MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

[Equilibria]

Red to Alewife is a subway, even though not a C&C.

My biggest concerns about the lack of provision for BLX beyond Charles isn't its lack of priority, but the fact that the design may preclude any such extension from ever being built (due to the blocking elevators and stairs). It's one thing to not expect it to be considered in the next 50 years; it's another to completely shut the door when we do want to build it in 50 years, 100 years, however long it might take.

Based on the drawings I've seen, this isn't the case. The station would look very much like Alewife, with the stairs and elevators at the end of a center platform. I'm not sure if they're still looking at tailing tracks or not, but I haven't seen any suggestion for access at the end of the tracks like they built at Union Square.

EDIT: I see that the "Alternative 1" graphic does block it. Let's hope that's not the alternative they go with.

 

[Riverside]

My biggest concerns about the lack of provision for BLX beyond Charles isn't its lack of priority, but the fact that the design may preclude any such extension from ever being built (due to the blocking elevators and stairs). It's one thing to not expect it to be considered in the next 50 years; it's another to completely shut the door when we do want to build it in 50 years, 100 years, however long it might take.

I did some quick looking earlier and couldn't find the latest slides that have been presented, so do we know for sure what the design looks like at this point?

Also, worth remembering that this is still a modestly early stage design discussion. From what I understand, this stage is basically looking at, "Hey, could this even potentially be done?" As in, this is the stage where total infeasibility stops the project dead. And what we're hearing is that they looked at this and said, "Yeah this could actually be possible, let's give this a much closer look."

All of which means, there's still time for the design to evolve and potentially adjust in scope to better futureproof.

All that being said: this may be a hot take, but I am willing to sacrifice future extensions if it actually means this thing gets built. The difference in importance behind a Phase 1 extension to Charles/MGH and a Phase 2 extension anywhere else is so large that I think it makes this situation exceptional.

 

[sneijder]

I'm not sure I agree. I'd envision this in a future of 'boulevardized' Storrow, and a surface rapid transit line would be just as much of a barrier, if not more, to connecting back bay neighborhoods to the Charles and esplanade as 4 lanes of highwayesque traffic.

Do you really think that? Storrow right now is 6 lanes of cars that produce constant engine & tire noise + pollution and air particles from tires and brakes, which is much different than a 2-track, electric heavy rail system with trains running by every 5 mins. Plus what I envision is the rail ROW is buried like 6-10 feet below grade, so you'd only have to walk up one flight of stairs to cross, instead of the useless web of spiral & switchback ramps right now.

 

[Teban54]

Based on the drawings I've seen, this isn't the case. The station would look very much like Alewife, with the stairs and elevators at the end of a center platform. I'm not sure if they're still looking at tailing tracks or not, but I haven't seen any suggestion for access at the end of the tracks like they built at Union Square.

EDIT: I see that the "Alternative 1" graphic does block it. Let's hope that's not the alternative they go with.

The "Alternative 1" is the recommended alternative in the 2021 concept design, which also mentions removing the diverging tail tracks and having all tracks end at the platform. The 2010 study showed diverging tracks.

The figures below are all taken directly from the 2021 conceptual design. In the "Station Alternatives" section (6.1), the 2010 alternative shows tail tracks, but Alternative 1 does not:

However, in the next section, "Tunneling Alternatives" (6.2), both the 2010 alternative and all newer alternatives show tail tracks. The C&C alternative, which ends up being the recommended alternative, explicitly notes that tail tracks with be constructed using C&C.

Strange enough, Figure 9-3 shows both "potential" tail tracks and blocking elevators and stairs. While the elevators to the north look like they barely manage to avoid the tail track, the stairs and other rooms to the south seem to be interfering with the tail track:

Regarding storage tracks specifically, the conclusion seems to be that the exact location of storage tracks (west of Charles, east of Charles, or Bowdoin) requires further analysis in the next phase, but the phrasing seems to prefer storage tracks to the east. The cost estimates currently use the diverging tail tracks.

Someone in the Reddit thread mentioned they were at the Monday meeting and the slides showed alternatives with tail tracks. It's not clear if they were showing the 2010 alternative or the C&C diagram above.

I can't attend the Thursday meeting, so it would be good if someone who plans to attend can ask them to clarify this.

 

[stick n move]

If they do end up blocking the end of the tracks with elevators in the grand scheme of things it probably wouldnt be too hard to retrofit in the future. Its just a couple floor tall shaft and equipment that they could demolish and then relocate into a better position.

 

[ritchiew]

Not to distract from the BLX discussion, but is it realistic to request this station be built with platform screen doors? What signaling enhancements does the blue line need to make this happen? Can these enhancements be made on the new track before they are rolled out to the entire line?

I was recently reading about some transit agency at least futureproofing new stations for platform screen doors. (Sorry, I can't remember which other transit agency.) The futureproofing needed was relatively minor: making sure the platforms are wide enough to accommodate the doors; reinforcement under the edge of the platform to support the added weight; power accessible from the right spots. Really trivial stuff. I think with modern station standard, you would do almost all of that incidentally anyways, but it's worth doing it right, anyways.

