Red Line / Blue Line Connector

[pharmerdave]

I felt this topic deserved its own thread.

An Enviromental Notification Form has been filed with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Enviromental Affairs. This is the first step in building this must needed connection. If anything, this ENF proves that the Executive Office of Transportation is dead set on getting this done as they have set a timeline for this project.

The estimated commencement date is 2013 and the estimated completion date is 2017. The approximate cost is estimated to be between 242m and 302m.

The EOT has requested that a single enviromental impact review (SEIR) be done by April 2010. Final design would be completed by December 2011.

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/enfs/092507em/14101.pdf

[vanshnookenraggen]

Well thank God some progress is being made.

Edit: I think I know Stephen Woelfel. I talked to him about him working on the Silver Line and was pretty disappointed with how it came out. It made me realize that there still are people fighting the good fight.

[chris]

Why does an Environmental Impact Review take almost 3 years to do?

[justin]

Don't hold your breath. The CLF settlement only requires the T to design the extension, and they're starting to fulfill that commitment by this filing. I don't expect a shovel of earth to be turned in the next few decades:

...Final design will be completed by December 2011. For planning purposes it is assumed that construction would begin in 2013 and be completed in 2017, if a decision is made to advance the project...

Interesting they'd even consider maintaining Bowdoin, which would really be unnecessary. I guess it's bad manners not to consider any alternatives.

justin

(vvv thanks palindrome vvv)

[palindrome]

bowdoin station you mean?

[whighlander]

Note that the SEIR Planning Horizon is stated to be 2030
That would tend to suggest that while they might do a design for the purposes of placating the CLF in 2011 -- that there is no sincere interest in doing the project in the foreseeable future.

Basically, all they want to do is promise to do a design

Its a bit like conceptual art -- you promise to do art of some kind

However, if you don't do the actual construction -- then what -- no one can do anything to enforce any commitment until the dates specified in the ENF have come and gone

In the meantime all the people involved will most likely have moved on to another job or retired.

I don't expect anything to happen -- this has been talked about since the Red Line Extensions in the 1970's

Westy

[Chris]

Latest Courant

Red Line Project Enters Traffic Jam

A project to connect the MBTA's Blue Line and Red Line might coincide with the rehabilitation of Storrow Drive, which could begin in 2010, according to a Department of Conservation and Recreation official.

While the state has made no promise to build the Red-Blue Line connector, which would extend the Blue Line under Cambridge Street to the Charles MGH Station, they are legally required to finish designing the system by 2011. If funding is procured, construction might start a couple of years later. The possibility of overlapping with the Storrow Drive rehabilitation depends on the duration of construction, which could take more than two years. In addition to Storrow Drive, the state has also acknowledgted the importance of fixing the Longfellow Bridge, the Cragie Dam and Cragie Drawbridge.

"It raises the larger question that all of the projects need to be phased," said State Rep. Marty Walz. "Certainly we know Storrow Drive and Longfellow Bridge will be done, and if the Red-Blue Line Connector is built, it certainly would have to be phased appropriately. . . . The alternative to not phasing these projects appropriately is not allowing traffic into Boston, and because the alternative is so wholly unacceptable, it's not a situation of 'it would be nice to phase these projects.' It is essential to phase these projects."

At an October 17 scoping session on the Red-Blue Line Connector, David Mohler of the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) said that plans are preliminary and his agency is aware of the need to sequence the projects.

Malek Al-Khatib, a West End resident at the scoping session, said he is very concerned about the sequencing of the construction and also pointed out at the meeting that if the construction on the Red-Blue Line Connector had to be pushed off until after 2020 because of other transportation projects, the 2011 designs would be outdated.

however, Al-Khatib said despite those reservations he is very suportive of the project.

"We are definitely for this project because it helps ease the vehicular traffic on [Cambridge] Street, and encourages people more to use the train and the subway instead of cars, and that helps the environment."

Carrie Russell, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said that other construction projects like Storrow Drive or Longfellow Bridge make moving forward with the Red-Blue Line connector essential, so that commuters have alternative transportation methods. At the meeting she voiced her group's strong support for the project, citing a reduction of air pollution and increased convenience for commuters as potential benefits.

not everyone is enthusiastic. Some Beacon Hill and West End residents raised concerns that Cambridge Street, which has recently undergone a costly rehabilitation program, would have to be completely torn up to construct the 1,400 foot tunnel underground.

"[Cambridge Street] will be put back in the same condition," said Mohler, adding that EOT will try not to make the mistakes that delayed the current Cambridge Street project.

Some at the meeting were simply concerned about yet another noisy construction site in their backyard.

"I don't see the end of these projects," said Dan Oullette, a West End Civic Association board member. "I would like some kind of reassurance that I'm not living in some sort of construction combat zone. . . . There's a limit to how much I can tolerate. It's gotten to the point where I've got to go out of town to get some peace and quiet."

[palindrome]

I bet he drives his car out to natick for that peace and quiet.

[Roxxma]

Latest Courant

Red Line Project Enters Traffic Jam

A project to connect the MBTA's Blue Line and Red Line might coincide with the rehabilitation of Storrow Drive, which could begin in 2010, according to a Department of Conservation and Recreation official.

While the state has made no promise to build the Red-Blue Line connector, which would extend the Blue Line under Cambridge Street to the Charles MGH Station, they are legally required to finish designing the system by 2011. If funding is procured, construction might start a couple of years later. The possibility of overlapping with the Storrow Drive rehabilitation depends on the duration of construction, which could take more than two years. In addition to Storrow Drive, the state has also acknowledgted the importance of fixing the Longfellow Bridge, the Cragie Dam and Cragie Drawbridge.

"It raises the larger question that all of the projects need to be phased," said State Rep. Marty Walz. "Certainly we know Storrow Drive and Longfellow Bridge will be done, and if the Red-Blue Line Connector is built, it certainly would have to be phased appropriately. . . . The alternative to not phasing these projects appropriately is not allowing traffic into Boston, and because the alternative is so wholly unacceptable, it's not a situation of 'it would be nice to phase these projects.' It is essential to phase these projects."

At an October 17 scoping session on the Red-Blue Line Connector, David Mohler of the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) said that plans are preliminary and his agency is aware of the need to sequence the projects.

Malek Al-Khatib, a West End resident at the scoping session, said he is very concerned about the sequencing of the construction and also pointed out at the meeting that if the construction on the Red-Blue Line Connector had to be pushed off until after 2020 because of other transportation projects, the 2011 designs would be outdated.

however, Al-Khatib said despite those reservations he is very suportive of the project.

"We are definitely for this project because it helps ease the vehicular traffic on [Cambridge] Street, and encourages people more to use the train and the subway instead of cars, and that helps the environment."

Carrie Russell, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said that other construction projects like Storrow Drive or Longfellow Bridge make moving forward with the Red-Blue Line connector essential, so that commuters have alternative transportation methods. At the meeting she voiced her group's strong support for the project, citing a reduction of air pollution and increased convenience for commuters as potential benefits.

not everyone is enthusiastic. Some Beacon Hill and West End residents raised concerns that Cambridge Street, which has recently undergone a costly rehabilitation program, would have to be completely torn up to construct the 1,400 foot tunnel underground.

"[Cambridge Street] will be put back in the same condition," said Mohler, adding that EOT will try not to make the mistakes that delayed the current Cambridge Street project.

Some at the meeting were simply concerned about yet another noisy construction site in their backyard.

"I don't see the end of these projects," said Dan Oullette, a West End Civic Association board member. "I would like some kind of reassurance that I'm not living in some sort of construction combat zone. . . . There's a limit to how much I can tolerate. It's gotten to the point where I've got to go out of town to get some peace and quiet."

And they're surprised? Seriously, what passes as news as of late in the Courant has become almost as petty and crappy as the Beacon Hill Times.

[JohnAKeith]

Another MBTA project in the works

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Auditi Guha
Filed Under General, MBTA, State Politics, That's Odd, Tough Day |

The MBTA is reportedly working to connect the Blue and Red lines at Charles MGH. IF it?s to give us better access to the airport, the Silver Line bus from South Station has already taken care of that and no one does the red-orange-blue to get to the airport any more (unless you live on the orange or blue line I guess), so I don?t see the point of this.

Would be nice if they concentrated their money and time on ongoing projects like the Green Line Extension and solving disputes like the placement of the maintenance facility in Inner Belt instead of coming up with additional ones in this economy.

Anyway, the first Project Working Group meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 24, 4 - 6 pm in the Leverett Saltonstall Building, 2nd floor conference room, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, according to an EOT press release.

Source: Town On Line (http://blogs.townonline.com/somerville/?p=64722)

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm sorry but this is not even worth reading. This blogger obviously has no idea (since they didn't do their homework) that this project has been proposed for some 25 years now and the MBTA has been trying to get out of doing it since the state mandated they build it in the 1990s. Journalism FAIL.

[mass88]

Personally, I think instead of re doing the elevated station, they should have put it underground.

In any event, this wickedlocal has some comments. One person mentions that they should cancel the widening of 128 and the interchange fix to pay for this. I laugh at how this person feels that breakdown lane traveling on a major expressway is ok.

[Ron Newman]

That person would be me. I think the Red/Blue connector has a lot more bang for the buck than restoring a breakdown lane on 128.

[mass88]

That person would be me. I think the Red/Blue connector has a lot more bang for the buck than restoring a breakdown lane on 128.

How do you figure? 128 is a major expressway in the Metro Boston area that currently is inadequate to handle rush hour traffic. Having people drive in the breakdown lane only adds to the mess. What happens when one is broken down and the breakdown lane is filed? The current project that is going to add a lane is much needed.

The red/blue connector really wont have that much of an impact. Those coming from Alewife, it is still faster for people to get off at South Station and take the silver line to the airport.

[Ron Newman]

I don't understand why people keep mentioning the airport in conjunction with the Red/Blue connector. The airport is not the only purpose of the Blue Line. It also serves many other businesses, homes, and recreational areas.

The 128 widening project strikes me as wasteful because it really doesn't add any capacity at rush hour -- you'll go from 3 lanes + breakdown used as additional lane, to 4 lanes with no traffic in breakdown lane. The current experiment is surprising to people at first, but so are many other local traffic quirks (rotaries, concert parking on Storrow Drive, closing Memorial Drive in Cambridge on Sundays)

[Beton Brut]

The airport is not the only purpose of the Blue Line.

