Reasonable Transit Pitches

Maybe the Congress St bus lanes that have been proposed could be used to have 92 and 93 continue onto 7?
 
Is there a reason why the Fenway stop on the D-Line doesn't have fare gates? Isn't the only access point to that station the parking lot of the Landmark Center (and the stairs down to that parking lot from Park Drive)? Most of the above-ground Green Line stops don't have the same constrained entry and exit that Fenway has. It seems like it would be pretty simple to replace the existing 4-foot fencing with 7-foot fencing and put up a bare-bones little headhouse at that choke point. I bet Samuels would even pay for it...

You get faster boarding and better compliance with prepayment than with on-board payment. Especially if the T isn't going to use the prepayment terminals they set up along the D-Line...

(I originally posted this over in the "General MBTA Discussion Thread", but this seems like a better place for it so I moved it here)
 
JumboBuc said:
Is there a reason why the Fenway stop on the D-Line doesn't have fare gates? Isn't the only access point to that station the parking lot of the Landmark Center (and the stairs down to that parking lot from Park Drive)?
Click to expand...

That's strange. I distinctly remember there being one when going to Red Sox games although admittingly that was a couple years ago.
 
I once saw transit workers set up tape barriers around the station and had everyone tap the handheld charliecard readers to pay in order to handle a game crowd. Though I'm also fairly certain I've seen times when they didn't do this after a game, so maybe it was just and experimental thing or they only do it for some games.

But regardless, putting fare gates at Fenway would have made sense 10 years ago, but with AFC 2.0 and all door boarding at all green line stops fast approaching, if would be a waste now.
 
jklo said:
That's strange. I distinctly remember there being one when going to Red Sox games although admittingly that was a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, it seems they do it only for Fenway events. I have to think that it wouldn’t take long for a real fare gate to pay for itself, given that you’ve got this temporary setup about a quarter of the year.
 
jklo said:
That's strange. I distinctly remember there being one when going to Red Sox games although admittingly that was a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

They put up a temporary fare control system for post Sox games, but it only works with staffing. It's not full gates, so much as two scanning kiosks and staff enforcing compliance. Also usually a couple of more staff with handheld scanners to help move things along faster.
 
Does anyone know why the Orange line doesn't run express trains between Wellington and NS? Can the fleet just not support it? Is this something that could ever be back on the table with the new sets?
 
cadetcarl said:
Does anyone know why the Orange line doesn't run express trains between Wellington and NS? Can the fleet just not support it? Is this something that could ever be back on the table with the new sets?
Click to expand...

There were original plans to do it with the third track, but it was scrapped when it wasn't extended to Reading. I think as it stands now, the MBTA don't really see a need to have express service for that short of a length.
 
I think there are a few thousand passengers every day who'd disagree but that's fair.
 
cadetcarl said:
I think there are a few thousand passengers every day who'd disagree but that's fair.
Click to expand...

What stations would it skip? I've always wondered why they built the extra platforms at EACH STATION. Sullivan, sure, but Community College? What was their express plan in the first place?
 
I think I'm referring to some hybrid of skip-stop or limited service and not a true fixed express, which would require better signboards etc.

If there were enough trains to do this (I'm far from expert here) I'd start skipping stations at Wellington inbound in the morning. Trains frequently come through packed from Malden in the morning, and there are very few people alighting most stops before NS. Most people are trying to get to North Station and points south, so maybe there's a way to pair stations with higher and lower ridership to balance the load on the trains. This is casual estimation by what I can see as a rider, but

Oak Grove - Malden Ctr - CC - NS,
Oak Grove - Wellington - Assembly - NS,
Oak Grove - Wellington - CC - NS
Oak Grove - Malden - Sullivan - NS,
Oak Grove - Wellington - Sullivan - NS

would be more balanced and waste less dwell time so a dozen aggressive people can push on while hundreds more watch in futility. And outbound is all local with maybe an occasional set skipping all possible stops to supply the inbound runs.

