Silver Line to Chelsea

Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Does the T have plans to try any rechargeable electric buses like Worcester recently got?

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/greendot/electric-buses-coming-to-worcester/

It would be great if the SL1 buses could actually store a charge for the run through the Ted Williams Tunnel and airport part rather then running on diesel!

I'm sure battery buses are the next great alternative fuel tech bus purchase. It's advancing so fast we're probably not far at all from real 'Prius' buses hitting whatever efficiency threshold that opens the purchase floodgates for transit agencies. And then the real 'Tesla' buses not far behind as that tech scales up to truck/bus performance and high-capacity charging station equipment becomes less costly due to the boom market in car chargers.

The 'Priuses' are already creeping into the market and should bit nearing critical mass over the next 5 years. I bet the 'Teslas' hitting critical mass within 7-9 years. But I wouldn't necessarily think of those solely in Silver Line terms, since that's always going to be working from a traction (i.e. trackless trolley) lineage and somewhat different evolutionary tree despite some similarities. These can be real-deal mass replacement order for the first gen of low-floor 40-footers when they're up for retirement in the early 20's.

Once the mileage per charge on an 'any-bus' electric bumps significantly higher than the 35 miles this Worcester pilot is getting they become a mass purchase option for all the shorter downtown routes that have a layover terminal big enough to plug in between runs. Stuff like the Dudley and Forest Hills routes that stay in-town and have staffed terminals for a home base. In fact, I'm not sure why they're investing in expansion of the CNG facility at FH when that fleet is pretty much in stasis. Doesn't make sense to buy any more when clean diesel tech has closed the emissions efficiency gap bigtime in the last 10 years, eroding a lot of CNG's alt fuel advantages. Since those routes are more or less held captive to in-town routes fed from the downtown yards and FH that have the CNG fueling facilities, those would seem to be the first candidate routes to flip to mass battery/hybrid deployment in '23-24 when the current CNG's hit their 20-year end-of-life.

I could even see the 'plug' for the plug-ins being the TT wires to keep the charging hands-free. As in, these buses wouldn't be TT's drawing traction power on the overhead but could have some quasi-dummy poles to do a simultaneous charge off the overhead within the Harvard tunnel. Or if a big terminal like Dudley just installed a static stretch of overhead as a linear battery charger. I don't know what kind of transformer setup it would require to grab stock 750-volt trolley overhead power for use charging a battery on a 'Tesla' bus. The R&D departments at the big bus manufacturers would know that answer. But labor- and ops-wise it's a much more elegant solution than grabbing an extension cord at a charging station and easier to implement in cities like Boston that have 750 v traction powerlines criscrossing under many streets to remotely feed all the LRT/HRT/TT network's substations. For example, the ex- A line and E-Arborway trunks are still active under the street as power feeds for Green, Orange, and the Watertown end of the 71. So Forest Hills is equipped if that voltage is convertible for a charging station. Maybe Dudley too if there's an ex- El trunk under Washington still there boosting the Orange Line.


Re: the next dual-mode purchase. They definitely need to buy some extras to assign to the Cambridge routes. It would do a lot of good to unite the 77 and 77A with a North Cambridge power switch past all the Harvard-Porter congestion and give that critical route some badly-needed 60-footers. The People's Republic would certainly clamor for it on air quality alone. And if a future 'Fairmounted' commuter rail station at Newton Corner is desireable you'd really want the 71 to be able to roam seamlessly from Watertown to Corner with 60-footers, because that route's ridership would explode as a CR-Harvard shortcut and quasi- ring route.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

These can be real-deal mass replacement order for the first gen of low-floor 40-footers when they're up for retirement in the early 20's.....

........ In fact, I'm not sure why they're investing in expansion of the CNG facility at FH when that fleet is pretty much in stasis. Doesn't make sense to buy any more when clean diesel tech has closed the emissions efficiency gap bigtime in the last 10 years, eroding a lot of CNG's alt fuel advantages.


