Urban Ring

[cybah]

Can't do this unfortunately. <snip>

Unfortunately proper casino stop is one of those nice things you can only get with the real Ring.

Even if the station was further back from the Mystic.. say behind the Everett Shops, and a pathway that leads from there to the casino. Is it still that much of a slope by that point?

It's not THAT far away. Plus the stop could be used for those condos in the old Charleston Factory and for the Gateway Center.

Just curious?

 

[winstonoboogie]

Also could a DMU act a LRT, as in stopping to wait at mass ave? Or are DMU's acceleration not good enough to start and stop like LRT?

FRA compliant DMU's can be more versatile than you might think.
Budd RDC's interact with mixed traffic on Lombard St. in Beaverton Oregon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcnggKhgY20

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Already covered that. It's impossible with the diesel ventilation and flood mitigation in an all-landfill zone in the Charles Basin floodplain, with the risk it would bring of a water breach in the GJ cut breaching the Red Line tunnel. At the extra $B-plus it would cost less than if you beefed up southside commuter rail equipment ops to independence from using the GJ and just took it for the Ring. Trying to tunnel that one against the obvious alternative is Transit OCD at its most unhinged.

It would cost less for the Kendall Sq section, yes. But light rail guarantees the need for a Swift flyover/under, another over by FX/Sullivan, another flyover north of Sullivan, another two-track bridge over the Mystic, another flyover between Everett Terminal and Chelsea, and two additional tracks from Sullivan to Chelsea. Looking at the project as a whole, I find it hard to believe the grand total would be cheaper to go with light rail. I actually think it would be even, with a lot more flexibility in hand for ops, to go with DMU.

Did you consult the RR.net thread I pointed to? Listen to it straight from the ops guys' mouths how much it would fuck up FX and Swift. It's the nonstarter of all nonstarters. See also above on the Kendall trench. Wanna spend twice as much as the actual UR price tag? Keep target-fixating on this DMU scheme. It can't be done. It's so impossible they didn't study it at all for a reason.

The DE thread that got locked? I remember that one. Swift is getting fucked because of GLX. Urban Ring would have to modify the lay of the post-GLX land. Be it DMU or LRV. And it wouldn't really mess with FX at all. No one even said FX was a problem in that thread.

Also, heavy rail rapid transit would be just as difficult as a DMU scheme (even more grad separation), and yet they studied that.

 

[citylover94]

No one is saying DMU's can't operate in mixed traffic situations but the fact that they always have 100% priority makes it infeasible to operate them in Cambridge because at any frequency that would be a useful service it would cause major traffic issues as has already been pointed out numerous times by F-Line.

 

[Arlington]

No one is saying DMU's can't operate in mixed traffic situations but the fact that they always have 100% priority makes it infeasible to operate them in Cambridge because at any frequency that would be a useful service it would cause major traffic issues as has already been pointed out numerous times by F-Line.

Well, if there were ever a jurisdiction ready to wage a self-admitted war on cars, its Cambridge, particularly in its edu-bio-tech core, but I guess we'll have to wait till they've exhausted themselves giving better priority to the #1 and a bus or two in Kendall Sq.

 

[Matthew]

Hardly. Cars are still king in Cambridge, MA. Remember, they just shot down a bike lane on Pearl Street because it might take a few parking spots. Even the compromise, where it was only during the day.

 

[winstonoboogie]

No one is saying DMU's can't operate in mixed traffic situations but the fact that they always have 100% priority makes it infeasible to operate them in Cambridge because at any frequency that would be a useful service it would cause major traffic issues as has already been pointed out numerous times by F-Line.

They have the acceleration and braking capabilities to potentially be governed by traffic signals like light rail with an FRA waiver for time separation of "diesel light rail" vs. other uses (DMUs governed by traffic signals by day, freight and shop moves under standard procedures at night)

 

[CantabAmager]

Well, if there were ever a jurisdiction ready to wage a self-admitted war on cars, its Cambridge, particularly in its edu-bio-tech core, but I guess we'll have to wait till they've exhausted themselves giving better priority to the #1 and a bus or two in Kendall Sq.

I wish, but Cambridge isn't nearly as progressive on this front as they act. As Matt says, they killed the Pearl St lane, the city balked at installing proper lanes on Huron Ave when they tore up every inch of that road for the sewer separation project - and Huron is probably the single-most shovel ready bike lane project in the city, there's space for it, there's desire (the neighborhood groups forced the city to adopt the lanes initially, only for them to disappear once the businesses phoned up Maher or someone in the city), and there's already an established user base as the "not really, but kinda" painted lanes have been there for almost two decades.

Cambridge's issue is that it's an employment nexus - there are almost twice as many jobs in Cambridge and there are Cantabs old enough to work, the majority of the city's residents walk or take public transpo, but a hefty share of the non-resis come with their cars and Cambridge doesn't really take a hard line with them (the day fine proposal notwithstanding)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Even if the station was further back from the Mystic.. say behind the Everett Shops, and a pathway that leads from there to the casino. Is it still that much of a slope by that point?

It's not THAT far away. Plus the stop could be used for those condos in the old Charleston Factory and for the Gateway Center.

Just curious?

Problems. But here's the overview of the layout of the place to put that in all in context.

