Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Semass]

What I meant was that we have a opportunity here in MA similar to that in VT and ME to establish a quality connection to Cape Cod if the will is there to make the T allow for it. The lessons from advocates in those states are pretty clear, but ours is unwilling to let CCCR take a risk on it. The Cape Rail proposal has been discussed here extensively but it would appear that for this service, our state is a roadblock instead of a facilitator.

I noticed that the new company has already started booking Polar Express trips, which should be a lucrative business. So does this CSX move make it likely that Tim Murray will buy these tracks for state ownership?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I noticed that the new company has already started booking Polar Express trips, which should be a lucrative business. So does this CSX move make it likely that Tim Murray will buy these tracks for state ownership?

Oh yes...they've already confirmed Polar Express is coming to town. That'll be a real nice attraction.


State already owns all tracks in question, including the whole length of the Middleboro Secondary between the NEC and Old Colony. The stuff CSX is rumored to be selling is simply their 6-days-a-week evening/overnight run that goes from Framingham to Mansfield on the Framingham Secondary, to Attleboro on the NEC, to M'boro on the Middleboro Sec., to Braintree on the Old Colony (after the last MBCR train of the night), and back. Doesn't involve any property sale, since they lease Middleboro Yard from the state and that lease would presumably just flip to MassCoastal.

The only property CSX still owns outright in MA are:
-- B&A from state line to Worcester.
-- Major branches: Framingham Secondary (Framingham-Mansfield) and Fitchburg Secondary (Framingham-Leominster + out-of-service/railbanked connection to Fitchburg Line).
-- Minor branches: Milford Branch (Franklin-Milford), which is leased to T for the Forge Park extension with a pre-negotiated sale clause the T can exercise at-will.
-- Tiny (=/< 1 mile) industrial tracks: Pittsfield (ex- Adams Branch remnant, outsourced to Housatonic RR), Springfield (ex- Athol Branch remnant), Norwood (ex- Wrentham Branch remnant), and Randolph (ex- Randolph Branch remnant, likely outsourced to MassCoastal if they take over)
-- Abandoned lines: Natick-Framingham (ex- Saxonville Branch), Framingham-Sudbury (ex- Framingham & Lowell a.k.a. Bruce Freeman Trail), and Ashland-Milford (ex- upper half Milford Branch) that all have formal trail plans but which state hasn't yet bought.
-- Major intermodal yards in Worcester and West Springfield. Mid-size yards in Palmer, Framingham (2 active + 1 mothballed yards), and Readville. Small/unstaffed yards in Pittsfield, Walpole, Leominster. Braintree and Middleboro yards are state-owned and leased to them.


They pretty much want to dump all of this to public ownership except the staffed yards...in however many installments they can wring out a sell-high price. That includes the B&A itself for intercity considerations, so I wouldn't be surprised if they pull in another haul to sell Springfield-Worcester when Amtrak renovates it for Inlands. Then eventually Springfield-state line. They definitely have less need for the lower Framingham Secondary if they dump territory to MassCoastal, because that'll only leave a few customers on in Foxboro, Mansfield, and Attleboro on the Fr. Sec. and NEC outside of MassCoastal's potential territory limits that they'd still have to scoop up a few days a week. The T would love to acquire that line for Foxboro future considerations and system connectivity. The upper Framingham-Walpole half gets 4 or 5 trains a day, but it's all overhead traffic with no local customers so they'd be happy to barter it all off for track improvements. CSX definitely wants to dump the 3 abandoned Metro West lines so the towns stop bitching at them about the stalled trail plans. And they'll have no need for the Milford Branch when they turn all freight biz between Franklin Jct. to Milford over to Grafton & Upton RR next year after G&U finishes restoring its track connection to Milford. Fitchburg Secondary is an excellent long-term hold for commuter rail and for state-sponsored development of the Metro West freight market, even though it's about 20 years down the priority pile for any passenger service and in pretty crud shape.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Iowa Pacific isn't screwing around sending its new purchase on the Cape some early Xmas gifts. Now sitting in Hyannis Yard: http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=2012110218114729963.jpg&order=bydate&page=5&key=.

