Lost Streetcar Infrastructure

A PCC streetcar inbound from
Watertown Square passing through
Newton Corner
(Photo by J. Appleman, August 1966)

From the late 1800s through the 1940s, Boston and vicinity had a robust streetcar infrastructure, taking riders not only on trips downtown but also connecting neighborhoods.  

A streetcar near Union Square in Somerville

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, this network was trimmed down until only four lines remain.  Three run along major arterials:  Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, and Huntington Avenue.  The fourth was an early conversion from commuter rail, namely the Mattapan-Ashmont “High Speed” Line.  In the late 1950s, Boston picked up a second streetcar line converted from commuter rail when the Boston & Albany Railroad’s Highland Branch became the Riverside Line.

A colleague posted a narrated video of a trip from the streetcar yard at Arborway (once the terminus of the E Branch of the Green Line) to Mattapan yard (still a terminus of the “High Speed” Line.  The video illustrates that back in the day of less and slower auto traffic, the streetcar was an important mode of transport.   Link:  http://youtu.be/IXe_udEPt60

A PCC streetcar from Arborway to Mattapan travels along Cummings Highway.
(Still from the video.)

Approaching Mattapan Square .  (Still from the video.)

Over the years, many of the streetcar routes were first converted to “trackless trolley” (buses with overhead electric power lines) and later diesel buses.  The buses proved more flexible and less expensive to maintain and operate.

Streetcar in a median on Blue Hill Avenue in Dorchester

PCC streetcar bound for Dudley Square in Roxbury leaves what is now Andrew Station on Southampton Street (Collection of Joe Testagrose, year unknown)

2-car train of PCCs cars heading to the Arborway on what is known at the E Branch of the Arborway on August 13, 1970.  (Photo by Joe Testagrose)

Today, the MBTA Light Rail System is the remnant of Boston's once extensive streetcar network, This includes the Green LIne with four routes converging on the Central Subway under the Back Bay and downtown, as well as the still-running Mattapan-Ashmont Line.

A Type 8 Light Rail Vehicle is running inbound on the E Branch at Huntington Avenue and Forsythe Street by Northeastern Avenue.  It is headed through the Central Subway to the Lechmere terminal in East Cambridge. 

What Does the Public Think?

Any public transportation study or project these days generally include a series of public meetings to gather public input.  In addition, there are often public input periods where comments are received on a particular report.

But do these methods of public outreach yield the public’s opinion, or only the opinions of the meeting-goers?

This is the dilemma of many officials, planners and engineers:  How do we best get a good cross-section of public opinion?

The Roxbury-Dorchester-Mattapan (RDM) Transit Needs Study:  An example of a robust public outreach program.

I mention the example of this study, dating from 2011 to 2012, as it included some of the most comprehensive methods of public outreach.  The objective was to go far beyond just the likely meeting-goers, and reach a cross section of those who live and work in these three communities within the City of Boston, Massachusetts.

The RDM Study Area

Brief Overview of the Study

This comprehensive study of the travel patterns of these transit-dependent communities was undertaken by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), coming on the heals the 28X Project, a bus rapid transit project that had failed to achieve community support and was dropped by MassDOT.  As recommended by many in the community, the new study would take a step back perform a comprehensive overview of transit needs and explore alternative strategies to meet these needs.

The wedge-shaped study area for the RDM Study is just beyond walking access to the major rail transit lines (the Orange and Red Lines). Many residents are transit-dependent and must rely on existing bus service to meet their travel needs.

Makeup of the Outreach Team

The Study Team was made up of predominantly residents and former residents of the communities.  These are primarily minority communities and, unlike the case in some studies, the Outreach Team resembled the communities.

Member of Outreach Team hands out
questionnaire to transit rider.

We believed the key to a successful study was gaining public trust in  and support for the study process. That is why we assembled a planning team lead by professionals with roots in this corridor. Putting a new, community-rooted face on the planning team was one element in demonstrating to the communities that this study was truly a new start.

Of all those working on the project, only my transportation engineer and I were the only non-minorities on the consultant team.   All-in-all, I think this strategy was key to both our team winning the assignment from MassDOT as well as being contributory to the overall success of the study.

