MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

[TheRatmeister]

Not to mention that RBX will actually make MBTA maps less pretty, since they will require a serpentine with two bends for the Blue Line to keep anything like the current configuration of the other lines. The fact that this will be required for an extension that is perfectly-straight tells you everything you need to know about subway mapmaking post-Beck .

Definitely not true.

I still like Ari's idea of a viaduct out of the exstant portal even if it means turning every other train at Bowdoin due to a single tail track. 250M tops and a lot less disruptive.

Would it really be cheaper and/or less disruptive though? You still need to dig up a sizeable section of Cambridge St for the portal and any elevated supports, plus it makes the interchange at Charles/MGH way more complicated. You'd either need to stack the BL platforms on top of the existing station, add a walking connection above both sets of elevated platforms, or expand the ground level station footprint for the required down-then-up-again transfer.

 

[Delvin4519]

Definitely not true.View attachment 58775

Would it really be cheaper and/or less disruptive though? You still need to dig up a sizeable section of Cambridge St for the portal and any elevated supports, plus it makes the interchange at Charles/MGH way more complicated. You'd either need to stack the BL platforms on top of the existing station, add a walking connection above both sets of elevated platforms, or expand the ground level station footprint for the required down-then-up-again transfer.

When I posted in this thread about the "last transfers" (sadly the T is ditching it this weekend), I'm still curious on how could the T arrange last trains in this format such that any rider from any of the last trains, can connect with any connecting trains with Red-Blue?

Since if Blue and Red have a connection at MGH, then you'd want to be able to have eastbound RL riders on the last RL train for the night to be able to catch the last eastbound BL train for the night with Red-Blue built. The same goes for westbound BL riders on the last BL train of the night be able to catch the last westbound RL train for the night.

 

[jbray]

.View attachment 58775

Definitely not true

It's not as clean, though, at 45 degrees as the 90 degrees. Harry Beck got around this with thinner lines compares to junction stations but ours are the same width (approximately) and by having only 2 on the original map out of all the junctions.

 

[jbray]

When I posted in this thread about the "last transfers" (sadly the T is ditching it this weekend), I'm still curious on how could the T arrange last trains in this format such that any rider from any of the last trains, can connect with any connecting trains with Red-Blue?

Since if Blue and Red have a connection at MGH, then you'd want to be able to have eastbound RL riders on the last RL train for the night to be able to catch the last eastbound BL train for the night with Red-Blue built. The same goes for westbound BL riders on the last BL train of the night be able to catch the last westbound RL train for the night.

The last statement isn't correct. Westbound Blue Line Riders may wish to go north or south given that the direct connection would be faster than making the transfer to a transfer. Hence why the whole thing is fraught. A simpler solution might be to have a scheduled departure time for all last trains at the junction stations for any given line. They don't have to overlap, but you can plan out a trip with that knowledge especially if apps like Google maps, knows that the connection won't exist at the time planned. Just base it on the standard time that the last train would normally reach it plus a minute or two. No guaranteed connections.

 

[Delvin4519]

The last statement isn't correct. Westbound Blue Line Riders may wish to go north or south given that the direct connection would be faster than making the transfer to a transfer. Hence why the whole thing is fraught. A simpler solution might be to have a scheduled departure time for all last trains at the junction stations for any given line. They don't have to overlap, but you can plan out a trip with that knowledge especially if apps like Google maps, knows that the connection won't exist at the time planned. Just base it on the standard time that the last train would normally reach it plus a minute or two. No guaranteed connections.

If westbound Blue Line riders want to go southbound on the Red Line, the current East-West procedure for guaranteeing last connections for the night requires Blue Line riders heading westbound on the last BL train for the night to get off at State and take the last southbound OL train of the night to reach the last southbound RL train for the night at DTX.

If you build Red-Blue, then you'd need to hold the last southbound RL train of the night at Charles MGH to wait for the last westbound BL train of the night to get to Charles MGH before the last southbound RL train of the night can be released from MGH to go to Park

 

[jbray]

If westbound Blue Line riders want to go southbound on the Red Line, the current East-West procedure for guaranteeing last connections for the night requires Blue Line riders heading westbound on the last BL train for the night to get off at State and take the last southbound OL train of the night to reach the last southbound RL train for the night at DTX.

If you build Red-Blue, then you'd need to hold the last southbound RL train of the night at Charles MGH to wait for the last westbound BL train of the night to get to Charles MGH before the last southbound RL train of the night can be released from MGH to go to Park

My larger point was that the dance doesn't have a functional way to work once Red/Blue is implemented because the solution becomes to ignore the connection. That's why I said it was futile.

 

[Delvin4519]

My larger point was that the dance doesn't have a functional way to work once Red/Blue is implemented because the solution becomes to ignore the connection. That's why I said it was futile.

