Fully agree.
As for the coming dual mode: oh dang that's right! Yeah, that truly will be a game changer, and would be super exciting to see.
Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
Fully agree.
As for the coming dual mode: oh dang that's right! Yeah, that truly will be a game changer, and would be super exciting to see.
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Per this post from F-Line, doesn't look like that'd be feasible. (Technically I think EMUs would fit, the problem would be lack of clearance between the wires and the double-stack cubes.)
This would be an EMU only tunnel
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Ah, I don't know what route I thought you were asking about (I probably interpreted "ID" in "21ft ID tunnel" as "intermodal"), sorry about the confusion.
EDIT: See updated clearance posted by F-Line below.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,513
- Reaction score
- 10,257
31.5 inches, with a whole lot of conditions that could swing it a few inches in either direction.
So...15'1" for the shortest KISS + 31.5 for clearance and 7" for the rail..so 18'3.5" leaves 2'8.5" for both the ties(or an alternative attachment method) and the height above the floor to get to standard gauge width(4'8")
Anyone know what is the minimum height of any attachment method?
Anyone know what is the minimum height of any attachment method?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,513
- Reaction score
- 10,257
Sleepers anchored to the floor might shave some height over typical ballasted trackbed. But it really depends on the application. Anywhere near the core of Boston you'd have to give some consideration for drainage channels, and if it's in the city core those channels might have to be pretty substantial to work with active pumping. Also, some trackbed types work better than others on portal inclines...so you might be using a different setup on inclines vs. level flooring.
The smallest KISS fits AAR Plate B loading gauge on its dimensions. The minimum clearance for MBTA territory (and anywhere in Massachusetts) is Plate C, which conforms exactly to the size of a Kawasaki or Rotem bi-level (15'6").
Dimensions would likely need to conform to the nearest generic loading gauge Plate rather than a specific vehicle make, so the most common railcars in that territory can pass through if need be. For example, even in an EMU'd tunnel in MBTA territory you'd want/need the option to dead-tow some push-pull coaches in an equipment rescue. And you'd want to be able to use standardized work cars when performing maintenance, instead of having to custom-order them like New York always has to for the sub- Plate B Penn, GCT, and (very sub- Plate B) ESA tunnels.
I'm organizing my bookmarks and have been reminded of the 1971 Central Area Systems Study -- to which I'm drawing the attention of the thread for what I'd argue to be its claim to the "original" Crazy Transit Pitches. In particular, the report focused at length on potential ways to combine the Blue Line and Green Line -- obviously a frequent topic in our discussions here.
It certainly seems doable and would have the advantage of combining the Blue and Orange divisions, which will probably go back to having nearly same cars once Red-Blue is built and Blue can fit Orange cars.
I'm not really sure what the advantage of Blue would be on that routing over Green though. Green wouldn't require nearly as much crossing work and would enable more useful Grand Junction routings given that it could conceivably connect on both ends (Lechmere/BU). I also have a hard time seeing Grand Junction needing heavy rail levels of service.
A branch at Airport would really limit capacity on the Wood Island-Wonderland/Lynn section too, which will see even more ridership than it does today once the extension to Lynn is built.
Branching the Blue Line to Chelsea was considered long ago (during the early BERy days) but in my opinion is no longer feasible. I wrote about some of the challenges of branching a few months ago and then went into more detail on the frequency/capacity problems that branches can induce. Halving the frequencies to both Chelsea and Revere/Lynn means that each of those corridors is stuck with "half a transit line". Wonderland can't afford to lose half of its trains, and Chelsea deserves proper headways itself.
I think the best approach for transit for Chelsea is multilayered:
I think the best approach for transit for Chelsea is multilayered:
- Rapid electric regional express rail (RERER?) via the NSRL, providing fast service to Downtown, Back Bay, Longwood, and Allston
- Circumferential LRT to Airport, Sullivan, and Kendall
- Circumferential BRT to the Seaport (i.e. the current SL3, with dedicated lanes in the TWT)
- Radial BRT to downtown via dedicated lanes on the Tobin Bridge
Brattle Loop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Branching where? Airport via SL3?
It'd be quite a bit of work to around Airport to construct a junction, and then the Blue-SL3 branch would have to be grade-separated (including over Chelsea Creek, which would require a new bridge). Then, once you finally made it through Everett (with more grade-separating) and across to Sullivan, you'd have to find some way to get over to the Grand Junction (and BL can't share with the GLX carhouse leads or its ramps), and then grade-separate that (which might be more feasible on HRT versus CR, but unlike LRT it would be mandatory). Also wouldn't be all that useful; if you really, really wanted Blue to serve Kendall it'd probably end up being simpler to plow across the Charles and find some place to dig out a station in Cambridge without branching.
