Crazy Transit Pitches

[whighlander]

I might have overestimated the Red line and the Providence line , but I stand by the rest. TOD is factored heavily into those numbers , if I can recall correctly MA doesn't have or is just starting there TOD suburban push. The T is what NJT /PATH was back in 1990 , both agencies added over 700,000 in New riders over 20 years. Yes granted that was due to NYC / Urban Jersey Job Growth , but the rest was due to a aggressive suburban TOD push which can be seen in most towns. The same is probably going to occur in your region over the next 20 years. One station on the PATH went from 20 people a during the 80s to 15,000 after the TOD was built around it , some Suburban stations went from just 300 people to almost 8,000. Suburban TOD is what has driven the growing ridership trend in this region....it might be hard to believe but its possible if you build up right. Ive seen TOD / Redevelopment plans for Quincy , Lynn , along the Fairmount corridor , Providence and Worcester.... Not all of this will be New Ridership , some will be people transferring from one line to another. Like for example Phase 1 & 2 of the Second Avenue Subway (SAS) will be used by an estimated 683,000 daily riders , but only 85,000 new riders will generated. Now with most of the future lines being commuter rail and not Urban Rail you'll see a higher New Ridership rate then when they extend the Green and Blue lines. Most of the New Ridership on those lines won't be newer T users , just current ones transferring between lines. I have a station by Station guide , thats even more crazy....i will post that later.....

Jersey -- Transit Oriented Development - of which quite a bit exists in MA - doesn't suddenly attract people to move from Texas or Florida it just may change the way that the population is distributed at the margins

Because of the strong town structure in Massachusetts the majority of decisions made with respect to development in general and housing density are made at the town level. Many of the towns built themselves out at single family low suburban density development style. In many inner suburban towns such as Lexington,, you essentially have to buy somebody's house to be able to buy a "buildable lot"

For various reasons, this is a "slow-grow," high-cost region with immigration of foreigners just about balancing out-migration of native born citizens. See Google Public Data on population change from 1980 until 2010 (30 years) -- where the Massachusetts population went from 5.7 M to 6.5 M -- and significant amount of the increase occurred outside of the T's service area such as on the Cape

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:25000&ifdim=country&tstart=332222400000&tend=1310443200000&hl=en&dl=en&q=massachusetts+population

Finally, unless something dramatically changes to reverse current trends respect to family size and age of the population and such - those kinds of growth in T use would require whole-sale changes in commuting patterns in less than 20 years.

For ref purposes here is some annual data taken from the T's own summaries for the Red Line daily turnstile counts for over a decade



1997 2006 2009
ALEWIFE 9409 9567 10657
DAVIS 10695 10891 11628
PORTER 7355 8089 8552
HARVARD 20212 19146 21868
CENTRAL 11736 12415 14531
KENDALL/MIT 11214 11408 13975
CHARLES/MGH 7855 8672 10615
PARK STREET 6535 6535 8237
DOWNTOWN Xing 12381 12386 11746
SOUTH STATION 20778 18826 20647
BROADWAY 3742 4115 4200
ANDREW 4646 5372 5586
JFK/U.MASS 7561 8163 7834
SAVIN HILL 1769 2004 1863
FIELDS CORNER 4697 5203 4152
SHAWMUT 1745 2196 2241
ASHMONT 8536 9799 6019
NORTH QUINCY 5955 7469 7132
WOLLASTON 4269 4493 4347
QUINCY CENTER 6426 7076 7913
QUINCY ADAMS 4477 4538 4383
BRAINTREE 3424 3159 4387
TOTAL 175417 181522 192513

[Nexis4jersey]

Nexis4Jersey, why do you have no expansion plans for the Orange Line?

I factored in Assembly SQ in my ridership projections , as for extended the line to where?

[Nexis4jersey]

Jersey -- Transit Oriented Development - of which quite a bit exists in MA - doesn't suddenly attract people to move from Texas or Florida it just may change the way that the population is distributed at the margins

Because of the strong town structure in Massachusetts the majority of decisions made with respect to development in general and housing density are made at the town level. Many of the towns built themselves out at single family low suburban density development style. In many inner suburban towns such as Lexington,, you essentially have to buy somebody's house to be able to buy a "buildable lot"

For various reasons, this is a "slow-grow," high-cost region with immigration of foreigners just about balancing out-migration of native born citizens. See Google Public Data on population change from 1980 until 2010 (30 years) -- where the Massachusetts population went from 5.7 M to 6.5 M -- and significant amount of the increase occurred outside of the T's service area such as on the Cape

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:25000&ifdim=country&tstart=332222400000&tend=1310443200000&hl=en&dl=en&q=massachusetts+population

Finally, unless something dramatically changes to reverse current trends respect to family size and age of the population and such - those kinds of growth in T use would require whole-sale changes in commuting patterns in less than 20 years.

For ref purposes here is some annual data taken from the T's own summaries for the Red Line daily turnstile counts for over a decade



1997 2006 2009
ALEWIFE 9409 9567 10657
DAVIS 10695 10891 11628
PORTER 7355 8089 8552
HARVARD 20212 19146 21868
CENTRAL 11736 12415 14531
KENDALL/MIT 11214 11408 13975
CHARLES/MGH 7855 8672 10615
PARK STREET 6535 6535 8237
DOWNTOWN Xing 12381 12386 11746
SOUTH STATION 20778 18826 20647
BROADWAY 3742 4115 4200
ANDREW 4646 5372 5586
JFK/U.MASS 7561 8163 7834
SAVIN HILL 1769 2004 1863
FIELDS CORNER 4697 5203 4152
SHAWMUT 1745 2196 2241
ASHMONT 8536 9799 6019
NORTH QUINCY 5955 7469 7132
WOLLASTON 4269 4493 4347
QUINCY CENTER 6426 7076 7913
QUINCY ADAMS 4477 4538 4383
BRAINTREE 3424 3159 4387
TOTAL 175417 181522 192513

I forgot to mention that i factored in higher gas prices into the numbers , in 20 years the cost of gas will probably change the regional commuting habits and more people will use the T. Probably an Addition 100,000 , and like I said above not all of this is new ridership.

[Nexis4jersey]

Here's the NJT / PATH / PATCO projections for comparison....theres a suburban and Urban TOD boom going on down here with large scale projects. Some take up a Sq mile. Urban areas are starting to grow faster and develop denser then the suburban areas which explains ridership increases along the Morristown , Main , Northeast Corridor , and Montclair lines , Reverse commuting is growing to Satilite cities like Hackensack , New Brunswick and Paterson which why there is an Increase along the Pascack Valley , NEC and ML. Urban Density changes and Infill stations will fuel the increases along the LRT network... Some mega Projects in Jersey City , Harrison , and Newark will add between 50-70,000 to the PATH , along with natural growth. Most these projections are from the county , some are mine...there 1990 projections for 2010 were spot on for the most part... Alot of Ridership along Future lines will shift over from the current overloaded regional bus system.

-Light Rail

Hudson Bergen Light Rail - 54,000 (2010) > 140,000 (2030)
Newark Light Rail - 21,000 (2010) > 40,000 (2030)
Riverline - 11,000 (2011) > 25,000 (2030)

-PATH - 254,000 (2011) > 340,000 (2030)
-PATCO - 35,000 (2010) > 51,000 (2030)

-Regional Rail

Atlantic line - 1760 (2010) > 5,000 (2030)
Northeast Corridor - 53,800 (2010) > 170,000 (2030)
North Jersey Coast line - 17,800 (2010) > 35,000 (2030)
Raritan Valley line - 12,100 (2010) > 25,000 (2030)
Main Line - 9,160 (2010) > 30,000 (2030)
Bergen County Line - 4,300 (2010) > 17,000 (2030)
Pascack Valley Line - 3,617 (2010) > 16,000 (2030)
Montclair-Boonton Line - 10,142 (2010) > 21,000 (2030)
Morristown Line - 50,000 (2010) > 75,000 (2030)
Gladstone Branch - 3036 (2010) > 6,500 (2030)

Future Regional , Bus Rapid Transit & Light Rail lines

Gateway Project - 150,000
MOM Rail Network - 130,000
West Trenton line - 15,000
Philpsburg Connections - 30,000
Glassboro LRT - 25,000
West Trenton LRT - 15,000
Pompton Branch - 4,600
Old Boonton Branch - 12,000
Newark LRT Extensions - 45,000
Northwest line - 15,000
Bergen - Passaic LRT - 9,000
West Shore line - 45,000
Kingsland Branch - 5,000
Cape May line - 3,400
Northern Branch LRT - 60,000
New Brunswick LRT - 85,000
Infill Stations on the Regional Rail system - 30,000
Infill Stations on the LRT system - 70,000
Route 3 Busway - 15,000
Route 4 Busway - 25,000
Route 55 Busway - 37,000
Route 9 Busway - 25,000
Route 1 Busway - 45,000
Mount Prospect Ave Busway - 15,000
Bloomfield Avenue Busway - 32,000
I-280 Busway - 36,000
I-80 Busway - 45,000




Total Rail Ridership in 2010/2011 : 536,985
Total Rail Ridership in 2030 : 1.5 Million
Total Bus & Rail Ridership in 2010 : 1.7 Million
Total Bus & Rail Ridership in 2030 : 2.6 Million

[HenryAlan]

I factored in Assembly SQ in my ridership projections , as for extended the line to where?

The Orange Line's southern terminus is well within city limits. It's the only direction that doesn't manage to leave the city other than the Blue Line's abrupt downtown termination. There is an easy extension to West Roxbury that would serve a densely populated and underserved section of the city. If you want to make it to the suburbs, there is even an unused spur that could get it as far as Dedham.

[BostonUrbEx]

I factored in Assembly SQ in my ridership projections , as for extended the line to where?

Needham via West Rox, Dedham via West Rox, Dedham via Readville, 128 via Readville. And a few others, but those are the biggest posibilities on the southern end.

As for the northern end, one stop up the Haverhill Line to Wyoming Hill, or full out replace the whole Reading Branch of the Haverhill Line with the Orange Line.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

I factored in Assembly SQ in my ridership projections , as for extended the line to where?


*Ahem* (http://g.co/maps/7u3pw) :)

[Nexis4jersey]

My State to State Intercity Rail crazy pitch taken from plans..

Intercity Rail

Current / Proposed , Planned , Under Construction Stations

Next Gen High Speed Rail Northeast

Next Gen Super Express (Max : 220mph : Average : 190mph)
Washington DC Union Station
Philadelphia Market East Station
New York Penn Station
New York Grand Central
Boston Back Bay Station
Boston South Station

Next Gen Express (Max : 220mph : Average : 160mph)
Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
Baltimore Charles Center
Wilmington HSR Station
Philadelphia In't Airport
Philadelphia Market East
Trenton Transit Center
Newark Liberty Airport
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
Grand Central Station
White Plains HSR Station
Danbury HSR
Waterbury HSR Station
Hartford Union Station
Worcester HSR Station
Boston Back Bay
Boston South Station

Next Gen Shoreline Express (Max : 160mph : Average : 125mph)
Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
Baltimore Charles Center
Wilmington HSR Station
Philadelphia Market East
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
Stamford Station
New Haven Union Station
Providence Union Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Boston South Station

Next Gen Long Island Express (Max : 180mph : Average : 155mph)
Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
Baltimore Charles Center
Wilmington HSR Station
Philadelphia In't Airport
Philadelphia Market East
Newark Liberty In't Airport
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
Jamaica - JFK Airport Station
Nassau Hub
Farmingdale - Route 110
Ronkonkoma - Mac Arthur Airport
Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook)
New Haven Union Station
Meriden Station
Hartford Union Station
Tolland (UConn)
Worcester HSR Station
Metro West HSR Station
Riverside HSR Station
Back Bay Station
South Station


Intercity Amtrak , Entire system will be Electrified Eventually

Max : 125mph : Average : 100mph

Northeast Regional - Main line
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly (Limited)
Mystic (Limited)
New London
Old Saybrook (Limited)
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
Williamsburg
Newport News

Northeast Regional - Springfield Shuttle
Springfield
Windsor Locks (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Windsor (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Hartford
Berlin (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Meriden (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Wallingford (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

Northeast Regional - Lynchburg Branch
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly
Mystic
New London
Old Saybrook
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Burke Centre
Manassas
Culpepper
Charlottesville
Lynchburg
Roanoke
Bristol

Vermonter
St. Albans
Burlington-Essex Junction
Waterbury-Stowe
Montpelier-Barre
Randolph
White River Junction
Windsor-Mt. Ascutney
Claremont
Bellows Falls
Brattleboro
Greenfield
Northampton
Holyoke
Springfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
Hartford
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Metropark (weekends only)
Trenton
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

Keystone Service
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Ardmore
Paoli
Exton
Downingtown
Coatesville
Parkersburg
Atglen
Lancaster
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown
Harrisburg

Pennsylvanian
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn station
Trenton
30th Street Station
Ardmore (train 44 only)
Paoli
Exton (trains 42 & 44 only)
Downingtown (train 44 only)
Lancaster
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown
Harrisburg
Lewistown
Huntingdon
Tyrone
Altoona
Johnstown
Latrobe
Greensburg
Pittsburgh

Empire Service
New York Penn station
Yonkers
Croton Harmon
Poughkeepsie
Rhinecliff-Kingston
Hudson
Albany-Rensselaer
Schenectady
Amsterdam
Utica
Rome
Syracuse
Rochester
Buffalo-Depew
Buffalo-Exchange St.
Niagara Falls

Downeaster Service
Boston North Station
Woburn
Haverhill
Exeter
Durham
Dover
Wells
Saco-Biddeford
Old Orchard Beach
Portland
Freeport
Brunswick

Proposed / Planned lines

Lackawanna line
New York Penn Station
Newark Board Street Station
Summit
Dover
Delaware Water Gap
East Stroudsburg
Analomink
Pocono Mountain
Tobyhanna
Scranton
Binghamton

Cape Cod Service
New York Penn station
New Rochelle
Stamford
Bridgeport
New Haven
New London
Westerly
Kingston
Providence
Pawtucket
Taunton
Buzzards Bay
Barnstable

Norfolk Service (Opens in 2013)
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
New London
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
Chester
Petersburg
Suffolk
Norfolk

Lehigh Line
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Easton
Bethlehem
Allentown
Emmaus
Macungie
Lyons-Kutztown
Fleetwood
Reading
Wyomissing (Could be shifted to Regional Rail after Reading line restored)
Lebanon
Hershey
Harrisburg

[whighlander]

Jersey -- the max speeds are two high -- costs ramp-up drastically as speeds get over 200 mph unless you have fully dedicated well maintained track -- e.g. TGV

Northeast Corridor will never be fully dedicated to high speed rail without an astronomical investment in new land for ROW with new river crossings, etc.

So how do you make the average speed high without having a high peak speed?

The solution (unless you want an exercise for the reader) is to not stop -- essentially non stop service to all major destinations -- minor destination are reached by connecting from nearby major destinations

Once you make that decision then a lot of good things come your way:
1) much shorter. lighter trains -- essentially one good rail car in length
2) Subway like headways -- max 15 minutes per departure to the major destinations
3) no need for tickets, conductors -- you board with a Charlie Card and automated reader
4) All station platforms are on small sidings with the main line running straight through
5) All traction is electrical with individual motors for each wheel -- makes going around curves easy, rapid acceleration to full cruise speed -- 130 to 150 mph for mainlines -- 90 to 120 for lines with lesser quality track
6) Power can be overhead, 3rd rail or locally generated depending on the part of the system
7) All vehicles are under full central control with GPS location -- but they can run autonomously or cooperatively sharing their position and velocity date

So a notional system might involve the following Non Stop departures from Boston South Station:
with main line southwest also stopping at Back Bay and Rt-128:
with main line west also stopping at Back Bay and Riverside:
with main line southeast also stopping at JFK/UMass & Braintree

1) NYC Penn -- 15 min
NJ stops
NY Metro stops
Long Island stops
Hudson River Valley

2) Philadelphia 30th St. -- 15 min
Delaware
MD
DC
Pittsburgh

3) Providence -- 15 min
Providence Airport
New London
New Haven
Fall River
New Bedford

4) Plymouth -- 30 min
Cape Cod at Buzzards Bay this side of Bridge
Falmouth
Middleboro


5) Foxboro
Taunton

6) Worcester -- 15 min
Leominster
Framingham
Marlboro

7) Springfield -- 30 min
Bradley Field
Hartford
Pittsfield

8) Albany -- 30 min

9) Hartford -- 30 min

[Nexis4jersey]

Those Next Gen plans call for New ROW in New England , and bypass sections through Baltimore , Wilmington , Philadelphia , Newark and New York to give a faster and less congested route. All the plans call for track sharing and added tracks between DC and NY. Up to 6 tracks between Delaware and NYC , constant tension Catenary the entire length... The Shore line or old NEC route would then be upgraded to at least 160mph and 4 tracked through Mass and RI. The Amtrak Plan calls for mostly private investment , which would be through PPP's. Seeing how PPP's are gaining steam throughout the Northeast so I could see this getting built. 3rd Rail is out of the question , it has a max speed of 100mph , although have the electrified system down here is 3rd rail...its only good for regional rail...and urban rail... As for the secondary lines those would be overhead powered by 25kV/50Hz AC which is becoming the standard for Electrified regional rail in the US and Europe. As for cost , the New England section on both plans is the most expensive due to the land that needs to be bought up. The LI option is really out of the question due to costs...and NIMBYS. Once in New England there are multiple routes , one is to follow I-84 from NY to MA and skirt Worcester while heading to Boston , this plan would capture a huge chunk of the population , but for some reason Amtrak rejected it and went with the more costly Woonsocket option which really makes no sense. NYC - NJ Upgrades will cost 20 Billion , Philly tunneling will cost 2-4 Billion , so will Baltimore , Wilmington will be 500 Million. Adding 2-3 tracks in MD , DE , PA , and NJ will cost 10-15 Billion....there also have to be new yards built in NJ , PA and MD to accomendate these new trains.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I have to agree with the need for a new ROW dedicated exclusively to the Acela. Running your superfast express train on the same tracks as a commuter rail is borderline psychotic, honestly, and it doesn't matter how fast you "could" run the train if you're going to have to brake for slower trains ahead again...

...and again...

...and again.

For that matter, stopping a dozen times between here and there is obnoxious. In the future, the Acela should blow through Back Bay, Route 128, and Providence at 150mph like it does at Kingston Station already. You get on at South Station, the next stop is New Yahwk.

[whighlander]

I have to agree with the need for a new ROW dedicated exclusively to the Acela. Running your superfast express train on the same tracks as a commuter rail is borderline psychotic, honestly, and it doesn't matter how fast you "could" run the train if you're going to have to brake for slower trains ahead again...

...and again...

...and again.

For that matter, stopping a dozen times between here and there is obnoxious. In the future, the Acela should blow through Back Bay, Route 128, and Providence at 150mph like it does at Kingston Station already. You get on at South Station, the next stop is New Yahwk.

Commute -- you are not going to go blowing through the curves and wild and crazy bunch of tracks and switches between South Station and Back Bay -- thus there's not much of a penalty to stopping at Back Bay

You might have more of a case with Rt-128 and the expresses -- as long as there's a reasonable frequency of some sort of connection between South Station and Rt-128 for those boarding in the suburbs to get back to South Station or Back Bay to board the express

[BostonUrbEx]

I have to agree with the need for a new ROW dedicated exclusively to the Acela. Running your superfast express train on the same tracks as a commuter rail is borderline psychotic, honestly, and it doesn't matter how fast you "could" run the train if you're going to have to brake for slower trains ahead again...

...and again...

...and again.

For that matter, stopping a dozen times between here and there is obnoxious. In the future, the Acela should blow through Back Bay, Route 128, and Providence at 150mph like it does at Kingston Station already. You get on at South Station, the next stop is New Yahwk.

Boston - New York with no stops in between? Whaaat?

Providence is essential, as would be Worcester. 128, sure, blow through that. Back Bay, I'm not sure there's much reasoning for that given track speeds and the fact that Back Bay is just as much a destination as South Station.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I have to agree with the need for a new ROW dedicated exclusively to the Acela. Running your superfast express train on the same tracks as a commuter rail is borderline psychotic, honestly, and it doesn't matter how fast you "could" run the train if you're going to have to brake for slower trains ahead again...

...and again...

...and again.

For that matter, stopping a dozen times between here and there is obnoxious. In the future, the Acela should blow through Back Bay, Route 128, and Providence at 150mph like it does at Kingston Station already. You get on at South Station, the next stop is New Yahwk.

It's not practical in this country to do that. Outside of California HSR where there's open land and very long distance between major cities (Big Dig-level bloat or not, that's a transformative project at any cost), we don't have the ability to take that much private land in century-plus entrenched communities to blaze through new construction. We shot that load overbuilding the Interstate highway system. We also have the oldest legacy RR route network in the world, with most lines built in the 19th and 20th century (UK has the only comparable-age system, and it's a self-contained island). Much like the interstate system it was built with the proven-false expectation that lines could be ripped up and reconfigured at will every 30 years to suit current needs, so there are wacky curves and whatnot all over the eastern network leftover from when mainlines had to zigzag off-target to meet short-lived branchlines and old customers who may not have existed for 100 years. We also have the most significant freight network in the world, and 50 years of decline or not it's persevered with the times and is a fact of life that drives the much tighter regulatory bureaucracy here. And the most privately-owned lines...a majority, in fact, outside the East Coast where the RR bankruptcies of the 1970's gifted the states and Amtrak a one-time bonanza of cheap ROW's locked up safely for the long haul.


It's only going to work by maximizing usage and the lines we have, which means some compromises on perfection. Forget about 200 MPH trains. Forget about meeting the "true" definition of HSR (160 MPH) outside of California and segments of the NEC. 125 MPH is a very reasonable goal on trunklines achievable even on commuter rail trains. Right now MARC in Maryland, only the 9th highest ridership system in the U.S. with only 4 lines, is the only CR in the country that does 125? Why? The entire NEC save for short gaps in Delaware and southern Rhode Island (for now...it's coming by 2020) has commuter rail trains...4 agencies having >4 times the ridership of MARC. We haven't even scratched the surface of how much better the corridor can be. Punch up the big 1994 study of HSR improvements and see how big a backlog still remains:

-- 11 grade crossings in southeastern Connecticut that were supposed to be gone by the end of the 90's which CDOT never took care of.
-- Several speed-restricted movable bridges (most of them in CT) that were deficient 15 years ago and have never been replaced.
-- Many low-platform commuter rail stations--almost all of them on the T and CT Shore Line East--that have much longer dwell times than high platforms with full level boarding. Half of the Shore Line East stops have only 1 platform and trains have to tie up the opposite track to stop there!
-- Several gaps south of NYC where the ROW shrinks below 3 tracks from 1970's removals that have still not been put back. Critical gap in Metro North 4-track west of New Haven. Critical gap in MBTA 3-track south of Readville. No passing tracks yet at stations like Sharon and Mansfield in 150 MPH territory, causing the Acela to have to slow. Derelict freight track from Providence to Central Falls shrinking it to 2 passenger tracks. Severe lack of passing sidings on the long 2-track stretch in CT.
-- Severe resistance from Metro North to updating their signal system or realigning the 2 center tracks to enable Acela tilting on the New Haven Line that they, not Amtrak owns. Everything's artificially capped at 90 MPH because of that turf war (and boy, is it ever a turf war, if the abusive MNRR employees on RR.net are any indication).
-- The T's slow-ass 79 MPH-capped (or worse, if the coaches on a trainset are from a deferred-maintenance part of the fleet) trains, by far the slowest on the NEC. And we'll be the only ones still running diesels when CT finishes its sparkling new M8 EMU order and assigns the last batch to SLE. This is an elephant in the room that MA is home to one of the longest stretches of 150 MPH running and we can't even top 90. You can do 90 on diesel if your equipment isn't shit. Our equipment is pure shit.
-- Curve fixes and signal fixes in New Jersey and Delaware that have been high-priority for 20 years, but bafflingly unfunded till just last year when the Feds dropped the year's single largest rail appropriation to fixing a 25-mile stretch.
-- Old, failing electrical infrastructure likewise deferred 20 years until Metro North and points south played agonizing catch-up the last few years (with their passengers swallowing many temporary delays).
-- Weight-inefficient equipment because there are 3 voltage changes on the line between New York and New Haven requiring heavier, more expensive transformers on the locomotives. The '94 study recommended junking the 1920's-era power draw from DC-NYC because it uses expensive, exclusive 25Hz power generation that hasn't been in use on this country's electrical grid since the days of Edison. They backed off doing that at all and renewing the infrastructure for the same brand new on-grid draw we've got New Haven-Boston in favor of just fixing up the 1920's system and its NEC-exclusive power plants. Hence, Amtrak locomotives and the CT M8's that have to go through the phase changes cost a kajillion dollars vs. the trains made for only one voltage. This is penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking. You pay the $2B to get it right the first time and not have to keep buying maintenance-intensive Frankenstein engines every 20 years.
-- Too much freight having to clog up the NEC because there's no way for CSX to get on either side of Manhattan without a 50-mile detour through Albany, and no way for P&W to get from New London to Hartford because all the east-west connecting track through the interior was shortsightedly abandoned by Penn Central when it was going down in bankruptcy flames.


...and tons of minor things, plus no branchlines of any effectiveness other than the 125 MPH Keystone Corridor because the Hudson and Springfield Lines are old diesel routes that are only now beginning to get useful rehab.

I mean, we're laughably far from utilizing it to what it can be...and in stretches, what it used to be. And the problem is the politicians and much of the public has trouble seeing that a minute pared here and a minute pared there by getting caught up on the backlog adds up. They say, "Who freaking cares? I don't want my hard-earned tax dollars buying some pathetic minute nobody will notice!" Not knowing that there are so many lost minutes from infrastructure we let rot to subpar on this ostensibly 'premier' HSR line that the deferred maintenance alone adds up to like a half-hour or more when that humongous checklist gets cleared away. Moreso with a couple of the megaprojects like replacing the very speed-restricted crumbling downtown Baltimore tunnel and building the Gateway tunnel in New York to double up the insanely constricted 2-track squeeze into Penn used by hundreds of trains per day. We don't have to get into crazy transit pitches like taking hundreds of houses in eminent domain on the intractible shoreline and carve out a new ROW to make the NEC truly, absolutely competitive with short-distance air travel (which is disappearing anyway).

Spend the next 10 years getting caught up on the backlog...THEN get some of the inland trunks like Springfield electrified...and THEN we can talk about 160 MPH express trains blazing through the Eastern CT empty quarter and on the Worcester Line. We will need that in time for sure. But how can we even conceptualize that when we haven't paid the existing line enough mind to truly conceptualize what it can do firing on all cylinders? It doesn't need to be reimagined to go from second-rate to first-rate travel. It just needs TLC after 50 years of neglect and un-coordination.

[Commuting Boston Student]

F-Line, you make some great points, but when I say new ROW for the Acela... I'm not thinking go on an eminent domain bonanza.

Fact is: ANY new construction for something like that is going to be horrendously expensive. We're already in for $800 million easily if we commit to a new ROW, and that's probably a serious lowball estimate by me. I wouldn't be surprised to find the total price tag of Acela ROW hitting ten figures.

What's another $200 million on the top to move the entire Acela underground, at that point? We live in three dimensions - we can build down. In fact, we could probably get away with taking nearly zero land through eminent domain to make that new ROW if we just cut-and-cover or bore it underneath the ROWs we have right now.

And once you have things underground, in their own tunnel, you can work on running that train even faster than what would be imaginable at surface level.

Plus, the National Big Dig might finally lessen the shame of our Big Dig by comparison.

[whighlander]

Boston - New York with no stops in between? Whaaat?

Providence is essential, as would be Worcester. 128, sure, blow through that. Back Bay, I'm not sure there's much reasoning for that given track speeds and the fact that Back Bay is just as much a destination as South Station.

Urb -- this discussion in this part of the thread is based on my suggestion which I've called CorTrans -- I originally conceived of it when I was stuck for a couple of hours in New Haven coming from Stamford on Metro North and missing the cross-platform connection to Amtrak

the concept is based on moderate top-speed high average speed achieved by going point to point non-stop or at most a couple of local stops to the destination when you are not moving fast

So you would go about 4X per hour to NYC with the only stops at Back Bay and Rt-128 for the Shore Line and Back Bay and Riverside for the Inland Line

Providence and Worcester would have their own departures and run Non-stop after the Boston Local stops

The goal is to keep all Non-stop segments under:

2 hours for LongRange -- e.g.. NYC, Philadelphia, Albany, New Haven
1 hour for Intermediate -- e.g. Worcester, Springfield, Providence, Plymouth

Meanwhile peak speed is kept below 120 MPH to minimize track, catenary wire maintenance and other issues involved with very high speeds

If you need to go further than the LongRange you would change to the next CorTrans LongRange at your segment destination -- e.g. NYC, Philadelphia, Albany

if you need to get to a stop not available directly you change to the next CorTrans Intermediate at your segment destination -- e.g. Worcester for Leominster; Philadelphia for Atlantic City

The discussion then continued mixing the above with the other original theme of " Nexis4jersey" and comments from "Commuting Boston Student " and the usual dissertation from "F-Line to Dudley"

[whighlander]

F-Line, you make some great points, but when I say new ROW for the Acela... I'm not thinking go on an eminent domain bonanza.

Fact is: ANY new construction for something like that is going to be horrendously expensive. We're already in for $800 million easily if we commit to a new ROW, and that's probably a serious lowball estimate by me. I wouldn't be surprised to find the total price tag of Acela ROW hitting ten figures.

