Transit via the Grand Junction Corridor | Cambridge and Boston

[Riverside]

The way I see it, the future of the Grand Junction falls into 3 eras.

First Era: Mainline

This is the current state. All trains must be FRA-compliant, all trains must always get priority at crossings, no compromise.

This is the state in which the Grand Junction will remain as long as the T needs to run the Readville Switcher for car moves to/from Boston Engine Terminal (the MBTA Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility, but tbh "BET" is more fun to say). Some combination of a new southside maintenance facility, improvements to the Worcester <> Ayer Line, and ultimately the North South Rail Link could lead to the Readville Switcher's retirement.

Multiple studies have found that the Grand Junction is not ideal for frequent mainline rail. In particular, the frequency of gate closures, and the resulting impact on Cambridge's major arterials, puts a cap on how often trains can pass through while still providing reasonable windows for traffic to cross over the tracks. In a lot of ways, the unsuitability of frequent mainline rail is unsurprising -- there is a reason railroads stopped running at street-level in city downtowns (and Kendall is unmistakably a city downtown).

Mainline rail on the GJ is further constrained by where it can go beyond the boundaries of the corridor. Absent major capital projects, mainline trains can either run a) west to West Station, Boston Landing, and beyond, b) into North Station, and c) north toward Sullivan by crossing the Fitchburg tracks and running along the BET. The latest study outlines the operational impacts of all of these, and they are non-trivial. The lowest-impact option is (a), where there is sufficient space and extant track to run Grand Junction trains on separate tracks from the current Worcester trains.

The most valuable option would be a connection to Sullivan (requiring a new commuter rail platform to be built there, non-trivially), to create a reliable connection between Kendall and the bus hub at Sullivan, relieving pressure on the Orange Line as riders transfer at Sullivan rather than Downtown Crossing. Beyond needing a new platform at Sullivan, this option would also impact operations on all northside lines except Lowell, as the Grand Junction service either takes up "slots" or block tracks when crossing.

All of the above notwithstanding, the only solutions for retiring the Readville Switcher are large-scale/systemic -- meaning that any study whose scope is limited to the Grand Junction itself is all-but-inevitably going to conclude that mainline rail will continue to be the only viable option.

Second Era: Semi-Permeable Light Rail

This is the state we have often pictured in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread, and historically in various incarnations of the Urban Ring. (F-Line sketched out a version of this iteration here.) Here, the ROW has been transferred from mainline rail to light rail, but largely remains at grade, with most of the current grade crossings remaining. F-Line drew a short elevated overpass at Mass Ave to eliminate one of the busiest crossings.

There are a range of possible designs for this era, but they are united by a tolerance for interaction with the urban environment, and even some level of "cooperation" with it. Light rail vehicles are small enough, light enough, and able to stop quickly enough that the current grade crossings can be treated more like traffic intersections; the train would still get priority, but would be able to yield to cars and pedestrians when needed.

Beyond the corridor, light rail brings its own pros and cons. Both ends of the GJ corridor are relatively near existing light rail, although connections would be non-trivial to build. To the north, mainline ROW would need to be claimed for LRT (or greenfield ROW constructed) to reach Sullivan (to say nothing of needing grade-separated crossing of the Fitchburg Line etc). To the south, Comm Ave is relatively closeby, but, as I've written about before, going beyond Comm Ave or Kenmore requires a lot more work. However, the flexibility of light rail as a mode means that there are more options for less-invasive builds that could extend the corridor further without requiring 100% grade separation.

Third Era: Sealed Transit

As @TheRatmeister laid out, this is the heavyweight version of Grand Junction transit. Tracks and stations completely removed from the street environment, with no interference from or deference to pedestrians or automobiles. Completely grade-separating the tracks allows you to run more trains, more frequently, faster, and, as noted, potentially with automation.

So far, we've been discussing "light metro" as an option for this (I presume in the style of the Docklands Light Railway) but it's worth noting that this could also be traditional heavy rail, or various permutations of light rail. This decision will likely be governed by factors beyond the Grand Junction corridor, specifically the suitability of those different modes for the various outlying corridors. And it's important to note that "Sealed Transit Along Grand Junction" does not necessarily entail "Sealed Transit" along those outlying corridors. Again, this is where light rail's flexibility matters: for example, a Grand Junction el might be paired with light rail running Highland Branch-style along the Northern Strand Community Trail, which is largely but not totally grade separated. DLR-style trains and heavy rail would be limited to connecting to corridors that have themselves also been "sealed".

I have frequently voiced skepticism about "sealed" builds for the Grand Junction corridor, but I do want to be clear that it could form part of an excellent transit service. Kendall has a very successful east-west transit line; a north-south counterpart -- assuming it can be adequately integrated into the "Sullivan node" and the "Kenmore/BU/Longwood node" -- would likely also be very successful.

Implications

First and foremost, I think any Grand Junction proposal needs to be understood in the context of these three eras and their structural requirements and prerequisites. To "graduate" out of the first era, the Readville Switcher problem needs a clear solution that is treated as part of the GJ proposal. To graduate into the third era, sufficient confidence about the appropriate mode for going beyond Sullivan and beyond Kenmore(ish) is required (which rapidly balloons the scope of any such proposal).

