Crazy Transit Pitches

davem said:
I think a great test of people riding the CR for intra-city trips is going to be the Brighton Landing (New Balance) stop. The B is marginally close to the stop's location, however it is usually packed and people avoid it if they can. Most in the area take the busses (or walk) to Harvard or Central vs taking the Green Line downtown. It will be interesting to see if the CR gets inbound ridership from the area. I live a stones throw away from the station's site, so I'm looking forward to it opening and trying it out. Every other mode takes me 45mins-1hr currently.
Click to expand...

What would it cost from Brighton Landing to downtown?
 
I think the biggest deterrence is the incongruence in fare systems between the Commuter Rail and the rapid transit/bus network. Get Charlie on the Commuter Rail and you'll see lets more people start using it.
 
I gotta say that I know first hand the struggle with commuter rail. My fiancee is adamantly opposed to taking the commuter rail, which greatly limits our house hunting plans. Mainly because of the cost and scheduling.
 
fattony said:
What would it cost from Brighton Landing to downtown?
Click to expand...
Right now Newtonville is Zone 1 ($5.50 one-way), so it will most likely be either that or 1A (subway fare). Of course, there'll probably be a fare increase before the station opens.

The fare zones for the commuter rail kind of confuse me- Braintree is Zone 2 ($6.00 one-way), but also has the subway... is Old Colony ridership on the two inland branches really so high to justify deterring riders? (I imagine this made more sense when Braintree had its double fares and exit fares on the red line)
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Offer up your empirical evidence that the number of people boarding Red Line trains at Broadway to go to Park Street, or at Downtown Crossing to go to Porter Square, or at Ashmont to go to South Station, has any bearing on the number of hypothetical people who would get on a Red Line train (but not a Green Line train and not a Commuter Rail train) at South Station to go to North Station.

We don't have those numbers, because that study hasn't been done yet - but shot-in-the-dark guesswork where we try and divine the number of people who would utilize the Link in this fashion but not that fashion based on the total utilization of an entire line or an entire mode of travel makes no sense. That's my point. "The Red Line sees twice as many daily boardings as the entire commuter rail system!" has no bearing on whether or not the Red Line should travel through the Link.
Click to expand...

I am not getting into a childish "NO YOU!" shouting match. But you are so damn sure a Greenway trolley is going to kill it...but you won't even conjecture it on Red. Okie-doke. :rolleyes:

I know things have not been studied out enough. So all we can do is reason out some hypotheses that can be tested with empirical data. I did that. What the hell is your counter-hypothesis?

A one mile incline at 2% grades puts the Link platforms just about 105 feet underground - are you absolutely certain they need to go that deep? This can work just as well at 90 or 85 feet deep instead, and the extra 750~1000 feet means we can just barely manage to place the portal on the correct side of the Fitchburg Line's split.

Of course, they could elect to keep the mile-long tunnel and reduce the grade instead, but...
Click to expand...

Yes. The depth is totally fixed by the depth of the Big Dig slurry walls under 93, the building pilings at the terminals, and the need to keep the 1000 ft. NS Under and SS Under platforms + crossovers off those platforms level. No 10-15 feet leeway; prelim engineering scoping report already covered that. And covered the whole insanity about Central Station being capped at no more than 800 ft. platforms and sitting--platforms and all--on a slight incline.

You'll note that I didn't mention ridership at all in that bullet point. In fact, I cited traffic redistribution and an improvement to overall system efficiency.

This isn't about Link ridership. The untapped ridership potential of the Link is a tremendous bonus, yes, but that's not the only reason to build this thing. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the new ridership wouldn't be enough to justify this project if it was disconnected from the benefits to the system itself.

The ability for us to shuttle southside trains off to BET without using the Grand Junction is a zero-ridership proposition. Realigning Fairmount is a zero-ridership proposition. Grade-separating Readville is a zero-ridership proposition. Hell, shifting most of the commuter rail traffic on the NEC over to the Fairmount Line is probably a short-term ridership losing proposition!
Click to expand...