What's another $200 million on the top to move the entire Acela underground, at that point? We live in three dimensions - we can build down. In fact, we could probably get away with taking nearly zero land through eminent domain to make that new ROW if we just cut-and-cover or bore it underneath the ROWs we have right now.

And once you have things underground, in their own tunnel, you can work on running that train even faster than what would be imaginable at surface level.

Plus, the National Big Dig might finally lessen the shame of our Big Dig by comparison.

Commute -- you've got to take a drive and learn some wind-related physics -- the force on your hand stuck out the window is proportional to the square of the velocity while the power consumed overcoming the wind resistance varies as the cube -- so if you need X HP to drive at 30 you need:

8X to drive at 60
27X to drive at 90
64X to drive at 120
125X to drive at 150

if you can average 120 MPH from Here to NYC you will arrive in less than 2 hours center city to center city

Going fast is very energy inefficient and for short distances unnecessary as long as you keep going at a high average speed -- in other words:
lightweight vehicles for fast acceleration and deceleration
no or very few stops

Digging a tunnel -- unless you evacuate the tube actually makes the air resistance problems worse;
you the same boundary layer drag between the vehicle and the air next to the vehicle that you have outside of a tunnel
and then unless you have a big diameter tunnel - you compound this with the friction between the air you are dragging along scraping along the tunnel walls

If you evacuate the tunnel and use magnetic levitation then of course you could go very very fast although the curves in 3D have to be very carefully constructed to deal with very large turning forces and strange coupling between motion in one plane and the other due to the magnets

The ultimate of course is something called 'Planet Train" or sometimes 'Gravity Express" where if you dig deep enough gravity will accelerate you to truly amazing speeds and then safely deposit you at rest on the other end - something like a pendulum or yoyo. While the concept dates to the 1600's in a letter from Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton and was studied in a more practical form by Robert Godard in the 1920's (Boston to NYC in 12 minutes) -- the things started to be taken semi-seriously in the 70's. In the first infatuation with energy and the environment, people studied these trains and concluded that if the then being studied nuclear-powered deep boring technology arrived on the scene (which so-far it hasn't) you could travel from Boston to LA in under an hour with no significant external energy required. You in fact could travel from Boston to London, Boston to Dehli or Boston to Sydney in comparable time although for the longest trips it would be better to stop along the way and take the next hop rather than having to bore a tunnel through the core of the earth.

Anyway thanks for the ride to Havana now that I've got my cigar -- I'm returning control to your pilot you should be landing in Des Moines in about 3 hours -- your happy thread hijacker

[Nexis4jersey]

Station by Station , Commuter Rail by 2040


Current , Proposed , Planned Stations


South Station
Fairmount line
South Station
New Market
Uphams Corner
Four Corners / Geneva
Talbot Ave
Morton Street
Blue Hill Ave
Fairmount
Readville

Providence / Kingston line
South Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Sharon
Mansfield
Attleboro
South Attleboro
Pawtucket
Providence
TF Green
Wickford JCT
Kingston

Needham Line
South Station
Back Bay
Ruggles
Forest Hills
Roslindale Village
Bellevue
Highland
West Roxbury
Hershey
Needham JCT
Needham Center
Needham Heights

Worcester Line
South Station
Back Bay
Yawkey
Newtonville
West Newton
Auburndale
Wellesley Farms
Wellesley Hills
Wellesley Square
Natick
West Natick
Framingham
Ashland
Southborough
Westborough
Grafton
Worcester

Greenbush line
South Station
JFK / UMass
Quincy Center
Weymouth Landing/East Braintree
East Weymouth
West Hingham
Nantasket Junction
Cohasset
North Scituate
Greenbush

Milford / Franklin line
South Station
Back Bay
Ruggles
Hyde Park
Readville
Endicott
Dedham Corporate Center
Islington
Norwood Depot
Norwood Central
Windsor Gardens
Plimptonville
Walpole
Norfolk
Franklin/Dean College
Forge Park/495
Bellingham
Milford

Old Colony lines

Kingston line
South Station
JFK/UMASS
Quincy Center
Braintree
South Weymouth
Abington
Whitman
Hanson
Halifax
Kingston / Route 3


Plymouth branch
South Station
JFK/UMASS
Quincy Center
Braintree
South Weymouth
Abington
Whitman
Hanson
Halifax
Plymouth

Middleborough/Lakeville Line
South Station
JFK/UMASS
Quincy Center
Braintree
Holbrook/Randolph
Montello
Brockton
Campello
Bridgewater
Middleborough/Lakeville

North - South Tunnel

Trunk line
Plaistow
Haverhill
Bradford
Lawrence
Andover
Ballardville
North Wilmington
Reading
Wakefield
Greenwood
Melrose Highlands
Melrose / Cedar Park
Wyoming Hill
Malden Center
North Station
Central Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Sharon
Mansfield
Attleboro
South Attleboro
Pawtucket
Providence
TF Green
Wickford JCT
Kingston

North Station

Rockport Line
North Station
Chelsea
River Works
Lynn
Swampscott
Salem
Beverly Depot
Montserrat
Prides Crossing
Beverly Farms
Manchester
West Gloucester
Gloucester
Rockport

Portsmouth / Newburyport line
North Station
Chelsea
River Works
Lynn
Swampscott
Salem
Beverly Depot
North Beverly
Hamilton/Wenham
Ipswich
Rowley
Newburyport
Salisbury
Hampton
Portsmouth


Haverhill Line
North Station
Malden Center
Wyoming Hill
Melrose/Cedar Park
Melrose Highlands
Greenwood
Wakefield
Reading
North Wilmington
Ballardvale
Andover
Lawrence
Bradford
Haverhill
Plaistow

Concord / Lowell line
North Station
West Medford
Wedgemere
Winchester Center
Mishawum
Anterson RTC
Wilmington
North Billerica
Lowell
North Chelmsford
Tyngsborough
Nashua
Merrimack
Manchester Airport
Manchester
Southern New Hampshire University
Hooksett
Concord


Greenfield / Fitchburg line
North Station
Porter SQ
Belmont
Waverly
Waltham
Brandeis/Roberts
Kendal Green
Hastings
Silver Hill
Lincoln
Concord
West Concord
South Acton
Littleton/Route 495
Ayer
Shirley
North Leominster
Fitchburg
Wachusetts
Gardner
Athol
Orange
Greenfield

Planned / Proposed lines

New Bedford line
South Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Canton Center
Sloughton
North Easton
Easton
Raynham Park
Taunton
East Taunton
Kings Highway
Whales Tooth / Downtown New Bedford

Newport / Fall River line
South Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Canton Center
Sloughton
North Easton
Easton
Raynham Park
Taunton
East Taunton
Freetown
Fall River Depot
Battleship Cove
Tiverton
Middletown
United States Naval War College
Newport Waterfront

Woonsocket / Quonset line
Woonsocket
Manville
Route 295 Park / Ride
Cumberland
Valley Falls
Pawtucket
Smithfield Ave
Providence
Olneyville
Reservoir
Park Ave
Jefferson Boulevard
TF Green Airport
Apponaug
East Greenwich
Frenchtown Plaza
Quonset Gateway
Quonset Point

[Commuting Boston Student]

It breaks my heart to say this. Really, it does. I wish this was not true.

The worst NIMBYs in Boston and surrounding areas look downright reasonable, tolerable and friendly compared to the Quonset/North Kingston Crowd.

It would make me so, so happy to be proven wrong, but the chances of you getting rail into Quonset are roughly 0%.

Other than that, I like it.

But why not extend into Westerly?

[Nexis4jersey]

Theres room for a turnaround looping track in Kingston , not so with Westerly. As for Quonset line , its possible. Throw in a Ferryport and redevelopment plan , and it becomes a reality.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Theres room for a turnaround looping track in Kingston , not so with Westerly. As for Quonset line , its possible. Throw in a Ferryport and redevelopment plan , and it becomes a reality.

Westerly's getting one. Middle passing track for Amtrak on the current eastbound track, relocated eastbound platform on a new eastbound track. Ages ago the tracks used to be in that same configuration. There's a grant app in for it to raise the platforms and do the tri-track, much like Amtrak's currently doing with Kingston. It's the next station up, since they're settling up the RI pair of non-ADA stations with due haste.

Westerly's got an unsused layover yard next to it from when Conrail ran commuter rail service there until 1979, so RIDOT has its spot to turn commuter rail trains. CT has it on its official State Rail Plan that once RIDOT South County service reaches Westerly they plan to extend Shore Line East there 2 stops from New London to meet it on the same platform.


Check the RIDOT website and the in-state CR service proposals...their Woonsocket route is pretty close to what you're proposing, except with only 2 intermediate stops between Woonsocket and Pawtucket and it doesn't deviate off the NEC main or P&W main. They envision some sort of overlapping thing where T service ends at T.F. Green or Wickford, Woonsocket service ends at Kingston, and Westerly service terminates north at Providence or Pawtucket. Meaning Providence Metro gets full saturation with 3 overlapping lines and the service patterns thin out to 2, then 1 line the further outside you go. But they have it easy...NEC + P&W are the only 2 mainlines in the entire state, they reach four-fifths of the state's population within 5 miles of a station, and every potential station is lined up in a contiguous string from state line at Woonsocket to state line at Westerly so they don't have to think in terms of branches with in-state service...only linear overlaps with their service patterns. Newport's the only outlier because it's Massachusetts-tethered, Providence-isolated, and wholly dependent on South Coast Rail and the T. Although I bet RIDOT could make a travel-time competitive run out of Providence if they expressed to Fall River around the horn via Attleboro and Taunton without stopping, then handled all local stops from FR south to downtown Newport.


They're pretty far ahead of the game on their studies and at breaking their build-outs into manageable chunks not reliant on some all-at-once megaproject windfall. They ID'd all the highest-upside service patterns way back in a big statewide multimodal survey in 1994 and have given each a lot of subsequent scrutiny.

[Nexis4jersey]

Proposed Rhode Island Transit

Urban Rhode / South Coast Light Rail

Pawtucket-Central Falls Station
Downtown Pawtucket - Main Street
George & Pawtucket
Sayles & Pawtucket
N-Main & Pawtucket
Smithfield Ave / N-Main St - Miriam Hospital
Branch Ave & N-Main St
Olney & N-Main St
Providence Station
Benefit Street - RISD
Thayer Street - Brown University
Wayland SQ
East Providence - Taunton Ave
Bradley Hospital
Riverside
Bullock Cove
Barrington
Warren
Ocean Grove
Battleship Cove Transportation Center
Main Street & Spring Street - Fall River
Rodman & Plymouth Ave - Fall River
Route 24 Park & Ride - Fall River

[Commuting Boston Student]

And, after spending way too much time putting it off (to be fair, in favor of much more important things...)

Here's the Red Line (http://g.co/maps/j3fc5).

Next, I'll get around to turning the Silver Line into the light rail it was supposed to be, I might reassess the Turquoise Line I made earlier (any suggestions on how I can clean that mess up would be appreciated, or some reassurance that it isn't as bad as I think it is...) and then I might sit down and try and figure out how to make a proper map like the ones van has up on thefutureMBTA.

[whighlander]

And, after spending way too much time putting it off (to be fair, in favor of much more important things...)

Here's the Red Line (http://g.co/maps/j3fc5).

Next, I'll get around to turning the Silver Line into the light rail it was supposed to be, I might reassess the Turquoise Line I made earlier (any suggestions on how I can clean that mess up would be appreciated, or some reassurance that it isn't as bad as I think it is...) and then I might sit down and try and figure out how to make a proper map like the ones van has up on thefutureMBTA.

Commute -- I suggest that you go back to the drawing board your customer base doesn't exist where you've put the stations

1) No one lives in Lincoln and no-one ever will thanks to their zoning
2) You miss most of Lexington where people live and work
3) you don't do much for Rt-128 commuters. Rt-2/ Hayden Ave and Hartwell Ave / Hanscom -- these are all major employment clusters
4) Nothing to enhance the connectivity of the SPID or South Boston
5) Nothing to improve the connectivity in the vicinity of Globe, former Bayside, UMass Boston
60 Nothing for the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station mega development

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute -- I suggest that you go back to the drawing board your customer base doesn't exist where you've put the stations

1) No one lives in Lincoln and no-one ever will thanks to their zoning
2) You miss most of Lexington where people live and work
3) you don't do much for Rt-128 commuters. Rt-2/ Hayden Ave and Hartwell Ave / Hanscom -- these are all major employment clusters
4) Nothing to enhance the connectivity of the SPID or South Boston
5) Nothing to improve the connectivity in the vicinity of Globe, former Bayside, UMass Boston
60 Nothing for the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station mega development

1) I was kind of hoping that maybe by forcing through Rapid Transit down that way, some development might follow. Vain hope?
2&3) What about a West End/128 Rapid Transit Line, Dedham - Oak Hill - Newton - Auburndale - Waltham - Lexington - Woburn? That gets Rapid Transit into Lexington and gets people around the ends of the system without having to go into downtown, which solves a problem (I think.)
4) Refresh my memory, SPID?
5) That's going to be part of the Silver Line.
6) I'm not sure how to get South Weymouth onto the Red Line without creating another branch or losing the connection to Derby Street?

[BostonUrbEx]

1) I was kind of hoping that maybe by forcing through Rapid Transit down that way, some development might follow. Vain hope?

Why? At most you should be trying to stop at a 10 mile radius, or closer, to downtown Boston.

[omaja]

http://i.imgur.com/Cbi8y.gif

An example of the type of diagram I'd like to see on doors of MBTA trains showing the stations and connections on each line.

This Line 4 is the current B branch of the Green Line (with a few trimmings on the street-running portion) plus an extension toward Belmont. The other branches of the Green Line have been redesignated: the C becomes Line 5 (hunter green), the D becomes Line 2 (blue) --an extension of the current Blue Line, and the E becomes Line 7 (brown) -- realigned under Stuart Street.

The "C" logo refers to available connections to the revamped regional express/commuter rail system.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why? At most you should be trying to stop at a 10 mile radius, or closer, to downtown Boston.

I suppose I should try and dial it back a little.

Is "everything inside of 128" still too excessive?

http://i.imgur.com/Cbi8y.gif

An example of the type of diagram I'd like to see on doors of MBTA trains showing the stations and connections on each line.

This Line 4 is the current B branch of the Green Line (with a few trimmings on the street-running portion) plus an extension toward Belmont. The other branches of the Green Line have been redesignated: the C becomes Line 5 (hunter green), the D becomes Line 2 (blue) --an extension of the current Blue Line, and the E becomes Line 7 (brown) -- realigned under Stuart Street.

The "C" logo refers to available connections to the revamped regional express/commuter rail system.

Okay, so 1 is the Red Line and 3 is the Orange Line and I can't figure out what 6 and 8~12 are supposed to be.

Looks good, though!

[BostonUrbEx]

I suppose I should try and dial it back a little.

Is "everything inside of 128" still too excessive?

Not IMO. I think 128 makes a nice growth boundary. Except in the northern regions, where going beyond downtown Peabody or downtown Beverly is entirely excessive.

Exceptions can be made for places like Needham, Reading, and maybe Anderson/Wouburn if you subscribe to Park & Rides (personally dislike them).


Not to stop on your ideas though, I mean, always good to stretch the imagination. But I think things need to be concentrated in the 128-belt. I suppose it's just my personal opinion, so you should do what you want, but I think most would agree. Some here would probably tell you to not even go that far.

[datadyne007]

http://i.imgur.com/Cbi8y.gif

An example of the type of diagram I'd like to see on doors of MBTA trains showing the stations and connections on each line.

This Line 4 is the current B branch of the Green Line (with a few trimmings on the street-running portion) plus an extension toward Belmont. The other branches of the Green Line have been redesignated: the C becomes Line 5 (hunter green), the D becomes Line 2 (blue) --an extension of the current Blue Line, and the E becomes Line 7 (brown) -- realigned under Stuart Street.

The "C" logo refers to available connections to the revamped regional express/commuter rail system.
That diagram is horrendously confusing. The T is a simple system with a handful of colors as line designation. Forget what the tourists say, it is one of the easiest systems to use in the world. Numbers really complicate the issue. The system is not big enough to warrant a numbering system like Berlin's U/S-Bahn. The U-Bahn trains actually have flattened diagrams like that one; (U1-U2-U3-U4) and (U5-U8-U9) are some examples of clusters they use to show some key connections. It is harder to understand connections that are listed below and not diagrammatically shown (like Alexanderplatz appearing on the U2 diagram and then having "U5, U8" listed in small print below and not showing graphical crossings). Major transfer stations (like Alexanderplatz) can get easily overlooked. I don't even bother with the diagrams because they are so misleading. I just look at the full maps stuck to the ceiling.

[omaja]

Okay, so 1 is the Red Line and 3 is the Orange Line and I can't figure out what 6 and 8~12 are supposed to be.

Looks good, though!

http://i.imgur.com/jCRWY.gif

A little hard to describe so I thought I'd just show you what I have to far. :)

Line 6 would be a light rail line originating at Harvard, continuing through the West End/Downtown, traverse the old Washington Elevated corridor and continue along Warren Street/Blue Hill Avenue to Mattapan.

Line 8 would be a heavy rail line along the Pike corridor until the BU bridge where it curves toward MIT and Cambridgeport and finally runs along Route 99 all the way to Northgate.

Line 9 is the heavy rail 'Indigo Line' extended to the north via North Station and the planned Green Line extension corridor, all the way to Anderson/Woburn.

Line 10 is the Braintree branch of the Red Line combined with a new cross-town corridor along Mass Ave and a new line out to Brandeis via Watertown.

Line 11 is the old A branch of the Green Line extended via Cambridge/River/Prospect Streets through Cambridge, continuing through Charlestown and Chelsea/Revere via the current commuter rail corridor to Wonderland.

Line 12 is a circular heavy rail line encompassing the 'urban ring' idea all the way around Boston.

[czsz]

^ If Boston were in Germany or Japan, it would already have this network. If it were in China, it'd be coming soon.

[whighlander]

Not IMO. I think 128 makes a nice growth boundary. Except in the northern regions, where going beyond downtown Peabody or downtown Beverly is entirely excessive.

Exceptions can be made for places like Needham, Reading, and maybe Anderson/Wouburn if you subscribe to Park & Rides (personally dislike them).


Not to stop on your ideas though, I mean, always good to stretch the imagination. But I think things need to be concentrated in the 128-belt. I suppose it's just my personal opinion, so you should do what you want, but I think most would agree. Some here would probably tell you to not even go that far.

Urb, Commute, Omj -- You continue to try to force fit some sort of LR/HR topia (dis? or eu?) onto a nice diverse set of living. commuting options

Yes there are improvements which could and perhaps be made to the T -- I can list my 5 most useful as all can -- But the reality of towns with varying density and style of life is just that reality. People move to Belmont because it is different than Lexington and more different than Watertown and Arlington and worlds away from Cambridge and downtown Boston and downtown Waltham. All of those towns and the cities all feature something which attracts residents. None of them will make dramatic changes -- rather the timetable is measured in housing generations (about 7 years). That said over long periods of time (several decades) the small accumulation of changes (akin to mutations in the genome) may lead to dramatic restructuring.

If you think of the Population of Greater Boston as concentric rings and nominally radial spokes with some anomalies thrown-in from time to time you will do much better in designing your system.

So start with a core with the density of houses and residents to support Heavy Rail with stations about 0.5 mi apart:
Boston neighborhoods of Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Charlestown, North End, Southy, Eastie, South End, Roxburry, Dorchester, Jamaica Plane, Chelsea
close-in but outside of Boston:
East Cambridge, Central Cambridge; Sommerville, Brookline along the Green Line
a bit further out you have mini cores with lower density surroundings -- only the minicores of:
Medford between the square and Sommerville and the Mystic River; Downtown Quincy; Downtown Lynn; Downtown Waltham; Arlington along Mass Ave; some of Newton; Malden neat to the Center;
out at Tr-128 there are some minicores with the necessary density:
Salem; downtown Peabody; Woburn along Rt-28
still further out but within/on I-495 you have:
downtown Haverhill; downtown Brockton; downtown Framingham; Lowell;

Assumption is that these stations are all stand-alone or may be transfer points from LR or CR or even buses but do not feature parking or much kiss&ride

Now connecting these mini-cores are often bands of density which are lower density or too-narrow to support HR-- but which could support Light Rail with stops 0.5 to 1 mi separation

Fanning out from the mini-cores are much lower density suburban belts and bands which can support commuter rail with sufficient parking - the stations would be 3 to 5 miles apart

In addition to these stations where travelers originate are the primarily destination stations -- e.g. work; entertainment; recreation

The key to all of it is high-enough frequency of service so that people don't have to waste huge amounts of time waiting for a train. This translates into shorter trains where the density is lower -- all of course are electric traction so that they are traveling at close to maximum speed or stopped -- no long starts / stops

[BussesAin'tTrains]

And, after spending way too much time putting it off (to be fair, in favor of much more important things...)

Here's the Red Line (http://g.co/maps/j3fc5).

Next, I'll get around to turning the Silver Line into the light rail it was supposed to be, I might reassess the Turquoise Line I made earlier (any suggestions on how I can clean that mess up would be appreciated, or some reassurance that it isn't as bad as I think it is...) and then I might sit down and try and figure out how to make a proper map like the ones van has up on thefutureMBTA.

The town of Lincoln isn't begging for more transit at all. It's a sleepy smaller-half of a regionalized school district with very little development and they like it that way. The Commuter Rail stop serves the community just fine.

Seems to me that if you want to extend the Red Line to the north, the Minuteman Bike Path RoW is the best route for reaching the most riders. Lexington had wanted the extension in the '80s but it was nixed by Arlington's anti-urban schizophrenia. I'm betting that the Arlington Heights attitude would now prevail in Lexington as well, and such an extension would be dead in the water, however much the towns would actually benefit from it.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Seems to me that if you want to extend the Red Line to the north, the Minuteman Bike Path RoW is the best route for reaching the most riders. Lexington had wanted the extension in the '80s but it was nixed by Arlington's anti-urban schizophrenia. I'm betting that the Arlington Heights attitude would now prevail in Lexington as well, and such an extension would be dead in the water, however much the towns would actually benefit from it.

Yeah...that's the only real option with the intermediate stops that would provide adequate ridership heft. There's also the option to take it from the would-be Hanscom/128 stop over cleared-out power line land to Burlington Mall, which is now developed to the hilt where it wasn't 35 years ago when this extension was planned. That area has zero transit options save for some excruciating long-distance buses.

Route 2 median busting the highway down to 6 vs. 8 lanes hits population no-man's land on the Arlington/Belmont border. The MPO poked around that one, and while it would be pretty to plunk on top of pre-existing grade separation while not compromising the highway it's a born loser on ridership.

Fitchburg Line is arguably the higher population center and used to be a 4-track line out to Beaver St. in Waltham. That was never considered as an alignment, but it's a semi-attractive one because the commuter rail could stay as an express from Porter, switch over at Beaver onto the abandoned Central Mass ROW through north Waltham to give the 2-track Fitchburg ROW through Waltham Ctr. and Brandeis over to the Red Line, then meet back on-alignment at a 128 Red/CR superstation where the Fitchburg and Central Mass cross again. More grade crossings to eliminate than the Lexington route, but Waltham would crave that because it's such a heavy bus terminal. However, the Belmont NIMBY's would've seceded from the MBTA district altogether rather than allow "cityfolk" to enter their town. Those folks were so anti-transit that the Fitchburg Line skipped Belmont Ctr. and Waverly entirely for the T's first 10 years of existence out of the town's refusal to provide subsidy for those stops. They are so immovable to this day (even proposed abandoning the TT wires on the 73 last year before Watertown and Cambridge told them to go to hell) that this was the main reason no one ever seriously considered that route in the early 70's when the Central Mass was still active and available. The money in that town to defeat ANY rapid transit was far greater than Arlington's heft.


Sadly, RL is so far off from ever happening it's like a >2050 deal off anyone's radar to ever revive that plan. I do think 128 could have better options if they built the badly-needed 128 stop at Exit 26, "Indigo Line'd" the inner Fitchburg with DMU's, restored the old Beaver Brook stop in Waltham, and added a stop at Alewife. Significant bus transfers at every stop, including the 73 at Waverly and humongous number of routes at Waltham, and the all-critical 128 park-and-ride. With high frequencies. Other option to shore it up is to simply beef up Lowell Line service to Anderson/Woburn by rehabbing the ridiculously slow track to real 80 MPH speed, then adding a badly-needed Woburn infill stop at Montvale Ave. in walking distance of downtown (and get rid of Mishawum, which is near-useless). Increase the Lowell schedule substantially (this should be #3 in headways among standard CR lines after Providence and Worcester), divvy up half the Haverhill schedule as Anderson expresses--short-turning more at Reading to offset--to flush it nice and full, and get some real circumferential bus routes out of Anderson especially to Burlington Mall.

On a Legislative-reformed T with a viable path out of its debt service, both those minor finessing of the CR lines are very realistic 2020 projections. They have not gotten the knack of route-priming future rapid-transit corridors by maxing out existing commuter rail infrastructure with denser service. They should be studying "Indigo Lines" on all the key inner-suburb CR routes: Worcester Line to Riverside w/Allston and Newton Corner infills, Reading Line with a 128 infill at Lake Quannapowitt, Eastern Route to Salem/Peabody, Needham with an actual 128 stop at a relocated Hersey and/or a Highland Ave. terminus, and the afforementioned Lowell Line Anderson expresses + Woburn infill that can pretty much accomplish the DMU/Indigo-like headways on a regular CR schedule if doubled-up with Haverhill trains.

All of those except Fitchburg and Worcester (which doesn't have the room) are on MPO-rated rapid-transit expansion corridors. They've proven they can't make the giant leap from sparse CR service to full-blast rapid-transit in one leap through these towns. It needs to evolve with them getting acclimated to the cut-rate halfway solution on existing infrastructure before the support crests for going whole-hog with it. Sadly, the T was in all-or-nothing mode with Red Line to Lexington and wouldn't give them their commuter rail line back when the plan fell through. The support would've crested if the Lexington Line came back for the 1980's after a hiatus and ridership grew with the towns. Instead it sat abandoned for 10 years until the Minuteman came about on grounds that they had to do something to not waste the ROW.

[whighlander]

The town of Lincoln isn't begging for more transit at all. It's a sleepy smaller-half of a regionalized school district with very little development and they like it that way. The Commuter Rail stop serves the community just fine.

Seems to me that if you want to extend the Red Line to the north, the Minuteman Bike Path RoW is the best route for reaching the most riders. Lexington had wanted the extension in the '80s but it was nixed by Arlington's anti-urban schizophrenia. I'm betting that the Arlington Heights attitude would now prevail in Lexington as well, and such an extension would be dead in the water, however much the towns would actually benefit from it.

Buss & F-Line -- If you don't build the Uber Alewife at Rt-128 @ the Lexington dump on Hartwell --don't bother at all

It hardly matters whether you go up Rt-2 -- obviously easier with the ROW or under the Minuteman Bikeway. Those routings will determine the number of stops and where -- in a certain way I'd like to see both routings -- as today I have choices of five buses within a 10 minute walk of my house 2 to Harvard and 3 to Alewife

Anyway -- the to make the lower density work is that Lexington, Waltham and Arlington operate small local buses which could connect neighborhoods outside of walking distance to the new Red Line stations

But however you get there the Red Line should end in the mother of all stations at Hartwell with its own exits ramps to Rt-128. Hartwell and Hanscom (whether today's AFB & Civil general aviation airport or the perhaps future R&d center provided with limited commercial service) provides a perfect Transit Oriented Destination + you have all the folks commuting by car to the Hartwell / Hanscom complex

When (if) the Hanscom/Hartwell center is built (3,000 car garage, buses, mini-buses, perhaps mono-rail or LRV/trolleys, bikes, kiss&ride, shops) the surrounding lower-scale development will be redeveloped into a Cambridge Center / Kendall level of density supporting 15 to 10 M sq ft of R&D with Lincoln Lab as its centerpiece. As you look at the demographics dynamics in the census data -- two of the 5 "brightest" Zip-Codes are Kendall and Lexington

In the next 20 years this is a must-do or at least a must-start -- for the continued economic success of the region -- supplying a 15 minute ride from Hanscom to Kendall is much more important than nearly all of the other proposed T enhancements

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^^ I agree about needing a facility on 128. Would a 15 minute travel time to Kendall be at all feasible though? Short of building express track from Alewife to Kendall it takes 15-18 minutes to get to Kendall from Alewife as it is.

[F-Line to Dudley]

^^ I agree about needing a facility on 128. Would a 15 minute travel time to Kendall be at all feasible though? Short of building express track from Alewife to Kendall it takes 15-18 minutes to get to Kendall from Alewife as it is.

It used to be before the retarded ATO system they installed in the late-80's screwed with the headways. Trains used to do 60 MPH on the long run between Central and Kendall and could bunch much closer than the signal blocks currently allow (i.e. not nearly as many dead stops over the Longfellow because of a train way ahead at Park St.). Now they're limited at 49 MPH in the absolute fastest stretches and 39 or 29 in most places. The signal blocks are absurdly spaced on the Boston end of the bridge and that makes things routinely crawl at peak load from Kendall to Broadway before it picks up again. The sign they hung at old Harvard station said "10 minutes to Downtown" (Park), and for much of the line's history that was accurate.

