Reasonable Transit Pitches

[themissinglink]

Bill H.5248 (from January) mentions a study regarding an extension of the Red Line from Alewife into Arlington. How realistic would it be for RLX to be constructed or completed within the next 15 years?

the Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall conduct a feasibility study relative to extending the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority red line from Alewife station in the city of Cambridge to include no less than one stop in the town of Arlington; provided further, that the study shall include (a) an analysis of all public transportation options, including, but not limited to, light rail; and (b) an evaluation of the costs and economic opportunities related to extending rail service between Alewife station in the city of Cambridge

 

[bigeman312]

RLX to Arlington completed in the next 15 years? Gut reaction: 5%. I’m optimistic.

15 years ago was 2006. What’s the largest project that went all the way from feasibility study to completion in that time period? Probably SL3 to Chelsea, a much much smaller project. When was the the last time an MBTA project of that scale was even completed? Was it OL SW Corridor in 1987? That’s 34 years ago.

Let me be clear: I hope RLX to Arlington gets completed in the next 15 years!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

15 years is optimistic, but the mainline tunnel and platform/mezzanine plans from 1976 are going to be very little-changed this time around so the design portion should go pretty fast. It's possible in the absolute that it could be that short if they hurry, just not very possible so long as this Administration or some future spawn of it is still in power. It's not difficult tunnel construction here, being shallow box-culvert under landbanked rail ROW with utility relocations required only at the grade crossings. Not typical under-street cut-and-cover like Red-Blue is. The main changes from 1976 plans are going to be zeroing out the parking at Arlington Center in favor of a smaller Davis-clone station ('76 plans were waaaaaaay inappropriate there and dated by their era), definitely not doing as much parking at Arlington Heights ('76 somewhat inappropriate there, though a smallish lot is appropriate), and fact that re-landscaping the temp-diverted Minuteman on top of the completed tunnel and redirecting it a few feet to the side from the High School to AH are now to-do's.

I don't, for example, think the Minuteman disruptions (probably 9 month-to-year closures Thorndike Field-Lake St., then Lake St.-AC, then AC-Mill St.) is going to be any constraint because the refinishing of the linear park after the tunnel is capped will probably be superior in accommodation to what exists now. Nor does diverting it off-ROW at the High School pose much threat, because the ROW is so supremely well-buffered and abutted by city parkland west of Mill St. that the relocated path will probably never see the above-ground trains through the tree berm. Lexington is obviously a whole other fraught ballgame for negative path impacts, but path coexistence throughout Arlington is a cinch. I think at the town level honestly the only NIMBY vector today is going to be "If Arlington Center is going to have a nightlife to 12:30, do we need to relax our sacred overnight town parking ban in the immediate vicinity?" and fights therein, not the 1976 "undesireables" coded-languagefest or any Minuteman concern-trolling. The post-build Minuteman I honestly think will be even more swankly landscaped than now after it's re-stitched on the tunnel cap, and they're too envious of Davis now for the "undesireables" line to have much lasting traction.

 

[HenryAlan]

LA has the right idea FOR THE MOST PART (I think if they eliminated BRT from having similar branding AND if they made the HRT lines NUMBERS and LRT lines LETTERS you’d have the perfect set up).

Why do you need to know by line designation whether it's LRT or HRT? For most people, and this is especially true in LA, the distinction is meaningless. Does the train go where you want to go and when is it coming? Those are the only questions people want answered. In L.A., much of the LRT operates in the same way as HRT. The only difference most riders would note is that HRT there is exclusively underground, whereas LRT operates elevated, surface, and underground.

 

[ceo]

So you're assuming the RLX would be on the surface from the high school to Arlington Heights? As a frequent Minuteman user, I rather strongly doubt you could fit both it and the bikeway through there in any reasonable fashion, even if the ROW looks wide enough on Google Maps. Not to mention that the good people of Arlington will never, ever go for that, and they'll go for AH as the terminus even less.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So you're assuming the RLX would be on the surface from the high school to Arlington Heights?

The 1976 RLX study had a portal after Mill St. behind the High School, AH station in the pit at the Park Ave./Lowell St. triangle, storage yard at Arlington Lumber. Incredibly unlikely they would run with anything different 45 years later.

As a frequent Minuteman user, I rather strongly doubt you could fit both it and the bikeway through there in any reasonable fashion, even if the ROW looks wide enough on Google Maps.

