MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

Was just going over the whole thread again as I've been using Bowdoin pretty regularly as of late, though I've always been favorable Bowdoin. So much hate for Bowdoin around here!

Look at this distance between the proposed/likely GC headhouse and the area where the Blue-specific MGH entrances would be (roughly):

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...d=217656314107067401485.00049c58ae7729b03ce82

The push pins are where I would put Bowdoin entrances, with the platforms centered between them.

The relocation and upgrading of Bowdoin ALONE would draw more ridership, I bet. All in all, the project as a whole would probably double Bowdoin ridership. It may be a stretch, but I'd say even triple it. PLUS, consider how the West End is in DIRE need of being done over, properly this time. Job and/or residential opportunities would be great. To eliminate Bowdoin may not be a shot in the foot for the area, but it would still be a deep papercut right on the knuckle.
 
I'm looking at the 2009 meeting (which is much more informative and in depth than the 2010). http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/Presentation102609.pdf

I don't understand why they can't just preserve Bowdoin's loop or at least a stub. It's already THERE. Why do we have to DESTROY IT? It doesn't have to be public, but use it! And if there's ever an even further extension, you can easily short turn any trains or shove them off if there's a problem. Every time the T changes something, the previous infrastructure gets DESTROYED. Grrr.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
I don't understand why they can't just preserve Bowdoin's loop or at least a stub. It's already THERE. Why do we have to DESTROY IT? It doesn't have to be public, but use it! And if there's ever an even further extension, you can easily short turn any trains or shove them off if there's a problem. Every time the T changes something, the previous infrastructure gets DESTROYED. Grrr.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they don't need the loop for modern service? Just because it's there doesn't mean they should keep it. What if they need to change the grade in the tunnel? Then they loop would be useless because it would be at a different grade. Also with improved signal technology loops aren't that useful and can actually wear down the wheels more, thus being worse to keep. The Bowdoin loop was originally built for trolleys, not heavy rail, so getting rid of it would allow more flexibility, not less.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Maybe because they don't need the loop for modern service? Just because it's there doesn't mean they should keep it. What if they need to change the grade in the tunnel? Then they loop would be useless because it would be at a different grade. Also with improved signal technology loops aren't that useful and can actually wear down the wheels more, thus being worse to keep. The Bowdoin loop was originally built for trolleys, not heavy rail, so getting rid of it would allow more flexibility, not less.
Click to expand...

Someone that worked on the Blue Line told me the reason why Bowdoin would have to go. It was eithere because when the Blue Line finally gets longer trains there is no room for the extra cars to fit as some cars would still either be at Government Center station or else inside the tunnel when the doors opened at "Bowdoin"... Essentially Bowdoin and Government Center are too close together.

See Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.360621,-71.060418&spn=0.002359,0.005681&t=h&z=18

They're across City Hall Plaza from one another. And the Government Center station platform extends towards Bowdoin already as it is.
The other issue is when the MBTA has six-car-length trains they must have a train attendant that handles doors all the way at the end of the train. The train operator at the front of the train can't see all the way back if someone is caught in the doors. But to have train attendants on the Blue Line for the longer trains will require a new round of hiring which the state cannot afford right now.

If I recall correctly Bowdoin had the lowest usage of all the MBTA stations on the system. Don't forget It even closes at like 6PM or something and doesn't even really open on weekends. (unless this policy has changed? since I last worked at the T.)
 
Last edited:
Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.
 
erikyow said:
Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.
Click to expand...

I think longer car lengths or (but probably not both) 8-car trains will be a reality of the next order. Though I believe the clearances of the State curve, although not sharper than Bowdoin, are what restricts individual car length to what it is now due to proximity of walls/platforms. Lengthening up platforms to 8 cars seems completely infeasible, and in some cases just unsafe/impossible, though. Perhaps articulated cars allowing the first car and last car to stick out, and passengers walk to the next car where they press a POP button?



Anyways, whipping up map at the moment of my RB connector using the map/scale from the presentation in 2009.
 
5460204365_3eb6c7b998_b.jpg


Allows for grade change as the Bowdoin stubs will split off just a little after Government Center.
 
Given that they only just went to six-car trains less than five years ago, I think it's still a ways off before they need to go to longer trains. While ridership is increasing, it's not increasing to the point that 50% (or 33% to go from six to eight cars) are needed every few years. For starters, they could go to more trains. Currently, rush hour trains operate every five minutes. They could reduce headways to 2-3 minutes and 5-6 minutes, instead of the current 9 minutes, during off-peak hours. And they could do that with the same or less investment in additional rolling stock and no need for longer platforms.
 
Yeah, theres no need for longer trains in the next couple of decades. As stated above, you could triple the number of trains running (assuming more trains purchased)
 
BostonUrbEx said:
5460204365_3eb6c7b998_b.jpg


Allows for grade change as the Bowdoin stubs will split off just a little after Government Center.
Click to expand...

I checked the old pre-Government center Bromley Atlas maps, and there probably isn't enough room between the Blue Line's current tunnel and the One Center Plaza building to squeeze in two new tracks east of Bowdoin Station.

When Cambridge Street was realigned in the 1960's, it was curved outward to make room for the curved One Center Plaza building.
 
From what I'm looking at, there's no room at 2 and 3 Center Plaza, but by the time you're up to 1 Center Plaza, there's plenty of room. Even still, at the point where you reach 1 CP, it's more like 1 new track or 1 and a half. It's not really two new tracks until you're at Somerset, and there my tracks would be straddling the centerline of the street.

Also, where did you check out the Bromley maps? Are they online?
 
erikyow said:
Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the confusion. I don't actually take the Blue Line so I had no idea they've already gone to 6 car lengths. To confirm I don't know about car lengths any longer than 6. Back when BL first started they were merely for cars. You sound like you have taken the Blue Line more recently than I.

