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.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Wow. I really did not expect that much of a response for suggesting a rename. Perhaps I should've started a dedicated thread?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
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.
Proposition Joe
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 3
Newbury Street was a proposed rename for Hynes. Sorry if that was unclear.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
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.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,605
- Reaction score
- 3,276
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.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
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).
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
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.
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
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.)
(First time poster/long time lurker, just want to make sure I understand what is being suggested here.)
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
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:
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Right. You're not laying rails in the transitway until it's connected to the Green Line.
Proposition Joe
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 3
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
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.