Seaport Transportation

[winstonoboogie]

Yes. There's no way it can handle 90/hr. at current speeds. The shitty pavement and D St. traffic light bottleneck are parts of it. But the tunnel itself has permanent speed restrictions that most definitely were not in the original design, and which aren't going to be lifted. The articulateds didn't end up being nimble enough to take tunnel curves at top speed like they'd hoped. There's no signal system, and their initial assumptions about BRT dispatching being as exacting as LRT dispatching didn't pan out so it's unlikely that adding Green Line-like signals would do a whole lot to meaningfully improve performance in such a short tunnel.

There's a lot that could improve here, but it's incremental gains. Much of it rolling back the gradual decay in speed that's afflicted the Transitway over the course of its first decade. It is never going to reach full design potential under BRT. There were too many things they didn't adequately take into account about trying to make a busway act as a real subway.

That said, 40-50/hr. with additional routes utilizing it is certainly realistic and wouldn't cost the kind of money that requires fundamentally changing it. More vehicles, fix the @#$% pavement, fix the @#$% D St. light. That's all that's really necessary to give it a pretty healthy headway boost.

Here is a link to the original South Boston Piers Transitway Environmental Impact report from 1993:
http://archive.org/details/southbostonpiers00usde

Within it, it states that the as designed top speeds for the tunnel are 10 MPH on segments with curves, and 30 MPH in the straight section under the channel. It was designed from the start to have low speeds with no signals, and given the short distance between stops and the station dwell times no matter the speed, higher speeds with signals would not make much difference in travel time. The slow speeds on curves were planned from the start and aren't because "the articulated buses didn't end up being nimble enough"

In order to achieve 89 buses per hour (I rounded up to 90 before), three buses at a time would have to simultaneously load and unload at each of the underground platforms. The platforms are designed for this, and Silver line Way is set up so three buses at once can switch from diesel to electric power. They have never come close though to ever attempting to operate that level of service, however the original assumptions assumed the present speeds in their calculations.

Here is an archive.org archived pdf of the 2005 Silver Line schedule which shows a running time in the peak of 4 minutes from South Station to World Trade Center in the tunnel:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050530....com/traveling_t/pdf/bus/routesilverwater.pdf

Here is the present 2013 schedule which still shows a 4 minute running time from South Station To World Trade Center:
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_m...ction=O&timing=W&RedisplayTime=Redisplay+Time

Where is the evidence that there "has been a gradual decay in speed" during the first decade of operations?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Why would you sit on a bus from Harvard Square to the Seaport when you can take the Red Line to the Silver Line? Busses from Cambridge to BBY are always going to be nightmarish because of Mass Ave. Honestly that's another route that needed RT when it was possible to engineer. Can't do a Mass Ave subway anymore. Best they can do with that one are articulated number 1 busses with very frequent headways.

I don't know how you can BRT Mass Ave (I'm assuming that's how you're getting from Harvard to BBY). They'll NEVER give up a general travel lane for a bus lane. That means you can't even get the fake "BRT" of the Washington Street Silver Line.

The #1 bus on Mass Ave is a complete joke. You can walk faster than the bus during rush hour. BRT will never work on Mass Ave because of the traffic -- as indicated no one will give up a traffic lane, or parking.

The only solution is an alternative train (not bus) tunnel routing -- same is true for the Seaport. Short of that it will become a traffic nightmare.

 

[Arlington]

The #1 bus on Mass Ave is a complete joke. You can walk faster than the bus during rush hour. BRT will never work on Mass Ave because of the traffic -- as indicated no one will give up a traffic lane, or parking.

Think outside the box. Mass ave should already have car-exclusion, parking removal, and signal priority).

Beyond that, you've got the Pike and the river roads that connect Harvard Sq to Back Bay fairly directly--you might just need to tweak some bridge/overpass clearances and add a ramp in "the cut"--all waaay cheaper than a tunnel.

 

[brucepf]

New LED boards to show motorists quickest way to highway to leave seaport.

The city’s newest traffic gadget may not be the panacea that magically eviscerates all gridlock in the Seaport District, but it’s pretty cool.

