Green Line Reconfiguration

The GLX is foremost an air quality project (as mitigation for increased I-93 traffic via the Big Dig); it was partially chosen because I-93 goes through nearby neighborhoods. So it was designed to maximize the amount of unserved areas getting rapid transit added, rather than merely improving the existing system. Porter would have been an integral part of an ideal extension, but in the environment available what we're getting it pretty darn good.
 
The EGE said:
The GLX is foremost an air quality project (as mitigation for increased I-93 traffic via the Big Dig); it was partially chosen because I-93 goes through nearby neighborhoods. So it was designed to maximize the amount of unserved areas getting rapid transit added, rather than merely improving the existing system. Porter would have been an integral part of an ideal extension, but in the environment available what we're getting it pretty darn good.
Click to expand...

I'm not maligning the GLX we're getting. This is Design a Better Boston. Planning for the future. That sort of thing...
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
As an aside, those circular "ten minute walks" can be misleading because they assume as the crow flies travel, when in reality residents are navigating street grids that aren't laid out to provide quick access to the railroad.
Click to expand...

I think that's what they were trying to do with the offsets for Union Square and Washington St circles. Given how you've got McGrath on one side and Somerville Ave, Prospect and Washington radiating out to the south and west on the other, I'd say the area of influence for the Union Square station is fairly accurate. I am, however, a little bit confused by the offsets for Lowell Street. With the bike path, I'd assume it'd be skewed a bit further west.
 
I love this thread. So far we've tackled south side and Seaport extensions via the Tremont Street Tunnel (and possibly also via new Essex Street and/or new Back Bay tunnels), and now we've talked about the northside GLX to Porter and beyond.

One of the extensions I'm missing from this is Everett/Chelsea via the Eastern Branch, to the airport. I think this is an important possibility because:

1) Casino transit
2) Everett redevelopment potential
3) Alon's dictum of looking at the busiest bus routes - Chelsea is exhibit uno
4) The fact that this route forms an essential part of the urban ring
5) The fact that SL Chelsea is already happening
 
Texasian said:
I think that's what they were trying to do with the offsets for Union Square and Washington St circles. Given how you've got McGrath on one side and Somerville Ave, Prospect and Washington radiating out to the south and west on the other, I'd say the area of influence for the Union Square station is fairly accurate. I am, however, a little bit confused by the offsets for Lowell Street. With the bike path, I'd assume it'd be skewed a bit further west.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kinda messy. I acknowledged the presumed attempts to weight the circles on the last page as well. What they should have done instead was highlight the streets/paths themselves a 10 minutes walk distance in whatever direction. But that's probably way more work than their intern could manage.
 
Shepard said:
I love this thread. So far we've tackled south side and Seaport extensions via the Tremont Street Tunnel (and possibly also via new Essex Street and/or new Back Bay tunnels), and now we've talked about the northside GLX to Porter and beyond.

One of the extensions I'm missing from this is Everett/Chelsea via the Eastern Branch, to the airport. I think this is an important possibility because:

1) Casino transit
2) Everett redevelopment potential
3) Alon's dictum of looking at the busiest bus routes - Chelsea is exhibit uno
4) The fact that this route forms an essential part of the urban ring
5) The fact that SL Chelsea is already happening
Click to expand...

This is another good tie-in.

The biggest questions are "where does it go?" Does an elevated transitway airport circulator get built that's used by both Silver Line busses from the Seaport and Green Line trains from Sullivan? Does the line terminate in a loop at Airport station?

If one of those, how does it get across the Chelsea River? New bridge? Street-run on the existing bridge (at the mercy of tanker traffic)?

Or does it dead-end in Chelsea?
 
Last edited:
Everett/Chelsea is tough because what would be better: coming from the west via Green or Orange Line or from the east via Blue or Silver Line. Boston's system is built radially but Everett/Chelsea sits between two spokes and it's hard to say which one is a better fit.

Back when the Blue Line was still streetcars I remember seeing a proposed extension from Maverick up Meridian St to Chelsea and following Broadway; basically the route of the most heavily trafficed streetcar routes. It's not a bad idea today, just very expensive (and expensive back then which is why they took the old Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn RR ROW instead.

