Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby Gerry6309 » Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:44 pm

MBTA3247 wrote:
edbear wrote:To accomodate the short term transportation needs, I'd poll commuter rail and bus operators throughout the USA who anticipate deliveries of equipment during the Olympic years. Buses and commuter rail equipment will fit on just about any operator in the country.

Not quite. I think only CDOT, Metro-North, NJT, SEPTA, MARC and AMT have commuter rail coaches equipped for both low-and hi-level platforms. Everywhere else uses low-level-boarding-only equipment.

Even in the world of commuter rail, there are very few lines which could withstand much of an increase in service. Many are stymied by key sections of single track. Lowell, Fitchburg and Beverly on the North Side and Providence and possibly Framingham on the south side. Everything else has a bottleneck.
Gerry. STM/BSRA

The next stop is Washington. Change for Forest Hills Trains on the Winter St. Platform, and Everett Trains on the Summer St. Platform. This is an Ashmont train, change for Braintree at Columbia.
User avatar
Gerry6309
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby TrainManTy » Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:55 pm

Gerry6309 wrote:Even in the world of commuter rail, there are very few lines which could withstand much of an increase in service. Many are stymied by key sections of single track. Lowell, Fitchburg and Beverly on the North Side and Providence and possibly Framingham on the south side. Everything else has a bottleneck.


Framingham is currently bottlenecked by the single track through Beacon Park Yard. I would hope that's double-tracked by 2024, though... Worcester will need another station track (there's only one, and it sees almost constant use during rush hour).
Tyler

All posts are my personal opinion. I do not speak for any organizations on this board.
User avatar
TrainManTy
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:18 pm
Location: Worcester, MA

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby The EGE » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:18 pm

A lot of the bottlenecks are things that can be fixed without megaprojects.

The Salem tunnel is of course an issue, but the rest of the mainline just needs track work and bridge replacements. Ipswich-Newburyport is also designed for easy double tracking; past Gloucester is probably impossible through the swamps, but is also a very short leg.

Haverhill's double track work is mandated to be done by 2017, and the Merrimac River bridge should be in better shape by then as well. After that, adding via-Woburn expresses would not be terrible difficult. The remaining projects after that would be things like doubling Ballardvale, Reading, and (difficult due to town stinginess) Andover, plus adding more double track where applicable.

Lowell needs track work, a layover (probably in conjunction with Nashua) and a Montvale Ave infill. Winchester Center is in design for a raising, and West Medford will probably be next; that leaves only Mishawum (an oddball with limited service) as the only non-accessible station on a fully two track mainline with few grade crossings.

Fitchburg's work will be wrapping up largely in 2015; after that, it's just Waltham plus a couple ADA retrofits.

Worcester is currently waiting on Beacon Park to complete mainline double-tracking; raising the Newton stations plus heavy track and signal work inside Framingham will be expensive but necessary for DMUs. After that it's details like Newton Corner, ADA-ing inside Framingham, and putting a freight passing track to allow full-highs at Framingham. Worcester could probably be accomplished by adding an island platform in the existing space between tracks, plus some reconfiguration of the mains to not impact CSX ops.

Needham is unexpandable but should be replaced by rapid transit anyway; it's not an intercity route whatsoever so I doubt it would come into play.

Fairmount is wrapping up with good track speeds, full-highs at most stations, and new crossovers as part of the current project. Fairmount raising, Readville reconfiguration, and maybe double tracking if necessary would allow doubling of frequencies as far as Walpole/Foxboro if desired.

Providence needs full-high platforms, particularly on passing tracks. Sharon sadly got neither. Rhode Island has plans for doubling their south-of-Providence stations. Quad-tracking Forest Hills to the Readville split and triple-tracking to 128 were designed for when it was electrified; neither of those will be difficult.

Really, the only three truly expensive capacity enhancements would be thee Old Colony mainline, Worcester Line inside Framingham, and the Salem tunnel. Everything else you can pick and choose as needed.
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:35 pm

TrainManTy wrote:
Gerry6309 wrote:Even in the world of commuter rail, there are very few lines which could withstand much of an increase in service. Many are stymied by key sections of single track. Lowell, Fitchburg and Beverly on the North Side and Providence and possibly Framingham on the south side. Everything else has a bottleneck.


