Crazy Transit Pitches

[Teban54]

It's apparently my week for "Crazy Transit Pitches, Unusual Modes Edition."

The Miami Metromover is one of the few, if not the only, successful APMs deployed within a city core. Miami's heavy rail system, Metrorail, has two stations in downtown, but there are somewhat on the periphery. Metromover connects to Metrorail's Government Center station, and circulates through a few bidirectional loops through downtown, essentially solving the last mile problem, and extending the reach of public transit comfortably throughout all of downtown. Stations are located about 700-1000 feet apart in downtown, with branch lines that extend north and south over divisive highways and a river, with somewhat longer distances between stops.

A rapid transit system that serves the periphery of the employment hub, with distributed destinations that are a little far to walk to from the station? Sound familiar?

The Longwood Automated People Mover, or LAPM:

Bumping this up because people in r/transit were discussing the Miami Metromover APM recently. While some people claimed the original intention was to help drivers into the city with their last-mile travels -- and I won't be surprised if many people still use it for that purpose -- this thoughtful comment from a Florida resident adds a whole lot of details:

• Metromover's ridership is a "healthy split" between CBD commuters and downtown residents. This is because a lot of skyscrapers in downtown Miami are actually residential.
• A lot of developments -- residential or not -- around Metromover were actually done way after the system opened in 1986. The follow-up comment cited an example of high-rises built between 2014 and 2022. However, I suspect some of the buildings already existed in 1986.
• Yes, Metromover is very convenient. Transferring to it from the HRT Metrorail usually saves you a few minutes compared to walking (thanks to a seamless transfer), even if your destination is within the 10-min walkshed; not to mention walking in Florida heat.
• Each of the three routes runs in about 5-min frequencies, but combined, there are trains every 90 seconds or so. Two-car trains are used quite often.
• The use of rubber tires not only allows the system to fit into narrow streets, tight turns and steep grades, but also makes the system very quiet, reducing the noise impacts on buildings that are immediately adjacent to tracks.

So where does this leave us in terms of applying this to a hypothetical Longwood APM?

• (+) People do use the APM for destinations that are within a 10-min walk from rapid transit stations. This also supports my own analysis of Metromover's ridership (quoted below), which suggests that many APM stations that are reasonably close to HRT stations still experience good ridership.
• (+) Weather protection is indeed a factor in the success of the APM. This applies to Boston too, but in the reverse direction -- for us, it will be helpful during winter.
• (+) The mode choice of rubber-tire APM does have its advantages that may apply to LMA. Narrower tracks are easier to fit into LMA's narrow streets, reduced noise will be helpful for the seas of buildings, and steeper grades help overcome footbridges.
• (-) However, developments (transit-oriented or not) play a key role in Metromover's ridership. In contrast, the core LMA area is already very densely developed, and short of aggressive eminent domain, I don't see much space available around the APM.
  • (+) But there's another way to look at it: A "Longwood" APM that extends outside of LMA core can possibly find room for TOD. In particular, if the APM extends east to Ruggles and even further along Melnea Cass, not only does it connect to BMC, but it passes by this stretch of Melnea Cass whose current landscape seems ripe for future development. Especially when LMA is hard to expand, this may create a chain of medical facilities all the way between LMA and BMC. While conventional rapid transit can make the trip faster, it will likely not have enough stops. (Such an extension will also likely be needed for a maintenance facility.)
• (-) Metromover's ridership doesn't seem too heavily peak-oriented due to heavy residential development within downtown. While LMA does have some apartment buildings, most of the demand for the APM will come from hospital workers (and to a lesser extend patients), and thus will be much more peak-focused than Metromover.
  • Note that an LMA APM may also draw some demand from employees parking at some garages that are further away from hospital buildings (especially when some hospitals have converted their own parking to patients-only).
• (-) When Metromover was built in the 1980s, downtown Miami was far less dense than it is today, so they likely encountered much fewer political issues with running next to buildings than to be expected in LMA. The newer buildings in downtown Miami were built with the expectation of rails running right next to them. That will not be the case in LMA, so it may be much more politically challenging to build.