Since those routes are more or less held captive to in-town routes fed from the downtown yards and FH that have the CNG fueling facilities, those would seem to be the first candidate routes to flip to mass battery/hybrid deployment in '23-24 when the current CNG's hit their 20-year end-of-life.

.

Buses, CNG and diesel, are considered depreciated after 12 years of service. With a midlife overhaul, they will usually last for 15 years of service. Getting more than 15 years of service out of a bus (like the 100 or so 1994-95 RTS buses still in the MBTA fleet) is unusual, not the norm. The 360 CNG buses in the present MBTA fleet will need replacement in 2018-2019.

Here is one reason why CNG is beginning to increase in popularity again with U.S. transit operators:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-util...ice-info/gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-prices.html

and here is a link about a local study from the Midwest that suggests why the trend of more CNG for transit may continue:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/...es-should-use-cng-for-transit-bus-fleets.aspx
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Buses, CNG and diesel, are considered depreciated after 12 years of service. With a midlife overhaul, they will usually last for 15 years of service. Getting more than 15 years of service out of a bus (like the 100 or so 1994-95 RTS buses still in the MBTA fleet) is unusual, not the norm. The 360 CNG buses in the present MBTA fleet will need replacement in 2018-2019.

Here is one reason why CNG is beginning to increase in popularity again with U.S. transit operators:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-util...ice-info/gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-prices.html

and here is a link about a local study from the Midwest that suggests why the trend of more CNG for transit may continue:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/...es-should-use-cng-for-transit-bus-fleets.aspx


But here's the kicker:

But it also says transit companies are likely to make the switch to natural gas only when the additional capital costs, such as buying new buses and building natural-gas refueling stations, are covered by the savings in fuel costs over the life spans of the buses.
The routes the CNG fleets are captive to are downtown routes out of Southampton/Cabot and Arborway. Southampton's a specialty facility that only houses the full 60-footer and dual-mode fleets. It just serves SL Washington, SL Transitway, the 39 (CNG articulateds), and the 28 (diesel articulateds). Cabot and Arborway are functionally 100% CNG. All other yards are 100% diesel. And Arborway is the only bus facility slated for programmed upgrades and expansion.

That doesn't allow the T to support anything more than stasis for the CNG fleet before they need replacement. If anything the Arborway expansion allows the 39's fleet of 23 artics to come home to Forest Hills and vacate enough Southampton space to order the necessary number of additional Transitway dual-modes to fix Seaport headways. That's the be-all strategic gain for them spending the money in JP. All the CNG-supportable routes are still Arborway- or Cabot-originating. No additional ones. From now until the current crop of CNG's have to go it's static route capacity.

Since the CNG vehicle replacements have to be programmed way before any capital costs could be pigeonholed for CNG retrofits at any other bus facilities...what does that tell us? If they do another generation of CNG's, it's a static replacement for the current ones. And nevermore.



Yeah, it's cheap fuel. But they're buying tons of diesels and diesel-electrics that are closing the efficiency gap. As a massive wholesale buyer of diesel fuel for locomotives and buses it's lowering their exposure to market fluctuations the more the rosters get overturned with sippers and diesel-electric hybrids. And diesel's already substantially closed the emissions gap that was CNG's other big selling point 10 years ago. When they debuted the 39 corridor and Washington St. were getting threats of CLF lawsuits over bus emissions. That was a big impetus for installing them on those two "equal or better service" ex-subway routes and applying the capital to the maint facilities.

Are they approaching any threshold where the capital costs of retrofitting other yards for CNG's can pay itself off over lifetime of the vehicle order and support upping CNG's % of the fleet to 40%, 50%, outright majority? The T's own cap improvement plans would indicate no, since there are no planned upgrades to any alt fuel facilities except for Arborway...serving static Arborway routes. CNG has probably already hit its peak level on the MBTA if nothing they're planning over the next decade can support more than stasis.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

But here's the kicker:

The routes the CNG fleets are captive to are downtown routes out of Southampton/Cabot and Arborway. Southampton's a specialty facility that only houses the full 60-footer and dual-mode fleets. It just serves SL Washington, SL Transitway, the 39 (CNG articulateds), and the 28 (diesel articulateds). Cabot and Arborway are functionally 100% CNG. All other yards are 100% diesel. And Arborway is the only bus facility slated for programmed upgrades and expansion.

