Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello! I'm glad that the Green Line Extension to Union Square in Somerville and Medford/Tufts has finally been completed and opened to the riding public, and we've also talked about the Blue Line extension from Wonderland to Lynn with stations in areas suck as Oak Island, Point of Pines, West Lynn (Commercial St), and Lynn (Market and Washington Sts).
I'm hoping that the Fairmount Line can be a reality sometime in our lifetimes. Since the Blue Line already exists, then priority exists for the Blue line to be expanded first to Lynn, however, if there's supposed to be another line created for the MBTA subway system, then converting the Fairmount Line from Readville to South Station makes a lot of sense. I'm also going to rename this line the Aqua Line. The reason is because since yellow is designated for surface and purple is designated for commuter rail, brown is a hard color to allocate in Boston, and indigo is too close in shade and pigment to the color purple so light blue or cyan/aqua/turquoise this leaves me to choose a color and the color is cyan/aqua. Not sure how people are going to continually call it the "cyan line" or "turquoise line" but Aqua Line has a more lasting impact since it will run parallel to the Boston Harbor from Chelsea via Chelsea St to South Station in Downtown Boston via Atlantic Ave.
Here's my following proposed stations for the Aqua Line, with locations and intersections in parentheses and bus, subway, and commuter rail connections following:
PHASE 1
- Readville (Hyde Park Ave & Neponset Valley Pkwy; Wolcott Square): 32, 33, (MBTA commuter rail connections to Fall River, New Bedford, & Providence)
- Fairmount Ave (Fairmount Ave & Walnut St): 24, 50, BAT future
- River St (Tileston St): 24, 33
- Cummins Hwy (Hollingsworth St): 30
- Blue Hill Ave (Woodhaven St): 28, 29, 31
- Morton St (Evans & Hannon Sts): 21, 26
- Talbot Ave (Westcott St): 22
- Four Corners - Geneva Ave (Eldon St): 19, 23
- Columbia Rd (Ceylon St): 16
- Uphams Corner (Clifton St): 15, 41
- Newmarket (Massachusetts Ave): 8, 10, CT3
elevated to subway
- South Station (Atlantic Ave): RED, SILVER 4, 7, 11 (MBTA commuter rail connections to Fall River, New Bedford, Providence, & Worcester plus intercity bus service & intercity rail service to Albany, NY, Providence, New Haven, New York, Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, Springfield, Worcester and Washington DC)
PHASE 2
subway
- Rowes Wharf (Atlantic Ave): (ferry connections to Provincetown)
- Aquarium (Atlantic Ave): BLUE 4 (ferry connections to Charlestown and Hull/Hingham)
- Hanover St - North End (Cross St): GREEN, ORANGE (possible North End-West End connector)
- Lovejoy (N Washington St): 4
PHASE 3
subway
- Constitution (Chelsea St): 92
- Bunker Hill - Charlestown (Chelsea St): 91
- Admiral Hill - Chelsea Sq (Broadway): (future surface connections to Encore Boston Harbor)
- Chelsea City Hall - Bellingham Sq (Broadway): 111, 112, 114, 115, 117
subway to elevated
- Revere Beach Pkwy (Rt 1): (possible surface connection)
- Park Ave (Rt 1): 110
- Squire Rd (Rt 1): 108, 109, 119, 411, 421, 426, 426W, 428
- Square One (Rt 1): 428, 429, 430
- Saugus Plaza (Rt 1 and Walnut St): 429 (future surface connections to Lynnfield, Peabody, and Wakefield)
Last edited by wanderer34; 12-22-2022 at 01:04 AM..
The yellow font is hard to read with the default background.
I think a conversion to rapid transit makes sense given its grade separation, close stop spacing and in a part of a city that doesn't currently have rapid transit and it can at least somewhat rapidly go into operation with that phase 1 segment though there'd be questions about how well those operations work during peak hour / peak direction for South Station. Later phases traveling through a right-of-way separately from the MBTA Commuter Rail tracks in and near South Station would be necessary if there's a goal of bringing up frequencies on all lines, so I do think doing a separate right-of-way separately but in parallel with turning MBTA Commuter Rail to a S-Bahn with the NSRL makes sense as there are a lot more services feeding into South Station than North Station so having at least one of the lines separated out from there is reasonable.
