Crazy Transit Pitches

George_Apley said:
It is? I thought all the lines would still terminate some trains at the surface. Only some trains would run through NSRL. Most grade crossings in the city are long since eliminated. How far out are you imagining these tunnels going? If we're getting out into grade-crossing zones, that's a God-Mode pitch.
Click to expand...

I believe North Station is proposed to be entirely underground in some of the proposals, but I'm not 100% and heading to bed right now. As for whether its in this thread or god-mode, that is pretty much the crux of my question: at one point going out from the current plans does it stop being plain crazy and start being god-mode? Though, personally, I'd say doing cut-and-cover of a rail line underneath its current RoW is hardly god-mode construction. Easy to do, just not worth it.
 
DominusNovus said:
I believe North Station is proposed to be entirely underground in some of the proposals, but I'm not 100% and heading to bed right now. As for whether its in this thread or god-mode, that is pretty much the crux of my question: at one point going out from the current plans does it stop being plain crazy and start being god-mode? Though, personally, I'd say doing cut-and-cover of a rail line underneath its current RoW is hardly god-mode construction. Easy to do, just not worth it.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any serious proposal that has all the tracks at North Station underground. Terminating trains stop at the surface tracks. Through-running trains stop at the underground station, located pretty far inland from the riverfront surface tracks.

You may have seen development over the tracks being proposed (like what is happening at South Station). But no one serious is considering burying all those tracks.
 
Another example on crazy/not edge would be the idea of tunneling the Newburyport/Rockport portal branch under Charlestown (to create a station on the Mystic side) or Navy Yard) and pushing the portal out to Chelsea.
 
The grade from the Mystic River bridge is cited as the reason we can't get a station near Encore, tunneling under would open that up.

Would be the rockstar of "tourism/weekend demand" to have Encore, Salem, beaches, Newburyport/Rockport all one the same line. You even could go really wild and connect it to the cape via NSRL, and extend Newburyport north to the historic Maine routing for a weekend Downeaster/Cape Flyer big brain mega train.
 
clam said:
The grade from the Mystic River bridge is cited as the reason we can't get a station near Encore, tunneling under would open that up.

Would be the rockstar of "tourism/weekend demand" to have Encore, Salem, beaches, Newburyport/Rockport all one the same line. You even could go really wild and connect it to the cape via NSRL, and extend Newburyport north to the historic Maine routing for a weekend Downeaster/Cape Flyer big brain mega train.
Click to expand...
Lobster, clams, witches and oysters line!
 
clam said:
The grade from the Mystic River bridge is cited as the reason we can't get a station near Encore, tunneling under would open that up.

Would be the rockstar of "tourism/weekend demand" to have Encore, Salem, beaches, Newburyport/Rockport all one the same line. You even could go really wild and connect it to the cape via NSRL, and extend Newburyport north to the historic Maine routing for a weekend Downeaster/Cape Flyer big brain mega train.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Encore is fairly easily reached by LRT instead.
 
clam said:
The grade from the Mystic River bridge is cited as the reason we can't get a station near Encore, tunneling under would open that up.

Would be the rockstar of "tourism/weekend demand" to have Encore, Salem, beaches, Newburyport/Rockport all one the same line. You even could go really wild and connect it to the cape via NSRL, and extend Newburyport north to the historic Maine routing for a weekend Downeaster/Cape Flyer big brain mega train.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. You're trading unreasonable height for unreasonable depth out there, because the navigable Mystic goes up to the foot of the current bridge and any tunnel on that alignment would have to be problematically deep. It's not PanMax traffic by any stretch, but Encore after all is enthusiastically trying to bait ferry traffic to their inlet. They're going to be dredging out the last 3+ decades of silt runoff in their inlet to allow capacity for any decent-size ferry vehicle to be able to berth there. With only 2000 ft. between the tip of a would-be Sullivan CR station and the riverbank and a sharpish curve no less...how are you possibly going to maintain sufficient depth for a crossing there without inducing one hell of a performance-killing bottleneck?

The as-studied Urban Ring has this sorted in extremely less-convoluted and extremely more-useful fashion by plunking a rapid transit station right there. That's all we need. You can't do a CR station because the bridge approach grades violate maximum allowable ADA platform slope and any/all kludges around that are heinously ugly and expensive. But we don't ever need to build one there on that mode because LRT or BRT can run directly beside it at way higher native frequencies and funnel transfers from couple miles away at either Sullivan or Chelsea superstations. CR @ Encore is not a thing that must exist...is not. Our transit portfolio will have this covered if we follow the natural order of project priority. There's no question being begged of the purple-colored mode here.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
No, it wouldn't. You're trading unreasonable height for unreasonable depth out there, because the navigable Mystic goes up to the foot of the current bridge and any tunnel on that alignment would have to be problematically deep. It's not PanMax traffic by any stretch, but Encore after all is enthusiastically trying to bait ferry traffic to their inlet. They're going to be dredging out the last 3+ decades of silt runoff in their inlet to allow capacity for any decent-size ferry vehicle to be able to berth there. With only 2000 ft. between the tip of a would-be Sullivan CR station and the riverbank and a sharpish curve no less...how are you possibly going to maintain sufficient depth for a crossing there without inducing one hell of a performance-killing bottleneck?

