Crazy Transit Pitches

F-Line to Dudley said:
2) You can't achieve 1% grades in that location when the NECR mainline junctions and goes over a bridge less than 500 feet away from the platform. State Pier's a major freight terminal, and SLE's layover yard is supposed to be built on the cleared land over that bridge. Forget about relocating that junction...you've got the Gold Star Bridge, the State Pier Rd. overpass, Thames draw, the NECR bridge, 5 bridgelets on the NEC all within a 1000 ft. radius, and NECR has to have 22 ft. clearance (25 ft. if there's any overhead wires) to offload double-stack freight cars at the pier. Whatever you draw on a map to solve all these conflicts, it is >$1B, does not solve the curvature issues, and likely penalizes speeds worse than if you did nothing at all because of the grades required.


This is why Amtrak wants an Inland HSR route. The Shoreline is almost totally tapped out of improvements between New Haven and Westerly. They've got a couple passing sidings to add, the higher replacement Conn River Bridge to build in Old Saybrook, and can zap 6 or 7 of the 11 grade crossings pretty straightforwardly. But that's about it inside CT's borders. There isn't wiggle room for much else, and the above list will probably bee 100% accomplished by 2025. They are much, much more constrained here than they are DC-NHV where there's still shitloads of improvements to be realized on the existing ROW, or Westerly-Boston where tri-tracking capacity and commuter rail mitigation opens up a lot of slack space and the straightaways allow for 160+ MPH. But you're not fixing the Shoreline without bypassing it. Technical perfection ain't happening here. That point's already been long conceded.
Click to expand...

See, I'm not trying to eliminate these grade crossings to improve speeds any. That's the disconnect here. I'm trying to eliminate the grade crossings to make the station at all usable as a terminal - which, if half or more (depending on whether the third track there ever sees use, which is likely) of your tracks are physically completely inaccessible to anybody for the duration of a train's stay at the station, it's not. Keep in mind that unlike passing-through Regionals or Acela Express trains, any terminating SLE is going to be on the platform for five minutes or more. This is not something that can be written off as "oh, well, it's never going to be technically perfect." Something has to be done here or, far from 'not technically perfect,' you're going to have 'not usable as a terminal.'

SLE is almost certainly going to run a full schedule to New London, and it's not all that much of a stretch to assume that Worcester-New London service is going to be on the map at some point. 'Not usable as a terminal' is not going to fly for very long with just one of these services running a full schedule, let alone two services coming from opposite directions. So, I'm open to suggestions for how we can solve this problem - but 'do nothing' isn't an option.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
See, I'm not trying to eliminate these grade crossings to improve speeds any. That's the disconnect here. I'm trying to eliminate the grade crossings to make the station at all usable as a terminal - which, if half or more (depending on whether the third track there ever sees use, which is likely) of your tracks are physically completely inaccessible to anybody for the duration of a train's stay at the station, it's not. Keep in mind that unlike passing-through Regionals or Acela Express trains, any terminating SLE is going to be on the platform for five minutes or more. This is not something that can be written off as "oh, well, it's never going to be technically perfect." Something has to be done here or, far from 'not technically perfect,' you're going to have 'not usable as a terminal.'

SLE is almost certainly going to run a full schedule to New London, and it's not all that much of a stretch to assume that Worcester-New London service is going to be on the map at some point. 'Not usable as a terminal' is not going to fly for very long with just one of these services running a full schedule, let alone two services coming from opposite directions. So, I'm open to suggestions for how we can solve this problem - but 'do nothing' isn't an option.
Click to expand...

Something IS going to be done. When the station gets reconfigured for high platforms they are doing away with the platformlet south of the State St. crossing. The platforms are not going to be inaccessible much longer. It kills dwell times there to have a middle car unable to board at all, and they have no side room to do anything down there with the ferry terminal driveway and S. Water St. abutting each side of the track. SLE's schedule is not going to be 100% New London until they fix this. That, the new Conn River Bridge with its fewer openings, and the New London layover are the prerequisites before the state extends all SLE trains east of Old Saybrook.

They'll tear down that platform and extend the northerly platforms to a full 800 ft. If they want roomier space north of the station building Water St. may have to be moved back a few feet onto the grassy median by the parking garage. But that's where the whole works is going to be unified. Station access from the Winthrop Blvd. and State St. crossings. Nothing blocks station access...everything except a speed-restricted Acela stops there and makes it completely safe to cross. Problem solved.

