Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Koopzilla24]

I'm concerned that, just like the 43, such a route won't generate very high ridership. The 55 probably wouldn't have been cut back to Copley from the Boston Common loop if there was demand for such a east-west route paralleling the Green Line (not to mention the 55 duplicates GL less than your proposal).

I think we have a problem with shying away from transit routes that aren’t expected to have the greatest ridership or duplicate another service in start and end point, which is a contributing factor to why Green Line problems are so crippling to transportation in the city. The waterfront could also use a more frequent service along it as a walking accelerator without having to detour towards city all. Peer cities in Europe and Asia properly divide service between higher speed and capacity rail and lower speed and capacity bus transit along the same corridor to facilitate various transit trips and we should do the same.

The 57 where it duplicates the B sees very strong ridership due to the transportation demand density that exists along that corridor without other alternatives to the two. The demographic makeup of Back Bay through this stretch and the trips taken through it are also different to that of the 43 through the South End where there’s better services a few blocks to either side on the Silver, Orange, and Green Lines, as well as a few bus routes that feed rapid transit. A more riverfront Back Bay bus would be more conducive to bus ridership potential and mode share split with the Green Line especially with the geometry of the GL versus a north of the Common bus routing for between North Station and Kenmore. The 43 also is not a frequent service that parallels true heavy rail rapid transit so from a ridership standpoint it’s in a different context than a Green Line paralleling Back Bay bus. These same differences are also true of the Marginal-Atlantic corridor. It duplicates the OL for Back Bay-Chinatown but would provide more direct service the Leather District (home to 1000 people in those few blocks) and better service along the high foot traffic Atlantic Ave and around the North End with a more direct South Station connection.

The short of it is that while downtown is where rapid transit converges we’ve decided that’s all we need and left the city vulnerable to overcrowding and a transportation nightmare when the limited options fail.

 

[Riverside]

I’m struggling to find an online article about it, but the Globe’s transportation newsletter reveals that there are plans underway to add an infill station at Millennium Park:

Although the city scrapped a plan Wednesday to move the John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science to the shuttered West Roxbury High School complex, it’s proceeding with a proposal to add a new commuter rail station near the site of the withdrawn plan, Mayor Michelle Wu said in a meeting with the Globe editorial board last week.​

 

[HenryAlan]

I’m struggling to find an online article about it, but the Globe’s transportation newsletter reveals that there are plans underway to add an infill station at Millennium Park:

Good. This seems like a real no brainer considering the massive expansion of housing within a short radius of a theoretical VA/WREC station. There absolutely needs to be better transit in that part of the city and the Needham line is right there. Long term, it would be a perfect spot for the OLX terminal.

 

[kdmc]

Does anyone know if they are building with future OL conversion in mind? The Needham line by Millenium Park is fortunately grade separated, but unfortunately single-tracked. It'd be a shame if they build CR platforms that weren't also compatible with a double-tracked, third-rail-powered OLX.

 

[Riverside]

Does anyone know if they are building with future OL conversion in mind? The Needham line by Millenium Park is fortunately grade separated, but unfortunately single-tracked. It'd be a shame if they build CR platforms that weren't also compatible with a double-tracked, third-rail-powered OLX.

I really don't know what I'm talking about on this topic, but I'd be curious to know cost breakdowns for something like this. Rebuilding/relocating platforms somehow doesn't seem like it'd be that expensive (which sounds suspicious as I write it, but), and I also am definitely skeptical that in-situ mainline platforms could be reused for Orange Line without major modifications. But I really don't know what I'm talking about, so could be completely wrong.

 

[Teban54]

I’m struggling to find an online article about it, but the Globe’s transportation newsletter reveals that there are plans underway to add an infill station at Millennium Park:

Forgive me for my naivete, but how do planning processes for infill stations (commuter rail or otherwise) usually work? From what I understand, this is just saying the City of Boston wants to build the station. I assume the MBTA has not acknowledged it at all? Who will be doing the environmental reviews, ridership projections and cost-benefit analyses, etc, and what are the steps needed before and after they're done?

The City of Revere was apparently not just proposing a Wonderland commuter rail station, but even secured funding for it. But I can't find any mentions by the T (and the link is the only thing I can find regarding a Wonderland CR station), and the prevailing opinion here seems to be that it will never pass a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Riverside]

Forgive me for my naivete, but how do planning processes for infill stations (commuter rail or otherwise) usually work? From what I understand, this is just saying the City of Boston wants to build the station.