Strategies to Reach the Community

The project included a comprehensive array of strategies to obtain a wide range of input.  The public outreach program went far beyond just public meetings and a web site.  The Study Team literally went to where the public was:  

• to their bus stops and transit stations, 
• on their buses,
• to their libraries,
• to their community centers,
• to their community events, and
• to the churches where they worship

Mattapan Branch Library (William 
Rawn Associates, Architects Inc.)

We learned that many in these communities simply cannot make public meetings, due to work hours, or having to come home and attend to their children.  Also, many did not have computers in their home to perform an on-line survey.

Supplementing the consultant team was a group we called the "Street Team."  Led by the organizer of a local census outreach team, these community residents performed much of the legwork of meeting the community where they were.

The Many Facets of Outreach

Public input into the study came through these various sources:

• review of previous studies and reports
• series of public information meetings
• study advisory committee
• on-line survey
• questionnaires administered by hand-held devices
• paper questionnaires

The Street Tream recorded responses
to the questionnaire on board buses
using hand-held devices

Access to the on-line survey was enhanced by inviting community members to come to the local libraries where Outreach Team members would assist them as needed.  The Street Team went to community bus stops and rode local bus routes to record answers to the questionnaire on hand-held devices, where the data was later downloaded and entered into the needs database.

The use of paper questionnaires allowed many more to participate.  The questionnaires were distributed at community centers, such as health centers, libraries, and churches.  They were also distributed a several major community events, at the transit stations where connecting buses serve the RDM area, and after Sunday Services at local churches.  

Publicity for the meetings and the study itself was extensive.  Besides the MassDOT and MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the local transit operator) websites, the project used Facebook, Twitter, the community newspaper (The Bay State Banner), and the local radio station (TOUCH 106.1 FM), and distribution at community centers.

The overall result of the outreach over about 2 months was 1,344 responses, yielding 154 ideas for transit improvements.   The ideas were evaluated by the Advisory Committee and the Study Team.  The results are in the Final Report for the RDM Study.

For more information on the study or to read the Final Report, visit the MassDOT website for the RDM Study.

__________________________________________________

The outreach plan was developed by the consultant team which included:

Charles W. Bradley, III, AIA (The ARCH Professional Group, Inc.)
Michael Fergus (The ARCH Professional Group, Inc.)
Patrick Belizaire (The ARCH Professional Group, Inc.)
Kelley Chunn (Kelley Chunn & Associates)
Adrienne Benton (Onyx Spectrum Technology, Inc.)
William Caines (William F Caines Landscape Architects Inc.) 
Rachel J. Burckardt, PE (Parsons Brinckerhoff)
Kristen Torrance, PE, PTOE (Parsons Brinckerhoff)

Dedication of Three New Stations on the MBTA Fairmont Commuter Line

As reported by the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority on July 17, 2013, Governor Deval Patrick, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, MassDOT Secretary and CEO Richard Davey and MBTA General Manager Dr. Beverly Scott officially opened the Four Corners Commuter Rail Station, celebrating a series of recent  recent improvements made along the entire Fairmount Commuter Rail Line.  These improvements included track, signal and bridge updgrades, as well as two other new stations, at Talbot Avenue and Newmarket.

These new stations represent a continuing trend in the restoration of passenger rail service in New England within the last 2 years.  The other improvements include two new stations in Rhode Island on the MBTA Providence Line (Warwick/TF Green Aiprort and Wickford Jct.), two stations in Maine on the extension of the Downeaster intercity service (Freeport and Brunswick), and two stations as part of the Cape Flyer service to Cape Cod.

The Fairmont line is unique in the MBTA system, in that it is entirely within the City of Boston.  As such, it acts as a hybrid mode, using commuter rail equipment but serving an intracity transit market.  The line bisects the Dorchester and Mattapan neighborhoods, nearly halfway between the Orange and Red Lines.

Originally part of the New York and New England Railroad's mainline, it bypassed Back Bay Station, through which most of the south side commuter services ran.  When the line was merged into the New Haven Railroad, which ran all the service radiating south of Boston, it was delegated primarily as the freight route, whereas the passenger route ran up what is now the Providence Line, passing through Back Bay on its way to South Station.  Passenger service was provided until 1944.

