archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Design a Better Boston

Design a Better Boston Are you disappointed with the state of Boston's current architecture/development? Think you have a better idea? Post it here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2019, 08:46 AM   #1741
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,443
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
Fairly reasonable, but I think you can only do one more stop max because of time, given that most workers are going to have to transfer to the T to be close enough to get to their job.

The aux parking lot there is probably not being used now.
With electrification having more stops becomes more reasonable. Thinking about it again having a Umass Lowell stop and a N Chelmsford stop would be enough. You could add some rush hour express trains from Lowell to Boston with the additional stops from the North.

Another thing is that the Lowell Line has an undersized layover yard at its current terminus. Near the Nashua mall there is a lot more space to build a full sized one.

With Providence I was always confused why they built a MBTA station in the middle of nowhere at Wickford Junction, yet the train passes through dense places like Pawtucket, Cranston, or the West End of Providence without stopping.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 10:04 AM   #1742
ulrichomega
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 29
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Is there any place where an infill on the existing Lowell line makes sense? It always seems so sparse to me.
ulrichomega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 11:26 AM   #1743
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,443
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulrichomega View Post
Is there any place where an infill on the existing Lowell line makes sense? It always seems so sparse to me.
Mishawm would be one. There is already a station there, but only peak reverse direction trains stop there. Only issue is that there isn't much residential in that area.

Between Mishawm and Winchester would make more sense. Maybe something by Montvale Ave.

For all practical purposes, i'd say that Woburn really doesn't have a commuter rail station. Sure Anderson Woburn is within the city limits, but it's not easily accessible for most Woburn neighborhoods. I'd bet if you went to Anderson Woburn, you'd see that the vast majority of the riders live in Wilmington, Andover, N Reading, or points north along 93.

Anderson Woburn isn't accessible to any residential areas (besides those new apartments they're building next to I-93). There is a neighborhood just to the west of Anderson, but you'd have to cut through fences to get to it, or drive a 5 mile loop.

The thing about infill stations is that they tend to hurt ridership in outer stations, due to the increased time it takes to get to Boston. The Lowell Line gets pretty good ridership (for the North Side), considering its length.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 02:25 PM   #1744
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 333
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
With Providence I was always confused why they built a MBTA station in the middle of nowhere at Wickford Junction, yet the train passes through dense places like Pawtucket, Cranston, or the West End of Providence without stopping.
South Atteboro kind of works as the de facto stop for residents of the Bucket. It's basically on the state line but is in Massachusetts. Is in a lot of ways similar to the Nashua idea brought up.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 03:44 PM   #1745
George_Apley
Senior Member
 
George_Apley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,504
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Mishawm would be one. There is already a station there, but only peak reverse direction trains stop there. Only issue is that there isn't much residential in that area.

Between Mishawm and Winchester would make more sense. Maybe something by Montvale Ave.

For all practical purposes, i'd say that Woburn really doesn't have a commuter rail station. Sure Anderson Woburn is within the city limits, but it's not easily accessible for most Woburn neighborhoods. I'd bet if you went to Anderson Woburn, you'd see that the vast majority of the riders live in Wilmington, Andover, N Reading, or points north along 93.

Anderson Woburn isn't accessible to any residential areas (besides those new apartments they're building next to I-93). There is a neighborhood just to the west of Anderson, but you'd have to cut through fences to get to it, or drive a 5 mile loop.

The thing about infill stations is that they tend to hurt ridership in outer stations, due to the increased time it takes to get to Boston. The Lowell Line gets pretty good ridership (for the North Side), considering its length.
Mishawum should be outright deleted. It can't be full-high'd and it gets ZERO ridership. Montvale Ave should get a stop as a replacement. It would have decent bus catchment.
George_Apley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 05:31 PM   #1746
The EGE
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 653
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Montvale is a no-brainer, and UMass Lowell and North Chelmsford are obvious intermediates for a Nashua extension. Knocking off Wedgemere (possibly by a GLX-Winchester) will buy some schedule slack, as will fixing the wonky speed limits on the line. And in the event of extension to Manchester or Concord, you'll probably see a local-express pattern implemented where anything going beyond Lowell stops only at Anderson RTC and maybe one of Wilmington or Winchester.