The Inland HSR is where technical perfection is the goal. It can't be done on the Shoreline. They can reduce the crossings to 4 or fewer, but it's 95% impossible to get rid of them all without severely diminishing returns and more new problems than solutions. And that's not a failure of will...it is engineering constraints on a ROW that is not capable of doing real HSR. Amtrak is not stamping its feet and moaning about this. It's planning to engineer a route that doesn't have sharp turns and bridge openings over navigable channels. Live with the limitations because they physically can't go away.


If the powers that be can compensate the city for the loss of parking by the southern end of the riverwalk, they might even be able to outright close Bank St. Connector crossing and turn the lot into a park. Depends whether they can squeeze 20 more spaces elsewhere and if vehicle access on that part of the riverwalk is adequate enough for maintaining that end of the pier. There's enough improvements to be had with station reconstruction to barter that one away and keep the station approach grade separated in both directions. If you have to have crossings, then sandwiching the platforms with them is by far the most inocuous way to do it.


And no, they are not telling the ferry terminal to screw off. The terminal predates the RR, and boats have priority. Before the Niantic bridge was constructed the RR terminated on both sides of the river with a ferry and carfloat connection serving the gap. No amount of indignation is legally going to change 125 years of legal precedent. Move on...there's bigger fish to fry.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
No amount of indignation is legally going to change 125 years of legal precedent.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this doesn't seem to apply when it's the railroad that was there first and the city demands that the railroad pay for grade separation of the city's roads.
 
Power Sources
High Speed Rail / Intercity Rail
New NEC Via Worcester - 25 kV AC, 50 Hz
Knowledge Corridor - 25 kV AC, 50 Hz
Central Corridor - DMU
New London Link - DMU
Shore Line East Extension - 25 kV AC, 50 Hz
Commuter Rail
Western Line - 25 kV AC, 50 Hz
 
Northeast Corridor Via Worcester Regional Service
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay
Newtonville
Framingham Center
Metrowest
Millbury
Oxford
Southbridge
Stafford Springs
Manchester
Hartford Union
New Britain
Waterbury
Danbury
Katonah
White Plains
New Rochelle
Sunnyside JCT
New York Penn Station
 
Last edited:
Nexis4jersey said:
Northeast Corridor Via Worcester Regional Service
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay
Newton
Framingham Center
Metrowest
Millbury
Oxford
Southbridge
Stafford Springs
Manchester
Hartford Union
New Britain
Waterbury
Danbury
Katonah
White Plains
New Rochelle
Sunnyside JCT
New York Penn Station
Click to expand...

Where would "Metrowest" station be located?

And how about Newton station? Newton Corner, West Newton, Newtonville, or Auburndale?
 
b-line200 said:
Where would "Metrowest" station be located?

And how about Newton station? Newton Corner, West Newton, Newtonville, or Auburndale?
Click to expand...

I made Newton a Newtonville , Metrowest will be a large Park & Ride facility where the line Intersects I-495 just East of Westborough. Before you say there's no need for Park & Rides they have them in Japan , Germany , Korea , Spain , usually one or 2 per HSL line. There usually served by Regional High Speed Rail Services...
 
Nexis4jersey said:
I made Newton a Newtonville , Metrowest will be a large Park & Ride facility where the line Intersects I-495 just East of Westborough. Before you say there's no need for Park & Rides they have them in Japan , Germany , Korea , Spain , usually one or 2 per HSL line. There usually served by Regional High Speed Rail Services...
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. I was just trying to envision where such a station would be.

Though where the Worcester Line intersects I-495 is in between the towns of Southborough and Westborough. Speaking as somebody who grew up in that area, those are fairly sleepy towns without much in the way of commerce. So that station would not be practical without park and ride, and in fact it makes sense seeing as it is fairly well situated for 495-belt residents and businesses.

There is nothing wrong with park and ride. Without parking spaces, you are preventing suburban residents from getting to the train in a convenient manner.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
Expanded an Older Map...includng Eastern Mass , a New HSR line , Springfield Network....

