Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

[CRail]

DMU shuttles? to where from MIT?

Hmm, good question. How about someplace fun like 6 Flags! Or, more realistically, where the track ends up on either end, perhaps.

There is currently a bus shuttle from Cambridge Center to North Station which runs all day. Also, there are a lot of commuters from South Station to that area and obviously enough from the Metro West to trigger researching the idea of sending Worcester trains through there to North Station. This route would be circumferential, a concept never before looked into by transportation officials (maybe they could call this type of service something like an "Urban Ring" or "Crosstown Transit" if you will), and serve the newly developing North Point/Lechmere area, Kendall Square, MIT, BU, Allston/Brighton, Fenway/Kenmore, Back Bay, and South Station. I know, I know, the train would have to change ends mid route which is inconceivable (except somehow for the Port Authority Trans Hudson at Hoboken during late night service... or on the Old Colony in Plymouth).

The T is broke. This is all pie in the sky.

The T is broke; so the Green Line can't extend to Somerville, Assembly Square Station can't be built, Yawkee Station can't be upgraded, procurements for new equipment aren't possible... oh wait, those are all things that are already happening anyway, so it obviously doesn't matter. I don't understand how this simple minded argument used when someone doesn't agree with something can still hold merit with anyone, especially when it flies out the window when that same someone wants something. The T is broke, that's fantastic, their operating budget doesn't pay for capital projects, therefor it's completely irrelevant.

F-Line: The idea I have is restoring the entire line back to double track someday, and working on provisions for doing so today to make that a feasibility some day. This is not unlike the idea I had years ago for re-double tracking the single tracked portions of the Haverhill and Fitchburg lines which would never ha... um... are happening.

[newpylong]

Not that I feel the need to defend my logic, but I think if you do a search by my name you will see a recurring trend - that I don't think ANY large scale projects should be undertaken right now. As for small scale projects, there has to be significant short term reward.

I am a firm believer that Governor Patrick has a minting machine hidden somewhere. While my Zone 3 keeps going up 30 bucks a pop every other year I simply cannot support any of these pie in the sky proposals - and being an ex railroader I can ride for free - but I don't.

[CRail]

Primarily, my point was that the money isn't all coming from the same place. Your pass would go up just the same if these projects weren't happening because the problem is elsewhere. The mindset that gets me is the one had by those who complain about the new advertisement screens in stations. Oh, they're broke but they can afford fancy screens; guess what hot shot, those don't belong to the T!

Any public financial problem should certainly not cease public growth, and it MOST certainly should not cease progressive brainstorming about the subject. Plus, just because I'd like to see something and can justify its possibility doesn't mean I'm going to start lobbying to have funds allocated to it, I just think it would be nice if it were done.

[octr202]

Worcester-North Station via Grand Junction would have been a brilliant "small dollars" project to squeeze more service for relatively little funding. From a transportation standpoint the studies seemed to indicate a decent ridership potential for sending limited Worcester trains through Cambridge, as long as there is a stop there. The Kendall area and Mass Av is littered with construction - there are an estimated 100K jobs in Cambridge, and much of it is concentrated along this rail line. Metrowest is a very hard area to get riders onto transit, and this was projected to save 25-30 minutes of commute time for the average commuter rail rider from the Worcester line to Cambridge.

Unfortunately, from what I saw of the process, local opposition in Cambridge played a big role in killing the idea.

[newpylong]

I wasn't born yesterday, I realize the funding for said projects would come from various sources, much not being from fares. My point is: once they are completed, where does the operating expenses come from? The same place that they are now.

I'll simplify it. What costs more to maintain, 5 miles of road or 10? 1 car or 2 cars? You get the point.

A Public service is not build and forget.

Primarily, my point was that the money isn't all coming from the same place. Your pass would go up just the same if these projects weren't happening because the problem is elsewhere. The mindset that gets me is the one had by those who complain about the new advertisement screens in stations. Oh, they're broke but they can afford fancy screens; guess what hot shot, those don't belong to the T!

Any public financial problem should certainly not cease public growth, and it MOST certainly should not cease progressive brainstorming about the subject. Plus, just because I'd like to see something and can justify its possibility doesn't mean I'm going to start lobbying to have funds allocated to it, I just think it would be nice if it were done.

[The EGE]

Unfortunately, from what I saw of the process, local opposition in Cambridge played a big role in killing the idea.

And they were perfectly right to. The lieutenant governor dropped the plan on their heads with no forewarning and no community input. No prior discussion of "oh, hey, how are we going to mitigate delays on the four most important roads in Cambridge." No "we'll add in some local projects for mitigation to sweeten the deal." I don't even think the Kendall stop came into the picture until after the city got angry.