CBTC signaling would lick that problem right away. Bi-directional digital signals instead of the analog 1-bit 'ping' of the ATO means dispatcher can see the trains and their spacing in real-time instead of when they cross a signal block, and the trains can see other trains. Computers auto-adjust the spacing and speed on moving blocks, so if there's somebody unloading at Park it'll time the trip at 20 MPH instead of enforcing a dead-stop for 4 minutes on the middle of the bridge and not allowing a proceed until the leading train is ready to leave Downtown Crossing or something ridiculous like that. 2 minute headways are achievable that way, and that means those things can scream through the straightaways at max car speed for the first time since 1988.

IF well-designed and implemented that would solve all of the Red Line's capacity problems, not only rolling it back to what it was during the Reagan Administration but likely making it more nimble than that. All 4 lines could handle much more capacity and further-flung extensions with smarter signaling. We don't have the kind of signal block layouts to facilitate moving trains spanning a whole metropolitan area end-to-end on the same run like a Washington Metro. It's very rinky-dink, one end of a compact downtown to another. Even the Red and Orange ATO systems, which are technologically solid and ubiquitous in much higher capacity situations worldwide, are just not laid out with very much foresight on block spacing vs. peak loads and dwell times.


Massive room for improvement on all existing lines. CBTC everywhere is the best billion they can spend for ROI on what it would do to all existing service and how much it lifts the lines' ceiling for future service. This is why the MTA is long-term investing in it on the NYC Subway over the next 15 years in the face of a truly terrifying price tag to modernize all those lines and hundreds of track miles one by one.

[whighlander]

It used to be before the retarded ATO system they installed in the late-80's screwed with the headways. Trains used to do 60 MPH on the long run between Central and Kendall and could bunch much closer than the signal blocks currently allow (i.e. not nearly as many dead stops over the Longfellow because of a train way ahead at Park St.).

....The sign they hung at old Harvard station said "10 minutes to Downtown" (Park), and for much of the line's history that was accurate......

IF well-designed and implemented that would solve all of the Red Line's capacity problems, not only rolling it back to what it was during the Reagan Administration but likely making it more nimble than that. All 4 lines could handle much more capacity and further-flung extensions with smarter signaling.
Massive room for improvement on all existing lines.

F-line -- I believe the sign said: "Rapid Transit 8 Minutes to Park Street" -- it was the same at Lechemere

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^^ F-Line, are there forces within the MBTA that are working against CBTC for reasons other than the price tag, or is it purely a financing issue?

[HenryAlan]

F-line -- I believe the sign said: "Rapid Transit 8 Minutes to Park Street" -- it was the same at Lechemere
And Kenmore had a sign that said "12 minutes to Park St." if only!

[JohnAKeith]

And one at Lechmere, no?

[F-Line to Dudley]

^^ F-Line, are there forces within the MBTA that are working against CBTC for reasons other than the price tag, or is it purely a financing issue?

Nobody's working against it. They've got line items for studies on Green and Blue for FY2016 that they're actively looking to fund. On Green they're very aware of the urgency with the extensions making existing schedules that much tougher to keep, and also the safety angle. If they have another serious/fatal rear-end wreck due to operator error the NTSB may mandate an auto-stop traffic control system as Strike Three against them for the succession of accidents beginning with the D line and GC wrecks. So they know they better be prepared, lest that several hundred mil expense have to be an unplanned one. On Blue it's simply an operations issue. Those old mechanical trip-arm stops are maintenance intensive out in the open air where each one has to be heated by a pair of heaters. Do away with that in one shot of capital improvements and it lowers the day-to-day maintenance bill for generations.

This isn't easy to do, so the studies are required. They can't make the same mistakes they did with Red Line ATO 25 years ago and blindly lay the signal blocks. They have to traffic-model the lines intensively, project ahead where the growth is going to be over the 25-year maintenance half-life of the system (including wiggle room for unplanned developments and unapproved extensions). Then figure out an implementation for how to roll it out and transition off the old signals. Then figure out how many additional cars they'd need to purchase in the next round of car orders to fill in the headway gains in these traffic-modeled projections.

And that's just to determine price and schedule. They need to be swimming in data and numbers to do that. NYC is taking it slow and cautious. They started CBTC on only one stub shuttle line that had few trains running thru...studied its performance...then rolled it out on a second shuttle line. Further rollouts get a little braver with each new place they install it, but they aren't doing the Lexington Ave. line, the U.S.'s busiest subway line, first because if it has bugs to work out the vengeance from commuters is going to be immediate. The T thankfully has a few years of actionable data from NYC's setup on very similar lines, but there's a reason why relatively light-duty Blue is going before Red. It's not going to fuck up a Blue commute to have teething problems like it would elsewhere. Likewise, on Green it's almost certainly going to be the D or Medford first and not anywhere in the subway where branch schedules are intermixing.

I think they're being entirely appropriate in how they're proceeding, and are behind it. Like with anything, though, even the FY2016 to-do list is a crapshoot without hard structural reform at the Legislative level. So their ability to fund a $2M limited study is up in the air. But it's not like structural reform can get punted forever. CBTC falls more in the deferred maintenance category than the service enhancement. Blue's mechanical system is going to need replacement within the next decade...Green's signal wiring on the D is already past rated life and needs total replacement (safety!...don't get handed Strike Three by the NTSB!). If they're going to be replaced at all, it's going to be by a fiber-fed digital system like CBTC and not more 19th century waysides or mechanical trips. It's not as if this is a choice like doing extending the BL to Lynn is a choice or funding weekend service on the E is a choice. We ain't gonna have a functioning subway system if the signals go too far gone, nor will federal safety regulations let them operate one in that advanced a state of decay.

They know this for the same reason they know they couldn't operate the Red Line much longer without fixing the floating slabs on the Alewife extension. You come up with the money for that life-and-limb stuff hell or high water. 10 years...signals on a couple of these lines are going to be in life-or-limb deterioration. So these studies are a couple of the FY2016 items that they're taking seriously, even if they're negotiable on timing by a year or two. I don't think they're going to skirt it because they know full well what a hole that starts digging them if they delay it until panic time.

[Commuting Boston Student]

As long as we're talking CBTC, another proposal I'd like to see is picking ONE of the three heavy rail lines we have right now, taking that rolling stock, and converting the other two lines to use it instead.

At the very least, new trains going forward should be able to run on all the lines, and if not, we should have at most two incompatible systems - Heavy Rail and Light Rail. Not four (and most likely five or six if by some miracle BRT gets killed in my lifetime for proper light rail on the Silver Line/Urban Ring.)

Platform Edge Doors would be nice in new stations/renovated stations going forward, as well.

[cozzyd]

But how are you going to paint the cars different colors so quickly?!?

[Commuting Boston Student]

But how are you going to paint the cars different colors so quickly?!?

Four words:

High Pressure Paint Sprayer.

[HenryAlan]

Red Line cars wouldn't work in the Washington St. tunnel or East Boston tunnel. Orange Line cars likewise wouldn't work in the East Boston tunnel (due to length). In theory, Blue Line cars could operate everywhere, including throughout the Green Line system.

As for quick paint jobs, why bother? Other cities with interchangeable rolling stock do not color the cars at all. We could paint them all to look like BERY era Main Line cars, then use LED lighting strips to indicate a color.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Red Line cars wouldn't work in the Washington St. tunnel or East Boston tunnel. Orange Line cars likewise wouldn't work in the East Boston tunnel (due to length). In theory, Blue Line cars could operate everywhere, including throughout the Green Line system.

As for quick paint jobs, why bother? Other cities with interchangeable rolling stock do not color the cars at all. We could paint them all to look like BERY era Main Line cars, then use LED lighting strips to indicate a color.

(I thought the paint question was a facetious one, and responded accordingly.)

[omaja]

Wasting the time and money to maintain different paint schemes (let alone four different rolling stocks) never made sense to me. The platform signage and maps are all that they need to reassure people which line they are on. Introducing line numbers would also help tremendously in that regard.

[Charlie_mta]

In theory, Blue Line cars could operate everywhere, including throughout the Green Line system.

The Blue Line cars would fit in all the tunnels, but there would be quite a vertical and horizontal gap between the station platforms and the car doors.

[whighlander]

Wasting the time and money to maintain different paint schemes (let alone four different rolling stocks) never made sense to me. The platform signage and maps are all that they need to reassure people which line they are on. Introducing line numbers would also help tremendously in that regard.

omaja -- evidently you haven't been in a modern multi-level parking garage -- people like numbers and letters a lot less than colors, names of famous patriots, animals, etc.

That's why when the T was created from the various and sundry pieces -- the Cambridge 7 Assocites Architects created a logo T with the circle around it, the colors of the lines and the spiffy graphics on the wall of the superficially redone stations

As things have evolved in the nearly 50 years of the MBTA the unifying themes have been the T and the colors of the lines -- station styles, equipment styles have all changed -- but not the colors and the T logo

[whighlander]

The Blue Line cars would fit in all the tunnels, but there would be quite a vertical and horizontal gap between the station platforms and the car doors.

But it would also be stupid -- the Blue Line is just a heavy rail version of a trolley -- the cars are the smallest in all dimensions and have the least capacity

In the future all work on the stations and tunnels for the heavy rail should be designed to accommodate the Red Line, the most capable cars in the system

[Equilibria]

In the future all work on the stations and tunnels for the heavy rail should be designed to accommodate the Red Line, the most capable cars in the system

They should be designed to accommodate the next generation of T rolling stock, not anything they have now. In that vein, here's how BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) plans to address the color problem without painting the trains (which looks hokey in Boston, IMO). If they can keep those light bars working properly, this looks pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjKwU8bwmo

By the way, people get adapted to anything their local agency has been doing for a long time. When Chicago switched to colored lines from simply naming them by terminus ("Evanston Line", "Ravenswood Line", etc.) people found it uncomfortable. Most long-time residents still use the old naming scheme.

Frankly, the T should switch the Green Line from the dumb letter code convention they use now to either the street it runs down or the place it ends. It's crazy that the "B" train runs down Comm Ave. (begins with a C) while the "C" train runs down Beacon (a B), though their terminus stations (Boston College and Cleveland Circle) begin with the correct letters. "This is a Beacon St. train" takes just at much time to say as "This is a C-Line Train," and it contains much more information.

[Shepard]

That wouldn't really work for the D line, though, would it.

[Equilibria]

That wouldn't really work for the D line, though, would it.

Call it the "Riverside Line" or go back to its original name of "Highland Branch". Really, just about anything is more geographically descriptive than "D Line".

In any case, we are on the "Crazy Transit Pitches" thread and most of the proposals here have that line reassigned from the Green Line to heavy rail anyhow.

[Semass]

Maybe they should name the lines after local animals, as in:
"If this Turtle Line doesn't hurry the hell up I'll never catch the Crabs at Northeastern"

[AmericanFolkLegend]

There's a delay on the sloth line again.

[whighlander]

There's a delay on the sloth line again.

I'm kinda partial to change from the "Numbat' to the "Long-nosed Bandicoot" at Downtown Crossing though if you really insist by walking through the underground passage you can go directly from the Numbat to the " Brush Tailed Phascogale " without having to go one stop on the Bandicoot

[CSTH]

In my experience, its much easier to catch the crabs at BU

[whighlander]

In my experience, its much easier to catch the crabs at BU

Especially if you start the afternoon-off by laying in the sun in your gym shorts with your head in the nether-regions of your significant other

Opps Sorry -- I think I just hijacked this thread over to the "New Balance and Brighton/Alston" -- I'm so embarrassed - I almost feel like the Jet Blue Captain whose crew locked him out of the "cockpit" -- or are we now in final approach to the "New Logan Flights" thread

[Shepard]

But it would also be stupid -- the Blue Line is just a heavy rail version of a trolley -- the cars are the smallest in all dimensions and have the least capacity

In the future all work on the stations and tunnels for the heavy rail should be designed to accommodate the Red Line, the most capable cars in the system

Actually, one place where you might want two lines on the same track is on the Longfellow. Blue Line would still need a separate Charles/MGH platform, but assuming it could then run over the Longfellow and onto, for example, the Grand Junction...

[HenryAlan]

The Blue Line cars would fit in all the tunnels, but there would be quite a vertical and horizontal gap between the station platforms and the car doors.

A one time capital expense fixes that.

[HenryAlan]

There's a delay on the sloth line again.

The sloth line by its very nature would be interminably slow. I'd hate to think what a delay might mean. Reverse traction?

[F-Line to Dudley]

Orange would be the easiest to convert to Red dimensions. The tunnel from Chinatown to Haymarket--4 close-packed stations--is the only remaining original installation. The 1975-built Haymarket-north tunnel is built to RL dimensions, and so is the 1967-built South Cove tunnel. All tunnels built post-1912, even on Green, are at RL dimensions except for a couple pinch points (Copley Jct. curve, the low-ceiling C/D portal) where they pinched pennies on a few tougher feet of tunneling. Surface stations are pretty much moot, since all you have to change are the platform juts. Install temporary ones to OL dimensions before making the switch, then yank them off that day of the changeover to reveal the RL dimension juts. It can switch literally overnight. The cars themselves have secondary shocks that raise or lower a few inches (Blue and Orange cars are designed with that fresh from the factory in case Blue cars ever need to get redeployed on Orange).

Now, what's the justification for shaving the walls back in the Washington St. tunnel to widen the clearances? I can't think of a single Red-Orange connection possibility that would make that worthwhile or serve a clear-cut need. That's why no one ever attempted it even dating back to the BERy days (where they did, of course convert Blue from trolleys and did have 50-year plans to convert all Green tunnels to Blue-sized rapid transit).

It's definitely too expensive to do for sole reason of equipment standardization's sake. The equipment already is standardized. Orange and Blue have 100% operationally and parts-identical cars for 30 years, fitted into different-size carbodies. The 01200's and now-retired 0600's can trainline with each other unmodified if Blue got the same cab signal units that were added to the 01200's after the El closed. They almost did send 24 of the 0600's to Orange in lieu of a new Orange order, opting to rehab all Orange cars and using the 24 rehabbed extras as an expansion fleet. It didn't work--the 0600 carbodies were too rusted out to rebuild--but had they proceeded you would be riding mixed consists today comprised of short + long cars running on much beefier headways. The 01200's also have the same pantograph mounts on the roofs. Had the Reading extension ever been done they would've had pantos installed later...slap one on, plug it in, and you're running under overhead.

If Siemens wins the next contract for the combo Orange+Red order, they will quite literally re-fire up the factory with the 0700 blueprints and pump out a few hundred of the same Blue Line guts underneath an Orange or Red carbody. And you could set up a demo consist on the Wellington test track for the ribbon-cutting ceremony with a Blue Line 0700, an Orange Line 01400, and a Red Line 01900 trainlining seamlessly with each other. Same guts, same parts, different tincan clothing. That's it. No reason to unify them if the service patterns are end-to-end instead of anywhere snaking to anywhere like the NYC subway. If they need more service patterns, that's what branching is for and that's what the whole light rail mode is for.

[MBTAddict]

They should be designed to accommodate the next generation of T rolling stock, not anything they have now. In that vein, here's how BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) plans to address the color problem without painting the trains (which looks hokey in Boston, IMO). If they can keep those light bars working properly, this looks pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjKwU8bwmo

.

I agree. The T needs to plan ahead when it comes to rolling stock and station design. Find whatever the next gen is going to be, and start to bring stations to a point where you can use them everywhere.

I like the light bars too, and I especially like the redesigned bars on the inside of the cars on Interior Concept C, so people can hand on easily in a lot of different spots.

[BostonUrbEx]

If/when two lines have a connection and equipment can operate interchangeably: A nice thin clear rubber stripe runs all the way down side, and the stripe is threaded with fiber optics where you can set the color of the stripe as fit.

[omaja]

omaja -- evidently you haven't been in a modern multi-level parking garage -- people like numbers and letters a lot less than colors, names of famous patriots, animals, etc.

That's why when the T was created from the various and sundry pieces -- the Cambridge 7 Assocites Architects created a logo T with the circle around it, the colors of the lines and the spiffy graphics on the wall of the superficially redone stations

As things have evolved in the nearly 50 years of the MBTA the unifying themes have been the T and the colors of the lines -- station styles, equipment styles have all changed -- but not the colors and the T logo

I'm talking adding line number to the colors like the vast majority of other metro systems, not removing the colors.

On that note, why is it even necessary to have the line color on the train at all? If you're on the platform or finding your way to the platform, you know what line you're on anyway.

[whighlander]

I'm talking adding line number to the colors like the vast majority of other metro systems, not removing the colors.

On that note, why is it even necessary to have the line color on the train at all? If you're on the platform or finding your way to the platform, you know what line you're on anyway.

It could help in North Station for the tourist or infrequent user where both Orange and Green are directly adjacent on the opposite sides of the same platform

But clearly the solution is modern technology:
LEDs and Optical Fiber or perhaps OLED panels on the train cars
Then you switch on the correct color as the train approaches the station -- then in the tunnel -- it vanishes (or at least the distinctive color)

[omaja]

Seems like a waste of money all things considered; simple signs will more than suffice.

Here's Principe Pio station in Madrid where Lines 6 and 10 meet and share platforms. No mistaking which is which despite the fact that trains do not have different color schemes.

http://i.imgur.com/PeA6U.jpg

[Equilibria]

Seems like a waste of money all things considered; simple signs will more than suffice.

Here's Principe Pio station in Madrid where Lines 6 and 10 meet and share platforms. No mistaking which is which despite the fact that trains do not have different color schemes.

But whatever do they do about the illiterate riders?

(That's not entirely a joke, as the Mexico City Metro uses pictograms for their stations for that reason, among others).

[omaja]

That's why the combination of colors and numbers for route designations (which Mexico City uses as well) works so well - it allows people to remember the line based on whichever they commit to memory easier.

[whighlander]

But whatever do they do about the illiterate riders?

(That's not entirely a joke, as the Mexico City Metro uses pictograms for their stations for that reason, among others).

If we're not using colors -- let's use Australian Marsupials -- there are enough of them and they're all quite unforgettable

Ted

[Commuting Boston Student]

If we're not using colors -- let's use Australian Marsupials -- there are enough of them and they're all quite unforgettable

Ted

Nah, gotta be Red Sox players.

I was trying to take the Cronin to the Airport, but there wasn't any connection between the Cronin and the Pesky so I had to jump onto the Williams at Park Street!

[cozzyd]

Green = Celtics
Red = Sox
Blue = Pats
Orange = Bruins

[Nexis4jersey]

I like the fact that Boston still colors its trains , not many cities do that...it adds a unique flavor to the system. The Tokyo Metro and Subway color code there trains...

[BostonUrbEx]

EVERYONE!

A ferry from New Bedford to Boston. Then cancel out South Coast Rail and tell Fall River to go screw themselves. Would it work?

It would be via Cape Cod Canal, of course.

[BostonUrbEx]

Ferry proposal: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=217656314107067401485.0004bc697d21bd3939ea 2&msa=0

Note this would have been what I'd have supported BEFORE the Greenbush Line was built. Now nothing productive can be done, since we've already wasted money and would just be wasting more now.

[vanshnookenraggen]

This was the alternative proposed by people opposed to the Greenbush line.

[Nexis4jersey]

Whats the Problem with the Greenbush line?

[datadyne007]

What if I want to travel on land to visit my parents? Why don't SC residents deserve land travel? Ferries have an extremely small userbase. The users have to not be afraid of boats and also not get seasick.

That is incredibly small-minded and selfish thinking, UrbEx. How would you like it if your only public transit access to the city from Saugus was via ferry?

[whighlander]

Green = Celtics
Red = Sox
Blue = Pats
Orange = Bruins

I like that -- that would make the Revs the Silver Line
and I suppose were talking the Marathon for CR

[whighlander]

Ferry proposal: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=217656314107067401485.0004bc697d21bd3939ea 2&msa=0

Note this would have been what I'd have supported BEFORE the Greenbush Line was built. Now nothing productive can be done, since we've already wasted money and would just be wasting more now.

Urb -- Ferries are by definition slow

No matter how fast you could run up/down the South Shore you are constrained to run slowly in/out of the both Boston and New Bedford Harbor and through the Cape Cod Canal

I'm guessing the travel time might be close to 4 hours each way -- even a Fung Wah Bus is better than that

[BostonUrbEx]

What if I want to travel on land to visit my parents? Why don't SC residents deserve land travel? Ferries have an extremely small userbase. The users have to not be afraid of boats and also not get seasick.

That is incredibly small-minded and selfish thinking, UrbEx. How would you like it if your only public transit access to the city from Saugus was via ferry?

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/d7/LOL_WUT_PEAR.jpg

If you want to travel by land then you could drive? Lakeville you are from, right? Greenbush Line doesn't go to Lakeville. You'd have to switch trains anyway. So, you transfer to the second train as you normally would, but you'd just be coming in from a different mode.

Who says they don't deserve land travel? They get bike paths and can keep their roads.

And trains require people who are not afraid of trains or easily claustrophobic or agoraphobia. I personally can't think of anyone that I know who I know gets seasick. Is it really a widespread problem?

I would personally love ferry service.



My rational here is that many of the people on the south shore did not want the trains to begin with. Half of the Greenbush Line stations are park & rides and completely miss downtown areas. The people said they liked the ferries and enjoyed them (hey, they serve alcohol, so whats not to enjoy on a boat with alcohol). Give them what they want. We spent roughly $600mil for a line with absolutely dismal ridership, and it is in competition with the ferries that were already there.

I'm perplexed as to how I'm being small minded and selfish. I wouldn't need to take this ever, and it sounds like this is what the residents wanted. So here it is.

[datadyne007]

Why should Fall River "go screw themselves?" That's a pretty harsh statement. I just don't understand why this residential area of SC Mass (Freetown, Fall River, New Bedford, etc) shouldn't be linked to Boston. Middleboro/Lakeville fills up quickly with the locals from Middleboro, Lakeville, and Taunton and is too far from these SC communities.

Edit: I'm not talking about Greenbush. I'm talking about your assault on SC Rail.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Urb -- Ferries are by definition slow

No matter how fast you could run up/down the South Shore you are constrained to run slowly in/out of the both Boston and New Bedford Harbor and through the Cape Cod Canal

I'm guessing the travel time might be close to 4 hours each way -- even a Fung Wah Bus is better than that

The T should not be in the business of running water transit at all, least of all the F1, F2, and F2H South Shore routes. Improve the 714 bus from Hull to Hingham Ctr. and/or alter its route to hit Nantasket Jct. or West Hingham on the Greenbush Line, increase frequencies on the 220 between Quincy Ctr./Red Line and Fore River + Hingham Shipyards, and extend the 220 the few extra blocks from Hingham Ctr. to the West Hingham Greenbush stop. That will be faster than anything on water, and the 220 then becomes a critical transfer link feeding Red Line or CR + the 714 to Hull. What does it cost to add a few rush bus trips clustered around the CR schedule providing rough approximation of the old ferry schedule? Few tens of grand? Or $0 if that's reassignment of staff and equipment from the largely superfluous truncations in the cuts plan.

Going to the Airport on the F2/F2H...use the @#$% Silver Line from SS. And have Massport put a stop on its Braintree Logan Express route at Quincy Center to connect to the 220. Or, if it means that much to these communities, add a Logan Express park-and-ride somewhere and some more limited pickup schedule on 3A in Hingham.

Hull would be the only place transit-penalized in any of these situations because the 714 runs seldom. Well...do your duty and make the 714 run a little more often. It's less of a transit loss than cutting back Greenbush AND ferry service. It brings in more revenue by focusing the commute on the commuter rail like it should be. And like the 220 any improvements on the 714 are divertable from the resources freed on the other bus cuts. Why didn't they attempt the revenue maxing and screamingly obvious cost savings here? Because those service cuts have zilch, zero, nada to do with cost control and everything to do with "I got mine" for the most influential political constituencies + absolving the T for another year for needing to confront its waste.


As for the others, if the F2 and F2H go there's no longer a need to run from Long Wharf to Logan because of the Blue Line. And Charlestown Navy Yard is closely paralleled by the 93 and 111 buses that travel up Route 1. Do some judicious looping timed around the old ferry schedule on those routes, or add a bus to that area of Charlestown. It's a transit-deprived neighborhood because the buses board Route 1 at the interchange with 99, so there are no local stops in the whole neighborhood around Chelsea St. With all the tourism and neighborhood density a new or reconfigured local route would haul in good revenue. More than the boat. And also at cost absorbed by the other far less crucial bus reductions.


Or better yet...take those two intra-Boston ferries private. Subcontract the New England Aquarium or somebody to do commuter runs. Coordinate ticketing so they can be bought on the T website and paid for off a Charlie. Then watch the NEA do backflips with all the revenue they gain--both commuter and tourist--by adding 2 more ferry terminal stops and high sales visibility through the T's ticketing system. They already loop around the Navy Yard on many of their trips to get a view of the USS Constitution, and pass by the Logan ferry terminal in plain view en route to the Harbor Islands. Gaining the ability to stop there is a big fricking deal for them, and they would provide very high-quality service.

Honestly, the money this mode chews up is pure waste and a pure pander to the spoiled brats in Hingham who demand--and always get--their cake and eat it too. They can lop that entire mode's cost off the state ledgers. I wouldn't even transfer ops to Massport. Massport can make more money off added Logan Express service. The T can make more money trading off for better bus frequency, adding a sorely-needed local to the dense and tourist-lucrative Charlestown/Chelsea St. area, and forcing the spoiled brats to actually use that ungodly expensive but very convenient commuter rail line they put the state through hell building. Total cost of all this...upper 5 figures for all? Absorbable by the bus cuts with MILLIONS in savings by zeroing out the redundant mode.


Reason #57 why the cuts in this new service plan are cynical, political agenda-loaded bullshit. If this wasn't on the table, then they were never trying in the first place.

[HenryAlan]

Why should Fall River "go screw themselves?" That's a pretty harsh statement. I just don't understand why this residential area of SC Mass (Freetown, Fall River, New Bedford, etc) shouldn't be linked to Boston. Middleboro/Lakeville fills up quickly with the locals from Middleboro, Lakeville, and Taunton and is too far from these SC communities.

Edit: I'm not talking about Greenbush. I'm talking about your assault on SC Rail.

The short answer is that they already are connected, by Rt. 24. It's not that I don't sympathize with what you are saying, but the amount of trips between SC and Boston is fairly low, a number that is better suited for bus transportation or private vehicle. Given the cost, well over $1 billion, to get rail to New Bedford and Fall River, it doesn't serve enough people to justify the level of investment. Far more could be achieved with the money if directed elsewhere. That's why BostonUrbEx is so angry about Greenbush. The amount of money spent was very high for what it achieves, particularly when there was already a valid transit option in place.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I would very much like to see a rail connection between Boston and South Coast. But first I want to see a greater density development pattern between the two areas, so that rail is serving a more congested corridor. I envision a circumstance in which few people travel between Fall River and Boston, but perhaps many travel as far as Taunton or Stoughton. For now, the population and geography do not justify the rail investment.

[F-Line to Dudley]

The short answer is that they already are connected, by Rt. 24. It's not that I don't sympathize with what you are saying, but the amount of trips between SC and Boston is fairly low, a number that is better suited for bus transportation or private vehicle. Given the cost, well over $1 billion, to get rail to New Bedford and Fall River, it doesn't serve enough people to justify the level of investment. Far more could be achieved with the money if directed elsewhere. That's why BostonUrbEx is so angry about Greenbush. The amount of money spent was very high for what it achieves, particularly when there was already a valid transit option in place.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I would very much like to see a rail connection between Boston and South Coast. But first I want to see a greater density development pattern between the two areas, so that rail is serving a more congested corridor. I envision a circumstance in which few people travel between Fall River and Boston, but perhaps many travel as far as Taunton or Stoughton. For now, the population and geography do not justify the rail investment.

It's a project that would need to be phased. Taunton...absolutely there's a transit need. 24 is hell north of 495, and 138/123 in Stoughton, Easton, and Raynham suck. The corridor is a sprawl-choked wasteland of big box stores that needs to get on the curve with sustainable planning before big box suburbia hits its permanent--accelerating--decline over escalating fuel prices limiting accessibility, range, standard of living...and, the commerce itself that they overbuilt. These areas have milked that kind of cheap-and-easy growth as far as it will get them, and have to start somewhere with integrated planning lest they slip back into economic ruin the next 15 years.

Downtown Taunton or Silver City Galleria at the 24/140 interchange definitely fits the MBTA district's focus on the 495 belt. I think that's very worthwhile to do, and the Stoughton Branch restoration is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition where completing the abandoned link between Stoughton and Route 44 Taunton opens up not only FR/NB but also Cape Cod by heading east on the old Amtrak Cape Codder route on the Middleboro Secondary. It would support a better Cape schedule than the Old Colony north of Middleboro where the single track Dorchester-Braintree and need to feed 3 lines through it hampers the max headways.

It may be painful to placate Easton, Raynham, and Taunton, but the upside of going through that grief is much higher than throwing $3/4B at a stub line to Greenbush that's speed-limited to 60 MPH, has that stupid-ass Hingham tunnel preventing a high-ridership downtown stop, and had to have tons of other niceties like expensive sound barriers and vibration controls put in...all in the name of NIMBY mitigation and political handouts.

