General Infrastructure

Not sure where to put this...

MassDOT said:
MassDOT Completes Acquisition of Framingham Secondary Rail Line

Start Date: 6/17/2015

Contact
MassDOT Press Office: 857-368-8500

BOSTON - Today, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation announced it had completed the acquisition of the Framingham Secondary Rail Line, a 21-mile segment of rail that connects Framingham and Mansfield. The line was purchased from CSX Corporation for $23 million.

Purchase of the Framingham Secondary is a strategic investment that links the Framingham/Worcester, Needham, Franklin, and the Attleboro/Northeast Corridor commuter rail lines together. The Framingham Secondary Line is also a major rail corridor for the shipment of freight between several key points in eastern Massachusetts, including Readville, Milford, Franklin, Fall River, and New Bedford, as well as Worcester. The line is also used for passenger service to and from Patriots home games at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough. For the purposes of planning for long-term infrastructure needs, purchase of the line provides added rail capacity that allows for passenger service to travel on alternative routes in cases where capital projects may disrupt normal service.

"After careful consideration of the agreement to purchase the Framingham Secondary Rail Line from CSX, MassDOT concluded that acquiring this rail asset supports our goals of increasing use of freight rail, which takes trucks off our highways and reduces greenhouse gases by consolidating the movement of freight," said MassDOT Secretary and CEO Stephanie Pollack. "Additionally, purchase of the line establishes the interconnectivity of four of our major commuter rail lines, which allows us to plan for future rail upgrades in a way that will minimize disruptions by creating options for trains to continue providing passenger service by bypassing sections of rail on any of the four lines that would be under construction."

Purchase of the line will also guarantee that game-day passenger service to Gillette Stadium for Patriots games will continue. The rail line's current condition is only slightly above standards required for passenger service. MassDOT's ownership of the line, coupled with infrastructure upgrades, will allow for the continuation of the successful game-day service. During the 2014-2015 season, 17,128 riders took the train to Foxborough; 6,015 more riders came from Providence, through Mansfield along the southerly end of the Framingham Secondary.

"Beyond the short-term value of supporting the shipment of freight, in the long term, the line has the potential to support future economic development," said MassDOT Rail and Transit Administrator Astrid Glynn. "The communities to the southwest of Boston are experiencing strong regional growth. Should that trend continue, we would look to engage the surrounding communities in a conversation about the potential for a pilot program of additional passenger rail service."

Prior to enhanced service, the line would require significant upgrades to track, signals, and switches, to accommodate regular passenger trains. With preliminary upgrades set to begin next spring, any pilot of service would not begin before calendar year 2017.

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442454642&month=&year=
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
So theoretically now you could have Worcester-Foxboro trains?
Click to expand...

In three times the travel time of a charter bus on 495 on a Sunday. There was some private-money group that actually wanted to fund a charter game train from Worcester. The T scheduled a test run from Worcester to simulate the schedule on a stopwatch, but it was canceled at the last minute. The business group said nevermind the second they were quoted a probable schedule time, so the actual test to prove that travel time never happened.

It was...not favorable on the convenience, to say the least. Those Boston game trains have the advantage of only needing to go 3-1/2 miles--not 16 miles--on the slow track. And take the Franklin Line instead of the God-forsaken Worcester Line for the first leg of the trip.



The Upper Sec. is a fairly mission-critical freight connection, so state had interest in the whole thing (and CSX told them take it all or take it none). 4 round-trip freight locals per day out of Framingham down as far as Walpole Jct.: to Readville; Mansfield-South Attleboro on the NEC for a couple big industrial parks; Attleboro-Middleboro-Braintree; and run-as-directeds for drop-offs at Walpole Yard (storage tracks just north of the Walpole platform), weeklies to Franklin and Milford, and second runs to Readville as-needed. It's also the primary means of interchange for the freight shortlines that run the South Coast/Cape and Quincy Shipyard. Not massive carload numbers, but when you consider that pretty much every local customer inside the entire lower half of 495 gets their freight delivered via this line...it's a pretty consequential daily revenue generator for the economy, which shovels its share of tax revenues into the state's coffers by second-degree. They can indirectly make money if control + upgrades generates the business...even if no revenue passenger train ever runs between Framingham and Walpole. For that reason the purchase price will fully amortize itself over time.


