Proposed transit projects.
wickedwritah
seems unrealistic to an extreme degree.
http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/pmt-old/pmtlistn.htm
Why even waste time putting together proposals -- light rail from
Maynard to Acton, when a bus route from Maynard to Concord couldn't
draw flies? -- that have no chance of creation?
ret...@gmail.com
You're absolutely right.
Garrett Wollman
wickedwritah <wicked...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/pmt-old/pmtlistn.htm
>
>Why even waste time putting together proposals -- light rail from
>Maynard to Acton, when a bus route from Maynard to Concord couldn't
>draw flies? -- that have no chance of creation?
That's the "Universe of Projects". It includes every project
mentioned by anyone making a public comment during the development of
the PMT. It's not a list of projects that are being seriously
studied; it's the place where the MBTA can file all the crackpot
requests to make it look like they are interested in public input.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Helen Rose
> In article <1180033035.5...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> wickedwritah <wicked...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/pmt-old/pmtlistn.htm
>>
>> Why even waste time putting together proposals -- light rail from
>> Maynard to Acton, when a bus route from Maynard to Concord couldn't
>> draw flies? -- that have no chance of creation?
> That's the "Universe of Projects". It includes every project
> mentioned by anyone making a public comment during the development of
> the PMT. It's not a list of projects that are being seriously
> studied; it's the place where the MBTA can file all the crackpot
> requests to make it look like they are interested in public input.
Some of the projects are really amusing. "Install an escalator to the
inbound platform at Airport Station". Um, hello, that was the OLD
station! The new station has plenty of access.
D. Kirkpatrick
Helen Rose <hrose-...@ckdhr.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the projects are really amusing. "Install an escalator to the
> inbound platform at Airport Station". Um, hello, that was the OLD
> station! The new station has plenty of access.
I noticed that too.
In fact some of the line items have been already ruled undoable for a
host of reasons.
It looks almost as if the line items were simply taken from anywhere.
Hey, I need a direct bus from my house to Forest Hills. How do I get
it listed?
:-)
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Some of the projects are really amusing. "Install an escalator to the
> inbound platform at Airport Station". Um, hello, that was the OLD
> station! The new station has plenty of access.
How about the one to replace the Green Line D branch with an extension
of the Blue Line?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
"A darkness in the heart cannot be cured by moving the body." (Lennier,
B5 "Dust to Dust")
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> It is alleged that Helen Rose claimed:
> > Some of the projects are really amusing. "Install an escalator to the
> > inbound platform at Airport Station". Um, hello, that was the OLD
> > station! The new station has plenty of access.
> How about the one to replace the Green Line D branch with an extension
> of the Blue Line?
Is the intent of that direct Riverside-to-Logan service?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Jeffrey Kaplan
> In ne.transportation, Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
> > It is alleged that Helen Rose claimed:
>
> > > Some of the projects are really amusing. "Install an escalator to the
> > > inbound platform at Airport Station". Um, hello, that was the OLD
> > > station! The new station has plenty of access.
>
> > How about the one to replace the Green Line D branch with an extension
> > of the Blue Line?
>
> Is the intent of that direct Riverside-to-Logan service?
The line on the page says:
"Extend from Bowdoin to Copley/Back Bay and then to Riverside,
replacing the Green Line D Branch"
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
Tips for the Innocent Bystander: 44. Do not attempt to chase
custom-built vehicles, even if you are a policeman.
wickedwritah
> That's the "Universe of Projects". It includes every project
> mentioned by anyone making a public comment during the development of
> the PMT. It's not a list of projects that are being seriously
> studied; it's the place where the MBTA can file all the crackpot
> requests to make it look like they are interested in public input.
While it's good to know that they are warehousing suggestions, stuff
like this makes legitimate projects look a little less, well, legit.
Garrett Wollman
wickedwritah <wicked...@gmail.com> wrote:
>While it's good to know that they are warehousing suggestions, stuff
>like this makes legitimate projects look a little less, well, legit.
