tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post6230885507403335962..comments2024-03-29T03:02:00.140-07:00Comments on The Amateur Planner: Red-Blue connector: think outside the tunnelArihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-82488877073818355152016-07-29T08:26:10.443-07:002016-07-29T08:26:10.443-07:00****WARNING DO NOT ATTEMPT WHAT I DID IN 1982-1985...****WARNING DO NOT ATTEMPT WHAT I DID IN 1982-1985. IT WAS DIFFERENT WORLD BACK THEN. THERE WEREN'T MANY "T" COPS AROUND THEN AND IF WE GOT CAUGHT THERE WAS A 99% CHANCE WE'D GET YELLED AT BY A "STARTER" OR INSPECTOR AND TOLD NOT TO GO DOWN THERE AGAIN. A LOT OF THE "T" EMPLOYEES ASKED US IF WE EVER CAME ACROSS ANYTHING GOOD OR INTERESTING. WE SHOWED THEM OUR SYSTEM MAPS PICKED UP AT THE TOKEN BOOTHS AND OUR HAND WRITTEN NOTES TO SHOW THEM OFF. <br /><br />IF YOU WERE TO DO THIS TODAY POST 9-11, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED! THE AUTHORITIES WOULD DEFINITELY LOCK DOWN THE BLUE LINE AT THE LEAST, THE WHOLE SYSTEM AT THE MOST. YOU WILL BE TREATED AS A HOME GROWN TERRORIST AND BE ENDLESSLY INTERROGATED AND FINED BIG TIME. YOUR DEFENSE AS TO WHY YOU WERE DOWN THERE TO SEE HOW WORK WOULD BE NEEDED TO CONNECT BOWDOIN AND CHARLES/MGH WON'T WORK.<br /><br />SO THERE, I GAVE MY WARNING, DON'T DO IT. THE THIRD RAIL IS ALIVE DOWN THERE AND THERE MUST BE CAMERA'S. YOU WILL ARRESTED BY MEN IN BIG BLACK SUITS AND KICK THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU!!!!!<br /><br />The tracks are already there. When I was a teen, a couple of friends and I took some flashlights, Orange Vests and Hardhats and explored many MBTA Subway Tunnel. The Boylston Loop, Old Court Street Station near GVT. CTR. (We found a entrance next to the old Boston School Committee Building.) Down at Bowdoin, we climbed down onto the tracks and walked the loop. Back in those days you could stay on the train when it did the turn around and that was when we saw the tracks. This was the early 1980's. We walked down the tracks. It seemed pretty long, we walked until we came to a wall. We Had no Idea where we were. There were 2 emergency exits, we went up one and listened. We heard street sounds and people. When we hit the crash bar to open the exit, we hoped we weren't in the middle of commercial street or someone was standing on it. We held on to the door so it would not fly open and found ourselves on the sidewalk near Joy Street. and reset the door and shut it. We were thought we were less than a 1/4 away from Charles/MGH. Perhaps 2/10ths of a mile.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384111040993184650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-3497716047712875652015-11-05T11:09:19.638-08:002015-11-05T11:09:19.638-08:00Good idea.
A thought: what if the ramp climbed en...Good idea.<br /><br />A thought: what if the ramp climbed enough that the Blue Line platform were built on top of the red line platform? This would make for a single stair climb to transfer in either direction (or even a wide ramp between levels, as in Grand Central), and would mean that it would not be impossible to extend the tracks beyond the station if desired.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14024455276445834433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-28737530695655834172015-07-18T16:39:38.729-07:002015-07-18T16:39:38.729-07:00Google Maps seems to think the northern end of the...Google Maps seems to think the northern end of the northbound Downtown Crossing Orange Line platform is less than 200' from the southern end of the southbound Orange Line platform at State St, so that may be a cheaper place to build.Joel N. Weber IInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-71886188179351717612014-12-31T07:36:32.705-08:002014-12-31T07:36:32.705-08:00Today the state EPA is attempting to kill the requ...Today the state EPA is attempting to kill the requirement to build this extension. This connector was part of the Big Dig environmental mitigation. Please contact arnold.anne@epa.gov with your obejctions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-55621868844317483182014-12-18T16:11:08.319-08:002014-12-18T16:11:08.319-08:00That's a great idea (I've thought of it m...That's a great idea (I've thought of it myself). In the Paris Metro, stations that are close to one another but whose lines do not actually intersect, are in some cases connected by a moving sidewalk which get you there quickly and easily. If you don't like the moving sidewalk, you're free to walk on a parallel stationary walkway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-16085138468840669102014-11-24T10:42:56.061-08:002014-11-24T10:42:56.061-08:00The concept of connecting the Red Line and Blue Li...The concept of connecting the Red Line and Blue Line has always struck me as a great idea, but the cost and logistics of connecting the Blue Line's Bowdoin Street Station to the Red