Talk:Green Line (MBTA)/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Green Line (MBTA)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There are a couple of formats used for inline citations in this article. They should all be converted to use <ref> and then we're ready to look at a GA nomination for this article.

Last edited at 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)