to Everett. It could be done at least a lot closer to Everett by rerouting the Orange Line, not branching it. Here's my idea, with stations as orange circles. The Orange Line tracks from Sullivan to Wellington would be retained and serve as a non-revenue access to the Wellington Yards, which would remain in place. The large parking lot on th e east side of the Wellington station could be used for riverside residential/office development. The only political issue I see with this is the displacement of the Northern Strand Community Trail along the segment taken over by the OL reroute,
Click to expand...

So...elimination of the quite-new Assembly station to build a brand-new one (because it's probably impossible to swing over to Everett from the current alignment)? Addition of a stop serving basically only the casino and the shopping center, elimination of Wellington (surrounded by transit-oriented development) and its garage in favor of a harder-to-access alternative, and one that if anything has less density around it, adding yet another station further north (where density is screwed by the water to the west), then crossing into Malden and building a massive new viaduct because by that time you're on the wrong side of the Commuter Rail?

Forget displacing the trail, screwing over the big TOD hub at Wellington, throwing money away for a new Assembly station, then brute-forcing a line out of its way to (rather poorly) serve Everett to the detriment of the existing line will bring a massive political backlash. This one's probably dead on arrival.
 
Brattle Loop said:
So...elimination of the quite-new Assembly station to build a brand-new one (because it's probably impossible to swing over to Everett from the current alignment)? Addition of a stop serving basically only the casino and the shopping center, elimination of Wellington (surrounded by transit-oriented development) and its garage in favor of a harder-to-access alternative, and one that if anything has less density around it, adding yet another station further north (where density is screwed by the water to the west), then crossing into Malden and building a massive new viaduct because by that time you're on the wrong side of the Commuter Rail?

Forget displacing the trail, screwing over the big TOD hub at Wellington, throwing money away for a new Assembly station, then brute-forcing a line out of its way to (rather poorly) serve Everett to the detriment of the existing line will bring a massive political backlash. This one's probably dead on arrival.
Click to expand...
Actually I agree with you. All points are vaild. I wish they had built the OL here (as I show it) originally circa 1970 instead of the western route they implemented.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Actually I agree with you. All points are vaild. I wish they had built the OL here (as I show it) originally circa 1970 instead of the western route they implemented.
Click to expand...

Certainly would have been different. As a "what could have been" it's definitely an interesting thought exercise, even if it's prospects as a transit pitch are probably pretty poor even for Crazy Transit Pitches standards (mostly because that ship sailed when they built it the way they did in the 70s).
 
tysmith95 said:
A more reasonable transit pitch would be an infill somewhere between wellington and Malden Center.

Encore should have a bridge to Assembly.
Click to expand...

ROW is four-track width south of around Oakland Street in Malden, so probably enough room to shove a station in there somewhere without massive complications. Build it south of Medford Street with an entrance on Medford (or taking some of the light industrial on the west side of the ROW for a small parking lot and a bus driveway) would give easy access to a lot of surrounding density.

Agreed about the Assembly bridge, though I'd add that if Encore wants it, they can probably afford to pay for it too.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Actually I agree with you. All points are vaild. I wish they had built the OL here (as I show it) originally circa 1970 instead of the western route they implemented.
Click to expand...
If you extended GJ GL up from Sullivan, through Assembly, and possibly to Malden, that might not be half bad(or run a 3 min freq 50% each way)
 
Tallguy said:
If you extended GJ GL up from Sullivan, through Assembly, and possibly to Malden, that might not be half bad(or run a 3 min freq 50% each way)
Click to expand...

To where, though? The only available ROWs for anything coming out of Sullivan are the Eastern Route, the Orange Line/Western Route, the Saugus Branch off the Eastern at Everett, and the SL3. I can't see any significant obstacles to LRT on the Saugus Branch apart from the numerous grade crossings (which, to be fair, are only annoying rather than prohibitive on LRT), though whether it's worth potentially sacrificing frequencies on a Green Line-converted SL3 is something that would have to be considered. Anything along the Western is possibly physically impossible as long as the Reading Line track is there, and it's also probably redundant to the higher-capacity Orange Line trunk. If the GL's capacity was enough for the SL3 and the Saugus Branch, that would look fairly interesting, though.
 
