I got this great email from Eliot Gardner on how to improve the Green Line:
I submit that the single most urgent improvement to the MBTA rail mass transit system would be to convert the Green Line from light rail to ordinary heavy metro rolling stock. The reasons are obvious.
First, the current Green Line is the most overcrowded rail mass transit line in the country (rivaled – to my personal knowledge – only by the NYC Lexington Avenue subway line, the overcrowding of which is being mitigated by the construction of the Second Avenue subway line).
Second, conversion to a regular metro line would allow 4-car, 6-car, and even 8-car trains to service the vast crowds that everyday battle for mere inches of space aboard the present Green Line light rail rolling stock.
Third, personnel costs would decrease – since a 6-car regular metro train can be manned by only 1 or 2 persons (depending on whether the train driver also opens and closes the doors or a second person is employed as a dedicated doorman), instead of the ludicrous present system of having an operator in every car.
Fourth, service speed along the Green Line would be dramatically improved by decreasing in-station dwell time on the above-ground portions of the line by:
(a) having raised passenger platforms and level on-loading and off-loading of passengers onto and off of trains,
(b) having all doors open at every station, instead of the current stupidity of having only one door per car open at above-ground stations, and
(c) having all above-ground stations be pre-pay stations, eliminating the antiquated and slow on-car payment system currently in use.It should be noted that there is ample precedent – even within the MBTA system – for converting a light rail line to a regular heavy metro line. The MBTA Blue Line was formerly a trolley line, until it was converted to heavy metro rolling stock in 1925. Finally, the conversion costs would be reasonably minimal. The principal costs would be:
(a) raising station platform heights to allow platform-level on-loading and off-loading of passengers,
(b) purchase of regular metro rolling stock (properly sized to fit the tunnels within the Kenmore-North Station portion of the line), and
(c) lengthening of station platforms to accommodate longer trains.Again, there is ample precedent within the MBTA system for such a move – station platforms at some Red Line stations were lengthened when Red Line train size was increased from 4 cars to 6 cars less than 20 years ago. Converting the Green Line to a regular metro line would also dramatically improve safety, as it would allow for installation and use of an Automatic Train Control (ATC) system, instead of the current and bizarrely antiquated “see and be seen” safety system that has contributed to so many crashes (and fatalities) on the Green Line. There is no reason whatever that heavy metro rolling stock could not be used on the current in-median tracks on Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, and Huntington Avenue – precedents for that type of usage can be found all over the world.
But if the “trolley mentality” of the MBTA management cannot be altered to accommodate 21st century needs, light rail trains could continue to run on Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, and Huntington Avenue. Inbound light rail trains on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street could terminate at Kenmore Square Station, use the Kenmore Station loop track to turn around and head outbound, and passengers could transfer from light rail to regular metro trains at Kenmore. Similarly, inbound light rail trains on Huntington Avenue could simply run through Copley, Arlington, and Boylston Stations without stopping (the track gauge is the same for both light rail and heavy metro on the MBTA system), use the south inner track at Park Street Station for off-loading passengers, loop around to an outbound direction by using the Park Street inner loop, and use the north inner track at Park Street Station for on-loading passengers.
Alternatively, for Huntington Avenue service, the station platforms at Copley Station could be lengthened to accommodate both light rail and regular heavy metro trains – one length of platform retaining its current height to service light rail trains coming in from Huntington Avenue, and the next length of platform being raised to service regular metro trains coming in from Riverside with level passenger loading and unloading. With a few stairs to allow people to move from one platform to another.
This is such an obvious and straightforward solution to the disaster that the Green Line currently constitutes that I am forced to ask why it has not already been adopted.
Eliot Gardner
Thanks Eloit!
Tags: eliot gardner, futurembta, green line, mbta, reader submission
March 30th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I agree with Mr. Gardner that the Green line needs significant improvements. If Boston is going to thrive as a 21st century city and as the engine that drives the economy for the Boston-metro area and much of New England, an improved public transportation infrastructure is needed desperately.
I agree with the general idea of tackling the Green line first. Without a doubt it is an antiquated system. Friends from other cities are surprised and confused when, while riding the B line they have to wait at a traffic signal, or get “expressed” only to then sit at a station and not let customers on or off because it is an “express” train.
However, as appealing as constructing an elevated, heavy metro may seem, other factors must be taken into account. We must consider what impact the new line would have on the communities it serves. While the B line in Allston/Brighton is by no means attractive, would we really rather replace it with an elevated heavy metro line? Those trains are by no means small, and to elevate the entire system high enough so that regular traffic can pass underneath unimpeded would require huge structures and support beams along the way. Even less palatable is such a line on picturesque Beacon Street in Brookline, or along Huntington Ave.
Again, I agree with the notion that pre-pay stations are far more effective than the current Green line system, but these issues could be alleviated within a system more closely resembling the current Green line, and hence a less expensive one.