The as-studied Urban Ring has this sorted in extremely less-convoluted and extremely more-useful fashion by plunking a rapid transit station right there. That's all we need. You can't do a CR station because the bridge approach grades violate maximum allowable ADA platform slope and any/all kludges around that are heinously ugly and expensive. But we don't ever need to build one there on that mode because LRT or BRT can run directly beside it at way higher native frequencies and funnel transfers from couple miles away at either Sullivan or Chelsea superstations. CR @ Encore is not a thing that must exist...is not. Our transit portfolio will have this covered if we follow the natural order of project priority. There's no question being begged of the purple-colored mode here.
Click to expand...
What about Orange?
And would a stop just north of Encore work? (past the bridge slope)
 
Bananarama said:
What about Orange?
And would a stop just north of Encore work? (past the bridge slope)
Click to expand...

The Orange fork is proposed by the Mystic Working Group, but has myraid problems plaguing it...namely the headway-punitive branching before big Malden Center bus terminal, and the cost of subwaying through much of Downtown Everett. One of the crazier 'officially'-blessed schemes in recent memory. LRT Urban Ring is still the most straightforward by far plan.


By "north" of Encore...you mean at the foot of Sweetser Circle. As in: uselessly, uselessly far north and overshooting the casino by almost a half-mile. The incline from the bridge sails well past the casino, and then you have mission-critical Everett Jct. where the freight leads to Everett Terminal fork off eating linear real estate when you finally do reach level ground. It's easier to take a connecting bus out of Sullivan or Chelsea than try to make do with scraps up there.

Ain't ever going to happen as a Purple Line stop. All of the kludges required are really underwhelming and unpleasant. Just build the UR and there'll be a front-step stop at multiple times the frequencies you'd ever get via best-practice Regional Rail. Purple Line stop is not in any way a thing that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into hackneyed existence when the other-mode alternative is superior in every way....really, it isn't.
 
What about a separate viaduct parallel to the current route (west/north side). Crosses the Mystic then stays elevated with a station closer to Encore (pedestrian bridge crossings over purple line). Then slopes down to reconvene with purple grade (goes on for however long, just focusing on this first stop here). Avoid the need to merge or meet the freight junction all together.

I know you're a proponent for the easiest infrastructural projects, but LRT sucks and is not superior in every way, especially with how god awful traffic/backups can be around there. We're in Crazy Transit pitches here.
 
The slope on the bridge crossing the Mystic River shouldn't be an issue, because the bridge ends far enough south so a station could be built after the rail line touches land and is on a fairly flat slope. See shot from Google Earth below. It looks like the small embankment north of the bridge ends about where I show the station platforms beginning (in red). The Casino building could be modified to have a public entrance and pedestrian overpass over the tracks at the south end of the station.

51029733497_ace433cdb0_b.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1615572105564.png
    1615572105564.png
    2 MB · Views: 130
Bananarama said:
What about a separate viaduct parallel to the current route (west/north side). Crosses the Mystic then stays elevated with a station closer to Encore (pedestrian bridge crossings over purple line). Then slopes down to reconvene with purple grade (goes on for however long, just focusing on this first stop here). Avoid the need to merge or meet the freight junction all together.

I know you're a proponent for the easiest infrastructural projects, but LRT sucks and is not superior in every way, especially with how god awful traffic/backups can be around there. We're in Crazy Transit pitches here.
Click to expand...

Explain how Commuter Rail > Light Rail at 1/3 the maximal frequencies. I am *fascinated* to hear what pretzel logic underlies that claim.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The slope on the bridge crossing the Mystic River shouldn't be an issue, because the bridge ends far enough south so a station could be built after the rail line touches land and is on a fairly flat slope. See shot from Google Earth below. It looks like the small embankment north of the bridge ends about where I show the station platforms beginning (in red). The Casino building could be modified to have a public entrance and pedestrian overpass over the tracks at the south end of the station.

51029733497_ace433cdb0_b.jpg
Click to expand...

"Looks flat" does not mean *is* flat. That is a 3% grade, steepest on the entire CR system. And it lasts until the Everett Jct. crossovers behind the T bus garage. The grade is more than twice as steep as the max allowable platform slope allowed under the ADA. And it's on a Plate F freight clearance route where cars to Everett Terminal won't clear the side of a full-high platform.

There's no squishiness or 'good-enough' targets for living in the margins here. These are hard blockers requiring heavily-engineered expensive solutions to shoehorn it on the Purple mode.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Explain how Commuter Rail > Light Rail at 1/3 the maximal frequencies. I am *fascinated* to hear what pretzel logic underlies that claim.
Click to expand...
Opps sorry, I misinterpreted and mixed up as BRT. Is there a plan that involves LRT floating around? I've only seen bus lane proposals for that area.
I don't think a commuter stop makes sense. I'm just talking about an OL extension.
 
Could gambling help them out of ADA requirements? Betting on which stroller or wheelchair rolls down the cr grade faster could be a fun loophole to explore
 
clam said:
Could gambling help them out of ADA requirements?
Click to expand...
Can't be sure without design level data, but I'm thinking elevators could be squeezed in to meet ADA requirements, with ramps/stairways/escalators for non-ADA traffic. It looks like the service road between the tracks and the casino building would need to be preserved, It's currently 2 lanes and maybe could be narrowed to one lane in places to make room for a passenger station platform on the east side of the tracks. This is all speculation without a topo site survey and determination of the casino/hotel operations, but looking at Google Earth I'm thinking squeezing a set of platforms with stairs/escalators/ramps/elevators at the south end of the platforms may be possible.

I'd rather have an Urban Ring LRV station at the south end of the Casino, at the end of a new LRV bridge over the Mystic River on the west side of the current CR bridge. Until that day (decades in the future most likely), a CR station might be a good interim facility. It could also spur TOD immediately to the west along the river (using that part of the shopping center).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top