Seaport Transportation

Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

In the AM, I can't see it taking more than 20 minutes. Buses could scoot down Herald, over the Broadway Bridge and then swing onto the Haul Road (since they're commercial vehicles), and would be there relatively quickly.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

F-Line, why do you believe. . .


I told you this in the other (shouting) thread. As long as you believe this discussion is about the poster who is saying something rather than the discussion itself and playing games of tit-for-tat "gotcha!", I am done wasting ArchBoston's time and bandwidth giving further oxygen to whatever bug you've got up your ass about this.

Good day, sir.:rolleyes:
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Right, but one thing those charter buses have over any public transit service is that they serve the endpoints directly. So, the DMU shuttle would have to be much, much better than custom tailored buses that pull up directly at your hotel, vs having to walk over to nasty Back Bay station and down the long flight of stairs to the platform covered in diesel smoke.

Does anyone know how long the bus shuttles take to travel from hotel to convention center typically?

Better question might be...how much space is there for the shuttles to line up at BCEC? I haven't been down there often enough in the thick of a convention to know how far back they line up, but I would imagine there's a pretty finite limit that can be saturated very quickly at crush load.

The train can definitely make a very big difference there if the shuttles are scraping a capacity ceiling on parking and waiting in line for boarding/drop-off. But because that ceiling gets breached most often at start/end of convention day, the ability to run the train at full or expanded throughput at rush hour is that much more critical. If they can't do that, then the shuttle queues probably are more than adequate for the mid-day off-peak. Conventions aren't a reverse-commute...that traffic peaks the same hours as the rest of the city.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Okee... now that I've had some time to stew on this a bit, here are my thoughts for whatever little they're worth.

First, this is a damning indictment of the Silver Line. Not exactly of the mode itself - although that's partially responsible for crowded at-capacity trips and ambivalence on the part of conventioneers - but more specifically an indictment of the Silver Line's stub end at South Station, which gets Seaport commuters nowhere near the Back Bay fast.

Second, this is a damning indictment of city/regional transit planning. Clearly, the convention authority has zero confidence in getting things done through the city, MBTA, etc, and therefore needs to unilaterally announce a transit solution that amounts to a square peg in a round hole (see everything F-Line has written!). They've uniliaterally announced a sub-par solution when there are other simple transit extensions that are possible without introducing an entirely new mode of rolling stock or using a single track that goes in the wrong direction to detour through a massively crowded interchange and will therefore end up being very un-rapid transit. And yet this is still somehow politically better than the more sensible solutions (and yet, as with the involvement of Amtrak, still nonetheless likely to fall apart.)

Third, let's talk about the DMUs. HenryAlan on Uhub argues that no matter how bad the routing is, introducing DMUs into the T's rolling stock is a great start. Hmm. I sympathize with that view, but on the other hand if DMUs are ordered for a line that ends up looking like an unworkable boondoggle then there's very little chance we'll see any more DMUs in the near future. (Big Dig syndrome continues to be a major state malady.)

Finally, I just wanted to give my modest take on what actually the best Seaport transit solution would be. I've said it before, and nobody has yet to give a good reason why this wouldn't work: a Green Line Essex Street Surface Trolley linking Boylston to South Station and Seaport.

For the cost of two shallow portals, track (only about a third of a mile on Essex and then in the tunnel as well), and catenary, the Green Line can be linked into South Station and the Piers Transitway, solving the dual problems of the stub-end and the mode from which the current SL suffers. Essex Street can be blocked to general traffic during rush hour - Kneeland Street is parallel and an easy detour. With signal priority, Essex Street on the surface would be almost certainly faster than the other way we've talked about getting the GL to SS: the indirect routing of Tremont Street Tunnel to the Pike and then back up again. Essex Street would be almost certainly cheaper by comparison. Finally, several residents of Chinatown have told me that a surface trolley and traffic restrictions along Essex Street would most likely be supported by the community. Again, we're talking about literally a third of a mile on surface streets. Travel time between Hynes and WTC would probably not be much longer, even with all the stops, than the amount of time this DMU shuttle would take - and it would involve much, much better headways, especially at rush hour.