Framingham is currently bottlenecked by the single track through Beacon Park Yard. I would hope that's double-tracked by 2024, though... Worcester will need another station track (there's only one, and it sees almost constant use during rush hour).


Framingham is bottlenecked by the lack of crossovers. It's not the Beacon Park single-iron. No passing opportunities whatsoever between the west end of Beacon Park and Wellesley Farms, and between Wellesley Farms and Framingham. And that's a big limiter when some service makes the Newton stops and some doesn't. The margin-for-error for passing opportunities at those two locations is way too small, and that becomes the noose that affects the whole line. Especially when something's late...there's little resiliency to keep that delay from cascading. Unfortunately when Boston-Framingham was resignaled in the 1960's for the Pike extension ROW realignment B&A installed the cheapest ABS system it could get away with, making dropping in new crossovers easier said than done. It's going to take a pricey rip-out/resignal to cab signals like the Framingham-Albany part of the line to get the line up to its 'natural' service density.

The ABS vs. cab signal halves also present a minor issue with speed differential in addition to the flexibility differential with the crossovers. Framingham-Worcester can--and will--be bumped from Class 3 (59 MPH MAS) to Class 4 (79 MPH MAS) when the T finishes bumping the maintenance standards from the lower standard CSX kept it (crosstie, switches, the stuff that was inducing the annual summer heat restrictions). But you're capped at 59 on the inner half until that signal system gets replaced, which means the more flexible outer half of the line is going to leave a lot of unused capacity on the table.



The Eastern Route definitely has bottlenecks:
1) the Chelsea grade crossings and 30 MPH speed limit into Revere. Eastern Ave. grade separation was a top rec in the 2004 North Shore Transit Improvements study. They haven't so much as spoken of that one since. And Silver Line Gateway isn't eliminating Everett Ave., one of the most congested crossings on the system for traffic backups and one of the most dangerous for cars getting caught as the gates come down. And they're now going to be driving buses every 15 minutes with those gates down? That is going to be a debacle; they will rue cheaping out on that decision. They need to whack those two speed-limiter crossings, and outright close the superfluous 3rd St. crossing (which is only open because Peter Pan Bus would piss and moan about losing the shortcut out of its storage yard). Then the track speed can go to 60 through the remaining 3 crossings of least-concern and rack up some noticeable schedule savings and schedule resiliency past (to-be-relocated) Chelsea stations. This is huge. And not ghastly expensive either.

2) Mystic Jct and the single-track split on the Western Route. You can only pack density so full on the 2-track Eastern Route side without starting to pinch existing Haverhill/Reading trains. Some earthen fill (not much) needs to be moved around to bring the WR's 2nd passing track contiguous to the junction and make it an orderly split between the two routes. You'd basically have a new "outbound" Haverhill/Reading track superelevated a couple feet higher than the existing "inbound" track. Do that and traffic-mixing at the junction doesn't require high-frequency Eastern Route service to give as much padding to wave through a more-constricted Western Route schedule through the junction.

3) If you really want maximum service levels to Beverly you're going to have to double-up the Salem platform so there's facing outbound + inbound sides. The single-track tunnel is no constraint whatsoever so long as there are unimpeded track splits at either end. And that means an un-fouled Salem platform that can take outbounds + inbounds at the same time, and simply pause a couple extra seconds while an opposing train clears the tunnel. Why didn't they do this with the boondoggle station renovation? Because the parking fairy. Short-sighted. Of course, if you traded Beverly for Peabody Sq. then the turnout track and that Salem platform (which the renovations leave space for) do the trick. But you're really going to need all worlds to satiate North Shore demand. Newburyport/Rockport need more trains too in addition to heavier inside-128 service.

This is why I give the Lynn DMU dinky almost zero chance of making the cut. The T proposes addressing NONE of these constraints. Not even #1, which dwarfs all others by an order of magnitude as a headway limiter.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby NH2060 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:53 am

The EGE wrote:The Salem tunnel is of course an issue, but the rest of the mainline just needs track work and bridge replacements. Ipswich-Newburyport is also designed for easy double tracking; past Gloucester is probably impossible through the swamps, but is also a very short leg.

If a second track and platform is put in @ Salem you could have the trains meet there AND drop off/take on passengers instead of south of the tunnel.

