winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
The side signs on the #3 Red Line 01800 cars use the letter codes.
Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
The side signs on the #3 Red Line 01800 cars use the letter codes.
For those with NY envy, remember that for all we talk about the "first subway" here, NY has had rapid transit since the late 1860s, running on steam-powered (later electric) elevateds. The NY subway is basically the "second system" which was constructed with all the foresight and knowledge gained from the elevated era (which has nearly all been torn down in Manhattan). Manhattan had 4 north-south trunks back then, which is why the 2nd Ave subway is such a big deal, since there are only 3 main tunnels right now. The Lexington line has been doing double duty since the mid-20th century.
Also NY is a lot (A LOT) bigger than Boston and mixes service patterns to try and keep running times down to the outer boroughs.
And modernized systems with CBTC, moving block, etc, can add a lot of capacity without needing more tunnels or concrete. There's no need (or possibility, as others have covered) of 4-tracking here, or in most places.
London also has had multiple generations, and the current one is deep-level, so it avoids the difficulty of tunneling beneath the narrow streets above. Paris might be a better comparison, since they tore up the streets to build a mazy subway network, and made it work. They do use a lot of elevated lines, and took advantage of the Haussmann era "urban renewal" which destroyed a lot of small streets to create the famed boulevards. The RER (1970s-now) is constructed deep level. Madrid is a mix, I think, but most of it is deep level, especially anything newer. I don't think they have any four-tracking on their rapid transit, either, maybe a few sections near transfer stations.
Also NY is a lot (A LOT) bigger than Boston and mixes service patterns to try and keep running times down to the outer boroughs.
And modernized systems with CBTC, moving block, etc, can add a lot of capacity without needing more tunnels or concrete. There's no need (or possibility, as others have covered) of 4-tracking here, or in most places.
London also has had multiple generations, and the current one is deep-level, so it avoids the difficulty of tunneling beneath the narrow streets above. Paris might be a better comparison, since they tore up the streets to build a mazy subway network, and made it work. They do use a lot of elevated lines, and took advantage of the Haussmann era "urban renewal" which destroyed a lot of small streets to create the famed boulevards. The RER (1970s-now) is constructed deep level. Madrid is a mix, I think, but most of it is deep level, especially anything newer. I don't think they have any four-tracking on their rapid transit, either, maybe a few sections near transfer stations.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 1,769
Haha, since you ask...
I kind of nerded out last winter when I was making these and made quite a few iterations. Here is one of my favorites building off of what I posted earlier. This experiment was to see how quickly I thought things can get done for the MBTA with good public funding. This can be seen as optimistic, but not insane, in terms of a timeline. Heck, I was not alive the last time a new T station opened; 26 years ago! I was also biased and screwed over places I don't frequent that deserve transit, such as Lynn and Chelsea. (sorry Data)
My earlier 2023 map had:
- Assembly Square
- Green Line Extension via the Fitchburg Line ROW to Union Square
- Green Line Extension to College Ave via the Lowell Line ROW with intermediate stops at Brickbottom, Gilman Square, Lowell Street and Ball Square
- Assumed Lechmere relocation (doesn't show on map).
- Red Line-Blue Line Connector at Charles/MGH, under Cambridge Street, closing Bowdoin.
Below is a "2035" map.
It includes:
- Indigo Line along the Fairmount Line ROW from South Station to Readville. This includes all of the current Fairmount Line stations as well as Blue Hill Avenue Station.
- An assumed South Station Expansion to allow for the Indigo Line to operate (potentially as DMU, unsure of mode) with rapid transit frequencies.
- Green Line extension from Union Square to Porter Square via the Fitchburg Line ROW, with an intermediate stop at Wilson Square
- Blue Line extension from Charles/MGH to Kenmore with a connection to the Green Line B, C, D branches. Intermediate stops at Esplanade, Clarendon and Gloucester. This can be accomplished with a Riverbank Subway or a surface ROW with a downgrade of Storrow. Crazy Transit Pitch, yes.
- Downtown Crossing - State pedestrian connector. Complementing the DTX-Park St pedestrian connector, the DTX-State connector would parallel the Orange Line and allow for better connection between the southern half of the Red Line and the eastern half of the Blue Line.
Below is a "2047" map.
It includes:
- Blue eats "D" from Kenmore to Riverside. I envision that during the decade+ of construction this would require, frequent DMU service would run between Riverside and South Station. Also, station consolidation, taking advantage of the added speed and frequency of an HRT trunk, results in the closure of Beaconsfield, Chestnut Hill, Eliot and Waban. Yes, as a Newtonite I'm convinced that this is a net gain for Newton transit-wise.
