Reasonable Transit Pitches

[riptide]

First time posting here, but I’m familiar with the RI intrastate rail/”295 belt” service concept. The big question in my mind is whether RIDOT ended up creating a chokepoint between Pawtucket and Providence that now precludes establishing a statewide (or Providence-centric) rail service.

In an earlier thread discussing this topic, but in the context of why it might eventually be worthwhile to reactivate Providence’s East Side Railroad Tunnel, @F-Line to Dudley said:

Right now "projected local traffic" for 2040 involves RUR-level Providence Line traffic making South Attleboro, Pawtucket, and T.F. Green stops, and RIDOT Intrastate traffic running Westerly-Pawtucket and Woonsocket-Wickford over a central overlap that includes additional infills at Cranston and *maybe someday* (depending on whether 6/10 Interchange rebuild serves up enough land) Olneyville that the Providence Line largely skips. This is with all intermediate stations present and future being constructed/reconstructed with 2 outer platform tracks and 2 center express tracks...and the mainline between East Junction, Attleboro and Providence Station being mostly 2-track with some significant running lengths of triple. The P&W freight track from the state line to Providence Station cannot be plausibly used for passenger service because it has to remain permanently un-wired to clear the large train of autoracks that P&W transports from Quonset Point to Gardner, MA 6 days a week (south of PVD the "FRIP" track is near-totally fair game for electrification, so this capacity constraint is specific to Pawtucket). Therefore the maximal track layout is considerably less spacious here than it is north of East Junction or south of Providence. But despite that, Amtrak has determined that it can coexist with 2040 projected local traffic.

All it takes, though, is one new local-traffic proposal not currently accounted for through 2040 to upset that balance. And this is because of the constrained track layout which leaves limited expressing options. The biggest potential one you could drop in there is real 15 min. frequency Urban Rail distinct from the longer-frequency RIDOT Westerly & Woonsocket overlaps.

Yet RIDOT ended up building the Pawtucket/Central Falls Station with platforms directly on the NEC mainline tracks, instead of on passing sidings as originally planned, in an attempt to keep costs down. (It didn’t work – the reduced build cost them 50% more than the quad-track version was budgeted for.)

The segment of the NEC between Pawtucket and Providence would be the busiest in the state if an intrastate rail service were rolled out: it would need to handle Amtrak (both Acela and Northeast Regional), MBTA (Providence Line), and some combination of overlapping RI-centric lines. And all this traffic needs to share the same pair of platform tracks since Pawtucket’s two-track design cannot facilitate overtakes. Are we already at the point where running intrastate rail service north of Providence (whether at 15-min or 30-min frequencies) is going to require either 1) finding a bypass, like the East Side tunnel, or 2) substantially reconfiguring Pawtucket Station?

 

[Koopzilla24]

First time posting here, but I’m familiar with the RI intrastate rail/”295 belt” service concept. The big question in my mind is whether RIDOT ended up creating a chokepoint between Pawtucket and Providence that now precludes establishing a statewide (or Providence-centric) rail service.

In an earlier thread discussing this topic, but in the context of why it might eventually be worthwhile to reactivate Providence’s East Side Railroad Tunnel, @F-Line to Dudley said:



Yet RIDOT ended up building the Pawtucket/Central Falls Station with platforms directly on the NEC mainline tracks, instead of on passing sidings as originally planned, in an attempt to keep costs down. (It didn’t work – the reduced build cost them 50% more than the quad-track version was budgeted for.)

The segment of the NEC between Pawtucket and Providence would be the busiest in the state if an intrastate rail service were rolled out: it would need to handle Amtrak (both Acela and Northeast Regional), MBTA (Providence Line), and some combination of overlapping RI-centric lines. And all this traffic needs to share the same pair of platform tracks since Pawtucket’s two-track design cannot facilitate overtakes. Are we already at the point where running intrastate rail service north of Providence (whether at 15-min or 30-min frequencies) is going to require either 1) finding a bypass, like the East Side tunnel, or 2) substantially reconfiguring Pawtucket Station?

Theres a lot more service you can run on only double track than we seem to be able to accomplish up here in Greater Boston. Even in this area nearly the same LoS happens at 128 with the NER, Acela, Providence, and Stoughton trains. The caveat being that they all stop at 128 as opposed to Amtrak bypassing. On the other hand, Pawtucket/CF is positioned between curves where trains are no proceeding at high speed meaning there can safely be less blocks between them. There's also the potential for having the NER stop there without too much schedule impact. With 30min headways on across all trains except Acela including a Woonsocket-Westerly train that segment and station could handle a train stopping every ~7min with a ~5min Acela bypass window each hour. If need be there's space for an additional track either side of the station if the catenary supports are moved to the outside of the ROW to allow a slower local train to wait for an Acela to pass if it runs into its window. If we had all high level platforms and modern electric regional trains with more, wider automatic doors, then 15min service on local MBTA and RIPTA trains would be feasible because of the much shorter dwell times and quick acceleration out of the signal block.