East of Gloucester there really is no need for a 2nd track. It takes about 15 min. to get from West Gloucester to Rockport by train. 30 minute headways during peak hours are IMO the absolute most frequent service that will ever be needed on that stretch.

What the Eastern Route really needs are drawbridge replacements. Gloucester is supposedly marked for full replacement and Saugus is in need of full replacement. That section could no doubt have 60mph+ speeds instead of 30 if there was a replacement bridge.
Needham is unexpandable but should be replaced by rapid transit anyway; it's not an intercity route whatsoever so I doubt it would come into play.

If the Needham Line was converted to an Orange Line extension that would free up capacity and/or allow all those Needham slots to be used for Providence/Stoughton, Franklin, etc. However there would need to be an expansion of even the future OL fleet for this to be feasible.
Fairmount is wrapping up with good track speeds, full-highs at most stations, and new crossovers as part of the current project. Fairmount raising, Readville reconfiguration, and maybe double tracking if necessary would allow doubling of frequencies as far as Walpole/Foxboro if desired.

Fairmount service should remain as a Readville-South Station/Seaport District only DMU service with maybe some trains making their way to/from Foxboro. For an area of such density that the Fairmount Line runs through the service is more or less inadequate. Furthermore not having rapid transit-like frequencies isn't going to do much if anything to help bring a much needed boost to that section of Dorchester.
Providence needs full-high platforms, particularly on passing tracks. Sharon sadly got neither. Rhode Island has plans for doubling their south-of-Providence stations. Quad-tracking Forest Hills to the Readville split and triple-tracking to 128 were designed for when it was electrified; neither of those will be difficult.

Since at least the triple tracking to 128/Canton Jct.(?) is part of Amtrak's 2030 plan and requires only the extra trackage and electrification that is one of the easiest if not THE easiest of capacity enhancements.
Really, the only three truly expensive capacity enhancements would be thee Old Colony mainline, Worcester Line inside Framingham, and the Salem tunnel. Everything else you can pick and choose as needed.

In order for two of those to truly reach their potential South Station will need expanded capacity. So we'll have to wait and see on how it goes getting the extra tracks and platforms.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:3) If you really want maximum service levels to Beverly you're going to have to double-up the Salem platform so there's facing outbound + inbound sides. The single-track tunnel is no constraint whatsoever so long as there are unimpeded track splits at either end. And that means an un-fouled Salem platform that can take outbounds + inbounds at the same time, and simply pause a couple extra seconds while an opposing train clears the tunnel. Why didn't they do this with the boondoggle station renovation? Because the parking fairy. Short-sighted. Of course, if you traded Beverly for Peabody Sq. then the turnout track and that Salem platform (which the renovations leave space for) do the trick. But you're really going to need all worlds to satiate North Shore demand. Newburyport/Rockport need more trains too in addition to heavier inside-128 service.

And the North Station-Beverly segment already has at least 28 weekday round trips as it is!
NH2060
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby deathtopumpkins » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:48 am

NH2060 wrote:And the North Station-Beverly segment already has at least 28 weekday round trips as it is!


31 inbound/30 outbound trips as of the 12/27/14 schedule.
Call me Connor or DTP

Railfan & Roadgeek from the North Shore of Mass.
deathtopumpkins
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am
Location: Somerville, MA

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby BandA » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:47 pm

NH2060 wrote:
The EGE wrote:Needham is unexpandable but should be replaced by rapid transit anyway; it's not an intercity route whatsoever so I doubt it would come into play.

If the Needham Line was converted to an Orange Line extension that would free up capacity and/or allow all those Needham slots to be used for Providence/Stoughton, Franklin, etc. However there would need to be an expansion of even the future OL fleet for this to be feasible.
Needham has enough density to make a good streetcar suburb, so Orange line might be a good idea. Should also convert "D" Riverside line to Orange, taking the pressure of of the antiquated Central Subway. Low floor LRV's make no sense on the fully grade-separated Highland Branch or the new GLX. Orange Needham + Riverside would also allow restoration of Needham Loop service. The pie-in-the-sky part would be a subway tunnel between Hynes/Convention Center to Back Bay and modifying Kenmore, Hynes, and Back Bay. Does Orange line have capacity to handle more trains?

