Reasonable Transit Pitches

omaja said:
Very much agreed on all of those, Busses. I'd just add that extending the A all the way to Watertown would be fantastic and not at all unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be great. I figure it would be opened in phases, Brighton Center first, then to Oak Square, then to Watertown. Unfortunately it would have to be cut-and-cover since the MBTA has a moratorium against new traffic running rail (and I can't say that I disagree with that), and there's no way an elevated is going through that corridor. The reason I halted it at Oak Square is due to the mile long stretch between Oak Square and Newton Corner at Pearl St where there's no demand for a station. The fight that NIMBYs on Wash in east Newton would give against their street being torn up would scare off the T. To get it to Watertown you'd need the line already in virtual eyesight in Oak Square and get Watertown to clamor for it. Until they're willing to fight for it over Newton's NIMBYs, it's not going to happen.
 
Where would you bring the elevated back to at-grade? Somewhere before Chestnut Hill Ave?
 
I think that would be necessary to be able to use the street tracks for deadheading?
 
I think that if we want to add more than 1 branch to the Green Line the Central Subway will need to be modernized, and besides signalling, that might possibly include grade-separating Copley junction. Pretty expensive, though.
 
Matthew said:
I think Busses's suggestions are quite reasonable. They've been formally proposed (or operated) in the past, there's existing ROW, and they solve problems.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- here are the suggestions -- lets compare them to your criteria - kinda MytbBusters style:

Blue Line: Red Line transfer at Charles/MGH; Extension to Lynn -- yes both have been proposed ==> reasonable

Orange Line: Extension to Roslindale Village; possibly continue to West Roxbury -- once proposed -- no longer considered seriously ==> unreasonable

Green Line:
Signal Priority; All-door boarding; Stop Consolidation; == reasonable
Extension to Rte 16 via Lowell Line; -- under active consideration == reasonable
Extension to Porter Square via Fitchburg Line; -- certainly possible == reasonable
Restoration of "E" to Forest Hills; -- not going to happen -- street running is being phased out ==> unreasonable
"A" branch to Oak Square; -- not going to happen -- street running is being phased out ==> unreasonable
Branch to Needham Junction via "D" -- once proposed -- no longer considered seriously ==> unreasonable

Indigo: DMU South Station to Westwood -- possible with electrification ==> reasonable

Possibly similar DMU routes to Riverside on Worcester Line and to Cedarwood on Fitchburg Line. -- less likely because of the distances unless there is wholesale electrification of all the CR ==> unreasonable
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I agree it would be great. I figure it would be opened in phases, Brighton Center first, then to Oak Square, then to Watertown. Unfortunately it would have to be cut-and-cover since the MBTA has a moratorium against new traffic running rail (and I can't say that I disagree with that), and there's no way an elevated is going through that corridor. The reason I halted it at Oak Square is due to the mile long stretch between Oak Square and Newton Corner at Pearl St where there's no demand for a station. The fight that NIMBYs on Wash in east Newton would give against their street being torn up would scare off the T. To get it to Watertown you'd need the line already in virtual eyesight in Oak Square and get Watertown to clamor for it. Until they're willing to fight for it over Newton's NIMBYs, it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Buses -- with the exception of the Red/Blue link of a few hundred meters of Charles St -- they are not going to be digging up streets for cut and cover -- either you run in a protected median of a street or you use an existing ROW
 
So what's the point of discussion if we're only talking about things the T has already approved? It's not a pitch if it's already on the docket.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
So what's the point of discussion if we're only talking about things the T has already approved? It's not a pitch if it's already on the docket.
Click to expand...

The point is to do this:

whighlander said:
Mathew -- here are the suggestions -- lets compare them to your criteria - kinda MytbBusters style:

Green Line:
Restoration of "E" to Forest Hills; -- not going to happen -- street running is being phased out ==> unreasonable
"A" branch to Oak Square; -- not going to happen -- street running is being phased out ==> unreasonable
Branch to Needham Junction via "D" -- once proposed -- no longer considered seriously ==> unreasonable

…

Possibly similar DMU routes to Riverside on Worcester Line and to Cedarwood on Fitchburg Line. -- less likely because of the distances unless there is wholesale electrification of all the CR ==> unreasonable
Click to expand...