State also wanted control of that half even though the passenger considerations are zero because of all the port-to-rail upgrades Massport is planning at Southie, Fall River, and New Bedford. It's the only rail link in the chain to the huge Worcester intermodal yard that the state does not have outright ownership of. And by getting complete control they can be the initiating party on track upgrades...such as increasing the loading weight. Or even just basic stuff you want MassDOT being able to act alone on like re-doing grade rough grade crossings or installing crossing gates (most of the line's crossings are flashers-only). Waiting for CSX HQ in Jacksonville, FL to return a phone call in the same calendar year on state-funded upgrades is often an exercise in futility. They kinda...at least in rail network scope...crap bigger'n MassDOT, as Worcester Line riders vividly remember. I'm not sure the port upgrades are really all they're cracked up to be, but it's a line with multiple uses and many stakeholders. You want that under public control. And $29M was a fair valuation for it.



MassDOT mothership is the transacting party; this is entirely their bag and not a T deal or any MBTA budget being used. If Foxboro CR happens there will be an intra-agency paper transaction for the Lower Sec. and obviously the T will be the paying all costs. But right now it's just T taking control of dispatching and MassDOT reimbursing them 1:1 for any crews it has to borrow for track work or engineering. Southside may get a couple crews qualified on the whole length of it for contingency moves Worcester-Franklin. But other than that nothing's really going to change ops-wise; game trains and freight will run--slowly--as before.
 
Anyone seen the new MassDOT Project? Per MassDOT website

BOSTON- STORROW DRIVE REALIGNMENT @ MEEI/CHARLES CIRCLE INCLUDES BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-257 & B-16-258 (DESIGN)
MassDOT proposes a roadway and bridge relocation project to consolidate and realign the Storrow Drive Westbound Travel movements into the Eastbound Barrel, thus making provisions to improve bicycle, pedestrian, vehicular, and transit movements, safety and mobility at Charles Circle on Cambridge Street in Boston. The scope will include replacement of the existing bridges serving on-ramp and off-ramp vehicular movements to and from Charles Circle and Storrow Drive to accommodate the expansion of Mass Eye and Ear Infirmary MEEI, including pedestrian and bicyclist movements between MBTA Red-Line Rapid Transit Station and Charles River Esplanade.
Cost: $97.7 Million
 
Yeah, this was discussed back when the Mass Ear and Eye expansion was going thru its process. Good to see the follow-up.
 
Not exactly transit or infrastructure related, but not sure where else to put this:

Baker urges single regulatory standard for ride industry

STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

With the Uber-versus-taxicab battle due to heat up this fall, Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday said he would like to set up one statewide regulatory structure for both industries and help taxi drivers compete in the modern technology age.

The Joint Committee on Financial Services has a hearing scheduled for Sept. 15 to consider testimony on legislation to regulate transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft. Baker has filed a bill to regulate the ride-sharing companies through the Department of Public Utilities, putting in rules regarding insurance requirements, background checks and a "basic regulatory infrastructure."

While taxis are largely regulated city by city, Baker said he would "like to see us end up with a single statewide standard for both."

"The offer we made to the taxi companies, we met with a number of them, was come on in and tell us what we can do to make your lives a little less complicated from a regulatory basis so that you can do the things you think you need to do to compete with the transportation network companies," Baker said, elaborating on his position during an appearance Thursday on Boston Public Radio.

Baker said the ease with which the public can access rides through their smartphones is "not going away." "In fact, it's only gonna get more so and I think it's important that we create a regulatory space in which the taxi folks can play on the same terms that the transportation network companies play on," he said.
Click to expand...

FULL ARTICLE
 
As long as its not crazy restrictive, I think this is a great idea. It does need to take down the existing systems in place though. If under this new system a Cambridge cab can't pick up in Boston, etc, its useless.
 
^Yeah, agree. Streamlining = good. Added level of bureaucratic complexity = bad.
 
Are there any examples in Metro Boston where neighborhood traffic circles are used instead of four-way stops? I like them a lot in other places I've lived but I have never seen them used out here.
 
Rotaries are common on major streets in Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury and South Brookline, but I think you may be looking for examples on more local streets. Maybe not enough of a "neighborhood street" but there is a somewhat recently installed traffic calming one near Riverdale Elementary in Dedham that I'm familiar with.
 
