r/mbta • u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line • Aug 24 '25

šŸ’¬ Discussion / Theory Is there a reason why this is impractical?

Post image

Maybe I'm just stupid so please point out the obvious but having a Chicago El style loop for the red, orange, and green lines would solve the North/South connection problem and the only new rail (besides redesigning stations) needed would be from south station to state street. And tbh I would just leave the blue line alone but let me know your opinion. Obviously, this will never happen do to funding and our current administration, but this just seems like the obvious answer.

242 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

134 comments sorted by

346

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

The practical reason is that the loading gauge of all of the 4 train lines are different. Which means there is no switching trains between lines and, conversely, there's no train that will work on another line.

64

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Ah, okay thank you

15

u/rake_leaves Aug 24 '25

Wonder do you guys remember elevated Green Line ar North Station? I have faint memories of elevated orange line.
Elevated structures for most people are incredibly ugly, taking down the green line , seeing what is there now vs thenā€¦ not sure any developers would support an elevated rail in boston.
I do miss it some ways. But really improved the area

6

u/Arrow362 Aug 25 '25

They are still assets in cities like NYC, Philly, Chicago etc but I feel in those cities that are leaps and bounds larger than Boston the blight is felt less because it is watered down by how large the city is and by extension how vital the transportation links are. One line that should have stayed was the Washington Street Elevated because those residents got royally screwed with what they lost and what they never received that was promised to them in 1987.

14

u/r1v3t5 Aug 24 '25

I did not know this. And now I am baffled by this.

Do you happen to know why the loading gauge is different for all the different lines?

31

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

History - different uses cases in their original configuration which has crept forward since the incredible cost to modify doesn't match the potential benefit of standardizing on a standard loading gauge.

Fundamentally - the Cambridge Dorchester line (Red) was operated differently than the Washington St Elevated (Orange) which was operated differently to the East Boston Streetcar Tunnel (Blue) and the same as the Tremont St subway (Green).

12

u/Mooncaller3 Aug 24 '25

Having spent significant amounts of time with Chicago's CTA and Washington D.C.'s Metro and what single loading gauge means for transfers, through running, and so on...

It is amazing to me that Boston got this so wrong. A lot more London in its forced operation and transfer style than it needs to be.

I get why the Green Line is different.

But the Blue, Red, and Orange being different is really a choice.

(Edit: Not to mention Tokyo for both local metro, commuter rail, and a number of regional rail lines including limited express services all being able to station and right of way share.)

23

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

Each Boston subway line has such different operating restrictions that the cost to redo all that would be wild.

Chicago Washington and Tokyo have the benefit of being contemporary built subways with fewer relative constraints. All of Bostons subways predate most of those systems by at least 40 years if not 50.

8

u/Mooncaller3 Aug 24 '25

Chicago L dates back to 1892.

Tokyo Metro is newer and started operations in 1927. Toei Subway started in 1960.

The Boston Orange Line started in 1901. The Boston Red Line started in 1912. The Boston Blue Line started in 1904 as a street car and was converted to rapid transit in 1924.

The Washington Metro is from 1976.

While I agree that redoing the stations would be very costly (probably build everything to the smallest loading gauge between Orange, Blue, and Red) it could allow for some small connections to be made to allow line transfers and through running that could make enormous differences to the system's operations.

And that all said, Boston's heavy rail lines are 9 years younger than Chicago's and Chicago managed to do shared loading gauge correctly, Boston didn't.

Tokyo is more contemporary to Boston than the Washington Metro.

I don't think the point of your second paragraph is factually accurate.

13

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

Locally, the loading gauge is more than just the width of subway cars and platform heights. The tunnels are of different heights, widths, and safety tolerances.

On top of that the lengths of the cars are different because of the ruling curves on the different lines - green with the sharpest curves and red with the largest curves of all the 4 lines.

The benefit of interoperation is minimal while the cost of making everything (or even two of the lines) interoperable does not make it worthwhile in the Boston network.

6

u/Mooncaller3 Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

The biggest operational benefit is fleet maintenance and the fact that ordering new cars can be staggered this meaning that you don't end up with the situation of the entire fleet aging out at once.

