Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,264
- Reaction score
- 8,027
When I was in my 20s I used to bike it all the time, all the way from Alewife up to 128. I'm 76 now and could probably still do it if I tried.
Roads and Highways General Development Thread
- Thread starter stick n move
- Start date
ceo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 938
If you're going to extend the Red Line, it makes zero sense to extend it along a pair of highways (that includes 2 miles of one of the more congested parts of I-95) that go nowhere near population centers. Far more sensible to extend it cut-and-cover under the Minuteman to the same destination so it goes where people actually live (although I remain unconvinced that there's really the population density to support heavy rail out that far).
themissinglink
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 2,180
- Reaction score
- 6,189
Arlington is more than dense enough for heavy rail. Lexington isn't dense enough to support heavy rail on its own, but it might still be worth extending through Lexington for a park-and-ride station at 128 (especially if the Red Line gets extended all the way to the Burlington Mall).
Last edited:
RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,951
- Reaction score
- 7,454
themissinglink
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 2,180
- Reaction score
- 6,189
A station in Lexington Center would be worth building on day one. It'd be the other potential stations (East Lexington, North Lexington) that wouldn't be worth building without significant densification.
It's worth remembering that numerous multifamily residential developments have been built or proposed in Lexington in recent years. It's still not dense enough for heavy rail, but that might change if Lexington sustains the current pace of development for the next 15-20 years.
Last edited:
Much of that development has been south of Rt 2 or west of 128. Downtown Lexington is nowhere near the 30k-40k/square mile population density needed to support heavy rail and won't ever be.
The idea is that would be an alternative to un-fucking Alewife. You could even demo the parking garage and put up a luxury tower.
But there's potiental in the Burlington Mall as a P&R. Dunno if that's really that valuable it is but it would reduce 128 commuter traffic.
TheRatmeister
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 3,323
You know most of Boston+Camberville is 15-20k, right?
Specifically around station areas (not including peripheral industrial, low-density commercial, parks, etc.) its definitely closer to 20k if not above. But yes. At modern construction costs, it could possibly be difficult to justify building parts of even some of the existing lines if they weren't already there. There's a reason why most cities in the world with heavy rail are denser than Boston/don't have to deal with U.S. rail construction costs.
Regardless, Lexington center isn't even close to 15k, let alone 30k, so any way you want to look at it they are not an adequate candidate for HRT.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,825
- Reaction score
- 25,996
The route 146 flyover bridge at sayles hill road in north smithfield rhode island is almost complete. This eliminates one of the last 2 signalized intersections on rt 146. There is now only 1 left in sutton, ma. Hopefully now that this has been completed they will focus on doing a similar project in sutton to remove the last at grade conflict point on rt 146.
Last edited:
The improvement in traffic on this section of 146 cannot be overstated. Makes the Worcester-Providence drive much easier.
The Sutton light is a shame but it never backs up the way this used to. I think Woonsocket and 146A being just north of this ultimately caused most of the headaches. Not a lot of people are heading off into Sutton, so it's less of a bottleneck and more of a minor annoyance.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,427
- Reaction score
- 2,529
Do you have a source for that assertion that 30k-40k/square mile population density is needed to support heavy rail? Reality shows otherwise.
Population density in Massachusetts by municipality:
- Somerville — 19,656.8 people/sq mi
- Cambridge — 18,520.7 people/sq mi
- Chelsea — 18,380.8 people/sq mi
- Everett — 14,366.2 people/sq mi
- Boston — 13,976.7 people/sq mi
- Malden — 13,137.0 people/sq mi
Let's be generous and drill down further, and examine by census tract to see just how far north the Red Line could be supported. If 30k-40k/square mile is needed to support heavy rail, where should the Red Line terminate?
- Red Line:
- Alewife fails:
- Primary station (Census Tract 3549.01). Population density: 12,049.4
- Russell Field headhouse (Census Tract 3549.02). Population density: 23,110.7
- Davis fails:
- South of the Community Path (Census Tract 3509). Population density: 21,687.3
- North of the Community Path, east of College Ave (Census Tract 3504). Population density: 25,442.8
- North of the Community Path, between College Ave and Holland St (Census Tract 3505). Population density: 20,063.5
- North of the Community Path, west of Holland St (Census Tract 3508). Population density: 25,369.9
- Porter fails:
- North of the Fitchburg Line (Census Tract 3547). Population density: 20,836.6
- South of the Fitchburg Line (Census Tract 3536). Population density: 16,587.8
- Harvard fails:
- East of JFK St and Mass Ave (Census Tract 3537). Population density: 27,224.5
- West of JFK St and Mass Ave (Census Tract 3541). Population density: 11,803.5
- Central is borderline:
- South of Mass Ave, west of River St (Census Tract 3594). Population density: 30,325.3
- North of Mass Ave (Census Tract 3530). Population density: 28,668.7
- South of Mass Ave, east of River St (Census Tract 3531.01). Population density: 20,663.9
- Kendall fails:
- Station is entirely within Census Tract 3531.02. Population density: 16,423.4
- Charles is borderline:
- Station is entirely within Census Tract 203.01. Population density: 21,347.8
- South of Cambridge St is Census Tract 202. Population density: 90,975.0
- Park St is borderline:
- Station is entirely within Census Tract 9817. Population density: 33.0
- This Census Tract is the Public Garden and Boston Common
- East of Tremont St is Census Tract 701.02. Population density: 68,711.8.