At a Wednesday press conference where local city and state leaders floated ideas on how to alleviate the traffic plaguing the burgeoning business district, Mayor Thomas M. Menino debuted one solution: An LED traffic sign that shows people the quickest way to find an exit to the highway.

Thomas J. Tinlin, the city’s transportation commissioner, provided more details. It’s the best-kept secret in the Seaport District: Many motorists assume that the closest on-ramp to Interstate 93 is Atlantic Avenue in the Financial District. Those drivers, Tinlin said, overlook the fact that you can also reach I-93 through the I-90 on-ramp at Congress Street and B Street in the Seaport. If transportation officials could point more drivers in that direction, it would save motorists time — and would decrease the back-up delaying drivers from getting across Seaport Boulevard’s Evelyn Moakley Bridge.

Enter the city’s new “time to destination” signs. The LED boards will be posted at the exits of high-volume parking garages, providing drivers with real-time driving estimates to help them make more educated decisions — and to help them get the heck out of Dodge as quickly as possible.

Three of the signs are set to appear in November. Pretty soon, Tinlin said, the information will also be available on the Web, so commuters can check their optimum routes on their desktops before leaving the office for the day. Tinlin said city transportation staff have also been in contact with building managers to discuss installing a smaller version of the information signs in office building elevators.

How does the technology work? Mark Coupland is northeast territory manager for All Traffic Solutions, the company that manufactured the signs, and he provided an explanation: The signs do not use on-the-ground sensors. Instead, the company uses satellite technology to detect all of the cellphone and GPS signals that ping out into the stratosphere every second from a particular spot on the globe. Those signals help provide time-to-destination estimates that refresh once per minute.

Boston will be the first city in the world to get these signs, Coupland said. As he showed off a prototype of the sign in the Seaport District on Wednesday, he said that bypassing the need for on-the-ground sensors allows the technology to be nimble enough to be used at any spot in the city — or, in fact, in the world.

“If you wanted, right now, I could have this sign show you the time it would take to get on the expressway from a parking lot in Sydney, Australia,” Coupland said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/blogs/starts-and-stops/2013/10/04/new-seaport-district-traffic-signs-will-show-quickest-way-expressway/3j0AsSIx0LEiGM5FtzCzmM/blog.html

 

[George_Apley]

The #1 bus on Mass Ave is a complete joke. You can walk faster than the bus during rush hour. BRT will never work on Mass Ave because of the traffic -- as indicated no one will give up a traffic lane, or parking.

The only solution is an alternative train (not bus) tunnel routing -- same is true for the Seaport. Short of that it will become a traffic nightmare.

I agree. Unfortunately a Mass Ave subway is a non-starter. Grand Junction Urban Ring routing with connections at Kendall, Mass Ave/MIT and Kenmore is the best you're gonna get for rail from Cambridge to BBY.

 

[George_Apley]

Think outside the box. Mass ave should already have car-exclusion, parking removal, and signal priority).

Beyond that, you've got the Pike and the river roads that connect Harvard Sq to Back Bay fairly directly--you might just need to tweak some bridge/overpass clearances and add a ramp in "the cut"--all waaay cheaper than a tunnel.

They won't tweak the river roads' height clearance because they don't want over-height trucks. Increase the height for busses and you also are allowing other over-height vehicles to use them. Unless DCR (or if DOT takes them over someday) has a change of heart about what vehicles should use the river roads that's not happening.

 

[coleslaw]

Would it ever be possible to replace the sliver line (at least the South Boston and airport section with an actual train? I know the cost is the largest factor but i don't see why it would be that expensive. The tunnel already exists and the the stations (like the one above) look like they were designed for trains. Could they just lay down tracks and add a raised platform, if they replaced it with light rail they wouldn't even need to build the platform. Another light rail branch connected to the red line kind of like the Ashmont-Mattapan line but with green line capacity there would be awesome. Are the tunnels wide enough? Is there some other issue that makes this impossible?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Would it ever be possible to replace the sliver line (at least the South Boston and airport section with an actual train? I know the cost is the largest factor but i don't see why it would be that expensive. The tunnel already exists and the the stations (like the one above) look like they were designed for trains. Could they just lay down tracks and add a raised platform, if they replaced it with light rail they wouldn't even need to build the platform. Another light rail branch connected to the red line kind of like the Ashmont-Mattapan line but with green line capacity there would be awesome. Are the tunnels wide enough? Is there some other issue that makes this impossible?