That always chaps my ass too, Ron.

The rationale with this project was to create a more-or-less direct connection between Logan and our academic centers in Cambridge. It would also create an easier commute for folks to get from their homes on the North Shore to nodes of high-quality employment in Cambridge.

But Boston being Boston, we wasted some opportunities. Consider:

A "third tube" as part of the build for the Ted Williams Tunnel could have carried the Red Line (or a trolley) to Logan; a one-seat ride from the giant Braintree and Alewife garages

Don't terminate the Blue Line at Charles, build it out via Beacon Steet to Kenmore and beyond (re-purpose the D-Line, push to Harvard's science campus in Allston, or both).

[PaulC]

About 20 years ago the T had a consultant look into connecting the red and blue line. The result was that there would be a net increase of about 12 riders a day. I'm sure this was bs but this would not be my first choice for a new project, there are too may areas without a good connection to downtown, Somervile, Chelsea, Lynn, west Dorchester, Roxbury, Everett. Somewhere I have a link to a map showing the T stops with a half mile radius circle at every station. This shows where the next push should be. I'll post it when I find it again, it has to do with Somerville's green or orange line stations.

The people who use 128 are tax payers too and deserve better roads. It always seems to be an us vs them scenario.**No one should ever be allowed to use the break down lane as a travel lane - ever. I've seen too many near accidents from this stupid policy. If you can't get you politicians to get your road widened then tough sit in traffic.

[PaulC]

MBTA service map:
http://www.somervillestep.org/background/map_T_service.html

[vanshnookenraggen]

Fun Fact:

The "Blue Line" once actually connected to Charles/MGH. Back when the "Blue Line" was originally built (before it was labeled the Blue Line) it was a trolley tunnel that connected trolleys from Harvard Sq to Maverick Sq. Only after the tunnel was converted to heavy rail in 1924 was that service stopped. However until the 1950s the portal on Cambridge St was still used to transport Blue Line cars to the shops at Harvard Sq since the Blue Line didn't have car shops of it's own until the Revere Beach extension was built to Orient Heights (where the current car shops are).

But I do agree with PaulC that there are many other more deserving projects out there. The difference is between environmental justice and rider convenience. In a perfect world they would be connected but currently there are bigger fish to fry.

[JohnAKeith]

How about an underground walkway between Green Line at Symphony to the Orange Line at Mass Ave?

[Beton Brut]

Remember this discussion (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2389)? (NB: everything after the Globe article.)

Nice map (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=109184244230060853338.0004544d08145a5a4252f&ll=42.341389,-71.082771&spn=0.064076,0.154495&z=13), Jimb-John.

[Ron Newman]

If you extend the Blue Line to Lynn or Salem, I think the Charles connector rises from "good idea" to "essential".

[PaulC]

How about an underground walkway between Green Line at Symphony to the Orange Line at Mass Ave?

I doubt if there is enough demand. It would be nice to have a connection between Copley and the Back Bay station too. I wonder if a short line under Mass Ave. would get enough use? Andrew to Central supplementing the route 1 bus. That would also allow a station to connect the green line and the orange line instead of a passageway

I feel that the circle line or what ever it is called would be great but should be low on the priority list. If it's to 'connect the spokes' I'd rather see more spokes first.

[Ron Newman]

The people who use 128 are tax payers too and deserve better roads.

But this forum is all about improving the city, not the sprawl.

[PaulC]

Ron I have the feeling we'll never see eye to eye on this. I think this does improve life in greater Boston and makes life safer. The days of highway building in greater Boston are over. What is left is to improve what is already there. The future is all about public transportation. Of course then it's commuter rail vs non commuter rail.

Anyway I'm off to my neighborhood meeting(Worcester sq), maybe I'll have Mass Ave news latter, we're the heart of the reconstruction project and our group includes task force members and the lawyer for the law suit

[bbfen]

About 20 years ago the T had a consultant look into connecting the red and blue line. The result was that there would be a net increase of about 12 riders a day.

So there's no reason to improve service for the thousands who are inconvenienced by the half-baked current system because the net gain is anticipated to be ~12 riders?

The people who use 128 are tax payers too and deserve better roads. It always seems to be an us vs them scenario.

Leaving aside the insanity of removing the breakdown lane (isn't this essentially a Sand & Gravel repaving project?) in order to "add" a lane that's already acting as a thru lane ...

Didn't we just spend like eleventy-gajillion dollars on some project? Can't remember the name though ... The Huge Dig? The Big Excavation? Something like that ...

Aside from the "gleaming" station at Charles/MGH, I've yet to see any of the legally-mandated public transit expansions carried in the permitting for the Big Dig.

Silver Lie? Wow! A bus line, with silver paint and non-operational status boards.

The Arborway? Deader than my poor Irish relatives.

The Green Line extension? Dying a death slower and more painful than the Arborway restoration.

I guess I should be happy that they're fulfilling their promise to evaluate a Red/Blue connection. (Of course, they're only required to evaluate, not build, but that's a fist-fuck for a different day.)

If you're still with me, this is my point: we've overbuilt for vehicles for over 40 years. When will we learn?

Paul, please don't take any of this as an attack, but in a later post you said, "The future is all about public transportation." If you think that's true, why are you more enthused for the 128 lane swap?

A true urban ring (light rail; heavy rail; appropriate parking garages at urban/suburban edges; no friggin "bus rapid transit" lines through the Boston proper) will improve the quality of life and ability for Massachusetts residents a hundred-fold over the 128 plan--and in a more timely fashion.

Will it cost billions?

Of course. But 3 billion now is better than 2 trillion in 8 years when there's literally no more lanes to swap.

[kennedy]

Well put, bbfen!

[choo]

This is going off, and I know there have been visions of it, but why not just lay down track in the space opened by the lane widening. Connect those suburban office parks we love with mass transit.

[ablarc]

^ Now there's an unrealistic proposal ! :)

[PaulC]

So there's no reason to improve service for the thousands who are inconvenienced by the half-baked current system because the net gain is anticipated to be ~12 riders?I think there is benefit to connecting the red and blue line I just feel that for the short term riders have the ability to get where they are going they just have to use more than one line. I would much rather see areas that have poor or no rapid transit connects to Boston get improvements first. I have zero faith in any T consultant and little faith in consultants in general. The phase I like is 'consultants paint circles around bull eyes'. I'm sure the study left out the fact that for every rider that no longer has to hop on the orange or green line you are freeing up space for additional riders on those lines.


Leaving aside the insanity of removing the breakdown lane (isn't this essentially a Sand & Gravel repaving project?) in order to "add" a lane that's already acting as a thru lane ...

They are not removing a breakdown lane. After this project is done there will still be a breakdown lane and an additional lane. All the bridges have to be rebuilt, on and off ramps reconfigures and probably utility changes.

The Green Line extension? Dying a death slower and more painful than the Arborway restoration.
What are you basing this on?

Paul, please don't take any of this as an attack, but in a later post you said, "The future is all about public transportation." If you think that's true, why are you more enthused for the 128 lane swap?**
I'm not more enthused about the 128 lane addtition. This fixes an existing problem. If not just too make commuters life a little saffer and easier, it will reduce polution and gas use. These lane drops still cause a bottleneck. I'm sure you are wondering, I don't own a car.

Will it cost billions? A quick search I found $200 million, I don't know if this figure is still current. I'm sure the figure can be found somewhere on the web.
http://www.nvcc.com/128abc/lane.html
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/128_95_addLane&sid=about

Boston Region MPO use to do a great break down of all transportation projects ad thier benifits, I don't know if they still do, here is thier site
http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/

This is going off, and I know there have been visions of it, but why not just lay down track in the space opened by the lane widening.**Connect those suburban office parks we love with mass transit.
The original design was to have a train run in the median strip and therefore the original median was very wide.

[mass88]

I don't understand why people keep mentioning the airport in conjunction with the Red/Blue connector. The airport is not the only purpose of the Blue Line. It also serves many other businesses, homes, and recreational areas.

The 128 widening project strikes me as wasteful because it really doesn't add any capacity at rush hour -- you'll go from 3 lanes + breakdown used as additional lane, to 4 lanes with no traffic in breakdown lane. The current experiment is surprising to people at first, but so are many other local traffic quirks (rotaries, concert parking on Storrow Drive, closing Memorial Drive in Cambridge on Sundays)

Actually the widening project is going to be adding a 4th lane and a breakdown lane between rt 9 and 24 which will keep it in line with the current 4 travel lane plus breakdown lane setups after 24 and before rt 9. The project is needed. The interchanges that are going to be fixed are also needed too.

[Ron Newman]

But with the breakdown lane used for travel, it's already got four lanes during rush hour. That's why I don't see this project as especially productive. The marginal benefits of having a full-time breakdown lane don't seem to be worth the cost.

[statler]

Because Ron, when that fourth lane starts to get backed up (and it will), then they will have a fifth lane for overflow traffic!

Of course that will necessitate building yet another lane (for safety reasons, of course) etc..etc..

[mass88]

But with the breakdown lane used for travel, it's already got four lanes during rush hour. That's why I don't see this project as especially productive. The marginal benefits of having a full-time breakdown lane don't seem to be worth the cost.

Because Ron having a breakdown lane dedicated to its purpose, where disabled vehicle can go, or be moved to by the state police is needed and will benefit the flow of traffic. What happens if a car were to breakdown just after 128 goes from 4 to 3 lanes by rt. 9 and the car cannot be moved over because the breakdown lane has cars driving in it? Seeing as how the state probably will not be able to fix the disaster that is the southeast expressway and its lack of a breakdown lane for very long stretches, 128 is a highway that can be fixed.

Because Ron, when that fourth lane starts to get backed up (and it will), then they will have a fifth lane for overflow traffic!

Of course that will necessitate building yet another lane (for safety reasons, of course) etc..etc..

Yes and eventually Boston will have 12 and 14 lane highways to fill all of the traffic that is sure to drive now that the highway is expanded.

[Benson]

Because Ron, when that fourth lane starts to get backed up (and it will), then they will have a fifth lane for overflow traffic!

Of course that will necessitate building yet another lane (for safety reasons, of course) etc..etc..

Very well put Statler.