This is getting away from a reasonable transit pitch because I have no idea if it makes any transit planning sense and it's a tangled mess to schedule. I'm just trying to think of ways to make sure a train only stops if there's a chance waiting passengers could use it.

Evening peak is much easier:

OL-1 stops at Sullivan - Wellington - Malden - Oak Grove
OL-2 stops at CC - Assembly - Wellington - Malden - Oak Grove

and inbounds are all local.

Sorry to go on a tangent, just musing.
 
So it would really be more of a capacity at each station? I don't think it would be any faster as the expresses would be behind locals anyways (without more cross overs onto the third track for passing/bypassing stations). At least the new fleet should bump capacity on the line by 30-40% which should help alleviate some of this.
 
Considering the tracks would go from 3 to 2 at Community College I feel like the skip stop wouldn't really have that great an impact. What needs to happen is more cars and updated, CBTC signals so more trains can run per hour. What is the tph of the OL now? Like a train every 5 min? That's ridiculous. If you had trains every 2 min at peak you'd be fine.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Considering the tracks would go from 3 to 2 at Community College I feel like the skip stop wouldn't really have that great an impact. What needs to happen is more cars and updated, CBTC signals so more trains can run per hour. What is the tph of the OL now? Like a train every 5 min? That's ridiculous. If you had trains every 2 min at peak you'd be fine.
Click to expand...

I believe, given the current state of the system, you would not find a single day this year where the OL has managed 5 minute headway at peak. You are really lucky to see 7 or 8 minutes.
 
Do we have a good idea of which highway overpasses would be best suited (or rather, in the most need) for diverging diamond interchanges?
 
DominusNovus said:
Do we have a good idea of which highway overpasses would be best suited (or rather, in the most need) for diverging diamond interchanges?
Click to expand...

Well considering that they're only really suited for replacing diamond interchanges, and they aren't a whole lot of diamond interchanges in the Boston area, there's not too many candidates. SE Expressway and Columbia is probably the best candidate. There's also a couple diamond interchanges along rt 9 in Newton and along rt 2 in Arlington.
 
whittle said:
Well considering that they're only really suited for replacing diamond interchanges, and they aren't a whole lot of diamond interchanges in the Boston area, there's not too many candidates. SE Expressway and Columbia is probably the best candidate. There's also a couple diamond interchanges along rt 9 in Newton and along rt 2 in Arlington.
Click to expand...

The exit by Jordans Furniture in reading would be a good spot.

Winter street/Totten pond road in Waltham is another possible spot, though it isin't really a true diamond.

Montvale Ave in Woburn/Stoneham would be another good spot for a diverging diamond.

The Methuen former rotary would have been a great spot for a diverging diamond.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me like there’s plenty of diamond interchanges crossing 128 and further out. Granted, few are in Boston proper.
 
DominusNovus said:
Seems to me like there’s plenty of diamond interchanges crossing 128 and further out. Granted, few are in Boston proper.
Click to expand...
There are ton of rotary intersections where a diverging diamond would fit well. I'm not sure that a diverging diamond is better then a rotary though.
 
DominusNovus said:
Do we have a good idea of which highway overpasses would be best suited (or rather, in the most need) for diverging diamond interchanges?
Click to expand...

You might want to look at some of the discussion on the new and expanded highway thread

I think we might want to focus on places where bicycle paths would be useful, such as I-95/113 where bicycles that have crossed the Merrimack on the new I-95 bridge may want to cross I-95 along 113 to continue to a potential future bicycle path to Byfield (this might have potential to become the East Coast Greenway Border to Boston route given the challenges with crossing the Merrimack on US1 and going through the Burns Wildlife Management Area). The I-95/US1 interchange in Needham might also be a good place to let bicycles cross I-95. And the I-95/2A interchange is also sort of near a bicycle path and might benefit from getting a bicycle path across I-95.

The Highland Ave / I-95 interchange in Needham might also benefit from DDI conversion to free up land for transit oriented development instead of the current large cloverleaf interchange if we get the Green Line out to Needham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top