RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,067
- Reaction score
- 4,329
D’oh…. We raced with our responses.
I was thinking of going closer to the parking garage to keep the park-and-ride crowd invested in a shorter walk than that. The main reason I suggested Scenario 4 was one word: NIMBYs. Any move toward Oak Island and Point of Pines is a minefield of lawsuits waiting to happen. Each homeowner can take the adverse possession tack and kill this project dead. Count the encroachers who have been using the area without an MBTA complaint for 60 years. Multiply by the average lawsuit amount per household. And consider the likely outcome of the SJC siding with the homeowners. It’s a fools errand and the people of Lynn get screwed … again.I laid out what I think Option 4 would look like, and I think it's doable without taking any residences. I think the only ROW acquisition would be a small car dealership (as shown below). Here's my take on how it would all fit:
Priceless!I found some footage of the MBTA attorney talking about this…
Mostly derelict Castle Hill freight yard immediately south of the Downtown Salem terminal stop. Owned by the T, still nominally under the usage auspices of Pan Am, and not targeted for any other development because it's highly polluted and there are many other crap industrial parcels facing Jefferson Ave. to flip first.Blue Line to Salem increases route length about 200%. Where would you find new yard space for the increase in Blue Line fleet? Orient Heights is pretty crammed and highly vulnerable to rising sea levels, so expansion there seems unlikely and unwise. There's some potential space between the NR Line, Northern Strand, and the GE property, but I don't know the history of that lawn space currently housing solar along its southern edge.
I laid out what I think Option 4 would look like, and I think it's doable without taking any residences. I think the only ROW acquisition would be a small car dealership (as shown below). Here's my take on how it would all fit:
Yes. 2004 Program for Mass Transportation report, by Boston MPO and the MBTA. Costs, ridership, and project rating summarized in this post.I know that Blue Line extension to Lynn has been floated over the years, but does anyone know if an extension terminating at Salem ever been formally proposed by the T, MassDOT, electeds, etc. over the years?
There isn't enough room to have a CR+BLX superstation at Swampscott, so something has to give. I also wouldn't blindly assume retrograde politics there. Swampscott Station is located only 2 blocks in from the Lynn city line, in a very urban neighborhood that's functionally contiguous with East Lynn and dominated in walkup and bus transit shares from East Lynners. 7/8ths of Swampscott is not where the station is. But Swampscotters in those 7/8ths of town do ride the bus at respectable shares for the town's density, and see those bus shares explode when BLX-Lynn fixes the bus frequency anemia and reinvests the local routes with more outlying frequencies. BLX-Salem bringing the home stop just asplodes the bus shares one step further by more than halving the length of the routes and netting a way faster trip. The good-fences-make-good-neighbors faction isn't really forced to navel-gaze at "others" in their backyards, because rail only clips the most already-urbanized far corner of their town.The 2004 PMT has a lot of the same extension projects often discussed throughout the various AB transit threads. Agree that BLX to Salem is a worthy extension as the density and demographic profile (mainly low income, EJ neighborhoods) almost contiguous along ROW (minus Swampscott of course). The hang up as mentioned is less Lynn to Salem and more Wonderland to Lynn.
Agree with Oak Island station (#2 routing) to Lynn. However disagree Swampscott would want BL station in replacement of existing CR given NIMBYism and wanting to exclude “those people” ala 70’s Melrose OLX opposition. Could see BLX through routed Swampscott and them retaining CR station.
Swampscott Station is located only 2 blocks in from the Lynn city line, in a very urban neighborhood that's functionally contiguous with East Lynn and dominated in walkup and bus transit shares from East Lynners.
The North Shore is dense, y'all.
Municipal bounds themselves are arbitrary and some of those numbers are flawed because they don't account for land use or water area. For example, three quarters of the territory within Marblehead's bounds is water. Marblehead has a population of about 20,000 and is just under 20 square miles, so it appears to have a density of 1,000/sq. mi., but the land area of the town is only about 4.4 square miles, so its true density is closer to 4,500/sq. mi.. For someplace more inland, there are huge swaths of Burlington that are non residential (almost everything west of the Middlesex Turnpike, and almost everything south of Route 128 / west of US 3 (Cambridge St), as well as the Great Meadow just north of the Mall, and several relatively large Town-owned conservation areas on the east side of town). The overwhelming majority of Burlington's population lives in the northern and eastern sides of town. For the sake of argument, I'd venture to guess that about third of land within the town's bounds is non-residential. Burlington has 11.88 square miles (round up to 12) and a population of 26,300, so 2,200/sq. mi. is correct using the whole square milage, but if a third of the town is non-residential, its density is probably closer to 3,300/sq. mi..
I don't have a good answer re: the Burlington example. Of course you're right--what's ultimately desired here is "regional comparison of densities of all communities' already-developed AND remaining still-legally developable land," thus excluding playgrounds, preserves, parks, all greenspaces, etc. Alas, I don't know how to do that...