MBTA "Transformation" (Green Line, Red Line, & Orange Line Transformation Projects)

stick n move said:
“OL trains are now allowed to go 55mph between oak grove and assembly, they havent been able to do this in 20 years”


Click to expand...
I'm not sure 55 was ever done on Orange. 50 used to be possible in-practice under the old trip-stop signal system on Haymarket-north. That went away when the current ATO system was installed around 2005, artificially capping speeds. But I'm not sure that in the old days the typical trip-stop signal timings really allowed >50. The 01200 cars had a design speed of 65 in case the Reading extension were ever built and the express track were put into revenue service, so the infrastructure was definitely capable of it.
 
Badusername said:
Can the busses board at the raised Type 10 level-boarding platforms or will they need a lower curb height on a portion of the platform?
Click to expand...
The Type-10 boarding height is low-floor, so only raised about 8 inches. That should work for bus boarding (I guess)? Buses stop at curbs that can be nearly that height.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The Type-10 boarding height is low-floor, so only raised about 8 inches. That should work for bus boarding (I guess)? Buses stop at curbs that can be nearly that height.
Click to expand...
The floor of low-floor vehicles, like the Type 8, Type 9, and Type 10, is 14 inches above top of rail. The current accessible platform heights are 8 inches so that they don't interfere with the folding doors on the Type 8s, but that requires a movable ramp. Once the Type 8s are gone, the plan is to go to 14-inch platforms for level boarding at all doors without movable ramps.

Bus floor height is about 16 inches, so it may work, though I would be worried about their folding doors hitting the platforms.
 
The EGE said:
The floor of low-floor vehicles, like the Type 8, Type 9, and Type 10, is 14 inches above top of rail. The current accessible platform heights are 8 inches so that they don't interfere with the folding doors on the Type 8s, but that requires a movable ramp. Once the Type 8s are gone, the plan is to go to 14-inch platforms for level boarding at all doors without movable ramps.

Bus floor height is about 16 inches, so it may work, though I would be worried about their folding doors hitting the platforms.
Click to expand...
Got it -- and yes, the bus door clearance is tight.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The B is the only other one that (partially...to Packards Corner) has buses. And it would be a bunching disaster there with how brittle both the B's and the 57's schedules are.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.
I guess I was thinking about the B, but also the rest of the E branch, up to Northeastern.
 
ritchiew said:
I guess I was thinking about the B, but also the rest of the E branch, up to Northeastern.
Click to expand...
The E reservation is narrower than both the B's and especially the C's. You wouldn't be able to fit two bus-width reservation lanes AND MAAB-width platforms AND turn lanes here, for instance. It's just a couple feet too shy from being able to fit.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The B is the only other one that (partially...to Packards Corner) has buses. And it would be a bunching disaster there with how brittle both the B's and the 57's schedules are.
Click to expand...
I'm sure this could be made to work. It's not like the 57's bunching would get worse if it was separated from traffic and did not have to pull over. However, the 57 would probably have to serve a limited number of stops to prevent over-crowding (or it could be upgraded to articulated buses, but that doesn't seem likely in the near term).
 
BeansTheCat said:
I'm sure this could be made to work. It's not like the 57's bunching would get worse if it was separated from traffic and did not have to pull over. However, the 57 would probably have to serve a limited number of stops to prevent over-crowding (or it could be upgraded to articulated buses, but that doesn't seem likely in the near term).
Click to expand...
The 57 bunched behind a perennially schedule-borked B, however? Yeah, its schedule adherence is getting a lot worse in that case...and there's no expressing that's going to make up for it on the busway while needing to follow an all-local B. As is, the 57 consistently runs faster than the B, so that's a bunching problem waiting to happen.