They're not "warehousing suggestions"; the process by which
transportation funding is allocated requires that they list every
project considered -- even if the consideration consists of saying
"that's plainly daft" and moving on to the next one. The PMT process
is a way of pre-filtering all of the various transit projects so that
the MPO can limit its consideration to only those projects the MBTA is
interested in building. The PMT is one of the inputs into the
Regional Transportation Plan (although for some reason the Boston MPO
did a new RTP based on the old PMT, rather than arranging to complete
the PMT before the new RTP was required).
Someone from CTPS really ought to be monitoring this newsgroup.
D. Kirkpatrick
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
> The line on the page says:
>
> "Extend from Bowdoin to Copley/Back Bay and then to Riverside,
> replacing the Green Line D Branch"
The original suggestion was to start at Bowdoin and extend to
Charles/Red Line for a connection.
Then from ther eproceed along the river - as such - likely down
Charles and then somehow across from there to meet up with the D
branch of the Green line.
One suggestion was to start at Copley but that screws out most of the
other surface lines.
One suggested meeting at or near where the D line breaks surface and
run it to Riverside from there.
That woukd be too much station work and the water table issues through
the Back Bay are enough to kill it anyway.
Ain't happenin'.
Dmk
kenneth...@comcast.net
> In article <1180237287.509124.216...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> They're not "warehousing suggestions"; the process by which
> transportation funding is allocated requires that they list every
> project considered -- even if the consideration consists of saying
> "that's plainly daft" and moving on to the next one. The PMT process
> is a way of pre-filtering all of the various transit projects so that
> the MPO can limit its consideration to only those projects the MBTA is
> interested in building. The PMT is one of the inputs into the
> Regional Transportation Plan (although for some reason the Boston MPO
> did a new RTP based on the old PMT, rather than arranging to complete
> the PMT before the new RTP was required).
>
interest:
Thursday, May 31
Noon to 2:00 PM
PMT Stakeholder Advisory Committee
State Transportation Building
MPO Conference Room, Suite 2150
Wednesday, June 13
6:00 to 8:00 PM
PMT Public Workshop
Beebe Library
345 Main Street, Wakefield
Thursday, June 14
PMT Public Workshop
Boston Public Library, Dudley Branch
65 Warren Street, Roxbury
Tuesday, June 19
6:00 to 8:00 PM
PMT Public Workshop
Cambridge Senior Center
806 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge
- Ken Krause
Jeffrey Kaplan
> That woukd be too much station work and the water table issues through
> the Back Bay are enough to kill it anyway.
>
> Ain't happenin'.
I just thought it amusing that someone wanted to replace a perfectly
fine street car branch line with a rapid transit line that would be no
faster or reliable.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
If I Am Ever the Sidekick... 18. If the Hero has any extra-nifty
weapons or armor, I will try to obtain like items for myself.
Hugo S. Cunningham
wrote:
>It is alleged that D. Kirkpatrick claimed:
>
>> That woukd be too much station work and the water table issues through
>> the Back Bay are enough to kill it anyway.
>>
>> Ain't happenin'.
>
>I just thought it amusing that someone wanted to replace a perfectly
>fine street car branch line with a rapid transit line that would be no
>faster or reliable.
If it wasn't for the Back Bay water table issues (a colossal "if"), a
Blue line extension through Charles St Station (Red Line) to Kenmore
would be appealing, simultaneously linking the Red Line and allowing
airport-bound suburban Green Line users to avoid a lot of slow
downtown stops. Reduced downtown west-suburban Green line usage would
make reopening the Boyston Station/Tremont tunnel (for a Washington
St. South End Line) more attractive.
The direct airport bus connection from South Station reduces the
need for a Red-Blue link, however.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
dpel...@my-deja.com
> I just thought it amusing that someone wanted to replace a perfectly
> fine street car branch line with a rapid transit line that would be no
> faster or reliable.
I disagree. Any rapid transit line is faster and more reliable than
the Green Line.
More to the point, if you could extend the Blue Line (or any other
rapid transit line) to the west through the Back Bay, you would go a
long way towards relieving overcrowding in the Green Line subway.
