Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Commuting Boston Student]

BRT running from Wonderland to Wellington down Route 16, through Chelsea and Everett. Route 16 is wide enough in most places along this stretch for true BRT. Busway, barrier, two lanes of traffic, barrier, two lanes of traffic, barrier, busway. This appears possible along most of that stretch.

No, BRT is never reasonable - especially not when you're talking about sinking investment into separating out the bus traffic.

Improve bus service, sure. Calm the road, sure. But the minute you start talking about "true BRT" you've gone off the deep end.

If the money's there, and the corridor justifies it, we should be talking light rail. Otherwise, improve the bus service. Stop drinking the BRT kool-aid.

 

[bigeman312]

No, BRT is never reasonable - especially not when you're talking about sinking investment into separating out the bus traffic.

Improve bus service, sure. Calm the road, sure. But the minute you start talking about "true BRT" you've gone off the deep end.

If the money's there, and the corridor justifies it, we should be talking light rail. Otherwise, improve the bus service. Stop drinking the BRT kool-aid.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf

Average cost per mile of LRT: $34.79m. Average cost per mile of busways: $13.49m.

You say "if the money's there" as if the money is equal, and wage some BS war against any bus investment. That's silly.

 

[Matthew]

No, there are cases where BRT is reasonable. Just not as many as BRT-fanatics would like.

Basically, BRT is better when you can reuse existing infrastructure. If you can take space on roads and bridges that already exist, it's a cheaper way to get started. The other main use case of BRT is so-called "Open BRT", where there is a main trunk of BRT lines which then fan out over a wider area. Much like the trolleys of yesteryear but again, reusing existing road infrastructure for the lower-trafficked portions. The Lincoln Tunnel eXclusive Bus Lane does this very well, though they could use more of it, both in time and space.

The other places where BRT does well have low labor costs, so hiring additional drivers is not as big a deal as it is here.

Constructing and grading a new right-of-way for BRT isn't going to save you much money, if any at all, and you are right, in the long run you're better off with light rail. I think the same goes for reconstructing old railroad rights-of-way, although there may be exceptions.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yuck. 16 is not only congested as hell all the way between 28 and 1A, but also one of the pedestrian-scariest parkways in the entire region. Who would cross the street to get to a bus stop there? There is a very good reason why it's devoid of bus stops and that all routes that use it for even short stretches turn out at the first chance they get and have all their stops on side streets. I'm not even sure how you'd improve it enough to ensure adequate safety. It might look like a corridor on a map, but in reality it's got to be written off as a de facto expressway.

Eastern Route Urban Ring is the permanent transit solution for Chelsea. I know folks want to try to shoehorn stuff that swings closer to downtown, but there just isn't space for any dedicated ROW or bus lanes. Only the usual slate of bus-friendlier streetscaping, signal priority, etc...basic Key Bus Route Improvements type frills that grease the skids a little bit on the existing routes. Even the SL-Chelsea proposal is little more than a rebranded version of a Crosstown bus.

If the goal is getting there fast, the Ring route gets you there fast and the plethora of local bus transfers take you the last half-mile to anywhere you need to go. That's how a real transit line is supposed to work. Boston's kind of gotten its head screwed on wrong in the MBTA era that the only transit worth having is the one that gets you a one-seat to downtown. That's not how this metro area organically works. It's square-to-square travel patterns intersecting the one-seat trunklines, with efficient transfers making it all work. So it really doesn't matter if Ring LRT or (ugh) BRT goes through industrial nothingness. If it hits the transfers super-efficiently and anywhere in Chelsea and Everett is accessible from a transfer stop in under 10 minutes via a well-coordinated bus schedule...it's infinitely more useful than trying to fight a losing cause on a killzone like 16 just because it looks on an overhead map like it's passing through more density.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf

Average cost per mile of LRT: $34.79m. Average cost per mile of busways: $13.49m.