The problem is what do you do about the airport connection? You are not going to run trains through the Ted Williams Tunnel.

 

[coleslaw]

The problem is what do you do about the airport connection? You are not going to run trains through the Ted Williams Tunnel.

Couldn't that be done as a long delayed second stage? With the impossibility of new silver-line busses, the seaport section, which is already packed, will be way over used with all the new development. They should at least upgrade that section.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Couldn't that be done as a long delayed second stage? With the impossibility of new silver-line busses, the seaport section, which is already packed, will be way over used with all the new development. They should at least upgrade that section.

No. That would require running trains in mixed traffic on a mainline interstate highway, which the feds are going to have a major problem with. Planners cut the transit bore out of the Ted's design as a cost-saver early on in the process. There's no way to augment it now. Once the Ted's precast tunnel sections were sunk into the Harbor its configuration was set in stone.

You can streamline SL1 a bit by modifying the very inefficient onramp setup. And it would be a very good idea the next time Logan gets a major renovation to put in a dedicated busway around the terminals to grade separate all public transit and airport shuttle buses on a separate level from all the cars and taxis pulling curbside. But those are SL1-specific improvements that don't really address the Transitway.

And, should the Urban Ring ever get built as LRT from Lechmere through Chelsea to Airport on the Blue Line it would be possible to take a trolley from downtown on that route. And even run it in mixed traffic on this terminal busway. But that's Urban Ring, not Seaport.



You can also, of course, do dual buses and rail in the Transitway were it connected to the Green Line. As discussed on previous pages you've got to find a viable path--likely through the South End--to get between the Tremont St. tunnel and down into the Transitway. And that is not easy. But once you're in there the rails can be buried in the existing pavement, the platform height is already compatible with low-floor trolleys, platform length can swallow 4-car trolleys, the overhead voltage is the same as the Green Line, and the wire itself can be made compatible with both TT poles and trolley pantographs (using special wire hangers like the Green Line had in the era when panto-equipped LRV's and pole-equipped PCC's intermixed, and repositioning the TT return-current wire a few inches higher so the pantographs don't short it out). Do that and add a couple passing turnouts and you can run the Transitway with buses looping at South Station and trolleys looping at Silver Line Way. Multi-car trolleys adding the Seaport-downtown capacity it so badly needs, and end-of-line looping for each mode keeping the speed from being too big a schedule drag.

Getting into the tunnel is not cheap. Once inside, pretty academic. And there's little hope of this happening soon because they would have to start all over again with the studies. But it's the only practical way they can permanently solve for the Seaport's transit needs, so picking it up off the mat and studying they must. Soon.

 

[coleslaw]

No. That would require running trains in mixed traffic on a mainline interstate highway, which the feds are going to have a major problem with. Planners cut the transit bore out of the Ted's design as a cost-saver early on in the process. There's no way to augment it now. Once the Ted's precast tunnel sections were sunk into the Harbor its configuration was set in stone.

You can streamline SL1 a bit by modifying the very inefficient onramp setup. And it would be a very good idea the next time Logan gets a major renovation to put in a dedicated busway around the terminals to grade separate all public transit and airport shuttle buses on a separate level from all the cars and taxis pulling curbside. But those are SL1-specific improvements that don't really address the Transitway.

And, should the Urban Ring ever get built as LRT from Lechmere through Chelsea to Airport on the Blue Line it would be possible to take a trolley from downtown on that route. And even run it in mixed traffic on this terminal busway. But that's Urban Ring, not Seaport.



