The Orange Line Thread

[winstonoboogie]

Were talking about a one stop extension, not a whole new branch. The load isn't going to require any more cars then what's planned for the next order. The yard could easily be expanded to double its current size, even without taking that extra parcel. One of the needham line tracks would likely be canabalized for the OL extension, so we would only loose one track from the current yard, which would be expanded. There is also a ton of room for tail tracks for further storage after the one stop extension, even if a passing siding for the needham line is added further down. Im really not seeing how this is an issue.


Edit: f-line beat me to it, and then some.

Right now, Orange Line trains are given 88 minutes to make a round-trip from Oak Grove to Forest Hills and back, including recovery time at the ends of the line. They operate 16 six-car trains to meet that schedule at a frequency of every 5.5 minutes. With the expanded fleet, they want to improve the peak headway to every 4 minutes. If you take 88 and divide it by 4, that will increase the train requirement to 22 six-car trains. That's 36 more cars than the present requirement. The extra dwell time from Assembly Sq. station alone is requiring them to buy 6 more cars (they were going to buy 152, now it looks like they will order 158, we'll know when they release the request for proposals). So all of the additional cars are going to be required to improve the peak frequency to every four minutes.

If you assume that the added travel time from Forest Hills to Roslindale will round up to about 3 minutes each way, or 6 minutes for a round-trip, that
increases the round-trip time from 88 minutes to 94 minutes. 94 divided by 4 is 23.5. You can't run half a train, so you round-up to 24 six-car trains, a 12 car increase. That is not accounted for in the present planned order, unless you want to cut the maintenance spares to a very tight percentage. You might be able to get away with that when the cars are new, but they will age, and will require more cars to be out at any one time for maintenance. As evidence, they used to run 17 six-car trains during the peak with the existing fleet, but the maintenance folks found that was just too tight a number as the cars got older and needed more work

As far as room for storage, I'm assuming the Roslindale Orange Line station is supposed to be located where the commuter rail station is. I don't see plenty of room for tail tracks west of Roslindale. I see a single Needham Line track occupying a former double track right-of-way that has backyards on both sides west of Robert St..

 

[winstonoboogie]

Green has 4 westbound branches with 3 downtown turnbacks, and soon-to-be 2 northbound branches. Each branch has its own minimum peak-hour car requirements. The trainsets operate in some 2-car consists and some 3-car consists, and are required by ADA to match one low-floor car with one high-floor car to make the numbers watch. Orange is a single end-to-ender with a single fleet permanently run in 6-car sets. They are not remotely comparable on ops.

Orange's overnight storage needs at the far end of the line are nothing compared to Red's, and Alewife Yard only has storage for a maximum of 4 trainsets on the tail tracks behind the station. They do indeed stuff both platform tracks at the station full on the overnight to make it an even 6 trainsets for the first run at 5:00, and have been doing that ever since Alewife opened in 1985. Granted, that is in an enclosed indoor station. But they do pack it full after the nightly work train is finished.


Yes, you do have enough room to extend the storage tracks. Go to Bing Maps bird's eye, which has a much better close-up than Google and a winter shot where the Arboretum property line is clear: http://binged.it/14K71oS.

Subway track chart: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/MBTA_Rapid_Transit_Track_Map.

The way the yard is laid out the middle two tracks are the mainline tracks coming off the platform. So the one on the wall and the one bordering the Needham Line are the turnouts and the middle pair is straight. If the mainline continued in this configuration you would have storage tracks on both sides and no crossing traffic whatsoever for midday layovers.

Notice on Bing that top track turnout hugging the retaining wall has a derelict second bumper and a couple sticks of buried rail about 100 ft. before the chain-link security fence. At some point in history that turnout was longer. And depending on how much space there is inside the tunnel on that turnout that may correspond exactly to +1 trainset of extra storage above its current capacity. But let's assume for argument's sake that the tunnel doesn't quite have that much slack space. It measures 400 ft. from the edge of the current bumpers to the front of that electrical box. An OL set is 390 ft. So everything does have the guaranteed space to store +1 more trainset than it currently does. All of the merging back into the center mainline tracks happens behind the electrical box on the 450 ft. between the box and the area directly behind the car wash on Washington. Such that everything is merged back into its 2 OL + 1 Needham mainline configuration before the Arboretum Rd. stone arch overpass. Arboretum fence is easily visible all the way to the bridge. It's a very generous amount of slack space to merge tracks. The West Roxbury passing siding on Needham only takes half that much running room to turn out or turn in.



Now, Needham outbound track has to be cannibalized for this with only the single inbound track remaining. So if you lift 1 CR track at the portal and install a turnout from your existing turnout track you get a second storage track from the inbound side with room for 2 trainsets before it has to merge back into the existing turnout then back into the mainline (I measured this leaving 100 ft. of space for a switch and merge).