You say "if the money's there" as if the money is equal, and wage some BS war against any bus investment. That's silly.

"Average" is the key word here. The average, in this case, is just the total cost per mile of all busways studied (and the inclusion of the Silver Line means at least 1/2 of one of the busways studied consists of paint on the street, most likely more) divided by the number of busways studied. The actual cost of anything is almost never even close to the "average" cost.

"But wait," you say! "Doesn't that mean that the actual cost could potentially be lower than $13.49m/mile? That's even better!" Well, yes, you're right, but that works both ways. The average cost per mile of LRT is also potentially much lower than $34.79mile, and the cost to operate is also often lower than the equivalent cost of operating buses, further offsetting the "larger" initial investment. The money is, ultimately, equal. It comes down to how many frills and payoffs you have to staple onto the project and how want to slice the investment up in the budget over X period of time.

Furthermore, I'll have you know that I am not waging war against bus investment - I, in fact, encouraged it in the very post you quoted. What I am waging war against is BRT, especially "True BRT," because "True BRT" is the kind of shit that gets CTFastrak and the Silver Line bought and paid for. We need less "True BRT." Full stop.

 

[Matthew]

So if you look at Appendix III and IV you can see the numbers they added up to get the capital cost comparison averages. It's not terribly impressive. They do separate BRT systems into different classes, at least: dedicated lanes, HOV lanes, and mixed traffic. But that's not enough.

For example, Pittsburgh's entire LRT subway is tossed into there. 25.2 miles at (US 2000) $30.95 million/mile. That includes a cut-and-cover mid-80s era subway which zigs and zags from one side of downtown Pittsburgh to the other and four large stations, and then a varied pair of tendrils which reach out into the southern suburbs along old streetcar routes and also some brand new dedicated ROW.

They compare it against things like the 1973 El Monte busway ($11 million/mile) or the 1977 Pittsburgh South busway ($14.73 million/mile). Both of those are fairly effective, but neither of them is a subway.

Side note, in another appendix they also mention the Hartford-New Britain Busway (CTFastTrak) which it projects to cost $100 million for 9 miles, and to be completed in 2003. Fun. It is now projected to cost $569 million for those 9 miles, and may open sometime next year. Sigh.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

What happened to the line which used to run from Middleboro to Myrics Junction (where the FR and NB branches split)? The current line from Middleboro to the FR/NB line meets the line halfway between Myrics and Taunton. The missing line would have made alot more sense for South Coast Rail had it apparently not been obliterated. It would have been a hell of alot cheaper, as well. But then Taunton is left cold.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

What happened to the line which used to run from Middleboro to Myrics Junction (where the FR and NB branches split)? The current line from Middleboro to the FR/NB line meets the line halfway between Myrics and Taunton. The missing line would have made alot more sense for South Coast Rail had it apparently not been obliterated. It would have been a hell of alot cheaper, as well. But then Taunton is left cold.

That was part of the original FR mainline...then was busted down to the Lakeville Branch when the freight got re-routed over the straighter, much better grade-separated M'boro-Taunton jaunt. Been gone since the 30's. And not needed because the Middleboro Secondary is so very quick and straight.

The Old Colony had an utterly insane amount of route redundancy:

Greenbush wrapped around to Kingston. Randolph Branch hit Stoughton as an NEC alternative. Stoughton Branch had TWO forks in Taunton. TWO Fall River branches, one through Freetown one through Somerset. TWO Plymouth Line-to-OC main connections in W. Bridgewater and Bridgewater...plus a later Plymouth-Middleboro one. TWO Dorchester branches (today's Red Line) connecting in a loop through Milton. And yet...they left that half-mile gap in downtown Fall River preventing a direct to New Bedford, and didn't bridge between NB and Fairhaven preventing an E-W direct to the Cape.

Not a very well-run RR. It flopped and had to get absorbed by the NYNH&H because it oversaturated itself. And then ended up being the black sheep division of the NH while they spent 50 years trying to trim all that redundancy.