An infill between North Billerica and Wilmington might make sense - there were two intermediates until 1965 - but that should wait until after there's a Salem Street stop serving all Haverhill trains.
The EGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 07:05 PM   #1747
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,443
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Honestly, for Wilmington and Billerica, i'd just expand parking at the current stations rather then building an infill. There really aren't any dense neighborhoods with a large walk up population that would be good for a new station, or any job centers.

And Mishawm has almost no ridership because it gets no peak direction service. Though for peak direction travel (hometown to work in Boston), there really isn't any walk up demand.

The neighborhoods north of Woburn would be much better served with a Mishawm with parking, or a new bridge to the Anderson parking spots. To keep the line fast, i'd just add the bridge and not add service to Mishawm.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 02:38 AM   #1748
WormtownNative
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Worcester
Posts: 326
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Even without NH support for a trip up to Nashua, I think the T should extend the Lowell Line up to the Pleasant Street Mall. The Southern Part of that mall is located in Massachusetts.

For stations, UMass Lowell somewhere near the Pawtucket Canal, Roruke Bridge, North Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, and lastly the Nashua Mall (though at the Massachusetts part).

Even if it attracts NH passengers, most of those passengers will be traveling to Boston/Lowell to work (paying MA income tax) or traveling to Boston/Lowell to spend money (helping the economy). That's why I think this should be built even if it receives no NH money.

For the Haverhill line, add a south Lawrence location. South Lawrence is dense, the station dosn't even need additional parking. Also reconfigure bus service there to serve the mbta stops better.

For the nbryprt rckprt line, add a South Salem station. Also, with electrification, add a new East Lynn stop between Lynn and Swampscott. You could still run the rush hour express trains. It looks like there's space for a passing 3rd track if needed. You could also put an East Cheslea/Revere stop (though I'm not sure exactly where). Maybe something near the Chelsea River bridge, with some better pedestrian connections.

For the Providence line, Providence should have multiple stations. Add a West End and a Cranston stop, plus the Pawtucket stop already planned.

For the Worcester Line, bring the line down to the Auburn Mall, with an additional 2 Worcester stops in between.
If I remember correctly it was brought up in this threat or the crazy transit pitches thread to add stops at UML's Riverview Suites and the mall and downtown Nashua. Nashua is supportive of expanding transit, but they've already signed agreements with the vaporware transit "Boston Surface Railway." Nashua wouldn't have to do too much, as they've already designated a station location (currently just a Park & Ride lot). Main issue would be a platform, agreements with Pan Am, and a layover yard (all discussed to great length on here).

As for Worcester, I believe a +1 at Exit 10A's Park & Ride in Millbury has been discussed on here, not sure about anything in Auburn.
WormtownNative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 11:25 AM   #1749
Scalziand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 459
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

A Worcester +1 would probably be done in conjunction with a new expanded layover ala the Fitchberg Wachusett extension. There's a suitable looking parcel for a layover half a mile north of the Auburn Mall site, and there's several areas around the treatment plant and landfill in Millbury that we discussed before. If there's an extra stop on the Auburn extension, College Hill would probably be the best spot.
__________________
Shadows no longer exist. They will henceforth be known as shade.
Scalziand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 12:03 PM   #1750
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 333
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by WormtownNative View Post
Nashua wouldn't have to do too much, as they've already designated a station location (currently just a Park & Ride lot). Main issue would be a platform, agreements with Pan Am, and a layover yard (all discussed to great length on here).
That spot is too far to be realistic, unless you implement Express trains as mentioned.

The Pheasant Lane site also avoids any long term need to negotiate with NH. You would have to upgrade the tracks as it is single track.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 01:35 PM   #1751
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,443
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
That spot is too far to be realistic, unless you implement Express trains as mentioned.

The Pheasant Lane site also avoids any long term need to negotiate with NH. You would have to upgrade the tracks as it is single track.
It's roughly the same distance as Providence to Boston, maybe even slightly shorter. And Providence has the highest commuter rail ridership outside of Boston stations.