That doesn't allow the T to support anything more than stasis for the CNG fleet before they need replacement. If anything the Arborway expansion allows the 39's fleet of 23 artics to come home to Forest Hills and vacate enough Southampton space to order the necessary number of additional Transitway dual-modes to fix Seaport headways. That's the be-all strategic gain for them spending the money in JP. All the CNG-supportable routes are still Arborway- or Cabot-originating. No additional ones. From now until the current crop of CNG's have to go it's static route capacity.

Since the CNG vehicle replacements have to be programmed way before any capital costs could be pigeonholed for CNG retrofits at any other bus facilities...what does that tell us? If they do another generation of CNG's, it's a static replacement for the current ones. And nevermore.



Yeah, it's cheap fuel. But they're buying tons of diesels and diesel-electrics that are closing the efficiency gap. As a massive wholesale buyer of diesel fuel for locomotives and buses it's lowering their exposure to market fluctuations the more the rosters get overturned with sippers and diesel-electric hybrids. And diesel's already substantially closed the emissions gap that was CNG's other big selling point 10 years ago. When they debuted the 39 corridor and Washington St. were getting threats of CLF lawsuits over bus emissions. That was a big impetus for installing them on those two "equal or better service" ex-subway routes and applying the capital to the maint facilities.

Are they approaching any threshold where the capital costs of retrofitting other yards for CNG's can pay itself off over lifetime of the vehicle order and support upping CNG's % of the fleet to 40%, 50%, outright majority? The T's own cap improvement plans would indicate no, since there are no planned upgrades to any alt fuel facilities except for Arborway...serving static Arborway routes. CNG has probably already hit its peak level on the MBTA if nothing they're planning over the next decade can support more than stasis.

Never said they were going to expand the use of CNG to other garages, but after the last RTS buses are retired, the next big group of buses that will need to be replaced will be the 360 bus CNG fleet. The RTS fleet will probably be replaced by a 50-100 bus order of diesels placed next year. But since the cost of CNG has come down, and since they already have made the investment in CNG refueling facilities at Arborway, Cabot, and Southampton, it is likely that the 2003-2004 CNGs will be replaced by new CNGs in 2018-2019. When the diesel buses from 2005-2008 are due for replacement in 2020-2023, that's when there might be potential for a large purchase of battery buses if the technology has advanced. A few years ago, I would have predicted that the present CNG buses would be replaced by diesels in 2018-2019, but the price drop in CNG, and the predictions that the price will remain lower than diesel, means CNGs will probably continue to make up about a third of the fleet for at least another generation of buses

Also, the new Arborway facility will not hold any more than the present one, it will just be permanent buildings to hold the same number of buses now maintained in temporary buildings. The actual CNG refueling station already at Arborway is permanent, and will remain even if new storage and maintenance buildings are eventually built.
 
Last edited:
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Buried in the Mass Pike and Red/Orange fleet announcements, but this thing got approved. $82.5M, four stations, commuter rail station relocated behind the Mystic Mall (where there is room for 800-foot platforms) at the SL terminus. Projected opening late 2016. The Grand Junction ROW will be converted into a busway plus a $3M greenway.

Don't like the expensive and operationally tricky busway, but relocating the CR station is a good thing. Without the platforms squeezed in at the current location, perhaps they can shift the tracks to allow 2 bus lanes under the Route 1 overpass.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Buried in the Mass Pike and Red/Orange fleet announcements, but this thing got approved. $82.5M, four stations, commuter rail station relocated behind the Mystic Mall (where there is room for 800-foot platforms) at the SL terminus. Projected opening late 2016. The Grand Junction ROW will be converted into a busway plus a $3M greenway.

Don't like the expensive and operationally tricky busway, but relocating the CR station is a good thing. Without the platforms squeezed in at the current location, perhaps they can shift the tracks to allow 2 bus lanes under the Route 1 overpass.

