Reasonable Transit Pitches

[HenryAlan]

Adding onto this, perhaps Massport could team up with Delta to provide a post-security connection between Terminal A and E, since they would have the most to gain from the connection. Whether it be an APM or moving walkway, that would really speed up the connection.

I think there is already a post security tarmac bus between the two terminals. I flew out of terminal A recently, and I'm quite certain I heard announcements regarding a shuttle to terminal E, accessible from the gate area.

 

[737900er]

On the Green Line is there a reason the T doesn't have different stopping points for consists with Type 7 leading and consists with Type 8/9 leading? They could pretty easily have markings on the platform that say "Low Floor Entrance" or something like that for people who need the low-floor entrance rather than having to guess where those doors will be. I don't think two trains occupying the same platform is still allowed. Many of the platforms are much longer than needed for today's operation.
I feel like they tried this and stopped, but I can't remember why.

 

[TheRatmeister]

On the Green Line is there a reason the T doesn't have different stopping points for consists with Type 7 leading and consists with Type 8/9 leading? They could pretty easily have markings on the platform that say "Low Floor Entrance" or something like that for people who need the low-floor entrance rather than having to guess where those doors will be. I don't think two trains occupying the same platform is still allowed. Many of the platforms are much longer than needed for today's operation.
I feel like they tried this and stopped, but I can't remember why.

Total speculation on my part, but if they tried it and stopped doing it, perhaps it slowed down boarding because able-bodied (but lazy) people crowded the low floor area rather than using all the doors.

 

[TrolleybusFoaming]

On the Green Line is there a reason the T doesn't have different stopping points for consists with Type 7 leading and consists with Type 8/9 leading? They could pretty easily have markings on the platform that say "Low Floor Entrance" or something like that for people who need the low-floor entrance rather than having to guess where those doors will be. I don't think two trains occupying the same platform is still allowed. Many of the platforms are much longer than needed for today's operation.
I feel like they tried this and stopped, but I can't remember why.

I don't have any pictures but I know I've seen signage directing operators where to stop (admittedly often ignored), but never any indication for passengers.

 

[Teban54]

On the Green Line is there a reason the T doesn't have different stopping points for consists with Type 7 leading and consists with Type 8/9 leading? They could pretty easily have markings on the platform that say "Low Floor Entrance" or something like that for people who need the low-floor entrance rather than having to guess where those doors will be. I don't think two trains occupying the same platform is still allowed. Many of the platforms are much longer than needed for today's operation.
I feel like they tried this and stopped, but I can't remember why.

Newton Highlands inbound has separate stop signs:

However, I was foaming at many D branch stations that day and this was the only one I saw.

 

[The EGE]

Newton Highlands has them because only a section of the platform is raised (a temporary fix in 2019 when it needed to be used as a terminal), so the train has to be positioned properly or it's not accessible at all.

 

[DominusNovus]

If we ever got around to building the NSRL, would it make sense to extend the Acela to north of Boston? If so, how far?

 

[bigeman312]

If we ever got around to building the NSRL, would it make sense to extend the Acela to north of Boston? If so, how far?

In my estimation, Boston - DC is the perfect Acela route, while other overlapping services (like the Downeaster and the Northeast Regional) could be extended. That’s how it works on the DC end of the route, at least.

 

[DominusNovus]

In my estimation, Boston - DC is the perfect Acela route, while other overlapping services (like the Downeaster and the Northeast Regional) could be extended. That’s how it works on the DC end of the route, at least.

So, follow-up: what sort of HSR service (at least as fast as Acela) would make sense for Portland-Boston-Beyond?

 

[TheRatmeister]

So, follow-up: what sort of HSR service (at least as fast as Acela) would make sense for Portland-Boston-Beyond?

I know high speed rail is amazing and all, but it really isn't for everything, and this is a place it probably doesn't make sense. Obviously the current service is quite slow and there's clear room for improvement, but the cost of constructing a HSR line would be absurd compared to the number of people using it.

