Crazy Transit Pitches

[JeffDowntown]

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.

View attachment 46888

Also Orange Line trainsets have lower capacity that Red Line -- so even at the same passenger volume Orange will be more crowded at equivalent headways.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Also Orange Line trainsets have lower capacity that Red Line -- so even at the same passenger volume Orange will be more crowded at equivalent headways.

Worse headways, too, even in less falling-apart times. Until last year we were still using the same fleet that ran 4-car only trains over the Washington St. El. There was never a roster numbers correction for the 1987 introduction of 6-car trains like Red had with the late-80's 01700 supplemental order for that line's big move to 6 cars. Orange's headways simply took a hit to absorb the longer trains, and then stayed that way for 35 years and counting.

 

[Teban54]

It's not hard to understand why that would be. People always look at total ridership, and conclude that the Red Line is therefore the busiest line in the system. But if you take the ratio of riders to certain key metrics, it's clear that the Orange Line is working harder.

View attachment 46888

While this does indicate the OL's service area is denser, I don't think that's the way to look at it when it comes to crowding levels.

Let's make a very simplistic assumption that a line takes 100K passengers from half of the line, evenly distributed across the line, and dump all of them in the downtown core. Holding capacity and headways constant, it shouldn't matter whether that half of the line is 5 miles long or 20 miles long, or whether it has 8 stations or 30 stations: the eventual crowding level just before hitting downtown will be the same.

However, some possible factors that can explain higher crowding levels include: (I have not verified if all of them are true, so for now they're more like hypotheses)

• OL has smaller cars and runs less frequently (as @JeffDowntown mentioned).
• OL's ridership may be more concentrated during rush hours.
• OL's rush-hour ridership may be more unidirectional, whereas RL may have more "mini reverse commute" crowds to Kendall, Central and Harvard, and/or northside riders getting off at these stations without entering downtown. These increase RL's total ridership without making the absolute peak more crowded.
• OL may have a greater imbalance between its two halves, so even if total ridership is lower, comparing the Malden half to RL may see a smaller difference.
• OL's ridership may be more skewed towards the end of the line, whereas RL, especially its northern half, may have its ridership generators closer to downtown. While this alone doesn't affect the absolute peak, it does affect where the peak starts, and thus may make riders endure crowding for a longer distance.

 

[kdmc]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

That's a terrible idea when so many of the Braintree Branch trips are going to Cambridge, not South Station/Downtown...and so many of them are linked trips with the Green, Orange, and (today via Green/Orange, tomorrow hopefully direct) Blue lines. This is the same reason Quincy howls every time at things like the stupid BDPA proposal to redirect the Braintree Branch down Track 61 to the Seaport. You can't take a corridor that's got totally divergent audiences riding its shared modes and level it all into one square peg to rule all. People need to travel where they need to travel.

 

[Teban54]

Here's an idea to tear apart...

Current state of the Braintree branch: RL trains every 15/21mins (on/off peak).

TransitMatters' Old Colony Rail proposal: RR (regional rail) trains to run Braintree->SS every 7/15mins, based on the overlap of the Middleborough and Hyannis (Kingston) lines. Headways improve to 5/10mins for QuincyCenter->SS once the Greenbush line merges in.

PROPOSAL: Abandon the Braintree Red Line branch, relying on RR frequencies instead.

Benefits:

• Former Braintree RL capacity goes to the Ashmont branch, which currently suffers 15/21min headways, even though the density is comparable to what the northern RL serves in Cambridge.
• Simplified RL ops.
• One of the former Braintree RL tracks between Quincy and JFK can be used to double-track the mainline, decreasing the cost of the Old Colony RR project, which currently requires building a new mainline track.
• The other unused Braintree RL track could be used for passing, freight(??), or converted to a bike path.
• Avoid the cost of running and maintaining redundant service between RL and Old Colony RR.

Downsides:

• Several RL stations would need conversion: Braintree, all 4 Quincy stops, and JFK.
• Braintree branch riders bound for Andrew and Broadway would now need to transfer from RR to RL at JFK.
• Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't), all points north of SS would also require transfer from RR to RL. But maybe this would give reason include the Old Colony lines in the NSRL.

Can't exactly tell if this is sarcasm (though I do think there is some merit in here), but I'll just raise a single point in objection.

Under the vast majority of fan-made Regional Rail proposals, Lynn and Salem will get 15-min frequencies or better. (Those who religiously follow the "15-min everywhere" Rail Vision Alt 6 would even claim Beverly will get 7.5-min frequencies.) Yet, the consensus on this forum is that frequent Regional Rail service is not a replacement for BLX to Lynn, even though the latter would have at least some costs.