Unfortunately the more useful of these generally superfluous interconnections were all gone and chewed up decades before the state got its hands on the property to landbank anything. Just an oddball assortment of stub mileage is under any public control now...mostly just to string power lines. Nothing anywhere near complete enough to do anything with save for the Stoughton main. Couple of them like the Framingham Secondary-to-Taunton/NB mainline gap over a few city blocks of Mansfield and the Randolph Branch are probably ones they'd have liked to have back for keeping traffic off the NEC. But the Mansfield leg either requires a Hingham-like tunnel or a re-route hugging 140/495 and the airport to fill that frustratingly small gap. And the Randolph branch is simply gone in 2 crucial spots where housing got build on the ROW. Plus that extra Greenbush flank to Marshfield, Duxbury, and the Plymouth Line is so gone it's not even traceable on a map after crossing the marsh south of Greenbush.

At least all the Cape lines are all 100% intact and fully unencroached. Although Chatham Branch and the mainline to Orleans pre-date landbanking and would be brutally difficult to bring back as 'all-new' construction.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

And yet...they left that half-mile gap in downtown Fall River preventing a direct to New Bedford, and didn't bridge between NB and Fairhaven preventing an E-W direct to the Cape.

This right here, is perhaps the most painful missing link in the entire northeast (barring a Worcester Line/Fitchburg Line connection in Waltham). Had these gaps not existed, we'd likely see the line still intact today. I imagine the NYC Cape Codder would have ran via this route. At the very least, I could imagine a MassDOT/RIDOT venture kicking in right about now, for a Providence to New Bedford commuter line. But alas, the line is long past fixing and filling.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Does anyone (looking at you, F-Line) know the speed on the P&W line from Providence to Worcester? It's 43 miles from Worcester Union Station to Providence Station, based on my Google Maps tracing. Google Directions pins a Worcester to Providence drive at 46 minutes, which means a mere 40MPH average would put the line in direct competition with Rt 146.

It could even stop in the heart of Woonsocket (no parking structures, please!) and be scheduled to meet trains at Worcester and Providence.

The MBTA and P&W seem to be on friendly terms (unlike PanAm and maybe even CSX), and with MassDOT and RIDOT putting money in, I can see this happening. I imagine there wouldn't really be all that much work to do. P&W keeps it's trackage in pretty decent shape, again, completely unlike PanAm.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Does anyone (looking at you, F-Line) know the speed on the P&W line from Providence to Worcester? It's 43 miles from Worcester Union Station to Providence Station, based on my Google Maps tracing. Google Directions pins a Worcester to Providence drive at 46 minutes, which means a mere 40MPH average would put the line in direct competition with Rt 146.

It could even stop in the heart of Woonsocket (no parking structures, please!) and be scheduled to meet trains at Worcester and Providence.

The MBTA and P&W seem to be on friendly terms (unlike PanAm and maybe even CSX), and with MassDOT and RIDOT putting money in, I can see this happening. I imagine there wouldn't really be all that much work to do. P&W keeps it's trackage in pretty decent shape, again, completely unlike PanAm.

RIDOT's study on Woonsocket Commuter Rail suggests 27~38 minutes for Providence - Woonsocket Service, and 47~66 minutes for Woonsocket -Worcester. (Total time could be anywhere from 74 to 104 minutes. Not exactly speedy.)

As far as I'm aware, at least, this is still a priority for RIDOT and is moving forward at least as far as to Woonsocket - and I'd expect those numbers to skew heavily towards the faster times since they seem really bad even for what the P&W line is.

I really doubt that you'll be seeing express runs Providence - Woonsocket - Worcester only any time soon, though.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

RIDOT's study on Woonsocket Commuter Rail suggests 27~38 minutes for Providence - Woonsocket Service, and 47~66 minutes for Woonsocket -Worcester. (Total time could be anywhere from 74 to 104 minutes. Not exactly speedy.)

