Crazy Transit Pitches

[ritchiew]

View attachment 56423
I guess my question is: Is the cost of a TBM for that length worth it when we can probably get away with reusing the existing ROW and then a much shorter (probably doable without a TBM) tunnel segment under Chelsea Creek and 1A. It's a longer trip, but it seems like it would save a lot of money (that map has the track loop around the terminals to serve each one, but obviously you can do as many or few stations as you want).

A very reasonable question that I can't answer for certain. But yeah, I think it's worth it.

The route you've drawn is about twice as long. With the extra curves, steep bridge over the Mystic, and extra stop in the middle, it'll average less than half the speed of my proposal. That could end up being more like 15-20 minutes from Logan to South Station. Then many times of the day, it's not faster than driving, or it's a wash. That's the tipping point in a lot of people's decision for whether or not to take transit, and it means lots more people will opt to drive or take a cab. I think the difference between an ok link to the airport and a really spectacular link to the airport could mean a huge difference in mode share split. That translates into thousands or likely tens of thousands fewer cars going to and from Logan every day.

As for the cost, I assume you're right that my proposal is more expensive. I'm not sure your proposal is exactly cheap, but I'm also not sure what your plan would be for each segment of that route. The existing ROW in Chelsea is being used by the Silver Line, so tunnel under it, or lose the local transit path, which would be a major loss. Tunnel under Chelsea Creek, yeah, not huge, but adds to the cost. Digging under 1A could be done cut-and-cover in part, but also some chunks of expensive mining, and maybe moving or shoring up highway supports, plus moving utilities. That's also the kind of complicated work where small, unexpected problems turn out to add a lot of cost. (Oh, and there might be some well studied, cheap solution for your exact route. Let me know if I'm just talking out of my ass here.)

And as for the cost difference between out two proposals, I really do think mine will attract significantly more riders. Even if my plan is twice as expensive, it's still worth it if it attracts twice as many passengers, which I think is possible.

And last, I do like that idea of a loop at the airport. It's a small enough space that I think one central terminal is better, but that's interesting to consider.

Yeah if we're digging a deep bore tunnel then we may as well just start from Chelsea. No need to go nearly as deep like you would need to for connecting to NSRL if you do that either.

If you're alternative is to deep bore the whole way from Chelsea to the airport, then I'm pretty certain my proposal is better. That's still almost two miles of tunneling, compared to my three, and again the extra mile is not significantly more expensive. Deep boring from Chelsea would be in the same ballpark cost of my proposal, but at add 10+ minutes to every train trip to Logan. That's worse.

 

[TheRatmeister]

but at add 10+ minutes to every train trip to Logan.

This number is just wrong. Assuming an average speed of 40 MPH between North Station and Logan given that we're presumably traveling non-stop here, the direct tunnel is 4.32 miles for ~6:30 of travel time, while the Chelsea route is about 6.78 miles for ~10:20 of travel time, so less than 4 minutes difference. It's not nothing, but I don't think it's worth adding a few hundred million to the project over.

The Chelsea option also lets you run for example a Fitchburg/Lowell->Logan service for no added cost, whereas adding such a service to a tunnel connection to NSRL means doubling the size of the underground flying junction you'd presumably want. You could even add some local Chelsea-Logan trains for local airport workers.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The route you've drawn is about twice as long. With the extra curves, steep bridge over the Mystic, and extra stop in the middle, it'll average less than half the speed of my proposal. That could end up being more like 15-20 minutes from Logan to South Station. Then many times of the day, it's not faster than driving, or it's a wash. That's the tipping point in a lot of people's decision for whether or not to take transit, and it means lots more people will opt to drive or take a cab. I think the difference between an ok link to the airport and a really spectacular link to the airport could mean a huge difference in mode share split. That translates into thousands or likely tens of thousands fewer cars going to and from Logan every day.

Your route has even sharper curves. Deep underground, where NSRL is only going to average a 15-20 MPH crawl on the labyrinthine grades. How does this wash at all? It's going to be an extremely slow train. If you think minutes/seconds matter to a schedule, you'd never build it the way you've sketched it out because it's going to be ass-slow.