It's currently 46 mins from Lowell to North Station, making all stops. I don't think the trip to Nashua would take more than 15-20 mins. So probably an hour and 5 mins or so from North Station, excluding express trains.

Biggest downside to the trains on the North Side is that North Station is in a much worse location compared to South Station and Back Bay, so that does reduce ridership.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 02:43 PM   #1752
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 333
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Biggest downside to the trains on the North Side is that North Station is in a much worse location compared to South Station and Back Bay, so that does reduce ridership.
Yeah. State is another 15 minutes on the Orange Line; and anything other than that is going to be even longer. So even Lowell riders are looking at least an hour.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 04:04 PM   #1753
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Even without NH support for a trip up to Nashua, I think the T should extend the Lowell Line up to the Pleasant Street Mall. The Southern Part of that mall is located in Massachusetts.
That has been debated, since US 3 Exit 36 recently had work done to make it a completed interchange. I think the fact that the Mall is HQ'd across the state line makes it jurisdictionally complicated enough that it still ends up a de facto two-state project without a lot of end-run potential.

City of Nashua does have its downtown stop locked up and ready to build. They purchased a derelict industrial property on Crown St. to put in a commuter lot. Note how the back property fence perfectly traces the outline of an 800 ft. platform and the track turnouts which would separate it from the freight yard. (The T already has wink-wink understandings with Pan Am about building a layover in the unused back portion of the yard). Realistically, they could proceed to Crown St. if NH/Nashua is a-go and hash out the South Nashua station siting as they go along, on hope that they'd be able to make up time and get that one open too with the rest of the extension.

Quote:
For stations, UMass Lowell somewhere near the Pawtucket Canal, Roruke Bridge, North Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, and lastly the Nashua Mall (though at the Massachusetts part).
Note: that portion of the line abutting the river and running between the back side of Lowell Station and North Chelmsford Jct. is shared with the busy Pan Am freight main. And it's a complicated traffic area because freights from Ayer come off the Stony Brook Branch on the south-facing side of the ROW but have to depart for Andover via the Lowell Branch off the north side of the ROW. Commuter trains come from the south end of the ROW from Lowell station but break north at N. Chelmsford Jct. Those exchanges have a total of 3 miles to happen, but the track layout has to stay pretty clean for it to happen without conflicts. You most definitely have to have extra passing tracks where possible, and well-staggered crossovers for doing the exchanges. This limits *somewhat* the station placements.

UMass by the existing track overpass @ Broadway/Riverview would work very well; there's room to quad-track, and you can easily shaft down an egress from the overpass to an island platform. Canal area slightly east wouldn't work well because of bridge, curve, and nearby crossover placement. Rourke Bridge doesn't need a stop, because LRTA bus Route 17 hits Vinal Square at the North Chelmsford stop a mere half-dozen stops away. Station siting for use of the bridge to tap Pawtucketville on the other side of the river also runs into major accessibility issues: a 1000 ft. walk from Middlesex St. on-foot if siting by the bridge, and a 50+ ft. high climb onto the high onto the bridge...whose sidewalk is so narrow it can't possibly meet ADA regs, meaning no station egress dumping onto it can be considered ADA-compliant. That one won't work any which way.

N. Chelmsford station site has been ID'd for the Butterfield + Sleeper St.'s backlots, which are the closest you can get to Vinal Square without dealing with wetlands. The old B&M stop used to be behind what's now Kennedy Dr., but new residential has taken up that space. Wotton St. grade crossing is planned for closure.

No Tyngsboro stop has been studied (old B&M stop: under the bridge). Since bus coverage cuts out at the town line, first move to means-test demand would be to flush more LRTA coverage between Vinal Square and South Nashua (giving LRTA permission to cross the state line like RIPTA does at South Attleboro)...then see if anything starts stirring demand-wise. If yes, consider an infill later. If no, continue improving the bus frequencies. They'll be surrounded by enough coverage that I don't think it's necessary to plop down a stop because reasons; this is much more a test case for infills and showing infill demand.