I do wonder about the services further away from the city center and how those would fare with a very high frequency (rapid transit frequency) and think perhaps at the southern end it should branch like a short branch under Blue Hill Avenue to get to at least the Mattapan trolley station if not further.
I had always thought this was a great idea and something the T should pursue, but I asked in another more transit nerdy forum (can't post a link, CD rules) about the possibility of this and got shot down quickly. In short, it's not possible. The jist of why it's not possible is as follows:
The tracks the Fairmount line are also used for Franklin/Foxoboro trains which can't be moved onto the Northeast Corridor tracks which are already congested. There's no room for additional new tracks (like what was done along the Lowell Line corridor to accommodate the Green Line Extension). So converting to rapid transit would be a detriment to the Franklin line and put added pressure on the Northeast corridor. Both nonstarters.
The tracks are also currently the only freight rail connection to Boston from the south. Eliminating that connection is a nonstarter as it's currently essential and it's a vital component of the continued growth of shipping to the Seaport (the actual freight seaport, not the neighborhood).
Finally, the MBTA is building a new maintenance facility at Readville, making the Fairmount line tracks essential for moving and storing all commuter rail trains on the South Station commuter rail network.
There are also some borderline insurmountable logistical hurdles when it comes to connecting a rapid transit Fairmount Line into the existing rapid transit network (i.e. the Amtrak maintenance yard is in the way, and a North/South Rail Link tunnel will get in the way). So even if all of the above wasn't an obstacle and you could do it, you'd still have an extremely hard time connecting it to the existing network.
The best bet for Fairmount is capacity increases at South Station, EMU rolling stock, and seamless fare collection (i.e. AFC 2.0 which is underway) priced the same as existing rapid transit which would allow flexible, nearly-rapid transit headways (10-15 minutes apart) and relatively easy transfers to the Red and Silver Lines at South Station.
The yellow font is hard to read with the default background.
Only used the yellow font just to designate the surface routes. My fault if you can't read it, but you can highlight the script.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think a conversion to rapid transit makes sense given its grade separation, close stop spacing and in a part of a city that doesn't currently have rapid transit and it can at least somewhat rapidly go into operation with that phase 1 segment though there'd be questions about how well those operations work during peak hour / peak direction for South Station. Later phases traveling through a right-of-way separately from the MBTA Commuter Rail tracks in and near South Station would be necessary if there's a goal of bringing up frequencies on all lines, so I do think doing a separate right-of-way separately but in parallel with turning MBTA Commuter Rail to a S-Bahn with the NSRL makes sense as there are a lot more services feeding into South Station than North Station so having at least one of the lines separated out from there is reasonable.
I do wonder about the services further away from the city center and how those would fare with a very high frequency (rapid transit frequency) and think perhaps at the southern end it should branch like a short branch under Blue Hill Avenue to get to at least the Mattapan trolley station if not further.
The frequencies would at least be 10-15 min off peak and 5 min rush hour for the Fairmount Line. It's not necessary to extend a branch from the Fairmount Line to Mattapan Sq. The distance from the proposed Blue Hill Ave station on the new Fairmount Line to Mattapan Sq is 1/2 a mile, therefore it's just not necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Hard NO.
FIX the Red, Green and Orange lines before we can even DISCUSS further expansion.
Last time I checked, each line is strictly independent of one another! And creating a brand new line for Boston (which should be built in phases, BTW) is going to help improve mobility in Boston. The aging of the system plus the inefficiencies of the T is an inside problem and the culture and the management does need to change. But I don't see how adding a new line is going to complicate the problems of the T, especially since the aforementioned lines are the oldest lines in the system compared to this line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I had always thought this was a great idea and something the T should pursue, but I asked in another more transit nerdy forum (can't post a link, CD rules) about the possibility of this and got shot down quickly. In short, it's not possible. The jist of why it's not possible is as follows:
The tracks the Fairmount line are also used for Franklin/Foxoboro trains which can't be moved onto the Northeast Corridor tracks which are already congested. There's no room for additional new tracks (like what was done along the Lowell Line corridor to accommodate the Green Line Extension). So converting to rapid transit would be a detriment to the Franklin line and put added pressure on the Northeast corridor. Both nonstarters.
