MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

JeffDowntown said:
Could it be they are anticipating a ridership increase due to the better connectivity of the line, and hence want to be able to support more trains per hour? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Blue Line Transformation (BLT) is doing the planning work for supporting frequency increases. See here. That program does all the signaling work for it, and also anticipates a need to start advance planning for fleet procurement--either a replacement fleet or a midlife overhaul--by 2027 with major fleet expansion (so, most likely a new fleet). Those things are already accounted for in a separate/pre-existing project umbrella, so it's highly curious that anything vehicle-related would be lumped under Red-Blue when there's already a bucket for that.
 
Last edited:
jarvismj said:
Somehow I don't think that would fly (no pun intended) with the Beacon Hill crowd. Plus given the size of the columns on the GLX, the footprint would be huge. In a perfect world, I would like to see viaduct used like the Marta north line has utilised in Atlanta around Perimeter / Dunwoody.
Click to expand...
A single pole viaduct would have a minimal footprint and be 1000 ft long.
 
And cost a third the price(as well as an easier transfer)
 
And the abutters are mostly 5+ story office buildings and hotels, much of it MGH. One thinks that they could be brought around to idea
 
Aren’t tunnel’s tail tracks important (1) to park out of service trains and (2) to allow future extension down the Esplanade ?
Also meeting on a viaduct makes the Eastie-bound connection harder. Also at this point aren’t we at 30% design on the tunnel?

I think the question should be how do we make the BL tunnel affordable, not whether it is a tunnel
 
Arlington said:
Aren’t tunnel’s tail tracks important (1) to park out of service trains and (2) to allow future extension down the Esplanade ?
Also meeting on a viaduct makes the Eastie-bound connection harder. Also at this point aren’t we at 30% design on the tunnel?

I think the question should be how do we make the BL tunnel affordable, not whether it is a tunnel
Click to expand...

...and an agreement with MGH to put a station entrance through their new building and connect underground coincident with basement/foundation work.
 
mass88 said:
The optics of that price tag are not good. Given the increases in labor and materials over the last 30 months, what will the price be now? The MBTA does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to completing projects on time and on budget.

People who are against funding for mass transit can easily point to a project like this, where we're talking about a half mile costs almost a billion dollars, can get a lost of traction due to the sheer cost for what is a relatively small project. I am in favor of it and love mass transit expansion. But at this high of a price, we should not be surprised if it receives a lot of backlash.
Click to expand...
optics-wise, it might almost be better to spend 2 billion and extend the blue to kenmore. Somehow, even tho it would be more money, it would be a way better cost per mile.
 
FK4 said:
optics-wise, it might almost be better to spend 2 billion and extend the blue to kenmore. Somehow, even tho it would be more money, it would be a way better cost per mile.
Click to expand...
Given that, so far as I'm aware no official planning studies, EIRs, etc exist for anything Blue-past-MGH, I'd personally be unwilling to hitch Red-Blue to something that would, in of itself, require a major multi-year planning effort. Basically, I'd say get Red-Blue built while you consider further extensions westward, especially in the current climate of relatively free flowing federal dollars. Red-Blue is probably the highest leverage near-shovel-ready project in the MBTA heavy rail portfolio. ln this case, incrementalism isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially now that they've rationalized to cut and cover. (If they were still insisting on needing a TBM, then yes I'd say make that sucker go further.)

(Though personally and from an ESJ perspective, I'd say for future extensions a Lynn extension probably rates higher than Blue to Kenmore).
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Given that, so far as I'm aware no official planning studies, EIRs, etc exist for anything Blue-past-MGH, I'd personally be unwilling to hitch Red-Blue to something that would, in of itself, require a major multi-year planning effort. Basically, I'd say get Red-Blue built while you consider further extensions westward, especially in the current climate of relatively free flowing federal dollars. Red-Blue is probably the highest leverage near-shovel-ready project in the MBTA heavy rail portfolio. ln this case, incrementalism isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially now that they've rationalized to cut and cover. (If they were still insisting on needing a TBM, then yes I'd say make that sucker go further.)