Yeah, branching is problematic in a lot of cases, and it's really a questionable proposition to permanently kneecap frequencies to Lynn in order to serve a route pattern that has a significantly-better-fit option for service in LRT.
EDIT: Riverside posted right before me, per usual with a more concise, well-cited response.
Alrighty, time to break out our crazy crayons and our imaginations.
What if the Green Line radiated out -- not from Kenmore -- but from Longwood Medical Area?
It's a fair question, I'd argue: Longwood, not Kenmore, is the employment center of gravity at that end of the Green Line. Why shouldn't it be the western anchor?
The perennial "D-to-E" idea (connecting the D at Brookline Village to the E at Riverway) offers a version of this idea, where the Highland Branch would now radiate out from Longwood instead of Kenmore. The E/39 likewise is still anchored at Longwood, so no change needed. What about the other branches?
Well, the C's role is to serve Beacon St, Coolidge Corner, and Cleveland Circle. The most direct route would radiate out along Longwood Avenue (which today is pretty narrow). But! The Beacon St Portal is less than a skant third of a mile to the northernmost corner of the LMA (at Fenway & Brookline Ave). That's actually quite close. Longwood Ave is the most direct route, yes, but "diverting" via the whole of Beacon St costs you less than half a mile -- and provides the benefit of significantly increased access to a major employment center.
Radiating from Longwood rather than Kenmore has the largest impact on the B. The neighborhoods that are strung in sequence from Kenmore really break down into at least 2 if not 3 segments that each would warrant a radial branch (e.g. each along Washington St, Harvard St, and toward BU).
***
We've long despaired of how to provide good transit service to Longwood. Sitting between Kenmore and Huntington, it has long seemed like the purview of circumferential service, despite the neighborhood's major importance as an employment center. But going through the exercise above led me to re-examine transit options for Longwood, and consider them within the larger context of a Reconfigured Green Line -- a larger context that potentially alters the cost-benefit analysis.
The key is that realization about the C Line's proximity to Longwood. It actually is quite close. And then it hit me: what if the C Line were diverted into the Huntington Subway via Longwood? This opens up a lot of possibilities, including redirecting C Line trains to the Seaport, bypassing the Central Subway entirely.
What about rerouting the B Line? The resulting dog leg wouldn't be particularly satisfactory -- too much of a hard 90 degree turn. But... radiating northwest from LMA puts you nicely on track for both Harvard via West Station, and Grand Junction. And even a resurrected A Line to Oak Square could be very interesting if run via Longwood and Huntington, providing a kind of crosstown service similar to the 65.
....And all of ^ that ^ then means that we can add branches of the Green Line -- even branches to Allston -- without needing to touch the Central Subway's capacity at all. Moreover, you could string together the very enticing sequence of Harvard - West Station - Boston University - Longwood Medical Area - Prudential - Back Bay - South Station - Seaport into a new transit service with minimal impact on existing capacity.
So -- it seems like there could be real worth to finding a way through Longwood running roughly northwest to southeast. There is no perfect option here, unfortunately. But, I think there's a real argument to make for an aggressive reimagining of Park Dr and the Fenway -- I'm talking full-out reclaiming the public way from automobiles for mass transit (and with relatively low impact). Park Dr is reduced from 4 lanes to 2, and Fenway is converted to a green transitway along the Fens, with Park Dr on the opposite bank converted to 2-way traffic. The Fenway offers a unique opportunity for conversion: with the park on the north side, there is only one side's worth of abutting neighbors -- mostly Emmanuel College and Simmons University. Losing one street's worth of auto access, and gaining major increased access to rapid transit, could make for a good bargain for those institutions.
A stop at Ave Louis-Pasteur would put riders less than a 10 min walk to many of the hospitals and major institutions:
All in all, less than a mile of street would need to be reclaimed for transit use.
I need to leave early tomorrow morning for some travel, so I'll just leave this here for now. Obligatory "yes this is far from perfect and yes people would scream bloody murder about it" but, if you can, just... imagine.
What if the Green Line radiated out -- not from Kenmore -- but from Longwood Medical Area?
It's a fair question, I'd argue: Longwood, not Kenmore, is the employment center of gravity at that end of the Green Line. Why shouldn't it be the western anchor?
The perennial "D-to-E" idea (connecting the D at Brookline Village to the E at Riverway) offers a version of this idea, where the Highland Branch would now radiate out from Longwood instead of Kenmore. The E/39 likewise is still anchored at Longwood, so no change needed. What about the other branches?
Well, the C's role is to serve Beacon St, Coolidge Corner, and Cleveland Circle. The most direct route would radiate out along Longwood Avenue (which today is pretty narrow). But! The Beacon St Portal is less than a skant third of a mile to the northernmost corner of the LMA (at Fenway & Brookline Ave). That's actually quite close. Longwood Ave is the most direct route, yes, but "diverting" via the whole of Beacon St costs you less than half a mile -- and provides the benefit of significantly increased access to a major employment center.
