Proposal: Massive Green Line overhaul

Believe it or not, heavy rail conversion of the Green line is not as far fetched as you might think, since it was actually part of a plan at one time.

I think I read this at the NEtransit website, but anyway, it goes like this: Recall how the red line heavy reail portion stops at Ashmont and the lightrail line takes over. Well, the plan (as I understand it) was for the Green line to do the same thing, with the Underground portion being made to use cars similar to what the blue line uses, and the for the above ground surface line to remain in place. Proof? Take a look at Kenmore, or Coply. Have you noticed how deep they are? And if you look at the the pillars between the inbound and outbound stations, notice how simlar they are to what you'd see at Downtown Crossing/Washington Street? That's because at one point, the stations were dug deep and constrution started so that higher profile heavy rails could run, and platforms were going to be built. Not sure what stopped it, but the project never took off, and we have what we have to day. Again, I'm fuzzy on the facts, but it's not at all a foreign idea.
I think there was a plan to have the Riverside branch be completely heavy rail and indeed the residents protested.

Cool stuff, huh?

-Garrett wrote:Believe it or not, heavy rail conversion of the Green line is not as far fetched as you might think, since it was actually part of a plan at one time.

I think I read this at the NEtransit website, but anyway, it goes like this: Recall how the red line heavy reail portion stops at Ashmont and the lightrail line takes over. Well, the plan (as I understand it) was for the Green line to do the same thing, with the Underground portion being made to use cars similar to what the blue line uses, and the for the above ground surface line to remain in place. Proof? Take a look at Kenmore, or Coply. Have you noticed how deep they are? And if you look at the the pillars between the inbound and outbound stations, notice how simlar they are to what you'd see at Downtown Crossing/Washington Street? That's because at one point, the stations were dug deep and constrution started so that higher profile heavy rails could run, and platforms were going to be built. Not sure what stopped it, but the project never took off, and we have what we have to day. Again, I'm fuzzy on the facts, but it's not at all a foreign idea.
I think there was a plan to have the Riverside branch be completely heavy rail and indeed the residents protested.

Cool stuff, huh?

In the most broad sense, there wasn't the money. Also, as has been talked about here, there were provisions for the tunnel to be extended at both the Comm. Ave. and Huntingdon Ave. portals, which were built with wooden inclines, that were only removed when the heavy LRV's and Type 7's arrived.

The bigger key to the future plans in the early to mid-20th Century at Kenmore is the loop track. Notice how it faces west, and is only accessible to the outer tracks (C&D)? That was a provision to allow continued streetcar operate via the (then) Beacon St./St. Mary's portal into the subway station after conversion. The B Line tracks would be rapid transit, and there would be an across-the-platform transfer (ala Ashmont) to the streetcars, which would use the Kenmore loop to reverse direction and head back outbound. All part of the thinking that was at work when stations like Harvard and the old El stations at Dudley and Sullivan Squares were designed.

On another note, one idea I've started to kick around in my head, to ease the delays on the surface lines, is to do "duckunders" or "mini-subways" at some of the busier intersections/stops on, in particular, the B Line. (this is really just stealing a highway idea, such as the Comm. Ave./Mass. Ave. intersection in the Back Bay.) Harvard Ave. is one that immediately comes to mind. Before the intersection (as much as a couple blocks away) begin to lower the tracks, so that at the major street, the tracks actually go under the cross street. Put the station below grade level, where you can cover over the platforms, and perhaps actually create a larger, recessed area to enlarge the waiting area. This creates a larger, protected platform, all while eliminating the conflicts with street traffic.

The one drawback is that it might cost as much as doing a subway through BU to do this at the top four or five intersections. But, if this were done at Packards Corner, Harvard Ave., Warren St., Washington St., and Chestnut Hill Ave., you would probably see some signifigant time savings on the outer portion of the line, as those intersections account for some of the longest traffic light delays. The cost might be mitigated, though, if the state ever undertakes the complete rebuilding of Comm. Ave. that was proposed several years back but apparently died (the one that would have eliminated the center-side-center shuffle that the tracks do between Packards Corner and Warren St.).

