Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Is the thinking on a Union to Porter Green Line extension that the 87 can't handle the demand along the Somerville Ave corridor? Or is that the current two seat 17 minute trip from Porter to Government Center would be better served by a one seat 17 minute ride?

The original thinking was that Medford and Union would be all one branch and that there'd be some subwaying involved in the McGrath area. But no permutation they looked at got the Union stop close enough to Union, and the foot of Prospect Hill threw up all kinds of feasibility red flags. So it ended up being separated into separate branches instead of omitting Union entirely.

Had the two-prong extension been the plan all along it probably would've gone all the way to Porter in the base build, but the Fitchburg trajectory ended up being a later compromise after copious scoping studies had already been completed at Union and the other stops.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Well, relieving pressure off of the extremely overburdened Government Center-Park Street stretch of the Green Line would be huge. While Red-Blue at Charles-MGH should relieve pressure off of GC or Blue Line trips between the northern Red Line, this "Porter extension" would relieve pressure from Haymarket, North Station or Lechmere trips between the northern Red Line. Once the GC-Park stretch of the Green Line is less overcrowded, it will be able to function more effectively and even handle the GLX better. Kind of counter-intuitive that extending the Green Line farther will help relieve over-crowding while serving more people, but that's how I see it. (As long as headways on the Red are improved, which they will be by then).

Think of it this way: you walk into Harvard station at 8:00am bound for Haymarket, North Station, or Science Park. Which is the easier trip?

-- Elbow-to-elbow on the Red Line 4 stops to Park, then a long platform dwell to the stairs, then waiting for a trolley that doesn't loop at GC, then that elbow-to-elbow trip 2-4 stops on Green?
-- Grabbing an outbound seat on an empty Red train 1 stop to Porter, grabbing an empty seat on a Green Line train starting its run, 4-6 stops to your destination.

Arguably, passenger loads could even make that more hassle-free to GC too.



Now, look at the growth on the Alewife end of Red and consider these constituencies:

-- Exploding development at Alewife and perpetual overfull parking lots.
-- Lots of riders streaming into Alewife for bus routes.
-- Arlington residents who take an unpleasant 77 or 79 trip inbound to catch Red.
-- The poor saps downwind at Harvard and Central whose trains are getting fuller earlier because of all the Alewife-end growth.

How much easier is it going to be for all of these people to divert loads for:

-- 77 riders who transfer at Porter who can now get to the downtown Green Line with 1 transfer and 1 fewer transfer than before, and get a seat to boot. East Arlington riders will even stay on Green to Boylston, Arlington, Copley, and Prudential/Back Bay rather than do the straighter 2-transfer route because of this convenience.
-- Alewife boarders who'd rather transfer 2 stops inbound instead of going all the way to Park in order to avoid the crowds who'd normally be looming over their seat after Porter.
-- Fatigued bus riders who've already had a long trip to get to Alewife who will gladly take the less crowded transfer or 1 fewer transfer to get to anywhere on Green from Lechmere-Prudential/BBY.
-- Reverse commutes from downtown to the employment centers at Alewife. Red may be pretty easy in the contraflow direction, but the Park St. transfer is still horrifying at rush. Many will gladly stay on an E train and plant their butts on a seat right at Park rather than fight through the crowds streaming up the stairs.
-- ALL OF THE ABOVE when Red is borked with delays. The alt route and sending more run-as-directeds up to Porter is big relief and big system redundancy. And way better than hoping you get lucky with a Fitchburg Line schedule for the freebie between NS and Porter. Subway riders do not typically have the Fitchburg departures/arrivals memorized, so if Red's stranded it usually takes an in-station announcement at Porter and a crowd squinting at the Fitchburg schedule board in the lobby to know if they've got a non-bus or non-wait diversion.


I think the load-dispersing motivations of the extension are underreported. Maybe rightfully so because it is such a key neighborhood builder and that's the main selling point. But you can see why this is one of the few extensions other than Red-Blue and Seaport-Back Bay that both sharply increases the ridership and adds all-new riders while providing substantial radial circulation relief. And since it's much less expensive than those two very invasive subway digs desperation for downtown relief can easily rocket it to the top of the list as something low-hanging fruit that they can grab-and-go without too much financial pain and put through a study-design-build process faster than a subway dig. Something I am sure STEP is ready to promote.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

EDIT: ^What F-Line said.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

It seems like a lot of the arguments make two assumptions:

1) The Green Line from Porter to downtown will be more comfortable and less crowded.

2) That people will choose a trip that takes longer over a less comfortable one.

Question: If a rapid transit line is expected to be uncrowded during the peak in the peak direction, doesn't that strengthen the argument that it doesn't need to be a rapid transit line?

