MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

[Aprehensive_Words]

My other thought was that maybe construction costs escalated or local politics got in the way and they're having to delay work on a station?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Hopefully they don't go for mini-high platforms.

They can't. Inner Worcester's not a protected clearance route anymore, so they are required by state law to be full-highs.

Another possibility would be converting some of the planned elevators into ramps or something.

This is more likely. The initial design concepts seemed to be wildly overbuilt.

 

[themissinglink]

I'm glad that Newtonville is being prioritized due to high ridership. The change to 400' platforms is a surprise to me.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm glad that Newtonville is being prioritized due to high ridership. The change to 400' platforms is a surprise to me.

View attachment 49448


View attachment 49449
View attachment 49450

Very surprising, since Worcester runs 7-packs at rush. They'd need something like 600-625 ft. to open all doors on those consists. That's gonna kill dwell times hard at the station, which is not advisable at all for how OTP-stressed Worcester is in general.

Honestly, platform length is not gonna save too much money either. The lethal cost bloat is project management consultants and egress accessibility.

 

[RandomWalk]

The center platform precludes future lengthening to 800’.

It feels like a weirdly aggressive footgun.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The center platform precludes future lengthening to 800’.

It feels like a weirdly aggressive footgun.

Yeah, 400 ft. will only berth a 4-pack. Framingham/Worcester rarely even shrinks below 5 cars on the midday off-peak, let alone during peak when it's 6-packs as far as Framingham on the runs that stop at the Newtons (plus these rebuilds are supposed to enable schedule increases so some Worcester peak runs can start picking up the stops). Having to walk through a mostly full bi-level consist at rush to get to/from one of the first 4 cars that can berth is going to seriously harm dwells, perhaps even beyond the low-platform dwell penalty of today.

I can't imagine what "parameters provided by MBTA Operations" thought this was a good idea, because it's not even compatible with current ops let alone future ones with expanded schedules. But given how badly they screwed up the last stab at Auburndale rebuild with the single-side platform on the wrong side, you unfortunately can't rule out rank incompetence or subterfuge here.

 

[Stlin]

Is there something about distance to a escape route / area of refuge? In the 2021 concept below they'd proposed two distinct access structures for no other apparent reason, which they seem to want to just build one of. But yes, just shortening the platform seems like a bad idea. Why not just adjust the platforms relationship with the access structures?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is there something about distance to a escape route / area of refuge? In the 2021 concept below they'd proposed two distinct access structures for no other apparent reason, which they seem to want to just build one of. But yes, just shortening the platform seems like a bad idea. Why not just adjust the platforms relationship with the access structures?

The emergency access routes are insanely large in the renders...some 1/4 the length of the full platform. I can't think of any other CR station that attempts something that outsized.

If they're going to shorten, 6 cars has to be the minimum. They got married-triplet EMU and BEMU bids in the RFP's, which means they have to at minimum plan for trains that chunk out 3 cars at a time with Worcester's all-day loading leading to large number of midday off-peak 6-packs because 3 is not enough.

 

[themissinglink]

The recording of the virtual public meeting from last night was just posted on YouTube. At 48:12 someone asks a question about the short platforms. At 50:30 the question was addressed. I typed out the relevant info:

So, on the question of shorter platforms, I think some of you have heard about the issues or plans around electirifcation and running higher frequency service. The service design is to run high frequency small trainsets, so, move the same amount of people by running more frequency. The 800 foot trains will not be stopping at this station, this will be the high frequency service. This was all outlined in the Rail Vision which was done before COVID. This is a high frequency station so we will not need such long platforms. Just to be very very clear, the intent is not to have a train longer than the platform length stopping at the station. That is not the design, not the service aspect, whether that's diesel or electric.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So, on the question of shorter platforms, I think some of you have heard about the issues or plans around electirifcation and running higher frequency service. The service design is to run high frequency small trainsets, so, move the same amount of people by running more frequency. The 800 foot trains will not be stopping at this station, this will be the high frequency service. This was all outlined in the Rail Vision which was done before COVID. This is a high frequency station so we will not need such long platforms. Just to be very very clear, the intent is not to have a train longer than the platform length stopping at the station. That is not the design, not the service aspect, whether that's diesel or electric.

