Talk:Green Line (MBTA)

Old discussion

Note on my edits (for B/C Line) - Allston and Brighton are technically neighboorhoods of Boston, but as some edits were already listing locations as the neighboorhood names instead of "Boston"...

• Harvard Avenue Station is in Allston
• Chestnut Hill Avenue Station is in Brighton, not Brookline
• Boston College Station is also in Brighton... it's really close to Newton, but definately not in Brookline
• Cleveland Circle Station is technically in Brighton, not Brookline... though it's really close. Brighton contains Clevland circle itself, with boundries east to Ayr, south to half a block south of Beacon and west containing all of the resiour.

--Senca 04:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The words section, district or neighborhood could be used for these locations within Boston. Dogru144 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Somerville Extension

Should updates on the Somerville Extension put listed? --John Nov 21 2005 1735 UTC

If they are reasonably concise, sure. --agr 18:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Path of extension

It should be clarified: Will the Somerville Extension be grade separated or will it follow a railroad right of way? It is unusual in the modern era for a streetcar to follow a path that is on the streets with no separation from car or truck traffic. Dogru144 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

{{mb}} to {{MBTABus}}

I have changed the {{mb}} template to a new {{MBTABus}} template (which is identical to the old {{mb}} template) so that {{mb}} can be used for {{Mfd bottom}}, in the same way that {{Ab}} can be used for {{Afd bottom}} —Mets501 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Park Street

Is there any reason for the use of Park Street as the basis of comparison for time between stops? From what I know of the Green Line, there's nothing overly significant about Park Street. Rather, it seems a more important stop would be Kenmore or Government Center. Though, really, I'm not sure it's a particularly necessary bit of the article anyway. The part where it says that the sign claims such-and-such minutes but it really only took them so-and-so minutes is rather original research-y. 204.69.40.7 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Park Street is, conceptually, the "center" of the line. As you know, any train headed for Park Street is "inbound" and any train headed away from Park Street is "outbound". That's probably the reason.

Atlant 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Park Street gets heavier traffic than other Green Line stations. It is the transfer point for the Red Line, which has heavier traffic than the Blue or Orange Lines. Some of the editing and talk commentary show the pitfalls of comments by people that have never used the system on a regular basis.

(technically, before the late 1970s: Park Street's Green Line level was 'Park Street'; the Red Line level, below the Green Line level was called 'Park Street Under.') Sport games are not representative. More representative are regular weekday traffic patterns. Dogru144 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 04:13, 02 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically it's the "downtown square" of Park Street, Gov't Center, State, and Downtown Crossing which define "inbound and "outbound." Park Street is still a good stop to measure times from, though; from my experience on the Green Line (mainly after Red Sox, Celtics, or Bruins games) more than 50% of the passengers on any train get off at Park Street. Good point about the "actual times" being original research, and the whole sign thing being unnecessary; feel free to remove those. Foxmulder 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual times are listed on the MBTA website. As for the choice of Park Street, there used to be a large number of signs reading "X minutes to Park Street". --SPUI (T - C) 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Park Street is also the easternmost station served by all trains; B trains usually loop there (although what trains "officially" go through to Park vs. GC vs. North Station vs. Lechmere tends to vary every year or so, and what trains actually go through varies a lot more.) --Jnik 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor's investment with new rolling stock

An editor is apparently invested with defending new stock over older stock. Geoff.green has stripped out a fact: original LRV stock had seats with their sides to the window, not with their backs to the window. Geoff, just think about this logically: more seats into the aisle (3 across -2 on one side of the aisle, 1 on the other) means more seats. How much have you ever ridden on LRVs? Did you ride on the older cars? While noble (accommodation of wheelchair users) the newer cars have cleared the floor of seats.

Go buy 'Change at Park Street Under.' While written before the LRV introduction, its appendix sheds light on the difference (between two different classes of cars on the two Red Line brances) between seat-against the wall cars and seats perpendicular to the window: more seats in the latter.

Do real research on the issue.

Do not strip facts out of articles.