The original plan for the Orange Line north of Sullivan Sq was through Everett along Main St to Malden but always as an elevated train. It got as far as the old Everett terminal before it was blocked. By the 19-teens people realized that subways were superior to elevated trains.

The Newburyport Line is another place where if the NSRL was built you'd just have some infill stations with DMU service and be done with it. Everett along the rail ROW is all industrial and even though Chelsea is growing now, combined with Everett and western Revere you have a relatively low density suburban residential sprawl with difficult, hilly geography that makes a simple rapid transit line very difficult to plan out.

Even an Urban Ring line through Everett and Chelsea is a tough sell because it's just faster and more convenient to take a bus straight to Sullivan Sq or Haymarket and change for the T. I don't love the Silver Line to Chelsea idea but given the unreliable alternatives it is certainly an improvement (and an affordable one at that). At the very least there is a transfer at the Blue Line Airport station.

When the day comes that the Tobin Bridge needs total replacement that is when the Green Line will go to Chelsea.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Everett/Chelsea is tough because what would be better: coming from the west via Green or Orange Line or from the east via Blue or Silver Line. Boston's system is built radially but Everett/Chelsea sits between two spokes and it's hard to say which one is a better fit.
Click to expand...

I think a BL branch looks better on a map, but there's a major issue with grade crossing by the current Chelsea CR stop that would be a very expensive fix to eliminate. Plus, you couldn't street run over current bridges as you could with GL.

Ultimately I think that both modes would serve this corridor well. A GL branch from Airport to Lechmere and beyond via Sullivan, as well as a SL line to the Seaport via Airport. That would mean parts of the ROW would be shared. I doubt there is an issue with rail-in-pavement, and, as far as I know, dual-mode catenary wire is technically possible.

vanshnookenraggen said:
Even an Urban Ring line through Everett and Chelsea is a tough sell because it's just faster and more convenient to take a bus straight to Sullivan Sq or Haymarket and change for the T. I don't love the Silver Line to Chelsea idea but given the unreliable alternatives it is certainly an improvement (and an affordable one at that). At the very least there is a transfer at the Blue Line Airport station.
Click to expand...

I don't really consider this a real UR line unless the GL can continue along the ring via the Grand Junction. For many of the reasons that have been said before, that's pretty far off - at least as far off as the NSRL. So, in the meantime, your question of convenience seems pretty obvious - a one-seat ride from Everett and Chelsea on the GL to downtown and Back Bay (assuming there's no short-turn required for capacity) versus a two-seat ride via a Sullivan transfer. That's a no-brainer, isn't it? Plus, as I said above in this post, you'd also have the SL giving a one-seat ride to the Seaport and South Station.

Between these two transit options, Everett and Chelsea would be among the best transit-situated places in the urban core. The ROW already exists. Demand is there, in droves. Redevelopment and TOD potential exists. That's why, to me, this GL extension and Dudley would be the absolute best bang-for-buck system expansions - and, not to mention, ones which would be transformative to the areas they'd serve.
 
Shepard said:
I love this thread. So far we've tackled south side and Seaport extensions via the Tremont Street Tunnel (and possibly also via new Essex Street and/or new Back Bay tunnels), and now we've talked about the northside GLX to Porter and beyond.

One of the extensions I'm missing from this is Everett/Chelsea via the Eastern Branch, to the airport. I think this is an important possibility because:

1) Casino transit
2) Everett redevelopment potential
3) Alon's dictum of looking at the busiest bus routes - Chelsea is exhibit uno
4) The fact that this route forms an essential part of the urban ring
5) The fact that SL Chelsea is already happening
Click to expand...

I'm sort of skeptical about this, at least if the plan is to use commuter rail ROW. Commuter rail modernization is more useful here.

Now, you might ask, what's the difference between this and the GLX on the Lowell and Fitchburg Lines? My answers are,

1. First, it wasn't my decision to build the GLX instead of modernizing commuter rail, adding frequent infill stops, and coming up with a schedule that allows local and longer-range trains to share tracks if express service to Lowell is desired.

2. The Fitchburg Line has longer-range demand than the Eastern Line, which has weak demand north of Beverly. The Lowell Line doesn't, but has a potential extension to Manchester that would make it long-range as well. This means that frequent stops in Cambridge and Somerville are more problematic for the Fitchburg and Lowell Lines than for the Eastern, making a GLX more useful.

