Reasonable Transit Pitches

Hersey's a poor rapid transit candidate because the wetlands prevent you from building any accompanying TOD on Great Plain Ave. or Greendale Ave. You'll have a parking sink with OK 6:00-9:00am and 4:00-7:00pm ridership...and nothing the rest of the day because the surrounding residential will all be at work/school. Far and away the most dramatic drop-off on the system and a loss leader. For nearly half the extension mileage I don't think that's going to float it. Your would-be Gould/128 stop is going to take disproportionate share of the park-and-ride crowd because there's more stuff to do there (I don't even see how you're getting a Dunkies built near Hersey), and if service levels on the Franklin Line @ Dedham Corporate get surged you'll have P&R's spaced at roughly 1 every 3 exits on that whole quadrant of 128 from Quincy Adams to Riverside: 3 rapid transit, 2 commuter rail. That should be plenty if the 2 commuter rail ones get stiffened up. I'd curtail at West Roxbury, rail-trail between Needham Jct. and VFW Parkway, and wrap the 59 bus from Needham Ctr. down Great Plain Ave. to St. Sebastien's School upon opening of the Green branch to Needham Junction.

Rivermoor might not be necessary, since W. Rox station would work much better if positioned behind the Shaw's 3 blocks west. Traps several more bus routes than the current location at Lagrange. Close enough to bring in the 35, 36, 37 for an orderly loop and to draw in the 52, which does a useful Newton Corner-Newton Centre-W. Rox-Dedham Mall jog...but which misses the W. Rox station node. Plus you've got better TOD with a redev of the Shaw's.



Don't bother extending Green to Alewife if that's as far as you're going. Porter traps the lion's share of Red transfers because of the Red + Green + CR station with common lobby and the 77 upstairs. Alewife is too long a walk between stations, and you sacrifice all ability to go further towards Belmont or Waltham if you deviate off the Fitchburg ROW across Summer Shack into the busway. It's low-return. Put your past-Porter energy into making Watertown a GL branch instead.


No way DMU's run on the H2O Branch. The speeds would be crap, they'd waste too much fuel maintaining a 20-25 MPH crap speed, you'd shoot your chance to eliminate the Fresh Pond Parkway grade crossing, and the environmental protection around the reservoir for running frequent-headway fossil fuel vehicles is going to drive up the cost higher than you want. That's an ideal Green branch out of Porter: electric; steep climbing lets you overpass the parkway; ability to institute some high-value local stops @ Fresh Pond Mall, Huron Ave., Mt. Auburn St., Arlington St. and throttle headways flexibly; ability to do street-running on Arsenal from School St. to H2O Sq. for the early years until you can cobble the grade separated ROW back together through the industrial backlots; pre-existing trolley-equipped carhouse, pre-existing electrical feed with the B Line-to-71 interconnection using the old A Line under-street feeder. Relatively cost-effective as LRT builds go, especially because of the pre-existing carhouse and electrical plant. Those are always pricey items for bringing rapid transit a linear distance into new territory, and you can skip a lot of that electrical and substation cost by only needing to span the existing Red/TT feeder at Porter substation and the existing Green/TT feeder at H2O carhouse...fewer substations and some of the power boosting being able to originate from elsewhere on the system thanks to the trunk interconnections. Decent bang-for-buck to be had there.



Medford Ctr. is not happening. The Medford Branch is G-O-N-E past Amaranth Ave. It was gone before Orange even showed up in the neighborhood. I don't know why this keeps appearing on fantasy maps; you can't so much as trace where it used to go past that first set of backyards with above-ground pools on Gibson St. There will never be anything there except a walking path between Gibson and Middlesex Ave. whenever Pan Am abandons it. There was never any there there.
 
A quick note about Hersey. There actually is a Dunkies located next to it because there is a small set of commercial buildings right on Great Plain Avenue. Moreover, despite the existence of all those parking lots for commuters there is actually a decent amount of walk-ups to the station. More than you would imagine frankly. Admittedly, those walk-up are typical 9-5 commuters but it's interesting how much a walk-up catchment can extend and be used in a burb like Needham.

However, most important point is that the whole golf course that surrounds Hersey and the Needham line right of way in that area is owned by the Town of Needham. It is public land that is periodically leased to the Needham Golf Club which operates the 9 hole golf course. It is a very contentious issue in the town whenever the lease is up for renewal (maybe every 10 years) as many town residents see that land as an unmonetized asset that could be put to a better use in order to better the whole town. Otherwise, that land only benefits the limited number of townspeople who have a golf club membership.

As one can imagine these debates easily devolve into and "us" vs. "them" or "royalist" vs. "republican" dynamic as townspeople decry the use of a public asset by a select few. However, what carries the day is that most people who sit in the middle (i.e. they aren't club members but aren't militantly against the golf course either) often side with the status quo because they can't imagine what else would be there instead. A big public park? A new subdivision? Maybe one or two public buildings and just fallow land? The opponents can't really get a groundswell against the golf course because, even though people recognize that it's a valuable asset of the town that is somewhat wastefully being used, there is no way to rally people to a vision of the alternative that most people agree will be good to the town fiscally and socially.

