Reasonable Transit Pitches

If memory serves, I think you got it pretty much right. It was about absorbing realistic delays. Here's the report:

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Calt...alifornia+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf

As far as commuter rail frequency studies are concerned, you'll need to ask F-Line. I believe that what he will tell you is that Needham is such a low priority into SS that it will be sqeezed out of existence by NEC service as it is, so higher-frequency service would be a wasted study with any vehicles. The future of Needham is in GL/OL conversion, not enhanced CR.

Thanks for the link! Will definitely take a look.

The idea about Needham service, for what it's worth, is actually partially in response to those concerns about capacity. It's not so much about enhanced CR as it is about redesigned CR.

There are three components to this area of my proposal:

1) Needham Junction to Needham Heights is replaced by an extension of the E Line, running up the Highland Branch to Brookline Village, and then over a new D-E connector to Riverway, going up Huntington into Downtown. According to my information, the travel time from Brookline Village to Park Street and from Riverway to Park Street is identical at 20 minutes; prune out a couple of stops west of Brigham Circle, and you should be good. (I'm thinking of dividing E Line service, with some trains heading out to Needham and others jogging down to Heath.) This addresses capacity concerns in the Central Subway and provides more people with one-seat rides to Longwood Medical Area (and Northeastern).

2) The Orange Line is extended to Roslindale Village, and the bus hub is relocated there as well, drastically reducing the number of buses on Washington Street between those two stations.

3) Service on the remainder of the Needham Line (Needham Junction through Forest Hills) is now covered, regardless of frequency, primarily by DMUs, with push-pulls relegated elsewhere in the system.

Downtown Needham is pretty walkable as is, and would be greatly enhanced by LRT. It's a perfect fit for the highly successful transit village model presently in place on the rest of the D Line.

Some issues arise, though:

1) This model is probably somewhat less friendly for folks looking to commute from Needham into downtown– presumably not as speedy. Hence my desire to maintain some sort of "express" service, geared towards commuters who drive into Needham from Millis, Medfield and the hinterlands of Needham, etc. But is there enough ridership to demand that, in the face of relatively frequent Green Line service? (I'm thinking that my extended E Line would not be as frequent in its outer sections as it currently is on Huntington. Maybe closer to 10-min peak headways. Not sure yet.)

2) Regardless of ridership outside of 128– what about Roslindale and West Roxbury? My plan is geared towards the next ten years; while eventually it might be feasible to extend the Orange Line all the way to West Roxbury, I think it's much more likely (and still a bit of a long shot) to only make it to Roslindale Village in the next decade. So, in the mean time, what to do with those other stops? Is there enough demand to warrant Fairmount-like frequencies, perhaps short-turning at West Roxbury?

Finally, regarding capacity:

  • NEC pressure would be reduced, somewhat, by folding most Franklin Line service into Fairmount runs, contributing to 15-minute headways on that corridor. (Certainly any Foxboro service that comes along will go straight into Fairmount.)
  • Furthermore, some of those Franklin commuter rail trains, some Fairmount Line Indigo-ish trains, and perhaps half of my proposed Needham Indigo-ish trains, would not go into South Station, but would instead swing around the Cove Loop and head back out. This would return some Franklin Line service to Back Bay, and would provide a way to increase frequencies on both the Fairmount and West Roxbury(/Needham) corridors, with the logic that at least some of the ridership on those corridors is not necessarily interested in downtown, but is more interested in moving from one part of the city to another outside of the core (ie. Blue Hill Ave to Newmarket, or West Roxbury to Ruggles). Certainly folks coming from Needham/West Roxbury would be okay, since they can hop on the Orange Line and actually have more flexibility in their final destination downtown. South Station is a little on the periphery of the Financial District, compared to the stops on the Orange Line, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing for them. Fairmount service avoiding South Station has me a little more worried, though.
Doing all this would circumvent the cap that South Station's capacity presently creates on rail service outside of Downtown Boston.
 
3.25 minutes would be for 125mph service, which nothing on the close approach to SS is traveling at.

At lower speeds you should be able to get much, much closer. Probably 2 minutes with fixed blocks, and I believe the RER does ~100 seconds with moving blocks.

Of course all that assumes a single track going in one direction with no crossing over at-grade, or other complications.
 
3.25 minutes would be for 125mph service, which nothing on the close approach to SS is traveling at.