You can also, of course, do dual buses and rail in the Transitway were it connected to the Green Line. As discussed on previous pages you've got to find a viable path--likely through the South End--to get between the Tremont St. tunnel and down into the Transitway. And that is not easy. But once you're in there the rails can be buried in the existing pavement, the platform height is already compatible with low-floor trolleys, platform length can swallow 4-car trolleys, the overhead voltage is the same as the Green Line, and the wire itself can be made compatible with both TT poles and trolley pantographs (using special wire hangers like the Green Line had in the era when panto-equipped LRV's and pole-equipped PCC's intermixed, and repositioning the TT return-current wire a few inches higher so the pantographs don't short it out). Do that and add a couple passing turnouts and you can run the Transitway with buses looping at South Station and trolleys looping at Silver Line Way. Multi-car trolleys adding the Seaport-downtown capacity it so badly needs, and end-of-line looping for each mode keeping the speed from being too big a schedule drag.

Getting into the tunnel is not cheap. Once inside, pretty academic. And there's little hope of this happening soon because they would have to start all over again with the studies. But it's the only practical way they can permanently solve for the Seaport's transit needs, so picking it up off the mat and studying they must. Soon.

I didn't mean that trains would be in that tunnel I know that would never be allowed, and shouldn't be. I meant that it would be possible to re do the first section in South Boston and still use busses to the airport for the foreseeable future (until theres money for a new harbor tunnel).
I don't see why it has to link with the green line that seems like unnecessary added cost. why couldn't it be like the Ashmont-Mattapan line and be connected to the red line, but at south station and go from there through seaport?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I didn't mean that trains would be in that tunnel I know that would never be allowed, and shouldn't be. I meant that it would be possible to re do the first section in South Boston and still use busses to the airport for the foreseeable future (until theres money for a new harbor tunnel).
I don't see why it has to link with the green line that seems like unnecessary added cost. why couldn't it be like the Ashmont-Mattapan line and be connected to the red line, but at south station and go from there through seaport?

LRV's are wasted on an isolated line. The whole crux of the problem here is that Seaport passengers cannot efficiently get downtown and to the Back Bay. Silver Line Phase III was supposed to solve this, but it never was built. The only way to fix that is to finish the job SL III set out to do. And since the BRT tunnel through Chinatown is a no-go on cost and disruption, Green Line connection is the only viable long-term solution that totally licks this problem.

Yes, you can do streetcars to Southie. But they don't add anything above and beyond the 60 ft. buses without being able to continue to downtown from SS. Simply packing more bodies and tighter headways into the Transitway is accomplishable by buying more vehicles. Getting those passengers where they need to go without making 2 sets of crowded and convoluted transfers at the highest-congestion points of the heavy rail lines only gets solved if there's a contiguous link.


As for Airport...that pretty much is exactly the idea of having a dual-use tunnel. The trolleys can go downtown, the dual-mode buses can loop. 4 consecutive stations where you can hop off an airport bus and hop onto a trolley on the same platform spreads the load out really nicely and is extremely logical for out-of-towners to understand. And likewise you can expand the routes on either mode with a rail + bus Transitway. Do that streetcar branch to Southie as revival of the old City Point subway branch. Funnel the Dudley-east quadrant of Urban Ring BRT through there or do other express bus configurations. The Transitway (save for the D St. crossing) is a good design because it can handle both modes from anywhere. It's just half-complete on both the build and the vehicle procurement, with the T having almost no interest in finishing the job.

The only way to fix it is to buy lots more equipment in the short-term to keep up with demand and link it to downtown in the mid/long-term so the people can go to their final destination. There's not very much you can do to avoid that build. The Silver-Red-Orange or Silver-Red-Green double-transfers are excruciating today and getting more congested with each passing year. And Red simply can't handle the explosive growth before its own congestion chokes it to death. That's the whole point of having Red-Blue and a complete Silver-Orange/Green transfer and/or thru connection. Red needs load diversions on either side of the Park + DTX choke points or its own dwell times and overcrowding are going to render it non-functional through downtown within 2 decades.