Overall, I'm still not convinced that APM is the right choice for LMA, especially compared to an elevated LRT or busway -- if an APM can be built, these two probably can, for the most part. But APM does have some advantages going for it.

I will sketch up some ideas for all three modes later.

Spoiler: My analysis of Metromover's ridership as an outsider

Looks like Miami's Metromover runs every 90 seconds during rush hours. With that kind of frequency and 4 minutes on the ride, a rider will expect to take 5.5 minutes for both the wait and the ride, plus maybe 0.5 minutes for getting upstairs and downstairs from the stations. That (6 mins) still beats the 10-min walk, and offers much greater physical comfort and weather protection, which can be important for encouraging mode shift (as The EGE argued before in the context of LMA).

Ridership on Miami's Metromover and relationship with walking distance
I wanted to look at whether walking distance affects ridership of stations on their system, e.g. one may guess that stations that are closer to the HRT may have lower ridership. So I took a look:

The inner loop stations are colored by their walking distance to Government Center (transfer to HRT Metrorail). Stops that are closer have a lighter shade.

HRT weekday ridership numbers are: Government Center 6,896, Brickell 5,158, Historic Overtown 1,749 (station to the north without APM transfer).

While we'll need some more local knowledge of downtown Miami to make better conclusions, from this alone, I don't think stations that are close to HRT necessarily have low demands for APM. Sure, Bayfront Park (16 min walk) has the highest ridership except HRT transfer stations, but 3 of the 5 stations that are 9 min away also have pretty good ridership above 1K. (The other two, Third St and Knight Center, have their walkshed cut in half.) And while Brightline transfer may account for Wilkie D. Ferguson, I doubt that fully accounts for the station's impressive ridership - despite being a 5-min walk away from two HRT stations.

Note that there's a big discrepancy between Metromover's ridership (22,286) and that of the two HRT stations (12,054). which suggests at least half of the people taking the Metromover do not use it to transfer to HRT. Even accounting for Brightline doesn't account for the discrepancy. I suspect they may be going to parking garages.

Overall, this seems to suggest that even places that are "only" 9-min walk away from rapid transit may still have demand for APMs. However, I'm uncertain about its applicability to Boston and LMA, especially given the ridership discrepancy between APM and the HRT stations.

 

[HenryAlan]

The report also includes figures which show that OL's crowding levels, especially for northside OL, are somehow even worse than RL.

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.

 

[JeffDowntown]

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.

View attachment 46888

Also Orange Line trainsets have lower capacity that Red Line -- so even at the same passenger volume Orange will be more crowded at equivalent headways.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Also Orange Line trainsets have lower capacity that Red Line -- so even at the same passenger volume Orange will be more crowded at equivalent headways.

Worse headways, too, even in less falling-apart times. Until last year we were still using the same fleet that ran 4-car only trains over the Washington St. El. There was never a roster numbers correction for the 1987 introduction of 6-car trains like Red had with the late-80's 01700 supplemental order for that line's big move to 6 cars. Orange's headways simply took a hit to absorb the longer trains, and then stayed that way for 35 years and counting.

 

[Teban54]

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.

View attachment 46888

While this does indicate the OL's service area is denser, I don't think that's the way to look at it when it comes to crowding levels.

Let's make a very simplistic assumption that a line takes 100K passengers from half of the line, evenly distributed across the line, and dump all of them in the downtown core. Holding capacity and headways constant, it shouldn't matter whether that half of the line is 5 miles long or 20 miles long, or whether it has 8 stations or 30 stations: the eventual crowding level just before hitting downtown will be the same.

