Street-running rail!

N

novitiate

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
190
Reaction score
1
It seems like this is a no-brainer- we have overcrowded bus lines, a two-car trolley can hold more people than a bus, and we happen to have a full set of trolley infrastructure under the ground that conveniently intersects with our heavy-rail lines. And street-running light rail is used successfully in cities all over the world, including in this very country.

But instead the leadership does all it can to avoid building any more street-running lines (what exists I assume will unfortunately go away as soon as the T can find the money to mechanize the cross-over at Brigham Circle) to the point of dodging legal commitments, and some of that trolley infrastructure literally rots away unused. (I refer of course to the Tremont Street Subway south of Boylston)

How did this mindset come about? I know when the MTA took over BERy it seems like they (as was the governing mindset at the time) wanted to get out of the trolley business in general as much as they could, but that mindset shouldn't still be left over today, is it? Was there something more, then, like an accident or something?

I guess the ADA stuff could be an issue... I'm sure this isn't an unsolved problem, though. (I know Philadelphia has just been avoiding it and pushing their non-compliant trolley fleet as long as they can) After all, building a curb pullout for a Type 8 shouldn't be that much more disruptive than a bus stop... (after all, you're not supposed to park there... no, really, you're not)

I do wonder about Boylston Station and the ADA, though- say you converted the Silver Line, wouldn't that mean Boylston would have to have elevators added, since the Silver Line Boylston stop is compliant? Or could they use some sort of historic exemption? (I'm also assuming here the ramps and underpass at Boylston aren't too steep for modern LRV's, since I've never heard otherwise)
 
Money and space. Rails and wires cost a lot more to build and maintain for the MBTA than just using roads that the state already pays for; and space in that Boston doesn't have the widest streets. Take away parking and you have some pissed off voters.

There aren't that many places in Boston where it would actually make sense to build street-running light rail.
 
All you need to experience to understand the road width problem in Boston is to fight for a lane while driving on Huntington Avenue between the trolleys and the parked cars. In any kind of bad weather it gets nasty!
 
We need to make a distinction here, Novitate - there's street-running rail in particular, and there's MBTA expansion in general. The T is clearly opposed to the former on account of logistics (mostly justified as I'll comment on) and drags its feet on the latter largely on account of state funding (sadly, quite justified as well from the MBTA's perspective, but a crime perpetrated by the purse-string pullers).

So the question is, if the money started flowing and the T suddenly came into an expansion mindset (insha'allah) then where would street-running trolley expansion make sense? The answer, probably, is not too many places just based on street configuration and routing alone. Most "good" surface routes would run in dedicated reservations. However, there are some exceptions, mostly to fill gaps in these "good" routes.

Examples:

- Dudley via Tremont Street Tunnel - Washington St could probably support a dedicated reservation down to Dudley; no street running necessary except, possibly, just north of the Pike where there would likely be a reservation gap between the tunnel portal and Washington coming into the South End

- Continuing that route to Mattapan via Warren and Blue Hill Ave, the point where Warren goes into BHA narrows significantly - they'd likely need to run in the street there for about half a mile.

- Green Line to Silver Line - I've proposed a surface option for the GL from Boylston to South Station via Essex Street which would be street running, but I also propose that Essex be closed to all traffic except for buses and taxis and local deliveries. Private autos diverted to Kneeland.

- On the subject of Green Line to Silver Line, if the Piers Transitway (SL tunnel) is converted to rail then I think a branch to City Point in residential Southie would be more than justified. You can run this in a median over the Summer Street bridge, but that's where a dedicated reservation would end. You'd probably be justified running on L Street a few blocks to bring it as close to East Broadway as you can, although I have to admit I have no idea where a station/loop would go.

- Former A line - The original routing would likely be impossible to restore but I've proposed an extension as far as Brighton Center that would spur from Comm Ave onto Warren Street and street run onto Cambridge Street very briefly to a station/loop at the current Wirt Street parking mess. Warren Street here is wide and has very few abutters making it ideal for street running.

-Greenway Trolley - would most likely need to be contained in a median/reservation but I can imagine an extension to Charlestown Navy Yard that would need to run in the street for a few blocks to reach the Charlestown Bridge (which by the way still has all the infrastructure to support a rail median or "El") and then you'd likely need a street-running circuit inside the Navy Yard itself.

Anyway, this is a good question - anywhere else where street running would be justified and likely entertained as an idea in a more expansion-minded T?
 
For what it's worth, the underground electrical trunks that fed Arborway and Watertown are still there and active. The T's even got an unfunded line item in the budget to replace the A's cable, which was repurposed to beef up the TT power at Watertown carhouse when the new low-floor TT's were rolled out.