[CRail]

Anyone who posts here should understand the need for transit to take precedence over automobiles. Changing a culture is not easy nor does it come without strong opposition, but that doesn't make that opposition right.

[The EGE]

Anyone who posts here should understand the need for transit to take precedence over automobiles. Changing a culture is not easy nor does it come without strong opposition, but that doesn't make that opposition right.

I understand that as much as anyone. However, consider exactly what the state was proposing: Blocking local traffic flow - all bus, car, bike, and pedestrian movement - over every single SE/NW artery (i.e, the largest flow from residential to commercial and academic areas), multiple times during rush hour, with slow-moving trains (GJ is largely 10mph if I recall), in the fifth most populated city in the state. That's Framingham writ large.

And this was to be with zero benefit for Cambridge. Those commuting to Cambridge are best served by the Red Line from South Station. When the proposal was dropped, it included no Kendall station or any benefit for Cambridge. It was a blatant pander to the Metrowest at the expense of Cambridge.

The purposes of transit generally involve getting as many people to their destination as possible and reducing congestion. This proposal would have gotten very few people to destinations they could not before reach, yet delayed thousands of people on all modes and caused even more congestion. While it might be a good idea down the line, that would require substantial infrastructure investment including better track, a Kendall Square station, and probably at least one grade separation.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Anyone who posts here should understand the need for transit to take precedence over automobiles. Changing a culture is not easy nor does it come without strong opposition, but that doesn't make that opposition right.

I understand that as much as anyone. However, consider exactly what the state was proposing: Blocking local traffic flow - all bus, car, bike, and pedestrian movement - over every single SE/NW artery (i.e, the largest flow from residential to commercial and academic areas), multiple times during rush hour, with slow-moving trains (GJ is largely 10mph if I recall), in the fifth most populated city in the state. That's Framingham writ large.

And this was to be with zero benefit for Cambridge. Those commuting to Cambridge are best served by the Red Line from South Station. When the proposal was dropped, it included no Kendall station or any benefit for Cambridge. It was a blatant pander to the Metrowest at the expense of Cambridge.

The purposes of transit generally involve getting as many people to their destination as possible and reducing congestion. This proposal would have gotten very few people to destinations they could not before reach, yet delayed thousands of people on all modes and caused even more congestion. While it might be a good idea down the line, that would require substantial infrastructure investment including better track, a Kendall Square station, and probably at least one grade separation.

Yeah, which was why they should've spelled that out before dropping the proposal.

The state is obligated to spiff up the line a bit as a condition of the CSX sale. First was some track/tie/ballast work last year. Second is this second-wave bridge repair. Third is going to be (finally) upgrading all the un-gated crossings with full gates. That'll help immediately with the freight tie-ups. It would've been better to approach the city with a proposal--with FULL community input--after some of these basic state-of-repair projects were complete instead of before. Of course nobody's going to have a mental picture of what a train zooming through a gated Mass Ave. crossing at 40 MPH with traffic light pre-emption is going to do when all they have for comparison are current conditions. No way in hell will the train-induced delays be similar in a full-build, especially if the signal pre-emption dumps the N-S queues as first priority after the gates lift. They need to show some measurable improvements first with these small upgrades, and come prepared at any community meeting with traffic modeling.

I guarantee Cambridge can be swayed on this if properly engaged. The way this was dropped on them the first time was simply insulting, and they reacted like any community would being run over roughshod like that.


(Note: I'm not advocating build-now in this funding environment, of course. But there's nothing preventing them from doing due-diligence prelim studies and engaging stakeholders for input. It IS a useful line that--if the requisite Kendall stop doesn't balloon to monstrous cost--is a much more cut-rate value than some of the crap the state keeps pushing as high-priority projects.)

[130MM]

The state is obligated to spiff up the line a bit as a condition of the CSX sale. First was some track/tie/ballast work last year. Second is this second-wave bridge repair. Third is going to be (finally) upgrading all the un-gated crossings with full gates. That'll help immediately with the freight tie-ups.

I think you misjudged what happened here. There are two separate things going on here. The ties were installed to keep the track at Class 1. We did have a couple of derailments on the transfer runs, and the ties were simply to prevent a reoccurance. The bridge was close to failure, and, again, the work is being done to keep traffic moving. It is true, they are doing more than the minimum, but monies were available, and the addtional work was done. Any proposals for service are coming from a different group, not from the maintenance side.