 

[sneijder]

If they do end up blocking the end of the tracks with elevators in the grand scheme of things it probably wouldnt be too hard to retrofit in the future. Its just a couple floor tall shaft and equipment that they could demolish and then relocate into a better position.

I also like having tail tracks so that trains can enter the MGH station at speed instead of slowing to 10mph for the entire last 500 feet. Travel times & ease of transfer to the Red are key elements of ridership!

 

[Stlin]

Do you really think that? Storrow right now is 6 lanes of cars that produce constant engine & tire noise + pollution and air particles from tires and brakes, which is much different than a 2-track, electric heavy rail system with trains running by every 5 mins. Plus what I envision is the rail ROW is buried like 6-10 feet below grade, so you'd only have to walk up one flight of stairs to cross, instead of the useless web of spiral & switchback ramps right now.

Err yes? I think the conflict point is that the post I was replying to implied fully at grade and not in a trench, given a view of the river and Cambridge, nor did I say anything about pollution and noise - it was purely a statement about barriers to riverfront access.

My view is that the only scenario in which we see Blue-under/along-Storrow involves a mega project where Storrow-the-quasi-highway is being traded in for Storrow-the-surface-road. Even if you did absolutely nothing to reduce lane capacity, but built it as a surface road with junctions and lights, that is much more permeable to pedestrians than a rapid rail line running at grade. Cars can stop, trains can't - Surface rapid transit lines are sealed RoWs for a reason. At grade pedestrian crossings of a rapid transit line are a recipe for disaster, and you would absolutely have to go up and over in similar fashion to today. That said, I'd fully agree that if you built BLX-Kenmore in a trench, or otherwise such that there is a "roof" to both allow pedestrians to cross at or near street level and keep people and things from dropping onto the tracks, would be an significant improvement to access compared to today.

Pollution I'm not going to dispute, but I'd note that rail dust is also a thing. As for noise... my personal opinion is that highway noise can be much more innocuous than rail noise. Tires, engines, whooshing air are constant enough that you can tune it out - people even listen to it as white noise. Trains on the other hand... every 2.5 minutes there'd be a loud, screechy, and clattery thing that interrupts. Walk along the Longfellow Bridge - you can easily hold an uninterrupted conversation while automotive traffic passes you. Doing the same while a red line train is passing is much harder.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Err yes? I think the conflict point is that the post I was replying to implied fully at grade and not in a trench, given a view of the river and Cambridge, nor did I say anything about pollution and noise - it was purely a statement about barriers to riverfront access.

My view is that the only scenario in which we see Blue-under/along-Storrow involves a mega project where Storrow-the-quasi-highway is being traded in for Storrow-the-surface-road. Even if you did absolutely nothing to reduce lane capacity, but built it as a surface road with junctions and lights, that is much more permeable to pedestrians than a rapid rail line running at grade. Cars can stop, trains can't - Surface rapid transit lines are sealed RoWs for a reason. At grade pedestrian crossings of a rapid transit line are a recipe for disaster, and you would absolutely have to go up and over in similar fashion to today. That said, I'd fully agree that if you built BLX-Kenmore in a trench, or otherwise such that there is a "roof" to both allow pedestrians to cross at or near street level and keep people and things from dropping onto the tracks, would be an significant improvement to access compared to today.

Pollution I'm not going to dispute, but I'd note that rail dust is also a thing. As for noise... my personal opinion is that highway noise can be much more innocuous than rail noise. Tires, engines, whooshing air are constant enough that you can tune it out - people even listen to it as white noise. Trains on the other hand... every 2.5 minutes there'd be a loud, screechy, and clattery thing that interrupts. Walk along the Longfellow Bridge - you can easily hold an uninterrupted conversation while automotive traffic passes you. Doing the same while a red line train is passing is much harder.

It's heavy rail, and the third-rail segment of Blue to boot...so obviously there could never be any grade crossings and any access would be mandatorily up-and-over. That simplifies the "permeability" argument; there is no permeability without covering portions of the cut.


The way I see it, if you're already going to the trouble to dig a trench it's a trivial amount of money to just cap the cut with a roof. Be done up-front with the questions about at-grade access, noise, abutters fetching their smelling salts, and landscaping what-if's in one fell swoop. They could've built the Red Line from Davis to Alewife 40 years ago in a SW Corridor-like trench with only partial cover-overs at the streets since the Community Path wasn't an original part of the RL's mid-70's design. But they didn't pooh-pooh around it at all; they just capped the whole of the cut rather than dealing with partial kludges. That's what you'd be looking at here for sure. Honestly, it's better to not even chew costs in design debating alternatives...just do it.

 

[king_vibe]

0% chance of any of this actually being built. It will be studied and revised and studied by every outside consultant until they all get their fill, but nobody is going to build this. What politician is going to pay $1,000,000,000 so some poor people can get to the airport 40 minutes slower than driving?

