Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

[Teban54]

[Analysis of demand from Hyde Park]

Adding a point that I can't fit into the original comment due to character counts: The NEC trip count of 18224 may be an overestimate, as many destinations, especially West Roxbury/Roslindale, assume trains stopping at Forest Hills. In practice, the commuter rail station doesn't have room for another platform. This may reduce NEC's usefulness significantly, as West Roxbury/Roslindale account for 10096 of the 18224 trips mentioned above. On the other hand, this may also present a stronger argument for an OL branch on paper, even though it's likely very unrealistic due to the exact same reasons that make quad-tracking Hyde Park a question mark.

Meanwhile, I really want to bring up this visualization again, outside of the spoiler tag. I'm probably biased, but damn, that's so cool.

I only picked up Tableau 2 hours ago for the sole purpose of creating this map, but I'll definitely look into using it to create more visualizations, ODX and otherwise. I should also be able to update the map to show the actual polygons instead of points.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Overall, while Hyde Park's demand for Fairmount Line is substantial (slightly leaning towards non-commutes), there's just as much or even higher demand to stay on the NE Corridor (slightly leaning towards commutes).

I think the fact that Hyde Park station, with it's $6.50 fares and 8 inbound trips per day has basically the same number of weekly riders as Fairmount with its $2.40 fares and 25 inbound trips per day is quite telling of this.

 

[TheRatmeister]

This may reduce NEC's usefulness significantly, as West Roxbury/Roslindale account for 10096 of the 18224 trips mentioned above

Needham Line replacement would probably free up enough space at Forest Hills for a new side platform for local service both ways at Forest Hills, and a Cummins Hwy stop (That I'm going to call Mount Hope because it's a better name) could also take some of those trips.

 

[bakgwailo]

Needham Line replacement would probably free up enough space at Forest Hills for a new side platform for local service both ways at Forest Hills, and a Cummins Hwy stop (That I'm going to call Mount Hope because it's a better name) could also take some of those trips.

It is my understanding from previous discussions on this that a Cummins Highway/Canterbury in fill wouldn't be possible.

 

[TheRatmeister]

It is my understanding from previous discussions on this that a Cummins Highway/Canterbury in fill wouldn't be possible.

I don't see any space reason why it wouldn't be. A few houses on Hyde Park Ave would need to move their detatched garages but it seems like 260 Cummins Hwy (And/or 605 Hyde Park Ave, depending on where you site the station) is the only building that's actually in the way and would need to be demolished, and even then you might be able to stagger or move the platforms to get out of it.

 

[Riverside]

A platform can have a 1% grade, so an 800ft platform can be 8ft lower on one end.

Cool, TIL! Thanks!

Grouping them into broader regions, and comparing their accessibility from Orange Line, NEC and Fairmount:

• LMA: 476 jobs, OL ≈ NEC >> Fairmount
• Downtown (Shawmut Peninsula): 496 jobs, accessibility is a bit fine-grained
  • 358 jobs at FiDi and MGH are similar for all three alignments (MGH via a Red Line transfer), with NEC weakly favored for its speed
  • 138 jobs at Haymarket-State: OL > NEC > Fairmount
• Cambridge: 145 jobs, similar for all three alignments (via a Red Line transfer), with NEC weakly favored for its speed
  • If an Urban Ring connects to Kendall and/or Harvard, OL and NEC gain an advantage due to transferring at Ruggles
• BUMC: 119 jobs, Fairmount >= OL >> NEC
  • Urban Ring can reduce difference between them
• Back Bay: 87 jobs, NEC ≈ OL > Fairmount

Overall, 701 jobs have a clear preference either OL or NEC over Fairmount. A majority of them are in LMA, which is almost as popular as the entire downtown combined (a smaller number come from Haymarket and Back Bay). In contrast, only 119 jobs arguably weakly prefer Fairmount over OL/NEC (BUMC), and even that depends heavily on quality of bus transfers.

This seems to buttress the idea that the 39 is likely a key component of a popular Hyde Park <> LMA 2SR. (More in that thread later.)

