MBTA Red Line / Blue Line Connector

bakgwailo said:
As far as I know, the issue isn't the CR row up to Salem, it's getting the blue line over into the row by point of pines (or before).
Click to expand...
From Wonderland to Lynn the main issue is Point of Pines or an alternative route. From Lynn to Salem the main issue is the Salem tunnel.
 
Random thoughts: How much do we trust the most recent estimate of $850 million for Red-Blue?

While this figure was quoted most recently in 2023, it actually came from the 2021 Concept Design Report, which was from the Baker era. The estimate does assume cut-and-cover, but still: could the costs have been overestimated with the intention of sandbagging or even killing the project, typical of the Baker administration?

1701259485501.png
 
Teban54 said:
Random thoughts: How much do we trust the most recent estimate of $850 million for Red-Blue?

While this figure was quoted most recently in 2023, it actually came from the 2021 Concept Design Report, which was from the Baker era. The estimate does assume cut-and-cover, but still: could the costs have been overestimated with the intention of sandbagging or even killing the project, typical of the Baker administration?

View attachment 45114
Click to expand...
There's no rolling stock costs associated with this. It's a 1-for-1 replacement of terminus stations that won't increase the number of trains needing to run on the line to maintain current headways. Rolling stock replacements/augments are part of Blue Line Transformation budget bucket, not this.

That and the contingency seems awfully large.
 
bakgwailo said:
Also why wouldn't MGH be chipping in, especially for their own station access?
Click to expand...

I’d certainly support MGH donating to this project, but I think it sets a bad precedent. The state is the entity that should be funding adequate transit to a major hospital in the urban core of the largest city. If funding mechanisms need to change to make that happen, so be it, but it’s a fraught path to rely on one-off donations from private institutions for public transportation.
 
bigeman312 said:
I’d certainly support MGH donating to this project, but I think it sets a bad precedent. The state is the entity that should be funding adequate transit to a major hospital in the urban core of the largest city. If funding mechanisms need to change to make that happen, so be it, but it’s a fraught path to rely on one-off donations from private institutions for public transportation.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but haven't there been a whole bunch of precedents already of stations / station entryways / head houses funded or partially funded by developers of enclosing or adjacent structures? OL head house at Millennium tower (Millennium Partners); RL at 325 Main st. (Boston Properties) in Kendall; RL across the street at Kendall (MITIMCo); BL/OL entry that's part of 53 State St; GL new entryway to Hynes via the Parcel 12 project at Mass Ave (Samuels); the proposed (if it ever happens) GL entryway to Hynes via Parcel 13 (Peeples)...

I am not worried in the case of RL/BL connector; the MBTA is paying for the vast preponderance of the overall project, while MGH's modest contribution, quite frankly, probably just makes it easier to coordinate construction scope/management with the rest of their enclosing project. Public-private partnership becomes much more of a problem when the private entity buys their way toward a controlling stake in a project such that the direction of the project is shaped more by them than by the public entity; we're no where near that in this case.

EDIT: Also, the $20M plug for "...access adjacent to future MGH facility" (above) honestly might just be a placeholder to reflect the fact that at the time this estimate was made, people did not know of the exact sequencing of the work. Think of two examples where the MBTA themselves built head houses that literally got swallowed into commercial buildings at a later date: a North Station entryway got swallowed into the Hub on Causeway podium building, and in the Seaport, a Silver Line head house got swallowed into the Yotel building. Those were cases where the head house got built first before the private the developer was ready and the MBTA ostensibly foot the initial bill for it. Here it seems clear that MGH ended up way out in front of the MBTA in terms of getting their building built, so it could be that MGH ends up "donating it" out of the sheer sequence of things. Could MGH chase the T for money for it? Maybe...but would they really do that / do we really expect them to?
 
Last edited:
ulrichomega said:
Well, that's cool:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the same didn't happen across the street, leading to uncomfortable pedestrian navigation around the separate stair and elevator structures, directly at the traffic flow of several retail storefronts:

1701704283086.png


1701704325731.png
 
It is expected that the pressure on the Park St Station will be considerably relieved by the new service. At present thousands are carried into Park St by the Cambridge Subway and then transfer north to Scollay Square.
Click to expand...