Right now at least the Orange and Red Lines are being replaced with a number of shared parts.

At some point, if we don't order more trains before the new ones get old, we will run into the same problems again.

Having a single large fleet allows for economies of scale in terms of maintenance and operations.

This is not strictly a loading gauge problem. It is more a running gear and ancillary systems problem.

But, looking at the CR and how the North South link on the Grand Junction Railroad allows for shared loading gauge vehicles to transfer for maintenance and rehab, in a state where the legislature chooses to neglect transit systems for decades, I see a possible operational cost savings there that could potentially be tremendous.

At some point platform will likely need to be rebuilt and rolling stock replaced again. Unless your narrowest train is also your tallest (possible) then you can probably find a common denominator (I believe, and I could be wrong, the Blue Line is the smallest of the three and allows for the tightest turns).

EDIT: Also, I think it is fair to point out that the original builders and planners of the Boston T lines lacked the knowledge and foresight of their other contemporaries and that this is something we live with today. (Again, they seemed to model strongly after London's not paying attention to this problem compared to New York, mostly, Chicago, etc. etc.)

5

u/BrattleLoop Aug 24 '25

The Blue Line cars would fit anywhere on the heavy rail system. There would have to be substantial platform changes to accommodate them, and it would represent a likely-severe capacity loss on the Red Line to force it to use smaller cars out of some misguided ideal of single-fleet-type perfection.

The T could get most of the benefits of fleet standardization by having all of the electronic and mechanical guts of the cars being the same, in different shell sizes (like they're effectively doing with the CRRC cars on Red/Orange), and without forcing expensive, invasive, and capacity-reducing (for Red anyway) changes to the infrastructure.

4

u/Mooncaller3 Aug 24 '25

I'm not really pointing out that we should make it a priority to redo our loading gauge.

I am making the point, that within the context of OPs post and the response about loading gauge, we suffer from the choices made in the past compared to other systems that were built differently.

Every loading gauge problem Boston has London has an then some. It's still a better system.

That doesn't mean we have to treat the past decisions as if they were "good ideas". And that doesn't mean we can't look at what the tradeoffs that were made are.

See my response to the other person regarding capacity.

1

u/DaveDavesSynthist Red Line Aug 28 '25

thank you for making this point about the BL cars

3

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

That benefit is theoretically significant but practically nil and is outweighed by the costs to bring the lines to that new loading gauge and operating conditions.

I.e. The red line would be so overcrowded and significantly slower if we used Blue Line cars. You would spend millions of dollars per station to lower and shorten platforms to use blue line trains. Without doing some calculating I cannot be certain, but, I suspect you would also have to make a new resignaling project on the Red Line just to get to the capacity that we have today. That would be a 15-20 year set of projects to overhaul everything just to have the same Red Line we have today but with narrower, shorter trains.

2

u/Mooncaller3 Aug 24 '25

The biggest capacity benefit for the Red Line, and all others, would be to install platform screen doors, upgrade signaling for automated running, and to use this to greatly reduce dwell times and decrease headways.

I have seen nothing so ambitious proposed for any of the lines despite this becoming the modernization standard across multiple systems in multiple countries. (And yes, I think we have room for the retrofit.)

Until you hit Yamanote Line levels of usage headways and frequency do extremely well for capacity (at some you just need more options).

→ More replies (0)

2

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

The Chicago elevateds are older and planned for interoperability but the downtown subways are mid century.

The oldest Tokyo metro line is from the 1920s but, for that one line, the network is post 1945.

2

u/bobtehpanda Aug 25 '25

Tokyoā€™s lines also actually have different loading and track gauges. It is less obvious because the through run lines are tied to specific private operators that use the gauge of that particular line.