It's not a nutty idea, it's just one that belongs to a different era,
when money was available for projects like this.
Dan
D. Kirkpatrick
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
> I just thought it amusing that someone wanted to replace a perfectly
> fine street car branch line with a rapid transit line that would be no
> faster or reliable.
And there is another great reason not to.
At he same time, the forebearer of the present MBTA did just that a
couple of times.
The "B" platform at Kenmore was at one time lower for a raised
boarding type train and the Orange line at one time shared the Park
Street tunnel while its own tunnel was under construction.
Some of this was done with cars that has doors for street or raised
platform egress.
Ron Newman
Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
e.
> The direct airport bus connection from South Station reduces the
> need for a Red-Blue link, however.
Not really. Not if you're going from Somerville or Cambridge to East
Boston, Revere, or even to the waterfront along Atlantic Avenue.
If the Blue Line is extended to Lynn, the need for a Red-Blue connection
at Charles will become quite evident.
Joe the Aroma
<dpel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1180289415.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The Green Line is useless. It's BU's own private transit line, provided by
the riders on the other lines. It can take up to an hour to go downtown.
I've never heard anybody praise it.
What they need to do is cut out about 1/2 of all the stops.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The Green Line is useless. It's BU's own private transit line, provided by
> the riders on the other lines. It can take up to an hour to go downtown.
> I've never heard anybody praise it.
> What they need to do is cut out about 1/2 of all the stops.
My vote is to eliminate all stops between my stop and where it goes
underground.
Grnln
Yeah. Nobody rides the Green Line anymore.
It's too crowded.
ftran999
>
> What they need to do is cut out about 1/2 of all the stops.
>
I've "semi-seriously" thought about this with bus stops. However, one has
to consider that if certain stops, whether they be green line or bus, are
eliminated the number of passengers will still be the same. Therefore, the
passengers that used to board or disembark at the now closed stops will just
move to another station. So now you may have situations where the time to
load/unload passengers will increase at each stop do to the increased
crowds.
andrew m. boardman
>The Green Line is useless. It's BU's own private transit line, provided by
>the riders on the other lines.
This is a frequent characterization but at 8am the B branch is packed
full of people heading downtown, not to BU.
>What they need to do is cut out about 1/2 of all the stops.
They tried it on the B and people whined; only a handful were removed, as
the MBTA seems to only listen when the wrong people (as judged by me, of
course) whine. Personally, I'd be downright delighted if every other
green line stop and two out of three bus stops were removed, even if they
were the ones I used, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
For some bizarre reason, the MBTA recently stated in their "T Rider"
newletter that "The Green Line has begun operating two-car trains at all
times on every branch." Near as I can tell, this is also complete
fiction; late evening on the B branch still features the same
packed-to-the-gills single-car trains they've always used. Maybe they
can run some ones and twos together to run three-car trains at rush hour,
which the line desperately needs with the current slow loading times.
(On the other hand, free outbound board-at-any-door surface trips are
effectively back, as are free *inbound* board-at-any-door surface trips
at times.)
Joe the Aroma
"Grnln" <we...@suburban.net> wrote in message
news:YYD6i.15942$j63....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It's mostly students using it to get to classes, but if you want to go
downtown it's useless. For the BU kids it's great.
Fred James
Joe the Aroma wrote:
If you actually used the Green Line at rush hour, you would notice that it
is largely full of people *going downtown.*
> For the BU kids it's great.
Only one of the Green Line branches serves BU, and even there at rush
hour, my previous statement is true. Check it out for yourself.
Joe the Aroma
"Fred James" <fred_...@here.now> wrote in message
news:465B91C0...@here.now...
>
>
> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>
>> "Grnln" <we...@suburban.net> wrote in message
>> news:YYD6i.15942$j63....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> The Green Line is useless.
>> >
>> > Yeah. Nobody rides the Green Line anymore.
>> > It's too crowded.
>>
>> It's mostly students using it to get to classes, but if you want to go
>> downtown it's useless.