So how can frequent Regional Rail service be a replacement for the RL Braintree branch, which already exists?

(Ironically, this also came at the same time as another ongoing discussion about whether regional rail is ideal for Fairmount Line in the first place -- which I'll reply soon.)

Unless NSRL includes the Old Colony lines (which I believe the latest study doesn't)

Minor note: The 2018 NSRL Feasibility Reassessment's CA/T 4-track alternative includes the Fairmount and Old Colony lines, but no 2-track alternatives do. I feel not giving Fairmount NSRL access would be a colossal mistake, so I do expect or at least hope this will be reassessed (again) in the future.

 

[kdmc]

Can't exactly tell if this is sarcasm (though I do think there is some merit in here), but I'll just raise a single point in objection.

To be transparent, it's "this makes sense to me, but I'm sure it's a bad idea, and I'm interested to know why." Maybe I should have put this in the Transit Shitposting thread.

That's a terrible idea when so many of the Braintree Branch trips are going to Cambridge, not South Station/Downtown...and so many of them are linked trips with the Green, Orange, and (today via Green/Orange, tomorrow hopefully direct) Blue lines.

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

Yet, the consensus on this forum is that frequent Regional Rail service is not a replacement for BLX to Lynn, even though the latter would have at least some costs.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

They're linked with something north of the river, but that something will never be Cambridge. That's the problem. These riders are disproportionately using their one-seat rides to get to/from Cambridge.

NSRL is not going to be a perfect panacea for transfers. At 100 feet underground, the stations are going to have significant vertical transportation penalties to get to the rapid transit transfers upstairs because of the sheer length of the escalators. It's definitely on the order of 3-5 minutes worse than the current Red-Silver, Red-Orange and Red-Green transfers.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

Red Line Transformation is shrinking Braintree headways to 6 minutes at peak. That's quite likely better than RER is ever going to be able to do.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Point taken that this is a very stupid idea pre-NSRL. But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS, and under the 4-track proposal, the Old Colony lines will be linked with something north of the river.

The CR, even with NSRL, is a system that is designed to get people from the suburbs into downtown first and foremost. NSRL makes more secondary journeys possible, like Providence to Salem or Fitchburg to Plymouth, but rapid transit can also better serve shorter distance journeys like Lynn to Revere, Quincy Center to North Quincy, or Newton Centre to Brookline Village in ways that regional rail isn't really well suited for. Rapid transit running parallel to regional rail can also serve to increase the number of one seat rides. BL to Lynn makes it possible to go from Lynn to Logan or MGH, while RL to Quincy opens up Quincy to Southie or Quincy to Cambridge, all focused on a single, shorter corridor to provide high frequency and reliability around the clock.

 

[as02143]

They're linked with something north of the river, but that something will never be Cambridge. That's the problem. These riders are disproportionately using their one-seat rides to get to/from Cambridge.

Even if not Cambridge, I've met a number of health care folks working at MGH who live on the Braintree branch because the commute works for them. Or, really, what I think would be in the realm of the awkward politics is that Quincy, Braintree (and nearby communities) leggies are going to see their 1 seat ride split into 2 to get to the Capitol.

 

[Riverside]

Minor note: The 2018 NSRL Feasibility Reassessment's CA/T 4-track alternative includes the Fairmount and Old Colony lines, but no 2-track alternatives do. I feel not giving Fairmount NSRL access would be a colossal mistake, so I do expect or at least hope this will be reassessed (again) in the future.

I've waxed eloquent about that doc in the past, but it really is a bonkers piece of work. Case in point: IIRC, the cost calculations for the 4-track alternative (specifically the portal works cost)... don't seem to account for the South Bay portal?

Despite having 33% more portals than the other alternatives, the 4-track's estimated portal costs are *checks notes* 2% higher. That's two percent. Compared to their (highly questionable) contingency costs, that's basically a rounding error.

I really hope someone will eventually prove me wrong here.

 

[Teban54]

To be transparent, it's "this makes sense to me, but I'm sure it's a bad idea, and I'm interested to know why." Maybe I should have put this in the Transit Shitposting thread.

No, I mean, I do think each of your individual points is valid on its own. But the overall vibe just... doesn't seem right to me. And the most succinct way I could immediately think of to express this feeling of weirdness is that, most of them apply equally well to BLX-Lynn vs. RR-Beverly, but they have not stopped us from supporting BLX-Lynn.

