A potential Red Line-Blue Line connector is back in the spotlight - The Boston Globe
As MGH prepares a massive expansion of its nearby campus, the Red-Blue connector is getting another turn in the spotlight.www.bostonglobe.com
Bit of a scoop here for Adam...
BERY never proposed an underground station for the Red Line at Charles Street. The Red Line station at Charles Street was proposed to be elevated, just as it is today. When the Longfellow Bridge over the Charles River was constructed, it included a ramp at its east end for the Red Line to be elevated over Charles Street. To be totally accurate, the Longfellow Bridge ramp was built originally to accommodate an elevated rail line that would have continued along and above Cambridge Street and then into the old Pleasant Street portal into the East Boston (Blue Line) tunnel, but that plan was scrubbed in favor of the Red Line tunnel route under Beacon Hill to Park Street.
No problem, and I apologize if I came across too harsh on that. The whole corridor has an interesting history. Originally the Longfellow Bridge was to carry an extension of (what is now) the Blue Line all the way to Harvard Square via an elevated route on Main St and Mass Ave in Cambridge (although on a map I've seen, some of the elevated route would have followed side streets in some places between Central and Harvard Square). But some parties in Cambridge objected to an elevated structure in Cambridge, and wanted a tunnel instead. About the same time, somehow the decision was made to route the new transit line into a tunnel under Beacon Hill to Park Street instead of being elevated along Cambridge Street to the Joy Street portal. I think they made the right choice, but it is an interesting "alternative history" scenario if the decision had gone the other way.
That design has a couple of problems. The biggest one is that it would establish a 3-phase traffic signal (plus an additional phase for at-grade pedestrian crossings) on Storrow Drive itself, creating major traffic problems and pedestrian conflicts there. Also both directions of Storrow Drive would go through only one portal under the Longfellow Bridge, reducing the vertical clearance quite a bit along the outside lanes of Storrow. It would be a very shallow passageway for those lanes. You could mitigate that by lowering Storrow in a boat section through that passageway under the Longfellow but I don't see that in the renders.
That design has a couple of problems. The biggest one is that it would establish a 3-phase traffic signal (plus an additional phase for at-grade pedestrian crossings) on Storrow Drive itself, creating major traffic problems and pedestrian conflicts there. Also both directions of Storrow Drive would go through only one portal under the Longfellow Bridge, reducing the vertical clearance quite a bit along the outside lanes of Storrow. It would be a very shallow passageway for those lanes. You could mitigate that by lowering Storrow in a boat section through that passageway under the Longfellow but I don't see that in the renders.
I like my proposal because it preserves grade separation of Sorrow Drive through the area, manages vehicular and pedestrian traffic better, and has better vertical clearance on Storrow under Longfellow Bridge.
Thanks for the great feedback. I've revised my idea and posted it in the Crazy Highway Pitches at http://archboston.com/community/threads/crazy-highway-pitches.5916/post-401409 .