Do not vandalize without discussion on this page. Dogru144 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. You say "A second generation of LRVs was ordered from the Japanese firm Kinki Sharyo in 1986-87, with a second set of 20 cars ordered and delivered in 1997. These newer cars' seats have their backs to the wall and face the aisle; thus there is a significant reduction in the number of seats for passengers." I live on the Green Line. I ride the Green Line every day. I ride Type 7 trains very day. I ride the Boeing LRVs every once in a while, And guess what. BOTH THE LRVs AND THE TYPE 7s HAVE SEATS THAT FACE FORWARD. Yes they do! They both have seats that face forward! So not only the original LRVs but also the Type 7's, the last of which came into service in 1997, have seats that face forward. So your comment that the original LRVs had seats that face forward, while the Type 7s have seats that face the aisle, is utterly and completely wrong.

Second -- it is my understanding that at some point some seats were removed from the Boeings (and perhaps the Type 7s) to allow space for wheelchairs. If you want to complain about that, fine, but it is a factually different situation from whether the seats face forward and back.

Third -- the Type 8s DO have seats that face the aisle. The Type 8s are also designed differently and have space for seats in the middle of the train. According to the folks at the MBTA Vehicle Inventory Page [1], the LRVs and Type 7s currently have 46 seats, and the Type 8 has 44. That's right, a total of TWO FEWER SEATS. Try counting yourself. I do not find that to be a significant difference

If you want to make a point about how the original LRVs had more seats than they currently do, fine, write that up and put in a cite. But the change to aisle-facing seats in the Type 8s is not the cause. And don't call "vandalism" edits by someone who knows the facts better than you do. If you'd like to change the article to be more factually accurate about the original LRVs, go ahead, I'll hold off for now.

And finally, please spare me the sanctimonious twaddle about my bias and my need to do "real research". It looks particularly insipid when you're wrong. Geoff.green 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion done. Geoff.green 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First generation still had more seats

Well, lucky for you the MBTA hassles photographers, but we could establish the absence of perpendicular to the wall seats with a few photographs.

Geoff, nonetheless, the first, 1970s series had three seats across. You may live along it now, but you're unaware of the 1970s Boeing cars and missed the better seat opportunities and the equipment breakdowns. The first generation seat information I suppose is absent from current fan pages.

(personal attack removed)

Dogru144 22:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Boeings and the Type 7s STILL have three seats across. I didn't deny that. This is the seating: One one side there is one seat facing the aisle immediately next to the entrance. There are then five rows of seats, facing towards the front or back, with two seats next to each other. On the other side there are two single seats facing forward; then an empty spot for wheelchairs; then two single seats facing backwards. So, in other words, on four rows there are three seats across; on one row there are two seats across. There is only one seat that faces the aisle. Behind the side doors, on one side there are two rows of two seats facing forward and then one seat that faces the aisle; on the other side there are two single seats facing forward and one facing the aisle. So, in other words, on two rows there are three seats across, and then there is one "row" with two seats facing each other across the aisle. The other half of the train is identical.

So, up front there is one single seat (1); four rows of 3 (12 seats total); and one rows of 2 (2). Behind the door there are two aisles of 3 (6 seats total) and one row of 2 (2). The total number of seats in each segment is thus 23. Therefore, in each train car there are 46 seats.

Compare that with the Breda trains. Up front there are six seats on each side facing the aisle (12). There are two seats next to the steps down to the lower level (2). Behind the first set of doors there are 3 seats (3). The other end of the train is identical. So there you have 34 seats. The middle of the train has a total of 10 eats. The total is 44. So, despite having seats facing the aisle, the new trains have a total of two fewer seats than the Type 7s or the Bredas.

Now, I have heard that they overhauled the Boeings at some part, and it may be that they took some of the seats out to allow for wheelchair spots. And it looks like they had to take two or four seats out per train to allow space for the wheelchairs. Nonetheless, the seats STILL FACE FORWARD (and backward). Only a few seats face the aisle. The fact that the seats face one way or the other is irrelevant.