- Station is entirely within Census Tract 9817. Population density: 33.0
- Downtown Crossing is borderline:
- West of Washington St (Census Tract 701.02). Population density: 68,711.8
- East of Washington St (Census Tract 701.04). Population density: 9,730.3
- South Station fails:
- Station is entrely within Census Tract 701.04. Population density: 9,730.3
- Alewife fails:
Interestingly, there isn't a Red Line Station that is in a location that clearly has the population density to support heavy rail. The northernmost Red Line Station, by your metric should be either Central, Charles, Park St or Downtown Crossing. Astonishing they haven't shut the whole thing down for good.
Definitely a bigger build, but what I think makes sense:
- convert alewife to a regional rail station on the fitchburg line.. most of the development/density is near the fitchburg line ROW anyway. The current red line station has half its walkshed as a parking garage, russell field parkland. The fitchburg line ROW has more housing/business to build near. The current parking garage can be demolished to be half the size with mixed use housing/office/business.
- demolish alewife red line platforms to have a larger curve radius to turn the tracks north underneath the minuteman, with the next stop after davis being Arlington Center. Could also argue for another infill in East Arlington.
- Lexington center stop, with some upzoning around it. If nimby's kill this infill stop, then just run it express to 128.
- 128 Park n Ride in the Lexington Composting Facility area with direct on/off ramps from the highway.
That gives stop spacing similar to the braintree branch in the south side while keeping avg speeds high enough to beat out comparable car trips to downtown.
F-Line to Dudley
Superstar
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 10,092
- Reaction score
- 12,805
Dude...Alewife did over 11,500 daily boardings in the 2019 counts. And it's going to 3-minute frequencies soon, so the ridership bump from increased service should get it par-or-surpassing the pre-COVID counts in a few years. There's no way you're "improving" the neighborhood moving the station 1000 ft. away to access-poorer environs and sticking it with service maximally every :15. And the gap between Davis and Arlington Center would be the single-largest on the rapid transit system if the desired Braintree Branch infill at Morrissey Blvd. plugged that over-long gap. That's not a feature, it's a bug.
ceo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 938
The Alewife tail tracks already curve around to the direction of the Minuteman in order to enable a future extension.
Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was more "density needed to be cost-effective", not "density needed to support".
Regardless, what I said before still applies:
Now, this is an old analysis with what I could only describe as an opaque methodology and suspect rigor, but it has some interesting numbers. https://accessmagazine.org/spring-2012/transit-d-word/
It concludes that a density of 30-40k per square mile (50 people per gross acre) is necessary if cost per mile of heavy rail is $250M:
The way I read it, the study's focus is on OpEx penciling out, not the wider public good that transit brings, so that is VERY high estimate for density if cost per mile really was $250M. Unfortunately, cost per mile is in the billions, so even if you consider all of the extraneous benefits heavy rail transit brings, it might not be "worth it" these days if density is too much lower than that.
All that to say, there is obviously a density cutoff where heavy rail transit is no longer a worthwhile investment. Maybe its 10k, maybe its 50k, it depends on the cost. But in our lifetimes, Lexington center will never fall into the cost-effective bucket unless its a lucky infill on the way to a more important destination.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,427
- Reaction score
- 2,529
Opaque methodology, indeed. I don’t disagree with the premise of there being a density cutoff. 30,000 is demonstrably too high of a cutoff though. You’ve also shifted from “has the density to support” to “is cost effective to build” which are quite different concepts.
Your new (and improved) stance that there exists a density cutoff for which even an expensive build HRT becomes justified is one I agree with.
EDITED TO ADD: It's also important to note that population density is a sufficient, but not necessary justification for transit service. Take a look at population densities by census tract per station, posted above. You'll notice South Station has a suburban level of population density. Yet, Downtown Boston is not suburban and South Station is a very highly used station. That's because ridership isn't driven by walk-up ridership from local residents, but rather from the employment density surrounding the station and transfers to/from Commuter Rail and Amtrak, for which South Station is Boston's hub.
It isn't just population density + employment density either. Take a look at Forest Hills. Forest Hills has had higher ridership than any other Orange Line Station south of Back Bay for decades. Even long before recent residential developments surrounding the station. This is due to the fact that it is a major bus transfer hub and that it has a larger catchment area than other Southwest Corridor stations. As the terminus of the Orange Line, people tend to travel further, especially those who live south and southwest of the station, to access the Orange Line.