-- The slope off the bridge currently levels out at fenced-off ex-Chemical Lane grade crossing (fence unlocked only to get maint trucks onto the ROW). Tracks continue level on the embankment from the crossing out to Santilli. See here from Chemical Ln. looking towards the tracks; the grassy 'hump' in the background left of the road is the embankment, and you can see the road goes slightly uphill to reach that closed crossing).

-- On the Gateway side they used the pre-existing ROW embankment and the new shopping center landscaping to grade the brand-new marshy wetland stream that splits between Gateway and the tracks. That is now off-limits to any further earth-moving the whole length of the Gateway side out to Santilli. If you trace the first 500 ft. of the former Saugus Branch tracks--currently used to load cars up at the T's ballast piles stored underneath Route 16--that traces the full 'off-limits' line for all wetlands on the Gateway side.

-- On the casino and Shops side there's still the track embankment from Chemical Ln. crossing to the Shops lot, but it hasn't been re-graded for wetlands yet like the Gateway side was. Probably when casino site prep happens they'll be required to do a matching wetlands hillside like Gateway, but until that happens they would be able to push new dirt up to the tracks and widen out the ROW embankment for station space or new tracks anywhere past the Chemical Ln. crossing. Basically this triangle's worth of land bounded by Chemical Ln., the track embankment, and the Shops back lot.

-- The derelict Monsato freight siding currently hugs the Shops fence. The switch from the mainline to the Everett Terminal freight turnout is currently at Everett Jct. next to Santilli, same place the ex- Saugus Branch diverges.

-- There are 2 very tall NStar electrical towers, with feeder lines reaching to ground level, immediately behind Everett Shops next to the tracks. This pinches available space and prevents being able to take a strip of Shops land to move their fence. Location of their fence is set by the NStar towers' placement.



So...this is what you can and can't do.

Side platforms (2 x 6' width, low + single car mini-high):
-- Can't touch the Gateway-side embankment, so to create room for an inbound-side platform you have to 'lane-shift' the tracks past the Chemical Ln. crossing to create enough platform space on the Gateway side without touching that side's embankment. Then push dirt to widen out the embankment on the outbound/Shops side.
-- The 'lane-shift' can't be so sudden that it introduces a new speed restriction at the bottom of the bridge incline. Trains--especially the freights--need a head of steam to hit the bridge running without risk of stalling at the top.
-- The S-curve for the 'lane shift' pushes first available opportunity for an inbound platform to the far end of the Shops lot much closer to Santilli than the casino. If it's a full regulation-size 800 ft. length the far end of the platform would be on space reserved for the long-gone double-track merge off the Saugus Branch. For all intensive purposes, this IS a Santilli Circle stop. And on a conventional Newburyport/Rockport train--which I'm assuming you would want stopping at the casino a token couple times per weekday and most of the time on weekends--the rear cars are alighting right before the curve, staring at the Route 16 overpass and the apartments + craft brewery place that have set up shop next door to Everett shops on the north end.
-- No chance of dragging the outbound side platform any closer to the casino than "Santilli inbound", because it gets severely pinched for space by the NStar towers in the Shops back lot. Egress basically ends up going to Charlton St. alongside the craft brewery building.
-- No chance at full-highs for side platforms because there is not enough width to do side platforms and a wide-load freight turnout here. At least the mini-highs would be level, but it would still be the ONLY platform on all of Newburyport/Rockport that could never be raised. Fugly setup.



Center island platform (1 x 12' width, full-high):
-- Fewer impacts to the Gateway side because inbound track would hug the embankment instead of the platform, with no S-curve for the inbound track only. Environmentally friendlier to do as an island.
-- Outbound track would still S-curve a little, but not as severely because inbound track wouldn't need to shift.
-- Problem: lows + mini-highs way too dangerous for an island that may get crowded. Therefore you must create room on the Shops side for a freight passing track so this island can be a full-high. The derelict Monsato freight siding becomes the new Everett Terminal siding 'extension'.
-- See on Google where the current track crossover is right past the Chemical Ln. crossing. That's as close as you can get to the bridge for freights to switch tracks ahead of the platforms for their turnout. Then the freights need about equal running room as the crossover for turning out onto their siding. They're coming off the steep bridge at a pretty good clip, so you can't pinch this crossover + turnout for space by making them sharper-angle. That's a slightly elevated derailment risk.
-- Mainline tracks need space after the freight turnout to spread around a 12' wide island platform. So with all this track work stretching past the Chemical Ln. crossing first opportunity to drop the center island ends up as close to Santilli as with the side platforms, and possibly a little closer. Since a ramp and track overpass would need to be built from the full-high, the only plausible egress to ramp down for reaching Broadway is alongside the craft brewery to Carlton St. (with matching skywalk to Gateway bridging over the wetlands on that side). It's still really, really a Santilli stop that doesn't even have a chance to split the difference on distance.
-- Other track work: Everett Jct. needs to be reconfigured and split in half instead of consolidated in one place because it's infringed by the platform construction. Freight turnout goes between the crossover and station platform on the south end of the station and takes up the remaining Monsato siding track. Saugus Branch/ballast track turnout on the north side of the station just off the curve, tied to the inbound track only.
-- Pros: environmentally cleaner, nets a full-high with maximal ADA compliance, convenient for Everett residents in walking distance.
-- Cons: It may be even a few feet closer to Santilli than the side platforms would be. And definitely the ramp egress offers no choice for reaching Broadway any closer than the Dane St. block. There's no room to flank the sides of the tracks with a walking path to the back. Gateway embankment can't be modified...freight turnout takes all available space behind the Shops and a narrow path around the NStar towers/feeders on a strip of Shops rear lot isn't a good idea for other reasons. So it pretty much is Carlton-to-Broadway or bust for reaching that side.


