Crazy Transit Pitches

[Tallguy]

The Tremont Street tunnel is much too small for the clearances required by buses, IIRC.

They would be large enough for guided buses

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

They would be large enough for guided buses

Not with bellmouth turning radii like this. . .

 

[Tallguy]

I thought I recalled discussion during the SL phase 3 process

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I thought I recalled discussion during the SL phase 3 process

SL Phase III, when it was briefly being considered for a Tremont alignment, was going to stupidly dig a whole honking new tunnel underneath the trolley tunnel and underpin it (because historical considerations wouldn't allow them to nuke it outright). That obviously didn't last very long before the cost folly got them searching for other street alignments.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

This would seem to be relevant to anyone who's fantasized about a Salem-Peabody/Danvers LRT system:

Peabody Rousselot plant to close at end of 2023

PEABODY — Rousselot’s plant in Peabody will close at the end of the year, putting an end to over 200 years of manufacturing operations at the site.

www.salemnews.com

PEABODY — Rousselot’s plant in Peabody will close at the end of the year, putting an end to over 200 years of manufacturing operations at the site.

The factory, which is located off Allens Lane and Washington Street, primarily produces pharmaceutical-grade gelatin that is used by different industries and has about 100 employees, who will be offered severance packages as operations wind down, said Suann Guthrie, a spokesperson for Darling Ingredients, Rousselot's parent company.

They're the last freight customer on that track, no? The City of Peabody GIS site refuses to let me select any of the parcels that make up the track, but the state bought this spur a while back, right?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This would seem to be relevant to anyone who's fantasized about a Salem-Peabody/Danvers LRT system:

Peabody Rousselot plant to close at end of 2023

PEABODY — Rousselot’s plant in Peabody will close at the end of the year, putting an end to over 200 years of manufacturing operations at the site.

www.salemnews.com

They're the last freight customer on that track, no? The City of Peabody GIS site refuses to let me select any of the parcels that make up the track, but the state bought this spur a while back, right?

The state has always owned to Peabody Sq. The branch splitting southwest is the South Peabody Branch owned by CSX.

 

[Teban54]

Question inspired by the ongoing discussion in the Silver Line thread and engineering drawings of a Green Line branch all the way to Mattapan:

Which bus routes in metro Boston do people think should be (plausibly) converted to surface-running modern streetcars/LRVs?

(Don't necessarily have to tie into the Green Line system; no need for grade separation, but should preferably have dedicated ROW)

 

[JeffDowntown]

Question inspired by the ongoing discussion in the Silver Line thread and engineering drawings of a Green Line branch all the way to Mattapan:

Which bus routes in metro Boston do people think should be (plausibly) converted to surface-running modern streetcars/LRVs?

(Don't necessarily have to tie into the Green Line system; no need for grade separation, but should preferably have dedicated ROW)

There are really practical reasons why all the pitching of LRV is for extensions that connect into the Green Line -- real world rolling stock maintenance and provisioning. If you don't tie into the Green Line you need a dedicated yard, dedicated maintenance facilities and dedicated rolling stock. $$$$

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

The state has always owned to Peabody Sq. The branch splitting southwest is the South Peabody Branch owned by CSX.

How about the (abandoned?) ROW north of Peabody Square? Couldn't get the GIS system to tell me about that, either.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

How about the (abandoned?) ROW north of Peabody Square? Couldn't get the GIS system to tell me about that, either.

That's the Danvers Branch; MBTA-owned.

 

[Teban54]

There are really practical reasons why all the pitching of LRV is for extensions that connect into the Green Line -- real world rolling stock maintenance and provisioning. If you don't tie into the Green Line you need a dedicated yard, dedicated maintenance facilities and dedicated rolling stock. $$$$

That's definitely true, but wouldn't that also apply to any LRV extensions that do tie into the Green Line? Existing GL yards are unlikely to be sufficient for the kind of extensions often discussed here, so you'll still need room for new maintenance facilities or to expand existing ones, preferably close enough to the extensions, similar to the Inner Belt GLMF for GLX.