There isn't a way to rework the East-West procedure to allow for Red Blue last connections of the night after building Red-Blue?

You can guarantee the last BL train will meet the last SB RL and NB RL trains.

You can guarantee the last EB BL train for riders on the last SB RL train.

The only last RL - BL transfer you can't conduct as a OSR with Red-Blue is the last NB RL train ---> last EB BL train, that would still require changing to Green or Orange.

Even right now, you can't go from the last OL NB train of the night to the last GL WB or the last GL EB to the last OL SB without transferring at DTX and Park and either walk or take the last RL

I've thought whether there is a way at all to get it to work with Red-Blue:

* Have the last WB BL train of the night meet the last SB OL train at State and the last WB GL trollies at Govy.
* The last NB RL and OL trains of the night meet at DTX for final connections
* The last WB BL train proceeds to Charles MGH and meets the last SB RL train. The last SB GL and SB OL trains make their way to Park and DTX.
* Blue and SB Red complete their last transfers at Charles MGH, SB Red and EB Blue are now released from Charles MGH and proceed 1 stop east. EB Blue holds at Govy
* The last NB OL, SB OL, and NB RL trains complete their last transfers at DTX. The last NB RL train proceeds to Park, but the last NB and SB OL trains are still held at DTX
* At Park, East-West is conducted between the last WB and NB GL and NB and SB RL trains, in all 4 directions. When this is done, all GL and RL trains are released from Park
* The last NB GL trollies meet the last EB BL train at Govy. The last SB RL train meets the last SB and NB OL trains at DTX. When this is done, all trains at Govy and DTX are released. The last NB GL train is then held at North Station.
* At State, the last NB OL train meets the last EB BL train. When this is done, all OL and BL trains are released.
* At North Station, the last NB OL train meets the last NB GL trolley waiting there for the connection, after this is done, all trains are released for the night.

* Last trains are not guaranteed for Union Sq, Heath St, and Braintree. Instead, the 87, 39, and 210 provide these connections.

To (down), From (right)	RL NB	RL SB	OL NB	OL SB	GL WB	GL NB	BL WB	BL EB
RL NB	-	-	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Charles MGH (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-
RL SB	-	-	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed Ashmont transfer at Charles MGH (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-
OL NB	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	-	-	Guaranteed at North Station (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at North Station	Guaranteed at State (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at State
OL SB	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	-	-	Is this even guaranteed currently in East-West without Red-Blue?	Change at Park for RL SB and change at DTX for OL SB	Guaranteed at State	Not guaranteed, from Charles MGH, take RL SB to DTX.
GL WB	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Change at DTX for RL NB and change at Park for GL WB	Is this even guaranteed currently in East-West without Red-Blue?	-	-	Guaranteed at Govy	Not guaranteed, take RL SB from Charles MGH to Park
GL NB	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed Medford transfer at North Station	Guaranteed at North Station (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-	-	Guaranteed at Govy (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed Medford transfer at Govy
BL WB	-	-	To get to Govy, change to RL NB at DTX and change to GL at Park. To get to Charles MGH, change at DTX to RL NB	Guaranteed at State	Guaranteed at Govy	Not guaranteed, take RL NB from Park to Charles MGH	-	-
BL EB	Change at Park or DTX for GL or OL, then board BL at Govy or State	Guaranteed at Charles MGH	Guaranteed at State	Guaranteed at State (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at Govy (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at Govy	-	-

 

[Stlin]

There isn't a way to rework the East-West procedure to allow for Red Blue last connections of the night after building Red-Blue?

You can guarantee the last BL train will meet the last SB RL and NB RL trains.

You can guarantee the last EB BL train for riders on the last SB RL train.

The only train you can't conduct as a OSR with Red-Blue is the last NB RL train ---> last EB BL train, that would still require changing to Green or Orange.

Even right now, you can't go from the last OL NB train of the night to the last GL WB or the last GL EB to the last OL SB without transferring at DTX and Park and either walk or take the last RL

I've thought whether there is a way at all to get it to work with Red-Blue:

* Have the last WB BL train of the night meet the last SB OL train at State and the last WB GL trollies at Govy.
* The last NB RL and OL trains of the night meet at DTX for final connections
* The last WB BL train proceeds to Charles MGH and meets the last SB RL train. The last SB GL and SB OL trains make their way to Park and DTX.
* Blue and SB Red complete their last transfers at Charles MGH, SB Red and EB Blue are now released from Charles MGH and proceed 1 stop east. EB Blue holds at Govy
* The last NB OL, SB OL, and NB RL trains complete their last transfers at DTX. The last NB RL train proceeds to Park, but the last NB and SB OL trains are still held at DTX
* At Park, East-West is conducted between the last WB and NB GL and NB and SB RL trains, in all 4 directions. When this is done, all GL and RL trains are released from Park
* The last NB GL trollies meet the last EB BL trains at Govy. The last SB RL train meets the last SB and NB OL trains at DTX. When this is done, all trains at Govy and DTX are released. The last NB GL train is then held at North Station.
* At State, the last NB OL train meets the last EB BL train. When this is done, all OL and BL trains are released.
* At North Station, the last NB OL train meets the last NB GL trolley waiting there for the connection, after this is done, all trains are released for the night.