Rapid transit (orange or green) could change that dynamic by facilitating a unique transit oriented development surrounding the station at the expense of golf club land. The virtues of such a development are many. For example, Needham could experiment with higher density without displacing current single family residents. Also, the land is near 128 as highway access is an important consideration in these suburban TOD development. Finally, there is enough land at the golf course so that any development could still incorporate a lot of open space and could be used as a way of mollifying anti-development. In other words, the town could get it's Olmstead-eqsue park that many of the golf club opponents have advocated for but the town could monetize the land as well so that its sale to developers and new tax base would ultimately represent a net-gain to town coffers that many townspeople think it an important component of any plan to get rid of the golf course.

I'm not saying such an undertaking is likely because well, change is hard and this is Needham- not Cambridge. However, any examination of Hersey should at least bear in mind that its immediate abutter- the golf course- is on town owned land and there is a large and vocal constituency advocating for a higher and better use of that town property. With a grade separate right of way running through the heart of it and land values through the roof in Needham it's not the craziest thing that's been advocated here.

So anyways I hope that provides some scrumptious food for thought.
 
So build to W. Rox and study it later. You don't want to bake half the cost of the extension into an uphill fight to peg the direction of a very unsettled future. Especially when Great Plain Ave. is going to be the least-used P&R station along 128 with much TOD-fatter Highland Ave. being 1 exit up and the Gould stop being right adjacent to that higher-capacity exit with its employment destinations down the street. That stop's going to cannibalize most of Hersey's current P&R patronage out of sheer variety. A built-up Dedham Corporate will do the same if they can weave that disconnected office park together into something more whole. So you either hit a home run with new TOD at Hersey or it becomes a neighborhood stop where nobody's home from 9-5 and the travel orientation of Needham during home hours runs north-south from Needham Jct...not east-west on 135 across all the conservation land into Dedham.

No way, no how do you induce even a second's delay in getting Roslindale and West Roxbury badly needed bona fide rapid transit and a much greater slice of Needham density than Hersey rapid transit service by getting knee-deep in the ambivalence around Hersey. Open the two flanks to W. Rox and Junction, let 'em percolate and pay themselves off for 10 years...then study the +1.

I doubt the picture clears up enough to go for it, but that's just my personal hunch. I could be wrong. You lose nothing making sure you get it right before embarking on 40%+ of the extension's cost. You lose something if hangups on the outskirts defer the needs of neighborhoods in Boston-proper or drive up their service's price tag to unsustainable overruns. Take the sure thing. Take your time on the not-sure thing. Its chances don't necessarily fade if Phase I stops at W. Rox; it makes the price tag for Phase II an easier reach if Needham unites behind a well-planned TOD strategy that makes Hersey a good bet.
 
I think West Springfield is going to need a seasonal train station for the Big E soon. This year average daily attendance is ~75k, and peak days are over 160k. Once NHHS service is up and running it should be feasible to drop pax off on the freight siding behind the parking lot. I suppose Amtrak could do it too, but they would probably charge higher fares.

Cons: Requires crossing busy main access to the fairgrounds busy Memorial Ave at an ungated crossing.
Might not attract many riders if the fare for a family ends up being higher than the ten dollar parking fee.
 
After many years of reading and enjoying this forum, I've got an idea I believe in. I'm posting here because I genuinely think this should be done, but it covers material related to the green line extension, fairmount line, west station and north south rail link. For some credibility I will also say I am a Somerville homeowner near the proposed green line extension.

Here's my pitch: combine the north-south rail link and the green line extension projects, completing the green line extension (and several other extensions, almost all of which area already proposed/being debated) with DMUs running at or near rapid transit headways. A (very) rough map:

indigo_plus.png


Why? The best reason is that I believe this is by far the most cost effective way to dramatically increase rapid transit coverage in the Boston area. Of course everyone knows the north-south connector will cost a lot of money. But many think it's worth the cost even without considering the rapid transit implications. Shell out the money for the connector and the possibilities for DMU rapid transit are nothing short of incredible. The costs are only simple stations and trains and relatively minor infrastructure improvements (compared to building new rapid transit tracks).

Using the already constructed Fairmount line stations as a standard, the costs would be $10-$25 million per station. Based on the MBTA's current plan, 30 DMU units for the fairmount line will cost about $250 million. Even with a conservative estimate, using DMUs on existing commuter rail tracks instead of extending the green line would cost less than $500 million - a sixth of the current proposal. Take the other $2.5 billion and use it on the North-South connector.

Of course it would need to be done right. I'm imagining orange line like frequencies - 6-9 min at rush hour, 12 to 15 max off peak (This would result in trains every 2-3 min through Downtown and 3-4 through Back Bay). Off board fair collection is a must. The most cost effective way to do this would be a proof of purchase approach. And the downtown stations would need to be build with convenient transfers to subway and commuter rail.

Imagine the other benefits:
- All the benefits already identified associated with rail improvements from the north-south connector
- New rapid transit through 3 very dense and very under served cities. (Somerville, Everett/Chelsea/Lynn, Dorchester)
- Dramatic improvements to downtown network - tons of new transfer opportunities and one seat rides from north station or south station. This would alleviate pressure on downtown transfers dramatically more than the proposed red-blue connector would (Still a worthwhile project, but this is way better). Literally every new line would have a one connection transfer to every other rapid transit line.
- Blue line to Lynn? No need. Make it DMU for a 10th of the cost
- While you're on the way to Lynn, add a station at Wynn's casino. No doubt he would pay and all the neighbors would rejoice.
- DMU through Back Bay, Alston, and north Newton to riverside would help green line capacity significantly while hitting the new West station on the way.
- No new track needed to reach west Medford on the green line extension
- If the green line extension is DMU, why not build the connection to Porter right off the bat?
- DMU maintenance and storage yards could be anywhere on the tracks. No need to carve out space in Somerville

Yes, it's a big project. Yes, it will still cost lots of billions of dollars. But the value is unsurpassed. With the north south rail link, it's no exaggeration to say all of these new lines could be completed for less than the current proposed cost of the green line extension. As a taxpayer, I'm much happier paying for this than many of the piecemeal solutions out there.