Second, the importance of future-proofing becomes clear. The "best fit" for the Grand Junction is going to evolve as the overall system evolves; light rail becomes viable once some tunnel or maintenance facility is built Somewhere Else; sealed transit becomes a stronger bet once (for example) a path for a Longwood subway comes into focus. The scenario that makes me the most anxious is some sort of mainline rail build that inadvertantly closes off possiblities for later conversion to LRT

Finally, and maybe most importantly, I think the various moving parts here necessitate phased improvements. If we have to wait for everything to be squared away before starting planning/construction, this project will never start. A strategy for Grand Junction transit needs to incorporate flexibility baked directly in to the proposal itself. If we can't build a Sullivan <> Kendall <> Kenmore line in one fell swoop, then we need to be able to some partial version of it as a viable first step with multiple potential paths to the full-build from there.

A concept for a minimum build "Phase 0" project

What we need: improved transit access to Kendall that doesn't require more people to take the Red Line.

What we've got: a largely single tracked mainline ROW with Class 1 track that could run in isolation from Twin City Plaza to Beacon Yard (ish).

Basically we've got track that could work for a single shuttle. So, let's use it for a single shuttle.

[details below]

 

[Riverside]

"Phase 0" describes a pre-West Station build; operations are simplified in Phase 0.5 once West Station is actually built.

Boston Landing <> West Station <> Agganis Arena area: pre-West Station, a temporary connection will be required to connect the Grand Junction track (which runs directly into Beacon Yard) to the main Worcester Line tracks -- both to access the higher speeds of the main tracks, and to access the platform at Boston Landing. As illustrated above, the shuttle would wait for inbound Framingham/Worcester Line trains (or be timed to arrive alongside outbound trains), and then proceed in parallel to the divergence near Agganis Arena. Based on current schedules, this would likely take 3 minutes

Agganis Arena <> Main St: if this is indeed Class 1 track, that would be rated for 15 mph passenger service. The recent study suggested that there would be no particular speed limitations from the track geometry, except perhaps at the two curve points. To Main St, this is about 1.6 miles. Assuming an average speed of 13 mph, this segment would take about 8 minutes to traverse.

Upgrades: assuming 15 mph is adequate, it might not be necessary to upgrade the track to Class 3 or 4. And since there would only be a single train on the Grand Junction at a time, you could maaaaaybe avoid signal upgrades and continue to operate it "dark"

Station: assuming for the moment that we need an 800-foot platform, the cross-street locations are a little troublesome. A station that straddles Broadway would have enough tangent space, but would block road traffic when the train is there. Alternatively, a platform south of Main St could fit quite nicely, if MIT were willing to play ball; on the other hand, I have a vague idea that FRA regs would require gates to be lowered even if the train doesn't actually enter the intersection but is still in motion nearby. If that's the case, then this platform location would also be disruptive (though less so than the Broadway one)

Competitiveness: Assuming 2 minutes for cross-platform transfer + 3 min to Agganis + 8 min to Main St, this journey would take 13 minutes. For comparison, CR -> South Station -> Red currently takes 40 minutes; the 64 bus also runs Boston Landing <> Kendall and takes 34 minutes. In both cases, the shuttle's 13 minutes is a significant improvement.

Ridership: section 4.5 of the recent study lays out a methodology for estimating ridership of a service like this. Limiting the scope of the estimate accordingly, they estimate this shuttle might attract something like 1100 - 1500 daily riders from the commuter rail. Since this service would be timed-transfer only, the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall market would be less "excited", but even timed-transfers would still offer multiple peak journey options, so those numbers might be a bit higher. For context, in FY19, Kendall station had about 17,000 entries; those 1100 - 1500 daily riders would almost certainly get subtracted from that number.

Conclusion: it's not the prettiest picture. The ridership is hardly spectacular, so it would come down to, "How cheaply can a platform at Main St be built? And how expensive would it be to add the necessary crossover near Beacon Yard? And how much would it cost in ops?" None of those are necessarily super expensive, but they aren't nothing.

The study noted that the travel time savings for Worcester Line commuters would be significant enough that even lower frequency services would be competitive, compared to the other options they discussed. This illustrates the promise and pitfalls of mainline service on the Grand Junction: it's most competitive for the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall journey, in part because it runs pretty directly between the two. Contrast that with the North Station <> Kendall journey, where the Grand Junction alignment is much more roundabout. But even with the more favorable situation from West Station... mainline service on the Grand Junction really just isn't fit for purpose.

 

[TheRatmeister]

View attachment 56669

"Phase 0" describes a pre-West Station build; operations are simplified in Phase 0.5 once West Station is actually built.

Boston Landing <> West Station <> Agganis Arena area: pre-West Station, a temporary connection will be required to connect the Grand Junction track (which runs directly into Beacon Yard) to the main Worcester Line tracks -- both to access the higher speeds of the main tracks, and to access the platform at Boston Landing. As illustrated above, the shuttle would wait for inbound Framingham/Worcester Line trains (or be timed to arrive alongside outbound trains), and then proceed in parallel to the divergence near Agganis Arena. Based on current schedules, this would likely take 3 minutes

Agganis Arena <> Main St: if this is indeed Class 1 track, that would be rated for 15 mph passenger service. The recent study suggested that there would be no particular speed limitations from the track geometry, except perhaps at the two curve points. To Main St, this is about 1.6 miles. Assuming an average speed of 13 mph, this segment would take about 8 minutes to traverse.

