I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

The study says two tracks and that the multi-use path along the Grand Junction ROW has been designed to leave space for double-tracking
 
Harry Mattison said:
The Cambridge Redevelopment Authority just released a new Grand Junction Transit Study considering the potential of passenger rail service between West Station, Kendall, and North Station. It confirms that we could have electric trains running with 15-minute frequency with predicted ridership of as many as 11,000 daily riders.

Grand Junction Transit Feasibility Study — Cambridge Redevelopment Authority

www.cambridgeredevelopment.org www.cambridgeredevelopment.org
Click to expand...
It feels like they're overly concerned with North Shore through traffic from Lynn and Revere, which despite making up less than 1/5 of projected ridership seemed to hold significant sway in the mode choice (which happened quite early on in the study, I must say). They also seem quite dismissive of ridership within Cambridge, which given the rather poor connectivity of Cambridgeport seems a bit odd to me.

They're also claim a link to GLX is just impossible, and I'd pretty strongly dispute that. It requires you to, as they say, accept all of GLX as entirely permanent and unchangeable.
 
TheRatmeister said:
It feels like they're overly concerned with North Shore through traffic from Lynn and Revere, which despite making up less than 1/5 of projected ridership seemed to hold significant sway in the mode choice (which happened quite early on in the study, I must say). They also seem quite dismissive of ridership within Cambridge, which given the rather poor connectivity of Cambridgeport seems a bit odd to me.

They're also claim a link to GLX is just impossible, and I'd pretty strongly dispute that. It requires you to, as they say, accept all of GLX as entirely permanent and unchangeable.
Click to expand...
I didn't read it as "GLX is untouchable", I read it as (a) the corridor needs to continue supporting mainline rail so using a non-FRA-compliant vehicle would kneecap service, and (b) we can't count on McGrath Overpass being deleted any time soon, and it poses a major obstacle to adding another branch to the GLX junction.

Now the assumptions in (a) or (b) might be dubious, but if true, then they do sound like dealbreakers for a GLX tie-in.
 
TheRatmeister said:
It feels like they're overly concerned with North Shore through traffic from Lynn and Revere, which despite making up less than 1/5 of projected ridership seemed to hold significant sway in the mode choice (which happened quite early on in the study, I must say). They also seem quite dismissive of ridership within Cambridge, which given the rather poor connectivity of Cambridgeport seems a bit odd to me.

They're also claim a link to GLX is just impossible, and I'd pretty strongly dispute that. It requires you to, as they say, accept all of GLX as entirely permanent and unchangeable.
Click to expand...
They also ruled it infeasible on the grounds that LRT must be on a tri-track corridor that preserves the existing RR track, which is a ridiculous claim when the Worcester-Ayer alternate route has been upgraded to 60 MPH, the southside heavy maintenance facility is in-design for Readville, the Widett Circle mega-layover is acquired, and there's a glut of coaches meaning balancing the north/south numbers is less of an issue than it's ever been...all of the prerequisites for taking the Grand Junction off the national rail network. It's frustrating that they sought to put their finger on the scale that heavily against any other mode choice but RR.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They also ruled it infeasible on the grounds that LRT must be on a tri-track corridor that preserves the existing RR track, which is a ridiculous claim when the Worcester-Ayer alternate route has been upgraded to 60 MPH, the southside heavy maintenance facility is in-design for Readville, the Widett Circle mega-layover is acquired, and there's a glut of coaches meaning balancing the north/south numbers is less of an issue than it's ever been...all of the prerequisites for taking the Grand Junction off the national rail network. It's frustrating that they sought to put their finger on the scale that heavily against any other mode choice but RR.
Click to expand...
My issue with it is that for grade separation they seemingly only looked at tunneling. My preferred mode would be automated light metro on a viaduct. Could mostly follow the ROW with a jaunt onto Vassar to bypass the MIT buildings, and would effectively build a small portion of the urban ring.
 