Maybe start with buslanes on Somerville Ave and 5 min headways on the 87 to see if there's a big jump in demand before we go the distance with rail?
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

It seems like a lot of the arguments make two assumptions:

1) The Green Line from Porter to downtown will be more comfortable and less crowded.

2) That people will choose a trip that takes longer over a less comfortable one.

Question: If a rapid transit line is expected to be uncrowded during the peak in the peak direction, doesn't that strengthen the argument that it doesn't need to be a rapid transit line?

Maybe start with buslanes on Somerville Ave and 5 min headways on the 87 to see if there's a big jump in demand before we go the distance with rail?

For many destinations on the GL, the trip will be both shorter and more comfortable.

By definition, at the start of a line, the train should not be full, otherwise the line is over capacity. Porter as start of GLX is different than Porter Red Line.

I think the extension concept is a brilliant way to enhance capacity into downtown.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

It will be less crowded in the way that a train at Cleveland Circle during the rush is "less crowded" than when it leaves Coolidge Corner. You don't want your trains already packed full at their terminal.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

I think some good points are made on the merits here. I would like to add a couple.

I live in porter and work kendall/east cambridge. Kendall is pushing east fast for new build, Lechmere is closer and faster. Plus as is, not delay or anything, when those peak fitchburg trains drop off in the morning, the red lines fill from there going down. If you work in NS, Union (which will be growing), haymarket, then you will go green.

Second, even with the street grid changing in union and mcgrath, getting through there is tough. It can get backed up real bad, and is at min. 20 minutes lechmere to porter on a offtime. High peak, it can be an easy 30 min drive.

Also, the 87 doesn't go right by porter, it goes from Davis on Elm then to Somerville Ave. So you are not going to get passengers primed for that at porter. And, the GLX to porter would be 100X easier to complete then the dedicated bus ROW on somerville ave.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

It seems like a lot of the arguments make two assumptions:

1) The Green Line from Porter to downtown will be more comfortable and less crowded.

2) That people will choose a trip that takes longer over a less comfortable one.

Question: If a rapid transit line is expected to be uncrowded during the peak in the peak direction, doesn't that strengthen the argument that it doesn't need to be a rapid transit line?

Maybe start with buslanes on Somerville Ave and 5 min headways on the 87 to see if there's a big jump in demand before we go the distance with rail?

No. There is still unabated ridership growth in Somerville, North Cambridge, (especially) Alewife, and on the bus transfers into Porter and Alewife. All of that slams the Red Line and renders it more and more crowded and overmatched in Cambridge. You already cannot get a seat most mornings at Central, and any small delay renders certain trains so overfull they can't be boarded at all by Central.

The additional growth, already underway, ensures that the saturation point will have moved firmly north to Harvard within 8-10 years, with dwell time attrition dragging the schedule down all the way inbound to South Station. The 77 inbound is also cresting to an oversaturation point, although that can be somewhat helped by introducing articulated buses and cleaning up the traffic signals on Mass Ave. in North Cambridge.

The stress from these loads is unsustainable. And sooner or later the saturation point will start spilling over from Harvard to Porter and make the daily commute for boarders Harvard-in truly dire, the transfer loads at Park and DTX truly dire, and the line more or less nonfunctional for rush hour boarders at Central. There has to be a diversion.

Porter GLX brings a large systemwide ridership boost with it. So those trains will not be empty at all by the time they reach Union. It is bona fide on its own merits just for what it does for the Somerville Ave. corridor and ripple effects into Arlington from the 77 transfer. But its load-spreading utility is critical for downtown health by:

-- Halting the northward migration of Red's rush hour oversaturation point by diverting inbound riders originating from the highest-growth segment of Red. This may be the only way to keep Central a functional stop with room to board, and keep enough growth ceiling for Harvard with the bus transfer explosion coming from the Allston campus.

-- Slowing the attrition in downtown dwell times, especially at Park St. The more bus riders who take the 1 fewer transfer to get anywhere on Green from Lechmere to Back Bay, the less the dwell times at Park are going to decay and hold up trains at the overstuffed platforms. Lesser effect is also true for DTX and Orange with the NS superstation and Haymarket transfers.

-- Pipelining the ridership growth where the system can absorb it. That's where the contraflow commutes from Harvard matter. If booming Allston is going to slam Harvard with more traffic, and North Cambridge-Alewife is spiraling up and up...the only ways the existing RL can absorb that huge an increase with no service decay is by diverting them in the contraflow direction in addition to diverting them before the inbound saturation point. This flank of Green is also one of the few ways to stuff more passengers into the Central Subway without harming that line's dire oversaturation. Use the under-capacity north end of the GL, the under-capacity E, and trading off more efficient Park dwells from fewer transfer passengers for more thru riders to cram more bodies through the gut of downtown. It's either that or a further exponential increase of Red-->Green @ Park rendering both lines nonfunctional.


