MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

F-Line to Dudley said:
The 411-space parking lots at Orient Heights are excessive-capacity for such an urban station, but the T has held onto them instead of turning them over for redevelopment strictly because that's where the storage expansion would go if needed. You'll see additional yard tracks get plunked down there, and probably a generous halving (or more) of the parking capacity.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly from Focus40, isn't Orient Heights considered a pretty vulnerable facility to sea level rise and storm surge?

Frankly, I'd love to see a Lynn or beyond extension relocate it's functions further inland somewhere, both for redundancy and so that you can then restore the Orient Heights yard to Belle Isle Marsh lands. (or substantial portions of it). Either the vacant lot across from Riverworks, or even more ideally the old ERR yard up in Salem.
 
Last edited:
The Blue Line is the one line that avoids affluent suburban voters, so the Baker administration was always going to sandbag it. Hopefully, that will change with the incoming administration.
 
Equilibria said:
It isn't extensive. It's a staircase with doors that takes up less street level space than a Starbucks. This station project is actually pretty light on surface elements.
Click to expand...
Yes, and on the Red end (and assuming a tunnel) the headhouse is needed for escalators to street level and thence up the current escalators to the elevated station.
 
Equilibria said:
It isn't extensive. It's a staircase with doors that takes up less street level space than a Starbucks. This station project is actually pretty light on surface elements.
Click to expand...
Well, slightly more than that, but not a huge space.

Space for redundant elevators (ADA compatibility), escalators and stairs, down to a lower level concourse (that runs out under Charles street) with fare vending machines.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Well, slightly more than that, but not a huge space.

Space for redundant elevators (ADA compatibility), escalators and stairs, down to a lower level concourse (that runs out under Charles street) with fare vending machines.
Click to expand...

Not to mention sustaining favorable proximity to the old Bowdoin station location that is closing (to minimize disruption for the folks who used that station), and,
something entirely non-end-state-performance-affecting: coupling this work with MGH's construction so the two organizations can bug each other about getting stuff done on time (a point of my original rebuttal to tallguy).

Back to passenger experience/system performance:
You have two things to balance regarding passenger convenience: the fact that the red line connection is going to be all the way down at one far end of this platform span, with the fact that you're closing Bowdoin and the far other end (past it actually). It makes no sense NOT to have additional station access point at the mid- or end- span of the station toward Bowdoin, and it's not like you can delete the requisite access at the Charles river end. And MGH occupies literally the entire stretch of Cambridge St. in between. So MGH's cooperation, and ideally collaboration, is a key part of this.
 
Stlin said:
If I recall correctly from Focus40, isn't Orient Heights considered a pretty vulnerable facility to sea level rise and storm surge?
Click to expand...
BLT is doing a full climate resiliency workup of the Blue Line. Orient Heights Yard will be inclusive of that. They should be issuing some sort of report on project recommendations in 2023.
Frankly, I'd love to see a Lynn or beyond extension relocate it's functions further inland somewhere, both for redundancy and so that you can then restore the Orient Heights yard to Belle Isle Marsh lands. (or substantial portions of it). Either the vacant lot across from Riverworks, or even more ideally the old ERR yard up in Salem.
Click to expand...
All 3 HRT lines in Boston site their primary repair facilities and overnight layovers somewhere in the middle, so OH is likely to remain the headquarters even if the line is maximally extended in either direction. The longer line simply means they need a little bit more substantial end-of-line storage for shift changes. Lynn could probably make do with tail tracks like Wonderland, but Salem would probably require something more on the order of the Forest Hills or Braintree yards.
 
commonwealthmagazine.org

Are we being 'yessed to death' on Red-Blue connector?

MY MOTHER was a very exacting person, and I can remember times when she asked me to do something that I really didn’t want to do (most likely attend a
commonwealthmagazine.org commonwealthmagazine.org

^I think there's room for both optimism and caution. And I think Aloisi is right that this project is an important bellwether regarding the current administration and new T executive leadership's effectiveness.
 
bigpicture7 said:
commonwealthmagazine.org

Are we being 'yessed to death' on Red-Blue connector?