As for the cost, I assume you're right that my proposal is more expensive. I'm not sure your proposal is exactly cheap, but I'm also not sure what your plan would be for each segment of that route. The existing ROW in Chelsea is being used by the Silver Line, so tunnel under it, or lose the local transit path, which would be a major loss. Tunnel under Chelsea Creek, yeah, not huge, but adds to the cost. Digging under 1A could be done cut-and-cover in part, but also some chunks of expensive mining, and maybe moving or shoring up highway supports, plus moving utilities. That's also the kind of complicated work where small, unexpected problems turn out to add a lot of cost. (Oh, and there might be some well studied, cheap solution for your exact route. Let me know if I'm just talking out of my ass here.)

Yours will cost multiple billions. Because you're doing the same thing that NSRL is doing on another equal-length tunneling appendage through a non-cleared space (unlike the CA/T alignment) through a nasty flood map. It's significantly more expensive for not significantly more ridership.

And as for the cost difference between out two proposals, I really do think mine will attract significantly more riders. Even if my plan is twice as expensive, it's still worth it if it attracts twice as many passengers, which I think is possible.

Y'all need to read more Alon Levy. Pedestrian Observations blog has built a career out of debunking Airport connector ridership arguments. They're HUGELY overrated as a class of transit projects, and there's almost no way that a splitting-hairs difference in travel time via your slow sharp-curved tunnel is going to produce an orders-of-magnitude difference in ridership. That's the bright red warning sign right there that you're overrating the airport's importance as a ridership generator bigtime. Don't forget...Logan Airport was only the 29th highest-ridership rapid transit station on the T in the last Blue Book, and SL1 + a Red-Blue assist aren't going to bring the airport up past any of the major and mid-major bus hubs in overall ridership-generating importance. Logan's a big airport nationally, but its transit ridership-generating heft is a niche audience relative to all else that uses the T.

 

[ritchiew]

Your route has even sharper curves. Deep underground, where NSRL is only going to average a 15-20 MPH crawl on the labyrinthine grades. How does this wash at all? It's going to be an extremely slow train. If you think minutes/seconds matter to a schedule, you'd never build it the way you've sketched it out because it's going to be ass-slow.

How slow? You phrased this as if to suggest my new proposed tunnel would average 15-20 mph. That's ridiculous. The route I drew has a half mile curve radius, then over a mile and and a half of straight track.

And the grade can be extremely level. This could connect to NSRL tunnels 100 feet underground, and keep that depth all the way around to East Boston. From there it's more than a mile to the proposed station. It's about a 1.5% grade on a straightaway. This would be an extremely fast connection to downtown.

Y'all need to read more Alon Levy. Pedestrian Observations blog has built a career out of debunking Airport connector ridership arguments. They're HUGELY overrated as a class of transit projects

Yes, I know airport connectors tend to be overrated. I said that in the last paragraph of my post.

I've also been reading Alon Levy. Yes, he says airport connectors are overrated, but makes very clear that doesn't mean they're all bad. Here's the important quote,

However, overrated does not mean bad. There exist airport connector projects with reasonable cost per rider. They’re still overrated, which means they’ll be built concurrently with even more cost-effective non-airport projects, but they’re good enough by themselves.

and a goofy meme he posted suggesting that a commuter rail connection might be more valuable than rapid transit via the Seaport.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

How slow? You phrased this as if to suggest my new proposed tunnel would average 15-20 mph. That's ridiculous. The route I drew has a half mile curve radius, then over a mile and and a half of straight track.

And the grade can be extremely level. This could connect to NSRL tunnels 100 feet underground, and keep that depth all the way around to East Boston. From there it's more than a mile to the proposed station. It's about a 1.5% grade on a straightaway. This would be an extremely fast connection to downtown.