Lol, I had been wondering whether anyone would call me out on my lack of precision There seem to be "plans" but not "the T's plans." Looking again though, it appears that, yes, the T has been involved.

Quoted from the Globe's Are We There Yet? transportation newsletter (which I highly highly recommend) [and asking forgiveness for the formatting]:

A new train station in West Roxbury?​

Although the city scrapped a plan Wednesday to move the John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science to the shuttered West Roxbury High School complex, it’s proceeding with a proposal to add a new commuter rail station near the site of the withdrawn plan, Mayor Michelle Wu said in a meeting with the Globe editorial board last week. Unveiled with much fanfare last year, the O’Bryant proposal turned into a bit of a political headache for Wu, after staff and parents objected to relocating from the high school’s current, centrally located location in Roxbury to an isolated spot on the outskirts of the city. Building a train station nearby was supposed to help address those concerns. The MBTA’s Needham Line passes a few hundred feet from the site but does not stop there. The closest station is more than a half-mile away, but it’s not a practical way to reach the school site, since pedestrians would have to cross the four-lane VFW Parkway.​ Ultimately, the promise of a new station didn’t sway critics who wanted to keep the O’Bryant in Roxbury. But Wu said the city would move forward with the idea anyway, with an eye on reopening a high school there eventually.

The former West Roxbury High School building, now abandoned, is located right next to the MBTA’s Needham Line. Building a train station there could make the site more viable to reuse as a school in the future. (Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff)

Did someone forward this to you? Sign up here.

“In the months since we floated the idea we did come to agreement with the MBTA,” she said. “We can build a commuter rail site right on that site. And we will look to continue doing so because that site should still be reactivated for an educational use.” “Once the commuter rail stop is there, the transportation issue challenges will change significantly,” she said. The idea of putting a transit stop there is not new. According to the Globe’s archives, a group of environmentalists proposed one in 1970 and the Globe editorialized about a commuter rail station there in 1995. Apart from making the school site more practical for future use, a station there would also make Millennium Park more accessible. And who knows? Maybe someday the area on the opposite side of the train tracks — now occupied by a self-storage business and a Home Depot — could be a neighborhood. It would be conveniently located next to a train station — and, maybe, a school.​

 

[ulrichomega]

What would the actual station siting be? I feel like between VFW Parkway and Gardner street would be best, as that gives the best access for those across the Parkway, and there's not much out the other direction other than industrial buildings. But in a theoretical future where TOD takes over, those buildings could be hundreds of new homes, and so a further-west station might make more sense.

RE: OL Conversion: I'd be interesting in knowing where a layover yard could live. Take the northwest corner of the existing lot south of the ROW and convert it to train storage? With a more westerly sited station you could use that large lot bounded by the ROW, VFW Parkway, Gardner, and the WREC access road, but that lot would make a great busway/parking lot/garage/apartment block for a station to the east of Gardner.

 

[HenryAlan]

Thanks for posting the full details from the newsletter, @Riverside! I have to think, though, that the author is not too familiar with the layout of the area. The multiple references to needing to cross the street, for example, assume that the station would be on the VA Hospital side, and also that a pedestrian bridge from the platform couldn't extend across VFW Parkway, regardless of which side of the street actually has the platform. Second, they seem unaware that thousands of apartments have been built, or are under construction, or in the approval process for that area. It's not someday that it could be a neighborhood, it's already well on the way to being a neighborhood.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Does anyone know if they are building with future OL conversion in mind? The Needham line by Millenium Park is fortunately grade separated, but unfortunately single-tracked. It'd be a shame if they build CR platforms that weren't also compatible with a double-tracked, third-rail-powered OLX.

It's easy to convert a full-high CR platform into a rapid transit platform, so long as it's not got much curve to it. Orange Line door heights are about 4 inches shorter than CR door heights, so you'd have to top off the trackbed with about 4 more inches of ballast. The gap between the doors and platform edge (Orange cars are somewhat narrower) can then be squared by either moving the tracks in closer or installing a thicker platform edging. This is exactly how Malden Center's and Oak Grove's CR platforms are provisioned for an eventual Orange express track conversion. CR platforms usually run between 450-800 ft. vs. the 400 ft. of an Orange Line platform, so there might be a vestigial rump post-conversion that can either be turned into fare control area or demolished, but that's about it.