I'm genuinely surprised that this strange crazy proposal was just featured as a major Globe story, when there are so many better, cheaper, more direct, more useful ideas. If only the agencies that were supposed to do this actually worked.
 
Last edited:
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Soooo...is this project happening or not?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Okee... now that I've had some time to stew on this a bit, here are my thoughts for whatever little they're worth.

First, this is a damning indictment of the Silver Line. Not exactly of the mode itself - although that's partially responsible for crowded at-capacity trips and ambivalence on the part of conventioneers - but more specifically an indictment of the Silver Line's stub end at South Station, which gets Seaport commuters nowhere near the Back Bay fast.

Second, this is a damning indictment of city/regional transit planning. Clearly, the convention authority has zero confidence in getting things done through the city, MBTA, etc, and therefore needs to unilaterally announce a transit solution that amounts to a square peg in a round hole (see everything F-Line has written!). They've uniliaterally announced a sub-par solution when there are other simple transit extensions that are possible without introducing an entirely new mode of rolling stock or using a single track that goes in the wrong direction to detour through a massively crowded interchange and will therefore end up being very un-rapid transit. And yet this is still somehow politically better than the more sensible solutions (and yet, as with the involvement of Amtrak, still nonetheless likely to fall apart.)

Very good point, and very conspicuous timing giving Hizzoner's retirement, the upcoming primary, and the winner of that sweepstakes being the person who gets to choose the next BRA leadership. The Menino/Peter Meade people at the agency trend to the Menino/Meade age group, so there is going to be a lot of retirements and turnover right away when the new City Hall regime takes over.

Who was the Silver Line's biggest cheerleader back in the 90's/early-aughts? Menino and the BRA.

Who was so against trolleys on Washington St. that the rail integration option for the Transitway and Phase III were nonstarters and had to be BRT unicorns or bust...to the ultimate demise of Phase III construction? Menino. Backed by a BRA echo chamber.

Who oversaw BCEC and the Seaport from planning to birth? Menino and the Menino-hegemony BRA.


The somewhat renegade nature of dropping this by surprise and seemingly outside of City Hall representation is very striking. Where was "He" for this Globe front-page exclusive and full-throated PR offensive??? The Mayor isn't quoted at all. This kind of thing is usually teed up with him as the first speaker in the lineup. This was all Sec. Davey, Gov. Patrick, and BCEC forces. Has a total end-run ever been made around the Mayor and BRA reps like this in the last 2 decades? I can't think of any major. Or any major that were dead fuckin' serious about doin' it and doin' it NOW like this coalition is. Because that breach of ettiquete was simply not done if you had any scruples about the retaliation coming to you if you pinched Him out of the loop.

1) As Shepard plainly suggests, people with a stake in BCEC and the Seaport achieving full potential are fed up with the city's intransigence on transit and the unfulfilled promises of this over-complicated Silver Line build that got PR'ed so hard back in the day only to watch them cut-and-run when it was only half-finished. Enough to take matters in their own hands. Enough to make a statement that even a deeply flawed solution with crapshoot odds of feasibility is better than what the planning gods of Olympus gave them.

2) Nobody fears the Mayor as lame duck. Retaliation is off the table. He doesn't have a say in things anymore. Neither does the crusty old Meade contingent at the BRA who are de facto lame duck with their advancing age, relative isolation inside Menino's increasingly drying-up inner circle, and new Mayor calling the shots who's going to bring in his own people. They are putting their stamp on it now before the primary to influence the next regime and weed out which candidates are behind them.


What this action says about the power structure in this town is BIG. So big we can't even begin to process what the implications are, how this is going to evolve, or whether it'll evolve into a good thing or bad thing. But they are definitely rendering a verdict on one of Menino's big legacies without given a crap what he thinks about it. And it's not a thumbs-up.


That's almost a separate breakout thread unto itself well apart from the transit-wonk discussion we're having here. B.F.D. stuff!
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I told you this in the other (shouting) thread. As long as you believe this discussion is about the poster who is saying something rather than the discussion itself and playing games of tit-for-tat "gotcha!", I am done wasting ArchBoston's time and bandwidth giving further oxygen to whatever bug you've got up your ass about this.