Quote:
Even if it attracts NH passengers, most of those passengers will be traveling to Boston/Lowell to work (paying MA income tax) or traveling to Boston/Lowell to spend money (helping the economy). That's why I think this should be built even if it receives no NH money.
Unfortunately MA has already gerrymandered all that it can by cutting the lifetime trackage rights agreement with Pan Am for Concord (which remains in effect even if NHDOT buys the line or it passes to another freight carrier). They have all the operating rights they'd ever need, as well as access to the freight yards and/or tail tracks in all 3 of the cities for any layover yard configuration. City of Nashua has also done all that can be done outside of state purview by purchasing its downtown station site on Crown St., cleaning up the brownfields, and landscaping it so platform + platform tracks are literally plug-and-play. But the T and City of Nashua can't float a subsidy agreement for the train and the T can't directly launder money to Pan Am for the mainline track work (only make sure it's done to their passenger specifications). The volatile NH legislature has to convert on the goal line.

It's not much of an ask, mind you. But this is the bugfark "People's Legislature" we're talking about here, as well as the Vatican-like Governor's Council. They change their minds more than most folks change underwear.

Quote:
For the Haverhill line, add a south Lawrence location. South Lawrence is dense, the station dosn't even need additional parking. Also reconfigure bus service there to serve the mbta stops better.
Contingent on Haverhill running via the Lowell Line to Wilmington, I'd also add Ward Hill in North Andover for the good TOD potential, direct 495 access, and close access to MA 213. And, contingent on a state line (Hilldale Ave. industrial park) location for a Bradford-replacement layover yard, add Rosemont Ave. as the terminal stop on the station property the T has owned since the failed 1981 attempt to expand here. Adjacent junkyard is redevelopable for TOD, decent amount of Haverhill residential density that's not near any other station, and MVRTA bus Route 13 can be redrawn to loop here opening up access to the residential/commercial density around Main St. that's not all that close to the downtown stop.

Quote:
For the nbryprt rckprt line, add a South Salem station. Also, with electrification, add a new East Lynn stop between Lynn and Swampscott. You could still run the rush hour express trains. It looks like there's space for a passing 3rd track if needed. You could also put an East Cheslea/Revere stop (though I'm not sure exactly where). Maybe something near the Chelsea River bridge, with some better pedestrian connections.
You don't need a third track. Unless you've got wild variety in who's skipping what, the only thing you would need are more crossovers. Oh, and definitely double-up that Salem mainline platform they forgot to do when they dropped huge coin on that parking garage. Peabody's fine because they've got a separate turnout in the tunnel, and South Salem will add a useful throttle for staging orderly tunnel slots...but at RER service levels Newburyport and Rockport are going to butt heads around that single platform.

The Revere station has been proposed ad nauseam in umpteen different places, and projected a ridership loser each time. Even the Eastern RR and B&M couldn't draw flies there back in the old days, so through most of its history the Eastern Route has never locally served Revere. The only place that makes a lick of sense is by MA 145 and MA 16, but its in a scuzzy industrial neighborhood with the those two parkways and adjacent 1A entombing the would-be station site in a wall of cars preventing any easy access to the residential to the west. And, Beachmont is pretty damn close.

West on the other side of the creek towards Eastern Ave. it's slimmer pickings with more scuzzy industrial, and water. SL3 takes the much tastier routing that direct-connects with Broadway buses.

Anything near Wonderland has already failed on ridership study so many times that the repeated attempts to make it a 'thing' are now self-parody. It's a 1000 ft. walk to the Blue + bus transfer, the TOD isn't taking off, and NECCO's implosion only complicates the ineptitude at getting something more functional than a Logan aux lot going at the ex- dog track. RER frequencies aren't nearly enough to fish this site out of the water.