 

[clam]

Reading about the Highland Branch, and how it used to be a commuter loop. Not saying it's a good idea, but if for some reason an endless bag of money appeared with the stipulation you had to use it to make one loop line, either commuter rail or rapid transit, where would you put it?

 

[clam]

This would seem to be relevant to anyone who's fantasized about a Salem-Peabody/Danvers LRT system:

Peabody Rousselot plant to close at end of 2023

PEABODY — Rousselot’s plant in Peabody will close at the end of the year, putting an end to over 200 years of manufacturing operations at the site.

www.salemnews.com

They're the last freight customer on that track, no? The City of Peabody GIS site refuses to let me select any of the parcels that make up the track, but the state bought this spur a while back, right?

Why LRT when we could get a 1 seat ride into Boston (and beyond with NSRL), with a commuter rail extension running multi units? Don't see how the stop spacing would make more sense for light rail.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Smarter people in this forum can offer their takes whether or not I'm stupid, here, but the idea of a branch line to Danvers Center always struck me as odd.

Part of that's a matter of principle: Prioritizing one-seat rides when designing a network seems like it frequently leads to sub-optimal frequencies on the various branch lines when we exist in a resource-constrained environment. And as our region becomes way more polycentric than it was 50 years ago, it's healthy for riders and planners alike to shift their mindset to one where a transfer or two is OK -- provided the transit system can keep up its end of the bargain that a transfer won't degrade reliability.

Acknowledging that's in my priors, it seems wiser to focus regional rail on the Beverly>Boston corridor, especially given the existing residential density in downtown Beverly and the existing job density at the Cummings Center just a short bus ride away means there are more Day 1 riders within walking distance of Beverly Depot than downtown Danvers. I know analyses of a Danvers MBCR branch suggest there's adequate density in that town to support it, but I question the wisdom of branching just before a major job/employment center.

Now, since frequency and reliability are far and away the biggest drivers of transit usage, that strongly suggests pouring all resources into the main line without being distracted by a branch to Danvers will ultimately get you the most durable, regional-scale scaffolding to drive mode-shift when paired with solid feeder services.

I don't live in the Salem area, but talking to friends who do and spending some time looking at what jobs, shops, entertainment and services are where in that area, plus thinking about how transit shapes what I choose to access (I know, I know: one data point only, there), I'm left with the strong impression that a lot of people probably stay local during an average week when doing their shopping, going to the doctor or eating out. Unfortunately, bus service in the area is such garbage, there's not a lot of data to back this up (although page 39 of the 2018 Better Bus project market analysis suggests there's decent demand on the Salem-North Shore Mall and Salem-Danvers corridors), but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of latent demand for transit within the area.

Salem, for example, is quite the budding cultural destination these days, and the area was until recently one of the cheaper places to buy a house or condo -- a clear sign a lot of younger (first-time) homebuyers have been moving there. Even if a lot of people who live there probably still work downtown or along 128, it's definitely evolving away from being just a cluster of bedroom communities.

TL;DR: 1) There's likely latent demand to move within the Salem region, and 2) a future regional rail system will be stronger w/o branch lines.

(I also have some physical, logistical concerns. First, where do you put the layover space? The Danvers Center street grid looks really tight. Second, wouldn't this planned apartment building block the path to the Salem tunnel?)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Smarter people in this forum can offer their takes whether or not I'm stupid, here, but the idea of a branch line to Danvers Center always struck me as odd.

Part of that's a matter of principle: Prioritizing one-seat rides when designing a network seems like it frequently leads to sub-optimal frequencies on the various branch lines when we exist in a resource-constrained environment. And as our region becomes way more polycentric than it was 50 years ago, it's healthy for riders and planners alike to shift their mindset to one where a transfer or two is OK -- provided the transit system can keep up its end of the bargain that a transfer won't degrade reliability.