Back to the Blue/Red line connection, here's a hack: build a pedestrian tunnel connecting Park Street and Government Center. Install some of those nifty people mover thingys they have at the airport and now you have essentially connected all of the lines in a mini-network made up of Park St, Downtown Crossing, and Government Center.

[bbfen]

Very well put Statler.

Back to the Blue/Red line connection, here's a hack: build a pedestrian tunnel connecting Park Street and Government Center. Install some of those nifty people mover thingys they have at the airport and now you have essentially connected all of the lines in a mini-network made up of Park St, Downtown Crossing, and Government Center.

I'm convinced that's what will happen (if anything happens at all). Remember, the T is only obligated to provide a plan, not build it.

[Ron Newman]

A pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk would be a fine solution, but is probably almost as hard as widening the Green Line tunnel to four tracks, given what you'd have to dig under and around. A moving sidewalk tunnel under Cambridge Street, from a Russell Street Blue Line terminus to Charles station, might be easier.

[czsz]

Install some of those nifty people mover thingys they have at the airport

Speaking of which, I was at Wellington today and you have to walk through a hamster tube about a half mile long to get out of the station. It could definitely use a people mover...or five.

[jass]

Speaking of which, I was at Wellington today and you have to walk through a hamster tube about a half mile long to get out of the station. It could definitely use a people mover...or five.

It had one, it was removed.

[czsz]

Um, what?

Why?

[BarbaricManchurian]

Um, what?

Why?

It kept breaking down, little to no maintanance was performed and the MBTA figured that it was cheaper just to remove it.

[Ron Newman]

It was privately owned by whoever owns the garage (not by the MBTA), and it was always breaking down. It had two cars, each on its own track. Eventually they decided to just rip the thing out and make it a pedestrian bridge.

[PaulC]

The first meeting had a very low turnout. The next meeting will be in May. I also believe the state is only committed to studying this project, they are not committed to build it.

[Spatch]

It was privately owned by whoever owns the garage (not by the MBTA), and it was always breaking down. It had two cars, each on its own track. Eventually they decided to just rip the thing out and make it a pedestrian bridge.

I used to commute in and out of Wellington in 2004-2005 and remember that system quite well. Each car was cable driven and the trip gave you a great view of the Wellington yards.

The two cars used to run simultaneously, one at each end to minimize your wait, but by the end of my job only one car was running at any given time. During non-peak hours, the shuttle ran on call only. When the system would go down, the T often ran a shuttle bus to and from the garage. I don't know how much they charged the garage for this, but you gotta get over that yard somehow and the pedestrian route over the Rt. 16 bridge isn't exactly a straight shot.

The AC in the cars barely worked, and the damn thing was stifling in the summer heat. Also, by the end of the summer the outside of the car would be covered in big black spiders who learned that they could catch a ride on the cars and let their webs run into the flies (the spiders also loved the light fixtures on the Wellington platform so if you're arachnophobic, you may not want to look up on an August night.) I found 'em fascinating, but only since they were on the other side of the glass. You could see people making a pointed effort to look in any other direction.

Frankly removing the people mover and turning it into a pedestrian walkway was probably the best thing they could've done with the bridge.

[czsz]

What is this about cars? I think it just needs some moving sidewalks.

[PaulC]

project seems to be moving forward. The additional entrance should be a plus for the new goverment center garage project.

Web site:
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/

Beacon Hill Times:
http://www.beaconhilltimes.com/#ST4431
Working Group takes another look at proposed Red Line/Blue Line connector by Dan Murphy

The Red Line/Blue Line Project Working Group held its second public meeting last week to discuss a proposed project that would link the MBTA?s Red and Blue Lines via a 1,500-foot connector beneath Cambridge Street.
According to officials from the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT), the state agency overseeing the project, the Red Line/Blue Line Connector would extend the Blue Line from Government Center Station to link with the Charles/MGH Station on the Red Line. The Red and Blue Lines are currently the only two lines that don?t intersect within the subway system, and the Blue Line, the system?s shortest line, runs a distance of a little more than seven miles between Bowdoin Station in downtown Boston and Wonderland Station in Revere.
EOT officials said the connector could allow Blue Line passengers to travel more efficiently to Massachusetts General Hospital and Cambridge, as well as provide passengers from the northwest metropolitan area of Greater Boston with a second airport connection and direct access to the Blue Line without making multiple connections. The connector could also clear a layover area for cars at the west end of the Blue Line through the creation of new storage and crossovers for rail vehicles.
Mark Pelletier, vice president of STV Inc. and a consultant for the project, outlined several options for tunnel construction and two mining alternatives, adding that their costs, potential disruption to MBTA service and other possible impacts would be evaluated.
STV, a national engineering, architectural, planning and construction management firm, is currently looking at eight connector designs involving two scenarios ? one anticipating the closure of Bowdoin Station, the other relocation of the station. The two most popular connector options, based on a consensus of the Working Group, will be submitted as part of the Alternative Analysis Report in September, Pelletier said.
Bob O?Brien, a Working Group member and executive director of the Downtown North Association, suggested that connector planning take into account a proposed redesign of Government Center Station that would create an additional entrance and exit near the John F. Kennedy Building on New Sudbury Street, largely eliminating the need for nearby Bowdoin Station.
Scott Peterson of the Central Transportation Planning Staff unveiled the Regional Transportation Demand Model, which will be used to examine Red and Blue Line ridership based on transportation data from 2006 and projections for 2030. Findings from the model would help inform the Alternative Analysis Report and be incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Report, due in June of 2010. (The EOT is legally obligated to complete all environmental reviews and a design for the project by Dec. 31, 2011, per a 2006 legal settlement with the Conservation Law Foundation).
Nancy Farrell, the meeting facilitator and manager of public involvement for the Boston public relations firm Regina Villa Associates, said the next Planning Group meetings would be held in July and September. The May 18 Planning Group meeting followed an introductory meeting on March 24.

[Ron Newman]

If there is to be an intermediate station, the area around Whole Foods would be more useful than the current Bowdoin site.

[underground]

Google Maps says it's .6 miles from the proposed new Gov't Ctr exit in from of the JFK Building to Charles/MGH Station. An intermediary stop would be more hassle/money than it's worth.

[Shepard]

could allow Blue Line passengers to travel more efficiently to Massachusetts General Hospital and Cambridge, as well as provide passengers from the northwest metropolitan area of Greater Boston with a second airport connection and direct access to the Blue Line

And, can we add, a death knell for the deranged silver line waterfront experiment, its red line-airport connection being its (unspoken?) raison d'etre...

[Ron Newman]

No, because Red->Silver is still one less transfer than Red->Blue->Massport shuttle bus. The Silver Line airport bus is quite convenient for us Cambridge and Somerville folk (and probably also Dorchester and Quincy folk). Not to mention for inter-city bus and commuter rail passengers whose terminal is at South Station.

[Shepard]

^ Sure. I'm all for an express rapid transit bus to the airport from south station. But using the silver line tunnel? No, especially not once there's a (mostly) direct blue line connection from every line. Run that express bus directly into the Williams tunnel and lay down actual rail in the 5mph bus tunnel.

[GW2500]

I think there might be landlords fighting this tunnel extension b/c it might lower the water level in that proposed area and expose the wood pilings of some buildings.

[JohnAKeith]

In the neighborhood meetings I've attended, the Beacon Hill residents have been strongly against the project. I couldn't really understand their aversion, and didn't have the chance to find out more. It could be as much the disruption to daily life. I mean, they just got through a nightmare decade of Cambridge Street renovation, they certainly don't want to start fresh. Beyond that, I think they were just curious if the money was there to pay for it and was there enough ridership to warrant the expense.

[Chris]

They should really try to fix Bowdoin (if in part as moving it) rather than close it--more than one headhouse, easy to see, etc.

[underground]

Fix it? I think the only reason it's there in the first place is for the turn around. Once Gov't Ctr is reworked it will be pointless. And if the Red Line connection ever gets completed it'll be even more pointless.

[statler]

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/in_tough_economy_future_unclear_for_blue_line_exte nsion/) - July 23, 2009
State to spend $29m designing a project on hold

By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | July 23, 2009

The state set aside $29 million last week to design a subway tunnel under downtown Boston that planners concede they cannot afford to build - either now or any time in the next two decades.

But the engineering money is slated to be spent within the next two years, even as other projects are cast aside, because the state made a promise, as part of a Solomon-like legal compromise with environmentalists to mitigate the impact of the Big Dig.

In an era when a plunging economy is prompting state officials? promises ?to get more real?? about planning what they can truly afford, the 0.4-mile tunnel connecting the Red and Blue MBTA lines stands out like a bright orange cone on a highway.

?In this climate, it doesn?t make any sense,?? said Senator Steven A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat who cochairs the state?s transportation committee. ?The transportation system has enough design documents sitting on shelves collecting dust.??

State transportation managers - who have so far spent $556,708 on the $300 million project - are hardly enthusiastic about having to set aside $29 million for something that may never be built. In response to questions, transportation spokesman Colin Durrant said, ?We?re fulfilling the responsibilities of the legal settlement.?? He did not offer an endorsement of the project, which would extend the Blue Line from Government Center to the Charles/MGH Sta tion on the Red Line.

Even many of the project?s key supporters, who lent a political boost to a settlement three years ago, have become a little less ardent, noting that the economy is forcing tough decisions.

A spokesman for Partners HealthCare, which owns Massachusetts General Hospital and once threatened to sue to have the connector built, said the project is important, but that there might be a ?reason for caution,?? given the state?s poor financial condition. Partners backs the project because it would provide patients and employees easier access to the hospital.

But the Conservation Law Foundation, which orchestrated the settlement, said the state?s commitment to design and engineer the project is a worthwhile first step.

?Obviously, we want to see this project built, but it can?t get there without design and engineering,?? said Noah Chesnin, a foundation spokesman.

As with most transportation discussions in Massachusetts, the connector?s history is intricately woven with the tortured history of the Big Dig.

In 1990, when environmentalists raised the alarm about impact on air quality, the state responded by creating a public transit improvement list, designed to fend off a lawsuit.

Years later, when then-governor Mitt Romney backed away from some of those commitments, including the connector, the foundation sued. The sides renegotiated the list in a 2006 settlement.

At the time, state officials said they did not have the money to build the connector. And they insisted that the added Silver Line bus service from South Station to Logan International Airport made it unnecessary to build an addition to the Blue Line, which also serves the airport.