However, some possible factors that can explain higher crowding levels include: (I have not verified if all of them are true, so for now they're more like hypotheses)

• OL has smaller cars and runs less frequently (as @JeffDowntown mentioned).
• OL's ridership may be more concentrated during rush hours.
• OL's rush-hour ridership may be more unidirectional, whereas RL may have more "mini reverse commute" crowds to Kendall, Central and Harvard, and/or northside riders getting off at these stations without entering downtown. These increase RL's total ridership without making the absolute peak more crowded.
• OL may have a greater imbalance between its two halves, so even if total ridership is lower, comparing the Malden half to RL may see a smaller difference.
• OL's ridership may be more skewed towards the end of the line, whereas RL, especially its northern half, may have its ridership generators closer to downtown. While this alone doesn't affect the absolute peak, it does affect where the peak starts, and thus may make riders endure crowding for a longer distance.

 

[kdmc]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

That's a terrible idea when so many of the Braintree Branch trips are going to Cambridge, not South Station/Downtown...and so many of them are linked trips with the Green, Orange, and (today via Green/Orange, tomorrow hopefully direct) Blue lines. This is the same reason Quincy howls every time at things like the stupid BDPA proposal to redirect the Braintree Branch down Track 61 to the Seaport. You can't take a corridor that's got totally divergent audiences riding its shared modes and level it all into one square peg to rule all. People need to travel where they need to travel.

 

[Teban54]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

Can't exactly tell if this is sarcasm (though I do think there is some merit in here), but I'll just raise a single point in objection.

Under the vast majority of fan-made Regional Rail proposals, Lynn and Salem will get 15-min frequencies or better. (Those who religiously follow the "15-min everywhere" Rail Vision Alt 6 would even claim Beverly will get 7.5-min frequencies.) Yet, the consensus on this forum is that frequent Regional Rail service is not a replacement for BLX to Lynn, even though the latter would have at least some costs.

So how can frequent Regional Rail service be a replacement for the RL Braintree branch, which already exists?

(Ironically, this also came at the same time as another ongoing discussion about whether regional rail is ideal for Fairmount Line in the first place -- which I'll reply soon.)

Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't)

Minor note: The 2018 NSRL Feasibility Reassessment's CA/T 4-track alternative includes the Fairmount and Old Colony lines, but no 2-track alternatives do. I feel not giving Fairmount NSRL access would be a colossal mistake, so I do expect or at least hope this will be reassessed (again) in the future.

 

[kdmc]

Can't exactly tell if this is sarcasm (though I do think there is some merit in here), but I'll just raise a single point in objection.

To be transparent, it's "this makes sense to me, but I'm sure it's a bad idea, and I'm interested to know why." Maybe I should have put this in the Transit Shitposting thread.

That's a terrible idea when so many of the Braintree Branch trips are going to Cambridge, not South Station/Downtown...and so many of them are linked trips with the Green, Orange, and (today via Green/Orange, tomorrow hopefully direct) Blue lines.

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

Yet, the consensus on this forum is that frequent Regional Rail service is not a replacement for BLX to Lynn, even though the latter would have at least some costs.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

They're linked with something north of the river, but that something will never be Cambridge. That's the problem. These riders are disproportionately using their one-seat rides to get to/from Cambridge.

NSRL is not going to be a perfect panacea for transfers. At 100 feet underground, the stations are going to have significant vertical transportation penalties to get to the rapid transit transfers upstairs because of the sheer length of the escalators. It's definitely on the order of 3-5 minutes worse than the current Red-Silver, Red-Orange and Red-Green transfers.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

Red Line Transformation is shrinking Braintree headways to 6 minutes at peak. That's quite likely better than RER is ever going to be able to do.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

The CR, even with NSRL, is a system that is designed to get people from the suburbs into downtown first and foremost. NSRL makes more secondary journeys possible, like Providence to Salem or Fitchburg to Plymouth, but rapid transit can also better serve shorter distance journeys like Lynn to Revere, Quincy Center to North Quincy, or Newton Centre to Brookline Village in ways that regional rail isn't really well suited for. Rapid transit running parallel to regional rail can also serve to increase the number of one seat rides. BL to Lynn makes it possible to go from Lynn to Logan or MGH, while RL to Quincy opens up Quincy to Southie or Quincy to Cambridge, all focused on a single, shorter corridor to provide high frequency and reliability around the clock.

 

[as02143]

They're linked with something north of the river, but that something will never be Cambridge. That's the problem. These riders are disproportionately using their one-seat rides to get to/from Cambridge.