Since electrical infrastructure is one of the highest costs involved in installing a new line, the cheapest places Boston could install it are on the last two streetcar lines to be ripped out. They would have to be beefed up with additional power to handle modern LRV's, but overhead and new/replacement poles are cheap, and flanged streetcar track is generally cheaper over life-of-rail than reservation track because it's designed for slower speeds, more margin for error on track conditions, and more sporadic maintenance because of the pain involved in digging up pavement. Where the T didn't exactly do it right the first time is by burying regular wood ties under the pavement, which didn't wear well with the freeze/thaw cycle and leaves Huntington and Chestnut Hill Ave. all chewed up around the tracks. Most other cities with modern systems use a concrete base (durable but loud) or some other material with sound-proofing to keep the roadbed from decaying. The cost of ADA curb juts and modifying intersections with traffic-calming features probably out-does the track installation itself, especially on the E and A where the electrical trunk is there and fully plug-and-play. But they're planning to do that anyway on these mythical 39 bus improvements that just stole the curb jut idea verbatim from the E restoration. If they ever do that vaporware project first, then the stations/intersections are already set for tracks. ADA streetscaping in general has overturned enough major thoroughfares to make them future ADA trolley compatible, and those candidate streetcar corridors that haven't been worked on yet are pretty much all waiting for funding and design.

It all boils down to institutional will, which there's none of in this city/state/transit agency. And BTD doesn't enforce its own parking regs. Delivery trucks and double-parkers get the right of way in some particularly provincial neighborhoods, and no amount of threats from City Hall has ever gotten them to change "tradition". This city has some of the worst traffic enforcement of any urban core in this country of similar density. That whole agency needs to be blown up and its entrenched fiefdoms scattered to the winds. Transit or no transit traffic flow would improve noticeably on some corridors if the people tasked with enforcement actually cared about doing their stated jobs instead of wielding the power of the job. It's a reform issue, not a modal issue.

There are plenty of other new systems springing up that do traverse narrow streets...and do it because it enforces a degree of traffic calming. In cities that have actual street grids, often as one-way tracks down parallel streets. And they don't have problems with their streetcars getting stuck behind other vehicles. It works because the trolleys are the governing vehicles on the road and shape everything around them. That's how Arborway "worked" back in the old days. South Huntington was at-capacity during rush hour in 1985 and it didn't snarl the trolleys. Volumes have increased today for peak loads more hours of the day, but those streets still have an inherently low capacity ceiling. You can't cram more vehicles on those streets when they're at capacity, and if that didn't harm the E back then it won't do any worse now.


--------------------


That said, while there's nothing inherent about Boston disqualifying streetcars on our streets, the transit priorities here are all pretty square on improving and expanding the current grade separated system and improving the radial circulation. With notable exception of Washington D.C. new streetcars today are generally popping up in cities that don't have well-developed subways or grade separation. Boston-proper circulation still needs to get Red-Blue built, the key bus routes improvements completed to full fruition, Fairmount realizing its full schedule potential with all the SS expansion and DMU/EMU's that entails, all the headway-improving signaling work and state-of-repair backlog taken care of on the subway (esp. Green), and real bus/trolley signal preemption coming to all the key corridors. And THEN, only after all those short-term mandates, a general (unranked) medium-term wishlist of: a D-to-E connection for some better GL traffic balancing, some low-hanging fruit "Fairmounting" done for Allston to Newton on the Worcester Line, jump-starting some Urban Ring segments on the north half that does have grade separation (like Lechmere-Logan), Orange finally serving Rozzie and West Roxbury, Red heavy rail finally serving Mattapan, Silver Line Phase III built as a real Green Line connection from Boylston to the Transitway. And maybe THEN...possibly burying the E out to Brookline Village for a real parallel GL subway and replacing Copley Jct. with a Back Bay-to-Tremont subway and thru-routing option into the Transitway, building a rapid transit flank on the N-S Link, etc., etc.

Use your imagination. But other than a Silver Line/Washington light rail replacement like was originally intended before the BRT brain parasites got into the planners' heads, pretty much anything on that above list outslugs the would-be impact of any other potential street-running rail. As much as I'd love to see the E to Forest Hills, A to Oak Sq., a Southie branch or two out the Transitway, a Dudley-Mattapan line, and a Greenway heritage trolley. I don't even think it's all that worth it to streetcar the south half of the Urban Ring...they'd be better off splitting it in two: LRT on the grade-separated north half, well-calibrated BRT on the street-running south half, Green Line to Transitway and associated transfer points as the dividing line between UR halves/modes/schedules.
 
