Crazy Transit Pitches

[Riverside]

Yeah, the Mass Central as a pressure relief valve of sorts is not really thrilling me. Sorry.

The section I'm really very concerned about is Worcester - Springfield, which comes after where you'd rejoin the B&A anyway. Between Worcester and Framingham there's plenty of room to 4-track, and Framingham on has enough density of commuter rail stops that 3-tracking and getting creative with some station adjustments should be enough to allow for overtakes of commuter rail by the faster trains.

And, continuing my being perfectly honest, forcing everyone en route to Montreal from Boston to board a westbound train and transfer to MTL HSR at Albany-Rensselaer is really the ideal solution if we can't / decide not to get a dedicated ROW like Lowell - Stony Brook Branch built up to spec.

No need to apologize. It's just a half-baked idea, not my firstborn.

I apologize for misunderstanding you; I had thought you were concerned about WOR-BBY, since you talked about having to tear up half of Framingham and Newton to accomodate 4 tracks, so I was trying to come up with ideas on how to bypass those areas. (I enjoy thinking through stuff like that, even if it involves, or even is limited to, pie-in-the-sky ideas.) WOR-SPG, I have no idea about, but I definitely agree that the Mass Central is not the solution for that.

I think I'm pretty much with you on having to transfer to go BOS-MTL at high speed. As much as I love Boston, Montreal and high speed rail, the three of them together right now does not make sense to me. So many other things should happen before that.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

No need to apologize. It's just a half-baked idea, not my firstborn.

I apologize for misunderstanding you; I had thought you were concerned about WOR-BBY, since you talked about having to tear up half of Framingham and Newton to accomodate 4 tracks, so I was trying to come up with ideas on how to bypass those areas. (I enjoy thinking through stuff like that, even if it involves, or even is limited to, pie-in-the-sky ideas.) WOR-SPG, I have no idea about, but I definitely agree that the Mass Central is not the solution for that.

I think I'm pretty much with you on having to transfer to go BOS-MTL at high speed. As much as I love Boston, Montreal and high speed rail, the three of them together right now does not make sense to me. So many other things should happen before that.

Right.

The thing about my statements with regards to ripping up Framingham and Newton is that the real problem with the B&A as being a catch-all for all these different services is that the end result is there just being too many trains on the line - which is a problem that needs to be solved as an entire line, e.g., solid four-tracking all the way from BBY to ALB. Having a Mass Central Bypass to avoid the trains in Framingham doesn't help you if you end up stuck in a traffic pattern with them at Worcester anyway, after all.

I think the most we can possibly wring out of the B&A without any significant property-busting ROW expansion is two frequent intercity 'corridors' and frequent commuter service. BOS-CHI and BOS-TOR just happen to be far more important than BOS-MTL does.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Right.

The thing about my statements with regards to ripping up Framingham and Newton is that the real problem with the B&A as being a catch-all for all these different services is that the end result is there just being too many trains on the line - which is a problem that needs to be solved as an entire line, e.g., solid four-tracking all the way from BBY to ALB. Having a Mass Central Bypass to avoid the trains in Framingham doesn't help you if you end up stuck in a traffic pattern with them at Worcester anyway, after all.

I think the most we can possibly wring out of the B&A without any significant property-busting ROW expansion is two frequent intercity 'corridors' and frequent commuter service. BOS-CHI and BOS-TOR just happen to be far more important than BOS-MTL does.

http://www.zekedev.com/sites/boston_line/index.cfm

Track chart of what the B&A used to be in 1950. 4 tracks from BBY to Framingham. The Pike gobbled up 2 of them to Riverside Jct., except for the stretch from the Pike viaduct to New Balance where all 4 are still there as Beacon Park yard leads. 4 from 128 to Framingham yard, 3 from Framingham to Cherry St., Ashland. 2 from Ashland to Worcester. 3 to the Worcester-Auburn town line. 3 from Charlton to Brookfield. 3 from Springfield-Wilbraham town line to the Conn. River, then 3 again on the West Springfield side. 3 from Washington to Dalton. 3 in Pittsfield. Yards in every other town, and lots of freight sidings.

Basically, when buffer space for adding new sidings is taken into account the whole damn thing to Worcester was built to triple-width, most of it to Springfield, and several long passing sidings' worth to the state line. B&A eliminated every single grade crossing to Springfield except for the 2 in Ashland (easy to zap if the town goes along, could happen if Amtrak's feeling generous on the Inland restoration) and the clusterfuck in Framingham center (hard...very, very hard). It is a very expandable ROW, and in fact CSX was pushing the T hard in 1994 to triple it up between Framingham to Worcester before the infill stations were built (T balked because of money). So, yes, everything west of 128 to Worcester can and probably will be tripled someday.

