Poll: The Next Big Project

[vanshnookenraggen]

I can think of two--

1) where would all of the buses layover that would presumably now be using Roslindale as a terminus?

2) since the majority of passengers using a Roslindale station would probably be people transferring off of buses from the south, why not try the more affordable option first--dedicated bus lane or lanes between Roslindale and Forest Hills in which buses could run express without any intermediate stations?

1) There are two parking lots at Roslindale station; one could be used as the bus terminal with parking built above. Also just east of the station area is (what I think is) a municipal parking lot. This could be used for turning/storing buses.

2) Where is there room for a bus lane along Washington St?

 

[millerm277]

2) Where is there room for a bus lane along Washington St?

If you got rid of all the street parking and the bike lanes, you could probably fit a bus/bike lane except for the section between Arboretum Rd - Ukraine Way.

I'm not suggesting that and I can't imagine the community going for it, but it looks like it would fit physically.

 

[timsox6]

Can someone link me up with a thread or summary of what the Green-Silver Link is? I know that the Seaport has major transportation issues, but I hadn't seen/heard about this solution. Just general info about route, who's actually talking about it, etc.

 

[George_Apley]

Can someone link me up with a thread or summary of what the Green-Silver Link is? I know that the Seaport has major transportation issues, but I hadn't seen/heard about this solution. Just general info about route, who's actually talking about it, etc.

We are the only ones talking about it. I'll see if I can come across a good thread for a rundown...

EDIT:
This page in Crazy Transit is our most recent discussion about the Green - Transitway connection

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Actually here.

I am not a huge fan of this routing, I prefer a branch off the Boylston St Subway to South Station myself; whatever.

 

[Schorschico]

I can think of two--

1) where would all of the buses layover that would presumably now be using Roslindale as a terminus?

2) since the majority of passengers using a Roslindale station would probably be people transferring off of buses from the south, why not try the more affordable option first--dedicated bus lane or lanes between Roslindale and Forest Hills in which buses could run express without any intermediate stations?

1) I think there are actually 3 parking lots. Up, Down and a very big municipal lot behind the drive-through bank. We could make some numbers but the lower lot could be enough for bus transfers taking into account that some lines will disappear altogether and some will still go to Forest Hills (See a great analysis F (?) did in the Orange Line tread).

2) In an ideal world that would be great but it is not realistic. Washington St. is basically a strip, so the parking spaces that would be removed are not going to magically appear 100m back, because that is the Arboretum! There is just not enough space.

I have thought about the express line, particularly when your bus stops every 50m to pick 1 person in each stop (with 1 bus every 2 min is difficult to pick up more). The problem is that it doesn't solve anything: When traffic is good the difference would be minimal. When traffic is bad even less.

 

[George_Apley]

Actually here.

I linked to the whole recent conversation rather than just Dave's post.

I am not a huge fan of this routing, I prefer a branch off the Boylston St Subway to South Station myself; whatever.

Well, I think most people would prefer the Essex routing on instinct. We've hashed out again and again why that probably isn't feasible. But obviously in real life, they would study several options and hopefully select the one that provides the best bang for the buck.

 

[davem]

Well, I think most people would prefer the Essex routing on instinct. We've hashed out again and again why that probably isn't feasible. But obviously in real life, they would study several options and hopefully select the one that provides the best bang for the buck.

I was a die-hard supporter of the Essex routing for years. It wasn't until I actually started playing around with what could go where that I realized what a boondoggle building it would really be. The proposal along the Pike is really a rehashing of the Stuart Street Subway proposal that was floated by the MTA for years.

ESSEX PROS:
-Straighter alignment (~1/2 mile Boylston-South Station)
-Provides a walking connection between Boylston and Chinatown stations (early Orange Line connection to avoid overcapacity Park St)
ESSEX CONS:
-Does nothing to address Boylston subway capasity constraints or Copley Junction chokepoint
-requires deep-bore construction near historic buildings through unknown soil conditions
-Essex is barely wide enough to fit an island platform + 2 tracks, and they would have to be mined out
-Have to get over/under the Dewey Square tunnel
-Post Office Square extension provisions are likely inadequate for the necessary grades. In all likelyhood the new tunnel would have to start at the old portal by the Public Garden, making it closer to 3/4 mile of new, deep-bore tunnel
-No possibility for connection to Dudley Square service (assuming the retarded under-the-common bus loop doesn't happen, WHICH IT SHOULD NOT)