It's a touchy topic it according to the MBTA commuter line map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_Rail_Map.svg), it looks like the Franklin line can be connected via Back Bay to South Station and the Fairmount Line is supposed to end at Readville, even though the Fairmount can be connected to the Franklin line and travel further south.
I believe a lot of the trains can be timed perfectly just to give Acela trains priority over the regular Northeast Corridor trains, and it might seem like the Northeast Corridor will be more congested but the point is that the NE Corridor is the most congested rail corridor in America so I'm not sure how removing the Fairmount Line for subway service is going to make the NE Corridor even more congested, especially since the Fairmount Line isn't used that much since its about thirty minutes each way to and from South Station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
The tracks are also currently the only freight rail connection to Boston from the south. Eliminating that connection is a nonstarter as it's currently essential and it's a vital component of the continued growth of shipping to the Seaport (the actual freight seaport, not the neighborhood).
I've checked out the map, and from a distance it makes sense, but it looks like there's really no direct connection according to the track map from the Fairmount line to the Boston Seaport. Also, the Seaport, as a whole has been de-emphasized form an industrial area to another extension of downtown Boston. Not barring the fact that there's not port operations in Boston, but the old seaport isn't the same and Boston isn't the same industrial city that I once was in the 20th century.
I'm pretty sure there's other ports around Boston (Charlestown, Chelsea, etc.) and in New England (Providence, New Bedford, etc.) that can pick up the slack from the Boston Seaport, and it doesn't look like the Boston Seaport is really the main seaport that it once was in the past. It also seems like Boston is following NYC and SF and de-emphasizing their ports and allowing other areas (Newark, NJ, Oakland, CA to take over the port operations) and Boston is no different in this regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Finally, the MBTA is building a new maintenance facility at Readville, making the Fairmount line tracks essential for moving and storing all commuter rail trains on the South Station commuter rail network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
There are also some borderline insurmountable logistical hurdles when it comes to connecting a rapid transit Fairmount Line into the existing rapid transit network (i.e. the Amtrak maintenance yard is in the way, and a North/South Rail Link tunnel will get in the way). So even if all of the above wasn't an obstacle and you could do it, you'd still have an extremely hard time connecting it to the existing network.
The best bet for Fairmount is capacity increases at South Station, EMU rolling stock, and seamless fare collection (i.e. AFC 2.0 which is underway) priced the same as existing rapid transit which would allow flexible, nearly-rapid transit headways (10-15 minutes apart) and relatively easy transfers to the Red and Silver Lines at South Station.
It remains to be seen how the commuter rail system improves. I'm still convinced that a separate transit line can be completed on the Fairmount Line and wherever the MBTA stores their commuter trains is going to have to be allocated depending on the commuter line's location.
It's a touchy topic it according to the MBTA commuter line map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_Rail_Map.svg), it looks like the Franklin line can be connected via Back Bay to South Station and the Fairmount Line is supposed to end at Readville, even though the Fairmount can be connected to the Franklin line and travel further south.
I believe a lot of the trains can be timed perfectly just to give Acela trains priority over the regular Northeast Corridor trains, and it might seem like the Northeast Corridor will be more congested but the point is that the NE Corridor is the most congested rail corridor in America so I'm not sure how removing the Fairmount Line for subway service is going to make the NE Corridor even more congested, especially since the Fairmount Line isn't used that much since its about thirty minutes each way to and from South Station.
You just answered the bold in the paragraph above. The Northeast Corridor is already too congested, particularly through Boston. Taking the Franklin/Foxboro trains off of the Fairmount Line and re-routing them through Back Bay adds a significant number of trains to a stretch of NE Corridor track that's already overburdened. There's no reason for the MBTA to risk additional commuter rail operations issues for a project like this. On top of the that, the Northeast Corridor is federally controlled. There is absolutely zero incentive for the feds to jeopardize Amtrak reliability further than it already is for a conversion that doesn't need to happen. There's no way it gets federally approved. Hence, it's a nonstarter.