 

[davem]

I didn't mean that trains would be in that tunnel I know that would never be allowed, and shouldn't be. I meant that it would be possible to re do the first section in South Boston and still use busses to the airport for the foreseeable future (until theres money for a new harbor tunnel).
I don't see why it has to link with the green line that seems like unnecessary added cost. why couldn't it be like the Ashmont-Mattapan line and be connected to the red line, but at south station and go from there through seaport?

What happens when you need to do the daily maintenance on said trolley fleet? The PCCs have a dedicated carbarn at Mattapan for everything but heavy maintenance, and they are so simple and bullet proof that they don't need much to begin with. For real repairs they are put on a flatbed and trucked somewhere (I think Riverside). Back in the day I believe they used to couple them to a red line train and drag them to Eliot Yard off hours.

They would either have to build a facility similar to Mattapan somewhere around SL Way ($$) or do a surface connection to the rest of the green line system, similar to chestnut hill ave for non-revenue moves ($$$$). I suppose they could also string wire over Track 61 and run to Cabot Yard for maintence as well, but as a freight clearance route and with FRA regulations that may be a non-starter.

 

[Arlington]

First, I'd like to note that a lot of Bus service from POSquare to South Station to Seaport to Airport is there today--it is just spread across too many routes to be easily "seen"--but would fill 3 roles:
1) Seaport surface service
2) Green Line to Airport (when Gov Cen is closed)
3) Orange to Airport (in one seat)

It looks like it is buses
448, 449, 459 (which serve only Terminal C)
424, 450, 456, (which go through the TWT, it looks)


On Google Transit, it shows MBTA bus 459 using the "homeland security" downramp into the Ted Williams. Does it really? If so, why doesn't the Silver Line.

Interestingly, the official 2012 "Downtown" system map shows SL using the downramp, not the regular onramps. http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/Schedules_and_Maps/System_Map/MBTA-system_map-front.pdf

So why, why, why doesn't the SL use that ramp?, instead of traversing the same D St to East Service Rd stretch *3 Times* to get to the airport (out via tunnel, back via surface, out via I-90)

 

[JohnKeith]

News regarding Widett Circle, the loop end of the DMU line from Back Bay to South Station.

The state wants to take the land by eminent domain. Owner wants the land to be used for recycling facility.

MBTA considers land taking in South Boston, imperils recycling proposal
By Thomas Grillo
Boston Business Journal

A controversial proposal in South Boston to turn a 50,000-square-foot cold storage warehouse into a $10 million recycling plant would be moot if the MBTA decides to take the parcel by eminent domain.

An MBTA spokesman confirmed that the transportation agency is considering the 18.6-acre site at Widett Circle as one of two dozen places to store trains. A decision is expected by next spring.

Details on the Department of Transportation’s ability or process to take land by eminent domain * — where the state would pay fair market value for the parcel that is assessed at $11.1 million — was unclear on Thursday.

The move would be part of a DOT expansion project intended to allow for more intercity and high-speed rail service flowing in and out of South Station. Under the proposal, up to seven tracks and platforms as well as construction of a new passenger concourse and other amenities would be added. The state would acquire and demolish the 16-acre U.S. Postal Service mail facility on Dorchester Avenue adjacent to the station. Vehicle and pedestrian access to Dorchester Avenue, which is restricted today, would be restored.

Celtic Recycling, a local company, is seeking approval to build its plant on Widett Circle. But the proposal has faced opposition by community groups who have asked the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to delay any decision about the project until the neighborhood has more information. If approved, the plant at 100 Widett Circle would process up to 1,500 tons daily of construction and demolition debris.

Celtic Recycling founder Susie Chin said she recently met with the MBTA about the possibility of the land taking.

“Obviously we are not happy about it,” said Chin who has a 75-year lease on the property. “The MBTA is doing this without even mentioning it to the South Boston community or its elected officials. All those emissions will work their way over into Southie.”

The owner of the property is Americold, an Atlanta-based temperature-controlled warehousing company.

Linda Zablocki, president of the Andrew Square Civic Association, who has raised questions about the recycling plant idea, could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

News regarding Widett Circle, the loop end of the DMU line from Back Bay to South Station.

The state wants to take the land by eminent domain. Owner wants the land to be used for recycling facility.