You are one single person with one single opinion on what is "reasonable." The whole Town of Arlington has been polled repeatedly on this, and few have been bothered by the path accommodation proposal. They are un-bothered enough by this that their own Legislative delegation is proposing this very funding item, so I would consider the public opinion already way more actionable here than your individual concerns. It's an 80 ft. wide ROW that only needs half that for a grade separated trackbed, and of about 1.3 miles of total above-ground construction about 0.55 miles of it abuts Town of Arlington parks property at the High School and Summer St. Field. It is not a lot of on-ROW accommodation. Are we at a final plan?...of course not. But if the aim for this funding item is to do some conceptual development via a study, the margins on that canvas are fungible enough for poking around to try to find a consensus. That's all they're aiming to do right now.

Not to mention that the good people of Arlington will never, ever go for that, and they'll go for AH as the terminus even less.

Right...because your opinion has veto power over the town, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if it's been polled, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if the town-level pols support it, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if the governor already signed the bill in question. Seems like every time this topic gets brought back up on aB somebody self-annoints themselves town crier for Arlington and issues the blanket dismissal claiming to speak for the whole 42,000 citizens. It's old, and it's been debunked too many times over. This wasn't brought up as a Crazy Pitch; it was brought up because of the current events of there being an active effort to try to fund the study line item in this passed Bill. Do you really think the Reps and Senators from Arlington would've put their names as co-sponsors on it if the resulting study was going to be spat back at them? No, of course not. So right there "the good people" don't have a "never" attached to them, and your blanket statement isn't speaking for them.

Reconcile your own highly individualized beefs with the public polling, which has now apparently gotten good enough that local pols see real skin in the game for their own careers when it comes to pushing this.

 

[ceo]

Right...because your opinion has veto power over the town, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if it's been polled, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if the town-level pols support it, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ if the governor already signed the bill in question. Seems like every time this topic gets brought back up on aB somebody self-annoints themselves town crier for Arlington and issues the blanket dismissal claiming to speak for the whole 42,000 citizens. It's old, and it's been debunked too many times over. This wasn't brought up as a Crazy Pitch; it was brought up because of the current events of there being an active effort to try to fund the study line item in this passed Bill. Do you really think the Reps and Senators from Arlington would've put their names as co-sponsors on it if the resulting study was going to be spat back at them? No, of course not. So right there "the good people" don't have a "never" attached to them, and your blanket statement isn't speaking for them.

Reconcile your own highly individualized beefs with the public polling, which has now apparently gotten good enough that local pols see real skin in the game for their own careers when it comes to pushing this.

OK, I've been following this issue since before the Minuteman was built, and this is the first I've ever heard of Arlington being remotely in favor of the Red Line coming through. Link to this poll, please? Google is failing me. (Not that I don't believe you, but I want to see this for myself.) For that matter, it's the first I've heard of any active effort to make this happen since it was originally cancelled. (And I tried to look up where this has "been debunked many times over", this also escaping my memory at the moment, but aB's search facility is a steaming bag of fail).

And, I just want to note, I've known you on various rail and transit nerdery forums for quite a few years now, and while you've never suffered fools gladly, lately you've gotten a lot more nasty and insulting when someone is less well-informed than you. I'm not the only one who's pointed this out, either.

 

[Riverside]

Why do you need to know by line designation whether it's LRT or HRT? For most people, and this is especially true in LA, the distinction is meaningless. Does the train go where you want to go and when is it coming? Those are the only questions people want answered. In L.A., much of the LRT operates in the same way as HRT. The only difference most riders would note is that HRT there is exclusively underground, whereas LRT operates elevated, surface, and underground.

I'm gonna give a very fiddly answer to this, but, I would say that in Boston -- and maybe to a similar extent in Philly, not sure --, there is usefulness in differentiating HRT and LRT because of the difference in reliability. Now, obviously we here all understand that's not per se because of the LRT vs HRT distinction, but because of street-running/reservation-running vs independent ROW. But, in Boston, and in Philly, it's only the LRT services that suffer from that flavor of unreliability.

I don't know if LA suffers from the same struggles -- I know it has street-running segments as well. But my point is that -- while they might not be able to put their finger on the difference -- I'd say that the riding public probably does understand that the Green Line isn't the same kind of rapid transit as the Red, Blue, or Orange.