This is the most interesting and throught provoking post I've read on here in a long time! This is what this forum is for!
But, seriously, each and every one of these ideas hold water. I hope that someone from MBTA management takes a look at these posts and even entertains these ideas if only for a minute. As bizarre as their management of the Green Line is, I'm certain they have an inkling that the crisis on this line is reaching a boiling point.
I live on Comm Ave near Warren St., and I work at Beth Israel Deaconess. I ride the B line daily, doing a ridiculous inbound/outbound transfer to get to Longwood on the D line. Literally hundreds of people in my neighborhood do this, and I think I share their annoyance with the extra stops on the B line between Packard's Corner and Kenmore. The third track idea, eliminating stops (come on, Blandford st?), and signal priority could keep the light rail features of the Green Line, but making it so much more efficient. The elimination of Fordham Rd. was a huge step in the right direction for the B line and made the trip noticeably faster. If you a naysayer, try riding a crowded B train packed with BU students who board the train only to ride 100 yards from BU Central to Blandford, and then compare that to the ride on an express train from Packard's Corner to Kenmore when the train, by some stroke of luck hits all green lights. A 20 minute trip just became 5 minutes. This simulates the ride of an express train on a third track with signal priority.
I have nothing against BU students, but does that school necessitate THREE stops?
So many of the suggestions offered in this thread were ones that reflect common sense and contemporary thinking. The Green Line was designed over 100 years ago. The needs of transit riders might have changed in that time.

DLahey wrote:So many of the suggestions offered in this thread were ones that reflect common sense and contemporary thinking. The Green Line was designed over 100 years ago. The needs of transit riders might have changed in that time.

Its moreso that the numbers of riders has changed. There wa undeveloped land along Comm. Ave. when the now-B Line was first linked to the subway downtown. BC didn't get to Chestnut Hill until 1912. A lot of BU's campus hadn't been built yet. In the intervening 100 years, the population has swelled, the city expanded westward, and the alternative transportation options have shrunk. The A Line is gone, cross-town streetcar lines were bustituted, and more and more riders were focused on the B Line, which wasn't envisioned to be the sole transit service for its area. But, it has, and now we see the result of shoehorning way too much demand onto one ancient line that wasn't designed for it.

As for Green Line management, well, we should all remember that at this point, what the Green Line really needs is beyond the scope of its line managers. The line needs a massive capital infusion to expand its capacity. That's unfortunately something for the political realm...

While I think the Green Line needs improvements, I think making it rapid transit is a bad idea. Can you imagine the huge cost? Not only would we have to change tunnels/stations, we'd have to get new vehicles. Does anyone realize how long this will take and how long the service disruptions will be? I agree with previous posts that we can do things to improve Green Line service. I whole hartedly agree with signal changes on the surface branches...I have ridden the Green Line, and you don't know how long sometimes you sit at a red light, hey, I thought the trolley always had the right of way, if possible...maybe there's a way for the traffic lights to go to red to let the trolley pass. The idea of express tracks also makes sense. I think with the amount of money turining the Green Line into heavy rail, we could do better things, like bring service to areas that don't have it or have inadequate service, and renovate existing stations that need it.

jscola30 wrote:While I think the Green Line needs improvements, I think making it rapid transit is a bad idea. Can you imagine the huge cost? Not only would we have to change tunnels/stations, we'd have to get new vehicles. Does anyone realize how long this will take and how long the service disruptions will be? I agree with previous posts that we can do things to improve Green Line service. I whole hartedly agree with signal changes on the surface branches...I have ridden the Green Line, and you don't know how long sometimes you sit at a red light, hey, I thought the trolley always had the right of way, if possible...maybe there's a way for the traffic lights to go to red to let the trolley pass. The idea of express tracks also makes sense. I think with the amount of money turining the Green Line into heavy rail, we could do better things, like bring service to areas that don't have it or have inadequate service, and renovate existing stations that need it.