I realize, especially in the post-downturn climate, resources are thin- but even in better days, it seems like the T is afraid of double-parkers and angry business owners, but was willing to spend $500 million to plow through local opposition on the Greenbush corridor.
JeffDowntown said:
All you need to experience to understand the road width problem in Boston is to fight for a lane while driving on Huntington Avenue between the trolleys and the parked cars. In any kind of bad weather it gets nasty!
Click to expand...
I've only been on Huntington as a T rider rather than a driver, but it seems like that road is going to be problematic between Brigham Circle and Brookline anyway- the road is narrower and not divided, but connects two roads which are. Would it help if the trolley was in the outer lanes, do you think?

@F-Line: A very informative post, thank you. I'm curious (going off topic a bit) about the D-E connector, though- I often see it on these forums, but it seems kind of problematic... I mean, from the perspective of a D-Line rider going downtown you're trading 4 stops Longwood-Hynes for 8 stops Mission Park-Prudential, and it's going to be a lot slower. (Though maybe ridership going to places on the E would make for it... I know it would be more convenient for me in particular)
 
The D-E connector wouldn't replace the Kenmore-Brookline Village stretch, it would complement it.
 
Like usual, we may be in position to take a page from amsterdam's book. In most of the city ( and it has a very extensive surface tram network) tramways are separated from mixed traffic lanes only by a shallow (<5inch) angled curb. Buses, coaches, and taxis can use the tramway, but must give way to trams - and often will weave between the tramway and the mixed lane. This setup also makes it possible to run one tramway lane and one mixed traffic lane in narrow ROWs - emergency vehicles will use the tramway as necessary, and private cars have a tacit ok to use the tram space to avoid disabled vehicles, double parked delivery vans, etc. And the shallow curve gives a degree of reassurance to drivers navigating in close quarters with a tram - same effect as a rumble strip, in terms of unintended lane departures. as with any street running, the system makes use of fully mixed lanes for short, especially tight stretches and complex intersections. ( they also have distinctively narrow trams).

This would seem to be a good fit for: Harvard bridge, Huntington, Cambridge st Cambridge, mass ave north of Harvard square, arsenal st, comm. ave west of packards...in fact all the old late 19th c suburban avenues have the right width for this....
 
A hypothetical Huntington Ave subway would likely consolidate stops to the typical Green Line 1/2 mile distance, so you've got


D Classic vs D 2.0.1 beta

Boylston - Boylston
Arlington - Bay Village
Copley - Back Bay
Hynes - Prudential
Kenmore - Symphony
Fenway - MFA/Northeastern
Longwood - Brigham Circle
Brookline Village - Brookline Village

I did not include a Mission Park stop itself as it would probably be exclusive to the E, if it was retained to Heath. It's the only place a portal would fit, although you would have to widen Huntington to take over Mission Park Drive to do it.
 
Building out a full Huntington Ave subway from Brookline Village to Tremont St via Stuart St is one of my favorite "if I only had the money" ideas. You could even take it one step further and convert the D Branch to heavy rail and still have the track space between Boylston and Park to run light rail along side (but that would cost billions more so let's just be happy with what we can get).
 
novitiate said:
I've only been on Huntington as a T rider rather than a driver, but it seems like that road is going to be problematic between Brigham Circle and Brookline anyway- the road is narrower and not divided, but connects two roads which are. Would it help if the trolley was in the outer lanes, do you think?

@F-Line: A very informative post, thank you. I'm curious (going off topic a bit) about the D-E connector, though- I often see it on these forums, but it seems kind of problematic... I mean, from the perspective of a D-Line rider going downtown you're trading 4 stops Longwood-Hynes for 8 stops Mission Park-Prudential, and it's going to be a lot slower. (Though maybe ridership going to places on the E would make for it... I know it would be more convenient for me in particular)
Click to expand...

E headways are going to fill out considerably when the Union branch opens, so the connector becomes useful for routing the additional runs. This would most definitely not be a diversion for the current Heath schedules or the current D schedules. Back when Arborway was still running the E was doubled-up at peak hours with simultaneous Arborway-Park St. and Heath-Lechmere runs; Arborway only ran solo on the off-peak. E headways have never been the same since the dual routes went away, despite multiple unsuccessful efforts to augment Heath with Brigham short-turns (which just end up limiting Heath because it's so much more cumbersome to turn at Brigham).

So think of it as a revival of how things used to work every day of the week. If the Union schedules eventually buff out the E headways by 30%, take those additional runs--1 out of every 3 total trips--and thru-route to BV. Heath gets the same schedule it always did, and signal priority plus maybe whacking the redundant Fenwood stop keeps the Brigham-Riverway segment running smoother enough to absorb a third higher service. If the E service is going to increase by that much any way you slice it because of the Union branch, street-running Huntington/South Huntington gets the traffic any which way. So if the amount of street-running is equivalent, it would probably work better to split them up 66%/33%. BV would produce a much greater ridership spike than additional Heath service would, and if they wanted to thru-route on the D to, say, Reservoir it would drag that ridership spike out on the heaviest-ridership portion of the D where it would make the most difference. The D can definitely handle the traffic; Kenmore-Copley is its headway limiter, with the branch itself way under-capacity. And it gives the E a real outbound-end carhouse feeding it for the first time in 28 years...which is how it used to support doubled-up service.