Line's Charles Street Station (whether by extending the Blue Line to Charles Street or using a pedestrian moving walkway - either above or below ground) seemed beyond reach financially for the City of Boston and the State. Since the initial idea was to have a connection between the Blue Line and Red Line, I was thinking that making an underground pedestrian passageway that directly connected the Governmnet Center Blue Line station and the Park Street Red Line station would also achieve the same objective, at far less cost and disruption. Such a connection would be similar to the already-existing underground walkway that now exists between Park Street and Downtown Crossing that allows for a direct pedestrian connection between the Green Line at Park Street and the Orange Line at Downtown Crosing. Ideally, a new underground pedestrian walkway between Park Street and Government Center could have moving sidewalks and skylights built into the overhgead pavemen and sidewalks - and could be easily built at a fraction of the cost of connecting the Bowdoin Street Station and the Charles Street Station. In addition, it would allow Park Street to become a "super station" with direct connections to all four transit lines (not counting the Silver bus line). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-83119695480443282622014-10-17T19:59:06.360-07:002014-10-17T19:59:06.360-07:00This is an interesting idea. You'd need vertic...This is an interesting idea. You'd need vertical circulation out of Bowdoin, and then the walkway would have to descend a grade downwards. Although you could have a mid-block entrance. 6 mph seems mighty high, though; I'm not sure that's feasible. It certainly is somewhat less of a transfer penalty than a double-change, but 6-8 minutes with an elevator ride and a long walkway ride is quite long.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-58896868800869266072014-10-03T07:20:41.598-07:002014-10-03T07:20:41.598-07:00Don't run trains half a mile: build an enclose...Don't run trains half a mile: build an enclosed, elevated moving walkway. Three, preferably, so that you can use 2:1 in rush hours or have one out for service. At 6 MPH you have a five minute journey, ADA compliant, no scheduling unpleasantness, less moving mass.slidewalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-18758149712338034912014-04-09T09:50:00.419-07:002014-04-09T09:50:00.419-07:00You're assuming people would be fine with an e...You're assuming people would be fine with an elevated across the Longfellow (unlikely) and through Cambridge (also unlikely). Heck, Cambridge gets their panties in a knot when you propose more transit service on the Grand Junction. This will smell of inner belt and would never happen. I'm all for designing something in to this plan to allow for eventual extension of the Blue Line (where? not sure), but this would dramatically increase the cost. As for the cross-platform connection, it would require a higher and longer structure, which would cost more and piss off the neighbors more, neither of which will fly.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-74154084100679038962014-04-05T18:18:24.456-07:002014-04-05T18:18:24.456-07:00I really like this idea, but I would tweak it just...I really like this idea, but I would tweak it just a bit, so that the tracks split approaching the station so that each stub end aligns next to the same directional track on the Red Line. This would allow for the opportunity of building a cross platform connection, but more importantly, it leaves an option for extension. By building flying junctions past the platform, the trains could then cross the Charles via shared Longfellow tracks. As the RL trains dip bellow, the BL trains would elevate above Main St., continuing a short distance to link up with the Grand Junction ROW. It could continue there on a viaduct abov the GJ tracks, for an eventual extension along the Worcester ROW.Hank Layfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529785567723656146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-84643116580087329922014-04-02T20:16:18.878-07:002014-04-02T20:16:18.878-07:00And you're assuming a best-case scenario where...And you're assuming a best-case scenario where trains on 4:30 headways actually come every four minutes and thirty seconds. Even minor bunching would result in several minute delays as the fastest turn-around you would have would be 3:30 or 4:00. Even two tracks is pushing it which is why I'd be a proponent of keeping the short turn at Bowdoin. One track may work at the ends of some light rail systems (Denver, Sacramento) but not in this case, especially at a transfer station.