Reasonable Transit Pitches

[BosMaineiac]

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.

The Northeast Regional will eventually use the new Siemens Airo trainset, which will have a diesel locomotive with a car capable of picking up overheard wires when under them. The trainset will be identical to the one the Downeaster and many other Amtrak trains will use. This will make the transfer from electrified to non-electrified (which also happens south of DC) way easier.

Since CSX owns the tracks from Lowell Junction north, it will be incredibly difficult to string wires up over the entire length. The Class 1's would need a coming to jesus moment before that happens

 

[DominusNovus]

A lot of good discussion. My question about service overall was actually more focused on how far south such a service could go. Not necessarily on whether high-speed or higher speed is appropriate. For example, could the Downeaster make sense as a Portland to Providence route?

 

[737900er]

A lot of good discussion. My question about service overall was actually more focused on how far south such a service could go. Not necessarily on whether high-speed or higher speed is appropriate. For example, could the Downeaster make sense as a Portland to Providence route?

Springfield to Portland if you're running it through the NSRL.

 

[The EGE]

I could see a case for through-routing some New Haven-Springfield-Boston trains and Portland-Boston trains. They seem like they could be a good match on frequency and possible destination pairs. The trick would be ensuring the timed connection at New Haven while also having a good connection in Boston with a different train. For example, you might have:

Regional: NHV 12:00 NLC 12:45 PVD 1:30 BOS 2:10
Downeaster: NHV 12:00 SPG 1:15 WOR 2:15 BOS 3:15 and on to Maine
Regional: NHV 1:00 NLC 1:45 PVD 2:30 BOS 3:10

 

[stick n move]

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.
View attachment 45079

Were only going to get 1 shot at tunneling a heavy rail corridor through downtown (if it even happens) so we need to make it count. Why not maximize the benefit that the tunnel could provide? Doing this would mean every commuter rail line besides the nec would not be able to through run and connect to the rest of the network. If you connect it to south station and move the entrance to where the worcester line and nec tracks combine both corridors can use the tunnel. Then to get the old colony/fairmount trains youd need another portal into said tunnel. It wouldnt be the best way to use our one shot on amtrak only customers when the metros commuter rail system should be the top priority for interconnectedness. Boston already has amtrak service so this tunnel would mostly benefit nh/maine residents passing through the city, not a good use of funds.

 

[bigeman312]

A lot of good discussion. My question about service overall was actually more focused on how far south such a service could go. Not necessarily on whether high-speed or higher speed is appropriate. For example, could the Downeaster make sense as a Portland to Providence route?

Hot take: I like that, as long as you understand it won’t be at least as fast as Acela.

Here is my crazy transit pitch, but reasonable in a world that assumes NSRL is built: Portland - Providence service layered between Amtrak and Commuter Rail. I’ll call this one route of a potential New England Railroad (NERR) system that has consists that blend elements of intercity and commuter rail features.

Why? For balanced through-routing.

I agree with the sentiment of following the SEPTA’s lead and through-routing as much as possible. To do that, you need fairly balanced pairing. One issue with through-routing Commuter Rail service is that there is far more demand, service, and ridership on the South Stations lines than the North Station lines. So, I propose for this NERR thru-route to claim some Providence Line and Downeaster riders and slots, with the following stops:

Portland

Old Orchard Beach

Saco

Wells

Dover

Durham

Exeter

Haverhill

Woburn

North Station

South Station

Back Bay

Ruggles

Route 128

Canton Junction

Sharon

Mansfield

Attleboro

Pawtucket/Central Falls

Providence

I propose that the actual Providence Line of the Commuter Rail would thru-run to Haverhill, making more local stops north of Boston. Obviously the Haverhill Line will always have lower demand than the Providence Line, so even at a lower frequency, the Portland - Providence thru-run could balance some of that demand.

Thoughts?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Here's the stop-by-stop on the 39:

Some takeaways:

• Wow look at those load figures! Those peak load numbers are around 1.5x the ones of the 1. However, average loads aren't all that different, suggesting that the 39 is used most heavily by commuters, and may have spare capacity during off-peak hours.
• More people get on at Copley than Back Bay. This suggests more transfers are made from the GL to the 39 than from the OL (At Back Bay) to the 39
• Riders seem to make the transfer to the GL primarily at Fenwood Rd, not Brigham Circle.
• The busiest section is between Perkins St and Fenwood Rd, which is the section that would be covered by a Hyde Park extension.
• ~1/3 of all 39 riders board or alight at Forest Hills, likely to transfer to other buses such as the 31 and 32.
• Centre St @ Seaverns Ave/Myrtle is the largest source of local JP ridership.
• The stops along Huntington Ave all have very high ridership, suggesting most riders start/end their journey along Huntington.

So, now some of my opinions on what all of this means, and how it could be incorporated into a plan to return trolley service to JP.