What do folks think? Anybody know Weld and Dukakis's cell numbers?
 
This really depends on two major, somewhat-related and very slow-moving system changes: 1) NSRL and 2) Real RT on Fairmount

In terms of 1:

I'd love to see RT headways through the NSRL, but I don't think it will have the track capacity as currently envisioned. More knowledgeable people on the board than I could confirm. I'd also like this even more if there were a central Aquarium station for the new RT line - but again, that's very expensive. If RT headways were possible, I do like this Medford routing. Green could perhaps continue the Lechmere - Union Square - Porter - Beyond routing.

2:

Fairmount service may take a really long time to become actual RT. Would require either electric catenary or specialized DMU purchase, the latter of which has been discussed but endlessly postponed. And then integrating the service into Charlie, etc as a full-fledged "subway" service - maybe in my lifetime, maybe not.

So - great idea. Relies on a lot of other difficult things to happen to even be remotely possible.
 
Welcome to the forum pjm836! I like the proposal, but would definitely call it a "crazy transit pitch" haha.

A critique: you could switch which trains through-run to increase one-seat rides. Your through-running routes should resemble lines as much possible: circles and semi-circles don't usually make good transit, as many transfers are needed. Sometimes "ring" routes are necessary, but on your map there is a viable alternative:

  • West Station <-> West Medford
  • Readville <-> Porter

rather than:

  • West Station <-> Porter
  • Readville <-> West Medford

The biggest issue with through-running the way it was proposed on your map is in the (West Station <-> Porter) route. From West Station, Yawkey, and to an lesser degree Back Bay, it is possible to take a bus to Cambridge/Somerville as quickly as your EMU (due to it's circular nature). Therefore, nobody would ride your (West Station <-> Porter) route through the tunnel, but rather to the tunnel from one end or the other, then ending their trip or transferring to a different line.

This is easily solved. There is no better way to get between any neighborhoods served by station pairs on a West Station <-> West Medford line or a Readville <-> Porter line (except maybe South Station <-> Porter, but that's inevitable).
 
pjm836 said:
After many years of reading and enjoying this forum, I've got an idea I believe in. I'm posting here because I genuinely think this should be done, but it covers material related to the green line extension, fairmount line, west station and north south rail link. For some credibility I will also say I am a Somerville homeowner near the proposed green line extension.

Here's my pitch: combine the north-south rail link and the green line extension projects, completing the green line extension (and several other extensions, almost all of which area already proposed/being debated) with DMUs running at or near rapid transit headways. A (very) rough map:

indigo_plus.png


Why? The best reason is that I believe this is by far the most cost effective way to dramatically increase rapid transit coverage in the Boston area. Of course everyone knows the north-south connector will cost a lot of money. But many think it's worth the cost even without considering the rapid transit implications. Shell out the money for the connector and the possibilities for DMU rapid transit are nothing short of incredible. The costs are only simple stations and trains and relatively minor infrastructure improvements (compared to building new rapid transit tracks).

Using the already constructed Fairmount line stations as a standard, the costs would be $10-$25 million per station. Based on the MBTA's current plan, 30 DMU units for the fairmount line will cost about $250 million. Even with a conservative estimate, using DMUs on existing commuter rail tracks instead of extending the green line would cost less than $500 million - a sixth of the current proposal. Take the other $2.5 billion and use it on the North-South connector.

Of course it would need to be done right. I'm imagining orange line like frequencies - 6-9 min at rush hour, 12 to 15 max off peak (This would result in trains every 2-3 min through Downtown and 3-4 through Back Bay). Off board fair collection is a must. The most cost effective way to do this would be a proof of purchase approach. And the downtown stations would need to be build with convenient transfers to subway and commuter rail.
Click to expand...

I think you're severely overestimating the potential of DMU's as some sort of magic cure-all. They aren't rapid-transit vehicles, and no one buys them with that intention. On mainline railways they are performance improvements over diesel push-pulls when there's very close-spaced stops, and *slight* improvements over electric push-pulls. Their operating costs can be considerably lower than either diesel or electric push-pulls above certain frequency thresholds, which is the sweet spot that gets buyers plunking down for them. They can also help seed a future rapid transit line through a 'bridge era' where for technical reasons such as pre-existing freight service it's physically impossible to wire up a would-be light rail line. NJ Transit's RiverLINE will probably end up a real Hudson-Bergen Light Rail type trolley operation at some point in the next 20 years when the last traces of freight dry up, but they don't have that option today and their non-FRA compliant Stadler GTW fleet and jury-rigged time separation ops serves quite nicely as a "use it or lose it" claim to the line that'll eventually bring the real trolleys out through pressure and time.

But no DMU is ever going to beat an EMU. Fossil fuel tanks + fossil fuel engines make the performance difference between a DMU and EMU far bigger than the performance difference between diesel push-pull and DMU. And nothing beats electric for ops cost efficiency at very high service density.

