Crazy Transit Pitches

Since we're here:

- The span is 135ft when lifted (just like the other two bridges) although that is above high tide, not the current rail tracks so there is a few feet of leeway here but I'm going to napkin to 135Ft for ease.

- Main Ave to the end of the station platform at Buzzards Bay is 1.91mi according to Google ruler so we're looking at a 1.34% grade. Going all the way to Depot Street in East Wareham is 3.3mi or 0.78% grade. The main issue is some encroachment of the ROW where it appears that they used some of it to build a road that now has housing on it (Railroad Ave in East Wareham). There may not be enough room for an embankment or viaduct especially if we want to provision for double tracking.

Much tougher is Cape side. First, there's a switch and I'm not sure what the recommendation is for it being in the same location just 135ft up but let's assume that's fine.

Bourne Bridge is the first real obstacle that's basically non-negotiable and that's 1.41mi according to our favorite online map ruler so a 1.81% grade to the Rail bridge switch. Not great for freight.

The Falmouth Branch has to at least go to Worcester Ave near Chester Park in the Monument Beach area to match being 1.46mi away for 1.75% as a grade but you could go much further with something like Valley Bars Circle in the Little Bay Conservation Area being 2.54mi at a hair over 1% grade.
 
Last edited:
With the long approaches needed for a fixed span rail bridge, a two track tunnel looks more justifiable. The canal is about 35 feet deep, so digging a trench on the canal bottom with prefab tunnel boat sections lowered into it, and cut-and-cover tunnel approaches on dry land might be doable, and cheaper than a deep bore tunnel.
 
Why are we talking about fixed rail spans? The only reason the Army Corps isn't allowing more Cape Flyer slots is that MassDOT refuses to pay for more bridge openings. It has nothing to do with rail traffic vs. maritime traffic. The lift bridge handled enormously more rail traffic when NYNH&H was running Hyannis and Woods Hole commuter rail + weekender specials + ample freight, at a time when the Canal was simultaneously used by enormously more commercial and military maritime traffic than today.

There's no problem to be solved here except "MassDOT, stop being so cheap."
 
Why are we talking about fixed rail spans? The only reason the Army Corps isn't allowing more Cape Flyer slots is that MassDOT refuses to pay for more bridge openings. It has nothing to do with rail traffic vs. maritime traffic. The lift bridge handled enormously more rail traffic when NYNH&H was running Hyannis and Woods Hole commuter rail + weekender specials + ample freight, at a time when the Canal was simultaneously used by enormously more commercial and military maritime traffic than today.

There's no problem to be solved here except "MassDOT, stop being so cheap."
Would the cost of the bridge opening pay for itself? If the marginal cost of opening the the bridge X more times is less than the profit gained from running X more trains, it seems a no-brainer. Even if its just comparable, the benefit of declogging those bridges is pretty handy, too.
 
Would the cost of the bridge opening pay for itself? If the marginal cost of opening the the bridge X more times is less than the profit gained from running X more trains, it seems a no-brainer. Even if its just comparable, the benefit of declogging those bridges is pretty handy, too.
Heck, why are we even talking about needing to be profitable (i.e. generating more revenue than the cost of bridge openings) for commuter rail operations? Transit is supposed to be a public good.
 
Heck, why are we even talking about needing to be profitable (i.e. generating more revenue than the cost of bridge openings) for commuter rail operations? Transit is supposed to be a public good.
Hence my closing sentence.
 
Why are we talking about fixed rail spans? The only reason the Army Corps isn't allowing more Cape Flyer slots is that MassDOT refuses to pay for more bridge openings. It has nothing to do with rail traffic vs. maritime traffic. The lift bridge handled enormously more rail traffic when NYNH&H was running Hyannis and Woods Hole commuter rail + weekender specials + ample freight, at a time when the Canal was simultaneously used by enormously more commercial and military maritime traffic than today.