MY MOTHER was a very exacting person, and I can remember times when she asked me to do something that I really didn’t want to do (most likely attend a
commonwealthmagazine.org commonwealthmagazine.org

^I think there's room for both optimism and caution. And I think Aloisi is right that this project is an important bellwether regarding the current administration and new T executive leadership's effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I hope this project just doesn't sit moribund forever, like the ever elusive BLX to Lynn.
What is it about Massachusetts that makes it damn near impossible to construct popular and reasonable transit projects?
 
Charlie_mta said:
That's a good excuse. But then why is it that cities like Seattle and LA are building light rail lines like crazy? These are major projects, similar to heavy rail lines in scope. If they can do it, I don't see why the MBTA can't.
Click to expand...
I would note that those systems are really quite new - Seattle's Link system only opened in 2003, while LA Metros Blue and Red lines (now the A and B), the first two lines, opened in 1990 and 1993.

Those agencies with newer systems, simply have much less deferred maintenance and other upkeep needs in their systems. In a fiscally constrained world, their capital dollars aren't being fought over nearly as hard, because their systems don't desperately need things like reconstructing a century old station for ADA compliance, 60 year old electrical systems and decades of deferred maintenance. It's In so far as I'm aware, the LA Metro, Sound Transit, Portland streetcars etc don't have any significant amount of deferred maintenance- their CIP therefore only program upkeep, and they therefore have the dollars for expansion. We in Boston and the MBTA, the NYC MTA, have lots of deferred maintenance - and therefore our capital dollars need to be spent in the billions to recapitalize the existing aging system. The T is spending money - just not on sexy things like new lines, but unsexy but deeply necessary things like new bridges, power systems and signalling. Granted, it doesn't hurt that the LA metro has extra money in the form of local returns, which is something the T can get implemented. Hopefully, once we're done with deferred maintenance and in a SOGR, we can talk more about system expansion, but it's hard to do if you can't maintain speeds in your existing tunnels due to aging track, and your garages literally can't fit the newest buses.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
I would note that those systems are really quite new - Seattle's Link system only opened in 2003, while LA Metros Blue and Red lines (now the A and B), the first two lines, opened in 1990 and 1993.

Those agencies with newer systems, simply have much less deferred maintenance and other upkeep needs in their systems. In a fiscally constrained world, their capital dollars aren't being fought over nearly as hard, because their systems don't desperately need things like reconstructing a century old station for ADA compliance, 60 year old electrical systems and decades of deferred maintenance. It's In so far as I'm aware, the LA Metro, Sound Transit, Portland streetcars etc don't have any significant amount of deferred maintenance- their CIP therefore only program upkeep, and they therefore have the dollars for expansion. We in Boston and the MBTA, the NYC MTA, have lots of deferred maintenance - and therefore our capital dollars need to be spent in the billions to recapitalize the existing aging system. The T is spending money - just not on sexy things like new lines, but unsexy but deeply necessary things like new bridges, power systems and signalling. Granted, it doesn't hurt that the LA metro has extra money in the form of local returns, which is something the T can get implemented. Hopefully, once we're done with deferred maintenance and in a SOGR, we can talk more about system expansion, but it's hard to do if you can't maintain speeds in your existing tunnels due to aging track, and your garages literally can't fit the newest buses.
Click to expand...

Great points; I agree with pretty much all of them. But I think, in this particular case of Red/Blue Connector, there's a valid argument as to whether this actually is system expansion, or, rather the activation of an important missing piece that should have been there all along.

Further: there is a limited window of opportunity to couple this with the MGH project, which is designed to be integral to the new BL station construction. This creates an instance where timeliness does actually save cost.

My two points do not negate any of your excellent points about the T's high expenses, but they do perhaps suggest that this is an instance where cost shouldn't be the primary excuse.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Great points; I agree with pretty much all of them. But I think, in this particular case of Red/Blue Connector, there's a valid argument as to whether this actually is system expansion, or, rather the activation of an important missing piece that should have been there all along.
Click to expand...

Which is why Red-Blue might actually happen eventually.
 
Charlie_mta said:
That's a good excuse. But then why is it that cities like Seattle and LA are building light rail lines like crazy? These are major projects, similar to heavy rail lines in scope. If they can do it, I don't see why the MBTA can't.
Click to expand...
Exactly! LA just opened their version of the Red-Blue connector, which included 3 new underground stations and a complex series of junctions because it involved merging 3 lines in to two. And yet, we sit here spinning our wheels for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top