Passenger service was restored on Nov. 3, 1979 when commuter trains and Amtrak intercity services were shifted over the the Fairmont line for the duration of the Southwest Corridor project.  Three stations were served by a shuttle service.  This service was kept after the other passenger services were restored to the mainline.

With the opening of the three new stations, service now consists of 40 to 45 minute headways at peak hours and hour headways in between.

Proposals to provide more frequent services (perhaps every 30 minutes) have been explored, as has the use of diesel multiple unit trains, which would be shorter and have faster acceleration.  

Returning to Cape Cod (By Rail)

This summer will bring the return of regularly scheduled train service between Boston and Cape Cod.   Branded as the CapeFlyer, it provides a new modal option for a trip measured in "miles of backup before the bridge." 

There are only two motor vehicle bridges across the Cape Cod Canal, and both experience major backups on summer weekends.  The only ways to avoid the bridges are the ferry to Provincetown or flying into Hyannis.  And the under-utilized rail bridge. (See photo on right.)

NYNY&H RR "The Cranbury" was
painted in ths special color for the
Hyannis-bound trains from Boston

There was a time when rail service was once the way to travel to the Cape.  Before the dominance of the auto, vacationers from New York, Connecticut and Boston traveled by the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad (NYNH&H RR) to reach destinations such as Hyannis (with ferries to Nantucket) and Woods Hole (with ferries to Martha's Vineyards).  An age of auto-free intermodal travel!

 Service and ridership dwindled over time with the Boston service ending by 1959 while service from New York continued until 1964.   A fire on the rail bridge over  the Neponset River in 1960 made restoration of service from Boston daunting.

In 1965, the New Haven sold this rail line to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), which will be operating the new service to the Cape some 48-year later.  First, the MBTA built the Red Line along this right-of-way (with a new rapid transit bridge over the Neponset River), first to Quincy (service beginning in 1971) and then to Braintree (opening in 1980). 

Cape Cod & Hyannis train at Buzzards

Bay Station with the iconic rail bridge
over Cape Cod Canal in the background.

The Braintree extension opened the door for a "two-seat" restoration of seasonal service from Boston to the Cape in 1982.  Passengers could change trains in Braintree and ride the Cape Cod & Hyannis  (CC&H)   Railroad to both Falmouth and Hyannis.  Then in 1987, Amtrak restored summer weekend service from New York, with an additional train transferring to the CC&H at Attleboro, Massachusetts. 

You know you've reached the Cape

when you cross the Cape Cod Canal

Railroad Bridge, which dates from

1935 and is the second longest

vertical lift rail bridge in the US.
I took this photo from the bike path
along the canal - see my other
blog post.

For a brief period, service was restored from both New York and Boston.  But nothing lasts forever.  The CC&H lost its state subsidy and ended service after 1986.  Amtrak stopped its service to the Cape after 1996 (by which time, the service was a shuttle from Providence).  Since then, passenger service on the Cape has been limited to a summer tourist train from Hyannis to Buzzards Bay.

Commuter rail servie was restored
in 1997 from Boston to
Middleborough, 2/3 of the way to the Cape.

A year after through service to Hyannis ended, commuter rail service was restored 2/3 of the way to the Cape, with the opening of the Middleborough Line from Boston, including a new rail bridge over the Neponset.  For the first time in 37 years, through rail service from South Station Boston to Hyannis was at least possible.  

It took another 16 years to get from the possible to the actual.   This summer, a few of the Middleborough trains on Fridays evenings and over the weekend will be extended to Hyannis.  The two-hour schedule is not indicative of a true "flyer," but it beats a 10-mile backup approaching the bridge.

Cape Flyer crossing the Cape Cod Canal

.

Maine and Rhode Island Extend Passenger Services in 2012

Last year, 2012, saw two incremental extensions of passenger service here in New England.   None of these were earth-shattering or worthy of national attention.  But, it is a sign of moving forward, after decades of retreating. 



Two ceremonial trains marked the service extensions.  On the left, Nov. 1st  saw the inauguration of Downeaster service to Freeport and Brunswick, ME after a 50-year absence.  On the right, April 23rd the inaugural MBTA train waits at Wickford Junction while the ceremonies proceed inside the station garage..