 

[ceo]

Wow, this bill is quite the laundry list. Most of it is road and pedestrian improvements, but the transit-related bits are fascinating. Of particular interest [numbering mine]:

1. that not less than $100,000,000 shall be expended for the construction of a new four-lane bridge across the Merrimack river in the city of Lowell to replace the temporary two-lane Rourke bridge [Good. That thing is scary.]
2. that not less than $7,500,000 shall be expended for the construction of the shared use Belmont Community Path in the town of Belmont connecting the cities of Cambridge and Waltham [I assume just Phase 1?]
3. that not less than $750,000 shall be expended for costs associated with a multimodal transportation trail connecting the downtown area of the city of Peabody to the city of Salem
4. that not less than $710,000 shall be expended for improvements to the Topsfield rail trail in the town of Topsfield [just pave it, or extend it towards I-95?]
5. that not less than $830,000 shall be expended for the permitting, design and construction services associated with the east-west rail trail expansion project in the town of Danvers [hopefully including the Rte 1 bridge]
6. that not less than $20,000,000 shall be expended for a public-private partnership program pursuant to chapter 161C of the General Laws to implement mainline track improvements to accommodate 286,000-pound gross rail load capacity freight cars
7. that not less than $3,000,000 shall be expended for the continuation of the rail trail from the town of Wayland to the town of Sudbury
8. that not less than $1,000,000 shall be expended to complete the final connection of the rail trail across the United States highway route 1 rotary located in the city of Newburyport in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and for general rail trail improvements and maintenance [Not sure what this refers to, actually]
9. that not less than $50,000 shall be expended for repairs, upgrades and an extension of the Minuteman bikeway in the town of Bedford
10. not less than $4,000,000 shall be expended for the planning, study, design and capital costs of construction of high level platforms at the commuter rail stations in the city of Waltham and the town of Concord
11. that not less than $100,000,000 shall be expended for the planning, study, design, construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, repair, climate change adaptation, multi-modal access and improvement of transportation infrastructure associated with the rebuild of the Alewife station garage in the city of Cambridge
12. that not less than $1,000,000 shall be expended for the design and construction of a pedestrian walkway and bike path connecting the Anderson Regional Transportation Center to the transit-oriented development at the former Woburn mall site [Oh good. I tried riding to Anderson via Commercial St once, never again.]
13. that not less than $300,000,000 shall be expended on the redesign and construction of the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton
14. that not less than $3,000,000 shall be expended for extension of the Watertown Community Path from Arsenal Street at Irving Street in Watertown through Watertown Square to Saltonstall Park
15. that not less than $35,000,000 shall be expended to the City of Peabody for the design, reactivation, and implementation of a transit system on the existing rail from Peabody Square to the Salem Commuter Rail Station [might conflict with #3?]
16. that not less than $4,000,000 shall be expended towards infrastructural improvements to the Commuter Rail Station in West Medford [you mean, like, build an actual station?]
17. that not less than $150,000,000 shall be expended for implementing the electrification along the Newburyport and Rockport Commuter Rail Line from North Station to the Central Square Station in the city of Lynn to be overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Rail Transformation Office; provided, that funds may also be used for transportation planning, design, permitting, the procurement of electric multiple units and or electro-diesel multiple units, infrastructure improvements, technology and equipment necessary to support new or modified commuter rail service models, safety features, and passenger enhancements; provided, further that the funds may be used for construction, reconstruction, retrofitting, resilience, efficiency improvements, and modernization of stations, platforms, signals, tracks, power and electrical systems; provided further, that the department may use funds for the costs of engineering and other services essential to these projects [Only to Lynn? Is this supposed to be BLX lite?]
18. that not less than $3,000,000 shall be expended for improvements to the Clinton Railroad Tunnel and expansion of the rail trail route in the town of Clinton [Actually surprised there's only two MCRT-related items in here]
19. that not less than $6,000,000 shall be expended to realign the intersection of Cambridgepark Drive and Rindge Avenue and create signal coordination at the intersection of Route 2, Route 16 and Rindge Avenue intersections in the city of Cambridge [we've talked about this, but this is the first time I've seen it in anything official]
20. that not less than $250,000 shall be expended for the design and creation of a pedestrian and multi-modal access pathway on the rail bed adjacent to Medford and Terminal Streets in the Charlestown section of the city of Boston [so, kiss the Mystic Wharf Branch goodbye?]
21. that not less than $10,000,000 shall be expended for design and construction of a headhouse or other direct connection from the MBTA’s Assembly Orange Line station in the city of Somerville to Draw Seven Park and the proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Mystic River being designed by Encore Casino
22. that not less than $1,100,000 shall be expended for the purchase of outward leaning fencing with integral lighting for the elevated section of the Community Path in the City of Somerville [to make up for the path being 10' wide, I assume]
23. that not less than $1,900,000 shall be expended for the design and construction of a Rail with Trail alongside an MBTA dead-end rail car storage track in the Cities of Somerville and Boston in order to complete a critical link between the Mystic River Greenway and the Somerville Community Path [The Mystic to Charles Connector. No idea how you're fitting a trail in here and keep both tracks, but OK.]
24. that not less than $3,000,000 shall be expended for feasibility and design studies to improve accessibility of establishing a light rail service throughout the Roxbury section of Boston, including but not limited to: (i) a reassessment as to the advisability of providing such service by means of extension of existing light rail line service from Boylston Station with one alternative terminating at Nubian Station and a second alternative terminating at Mattapan Station, and construction of new track along some or all of the proposed routes [plus ridership, environmental impact etc. Here's one that I had no idea was remotely being considered. Hey, did they include the abandoned Tremont St tunnel in their loading gauge analysis for the Type 10s?]