It isn't just population density + employment density + transfer nodes either. Take a look at Route 128 Station. It has higher ridership than the overwelming majority of Commuter Rail stations in the system, including every station (except North Station) on the Lowell, Haverhill, and Fitchburg Lines, even though many have higher population densities (Porter, Waltham, Brandeis/Roberts, Fitchburg, West Medford, Lowell, Wyoming Hill, Melrose/Cedar Park, Melrose Highlands, Lawrence, Bradford, and Haverhill, to name several obvious ones). This is due to the facts that Route 128 has more frequent service, faster service, better connections to employment hubs, and is sited right next to Route 128 with a major park and ride, serving suburban drivers coming from a very large catchment area.
It isn't just population density + employment density + transfer nodes + frequency, either. Route 128 Station has much higher ridership than any station on the Fairmount Line, even though they all have higher population densities, at least as high of employment densities, at least as good of transfer nodes, and more frequent service with service directly to South Station. That's due to the massive catchment area of Route 128 owing to its location catering to suburban park and ride drivers coming from a wide region.
All of that is to say, population density is a surface level assessment that can be a sufficient, but not necessary justification for transit service. That is nuance that was missing from your determination that transit wasn't justified based on one metric alone, derived through opaque means. Looking at these locations a bit more holistically:
Arlington has a mostly dense-suburban (9,171.6/sq mi) population density, with urban levels of density (>10k) east of Mass Ave and dense-suburban (6k-10k) west of Mass Ave. In my estimation, Arlington could support three or four HRT stations with the ridership to justify service, cost aside, on population density alone. The stop spacing wouldn't be as dense as more urban neighborhoods. ~0.7-1 mile per station over three or four stations would give a comparable catchment per station as the ~0.5 mile per station stop spacing on the Orange Line in Jamaica Plain, for example. Jamaica Plain has a population of 41,000 compared to Arlington's 46,000 population, spread over a somwhat larger (5 sq miles in Arlington compared to 4.4 sq miles in JP), less dense area. Jamaica Plain has certainly shown to be a very viable location for transit, and Arlington wouldn't be far behind.
Lexington is far more debateable on whether it would generate the ridership to justify service, cost aside. With a population of 34,000, there are plenty of residents in Lexington, but the density is low enough that many more would agree it may not justify rapid transit service by itself. It is also lacking employment density or a major transfer node. With a population density of 2,100/sq mi, Lexington is a mid-density suburb without any particularly dense districts. With stations inherently further from the average resident (Lexington is more than three times the area of Arlington), ridership would have to be generated from people traveling further over a larger catchment area. That is going to capture a diminishing proportion of the populace as the distance to the station increases, absent a stellar park and ride opportunity (like Route 128 Station). So, in my estimation, Lexington's most viable rapid transit service models are:
- A single station in Lexington Center.
- This location would be the lowest population density of all HRT/LRT stations on the T, so it would perform poorly in walk-up ridership.
- Employment density is medium, at best.
- Vehicular access is medium, at best.
- Cycling access is great.
- Catchment area would be wide.
- Three mile stop spacing from Arlington Heights would be the second longest in the system.
- Ridership high enough to justify service would depend on people driving, biking, etc from throughout Lexington, Burlington, and Bedford. The Minuteman is well-suited for such a station, but Lexington Center's roads may not be.
- Debatable to justify due to the factors above.
- A single station at Route 128.
- This location would be the lowest population density of all HRT/LRT stations on the T, so it would perform poorly in walk-up ridership.
- Employment density is low.
- Vehicular access is great.
- Cycling access is great.
- Catchment area would be extremely wide.
- Five mile stop spacing from Arlington Heights would be by far the longest in the system.
- Ridership high enough to justify service would depend on people driving from throughout the area (Lexington, Burlington, Bedford, Lincoln, Worburn, Carlisle, etc) for frequent service to Cambridge.
- Debatable to justify due to the factors above.
- Both.
- This would split ridership. Lexington's Route 128 station would serve drivers from Burlington, Bedford, Lincoln, Worburn, Carlisle, etc looking for frequent service to Cambridge. Lexington Center would serve walk and bike-up riders from within Lexington.
- Hard to see there being enough ridership to justify both stations once ridership is split like that.
- Definitely viable (cost aside) if Lexington urbanized their town center added 15,000+ residents within a mile of their town center.
Last edited:
ceo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 938
I disagree that having both Lexington Center and 128 stops would split ridership. Nobody in Lexington Center's catchment area is going to trek out to 128 just to ride back through town, and if the extension ends at Lexington Center, there'll be a huge problem with people driving in and parking on residential streets. Which will still be a problem with 2 stations; one thing they could do to alleviate it is massively increase service and coverage on the Lexpress local bus system.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,427
- Reaction score
- 2,529
I agree that "if the extension ends at Lexington Center, there'll be a huge problem with people driving in and parking on residential streets." Many of those would drive to Route 128 if that was the terminus, though. A simple example (of which there are many) would demonstrate this concept.
If someone lives in Bedford, works in Kendall, and wants to take the T to work:
- Right now, they would drive to Alewife and take the Red Line from there.
- If Lexington Center were the terminus, they would drive to Lexington Center.
- If Route 128 were the terminus, they would drive to Route 128 and take the Red Line from there.
- If both were built, they are only going to use one of the stations (in this case Route 128).