More fundamentally, however, there are key differences in demands, travel patterns and operational needs of commuter rail (or even regional rail) vs. rapid transit.

Spoiler: Explanation and Details

@TheRatmeister's comment here already analyzed most of these differences specific to fleet requirements in the context of Fairmount Line, while point #1 in my followup comment touched on factors beyond fleet. Given the context of Quincy and Braintree - in a similar situation as Fairmount - I'll list the key factors relevant in this case:

• Differences in (ideal) fleet design: Commuter rail systems typically run long trains with more seats, transverse seats (facing front or back) and fewer doors, to offer comfort for long-distance riders. This is partly a result of most commuter rail lines (not Quincy) having longer stop spacing, which gives plenty of time for riders to settle down. On the other hand, rapid transit systems often prioritize capacity, which result in fewer seats, longitudinal seats (facing sideways) and more doors. They accelerate passenger flow and pack more riders into the trains, at the cost of worse riding experience, but that can be tolerated as the rides are usually shorter.
• Integration with the rapid transit system:This plays out in two aspects.
  • Fares. Not only are commuter rail fares confusing with all its fare zones and the need for conductors, but today, there's no free transfer to subways and buses, and CharlieCards typically can't be used. It gets worse for new and occasional transit riders (whom we should encourage, not ignore). Making Quincy and Braintree Zone 1A doesn't eliminate the problem at all, and I suspect AFC 2.0 won't, either -- IMO, the problem is less so with how much you pay, but more about the sheer complexity of it.
  • Transfers. In addition to the transfer fare issue above, the physical efforts themselves are often less than ideal. I guess South Station today is OK, but as others said, NSRL South Station will be so deep that getting to the rapid transit platforms will take a while. Wayfinding may also add more hurdle for unfamiliar riders, as I usually find the signs towards commuter rail less prominent than rapid transit transfers.
• Complexity of understanding the system: I already talk a bit in the context of fares, but there's more with the riding experience itself. Today, a Quincy resident only needs to enter South Station's rapid transit concourse, make sure they go for outbound trains, and make sure the train is going to Braintree and not Ashmont. Even Green Line riders only need to check one of the 4 branches. In contrast, a commuter rail rider to Quincy needs to look at a giant board of departures, with 12 possible MBTA destinations (including possibly unfamiliar ones like Forge Park, Readville, Kingston, etc), and also need to remember which 3 of the 12 destinations go to Quincy. Then they need to figure out which track the train is using and where that track is. Oh, by the way, not all cab cars may be in use.
• Public perception and branding: To be honest, the people, cities and cultures that I've experienced (admittedly a small subset of the world) simply prefer rapid transit to mainline rail, even if all else equal. The aforementioned tangible problems explain some of it, and so does historical baggage (commuter rail is often perceived here as infrequent, expensive, luxurious, with far-apart stations, etc), but I doubt that's all. In fact, I sometimes wonder if this is the deep-level reason why London chose the "Elizabeth Line" branding that's more akin to tube lines, instead of "CrossRail", in addition to honoring the late Queen.

Consider the following fact: As of Blue Book 2014, the #1 most used commuter rail station was Providence, at 2325 boardings per weekday. The 5 stations on the Braintree branch? 6975, 4624, 8655, 4785, and 5122. More frequent and cheaper service can help bridge the gap for Providence, but I highly doubt they'd be as effective for all 5 stations.

Does this mean we should never use commuter rail to solve urban transit problems? No -- in fact, that's exactly what I argued against in the earlier comment, and I'll discussed this below.

All these factors suggest that converting Braintree branch to regional rail is very unlikely to gain public support. But even worse, it's extremely unlikely to gain support right now. Even if we're doing so on the basis that commuter rail can be just as frequent, affordable and convenient as a Red Line branch, we should demonstrate it first (via other examples such as Fairmount Line) to earn public trust, as much as possible. So far, that has not been done anywhere in Boston yet.

BL headways are significantly better than RL Braintree headways right now. My argument hinges on the assumption that RL Braintree headways will always be so bad that it may as well be RR instead.

Right now, yes, but Red Line Transformation aims for 6-min branch frequencies (3-min north of JFK/UMass), which would be a significant -- and tangible -- improvement over the status quo. While Blue Line will presumably have its own frequency improvements in the future (especially in a BLX world), it will always have lower capacity per train than Red Line, as well as generally worse connectivity. Overall, I think things will balance out in the time frames we're discussing.