At lower speeds you should be able to get much, much closer. Probably 2 minutes with fixed blocks, and I believe the RER does ~100 seconds with moving blocks.

Of course all that assumes a single track going in one direction with no crossing over at-grade, or other complications.

Yeah, I figured 3.25 minutes would be a much larger cushion than would be needed on the close approaches. 2 minutes, though– that seems nuts. (I believe you, of course, but it still boggles my mind.) Obviously, though, as said earlier, putting buffer time into schedules will prevent 2 minutes from being practical.

And yeah, the assumptions about trackage are taken for granted.

Still plugging away at my proposal. Hopefully will have something post-worthy in about a week.

Anyone have any thoughts on splitting up DMU consists en route?
 
This book says 2 minutes, but I'm pretty sure RER A can approach 90 seconds. At that point, it's dwell time that becomes the problem though. RER is a two track trunk though. An approach to South Station would be far trickier.

Train splitting is done by some Dutch, German lines in operation, and I guess MUNI does it too, but generally the problems are: confusion, coordination of schedules, time spent shunting, increased maintenance on the couplers, and more complicated shuffling of personnel and equipment. The Lake Shore Limited splits and combines in Albany, but it requires a window of hours to accomplish. Because Americans can't run trains for shit.
 
This book says 2 minutes, but I'm pretty sure RER A can approach 90 seconds. At that point, it's dwell time that becomes the problem though. RER is a two track trunk though. An approach to South Station would be far trickier.

Train splitting is done by some Dutch, German lines in operation, and I guess MUNI does it too, but generally the problems are: confusion, coordination of schedules, time spent shunting, increased maintenance on the couplers, and more complicated shuffling of personnel and equipment. The Lake Shore Limited splits and combines in Albany, but it requires a window of hours to accomplish. Because Americans can't run trains for shit.

The Lake Shore Limited is a piece of shit train for reasons above and beyond the general state of American Passenger Rail.

I'd put it in the same category as the Sunset Limited and the Cardinal without a single hint of hyperbole or sarcasm. The damn thing needs to be broken down into three distinct routes (CHI-BUF, BUF-NYP, ALB-BOS) and run more frequently as those three corridor services. It has no reason to exist as the monolith of failure it is today.
 
MA could support a state corridor route, in conjunction with NY, doing ALB-BOS several times a day. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for it, with the renewed interest in Springfield and such.

Funny thing: at the CIP meeting someone stood up and said: "Worcester gets 18 trains per day, how many does Springfield get? Zero!"

I almost felt like saying: hey hey now, it's one... one worthless departure to Boston.
 
MA could support a state corridor route, in conjunction with NY, doing ALB-BOS several times a day. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for it, with the renewed interest in Springfield and such.

Funny thing: at the CIP meeting someone stood up and said: "Worcester gets 18 trains per day, how many does Springfield get? Zero!"

I almost felt like saying: hey hey now, it's one... one worthless departure to Boston.

I'm not so sure a push for ALB-BOS is actually coming before the renewed push for Inland Regionals, but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised here.

On the other note... you could have also reminded him about the six trains Springfield gets to New Haven.
 
Yeah I thought about that but I think the point was access to Boston. But admittedly Springfield should be more interested in Hartford, and they are getting that Knowledge corridor thing all worked up. Sounds nice.
 
Yeah I thought about that but I think the point was access to Boston. But admittedly Springfield should be more interested in Hartford, and they are getting that Knowledge corridor thing all worked up. Sounds nice.

The bus is far superior for BOS-SPG and WOR-SPG...because from WOR to SPG the Masspike's straight and relatively un-congested ROW totally beats almost any upgrade to CSX that you can (reasonably) imagine.

Our train $ are best spent where the roads are inferior for a greater part of the trip. Its probably going to be better and cheaper to keep improving SPG-NYC (double-tracking, 125mph) and make it transit-worth-driving-to for west-Worcesterites.

Worcester, really will do much better having:
1) On its East Side, Fast, easy connections to Acela at South Station
2) On its South Side, Fast east 146 or RIDOT trains to PVD and Acela
3) On its West Side, Fast, frequent service from SPG to NYC.

And SPG needs:
1) Great Knowlege Corridor Service from Vermont to NYC
2) Great bus service to Boston
 
WOR-BOS definitely needs upgrades ... it's much slower than it should be. Some of that is due to Beacon Park, signalling, etc.

SPG-BOS is part of the Inland Regional -- so it's going to need whatever WOR-BOS gets and then some.

