Crazy Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

For any GJ project (CR, LRT, or otherwise) the only NIMBY that really matters is MIT. This isn't the type of thing where the Smalltown Neighborhood Association is fighting against bulldozing Grandma Murphy's house and paving over the Local Historically Preserved Gas Station. You're dealing with a large, deep-pocketed institution with lots of technical know-how that plans investments in terms of decades and billions of dollars.

If MIT's primary concerns are about vibration and traffic back-ups from trains running at surface level, then it's not unthinkable (although perhaps it is "crazy," as that's what this thread is after all) that they would consider an option that avoids trains running at the surface level.

You're making the great big assumption that they're NIMBY enough to scream at trains running at the surface level, but not NIMBY at all enough to welcome having their own buildings blown up for a tunnel.


Sorry...NIMBY'ism doesn't switch on and off arbitrarily like that. If MIT has NIMBY potential, it's going to kill your tunnel plan just as dead or even moreso. Reconcile that...don't blithely ignore it.

 

[luobo]

So...stops? Lots of stops? All of which increase the travel time. Is it better for those intermediate cities, sure? But those aren't the load-bearing demand points, and if serving them all with HSR (as opposed to regional corridors) tanks the travel time (and the only way it doesn't is with some combination of reduced stops and higher speeds), then people will default to the faster/more convenient option.

I'm not aware of an HSR route that does a Boston-to-Chicago length journey with zero intermediate stops. A dozen stops along a thousand-mile corridor isn't going to tank the travel time on its own.

 

[themissinglink]

I'm not aware of an HSR route that does a Boston-to-Chicago length journey with zero intermediate stops. A dozen stops along a thousand-mile corridor isn't going to tank the travel time on its own.

The cost and sheer scale of building an electrified HSR corridor between Boston and Chicago would be the main issue with such an undertaking. I agree that the stops you listed would be reasonable if there was to ever be a Boston-Chicago HSR line; the stop spacing seems somewhat similar to the Acela.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm not aware of an HSR route that does a Boston-to-Chicago length journey with zero intermediate stops. A dozen stops along a thousand-mile corridor isn't going to tank the travel time on its own.

A Chicago-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo-Syracuse-Albany-Springfield-Worcester-Boston HSR route demands stops at BOTH North Station and South Station?

If that's the case, how many extra stops are you adding in all the other cities...Chicago in particular...to spread the wealth? Because if North Station is that crucial a get, Chicago's worth at least 3 or 4 intra-city stops.

Do you see where this starts completely spiraling into target-fixation madness?

 

[Charlie_mta]

The opposition gets overstated to an absurd degree. Cambridge reacted negatively to the Worcester-North Station proposal because ex-Lt. Gov. Tim Murray had a particularly bad foot-in-mouth moment where he announced the plan as advancing ahead of the release of the scoping study, when in fact it was not. The City and MIT were angry that the Administration bypassed any local input, and got defensive in a hurry. At no point were any of the sticking points substantive...because they hadn't even seen the (middling) study results yet. It was all a reaction to the political faux pax of some big ego bypassing the established chain of command. Any municipality would react similarly to such a cold shoulder. It doesn't mean a pitchfork-wielding mob was ready to block the tracks at the first mention.

In the actual study the City had open-ended concerns about the considerable traffic impacts at the crossings. MIT had some concerns about vibrations around their labs. Neither rose to the level of "absolutely against". Indeed, we haven't even well quantified how strong the opposition actually is because the study got no further development (and indeed no follow-up at all when Gov. Patrick made his hot-air Olympics-baiting dinky plan for the GJ). There's probably some...but we haven't even discussed what the potential scope is.


"Absolutely against" gets brought up time and again on these threads as a self-evident shutdown without a shred of evidence substantiating it. Please stop doing that, and cite any instances of opposition specifically instead of in blanket form.

I agree with you about the possibility of CR on the Grand Junction. I hope it does happen!

 

[luobo]

The North and South Station stops are a side effect of using the NSRL for through-running, not a "spread the wealth" objective.

Having two or three Chicago stops would not be completely unprecedented? It's not that different to Acela stopping in both NYC and Newark. You wouldn't do it for Erie, but it could make sense for Chicago. You're spreading the larger Chicago passenger load across a few different stations/lines in the city. And you're not going to be blowing through Chicago at 300 km/hr anyways, so the relative stop penalty is lower.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The North and South Station stops are a side effect of using the NSRL for through-running, not a "spread the wealth" objective.

Exactly. WHY is it so imperative that an HSR route must use NSRL??? Much less use NSRL using a batshit Grand Junction routing??? Amtrak isn't going to run the 20-years-established Acelas through NSRL when it's got its surface terminal to use. How does this Chicago HSR line rise to a different standard? You've done absolutely nothing to justify the very basis for North Station's inclusion, and less-than-nothing for why the GJ has to be so much as a figment of its imagination.