Spoiler: Long-term Crazy Transit Pitch for dealing with the Red Line branching "problem"

I understand that achieving full capacity on each of the Red Line branches can be tempting (and I do often feel it branches out too early). But as a long-term ideal, there's another solution to that: Turning one of the branches into its own rapid transit line, which F-Line proposed as "Red X". To be clear, this is clearly not nearly as realistic as even your proposal, but it seems possible.

But post-NSRL too? If I understand right, RR trains will connect with Blue at Aquarium and Green/Orange at NS,

Another minor point: Even though the 2018 4-track alternative does have a Central station at Aquarium, I doubt that would be a guarantee. The necessity and practicality of such a station has always been under debate, so that may also be revisited in an official study in the future.

 

[Teban54]

The CR, even with NSRL, is a system that is designed to get people from the suburbs into downtown first and foremost. NSRL makes more secondary journeys possible, like Providence to Salem or Fitchburg to Plymouth, but rapid transit can also better serve shorter distance journeys like Lynn to Revere, Quincy Center to North Quincy, or Newton Centre to Brookline Village in ways that regional rail isn't really well suited for. Rapid transit running parallel to regional rail can also serve to increase the number of one seat rides. BL to Lynn makes it possible to go from Lynn to Logan or MGH, while RL to Quincy opens up Quincy to Southie or Quincy to Cambridge, all focused on a single, shorter corridor to provide high frequency and reliability around the clock.

So, yes, I do agree with this in principle, and I think it's probably one of the best responses towards answering @kdmc's questions so far.

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost:

• Fairmount Line, obviously and beaten to death
• Framingham/Worcester Line: Up to Auburndale/128, with infills at West Station, Newton Corner, and possibly others that people are currently discussing
• Fitchburg Line: Up to Waltham
  • Waltham itself is already a major node, plus Waverly has good transit share as well
• Newburyport/Rockport Line: Up to Salem and Beverly
  • I included it here not as a replacement for BLX, but for a few reasons. (1) The Grand Junction part of the route is unique, and even though a parallel rapid transit service can be implemented, they'll likely have different alignments and serve different needs. (2) Rapid transit to Salem is currently far-fetched, and to Beverly is virtually unheard of, yet they have extremely high demand as #2 and #3 highest-ridership commuter rail stations.

The difference between them and Braintree is that for all of them, parallel rapid transit for the same purpose is unlikely to happen anytime soon (though I'd definitely welcome a BLX to Auburndale), but RL Braintree branch already exists today. In some sense, these are best compromises, while Braintree is not. This also extends to GLX, OL, etc.

 

[kdmc]

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost

Yeah, this is the crux of my confusion. Quasi-rapid service via Regional Rail is the prevailing proposed solution for those gaps you listed, and some of those gaps are at least as deserving of rapid service as Quincy and Braintree are. So, if the Braintree branch weren't already in place, would there be advocacy in 2024 to build it, or would the advocacy be focused on delivering quasi-rapid service on the Old Colony trunk?

No, I mean, I do think each of your individual points is valid on its own. But the overall vibe just... doesn't seem right to me.

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more. If there are, like, books or podcasts you folks to get a base level of understanding of all of this, I'm here for it.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more.

Don't feel sorry about doing this! Challenging and forcing evaluation of the dominant opinion is always important, and Even a strawman argument can lead to interesting revelations and conclusions.

 

[Teban54]

Sorry, I don't mean to appear flippant. I'm new to this, and I'm genuinely curious, so proposing a strawman seemed like a good way to learn more. If there are, like, books or podcasts you folks to get a base level of understanding of all of this, I'm here for it.

To clarify, my earlier comments did not intend to suggest your proposal was trolling or in bad faith; if that was the impression, I sincerely apologize. The part about vibe was mostly a feeling of awkwardness regarding the proposal, which I initially couldn't pin down explicitly (though I did eventually).

Yeah, this is the crux of my confusion. Quasi-rapid service via Regional Rail is the prevailing proposed solution for those gaps you listed, and some of those gaps are at least as deserving of rapid service as Quincy and Braintree are. So, if the Braintree branch weren't already in place, would there be advocacy in 2024 to build it, or would the advocacy be focused on delivering quasi-rapid service on the Old Colony trunk?

This is a very, very interesting hypothetical question. I'm gonna give a bold answer: No, I don't think the Braintree branch would have been built today, nor even being considered nearly as seriously, had we missed the chance to do it in the 1970s. The primary reason would be that, in such a universe, the 2 commuter rail tracks would have come first.