Extend riverside out to meet the mainline at Auburndale or Wellesley Farms.
...Fairmount...high-level platforms...
service should remain as a Readville-South Station/Seaport District only DMU service with maybe some trains making their way to/from Foxboro. For an area of such density that the Fairmount Line runs through the service is more or less inadequate. Furthermore not having rapid transit-like frequencies isn't going to do much if anything to help bring a much needed boost to that section of Dorchester.
Definitely high-level platforms. Do a one-year trial of rapid-transit style operation (high frequency, high level boarding, automatic doors, fare gates, charlie card, subway pricing, two man operation) using existing single level coaches and diesel engines.
In order for two of those to truly reach their potential South Station will need expanded capacity. So we'll have to wait and see on how it goes getting the extra tracks and platforms.
If the Post Office won't sell, how about putting Amtrak and any other electrified services (Providence? Fairmont?) underground.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby BandA » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:24 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
TrainManTy wrote:Framingham is currently bottlenecked by the single track through Beacon Park Yard. I would hope that's double-tracked by 2024, though... Worcester will need another station track (there's only one, and it sees almost constant use during rush hour).


Framingham is bottlenecked by the lack of crossovers. It's not the Beacon Park single-iron. No passing opportunities whatsoever between the west end of Beacon Park and Wellesley Farms, and between Wellesley Farms and Framingham. And that's a big limiter when some service makes the Newton stops and some doesn't. The margin-for-error for passing opportunities at those two locations is way too small, and that becomes the noose that affects the whole line. Especially when something's late...there's little resiliency to keep that delay from cascading. Unfortunately when Boston-Framingham was resignaled in the 1960's for the Pike extension ROW realignment B&A installed the cheapest ABS system it could get away with, making dropping in new crossovers easier said than done. It's going to take a pricey rip-out/resignal to cab signals like the Framingham-Albany part of the line to get the line up to its 'natural' service density.

The ABS vs. cab signal halves also present a minor issue with speed differential in addition to the flexibility differential with the crossovers. Framingham-Worcester can--and will--be bumped from Class 3 (59 MPH MAS) to Class 4 (79 MPH MAS) when the T finishes bumping the maintenance standards from the lower standard CSX kept it (crosstie, switches, the stuff that was inducing the annual summer heat restrictions). But you're capped at 59 on the inner half until that signal system gets replaced, which means the more flexible outer half of the line is going to leave a lot of unused capacity on the table.
Why is it not trivial to double-track Beacon Park? The track is already there! Put in a speed restriction if the ties are worn out. Can't you add a single block to the signal system? Lots of westbound trains have to hold at Cottage Farm waiting for the single track, so it is a problem.

I can't fault the New York Central for their focused decision making in 1962 - only need one track and bus-type shelters for few short trains per day and (how many?) passengers. They got cash for facilities they weren't using and 9 miles of remaining track rebuilt (for free?) by the Pike. I can fault the T for their decisions. The T lavished hundreds of millions buying out CSX, building the Taj Mahyawkey, pulling down the telegraph poles, beautifully painting obsolete signals and signal cabinets, fixing cracks in 1962 platforms. Yet no plans announced to upgrade the three Newton stations. No plans to restore the "temporary" high-level platforms at Back Bay last seen in the mid-1980s reconstruction (forgot to ask Conrail/CSX for permission I imagine before pouring cement - oops). The conductors have to open, close, then open the traps - no time for collecting fares!
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:11 am

BandA wrote:
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
TrainManTy wrote:Framingham is currently bottlenecked by the single track through Beacon Park Yard. I would hope that's double-tracked by 2024, though... Worcester will need another station track (there's only one, and it sees almost constant use during rush hour).


Framingham is bottlenecked by the lack of crossovers. It's not the Beacon Park single-iron. No passing opportunities whatsoever between the west end of Beacon Park and Wellesley Farms, and between Wellesley Farms and Framingham. And that's a big limiter when some service makes the Newton stops and some doesn't. The margin-for-error for passing opportunities at those two locations is way too small, and that becomes the noose that affects the whole line. Especially when something's late...there's little resiliency to keep that delay from cascading. Unfortunately when Boston-Framingham was resignaled in the 1960's for the Pike extension ROW realignment B&A installed the cheapest ABS system it could get away with, making dropping in new crossovers easier said than done. It's going to take a pricey rip-out/resignal to cab signals like the Framingham-Albany part of the line to get the line up to its 'natural' service density.