- Subway under Commonwealth Avenue from Kenmore through Packards Corner. Stop consolidation turns 8 surface stops into 4 subway stations:
- BU East (between present day BU East and Blandford)
- BU West (near present day BU Central)
- Agannis Arena
- Packards Corner
Below is a "2057" map.
You may have noticed that many of my previous moves decreased dependency on the Central Subway, this was not by accident:
- Blue-Red connector at Charles MGH
- Blue Line extension through Back Bay with connection to Green at Kenmore
- Blue Line eats Riverside branch
- pedestrian connector from State to DTX
This map includes:
- A new branch of the Green Line from Boylston to Dudley with a connection to the Orange Line at Tufts Medical Center and 5 intermediate surface stops between Tufts Medical Center and Dudley. This branch surfaces north of the Pike, travels at grade along Shawmut Ave, goes back below grade north of Berkeley, cut and cover under Peters Park, and surfaces again along Washington Street.
- A new branch of the Green Line from Boylston to South Station, under Boylston St/Essex St, with a connection to the Red Line at South Station and a connection to the Orange Line at Chinatown.
- An underground pedestrian connector between Chinatown and Boylston, paralleling the new Green Line tracks.
- Boylston Station is rebuilt. The platforms remain basically in their current location, north of the added junction. There is a pedestrian connector between the two platforms, as well as to Chinatown. The green line tracks continue in 4 direction from the junction, north/south under Tremont and east/west under Boylston. Only trains traveling under Tremont north of the junction (either headed north towards Park Street, or south from Park Street to Boylston) can stop at Boylston. Whew. Kapeesh?
- The "A" designation is reintroduced. "A" trains run from South Station to North Station, via Chinatown, Boylston, Park Street, Government Center and Haymarket. Look, a kinda, sorta North-South Connector!
- The "B" would run from Boston College to South Station. Because it is traveling under Boylston Street and Essex Street, moving east/west, it can not stop stop at Boylston Station. Therefore, "B" trains stop only at Chinatown and South Station after Arlington. Here, the Boylston/Chinatown pedestrian connector can be useful for transfers.
- The "C" would run from Cleveland Circle to Lechmere, not too different from now.
- The "D" designation is retired.
- The "E" would run from Heath to College Ave, which it will in a few years anyways.
- The "F" designation is introduced for trains running from Dudley to Porter Square.
- Also, a fare gated connection is created between Cleveland Circle and Reservoir. Cleveland Circle trains would terminate somewhere in the current yard with a station hosing both the Reservoir (Blue) and Cleveland Circle (Green) stops.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,092
- Reaction score
- 5,336
Looks great.
The one thing I would add to the 2057 map is to extend the new Green Line branch (from Boylston to South Station) to at least the World Trade Center station in the existing Silver Line tunnel. This would provide direct service by light rail between the South Boston waterfront and Back Bay, and would be relatively cheap to implement.
Buses could still run in the Silver Line tunnel along with the Green Line branch LRV's.
The one thing I would add to the 2057 map is to extend the new Green Line branch (from Boylston to South Station) to at least the World Trade Center station in the existing Silver Line tunnel. This would provide direct service by light rail between the South Boston waterfront and Back Bay, and would be relatively cheap to implement.
Buses could still run in the Silver Line tunnel along with the Green Line branch LRV's.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
If you want to read a nice summary of official "crazy transit pitches" from 1894 to 20 years ago in 1993, the linked document has a review "History of Mass Transit Planning in the Boston Region" starting in Section C
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/boston.html
Although it's a 20-year old document that summarizes plans going back almost 120 years, you will find that a lot of the same expansion ideas have been under consideration for many decades.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/boston.html
Although it's a 20-year old document that summarizes plans going back almost 120 years, you will find that a lot of the same expansion ideas have been under consideration for many decades.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 1,769
Cool! I always find it amazing how crazy transit pitches span across generations and lifetimes. I recently read the history of the 2nd avenue subway (NYC) and it's amazing to thing that over 80 years ago people thought of it much the same way as they do today. Also, I love how an "Urban Ring" has been something talked about for the T forever, just that at one point an Urban Ring was considered one block west of the present day Tremont St. Subway, while now it is assumed to go through Fenway, Allston or both.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,819
- Reaction score
- 7,629
Ok, but why is this necessary? Station spacing on the D is more than appropriate for HRT service as it is, and while I could see closing Eliot if Upper Falls get service (it would then be almost completely redundant with UF, Waban and NH) Waban and Chestnut Hill both serve distinct neighborhood centers, with CH having the additional importance of serving the Chestnut Hill shopping areas on Route 9.