It's not going to connect to NSRL 100 feet below ground. Your junction is north of North Station where the tracks are mid-ascent on a maximally steep 3% grade. You're going to have to go back DOWN...on a curve...to get underneath Charlestown. Assuming it's even feasible to shiv in a junction in the middle of a 3% grade, lest you have to send all of NSRL back into design at untold cost bloat. Yes...it will be a 15-20 MPH slog, for damn sure. You're not considering the third dimension at all with that drawing.

Yes, I know airport connectors tend to be overrated. I said that in the last paragraph of my post.

I've also been reading Alon Levy. Yes, he says airport connectors are overrated, but makes very clear that doesn't mean they're all bad. Here's the important quote,

and a goofy meme he posted suggesting that a commuter rail connection might be more valuable than rapid transit via the Seaport.
View attachment 56451

The onus is kind of on you to project ridership for this thing that backs up the premise that it's only going to be slightly overrated instead of hideously, scandalously overrated. And that's required to be a very, very high number given that you're spending $2B+ to do this tunnel as a very complexly interacting NSRL appendage. The entire Commuter Rail southside today doesn't have bad Airport access on account of SL1 being right downstairs from the terminal, and it won't have bad Airport access tomorrow when Regional Rail spiffs up their frequencies. So quantify what the +1 one-seat actually means to southside Regional Rail. Especially with NSRL also potentially serving up a Blue Line transfer as an alternate route to SL1. What cost per rider are we talking for the billions it's going to take to build?

I can't possibly see how this is not going to be hideously freaking overrated at that cost-per-rider. It would probably have to be in the same ridership stratosphere as today's North Station to possibly make fiscal sense, and there's no possible way to extrapolate that much Logan potential from the current middling transit numbers the airport does from this whole region with its not-at-all-bad transit access. The potential is an order of magnitude shy of fiscal sanity. Are you actually expecting that the southside suburbs alone are going to ride to Logan daily at a North Station-ridership level? And if so, where have all those people been hiding all these decades?

 

[TheRatmeister]

and a goofy meme he posted suggesting that a commuter rail connection might be more valuable than rapid transit via the Seaport.

I do agree that there is potential for a future Acela/NER connection and that this could be extremely valuable. Getting New London to be a 1:45 train away from Logan is pretty big.

But if we acknowledge that as one of if not the primary benefit, we should also acknowledge that turning that into a 1:41 journey isn't really going to convince or turn anyone away.

Don't forget...Logan Airport was only the 29th highest-ridership rapid transit station on the T in the last Blue Book

Sounds like we should get that number up. I'm sure Massport and their parking revenue accountants would object, but over 130k passengers per day used Logan in June of this year. Of those, let's be generous and say around 20k ish were to/from Airport Station, another 5k ish were to/from SL1, and Logan Express is another ~10k a day. So for public transport, we've accounted for about about 25% of Logan Airport users.

So, how serious is Massachusetts and Massport about reaching climate goals? If the answer is any amount more than "a little bit" then maybe reducing the 20+ thousand private vehicles traveling to Logan each day would be a good start. Or if we care about having a city that's nice to be around, maybe we should try and reclaim the large swaths of land in Seaport, Eastie, and Chelsea currently used for private Airport parking. Or if just care about Logan and want to expand the passenger or cargo facilities there, maybe removing some of the 25k current parking spaces would be a good way to do that. If we're doing any of these things we need some kind of better rail connection to the airport, and to convince people to actually use it either by carrot or by stick.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Put it this way...if we're going to be chasing overrated things, shouldn't we be aiming to make them only slightly overrated like Levy says? In that case, the 4-minute longer trip on the existing Eastern Route tracks + a 3000 ft. small slice of SL3 surface ROW + a 2500 ft. under-Creek & highways tunneled segment is much much more slightly overrated than the extremely overrated $2B NSRL appendage with complex vertical junctioning that saves only 4 minutes (but probably not even that) from the same trip.

