Crazy Transit Pitches

@F-Line to Dudley -- I basically agree with your assessments of the various Central/Western MA crayon ideas, as I was intentionally sketching out the "maximum full build assuming idealest of ideal political and environmental circumstances". And certainly no arguments from me on prioritizing the north-south commutes along the Knowledge Corridor.

I do think it's important to incorporate visions of the future -- layering in one peak Northampton-Springfield-Boston through-run is very much meant to create a market that does not exist right now, and it can be done very parsimoniously with the larger vision of a family of East-West Rail services anyway.

Fun idea for a resurrected Cape Codder with a split to Newport. I was avoiding proposing through-runs because, IIRC, there aren't a lot of surplus dual-modes around right now; I'm also unclear whether a dual-mode would be able to speed-match the full-electrics on the NEC and, if not, what the impact on scheduling would be. (This is also why a dual mode extension to NH via Worcester in the immediate future seemed unlikely to me.)

But, as far as I know, if the T wanted to, they could start running a coordinated transfer with Amtrak at Providence on weekends today. (Fridays might be hard, in terms of set availability.) Forced transfers aren't the best, but it would be an easy one cross-platform. (And it would involve minimal coordination with other agencies.)
 
Riverside said:
I do think it's important to incorporate visions of the future -- layering in one peak Northampton-Springfield-Boston through-run is very much meant to create a market that does not exist right now, and it can be done very parsimoniously with the larger vision of a family of East-West Rail services anyway.
Click to expand...
We need to get our East-West house in order, then. Because the earlier NNEIRI study did do a one-a-day Boston-Montreal direct that hit Northampton, as well as coordinate an Inland Route schedule for a timed transfer with the Vermonter to net a de facto second Boston-Northampton frequency. All of that disappeared when the East-West tankapalooza was substituted by Baker/Pollack.
Fun idea for a resurrected Cape Codder with a split to Newport. I was avoiding proposing through-runs because, IIRC, there aren't a lot of surplus dual-modes around right now; I'm also unclear whether a dual-mode would be able to speed-match the full-electrics on the NEC and, if not, what the impact on scheduling would be. (This is also why a dual mode extension to NH via Worcester in the immediate future seemed unlikely to me.)
Click to expand...
Remember, Amtrak's next fleet will have pantograph power "coaches" that supply electricity to the traction motors of a stock Charger diesel. Everything on a Regional is going to be dual-mode in a few years. That makes it the goldenmost opportunity to introduce new dual'ed service patterns, like the Cape Codder redux. Eminently reasonable pitch.
But, as far as I know, if the T wanted to, they could start running a coordinated transfer with Amtrak at Providence on weekends today. (Fridays might be hard, in terms of set availability.) Forced transfers aren't the best, but it would be an easy one cross-platform. (And it would involve minimal coordination with other agencies.)
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that forced transfer in Providence is exactly how the old Cape Codder died. They kneecapped it from run-thru to forced PVD transfer in its later years and the ridership evaporated overnight. History has proven that the NYC thru market is a robust one for this service, and without it you probably don't have a realistic shot at making it stick.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
We need to get our East-West house in order, then. Because the earlier NNEIRI study did do a one-a-day Boston-Montreal direct that hit Northampton, as well as coordinate an Inland Route schedule for a timed transfer with the Vermonter to net a de facto second Boston-Northampton frequency. All of that disappeared when the East-West tankapalooza was substituted by Baker/Pollack.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

As for the coming dual mode: oh dang that's right! Yeah, that truly will be a game changer, and would be super exciting to see.
 
Do anyone know if an EMU under wire could fit in a 21ft ID tunnel?
 
Tallguy said:
Not looking for DS clearance, a KISS at 15ft 10 in, for example
Click to expand...

Tallguy said:
This would be an EMU only tunnel
Click to expand...

Ah, I don't know what route I thought you were asking about (I probably interpreted "ID" in "21ft ID tunnel" as "intermodal"), sorry about the confusion.

Per F-Line it's 2.5 feet clearance needed between 25 kV overhead and an unshielded car roof. I don't know if EMUs count as unshielded, but it's kind of a moot point for your question because you'd need 18'4" for a KISS-plus-2.5'-clearance, which would certainly fit in a 21' tunnel. (Not sure where we'd be building an EMU-only tunnel apart from the NSRL, but that's neither here nor there...just as long as it doesn't come with the mangled California KISSes with their ludicrous double sets of doors.)

EDIT: See updated clearance posted by F-Line below.
 
Last edited:
So...15'1" for the shortest KISS + 31.5 for clearance and 7" for the rail..so 18'3.5" leaves 2'8.5" for both the ties(or an alternative attachment method) and the height above the floor to get to standard gauge width(4'8")
Anyone know what is the minimum height of any attachment method?
 