PIKE PROS:
-Reuses existing infrastructure through the historic core (abandoned Tremont St Tunnel)
-Cut-and-cover construction due to known soil conditions along Pike trench
-Provides walking connection at Tufts/Bay Village
-Provides a southbound looping point after Government Center. Currently branches coming in from the west can loop at Kenmore, Park, Gov't Center and north station, allowing short turns and emergencies to be handled reasonably well. Trains coming from the north can currently loop at Gov't Center and Kenmore/Blanford, and that's it. This way you can turn a train and still let it hit Park St. That's huge.
-Allows a light-rail extension to Dudley
-If at full build (the Copley-Bay village and Brookline D-E connector) you avoid bottlenecks in the Boylston subway and can take Copley Junction out of service, fixing many of the current issues with the existing subway.
-If at full build, potential to connect the Green Line D, E and potential Needham branch to Back Bay Station.
-It is the North-South connector. Lack of a one-seat subway ride is often toted as a big problem. This solves that.
PIKE CONS
-Longer routing (over a mile vs ~1/2), although it would be fast track ~40MPH. Historically the abandoned tremont section was the fastest part of the subway, operators would let it rip.
-Issues routing tracks around the South Bay interchange, although no matter what getting around 93 is an issue with any option.


That was basically what I started seeing as I was making the linked map. Feel free to add to the list.


-------------------

As for OL to Rozzie. Yes. It should be the beginning of a phased replacement of the Needham Line.
1) Extend OL to Roslindale. Partner with a developer to redevelop the station+ parking lots. One MASSIVE below grade parking garage below the current lots+station would replace the spots 1 for 1, plus add parking for residents. Retail where the current lower parking lot is, busway + drop off where the upper parking lot currently is. 2-3 floors of residential above. Added benefit: Station is covered, and free. You could also reconnect South Street with itself, which should help with traffic.
2) Stop-by Stop extend the Green Line to Needham Junction.
3) Close the Needham Line, extend the Orange Line to West Roxbury. Build a new terminal for buses and a park-and-ride behind the Home Depot. With any luck this would capture a lot of the traffic from Dedham-south using the parkways, and could also spawn some TOD where Savers and all that stuff is.

 

[Shepard]

Another con of the pike routing is that you only get the Seaport-Back Bay 1-seat ride connection at full build.

On the other hand, I suppose you can create a routing from the Seaport that turns back, with passengers, at Park to head out to Copley and beyond. (Cue extremely confused tourists trying to divine this out of the T map...) Maybe under this scenario the boomerang train would run express its first time through Boylston so as not to reproduce service. So you'd have Seaport->TMC--->Park->Boylston->Arlington as well as the reverse.

 

[Hufer]

Urban Ring for me. I used to love the Commuter rail even with the limited service reach, but nowadays is simply "criminal" to pay such prices for a service in decline, with not improved at all & rather leans towards bankruptcy due to all the mismanagement done to it.

 

[George_Apley]

Another con of the pike routing is that you only get the Seaport-Back Bay 1-seat ride connection at full build.

On the other hand, I suppose you can create a routing from the Seaport that turns back, with passengers, at Park to head out to Copley and beyond. (Cue extremely confused tourists trying to divine this out of the T map...) Maybe under this scenario the boomerang train would run express its first time through Boylston so as not to reproduce service. So you'd have Seaport->TMC--->Park->Boylston->Arlington as well as the reverse.

The same complaint could be made of any routing though. Not everyone will get a one seat ride to everywhere. The roundabout Tufts alignment - at full build - allows more 1-seat rides than Essex does.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

The same complaint could be made of any routing though. Not everyone will get a one seat ride to everywhere. The roundabout Tufts alignment - at full build - allows more 1-seat rides than Essex does.

But that depends on where people want to go. A Back Bay - Seaport routing makes more sense and opens up another route. Park St - Seaport already exists with Red Line. More people would be attracted to a Back Bay - Seaport route.

 

[HenryAlan]

But that depends on where people want to go. A Back Bay - Seaport routing makes more sense and opens up another route. Park St - Seaport already exists with Red Line. More people would be attracted to a Back Bay - Seaport route.

A slightly more complex design involving a few more wyes would allow options for all routings.

 

[George_Apley]

A slightly more complex design involving a few more wyes would allow options for all routings.

Exactly. And given the costs involved of the Essex routing, followed by underpinning, and portaling into the Boylston Subway; that more complex wye/transfer station at Bay Village could well be cheaper, while ultimately providing superior service.

 

[Shepard]

But that series of wyes is counting on the Stuart Street subway to complete the connection. I can't see how a service pattern of Back Bay to Seaport can be accomplished with just a pike trench and tremont street tunnel alone.

 

[George_Apley]

But that series of wyes is counting on the Stuart Street subway to complete the connection. I can't see how a service pattern of Back Bay to Seaport can be accomplished with just a pike trench and tremont street tunnel alone.

It doesn't depend on a Stuart Street subway. It depends on a Marginal Road subway to the Copley Garage, then joining the Huntington Ave subway, which gives Back Bay a one seat ride (could study Stuart as another alternative, but I can't imagine it would be cheaper than the Pike routing, and it would miss the Tremont Tunnel superstation concept...). But again, it would be in phases.