Eastern Connecticut , Rhode Island and Southern Massachusetts Transit Map

New NEC Via Worcester
New York Penn
New Rochelle
White Plains Airport
Danbury
Waterbury
Hartford Union
Manchester
Stafford Springs
MetroWest
Newtown
Back Bay
South Station

Knowledge Corridor Express
Brattleboro
Springfield Riverfront
Windsor Locks
Hartford Union
New Haven State Street
New Haven Union

Knowledge Corridor Local
Brattleboro
Greenfield
South Deerfield
Northampton
Holyoke
Willimansett
Ferry Lane
Springfield Riverfront
Long Meadow
Thompsonville
Windsor Locks
Windsor
North End
Hartford Union
Parkville
Newington
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
North Haven
Fair Haven
New Haven State Street
New Haven Union

Western Line
Westfield
West Springfield
Springfield Union
East Springfield
Indian Orchard
Palmer
Warren
West Brookfield
Rochdale
Hadwen Park
University Park - South Worcester
Worcester Union
(Limited peak service to Boston)

Central Corridor
Brattleboro
Northfield
Amherst
Palmer
Stafford Springs
Storrs
Williamantic
Norwich
Mohegan
New London

New London Link
Worcester Union
Auburn
Oxford
Webster
Putnam
Danielson
Jewett City
Norwich
Mohegan
New London


Shore Line East Extension (limited Service)
New London
Groton
Noank
Mystic
Stonington
Westerly
Click to expand...

The Bristol Tram Proposal, and the East Providence- Wareham Light Rail line cannot happen due to those areas being taken over by bike path. and houses.
 
LordStanleyCup2011 said:
The Bristol Tram Proposal, and the East Providence- Wareham Light Rail line cannot happen due to those areas being taken over by bike path. and houses.
Click to expand...

All Rail trails can be converted back to rail at any time , however I would keep the trail running next to the line. The Bristol branch would be single tracked with sidlings , the I-195 line would be double tracked , but would still have the trail. California , Minnesota and Texas are doing it this way , the trail stays and becomes part of a muti-modal corridor.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
All Rail trails can be converted back to rail at any time , however I would keep the trail running next to the line. The Bristol branch would be single tracked with sidlings , the I-195 line would be double tracked , but would still have the trail. California , Minnesota and Texas are doing it this way , the trail stays and becomes part of a muti-modal corridor.
Click to expand...
I ride the rail trails alot, and would hate to see them go to rail again (even though I love trains and transportation development). Only way I would like that is if the tracks were beside the rail trail. The East Bay Bike Path is one of the most beautiful in the country.
 
I'm making a crazy pitch to build a streetcar system throughout Fall River, Massachusetts, and to improve the transportation system in the Fall River-New Bedford, MA "metro" area (I put metro in quotes since its really a part of the Providence Metro area).

Just a key:
Suburban Proposed Rapid Bus Route
Possible Dream Expansion of the Rapid Bus Route that would connect all major South Coast cities (Fall River, New Bedford, Newport, Taunton, Bristol, and Middleborough)
Fall River Streetcar Line

I believe that this plan would improve the transportation system in the south coast, and that it would improve the economies to all the towns that are involved.

Cities and towns that are involved in this project (the proposed rapid bus line)

Hubs:
  • Fall River, Massachusetts
  • New Bedford, Massachusetts

Towns served:
  • Swansea, Massachusetts
  • Somerset, Massachusetts
  • Westport, Massachusetts
  • Dartmouth, Massachusetts
  • Freetown, Massachusetts
  • Assonet, Massachusetts

Cities and towns that are involved in the "Dream Expansion" of the rapid Bus route:

Hubs:
  1. Fall River, Massachusetts
  2. New Bedford, Massachusetts
  3. Newport, Rhode Island
  4. Taunton, Massachusetts
  5. Middleborough, Massachusetts

Towns Served:
  • Swansea, Massachusetts
  • Somerset, Massachusetts
  • Westport, Massachusetts
  • Dartmouth, Massachusetts
  • Lakeville, Massachusetts
  • Freetown, Masssachusetts
  • Assonet, Massachusetts
  • Warren, Rhode Island
  • Bristol, Rhode Island
  • Portsmouth, Rhode Island
  • Adamsville, Rhode Island
  • Tiverton, Rhode Island

Possible Route:

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=218391980744994828191.0004b6e6fdf67a67e83c8
 
Last edited:
LordStanleyCup2011 said:
I ride the rail trails alot, and would hate to see them go to rail again (even though I love trains and transportation development). Only way I would like that is if the tracks were beside the rail trail. The East Bay Bike Path is one of the most beautiful in the country.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the trails would have to go , they would stay... You can restore service and keep the trail many cities and states are doing this...it doesn't hurt the trail at all. In fact it boosts usage of the trail...
 