Spring saw the April 23rd opening of Wickford Junc-tion south of Providence in Rhode Island, along Amtrak's Northeast Cor-ridor. Along with a station at Warwick (serving TF Green Airport), this day marked the completion of Phase 1 of the state-sponsored South County Rail extension project, returning service after a 40-year absence.   The table above and to the right chronicles the timeline for this retreat of service and for its restoration.  Note that through it all, Amtrak provided intercity service over this line, but only the the major stations, and not the local commuter stops that lost service.

Meanwhile, way up north, a fifty-year passenger service drought ended this fall with the return of service to Brunswick and Freeport, Maine. Ten years after the return of passenger service to Portland, Maine, Amtrak’s Downeaster’s inaugural run pulled into these communities, accompanied by bands, crowds, and speeches.  In this case, the retreat involved all passenger service, and, for a few years, it meant no passenger service on this route beyond the near surburbs of Boston. 

The How’s and Why’s of the Service Retreats and Extension

Part 1: Why the Service Retreats: A Tale of Two Bridges

Here you can see two bridges, side-by-side crossing the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. They represent two approaches to funding and owning transportation infra-structure.  The smaller, lower bridge on the left is older and was private-ly built by the New Haven Railroad, without tax-payer funding. That represented the era of privately-funded transportation infrastructure.

Now, contrast that with the two larger and higher (read: more costly) bridges on the right, built entirely at taxpayer expense. They are part of Interstate 95 which was part of a massive highway construction undertaking in the US, beginning in the 1950s. Call it the public option for transportation infrastructure. While the interstates are partly responsible for the strength of the US economy, they also the privately-owned railroads at a financial disadvantage. Essentially, the federal government created competing public infrastructure that starved the private infrastructure of revenue.

The result was that many US railroads fell into bankruptcy in the 1960s and 1970s. They could not compete with traffic on the interstates.

The first to go in the decline was passenger service. With the advent of buses, privately owned cars, and finally the popular use of air transportation (also using government funded infrastructure), rail passenger service lost its advantages of speed and convenience.  Simply put became no longer profitable to carry passengers.  This resulted in a downturn spiral of cutting services, which reduced ridership, which reduced revenue and lead to more service cuts.  This lead to the creation of government-funded Amtrak in 1971 to run the intercity services, while local commuter services were transferred to local agencies.

This was the backdrop for the loss of passenger rail service to Maine and the retreat of commuter rail services in Rhode Island.

Part 2: Restorations – Tales of Visions, Plans, and Persistence

Each of our examples can be attributed to visionaries and government officials who responded to their vision.  Government spending caused the retreat in passenger rail serivce, and government spending helped restore passenger rail services.

The efforts of the grassroots
TrainRiders/ Northeast lead to the
start-up of the Downeaster in 2002.

In Maine, the vision dates back to 1989, when Wayne Davis and a group of citizens got together to talk about a return of passenger rail to Maine. The effort led to the creation of the grassroots organization of TrainRiders/Northeast. The group, which included interested people from as far away as Bangor in Maine and several coastal New Hampshire towns, explored the feasibility of Amtrak’s extending the Northeast Corridor passenger trains from Boston through New Hampshire to Portland, Maine, as a first step toward expanding service to other areas of northern New England.

Working with elected officials, their efforts lead to  the Maine State Legislature creating the Northern New England Rail Passenger Authority (NNEPRA) in 1995 to develop and provide passenger rail service between Maine and Boston and points within Maine. With much persistence and political support, federal and state funding was obtained to rebuild the track in New Hampshire and Maine to passenger rail standards after years of seeing only freight service.   Service to Portland, ME was restored in 2002.

Continued efforts lead to the planning, funding, and construction of the service extention to Freeport and Brunswick.  November 1, 2012 marked the inaugeration of this service.  The train was greated by crowds, high school bands, and speaches in both communities.

In Rhode Island, the restoration of service can be traced to two similar visions.  On the public side, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) in 2001 put out its operational feasibility study about extending commuter rail service from its termination at Providence to Westerly on the Connecticut state line.  At the time, Amtrak was planning the initiation of its Acela high speed rail service.  The study considered how expanded commuter rail service could share track time with Amtrak's Acela and Regional services, as well as freight service operated by the Providence & Worcester Railroad.