I don't think it ends up working. Low side platforms you can easily see would never get recommended with the construction compromises it entails and too negligible a distance advantage (if any) to the casino. Center island full-high makes for a nice and station facility up-to-snuff with any modern commuter rail facility, but at 1000 ft. walk to Broadway on the only plausible egress point from a station ramp, and another 2000+ ft. walk down Broadway to the casino entrance. Not convenient at all, or logical wayfinding for out-of-towners. The inconvenience of the Santilli location would cut passenger volumes sharply, especially after-hours where the walk discourages walk-up crowds. Wynn may not be keen on running near-empty shuttle buses at late hours, so it could end up a much more limited-hours "casino" stop than hoped.

Further, the transit concentration at the Chelsea CR + SL Gateway stop makes the frequencies and transfer options so hands-down better it's going to have by far the biggest all-day utilization of any nearby station site. The Silver Line on-street extra down Beacham St. to the casino is only a mile longer and--if the shortcut through the rear of the Mall is in-play--only involves 1 extra traffic light than a Santilli Station pickup and short trip down Broadway. Travel time difference isn't that large despite Chelsea station being further away. And frequency difference on all modes is stratospherically better in Chelsea.

So why bother? You can keep the frequencies sooooo much better at Chelsea since the Silver Line keeps up stiff headways all hours of the day, would be a full-time Indigo stop all the same, and nearly all conventional Newburyport/Rockport trains already make the Chelsea stop...more than would likely pick up the Santilli stop as a +1 on their schedules. So between Silver, the easier wayfinding at Chelsea, and Wynn getting much bigger walkup crowds for a dedicated casino shuttle out of Chelsea...it's going to end up better keeping that the transit node of all nodes instead of shooting for closer but not nearly close enough. Frequencies, frequencies, frequencies; that's what draws the ridership. And Chelsea's got a big advantage on all modes in that department.


Note that in a BRT/LRT Urban Ring future you can indeed stop at the casino's back door in the dead-on perfect location. You can do a steeper grade up to the bridge embankment on the UR side of the ROW, put a fully level platform up high, have a door-to-door walkway passing above the commuter rail tracks, and only need to walk 100 paces to the casino entrance on the casino side and the Costco entrance on the Gateway side. You just have no means of getting within a half-mile of that best possible location with anything on an RR mode sharing the Eastern Route tracks

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It would cost less for the Kendall Sq section, yes. But light rail guarantees the need for a Swift flyover/under, another over by FX/Sullivan, another flyover north of Sullivan, another two-track bridge over the Mystic, another flyover between Everett Terminal and Chelsea, and two additional tracks from Sullivan to Chelsea. Looking at the project as a whole, I find it hard to believe the grand total would be cheaper to go with light rail. I actually think it would be even, with a lot more flexibility in hand for ops, to go with DMU.

Why are you even mentioning build costs here? That's not the problem. If you run a train on a RR mode between Chelsea and Kendall with bi-directional 15 min. frequencies, you will mess up the interlockings to complete non-functioning for the 200 weekly commuter rail trips that have to be made through there and fed with equipment swaps to/from BET. That's it...that's the fatal killer, the undoing of your entire argument. It induces transit loss for tens of thousands of daily commuter rail riders through the reduced frequencies they'd all get sacked with to make this work. That's neither cheap in real economic impacts nor a remotely responsible use of public resources for providing public service. Existing commuter rail riders can't be punished to that severe a degree as means to an end for force-fitting one UR alternative so not-recommended for serious study it was never recommended for study.

And, yes, if this elaborate fantasy involves grade separating the interlockings you will spend more money on flyovers/flyunders at RR grades than you will with trolleys. So not only is there nothing off-shelf about the infrastructure at impacts anyone will find tolerable, but the build costs with interlocking grade separation would be worse than the LRT/BRT construction costs for everything west of the river crossing. It's a boondoggle either way: cause transit loss to a whole swath of the state, or spend more than you would've spent on another mode.

The DE thread that got locked? I remember that one. Swift is getting fucked because of GLX. Urban Ring would have to modify the lay of the post-GLX land. Be it DMU or LRV. And it wouldn't really mess with FX at all. No one even said FX was a problem in that thread.

No, if UR used the GLX yard leads it wouldn't touch anything else because the trolley tracks are already grade separated wrapping around to 3rd Ave. BRT...yes, that has some issues now for the required space it would have to be fitted into. Decking over the GLX leads may be the lowest-profile way to do BRT, and they did study an air rights GLX yard straddling the NW end of BET, so it's a possibility with real study data. Albeit data collected years after the last UR studies, so the UR archival docs may not show the same set of alternatives they'd pick for a re-study. Of course, elevated busway isn't as cheap as re-purposing the pre-existing GLX leads...so mode choice does play a role.

Also, heavy rail rapid transit would be just as difficult as a DMU scheme (even more grad separation), and yet they studied that.

Not very hard, they didn't. Phase III didn't get more than a skeletal overview, and that was before sea level rise piled some new question marks on tunneling 1) on the old Cambridge shoreline, and 2) Under the Emerald Necklace in a particularly notorious Charles Basin flood spot. But why did they include HRT as "a" study alternative while your supposedly cheaper Indigo plan didn't even make that cut?