3. Development near the inner Lowell and Fitchburg is continuous, favoring frequent stops, whereas it isn't on the Eastern south of Chelsea. This means that a modernized Eastern Line could make do with fewer infill stops, which would both simplify scheduling (no express trains are needed, see point #2) and favor higher-top speed commuter trains.

4. Conversely, because there's a less circuitous bus, rail to Chelsea should be faster and have fewer stops, which again favors commuter rail.

5. The Watertown branch favors a GLX, since a commuter rail setup with locals going via Watertown and expresses going via the existing line would be awkward. It would also require grade separations: new mainline rail lines are built grade-separated, even if in theory the electrification infrastructure is the same as that for light rail.

6. A GLX to Chelsea would require a new water crossing, adding to the cost. Mind you, I also think the existing GLX should have cost maybe 1/8 what it really did - it's an existing ROW, FFS - but when a water crossing is required, higher costs happen for legitimate reasons.

Instead of a GLX to Chelsea, I'd propose modernizing commuter rail, then, including infill stations in Everett at Broadway, in Revere at Winthrop and at Revere, and maybe also in Chelsea at Eastern. Maybe a Blue Line branch, but I'd be wary: Maverick and Airport are the two busiest stops on the line, but Wonderland is a close third, and a Lynn extension would put further pressure on the existing line.
 
Allright, mapped out what's been discussed here.

Seaport via Tremont.

For routings I'm thinking:
(A) Watertown - Bay Village
(B) Boston College - Bay Village (via Grand Junction)
(C) Cleveland Circle - Lechmere (via Boylston)
(D) Riverside - Jeffries Point (via Boylston)
(E) Hyde Square - West Medford (via Huntington)
(F) Dudley Square - Lechmere
(G) Needham - Seaport (via Huntington)

This is assuming the Blue Line expressing along the Riverbank alignment to Kenmore, using the old tracks of the B in the station, and then a new tunnel under Comm Ave to the BU Bridge, then to Harvard using the old yard tunnels.

To tie it into Kenmore station without having to modify the station itself (besides lowering the center tracks, which it was constructed for), the mall between Kenmore Street and Charlesgate West would have to be torn up. The GL tunnel would be rerouted to connect to what are now the loop tracks (the loop could still be preserved), while the dive under would be reused for the BL. The only loss is storage on the loop, which could be mitigated by using the retired Copley Junction for that purpose.

16467406714_35685261f2_b.jpg
 
Alon said:
I'm sort of skeptical about this, at least if the plan is to use commuter rail ROW. Commuter rail modernization is more useful here.

Now, you might ask, what's the difference between this and the GLX on the Lowell and Fitchburg Lines? My answers are,

1. First, it wasn't my decision to build the GLX instead of modernizing commuter rail, adding frequent infill stops, and coming up with a schedule that allows local and longer-range trains to share tracks if express service to Lowell is desired.

2. The Fitchburg Line has longer-range demand than the Eastern Line, which has weak demand north of Beverly. The Lowell Line doesn't, but has a potential extension to Manchester that would make it long-range as well. This means that frequent stops in Cambridge and Somerville are more problematic for the Fitchburg and Lowell Lines than for the Eastern, making a GLX more useful.

3. Development near the inner Lowell and Fitchburg is continuous, favoring frequent stops, whereas it isn't on the Eastern south of Chelsea. This means that a modernized Eastern Line could make do with fewer infill stops, which would both simplify scheduling (no express trains are needed, see point #2) and favor higher-top speed commuter trains.

4. Conversely, because there's a less circuitous bus, rail to Chelsea should be faster and have fewer stops, which again favors commuter rail.

5. The Watertown branch favors a GLX, since a commuter rail setup with locals going via Watertown and expresses going via the existing line would be awkward. It would also require grade separations: new mainline rail lines are built grade-separated, even if in theory the electrification infrastructure is the same as that for light rail.

6. A GLX to Chelsea would require a new water crossing, adding to the cost. Mind you, I also think the existing GLX should have cost maybe 1/8 what it really did - it's an existing ROW, FFS - but when a water crossing is required, higher costs happen for legitimate reasons.