Quote:
For the Providence line, Providence should have multiple stations. Add a West End and a Cranston stop, plus the Pawtucket stop already planned.
Cranston is already planned by RIDOT at Station St. Will be a quad-track station, 2 side platforms, 2 center passers. They still have to fund renovations of Westerly for 3 tracks and full-high platforms before tackling this one, but they've nailed down where it'll go and what it'll be. An Olneyville stop was considered, but uncertainty about the design for the 6-10 Connector rebuild had them passing on it until it became clearer what canvas they had to work with. If the highway ramp sprawl gets compacted in orderly fashion allowing for 4 NEC tracks + side room for platforms, they will probably put that back on the front-burner pronto since it's highly desired.


Quote:
For the Worcester Line, bring the line down to the Auburn Mall, with an additional 2 Worcester stops in between.
This is never going to happen. The T doesn't own or dispatch the B&A west of the Worcester Union Station turnout, so there's an immediate rights blocker that won't be solved without buying the B&A. Second is how excruciatingly long that schedule ends up getting. You have to draw the line somewhere, and Worcester Union Station and the headquarters of WRTA is the highest-leverage point to draw it. Going outside WRTA's bus service area brings fast-diminishing returns on the ridership dragged further by how freaking long it takes to get between Boston and Auburn. Third, going to Auburn means additional adjacent towns--Oxford, Spencer, Charlton--would have to be voted into the MBTA district for using the services in Auburn at the western frontier of the district. That's not going to be an easy sell when trying to assess fees, because they'll want discounts over the rest of the municipalities for being forced to put up with such extreme-outlier travel times. It's not a geographically statewide transit service; the boundary has to go somewhere.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 04:12 PM   #1754
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Mishawm would be one. There is already a station there, but only peak reverse direction trains stop there. Only issue is that there isn't much residential in that area.

Between Mishawm and Winchester would make more sense. Maybe something by Montvale Ave.
Montvale is sooooo badly needed. It is the physically closest walk to Woburn Square of any potential stop, and the 354 bus to the Square stops right there. Also has the Stoneham Branch trail reaching out to the density on the other side of 93. The Woburn Branch is never coming back, being obliterated by condos in spots. This is the closest the town will ever get to having its downtown served by rail transit again.

Quote:
Anderson Woburn isn't accessible to any residential areas (besides those new apartments they're building next to I-93). There is a neighborhood just to the west of Anderson, but you'd have to cut through fences to get to it, or drive a 5 mile loop.
There was *supposed* to be a west entrance providing access to that side, but they never finished it. Completing it should be a top priority because there's pretty decent residential density west, and the 134 bus could be looped to terminate here instead of just fizzing out by the side of the road in North Woburn.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 04:21 PM   #1755
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
South Atteboro kind of works as the de facto stop for residents of the Bucket. It's basically on the state line but is in Massachusetts. Is in a lot of ways similar to the Nashua idea brought up.
South Attleboro, in addition to proximity with Pawtucket, also takes RIPTA buses from across the border in addition to GATRA buses. If you think its ridership is huge today, wait till you see what RER service levels do to the bus shares over there.

South Nashua would absolutely be an analogy if LRTA could cross the border from Tyngsboro and Dracut. Granted, NTS on the other side of the border is pretty weak sauce as bus systems go so the resulting boom wouldn't be close to the magnitude of RIPTA on South Attleboro...but that's exactly the right recipe for blowing out one's ridership projections by a wide margin.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 04:51 PM   #1756
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Honestly, for Wilmington and Billerica, i'd just expand parking at the current stations rather then building an infill. There really aren't any dense neighborhoods with a large walk up population that would be good for a new station, or any job centers.
Lowell Line stops that lasted into the MBTA era were:
Winchester Highlands [closed 1978]
Walnut Hill [closed 1965]
Silver Lake [closed 1965]
East Billerica [closed 1965]

Silver Lake and East Billerica are pretty much sick jokes: the least-populated possible station locations on the whole route. Walnut Hill is an excellent location...probably the #2 choice for a Woburn infill if Montvale just south were to fall through. You don't need both because of proximity, but on either/or they have similar characteristics with Montvale coming out on top over somewhat superior proximity to Woburn Square.

