Orange Line Extension to Roslindale/West Roxbury

[F-Line to Dudley]

Of the 8 stops past Forest Hills, 42% of the 2024 ridership lies in Needham. There is no effing way legally or politically you're going to be able to get away with just outright ending service to 42% of the branch's ridership. Rozzie +1 that keeps the CR mode is one thing. If there's to be any outright mode conversion to West Roxbury, there absolutely ironclad MUST be a complimentary rail extension project targeting Needham. That's entirely non-optional.

Thankfully, the studies have had it sorted for 81 years now what that mode replacement would look like for Needham. And had it sorted for 15+ years now on how to accommodate rail-with-trail through Newton while doing that.

 

[Balerion]

Would the Newton Upper Falls + Needham Green Line branch need to be Kenmore short turns or would there be a way to squeeze service from this branch into the existing central subway?

 

[Stlin]

Would the Newton Upper Falls + Needham Green Line branch need to be Kenmore short turns or would there be a way to squeeze service from this branch into the existing central subway?

The CTPS summary for the 2004 PMT certainly seemed to think the central subway had the capacity to absorb it, albeit with peak turns at Kenmore. While that overview advocated for terminating at Needham Heights rather than continuing to Needham Junction, it wasn't envisioned as a complement to an OL to W. Rox.

Finally, in terms of capacity of the Central Subway, this line would add only 6 trips per hour in the subway. With dwell times of about 30 seconds in the underground stations, the new capacity could easily be accommodated. During times of peak transit traffic, an option to reverse direction at Kenmore may be utilized, therefore reducing burden on the subway’s segment between Copley and Government Center, where there is highest transit density. Similarly, service on the Green Line west of Newton Highlands to Riverside would be minimally affected. Line volume west of Newton Highlands is about 3000 riders per day. With peak hour headways of 10 minutes on the new line and 6 minutes on the existing Riverside branch, headways on the joint line from Newton Highlands to the Subway would be about 4 minutes. Therefore, about 17,000 of the 20,000 riders of the Riverside line would see increased service.

https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30859/637271911561600000

 

[bigeman312]

I know it’s a massive undertaking, but these concerns could be alleviated through phased planning.

Phase 1:

• Orange to Roslindale

Phase 2:

• Blue Line to Kenmore via Charles
  • Phase 2A (could/should be done ASAP): Blue to Charles
  • Phase 2B: Blue to Kenmore

Phase 3:

• Green to Needham (more Kenmore short-turns on the system with details between B, C, D, and F(?) to Needham tbd)
• Orange to West Roxbury

 

[CheapLeak]

The CTPS summary for the 2004 PMT certainly seemed to think the central subway had the capacity to absorb it, albeit with peak turns at Kenmore.

I’ve always thought about it as exclusively Kenmore short-turns, with maybe some peak extensions to Park St/GC. I do doubt the capability to actually send trains through, even if planners thought it was possible.

 

[bigeman312]

I’ve always thought about it as exclusively Kenmore short-turns, with maybe some peak extensions to Park St/GC. I do doubt the capability to actually send trains through, even if planners thought it was possible.

I 100% agree. There is a frequency threshold at which the Central Subway is oversaturated and leads to a decline in reliability. As I understand it, that threshold is lower with GLTPS than it was in 2004 when that study was conducted.

In a world without enhanced connections at Kenmore, Needham trains should turn at Kenmore.

In a world with dramatically enhanced connections at Kenmore (such as a Blue Line extension), terminating Needham and B-Branch trains at Kenmore would be a viable way to help Central Subway service run more reliably, with greater frequency and reliability on the branches.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I 100% agree. There is a frequency threshold at which the Central Subway is oversaturated and leads to a decline in reliability. As I understand it, that threshold is lower with GLTPS than it was in 2004 when that study was conducted.

In a world without enhanced connections at Kenmore, Needham trains should turn at Kenmore.

