Seaport Transportation

Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I think I'm not understanding this- all I'm saying is, if a train runs from Back Bay to the Piers Transitway (crappy diagram below), doesn't it never touch the existing Tremont tunnel at all, but only a new section near TMC? I actually find this proposal really interesting so I want to make sure I'm understanding it right...
Code:
              BOYLSTON
(to Copley) <-----|
                  |
          Tremont |                    /------------> (to WTC)
           Street |          South    /
           Subway |          Station |
                  |                  |
                 / \                 |
       TMC (new)/   \                |
               /-----\               |
              /       \              |
(to BBY) <----         \-------------/
                             \
                             |
                             v (to Dudley)

You're right. I think we were kind of talking past one another. You're absolutely right that the line between BBY and SS itself is all new tunnels - albeit much easier and less disruptive tunneling than blowing up Essex Street. The Tremont tunnel would be used up to what will be the new TMC GL stop. So the existing tunnel is used to tie the SS, BBY and Wash lines into the existing system.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I Think you are missning the need to connect the BCEC to the city's hotel capacity--which for a conventioneer must be a predictable one seat ride. More imortantly Convention planners need to see an easy path from the hotels in the area of Copley and Hynes. It is a terrible economic problem that conventions big enough to fill all 3 halls of the BCEC never showed up, and enough hotels won't get built in the Seaport until they do (or until Seaport hotels are connected back to BBY).

After looking at new bus-only ramps off the Pike in the Washington St area they came up with that toll plaza U-turn as a a way to do Back Bay/Pru to Seaport. Your rail plan needs to beat that,. Track 61, with a 1 seat ride to the threshold of the BCEC and Silver line way (and airport?) looks like a better "no new footprint" answer.

I am as big a fan of GLXs and All that you propose, but the boffins won't throw their weight behind a plan that doesn't fix the BCEC.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I Think you are missning the need to connect the BCEC to the city's hotel capacity--which for a conventioneer must be a predictable one seat ride. More imortantly Convention planners need to see an easy path from the hotels in the area of Copley and Hynes. It is a terrible economic problem that conventions big enough to fill all 3 halls of the BCEC never showed up, and enough hotels won't get built in the Seaport until they do (or until Seaport hotels are connected back to BBY).

After looking at new bus-only ramps off the Pike in the Washington St area they came up with that toll plaza U-turn as a a way to do Back Bay/Pru to Seaport. Your rail plan needs to beat that,. Track 61, with a 1 seat ride to the threshold of the BCEC and Silver line way (and airport?) looks like a better "no new footprint" answer.

I am as big a fan of GLXs and All that you propose, but the boffins won't throw their weight behind a plan that doesn't fix the BCEC.

That Green Line configuration does provide a one seat ride from BBY to BCEC.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

That Green Line configuration does provide a one seat ride from BBY to BCEC.
Sure, if we could build tunnels with hyphens and slashes we'd have all kinds of transit by now.

But the idea of Track 61 is minimal new footprint (minimal $, minimal time, minimal regulation).

Once your budget goes above $100m, the next option isn't a tunnel, it is an aerial tramway from the east side of BBY, over the pike, over the SS rail approaches, and over Fort Point Channel, which can be built for that sum and solves all the ground-level and sub-surface problems of landfill, river, and railyard that F-line has so carefully documented.
320px-Emirates_Air_Line_towers_24_May_2012.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Air_Line_(cable_car)

Any Green Line or Silver Line tunnels anywhere won't cost a penny less than $1B. Even portals and street running is going to cost half a billion.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Sure, if we could build tunnels with hyphens and slashes we'd have all kinds of transit by now.

But the idea of Track 61 is minimal new footprint (minimal $, minimal time, minimal regulation).

Once your budget goes above $100m, the next option isn't a tunnel, it is an aerial tramway, which can be built for that sum and solves all the ground-level and sub-surface problems of landfill, river, and railyard that F-line has so carefully documented.

I'm not saying build GLX instead of this Track 61 plan. But it should someday replace this DMU shuttle, because the shuttle is crippled by scheduling issues. The tunnel system I just detailed comes from F-Line as the most viable route...
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I'm not saying build GLX instead of this Track 61 plan. But it should someday replace this DMU shuttle, because the shuttle is crippled by scheduling issues. The tunnel system I just detailed comes from F-Line as the most viable route...
There is such an enormous gap between Track 61 and "Most viable tunnel" that I as you to forgive me for being unable to store them in the same part of my brain or to discuss them in the same thread.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

There is such an enormous gap between Track 61 and "Most viable tunnel" that I as you to forgive me for being unable to store them in the same part of my brain or to discuss them in the same thread.