All the while, a local businessman and developer, Bob Cieo, was planning a multi-use development he called Wickford Junction.  Part of Bob's vision was restoring rail service to Wickford Junction.   As a young man, Bob traveled to Boston by rail many times for work and while attending Wentworth Institute.  His property included a parcel abutting the tracks, just the right size for a station with a parking garage.

Fast forward to December 2009, with RIDOT official and Bob joining dozens dozens of contractors assembled for the opportunity to qualify for RIDOT's first  time using the design/built (D/B) procurement method.  The D/B method can save significant time in delivering a project.  Rather than wait for a complete design before the contractor is selected, the contractor hires the designers (engineers and architects) who design the project with interim milestones that enable construction to begin before all design details are finalized.

Next step:  April 23, 2012.  Commuter Rail service by MBTA began with the first scheduled service train leaving in the wee hours of the morning.  Later, a ceremonial train carried dignitariesand others from Providence to the celebration of the station opening at Wickford Junction.  This was a proud moment for me, as Design Manager for the D/B Team.  (For a video of opening day, click on video and scroll down to link for "Wickford Junction Station."

Conclusion

Two extensions, each of two new stations, opened in 2012 here in New England.  Each is the different story, but they share the same elements of passenger rail service retreating in the face of highway expansion, and restoration of service come to fruition by the efforts and vision of both private citizens and state agencies.  This year, 2013, will see at least one more passenger rail extension, with the restoration of scheduled service from Boston to Cape Cod.  Other extensions are in design, construction or planning, including Fitchburg to Wachuestts, Worcester to Springfield, Springfield to Greenfield and beyond in Vermont, and possibly Pittsfield to New York City.

Alphabetically Challenged Transportation Systems

“A, B, C, D, E, F, G…” so goes a well-know song to help children learn the alphabet. But around Boston, there are two examples of transportation systems that, in their current configuration, appear not to have learned their A-B-C’s!

MBTA Green Line
The MBTA Green Line with its four lettered branches (B, C, D, E), is conspicuously missing an A branch. Ah, but there is a reason. Way back about 1967 when the lettering system was invented (previously the routes were numbered on maps and schedules, but not on the vehicles themselves), there was an A branch to Watertown. See the 1967 map below, featuring the A Line!

Logan Airport
Here we find the letter “D” missing. Presently, there are terminals A, B, C and E, but no D. Well, it seems a few years back, Terminal D was merged into Terminal C. Plans were made to change Terminal E to Terminal D, but it would have caused some confusion.

How do you make the change? All the airlines would have to change their ticketing. And all the signs at the airport would need to change overnight, literally! And all the maps of the airport, and on-line maps, and Google maps, and MBTA maps, etc. And what if you fly out thinking you’d fly back into Terminal E, but you’re delayed and now it’s labeled Terminal D, but your friend trying to pick up at Terminal E can’t find it anywhere. So, I guess we’ll have an airport with a missing terminal for now.

Can Air Travel Be Made Safe?

Well, this is easy – the answer is no, air travel cannot be perfectly safe.

Besides the unsustainable physics of defying gravity, no one can guarantee that any flight will be 100% safe from a hijacking or terrorist’s actions.

Some Perspective: Air Travel = the Least Used Transportation Mode in the US!

Here’s something to think about: of all the modes of travel in our great land, air travel is a tiny percentage of the overall modal split.

But when it comes to protecting trav-eling Americans from terrorist at-tacks, which mode is so much the focus of public discussion, media coverage, and gov-ernment spending?

Well, you know which one it is.

Every day, there are 4 people riding on the New York Subway for ever person on a flight over the US. Nationwide, rail passengers (transit, regional, and long distance) far outnumber air passengers.

Add auto passengers, and the percentage of travelers flying becomes microscopic!

Worldwide, cars and trucks are the terrorist's preferred modes of mass murder.

Given all this, all the talk and so much of the funding still goes to the air transport mode. Does it make sense as policy?

Back to the Question at Hand

Whether or not it makes sense to focus the majority of concern on the minority travel mode, the question at hand is what went wrong and what should we do.