In a world with dramatically enhanced connections at Kenmore (such as a Blue Line extension), terminating Needham and B-Branch trains at Kenmore would be a viable way to help Central Subway service run more reliably, with greater frequency and reliability on the branches.

I don't see why you couldn't keep a 6-minute peak thru headway on the D trunk, fork it after Newton Highlands to 12 minutes for Riverside and 12 minutes for Needham Jct., keep that 12 minutes to each going all-day instead of there being an off-peak drop off, then supplement at rush with 6-minute Kenmore short-turns on each branch. Zero change to traffic in the Central Subway, every other train runs thru, everybody gets at least a 6-minute headway to Kenmore, and the inner 9 D stops see their service levels doubled to 3-minute peak frequencies at a LOT of new ridership generation. And since this will be post-GLT when timekeeping across the Green Line is a lot more punctual, the quality of service will be a lot better in addition to most seeing their frequencies increase. Eliot, Waban, Woodland, and Riverside are the only stops that lose any quality-of-service in the process getting every other run shorted at Kenmore. Eliot's demand would be compensated somewhat by the City of Newton study's ask for a Needham Branch infill @ Needham St. behind the Aven Apartments taking some of the south-of-Route 9 Eliot catchment. Riverside's demand would/could be somewhat compensated by the Rail Vision's proposal for a Worcester Line short-turn stop on the Commuter Rail spur. And Woodland and Riverside would both see some decreased demand from park-and-ride reshaping with the Highland Ave. stop coming online on the Needham Branch (as well as some decreases from the north if the Fitchburg Line Weston/128 stop went in at :30-or-better frequencies).

In the end almost nobody gets inconvenienced by trying to fit in the new branch, and a majority of the audience gets better service than they have right now.

 

[JumboBuc]

Thanks, very helpful.

So, with a little knowledge of how the T's Capital Investment Plan works, this was not an "easy" or "quick" task to set aside $100K unless it was proposed (and approved) in the new FY27-31 plan. The T doesn't have $100K sitting around in its capital fund waiting to be spent at a moment's notice, especially for things like studies - everything is allocated, typically on a July through June basis. $100K can be pulled from a handful of projects if the grants or funding sources allow it, which is a whole other hurdle to figure out, if they really wanted to, but to your second point, $100K is not really going to get you a recognizable study, so why really put priority on this? If this becomes a real thing, a design consultant will have to come in and perform the multi-million dollar study they need for this to actually start anyways.

This has nothing to do with the CIP. $100k for a study would come out of the operating budget.

I don't see why you couldn't keep a 6-minute peak thru headway on the D trunk, fork it after Newton Highlands to 12 minutes for Riverside and 12 minutes for Needham Jct., keep that 12 minutes to each going all-day instead of there being an off-peak drop off, then supplement at rush with 6-minute Kenmore short-turns on each branch. Zero change to traffic in the Central Subway, every other train runs thru, everybody gets at least a 6-minute headway to Kenmore, and the inner 9 D stops see their service levels doubled to 3-minute peak frequencies at a LOT of new ridership generation. And since this will be post-GLT when timekeeping across the Green Line is a lot more punctual, the quality of service will be a lot better in addition to most seeing their frequencies increase. Eliot, Waban, Woodland, and Riverside are the only stops that lose any quality-of-service in the process getting every other run shorted at Kenmore. Eliot's demand would be compensated somewhat by the City of Newton study's ask for a Needham Branch infill @ Needham St. behind the Aven Apartments taking some of the south-of-Route 9 Eliot catchment. Riverside's demand would/could be somewhat compensated by the Rail Vision's proposal for a Worcester Line short-turn stop on the Commuter Rail spur. And Woodland and Riverside would both see some decreased demand from park-and-ride reshaping with the Highland Ave. stop coming online on the Needham Branch (as well as some decreases from the north if the Fitchburg Line Weston/128 stop went in at :30-or-better frequencies).

In the end almost nobody gets inconvenienced by trying to fit in the new branch, and a majority of the audience gets better service than they have right now.