Winchester Highlands is a somewhat intriguing one. It lasted longer than all the other service cuts, all despite being right at the other end of Cross St. from the Woburn Branch's Cross St. stop. And it's dense. I'm not sure you'd have an easy time convincing the NIMBY's in Winchester to add a stop, but this wouldn't be a bad one at all. Better than Wedgemere for damn sure.

Seems like there's adequate residential density to scour for sites somewhere between old Silver Lake and old East Billerica. Something with walkup from South Tewksbury and South Billerica. But while the density looks superficially good, it's so very highly skewed to single-family residential I can't help but think this is going to be something less than the sum of its parts. No buses nearby, and parking area would be hard to acquire. Who exactly would this be for???

Quote:
And Mishawm has almost no ridership because it gets no peak direction service. Though for peak direction travel (hometown to work in Boston), there really isn't any walk up demand.
Mishawum's ridership sucked when it did have peak-direction travel. They've tried everything, and it's just ridership repellent. It doesn't help that the so-called TOD is a wasteland of big-box stores to one side and sprawly industrial to the other. And it really doesn't help that the sidewalk on Mishawum Rd. crossing over Route 128 is so squished with accessibility deficiencies that the stop is more or less cut off from its only source of residential walkup.

At this point, RER frequencies aren't enough to give it another shot. Finish the west entrance at Anderson, re-route the buses and pump their frequencies, and demolish this failure of a stop. And if anyone asks about a Montvale-Anderson spacer, I'd try my luck at Olympia Ave. on the other side of 128 in spitting distance of somewhat less vapid/useless commercial before I'd ever give Mishawum another lease on life.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 05:16 PM   #1757
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by WormtownNative View Post
As for Worcester, I believe a +1 at Exit 10A's Park & Ride in Millbury has been discussed on here, not sure about anything in Auburn.
Physically not an option. There's a steep-graded hillside by the exit ramp preventing any nearby access from street level down to track level. Then you have immediate wetlands under the highways, and the city water plant + capped city landfill blocking any access to the north. No way down to catch a train if you wanted to. P&W has its newish yard down there on some post- Route 146 landfilling because it's just about the most inaccessible place in town to sort cars without being bothered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalziand View Post
A Worcester +1 would probably be done in conjunction with a new expanded layover ala the Fitchberg Wachusett extension. There's a suitable looking parcel for a layover half a mile north of the Auburn Mall site, and there's several areas around the treatment plant and landfill in Millbury that we discussed before. If there's an extra stop on the Auburn extension, College Hill would probably be the best spot.
Passing through the P&W yard in revenue service is going to be an exercise in torture. While there are suitable layover sites to be found, it's one thing to shuffle equipment around freight congestion by idling along Southbridge St. for a few minutes until being ready to pull into the platform. That's a reasonable ask...especially if the T still retains some of its current layover as a place to juggle and smooth over any interference. It's quite another matter to be stuck with a train full of irate passengers underneath I-290 because some 80-car freight to Willimantic is running 20 minutes late on departure...all because there are no time-saving tricks to pull with that schedule when you have a 30-minute churn of RER schedules. This is P&W's home yard; they will never ever give up dispatching control. Nor are they expecting that any future passenger service Providence-Worcester or New London-Worcester on their rails will be anywhere near as dense in frequency as what the Worcester Line handles (and will handle). Their yard is not set up at all for coexistence with RER.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2019, 05:38 PM   #1758
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
That spot is too far to be realistic, unless you implement Express trains as mentioned.

The Pheasant Lane site also avoids any long term need to negotiate with NH. You would have to upgrade the tracks as it is single track.
Operationally South Nashua trains are going to the downtown layover anyway for shift changes, for getting out of the way of the Pan Am freight local when it's on-duty and needs passage, or for other miscellany. Not every train is going to be an on-platform reverse, and times of day when they need to go to yard there'll be a baked-in wait for the next train. As well as extra cost chewed for non-revenue miles.

Therefore, when possible you want the last stop to be by the layover. The downtown Nashua stop is literally across the tracks from the layover. It costs LESS to operate the extension to have so few non-revenue miles that swapping trainsets requires no more than backing up across a few switches. So there's no reason why they wouldn't want to build that stop, as it's optimal bang for both NHDOT's and the T's buck and one-stop-shopping for plotting out the day's schedule because terminal stop and layover would be at the exact same location.