Obviously we don't know which route makes more sense in terms of finance, "do no harm", best service expansion, etc., because the state can't get its ass in gear to conduct formal studies on them. But based on what we know about the terrain underground downtown and Back Bay, the South Station - Back Bay via Essex to Boylston route seems very hard and very expensive, and only gets us one routing.

Building the transfer station at Tufts Med sets up (in the order of priority):

• North Station (and points north) - South Station - Seaport
• Back Bay (and points west) - South Station - Seaport
• Government Center (and points north) - Dudley

We can bicker forever about what priorities are more important and what's worth sacrificing for this or for that; that's why we need to have state studies with real numbers!

 

[CSTH]

. I can't see how a service pattern of Back Bay to Seaport can be accomplished with just a pike trench and tremont street tunnel alone.

You could 'cut the corner' on the common from Charles St. South to Tremont, and then build the wye along Tremont, just a little bit north of Avery St. Trains from the west then could enter Boylston St. Station from the north and then continue into the tremont st tunnel. Trains from the park street headed to the back bay could either bypass boylston on the wye and then under the common, or continue through it as they do today, depending on capacity etc.....(might be an opportunity to evict that non-standard curve from the system, for example)

So yes it's extra build, but potentially easier than a Stuart St subway

n.b. 'could', not necessarily 'should'... its an option...

 

[tangent]

No, you couldn't do that. The FRA does not allow mixing types on the same track. Some commuter rail lines could be converted to heavy rail rapid transit (ie Red or Orange Line style), but it would require eliminating the line as commuter rail. So that means wither extend HRT all the way or widen the ROW to accommodate tracks for both modes. That second option is how the Green Line extension is designed. The first option could work on some of the shorter lines, most notably Needham. But it can't be done on the rest without killing access to more outlying areas.

Thanks for the pointer to the Federal Rairoad Admininstration policy. I see some search results talking about mixed use on tracks and the potential for some upcoming policy changes, but I would have to dig into that to make sense of it. So is this merely a policy change that is needed to allow commuter rail and red and orange line type trains to use the same track?

It would seem to be very much more cost effective to simply extend or branch out some red and orange line type trains a few stops further outward along the commuter rail lines where density and development make more frequent service make sense rather than build out a separate set of tracks like they are doing for the green line.

Especially where we are talking about bridges and other fixed width ROW where there simply isn't enough space for another set of tracks without very unlikely eminent domain takings or multi-billion dollar duplicate infrastructure investments that won't be sold to the public. (Remember the green line extension took a lawsuit over the Big Dig and a court order to push it through.)

Policy changes can take a long time, but they are cheaper and faster compared with new bridges and big ticket infrastructure.

 

[George_Apley]

Thanks for the pointer to the Federal Rairoad Admininstration policy. I see some search results talking about mixed use on tracks and the potential for some upcoming policy changes, but I would have to dig into that to make sense of it. So is this merely a policy change that is needed to allow commuter rail and red and orange line type trains to use the same track?

That makes it sound much easier to change than it really is. The FRA will not change that policy, so it's not really "merely a policy change".

It would seem to be very much more cost effective to simply extend or branch out some red and orange line type trains a few stops further outward along the commuter rail lines where density and development make more frequent service make sense rather than build out a separate set of tracks like they are doing for the green line.

They are planning to do that with the new DMU procurement, which isn't true RT, and can run on common use tracks. Remember that even if the FRA changes the policy, ROWs can't run the equipment we use for HRT without upgrades, and all other service using those lines (freight, commuter rail, etc.) will suffer frequency losses due to the high headways of RT service. It's really not a very good idea to intermingle the modes like that...
[/QUOTE]

 

[Matthew]

I don't foresee this policy being changed. You might be able to order lighter regional passenger trains in the future, which is nice, but I don't see them mixing rapid transit with FRA rail. They're separate domains, and that kind of fight can take decades, beyond the technical issues.

I think it is a little bit silly that we mix trucks and passenger cars on the highway but can't seem to figure out how to do it well on the rails. But actually, there's a reasonable argument to be made that mixing tractor-trailers and passenger cars is a horrendous mistake, and we pay a high toll in blood for that. And to some extent, mixing of traffic on the rails can conceivably be made much safer than on the highways, due to signaling, dispatching and automatic train stop/protection, etc. But we're not entirely there yet.

I think that if I were running things we would be investigating ways to make commuter rail more rapid-transit-like. And that might involve blurring the boundaries. We're not going to be like Tokyo where the regional trains run through the same subway tracks as the metro trains, and where there's 8 different train operators all coordinated together. We're just not that competent. But where there's an opportunity for crossing over, why not consider it? I know of many barriers in the way, to name a few: electrification, compatibility with existing freight, single tracking, rail profiles, scheduling difficulties between different service patterns. It's not easy, and it's very blue sky. But there are ways to deal with all of them, if there's a will to do so...

Which there isn't.