Instead of a GLX to Chelsea, I'd propose modernizing commuter rail, then, including infill stations in Everett at Broadway, in Revere at Winthrop and at Revere, and maybe also in Chelsea at Eastern. Maybe a Blue Line branch, but I'd be wary: Maverick and Airport are the two busiest stops on the line, but Wonderland is a close third, and a Lynn extension would put further pressure on the existing line.
Click to expand...

But these are dense, inner-core communities that include large immigrant populations that don't necessarily work the 9-6 office hours downtown that CR schedules tend to serve. Rapid transit is preferable. The ROW is wide enough for both CR and GL - albeit, and I agree with you here, it would require a new Mystic Bridge and some intensive engineering to bring the line down to Sullivan and on alignment to Lechmere.

That being said, the SL pavement is already being extended alongside the CR to Mystic Mall, which is already halfway to Broadway Circle.
 
asap_mozart said:
I know It'd be a construction nightmare but if we're considering green line to Chelsea, than I'd be inclined to say build it over or under the Northeast Expressway, which roughly paralells the frequently packed 111 bus. Could terminate at like Woodlawn (where the 111 terminates) or the Northgate Mall a mile or two up north.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zHBKbWS6THfI.kd1XxWMoX36Q
Click to expand...

If only mid century planners had the foresight. This is practically impossible now but if they had built a rail line along Rt 1 or even space for a bus lane then you'd have transit all the way up to Saugus.
 
F-Line! Glad you are back on AB.

I don't know if you've gone through this thread but the discussion began in connection with the much talked about proposal that basically includes:

-Reactivating the Tremont Street tunnel to bring a line down to Dudley (i.e. the F-Line);
-Creating a new station in Bay Village with an OL connection.
-Re-routing at least the E through the Tremont tunnel by building a new Back Bay tunnel along the Pike; and
-Doing an around the horn connection to the South Boston Transitway.

I know you are generally familiar with the proposal as you've written a lot about it in the past. However, in those discussion, among many great points that were brought up there was one main issue that was debated. It was:

What are the merits of connecting the South Boston Transitway to the green line? Can the Seaport area justify that type of service or is it a mis-allocation of transit resources?

You've written a lot on this topic. I'd love to know your thoughts.
 
davem said:
Allright, mapped out what's been discussed here.

Seaport via Tremont.

For routings I'm thinking:
(A) Watertown - Bay Village
(B) Boston College - Bay Village (via Grand Junction)
(C) Cleveland Circle - Lechmere (via Boylston)
(D) Riverside - Jeffries Point (via Boylston)
(E) Hyde Square - West Medford (via Huntington)
(F) Dudley Square - Lechmere
(G) Needham - Seaport (via Huntington)

This is assuming the Blue Line expressing along the Riverbank alignment to Kenmore, using the old tracks of the B in the station, and then a new tunnel under Comm Ave to the BU Bridge, then to Harvard using the old yard tunnels.

To tie it into Kenmore station without having to modify the station itself (besides lowering the center tracks, which it was constructed for), the mall between Kenmore Street and Charlesgate West would have to be torn up. The GL tunnel would be rerouted to connect to what are now the loop tracks (the loop could still be preserved), while the dive under would be reused for the BL. The only loss is storage on the loop, which could be mitigated by using the retired Copley Junction for that purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of B via Grand Junction because they lose their one-seat ride to Back Bay; and Blue doesn't let them off where most of them want to be. Riders are looking for immediate access to Newbury and Bolyston/Copley. Blue doesn't give them that without a walk. Not a miserable walk, but a walk nonetheless. And that's assuming that the Blue Line Riverbank subway has something like 3 stops instead of just two bracketing Back Bay (say, Hatch Shell/Esplanade; Dartmouth Landing; and Charlesgate).

Might seem like a whiny quibble, but it should be carefully considered, especially when one branch of ridership is losing their ride to one of the CBDs.
 
Yeah, radically reconfiguring the routing of Green Line routes will disrupt peoples lives too much. People move along mass transit for a better commute and changing that commute on them will cause an uproar. The idea is to fix the problems with what we have, not make new problems.

