Everett Transportation (SL3 extension, potential OLX/GLX, Sweetser Circle infill station)

They should build the new station at Sweetser Circle instead of trying to put it next to Encore. The city of Everett was interested in a new commuter rail station near Sweetser Circle a few years ago:
The city also wants to study the possibilty of a new commuter rail station on the Newburyport/Rockport line, which currently makes no stops in Everett.
If a new regional rail station were located near Sweetser Circle, it could potentially connect to Everett's local bus routes, including the proposed Silver Line extension.
Click to expand...
 
With all the info people are chipping in here, I'm more confident, it looks like the "$25M for transit" might amount to nothing. It's good PR for Wynn and Everett. But Wynn might not have to pay basically any of that, and it's unlikely to actually create any new transit. If a station next to the casino costs >$100M, and Wynn isn't interested in funding the "logical, inevitable" station at Sweetser, then.....? I guess Wynn pays $100k for a useless study that says it's impossible to put in an infill station, and that's that.

That's my guess, anyways. That's what it sounds like from the press releases. I hope I'm wrong. But it doesn't look to me like Everett secured any real commitments for transit funding.
 
What are the proposed locations for new commuter rail station? I heard at Encore but I think they have been talking about something more near the commercial triangle and the north section of Davis companies Docklands development. Think the plan is to connect docklands to the commercial triangle with a pedestrian bridge, similar to the bridge to Assembly/Draw Seven Park that will connect to the new hen house for orange line access.
 
BC02149 said:
What are the proposed locations for new commuter rail station? I heard at Encore but I think they have been talking about something more near the commercial triangle and the north section of Davis companies Docklands development. Think the plan is to connect docklands to the commercial triangle with a pedestrian bridge, similar to the bridge to Assembly/Draw Seven Park that will connect to the new hen house for orange line access.
Click to expand...
A Sweetser Circle CR stop would serve well as a bus hub, and not be too close to the Chelsea stop, as a stop at the Docklands development would be. Also, a CR stop near the Casino is probably impractical as F-Line pointed out recently on here. So, to me a Sweetser Circle location is the one.
 
www.bostonglobe.com

New transit links could transform Everett’s access to Boston - The Boston Globe

Existing transit connections between Boston and Everett are lackluster, despite their proximity, residents and politicians say.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
The city could also land a commuter rail station, though exactly where it might be located is a matter of dispute.
Former Everett mayor Carlo DeMaria and Wynn Resorts, which runs the Encore Boston Harbor casino, agreed on DeMaria’s final day in office in January to “jointly pursue” a commuter rail stop “located adjacent to” the Encore property.
According to a rudimentary diagram attached to the agreement, the station would be tucked behind the Encore building, wedged between the resort to the southeast and a Costco and Home Depot to the northwest.
Wynn agreed to put up $25 million to bankroll the station’s construction and any requisite studies, assuming the parties agree upon the station’s scope and design.
Some Everett officials, including the new mayor, have bristled at the proposed station location. “It’s just not acceptable to my vision for how lower Broadway gets redeveloped,” Van Campen said. Monty, more bluntly, called it an “asinine location for a train station.”
Wynn disagrees. Michael Weaver, a Wynn spokesperson, said, “The site currently selected near Encore and proximate to the new stadium is the best location.”
“Only that location meets the funding requirements in both our recently signed memorandum” and an agreement signed between Everett and the company in 2013, which stated that Wynn, together with the city and the T, would explore the creation of a commuter rail stop serving both the city and the resort.
Van Campen and Monty would rather place a station on the eastern side of Broadway by Sweetser Circle, where it would, they say, be more accessible to Everett residents. Van Campen also said it would “activate” big future developments on that side of the street, including the proposed New England Revolution soccer stadium.
Click to expand...
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Wynn must be one shrewd but terminally online transit nerd, because that promised $25M is never going to be spent once the T clarifies up-front that the grade in front of Encore is too steep for a legal ADA-compliant station.
Click to expand...
i don't even think they'd have to be online much - they got enough money to hire someone to be terminally online.
 
An Everett Subway, but a fancy map
1772321513788.png
 
TheRatmeister said:
View attachment 70925
No, this is my 'Aqua Line' idea that I've posted several times before. I'm just finally getting around to making a nicer map/presentation for it.
Click to expand...
So, how much would all this cost? Let's use $1bn per mile for subway portions and $600m per mile for elevated/surface. This is in line with construction costs in SF/LA, Honolulu, and Vancouver.