6 trainsets of storage next to your thru mainline tracks. Now, I don't know how they get 7 on there today as all 4 tracks are about equal length beyond the FH platforms and the two outer ones need a few feet's running room past the platform to peel out. To make it work they have to at least be blocking 1 platform's worth of switches overnight with a stored train. But then again, Alewife blocks BOTH platforms on the overnight so that is hardly a discouraged practice. There is nothing stopping you from filling up 6 on the storage tracks and 2 on the FH platforms just like they do at Alewife for 8 total and a +1 gain over what they store overnight inside the tunnel at FH today.


I don't see the problem here. All of this was pre-designed in the early 1980's for continuing the line...hence the center mainline tracks with turnouts on both sides, barren paved area of conspicuous length, and Arboretum fence in conspicuous shape of a track merge. They didn't do a design revision when they bailed on the rest of the extension to West Roxbury...they just didn't fill up the all the land they set aside and landscaped at the time for this yard. Wellington is oversize for what it holds...it was supposed to accept 24 transferred Blue Line cars for the rebuild-to-Orange program before that was scrapped, and they held on to dozens of the previous-generation 01100 cars on the property in dead storage for 6 or 7 years after their retirement. They don't have to make any changes to their storage space to handle a 144-162 car order. Or make any service changes to absorb the Assembly Sq. infill. A +1 to Rozzie is not going to do a hell of a lot either when FH Yard is almost empty during the service day. And I don't see how Orange is going to fall on its face when Alewife gets by with every single night feeding 2 tighter-headway branches out of an even smaller yard.

No F-Line, they do not park any trains on the platform overnight at Alewife. The store six trains overnight at the underground yard at Alewife, the yard has three tracks that hold 2 six-car trains each. The trains in the morning that come out of the yard are the 5:16, 5:29, and 5:43 trains to Ashmont and the 5:24, 5:36, and 5:51 trains to Braintree. There is a yard motorperson assigned their very early in the morning, and it is that persons responsibility to move the trains onto the platform. The platforms are kept clear for the reasons I mentioned before.

The reason for the GLX comparison is a simple one. When people are using maps and #2 pencils to plan a rail extension, they might not think about the question of how many vehicles are needed for it, and where can they be parked overnight that also works well with the schedule logistics. Yes there is more room at Wellington, but the very fact that seven trains are parked overnight at Forest Hills already would strongly suggest that there are good reasons for having part of the car storage requirement take place at that end of the line. The short Blue Line is the only MBTA heavy-rail rapid transit line that has one primary storage location (Orient Heights) and even there, in the winter time, they will park trains overnight on the tail tracks created by the old incline ramp at Bowdoin. When they do that, they have to assign a repair person down there to stay with the cars.

One of the four storage tracks at Forest Hills can only hold one train, as it otherwise will foul the interlocking. That's why it is seven trains and not eight that are parked at Forest Hills now. As part of the MBTA's snow plan, when there is a large overnight snow storm, they assign crews to Forest Hills yard to bring trains on to the platform, let them warm up a bit, and then put them back in the yard. It keeps the cars limber and helps to keep the switches from freezing. That's the only time you will see cars laid up overnight on the platform, and even then, they are not there for the entire night as they trade off spots.

Even if it is 400 feet of room before tracks have to merge for access from the west, you have only found parking space for two of the four sets displaced by a main line extension. You speak of using one of the two Needham line tracks for the Orange. Yes you will have to move the split east from South St., because one of the tracks would have to be given up to squeeze in a two-track Orange Line main line. But as you get closer to Forest Hills station, the Needham Line begins to descend to a lower grade than the Orange Line. Notice when you are riding the Orange Line on the Southwest Corridor that the railroad tracks are lower than the rapid transit tracks. Two tracks would have to be maintained by the Needham branch right at the present Orange Line yard and Forest Hills station, as that is also part of the interlocking where the line merges with the Northeast Corridor. The present arrangement gives Needham Line trains the flexibility of using any of the three tracks and be clear of blocking traffic on the corridor. It also allows for meets right at the junction. Just look at he present schedule, inbound Needham train 602 stops at Forest Hills at 7:15 AM while outbound train 605 stops there at 7:16 AM. There are a few more examples like that in the present schedule. For that schedule to work, you need two Needham Line tracks at Forest Hills station

 

[winstonoboogie]

I don't see the problem here. All of this was pre-designed in the early 1980's for continuing the line...hence the center mainline tracks with turnouts on both sides, barren paved area of conspicuous length, and Arboretum fence in conspicuous shape of a track merge. They didn't do a design revision when they bailed on the rest of the extension to West Roxbury...they just didn't fill up the all the land they set aside and landscaped at the time for this yard. .