A lot of historical background of the Braintree branch is needed to understand the context here, which even I myself only learned from this forum. F-Line summarized it here:

When the South Shore Branch was originally being planned in the mid-60's, they planned to make it separate from the existing Red Line and terminate on the surface near South Station (which, recall, was to be demolished and reimagined). The original intent was to replace commuter rail, not act as an appendage to rapid transit...as they were operating on the assumption that most of the NYNH&H Railroad would eventually be abandoned as the company went down in flames. This would allow extension to Weymouth, to Brockton, to anywhere they wanted to go. Basically, they were thinking of more of a BART-type second system than an organic extension of the Cambridge-Dorchester subway...merely cribbing the same rolling stock for a different RR-replacement purpose. And for that reason the downtown terminus was favored rather than running thru and branching Red Line frequencies.

It was a hotly debated decision, however, as there were lots of planners who did want it to interface with Red. So they hedged on a design for Columbia Jct. that would work with both schemes, which led to it being wildly overbuilt. It had to run high-speed service whisking to a downtown terminus, and also had to intermingle with subway frequencies if that was the tact they took. This is also the reason why the Cabot leads are also so over-designed...they were originally intended for revenue service. The yard for the Cabot maintenance facility wasn't purchased by the T until 1969, after Penn Central had already bought the NYNH&H and was dumping property ballast. This is also why there was no effort at doing a Columbia/JFK platform for the South Shore Branch during design (that didn't come until a 1982 graft-on). The stub-end terminal eventually fell out of favor by the late-60's (about the same time the historical preservation forces had started rallying in-force over saving South Station), but the junction's design was already finished so the only thing that changed was that the stub-end tracks became long shop leads to the newly-purchased Cabot property. The junction remained as originally designed, for either/or revenue service.

In short, the Braintree branch was initially planned to be almost exactly what we consider commuter rail today, just that it's for a specific part of Boston and not the entire metropolitan area. This would also explain much weirdness with the branch's design: the labyrinth Columbia Junction and separate inbound platforms, the long gap between JFK/UMass and North Quincy, JFK/UMass not even having a Braintree platform for years*, and arguably even the car-centric designs of Quincy Adams and Braintree stations. Perhaps it's no surprise that the branch ended up as the longest among all heavy rail lines, by far.

* (You will sometimes hear people claiming the reason why Braintree trains skipped JFK/UMass was racism. While that may have been a factor, ultimately I feel it can't be the main reason, given just how lacking that explanation is compared to F-Line's above.)

So what if none of this happened? Given that the line was built with the intention to become commuter rail, when the regionwide commuter rail concept developed and matured in the following decades, it's likely that the Old Colony lines would have become commuter rail regardless. When that happens, there's no reason to not double track the ROW from JFK/UMass to (just north of) Braintree. And once the Old Colony CR lines take over 2 tracks, the ROW no longer has enough space for 2 more, so the Red Line realistically can't be extended without expensive** modifications. That will put it way further down the priority list, and definitely below BLX (one of the projects that was competing for funding in that era). Thus, the corridor is likely to join my aforementioned list of quasi-transit corridors.

** I'd argue it would be even worse than today. Now, solutions exist to double-track the Old Colony line through Dorchester (as F-Line described here) and Quincy Center station (brief mention here, F-Line may have discussed it in greater detail before). These would enable substantially improved operations satisfiable for Regional Rail standards, despite the remaining toughest single track south of North Quincy, though even that is being looked into by the MBTA. In the hypothetical scenario, however, no 4-track throughout the ROW means no Red Line, as the up-and-running Old Colony CR lines are very unlikely to give up a track.

How much service would Quincy have received in our hypothetical? Even with fully double tracked Old Colony to Braintree, in 2024, each terminal is unlikely to receive anything better than hourly weekday frequencies. This would mean Quincy sees a train every 20 minutes -- which, ironically, is how the Red Line actually operates in 2024. Plus, any realistic Regional Rail implementation with a moderate goal of :30 on each Old Colony branch can already give 10-min frequencies through Quincy, even more easily so than Lynn/Salem/Beverly and the Newtons. You don't even have to advocate for it. Thus, the real-world outcome's long-term benefits for Quincy are much less substantial than the harms for Old Colony branches, compared to the hypothetical.