Until those multi-billions are available to build a real rapid transit Urban Ring, these kinds of delicate load-balancing acts are the only way to effectively loosen the chokehold on downtown circulation. GLX-Porter isn't Red-Blue in sheer scope of the relief it provides, but Red is pretty much unbound as to how big it'll grow with all the stress Seaport, Cambridge-wide, and Harvard-inflow redevelopment is throwing on it from Alewife to SS. The Porter diversion is probably non-optional in the long run, just like Red-Blue is very very mandatory and Seaport-BBY quite urgent at the downtown end of the crushload stretch.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Since the green line has four branches can anyone think of options for 2 more branches out of Lechemere?
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

I like the possibilities opened up by GL-Porter but I have to say that boosting the capacity on the Red Line is probably the surest way to deal with its crowding problems. Fixing the downtown signals, buying new vehicles, cutting the headways from 4/5 to 3 or better... plenty of opportunity left with straightforward techniques, nothing fancy.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Since the green line has four branches can anyone think of options for 2 more branches out of Lechemere?

Well, the best branch in that direction wouldn't branch off of Lechmere, but rather off of Boylston bound for South Station and maybe the South Boston Waterfront. In terms of branches off of Lechmere, a street running trolley running down Cambridge Street to Harvard Station would be cool. So would a line that ran alongside the Newburyport/Rockport Line to Everett and maybe even Chelsea. These are crazy transit pitches though and the Green Line extension from Union to Porter is far more likely to happen.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Since the green line has four branches can anyone think of options for 2 more branches out of Lechemere?

By the time we're seriously thinking of anything more than 2 branches northside, the Green Line is likely to have at least 5 branches southside (F-line's namesake route) or more (A Branch restoration to Union or Oak Square; Transitway conversion). And/or Urban Ring gets built, which F-Line has written at length about. That would hit your most likely corridors - Grand Junction conversion, and Eastern Route to Chelsea/Eastie.

It's also questionable how many trolleys you really want to throw through the full 2-track Central Subway. Anything more than 4 southside branches and you're already talking looping at Park or having the Seaport as an alternate terminal; adding more northside branches might cause the same problems GC-Lechmere. That said, I believe the current plan is to have at least one NS-terminating branch after 2017, so that's still 3 branches running GC-NS.

Saugus Branch doesn't hit enough density to make it worthwhile for anything. Most important thing you can do with it is to improve the connections to make it a valid feeder route. Southern end needs a good route either to Wellington or the new Chelsea/Mystic Mall station; Malden Center needs a good connection to the station, and the northern end needs a spur through Lynn Common to the CR/future BL station.

If they can get a 2-track spur across the BET land to the storage tracks by Sullivan (a prereq for Urban Ring anyway) then all sorts of possibilities open up, none necessarily great. Running up the storage tracks to Assembly might work but basically duplicates the OL. Medford Branch is probably too obliterated after the Fellsway to get anywhere near Medford Square, and I can't see Fellsway or Riverside Ave as good street-running routes.

99 is the only remotely wide street through Everett, and it's still 1 lane traffic + 1 lane which would be traffic hell for a streetcar. My pet idea (probably incredibly unworkable) is stealing the median lanes from Route 1 once the Tobin's gone.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Thanks to all for the interesting commentary and information. I live near Porter Square and think that a Green Line Extension would be transformative for the neighborhood, especially considering all the development that will add hundreds of housing units, retail, and hotel space nearby--not to mention all the new development right by North Station. Cambridge and Somerville should be pushing like mad to get this done. It would solidify a true linear connection along the city lines. With just one transfer, you could go from one end of Cambridge to the other: Alewife-Davis-Porter-Union-Lechmere. Considering that the Union station will provide a convenient link to Inman Square as well, this would vastly improve connection through the entire city. I think the entire Fitchburg corridor, from Northpoint to Union to Porter has great potential for redevelopment as a kind of linear innovation district, especially considering that the Seaport and Kendall are filling up with big-time clients.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

I like the possibilities opened up by GL-Porter but I have to say that boosting the capacity on the Red Line is probably the surest way to deal with its crowding problems. Fixing the downtown signals, buying new vehicles, cutting the headways from 4/5 to 3 or better... plenty of opportunity left with straightforward techniques, nothing fancy.