From a Regional Rail perspective, it really is a shame that a bypass like the South Cove Loop isn't practical. Running a Fairmount service that loops back down the NEC would address some of the transit needs we're discussing here.

Spoiler: maybe it could work a little bit?

Well, it could work well enough in the "afternoon" direction -- reverse peak inbound Ruggles > Back Back > peak outbound Fairmount -- no crossovers, no blocking traffic:

But it's the morning commute that would be more of a problem, as Fairmount -> Back Bay trains would need to cross through (likely) 2 tracks before arriving at the westbound/southbound track being used for NEC reverse peak "outbound" service -- meaning that all three NEC tracks will be blocked at once at the train moves through the crossovers:

I dunno, maybe you slot in one or two morning peak trains (like, 1 per hour), which would be interesting. But it doesn't seem viable for SUAG service.

I think the fact that Hyde Park station, with it's $6.50 fares and 8 inbound trips per day has basically the same number of weekly riders as Fairmount with its $2.40 fares and 25 inbound trips per day is quite telling of this.

That's a really interesting point. That may provide a path to do a low-cost "test" of ridership potential here: lower the fare, and look for additional trains that can stop there (i.e. implement the early stages of Regional Rail), and see if ridership increases accordingly.

I don't see any space reason why it wouldn't be. A few houses on Hyde Park Ave would need to move their detatched garages but it seems like 260 Cummins Hwy (And/or 605 Hyde Park Ave, depending on where you site the station) is the only building that's actually in the way and would need to be demolished, and even then you might be able to stagger or move the platforms to get out of it.

I think the options here would either be reconfigure the area to add the new track on the eastern side, and remove 24 Factory St, or add the new track on the western side without reconfiguring and destroy 30 and 34 Business St and eat into the reservation on the side a bit as well. In terms of destroying buildings the first is better, in terms of existing infrastucture the second is better. If Amtrak wants 4 tracks they will need to pick one at some point, but honestly even the two residential buildings option isn't that bad in terms of required eminent domain.

There's a theme here: there will come a point where the Hyde Park community will need to decide whether they want to lose their station(s) or lose some private property. That's a solvable problem, and is also a problem that will ultimately be addressed by the community and the eccentricities of the moment. From a Regional Rail planning perspective, I don't think this actually changes any potential plans, unless I'm mistaken?

 

[ritchiew]

A platform can have a 1% grade, so an 800ft platform can be 8ft lower on one end.

Thanks for that. Do you have the source? I know I've seen some MBTA documents specifying platform specs like this, but can't remember where I found that.

 

[Teban54]

I think the fact that Hyde Park station, with it's $6.50 fares and 8 inbound trips per day

Are you using an older schedule for this? Because I just checked the schedule for April 1, and counted:

• Providence/Stoughton Line: 11 inbound, 19 outbound
• Franklin/Foxboro Line: 9 outbound, 0 inbound
• Fairmount Line: 25 in both directions

Granted, it's still a big difference inbound. I'm also not sure why Hyde Park gets way more outbound trains than inbound trains, and why Franklin trains never stop there inbound when it seems feasible.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Thanks for that. Do you have the source? I know I've seen some MBTA documents specifying platform specs like this, but can't remember where I found that.

Loading…

cdn.mbta.com

 

[BostonBoy]

Why not combine Readville and Cleary Square at a point between the two? There's plenty of room to build there and then place another stop at Clarendon Hill, which is where the pedestrian overpass exist at "Kelly's". I think it spaces out gives the railroad a little extra space at Cleary Square to improve track geometry and still add a track.

 

[bakgwailo]

I don't see any space reason why it wouldn't be. A few houses on Hyde Park Ave would need to move their detatched garages but it seems like 260 Cummins Hwy (And/or 605 Hyde Park Ave, depending on where you site the station) is the only building that's actually in the way and would need to be demolished, and even then you might be able to stagger or move the platforms to get out of it.