Brattle Loop said:
To where, though? The only available ROWs for anything coming out of Sullivan are the Eastern Route, the Orange Line/Western Route, the Saugus Branch off the Eastern at Everett, and the SL3. I can't see any significant obstacles to LRT on the Saugus Branch apart from the numerous grade crossings (which, to be fair, are only annoying rather than prohibitive on LRT), though whether it's worth potentially sacrificing frequencies on a Green Line-converted SL3 is something that would have to be considered. Anything along the Western is possibly physically impossible as long as the Reading Line track is there, and it's also probably redundant to the higher-capacity Orange Line trunk. If the GL's capacity was enough for the SL3 and the Saugus Branch, that would look fairly interesting, though.
Click to expand...
I was responding to Charlie MTAs proposal to send the OL up to Sweetser then north on the old Saugus ROW to re-attach in Malden. I was suggesting ways to mitigate the loss of service for Assbly/Wellington by either splitting service between MC and S'van down both ROWs or by pushing the GL up to replace OL at Assby/Well.(added benefit- a cheap Rivers edge station and maybe push it into Medford as much as possible)
Its not as good as service out to Revere, but......
 
Tallguy said:
I was responding to Charlie MTAs proposal to send the OL up to Sweetser then north on the old Saugus ROW to re-attach in Malden. I was suggesting ways to mitigate the loss of service for Assbly/Wellington by either splitting service between MC and S'van down both ROWs or by pushing the GL up to replace OL at Assby/Well.(added benefit- a cheap Rivers edge station and maybe push it into Medford as much as possible)
Its not as good as service out to Revere, but......
Click to expand...

Got it, thank you. I'd call it significantly less than ideal, but not necessarily more so than the norm for the crazier end of Crazy Transit Pitches :)
 
Getting across the river could be interesting. Probably involve a half mile of viaduct
 
tysmith95 said:
A more reasonable transit pitch would be an infill somewhere between wellington and Malden Center.

Encore should have a bridge to Assembly.
Click to expand...

That Edgeworth / Rivers Edge station has been proposed periodically since at least 1945. I'm not super bullish on it; you'd need a lot of TOD to make it worthwhile, since the existing neighborhoods could be serve with improved 97 and 108 buses. You need some space for low-density land uses like the city yard; I'd rather see TOD focused around existing transit like Malden Center south of Centre Street.
 
Behold the Provtreal train, making the following station stops:
The Provtreal would run along the same route as the former Montrealer from Montreal to Essex (VT), including the current Vermonter route between St. Albans and Essex. Along this segment, the train would depart from Montreal Central Station, which is an established Amtrak station as the former terminus of the Montrealer and current terminus of the Adirondack. After departing Montreal, the train would stop at Saint-Lambert station, which is also an established Amtrak station as a current stop on the Adirondack. The following stop would be a new infill stop in the city of Brossard, located at Autoroute 10 with a connection to an infill stop on the currently under-construction Réseau express métropolitain (light rail). The next stop would also be an infill stop, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, reopening a historic train station and returning passenger rail service to the city of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. The Provtreal would not stop in St. Albans or Essex Junction.

From Essex, VT to Burlington, VT, and then back from Burlington through Essex, the Provtreal, would run along the existing NECR trackage, performing a reverse move to serve Burlington Union Station. It would complement the Ethan Allen Express which will be extended to Burlington Union Station next year.

The Provtreal would run along the same route as the Vermonter from Essex to White River Junction. After Burlington, the next stop southbound would be Montpelier station. The Provtreal would not stop in Waterbury, Randolph, or White River Junction. Burlington and Montpelier are the only stops in Vermont on this train.