Finally, I want to draw some comparisons to BLX and Lynn. Obviously, Lynn missed out on 5 decades of rapid transit and counting. But BLX to Lynn is very much not dead. It's still one of the most frequently mentioned projects among the community, and its feasibility concerns, if any, are mostly due to tightened environmental reviews rather than ROW width itself -- in other words, not impossible. On the other hand, if RL Braintree wasn't built in the 70s, it would have been deemed impossible, or at least crazily expensive, every time someone dares to mention it. (Heck, RLX Arlington is likely feasible and frequently mentioned, yet some people still seem to have the likely false impression that Minuteman completely killed anything beyond Alewife.) This is obviously no consolation for Lynn, but it's at least an interesting thought that their realized present-day situation is at least better than what Quincy would have got in an alternative universe.

(I suepect OLX to Malden vs. Haverhill Line may have been a very similar situation, where a rapid transit extension takes over a rail ROW that causes subsequent commuter rail to be limited to single track, but I'm not sure if the motivation was exactly the same. The difference is that Haverhill trains have an alternative via the Wildcat Branch, so you just need to run :30 trains to Reading or even have OLX take over the entire route. Unfortunately, Old Colony lines do not have an alternative ROW to reach Braintree, other than possibly an El above the highways.)

 

[TheRatmeister]

In short, the Braintree branch was initially planned to be almost exactly what we consider commuter rail today, just that it's for a specific part of Boston and not the entire metropolitan area. This would also explain much weirdness with the branch's design: the labyrinth Columbia Junction and separate inbound platforms, the long gap between JFK/UMass and North Quincy, JFK/UMass not even having a Braintree platform for years*, and arguably even the car-centric designs of Quincy Adams and Braintree stations. Perhaps it's no surprise that the branch ended up as the longest among all heavy rail lines, by far.

* (You will sometimes hear people claiming the reason why Braintree trains skipped JFK/UMass was racism. While that may have been a factor, ultimately I feel it can't be the main reason, given just how lacking that explanation is compared to F-Line's above.)

Along with the exit fare at Quincy Center, Quincy Adams, and Braintree, and the very parking-centric design of the stations. This line was car-commuter oriented from the beginning, and frankly it has somewhat haunted the system ever since with its low ridership per distance.

 

[Teban54]

and frankly it has somewhat haunted the system ever since with its low ridership per distance.

To be pedantic, are you saying "low ridership per distance between the Quincy/Braintree stations", or "low ridership per distance from these stations to Boston"? I think the latter is largely due to geographical factors, as Quincy is a bit far detached from the rest of the metropolitan area due to the Neponset River, I-93 and even the Blue Hill reservation. An analogy would be Lynn: even though BLX would likely see high ridership, it gets washed out (pun unintended) by the marshlands to get to the city.

As for the former, I'll note that even though the stations are fairly far apart (average stop spacing seems to be a mile or more), each individual station still has fairly good ridership given the service. The most recent data I have on hand are 2023 Jan-Oct Gated Station Entries, and 2014 Blue Book. Of the gated stations included in both datasets (mostly HRT and GL Trunk, but includes Riverside, GLX and SL Transitway), the Braintree Branch stations rank as follows:

Station	2014 Blue Book	2023 Jan-Oct GSE
North Quincy	30/63	42/71
Wollaston	47/63	46/71
Quincy Center	26/63	56/71
Quincy Adams	44/63	57/71
Braintree	42/63	59/71

Spoiler: Ashmont Branch station ranks, for comparison

Station	2014 Blue Book	2023 Jan-Oct GSE
Savin Hill	55/63	66/71
Fields Corner	40/63	48/71
Shawmut	56/63	61/71
Ashmont	22/63	27/71

The 2014 figures look perfectly fine to me. Sure, they can't compare to northside Red and Orange Lines (the only other parts of the system with stations a mile apart), but each Braintree Branch station also only receives half as much service, and Quincy is not as dense as Camberville or even Malden. The 2023 figures all worsened (except Wollaston) to below-average with lots of room for improvement. But this was when the branch was largely seeing commuter rail-like frequencies and horrendous slow zones, and my previous preliminary analysis has shown that this hurt their ridership disproportionately more than other gated stations.

To be clear, I do think their ridership could have improved a lot more had the stations been less car-centric. Quincy Adams could have had better access to the decent-sized neighborhoods north and west; Braintree could have been positioned closer to the commercial street at Braintree Square or even the suburban mall to the north, as well as being designed such that you don't need to go through the parking garage just to enter the station. But it appears that they're doing at least good enough, and generally not close to the worst performers systemwide in 2014 (I'm willing to give them a pass in 2023 due to the horrible frequencies). If anything, frequencies and slow zones hurt them at least just as much as station design.