These two locos will be pulling the Polar Express around the Cape next month. Will have to see what they get in terms of decked-out holiday coaches.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Have we ever explored the option of getting around the incompatibility of freight and high-level platforms by utilizing variable length platforms?

It'd be mechanically simple to have a full-high platform that rests on a support base which also contains a "dumb" lifting mechanism tied to a manual control inside the station. When a freight train is inbound, the station attendant can clear the platform and then activate the lifting mechanism, which would push the entire platform upwards into a 90-degree-angle position perpendicular to the tracks. (This would also act as a de facto wall preventing illicit access to the track area while the train passes through.) Once the train has completely cleared the station, the platform would be lowered back into place.

This also solves the problem of a lack of easy access to the train's underside in the event of an issue - rather than having to pull the train out of the station, the platform can be raised to facilitate an inspection. (And, again, in its 'raised' state, it would inhibit illicit access by providing a wall.)

Because it would be controlled manually, there's no danger of an accidental opening due to computer error. Furthermore, as the default state of the platform is level boarding and the platform itself is pushed up rather than dropped down, there's significantly less chance of injury due to accidental failure. In the event of a loss of power, the platform would remain level. Finally, you could ensure that the lifting mechanism only has enough power to lift the platform. This creates an added failsafe - if too many people are standing on the platform, it won't be able to lift (which would be bad.)

We would install these platforms at places where there's not enough room for gauntlet tracks, but also a heavy level of passenger traffic. Alternatively, depending on how much it costs, we could install these platforms even where there is room for a gauntlet but no money for the extra trackage.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Commuter rail stations don't have attendants, though. And this sounds absurdly expensive just so we can conform to some badly concocted blanket-laws about ADA. There are minihigh platforms where you simply flip up the yellow strip portion of the platform by hand. But the only reason you would even need these, as I understand it, is for boxcars with doors left open. So if Pan Am would just close their damn doors maybe we wouldn't need any of this. Sometimes they leave the doors open and don't raise the flaps as it is, and they just destroy the flaps and they have to be replaced.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commuter rail stations don't have attendants, though. And this sounds absurdly expensive just so we can conform to some badly concocted blanket-laws about ADA. There are minihigh platforms where you simply flip up the yellow strip portion of the platform by hand. But the only reason you would even need these, as I understand it, is for boxcars with doors left open. So if Pan Am would just close their damn doors maybe we wouldn't need any of this. Sometimes they leave the doors open and don't raise the flaps as it is, and they just destroy the flaps and they have to be replaced.

So hire a guy to babysit the lifting mechanism, or make the freight companies hire him.

I'm a little bit disturbed at the idea that commuter rail stations are left totally unattended to be honest - that seems like a recipe for disaster, but I digress.

I've been told that the reason freight is incompatible with full-highs is because freight cars are a) wider than passenger cars and b) prone to swaying. Therefore we can't ever put full-highs on an active freight line because...?

Personally, I'd like to suggest just dropping gauntlet tracks all over the damn place anyway, or forcing freight trains to only run with high-platform-friendly equipment - but, of course, either of those suggestions is going to have F-Line back in this thread yelling at me about how prone to the Robert Moses Method of Solving Problems I am.

Besides, I think you'd find movable platforms to be surprisingly cheap. It's basically taking the same technology that powers drawbridges, shrinking it, and applying it to train stations.

 

[massmotorist]

Hire a person for each commuter rail stop, just to sit there and flip a switch once or twice an hour? Seems like the worst kind of make-work government job you can get.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Hire a person for each commuter rail stop, just to sit there and flip a switch once or twice an hour? Seems like the worst kind of make-work government job you can get.

They would do more than flip a switch. They'd also be in charge of 'security' (really, just to scare off any idiots who get the bright idea to ignore all signs and common sense and tresspass on the railroad tracks), parking enforcement (I'm really genuinely surprised that commuter rail stations don't even have someone on hand to make sure I actually paid my $4 to park in their lot or whatever), and customer assistance (read: helping people too stupid to navigate the vending machines.)

Alternatively, you could try and wire the mechanism to be controlled by dispatch, but that might not end well...