The Needham Cutoff ROW, even though it's mostly single-track past the VFW Pkwy. passing siding, is pre-provisioned for double-track. The northerly side of the ROW is the 2-track expansion berth (see the swamp overpass bridge deck just east of Gardner St.), so it would be key to have the platform be on the southerly side not eating into that 2nd-track provision. Depending on how close the platform gets to the VFW Pkwy. overpass you may also need to incorporate the passing siding, meaning it could be a double-platformed station (more $$$$). I'm not sure how meets/overtakes would be affected by an infill station with current ops (which are pretty much at the ceiling of what the NEC can handle, so Needham won't be getting :30 Regional Rail frequencies any which way). If there are conflicts, it might have to be a double-track station with westward extension of the passing siding through the station (meaning incidental cost of +1 bridge deck over the swamp in addition to the second platform).

Forgive me for my naivete, but how do planning processes for infill stations (commuter rail or otherwise) usually work? From what I understand, this is just saying the City of Boston wants to build the station. I assume the MBTA has not acknowledged it at all? Who will be doing the environmental reviews, ridership projections and cost-benefit analyses, etc, and what are the steps needed before and after they're done?

The City of Revere was apparently not just proposing a Wonderland commuter rail station, but even secured funding for it. But I can't find any mentions by the T (and the link is the only thing I can find regarding a Wonderland CR station), and the prevailing opinion here seems to be that it will never pass a cost-benefit analysis.

The T hasn't acknowledged it. There would have to be a T-blessed scoping study benchmarking ridership and full costs. Traditionally that's been an internal thing, or an MPO thing...although the municipalities can do it as long as all the actionable study metrics are there. That's what Revere is doing; their $4M grant was for the full-workup study (jee-zus is that a lot of coin for just paper!). But yeah...it ain't happening in the real world unless the T is interested enough to co-sign.

Millennium Park is handcuffed by the Needham Line's capacity ceiling. It's hard to see how it's going to muster effective enough ridership capped at current poor service levels. It's obviously an excellent station for an Orange Line conversion where the headways are going to beat the buses handily, but at no better than hourly frequencies to TOD that's not yet fully realized...hard to make an argument that this is a good use of funds when pulsing up the bus frequencies is a cheaper option. The study would be worth doing if only to advance the Orange Line conversion discourse, but I have a hard time seeing this doing well enough as a Purple Line stop.

RE: OL Conversion: I'd be interesting in knowing where a layover yard could live. Take the northwest corner of the existing lot south of the ROW and convert it to train storage? With a more westerly sited station you could use that large lot bounded by the ROW, VFW Parkway, Gardner, and the WREC access road, but that lot would make a great busway/parking lot/garage/apartment block for a station to the east of Gardner.

The layover wouldn't have to be large. Maybe 3 stub-end tracks similar to or slightly larger in size than 3-track Forest Hills Yard, with probably no maintenance presence so there wouldn't be any buildings excepting a small crew office. Therefore it can mostly stay on the ROW footprint with maybe a little retaining wall work on the hillside that hosts the adjacent power line towers, which adds flexibility in the siting. Forest Hills Yard is about 60 ft. wide whereas the 2-track provisioned Needham Cutoff ROW grading is about 35 feet wide on a 70 ft. wide MBTA property line. The room is probably there without needing any land acquisition except for maybe an access driveway cut.

 

[Riverside]

The T hasn't acknowledged it. There would have to be a T-blessed scoping study benchmarking ridership and full costs. Traditionally that's been an internal thing, or an MPO thing...although the municipalities can do it as long as all the actionable study metrics are there. That's what Revere is doing; their $4M grant was for the full-workup study (jee-zus is that a lot of coin for just paper!). But yeah...it ain't happening in the real world unless the T is interested enough to co-sign.

The article says Wu said that the City and the T have come to an agreement:

“In the months since we floated the idea we did come to agreement with the MBTA,” she said. “We can build a commuter rail site right on that site. And we will look to continue doing so because that site should still be reactivated for an educational use.”

”Once the commuter rail stop is there, the transportation issue challenges will change significantly,” she said.

Which, I mean, is raising my eyebrows too because I would expect all the same things you've mentioned. But it certainly sounds like the T has acknowledged it in some form.

 

[Teban54]

The article says Wu said that the City and the T have come to an agreement:

Which, I mean, is raising my eyebrows too because I would expect all the same things you've mentioned. But it certainly sounds like the T has acknowledged it in some form.