You would never ever ever pick a DMU as a substitute for GLX. They're piggishly overweight and expensive to operate for that kind of very high frequency application, and can't sustain anywhere near the tight train spacing of the Green Line. You simply aren't going to run that service on trains with relatively small fuel tanks that have to get pulled out of line for refueling during the service day, and which have all kinds of per-trip brake check regs to be certified for mixed use on mainline RR's. They hit their efficiency niche running as low as 10-15 min. headways called for with Fairmount. Go much lower than 10 min. and they're simply not good enough better than conventional commuter rail equipment at reversing direction fast to be a drop-in substitute for Red/Blue/Orange or Green equipment sustaining the sort of all-day frequencies you're envisioning.

Neither, for that matter, would traditional mainline EMU's be able to match what Red/Blue/Orange or Green equipment does despite being all-electric. Coexist with an FRA railway, do the mandated FRA brake test at each terminal. Even Europe's mainline railways--the ones we all aspire to be like after we murder the FRA out of existence--don't pick an EMU to do an LRV's or subway car's job when they have a choice in segregating from mainline traffic. There's always extra weight and procedural overhead involved involved with being on a mainline railway amidst heterogeneous equipment types vs. being on a self-contained rapid transit system with homogenous equipment.

Heterogenizing GLX's equipment with mainline rail equipment is not a solution to the ballooning project costs because it ends up adjusting the service levels down to the point where it's going to be a sky-high system outlier on "rapid transit" per-trip operating costs, all while not being able to meet the service level commitments made to Somerville. That not only won't fly politically, but it's inferior operating practice once you start applying operating costs to those kinds of proposed headways. It's already been suggested to them as a GLX stopgap or substitute several times, and was shot down because it would shirk the service levels Somerville needs and wouldn't defray nearly enough cost for the project change.

It would be different if you were running this as a blended, multi-branch network with different branchline ends feeding into a mainline and the area of mainline overlap sustaining those frequencies. But unfortunately here that's only 3 stops in the NSRL-proper where it would intermix with other pooled Indigo routes: North Station, Aquarium, South Station. To Readville and to Medford it's a single schedule only.

Pick the right tool for the job, and beware the allure of the theoretical "universal solvent". Remember when BRT was oversold as the mode to end all modes...where we wouldn't need subways anymore because some perfectly laid-out system in Bogota was "like a train on rubber tires"? How'd that hype end up working out writ-large? Mixed bag punctuated by minor successes and couple of ghastly boondoggles from the cities who bought the hype like it was religion? I know we're talking a somewhat smaller range of results in a rail vs. rail comparison, but the point still stands: pick the right tool for the job. Don't send a mainline railway xMU to do an tram's or metro's job if the service characteristics strongly point to a tram or metro being mode of choice, and if you have any choice in the matter on running separate from a mainline railway. Otherwise, you are setting yourself up for the RR vs. subway equivalent of "But I was told it was going to be like a train on rubber tires!" buyer's remorse.


You have that choice of equipment on GLX on the 4-track Lowell Line ROW. You don't, unfortunately, on 2-track Fairmount which has to coexist with all-day freight at Readville and all-day passenger RR equipment at Southampton/Widett and South Station with no other places to divert that traffic. Hence, DMU's (and later EMU's) are the best it's going to get down there. Avoid trying to shotgun-marriage the two under one mode because that limits GLX so much more than it helps Fairmount. Fairmount has the flexibility to pair up with any northside short-turn as its better half when NSRL is built. GLX can only be forever capped in its growth if it's shackled to a mainline RR instead of a rapid transit line.


Imagine the other benefits:
- All the benefits already identified associated with rail improvements from the north-south connector
- New rapid transit through 3 very dense and very under served cities. (Somerville, Everett/Chelsea/Lynn, Dorchester)
- Dramatic improvements to downtown network - tons of new transfer opportunities and one seat rides from north station or south station. This would alleviate pressure on downtown transfers dramatically more than the proposed red-blue connector would (Still a worthwhile project, but this is way better). Literally every new line would have a one connection transfer to every other rapid transit line.
Click to expand...
Nope. NOTHING reduces downtown congestion like Red-Blue. Not even NSRL. Red-Blue is what most alleviates Park St. and DTX from choking on their own platform dwell time congestion to all of Red/Orange/Green's peril. Anything that dumps more traffic into downtown in general and the South Station area in particular increases the urgency to do Red-Blue @ Charles MGH.
- Blue line to Lynn? No need. Make it DMU for a 10th of the cost
Click to expand...
Every bus out of Lynn...and every bus out of the entire North Shore, because they all go to Lynn...proceeds on to either Blue @ Wonderland or down 1A to Haymarket or South Station-via-Logan. There aren't any buses linking Lynn, Chelsea, and Everett; all of those terminate at Wonderland or one of the other outer Blue stops.

There is a need for an Indigo route out here, for sure. But probably more for the sake of short-circuiting a few overly long bus trips well north of Lynn (Marblehead, Peabody, etc.) and for providing some sort of frequent connection between Lynn and Chelsea/Everett to rectify that zero-bus situation. 8 buses duplicate each other between Lynn and Wonderland; they're hard-wired on a Blue--and only Blue--trajectory. There is no replacement route; they aren't locally going where the Eastern Route goes.