Eventually it will be part of ALB-BOS, which can be ramped up over time as conditions improve. I know out west it's much rougher but I don't have any better ideas and it's a key intercity corridor. My understanding is that ALB-BOS will be our second HSR corridor in the distant future.
 
WOR-BOS definitely needs upgrades ... it's much slower than it should be. Some of that is due to Beacon Park, signalling, etc.

SPG-BOS is part of the Inland Regional -- so it's going to need whatever WOR-BOS gets and then some.

Eventually it will be part of ALB-BOS, which can be ramped up over time as conditions improve. I know out west it's much rougher but I don't have any better ideas and it's a key intercity corridor. My understanding is that ALB-BOS will be our second HSR corridor in the distant future.

No, really, this is one of those times when we need to double-down on our winners (and routes already straight and owned by Amtrak or MassDOT). Make existing routes denser and faster, rather than throwing what is easily $300m to $1b at CSX on a route that is too curvy to ever really be HSR.

ALB-BOS is like SPG-BOS only moreso: the pike is a great way to get 60mph service, while the railroad, which is curvy, singletrack, and passenger-hostile SPG-WOR is all that and worse ALB-WOR

If you really need to get ALB-BOS via HSR in the future, lets do it at 220 mph BOS-NYP-ALB rather than at 90 mph via CSX.
 
WOR-BOS definitely needs upgrades ... it's much slower than it should be. Some of that is due to Beacon Park, signalling, etc.

SPG-BOS is part of the Inland Regional -- so it's going to need whatever WOR-BOS gets and then some.

Eventually it will be part of ALB-BOS, which can be ramped up over time as conditions improve. I know out west it's much rougher but I don't have any better ideas and it's a key intercity corridor. My understanding is that ALB-BOS will be our second HSR corridor in the distant future.

No, really, this is one of those times when we need to double-down on our winners (and routes already straight and owned by Amtrak or MassDOT). Make existing routes denser and faster, rather than throwing what is easily $300m to $1b at CSX on a route that is too curvy to ever really be HSR.

ALB-BOS is like SPG-BOS only moreso: the pike is a great way to get 60mph service, while the railroad, which is curvy, singletrack, and passenger-hostile SPG-WOR is all that and worse ALB-WOR

If you really need to get ALB-BOS via HSR in the future, lets do it at 220 mph BOS-NYP-ALB rather than at 90 mph via CSX.

No, really, it is a key intercity corridor. Not on its own merits (because Albany has dropped under 100,000 people), but as a vital component of BOS-TOR (and also several other cities within HSR compete range largely due west of Boston, such as Cleveland) and probably also BOS-MTL because the other options for BOS-MTL are "the exact same problems you have in western MA but in rail-hostile NH instead and devoid of NY's support" or "use upgraded legacy corridors in northern MA and VT to hack it with cheaper but lower-speed Diet HSR (i.e., 'give up')" and there's effectively no chance that NY diverts HSR to Montreal away from its own state capital to better suit the needs of Western MA.

My suggestion remains as it always has been - the Berkshires are incredibly rural and the only thing stopping us from blasting HSR right through there is a "we can't/don't do things like that anymore" attitude - which is an over-generalization of a lot of the back-and-forth I've had over these things here and elsewhere but it all really boils down to that same idea. Other people are free to disagree with me, but I maintain that "carving a new ROW out of the countryside" is always an option at least worth exploring.

I'm convinced that the extensive earth-works you'd need to run through the area are both worth doing and a better ROI than just telling everyone trying to go west "hey, sorry, it was too hard for us to cross the Berkshires... take a bus or an hour+ detour through NYC, those are your options." But, I've always been far more aggressive on what I think we could get done if we made it a real priority.

PS: If you're calling the Pike west of Worcester "straight" - I'd hate to see what you call "curvy." Yikes!
 
the Berkshires are incredibly rural and the only thing stopping us from blasting HSR right through there is a "we can't/don't do things like that anymore" attitude

The Berkshires are mountains. Tall rocky things generally avoided by railroad planners builders across all eras--not just a thing we can't do anymore, but a things that real railroaders avoid if at all possible, then, now, and in the future. France's network is 90%+ non-mountain.