That's from news coverage of the opening of the Bowdoin extension on March 18, 1916, but it would apply just the same to the modern Red-Blue Connector. Several Cambridge streetcar lines ran through the Joy Street Portal to terminate at Scollay Under (now Government Center), and a through service operated between Orient Heights and Central Square in Cambridge. The direct connection only lasted until 1924, when the East Boston Tunnel was converted to heavy rail, and the portal only used for non-revenue moves.

www.newspapers.com

Article clipped from The Boston Globe

Clipping found in The Boston Globe published in Boston, Massachusetts on 3/18/1916.
www.newspapers.com www.newspapers.com
 
The EGE said:
That's from news coverage of the opening of the Bowdoin extension on March 18, 1916, but it would apply just the same to the modern Red-Blue Connector. Several Cambridge streetcar lines ran through the Joy Street Portal to terminate at Scollay Under (now Government Center), and a through service operated between Orient Heights and Central Square in Cambridge. The direct connection only lasted until 1924, when the East Boston Tunnel was converted to heavy rail, and the portal only used for non-revenue moves.

www.newspapers.com

Article clipped from The Boston Globe

Clipping found in The Boston Globe published in Boston, Massachusetts on 3/18/1916.
www.newspapers.com www.newspapers.com
Click to expand...
Almost makes me want the Blue Line to be LRV. It would be so easy to run the LRV cars out of the Pleasant Street portal down to Charles station, and then continue west alongside a road-dieted Storrow Drive to Kenmore.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Almost makes me want the Blue Line to be LRV. It would be so easy to run the LRV cars out of the Pleasant Street portal down to Charles station, and then continue west alongside a road-dieted Storrow Drive to Kenmore.
Click to expand...
I have to think that the Blue Line would not have been converted to heavy rail had modern style LRT/Light Metro existed as a concept. If you look at the light rail lines in L.A., or the line in Seattle as examples, they probably have similar capacity to the Blue Line, but retain that branching flexibility enjoyed by the Green Line.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Almost makes me want the Blue Line to be LRV. It would be so easy to run the LRV cars out of the Pleasant Street portal down to Charles station, and then continue west alongside a road-dieted Storrow Drive to Kenmore.
Click to expand...
Oops, I meant the Joy St portal, not Pleasant St.
 
HenryAlan said:
I have to think that the Blue Line would not have been converted to heavy rail had modern style LRT/Light Metro existed as a concept. If you look at the light rail lines in L.A., or the line in Seattle as examples, they probably have similar capacity to the Blue Line, but retain that branching flexibility enjoyed by the Green Line.
Click to expand...
Yes, if the BL were LRT, then there could be a branch going to Chelsea along the haul access road just north of Airport station, and then along the Chelsea busway. It would be expensive converting the BL to LRT, either lowering all the platforms, or raising (if headway allows) the tracks at the existing platforms, plus installing overhead catenary in the tunnels. Not to mention replacing all the rolling stock. Definitely a "crazy transit" pitch.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Yes, if the BL were LRT, then there could be a branch going to Chelsea along the haul access road just north of Airport station, and then along the Chelsea busway. It would be expensive converting the BL to LRT, either lowering all the platforms, or raising (if headway allows) the tracks at the existing platforms, plus installing overhead catenary in the tunnels. Not to mention replacing all the rolling stock. Definitely a "crazy transit" pitch.
Click to expand...
How much legacy pre-1924 streetcar infrastructure is there on the Blue Line? Is it enough to significantly decrease the cost of converting to LRT compared to a heavy metro that was never a trolley line in the past (MBTA Red Line for example)? Does @F-Line to Dudley or anyone else know any examples of HRT to LRT conversion that are comparable in any way?
 
WarpedReality said:
How much legacy pre-1924 streetcar infrastructure is there on the Blue Line? Is it enough to significantly decrease the cost of converting to LRT compared to a heavy metro that was never a trolley line in the past (MBTA Red Line for example)? Does @F-Line to Dudley or anyone else know any examples of HRT to LRT conversion that are comparable in any way?
Click to expand...
I belive Cleveland is converting thier red line to LRV. https://www.riderta.com/blogs/sieme... has been selected,Blue and Green Line trains.
 
Cleveland is an odd case where HRT and LRT already shared track, and ridership that doesn't need the capacity of HRT. Pre-COVID ridership was about 18k on the Red Line and 5k on the Green + Blue lines, compared to 69k for the Blue Line.* I don't believe the Red Line regularly used trains any longer than 2 cars. The system also needs minimal modifications: the lines already share a maintenance facility and catenary, and they're buying high-floor LRVs with movable steps so no major platform modifications are needed. So they get the benefits of a shared fleet and the ability to interline services, with no real drawbacks.

The Blue Line would require major station reconstruction (or high-floor LRVs incompatible with the Green Line and making new surface stations more expensive), new catenary in the tunnel, modifications to the maintenance facility, and so on. It was already having capacity issues pre-COVID, so you can't make the trains any shorter unless you substantially increase frequency, and modern LRVs might now even fit the narrow-profile tunnel. The idea of branching and a cheaper surface extension are tempting, but I can't see LRT conversion being practical or useful.

*Cleveland and San Juan, which has a host of problems, are the lowest-ridership heavy rail systems in the US at 18k. Next are Staten Island at 21k (converted to HRT in anticipation of hooking into NYCS, and kept that way for rolling stock commonality), PATCO at 38k (more of an electrified commuter rail line, and maybe should be converted into one), Baltimore at 38k (goes nowhere), and Miami at 59k (big growth in the last few decades despite poor density). After that there's a big jump to the major systems, from LA at 129k on up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top