Spoiler: Worst performers systemwide 2023

• #56: Braintree
• #57: Wollaston
• #58: Union Square
• #59: Quincy Adams
• #60: Symphony
• #61: Shawmut
• #62: World Trade Center
• #63: Riverside
• #64: Gilman Square
• #65: Medford/Tufts
• #66: Savin Hill
• #67: Ball Square
• #68: Science Park
• #69: Magoun Square
• #70: Suffolk Downs
• #71: East Somerville

As I said last time, I'm extremely surprised by how this list is dominated by GLX stations -- all 6 new GLX stations show up, and 5 of the worst 8 are GLX stations!

(As for being commuter-oriented: The 2015-17 passenger survey data shows that 73.4% of all riders at the 5 Braintree Branch stations use them for home-based work. This is very close to the 72% for the entire rapid transit system, and even northside RL and OL. North Quincy, Quincy Adams and Braintree have significantly higher share of commutes, but are balanced out by Wollaston and Quincy Center, which are less car-centric.)

 

[Delvin4519]

So, yes, I do agree with this in principle, and I think it's probably one of the best responses towards answering @kdmc's questions so far.

There are definitely cases where Regional Rail can be a solution to urban transit needs (say within 128), though. Most of these are cases where running frequent mainline rail as a "quasi-rapid transit corridor" (credits to you for the term) almost achieves what proper rapid transit does, but at a fraction of the cost:

• Fairmount Line, obviously and beaten to death
• Framingham/Worcester Line: Up to Auburndale/128, with infills at West Station, Newton Corner, and possibly others that people are currently discussing
• Fitchburg Line: Up to Waltham
  • Waltham itself is already a major node, plus Waverly has good transit share as well
• Newburyport/Rockport Line: Up to Salem and Beverly
  • I included it here not as a replacement for BLX, but for a few reasons. (1) The Grand Junction part of the route is unique, and even though a parallel rapid transit service can be implemented, they'll likely have different alignments and serve different needs. (2) Rapid transit to Salem is currently far-fetched, and to Beverly is virtually unheard of, yet they have extremely high demand as #2 and #3 highest-ridership commuter rail stations.

The difference between them and Braintree is that for all of them, parallel rapid transit for the same purpose is unlikely to happen anytime soon (though I'd definitely welcome a BLX to Auburndale), but RL Braintree branch already exists today. In some sense, these are best compromises, while Braintree is not. This also extends to GLX, OL, etc.

Somehow my Allston-Brighton I-90 corridor map got mentioned here. Anyhow, moving the thread here since it's more suited to this purpose.

For one thing, somewhat amusingly, the 64 already made the detour back in 1998, way before Boston Landing was even proposed: (Source: NETransit history page)
View attachment 49362
The "new supermarket" in the red box was apparently the predecessor of Boston Landing and its developments. Note that the green segment in 2020 did not affect service to Boston Landing, did not add to the detour, and was likely just for convenience.

For another, Boston Landing is more than just a station. Just look at satellite view:
View attachment 49363

On the other hand, I do agree with your and F-Line's subsequent comments that ideally the station sites could have been much better (even though Everett St, which Boston Landing borders, has a much better walkshed than Market St). But at the same time, it also seems that both West Station's and Boston Landing's sites were chosen primarily for TOD. Boston Landing indeed realized the TOD potential in a way that other sites might not have, and West Station's proposed location also seems much better for that purpose than Cambridge St. That these two stations ended up with worse connectivity with existing services may simply show that the factors into station placement are often in conflict, and there are always tradeoffs to be made.

The ROW within Newton Corner would have an issue of how many stops are needed to adequtely serve the entire corridor.

The Boston Landing and the proposed Beacon Yard stations have poor connectivity to existing bus routes, although they are located in areas that may be easier for TOD. Lansdowne is halfway between Kenmore and the D's Fenway station, but it's utility is limited without NSRL and low frequency/connections (see the GL operator's comments).

If stops are added along all potential nodes for demand within the corridor, without removing existing stations, it would result in a total of 10 stations in between Newton Corner and South Station, with some stops quite close to one another, especially around Allston. At this point, I'd be going full "god mode sandbox" and not "crazy transit pitch".