...actually, you could go the other way, leave them up by default, and put it on the commuter rail crew to have the platform dropped to level boarding in advance of the train's arrival.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The only stations that sit on freight clearance routes and are on the mini-high exemption:

-- Worcester Line: Framingham*, Ashland, Southborough, Westborough, Grafton.
-- Franklin Line: Endicott, Dedham Corporate, Islington, Norwood Depot, Norwood Central, Windsor Gardens, Plimptonville.
-- Foxboro/Framingham Secondary: Foxboro.
-- Haverhill Line: Ballardvale, Andover, Bradford, Haverhill.
-- Fitchburg Line: Ayer*, Shirley, North Leominster.
-- Lowell Line: West Medford, Wedgemere, Winchester Center, Mishawum, Wilmington, North Billerica. Also any Nashua extension stops like North Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, Nashua*.

Include the Wildcat Branch and the stationless Lowell Jct.-Wilmington Jct. part of the Haverhill Line.

* - Passing tracks possible. Framingham can easily get it behind the station. Ayer--maybe--if it's ADA-rebuilt as an island in the middle of the junction. Nashua yes if it's situated on part of the freight yard. Wachusett and Plaistow are proposed on turnouts as all-highs.


All other lines--NEC (all remaining 2-track lows to be tri-tracked), Eastern Route + branches, Fairmount, Needham, Stoughton, Reading (non-Haverhill short-turns)--are clear for all-highs. So the only lines where you'll can't get it 100% end-to-end under current conditions are Worcester, Lowell, Haverhill (thru-running), Fitchburg, and Franklin/Foxboro.

Conrail/CSX originally agitated for the '94 Worcester Line extension to be tri-tracked, so there's definitely room for it on the ROW if they partially tore down/rebuilt those 4 intermediate stops. Lowell has the ROW room, but it would be hideously expensive because every affected station would have to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. You're almost better off flipping everything south of Anderson to rapid transit per the 1945 BTC plan rather than fighting with the existing CR stations at what it'll cost. That leaves outer Haverhill, outer Fitchburg, and inner Franklin as the only truly constrained impossibles for future all-highs.

Not bad. We aren't as lucky as Metro North or Long Island RR on getting desired clearances, but a hell of a lot luckier than NJ Transit or SEPTA.


BTW...folding all-high platforms doesn't work. Too maintenance-intensive and dangerous for passengers standing on the platform, and doesn't work at all if the platform sits on even the slightest curve. Right now with the collapsing edge mini-highs the freight crew approaches at restricted speed, a crew member jumps out of the cab and flips the level, they pass, then the crew member resets the platform and hops back on. So even the mini-highs are a whole lot less than "automatic", and benign enough that you only have to shoo back 10-15 feet worth of standees in eyesight to do it liability-free.

The only way to pass all-highs is a gauntlet track, which is proposed for T.F. Green if it goes 4-platform in the future. But gauntlet tracks require switches and interlockings at each end of the platform, which adds dispatching complexity and would slow an express train passing through. So you can practically only ration those bullets for isolated pinch points like getting P&W through 1 non-intercity track on a max-build T.F. Green or getting around a must-have legacy station that's utterly unmodifiable. You wouldn't exactly be able to rig up gauntlets on the whole of the inner Lowell Line without causing the Downeaster and Haverhill expresses a lot of grief.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

All other lines--NEC (all remaining 2-track lows to be tri-tracked), Eastern Route + branches, Fairmount, Needham, Stoughton, Reading (non-Haverhill short-turns)--are clear for all-highs. So the only lines where you'll can't get it 100% end-to-end under current conditions are Worcester, Lowell, Haverhill (thru-running), Fitchburg, and Franklin/Foxboro.

Conrail/CSX originally agitated for the '94 Worcester Line extension to be tri-tracked, so there's definitely room for it on the ROW if they partially tore down/rebuilt those 4 intermediate stops. Lowell has the ROW room, but it would be hideously expensive because every affected station would have to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. You're almost better off flipping everything south of Anderson to rapid transit per the 1945 BTC plan rather than fighting with the existing CR stations at what it'll cost. That leaves outer Haverhill, outer Fitchburg, and inner Franklin as the only truly constrained impossibles for future all-highs.

Not bad. We aren't as lucky as Metro North or Long Island RR on getting desired clearances, but a hell of a lot luckier than NJ Transit or SEPTA.