Radiating from Longwood rather than Kenmore has the largest impact on the B. The neighborhoods that are strung in sequence from Kenmore really break down into at least 2 if not 3 segments that each would warrant a radial branch (e.g. each along Washington St, Harvard St, and toward BU).
***
We've long despaired of how to provide good transit service to Longwood. Sitting between Kenmore and Huntington, it has long seemed like the purview of circumferential service, despite the neighborhood's major importance as an employment center. But going through the exercise above led me to re-examine transit options for Longwood, and consider them within the larger context of a Reconfigured Green Line -- a larger context that potentially alters the cost-benefit analysis.
The key is that realization about the C Line's proximity to Longwood. It actually is quite close. And then it hit me: what if the C Line were diverted into the Huntington Subway via Longwood? This opens up a lot of possibilities, including redirecting C Line trains to the Seaport, bypassing the Central Subway entirely.
What about rerouting the B Line? The resulting dog leg wouldn't be particularly satisfactory -- too much of a hard 90 degree turn. But... radiating northwest from LMA puts you nicely on track for both Harvard via West Station, and Grand Junction. And even a resurrected A Line to Oak Square could be very interesting if run via Longwood and Huntington, providing a kind of crosstown service similar to the 65.
....And all of ^ that ^ then means that we can add branches of the Green Line -- even branches to Allston -- without needing to touch the Central Subway's capacity at all. Moreover, you could string together the very enticing sequence of Harvard - West Station - Boston University - Longwood Medical Area - Prudential - Back Bay - South Station - Seaport into a new transit service with minimal impact on existing capacity.
So -- it seems like there could be real worth to finding a way through Longwood running roughly northwest to southeast. There is no perfect option here, unfortunately. But, I think there's a real argument to make for an aggressive reimagining of Park Dr and the Fenway -- I'm talking full-out reclaiming the public way from automobiles for mass transit (and with relatively low impact). Park Dr is reduced from 4 lanes to 2, and Fenway is converted to a green transitway along the Fens, with Park Dr on the opposite bank converted to 2-way traffic. The Fenway offers a unique opportunity for conversion: with the park on the north side, there is only one side's worth of abutting neighbors -- mostly Emmanuel College and Simmons University. Losing one street's worth of auto access, and gaining major increased access to rapid transit, could make for a good bargain for those institutions.
A stop at Ave Louis-Pasteur would put riders less than a 10 min walk to many of the hospitals and major institutions:
All in all, less than a mile of street would need to be reclaimed for transit use.
I need to leave early tomorrow morning for some travel, so I'll just leave this here for now. Obligatory "yes this is far from perfect and yes people would scream bloody murder about it" but, if you can, just... imagine.
Last edited:
themissinglink
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 3,672
How feasible would it be for an eventual +1 extension of the Worcester Line to a station on the Western side of Worcester? (near the old B&A Jamesville station site)
A station in this site would better serve the Jamesville and Ludlow neighborhoods in Worcester, in addition to underserved Central Mass communities such as Auburn, Leicester, and Paxton. Connections to the WRTA bus network would be provided by a stop on the 27 bus, and it would be ideal for the 33 bus to also stop at the station for connections to communities along Route 9. This could possibly be achieved by rerouting the 33 down Ludlow St and Stafford St, with increased frequencies on the 19 bus to compensate for the 33 being re-routed off of Main St.
Obviously the MBTA would need to negotiate trackage rights on the B&A west of Union Station for such an extension. Also, an additional track would be constructed between Union Station and the new "West Worcester" station site for traffic separation (I'm pretty sure a new track through this area has been discussed as part of East/West rail).
This project would be best suited for after the Weston-Framingham third track project and the Newton/Wellesley/Natick station reconstructions were finished.
A station in this site would better serve the Jamesville and Ludlow neighborhoods in Worcester, in addition to underserved Central Mass communities such as Auburn, Leicester, and Paxton. Connections to the WRTA bus network would be provided by a stop on the 27 bus, and it would be ideal for the 33 bus to also stop at the station for connections to communities along Route 9. This could possibly be achieved by rerouting the 33 down Ludlow St and Stafford St, with increased frequencies on the 19 bus to compensate for the 33 being re-routed off of Main St.
Obviously the MBTA would need to negotiate trackage rights on the B&A west of Union Station for such an extension. Also, an additional track would be constructed between Union Station and the new "West Worcester" station site for traffic separation (I'm pretty sure a new track through this area has been discussed as part of East/West rail).
This project would be best suited for after the Weston-Framingham third track project and the Newton/Wellesley/Natick station reconstructions were finished.