One Thing You Wish Boston Had More Of (shops, trains)

[Bostonmania]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Well, is there a need for 24/7 subway/trolly service? I've been through many places in Boston at all sorts of hours, and Boston seems to be relatively dead after say 1 am. Sure, some people would have need for a late night/early morning subway, but I'm not sure if there is enough need from the population as a whole to warrant such service.

Having a 24 hour system would make it more possible for late night/early morning events to take place though, so there would probably be much more people who would use it than just those who are using it now.

[Bostonmania]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

I really like this idea. The central GL subway already handles four lines, why should most of them terminate downtown? It should branch North of Boston into as many distinct destinations as it does West of Boston.

See my comments earlier in the post about branching the Green Line. It makes sense for the same reason that you've suggested a Northside branch for the Red Line makes sense. Let's keep the Green Line suggestion and send the Red Line branch to Watertown or Brighton.

I really dont think that the green line needs to be extended. Its a trolley not a subway, which is fine for brookline when it stops every few blocks, but its really slow and crowded compared to the subway. And i think they terminate downtown because they would need a lot more trolleys to run frequent service, and it is convenient, and its too slow to run the length of an a ctual subway, thats why its deemed a trolley.

So i disagree with you, and i feel many people would rather commute by any other line than the green line. Which for further emphasis, is not a subway, and should not be reffered to as such. It does not deserve such a title and is evil.

[DarkWolf]

I think the T should operate 24/7 from Friday to Sunday 3am...

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Bostonmania

I really dont think that the green line needs to be extended. Its a trolley not a subway, which is fine for brookline when it stops every few blocks, but its really slow and crowded compared to the subway. And i think they terminate downtown because they would need a lot more trolleys to run frequent service, and it is convenient, and its too slow to run the length of an a ctual subway, thats why its deemed a trolley.

So i disagree with you, and i feel many people would rather commute by any other line than the green line. Which for further emphasis, is not a subway, and should not be reffered to as such. It does not deserve such a title and is evil.

It's light rail, but through the center of the city it runs underground in designated tunnels which does make it a subway. It's painfully slow (though not as bad as SF's Muni Metro which is an almost identical system) once above ground as it has to contend with regular traffic, pedestrians and lights. It does have stretches above ground where it can move and it mostly has it's own designated Right of Way (The E from Brigham Circle to Heath Street being the exception as it runs ON the street). However, from Symphony (E) or Kenmore (All other lines) to North Station (really Lechemere since it's still on a designated viaduct), it is a rapid transit subway in every sense of the term.

Extending it North of downtown wouldn't be a problem. As has been pointed out, the tunnels already carry 4 branches through the center of the city. Capacity isn't much of an issue (as it would be with creating entirely new spurs on the Blue or Orange Lines). I don't think they should extend as far North as they do West (the ride in From Riverside is rough), but the Green Line can CERTAINLY handle an extension beyond Lechemere.

Routing it is simple. Pick two of the existing branches (say, E and C) and have them run past Lechemere on the two spurs. The system is more than capable of handling that.

[Bostonmania]

I didnt mention extending the orange or blue lines, i mentioned branching the red line. I know the green line could handle the extension, but the main point i was trying to express was my hate of the green line. I have taken the green line many times so you dont have to explain to me what it is. As i've noticed in the underground sections, it's faster than the above ground section but it still isnt as fast as the other lines. It [i]isnt [i] rapid transit as the mbta states, i've studied the differences between subways and light rail before and they are substantial. anyway, dont want the greenline extended.

[lrfox]

If you hate the Green Line, you hate it and that's fine. I'm not a huge fan either. However, hating the line doesn't hold very much weight in terms of the logistics and economics of extending the line. It makes MUCH more sense to extend the Green Line than the Red.

I can certainly understand any frustration with the Green Line having ridden it myself plenty. But the slowness of the Green Line is mostly outside of the city center where it runs above ground. Through the center of the city, it's just as efficient as any line (if not more so since Green Line trains are more frequent). Moreover, it IS rapid transit (especially in the center of the city) under just about ANY definition (here's one for example: rapid transit n. An urban passenger transportation system using elevated or underground trains or a combination of both.). It may not fit your liking, but the MBTA is well within their rights to define it as rapid transit. With the exception of a small stretch of track on the E from Brigham Circle to Heath Street, the Green Line even has its own designated Right of Ways (ROWs) above ground.

It really doesn't make any sense to apply any negative feelings toward the Green Line's current service west of downtown to the potential expansion North of the city. The proposed route doesn't have anywhere NEAR the frequency of stops that plagues the commute on the B-Line (it has 5 beteween College Avenue and Lechemere, 6 if you count the small Union Square off-shoot). It will also have it's own ROW (unlike parts of the E). There is no reason it can't be much more efficient on the extended route.

Then you have economics. Extending the Red Line as you propose includes a SIGNIFICANT amount of tunneling. It's prohibitively expensive to dig new subway tunnels nowadays. Furthermore, a "hook" is often bad planning for a subway line. If it hooks around at the end of the line, it means that people at the last stop are physically closer to the city center, but have to ride LONGER than people who live further away because they have to ride around the entire hook. That's bound to deter rides. I can't imagine many people taking the Red Line from Chealsea up through Malden, Medford, Somerville, and Cambridge to get to downtown Boston. A bus or the commuter rail would be much quicker.

Finally, the Green Line is above ground already after North Station so there is little to no tunneling necessarily involved. It will run just about the entire length of the route from Lechemere to College Avenue along EXISTING Right of Way (no emanant domain, mass land clearing or tunneling to worry about). It's a much cleaner, cheaper and simpler project than it would be to split the Red Line.

If you MUST cover that route without extending the Green Line, the Orange line would work much better. The Orange Line could be split just north of the Community College station and follow the same Right Of Way that the Green Line is planned to follow. No tunneling, no emanant domain, land clearing, etc. But frankly, I like the Orange Line better a potential Charlestown/Chelsea Spur. The Green Line extension just makes the most sense.

Again, I don't have an issue with your sentiment toward the Green Line. I don't even dislike the idea of a Red Line spur north or northwest of the city somewhere (Watertown and Brighton are great suggestions). However, to serve the proposed area, it doesn't make economic or logical sense to use the Red Line.

[pretentious]

Yeah, why would you want to change anything in Boston. It's perfect the way it is.

(Sarcasm)

[xpy1999]

Walmart

affordable housing

longer summer

snow-free

[nancy thereader]

snow-free


Are there any underground passages or malls as there are in Toronto which, I think, may be colder, but has less snow?

http://www.toronto.ca/path/

[Bostonmania]

Originally Posted by xpy1999

Walmart


snow-free

No walmarts. No

The snow is not leaving, so the people who dont like it should. Its part of the environment and bostons charm, stop complaining about it.