Well that's fair enough :)
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I'm not saying build GLX instead of this Track 61 plan. But it should someday replace this DMU shuttle, because the shuttle is crippled by scheduling issues. The tunnel system I just detailed comes from F-Line as the most viable route...

The problem is that once the crippled DMU shuttle gets built, there is no incentive to do the GLX there anymore, and we are stuck with the DMU for eternity.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

The problem is that once the crippled DMU shuttle gets built, there is no incentive to do the GLX there anymore, and we are stuck with the DMU for eternity.

Well there's a good chance that this Track 61 scheme will fall flat on its face. The BCCA doesn't want a broken transit link. They already think the SL is broken, this shuttle line would be worse. Assuming that BCCA is one of the big pushers for the concept of the shuttle (and that's seeming all DOT has done also, conceived it as an easy fix) once the problems that will plague this become evident (hopefully before it's implemented in the first place) they'll back out.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Sure, if we could build tunnels with hyphens and slashes we'd have all kinds of transit by now.
:rolleyes:
But the idea of Track 61 is minimal new footprint (minimal $, minimal time, minimal regulation).
And this exact mindset is what created the Silver Line, which they now seem to have deemed a failure. Now we can get a DMU that will likely take so much time that it will give conventioneers the impression the Back Bay is in some distant western suburb...
Any Green Line or Silver Line tunnels anywhere won't cost a penny less than $1B. Even portals and street running is going to cost half a billion.
Worthwhile things cost money. If our political establishment refuses to realize that, they'll just eventually spend so much money on compromised solutions that it would have been better to build it right in the first place.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Do we have any idea of the capacity of the shuttle in passengers per hour? The number of hotel rooms in BB effectively linked with BCEC is the number of passengers this thing can move one way in about 3 hours in the morning (6:30-9:30am roughly). People trickle out of conferences and disperse in all directions for dinner, but they all show up at the convention center around 7-9am.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Do we have any idea of the capacity of the shuttle in passengers per hour? The number of hotel rooms in BB effectively linked with BCEC is the number of passengers this thing can move one way in about 3 hours in the morning (6:30-9:30am roughly). People trickle out of conferences and disperse in all directions for dinner, but they all show up at the convention center around 7-9am.

According to MBTA employees who post on RR.net, they may not be able to conduct morning/evening rush hour runs at all, due to the dispatch of trains from Southampton and out of South Station. If that holds true, then this thing is dead before it starts rolling.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Sure, if we could build tunnels with hyphens and slashes we'd have all kinds of transit by now.

But the idea of Track 61 is minimal new footprint (minimal $, minimal time, minimal regulation).

Once your budget goes above $100m, the next option isn't a tunnel, it is an aerial tramway from the east side of BBY, over the pike, over the SS rail approaches, and over Fort Point Channel, which can be built for that sum and solves all the ground-level and sub-surface problems of landfill, river, and railyard that F-line has so carefully documented.
320px-Emirates_Air_Line_towers_24_May_2012.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Air_Line_(cable_car)

Any Green Line or Silver Line tunnels anywhere won't cost a penny less than $1B. Even portals and street running is going to cost half a billion.

That sounds more like a Shelbyville idea....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVqVdQYC44Y
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I'm not saying build GLX instead of this Track 61 plan. But it should someday replace this DMU shuttle, because the shuttle is crippled by scheduling issues. The tunnel system I just detailed comes from F-Line as the most viable route...

Yeah. The problem with Track 61 if it gets approved is that because it's so constrained at rush hour we may only have 10-12 years to run it before its capacity window completely closes. Consider:

-- South Station expansion realizing the maximum-most Fairmount and Worcester schedules + buying the Old Colony a few more slots above its current ceiling. Lots more Fairmount + some more OC traffic slicing Southampton with more frequency.

-- Likely Middleboro extension to Hyannis. Buzzards Bay has pretty much been clinched already by Cape Flyer; Hyannis is an inevitable Phase II now. See above with that claiming all available extra slots on the OC.

-- Likely Foxboro fork off the Franklin, which would route over the Fairmount as a requirement. More Fairmount traffic on top of the Indigo schedule.

-- Likely evolution of more Franklin runs being diverted over Fairmount as the NEC gets more congested. Still more Southampton-crossing traffic.

-- Amtrak 2025 NEC Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Tri-tracking and movable bridge replacements downstream flushing more intercity to Boston. Vehicle procurements like Acela replacements doing more of the same. Substantial expansion of Southampton required to support all this (see that highlighted in the linked report as a high priority...this is where the private businesses in Widett probably have to get moved elsewhere). More crossing NEC intercity traffic at the wye getting priority above all else from Amtrak dispatch.