As far as I'm aware, at least, this is still a priority for RIDOT and is moving forward at least as far as to Woonsocket - and I'd expect those numbers to skew heavily towards the faster times since they seem really bad even for what the P&W line is.

I really doubt that you'll be seeing express runs Providence - Woonsocket - Worcester only any time soon, though.

Use the much more recent RI Interstate CR Feasibility Study from 2009: http://www.growsmartri.com/pdfs/Final Report Intrastate Commuter Rail Report (30-Jun-09).pdf.

That includes the Providence-Woonsocket service studied in more breathtaking technical detail and pitched as service terminating south of Providence that overlaps MBTA and South County CR routes to triple-up service patterns on stations inside of I-295. It's much more fully fleshed-out than the archived study from the mid-90's.

It's cheap, the ridership is good, and proposed service density are good. There's just a lot of project dependency on getting new Pawtucket station built and the Providence-Pawtucket freight tracks and switches upgraded for passenger duty. The $46-73M for the P&W-proper infrastructure and stations out to Woonsocket is of secondary importance to getting the MBTA/RIDOT service area overlap built out to full-spec, but pretty academic once they do.


P&W is 60 MPH passenger today. Same ride quality as the NECR mainline between Palmer-Northfield used (for now) by the Vermonter. Speeds wouldn't change with signals because the curves are shaped by the Blackstone River, but right now there cannot be more than 1 train at a time occupying the entire line between Worcester and Central Falls because of the dark territory. Fine for P&W's needs because they cram all their freight onto 1-2 very large runs per day, but a no-go for commuting and a no-go for P&W if they lose any daylight hours to a commuter slot. Other than the necessary signals to juggle any train meets there's little more to do than fiddely bits like more crossovers for passing sidings and catching up on any maintenance miscellany (worn crossing surfaces, etc). Woonsocket wouldn't require double-tracking or much in the way of additional passing tracks to support a full schedule. That's only necessary when Worcester comes on the table.


Worcester's a whole different universe. That's going to be primarily a MA project. Getting Westerly-Woonsocket strung together puts four-fifths of RI's population within 10 miles of a CR station. That is the be-all/end-all to RIDOT over the next dozen years.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

P&W is 60 MPH passenger today.

The Providence to Worcester route?! As in, if you take all the freights out, and plopped a passenger train on it, it would actually be capable of running 60MPH [at least in some parts]?

I'd think P&W would push for the states to fund adding the second track back to the line.

Also, I think it might be good to add the airport into a Worcester route. Or best yet, I saw this on another forum after some searching, terminate the Providence Line at Providence Station, as it was. Then run the extra stations (including TF Greene) in with Woonsocket and Worcester.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Also, I think it might be good to add the airport into a Worcester route. Or best yet, I saw this on another forum after some searching, terminate the Providence Line at Providence Station, as it was. Then run the extra stations (including TF Greene) in with Woonsocket and Worcester.

I don't think that the Woonsocket Line is ever going to pull down the numbers necessary for better service than 30 peak / 60 off-peak. Maybe I'm being too negative on it, but that's my assessment. Same situation on the South County Line - 30 peak / 60 off-peak is just about the best that we're ever going to have running that way and that's only if the Shore Line East can manage 30 peak / 60 off-peak out to Westerly. The Shore Line East schedule (and in turn, the grade crossings and Thames River bridge) is most likely going to be setting the South County schedule to a point for train meets out to New London.

The Providence Line, however, can easily manage 20 peak or even 15 peak service, and it's not like it doesn't make sense to terminate the Providence Line at the airport - Attleboro and Mansfield air traffic likely skews heavily towards T.F. Green, and it's in Boston/Logan's best interests to send as many short-haul trips as possible out to T.F. Green and Manchester to free up slots in Logan for longer trips. Every flight to, say, Orlando out of Logan is one less slot for non-stops to far-off places like Seattle or London.