As for cross-border entanglements: that happens anyway by virtue of having to have a layover somewhere, and the only "somewheres" being in NH. Pan Am quid pro quos take a lot of the work out of it, but there still has to be all the permitting and community input and lawmaker input. Not to mention, they can't upgrade the tracks to the layover without NH funding and that's a problem with the PTC mandate kicking into effect on those 4 miles from the state line to Nashua Yard. Not to mention the Mall being a NH-headquartered entity makes it more complicated for them to host an MA-only platform without NH's consent.


If there was a way to make this happen without flaky NH, the T would've pursued this extension with gusto already. The lack of any layover at Lowell is absolutely destroying them on ops costs, and Lowell to the border is most definitely an in-district constituency begging to be served which will handsomely deliver on ridership. They haven't done it because going it alone is too hard, too uncertain, too at-risk for failure, and too likely to provoke a spiteful reaction from the other side of the border that could stop it dead. In the meantime, they and City of Nashua have sewn up all the agreements they can pursue solo and are just waiting for the state to not screw this thing up again.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2019, 09:21 PM   #1759
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,443
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

In lieu of montvale, something near Salem St in Woburn would be still be near to Woburn center, and there's more plots of land where a parking lot could be built.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2019, 10:36 PM   #1760
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,996
Re: Reasonable Transit Pitches

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
In lieu of montvale, something near Salem St in Woburn would be still be near to Woburn center, and there's more plots of land where a parking lot could be built.
There's lots of terrible land use decisions abutting Montvale that are overdue for a correction and could serve up a decent-size parking area. Nashua St. abutting the west side of the tracks is full of oddly-placed industrial crud that probably doesn't need to be there, since across the street is all residential homes. On the easterly side @ Central St. there seems to be a sketchy junkyard slotted between houses across the street from the cemetery. And instead of Nashua St. having to suffer heavy truck traffic from the industrial park on Draper St., connecting the Draper dead-end to Holton St. where the bigger section of industrial park is would be really prudent...and would increase the walkup audience for this stop.

If I had to guess, taking the small office building closest to the Nashua/Montvale corner would suffice for a parking area, so long as the lot egresses were directed away from the residential across the street as much as possible. Anderson is still going to grab the lion's share of Pn'R traffic with the likely Quannapowitt infill on the Reading Line being the #2 choice for the expressways. I-93 has already up and died in the mornings by the time cars slouch towards Exit 36, so Montvale doesn't need to be a monster-size lot as the only people who haven't parked for the train by that point will be the ones who never ever will. More of its bona fides are going to come from a inside Woburn and a 1-town radius to Stoneham and Winchester.


If Salem St. is needed as the Plan B there's already a west-side driveway to a small masonry contractor that could be turned into a linear lot. East side of the tracks there's an auto shop that could be taken. Chop shops and stone/metal yards as far as the eye can see. Absolutely nothing all that valuable here.


Montvale is definitely the clear #1 for catchment given immediate surrounding density, proximity to I-93 exit, the Stoneham trail, and the industrial park which has some sizeable employers on its Holton St. segment. Slight advantage to Montvale on walking distance to downtown and varying routes (Montvale Ave. or Green St.) to downtown. Salem St. close on distance, a wash on bus access...but lacks the 93 exit and is more thoroughly low-density industrial. Either would be a great stop, but Montvale is the one to shoot for while Salem is the backup plan if something falls through with Montvale.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crazy Transit Pitches BostonUrbEx Design a Better Boston 3558 Today 01:30 PM
Gondolas As Serious Transit Arlington Transit and Infrastructure 14 02-18-2012 07:26 AM
Large reasonable priced Family sized condos scarce in Hub whighlander Development Projects 6 11-19-2011 10:54 PM
We don't need Mass Transit!!! JohnAKeith Transit and Infrastructure 1 06-22-2009 03:14 PM
Transit Use in San Francisco and Elsewhere ablarc Transit and Infrastructure 2 06-17-2007 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.