A-Line Reactivation

Yah, it was taken away, in a fit of stupidity, to "ease traffic" in the late 40s.
 
All it would take would be the political will. Menino was famously against all street running light rail. This could be done, though I'm sure the congestion it would add to Park St would be a major issue.
 
Where would the reservation go after Union Square though? It doesn't look like there's enough room to take it down Cambridge street anymore like it used to.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
All it would take would be the political will. Menino was famously against all street running light rail. This could be done, though I'm sure the congestion it would add to Park St would be a major issue.
Click to expand...

There's actually all kinds of parkway space and service roads (along side the pike or the heavy rail) where it could run, if we were just willing to take a few feet away from either cars or "park" (which is mostly mowed margins and medians...no actual park need be harmed)

If it happens at all, it seems to me it could run:
Kenmore Square
(Montfort Street (alongside, but "above" the heavy rail))
BU
Beacon Park (or take some "Leo Birgmingham Parkway")
Follow CSX to Nonantum Rd (or either side of the river)
Watertown.
 
Just running it to Union Square would get rid of 90% of the overcrowding issues on the B by doubling up service through BU.
 
The implication of another branch would be to add more trains-per-hour to the Central Subway (probably not going to happen) or to cut frequency on the "B" branch. So it wouldn't "double up service" through BU.

It could assist by providing a short-turn alternative to Boston College, though.
 
The heart of the problem is the Central Subway between Copley and Gov't Center. Building a parallel subway from Huntington Ave to Boylston St via Stuart St would take considerable pressure off the subway if the T terminated the E and B at Park St. The 2 track bottleneck between Park St and Gov't Center is much harder to deal with given how tight the ROW is. It is the same problem that gave rise to the bottleneck in the first place. Plans in the 1940s would have a parallel subway run up to Beacon St to bypass Parks St Church and the Granary Burring Ground and would have rebuilt both Park St and Scollay Sq (now Gov't Center) with their Northbound and Southbound platforms considerably further apart.

I can see the Stuart St subway happening way before any Park-Gov't Center subway due to the costs and engineering challenges.
 
I thought part of the problem is more we have a terrible archaic signal system than physical capacity of the tunnel. Though I don't object to a new tunnel, but I would imagine if a new signal system would be cheaper if it does play a role in the capacity of the Central Tunnel.
 
ant8904 said:
I thought part of the problem is more we have a terrible archaic signal system than physical capacity of the tunnel. Though I don't object to a new tunnel, but I would imagine if a new signal system would be cheaper if it does play a role in the capacity of the Central Tunnel.
Click to expand...

I am confident that the Orange Line Washington Street tunnel could handle a lot more throughput with modern signaling and new rolling stock.

I don't know how that works for the Green Line Tremont Street tunnel, specifically between Park and Government Center. That seems track limited?
 
Signalling would make a great difference but you would still have the physical bottlenecks that constrain the Green Line today. The Orange Line could handle more trains with a modern signal system but that's because it's just one line.

Also the Green Line has trains that run along the street and are subject to the traffic lights which are a totally different signal system, one which the T doesn't control. You can upgrade the tunnels but if the train is still stuck in traffic that messes things up for the rest of the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top