So, you have 15 peak / 30 offpeak on the Providence Line, another 30 peak / 60 offpeak service on the Woonsocket Line, 30 peak / 60 offpeak service on the South County Line and now T.F. Green has 8 peak/4 offpeak tph to Providence even before whatever Amtrak service is provided at a premium and the amount of bus service heading out to T.F. Green from Kennedy Plaza.

That's "show up and go" frequency at 1 PM. That's HUGE.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Providence to Worcester route?! As in, if you take all the freights out, and plopped a passenger train on it, it would actually be capable of running 60MPH [at least in some parts]?

I'd think P&W would push for the states to fund adding the second track back to the line.

Also, I think it might be good to add the airport into a Worcester route. Or best yet, I saw this on another forum after some searching, terminate the Providence Line at Providence Station, as it was. Then run the extra stations (including TF Greene) in with Woonsocket and Worcester.

Yes. It's Class 3 track throughout with every public crossing fully gated. So is the P&W New London main. It already does 60 everywhere curves and sightlines physically allow, and their holiday passenger specials do rev up to 60. The only reason passenger trains can't run on it today is because the dark territory offers no give for a meaningful schedule without maiming the freight schedule. Not even a couple rush-hour trips. New London main...yeah, that probably does have some options for weekend excursion service or a casino train + shuttle akin to what NECR's proposing. If the NECR casino train proposal gains any steam you'll probably see P&W get into some sibling rivalry wooing with CTDOT and the Worcester regional MPO with its own proposal.


Worcester Airport is way too far away from any RR lines to get a direct connection. It's 3-1/2 miles from Worcester Union and a congested trip up the WRTA #19 bus. The closest any line physically gets to it is the B&A near the Auburn town line, 2 miles away from the Airport in the middle of a swamp. No physical way to connect it with a rail spur or one of the area highways because it sits 1000 ft. above sea level at the top of a hill with every path blocked solid by dense residential. The access road to Route 9 in the far west of town is the closest anything comes to direct access. Best they're going to do is beefing up the existing Worcester Union bus connections with a full luggage-rack equipped Massport shuttle. Which I wouldn't be surprised is imminent after JetBlue starts serving it in earnest.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't think that the Woonsocket Line is ever going to pull down the numbers necessary for better service than 30 peak / 60 off-peak. Maybe I'm being too negative on it, but that's my assessment. Same situation on the South County Line - 30 peak / 60 off-peak is just about the best that we're ever going to have running that way and that's only if the Shore Line East can manage 30 peak / 60 off-peak out to Westerly. The Shore Line East schedule (and in turn, the grade crossings and Thames River bridge) is most likely going to be setting the South County schedule to a point for train meets out to New London.

The Providence Line, however, can easily manage 20 peak or even 15 peak service, and it's not like it doesn't make sense to terminate the Providence Line at the airport - Attleboro and Mansfield air traffic likely skews heavily towards T.F. Green, and it's in Boston/Logan's best interests to send as many short-haul trips as possible out to T.F. Green and Manchester to free up slots in Logan for longer trips. Every flight to, say, Orlando out of Logan is one less slot for non-stops to far-off places like Seattle or London.

So, you have 15 peak / 30 offpeak on the Providence Line, another 30 peak / 60 offpeak service on the Woonsocket Line, 30 peak / 60 offpeak service on the South County Line and now T.F. Green has 8 peak/4 offpeak tph to Providence even before whatever Amtrak service is provided at a premium and the amount of bus service heading out to T.F. Green from Kennedy Plaza.

That's "show up and go" frequency at 1 PM. That's HUGE.

