Reasonable Transit Pitches

[HenryAlan]

Pilot Forest Hills as an outbound stop on local, off-peak, Stoughton-bound Commuter Rail trips that already stop at Hyde Park.

I have never understood why it is only Needham Trains that serve Forest Hills. There is now one Providence train that stops there to facilitate a cross platform transfer for a Needham shuttle serving the last outbound trip of the day. There have been hundreds, probably well over a thousand new housing units built in the Forest Hills walk catchment. Your idea seems like a very easy way to bulk up transit service to reflect a new housing density.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I have never understood why it is only Needham Trains that serve Forest Hills. There is now one Providence train that stops there to facilitate a cross platform transfer for a Needham shuttle serving the last outbound trip of the day. There have been hundreds, probably well over a thousand new housing units built in the Forest Hills walk catchment. Your idea seems like a very easy way to bulk up transit service to reflect a new housing density.

It's because the track layout is squished to the side, so the more MBTA trains you backfill there the worse congestion gets for Amtrak because of all the crossover games the Purple Line has to do fanning out across all tracks. This is also a major component of the Needham Line's traffic pinch on the NEC, as any Needham double-occupancy of the current island ends up blocking an NEC thru track. If/when Regional Rail comes around, FH pretty much can't see any increased service because capacity will be tapped out by all else. The only fixes are megabucks excavation to do a new side platform on the opposite end, and lots of interlocking changes...stuff that's probably not going to make back its cost in new ridership sources, and which costs a considerable % down payment on just doing the OLX conversion.

 

[bigeman312]

I have never understood why it is only Needham Trains that serve Forest Hills. There is now one Providence train that stops there to facilitate a cross platform transfer for a Needham shuttle serving the last outbound trip of the day. There have been hundreds, probably well over a thousand new housing units built in the Forest Hills walk catchment. Your idea seems like a very easy way to bulk up transit service to reflect a new housing density.

Here's a great track and platform map of the system.

You'll see why, at present build, Forest Hills can only serve Needham Line and outbound Franklin/Providence/Stoughton Line trains.

Of the three NEC tracks passing through, only one is served by the Forest Hills platform. For Forest Hills to be a full-service CR station, a second platform would have to be dug out and I figured that's bordering on "crazy."

But firmly in reasonable would be to pilot some outbound service on the existing platform.

 

[roy_mustang76]

I have never understood why it is only Needham Trains that serve Forest Hills. There is now one Providence train that stops there to facilitate a cross platform transfer for a Needham shuttle serving the last outbound trip of the day. There have been hundreds, probably well over a thousand new housing units built in the Forest Hills walk catchment. Your idea seems like a very easy way to bulk up transit service to reflect a new housing density.

As F-Line says, the platform situation is squished off to the side, he actually did a mock-up of the interlockings needed to get a Track 4 going south from FH a few months back, but I think it nicely illustrates the current issue with having Prov trains stop at FH as well: http://archboston.com/community/threads/reasonable-transit-pitches.4187/post-394737

That double-crossover move going NB is going to be a killer and foul traffic. Dropping a side platform on the east side of the station would be the way to go, but you've got the lower busway over there, and the entire station access from said busway to contend with. I'm not intimately familiar with what's behind the walls over there, but I don't think it's quite as simple as opening up the wall and dropping a staircase to track level. There's maybe some space if you notch the wall down by the lower busway and access the platform that way? But it would be disconnected from everything else (and is probably outside the bounds of "reasonable" as well)

 

[Tallguy]

Once the fleet is headed to BEB generally, how does it make the system worse to take down the wires? Why does the capability to charge in-motion matter if you have enough battery life for the bus to get back to base?

My understanding was that North Cambridge is converting to BEB first because it's a small enough garage and fleet to be a good pilot while manufacturing capacity for BEBs is still pretty low.

The problem is that BEBs DON'T have enough battery life.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Transit Twitter has been lighting up about trackless trollies lately (since the Biden admin wants to promote battery powered buses). Are there any reasonable pitches to convert some bus lines to TT? Personally I don't see it happening, but I'm curious if there is a hint of possibility.