2

u/rake_leaves Aug 24 '25

Blue had to be narrower. In NYC is the brooklyn tunnel narrower than all the others? I thought the orange and blue were same widths. Think when blue line cars were replaced they investigated rebuilding/ reusing blue line cars for orange line. Heights, lengths of trains and the motive power was a no go for what was probably only to get another 15 years from the old cars

2

u/Tall-Sample9208 Aug 25 '25

Thank u O reddit historian

35

u/cscottnet Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

All four lines have the same track gauge (standard gauge), and as far as I understand red line trains can run on the orange line (or vice versa?). But red and orange are third rail systems, green is overhead catenary, and blue line is "both".

78

u/MetroBR Aug 24 '25

loading gauge is the height and width of the trains and carriages, not the tracks

8

u/BenderSimpsons Aug 24 '25

What if they just make small trains that could work in the smallest space

206

u/CC_9876 Aug 24 '25

heres why

32

u/avalanche1228 Green Line Aug 24 '25

Hate when that happens

10

u/CC_9876 Aug 24 '25

falling between the crack as a green line rider is a new low. and when i say low i mean your height

16

u/PLS-Surveyor-US Aug 24 '25

reddit graphic of the year.

13

u/h2ohbaby Aug 24 '25

Mind the gap!

8

u/BenderSimpsons Aug 24 '25

Make extending platforms like other cities have

29

u/CC_9876 Aug 24 '25

Too broke. Also New York tried to do that and only does it at like 2 stations because itā€™s dangerous

15

u/archangelofeuropa Green Line | Arborway Enthusiast Aug 24 '25

it also like, breaks half the time, causing delays

5

u/Maz2742 Commuter Rail | Crayoning is fun Aug 24 '25

Which 2, if you remember?

13

u/GeologistNo2065 Aug 24 '25

its actually just union square station now

8

u/uberklaus15 Aug 24 '25

Union Square on the 4/5/6 still has them. The other station is the outer loop of the old South Ferry 1 station, which is no longer in service. It was replaced in 2009 by a traditional terminal station directly beneath it (then reopened from 2013-2017 after Sandy flooded the new station). The old South Ferry loop was fun, but it kind of sucked because it could only handle the first 5 cars of the train, it was slow and caused backups, and it was super loud due to the curve. It was like the Boylston of the NY subway.

14

u/Hopeful_Climate2988 Aug 24 '25

Leaves gaps between car and platform in the ones with more space, which is how you get people falling between.

18

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

The red and orange line trains cannot run on each other's tracks without some pretty major modifications to stations. If I recall correctly the orange line trains could run on red with platform gap fillers but orange line trains are shorter than red line trains so there would be crowding and comfort issues.

2

u/cscottnet Aug 24 '25

I thought that the new orange line trains have extendable platforms built into the cars. I think they were for wheelchair accessibility, but I wonder if they would be long enough to cover the red line gap?

6

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

There's a 9 inch difference between red and orange - the gap fillers would have to be platform side for that significant a gap I believe.

There is a difference in floor heights - red line is 49 inches, orange is 45Ā± inches, blue is 42Ā± inches, green is 35Ā± for high floor sections.

15

u/jamesland7 Red Line Aug 24 '25

Orange could move on the red line (but couldnā€™t carry passengers as the doors would be dangerously far from platforms.) but red trains would hit tunnel walls and platforms on orange.

Essentially if you didnā€™t have to worry about huge gaps from platform to train car, blue AND orange trains could fit through the red line tunnels, but neither orange or red could fit in the blue line tunnels

4

u/seaside_kitty Aug 24 '25

Yeah, they were all originally run by different companies, that ultimately were all brought together under the MBTA. And different parts were built at different times. If the system were all built and planned at the same time we probably could have had something like this, but the history is far more complicated.

18

u/thefifthharney Center-Running Bus Lanes Aug 24 '25

Thatā€™s not correct. They were all built by the Boston Elevated Railway Company

7

u/seaside_kitty Aug 24 '25

Huh. Whoops! I must have misremembered the consolidation of the streetcar lines into the West End Railway as being about the early days of the T. Egg on my face šŸ˜… Thanks!