* Last trains are not guaranteed for Union Sq, Heath St, and Braintree. Instead, the 87, 39, and 210 provide these connections.

To (down), From (right)	RL NB	RL SB	OL NB	OL SB	GL WB	GL NB	BL WB	BL EB
RL NB	-	-	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Charles MGH (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-
RL SB	-	-	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed at Park	Guaranteed Ashmont transfer at Charles MGH (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-
OL NB	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	-	-	Guaranteed at North Station (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at North Station	Guaranteed at State (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at State
OL SB	Guaranteed at DTX	Guaranteed at DTX	-	-	Is this even guaranteed currently in East-West without Red-Blue?	Change at Park for RL SB and change at DTX for OL SB	Guaranteed at State	Not guaranteed, from Charles MGH, take RL SB to DTX.
GL WB	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Change at DTX for RL NB and change at Park for GL WB	Is this even guaranteed currently in East-West without Red-Blue?	-	-	Guaranteed at Govy	Not guaranteed, take RL SB from Charles MGH to Park
GL NB	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed at Park (except Heath/Union)	Guaranteed Medford transfer at North Station	Guaranteed at North Station (but not immediate - staggered connection)	-	-	Guaranteed at Govy (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed Medford transfer at Govy
BL WB	-	-	To get to Govy, change to RL NB at DTX and change to GL at Park. To get to Charles MGH, change at DTX to RL NB	Guaranteed at State	Guaranteed at Govy	Not guaranteed, take RL NB from Park to Charles MGH	-	-
BL EB	Change at Park or DTX for GL or OL, then board BL at Govy or State	Guaranteed at Charles MGH	Guaranteed at State	Guaranteed at State (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at Govy (but not immediate - staggered connection)	Guaranteed at Govy	-	-

That's a level of complexity that I think is likely to be unapproachable for many transit riders. I personally don't know that the last train transfer is actually more useful than not, especially in a slow zone free environment with predictable travel times. That said, I think I would want the T to tweak the "last transfers at" time. Given last trips are scheduled to start at the outer terminals at ~12:30 ±10, a 12:35 "be here by" seems suspect, as last "downtown originating" (Govt Center & Bowdoin) trains leave at ~12:55.

My personal compromise would be something along the lines of a single downtown hold/control time rather than guaranteeing all transfers. Something like "Last Oak Grove and Alewife Trains will depart DTX no earlier than 1am," or even "all Last RL/OL trains depart DTX at 1am." You'd probably want to stagger them somewhat but that would provide certainty and clarity for ops and downstream transfers. You'd absolutely break some transfers, but the T probably has the data for which ones get the least usage. Honestly AFC 2.0 should absolutely enable walking transfers between the Downtown 4, which would fix most of that.

 

[thepixelnation]

I just don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater over the last transfer of the night. I would be confident guessing that the majority of transfers in the system happen prior to the last call.

 

[737900er]

If there's a transit service in Boston that should run 24/7 it's the Blue Line (at least some kind of Airport-Downtown shuttle).

• East Boston is effectively cut off from the rest of the city when the T is closed if you're not in a car.
• Maverick has the highest boardings on the whole system from 5am-7am, so it's not a stretch to assume there's demand for service earlier in the morning and late at night.
• Serves Airport which has a lot of overnight activity
• In theory could be operated as Airport-Maverick-Aquarium-Bowdoin in isolation

 

[Tallguy]

Definitely not true.View attachment 58775

Would it really be cheaper and/or less disruptive though? You still need to dig up a sizeable section of Cambridge St for the portal and any elevated supports, plus it makes the interchange at Charles/MGH way more complicated. You'd either need to stack the BL platforms on top of the existing station, add a walking connection above both sets of elevated platforms, or expand the ground level station footprint for the required down-then-up-again transfer.

The portal was filled in, but should be relatively easy to dig out, and the street is sloping down as the track would be going up, the impact should be much less than cut and cover. The platforms would be at the same height and access would be by existing RL infrastructure

 

[TheRatmeister]

The platforms would be at the same height and access would be by existing RL infrastructure

Okay but my point is that you'd need to expand the station footprint to do that. You'd need a new set of elevators/escalators up to the BL platforms, plus probably a new connecting bit behind the fare gates leading out to Cambridge St. These small things are going to start eroding any elevated cost savings very quickly.

 

[Tallguy]

Okay but my point is that you'd need to expand the station footprint to do that. You'd need a new set of elevators/escalators up to the BL platforms, plus probably a new connecting bit behind the fare gates leading out to Cambridge St. These small things are going to start eroding any elevated cost savings very quickly.