Can you confirm if they did implement train attendants on those trains?

The Train attendants are the persons in the cab halfway down the length of the whole train...
 
erikyow said:
Given that they only just went to six-car trains less than five years ago, I think it's still a ways off before they need to go to longer trains. While ridership is increasing, it's not increasing to the point that 50% (or 33% to go from six to eight cars) are needed every few years. For starters, they could go to more trains. Currently, rush hour trains operate every five minutes. They could reduce headways to 2-3 minutes and 5-6 minutes, instead of the current 9 minutes, during off-peak hours. And they could do that with the same or less investment in additional rolling stock and no need for longer platforms.
Click to expand...

True. There are mechanical reasons that could allow or hinder that plan. I don't know what the system is called (I think I heard it called a "retarder"?) As it was explained to me if a train 'blows a signal' essentially 'runs a red signal' it will be auto stopped. So trains can't be run any closer to one another than those physical rail segments. I believe the only T line that doesn't have that system in place is the Green Line? Again that is dependent if things have changed in the last few years.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
Can you confirm if they did implement train attendants on those trains?

The Train attendants are the persons in the cab halfway down the length of the whole train...
Click to expand...

There is 1 staff member for the 6 car blue line train.

The attendant has also been removed from the orange line.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
True. There are mechanical reasons that could allow or hinder that plan. I don't know what the system is called (I think I heard it called a "retarder"?) As it was explained to me if a train 'blows a signal' essentially 'runs a red signal' it will be auto stopped. So trains can't be run any closer to one another than those physical rail segments. I believe the only T line that doesn't have that system in place is the Green Line? Again that is dependent if things have changed in the last few years.
Click to expand...

I believe the Blue Line system relies entirely on these things highlighted in yellow spray paint(aside from manned response to signals):

5123638463_3344c649a5_b.jpg


The one on the left is raised, meaning the signal is red and a train which passes through that signal will be immediately put into emergency breaking. The one on the right is down, meaning the next train can go right on through. They could probably increase the amount of these to allow for tighter headways (it may even be suitable as is, but I don't see them all that often so I'm not so sure).
 
erikyow said:
Longer trains? Are they planning on extending Blue Line trains again? They went from four cars to six only a couple of years ago when they got the new Siemens cars. And I thought the way around Bowdoin was the European-style, button-operated doors. So while the whole train can't fit into Bowdoin, the doors won't open unless someone touches the button outside the door.
Click to expand...

They already have to do kind of an ugly hack to fit 6 cars in there, with all doors opening into the station but the last car being shut for the return trip after the loop. This can only fly when it's at the end of the line. If the loop remains you wouldn't be able to extend the platform (not feasible towards the GC end without ludicrous expense because of the abutting courthouse foundation) and you can't board passengers in the last car at Charles and deny them an egress at the next station. That's a safety concern as well as an utter nonstarter for actual travel in a hospital zone.

The loop's also a major slow zone on the outbound side because the curve off the loop into the existing stub tunnel is extremely tight and there's not a lot of space around building foundations to straighten it out. The inbound side's much straighter. That creates a scheduling imbalance that would work OK on the existing length of the line but get really tough to juggle if the Lynn extension ever happened. Basically, there are no non-awkward ways to do it. From an engineering and cost standpoint it's just easier to take the inbound side and widen the footprint to 2 thru tracks by cannibalizing a portion of the platform and leaving the abandoned station as an emergency exit only. The new routing would probably mess up the outbound merge off the loop enough to preclude using it for anything bi-directional...and it's not needed anyway because the Charles design has tail tracks for 3 or 4 trains. HOWEVER, they could very much keep it connected to the outbound side as a storage space for work equipment, quick place to stuff a disabled train without screwing up Charles, or place to pull in and let passengers off at the emergency exit. Nothing in the construction's really going to touch that part of it.

As for a replacement Bowdoin, since any relocation would have to be past the loop you start contending with the downward grade of Cambridge St. and fact that a station would abut historic properties at the base of Beacon Hill. That ramps up the costs exponentially, whereas just a tunnel fits neatly into the footprint of the street without getting near any building foundations. It could be added later because the engineering is doable, but the whole project would be an utter no-go on cost if it were in the plans. Gotta weigh the greater upside of going to Charles and the Red Line over leaving an intermediate gap. Infill subway stations have ample precedent in Boston, anyway. Charles itself was built in the 1930's three decades after the Red Line opened Kendall-Park, and Arlington was an add-on crammed in later on the Green Line to break up the over-long distance between Boylston and Copley (which is why it's so claustrophobic vs. the other stations).
 
The big-dig agreement was only to produce a study. If there is no money for 10, 20 years then is the study still relevant or does the state have to start all over again?
 
PaulC said:
The big-dig agreement was only to produce a study. If there is no money for 10, 20 years then is the study still relevant or does the state have to start all over again?
Click to expand...

They hang on to the study and results for the future. They would have to restudy the idea, but much would already be covered (ie: best track layout, stair placement, etc, likely wouldn't change unless there's new utilities or street changes). Basically all they do is crunch the numbers again and adjust as necessary for any changes that may effect the project.
 
They will officially try to kill this on Thursday.

From uHub

The state Department of Environmental Protection holds two meetings Thursday to consider the MBTA's request that it be allowed to shimmy out of requirements to extend the Blue Line to Charles Street.

The Department of Transportation, which now includes the T, formally asked its environmental counterparts last year to absolve it of the need to spend $49 million to design a $750 million project it says it has no money to build, even if it wanted to.

The meetings start at 1 and 5 p.m. at DEP headquarters on the second floor of 1 Winter St. downtown.
Click to expand...

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a half mile cut and cover is so controversial when in fact it improves the quality of the network so substantially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top