Acknowledging that's in my priors, it seems wiser to focus regional rail on the Beverly>Boston corridor, especially given the existing residential density in downtown Beverly and the existing job density at the Cummings Center just a short bus ride away means there are more Day 1 riders within walking distance of Beverly Depot than downtown Danvers. I know analyses of a Danvers MBCR branch suggest there's adequate density in that town to support it, but I question the wisdom of branching just before a major job/employment center.

Now, since frequency and reliability are far and away the biggest drivers of transit usage, that strongly suggests pouring all resources into the main line without being distracted by a branch to Danvers will ultimately get you the most durable, regional-scale scaffolding to drive mode-shift when paired with solid feeder services.

I don't live in the Salem area, but talking to friends who do and spending some time looking at what jobs, shops, entertainment and services are where in that area, plus thinking about how transit shapes what I choose to access (I know, I know: one data point only, there), I'm left with the strong impression that a lot of people probably stay local during an average week when doing their shopping, going to the doctor or eating out. Unfortunately, bus service in the area is such garbage, there's not a lot of data to back this up (although page 39 of the 2018 Better Bus project market analysis suggests there's decent demand on the Salem-North Shore Mall and Salem-Danvers corridors), but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of latent demand for transit within the area.

Salem, for example, is quite the budding cultural destination these days, and the area was until recently one of the cheaper places to buy a house or condo -- a clear sign a lot of younger (first-time) homebuyers have been moving there. Even if a lot of people who live there probably still work downtown or along 128, it's definitely evolving away from being just a cluster of bedroom communities.

TL;DR: 1) There's likely latent demand to move within the Salem region, and 2) a future regional rail system will be stronger w/o branch lines.

(I also have some physical, logistical concerns. First, where do you put the layover space? The Danvers Center street grid looks really tight. Second, wouldn't this planned apartment building block the path to the Salem tunnel?)

Danvers is no longer a candidate for an extension. They took out a 99-year trail lease on the Danvers Branch with intent to make a walking trail to Peabody Square. The extension that still has advocacy is the one to North Shore Mall via Peabody Square, using the ex- South Middleton Branch and current Peabody Municipal Light power line ROW that runs due west of the Square alongside Proctor Brook. That one projected out to ever-so-slightly higher ridership than the Danversport one, owing to the more direct Route 128 interface and the Lahey Medical Center. Danvers, by its own choice, will have to continue being bus-linked...although with a Peabody Sq. Purple Line stop their travel times will be much-improved. With Regional Rail frequencies Salem should also be considered a candidate for a breakaway bus hub, because the frequencies for the routes emanating out of there are much too anemic being tied to Lynn/Wonderland to truly capture the latent demand you speak of.

The Eastern Route has plenty of capacity to support a third branch at same 30-minute frequencies as a Regional Rail-ified Newburyport/Rockport. The single-track tunnel and single-track Salem platform are no constraint, as the Peabody Branch turns out inside the tunnel to its own adjacent platform spot. Infilling a South Salem station also helps better time meets at each end of the single-track tunnel. The only brittleness the mainline has is the speed restriction through the Chelsea grade crossings. The 2004 North Shore Transit Improvements study recommended grade separating Eastern Ave. (the biggest speed restrictor of them all), which should greatly improve that situation. Outright closing 3rd St. and 6th St./Arlington St. (put a pedestrian underpass instead) while upgrading the crossing protection at the remaining 3 crossings whacks the rest of the restriction. The rest gets fortified by EMU acceleration and level boarding at all mainline stops. While the TransitMatters modernization report for the Eastern Route isn't perfect (too many superfluous infill stops, highly unrealistic 100 MPH operation), it showed the basic feasibility of doing triple-branch Regional Rail with very dense mainline frequencies.

The same North Shore Transit Improvements study ID'd layover sites for both the Danversport and North Shore Mall alignments. Alternatively, for a Phase I poke to just Peabody Sq., the soon-to-be-disused North St. freight yard in Salem can be used. The apartment building being constructed next to Salem Station doesn't spill onto the MBTA property lines reserved for the missing wye leg, and is skinny enough in the renders that it doesn't even buff out to the edge of its own property lines.

