Green Line Extension Lechmere to Medford

deathtopumpkins wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:

deathtopumpkins wrote:On that map, shouldn't "College Avenue" be in bold, capital letters like all the other terminii?

No, because "MYSTIC VALLEY" is going to be the terminus
Wishful thinking I know. It is a cool name though.

Yes, eventually. But for the time being College Ave will be the terminus. Isn't the last leg to Mystic Valley Pkwy on indefinite hold?

I'm sure in the meantime the rollsigns will say "COLLEGE AVE" and the train destinations will be announced as "College Avenue", so the map should label College Ave as the terminus.

Or if you just can't stand to see a temporary terminus, show the final leg to Mystic Valley Pkwy as a dotted line, similar to how the maps at most E line stations show the line beyond Heath St.

Route 16 is an unfunded, un-designed, and officially uncommitted later phase (although the Legislature gave a non-binding IOU on it). It wouldn't be appropriate to include now because they're still chasing funding for the remainder of the College Ave. phase like the required carhouse. Until that's all a lock for shovels-in-ground they're wasting their time even committing design $$$ for 16. The system map is almost certainly going to be revised again before that stop is at proceed-to-build.


Surprised Assembly Sq. was missing on it. Probably just an oopsie oversight by the mapmaker.

deathtopumpkins wrote:I'm sure in the meantime the rollsigns will say "COLLEGE AVE" and the train destinations will be announced as "College Avenue", so the map should label College Ave as the terminus.

It would be nice if the Green Line fleet was upgraded with rollsigns to replace the LCDs.

bostontrainguy wrote:

deathtopumpkins wrote: show the final leg to Mystic Valley Pkwy as a dotted line, similar to how the maps at most E line stations show the line beyond Heath St.

Yes, but this dotted line would stand for "Future Service" instead of "Suspended Service". A nice difference.

A fact which could be noted on the maps, like how the E ones note "dashed line = suspended service".

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: Route 16 is an unfunded, un-designed, and officially uncommitted later phase (although the Legislature gave a non-binding IOU on it). It wouldn't be appropriate to include now because they're still chasing funding for the remainder of the College Ave. phase like the required carhouse. Until that's all a lock for shovels-in-ground they're wasting their time even committing design $$$ for 16. The system map is almost certainly going to be revised again before that stop is at proceed-to-build.

Exactly. Since College Ave will be the terminus for the foreseeable future, even though the line is planned to ultimately reach farther, it would make sense to include it as the terminus on the map right now.

MBTA3247 wrote:

deathtopumpkins wrote:I'm sure in the meantime the rollsigns will say "COLLEGE AVE" and the train destinations will be announced as "College Avenue", so the map should label College Ave as the terminus.

It would be nice if the Green Line fleet was upgraded with rollsigns to replace the LCDs.

Personally, I prefer the displays the cars all have now (not sure if LCDs are the most accurate term?), but saying rollsigns just sounds so much better!

MBTA3247 wrote:It would be nice if the Green Line fleet was upgraded with rollsigns to replace the LCDs.

I don't know how those hard to read LCD signs even pass ADA standards. It will be interesting to see if the refurbished Type 7s come back with different displays. The T buses have very readable large destination displays that are excellent.

Something like this would be most helpful:

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?139262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In place of the illegible LCD signs.

bostontrainguy wrote:

MBTA3247 wrote:It would be nice if the Green Line fleet was upgraded with rollsigns to replace the LCDs.

I don't know how those hard to read LCD signs even pass ADA standards. It will be interesting to see if the refurbished Type 7s come back with different displays. The T buses have very readable large destination displays that are excellent.

They just need to use the purple-ish LED displays seen on some Silver Line buses. They're incredibly legible.