That's complete gobbledygook. They haven't fully committed to implementing the Rail Vision yet or given a timetable for implementation, so this has to fit existing service if it's to be a sooner-rather-than-later build. And these stops are currently on Worcester off-peak schedules that run 5+ cars, and Framingham peak schedules that always run 5+ cars. No decision has been made on whether to shear off the Newton stops from all suburban service in favor of exclusive intra-128 service; I would think that would be opposed by the city who likes the idea of some service variety continuing to serve the stops, even if it's a minority pattern. In fact, I'd find it highly unlikely that they would be punted to exclusive Riverside/128 turns given how the TPH would have to be structured to be load-bearing for at least the Framingham turns. Plus, what I said above about the EMU RFP's netting married-triplet makes that may have to chunk out to 6 cars if the loading proves too much for minimum 3-car sets (which it will if anything traveling beyond 128 during the peak stops here).

Bad, bad omen for community outreach on these critical rebuilds if they're just nakedly bullshitting on stuff like this. Both this meeting and the South Coast Rail one last night were not good outcomes for transparency.

 

[themissinglink]

That's complete gobbledygook. They haven't fully committed to implementing the Rail Vision yet or given a timetable for implementation, so this has to fit existing service if it's to be a sooner-rather-than-later build. And these stops are currently on Worcester off-peak schedules that run 5+ cars, and Framingham peak schedules that always run 5+ cars. No decision has been made on whether to shear off the Newton stops from all suburban service in favor of exclusive intra-128 service; I would think that would be opposed by the city who likes the idea of some service variety continuing to serve the stops, even if it's a minority pattern. In fact, I'd find it highly unlikely that they would be punted to exclusive Riverside/128 turns given how the TPH would have to be structured to be load-bearing for at least the Framingham turns. Plus, what I said above about the EMU RFP's netting married-triplet makes that may have to chunk out to 6 cars if the loading proves too much for minimum 3-car sets (which it will if anything traveling beyond 128 during the peak stops here).

Bad, bad omen for community outreach on these critical rebuilds if they're just nakedly bullshitting on stuff like this. Both this meeting and the South Coast Rail one last night were not good outcomes for transparency.

Yeah, I was very confused when I heard what they had to say last night. It's really odd that they're choosing to design the station like this.

 

[The EGE]

Bad, bad omen for community outreach on these critical rebuilds if they're just nakedly bullshitting on stuff like this. Both this meeting and the South Coast Rail one last night were not good outcomes for transparency.

After several years of doing slightly better, there's been a recent downturn in meeting transparency. Presentations simply aren't getting posted on the website any more.

 

[Tallguy]

The emergency access routes are insanely large in the renders...some 1/4 the length of the full platform. I can't think of any other CR station that attempts something that outsized.

If they're going to shorten, 6 cars has to be the minimum. They got married-triplet EMU and BEMU bids in the RFP's, which means they have to at minimum plan for trains that chunk out 3 cars at a time with Worcester's all-day loading leading to large number of midday off-peak 6-packs because 3 is not enough.

Actually, if done properly, a 6 car consist could do rear door first car, front door rear car.

 

[WestMedford]

Actually, if done properly, a 6 car consist could do rear door first car, front door rear car.

They do rear door first car at West Medford outbound to get a six car set north of High St so it doesn’t block traffic during the dwell. But that’s only because the T can’t make any material improvements without triggering ADA. This Newtonville design is a crock. So dumb.

 

[The EGE]

Actually, if done properly, a 6 car consist could do rear door first car, front door rear car.

That doesn't let you do auto doors, so you're limited to doors with a conductor, which kills your dwell times. To do auto doors with a 6-car set, you need 510 feet (plus 20 or so extra for margin of error). Platforms really are not the expensive part of building stations - it's just footings with prefab panels on top - so cheaping out by shortening platforms smells particularly fishy.

 

[JeffDowntown]

That doesn't let you do auto doors, so you're limited to doors with a conductor, which kills your dwell times. To do auto doors with a 6-car set, you need 510 feet (plus 20 or so extra for margin of error). Platforms really are not the expensive part of building stations - it's just footings with prefab panels on top - so cheaping out by shortening platforms smells particularly fishy.

Unless the engineering of the long platform causes you to do something else expensive. You could have site specific issues, such as expensive to move obstructions, or space limitations that cause you to use elevators instead of ramps for accessible vertical access. I am not saying that is the case, but rather there are many reasons why short platforms might be indicated.