Badusername said:
My issue with it is that for grade separation they seemingly only looked at tunneling. My preferred mode would be automated light metro on a viaduct. Could mostly follow the ROW with a jaunt onto Vassar to bypass the MIT buildings, and would effectively build a small portion of the urban ring.
Click to expand...
but how would you see the impractically shaped dorm building then?

More seriously, if we accept "That bit of Vassar St gets no sunlight now" as an acceptable compromise, that could work. So then the question is, would Cambridge and MIT accept that? Because if not the only possible way to make it work is to use a bored tunnel to get under Main St, and even that requires an extremely steep grade between Mass Ave and the Utilities Plant.
 
Badusername said:
My issue with it is that for grade separation they seemingly only looked at tunneling. My preferred mode would be automated light metro on a viaduct. Could mostly follow the ROW with a jaunt onto Vassar to bypass the MIT buildings, and would effectively build a small portion of the urban ring.
Click to expand...
It's probably not needed. The grade crossings at Main and Broadway are at existing traffic lights. Add a transit phase and it slips as inocuously into the mix as a pedestrian phase. The traffic impacts with LRT and BRT are honestly minimal there (though Mass Ave. would still need to be separated with ROW-over-road bridge because the ROW is at the midpoint between signals). The problem with RR mode is that the train has absolute priority, meaning the gates go down no matter what the signal phase and no matter how destructive an interruption is to the signal phase. And virtually none of the crossings are separable at FRA grades (especially not Mass Ave.). You can program queue-dump tricks into the signals for after the train has passed, but that's a purely reactive not proactive thing. Gates-down every 7.5 minutes is going to seriously screw with traffic. This study downplayed those impacts, while the state's 2012 study dove deep into the pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and car traffic counts and turn directions around the crossings and found loads of bad news for what was then only a 5 IB/5 OB peak-direction service. This study needed to be as detailed as the 2012 one at quantifying those traffic conflicts given that the stakes are so much higher with 15-minute service; it chose not to go there. That's tantamount to malpractice.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It's probably not needed. The grade crossings at Main and Broadway are at existing traffic lights. Add a transit phase and it slips as inocuously into the mix as a pedestrian phase. The traffic impacts with LRT and BRT are honestly minimal there (though Mass Ave. would still need to be separated with ROW-over-road bridge because the ROW is at the midpoint between signals). The problem with RR mode is that the train has absolute priority, meaning the gates go down no matter what the signal phase and no matter how destructive an interruption is to the signal phase. And virtually none of the crossings are separable at FRA grades (especially not Mass Ave.). You can program queue-dump tricks into the signals for after the train has passed, but that's a purely reactive not proactive thing. Gates-down every 7.5 minutes is going to seriously screw with traffic. This study downplayed those impacts, while the state's 2012 study dove deep into the pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and car traffic counts and turn directions around the crossings and found loads of bad news for what was then only a 5 IB/5 OB peak-direction service. This study needed to be as detailed as the 2012 one at quantifying those traffic conflicts given that the stakes are so much higher with 15-minute service; it chose not to go there. That's tantamount to malpractice.
Click to expand...
Another thing they completely neglected is station siting. They mention long platforms being a con to RER but then completely ignore that for the rest of the study, I have no idea where you could both build an 800ft or whatever platform, while also building the station somewhere that most out-of-town commuters actually want to go.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Another thing they completely neglected is station siting. They mention long platforms being a con to RER but then completely ignore that for the rest of the study, I have no idea where you could both build an 800ft or whatever platform, while also building the station somewhere that most out-of-town commuters actually want to go.
Click to expand...
They don't even spec full-high 48 inch platforms. They go with 14 inch x 250 ft. LRT level-boarding platforms, meaning that the service is captive to unicorn rolling stock and requires low platforms (or low platform extensions) to be built on all the "extended"-service stations like Sullivan, Everett, Chelsea, and Lynn if they buy a low-floor make. The only rolling stock on the planet that can interoperate between full-highs and level lows without requiring station mods is the boondoggly and expensive Caltrain-mod Stadler KISSes. What an absolutely stupid constraint to sandbag the project with. If it's going to be RER mode, it's got to be able to take all manner of RER equipment and that means 48-inch platforms (I don't care if they're short length because no other CR service is going to be using them, but at least make it boarding-compatible with the scale we already have). Specialization for a niche service within the mode is cost-lethal to the project. If it's going to be EMU's or BEMU's, it's got to be the same EMU's or BEMU's we run everywhere else on the system. If Fairmount isn't being held to this extreme specialization standard, why would we ever do it here on an ultimately lower-ridership service?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They also ruled it infeasible on the grounds that LRT must be on a tri-track corridor that preserves the existing RR track, which is a ridiculous claim when the Worcester-Ayer alternate route has been upgraded to 60 MPH, the southside heavy maintenance facility is in-design for Readville, the Widett Circle mega-layover is acquired, and there's a glut of coaches meaning balancing the north/south numbers is less of an issue than it's ever been...all of the prerequisites for taking the Grand Junction off the national rail network. It's frustrating that they sought to put their finger on the scale that heavily against any other mode choice but RR.
Click to expand...
Would CSX be willing to give up their access to GJ? Not sure how often it's used by them but the study seemed to indicate that was more of a roadblock than CR ops.
 