Quote:
I've checked out the map, and from a distance it makes sense, but it looks like there's really no direct connection according to the track map from the Fairmount line to the Boston Seaport. Also, the Seaport, as a whole has been de-emphasized form an industrial area to another extension of downtown Boston. Not barring the fact that there's not port operations in Boston, but the old seaport isn't the same and Boston isn't the same industrial city that I once was in the 20th century.
I'm pretty sure there's other ports around Boston (Charlestown, Chelsea, etc.) and in New England (Providence, New Bedford, etc.) that can pick up the slack from the Boston Seaport, and it doesn't look like the Boston Seaport is really the main seaport that it once was in the past. It also seems like Boston is following NYC and SF and de-emphasizing their ports and allowing other areas (Newark, NJ, Oakland, CA to take over the port operations) and Boston is no different in this regard.
There's a near-direct connection at the junction by the South Boston Bypass, Widett Circle, and the Amtrak and MBTA rail yards. Google "Track 61 Boston." To "plug" track 61 into the Fairmount would require some track reconfiguration, but that's very doable and the potential for it to happen is part of the reason the state keeps Track 61 in existence.
While the industrial aspect of Fort Point and the Seaport has all but disappeared with deindustrialization (and the current Seaport Neighborhood taken its place), the shipping function is still very active and growing in Boston. The state just finished $850 Million in improvements to the Port of Boston including dredging, new cranes, and an expansion of the Conley Terminal. There are more major improvements panned on the horizon. The improvements have already allowed Boston to expand maritime trade operations (it hosted the largest container ship in its history earlier this year) and created new connections to major ports all over the world. It's very much a growing shipping hub and the state clearly intends to continue that trajectory, not try to push it off to other ports (some of which can never handle what the South Boston seaport can, and others which would need hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in order to do it). There is no chance that the state says "screw all that money we spent and the future we've invested in, let's turn the Fairmount Line into a subway!"
Quote:
It remains to be seen how the commuter rail system improves. I'm still convinced that a separate transit line can be completed on the Fairmount Line and wherever the MBTA stores their commuter trains is going to have to be allocated depending on the commuter line's location.
You can be convinced all you want, but it's not going to happen. Full stop. The only way you'll see rapid-transit like frequencies on the Fairmount are if/when the USPS sells the facility next to South Station to the MBTA so they can complete their long-awaited/hoped for expansion and capacity increase. Once they increase capacity at South Station, they could run EMUs on the existing Fairmount Line at 15ish minute headways without pushing the Franklin/Foxoboro lines onto the NEC tracks, and without cutting off the potential for freight rail to the Seaport. As a bonus, this should be drastically cheaper than converting the line to rapid transit. EMU service on the Fairmount Line should absolutely happen. They've attempted several deals with the USPS, but all of them have fallen through. Eventually the expansion should, but until it does, you're not going to see any major change to the Fairmount Line.
Electrification of the commuter rail and conversion from traditional fixed block signalling could speed up the train schedules and allow for more trains to access the NE Corridor. Having said that, the Fairmount Line still has pretty low ridership that does not justify turning it into heavy rail subway. I have ridden the Fairmount Line for 25 years now and in spite of increased frequencies, the line still does not generate much ridership interest. Now the #23 Ashmont-Ruggles bus on the other hand is always packed. Besides, a new underground station would have to be built at South Station to accommodate the new line because the present terminal is already congested. There were also talks of connecting it to Track 61 and adding passenger service to the SB Waterfront but only talks. Theoretically it is possible but practically it is not.
BTW the earlier color for a rejuvenated Fairmount Line was the "Indigo Line".
Electrification of the commuter rail and conversion from traditional fixed block signalling could speed up the train schedules and allow for more trains to access the NE Corridor. Having said that, the Fairmount Line still has pretty low ridership that does not justify turning it into heavy rail subway. I have ridden the Fairmount Line for 25 years now and in spite of increased frequencies, the line still does not generate much ridership interest.