With the recent thwarted attempt to blow up a passenger jet, it is clear that our security measures only go so far. So, is this a failure of the agencies that are supposed to protect us from terrorists? And do any of the new measure close the security gap?

Whose Failure Was It?

It’s too soon for a definitive answer, but the following is clear:

• the perpetrator was known as a potential threat, but was not on the “no fly” list. Still, they were planning to interview him when he arrived in Detroit based on information compiled. Just a little late on putting 2 + 2 together.
  
• instead of hiding the materials in a shoe or in a carry-on bag, he hid them in his clothing. Again, a terrorist is one step ahead of us. From what I see, Homeland Security is always adding measures to prevent the last attack (millions have taken off their shoes because of one attempted attack) but seems incapable of getting one step ahead of the terrorists.
  
• beginning with 9/11, there have been 6 incidents on individual planes now. The score is 3-3. What was common to the victories over the terrorists? Passengers and/or crew took action and thwarted the terrorists.
  

Will the New Measures Work?

To me, it seems the new measures are a knee-jerk reaction that is still one step behind the terrorists.

Why remain seated only during the last hour of the flight? Pam Am 103 was blown up over Lockerbie early in the flight. Will they force passengers to remain seated for entire flights?

What good are full-body scans? We know from prison security measures that even strip searches don’t reveal contraband when it’s hidden in body cavities. If the terrorist is going to die anyway, why not hide the bomb inside his body? That way you can fool the scanners, the dogs, and the air sprays.

Technology alone will not protect us, no matter how great it is. Think of this: Osama Bin Laden was a structural engineer; the Christmas day terrorist was an engineer. Americans, beginning with many in Homeland Security, are below average in their understanding of science and technology. The terrorists will win the battle, IF we depend only on technology.

Well, Then, What to Do?

Here my approach to a more effective policy regarding air travel security:

• Don't make unnecessary enemies with your foriegn policy! If no one hates you, then no one will want to kill you. Good idea in theory, but the world is complex and the influence of the US is worldwide, so it is virtually inevitable that somewhere someone hates the US. Nevertheless, why make unnecessary enemies with your foreign policy!
  
• Listen to the experts. No other nation surpasses Israel in its experience dealing with terrorists. Here's what their experts say:
  
  Lesson 1: Technology alone won’t work. (Didn't I just say that?) The terrorists have cleaver engineers and scientists that can figure out how to overcome our newest mousetrap.
  
  Lesson 2: Profiling and interviewing must complement technology. In short, it pays to ask travelers about their itinerary and purpose. And then ask them again. Pick out individuals by behavior, originating country, or by recently visited nations. We need some “Lie to Me” trained observers watching the video feed.
  
  
• Change how we travel. We depend too much on commercial flights that anyone can board. Responsibility is split in a perculiar way between government (security, traffic control, regulations) and the private sector (airlines). Someone has to say it: It's not working!
  
  What to do? I say don’t criticize the executives in the corporate jets. We need to shift more air travel to private, corporate and charter flights – smaller planes (lower kill count, less damage when crashed as a weapon) and harder for an outsider terrorist to fit in.
  
  
• Proven method: Focus on the only proven method of stopping terrorist in flight: on-board intervention. Have trained and armed marshals on all flights. Mix uniformed marshals with others in plain clothes.
  

Road to Reform? The MassDOT is Coming! The MassDOT is Coming! (Part 1)

Coming in one week is a major reorganization of the state transportation agencies. Right now, Massachusetts has an alphabet soup of agencies loosely organized under the Secretary of Transportation and Public Works. The reorg will create MassDOT, somewhat resembling the normative state DOT (Department of Transportation) that most states have.

The stated reasons for the reorganization are many. There are fiscal considerations such as the savings of consolidating certain administrative functions and reforming retirement programs. There is the idea all state highways and bridges should be maintained and operated by a single agency instead of several. There is the idea of greater transparency, greater responsiveness. And the idea of consolidating transportation policy, decision-making, and funding into a single multi-modal vision.

While the fiscal considerations are the selling point for many, I want to focus on what this means for transportation in Massachusetts.

• Will this end the chronic underfunding of the MBTA?
  