As for inside 128. Those 4 tracks in Allston are staying after the yard goes as a parking spot for the freights and reverse-move equipment transfers off the Grand Junction. Say the Allston station gobbles up 1 of them. That's still a tri-track passing track for 1 mile. You might have room to extend that triple as far as the skating rink on Nonantum Rd. by closing up some of these bridge openings, leaving double from BU Bridge to BBY, and Newton Corner to Auburndale. Artful dispatching can manage Amtraks, the Worcester Line, and some "Fairmounted" thing to Riverside at 2040 service levels if everything is electrified. Maybe with another short passing track in between West Newton and Newtonville. The only possible branchline Worcester could ever have is on the Fitchburg Secondary to Northborough and/or Clinton/Leominster via Framingham. And that can be supplemented with service via the Framingham Secondary. So under no circumstances is the maximum theoretical service level on the Worcester Line EVER going to top what the NEC carries between BBY and Canton. And the NEC will be able to handle all of its projected 2040 loads if 3-tracked in full out to Canton.

This used to be a steam-era high speed line. It is the best-equipped of the non-NEC lines for expansion capacity and >110 MPH service. Hell, better even than the NEC itself in Connecticut. Not really anything to fear here. The presently shitty state of Worcester Line service is a far, far, far cry from what it used to do or could again.

 

[Matthew]

Looks pretty curvy out west. How'd the fast steam locos deal with that?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Looks pretty curvy out west. How'd the fast steam locos deal with that?

Fewer regs back then, so they'd barrel right along. On hills they'd have to lash up a couple of steam locos for the job. The NEC used to have bullet steam trains back when the FRA's predecessor agencies let the RR's do more or less what they wanted with equipment. You definitely aren't getting HSR-level speeds from Westborough-Warren through the Worcester hills. Boston-Westborough and Palmer-Springfield could probably do 125 with short bursts of faster speeds. Berskshires from Russell-Chatham, NY presents its own challenges with elevation and curves around the hills. But the grading on the B&A is way, way overbuilt. Wide buffer, superelevated curves, wide turn angles where possible, and nearly grade crossing free (only the Framingham and Ashland pairs east of Springfield, only non-restricted private farm crossings and tiny town roads west of Springfield). The whole thing could be done up now on diesel without restrictions below 80 MPH, probably get the higher-speed treatment with a 90 MPH floor throughout, and go mostly 125 between Worcester-Boston and Springfield-Palmer with some true HSR segments in between. It's not the NEC between Westerly and Canton, but it's also better overall than the NEC between New Haven and Westerly.


True HSR really isn't that big a consideration except for Worcester-east if the 2040 Inland plan through Eastern CT opts for a northerly routing. That's where it's really built for NEC-esque volumes and speeds through dense suburbia. West of there is always going to be lower-volume intercity to Springfield and Albany. It's not like in 2050 a bullet train from Boston is going to be leaving for Toronto every hour on the hour. For that kind of routing "good enough" on tilting equipment through the Worcester hills and Berkshires does the job to Albany, and then it can scream right along at continuous true HSR speed on the very flat and straight track across NY state where it merges in with all NYC traffic.

 

[omaja]

After the discussion about combining the Blue and D lines and the impact on Needham/Newton, I've revised my network a bit and hope to have an illustration soon. In the meantime, here's what I envision for a built-out rapid rail network composition:

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

After the discussion about combining the Blue and D lines and the impact on Needham/Newton, I've revised my network a bit and hope to have an illustration soon. In the meantime, here's what I envision for a built-out rapid rail network composition:

I don't understand how Line 13 and 14 aren't basically exactly the same except for two stops?

Also, you should switch the colors on Lines 10 and 12 because the line that goes to Watertown should definitely be a shade of blue; and I would ask you to consider making line 4 Heavy Rail.

 

[Riverside]

After the discussion about combining the Blue and D lines and the impact on Needham/Newton, I've revised my network a bit and hope to have an illustration soon. In the meantime, here's what I envision for a built-out rapid rail network composition:

Ooh, I like. So does the Charles River Line run out along the Pike? And I'm trying to figure out how the Arborway Line splits to serve Reservoir as well; is service doubled along the Highland Branch between Brookline Village and Reservoir?

 

[George_Apley]

After reading through several of the threads (mostly Reasonable, Crazy, and Urban Ring) I revised one of my maps as well. I tried to utilize a lot of the things I learned from F-Line and make a map as "reasonable" as possible on a 25-50 year time-frame

http://goo.gl/maps/ku8Qi

 

[omaja]

I don't understand how Line 13 and 14 aren't basically exactly the same except for two stops?