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-40026794327419612672014-04-01T22:54:13.632-07:002014-04-01T22:54:13.632-07:00A lot. The Blue Line runs every 4.5 minutes or so ...A lot. The Blue Line runs every 4.5 minutes or so right now. Given a travel time of one minute along the single track to and from the station, the margins start getting pretty tight, since you have 2.5 minutes of turnaround time at most, and it probably takes some 2 minutes to shut down the train, walk down its length to the other cab, and prepare to depart. If they use "stepping back", where the train gets picked up by the operator from the previous train, the margin is a little better, even giving a little bit of recovery time, but it would likely be the main constraint on Blue Line capacity at that point, unless you could turn half the trains around at Bowdoin.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-61240949843563665912014-04-01T17:59:34.702-07:002014-04-01T17:59:34.702-07:00How much would it harm the operating efficiency to...How much would it harm the operating efficiency to make the elevated part a single track? My guess is, not much, and I suspect that would further shrink both the cost and the impact of the elevated line.Data Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157838060450167787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-86528738313645013232014-04-01T10:18:58.826-07:002014-04-01T10:18:58.826-07:00I agree with arcady. Sure, a stub-end station is n...I agree with arcady. Sure, a stub-end station is not perfect (a loop would be great, but we can't really build that out over the Charles) and tail tracks mainly only allow the trains to enter the station more quickly. As a coworker pointed out, it's a half mile trip from Government Center to Charles, give or take. If you keep the curves at Bowdoin, that means that you really only have a few hundred meters to get any kind of speed. Restricting the trains to 30 mph until the portal and 20 thereafter would add seconds to the trip, and a hard speed limit of 10 mph at the platform end would mean it would take 20 seconds to pull in to the station. So maybe you lose a total of one minute of running time overall. Considering the current trip with two transfers takes 15 minutes and this would take 5, it's still a major savings.<br /><br />And, no there's not really that much of a capacity constraint. The Blue Line runs six car trains now, which is twice as long as a two car Green Line train (with level boarding to boot). The cars are certainly smaller than, say, the Red Line, but the line is not particularly capacity-constrained. Keeping the Bowdoin loop allows for some operational flexibility should something occur at Charles and, say, only one track be available (a disabled train, for instance). Some trains could be short-turned at the Bowdoin Loop, allowing service to be maintained along the main part of the line during times of frequent headways. <br /><br />This is much like how Park Street is used during rush hour service. If an inspector finds that a train is running behind schedule, they'll shunt it on to the fence track and have it turn at Park. The passenger disruption is minimal other than crossing the platform and getting on a train a couple of minutes later. Turning the train means it is less likely that service gaps will form and trains will bunch and become overcrowded, in theory, at least. How this would play out on the Blue Line to Charles: let's say that due to dispatching or some delays, three trains (A, B and C) came in to Government center at 5:00, 5:03 and 5:05. If all continued to Charles, the last train would have to wait a couple of minutes for the first to reverse, and might interfere with the second train's departure, cascading delays further. So, train A continues to Charles. Train B terminates at Bowdoin and loops back for the outbound run. Train C picks up train B's passengers, who only have a two minute delay, and continues to Charles. Use of the Bowdoin Loop allows you to maintain good service on the rest of the line due to any constraints a stub-end platform may require.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-47420795567278881132014-04-01T10:04:30.803-07:002014-04-01T10:04:30.803-07:00You've been playing too much Mini Metro? Any t...You've been playing too much Mini Metro? Any time you add shuttles, you're adding a ton of complexity. Where do you service these shuttles? Where do you store extra equipment? Etc.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-78967727705343294672014-03-30T05:56:52.163-07:002014-03-30T05:56:52.163-07:00Perhaps something like the electric trains that sh...Perhaps something like the electric trains that shuttle between North and South Terminal at London's Heathrow. That is, instead of using the regular Blue Line cars, use a light-weight two-train system that just shuttles between Charles and Government Center. Yes, people would have to depart at Government Center to connect with the real Blue Line, but electric shuttle trains of this sort don't need tail tracks, and can even be completely automated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-28305759832286870382014-03-30T00:58:00.228-07:002014-03-30T00:58:00.228-07:00Yes, operating a line without tail tracks does red...Yes, operating a line without tail tracks does reduce capacity. For example, the Waterloo and City line in London can't really run more than 22 trains per hour due to the lack of tail tracks. For comparison, the Blue Line currently runs 14 trains per hour and uses a trainstop system almost identical to the one used in London for train protection. And in London, they're pretty cautious about trains not overrunning the end of the track after a rather bad crash at Moorgate in the 70s.