• Will this do anything with the backlog of structurally and functionally deficient bridges?
  
• Who will plow the DCR parkways and bridges this year?
  
• Where is that bus that should have come 15 min. ago?
  

I’ll get to a number of these issues over the course of a series of posts on this topic. But first, my number one argument for creating a DOT.

Argument No. 1 for a DOT
Witness how the taxpayer looses out when there’s an uncoordinated gaggle of transportation agencies each with their narrow vision and objectives. My example takes place along the MBTA Lowell Line, where the proposed Green Line Extension is planned. I’ve been working on projects in this corridor over the last 18 years. For all that time, the MBTA anticipated the Green Line extension and we had even done a preliminary alignment for that extension so that when we designed drainage improvements in 1991, we would design to accommodate the future Green Line.

All the while, MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department) had its consultants designing replacement bridges for the local streets that spanned the MBTA rail corridor. Now MHD could save a lot of money on the new bridges by spanning as narrow a corridor as possible. Shorter bridges are less expensive. So, rather than consider the future Green Line, MHD would rather just design a new bridge to span only the active tracks.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth had made a commitment to extend the Green Line as mitigation for the Big Dig. And to build the Green Line, the bridges needed to be long enough to span not just the 2 or 3 active tracks, but at least 4 tracks to accommodate the addition of the extension. Nevertheless, over the last 10 years, MHD still built 3 new bridges that are not long enough to accommodate the Green Line Extension.

So, this is clearly a case where a narrowed-focused agency was not making decisions in concert with the state’s commitment for another agency. With such parochial thinking, it is the Commonwealth and ultimately the taxpayers who are the losers.

So, my hope is that a single DOT will ensure that all transportation divisions (bridges, roads, transit, aviation) will be on the same page as far as state commitments and coordination with other proposed projects. Capital and operating expenditures need to be considered in the context of the planning and objectives of the entire state transportation system.

Some Clear Advantages
Theoretically, a single DOT should result in a better approach to policy, funding, and planning:

• A single consistent transportation policy
• An intermodal approach to transportation planning
• Better funding of all modes (particularly the chronically underfunded transit systems and parkways)

My example above illustrates the need for the first two advantages. Let me expound a little on something I’ll call “cross-modal” funding.

Cross-Modal Funding
On the funding side, there should be more opportunities to achieve equity in funding the various modes. In particular, gas tax revenues could more readily fund more that just highways as it typically has in the past. This approach could help out the chronically underfunded MBTA.

But to understand this approach, there needs to be an understanding of how this will benefit the Commonwealth. This starts with understanding that adequate funding for transit and rail will also benefit the state roadway system. As people shift from single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to transit, it frees up roadway capacity, improving highway operations and reducing the wear and tear on roads and bridges. This also should reduce the need to spend funds to increase roadway capacity.

The same is true with freight. Every freight car represents 4 less trucks taking up roadway capacity and pounding the life out of taxpayer funded bridges. Shifting freight, particularly to the privately owned freight lines, off loads the tax burden of repairing and replacing public roads and bridges while providing added revenue to tax-paying freight railroads.

Furthermore, transit and rail use of less real estate than highways to carry the same number of people per hour or tons of freight per hour.

In summary, a shifting of funding to provide reliable passenger transit and encourage freight rail use will provide benefits in terms of lessening the burden of taxpayer-funded maintenance, repair, replacement, and capacity improvements on the state’s public roads and bridges.

More to Come
More discussion will follow in subsequent posts.

How to Safely Control Trains on the Green Line

Following the recent MBTA Green Line crash at Government Center, and with another similar crash in recent history on the Riverside Line, a number of people have asked “Can it have been prevented?” In other words, could a more modern type of signals and train control have made it impossible for one train to crash into another?

Right now there are signals in the subway and out on the Riverside Line. But, unlike other lines, there is no “enforcement” of the signals. On the other subway lines and on major rail lines (like Amtrak’s Northeaster Corridor), a train that passes a red light will automatically have its breaks come on.

There is no such system for the Green Line. But would a signal system with “enforcement” work on the Green Line?