It was predesigned with the thought that someday the Orange Line would be taking over the entire Needham Line, not that the Orange Line would be extended one stop and would have to co-exist with the Needham Line and that Forest Hills would remain as an overnight storage yard. Somewhat like the original layout at Quincy Center. When it opened in 1971, there was a three-track yard south of the station. It was assumed that "soon" the line would be extended to Braintree and part of the yard would become the main line, but the storage space would be replaced by new storage space at Braintree. Of course, it took another 9 years before the line was extended to Braintree in 1980. The remnants of the Quincy Center yard remain however in the form of a third pocket track that can be used to turn-back trains. That was the likely scenario being considered when the Southwest Corridor was built in the 1980s, that if it was extended to Route 128 in Needham or at least as far as the VFW Parkway, a new yard would be built to the west, and the present Forest Hills yard would become a turn-back to reverse some trains at Forest Hills if required.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No F-Line, they do not park any trains on the platform overnight at Alewife. The store six trains overnight at the underground yard at Alewife, the yard has three tracks that hold 2 six-car trains each. The trains in the morning that come out of the yard are the 5:16, 5:29, and 5:43 trains to Ashmont and the 5:24, 5:36, and 5:51 trains to Braintree. There is a yard motorperson assigned their very early in the morning, and it is that persons responsibility to move the trains onto the platform. The platforms are kept clear for the reasons I mentioned before.

Yes, they do:
http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/MBTA_Red_Line#Red_Line_Yards

Every night, on-platform. Go search "Alewife storage" on RR.net for add'l confirmation.

The reason for the GLX comparison is a simple one. When people are using maps and #2 pencils to plan a rail extension, they might not think about the question of how many vehicles are needed for it, and where can they be parked overnight that also works well with the schedule logistics. Yes there is more room at Wellington, but the very fact that seven trains are parked overnight at Forest Hills already would strongly suggest that there are good reasons for having part of the car storage requirement take place at that end of the line. The short Blue Line is the only MBTA heavy-rail rapid transit line that has one primary storage location (Orient Heights) and even there, in the winter time, they will park trains overnight on the tail tracks created by the old incline ramp at Bowdoin. When they do that, they have to assign a repair person down there to stay with the cars.

Union Sq. on GLX is being built with no tail tracks whatsoever. The bumper blocks are on-platform, and anything either has to lay over on-platform or deadhead back inbound at the junction to the Innerbelt carhouse. And for several years before that carhouse opens, since it has been punted off to Phase II: North Station Yard. Somebody who modeled that well beyond using a #2 pencil determined that was wholly adequate for the Union Branch's tail-track storage needs or lackthereof.

Operationally what they do at Union would be little different from a train being taken out-of-service at Rozzie being pulled into Forest Hills Yard, which is nearly empty during service hours. Storage tracks 1 stop away from the line terminus are not a new thing.

Do I have that traffic modeling data? No. Nobody does, because it hasn't been officially studied yet. So "does very strongly suggest there are good reasons for. . ." and making apples-oranges comparisons to other lines is just as much a conjecture. We're not in fundamental disagreement about that part. It has to be studied. A relatively narrow range of conditions concerning overnight storage for a +1 stop extension has to be studied. It isn't exactly staring into the Crazy Transit Pitches abyss to solve for that one with a study.


Let's not forget the motivation for this: 8 overcrowded bus routes have to duplicate the mileage to Rozzie Sq. on an extremely congested part of Washington St. on very unreliable schedules because full-blown rapid transit -level ridership on that corridor cannot bridge that gap any other way. The Needham Line is too schedule-constrained to step up at all beyond its current schedule at linking those neighborhoods to downtown. These residents have been ignored for too long, and intervention is long overdue because it degrades their quality of life to have unreliable transit that cannot serve or scale to overwhelming demand. And it goes to the dire warnings about transit circulation problems slowly starting to choke Boston from within. So study a cost-contained +1 stop extension as it would address a very real problem unsolvable on the rubber-tire or CR modes. The OL's capacity questions are not large here compared to what the other two modes are dealing with in this area right this second. Flesh out the details of the traffic modeling, but these are not huge questions in the grand scheme of things...just details to flesh out in a study. It would be a good use of the next Mayor's time to push for a study here so there is a basis for an actionable decision. This circulation problem past FH has been festering for way too long without anyone lifting a finger trying to get data. If you want to kvetch about unknowns...that's the unknown most worth kvetching about. What are our Masters of the Planning Universe waiting for?

 

[choo]

^Not being in that area of town, and as reasonable as this extension sounds, the question i am left with is: How much advocacy has there been in Rozzie for it? I mean development is picking up and NIMBYs come out for it. Do NIMBY groups not want this because it will lead to more development- or is it something the neighbor wants/needs and just hasn't pushed for. Something inside the neighborhood needs to hold peoples feet to the fire about stuff other than 5 story condo buildings.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Yes, they do:
http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/MBTA_Red_Line#Red_Line_Yards

Every night, on-platform. Go search "Alewife storage" on RR.net for add'l confirmation.