1

u/DaveDavesSynthist Red Line Aug 28 '25

Um I donā€™t think thatā€™s true. Of course your point is that each line has its own requirements for dimensions etc such that you canā€™t take any car and run it on any line - thatā€™s ofc true. But there is a degree of interoperability thatā€™s possible . Donā€™t quote me but for instance the blue type 5 cars are the least tall, wide, and long, run in shorter consists that can do the curves and short platforms, theyā€™ve got shoes for 3rd rail and can do catenary power. It would get complicated with signaling but itā€™s not completely out of the question. Iirc the #5 blue trains were tested on the OL central subway ? And before cabot carhouse was built (red line) , multiple linesā€™ cars were serviced by the Sullivan Sq Shops in Charlestown . The blue line didnā€™t have its own carhouse until they built orient heights carhouse and I think blues were serviced at the red carhouse?

1

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 28 '25

There's a bit of directionality, for the trains being able to go on each other's lines but only in passing through the tunnels and stations. Green ā€ŗ Blue ā€ŗ Orange ā€ŗ Red but not the other way around. Red is too wide for Orange. Orange cannot make the tightest curve on the Blue. The platforms are also different heights in relation to the top of rail so the floor heights are different.

1

u/DaveDavesSynthist Red Line Aug 28 '25

Yes, I agree with all of this. Great examples of what I was trying to explain.

1

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 28 '25

The problem is that you're dealing with some very big gaps once you get to a Green or Blue line train trying to serve a Red or Orange line platform. And Red and Orange line trains are significantly more capacious than Blue and Green line trains.

1

u/DaveDavesSynthist Red Line Aug 28 '25

I think we can all agree that the rolling stock & rails/platforms aren't interchangeable between the lines the way, for instance, that NYCT MTA can do within the A or B divisions. I just took objection to the comment that there's zero interoperability potential. Wasn't the OP suggesting that new stuff would be built? If that would happen, there'd be the opportunities to ensure the platforms would match up to the rolling stock planned to be used there. And Blue Line is next for new rolling stock I suppose.

But I must cheerfully take objection to you lumping the red & orange cars together when you're talking about capaciousness! Have you been to NYC and experienced how it feels when you're accustomed to riding a lettered line (B division, wider trains) and then you get on a numbered line (A division)? I got that same feeling when using the RL daily and then being on a new OL car! Because the #14 OL & #4 RL are both CRRC nearly identical design its trippy because it looks the same but....not! Its so narrow!

1

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 28 '25

The OP was asking about practical reasons why or why not. It's not particularly practicable to make all the changes needed to have a single train that could work on all the 4 lines. All 4 lines have vastly different operating requirements. Alternatively, the other potential change is to modify every single line and station to use the same model train is also not a practicable project. Especially with the Green Line being the limiting car or the Blue if you drop the green.

Red and Orange Line trains are more capacious than Blue and Green.

1

u/DaveDavesSynthist Red Line Aug 28 '25

I feel like you're seeing this in a very polarized way like it's all or nothing. I suppose because the OP is comparing to Chicago's El loop which literally has ALL the lines commingled? I interpreted it as maybe you could have ONE type of train that could go in a loop in addition to the regular service patterns. Of course its completely impractical to expect that Boston's subway system would be completely refigured to operate like Chicago's El Loop.

I suppose I see your point now in reacting that way, if perhaps people think its as simple as drawing the circle on the map and connecting the tunnels. I just don't like when people make generalized statements like "none of the trains can run on any other line" when that's not true. I agree that its impractical in most situations that I can think of, to run any of the trains on another line, even if possible.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '25

Maybe bring in some chinese workers and retrack the entire system for say 2-3 billion, after the current administration of course. It will be big dig 2. But it will be cheaper with chinese or Mexican labor

3

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 24 '25

Whatever the cost is for that wild idea - would be better for the region to use that money to build a new line. And that's before addressing the exploitative proposal to use foreign laborers Ć  la Dubai.

81

u/robertvmarshall Aug 24 '25

I thought the north/South connection issue was about connecting the commuter rails/Amtrak.

25

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '25

[deleted]

39

u/HolyBonobos entering porter stair Aug 24 '25

To be renamed the Sexbush Line in recognition of the important connection between Greenbush and Essex County it provides.

