Fairmount Line Upgrade
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Proposition Joe
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Maybe West Station is supposed to help people get to Beacon Park for the 2024 Olympics!!!
Maybe West Station is supposed to help people get to Beacon Park for the 2024 Olympics!!!
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
I said the name was stupid. The idea of a station there isn't. I just hope that the highway hand and the transit hand pay attention to what each other are doing as they redesign the roads around there. The DMU study had a loop road from Cambridge St... essentially a park-and-ride where there should never be one. That station will always be tough because no matter what you do to the Turnpike the rail line is stuck behind it. The best option is probably to put it all the way up against BU at Babcock St. and let BU develop Ashford St. with TOD (which is a little silly to say in this case since the B Line is a block away, but still...)
I said the name was stupid. The idea of a station there isn't. I just hope that the highway hand and the transit hand pay attention to what each other are doing as they redesign the roads around there. The DMU study had a loop road from Cambridge St... essentially a park-and-ride where there should never be one. That station will always be tough because no matter what you do to the Turnpike the rail line is stuck behind it. The best option is probably to put it all the way up against BU at Babcock St. and let BU develop Ashford St. with TOD (which is a little silly to say in this case since the B Line is a block away, but still...)
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Ok, so people want to live there? Fantastic, now do they really need full fledged DMU service to make it happen? Sure people will appreciate that improvement, but is it enough of an improvement to justify the costs?
Ok, so people want to live there? Fantastic, now do they really need full fledged DMU service to make it happen? Sure people will appreciate that improvement, but is it enough of an improvement to justify the costs?
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The 64 bus covers part of that territory. Not a very good service but it does get used. Presumably it will be strained by Guest street and Beacon park redevelopment.
But yeah, I don't know how they're going to squeeze good service thru the Grand Junction as it currently exists.
The 64 bus covers part of that territory. Not a very good service but it does get used. Presumably it will be strained by Guest street and Beacon park redevelopment.
But yeah, I don't know how they're going to squeeze good service thru the Grand Junction as it currently exists.
metasyntactic
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Yeah seriously. No Red-Blue connector, Blue line extension, Green line to Porter, etc? Also, all these 2024 plans except SL are predicated on DMU rollouts going well right? Isn't it a better idea to expand known, working urban rail systems than trying something new for the agency? Reminds me of the BRT craze and the insistence on using BRT above all else.
Yeah seriously. No Red-Blue connector, Blue line extension, Green line to Porter, etc? Also, all these 2024 plans except SL are predicated on DMU rollouts going well right? Isn't it a better idea to expand known, working urban rail systems than trying something new for the agency? Reminds me of the BRT craze and the insistence on using BRT above all else.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
It not just about the 2 places the new service connects, its about the places it doesn't. Anything that takes pressure off downtown transfers is valuable to everyone downtown.
This city needs circumferential circulation badly. DMU service linking one residential and entertainment district to one employment center is not much, but I would take it. We don't just need something like this, we need much more.
It not just about the 2 places the new service connects, its about the places it doesn't. Anything that takes pressure off downtown transfers is valuable to everyone downtown.
This city needs circumferential circulation badly. DMU service linking one residential and entertainment district to one employment center is not much, but I would take it. We don't just need something like this, we need much more.
jdrinboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 558
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Looking at these potential maps reminds me of a question I've always wondered about and perhaps its already been answered. Has the T/city ever considered an infill station on the Braintree branch around the Freeport Street commercial area? I ride through there everyday and besides the long tangent between JFK and North Quincy, there seems to be a lot of businesses and homes that are tantalizingly close to the Red Line, but are unable to utilize it.
Am I missing something that would prevent such a station from working here?
Gee that looks familiar
Looking at these potential maps reminds me of a question I've always wondered about and perhaps its already been answered. Has the T/city ever considered an infill station on the Braintree branch around the Freeport Street commercial area? I ride through there everyday and besides the long tangent between JFK and North Quincy, there seems to be a lot of businesses and homes that are tantalizingly close to the Red Line, but are unable to utilize it.
Am I missing something that would prevent such a station from working here?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
^ Check Crazy Transit Pitches for an argument between F-Line and Bemont Center about this exact issue just yesterday. Short answer: Yes you can put a stop in lower Dot. Somewhere around Popes Hill Road probably.