MBTA considers land taking in South Boston, imperils recycling proposal
By Thomas Grillo
Boston Business Journal

Excellent idea. I'm glad they're leaning that way.

That warehouse (rectangular building to the left of the long skinny building that's the T's commuter rail maint facility) bogarts a lot of space that could fit at least 8 layover tracks and free up the loop for the Track 61 DMU instead of having to be stuffed full with idling trains half the day. And it stays the hell away from Amtrak and blocks absolutely none of their movements between South Station and Southampton Yard. Win-win...and they need a gesture of good faith to Amtrak if they ever ever want to get approval for running that Track 61 DMU.

The BTD car impound lot is right to the left of this site along the loop track. So if they claim the warehouse first, that serves their needs for awhile. Then all they need to do for storage expansion #2 in a decade or whenever is work out a public-public land deal with the city to move the tow lot elsewhere in the area. Maybe that scuzzy industrial land off Dot Ave. next to Andrew station. Then they can claim another 10-12 tracks when they need it and set themselves for another 15-20 years.


This would allow them to drop the Beacon Park layover plan on their easement...which is easy and guaranteed-available, but nobody's idea of a #1 site. Then this Pike realignment plan can be straightened out a little further. I am sure this urgency with the Widett warehouse and the eminent domain option being put on the table is motivated by the upside of doing a more perfect Pike design that maxes out the redevelopable acreage. Eminent domain's a very small price to pay for that benefit. And it works better for the T to get their storage right at South Station instead of having to shuttle equipment through Yawkey and Back Bay all day on slots that would be better served carrying passengers on saturation-density DMU schedules.

 

[davem]

I hope they take Widett, it would be a perfect layover. A while ago I did a simple layover of NYs west side yards over widett, and there is more room up here. Combined with the tow lot its almost as big as Sunnyside.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I hope they take Widett, it would be a perfect layover. A while ago I did a simple layover of NYs west side yards over widett, and there is more room up here. Combined with the tow lot its almost as big as Sunnyside.

Oh yes. And at the 50-year needs level you've got the Boston Food Market in the middle of the circle to potentially land-swap. That is big enough parcel to fit an entire northside Boston Engine Terminal equivalent maint facility. Or another bus yard. Or two-dozen more tracks. Or some combination of any of the above.

Conceivably, if that land got secured permanently you would have flex to close Readville Yard 2 (the CR yard that's only using half the acreage) altogether and land-swap that for redevelopment and a doubling of size of the Wolcott Sq. neighborhood. Then just grab a few slots in the very under-capacity freight yard as your Fairmount and Stoughton layover, since Readville would be relieved entirely of having to remote-supply Widett. And still have vacant Readville Yard 5 on the Sprague St. side as the rainy day long-term flex site to kept securely in-pocket. Since it's been fully environmentally mitigated, is still zoned for train yard, and is such an isolated redevelopment parcel that Menino's attempts to strong-arm new mixed use there were met with near zero developer interest and violent opposition from the Dedham NIMBY's who want a dead demilitarized zone between them and Hyde Park.


Widett is critical space to lock up permanently as the one-stop TransitTown. Soooo much lifetime congestion relief, and so many other options freed up on the other sites that to-date they've had to hold in reserve. I'm glad the state is stepping up on this. It would be nice if the BRA joined them so there can be a good...or better...home for that warehouse's recycling center plans and eventually for the Boston Food Market (the last trace vestige of the city's meat-packing district).

 

[stellarfun]

Penultimate NIMBYism ever on Widett Circle.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...ls_fight_proposed_south_boston_train_ove.html

 

[JeffDowntown]

Penultimate NIMBYism ever on Widett Circle.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...ls_fight_proposed_south_boston_train_ove.html

I have to agree, amazing NIMBYism, I could not believe that the Widett Circle rail yard proposal was being protested.

I cannot imaging a more isolated piece of land near South Station that is available as a possible expansion yard. Widett is totally surrounded by transportation infrastructure -- I 93 and the Cabot and Southampton Street Yards. The complaints are insane.