I think F-Line may be saying the T hasn't acknowledged Wonderland CR, not Millennium Park.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I think F-Line may be saying the T hasn't acknowledged Wonderland CR, not Millennium Park.

They kind of don't have to, because it's been 'officially' studied multiple times over (and found to be a total dud multiple times over). They might have to nod politely this time out of deference to Sen. Markey's office for muscling the $4M, but they pretty much know the score already with that one and don't need to go through the motions again.

At least with Wonderland there's some math left to study on what Regional Rail service levels could potentially do (i.e. not nearly enough for the cost, since you'd need to fund the previous studies' findings that an expensive-ass APM is needed to make any luggage-carrying Logan travelers actually use it to transfer to Blue). But, honestly, Millennium Park @ 1-hour Purple frequencies forevermore seems like it's not even worth the lobbying calls for some state or fed study grant money...so that'll almost solely be the City's money to burn. Without an Orange Line future, it's a very low top ridership target for the service levels.

 

[Teban54]

I’m struggling to find an online article about it, but the Globe’s transportation newsletter reveals that there are plans underway to add an infill station at Millennium Park:

MBTA has now acknowledged the Millennium Park infill:

Wu in talks with MBTA on city-funded commuter rail stop

Talks with the MBTA continued even as the O’Bryant plan fell apart. Appearing on WBUR and GBH Radio in the last week, Wu said there is a commitment from the T on the new station, though based on a statement from the MBTA, the agreement does not yet appear to be finalized.

commonwealthbeacon.org

Talks with the MBTA continued even as the O’Bryant plan fell apart. Appearing on WBUR and GBH Radio in the last week, Wu said there is a commitment from the T on the new station, though based on a statement from the MBTA, the agreement does not yet appear to be finalized.

“We have had meaningful meetings with the City of Boston regarding a potential city-funded project to build a new commuter rail station in West Roxbury,” MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said. “As a valued partner, we will offer our expertise and support on this effort or any other initiative they are considering.”

TransitMatters also mentioned an Orange Line extension in the news article.

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm curious about the logistical feasibility of the following idea:
Utilizing existing commuter rail lines for smaller commuter rail lines based on outlying metros. Simple example: a mini Providence commuter rail that is just Providence and the outlying stations (say, going out to Mansfield on the northern side). Worcester might also justify a similar treatment (it is comparable in population to Providence, but without extending rail service beyond the current commuter rail stops, you can only go in one direction).

 

[TheRatmeister]

I'm curious about the logistical feasibility of the following idea:
Utilizing existing commuter rail lines for smaller commuter rail lines based on outlying metros. Simple example: a mini Providence commuter rail that is just Providence and the outlying stations (say, going out to Mansfield on the northern side). Worcester might also justify a similar treatment (it is comparable in population to Providence, but without extending rail service beyond the current commuter rail stops, you can only go in one direction).

I have to imagine that if RI/RIPTA wanted to run such a service they could, although in practice I suspect they might just contract it out to the MBTA/Keolis. Paired with passenger service on the Worcester & Providence you could get a pretty good Providence/RI rail network going.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Something similar was discussed in here before if someone can find it. I think the problem was the deal RI made with the MBTA is that RI would pay for operations expenses of the commuter rail in RI but they'd keep ticket revenue or something like that. So the T has no incentive to run better service for RI and the ball is entirely in RI's court.

 

[DominusNovus]

Something similar was discussed in here before if someone can find it. I think the problem was the deal RI made with the MBTA is that RI would pay for operations expenses of the commuter rail in RI but they'd keep ticket revenue or something like that. So the T has no incentive to run better service for RI and the ball is entirely in RI's court.

So, in that specific case, there’s no logistical reason it couldn’t work, but what is ultimately a political one.

Are there any places (either in the US or worldwide) where such a system is implemented? It seems pretty straightforward to me, I figure I must be missing some obvious flaw. Either ridership is never enough or the timings don’t work.

 

[Stlin]

I'm curious about the logistical feasibility of the following idea:
Utilizing existing commuter rail lines for smaller commuter rail lines based on outlying metros. Simple example: a mini Providence commuter rail that is just Providence and the outlying stations (say, going out to Mansfield on the northern side). Worcester might also justify a similar treatment (it is comparable in population to Providence, but without extending rail service beyond the current commuter rail stops, you can only go in one direction).