There's no problem to be solved here except "MassDOT, stop being so cheap."
Yeah but that's not a crazy idea that requires a crayon sharpener. What's the cost per lift?
 
Given that the Army CoE seems to want to get rid of its bridge portfolio, as evidenced by it's intent to transfer the Bourne and Sagamores to MassDOT after their replacements, I wouldn't be surprised if the Corps is angling for MassDOT to ultimately take ownership of the Cape Rail Bridge as well - I'd just say the state probably doesn't want to until it's next major rehab or replacement.

Incidentally, operating and maintaining the entire Cape Cod Canal, including both road bridges, the rail bridge, recreational facilities, service roads etc is expected to cost the Army CoE ~12M a year in FFY25. FFY24 included substantially more capital work, but on a operational basis the Rail Bridge can't possibly be a huge portion of that.
1000035909.jpg
1000035904.jpg
 
Given that the Army CoE seems to want to get rid of its bridge portfolio, as evidenced by it's intent to transfer the Bourne and Sagamores to MassDOT after their replacements, I wouldn't be surprised if the Corps is angling for MassDOT to ultimately take ownership of the Cape Rail Bridge as well - I'd just say the state probably doesn't want to until it's next major rehab or replacement.

Incidentally, operating and maintaining the entire Cape Cod Canal, including both road bridges, the rail bridge, recreational facilities, service roads etc is expected to cost the Army CoE ~12M a year in FFY25. FFY24 included substantially more capital work, but on a operational basis the Rail Bridge can't possibly be a huge portion of that.
There was already was a House bill floated in this last session about MassDOT taking ownership of the rail bridge, filed by some Cape passenger rail advocates. It didn't get picked up because it was a wad of pie-in-sky proposals mainly designed to be a conversation-starter. But the ownership portion could easily be broken out into action for a solo bill.

Again, the Army Corps just wants fair payments for use of its bridge. Taking ownership or just opening the checkbook for more per-slot bridge openings can instantly get the Cape all the rail service it would ever need, if only they were willing to pay.
 
A new CRAZY pitch I was exploring was placing the orange line underground from either Wellington or just after Wellington on to either Malden Center, or just before because of the bridge there. If this is crazy, it might as well be through to Malden Center, moving the platforms below the entrance to street level. This allows a long sidetrack from Wellington to Malden Center, and makes the design of a Rivers Edge infill seem to make much more sense. At the looks of where Rivers Edge could appear to succeed, it's already a sunken underpass under the junction there. This is a crazy pitch - but I think it's only worth anything if a sidetrack there works as successful double tracking. I was looking at the file of tracking on each line and the Haverhill has some other bottlenecks elsewhere too. I'm not exactly sure how to figure out where double tracking will help and for how long?

Back to Rivers Edge too - a station at grade with a pedestrian bridge just doesn't seem that attractive when you can just sink the tracks lower and earlier there? This is of course only in a crazy pitch world.
 
A new CRAZY pitch I was exploring was placing the orange line underground from either Wellington or just after Wellington on to either Malden Center, or just before because of the bridge there. If this is crazy, it might as well be through to Malden Center, moving the platforms below the entrance to street level. This allows a long sidetrack from Wellington to Malden Center, and makes the design of a Rivers Edge infill seem to make much more sense. At the looks of where Rivers Edge could appear to succeed, it's already a sunken underpass under the junction there. This is a crazy pitch - but I think it's only worth anything if a sidetrack there works as successful double tracking. I was looking at the file of tracking on each line and the Haverhill has some other bottlenecks elsewhere too. I'm not exactly sure how to figure out where double tracking will help and for how long?

Back to Rivers Edge too - a station at grade with a pedestrian bridge just doesn't seem that attractive when you can just sink the tracks lower and earlier there? This is of course only in a crazy pitch world.
The Haverhill Line next to the Orange Line doesn't need double-tracking...for Reading service. It's only if you plan to keep Haverhill trains conjoined to the Reading Line instead of returning them to their pre-1979 alignment via the Lowell Line + Wildcat Branch that the Somerville-Medford single-track becomes a constriction. Which the Rail Vision does not do...it assigns Haverhill trains to the NH Main to double-up service out to Wilmington.

