Reasonable Transit Pitches

HenryAlan said:
This one is happening.

Elevator Accessibility Upgrades | Projects | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
Click to expand...

Beautiful! I love to see the Southwest Corridor improvements, too. The southern headhouse will save five minutes of walking for many people. Great project. Happy it’s happening.
 
Discussion:

Suppose you can build one or more surface-running LRT routes. What would you do?

They can be LRT conversation of existing bus routes (Silver Line included), or brand new routes and corridors. They can be either in mixed traffic or dedicated lanes, if the latter is realistic.

In terms of construction, anything reasonable in terms of budget and politics is fair game. So minimum tunneling (like an open cut underpass) is probably doable, but significant subway projects - such as connecting a Nubian branch to the Pleasant St incline - may be out of question, unless justified.

If you think no corridors really need LRT and that BRT is more suitable for them, that's also a valid option. (I know there have been debates here and on Reddit regarding LRT vs. BRT for Blue Hill Ave and Mass Ave, at least.)
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
Discussion:

Suppose you can build one or more surface-running LRT routes. What would you do?

They can be LRT conversation of existing bus routes (Silver Line included), or brand new routes and corridors. They can be either in mixed traffic or dedicated lanes, if the latter is realistic.

In terms of construction, anything reasonable in terms of budget and politics is fair game. So minimum tunneling (like an open cut underpass) is probably doable, but significant subway projects - such as connecting a Nubian branch to the Pleasant St incline - may be out of question, unless justified.

If you think no corridors really need LRT and that BRT is more suitable for them, that's also a valid option. (I know there have been debates here and on Reddit regarding LRT vs. BRT for Blue Hill Ave and Mass Ave, at least.)
Click to expand...
My idea for a new LRT line is all on an LRT reservation, all surface, except for some bridging alongside Herald Street and over the rail line there. It would feed into the abadoned Tremont St GL tunnel with a new portal at the same location as the original buried portal. It would provide transfers to the OL, and be a direct continuation of the LRV upgraded Mattapan line. The Google map is here. Here is a screen shot of the Google map:

1689908547553.png
 
Charlie_mta said:
My idea for a new LRT line is all on an LRT reservation, all surface, except for some bridging alongside Herald Street and over the rail line there. It would feed into the abadoned Tremont St GL tunnel with a new portal at the same location as the original buried portal. It would provide transfers to the OL, and be a direct continuation of the LRV upgraded Mattapan line. The Google map is here. Here is a screen shot of the Google map:
Click to expand...
On second thought, after examining closely the challenging conditions for fitting an LRT along I-93, I think it's better to route the LRT line onto Washington Street in the South End. It would provide a much larger walkshed location and a more direct LRT route. Here's the revised Google map, and a screenshot of it below:

1689963195209.png
 
^^^^

Seems kind of redundant with an upgraded Fairmount.
 
Interesting idea, but it's trying to do too much with one line. Thoughts:
  • Even if 100% of the route is in a dedicated median, that's 7 miles of surface running. That's a lot of traffic signals; TSP can't cut pedestrian countdowns short, so even in the best case scenario the line is going to have poor reliability. That's not what you want entering the subway - especially because the southern portal uses the outer tracks and thus will be crossing paths with anything running through to North Station and GLX.
  • The #1 goal of any Green Line branch south into Roxbury is to connect the Nubian bus hub with subway service. This alignment skips Nubian, and doesn't offer a very close connection at Ruggles either. (Note that Riverside's and my crayons now tunnel to Nubian so that it can get high-reliability, high-frequency service not possible on the surface.)
  • No one from south of Ruggles is actually going to use it as a one-seat ride to go downtown - changing to the OL will be faster. When the 43 was still a streetcar, it only went as far as Egleston (the first time it hit a rapid transit station), with a separate Egleston-Mattapan surface route.
 