Upgrades: assuming 15 mph is adequate, it might not be necessary to upgrade the track to Class 3 or 4. And since there would only be a single train on the Grand Junction at a time, you could maaaaaybe avoid signal upgrades and continue to operate it "dark"

Station: assuming for the moment that we need an 800-foot platform, the cross-street locations are a little troublesome. A station that straddles Broadway would have enough tangent space, but would block road traffic when the train is there. Alternatively, a platform south of Main St could fit quite nicely, if MIT were willing to play ball; on the other hand, I have a vague idea that FRA regs would require gates to be lowered even if the train doesn't actually enter the intersection but is still in motion nearby. If that's the case, then this platform location would also be disruptive (though less so than the Broadway one)

Competitiveness: Assuming 2 minutes for cross-platform transfer + 3 min to Agganis + 8 min to Main St, this journey would take 13 minutes. For comparison, CR -> South Station -> Red currently takes 40 minutes; the 64 bus also runs Boston Landing <> Kendall and takes 34 minutes. In both cases, the shuttle's 13 minutes is a significant improvement.

Ridership: section 4.5 of the recent study lays out a methodology for estimating ridership of a service like this. Limiting the scope of the estimate accordingly, they estimate this shuttle might attract something like 1100 - 1500 daily riders from the commuter rail. Since this service would be timed-transfer only, the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall market would be less "excited", but even timed-transfers would still offer multiple peak journey options, so those numbers might be a bit higher. For context, in FY19, Kendall station had about 17,000 entries; those 1100 - 1500 daily riders would almost certainly get subtracted from that number.

Conclusion: it's not the prettiest picture. The ridership is hardly spectacular, so it would come down to, "How cheaply can a platform at Main St be built? And how expensive would it be to add the necessary crossover near Beacon Yard? And how much would it cost in ops?" None of those are necessarily super expensive, but they aren't nothing.

The study noted that the travel time savings for Worcester Line commuters would be significant enough that even lower frequency services would be competitive, compared to the other options they discussed. This illustrates the promise and pitfalls of mainline service on the Grand Junction: it's most competitive for the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall journey, in part because it runs pretty directly between the two. Contrast that with the North Station <> Kendall journey, where the Grand Junction alignment is much more roundabout. But even with the more favorable situation from West Station... mainline service on the Grand Junction really just isn't fit for purpose.

Compared to the existing 64, that's not a lot of time savings. What if there was a south-side EZRide (or equivalent MBTA or even Keolis operated bus) service? Start at Boston Landing, boarding right at the curb, make a couple stops at Harvard's Allston campus, then non-stop on Western Ave to Central and then finishing with a loop around Mass Ave/Main St/Vassar St. That would probably get Boston Landing -> Kendall to under 20 minutes, potentially less than 15 if there are bus infrastructure upgrades made (Which would be a lot cheaper than an 800ft CR platform).

 

[BeansTheCat]

Compared to the existing 64, that's not a lot of time savings. What if there was a south-side EZRide (or equivalent MBTA or even Keolis operated bus) service? Start at Boston Landing, boarding right at the curb, make a couple stops at Harvard's Allston campus, then non-stop on Western Ave to Central and then finishing with a loop around Mass Ave/Main St/Vassar St. That would probably get Boston Landing -> Kendall to under 20 minutes, potentially less than 15 if there are bus infrastructure upgrades made (Which would be a lot cheaper than an 800ft CR platform).

To add on here, a moderate amount of this route already has bus priority projects in the works (River St and parts of Western Ave), while the rest of it (besides Everett St) is in MBTA's Bus Priority Vision (map below). If the bus infrastructure upgrades are happening regardless, a traffic-free shuttle service should be around 15 minutes (even with a 2-minute transfer penalty) to the likely Kendall Station location on the route @TheRatmeister pointed out. A few additional stops on Western Ave in Allston and around Kendall would add some time, but would provide value with stops directly at many key destinations. This is all to say that I'm fairly confident this would provide a very similar quality service to any Grand Junction proposal that does not go to Sullivan (or beyond), and does so for essentially only the costs of buying and running the shuttles.

 

[Riverside]

...potentially less than 15 if there are bus infrastructure upgrades made (Which would be a lot cheaper than an 800ft CR platform)

Right, this is the "quiet part" lurking in the background of all of this: with a small caveat (below), a bus is going to be more effective than any "on-the-cheap" mainline option.

The one caveat to that is that the Grand Junction does provide an additional (and comparatively uncongested) Charles River crossing. There is definitely genuine need for that, but even in the "best case scenario" for a Phase 0 build, mainline rail still doesn't provide sufficient benefit.

 

[BeansTheCat]

Implications

First and foremost, I think any Grand Junction proposal needs to be understood in the context of these three eras and their structural requirements and prerequisites. To "graduate" out of the first era, the Readville Switcher problem needs a clear solution that is treated as part of the GJ proposal. To graduate into the third era, sufficient confidence about the appropriate mode for going beyond Sullivan and beyond Kenmore(ish) is required (which rapidly balloons the scope of any such proposal).

Second, the importance of future-proofing becomes clear. The "best fit" for the Grand Junction is going to evolve as the overall system evolves; light rail becomes viable once some tunnel or maintenance facility is built Somewhere Else; sealed transit becomes a stronger bet once (for example) a path for a Longwood subway comes into focus. The scenario that makes me the most anxious is some sort of mainline rail build that inadvertantly closes off possiblities for later conversion to LRT

Finally, and maybe most importantly, I think the various moving parts here necessitate phased improvements. If we have to wait for everything to be squared away before starting planning/construction, this project will never start. A strategy for Grand Junction transit needs to incorporate flexibility baked directly in to the proposal itself. If we can't build a Sullivan <> Kendall <> Kenmore line in one fell swoop, then we need to be able to some partial version of it as a viable first step with multiple potential paths to the full-build from there.

