Green Line Extension Lechmere to Medford

There are all sorts of the clearance problems in the FX area including the High Line Bridge
(Lowell mainline over the yard tracks). Not to mention crossing Rutherford Avenue at
grade and the added issues GLX brings up. Frankly, I don't think it'll (Mystic Wharf) return.

D

Simulated cab ride from Lechmere to Medford shown as part of a community presentation about noise barriers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... pp=desktop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

Like how there are two "St Paul St" stops but on separate lines with no connections?

On boston.com there was an interesting video simulation of a trip on the GLX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ZaXk-DIAsM

Jon

jonnhrr wrote:On boston.com there was an interesting video simulation of a trip on the GLX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ZaXk-DIAsM

Jon

hmmm, I feel as if I've seen this before

CRail wrote:Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

How about the station named Lowell adjacent to the Lowell Line?

sery2831 wrote:

CRail wrote:Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

How about the station named Lowell adjacent to the Lowell Line?

I think the actual station name will be "Lowell St", which is the cross street at that location.

CRail wrote:Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

I was working on the project at the time they changed the name from Brickbottom to Washington St. The change was because they decided to move the station closer to Washington St. I tried to explain how unrealistic Washington St was for a station name (since there already is one on the Green Line...), but it fell on deaf ears. I was just the co-op I guess.

CRail wrote:Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

Cobble Hill , near the old Tin Roof ? Now thats a name for a stop !

SM89 wrote:

CRail wrote:Very interesting video!

I must say though, I cringe every time I hear the station at Washington Street called Washington Street. For multiple reasons; 1 being that there are multiple Washington Street stops as is, and one of which already existing on the green line. The other being that it's customary for Boston transit stations to be named for the area/neighborhood they're in rather than the street name. While there is Charles Street, Park Street, Columbia Rd (Now JFK/UMass), etc. Squares and neighborhoods are far more common. That stop should be called Cobble Hill. It's where it is, it's what it serves, and it's a unique name which will not lead to any confusion.

I was working on the project at the time they changed the name from Brickbottom to Washington St. The change was because they decided to move the station closer to Washington St. I tried to explain how unrealistic Washington St was for a station name (since there already is one on the Green Line...), but it fell on deaf ears. I was just the co-op I guess.

There are kind of two "Washingtons" on the Green Line - one on Beacon and one on the BC line.

Looks like a pretty unscenic ride. Just wall after sound wall after retaining wall.

I also noted no yard 8 shown at all. Just a lovely green space.

This is the kind of equipment the T should be buying for Type 9s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... pp=desktop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No steps, no problematic bridge plates, no outward opening doors getting stuck on platforms, etc.

So much more stylish, efficient, safer, and simpler than the proposed new Type 8.

bostontrainguy wrote:Looks like a pretty unscenic ride. Just wall after sound wall after retaining wall.

I also noted no yard 8 shown at all. Just a lovely green space.

This is the kind of equipment the T should be buying for Type 9s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... pp=desktop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No steps, no problematic bridge plates, no outward opening doors getting stuck on platforms, etc.

So much more stylish, efficient, safer, and simpler than the proposed new Type 8.

When did a T ride have the requirement of being scenic? It's not like people are conditioned to look out the window at the pretty tunnel walls. And the Lowell Line already runs in a pit that is little more than retaining wall after retaining wall. There's not exactly a lot they can do to pretty it up. That's what the Community Path is for.

Also...this was a demo of what the ride would look and feel like, more geared to showing the audience the structures being constructed and the travel time relative to the passing of local landmarks. Its purpose was giving people along the branch reference points for the destinations, not total photo-realism. And it wasn't about car orders, either. The 9's get scattered systemwide; you're more likely to get an 8-7 on a trip to College Ave. than a 9 with only 24 of them on the projected base order.

bostontrainguy wrote:This is the kind of equipment the T should be buying for Type 9s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... pp=desktop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The exterior is somewhat esthetically decent to look at, but the interior appears to be a massive jungle-gym! Also, the larger issue will be it's not...wait for it...."CUSTOM" enough for the T's specs.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:When did a T ride have the requirement of being scenic? It's not like people are conditioned to look out the window at the pretty tunnel walls.

Obviously there is no requirement, but I believe bostontrainguy is likely comparing the scenery in the video to outbound travel on B/C/D lines past Kenmore & outbound on E past Symphony...where there's barely any type of barriers & an abundance of "urban life" to view (if one chooses to do so). For us non-smartphone addicted/sleeping riders, I like being able to have a good view during my ride.

I think it would be a different feel if one had the option to view the urban surroundings out a window, without barriers only allowing a somewhat limited field of vision...a somewhat stagnant one at that.

FYI, I do occasionally look at the tunnel walls. Not sure why, but I do.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:When did a T ride have the requirement of being scenic? It's not like people are conditioned to look out the window at the pretty tunnel walls.

I think that if they can do clear sound walls--or just wall "top halfs", they should (as they propose elsewhere to block residences without permanently shading them). I suspect it is probably good for safety/security to have that "situational awareness", and probably good to let in more snow-melting sun in the winter.

Most of the sound they're trying to block comes from below the window line on the train...put concrete there, for sure. The upper part of the barrier seems aimed more at "second bounce" noise, where the mass of clear stuff should be sufficient.