- DMU through Back Bay, Alston, and north Newton to riverside would help green line capacity significantly while hitting the new West station on the way.
Click to expand...
Yes. And in this case it's just like Fairmount...it HAS to be on a mainline railway, because Tracks 3 & 4 got gobbled by the Pike 50 years ago leaving you with no pure rapid transit choice. Fairmount and Riverside are the two routes where you absolutely need to go xMU to the fullest extent possible.
- No new track needed to reach west Medford on the green line extension
Click to expand...
...but you are building a very, very expensive grade separation of West Med to eliminate the grade crossings if you intend on amping service levels to that extreme. You build this grade separation whether it's 2 Green x 2 Lowell tracks or just 2 Lowell tracks. Mode choice has nothing to do with it.
- If the green line extension is DMU, why not build the connection to Porter right off the bat?
- DMU maintenance and storage yards could be anywhere on the tracks. No need to carve out space in Somerville
Click to expand...
Where do you think commuter trains get serviced and stored? Somerville!...right next to where they're building GLX. If you intend to substitute DMU's for both GLX branches, Boston Engine Terminal is where they'll be serviced. And to run enough DMU's to substitute a full rapid transit schedule, and handle their associated fueling needs and whatnot, you're going to need to build a rather large annex onto BET to handle it. Say...about the same size as that GLX yard.

The equipment takes up the same physical space either way. The only thing NSRL helps with is being able to build a couple more augmenting facilities out in the 'burbs at places like Anderson/Woburn and convert enough of the fleet to all-electric that you stuff those EMU's by the hundreds under a Widett Circle deck-over out of sight/smell/sound of the citizens of "Midtown" living/working upstairs. But storage needs...um...they kind of directly correlate with the number of trains you run. Run anywhere.
 
I interpreted his proposal as EMUs. I assumed that's what he meant and accidentally typed DMU. It makes more sense that way, especially with the NSRL and short distances on lines that would be easy to electrify.
 
bigeman312 said:
I interpreted his proposal as EMUs. I assumed that's what he meant and accidentally typed DMU. It makes more sense that way, especially with the NSRL and short distances on lines that would be easy to electrify.
Click to expand...

But most of F-Line's critiques apply to EMUs as well. And EMUs wouldn't necessarily introduce the cost-savings that the plan assumes because of the costs of electrification. DMUs are a non-starter for through-running, because no diesel train will ever go through the NSRL.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
But most of F-Line's critiques apply to EMUs as well. And EMUs wouldn't necessarily introduce the cost-savings that the plan assumes because of the costs of electrification. DMUs are a non-starter for through-running, because no diesel train will ever go through the NSRL.
Click to expand...

I probably got about two-thirds of the way through the reply before that dawned on me and I started using the catch-all "xMU" terminology. Probably should've done a clean edit on the whole post so that was more clear. But, yeah, the main sticking point is re: sending a mainline railway to do a rapid transit line's job with comparably-speaking "lard-ass" rolling stock that's going to have inherently too-high operating costs and too much or a hurry-up at changing ends to comfortably deliver the same headways as a Green or Orange. And that's not Made in the U.S.A. by the F.R.A.™ lard-assedness. Worldwide they shy away from sending an EMU to do a tram's or metro's job because their much lighter mainline stock is still comparably too lard-ass to be the most efficient choice for meeting the service goals. It's something you do on lines mid-transition like the London Overground that are cobbled together from former pieces of subway and former pieces of mainline rail and need many generations to settle out and complete the evolution. And it's something you do where full rapid transit isn't an option, like the Worcester and Fairmount Lines or London Crossrail, which was cobbled together from AND still has to permanently intermix with mainline rail on portions of its route.

Urban transit is a big tent encompassing many modes. There's no such thing as the 'killer app' mode to end all modes. Pick the right tool for the job and the mode that delivers the best 50-year value for the operating cost. On GLX that's a rapid transit branch off one of the existing color lines, Green the most readily available. On Fairmount it's going to be xMU's because of the unavoidable mainline traffic. On some other line it could be something else. On some other line it could even be a transitional mode like that RiverLINE example where DMU's masquerade as de facto LRV's to lay claim for real LRV's when the freight goes away.

As long as the choice serves the highest-upside demand, meets the service goals at best bang-for-buck for meeting all the service goals, and doesn't twist itself into a pretzel for overly speculative extracurricular (such as 'everywhere to everywhere' routings when one demand pair towers above all others)...it's all good.
 
I've often wondered about extending the redline from Ashmont to Mattapan station, I've heard F-line mention it on here before as a potential project. It seems to me it would fall under reasonable transit pitches, as from what I can tell, there wouldn't be that much to it. Certainly not high on the need list, but from a low-hanging fruit perspective, this seems like on of the more straightforward projects. The ROW is already there, its only 2.5 miles, some station upgrades to a couple of them would be needed. Central Ave would obviously need to be grade separated, along with Capen St., and perhaps there is possibility of eliminating some stations altogether, such as Valley Rd.

From a longer term perspective, it could be extended from Mattapan to Readville or Fairmount. My question is, would it be worth it? With so many other projects that have greater benefits and fill more dire needs, where would the cost aspect (low hanging fruit) balance against the need? Could this be done for under $100 mil? Which is a lot of money, don't get me wrong, but relative to our other transit projects seems like pennies. I've never ridden the Mattapan trolley line, but I question how much benefit this project would really add. Would more Redline trains need to be purchased for this? Would neighborhoods be for or against this? Would sound barriers need to be erected along the whole line? I'm guessing redline trains are significantly noisier than the trolleys.