This is a great description about the various levels of service that can be provided along GJ, but there's a few points I'd like to respectfully disagree with.

First, there is a very really possibility that LRT will block the adoption of a sealed corridor (moving from phase 2 to 3), not just mainline rail blocking the adoption of LRT (phase 1 to phase 2). The biggest benefits of sealed corridor come from it being fully sealed and automated, as detailed in a previous post. However, if LRT is chosen, it would either be due in to its ability to interline with the Green Line or by avoiding building some grade separations. Given that there would need to be significant down time to build the grade separations and existing Green Line connections would need to be removed, this could be a major barrier to upgrading.

Second, I'm skeptical that phase 2 needs to occur. If we assume an initial route from West Station to Sullivan, there is not too much additional infrastructure required to seal the corridor, and some infrastructure can be saved by not interlining with the Green Line. The wye near the BU bridge isn't needed, nor are Green Line connections in Somerville. About 1 mile of grade separations are at most required in Cambridge, but all of this can be done elevated at reasonable cost (and you might even want some of these for LRT anyways). Grade separations are also required to provide separation from the Commuter Rail tracks on the approach to North Station, but this would also be needed for the LRT to get to Sullivan. The main additional expense would likely be a new yard, which could be placed either south of Sullivan or at Sweetser Circle if the line is extended over the Mystic.

Finally, there are reasonable proposals for LRT/metro on GJ that do not head towards Kenmore/Longwood. There is a clear assumption made that GJ transit should consider this direction, even if it is not directly stated. I would agree that if costs/complexities are equal, this is a much more valuable direction to head than towards West Station and beyond. But getting grade separation to West Station is budgeted for with the the Allston Multimodal project, while any connection to Kenmore requires significant cost. As @TheRatmeister specified earlier, there is a good corridor through Watertown and Waltham that a line could be extended through at reasonable cost. This would not preclude service towards Kenmore, and the frequencies allowed by automated rail mean a high quality service can be provided even with branching.

 

[JeffDowntown]

This is a great description about the various levels of service that can be provided along GJ, but there's a few points I'd like to respectfully disagree with.

First, there is a very really possibility that LRT will block the adoption of a sealed corridor (moving from phase 2 to 3), not just mainline rail blocking the adoption of LRT (phase 1 to phase 2). The biggest benefits of sealed corridor come from it being fully sealed and automated, as detailed in a previous post. However, if LRT is chosen, it would either be due in to its ability to interline with the Green Line or by avoiding building some grade separations. Given that there would need to be significant down time to build the grade separations and existing Green Line connections would need to be removed, this could be a major barrier to upgrading.

Second, I'm skeptical that phase 2 needs to occur. If we assume an initial route from West Station to Sullivan, there is not too much additional infrastructure required to seal the corridor, and some infrastructure can be saved by not interlining with the Green Line. The wye near the BU bridge isn't needed, nor are Green Line connections in Somerville. About 1 mile of grade separations are at most required in Cambridge, but all of this can be done elevated at reasonable cost (and you might even want some of these for LRT anyways). Grade separations are also required to provide separation from the Commuter Rail tracks on the approach to North Station, but this would also be needed for the LRT to get to Sullivan. The main additional expense would likely be a new yard, which could be placed either south of Sullivan or at Sweetser Circle if the line is extended over the Mystic.

Finally, there are reasonable proposals for LRT/metro on GJ that do not head towards Kenmore/Longwood. There is a clear assumption made that GJ transit should consider this direction, even if it is not directly stated. I would agree that if costs/complexities are equal, this is a much more valuable direction to head than towards West Station and beyond. But getting grade separation to West Station is budgeted for with the the Allston Multimodal project, while any connection to Kenmore requires significant cost. As @TheRatmeister specified earlier, there is a good corridor through Watertown and Waltham that a line could be extended through at reasonable cost. This would not preclude service towards Kenmore, and the frequencies allowed by automated rail mean a high quality service can be provided even with branching.

If you don't interline, you need a yard and maintenance facility (not just a yard). And your rolling stock is line dedicated, a bit like the Mattapan line -- which is operationally not great for flexibility.

From a planning perspective, whatever phases you lay out should coordinate with the rest of the north side Urban Ring vision. This section should never be executed in isolation.

 

[BostonObserver]

I read on this forum many many years ago that MIT would like to put Mass Ave in a tunnel in front of their buildings. If this were ever to happen maybe it could go past the train tracks

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

View attachment 56669

"Phase 0" describes a pre-West Station build; operations are simplified in Phase 0.5 once West Station is actually built.

Boston Landing <> West Station <> Agganis Arena area: pre-West Station, a temporary connection will be required to connect the Grand Junction track (which runs directly into Beacon Yard) to the main Worcester Line tracks -- both to access the higher speeds of the main tracks, and to access the platform at Boston Landing. As illustrated above, the shuttle would wait for inbound Framingham/Worcester Line trains (or be timed to arrive alongside outbound trains), and then proceed in parallel to the divergence near Agganis Arena. Based on current schedules, this would likely take 3 minutes

Agganis Arena <> Main St: if this is indeed Class 1 track, that would be rated for 15 mph passenger service. The recent study suggested that there would be no particular speed limitations from the track geometry, except perhaps at the two curve points. To Main St, this is about 1.6 miles. Assuming an average speed of 13 mph, this segment would take about 8 minutes to traverse.