Ahh, signal preemption! Funny thing, the equipment to work such a system was installed in the, I believe, 1980s or early 90's on the Packard's Corner-Blanford segment but it was never used . The CTPS study of the Rte. 20 corridor mentions this.

Green Line B Branch Signal Priority System
Traffic congestion and traffic signals cause significant delays for Green Line transit
service in the study area. The Green B Branch passes through 11 signalized intersections over its
1.4- mile stretch along Commonwealth Avenue. These 11 signals have semi-actuated controls
that return any unused green time on the cross streets to the arterial (Commonwealth Avenue).
To provide more efficient service for the Green Line, a signal priority system was installed to
give priority to the trolleys at the intersections.
At the moment, this priority system is inoperative. Most of the equipment has broken
down or is missing in the field. The present status of the equipment is documented in Appendix
C of this report. Currently, the trolleys have no priority, sharing signal phases with the
automobiles on Commonwealth Avenue. This has resulted in poor performance and also longer
travel times, making the Green Line B Branch an unattractive mode compared to the automobile.
It is estimated to cost $82,000.00 to replace the broken and missing equipment according to an
assessment study conducted by LS Transit System.

From page 58 of the Route 20 Corridor Study.

Firstly, thank you all for your thoughts on my crackpot scheme.

Many people have posted some very good ideas (most of which I was already familiar with) for enhancing LRT service on the Green Line. Without a doubt, these would greatly increase service on the line at a much smaller cost and inconvenience to all of us. Signal prememption, third track to Packards, stop elimination (B Line), through service on inner track at Park, 4 car trains (though I don't think POP would work well here), 4 tracks from GC to Park, etc. are all good ideas. I honestly don't belive they go far enough however.

I think that there are three very compelling reasons to convert to heavy rail in the way I have described.

1. My idea would greatly increase the efficiency of the Blue Line. Currently it terminates in downtown, then turns and heads right back to where it was. Basically with any extension past downtown (West Medford would count for this as well) you double ridership, capacity, and desination options for riders. You also reduce idle time since you don't have to turn as often, which easily eats up a few minutes.

2. With the Green and Blue becoming one, you increase the number of places that people are willing to travel to for jobs or recreation. Someone living in Revere would be more willing to take a job in the Longwood Medical area if they only had to take one train to get there. BU students would have better access to the Airport for the holidays. Basically people currently on the Blue line would benefit from better access to the Red Line, theater district, Back Bay, over a dozen institutes of higher learning, and of course Fenway Park. People on the Green Line would have better access to Fanuiel Hall, the waterfront, the Airport, and Revere Beach. The number of people who would jump on the train just because its easier is huge.

3. There would be a massive increase in capacity. 8-12 car blue line sized trains hold a heckuva lot more poeple than even 4 car green line trains. Even with slightly reduced headways, there is just no comparison. To me, this is the key seller.

Thats my biggest problem with just prettying up the Green Line. I simply don't think it can handle enough people. The Green Line is already massively packed. Colleges along the Green Line are expanding. Can light rail handle it? I'm inclined to think not.

I would like to ask one more question to those of you who have said that light rail should stay, but I need to state first that I am not intending to offend anyone or start a flame war here.

Why do you think light rail is the best for that area? Is it because the disruption and cost to change would be too great? Do you think light rail can handle the load if changes are made? Or would you like to keep light rail because of the "charm"? If its the later, I'd like you to reconsider a bit. Just because a trolley is quaint, doesn't mean it is the best option for transit in a particular area.

There are a number of questions I would need answered to consider changing the green line to heavy rail on the B line:

1. Where would the new stations be, and how far apart? Would they be spaced so far apart that you would need to add bus service to the area to make up the difference?

2. How much would the headways need to change using heavy rail instead of light rail? As it is now, a trolley comes approximately every 5-7 minutes. With heavy rail vehicles that carry more people, would these be increased to larger intervals during times of low ridership? If so, what would these intervals be?