The problem with SCR is that they are not thinking eyes-on-prize with the Stoughton Route...which is, after all, the only means of getting there with the NEC and Old Colony options spiked over fatal flaws. But they have spent 10 years doing an unprecedented pander to the towns south of there. With those ridiculous station designs like Whale's Tooth with its waiting room bigger than North Station's. And letting the Mayor of New Bedford and Freetown--frickin' Freetown!--bend them over about extra stations, extra station amenities, etc. All the while glossing over these fatal flaws:

-- The ridership projections keep getting adjusted quietly down. It's now projected that there'd be fewer than 500 daily riders south of Taunton on each branch's schedule. Apportion that to the stations on each branch and the individual boardings at the downtown FR and NB stops would be in the neighborhood of such major southside transit centers like Auburndale, Endicott, and Bellevue.
-- Added bonus: it's not enough to cover the fuel costs for daily operation south of Taunton.
-- To save cost, secure the EIS, and ease past the NIMBY's the Stoughton route is being proposed as mostly single-track with station platforms convertible later to 2-track. This is a major problem for supporting 2 branches at full schedule; there is not enough track capacity to do it. They have left this buried deep in the fine print while they wine and dine the South Coast, and when asked responded with a flat "we'll double-track it later". If it were well-publicized what the headways would be south of Taunton, the enthusiasm would dim considerably. But as is you can see the lunacy of building a palace like Whale's Tooth. They will get service levels more befitting a bare outdoor platform with a prefab tincan shelter like Bridgewater. And while double-track will certainly be easy to add, I don't think there's cause for doing it until Cape rail is going in earnest and the Stoughton Branch has 3 destinations it can fire on all cylinders to serve + general growth on the corridor.
-- The tax structure imposed on the towns for their piece of capital cost and for joining the MBTA district is extremely punitive. And likewise buried deep in the fine print and never discussed. Not only would enthusiasm dim, but outright opposition would break out en masse. This is dishonest. It's part of the political pander, because they won't have to seriously discuss it until the build is too far along to back out of, and the Governor and local pols have expended all their political capital + 1-2 elections of reelection favors before moving on to their next jobs.
-- THEY DON'T NEED IT NOW. The express buses to Boston aren't full, and are very easy. To get critical mass they need to do route-priming here. Get those express buses transferring at Middleboro in large numbers...today. Build the line to Taunton/Silver City and get those buses doing the really easy transfer. It's so fast and 24/140 are uncongested enough south (definitely not north) of that interchange that the speed and ease will encourage a commute market to develop where there is barely one now. But then let it develop for a minimum 10-15 years, because that ridership's got to materialize somewhere. Right now it drops off a cliff at 495.


Doing it ass-backwards with the pander first south of Taunton is only getting the towns on the Stoughton Route into the act. Easton wants 100% grade separation and the state to rebuild 138. Raynham is demanding sound walls, a new firehouse, and "rail safety education for schoolchildren". Taunton wants 2 stations on either end of downtown. This is insane. These sprawl-villes are in no position to be making Hingham demands. Goddamnit, the Raynham Dog Track is going to be an empty lot within 2 years and this is their only shot at redeveloping it without giving away the farm on some tax break to build another Lowe's Home Improvement big box that'll be out of business in 10 years. Who are they to be making these kinds of demands, and who are the state for listening to them??? It's because they gave the moon to Fall River, New Bedford, and frickin' Freetown first--before the NEC and Old Colony options were eliminated--and now these Stoughton route towns now hold the fate of the whole works in their obstructionism. Perfectly, absolutely awfully played leverage by the state.


And they think the feds are going to front them a billion dollars for an entirely local commuter rail route with no national or intercity coattails. And do it as a monolithic, not phased build. They have not approached Amtrak at all about a return of the Cape Codder--which Amtrak they would like long-term--because then rehabbing the Middleboro Secondary and extending the Old Colony at full speed at least to Buzzards Bay becomes top priority, and the first--not last--branch that would be fed from the Stoughton Route. Can't have that when you're chasing swing votes and there's more swing votes to be had in FR/NB first.

RIDOT very much wants to restore commuter rail to Newport by rebuilding the Sakonnet River rail bridge, connecting to the Fall River line, and running a Providence express via Attleboro and Taunton to serve the bad 195 commute market. But they're taking the next 15 years to build their NEC commuter rail to Westerly and Woonsocket-Providence commuter rail, since that covers four-fifths of the state's population. And they have a better chance of waiting until after the Cape Codder rehabs the Middleboro Secondary. Can't have that if Patrick is chasing votes now.

There's not a lot of freight right now. MassCoastal, the shortline that took over from CSX, is doing a tidy business...even reopening the track south of downtown Fall River to almost the RI border for a major new customer. But they're mostly sitting on future considerations. The ports of FR and NB need to be dredged for deeper boats to give them heavy freight volumes. Not as expensive as it sounds, but Massport isn't going to mount that effort for another dozen years. CSX needs its interchange route to get to MassCoastal upgraded to handle heavyweight freight cars...which means track rehab on the entire Framingham Secondary from Framingham to Mansfield and the entire Middleboro Secondary from Attleboro to Middleboro before it can take anything heavy that MassCoastal sends their way. What's the Framingham Sec. upgrade dependent on if they want state money this decade for the weight increase? Foxboro commuter rail. What's the M'boro Sec. upgrade dependent on if they want that next decade? Amtrak Cape Codder. Can't have that when you're chasing South Coast swing votes today.


They need Stoughton-Taunton to serve an immediately viable commuter market and give 24 sprawl-land a leg to stand on. They need to develop Cape transit and entice national investment in Amtrak to defray the track rehab cost. That prioritizes a Middleboro-Buzzards Bay CR extension first, Stoughton-Cape second. They need time and interim access to leverage the express buses to grow the whole South Coast transit market. They need to get the freight capacity TO the region higher...which makes Foxboro CR the path of least first resistance and highest immediate ROI (and inexpensive enough to swing while they're still paying off debt). They need to get freight demand FROM the region more robust with the port access. They need time to regroup after Stoughton's built to add that double-track. And they need to give Rhode Island a solid dozen years to complete its in-state CR rollout for them to be ready to engage on Newport, where Newport-Boston and Providence-Fall River-Newport are the value-addeds that will make the FR branch's revenue potential pay off.

This is in the lower-half of a Top 10 to-do list of jobs and phased builds they need to tackle and coordinate to make that investment worth it. They are starting with North Station-at-Whale's Tooth first. And assuming the money's gonna flow like buttah from there backwards, and people are going to be OK with the tax gotchas. This is a scam being perpetuated on the voters of that region. Nevermind the scam on the whole state that is letting the MBTA stay structurally broke without action.



Even in the lower-half of Top 10 for that region this has nowhere near the payoff for the state as a whole of Red-Blue, Blue-Lynn, Lowell-Nashua, South Station expansion, Peabody and the missing 128 park-and-rides, and probably a couple others. Not to mention billions in state-of-good-repair to improve/increase trips and revenue on all existing lines. All the shit they refuse to do because they're pursuing this and turtling under from structural reform.

This is corruption, pure and simple. There is a lot to hate about the stench permeating this project and how disingenuous the motives are. If it had been approached on transit instead of vote-pander grounds it probably would be built with half the cost, half the NIMBY freak show, proper engagement of other partners with vested interest in sharing the investment, and feasible project phasing. But that's not the game our pols play.

[datadyne007]

I appreciate the detailed response and learned a lot from it. I agree that a phased project is definitely appropriate and a station at 24/140 at Silver City (which is now sadly a failed mega mall) is the best option to start with. The commute on 24N is miserable from that point. That area is also very easy to access from NB, Freetown, and Lakeville (via 140) and also FR (via 24). The current Middleboro/Lakeville station is really a stretch for these SC towns.

A casino is also being thrown into this mix, as NB, FR, Free/Lake, etc vie for who gets to build it. Could the casino have any impact on SCR? What if the people in the burbs closer to Boston could take the CR south to Taunton or Freetown and then take a shuttle to the casino for the day? There are some intercity transit possibilities outside of Boston.

[Semass]

reaching out/"pandering" to FR and NB is needed to build the critical mass of support and population to move this forward. Taunton, with 60,000 people does not have the gravity to justify an expensive extension from Stoughton. You really need those 200,000+ from the South Coast. FR and NB hardly need the pandering. They really want the service.
Besides, the route from Taunton south to the others is a virtual cakewalk once the Hockomock Swamp is traversed. Tracks south of Taunton are already in use for freight service.

[Semass]

I appreciate the detailed response and learned a lot from it. I agree that a phased project is definitely appropriate and a station at 24/140 at Silver City (which is now sadly a failed mega mall) is the best option to start with. The commute on 24N is miserable from that point. That area is also very easy to access from NB, Freetown, and Lakeville (via 140) and also FR (via 24). The current Middleboro/Lakeville station is really a stretch for these SC towns.

A casino is also being thrown into this mix, as NB, FR, Free/Lake, etc vie for who gets to build it. Could the casino have any impact on SCR? What if the people in the burbs closer to Boston could take the CR south to Taunton or Freetown and then take a shuttle to the casino for the day? There are some intercity transit possibilities outside of Boston.

A pity that the Wampanoags did not buy the mall instead of the vacant land. All of the infrastructure is already in place at the mall - roads, proposed rail station, water, electric, etc. You could probably even keep some of the structure of the mall and redesign as associated parts of the casino. Save a bunch of money that way. Could even keep it as a shopping destination. If it is sovereign land in trust they could probably sell tax free stuff while they build hotel and gaming rooms. Then convert mall to upscale mall/conference center.
Oh, Well.

[F-Line to Dudley]

reaching out/"pandering" to FR and NB is needed to build the critical mass of support and population to move this forward. Taunton, with 60,000 people does not have the gravity to justify an expensive extension from Stoughton. You really need those 200,000+ from the South Coast. FR and NB hardly need the pandering. They really want the service.
Besides, the route from Taunton south to the others is a virtual cakewalk once the Hockomock Swamp is traversed. Tracks south of Taunton are already in use for freight service.

Wanting the service is one thing. Utilizing it is another. The ridership projections on the Fall River and New Bedford branches do not pay for the cost of the diesel fuel and staff wages to run that distance south of Taunton. This is an inconvenient but intractible truth. Every time they refine the figures those boardings drop further. The riders aren't there. 20 years from now...they may be. But not without a concerted effort to prime the corridor for commuter rail. This doesn't work on a "build it and they will come" level. Didn't Greenbush teach us that well enough? Why aren't they templating the Middleboro and Plymouth lines where well-established buses like the Route 3 expresses and Brockton Area Transit were the lead-in and the CR stations were minimalist, then expanded (like M'boro parking + shops and South Weymouth). Why are they letting themselves get eaten alive by the New Bedford Mayor's demands for new stations and a few real pricks of selectmen in Raynham, and leading with Greenbush as a negotiating point for mitigation when the demands only ratchet up from there? Why are those "cakewalk" active tracks costing twice as much on the budget as the abandoned Stoughton route...could it have something to do with the jaw-dropping excess on those stations?

Find a way to grow the demand to support the service first. Building to Taunton, calibrating the express buses...that'll do it. Getting the buses really well-patronized and well-timed to the Middleboro station schedule is an excellent way to start today. Build the FR and NB branches 15 years later when the freight and shared usage from Cape rail and Providence-Newport involve other stakeholders, and when the Stoughton Line is established enough that they can add that required second track without a peep from the NIMBY's.

They aren't phasing it to make the cost and schedule doable. They aren't sketching out a roadmap to grow the ridership. They aren't involving other stakeholders. They aren't negotiating sensibly to keep expectations realistic with the towns. They are pandering cynically for votes. If they did any of the above this would resemble an actual implementation plan and justifiable "reaching out." I do not think the Governor or Legislature give a rat's ass about furthering this project other than to keep hope alive until they no longer need the votes, then punt it to the next generation of panderers. Just like the last generation of panderers punted it to this generation. If the pols wanted to build it wouldn't they have considered some implementation flex that would get it built? Never once have they moderated from all 10-figures of the build all at once, all the bells and whistles, ridership be damned.

South Coast is getting played for fools here. If they want this, they need to look at the inconvenient facts, call out the state for whispering sweet nothings and jewel-encrusted station plans into their ears, and make it known that they're well-aware of just how unrealistic this looks, and shift the conversation to what is realistic. Phased implementation. Route priming. The other stakeholders. Starting small...bare outdoor platform that later can get encased in North Station-at-Whale's Tooth. Sacrifice an intermediate stop to get the higher-ridership terminals up and running, then infill an extra New Bedford station a few years later. Help with other integrated planning that'll help spur demand (FR has a golden opportunity with the Route 79 teardown plan and the acres upon acres of redevelopment space completing that will open up).

Hot air is not momentum-building. Pandering is not reaching out. The Standard Times blowing sunshine up everyone's butt with another delerious Editorial is not informing the public. Public transit to the South Coast is a very, very NON-bullshit goal that has disintegrated into total, irredeemable bullshit. If it's going to be done ever, it can only be done by killing this plan dead and rolling it back to a sane starting point with implementation plan that...I don't know, obeys the laws of physics. Which, like all other needed reform, is probably only possible by gutting the State House of these rancid panderers and electing new leaders who have actual interest in leading.

[Semass]

F-Line: I actually agree with you a lot. Greenbush is the worst possible model to follow and a part of the problem there is the low population densities around the end of the route. There is a huge capacity for people that just don't live there. The mitigation is of course another story.
I would love to see the project phased and implemented. Taunton is the key here. Unfortunately, all of the obstacles - human and natural - are located in Stoughton, Easton and Raynham. I am not even that sure why the swamp has to be that much of an obstacle either - the track bed is already there. It is already environmentally damaging. Some opponents are just using it as an excuse for their NIMBY purposes.
When I mentioned the "southern triange" as "cakewalk" I only meant that much of the rail infrastructure is there and it is in use. The rails and such were never torn out. I am just talking about the actual tracks. Stations and transit oriented development are something else entirely as you accurately not are driving up the cost out of the achievable zone.
Likewise, with cost, I can't understand the escalation of this. I know that there is a lot of work and I know that massdot always hyperexaggerates contingencies. I think electric is kind of dumb, but how is this a 2 billion dollar project?

[BostonUrbEx]

Data,

Come on, don't you know me enough to know I'm kidding? Of course we can't just say "go screw yourselves" to Fall River, I was only joking. :) But I'm curious as to whether a ferry to New Bedford is feasible in the interim. The infrastructure is in place, and all you need is boats and staff. Fall River is likely out of the question for ferry service. But the fact is, $2bil is quite a bit of waste at this time for what are already dismal ridership projections which will likely turn out to be even lower. If they want BRT where the buses are authorized to fly down a left hand breakdown lane or something, I could be all for that. Projections have shown that it would be faster and incredibly cheap in comparison. The project is a massively bloated piece of pork dangling in front of the voters. I'm all for rail, but we need to focus on what's feasible now.



F-Line,

Perhaps I'm getting the wrong vibe here, but you seem to think ferries are a waste for the MBTA? Maybe I'm just reading into your posts the wrong way. Ferries have just a $3 per passenger operating cost, though (or maybe it's subsidy? so $3 + fare). This seems incredibly cheap and rivals buses and commuter rail in many places -- especially Greenbush. I'm not sure how much a ferry terminal costs in comparison to a station, but I'm sure it's not drastic. Ferries can get into those seacoast villages and downtowns that aren't plopped onto a highway or near a rail line.

[whighlander]

The T should not be in the business of running water transit at all, least of all the F1, F2, and F2H South Shore routes.....

Or, if it means that much to these communities, add a Logan Express park-and-ride somewhere and some more limited pickup schedule on 3A in Hingham....

Hull would be the only place transit-penalized in any of these situations because the 714 runs seldom. Well...do your duty and make the 714 run a little more often....

As for the others, if the F2 and F2H go there's no longer a need to run from Long Wharf to Logan because of the Blue Line. And Charlestown Navy Yard is closely paralleled by the 93 and 111 buses that travel up Route 1. Do some judicious looping timed around the old ferry schedule on those routes, or add a bus to that area of Charlestown....

Or better yet...take those two intra-Boston ferries private....

Honestly, the money this mode chews up is pure waste....

I wouldn't even transfer ops to Massport. Massport can make more money off added Logan Express service.... e.

F-Line -- as usual when you keep on the target you are onto the bulls-eye --when your aim wanders and you start firing like Riff - -- well then we all have to take cover

I would put the ferries in the the hands of Massport

They know how to manage the water transport, have the right kind of connections to the owner / operators of the tourist services, etc., and have a vested interest in service to/from the water-taxi pier at Logan

Of course -- I would coordinate the Massport Transportation services with the T and the other State DOT functions as well as the BRA and the City of Boston

Boston and water transport for tourists is a huge business -- There definitely should be a 'Tourist -Season" Loop Ferry that connects:

1) Logan @ Hyatt Hotel
2) Charlestown & the USS Constitution
3) North Station
4) North End, Greenway & Downtown Waterfront
5) someplace on FPC convenient to the Tea Party Museum
6) Fan Pier & WTC / BCEC
7) Black Falcon

It should be compatible with Charley Card and all the various short-term passes

If commuters want to use it -- Fine

Success of the Harbor Loop might suggest a Charles Loop including: Harvard, Back Bay @ Mass Ave, MIT, Hatch Shell, MOS, North Station

[omaja]

http://i.imgur.com/0FYcU.png

Splitting up the Green Line and giving it different colors/numbers makes a world of difference.

[czsz]

Whoa, do you have the rest of that map?

[Shepard]

I'm curious - What software to you use, Omaja?

[Commuting Boston Student]

Yeah, that'll do.

I am in awe, omaja. (My own feelings about running the Blue Line down the Green Line aside.)

[Equilibria]

The idea of Route 128 circumferential transit comes up from time to time, but always as kind of a vague concept ("it would be great to connect the 128 park-and-rides at X and Y..."), so I thought I'd have a quick brainstorm at what this would actually have to look like. To make it interesting (and have it hit actual population/employment hubs), I avoided running in the median of 128 where possible. A couple other considerations:

1) This was done very quickly, and I'm not an expert in these neighborhoods (other than my own around Riverside, which incidentally was the hardest part of this to figure). I expect to be pilloried for some things, and no consideration was given to specific feasibility concerns (other than trying to hit existing commercial/industrial roads, rail ROW, power lines, etc).

2) I make the huge assumption here that Hanscom is closed and the line could be integrated into the high-tech zone which replaces it, as was suggested by Wigh (I think) a couple of pages ago. Presumably, an extended Red Line would have a transfer with this one at a park-and-ride at Hartwell.

3) I've been meaning to make this comment on many of these proposals, actually: Needham does not need heavy rail service. Needham needs an intra-town light rail service which can be used by residents for short trips within Needham. Commuter rail already provides service to Boston fine, and a truncated line at Needham Junction with a transfer to light rail would continue to get that done. I realize the temptation to convert the ready ROW through Upper Falls and Needham (and the whole Riverside Green Line, by extension) to Heavy Rail, but I just don't see the need for it. Not many people commute to Boston that way, and Riverside could by served by DMUs along the Pike for the suburban park-and-ride set.

Anyway, here's the map: http://g.co/maps/ykwcc

[Riverside]

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster. Equilibria, I like your map (and I really like how you incorporated the outer portion of the Highland Branch into the design), though I was wondering what mode of transportation you had envisioned running on this corridor?

One thing that has always bothered me about 128 circumferential proposals, as cool as I think they are, is that the 128 corridor itself seems somewhat asymmetrical. I mean, the southern tip of Boston is, like, 2 miles away from 128, while the northern tip is roughly 8 miles away.

Looking at Google Maps, Burlington, Wakefield, Lynnfield and that area up there just don't look nearly as dense as Needham, Newton, Wellesley or Dedham. But I've never lived north of Boston, so I don't know what it's actually like on the ground. Can someone help me out? It is a matter of real potential for serious growth?

Also, Omaja, your maps are bloody awesome. I really like the idea of your #8 and #11 lines. Please post the rest of your most recent one. :)

[omaja]

Thanks, everyone! Glad you like it. I'm still finishing up the rest of it but will definitely share when it's all done. :)

For this map I am using Paint Shop Pro, though I also use Photoshop sometimes.

[Commuting Boston Student]

3) I've been meaning to make this comment on many of these proposals, actually: Needham does not need heavy rail service. Needham needs an intra-town light rail service which can be used by residents for short trips within Needham. Commuter rail already provides service to Boston fine, and a truncated line at Needham Junction with a transfer to light rail would continue to get that done. I realize the temptation to convert the ready ROW through Upper Falls and Needham (and the whole Riverside Green Line, by extension) to Heavy Rail, but I just don't see the need for it. Not many people commute to Boston that way, and Riverside could by served by DMUs along the Pike for the suburban park-and-ride set.

I do like the map! I want to start out by saying that.

Now, being as I am one of the people advocating both heavy rail to Needham and heavy rail along the Green Line, I feel the need to defend those proposals.

The Orange Line co-exists with the Commuter Rail just fine between Forest Hills and Back Bay, and the Needham ROW can be expanded or you can even simply put one set of tracks over/under the other set. So, why can't Needham be served by both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail? In fact, you can run the Needham Line further southwest, into Dover, Medfield, maybe Sherborn, and possibly even connect it to the Worcester Line at Framingham - and in exchange, terminate service to every stop between Needham and Forest Hills except for West Roxbury. Replace them with Heavy Rail (Green Line? Orange Line? Yellow Line?) and now you've got two ways to go from Needham to Boston - the five stop express train to Back Bay (six to South Station), or the cheaper but longer subway ride. Hersey, Highland, and Roslindale Village would all still be just one stop away from a Commuter Rail transfer, Bellevue the odd station out at only two stops away from transfer.

As for the Green Line, I don't expect heavy rail-worthy Ridership at every stop on the Riverside Branch - to be honest, I don't expect the ridership at ANY of those stops, bar Fenway, to be at the level where heavy rail is needed. I argue to convert it to Heavy Rail ANYWAY because of where I DO expect the Heavy Rail meriting ridership - Fenway, Kenmore, and the Central Subway. The Riverside branch is the easiest of all the Green Line branches to convert to heavy rail, you can reroute and connect the other three branches into their own light rail line - or if you really wanted to earn that Craziest Pitch 2012 award, just connect the B and E branches for Boston College - Arborway/Forest Hills service, call that the Lime Line, and then paint the whole C branch Silver and extend it under Boylston and Essex Streets past Chinatown to replace your choice of Silver Line bus routes - through South Station into South Boston, or through Tufts Medical along Washington Street.

[Equilibria]

Why can't Needham be served by both Heavy Rail and Commuter Rail? In fact, you can run the Needham Line further southwest, into Dover, Medfield, maybe Sherborn, and possibly even connect it to the Worcester Line at Framingham - and in exchange, terminate service to every stop between Needham and Forest Hills except for West Roxbury. Replace them with Heavy Rail (Green Line? Orange Line? Yellow Line?) and now you've got two ways to go from Needham to Boston - the five stop express train to Back Bay (six to South Station), or the cheaper but longer subway ride. Hersey, Highland, and Roslindale Village would all still be just one stop away from a Commuter Rail transfer, Bellevue the odd station out at only two stops away from transfer.


I'm glad you like the map :).

I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).

Having used the Riverside Line fairly frequently all my life, I see it as a huge asset for people in Newton to get to other parts of Newton and Brookline. As an intra-suburban light rail service, it justifies itself, and I think there are many other areas around 128 where similar service could function (Waltham and Needham being the 2 closest). I just don't think that you'll lose that many Downtown-bound riders by instituting a LRT-CR transfer at Needham Junction, and LRT has the potential for more appropriate costs, additional station locations, easier grade crossings, and better integration into pedestrianized neighborhood centers like those along Highland Ave.

I've lived in neighborhoods with local HRT lines in Chicago and the Bay Area, and it's significantly less inviting/practical to use them for short local trips (though BART was specifically not designed for that use).

Ironically, of course, the other branches of the Green Line are far more appropriate for heavy rail conversion, but far harder to actually convert.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).

Actually, it's interesting you bring up the Pike areas, because it didn't occur to me until well after I'd proposed my Green Line Extension Conversion that by dropping a heavy rail stop at Yawkey the option to run a new branch or even a brand new line down the existing Pike ROW becomes available.

When I get more time to go back and revisit all of my proposals, I might run the Purple Line down that way. Why not connect Brandeis/Roberts to Auburndale - South Station - Dedham/Westwood/Norton/Canton? We'd even get a non-CR single seat ride between Back Bay and South Station out of the arrangement.

[whighlander]

The idea of Route 128 circumferential transit comes up from time to time, but always as kind of a vague concept ("it would be great to connect the 128 park-and-rides at X and Y..."), so I thought I'd have a quick brainstorm at what this would actually have to look like. To make it interesting (and have it hit actual population/employment hubs), I avoided running in the median of 128 where possible. A couple other considerations:
......
2) I make the huge assumption here that Hanscom is closed and the line could be integrated into the high-tech zone which replaces it, as was suggested by Wigh (I think) a couple of pages ago. Presumably, an extended Red Line would have a transfer with this one at a park-and-ride at Hartwell.

.......

Equili --- Most Crazy Transit Pitches are just that --- But there is a real matter for which considerable thinking has to be done for the future. That Not so Crazy Transit Pitch involves what to with respect to the Conversion of Hanscom AFB to civilian use.

Unless the new President and New Congress reverses the current trajectory -- there will be another BRAC in FY 14/15 and I don't think Hanscom will survive it. Going from a 3 Star AF Lt. Gen who is resident and in-charge of Electronics Systems for the entire AF to a 2 Star Maj. Gen reporting to a 3 Star at Wright Pat in Ohio; and then losing the AF Band of Liberty (ostensibly as a cost cutting measure) this summer is the beginning of the end.

So the process needs to begin NOW as to how to best capitalize on this prime real estate location on Rt-128, with runways and existing surrounding public and private land into essentially an uber-High-Tech version of Devens.

Raw materials for the project:

Hanscom AFB:
846 acres
735 private homes
149 other buildings

Hanscom Field Airport -- 1,125 acres (455 ha) which contains two paved runways: 5/23 measuring 5,106 x 150 ft (1,556 x 46 m) and 11/29 measuring 7,001 x 150 ft (2,134 x 46 m

When land in Lexington, Bedford, Lincoln, and Concord adjacent to Hanscom is taken into consideration there is a total of about 5 sq. miles that can be developed fairly intensively - Note that the closure of Hanscom AFB will likely result in the transfer of some land to the Minuteman National Historic Park

There can be essentially unlimited opportunities for development and the subsequent creation of a High tech nexus. In 20 years when development is built-out where the base is now located and its immediate surroundings:

1) several more million sq ft. can be built
2) thousands of more people could be working
3) some few hundreds will be living
4) there undoubtedly will be some retail and perhaps a major hotel
5) possibility of limited commercial air service
6) What about Transit?

Will there be the long hypothesized Red Line on Rt-128 -- perhaps with a Mattapan-type LRV covering the whole Hanscom re-development area?

Let's see if we can perhaps provide some useful guidance to the process.

Read more: Budget cuts at Hanscom Air Force Base have wide impact - Bedford, MA - Bedford Minuteman http://www.wickedlocal.com/bedford/news/x1581726960/Budget-cuts-at-Hanscom-Air-Force-Base-have-wide-impact#ixzz1r21EWakd

[Equilibria]

^

I agree. I believe it was Ted Kennedy who saved Hanscom several times over the past 20 years or so, and he's gone, and I doubt Kerry has the stature to do the same. The energy between now and then should be spent not just on planning the future of the base from an urban design and economic perspective, but also planning the ways in which MIT can serve as a catalyst to replace the Air Force. Problem is, the Air Force won't be willing to cooperate until well after it's clear that they're leaving.

From every perspective but that of the small contractors who depend on the Air Force, the closure of Hanscom is a positive. It opens a lot of land to productive use (and taxation) in a high-demand area, and also opens up the airport tremendously. Access to the civilian side of Hanscom is terrible right now because the AFB is blocking it off from Hartwell and the easiest highway connection. An expanded Hartwell Ave. with a transit connection would be an excellent development.

The problem, of course, is that any move to make Hanscom more accessible will be met with fiery pitchforks by some of the worst and most seasoned NIMBYs in New England, who would likely also fight everything you propose in the name of their quiet neighborhood and the NHP. Without the AFB, Massport may have a political fight on their hands to even keep the airport operational, much less serving the couple of commercial shuttle flights to DC and NYC it should see daily.

[whighlander]

^

I agree. I believe it was Ted Kennedy who saved Hanscom several times over the past 20 years or so, and he's gone, and I doubt Kerry has the stature to do the same. The energy between now and then should be spent not just on planning the future of the base from an urban design and economic perspective, but also planning the ways in which MIT can serve as a catalyst to replace the Air Force. Problem is, the Air Force won't be willing to cooperate until well after it's clear that they're leaving.

From every perspective but that of the small contractors who depend on the Air Force, the closure of Hanscom is a positive. It opens a lot of land to productive use (and taxation) in a high-demand area, and also opens up the airport tremendously. Access to the civilian side of Hanscom is terrible right now because the AFB is blocking it off from Hartwell and the easiest highway connection. An expanded Hartwell Ave. with a transit connection would be an excellent development.

The problem, of course, is that any move to make Hanscom more accessible will be met with fiery pitchforks by some of the worst and most seasoned NIMBYs in New England, who would likely also fight everything you propose in the name of their quiet neighborhood and the NHP. Without the AFB, Massport may have a political fight on their hands to even keep the airport operational, much less serving the couple of commercial shuttle flights to DC and NYC it should see daily.

Equilib -- I've created a new Thread focused on the New Hanscom as there is much more to the discussion of the optimal development than just the Red Line

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm glad you like the map :).

I'm not advocating ending commuter rail service on the Needham line, and the extension you propose was an idea I liked when you mentioned it earlier. I'm referring solely to the former Charles River Railroad Upper Falls - Needham Junction stretch. I also see your point about the Central Subway and Kenmore area needing heavy rail-grade service. As long as we're pitching crazy things, though, I think that might be better accomplished by a heavy rail line to more dense areas beyond Kenmore, such as Allston, Brighton, Watertown, or even the Pike-side areas of Newton (which are more dense than the areas through which the Riverside Line runs, and have much worse transit service).