Let's not forget the motivation for this: 8 overcrowded bus routes have to duplicate the mileage to Rozzie Sq. on an extremely congested part of Washington St. ?

Gerry from NYCsubway.org is incorrect, the Alewife trains all lay up in the yard. Notice he states there are only two tracks west of Alewife when there are actually three. Since he didn't know the actual track layout at Alewife, he made an incorrect assumption about where the trains are parked. Let's just say, I double checked with somebody who has great knowledge of the subject.

Let's also not forget that the buses running on all those Roslindale Sq. routes are assigned to the Arborway bus garage, and at least before and after the rush-hour, are going to have to make their way between Forest Hills and Roslindale Station. even if nobody is on the bus.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Yes, they do:
http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/MBTA_Red_Line#Red_Line_Yards



Union Sq. on GLX is being built with no tail tracks whatsoever. The bumper blocks are on-platform, and anything either has to lay over on-platform or deadhead back inbound at the junction to the Innerbelt carhouse. And for several years before that carhouse opens, since it has been punted off to Phase II: North Station Yard. Somebody who modeled that well beyond using a #2 pencil determined that was wholly adequate for the Union Branch's tail-track storage needs or lackthereof.

The issue is not trains parked at the station during midday or layovers; The issue is not trains making a short dead-head move like Wellington-Oak Grove, Orient Heights-Wonderland, or Reservoirr-Boston College; the problem is trains being parked in the station overnight and blocking access for work equipment. Notice that the interim Union Sq. plan is for the equipment to deadhead to the small layup yard at North Station and later to the carhouse when it is built. The plan is not to have the cars park in the station overnight. Remember a few years back when some Heath St. cars were being parked on the Brattle Loop overnight? Well the operations people and track maintenance crews found that to be problematic, even though Brattle loop is not normally used. They didn't want it blocked and the practice of parking cars there overnight, except during a winter emergency, was discontinued.

Because of that, since Lechmere can only hold 20 cars and the E-Line needs 34 cars for its peak schedule, they have to run extra trains between Lechmere and Reservoir to ferry the 7 additional two-car trains required by the E-Line beyond what will fit in Lechmere yard. Those are the extra "Reservoir" cars you will see on the Green Line from about 6 PM to 8 PM.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

^Not being in that area of town, and as reasonable as this extension sounds, the question i am left with is: How much advocacy has there been in Rozzie for it? I mean development is picking up and NIMBYs come out for it. Do NIMBY groups not want this because it will lead to more development- or is it something the neighbor wants/needs and just hasn't pushed for. Something inside the neighborhood needs to hold peoples feet to the fire about stuff other than 5 story condo buildings.

They wanted it in the 70's when it was being planned, and were pissed in the 80's when the state did the cut-and-run at FH. And were pissed when not only did they cut-and-run on OL but left the Needham Line out-of-service for over 8 years between Fall '79 and Fall '87 in a transparent attempt to Arborway it gone. It took imminent threats of lawsuits to get them to belatedly start a reconstruction blitz in 1986 to get the line back in operation within 18 months. Everybody else down the corridor through Roxbury who thought the one-seat to the outer neighborhoods was going to be one of the beneficial trade-offs for losing the El also felt boned over by it, so the hit Roxbury took was amplified even worse.

West Roxbury is and always was considerably more suburban than Rozzie Sq., so they've been more ambivalent. Not so much NIMBY opposition as ambivalence. And that end was further complicated by Dedham really not wanting the Dedham Ctr. terminus. Needham, for the same reasons it is today, is much better-served by a north-south Green Line branch given the orientation of that town. So the substitution of a Needham terminus for Dedham was...underwhelming on upside and not particularly attention-grabbing in Needham where the debate was dominated by Green and the bulk of the town's population density clustered on Green.

The bus situation at Rozzie Sq. has always been on the front-burner for that neighborhood. Including before the SW Corridor construction. They didn't even have a direct CR-to-El transfer after 1940 when the original Forest Hills CR station was closed and left to rot. All Needham and Millis/West Medway trains expressed straight from Rozzie Sq. to a then-Orangeless Back Bay. They either had to take the bus to get their Orange/Green transfer at FH or go from SS-DTX on Red.

Neighborhood leaders, City Councilors for that district...they've always been for it. But our last 3 imperial mayors pretty much ignored the existence of that neighborhood and W. Rox as outlying suburbia. With Menino at times being oddly hostile in some sort of strange Hyde Park rivalry thing. The lack of unity on that corridor has made them a lot easier to ignore. West Roxbury has come around a lot from the old days, driven in part by their own slog of a bus trip and the Needham Line's perpetual afterthought status. But it still isn't as critical to the lifeblood of their neighborhood as it is Rozzie. If Rozzie got the +1 stop extension their bus trip inbound to the nearest rapid transit transfer gets sliced in half, loses all of its schedule uncertainty, and gets a hell of a lot closer with Rozzie being the terminal.