Then what the hell are you arguing? This thing has to return representative investment in the form of revenue. So hypothesize how the ideal traffic distribution maximizes revenue? I hypothesized dual RT as a max ridership/max revenue scenario. So study it out. It's not like they are required to fill all 4 track berths at once. I also hypothesized a Fairmount ROW realignment saving a shitload of money and adding potential justification for going for it on the Old Colony portal.

You're not presenting a counter-argument. You're blowing your top and shouting. Again.

These are valid concerns that should be looked at in further study - but I don't think that the Link will end up being built in a configuration that prevents push-pull operation through it.
Click to expand...

Laws of physics. If the engineering's locked into a specific tunnel footprint and specific grades, you can answer that question based on push-pull loco horsepower and traction. We don't have a final answer, but the final answer will be open/shut. A bleeding-edge ALP-45DP dual-mode, the only type of "all-terrain" loco on the market, probably ain't gonna cut it because that doesn't have the horsepower of the new diesels the T ordered. Maybe there'll be an answer in the 2020 decade's loco tech, but right now it's dubious any push-pull options other than double-loco Amtraks (justified for variety of reasons on long-distance and high-speed routes. The T isn't going to double-end its trains because the equipment and maintenance drain on a commuter operation will bleed them dry; no commuter rail operation does that. That leaves EMU's, and lines that have end-to-end electrification.

If they ever do the prelim EIS they were supposed to be obligated to, we will get an immediate open/shut answer on what train specs can do it.

The existing numbers are the existing numbers, representing existing commute patterns and existing ridership. They have no bearing on the potential numbers being put up by any part of the Rail Link.

What does have a bearing on the Link's potential numbers are the number of people moving between South and North Station, and how they are arriving at one or the other. These are numbers we don't have, numbers we would need a study to get. And that's a study that I think we need to see.

In fact, since any Link-running branch of the Red Line has no real way to rejoin the existing Red Line, such a branching pattern represents directing a significant percentage of the Red Line away from Cambridge. So, in addition to the numbers on South Station and North Station, I think that we need to see the numbers on Red Line commuters whose ultimate destinations are Kendall Square, Central Square, Harvard Square. See what shifting half of the Red Line's traffic over to the Link would do to those numbers.
Click to expand...

You can make educated conjecture off existing numbers. You're saying it's moot. Well, then it's just he-said/she-said and a lot of shouting. So I'll ask again: what's your counter-argument. Root it in something empirical.


Gateway Project.

The current state of Penn Station isn't exactly "surviving" even without the fact that they are legitimately maxed out on capacity and need a second tunnel, though.
Click to expand...

The existing Penn tunnels see 24 thru trains an hour. You quoted 3 min. headways. That's 20 per hour. That's less through the Link than 2 tracks through Penn. And it will in no way, shape, or form be 3 min. headways because unlike level Penn the Link's on those steep grades.

What does Gateway have to do with Link throughput? That's enabling 50 trains per hour through NYP. Where in all of New England, much less Boston, are there ever that many trains going at once?

The argument that it MUST be 2 CR tracks and 2 HRT tracks. The insistence that the rapid transit needs can't be met by a branch of the Green Line (and I believe that they can). The insistence that 4 and 0 is an impossibility and shouldn't even be considered.

That's the modal warfare component of this discussion.

I'm more than happy if only 2 tracks get built. I'm confident that it'll quickly become apparent that the other tracks are needed for Commuter Rail.

Regardless, if we really are looking at the minimum build, then a Red Line component isn't even in the discussion yet, which sort of nullifies this entire argument.
Click to expand...

Where in the hell did I say MUST. You're the one saying I MUST be saying MUST. Did you notice that I explicitly stated what you just said: they can't build the thing in a monolith anyway. 2 of 4 track berths are 75% likely to be vacant at the start, because a phased build is all they can afford. What's the modal warfare in "TBD". But modal warfare! M'kay.

I would argue, though, that once the tunnel's bored out and a base build is operating that 2 RT tracks on the empty berth is going to start looking a hell of a lot more attractive than 4 RR tracks. Because revenue, supportable headways, and system connectivity are way higher on that mode. That's the math I'm citing with that conjecture. I'll ask again...what's YOUR empirical evidence. This is more shouting.

