Red Line Extension to Mattapan

[JeffDowntown]

To be clear, the one thing we all appear to be in agreement about is desiring Milton’s compliance with the zoning law.

You’re right, the discussion is more centered around the level and quality of service in Milton.


Good service is not just frequencies. When you require a two-seat ride to get anywhere, and one of those seats is on inaccessible 80-year old vehicles that are very often out of service (and thus very often unable to meet the scheduled frequencies), and a low percentage of the town is even in the walkshed of that service, those are factors that should be mentioned in addition to the scheduled frequencies.

It’s hard to make the argument that Milton has such better MBTA service than Arlington, that it warrants a classification of two tiers above them. The (T)77 has comparable frequencies to the Mattapan Line, and Alewife is barely over the border. A far higher percentage of Arlington is walkable to high-frequency, high-capacity service than Milton.

Milton does not have anywhere close to the MbTA service and coverage as Somerville or Cambridge. Not that they have the density to warrant it, but that is part and parcel with this zoning law, isn’t it? The Mattapan Line is not a high-capacity line equivalent to a heavy rail line. Isn’t this zoning law all about adding humans to spaces that have the infrastructure to move many humans efficiently?

Extend the Red Line to Mattapan and upzone Milton and we’ll be in agreement. That’s way better than status quo.

It’s less than ideal that the state is trying squeeze a one-size fits all law that treats Milton like Somerville and Arlington like Wareham. The law is a huge step in the right direction, but the state had some blunders on the margins with classifications on this one.

All of that being said, this is a critique of the state’s classification tiers, not a defense of the status quo or an opposition to Milton’s compliance.

Upzone. Invest in transit expansion to bring high-capacity transit to more areas. I believe that’s what we all want.

It is too bad the funding is simply not available to make this a carrot and stick approach.

Upzone enough in your available transit corridor and the State will make the investment to improve the transit corridor.

Upzone the Mattapan corridor walkshed enough, you get conversion to heavy rail.

Upzone in Arlington around the Minuteman walkshed enough, you get RLX to Arlington Heights.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[KCasiglio]

Even if the funding were available, do Milton and Arlington actually want those things?

 

[kdmc]

Even if the funding were available, do Milton and Arlington actually want those things?

It's a good point. This would give car people a reason to oppose upzoning, and give NIMBYs a reason to oppose transit development. So, the question becomes: are there enough YIMBY-minded and transit-minded people in these towns that their voice would outweigh a united NIMBY+car contingent?

 

[JeffDowntown]

It's a good point. This would give car people a reason to oppose upzoning, and give NIMBYs a reason to oppose transit development. So, the question becomes: are there enough YIMBY-minded and transit-minded people in these towns that their voice would outweigh a united NIMBY+car contingent?

I think the key to designing the carrot is that people are not necessarily [YIMBY Transit] or [NIMBY No-Transit]. They can have mixed feelings.

Is the desire for Transit enough to flip some of the otherwise NIMBYs? I don't know.

This is also where demonstration projects can help. Everett should be rewarded with much more than bare-bones, street running SL3 for its housing development. That should be a real transit corridor. => See NIMBY towns, build housing, get fast transit.

 

[bigeman312]

I think the key to designing the carrot is that people are not necessarily [YIMBY Transit] or [NIMBY No-Transit]. They can have mixed feelings.

Is the desire for Transit enough to flip some of the otherwise NIMBYs? I don't know.

This is also where demonstration projects can help. Everett should be rewarded with much more than bare-bones, street running SL3 for its housing development. That should be a real transit corridor. => See NIMBY towns, build housing, get fast transit.

I agree with this approach.

If the political will and funding was there at the state level, you could reward towns by coupling their densification with transit expansion.

Essentially a road map of “add this many units and get x service” given to each relevant municipality.

Unfortunately, we’ve now veered into “crazy transit pitch” territory, as even Red-Blue Connector doesn’t have a fast-track to construction yet and we’ve built a total of one new (infill) heavy rail station in the last 37 years!

In a perfect world, though, the YIMBY communities can control their destiny and realize better service. Places like Everett, Chelsea, and Lynn should actually be given adequate service first for their existing density before we start talking about “rewarding” Milton for allowing density. We just aren’t there yet.

 

[Teban54]

Everett should be rewarded with much more than bare-bones, street running SL3 for its housing development. That should be a real transit corridor. => See NIMBY towns, build housing, get fast transit.

Since when did a mere 0.4 miles of running in mixed traffic -- designed specifically to serve Everett more closely, and combined with 2 miles of dedicated bus lanes -- warrant the description of "bare-bones, street running SL3"?

 

[bigeman312]

Since when did a mere 0.4 miles of running in mixed traffic -- designed specifically to serve Everett more closely, and combined with 2 miles of dedicated bus lanes -- warrant the description of "bare-bones, street running SL3"?

SL3X is a step in the right direction, but undoubtedly you agree that Everett is underserved by transit, don’t you? Compare Everett’s density to Newton, for example, and tell me the SL3X provides commensurate service to Everett as the Green Line in Newton.

SL3X is good. Everett deserves better.

 

[Teban54]

SL3X is a step in the right direction, but undoubtedly you agree that Everett is underserved by transit, don’t you? Compare Everett’s density to Newton, for example, and tell me the SL3X provides commensurate service to Everett as the Green Line in Newton.

SL3X is good. Everett deserves better.

I was not disagreeing with the opinion that Everett and Chelsea need better transit options than SL3.

 

[RandomWalk]

A better approach might involve designating every community with a part inside 128 as a “core community”. The carrot is funding for transit adjacent amenities etc. The stick is mandatory upzoning.