I've been against HRT conversion for the D straight along because it precludes an extension to Needham (the ROW in that direction has lots of grade crossings), and it becomes even less palatable when Newton loses half its stations, basically ending the line's use as intrasuburban transit. Giving Newton high-capacity access to Boston is best achieved with DMUs on the Turnpike, not by converting the D.
Also, no Orange to West Roxbury on the 2057 map? I realize you've ruled out the Needham Green, but then extend Orange to Needham Junction or something...
Oh, BTW, your maps are really cool. Don't let my criticism convince you I think otherwise...
The issue with this for me is: where does it go on the other end? Any time we've had this on a fantasy map, it's been "Red eats Green" up to Medford. As far as I know there hasn't been any GL-specific work on GLX, just bridge rehabs that would be needed for either. Also, the Lechmere station rebuild is necessary for Union Square service, so that's still a thing if Red goes to Medford, but would the pols in Somerville ever accept another ten years delay in transit service?
It's not a trifling thing to flip it once the GLX is operating, since there's viaducts that it would make obsolete when they're still brand new, not to mention the yard at Inner Belt. I get the sense the T is completely committed to GL on the GLX pretty much into perpetuity, so where else can the RL go from North Station? I guess it's not the end of the world if that's just the end of the line, but still...
Maybe take the opportunity to cut-and-cover the Grand Junction and link back up at Kendall? If you really wanted to be ambitious, you could cut-and-cover all the way to the river, build another crossing, extend it through the railyard and end up back at Harvard! I know you've already expounded on why tunneling under the GJR is impossible, though.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,901
- Reaction score
- 7,711
I think the bigger reason to keep the D as-is is that the Urban Ring Phase III tunnel through Brookline is so unbuildable they will have no choice but to go with a path-of-least-resistance Plan B: Grand Junction to a Kenmore-BU Bridge burial of the B, boomerang through a reconfigured Kenmore loop onto the D, fork off Brookline Village for the southern permutations of the Ring. The scoping study put the tunnel on almost the same exact path as the I-695 tunnel that the Brookline money killed deader than dead 40+ years ago. It doesn't matter if it's 2 tracks or bus lanes vs. a 6-lane highway, the neighborhood gets irreparably disrupted by the scar cut through it and that won't stand any more than it did with the Inner Belt. Plus...that piece alone will probably cost more than the entire north half of the Ring combined. Really...what's 5 extra minutes on a trolley boomeranging through "BU East Under", Kenmore, Fenway, and Longwood when that's the difference between having a complete-circuit Ring and never having a Ring.
Blue terminating at Kenmore via Riverbank Subway trade-in for Storrow...that I think works unto itself just for prying massive loads off the Central Subway into downtown. I think that proposal would be more motivated by elimination of Storrow and requirement of an equivalent transit trade-in for removing the parkway than it would place on 'natural' transit priority. But how happy-as-clams would people be going downstairs to board a 6-car HRT train to downtown? Probably preferable than staying on the trolley.
It could go a bunch of different ways. Remember, it hasn't been studied. The most that's been said by the Link planners is that "yeah, you could use half of it for rapid transit". Because the minimum build options for the Link do spec 2 RR tracks instead of 4, or 2 to start then +2 later. Rapid transit was beyond the scope of the existing study. That was strictly focuses on establishing the viability of "a" Link, the engineering feasibility of the base infrastructure, and the practice of thru-running commuter rail. Decisions on how many bells-and-whistles to add, like Central Station and every last portal, are the realm of later studies where pinning down best bang-for-buck is the focus...not answering the question "can it be done at all?" That's where the HRT option can factor in...it's a bang-for-buck consideration, not a "can this thing be dug?"
My thinking is that if it hits the North Station superstation above the Orange level and bootstaps out a double-wide Orange portal there's multiple paths it can take across Boston Engine Terminal land on duck-unders/flyovers of the RR tracks. Hanging a sharp left along the property line of Northpoint can bring it to Lechmere on an offset station connected by a short/moderate-length skywalk to the elevated GLX station...but would never be able to outright displace the GLX station on that trajectory. Or...it can follow the elevated Lowell Line embankment on a wider swing (passing over the GLX yard tracks) and proceed straight to Washington St. It depends on which is gonna be easier. The Lechmere superstation isn't an ironclad must-have if everything's going to meet cross-platform at North Station anyway.