>
> If you actually used the Green Line at rush hour, you would notice that it
> is largely full of people *going downtown.*
I never get to use it then, what I need is transportation from Allston to
Kendall Square and that doesn't exist... at least not by rail.
Geoffrey F. Green
a...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (andrew m. boardman) wrote:
> For some bizarre reason, the MBTA recently stated in their "T Rider"
> newletter that "The Green Line has begun operating two-car trains at all
> times on every branch." Near as I can tell, this is also complete
> fiction; late evening on the B branch still features the same
> packed-to-the-gills single-car trains they've always used. Maybe they
> can run some ones and twos together to run three-car trains at rush hour,
> which the line desperately needs with the current slow loading times.
> (On the other hand, free outbound board-at-any-door surface trips are
> effectively back, as are free *inbound* board-at-any-door surface trips
> at times.)
I've seen only two-car trains every weekday (day and evening) on the C
Line, but I don't know about later than 9pm or so.
- geoff
Rozzie
(in article <McmdnUcUbrF4psbb...@comcast.com>):
> I've "semi-seriously" thought about this with bus stops. However, one has
> to consider that if certain stops, whether they be green line or bus, are
> eliminated the number of passengers will still be the same. Therefore, the
> passengers that used to board or disembark at the now closed stops will just
> move to another station.
Eliminating stops does change ridership. The MBTA has made quite a
pseudo-science out of it. Each time you eliminate a stop, the route
speeds up. More happy riders take the bus. On the other hand, each
time you eliminate a stop, disgruntled riders who now have to walk
farther stop taking the T.
Robert Coe
: While I am a fan of public transportation, this project list really
: seems unrealistic to an extreme degree.
:
: http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/pmt-old/pmtlistn.htm
:
: Why even waste time putting together proposals -- light rail from
: Maynard to Acton, when a bus route from Maynard to Concord couldn't
: draw flies? -- that have no chance of creation?
Without even reading the list, I can guess what that one's all about: aiding
(or thwarting) the "rail trail" forces, who have their eye on every mile of
abandoned railroad ROW in the Commonwealth. The NIMBYs adjacent to those ROWs
pretty generally oppose the rail trails, and proposing to resurrect some form
of rail in the ROW could be a thinly veiled threat to the NIMBYs to play ball
or get something worse. Or it could be a ploy by the NIMBYs themselves to
throw a potential roadblock in the way of the trail. It could even be an
attempt to pit the rail-trail NIMBYs against each other by putting several
ROWs in play at once, the theory being that an advocate of one trail might
back off if he had to reckon with another trail proposal in his own
neighborhood.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: In article <kj5h535ued0s88kpf...@gordol.org>,
: Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
: > The line on the page says:
: >
: > "Extend from Bowdoin to Copley/Back Bay and then to Riverside,
: > replacing the Green Line D Branch"
:
:
: The original suggestion was to start at Bowdoin and extend to
: Charles/Red Line for a connection.
:
: branch of the Green line.
:
: One suggestion was to start at Copley but that screws out most of the
: other surface lines.
:
: One suggested meeting at or near where the D line breaks surface and
: run it to Riverside from there.
:
: That woukd be too much station work and the water table issues through
: the Back Bay are enough to kill it anyway.
:
: Ain't happenin'.
Actually, I may have been the first person to suggest it, in a letter to the
MBTA some years ago. (I forget just how many, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)
They ignored me, but a few months later I mentioned it to someone who was
active in the BSRA, and he told me that he thought someone in the MBTA had
recently proposed pretty much the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.
In my version, the Green Line station at Kenmore Square would be expanded to
accommodate the Blue Line, with an intermediate station ("Beacon Street")
about midway between Charles and Kenmore. Blue Line trains would take over the
existing Riverside tracks just after they split from the Cleveland Circle line
west of Kenmore.