Heath St/Wensley St/Parker St in Boston, although it may be too big for what you're looking for
 
Is it me, or does the latest Comm Ave. Phase 3+4 plan still seem like one hot mess that sidesteps everything fatally flawed about that layout and still prioritize oversupply of high-speed car capacity on the stretch of road that least needs it?

http://keepbostonmoving.org/portfolio/commonwealth-avenue-phase-3-and-4/


Like, OK...that's better for sidewalk space and bikes, and Packards-proper is a smidge improved. Credit where credit's due there. But how does further squeezing the already double-parker impassible carriage lanes and giving inbound-only but not outbound B's more platform width breathing room substantially improve this chaos? That Harvard Ave. crosswalk looks even more terrifying with the left-turn add-a-lane on the speed trap center carriageways.

I can't make heads or tails of what they're 'substantially' trying to do here. It's a cosmetic streetscaping, not a reconstruction. At least the BU stretch rebuild makes some noteworthy change to a previously hyper-skewed modal balance of power (even if not as much as we'd have liked in spots). Maybe I'm missing something here staring at these PPT's that actually makes this 'work' a lot better than before.
 
^ To start, it doesn't look like they're making an assumptions about re-locating the tracks. Maybe that's just realistic.

What they're doing on the inbound side, with cycletrack/path and plaza and what seems to be more of a "shared space" carriage/parking lane, isn't too bad. They should apply the same treatment to the outbound side.

One of the problems here, is that, as the presentation shows, building to building this is about 60 feet wider than Beacon in Coolidge Corner. All that space needs to be filled with something, and will look overly wide even in best-case scenario until the one-story commercial like the former Kelly's are redeveloped into something taller and more substantial. So, once you reconfigure the lanes (and assuming that relocating the tracks is a no-go) it does become an issue of cosmetics and aesthetics. In other words, the intersection requires placemaking just as much as traffic calming.
 
Shepard said:
^ To start, it doesn't look like they're making an assumptions about re-locating the tracks. Maybe that's just realistic.

What they're doing on the inbound side, with cycletrack/path and plaza and what seems to be more of a "shared space" carriage/parking lane, isn't too bad. They should apply the same treatment to the outbound side.

One of the problems here, is that, as the presentation shows, building to building this is about 60 feet wider than Beacon in Coolidge Corner. All that space needs to be filled with something, and will look overly wide even in best-case scenario until the one-story commercial like the former Kelly's are redeveloped into something taller and more substantial. So, once you reconfigure the lanes (and assuming that relocating the tracks is a no-go) it does become an issue of cosmetics and aesthetics. In other words, the intersection requires placemaking just as much as traffic calming.
Click to expand...

They're not relocating the B because state backed away from full-funding and project management on this and it's now a city project augmented by various outside funding sources. Which is kind of a shitty thing to stick the city with because this is state Route 30 all the way.

Like I said, maybe brain is not processing those renderings cleanly. But this looks like same chaos fluffed up along the edges with beneficial streetscaping. But...still chaos. Is this the best they can do with their only shot at fixing the problems? The presentation's all "Olmstead, Olmstead blah blah blah..." but this isn't Olmstead's layout. It's Mass Highway Dept.'s 1950's homeless man's expressway layout slightly improved. What is the mission statement of this thing? Do they even have one?
 
I've been in touch with the project manager. The renders aren't actually renders at this point - just vague concepts of "look what we can maybe possibly do."

What would you like to see done here? Specifically, I mean.
 
Transitwise:
Tracks in the center where they belong to eliminate the awkward car/train crossing moves at Packards and Warren and to make pedestrian access from the south side of Comm Ave easier. Substantially wider, handicapped accessible platforms at every station (perhaps even with a shelter for fare machines). Combine Allston Street and Warren Street stations by eliminating the current Warren inbound and Allston outbound platforms, and making the existing Warren outbound and Allston inbound platforms accessible from both streets. Transit signal priority at every intersection with clearly marked don't-block-the-box.

Bike/ped:
Fully protected bike lanes the whole length. Either close off the Linden/Reedsdale intersection to cars, or put crosswalks and a light.

Auto:
Add left turn lanes at Harvard Ave by eliminating a through lane. Eliminate the crazy dangerous curb cuts in front of Herb Chambers.
 