Union and Urban Ring forks off the Grand Junction and Chelsea/Airport are still best left to Green. Grade crossings, and fact that they'll want flex to leave some stops non-prepayment should that price out a better deal makes those much better as LRT. But if you do envision the Ring converging here that's still going to leave 3 branches @ Lechmere: Union et al., Grand Junction, Chelsea/Airport. It makes sense to flip Medford over and free up that capacity if the Ring has a future interconnected with Green.
Up the gut of Somerville will be all-prepayment, will be all grade separated, and I think will explode to utilization levels where 3-4 car trolleys might be maxed out of capacity by 2040+. They did, after all, throw Blue extension and Orange branches into the mix in the first scoping studies (when they were still figuring on Union + tunneling keeping it all 1 line) as secondary alternatives. The stations as-constructed will have platforms long enough to support future conversion without a blow-up/rebuild. It's more a matter of dropping the trackbed or raising the platforms to full-high. Plus, the 1945 expansion plan had a Woburn extension continuing up the Lowell Line...which is totally grade separated save for West Medford and wide enough for 2 x 2 tracks save for the late-50's construction Winchester Viaduct grade separation. That could be necessary by 2050 if we start extending most lines to 128 and the Link turns the Lowell Line into "NEC North" and makes it more attractive to flip the local stops inbound of Anderson to rapid transit. That way every commuter and intercity train can blast 110 MPH from NS to Anderson nonstop and get on with their business past 128 in only a few minutes flat.
Keep in mind...this has not been studied. So it is "Crazy Transit Pitches" thinking-out-loud where a lot of these other builds are rooted in stuff studied multiple times over the course of many decades. There are a lot of ways to brainstorm this...then even more details to study for feasibility when it's time for a closer look.
I also think phasing is realistic, so just for purposes of laying down the Link it probably is going to terminate at NS for the first few years. GLX flipping is the most logical need served for going north since the conversion could probably be blitzed over the course of no more than 18 months of shutdown to get it running (plus some mop-up after it is running). But say that's not in the cards: if you're spitting out the Orange portal from NS you can go a bunch more places than just Medford. Chelsea HRT. Extending Orange to Reading then running Red alongside it on Tracks 3 & 4 before turning out somewhere else in Malden. Displacing the Union branch and meeting back up with the RL at Alewife. Stuff that's appeared on other Crazy Pitches maps. I don't think any of those are particularly good, realistic, or address a clear need...but it is a choose-your-adventure trajectory from that portal under the Leverett Connector. I can think of few other places that have so many different open paths to choose from.
Ayup...that one too if you're playing choose-your-adventure with map doodles out of NS.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 1,769
Me entire motivation for Blue eats "D" was for future Green line expansion. I don't believe (I could be wrong, but I don't have exact details on headway limitations for light rail) you can modernize signaling in the Central Subway and have 6 branches, all with reasonable rapid transit headways. I limited myself to 5 branches (with a maximum of 4 sharing any trackage, by the way) to keep branch headways reasonable. Something's gotta give. I don't know whether that means Blue eats... (D, C or B), or no Green Line to South Station and beyond, or BC via Beacon street with Blue along Framingham/Worcester Line right of way with Commuter rail diverged over the Grand Junction, or some other option. The Highland Branch seemed to be the easiest, albeit incredibly challenging, of these options.
I like the stations spacing in Newton but am frustrated by a lack of density near the stations. I wonder how many people walk/bike to Eliot, Waban, CH combined on a given weekday? In my opinion/experience, it is probably 200-500 total combined, and that may be generous. The majority of transit users at Eliot/Waban/CH stations are being picked up/dropped off by car or parking and are considering station usage based on parking availability and travel time to their destination, rather than proximity. This is less true of Woodland, NC, NH where many transit users are traveling to/from areas around the stations themselves. Riverside is a different animal as people use it to get to the nearby offices or use it as a park n' ride, with some local residences walking as well and a TOD being planned. That's cool with me. Therefore, I don't believe you would lose transit riders by eliminating Eliot/Waban/CH. Is that a reason to eliminate the stations? Of course not. Should I have eliminated them on this map? Probably not. But, if a conversion were taking place, how awesome would it be if the state/DOT and Newton had conversations about density near stations.
"To qualify for a rebuilt station, there needs to be x density of residences/offices within 0.y miles of the station. Riverside, Woodland, Newton Highlands and Newton Center qualify. We will build other Blue Line stations for you if you approve x density within z years." Crazy Pitch, yes.