Connect the C to the D by cut-and-covering through Cassidy Playground at Cleveland Circle / Reservoir, then run the C to Needham Junction. That would keep headways and throughput constant throughout pretty much the whole system, with the only change being cutting headways at Newton Highlands, Newtown Centre, and Chestnut Hill by half by serving them both by the C and the D. Central Subway throughput could stay unchanged, and the only requirement would be some more rolling stock that (hopefully) could be covered by the Type 10 order plus existing Type 9s.

 

[bigeman312]

Connect the C to the D by cut-and-covering through Cassidy Playground at Cleveland Circle / Reservoir, then run the C to Needham Junction. That would keep headways and throughput constant throughout pretty much the whole system, with the only change being cutting headways at Newton Highlands, Newtown Centre, and Chestnut Hill by half by serving them both by the C and the D. Central Subway throughput could stay unchanged, and the only requirement would be some more rolling stock that (hopefully) could be covered by the Type 10 order plus existing Type 9s.

I like this idea, except that would be a prohibitively longer ride to Needham than via D.

I would bet Needham via D-Branch w/ transfer at Kenmore is at least as quick (albeit a two-seat ride) as Needham via C-Branch to get to Copley and points east.

I don't see why you couldn't keep a 6-minute peak thru headway on the D trunk, fork it after Newton Highlands to 12 minutes for Riverside and 12 minutes for Needham Jct., keep that 12 minutes to each going all-day instead of there being an off-peak drop off, then supplement at rush with 6-minute Kenmore short-turns on each branch. Zero change to traffic in the Central Subway, every other train runs thru, everybody gets at least a 6-minute headway to Kenmore, and the inner 9 D stops see their service levels doubled to 3-minute peak frequencies at a LOT of new ridership generation. And since this will be post-GLT when timekeeping across the Green Line is a lot more punctual, the quality of service will be a lot better in addition to most seeing their frequencies increase. Eliot, Waban, Woodland, and Riverside are the only stops that lose any quality-of-service in the process getting every other run shorted at Kenmore. Eliot's demand would be compensated somewhat by the City of Newton study's ask for a Needham Branch infill @ Needham St. behind the Aven Apartments taking some of the south-of-Route 9 Eliot catchment. Riverside's demand would/could be somewhat compensated by the Rail Vision's proposal for a Worcester Line short-turn stop on the Commuter Rail spur. And Woodland and Riverside would both see some decreased demand from park-and-ride reshaping with the Highland Ave. stop coming online on the Needham Branch (as well as some decreases from the north if the Fitchburg Line Weston/128 stop went in at :30-or-better frequencies).

In the end almost nobody gets inconvenienced by trying to fit in the new branch, and a majority of the audience gets better service than they have right now.

This is fine, but those peak short-turns are key. You can't keep Central Subway traffic constant (and as I understand it, Central Subway traffic would need to decrease somewhat under a compliant GLTPS), add a branch, and not hurt frequency somewhere or add short-turns. With the movement towards more consistent all-day frequency system-wide, compared to 2004, I don't buy that service should be double at peak compared to midday.

 

[ritchiew]

What are the downsides to just running the Orange Line all way to Needham, and skipping any new Green Line branches? It should be quite a bit faster than the Green Line. It definitely wouldn't affect the Central Subway or require any short-turns. It's mostly grade separated already. Just spitballing, but you could combine the last three stations into just Needham Center to save on stations and fixing grade crossings.

I'm sure there are good reasons, but I can't find them in this thread.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

What are the downsides to just running the Orange Line all way to Needham, and skipping any new Green Line branches? It should be quite a bit faster than the Green Line. It definitely wouldn't affect the Central Subway or require any short-turns. It's mostly grade separated already. Just spitballing, but you could combine the last three stations into just Needham Center to save on stations and fixing grade crossings.

I'm sure there are good reasons, but I can't find them in this thread.