The problem is that the only lines which both need a conversion to all full-highs and aren't slated to get them already are Worcester (inland Regionals and a Regional-esque Lake Shore Service), Lowell (NH Capitol Corridor), and Haverhill (Downeaster) - in all three cases, for mitigating commuter rail dwell times and thereby lowering the speed differential and its attendant negative impacts on the performance of the aforementioned intercity routes, but in the case of Framingham/Lowell/Haverhill also facilitating level boarding to keep the station dwell time on stopped Regionals/Expresses down.

Fitchburg only needs them if the long-term HSR route for BOS-MTL is Lowell-Fitchburg-Greenfield (and I can guarantee you right now that it won't be) and Franklin/Foxboro only needs them in the universe where Bob Kraft facilitates a dark pact between Amtrak, Metro-North and the MBTA to run M8s on the Train to the Game between Grand Central, Gillette Stadium, and South Station (which, unfortunately, is not the universe you and I are living in).

Now, I would say it's a safe bet that the Worcester Line is going to be reconfigured to support full-highs - those four stations aren't exactly Wickford Junction or any of the palaces to be built on South Coast FAIL, so reconfiguring them is a very small price to pay to keep things flowing out towards Worcester. Reconfiguring everything on the Lowell Line is a proposition entirely dependent on New Hampshire getting its act together (yeah, that's likely) AND getting Amtrak/the Fed to foot a significant part of the bill AND the Lowell Line ROW being cleared for 110~125+ MPH operation.

Haverhill, unfortunately, is probably a total loss at this point even if you manage the scorched-earth Lowell reconfiguration (GLX to Woburn??) and flip the Reading Line to an Orange Line extension.

BTW...folding all-high platforms doesn't work. Too maintenance-intensive and dangerous for passengers standing on the platform, and doesn't work at all if the platform sits on even the slightest curve. Right now with the collapsing edge mini-highs the freight crew approaches at restricted speed, a crew member jumps out of the cab and flips the level, they pass, then the crew member resets the platform and hops back on. So even the mini-highs are a whole lot less than "automatic", and benign enough that you only have to shoo back 10-15 feet worth of standees in eyesight to do it liability-free.

The only way to pass all-highs is a gauntlet track, which is proposed for T.F. Green if it goes 4-platform in the future. But gauntlet tracks require switches and interlockings at each end of the platform, which adds dispatching complexity and would slow an express train passing through. So you can practically only ration those bullets for isolated pinch points like getting P&W through 1 non-intercity track on a max-build T.F. Green or getting around a must-have legacy station that's utterly unmodifiable. You wouldn't exactly be able to rig up gauntlets on the whole of the inner Lowell Line without causing the Downeaster and Haverhill expresses a lot of grief.

Which, of course, defeats the entire point of high-leveling the Lowell Line to keep things flowing for the Downeaster - but why couldn't you just string all the gauntlets together into a freight-only track at that point? We're already assuming maximum pain to reconfigure the Lowell Line, you might as well triple-track it instead of using gauntlets.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I'm a little bit disturbed at the idea that commuter rail stations are left totally unattended to be honest - that seems like a recipe for disaster, but I digress.

You worry too much, trust me. Commuter rail stations tend to be very sleepy places with little-to-no riff raff.

Personally, I'd like to suggest just dropping gauntlet tracks all over the damn place anyway, or forcing freight trains to only run with high-platform-friendly equipment - but, of course, either of those suggestions is going to have F-Line back in this thread yelling at me about how prone to the Robert Moses Method of Solving Problems I am.

Gauntlet tracks quite honestly the ideal solution, in my opinion. But its not always necessary to have a full length high platform.

They would do more than flip a switch. They'd also be in charge of 'security' (really, just to scare off any idiots who get the bright idea to ignore all signs and common sense and tresspass on the railroad tracks), parking enforcement (I'm really genuinely surprised that commuter rail stations don't even have someone on hand to make sure I actually paid my $4 to park in their lot or whatever), and customer assistance (read: helping people too stupid to navigate the vending machines.)