 

[fatnoah]

They took out a 99-year trail lease on the Danvers Branch with intent to make a walking trail to Peabody Square

While it's tremendously unlikely to ever happen, the MBTA has a right to cancel the lease with a 2 year notice. I can't see any reason why they would do so against the wishes of the town and when better options likely exist.

 

[Ayo]

This is a bit of a dead horse but since important people keep bringing it up. If we assume that the eastern route is reconnected
to Portland and the NSRL would still be built.

How viable would a tunnel from south station to the eastern route be as a way to send the Acela and the Downeaster to Portland? This would take some of the strain off of South Station and any future NSRL and would route the ACELA and the Downeaster on a faster route.

 

[Brattle Loop]

How viable would a tunnel from south station to the eastern route be as a way to send the Acela and the Downeaster to Portland? This would take some of the strain off of South Station and any future NSRL and would route the ACELA and the Downeaster on a faster route.

Less than useless, pretty much. Amtrak has no interest in sending the Acela any further north than Boston. (I'll concede that they might, in an NSRL universe, consider an Anderson RTC station for extra northern catchment if they had a Woburn layover yard, but even then that'd more likely be the Regionals.) Portland is perfectly fine as a Regional destination, but outside the market for the premium service. The Downeaster would benefit from a faster route, but it really doesn't matter much if it ends up at North Station or NSRL South Station. That's a State of Maine-run (with MA help, not so much the NH freeloaders) operation that mostly cares about Boston-Portland and doesn't really care about anything south of Boston (though I don't think they'd mind some extra Downeaster runs as Regional extensions a-la the Virginia service).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Less than useless, pretty much. Amtrak has no interest in sending the Acela any further north than Boston. (I'll concede that they might, in an NSRL universe, consider an Anderson RTC station for extra northern catchment if they had a Woburn layover yard, but even then that'd more likely be the Regionals.) Portland is perfectly fine as a Regional destination, but outside the market for the premium service. The Downeaster would benefit from a faster route, but it really doesn't matter much if it ends up at North Station or NSRL South Station. That's a State of Maine-run (with MA help, not so much the NH freeloaders) operation that mostly cares about Boston-Portland and doesn't really care about anything south of Boston (though I don't think they'd mind some extra Downeaster runs as Regional extensions a-la the Virginia service).

The time savings are trivial over using plain old NSRL to reach the Eastern Route. It was formally benchmarked by the state 30 years ago (and BDPA listed it in their recent insane "throw shit at the wall"-fest South Boston Strategic Transit Plan), but it's a very very poor idea over doing a properly capacity maxed-out NSRL that can reach all lines from one core-unifying route. The state certainly thought so on its benchmarking 30 years ago.

As much as the Downeaster would benefit from the faster speeds of the Eastern, you still have to find a way to connect the Portsmouth end back to the route to Portland. The ancestral Eastern Route mainline paralleling Route 236 from Kittery to North Berwick, ME is largely cannibalized by development and non-landbanked, so you'd have to reconnect the western 5 miles of the Newington Branch from Newington to Dover, NH along the side median of the NH 16 expressway. Plenty of room and relatively straightforward construction (reconfig of a couple interchanges aside), but since it's on NHDOT property even a federally-paid project would have to contend directly with the wild mood swings of NH transit politics.

 

[Koopzilla24]

As our region becomes way more polycentric than it was 50 years ago, it's healthy for riders and planners alike to shift their mindset to one where a transfer or two is OK -- provided the transit system can keep up its end of the bargain that a transfer won't degrade reliability.

The American obsession with the utmost convenience of everything leads to everyone wanting the simplest and least resistant route from point A to B. This is not helped by our transit systems lacking fast connections. It’s probably been at least 50 years since you could reliably expect to transfer to another mode of transit within 5min. I think it would require a bit of a culture shift because of how far removed we are from this being the norm. Due to the prevalence of personal vehicles for 3 generations now the majority of people see getting in more than 1 vehicle to get to a destination as a huge inconvenience because that’s not time spent progressing towards their destination. (Unless it’s sitting in traffic everyday of course)