MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

F-Line to Dudley said:
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.
Click to expand...

So will Bowden Station still be used for this purpose, and will it be renamed Gov't Center? And does it mean that the Blue Line would be extened close enough for passengers to be able to be on a short walk to the Blue Line, instead of walking up the street to Bowden Station? While they're at it, they need to fix or replace that escalator & get it back running again!! :unsure:
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Do you have a cite for your assertion? A discussion with an admittedly junior official within the last three years says otherwise.
 
bakgwailo said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, their construction provisions for the station entrance and it has already begun.
 
I'd say MGH wants to make sure that when (if) they do Red-Blue that it doesn't mess anything up.
 
Riverside said:
With the exception of the Piers Transitway, the Blue-Red Connector will be the first subway built in Boston since the South Cove tunnel was built in the ‘60s. Prior to that, IIRC, the last subway was the Huntington Subway in the ‘40s. EDIT: @Teban54 rightfully points out that the Red Line extension to Alewife was both in living memory and not a cut-and-cover. I think I overlooked it originally because I was literally thinking about construction within Boston city limits. That being said, I think my point below still stands.
Click to expand...
Also the 1970s Haymarket North tube under the Charles, and the tunnel north of Maverick to Airport built during the Revere Extension in 1954.
 
Riverside said:
Yeah, sorry folks, I don’t know what I was thinking there. Obviously you are all correct, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to correct me. I’ll edit the post later today!
Click to expand...
The NEC realignment of the Orange Line, started in the late 60's, completed in the late 80's, involved new tunneling from the Main Line tunnel south of Chinatown to the NEC trench.

The Red Line extension from Harvard to Alewife involved extensive tunneling in Cambridge and Somerville. IIRC some of the tunneling was by TMB.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The NEC realignment of the Orange Line, started in the late 60's, completed in the late 80's, involved new tunneling from the Main Line tunnel south of Chinatown to the NEC trench.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I referenced this in my original post, though I take your point that tunneling work was done more recently than the ‘60s:
Riverside said:
With the exception of the Piers Transitway, the Blue-Red Connector will be the first subway built in Boston since the South Cove tunnel was built in the ‘60s.
Click to expand...
JeffDowntown said:
The Red Line extension from Harvard to Alewife involved extensive tunneling in Cambridge and Somerville. IIRC some of the tunneling was by TMB.
Click to expand...
Yeah, already mentioned above.
 
michaelw37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is hyperbole. It’s not true that “the only way … any T expansion gets built at all is if the laws are changed.”

Exhibit A: GLX
Exhibit B: Central Subway in San Francisco
Exhibit C: K Line in LA
Exhibit D: Tempe Streetcar
Exhibit E: Regional Connector in LA
Exhibit F: Skyline in Honolulu

I would agree with you if you said something like:

“NIMBYs often raise concerns, no matter what. You could offer them significant benefits, and some would still be hesitant about the project. One way for the BLX or any T expansion to move forward might be to adjust the laws to lessen the ability of NIMBYs to delay projects.”

But the extreme and absolute statement you made has many obvious counter-examples.
 
bigeman312 said:
This is hyperbole. It’s not true that “the only way … any T expansion gets built at all is if the laws are changed.”

Exhibit A: GLX
Exhibit B: Central Subway in San Francisco
Exhibit C: K Line in LA
Exhibit D: Tempe Streetcar
Exhibit E: Regional Connector in LA
Exhibit F: Skyline in Honolulu

I would agree with you if you said something like:

“NIMBYs often raise concerns, no matter what. You could offer them significant benefits, and some would still be hesitant about the project. One way for the BLX or any T expansion to move forward might be to adjust the laws to lessen the ability of NIMBYs to delay projects.”

But the extreme and absolute statement you made has many obvious counter-examples.
Click to expand...
Conversely, people who want projects, the "YIMBYs" also have concerns and have an agenda for projects that may not be fully in line with the states proposal. They may want to serve a specific area, community or climate goals, or otherwise take issue with the proposed solution.