Now the #23 Ashmont-Ruggles bus on the other hand is always packed. Besides, a new underground station would have to be built at South Station to accommodate the new line because the present terminal is already congested. There were also talks of connecting it to Track 61 and adding passenger service to the SB Waterfront but only talks. Theoretically it is possible but practically it is not.
BTW the earlier color for a rejuvenated Fairmount Line was the "Indigo Line".
Have you read and checked the original post? The segment between South Station to Chelsea City Hall - Bellingham Sq would be underground if built while the rest of the line would be above or below grade, depending on the location.
Also, it wouldn't be too hard to place a two-track subway underneath Downtown Boston, and Atlantic Ave was selected since it would be easier to connect to the Red and Silver lines at South Station, another station at Rowes Wharf, and another station connecting to the Blue Line at Aquarium.
Have you read and checked the original post? The segment between South Station to Chelsea City Hall - Bellingham Sq would be underground if built while the rest of the line would be above or below grade, depending on the location.
Also, it wouldn't be too hard to place a two-track subway underneath Downtown Boston, and Atlantic Ave was selected since it would be easier to connect to the Red and Silver lines at South Station, another station at Rowes Wharf, and another station connecting to the Blue Line at Aquarium.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but again, this is not even a remotely realistic proposal. That's fine - I'm a transit geek and have spent many hours dreaming up fantasy routes and networks. But it's helpful to understand what's realistic and what isn't. Your proposal is not.
Who says "it wouldn't be too hard to place a two-track subway underneath downtown Boston?" If it's even possible to do in a way that the several downtown stations you propose would be useful (and I don't think it is), it would need to be impossibly deep which would be an engineering nightmare. A tunnel between South Station and North Station/Lovejoy would need to go beneath the existing O'Neil tunnel, beneath the existing Red Line tunnel, beneath the existing Silver Line tunnel, beneath the existing Blue Line tunnel, and beneath dozens of miles of utility lines.
But that's not all. If a new tunnel is built under this area of downtown Boston, it's going to be the North/South Rail Link. That is already a major logistical challenge and the potential depth of a "Central" station (around Aquarium) is one of the major hangups (it would be the deepest in the system by a good margin). Your proposal would have to go still deeper, beneath a new North/South Rail Link tunnel. Not only would it be incredibly challenging to build, but it would be a nightmare to maintain several new stations that are hundreds of feet underground.
Then there's cost. You're talking about at least 3+ miles of new, deep bore tunnel (twice going under the harbor) and probably 10+ miles of elevated rail. What do you think that would cost? The Big Dig cost over $14 billion 2 decades ago (some estimates put the total cost over $24 billion). The GLX cost $2.3 Billion for a much smaller, mostly at-grade project with zero tunneling. What your proposing would easily run in the ballpark of $50-100 billion.
And the question is - "Why?" It's been established already that Fairmount line ridership is low and there are much, much more cost effective and far less disruptive ways to improve frequencies to rapid levels and encourage ridership (Electrified/EMU service at expanded South Station). There's nothing about that line that justifies such a massive investment. Charlestown is well served already as nearly the entire neighborhood is within a 20 minute walk of the Orange Line. Much of it is within walking distance to downtown, and several bus and ferry routes provide additional connections. Chelsea deserves better transit, but rather than boring a new tunnel beneath downtown, Charleston, and the harbor (twice), it'd be much more cost effective to branch a spur of the Blue Line out to Chelsea, or possibly the Orange Line (though I think there are reasons that might not be doable). You could also potentially convert the Silver Line in Chelsea to light rail and extend it. All of the above is fantasyland territory, but it would still be cheaper and easier than your proposal.
Finally, with all due respect to Western Revere and Saugus, their transit needs can be met through far more cost effective means than an ungodly expensive new subway line. Creating new and upgrading key existing bus lines (like the 110) to Bus Rapid Transit complete with separated bus lanes could provide more than adequate connections to rapid for people in Malden, Everett, and Revere. The North-South Rail Link will improve commuter rail frequencies across the state. Adding some key bus connections to commuter rail in Melrose and Lynn would be adequate for people living in Saugus and far more cost effective than a brand new subway line.
Last edited by lrfox; 12-23-2022 at 09:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