Having used the Riverside Line fairly frequently all my life, I see it as a huge asset for people in Newton to get to other parts of Newton and Brookline. As an intra-suburban light rail service, it justifies itself, and I think there are many other areas around 128 where similar service could function (Waltham and Needham being the 2 closest). I just don't think that you'll lose that many Downtown-bound riders by instituting a LRT-CR transfer at Needham Junction, and LRT has the potential for more appropriate costs, additional station locations, easier grade crossings, and better integration into pedestrianized neighborhood centers like those along Highland Ave.

I've lived in neighborhoods with local HRT lines in Chicago and the Bay Area, and it's significantly less inviting/practical to use them for short local trips (though BART was specifically not designed for that use).

Ironically, of course, the other branches of the Green Line are far more appropriate for heavy rail conversion, but far harder to actually convert.

Needham would work a lot better as a CR line if it only had a 128 stop. TV Place/Highland Ave. screams for one with the redevelopable land there, parking space, and the needed relief on Highland Ave. from all the commuters bum-rushing the Needham Heights stop. It's less than a mile of track rehab. If they don't build a golden pyramid of a stop there that's a farebox-recoverable capital cost within a decade since it would probably become the Needham Line's best patronized stop by far due to the highway access. Riverside's parking is going to become constrained in time by the new development going on around the station. The humongous gaps in 128 park-and-rides between Riverside and Dedham Corporate + Westwood/128 and Anderson/Woburn to the north makes that load worse.

Much better case for increasing service on the Needham Line, double-tracking through West Rox, etc. if it takes on functions beyond simply the neighborhood stops. Right now it's essentially a bastardized Mattapan Line on slow too-infrequent diesel equipment, the proverbial weakling of the CR system now that Fairmount's been spiffed up. Of course it was the first target for service cuts...it always it. It never had weekend service until about 10 years ago, and they tried to Arborway it out of existence when the SW Corridor was rebuilt. It was suspended for nearly 9 years in the 70's and 80's until threats of lawsuit got the T to stop dragging its feet on rehab. It's about 1 comprelling hook away from having significant utility, and 128 access is that. The ROW crosses it twice, but the stations are all highway-inconvenient neighborhood stops with little parking. It needs a big-deal capper that can take advantage of the highway, let the neighborhood stops be neighborhood stops, and offer up a TOD destination. Doing TV Place up as that beachhead is that kind of slight role adjustment to the line that opens up possibility of future "Indigo'ing" it with higher headways, DMU's, etc. Much like Fairmount when it inevitably gets extended 1 stop from Readville to Westwood/128.


That is also an excellent interim step before considering the Green Line spur on the Needham half and the Orange Line on the Boston-proper half. A lot's got to get sorted out first before Green could ever go there...CBTC signaling being the top one to enable the headways, and probably the D-to-E connector being the other for rush hour management. And Green has to get built before the arguably higher-priority Orange to Rozzie/W. Rox because Needham's no better equipped to survive on the awful 59 bus alone than it was during the CR-less 80's, and would most definitely launch the lawsuit nukes if they got severed. A TV Place/128 CR stop would be a cheapie value-enhancer and route-primer that probably helps the light rail conversion case 20 years down the road. It's a much better near-term option than pissing the ROW away entirely for another rail trail (the bicycle lobby is already descending like vultures to pave it over).

[HenryAlan]

The problem with a big park and ride at the intersection of 128 and the Needham Line is that the area is in a nature preserve. It would be hard to build the station, probably impossible to do any TOD. Hersey is not far from Rt. 128 off the Great Plane Ave. exit. Really, the only good option for that line is converting the Needham and Boston sections to light and heavy rail respectively. I can't see anyway to enhance the line as you've described, given the environmental constraints.

Now, if we did convert, then it might indeed be possible to extend the Lalemont trail alongside the ROW. The section through Cutler Park would be spectacular.

[whighlander]

The problem with a big park and ride at the intersection of 128 and the Needham Line is that the area is in a nature preserve. It would be hard to build the station, probably impossible to do any TOD. Hersey is not far from Rt. 128 off the Great Plane Ave. exit. Really, the only good option for that line is converting the Needham and Boston sections to light and heavy rail respectively. I can't see anyway to enhance the line as you've described, given the environmental constraints.

Now, if we did convert, then it might indeed be possible to extend the Lalemont trail alongside the ROW. The section through Cutler Park would be spectacular.


I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community

[HenryAlan]

I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community

My impulse for LRT in Needham is mostly due to the thought that the ROW in West Roxbury isn't wide enough to accommodate both HRT and commuter rail. If that is the case (maybe F-Line can confirm), then maintaining the Needham Line for the sake of people in Needham means permanently condemning an urban, high density area to a less optimal service. What makes the needs of Needham more compelling than the needs of West Roxbury and Roslindale?

Possible compromises?


Maintain existing Needham Line as is, but express from West Roxbury to Forest Hills. Run DMU (or optimally EMU) local service from West Roxbury inbound, stopping at Highland, Bellevue, Roslindale, etc. The DMU service would have mass transit level headways and the stations would have fare restricted platforms. A small yard for off service MU storage could be built in space between the West Roxbury Shaws and Catholic Memorial High School.

Run the Needham line in the opposite direction, connecting to the Worcester line, leaving the Boston section of the ROW free for an Orange Line extension.


Option 1 is probably the best for Needham, as it would likely shave about 10 minutes from the trip. It's also pretty good for West Roxbury and Roslindale, though perhaps not quite as good as a direct Orange Line connection. Option 2 is more of the crazy transit pitch variety, because I really have no idea why it would be done, but just thought I'd toss it out there.

[Equilibria]

That is also an excellent interim step before considering the Green Line spur on the Needham half and the Orange Line on the Boston-proper half. A lot's got to get sorted out first before Green could ever go there...CBTC signaling being the top one to enable the headways, and probably the D-to-E connector being the other for rush hour management. And Green has to get built before the arguably higher-priority Orange to Rozzie/W. Rox because Needham's no better equipped to survive on the awful 59 bus alone than it was during the CR-less 80's, and would most definitely launch the lawsuit nukes if they got severed. A TV Place/128 CR stop would be a cheapie value-enhancer and route-primer that probably helps the light rail conversion case 20 years down the road. It's a much better near-term option than pissing the ROW away entirely for another rail trail (the bicycle lobby is already descending like vultures to pave it over).

I tend to like your route-priming schemes, but I still have issues with the intra-Needham usage of this line and I don't think adding a Park-and-Ride at TV Place primes the line for that use at all. I do agree that Riverside-128 is a long way, but where are the people coming from to use these things? They have to be entering 128 from a major route inbound, and there already is a Park-and-Ride location at both the Pike and I-95, so a station in Needham wouldn't really serve any inbound drivers but those from Needham and Wellesley coming down Highland Ave, and they have stations in their towns that have parking. That location simply doesn't have outside-128 drivers heading inbound that won't pass Riverside, Dedham Corporate or 128 first. The only reason to build there would be to relieve Riverside, but that can be accomplished at Bear Hill while also picking up US-20 and Waltham corporate traffic.

I just think that Highland Ave/Needham St. as a neighborhood-scale walkable commercial corridor with parallel light rail is too good an opportunity to pass up, particularly as the towns prepare to reinvent the corridor over the next 10 years. The problem, as I've said before, is that it seems not to have occurred to anyone in Needham and it isn't sellable in Newton if it only goes to TV Place (since Upper Falls technically already has GL access at Eliot). The bike trail plan has been proposed to accommodate a parallel LRT track in the future (like the Purple Line and Capital Crescent Trail in the DC suburbs), but neither idea has been overwhelmingly popular. The "bike lobby" you speak of seems to just be 1 outdoorsman with a dream...

[F-Line to Dudley]

My impulse for LRT in Needham is mostly due to the thought that the ROW in West Roxbury isn't wide enough to accommodate both HRT and commuter rail. If that is the case (maybe F-Line can confirm), then maintaining the Needham Line for the sake of people in Needham means permanently condemning an urban, high density area to a less optimal service. What makes the needs of Needham more compelling than the needs of West Roxbury and Roslindale?

Possible compromises?


Maintain existing Needham Line as is, but express from West Roxbury to Forest Hills. Run DMU (or optimally EMU) local service from West Roxbury inbound, stopping at Highland, Bellevue, Roslindale, etc. The DMU service would have mass transit level headways and the stations would have fare restricted platforms. A small yard for off service MU storage could be built in space between the West Roxbury Shaws and Catholic Memorial High School.

Run the Needham line in the opposite direction, connecting to the Worcester line, leaving the Boston section of the ROW free for an Orange Line extension.


Option 1 is probably the best for Needham, as it would likely shave about 10 minutes from the trip. It's also pretty good for West Roxbury and Roslindale, though perhaps not quite as good as a direct Orange Line connection. Option 2 is more of the crazy transit pitch variety, because I really have no idea why it would be done, but just thought I'd toss it out there.

The mainline ROW through West Rox is on an embankment, so a good deal of the sides of it is sloped earthen fill. If it were scooped out into a cut with retaining walls, then it's absolutely wide enough for 2-track Orange + 1-track CR, with assumption that the 1-track CR is not going to be making local stops. In other words, exactly like the current OL northside.

That's real effing expensive, though, and it becomes a billion dollar project. The only justification for doing that is if Millis commuter rail were on the table, and that's not going to outweigh the benefits of doing rapid-transit. It would be less expensive to do both Green-Needham Jct. and Orange-West Rox and get rid of CR altogether because the current ROW's are plenty wide enough for in-place double track. It was double to the 128 bridge until the 1980's reconstruction ripped the second iron out.


Now, there are ways to phase this so it's not so massive an undertaking. 1-stop extension to Rozzie, where the incredible bus route duplication from Forest Hills screams for it, is doable without disrupting commuter rail at all. The line was 3-track to an old freight yard right by Rozzie station, so OL + CR fits on that footprint just fine. You'd merely trade the small 2-track section of CR for more double-tracking elsewhere. They should've done this decades ago. That 1 stop gets you 40% of the distance from Forest Hills to West Roxbury.

From there, double-tracking the CR line to W. Rox and doing high platforms prepares it for conversion. Just like Oak Grove and Malden Ctr. where the CR platforms were built for Orange conversion if the Reading extension happened and the express track got extended from Wellington. Train doors are the same height...they'd only have to install platform juts when it's time to reach the smaller OL cars. And then of course give these double-tracked high platforms enough design flex so when the conversion happens they can graft a prepayment headhouse onto them (hell, it'll probably prevent them from overbuilding a jewel-encrusted glass palace to have to make do with building around an existing platform). The actual running rails stay, and a rail grinder re-profiles them for rapid transit cars. No grade crossings here. They can install the third rail supports and run the wiring conduits while CR is still running. Then shut down the line for 6 months or something to swap the signals, wire everything up, install temporary headhouses, and restart service on Orange. Then do finish-up work building the full station headhouses.

That's not difficult. It's even less difficult on Green because the low platforms are same height as the raised ADA light rail platforms. Just tear down the commuter rail mini-high ramps at the ends when it's time. Double-track while it's still CR. Install the catanery poles and dig the conduits while it's still CR. Phase I the light rail spur to 128. Then built it to Heights on a temp platform north of the still-running CR platform, with the rails cut between them to separate modes. Then close the line for 6 months--only transit loss is Center and Junction because you've got the temp Heights platform--, re-grind the rails, do the signaling and electrical hookups, re-time the grade crossing protection so there's fast gates for quicker/more frequent crossings, and build a new Needham Jct. platform on a loop replacing the current wye.


It's not GLX-expensive. Either one. It's just on the list of priorities it's below super-critical Red-Blue and Blue-Lynn they've procrastinated themselves out of. The Rozzie 1-stop extension would've certainly happened by now via squeaky wheel methods if we had a Hizzoner who didn't treat those neighborhoods like second-class citizens.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community

Bunk. It is not Wellesley or Weston, and 67 years of study for light rail on this corridor has supported that. That isn't conjecture...there's generations of data on the transit demand in that town.

The Needham Line does 1250 boardings at Heights, Center, and Junction and 1175 riders on the 59 bus paralleling it. Rozzie to West Rox is 1335 CR riders. The whole line does fewer than 500 boardings less than Greenbush, and has the lowest frequency of any CR line except Greenbush. Only 16 round-trips per day and very sparse off-peak. It's only had weekend service since 2000, and now that's being gutted again. The 59, as horribly delayed as it is by the traffic on Highland Ave., is in the upper 45% of bus ridership on the system and the highest-ridership line crossing Route 128. It does more than the CT3, 74, and 79.

Last time the ridership was studied for the PMT with only Upper Falls, 128, and Needham Heights (CR transfer, no CR replacement) ridership projected to 3400 daily vs. 4250 in the 2009 Blue Book on the D for the Riverside, Woodland, Waban, and Eliot stops past where the lines would split. Throw in Center and Junction and it swelled to 6000, which is only 1500 less than the D past Reservoir.


I'm not saying it's an utmost priority, because they did slack off on the really urgent ones like the Blue extensions and GLX for so long. But those are not the rapid transit numbers of a typical "bedroom community". There is sorely unmet demand here at minimum addressible by doing something to enhance the existing mode instead of cutting it again.

[Shepard]

Do they have an estimated ridership for the Rozzie square extension? I'd be curious how that compares to BL Lynn or RBConnector?

Also, am I right that the Forest Hills - Hyde Park segment is three or four-tracked all the way down after the Needham line branches off? That seems like an even easier OL extension than Needham/W Rox.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Do they have an estimated ridership for the Rozzie square extension? I'd be curious how that compares to BL Lynn or RBConnector?

Also, am I right that the Forest Hills - Hyde Park segment is three or four-tracked all the way down after the Needham line branches off? That seems like an even easier OL extension than Needham/W Rox.

They only projected FH-128 via Rozzie and didn't segment it by stop, but that was +11,300 riders. A whole lot of that was diversion from buses, which is sort of the whole point with 9 slow routes duplicating each other between FH and Rozzie. Rozzie should be at least as large a bus transfer than FH if they were segmented out, and the largest stop on this extension by ridership. I truly believe that if we had a Mayor who acknowledged at all that that neighborhood existed that this would be rolling by now, especially being able to punt the whither CR/Needham question down the road by first-phasing it on the portion of the ROW wide enough to fit both modes.

The 35/36/37 duplicate Bellevue and Highland before diverging at West Roxbury and the 52 passes within a couple blocks, so that's point in favor of second-phasing it there. Going all the way 128 I'm not sure is worth doing on Orange. Relocating Hersey to Greendale Ave. is still not close enough to the Great Plain Ave. exit to be much of a draw and there's no TOD potential there, so I think the ridership past W. Rox is going to crater too severely to merit it. Highland Ave./Green is a much better 128 stop by location, density, and redevelopment attention, and the ridership curve on that route to Needham Jct. doesn't fall off a cliff like Orange would past W. Rox.

Probably worth a re-study segmenting this out further. But Rozzie's going to be the biggie that also makes the bus system run a whole lot better. And West Rox is the effective cutoff point before it dwindles to a trace.



The Hyde Park routing fared poorer on ridership--4700 boardings--because the 32 is the only bus that parallels the whole route and station spacing was a lot wider with only Mt. Hope as intermediate stop between FH and HP. Hyde Park station's largely duplicated by the Fairmount CR stop 3 blocks away, so Orange headways over high-frequency Fairmount CR don't have the same ridership boost here as with the Needham Line stops. Also would impose serious capacity constraint to reduce the NEC from 3 to 2 tracks, requiring half the trains to be sent over the Fairmount missing Back Bay. No bloody way in hell is Amtrak allowing that with its trains, so that would bust the number of Franklin, Stoughton/South Coast, and Providence riders with Back Bay access down to a minority (small or zero minority for the branches) of the schedule. Which also would be hugely unpopular.

4th track's coming back anyway in Amtrak's NEC cap improvements plan to handle projected 2030 loads, so it could only be 5 years before the ROW is maxed out. They want slow Franklin and Stoughton trains on totally separate tracks from Amtraks and potentially faster Providences so they can get up past 100 MPH between FH and Westwood/128 instead of crawling through Readville. And that's probably the appropriate move for the kind of intercity growth we can expect. Doing Fairmount-to-128 at good headways is good enough.

(Besides, Hizzoner couldn't be arsed to pull any favors for his home base. Cleary Square vicinity is lucky the Big Dig commitments give Fairmount and Readville the love they're getting, because it sure wasn't due to their favorite son's efforts.)


EDIT: Blue-Lynn is +21,000 riders, Red-Blue +6500 (that's Blue-exclusive new paid boardings, not Red transfers who boarded elsewhere on Red.) Yeah...those are still the two undisputed one-ton elephants of the needs list.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Some miscellaneous highway pitches:

Every single interchange between 495 and another major highway is a mess, and most of them can probably be fixed easily by upgrading to two-lane exits.
The mess of an interchange that is the beginning of 93 needs to be torn down and rebuilt, one way or another. I'd prefer a Y-junction, but there's plenty of room for a new routing in that vicinity. Literally anything is better than the aborted cloverleaf we've got now.
Speaking of aborted cloverleaves, 295/95 in Attleboro needs to be fixed. I'm partial to 295 being extended to a new terminus in Attleboro, myself.
The decision to get on the Pike East or Westbound should be made before the toll plaza(s), not after. Strategic application of barriers and new signage could fix this.
Express Tolled Lanes for 93 between both 93/95 interchanges. Options to enter the lanes would exist at Routes 24 and 3, Morrisey Boulevard, Mass Ave, the Pike, and Route 99, but the only opportunities to exit the lanes would be at Route 3 and the Pike. Congestion pricing would be implimented.
Switch to open road tolling immediately, everywhere!
Grade separate Route 2 for the length of its existence west of Alewife. Keep all the junctions it has as exits if possible.
Begin phasing in distance-numbered exit signage. Abandoning the numbering on interstate interchanges like New Hampshire as part of the change is an option.

[Ron Newman]

Grade separate Route 2 for the length of its existence west of Alewife. Keep all the junctions it has as exits if possible.

No, we should actually go the opposite direction. Remove the median barrier in Lincoln, add crosswalks at a few intersections, and allow left turns onto and off the highway. As it is now, the road is a barrier to all north-south travel in the town, including by pedestrians and bicycles.

[Commuting Boston Student]

No, we should actually go the opposite direction. Remove the median barrier in Lincoln, add crosswalks at a few intersections, and allow left turns onto and off the highway. As it is now, the road is a barrier to all north-south travel in the town, including by pedestrians and bicycles.

Total grade separation would fix this by letting north-south travel go above/below Route 2 on the formerly-intersecting surface roads. This is a superior solution to slowing through traffic down even more than it presenty is and forcing pedestrian traffic to contend with Route 2 motorists as well.

[Riverside]

Some miscellaneous highway pitches:

Speaking of aborted cloverleaves, 295/95 in Attleboro needs to be fixed. I'm partial to 295 being extended to a new terminus in Attleboro, myself.


As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.

[Commuting Boston Student]

As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.

Oh no no no, you misunderstand. I'm talking about finishing out that cloverleaf and running 295 to the next closest street and ending there. (Incidentally, that road may in fact be 152!) This seems like a much easier solution than ripping up the whole interchange for a new Y junction, re:my proposed fix for 93/95 and the OTHER half-clover interchange to nowhere.

My problem with that junction is that looks unsightly, it's a matter of ~1/4 mile or less to connect 295 to Attleboro, and I've never been a fan of that curve.

[F-Line to Dudley]

As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.

There is a proposal for an Attleboro Connector off the 295 stub ramps to 152 on the pre-graded, state-owned land for the canceled highway. One of just a couple cases left in the state where there's par-or-better chance of eventually building a road where no road currently exists (the other being finishing the 2001 extension of Route 57 for another 1.5 miles into Southwick). But that's mainly because it's a cheapie and Attleboro's community support ranges from ambivalent to very mildly supportive.

But it's not a 295 extension, just a very long exit ramp to 152 akin to the Route 85 stub off 290 in Marlborough. They still hope to rework that malformed, clogged cloverleaf into a functioning T interchange, so the cloverleaf will be gone under any circumstance to correct the traffic flow. They'll probably just provision for a turnout on the rebuilt interchange to peel out onto the connector. They will specifically avoid a 290/85 situation where the interchange feeds the high-speed traffic in the wrong direction.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Total grade separation would fix this by letting north-south travel go above/below Route 2 on the formerly-intersecting surface roads. This is a superior solution to slowing through traffic down even more than it presenty is and forcing pedestrian traffic to contend with Route 2 motorists as well.

The good news: DOT designed a solution that is a hybrid of both of your recommendations (at least at the big bend in Lincoln). Route 2 will be separated from the current intersection of the Cambridge & Concord Turnpikes (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.449167,-71.320807&spn=0.004956,0.013078&gl=us&t=h&z=17) by a series of retaining walls and shifted further south. And that intersection will be made more pedestrian friendly. This is no small feat - there's something like 11 retaining walls and they will need to demolish 8-10 homes.

The bad news: DW White was the low bidder last month. They were notoriously slow on a Route 24 project recently. And they came in at $42M with all other bidders in the $48-50M range. Meaning, they either bid it wrong and will have to make up the money. Or they're planning on undermanning/underequipping the job.

[Riverside]

Oh no no no, you misunderstand. I'm talking about finishing out that cloverleaf and running 295 to the next closest street and ending there. (Incidentally, that road may in fact be 152!) This seems like a much easier solution than ripping up the whole interchange for a new Y junction, re:my proposed fix for 93/95 and the OTHER half-clover interchange to nowhere.

My problem with that junction is that looks unsightly, it's a matter of ~1/4 mile or less to connect 295 to Attleboro, and I've never been a fan of that curve.

There is a proposal for an Attleboro Connector off the 295 stub ramps to 152 on the pre-graded, state-owned land for the canceled highway. One of just a couple cases left in the state where there's par-or-better chance of eventually building a road where no road currently exists (the other being finishing the 2001 extension of Route 57 for another 1.5 miles into Southwick). But that's mainly because it's a cheapie and Attleboro's community support ranges from ambivalent to very mildly supportive.

But it's not a 295 extension, just a very long exit ramp to 152 akin to the Route 85 stub off 290 in Marlborough. They still hope to rework that malformed, clogged cloverleaf into a functioning T interchange, so the cloverleaf will be gone under any circumstance to correct the traffic flow. They'll probably just provision for a turnout on the rebuilt interchange to peel out onto the connector. They will specifically avoid a 290/85 situation where the interchange feeds the high-speed traffic in the wrong direction.

Aha, this all makes much more sense than what I was thinking Commuting Boston Student meant. Fwiw, the next street from 295 isn't 152 (North Main Street) but North Avenue, which parallels North Main about a half mile to the west, and is more lightly used. (Although there has been a southbound detour on it for a long time now because of construction on 152, so more people know about it and use it now.) See here: http://g.co/maps/4gdy6

Opening a new ramp there would not be a bad idea, imho. 152 is always terrible, and if I had to guess, I would say it's because of people trying to get from Downtown Attleboro to I-95 (and to a lesser extent, from 95 to 295). Opening up a ramp here would, in theory, take some pressure off of the century(s) old skeleton of roads in the surrounding area (Rt 152, Rt 1, Rt 1A, Rt 123, Elm Road/Robert F. Toner Blvd.).

On the other hand, Attleboro and North Attleborough both have a very nice ratio of developed to undeveloped land, to my sense of aesthetics. A ramp here might change that balance... heh, so maybe I do think it would be a bad idea!

[F-Line to Dudley]

The good news: DOT designed a solution that is a hybrid of both of your recommendations (at least at the big bend in Lincoln). Route 2 will be separated from the current intersection of the Cambridge & Concord Turnpikes (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.449167,-71.320807&spn=0.004956,0.013078&gl=us&t=h&z=17) by a series of retaining walls and shifted further south. And that intersection will be made more pedestrian friendly. This is no small feat - there's something like 11 retaining walls and they will need to demolish 8-10 homes.

The bad news: DW White was the low bidder last month. They were notoriously slow on a Route 24 project recently. And they came in at $42M with all other bidders in the $48-50M range. Meaning, they either bid it wrong and will have to make up the money. Or they're planning on undermanning/underequipping the job.

I can't find any information on exactly how many curb gets are getting zapped. MassHighway documents say "scope of work" from Bedford Rd. to Route 126, but that means almost nothing in the nitty-gritty. I'd be interested to know if it's just the bend around the Corner that's getting it or if they're settling up curb cuts further away. Sandy Pond Rd. is the only intersection/cut on the 126-to-2A segment, so if that street were to go they'd gain a full extra mile of separation. Bedford Rd. to 2A is the single densest segment of curb cuts on the entire highway, so that may be the more significant piece depending on how many cuts get knocked out. I would be hella impressed if they made it as far as Brooks Rd., but that seems implausibly far.

[Nexis4jersey]

Top High Speed rail Networks by 2050

California High Speed Rail Network
Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $

Northeastern High Speed Network
Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $

Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources , all done by 2050 or 2060 which is easy to do...Some of the lines are under Construction I do count the 110mph lines for now. I would say that 260 miles is under construction for enhancements and HSR prep in the Northeast which means 110mph , with room for 125mph Electric service down the road.

Top Regional Rail Networks by 2050

Midwestern Regional Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 527.7 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2740 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 76 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 890 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 36
Top Speed 2012 : 100mph
Top Speed 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 304,600
Daily Ridership in 2030 : 780,000

Northeastern Regional Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 3493 Mi
Size by 2050 : 9,300 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 2150 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 8,400 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 64
Number of lines by 2050 : 134
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.6 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 4.2 Million

California Regional Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 716 Mi
Size by 2050 : 892 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 17
Electric lines in 2012 : 0 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 630 Mi
Top Speed in 2012 : 90mph
Top Speed in by 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 107,500
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 480,200

Taken from the various State , County , City Plans and Proposals and Transit advocate wishlists... Ridership Projections for 2030 are from me....factoring in various TOD and service enhancement projects aswell as new lines.
I have yet to do the LRT / Metro and streetcar build out comparisons...

Midwestern Light / Heavy Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 322.4 Mi
Size by 2050 : 820 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 15
Number of lines by 2050 : 59
Stations in 2012 : 268
Stations by 2050 : 420+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 815,290
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 3.8 Million

Northeastern Light / Heavy Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 1302 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2526+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 71
Number of lines by 2050 : 163
Stations in 2012 : 947
Stations by 2050 : 1784+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 7.2 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 20.3 Million


California Light / Heavy Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 431.8 Mi
Size by 2050 : 1051+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 22
Number of lines by 2050 : 54
Stations in 2012 : 302
Stations by 2050 : 680+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 1.1 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 5.8 Million

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why no high-speed rail from DC to FL?

[whighlander]

Why no high-speed rail from DC to FL?

Commute --- how far is say Miami from DC (1055 mi by Google)
suppose that truly high speed rail is capable of 150 mi per hour average over that distance including the mandatory dozen or so stops (Lot of Cong. dists) -- that means about 7.5 hours station to station or perhaps 8.5 to 9.5 hours portal to portal

Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe

[bbfen]

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops

Source, please.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Commute --- how far is say Miami from DC (1055 mi by Google)
suppose that truly high speed rail is capable of 150 mi per hour average over that distance including the mandatory dozen or so stops (Lot of Cong. dists) -- that means about 7.5 hours station to station or perhaps 8.5 to 9.5 hours portal to portal

Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe

I'm not trying to pull people off of planes. My potential riders on a Southeast Express are all people who would otherwise be driving or spending 20(!) hours on the Silver Service.

If the choice is: 20 hours on the Silver "Meteor" or 16 driving and I get to keep my car instead of paying for a rental, you bet your ass I'm driving.

16 driving or 8 on a high-speed train connected into a developed Rapid Transit Network in my destination city - well, that's a no-brainer, even I still expected to need a car at some point.

And who knows - 2 hours by plane plus an hour spent in the "tender" care of a TSA hack plus half an hour at baggage claim plus an hour on the road in your choice of rental or taxi - suddenly that 2 hours is looking more like 5 or 6 - present someone who may have had one too many intimate encounters with an 8-hour alternative that lets them keep their shoes on and who knows? They might just take it.

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't really see the TSA argument as a longterm argument. I see it this way, 2 things are going to happen:

1. People get fed up with TSA and start revolting against them (not like a civil war or anything, but they're going to be lobbying hard) and the TSA is dissolved.

or

2. TSA continues to exist, and as trains become more popular, trains are now a 'target' and must be 'protected'.

[BostonUrbEx]

I'm not trying to pull people off of planes.

You should. Something like 75% of air traffic is regional. That means, within the scope of HSR. And that's a lot of air congestional. Space isn't unlimited up there, nor on the runways. The cost of expanding runways to allow more traffic is also a massive capital cost, and takes up large amounts of space.

Air travel is the least energy efficient travel mode of any transportation option!

Air travel is subject to fuel prices (all modes are, but more so those where electric isn't viable), which are going to rise. I mean, who knows, maybe we'll see natural gas fueled planes for cheap $, but I'm not sure.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I don't really see the TSA argument as a longterm argument. I see it this way, 2 things are going to happen:

1. People get fed up with TSA and start revolting against them (not like a civil war or anything, but they're going to be lobbying hard) and the TSA is dissolved.

or

2. TSA continues to exist, and as trains become more popular, trains are now a 'target' and must be 'protected'.

2 will eventually trend towards 1 - if "protecting" the trains doesn't do it, "defending our nation's highways and byways" will.