Nexis4jersey said:
I'm not saying the trails would have to go , they would stay... You can restore service and keep the trail many cities and states are doing this...it doesn't hurt the trail at all. In fact it boosts usage of the trail...
Click to expand...

Ok, that sounds awesome then!
 
This isn't related to the current topic but the Green line B, C, and E line should be elevated and if possible all at grade crossings for the D line should be removed and blue line rolling stock should be done in green line colors and run instead of the current light rail vehicles.
 
The B is the only one that in my opinion would work well as an elevated. Actually, I think the B ought to be underground to Packard's Corner and emerge after Comm Ave swings south. Comm Ave is certainly wide enough to accommodate a modern low-profile elevated.

The C functions fairly well as it is, I don't think it is in need of elevation or burying. Signal priority would clear up any issues the C has.

The E needs to be buried down Huntington and a linkage to the Riverside ROW established at Brookline Village. What to do with the E after South Huntington splits south into Jamaica Plain is an open question...

The D doesn't have any at-grade road crossings. There are pedi crossings at the stations that would need to be dealt with if you wanted to upgrade the line to heavy rail.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
The B is the only one that in my opinion would work well as an elevated. Actually, I think the B ought to be underground to Packard's Corner and emerge after Comm Ave swings south. Comm Ave is certainly wide enough to accommodate a modern low-profile elevated.

The C functions fairly well as it is, I don't think it is in need of elevation or burying. Signal priority would clear up any issues the C has.

The E needs to be buried down Huntington and a linkage to the Riverside ROW established at Brookline Village. What to do with the E after South Huntington splits south into Jamaica Plain is an open question...

The D doesn't have any at-grade road crossings. There are pedi crossings at the stations that would need to be dealt with if you wanted to upgrade the line to heavy rail.
Click to expand...

I agree that the B "should" be underground through Packards Corner, but wouldn't elevating be a lot cheaper? Especially with the Pike crossing...

If I were to submerge it underground, the section that makes the most sense to me is from BU West to Packards' Corner. But, with the Pike and all, I think having it elevated from Blandford St to Packards Corner (and maybe beyond) is a better idea.
 
If the Green Line is converted to heavy rail (something I do not think is necessary), the original 1934 plan should be put in place with regards to C line by having it use the Kenmore loop to turn.

Not sure how you could integrate that with the D line, though. Maybe it would be rerouted via a Riverbank Subway instead.
 
novitiate said:
If the Green Line is converted to heavy rail (something I do not think is necessary), the original 1934 plan should be put in place with regards to C line by having it use the Kenmore loop to turn.

Not sure how you could integrate that with the D line, though. Maybe it would be rerouted via a Riverbank Subway instead.
Click to expand...

There's really only two possible ways to realistically convert the Green Line to Heavy Rail without sacrificing at least two of its branches and both of them involve the Riverbank Subway - either routing the light rail branches up the Riverbank and converting the Central Subway to Heavy Rail, or running the converted Heavy Rail Green Line Branch along the Riverbank. The latter option is the better one, because it isn't mutually exclusive with a Blue Line extension.

I think a Heavy Rail conversion is going to be necessary eventually - although the key word there is eventually. I don't see it until 2040 at least, which is good in a sense because it'll be 2040 before public hatred of all things elevated rail has dulled enough with fading memories of the old Els that we could seriously propose building another one here.

After some more consideration on this issue, I'd argue that the most appropriate target for a Heavy Rail conversion is actually the C Line. The B line makes more sense at first blush, but can't realistically be converted past Packard's Corner. The D Line would only need its station platforms raised, but poses a major obstacle in the fact that most of its stations are the only way for pedestrians to safely cross the tracks, and converting it also precludes a future extension to Needham Junction. The E line is probably the best possible line to hypothetically convert (even if you're assuming it stops at Heath Street or Brigham Circle), but isn't accessible from the Riverbank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top