Because the Indigo plan causes transit loss. Foul the interlockings all day long with cross movements and northside commuter rail--including any of its Indigo lines from the terminal--get slashed to uselessness to prioritize the around-the-horn traffic. And that is such an unacceptable compromise it is not worth studying in any way, shape, or form.

Inducing widespread transit loss for one's own idea of Transit OCD perfection--much less one being proposed on grounds that it's supposed to save money--is not a serious or responsible proposal. It's nihilism. This is not going to get 5 seconds' worth of consideration from anyone, ever, because of those fatal flaws.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No one is saying DMU's can't operate in mixed traffic situations but the fact that they always have 100% priority makes it infeasible to operate them in Cambridge because at any frequency that would be a useful service it would cause major traffic issues as has already been pointed out numerous times by F-Line.

Yes. It's not the vehicle type. It's the fact that it's an FRA railroad that can make no assumptions about vehicle type. It makes no bloody difference what neato acceleration or braking a DMU has or potential for future considerations. Every YouTube video showing said technical feasibility is completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. No matter how many times it gets posted here in an off-topic vacuum.

The Grand Junction is a common-carrier line with 3 carriers having irrevocable operating rights to run any of their equipment (within FRA-governed clearance and weight envelopes): MBTA, Amtrak, and CSX. Therefore things like potential gate timings in a waivered universe are irrelevant. One 'tenant' carrier runs 100% push-pulls whenever it wants in mixed train traffic, one 'tenant' carrier runs 100% standard freight trains whenever it wants in mixed train traffic. Exceptions would be irrelevant even if the FRA loosened up the rules and granted a waiver to the T for running light vehicles with "technical feasibility"...and allowed such situations more flexibly for mixing traffic than the Boston-impossible hassles of rigging up a RiverLINE-esque time separation operation.

Because you'll never be able to segregate the mixed traffic to shorten the gate timings for a 'technically nimble' DMU. DMU's will never be exclusive; a DMU could be crossing Mass Ave. 200 ft. away from a train meet with a big honking freight pausing on the adjacent MIT passing siding. Mass Ave.'s crossing protection would have to react barely 1-2 minutes apart to crossings from 2 different vehicles that couldn't be any more divergent on nimbleness. You can't even flip the timings and diagnostic-test the time system to make sure it flipped correctly in that span. Gate timing waivers don't matter when that's the mixed traffic baseline the timings must be planned around...waiver, no waiver, someone's fantasy idea of a waiver, it's all the same for crossing fail-safety. And that's because of the other two common carriers who can't be bullied or paid off into giving up their rights to run their duly guaranteed equipment in their duly guaranteed slots between MBTA slots.


CSX has no choice but to run to Everett in the daytime; it's the only reason that trip wasn't long ago banished to the overnights. Its primary goods out of Everett are fresh produce, which it takes back to Framingham and loads onto supermarket delivery trucks. The late-afternoon slot is so the trucks can be loaded for the night shift, when all the supermarkets restock their produce shelves. Go to a 24-hour Shaw's or S&S after 11:00pm and watch them unpack those boxes of fresh veggies. Some of those veggies likely rolled westbound down the Grand Junction 6 or 7 hours earlier. Especially if you're shopping at one of the big generic corporate chains.

Even if you could (easily) square them with contractual rights and $$$ quid pro quos to take the Worcester-Ayer-Somerville alt route on their primary daily route to clear slots for Indigo, CSX will never ever ever give up the GJ as their Plan B emergency route to Everett. If their replacement route on the inner half of the Fitchburg Line gets FUBAR'ed they're on the hook for every head of lettuce that rots at the terminal because they missed their delivery. Retaining access to a Plan B route they don't use doesn't cost CSX anything, so they'll never give it up that protection until the Urban Ring forces the abandonment filing on the Grand Junction with CSX a co-signee to the filing. Now, with CSX selling the line to MassDOT the what-if's of a BRT/LRT conversion for the real Ring have probably already been squared in writing, and when the time comes that memorandum of understanding would prevent CSX from going back on their word.

BUT...that doesn't affect every day until then when the Grand Junction exists on the RR network, its common carrier rights on the RR network are perpetual and legally enforceable, and any day-to-day usage alternatives will still be bound by "Plan B" options for any of the carriers. The T will never ever get a presently purely hypothetical future waiver to run 'technically feasible' traffic-sharing with a DMU, because 2 other common carriers who are not running 'technically feasible' equipment will never give up their no-cost rights to a Plan B. That's 150 years of interstate commerce caselaw talking; common carrier status is legally sacrosanct. The gate timings can't make assumptions about what's running when all 3 carriers have the rights to run anything when they want, can't be pushed out on their Plan A's or Plan B's, and can't be pushed out of mandatory mid-day slots for time-sensitive goods that demand mid-day slots.


The end. Those are the rules. A thousand off-topic testimonials to the awesomeness of DMU tech and baseless will-they/won't-they speculation about (bit of a reach) FRA waivers nobody has yet proposed can't be willed into relevance here. 3 RR's have rights, 3 RR's are required by the federal government to share. And common carrier status is legally sacrosanct. There is no realistic chance that the line owner can put the screws to the others to give up their Plan B provisions. Until any memos of understanding get triggered on signoff for abandonment and changeover to some other real-deal UR mode. i.e. The outright technical removal of all possibility of Plan B's on the GJ--and any commitments the carriers have made to cooperate in that event--is the endgame. Not "compulsory day-to-day abstinence" of exercising Plan B's in-hand for every day until that endgame comes. That is not legally permissible or realistic to hope for.