I'm a naive and stupid college kid, though, and still have faith that the TSA is on its way out.

[whighlander]

Source, please.

bbf -- Just look at the growth of the el-Cheapo Airlines in Europe

They already had the high speed rail and in many cases the extensive RER, SBahn and the Tube

Now they are driving to Luton and flying to Berlin or Budapest

In the US today there is only one legitimate long-haul rail market the BOS-Wash Corridor and even then only center city, or burb near to a station to center city. Today even burb to burb via rail is unpopular as there is no way to get anywhere from the station in the burbs

Now an electric Zipcar that you just plug a Credit or Debit card into a slot and drive away would probably make the burb-to-burb more practical

[whighlander]

You should. Something like 75% of air traffic is regional. That means, within the scope of HSR. And that's a lot of air congestional. Space isn't unlimited up there, nor on the runways. The cost of expanding runways to allow more traffic is also a massive capital cost, and takes up large amounts of space.

Air travel is the least energy efficient travel mode of any transportation option!

Air travel is subject to fuel prices (all modes are, but more so those where electric isn't viable), which are going to rise. I mean, who knows, maybe we'll see natural gas fueled planes for cheap $, but I'm not sure.

Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

For a more concrete example -- you wake up at home in Lincoln and your destination is White Plains NY:
1) Train
a) drive to Westwood at Rt-128 -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to South Station
b) Acela to Penn Station,
c) then what?
2) Plane
a) drive to Logan -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to Logan
b) Fly to Laguardia or Newark
c) rent a car
d) drive to White Plains
3) Car -- drive directly to White Plains and your destination

I had a consulting project in Stamford that moved to White Plains. When it was in Stamford, I mostly took the train mostly from Rt-128. After the move to White Plains, I tried all three modes (the plane sometimes actually flew directly to White Plains) -- after the project moved to White Plains I ended-up driving most of the time

Note -- If there had been a flight from Hanscom to White Plains -- I would have taken it every time except when I was hauling a bunch of equipment

[Commuting Boston Student]

The answer to then what? is rent a car at Penn Station or taxi - same as at the airport.

[whighlander]

The answer to then what? is rent a car at Penn Station or taxi - same as at the airport.

Commute -- taxi is an option -- though it could be expensive
renting a car at Penn Station is not nearly as easy as at an airport, also its not easy at Union Station in DC, or for that matter at South Station

I just Googled renting a car at South Station -- here's a dialogue
[quote]
Lydia "wtf is JUICE? I want PURPLE DRANK!" M. says:
Hey there, Boston Yelpers! ;-)

I need a little bit of help. I will be traveling via Amtrak to the Boston South Station from DC, and need to locate a nearby car rental location. I have a training course in Duxbury and was advised that I could take the local train, but I prefer to rent a car and sight-see a bit. My hotel is in Plymouth. Any suggestion on any of the above?


11/13/2008 Susan "challah back, yo" N. says:
There should be car rental places around Government Center, about a 10-15 minute walk from South Station. Just know, it's pricier to rent a car in Boston than it is outside of Boston. If you're going to tour in Boston, ABSOLUTELY ditch the car. Even GPS won't help. For outside of Boston, it's definitely necessary. Also, if you're in Duxbury, you should check out Bongi's turkey farm. You may end up eating there everyday.


11/13/2008 Pete "I'd buy that for a dollar!" C. says:
I just checked Hertz and this comes up from their website:

"This location is for Amtrak arrivals only. There is no rental counter at South Street/Amtrak Station. Cab fare to the 30 Park Plaza location (Motor Mart Parking Garage) will be reimbursed up to $20.00 with receipt. The taxi stand is located outside the main entrance.
After Hours - Please reserve at the Boston Logan International Airport, 207 Porter Street, East Boston. Cab fare will be reimbursed up to $20.00 with receipt."

11/13/2008 Pete "I'd buy that for a dollar!" C. says:
Oh, another alternative is to get off Amtrak at Back Bay instead. That location info I clipped from Hertz is only a few blocks from Back Bay Station.

In that case, Avis is also convenient. This from the Avis website:
Boston - BO4
100 Clarendon St., (BackBay Train Park Garage), Boston, MA 02116 , U S A
(1) 617-534-1404
Sun 07:00AM-04:30PM; Mon-Sat 07:00AM-07:30PM

Back Bay/Copley is a major tourist area and there are tons of major hotels with rental desks. So that's an option too.
/quote]

[Commuting Boston Student]

Acela Southeast Express - the "Silver Bullet"
Washington, DC
Alexandria, VA
Staples Mill Road / Richmond, VA
Rocky Mount, NC
Charleston, SC
Savannah, GA
Jacksonville, FL
Orlando, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Miami, FL

That silver made things too hard to read I think. Oh well.

Ten stops, probably 10~12 hours to Miami Central. Maybe 8~10 to Orlando. Change for rail to Disneyworld?

[Equilibria]

Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

This is a solid argument anywhere but in the NE. Manhattan and the stations on either side will probably provide plenty of demand, and the presence of the train will take those passengers flying from other NE cities off of the roads between the airports and Manhattan. The same argument can certainly be made about DC, where a huge portion of business traffic is destined for areas which can be easily reached from Union Station (walking or Metro).

Boston is a little more complex due to 128, but I bet most companies would be happy to expense a taxi fare along the highway from 128 station.

[HenryAlan]

Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe
There are at lest two cases to be made for longer duration high speed trains.


Ridership derives mostly from people going partial distances. Not DC to Miami, but DC to Atlanta, Charlotte to Miami, etc.
Overnight sleeper trains. Board in Boston after work, dine on the train (high end food and wine), enjoy a bit of TV, go to bed (comfortable bunks, wake up fresh an hour or so before the train arrives in Miami. This might appeal to quite a few people over flying down after work, finding your way to the hotel, shoveling in some junk food somewhere along the way. I have ridden such trains in Russia, it is a very comfortable and refined travel mode.

[BostonUrbEx]

Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

For a more concrete example -- you wake up at home in Lincoln and your destination is White Plains NY:
1) Train
a) drive to Westwood at Rt-128 -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to South Station
b) Acela to Penn Station,
c) then what?
2) Plane
a) drive to Logan -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to Logan
b) Fly to Laguardia or Newark
c) rent a car
d) drive to White Plains
3) Car -- drive directly to White Plains and your destination

I had a consulting project in Stamford that moved to White Plains. When it was in Stamford, I mostly took the train mostly from Rt-128. After the move to White Plains, I tried all three modes (the plane sometimes actually flew directly to White Plains) -- after the project moved to White Plains I ended-up driving most of the time

Note -- If there had been a flight from Hanscom to White Plains -- I would have taken it every time except when I was hauling a bunch of equipment

Okay, so you give me some anecdotal evidence and use it as a coverall to say HSR can't compete with regional air travel because of it.

[whighlander]

There are at lest two cases to be made for longer duration high speed trains.


Ridership derives mostly from people going partial distances. Not DC to Miami, but DC to Atlanta, Charlotte to Miami, etc.
Overnight sleeper trains. Board in Boston after work, dine on the train (high end food and wine), enjoy a bit of TV, go to bed (comfortable bunks, wake up fresh an hour or so before the train arrives in Miami. This might appeal to quite a few people over flying down after work, finding your way to the hotel, shoveling in some junk food somewhere along the way. I have ridden such trains in Russia, it is a very comfortable and refined travel mode.


Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it

[bbfen]

Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it

Me. I'm not a hippie, I hate hostels and I'm not retired.

Also, I call whatever the Godwin's Law of "rail versus road" is.

When you make the argument that taxpayers can't afford rail infrastructure as we continue to fully subsidize the majority of the highway system, then you have to sit the rest of the class in the corner. With your mouth taped shut.

[Justin7]

This discussion has been largely about convenience. Can anyone explain why a trip on the Acela is more expensive than flying coach? Intuitively is seems like it should be cheaper to move people along a track than through the air. Is this just a matter of competition and Amtrak's lack there of? It makes the decision to travel by rail a difficult one.

[F-Line to Dudley]

This discussion has been largely about convenience. Can anyone explain why a trip on the Acela is more expensive than flying coach? Intuitively is seems like it should be cheaper to move people along a track than through the air. Is this just a matter of competition and Amtrak's lack there of? It makes the decision to travel by rail a difficult one.

Demographics. Acela caters to first-class customers...business execs and the like. And does very well at that premium market. What Amtrak lacks right now is that middle ground between the premium class and the current Regionals. That's the screaming need that's unfilled, and getting moreso by the day as airlines abandon regional routes in favor of cross-country/hub-to-hub. But that's more for lack of equipment. The Acela is such a specially-designed trainset to work on that old infrastructure under such suffocating FRA rules that it doesn't scale enough to offer 150 MPH trainsets for "coach class". There's only a handful of Acela sets in existence for how expensive they were to purchase. The Regionals are capped at 125 MPH, and are a hodgepodge of generic 'AmCan' coaches and old locomotives.

They're in process of replacing every single loco on the fleet and may be able to order more to start doing some of those midrange regionals that maybe skip more local stops. And a couple of the last big-chunk stimulus grants take care of some big traffic bottlenecks. But ultimately I don't think you're getting that sweet-spot regional airline replacement for the masses until it's time to order a 2nd-generation HSR trainset to replace the experimental Acelas. Something a little more modular and standardized with the coaches, and with some more realistic FRA-standards flexibility so they can scale better with more borrowed Euro technology instead of having to overbuild freight-derived sets that aren't functionally safer than their Euro counterparts (in fact, maybe less so because they're so experimentally overcustomized). The FRA has recently done some relaxing away from its "...but we've always done it this way" shortsighted stubbornness that'll allow more of this Euro HSR tech to seep in. Caltrans recently got some equipment waivers for upping their slow-speed lines to a less-slow 100 MPH at cheaper than it would normally be under the draconian old rules. But they'll have to do substantially more of that, catered to the NEC, to allow that HSR-for-the-masses type scale on the equipment purchases.


The Caltrans waver is a sea change from how the FRA ivory tower usually works. But it's a tiny first step requiring many more. This institutionalized mentality about every U.S. train having to be a military tank-grade freight engine has been ingrained in the gov't since the 19th century. They got a loooooong way to go before that mentality is changed enough to uncap Amtrak's artificial ceiling and allow something half-approaching the more nimble high-speed equipment the rest of the world has long and safely perfected.

[HenryAlan]

Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it

I'm not sure your range of experience covers California (not to say you haven't been there, just that you likely don't understand the place). I would ride that L.A. to S.F. train as my preferred mode. And every single person I know who lives in California says the same thing. Since I grew up there, and maintain many ties to the state, both North and South, I know a lot of people from varied backgrounds. What we all understand is that the one hour flight from LAX to SFO (or any of the many regional to regional options) requires a minimum of five hours for the total trip. I know people who will make the 400 mile drive rather than hassle with the airports/TSA/car rental/traffic issues when flying. But they don't like spending 8 or 9 hours driving in heavy traffic. They will take a fast train if it is available.

As for the overnight service, I'm not talking Orient Express, though I can see a market for that, too, as a transcontinental. What I mean is just what I described, something that busy people would use as a more comfortable means of making the trip, that requires less of their active awake time than flying.

[whighlander]

I'm not sure your range of experience covers California (not to say you haven't been there, just that you likely don't understand the place). I would ride that L.A. to S.F. train as my preferred mode. And every single person I know who lives in California says the same thing. Since I grew up there, and maintain many ties to the state, both North and South, I know a lot of people from varied backgrounds. What we all understand is that the one hour flight from LAX to SFO (or any of the many regional to regional options) requires a minimum of five hours for the total trip. I know people who will make the 400 mile drive rather than hassle with the airports/TSA/car rental/traffic issues when flying. But they don't like spending 8 or 9 hours driving in heavy traffic. They will take a fast train if it is available.

As for the overnight service, I'm not talking Orient Express, though I can see a market for that, too, as a transcontinental. What I mean is just what I described, something that busy people would use as a more comfortable means of making the trip, that requires less of their active awake time than flying.

Henry -- I must admit that try as I might I don't understand Caiifornians although:
1) my daughter got her Law Degree from Peperdine,
2) she married an Angelino (his parents live in Malibu) and they lived in Santa Monica for several years before moving to Texas
3) I've also spent some of my most pleasant traveling on business in Calinfornia from SF to SD with lesser good times in LA area and probably the best time in SB
4) I lived for one summer in Santa Monica while I worked at UCLA and commuted on Santa Monica and LA buses
5) I've commuted up and down the SF peninsula and in SV on BART and Caltrans
6) done some hiking in the mountains
7) presented seminars and keynote talks at major conferences and exhibited in SF, San Jose, Anaheim, LA, SD, LaJolla
8) Met the real TopGun
9) done some things at Lawrence Livermore (you didn't see me say that)
10) seen things through some big telescopes
11) had a friend and colleague who grew up in LA and vaguely remembered the Red Cars (inter-urbans)
12) and once arrived in LA on an early Tuesday PM, visited the La Brea Tar Pits, did my business and was back in Boston Wednesday PM -- perfect -- no jet lag
13) Ran through SFO (like OJ) trying to cactch my flight to Boston after returning from Asia
14) almost was hit by a subsiding wall of mud on the 101
15) Met the inventor of the Vector (the car in "Rising Sun")
16) really enjoyed the Gamble House
17) was not impressed by the original Getty
18) traveled to some obscure rural area full of nut trees to talk to an investor
19) really enjoyed the Huntington Museum and especaially the cactus gardens
20) accidentally drove down the 405 in SD when it was closed for the SD marathon -- talk about a post Appocolyptic view
21) landed at LAX while an earthquake (small) was in progress -- a week or so later I was in the UCLA Student Union restaurant when a fair sized one hit in the San Fernando Valley and made the water in my glass dance
22) got lost in the fog driving through Sorrento Canyon
23) heard the sound of 10 millon cars up on Mulholland Drive
24) was invited to go skinny dipping at Big Bare (err Bear) by my landlady in SM
25) Heard the iconic "Ok pull over and take out you Driver's License") from a motor cycle cop in Westwood -- only problem I was j-walking -- I even traveled the court to pay my $9 fine

But -- I still don't claim to know why they do what they do -- although I love how they have a 2 letter code for every city that matters

Oh -- the reason for this ramble -- I landed at LAX got on a Embraer for San Jose and was told to evacuate the plane as it "needed to be rebooted" -- we eventualy got a second Embraer and arrived 1 hour late -- but a whole lot earlier than I would have on a train

[Riverside]

whighlander, I grant that rail service over long distances may not always be the fastest alternative, but in the scheme of things, would you rather spend, say, 1 hour on a plane + 1 hour waiting for a replacement plane + 2 hours getting to the airport early, checking in, doing security checks, etc + 1 hour getting from your departure city to its airport and then getting from your destination city's airport to its downtown = 5 hours...

or 8 hours on a train where you go directly from downtown to downtown, and are free to do basically anything you want during those 8 hours (sleep, read, work, look out the window, watch a movie on your laptop, walk around the train, check out the café car, talk with your fellow passengers)?

I think a good argument could be made that the time you lose taking the train is made up for by the less stress you'll have upon reaching your destination.

(And I think a similar argument could be made about sitting in traffic for however long that same trip would take, although with gas as it is and Amtrak prices as they are, most people would probably still find it more cost-effective to drive.)

But moving the discussion back to slightly less crazy transit pitches more specifically in New England: in a hypothetical HSR (or Super HSR) trip from Boston to Washington (or even just NYC for simplicity's sake), what are the smallest cities that the train should service? At what point do you begin to lose too much time between major destinations that's not off-set by enough new passengers? (New Haven, Hartford and Providence, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, I guess in the case of Providence, with the ROW as it is now, the trains would have to slow down to go around that giant curve along Rt 10, so they might as well stop to let off/pick up passengers.

But putting considerations like that aside, theoretically, what cities merit HSR service between Boston and NYC?

[whighlander]

whighlander, I grant that rail service over long distances may not always be the fastest alternative, but in the scheme of things, would you rather spend, say, 1 hour on a plane + 1 hour waiting for a replacement plane + 2 hours getting to the airport early, checking in, doing security checks, etc + 1 hour getting from your departure city to its airport and then getting from your destination city's airport to its downtown = 5 hours...

or 8 hours on a train where you go directly from downtown to downtown, and are free to do basically anything you want during those 8 hours (sleep, read, work, look out the window, watch a movie on your laptop, walk around the train, check out the café car, talk with your fellow passengers)?

I think a good argument could be made that the time you lose taking the train is made up for by the less stress you'll have upon reaching your destination.

(And I think a similar argument could be made about sitting in traffic for however long that same trip would take, although with gas as it is and Amtrak prices as they are, most people would probably still find it more cost-effective to drive.)

But moving the discussion back to slightly less crazy transit pitches more specifically in New England: in a hypothetical HSR (or Super HSR) trip from Boston to Washington (or even just NYC for simplicity's sake), what are the smallest cities that the train should service? At what point do you begin to lose too much time between major destinations that's not off-set by enough new passengers? (New Haven, Hartford and Providence, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, I guess in the case of Providence, with the ROW as it is now, the trains would have to slow down to go around that giant curve along Rt 10, so they might as well stop to let off/pick up passengers.

But putting considerations like that aside, theoretically, what cities merit HSR service between Boston and NYC?

Riverside -- You are somewhat asking the wrong question -- the problem with HSR as currently conceived is that it is inherently a serial system in that to get to NYC you have to go through Providence, etc.

The advantage of air is that you can go point to point with no intermediate stops. There is no inherent reason why you can not do the same with rail.

The only major modification is that all of the stations along the way need to be on sidings with the mainline uninterupted. However, since we've dispensed with long trains pulled by engines and replaced them with single units which are self-propelled the sidings are short.

Once you decide to go non-stop from point to point you get short travel times without the need for exceptional speeds and all of the infrasturcture which is required. You also can tailor the frequency and scale of the service to each destination.

For example you can have one single car-lenght train leave Boston for NYC every 15 minutes with a travel time of 2 hours and not require the vehichle to exceed 120 mph.

Of course such a system only solves the CBD to CBD aspect of the trip -- something such as all-electic ZipCars needs to be available at each station to handle the trips to the suburbs, etc.

As to what other cities need to have HSR service between Boston and NYC
on the shoreline route:
Providence
New London
New Haven
Stamford
all wold havet their own departures with frequencies varying from 1 to 2 per hour as requirred

on the inland route:
Framingham / Metrowest
Worcester
Spingfield
Hartford
all wold havet their own departures with frequencies varying from 1 to 4 per hour as requirred

[HenryAlan]

Oh -- the reason for this ramble -- I landed at LAX got on a Embraer for San Jose and was told to evacuate the plane as it "needed to be rebooted" -- we eventualy got a second Embraer and arrived 1 hour late -- but a whole lot earlier than I would have on a train

I won't get in to the dick waving contest, but will point out that you are comparing a transfer connection to an origination trip. Not remotely the same thing, which is true whether you are in Los Angeles or London.


I'm glad you enjoyed the Gambol House. Completely amazing in my opinion!

[Justin7]

Demographics. Acela caters to first-class customers...business execs and the like. And does very well at that premium market. What Amtrak lacks right now is that middle ground between the premium class and the current Regionals. That's the screaming need that's unfilled, and getting moreso by the day as airlines abandon regional routes in favor of cross-country/hub-to-hub. But that's more for lack of equipment. The Acela is such a specially-designed trainset to work on that old infrastructure under such suffocating FRA rules that it doesn't scale enough to offer 150 MPH trainsets for "coach class". There's only a handful of Acela sets in existence for how expensive they were to purchase. The Regionals are capped at 125 MPH, and are a hodgepodge of generic 'AmCan' coaches and old locomotives.

They're in process of replacing every single loco on the fleet and may be able to order more to start doing some of those midrange regionals that maybe skip more local stops. And a couple of the last big-chunk stimulus grants take care of some big traffic bottlenecks. But ultimately I don't think you're getting that sweet-spot regional airline replacement for the masses until it's time to order a 2nd-generation HSR trainset to replace the experimental Acelas. Something a little more modular and standardized with the coaches, and with some more realistic FRA-standards flexibility so they can scale better with more borrowed Euro technology instead of having to overbuild freight-derived sets that aren't functionally safer than their Euro counterparts (in fact, maybe less so because they're so experimentally overcustomized). The FRA has recently done some relaxing away from its "...but we've always done it this way" shortsighted stubbornness that'll allow more of this Euro HSR tech to seep in. Caltrans recently got some equipment waivers for upping their slow-speed lines to a less-slow 100 MPH at cheaper than it would normally be under the draconian old rules. But they'll have to do substantially more of that, catered to the NEC, to allow that HSR-for-the-masses type scale on the equipment purchases.


The Caltrans waver is a sea change from how the FRA ivory tower usually works. But it's a tiny first step requiring many more. This institutionalized mentality about every U.S. train having to be a military tank-grade freight engine has been ingrained in the gov't since the 19th century. They got a loooooong way to go before that mentality is changed enough to uncap Amtrak's artificial ceiling and allow something half-approaching the more nimble high-speed equipment the rest of the world has long and safely perfected.

Thank you. Is there a go to location for this information or did you have to piece it together? I'm most interested in the reasons Acela lacks a coach class, the difference in purchase price between the Acela/Regional engines/passenger cars, and any near-term plans for replacement.

[Nexis4jersey]

The Next Gen Acela plans call for Boston to DC to take 3hr and 20mins....so 5 to 7 hrs to Miami is realistic , but would never happen.

[Nexis4jersey]

Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

For a more concrete example -- you wake up at home in Lincoln and your destination is White Plains NY:
1) Train
a) drive to Westwood at Rt-128 -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to South Station
b) Acela to Penn Station,
c) then what?
2) Plane
a) drive to Logan -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to Logan
b) Fly to Laguardia or Newark
c) rent a car
d) drive to White Plains
3) Car -- drive directly to White Plains and your destination

I had a consulting project in Stamford that moved to White Plains. When it was in Stamford, I mostly took the train mostly from Rt-128. After the move to White Plains, I tried all three modes (the plane sometimes actually flew directly to White Plains) -- after the project moved to White Plains I ended-up driving most of the time

Note -- If there had been a flight from Hanscom to White Plains -- I would have taken it every time except when I was hauling a bunch of equipment

Hmmmm....

White Plains has a train station and is 30mins from Grand Central. One day , 20 years from now there will be a east - west rail link connecting WP to the NEC and HSR to Boston...

[NJBostonFan]

Top High Speed rail Networks by 2050

California High Speed Rail Network
Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $

Northeastern High Speed Network
Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $

Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources , all done by 2050 or 2060 which is easy to do...Some of the lines are under Construction I do count the 110mph lines for now. I would say that 260 miles is under construction for enhancements and HSR prep in the Northeast which means 110mph , with room for 125mph Electric service down the road.
[/COLOR]

Can you please tell me the exact routes and station on the high speed networks?

[Nexis4jersey]

Can you please tell me the exact routes and station on the high speed networks?

I posted it back here....

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=138549&postcount=258

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215312482559953359515.0004a1cde22d55b7eb22 e&msa=0&ll=41.52503,-72.399902&spn=9.126586,19.753418

[BostonUrbEx]

I posted it back here....

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=138549&postcount=258

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215312482559953359515.0004a1cde22d55b7eb22 e&msa=0&ll=41.52503,-72.399902&spn=9.126586,19.753418

I like the HSR up I-84, good stuff.

[NJBostonFan]

I posted it back here....

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=138549&postcount=258

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215312482559953359515.0004a1cde22d55b7eb22 e&msa=0&ll=41.52503,-72.399902&spn=9.126586,19.753418

I'm reffering to the ones in California and the Midwest.

[Nexis4jersey]

I'm reffering to the ones in California and the Midwest.

Midwest...

http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MHSRA_2011_Economic_Study_Technical_Report.pdf

[NJBostonFan]

And the lines in Cali?

[Nexis4jersey]

And the lines in Cali?

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/San_Jose_-_Merced.aspx

[LordStanleyCup2011]

Does anyone have a Google Map of the current MBTA Commuter Rail System?

[Shepard]

Here, and click the tab for "interactive street map"

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/

Hope that helps!

[LordStanleyCup2011]

Here, and click the tab for "interactive street map"

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/

Hope that helps!

Thanks alot, but I wanted like an actual map made by someone on Google Maps that I can add on too

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Sorry just have my map that I've already extended out. I don't have a base version.

http://g.co/maps/jkdwv

[LordStanleyCup2011]

Sorry just have my map that I've already extended out. I don't have a base version.

http://g.co/maps/jkdwv

This is exactly what I was thinking just added on more.

Do you mind if I add on to this map?

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Be my guest

[Shepard]

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7614/glmap2.jpg
Here's my stylized map showing what I believe to be the most critical extensions over coming decades, both to serve new areas and also enhance the efficiency of the network.

Green Line
BC –Government Center
Cleveland Circle – “Silver Line Way”, via surface Essex Street (closed to vehicles)and Piers Transitway (Silver Line Tunnel)
Riverside – Porter
Needham Center – Kenmore
Heath Street - West Medford
Ashmont – Park Street, via BHA and Dudley and Tremont Street Tunnel
Navy Yard – City Point, via surface Greenway and Piers Transitway

Orange Line
Needham Center – Oak Grove

Red Line
Alewife – Ashmont
Alewife – Braintree
Alewife – Readville ,via Mass Ave tunnel and Fairmount Line
South Station – Readville, via Fairmount Line (not connected to through-line at SS)

Blue Line
Charles/MGH – Lynn
Charles/MGH – Chelsea

Shuttle Line
South Station to Back Bay (via DMU) – extended to Yawkee for Red Sox home games

Airport Express Shuttle Bus
Serving South Station, BCEC, terminals, and Airport BL

[vanshnookenraggen]

That's awesome! How did you draw that? I love the style.

[czsz]

I like this plan a lot (still skeptical of all the plans to route both the Green and Orange Lines to Needham though - let's concentrate on real urban areas first!)

No description of that pink line?

[Shepard]

Thanks!

CZ - pink line is actually two red line branches shown in a differentiated color (as I did also with the GL) -1) Alewife – Readville ,via Mass Ave tunnel and Fairmount Line; 2)South Station – Readville, via Fairmount Line (not connected to through-line at SS)
I suppose you're right about Needham - that's not all that immediately necessary. But I do think OL to WRox is more necessary - and if you're tearing out the Needham line for that purpose, replacement service would be necessary, right?

Van - Honored you like the style! I did this in Sketchup actually, making very heavy use of the offset tool and style window. Here's another view of the same map without the style and angled perspective:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/893/glmap2straight.jpg

[Riverside]

Shepard, that map is gorgeous. I love how you expanded the Green Line; wouldn't be that hard for the T to do all that. I like how you provide service to Dorchester, Mattapan, Charlestown and Chelsea, all currently without adequate service.

[EDIT: I like how you use the Kenmore loop to shortturn the Needham Branch. Since it seems like the service would mainly be used for village-to-village trips within Needham and between Newton and Needham, no point in making it go all the way into downtown. Customers who want that could take the Orange Line.]

Orange Line to Needham doesn't really bother me, since it will also cover Roslindale and West Roxbury; like you said, in for a penny, in for a pound on that route, I suppose.

If it were me, I would extend that BOS-BOB shuttle to Yawkey full time, but that's just me. Would take some pressure off over the Boylston Street Subway of the Green Line. Maybe peak hour service only?

My big gripe, though, is running Red Line rolling stock over the Midland Branch. Boston has cannibalized enough of the railroads in and out of the city, particularly on the south side, and running rapid transit on that right of way would eliminate another. While I understand the rationale for providing that level/type of service to Dorchester, the relative cost seems too high. Better to electrify it and run EMUs on that corridor, in my view. That would allow freight or even (hypothetical future) late night Amtrak to easily use the corridor at night, and would allow day-time Amtrak and commuter rail some flexibility during the day.

But I do like the Massachusetts Avenue subway. (I have it in just about every single one of my fantasy T maps.) I'd say keep that Red Line, and connect it either to Andrew via Southampton or JFK-UMass via Mass Ave and Columbia Road.

As I said, gorgeous map. :)

[whighlander]

Thanks!

CZ - pink line is actually two red line branches shown in a differentiated color (as I did also with the GL) -1) Alewife – Readville ,via Mass Ave tunnel and Fairmount Line; 2)South Station – Readville, via Fairmount Line (not connected to through-line at SS)
I suppose you're right about Needham - that's not all that immediately necessary. But I do think OL to WRox is more necessary - and if you're tearing out the Needham line for that purpose, replacement service would be necessary, right?

Van - Honored you like the style! I did this in Sketchup actually, making very heavy use of the offset tool and style window. Here's another view of the same map without the style and angled perspective:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/893/glmap2straight.jpg

Shep -- its elegant -- but No-one can claim to be serious about expansion of the T to increase its utility rather than as a political gesture -- unless you provide some reasonable way to effectively link Kendall to Hanscom and Burlington NW / Network Drive. After Kendall, Longwood, the SPID, Alston/Brighton -- Hanscom & NW-Park are the two most likely major growth areas in the inner Hub (inside and on Rt-128). They have the right demographics, good highway access and already are developed at a certain level.

[Commuting Boston Student]

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7614/glmap2.jpg
Here's my stylized map showing what I believe to be the most critical extensions over coming decades, both to serve new areas and also enhance the efficiency of the network.