But environmental groups, joined by North Shore officials and Partners HealthCare, argued that it would provide a crucial link in the subway system, allowing East Boston and North Shore residents better access to jobs and healthcare in Boston and Cambridge.

In the end, the sides did not agree to actually build the project, only that the state would complete design and engineering by 2011. Last year, the federal Environmental Protection Agency approved the new deal, which included other transit commitments, giving it the force of law.

The advocates? strategy is often successful in the transportation world: Keep the project moving forward, spending money along the way, so that it will be ready and there will be a sense of inevitability when more money becomes available.

But it does not always work out that way. A proposed Silver Line bus tunnel along Boylston Street, for example, was recently put on hold indefinitely, even after $46 million was spent on planning.

This year, those involved in drafting Greater Boston?s long-term transportation plan said they wanted a different approach. The federal government had warned the state it would hold up key matching dollars if planners continued to include projects the state could not afford in the 20-year plan. And given the poor economy and Big Dig debt, many involved in writing the plan said they needed to significantly pare down their wish list and begin saying no to more projects.

?I think this is an exception,?? said Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which plays a key role in helping the state with its long-term plans.

Draisen said the legal commitment, coupled with a real need to disperse congestion in key downtown subway stations, makes the Blue Line-Red Line connector a priority. Draisen argues that the financial picture could change in the next few years, if the economy improves and the state or federal government channels more money toward transit projects.

But for now, the state is not counting on new streams of money. The 20-year planning document approved preliminarily last week sets aside no money to build the tunnel through 2030.

In the meantime, Draisen suggests the state look at alternative solutions to the current plan, in which the Blue Line would meet up with the Red Line. One alternative, Draisen said, is to build a moving sidewalk between the lines that could allow commuters to transfer with less expense.

Another alternative, Baddour said, is to renegotiate the legal settlement. If that happened, some supporters may not argue as strongly as they once did.

Revere Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino, a longtime advocate whose town sits at the Blue Line?s northern end, said it?s a ?nice project?? that he continues to support.

?Do I think it?s realistic to think that of all the transportation priorities that exist right now, that it?s going to make its way to the top of the list??? he said. ?No.??

Noah Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Draisen argues that the financial picture could change in the next few years, if the economy improves and the state or federal government channels more money toward transit projects.

This is exactly why we need to be creating the designs now. The attitude expressed by this article is, We don't have the money now so why bother?

Why bother?! Be cause some day there will be money and we won't have our shit together which will mean that the money will then go to those that do.

The state could not be more short sighted. Getting these projects ready now, when the financial skies are cloudy prepares us for when they are clear.

[shockingboston]

"...$46 million was spent on planning". I cannot fathom on how planning efforts can amount to so much. I am going to assume some ?make ready? construction was involved with this planning effort. The state should be able to get past cost for similar projects or feasibility studies prior to committing to these expensive planning and design efforts that lead no-where.

[Arborway]

"...$46 million was spent on planning". I cannot fathom on how planning efforts can amount to so much. I am going to assume some ?make ready? construction was involved with this planning effort.

I really don't believe so. The Silver Line project had some test wells drilled and teams of engineers poking around Boylston, Tremont and Essex for a few months, but nothing construction-wise was actually completed or even attempted.

The hilarious and sad thing is it's still not something that could be started in 180 days.

All that work did produce this though (http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/About_the_T/Environment/Draft%20Finding%20of%20Effect%20Memo.pdf)

[found5dollar]

here.

http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/ProjectFactSheet.pdf

take a gander.

[palindrome]

Good pdf.

I think they should eliminate bowdoin as a stop completely and bore down to charles MGH.

[mass88]

Good pdf.

I think they should eliminate bowdoin as a stop completely and bore down to charles MGH.

I always thought instead of re-doing the Charles/MGH stop, they should simply bury it.

[maximum927]

I always thought instead of re-doing the Charles/MGH stop, they should simply bury it.

the whole thing? including the redline? That doesn't seem like it'd work out. They have provisions to create an in-system transfer, so i don't think it'd matter much.

[CSTH]

So, here's a left field idea...

(i have no concept of whether it would be viable so I'll look forward to responses from those here who know more about this kind of thing than i do)...

...could you connect the blue and red tunnels? This would probably mean taking the blue line up Bowdoin street and then digging up the common in front of the state house to establish a junction. It wouldn't require any more under-street digging than a cambridge st. routing would, and it would open up the option of expanding a new segment of blue line service outbound from downtown somewhere in the future (perhaps down the grand junction right of way to cambridgeport / allston and then down the pike to newtown and watertown).

Would this be even remotely feasible, technically?

[armpitsOFmight]

Here's an idea. Why not spend the attention and money on repairs and maintenance before the MBTA expands its system?

[Charlie_mta]

The heights and widths of the cars for the Red and Blue lines are drastically different, so it would not be possible to run Blue Line cars in the Red line tunnel for passenger use.

I do agree, though, that it is physically possible to extend the Blue Line tunnel from Bowdoin Station to Park Street Station, following the dashed blue alignment:

http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr354/Charliemta/GCtunnel.jpg?t=1260662674

[vanshnookenraggen]

Here's an idea. Why not spend the attention and money on repairs and maintenance before the MBTA expands its system?

This is the only smart thing you've ever said on this board.

[armpitsOFmight]

This is the only smart thing you've ever said on this board.

Sorry Van, but I refuse to suck your pole like some of the other users on this board.

[JohnAKeith]

Hold the phone. That's a very logical idea to bring the Blue Line to Park Street from Bowdoin. Other alternatives would be to bring it in from Government Center or from State Street.

The distance, as the crow flies, is .34 from Bowdoin to Park, .28 from Gov't Center to Park, and .29 from State Street to Park.

It's .44 from Bowdoin to Charles.

Am I missing something? Do you think they've considered this?

[vanshnookenraggen]

Do you think they've considered this?

This has been a plan a few times. When the original subway was constructed there were various plans to connect the East Boston Tunnel (Blue Line) to the subway (Green Line). In the 1920s when the East Boston Tunnel was converted to heavy rail there was also a plan to covert the Green Line to heavy rail and connect the two exactly how CharlieMTA drew out.

Since then, however, commuting patterns have changed and I don't think this would ever be a serious consideration today. IMHO a better option would be to build a second Green Line tunnel to fix the bottleneck between Park St and Gov't Center.

Building the Blue Line to Park, while geographically shorter, would probably be twice as expensive since it would have to carefully maneuver its way around the State House and Park St church. Building a cut-and-cover tunnel down Cambridge St would be drastically cheaper and simpler; less for the T to fuck up.

[bbfen]

This has been a plan a few times. When the original subway was constructed there were various plans to connect the East Boston Tunnel (Blue Line) to the subway (Green Line). In the 1920s when the East Boston Tunnel was converted to heavy rail there was also a plan to covert the Green Line to heavy rail and connect the two exactly how CharlieMTA drew out.

Since then, however, commuting patterns have changed and I don't think this would ever be a serious consideration today. IMHO a better option would be to build a second Green Line tunnel to fix the bottleneck between Park St and Gov't Center.

Building the Blue Line to Park, while geographically shorter, would probably be twice as expensive since it would have to carefully maneuver its way around the State House and Park St church. Building a cut-and-cover tunnel down Cambridge St would be drastically cheaper and simpler; less for the T to fuck up.

I agree with your GL comment, but it's the MBTA. They'll fuck it up no matter what ...

[Equilibria]

Building a cut-and-cover tunnel down Cambridge St would be drastically cheaper and simpler; less for the T to fuck up.

The other advantage is that there is actually some new real estate to be served by extending the line from Charles/MGH. If the Blue Line were extended to Park St, that would put a lot of pressure on the existing station infrastructure and a possible extension (Beacon St, which would require lots of digging under the Common) wouldn't serve that many new areas. The Esplenade, however, is lacking transit access, as is much of the riverfront in that area.

EDIT: On the other hand, a glance at the map shows that both routes could serve the same area, with a little creativity.

[Ron Newman]

The distance, as the crow flies, is .34 from Bowdoin to Park, .28 from Gov't Center to Park, and .29 from State Street to Park.

It's .44 from Bowdoin to Charles.

Am I missing something? Do you think they've considered this?

What you're missing, I think, is that the Blue Line tunnel already extends some distance beyond Bowdoin station, as 'tail tracks' used for storing cars at the end of the line.

[statler]

There was something in today's Metro about this project. Unfortunately, the Metro's web page sucks and I can't find any info online. Anyone have a copy of the Metro laying around, or know what is going on?

[BostonUrbEx]

There was something in today's Metro about this project. Unfortunately, the Metro's web page sucks and I can't find any info online. Anyone have a copy of the Metro laying around, or know what is going on?

It says little to nothing, I almost didn't notice it while reading it this morning.

Inside the cover on the bottom of the sidebar:

*insert T logo here*

Red meets Blue?
The MBTA held a public meeting on the proposal to link the Red and Blue lines. The proposal would extend the Blue Line from its current termination point at Bowdoin station to meet the Red line at the Charles MGH station. MassDOT's preferred alternative plan would eliminate the Bowdoin station.
(*)Metro

I really hope they don't eliminate Bowdoin, but rather place it between Staniford and New Chardon.

This morning when I was coming out of Bowdoin I saw announcements of the public meeting still taped to the doors. Someone took a Sharpie and wrote "SAVE BOWDOIN" on all of them.

[found5dollar]

I dot know what happened at the meeting, but the presentation they gave is online....

http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/Presentation050310.pdf

looks like the preferred alternative is to eliminate Bodwin.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm fine with eliminating Bowdoin station. Maybe leave it as a ghost station instead of demolishing it! That would be boss.


I really hope they don't eliminate Bowdoin, but rather place it between Staniford and New Chardon.

The problem is there just ain't enough people over there to justify a station. It is so close to Gov't Center anyway.

[jass]

Someone please explain how eliminating Bowdoin would result in MORE riders, like the slides claim?

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Daily Users 8,020 7,550

[Shepard]

The slide doesn't make it clear whether they're going cut-and-cover or bore?