Upgrades: assuming 15 mph is adequate, it might not be necessary to upgrade the track to Class 3 or 4. And since there would only be a single train on the Grand Junction at a time, you could maaaaaybe avoid signal upgrades and continue to operate it "dark"

Station: assuming for the moment that we need an 800-foot platform, the cross-street locations are a little troublesome. A station that straddles Broadway would have enough tangent space, but would block road traffic when the train is there. Alternatively, a platform south of Main St could fit quite nicely, if MIT were willing to play ball; on the other hand, I have a vague idea that FRA regs would require gates to be lowered even if the train doesn't actually enter the intersection but is still in motion nearby. If that's the case, then this platform location would also be disruptive (though less so than the Broadway one)

Competitiveness: Assuming 2 minutes for cross-platform transfer + 3 min to Agganis + 8 min to Main St, this journey would take 13 minutes. For comparison, CR -> South Station -> Red currently takes 40 minutes; the 64 bus also runs Boston Landing <> Kendall and takes 34 minutes. In both cases, the shuttle's 13 minutes is a significant improvement.

Ridership: section 4.5 of the recent study lays out a methodology for estimating ridership of a service like this. Limiting the scope of the estimate accordingly, they estimate this shuttle might attract something like 1100 - 1500 daily riders from the commuter rail. Since this service would be timed-transfer only, the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall market would be less "excited", but even timed-transfers would still offer multiple peak journey options, so those numbers might be a bit higher. For context, in FY19, Kendall station had about 17,000 entries; those 1100 - 1500 daily riders would almost certainly get subtracted from that number.

Conclusion: it's not the prettiest picture. The ridership is hardly spectacular, so it would come down to, "How cheaply can a platform at Main St be built? And how expensive would it be to add the necessary crossover near Beacon Yard? And how much would it cost in ops?" None of those are necessarily super expensive, but they aren't nothing.

The study noted that the travel time savings for Worcester Line commuters would be significant enough that even lower frequency services would be competitive, compared to the other options they discussed. This illustrates the promise and pitfalls of mainline service on the Grand Junction: it's most competitive for the Allston/Brighton <> Kendall journey, in part because it runs pretty directly between the two. Contrast that with the North Station <> Kendall journey, where the Grand Junction alignment is much more roundabout. But even with the more favorable situation from West Station... mainline service on the Grand Junction really just isn't fit for purpose.

Track classes are first and foremost a maintenance standard. It includes things like how many bad ties per X feet are allowed, how worn the rail is allowed to be, how much the ballast is allowed to be decayed/washed-away, how much the gauge is allowed out-of-alignment, and so on. You'd never put a frequent service on Class 1 track. The infrastructure isn't going to fare well under the number of reps. On the Grand Junction you've got old jointed rail, so the ride would be uncomfortable. And you've got vibrations from the shot trackbed that MIT abutters would object to. Even if you don't plan to run at the max authorized speed Class 3 track with welded rail, nearly full tie replacement, and complete resurfacing is pretty much required for any tolerable and highish-frequency running experience both for passengers and abutters. Those costs are non-optional.

Finally, you might not be able to get away without a signal system. The NJ Transit Princeton Dinky is the only signal-and-PTC waivered commuter line in the country that runs a halfway decent schedule, and that one is because it runs fully sealed pinging back-and-forth on isolated track occupancy without interacting with the NEC signalized interlocking at Princeton Junction. Your proposed service would be interacting with signalized interlockings on the Worcester Line at West Station and Boston Landing, even if it stays on its own track. That torpedoes the track warrant occupancy because it's interacting with the Worcester Line dispatcher. The waivering limits for an unsignaled/un-PTC'd branch off a signaled mainline is 4 RT's per day, and the only commuter line in the country that operates such a limited unsignalized schedule is LIRR's Greenport Scoot. So you'll mandatorily be cab signaling and PTC'ing the Grand Junction to operate your Phase 0 service. And if you're upgrading the track and signalizing any which way, you might as well make it a complete North Station shuttle.

These costs wouldn't be too bad because of the short length of the line, but it's not grab-and-go by any means. The grade crossings would all have to be done over as well...surfaces, circuits, signal cabinets, and active protection. Mass Ave., Main, Broadway, and Binney don't have crossing gates yet (only flashers), and the gates on Cambridge and Medford are past replacement age. Only the fairly recent-install two MIT pedestrian crossings have up-to-spec gated equipment.


EDIT: The 2012 study estimated the costs of track upgrades, crossing upgrades, signals, and the interlocking at Beacon Park Jct. to be $22.5M. So use that figure + inflation for your starting point, and then project up for station costs. Note that figure doesn't assume double-tracking, signalizing/interlocking the existing Cambridgeport passing siding, or any unforeseen repairs to the Charles River bridge. The Brickbottom Jct. interlocking and Fitchburg Line crossovers already exist, paid for by GLX.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I read on this forum many many years ago that MIT would like to put Mass Ave in a tunnel in front of their buildings. If this were ever to happen maybe it could go past the train tracks

It was a pie-in-sky wishlist item on their Institutional Master Plan about 15-20 years ago, but they didn't want to pay for anything but the nice parkland on top so it's frankly never happening unless they seriously up their investment. The tunnel would've gone from near Memorial Drive to Albany St. underneath the Grand Junction with the only surface roads being one-lane ramps for the Vassar "interchange". That would've taken care of the bulk of the negative impacts from the train crossings as the only remaining traffic would be pedestrians, bikes, buses, and very light Vassar-turning car traffic.