Green Line
BC –Government Center
Cleveland Circle – “Silver Line Way”, via surface Essex Street (closed to vehicles)and Piers Transitway (Silver Line Tunnel)
Riverside – Porter
Needham Center – Kenmore
Heath Street - West Medford
Ashmont – Park Street, via BHA and Dudley and Tremont Street Tunnel
Navy Yard – City Point, via surface Greenway and Piers Transitway

Orange Line
Needham Center – Oak Grove

Red Line
Alewife – Ashmont
Alewife – Braintree
Alewife – Readville ,via Mass Ave tunnel and Fairmount Line
South Station – Readville, via Fairmount Line (not connected to through-line at SS)

Blue Line
Charles/MGH – Lynn
Charles/MGH – Chelsea

Shuttle Line
South Station to Back Bay (via DMU) – extended to Yawkee for Red Sox home games

Airport Express Shuttle Bus
Serving South Station, BCEC, terminals, and Airport BL

I like most of it, but I do have a few small problems.

Green Line: There's no reason to run surface-level at Essex Street between two tunnels, you gain nothing by shutting that road off to vehicles but you do create a huge obstacle to through traffic unless you allow crossings over. In my opinion, shutting any roads down in that area should be an all-or-nothing proposition, and I'd lean on the side of ending all non-pedestrian traffic between Tremont, Purchase, and Congress Streets north of Stuart/Kneeland and south of Court if you came to me with a serious proposal for getting that done in 20 years or so. That aside, I'd seriously consider taking at least one or two of those Green Line branches and branding them a separate color - seven branches just feels like too many branches to me. Say... why not call City Point to Navy Yard and Cleveland Circle to "Silver Line Way" (which should be made into a proper station and rebranded Seaport Station or Pavilion Station) the Silver Line? No reason we can't repurpose that color after finally ditching the Silver Bus.
Shuttle Line & Red Line: I'd really like to see these two connected somehow. Is it possible to turn a train at South Station, extending the "Indigo Line" to Back Bay and Yawkey?

[whighlander]

I like most of it, but I do have a few small problems.

Green Line: There's no reason to run surface-level at Essex Street between two tunnels, you gain nothing by shutting that road off to vehicles but you do create a huge obstacle to through traffic unless you allow crossings over. In my opinion, shutting any roads down in that area should be an all-or-nothing proposition, and I'd lean on the side of ending all non-pedestrian traffic between Tremont, Purchase, and Congress Streets north of Stuart/Kneeland and south of Court if you came to me with a serious proposal for getting that done in 20 years or so. That aside, I'd seriously consider taking at least one or two of those Green Line branches and branding them a separate color - seven branches just feels like too many branches to me. Say... why not call City Point to Navy Yard and Cleveland Circle to "Silver Line Way" (which should be made into a proper station and rebranded Seaport Station or Pavilion Station) the Silver Line? No reason we can't repurpose that color after finally ditching the Silver Bus.
Shuttle Line & Red Line: I'd really like to see these two connected somehow. Is it possible to turn a train at South Station, extending the "Indigo Line" to Back Bay and Yawkey?

Again -- you are just wasting time and effort extending any existing subway lines inside Rt-128 -- beyond what is in the pipeline or the extended pipeline.

None of those are at all likely in the next 20 to 30 years

The real opportunities for anything other than buses or Commuter Rail for several reasons:
1) economics - where the business is
2) economics -- where the money and political power is located
3) demographics -- where are the people with interests in 1) and 2)

are associated with:
1) SPID -- most probably Silver Line in tunnels
2) Harvard Alston -- possibly the New Balance
3) NW Tech belt (Winter St Waltham - Hanscom - Burlington NW Park

[Commuting Boston Student]

Again -- you are just wasting time and effort extending any existing subway lines inside Rt-128 -- beyond what is in the pipeline or the extended pipeline.

None of those are at all likely in the next 20 to 30 years

The real opportunities for anything other than buses or Commuter Rail for several reasons:
1) economics - where the business is
2) economics -- where the money and political power is located
3) demographics -- where are the people with interests in 1) and 2)

are associated with:
1) SPID -- most probably Silver Line in tunnels
2) Harvard Alston -- possibly the New Balance
3) NW Tech belt (Winter St Waltham - Hanscom - Burlington NW Park

It's not going to be people like me who are wasting the time and effort. The core of the system needs to be more efficient before we can focus on the fringes, and yes, anything outside of 128 is by definition the fringes.

Opposing any attempts at making the system better starting with the core because there's just so much demand for the Red Line at Hanscom is a) stupid and b) liable to provoke a Chris Christie-esque "Then I'll go back home and order a pizza, you call me when you're willing to negotiate" reaction. I don't think focusing on things like Green Line Heavy Rail and Blue Line to Charles/MGH are really a waste of time and effort, but I'm happy to waste all the time in the world and continue screwing Hanscom, Allston and the SPID if that's the way we want to frame this conversation.

e: In fact, here's the deal: Waltham and Allston want rapid transit? They can get it via the Blue Line. Oh, wait, the Blue Line can't get to Waltham or Allston without going through Charles/MGH. Guess that just means no rapid transit for those communities, since the Red-Blue Connector just can't get done...

[whighlander]

It's not going to be people like me who are wasting the time and effort. The core of the system needs to be more efficient before we can focus on the fringes, and yes, anything outside of 128 is by definition the fringes.

Opposing any attempts at making the system better starting with the core because there's just so much demand for the Red Line at Hanscom is a) stupid and b) liable to provoke a Chris Christie-esque "Then I'll go back home and order a pizza, you call me when you're willing to negotiate" reaction. I don't think focusing on things like Green Line Heavy Rail and Blue Line to Charles/MGH are really a waste of time and effort, but I'm happy to waste all the time in the world and continue screwing Hanscom, Allston and the SPID if that's the way we want to frame this conversation.

e: In fact, here's the deal: Waltham and Allston want rapid transit? They can get it via the Blue Line. Oh, wait, the Blue Line can't get to Waltham or Allston without going through Charles/MGH. Guess that just means no rapid transit for those communities, since the Red-Blue Connector just can't get done...

Commute -- " beyond what is in the pipeline or the extended pipeline. "

Red-Blue is in the pipe or extended pipe

I'm talking about the Shep-like Orange Line to Needham -- was in the plan long ago -- but the city was totally different place -- e.g. no Kendall, no Harvard Alston

Besides -- I've always advocated electrified CR to enable frequent, single or double-unit self-propelled service -- now with the new Smartphone Ticket-App this is even more feasible -- i.e. no conductors, no paper tickets

[BostonUrbEx]

What a cool map, Shep! Thank you muchly for sharing!

[Shepard]

Thanks for the compliments!

Riverside - I understand the point you're making about the Fairmount line and reasons not to cannibalize it for heavy rail. If kept as a DMU/EMU line it can be connected as part of what I've called the Shuttle Line from SS to BB (Commuting Boston Student made that suggestion). I'll render an alternate version showing this arrangement.

Commuting Boston Student - I'm actually very much in favor of the Essex Street transitway (http://www.archboston.com/community/showpost.php?p=123258&postcount=643) idea. I think if traffic is allowed to cross Essex, and the street can still be used minimally to an extent (e.g by taxis, at certain times open to general traffic, etc) then it can be a success and most of the through-traffic can easily be re-routed down Kneeland. It's also a much less expensive option than tunneling under the NEC from the end of the Tremont Street Tunnel towards South Station. In fact, Boylston is so close to the surface (you can actually see daylight from the trains) that a portal on that end would be highly pragmatic. The more expensive portal would be down towards South Station, but even there you'd have the existing Silver Line tunnel right below the surface.

Westie - You're dreaming something silly if you think that Hanscom and Burlington are the most important rapid transit extensions we should be advocating at the moment.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Thanks for the compliments!

Riverside - I understand the point you're making about the Fairmount line and reasons not to cannibalize it for heavy rail. If kept as a DMU/EMU line it can be connected as part of what I've called the Shuttle Line from SS to BB (Commuting Boston Student made that suggestion). I'll render an alternate version showing this arrangement.

Commuting Boston Student - I'm actually very much in favor of the Essex Street transitway (http://www.archboston.com/community/showpost.php?p=123258&postcount=643) idea. I think if traffic is allowed to cross Essex, and the street can still be used minimally to an extent (e.g by taxis, at certain times open to general traffic, etc) then it can be a success and most of the through-traffic can easily be re-routed down Kneeland. It's also a much less expensive option than tunneling under the NEC from the end of the Tremont Street Tunnel towards South Station. In fact, Boylston is so close to the surface (you can actually see daylight from the trains) that a portal on that end would be highly pragmatic. The more expensive portal would be down towards South Station, but even there you'd have the existing Silver Line tunnel right below the surface.

Westie - You're dreaming something silly if you think that Hanscom and Burlington are the most important rapid transit extensions we should be advocating at the moment.

To be honest I'd oppose any expansion of the Red Line in its current form that wasn't a package deal with CBTC (and whatever else is needed to clear out the DTX-SS log jams once and for all) and possibly Red-Blue if I can't find some other project to attach that to (see earlier Blue Line Westbound proposals.) 24 hour service on the Red and Green Lines would be nice too if we can get it.

Essex Street transitway... I'm slowly talking myself into supporting that, although I still don't like shutting streets off piecemeal without a solid plan to eventually shut them ALL off in the area I previously mentioned, which I'm also becoming more convinced is a good idea. Inside Tremont-Stuart-Kneeland-Congress-Court isn't that large of an area when you consider it.

As for transit priorities, after the aformentioned Red Line stuff, Green Line Heavy Rail, I would say the priorities are Blue Line to Allston-Brighton-Watertown-Waltham, Needham and Fairmount Lines companion Rapid Transit Service (which doesn't need to and shouldn't replace the existing Commuter Rail), and you guys are doing a great job of selling me on a Mass Ave. subway after that.

Is it at all feasable or even possible to build an AirTrain Boston/Logan on a bridge over the harbor? I like the idea of a Silver Line Light Rail replacing SL2&4, abandoning SL5 to DTX and running an El or a monorail(!) over the water for service to South Station, Logan Harborside Ferry Terminal, the Airport Terminals, Central Parking and Airport Station.

[Equilibria]

As for transit priorities, after the aformentioned Red Line stuff, Green Line Heavy Rail, I would say the priorities are Blue Line to Allston-Brighton-Watertown-Waltham, Needham and Fairmount Lines companion Rapid Transit Service (which doesn't need to and shouldn't replace the existing Commuter Rail), and you guys are doing a great job of selling me on a Mass Ave. subway after that.

Is it at all feasable or even possible to build an AirTrain Boston/Logan on a bridge over the harbor? I like the idea of a Silver Line Light Rail replacing SL2&4, abandoning SL5 to DTX and running an El or a monorail(!) over the water for service to South Station, Logan Harborside Ferry Terminal, the Airport Terminals, Central Parking and Airport Station.

I would actually say that DMU service should be the first thing the T does after signal work (F-Line has sold me on that as priority 1), since Blue Line expansion would be far more costly and serve fewer people (it's hard to gain ridership on a line where there's never been one, and Allston can be served with a DMU stop next to New Balance).

On the subject of the Blue Line, though, it would probably be less expensive to send a spur tunnel off of the Blue Line to a new station under Central Parking at Logan than to build a bridge from SB, even if it were logistically possible (and I don't think it is). Honestly, though, an express bus from South Station to the terminals by way of the Convention Center serves the Silver Line's purpose at the airport fine and probably quicker if the tunnel were to be turned over to a harbor trolley.

Of course, a people mover from the terminals to the ConRac and T Station would also do the job, and of the luxury options is probably the cheapest to build. The silly thing is that if you were going downtown you'd spend more time on the people mover than on the subway...

[F-Line to Dudley]

I would actually say that DMU service should be the first thing the T does after signal work (F-Line has sold me on that as priority 1), since Blue Line expansion would be far more costly and serve fewer people (it's hard to gain ridership on a line where there's never been one, and Allston can be served with a DMU stop next to New Balance).

On the subject of the Blue Line, though, it would probably be less expensive to send a spur tunnel off of the Blue Line to a new station under Central Parking at Logan than to build a bridge from SB, even if it were logistically possible (and I don't think it is). Honestly, though, an express bus from South Station to the terminals by way of the Convention Center serves the Silver Line's purpose at the airport fine and probably quicker if the tunnel were to be turned over to a harbor trolley.

Of course, a people mover from the terminals to the ConRac and T Station would also do the job, and of the luxury options is probably the cheapest to build. The silly thing is that if you were going downtown you'd spend more time on the people mover than on the subway...

Actually, Blue Line has FAR more ridership than anything they could do with a choo-choo short of the North-South Link. Blue to Lynn is +21,000 daily riders, +7900 who are currently taking no other mode of transit (p.5 of PDF: http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/pmt-old/PMT-3.pdf). Red-Blue (p.29 of same PDF) is +6500 new unique boardings at Charles (this does NOT include transfers from Red or increased boardings at other Red stations spurred by that transfer), and +2800 new transit riders currently taking no transit. After GLX there literally are no bigger expansion priorities than these two Blue jobs. They don't have a leg to stand on letting zombie South Coast FAIL continue to persist or dropping hundreds of mil on station frills at Yawkey, Littleton, South Acton, Salem and Beverly stations while backing away from these whoppers. The Blue extensions got put on the Big Dig Transit Commitments for very good reason: they're mega.



"Fairmount-ing" makes sense because it's got a very low barrier to entry and makes very excellent route-priming to give underserved urban core transit corridors a cost-effective boost on building ridership that'll spur better connections later. In Fairmount's case it's pretty self-evident what it does for Dorchester, but also look at the bus tie-ins. The 28X and Urban Ring proposals both intersect it, and so would any sharply scaled-back 28 improvements or crosstown buses. In the Worcester Line's case plopping stations at Allston, Newton Corner, and Riverside gives every stop important bus connections AND functionally replaces the Pike express buses with better service. Same deal if the Fitchburg Line got Fairmount-ed to Route 128 with barebones infill platforms at Alewife and Beaver Brook and the badly needed Anderson/Woburn-style 128 terminal. Waltham Ctr. is one of the very largest bus nodes on the system, and is possibly the most isolated from rapid transit of all the big ones. Huge influx of riders into those bus lines if there were reliably frequent train service there. In each case, these are 3 lines that can't ever have co-mingling rapid transit because of lack of ROW capacity (Worcester), freight needs (Fairmount), or other factors (excessive grade crossings, hysterical Belmont NIMBY's on Fitchburg).

The lack of acceptable FRA-compliant DMU models is a constraint, though. And that has frustratingly not gotten better despite the rising demand for that mode. It's hard to believe that anyone could do this kind of service on the cheap in 1950 with a comfy but inexpensive Budd RDC but can't in 2012 because there's only like 2 vendors producing overpriced, overcustomized, poorly scalable junk. Until that situation improves dramatically I don't think the T should be investing in an all-new specialty mode. It's too much of a maintenance headache and doesn't reduce their reliance on push-pull diesel for all the longer-distance lines.

What they should be doing is stringing up wires on the Fairmount and Worcester and running electrics with their vastly superior start/stop performance. EMU's are all they use on Metro North, Long Island Rail Road, SEPTA, and Chicago Metra in electric territory. The scale is there, there's plenty of models to choose from, the price point on bleeding-edge tech like Metro North's new Kawasaki M8's is going to drop precipitously on subsequent orders, and they've got the Providence Line and Rhode Island's South County starter service to serve a large (and non-outlier) pooled fleet. I think dropping in the substations and stringing up the overhead is where the big bang-for-buck is on the two big southside trunk lines + Fairmount. Hell, even if they keep it push-pull with electric locos and the existing coaches the stop/start performance and dwell times are so much better than diesel it'll seem much more rapid-transitish than what we've got now.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Belmont NIMBYs aren't going to be a problem for Blue on restored A-line -> Watertown -> Waltham, are they? That route bypasses Belmont entirely, can terminate at Waltham Center and hits BU, Allston, Brighton, and Newton Corner on its way over. I see absolutely no downside.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ True Belmont won't be an issue if you come in from the south.

What's your route for a restored A-line? Tunnel from Kenmore beneath Comm/NBeacon/Cambridge/Washington/Galen to Watertown? Worcester Line to Newton Corner then tunneling to Watertown? Guessing your route to Waltham is then tunneling/surface running by renovating the RoW through Watertown and Waltham through Bemis and the Chemistry to the center?

Both those options present problems. Tunneling from Kenmore all the way to Watertown would be very costly and would need a crossing of some sort of the Charles. I'd be surprised if, after Oak Square, there's any demand for subway service until Watertown Square. That stretch of Washington St in the eastern reaches of Newton is all suburban-residential and has the 57 bus.

If you use the Worcester Line to get to Newton Corner you run into the same issues with the RoW capacity that running rapid transit to Riverside via Mass Pike does; there's no room for an HRV line without radical and prohibitively expensive project to somehow increase it's capacity.

[Shepard]

Here's my question: practically speaking from a scheduling perspective, how can a rapid transit DMU or EMU line coexist on a limited ROW with through-service CR trains?

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ I'm sure F-Line will have a more comprehensive answer, but I'm guessing station bypasses or cutouts in key locations to allow through-service trains to quickly get downtown.

[Commuting Boston Student]

^ True Belmont won't be an issue if you come in from the south.

What's your route for a restored A-line? Tunnel from Kenmore beneath Comm/NBeacon/Cambridge/Washington/Galen to Watertown? Worcester Line to Newton Corner then tunneling to Watertown? Guessing your route to Waltham is then tunneling/surface running by renovating the RoW through Watertown and Waltham through Bemis and the Chemistry to the center?

Both those options present problems. Tunneling from Kenmore all the way to Watertown would be very costly and would need a crossing of some sort of the Charles. I'd be surprised if, after Oak Square, there's any demand for subway service until Watertown Square. That stretch of Washington St in the eastern reaches of Newton is all suburban-residential and has the 57 bus.

If you use the Worcester Line to get to Newton Corner you run into the same issues with the RoW capacity that running rapid transit to Riverside via Mass Pike does; there's no room for an HRV line without radical and prohibitively expensive project to somehow increase it's capacity.

Something like this (http://g.co/maps/uc254). I don't really see the merit in going to Kenmore when you can just as easily serve the back end of BU, and I imagine an elevated ROW would be cheaper than tunneling. If people freak out over an El at the Esplanade, I'd be willing to tunnel under Storrow/Soldiers Field instead.

I'm pretty sure the only demand for rapid transit between Oak Square and Watertown is Newton Corner itself, which is fine, this isn't meant to replace the #57 - it's meant to compliment it. That does create some rather long stretches between stations but I doubt that anyone would really complain about that.

Lastly, because I took that map from my earlier string of proposals, Beachmont, Aquarium and Esplanade Station are all labeled as transfers to subways that don't and probably won't ever exist. I'm too lazy to edit that, so please ignore it.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Elevated would be cheaper, but I'm guessing that there would be loud howls along most of that corridor (not just around the Esplanade) if there was an attempt to build an elevated line through Brighton Center, Oak Square, Newton Corner, Watertown Square and Waltham Center. The long stretches of residential suburbs on Washington St between Oak Square and Newton Corner; and on Rte 20 between Watertown and Waltham would fight hard against a heavy rail line rumbling past their bedrooms. I think if you want to bring heavy rail to Watertown and Waltham along that route, you need to tunnel it. The best surface option for Watertown/Waltham that avoids Belmont is refurbishing the Watertown Railroad and running Red or, better, an extended GLX from Alewife past Fresh Pond, through Strawberry Hill and into Watertown past the mall. It would have to dive under Arsenal to Watertown Square. After there it would need to either continue along the RoW (which has been partially developed/torn up) or continue in tunnels (or as you suggested, elevated) to Waltham.

The complications with bringing true rapid transit to those communities (without extensive tunneling) makes the "Fairmounting" DMU/EMU of the Fitchburg Line the easiest solution to connect Waltham. Watertown could be better connected via tunnels or reconstituted street cars (yeah-right) from Packard's Corner.

Actually connecting Watertown and Waltham with rail is politically difficult without tunneling (not that it would be politically easy to tunnel, but easier than convincing them to allow an elevated line).

EDIT:

For what it's worth, this (http://g.co/maps/rv9gc) is my latest idea palate for the Blue Line. Darker lines are show it as I envisioned the Blue Line for my overall MBTA system map (http://g.co/maps/3ze7s), light lines are alternative routings. The "Teal Line" (http://g.co/maps/xsnfh) referred to within is a hypothetical cross town line that I envision beginning in Watertown and running through Cambridge and down Mass Ave in Boston to UMass.

[F-Line to Dudley]

^ I'm sure F-Line will have a more comprehensive answer, but I'm guessing station bypasses or cutouts in key locations to allow through-service trains to quickly get downtown.

Most of the CR lines are operating way, way under track capacity and are hamstrung by the old signaling and stiffer dispatching rules today. Lowell is a prime example...it's only 50 MPH southbound, the single slowest on the system. That used to be the "NEC North" with intercity fanning out everywhere, 20 times the freight volumes it's got today, and multiple commuter rail branches (all Haverhill trains went here until the late-70's, the old Woburn Branch was a DMU short-turn line until abandoned in '81, and a handful of Fitchburg/Central Mass extras would use the Somerville cutoff via Davis Sq.). If it merely were up to standard 80 MPH spec with PTC it could host 3x the schedule it currently does on the same 2 tracks...easy. The only constraint is the howls from Medford about the grade crossings, but if this line is envisioned for Concord, NH they're pretty much going to have to eliminate those crossings within the next 20 years for total grade separation.

Worcester's an even bigger one. 60 MPH tops on a line where Amtrak runs the Lake Shore Limited all the way to Chicago. Single-track operation at the 3 Newton stops, with signals so old they're only unidirectional (meaning, when an outbound train's stopping "wrong-rail" in Newton pretty much nothing inbound can move inside of 128). Shitty low platform non-ADA stations on the entire stretch between Yawkey and West Natick, meaning long dwell times and limited accessibility. Until now, 28 freights per day to Beacon Park. And infuriatingly tightwad dispatching from CSX.

They now have the dispatch partially in their control, with the last CSX control at Beacon Park evaporating at year's end. Those 28 Boston freights shrinks to ONE daily mid-afternoon off-peak round trip east of Framingham in about 8 months. Today there's about 35 daily freights going to or passing through Framingham. That shrinks to 6 or so after the double-stack capacity to Worcester and the new Westborough transload facility opens. Worcester-Westborough...down to maybe 10 freights when you tally up that 1 heading all the way to Boston, the other 5 that go to Framingham and points north/south of there, and the 3 or 4 others that'll stop at Grafton or Westborough.

When they say they can double the schedules right away from this CSX relocation, they're not kidding. Now, they're being a little daft because they simply don't have the equipment now to double the schedule. But the Worcester Line absolutely has that capacity and will gain much more when the second running track gets restored through Beacon Park after it's closed and severed, and the Newton stops get rebuilt as 2-track. Beacon Park is also going to leave behind 2 extra tracks on the mainline--the former mainline tracks pre-Pike when it was a full 4-track line to Framingham--running from the Pike Viaduct to Everett St. Maybe one of them eventually gets cannibalized as space for an Allston station, but the other one will stay as a passing and storage track. That's fully adequate to juggle the CR, Amtrak, and inside-128 "Fairmount'ed" schedule. And if the line were to ever go HSR it's still a 4-track ROW from 128 to Framingham, and 3 tracks from Framingham to Worcester. You'll notice that the 2 existing tracks spread out real wide to reach the platforms at the stops in Wellesley, a dead giveaway that there used to be more. And CSX tried to wrangle 3 tracks out of the 1994 restoration of service past Framingham, which was compromised out due to budget. They could absolutely drop in a third express track in the middle for Amtrak without hardly modifying the Framingham-Wellesley Farms stops at all, and it could be done on all of the outer intermediate stops with some modification to that 2000-era cookie-cutter station construction.


Yeah...we got plenty of room for DMU's, EMU's, and many times denser headways in the inner core. Fitchburg too, since that doesn't even get close to the capacity gained inside 128 by replacing the 19th-century tech signals with modern, 80 MPH ones. And they could easily work in tighter fits like Reading by throwing Haverhill thru trains back onto their historical Lowell Line routing like they ideally should be.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Elevated would be cheaper, but I'm guessing that there would be loud howls along most of that corridor (not just around the Esplanade) if there was an attempt to build an elevated line through Brighton Center, Oak Square, Newton Corner, Watertown Square and Waltham Center. The long stretches of residential suburbs on Washington St between Oak Square and Newton Corner; and on Rte 20 between Watertown and Waltham would fight hard against a heavy rail line rumbling past their bedrooms. I think if you want to bring heavy rail to Watertown and Waltham along that route, you need to tunnel it. The best surface option for Watertown/Waltham that avoids Belmont is refurbishing the Watertown Railroad and running Red or, better, an extended GLX from Alewife past Fresh Pond, through Strawberry Hill and into Watertown past the mall. It would have to dive under Arsenal to Watertown Square. After there it would need to either continue along the RoW (which has been partially developed/torn up) or continue in tunnels (or as you suggested, elevated) to Waltham.

The complications with bringing true rapid transit to those communities (without extensive tunneling) makes the "Fairmounting" DMU/EMU of the Fitchburg Line the easiest solution to connect Waltham. Watertown could be better connected via tunnels or reconstituted street cars (yeah-right) from Packard's Corner.

Actually connecting Watertown and Waltham with rail is politically difficult without tunneling (not that it would be politically easy to tunnel, but easier than convincing them to allow an elevated line).

EDIT:

For what it's worth, this (http://g.co/maps/rv9gc) is my latest idea palate for the Blue Line. Darker lines are show it as I envisioned the Blue Line for my overall MBTA system map (http://g.co/maps/3ze7s), light lines are alternative routings. The "Teal Line" (http://g.co/maps/xsnfh) referred to within is a hypothetical cross town line that I envision beginning in Watertown and running through Cambridge and down Mass Ave in Boston to UMass.

Well, I specifically mentioned the Esplanade because I planned for diving the line at Soldiers Field Station anyway, and went for an El on the Esplanade because I think if you can package the elevated ROW with some kind of multipurpose walkway/bikeway, it'd be an easier thing to convince the masses to go along with than digging up Storrow/the Esplanade/Storrow AND the Esplanade/"hey give us another several billion in cash so we can bore instead."

Cut-and-cover from there to Watertown shouldn't be that hard, so yeah, most of the problem is Watertown to Waltham. With the right leverage though, I bet we can do it.

I never considered GLX to Waltham, to be honest. My Green Line Expansion-Conversion even WENT to Strawberry Hill. (Huh... GLXC... I like the way it sounds. Is it too late to attach Heavy Rail to the Medford/Somerville projects?) Sending Green there and restoring A-branch service would also bring you damn close to a full ring, too.

That having been said, I do have to complain about converting D to Blue Line service, because I don't see B to Heavy Rail getting done, don't see C or E as a good corridor for Heavy Rail, and don't see Green Line Heavy Rail without at least one of those branches getting converted.

What about Blue to Watertown, Green to Waltham, and a non-train connection between the two? (i.e. trolley, bus)

[omaja]

Finally happy with how the Downtown area of my future MBTA network idea looks.

http://i.imgur.com/lPLkt.png

Now to finish off the rest. :)

[czsz]

[eyes pop out of head]

[Commuting Boston Student]

Finally happy with how the Downtown area of my future MBTA network idea looks.

http://i.imgur.com/lPLkt.png

Now to finish off the rest. :)

I...

I think I'm in love.

[MBTAddict]

I...

I think I'm in love.

Ditto.

When do we get to see more?

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Well, I specifically mentioned the Esplanade because I planned for diving the line at Soldiers Field Station anyway, and went for an El on the Esplanade because I think if you can package the elevated ROW with some kind of multipurpose walkway/bikeway, it'd be an easier thing to convince the masses to go along with than digging up Storrow/the Esplanade/Storrow AND the Esplanade/"hey give us another several billion in cash so we can bore instead."

Cut-and-cover from there to Watertown shouldn't be that hard, so yeah, most of the problem is Watertown to Waltham. With the right leverage though, I bet we can do it.

I never considered GLX to Waltham, to be honest. My Green Line Expansion-Conversion even WENT to Strawberry Hill. (Huh... GLXC... I like the way it sounds. Is it too late to attach Heavy Rail to the Medford/Somerville projects?) Sending Green there and restoring A-branch service would also bring you damn close to a full ring, too.

That having been said, I do have to complain about converting D to Blue Line service, because I don't see B to Heavy Rail getting done, don't see C or E as a good corridor for Heavy Rail, and don't see Green Line Heavy Rail without at least one of those branches getting converted.

What about Blue to Watertown, Green to Waltham, and a non-train connection between the two? (i.e. trolley, bus)

I believe that all the light rail lines are spec'd to be upgraded to HRV, including GLX. I'm pretty sure that STEP insisted upon that, as well as insisting upon the Union Sq extension being spec'd for a future extension to Porter and beyond.

Upgrading the B/C/E to HRV can, and probably should, be done at some point. Two car Green Line trains aren't cutting it for service in Brighton and Brookline. The E line is probably the best suited to true LRV service especially after Brigham. The easiest way to HRV the B-line is probably elevated, given Comm Ave's width and the ability to build lower profile elevated lines. Tunneling would be the obvious other option. It could remain a tunnel from Kenmore to Packards, or go elevated at the existing portal.

The Blue/HRV to Watertown and then GLX/DMU/EMU to Waltham via Fitchburg is the plan the I've settled on, but you're right that given enough political leverage/will a rail connection between the two could be done. It would just need to be cut-and-cover.

[omaja]

Ditto.

When do we get to see more?