They share the same route except north of the Airport where 13 cuts across East Boston to Charlestown and over to Harvard Square via Washington Street; whereas 14 continues north to Chelsea and serves as an outer crosstown route linking Chelsea/Everett/Medford/Somerville. A shared southern half with two completely different northern routes.

Also, you should switch the colors on Lines 10 and 12 because the line that goes to Watertown should definitely be a shade of blue; and I would ask you to consider making line 4 Heavy Rail.

Both lines actually serve Watertown but the 10 parallels the Charles and Atlantic (as does Line 2) which I think makes it more appropriate for a shade of blue. Plus it looks better stylistically with the two Red Line overlaps.

I don't know if the 4 would need to be upgraded to heavy rail given all of the redundant routes that would exist. In order to keep the Central Subway compatible for the 4, 5, and 6 (current B, C and D branches), the 4 would have to stay light rail. This plan implies massive upgrades to the surface route including stop consolidations, signal priority and potentially elevating portions of it. (Nevermind all of the work done to bring the Central Subway up to proper operating standards.)

Ooh, I like. So does the Charles River Line run out along the Pike?

Yes, it is the Blue-Red Connector + Riverbank Subway + Pike out to Riverside.

And I'm trying to figure out how the Arborway Line splits to serve Reservoir as well; is service doubled along the Highland Branch between Brookline Village and Reservoir?

Exactly right - it would split after a combined Mission Park/Riverway stop and cut over to Brookline Village.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

All Proposed and Planned Northeastern Rail lines

Line Name ------ Southern or Western Terminus---------Northern or Eastern Terminus----Length----Projected Ridership

Knowledge Corridor - - - New Haven, Connecticut ---- Brattleboro,Vermont --- 125.7 Miles - 76,400

Bristol Branch --- Waterbury,Connecticut --- Hartford, Connecticut --- 24.8 Miles -- 12,000

Central Manchester Branch --- Hartford, Connecticut --- Manchester , Connecticut --- 11.4 Miles - 7,500

Central Corridor ---- New London, Connecticut ---- Brattleboro,Vermont --- 110.6 Miles - 15,800

Woonsocket line - ---- Providence,Rhode Island ---- Worcester , Massachusetts -- -- 43 miles - 25,900

I-195 Express Rail Corridor - Providence,Rhode Island --- New Bedford, Massachusetts -- 25.6 Miles - 50,000

South Coast Rail Network ---- Newport,Rhode Island & New Beford, Massachusetts --- Boston, Massachusetts --- 58.1 Miles -- 75,200

Western Extension --- Greenfield, Massachusetts ---- West Wachusett --- 33.5 Miles - 3,700

Capital Corridor --- Boston, Massachusetts ---- Concord,New Hampshire - - 46.2 Miles - 35,800

Portsmouth line --- Boston, Massachusetts ----- Portsmouth,New Hampshire --- 19.1 Miles --- 13,700

I-93 Rail Corridor --- Boston, Massachusetts ---- Manchester,New Hampshire --- 33.6 Miles - 25,500

Eastern line --- New London, Connecticut ---- Worcester, Massachusetts --- 54.2 Miles --- 6,800

Cape Cod line -- South Yarmouth, Massachusetts ---- Boston, Massachusetts - -- 82.4 Miles --- 26,300

Beacon / Maybrook line --- Beacon,New York ---- Shelton, Connecticut --- 74.8 Miles - 6,500

New Milford Extension ---- Danbury,Connecticut --- New Milford, Connecticut --- 15.7 Miles - 7,800

Pittsfield line --- Danbury,Connecticut --- Pittsfield, Massachusetts --- 88.6 Miles - 5,800

Current & Future Top Speed on Trunk and Feeder lines

Northeast Corridor / Providence line -- 150mph (2012) > 230mph (2035)
Cross England / Worcester line -- 85mph (2012) > 125mph (2030)
Knowledge Corridor -- 70mph (2012) > 125mph (2030)
Downeaster Corridor -- 70mph (2012) > 125mph (2030)
Cape Cod Corridor / Middleborough line --- 70mph (2012) > 100mph (2030)

 

[Matthew]

Where in the world are those ridership figures coming from? 75,200 for SCR? That's an order of magnitude above the optimistic projections.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Where in the world are those ridership figures coming from? 75,200 for SCR? That's an order of magnitude above the optimistic projections.

The governor's South Coast Rail Task Force?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I-195 Express Rail Corridor - Providence,Rhode Island --- New Bedford, Massachusetts -- 25.6 Miles - 50,000

Excuse me? Providence to New Bedford but not Hartford to Providence? And 50,000 riders out of the gate? No chance in hell.