SegmentLengthCost
Everett Subway (Linden-Sweetser Circle)2.8 miles$2.8bn
Everett-Inner Belt Elevated2.5 miles$1.5bn
Chelsea Elevated6.7 miles$4.1bn
Grand Junction Elevated2.2 miles$1.3bn, we'll increase to $2bn due to complexity on this section
Urban Ring to Nubian3.1 miles$3.1bn
Melnea Cass/Widett Circle elevated.9 miles$0.6bn
Southie Subway1.5 miles$1.5bn
I-90 and Arsenal Elevated3.1 miles$1.9bn
Watertown Subway1.2 miles$1.2bn
Watertown-Waltham Elevated2.5 miles$1.5bn
Waltham Tunnel.6 miles$0.6bn
Waltham-128 Elevated2.7 miles$1.7bn
Yards, I'll estimate about 5 inner belt yards-$~0.8bn
Rolling stock, estimating based on the cost of 220 Type 10s-~$1.8bn
Grand Total$25.1bn, or: 6 Chicago Red Line extensions, 10 GLXes, 2.5 LA D Line Extensions, ~1.5 NSRL, or ~1 Big Dig (excluding interest)

The total number of residents living nearby is somewhere around 300,000 today, or around 1/25 Bay-Staters. Jobs are harder to count but the number is high. Areas along the line that would likely see significant new developments of currently vacant or very-low density industrial space include:
  • Beacon Park Yards
  • Arsenal Yards
  • Bleachery
  • The Chemistry
  • Widett Circle
  • Andrew
  • Inner Belt
  • The Everett Hellscape™
  • Winthrop Ave
  • Wonderland
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
View attachment 70925
No, this is my 'Aqua Line' idea that I've posted several times before. I'm just finally getting around to making a nicer map/presentation for it.
Click to expand...

TheRatmeister said:
So, how much would all this cost? Let's use $1bn per mile for subway portions and $600m per mile for elevated/surface. This is in line with construction costs in SF/LA, Honolulu, and Vancouver.

SegmentLengthCost
Everett Subway (Linden-Sweetser Circle)2.8 miles$2.8bn
Everett-Inner Belt Elevated2.5 miles$1.5bn
Chelsea Elevated6.7 miles$4.1bn
Grand Junction Elevated2.2 miles$1.3bn, we'll increase to $2bn due to complexity on this section
Urban Ring to Nubian3.1 miles$3.1bn
Melnea Cass/Widett Circle elevated.9 miles$0.6bn
Southie Subway1.5 miles$1.5bn
I-90 and Arsenal Elevated3.1 miles$1.9bn
Watertown Subway1.2 miles$1.2bn
Watertown-Waltham Elevated2.5 miles$1.5bn
Waltham Tunnel.6 miles$0.6bn
Waltham-128 Elevated2.7 miles$1.7bn
Yards, I'll estimate about 5 inner belt yards-$~0.8bn
Rolling stock, estimating based on the cost of 220 Type 10s-~$1.8bn
Grand Total$25.1bn, or: 6 Chicago Red Line extensions, 10 GLXes, 2.5 LA D Line Extensions, ~1.5 NSRL, or ~1 Big Dig (excluding interest)

The total number of residents living nearby is somewhere around 300,000 today, or around 1/25 Bay-Staters. Jobs are harder to count but the number is high. Areas along the line that would likely see significant new developments of currently vacant or very-low density industrial space include:
  • Beacon Park Yards
  • Arsenal Yards
  • Bleachery
  • The Chemistry
  • Widett Circle
  • Andrew
  • Inner Belt
  • The Everett Hellscape™
  • Winthrop Ave
  • Wonderland
Click to expand...
$2.8 B for a Linden Square to Sweetser Circle subway would be an absolute steal and something that should be funded today. But unfortunately with the stations and all it would probably be 2x that or more.

I've always pictured this Everett extension more as an OL branch splitting off between Sullivan and Assembly (which I know @F-Line to Dudley has sketched out before). Something like this:
1772665522284.png

But then you'd need a symmetrical OL branch on the other side (maybe follow the old alignment down to Dudley and maybe onwards to Blue Hill Ave and Mattapan?) to balance the load and dispatching.

I've also pictured the western portion of your sketch as being carried by a BLX with something like this:
1772665614124.png
 
Has anyone ever considered the tunnel through Everett as an extension of the commuter rail? I know it sounds insane, but if we had a world with electrified commuter rail service and the 4-tracked NSRL, there would be additional capacity on the north side of the NSRL, probably to the tune of 10-15 tph. That would be enough to supply subway-like service to Everett without having to split the OL. It wouldn't be unprecedented in an S-bahn-style system.
 