^ Check Crazy Transit Pitches for an argument between F-Line and Bemont Center about this exact issue just yesterday. Short answer: Yes you can put a stop in lower Dot. Somewhere around Popes Hill Road probably.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Unless it's already been/being studied, it's not going to get done by 2024. The T has purposefully shelved any studies of the UR or BLX because they're scared of getting shouldered with commitments the state won't pay for. We're not getting those anytime soon. It takes years after all the studies are done to actually build, and the studies either haven't been done, or are out of date. Kicks the can down the road. Same thing with this DMU to Seaport kicking the can of connecting the Transitway to the GL system. Until the state commits to reform and adequately appropriate long-term capital projects for MBTA expansion, we're going to see a lot of half-measures that half-address problems.
Unless it's already been/being studied, it's not going to get done by 2024. The T has purposefully shelved any studies of the UR or BLX because they're scared of getting shouldered with commitments the state won't pay for. We're not getting those anytime soon. It takes years after all the studies are done to actually build, and the studies either haven't been done, or are out of date. Kicks the can down the road. Same thing with this DMU to Seaport kicking the can of connecting the Transitway to the GL system. Until the state commits to reform and adequately appropriate long-term capital projects for MBTA expansion, we're going to see a lot of half-measures that half-address problems.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Why the Hell are they doing DMUs on Lowell to Anderson instead of the Western Branch to Reading?
Why the Hell are they doing DMUs on Lowell to Anderson instead of the Western Branch to Reading?
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
If they want DMU service on the Worcester Line as shown with the Newton stops moved to DMU and off CR, they have to put lots of money into that section o fthe line. Like double tracking it and building high level stations similar to new Yawkey. $30 million-plus each probably. And they are in pretty constrained spaces, MassPike and all. However that is not shown in the capital budget for implementation so I am very skeptical on this.
If they want DMU service on the Worcester Line as shown with the Newton stops moved to DMU and off CR, they have to put lots of money into that section o fthe line. Like double tracking it and building high level stations similar to new Yawkey. $30 million-plus each probably. And they are in pretty constrained spaces, MassPike and all. However that is not shown in the capital budget for implementation so I am very skeptical on this.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The long single-track section between Oak Grove and Sullivan would make it very difficult to run a high-frequency service along that segment.
The long single-track section between Oak Grove and Sullivan would make it very difficult to run a high-frequency service along that segment.
The EGE
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,656
- Reaction score
- 4,208
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Nippon Sharyo DMUs are 116k; a three-car train wouldn't be heavier than 6 OL cars. Would it then be possible to convert the third OL track - especially over the Dana bridge - to DMU operation, leaving only a short pinch between Wellington and Oak Grove?
Nippon Sharyo DMUs are 116k; a three-car train wouldn't be heavier than 6 OL cars. Would it then be possible to convert the third OL track - especially over the Dana bridge - to DMU operation, leaving only a short pinch between Wellington and Oak Grove?
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Yeah, it's pretty easy to get to Kendal Square from Alston now: bus to Harvard Sq., Red Line from there.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to get to Kendal Square from Alston now: bus to Harvard Sq., Red Line from there.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
I like the concept of what they are doing, but it really should be done on all of the inner 128 section of the CR network. The Needham Line screams for a DMU service, and it could much more easily be done than on some of these other lines. Is there an issue with the SW corridor not having capacity for something like that?
I like the concept of what they are doing, but it really should be done on all of the inner 128 section of the CR network. The Needham Line screams for a DMU service, and it could much more easily be done than on some of these other lines. Is there an issue with the SW corridor not having capacity for something like that?
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
I think operations people would be concerned about a section of main line railroad that could easily be accessed by any type/piece of equipment, but would have a weight restriction to only be used by a specific type.
It's obviously not a high priority corridor for them. Reading, Wakefield, and Melrose are also served by reasonable feeder bus service to Oak Grove, and the rush-hour frequency for the existing conventional commuter-rail service is not bad
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Documents/Schedules_and_Maps/Commuter_Rail/haverhill.pdf
, with the AM peak maintaining 30-minute inbound frequencies of Reading short-turns while the through Haverhill trains run via the Wildcat. The PM has 20-25 minute outbound frequencies for Wakefield and Reading, less trains for the local Melrose stops. Notice that the inbound PM peak Haverhill trains also come in via the Wildcat. That is so they won't get in the way of the parade of outbound Haverhill trains coming out via Reading and the single track to Oak Grove. I don't think reverse peak-direction Reading trains have that much potential to draw much ridership, so its not much of a negative that there is only a single direction peak flow of trains to/from Reading.