Is it certain the CR station is moving, because MassDOT's official SL-Chelsea project page still has it on every rendering? And every public meeting done in the last couple months still had it parked there. This is either a last-second change pushed by the Gov.'s people, or the wire service writer seriously bungled this.


Everett Ave.'s a wretched site for the relocated station. If the train's pulling up to the foot of the crossing...gates must be down the whole duration of the stop. Everett Ave., which is already hideously busy, is going to lock solid for blocks all around if a full grade separation is not part of the package. If the platform's crammed between the Everett-Spruce block instead of the Everett-3rd side...both grade crossings have gates down the duration of the train stop and the platform cannot fit more than 6 cars without the rear coach sticking out in the middle of the road.

Bridge-over-tracks...yes, that would work and solve every problem. But if $82M is laughably low for the busway + station, it's laughably low for busway + station + Everett Ave. overpass that forces reconfiguration of an intersection + the Market Basket entrance.



EDIT: this thread and the one on the main forum are more or less simulcasting the same thing, so might as well pick one to continue the line of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Is it certain the CR station is moving, because MassDOT's official SL-Chelsea project page still has it on every rendering? And every public meeting done in the last couple months still had it parked there. This is either a last-second change pushed by the Gov.'s people, or the wire service writer seriously bungled this.


Everett Ave.'s a wretched site for the relocated station. If the train's pulling up to the foot of the crossing...gates must be down the whole duration of the stop. Everett Ave., which is already hideously busy, is going to lock solid for blocks all around if a full grade separation is not part of the package. If the platform's crammed between the Everett-Spruce block instead of the Everett-3rd side...both grade crossings have gates down the duration of the train stop and the platform cannot fit more than 6 cars without the rear coach sticking out in the middle of the road.

Bridge-over-tracks...yes, that would work and solve every problem. But if $82M is laughably low for the busway + station, it's laughably low for busway + station + Everett Ave. overpass that forces reconfiguration of an intersection + the Market Basket entrance.


EDIT: this thread and the one on the main forum are more or less simulcasting the same thing, so might as well pick one to continue the line of discussion.
WBUR reports that $20m of the project is devoted to the new Everett Ave station, which I think'd be enough to either grade-separate the platform or to put it fully "behind" the Market Basket. Everett Ave with its large unbuilt parcels, which is also getting the new FBI building would seem to be a good place for some TOD. For the right price, I'm sure Market Basket would be happy to move back to the other side of the parking lot by, say 2018.
http://www.wbur.org/2013/10/30/mbta-silver-line-extension
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

The only qualm I have about this plan is the moving of the CR station further away from Bellingham Square. I get that you could take the SL to Bellingham from the station if you wanted, but the current station enjoys a relatively close proximity to the Square.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Honestly as bad as Everett Ave with the cross gates being down constantly, I think Spruce St being down would be worse. And the relocation goes more in line with Ash's plan to try to get mixed use into the Mystic Mall area
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

The only qualm I have about this plan is the moving of the CR station further away from Bellingham Square. I get that you could take the SL to Bellingham from the station if you wanted, but the current station enjoys a relatively close proximity to the Square.
While the station may enjoy its proximity to the Square, the Square is not enjoying its proximity to CR...generating just 160 boardings per day in a town of 35,000 that probably generates 3,000 to 4,000 bus trips per day.

Bellingham square will be far better served by the Silver Line connecting them on high frequencies to places they need/want to go (Airport, Blue Line, Seaport, South Station). Heck, they'd probably give up the station entirely if you made it an [evil, unlikely] precondition for Silver Line service.

The MBTA 2010 Blue Book [pdf] says Chelsea, as a commuter rail station, boards ~160 people per day...basically no impact on the transportation thinking in a town that has 35,000 people and where Chelsea-originating 112 and 114 buses board a combined ~1000 and the "passing through" routes do even more (111 = 4,300; 116 = 2,000; 117 = 2,000). So its fair to say that bus ridership is something like 1,500 to 4,500 per day 10x to 30x the commuter rail.