Cross-platform terminal access, I'll give you, but with the distances involved and the number of stops being made anyway, I think the lights are a non-issue.
Click to expand...

Nothing preventing 45 MPH speeds on HRT. Those most definitely do climb 2% grades at every incline. SS, Aquarium, NS underground vs. close to 15 lights and likely a couple more stops at trolley spacing. You realize that's as many lights as the B from Blandford to Washington St.?

I'm not saying it won't be a useful service. But it's not going to move numbers of people akin to the Green branches with those constraints. And you are insisting on a "real transit component", no?

And I'm not entirely sure why you're so dead set on branding this as a "heritage trolley," either. The Greenway corridor needs a real transit component, deserves a real transit component, and can actually get a real transit component without having to be branded as a cheap gimmick whose primary market is stupid tourists, because it won't be.
Click to expand...

It's street-running and a corridor that's not going to support 3-car trains with the intersection spacing in some spots. So there...it's immediately more poorly equipped than any other Green branch.

"Stupid tourists" are your words. Is Market St. in San Fran a real transit line? You bet your ass it is. Used to the hilt for general transit, but it hits paydirt on the visitors. The T is not going to institute a street-running line on the Greenway of its own volition. It's not ops-efficient; anything more than looping at GC is going to gum up the works too hard to integrate into the Green Line. There has to be another hook, and a strong advocacy for how it's going to enhance the city. That's where the tourism angle comes in. If City Hall sees it as a linchpin, then it can happen. It's not going to happen if the only pros/cons on the table are that it has to have par capacity with any other light rail branch...in a vacuum.

But it will not be a cure-all like Link HRT or Silver Line Phase III LRT would be at moving people between terminals in large numbers with any sort of efficiency. Too many traffic constraints, not enough capacity. Square your requirement for "real transit component" with the constraints, please, and describe how this is going to work better than the grade-separated alternatives. And don't call this modal warfare...one doesn't preclude the other. Especially if the Greenway trolley's a heritage line, which HELPS build a case for getting it built.



I'm not throwing a tantrum, and I don't think I'm being absolutist either. I'm pointing out that this isn't nearly as straightforward as I'm sure we'd all like it to be, and I'm arguing my opinion - which is that it's far more likely that we'll see a Link with 4 commuter rail tracks, or even only 2 commuter rail tracks, and 0 rapid transit tracks.

I don't think Joe Public, the average commuter, is really going to care whether they're riding a Commuter Rail or a Red Line train from one terminal to the other. And no matter what we do, the Link is going to require an absurd amount of investment. So let's do it right.

Let's see the studies, let's start with the minimum build and provision for expansion later. I don't have a problem with that at all.

I just don't expect that, when all is said and done here, we'll be able to make this work at just two tracks. And I don't expect that a branch of the Red Line is really what's needed to meet the transit needs of this corridor.

But we can always agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

...with evidence. I have no qualms with educated guesses. It's the shouting about absolutist personal preferences in a contextual vacuum that is getting really tiresome.
 
fattony said:
I think this is the heart of the preference for subway/trolley/tram and against buses, commuter rail, etc. I ride the 1 bus because it has <10 min headways. I can show up to the stop and expect a bus within a few minutes. If a train has short headways it doesn't matter what you call it, people will ride.

Unrelated to the link - I also happen to know where the 1 bus goes without needing a map, something I cannot say for many bus routes. A HUGE ding against buses in Boston is that the lack of grid makes it difficult to take any bus until you memorize it's route and schedule. For daily commutes (one route) that is fine, but for getting around town people will always ride the subway for 20 minutes longer than take 10 minutes to research a faster bus route. Smartphones are helping, but only a little.
Click to expand...

Really, the solution is riding the bus and becoming familiar with it. I ride a lot of buses, and use them for getting from Roslindale to Dedham, Mattapan, Dorchester, West Roxbury, and JP. But aside from some of the key routes, I also don't have a clue about buses elsewhere in the system. I just don't need to know those routes, but if I did, it's a simple matter to look at a map and learn them.
 