Having two or three Chicago stops would not be completely unprecedented? It's not that different to Acela stopping in both NYC and Newark. You wouldn't do it for Erie, but it could make sense for Chicago. You're spreading the larger Chicago passenger load across a few different stations/lines in the city. And you're not going to be blowing through Chicago at 300 km/hr anyways, so the relative stop penalty is lower.

Newark is not a borough of NYC. They're 10 miles apart in separate states. That's not the same as stopping twice in 2 miles in one downtown. So how bogged-down to insanity do you intend to make this if some places we're going to be stopping every other mile?



Can we please admit this is a "God Mode" pitch for highly personal reasons? Your explanations are not making any lick of sense the more you expound upon them.

 

[Riverside]

This is exactly what the Worcester-North Station study examined. They found adequate demand at a few peak-only slots when Orange out of BBY and Red out of SS were too overloaded to function properly under load. During off-peak, the trip along an (upgraded) GJ was still so slow that there were utterly inconsequential time savings over making the subway transfer, and it was found to be too much of a detriment to overall service to reverse-branch the Worcester Line away and vulture frequencies from the mainline to SS. More riders were lost by omitting Landsdowne+BBY+SS on some trips than were gained by adding Kendall+NS, so it got an outright "Not Recommended" for anything except those few peak trains.

What's fueling those peak trains that did spike up some genuine MetroWest demand? Mainly Red's and Orange's low levels of functioning under load. Chances are if you improved Red and Orange enough to run on-time under heaviest loads...things they are actively doing with the RLT/OLT frequency & reliability increases...the basis for even what they did find gets significantly weakened. In short: the need the studies highlight needs the most addressing is Red and Orange, not a kludgy diversion of commuter trains through Kendall. Fix the subway and there's basically no longer a Commuter Rail-moded purpose & need.

Cheers F-Line, is this the study you’re referring to? https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/335555/ocn934710112.pdf

 

[luobo]

Because Amtrak through-running all of their Boston service means they no longer need to maintain a yard in downtown Boston, which sits on some of the most valuable real estate in the country?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Because Amtrak through-running all of their Boston service means they no longer need to maintain a yard in downtown Boston, which sits on some of the most valuable real estate in the country?

That is a grievous, grievous misunderstanding of how intercity ops work.

Amtrak has to change crews between runs...restock the food service between runs...restock the first-class gratuities between runs. It's not physically possible for them to just loop their way through Boston in constant motion...from a starting point in freakin' Chicago?!?! Shifts and supply-chaining: how do they work?



If you are basing this entire wacky scheme on a premise of SimCity'ing Southampton Yard....just stop. No slab of land is valuable enough to spend billions in transportation costs creating this loop and distort all best practice for HSR shifting. Take it to the God Mode thread instead of continuing to beat the dead horse here, because all sense and sanity leapt out the door 2 pages ago.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Cheers F-Line, is this the study you’re referring to? https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/335555/ocn934710112.pdf

Yes...that's the one. It says right in the summary that the demand is so much higher on the BBY+SS routing and that they won't be pursuing it further as a result, but the breakouts then show that peak-time was the only time the needle moved even a little bit interestingly in the direction of a straight run through Kendall+NS. Which then calls into question whether the real problem to solve is just improving the subway at peak.

 

[HenryAlan]

What would be the cost of 4 or 5 of the bigger projects being built? $35B in total?

If the state budget is $45B - What is stoping something like a 12 year plan from being passed that costs around $2.9B or something.

It seems do-able. I just don’t get why it never ends up being a priority

It's absolutely something the state could afford. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states in the country and has extraordinarily strong legacy transit infrastructure just waiting for rehabilitation. We could afford the sort of systems you find in Europe, and it would be money well invested. The problem, though, is that narrow minded regionalism always trumps bigger picture progressive politics. Not enough individual legislators see strong direct benefit within their own district and aren't willing to make the case to their constituents that a fast train to Boston improves life whether or not you are a passenger.

 

[BostonBoy]

HSR to Chicago? It should go through New York City . The natural hub for regional high speed rail.
Not to change up the flow of the conversation but, what about having Amtrak running the Second District
( Fairmount Line)? It would free up slots for commuter rail on the Corridor ( Saving slots for the Needham Line to boot!) We used the line for all passenger rail service during the construction of the SW Corridor. It is a mile shorter and with the elimination of the stop at Back Bay, the trip time would not be affected too much (if at all). Also ,It would give the T an opportunity to convert Fairmount shuttle service to the "rapid rail model" to Rte 128. Reverse commuting to Rte 128 was becoming a thing before I departed the rails not too long ago, and giving the residents of that corridor access to Boston AND suburban job centers is a big plus! It could serve as the pilot project for commuter electrification.