 

[bigeman312]

So, follow-up: what sort of HSR service (at least as fast as Acela) would make sense for Portland-Boston-Beyond?

Given that this is reasonable transit pitches, and not crazy transit pitches, I will reiterate what @TheRatmeister said. That’s an unreasonable transit pitch based on cost-benefit.

Acela trains will reach top speeds of 165 mph (265 km/h) when new trains enter service, and 186 mph (300 km/h) in coming years. Other services reaching 125 mph (200 km/h) are prevalent in the US, and are officially classified as higher-speed rail. The ceiling of what I would remotely consider reasonable at this point for Portland - Boston would be something loosely in the “higher speed rail” category. A good parallel is the Harrisburg - Philadelphia corridor. Service like that could terminate in Portland in the north and point(s) south of Boston on its southern end.

 

[BosMaineiac]

Given that this is reasonable transit pitches, and not crazy transit pitches, I will reiterate what @TheRatmeister said. That’s an unreasonable transit pitch based on cost-benefit.

Acela trains will reach top speeds of 165 mph (265 km/h) when new trains enter service, and 186 mph (300 km/h) in coming years. Other services reaching 125 mph (200 km/h) are prevalent in the US, and are officially classified as higher-speed rail. The ceiling of what I would remotely consider reasonable at this point for Portland - Boston would be something loosely in the “higher speed rail” category. A good parallel is the Harrisburg - Philadelphia corridor. Service like that could terminate in Portland in the north and point(s) south of Boston on its southern end.

The Downeaster would be even more popular (and probably reach peak ridership) if the travel time between Portland-Boston is under 2 hours and trains run hourly (2 hrs off-peak). The NSRL would be an additional benefit to DE’s as it allows trains to terminate at South Station under for easier connections to the rest of the network + Southampton yard maintenance access. A few NE regionals a day could continue north to Portland as well for a one-seat ride.

Some things which would bring DE service to 2 hrs trip time and hourly arrivals/departures:

• Double tracking the line from Haverhill-Portland (although I don’t think it necessarily has to be the whole way, it probably should)
• Adding a platform at North Station (with new Charles river draw bridges)
• Mainline station with island platform in Portland to allow easier trips north
• New trainsets/light maintenance facility + Station in Lewiston/Auburn

 

[Tallguy]

The Downeaster would be even more popular (and probably reach peak ridership) if the travel time between Portland-Boston is under 2 hours and trains run hourly (2 hrs off-peak). The NSRL would be an additional benefit to DE’s as it allows trains to terminate at South Station under for easier connections to the rest of the network + Southampton yard maintenance access. A few NE regionals a day could continue north to Portland as well for a one-seat ride.

Some things which would bring DE service to 2 hrs trip time and hourly arrivals/departures:

• Double tracking the line from Haverhill-Portland (although I don’t think it necessarily has to be the whole way, it probably should)
• Adding a platform at North Station (with new Charles river draw bridges)
• Mainline station with island platform in Portland to allow easier trips north
• New trainsets/light maintenance facility + Station in Lewiston/Auburn

How do any of these shorten travel time?

 

[BosMaineiac]

How do any of these shorten travel time?

Double tracking will shorten it as you eliminate the time padding in place for train meets. The other improvements would allow hourly arrivals/departures. There are a few other speed enhancements needed in addition to reach 2 hrs but I don’t know them off the top of my head

 

[737900er]

Given that this is reasonable transit pitches, and not crazy transit pitches, I will reiterate what @TheRatmeister said. That’s an unreasonable transit pitch based on cost-benefit.

Acela trains will reach top speeds of 165 mph (265 km/h) when new trains enter service, and 186 mph (300 km/h) in coming years. Other services reaching 125 mph (200 km/h) are prevalent in the US, and are officially classified as higher-speed rail. The ceiling of what I would remotely consider reasonable at this point for Portland - Boston would be something loosely in the “higher speed rail” category. A good parallel is the Harrisburg - Philadelphia corridor. Service like that could terminate in Portland in the north and point(s) south of Boston on its southern end.