(Though personally and from an ESJ perspective, I'd say for future extensions a Lynn extension probably rates higher than Blue to Kenmore).
Click to expand...
I'd rather see that extra $ billion spent on BLX to Lynn. Kendall is already served by the Red Line.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I'd rather see that extra $ billion spent on BLX to Lynn. Kendall is already served by the Red Line.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Much, much better overall, but it would be two different projects in that case.
 
bigpicture7 said:
...and an agreement with MGH to put a station entrance through their new building and connect underground coincident with basement/foundation work.
Click to expand...
These are all bs reasons to spend $500 Million.
 
FK4 said:
Oh yeah. Much, much better overall, but it would be two different projects in that case.
Click to expand...
Because transportation funds are unlimited and spending on one has no impact on the ability to afford the other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
Tallguy said:
These are all bs reasons to spend $500 Million.
Click to expand...

While I seem to always or almost always share your values, I typically disagree with you about how to actually get things done quickly (or at all). Here too I disagree. This becoming an "MBTA and MGH partnership" means one of the city's most powerful non-gov institutions now co-owns the project to a certain extent. It gains much more momentum that way.

BTW, values-based activism that has no chance of succeeding is failed activism. Humans are flawed, hey need unconventional pushes to get things done. That will always be reality.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I'd rather see that extra $ billion spent on BLX to Lynn. Kendall is already served by the Red Line.
Click to expand...

I get most frustrated when I see news about $1bn towards South Coast Rail or rail to Springfield, etc. Yes, it would be great to have rail service out there but the amount of riders it would serve would barely be 1% of daily riders served by BLX (heck, or even electrified regional rail out to Riverside). Plus, the travel times from these fringe diesel services is basically never faster than driving (other than maybe PM Peak rush) and will never command any large % of modal share.. you could largely provide the same service with an hourly bus that gets to run on dedicated shoulders/HOV lanes. Meanwhile, both BLX to Lynn and BLX to MGH will have tens of thousands of riders from day one and will create fast transit trips that are immediately competitive with driving.

Realistically, projects that benefit the most riders or projects that will reduce car congestion the most are often not the most politically popular.
 
sneijder said:
I get most frustrated when I see news about $1bn towards South Coast Rail or rail to Springfield, etc. Yes, it would be great to have rail service out there but the amount of riders it would serve would barely be 1% of daily riders served by BLX (heck, or even electrified regional rail out to Riverside). Plus, the travel times from these fringe diesel services is basically never faster than driving (other than maybe PM Peak rush) and will never command any large % of modal share.. you could largely provide the same service with an hourly bus that gets to run on dedicated shoulders/HOV lanes. Meanwhile, both BLX to Lynn and BLX to MGH will have tens of thousands of riders from day one and will create fast transit trips that are immediately competitive with driving.

Realistically, projects that benefit the most riders or projects that will reduce car congestion the most are often not the most politically popular.
Click to expand...
To me, the two top priorities for the next transit extension projects are: first, the Red-Blue connector, and second, BLX to Lynn. BLX to Lynn gets very high marks for social justice, funding feasibility (because it is virtually all surface route), and ridership potential.
 
Charlie_mta said:
To me, the two top priorities for the next transit extension projects are: first, the Red-Blue connector, and second, BLX to Lynn. BLX to Lynn gets very high marks for social justice, funding feasibility (because it is virtually all surface route), and ridership potential.
Click to expand...

I'd argue with the Orange Line getting into at least Rozzie if not further as pretty up there in impact for expansions, along with Fairmont electrification. But, yes, BLX to Lynn is also almost certainly one of the higher no-brainer expansions out there.
 
bakgwailo said:
I'd argue with the Orange Line getting into at least Rozzie if not further as pretty up there in impact for expansions, along with Fairmont electrification. But, yes, BLX to Lynn is also almost certainly one of the higher no-brainer expansions out there.
Click to expand...
I like BLX to Lynn better because it would serve a large low income community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top