Wht would you necessarily need new elevators and escalators? If much/most traffic is transferring to RL, there might not be that many more people using them to exceed present capacity

 

[Stlin]

Wht would you necessarily need new elevators and escalators? If much/most traffic is transferring to RL, there might not be that many more people using them to exceed present capacity

Just to be clear, what are you envisioning exactly? I pictured something like this:

If you're proposing a new elevated platform on Cambridge, you'd necessarily have to provide station access from the existing RL headhouse where the vertical circulation points at each of the RL platforms. You would have to substantially modify the entire headhouse to create a bridge / mezzanine that would allow someone to double back and head to a blue line platform, while keeping in mind the RL viaduct curves outside the bounds of Cambridge St - bridging to the South bound RL platform would therefore require occupying the same space the tracks do. Therefore, "same level transfers" could only be possible to and from Alewife-bound RL trains. In your concept everyone else who wants a Southbound RL would need to use the single existing elevator and escalator both down and up again. From a purely crowd crush issue, I'd say it's a bad idea, not even considering fire code egress paths - the double back adds enough distance you'd probably need at least two new vertical paths to access any future BL platform. Plus, you would still need a Eastern headhouse for the new elevated Blue, without the benefit of the MGH space and this would preclude any further westward extension. This is one of those cases where "build the tunnel" makes the most sense.

 

[BostonObserver]

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2021-12/2021-12-01-red-blue-concept-design-report.pdf

 

[cburns]

I'm going to pose this question packaged with an apology if already discussed (this also might need to be moved to a "design a better Boston," but it feels relevant here despite being an offshoot/ rabbit hole).

In the world of "allowing for 'better' while striving for 'best,'" why has the T not pursued building a passage way under Washington Street between Franklin and Milk, essentially creating a Winter Street-like concourse that links State and Downtown Crossing?

I think this is about a football field's length at most; and from my experience in both New York and London, there are some pretty long egresses when changing lines at certain stations.

I obviously must be missing something if it seems like such an attractive alternative to a layman, but this has to be significantly cheaper than the Cambridge Street extension from Bowdoin. I would also think it would be ready well before these 2030's projections.

 

[Stlin]

I'm going to pose this question packaged with an apology if already discussed (this also might need to be moved to a "design a better Boston," but it feels relevant here despite being an offshoot/ rabbit hole).

In the world of "allowing for 'better' while striving for 'best,'" why has the T not pursued building a passage way under Washington Street between Franklin and Milk, essentially creating a Winter Street-like concourse that links State and Downtown Crossing?

I think this is about a football field's length at most; and from my experience in both New York and London, there are so pretty long egresses when changing lines at certain stations.

I obviously must be missing something if it seems like such an attractive alternative to a layman, but this has to be significantly cheaper than the Cambridge Street extension from Bowdoin. I would also think it would be ready well before these 2030's projections.

They looked at it as part of Focus40, the last PMT (Program for Mass Transportation) in 2019; they were considering it as part of a long range plan to consolidate Park, State and DTX stations into a superstation serving every line. I don't believe they advanced it into planning however - it never featured in a CIP at least. The next PMT was due this year in 2024, but it's clearly been delayed - we'll see if it's still around.

 

[The EGE]

There's a few reasons why we don't have a connector under Washington:

• Unlike the Orange and Green, the Red and Blue aren't that close. The former are approximately 625 feet apart at Winter; the latter are about 1,450 at Washington. Winter Street is short enough to beat all but a perfectly-timed Red Line train for transfers, especially since...
• Winter Street allows for a transfer with no major vertical changes for half of the main transfer demographic (NB Green to SB Orange), which I suspect is a disproportionate amount of those using it. Washington connector would require changing levels at DTX for all transfers, and the down-up double change at State for half.
• While there's some narrowing where it nears the platforms, the main part of the Winter Street Concourse is plenty wide, and it's separate from the platforms themselves. Washington Street would require passengers to walk the full lengths of two already-narrow Orange Line platforms.
• Winter Street Concourse was built with the line and required only minimal work in 1979 to make it useful for passengers. Washington Street would require about 300 feet of new construction - likely through basements of existing buildings, as Washington Street is narrow and the tracks occupy most of its width.
• The Green Line will always provide higher frequency than the Red Line - even late at night, it's rare to wait more than 5 minutes for a train between Park and GC - so making that extra transfer will almost always beat walking.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be some smaller (though potentially worthwhile) benefits to such a connector. In foul weather it would be useful for trips beginning/ending at State or DTX, and it would provide redundancy during service disruptions. I think both a Washington connector, and a similar one between GC and State, would be worth pursuing if they can be done at reasonable cost. But it wouldn't serve any of the same function that RBX would.