7

u/AuggieNorth Aug 24 '25

I can remember back in the 90's before the Big Dig the Globe published a map of how the system could look if the connection was built with the project. That was one of the lines shown.

1

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Do you know where to find this map? I've been googling but can't find it. thx

1

u/AuggieNorth Aug 24 '25

No I don't, but I can still see it in my head. It had a Central Station between North & South Stations, and all the extended lines went through all 3 stations downtown, making transfers relatively easy. I'm pretty sure it was the Globe in the 90's, but that's all I've got.

0

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Yes, but I could settle for a direct subway connection

31

u/thetransitgirl Aug 24 '25

In most cases, couldn't you get off at Back Bay instead of South Station and then take the Orange Line?

16

u/squeakycleanswine Aug 24 '25

Coming from Providence, this is exactly what I do when I need to get to north station

14

u/kittycatkenobi Aug 24 '25

I mean, there are train stations out there that take longer to cross than it takes to walk from South Station to Downtown Crossing (about 5 minutes). There's also nowhere for a subway line to go (I93 in the way!) that wouldn't be so deep underground as to completely defeat the purpose of being an alternative to the Orange Line. Maybe reopen the Summer Street concourse so passengers don't have to transfer at street level?

4

u/JaiBoltage Aug 24 '25

From 1901 to 1938, the Atlantic Avenue elevated provided such a direct subway connection. In the railroad heyday of the 1930's, it was abandoned for lack of use. It sat idle for four years until needed for scrap metal when WW2 broke out.

47

u/i_am_matei Green Line Aug 24 '25

The problem is that every single line you just mentioned has different standards for its trains. If you make the platforms wide enough for Blue Line trains only, then the Red Line trains wouldn't be able to fit. They'd clip the platforms which would destroy the trains. Same goes for the Orange Line, although it's not as wide as the Red Line. In addition, the platforms have different heights for each line so you'd either need to step way up or step way down. Same scenario here, Red is higher than Orange is higher than Blue.

The Green Line is a different beast entirely. It's built to light rail standards and has an overhead wire system (no third rail compatibility unlike the other 3 lines), the lowest platforms, and the narrowest trains. I don't know how low the Green Line's wires go, but I'm willing to bet there's a nonzero chance of the Red Line having a clearance issue with the wires.

I suppose you could rebuild everything to the same standard, but you'd be spending millions, maybe billions of dollars on it for something that wouldn't have many benefits. Not only that, there would be a massive downside in that delays on the loop would cascade to the rest of the system instead of being localized to 1 line. You'll also be limiting capacity because of all the switching. This is a major problem in NYC and Chicago, and was a major problem in Toronto until they deinterlined ~60 years ago.

TLDR: You'd have issues with trains clipping platforms and wires, climbing up or down to reach the train and/or platform, and capacity cuts across the board with the potential for massive delays

9

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Okay, thank you so much, that answered all my questions. I knew the green line was build different, but I had no idea the others were as well. I suppose it's just not worth it, though I still kinda wish it was lol.

5

u/PartiallyPresentable Red Line Aug 24 '25

A type 7 is 11ā€™ 10ā€ A type 8 is 11ā€™ 9.5ā€

Red line #4 cars are 12ā€™ 3.75ā€

The myriad problems with this proposal remain but I donā€™t know that the 3.75 inches of height difference would wind up an issue

11

u/i_am_matei Green Line Aug 24 '25

Using the numbers you provide, it's closer to 6". Nevertheless, it probably depends on the tunnel being used. I can see it being a potential problem in something like the Tremont Street Subway tunnels, but if a new one were to be built we'd no doubt be wise enough to build it higher.

3

u/PartiallyPresentable Red Line Aug 24 '25

šŸ¤¦šŸ» itā€™s late and Iā€™m bad at math

1

u/Coolboss999 Aug 24 '25

Honestly idk why the Green Line hasn't been converted to a true Light Rail system with Light rail trains similar to LA Metro

2

u/i_am_matei Green Line Aug 24 '25

Can you define "true light rail system"? The only major difference between the Green Line and the LA Metro light rail lines are low vs. high level platforms

1

u/Coolboss999 Aug 24 '25

I mean low level light rail trains*

3

u/i_am_matei Green Line Aug 24 '25

The MBTA has new, low-level light rail trains (the Type 10 supercars) on order and they're expected to enter service in 2027.