Even if not Cambridge, I've met a number of health care folks working at MGH who live on the Braintree branch because the commute works for them. Or, really, what I think would be in the realm of the awkward politics is that Quincy, Braintree (and nearby communities) leggies are going to see their 1 seat ride split into 2 to get to the Capitol.

 

[Riverside]

Minor note: The 2018 NSRL Feasibility Reassessment's CA/T 4-track alternative includes the Fairmount and Old Colony lines, but no 2-track alternatives do. I feel not giving Fairmount NSRL access would be a colossal mistake, so I do expect or at least hope this will be reassessed (again) in the future.

I've waxed eloquent about that doc in the past, but it really is a bonkers piece of work. Case in point: IIRC, the cost calculations for the 4-track alternative (specifically the portal works cost)... don't seem to account for the South Bay portal?

Despite having 33% more portals than the other alternatives, the 4-track's estimated portal costs are *checks notes* 2% higher. That's two percent. Compared to their (highly questionable) contingency costs, that's basically a rounding error.

I really hope someone will eventually prove me wrong here.

 

[Teban54]

To be transparent, it's "this makes sense to me, but I'm sure it's a bad idea, and I'm interested to know why." Maybe I should have put this in the Transit Shitposting thread.

No, I mean, I do think each of your individual points is valid on its own. But the overall vibe just... doesn't seem right to me. And the most succinct way I could immediately think of to express this feeling of weirdness is that, most of them apply equally well to BLX-Lynn vs. RR-Beverly, but they have not stopped us from supporting BLX-Lynn.

More fundamentally, however, there are key differences in demands, travel patterns and operational needs of commuter rail (or even regional rail) vs. rapid transit.

Spoiler: Explanation and Details

@TheRatmeister's comment here already analyzed most of these differences specific to fleet requirements in the context of Fairmount Line, while point #1 in my followup comment touched on factors beyond fleet. Given the context of Quincy and Braintree - in a similar situation as Fairmount - I'll list the key factors relevant in this case:

• Differences in (ideal) fleet design: Commuter rail systems typically run long trains with more seats, transverse seats (facing front or back) and fewer doors, to offer comfort for long-distance riders. This is partly a result of most commuter rail lines (not Quincy) having longer stop spacing, which gives plenty of time for riders to settle down. On the other hand, rapid transit systems often prioritize capacity, which result in fewer seats, longitudinal seats (facing sideways) and more doors. They accelerate passenger flow and pack more riders into the trains, at the cost of worse riding experience, but that can be tolerated as the rides are usually shorter.
• Integration with the rapid transit system:This plays out in two aspects.
  • Fares. Not only are commuter rail fares confusing with all its fare zones and the need for conductors, but today, there's no free transfer to subways and buses, and CharlieCards typically can't be used. It gets worse for new and occasional transit riders (whom we should encourage, not ignore). Making Quincy and Braintree Zone 1A doesn't eliminate the problem at all, and I suspect AFC 2.0 won't, either -- IMO, the problem is less so with how much you pay, but more about the sheer complexity of it.
  • Transfers. In addition to the transfer fare issue above, the physical efforts themselves are often less than ideal. I guess South Station today is OK, but as others said, NSRL South Station will be so deep that getting to the rapid transit platforms will take a while. Wayfinding may also add more hurdle for unfamiliar riders, as I usually find the signs towards commuter rail less prominent than rapid transit transfers.
• Complexity of understanding the system: I already talk a bit in the context of fares, but there's more with the riding experience itself. Today, a Quincy resident only needs to enter South Station's rapid transit concourse, make sure they go for outbound trains, and make sure the train is going to Braintree and not Ashmont. Even Green Line riders only need to check one of the 4 branches. In contrast, a commuter rail rider to Quincy needs to look at a giant board of departures, with 12 possible MBTA destinations (including possibly unfamiliar ones like Forge Park, Readville, Kingston, etc), and also need to remember which 3 of the 12 destinations go to Quincy. Then they need to figure out which track the train is using and where that track is. Oh, by the way, not all cab cars may be in use.
• Public perception and branding: To be honest, the people, cities and cultures that I've experienced (admittedly a small subset of the world) simply prefer rapid transit to mainline rail, even if all else equal. The aforementioned tangible problems explain some of it, and so does historical baggage (commuter rail is often perceived here as infrequent, expensive, luxurious, with far-apart stations, etc), but I doubt that's all. In fact, I sometimes wonder if this is the deep-level reason why London chose the "Elizabeth Line" branding that's more akin to tube lines, instead of "CrossRail", in addition to honoring the late Queen.