 

[HenryAlan]

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).

Worcester in particular, could have a nice mini regional rail system, with both and East/West line and a North/South line. I would love to see that happen.

 

[ritchiew]

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).

Springfield is another city that doesn't quite match your criteria, but could be interesting to consider. It's at the end of Connecticut's Hartford commuter line, which goes all the way to New Haven. I don't know what studies have already been done on this, but it seems plausible to extend that north to Holyoke or Northampton (which already have train stations for Amtrak). Springfield station also has the east-west route, but there aren't any other nearby stations on that. The state's proposed East-West Passenger Rail would put in infill stations, but I'm not sure where.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Springfield is another city that doesn't quite match your criteria, but could be interesting to consider. It's at the end of Connecticut's Hartford commuter line, which goes all the way to New Haven. I don't know what studies have already been done on this, but it seems plausible to extend that north to Holyoke or Northampton (which already have train stations for Amtrak). Springfield station also has the east-west route, but there aren't any other nearby stations on that. The state's proposed East-West Passenger Rail would put in infill stations, but I'm not sure where.

East-West proposes an infill in Palmer, which lines up with what the earlier NNEIRI study earmarked. So that's probably a certainty. On the Pittsfield/Albany service patterns there's *talk* of an additional infill in Chester, but that's really preliminary (and it would probably have really low ridership so would need a robust service slate to float).

Knowledge Corridor is definitely dense enough for commuter rail. The problem is the state line; up to Northampton is the outer limits of traffic loads for a Hartford commute. The service wouldn't perform nearly as well if it terminated in Springfield and only served the Springfield portion of the "Hartford-Springfield" metro. 2-seating the ride to Hartford is going to scare off a lot of commuters. So it would be great if CTrail could run a Greenfield turn as an outright extension of the Hartford Line, with Massachusetts doing a "reverse-Pilgrim Agreement" on the mercenary funding. Might mean we have to put up with Connecticut's ticketing system, but it would solve for the need to serve the commute market on both sides of the state line and would be ops-inocuous (Springfield is already set up to do easy staff-assisted reverse maneuvers on the wye for north-south thru service like the Vermonter). As it stands Springfield-New Haven is about 60 miles, Hartford-Greenfield is about 60 miles, and Hartford-Bridgeport via New Haven is about 60 miles. So it's fairly straightforward move to segment the Hartford Line schedules into 3 separate services that all overlap in Hartford. Greenfield would probably be the service-poorer of the 3, but it would definitely have its seat at the table.

 

[themissinglink]

Worcester in particular, could have a nice mini regional rail system, with both and East/West line and a North/South line. I would love to see that happen.

It would be nice to eventually have regional rail between Palmer and Westfield, with a few stations in Springfield, a stop in Wilbraham, and a stop or two in West Springfield. The B&A being owned by CSX would obviously be a big obstacle to implementing any frequent passenger service. (I know this is more of a crazy transit pitch than a reasonable transit pitch)

 

[Stlin]

Semi-reasonable not-really-transit pitch - with the launch of CharlieCard 2.0, the T has the opportunity to do something special. Combined with the processing fee issue, the T should continue to encourage use of CharlieCards rather than tappable credit cards, so it should make the CharlieCard both more special and more convenient.

I just learned about these things - Vancouver' TransLink Compass Card, available in your choice of flavors - virtual card, traditional card, DC superhero collectibles, wristband, or keychain - including limited edition train/trolley versions. I want one so badly.

There's a entire market for collectible transit cards - those Compass trains sold out immediately, and apparently went for up to $600 on the resale market. For some systems, that proves to be a revenue stream. HK's Octopus has an entire range of products - including a extendable Disney wand and licensed properties. Some places in Japan, Korea etc have an entire wall of transit card options. I have a Harry Potter Singapore Ezlink card; It's totally in line with a that's amazing, I have to have one or a "gotta catch them all" mentality.

Not that the T has the weight to really pull a Disney or DC partnership, but even still, some sort of limited edition card would be nice. Even WMATA, BART Clipper and NYC Metrocards have had limited edition cards in the past and present - The only one I'm aware of that the T has done is the 2022 US Open one... But that's one was special order only, not widely publicized or exactly going to appeal to a wide swath of the public.

But really... I just want a tappable Type 7 on a keychain.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

But really... I just want a type 7 on a keychain.