[found5dollar]

according to the fact sheet i just discovered ( http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/FactSheet2_050310.pdf ) The tunnel will be bored if the perfered alternative is chosen with a few exceptions. these exceptions are:


An area east of Bowdoin Station, 550 feet long, to realign the existing tracks and allow the tunnel boring machine to be removed;

A segment east of Charles/MGH Station to install the tunnel boring machine and build vertical station components east of Charles/MGH; and

Construction of short tail tracks west of Charles/ MGH Station would be undertaken using the sequential excavation mining method because there is a sharp bend in the tunnel alignment, making it impossible for the TBM to reach it.

[Ron Newman]

west of Charles/MGH is a river, so I assume the idea is to turn the tracks here to be parallel to the river. I'm not sure why they want this, however; it would be simpler to end the Blue Line well short of the river.

[Beton Brut]

I'm not sure why they want this, however; it would be simpler to end the Blue Line well short of the river.

Hopefully, someone at the T is considering a "Beacon Street Subway (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=73488&postcount=16)."

[BostonUrbEx]

west of Charles/MGH is a river, so I assume the idea is to turn the tracks here to be parallel to the river. I'm not sure why they want this, however; it would be simpler to end the Blue Line well short of the river.

There's plenty of room for the tail tracks to the west here. The problems come in when you starting carving up the place under the Red Line and Longfellow's pilings. As it is, one of their presentations or fact sheets points out 2 Red Line elevated pilings will have to be reinforced.

The amounts of space left by putting the station where its going to be still leaves 3 possibilities: parallel the Red to Kendal, curve north to Lechmere, or curve south along the Charles.

[Lurker]

One would hope they'd have the sense to go south to Kenmore and convert the D line to heavy rail. From Government Center to Kenmore would offer an express route around the central subway for most commuters whom need the Green Line branches. It would also take a large chunk out of the hospital traffic to and from Longwood. Not to mention the applications of having the airport readily accessible from that part of the city.

[choo]

One would hope they'd have the sense to go south to Kenmore and convert the D line to heavy rail. From Government Center to Kenmore would offer an express route around the central subway for most commuters whom need the Green Line branches. It would also take a large chunk out of the hospital traffic to and from Longwood. Not to mention the applications of having the airport readily accessible from that part of the city.

forget it ever happening, its too great an idea.

[Beton Brut]

Another game-changer that'll never happen (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=109184244230060853338.0004544d08145a5a4252f&ll=42.341389,-71.082771&spn=0.064076,0.154495&z=13).

** Mad props to the artist formerly known as Jimbo Jones for making this map. Discussion of the idea begins with post #2 of this thread (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2389).

[Lurker]

Re: Beacon Street subway to Kenmore & the D

I forgot, but from North Station to State Street and from South Station to MGH all the passenger traffic to/from the commuter rail would have heavy rail access and direct transfers around most of the central subway and a direct route to/from Fenway Park. That's huge for relieving congestion on the Green Line and would probably encourage far more people to take the MBTA into games or events on the comfort factor alone.

Factor in an extension to Lynn as well and there goes most of the highway traffic from the North Shore.

But instead we will get some semi-useless BRT project.

[choo]

I think the blue line to fenway/D line via charles and the red line under mass ave are the two best improvements the system could make. As people said, it would relieve so much congestion on the green line downtown. Tryin to get from fenway to somerville last night was so bad. walked to the 1 tons of people waiting at comm ave and hynes. green line had several pass before you could get on.

[jass]

Hopefully, someone at the T is considering a "Beacon Street Subway (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=73488&postcount=16)."

Im also hoping thats the case.

I also hope that some for of intermediate station remains between govt and charles. The distance is longer than gvt-state-aquarium.

[crash575]

The preferred build option has a significant slope down from bowdion station (then demolished) to get under the Charles/MGH supports. I think this would preclude an intermediate station.

[TomOfBoston]

Unless any of you posters are under 20 years old, you will not see any of these projects built in your lifetime. This is Boston remember!

[vanshnookenraggen]

Unless any of you posters are under 20 years old, you will not see any of these projects built in your lifetime. This is Boston remember!

I don't think anyone here is under any illusions about that. Even when this was announced it was implied that this was just for planning purposes.

[Shepard]

I think the blue line to fenway/D line via charles and the red line under mass ave are the two best improvements the system could make.

I very much agree with the importance of these two, and the red line under Mass Ave could actually be extended/integrated with the Fairmount Line improvement - just turn south at Newmarket onto the Fairmount ROW. (I think this makes even more sense than the orthodoxy, an isolated "Indigo" line that terminates at South Station and which travels a long distance through no-man's land between Newmarket and South Station.)

[vanshnookenraggen]

I honestly don't think that the Red Line under Mass Ave would be economically feasible. It bypasses too many large employment centers to work. Yes it does go past MIT and Boston Medial Center but a better routing would connect BMC to Longwood or Kendall Sq, or these areas to Downtown and Logan Airport. How many people really need to get from South Boston to the Back Bay? That's what a bus is for.

[BostonUrbEx]

Mass Ave would be one of those rare good uses of BRT, IMO.

[Shepard]

I honestly don't think that the Red Line under Mass Ave would be economically feasible. It bypasses too many large employment centers to work. Yes it does go past MIT and Boston Medial Center but a better routing would connect BMC to Longwood or Kendall Sq, or these areas to Downtown and Logan Airport. How many people really need to get from South Boston to the Back Bay? That's what a bus is for.

Not sure I completely understand your post, Van. All the large employment centers you mention are already served by transit, and the point of a ring-type configuration isn't to guarantee a one-seat ride to any of these but rather to facilitate faster and more efficient connections. So, Cantabridgians will have much better access to Back Bay and BMC (direct) or Longwood (reverse-crush connection on the green from Hynes or Symphony). And vice versa everyone in Brookline, Fenway, South End, and Back Bay have better access to Cambridge employment centers. Judging by the crowds on the 1 and CT1 bus, the route would be heavily utilized.

When you ask "How many people really need to get from South Boston to the Back Bay?" I'd say that's a good question - another reason I'd like to see the Mass Ave branch continue down the Fairmount line from Newmarket/South Bay.

Anyway, whoever wants to get from South Boston to Back Bay should be able to take a rapid transit train from South Station to Back Bay Station (via DMUs on some existing CR lines, another probably worthwhile addition)...

[Equilibria]

I thought the whole point of a DMU-based Indigo Line was to preserve the conventional rail ROW for freight trains and commuter rail non-revenue trips. I think it's considered untenable to completely convert the ROW, and I don't believe the space exists for a half-and-half arrangement (like there is for the Green Line Medford extension).

[Shepard]

I've heard those arguments, and they sound overstated to me. I'm not sure why we need an alternate to the SW corridor - is there forced redundancy along other approaches?

[vanshnookenraggen]

So, Cantabridgians will have much better access to Back Bay and BMC (direct) or Longwood (reverse-crush connection on the green from Hynes or Symphony).

That's what I mean by bypass, the Mass Ave route bypasses the Back Bay CBD and Longwood both. If we are going to spend the money why not actually directly serve these areas?


And vice versa everyone in Brookline, Fenway, South End, and Back Bay have better access to Cambridge employment centers. Judging by the crowds on the 1 and CT1 bus, the route would be heavily utilized.

That is exactly my point because these buses provide service that a subway can't. I'm not saying we don't need some sort of crosstown/ring subway, just that Mass Ave isn't the ideal solution.

[Lurker]

How about a route from Central Square through the heart of MIT, across the river at Dartmouth Street (why not add the automotive/pedestrian bridge at the same time), new transfer station on the Esplanade with the new Beacon Street Blue Line tunnel, new platform level at Copley (with an opportunity for an underpass for the E line and an inbound/outbound transfer), connection at Back Bay Station, continue South to BU Medical, then run the rest of Mass ave to JFK/Umass with an intermediate stop at South Bay.

[BostonUrbEx]

Was just going over the whole thread again as I've been using Bowdoin pretty regularly as of late, though I've always been favorable Bowdoin. So much hate for Bowdoin around here!

Look at this distance between the proposed/likely GC headhouse and the area where the Blue-specific MGH entrances would be (roughly):

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=42.361065,-71.064055&spn=0.007404,0.01929&t=h&z=16&msid=217656314107067401485.00049c58ae7729b03ce82

The push pins are where I would put Bowdoin entrances, with the platforms centered between them.

The relocation and upgrading of Bowdoin ALONE would draw more ridership, I bet. All in all, the project as a whole would probably double Bowdoin ridership. It may be a stretch, but I'd say even triple it. PLUS, consider how the West End is in DIRE need of being done over, properly this time. Job and/or residential opportunities would be great. To eliminate Bowdoin may not be a shot in the foot for the area, but it would still be a deep papercut right on the knuckle.

[BostonUrbEx]

I'm looking at the 2009 meeting (which is much more informative and in depth than the 2010). http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/Presentation102609.pdf

I don't understand why they can't just preserve Bowdoin's loop or at least a stub. It's already THERE. Why do we have to DESTROY IT? It doesn't have to be public, but use it! And if there's ever an even further extension, you can easily short turn any trains or shove them off if there's a problem. Every time the T changes something, the previous infrastructure gets DESTROYED. Grrr.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I don't understand why they can't just preserve Bowdoin's loop or at least a stub. It's already THERE. Why do we have to DESTROY IT? It doesn't have to be public, but use it! And if there's ever an even further extension, you can easily short turn any trains or shove them off if there's a problem. Every time the T changes something, the previous infrastructure gets DESTROYED. Grrr.

Maybe because they don't need the loop for modern service? Just because it's there doesn't mean they should keep it. What if they need to change the grade in the tunnel? Then they loop would be useless because it would be at a different grade. Also with improved signal technology loops aren't that useful and can actually wear down the wheels more, thus being worse to keep. The Bowdoin loop was originally built for trolleys, not heavy rail, so getting rid of it would allow more flexibility, not less.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Maybe because they don't need the loop for modern service? Just because it's there doesn't mean they should keep it. What if they need to change the grade in the tunnel? Then they loop would be useless because it would be at a different grade. Also with improved signal technology loops aren't that useful and can actually wear down the wheels more, thus being worse to keep. The Bowdoin loop was originally built for trolleys, not heavy rail, so getting rid of it would allow more flexibility, not less.

Someone that worked on the Blue Line told me the reason why Bowdoin would have to go. It was eithere because when the Blue Line finally gets longer trains there is no room for the extra cars to fit as some cars would still either be at Government Center station or else inside the tunnel when the doors opened at "Bowdoin"... Essentially Bowdoin and Government Center are too close together.

See Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.360621,-71.060418&spn=0.002359,0.005681&t=h&z=18

They're across City Hall Plaza from one another. And the Government Center station platform extends towards Bowdoin already as it is.
The other issue is when the MBTA has six-car-length trains they must have a train attendant that handles doors all the way at the end of the train. The train operator at the front of the train can't see all the way back if someone is caught in the doors. But to have train attendants on the Blue Line for the longer trains will require a new round of hiring which the state cannot afford right now.

If I recall correctly Bowdoin had the lowest usage of all the MBTA stations on the system. Don't forget It even closes at like 6PM or something and doesn't even really open on weekends. (unless this policy has changed? since I last worked at the T.)

[erikyow]

Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.

[BostonUrbEx]

Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.

I think longer car lengths or (but probably not both) 8-car trains will be a reality of the next order. Though I believe the clearances of the State curve, although not sharper than Bowdoin, are what restricts individual car length to what it is now due to proximity of walls/platforms. Lengthening up platforms to 8 cars seems completely infeasible, and in some cases just unsafe/impossible, though. Perhaps articulated cars allowing the first car and last car to stick out, and passengers walk to the next car where they press a POP button?



Anyways, whipping up map at the moment of my RB connector using the map/scale from the presentation in 2009.

[BostonUrbEx]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5460204365_3eb6c7b998_b.jpg

Allows for grade change as the Bowdoin stubs will split off just a little after Government Center.

[erikyow]

Given that they only just went to six-car trains less than five years ago, I think it's still a ways off before they need to go to longer trains. While ridership is increasing, it's not increasing to the point that 50% (or 33% to go from six to eight cars) are needed every few years. For starters, they could go to more trains. Currently, rush hour trains operate every five minutes. They could reduce headways to 2-3 minutes and 5-6 minutes, instead of the current 9 minutes, during off-peak hours. And they could do that with the same or less investment in additional rolling stock and no need for longer platforms.

[jass]

Yeah, theres no need for longer trains in the next couple of decades. As stated above, you could triple the number of trains running (assuming more trains purchased)

[Charlie_mta]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5460204365_3eb6c7b998_b.jpg

Allows for grade change as the Bowdoin stubs will split off just a little after Government Center.

I checked the old pre-Government center Bromley Atlas maps, and there probably isn't enough room between the Blue Line's current tunnel and the One Center Plaza building to squeeze in two new tracks east of Bowdoin Station.

When Cambridge Street was realigned in the 1960's, it was curved outward to make room for the curved One Center Plaza building.

[BostonUrbEx]

From what I'm looking at, there's no room at 2 and 3 Center Plaza, but by the time you're up to 1 Center Plaza, there's plenty of room. Even still, at the point where you reach 1 CP, it's more like 1 new track or 1 and a half. It's not really two new tracks until you're at Somerset, and there my tracks would be straddling the centerline of the street.

Also, where did you check out the Bromley maps? Are they online?

[Charlie_mta]

http://www.wardmaps.com/viewasset.php?aid=7219

Scroll down, and the Bowdoin Square area is on plate No. 4.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.

Sorry about the confusion. I don't actually take the Blue Line so I had no idea they've already gone to 6 car lengths. To confirm I don't know about car lengths any longer than 6. Back when BL first started they were merely for cars. You sound like you have taken the Blue Line more recently than I.

Can you confirm if they did implement train attendants on those trains?

The Train attendants are the persons in the cab halfway down the length of the whole train...

[Digital_Islandboy]

Given that they only just went to six-car trains less than five years ago, I think it's still a ways off before they need to go to longer trains. While ridership is increasing, it's not increasing to the point that 50% (or 33% to go from six to eight cars) are needed every few years. For starters, they could go to more trains. Currently, rush hour trains operate every five minutes. They could reduce headways to 2-3 minutes and 5-6 minutes, instead of the current 9 minutes, during off-peak hours. And they could do that with the same or less investment in additional rolling stock and no need for longer platforms.

True. There are mechanical reasons that could allow or hinder that plan. I don't know what the system is called (I think I heard it called a "retarder"?) As it was explained to me if a train 'blows a signal' essentially 'runs a red signal' it will be auto stopped. So trains can't be run any closer to one another than those physical rail segments. I believe the only T line that doesn't have that system in place is the Green Line? Again that is dependent if things have changed in the last few years.

[jass]

Can you confirm if they did implement train attendants on those trains?

The Train attendants are the persons in the cab halfway down the length of the whole train...

There is 1 staff member for the 6 car blue line train.

The attendant has also been removed from the orange line.

[BostonUrbEx]

True. There are mechanical reasons that could allow or hinder that plan. I don't know what the system is called (I think I heard it called a "retarder"?) As it was explained to me if a train 'blows a signal' essentially 'runs a red signal' it will be auto stopped. So trains can't be run any closer to one another than those physical rail segments. I believe the only T line that doesn't have that system in place is the Green Line? Again that is dependent if things have changed in the last few years.

I believe the Blue Line system relies entirely on these things highlighted in yellow spray paint(aside from manned response to signals):

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1125/5123638463_3344c649a5_b.jpg

The one on the left is raised, meaning the signal is red and a train which passes through that signal will be immediately put into emergency breaking. The one on the right is down, meaning the next train can go right on through. They could probably increase the amount of these to allow for tighter headways (it may even be suitable as is, but I don't see them all that often so I'm not so sure).

[F-Line to Dudley]

Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.

They already have to do kind of an ugly hack to fit 6 cars in there, with all doors opening into the station but the last car being shut for the return trip after the loop. This can only fly when it's at the end of the line. If the loop remains you wouldn't be able to extend the platform (not feasible towards the GC end without ludicrous expense because of the abutting courthouse foundation) and you can't board passengers in the last car at Charles and deny them an egress at the next station. That's a safety concern as well as an utter nonstarter for actual travel in a hospital zone.

The loop's also a major slow zone on the outbound side because the curve off the loop into the existing stub tunnel is extremely tight and there's not a lot of space around building foundations to straighten it out. The inbound side's much straighter. That creates a scheduling imbalance that would work OK on the existing length of the line but get really tough to juggle if the Lynn extension ever happened. Basically, there are no non-awkward ways to do it. From an engineering and cost standpoint it's just easier to take the inbound side and widen the footprint to 2 thru tracks by cannibalizing a portion of the platform and leaving the abandoned station as an emergency exit only. The new routing would probably mess up the outbound merge off the loop enough to preclude using it for anything bi-directional...and it's not needed anyway because the Charles design has tail tracks for 3 or 4 trains. HOWEVER, they could very much keep it connected to the outbound side as a storage space for work equipment, quick place to stuff a disabled train without screwing up Charles, or place to pull in and let passengers off at the emergency exit. Nothing in the construction's really going to touch that part of it.

As for a replacement Bowdoin, since any relocation would have to be past the loop you start contending with the downward grade of Cambridge St. and fact that a station would abut historic properties at the base of Beacon Hill. That ramps up the costs exponentially, whereas just a tunnel fits neatly into the footprint of the street without getting near any building foundations. It could be added later because the engineering is doable, but the whole project would be an utter no-go on cost if it were in the plans. Gotta weigh the greater upside of going to Charles and the Red Line over leaving an intermediate gap. Infill subway stations have ample precedent in Boston, anyway. Charles itself was built in the 1930's three decades after the Red Line opened Kendall-Park, and Arlington was an add-on crammed in later on the Green Line to break up the over-long distance between Boylston and Copley (which is why it's so claustrophobic vs. the other stations).

[PaulC]

The big-dig agreement was only to produce a study. If there is no money for 10, 20 years then is the study still relevant or does the state have to start all over again?

[BostonUrbEx]

The big-dig agreement was only to produce a study. If there is no money for 10, 20 years then is the study still relevant or does the state have to start all over again?

They hang on to the study and results for the future. They would have to restudy the idea, but much would already be covered (ie: best track layout, stair placement, etc, likely wouldn't change unless there's new utilities or street changes). Basically all they do is crunch the numbers again and adjust as necessary for any changes that may effect the project.

[Shepard]

They will officially try to kill this on Thursday.

From uHub

The state Department of Environmental Protection holds two meetings Thursday to consider the MBTA's request that it be allowed to shimmy out of requirements to extend the Blue Line to Charles Street.

The Department of Transportation, which now includes the T, formally asked its environmental counterparts last year to absolve it of the need to spend $49 million to design a $750 million project it says it has no money to build, even if it wanted to.

The meetings start at 1 and 5 p.m. at DEP headquarters on the second floor of 1 Winter St. downtown.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a half mile cut and cover is so controversial when in fact it improves the quality of the network so substantially.

[datadyne007]

^ There is an event thread for this meeting that was just posted.

[F-Line to Dudley]

They will officially try to kill this on Thursday.

From uHub



For the life of me, I can't figure out why a half mile cut and cover is so controversial when in fact it improves the quality of the network so substantially.

This isn't the official killshot. It's administrative busywork from the original request to remove it. The CLF is challenging the legal jurisdiction of the parties the state is asking for permission, so the lawyers will be busy with this one for a couple years trying to cover their asses from somebody else's lawyers.


While I would agree if there's no will at the T there's no way it'll ever get built, killing it is not so simple a procedural matter that they can one-and-done it at these hearings. It'll be a "walking dead" project for awhile.


Menino actually threw his weight around for Red-Blue at one point in a rare show of transit advocacy. Now would kind of be a good time for him to show up with a camera crew outside Charles MGH and unload some bluster to remind them who works a few blocks down the street.

[choo]

If you had to choose- wouldn't blue line to lynn be way better than Red-Blue. I mean while it would help some people (myself included) coming from the north, I think the benefit is marginal, and I would not put it near the top of my list for T improvements. hopefully they can put the money to better use in the T system.

[davem]

If you had to choose- wouldn't blue line to lynn be way better than Red-Blue. I mean while it would help some people (myself included) coming from the north, I think the benefit is marginal, and I would not put it near the top of my list for T improvements. hopefully they can put the money to better use in the T system.

You need red-blue to build Lynn, otherwise the transfers at GC and State will grind the system to a halt.

[HenryAlan]

You need red-blue to build Lynn, otherwise the transfers at GC and State will grind the system to a halt.