Really one of the only reasons we got a reassessment of Red-Blue tunnelling is because of the community input, and given it's prominence in public comment making it hard for the state to ignore and thus driving the project forward. Just as you have organized resistance to things, you have organized proponents. If you want that input to mean something, you have to take all sides, even if it means a vocal minority gets heard.
 
Last edited:
Aight. So. (This probably should be moved to Crazy Transit Pitches but...)

The Longfellow Bridge is something like 73' wide (minus the sidewalks and one of the bike lanes):

1697902316388.png


And Storrow is a pretty similar size:

1697902407755.png


So, setting aside the problem of portals, why can't an extended Blue Line run down the median of Storrow Drive at grade? No tunneling, no flood mitigation, already grade separated, and median-running means that it's not any louder or closer to residents or the park.
 
Riverside said:
Aight. So. (This probably should be moved to Crazy Transit Pitches but...)

The Longfellow Bridge is something like 73' wide (minus the sidewalks and one of the bike lanes):

View attachment 43782

And Storrow is a pretty similar size:

View attachment 43783

So, setting aside the problem of portals, why can't an extended Blue Line run down the median of Storrow Drive at grade? No tunneling, no flood mitigation, already grade separated, and median-running means that it's not any louder or closer to residents or the park.
Click to expand...
What would you do for the part of Storrow around the Hatch Shell where the EB runs in a tunnel under the WB?
 
ritchiew said:
What would you do for the part of Storrow around the Hatch Shell where the EB runs in a tunnel under the WB?
Click to expand...
Charlie_mta said:
I would put the BL in the existing tunnel and have the vehicular traffic run on the surface.
Click to expand...
Yeah I hadn't gotten that far -- really was just thinking about the initial premise; if median-running along the "clean" straightaway section is no-go, then nothing else matters. But yeah, probably I would just continue the game of "steal lanes for rail ROW" and try to thread it through that way? I don't know how steep the grades in the underpass are, so it might not be feasible to stick heavy rail down there, so I might swap @Charle_mta's idea.

That being said, if median-running is really a road-diet in disguise, then arguably that whole intersection should be modified. Plus, that's a prime location for a station, so you'd want to figure that in there somehow.
 
Riverside said:
Aight. So. (This probably should be moved to Crazy Transit Pitches but...)

The Longfellow Bridge is something like 73' wide (minus the sidewalks and one of the bike lanes):

View attachment 43782

And Storrow is a pretty similar size:

View attachment 43783

So, setting aside the problem of portals, why can't an extended Blue Line run down the median of Storrow Drive at grade? No tunneling, no flood mitigation, already grade separated, and median-running means that it's not any louder or closer to residents or the park.
Click to expand...
Well, my question is would you want an intermediate station along that stretch? I imagine you wouldn't be able to also fit station platforms in that width unless you do it under the Dartmouth St Footbridge where it widens out a fair bit.
 
Riverside said:
don't know how steep the grades in the underpass are, so it might not be feasible to stick heavy rail down there, so I might swap @Charle_mta's idea.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how steep the existing grades are on the tunnel portals. They can easily be extended and flattened. The tunnel itself is fairly level. I also measured the width of the existing tunnel at the Hatch Shell intersection, and it's slightly wider than the Longfellow Bridge reservation, so IMO it's doable as a BL tunnel, except the vertical clearance in the tunnel may not be sufficient for BL cars. If so, then the tunnel floor would need to be lowered.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
I would put the BL in the existing tunnel and have the vehicular traffic run on the surface.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are not putting anything in the existing Storrow tunnel. Last I read about it from MassDOT/DCR it was near collapse and due for a complete rebuild.

You might replicate the layered design in that area, but it will be 100% new construction.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I suspect you are not putting anything in the existing Storrow tunnel. Last I read about it from MassDOT/DCR it was near collapse and due for a complete rebuild.

You might replicate the layered design in that area, but it will be 100% new construction.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great opportunity to tear most of it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top