As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm glad you've finally given up on the mistaken claim that the Type 7s have seats that face across the aisle. If you have a source for the fact that "These post-1980 cars have a significant reduction in the number of seats for passengers, contrasted with the 1976 cars," then great. But you haven't provided any support for the claim that there are fewer seats than there were 25-some-odd years ago, nor have you accounted for the fact that currently the Type 7's and the Boeings now have the exact same seating arrangements. So again I'm going to remove it and I don't think you should return it unless and until you can verify that at some point the Boeings had significantly more than 46 seats per train.

By the way, the LRVs are not "first generation." The PCCs ran before them, and they apparently (now at least) have 41 seats per train car. And there were streetcars before that. As for the "personal attacks," sorry, but you did claim that I am "apparently invested with defending new stock over older stock," directly putting my credibility in question. Geoff.green 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up. I asked about the seat layout on the Railroad.net MBTA forum [2], and was told that on the LRVs there originally was one set of back-to-back single seats where the wheelchair space is now located, and one additional seat behind the old operator's cab.[3] Therefore, there were 52 seats per train instead of the 46 each LRV & Type 7 have now. IMHO, that is not a significant loss. More details as I get them. Geoff.green 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a valuable, detailed note.

The judgment of that as insignificant is a matter of opinion. An important selling point of transit when trying to get people out of cars is the opportunity to actually get a seat. (Of course global warming and dependence on foreign fossil fuels are constant reminders of the important IMHO mission of getting people into transit and out of cars.) Not everyone is a transit diehard as this writer and I assume everyone on this page. Another important issue, we haven't discussed is that of headways. With shorter headways we could accomodate cars with meore seats/less aisle space. Of course, this is a problem with the Green Line with four different lines running on one set of track. Dogru144 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

False comparison of shorter PCC with longer LRV

You are missing a major point of the PCC. It was about 60% the length of the LRVs. (Wikipedia says that they are still in use on the Mattapan line. Check them out.) One of the major changes in the transit scene was that the LRV was articulated, allowing for a longer car. (Note that the cars run at two max. In the PCC days they ran up to three cars.) 30 or 44 seats on a car of that length is outright pathetic. Dogru144 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The MBTA periodically runs three-car trains (with Type 7s) on the "D" line. My understanding as to why it's not done more often is a lack of drivers and a lack of cars. Geoff.green 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A selling point in the UMTA/Boeing Vertol brochure was the longer length with the two carriages linked by articulation, as a means to reduce the number of vehicle drivers. In other words, it was a labor reducing manuever. Dogru144 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, handicapped accessibility requirements are a reality. Not only must space be provided for wheelchairs, but low floors can result in loss of seating at wheel wells. Second, there is an uneven trade off between seating and standing capacity. More than one person can stand in the space taken by one seat. So a more open seating arraignment can accommodate more riders at rush hour, while off peak there are usually enough seats anyway.--agr 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

True, more people can stand in the place of one seat. A compromise between the two extremes can be a pattern of varying the seats (seats against the window alternated with perpendicular seats). The 1976 B-V cars ran like junk (see USLRV article & links) but they met this compromise.

And of course, only a curmudgeon would argue against wheelchair accessibility. Indeed, ADA was a great boon for mobility fairness. The buses and IND trains of NYC and the LRVs of SF show the balance of standee access and seat provision, along with successful design for wheelchair users. Dogru144 23:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature dispute

Prior to the 1970s the word for the electricity-powered car on streets for public transit was streetcar or trolley in the United States.

In Europe the word was tram. The word endures.

In the 1930s, the PCC was introduced in the US.

In the 1970s, the phrase, Light Rail Vehicle (increasingly the last word has been replaced with the word Transit) was applied to a new design of cars modeled on European and Japanese cars.

As to wikipedia issues of verifiability, there is the problem of people confusing modern words as applying to past periods.

Now, you refer to the PCCs. They indeed were not the only predessors in Boston; at least two other generations of cars preceded the PCC. In all seriousness, take a look at 'Change at Park Street Under.' You should really read up on history (or at least go to transit museums) to match your authority on current cars --before you make such authority claims on the past. Dogru144 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The new Green Line Subway

I've been on the new MBTA Type 8 3868 has automated "Next Stop" voices. Inside there's a heads up display for example (Next stop is Government Center). So if you get a chamce to go to Boston try and see if you can find the new subway.