Dug up the previous discussion starting here-ish. TLDR; Generally ops/congestion issues and constraint on the 3 track layout, 4 track might make it more feasible. I'd argue land taking, especially of private residences makes it a no-go (or at least into crazy pitch territory), although, I personally do agree that it would be an ideal stop location and with Regional Rail it would finally give Hyde Park rapid-transit like service access. That would give you two lines in Hyde Park with Readville, Fairmount, Hyde Park and a Mt Hope station. Not quite subway distance spacing on stops, but, it would be pretty transformative to the area. Add in a full Orange Line conversion to Westie and Rozzie, and all of the sudden the southern side of the city transforms from a transit desert to some of the better served neighborhoods.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Are you using an older schedule for this? Because I just checked the schedule for April 1, and counted:

• Providence/Stoughton Line: 11 inbound, 19 outbound
• Franklin/Foxboro Line: 9 outbound, 0 inbound
• Fairmount Line: 25 in both directions

Granted, it's still a big difference inbound. I'm also not sure why Hyde Park gets way more outbound trains than inbound trains, and why Franklin trains never stop there inbound when it seems feasible.

I don't know what I was looking at but clearly it wasn't the right one. Either way, still a big difference in the number of trains and the fares.

I'd argue land taking, especially of private residences makes it a no-go (or at least into crazy pitch territory)

If the number of people affected is in the single digits I'm less worried. Eminent domain has been used more than one recent(ish) CR project, SCR has had to deal with a bunch and it sounds like there was even more needed for the Greenbush Line restoration.

 

[ritchiew]

If the number of people affected is in the single digits I'm less worried. Eminent domain has been used more than one recent(ish) CR project, SCR has had to deal with a bunch and it sounds like there was even more needed for the Greenbush Line restoration.

For SCR or the Greenbush Line, I don't think they used eminent domain to take land that people's houses sit on, or force any homes to be demolished. That was all city owned properties, industrial space, and undeveloped land, I think. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Very reasonably, it's a bigger deal when people's homes are being affected. It's a big deal to take a bit of someone's yard. More so if something like a detached garage needs to be torn down. Massive if a home needs to be demolished. That's not to say it should be completely off limits. Maybe we should be more willing to do it. But that kind of taking would still need a strong justification, and the MBTA won't have the political clout needed to pull it off too frequently.

Actually, does anyone know of recent eminent domain cases in Massachusetts where homes had to be destroyed? I'm sure it happens, but don't know where.

 

[Tallguy]

Thanks for that. Do you have the source? I know I've seen some MBTA documents specifying platform specs like this, but can't remember where I found that.

I got that from someone at FRA

 

[Tallguy]

Loading…

cdn.mbta.com

I don't see a slope requirement

 

[reno]

I don't see a slope requirement

The only slope requirement I see is Chapter 2 page 2.8 which says cross slope can not exceed 2%. I don't see a longitudinal limit listed. (page 59 in PDF)

 

[Teban54]

A few miscellaneous thoughts:

Readville already needs to be rebuilt pretty badly, is a flying junction really too much to ask for? The flyover is already there, you'd just need to move the station a bit to the north.

Assuming quad-track between Readville and Forest Hills, since the alignment seems to be wide enough until you get very close to Forest Hills Station itself, and the existing triple track north of Forest Hills, Amtrak can have the middle track of the 3-track section all to itself, with the other two being used for CR. For the quad-track area a standard middle track express, outer track local setup can be used. That essentially means the question is: "How many TPH can you put through a double tracked railway?" To which the answer is: At least 12TPH, which is what the RER B in Paris runs through Port Royal station. The Elizabeth Line in London runs even more trains through Stratford with 16TPH at peak times, the North River tunnels between NYC and NJ sees up to 24TPH, and the Munich S-Bahn runs 28 TPH through Donnersbergerbrücke station at peak times. The last one is absolutely absurd even by European standards and probably not within reach of the NEC, but even the 12TPH the RER-B runs would be enough for the hypothetical service pattern I threw together.