The 57's never getting articulateds. The route is sourced out of Cabot and Albany garages, which are now-and-forever 40-footer equipment bases. Select Charlestown-sourced routes out of the new Medford garage and new Arborway garage are the only expansion sites that will be able to serve new 60-footer routes.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The 57 bunched behind a perennially schedule-borked B, however? Yeah, its schedule adherence is getting a lot worse in that case...and there's no expressing that's going to make up for it on the busway while needing to follow an all-local B. As is, the 57 consistently runs faster than the B, so that's a bunching problem waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
The 57 has the nice feature where if it is behind a trolley, it can just be a bus and use Comm Ave to go around. Thinking some more, it could reasonably become only alighting from Packard's to Kenmore, and only boarding in the other direction with reduced stops. Again, far from perfect but it's not that hard to see a path where this saves riders time and makes transfers easier.
 
BeansTheCat said:
The 57 has the nice feature where if it is behind a trolley, it can just be a bus and use Comm Ave to go around. Thinking some more, it could reasonably become only alighting from Packard's to Kenmore, and only boarding in the other direction with reduced stops. Again, far from perfect but it's not that hard to see a path where this saves riders time and makes transfers easier.
Click to expand...
In the mid-2000s the 57 was this … only alight Packard to Kenmore and only board Kenmore to Packard. At some point since then this arrangement changed and the T allows both in this stretch.

You’re right that a bus can maneuver back into the road, but how would a passenger awaiting the 57 bus know at which stop to stand? At the B line station or at the curb if the 57 is weaving in and out of the rail reservation?
 
WestMedford said:
You’re right that a bus can maneuver back into the road, but how would a passenger awaiting the 57 bus know at which stop to stand? At the B line station or at the curb if the 57 is weaving in and out of the rail reservation?
Click to expand...
There's options here too, assuming that the 57 skips some Comm Ave stops. The simple answer is that the 57 would have to wait if it was right behind a trolley at a station, but could pass it in route to it's next stop. It is also (likely) possible for the combined stops to have dedicated bus platforms where the bus could either continue on the transitway/reservation or go on to the road. This would have extra complexity but I see no reason why it would be impossible.

All in all, I find it hard to believe that it would be infeasible to have the 57 and B branch share a transitway down Comm Ave. As many of you have pointed out, this could be impractical or unwieldy, but I do not think that can be assumed as matter-of-fact. Given the 57's ridership and the amount of traffic on Comm Ave, I believe it is worth exploring the possibility seriously.

If anyone knows any examples of shared bus/trolley transitways, that would likely be useful for this conversation, both in terms of what to expect on Huntington Ave and what could be possible on Comm Ave. Portland's buses and light rail share lanes on the Tilikum Crossing, but that's not a particularly good comparison. The bridge was designed from the start with transit needs in mind and has an order of magnitude more complexity than what we've been discussing on the Green Line.
 
BeansTheCat said:
There's options here too, assuming that the 57 skips some Comm Ave stops. The simple answer is that the 57 would have to wait if it was right behind a trolley at a station, but could pass it in route to it's next stop. It is also (likely) possible for the combined stops to have dedicated bus platforms where the bus could either continue on the transitway/reservation or go on to the road. This would have extra complexity but I see no reason why it would be impossible.

All in all, I find it hard to believe that it would be infeasible to have the 57 and B branch share a transitway down Comm Ave. As many of you have pointed out, this could be impractical or unwieldy, but I do not think that can be assumed as matter-of-fact. Given the 57's ridership and the amount of traffic on Comm Ave, I believe it is worth exploring the possibility seriously.

If anyone knows any examples of shared bus/trolley transitways, that would likely be useful for this conversation, both in terms of what to expect on Huntington Ave and what could be possible on Comm Ave. Portland's buses and light rail share lanes on the Tilikum Crossing, but that's not a particularly good comparison. The bridge was designed from the start with transit needs in mind and has an order of magnitude more complexity than what we've been discussing on the Green Line.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of anything in North America with shared stops other than Seattle's downtown transit tunnel, but shared use there ended a few years ago. Pittsburgh's transit tunnel is shared, but there's no stops in it. Internationally I'm sure there are more examples, but the one I'm aware of is Stockholm Line 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top