I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston

Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Austin uses Stadler light weight DMUs with a time separation exemption. They run down the middle of the street and can stop-start with traffic if needed. It drops you off next to a convention center, so not a quiet area, but not the CBD either.

As long as GJ remains common carrier there's not much that can be done, as F-line has pointed out. Remember also that 15 minute frequency means that the gates will close for two trains every 15 minutes, so a disruption every 7.5 minutes on average, but probably a more stochastic range of intervals in practice.

If there ever were some way to convert GJ to purely light rail then perhaps Chicago might be relevant: there are a lot of high frequency rapid transit grade crossings there, in the outer areas. Where more people drive, as well. They seem to get by.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Those FRA compliant DMUs can be a little more versatile than you might think:

watch
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
Austin uses Stadler light weight DMUs with a time separation exemption. They run down the middle of the street and can stop-start with traffic if needed. It drops you off next to a convention center, so not a quiet area, but not the CBD either.

As long as GJ remains common carrier there's not much that can be done, as F-line has pointed out. Remember also that 15 minute frequency means that the gates will close for two trains every 15 minutes, so a disruption every 7.5 minutes on average, but probably a more stochastic range of intervals in practice.

If there ever were some way to convert GJ to purely light rail then perhaps Chicago might be relevant: there are a lot of high frequency rapid transit grade crossings there, in the outer areas. Where more people drive, as well. They seem to get by.
Click to expand...

Main is the only one that physically can't get eliminated under LRT because of the Red Line below and air rights above. But it's at an intersection so it would tie directly into a light cycle without need for gates. Since the 6th St./Arlington St. grade crossing on the Airport leg of the UR can't go either because of Route 1 overhead it was never expected that 100% of the Ring would be separated, even if all other crossings were zapped. But that's the real Ring, not a Purple Line-derived solution.


Ultimately this is the killer:
-- Railroads have the right of way through a grade crossing at all times. Trolleys and cars can share it proportionally.
-- Because of this, mitigation for traffic queues at a RR crossing can only be reactive, not proactive. Mostly in sorting out the queues in the aftermath of a train, not beforehand.
-- No assumptions can be made in about what type of train is going to cross common-carrier tracks at any given time, that being the whole point of the line being a common carrier. Whether you've got the nimblest DMU's money can buy and the most clockwork dispatching in the world, the gate timings can make no assumptions about whether that particular train is a 1-car dinky, a 10-car freight, or a one-off equipment move somewhere in between. Doesn't matter if you've got the most sophisticated computers in the world to auto-detect the difference...it has to be fail-safe for all common carriers.
-- The time separation exemption IS the difference that unlocks all these coping tactics prohibited under mixed operation. If this were the RiverLINE you would be able to bend the rules a lot on proportional priority and gate timings without having to predicate everything on being fail-safe for a common carrier any-train. But that doesn't matter, because you can't get into North Station or West Station without mixed-running. EVEN IF the GJ itself were declared time-separated it is not separated at all from the Worcester and Fitchburg Line junctions. Wrong switches get thrown...Amtrak's been sent down the Stoughton Line before because of a dispatcher whoopsie at Canton Jct. If that happens off the Fitchburg Line here the train will have crossed Medford St. en route to Cambridge St. before realizing what happened and probably won't be slowing to a stop until it's nearing Binney. This is why the time separation on the RiverLINE doesn't allow mixed traffic within 2 hours of each other on a padded distance all-around.



So...really, don't focus on this DMU, that DMU, this hypothetical DMU. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's FRA vs. non-FRA, and we're stuck with FRA. It's easier math to figure here than in most cases. Take the n constant of gate timings from that last study, pedicated on the feasible track speed for an any-train running nonstop, and multiply it for every extra movement. Then see what the quantity of movements does to clearing traffic queues at given time of day at given TPH for that time of day. Find the saturation point. Does that support necessary headways for an Indigo-branded service at Zone 1A? Does that do more harm to the much higher-ridership #1 bus than it wildest-dreams helps the rail service?