This report is more agenda than report. It's not done from a transit perspective, but from the real-estate developers. If they want this to happen, they'll have to pony up.

Unless that happens, Grand Junction is a costly lesser option when compared to a(n equally costly) downtown, tunneled North-South-Rail-Link that has already been basically designed. I would love to get more transit through Kendall/Alston, but this is bad bang for the buck.

Putting LtR there makes some sense to me, but I would advocate for a further SL3 extension from Sullivan down this corridor, which could practically break ground tomorrow, and continue the section-by-section build-out of an urban ring along mixed ROW's. It would also be flexible to interface with the changing Allston neighborhood and eventual West Station, as well as tunnel-ready where applicable to avoid major intersections and high-traffic areas.
 
BosMaineiac said:
Would CSX be willing to give up their access to GJ? Not sure how often it's used by them but the study seemed to indicate that was more of a roadblock than CR ops.
Click to expand...
CSX hasn't used it in half a decade. The line has the tightest vertical clearance in New England, and CSX had to hunt for hard-to-find shrunken reefer cars to serve it's Everett customers. They outsourced the job to Pan Am to get standard dimension Plate F cars...and now of course own PAR outright. They still have free trackage rights on the GJ, but it's virtually worthless to them as an alternate route because of the Plate C restriction. All 3 of the Northside routings into Boston have better clearances. Getting CSX to co-file on the discontinuance docket that takes it off the national rail network wouldn't be hard.
 
okin15 said:
Unless that happens, Grand Junction is a costly lesser option when compared to a(n equally costly) downtown, tunneled North-South-Rail-Link that has already been basically designed. I would love to get more transit through Kendall/Alston, but this is bad bang for the buck.
Click to expand...
The costs of the proposal here and NSRL are nowhere close to each other. The report shows a maximum cost of $323 million over all alternatives and even if this is viewed as optimistic, running regional rail-style trains along this corridor every 15 minutes for $500 million is very doable. On the other hand, cost estimates of NSRL are in the $5-10 billion range. I agree that NSRL is a much better way to connect passengers from the west to North Station, but the costs are not comparable here.

okin15 said:
Putting LtR there makes some sense to me, but I would advocate for a further SL3 extension from Sullivan down this corridor, which could practically break ground tomorrow, and continue the section-by-section build-out of an urban ring along mixed ROW's. It would also be flexible to interface with the changing Allston neighborhood and eventual West Station, as well as tunnel-ready where applicable to avoid major intersections and high-traffic areas.
Click to expand...
I would argue automated, grade separated light metro is the best option here, starting from West Station to Sullivan. Over time, it could take over much (or all) of the SL3 route as well. This costs less than many might imagine, and provides excellent service. There's a much more active discussion about this in the Grand Junction Transit thread.
 
