Reasonable Transit Pitches

Columbia to JFK/UMass and Kendall/MIT to Cambridge Center/MIT were changed on December 2, 1982, according to the NETransit history.

Winstonoboogie, thanks for that ERJ link! Some very cool images in there.
 
The EGE said:
Columbia to JFK/UMass and Kendall/MIT to Cambridge Center/MIT were changed on December 2, 1982, according to the NETransit history.

Winstonoboogie, thanks for that ERJ link! Some very cool images in there.
Click to expand...
I will forever be baffled by the thought that it was a good idea to have stations named "Center" and "Central" next to each other.
 
Wow. I really did not expect that much of a response for suggesting a rename. Perhaps I should've started a dedicated thread?
 
novitiate said:
I will forever be baffled by the thought that it was a good idea to have stations named "Center" and "Central" next to each other.
Click to expand...

Which is why it was a brutishly short-lived experiment.


Not as insane as the Orange Line naming conventions of having the offset opposite subway platforms go by totally different names.

-- Union/Friend (Haymarket). But Green level was always Haymarket. Three names in one!

-- Milk/State (State St.). The Blue Line level that came first was, of course...Devonshire. So they intentionally chose to fuck that one up to hell when they built Orange. They eventually fixed Blue and changed it to "State".

-- Summer/Winter (DTX). Red Line level was of course called "Washington". Another 3-in-1.

-- Boylston/Essex (Chinatown). Two Boylstons blocks apart, no connection. Brilliant!


Only took 58 years for somebody to fix that whole mess. Those names lasted until 1967 when the T debuted the new Cambridge Seven Assoc. color scheme and spider map and made over all the station signage with the current motif.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Newbury Street would be even more confusing than Boylston... At least the station is at the intersection of Tremont and Boylston. Newbury Street is all the way across the park from there.
Click to expand...

Newbury Street was a proposed rename for Hynes. Sorry if that was unclear.
 
Prudential also used to be "Mechanics", after Mechanics Hall. That place was an unfortunate casualty of urban renewal on the Huntington corridor much like Scollay Sq., so the station got orphaned by its entire nuked neighborhood until the Pru complex was built in its place and gave it a new namesake.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ The battery scheme with a lane inbound and outbound reserved for rail is the only way you're getting LRV through the TWT, unless you build a tandem tunnel for absurd costs... The busses are doing airport service fine for now. I don't see a reason to build out the SL-->Logan Terminals as LRV unless the Seaport is getting so clogged in the coming decades that the busses get overwhelmed.
Click to expand...

You clearly have not ridden SL1 or SL2 near rush hour. They are already clogged and maxed out. Continued construction in the Seaport is going to totally overwhelm them.

Also the South Station SL => to Logan time is horrible. 3 miles take about 30 minutes. (Claim is 16 minutes per the T, but that is a lie!). That is a total joke.
 
JeffDowntown said:
You clearly have not ridden SL1 or SL2 near rush hour. They are already clogged and maxed out. Continued construction in the Seaport is going to totally overwhelm them.

Also the South Station SL => to Logan time is horrible. 3 miles take about 30 minutes. (Claim is 16 minutes per the T, but that is a lie!). That is a total joke.
Click to expand...
Join us in the Seaport Transportation thread. The SL1's issue is as much a lack of vehicles as anything. My personal hangup is that SL doesn't use the downramp into the tunnel (its saved for "emergencies") and that they don't have a Silver Line Way Under (to receive buses coming from the Airport), and don't have signal priority over D St (or even a 1-way "inbound" tunnel under it).
 
Arlington said:
Join us in the Seaport Transportation thread. The SL1's issue is as much a lack of vehicles as anything. My personal hangup is that SL doesn't use the downramp into the tunnel (its saved for "emergencies") and that they don't have a Silver Line Way Under (to receive buses coming from the Airport), and don't have signal priority over D St (or even a 1-way "inbound" tunnel under it).
Click to expand...

Yeah. The Seaport SL's problems are a combination of the problems that plague the Green Line's streetcar branches, plus a lack of sufficient vehicles, plus a miserably maintained tunnel.
 
How possible would it be to re do the silver line with railway, at least a light rail? I know people talk a lot about it for the dudley branch but the south boston branch seems like it would be a much easier change over. Tunnels are already built and it seems like the stations could easily be changed over by just adding a platform and if it was a light rail you wouldn't even need that. What is more complicated about it? are the tunnels not big enough or something? the market would definitely be there.
 
I think the tunnel is capable of doing dual mode. (right, f-line?)

I think they could have a light rail and even just have 1 or two sets that just loop from south station to silver line way. Adds a huge amount of capacity. Then they bus could run partial route and get in the TWT through the 'homeland security' entrance.
 
choo said:
I think the tunnel is capable of doing dual mode. (right, f-line?)