HenryAlan said:
Really, the solution is riding the bus and becoming familiar with it. I ride a lot of buses, and use them for getting from Roslindale to Dedham, Mattapan, Dorchester, West Roxbury, and JP. But aside from some of the key routes, I also don't have a clue about buses elsewhere in the system. I just don't need to know those routes, but if I did, it's a simple matter to look at a map and learn them.
Click to expand...

But why are people gonna put forth the non-trivial effort needed to learn those routes when they can take the rail routes they know well, or worse yet, just drive?

I agree that it shouldn't be an issue for people, but it would seem to be one still.
 
There's this map that might help with buses

7437769492_3e4880ce7c_z.jpg


Bigger version
 
Riverside said:
^^ That's awesome!
Click to expand...

Seconded, but it could be significantly improved by using line thickness to indicate frequency.

[edit]
I see now that it does do that, but I don't think there is enough difference in thickness. And I'd recommend more than just two guages, to show several different headways.
[/edit]
 
It uses 3 gauges actually, though I suppose it is a little hard to see.
 
Rather than gunking up the system map with key routes, it'd be a good idea--at least at the major stations--to throw something exactly like this on one of the metal system maps next to the rail spider map. Showing squares or major destinations en route instead of simply the rapid transit transfers and traces that are in no way geographically accurate. I think it's great that some CR transfer stations like Porter (outdated as those metal maps are) have a CR spider map right next to the rapid transit system. You never get a sense of where things really go with the inside-128 overlays on the rapid transit map; you very much do with the adjacent maps, which justifies the expense of having separate berths for them at key stations. At some point the balance between overcrowding/readability and key info gets way too much on the unified map. Today it doesn't cover nearly enough of the bus system to convey a good picture of destination--not transfer--connectivity.
 
The thinking behind it was that in lieu of a grid, we have a web of [not really] squares, so the transportation network ought to be framed in terms of that.

Also I was thinking of a board game kind of like "Shoots n Ladders" could be played with it ;)
 
Matthew said:
The thinking behind it was that in lieu of a grid, we have a web of [not really] squares, so the transportation network ought to be framed in terms of that.

Also I was thinking of a board game kind of like "Shoots n Ladders" could be played with it ;)
Click to expand...

Radical Cartography did this a couple years ago with an overlay of rapid transit connections, bustituted streetcar and El lines, and never-built rapid transit extensions onto the square corridors: http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?bostonsquares.

Pretty much the same thing, as nearly all of these routes have existing rubber-tire connections. Does give a rather stark and depressing picture of what fixed infrastructure was lost to mid-20th century "progress".
 
This is just too crazy, it would have made too much sense to do this sooner:

An entrance to Haymarket on the North End side of the Greenway; locate it roughly about Salem St. It's the best station for the North End, as it is the closest to a majority of all residences and activity, yet access is rather terrible. Particularly given the ramp parcel is directly in front of the goddamn main entrance, and the newer (I think it's newer?) entrance is facing away from the North End entirely.

This should have been done during the Big Dig. It would just be silly to do now, probably (unless they go down there to build for the N-S Rail Link).
 
Here's some more that are vastly cheaper than a North End entrance to Haymarket, but equally -- if not more -- useful:

Open the Boylston entrance to Hynes Station.

Make a Perkins St entrance to Sullivan Station.

Open all of the Arlington entrances.

Open all of the Chinatown entrances. (Especially when someone offers to do it... FREE... Jesus Christ!)

Open the Blue Line entrance at Government Center.

Open the Park St entrance at Tremont & Temple. (Handy SL connection that way, too!)

Open the Mass Ave Station entrance at Gainsboro/Camden. (I'd hop off the 39 at Gainsboro all the time if this was an option)

There's really no entrance to Ashmont from Radford Ln?