And if the ridership really, truly is amazing enough that this will seriously cut into the 20K private vehicles heading to Logan (I doubt it, but I'll humor myself for a reasoned possibility)...can't we easily afford to capped-cut tunnel the Urban Ring underneath the surface ROW for a measly 3000 ft. so we can have our cake and eat it too? When did that become a binary modal choice requiring $2B in ROW duplication??? If we're truly going to drive that kind of maximal transit shares to the Airport, don't we need both the UR and the RER and doesn't running the mainline trains on the roof of the ultra-shallow and cheaply dug UR trolley tunnel maximize our cost-per-rider yield tremendously more than NSRLNE?


Interesting thought experiment, but it's focusing on the wrong steel-and-concrete targets.

 

[Riverside]

and a goofy meme [they] posted suggesting that a commuter rail connection might be more valuable than rapid transit via the Seaport.

I don't know if I disagree with Alon about this principle in general, but I think I disagree with regard to Boston. The thing about airports is that your mode of transit -- car, rideshare, bus, train, peoplemover -- needs to bring you to your terminal, not just the airport campus. The front doors of Terminals A and E are something like 2000 feet apart, comparable to Copley <> Arlington. And Terminal C is about 1000 feet (Boston City Hall <> Haymarket) away from a direct line connecting A <> E.

Most North American airports with rail connections also have peoplemovers to handle this particular flavor of the "last mile" problem, including SFO, JFK, EWR (Newark), ATL, DFW, DEN, and MIA. Those that don't are either smaller with single terminals (Providence, Midway, Portland), or have rail stations directly at the terminals, the prime (and only?) example being Philadelphia.

The gold standard is probably Chicago O'Hare, where the subway station is something like 800 feet to Terminals 1 and 3, and less than 400 feet to Terminal 2. (But, even at O'Hare, Terminal 5 requires transferring to the peoplemover.) But O'Hare's core terminal area is more compact than Logan:

(Apologies for the atypical orientation on the Logan image -- the only way I could fit it all into the frame.)

My point is that, even in systems with a putative direct rail connection to the airport, it actually usually is a 2SR.

In this respect, Boston's current state is actually, arguably, better than average, since the [nominally] rapid transit line runs directly from the downtown core transit station to the terminals. The Silver Line actually most closely resembles the JFK Airtrain: you don't bring rail to the peoplemover, you bring the peoplemover to the rail.

That all being said... it is also clear to me that a peoplemover or otherwise broadly "light rail" (yeah I'm gonna call peoplemovers a flavor of light rail, come at me bro) is often the right choice for serving the front door of individual terminals, especially compared to out-and-out mainline rail. Boston again offers an extreme example of why, but SFO is more visually obvious:

The SFO peoplemover stations sit on a circle with a radius of about 450 feet. The North American mainline rail network's minimum curve radius is 410 feet, meaning the SFO peoplemover's ROW would be very tight (and slow) for mainline trains to navigate.

SFO's terminals are, at least, nicely arranged. Logan's are not. Drawing lines where a) the curve radius remains within that 410' max, b) platforms are long enough for mainline trains (see below), and c) all four-and-a-half terminals [including both sides of Terminal B's U] have station access is a fun little geometry challenge. Below is my best effort, and remember that those curves are substantially speed reducing:

Now, one note here is that our only example (that I can think of) of mainline rail serving individual terminals is Philadelphia. But, recall that SEPTA lives that EMU life, and often runs shorter trains. On the Airport Line, they must run them quite short, as the Terminals E & F platform is less than 200 feet long. (And I mean, damn, even our GLX platforms are longer than that, jeez.) If we shorten our platforms to 450' (a bit longer than our Red Line platforms), the problem becomes a bit more tractable, but it's still a tough fit:

My point is that airports are tight space and terminals are often not laid out linearly, which makes for a bad fit for mainline rail. If you are going to need to build a last mile peoplemover anyway, then keep the mainline rail where it goes best and build a bigger better last mile system.

(All of which is to say, I suggest we build a third Ted Williams bore and run something lighter than mainline rail directly from South Station to the individual terminals.)