As an aside, when I ride the T, I often walk to Waban or bike to Eliot, so I am attempting to be altruistic.
Also, Equilib...did you live in Newton? For some reason, I feel like we've had a similar debate on these boards in the past.
I believe Orange to West Rox should be high priority. But this exercise was trying to incorporate an element of realistic timing, while catering to my Crazy Transit desires to see if I could theoretically be alive for a cooler T system. If I were doing it again, I would prioritize Orange extension over Blue eats "D" so it could get done, but I was being admittedly biased. I don't believe both could happen within 45 years, without ignoring major needs elsewhere, even with better funding.
Oh, BTW, your maps are really cool. Don't let my criticism convince you I think otherwise...
Thanks. I should probably do something better with my time, though...
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,819
- Reaction score
- 7,629
I know it's the "crazy" thread, but you're presenting the Red Line through N/S Link as a doable thing within 20-25 years and that's just not a realistic time frame to extend to Medford. Ok, you can do the conversion in 18 months, but you're really going to shut the line down to change it to a completely different mode ten years after it opens? And the alternative is to make Somerville and Medford wait an additional ten years for transit service after construction has already "begun" do get it done by 2019?
Obviously, using a HRT alternative would have been the right move in the first place, though I'd need to look up exactly why they rejected the OL option. This RL extension seems a reasonable way to do it. The problem is that there's simply no feasible way to implement this. If you're going to take the RL to NS it has to go somewhere else, and all of the other choices are way more in the realm of "crazy" then the rail link portion.
My impression has always been that with improved signals this isn't the case. I mean, there's probably a limit if you're going to go all crazy with every streetcar extension you can think of, but I've never heard it said that A-F couldn't all use the Central Subway with a positive train control system. In any case, one fix for that is the Huntington Ave. Subway connected to Brookline Village, which removes the D from the Central Subway anyway.
Your baseline of jobs/pop density in catchment areas is a real thing in transit planning, but if you have to eliminate half the stations in Newton because they don't meet the standard, that probably says more about the D being a bad choice for an HRT corridor than it does about the stations being unnecessary.
Think about it this way: If there was no Green Line there, would you ever pick that route for HRT in Newton? I wouldn't. It makes a really nice trolley for travel btw. neighborhoods, though, and an extension to Needham would make it even better. Why mess with something that works?
Yes. We've probably talked about it before. I grew up near Riverside.
Last edited:
Assuming the Blue Line is extended to Kenmore, one thing I have wondered about is: how exactly would it get from the Esplanade to Kenmore Station? That tunnel seems really tricky to build. And I assume it would require a new platform, underneath the existing one? That loses the advantage of Boylston street subway conversion, for which Kenmore is already provisioned.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,901
- Reaction score
- 7,711
Shallow tunnel under ex-Storrow EB to Charlesgate. Then a tricky bit where it would have to burrow diagonal under the Muddy River and the silt to get to Beacon St. It is a straight shot to get across that block, thanks to Beacon being at a slight ENE angle and Back St. curving into Charlesgate, so can be done without impacts to abutting building foundations. Mainly a matter of underpinning and waterproofing the mush on a 500 ft. stretch. This was done once before when the Orange Line tunnel from North Station to the portal was dug under the Charles only a couple hundred feet west of the dam in the early 70's.
Rest would be cut-and-cover down Beacon 2 blocks to about Raleigh St., then descend into a lower level and underpin Kenmore station...which this tunnel would intersect at about a 45-degree angle.
The easy construction the whole length of the Esplanade, including possible re-use of the Storrow EB auto tunnel, offsets the more invasive work on the last 2000 ft. into Kenmore. Thus fitting one of those Golden Rules of Boston Tunneling: if it's going to be a painful segment to dig, it better be a short segment to dig.
The Central Subway is never going to be converted to HRT. Have to realize that when BERy was doodling with the idea it was the Roaring 20's when the railroads were at peak prowess and no existing ROW's in the city ever looked like they'd be augmentable with rapid transit. Between the time Kenmore went into final design and opened in '32 the market had crashed, the Depression was on, and the RR's were reeling. 1 decade later the BTC was drawing up its Crazy Transit Pitches map glomming onto every RR ROW spoking out of the city to preserve those routes before the RR's disappeared entirely. There was no longer a need for the Central Subway to be the be-all/end-all to get anywhere westbound. That provision was literally a little half-dozen year blip in time before the world suddenly turned on its head.