Good day, sir.:rolleyes:

No sir, it'd not about you, its about getting the facts correct.
You stated "there are still major obstacles with scale for these vehicles because of limited seating capacity only 25% higher for a married-pair DMU than for one single-level "
I pointed out that the seating capacity numbers you were presenting assume that the MBTA would get cars with the same seating/interior configuration as the SMART DMUs. I provide links to data to show that SMART is getting cars with seating and layouts set up for a high-end, almost intercity-like commuter service (2X2 reclining seats, a bar for drinks). If we assume that the MBTA is going to get cars with configurations for short urban commuting service (I think a reasonable assumption) then the seating capacity of the cars based on the floor plans also provide in the links I included, will be much higher. I think that's a pretty important point to make clear if people are going to be discussing just how practical these cars are going to be for the services they are proposed for so far.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

No sir, it'd not about you. . .

You. . .

I. . .

I. . .

I. . .


Your last 5 posts have been this: I/me/you/your..."NO U!!!" There is no longer any discussion going on here in this...whatever...tangent that's germane to the Seaport plan. You're playing tit-for-tat gotchas and trying to ensnare one poster in rhetorical traps about Amtrak, commuter rail operations on the West Coast, the Nippon Sharyo product catalog. Anything in the kitchen sink except, apparently, the discussion about Track 61 and the Seaport plan. It stopped doing more good than harm trying to respond to that sometime yesterday.

OK? I pretty plainly said I am not a railroader and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so sue me. It's not the gospel, and you're smart enough to seek second sources about what some internet asshole says on a message board. If you want to join back in on-topic, fine...join the discussion. But another round of this shit?

Good day, sir.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

F-line, just curious, what's your take on the Essex Street surface link? Aside from a general aversion to street running, is there any impediment to the two portals and 1500 feet of track and wire?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

F-line, just curious, what's your take on the Essex Street surface link? Aside from a general aversion to street running, is there any impediment to the two portals and 1500 feet of track and wire?

1) Portaling anywhere on the block south of Boylston is pretty damn near impossible. Same tunneling nightmare under spaghetti utilities and around deep building foundations on a narrow street that doomed SL Phase III.

2) To get across the Boylston-Tremont intersection with historically-protected tunnels going 3 different directions, a historically-protected station, a mothballed and historically-protected second entrance into the Little Building, an underground electrical substation, and an underground pump room for keeping Back Bay groundwater out of the Green Line you have to go extremely deep. It can't just be a simple wye track at the curve and a T-shaped Boylston platform. This is the SL Plan...a second level way down, underpinning the start of the abandoned tunnel. To make it interface with the rest of the Green Line you'd have to take the incline into the depths and drop the floor many feet deeper, and lengthen the start of the incline further back towards Park St. Which will preclude ever using the abandoned tunnel again.

3) Since you're so deep it'll be impossible to get back up to a portal within 1 block before you have to cross under the Orange Line tunnel at the Washington intersection. Add +2 blocks, figure now Ave De Lafayette as your portal area...if you can fit it. Now you've built half of SL Phase III and between that and the station are at or north of $2B.



It's more circuitous but VASTLY easier to go the roundabout way through the South End recycling the existing tunnel. Build it exactly like you would a Washington St. portal: 1) Recycle the tunnel, plunking a Tufts Med Ctr. station under Eliot Norton Park at shallow depth under the grass in the ex- 'pit' portal with a long walkway connecting to the OL fare lobby; 2) Continue the tunnel +1 block under urban-renewal cleared land on the Shawmut-Marginal block, then +1 block diagonally under the Pike; 3) Portal in the NEC cut along the Herald St. wall on the space that used to be the Boston Herald's old freight siding, currently occupied by some electrical boxes with room to squeeze two trolley tracks comfortably; 4) Graft the incline up the wall and add a traffic signal phase at the Washington-Herald intersection for the trolley.

All-in-one build, nicely consolidated and low-profile. Can easily be done at less cost than Red-Blue if they don't lose their gourds on designing the Tufts station, because there's no seams bedrock to blast through here or need to go deep and semi-complex with the station like Charles does to avoid the Longfellow piers.