3. How long would this project take, causing a major disruption down the entire length of Comm Ave? Would you have to bustitute for years while construction took place?

Although I do feel that the Green Line does have a particular charm in certain parts of the line, this is not my main reason. I do feel the cost/disruption would be too great. Do you think the govt will actually give us this money for yet another Big Dig? If not how will we get it? Raise fares?, we're already doing that, and that still is just trying to make ends meet. At least, a project like this would be 20-30 years away, and may take just aslong to complete, and what would be done in that intermn? Busses...which would clog streets and have even worse on time performance than the greenline? And woulnd't colleges/population just keep on expanding, so eventually even 8-10 car blue line length trains woulnd not be enough? So what would we have to do...expand existing platforms....

The B, C, and D lines do not run in the streets for most of their trip, so therefore I don't see how sharing the streets argument works for 3/4 of the green line branches. Granted, there are things that can be done to better this situation, and we've talked about such improvements already/

If you are saying this about the green line... What of the other lines? I cannot tell you how long ive waited for orange line trains, ive felt at least service in the central subway on the green line iduring off peak hours is much better than the orange line off peak. I think sometimes the redline is no better. Therefore, should improvments be made to these lines along with the conversion of the green line? How much money would this cost? I don't think the world has enough money.


In short, someone at the T, I don't know who, has to take a long, hard look at the problems of the T, especially the green line. Careful planning, measure twice, cut once, or else we'll pay 10 times. Compare to other systems around the world, see what works and what does not. We are not the only busy city where light rail is used, There are many here in the US and many more abroad.

cden4 wrote:There are a number of questions I would need answered to consider changing the green line to heavy rail on the B line:

1. Where would the new stations be, and how far apart? Would they be spaced so far apart that you would need to add bus service to the area to make up the difference?

Alright, let me give you a quick run down of what I'm thinking. BU Central (or East, but not both), BU West (the two are pretty far apart), Babcock, Packards, Harvard Ave, 1 stop to replace the 3 stops of Warren, Alston, Griggs, then Washington, Sutherland, Chestnut Hill Ave, 1 stop between South St and Greycliff, then ending at BC. Thats 11 stops instead of the current 18, formerly 22. Personally, I don't think that necessitates any new buses, especially since the stations will be considerably larger than they are currently.

If my math is correct, the B line is 4.19 miles from BC to Kenmore. 4.19/12 (my stations + Kenmore) = a station every 0.35 miles on average. For comparison, from Wonderland to Orient Heights averages a station every 0.428 miles. I know its not a fair comparision, but its the best I can do. Also, while there are buses at those stations, they are not there because the stations are too far apart. They primarily serve people who live too far away from the line to begin with.

cden4 wrote:2. How much would the headways need to change using heavy rail instead of light rail? As it is now, a trolley comes approximately every 5-7 minutes. With heavy rail vehicles that carry more people, would these be increased to larger intervals during times of low ridership? If so, what would these intervals be?

Acording to the T's timetables, for both the B&D lines the best headway is 5 minutes, the worst is every 10 minutes. I think it should be possible to do headways of every 6 minutes (if necessary) during rush hour. During off peak hours maybe reduce it to 10-12 minutes, and run smaller trainsets. (4-8?)

cden4 wrote:3. How long would this project take, causing a major disruption down the entire length of Comm Ave? Would you have to bustitute for years while construction took place?

Yes. It would screw some shit up. I'm not an engineer, some I'm not going to hazard a guess as to how long it would take. I think the biggest problem would be the central subway though, not on the B line. You could easily (though slowly) bustitute on Comm ave, and maybe even set up some BRT lanes for them.

On Comm Ave, it might be possible to build the stations while keeping the B Line running by just building either temporary low platforms, or building the new stations where the existing platforms are not.