Consider the following fact: As of Blue Book 2014, the #1 most used commuter rail station was Providence, at 2325 boardings per weekday. The 5 stations on the Braintree branch? 6975, 4624, 8655, 4785, and 5122. More frequent and cheaper service can help bridge the gap for Providence, but I highly doubt they'd be as effective for all 5 stations.

Does this mean we should never use commuter rail to solve urban transit problems? No -- in fact, that's exactly what I argued against in the earlier comment, and I'll discussed this below.

All these factors suggest that converting Braintree branch to regional rail is very unlikely to gain public support. But even worse, it's extremely unlikely to gain support right now. Even if we're doing so on the basis that commuter rail can be just as frequent, affordable and convenient as a Red Line branch, we should demonstrate it first (via other examples such as Fairmount Line) to earn public trust, as much as possible. So far, that has not been done anywhere in Boston yet.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

Right now, yes, but Red Line Transformation aims for 6-min branch frequencies (3-min north of JFK/UMass), which would be a significant -- and tangible -- improvement over the status quo. While Blue Line will presumably have its own frequency improvements in the future (especially in a BLX world), it will always have lower capacity per train than Red Line, as well as generally worse connectivity. Overall, I think things will balance out in the time frames we're discussing.

Spoiler: Long-term Crazy Transit Pitch for dealing with the Red Line branching "problem"

I understand that achieving full capacity on each of the Red Line branches can be tempting (and I do often feel it branches out too early). But as a long-term ideal, there's another solution to that: Turning one of the branches into its own rapid transit line, which F-Line proposed as "Red X". To be clear, this is clearly not nearly as realistic as even your proposal, but it seems possible.

But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS,

Another minor point: Even though the 2018 4-track alternative does have a Central station at Aquarium, I doubt that would be a guarantee. The necessity and practicality of such a station has always been under debate, so that may also be revisited in an official study in the future.

 

[Teban54]

The CR, even with NSRL, is a system that is designed to get people from the suburbs into downtown first and foremost. NSRL makes more secondary journeys possible, like Providence to Salem or Fitchburg to Plymouth, but rapid transit can also better serve shorter distance journeys like Lynn to Revere, Quincy Center to North Quincy, or Newton Centre to Brookline Village in ways that regional rail isn't really well suited for. Rapid transit running parallel to regional rail can also serve to increase the number of one seat rides. BL to Lynn makes it possible to go from Lynn to Logan or MGH, while RL to Quincy opens up Quincy to Southie or Quincy to Cambridge, all focused on a single, shorter corridor to provide high frequency and reliability around the clock.

So, yes, I do agree with this in principle, and I think it's probably one of the best responses towards answering @kdmc's questions so far.

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost:

• Fairmount Line, obviously and beaten to death
• Framingham/Worcester Line: Up to Auburndale/128, with infills at West Station, Newton Corner, and possibly others that people are currently discussing
• Fitchburg Line: Up to Waltham
  • Waltham itself is already a major node, plus Waverly has good transit share as well
• Newburyport/Rockport Line: Up to Salem and Beverly
  • I included it here not as a replacement for BLX, but for a few reasons. (1) The Grand Junction part of the route is unique, and even though a parallel rapid transit service can be implemented, they'll likely have different alignments and serve different needs. (2) Rapid transit to Salem is currently far-fetched, and to Beverly is virtually unheard of, yet they have extremely high demand as #2 and #3 highest-ridership commuter rail stations.