The only infrastructure improvements required to bring :15 service to Reading are:
  • Reinstatement of the Wellington passing siding, and possibly a lengthening out to the Medford St. bridge via an ex-freight siding.
  • Reshaping the Reading Jct. split with the Eastern Route from a 1 x 2 track split to a 2 x 2 split, such that the Somerville passing siding before the bridge gets extended into the junction.
  • About a 1/4 mile extension of double-track in Reading through the Reading Station platforms.
  • The aforementioned booting of thru Haverhill trains to the NH Main, with Salem St. Station on the Wildcat Branch reanimated as a replacement for North Wilmington.
That's it. No megaprojects required to provide the necessary capacity.
 
The Haverhill Line next to the Orange Line doesn't need double-tracking...for Reading service. It's only if you plan to keep Haverhill trains conjoined to the Reading Line instead of returning them to their pre-1979 alignment via the Lowell Line + Wildcat Branch that the Somerville-Medford single-track becomes a constriction. Which the Rail Vision does not do...it assigns Haverhill trains to the NH Main to double-up service out to Wilmington.

The only infrastructure improvements required to bring :15 service to Reading are:
  • Reinstatement of the Wellington passing siding, and possibly a lengthening out to the Medford St. bridge via an ex-freight siding.
  • Reshaping the Reading Jct. split with the Eastern Route from a 1 x 2 track split to a 2 x 2 split, such that the Somerville passing siding before the bridge gets extended into the junction.
  • About a 1/4 mile extension of double-track in Reading through the Reading Station platforms.
  • The aforementioned booting of thru Haverhill trains to the NH Main, with Salem St. Station on the Wildcat Branch reanimated as a replacement for North Wilmington.
That's it. No megaprojects required to provide the necessary capacity.
That's really interesting. Thanks for your input!

Originally I was pretty intrigued by the amount of additional space along the tracks in that area of the Haverhill Line. Reasonably speaking, I'm very excited for the idea of increasing frequencies to Reading.
 
I've been excited about the Everett Docklands and Soccer Stadium (I still have an unreasonable amount of hope ) projects and got a bit carried away crayoning out a transit-oriented redesign of Sweester Circle using as much of the existing bridge structures as possible. The goal is a pedestrian-friendly central transfer point between an in-fill "Everett Junction" commuter rail stop and the frequent bus service in BNRD/SLX (SL6, T109,T110). Additionally, this could tie in quite well with the dedicated busway going down Broadway/Alford.

The inner radius of the circle is about 350ft from Google Maps
Before Sweester Circle Idea@2x.png
Sweester Circle Idea@2x.png


My main concern is the traffic layout. I know the circle can get backed up and I don't even know if this works or if it's a traffic nightmare. The on-ramp to Revere Beach Pkwy seems especially rough.
 
I've been excited about the Everett Docklands and Soccer Stadium (I still have an unreasonable amount of hope ) projects and got a bit carried away crayoning out a transit-oriented redesign of Sweester Circle using as much of the existing bridge structures as possible. The goal is a pedestrian-friendly central transfer point between an in-fill "Everett Junction" commuter rail stop and the frequent bus service in BNRD/SLX (SL6, T109,T110). Additionally, this could tie in quite well with the dedicated busway going down Broadway/Alford.

The inner radius of the circle is about 350ft from Google Maps
View attachment 54602View attachment 54620

My main concern is the traffic layout. I know the circle can get backed up and I don't even know if this works or if it's a traffic nightmare. The on-ramp to Revere Beach Pkwy seems especially rough.
Interesting effort.

I have to say, given all the new and proposed development in the area, isn't this an example of where you just blow up the existing structures and start over. Band aides don't work when an amputation is needed.
 