The short answer is that such a train control systems could be used, but I don’t think it would work on the Green Line. Such a system would keep the trains further apart. With trains running 90 seconds apart, they would back up and the Green Line wouldn’t handle the approximately 240,000 people a day that use it.

Train Control Systems - A Brief Overview
What most people know about tranit signals are the red-yellow-green lights in the subway. The indications are similar to traffic signals for motor vehicles.

In addition to the signals themselves, train control often has a component of “enforcement.” The simplest feature is the trip stop – a little arm next to the track that is up when the signal is red. The arm sets off the train brake, preventing it from going through the red signal.

In more complex systems, the signal system can interact with the train controls. Sometimes called “civil enforcement” a train control system will not only stop the train before it goes through a red signal, but also will slow it down if it’s going over the speed limit. [Can you imagine that in automobiles? You’re on the MassPike going the limit of 65. You want pass a car, and speed up to 70, but the “enforcement” comes on and slows you back to 65!]

This “civil enforcement” is used on most of the Red and Orange Lines and on high-speed lines, like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

The Green Line has on “civil enforcement” and that is part of the question: should it be used on the Green Line.

Train Control on the Green Line Today
In general, the MBTA Green Line employs 3 types of train control:

1. Automatic Wayside Block Signals: These are the red-yellow-green signals along the side of the tracks.

2. Line of Sight: This is used for street reservations (like the median of Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, or Huntington Avenue) and for street running (e.g., Huntington Avenue and South Huntington Avenue outbound of Brigham Circle.

3. Traffic Signals: Where there are traffic signals at intersections where the Green Line runs in a street reservation or in the street, these traffic signals also govern the operation of the trains.

Automatic Wayside Block Signals
The red-yellow-green automatic wayside block signals are used on the Lechmere Viaduct, Central Subway and on the Highland Branch (Riverside Line, D Branch). This system employs a three-aspect (red, yellow and green), two-block system. Wayside signals will display red if the track circuit immediately beyond the signal is occupied. Signals will display yellow if the next signal in the direction of operation displays red and the intervening track circuit is unoccupied. Signals will display green if the next signal in the direction of operation displays yellow or green and the intervening track circuit is unoccupied (i.e. a minimum of two signal blocks ahead are clear).

Line of Sight and Traffic Signals
When the Green Line runs in the street (like South Huntington Ave.) or in a street reservation (like Commonwealth Avenue), there is no signal system. Rather, operations are be governed by what is called “operator line of sight.” This is no different from anyone driving a car.

Just like driving, there are a series of rules that the operator must follow. And, like driving a car, safety is highly dependent on the operator’s judgments and actions. The operator must obey the traffic signals and also maintain a safe separation from the train in front of them.

What Works and Doesn't Work for the Green Line?

The Green Line is the most heavily used light rail system in the nation. With over 240,000 daily riders, it's four branches converge in the Central Subway, where trains run an average of 90 seconds apart at rush hour. Any regular rider of the Green Line knows how close the trains operate. Often as one train leaves a station, the next one is entering.

Also, the trains tend to bunch up, something know as "platooning." When my firm was working on the light rail accessibility study, we modeled the Central Subway. Even when we started the model with every train running right on time, the model showed that give it an hour or so and the trains will bunched up!

This bunching means that trains may be running at about 45-second headways while bunched, and a few minutes between the bunches. In other words, there is a statistical distribution and the 90-second headway is only the statistical average.

Why is this important? Because, a signal system with train control would not support headways as little as 45 seconds in the Central Subway. Such as system looks at the breaking distance, the distance it takes a train to stop. The system ensures that the train will stop before it can possibly hit the train in front of it. This would keep the Green Line trains further apart. It would reduce the number of trains that can pass through the subway in an hour.

On the other hand, such as system might work on the Riverside Line where speeds are higher and trains run about 5 min. apart at rush hour. Likewise it might be applicable to the new extension to Medford. But the MBTA is studying this, and we should await the study results to see if it would work.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I agree that safety may need to be improved in the wake of recent accidents. However, a train control system does not appear feasible for the subway, due to the tight headways that are needed to get all the trains through on time. It may be applicable for the Riverside Line and the new extension to Medford. But in any case, we should await the results of the ongoing MBTA study of how best to safely control trains on the Green Line.