I really need some insight from you on this. Why? Why not even Hartford to New Bedford? Hartford and Providence have no direct link. No rail, no road, nothing. That's an entirely untapped market, whether or not you feel the need to hedge bet on a 'safe' Providence - New Bedford Line, there's really no way that Hartford - Providence isn't a winner.

So why not propose that line?

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Where in the world are those ridership figures coming from? 75,200 for SCR? That's an order of magnitude above the optimistic projections.

I factored in TOD around stations , the extension to Newport , RI Projects 15-20,000 daily off of that , General land use within 1 mile of stations like in Fall River , Tauton , and New Bedford , its not that hard to see 75,000+.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Excuse me? Providence to New Bedford but not Hartford to Providence? And 50,000 riders out of the gate? No chance in hell.

I really need some insight from you on this. Why? Why not even Hartford to New Bedford? Hartford and Providence have no direct link. No rail, no road, nothing. That's an entirely untapped market, whether or not you feel the need to hedge bet on a 'safe' Providence - New Bedford Line, there's really no way that Hartford - Providence isn't a winner.

So why not propose that line?

Theres barely anyone who lives between the two , besides the New NEC will connect them. Theres Route 6 which in a way connects them abet slow and twisty... With Providence to New Bedford there's a decent sized commuter market , there's about 110,000 who use I-195 daily...

 

[Riverside]

Theres barely anyone who lives between the two , besides the New NEC will connect them. Theres Route 6 which in a way connects them abet slow and twisty... With Providence to New Bedford there's a decent sized commuter market , there's about 110,000 who use I-195 daily...

There may not be many people who live between Providence and Hartford now, but there would be if there was an actual way to commute. Furthermore, Providence and Hartford themselves are both legitimate urban centers that could certainly do well being connected.

If you're accounting for future TOD and general land growth, I don't really see how you can just discount PVD-HFD because there aren't any people living there now.

Western Extension --- Greenfield, Massachusetts ---- West Wachetts --- 33.5 Miles - 3,700
(2030)[/U]

Not to be a jerk, but that's "Wachusett". See here. Sorry. :-/

 

[Nexis4jersey]

There may not be many people who live between Providence and Hartford now, but there would be if there was an actual way to commute. Furthermore, Providence and Hartford themselves are both legitimate urban centers that could certainly do well being connected.

If you're accounting for future TOD and general land growth, I don't really see how you can just discount PVD-HFD because there aren't any people living there now.



Not to be a jerk, but that's "Wachusett". See here. Sorry. :-/

I mean't to correct the Wachusetts mistake... TOD between HFD and PVD would lead to regular sprawl damaging the remaining gap between the 2 large Metros in the Northeast. I don't think that's a wise thing to do.... I don't see either city that progressive with TOD compared to Boston or Stamford or even Cambridge.... What makes you think a Rail line between the 2 would change this? A New High Speed Rail Connection to NYC and Boston would greatly benefit both cities , but I can't see the market for commuter rail between the two.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I mean't to correct the Wachusetts mistake... TOD between HFD and PVD would lead to regular sprawl damaging the remaining gap between the 2 large Metros in the Northeast. I don't think that's a wise thing to do.... I don't see either city that progressive with TOD compared to Boston or Stamford or even Cambridge.... What makes you think a Rail line between the 2 would change this? A New High Speed Rail Connection to NYC and Boston would greatly benefit both cities , but I can't see the market for commuter rail between the two.

Wait, so, your argument is that we shouldn't connect the two because it will fill a gap of empty space and that's... not... wise?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Seriously, what?

Why WOULDN'T you want more development anywhere and everywhere you could get it?

Why wouldn't you figure either city - hell, either STATE - as progressive with TOD? What evidence do you have for that?

And seriously, even if the 'New NEC' gets built - and the open secret is, it's never going to be - that's going to be a connection for PVD to BOS or NYC, and for HFD to BOS or NYC. Nobody is going to board a BOS-NYC HSR line to go one stop, and that's where HFD-PVD commuter rail comes in.

And looking over your list some more... 'Central Manchester' already puts you a significant percentage of the way towards PVD. Throw down another stop in Willmantic, Danielson(?), Foster/Glocester, Johnston and PVD - four new stops and you're done.

Except really, it's more like two new stops because Central Manchester would need a Willmantic extension eventually and Johnston-PVD is a connection that needs to happen.

 

[Matthew]

Why WOULDN'T you want more development anywhere and everywhere you could get it?

Hmm? Isn't that the definition of sprawl? Development is expensive, you want to do it where existing resources are located already. Extending utilities out to the middle of nowhere is extremely expensive. It's not environmentally friendly either.