 

[Charlie_mta]

24.. that not less than $3,000,000 shall be expended for feasibility and design studies to improve accessibility of establishing a light rail service throughout the Roxbury section of Boston, including but not limited to: (i) a reassessment as to the advisability of providing such service by means of extension of existing light rail line service from Boylston Station with one alternative terminating at Nubian Station and a second alternative terminating at Mattapan Station, and construction of new track along some or all of the proposed routes [plus ridership, environmental impact etc. Here's one that I had no idea was remotely being considered. Hey, did they include the abandoned Tremont St tunnel in their loading gauge analysis for the Type 10s?]

No. 24 is one of my favorites. Glad to see it's getting some traction (no pun intended)..

 

[HenryAlan]

I'm gonna give a very fiddly answer to this, but, I would say that in Boston -- and maybe to a similar extent in Philly, not sure --, there is usefulness in differentiating HRT and LRT because of the difference in reliability. Now, obviously we here all understand that's not per se because of the LRT vs HRT distinction, but because of street-running/reservation-running vs independent ROW. But, in Boston, and in Philly, it's only the LRT services that suffer from that flavor of unreliability.

I don't know if LA suffers from the same struggles -- I know it has street-running segments as well. But my point is that -- while they might not be able to put their finger on the difference -- I'd say that the riding public probably does understand that the Green Line isn't the same kind of rapid transit as the Red, Blue, or Orange.

To be clear, I think the distinction is worth noting in Boston (and Philly), particularly because the Green Line functions as a distinctly different system from the other three lines. It is not worth noting in Los Angeles, though, which is what NoShJFK was proposing.

 

[Wash]

Here's an (old, but still accurate) video about the O-Bahn busway system in Adelaide, South Australia (link below). The system uses regular, rubber-tired busses that run on a special guideway; on the guideway steering is mechanical and automatic.

Currently, busses in the silver line transitway are severely speed limited due to its narrow width. Operators have to manually steer busses through the tunnel, severely restricting allowable speeds. A similar guideway system, installed between stations, should allow bus speeds in the transitway to substantially increase, saving hundreds of thousands of passengers per year possibly up to one or two minutes per trip (exact math is difficult; once I get more variables I'll be able to say for certain how much time could be saved). O-bahn guideways are a proven system and seem relatively cheap to install (especially if a few inches could be scraped off of the bottom of the transitway tunnel).

 

[Wash]

Here's a newer video from Adelaide of O-Bahn busses running on a guideway in a tunnel at what appears to be about 35 MPH. It seems that the raised guideway in the earlier video is simply a consequence of the construction circumstances on that particular segment of track (it was built on a riverbed); concrete guideway track could be installed inside the silver line tunnel without lowering the floor.

 

[Riverside]

Is there a way to make O-Bahn guideways that are also compatible with LRT? Because the future of the Piers Transitway should include LRT, one way or another. (My preference is to replace SL2 with LRT, and relocate SL1 and SL3 out of the tunnel entirely, but I realize that is somewhat of a fringe proposal.)

 

[Brattle Loop]

Is there a way to make O-Bahn guideways that are also compatible with LRT? Because the future of the Piers Transitway should include LRT, one way or another. (My preference is to replace SL2 with LRT, and relocate SL1 and SL3 out of the tunnel entirely, but I realize that is somewhat of a fringe proposal.)