Then maybe we should consider a different route to Lynn altogether, such as Orange Line via Chelsea. The point is that the Red/Blue conveniences people who already have access to the system, whereas getting rapid transit to Lynn expands the number of people with access. There are at least four or five extensions that should get priority over the Red-Blue connector, any one of which would cost less.

[Shepard]

I don't remember seeing the estimates, but my gut instinct is that the RBX would greatly increase the ridership on the BL, taking a lot of cars off the road that currently drive between Eastie/Revere and employment centers on the Red Line. In addition, airport ridership on the BL would go up immensely, especially since it allows the T to kill SL Airport and the dual mode "silver line train" buses that defy logic.

[Max Power]

Then maybe we should consider a different route to Lynn altogether, such as Orange Line via Chelsea. The point is that the Red/Blue conveniences people who already have access to the system, whereas getting rapid transit to Lynn expands the number of people with access. There are at least four or five extensions that should get priority over the Red-Blue connector, any one of which would cost less.

OL via Chelsea I don't think would be a good idea. 1/2 the amount of trains to Malden? Meh.... Blue is more direct and would most likely be cheaper and faster.

Blue -> Red frees up space on the green, red, and orange lines. This reduces dwell times at stations and increases timeliness of trains during rush hour.

It isn't just the riders shifting from Red/Blue who benefit, but also all those going through the crush that get some relief. I think that's the biggest benefit here. Going to Lynn without that relief valve going to Charles is going to slam the entire downtown subway.

[choo]

I don't remember seeing the estimates, but my gut instinct is that the RBX would greatly increase the ridership on the BL, taking a lot of cars off the road that currently drive between Eastie/Revere and employment centers on the Red Line. In addition, airport ridership on the BL would go up immensely, especially since it allows the T to kill SL Airport and the dual mode "silver line train" buses that defy logic.

I feel like they will never kill the Silver Line Airport because of its direct connection to south station trains and buses, plus the growing seaport and convention complex. You would make convention goers go blue red silver in that scenario.

[F-Line to Dudley]

You need red-blue to build Lynn, otherwise the transfers at GC and State will grind the system to a halt.

Officially the projects are independent of one another, but because Red-Blue is a much faster build it's a de facto assumption that it would already be in place before they got around to Lynn. You could build it without Red-Blue, but the service levels (headways, # of available cars) wouldn't be able to scale up very far above what's available today.

The state PMT pegs Blue-Lynn at +21,000 new riders for the Blue Line, +7900 all-new transit riders. That is enough in itself to stuff downtown over-capacity with the folks needing to pull off the double-transfer, but I'm pretty sure that because the projects aren't designed to be joined at the hip by dependency that those are low-balled numbers. Actual demand for not just the extension but also end-to-end service levels more comparable to Orange probably overtops those figures by quite a bit, but you can only run the line on those headways if it's got a bona fide Red-Blue transfer to spread the downtown load around.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I would honestly be perfectly comfortable declaring Red-Blue to be the priority job for the MBTA. Number one, above everything - including GLX, including BLX, certainly it's far more important than South Coast Rail, hell - I'd probably consider "Red/Blue BUT the headways on Red stay the same for the next decade" to be an acceptable trade-off.

[F-Line to Dudley]

I would honestly be perfectly comfortable declaring Red-Blue to be the priority job for the MBTA. Number one, above everything - including GLX, including BLX, certainly it's far more important than South Coast Rail, hell - I'd probably consider "Red/Blue BUT the headways on Red stay the same for the next decade" to be an acceptable trade-off.

Every breath wasted on Red-Blue is one we can't spend debating whether the Mayor of Fall River or the Mayor of Freetown is right about whether hypothetical South Coast Rail layover yard (http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x1843773638/South-Coast-Rail-officials-eye-Weavers-Cove-as-potential-site-for-layover-station) should be build in the other guy's backyard 20 years and 20 studies from now and not mine.

Hypothetically.

So let's gavel this EPA meeting into order, do our civic duty, and get on to the important issues, shall we!

[omaja]

It just royally sucks that so much of the region's wealth (and, thus, political muscle) is located outside the core. Red-Blue would have been connected decades ago if Boston had the amount of wealth that the cores of European cities do.

Anyone have insight as to how the hell it is projected to cost $750 million for such a seemingly simple operation? It's less than half a mile between Bowdoin and Charles/MGH. We should be getting the full cut-and-cover Riverbank Subway for around that much money.

[Shepard]

What really should happen: State should sell the crumbling Government Services Center for a large mixed use redevelopment project (no offence to P. Rudolph or Beton Brut for that matter) and apply all proceeds to the BRX. You'd get ready funding and increase the mixed use density along that transit corridor at the same time.

Is that somehow illegal, or just never going to happen because it makes too much sense?

[Nexis4jersey]

It should cost 150 million , but then again this is Mass where talking about. NJT recently built a New Light Rail line with a underground grade Separated Interchange for 270 Million , the Tunnel length is a similar to this project... Since its just an Extension it shouldn't cost 700 million....thats a new line....not an extension.

[Beton Brut]

What really should happen: State should sell the crumbling Government Services Center for a large mixed use redevelopment project (no offence to P. Rudolph or Beton Brut for that matter) and apply all proceeds to the BRX. You'd get ready funding and increase the mixed use density along that transit corridor at the same time.

Is that somehow illegal, or just never going to happen because it makes too much sense?

Redeveloping the State Services Center doesn't offend my sensibilities, as long as the result doesn't require the wholesale demolition of the building. I'd love to see it repurposed as residential, with live-work space for artists. Perhaps a tower could be dropped into the elliptical park.

But I imagine there would be some resistance to real height here, as there has been at North Station, and the Government Center Garage. I can't imagine a scenario where the denizens of Beacon Hill wouldn't cotton to a tower of any kind along Cambridge Street.

[ant8904]

So with all of this talk of killing it. Is anyone here going to the meeting Thursday? Are going to make a stand? We spend so much time speculating and talking, should we at least try a hand in this?

[Semass]

IIRC, the projected $700 million is severely padded with about 40% contingency. I think the purposely made it appear to be hugely more expensive than actual to get it declared a boondoggle and thus dropped.

[bbfen]

It just royally sucks that so much of the region's wealth (and, thus, political muscle) is located outside the core. Red-Blue would have been connected decades ago if Boston had the amount of wealth that the cores of European cities do.


Sorry I disagree. There's plenty of wealth and muscle living right here in the Back Bay and on the hill.

They just don't care. Why should they? They don't use public transportation.

[Beton Brut]

They just don't care. Why should they? They don't use public transportation.

True enough. And their prep-school classmates who live in Marblehead or Manchester-by-the-Sea and commute to their offices at Harvard or MIT don't ride the T either.

The problem that I have with this project is that it's too small-minded.

[Nexis4jersey]

700 Million is the cost of the Following NJT Rail Projects....but we seem to get more bang for our $$$....

730 Million $$ - Newark - Elizabeth Light Rail - 12 Miles - 9 stations - 2.5 Miles of Tunnel under NJ's busiest boulevard , 1 Underground Interchange , 5.5 Miles of Elevated Track , 4 miles along restored historic RR ROW....

360 Million $$$ MOM Rail Network - 115 Miles - 22 Stations - 4 Electrified lines , All replaced track , 20 Grade Separations , 2 Grade Separated Interchanges , 5 Rail Yards , 250 New Railcars , 30 New Locomotives

590 Million $$$ - Lackawanna Railway - 195 Mi - 11 Stations - 30 miles of restored track , 80 miles of double or triple tracking , 5 grade separations , 3 Restored Historic Viaducts , 1 Restored Tunnel , Electrification

420 Million $$$ - Penn Station Access - 29 Miles - 9 Stations , 20 miles of added Track , 3 Grade Separated Interchanges , 2 Major Bridges Replaced , Replaced Catenary , Sub Stations , 10 Replaced Overpasses

So I don't see how even more complex projects in the world's most expensive Region/city would cost less then a tiny Extension....my mind can't wrap its head around that....

[F-Line to Dudley]

IIRC, the projected $700 million is severely padded with about 40% contingency. I think the purposely made it appear to be hugely more expensive than actual to get it declared a boondoggle and thus dropped.

Yes. Some of that justified because of the dig abutting Beacon Hill and there being palpable nervousness about what 400 year old booby traps could be lurking underground that could cause every house on the bottom 3 blocks to slide down the hill into the lobby of MGH. Despite the fact that Cambridge St. was widened with its own Medium Dig only about 70 years ago with well-documented utility re-laying and the tunnel footprint wouldn't stretch more than 2 feet into the right traffic lanes. That's prudent for a scoping report that took place well over a decade ago...when they were actively turning up exactly those kinds of nasty surprises in the Big Dig. You never know.

However...it was totally expected that the project would start bleeding off some of that contingency after the initial scoping. And that it was reasonable expectation that performing the EIS would take most of the rest of it off. This is why performing the EIS was in the Transit Commitments, but not the build itself. If they got actionable answers and the final price tag bled off most of that contingency, then it was supposed to be a slam-dunk to git-'r-dun. But that's why they were to be held to the fire to do the EIS on a set timetable. It was the only path for achieving actionable costs.


The rationale for dropping this as if the padded price tag were some immovable object is...as they say...a steaming pile of horseshit. But that's why they're making the killshot after weaseling out of a variety of other (including less expensive) Commitments. They've already long-established that they can act with impunity. If they'd tried this 3 years ago before, say, the Arborway lawsuit had been settled they would've been called out immediately on the framing games with the contingency budget and been sacked for a loss with the Commitment legally reaffirmed. Had to wait until it was watered down to such a farce the game was over...and pound everyone's brains to goo with the poverty cry and gun to the head re: the agency debt.


It sucks, but what can you say...the Legislature has to reform the agency in totally fundamental/sea change ways or status quo bullshit now is going to be status quo bullshit forever. This move is completely consistent with the non- money-saving "money savers" in the budget deal that that simply grind more longstanding internal axes and offer more cover to the most reform-resistant enclaves on the inside.


Ultimately, law-bound projects like commuter rail PTC and advancing on their ADA compliance are law-bound things...they're just mandated, no ifs/ands/buts. Agreement-bound things like South Station expansion and other stuff with Amtrak capital improvements coattails are agreement-bound...they get generous stimulus money for doing their part and face the wrath of federal interests you don't want to be facing wrath from if they're negligent. Don't enter into an agreement with somebody bigger'n you if you aren't going to make good. State of good repair is state of good repair...things don't freaking run at all if you don't maintain the system.