The difference between them and Braintree is that for all of them, parallel rapid transit for the same purpose is unlikely to happen anytime soon (though I'd definitely welcome a BLX to Auburndale), but RL Braintree branch already exists today. In some sense, these are best compromises, while Braintree is not. This also extends to GLX, OL, etc.

 

[kdmc]

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost

Yeah, this is the crux of my confusion. Quasi-rapid service via Regional Rail is the prevailing proposed solution for those gaps you listed, and some of those gaps are at least as deserving of rapid service as Quincy and Braintree are. So, if the Braintree branch weren't already in place, would there be advocacy in 2024 to build it, or would the advocacy be focused on delivering quasi-rapid service on the Old Colony trunk?

No, I mean, I do think each of your individual points is valid on its own. But the overall vibe just... doesn't seem right to me.

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more. If there are, like, books or podcasts you folks to get a base level of understanding of all of this, I'm here for it.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more.

Don't feel sorry about doing this! Challenging and forcing evaluation of the dominant opinion is always important, and Even a strawman argument can lead to interesting revelations and conclusions.

 

[Teban54]

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more. If there are, like, books or podcasts you folks to get a base level of understanding of all of this, I'm here for it.

To clarify, my earlier comments did not intend to suggest your proposal was trolling or in bad faith; if that was the impression, I sincerely apologize. The part about vibe was mostly a feeling of awkwardness regarding the proposal, which I initially couldn't pin down explicitly (though I did eventually).

Yeah, this is the crux of my confusion. Quasi-rapid service via Regional Rail is the prevailing proposed solution for those gaps you listed, and some of those gaps are at least as deserving of rapid service as Quincy and Braintree are. So, if the Braintree branch weren't already in place, would there be advocacy in 2024 to build it, or would the advocacy be focused on delivering quasi-rapid service on the Old Colony trunk?

This is a very, very interesting hypothetical question. I'm gonna give a bold answer: No, I don't think the Braintree branch would have been built today, nor even being considered nearly as seriously, had we missed the chance to do it in the 1970s. The primary reason would be that, in such a universe, the 2 commuter rail tracks would have come first.

A lot of historical background of the Braintree branch is needed to understand the context here, which even I myself only learned from this forum. F-Line summarized it here:

When the South Shore Branch was originally being planned in the mid-60's, they planned to make it separate from the existing Red Line and terminate on the surface near South Station (which, recall, was to be demolished and reimagined). The original intent was to replace commuter rail, not act as an appendage to rapid transit...as they were operating on the assumption that most of the NYNH&H Railroad would eventually be abandoned as the company went down in flames. This would allow extension to Weymouth, to Brockton, to anywhere they wanted to go. Basically, they were thinking of more of a BART-type second system than an organic extension of the Cambridge-Dorchester subway...merely cribbing the same rolling stock for a different RR-replacement purpose. And for that reason the downtown terminus was favored rather than running thru and branching Red Line frequencies.

It was a hotly debated decision, however, as there were lots of planners who did want it to interface with Red. So they hedged on a design for Columbia Jct. that would work with both schemes, which led to it being wildly overbuilt. It had to run high-speed service whisking to a downtown terminus, and also had to intermingle with subway frequencies if that was the tact they took. This is also the reason why the Cabot leads are also so over-designed...they were originally intended for revenue service. The yard for the Cabot maintenance facility wasn't purchased by the T until 1969, after Penn Central had already bought the NYNH&H and was dumping property ballast. This is also why there was no effort at doing a Columbia/JFK platform for the South Shore Branch during design (that didn't come until a 1982 graft-on). The stub-end terminal eventually fell out of favor by the late-60's (about the same time the historical preservation forces had started rallying in-force over saving South Station), but the junction's design was already finished so the only thing that changed was that the stub-end tracks became long shop leads to the newly-purchased Cabot property. The junction remained as originally designed, for either/or revenue service.