So bus' share of combined bus+CR ridership in Chelsea is already somewhere between 90% and 97%, implying that:
1)Bellingham will be better served by a Silver Line (rail would have had a pitiful share at a combined stop)
2) the rail should move to wherever it can get a good connection to a bus...and even then will be multi-modal window-dressing for a long period of years until enough Transit-oriented development happens that it becomes a CR destination (which Everett Ave has the potential for)
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

That makes sense. When I was typing that out, I kind of formulated that same argument against it in my head too.

Thanks for the numbers. I had been wondering. I don't even really see the point of the station. Perhaps it shouldn't even exist. The 111 can get you into Haymarket, so the CR to North Station is really quite pointless.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Honestly as bad as Everett Ave with the cross gates being down constantly, I think Spruce St being down would be worse. And the relocation goes more in line with Ash's plan to try to get mixed use into the Mystic Mall area

Either way the missing detail MassDOT has to answer is "What about the gates down?" Because moving the platforms to any other crossing other than the one it's currently at is considerably worse for traffic than if it hadn't moved at all. On Everett Ave. the queues don't just punish the cars; the 112 riders eat it, too, when their buses get backed up in the gate queues.

There isn't any solve for this problem if grade separation isn't part of the package. Here's the docs relating to the crossing elimination the North Shore Transit Improvements study recommended for the also-shitty Eastern Ave. grade crossing: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/Documents/North_Shore_Transit_Improvements/Chapter_3.pdf (p. 52) + http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/D...ovements/Figure_3_13_EastAveGradeCrossing.pdf. Priced at $19.6M, which might be an instructive comparison point.

Everett Ave. would require a smaller bridge than 4-lane Eastern Ave., less total roadway reconfiguring because the first Market Basket driveway cut is expendable, and intersects the tracks at 90-degrees instead of having to cross or bridge over at a sharpish angle.

Difficulty: the Maple/Vale St. intersection on the north side is even closer (by ~100 ft.) to the tracks than Crescent Ave. is to Eastern Ave., requiring that intersection to be reconfigured a lot. That florist business in the comely little red building is immediately in the crosshairs there. The scuzzy used tire store probably another that has to go for reshaping that intersection to fit bridge abutments. The Wyndham could probably be completely unaffected if Maple inclined-up after their driveway to the revised intersection (i.e. hit Everett when the road's in the final stages of inclining back down to grade coming off the bridge), and likewise the warehouse on Vale unaffected by that road being lifted up and re-angled to the revised intersection.

Not a big deal. Probably costs a little less than the Eastern Ave. price point because everything else is easier-angled and less total concrete and steel to erect. But nobody said there'd be zero casualties. Lose a couple minor businesses and pay up the $10-15M for the bridge, or do more harm to Chelsea crosstown circulation by knotting in traffic a main street, a shopping center, and the one local bus route the station relocation is most supposed to help? They need a plan that immediately answers this dilemma.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Assuming that the platforms are west of Everett Ave per the Globe article, is there any reason gates have to be down when a train is platformed? There's about 1200 feet between Everett and Third - plenty enough for even the longest consist
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Assuming that the platforms are west of Everett Ave per the Globe article, is there any reason gates have to be down when a train is platformed? There's about 1200 feet between Everett and Third - plenty enough for even the longest consist
At West Medford, the gates stay down only half the time. They go up when an outbound train "passes and clears" Rt 60 (High Street) but go down and stay down for the whole station stop when the train is "facing" the street (inbound). I think it is the job of the 24-7 guard to raise them. Guards are expensive, but so are bridges or underpasses.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

At West Medford, the gates stay down only half the time. They go up when an outbound train "passes and clears" Rt 60 (High Street) but go down and stay down for the whole station stop when the train is "facing" the street (inbound). I think it is the job of the 24-7 guard to raise them. Guards are expensive, but so are bridges or underpasses.