It was a serious idea at one point, and in some circles still is, to operate a "RI Intrastate Commuter Rail" Line from Woonsocket to Wickford Junction. Beyond that there was the vaporware private "Boston Surface RR" that intended a Manchester to PVD route via Worcester.

Ultimately, the corridor exists, there's latent demand, and the P&W mainline is apparently in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, I believe that RIDOT is still in a very car-centric mindset, so I don't believe that there's the political will to introduce something like this. Plus, I have to imagine the interstate agreement that would be needed to implement something to say Worcester would need significant buy in from MA, possibly even MassDOT led. Given the T's ongoing crisis I doubt there's immediate desire in MA for another major expansion project. (Does the T even have trackage rights over the P&W? If not, that'd need to be an Amtrak mercenary job).

So, in that specific case, there’s no logistical reason it couldn’t work, but what is ultimately a political one.

Are there any places (either in the US or worldwide) where such a system is implemented? It seems pretty straightforward to me, I figure I must be missing some obvious flaw. Either ridership is never enough or the timings don’t work.

I mean, yes? I might be misunderstanding, but the Pilgrim Partnership and it's amendments is how the Providence Line services in RI are currently funded by RIDOT - service in RI is explicitly tied to RI paying for it. When RI quit paying MA for CR service between 1981 and 1988, service was immediately cut back to Attleboro. The MBTA built South Attleboro within state borders in 87 mostly as a play for Pawtucket riders in the absence of RI support, given the 88 agreement was only for service to Providence.

Similarly MassDOT pays CTDOT under a cost sharing agreement to operate the Hartford line into Springfield, and West Virginia pays Maryland to operate the Brunswick line into DC. It's reasonably common, especially if you include the state supported Amtrak Corridors - MA, CT, VT all send some money to Amtrak to operate the Vermonter, the new Borealis line is funded by Minnesota and Wisconsin, etc, etc.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Ultimately, the corridor exists, there's latent demand, and the P&W mainline is apparently in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, I believe that RIDOT is still in a very car-centric mindset, so I don't believe that there's the political will to introduce something like this. Plus, I have to imagine the interstate agreement that would be needed to implement something to say Worcester would need significant buy in from MA, possibly even MassDOT led. Given the T's ongoing crisis I doubt there's immediate desire in MA for another major expansion project. (Does the T even have trackage rights over the P&W? If not, that'd need to be an Amtrak mercenary job).

The momentum completely stalled out during the Raimondo and McKee gubenatorial Administrations after most of the advancement happened during the Carcieri and Chaffee Admins. Woonsocket isn't going to be palatable until they start to infill NEC intermediates like Cranston, but it took a glacial pace to even get Pawtucket built and there's been no action whatsoever on the others, or building out the northbound platforms on Wickford and T.F. Green. They can't even increase Wickford frequencies without some/most of those station items. So there's really nothing to report until they start working anew on the on-NEC punchlist.

Nobody passenger (least of all Boston Surface RR) has trackage rights over P&W. But P&W was a passive party to the Intrastate CR study and gains a lot of benefit from the upgraded signalized track, so it's pretty much certain that the T would be able to successfully gain trackage rights from Providence to Woonsocket.

I mean, yes? I might be misunderstanding, but the Pilgrim Partnership and it's amendments is how the Providence Line services in RI are currently funded by RIDOT - service in RI is explicitly tied to RI paying for it. When RI quit paying MA for CR service between 1981 and 1988, service was immediately cut back to Attleboro. The MBTA built South Attleboro within state borders in 87 mostly as a play for Pawtucket riders in the absence of RI support, given the 88 agreement was only for service to Providence.

Similarly MassDOT pays CTDOT under a cost sharing agreement to operate the Hartford line into Springfield, and West Virginia pays Maryland to operate the Brunswick line into DC. It's reasonably common, especially if you include the state supported Amtrak Corridors - MA, CT, VT all send some money to Amtrak to operate the Vermonter, the new Borealis line is funded by Minnesota and Wisconsin, etc, etc.

Yes. The Pilgrim Agreement is infinitely permissive. RIDOT can get all the frequencies and running-mile extensions it wants, as well as getting mercenary ops for the purely intrastate services by simply upping its subsidy to the T (which includes a % ownership of the global Commuter Rail fleet).

Pawtucket was omitted from the '88 service restoration strictly because the station building was already having structural issues, and there was no money available to renovate it. The building was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places way back in 1984, but the application was rejected at the time because of those never-remedied structural issues. That's how long they've been mulling Plan B's of a relocated station.