That saturation point's going to get hit well before the math even needs to be fine-tuned around extra gate time for acceleration/deceleration around a Kendall stop or which vehicle you shop for.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Thanks for the clarification. It's frustrating that the GJ is the transit corridor that isn't.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Shepard said:
Thanks for the clarification. It's frustrating that the GJ is the transit corridor that isn't.
Click to expand...

Well, even if they wanted to UR it right this second you've got to sink about $300M + bloat contingency into the following prep work just to wean the RR usage off of it in order to make the big change:

-- Build an entire southside maint facility of equal heft to northside BET. Must be able to serve all coach maint needs. Must be able to serve all day-to-day diesel locomotive maint needs. Must be able to serve all DMU needs. Must be able to be upgraded for all electric needs. Must be large enough to track with southside growth way higher than northside. And any heavy work still segregated to BET, like 92-day locomotive repairs or specialty component work, must reduce the north-south equipment swaps enough so they only have to burn a crew + fuel to use the Worcester Branch between Worcester and Ayer once a week instead of every day.

-- Acquire enough storage space to serve 50-year needs, because they can't dance back-and-forth any longer and a little strip of easement along Beacon Park won't cut it. Probably means land-swapping all the private biz out of Widett Circle or waging war with Dedham over new use of Readville Yard 5.

-- More equipment both north and south since daily re-balances are out of the question. They already have to replace 200 single-level coaches in 2020 to go along with their 40 more locomotives in 2020 because the Rotems are such steaming piles of crap they couldn't exercise their +75 option order. So buff out those margins...and oh, by the way, the DMU's are in addition to not replacing 1 single coach currently on the roster.

-- Upgrade the Worcester Branch to 40 MPH passenger so it doesn't take 5 hours to make a north-south swap. Pan Am just had yet another 10 MPH derailment that shut the line for almost 3 days, so that's 22 miles of very heavy rehab to make halfway-reliable.

-- Cut a deal with Amtrak to do Downeaster maint at BET, since they can't do a daily run to their shop at Southampton for refueling and swaps. Probably means Massachusetts will have to pay the subsidy difference for the extra Downeaster equipment needed as cushion.

-- Cut a deal with CSX to give them trackage rights out of Ayer on the Fitchburg Line for their Everett Terminal needs. They already have operating rights between Worcester and Ayer on Pan Am's track. Whether their daily produce train can be pawned off on Pan Am or not to drop off for them in Worcester, they are still potential seekers of new business out of Everett or Moran Terminal and won't give up their access without equally-good equivalent (which means...yes, you do have to upgrade the Worcester Branch all the way). The paper transaction for this isn't expensive, but they'll want other quid pro quos in the deal because all their Eastern MA freight locals run out of Framingham not Worcester. Framingham's set up for blocking together locals, the big cross-state intermodal yard in Worcester isn't. It's added inconvenience to CSX to have to move and take up a strip of space in Worcester for one job that's not like all the others based there.



All common-sense stuff, but that's a stiff amount of eat-your-peas to-do's before you've even cleared the RR users off the GJ at no undue burden and can start construction. Construction that's gonna be a good billion for just this one opening quadrant between BU and Lechmere.

They honestly would do better just implementing the damn Phase I crosstown bus plan on all-existing streets and supersize the CT2 et al. Given the size of the to-do list there pretty much has to be a no-build regular-bus scaling up to bridge the gap before the real thing can feasibly begin construction. UR Phase I and it's massive expansion of the CT# routes with new Key Bus Route Improvements was that bridge phase...and a pretty good one at that. Probably better than the DMU if the frequency ceiling is just that low. But we can't even build no-build/ops-only nice things in this urban core.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

By the way, before I forget, at the last task force meeting they announced that the MBTA is looking to move, with haste, into the vacated CSX facilities in order to begin storing trains. This is before any reconfiguration of the yard, so presumably things will change, but they need the space now.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Matthew said:
By the way, before I forget, at the last task force meeting they announced that the MBTA is looking to move, with haste, into the vacated CSX facilities in order to begin storing trains. This is before any reconfiguration of the yard, so presumably things will change, but they need the space now.
Click to expand...