IF we did electrics right (which the T seems utterly against), the first BEB rollout would be in-wire charging TT's that could run for an extended range off-wire. As that gets around the issues of inadequate charging range for running average route lengths on the system, climate-related charging range issues with the NY/New England region in particular, and greater required spare ratios for charging downtime than the T currently has garage capacity for.

In that case, a short wire extension from North Cambridge carhouse to Alewife (via the proposed Alewife-to-Mass Ave. busways) could extend the 77A TT more usefully to Alewife under full wire (where there's a convenient 600V substation to loop the source back into), electrify the whole 77 with a power switch to/from battery at Alewife Brook Parkway, and allow for closure of North Cambridge garage (Watertown then becomes TT maint headquarters, with Alewife busway just getting a few idling bays). You would also be able to electrify the 75 by swallowing the 72 with power switch at Aberdeen Ave. You'd also be able to rather easily BEB the 74 from its Garden/Concord Ave. wire overlap, as that's probably adequate-enough wire charging time to feed Belmont Center fail-safe.

The other--actually proposed in the 2004 Program for Mass Transportation--is extending the 71 down wires Galen St. to Newton Corner to meet up with the proposed Worcester Line station there...then increase service levels to BRT featuring on the 71. The ridership gain with the Harvard-to-Purple cutover corridor would be large with the envisioned Urban Rail frequencies @ Corner, and that particular wire extension would be extremely cheap because the ex- A Line 600V DC feeder is still live under the street as a 71-to-B-Line power interconnect, and said feeder cable was recently refurbbed by the T. You literally just pay for the pole-and-wire hardware, then plug it back in...no other infrastructure required. You could then *study* whether that's enough in-wire charging range off the Galen wires to BEB the 57 with a corresponding charging pad at Kenmore busway. Think the wire charging range may end up a little inadequate for this one (whereas the ^above^ scenarios with BEB'ing the 77, 75, and 74 are probably fail-safe)...but you'd be in the ballpark enough to give it a look-see. Maybe the combination of Galen wires + a Kenmore busway quick charging pad ends up enough to make the 57 BEB'able.


Bottom line: ripping down the wires is literally insane. The in-wire charging tech not only exists but is battle-proven, inoculates against all of the shortcomings where total-wireless BEB's are still a little dodgy on range in a Northeastern climate, and arguably provides a superior jumping-off point for wholesale BEB adoption with rather than without. If the T were interested in following best practices they'd be aiming to leverage, not destroy, the TT network for one more 25-year infrastructure maintenance cycle because the resulting BEB buildout will be better with that springboard. But nope, we're getting "Wires iz icky-poo becauz reasonz" cognitive dissonance. Maybe Pollack's successor will be slightly less regressive about that than Pollack was, but I doubt that's enough. Internally the whole agency seems to have a real hate-boner for their OCS staff and that's driving decisions that are shaping up to be regressive-as-hell for the overall goal.

 

[HenryAlan]

As F-Line says, the platform situation is squished off to the side, he actually did a mock-up of the interlockings needed to get a Track 4 going south from FH a few months back, but I think it nicely illustrates the current issue with having Prov trains stop at FH as well: http://archboston.com/community/threads/reasonable-transit-pitches.4187/post-394737

That double-crossover move going NB is going to be a killer and foul traffic. Dropping a side platform on the east side of the station would be the way to go, but you've got the lower busway over there, and the entire station access from said busway to contend with. I'm not intimately familiar with what's behind the walls over there, but I don't think it's quite as simple as opening up the wall and dropping a staircase to track level. There's maybe some space if you notch the wall down by the lower busway and access the platform that way? But it would be disconnected from everything else (and is probably outside the bounds of "reasonable" as well)

Thanks for the operational clarification, (and also thanks to @F-Line to Dudley and @bigeman312 for their helpful responses). I don't have a strong enough understanding of railroad ops, but I'll take everybody's word on that. To add a platform, I think the issue would not be the lower busway, but the space between the new apartment buildings on Washington St. and the east side trench retaining wall. The existing platform is essentially north of the station, and a second side platform would most likely go there. I can't tell from google maps how feasible it would be to fit that in without having to demo the apartments, but that's clearly not happening. Oh well!