$6.95 on MBTAgifts. Some assembly required if you want to surgically transplant the RFID chip from your CharlieCard to make it tappable.

 

[Stlin]

$6.95 on MBTAgifts. Some assembly required if you want to surgically transplant the RFID chip from your CharlieCard to make it tappable.

View attachment 54021

Don't kid... I seriously considered it. The issue is the RFID card's antenna - that keychain is small, and I doubt I can actually get it to fit.

That said... I should be able to stuff that into a N-Scale PCC... Ideas, ideas...

Edit: Wait. I have access to a .1mm accurate resin 3d printer. I can actually make one. Mwhaha... ahem.

 

[soundguise]

Semi-reasonable not-really-transit pitch - with the launch of CharlieCard 2.0, the T has the opportunity to do something special. Combined with the processing fee issue, the T should continue to encourage use of CharlieCards rather than tappable credit cards, so it should make the CharlieCard both more special and more convenient.

I just learned about these things - Vancouver' TransLink Compass Card, available in your choice of flavors - virtual card, traditional card, DC superhero collectibles, wristband, or keychain - including limited edition train/trolley versions. I want one so badly.
View attachment 54015
View attachment 54014
View attachment 54011

View attachment 54017View attachment 54018

There's a entire market for collectible transit cards - those Compass trains sold out immediately, and apparently went for up to $600 on the resale market. For some systems, that proves to be a revenue stream. HK's Octopus has an entire range of products - including a extendable Disney wand and licensed properties. Some places in Japan, Korea etc have an entire wall of transit card options. I have a Harry Potter Singapore Ezlink card; It's totally in line with a that's amazing, I have to have one or a "gotta catch them all" mentality.
View attachment 54019View attachment 54020
Not that the T has the weight to really pull a Disney or DC partnership, but even still, some sort of limited edition card would be nice. Even WMATA, BART Clipper and NYC Metrocards have had limited edition cards in the past and present - The only one I'm aware of that the T has done is the 2022 US Open one... But that's one was special order only, not widely publicized or exactly going to appeal to a wide swath of the public.

But really... I just want a tappable Type 7 on a keychain.

LA Metro has issued and does issue special edition and commemorative cards regularly. A much larger agency of course.

 

[JeffDowntown]

LA Metro has issued and does issue special edition and commemorative cards regularly. A much larger agency of course.

Not sure how you rate the "agency size" of LA Metro versus MBTA, but MBTA ridership and LA Metro ridership are pretty similar.

2023:
Daily MBTA 730,000 (average all days of the week)
Daily LA Metro 800,000 (average all days of the week)

 

[TheRatmeister]

Semi-reasonable not-really-transit pitch - with the launch of CharlieCard 2.0, the T has the opportunity to do something special. Combined with the processing fee issue, the T should continue to encourage use of CharlieCards rather than tappable credit cards, so it should make the CharlieCard both more special and more convenient.

I just learned about these things - Vancouver' TransLink Compass Card, available in your choice of flavors - virtual card, traditional card, DC superhero collectibles, wristband, or keychain - including limited edition train/trolley versions. I want one so badly.
View attachment 54015
View attachment 54014
View attachment 54011

View attachment 54017View attachment 54018

There's a entire market for collectible transit cards - those Compass trains sold out immediately, and apparently went for up to $600 on the resale market. For some systems, that proves to be a revenue stream. HK's Octopus has an entire range of products - including a extendable Disney wand and licensed properties. Some places in Japan, Korea etc have an entire wall of transit card options. I have a Harry Potter Singapore Ezlink card; It's totally in line with a that's amazing, I have to have one or a "gotta catch them all" mentality.
View attachment 54019View attachment 54020
Not that the T has the weight to really pull a Disney or DC partnership, but even still, some sort of limited edition card would be nice. Even WMATA, BART Clipper and NYC Metrocards have had limited edition cards in the past and present - The only one I'm aware of that the T has done is the 2022 US Open one... But that's one was special order only, not widely publicized or exactly going to appeal to a wide swath of the public.

But really... I just want a tappable Type 7 on a keychain.

For now I just want them to keep Charlie on the Charliecard, the new design is boring.

 

[Koopzilla24]

CBS has run with a story bringing this up again and the comments have people eating it up saying things like, "I can't believe this hasn't been done before! If only the MBTA had innovative thinkers like this! The private sector beats the government again!" But to humor their ambitions, is there any boat-smart person who has some idea of what the maximum daily traffic you could get off a ferry on the Charles from Watertown to the Dam? In the hypothetical scenario where every boat is full of course.