Then...well, have to get creative. If you backtrack 1 block to Marginal you've got a straight shot to Curve St., Kneeland, and the SS bus station access road. But keep in mind you don't really have a portal option on the Marginal side of the Pike like you do on the Herald St. wall, so it probably is going to mean left-right for a block on Washington. Then changing the one-way direction of Marginal and Curve (which shouldn't be an issue, as they aren't load-bearing here).

(Looping up in the bus station wouldn't be a bad way to do it.)


Now, as for your portal into the Transitway...where is tricky because 93 is descending below ground right under Atlantic. But you do have that whole length of plaza along the bus terminal to go along. At some point 93 gets deep enough that you can probably dip under. The Transitway wall ends on the Atlantic-Summer intersection where the SL Phase III trajectory would've hit it coming off Essex. So 93 is most definitely deep enough by the SS headhouse for a shallow cut-and-cover incline in the plaza along the bus terminal to make the rest of the descent into the Transitway.

Not real expensive, but to avoid icky Kneeland and Atlantic you might be better off taking the right turn from Curve onto the bus terminal access road, then inclining off it down to the plaza when it makes the turn into the terminal-proper and up to the rooftop parking. That gets you off a hell of a lot of very congested public street-running.


Or...you could find a trickier way to go straight down Herald from Washington and find a way to weave through the ramp minefield at the Herald-Albany intersection, get onto the NEC near the wye, and just do a little flyover overpass of the wye like GLX is doing out of Lechmere to get over the Fitchburg. Herald is 3 lanes one-way here. But if you took the left lane + the NEC-facing sidewalk and plunked a jersey barrier there you probably have enough room for 2 grade separated tracks. Your guess is as good as mine how you find a path through all this. You can do a pretty steep drop akin to the Science Park incline, but I have no clue where your entry point would be to get under all that.


I'm thinking the Herald-wall/Washington intersection uniportal...left, right...up the bus access road...down a bolt-on incline to the plaza...portal in the plaza along the bus terminal into shallow tunnel...deep descent on the Atlantic side of the train station...meet the Transitway by the headhouse is probably the cheapest, least invasive, most public street-avoiding, least ops-awkward, and most shared infrastructure-utilization way to do it. And then this will be your SL Phase III until they can fund the N-S Link in a future time and place...piggyback a trolley tunnel onto the NEC leads to bury it all as a real subway...and diverge off the back of that Link lead at around Kneeland to meet up at shallow depth with your plaza tunnel right where your portal used to be...and use the tunnel you already built for the rest of the descent into the Transitway.


However you do it, try to recycle-recycle-recycle and combined-build as much as possible, avoid the busiest streets at the SS/93 ramp nerve center, and don't try to replicate the path of SL Phase III because then you start counting costs in multi-billions.


Get some frickin' air rights buildings or a park over the Pike pit here and you might even be able to get more grade separation out to the bus access road by splitting the air rights parcels. Cross streets like Washington and Harrison on a signal phase, but not actually have to run on any of them until you're safely pulled off on the grassy knoll between Curve and the 93 ramp en route to the bus terminal access road. Make this thing drag some long overdue development kicking and screaming with it on top of the Pike canyon from Washington to the Boston Herald complex.
 
Last edited:
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Two things:

- The Little Building entrance is gone. Save for the pedestrian tunnel repurposed as a utility room. There's nothing left of it on the Emerson side. (I wish I could've seen the fitness center mid-renovation, when it was just bare walls)

- Wasn't the Tuft's station built with the intention of interfacing with a reactivated GL tunnel + station, or is that apocryphal?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Two things:

- The Little Building entrance is gone. Save for the pedestrian tunnel repurposed as a utility room. There's nothing left of it on the Emerson side. (I wish I could've seen the fitness center mid-renovation, when it was just bare walls)

- Wasn't the Tuft's station built with the intention of interfacing with a reactivated GL tunnel + station, or is that apocryphal?

