Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

[JumboBuc]

"Estimated travel time from Lechmere Station is 9.5 minutes to College Avenue Station and 4.5 minutes to Union Square. Headways, or service frequencies, on the branches would be five to six minutes in the morning and evening peak periods and would be nine to ten minutes during off-peak period."
Source: https://www.somervillestep.org/files/GreenLineFEIR_execsummary.pdf

4.5 min to go one stop and ~1.1 mile from Lechmere to Union, but 9.5 minutes to go five stops and ~3.3 miles from Lechmere to College Ave? So College Ave is 3x the distance and 5x the stops but only 2x the time? That doesn't seem to be internally consistent at all.

Putting that aside, the smart way to connect Union to CR is through GLX to Porter, not CR at Union.

 

[Bananarama]

4.5 min to go one stop and ~1.1 mile from Lechmere to Union, but 9.5 minutes to go five stops and ~3.3 miles from Lechmere to College Ave? So College Ave is 3x the distance and 5x the stops but only 2x the time? That doesn't seem to be internally consistent at all.

Putting that aside, the smart way to connect Union to CR is through GLX to Porter, not CR at Union.

That'll be the smart long term solution.

But it does seem pretty unfortunate to be stuck on a CR train and pass right by the final station you need to get to, ride into North Station, have to wait for the proper Union bound GL train, then take it back to where you passed by....

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Unless the NS Link is built there is no need for CR stations at Union Sq. It isn't enough of a destination for enough people coming from the Lowell Line. However, once the NS Link is built then it might be worth another look.

No...they'll have extended GLX to Porter by then, where that superstation will serve all diverging points. Union will never have the heft to swing a full-on CR berth. And does anyone really want to be riding from outside 128 with the sub-20 MPH crawl to hit extremely close-packed Porter, Union, and the NS Terminal District? If you thought that was too slow a trip right now, just watch what happens if you stick yet another intermediate decel/accel zone in there essentially lengthening the end of the Terminal District crawl by 1 more mile. No thanks.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line has a point, though made rather rudely. I tend to focus on the history of whatever topic, as I am a history buff and "Context" was my biggest strength in the StrengthsFinder test. In fact, I'm teaching a high-school history class at a private school next week. And I certainly am old - 71 - although I stay physically and mentally active. Oh well, you can't please everybody, and I gave up trying to do that a long time ago.

Actually, the light sarcasm was directed at the "car iz king 4-EVAH" poster who couldn't parse that there have been any changes in commute culture since the 1985 Lechmere parking sink render was drawn up, and had to make sweeping statements based off that dated view.

It's not age...it's failure to evolve one's thinking when all neutral evidence points to the world changing quite a bit in 1/3 century and that point seemingly lost. We aren't building rapid transit parking sinks on this extension now. That's quite obviously an evolution.

 

[Vagabond]

4.5 min to go one stop and ~1.1 mile from Lechmere to Union, but 9.5 minutes to go five stops and ~3.3 miles from Lechmere to College Ave? So College Ave is 3x the distance and 5x the stops but only 2x the time? That doesn't seem to be internally consistent at all.

Putting that aside, the smart way to connect Union to CR is through GLX to Porter, not CR at Union.

If I remember right, the viaduct had a speed restriction. Does anyone have more recent data on the new projected trip-times?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

If I remember right, the viaduct had a speed restriction. Does anyone have more recent data on the new projected trip-times?

AFAIK the GLX documentation doesn't factor a fixed Viaduct or Science Park-*new* Lechmere improvements from the deleted curve + incline into any of its schedule charts. They stick to extension-only running times.

 

[stick n move]

No...they'll have extended GLX to Porter by then,

In your estimation, how long until we see this? I always just assumed that with the tunnelling required its going to be too expensive and too easy to just keep kicking the can down the road indefinitely. Im fully expecting like red-blue connector itll pop up in new studies from time to time, and people will get excited, then theyll say but its too expensive to do right now and the idea will slowly fade into the background again for a few more years, rinse and repeat. You think it really has a shot at being built in any reasonable timeframe, or does “by then” mean in 50 years?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

In your estimation, how long until we see this? I always just assumed that with the tunnelling required its going to be too expensive and too easy to just keep kicking the can down the road indefinitely. Im fully expecting like red-blue connector itll pop up in new studies from time to time, and people will get excited, then theyll say but its too expensive to do right now and the idea will slowly fade into the background again for a few more years, rinse and repeat. You think it really has a shot at being built in any reasonable timeframe, or does “by then” mean in 50 years?

"Which comes first: GLX-Porter or NSRL" was the question addressed. They aren't even remotely comparable. NSRL, if we got serious about it (which we're not) is a minimum decade-long gestation period in design and engineering before a single shovel is turned. Porter is a 1-mile surface extension with approx. 800 ft. of extreme-shallow box tunneling not significantly more complex overall than the Route 16 extension, but for the fact that it was not originally included in GLX project scope and thus has to be mounted as an entirely separate project rather than later phase.

YMMV on when you think our state's leadership will fund that...but if you seriously think GLX-Porter is a 50-year endeavor then Boston will probably already have been swallowed full by the Angry Atlantic 250 years from now before we'll ever be ready to fund NSRL. Either/or is not a question being begged anywhere close in spacetime.