Regarding the question of running Franklin-via-NEC, while you're right that NEC's capacity will hopefully not be an issue (though that's only possible without a Franklin flat junction), there's another reason why it may hurt: Every Franklin-Ruggles train means the loss of both a Canton Junction-Ruggles train and a Franklin-Fairmount train.

Given the obvious prominence of both lines, maximizing service on both is desired -- Fairmount clearly needs rapid transit frequencies, and I'd even say doing so for Canton Junction may not be a bad idea either, especially given SCR and boosting regional connectivity to Providence. While I suspect Franklin/Foxboro riders vastly prefer NEC over the Fairmount corridor, that can be mitigated with a transfer at Readville if NEC runs frequent trains and reinstates Readville platform (which, according to this F-Line post, is planned).

This F-Line post (part of what @bakgwailo cited above) also says "an endgame future of likely 85-100% of Franklin schedules going via Fairmount". While that's primarily due to the Franklin flat junction, this interlining may also be another reason, especially if the flat junction is also hard to remove as per discussions above.

Needham Line replacement would probably free up enough space at Forest Hills for a new side platform for local service both ways at Forest Hills, and a Cummins Hwy stop (That I'm going to call Mount Hope because it's a better name) could also take some of those trips.

The proposed 4-track station layouts mentioned in the F-Line post already contradicts the statement, as it shows Forest Hills and Hyde Park only having space for an island platform and not two side platforms, necessitating crossovers to express tracks that make them impractical. F-Line also repeatedly mentioned that Forest Hills is "structurally unexpandable". (I suppose it might be expandable with major structural modifications to the station, but that is unlikely to be worth the cost for the small number of reverse commuters and Forest Hills bus transfers.)

Why not combine Readville and Cleary Square at a point between the two? There's plenty of room to build there and then place another stop at Clarendon Hill, which is where the pedestrian overpass exist at "Kelly's". I think it spaces out gives the railroad a little extra space at Cleary Square to improve track geometry and still add a track.

Probably because:

• Moving Readville eliminates a transfer with the Fairmount Line, which is even more important with Franklin-via-Fairmount (as I mentioned above);
• The midpoint between Readville and Hyde Park (Cleary Square) is exactly where the residential density is at the lowest:

Unsurprisingly, this is also where the 32's ridership drops to negligible: (@TheRatmeister's analysis using Fall '22 data confirms this)

You can mitigate that with tons of TOD, but not only would that require tearing up multiple factory buildings, there's not a lot of space available due to proximity with rivers. Such a station site also neglects substantial, established demand at both Cleary Square and Readville, and has bad connections to neighborhoods across the rivers (and Fairmount ROW) on both sides.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The proposed 4-track station layouts mentioned in the F-Line post already contradicts the statement, as it shows Forest Hills and Hyde Park only having space for an island platform and not two side platforms, necessitating crossovers to express tracks that make them impractical

It doesn't seem that far off. Forest Hills station is currently quad-tracked with a 20ft wide island platform. So if we want two side platforms, we need to find 4ft somewhere. It seems like the OL has enough space to give up ~8ft, so in theory the station wouldn't need expanding.

While I suspect Franklin/Foxboro riders vastly prefer NEC over the Fairmount corridor, that can be mitigated with a transfer at Readville if NEC runs frequent trains and reinstates Readville platform (which, according to this F-Line post, is planned).

The only way I think that transfer would be of an acceptable quality is if it's a cross platform interchange with a timed, which would entail entirely rebuilding the station, at which point why not just build the flyover? If the platforms are kept in roughly their current locations, I'd estimate a minimum ~5 mins transfer time with a timed transfer, which brings with it concerns about delays. If one of the two trains is delayed either passengers need to wait a long time for their transfer or both trains need to be delayed.

There's also capacity concerns. Timed transfers to increase route options work well when roughly an even number of people switch trains. That is not the case here. Significantly more people would make the Fairmount->NEC transfer than the other way around, which could lead to overcrowding on these trains during rush hour.

These are some pretty significant compromises, which would no doubt come with some continuing costs, in exchange for the fixed cost of an incline and a road bridge.

 

[HenryAlan]

Outstanding work, Teban54!