In order to keep initial costs down, I envisioned that the conversion could be
done in two phases. In the first phase the Blue Line would be extended only as
far as Reservoir, with the Riverside line beyond Reservoir operating as a
continuation of the Cleveland Circle line. (A barely relevant factoid is that
this was actually done for several months during a reconstruction of the track
between Reservoir and the tunnel portal twenty or thirty years ago.) Later,
and only if traffic projections justified it, the conversion could be
completed, with the Blue Line running on to Riverside.
I still think it's a good idea.
Bob
Robert Coe
: In ne.transportation, Joe the Aroma <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:
: > The Green Line is useless. It's BU's own private transit line, provided by
: > the riders on the other lines. It can take up to an hour to go downtown.
: > I've never heard anybody praise it.
:
: > What they need to do is cut out about 1/2 of all the stops.
:
: My vote is to eliminate all stops between my stop and where it goes
: underground.
I agree, eliminate all stops but mine, but with one additional stipulation:
all the previously existing stops would be "flag stops" that I could activate
by pressing a button on my cell phone. But only on my phone (and my wife's, I
guess). I wouldn't want the rest of the yokelry slowing the car down.
Bob
Robert Coe
:
:
Fred, who told you to butt in with inconvenient facts? Who do you think you
are, Al Gore?
Robert Coe
:
: "Fred James" <fred_...@here.now> wrote in message
Well, if we "Urban Ring" partisans have our way, they'll eventually convert
the CT2 bus to rail. I won't live to see it, but maybe you (and my
grandchildren) will.
But of course my grandchildren live in New Hampshire, and it will take even
longer to restore rail service to there. :^|
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Actually, I may have been the first person to suggest it, in a letter to the
> MBTA some years ago. (I forget just how many, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)
> They ignored me, but a few months later I mentioned it to someone who was
> active in the BSRA, and he told me that he thought someone in the MBTA had
> recently proposed pretty much the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.
>
> In my version, the Green Line station at Kenmore Square would be expanded to
> accommodate the Blue Line, with an intermediate station ("Beacon Street")
> about midway between Charles and Kenmore. Blue Line trains would take over the
> existing Riverside tracks just after they split from the Cleveland Circle line
> west of Kenmore.
>
> In order to keep initial costs down, I envisioned that the conversion could be
> done in two phases. In the first phase the Blue Line would be extended only as
> far as Reservoir, with the Riverside line beyond Reservoir operating as a
> continuation of the Cleveland Circle line. (A barely relevant factoid is that
> this was actually done for several months during a reconstruction of the track
> between Reservoir and the tunnel portal twenty or thirty years ago.) Later,
> and only if traffic projections justified it, the conversion could be
> completed, with the Blue Line running on to Riverside.
>
> I still think it's a good idea.
I think it's a terrible idea. I grew up along the Riverside line:
Brookline Village was my local stop for almost 20 years, then Reservoir
was. The answer to the train congestion problem isn't reconstruction
from street cars to rapid transit cars, it's adding more cars. Since
Riverside has no at-grade crossings, the T could easily run four or six
car trains during peak hours, whereas the Cleveland Circle, Boston
College and Brigham Circle lines would need to run two car trains more
often.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
DISCLAIMER: Do not write below this line.
Hugo S. Cunningham
[...]
>In my version, the Green Line station at Kenmore Square would be expanded to
>accommodate the Blue Line, with an intermediate station ("Beacon Street")
>about midway between Charles and Kenmore. Blue Line trains would take over the
>existing Riverside tracks just after they split from the Cleveland Circle line
>west of Kenmore.
[...]
Where would you dig the tunnel connecting Charles St and Kenmore? How
would you deal with water-table issues?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Kurt Hackenberg
Joe the Aroma <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I never get to use it then, what I need is transportation from Allston to
>Kendall Square and that doesn't exist... at least not by rail.
I keep wishing the Framingham/Worcester line still made its ancient
stops near its east end, including at the former Allston Station, now
the Sports Depot bar. (I think other ancient stops include Market
Street, Brighton, where the former station is now the Stockade
restaurant; one near where North Beacon Street crosses the river; and
Newton Corner.)
