RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 2,994
- Reaction score
- 4,164
I recall a construction photo of the Dewey Square tunnel which show the severed trolley tunnel.
This is one of those rumors that just won't go away. It was never intended for streetcars, nor is it anywhere near tall enough. The existence of the concourse is simply a result of the cut-and-cover construction method. At first the BTC wasn't sure whether to fill the portion under Winter in or have it be for pedestrians (see 1912 report), but the latter was chosen. Per the 1914 report, the portion under Summer was always intended as the station mezzanine.I vaguely recall years ago on here, F-Line or someone saying that BERY originally intended to run a trolley car line in that tunnel you describe that runs above the RL from Washington St to Dewey Square. Of course the SB Central Artery tunnel cuts it off, making use of it for a rapid transit line impossible.
You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:I recall a construction photo of the Dewey Square tunnel which show the severed trolley tunnel.
Sounds good, and thanks for the info. Sorry, F-Line, I didn't mean to misquote you.The Summer Street Concourse goes as far east as halfway between Otis and Devonshire; this hatch is at the far end.
This is one of those rumors that just won't go away. It was never intended for streetcars, nor is it anywhere near tall enough. The existence of the concourse is simply a result of the cut-and-cover construction method. At first the BTC wasn't sure whether to fill the portion under Winter in or have it be for pedestrians (see 1912 report), but the latter was chosen. Per the 1914 report, the portion under Summer was always intended as the station mezzanine.
The reason the concourse ends east of Otis is because of the tunneling method. The tunnel starts going deeper there to go under sewers and eventually Fort Point Channel, so it switched from cut-and-cover to mined tunnel with an arched roof.
You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:
You're probably thinking of the arched Red Line roof being shaved. Pictures here:
This would be amazing. It's disappointing that the Seaport realistically isn't going to get rail transit anytime soon.I guess I'm on a "Crazy Seaport Transit Pitches" theme here: I'm gonna return to an idea I've idly raised in the past, but raise it now as an honest-to-God serious proposal: realign the Red Line through the Seaport:
View attachment 57375
"Easy": add a single (deeper-level) station at A St under Congress (or even under Summer, if you can get a headhouse on Congress) before cutting under the Mass Pike and tunneling under Track 61 back to the existing Red Line subway (probably south of Broadway and so, yes, a new Broadway station would probably be needed). Part of what makes this "easier" is that Track 61 has been a railroad longer than parts of Southie have existed, so hopefully it would be a "cleaner" dig. The downside is that you still leave a fair amount of the Seaport untouched and only accessible via the Silver Line. (Jobs still are more weighted toward the western end of the Seaport for now, but presumably that will change.) This is 1.4 miles of subway, a bit less than a mile of which is under Track 61.
Great points. But wouldn't the "hard" option also address these needs?Given Gillette's plans for its campus...
Gillette Redevelopment PDA | Bostonplans.org
Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.www.bostonplans.org
...and the non-Gillette plans for the parcels between there and the existing Fort Point buildings, I'd argue the "easy" option is the only good one b/c it would let you bracket an area whose owner aspire to put up a cool +/-7 million square feet of new development (including ~2 million SF of new housing) in the next 20 years -- and fill in a gap in the current Red Line walkshed.
To boot, you could use the old Broadway station as the site of a transit museum