The Masspike and the NY Thruway are both designed for 70mph operation and take advantage of auto's abilities to tolerate vastly steeper grades than trains can. Perhaps curvy to you (and un-flat to railroaders), they nonetheless deliver bus trips to SPG, the Berkshire and ALB (3x nonstops @$54 e/w)*right now* of the sort that you think we need to spend $300m to $1b for ...and for what? To get to Toronto, where Porter Air flies direct from BOS to downtown YTZ in less than 2hrs and for $240 each way nonrefundable (for tomorrow)

Crossing the Berkshires by rail is not a reasonable transit pitch.
 
The Berkshires are mountains. Tall rocky things generally avoided by railroad planners builders across all eras--not just a thing we can't do anymore, but a things that real railroaders avoid if at all possible, then, now, and in the future. France's network is 90%+ non-mountain.

The Masspike and the NY Thruway are both designed for 70mph operation and take advantage of auto's abilities to tolerate vastly steeper grades than trains can. Perhaps curvy to you (and un-flat to railroaders), they nonetheless deliver bus trips to SPG, the Berkshire and ALB (3x nonstops @$54 e/w)*right now* of the sort that you think we need to spend $300m to $1b for ...and for what? To get to Toronto, where Porter Air flies direct from BOS to downtown YTZ in less than 2hrs and for $240 each way nonrefundable (for tomorrow)

Crossing the Berkshires by rail is not a reasonable transit pitch.

It's been done before. We have the technology to carve through mountains - here's an example of us doing exactly that for I-295 in Rhode Island - we just no longer possess the will to do or even try such things.

We immediately throw things like this out as unreasonable. It's not unreasonable. Maybe it's too expensive or too detrimental to the environment or liable to anger too many people for not enough benefit - but it is absolutely reasonable enough to get as far as the EIS and be thrown out then instead of thrown out now as "unreasonable and impossible and not worth consideration".

And yes, lots of flights go between Boston and Toronto every day. Like I said, it's in HSR compete range. The train could absolutely be competitive with flying here and if it succeeded we would be able to free up all those slots spent on short-range flights to YTZ in favor of longer-range flights to, say, YVR.
 
Roads work, in part, because their mountain cuts are shallower and their valley viaducts/berms needn't be as massive because highway vehicles can climb steeper grades. Look for this the next time you're on the pike: the way the road undulates over mountains and down into valleys requires far far less cutting-and-filling than a train route would...in fact the pike is straight compared to the railroads and is crossing things that might have to go all the way to tunnels-and-bridges rather than just cut-and-berm if you wanted to follow the same route.

And yes, lots of flights go between Boston and Toronto every day. Like I said, it's in HSR compete range. The train could absolutely be competitive with flying here and if it succeeded we would be able to free up all those slots spent on short-range flights to YTZ in favor of longer-range flights to, say, YVR.

Toronto is adequately served from BOS, but is not the market jamming up Logan. If the "payback" for a rail investment is to be freeing up Logan, every dollar you could identify would be better spent on the NEC (South Station Expansion, Acela II rolling stock, etc), and if Massachusetts still has an appetite for rail after that, the next $-to-move-people are best spent on the Knowledge Corridor...running in a valley, not punching through a mountain range. And after that, probably WOR-PVD via the blackstone, and Pittsfield-NYC via the Housatonic....flat routes where a river has already done the cutting, not the taxpayer.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect it any time soon, and it may not ever reach true HSR speeds through the Berkshires, but it will probably be corridor #2 some day. NYS is planning on making ALB a key junction in their state's HSR network, so if that ever comes to fruition then MA will be very motivated to get something through to there.
 
It comes down to this; it's not that there's not a market, but there will never be a time that the outrageous amount of money it would cost to build a straight rail line WOR-ALB wouldn't be better spent somewhere else. Ever. A cross-sound railroad, extending the Acella to Portland, or even Montreal makes a million times more sense than this. Almost any pie-in-the-sky railroad pitch would have a better return on investment.

Its like south coast rail x10,000.


Upgrade and double track the existing B&A, and superelevate the curves as much as possible on a freight route. Get it up to a reliable 79mph. That's the best it needs. Go for high speed NYC-ALB-CHI. The Lake shore limited could still split at ALB, with a slower diesel leg to BOS and the high speed leg to NYC.
 
Toronto is adequately served from BOS, but is not the market jamming up Logan. If the "payback" for a rail investment is to be freeing up Logan, every dollar you could identify would be better spent on the NEC (South Station Expansion, Acela II rolling stock, etc), and if Massachusetts still has an appetite for rail after that, the next $-to-move-people are best spent on the Knowledge Corridor...running in a valley, not punching through a mountain range. And after that, probably WOR-PVD via the blackstone, and Pittsfield-NYC via the Housatonic....flat routes where a river has already done the cutting, not the taxpayer.