In short, the Braintree branch was initially planned to be almost exactly what we consider commuter rail today, just that it's for a specific part of Boston and not the entire metropolitan area. This would also explain much weirdness with the branch's design: the labyrinth Columbia Junction and separate inbound platforms, the long gap between JFK/UMass and North Quincy, JFK/UMass not even having a Braintree platform for years*, and arguably even the car-centric designs of Quincy Adams and Braintree stations. Perhaps it's no surprise that the branch ended up as the longest among all heavy rail lines, by far.

* (You will sometimes hear people claiming the reason why Braintree trains skipped JFK/UMass was racism. While that may have been a factor, ultimately I feel it can't be the main reason, given just how lacking that explanation is compared to F-Line's above.)

So what if none of this happened? Given that the line was built with the intention to become commuter rail, when the regionwide commuter rail concept developed and matured in the following decades, it's likely that the Old Colony lines would have become commuter rail regardless. When that happens, there's no reason to not double track the ROW from JFK/UMass to (just north of) Braintree. And once the Old Colony CR lines take over 2 tracks, the ROW no longer has enough space for 2 more, so the Red Line realistically can't be extended without expensive** modifications. That will put it way further down the priority list, and definitely below BLX (one of the projects that was competing for funding in that era). Thus, the corridor is likely to join my aforementioned list of quasi-transit corridors.

** I'd argue it would be even worse than today. Now, solutions exist to double-track the Old Colony line through Dorchester (as F-Line described here) and Quincy Center station (brief mention here, F-Line may have discussed it in greater detail before). These would enable substantially improved operations satisfiable for Regional Rail standards, despite the remaining toughest single track south of North Quincy, though even that is being looked into by the MBTA. In the hypothetical scenario, however, no 4-track throughout the ROW means no Red Line, as the up-and-running Old Colony CR lines are very unlikely to give up a track.

How much service would Quincy have received in our hypothetical? Even with fully double tracked Old Colony to Braintree, in 2024, each terminal is unlikely to receive anything better than hourly weekday frequencies. This would mean Quincy sees a train every 20 minutes -- which, ironically, is how the Red Line actually operates in 2024. Plus, any realistic Regional Rail implementation with a moderate goal of :30 on each Old Colony branch can already give 10-min frequencies through Quincy, even more easily so than Lynn/Salem/Beverly and the Newtons. You don't even have to advocate for it. Thus, the real-world outcome's long-term benefits for Quincy are much less substantial than the harms for Old Colony branches, compared to the hypothetical.

Finally, I want to draw some comparisons to BLX and Lynn. Obviously, Lynn missed out on 5 decades of rapid transit and counting. But BLX to Lynn is very much not dead. It's still one of the most frequently mentioned projects among the community, and its feasibility concerns, if any, are mostly due to tightened environmental reviews rather than ROW width itself -- in other words, not impossible. On the other hand, if RL Braintree wasn't built in the 70s, it would have been deemed impossible, or at least crazily expensive, every time someone dares to mention it. (Heck, RLX Arlington is likely feasible and frequently mentioned, yet some people still seem to have the likely false impression that Minuteman completely killed anything beyond Alewife.) This is obviously no consolation for Lynn, but it's at least an interesting thought that their realized present-day situation is at least better than what Quincy would have got in an alternative universe.

(I suepect OLX to Malden vs. Haverhill Line may have been a very similar situation, where a rapid transit extension takes over a rail ROW that causes subsequent commuter rail to be limited to single track, but I'm not sure if the motivation was exactly the same. The difference is that Haverhill trains have an alternative via the Wildcat Branch, so you just need to run :30 trains to Reading or even have OLX take over the entire route. Unfortunately, Old Colony lines do not have an alternative ROW to reach Braintree, other than possibly an El above the highways.)

 

[TheRatmeister]

In short, the Braintree branch was initially planned to be almost exactly what we consider commuter rail today, just that it's for a specific part of Boston and not the entire metropolitan area. This would also explain much weirdness with the branch's design: the labyrinth Columbia Junction and separate inbound platforms, the long gap between JFK/UMass and North Quincy, JFK/UMass not even having a Braintree platform for years*, and arguably even the car-centric designs of Quincy Adams and Braintree stations. Perhaps it's no surprise that the branch ended up as the longest among all heavy rail lines, by far.