<br />So while it would be nice to have tail tracks and an underground station, the Blue Line isn't that pressed for capacity, and I think the elevated option is still very workable if it really is that much cheaper. Because that means that it might get built 30 to 50 years earlier than it would otherwise.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-25039046019303799522014-03-29T12:25:59.888-07:002014-03-29T12:25:59.888-07:00I shouldn't have mentioned riverbank. That'...I shouldn't have mentioned riverbank. That's a distraction. Don't need an extension to justify tail tracks.<br /><br />Fact is, the underground plans do include tail tracks, and it makes operating the line much easier and smoother for everyone. Being able to pull into the platform at full speed makes a big difference to connecting passengers.<br /><br />A stub end design without tail tracks will limit capacity, reduce options in case of a failure, and result in more use of the Bowdoin loop, assuming that is maintained. That situation is far from ideal. Use of the Bowdoin loop undermines the whole reason for building Red/Blue.<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-29143529353746961482014-03-29T11:44:01.352-07:002014-03-29T11:44:01.352-07:00A riverbank extension won't happen. Really eve...A riverbank extension won't happen. Really ever. You'd have to dig up Storrow Drive, put in a tunnel, and then put Storrow back in on top (or get rid of it), you'd be tunneling in fill below the water line, so it would be costlier to maintain, and the riverfront is not where more transit is necessary. If you want to increase transit options west of the city, the two-track main line of the Worcester Line combined with the Grand Junction give you much higher capacity and serve more highly-populated areas. Plus, the cost of that would be pretty astronomical. If you are going to spend $3b on something, spend it somewhere else.<br /><br />Hell, it would be a better plan to extend the Blue Line across the Longfellow and somehow have it share stations with the Red Line out to Harvard (and cheaper, too).<br /><br />Are stub-end platforms perfect? No. But the underground plans would have been the same construction of a stub-end platform, so I can't see how that would have been any better safety-wise (and with proper design, a Chicago-style escalator climb shouldn't be a reason not to build infrastructure). As far as capacity, if there were issues during rush hours with trains operating at low headways, some Blue Line trains could use the existing Bowdoin loop to turn back, much like some Green Line cars are turned at Park Street when there is congestion ahead.<br /><br />And, no, Red-Blue is not a panacea for all that ails the T. But it would dramatically increase the utility of the system and at the same time pull some of the transferring passengers out of the core, and all for a price tag far less than the state has said it would cost.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058285362842737187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293100068373105830.post-27380892743647954962014-03-29T10:43:48.768-07:002014-03-29T10:43:48.768-07:00Interesting possibility but there's a few prob...Interesting possibility but there's a few problems. Putting aside Boston's fear of El, the most striking issue I see here is the unavoidable stub-end terminal. This plan would preclude any extension of the Blue Line beyond Charles. And it would create permanent operational difficulties.<br /><br />I think that in general it's best to avoid having a terminal station without tail tracks. The little escalator-climbing incident in Chicago is a good reminder. Also the tragic accident in Brazil last year. When the tracks end like that, the trains have to enter the station very slowly, creating a TPH bottleneck that in this case would be completely unfixable in the future. Maybe the Spanish or the Japanese could manage it safely and efficiently but I'd much rather we have tail tracks.<br /><br />And then yes, no extension to the riverbank, or Kenmore, or anywhere else in the future. I know those are pie-in-the-sky but official plans did leave the possibilities open. Red/Blue alone isn't going to balance the Blue Line nor use up the downtown capacity.<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.com