Silver Line - Phase III / BRT in Boston

[johnmcboston]

One thing they need to do is try to somehow sequestre the bus lanes. That way, cars are not able to park in them.

Speaking of which, 'strategic planning' plans are to make Washington st 2-way between Marginal and East Berkeley - effectively removing the only 'exclusive' bus lanes on the Silver Lie BRT line.

 

[manrush]

Speaking of which, 'strategic planning' plans are to make Washington st 2-way between Marginal and East Berkeley - effectively removing the only 'exclusive' bus lanes on the Silver Lie BRT line.

So much for BRT in this city.

I also don't get why there is not more usage of the Silver "Line" as a trolleybus. I mean, right now, it functions as a Metrolleybus in the underground stops.

 

[czsz]

A quote spotted in the comments section of the great NY transit blog Second Avenue Sagas:

"Bus Rapid Transit is about as rapid as the German Democratic Republic was democratic."

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So much for BRT in this city.

I also don't get why there is not more usage of the Silver "Line" as a trolleybus. I mean, right now, it functions as a Metrolleybus in the underground stops.

Hell, I would just scrap the whole Silver Line vernacular for the Washington St. segment and just call everything that's a true trolleybus a "Silver Line", including the Cambridge ones. Name the Dudley-SS route something different...DowntownNotJustABus or something that means more than just a route number but a lot less than a "line". Keep it for the Airport runs because that is special "line"-like service. And then spiff up Cambridge.

Extend the TT wires back to Arlington Heights, and up the proposed Alewife/Mass Ave. bus ramps so the 77, 77A, and 79 go Silver. Do signal priority up and down the whole route and improve traffic flow by taking parking spots at intersections for turn lanes (Mass Ave. is not an actual 4-lane road if there are stopped cars with their turn signals on every 200 feet in the left lane). Put an actual bus turnout at Porter. Redo the whole Arlington stretch so that ridiculously over-wide road has proper bus lanes on it. Run big long silver-painted artics on it. Spiff up the 71 and 73 with bus lanes on Belmont/Trapelo and Mt. Auburn, and repurpose Watertown Carhouse (which already has wires) as an actual full-blown yard on the other end of the system. Put some actual stop signage and shelters up...these lines have been mostly skipped by the T's glass-shelter and signage renewal across most routes. Tie the 71/73 in better to the commuter rail when Fitchburg service increases to Waverly, and extend the 71 to Newton Corner and a new Worcester line station there (reduces need for Pike express buses). Maybe even re-wire the 74 from Huron Ave. to Belmont Ctr. so there's an intermodal theme going with all of them but the short-turn 72.

"Silver" TT's wouldn't be any more a "line" on the subway map than the current routes are, but it's the mode not the right of way that makes the perceptive difference. TT's are permanent infrastructure. They're not going to be re-routed, eliminated, consolidated, un-consolidated, or otherwise have little true permanence beyond what the T says the route map is this week. That's why nobody trusts the Washington St. segment or the 28X proposal...there's nothing holding the T to keeping them permanent. Wires are an infrastructure investment much like tracks, and the T has to use them on the wires' routings or it's wasting infrastructure. That's a bit weightier, and since the 71/73/77 were once an actual separate Harvard-hubbed Green Line unto themselves 52 years ago Cambridge still treats them like more than just a bus. I guarantee you those wires and rusted poles raise property values near where they run. And, yes, electric's coveted enough modern technology that it should be coated in sexy silver instead of treated like some quirky People's Republic of Cambridge anachronism.

 

[jass]

^^Arlington is redoing mass ave next year. The quasi 4 lanes will become two + bike lanes, medians, turns, and bigger sidewalks.

Theres absolutely nothing holding the T to keeping the TT lines permanent. Maybe you missed it, but half of last year, electrics werent being run at all.

Branding them all as silver is stupid. The current 7x branding is fine, as its obvious they all coexist together.

I do agree that 77 should be electric, as should silver line 2.

 

[Ron Newman]

Maybe you missed it, but half of last year, electrics werent being run at all.

I remember that. Something about Belmont needing to rebuild one of the streets that the 73 ran on.