 

[bigeman312]

Thanks for the operational clarification, (and also thanks to @F-Line to Dudley and @bigeman312 for their helpful responses). I don't have a strong enough understanding of railroad ops, but I'll take everybody's word on that. To add a platform, I think the issue would not be the lower busway, but the space between the new apartment buildings on Washington St. and the east side trench retaining wall. The existing platform is essentially north of the station, and a second side platform would most likely go there. I can't tell from google maps how feasible it would be to fit that in without having to demo the apartments, but that's clearly not happening. Oh well!

In crazy transit pitch land, the second platform does not need to be as far north as the existing platform.

EDIT: See Ruggles for a recent example of adding a staggered side platform to serve an unserved track on the NEC. There are way crazier transit pitches.

 

[Wash]

How about leasing air rights over the North Cambridge Carhouse?

 

[Brattle Loop]

How about leasing air rights over the North Cambridge Carhouse?

Would it make more sense to move the TT garage to Watertown and just be done with North Cambridge?

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

What is the status or likelihood of a State Downtown Crossing pedestrian tunnel? I was at State Street southbound platform tonight as I was trying to get from East Boston to Davis via two transfers, and the wait for the orange at State was 11 mins, so I just got out and went to Park St for the red line. You can actually see the DTX platform from State and the infrequent headway make the red-blue transfer a headache.

 

[bigeman312]

What is the status or likelihood of a State Downtown Crossing pedestrian tunnel? I was at State Street southbound platform tonight as I was trying to get from East Boston to Davis via two transfers, and the wait for the orange at State was 11 mins, so I just got out and went to Park St for the red line. You can actually see the DTX platform from State and the infrequent headway make the red-blue transfer a headache.

It’s in the Focus40 document, but below Red-Blue Connector. We’ll see the Red-Blue Connector first. While those projects do supplement one another well, I bet the MBTA wouldn’t build them simultaneously.

Follow the Red-Blue Connector progress, which is likely to be the next expansion after GLX and SCR.

 

[The EGE]

It's not actually a useful transfer alternative. While the Orange Line platforms are only about 300 feet apart, the Red Line platforms at DTX and the Blue Line platforms at State are about 1,500 feet apart. (The Winter Street Concourse, by comparison, is about 600 feet). I haven't mapped out State in the image below, but you can see just how far apart the Red and Blue lines actually are. Making a transfer this way would involve a five-minute walk, most of it down narrow and crowded platforms, plus the vertical transitions at both ends.

 

[Brattle Loop]

It's not actually a useful transfer alternative. While the Orange Line platforms are only about 300 feet apart, the Red Line platforms at DTX and the Blue Line platforms at State are about 1,500 feet apart. (The Winter Street Concourse, by comparison, is about 600 feet). I haven't mapped out State in the image below, but you can see just how far apart the Red and Blue lines actually are. Making a transfer this way would involve a five-minute walk, most of it down narrow and crowded platforms, plus the vertical transitions at both ends.

This.

It's anecdotal, I acknowledge, but the transfer from State southbound on the Orange Line to the Blue Line is already pretty brutal, at least if you're at the southern end of the train. It's definitely a disincentive, to the point that if the Green Line is running well I've found it to actually be faster to go Orange-Green-Blue with how easy the transfers are at North Station and Government Center. (And if I'm being brutally honest being faster's just a bonus on top of how much easier it is.) State-DTX would basically at least double the length of that transfer. A lot of people would probably balk at that prospect, especially because there's nothing stopping them taking the other lines to transfer, which may be slower and/or more crowded, but also less effort. Given that it's basically certain that it'd be distressingly expensive to try and shiv a tunnel down a pretty narrow bit of Washington Street with all those old buildings and who-knows-what utilities down there, the thing's gonna flunk the value proposition on costs. (And unlike the proper Red-Blue Connector, I'd bet Baker and company wouldn't even have to sandbag the studies to make the numbers deeply unattractive.)