Does anyone have more info on this potential project they could add to this thread? I'm not sure if this has ever been studied on any level, i couldn't find much of any info on it
 
It's not worthwhile just to get to Mattapan; what gains you get from a direct connection are offset by the loss of stops. Where it is potentially worth it, as F-Line has discussed, is to then hop over to the Fairmount Line ROW to get to Readville (and from there perhaps Dedham).
 
Deetroyt said:
I've often wondered about extending the redline from Ashmont to Mattapan station, I've heard F-line mention it on here before as a potential project. It seems to me it would fall under reasonable transit pitches, as from what I can tell, there wouldn't be that much to it. Certainly not high on the need list, but from a low-hanging fruit perspective, this seems like on of the more straightforward projects. The ROW is already there, its only 2.5 miles, some station upgrades to a couple of them would be needed. Central Ave would obviously need to be grade separated, along with Capen St., and perhaps there is possibility of eliminating some stations altogether, such as Valley Rd.

From a longer term perspective, it could be extended from Mattapan to Readville or Fairmount. My question is, would it be worth it? With so many other projects that have greater benefits and fill more dire needs, where would the cost aspect (low hanging fruit) balance against the need? Could this be done for under $100 mil? Which is a lot of money, don't get me wrong, but relative to our other transit projects seems like pennies. I've never ridden the Mattapan trolley line, but I question how much benefit this project would really add. Would more Redline trains need to be purchased for this? Would neighborhoods be for or against this? Would sound barriers need to be erected along the whole line? I'm guessing redline trains are significantly noisier than the trolleys.

Does anyone have more info on this potential project they could add to this thread? I'm not sure if this has ever been studied on any level, i couldn't find much of any info on it
Click to expand...

It's long been desired by City of Boston, but Milton is vehemently against because they like their little boutique stations. There's not much of a push to do it today because so many other transit priorities trump it and its future is secure with recent infrastructure and ADA upgrades to run on some exiled LRV's once they can no longer justify keeping the PCC's.


Eventually it really does need to be done. Mattapan's too large a neighborhood, and despite having pretty decent options it's a very hungry place for more frequencies. They need Fairmount, they need better frequencies to downtown and other parts of Dorchester, and they need a better 28 bus (but probably aren't going to get that one because of what a disaster the 28X BRT proposal was). Mattapan's operationally awkward being a trolley outpost, and it survived a couple death scares when everyone was drinking the BRT kool-aid in the 90's. It's not an if, but a when they convert it. But since Mattapan's a largely forgotten neighborhood with not a lot of City Hall power going to bat for it, its transit is in a perpetual stasis. Look how long it's taken (so far...open-endedly) to get Blue Hill Ave. station on Fairmount going. A mayor who goes to bat for it could probably get some traction for the extension as low-hanging fruit, and overpower some of the chintzy Milton objections where prior City Hall regimes have just folded.

It really depends on how much value they put on enhancing outer residential neighborhood transit. Right now we're still locked in a downtown downtown downtown mentality and the Seaport. With good reason, because that's where the congestion and lack of radial transit is dragging the system down and where the biggest backlog of stuck megaprojects lay. But the city's transit needs are more than single-minded single-tasking are going to solve. And that's where a little advocacy for low-hanging fruit as cost-controlled share of the pie comes in. Stuff like:

-- E to Hyde Square
-- Orange +1 to Roslindale Square alongside the Needham Line to clean up the traffic-clogged glut of duplicating bus routes on Washington St. out of Forest Hills
-- D-to-E surface connector to bolster Huntington Ave. headways while keeping South Huntington comparably lighter
-- Harvard Ave. short-turns on the B, if the state relents on its refusal to move the B reservation to the center of reconstructed Comm Ave. and can make space available for a Blandford-style turnback track
-- Red conversion to Mattapan



On technical level, this is all it would take to do:

  • Grade separations of Central Ave. and Capen St. with 2-track rail overpasses.

  • Security fencing where ROW is currently accessible.

  • Demolition of station structures at Cedar Grove, Butler, Central Ave., Valley Rd., Capen St. Demolition of Ashmont trolley loop.

  • Replacement of all track, since the old crud that's OK for the trolleys is a little rickety for HRT.

  • Very minor reconfiguration of the switches to Codman Yard at Ashmont. General alignment already angles straight ahead from the platforms, so it's a matter of cleaning the turnouts off the mainline and installing a turnout from the south for trains deadheading to/from Mattapan to get in the yard. Yard should not need any expansion to handle the extension , but it does have lots of unused space inside the loop.

  • Power source is identical voltage, just wired to 3rd rail instead of overhead. Ashmont Branch power draw will be upgraded for the new Red cars. Since the branch schedule doesn't increase at all other than maybe a spacer trainset or two to balance the train spacing for the longer run, pre-existing power draw should be adequate.

  • Reconstruction of Milton station underneath the Adams St./Eliot St. overpass as a full fare-controlled outdoor station. Egresses onto the Riverwalk, enhanced all-around connectivity via the Riverwalk around the block, busway + kiss-and-ride, and loopage of the Central Ave. routes into the station with busway positioned for least inconvenience on the ~1 block diverison. Keep it cost-controlled! Squat profile with no new glass edifices, and no parking.