But, again, pie-in-the-sky crayon drawings that they had no interest in paying for. And haven't really spoken of since.

 

[bigpicture7]

There have been a few media write-ups about Cambridge's recent Grand Junction transit feasibility report, but Cambridge Day's (from yesterday, 10/15) seems among the most comprehensive:

CRA sees a Grand Junction passenger service connecting North and future Allston stations - Cambridge Day

A historic rail line running through one of its densest business corridors could offer an attractive opportunity to run a new stream of trains through Cambridge, connecting two of the MBTA’s most ambitious long-term projects.

www.cambridgeday.com

 

[Koopzilla24]

Things to consider: A rail shuttle on the Grand Junction serves a lot more purpose than just a 64 without traffic or another Charles Crossing. If it were a timed transfer with the Worcester Line it'd be a much faster more reliable/direct route for people out along Route 9 to get to jobs in Cambridge. Even if the 64 was upgraded to run on dedicated lanes every 10min there nothing you can do about many suburbanites psychological preference for taking a train and aversion to taking a bus especially if they have to walk from the center platform to Guest St to do so. In the scenario where there is a West Station, an all day service going from approx. Packard's Corner directly across to MIT, Kendall, and the area around Twin City Plaza is one that doesn't currently exist. The ~18,000 residents living immediately around Packard's Corner, and that's specifically excluding census blocks adjacent to Union Sq, Allston Village, or the BU Bridge, aren't a small number of potential users that otherwise need to make multiple transfers or long walks to make this journey. Even if it's just the segment to MIT and Mass Ave that’d make a significant number of people's trips more direct and convenient.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Things to consider: A rail shuttle on the Grand Junction serves a lot more purpose than just a 64 without traffic or another Charles Crossing. If it were a timed transfer with the Worcester Line it'd be a much faster more reliable/direct route for people out along Route 9 to get to jobs in Cambridge. Even if the 64 was upgraded to run on dedicated lanes every 10min there nothing you can do about many suburbanites psychological preference for taking a train and aversion to taking a bus especially if they have to walk from the center platform to Guest St to do so. In the scenario where there is a West Station, an all day service going from approx. Packard's Corner directly across to MIT, Kendall, and the area around Twin City Plaza is one that doesn't currently exist. The ~18,000 residents living immediately around Packard's Corner, and that's specifically excluding census blocks adjacent to Union Sq, Allston Village, or the BU Bridge, aren't a small number of potential users that otherwise need to make multiple transfers or long walks to make this journey. Even if it's just the segment to MIT and Mass Ave that’d make a significant number of people's trips more direct and convenient.

If this were going to attract many riders from the suburbs, the one-seat to Riverside option that was discarded early due to lack of ridership...wouldn't have been discarded due to lack of ridership. And the 2012 study for Framingham/Worcester directs wouldn't have gotten a not-recommended rating for losing more ridership to Lansdowne/Back Bay/South Station than it gained with Kendall/North Station. So in the officially-studied metrics, the affinity with MetroWest and Newton is intrinsically weak at best and has nothing to do with mode choice.

 

[BeansTheCat]

Things to consider: A rail shuttle on the Grand Junction serves a lot more purpose than just a 64 without traffic or another Charles Crossing. If it were a timed transfer with the Worcester Line it'd be a much faster more reliable/direct route for people out along Route 9 to get to jobs in Cambridge. Even if the 64 was upgraded to run on dedicated lanes every 10min there nothing you can do about many suburbanites psychological preference for taking a train and aversion to taking a bus especially if they have to walk from the center platform to Guest St to do so. In the scenario where there is a West Station, an all day service going from approx. Packard's Corner directly across to MIT, Kendall, and the area around Twin City Plaza is one that doesn't currently exist. The ~18,000 residents living immediately around Packard's Corner, and that's specifically excluding census blocks adjacent to Union Sq, Allston Village, or the BU Bridge, aren't a small number of potential users that otherwise need to make multiple transfers or long walks to make this journey. Even if it's just the segment to MIT and Mass Ave that’d make a significant number of people's trips more direct and convenient.

But a nice commuter shuttle solves basically all of these problems. It can be a timed transfer, similar quality to the Logan Express (which has no problem attracting suburbanites), and West Station is being designed to make bus/shuttle transfers as seamless as possible. As mentioned in a previous post, it should also run at basically the same speed as GJ shuttle given bus lanes and signal priority. Also, current plans are for the 64 to be re-routed to go through West Station once it is built, meaning it can also provide a one-seat ride for locals in Allston. Even if there is a commitment to run a West Station to North Station service, there still should be shuttles running from Boston Landing to Kendall now to assess current demand and to build future ridership.