Again, no need for security. And parking enforcement tends to be handled by the municipality or the third party contracted to handle parking payments. Melrose patrols every station every morning. There aren't that many customers to be serving, really, and an overwhelming majority of the people already know what they're doing and are regulars. And there are no FVM machines at commuter rail stations (exception to Worcester and such).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The problem is that the only lines which both need a conversion to all full-highs and aren't slated to get them already are Worcester (inland Regionals and a Regional-esque Lake Shore Service), Lowell (NH Capitol Corridor), and Haverhill (Downeaster) - in all three cases, for mitigating commuter rail dwell times and thereby lowering the speed differential and its attendant negative impacts on the performance of the aforementioned intercity routes, but in the case of Framingham/Lowell/Haverhill also facilitating level boarding to keep the station dwell time on stopped Regionals/Expresses down.

Fitchburg only needs them if the long-term HSR route for BOS-MTL is Lowell-Fitchburg-Greenfield (and I can guarantee you right now that it won't be) and Franklin/Foxboro only needs them in the universe where Bob Kraft facilitates a dark pact between Amtrak, Metro-North and the MBTA to run M8s on the Train to the Game between Grand Central, Gillette Stadium, and South Station (which, unfortunately, is not the universe you and I are living in).

Few things:

-- Inland Regionals should be fine for all-highs since they only stop at Springfield, Worcester, Framingham (raiseable with the passing track), and possibly Palmer (which would probably only be a single side platform given that it's inside the yard and at a junction). Pittsfield can also be raised on the LSL if it stays a single side and there's some 2nd track thrown back dowe through there. All of the Springfield Line stops are getting raised for NHHS commuter rail...despite its heavy freight Amtrak owns the works and is saying to use the Middletown Secondary and/or restore the severed MA miles of the Armory Branch as freight bypasses.

-- None of the secondary Amtrak branches (Vermonter, Downeaster, future Boston-Montreal via Palmer) can go all-high. The Conn River Line is a clearance route Northfield-Springfield and those 3 new stations are going to be mini-high. NECR is a clearance route its whole length. The Western Route is a clearance route its whole length, and was never more than 2 tracks between Wilmington and Portland. So that's all physical impossibility forever.

-- Amtrak isn't blind to this. They're requiring that all future vehicle procurements be compatible with platforms nationwide. Including future HSR/Acela trainsets. They're not backing away from highs...far from it, they're pushing the states hard on every NEC and primary branchline stop to get 'em high. But they know these 2-track max freight mains north of Albany/Springfield/Boston are what they are, and are playing the long game to accommodate.

Now, I would say it's a safe bet that the Worcester Line is going to be reconfigured to support full-highs - those four stations aren't exactly Wickford Junction or any of the palaces to be built on South Coast FAIL, so reconfiguring them is a very small price to pay to keep things flowing out towards Worcester. Reconfiguring everything on the Lowell Line is a proposition entirely dependent on New Hampshire getting its act together (yeah, that's likely) AND getting Amtrak/the Fed to foot a significant part of the bill AND the Lowell Line ROW being cleared for 110~125+ MPH operation.

Haverhill, unfortunately, is probably a total loss at this point even if you manage the scorched-earth Lowell reconfiguration (GLX to Woburn??) and flip the Reading Line to an Orange Line extension.

Well, it's not like dwell times go to shit if there's a single non-compliant station. Every one that's a full 800 ft. length level boarding platform helps. Doubly so when you've got consecutive highs and the staff doesn't have to keep flipping the trap door so often. The Worcester Line gets a HELL of a lot better if they just raise all the platforms out to Framingham on the non-clearance part of the route where there's the densest stop spacing. 4 lighter-use intermediates between Framingham and Worcester don't induce much of a penalty. They can just shut off the auto doors after Framingham. Or ditto on the Fitchburg after Littleton if they get everything inside Willows Jct. raised. Or ditto on the Haverhill if everything's high up to North Wilmington. Really...does it matter if they're boarding low at Shirley, North Leominster, Ballardvale, etc.? Any time except full-peak those stops are usually only boarding on the mini-high and don't bother opening all doors. On a Downeaster or Vermonter run most of those intermediate stops board only off the mini-high. The time penalty's very minor compared to higher ridership and tighter-spaced stops. Even on impossible lines like Franklin the crush-load boarding figures at raiseable Walpole and Franklin go a ton smoother full-high with not a single other stop on the line raised and not a single hope of getting automatic doors activated.