Nothing prevents the real-deal Urban Ring. But restrain yourselves from getting carried away with fever dreams of an Indigo Ring. It ain't happening on a technical level in multiple places, the common carrier legalities are very cut-and-dried for very plainly un-waiverable reasons, and believing more intensely than others in wishful thinking does not increase the odds much less speed them up. Build the real Ring if you want a quasi-real or better Ring. There's no cheap gifts to be had at the federal level to cut against the grain of nationwide rail policy and wrap the legalities neatly in a bow for a Boston-specific exemption. It's easier to just pay up and build the real--and eminently buildable--thing than sustain the mental gymnastics it takes to posit the Indigo Ring as something that can usefully happen to full effectiveness in the real world.

 

[winstonoboogie]

FTA and TCRP have been interested in shared use going back to the San Diego Trolley in 1981 and continuing through to the River Line
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0008.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_130.pdf

what could be unique about possible Grand Junction operations is FRA compliant equipment (Nippon-Sharyo DMUs or there equivalent) operating under light-rail type conditions on a section of track. The concern would be less about collisions between FRA compliant and non-FRA compliant equipment as has been the case in previous joint operations. FTA and FRA have both shown interest in the past in encouraging creative solutions to these types of operations. The FTA report looks at the River Lines different operating modes dependent on type of use at the moment (passenger only, shared freight and passenger, freight only). The interesting observation noted "The links between interlockings are specifically defined for each of these modes. The operating modes are selected by the (non-vital) Supervisory System. However, all safety logic, including the ETS links, between interlockings would reside in vital wayside equipment"

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This is the only relevant statement in that post. The only relevance.

FTA and TCRP have been interested in shared use going back to the San Diego Trolley in 1981 and continuing through to the River Line

They've been interested for 34 years. Studies have been ongoing ever since. No direct on-the-ground action has been taken in 34 years for shared, non- time-separated mixed operation on a common carrier network. They will continue studying it. There will occasionally be "interesting" reading in some archived PDF, some chatter about how things are really ready to change because the studies are "interesting" and parties are willing to be "considering" such and such. Somebody's target fixation will be tickled by this. Bold pronouncements will be made. Tea leaves will be read under an electron microscope. Talking points will continue being pushed.

And life will go on. Because this means nothing in the real world. "Interesting" reading and parties "considering" have been the state of affairs for longer than 1/3 a century. And proof that things are different this time won't be found in more linkspam of archived studies. Because every year of the last 34 has contributed to the linkspam pile of archived studies. None of which have proven to be the oracle that the target-fixated amongst amateur transit planners were hoping for. And more of the same proves no point that--seriously, this time--things are on the verge of maybe possibly happening for real this time.


There's been no change on mixed real-time operations. There is no pending change on mixed real-time operations. The pending change in FRA vehicle crashworthiness regs does not predict, suggest, or foretell a change on mixed real-time operations. Until there is real pending change on mixed real-time operations--something more than reading tea leaves under an electron microscope and connecting the dots to 34 years of archived PDF studies--there is no change. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not for the next 34 years. Until an official party says otherwise that they are taking up the issue for a ruling, not another study.

I am sure there's enough hope to keep the starry-eyed dreamers well-occupied for another generation, but in the real world transit planners have to work with what's available for them to work with. The Indigo Ring is not one of those things. Not now. And not by the time they have to build "a" Ring to keep this city circulating.

 

[winstonoboogie]

This is the only relevant statement in that post. The only relevance.

They've been interested for 34 years. Studies have been ongoing ever since. No direct on-the-ground action has been taken in 34 years for shared, non- time-separated mixed operation on a common carrier network. They will continue studying it. There will occasionally be "interesting" reading in some archived PDF, some chatter about how things are really ready to change because the studies are "interesting" and parties are willing to be "considering" such and such. Somebody's target fixation will be tickled by this. Bold pronouncements will be made. Tea leaves will be read under an electron microscope. Talking points will continue being pushed.

And life will go on. Because this means nothing in the real world. "Interesting" reading and parties "considering" have been the state of affairs for longer than 1/3 a century. And proof that things are different this time won't be found in more linkspam of archived studies. Because every year of the last 34 has contributed to the linkspam pile of archived studies. None of which have proven to be the oracle that the target-fixated amongst amateur transit planners were hoping for. And more of the same proves no point that--seriously, this time--things are on the verge of maybe possibly happening for real this time.


There's been no change on mixed real-time operations. There is no pending change on mixed real-time operations. The pending change in FRA vehicle crashworthiness regs does not predict, suggest, or foretell a change on mixed real-time operations. Until there is real pending change on mixed real-time operations--something more than reading tea leaves under an electron microscope and connecting the dots to 34 years of archived PDF studies--there is no change. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not for the next 34 years. Until an official party says otherwise that they are taking up the issue for a ruling, not another study.

I am sure there's enough hope to keep the starry-eyed dreamers well-occupied for another generation, but in the real world transit planners have to work with what's available for them to work with. The Indigo Ring is not one of those things. Not now. And not by the time they have to build "a" Ring to keep this city circulating.