But beyond the strings-attached stuff, it's GLX...then Red-Blue...then Blue-Lynn. Nothing else--save for some of the more meaningful pieces of the Key Bus Routes program--matters for system expansion until those 3 projects are done. That report last month about downtown circulation choking to death in under 20 years if the T does not make an honest investment in better radial circulation was just the first public warning in what's going to be an escalating series of warnings about that looming transit chokehold. Ignore it and one of these days there's going to be a D'Alessandro Report-level report slamming them for it. Red is the fastest-growing downtown line by far, with the SS-area explosion putting a serious--and open-ended--strain that's going to crunch the double-transfer stations HARD. There has to be a direct transfer, and the transfers have to be spread further apart from the gravitational singularities at Park/DTX/State/GC. It's going to get...bad...out there if they don't do Red-Blue as first effort in recirculation improvements. It's absolutely going to have to go back on the project list when the circulation problems become acute enough. But it'll be twice as expensive and take twice as long if they do that, so there's the lunacy of taking it off right now and ducking an EIS requirement that really only serves to LOWER the cost and make it EASIER to expedite the build.

This isn't a nice-to-have. This is consigning the system to pretty hellish congestion by middle of next decade that'll then take 20 more years to address if they succeed at the passive-aggressive move today.

If I were the Mayor and I gave a shit about what my successor was going to have to deal with, I'd be carpet-bombing this one with bluster and forging a public-private bluster alliance with the heaviest of heavies at MGH and Eye & Ear. The bully pulpit works for this case because we all know finances have jack shit to do with what the too-comfy political factions within the T are trying to do here. It would be a bully pulpit vs. bully pulpit fight. And the city is MUCH more effective at bully-pulpiting on a united front when it feels so motivated. The T just isn't structurally united enough to not blink in the face of that. Look what Somerville has accomplished. Hell...look what the dilettantes in the 'burbs have accomplished through organized chaos alone. Somehow Boston developed its own culture of "learned helplessness" in the face of the T's paper-tiger head games. Everybody is an actor playing to some script. It doesn't have to be this way...and some better-motivated pockets (e.g. Somerville) have looked straight at the situation at face value and said, "Pfft!...it ISN'T this way." Because--once more, with feeling--these moves have jack shit to do with finances.

[massmotorist]

Don't they have to make an underground loop to turn around after Charles/MGH? That's pretty much under the beginning of the Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive, and possibly under the Charles. I could see that being pretty expensive, far more expensive than the cut and cover down Cambridge St.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Don't they have to make an underground loop to turn around after Charles/MGH? That's pretty much under the beginning of the Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive, and possibly under the Charles. I could see that being pretty expensive, far more expensive than the cut and cover down Cambridge St.

No. Reverse-ends like every other line. Ultra-tight Bowdoin loop only exists in the first place because single-ended trolleys ran on the Blue Line when it first opened. Weekends and after Bowdoin closes for the night the trains reverse direction on the GC platform just like they do at Wonderland, Alewife, Oak Grove, Braintree, and Forest Hills. Ashmont's the only other place where heavy rail trains loop. Makes no difference whatsoever to headways. Bowdoin loop is slow as hell anyway because it's the tightestmost possible turning radius that can still physically turn a heavy rail-dimension car.

Charles station would've had a "spreading wedge" platform with separate tail tracks on each side that could store two 6-car trains per track beyond the station. They'd just follow the Charles Circle street grid when it spreads around the above-ground station's abutments. The northerly tail track would end right about here (http://goo.gl/maps/WKos8) at the turn-in to the MGH parking lot. The southerly tail track would end here (http://goo.gl/maps/vEIjN) right about where all those newspaper boxes are at the intersection of Charles St. and Embankment Rd. The platform itself is offset a bit from the Charles lobby and basically would stop here (http://goo.gl/maps/KhFR6) underneath that patch of median cobblestone, with an escalator connecting to the lobby at the exact location of the emergency exit doors (meaning there'd be a little sloping addendum grafted onto the outside of the station on that seldom-used rear sidewalk, where the escalator and elevators would connect into the current emergency exit doors).

Each tail track is angled such that if they ever wanted to extend the subway elsewhere they could turn it south under Storrow (Riverbank Subway II) or north under Embankment Rd./MGH lot to Leverett Circle and wherever they wanted to go from there. And, if they wanted to eventually link up a long line on both ends (say, D Line heavy rail to Riverbank to Lynn/Salem) they could snake around the backside of Charles Circle in a long loop, reactivate dormant (but preserved) Maverick loop, and run service as two distinct halves that overlap and double-up between Charles and Maverick. Which is pretty much the only way Blue could ever be rigged to run 128-to-128 given its lack of branches or express tracks.

[choo]

Each tail track is angled such that if they ever wanted to extend the subway elsewhere they could turn it south under Storrow (Riverbank Subway II) or north under Embankment Rd./MGH lot to Leverett Circle and wherever they wanted to go from there. And, if they wanted to eventually link up a long line on both ends (say, D Line heavy rail to Riverbank to Lynn/Salem) they could snake around the backside of Charles Circle in a long loop, reactivate dormant (but preserved) Maverick loop, and run service as two distinct halves that overlap and double-up between Charles and Maverick. Which is pretty much the only way Blue could ever be rigged to run 128-to-128 given its lack of branches or express tracks.

Transit wet dream right there... but is there a way to save this. The globe had an editorial how Gov. Patrick should use his clout and "backbone" to step on some toes to get things done in Mass. Regardless of political leanings of anyone here, I would love for him to take up transit in Boston, the state's economic center. It's in need of a lot, and it wont get done unless someone in power isn't afraid to step on some toes.

[ant8904]

WTF is Patrick doing? The one big thing I was looking forward to seeing the coming of Patrick when he was first elected was democrats tends to be pro-rail. I'm not seeing it.

[F-Line to Dudley]

WTF is Patrick doing? The one big thing I was looking forward to seeing the coming of Patrick when he was first elected was democrats tends to be pro-rail. I'm not seeing it.

It's kind of like that in New York too with Andrew Cuomo. Came in saying the right things and on the strength of bullish expectations that he'd make a splash...but has been full-bore on only some oddly cherry-picked projects (Metro North to Penn) there, half-bore on some others that would seem dead obvious, totally silent and passive on others, undercutting some other logical efforts, and totally silent about reforming the MTA's budget woes (although the MTA is at least trying to expend some honest effort internally).

The only stuff in MA that's been getting any play are the Amtrak-driven stimulus projects and Zombie South Coast Rail, which is of course just a naked swing vote pander. I'm discounting Tim Murray's occasional Worcester Line bluster because that's yet to result in signs of actual commitment to follow-up on the post-CSX landscape (chief amongst which: incredible retreating South Station expansion). The mouthpiece from the statehouse has pretty much just been cherry-picking somebody else's easy-to-glom-off projects and vaporware that only exists for purposes of insider ball. I mean...has the Admin even staged that many press conferences for GLX milestones? That's an easy...easy...photo op, but it's been mostly Capuano and the Somerville delegation tooting their own horns and not the state.

[Ron Newman]

isn't MGH one of the main proponents of this project? They built a large satellite office in Revere Beach specifically because they expected this project to occur.

[massmotorist]

It's kind of like that in New York too with Andrew Cuomo. Came in saying the right things and on the strength of bullish expectations that he'd make a splash...but has been full-bore on only some oddly cherry-picked projects (Metro North to Penn) there, half-bore on some others that would seem dead obvious, totally silent and passive on others, undercutting some other logical efforts, and totally silent about reforming the MTA's budget woes (although the MTA is at least trying to expend some honest effort internally).

The only stuff in MA that's been getting any play are the Amtrak-driven stimulus projects and Zombie South Coast Rail, which is of course just a naked swing vote pander. I'm discounting Tim Murray's occasional Worcester Line bluster because that's yet to result in signs of actual commitment to follow-up on the post-CSX landscape (chief amongst which: incredible retreating South Station expansion). The mouthpiece from the statehouse has pretty much just been cherry-picking somebody else's easy-to-glom-off projects and vaporware that only exists for purposes of insider ball. I mean...has the Admin even staged that many press conferences for GLX milestones? That's an easy...easy...photo op, but it's been mostly Capuano and the Somerville delegation tooting their own horns and not the state.

He's been scared to touch major transit expansion because it would require funding, and his last transit funding plan (rightly, IMO) went down in flames along with Jim Aloisi.

The income tax is automatically going down to 5.25% due to economic growth levels. Block that and you probably get enough money to cover the T's deficit in the short term. Maybe knock it up to 5.4%, give that money to the T, and they'd be in pretty good shape. Fix the highway department with a significant gas tax increase (and tie it to inflation), eliminate all tolls outside tunnels and bridges, and our transportation system's looking pretty good.

[BostonUrbEx]

So with all of this talk of killing it. Is anyone here going to the meeting Thursday? Are going to make a stand? We spend so much time speculating and talking, should we at least try a hand in this?

Yes, I will be going and voicing my opinion at the 1:00pm time frame.

This project is absolutely critical for Eastie, Chelsea, Winthrop, Revere, and even for Lynn, because this must be done before BLX Lynn is even contemplated. And most importantly, this project benefits the system as a whole. No more massive throngs rushing down State Station and holding the doors of the Orange Line cars to let more run down, and less crushing loads at Government Center and Park Street. The whole system is suffering from this minor gap, and I'd file this under "fix it before you expand it". This isn't an extension, this is a system fix.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yes, I will be going and voicing my opinion at the 1:00pm time frame.

This project is absolutely critical for Eastie, Chelsea, Winthrop, Revere, and even for Lynn, because this must be done before BLX Lynn is even contemplated. And most importantly, this project benefits the system as a whole. No more massive throngs rushing down State Station and holding the doors of the Orange Line cars to let more run down, and less crushing loads at Government Center and Park Street. The whole system is suffering from this minor gap, and I'd file this under "fix it before you expand it". This isn't an extension, this is a system fix.

And I hope somebody asks them to give a no-wiggle room answer for the budget contingency ≠ project price tag question. Which I expect they will blow off anyway, but is probably the one question they most dread being asked.