• While a Hyde Square extension is likely still worthwhile, the 39 would continue to be very important and very crowded, especially at peak hours. Any plan not involving Forest Hills cannot and will not remove the need for frequent, high capacity 39.
• If some trains could somehow be terminated at Prudential or Symphony, they would likely still be highly used. This could provide additional service south of Heath St, allowing for some trains to terminate at Heath while still offering a good service in JP.
• Even if GL service to Arborway meant trains every 12 minutes rather than buses every 6, the use of double Type 10s would still allow for hourly capacity to double, and there very clearly is demand.
• The high ridership of the 39 along its entire route merits said capacity boost and even the challenges/costs of full (Or at least mostly) median running.

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

I had mentioned the good news of Chinatown, Broadway, and Arlington (Berkeley St) new headhouses in the General MBTA discussion thread, but I think there are good candidates which are very feasible candidates for next-up headhouse additions, to increase ridership and accessibility from station-adjacent neighborhoods.

One that comes to mind is of course the long-winded topic of Sullivan's connection to East Somerville. A similar but maybe less necessary would be adding an entrance to Sidney St at JFK/UMass.

A new concept (maybe) would be a north headhouse connection from Community College to Hood Park, while BHCC is also expanding.

Alewife's southern headhouses may be a good candidate for renovation in the future.

A more eventual candidate, dependent on the Assembly to Encore bridge would of course be an eastbound headhouse at Assembly.

Are there any others that should/would be considered?

 

[Teban54]

I had mentioned the good news of Chinatown, Broadway, and Arlington (Berkeley St) new headhouses in the General MBTA discussion thread, but I think there are good candidates which are very feasible candidates for next-up headhouse additions, to increase ridership and accessibility from station-adjacent neighborhoods.

One that comes to mind is of course the long-winded topic of Sullivan's connection to East Somerville. A similar but maybe less necessary would be adding an entrance to Sidney St at JFK/UMass.

A new concept (maybe) would be a north headhouse connection from Community College to Hood Park, while BHCC is also expanding.

Alewife's southern headhouses may be a good candidate for renovation in the future.

A more eventual candidate, dependent on the Assembly to Encore bridge would of course be an eastbound headhouse at Assembly.

Are there any others that should/would be considered?

In addition to new headhouses, I think there's also great room for improvement in wayfinding for existing headhouses.

Take South Station for example: even though all 5 entrances connect to a single paid area on concourse level, I could never figure out which is which whenever I need to use an exit I don't frequent. It would be much nicer if they're labeled with "Summer St & Atlantic Ave NW Corner". This is even worse for stations with different exits that connect directly to the platform (e.g. Harvard, Central, Kendall), where the decision needs to be made on the platform itself - most riders who are unfamiliar with the area may end up just following signs to "EXIT" before knowing the distinction.

Also, plenty of other metros in the world use letters or numbers to label all station exits, with a neighborhood map in station that maps these exits so that riders can figure out which exit to use. It also makes it easier for communication: if a friend comes to my place, I can just tell them "take Exit A".

 

[Smuttynose]

I think Logan would really benefit from a public transit master plan. We throw a lot of public transit service at the airport - Blue line, Silver line(s)?, way too many Massport shuttles, express Massport shuttles from a bunch of different suburbs and Back Bay, express buses from NH, ferries from a bunch of places, I’m sure there are many others. But it’s still not especially convenient or intuitive to get to the airport on public transit from most places. Say you live 5 miles away in Malden - take the OL to State, take the BL to Airport, and then cross your fingers that there will be a timely shuttle? A shuttle that also gets stuck in traffic jams with general traffic? Can’t we do better?

I guess my point is that we might be able to provide a higher level service with fewer costs if we consolidated them but had a few kickass, fail-safe ways to get to the airport more efficiently.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I think Logan would really benefit from a public transit master plan. We throw a lot of public transit service at the airport - Blue line, Silver line(s)?, way too many Massport shuttles, express Massport shuttles from a bunch of different suburbs and Back Bay, express buses from NH, ferries from a bunch of places, I’m sure there are many others. But it’s still not especially convenient or intuitive to get to the airport on public transit from most places. Say you live 5 miles away in Malden - take the OL to State, take the BL to Airport, and then cross your fingers that there will be a timely shuttle? A shuttle that also gets stuck in traffic jams with general traffic? Can’t we do better?

I guess my point is that we might be able to provide a higher level service with fewer costs if we consolidated them but had a few kickass, fail-safe ways to get to the airport more efficiently.

As a general list of what there should be (IMO):

• People-mover to Airport BL station
• MBTA operated express bus to North and South Stations, maybe Back Bay as well
• Logan Express and private coach services to suburbs

 

[737900er]

In addition to new headhouses, I think there's also great room for improvement in wayfinding for existing headhouses.

Take South Station for example: even though all 5 entrances connect to a single paid area on concourse level, I could never figure out which is which whenever I need to use an exit I don't frequent. It would be much nicer if they're labeled with "Summer St & Atlantic Ave NW Corner". This is even worse for stations with different exits that connect directly to the platform (e.g. Harvard, Central, Kendall), where the decision needs to be made on the platform itself - most riders who are unfamiliar with the area may end up just following signs to "EXIT" before knowing the distinction.