 

[Arlington]

i thought the BEB/TT wire was to use batteries beyond the wire (not instead) and you could do it in the SL beyond SL Way and the 77 to Arl Heights?

 

[Tallguy]

i thought the BEB/TT wire was to use batteries beyond the wire (not instead) and you could do it in the SL beyond SL Way and the 77 to Arl Heights?

Yes

 

[JeffDowntown]

This.

It's anecdotal, I acknowledge, but the transfer from State southbound on the Orange Line to the Blue Line is already pretty brutal, at least if you're at the southern end of the train. It's definitely a disincentive, to the point that if the Green Line is running well I've found it to actually be faster to go Orange-Green-Blue with how easy the transfers are at North Station and Government Center. (And if I'm being brutally honest being faster's just a bonus on top of how much easier it is.) State-DTX would basically at least double the length of that transfer. A lot of people would probably balk at that prospect, especially because there's nothing stopping them taking the other lines to transfer, which may be slower and/or more crowded, but also less effort. Given that it's basically certain that it'd be distressingly expensive to try and shiv a tunnel down a pretty narrow bit of Washington Street with all those old buildings and who-knows-what utilities down there, the thing's gonna flunk the value proposition on costs. (And unlike the proper Red-Blue Connector, I'd bet Baker and company wouldn't even have to sandbag the studies to make the numbers deeply unattractive.)

I would also point out that the transfer Orange/Blue at State is not very luggage friendly. Real disincentive for Airport passengers.

 

[roy_mustang76]

In crazy transit pitch land, the second platform does not need to be as far north as the existing platform.

EDIT: See Ruggles for a recent example of adding a staggered side platform to serve an unserved track on the NEC. There are way crazier transit pitches.

Exactly this. Staggering the platforms isn't necessarily what kills the idea of dropping a side platform (in fact, it's probably the most feasible way to squeeze one in if you drop it by the lower busway/parking lot where the trench is open).

I'm just not sure 1) how you tie it into the main station (because having it egress into the busway isn't exactly tying it in the way the existing platforms are) and 2) what the price tag would be for everything (since you'd probably have to start messing with the Ukraine Way crossovers if you put a platform that far south)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

i thought the BEB/TT wire was to use batteries beyond the wire (not instead) and you could do it in the SL beyond SL Way and the 77 to Arl Heights?

That's the sane way to do it. There are off-shelf extended-range TT's available exactly for that task, and also ones that do a much quicker pole raising than the aging Silver hybrids currently do. Other cities have leveraged their TT networks very successfully with that TT+BEB springboard, and the degree of on-wire charging range they have largely inoculates the charging-range and spare-ratio demerits that figure to crunch the agency with the current and next 1-2 generations of non-wire BEB's in this region. A 25-year reinvestment in the TT infrastructure here would absolutely be the best possible starting point for BEB adoption and bridging the eras until charging ranges are self-sustaining here.

The T doesn't want to do that. They're aiming instead to rip down the wires both in Transitway and in Cambridge, trial battery-only BEB's on the Silver Line with some charging pads at the endpoints and brute-forcing of spare ratios out of Southampton garage, and backfilling Cambridge not with BEB's but with extended-range hybrids (which means Cambridge is going to get net-gain emissions for its troubles). It is the most utterly stupid and regressive plan imaginable, and in the long run the costliest and least likely to net complete fleet electrification because they won't be prepared for the range shortfalls...but they're just choosing to flash a beet-red neon sign that says "We hate our OCS Dept." because reasons. Proceeding this way telegraphs their unseriousness about committing whole-hog, and they've already gotten a PR beatdown from advocates for doing it ass-backwards. The upcoming TransitMatters paper on BEB'ification best practices will likely spell out in brutal detail how much of a mistake they're inviting if they don't reassess their TT assets and will throw other cities' case studies in their face to illustrate; TM (and Aloisi) have been some of the loudest critics to-date of the stated rollout plan, and most vociferous advocates for reinvesting in the TT infrastructure.

 

[BostonBoy]

There is a plan to extend the third track from Readville to Canton Junction. The fourth track from Forest Hills to Readville would help to make Forest Hills a more viable commuter stop.