Watertown Infill and Small Developments

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Exactly. When does H20-town get the transit to match the development along this corridor? (Note: This criticism applies to all development from the urban core to 128)
Click to expand...

A Green Line Extension from Union to Arsenal along the Fitchburg and (unused) Watertown right-of-way (via Fresh Pond) is one of the most realistic significant transit expansion projects to be found in Greater Boston, but still it'll never happen.

Also, it's weird that they use "Taco Loco" in their generic retail render; that's an actual place in East Somerville (and it's pretty awesome).
 
^ They really need to go all the way to waltham. Its so close to the city but so far to get to and from by any means of current transportation.
 
stick n move said:
^ They really need to go all the way to waltham. Its so close to the city but so far to get to and from by any means of current transportation.
Click to expand...

Stick -- there are a lot of things designated as Waltham -- some are well connected by existing Rail and some not conected much at all except by corporate bus

The at least 7 Walthams:
  • Traditional City core: Lexington. Main, Moody down by the River
  • Rt-128 Nexus: Winter St., Totten Pond rd., Wyman st., 3rd Ave. -- near to the Westin
  • Brandeis
  • Bentley & UMass Agricultural Station
  • Trapello Rd and Concord Ave.
  • Winter St. along and behind the reservoir with dozens of major corporate facilities including National Grid, Verizon, Raytheon, Astra Zeneca, etc.
  • Former Polaroid complex along Rt-128 near Rt 117

Of the Walthams above -- the two lacking in any real transit: the Rt-128 Nexus area, and the complex of complexes on the side and back of the Reservoir
 
Agree^ I work in Watertown it's serve by two very crowded unreliable bus lines (70&71) Arsenal st is a parking lot as is,can't imagine what it will be like when all this development along Arsenal st is done , maybe this will force them to bring back the A line ?
 
whighlander said:
Stick -- there are a lot of things designated as Waltham -- some are well connected by existing Rail and some not conected much at all except by corporate bus

The at least 7 Walthams:
  • Traditional City core: Lexington. Main, Moody down by the River
  • Rt-128 Nexus: Winter St., Totten Pond rd., Wyman st., 3rd Ave. -- near to the Westin
  • Brandeis
  • Bentley & UMass Agricultural Station
  • Trapello Rd and Concord Ave.
  • Winter St. along and behind the reservoir with dozens of major corporate facilities including National Grid, Verizon, Raytheon, Astra Zeneca, etc.
  • Former Polaroid complex along Rt-128 near Rt 117

Of the Walthams above -- the two lacking in any real transit: the Rt-128 Nexus area, and the complex of complexes on the side and back of the Reservoir
Click to expand...

Newton seems similarly dispersed to me too but it has green line access.
 
tjrileymass said:
Newton seems similarly dispersed to me too but it has green line access.
Click to expand...

Watertown/Waltham is much more dense than Newton. The fact that no transit exsists in Watertown/Waltham but goes through spread out parts of Newton has always perplexed me.
 
More renders in addition to the one posted from the Globe, courtesy of BLDUP:


BLDUP.com @BLDUP

Arsenal Mall owners propose dynamic mixed-use mall redevelopment: http://www.bldup.com/projects/the-arsenal-project … @universalhub @WilderCo

https://twitter.com/BLDUP/status/773156321386385409

CrrLgk8XgAAj8TA.jpg:large


CrrLixpWAAAeCuh.jpg:large


CrrLjujXgAA-hn4.jpg:large
 
29NPclK.jpg
[/IMG]

How about using the Grand Junction right of way to serve Watertown? It would require that right of way being freed from freight and commuter rail trains, but would create the east to west connection north of the Charles the Urban Ring partly was looking to achieve. Add in West Station and a crosstown bus route from Harvard Sq south toward Ruggles and you have a whole new level of connectivity.
 
Upstruk said:
29NPclK.jpg
[/IMG]

How about using the Grand Junction right of way to serve Watertown? It would require that right of way being freed from freight and commuter rail trains, but would create the east to west connection north of the Charles the Urban Ring partly was looking to achieve. Add in West Station and a crosstown bus route from Harvard Sq south toward Ruggles and you have a whole new level of connectivity.
Click to expand...

Up -- struck -- By Lightning?

Personally, I recommend motorized Venetian gondolas during most of the year and trains of toboggans pulled by Skidoos when the river freezes
 
Upstruk said:
29NPclK.jpg
[/IMG]

How about using the Grand Junction right of way to serve Watertown? It would require that right of way being freed from freight and commuter rail trains, but would create the east to west connection north of the Charles the Urban Ring partly was looking to achieve. Add in West Station and a crosstown bus route from Harvard Sq south toward Ruggles and you have a whole new level of connectivity.
Click to expand...

Such a meandering path wouldn't attract enough riders; you are planning this based on wanting to use the GJ rather than what would be the best way to get people from A to B. Make it a A-Line 2.0 or just install bus lanes to speed up the 70.
 
The Allston spur out to Western Ave. is the one officially proposed for the Urban Ring to head to Harvard. You most definitely do not want to distort the routing to make it ham-fisted for a straight shot across the river, because the whole point of the UR and its 1-2 considered spurs (this and the Dorchester/JFK one) is to link together major transfer points. Watertown does not fit that mold. Allston-Harvard is one helluva big fat target.