 

[Stlin]

Just for the sake of reference: Logan's ground access statistics. In general, in 2022 61.6% of all Logan travelers got there via car, with an average daily count of 111k(!), and the Blue Line is again heads and shoulders above any other transit option at present. Not having an employee vs passenger number is somewhat annoying, but I personally see the solution as "build Red-Blue, then bring an APM to the Blue Line." If you must have a connection to a NSRL world mainline rail station, extend the APM from the economy Garage over the Pike and run it in a modern concrete viaduct over the Coughlin Bypass/SL3 transitway to Chelsea - I think everyone is pegging it as a 15 minute station. This bit is the true crazy pitch, but you could even "land" the APM at Eastern Ave, and with a bit of grade separation work, *replace* the SL3 with the APM. Given a rubber tired APMs ability to navigate grades, it should be easier for it to duck under as necessary.

 

[Riverside]

but I personally see the solution as "build Red-Blue, then bring an APM to the Blue Line." If you must have a connection to a NSRL world mainline rail station, extend the APM from the economy Garage over the Pike and run it in a modern concrete viaduct over the Coughlin Bypass/SL3 transitway. This bit is the true crazy pitch, but you could even "land" the APM at Eastern Ave, and with a bit of grade separation work, *replace* the SL with the APM. Given a rubber tired APMs ability to navigate grades, it'd be even easier than as LRT

Right. I think one of the trickier things about crayoning this quadrant is that a pretty natural corridor is SL1 + SL3... which works well as a corridor precisely because it flows naturally and doesn't have super clear demaraction points. Like, yeah, SL1 is a useful path for service; and yeah, extending an APM to Eastern Ave can be a useful idea too. But what's tricky is that the most parsimonious solution is one that can simultaneously serve as a replacement for SL1 (South Station <> terminals), SL3 (South Station/Seaport <> Chelsea), and an expanded version of the shuttle system (terminals <> Blue Line + Eastern Ave)... which means whatever mode you pick would need to be satisfactory for all of the above. And it's not like the corridor ends at South Station -- there's an argument to be made that whatever kind of train stops at the Logan Terminals should also be the train that provides a Seaport <> South Station <> Back Bay OSR.

A mild middle ground would be something like this:

You lose the South Station <> terminals 1SR, but...

 

[ulrichomega]

This number is just wrong. Assuming an average speed of 40 MPH between North Station and Logan given that we're presumably traveling non-stop here, the direct tunnel is 4.32 miles for ~6:30 of travel time, while the Chelsea route is about 6.78 miles for ~10:20 of travel time, so less than 4 minutes difference. It's not nothing, but I don't think it's worth adding a few hundred million to the project over.

I know we're talking in the hypothetical of a hypothetical of a hypothetical of a hypothetical (I think there's actually one more layer here, given that NSRL doesn't actually exist yet), but I would push back against running express through Chelsea. People in Chelsea deserve better connections to the airport, too. You can imagine that if we're spending this kind of money anyway, we should just run an SL3A short turn from Market Basket to the Logan terminals, but in the world of EMUs that this would presumably be using if we're connecting to the NSRL, one additional stop in Chelsea won't add that much to the time. I would actually argue for at least one additional station connecting to Airport Station, in addition to whatever you can cram in there for the terminals.

RE: The Chelsea segment. Measuring the width of the mainline tracks + busway + trail near the Box District Station I get a width of about 85-90 feet. That's wider than the existing ROW, but the only things near it in places that it's constricted are parking lots. After Cottage Street the ROW becomes much more hemmed in, but at that point you should be tunnelling down to get under Chelsea Creek anyway.

 

[ulrichomega]

RE: Terminal station placement. I think it's a given for this project that you need to be tunnelling under the terminal buildings themselves, otherwise none of this works. That said, could we share terminals for E/C and A/B? I make this out to be ~800 ft radius between the two terminal stations, with the curve out of Airport being worse, but I think that one's much more fudgeable.

 

[CheapLeak]

On the topic of the route location, would running it via Chelsea be faster to getting to a new central station than the blue line to aquarium + a people mover or BL branch?

 

[TheRatmeister]

On the topic of the route location, would running it via Chelsea be faster to getting to a new central station than the blue line to aquarium + a people mover or BL branch?