 

[stefal]

(ignore above)

 

[ant8904]

@king_vibe - At the risk that responding to you will get this thread locked, just shitting on stuff and then double down with an even lower effort post does not contribute to the conversation.

And to be clear, hopefully including the mods, I'm genuinely trying to explain with good faith in my words. There's a genuinely a difference between your "0% chance of any of this actually" and even links to articles like "Are we being 'yessed' to death?". Both hold a core theme of skepticism if this will ever happens, but thought and intent matters.

Nobody here can guarantee Red-Blue will actually happens till it happens. It is not unreasonable to view that we'll see the state try to wiggle out of Red-Blue somehow. Personally, if we do see Red-Blue happen, I personally wonder if this may well be the last extension we'll witness before we generally become too old to care (or worse). But if your view was the prevailing attitude, GLX would not exist today.

----

Side thought: I kinda want Bowdoin to stay in because it somehow bothers me that we if don't, then the BL extended but yet the same number of stations remain. I don't know why that bothers me.

 

[jklo]

Isn't MIT the one pushing this the hardest recently?

 

[stefal]

Isn't MIT the one pushing this the hardest recently?

MGH has definitely rekindled some discussion, I haven't seen much about MIT however.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Having worked in the government most of my life, as an engineer and managing transportation grants, I'm thinking that Red-Blue will happen when the next big Federal infrastructure bill happens, whenever that may be some years from now (also if MassDOT and the Mass politicians line up their efforts to secure such funding at that time). Before then, I don't see the funding being available for this, or any other major rail transit extension.

 

[WarpedReality]

It's heavy rail, and the third-rail segment of Blue to boot...so obviously there could never be any grade crossings and any access would be mandatorily up-and-over. That simplifies the "permeability" argument; there is no permeability without covering portions of the cut.


The way I see it, if you're already going to the trouble to dig a trench it's a trivial amount of money to just cap the cut with a roof. Be done up-front with the questions about at-grade access, noise, abutters fetching their smelling salts, and landscaping what-if's in one fell swoop. They could've built the Red Line from Davis to Alewife 40 years ago in a SW Corridor-like trench with only partial cover-overs at the streets since the Community Path wasn't an original part of the RL's mid-70's design. But they didn't pooh-pooh around it at all; they just capped the whole of the cut rather than dealing with partial kludges. That's what you'd be looking at here for sure. Honestly, it's better to not even chew costs in design debating alternatives...just do it.

Is there an engineering reason why the blue line couldn't use its pantographs on a hypothetical at-grade ROW beside the Esplanade? Doesn't Chicago operate grade crossings with heavy rail rapid transit?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is there an engineering reason why the blue line couldn't use its pantographs on a hypothetical at-grade ROW beside the Esplanade? Doesn't Chicago operate grade crossings with heavy rail rapid transit?

They can use pantographs; Blue of course already does that. But HRT vehicles by their very nature aren't safe in a grade crossing. The carbodies are higher up with more guts exposed underneath, so there isn't the "cow catcher" effect of an LRV's low-hanging body being able to push an obstruction away. In a doomsday scenario, people or vehicles hit in the crossing get pinned or crushed underneath an HRT train rather than deflected outward...with much lower chances of survival. It's one of the reasons why suicide-by-train jumpers choose Red/Orange/Blue to do the deed instead of Green.

Chicago's HRT grade crossings are all grandfathered. And they've been trying for decades to eliminate them, but can't get past community input. The FTA definitely doesn't allow them for new-construction HRT anymore.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I remember that when the OL Reading extension was officially proposed in the 1960s, the idea was for the OL heavy rail cars to be equipped with pantographs to avoid building grade crossings on the stretch to Reading. As F-Line says, that wouldn't be allowed today.

 

[michaelw37]

Is there an engineering reason why the blue line couldn't use its pantographs on a hypothetical at-grade ROW beside the Esplanade? Doesn't Chicago operate grade crossings with heavy rail rapid transit?

To be clear, I absolutely was not proposing there would be any grade crossings on a surface-level Blue Line. I was envisioning up-and-over ped crossings like Storrow has right now (ideally, much wider and with ADA compliant ramps).

However, for all the park access reasons described by other commenters (especially F-Line's note that you could expand the park by landscaping up to a Back St retaining wall), I now think the cut-and-cap approach makes more sense. Especially if it was going to be in a shallow cut anyway, the views from the train that sounded so appealing wouldn't be happening.

That said, I don't think reducing NIMBY complaints is a real argument against what I proposed. The NIMBYs will sue no matter what. You could hand them a billion dollars, and they'd still sue to stop the project. The only way BLX or any T expansion gets built at all is if the laws are changed to reduce the ability of NIMBYs to slow projects down.

 

[bakgwailo]

MGH has definitely rekindled some discussion, I haven't seen much about MIT however.

Isn't MGH essentially telling the T to hurry up or not - that they would love the station, but are going to go forward with construction so get your design ready or we won't provision ours for yours.