It's not just Toronto. Toronto's the big one - but it's also Cleveland, Montreal, Niagara Falls, Quebec City.

And the intangibles of a complete network without any missing links (like a gaping hole in western MA) cannot be understated.

I don't expect it any time soon, and it may not ever reach true HSR speeds through the Berkshires, but it will probably be corridor #2 some day. NYS is planning on making ALB a key junction in their state's HSR network, so if that ever comes to fruition then MA will be very motivated to get something through to there.

Exactly.

This isn't even close to an either-or conversation. BOS-NYP on full HSR is coming decades before we have to seriously contemplate how or if we're going to punch through SPG-ALB.

And maybe (probably) we can't do 220 through the Berkshires. We can definitely do better than 90, better than what's there today.

It comes down to this; it's not that there's not a market, but there will never be a time that the outrageous amount of money it would cost to build a straight rail line WOR-ALB wouldn't be better spent somewhere else. Ever. A cross-sound railroad, extending the Acella to Portland, or even Montreal makes a million times more sense than this. Almost any pie-in-the-sky railroad pitch would have a better return on investment.

Its like south coast rail x10,000.


Upgrade and double track the existing B&A, and superelevate the curves as much as possible on a freight route. Get it up to a reliable 79mph. That's the best it needs. Go for high speed NYC-ALB-CHI. The Lake shore limited could still split at ALB, with a slower diesel leg to BOS and the high speed leg to NYC.

This is the best possible extension of high-speed rail between Boston and Montreal.

It's the best by default (being the least-bad option amongst a field of bad options) - but it is the best.

Personally, I'd be so much happier if the best option was through NH instead. Unfortunately, it's not.

Splitting the Lake Shore Limited at Albany is the punchline to a very bad joke being played on everyone riding that ridiculous train and that's with both branches being low-speed diesel runs. If we can't upgrade ALB-SPG to at least 125, there should be no "splitting" of the train to Chicago. The Boston leg should be canceled. (Actually, the Boston leg should be canceled anyway. Keep the service as the Berkshires Limited, but run it totally disjointed from the Lake Shore Limited. Do this immediately.)

And that's assuming you can overcome NYP-ALB-CHI still being a full 900+ miles, which... you can't, not really. That run is totally outmoded by air travel and nothing short of mag lev is going to overcome that. It needs to be broken in half.

Well, fortunately, BUF is a logical terminal for Lake Shore West and Lake Shore East. If not BUF, then CLE.

Also, there's no way this is a worse idea than the freaking Sunnel of all things.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what will ultimately be possible in the Berkshires, but incremental upgrades will be the way. So what if that means many years of slower running in the mountains? Today we have the NEC which has to slow down to 60-80 mph between NYP and New Haven. It's still pretty successful, even though it could be much better. Maybe the B&A through the Berkshires will never be faster than 80 mph, but that is okay if the connections are made on either side.
 
Also, there's no way this is a worse idea than the freaking Sunnel of all things.

It depends on what "this" is.

Getting WOR-SPG a little bit faster so that Inland Routes can get to NYP, that's a decent idea (and is why it was on the Governor's wish-list).

But you'll note that what Patrick offered Pittsfield and the Berkshires was access to NYP...a bigger, closer, more valuable prize for them than getting by rail to Boston or Albany.

Getting SPG-PIT-ALB faster so that Bostonians can take HSR to BUF, CLE and Toronto is, well too remote. Just not enough travel $ pent up along the line.

A tunnel under Long Island Sound (the Sunnel) would actually tie together two regions that have a the densities and habits that would actually generate a payback on the investment--it would get heavily used. BOS-NYC is one of the highest-fare rail markets in the world and a very high airfare. Its a *huge* overpriced pent-up market that the Sunnel would actually tap.

Build a Sunnel and you've tied BOS to NYP--probably at 160mph to 220mph. Big payback. You can see the size of this market it the total number of seats that go by rail and air today--right now,

Build a trans-berkshire line and you've tied WOR to ALB. No prizes for that. Bus and Air work well enough BOS-SPG-Pittsfield-ALB, are reasonably priced and, at that, do not attract a whole lot of patronage.
 

Back
Top