MedfordGreenLine.org has a summary of the most recent status report:

Among the updates since the last report, issued in September, are:
• A slight delay in the anticipated application date for federal funding, due to postponement of a risk assessment workshop from November to January
• Extension of the Phase I construction schedule by 6 months to add 200 feet of retaining and noise wall work
• An estimated Phase 2/2A early construction start date of August 2014
• The property acquisition/relocation process for the maintenance and storage facility is delayed and behind schedule
• A second value engineering workshop resulted in an estimated $15.8 million in cost savings

MedfordGreenLine's post w/ details at:
http://www.medfordgreenline.org/?p=570

Source Document
http://www.ctps.org/Drupal/data/calenda ... 19_SIP.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The property acquisition/relocation process for the maintenance and storage facility is delayed and behind schedule"

Great...Hope MS Walker puts up a fight. This needs to be stopped and stuck next to Brickbottom.

D

bostontrainguy wrote:

MBTA3247 wrote:It would be nice if the Green Line fleet was upgraded with rollsigns to replace the LCDs.

I don't know how those hard to read LCD signs even pass ADA standards. It will be interesting to see if the refurbished Type 7s come back with different displays. The T buses have very readable large destination displays that are excellent.

Not to mention the ones on the sides are behind tinted glass...

Fortunately there are no situations on the Green Line requiring visibility of destination signs at a distance.

In the subway, all cars stop at all stations.

On the surface, all trains on a given track are headed the same way. (There are exceptions in the form of short turns but by the time the patron finds out it is not a car he wants, the car is already stopping for him.)

Whereas for buses, stops may serve several different lines so patrons need to find out what line the bus is on before the bus gets too close. (Outbound bus drivers should not leapfrog occupied stops unless sure no one wants to board, but this is a different program.)

GP40MC1118 wrote:"The property acquisition/relocation process for the maintenance and storage facility is delayed and behind schedule"

Great...Hope MS Walker puts up a fight. This needs to be stopped and stuck next to Brickbottom.

D

The only potential positives I see here are:

1) Retains a small Yard 8 for future Boston freight service

2) Relocate MS Walker to the Mystic Wharf branch, reconnect Mystic Junction and reestablish freight service to the Mystic Wharf.

Thinking positive perhaps, but I like the idea.

I seriously doubt if the Mystic Wharf Branch would ever be restored! The MBTA doesn't
want that diamond/at-grade crossing at FX restored!!!

D

GP40MC1118 wrote:I seriously doubt if the Mystic Wharf Branch would ever be restored! The MBTA doesn't
want that diamond/at-grade crossing at FX restored!!!

D

Especially seeing as they went right ahead and removed it without notification to whomever is the owner/had trackage rights. At any rate, I believe F Line stated that when the I-93 off-ramp was constructed, it cut into the branch's clearance. I'm not sure if there's any clearance for standard freight, or if it is simply a restriction on double-stacks. Perhaps he can remind us.

BostonUrbEx wrote:

GP40MC1118 wrote:I seriously doubt if the Mystic Wharf Branch would ever be restored! The MBTA doesn't
want that diamond/at-grade crossing at FX restored!!!

D

Especially seeing as they went right ahead and removed it without notification to whomever is the owner/had trackage rights. At any rate, I believe F Line stated that when the I-93 off-ramp was constructed, it cut into the branch's clearance. I'm not sure if there's any clearance for standard freight, or if it is simply a restriction on double-stacks. Perhaps he can remind us.

I don't even know if autoracks can fit now. The Leverett Connector construction clipped the pre-existing clearances. Double stacks aren't an option here because there are no DS routes that get within 15 miles of Boston and modifying all the Lowell Line overhead bridges south of Wilmington is an exercise in torture that won't return investment.

Massport (which owns the Mystic Wharf branch now) has long-range plans for reactivation and pumping up the loads at Moran Terminal. But it's way, way far below all their other truck and rail freight port projects at the moment: Conley Terminal haul road, Marine Terminal rail, Eastie Haul Road. They didn't get into specifics as to how the clearance restriction would be fixed or what track reworking would be required, other than it would be fixed. But they've got enough hands full with Marine Terminal and maximizing the loads Everett Terminal can produce before there's a need to tap any new Moran Terminal capacity, so unlikely there'll be any more written about that this decade.

This GLX carhouse could slip another 5 years late and it'll still be open for business well before anyone's talking about jump-starting the Mystic Wharf branch.

The Leveret Connector ramps aren't the only problem. As I have stated years ago on
this subject, there's a problem with the Lowell Line High Line Bridge and clearances.

D