The more I learn about Grand Junction plans, the more I'm convinced the primary appeal is the idea that a cheap and easy project exists here. And while cheap and easy projects can be done, none of the easy projects are particularly compelling. The ROW is very useful, but provides much more value when there is a willingness to extend it beyond the existing GJ corridor.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Well I had a thing with pictures typed but then the page refreshed and it didn't save a draft and I'm not typing that again so the tl;dr/10% summary of it is:

• 2012-2016 studies are barely relevant the city and especially the study area of MIT and Kendall have changed so much since then with far more demand
• a GJ shuttle doesn't take away the stops like the 2012 study so no riders are lost only gained
• the MetroWest has also changed significantly with many young adults moving out there where it is more affordable but still working jobs in the city
• travel patterns have changed so peak commuter ridership isn't the be-all and end-all, it is leisure trips and errand trips that are bringing up the numbers
• most recent study estimates up to 10k daily riders on a fully upgraded 15min headway GJ
• a shuttle bus doesn't come remotely close to even a current slow diesel GJ shuttle because it still has to interface with intersections and a less direct roadway routing
• the route and potential intermediate stops like West Station and MIT are what make the GJ sucha different and enticing proposal
• the 64 stopping at West Station doesn't serve the same purpose as GJ its a different routing that wouldn't hit the same demand centers, MIT-Somerville-North Station

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

• 2012-2016 studies are barely relevant the city and especially the study area of MIT and Kendall have changed so much since then with far more demand

Have you actually read the 2012 study? There's a whole chapter detailing their demand forecasting out to 2035, inclusive of all the hot-hot-hot development that was in the pipeline. It's not obsolete in the slightest. They leaned hard into Kendall's scorching development pace.

• a GJ shuttle doesn't take away the stops like the 2012 study so no riders are lost only gained

Again...have you actually read the study? They cite "A number of passengers (both in existing and future conditions) on the Framingham/Worcester Line would benefit by routing train service to North Station via Cambridge" as their #1 study conclusion. They just didn't find enough of them to outweigh the downsides, which prominently included the traffic impacts at the grade crossings to cars, bikes, pedestrians, and buses that carry more riders than a GJ service.

• the MetroWest has also changed significantly with many young adults moving out there where it is more affordable but still working jobs in the city

Again...they modeled 2035 ridership growth on the Worcester Line throughout MetroWest using a treasure trove of MPO data (since it was a CTPS study). This was not at all unforeseen. I quibble a little (but I do with most MPO studies) at how parking-constrained they were in their forecasts, but the projected suburban ridership growth was indeed aggressive. But it wasn't enough to move the Grand Junction one-seat into recommended or near-recommended category. If the one-seat couldn't fire from the suburbs, how is it expected that the two-seat shuttle is going to rake MetroWest riders instead. What's the mechanism that makes it so? They're not all off-peak commuters...you said it yourself ^above^, these are mostly people coming in to work in the city.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Have you actually read the 2012 study? There's a whole chapter detailing their demand forecasting out to 2035, inclusive of all the hot-hot-hot development that was in the pipeline. It's not obsolete in the slightest. They leaned hard into Kendall's scorching development pace.

Again...have you actually read the study? They cite "A number of passengers (both in existing and future conditions) on the Framingham/Worcester Line would benefit by routing train service to North Station via Cambridge" as their #1 study conclusion. They just didn't find enough of them to outweigh the downsides, which prominently included the traffic impacts at the grade crossings to cars, bikes, pedestrians, and buses that carry more riders than a GJ service.

Again...they modeled 2035 ridership growth on the Worcester Line throughout MetroWest using a treasure trove of MPO data (since it was a CTPS study). This was not at all unforeseen. I quibble a little (but I do with most MPO studies) at how parking-constrained they were in their forecasts, but the projected suburban ridership growth was indeed aggressive. But it wasn't enough to move the Grand Junction one-seat into recommended or near-recommended category. If the one-seat couldn't fire from the suburbs, how is it expected that the two-seat shuttle is going to rake MetroWest riders instead. What's the mechanism that makes it so? They're not all off-peak commuters...you said it yourself ^above^, these are mostly people coming in to work in the city.

Accusing me of not reading the study when that was not at all their "number 1 study conclusion" not that they necessarily ordered the concluding remarks of the executive summary on the first page following the table of contents which is where those "downsides" pull from but rather bulleted them. The following concluding summary paragraph states"Although the Cambridge-to-North-Station connection via the Grand Junction Railroad is a feasible approach to relieving track and platform congestion at South Station, MassDOT is also actively pursuing an expansion of the tracks and platforms at South Station. Therefore, MassDOT does not intend to actively pursue the implementation of Framingham/Worcester Line commuter rail service over the Grand Junction Railroad at this time." Keyword being over. This study wasn't about whether or not the re-routing would bring more riders but rather how they could relieve South Station congestion whilst also potentially gaining some riders. And they concluded if they're already putting money into solving that (12 years later and we've got Widett Circle purchased hooray) then they don't need to do this. What's listed in the executive summary (after the purpose statement) are the benefits which all sound pretty beneficial followed by the burdens which amount to:
"less trains to Back Bay/South Station" not a problem if you're running a shuttle instead so irrelevant to the discussion
"grade crossing traffic" a legitimate concern that can be mitigated
"shifting diesel locomotive emissions from Boston to Cambridge" I mean sure but how would the study's claimed 300-500 daily car trips absorbed compare to their 6 or 12 diesel train trips
"it costs capital money" Yeah
"it costs operational money" Yeah

Granted the second benefits bullet point is also moot with a shuttle. These are points all addressed and amended in the 2016 study which concluded "DMU shuttle on the GJ is a good idea and should be further studied" whilst raising additional concerns to study.