Hopefully will have some time to finish it up this weekend. :)

[Nexis4jersey]

Projects that i hope to see along with projected ridership figure's by 2030 from largest by ridership to small by ridership and this is the whole NE megalopolis...above 35,000 Projected daily riders

Light Rail
Streetcars
Commuter or Regional Rail
Heavy Rail

Second Avenue Subway - 250,000 - 3 Stations - 2 Mi - NY
Gateway Rail Project - 230,000 - 1 Expanded station - 7 mi - NJ/NY
DC Streetcar - 214,000 - 40+ Stations - 37 mi - DC
East Side Access - 190,000 - 1 New Terminal - 6 mi - NY
MOM Rail Network - 180,000 - 24 Stations - 115.7 Mi - NJ
Dulles Metrorail - 135,000 - 11 Stations - 23 mi - VA/DC
Northern Virginia Streetcar network - 106,000 - 26+ Stations - 40 mi - VA
Restored Philly Streetcars - 102,000 - 45 Stations - 36 mi - PA
Expanded Philly Network - 90,000 - 25 Stations - 25 mi - PA
Naval Yard Subway Extension - 86,000 - 2 Stations - 1.5 mi - PA
Purple line LRT - 75,000 - 21 Stations - 16.3 Mi - MD
Southern Hampshire Rail Network - 73,500 - 25 stations - 65 mi - NH
South Coast Rail Network - 73,000 - 30 Stations - 72 mi - MA/RI
Green line Extension to Somerville - 70,000 - 8 Stations - 5.21 Mi - MA
Northern Branch LRT - 68,000 - 9 Stations - 14 mi - NJ
Red line LRT - 64,000 - 20 stations - 14.6 Mi - MD
Hell Gate & West Side Line - 62,000 - 8 stations - 31 Mi - NY
West Shore line - 58,000 - 23 stations - 70 Mi - NJ/NY
New Haven - Springfield Commuter Rail - 55,000 - 12 Stations - 60.5 mi - CT/MA
Eastern Jersey Rail Network - 45,000 - 9 stations - 43.7 Mi - NJ/PA
Blue line Extension - 42,000 - 5 stations - 4.2 Mi - MA
Reading line - 41,000 - 12 Stations - 50 Mi - PA
Allentown line - 40,000 - 26 stations - 63 Mi - PA
West Trenton line - 39,000 - 5 stations - 28.4 Mi - NJ

[Commuting Boston Student]

What about an extension of the commuter rail from Worcester to Springfield, and Middleborough/Lakeville to Hyannis?

[Nexis4jersey]

What about an extension of the commuter rail from Worcester to Springfield, and Middleborough/Lakeville to Hyannis?

You mean the Cape Cod line , that's below 35,000 daily projected riders...

[Riverside]

Southern Hampshire Rail Network - 73,500 - 25 stations - 65 mi - NH
South Coast Rail Network - 73,000 - 30 Stations - 72 mi - MA/RI


What are your stations/routes for these two networks?

[Nexis4jersey]

What are your stations/routes for these two networks?

For The Hampshire Rail Network i threw in there the long term plans and proposals which are the Extension of the Lowell line to Concord and Newburyport line to Portsmouth. For the South Coast Network , just the New Bedford line and Fall River line with RIDOT long term plans for a Newport Extension added.

[Riverside]

For The Hampshire Rail Network i threw in there the long term plans and proposals which are the Extension of the Lowell line to Concord and Newburyport line to Portsmouth. For the South Coast Network , just the New Bedford line and Fall River line with RIDOT long term plans for a Newport Extension added.

I take it your including the pre-existing stations for your "station" numbers, right? Like, your 30 stations for the South Coast Rail network includes Back Bay and Route 128 and Stoughton, etc.? Because otherwise I have no idea how you're fitting 30 stations on to those extensions!

[Nexis4jersey]

I take it your including the pre-existing stations for your "station" numbers, right? Like, your 30 stations for the South Coast Rail network includes Back Bay and Route 128 and Stoughton, etc.? Because otherwise I have no idea how you're fitting 30 stations on to those extensions!

Its 14 New stations....

New Bedford line
South Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Canton Center
Sloughton
North Easton
Easton
Raynham Park
Taunton
East Taunton
Kings Highway
Whales Tooth / Downtown New Bedford

Newport / Fall River line
South Station
Back Bay Station
Ruggles
Westwood / Route 128
Canton JCT
Canton Center
Sloughton
North Easton
Easton
Raynham Park
Taunton
East Taunton
Freetown
Fall River Depot
Battleship Cove
Tiverton
Middletown
United States Naval War College
Newport Waterfront

[omaja]

http://i.imgur.com/wRkXP.png
We're progressing... Back Bay and Cambridge are now complete.

[czsz]

That transit density is insane. You'd essentially have a different stop every block or so along Dartmouth St. in the Back Bay.

Still, I want to get off at Gallilei Station someday...

[Commuting Boston Student]

That transit density is insane. You'd essentially have a different stop every block or so along Dartmouth St. in the Back Bay.

Still, I want to get off at Gallilei Station someday...

I see absolutely no problem with this.

A stop every block period would be great. If not though, how about at least every block on Tremont Street?

e: Not entirely convinced no transfers at Beacon/Arlington/Copley is wise... sell me.

2e: Would this be the appropriate thread for an expanded RI network? I have some ideas about that in need of being put to paper.

[MBTAddict]

Omaja - what program are you using for this design work?

I want to do some of my own, but I don't know where to get good maps to start from or generally what programs are best for this kind of thing.

[whighlander]

That transit density is insane. You'd essentially have a different stop every block or so along Dartmouth St. in the Back Bay.

Still, I want to get off at Gallilei Station someday...

The commute from Gallilei to Mederios is a real bxch not only do you have to deal with the TSA but then there are the questions from the Inquisition

just remember to say what they want in public and to yourself reply "But it does move"

[czsz]

^ This has to be the most brilliant post you've ever written on here.

Commuting: I guess I'm okay with that density if those stops are connected. Independent of one another, they seem really redundant.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Omaja, do you envision this as a network of tunnels? all heavy? a mix of light and heavy? Or is it just an exercise in routing?

[Commuting Boston Student]

^ This has to be the most brilliant post you've ever written on here.

Commuting: I guess I'm okay with that density if those stops are connected. Independent of one another, they seem really redundant.

I envision a rapid transit network with enough density that nobody is ever more than a five minute walk from a train station. In part that's because I think it'd be really cool to have that many trains running all over the place, in part because underground stations and tunnels connecting them mean you don't have to walk in the rain if you don't want to, in part because think of what we could do if we started developing under the city in addition to the city itself, but mostly?

I'd rather have way too much redundancy than what actually happens to the Red Line during peak hours and every time there is a fifteen to twenty minutes delay due to a disabled train at Porter Square.

Or a signal error, that's another thing that can happen.

[omaja]

That transit density is insane. You'd essentially have a different stop every block or so along Dartmouth St. in the Back Bay.

Each stop serves a distinct line so depending on the origin/destination, you'd take one of them. It's such a massive employment, entertainment and residential area that I think it warrants significantly dense service levels.

e: Not entirely convinced no transfers at Beacon/Arlington/Copley is wise... sell me.

Transfers would exist between the two lines, but because they travel along the same route/share track, it isn't a traditional 'transfer', which is why they appear as they do. Chances are, though, if you're transferring between one of the lines, you'd wait until they diverge before switching over.

Omaja - what program are you using for this design work?

I want to do some of my own, but I don't know where to get good maps to start from or generally what programs are best for this kind of thing.

I'm using Paint Shop Pro for this one because I'm most familiar with it. Photoshop, Illustrator, or anything similar would work.

The commute from Gallilei to Mederios is a real bxch not only do you have to deal with the TSA but then there are the questions from the Inquisition

just remember to say what they want in public and to yourself reply "But it does move"

:D

Omaja, do you envision this as a network of tunnels? all heavy? a mix of light and heavy? Or is it just an exercise in routing?

It would be a combination of subway and elevated, and a mix of light and heavy rail. I'll do a write up on all of that once I get the map finished.

[Matthew]

I just don't see the point of pushing for elevated through low-density outlying neighborhoods. There's just no value proposition, and lots of resistance.

Also, why would you run a shuttle from Back Bay to South Station only. Where are you going to turn it? Let's fixup Worcester, electrify it, infill it and run short-turn service to Brighton/Newton. Increase frequencies on every line passing through BBY and you've got your "shuttle."

[Commuting Boston Student]

I just don't see the point of pushing for elevated through low-density outlying neighborhoods. There's just no value proposition, and lots of resistance.

Also, why would you run a shuttle from Back Bay to South Station only. Where are you going to turn it? Let's fixup Worcester, electrify it, infill it and run short-turn service to Brighton/Newton. Increase frequencies on every line passing through BBY and you've got your "shuttle."

That Yawkey doesn't have any Rapid Transit service is a damn shame and pretty unfathomable to me, and the next three stops down the line are in dire need of improvements. And from South Station, build a turn (you're gonna need to move the stop out of the train depot and into South Station Under anyway) and send it down to Fairmount. Call it the Purple Line from Auburndale - Readville.

[Matthew]

Yawkey has plenty of rapid transit, easy access to Kenmore Under. I'd like to see better service at Yawkey station itself, but that doesn't eliminate the need for a turnaround on the outbound end of the shuttle. They can turn trains at South Station just fine.

[omaja]

Do many people transfer at Yawkey to the Green Line via Kenmore?

[Hutchison]

I can't imagine why, if I was going anywhere in back bay I'd get off at back bay station and walk, and if I was going anywhere else I'd either transfer to the orange line at back bay or the red line at south station. The green line is just too slow.

[Matthew]

I actually did once transfer to the Green line from Yawkey :)

I don't recall seeing anyone else doing the same, but lots of people were boarding at Yawkey. That's what I was thinking about really; the Yawkey area already has decent access to rapid transit as well as the commuter rail.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I actually did once transfer to the Green line from Yawkey :)

I don't recall seeing anyone else doing the same, but lots of people were boarding at Yawkey. That's what I was thinking about really; the Yawkey area already has decent access to rapid transit as well as the commuter rail.

How long did you have to walk to get to the Green Line from Yawkey? That's what I'm talking about when I say no rapid transit service there. Sure, you can walk, but it's probably a five or ten minute walk and you'll have to make most of it outside, which I'm sure is great in the rain.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Commuter Rail is entirely divorced from the CharlieCard system, so god forbid you wanted the convenience of having your monthly pass on a CharlieCard, you don't get to transfer to Zone 1A without paying for a ticket you already have, which eliminates the easy answer of just transferring onto a Worcester-bound train from Back Bay.

[Riverside]

How long did you have to walk to get to the Green Line from Yawkey? That's what I'm talking about when I say no rapid transit service there. Sure, you can walk, but it's probably a five or ten minute walk and you'll have to make most of it outside, which I'm sure is great in the rain.


Yeah, this. We have the same problem here in Providence; Kennedy Plaza (the central bus hub) and the train station are about 10 minutes apart by walking, and are therefore not worth building a streetcar link between. (They're also separated by some unusual geography, making it less feasible yet.) But if you try to do that 10-minute walk in the rain (which I have done), or in wind or snow, it's awful. Your pants get soaked.

That's a real problem that's faced by urban transit planners, imo. You need not only to make your system efficient but also convenient, because, otherwise, people will just keep on driving their cars.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Yeah, this. We have the same problem here in Providence; Kennedy Plaza (the central bus hub) and the train station are about 10 minutes apart by walking, and are therefore not worth building a streetcar link between. (They're also separated by some unusual geography, making it less feasible yet.) But if you try to do that 10-minute walk in the rain (which I have done), or in wind or snow, it's awful. Your pants get soaked.

That's a real problem that's faced by urban transit planners, imo. You need not only to make your system efficient but also convenient, because, otherwise, people will just keep on driving their cars.

Or you could just make a Park-DTX esque tunnel for foot traffic.

http://g.co/maps/6ccqq

BAM.

(Hell, make this tunnel between Kenmore and Yawkey and I will stop bitching about no subway service there.)

[Matthew]

How long did you have to walk to get to the Green Line from Yawkey? That's what I'm talking about when I say no rapid transit service there. Sure, you can walk, but it's probably a five or ten minute walk and you'll have to make most of it outside, which I'm sure is great in the rain.


About 5 minutes, up and over Beacon Street then down the back stairs to Silber Way. But this is quite irrelevant, because Back Bay station is just as close to Copley. And why exactly would someone be transferring from Worcester to Green line? It may happen but it is going to be much rarer than the common case of someone living near Yawkey needing to access the Green line.


Oh, and let's not forget that the Commuter Rail is entirely divorced from the CharlieCard system, so god forbid you wanted the convenience of having your monthly pass on a CharlieCard, you don't get to transfer to Zone 1A without paying for a ticket you already have, which eliminates the easy answer of just transferring onto a Worcester-bound train from Back Bay.

I would love for the commuter rail ticketing to be integrated with Charlie. If the new smartphone-based system does not achieve this in some fashion, then it is a failure.

What I'm thinking of is a link between your smartphone-based account and your Charlie account that lets you use the CharlieCard on the subway and the smartphone app on the CR.

I would rather have CharlieCard for all but...

[Commuting Boston Student]

About 5 minutes, up and over Beacon Street then down the back stairs to Silber Way. But this is quite irrelevant, because Back Bay station is just as close to Copley. And why exactly would someone be transferring from Worcester to Green line? It may happen but it is going to be much rarer than the common case of someone living near Yawkey needing to access the Green line.

People who live in Auburndale and want to get to NEU/MFA/That New Wegman's Going up in Chestnut Hill (IIRC? It's definitely somewhere on the Green Line) are straight hosed.

As for Copley/Back Bay, the difference there is that you can go to the Pru instead and not have to ever walk outside. You still pay twice, though.

[Matthew]

People who live in Auburndale and want to get to NEU/MFA/That New Wegman's Going up in Chestnut Hill (IIRC? It's definitely somewhere on the Green Line) are straight hosed.


They still would have to go to Copley to get on the "E" train or the 39 bus to get to Northeastern or the MFA.

Or just walk from Yawkey, it'll probably be faster than the "E".

[BussesAin'tTrains]

CBS, which Green Line branch should serve Yawkey? The C & D run the closest but they're under the Pike a little to the northwest. It could probably be built alongside the future air-rights development on that parcel, but it would be a C/D transfer, not one to the whole Green Line.

And Matthew's right, you can't get to NEU/MFA/Longwood from the Kenmore area by T without backtracking to Copley (the Urban Ring would solve this problem), so any Worcester-liners may as well stay on the Commuter Rail to Back Bay and walk to Prudential or Copley and hop the E line.

[Commuting Boston Student]

CBS, which Green Line branch should serve Yawkey? The C & D run the closest but they're under the Pike a little to the northwest. It could probably be built alongside the future air-rights development on that parcel, but it would be a C/D transfer, not one to the whole Green Line.

And Matthew's right, you can't get to NEU/MFA/Longwood from the Kenmore area by T without backtracking to Copley (the Urban Ring would solve this problem), so any Worcester-liners may as well stay on the Commuter Rail to Back Bay and walk to Prudential or Copley and hop the E line.

D Line or the Purple Line from Auburndale - Readville.

Or have both lines serve Yawkey and enable transfers between them, and maybe relieve congestion a little on game day.

[Riverside]

D Line or the Purple Line from Auburndale - Readville.

Or have both lines serve Yawkey and enable transfers between them, and maybe relieve congestion a little on game day.

Could we have a C/D stop with a transfer to an Indigo Line here (http://g.co/maps/r78nv)? And then have a Park-DTX connection between Kenmore and Yawkey? Or something like what they have in Chicago on the Red and Blue lines between Washington and Jackson, basically extended platforms parallel to the tracks (see here (http://www.chicago-l.org/maps/track/Red-Subway.jpg) and here (http://www.chicago-l.org/maps/track/Blue-Subway.jpg)). That would connect the Indigo Line with the Green Line, but not requiring digging a whole other tunnel underneath the MassPike.

[JohnAKeith]

Which thread should this go in?

Some cities are studying whether or not "honor system" systems work for public transportation. Los Angeles estimates it has a 3-5% evasion rate on its light rail and subway system.

Below, results from Denver's light rail system:

RTD believes the threat of people skipping out on the ticket-buying portion of their trips hasn't been a big enough problem — they've counted an estimated 5 percent fare evasion rate — to change the boarding process. And Reed says that most of the system's riders are using pre-paid tickets or passes anyway.

Nothing annoys me as much as people sneaking on the train. Well, one thing does, and that's everyone having to board at the front of the train so that no one can sneak on the back. Dropping the fare collections obviously still allows people to cheat (I'm looking at you, college kids) but in the interest of speed and efficiency, should we do away with fare boxes (at least above ground?).

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/do-honor-systems-mass-transit-work-better-smaller-cities/1910/

[cozzyd]

Bucharest has very busy buses and trams/light rail and they are also on proof-of-payment (at least, last time I was there, they were)

[Commuting Boston Student]

Which thread should this go in?

Some cities are studying whether or not "honor system" systems work for public transportation. Los Angeles estimates it has a 3-5% evasion rate on its light rail and subway system.

Below, results from Denver's light rail system:



Nothing annoys me as much as people sneaking on the train. Well, one thing does, and that's everyone having to board at the front of the train so that no one can sneak on the back. Dropping the fare collections obviously still allows people to cheat (I'm looking at you, college kids) but in the interest of speed and efficiency, should we do away with fare boxes (at least above ground?).

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/do-honor-systems-mass-transit-work-better-smaller-cities/1910/

Anything less than 8% or so fare evasion should be considered an acceptible margin of error. You're never going to get 100% compliance anyway - 95% is a great success!

What we should do is take advantage of the same kind of RFID / NFC / Contactless Technology in use already to be able to scan your CharlieCard as you're boarding the train.

We could impliment that technology alongside Platform Edge Door technology, which there is not a pressing need for, but would be a nice preventative measure.

And as an aside, I resent that college kids remark. I'll have you know that I pay the full price for my monthly passes, and I have never once dodged the fare nor have I helped anyone else dodge the fare.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

When I lived in Heidelberg, Germany, they didn't do fare collection either. People bought passes by the day/week/month/season and carried it with them. Most of the time free-riders could get away with skipping out, but in the event that you DO get caught when the fare checkers board the bus/train, you got slapped with 40€ fine (about $65 at the time). I don't know their evasion rates, but it seemed to work very well. Then again, the Germans in general are more cognizant of making sure society runs smoothly, compared to the individualist "I got mine" attitude that's more common in the states.

[datadyne007]

^ Same in Berlin.

I really wish the MBTA would adapt the open fare method. There is a sense of "honor" with that kind of system, but there is also an equal share of fear of the Kontrol. It works because the BVG highly publicizes the harsh penalty system. There will always be the Schwarzfahrer (literally "black rider" figuratively "ticketless rider") who rides without a ticket, but eventually his luck will run out. The 2€ trip suddenly becomes a 40€ one.

Interestingly enough though, in the 3 months I was there, I never once saw any DB Kontrol on the S-Bahn. I had my ticket (I had a Monatskarte each month) checked sometimes 4 times a day on the U-Bahn though by BVG Kontrol.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Running with the tangent (feel free to splice it van):

^ I encountered controllers fairly often in Heidelberg. Granted it's a much smaller system than Berlins (only articulated bus and S-Bahn service) but I would see Kontrol at least once a week and they didn't hesitate to dole out those fines to the Schwartzfahrern. The warnings were clearly posted throughout the vehicles in big red signs. I think some of the smaller transit systems in the US should start trying open fare, and hopefully can lead to the adoption by larger systems like Boston and San Francisco.

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

Getting back on track with Crazy Transit Pitches; here's another map I cooked up:

http://g.co/maps/5emb7


Red Line: Burlington Mall-North Stoughton/Rte24
Green Line HRV: Anderson Woburn-Cleveland Circle, Anderson Woburn-Riverside
Orange Line: Reading Heights/I93-Forest Hills, Medford Square-Millenium Park
Blue Line: Salem Depot-Oak Square, Lynn Center-Boston College
Teal Line: Watertown Square-JFK/UMass, Watertown Square-Roslindale Village
Yellow Line: Urban Ring: Airport-Seaport-Andrew-Newmarket-Dudley-Brigham-Fenway-BU-Kendall-Lechmere-Sullivan-Chelsea⟲, Northgate-Urban Ring
Green Line LRV: Wonderland-Forest Hills
Silver Line: Seaport-Mattapan
Brown Line: Urban Ring: Sullivan Square-North Station-Park St-Copley Square-Northeastern-Brigham Circle-Coolidge Corner-Allston Village-Harvard Square-Union Square-Brickbottom ⟲
Indigo Line: Riverside-South Station, Cedar Wood I95-North Station-South Station-Westwood/I95, Cedarwood/I95-Dedham

*Urban ring notations not all the stops, just a general overview of major areas along the route.

[Matthew]

San Francisco Muni light rail is open fare above-ground with rear-door boarding and I think they are about to extend it to buses.

Santa Clara VTA is open fare, as is Caltrain and also Seattle's SoundLink.

[omaja]

Which thread should this go in?

Some cities are studying whether or not "honor system" systems work for public transportation. Los Angeles estimates it has a 3-5% evasion rate on its light rail and subway system.

Below, results from Denver's light rail system:



Nothing annoys me as much as people sneaking on the train. Well, one thing does, and that's everyone having to board at the front of the train so that no one can sneak on the back. Dropping the fare collections obviously still allows people to cheat (I'm looking at you, college kids) but in the interest of speed and efficiency, should we do away with fare boxes (at least above ground?).

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/do-honor-systems-mass-transit-work-better-smaller-cities/1910/

Absolutely. Combine that with a mechanism allowing one operator to control all doors on Green Line trains and put any second- or third-car operators on patrol for fare compliance across the system. Same could be said of the worthless 'inspectors' all over the place. Or better yet, altogether cut their positions and use the freed funding towards more station, track and train maintenance.

Funny how such 'novel' ideas to make the system infinitely better are met with the utmost resistance from the establishment. If only there were a way to break free from the unending spiral of rising costs and zero increased benefit to the MBTA's network.

[datadyne007]

The open fare system also allows all stations to become easily accessible because there are no restrictions with "fare lobbies." Elevators, stairs, and escalators can go directly from the street to the platform.

[omaja]

Most places with proof-of-payment systems have some sort of 'compulsory fare zone' though, no? You'd need to have some sort of way to designate it separate from the entrances via stairs/elevators/escalators.

Rethinking this though, I don't think it would be necessary to convert the entire system to POP--fare collection only really negatively impacts the Green Line surface stops. No need to remove the fare gates at stations where they already exist, right?

[datadyne007]

Most places with proof-of-payment systems have some sort of 'compulsory fare zone' though, no? You'd need to have some sort of way to designate it separate from the entrances via stairs/elevators/escalators.

Absolutely none in Berlin. FVMs and validation boxes are located on each end of the platform (elevator typically favors one of the ends, but some stations have the elevator in the center). To be honest, to a tourist who hasn't done their homework (which is their own fault), it is rather confusing.

Back to Boston... the E-line has POP machines that have never worked properly since the day they were installed. They mostly just had Windows errors at first and now the screens are just black. The infrastructure is already in place. All they have to do is say we're going to use this. After it gets implemented, those that are too stupid to read signs or do research on the website before they ride the T (mostly MFA goers) deserve the raised $75 fine.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

I think it's most appropriate at light-rail street car lines and busses. Convert the Green Line west of Kenmore and Symphony to open fare and all the bus lines. Probably could do this for Zone 1/1A Commuter Rail stops as well. Underground stations for both light and heavy rail would keep the PoP system if only for costs sake. You'd have to work out a hybrid system for controllers to check on the Open Fare lines though. Some sort of handheld Charlie Card reader to make sure all riders have, in fact, purchased a ride.

[datadyne007]

Some sort of handheld Charlie Card reader to make sure all riders have, in fact, purchased a ride.

They already exist. Sometimes (very rarely) they will have a person stationed at each end of Longwood Medical Area who effectively acts as fare gates during the evening rush. The station itself becomes a "paid zone." They also use these machines when they do what I like to call "T-busts" when they catch people who get on in the rear and don't pay. They ask you to tap your card and it shows if you paid or if you have a valid LinkPass.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ It should be simple to implement then. Of course it won't be...

[JohnAKeith]

Made a friend a couple years ago, a young French man. He told us that Americans were weird, they always seemed to respect the law. In Paris, he said, people were always jumping the turnstiles and the cops would do nothing.

He spent the summer in Manhattan. He worked as a tour guide (the guys with the yellow shirts) selling tours. He made up a social security number so that he could get paid (so, he was working illegally but paying taxes & FICA - which he'd never collect!).

He jumped the turnstiles all the time (which is difficult in NYC, isn't it?) After several weeks, he got caught. The fine was $100 which turned out to be what he estimated he had saved from evading fares the prior three weeks. So he kept doing it.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ Jeez what must he think of the Germans? They don't even jaywalk...

[whighlander]

^ Jeez what must he think of the Germans? They don't even jaywalk...

Compare Boston and LA with respect to cars and pedestrians

Here we have signs, sometimes lights and striped cross walks and even flags which you can borrow to wave when crossing (an initiative of the East Lexington Community Association) -- people are still getting hit and killed even in the suburbs where the traffic is sub 30 MPH -- including one accident in a crosswalk across Mass Ave less than 100m from the Lexington Police HQ

in LA -- they don't bother with all the paraphernalia -- yet when I jumped off the curb mid-block on Wiltshire Blvd -- 8 lanes of traffic panic braked -- and I was only trying to get a picture with a view down the street which i couldn't get from the sidewalk

Flip-side a couple of weeks later while crossing obliquely a small side street in Westwood near UCLA I was stopped and ticketed by a motorcycle cop

[Shepard]

Seriously? I hope you didn't pay the fine.

[whighlander]

Seriously? I hope you didn't pay the fine.

Shep -- actually I did -- it was $9 and it was hard to get to the courthouse on public transit -- took 3 buses

why did I pay -- well the ticket came at the beginning of a summer of living in Santa Monica and commuting to UCLA -- I was worried that I might get nailed a second time

Besides despite having been in a virtual episode of Adam 12 -- it made me feel like one of those people who were in the epilogue of a Dragnet episode --- "Trial was held in and for the County of Los Angeles in Superior Court of the State of California ..... the [miscreant] is today serving his sentence in San Quentin"

You really can't get anymore LA than that!

[HenryAlan]

Yeah, this. We have the same problem here in Providence; Kennedy Plaza (the central bus hub) and the train station are about 10 minutes apart by walking, and are therefore not worth building a streetcar link between. (They're also separated by some unusual geography, making it less feasible yet.) But if you try to do that 10-minute walk in the rain (which I have done), or in wind or snow, it's awful. Your pants get soaked.

That's a real problem that's faced by urban transit planners, imo. You need not only to make your system efficient but also convenient, because, otherwise, people will just keep on driving their cars.

By far, the biggest reason for the often discussed one seat ride, is reluctance by users to make transfers. The situation in Providence is an extreme example, but any system with easy, well designed transfers doesn't need the redundancy that would have to exist to eliminate them. People don't have an issue transferring at Forest Hills, for example. It's easy, straight forward, and pretty dependable.

[underground]

Copenhagen used an open system. I can't remember exactly what it was, but the fine was REALLY high. Seemed to work fine. You had to have a photo in your monthly pass book. Maybe the MBTA could make some money on the side operating photo booths at their stations?

[Matthew]

Easy transfers and general people-flow inside stations is critical, and also seems to be something neglected by modern builds.

Just follow the crowd at North Station during rush-hour sometime. The subway station itself seems rather sensibly laid out, with potential cross-platform transfers, but the route from the subway to the commuter rail platforms is a mess. Which is a shame since North Station really could use a good transfer since it is in such an sub-optimal location.

Even South Station has this problem: everyone coming from the Red Line is squeezed through a tiny set of double doors in order to get to the main station. Normally not a problem, but at rush hour, it's a bottleneck. If you're going in the reverse direction, you're probably better off going outside and around.

[czsz]

Compare Boston and LA with respect to cars and pedestrians
in LA -- they don't bother with all the paraphernalia -- yet when I jumped off the curb mid-block on Wiltshire Blvd -- 8 lanes of traffic panic braked -- and I was only trying to get a picture with a view down the street which i couldn't get from the sidewalk

Probably has to do with the fact that LA drivers were relatively shocked by a pedestrian crossing whereas Boston drivers are always huffily trying to get where they're going in spite of all the pedestrians in their way.

I'm always amazed how much antipathy I have toward pedestrians (given I am one, most of the time) as soon as I get behind the wheel in Boston. Someone needs to do a version of the Stanford Prison Experiment involving this phenomenon.

Copenhagen used an open system. I can't remember exactly what it was, but the fine was REALLY high. Seemed to work fine. You had to have a photo in your monthly pass book. Maybe the MBTA could make some money on the side operating photo booths at their stations?

A lot of systems in Europe have this honor system approach. They also need to keep a lot of cops employed checking passes, and have ridiculously strict laws allowing cops to drag you to an ATM to withdraw your fine on the spot (I don't think this would pass due process muster in the US).

[BussesAin'tTrains]

Probably has to do with the fact that LA drivers were relatively shocked by a pedestrian crossing whereas Boston drivers are always huffily trying to get where they're going in spite of all the pedestrians in their way.

I'm always amazed how much antipathy I have toward pedestrians (given I am one, most of the time) as soon as I get behind the wheel in Boston. Someone needs to do a version of the Stanford Prison Experiment involving this phenomenon.

This. I notice myself doing this all the time. As soon as I turn on the car my allegiance shifts to being a road warrior and having no patience at all for pedestrians pulling jaywalk stunts that I do myself without hesitation when I'm the one walking about.