Origin Station	Destination Station	Walk time (minutes)	Comments	Connections at Origin Station
Newton Corner	West Brighton/Charles River Loop	29 min	33 if the station is located on Parsons St. instead of Brooks St.	57/553/554/556/558 - Newton Corner
West Brighton/Charles River Loop	Brighton Depot	23 min	16 if using Parsons St. location.	64 - Oak Sq
Brighton Depot	Boston Landing	14 min	Quite close stop spacing, especially for RUR, and quite tucked in if it were a god mode sandbox HRT line.	64/86 - Brighton Depot
Boston Landing	Allston Depot	11 min	Stop spacing is too close. However, it Boston Landing were skipped, it would be a 25 minute walk to get to Brighton Depot from Allston Depot, meaning the Boston Landing TOD would have poor connectivity with a 13 minute walk to get to either station.	64 Boston Landing - lengthy detour (not useful)
Allston Depot	Beacon Yards/West Station	13 min	Better connections with the 66 and 64 bus.	66/64 - Allston Depot
Beacon Yards/West Station	Cottage Farm/BU West/BU Bridge	9 - 11 min	Excessively close stop spacing for RUR and probably HRT too. May be better if the station is shifted ever so slightly east to balance the distance to BU Bridge. The area around the BU Bridge is in the throat, so space is probably too tight for a station, bridge, railway junction, and highway.	no bus connections
Cottage Farm/BU West/BU Bridge	Lansdowne	20 min	Seems reasonable, most of BU is covered by one of the two's walksheds.	47/57 - BU West, Grand Junction Railway to Cambridge (railway junction)
Lansdowne	Hynes Convention Center/Mass Ave. (I-90-B&A station)	17 min	I'm going full "god mode sandbox" here. For a "Green Line relief valve", I much prefer a routing to Back Bay station, as Storrow Drive, while Storrow's ROW could be repurposed, the walkshed of Storrow just sucks with half of it being water, plus Back Bay provides connections from west to south.	60/65/8/19 - Lansdowne, 6 minute walk to Kenmore Station or GL D Branch (Fenway)
Hynes Convention Center/Mass Ave. (I-90-B&A station)	Back Bay Station	16 min	"Green Line relief valve" (ditto)	1/GL B/C/D - Hynes Convention Center,
Back Bay Station	South Cove (Washington St.)	16 min	Mostly to provide service to Chinatown and South End, and a more direct connection to the Silver Line and points south from the west. Primarily rationale and my ideal "god mode sandbox's Green Line relief valve".	OL, Commuter Rail, Amtrak - Back Bay Station
South Cove (Washington St.)	South Station	19 min	Overlaps with SL4	SL4/SL5/9 - South Cove & Herald St. & Washington St.

If all of the stops are used as actual stops (with about 1.65 - 2 mins per stop), Such a trip from Newton Corner to South Station would take about 19 - 22 minutes. A trip from Newton Corner to Back Bay would take 16 - 17 minutes, a transfer to OL to continue downtown, would be 29 minutes (7 mi/11.3 km) from Newton Corner including transfer time at Back Bay. Such a travel time and trip length would be more suitable for LRT or HRT, and such stop spacing could allow for a reduction of bus routes in the area, as most of the utlity of the bus routes would be covered by such line, but RUR would not suffice.

So my thoughts are, how many stops are needed between Newton Corner and South Station, and what would be appropiate travel times to Back Bay, South Station, and DTX, from Newton Corner?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

To be clear, I do think their ridership could have improved a lot more had the stations been less car-centric. Quincy Adams could have had better access to the decent-sized neighborhoods north and west; Braintree could have been positioned closer to the commercial street at Braintree Square or even the suburban mall to the north, as well as being designed such that you don't need to go through the parking garage just to enter the station. But it appears that they're doing at least good enough, and generally not close to the worst performers systemwide in 2014 (I'm willing to give them a pass in 2023 due to the horrible frequencies). If anything, frequencies and slow zones hurt them at least just as much as station design.

Quincy Adams wasn't in the original extension plans at all. They were going to go with North Braintree and South Braintree as stations past Quincy Center, closer to the historic Old Colony commuter stops at Elm St./Braintree Sq. and Pearl St. (though probably not exactly at the historic spots, because of the desire for parking). The locals deadlocked themselves for over a decade on the sitings, and when the 1980 extension (lagging the Quincy Center extension by 9 years) opened they settled on the parking sinks at Burgin Parkway and Union St. at major expressway exits.

Ultimately it's water under the bridge. Both stations have grown enough over the decades to be legitimate placements.