Whighlander, I agree with your assessment of the Arborway and Oak Square lines; they would require laying new tracks in the streets in neighborhoods where there is not overwhelming support. Not likely unless a bulldog of a politician comes along and rams it through, ignoring the community.

But I disagree with your other assessments. A Needham branch of the Green Line, though not a high priority for the T, would be very reasonable, since the ROW is almost completely (if not completely) intact and there is at least one track laid across nearly the entire length. Depending on the service the T wanted to provide/the service that Needham wanted, they might even be able to get away with not double tracking. There is nothing crazy about this proposal, it's just dependent on the right funding coming at the right time. (For example, the PMT estimated this project would cost $123.9 million to build, compared to $357.6 million for BLX or $470.0 million for what Greenbush was estimated at before building.)

As for your critique about the DMU's, frankly, I'm at a loss; it's 8.83 miles as the crow flies from South Station to Readville, and 10.3 from South Station to Auburndale. The route from North Station to Brandeis/Roberts is less direct, but still clocks in only at 11.22 miles. Do you really think that those extra 2 miles make such a difference that the proposal is rendered unreasonable? Heck, from Government Center to Riverside, the D line goes just as far (farther actually: 11.75 miles), and makes more stops than either of these services would.

Also, don't rule electrification of the Worcester Line out as being unreasonable. Amtrak has their eye on that route for HSR; stranger things have happened.
 
Riverside said:
The point is to do this:



Whighlander, I agree with your assessment of the Arborway and Oak Square lines; they would require laying new tracks in the streets in neighborhoods where there is not overwhelming support. Not likely unless a bulldog of a politician comes along and rams it through, ignoring the community.

But I disagree with your other assessments. A Needham branch of the Green Line, though not a high priority for the T, would be very reasonable, since the ROW is almost completely (if not completely) intact and there is at least one track laid across nearly the entire length. Depending on the service the T wanted to provide/the service that Needham wanted, they might even be able to get away with not double tracking. There is nothing crazy about this proposal, it's just dependent on the right funding coming at the right time. (For example, the PMT estimated this project would cost $123.9 million to build, compared to $357.6 million for BLX or $470.0 million for what Greenbush was estimated at before building.)

As for your critique about the DMU's, frankly, I'm at a loss; it's 8.83 miles as the crow flies from South Station to Readville, and 10.3 from South Station to Auburndale. The route from North Station to Brandeis/Roberts is less direct, but still clocks in only at 11.22 miles. Do you really think that those extra 2 miles make such a difference that the proposal is rendered unreasonable? Heck, from Government Center to Riverside, the D line goes just as far (farther actually: 11.75 miles), and makes more stops than either of these services would.

Also, don't rule electrification of the Worcester Line out as being unreasonable. Amtrak has their eye on that route for HSR; stranger things have happened.
Click to expand...

Rivers --- That's the point of this thread -- reasonable discussion of prioritization, funding options and desireability of things which the community and / or the T has done some preliminaries and which unlike the N/S tunnel are potentially fundable in the next 20 years

I would certainly agree that because of the benefits to more than one entity that electrification of the Worcester route is a "Reasonable" and then depending on the rail usage the DMU options could be likewise
 
datadyne007 said:
I hate to derail this too much into the elevated thread, but I noticed that Comm Ave is pretty similar to the Schönhauser Allee in Berlin that has the U2 running down it. The same lightweight elevated structure would work just fine on Comm Ave:

schoenhauser.jpg
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the pathway they put under the Green Line viaduct at North Point.
 
datadyne007 said:
I just think Riverway's location on that corner is perfect. It's a natural spot for a stop- a major crossroads.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I lived in Brookline Village, I used that stop often, even though I lived on the other side of the D Line. Part of what is really good about the Green Line branching is that the lines have a few convergence points, providing many options for trips that aren't downtown specific. The same issue supports a stop like Beaconsfield, even though it is quite close to the C Line.
 