Overall, while Hyde Park's demand for Fairmount Line is substantial (slightly leaning towards non-commutes), there's just as much or even higher demand to stay on the NE Corridor (slightly leaning towards commutes). This means having access to both Fairmount and NEC/OL is important.

It is far too easy for people to look at a map of station locations and conclude that Cleary Square is served well enough by Fairmount, but as you aptly demonstrate, it is not. Two stations, two routes, two distinct sets of destinations and travel patterns. The Fairmount line is not a useful route to LMA.

 

[Teban54]

It seems like the OL has enough space to give up ~8ft, so in theory the station wouldn't need expanding.

Can you elaborate on where the 8' comes from? If you're referring to the gap between tracks, it seems that the wall separating OL and CR tracks still needs to be moved. So at the very least, that's more work to redo the plaza. I'm not sure if the walls extend all the way into the station, which would be way, way worse.

The only way I think that transfer would be of an acceptable quality is if it's a cross platform interchange with a timed, which would entail entirely rebuilding the station, at which point why not just build the flyover? If the platforms are kept in roughly their current locations, I'd estimate a minimum ~5 mins transfer time with a timed transfer, which brings with it concerns about delays. If one of the two trains is delayed either passengers need to wait a long time for their transfer or both trains need to be delayed.

There's also capacity concerns. Timed transfers to increase route options work well when roughly an even number of people switch trains. That is not the case here. Significantly more people would make the Fairmount->NEC transfer than the other way around, which could lead to overcrowding on these trains during rush hour.

These are some pretty significant compromises, which would no doubt come with some continuing costs, in exchange for the fixed cost of an incline and a road bridge.

Are we looking at the same current locations of the platforms? Because I see a very short footbridge connecting the Fairmount platform to the NEC platforms. It's only 130' from the Fairmount platform to the inbound NEC platform, which shouldn't take anywhere close to 5 mins.

I was also hoping for frequencies that are better than 15 mins on NEC, possibly even rapid transit frequencies. (The 32 bus shows there's demand.) This means the transfer from Franklin to NEC wouldn't be a problem. The opposite direction from NEC to Franklin may present more concerns, but that's no worse than transferring from rapid transit to commuter rail today. Also, it seems that commuter rail generally runs on time even today, and is actually much more reliable than rapid transit, so the availability of time tables should make the transfer even easier.

Of course, all of this become absolutely necessary if a flying junction is infeasible in the first place, which is at least plausible based on discussions above and my analysis below.

Spoiler: Flying junction feasibility (or lack thereof?)

Using Google Earth Pro, I estimate that the Fairmount tracks are at an altitude of 73' while NEC is at 56'. Using the 2% grade anywhere and 1% grade on platforms quoted above, and assuming 800' platform, you need 1250' just for the descent itself.

Starting from the intersection between Fairmount ROW and NEC (which is very optimistic, see below), 1250' lands you right at the doorsteps of Orleans Packing building. The ROW to the east starts narrowing around there, and I estimate at most 300' before there's no room for a merge -- that's likely generous.

The question then becomes: Where can the inbound ramp start its descent -- or rather, where can it cross NEC? Today, there's a 390' gap between where outbound Franklin track turns away from NEC and where NEC meets Fairmount. If we replicate it inbound, that's clearly not enough.

This is not even considering the likely (and necessary) double tracking of Fairmount. The ramp would then need to cross both outbound Fairmount tracks and NEC tracks. It obviously can't go even higher, so the only possible solution is to let outbound Fairmount go higher at "Level 3". At that point, there's insufficient room to clear the Sprague St bridge to the west. (I suppose you can rise to Level 4 and cross above the Sprague St bridge, but that will result in a prohibitively high Readville platform.)

(Edit: The outbound NEC->Franklin ramp also needs to rise up to meet the super-elevated westbound Fairmount track.)

All in all, there are so many engineering challenges associated with it, that I will need to see a tangible proposal to be convinced of its feasibility. Perhaps it's no surprise that the NEC studies that F-Line cited did not even seem to consider building a flying junction here.