Really, if you can get the collective end-to-end boarding penalty minutes down into the single digits you're at the threshold where general margin of error on the schedule makes further boarding savings nearly impossible to notice on the average trip times. So you only need to be absolute about compliance to the point where dwell variability is indistinguishable from "background noise" variability. Having a small-town stop as an outlier stays within that background noise margin of error and doesn't make a difference.

Lowell I agree is a tough one. But look at what a groaner it would be to reconfigure Wedgemere and Winchester Center with both stops sitting on top of overpasses or Mishawum and Wilmington wedged under underpasses. Messy, messy, messy and expensive. West Medford (which if they touch it better be to grade separate it) and North Billerica are easy. Infill stops in Woburn (Montvale?), North Chelmsford...easy if sited and configured right with passing tracks from Day 1. But there's also no point to altering those easier stops when getting automatic doors to a would-be North Billerica full-high requires blowing up and rebuilding a whole lot of bridge span, roadway, and so on at the 4 problem stops. And passing muster with the residential abutters in Wedgemere and Winch Ctr. who are gonna live in a warzone for a few years while the overhead tracks get torn up and remade.

Given the hurdles, I don't think it's worth doing anywhere but all-new builds unless they're going to go all-in with the rapid transit plan that flips the stops and expresses all Lowell/NH/Haverhill CR to Anderson. Which, yes, was a GLX to Woburn Ctr. (via ex- Woburn Branch) on the '45 plan but could just as easily be heavy railed as branch or continuation from one of the other nearby lines. But I'm not arguing the rapid transit merits here...just saying the price tag of ripping the shit out of those 4 stations and all associated bridges is going to be high enough to wonder if it's worth it at all for the CR mode when virtually the same structural work is required in those spots for rapid transit and rapid transit-level ridership. It forces a mode-vs.-mode bang for buck debate for sure.

Which, of course, defeats the entire point of high-leveling the Lowell Line to keep things flowing for the Downeaster - but why couldn't you just string all the gauntlets together into a freight-only track at that point? We're already assuming maximum pain to reconfigure the Lowell Line, you might as well triple-track it instead of using gauntlets.

Because when anything is on the gauntlet it's invading the clearance of the opposite track. Everything else on the line must STOP and hold while the gauntlet is in use. And if there's a signal failure or some engineer attempting to override a stop order at 5 MPH restricted speed that means high sideswipe risk. This is what makes them a poor solution for using them any more than at that one rare obstruction that's impossible to pass. In T.F. Green's case the gauntlet provision is also being designed to not require any other tracks to stop and protect or hinder movements if a passenger train is right behind the freight on that one platform. But that's an all-new station pre-prepped for it. Retrofits at the existing stations in question here are impossible without screeching opposite direction to a halt and destroying the schedule.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Also...there are low-boarding EMU's.

Silverliner V -- Kinda boondoggly a model, but SEPTA is an all-electric, mostly low-platform operation that runs on multiple freight clearance routes. Inferior door configuration to the M8's and no room for bike racks because of the compromises forced by adding stairs, but on the tracks they perform almost indistinguishably as good as the M8's.


Those will run here unmodified on the Providence Line voltage, so we're not S.O.L. if you have dreams of taking an EMU to Lowell in your lifetime. We just lose the ability to price compare vs. the more ubiquitous M# design or a variety of Euro adaptations designed for highs-only. And would have to hope that the problems SEPTA had with this new design get solved on SEPTA's time before anyone else gets involved with that model.

Unfortunately, we can't have Metra's hulking bi-level EMU's because the overhead in Chicagoland is DC not AC like here and they're built too wide for our high-level platforms (wider + no AC inverters = reason why they're capable of stuffing an EMU in a bi-level). And unfortunately all the older model Silverliners (called Arrows for the NJ Transit variant) are irreproduceable 35-year-old products from long-defunct Budd Co.

 

[davem]

Everett Subway

I think this is reasonable. How much would one mile of subway cost to build under Broadway in Everett? You could branch the orange line off after Sullivan to follow the CR tracks to 16, at which point it would go underground, following School St and then Broadway.