DAW

[CRail]

Although I can't cite anything without researching, I remember talks about track work being done and speeds being upgraded as part of the sale like F Line mentions. Maybe the work happening now is not relevant to that, but I think it's supposed to happen.

I hadn't answered newpylong's point in my subsequent post, but I now have thought more about his point. It's a valid point, that any new service will add to operating costs. It will also increase revenue, not nearly enough to break even, I know. Think of the T or MassDOT or whichever entity you wish to apply this to as a politician. The more constituents a politician has, theoretically, the more successful he or she will be. By adding service (so long as it's well utilized), public transit gains supporters because obviously the people who use it want it. If the T (or whomever) gains more riders, they are the constituents who will lobby/vote/push for increased funding to the operation, which is greatly needed anyway. This kind of goes back to my original point that the problem is elsewhere (unrelated debt allocated to the T's operating budget), and needs to be straightened out anyway. The increase in service only makes that need more prominent, which I see as a good way of ensuring that it actually happens.

The idea that I threw out there wouldn't happen without other upgrades, obviously. Trains wouldn't continue at 10mph anymore. I think people are getting too stuck on the current situation preventing them from thinking outside the box. Nobody said we're going to buy a bunch of vehicles and start service tomorrow, other things have to happen first. Regarding the crossings over busy urban thoroughfares, Calgary's light rail line has full RR scale gated crossings which are activated every time an LRV goes over it (at least as frequent as our green line operates), and the traffic isn't gridlocked by it.

I think it's a waste to maintain an active right of way through such a busy area solely for the purpose of equipment moves and local freights. Here's an existing artery with some serious potential, and that potential is going completely ignored.

[Elcamo]

Would it be possible to add a connection towards South station, so that trains coming from ss could use the grand junction to head towards north station? Also, how hard would it be for the t to add full double track on the grand junction? While ss is lacking capactity for it right now, this could be a cheap alternative to a N/S rail link, with service between NS and SS and maybe an intermediate station? If the T ever orders DMUs, this and the fairmount line would be perfect.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Would it be possible to add a connection towards South station, so that trains coming from ss could use the grand junction to head towards north station? Also, how hard would it be for the t to add full double track on the grand junction? While ss is lacking capactity for it right now, this could be a cheap alternative to a N/S rail link, with service between NS and SS and maybe an intermediate station? If the T ever orders DMUs, this and the fairmount line would be perfect.

No way to make it a straight shot from SS. The angle at which it splits off from the Worcester Line is way too sharp, and both the GJ and Worcester Line are directly underneath the Mass Pike viaduct at the first chance you'd have available to shiv in a wye, meaning you've got 125 ft. of viaduct width to pull a complete U-turn...and have to negotiate all the viaduct support columns to do it. Impossible. You would not be able to split off further to the east where the lines diverge for a wider wye, either, because the Pike is on an incline between the lines as it rises up onto the viaduct.


Yes, you can double-track it everywhere except those last few feet past Storrow where it's inclining down to dip under the Pike. Even on the places where MIT has rear service driveways and air rights...those are all on property easements that remain RR property, and MIT is prohibited from building permanent structures on those easements. If the N-S Link were built, this would allow conversion of the GJ into a light rail leg of the Urban Ring...which would obviously have to be double track re-claiming those service driveways. So yes, it's fully provisioned.

I can't see any possible scenario where it would be doubled as long as it does remain a RR. Remember, the proposal floated only involved 10 total Worcester trains per day. And maybe extrapolating from there Amtrak grabbing a couple slots for Inland Regionals terminating at NS. That's roughly the present-day daily passenger traffic on the Wildcat Branch (which is also just a hair under 3 miles), Downeasters and Anderson-Haverhill expresses combined. That is not a heavy schedule at all for such a short line. There'd be no scenario where there's likely to be any train meets on the branch with frequencies that sparse, and if you did...there is still that half-mile MIT passing siding pre-existing. Capacity is a non-issue.

[GP40MC1118]

Don't forget the other end of the branch...No direct connection to the mainline. This will also
be further worsened by GLX and the silly extension to Union Square....

D

[BostonUrbEx]

Don't forget the other end of the branch...No direct connection to the mainline. This will also
be further worsened by GLX and the silly extension to Union Square....

D

Huh? How does GLX make it worse? Right now, use of the Grand Junction requires the fouling of both directions on the Fitchburg Line, and then one may enter the line running wrong-ironed. Post-GLX trains will be able to run right into the inbound track!

Silly extension? Union Square has the potential to be the next Davis Square. And it sets up for an extension to Porter, Alewife, and Belmont.