commonwealthbeacon.org

Study explores rail link between Allston, Kendall Sq., and North Station

The new study confirms what transit advocates have been saying for years – that the Grand Junction rail line could be converted for passenger use, ferrying riders from a proposed new MBTA station in Harvard University’s emerging research-oriented neighborhood in Allston to MIT, Kendall Square...
commonwealthbeacon.org commonwealthbeacon.org
 
mass.streetsblog.org

MBTA, Amtrak Warn That MassDOT's Allston Highway Megaproject Could Inflict 'Significant' Impacts On Regional Rail - Streetsblog Massachusetts

MBTA officials warn that commuter rail service "would cease within weeks" if MassDOT follows through on plans to demolish a critical rail bridge for the Allston Multimodal Project in Boston.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org

So apparently the current construction planning for this project includes removing the current grand junction rail bridge and not having a replacement built for years.
 
Texasian said:
mass.streetsblog.org

MBTA, Amtrak Warn That MassDOT's Allston Highway Megaproject Could Inflict 'Significant' Impacts On Regional Rail - Streetsblog Massachusetts

MBTA officials warn that commuter rail service "would cease within weeks" if MassDOT follows through on plans to demolish a critical rail bridge for the Allston Multimodal Project in Boston.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org

So apparently the current construction planning for this project includes removing the current grand junction rail bridge and not having a replacement built for years.
Click to expand...
HUH?!? The Charles River bridge doesn't have anything to do with the Pike straightening. The trajectory of the Grand Junction into the realigned highway doesn't start changing until after the Storrow overpass. It's literally well outside the project area limits. Besides, I doubt you could realign it much to change the trajectory given the angle at which it must slot under BU Bridge and coming off the Memorial Drive underpass. To say nothing about how much that extracurricular would bloat the cost of an already heinously expensive project.

I call BS. This would be a major project change and major expansion of the project area if it were actually true. That said, the original scoping docs for the realignment specced that the GJ might be out-of-service for up to a decade since it has to be severed for the staging of the highway grounding, and bringing it back online would be one of the last touches before the project wraps. So the T and Amtrak non-voluntarily would have to get used to using the Worcester-Ayer detour for several years.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
So the T and Amtrak non-voluntarily would have to get used to using the Worcester-Ayer detour for several years.
Click to expand...

Initial gut reaction to any extended rail closure is painful, but considering we can't expect any real transit on the GJ within "several years"....maybe this is a net benefit?

Then again I thought this logic would work about the decade long reduce of I-90 capacity in terms of its long term needs, so what do I know?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
HUH?!? The Charles River bridge doesn't have anything to do with the Pike straightening. The trajectory of the Grand Junction into the realigned highway doesn't start changing until after the Storrow overpass. It's literally well outside the project area limits. Besides, I doubt you could realign it much to change the trajectory given the angle at which it must slot under BU Bridge and coming off the Memorial Drive underpass. To say nothing about how much that extracurricular would bloat the cost of an already heinously expensive project.

I call BS. This would be a major project change and major expansion of the project area if it were actually true. That said, the original scoping docs for the realignment specced that the GJ might be out-of-service for up to a decade since it has to be severed for the staging of the highway grounding, and bringing it back online would be one of the last touches before the project wraps. So the T and Amtrak non-voluntarily would have to get used to using the Worcester-Ayer detour for several years.
Click to expand...
I think the “grand” scheme of things is that the grand junction will be out of service during construction and necessitate either the Ayer detour or SSMF. The new bridge they referenced is probably the flyover that will be needed to connect the grand junction alignment to the Worcester line over the pike, shown in this rendering:
1728612538132.jpeg
 
I'm honestly surprised that there's been a lack of reference to North-South Rail Link as a potential solution to this very clear and present operational problem. I worry that this is just another instance of highway project costs taking precedent over transit ones. It can not only transform service, but it can make the system more resilient. Seems like a win, win, win. And yet, the Gov's Office is doing whatever they can for Allston I-90 and the Cape Cod Bridges. So much for Dems caring more for transit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top