I've been excited about the Everett Docklands and Soccer Stadium (I still have an unreasonable amount of hope ) projects and got a bit carried away crayoning out a transit-oriented redesign of Sweester Circle using as much of the existing bridge structures as possible. The goal is a pedestrian-friendly central transfer point between an in-fill "Everett Junction" commuter rail stop and the frequent bus service in BNRD/SLX (SL6, T109,T110). Additionally, this could tie in quite well with the dedicated busway going down Broadway/Alford.

The inner radius of the circle is about 350ft from Google Maps
View attachment 54602View attachment 54620

My main concern is the traffic layout. I know the circle can get backed up and I don't even know if this works or if it's a traffic nightmare. The on-ramp to Revere Beach Pkwy seems especially rough.
An interesting idea given the space but man that stop would be horrible to use, noisy and 4 lanes of traffic and probably a 5 minute walk away from anywhere you'd actually want to go.
 
An interesting idea given the space but man that stop would be horrible to use, noisy and 4 lanes of traffic and probably a 5 minute walk away from anywhere you'd actually want to go.
If you can win the argument with Everett officials (you'd probably wind up having to kill some of the big trees in Sweetster Circle to make room for cranes etc.), there is certainly enough room to build a deck over Revere Beach Parkway to put the station closer to the train.

What I find compelling is how cheap @samsongam's idea would be, though. No rebuilding the ramps up from Lower Broadway, no adding new bridges over the Parkway. And if we're stuck with commuter rail and bus as the modes for transit access to the Docklands and the stadium, there's not really a better place to put the station -- as @F-Line to Dudley has pointed out, the tracks are too steeply sloped behind the casino for a platform to meet ADA standards (and I'd add that the pedestrian connection from a station there would be pretty crummy, too).
 
I do think there should be a bus hub with layover facilities at Everett. The area actually has a good number of bus connections, but some of them don't even connect precisely because of the layout of the huge intersection (most notably 99 and 109). Not to mention if you bring in another mode of transit, like a regional rail station with frequent service or even a rapid transit station, the bus hub would obviously become a more effective anchor; in the most optimistic scenario, it may even allow some routes to be shortened from Wellington.
 
that stop would be horrible to use, noisy and 4 lanes of traffic
Yeah, it would be very busy but is there any way around this? This is pretty much the only way out of Everett to the south towards Somerville/Charlestown and it interfaces with the parkway. I think regardless of how you rebuild it, you will still be dealing with a lot of traffic in this area. You could enclose the bus hub so it isn't as overwhelming, something like the ground floor mezzanine at Charles/MGH. Additionally, replacing cars on the western ramp up from Broadway with a bus lane and expanded sidewalk/bike lane seems quite pleasant to me. Lastly, (it probably isn't clear) but I thought you might be able to take advantage of the elevation of the circle with a tunnel underneath the road and connect the bus stop to Main Street so you don't have to play chicken with the cars.

a 5 minute walk away from anywhere you'd actually want to go.
Yeah it's not right in the middle of somewhere you want to be but like @Aprehensive_Words mentioned, it is the best place for connecting all of the likely transit that could go through this area, unless we are straight up tunneling up Broadway. While you could walk if you really wanted to, I think most people would use it to transfer between and regional rail and frequent local buses for the last portion of their trips.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I am seeing this for the first time since it popped up (Aug 2024) in one of my regular search feeds, despite the fact that it is dated "2020". I think Perkins + Will may have recently posted it or updated it on their portfolio page. Apologies if this has been posted and discussed elsewhere/previously.

I'm posting it in Crazy Land since it seems to be unofficial and not actually committed toward anything. But maybe someone else knows more about what the heck this is? It speaks to West Station, Grand Junction, etc., hence the transit piece.


The concepts look gorgeous (and unobtainium : ( )...e.g.:
CharlesRiver_WebImages5-1.jpg

(c) Perkins + Will

^Report therein:
 

Back
Top