Wasn't built as such, but there are several paths across the Tremont-Washington block under Tufts driveways that'll get you to the OL fare lobby. And that fare lobby does happen to be at shallow level like the 'pit' under the park so it works serendipitously at staying pretty level and flat. Kinda long, similar to the Arlington station Berkeley entrance's distance from the platform, but wouldn't place Top 3 in the longest concourses on the T so no biggie.

There'd be an entrance at the park direct into the trolley station, so the concourse would only be for Green-Orange free transfers. 2 separate stops with the same name and a pass-thru concourse behind the faregates.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

1) Portaling anywhere on the block south of Boylston is pretty damn near impossible. Same tunneling nightmare under spaghetti utilities and around deep building foundations on a narrow street that doomed SL Phase III.

2) To get across the Boylston-Tremont intersection with historically-protected tunnels going 3 different directions, a historically-protected station, a mothballed and historically-protected second entrance into the Little Building, an underground electrical substation, and an underground pump room for keeping Back Bay groundwater out of the Green Line you have to go extremely deep. It can't just be a simple wye track at the curve and a T-shaped Boylston platform. This is the SL Plan...a second level way down, underpinning the start of the abandoned tunnel. To make it interface with the rest of the Green Line you'd have to take the incline into the depths and drop the floor many feet deeper, and lengthen the start of the incline further back towards Park St. Which will preclude ever using the abandoned tunnel again.

3) Since you're so deep it'll be impossible to get back up to a portal within 1 block before you have to cross under the Orange Line tunnel at the Washington intersection. Add +2 blocks, figure now Ave De Lafayette as your portal area...if you can fit it. Now you've built half of SL Phase III and between that and the station are at or north of $2B.

Yep, I completely understand that portaling (if I may invent a word) onto Essex could be almost as complex as digging under Essex. One thing that always strikes me though, going inbound through the Boylston curve, is how incredibly close the station is to the surface - at most times of day you actually see daylight on the platform. Is it that farfetched to think that reconfiguring the station - or even eliminating it - could bring a couple tracks to the surface just slightly beyond (or perhaps even before) Tremont?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Despite f-lines arguements against, im still for an essex st tunnel as well. However due to underground garbage, I would have it start back near arlington at the wide split where that portal was. Take the roof off the tunnel there for a tbm launch box. Go deep under essex to avoid everything (like they did harvard - porter, popping up inside the south station silver line loop. One station between boylston and chinatown to connect with both. I believe you could construct the station by having the two tbm tubes seperated and then "mine" out the space between. I believe this is what they are doing with the lirr esa project.

I just think it would serve everyone better then a detour down to herald st, despite the additional cost. I do agree that any cut and cover is out of the question. (F-line, I only gazed over your previous post so I might have missed something debunking the above)
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Despite f-lines arguements against, im still for an essex st tunnel as well. However due to underground garbage, I would have it start back near arlington at the wide split where that portal was. Take the roof off the tunnel there for a tbm launch box. Go deep under essex to avoid everything (like they did harvard - porter, popping up inside the south station silver line loop. One station between boylston and chinatown to connect with both. I believe you could construct the station by having the two tbm tubes seperated and then "mine" out the space between. I believe this is what they are doing with the lirr esa project.

From what I understand, there's no bedrock for TBM to bore through for a kilometer down, just tidal mush that the shawmut peninsula is resting on and/or humans dumped.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

One other question on surface routing Essex: is there still an incline here?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Just coming into this now, but what are your guesses for the new seaport line's color? Indigo has been taken, along with every other color of the rainbow and silver. Are we looking at the pink line? Turquoise line? Brown line? The lime line?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I would guess that DMU shuttles will be called "Indigo" as a mode. But who knows. Indigo isn't really taken yet. Fairmount Line is still Fairmount Line.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

One other question on surface routing Essex: is there still an incline here?

There's a substantial concrete structure underground, so they may well have just paved over the incline when they extended the subway west. However, whatever structure may exist is facing the wrong way - you'd have to rip it out completely and rebuild to get cras going eastbound on Boylston.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Just coming into this now, but what are your guesses for the new seaport line's color? Indigo has been taken, along with every other color of the rainbow and silver. Are we looking at the pink line? Turquoise line? Brown line? The lime line?

Incorrect, yellow has not been taken.
 

Back
Top