I think my ideas would be as follows, from least to most expensive.
1. Eliminate or make temporary traffic crossings: While we cannot allow the trolleys to dissect neighborhoods, a system similar to that sued at regular railroad tracks crossings could be implemented where necessary. This would prevent cars from crossing when a trolley was approaching but allowing normal traffic when they are no trolleys. Additionally, station platforms would be reconfigured that so inbound and outbound platforms are on opposite sides of intersections, eliminating the frustration of being stuck at a red light, then pulling through and stopping again for passengers to disembark.
2. Elevated trolley service: I think this solution solves the most problems, but still runs into aesthetic problems in neighborhoods.
3. Additional tunneling and then street level service: Perhaps most beneficial to the B line, Green line trolleys could be tunneled for an increased number of stations and then resume street level service. On the E line perhaps tunneling past MFA and on the B line tunneling past the BU bridge.
4. Additional Tunneling and then elevated service: The most expensive option of the bunch but the most effective at solving the problems on the Green line.
The only way the fare system will be improved is if platforms are replaced by stations, and that can only happen with underground stations or elevated stations, but is a problem that must be addressed.
I am not trying to completely refute Mr. Gardner’s ideas but show other alternatives as well. That is the best way to reach the best solution – multiple ideas from varied sources having an open, honest discussion about what needs to be done. Now we just need to hope someone is paying attention to all this.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Hi Nick,
I’m going to post your reply on my site but I just wanted to point one
thing out. Mr. Gardner never suggested that the Green Line would be
elevated. In his proposal he states that the GL would terminate at
Kenmore (or more realistically Riverside) while the former B/C lines
would continue operating as light rail and use the old Loop which
still exists at Kenmore station. E line users would, in his proposal,
go express from Copley to Park St and use the loop there. Just wanted
to clear that up.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
But doesn’t the section below imply that the above-ground sections of the Green line would be elevated? I’m not trying to be confrontational, but my response was largely geared towards that idea so if that is not correct, before you post I’d like to rewrite a little bit.
(a) having raised passenger platforms and level on-loading and off-loading of passengers onto and off of trains,
March 30th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
No, he means the platforms for the underground stations would have to
be raised up a few feet to accommodate the heavy rail. He doesn’t
ever mention elevated trains.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I disagree with converting the Green Line to heavy rail. First, it wouldn’t be viable for actual operation on the streets. I get your point on the Blue Line, but it’s not a trolley line any longer. There’s a reason why streetcars are the trains that operate on streets, not rapid transit. Further, as the first comment notes, metro trains would not be desirable on, say, Beacon Street–as far as that is concerned, I far prefer the current Green Line streetcars.
Also, I don’t think that conversion to heavy rail is REQUIRED for operation of 4+ cars in a train (in fact, I think I once saw a train of four cars on Commonwealth Avenue). Making all stations pre-paid is a good idea too, but again I don’t think that conversion to heavy rail is a prerequisite.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Read his proposal again, he covers this! Heavy rail won’t run on the streets; street service will still be light rail and there will be transfers at Kenmore and Park St.
You are right about 4 (at least 3) car trains though.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I misunderstood the post at first, but I have another question:
What do people think would be the best way to make the street level sections of the Green line pre-pay stations? I think this, in addition to the removal of some of the stations would greatly improve Green line service. It would also have to be done in conjunction with finding a way for the Green line to move along the street without having to stop at every intersection even if there is no platform there.
Would an elevated Green line be aesthetically acceptable? Are there other options out there?
April 1st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
There have been many ideas tossed out there, many which work in other places but seem to die slow costly deaths in Boston, such as traffic light delays that wait for the trains or pre-paid honor system tickets. That would speed things up at little cost, as well as killing off a few close stations (though this always comes down to “get rid of the other guys stop, not mine!”)
April 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Couldn’t agree more about the “his stop not mine” argument. It’s so frustrating because when you look at the rest of the system, stops are spread out much more than along the Green line and it seems to work just fine there. People have just gotten too used to falling out of their apartments and on to the train.
I think in an ideal world, we would see some combination of more tunnels and elevated tracks. I think the C line ought to be left the most alone due to the less urban feel of Brookline. The B line could be tunneled straight out to Packard’s corner, and then run elevated until Washington St., and the E line could be tunneled until Brigham Circle.
April 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Yeah, that’s my plan as well (it was the plan of the old MTA too! They just never got the funding for it.)
April 13th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Referring back to the original article, how could an above ground station be designed as a pre-pay station without it being extremely easy to bypass paying the fare?
April 13th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Referring to the original article, how would pre-pay stations on the Green line above ground work/what would they look like? With the current infrastructure, is this even feasible?