At Newton Corner, the trouble is that a new service has to comply with
ADA, and at that station it's difficult. At Allston, I suppose CSX
wouldn't be too happy about a passenger stop right at the edge of its
freight yard.
John F. Carr
Kurt Hackenberg <k...@pnnnnx.kom> wrote:
>At Newton Corner, the trouble is that a new service has to comply with
>ADA, and at that station it's difficult. At Allston, I suppose CSX
>wouldn't be too happy about a passenger stop right at the edge of its
>freight yard.
State Representative Kay Khan is trying to get money to upgrade
the three Newton stops. There's an article in the Globe. I don't
think the millions of dollars for Auburndale can be justified based
on use. Better to close the stop than throw that much money at it.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
William O'Hara
> Brookline Village was my local stop for almost 20 years, then
> Reservoir was. The answer to the train congestion problem isn't
> reconstruction from street cars to rapid transit cars, it's adding
> more cars. Since Riverside has no at-grade crossings, the T could
> easily run four or six car trains during peak hours, whereas the
> Cleveland Circle, Boston College and Brigham Circle lines would need
> to run two car trains more often.
>
Would you not add more capacity by going to the system that can handle more
capacity with less persons and higher speeds?
I'm sorry, but the reality is that the Green line serves as a major artery
of the mass transit system when it using a methodology that should be used
for feeder services.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Would you not add more capacity by going to the system that can handle more
> capacity with less persons and higher speeds?
>
> I'm sorry, but the reality is that the Green line serves as a major artery
> of the mass transit system when it using a methodology that should be used
> for feeder services.
Doesn't that describe the entire system?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job
is underestimating." George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3,
2000
William O'Hara
news:sjd573pau2l1lqkcn...@gordol.org:
> It is alleged that William O'Hara claimed:
>
>> Would you not add more capacity by going to the system that can
>> handle more capacity with less persons and higher speeds?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but the reality is that the Green line serves as a major
>> artery of the mass transit system when it using a methodology that
>> should be used for feeder services.
>
> Doesn't that describe the entire system?
I wouldn't say that. The LRVS should be feeding people to heavy rail with
rapid transit times and short headways.
dpel...@my-deja.com
wrote:
Forgive me for being a little late in asking this, but what exactly
are the water-table issues you mention?
I remember hearing that Back Bay and / or Bay Village have suffered
some pile rot from a dropping water table, owing to leaks in the storm
drain pipes. I guess that building another tunnel would also result in
leakage, but it seems like you could mitigate that if you were willing
to throw enough pumps at the problem...
Dan
D. Kirkpatrick
dpel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Forgive me for being a little late in asking this, but what exactly
> are the water-table issues you mention?
>
> I remember hearing that Back Bay and / or Bay Village have suffered
> some pile rot from a dropping water table, owing to leaks in the storm
> drain pipes. I guess that building another tunnel would also result in
> leakage, but it seems like you could mitigate that if you were willing
> to throw enough pumps at the problem...
>
> Dan
I believe the problem is one of keeping the water table up as opposed
to having to deal with drainage.
Much of the Back Bay is filled land and even though it has been filled
over 100 years there is still water or mud at some deep levels.
Keep in mind the Prudential Tower is built on floating piles to help
deal with the filled soil that is rests on..
dpel...@my-deja.com
> In article <1182453475.452396.109...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> dpelt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Forgive me for being a little late in asking this, but what exactly
> > are the water-table issues you mention?
>
> > I remember hearing that Back Bay and / or Bay Village have suffered
> > some pile rot from a dropping water table, owing to leaks in the storm
> > drain pipes. I guess that building another tunnel would also result in
> > leakage, but it seems like you could mitigate that if you were willing
> > to throw enough pumps at the problem...
>
> > Dan
>
> I believe the problem is one of keeping the water table up as opposed
> to having to deal with drainage.
It's the same problem; the tunnels act as drains and lower the water
table. The solution would be to pump the water out of the tunnels back
to a near-surface location and let it start percolating downward
again, instead of simply pumping it out into the river.