I've got some other ideas on how to built it, but I gotta run for now. I'll see if I can get it up this weekend.[/quote]

jscola30 wrote:Although I do feel that the Green Line does have a particular charm in certain parts of the line, this is not my main reason. I do feel the cost/disruption would be too great. Do you think the govt will actually give us this money for yet another Big Dig? If not how will we get it? Raise fares?, we're already doing that, and that still is just trying to make ends meet. At least, a project like this would be 20-30 years away, and may take just aslong to complete, and what would be done in that intermn? Busses...which would clog streets and have even worse on time performance than the greenline? And woulnd't colleges/population just keep on expanding, so eventually even 8-10 car blue line length trains woulnd not be enough? So what would we have to do...expand existing platforms....

The B, C, and D lines do not run in the streets for most of their trip, so therefore I don't see how sharing the streets argument works for 3/4 of the green line branches. Granted, there are things that can be done to better this situation, and we've talked about such improvements already/

If you are saying this about the green line... What of the other lines? I cannot tell you how long ive waited for orange line trains, ive felt at least service in the central subway on the green line iduring off peak hours is much better than the orange line off peak. I think sometimes the redline is no better. Therefore, should improvments be made to these lines along with the conversion of the green line? How much money would this cost? I don't think the world has enough money.

As for the money, youre right, it won't be easy. Every big project has seemed unreachable at some point though, just look at the Big Dig.

As for fixing the rest of the system, sure why not? Most of the Orange Line problems can be fixed easily however, just by hiring a few more operators and completing the signal upgrade. I think that the Green Line is inherently flawed since it is light rail in an area that needs more. Plus, dreaming of big projects is more fun than micromanaging timetables.

jscola30 wrote:In short, someone at the T, I don't know who, has to take a long, hard look at the problems of the T, especially the green line. Careful planning, measure twice, cut once, or else we'll pay 10 times. Compare to other systems around the world, see what works and what does not. We are not the only busy city where light rail is used, There are many here in the US and many more abroad.

Smartest thing in this thread yet. We need to think this through and not just rush though it, since we're going to be stuck with whatever we decide on for a long time. *cough*silver lie*cough*

I know we've previously discussed less drastic improvements to the Green Line than converting it to heavy rail, and I'd like to just mention a few that I learned about at a Rethinking Urban Transportation forum yesterday:

In Brazil, they have BRT that runs down the center of a road in a dedicated busway, much like Comm Ave does with the Green Line. This bus did not always exist, and the road was all simply single-family houses prior to it. They reengineered the road and added the buses, and then rezoned within a one block radius to allow larger residential buildings. Over the period of a few years, the single family houses along the road were replaced with large apartment buildings.

Some interesting points about the bus is how effeciently it operates:
- Riders have to pay to get onto the platform, which is totally enclosed and protected from the weather. Then, when the bus comes, passengers can board through any of the 5 doors on it.
- The buses run every 2 minutes, so even if you miss one, there is always another one close behind.

At the forum, other technological improvements were discussed that are used throughout the world to improve service and efficiency on subways, trolleys, and buses, including:
- Tracking technology which displays the time to when the next vehicle will arrive, which is displayed at the stops and on the internet.
- Automated trains which always stay on schedule.
- Allowing users to pay via SmartCard at any entrance to a vehicle, so that all passengers do not have to enter by the driver.
- Signal prioritization to give public transit vehicles an edge over other vehicles.

The solutions are out there. We just need to get the MBTA to implement them.

the idea of automated trains concerns me.

first of all, how many jobs would this replace? Would that mean massive layoffs? and safety?

however, i do have another idea, talking about the length of trains and capacity...im away at college right now, but i will be going home soon, but somehwere i have a train book and in the chapter on modern transit sysytmes, theres this pic of a train, either in canada or europe.

it appears to be a low floor, heavy rail looking trains which can run in the street, and is powered by overheard wires again, when i got home next week, i fill find the book, but i think this is yet another way the T can take advantage of existing structure, this way, we would only prehaps have to do track work, maybe some station work, however, i'm not sure about turning radii, and this could really be a concern in the central subway