Probably, although likely not that far off. Logan->North Station nonstop via Chelsea would be about 10 minutes, let's say 12 to Aquarium. BL is 5 minutes between Aquarium and Airport, so with with an average of let's say a 4 minute connection at Airport station plus a 5 minute APM ride, that's around 2 minutes slower, plus a transfer which sucks with luggage.

However, depending on how the stations(s) are configured at the airport, that could be flipped on its head from either the walking or dwell times. Two stations would probably add about 2 minutes to the travel time from the further station, while one station could add up to 5 minutes of walking, depending on the terminal.

But either way I think that makes it reasonably clear that the biggest beneficiaries of this connection wouldn't be people in Boston. Chelsea could benefit some from a local service, but the big winners would be people coming from outer CR stations, or the NER/Acela.

But complicating this even further is that an APM might not actually be a cheap alternative to a new airport rail line. The cluttered road spaghetti and especially the parking garages could make an above ground APM slow, windy, and incredibly expensive. In that case maybe a CR connection could be a more compelling option. Without detailed cost estimates on either though, it's a bit hard to say.

 

[kdmc]

A minor point against a LRT/HRT connection (rather than a RUR+APM connection) is that general rapid transit vehicles kinda suck to carry luggage on, especially if it's crowded and you can't politely take up 2 seats for yourself and all your stuff.

 

[Stlin]

A minor point against a LRT/HRT connection (rather than a RUR+APM connection) is that general rapid transit vehicles kinda suck to carry luggage on, especially if it's crowded and you can't politely take up 2 seats for yourself and all your stuff.

On that note, in a world where MassPort is serious about an APM, I think it'd be reasonable for the next Blue Line fleet to include a certain amount of luggage racks. The Airport already accounts for probably ~10-20% of all Blue Line ridership, and I assume it'd grow substantially with an APM / Red-Blue. Strictly speaking, luggage racks are probably such a simple modification I'd assume whatever equipment, LRT, HRT or RUR that serves the airport terminals can be equipped with luggage racks much like SL1 buses are.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

On that note, in a world where MassPort is serious about an APM, I think it'd be reasonable for the next Blue Line fleet to include a certain amount of luggage racks. The Airport already accounts for probably ~10-20% of all Blue Line ridership, and I assume it'd grow substantially with an APM / Red-Blue. Strictly speaking, luggage racks are probably such a simple modification I'd assume whatever equipment, LRT, HRT or RUR that serves the airport terminals can be equipped with luggage racks much like SL1 buses are.

They can trial it today if they want. It took only a few days' shop mods to come up with the "Big Red" standee-heavy Red Line consist...and then only a few days to mod it again to put a few more seats back in. Commuter Rail has modded bike cars and the Cape Flyer cafe car. Amtrak has modded bike racks on-the-quick on its Amfleets. There's nothing stopping them from giving it a try right now and collecting some data on the usage.

 

[TheRatmeister]

On that note, in a world where MassPort is serious about an APM, I think it'd be reasonable for the next Blue Line fleet to include a certain amount of luggage racks. The Airport already accounts for probably ~10-20% of all Blue Line ridership, and I assume it'd grow substantially with an APM / Red-Blue. Strictly speaking, luggage racks are probably such a simple modification I'd assume whatever equipment, LRT, HRT or RUR that serves the airport terminals can be equipped with luggage racks much like SL1 buses are.

They have a pretty heavy space penalty given how short the trip is. Many people going to the airport are only on for 7 or 8 minutes from state or Govy.

 

[kdmc]

They have a pretty heavy space penalty given how short the trip is. Many people going to the airport are only on for 7 or 8 minutes from state or Govy.

They could put luggage racks on a predictable subset of the cars, e.g. the first two, and then direct passengers to "Walk this way (towards the front of the platform) for luggage racks".

EDIT: Or maybe middle two cars would make more sense so that the direction of the trains didn't matter.

 

[Riverside]

This isn't really a "crazy transit pitch" as much as "figuring out why a crazy transit pitch won't work", but: there are ferries which carry automobiles. Could there be ferries that carry light rail cars?