Look at the '45 renderings...that Riverside flank on the B&A spit out in the South End and called for a quasi-revival of that short period where the Orange Line was temporarily routed through Park and Boylston. Presumably here they would've just widened the 2-track Park-GC pinch to 4 tracks so thru trolleys and thru HRT were grade separated on the inner and outer tracks between Haymarket and Boylston. Nothing was going to touch Kenmore; the D was always going to be a trolley interurban.
There's no advantage to converting it today when HRT is incapable of running as many branches as LRT, and full grade separation of every inch of GL branch or potential GL branch is impossible. Riverbank Subway does give you a westbound jumping-off point for further extension that doesn't wreck LRT and the types of routes LRT does best. The only reason to pause before drawing the HRT map all the way out on the D is likelihood that that Brookline Urban Ring tunnel can't be built at all and must take the "boomerang" Plan B through Kenmore to link itself together.
If the Brookline tunnel can be built...yeah, sure...D is up for grabs. Odds are just vanishingly low that'll ever wash.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,901
- Reaction score
- 7,711
Oh...I highly doubt the N-S Link is going to be built in 20-25 years. Dropping it cold after the initial study was barely digested cost so much momentum it's not got much megaproject mindshare. NYC has sucked most of that up at the fed level. At the state level you'd almost need an entire 2-term governorship beating the drum constantly like the Dukakis Admin. did just to get the planning on the front-burner.
As for conversions...remember, the Blue Line ran on trolleys for only 20 years before it was HRT-retrofitted in total. Bowdoin and the Cambridge St. portal were late enough additions to the line that they only ran trolleys for 8 years before the conversion. It's been done. It doesn't require a total teardown if the stations are designed adaptable (it appears they are) with only minor construction needed. They can be reopened 1-2 at a time as they are finished, similar to how GLX is being phased.
As for whether they'll support it? Remember...this is not about the GLX stations in isolation. It's about the N-S Link, which is a regionally transformative project that reshapes the commute patterns everywhere. If a rapid transit half proves desireable (and nobody's saying it will on final analysis), the fast one-seat through the two mega-terminals is the killer feature. Somerville and Medford are not going to worry about getting Arborwayed here. They get such mind-boggling upside--and retain their walk across the NS platform to get anywhere else Green--that it'll be a slam-dunk. And the state is very well-motivated to get the conversion done fast if/when they initiate it because of the same upside. Big picture.
The HRT options never got very far along in the scoping study, and were secondary alternatives from pretty much the get-go. Green had the most obvious and nearby trajectory, and had the most capacity to give on the north end. And the complications of zigzagging and partial-tunneling to fit Union on the same branch as Medford very quickly proved infeasible, which more or less settled the requirement of a 2-branch build and LRT on that build (since it handles multi-branching better than HRT).
It was the correct decision. The only game-changers causing re-evaluation of that decision are if the Urban Ring goes LRT and fully integrated with Green. Then you've got a potential capacity issue with the Lechmere end that could require mitigation if the LRT system grows even more. Crazy Link Transit Pitches or no, that Orange branch idea and doing the same Medford conversion over to that line might not look so bad by 2040 if SuperGreen really goes as superduper as it could. Same portal out of NS, no?
Central Subway capacity is never going to get denser. It is an unbelievably dense as it comes. PTC, if designed ever so carefully so that it doesn't harm headways, only benefits the Central Subway as a safety system protecting against train-on-train collisions. Which is plenty big reason to do it, given the risk this system has for another human-error crash. Such an installation would also lower the T's maintenance costs by simplifying by orders of magnitude the amount of required signaling hardware to maintain.
It's all about getting the branches into the subway on-schedule. B, C, E signal preemption on the surface so they arrive at Kenmore and Copley on-time, without bunching, and without every blown slot dragging the other branches down with it. That's how the Central Subway operated in the old days when it had many more branches. The total volumes through Park St. were not drastically different, but trains got in there on-time and stayed out of each other's way. If today's branches could get their shit together there'd be plenty of room for more routings, more short-turns and variances in the service pattern. Simply by being able to relinquish the default assumption that every other B is gonna be late and at any given moment something or other is going to have to standby for a schedule adjustment.
Where PTC can increase density is on the grade-separated branches: D, Huntington subway, GLX. There you can run it as a more conventional capacity-enhancer (like such systems work on HRT) that relieves some of the human judgment calls and improves the safety enough that they have all-clear to rev up to 50 MPH between certain stops and shorten the travel time a little. If Central Subway is going to be a bear to resignal there's still no reason they can't take the plunge on the D or all points beyond North Station as first move.