 

[kdmc]

I would air on the side of mandatory rezoning with punitive enforcement (the stick) and then rewarding actual housing development with transit funding (the carrot).

Rezoning is just such a basic first step in the face of a crisis, and it's several steps away from actually housing people. I don't think anyone should be getting grant money and pats and the back for doing the bare goddamn mininimum.

 

[Smuttynose]

Since when did a mere 0.4 miles of running in mixed traffic -- designed specifically to serve Everett more closely, and combined with 2 miles of dedicated bus lanes -- warrant the description of "bare-bones, street running SL3"?

I think anyone who’s used the original ‘Silver Lines’ has a right to be heavily suspect of yet another Silver Line extension. I lived off Washington in the South End for a while. It had a bus line the MBTA markets as a rapid transit line — it is no such thing. The bus lanes mostly function as turn lanes for cars or space for idling Ubers/Amazon trucks/delivery drivers. If you need to re-up your Charliecard to ride, there’s no facilities for you. There are virtually no facilities to speak of at all. The buses get stuck in endless traffic.

So yes, I’m highly skeptical of anything the MBTA does that has a silver line moniker attached to it. The T is not doing this to substantially improve public transit service to Everett. That was never even part of the planning effort. They are doing this because this is by far the cheapest, bottom of the barrel, Dollar Store-esque type of transit investment that will still allow them to say they are investing in rapid transit service to Everett.

 

[brazile]

Even if the funding were available, do Milton and Arlington actually want those things?

Can't speak for Milton. I believe Arlington does.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I would air on the side of mandatory rezoning with punitive enforcement (the stick) and then rewarding actual housing development with transit funding (the carrot).

Rezoning is just such a basic first step in the face of a crisis, and it's several steps away from actually housing people. I don't think anyone should be getting grant money and pats and the back for doing the bare goddamn mininimum.

The problem with this approach is timing.

Transit take longer than housing to build. The people in the housing you want to build first need to get to work, live their lives, etc. So that housing will be designed to be auto-centric, lots of parking, etc. Because the transit is not there yet. We really should be building the transit first.

If you really don't trust the towns to actually eventually build the housing, then perhaps make the start of the transit service dependent on construction starts. But honestly, if you require the zoning to allow the higher density as-of-rights, then the town has little power to stop development at that point. It is really just in the hands of the market and developers.

 

[BeansTheCat]

Does anyone know if there has been any updates on the Mattapan Line upgrades/modernization since last June? I can't find anything on the T's website (or anywhere else) since then, but wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything. I'd also be curious if any stop consolidation/removal was ever seriously considered the last few years, but given the plans to keep Capen St and Valley Road, I assume the answer is no.

 

[Scott]

The T has said that upgrading the Mattapan- Ashmont to heavy rail is not physically possible

 

[Charlie_mta]

The T has said that upgrading the Mattapan- Ashmont to heavy rail is not physically possible

The MBTA had every intention to build it in the mid 1960s, but reneged on it due to noise concerns of heavy rail cars raised by Carney Hospital. That indicates to me that constructing the line itself is physically doable. And why wouldn't it be? There's adequate room to fit in the grade separations. I don't know of any other spatial or environmental constraints that would kill it

 

[TheRatmeister]

The MBTA had every intention to build it in the mid 1960s, but reneged on it due to noise concerns of heavy rail cars raised by Carney Hospital. That indicates to me that constructing the line itself is physically doable. And why wouldn't it be? There's adequate room to fit in the grade separations. I don't know of any other spatial or environmental constraints that would kill it

Some of the curves are a bit tight and the embankment through the cemetery would need serious reinforcement but apart from that I don't think there's much else that would be a problem. Central Ave could be lowered like Milton already is, and from there the line could continue in a cutting to a new Mattapan station that's basically just a copy paste of Ashmont.

 

[BeansTheCat]

The T has said that upgrading the Mattapan- Ashmont to heavy rail is not physically possible

I was primarily asking about the "Mattapan Line Program" to rebuild all stations and provide service with the Type 9s. The "MBTA Transformation" thread might be a better place to ask, but it seems like the project was discussed much more here.

But on this point, it seems ridiculous to suggest it is impossible to extend heavy rail down the Mattapan Line ROW. The T clearly thought it was too expensive to pursue and decided to say it wasn't possible, instead of actually figuring out what would be necessary for the conversion and how much it might cost. If that involved straightening curves, regrading track, or even potentially rebuilding bridges (as others have pointed out, none of this seems strictly necessary), all of that is still clearly possible. The only real question then is what the cost would be.

 

[TheRatmeister]

But on this point, it seems ridiculous to suggest it is impossible to extend heavy rail down the Mattapan Line ROW. The T clearly thought it was too expensive to pursue and decided to say it wasn't possible, instead of actually figuring out what would be necessary for the conversion and how much it might cost. If that involved straightening curves, regrading track, or even potentially rebuilding bridges (as others have pointed out, none of this seems strictly necessary), all of that is still clearly possible. The only real question then is what the cost would be.

Basically any project is possible, so anyone saying something to the contrary needs to either provide some very good reasons or admit by "impossible" they mean that they are just unwilling to spend the necessary money, political capital, or both.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Basically any project is possible, so anyone saying something to the contrary needs to either provide some very good reasons or admit by "impossible" they mean that they are just unwilling to spend the necessary money, political capital, or both.

Exactly. European and Asian cities routinely build metro lines (and high speed rail) in places American cities would view as "impossible". Impossible just means they really want to do it, so find a way; and we really don't want to do it very badly, so make excuses.