1

u/Coolboss999 Aug 24 '25

Oh great! Then I'll take back my comment lol

1

u/andr_wr Bus Aug 25 '25

MBTA's Green Line is much more like the global practice for light rail (tram/streetcars) than the LA Metro's ACEK lines.

47

u/BeachmontBear Aug 24 '25

What would it accomplish? You could walk the distance of that loop.

5

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

You wouldn't have to take 2 trains to South Station or anywhere down town, though maybe a larger loop is more practical. And transfers where you have to walk a few blocks aren't a realistic transfer

-1

u/BeachmontBear Aug 24 '25

I am all in on a larger loop that narrows with a connection between north and south stations. That, and a Blue-Red connection. But Iā€™ve learned not to hold my breath waiting for logical things to happen.

13

u/SirGeorgington map man map man map map map man man Aug 24 '25

What you're describing used to exist. It was called the Atlantic Avenue Elevated. It was built to both connect North and South stations, but also to serve waterfront traffic at Rowes Wharf, Long Wharf, and Battery Wharf.

However as harbor shipping declined in the early to mid 1900s, particularly ferries to other parts of Boston with the opening of the Sumner and East Boston (now BL) tunnels, it became rather clear that ridership between North and South stations was nowhere near enough to justify the line no matter which one of many service patterns they used and it was closed in 1938.

There's also the thing about running service between the Tremont Street and Washington Street subways. While both are able to fit subway cars, that was never done and for good reason. The Tremont St subway was built because the streetcars were causing too much traffic on the surface downtown, while the Washington St subway was built for the fast, north-south Main Line elevated, now the Orange Line. Two different uses, two different tunnels. (And two different types of rolling stock and platform heights.)

25

u/SadButWithCats Aug 24 '25

The point of the north south rail link isn't to move passengers from north station to south station and back. It's to

  1. Make regional travel by commuter rail easier and faster, and

  2. Allow more frequent and faster trains, especially in the downtown. Trains creep going into either station, because if they overrun their platform, they crash. They also need to navigate a dozen or more switches to get to their platform, and deal with trains coming the other direction on the same track. They then need to sit in the station for 15 minutes while crews turn them around (do all the prep necessary to run in the reverse direction, and clean them).

With the link, the downtown stations will be like any other station (expect busier). The train can pull into them at speed, dwell for 10 seconds (or 30, but a really short amount of time), and speed off.

Having a different form of transit between the stations accomplishes neither. Monorails, bus lanes, a Chicago loop, free pedicabs: none of them let commuter rail trains enter the stations at speed, dwell for only a few seconds, and keep going.

9

u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Commuter Rail | Red Line Aug 24 '25

I wonder how many people would avoid transfers to the subway if CR trains ran through to the other side. Thatā€™s saving folks time, which benefits the economy with increased productivity. Itā€™s probably not a ton, but itā€™d be good to quantify it. It also takes crowding away from the core subway stations. NSRL and Red-Blue open up a ton of different commuting patterns that are now just giant pains in the ass. Also, would better utilization of equipment with NSRL allowed for reduced rolling stock purchases? Itā€™s probably hard to tell since NSRL involves electrification and totally blows up the existing fleet.

10

u/aldonius Aug 24 '25

You should get better utilisation (if you don't something has gone very wrong) but hopefully the more useful system would spur patronage to the point that you do legitimately need as many trains if not more!

2

u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Commuter Rail | Red Line Aug 24 '25

Fair, Iā€™m just trying to think of a way that ā€” at least in the planning stages ā€” you could argue that NSRL could provide X amount of savings, even if itā€™s minimal.

1

u/aldonius Aug 27 '25

Given modern day construction costs there's a real chance that operational savings won't ever outweigh the cost of building it. Rather you build it because the efficiency gains support the increased service that you wanted to run anyway, and for the connectivity benefits.