  • Cost-controlled semi-reconstruction of Mattapan station, recycling as much of the existing structures as possible. Easiest way to approach is:
    • Retain the current side platform as a bus waiting area, fenced off on track side. Retain headhouse as-is as main entrance.
    • Take current small island platform and extend both directions to 6-car Red Length.
    • Take the west half of the trolley loops and wrap the headhouse around it, creating a lobby and direct walkway onto the island platform. This side is the only egress.
    • Drop the trackbed into a cut, tracks end at bumper posts at end of platform. By doing that and keeping the platform at-grade with ground level, you achieve full ADA without needing to build a single ramp.
    • Repurpose the track on the (now fenced-off) side platform as a pocket storage track. Set the crossovers so an empty train can pull out of the platform beyond the station, then back up onto the pocket.
    • Do a matching pocket track on the other side of the island, where the bus loop currently is, in same configuration.
    • Pockets will be seldom-used because Codman Yard at Ashmont is still the branch's primary yard, but they're useful for pulling something out of service and waiting for an empty slot to deadhead to Codman.
^^It is critical for cost control to recycle as much of the Mattapan station structures as possible. This does a fairly effective job of that by not laying a finger on the existing headhouse or side platform, just changing that platform over to bus and building that annex off the headhouse to serve the new platform.

​
  • Demolish Mattapan Yard. Repurpose for other means (bus, redevelopment, other T in-house maint purposes).




That's how to do it cost-controlled. If/when you ever decide to keep going and try to find a way to extend the line to bolt it 2 x 2 to the Fairmount Line, you'll have to reconfigure Mattapan station for the ultimate trajectory. If it's an overpass and snaking alongside Brush Hill Rd., you'd have to rebuild it as semi-elevated. If it's a short subway under Cummins Hwy, then a cut. But you don't know today if that's ever going to happen or which way it'll get built, so recycling every piece of Mattapan station now keeps you from wasting duplicate efforts if the future calls for something else. That's the value proposition for keeping it miserly.



I don't know how much this would cost...because no cost projections are ever reliable unless you know what type of bid process is used and whether it's as flawed as GLX's. But given that this is almost entirely a recycle job, if you can just keep the station costs from sailing (especially at Mattapan) and add no new parking as part of the build I would guess this comes in at well under $200M. Actually, there's probably something wrong if it exceeds $175M. Given availability of fed grants and ability to pitch this as a partial state-of-repair/modernization project would probably bring down the state's cost a lot...to the low $100's M for a likely tripling of the ridership on the corridor.

Don't forget...they just finished blowing $32M for a parking garage in Salem, $35M for a parking garage at Beverly, and $35M in remodeling Ashmont station in one of the most mis-managed, late, and over-budget station modernization projects inside Boston in recent memory. In any given 5-year fiscal period they waste more than the total cost of this conversion on unnecessary parking oversupply and mismanaged station renovations. If the discipline is there, you can start thinking of chipping away at that shortlist of low-hanging fruit, purely neighborhood-oriented rapid transit expansion/enhancement while still pursuing the big downtown megaprojects with gusto. It's a portfolio they need to build, not one single-task project at a time sucking up all the bandwidth. The bandwidth gets sucked up into single-tasking mentality because there are too many leaks in the contracting and procurement processes preventing much in the way of judicious multitasking.
 
Last edited:
This lovely map:
http://doucettmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=b34dac64d3754094a018467d818fc1ee

Suggests a couple of reasonable things:
1) Get the Indigo Line frequent enough to plausibly appear on this map
2) Get the Silver Branches "serious" enough to appear on this map
3) Orange Line needs infill on post-industrial parcels south of Medford St in the River's Edge (the "hard walk" red should never touch a rapid line)

And when it comes time to do NSRL, getting one of the Red Line branches get over to Boston Medical Center and to enter downtown via Albany St ...and leave via Charlestown/Chelsea & terminate at US1/MA60 Rotary.
 
Great find. I somewhat dispute #2... I actually don't think that BRT in any form would ever, in the public's perception, be included on a psychological map of subway service.

A few other nuggets I'd add to your list:

- Pope's Hill infill on the Red Line
- OLX Roslindale would truly open up a large new catchment area
- RT along the Worcester line, if ever possible, would broach a lot of new unserved territory
- RT on the eastern route through Everett and Chelsea would be a game changer

Not sure I get your NSRL proposal.
 
There's also the potential Neponset infill stop where the swath of red touches the Red Line.
 
On NSRL (which I realize is a stretch for "Reasonable" pitches), we've discussed using 2 of the 4 NSRL tracks to add give one of todays southern branches of the Red its own new tunnel through the core. (We've called it "Red X" instead of today's "Red Y" (inverted Y)

Let's say the future Red is purely Ashmont-Alewife The question is where does the other Braintree-???? terminate once it "emerges" at the North Station end of the NSRL? I nominated Charlestown-Chelsea based on the walk map.

The other question is where do the southern Red Lines cross/diverge and where/how does the new alignment *enter* the NSRL from the south? based on the map, I'd put the crossing at JFK and have new Red follow northwest along Mass Ave (ish) before a station and turn to the northeast near Boston Medical Center, and enter the NSRL roughly on alignment with Albany St.
 
Arlington said:
On NSRL (which I realize is a stretch for "Reasonable" pitches), we've discussed using 2 of the 4 NSRL tracks to add give one of todays southern branches of the Red its own new tunnel through the core. (We've called it "Red X" instead of today's "Red Y" (inverted Y)

Let's say the future Red is purely Ashmont-Alewife The question is where does the other Braintree-???? terminate once it "emerges" at the North Station end of the NSRL? I nominated Charlestown-Chelsea based on the walk map.