Given the amount of federal funds that would go into the NSRL I assume some of the through-running Regionals would end up in New Hampshire in which case the Downeaster likely survives as a headway booster.

 

[ritchiew]

The Downeaster would be even more popular (and probably reach peak ridership) if the travel time between Portland-Boston is under 2 hours and trains run hourly (2 hrs off-peak). The NSRL would be an additional benefit to DE’s as it allows trains to terminate at South Station under for easier connections to the rest of the network + Southampton yard maintenance access. A few NE regionals a day could continue north to Portland as well for a one-seat ride.

Some things which would bring DE service to 2 hrs trip time and hourly arrivals/departures:

• Double tracking the line from Haverhill-Portland (although I don’t think it necessarily has to be the whole way, it probably should)
• Adding a platform at North Station (with new Charles river draw bridges)
• Mainline station with island platform in Portland to allow easier trips north
• New trainsets/light maintenance facility + Station in Lewiston/Auburn

Yeah, I'd love to be able to get to Portland faster. Some scattered thoughts:

• Yeah, bringing the trip time down to be competitive with driving would be be great. A pretty clear goal. North Station to Portland currently takes 2:30 on the Downeaster. Driving is 1:45 right now (says google), so somehow cut 45 minutes off the trip.
• The Northeast Regional is all electric, right? You'd have to electrify the line all the way to Maine. In the NSLR world we're assuming, the line would be electrified by MBTA at least as far as Haverhill anyways which is a quarter of the way to Portland.
• When considering making this High Speed Rail (or more realistically, higher speed rail), it's good the track is already relatively straight. Don't know how much that helps, but it looks a lot easier to work with than, say, the winding NEC through most of Connecticut.
• One thing it'd be great to change right now is just have one late train. The last one out of Portland is 6:30, so if you're going for the day, that day gets cut short kinda short.
• There was a report recommending moving the station to the mainline in Portland. I think that through-running was supposed to save 20 minutes for people traveling through Portland. Don't know what the status of that proposal is, though.
• This is so far outside "reasonable transit pitch," but it'd be great to have a station that is more downtown Portland. Like, in the median of Franklin St, right at Congress. Coming from the south, you'd run along 295, then turn into the median on Franklin. After the station, tunnel under Munjoy Hill and exit near the Eastern Promenade. A new rail bridge where there is currently the abandoned rail bridge, then follow the St Lawrence & Atlantic RR until you're back on the mainline..... Hmmmm...... that tunneling connecting to a bridge makes no sense.... ok, this is too bonkers to actually work through. The proposal to move the station to the mainline at least brings it to the near side of the highway, and that's good enough for me.

 

[fattony]

... allows trains to terminate at South Station under ...

I don't think you could terminate service at SS Under because it ... isn't a terminal. Isn't whole point of the NSRL "under" stations to thru-run the trains? If you stop long enough to change direction, switch tracks, etc then you really gum up the works and neuter the tunnel's capacity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

 

[ritchiew]

I don't think you could terminate service at SS Under because it ... isn't a terminal. Isn't whole point of the NSRL "under" stations to thru-run the trains? If you stop long enough to change direction, switch tracks, etc then you really gum up the works and neuter the tunnel's capacity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

I think they just mean that the Downeaster could go as far as South Station, where all passengers would need to get off. The empty train would then still continue south to Amtrak's Southampton maintenance yard.

 

[fattony]

I think they just mean that the Downeaster could go as far as South Station, where all passengers would need to get off. The empty train would then still continue south to Amtrak's Southampton maintenance yard.

Ah, I see now. Thank you!

 

[dhawkins]

Skip South Station all together. Acela should just run on its own tracks under Boston with one more stop at North Station under the GSA building and on to the Downeasta' tracks to ME.