The EGE said:
Interesting idea, but it's trying to do too much with one line. Thoughts:
Even if 100% of the route is in a dedicated median, that's 7 miles of surface running. That's a lot of traffic signals; TSP can't cut pedestrian countdowns short, so even in the best case scenario the line is going to have poor reliability. That's not what you want entering the subway - especially because the southern portal uses the outer tracks and thus will be crossing paths with anything running through to North Station and GLX.
  • The #1 goal of any Green Line branch south into Roxbury is to connect the Nubian bus hub with subway service. This alignment skips Nubian, and doesn't offer a very close connection at Ruggles either. (Note that Riverside's and my crayons now tunnel to Nubian so that it can get high-reliability, high-frequency service not possible on the surface.)
  • No one from south of Ruggles is actually going to use it as a one-seat ride to go downtown - changing to the OL will be faster. When the 43 was still a streetcar, it only went as far as Egleston (the first time it hit a rapid transit station), with a separate Egleston-Mattapan surface route.
Click to expand...
  • It could be rerouted to go right into Nubian. But, sticking to the surface route constraint, Washington Street narrows down south of Melnea Cass, so that's why I didn't route it there.
  • Good point about the traffic/scheduling conflict with the GL lines in the Boylston/Park Street station area. One option might be a new turnaround loop tunnel under the existing tracks at the north end of Boylston station.
  • Passengers on the section of the new line south of Jackson Sq would undoubtedly be transferring to/from the OL at that point.
 
Last edited:
The EGE said:
That's not what you want entering the subway - especially because the southern portal uses the outer tracks and thus will be crossing paths with anything running through to North Station and GLX.
Click to expand...
Charlie_mta said:
Good point about the traffic/scheduling conflict with the GL lines in the Boylston/Park Street station area. One option might be a new turnaround loop tunnel under the existing tracks at the north end of Boylston station.
Click to expand...
This is mostly redundant because the Boylston Tunnels were built as a flyover/under junction. There is no interference with the current green line straight to Park St.
C6363C48-355D-4A71-BEBA-38206D4D2A72.png
1CCEF30E-64E2-46CF-8614-95DFF8CD9C00.jpeg

At Park there would be a slight conflict unless service patterns are reconfigured to have this extension run through north and one or two of the kenmore branches terminate at the park inner loop. The B would make sense to terminate here for one
 
Has there been any recent thoughts about the viability of considering the renovation or expansion of Beachmont? I would assume it would have an uptick in ridership come the increase in residents in Suffolk Downs by 2030.
 
There's $20 million from the developers for Suffolk Downs and Beachmont stations, but not a lot of details yet. The most I've seen is this 2021 slide:


1692244074731.png


I don't see Beachmont becoming a big bus regional terminal. Anything coming on North Shore Road (the main route from Lynn planned in the bus network redesign) will obviously terminate at Wonderland, as will the T110 and T116. The 426 and 450 could be diverted to Beachmont, but it's a longer trip (i.e. higher variability from traffic) than to Wonderland, so you'd need a lot of new bus lanes. Neither the 119 nor 120 are planned to terminate at Beachmont, so an off-street busway wouldn't necessarily be needed. It could be useful to provide a bit more waiting area than the current stops, and there won't be many passengers riding the routes through the station to be inconvenienced, but that that's a long way from becoming a regional bus transfer station.

1692244623668.png
 
With the new Brightline extension to Orlando now in service, it has me thinking of places in New England where such a service would be most viable to pursue. The most viable corridor in New England is the Providence and Worcester Railroad.

My pitch is for Brightline to make an agreement with the Providence and Worcester Railroad, much like the agreement they have with the Florida East Coast Railway. Looking at what they were capable of accomplishing in Florida, it blows away public rail improvements in terms of speed, budget, and result.

Do people think they would be able to use the existing Providence, Pawtucket, and Worcester stations, or would it be unreasonable to expect those entities to come to an agreement?
 
The Boston Street Railway claimed they were going to do that, although I'm not convinced it wasn't some kind of grift. My understanding from discussions about that idea, was that the ROW isn't great for higher speed, passenger focused services. That said, it would be cool if somebody could make it work, and then extend from Worcester to Lowell, which again, is a somewhat problematic ROW.
 