Also, plenty of other metros in the world use letters or numbers to label all station exits, with a neighborhood map in station that maps these exits so that riders can figure out which exit to use. It also makes it easier for communication: if a friend comes to my place, I can just tell them "take Exit A".

This is especially true with bus connections for people who are unfamiliar with stations and where different buses board at different exits (looking at you, Harvard...).

 

[737900er]

I think Logan would really benefit from a public transit master plan. We throw a lot of public transit service at the airport - Blue line, Silver line(s)?, way too many Massport shuttles, express Massport shuttles from a bunch of different suburbs and Back Bay, express buses from NH, ferries from a bunch of places, I’m sure there are many others. But it’s still not especially convenient or intuitive to get to the airport on public transit from most places. Say you live 5 miles away in Malden - take the OL to State, take the BL to Airport, and then cross your fingers that there will be a timely shuttle? A shuttle that also gets stuck in traffic jams with general traffic? Can’t we do better?

I guess my point is that we might be able to provide a higher level service with fewer costs if we consolidated them but had a few kickass, fail-safe ways to get to the airport more efficiently.

I don't think Massport wants to do much that would cut into their lucrative car-centric business model. About a third of their revenue comes from car parking, rental cars, taxi fees, and TNC fees.

(Parking is parking for cars, not planes)

(Ground Transportation & Other is mostly fees charged to taxis, TNCs, and bus operators)

It's the same agency that famously tweeted:

 

[kdmc]

I don't think Massport wants to do much that would cut into their lucrative car-centric business model. About a third of their revenue comes from car parking, rental cars, taxi fees, and TNC fees.

Yup. Their incentives need to be fixed, and as far as I know, only the legislature can do that. Public authorities only work well when their business's success aligns with public interest.

 

[AndrewOnTheMBTA]

As a general list of what there should be (IMO):

• People-mover to Airport BL station
• MBTA operated express bus to North and South Stations, maybe Back Bay as well
• Logan Express and private coach services

I do think while they drive a majority of revenue through a car-centric model, a sufficient APM and shuttle service better connecting to rental cars, and more parking gets more travelers to drive in, and it seems like connecting those shuttles to public transit would be included in the deal.

I think Massport is really short ok parking as it is , especially with cutting back on the Terminal E parking additions, so I imagine they'll add parking with a shuttle/APM similar to how other large airports have been. Is that also on the right track?

 

[TheRatmeister]

I do think while they drive a majority of revenue through a car-centric model, a sufficient APM and shuttle service better connecting to rental cars, and more parking gets more travelers to drive in, and it seems like connecting those shuttles to public transit would be included in the deal.

I think Massport is really short ok parking as it is , especially with cutting back on the Terminal E parking additions, so I imagine they'll add parking with a shuttle/APM similar to how other large airports have been. Is that also on the right track?

If remote parking is what's needed to get an APM then so be it, although I'm actually not sure where you could even find space for it. Just rebuild the current economy parking garage higher?

 

[Teban54]

If remote parking is what's needed to get an APM then so be it, although I'm actually not sure where you could even find space for it. Just rebuild the current economy parking garage higher?

Quickly moving from Reasonable Transit Pitches to Crazy Transit Pitches: Build a parking garage in Chelsea at SL3's Eastern Ave station (or even the Chelsea CR station), then pay MBTA to build a grade-separated rapid transit route from there to airport terminals. (Yes, that would include a Chelsea Creek crossing.)

 

[737900er]

Quickly moving from Reasonable Transit Pitches to Crazy Transit Pitches: Build a parking garage in Chelsea at SL3's Eastern Ave station (or even the Chelsea CR station), then pay MBTA to build a grade-separated rapid transit route from there to airport terminals. (Yes, that would include a Chelsea Creek crossing.)

That garage there is already owned by Massport, but it's only for employees. This is part of the reason I think the UR should go to the terminals, especially if the state can unlock Massport funds to pay for it from Eastern Ave to the Rental Car Center. It just requires everyone getting the act together at the same time.

Eventually, tearing down the Economy Garage will be on the table to expand Terminal E (possibly as a new home for UPS), and I could see that ending up in Chelsea too on those private lots.

 

[Riverside]

Quickly moving from Reasonable Transit Pitches to Crazy Transit Pitches: Build a parking garage in Chelsea at SL3's Eastern Ave station (or even the Chelsea CR station), then pay MBTA to build a grade-separated rapid transit route from there to airport terminals. (Yes, that would include a Chelsea Creek crossing.)

Does using some sort of people mover technology, or other non-LRT tech, enable steeper grades that could allow for a shorter (and thus cheaper) crossing?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Does using some sort of people mover technology, or other non-LRT tech, enable steeper grades that could allow for a shorter (and thus cheaper) crossing?

Probably not. Any crossing would need to be underground, and the Airport side of Chelsea Creek isn't really space constrained as far as an Incline is concerned. That being said, the tunnel aspect is really what keeps this crazy and not reasonable. If we want to keep things reasonable, the best option I can find for a new large parking facility would probably be this lot along 1A, and then run above 1A and through the road spaghetti into the airport... somehow. This would probably end up as an extension of an APM rather than a new rail line.