April 24th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
One idea for now: an in-street light rail/trolley line from Lechmere to Huron Tower. 3rd. St. to Broadway, Broadway to maybe Columbia, south to Harvard St., Harvard St. to Harvard Sq., a “Harvard Square Fly-Over” with or without a passenger stop (a steep ascent, with cogwheel assistance, to a brief elevated stretch at least 50 ft. above the square, followed by a similar descent onto Concord Ave), Concord Ave. to Fresh Pond, a “Fresh Pond Underwater” (water tight cars with small DMU engines could enable this), finally to come to a terminal next to Huron Tower, the pale monolith near the water’s edge. Trains would be funneled through Lechmere along with a Cambridge St. L. Both lines would be extensions of existing Green Line routes- I’m not sure which ones. I developed this idea a long time ago and there’s more to it that I’ll write about later. I made a map, which I’ll try scanning, as it’s marker on paper. It includes a Green Line heavy rail subway, traveling in an arc from Sullivan Sq. Station, through Somerville under Broadway, to the Mt. Auburn Cemetery in Watertown. It’s all part of a “Green Line Northwest Claws” project, the ultimate intention of which is to annex Cambridge and Somerville to Boston.
June 5th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
The other 2 “Green Line Northwest Claws” lines share as a trunk the Cambridge St. L I mentioned- one turns north on Prospect St. and continues elevated to Union Square, where it touches down and runs up the middle of Summer St, ending up in West Medford. Where the L turns up Prospect, the other touches down in Inman Sq., runs up Beacon St., joins the Fitchburg Line Commuter Rail line just before Porter Station, following it as far as the Walden Square Apartments, where it connects with the Sullivan-Mt.Auburn Line.
As for the Green Line on the other side of downtown Boston, the D Line should be extended to Framingham, which within 20 years will have its own (shared with Natick and Ashland) transit service (my prediction).
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 am
While I agree with Mr. Gardner’s proposal in principle, I’m not convinced that the conversion of the Green Line from light rail to heavy rail would be as straightforward as he asserts. There are several difficult issues to consider.
(1) The Green Line has a minimum turning radius which is simply incompatible with any decently-sized heavy rolling stock, especially in the Tremont Street subway. Off the top of my head, there are hairpin turns south of Bolyston and on either side of Park Street, and the sharp turns between Science Park and North Station would certainly be a bottleneck as well. Much of the existing Green Line would require realignment in order to operate heavy rail at any kind of reasonable capacity. Not cheap.
(2) Running high-frequency heavy rail along the Green Line’s grade-level rights-of-way west of Kenmore and south of Symphony would be nothing short of unacceptable. This type of rapid transit service essentially requires grade separation to be efficient and safe, whether it be elevated or subway. Elevated is ugly, subway is expensive — pick your poison. (Amusingly, this requirement completely solves the problem of securing current ground-level stations — by replacing them.)
(3) The E branch joins the main line at a level junction west of Copley. This setup already causes irritating delays as westbound E trolleys cross the eastbound main line track at grade; this would be a major source of congestion with frequent heavy rail, likely necessitating the construction of a flying junction, at no small cost.
(4) The option of mixed light/heavy rail service leaves much to be desired. The forced transfer at Kenmore would be incredibly unpopular among a ridership that would remember the past through-running service. This model might currently work at Ashmont, but Kenmore would be handling orders of magnitude more transfer traffic. And mixing ATC heavy rail with (presumably) manually-operated light rail between Copley and Park Street seems like a suboptimal solution. I am aware of existing systems that run trams/trolleys on mainline railways, and perhaps this service pattern would serve the Green Line well, but it’s certainly not a given.
(5) Last but not least, there is the matter of rolling stock maintenance. I believe yards of varying size currently exist at Riverside, Boston College, Cleveland Circle, and Lechmere, but none of these are fit for storing or maintaining heavy rolling stock. Perhaps Riverside Yard, the current major Green Line maintenance facility, could be significantly upgraded and expanded. Or maybe a whole new railyard would have to be built. Or maybe the Green Line could be connected to another line so that its rolling stock could be maintained at Wellington Yard (Orange Line), Cabot Yard (Red Line), or Orient Heights Yard (Blue Line). None of these options are straightforward… or cheap.
I love the idea of converting the Green Line to heavy rail, but it wouldn’t be easy. I can see why the MBTA is trying cheaper measures to improve service, although the results are debatable.
P.S. There are several other New York lines which I bet exceed Green Line crowding. The Queens Boulevard express and Broadway-Seventh Avenue lines come to mind. Without solid data, though, this is merely speculation.
June 26th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Lille, France, runs heavy-rail cars that are only 26 meters long- that might solve the sharp turn problem. There’s still the issue of capacity, as each car would hold less than a single Green Line LRV, but at least dwell time would be cut down by the three doors on each Lille-model car. I personally like elevated trains, but that may be because I don’t live next to one. As for running heavy-rail at grade level, it would be difficult but not impossible. The Brown Line in Chicago does that for the last several blocks of its route, albiet crossing far fewer major streets than the B, C, and E lines do here.