The ABS vs. cab signal halves also present a minor issue with speed differential in addition to the flexibility differential with the crossovers. Framingham-Worcester can--and will--be bumped from Class 3 (59 MPH MAS) to Class 4 (79 MPH MAS) when the T finishes bumping the maintenance standards from the lower standard CSX kept it (crosstie, switches, the stuff that was inducing the annual summer heat restrictions). But you're capped at 59 on the inner half until that signal system gets replaced, which means the more flexible outer half of the line is going to leave a lot of unused capacity on the table.
Why is it not trivial to double-track Beacon Park? The track is already there! Put in a speed restriction if the ties are worn out. Can't you add a single block to the signal system? Lots of westbound trains have to hold at Cottage Farm waiting for the single track, so it is a problem.

I can't fault the New York Central for their focused decision making in 1962 - only need one track and bus-type shelters for few short trains per day and (how many?) passengers. They got cash for facilities they weren't using and 9 miles of remaining track rebuilt (for free?) by the Pike. I can fault the T for their decisions. The T lavished hundreds of millions buying out CSX, building the Taj Mahyawkey, pulling down the telegraph poles, beautifully painting obsolete signals and signal cabinets, fixing cracks in 1962 platforms. Yet no plans announced to upgrade the three Newton stations. No plans to restore the "temporary" high-level platforms at Back Bay last seen in the mid-1980s reconstruction (forgot to ask Conrail/CSX for permission I imagine before pouring cement - oops). The conductors have to open, close, then open the traps - no time for collecting fares!


I'm saying it is trivial. That's why they were in no hurry to do it all that time they were gunning to get Yawkey finished. It makes no difference because all of the capacity limiters are WEST of Beacon Park to Framingham. It takes less than a minute to cross the single track between CP3 and CP4.


They did some utility work in prep for the 2nd track through BP last year. It'll get done in due time; that's a quickie job. But by its lonesome it won't add one more train to the schedule. The constraints are what they are until they fix the crossovers situation--and, thus, the signal system--all the way out to Framingham Jct.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby Bramdeisroberts » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:50 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong F-line, but wouldn't multiple crossovers between Yawkey and Wellesley Farms along with the new signaling infrastructure to drive it all be all but essential for any indigo-ization of the Worcester line to Riverside or beyond?
Bramdeisroberts
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:45 pm

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby MBTA3247 » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:00 pm

BandA wrote:
NH2060 wrote:
The EGE wrote:Needham is unexpandable but should be replaced by rapid transit anyway; it's not an intercity route whatsoever so I doubt it would come into play.

If the Needham Line was converted to an Orange Line extension that would free up capacity and/or allow all those Needham slots to be used for Providence/Stoughton, Franklin, etc. However there would need to be an expansion of even the future OL fleet for this to be feasible.
Needham has enough density to make a good streetcar suburb, so Orange line might be a good idea. Should also convert "D" Riverside line to Orange, taking the pressure of of the antiquated Central Subway. Low floor LRV's make no sense on the fully grade-separated Highland Branch or the new GLX. Orange Needham + Riverside would also allow restoration of Needham Loop service. The pie-in-the-sky part would be a subway tunnel between Hynes/Convention Center to Back Bay and modifying Kenmore, Hynes, and Back Bay. Does Orange line have capacity to handle more trains?

Hynes and Kenmore wouldn't require any modification to handle a conversion of the D Line to an Orange Line branch as you've imagined it above.

They'd be ripped out and replaced altogether, along with all the tunnels between Kenmore and the portals.

And while the Orange Line does have capacity to spare because the current fleet is too small to provide adequate service, I doubt it can handle Forest Hills + Riverside + all the transfers from Cleveland Circle and Boston College at Kenmore (since your plan would eliminate all Green Line service between Copley and Kenmore)

It would make far more sense to build a tunnel under Huntington Ave (for either the OL or the E Line) and connect to the D Line by Brookline Village.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:26 pm

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong F-line, but wouldn't multiple crossovers between Yawkey and Wellesley Farms along with the new signaling infrastructure to drive it all be all but essential for any indigo-ization of the Worcester line to Riverside or beyond?


Oh, most definitely. Inbound of Beacon Park is fine. You've got a set of crossovers between the Worcester Line/NEC split and the Back Bay platforms, a set on the east side of Beacon Park, and a set on the west side of Beacon Park. That takes care of BBY, Yawkey, West, and New Balance stations. It's Newton that has zero whatsoever.