From White River Junction (VT) to Concord (NH), the Provtreal would run along a reactivated Northern Rail, including rail-with-trail wherever possible. After crossing the Connecticut River into New Hampshire, the Provtreal would stop in the town Lebanon, restoring passenger rail service to Lebanon for the first time since 1965. After Lebanon, the next stop southbound would be in the city of Concord, New Hampshire, restoring passenger rail service to New Hampshire's capital for the first time since 1981.

The Provtreal would run along the Pan Am trackage from Concord to Lowell. Southbound from Concord, the Provtreal would stop in Manchester, restoring passenger rail to northern New England's largest city for the first time since 1981. The next stop southbound would be in the city of Nashua, restoring passenger rail to northern New England's second largest city for the first time since 1981.

The Provtreal would then share MBTA Commuter Rail trackage for the rest of its route. It would run over the same route as Lowell Line, running express with stops only at Lowell station and Anderson/Woburn. The North–South Rail Link would carry this train, stopping at North Station and South Station. The Provtreal would run semi-express over the same route as the Providence Line, with stops only at Back Bay Station, Route 128 station, Sharon, Mansfield, Attleboro station, and Providence.
 
Tallguy said:
Why to Prov?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. It doesn't make sense to me, mostly from an operational standpoint. Given that this would have to be an Amtrak train, it would either run as an added segment to a Northeast Regional or, more likely, as its own "long distance" service (though some of those can and do also serve as de facto NE Regionals on the NEC). Providence isn't an Amtrak base, there's no way they'd try and run an LD train out of there. It would have to start somewhere else (Boston, New York, and maybe New Haven being the likely candidates).

I'm not saying that the idea of a Boston-serving Montreal-bound train service is necessarily a bad idea, but Providence is definitely an odd choice for an endpoint, and one that would be such an operational nightmare that it won't happen.
 
Tallguy said:
Why to Prov?
Click to expand...

A bunch of reasons! Too many to list, but the biggest reason was to provide a one-seat ride between Providence and Montreal. This crazy pitch is built on the idea that there would be demand for a train between Providence and Montreal (and Providence and VT and Providence and NH), in addition to the obvious demand between Boston and Montreal. By extending to Providence you add another major city to the line, without severing and connections that would exist in a Boston <-> Montreal line. In a world where NSRL exists, extending this line to Providence would be of greater benefit than cost, IMO.
 
bigeman312 said:
A bunch of reasons! Too many to list, but the biggest reason was to provide a one-seat ride between Providence and Montreal. This crazy pitch is built on the idea that there would be demand for a train between Providence and Montreal (and Providence and VT and Providence and NH), in addition to the obvious demand between Boston and Montreal. By extending to Providence you add another major city to the line, without severing and connections that would exist in a Boston <-> Montreal line. In a world where NSRL exists, extending this line to Providence would be of greater benefit than cost, IMO.
Click to expand...

Okay, well, if you assume that demand that makes sense, it just wasn't clear in the initial post. Moreover, while there is theoretically benefit in adding population centers to the route, as I outlined earlier operational considerations are relevant. Amtrak (and everyone else) doesn't make a habit of starting at random locations; their trains generally originate where they have yards and maintenance facilities, for obvious reasons, and Providence doesn't have that (the closest thing they have is the Pawtucket layover). If you're assuming that in an NSRL/Regional Rail world the MBTA and/or Amtrak would have a larger Providence operating base that could source (or at least store) equipment for a PVD-MTL train, that's fine, but it would have to be factored in.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Okay, well, if you assume that demand that makes sense, it just wasn't clear in the initial post. Moreover, while there is theoretically benefit in adding population centers to the route, as I outlined earlier operational considerations are relevant. Amtrak (and everyone else) doesn't make a habit of starting at random locations; their trains generally originate where they have yards and maintenance facilities, for obvious reasons, and Providence doesn't have that (the closest thing they have is the Pawtucket layover). If you're assuming that in an NSRL/Regional Rail world the MBTA and/or Amtrak would have a larger Providence operating base that could source (or at least store) equipment for a PVD-MTL train, that's fine, but it would have to be factored in.
Click to expand...

As part of this proposal, Amtrak would share the Pawtucket Layover with the MBTA for this line only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top