It is much less about advocacy past Rozzie that's going to get the Needham Line replaced than the simple fact that NEC growth has boxed the Needham schedule into a no-growth future. With increasing ops urgency at the >2030 range to get rid of it altogether, and a high-frequency dinky pinging from Needham Heights no further east than FH being an unacceptable solution to all riders on the line who need either their one-seat or the inter-neighborhood transfer at Ruggles to reach all the Dudley buses. It can only be done by supplanting with Green and Orange lest there be lawsuits from Needham and the neighborhoods that the state cannot hope to win any more than it could in 1986.

To get on the front-burner for a shorter-term study it's going to have to become a Rozzie thing and a bus circulation thing, not a corridor thing. With the bus circulation thing being the bigger burning issue with FH's performance as a bus terminal degrading under escalating load, and that very controversial bus yard expansion so vehemently opposed by JP. +1 extension, cost-controlled, is the priority. Whole Needham corridor is >2030 and will get swept up in outside factors, so is probably too much of an overreach right now given the other unaddressed priorities with inner-city circulation.

Again, we're only talking a transit-friendlier City Hall regime acknowledging that there's a major problem here and pushing for a study to quantify all the data. Both the mitigating effects on the buses and answering the basic technical questions. Which save for the minor overnight storage details does not change traffic loads on the OL with too much more than the Assembly Sq. infill does. I do not expect this could ever go into design this decade or get built before 2022-25 given the T's financial state, but we've seen in the past 7 days with the Seaport how vitally important it is to publicly call out the priorities and unaddressed needs, and apply the pressure to stop ignoring it. A City Hall regime that doesn't ignore the whole population past the Forest Hills overpass can do that.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Gerry from NYCsubway.org is incorrect, the Alewife trains all lay up in the yard. Notice he states there are only two tracks west of Alewife when there are actually three. Since he didn't know the actual track layout at Alewife, he made an incorrect assumption about where the trains are parked. Let's just say, I double checked with somebody who has great knowledge of the subject.

Let's also not forget that the buses running on all those Roslindale Sq. routes are assigned to the Arborway bus garage, and at least before and after the rush-hour, are going to have to make their way between Forest Hills and Roslindale Station. even if nobody is on the bus.

So? Most bus routes on the system roam 5+ miles from the nearest bus yard at all times they're in service. Albany, Cabot, and Southampton are all across the street from each other, are assigned over 40% of the buses in the T's 1000+ Yellow Line fleet, and feed an outright majority of the routes on the entire system. Charlestown houses almost a quarter of the active fleet. If they execute on the bus terminal needs study that consolidation is going to be even greater with small Fellsway being closed, Lynn being demoted from full-time facility to just local route daytime storage, and Wellington on the other side of the Mystic from C'town being the site to absorb all that consolidation. 70%+ based out of two spread-out super-locations at C'town/Wellington and the Southampton trio.

Arborway, with only about 10% of the fleet and being a weirdo CNG bus-only facility at a time when the T is moving away from that fuel is an outlier. Why would this location be special when it cuts against the grain of what they've been doing with the others? That's the question JP residents are asking about why that "temporary" facility is being forced down their throats as permanent. They could just as easily have based those fleets out of the way at Readville rather than plunking it right in the middle of the neighborhood. Rozzie-terminating buses are going to lay over between runs at Rozzie like every other bus terminal. Mid-day shift changes back to the yard are done mid-day when the traffic is not bad. FH is nowhere near as long a drive as as the others. This is a non-issue.

If this is a real concern, you have to explain why Arborway is wholly unique and unlike every other bus facility on the system. And don't say road traffic because FH is nothing compared to what some routes have to swim upstream against to get to the downtown yard trio.

The issue is not trains parked at the station during midday or layovers; The issue is not trains making a short dead-head move like Wellington-Oak Grove, Orient Heights-Wonderland, or Reservoirr-Boston College; the problem is trains being parked in the station overnight and blocking access for work equipment. Notice that the interim Union Sq. plan is for the equipment to deadhead to the small layup yard at North Station and later to the carhouse when it is built. The plan is not to have the cars park in the station overnight. Remember a few years back when some Heath St. cars were being parked on the Brattle Loop overnight? Well the operations people and track maintenance crews found that to be problematic, even though Brattle loop is not normally used. They didn't want it blocked and the practice of parking cars there overnight, except during a winter emergency, was discontinued.

Because of that, since Lechmere can only hold 20 cars and the E-Line needs 34 cars for its peak schedule, they have to run extra trains between Lechmere and Reservoir to ferry the 7 additional two-car trains required by the E-Line beyond what will fit in Lechmere yard. Those are the extra "Reservoir" cars you will see on the Green Line from about 6 PM to 8 PM.