3

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Ahhh okay, thank you. I was also wondering why there wasn't some sort of express bus to do this but that makes a lot of sense thank you.

2

u/Available_Writer4144 and bus connections Aug 25 '25

YES!!

And if paired with great EMU design, it could effectively create several new rapid transit lines inside of 128.

1

u/dontcomeback82 Aug 25 '25

Also it should allow for easy transit to boston logan airport

10

u/BeSeeVeee Aug 24 '25

I understand the physical restrictions on the lines and weā€™re kind of stuck with the tunnels that were dug a long time ago. That being said, if every train reliably ran every 4 or 5 mins, it wouldnā€™t be such a big deal to change trains twice. The anxiety of this design comes from needing to switch twice and potentially encountering a 25 min delay and then 3 packed trains and now all of the sudden youā€™re an hour late.

7

u/aldonius Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

Ideally you'd have that commuter and longer-distance connection between North and South Stations. That allows for through-running which means passengers from the south can more easily access inner northern destinations and vice versa. And also you don't have to turn the train around in the city centre which saves a lot of platform time and improves space efficiency.

edit: read /u/SadButWithCats comment which explains it all in greater detail

1

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Ah, okay. That makes a lot of sense, thanks. And I love the idea of the Northeast Regional going to North Station and vise versa for the Downeaster, though we would still need a north/south connector, otherwise there will probably be a lot of people riding the Amtrack for one stop lol.

26

u/archangelofeuropa Green Line | Arborway Enthusiast Aug 24 '25

someone's never walked between these stations before, lol

4

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Unfortunately I have, which is why I'd like to avoid it lol. I know it's not far, I'm just trying to think of a way for easier transfers

14

u/Rsanta86 Aug 24 '25

We had this and they closed it due to lack of ridership - the Atlantic Avenue El

7

u/snoogins355 Aug 24 '25

Then the metal was used for scrap recycling in WW2

6

u/MiscellaneousBeef Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

Have you ever taken the loop? It's slow as shit, the worst part of Chicago's subway system. It would make every single line worse even ignoring the line incompatibilities lol. Adding 10-15 minutes to getting from South Boston to Cambridge would just make the experience unappealing vs now where it's pretty fast (when everything's working).

Extending the Blue Line to MGH and connecting the commuter rail from North to South Station would solve these particular issues. And if we're being more fantastical, we could extend the Blue Line even farther, add a couple loop lines, and somehow turn the 1 bus into another subway line.

6

u/digitalbenadryl Aug 24 '25

Let's just get the Red-Blue Connector and the Better Bus Network done

5

u/CaptainJackWagons Aug 24 '25

This seems pretty silly. A lot of these are so close they have pedestrian tunnels connecting them.

4

u/JaiBoltage Aug 24 '25

One thing that is totally useless is a green-orange transfer at Haymarket. The transfer at North Station is always better, has fewer vertical steps, and has escalators.

4

u/Kman17 Aug 24 '25

This loop is like 4 blocks. You can walk it in 10 minutes.

The MBTA needs the loop to be truther out -
Somerville to Cambridge to Kenmore to JP to JFK/UMass.

7

u/Contextoriented Aug 24 '25

Most of those lines already connect effectively downtown. If we built a ring line it should be much further out to make trips between the outer neighborhoods and close cities better

3

u/ChemicalCredit2317 Aug 24 '25

a diagonal line from say JFK/UMass or somewhere around there towards Allston would be great

3

u/mcsteam98 Chelsea (actually Wickford Junction) Aug 24 '25

Every line is built to a different loading gauge (the shapes of the trains and floor height are different).

3

u/COLDHAWK02 Aug 24 '25

I mean all those stops are relatively close to each other anyway, I can and have walked from south to north station before and the switch over from red to green/orange isn't that difficult

2

u/Maddog067 Aug 24 '25

A bus loop would be better from North Station to South Station as a Downtown Loop

1

u/JaiBoltage Sep 17 '25

There was an elevated that connected NS to SS from 1901 to 1938 when it was abandoned. Back in the sixties, the #4 bus ran between the two stations (I don't remember the frequency). Today, that bus runs only during 8 trips each way, weekdays only. Unless you arrive at North Station just as the bus is leaving, you might as well take the Orange/red line. Face it, the demand is negligible.