Stops at Gateway Center, Everett (between Chelsea St and Mansfield St) and Glendale (Ferry St).

You could do cut and cover under School St to save some money, I imagine you would have to deep bore under Broadway since there is no redundant route to close it for an extended time for construction.

Pretty much everywhere else around there is an existing railroad ROW that can be repurposed for transit, however Everett has none, and traffic is only going to keep getting worse and worse. Thoughts?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Everett Subway

I think this is reasonable. How much would one mile of subway cost to build under Broadway in Everett? You could branch the orange line off after Sullivan to follow the CR tracks to 16, at which point it would go underground, following School St and then Broadway.

Stops at Gateway Center, Everett (between Chelsea St and Mansfield St) and Glendale (Ferry St).

You could do cut and cover under School St to save some money, I imagine you would have to deep bore under Broadway since there is no redundant route to close it for an extended time for construction.

Pretty much everywhere else around there is an existing railroad ROW that can be repurposed for transit, however Everett has none, and traffic is only going to keep getting worse and worse. Thoughts?

Expensive because of the water table through the Mystic marshland. That's what stalled the original plan for an El extension in the 1920's. Everett and Malden wanted a subway; BERy determined a combo of Saugus Branch and Main St. El were the only feasible ways. Everett station also had perpetually shitty ridership under the pre-'75 Orange Line, so while it would be valuable to some degree the proximity to Wellington doesn't make it subway-construction valuable.

Where the accessibility can improve a ton is if the ped access from the Everett side of the Mystic got a ton better out to Wellington. 16 is a scary road to walk along. They need, when they replace the river drawbridge, to do real-deal grade separated wide sidewalks. That helps a lot. And it would be nice if there were a high ped overpass at the locks between Gateway Ctr. and Assembly Sq. Because then the Bike to The Sea trail off the Saugus Branch could connect, via the back of the Gateway Ctr., to the Mystic trail network.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Re: Everett Subway

I think this is reasonable. How much would one mile of subway cost to build under Broadway in Everett? You could branch the orange line off after Sullivan to follow the CR tracks to 16, at which point it would go underground, following School St and then Broadway.

Stops at Gateway Center, Everett (between Chelsea St and Mansfield St) and Glendale (Ferry St).

You could do cut and cover under School St to save some money, I imagine you would have to deep bore under Broadway since there is no redundant route to close it for an extended time for construction.

Pretty much everywhere else around there is an existing railroad ROW that can be repurposed for transit, however Everett has none, and traffic is only going to keep getting worse and worse. Thoughts?

As always when Everett comes up, my first thought is that Santilli Circle and the Broadway/Main Street rotary are proof that objective evil still exists in the universe, and we'd all be better off if they were destroyed. Seriously, from the drivers to the pedestrians to even people biking in the area, not a single person is better off for the existence of those rotaries.

My second, third, and fourth thoughts all involve increasingly impractical ways of doing such - unfortunately, this isn't Crazy Transit Pitches, the D is still hosing the Central Subway's capacity, GLX is really seriously going to be finished you guys... in 2019, Charlestown still hates the El, and I'm pretty sure that "tunnel under the Charles River" isn't an actionable proposal at this point, so I can't regale you with my pitch for a bunch of new North-side Green Line branches, which is a crying shame.

Fortunately, bulldozing that stretch of 16 and everything connected to it doesn't need to be tied to some kind of transit project to improve the experience of everyone who suffers through their existence today - which brings me to the real point of this post.

Where the accessibility can improve a ton is if the ped access from the Everett side of the Mystic got a ton better out to Wellington. 16 is a scary road to walk along. They need, when they replace the river drawbridge, to do real-deal grade separated wide sidewalks. That helps a lot. And it would be nice if there were a high ped overpass at the locks between Gateway Ctr. and Assembly Sq. Because then the Bike to The Sea trail off the Saugus Branch could connect, via the back of the Gateway Ctr., to the Mystic trail network.