Yep. The cold storage warehouse they were trying to acquire at Widett Circle has lawyered up, with their developers still flogging that humongous recycling center project on the site. Recycling Ctr. now being the cause the neighborhood and Boston Food Market are amassing fire and pitchforks to defeat with extreme prejudice. So while that site may very easily become available again for the T to acquire if that redev gets torpedoed...in the meantime that's looking at a couple years of total shitshow standoff and staying hands-off for their own sanity.

The main yard is a really crappy place to store because of lack of onsite security. The taggers have already done a number on that old Boston & Albany passenger car being used as a storage shed. They're gonna have "urban exploration" and graffiti problems out there or too much petty cash burned up by installing entirely new security measures. Engine house would be a lot better as a temporary grab since it's got the loop, 7 pre-existing tail tracks, the refueling tanks, office and garage space, security fencing, and neighbors at Houghton Chemical who work the night shift.

But any which way, even in the dream scenario where they get their expansion land at Widett, don't need the permanent BP easement at all, the Pike can be straightened even straighter, and Harvard can build more...5 years worth of storage has to get cleared out. They're already having to ship the retired coaches and locomotives out to Davisville, RI and stuff them on under-capacity freight tracks at the port for the 2 years those cars are recommended to stay mothballed with the T before they have all-clear for disposal. Tapped the hell out of space, and Amtrak probably laid down the law telling them to G.T.F.O. of Southampton tomorrow if they want a prayer of getting approval to run the Track 61 dinky.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

F-line, how much of this would NSLink clear up? In terms of moving trains from north-south and vice versa, and clearing up GJ? Would that solve 99% of the issue, or would that only be a small part of it?

Not that its likely to happen soon and be a solution, but just out of curiosity.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

I think the NSLink largely solves the Commuter Rail movement issues, but not the freight issues. Would the NSLink be used by freight at all?
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Deetroyt said:
F-line, how much of this would NSLink clear up? In terms of moving trains from north-south and vice versa, and clearing up GJ? Would that solve 99% of the issue, or would that only be a small part of it?

Not that its likely to happen soon and be a solution, but just out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

It's unrelated. You don't need the N-S Link at all to turn the Grand Junction over to BRT or light rail. You just need to have the southside self-sufficient enough on equipment and maintenance facilities that the extremely time/fuel-consuming Worcester Branch swaps only have to happen very sporadically. And make alternate arrangements for the freights to run out of Ayer. But as noted on that list...it's a shitload of expensive to-do's before they're in any kind of position to wean themselves off the GJ for non-revenue moves.



Nothing whatsoever is going to make the Grand Junction support high DMU frequencies without directly clogging Mass Ave. and the #1 bus's schedule. You can't time-separate it from the FRA network because of where every DMU has to go to switch on and off of the line: North Station in mixed train traffic, and Worcester Line in mixed train traffic. You can't build overpasses too steep for a freight to climb. You can't re-time the grade crossings to behave differently or cede the right of way to a traffic light cycle for a DMU and not do so for a freight or push-pull.

If you did do time separation, it's at direct loss of the mixed running. You'd have securely locked switches at the Fitchburg and Worcester ends and only be able to ping between a platform on the grassy hillside next to BU Bridge, a platform next to Twin City Plaza. With a bus or B Line transfer to get anywhere else useful. But you would be able to re-time the crossings all you want during the separation! I'm gonna take a wild guess that scenario doesn't serve a need anyone actually wants, however.


The whole line is bound to FRA rules regardless of whether the vehicles heavier than a DMU get re-routed elsewhere. It's not vehicle type. It's FRA vs. non-FRA. Operate on a common-carrier railroad network, follow common-carrier railroad rules.