I don't get what you're trying to say (or if it is relevant to the article). The retrofit Type 7's (since they have a coupler with an "8" painted on it, I assume they needed to be overhauled for coupling with the 8's) have the signage and automated announcement. I haven't been on a green line car without for years. "New subway" is how the T billed Silver Line Phase II, which isn't even connected to the green line. --Jnik 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Low-floor

The article claimed the Type 8's were boardable at street level without platforms. This is incorrect: there is still a slight step-up and stations are being reconstructed (with elevated platforms) to permit boarding. The new platforms are much less elevated than the old "wheelchair lifts" and ramps, however. --Jnik 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speeding tickets

I removed this with an incorrect edit summary. It appears to be sourced, but it is still commentary unless there is more to the story, ie he lied about the tickets to gain employment, ect and even then not sure if it belongs in this parent article. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Green Line Extension is not about a new transit line, meerly about the continuation of a current one. There is no need for two articles about the same thing, seeing that there is already an extensive section about the Future Plans of the greenline in the Green Line (MBTA) article--Found5dollar (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• No Merge -the Extension Project article and the Green Line articles are not the same thing. The former is speculative, it is on a project under development. The latter is on an existing line. Furthermore, there are articles on the component lines of the Green Line, the Watertown, Boston College, Cleveland Circle, Newton and Jamaica Plain lines. Deletion of the Somerville line will be inconsistent and will break with precedent.Dogru144 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If a merger does take place, it should strictly be to the Green Line "E" Branch, since this is the line that's supposed to be extended. ----DanTD (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. The article should be merged into the regular Green line page. This is about the expansion of an existing system, not a new line as 5Dollar already stated. A merge into E-line wouldn't work either because we have no idea how the MBTA will decide to run the trolleys. It will most likely be E to Medford since it already goes to Lechmere, but maybe they will extend the C from North Station to the Union spur or something. We don't know and should not base the article off of our assumptions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If a merger does happen, please also move the external links. They are very helpful for understanding the potential placement of the stations. I did not find these links easily using google, for example. Tucoxn (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Why address in the context as an E Line extension? The E Line travels south of the Boston Core, to Jamaica Plain. The proposed extension would travel in the opposite direction, north to Somerville.Dogru144 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think his point was that it would be the E-trains that would be extended from running from JP to Lechmore to Somerville and Medford. Though they are unmarked traveling inbound, outbound trains leaving from Somerville and Medford would be E-trains. However, it is not confirmed if that is actually how the MBTA will run them. It just seems the most obvious since E already runs to Lechmere. In an ideal world, I would suggest to the MBTA that the E run to Medford Route 16 and C to the Union Square spur since C now stops at North Station. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They currently plan to extend the D to College Ave because it is the most reliable line (it has a dedicated right-of-way to Riverside), and the E to Union Square because it is only one stop beyond Lechmere. I'm not sure Heath Street would be considered part of JP, but hey. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

Given the high degree of overlap, I implemented the merge, preserving the external links as requested. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-split

