Jump to content

Talk:Green Line (MBTA)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 2 March 2015 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Comment (2013)

  • Merge. I'm a casual user of Wikipedia. I was actually looking for the Los Angeles green line information when I landed here.

First, the title is ambiguous, as there's more than one green line, and green line extension being proposed. Also is this THE singular extension to the the green line? No extensions in the past, none in the future? When the project is done, is this to be merged with the green line article? I'm suggesting a merge, or at least a less ambiguous title, because of all the other green lines that may or may not be expanding in the world. 69.231.205.88 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are a casual user. The discussion you are adding your voice to is three years old, and was continued below in 2012. Your discussion should have been at the end of this sub-section Talk:Green_Line_(MBTA)#Re-split, perhaps as a new sub-section. If you want to propose a change to the article title, please do so as a new sub-section, or a new section. Note adding " (MBTA)" is used on quite a few article titles to disambiguate them. Any specific proposal you make should consider all these articles.
  • The title is not ambiguous by Wikipedia standards. Though I can see where it's not clear at first glance to those who do not know what "MBTA" means. It is clear, if you click through to the article (if you don't have pop-ups enabled), and read the first sentence.
  • It's the current extension to the MBTA Green Line, and is of encyclopedic standards. Historic or possible future extensions could be added to either article (if they meet Wikipedia standards), with some sort of cross link to the other article.
  • It may be merged when the project is done, years from now. Up to a consensus of editors, at that time.
It would have been better if you had read this entire section, with its sub-sections (noting the dates) and understood all this, before commenting. I hope you become a non-casual editor - Wikipedia needs may more informed editors. Lentower (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2010)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Outcome (2010)

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

Re-split (2012-2013)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I support keeping the Green Line Extension separate, as it is now a major project underway, and is already generating enough material to stand on its own. There seems to be ample precedent for major transit extension projects to have their own stand-alone articles. The Red Line Northwest extension was also a major project with many aspects of interest; I look forward to seeing a well-researched article about it. Reify-tech (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Looks great! Is it possible to hide the GLX though? Grk1011 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Excellent work! It looks very nice. :] BostonUrbEx (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards"

The article contains the questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards". I have several problems with this claim. First, the term "premetro" was only coined in the 1970, many decades after the Green Line's tunnels were built. Second, if I read the references properly, only a short segment of the original Green Line tunnels -- about one kilometer -- was built to heavy rail standards for dimensions and turning radius. Third, was there ever any plan that the green line stations should be long enough to accommodate a heavy rail trainset?

So, I think this passage should be rewritten so it doesn't reference pre-metro. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citation offered at https://archive.org/stream/lightrailtransit00diam#page/8/mode/2up/search/pre-metro defines 'pre-metro' (bottom of page 9) as 'rail systems designed to permit eventual upgrading to rapid transit standards without excessive cost or effort.' I see the point; however, at the bottom of page 9, in the same paragraph in that same article, the Boston Green Line is listed as an example of building to 'pre-metro standards'! Dispute this claim, but there's a printed claim to this effect, though we can argue that the claim is dubious. MaynardClark (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original Tremont Street Subway was in fact upgraded to heavy rail service (what is now the Orange Line) for a few years (1901-1908), with temporary high platforms. For details, see the map at Atlantic Avenue Elevated, which also appears in the Orange Line article. Once the Washington Street Tunnel was completed, the future Orange Line was switched to there, and the Tremont Street Subway was reverted to streetcars. Of course, all this predates the terms "light rail" and "pre-metro", but the general concept was there, over a century ago. Reify-tech (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As further evidence of intention to convert what is now the Green Line to heavy rail, high platforms were originally constructed in the Kenmore Loop, originally opened in 1932. A depressed trench was hidden under a "temporary" wooden platform for decades, until the space was filled in as it became apparent that a conversion to heavy rail was unlikely in the foreseeable future. They really tried to plan ahead for the long term in those days. Reify-tech (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Line as a whole, I would argue, cannot be called a premetro system - it is a conglomeration of many different projects, most of which were not premetro. The Tremont Street Subway from Canal Street to Pleasant Street (1897-1898), and the Boylston Street Subway at Kenmore (1932) were designed to allow future conversion to metro (using, likely, the type of cars originally intended for the Blue Line - more like the Center Entrance streetcars than true metro stock). But other elements were not; the Boylston curve (1897) and Causeway Street Elevated / Lechmere Viaduct (1912) and Huntington Avenue Subway (1941) were built only for streetcars, and anecdotally I have high-level confirmation (from an otherwise private conversation) that the Green Line Extension is not being built with provisions for future Blue Line conversion. Remember, the Tremont Street Subway was first built as a way to get streetcars off the city streets; the Main Line ran through it as a stopgap measure.
The only period in which BERY had any real thought of converting the Green Line was at the end of the 1920s, after the Blue Line had been similarly converted in 1924. After the Great Depression hit, plans to convert were stalled and Kenmore was built with the halfhearted track pits and never-used loop. By the time the Huntington Avenue Subway was built under the WPA, the Green Line was firmly streetcar (note the at-grade junction at Copley). I don't think it's appropriate to lump the Green Line in with systems like Antwerp's that were 100% designed for drop-in heavy rail from the beginning. It is a streetcar system that's been partially converted to modern light rail standards, and there is zero intention to convert anything (except, decades from now, the D Branch) to heavy rail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Line had fragmented pre-metro aspects, but was not designed from the start as a unitary system planned for upgrade to heavy rail. If that is the definition of pre-metro, then the Green Line never met this standard, which it predated in any event. Reify-tech (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Train or Trolly?

Would the proper term be train or trolly when referring to the green line? Currently the article uses both terms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquially, I feel it doesn't really matter, though I know others have strong opinions. The Green Line runs rolling stock designed as light rail vehicles rather than trolleys/trams/streetcars, but they have a substantial section of streetcar trackage. At most times they run with multiple-unit operation as two or three car trains; however, the T will also call one-car services 'trains'. I would probably standardize on "trolley" for the vehicles themselves (a generic term used even for many light rail systems) and "train" for trolleys of any number in actual operation, if you feel a strong need to standardize on anything. (Note that "trolly" is an all-too-common bastardized misspelling of "trolley", and should never be used.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pi.1415926535's well-stated comments on this. Reify-tech (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Line (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this article. I've taken a quick look at this article and so far, I see some major issues with this article just at first glance. There are still some tags (i.e "When" and "Clarification needed" tags), in addition to some poorly referenced sections, which does not meet the Good Article criterion. This is going to be a quick-fail unless you would like for me to go through how to proceed with this article so that it has a chance of passing in the future. If not, I may go ahead and make the improvements myself (which means I wouldn't be able to review this article if it is a GA nominee ever again). Sorry, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please improve the article a bit. I can wait for someone else to review the article. Aria1561 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the necessary improvements, but with that, this current nominee is going to be a fail. In the future, please read Wikipedia: Good article criteria prior to nominating an article, so it has a good chance to pass a GA review. Also, you've only made one edit to the page. In general, it's poor etiquette to make a single edit to a potential GA nominee and then nominating it. Usually, you should let the major contributors to the article nominate it, unless they decline. With all that said, I (and anyone else who wants to help) can make the improvements necessary for it having a chance to pass a GA review. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Line_(MBTA)&oldid=649490751"