Out of curiosity, what if anything do the SL1 and SL3 gain by moving them out of the Transitway?

 

[Tallguy]

Out of curiosity, what if anything do the SL1 and SL3 gain by moving them out of the Transitway?

You COULD send some SLs either up onto the garage roof, avoiding Seaport traffic(I would have to see how much ridership comes from SS itself)or above ground if Summer St has bus lanes. I would guideway the Transitway first to max out throughput.

 

[Riverside]

(I would have to see how much ridership comes from SS itself)

Ask and ye shall receive:

(Information on data source and caveats below.)

I have further comments about rerouting SL1 and SL3 out of the tunnel, but put together this quick chart in the meantime. As you can see, South Station is the center of gravity for the whole shebang; very few Airport riders are boarding in the Seaport, and very few Airport riders are disembarking in the Seaport. Journeys that avoid South Station account for about 10% overall.

Source: https://mbta-massdot.opendata.arcgi...icm91dGVfbmFtZSI6WyJTTDEiLCJTTDIiLCJTTFciXX0=

With the following filters:

For some reason, I can't seem to find data for SL3. I downloaded the filtered data as a .csv, popped into a pivot table in Excel, and consolidated the inbound/outbound stops into single line items, and then added some coloring for flair.

Note also that these numbers seem low compared to the ones published in the Better Bus Profiles for SL1 and SL2, so it's possible I extracted the data incompletely. However, the proportions do seem roughly consistent with the figures published in the Profiles:

 

[Wash]

Is there a way to make O-Bahn guideways that are also compatible with LRT? Because the future of the Piers Transitway should include LRT, one way or another. (My preference is to replace SL2 with LRT, and relocate SL1 and SL3 out of the tunnel entirely, but I realize that is somewhat of a fringe proposal.)

Yup. Here's an O-Bahn trolleybus in Essen running into a tram subway.

 

[Tallguy]

Ask and ye shall receive:

View attachment 14303

(Information on data source and caveats below.)

I have further comments about rerouting SL1 and SL3 out of the tunnel, but put together this quick chart in the meantime. As you can see, South Station is the center of gravity for the whole shebang; very few Airport riders are boarding in the Seaport, and very few Airport riders are disembarking in the Seaport. Journeys that avoid South Station account for about 10% overall.

Source: https://mbta-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/2b0bb23be5e5469596723e13a9f9debe_0/explore?filters=eyJzdG9wX25hbWUiOlsiU09VVEggU1RBVElPTiBTSUxWRVIgTElORSIsIkNPVVJUSE9VU0UgSU5CT1VORCIsIkNPVVJUSE9VU0UgT1VUQk9VTkQiLCJXT1JMRCBUUkFERSBDRU5URVIiLCJDT05HUkVTUyBAIFdPUkxEIFRSQURFIENFTlRFUiIsIlNJTFZFUiBMSU5FIFdBWSBBRlRFUiBNQU5VTElGIiwiU0lMVkVSIExJTkUgV0FZIEJFRk9SRSBNQU5VTEkiXSwicm91dGVfbmFtZSI6WyJTTDEiLCJTTDIiLCJTTFciXX0=

With the following filters:

View attachment 14304

For some reason, I can't seem to find data for SL3. I downloaded the filtered data as a .csv, popped into a pivot table in Excel, and consolidated the inbound/outbound stops into single line items, and then added some coloring for flair.

Note also that these numbers seem low compared to the ones published in the Better Bus Profiles for SL1 and SL2, so it's possible I extracted the data incompletely. However, the proportions do seem roughly consistent with the figures published in the Profiles:

View attachment 14306
View attachment 14307

Beat me to the punch. In my musings about GL Seaport, I have often thought of routing the SL 1&(possibly SL3) onto the roof of SS, bypass ing the Seaport traffic.

 

[Riverside]

routing the SL 1&(possibly SL3) onto the roof of SS, bypass ing the Seaport traffic.

Oh do you mean like this?

That's an interesting idea I hadn't considered before. I feel like the bus platforms are too far away from the subway platforms for this to be useful? Though it would be interesting to see the breakdown of SL1 passengers alighting at South Station -- how many are...

• boarding the Red Line
• walking to downtown or the financial district
• transferring to the commuter rail
• transferring to Amtrak
• transferring to intercity bus