There are multiple share use operations in place since 1981, not just talked about, in place. The point is it can be done, it IS being done, and as technology advances, it has become easier to do. From the River Line study executive summary:

"The duration of the temporal blocks is related to the technology utilized to assure the absolute nature of the modal separation. Advanced technology, in conjunction with sound operating practices, is capable of considerably shortening the time scale of separation. With the appropriate design, rules, and training, the minimum duration of the temporal separation window may be expressed in periods of an hour or less.

The success of two significant temporal separation shared operations, the San Diego Trolley and the NJ TRANSIT River LINE light rail systems, has demonstrated the benefits of shared track operations to both passenger and freight operations. They have operated with outstanding safety records and have resulted in transportation and economic benefits for the public.
Of particular relevance to the research in this study are the last two stages of shared track operations on the River LINE. The River LINE, a 34-mile long LRT service between Trenton and Camden, New Jersey, commenced operation in March 2004 (Figure 3). The line includes both in-street operation and operation over exclusive right-of-way, most of which is shared with Conrail freight operations under a shared use waiver from FRA that specified the typical day/night separation of modes. Thirty-two miles of the line are currently part of the general railroad system. Four to five freight trains currently operate on the line during weekdays. The implementation of the River LINE not only expanded mobility for transit passengers, but it upgraded the infrastructure for freight service. On the River LINE right-of-way freight was previously operated at 10 to 15 mph over Class 1 and Class 2 track, using manual blocking (dark territory). With the development of the passenger infrastructure, freight operates at 30 mph, on signal indication, and all track comprises continuous welded rail that meets Class 5 requirements. Along the shared use southern section of the River LINE, known as the Camden Subdivision, three to four freight trains operate daily, with an annual volume approaching one million gross tons.
Under the initial waiver approved by FRA for LRT operations on the River LINE, LRT and freight operations were temporally separated by allowing LRT operations on weekdays from early morning to early evening and freight operations during the overnight hours. However, at one location, even during the passenger hours of operation, the use of vital signal design known as Short Interval Temporal Separation (SITS) allowed freight trains to cross over passenger tracks. SITS permits short interval shifts between modes while maintaining absolute mode separation in a single interlocking"

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

"Old documents."
"Old documents."
"Wishful thinking."
"Old documents."
"YouTube video."
"Supposition that very old documents mean something's actively happening today."
"More old documents."


Are we having our circular logic fun yet? Good...because the way new page views came to a shuddering halt on 2 or 3 Indigo-related threads for a whole 3-day weekend pretty much clears the room to go in circles forever, talk-over-heads, and address no one in particular and no questions in particular. God forbid it becomes safe to dip in the pool again and talk about Urban Ring pitches, or the state of the state's Indigo Line commitments circa 2015 going forward, or how to move forward with conditions as they stand today June 2015 and not in a study from 2004 or 2002 or 1995 or 1981.


There's nothing new here. No amount of new vigor put into decades-old document dumps that address no line of discussion in particular is going to make there be something actively happening here. It's all old walls of text, not proof that something on the verge of a policy change today that would affect 2016-2024 planning efforts. Nor is it proof that commitments to issuing rule changes, 2015-going-forward service plans, and plotting it all on a calendar are active today. Old document dumps of study cases and possibles are neato reading about hypotheticals and fodder for things that could be considered for change. But until the FRA gives due public notice that it IS taking up a Very Big™ regulatory change, and putting that Very Big™ change on-the-clock so we can all do the pee-pee dance in giddy anticipation for 2017 to see what they enact...nothing has changed or is scheduled to change. An entire Transportation Library's dump of old documents that didn't have predictive value on-the-clock in their own era doesn't will into being any sort of predictive value about Very Big™ change going on-the-clock tomorrow. If anything each new 2-line micro-citation from that document mountain just underscores how little and extremely unreliable the predictive value of studies and whitepapers are. The whole three-and-a-half decades of archived planning docs say more by the sheer quantity of their yellowing paper about what hasn't, isn't, likely won't happen in the realm of Very Big™ regulatory changes. Even the itty-bitty things and highly compartmentalized citations therein of stuff that's actually, partially, incompletely, or almost happened do not hold any sway when the story of that document pile are the Very Big™ regulatory changes that needed to happen, were supposed to happen, that are the sum total difference between Boston being able to have any mixed traffic mainline railways or none whatsoever...have not happened. The old doc dumps pour hardened lucite over that unfortunate and pervasive fact. New doc dumps are confronted with dealing with that unfortunate and pervasive fact head-on.


Meanwhile, Boston's amateur and professional transit planners have the world they have to work with. And festering transit problems that can't wait 35 more years worth of additional studies and wishful thinking before transit problems need to be addressed. So...circuitous non-discussion FTW?

 

[CantabAmager]

Aight, aight we've had our periodic DMU flare ups - if you'd suffer it, let me the flip the discussion to something else that's been annoyingly difficult for me to find any info about from anywhere other than aB.

And that'd be the Green Line to Porter - a sorta/kinda pipe dream, but also solidly within the realm of possibility in the next decade or so. A western Red-Green connection provides easy West-originating access to any future employment growth Somerville's target corridors, particularly the industry-zone Somerville Ave southside stretches, Boynton Yards, Union Square, Duck Village (ok that one's fully residential, but I like the name), and the fringes of the Kendall megaconcentration. It also, as this is the "urban ring" thread, provides a very rudimentary cross-Cambridge and Somerville semi-circumferential route and if future proofed could feasibly be working into any future UR builds.