Do do an Indigo-Riverside line you'd have to first relocate the Wellesley Farms set of crossovers to Riverside Jct. Currently you can't access the Riverside spur at all from the outbound track. Relocating alone is hard to do the way the signal system is set up, which is one reason why this is such a pickle. Then, assuming an Indigo route also drops an infill station at Newton Corner, you'd probably have to keep up that 1 set of crossovers per 2 stations placement that currently bookends Back Bay-Yawkey and will bookend West-New Balance. Which probably means Newton Corner-Newtonville...then an infill set of crossovers...then West Newton-Auburndale...then the Riverside Jct. set of crossovers. And of course the platforms at the 3 existing Newtons all have to be doubled-up as a default assumption because that 'wrong-rail' running imposes its own capacity ceiling.


Mind you, this isn't just Indigo. Regular, vanilla Framingham/Worcester service is capped by these capacity problems too. So in addition to the extra maneuvering room inside of 128 you're going to need 2-3 more sets of crossovers between Riverside and Framingham so expresses can leapfrog all-stops locals and revived Amtrak Inland service can leapfrog the locals. The outer half of the line has them spaced about 1 set per every 10 miles: between Framingham-Ashland, Southborough-Westborough, and Grafton-Worcester. Also 1 per every 2 stations, albeit at wider station spacing. If you take that metric, then the reconfigured Riverside-Framingham segment with would logically have new sets installed between Wellesley Hills and Wellesley Sq., and between Natick and West Natick...with only the necessity of bookending both sides of Framingham Jct. interrupting the pattern of 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 station vs. crossover spacing that starts at MP 0 at the split with the NEC.

Same signal system, so just as difficult to do as it is inside 128 unless you replace the whole damn thing and start over with cab signals. They've studied...many times over...what fussing around they can do with the existing infrastructure; this was an issue they confronted way back in '94 when service was re-extended to Worcester. Every time it's the same answer: the signals are so limited that moving, much less adding, crossovers is too painful and they're better off just replacing the whole thing. This isn't a new revelation that came about after CSX left town or when they started talking about Indigo...they knew 25 years ago how low their ceiling for meaningful service expansion was going to be without a full-scale fix on 21 miles of signals and switches.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby Arlington » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:13 pm

BBJ has images from the bid book, including an "infrastructure" page, which shows the following transit changes:
- New West Sta / Beacon yards
- Green Line GLX to Union Sq & Tufts College Ave
- Green Line extended from Lechmere up Cambridge St [* I think this is just an error with no "meaning" see note]
- Grand Junction Heavy Rail
- BBY-Widett-Seaport Heavy Rail
- #1 Bus converted to BRT
- New BRT from BON-BOS-Seaport
(click image for max size)
Image
* Note: I think they just screwed up on how the Union Sq branch works (note that it does not follow the Fitchburg ROW as it should) It seems like they knew they needed a branch near Lechmere, and knew they needed a terminus at Union Sq, but didn't really know how this comes about.

Once the the routes get corrected in the next draft, they won't be all that wrong in their 10minute-walk catchments, and it doesn't affect any venue access and affects no lodging access either (which is probably why they didn't sweat getting it right)
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby jbvb » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:59 pm

What caught my eye was how they plan to completely re-write the whole of the MBTA and Amtrak terminal facilities supporting South Station and the Red Line. I don't see how you can build the stadium, Olympic Boulevard and what looks like several monorails without moving the rail facilities to a new site that I can't see being any closer than Readville? Giving that space to developers was something we could have gotten out of the North-South rail link, but that won't be finished by 2022 even if every Big Enchilada between Bangor and Atlanta had been promised a piece of the pie.

Nobody's talking about the capacity of the Central Subway. Neither are they talking about re-signaling the Red Line (and probably the Orange Line too), if current law & regulation allow it, to get back to 1970s-level train densities.
jbvb
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Rockingham Co., NH

Re: Boston's 2024 Olympic Bid: Posssible MBTA Improvements

Postby ohalloranchris » Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:01 pm

And did you see who was announced today to be the leader of the Boston Olympics initiative? Richard Davey. Hopefully he remembers where he came from...
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BandA and 5 guests