 

[Riverside]

Regarding Amtrak on Fairmount: I see a few drawbacks there. First of all, Back Bay is a significant stop in terms of ridership. Of the combined ridership between South Station and Back Bay, Back Bay supplies 25%. See here: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...corporate/statefactsheets/MASSACHUSETTS19.pdf

Second, Amtrak trains can clear over 100 mph on the Northeast Corridor; I am reasonably sure that they would not be able to do so on the Fairmount line, in part because of the curvier alignment. So it is not clear that you would see significant time savings.

Third, given the significant difference in speed and number of stops, Amtrak trains are more likely to create interference and reduce capacity on the Fairmont line then they are clear things up. The Northeast Corridor, especially with its third track, is better suited, in particular since most commuter rail trains will be running nonstop between Ruggles and Readville anyway.

Finally, extending Fairmount line trains to Route 128or to Dedham Corporate Center, is definitely a good idea, but has very little to do with which route Amtrak takes into the city.

 

[BostonBoy]

Regarding Amtrak on Fairmount: I see a few drawbacks there. First of all, Back Bay is a significant stop in terms of ridership. Of the combined ridership between South Station and Back Bay, Back Bay supplies 25%. See here: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...corporate/statefactsheets/MASSACHUSETTS19.pdf

Second, Amtrak trains can clear over 100 mph on the Northeast Corridor; I am reasonably sure that they would not be able to do so on the Fairmount line, in part because of the curvier alignment. So it is not clear that you would see significant time savings.

Third, given the significant difference in speed and number of stops, Amtrak trains are more likely to create interference and reduce capacity on the Fairmont line then they are clear things up. The Northeast Corridor, especially with its third track, is better suited, in particular since most commuter rail trains will be running nonstop between Ruggles and Readville anyway.

Finally, extending Fairmount line trains to Route 128or to Dedham Corporate Center, is definitely a good idea, but has very little to do with which route Amtrak takes into the city.

The route probably has the same number of curves but there could be a NIMBY problem with the higher frequencies and speed. As far as Back Bay being a significant stop ? It surely is, but it’s also only a mile away from South Station. More important for commuters than intercity travelers, in my opinion

 

[Riverside]

The route probably has the same number of curves

If you have some evidence to back this claim up, I will happily change my mind. However, OpenRailwayMap suggests that half of the route currently has speed limitations of 60 mph and the other half has 40 mph. By my eye, the 2-mile long zig zag from Columbia Road to Morton Street is sharper than anything on the NEC.

And again, combining Amtrak's 120 mph trains with Fairmount Line trains, which average 18 mph with stops across its 9 miles, seems unnecessarily complicated, especially when you have the NEC right there, with 3 (and possibly eventually 4 tracks south of Forest Hills) tracks available, and where MBTA trains average 41 mph with stops and routinely travel well in excess of 60 mph for long stretches.

Rerouting Franklin Line trains over the Fairmount is a better option for opening up slots on the NEC. Converting the Needham Line to rapid transit (Green to Needham, Orange to West Roxbury) is also a valuable piece of that puzzle.

 

[jklo]

Rerouting Franklin Line trains over the Fairmount is a better option for opening up slots on the NEC.

They'd lose access to Ruggles and Back Bay if you did that.

 

[themissinglink]

They'd lose access to Ruggles and Back Bay if you did that.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for the Franklin Line to miss out on Back Bay and Ruggles; there's more than enough commuter rail service between BB and SS. There was even a schedule for service between the two stations at one point due to the amount of trains passing between the two stations.

Not to mention that the Old Colony Lines and the Greenbush Line also don't stop at Ruggles or Back Bay.

 

[jklo]

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for the Franklin Line to miss out on Back Bay and Ruggles; there's more than enough commuter rail service between BB and SS. There was even a schedule for service between the two stations at one point due to the amount of trains passing between the two stations.

Ruggles and BB is a big destination. Sure you could take the CR once to SS back to BB, but that's obviously worse.

 

[themissinglink]

Ruggles and BB is a big destination. Sure you could take the CR once to SS back to BB, but that's obviously worse.

I agree it's a big destination, but if it comes down between serving Back Bay and Ruggles on the Franklin Line or increasing capacity on the NEC (especially for Amtrak) by moving the Franklin Line to Fairmount, the choice should definitely be to move the Franklin Line to Fairmount.

The NEC is hard pressed on capacity, and moving the Franklin Line is the easiest and cheapest way to open up additional capacity without expensive modifications.