 

[czsz]

Redo is right. Before any of those lines are added to the rapid transit map, they should figure out how to keep the connectors on the catenary. I see buses broken down in the middle of Mass Ave all the time because they've lost contact and ran out of power.

 

[jass]

Redo is right. Before any of those lines are added to the rapid transit map, they should figure out how to keep the connectors on the catenary. I see buses broken down in the middle of Mass Ave all the time because they've lost contact and ran out of power.

But they are on the rapid transit map.

 

[czsz]

No, that's the "Rapid Transit / Key Bus Routes Map". I meant on the rapid transit map alone (do these still exist anywhere?), as rapid transit.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Ladies (if we have any at all, anymore) and Gentlemen: I present to you, the most sophisticated mode of rapid transit in the 21st century! Zap! Zip! Zooommmm! There it goes now! Bus Rapid Transit!

SL4: Dudley Station - South Station at Essex Street, SL5: Dudley Station - Downtown Crossing at Temple Place experiencing 15-20 min delays due to traffic 3/9/2011 9:38 AM

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Redo is right. Before any of those lines are added to the rapid transit map, they should figure out how to keep the connectors on the catenary. I see buses broken down in the middle of Mass Ave all the time because they've lost contact and ran out of power.

The overhead is due for a full replacement in the next 4 years since it's at end of useful lifespan. It's on the T's FY2011-2014 capital improvements document. All the wire hangers are getting replaced as part of it, and that'll cut down the de-wires a lot. It's all worn; that's why they don't stay on.

Cambridge Common loop is where they de-wire all the fricking time.


Diesel-stitution isn't happening as often as it was last year with some small road construction projects wrapping up. That was temporary, not a trend. Sundays are the only days the TT's don't run, due to the MBTA keeping fewer bus garages open for the Sunday schedule.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Speaking of better-than-BRT, check this out. . .

http://www.ameritram.com/

Kinki-Sharyo, maker of our Type 7 trolleys, is demoing a new type of 100% low-floor dual-mode streetcar in Dallas that can run off-wire on stretches using rechargeable batteries that recharge from braking friction just like your Prius. They make 'em in modular length configurations, streetcar or LRV dimensions, and regular electric or battery dual-mode. Don't know if they'd fit the Green Line without modification, but the specs are closer to the T's than most other much wider-body modern LRV's because they're derived from the base Type 7 design. So hopefully it's in the ballpark for being modified to the system and wouldn't have to deviate too far off the cheaper off-shelf specs. Kinki's probably pitching a variant of this for the Type 9 bidding.

Wouldn't it be nice if we replaced the SL1 to Airport with dual-mode LRV's that ran on-wire in the Transitway and around the Logan terminals but off-wire through the Ted? That would solve the whole problem of ever making that part of the Silver Line rail, since pavement rail is OK through the tunnel for Fed regulations but overhead isn't because of exploding gas potential in an auto tunnel. I would love to see this to cure the ridiculous bus speed restrictions in the Transitway. And they could connect it to the rest of the Green Line when they have to temporarily tear up the ground under the NEC tracks from South Station to build the North-South Rail Link portal tunnel to the NEC. Cut-and-cover the trolley tunnel from the end of the Transitway, piggyback it on top of and next to the N-S portal tunnel, cross under the Pike on the Washington St./Shawmut Ave. block, and connect to the unused end of the Tremont St. tunnel. Options for future Southie surface branches that'll do a whole lot better than failed SL2/SL3 and never-implemented SL4. Ability to do a full-circuit light rail Urban Ring through Logan joining the northside leg via Lechmere and alongside the commuter rail tracks.

Hell, if they wanted to convert SL Washington St. to Green Line quickly and cheaper they can do a Phase I with just tracks on Washington, run on batteries from the end of the wires at the tunnel portal to Dudley, and have wires at Dudley to recharge on layovers. Get a second funding appropriation later to infill the wires.

Ditto Arborway restoration. Just throw down tracks and go off-wire from Heath to Forest Hills, wire up Forest Hills from the layover yard, and pay for the wire infill when service is running again for a few years and critics in JP have stopped their "Oh teh trolleys are gonna get stuck behind my God-given right to double-park with impunity!!!" bitching.