Tallguy said:
So...15'1" for the shortest KISS + 31.5 for clearance and 7" for the rail..so 18'3.5" leaves 2'8.5" for both the ties(or an alternative attachment method) and the height above the floor to get to standard gauge width(4'8")
Anyone know what is the minimum height of any attachment method?
Click to expand...
Sleepers anchored to the floor might shave some height over typical ballasted trackbed. But it really depends on the application. Anywhere near the core of Boston you'd have to give some consideration for drainage channels, and if it's in the city core those channels might have to be pretty substantial to work with active pumping. Also, some trackbed types work better than others on portal inclines...so you might be using a different setup on inclines vs. level flooring.


The smallest KISS fits AAR Plate B loading gauge on its dimensions. The minimum clearance for MBTA territory (and anywhere in Massachusetts) is Plate C, which conforms exactly to the size of a Kawasaki or Rotem bi-level (15'6").
349px-Gabarit_AAR_Plate-B.png
343px-Gabarit_AAR_Plate-C.png

Dimensions would likely need to conform to the nearest generic loading gauge Plate rather than a specific vehicle make, so the most common railcars in that territory can pass through if need be. For example, even in an EMU'd tunnel in MBTA territory you'd want/need the option to dead-tow some push-pull coaches in an equipment rescue. And you'd want to be able to use standardized work cars when performing maintenance, instead of having to custom-order them like New York always has to for the sub- Plate B Penn, GCT, and (very sub- Plate B) ESA tunnels.
 
I'm organizing my bookmarks and have been reminded of the 1971 Central Area Systems Study -- to which I'm drawing the attention of the thread for what I'd argue to be its claim to the "original" Crazy Transit Pitches. In particular, the report focused at length on potential ways to combine the Blue Line and Green Line -- obviously a frequent topic in our discussions here.
 
Has branching the blue line to the silver line ever been proposed?

Could go to Kendall that way via grand junction.
 
tysmith95 said:
Has branching the blue line to the silver line ever been proposed?

Could go to Kendall that way via grand junction.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems doable and would have the advantage of combining the Blue and Orange divisions, which will probably go back to having nearly same cars once Red-Blue is built and Blue can fit Orange cars.

I'm not really sure what the advantage of Blue would be on that routing over Green though. Green wouldn't require nearly as much crossing work and would enable more useful Grand Junction routings given that it could conceivably connect on both ends (Lechmere/BU). I also have a hard time seeing Grand Junction needing heavy rail levels of service.

A branch at Airport would really limit capacity on the Wood Island-Wonderland/Lynn section too, which will see even more ridership than it does today once the extension to Lynn is built.
 
Branching the Blue Line to Chelsea was considered long ago (during the early BERy days) but in my opinion is no longer feasible. I wrote about some of the challenges of branching a few months ago and then went into more detail on the frequency/capacity problems that branches can induce. Halving the frequencies to both Chelsea and Revere/Lynn means that each of those corridors is stuck with "half a transit line". Wonderland can't afford to lose half of its trains, and Chelsea deserves proper headways itself.

I think the best approach for transit for Chelsea is multilayered:
  • Rapid electric regional express rail (RERER?) via the NSRL, providing fast service to Downtown, Back Bay, Longwood, and Allston
  • Circumferential LRT to Airport, Sullivan, and Kendall
  • Circumferential BRT to the Seaport (i.e. the current SL3, with dedicated lanes in the TWT)
  • Radial BRT to downtown via dedicated lanes on the Tobin Bridge
I think Downtown-Chelsea LRT service via Sullivan (i.e. a Green Line branch) is too roundabout, and the Mystic River creates a geographical obstacle that means a one-size-fits-all solution isn't suitable here.
 
tysmith95 said:
Has branching the blue line to the silver line ever been proposed?

Could go to Kendall that way via grand junction.
Click to expand...

Branching where? Airport via SL3?

It'd be quite a bit of work to around Airport to construct a junction, and then the Blue-SL3 branch would have to be grade-separated (including over Chelsea Creek, which would require a new bridge). Then, once you finally made it through Everett (with more grade-separating) and across to Sullivan, you'd have to find some way to get over to the Grand Junction (and BL can't share with the GLX carhouse leads or its ramps), and then grade-separate that (which might be more feasible on HRT versus CR, but unlike LRT it would be mandatory). Also wouldn't be all that useful; if you really, really wanted Blue to serve Kendall it'd probably end up being simpler to plow across the Charles and find some place to dig out a station in Cambridge without branching.

737900er said:
A branch at Airport would really limit capacity on the Wood Island-Wonderland/Lynn section too, which will see even more ridership than it does today once the extension to Lynn is built.
Click to expand...

Yeah, branching is problematic in a lot of cases, and it's really a questionable proposition to permanently kneecap frequencies to Lynn in order to serve a route pattern that has a significantly-better-fit option for service in LRT.

EDIT: Riverside posted right before me, per usual with a more concise, well-cited response.
 