Seems you just need to be able to deal with the operational issues of short platforms (telling people which doors will open, for example). Metro North has a lot of short platforms and handles this just fine.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Unless the engineering of the long platform causes you to do something else expensive. You could have site specific issues, such as expensive to move obstructions, or space limitations that cause you to use elevators instead of ramps for accessible vertical access. I am not saying that is the case, but rather there are many reasons why short platforms might be indicated.

Some more transparency here would have gone a long way.

 

[Koopzilla24]

This is for the Regional Rail fare structuring discussion in the SCR thread but should probably go here:

I did a bit of a draft Regional Rail fare restructuring a while back prompted by SCR and Fall River/New Bedford potential pricing and came up with this:

	One Way	Monthly
1a	2.4​	75​
1​	3.25​	102​
2​	4​	126​
3​	4.75​	150​
4​	5.5​	173​
5​	6.25​	197​
6​	7​	221​
7​	7.75​	244​
8​	8.5​	268​
9​	9.25​	291​
10​	10​	315​

It's a more basic zone 1 base $3.25 fare then increasing by .75 each zone. The 3.25 comes from the current single zone interzone fare. The monthly passes are calculated roughly the same way the current ones are from the base fare normalized around a zone 3. The $75 would also be the rapid transit monthly in this case because that's what it should be if calculated the same way as the CR monthly passes are currently. Notably the one way fare is cheaper than the express bus fare until Zone 3 but I figure this makes sense because at scale those buses are more expensive to run than a train and they are more direct to destinations between Back Bay and South Station than the Commuter Rail alternative.

I do not posses the photoshop skills to produce a new zone map but here's a table of the stations that I'd change and to which zones by line. These are less based on purely distance but more on the function and context of the station. For example stations more connected to the Boston urbanized area should have a lower fare than one that is physically closer to the city but is functionally disconnected *cough* Weston *cough*. At the same time other cities that have close functional ties with Boston should sometimes be in a closer zone than a random equidistant town. For a few lines its just the whole line moving up one zone save for a station or two. Some stops I have moved away a zone but this would be theoretically in conjunction with new fare structure so it would still be cheaper at those stations. Also every station withinthe City of Boston regardless of distance should be in 1a.

North Side

	NBP/RP	Haverhill	Lowell	Wachusett
1a​				Blmnt/Wvly
1​	Lynn/Swmp			Wthm/Brnds
2​	Salem
3​	Bvly/Mnsrt
4​	Nbvly/BvFm		NBillerica
5​		Lawrence	Lowell
6​		Bdf/Hvhl		Littleton
7​				Ayer/Shirley
8​
9​
10​

South Side

	Worcester	Needham	Fairmount	Franklin	PVD/Stoughton	FR/NB	Kingston	Greenbush
1a		All Boston	All stops	Readville	Hyde Park	Quincy
1​	All Newton	All Needham	End-Islington	128​	Braintree		E Braintree
2​	All Wellesley		All Nordwood	All Canton	Holbrook	S Weymouth
3​	Natick Ctr			Windsor/Walp	Stn/Shrn	All Brockton	Abtn/Wtmn
4​	Framingham			Norfolk				West Hingham
5​	Aslnd/Sthbo			Franklin/Dean	Mansfield	Bridgewater	Hnsn/Hlfx	Cohasset
6​	Wboro/Grftn			Attleboro	MBR/LV	King/Plym	Scituate
7​	Worcester				Pawtucket	E Taunton		Greenbush
8​						Free/Church
9​						FR/NB
10​

 

[TheRatmeister]

I did a bit of a draft Regional Rail fare restructuring a while back prompted by SCR and Fall River/New Bedford potential pricing and came up with this

I think you've got a good start, and the 75¢ increases make a fairly nice fare structure. But, of my 4 big problems with the fare zone (Stations in Boston/on rapid transit aren't in Zone 1A, Too many zones, inconsistently skipped zones, and the zone 1a -> Zone 1 fare shift) only 2 have been solved. I've tried my hand at the problem with no zone skips and a reduced number of zones, and I've tried to shift the stations around in the zones with income in mind. (Waltham is getting a better deal than Lincoln, for instance.)