I much prefer sending the Blue Line across the Charles and then along the Grand Junc to Allston/Brighton and beyond. Look at the commuter patterns now and you'll see that most bus traffic from the west is going straight to Harvard or Central which then feeds into downtown. Using the GJ for the Green Line doesn't really get people to where they want to go. A Red Line branch would be too detrimental to service north of Harvard. A Blue Line extension could act as a bypass collector by scooping up bus riders that would normally change at Harvard or Central and get them to the Kendall Sq area or downtown without having to use the Red Line at all.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I'm skeptical of B via Grand Junction because they lose their one-seat ride to Back Bay; and Blue doesn't let them off where most of them want to be. Riders are looking for immediate access to Newbury and Bolyston/Copley. Blue doesn't give them that without a walk. Not a miserable walk, but a walk nonetheless. And that's assuming that the Blue Line Riverbank subway has something like 3 stops instead of just two bracketing Back Bay (say, Hatch Shell/Esplanade; Dartmouth Landing; and Charlesgate).

Might seem like a whiny quibble, but it should be carefully considered, especially when one branch of ridership is losing their ride to one of the CBDs.
Click to expand...

It'd be tough to feed B off GJ to begin with. If you're basing this assumption on the reservation from Blandford to BU Bridge being buried into a subway to facilitate track connections at different levels (i.e. the GJ portaling-out on the grassy hill next to the bridge with "BU Central Under" being the branch split station) then the track split for continuing B service off the GJ to a BU West portal is probably too sharp an angle to wye off the GJ, portal at the correct angle, and somehow change directions to merge onto the B incline.

It's circuit service, or GJ feeding a Harvard branch a la the BRT spur plan in the Urban Ring studies (or alternating GJ and Central Subway service to Harvard on alternating slots, 1-of-3 vs. 2-of-3, whatever). Engineering-wise it's an unfavorable angle for going anywhere-to-anywhere. And I'm not sure you really need to when "BU Central Under" is a cross-platform transfer as easy as Kenmore. You wouldn't be able to hit that station anyway if you just jumped Cambridgeport-BU West, a much less favorable stop pairing for ridership draws and transfers vs. BU West-BU Central "Under", Cambridgeport-BU Central "Under" tied into one node.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Yeah, radically reconfiguring the routing of Green Line routes will disrupt peoples lives too much. People move along mass transit for a better commute and changing that commute on them will cause an uproar. The idea is to fix the problems with what we have, not make new problems.

I much prefer sending the Blue Line across the Charles and then along the Grand Junc to Allston/Brighton and beyond. Look at the commuter patterns now and you'll see that most bus traffic from the west is going straight to Harvard or Central which then feeds into downtown. Using the GJ for the Green Line doesn't really get people to where they want to go. A Red Line branch would be too detrimental to service north of Harvard. A Blue Line extension could act as a bypass collector by scooping up bus riders that would normally change at Harvard or Central and get them to the Kendall Sq area or downtown without having to use the Red Line at all.
Click to expand...

Can't. Red Line tunnel crossing underneath Main St. and the air rights building there makes grade separation of that one crossing physically impossible. Light rail with a stop adjacent to the crossing and traffic signal tie-in does work absolutely fine, and you can eliminate every other crossing with the steep grades allowable on the LRT mode. But that's the one blocker that has no give. Proximity to the Charles Basin and associated water table issues also makes going ultra-deep to slip below the Red tunnel an engineering no-go.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It's circuit service, or GJ feeding a Harvard branch a la the BRT spur plan in the Urban Ring studies (or alternating GJ and Central Subway service to Harvard on alternating slots, 1-of-3 vs. 2-of-3, whatever). Engineering-wise it's an unfavorable angle for going anywhere-to-anywhere. And I'm not sure you really need to when "BU Central Under" is a cross-platform transfer as easy as Kenmore. You wouldn't be able to hit that station anyway if you just jumped Cambridgeport-BU West, a much less favorable stop pairing for ridership draws and transfers vs. BU West-BU Central "Under", Cambridgeport-BU Central "Under" tied into one node.
Click to expand...

I never really got the purpose of feeding a Harvard Branch via GJ. If you're getting on a ring GL train at North Station and you want to get to Harvard, wouldn't you just get off at a Kendall transfer (yeah, yeah, it's not behind fare gates... ) and go two stops on Red rather than staying on Green for 6-8 mores stops?

The Harvard Branch always made more sense to me as being fed out of the central subway, or as part of the urban ring boomerang B-inbound to D-outbound to E-inbound concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top