That can only do so much when the Big 4 transfer stops can only handle so many people at once. Look at Park St. on any delay-filled morning. It can easily take 5 minutes to empty a train and close the doors with the wall-to-platform-edge crowds heading for the stairs. It's becoming a safety issue. And when a Red crowd is streaming upstairs it's virtually useless to try to get downstairs from Green. Here it's not train frequency or capacity but station capacity that's the limiter. And DTX is in a similar boat. They're so old and have already been modified several times over in the last hundred years that they can't be made any roomier. I'm not even sure that emergency exit on the far end @ Park can feasibly be modified into a Red-only exit, and that's just about the only thing left to study with that station.


So while tighter headways flush the crowds out of Cambridge it accelerates the oversaturation at Park + DTX. It buys a couple years of time by consolidating a string of failure points and shoving it across the Charles into 2-3 gigantic black holes downtown whose dwell time attrition will quickly start decaying on-time performance all over again. The line will have greater capacity for the whole span of peak hours--and that is a hugely good thing--but it will be just as vulnerable to locking solid at peak-most rush. And then you're quickly rolling back to where you started re: commutes gone to hell multiple days per week.

The only way Red is going to be able to resiliently handle hyper-dense service is if the transfer load is spread away from Park/DTX. Red-Blue has to siphon a big load before Park. Seaport-Back Bay has to siphon a big load before DTX. And the only way for Green to remain functional when Red is throwing so many thousands more daily passengers downtown is to have multiple relief valves spreading away from Park and ensuring that more passengers stay onboard through Park instead of packing the platforms and the narrow Red stairs.

So, yes, I think re-signaling pretty much demands the diversions. Red-Blue and Seaport-BB as ironclad requirements, and 'Ring'-ier diversions like this easy Porter link and the eventual real-deal UR cementing it in the long-term @ Broadway or Andrew and possibly that Harvard-BU spur. It won't work as Boston's Lexington Ave. line equivalent on service density and passenger load if it doesn't have multiple rapid transit transfers outside the downtown core transfers. This is why those warnings about downtown circulation circa-2030 are so dire. The only way to solve it without the congestion harming the economy is to fix the service density AND the radial connections. It's not either/or, and one fix can't hide the other need for very long.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

What about another 2 New colored Lines running through the city? Is that possible

PINK and Grey Lines.

***Grey Line could be a connected monorail from Aquarium (Blue Line) through the entire Seaport over the water could limit traffic.

***Pink Line come up with a feasible plan. Possible dig under the entire hard-rail stations if possible and rebuild the entire Grid? Or just create a couple of major stops just to ease the congestion?

Are there plans in the work for something major for Transit?

I know the Holidays are the busiest times of year but I have never seen the traffic this bad. EVER
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

I remember when the red line stations were expanded from four cars to six, the T's consultants said that the Park St stairs could easily handle the 50% increase in passengers. Around the same time the T's consultants said that red/blue connection would result in a net increase of 12 riders a day, or maybe it was per train - IIRC

Got to love paid consultants. As my worst boss ever use to say - consultants draw rings around bulls eyes.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

I'm not even sure that emergency exit on the far end @ Park can feasibly be modified into a Red-only exit, and that's just about the only thing left to study with that station.

Do you know why those are emergency only and what it would take to make them a permanent exit? Or a full head house?
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

They come up to a hatch that's well inside the Common. Lots of folks would look unfavorably on the idea of adding any more buildings on the Common.
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

Would a return to the Spanish solution for Park street be in order?
 
Re: Green Line to Medford to start in 2011

What about another 2 New colored Lines running through the city? Is that possible

PINK and Grey Lines.

***Grey Line could be a connected monorail from Aquarium (Blue Line) through the entire Seaport over the water could limit traffic.

***Pink Line come up with a feasible plan. Possible dig under the entire hard-rail stations if possible and rebuild the entire Grid? Or just create a couple of major stops just to ease the congestion?

Are there plans in the work for something major for Transit?

I know the Holidays are the busiest times of year but I have never seen the traffic this bad. EVER

Riff --the only plans are fare increases due to some legerdemain associated with the Ride

Still to come is the fare increase to handle the Ponzi Scheme that passes for the pensions fund

I think that after the two new infill stations, new equipment, new signaling and the GLX -- you won't see any construction for the next 20 plus years

The only possible alternative scenarios:

1) Another New Balance out there willing to foot some or all the the bill [most likely for infill or possibly end of line 1 stop extension-- the Commonwealth and the US have no money
2) major restructuring of all the exponentially growing entitlements at the state and Federal level and managing of the problem at the local level -- otherwise there is NO MONEY

PS: the cheapest Red-Blue connector is a Pedestrian Tunnel between DTX and State -- this should have been part of the Millennium Tower
 

Back
Top