And that concern is very, very, very small in the grand scheme of things. The fact of the matter, which I made in my previous post and which you are conveniently ignoring here, is that NOBODY knows the traffic modeling for a +1 extension. It has not been performed yet, because it has not been studied yet. The priority is doing a study and modeling what it would do for the buses, and what it would do for/to the Orange Line. A study is very easy to do. These conditions which you speak of are self-contained conditions very specific in nature. They do not have unbound unintended consequences. They are very easy to answer up-front in a traffic modeling, very easy for that traffic modeling to point to immediate answers about the efficacy of every storage solution on the table. The bus storage and the OL storage. And yes, if there is a very specific fatal flaw in there it will turn it up immediately. But until then, we don't know what that fatal flaw could be or have a means of rating the efficacy of a storage option.

This is not some great fear of the unknown thing. It has merely not been scoped out with an official study because no one has called for one or funded one. We are not in disagreement that this must be done as a first step. All of it...the effects on the bus bottlenecks from FH and the effects on the storage.


I am not sure what the point of all this excessive hand-wringing is and citing apples-oranges comparisons. Unless this is just some pointless exercise in concern-trolling for some other reason. Neither you nor I can quantify the effects. So do a damn study. The need is CRITICAL for doing a study. That is all I'm saying. All this extra "but, but. . ." verbiage in the absence of a study is total wasted energy.

 

[HenryAlan]

As far as room for storage, I'm assuming the Roslindale Orange Line station is supposed to be located where the commuter rail station is. I don't see plenty of room for tail tracks west of Roslindale. I see a single Needham Line track occupying a former double track right-of-way that has backyards on both sides west of Robert St..

It seems clear that the existing yard can be expanded. But what if you're right, and it can't expand enough? If that is the case, the upper parking lot at Rozzie can provide some additional space. Alternatively, it might be possible to take some of the Arboretum land abutting the existing yard. There are options, your concerns are noted, but even if correct, they don't kill the project.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It seems clear that the existing yard can be expanded. But what if you're right, and it can't expand enough? If that is the case, the upper parking lot at Rozzie can provide some additional space. Alternatively, it might be possible to take some of the Arboretum land abutting the existing yard. There are options, your concerns are noted, but even if correct, they don't kill the project.

For what it's worth, the T's commuter rail layover yard expansion analysis study published 6 months ago profiled a parcel at FH (amongst 23 others in the city) for trainset storage. p. 96 on this PDF for the schematic, p. 65 for the write-up: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/25/Docs/efs/C-LayoverFacilityAlternativesAnalysisReport.pdf

They looked at the same exact industrial parcel in omaja's post up the page opposite the existing OL layover. As the write-up indicates it got a pretty big thumbs-down for ops congestion and land use. But they studied a lot of sites in this report that don't pass the laugh test, so methinks the consultants were inventing extra work for themselves throwing two-dozen darts at the map.

While that location is a definite "What are you smoking?" for commuter rail, this point remains: the T has thought about this kind of stuff with fair degree of specificity on a more official level than a bunch of internet assholes on an urban planning forum. I don't think it's worth the energy fretting about such incredibly specific and contained-impact ops details when the study will have that whole universe covered in far greater detail than even this useless little passing fancy of a CR layover analysis did on this FH site.

One step at a time. We need to do the study. We need to have some known-knowns about what the options are for the traffic flow noose that's slowly choking FH terminal. Pursuing a study is where organized neighborhood advocacy and an equal-opportunity ear at City Hall can get things done. That's the key takeaway from this Seaport plan and the BCEC reps deciding they've had it with half-assed transit. The barrier for getting someone to listen is not as insurmountable as we've been led to believe for the last 20 years. It can be done. The oft-ignored outer neighborhoods just have to find a way to get that message to resonate on downtown's turf. Which is not easy, but it can be done. And there's never been a better opportunity to do it than exerting their influence on the wholesale regime change that's coming.

 

[winstonoboogie]

I am not sure what the point of all this excessive hand-wringing is and citing apples-oranges comparisons. Unless this is just some pointless exercise in concern-trolling for some other reason. Neither you nor I can quantify the effects. So do a damn study. The need is CRITICAL for doing a study. That is all I'm saying. All this extra "but, but. . ." verbiage in the absence of a study is total wasted energy.