HenryAlan said:
The Boston Street Railway claimed they were going to do that, although I'm not convinced it wasn't some kind of grift. My understanding from discussions about that idea, was that the ROW isn't great for higher speed, passenger focused services. That said, it would be cool if somebody could make it work, and then extend from Worcester to Lowell, which again, is a somewhat problematic ROW.
Click to expand...

How realistic would it be for a private company (one better positioned than the Boston Street Railway, like Brightline for example) to negotiate access to existing Amtrak/Commuter Rail Stations? Is there a precedent?
 
The big challenge with making the pitch to Brightline, or using its business model, is that its financials depend on subsidizing the rail piece with lots of TOD. And with all due respect to Worcester, Providence and points in between, I'm not sure those markets are hot enough that you're likely to get the kinds of rents you need to do that, even if you get gifted land for free, given today's construction costs.
 
Yeah, Brightline is fundamentally a TOD operation that's making its own T. They already owned both the railroad and the downtown land, and they're owned by an investment group with real estate experience. The Orlando (and beyond) extension, and Brightline West, are in corridors with high enough demand and poor enough service (and traffic) that building new ROW can be profitable.

Would hourly-or-better service between Providence and Worcester be profitable? I doubt it. Would it be worthwhile (in terms of overall benefit to the cities)? Absolutely. But that means it will have to be publicly funded, not privately - whether by a reputable outfit like Brightline, or a fly-by-night shadester like BSR.

The actual startup costs for infrastructure wouldn't be that high; the biggest would be a new interlocking to get the trains from the P&W main to the NEC main. (BSR planned to avoid that by building their own Providence station, a dubious method that would have prevented transfers.) Some sort of accessible platform at Woonsocket (and any other initial new stations), and probably a new siding or two to avoiding impacting freight ops. There is the difficulty of arranging trackage rights, as you'd be dealing with Amtrak at the Providence end and CSX and/or MBTA at the Worcester end.
 
The EGE said:
Yeah, Brightline is fundamentally a TOD operation that's making its own T. They already owned both the railroad and the downtown land, and they're owned by an investment group with real estate experience. The Orlando (and beyond) extension, and Brightline West, are in corridors with high enough demand and poor enough service (and traffic) that building new ROW can be profitable.

Would hourly-or-better service between Providence and Worcester be profitable? I doubt it. Would it be worthwhile (in terms of overall benefit to the cities)? Absolutely. But that means it will have to be publicly funded, not privately - whether by a reputable outfit like Brightline, or a fly-by-night shadester like BSR.

The actual startup costs for infrastructure wouldn't be that high; the biggest would be a new interlocking to get the trains from the P&W main to the NEC main. (BSR planned to avoid that by building their own Providence station, a dubious method that would have prevented transfers.) Some sort of accessible platform at Woonsocket (and any other initial new stations), and probably a new siding or two to avoiding impacting freight ops. There is the difficulty of arranging trackage rights, as you'd be dealing with Amtrak at the Providence end and CSX and/or MBTA at the Worcester end.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It sounds like this would be a reasonable transit pitch for public, not private, transportation.
 
The EGE said:
The actual startup costs for infrastructure wouldn't be that high; the biggest would be a new interlocking to get the trains from the P&W main to the NEC main. (BSR planned to avoid that by building their own Providence station, a dubious method that would have prevented transfers.) Some sort of accessible platform at Woonsocket (and any other initial new stations), and probably a new siding or two to avoiding impacting freight ops. There is the difficulty of arranging trackage rights, as you'd be dealing with Amtrak at the Providence end and CSX and/or MBTA at the Worcester end.
Click to expand...
The 2009 Rhode Island Intrastate CR Study has detailed track charts for doing Providence-Woonsocket. See Ch. 7, which breaks it down by NEC and P&W segments. You'd probably be treating the MA trackage pretty similarly in terms of spacing of double-track segments and navigating around the freight yards, so it's a good guide for helping to crayon things north of the state line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top