Yeah. They can only use discretion to control the gates like that when there's a crossing attendant on-duty. Greenwood on Haverhill/Reading is another one where they do this because the stop is sandwiched between two sets of gates on busy intersections. Unattended the gates must stay down the whole duration of the stop because the train is less-than stopping distance to poking out into the street in event of an oopsie where they either overshoot the station or the engineer slips on the wrong lever in the cab and makes the train involuntarily jolt forward a couple feet. Both those situations do happen, especially the former. They're not too dangerous unless the result is sticking out in traffic without gate or attendant protection.

There are others besides West Med. and Greenwood that do this. All of them legacy installations that have had attendants since the days of privately-run commuter rail. But it's those types of stops with very busy and potentially unsafe crossings abutting a platform where the attendants are assigned. At West Med. the guy is there in the hut all day long. If there's any time he's gone and the gates revert to automatic always-down it's the last couple service hours at night, the overnight when Pan Am runs 1 or 2 freights, and maybe weekends (although I'm not sure if Saturdays are staffed, too). It's a considerable new operating expense to introduce new staffed crossings, and Everett Ave. is one busy enough when the co-mingled busway is factored to require 2 shifts per day in the attendant hut + inspectors frequently visiting + spot relievers when the guy needs to take a bathroom break or get some lunch.

Project that cost out of having a couple well-compensated staffers per day there every day, 5 days a week or more, forever and that $15M one-time cost for a bridge starts to converge over the course of 20 years. Everett Ave. is already a quad-gated crossing because it's such a high safety risk, so it has the maximum possible gate protection money can buy. There's no automatic solution that'll solve the need for a live human attendant directing traffic. They do it to ease the traffic pain, not because the T is in any way slacking on upgrading its crossing protection. There are very well-grounded safety reasons unattended gates have to stay down. It's either the guy in the hut working a switch and walking out to roadside to play crossing guard every 20 minutes (or more if the bus-in-ROW requires gate action), or gates always-down for 3+ minutes at a time a half-dozen or more times an hour.


Like I said, this is very vexing and there will be some casualties either way: bad traffic snarls + considerably higher operating cost, or bridge up-front cost and displacing a couple small business. Except for datadyne's point about drifting further away from Bellingham Sq. I think the station move is an A- deal on the merits with a full grade separation. It's a C- and more harm than good if staying at-grade.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

My head is going to explode.

Nowhere in any of the media reports on this do they talk about the route from Boston. Please tell me for sure, this goes from Aquarium up over the Moakley bridge into the Seaport and then into the Ted Williams tunnel and out the other side.

Is that accurate?
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

My head is going to explode.

Nowhere in any of the media reports on this do they talk about the route from Boston. Please tell me for sure, this goes from Aquarium up over the Moakley bridge into the Seaport and then into the Ted Williams tunnel and out the other side.

Is that accurate?

I'm assuming it starts at South Station like all the other transitway SLs.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

EDIT: It says Airport station but I kept reading it as Aquarium, I think.

There's an Aquarium element to it. And it goes through the Ted Williams tunnel on the Boston side, yes? Like, this doesn't go over the Tobin, right?

Random question: How come trains going north on the Rockport line (for example) from North Station loop out into Chelsea and back in to go north? Why wasn't the train depot built so trains go straight north, basically parallel to Rte 1?
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

EDIT: It says Airport station but I kept reading it as Aquarium, I think.

There's an Aquarium element to it. And it goes through the Ted Williams tunnel on the Boston side, yes? Like, this doesn't go over the Tobin, right?

Random question: How come trains going north on the Rockport line (for example) from North Station loop out into Chelsea and back in to go north? Why wasn't the train depot built so trains go straight north, basically parallel to Rte 1?

I'm fairly certain that this will follow the same route as all of the other Silver Line busses through the Seaport, go through the Ted, skip the terminals, stop a the airport and head to Chelsea that way.

Route 1 is nasty curvey through Chelsea. Maybe following 99 to Route 1 would make some amount of sense. I'm guessing when the Eastern B&M route was built they wanted to hit Lynn and Salem, which would have been missed if they followed the modern Route 1 route straight north.
 
Re: Silver Line to Chelsea (Study Meeting)

Wikipedia hasn't been updated since September but this is the route proposed then.

 

Back
Top