That's why Urban Ring Phase II separates it from the common-carrier RR network and either plugs it into the light rail network or bus routes. It's the only way to share the signalized right of way equitably at the crossings where FRA operation prohibits that.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

kingofsheeba said:
People talk about "eliminating Storrow Drive," when they don't realize how essential it is for people traveling in and out of Boston North of the City.

What needs to be done, if anything, is a paving and a huge roundabout where Storrow, and Memorial Drive meet with Buckingham, Brown and Nichols.
Click to expand...

In the Fresh Pond Resident's Alliance fora some people mentioned the idea about eliminating most of the traffic off Memorial Drive in Cambridge too by collaborated Deep Tunnel Bore below the Charles River.

http://www.cityminustraffic.org/index.htm
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

Charlie_mta said:
Whatever these folks are on, I want some! Actually, quite beautiful and Olmstedian.

Cool...
Click to expand...

Clearly belongs in Crazy Transit Pitches. And all the deep bore tunneling -- Drill Baby Drill!
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

If the Inner Belt and Northwest Expressways had been built, it may have been possible, from a traffic management standpoint, to eliminate Fresh Pond Parkway (south of Huron Ave) and the western part of Memorial drive, and maybe even Soldiers Field Road. Then the parks envisioned on the cityminustraffic.org website could have been established without the deep bore tunnels.

Of course, vast tracts of neighborhoods would have been decimated for the Inner Belt and NW Expressways.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

The irony is that the trend today is to replace ageing highways will boulevard type arterial roads such as Memorial and Storrow. These guys want to go the opposite way.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

vanshnookenraggen said:
The irony is that the trend today is to replace ageing highways will boulevard type arterial roads such as Memorial and Storrow. These guys want to go the opposite way.
Click to expand...

Well, Storrow at least is not exactly a boulevard type arterial. It is a crappy expressway.

You need cross streets and lights, not interchanges (even if they are horrible) to qualify as a boulevard.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

JeffDowntown said:
Well, Storrow at least is not exactly a boulevard type arterial. It is a crappy expressway.

You need cross streets and lights, not interchanges (even if they are horrible) to qualify as a boulevard.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wouldn't consider those MDC-perpetuated crimes against humanity to be boulevards or expressways. They're so uniquely and bafflingly horrible creations of one corrupt patronage fiefdom that they defy any clear roadway-type classification except as "@#$% Storrow!" and "@#$% Memorial!" epithets.

Memorial at least behaves somewhat like a boulevard and can be finessed around a little bit if a few single-point aggravations got dealt with (the River-Western-Pike block of frustration being the worst) and pedestrian crossings became more pedestrian and less Darwinian. Volumes really aren't that bad on it except where the Pike overloads it.

There's nothing that can be done to substantially help Storrow that doesn't involve blowing it the hell up and starting over with something very different: very different at highish-capacity-minus-induced-demand (which does necessitate Pike improvements to remove the induced demand), or very different at extremely low-capacity and majority-diversions to elsewhere. And complicated by the fact that the Storrow-proper midsection, SFR west of River St., and Embankment Rd. east of the Copley exit are 3 uniquely different-purpose stretches of road that EACH need uniquely complete makeovers totally different from any other unique makeover of a unique segment of the road. So..."What the hell is Storrow?" indeed.
 
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)

MASSDOT has their plan pretty much in place, but here is my reworked concept for the I-90 Allston area.

The rail lines and the Mass Pike at the proposed Malvern St. and Acorn St. bridges would be depressed about 12' or more below existing grade to accommodate the street grid and other development, which would be at grade. The Malvern St. and Acorn St. bridges would be about 10' above existing grade, or less as needed to fit the abutting properties south of the rail line.

The Mass Pike would remain mostly on a viaduct next to Soldiers Field Road, though shortened at its western end where the Pike would descend to below grade through the new development area.

15085684946_4c1708e6f8_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top