 

[datadyne007]

No, that's the "Rapid Transit / Key Bus Routes Map". I meant on the rapid transit map alone (do these still exist anywhere?), as rapid transit.

The Silver Line has always been included on the Rapid Transit map, even before the bus routes were introduced.

 

[Lurker]

Ameritram looks like an off the shelf winner.

 

[Shepard]

Speaking of better-than-BRT, check this out. . .

http://www.ameritram.com/

Kinki-Sharyo, maker of our Type 7 trolleys, is demoing a new type of 100% low-floor dual-mode streetcar in Dallas that can run off-wire on stretches using rechargeable batteries that recharge from braking friction just like your Prius. They make 'em in modular length configurations, streetcar or LRV dimensions, and regular electric or battery dual-mode. Don't know if they'd fit the Green Line without modification, but the specs are closer to the T's than most other much wider-body modern LRV's because they're derived from the base Type 7 design. So hopefully it's in the ballpark for being modified to the system and wouldn't have to deviate too far off the cheaper off-shelf specs. Kinki's probably pitching a variant of this for the Type 9 bidding.

Wouldn't it be nice if we replaced the SL1 to Airport with dual-mode LRV's that ran on-wire in the Transitway and around the Logan terminals but off-wire through the Ted? That would solve the whole problem of ever making that part of the Silver Line rail, since pavement rail is OK through the tunnel for Fed regulations but overhead isn't because of exploding gas potential in an auto tunnel. I would love to see this to cure the ridiculous bus speed restrictions in the Transitway. And they could connect it to the rest of the Green Line when they have to temporarily tear up the ground under the NEC tracks from South Station to build the North-South Rail Link portal tunnel to the NEC. Cut-and-cover the trolley tunnel from the end of the Transitway, piggyback it on top of and next to the N-S portal tunnel, cross under the Pike on the Washington St./Shawmut Ave. block, and connect to the unused end of the Tremont St. tunnel. Options for future Southie surface branches that'll do a whole lot better than failed SL2/SL3 and never-implemented SL4. Ability to do a full-circuit light rail Urban Ring through Logan joining the northside leg via Lechmere and alongside the commuter rail tracks.

Hell, if they wanted to convert SL Washington St. to Green Line quickly and cheaper they can do a Phase I with just tracks on Washington, run on batteries from the end of the wires at the tunnel portal to Dudley, and have wires at Dudley to recharge on layovers. Get a second funding appropriation later to infill the wires.

Ditto Arborway restoration. Just throw down tracks and go off-wire from Heath to Forest Hills, wire up Forest Hills from the layover yard, and pay for the wire infill when service is running again for a few years and critics in JP have stopped their "Oh teh trolleys are gonna get stuck behind my God-given right to double-park with impunity!!!" bitching.

Which is the larger capital expenditure - rails or wires? Which require more expensive ongoing maintenance?

I think this is a great idea, and wasn't aware that the wires rather than the rails were the limiting factor in terms of the SL to Logan through the TWT.

I think the best way of integrating the seaport SL lines with the GL is still the Essex Street tunnel from Boylston to South Station (connection at Chinatown?), as proposed in SL Phase 3. The current seaport tunnel is aligned for that eventuality.

I hear you already commenting: but what about GL mainline tunnel capacity, especially if we bring the Washignton Street line into the equation?

I think that revamping Boylston could solve the issue. A few of the lines from the west - B, C, D, or E, would route through Boylston to the Essex Street tunnel towards the Seaport, while the Washington St line would route the Tremont St tunnel into Boylston and on through towards Lechmere and GLX. You thereby split capacity along different segments, the only downside being that more transfers will be required (some BC, Clev or Riv originating passengers would need to transfer at Boylston to get to NS, while Dudley originating passengers would need to transfer at Boylston for Seaport and Logan service).