Yeah...I wouldn't expect more than a rush-hour clustered schedule with big off-peak gaps and minimal 3-car trains doing the Warwick-Woonsocket run. You're essentially talking the Metro North Waterbury or Danbury Branches (well...maybe not Waterbury-desolate) and relief for 146 at the hours it sucks the most. But it's enough for RIDOT and RIPTA to make some decent coin at bare-bones operating cost on well-utilized infrastructure and dense connections, maybe moreso than CTDOT does on its insignificant little Metro North branches. Way, way low barrier of entry and it bulks up the Providence-metro NEC service for all-day utility in the service overlap area.

South County I think will do better once all the additional infill stops are online. Much more transit-accustomed populace with the longstanding Amtrak presence, and there are still people who remember the old Providence-Westerly commuter rail that ended in 1979. They were talking about restoring it barely 10 years after it ended, so those are not ancient memories with how long this thing has been on the hype-and-planning frontburner. But you still are talking SLE-like 3-car consists because the walkup at stations has well-defined ceilings...on either side of the CT/RI border. It's just got a much higher upside to fill in the gaps with a fuller schedule at similar walkup for any schedule slot. But much like SLE these won't be very expensive trains to operate with the meager equipment and staffing demands.

 

[Semass]

New reasonable transit pitch:
Related to Millenium Tower, Congress Street Garage, Nashua St. residences and TD Garden Towers.
MassDOT should establish an infrastructure mitigation and upgrade fund for funds from developers whose projects are dependent on MBTA services. For example, all of the residential and office projects above describe how they will utilize the Orange and Green lines. Those lines scarcely have the capacity for current use. A mitigation fund could be used to purchase new cars and upgrade infrastructure Orange Line or execute other projects that would increase rider capacity.
Requiring a payment based on inputs to the system would help the T construct them. It is one time money appropriate for capital costs.

 

[novitiate]

New reasonable transit pitch:
Related to Millenium Tower, Congress Street Garage, Nashua St. residences and TD Garden Towers.
MassDOT should establish an infrastructure mitigation and upgrade fund for funds from developers whose projects are dependent on MBTA services. For example, all of the residential and office projects above describe how they will utilize the Orange and Green lines. Those lines scarcely have the capacity for current use. A mitigation fund could be used to purchase new cars and upgrade infrastructure Orange Line or execute other projects that would increase rider capacity.
Requiring a payment based on inputs to the system would help the T construct them. It is one time money appropriate for capital costs.

This makes sense, however I am concerned that adding additional costs for developers will make them shy away from transit-oriented development... you don't really want a situation where we encourage suburban-style car-dependent buildings just so the developers can claim they don't need to pay the T.

 

[Matthew]

One of the reasons I'm leery of value capture.

Of course, one counterargument is that developers that build in car-dependent locations also should be paying for the added traffic to the roads around them. And they often do, but in piecemeal fashion. So that would balance out with transit value capture presumably if done right.

If I'm allowed to postulate "if done right" then I suppose the transit value capture would be more attractive than road value capture since transit is much more efficient at moving large numbers of people than private vehicles. Also, upgrades to road capacity should not be allowed unless there is a clear plan of what to do with the added vehicles. E.g. building new highway capacity into the city is pointless without huge parking lots to accommodate all those cars. But we don't want parking lots covering the city, for social and environmental reasons. Ergo, no more highway capacity can be added.

I think one of the main arguments against value capture is that why should the newcomers pay for infrastructure that everyone will benefit from? Shouldn't we just fall back to the usual methods of obtaining revenue and pay for public benefits from the general fund?

 

[Semass]

This makes sense, however I am concerned that adding additional costs for developers will make them shy away from transit-oriented development... you don't really want a situation where we encourage suburban-style car-dependent buildings just so the developers can claim they don't need to pay the T.

We already require developers in the burbs and downtown to mitigate their traffic impacts. We have them re-design poor level-of-service intersections, add or remove curb cuts, add traffic lights or turn lanes etc. This reduces the impact on traffic. They add zip cars or hubway stations as well.
We don't have an effective equivalent for transit impacts. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of money but we need something to mitigate for the additional ridership.