HRT through there is such a waste, when EMU/DMU service could be established to the different indigo line proposals using the tracks. Obviously needs full build of the portals, but the "Indigo" services could go to Waltham/Reading north side and then Fairmount/Newton south side.
This would mean half the MU equipment would be needed, and would provide service similar to HRT with a connection between North Station, South Station, and potentially a blue line connector at Central Station/Aquarium. Other lines wouldnt really need to stop here, as the Indigo service would be more than enough.
Another upside to Indigoing the N/S link would mean added capacity for not only the new HRT-esque lines but also for commuter rail which could share the same trackage if needed.
This would mean half the MU equipment would be needed, and would provide service similar to HRT with a connection between North Station, South Station, and potentially a blue line connector at Central Station/Aquarium. Other lines wouldnt really need to stop here, as the Indigo service would be more than enough.
Another upside to Indigoing the N/S link would mean added capacity for not only the new HRT-esque lines but also for commuter rail which could share the same trackage if needed.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
That's where a proper study would be able to determine the costs of each option. A full portal build of the N-S Link or a partial portal build with connections for HRT at the north and south sides. Another point on HRT is that with all the new regional traffic, MBCR, NHDOT, etc., the N-S Link brings (mostly from the Lowell Line) slots for the Western Route (current Haverhill Line) start to get cramped, like the Needham Line is currently cramped by the NEC. You won't be able to route HRT level headways to Reading. That's when outright conversion of Reading to Orange starts to look more attractive/cost-effective. Is it more worth it to have redundant electrification along the Western Route to Oak Grove, or just continue the Orange Line to Reading and call it a day?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,901
- Reaction score
- 7,711
Yeah.
One of the things that will force this conversation is cost of the extra portals. That's about +1 mile of extra tunneling just to hook the Old Colony and Fairmount up to the thing. A bit less for the Fitchburg fork, but if everywhere-to-everywhere regional rail is the goal and these extra appendages are billions more unto themselves, it calls into question just how much $$$ pain is tolerable for complete hegemony across the mode. That how-steep-a-hill-to-push-the-boulder consideration.
So it's very likely that the base build is just going to have to concentrate on the NEC-north routing and leave wall cuts for adding the Fitchburg, Old Colony, and Fairmount portals later. That's reality. You won't get everywhere-to-everywhere until 15 years after it opens, if that. But what destinations does that truly prevent? Ayer-Wachusett is accessible out of Lowell via the Stony Brook Branch at only 5 miles longer a trip than the Fitchburg main. Run a limited-stop express stopping only at Anderson, Wilmington, Lowell, some intermediate on the Stony Brook, then Ayer and all regular stops and it matches or slightly beats the existing Fitchburg schedule, because Lowell will presumably be pushed to 90-110 MPH by this point. Middleboro-Hyannis are accessible via Stoughton-Taunton-Middleboro. Run an express skipping most to Taunton Depot and it can sync times with an all-stops Middleboro run (this may be necessary way before the Link to grow Cape ridership while sidestep the Old Colony capacity pinch).
What does that truly omit from a thru-downtown one-seat? Fairmount, Greenbush, Kingston/Plymouth, Belmont Ctr.-Littleton, Holbrook/Randolph-Bridgewater. What % of systemwide commuter rail service and ridership is that? What % of the Link's total cost does bringing in that small minority of CR ridership carry? I don't see any way with the project's total price tag that they can justify including these destinations in the base build. It's either a 20-years-later addon, or none at all. That's a pickle for Fairmount, but how big a loss is this really for the others? It's not like they lose service, as the surface terminals are not getting abandoned. If anything they'll be just as busy with increased frequencies on all lines filling up the slack for what gets diverted underground.
This won't be SEPTA where the terminals go away entirely. We're not SEPTA; SEPTA has no systemwide equivalent to the 495-oriented lines or intrastate intercity jockeying for slots with its 128-equivalent EMU service. SEPTA didn't serve nearly as many masters as MBCR even before it made that disastrous decision to whack all its diesel routes. In practice there won't be absolutely flawless 100% integrity-of-concept in CR thru-running. Set aside any Transit OCD notions that this is a one-seat magic bullet. The highest-demand lines and most-favored communities will get the thru-running spoils. Blanket, incremental multi-modal enhancements are going to be the only way to address localized needs and adapt to the wide-ranging changes a megaproject like this causes. This relieves NONE of the pressure on the rapid transit and bus systems to circulate better through the urban core and push their trunks further out towards 128. If anything it puts crushing additional pressure on all modes to hurry up and start filling in all those HRT/LRT and circumferential builds they've been deferring for 20-70 years.