Alrighty, time to break out our crazy crayons and our imaginations.

What if the Green Line radiated out -- not from Kenmore -- but from Longwood Medical Area?

It's a fair question, I'd argue: Longwood, not Kenmore, is the employment center of gravity at that end of the Green Line. Why shouldn't it be the western anchor?

The perennial "D-to-E" idea (connecting the D at Brookline Village to the E at Riverway) offers a version of this idea, where the Highland Branch would now radiate out from Longwood instead of Kenmore. The E/39 likewise is still anchored at Longwood, so no change needed. What about the other branches?

Well, the C's role is to serve Beacon St, Coolidge Corner, and Cleveland Circle. The most direct route would radiate out along Longwood Avenue (which today is pretty narrow). But! The Beacon St Portal is less than a skant third of a mile to the northernmost corner of the LMA (at Fenway & Brookline Ave). That's actually quite close. Longwood Ave is the most direct route, yes, but "diverting" via the whole of Beacon St costs you less than half a mile -- and provides the benefit of significantly increased access to a major employment center.

Radiating from Longwood rather than Kenmore has the largest impact on the B. The neighborhoods that are strung in sequence from Kenmore really break down into at least 2 if not 3 segments that each would warrant a radial branch (e.g. each along Washington St, Harvard St, and toward BU).

***

We've long despaired of how to provide good transit service to Longwood. Sitting between Kenmore and Huntington, it has long seemed like the purview of circumferential service, despite the neighborhood's major importance as an employment center. But going through the exercise above led me to re-examine transit options for Longwood, and consider them within the larger context of a Reconfigured Green Line -- a larger context that potentially alters the cost-benefit analysis.

The key is that realization about the C Line's proximity to Longwood. It actually is quite close. And then it hit me: what if the C Line were diverted into the Huntington Subway via Longwood? This opens up a lot of possibilities, including redirecting C Line trains to the Seaport, bypassing the Central Subway entirely.

What about rerouting the B Line? The resulting dog leg wouldn't be particularly satisfactory -- too much of a hard 90 degree turn. But... radiating northwest from LMA puts you nicely on track for both Harvard via West Station, and Grand Junction. And even a resurrected A Line to Oak Square could be very interesting if run via Longwood and Huntington, providing a kind of crosstown service similar to the 65.

....And all of ^ that ^ then means that we can add branches of the Green Line -- even branches to Allston -- without needing to touch the Central Subway's capacity at all. Moreover, you could string together the very enticing sequence of Harvard - West Station - Boston University - Longwood Medical Area - Prudential - Back Bay - South Station - Seaport into a new transit service with minimal impact on existing capacity.

So -- it seems like there could be real worth to finding a way through Longwood running roughly northwest to southeast. There is no perfect option here, unfortunately. But, I think there's a real argument to make for an aggressive reimagining of Park Dr and the Fenway -- I'm talking full-out reclaiming the public way from automobiles for mass transit (and with relatively low impact). Park Dr is reduced from 4 lanes to 2, and Fenway is converted to a green transitway along the Fens, with Park Dr on the opposite bank converted to 2-way traffic. The Fenway offers a unique opportunity for conversion: with the park on the north side, there is only one side's worth of abutting neighbors -- mostly Emmanuel College and Simmons University. Losing one street's worth of auto access, and gaining major increased access to rapid transit, could make for a good bargain for those institutions.

A stop at Ave Louis-Pasteur would put riders less than a 10 min walk to many of the hospitals and major institutions:

1660526195412.png


All in all, less than a mile of street would need to be reclaimed for transit use.

I need to leave early tomorrow morning for some travel, so I'll just leave this here for now. Obligatory "yes this is far from perfect and yes people would scream bloody murder about it" but, if you can, just... imagine.

LRT to LMA.png
 
Last edited:
How feasible would it be for an eventual +1 extension of the Worcester Line to a station on the Western side of Worcester? (near the old B&A Jamesville station site)

West Worcester.PNG


A station in this site would better serve the Jamesville and Ludlow neighborhoods in Worcester, in addition to underserved Central Mass communities such as Auburn, Leicester, and Paxton. Connections to the WRTA bus network would be provided by a stop on the 27 bus, and it would be ideal for the 33 bus to also stop at the station for connections to communities along Route 9. This could possibly be achieved by rerouting the 33 down Ludlow St and Stafford St, with increased frequencies on the 19 bus to compensate for the 33 being re-routed off of Main St.

Obviously the MBTA would need to negotiate trackage rights on the B&A west of Union Station for such an extension. Also, an additional track would be constructed between Union Station and the new "West Worcester" station site for traffic separation (I'm pretty sure a new track through this area has been discussed as part of East/West rail).

This project would be best suited for after the Weston-Framingham third track project and the Newton/Wellesley/Natick station reconstructions were finished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top