I think they could have a light rail and even just have 1 or two sets that just loop from south station to silver line way. Adds a huge amount of capacity. Then they bus could run partial route and get in the TWT through the 'homeland security' entrance.
Click to expand...

That would be a great first stage. When people see how much better the train is i can't imagine the bus section would last too long.
 
Is the suggestion to keep the SL1 (South Sta-Logan) and SL2 (South Sta-Design Ctr) as buses, but run rail South Sta-Silver Line Way in addition?

(First time poster/long time lurker, just want to make sure I understand what is being suggested here.)
 
coleslaw said:
How possible would it be to re do the silver line with railway, at least a light rail? I know people talk a lot about it for the dudley branch but the south boston branch seems like it would be a much easier change over. Tunnels are already built and it seems like the stations could easily be changed over by just adding a platform and if it was a light rail you wouldn't even need that. What is more complicated about it? are the tunnels not big enough or something? the market would definitely be there.
Click to expand...

It's not hard at all to lay track in the Transitway. There's just no appropriation of officially backed study to get the ball rolling. Even connecting it to the current system and getting it to Dudley is manageable in the long-run.

F-Line has had a lot of posts detailing exactly how it could be done to connect Transitway to Dudley, BBY and beyond.

Here's one of the more recent ones.
 
Last edited:
EricS said:
Is the suggestion to keep the SL1 (South Sta-Logan) and SL2 (South Sta-Design Ctr) as buses, but run rail South Sta-Silver Line Way in addition?

(First time poster/long time lurker, just want to make sure I understand what is being suggested here.)
Click to expand...

as a first step yes with the final goal being replacing all of the fake BRT with real rapid transit or light rail
 
There is no reason they couldn't run green line trolleys from south station to silver line way within a year or two. The overhead would have to be modified slightly, raising the return wire higher than the power wire so the trolleys wouldn't short out (trolleys use the rails as the return). The platforms are already raised for ADA access. The transitway needs to be repaived ANYWAY so there is no reason they couldn't lay rails in the new pavement and run both busses and trolleys through it. Signals could be installed, but its not required, since the B, C and E run line of sight above ground already. The Harvard bus loop used to have both trolleys and buses running together through it, so this isn't exactly a new concept.

I don't understand why no one is lobbying for this. Even if its disconnected from the rest of the system for years, the increase in capacity and removal of the negative stigma associated with buses would be great for the silver line.


coleslaw said:
as a first step yes with the final goal being replacing all of the fake BRT with real rapid transit or light rail
Click to expand...

You're not going to see a dedicated tunnel from the Seaport to Airport within our lifetimes, so the dual modes are going to have to stay running from SS to Airport. That doesn't mean that SS-SLW cant be light rail however. Any extension westward from SS to tie it into the rest of the system should be light rail.
 
Isolated SS-SLW rail seems wasteful and inefficient (where is the maintenance facility, for one?), particularly considering the tunnel is not yet maxed out on bus capacity. Procure more buses and run them more frequently (whether over the entire SL1/SL2 routes, or just SS-SLW) to add capacity in the short term.

Once a plan is figured out/agreed upon to connect the Transitway to Green Line or SL4/SL5, that is when rail would seem warranted in the Transitway.
 
EricS said:
Isolated SS-SLW rail seems wasteful and inefficient (where is the maintenance facility, for one?), particularly considering the tunnel is not yet maxed out on bus capacity. Procure more buses and run them more frequently (whether over the entire SL1/SL2 routes, or just SS-SLW) to add capacity in the short term.

Once a plan is figured out/agreed upon to connect the Transitway to Green Line or SL4/SL5, that is when rail would seem warranted in the Transitway.
Click to expand...

Right. You're not laying rails in the transitway until it's connected to the Green Line.
 
Instead of running busses to the Design Center, why not continue a light rail route over there as well? Exit onto Trilling Road where it can be street running or you can diet the road, go down to the curve where Track 61 crosses a lot and have the Silver Line turn onto that right of way, and then just run rail down Drydock Avenue.

Consolidating the Silver Line in the entire Seaport DIstrict to one line would make things a whole lot simpler and easier to navigate as well as providing better transit to the Marine Industrial Park.
 
Proposition Joe said:
Instead of running busses to the Design Center, why not continue a light rail route over there as well? Exit onto Trilling Road where it can be street running or you can diet the road, go down to the curve where Track 61 crosses a lot and have the Silver Line turn onto that right of way, and then just run rail down Drydock Avenue.

Consolidating the Silver Line in the entire Seaport DIstrict to one line would make things a whole lot simpler and easier to navigate as well as providing better transit to the Marine Industrial Park.
Click to expand...

Once the Transitway is hooked up to the LRT system there is the potential to hook up a couple of Southie streetcar routes, either using the existing portal or, if the tunnel is extended under D Street, from a "Silver Line Way" portal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top