The Green Line Extension is now officially under construction. As such, I've moved much of the content back to Green Line Extension page, with an appropriate summary left here. It's just as well - the full-length section was a full quarter of the article! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the merge template to Green Line Extension as a discussion was not undertaken to decide if a "re-split" was appropriate. As I have stated before, the Green Line Extension article is not about a new transit line. There is no need for two articles about the same thing. If the extension was creating a new transit line I would be all for a seperate article but as it stands it is just an extension of a current line. This should still be in the "Future Plans" section of the "Green Line (MBTA)" article.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I split it mainly because of the length; as I said before, the full-length section was a quarter of the entire article - and it's just going to grow as the project actually gets into gear. The GLX is a major engineering project in and of itself; I feel that the engineering details and historical timeline are best put in a separate article where they can be expanded on at length. Then, the section in the main Green Line article can focus on a briefer summary (one that won't overwhelm the article) and some on how Green Line operations will change with the through-running and whatnot. There is precedent for the separate engineering pieces having their own separate article: see Tremont Street Subway, Canal Street Incline, and Pleasant Street Portal on the Green Line, and Charlestown Elevated, Washington Street Elevated, and Haymarket North Extension on the Orange Line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The length argument, to me at least, isn't really a starter as the Green line article is not an unwieldy length. If the length of the extension section truly was too large in compassion to the entire article why wasn't either it slimmed down, or other parts of the article bulked up? Should there really not be any history of the green line here, just a link to another page for it? The precedents you have cited, to me, seem kind of like comparing apples and oranges. The Tremont Street Subway, Incline, and Portal are all historical pieces of infrastructure that wither were or enabled the first subway in America, while the Green Line extension has not even begun laying track. The two Elevateds basically equal suspended transits lines and historical monolithic structures, neither of which the Green Line extension is. The Orange Line extension I feel does fall into the same category, and I think that it as well should be merged into the page for it's line. The most similar project to the Green Line Extension that the MBTA has undertaken is probably the Red Line Northwest Extension and it does not have it's own page.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Not much time for a full response (coming tomorrow) but frankly I think there's no reason each extension can't have its own article. The Northwest extension, while not as visible as the elevateds, was a massive engineering projects on its own - and with a little research I could probably create an article on it larger than the current GLX article. (And, given the chance to copyedit my prose, probably better-written :) ) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Split and merge History article?

The "History" section of the Green Line article is quite comprehensive, but is much too long and detailed for many first-time readers. Also, there has been a long-standing proposal to merge in the Tremont Street Subway article, which would make the entire Green Line article even longer. It would seem appropriate to split out the History section as a separate article, leaving just the introductory part before the Portals listing behind in the Green Line article. I think that merging the Tremont Street Subway article into the new History article would be a good idea, but am willing to consider leaving it separate. A possible name for the new article is Green Line (MBTA History), but other ideas are solicited. Any comments? Reify-tech (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Green Line (MBTA History)" makes it sound like there's a whole MBTA History category. Perhaps "History of the MBTA Green Line" or something along those lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "MBTA History (Green Line)" ? I'd like to keep the article titles short and concise. This format allows for "MBTA History (Red Line)", "MBTA History (Buses)" and such to be added if and when appropriate, without the titles becoming too unwieldy to type easily, Reify-tech (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It still makes the Green Line secondary. Perhaps "MBTA Green Line History"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the split because it obviously needed doing. It is at MBTA History (Green Line). I appreciate there was no concensus on the name, but it can be moved later if needed. I trust there's no hard feelings Op47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

B Branch (Boston College) Missing?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Route Map (line and station diagram) is missing the "B" Boston College Line. A stub is visible just beyond Kenmore station, but nothing connects to it. On the other hand, completing the Route Map will make the infobox sidebar even longer, pushing the photos even further down a very long page. Should there be some sort of ""Hide/Show" feature to allow the reader to control this? I'm not skilled in setting up these line diagrams, so I hope somebody can step forward to complete the diagram. Reify-tech (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it on later today Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I haven't had time to get to it. (Okay, well, I suppose I DO have time, but I've spent it elsewhere on other articles! :P) I was hoping to get around to the Hide/Unhide boxes as well, but I'm not sure how.BostonUrbEx (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got a stable version now. I still need to do some formatting, link the station names, and so on, but the current version should do till tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my work here is done. All the station names are done, the fiddly bits (portals, elevated, and historical bits like the Pleasant Street Portal) added, and the collapsible sections line up. (Converting to BS3 is NOT possible, as it messes up the collapsibles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! Is it possible to hide the GLX though? Grk1011 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really any way to hide the GLX, unfortunately. Branches off to the side and at the ends work for that, but the GLX goes around Lechmere, so having it hideable would bork the formatting. Fortunately, it's not too many rows. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a very nice rework of the route diagram! The overall connectivity of the Green Line branches is much easier to see, and the reader can expand the different branches as desired, to see the details. Reify-tech (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I aim to please. Thank UrbEx for doing all the tough stuff; I just added the formatting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! It looks very nice. :] BostonUrbEx (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)