3decker said:
but if we had a world with electrified commuter rail service and the 4-tracked NSRL, there would be additional capacity on the north side of the NSRL, probably to the tune of 10-15 tph.
Click to expand...
With an expanded CR network the numbers start to get tighter. I'd say ~35TPH is a fair estimate for max sustainable capacity, and I'll estimate that Amtrak trains count triple due to longer dwell times.
LineTPH
Newburyport/Rockport/Beverly6-8 (2-3/2-3/2)
Lowell+NH4+2
Fitchburg/Short-turn+Gardner4/6
Haverhill+Methuen or NH or whatever4-6
Amtrak3
Spare/Everett (Current CR Network)14
Spare/Everett (Expanded CR Network)6
It's not enough for me to dismiss it as immediately and completely unfeasible, since if we only count the shorter term you do indeed have 10-15 TPH to spare. But to me this would feel like a quite short-sighted use of NSRL capacity when you could be using that for routes that don't feasible subway alternatives.
 
Interesting idea, 3decker! Ratmeister's concerns are valid; I'll note that mainline rail also:
  • Has heavier rolling stock that's not ideal for stopping as frequently as light rail or metro
  • Requires more crew per train
  • Has longer trains (because train are designed for primarily sitting passengers), which increases station costs
  • Has a larger loading gauge, requiring larger and more expensive tunnels
  • Has larger curve radii, which will be tricky when trying to weave a tunnel under 93 and to connect to NSRL
  • Won't have great transfers to other subway lines downtown, because NSRL is rather deep
It works fine when you're feeding existing lines into a city center (a la NSRL or RER), but it's not an ideal mode for a new urban subway, and it'll definitely increase costs. For Everett, something in the LRT-ALRT-HRT spectrum is more likely - be that an Orange Line branch, Grand Junction light rail, or something else. My personal pitch is automated metro with branches to Everett and Revere meeting in Chelsea, hitting Kendall - Back Bay - Nubian, and then heading out BHA, with Grand Junction LRT serving Alford:
1772692911918.png
 
TheRatmeister said:
I'd say ~35TPH is a fair estimate for max sustainable capacity, and I'll estimate that Amtrak trains count triple due to longer dwell times.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting these numbers from? 35 sounds a little low for quad-tracked NSLR, but not crazy off. At that pace, though, you'd be assuming almost a 10 minute dwell for Amtrak, which sounds too high. Just curious.

Also, the existing surface North Station would still be open, so the north side all together could definitely handle more than 35tph. There would be space in the schedule for an Everett train if some other trains stopped at the surface terminal.

3decker said:
Has anyone ever considered the tunnel through Everett as an extension of the commuter rail? I know it sounds insane, but if we had a world with electrified commuter rail service and the 4-tracked NSRL, there would be additional capacity on the north side of the NSRL, probably to the tune of 10-15 tph. That would be enough to supply subway-like service to Everett without having to split the OL. It wouldn't be unprecedented in an S-bahn-style system.
Click to expand...
I think @The EGE points out all the relevant downsides. They do seem like enough downsides to make this particular proposal not especially attractive. Some of the downsides could be fixed by changing FRA regulations, for example by allowing lighter, Berlin-s-bahn-style trains in a limited network like this. But I wouldn't count on it.

But the spare north side capacity is really interesting, and something I've thought about. I haven't come up with any better ideas how to use it, but there could be a spot where it's a valuable resource.
 
ritchiew said:
Where are you getting these numbers from? 35 sounds a little low for quad-tracked NSLR, but not crazy off. At that pace, though, you'd be assuming almost a 10 minute dwell for Amtrak, which sounds too high. Just curious.
Click to expand...
At 35 TPH that assumes ~3.5 minute headways. 120 minutes (2x60) ÷ 3.5 = ~34.2, rounding up to 35. Looking back I agree that 3x is probably too much for Amtrak, 2x is probably better. But I don't think it actually changes the conclusion, to be honest.
 
It would also be very difficult to maintain subway-quality service when it's dependent on the exact timing of multiple through-running lines (since the frequency of such a service would be much higher than any individual southside line). Minor variations that aren't an issue for 15-minute or 30-minute services - and don't matter as much for providing high-frequency service on the combined section of the tunnel - would be much more significant for a rapid transit-type corridor that needs even headways.

@3decker since you're relatively new, I just want to make clear: this is not a criticism of you or your idea! A lot of what we do on this board (and honestly, a lot of what I do as a professional transit planner) is spitballing ideas and seeing whether or not they would work.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Looking back I agree that 3x is probably too much for Amtrak, 2x is probably better. But I don't think it actually changes the conclusion, to be honest.
Click to expand...
But why is Amtrak all that much longer? Years of observing an Acela arrive at Back Bay shortly before my own train never led me to notice a significantly different dwell time. Yeah, the Amtrak train was probably at the platform a bit longer, but certainly not 2-3 times longer. The Acela at that time arrived at 5:15, and a Providence train arrived on the same track at 5:20, which is consistent with the spacing between MBTA trains during peak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top