If Phase I Link is all that's swallowable off the bat, that forces thorough examination of what add-ons provide the better value? Does the Old Colony need thru-running at all if a Red-forked rapid transit line ran through the northside? All Greenbush, Plymouth, and Bridgewater riders can transfer to Red at Braintree, JFK, Quincy Ctr., or SS to get north. What are they being deprived of? Does Waltham need the best thru-running forever DMU money can buy, or do they need a real rapid transit line? GLX is sitting there on-trajectory from Porter (or Red from Alewife, though Lexington's probably the better continuation), and the Fitchburg + Central Mass ROW's can fit both modes out to 128. They're going to be waiting 20+ more years until thru-running DMU's are routable from there, same timetable as the whole tortured study/design/build process of a GLX-like project. Do the lack of other plausible alternatives at Lincoln, Concord, West Concord, South Acton, and Littleton alone justify the price tag of that Fitchburg portal?
And can the Fairmount--the most vexing thru-running deferral--be as-well or better-served having a direct Urban Ring connection at one of the Dorchester stations and a direct Red connection with some pain-limited tunneling near Mattapan Sq.? (Note: solid granite bedrock down by Milton-land is excellent deep-boring material). Or does outright side-by-side Red service @ Fairmount and Readville stations serve Hyde Park and Mattapan infinitely better than the bestest DMU? The Fairmount corridor is 'pure' neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit; the locals transfer to/from buses at each stop more than any of the other DMU line candidates. Does a combination of HRT touching Mattapan and/or Hyde Park and thick 'net' of transfers through Dorchester serve the corridor's needs better than the $B's for an extra mile of RR tunneling and thru-running perfection? Pretty lines on a map don't necessarily correspond to where some car-free Dorchester resident needs to go on every trip.
I don't know how this will play out. We'll probably all be collecting Social Security before the minimum Link build is getting finishing touches. But if they're faced with cost constraints that are going to force decisions on whether to defer the extra portals, it's quite likely going to be a commuter rail that for the first 20 years omits that minority % of stops from thru-running. A build that will not give everyone, everywhere a bite at the whole cake, all the frosting, and the cherry on top from Day 1. And maybe even leaves the Track 3 & 4 berths in the tunnel vacant for a later day, needing to choose a more gradual ramp-up of thru-running capacity. So then the study focus has to shift to what's the fastest and most cost-effective way to get those surplus-to-requirement destinations jump-started. Is it going to be waging the funding war for the rest of the RR build? Or is it going to be a rapid transit build-out to trim costs on the Link entry points and spread the wealth elsewhere building out rapid transit to the outer neighborhoods and 128? And concede to the fact that Lincoln-Littleton, Holbrook-Bridgewater, Greenbush, and Plymouth may just have to live with the same terminal runs at (the horror!) greatly increased frequencies. That Morton St., Talbot Ave., Four Corners, Uphams Corner, and Newmarket are just going to have to live with increased terminal service and the bus transfer frequencies of their dreams (egad!). While Mattapan and Hyde Park have to suffer...suffer!...through an Ashmont Branch extension running every 3 minutes.
How is this a bad thing?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
Crazy Transit logistical question: In the event that we were to end up with lines branches reaching 128 in several directions (for example the "Red X" built out to Lexington/Burlington via Alewife, Anderson RTC via ex-GLX, Readville/Dedham via Ashmont, and Braintree as it is), would the trains run end to end? Or would they short turn somewhere (for example a train from Dedham reversing at Alewife, or a Lexington train at Ashmont)?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,901
- Reaction score
- 7,711
Alewife having that 3rd yard track with multiple crossovers means you'd be able to short-turn there. That seems to have been the intentional design the 1970's planners put in for the Lexington extension. Assuming heavy rail subsumed GLX the planned Route 16 pocket track/mini-yard would serve similar function at same distance on the map to Alewife. It would be a way to throttle back headways to the northern 'burbs after dark.
I suppose if you went to Hyde Park and Dedham that Readville Yard could serve the same purpose, but that's so close to the end of the line that in practice you'd probably only abort or go into service at Readville for shift changes...not for equilibrium purposes.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 131
Didn't you and I discuss that precise proposal around post #1441?
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 131
Would there be enough room around Forest Hills to do such a turn?