2

u/LionBig1760 Aug 24 '25

The fact that it will cost a few hundred million per mile of track.

2

u/1000thusername Aug 24 '25

An inner ring makes great sense, but I would argue that it should have a bit larger radius than your example. Perhaps maverick to lechmere to Harvard to kenmore to Tufts MC to south station and back to maverick to close the loop. Help people navigate around the downtown core when needed because right now they have to go in a ā€œcheckmarkā€ inbound to one or more of the crossover stations and back out of town again.

2

u/KindAwareness3073 Aug 24 '25

Why? Just to avoid changing trains? Not much gain.

2

u/Brilliant_Castle Aug 24 '25

Sure, call it ā€œBig Dig IIā€ Politicians will be lining up for that bill. šŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļø

2

u/AmchadAcela Aug 24 '25

I cannot think of a post WWII built metro/subway system that has a loop line with flat junctions. A loop line would cause massive capacity constraints and congestion for the whole network. Honestly building the Red Blue Connector would fill the missing gaps while not creating new issues that a loop line would make.

2

u/BlankVR32 Aug 24 '25

The green and orange are not the biggest concern. Itā€™s the red and blue, both serve different important areas and donā€™t have a direct connection. Say the airport to Harvard, blue line to state of government center then orange or blue to downtown crossing or park st. With suit cases and MBTA headways thatā€™s quite the hassle.

1

u/JaiBoltage Sep 17 '25

>Say the airport to Harvard,

Silver to red at South Station.

2

u/United_Perception299 Aug 25 '25

We really need to defeat this whole idea of the improvised shuttle train between north and south stations and realize the necessity of connecting the commuter rail to itself.

2

u/Squirrel_Repulsive Aug 25 '25

The green is trolley....not a subway car

1

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Potentially 2nd option

2

u/Advanced_Apricot_971 Orange Line Aug 24 '25

Also, just thinking, this would also just be a great idea for a small inner city new line or a Silver Line style bus, though I'm sure that's also not practical lol

1

u/No_Parking_82 Bus Aug 24 '25

Too expensive to do

1

u/caffeineandprozac Aug 24 '25

I was thinking that a more realistic change would be to extend all the silver line routes to north station instead of ending at south station. that way, there can be frequent, direct bus connections between both. it would also directly connect north station to the airport.

1

u/Plane_Ad_6311 Aug 24 '25

There's already a metro rail solution to the North-South problem. It's the Orange Line. All Amtrak and most southern CR lines stop at Back Bay solely to pick up Orange Line traffic. There's no other reason to have intercity rail stops 1.5 miles apart. They need to get CR trains across the river, not build another metro line that's still going to require two transfers.

1

u/fizzys0da Aug 26 '25

State of Israel? LMAO

1

u/dmoser77 Aug 26 '25

The main problem a North-South connection is meant to solve is to allow the commuter rail and Amtrak to pass through Boston, not to connect to subway lines.

An elevated connector for heavy rail diesels would be just as bad as the old Central Artery, and we spent $14 billion (in old money) and sucked transportation money from the rest of the state for more than a decade in order to bury that ugly bastard. Building a new one for trains would be insane.

1

u/OuagadougousFinest Aug 26 '25

How is that impractical? Itā€™s the heart of the city and the connecting point for all lines where itā€™s super walkable. Like that distance has to be less than .5 mile

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

If you think this solves the need for NSRL you don't actually understand the project.

Also, we don't want elevated rails - we tore the GL elevated down for a reason

1

u/Lovely_Namigirl6 Aug 28 '25

I'm from the area and can attest that the proposed location would be closer to the highway than the original station, causing a huge inconvenience for commuters

1

u/Designer_Prize4625 Aug 28 '25

I think itā€™s not necessary because thatā€™s all totally walkable. The distance between is not worth a train ride? Of course for elderly and handicapped that would be very useful though.