Least -- I be accused of derailing the thread or worse adding to the discussion -- this post is designed to "Pick some Nits" which I've noticed in reading the past dozen or so posts
Let's start with the easiest -- Say Via-Duct as opposed to Aqua-Duct -- one is an elevated thoroughfares for people and vehicles [as in Via Appia] the other is a path for water
Now one which I was genuinely surprised at seeing from F-Line who is generally quite thorough in his railway engineering
F-line in discoursing on the GJ in Cambridge said about grade crossings:
The only one which needs to be grade separated is Mass Ave.
he further stated that Binney St. could be closed
and he further ignored the major crossings at Main St. and Broadway
I think the property owners and developers at or around those streets would have a substantial objection to digging under Mass Ave and then crossing Main and Broadway at grade. Closing Binney might be an issue given the development potential at its junction with Galileo Way now that Metropolitan Pipe is gone.
Essentially -- I think that if you tunnel for Mass Ave the tunnel has to continue until Schlumberger / Draper at least.
No, nothing was "ignored" The grade crossing impacts have been
extensively discussed in many UR-related posts you apparently couldn't be bothered to read, and were quantified with real car counts in one of those studies you claim to have sort-of-but-not-really read. It's rather quite impossible to have truly kept up on UR discussion on aB over the years and not gotten a whole lot of crossing info to chew on. But thanks for the ad hominem anyway! Staying completely in character even while offering a half-hearted olive branch, I see.
---------------
Let's spell this out, if you're in an actual reading mood today. . .
Main St. and Broadway can't be eliminated on any mode. The Main St. overhang prevents it there, and the incline space on the Main-Broadway midblock for attempting to eliminate Broadway is so short that a maximum-steepness trolley incline with a traffic light at the bottom would be a self-defeating speed restriction clog. The 2012 MassDOT
Grand Junction Transportation Feasibility Study calculated traffic impacts from RR gate timings on an upgraded line for purpose of running 5 A.M. peak and 5 P.M. peak unidirectional Worcester-North Station trains. Clicky the linky and they've got all the separate AM & PM peak-period traffic counts, ped counts, and bicycle counts with directional splits at each grade crossing. Negative impact was calculated via the default gate timings, with assumption of signal reprogramming for queue dumps after a train had passed. Though they have not fed these numbers into the RUR plan for 15-min. bidirectional frequencies, you can ante-up from the Worcester study numbers to isolate the problem areas.
Now, the big advantage BRT/LRT have is that they can share road signals while RR cannot. RR always has absolute priority, which is why the traffic signals on the RUR plan can only be
reactive instead of proactive at dumping a queue around a train. In a nutshell, that's why the RR mode is the crummiest choice by far for any increased frequencies on the corridor. It's also why Mass Ave. is such a must-eliminate; the crossing is at the midpoint between traffic signals and ends up hosing two intersections at once with few mitigation options. Main and Broadway, on the other hand, have the stop line for their signals immediately abutting the tracks...very advantageous for signal programming. A trolley or bus phase can be grafted onto the existing signal cycles as if it were just another turn phase or crosswalk phase. This greatly minimizes the impact by allowing transit crossings to fold inside of an existing direction's cycle.
So say at 6 min. bi-directional headways it takes a 20 second transit phase for a trolley or bus to reliably clear the crossing. 20 secs × 2 directions every 6 min. window means the transit phase is *somehow* (but not absolutely) affecting other traffic for a maximum of 40 out of every 360 seconds. Then subtract time for all vehicles that clear in < 20 secs., as the transit phase will be programmed to cut short after an early clear. Then subtract more for dispatch coordination of eastbound/westbound vehicles to pass simultaneously when possible to minimize the footprint of the transit phases. Station placement also matters: is there going to be one mid-block Kendall stop sandwiched between Main-Broadway, or 2 flanking stops...one under the Main St. air rights within eyesight-wayfinding of the Red Line station, and one at Binney St. anchoring the other side? That will inform what dispatching tricks are used for timing moves through the signal phases (personally, I think the 2 flanking stations work better for high-precision timing because the station dwells can be leveraged vs. signal phase windows). All of ^these^ considerations feed into choice of signal phasing.
OK...so now you figure out how to divvy the phases. Direct study comparison with other LRT and BRT systems is obviously a must for how they handled phasing on similar-makeup intersections; there are plenty of examples to choose from. Probably the most straightforward way to handle is to overlay the transit phase on the green for Galileo Galilei Way, and to make all southbound right-hand turns from Galileo protected-right signaled mirroring the left-turn signals.
- Galileo @ Broadway is already set up exactly this way with right-lane = right-turn only, No Turn On Red, protected-right arrow signals, and an extened right-only green phase that lingers when thru + left are red. Perfect! Nothing to do here except re-time the protected-right to fit the 20 secs-or-less transit phase.
- Galileo @ Main lacks the dedicated right-turn lane of the Broadway intersection, so has a permissive right. Simply replicate the Broadway setup verbatim here by adding that right lane and mirroring the signal setup. The little parklet on the corner has ample space to give for adding that lane.
- Main would need its stop line moved back a bit, and if LRT tracks would be re-angled into a sharper curve at the crossing so the crossing distance isn't as awkwardly far from the intersection. It's currently a 150 ft. difference, but the track re-angle can probably split that difference to about 100 ft. Signals would have to be re-timed there just for clearing the intersection from the further set-back stop line. Broadway needs no modifications whatsoever. Signal phases would stay the same here, but would have queue dump programming for the transit phases jumping all over the regular signal churn.
Now...you take the car/bike/ped counts from the Worcester study, do some moderately complicated but layman's math to plug the transit phase breakdown in place of the RR gate timings, and you tally up a quantified traffic impact. You can probably Google up some MUTCD info on phasing best-practices to help with that and better-visualize what's going on. I am not in the mood on a rainy Mon. evening to attempt anything more than rudimentary arithmetic, so you're going to have to show yourself the math. But you can indeed do it with the publicly available counts.
It does not--with all the available phasing tricks in the book--add up to a carpocalypse at Main & Broadway even with brisk 6 min. headways. Way, way not-a-carpocalypse. It's solid...very solid. Moreso because all LRT/BRT options assume Mass Ave. crossing being eliminated meaning Main is under a little less stress from the Central Sq. direction. Given that the existence of such rich headways likely takes car traffic OFF those roads, City of Cambridge is not going to have a problem with the 6-min. headway LRT or BRT build options. Not like they would with the 15-min. headway RUR option where absolute gates-down priority makes traffic recovery afterwards an order of magnitude harder.
As for the others...Binney isn't in the same universe to begin with, so the scope of any debate about whither closing it is not exactly the stuff of high-stakes politics. If there ends up preference for 2 flanking instead of 1 consolidated station you're probably siting the northerly stop directly at Binney and closing the crossing just to turn it into the station plaza, where ped/bike crossing will be allowed but cars no more. Cambridge St. has an existing ped crossing light at the crossing for the large Cambridge Housing Authority Millers River Apartments tower. Unless you've got tons of extra money burning a hole in pocket for a bonus elimination, just appropriate that light for the at-grade transit phase. I mean, even with an elevated station the ped signal is going to get used way more anyway by users of the station...so there ends up little difference between projected baseline ped crossings causing red lights vs. corralling most of those pedestrians inside a regularly-occurring transit red phase. If there's any elimination to ponder there it's one you do years
later when funds permit and not as an extra moving part on the base build. Medford St. is a low volume non-concern.
You wanted some specific answers? ^^Here^^ they are. Keep the TL;DR to yourself this time if seeing it spelled out is more boring than watching paint dry.