 

[JeffDowntown]

CBS has run with a story bringing this up again and the comments have people eating it up saying things like, "I can't believe this hasn't been done before! If only the MBTA had innovative thinkers like this! The private sector beats the government again!" But to humor their ambitions, is there any boat-smart person who has some idea of what the maximum daily traffic you could get off a ferry on the Charles from Watertown to the Dam? In the hypothetical scenario where every boat is full of course.

I have commented on this (ahem questionable -- being charitable) idea before.

Biggest challenge, the entire Charles River Basin from the Watertown Dam to the Charles River Dam is speed restricted (no wake zone). As boaters who use the slips up in Watertown can attest, transit time up and down the basin is at least one hour. Add in docking and slow debark, embark and you have a painfully slow means of transit for a limited number of people.

Adding a few express busses, even in traffic, would do much more for getting people out of cars for a commute scenario. Leave the river transport to sightseeing where time is not of the essence.

 

[Riverside]

CBS has run with a story bringing this up again and the comments have people eating it up saying things like, "I can't believe this hasn't been done before! If only the MBTA had innovative thinkers like this! The private sector beats the government again!" But to humor their ambitions, is there any boat-smart person who has some idea of what the maximum daily traffic you could get off a ferry on the Charles from Watertown to the Dam? In the hypothetical scenario where every boat is full of course.

I have also sketched out this general idea before. As @KCasiglio mentions, much of the Charles has a 6 mph limit, which hampers you pretty severely. (You also have relatively low bridges along much of the river.) The limit increases to 10 mph east of the BU Bridge, but that's still pretty slow.

(And yes -- in order to pass through the dam, you need a pretty narrow vessel; limted to landing south of the dam would, I suppose, enable commutes to the West End from Cambridge, Allston, and Watertown, but it would lose out on last-mile ridership coming from North Station heading to Kendall etc.)

That all being said, one segment where a new ferry could see some success might be between Harvard and BU, which somehow currently is a 2-seat ride that takes 30 minutes or more:

(This itinerary above assumes a 4-minute 66 -> 57 transfer, so make of that what you will.)

The below screenshot is from last summer -- no idea how it was faster then, I must be doing something wrong. But in any case, as you can see, the river distance is something like 1.6 miles. Even at 6 mph, that's 15.6 minutes.

 

[soundguise]

Not sure how you rate the "agency size" of LA Metro versus MBTA, but MBTA ridership and LA Metro ridership are pretty similar.

2023:
Daily MBTA 730,000 (average all days of the week)
Daily LA Metro 800,000 (average all days of the week)

I suppose I just think of LA as being so large but that is interesting. Geographically large but ridership wise not so much. LA metro doesn't include the commuter rail but MBTA does. A bit apples to oranges I suppose.

 

[HenryAlan]

Biggest challenge, the entire Charles River Basin from the Watertown Dam to the Charles River Dam is speed restricted (no wake zone). As boaters who use the slips up in Watertown can attest, transit time up and down the basin is at least one hour. Add in docking and slow debark, embark and you have a painfully slow means of transit for a limited number of people.

I've made similar statements in the various social media discussions otherwise filled with the type of comments @Koopzilla24 mentions. Most people brush that off as either incorrect, irrelevant (because they have an inaccurate idea of how long the express bus takes), or solvable. One guy I saw claimed that he had contacted the proponents with similar concerns but that they explained their boat was somehow wake free, and therefore... what, exactly? Wake free or not, they aren't going to get a speed waiver. The entire thing is an obvious grift, and yet here we are again.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I've made similar statements in the various social media discussions otherwise filled with the type of comments @Koopzilla24 mentions. Most people brush that off as either incorrect, irrelevant (because they have an inaccurate idea of how long the express bus takes), or solvable. One guy I saw claimed that he had contacted the proponents with similar concerns but that they explained their boat was somehow wake free, and therefore... what, exactly? Wake free or not, they aren't going to get a speed waiver. The entire thing is an obvious grift, and yet here we are again.

Yep, gondolas to the Seaport, hyperloop to DC, wake-free high-speed ferries to Watertown. Grifters gotta grift.

 

[Stlin]

One guy I saw claimed that he had contacted the proponents with similar concerns but that they explained their boat was somehow wake free, and therefore... what, exactly? Wake free or not, they aren't going to get a speed waiver.

Actually... That might be an interesting point. Rowing Sculls, especially heavy 8s, can easily reach 12+ mph. I don't know about their speeds on the twisty bit, but the Head of the Charles course records were set at 10-13 mph paces overall.

The coaches for those teams are often out on the river pacing them on motorized launches, which are catamarans designed for low/minimal wake, so there probably is actually an exception process somewhere.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

there probably is actually an exception process somewhere.

...hire muscular college kids to transport commuters?