I'm sure there's more 'radical' ideas out there.
 
davem said:
I think a great test of people riding the CR for intra-city trips is going to be the Brighton Landing (New Balance) stop. The B is marginally close to the stop's location, however it is usually packed and people avoid it if they can. Most in the area take the busses (or walk) to Harvard or Central vs taking the Green Line downtown. It will be interesting to see if the CR gets inbound ridership from the area. I live a stones throw away from the station's site, so I'm looking forward to it opening and trying it out. Every other mode takes me 45mins-1hr currently.
Click to expand...

The two are basically incomparable - the B has to be at least 3/4 of a mile from the CR location. There might be overlap but the major gains will be from people who aren't Green Line users currently.
 
My latest full built Crazy Pitch for the T:

Here


Red Line out to Burlington via Arlington and Lexington to the North under the Minuteman and then along the utility RoW to Burlington Mall. Possibly short-turned at Broadway if feasible.

To the south Braintree would be maintained (on this map it's running to Route 24 via Randolph -- more trouble that its worth, but fun to imagine).

Blue Line up to Salem via Lynn and Swampscott. Terminating at South Salem by Jefferson Ave rather than attempting to deal with altering the downtown tunnel. I run it through Revere via Cedar Point rather than cutting up to the Newburyport Commuter Rail line after Wonderland.

To the Southwest it completes the Red/Blue connector via Cambridge St, then runs along the Storrow footprint to Kenmore Square. There are a number of options from there, mostly elevated or taking over a Green Line branch, but I ended it at Kenmore.

Orange Line north to Reading, taking over the Haverhill Line. Pricey nuking at the at-grade crossings. Drop a park-ride at Quannapowitt by Rte 128.

To the south run to Millenium Park hitting all the Needham CR stops to that point.

Indigo Line: Using Red Line stock, upgrade GLX to HRT and run north to Anderson Woburn. Enter N/S Line at OL portal. Join Red Line route at Broadway and assume the Ashmont branch. Ashmont is extended to Mattapan, from there bore tunnel to Fairmount RoW and paralleling to Readville, and then splitting to Dedham. Short-turning at Alewife.

DMU/EMU service on the Fairmount, Framingham and Fitchburg lines, short-turning at Westwood/Rte 128 on Fairmount, Riverside on Framingham, and Cedar Park/Rte 128 on Fitchburg.

Green Line:

Continue the Union Square extension to Porter, and then take the Watertown branch to Watertown Square.

Reestablish the A to Oak Square, if not to Watertown.

Reestablish the E to Arborway/Forest Hills.

Branch off the D after Newton Highlands to Needham. Terminate at Needham Junction.

Branch off of Boylston Station via Tremont Tunnel, Shawmut Ave and Washington St to Dudley. After that follow Warren and Blue Hill Ave to Mattapan.

Allow revenue runs between the Comm Ave, Beacon St and Riverside branches between Reservoir, Cleveland Circle and Chestnut Hill Ave.

Bury the B to Packards.

Bury the E to Brigham Circle, then tunnel a branch to Brookline Village.

Convert Transit Way to the waterfront to Green Line. Connect it to the rest of the system by tunneling under the NEC to connecting with the Tremont Tunnel line and continuing to Back Bay Station assuming the Huntington Ave route.

Use the Green Line to form the Urban Ring:

Run off-wire trains through the TWT to the Airport.

Street run branches from World Trade Center to Southie, terminating at City Point.

Link the Airport to Chelsea over the Chelsea Bridge and then alongside the Eastern Branch RoW to Sullivan Square.

Continue from Sullivan to Grand Junction, join the B branch inbound at BU West.

Run a branch from Harvard, under the river to Barry's Corner, and through Beacon Yards to junction at BU West.

Other street-running lines would be possible off of the northern portion, especially in Everett and Revere. Greenway trolley running surface running from South Station up the Greenway, and perhaps to the Charlestown waterfront could tie into the Green Line system at the Canal St portal. Completing the UR below Brigham could utilize SL style busses to avoid pricey tunnels through Roxxie and Dot.


The most speculative part of it is Red Line to Rte 24 (which I don't really think worth it anymore, but I don't feel like redrawing the Red Line on the map...) and the Southie street runnings lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top