The 2035 projections vastly underestimated the employment of the study region. They estimated 120,000 jobs in 2035, and according to the city, as of Q2 2023, there are 151,304 jobs in Cambridge not including self-employed persons or sole proprietors. The population estimate of 123,000 is also questionable. The current population estimate (2022) at 118,488 would be 125,500 in 2030 if the current growth rate drops by over 50%. I could not find modern TAZ data to define the job counts or population numbers in the immediate walking area of potential GJ stations, however, the study only lists the projected change, not the started and ending numbers, so I don't have a comparison. The Worcester Line ridership was also likely underestimated if it weren't for Covid since they estimated 18,300 in 2035 but in 2019 it was 18,637. This is somewhat up in the air with Covid but weekday ridership is back up to 17,888 for July (most recent data) with more boardings in the off-peak than before according to blue book data. Speaking of, interns have been out on the commuter rail every day taking manual counts of all the passengers and the number of bikes on each train as well as ons/offs at each stop and we're due for a 6 year count.

As is stated in the study the model is calibrated off of the 2000 US Census, various surveys between 2008-2011, passenger counts from 2010, traffic counts from 2011, etc., and does not specify a change from the peak 'commuter rail' service model to a 'regional rail' model, though the 2016 suggests peak-oriented commuter service. A projection modeled on such old data and commuter sentiment would reasonably be fairly stale at this point. The studied service plans only consisted of 6 or 12 daily trains with a single stop in Cambridge because it would reroute full-length Worcester Line trains along the branch that would need to be accommodated. Of course ridership projections wouldn't be great because that wouldn't hold much utility outside of MetroWest commuters who happen to work in Kendall/MIT but I'm not saying a short-term, slow, connecting diesel shuttle should be some sort of high ridership thing but rather a useful intermediate step or pilot for a future more upgraded GJ. As I stated, the utility comes from having more stops than just Kendall (or maybe that was in the lost post if so my bad). You can only get an idea of how many people would potentially use a full GJ service by running a pilot on it since none exists. The routing here is very important, Union Sq Allston-MIT-Kendall Sq-Twin City Plaza (maybe)-North Station, that grouping as a single route doesn't exist. The 64 is not the same and groups different origins/destinations along it than GJ.

There is indeed the concern with grade crossing times affecting the greatly increased bike/ped/vehicle traffic from the time of the study, but that is exacerbated by a proposed long slow Worcester train re-routing as opposed to a short shuttle train. At current schedule timings, a 3-car train or something passing through every 20-30min during peak for about 30-40sec (estimated from 2012 study figures) of gate-downtime wouldn't cause nearly as much disruption and was briefly discussed in the 2016 study. The traffic impact would be lessened when utilizing normal intersection traffic signals in conjunction with the crossing gates but would reduce the shuttle speeds so it is a balancing act. The 2016 study even concluded that the shuttle option has a lot of merit and should be explored further. Also for consideration is that neither of these studied a Boston Landing connection, only West Station and Auburdale/Riverside. Both studies concluded that there would be time savings from the no-build/existing option and fairly low costs for diesel options with hundreds to thousands of riders benefitting from its use. MassDOT mothballed the 2012 study not primarily because of poor ridership projections but rather because they were pursuing it as a relief to South Station traffic as they planned to expand Worcester Line service as well as other lines, and thought South Station's expansion would suffice enough as a single investment if they'd need to do it anyway for increased Amtrak traffic as well as other MBTA lines. "As a result of MassDOT’s purchase of many CSX rail lines, and of the Grand Junction acquisition specifically, a proposal was made for some of the train service that is to be added to the MBTA Framingham/Worcester Line in the future to be routed via the Grand Junction to North Station, thereby allowing for new connections and destinations to be served, while also relieving congestion at South Station." The 2016 study on the other hand did not end in a "not worth it" conclusion but with a "this has a lot of merit lets pursue it further" but then was not persued further under the Baker admin's goals of reducing MBTA spending and only completing obligatory projects such as GLX.

Again, none of this could have accounted for and predicted the Covid-effected changes in the kinds of trips people make via transit and the social attitude change around it. Things have changed so much in the past 5 years to the point where some transit studies that fell to poor ridership or low cost-benefit should be revisited and this is definitely one of them (hence why it was in that article). Those former studies figured out how and what to do, we just need to recalculate the numbers and build upon what 2016 built upon in 2012.

Links:

2012 Study

2016 Study

 

[stick n move]

There have been a few media write-ups about Cambridge's recent Grand Junction transit feasibility report, but Cambridge Day's (from yesterday, 10/15) seems among the most comprehensive:

CRA sees a Grand Junction passenger service connecting North and future Allston stations - Cambridge Day

A historic rail line running through one of its densest business corridors could offer an attractive opportunity to run a new stream of trains through Cambridge, connecting two of the MBTA’s most ambitious long-term projects.

www.cambridgeday.com

From the article: “As for what kind of train could actually coast down the urban tracks, the CRA report suggests “urban rail” cars that have yet to be introduced in the region. The cars might look somewhat similar to green line trains – smaller and shorter than commuter rail – but would have a higher “buff strength” to comply with Federal Railroad Administration requirements for the Grand Junction tracks.”

-Do those trains even exist? What trains look similar to green line trains but comply with FRA mainline regs?

 

[cubbe8]

From the article: “As for what kind of train could actually coast down the urban tracks, the CRA report suggests “urban rail” cars that have yet to be introduced in the region. The cars might look somewhat similar to green line trains – smaller and shorter than commuter rail – but would have a higher “buff strength” to comply with Federal Railroad Administration requirements for the Grand Junction tracks.”
Maybe something similar to the River Line in Trenton?
-Do those trains even exist? What trains look similar to green line trains but comply with FRA mainline regs?

Maybe something similar to the River Line in Trenton?

 

[TheRatmeister]

Maybe something similar to the River Line in Trenton?

Which then completely nullifies their argument about the value of through-service to Salem and Worcester.