I think operations people would be concerned about a section of main line railroad that could easily be accessed by any type/piece of equipment, but would have a weight restriction to only be used by a specific type.
It's obviously not a high priority corridor for them. Reading, Wakefield, and Melrose are also served by reasonable feeder bus service to Oak Grove, and the rush-hour frequency for the existing conventional commuter-rail service is not bad
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Documents/Schedules_and_Maps/Commuter_Rail/haverhill.pdf
, with the AM peak maintaining 30-minute inbound frequencies of Reading short-turns while the through Haverhill trains run via the Wildcat. The PM has 20-25 minute outbound frequencies for Wakefield and Reading, less trains for the local Melrose stops. Notice that the inbound PM peak Haverhill trains also come in via the Wildcat. That is so they won't get in the way of the parade of outbound Haverhill trains coming out via Reading and the single track to Oak Grove. I don't think reverse peak-direction Reading trains have that much potential to draw much ridership, so its not much of a negative that there is only a single direction peak flow of trains to/from Reading.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The Worcester Line is already double-tracked. Do you mean triple-tracked? That isn't required if you can cross over between the tracks. Nor is a whole set of Yawkey-like Death Star stations. They need high-level and disabled access to meet ADA requirements anyhow - they'll have to rebuild all those stations before 2024 as it is, but all they need is a high, preferably island platform with an elevator and stairway to the overpass above. Yawkey apparently had to be more elaborate because it sits on a curve, which only applies there.
The big DMU-specific station costs are new stations at Beacon Park and Newton Corner, as well as a fair amount of reconfiguration to allow the DMUs to make it to the existing platforms at Riverside. Most of their construction costs here are going to be Federally-mandated whether they add DMUs or not.
I actually don't think Needham has the demand profile for DMUs in its current commute-facing configuration. The Needham line has rapid transit level demand from the Needham stations north (toward Newton and the Needham St. corridor) and north from West Rox/Roslindale toward Downtown. As has been explored before, the T could and should break the line in half and replace the commuter rail with Green and Orange Line service on those two trajectories.
It's a shame that no rapid transit expansions made the 2024 plan, but even if DMU service is being tacked on as the T tries to suck up to HRT extension supporters (Lynn anyone?) a DMU-based service on the existing Needham Line makes no sense because DMUs in commuter rail settings are about trading capacity per train for frequency. Needham/Boston is a highly-peaked market with little all-day demand, so no go.
The Worcester Line is already double-tracked. Do you mean triple-tracked? That isn't required if you can cross over between the tracks. Nor is a whole set of Yawkey-like Death Star stations. They need high-level and disabled access to meet ADA requirements anyhow - they'll have to rebuild all those stations before 2024 as it is, but all they need is a high, preferably island platform with an elevator and stairway to the overpass above. Yawkey apparently had to be more elaborate because it sits on a curve, which only applies there.
The big DMU-specific station costs are new stations at Beacon Park and Newton Corner, as well as a fair amount of reconfiguration to allow the DMUs to make it to the existing platforms at Riverside. Most of their construction costs here are going to be Federally-mandated whether they add DMUs or not.
I actually don't think Needham has the demand profile for DMUs in its current commute-facing configuration. The Needham line has rapid transit level demand from the Needham stations north (toward Newton and the Needham St. corridor) and north from West Rox/Roslindale toward Downtown. As has been explored before, the T could and should break the line in half and replace the commuter rail with Green and Orange Line service on those two trajectories.
It's a shame that no rapid transit expansions made the 2024 plan, but even if DMU service is being tacked on as the T tries to suck up to HRT extension supporters (Lynn anyone?) a DMU-based service on the existing Needham Line makes no sense because DMUs in commuter rail settings are about trading capacity per train for frequency. Needham/Boston is a highly-peaked market with little all-day demand, so no go.