I'm a big fan of a Blue Line extension past Charles to Kendall, then onto Grand Junction alignment, then out as far as Riverside, Lower Falls, beyond
-
-
Replying to @380kmh @weeseandbeyond and
part of my larger "let's run reciprocal service between subways and suburban railways" idea
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You extend it up to Lynn and you could do through running from Worcester to the Newburyport/Rockport Line (really would enjoy the MBTA actually having CR line names as well)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
yes, exactly
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It’s very Japanese of you. I’m not sure it’s the best use of funds even with a lot more $ but it’s intriguing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's very Japanese but also has a long history in old '60s and '70s Boston transit plans. The core problem I see, aside from federal regs, is that the core subway trunks here are relatively low-capacity and will probably fill up with just existing service in the coming years.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
how low capacity are we talking (trains per hour), and is it more a track issue or a signal one
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'll save you from scrolling back but basically there are no signals. They are just streetcars in tunnels. Antiquated terminal designs, mixing light rail with traffic lights, tight curves. The GL is an OLD system.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I was thinking Red/Blue/Orange lines not Green--similar issues there?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, they have standard signals that all need upgrading. Also more cars. Red Line has a terminal capacity problem at Alewife due to poor switch layout, not a whole lot you can do there.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
can't do interoperation on Red Line without rebuilding trans-Alewife tracks anyway
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.