* (You will sometimes hear people claiming the reason why Braintree trains skipped JFK/UMass was racism. While that may have been a factor, ultimately I feel it can't be the main reason, given just how lacking that explanation is compared to F-Line's above.)

Along with the exit fare at Quincy Center, Quincy Adams, and Braintree, and the very parking-centric design of the stations. This line was car-commuter oriented from the beginning, and frankly it has somewhat haunted the system ever since with its low ridership per distance.

 

[Teban54]

and frankly it has somewhat haunted the system ever since with its low ridership per distance.

To be pedantic, are you saying "low ridership per distance between the Quincy/Braintree stations", or "low ridership per distance from these stations to Boston"? I think the latter is largely due to geographical factors, as Quincy is a bit far detached from the rest of the metropolitan area due to the Neponset River, I-93 and even the Blue Hill reservation. An analogy would be Lynn: even though BLX would likely see high ridership, it gets washed out (pun unintended) by the marshlands to get to the city.

As for the former, I'll note that even though the stations are fairly far apart (average stop spacing seems to be a mile or more), each individual station still has fairly good ridership given the service. The most recent data I have on hand are 2023 Jan-Oct Gated Station Entries, and 2014 Blue Book. Of the gated stations included in both datasets (mostly HRT and GL Trunk, but includes Riverside, GLX and SL Transitway), the Braintree Branch stations rank as follows:

Station	2014 Blue Book	2023 Jan-Oct GSE
North Quincy	30/63	42/71
Wollaston	47/63	46/71
Quincy Center	26/63	56/71
Quincy Adams	44/63	57/71
Braintree	42/63	59/71

Spoiler: Ashmont Branch station ranks, for comparison

Station	2014 Blue Book	2023 Jan-Oct GSE
Savin Hill	55/63	66/71
Fields Corner	40/63	48/71
Shawmut	56/63	61/71
Ashmont	22/63	27/71

The 2014 figures look perfectly fine to me. Sure, they can't compare to northside Red and Orange Lines (the only other parts of the system with stations a mile apart), but each Braintree Branch station also only receives half as much service, and Quincy is not as dense as Camberville or even Malden. The 2023 figures all worsened (except Wollaston) to below-average with lots of room for improvement. But this was when the branch was largely seeing commuter rail-like frequencies and horrendous slow zones, and my previous preliminary analysis has shown that this hurt their ridership disproportionately more than other gated stations.

To be clear, I do think their ridership could have improved a lot more had the stations been less car-centric. Quincy Adams could have had better access to the decent-sized neighborhoods north and west; Braintree could have been positioned closer to the commercial street at Braintree Square or even the suburban mall to the north, as well as being designed such that you don't need to go through the parking garage just to enter the station. But it appears that they're doing at least good enough, and generally not close to the worst performers systemwide in 2014 (I'm willing to give them a pass in 2023 due to the horrible frequencies). If anything, frequencies and slow zones hurt them at least just as much as station design.

Spoiler: Worst performers systemwide 2023

• #56: Braintree
• #57: Wollaston
• #58: Union Square
• #59: Quincy Adams
• #60: Symphony
• #61: Shawmut
• #62: World Trade Center
• #63: Riverside
• #64: Gilman Square
• #65: Medford/Tufts
• #66: Savin Hill
• #67: Ball Square
• #68: Science Park
• #69: Magoun Square
• #70: Suffolk Downs
• #71: East Somerville

As I said last time, I'm extremely surprised by how this list is dominated by GLX stations -- all 6 new GLX stations show up, and 5 of the worst 8 are GLX stations!

(As for being commuter-oriented: The 2015-17 passenger survey data shows that 73.4% of all riders at the 5 Braintree Branch stations use them for home-based work. This is very close to the 72% for the entire rapid transit system, and even northside RL and OL. North Quincy, Quincy Adams and Braintree have significantly higher share of commutes, but are balanced out by Wollaston and Quincy Center, which are less car-centric.)