Access to Wellington from... well, frankly, anywhere that isn't Station Landing is a mess. The entrance loops are confusing and the off ramps from 16 are anything but obvious. The pedestrian experience is more than just awful on 16 - it's awful trying to get off of 16. Area signage can be best described as "severely lacking" and you'd be hard-pressed to find two worse roads than 16 and 28 in this area. Several improvements need to be made, and badly:

• Exits 30 and 31 on Interstate 93 are a redundant mess, and can both be consolidated/eliminated into a single redesigned exit right in the middle, where 93 passes over 16 today. Alternatively, we could simply elect to shrink Exit 31 down from its present balloon-ish size and shape, and axe Exit 30 altogether.
• I'm not really a fan of roundabouts/rotaries/traffic circles by any other name. I think, unless you have five or more directions of traffic coming into an intersection, a roundabout is an entirely unnecessary and obnoxious example of poor design decisions. In the case of Wellington Circle, there are five or more directions of traffic and so this is one of the only places where I'd consider a rotary appropriate. Not to mention, the rotary would probably consume less space than that whole mess does.
• The Route 16 Overpass of Rivers Edge Drive can be knocked down (or, as the case may be, Rivers Edge Drive can be elevated to the same grade as Route 16 instead), those exit ramps can be eliminated, and a conventional signalized interchange can be put into place there instead. Hell, recycle the signals that Wellington Circle won't be needing anymore!
• And, as long as we're in the area, the entrance/exit roads and kiss and ride at Wellington, not to mention the busways, are all in dire need of an untangling and a more user-friendly rework. I'd personally suggest killing two birds with one stone and building a garage at Wellington, and shaving off the lopsided corners of the parking lots there to open up room for developments to complement Station Landing across the way.
• Seriously, look at Santilli Circle. It's an affront to all that is right and just in the world. Note especially how the Route 16 section of this disaster tries to plow right through the rotary, but still can't help intersecting it... twice. Note also the theoretical 'fifth movement' that would validate a rotary's existence here - it turns out to be a nameless road that exists only to provide access to Kelvin Street, a goal which could just as easily be fulfilled by Route 16 if Route 16 didn't deliberately swing off of its alignment to provide room for that road to exist. A straight, conventional signalized interchange will serve just as well to connect Santilli Highway and Mystic View Road to each other and to Route 16.
• But wait, there's more! A little over 1000 feet away from the first traffic circle, here's another one! At least this one's actually grade separated from Route 16 and has a legitimate reason for its existence, not to mention, the requisite 5+ directions of traffic to justify a roundabout even if you realign 16. I think it can stay - with some major reworking. Certainly, there's no need to have it remain grade separated from a realigned Route 16, nor would there be any reason for Route 16 traffic to cut through the rotary instead of proceeding around it.
• Substandard or non-existent sidewalks appear to be a huge problem on 16 in its entirety - not just the actual bridge. Furthermore, most of 16 can stand to drop a lane or two - as can 28.
• And would it kill us to throw up two or three "ORANGE LINE AT WELLINGTON STATION, TURN HERE, STUPID!" signs around the area? For drivers and pedestrians both.

I'm sure I've forgotten plenty of other issues, considering that I've tried to walk around that area exactly once and been discouraged from ever trying it again - but my point remains that Wellington needs a lot of work before it can be truly accessible to the area. Fixing the bridge issue and calling it a day isn't going to cut it.

 

[cozzyd]

CT4: Airport Station to Kendall Square via Tobin: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216123229876940563866.0004d4039ef632a9d4e1c&msa=0

 

[Shepard]

Pretty good placeholder until they can get the Grand Junction tracks from Kendall to Airport up to rapid transit snuff.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

CT4: Airport Station to Kendall Square via Tobin: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216123229876940563866.0004d4039ef632a9d4e1c&msa=0

Should take it a step further and serve the Airport directly. At the very least, Terminal C, where all Airport buses stop (as opposed to the other terminals where only Silver Line and MassPort buses stop).

Actually, upon further thought, you wouldn't really be able to have that Blue Line connection that way. Unless you made some tangled mess of a round-about route.

 

[cozzyd]

Should take it a step further and serve the Airport directly. At the very least, Terminal C, where all Airport buses stop (as opposed to the other terminals where only Silver Line and MassPort buses stop).

Actually, upon further thought, you wouldn't really be able to have that Blue Line connection that way. Unless you made some tangled mess of a round-about route.

Well, it could go by Maverick, then through Jeffries Point and through the rental car parking lots?