Besides...the point was that a Union CR infill is a total performance-killer at distending the extreme-slow Terminal District 1 mile further out. If Porter-NS is already annoyingly slow to some folks, they ain't seen nuthin' until you shiv an intermediate stop in between so close you can't even accelerate to track speed before hitting another station decel or the 15 MPH Terminal District cap. Excruciating won't begin to describe that, so the originally-posited notion that Union CR is a 'feature' borne out of too-slow GLX is faulty on-spec. It would instantly become even worse. And yes...you hit the same exact Terminal District slow cap in the same exact spots with or without NSRL so that's also a red-herring comparison throw-in.

 

[Javier]

Union square station

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why are up-sloping shelter roofs suddenly the flavor of the month for new-construction on the T? Inferior by a lot to downsloping roofs at keeping the wind/rain out. Are they trying to make protection from the elements as friggin' useless as the new SL3 shelters in Chelsea?

 

[Ruairi]

Why are up-sloping shelter roofs suddenly the flavor of the month for new-construction on the T? Inferior by a lot to downsloping roofs at keeping the wind/rain out. Are they trying to make protection from the elements as friggin' useless as the new SL3 shelters in Chelsea?

Thought about this, maybe drainage? one central drain draining under the platform as opposed to guttering on both sides of a down sloping roof?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Thought about this, maybe drainage? one central drain draining under the platform as opposed to guttering on both sides of a down sloping roof?

Sure. But that's hardly a 'feature' worth degrading the level of protection offered. The upsloping ones only manage to channel more of the rain/snow right onto the person standing underneath it whenever there's moderate-or-better breeze. They're absolutely horrible at doing their stated job.

 

[RandomWalk]

Designed by someone who lives in San Diego

 

[stick n move]

I feel like on the union sq branch theres going to be a pretty quick and easy infill station opportunity in the future at medford st/mcgrath highway to serve the surrounding area and also allow growth of the huge amount of lots in the vicinity. The ROI would be pretty high because the heavy lifting is already going to be done with glx.

 

[jass]

Upwards sloping has been the thing since the Silver Line Washington branch opened.

Could be worse. In LA, the roofs of shelters are made of glass. Its hot and sunny in LA.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I feel like on the union sq branch theres going to be a pretty quick and easy infill station opportunity in the future at medford st/mcgrath highway to serve the surrounding area and also allow growth of the huge amount of lots in the vicinity. The ROI would be pretty high because the heavy lifting is already going to be done with glx.

No. There's a giant honking multilevel flying junction at that very spot quite clearly visible in all the construction photos. Where in the hell are you going to find >250 ft. for a platform + approaches anywhere around there???


Build the Urban Ring and there'll be a Grand Junction-sited stop at Medford St./Twin City Plaza with an egress to the McGrath overpass, from a trajectory that does not over-duplicate the Washington St. stop's catchment. But that's as close as you're ever going to get. The junctioning nerve center of the whole universe is not set up for practical infilling, and is the last place in the world you'd ever want to try it for what heinous speed restrictions it would entail.

 

[stick n move]

The flying junction is on the other side of mcgrath hwy. I was obviously talking about the length of track between mcgrath and medford st. Anyways yea prob not worth it due to cambridge st’s catchment, effects on scheduling...etc.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The flying junction is on the other side of mcgrath hwy. I was obviously talking about the length of track between mcgrath and medford st. Anyways yea prob not worth it due to cambridge st’s catchment, effects on scheduling...etc.

There's not 250 ft. available between McGrath and Medford for a regulation Type 10 'supertrain'-length platform with 20+ ft. either side for the tracks to bulb out. So it's still impossible. You'd have to flip to the other side of Medford St., which is in literal eyesight of the Union platforms and way too close.

Between Washington St., Union, and the would-be Twin City stop on the Urban Ring LRT split you'll eventually have this whole area covered by a luxurious 3-stations-on-3-sides-via-3-branches overlap. Nobody--and none of their TOD--is going to be left wanting for options.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

Why are up-sloping shelter roofs suddenly the flavor of the month for new-construction on the T? Inferior by a lot to downsloping roofs at keeping the wind/rain out. Are they trying to make protection from the elements as friggin' useless as the new SL3 shelters in Chelsea?

Easier to construct and maintain the drainage, all the water runs to the center and the pipes run down the support beams into the platform, no gutters required and less issues with wildlife nesting under them are the two big reasons I've heard. Also reduces the likelihood of snow or ice falling onto vehicles or passengers. They did some research on it for SCR before picking the same double wing design: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...platforms-and-canopies-materials-and-form.pdf

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Easier to construct and maintain the drainage, all the water runs to the center and the pipes run down the support beams into the platform, no gutters required and less issues with wildlife nesting under them are the two big reasons I've heard. Also reduces the likelihood of snow or ice falling onto vehicles or passengers. They did some research on it for SCR before picking the same double wing design: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...platforms-and-canopies-materials-and-form.pdf

So...all about significantly degrading passenger comfort in general weather conditions to not need to lift as many fingers in maintenance...and hiding behind the severest of weather conditions as an excuse for it.

Sounds about right.