>
> Much of the Back Bay is filled land and even though it has been filled
> over 100 years there is still water or mud at some deep levels.
Also true of most everywhere else in central Boston.
>
> Keep in mind the Prudential Tower is built on floating piles to help
> deal with the filled soil that is rests on..
I believe the Big Dig tunnels, which were mostly below the water
table, were built with tiebacks into the bedrock to keep them from
floating away. Not a big problem.
Dan
Robert Coe
Unless, of course, the workmanship on those tiebacks was comparable to that on
some of the ceiling panels.
Bob
John Mara
The tunnels leak so badly they won't float anyway.
John Mara
Michael Moroney
>I believe the Big Dig tunnels, which were mostly below the water
>table, were built with tiebacks into the bedrock to keep them from
>floating away. Not a big problem.
I've read (in this group, I believe) the tunnels were built with up to
12 feet of concrete below the roadway to keep them from floating.
Of course this brings up the question of how well the walls are attached
to that big anchor.
Hugo S. Cunningham
wrote:
>In article <6u9j53dm8hm25b4js...@4ax.com>,
> Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
>e.
>> The direct airport bus connection from South Station reduces the
>> need for a Red-Blue link, however.
>
>Not really. Not if you're going from Somerville or Cambridge to East
>Boston, Revere, or even to the waterfront along Atlantic Avenue.
>
>If the Blue Line is extended to Lynn, the need for a Red-Blue connection
>at Charles will become quite evident.
Is the Red Line bridge over the Charles River tasked to capacity?
If not, might a Blue Line extension join the Red Line at Charles
Station, follow it past Kendall Station, and then make a left turn
under the less vulnerable water-table of Cambridge to access Kenmore
and points West?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
D. Kirkpatrick
Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
> Is the Red Line bridge over the Charles River tasked to capacity?
>
> If not, might a Blue Line extension join the Red Line at Charles
> Station, follow it past Kendall Station, and then make a left turn
> under the less vulnerable water-table of Cambridge to access Kenmore
> and points West?
Longfellow Bridge is in need of much repair.
Posts here in th epast suggest that various schemes are under
consideration of just hwo this can be accomplished with the least
amount of traffic and train disruption.
One suggestion being played with (really) is to create a temporary
track in the right automobile lane in each direction, thus freeing up
th eoriginal center trackage and allowing that section to have its
repairs to the undercarriage. When complete, the temp tracks would be
removed and repairs would proceed out into the traffic lanes and
eventually to the edges.
Also, there is no easy way for the Blue line to merge at this point in
the design of Charles. It did at one time way-back-when, when there
were no shops at Orient Heights and the Blue line cars were repaired
at the old shops at Harvard Sq.
Even if it was physically possible the dispatch would be a nightmare,
and I don't think two crossings of the Charles would ever be
considered.
David Z Maze
> Is the Red Line bridge over the Charles River tasked to capacity?
>
> If not, might a Blue Line extension join the Red Line at Charles
> Station, follow it past Kendall Station, and then make a left turn
> under the less vulnerable water-table of Cambridge to access Kenmore
> and points West?
I feel like the Longfellow does get pretty backed up during commute
hours. Assuming the space is there, you then get into questions like
"will the Blue Line trains work at the Red Line platforms, or are the
car heights different?" and "is cab-signal hardware installed on the
Blue Line trains at all?".
There's also the question of how you get across Cambridge. You could
head for Central and head out through Cambridgeport along the
Brookline/Pearl Street corridor, which is more solid ground but makes
getting to Kenmore trickier; or you could use the Grand Junction
right-of-way behind MIT, and figure out how to relocate the various
heavy-rail traffic that depends on it.
But *those* questions are the same questions people ask about "how is
the Urban Ring going to get through Cambridge?" So now you've got to
share space with a yet-to-be-built line. And I think the people this
extension targets (going Longwood-Kenmore-MIT-...-Revere) are very
similar to the people the Urban Ring hypothetically targets. Your one
big advantage here is being committed to steel-rail technology already.
:-)
--dzm