And yet, outside of few wistful mentions in the public arena - the only place I can find any sort of support for this is on aB, and that's a bit worrisome because I don't think this is that crazy a pitch and I don't think that it's cost prohibitive for the benefit it creates. What are we talking $400mil for the trackage, power systems, fleet expansion, and infill stations? $500mil? That's not an obscene amount of money. Cambridge is now grossing over $8mil on the CPA local surcharges alone, upwards of $12mil when the trust fund transfers come through - surely that's enough year-to-year to finance a 30-yr transp bond for such a project (not that I'm suggesting CPA funds should be gutted for, admittedly, a pet project).

So where's the future/is there a realistic (i.e. possible from both engineering and political perspectives) future for GLX-P? If we're going to engage is some good ol' aB internecine bloodletting, might as well do it over a project that hasn't been beaten to death as much the DMU-Fairmount discussion, which is itself slowly leaking into every other thread.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Let's remember that the state very recently has floated the idea of a West Station-North Station DMU line along the Grand Junction, seems like a relevant thing to discuss and reference 2009 and 2011 studies (not decades old studies) discussing peer comparisons of joint use operations that are very real, not just theoretical.

Somehow discussing $Billion+ projects that have been dormant for decades or have never once appeared in a state or MBTA planning document is considered useful, while a discussion of a project that is much closer to the real world and is more dependent on parties signing off on a memorandum of understanding for scheduling service than anything else is considered an impossible dream.

 

[GDX163]

For what it's worth, I think there is a current opportunity to advocate for GLX to Porter. MassDOT and the City of Cambridge recently launched a Kendall Square Square Mobility Task Force that is studying transportation options for the area. It's hard to know if anything will come of it, but they seem to be planning to discuss future use of the Grand Junction, so there's some possibility that there could be at least cursory planning for a large-scale transit investment in the future. In any case, they seem particularly interested in connections between Kendall and surrounding neighborhood, but based on my reading of meeting notes they have mostly glossed over Porter Square thus far (an oversight in my eyes). If anyone is interested in advocating for this potential project, I would encourage you to contact the project manager (his email is listed on that page) with a brief message encouraging the panel to include GLX to Porter as part of their study.

 

[cybah]

Problems. But here's the overview of the layout of the place to put that in all in context.

<snip> <snip>

Thanks! I never would never expected such a long reply. But thanks F Line. Clear understand. Who knew there was that much geometrics to consider at that location!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Aight, aight we've had our periodic DMU flare ups - if you'd suffer it, let me the flip the discussion to something else that's been annoyingly difficult for me to find any info about from anywhere other than aB.

And that'd be the Green Line to Porter - a sorta/kinda pipe dream, but also solidly within the realm of possibility in the next decade or so. A western Red-Green connection provides easy West-originating access to any future employment growth Somerville's target corridors, particularly the industry-zone Somerville Ave southside stretches, Boynton Yards, Union Square, Duck Village (ok that one's fully residential, but I like the name), and the fringes of the Kendall megaconcentration. It also, as this is the "urban ring" thread, provides a very rudimentary cross-Cambridge and Somerville semi-circumferential route and if future proofed could feasibly be working into any future UR builds.

And yet, outside of few wistful mentions in the public arena - the only place I can find any sort of support for this is on aB, and that's a bit worrisome because I don't think this is that crazy a pitch and I don't think that it's cost prohibitive for the benefit it creates. What are we talking $400mil for the trackage, power systems, fleet expansion, and infill stations? $500mil? That's not an obscene amount of money. Cambridge is now grossing over $8mil on the CPA local surcharges alone, upwards of $12mil when the trust fund transfers come through - surely that's enough year-to-year to finance a 30-yr transp bond for such a project (not that I'm suggesting CPA funds should be gutted for, admittedly, a pet project).

So where's the future/is there a realistic (i.e. possible from both engineering and political perspectives) future for GLX-P? If we're going to engage is some good ol' aB internecine bloodletting, might as well do it over a project that hasn't been beaten to death as much the DMU-Fairmount discussion, which is itself slowly leaking into every other thread.

The reason why GLX-Porter has never been subject to a formal study is because they spent so long on the Medford studies trying to figure out a way to cram Union Sq. and all the Medford branch stops on one linear extension with an off-ROW deviation that swung kinda sorta near Union before bailing back onto the Lowell ROW. So there was never supposed to be 2 branches to begin with, and the Fitchburg ROW to Porter was never supposed to be reachable at all from their 'off-road' Union alignment. The 2-branch plan became a compromise relatively late in the game when it became clear that there was no way to bootstrap Union and College Ave. onto the same line.

But by the point they had to go to 2 branches the project area had been baked in to only the immediate Union area. So while it seems easy enough to tack on Porter as an addendum, it would be lumping in an un-studied area into the project area. Too much planning (neighborhood impacts, station concepts, and the like) was already in motion for Union & Medford and so many federal grant applications had already been filed for funfing consideration within the pre-existing project areas. So changing the project boundaries would've forced a semi-'reboot' of the project, and a partial pause while Porter got the full study treatment. GLX is already many years late and only months ago secured the last funding dumps that pushed it into a 'sure thing' certainty where it'll never be derailed by another short-term financial shock. So you can see what the risk was in pausing pretty middle-late in the planning game to tack on Porter--and Porter-related studies--to the Union Branch.