-- T storage expansion. If they displace the BTD lot and cold storage warehouse at Widett for their own layover tracks, their trains come out of the Amtrak yard further to the south and end up fouling the loop and Track 61 switches more than they do today.

-- South Coast Rail or Phase I to Taunton flushing more Stoughton traffic through the NEC. General Providence Line growth. Will be much much harder to get a slot across the wye. Will force many more Franklins over the Fairmount and across Southampton.

-- Worcester schedule saturation chewing up short-turn opportunities at BBY/Yawkey/New Balance (which today is not a problem). "Fairmounted Worcester" to Riverside tops off that capacity with thru trains, making 5-8 minute platform layovers for a reverse impossible. You will probably have to continue all the way to Riverside instead of ever getting a chance to reverse at one of the intermediates.



And so on. All of these things are near-term stuff or in active motion. None of them with all that big question marks for implementing within 10 years except Taunton and (if the BRA doesn't get its ass in gear with the Post Office) SS expansion. Track 61's last daytime slot may be gone by 2025-27. And then we're S.O.L.


I said a couple pages ago for this to work with such a ceiling for possible schedule slots it almost has to be a 1-2 punch of this in the interim + restarting SL Phase III or alternative studies, design, and action plan. Whether the funding exists in the next decade to start building, it's a shot across their bow to restart the paperwork and get it all back on the frontburner. Obviously on a much different route this time than the impossible Chinatown Big Dig and desecration of the Common burial grounds. The BCEC camp's renegade move to propose this is, as Shepard noted in his post, a stinging indictment of what they were left to work with on a half-complete Silver Line. The pressure is on to fix that now. Because they know Track 61 passenger traffic may have a very finite lifespan at no more than a decade...if it's feasible to initiate at all.

That's why finding feasible non-"Medium Dig" routes off the Green Line becomes a lot more urgent now. Changing at Tufts or crossing platforms at Park for a Copley train is--two-seater be damned--a shitload higher-capacity and more frequent way of getting easily to BBY than the DMU that can't run often and threatens to be squeezed, squeezed, squeezed out of existence before it hits puberty age.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

That sounds more like a Shelbyville idea....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVqVdQYC44Y

In all seriousness, why not build a monorail over the ROW? Wouldn't have to worry about crossing the yard, and it could even be reconfigured to better serve the area with more stops than just BBY and the convention center.

I have a feeling it would cost a lot more than the dmu proposal, but it may be a cheaper alternative to the "medium" dig green line expansions which are needed but unlikely to be built.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

While Green could be more expensive, it also kills way more birds than just transit from BBY to Seaport.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

In all seriousness, why not build a monorail over the ROW? Wouldn't have to worry about crossing the yard, and it could even be reconfigured to better serve the area with more stops than just BBY and the convention center.

I have a feeling it would cost a lot more than the dmu proposal, but it may be a cheaper alternative to the "medium" dig green line expansions which are needed but unlikely to be built.


BCEC reps: "It put North Haverbrook on the map!!!"
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

How expensive or difficult would it be to construct a portal at South Station to connect Silver Line Waterfront to the Washington St line? I know the original plan for Phase 3 was a tunnel but that ain't happening. Would that be helpful at all?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

How expensive or difficult would it be to construct a portal at South Station to connect Silver Line Waterfront to the Washington St line? I know the original plan for Phase 3 was a tunnel but that ain't happening. Would that be helpful at all?

I think it's been discussed in this thread that there's no room for a transitway portal in the vicinity of South Station. Too many competing tunnels to actually portal up. From what I gather, there's room for a tunnel that stays a tunnel, but not a surface portal.

EDIT:

F-Line described on Page 5 a possible surface routing from South Station, but not along Essex, you'd have to street-run way south via Curve Street or some such. Could do a surface run to Dudley from there, but you'd miss an essential Green Line connection if you kept it an SL or non-Green LRV. You also don't get the connection from Seaport to Back Bay, which is the whole point.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

In all seriousness, why not build a monorail over the ROW? Wouldn't have to worry about crossing the yard, and it could even be reconfigured to better serve the area with more stops than just BBY and the convention center.

I have a feeling it would cost a lot more than the dmu proposal, but it may be a cheaper alternative to the "medium" dig green line expansions which are needed but unlikely to be built.

The same thought crossed my mind as I watched the clip. After all, one of the biggest hurdles in a transit project like this-- acquiring the ROW-- isn't an issue here. Plus it would be a lot easier to put two tracks in allowing for fast, two-way travel. As cheesy as it sounds, having a monorail running to the Innovation District(TM) would come off as, well, innovative.
 

Back
Top