You lose out on a ton of ridership between Newton Highlands and Needham Heights. A ton. The area is booming bigtime, and it follows the natural travel orientation in Needham (i.e. where the traffic is) rather than the Cutler Park dead zone so you'd also pick up a lot more intermediate-to-intermediate trips to boost the toplines even further. The last study projected a +6000 daily increase in Green Line ridership. And the number of all-new transit riders would be very high, because the 59 bus is so defective in frequency, length to rapid transit transfer, and general schedule adherence that a large percentage of the would-be audience isn't taking any form of transit today. Cost-per-rider is going to fare a lot better doing the twin-fork build rather than a uni-build with fair number of 'dead' miles through the swamp and unfavorable station consolidations, and the absolute cost wouldn't be markedly different.

 

[JeffDowntown]

What are the downsides to just running the Orange Line all way to Needham, and skipping any new Green Line branches? It should be quite a bit faster than the Green Line. It definitely wouldn't affect the Central Subway or require any short-turns. It's mostly grade separated already. Just spitballing, but you could combine the last three stations into just Needham Center to save on stations and fixing grade crossings.

I'm sure there are good reasons, but I can't find them in this thread.

Is one barrier the need for a major yard out further on that extension. Forest Hills is to far from the end of the line to serve as the effective storage yard for provisioning start of service. Is there a logical yard location available closer to Needham that would not generate NIMBY objections?

Also the general question: is the ridership potential large enough to warrant heavy rail (and the higher expense of heavy rail stations and rolling stock expansion)?

 

[ritchiew]

The last study projected a +6000 daily increase in Green Line ridership

That all makes sense.
Which was the last study?

Is one barrier the need for a major yard out further on that extension. Forest Hills is to far from the end of the line to serve as the effective storage yard for provisioning start of service. Is there a logical yard location available closer to Needham that would not generate NIMBY objections?

Without knowing what exactly is is needed, I figured the logical place for a yard would be around Needham Junction. MBTA still owns the wide ROW heading southwest from there, and there's even still abandoned rail for about a half mile. That's plenty of space to store trains. If it works better logistically, they could eminent domain the one building in the middle of the wye. That's my uneducated guess.

As for what will avoid NIMBY objections, no, there's nothing that avoids NIMBY objections. Literally nothing. This would be use basically abandoned rail property, under high-voltage lines, behind an electrical substation, and it would still get objections. Some NIMBY's would object to the OL in their town, even if it didn't require a yard. Some NIMBY's will object to the Green Line extension.

Also the general question: is the ridership potential large enough to warrant heavy rail (and the higher expense of heavy rail stations and rolling stock expansion)?

That's fair, and I don't know. Either way, the plan is to send trains to Needham. If the cost difference between GLX and OLX is marginal, then it might make sense to really consider something like travel times to downtown and how that would affect ridership.

But also, if a lot of the new ridership would come from north of Needham Heights, like @F-Line to Dudley says, then it's kind of moot. Running an OLX that far would probably not get any time savings to downtown, but would get cost blowouts.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That all makes sense.
Which was the last study?

2010-2011, City of Newton-commissioned. Although it's been touched upon in various semi-related City development studies regularly for about 18-19 years now, so the recent-era body of work spans a little larger than just that study. Needham hasn't been quite as active, with their most recent number-crunching being from the 2010 PMT (which the Newton city study said suspiciously lowballed ridership) and only involving outright replacement of Junction+Center+Heights stations and not any study of an additional TOD & park-and-ride oriented stop at Gould St./TV Place. Not so much a matter of them not advocating for it as much as the corridor on the Newton side of the city line has been booming at such a furious rate that congestion mitigation along the Needham St. corridor is a red-hot local issue that almost no other proposed solution adequately addresses.

Without knowing what exactly is is needed, I figured the logical place for a yard would be around Needham Junction. MBTA still owns the wide ROW heading southwest from there, and there's even still abandoned rail for about a half mile. That's plenty of space to store trains. If it works better logistically, they could eminent domain the one building in the middle of the wye. That's my uneducated guess.