 

[HenryAlan]

I think that revamping Boylston could solve the issue. A few of the lines from the west - B, C, D, or E, would route through Boylston to the Essex Street tunnel towards the Seaport, while the Washington St line would route the Tremont St tunnel into Boylston and on through towards Lechmere and GLX. You thereby split capacity along different segments, the only downside being that more transfers will be required (some BC, Clev or Riv originating passengers would need to transfer at Boylston to get to NS, while Dudley originating passengers would need to transfer at Boylston for Seaport and Logan service).

That's essentially my vision for how it gets done, too, but I'd also suggest we could have differing termination points on each line. Why not have half the B trains go to the airport and half to GC? If 50/50 isn't the right mix, then 70/30, 60/40, etc. Same idea goes for the other three Western lines, each one could have two distinct termination points. I'm less sure this could happen for Dudley, as it would make for a more complicated portal, but if possible, that one should also get the chance to go to both Sommerville and East Boston. Eventually, you could add a Southie termination point into the mix. The Green Line then becomes something more like the NYC subway, with multiple routes entering and exiting various subway lines.

 

[HenryAlan]

Okay, here's my fantasy Green Line. I'm not clear on all the routings, but there could potentially be 20 or so distinct routes. Good thing there are 26 letters!

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...42.39253,-71.134758&spn=0.16963,0.308647&z=12

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Wires are definitely bigger infrastructure investment. Requires overhead, overhead supports, transmission cables on or under the right of way, new substations, high-capacity transmission cables from substations linking together the system-wide power source, and enough capacity on the feed from the power company's grid to handle that big a draw. If you're putting electrification where none has gone before or where previous power source has long been ripped out that's a majority of the (non-station platform/amenities) project expense along the right of way. Even moreso on new systems.

Track is track. Lay it down on the designed ROW or under the street pavement, ballast underneath (most cities do concrete in the street; the E line actually rests on wood ties under the pavement), do all the crossover and turnout work, make sure it's grounded properly for stray currents through the track. Street-running obeys traffic signals so no separate signal system required. Track renewal happens a lot more regularly than overhead renewal. The T completely replaced all of the Brigham Circle-Heath Street track in the pavement twice in the last 22 years: once when service finally resumed to Heath with Type 7's in 1989 after 4 years of closure, and once a couple years ago for Type 8's. It costs a bit for new installations, but it's a far lower percentage of total cost than the electrical transmission.


Kinki's banking on that for this battery model. They want to sell it to new systems that have small networks with expansion ambitions, because they can extend track off-wire a few years before they expand out the expensive wire from their more meager central power sources. Also works for uncertain expansions and restorations where the system is taking a little risk speculating on new track and maybe doesn't want to get stuck with utterly un-abandonable infrastructure they built too far out if ridership flops. And also works in cases like New Jersey's diesel LRV line where the line uses some railroad freight track during the day with freights taking over at night (time separation the only way to get an exemption to put less-crashworthy light rail on same tracks freight trains use).

But, yeah, that is the ONLY way you can go through the Ted on rails. Underwater tunnels are exempted from Interstate highway standards because of scarcity of those crossings and construction constraints, so rails can run concurrently where they can't on an Interstate on-land. Overhead wire...no way in hell. All it takes is one CNG-fueled vehicle to ignore the travel prohibition through the tunnel, leak gas en route, and let that gas rise and collect on the ceiling around the overhead. One arc from a passing transit vehicle ignites a nice fireball with nowhere to disperse but along the ceiling and down the walls if there's a big enough pocket of gas, with explosive force amplified in each direction by the tight tunnel space.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

You know those rubber/plastic/whatever things they use at grade crossings and in Park Station to allow people to cross the tracks? Why not use those for the whole length of street running? It allows easy access to the track rather than ripping out and patching asphalt any time work is needed. Just wondering why this never happens.

 

[jass]

You know those rubber/plastic/whatever things they use at grade crossings and in Park Station to allow people to cross the tracks? Why not use those for the whole length of street running? It allows easy access to the track rather than ripping out and patching asphalt any time work is needed. Just wondering why this never happens.

Some locations have each piece of track embedded in concrete. if a section need to be changed, it's pulled out, and a new section is stuck in.

It can be done in 2 hours