Zone	One Way Fare	Monthly Pass
1​	2.40​	75​
2​	3.75​	126​
3​	5​	150​
4​	6.50​	173​
5​	8​	197​
6​	10​	300​
7​	12​	360​
8​	15​	450​

North Side

	NBP/RP	Haverhill	Lowell	Fitchburg
1​	Chelsea, River Works, Lynn	Malden Center, Oak Grove	W. Medford	Porter, Belmont, Waverley, Waltham, Brandeis/Roberts
2​	Swampscott, Salem,	Wyoming Hill, Melrose Cedar Park, Melrose Highlands	Wedgemere, Winchester Center	Kendall Green
3​	Beverly, Montserrat, N. Beverly	Greenwood, Wakefield, Reading, N. Wilmington	Anderson/Woburn, Wilmington	Lincoln
4​	Hamilton/Wenham, Beverly Farms	Ballardvale, Andover, Lawrence	N. Billerica, Lowell	Concord, W. Concord, S. Acton
5​	Ipswich, Manchester	Bradford, Haverhill		Littleton/495, Ayer, Shirley
6​	Rowley, W. Gloucester, Gloucester			N. Leominster, Fitchburg
7​	Newburyport			Wachusett

South Side

	Worcester	Needham	Fairmount	Franklin	Providence/Stoughton	Fall River/New Bedford	Kingston	Greenbush
1​	Back Bay, Lansdowne, Boston Landing, The Newtons™	Roslindale Village, Highland, Bellevue, W. Roxbury	All stops	Back Bay, Ruggles, Forest Hills, Hyde Park, Readville	Back Bay, Ruggles, Forest Hills, Hyde Park	Quincy Center, Braintree	Quincy Center, Braintree	Quincy Center
2​	Wellesley Farms, Wellesley Hills	Hersey, Needham Jct, Needham Center, Needham Heights		Endicott, Dedham CC​	Rt 128	Holbrook/Randolph, Montello, Brockton, Campello	S. Weymouth, Abington, Whitman	Weymouth Landing/ E. Braintree
3​	Wellesley Square			Islington, Norwood Depot, Norwood Central	Canton Jct, Canton Center, Stoughton	Bridgewater	Halifax	E. Weymouth
4​	Natick Center, Framingham			Windsor Gardens, Walpole	Sharon, Mansfield	Middleborough, E. Taunton	Kingston	W. Hingham
5​	Ashland, Southborough			Norfolk, Foxborough	Attleboro, S. Attleboro	Freetown, Fall River, Church St, New Bedford		Nantasket Jct, Cohasset
6​	Westborough, Grafton, Worcester			Franklin/Dean College, Forge Park/495	Pawtucket/Central Falls, Providence			N. Scituate, Greenbush
7​					T.F. Green/Warwick
8​					Wickford Jct.

 

[Koopzilla24]

I think you've got a good start, and the 75¢ increases make a fairly nice fare structure. But, of my 4 big problems with the fare zone (Stations in Boston/on rapid transit aren't in Zone 1A, Too many zones, inconsistently skipped zones, and the zone 1a -> Zone 1 fare shift) only 2 have been solved. I've tried my hand at the problem with no zone skips and a reduced number of zones, and I've tried to shift the stations around in the zones with income in mind. (Waltham is getting a better deal than Lincoln, for instance.)

Zone	One Way Fare	Monthly Pass
1​	2.40​	75​
2​	3.75​	126​
3​	5​	150​
4​	6.50​	173​
5​	8​	197​
6​	10​	300​
7​	12​	360​
8​	15​	450​

It appears copying my table for the zone changes actually moved around things to different cells and I didn't notice at first. I tried to ensure no zones were skipped. Also any station I did not list is because I wouldn't change its current zone. This is what it should be as screenshot from my phone.

About the fare jump from 1A->1, I though of these with regional rail service in mind where a train coming every 15-30min becomes reasonably useful for a just outside Boston Zone 1 to a just inside Zone 1A trip. I feel as though it should be at most double the bus fare to make this short trip. As for the consolidation of zones and your outermost zone pricing, I think the MBTA's zone delineation is pretty good and having a large jump in fares for journeys that would be a longer commute isn't really conducive toward encouraging more people to switch to the train. Especially with the shift to more off-peak travel, the train needs to become more competitive with driving in less traffic than rush hour peaks.