That's the only reason. Had the 2-branch scheme been tabbed much earlier on as the preferred alternative, Porter probably would've been added. But it wasn't a preferred alternative; it was a fallback choice they had to revert to years in. Timing wasn't a match.


STEP does have Porter zeroed in as an advocacy point. Right now they are concentrating their new initiatives energy on 1) the McGrath teardown, and 2) making sure the state follows through on its non-binding commitment to build past College Ave. to Route 16. I doubt they are going to open up a full-on Porter campaign until they notch a victory on at least 1 of those 2 initiatives. That's long been their M.O.:
-- Take on no more than 2 or 3 biggies at any given time.
-- Concentrate all their firepower on that very short list of biggies so they can push with overwhelming force, and no distractions.
-- Articulate their other future transpo advocacy points (like they have with Porter), but do not devote any resources to them until they secure a victory on one of the ongoing biggies. Because future advocacies don't happen unless they're riding an active winning streak.
-- If/when they score an ironclad commitment on one of the biggies and go into 'supervisory' mode over an active construction project, then and only then do they pick up one of their future advocacies and 'graduate' it to one of the biggies that starts getting their full-force push.

So, first it was Assembly Sq. and securing the GLX base-build commitments, as well as getting the Community Path extension bootstrapped to GLX. Those were the Really Big Campaigns, and nothing else mattered. Now Orange-Assembly's 100% finished, GLX is funded/committed and in 'supervisory' mode, and the Path extension is committed as an accessory. What project next on the list has been 'promoted' very conspicuously to the STEP top tier now: McGrath teardown. Within the last year that one has seen a sudden and typically impressive show of STEP ground troops pushing the state hard for their corridor makeover...and slapping MassHighway around every time a new public meeting tries to slip more road capacity into the design.

So when GLX supervisory duties are relegated to more watching the construction clock than tying up loose ends with the neighborhoods, it's going to become The McGrath Show with that project being STEP's #1 effort going forward. They will do every bend-and-bully trick in their arsenal honed during the GLX saga to get MassHighway to build their urban boulevard. And next advocacy point won't go on the board as a top-tier item until they secure the ironclad commitment from the state to do the McGrath job.

Also expect GLX-Route 16, which nobody has talked much about the last couple years while all focus has been on bringing GLX-College Ave. to sure-thing/point-of-no-return, to suddenly get real loud real fast. The legislature did pass a non-binding commitment to fund/build as a separate project, so in terms of letter of the law GLX isn't a "closed" project until 16 advances to a set schedule or the Legislature votes to rescind its non-binding commitment. 16 has not gone quiet because STEP sees long odds; it's been quiet because bullying that non-binding commitment into a binding commitment (and the years that'll take to securing the binding commitment) takes a big, loud show of force. And their M.O. is not go big and loud on something new until a win's been notched beyond shadow of a doubt elsewhere and they're safely in maintenance mode. So watch 16 awaken from its slumber come 2016-17 and start making front pages again.

Porter...that's one that'll go on the board with a win on McGrath commitments, and pinning MassHighway to a set schedule, set design, and set funding for that boulevarding project. That's the next opportunity for something big to get promoted into the top tier...the 2018-19 range when McGrath details have been nailed down. Because the knitting of Somerville Ave./Medford St./Washington St. into a new 'square' turns Somerville Ave. out of Porter into a much heavier-duty destination corridor...which in turn puts more pressure on completing GLX across the whole corridor because Somerville Ave. and the 83/87 are not equipped to bear the load for another fast-growing square. The boulevarding of McGrath is going to have a pivot for a complete Somerville Ave. transit solution, and that's where Porter 'graduates' to top-tier.

There's no doubt this is going to happen because STEP always, always promotes from its own bench of projects. Way too early to tell what its chances are because a win on McGrath is so critical, and the favorability of another GLX tack-on's odds are directly tied to how much they can successfully bully on the 16 extension. Both of those initiatives have to play out in the second half of the decade first before predictions on startup of the full-blown Porter campaign are useful. But there most definitely won't be any confusion about "why is no one talking about Porter?" come 5 years from now. They will be talking about Porter. A lot.



And, yeah, there's not a whole lot to say about GL-Porter's viability. It's slam-dunk, and the price is reasonable when compared to the similar job on a former 4-track ROW with the 16 extension (maybe a little higher because of the Porter station interface, 1 grade crossing elimination, and 2 bridge replacements to solve modern-era pinch points on the ROW). Then all the neighborhood-remaking ancillary benefits to bootstrap onto it like Porter-Wilson decking of the Fitchburg Line canyon to knit Somerville Ave. and North Cambridge + Lesley U campus together, get Cambridge pushing for an Alewife-Porter extension of the path system feeding directly onto that Porter-Wilson ped plaza, and enough building opportunities to keep the Porter thread on the AB Dev Projects forum nice and hot for several years.

Unpredictable now, but you can bank on the STEP + Cambridge tag team having a wholly-formed corridor plan that goes way beyond just a simple line extension and includes private developers in tow. Not to mention vigorous letters of support from Arlington where the commute on the 77 gets infinitely easier being able to pick up Green 1.2 miles from the town line on a high-frequency bus transfer that cuts out 100% of the pain of running all the way downtown on a standing-room-only, delay-prone Red train to reach all GL destinations at overcrowded Park St. Every stakeholder knows what's riding on the future advocacy for that extension, and that's why they don't pull out the big guns until the big guns have notched a win on one of the current top-tier priorities like McGrath.