Here’s a hypothetical for you. Let’s suppose that 7-8 years ago in this forum, there was a discussion going on about extending the Blue Line from Bowdoin to Charles. Let’s then suppose that the general consensus amongst the participants was that it was a slam dunk project, easy cut and cover subway, should be done yesterday already. Now suppose somebody chimed in with a cautionary comment “Hey gang, If they extend the line, they will lose those storage tracks beyond Bowdon station. The MBTA operations people will probably insist that the extension project include new replacement storage tracks beyond Charles St., and that could be a pricy add on, especially if the tracks have to go under the piers supporting the Red Line” Now remember, this is 7-8 years ago, the MBTA study that mentioned this issue had not been released yet. What would your reaction to this hypothetical posting scenario be? Would it be:
A) “This guy is a troll, he’s bringing up an obscure issue which I’m sure is not something that will greatly escalate the cost for this project, and contribute to its being placed on the backburner for another generation”
OR
B) “This guy seems to have some knowledge of the subject, it’s not an issue I would have thought of initially while drawing a line on a map from point A to point B, but it is a factor that should be considered when discussing this project


My point about the deadhead bus miles is that this is another issue that would come up if a proposal was ever modeled. The large amount of deadheading that would still take place along the exact corridor that the proposed extension is supposed to be removing buses from, could mean that the reduction in bus miles and hours might not be as great as you first might think. If the proposal was going to be studied tomorrow, planners would have to assume that the bus garage would still be at Arborway. There is not enough serious discussion at this point about it being anywhere else, so that is the assumption that would have to be made when considering the changes in bus miles and hours that would come from the project as a potential benefit.

 

[Matthew]

Small question: the first Orange Line train heads north at 5:16 AM, but the AM peak period does not begin until 6:30 AM. That seems to be plenty of time for trains stored at Wellington to make their way down to the southern terminus and turn back. Does the Orange Line really need to go full bore starting at 5 AM?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Here’s a hypothetical for you. Let’s suppose that 7-8 years ago in this forum, there was a discussion going on about extending the Blue Line from Bowdoin to Charles. Let’s then suppose that the general consensus amongst the participants was that it was a slam dunk project, easy cut and cover subway, should be done yesterday already. Now suppose somebody chimed in with a cautionary comment “Hey gang, If they extend the line, they will lose those storage tracks beyond Bowdon station. The MBTA operations people will probably insist that the extension project include new replacement storage tracks beyond Charles St., and that could be a pricy add on, especially if the tracks have to go under the piers supporting the Red Line” Now remember, this is 7-8 years ago, the MBTA study that mentioned this issue had not been released yet. What would your reaction to this hypothetical posting scenario be? Would it be:
A) “This guy is a troll, he’s bringing up an obscure issue which I’m sure is not something that will greatly escalate the cost for this project, and contribute to its being placed on the backburner for another generation”
OR
B) “This guy seems to have some knowledge of the subject, it’s not an issue I would have thought of initially while drawing a line on a map from point A to point B, but it is a factor that should be considered when discussing this project


My point about the deadhead bus miles is that this is another issue that would come up if a proposal was ever modeled. The large amount of deadheading that would still take place along the exact corridor that the proposed extension is supposed to be removing buses from, could mean that the reduction in bus miles and hours might not be as great as you first might think. If the proposal was going to be studied tomorrow, planners would have to assume that the bus garage would still be at Arborway. There is not enough serious discussion at this point about it being anywhere else, so that is the assumption that would have to be made when considering the changes in bus miles and hours that would come from the project as a potential benefit.

Oh, right. So this once again has little to nothing to do about the discussion at hand and everything to do about "this guy" who's saying something, and playing a game of gotcha rhetorical traps and concern-trolling because "this guy. . .". Round 2 of whatever the hell you were on about 3 days ago. My apologies for taking this seriously thinking a STUDY, not an immediate build, was a reasonable course of action for finding concrete answers to a set of unknowns. Now what set of Amtrak fact-checking do we move onto next?



Here's a tip if this is getting so far under your skin that you feel the need to inject this strain into every thread:

There. Blissful, self-satisfying quiet.


Good day, sir.

 

[winstonoboogie]

They wanted it in the 70's when it was being planned, and were pissed in the 80's when the state did the cut-and-run at FH. And were pissed when not only did they cut-and-run on OL but left the Needham Line out-of-service for over 8 years between Fall '79 and Fall '87 in a transparent attempt to Arborway it gone. It took imminent threats of lawsuits to get them to belatedly start a reconstruction blitz in 1986 to get the line back in operation within 18 months. .