As for what will avoid NIMBY objections, no, there's nothing that avoids NIMBY objections. Literally nothing. This would be use basically abandoned rail property, under high-voltage lines, behind an electrical substation, and it would still get objections. Some NIMBY's would object to the OL in their town, even if it didn't require a yard. Some NIMBY's will object to the Green Line extension.

The wye area is the locus for most of the proposed GLX branch yard sitings over the years. As that's where the traction power substation would have to go for any extension of any line so there'll be some T facility presence at that spot any which way, so there's cost and aggravation savings for consolidating support functions there. The tree services business nestled in the center of the wye would have to get bought out, but it's not like there's ever going to be anything higher-rent ever built there given the access constraints to that parcel.

 

[stick n move]

What are the downsides to just running the Orange Line all way to Needham, and skipping any new Green Line branches? It should be quite a bit faster than the Green Line. It definitely wouldn't affect the Central Subway or require any short-turns. It's mostly grade separated already. Just spitballing, but you could combine the last three stations into just Needham Center to save on stations and fixing grade crossings.

I'm sure there are good reasons, but I can't find them in this thread.

Then you miss out on the super dense stretch in newton upper falls and on the massive new developments going on at northland and across the street. Plus the huge office park at highland ave which is slowly developing, has tons of room to grow, and starved of transit. That whole stretch from newton highlands to needham heights has an abandoned ROW already there that comes directly off the existing green line. Unless you were going to send the orange line all the way to upper falls for a transfer with green you wouldnt want to leave all of that area without transit.

Northland Newton | Needham St. @ Oak St. | Newton

I love development and the 800 new units of housing coming online, but let's drop their highlighted 'public transpo centric' pr on it. This is heavily automobile-centric and is nowhere near the Newton Highlands T stop. From the link from the previous post (bolded mine): ----------------------...

archboston.com

 

[The EGE]

The Orange Line would also require full grade separation of the five current crossings in Needham, whereas the Green Line could continue to have some or all as grade crossings.

 

[Delvin4519]

I don't see why you couldn't keep a 6-minute peak thru headway on the D trunk, fork it after Newton Highlands to 12 minutes for Riverside and 12 minutes for Needham Jct., keep that 12 minutes to each going all-day instead of there being an off-peak drop off, then supplement at rush with 6-minute Kenmore short-turns on each branch. Zero change to traffic in the Central Subway, every other train runs thru, everybody gets at least a 6-minute headway to Kenmore, and the inner 9 D stops see their service levels doubled to 3-minute peak frequencies at a LOT of new ridership generation.

With the movement towards more consistent all-day frequency system-wide, compared to 2004, I don't buy that service should be double at peak compared to midday.

6 minute peak frequencies to Needham and 3 minute peak headways between Newton Highlands and Reservior seems kinda overkill with Riverside and Needham, an area with Braintree-like density.

Service would probably need to be more akin to the Braintree Branch on the split branches past Newton Highlands; with service at the minimum standard for MBTA rapid transit service delivery policy. Both Needham and Riverside would get 15 minute off peak service and 10 minute peak rush hour service. Service east of Newton Highlands and Reservior would get 7.5 minute off peak frequency and 5 minute peak rush hour frequency, Today; the MBTA runs 8-9 minute peak frequencies and 10-11 minute off peak frequencies all the way to Riverside from Reservior.

This results in the Reservior-Newton Highlands segment getting a 60% frequency boost during rush hour and a 35-40% off peak service increase. Newton Highlands-Riverside would be adjusted to be identical to Braintree Branch service as the Braintree Branch is today. Riverside would be compensated with some demand diverted to either boarding on the Needham Green Line Branch (since they no longer need to travel to Riverside anymore); and also increased commuter rail frequency in the west Newton stations (possibly a spur directly at Riverside for extra Newton CR short turns) as well as another CR station at the edge of Waltham with increased extra CR service frequency to Waltham. This means Reservior would only need to send runs into the central tunnel every 7.5 minutes off peak and every 5 minutes peak; and still meet service delivery policy standards.