Watertown's also not such an uber-important destination that it should take a kajillion-dollar Crazy Transit Pitch to serve it. Keep It Simple: H2O Branch out of GLX-Union/Porter to School St., and if the ROW isn't ready past School St. reconfigure the wide Arsenal drag strip to have a traffic separated center trolley median (if full-on reservation isn't possible). The traffic-comingled section won't be a drag because everything else inbound is grade-separated and doesn't need a megaproject to create new grade separation out of nothingness.

There...that doesn't cost a kajillion dollars, and it takes a load off the 71. No, it is not a replacement for the 57. That's just not possible without re-creating the street-running A Line (which you'd probably not want to restore any further than Oak Sq.), and doesn't meet the standard of going whole-hog Crazy Pitch when Indigo Line service to Newton Corner and a transfer to an extended 71 (or street-running trolley extension to Corner from that Porter--H2O branch--Arsenal route) covers the spread good enough.

Emphasis on "good enough". We have to pick our battles here when the major intra-city transit build bucket list are all about load-spreading around congestion and enabling more transfers...not so much infill to new squares. Watertown can have its cake too with what's available for ROW's from north-of-river and the known-known A route from south-of-river. But portions matter when eating cake: they need their slice, but they don't need an eating contest of horfing down 5 cakes worth of new steel-and-concrete to serve their needs when other hungrier mouths need to be fed intra-city.
 
There's also this possibility, discussed before - A Line V2 - more or less a straight shot off the B line (of course, missing the old A line centers like Brighton Center and Oak Squares, though hitting Boston Landing and potential TOD along the underdeveloped Brighton riverfront.) Can be further combined with a GL on the Grand Junction in the case of NSRL.

UDcrp1r.jpg
 
tysmith95 said:
Watertown/Waltham is much more dense than Newton. The fact that no transit exsists in Watertown/Waltham but goes through spread out parts of Newton has always perplexed me.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- these kinds of statements need to be documented otherwise they are just sort of diatribes against ?

Here are the three communities you mentioned and a few others inside Rt-128 to make things interesting in increasing density

A) 2,916.7/sq mi (1,129.3/km2)
B) 4,600.6/sq mi (1,783.1/km2)
C) 4,705.4/sq mi (1,816.4/km2)
D) 5,492.3/sq mi (2,121.2/km2)
E) 5,698.3/sq mi (2,213.4/km2)
F) 7,932.0/sq mi (3,068.0/km2)
G) 8,066.9/sq mi (3,111.5/km2)
H) 8,239.2/sq mi (3,197.3/km2)
I) 8,772.0/sq mi (3,386.9/km2)
J) 12,255.0/sq mi (4,734.9/km2)
K) 13,841/sq mi (5,344/km2)
L) 17,059.7/sq mi (6,586.8/km2)
M)17,664.1/sq mi (6,820.1/km2)
N) 18,786.0/sq mi (7,253.3/km2)

OK which one is Newton A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M. N

answer to follow below









A == Woburn
B == Newton
C == Waltham
D == Quincy
E == Melrose
F == Watertown
G == Lynn
H == Arlington
I == Revere
J == Everett
K == Boston
L == Cambridge
M == Chelsea
N == Somerville

So Newton does seem somewhat privileged and some other much denser places seem somewhat deprived although Waltham is not really much different than Newton in Density
 
whighlander said:
So Newton does seem somewhat privileged and some other much denser places seem somewhat deprived although Waltham is not really much different than Newton in Density
Click to expand...

The southern part of Waltham is a dense former streetcar suburb. Also it's been seeing lots of development that will only worsen the traffic problems. Also Waltham is a huge job center, probably the largest in the Boston metro outside of Boston/Cambridge.

But yes a large section of northern Waltham looks similar to Lexington. The town also has alot of conservation land for a place inside of 128.
 
^ Take into account daytime working population and those numbers change dramatically.

Not too many people live in Downtown Boston. That doesn't mean it's not dense.
 
vde7p5.png


The dense section of Newton is closest to Waltham, the part with golf courses and large yards is where the Green Line runs through.
 
Last edited:
JumboBuc said:
^ Take into account daytime working population and those numbers change dramatically.

Not too many people live in Downtown Boston. That doesn't mean it's not dense.
Click to expand...

JumboBuc -- Ah you see the concept of density is a bit in the eye of the beholder

There are parts of Newton that are quite dense and there are parts of Newton filled with Golf Courses and such that are nearly exurban

Even Cambridge has its really dense [e.g Kendall, Central, Harvard] and its much less so dense parts [North Cambridge; the area full of tracks which is now becoming Northpoint] -- these concepts really need to be applied at the level of districts or such based on the ["absorption zone"] surrounding a transit stop of about 1/2 mile radius

lacking that kind of detailed density data -- perhaps Census tracks or voting precincts can be substituted to give a better "picture" of the potential demand for transit
 
^ You post all these numbers to try and prove tysmith wrong in his (accurate, reasonable) statement, and you use them to conclude that "Waltham is not really much different than Newton in Density". Then when it's pointed out that your numbers don't mean too much you weasel out of it by mansplaining that "you see the concept of density is a bit in the eye of the beholder".

What is your point, exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top