Shepard said:
I've been in touch with the project manager. The renders aren't actually renders at this point - just vague concepts of "look what we can maybe possibly do."

What would you like to see done here? Specifically, I mean.
Click to expand...

Capacity reduction from 6 total lanes to 4 + left-turn lanes, for starters. If the BU stretch of Comm Ave. can have that, why does this past-Packards section that gets far less traffic need to retain 2 more lanes than the most congested segment? The travel lanes are a notorious speed trap; that's the evidence screaming oversupply. You shouldn't need the carriage lanes at all when the only intersection with a signal queue--Harvard Ave.--that ever goes >10 cars long and so much as risks not flushing completely in a single green...gets that issue licked by the protected left installation. You should be able to do parking here with a well-buffered right shoulder on a unified carriageway where the existence of the shoulder parking enforces the speed limit. Hell, you even have room to do buffer + angled parking like Beacon does.

Why are they preserving both carriage roads? Because they exist at all, cheaters use them. It may be slow-speed and non-clogged induced demand, but it's induced demand just like the drag strip in the middle is induced. And just like the epidemic of illegal double-parking that fucks up residential access is induced because they know they won't be noticed as angrily on the carriage roads.

^^This goes to the mission statement question. They want a more functional road, but you're keeping all the cheats intact that make this configuration so bewildering. And arguably making the double-parker abuse worse by narrowing the passing room on the carriage roads. What are they accomplishing here in what's now Round 2 of design? Shouldn't they have some sort of fully-formed idea?



Now, state pulling out and the ill placement of the B reservation throws a monkey wrench into it. Big one. There's no way to do anything symmetrical with that. So maybe you keep the westbound carriage road as an immovable necessity and have 5 total lanes. After all, there are other asymmetrical examples around town (okay, maybe those MDC atrocities aren't the best examples, but you get the idea if multiplied by good design). And then you unify the eastbound carriage and fatten the median. 4 crosswalks at every intersection goes to 3, and the scariest leap at the median becomes less daunting. The greenspace is better-organized, the whole thing looks less-bewildering at ground level, and the cycle track layouts can be catered to the asymmetry (just one token example of several potential configs...obviously more space to be had here). I don't buy the argument that Lane 6--the SB carriage road--is a prerequisite for a cycle track; that's weak sauce.


Truthfully I don't have a lot of perfect ideas there because the asymmetry is such a bummer (and, FFS, MassDOT...STATE ROUTE 30! Pay up for taming the Frankenstein monster you created!). But the extra car capacity and extra speed preserved here differs from what the Kenmore-Packards Phases 1+2 did. On a less-congested segment. Why? Where does the mission statement diverge that extra car capacity is needed here but not there? And don't say the B reservation and symmetry, because there's nothing symmetrical about the roadway and surplus-to-requirement capacity is a choice. Is it because of the residential parkers? Okay, City Hall...why is that need predicated on this little-changed and somewhat more constrained carriage road layout when their parking mobility is already less-than-awesome because of the cheaters and double-parkers? Why is this so much different from other thoroughfares of equal residential parking density? Have you done your research on best practices with asymmetrical road layouts in your city and others and what's the argument for this design's best practices? Or is this Not Invented Here?


I would've thought we'd be past "vague concepts" at this point. Defining the clear mission statement is Job #1 before doing the renders. Like I said...maybe synapses are not firing properly looking at this thing and I'm just whiffing on a mission statement that is more self-evident. But I just am not seeing much definition in what they're setting out to accomplish and what goals the concept may be addressing. I mean...flawed road layout, extreme modal imbalance on where capacity is doled out, cheating galore on the mode that's taking far outsized share. Goal: substantially tame the imbalance, massage the worst of the flaws as byproduct of the reapportionment. That's been the story of the whole of Comm Ave. from Kenmore to the foot of the hill and the supposed justification of all 4 phases of the rebuild. We're crystal clear on what Phases 1 & 2 do in support of that goal. What the hell is Phase 3 doing in support of that goal if reapportionment of mode share--EASIER here with the reduced traffic levels--is only nipped at the fringes, if at all? Give us a concept that answers that question, fitting the corridor-wide plan, with an emphatic one-sentence mission statement.


That's what I want to see from them. If they can't do that, they aren't anywhere near ready to be presenting concepts in public meetings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top