The problem with alternating short turns is this:

You can't short turn without creatting irregular service gaps.

Either one branch gets only short turns:
* 8:00 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:05 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:10 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:15 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:20 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:25 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:30 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:35 Needham <-> Kenmore

Short turn half of each branch:, but create a 15 minute gap of thru-running services
* 8:00 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:05 Needham <-> Downtown
* 8:10 Riverside <-> Kenmore
* 8:15 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:20 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:25 Needham <-> Downtown
* 8:30 Riverside <-> Kenmore
* 8:35 Needham <-> Kenmore

If instead there is a short turn of half of only one branch, you still get an irregular every 5-10-5-5-10 pattern.
* 8:00 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:05 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:10 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:15 Needham <-> Downtown
* 8:20 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:25 Needham <-> Kenmore
* 8:30 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 8:35 Needham <->Downtown

Off peak service:
* 12:00 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 12:07 Needham <-> Downtown
* 12:15 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 12:22 Needham <-> Downtown
* 12:30 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 12:37 Needham <-> Downtown
* 12:45 Riverside <-> Downtown
* 12:52 Needham <-> Downtown

But still; Needham and Riverside are grade separated; and Cleveland Circle runs in mixed traffic. Imagine after a trial run of short turning Needham runs; the MBTA may at some point implement a schedule change to have Cleveland Circle runs short turn at Kenmore every alternating run on the basis "to improve central tunnel reliability" in lieu of Needham/Riverside runs. A modified schedule would call for Cleveland Circle runs every 7.5 minutes during rush hour; but only one run every 15 minutes through runs to Downtown. Off peak frequency to Cleveland Circle would be every 10 minutes with all runs running Downtown; maintaining today's frequencies. This preverses Cleveland Circle frequency and maintains one-seat-rides-every-15 minutes or better.

 

[Delvin4519]

What are the downsides to just running the Orange Line all way to Needham, and skipping any new Green Line branches? It should be quite a bit faster than the Green Line. It definitely wouldn't affect the Central Subway or require any short-turns. It's mostly grade separated already. Just spitballing, but you could combine the last three stations into just Needham Center to save on stations and fixing grade crossings.

I'm sure there are good reasons, but I can't find them in this thread.

Posted above is a map from 2018 showing the empty wasteland pit between West Rox and Needham; and heavy demand between Needham Heights and Newton Highlands.

The OL cannot have grade crossings; which the Needham Line contains (and the Green Line allows); Plus OL trains would need to travel in the "wrong direction" in Needham with inbound trains outbound and outbound trains inbound. Extending the Green Line instead allows inbound and outbound service to travel in the "correct" direction and allows the grade crossings to be maintained.

Plus, a Green Line extension is necessary to uncork the 59 bus; as right now the 59 bus has to replace the entire abandoned stretch of railroad and provide replacement service between Needham and Newton Highlands. A Needham extension would allow half of the 59 bus route to be truncated at Newton Highlands; which would double the service frequency runs between Newton Highlands and Watertown. A Needham extension would therefore not only extend frequent service to Needham; but provide 25 minute weekday bus service and 45 minute Sunday bus service between Newton Highlands/Needham and Watertown.

Combining stops with an Orange Line extension would leave vast areas with no service when the 59 bus gets truncated to Needham Heights; but a Green Line Needham service is necessary to truncate the 59 at Newton Highlands.

Aside from Needham Junction; Needham Center and Needham Heights more so; would have the travel times to Kenmore and the LMA faster from the Green Line than the Orange, even if the Downtown travel time isn't necessarily faster.