whighlander said:
What is my definition of reasonable:

1) a lot less digging than the Big Dig
2) adds something which would "complete" the T such as Red/Blue connection; pedestrian connection between DTX and State
3) improves the basic operational effeciency or operational flexibility of the T without increasing the operating expenses significantly
4) goes where the people are living or working and particularly places where the poplulation or employment is rapidly expanding
5) has a reasonable chance of being constructed in the next 20 years -- meaning that planning has already been underway

The rest are by my definition -- Crazy
Click to expand...
I'd say all of BAT's proposal makes this criteria.
 
My issue is with Wigh's #5: "has a reasonable chance of being constructed in the next 20 years -- meaning that planning has already been underway".

Like I already said, how can we restrict ourselves to only talking about projects that are already in the planning stage? Those aren't pitches; they have their own threads in the Transit forum already. We can't define "reasonable" as "what the T has already approved" because this is a PITCH tread, unless this is just going to become "what should the T do first, BLX to Charles/MGH or BLX to Lynn."

As for #1: "1) a lot less digging than the Big Dig" -- Cut & Cover down a street is not more digging than the big dig...

My point was that if we're going to just have self-appointed police in this thread declaring what can and can't be considered "reasonable" discussion will go nowhere because it will just be "I agree that this is reasonable!", "I disagree that it is reasonable!", "Well I disagree with you that it isn't reasonable!" ad infinitum.
 
Anyway, going off of rail improvements... How about articulated trackless trolleys on Washington St? Keep the bus lanes so detachments don't happen often and really beef up transit police enforcement of bus lane squatting. Maybe mount cameras on the busses to be reviewed at the end of the day and send tickets to anyone whose car is standing in the bus lane.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Anyway, going off of rail improvements... How about articulated trackless trolleys on Washington St? Keep the bus lanes so detachments don't happen often and really beef up transit police enforcement of bus lane squatting. Maybe mount cameras on the busses to be reviewed at the end of the day and send tickets to anyone whose car is standing in the bus lane.
Click to expand...

The big question on Washington St. Is whether anything that isn't rail represents an improvement over what is now there. I can't see how TT enhances the route unless SL Phase 3 happens. But if we are going to spend a lot of money, I'd rather see it spent bringing the service to the Tremont St. Subway, meaning an all rail service. The Phase 3 tunnel never made sense to me unless it was something that would bring an existing GL branch to South Station and the SPID.

TT in and of itself provides no enhancement that I can discern.
 
When I mentioned "reasonable" in the other thread, I was thinking: why force new lines on neighborhoods that don't want them? I was also thinking about operational feasibility, e.g. branches, where to turn, overall line shape, connections, etc. And is there a market for transit there?

Of course, opinions will vary on this, and that's fine. For example, proposing restoration of "A" and "E" Arborway service is reasonable in the sense that both existed and operated successfully in the past. It's less reasonable these days because there isn't enough support to bring them back.

I was under the impression that people were warming up on Orange Line to Roslindale (and beyond). The Needham line is already grade separated to that point. It would cannibalize Needham commuter rail, though, which is why people have suggested Needham Green line service instead.
 
HenryAlan said:
The big question on Washington St. Is whether anything that isn't rail represents an improvement over what is now there. I can't see how TT enhances the route unless SL Phase 3 happens. But if we are going to spend a lot of money, I'd rather see it spent bringing the service to the Tremont St. Subway, meaning an all rail service. The Phase 3 tunnel never made sense to me unless it was something that would bring an existing GL branch to South Station and the SPID.

TT in and of itself provides no enhancement that I can discern.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really, except for a quieter ride. What it does do is give a sense of commitment to the community that a free range bus doesn't do. Once the wires are strung there's more of a sense that the service won't go away, and brings you half-way to light rail should there be a future conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top