It'll work because doubled-up service was pre-'85 standard operating procedure. There's no question the E can handle it...a Union-induced spike doesn't even surpass the peak headways it handled when Arborway + Heath were cranking in-tandem. There's no question the D from BV and any points outbound can handle it. We're not talking dense enough headways to make traffic across the connector problematic. For one, they can probably turn out on River Rd. and cross between those two auto shops to get on straight alignment (with new intersection traffic light) onto Pearl St. without needing to deal with the Huntington/Brookline Ave. intersection or a trip down Brookline Ave. And this is all surplus to what's going to Heath today.


Also figure this could be HUGE help dispersing the Sox game crowds if they ran 'circuit' service Kenmore-BV-E. That's big de-clogging help for those first moments before and after game time when the Central Subway is virtually paralyzed by the crush.
 
Green line on the street itself (in non self-contained right of way) moves only as fast as the traffic surrounding it. If you want to see what this is like, take a ride of the Boston College line.

When I had to travel out that way I chose to ride my bike even though I'd get to work sweaty it shaved 20-40 minutes off my commute. If I added in also the part of walking across the B.C. campus. it was closer to 40 mins.
 
Only the Heath Street line past Brigham Circle moves as fast as traffic in the street. The Boston College line is slow for other reasons (e.g. lack of signal priority, too many stops, crappy boarding procedures, etc).
 
On the infrastructure subject, would it be feasible to have central platforms? This could take up less space, but at the cost of either having to implement a new payment method, or require people to walk up to the front (which a lot of people aren't going to do). Either way you'd need fare inspectors- but is there any other issue with the idea (as well as the potential downside of losing left-turn lanes) I'm missing? (thinking of areas like Brighton Avenue here)
Matthew said:
Only the Heath Street line past Brigham Circle moves as fast as traffic in the street. The Boston College line is slow for other reasons (e.g. lack of signal priority, too many stops, crappy boarding procedures, etc).
Click to expand...
I've seen both the 39 and 57 buses pass their railed counterparts during the reservation section- the B-line is a mess as you say, but waiting for left-turn signals on Huntington Ave are also a killer. (whereas the bus can just keep going)
 
You would need to switch to Proof-of-Payment, which is fine by me. As for the platforms, I would worry about people hopping out of one vehicle and accidentally stepping in front of the train arriving on the other side. That depends on how wide the center platform is, and how crowded it gets.

As for waiting for left-turn signals (which happens to the "B" line too), that's a problem that could be addressed with signal priority.

The 57 beats the "B" line on that stretch typically because it has to stop less often than the train. But if the 57 has to make all stops then it is typically slower than the train. Since there are fewer people on-board a bus than a train, it is less likely that a particular low-volume stop will be rung. But get on-board a crush-loaded 57 bus and you will find it has a tendency to make more stops than usual, as each stop has a higher likelihood of being rung by someone on the bus, exacerbating the problem.
 
What about instead of signal priority, ban left-hand turns for people driving down Huntington? Or best yet: signal priority AND no left turns. It would keep traffic efficient, and keep Green Line operations safe, smooth, and more reliable.
 
One thing you can do with signal priority is called "phase rotation" where you move phases around to avoid conflicts and excessive waiting. For example, if a left-turn signal usually goes green before the thru-phase, but a trolley needs to go thru, then you can "rotate" the left-turn phase to be after the thru-phase instead of before.
 
Matthew said:
One thing you can do with signal priority is called "phase rotation" where you move phases around to avoid conflicts and excessive waiting. For example, if a left-turn signal usually goes green before the thru-phase, but a trolley needs to go thru, then you can "rotate" the left-turn phase to be after the thru-phase instead of before.
Click to expand...
This sounds logical, but I do worry that in the period where it has just been implemented you would have a lot more accidents from people used to the old system.
 
My idea is to eliminate all left turns over the tracks and replace some or all with mid-block unsignalized u-turns - there are a few of these on Beacon and Comm Ave and they seem to work well because cars are forced to be very careful and deferential.
 
Shepard said:
My idea is to eliminate all left turns over the tracks and replace some or all with mid-block unsignalized u-turns - there are a few of these on Beacon and Comm Ave and they seem to work well because cars are forced to be very careful and deferential.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Michigan-Left: urban style
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top