 

[ritchiew]

2010-2011, City of Newton-commissioned. Although it's been touched upon in various semi-related City development studies regularly for about 18-19 years now, so the recent-era body of work spans a little larger than just that study. Needham hasn't been quite as active, with their most recent number-crunching being from the 2010 PMT (which the Newton city study said suspiciously lowballed ridership) and only involving outright replacement of Junction+Center+Heights stations and not any study of an additional TOD & park-and-ride oriented stop at Gould St./TV Place. Not so much a matter of them not advocating for it as much as the corridor on the Newton side of the city line has been booming at such a furious rate that congestion mitigation along the Needham St. corridor is a red-hot local issue that almost no other proposed solution adequately addresses.

Do you mean this study from Newton? The one @Stlin posted upthread?

https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30859/637271911561600000

Some of that study looks... not especially trustworthy. It says the new branch to Needham Heights would get 15,000 riders per day, 6,000 of which would be new riders. The MBTA's 2003 PMT looked at a similar (but slightly longer) project and guessed ridership would be 3,400 per day, of which 500 would be new riders. That's a pretty huge discrepancy. One you'd really want to sort out. And maybe the MBTA's guess is suspiciously low, but Newton's numbers definitely don't look right. Some dated numbers but it looks like the whole C Branch carried ~25,000 people per day. So Newton's guess of 15,000 riders on a branch of a branch, out in far lower density suburbs, far out around Route 128... that does not pass the sniff test for me. No way. Newton assumes really high ridership from the Needham industrial park, considering the far end is a mile from any possible train stop and the pedestrian infrastructure is almost perfectly non-existent. Newton has no real analysis for guessing how many would be new riders as opposed to just changing transit modes, and just assumes probably a lot. This whole thing looks super, super handwavy in a way that does not make me think the MBTA's lower estimate was way off.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Do you mean this study from Newton? The one @Stlin posted upthread?

https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30859/637271911561600000

Some of that study looks... not especially trustworthy. It says the new branch to Needham Heights would get 15,000 riders per day, 6,000 of which would be new riders. The MBTA's 2003 PMT looked at a similar (but slightly longer) project and guessed ridership would be 3,400 per day, of which 500 would be new riders. That's a pretty huge discrepancy. One you'd really want to sort out. And maybe the MBTA's guess is suspiciously low, but Newton's numbers definitely don't look right. Some dated numbers but it looks like the whole C Branch carried ~25,000 people per day. So Newton's guess of 15,000 riders on a branch of a branch, out in far lower density suburbs, far out around Route 128... that does not pass the sniff test for me. No way. Newton assumes really high ridership from the Needham industrial park, considering the far end is a mile from any possible train stop and the pedestrian infrastructure is almost perfectly non-existent. Newton has no real analysis for guessing how many would be new riders as opposed to just changing transit modes, and just assumes probably a lot. This whole thing looks super, super handwavy in a way that does not make me think the MBTA's lower estimate was way off.

The PMT basically added up the published Blue Book boardings for Junction+Center+Heights on stet craptacular CR mode, plus the boardings for the southern half of the essentially nonfunctional stet 59 and rounded them off with diversions from deleted Hersey to net those totals. It is suspiciously, ridiculously low and underlied by totally brain-dead math that factored almost nothing else in. They weighed essentially no new ridership generation whatsoever from improved frequencies on either the CR or 59 corridors, let alone factoring any of the now-realized density growth on the corridor. Their conclusion basically was that this corridor behaved like a 9-5'er peak-commute-to-Downtown only corridor and somehow not like any other moderate-or-better density neighborhood on the system that actually uses available frequent bus or rail transit all-day in the real world. They also didn't factor subtler things like what basic one-eighth functional weekend service (something neither Needham CR nor 59 has ever had) would do to help encourage more regular trips any time during the week including weekdays. They basically relied on an assumption that trips were written-in-stone at today's levels with a nondescript 15% padding of 'found' new transit riders, and left every other variable on the table. Brain-dead analysis.

If the City of Newton estimate was high, the true middle ground is still a whole lot closer to that estimate than it was the PMT's. By a lot.