The closure from 1979 to 87 was for pretty legitimate construction reasons. The embankment (in JP and Roxbury) and cut (in the South End) from Forest Hills to Back Bay had to be totally demolished in order to build the Southwest Corridor cut for the relocated Orange Line and the rebuilt commuter rail. There was no way trains could keep running while this was going on. The Franklin, Northeast Corridor, and Stoughton trains were rerouted via the Dorchester Branch, but that wasn't an option for the Needham Line. The planning for this happened under Dukakis-I, and the intent was to restore service when the work was done. Ed King was governor though by the time construction was underway, and his administration floated the idea of keeping the temporary Needham express buses as a permanent replacement for the trains. But by the time construction was in its last years, Dukakis had returned and it became clear that the trains would too. Henry Hersey selectman from Needham and Needham's MBTA Advisory Board member, for who the stationed is named, lobbied long and hard for the restoration of the trains during the King years. Needham though was very much against an Orange Line extension, thy wanted commuter rail. In the 1970s, there was no discussion of a Green Line branch to Needham. The idea was floated in the Recess Commission reports in the 1940s, but if you look from the PMTs in the 1960s and 1970s, there is no mention at all of the Needham Green Line idea. The central area studies in the 1970s might have mentioned it, but not as a serious project. The Green Line to Needham idea only came back from the dead in the 2003 PMT.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Small question: the first Orange Line train heads north at 5:16 AM, but the AM peak period does not begin until 6:30 AM. That seems to be plenty of time for trains stored at Wellington to make their way down to the southern terminus and turn back. Does the Orange Line really need to go full bore starting at 5 AM?

It's not only the first trains that pull out from Forest Hills, but as the headway starts to build up to peak, trains start to pull out to increase the headway from the south at the same time it is being built up from the north. Also, as the crowds start to get heavier, and the dwell time starts to get longer, the travel time also starts to get longer too. So while trains might start leaving Oak Grove at 5.5 minute intervals, the won't be arriving at Forest Hills at 5.5 minute intervals. The trains coming out of Forest Hills are to maintain that headway as it builds and it takes longer for trains to get there from Oak Grove. At least that's how it is supposed to work.

 

[winstonoboogie]

The idea was floated in the Recess Commission reports in the 1940s, but if you look from the PMTs in the 1960s and 1970s, there is no mention at all of the Needham Green Line idea..

The Boston Public Library has been scanning older MBTA planning documents and placing them at archive.org. In case people reading this forum don't know of them here is a link to the MBTA's first Program for Mass Transportation (their long-term planning document) from 1966:
http://archive.org/details/comprehensivedev00mass

And here is a link to the 1969 revision:
http://archive.org/details/revisedprogramfo00mass

 

[rinserepeat]

^Not being in that area of town, and as reasonable as this extension sounds, the question i am left with is: How much advocacy has there been in Rozzie for it? I mean development is picking up and NIMBYs come out for it. Do NIMBY groups not want this because it will lead to more development- or is it something the neighbor wants/needs and just hasn't pushed for. Something inside the neighborhood needs to hold peoples feet to the fire about stuff other than 5 story condo buildings.

I'm in that part of town. Everyone wants it. I think the powers-that-be have been distracted by finally getting the substation development to happen - and once that project breaks ground I think (and hope) there will be more of a concentrated effort to get the ball rolling on a possible extension. I know there has been more grumbling lately because of the price hike and discontinuation of Saturday service on the CR.

@winstonboogie:

It's interesting that the plan was to extend the OL to both Readville and West Roxbury line. I guess +1 expansion would be challenging to implement, but the economic impact on Roslindale Square would be huge, therefore I think it's definitely worth serious study.

 

[wicked]

If you head out toward American Legion Highway, I'd think there would be space for a bus facility to replace Arborway. Would it pass the environmental aspects, I guess that's the question. You could sell the Arborway land, put some dense development on it and make some $$$.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm in that part of town. Everyone wants it. I think the powers-that-be have been distracted by finally getting the substation development to happen - and once that project breaks ground I think (and hope) there will be more of a concentrated effort to get the ball rolling on a possible extension. I know there has been more grumbling lately because of the price hike and discontinuation of Saturday service on the CR.

@winstonboogie:

It's interesting that the plan was to extend the OL to both Readville and West Roxbury line. I guess +1 expansion would be challenging to implement, but the economic impact on Roslindale Square would be huge, therefore I think it's definitely worth serious study.

Readville was possible because I-95's construction would've relocated the NEC permanently over the Fairmount Line. The same OL-on-interstate-median setup they were designing to Forest Hills could just continue. With the W. Rox fork being a transit-loss mitigation from the Needham Line having to go away.

You'd never ever be able to squeeze the NEC down to 2 tracks today to fit OL down there. It still exists as an MPO "universe of projects" proposal from the 2003 PMT, but Amtrak's NEC Infrastructure plan released 2 years ago has subsequently scoped out reactivating the 4th track from Forest Hills to Readville (reconfiguring Hyde Park station in the process) by 2025 as congestion mitigation for passing slow CR branchline trains. Window's officially closed for rapid transit down there. But looking at my copy of the 2003 PMT the Needham Line flank kicks the Readville/128/NEC flank's butt: 2-1/2 times the ridership, almost 3x better on capital cost per new rider, better operating cost, and slightly lower overall capital cost. The only thing the NEC option does better on is travel time savings and bringing more non-transit riders into the system. But that's predictable given the mileage, extreme skew in bus coverage and Rozzie being more bus dependent, and fact that the MPO proposal includes Westwood/128.