Search results

Isn't Boylston an issue? I can't find any of the project docs at the moment, but I could have sworn at least one of the central subway stations needed substantial work to let two-car trains run.

Is it neglect of maintenance, or is it shoddy construction?

It's not 0 gain, though. It's a tradeoff that provides a new service pattern. Now people from 128 and Quincy can both get one-seat rides to the opposite termini. Now, obviously, there's more to the cost/benefit than just a new service pattern, but it's not zero gain.

Can you include headlines, or a description of the articles?

The Purpose and Need Statement clarifies that the bridges are overall fine, but that repairs often necessitate the closure of lanes. That seems standard on all bridges everywhere, no? They are not saying the bridges cannot take the load, merely that they will require lane closures in order...

My super-back-of-the-napkin math says that you'd need at least 2500ft on either side of such a bridge to get the clearance needed. On the Chelsea side that has the incline starting right after the Box District station, and on the Eastie side, that has the incline starting smack in the middle of...

So they're fine, but wouldn't it be really cool if we had even more lanes? Sounds like a great use of a few billion dollars. Way better than any of the backlog of MBTA capital projects/maintenance work.

The standard Logan-lets-buildings-be-this-tall map shows a 170ft limit in that area, so that's probably fine? I mean, there's issues other than the height, but I don't think Logan is an issue.

Am I making this up, or is there some law/regulation/de-facto standard that says interstate rail must be operated by Amtrak, outside of some exceptions (such as Rhode Island subsidizing MBTA service). I could have sworn I read something like this at some point, but can't find anything about it.

I agree, that's what I was trying to get at with the rail trail comments. I just think that, in the sense that we're talking about projects that won't happen for decades (or even centuries in some cases), current-day/past NIMBY-ism isn't that important to take into account because it becomes...

F-Line likes to talk about that, and having lived there I think I can back that up a bit given how the rail trail vote went a few years ago (if people don't want bikes going by their house, they definitely don't want Mattapan people), but things are changing constantly, with new people moving in...

My last comment on this topic takes the form of actually completing a proper Suburban Ring. Diverge from the Alewife Brook Parkway and proceed up the Lowell Line until the Stoneham branch branches off. Follow that until a segment of street-running along Spring/East/Forest St to the Haverhill...

Seems a little too practical. You can also use some of the Alewife Brook Parkway and tunnels through Medford to get over to the Northern Strand. I call it the Suburban Ring.

Extend the Red line to Arlington via Riverside. Existing Mattapan Line. Fairmount Line Dedham Branch all the way around to existing Needham Line Needham Line to Newton Highlands Existing D Branch I-95 ROW up to abandoned Waltham ROW Minuteman Bike Trail to I-95.

They're new, perhaps installation issues were found, similar to the alleged issues causing the slowdowns over the viaduct?

This is how it was operating as of last year, at least.

Currently the Green Line moves trains with incredibly (relative to other lines) frequencies through the downtown tunnels. I would think that changing the signaling and trains over to that model would result in an increase in capacity, given that each individual train is basically the same...

I mean, it's technically possible. Street seems to be about 60' wide at its narrowest with 8' sidewalks on either side that could be mildly cannibalized if an extra foot or two is needed. Huntington where the E line runs is 80' and that seems to be the T's limit on streetcars (though I do seem...

Spitballing some routes here: North Side SL3 Branch - Instead of converting this to a Green Line branch, tie this into the Blue Line and have more incentive to extend further into Everett owing to more connectivity than the SL3 can provide. Tunnel under any parts of Broadway you have to, but...

Interesting. I wonder if there's any real benefits to be had to reverting the Blue Line back to its Trolley roots if it means no drop in capacity (assuming similar throughput of vehicles). Perhaps the ability to more easily branch on either end? Any ROWs that could take more advantage of light...