The other question is where do the southern Red Lines cross/diverge and where/how does the new alignment *enter* the NSRL from the south? based on the map, I'd put the crossing at JFK and have new Red follow northwest along Mass Ave (ish) before a station and turn to the northeast near Boston Medical Center, and enter the NSRL roughly on alignment with Albany St.
Click to expand...

You use the Columbia Jct. grade separation, which allows conflict-free splitting and merging. That way you don't have to change RL ops at all; BOTH subways can alternate branches. i.e. From Alewife it does exactly what it does today--alternate Ashmont and Braintree trains--at exactly the same frequencies as today. And then the NSRL leg of the X...alternates Ashmont and Braintree all the same. Ashmont and Braintree get x2 the service density with headways 1:1 equivalent to the mainline, and they get an inverse alternating branch destination of Alewife followed by North Station followed by Alewife followed by North Station. On each branch.


To poke north the trajectory would be on a double-up of the Orange Line portal @ Community College. The only place in the superstation for another rapid transit line is upstairs from Orange, and the Garden basement prevents crossing over to the Green side anywhere near the platforms. So you just double-wide the Orange portal, which was a really inocuous bit of construction back in '75 despite crossing under a river.

It's probably best for starters to just focus on the primary goal--North Station--then think about where you go next later. Because NS is most of the battle. So if that's your terminus on Day 1, the Red side of the Community College portal would just have a short Alewife-style 3-track yard out in open air under the 93 decks. I wouldn't even worry about a Community College station yet because that's surplus to the downtown relief goal.

From there you can pretty much pick any of the 4 northside commuter rail lines to bootstrap onto as later phase. You would have to do 1-2 quick duck-unders of other tracks to set self on alignment, but the whole northside is open for business.


Of the available choices. . .
-- Western Route already has Orange extendable to Reading, so no need for redundancy. And do not rehash any fantasies about Medford Sq. as a spur. The Medford Branch doesn't exist past Fellsway. It's gone...forever.

-- Eastern Route has planned Urban Ring and at least 1 grade crossing (6th/Arlington) that can't be eliminated because of the low Route 1 overpass and underground streams. Probably eliminates heavy rail as a consideration. Although this one was almost always envisioned as light rail. Note that this prevents you from getting close enough to downtown Chelsea to do any of those funky Blue spurs that show up on people's fantasy maps. That un-eliminable crossing is that much a buzzkill for HRT.

-- Saugus Branch is grade crossing hell on earth and duplicates Orange out to Malden Ctr. This one doesn't even look so hot for LRT because of the bad-angle crossings; it's an impossibility on HRT.

-- Fitchburg Line ends up duplicating too much of the existing Red catchment area @ Porter and Alewife, and wouldn't permit branching to Watertown and Waltham like LRT because some of the grade crossings likely have to stay.

-- Grand Junction flat-out can never have the Main St. grade crossing eliminated because of the air rights overhang, and we have discussed many many times over the extreme waterproofing difficulties with tunneling under. Also runs into redundancy with existing Red at Kendall and possibly Harvard's catchment if Allston is final destination.

-- Lowell Line? It's grade-separated once you fix West Medford, and it preserves the "X" shape by keeping the mainlines on well-separated parallel flanks. The Green Line could potentially use some relief on the north end so the Urban Ring branches and further extension of the Union Branch to Watertown, etc. have more traffic slack to pick up. GLX-Medford will be growing fast enough eventually to need 4-car trolleys at most peak hours, so 6-car Red trains are not exactly overkill. Currently the GLX renderings have platforms long enough to take HRT cars; if they don't, you're only talking topping them off. All of them that don't outright sit on bridges can have the trackbeds dropped to achieve high-level boarding, without station mods. Washington St. and possibly Route 16 might be the only ones where you'd actually have to raise the floor to get high platforms.

Note also: the Woburn Line on the 1945 expansion map. What was now GLX was not supposed to stop before Route 128. So if you envision the Lowell Line as your eventual 125 MPH rocketship out of town hitting Anderson then forking off to all New Hampshire destinations, it might eventually get a little bit crowded to weave around Indigo trains making local stops. Enough to keep speeds below 100. So there's something to be said for an eventual flip of modes to maximize the performance of every type of traffic on the corridor. HRT would be much better equipped for a 128 turn than taking the Green Line that much further out and beginning to crimp capacity on the north end. And if this is accompanied by extending Alewife to Hanscom at long last the "X" stays neatly symmetrical and evenly spaced apart everywhere except the downtown convergence.


^That one is my preference simply because it has the most robust integrity-of-concept, best spacing, known demand, gives most help to other lines (GL freed up for inner-circulating branches, Lowell Line freed up for real higher speeds and dramatically shortened travel times), and is easiest construction given modifiable stations, grade separation, and near-universal 4-track width. Requires the least overthinking, fewest kludges around physical restrictions, and the fewest reaches on speculative demand.


BUT...your mileage may vary. At the end of the day all 4 northside mains are fair game from the Orange portal + requisite track duck-unders. You can game out transit pitches on any one of them, from the Reasonable to the Crazy. It's a very flexible jumping-off point.
 
What about adding the Red Line to a Tobin replacement bridge or tunnel, and running it under (or over - there are only a handful of overhead bridges to deal with) Route 1? The injection point from NS onto the Tobin ROW would be ugly, but the rest of it is a pretty clean ROW to work with. Gets you a real stop for the Bunker Hill area, downtown Chelsea, and pretty nice swaths of Everett and Revere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top