Encore Boston Harbor Casino | 1 Broadway | Everett

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Funny how the street address of the station is in Charlestown because that sliver of frontage is Boston when just about all of the station is in Everett.

On the wind turbine, that is the unfortunate thing about wind and solar that it takes up a lot of real estate and a few scattered local turbines hardly make a dent in overall supply.

Don't encourage him. We already have a Trash Heap of Off-topic Posts Cut From Serious Threads thread specifically for climate change denial and fun with utterly irrelevant kWH math problems whighjacks that's growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[617]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

That power plant and wind turbine make the area so ugly....Sullivan sq and Rutherford ave are hideous as well.

When will they do something ! 10 years?

 

[Roxxma]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Funny how the street address of the station is in Charlestown because that sliver of frontage is Boston when just about all of the station is in Everett.

Slightly O/T, but by coincidence today I was researching some properties in a very similar situation: Several homes on the odd side of North St have Lexington addresses, but are in Burlington, and are almost completely cut off from that town by the Middlesex Turnpike and 128. They back up to a former MassDOT parcel where construction of US 3 into Boston had begun (but was eventually abandoned).

 

[tangent]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

That power plant and wind turbine make the area so ugly....Sullivan sq and Rutherford ave are hideous as well.

When will they do something ! 10 years?

Just ten years would be great! Probably more like 20 even if city/state planners, developers, neighborhood politicians etc lock themselves in a room and don't come out until Sullivan Square is a vibrant city square and transportation hub.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

and transportation hub.

Sullivan Sq stop on the commuter rail, please. Fuck, don't stop at Malden anymore for all I care.

EDIT: actually I do care.

 

[tangent]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Sullivan Sq stop on the commuter rail, please. Fuck, don't stop at Malden anymore for all I care.

EDIT: actually I do care.

Interesting. Would you eliminate the Malden commuter rail stop in favor of one at Sullivan Square then? Seems to make sense.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Interesting. Would you eliminate the Malden commuter rail stop in favor of one at Sullivan Square then? Seems to make sense.

I don't want to see the Haverhill Line lose Malden, but I'd say it'd be for the greater good. Sullivan would be used more than Malden, in my opinion. Plus Rockburyport trains could also use it. The problem is it is tight confines and until we're talking about the replacement of the I-93 viaduct, I don't see Sullivan changing a whole lot, at least not in a smart way.

 

[tangent]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

I don't want to see the Haverhill Line lose Malden, but I'd say it'd be for the greater good. Sullivan would be used more than Malden, in my opinion. Plus Rockburyport trains could also use it. The problem is it is tight confines and until we're talking about the replacement of the I-93 viaduct, I don't see Sullivan changing a whole lot, at least not in a smart way.

Already platforms for the Orange line under 93. You would just need to add platforms for commuter rail. Really seems like low hanging fruit <$60 million

 

[tysmith95]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Already platforms for the Orange line under 93. You would just need to add platforms for commuter rail. Really seems like low hanging fruit <$60 million

I believe that Sullivan square is on the planned urban ring (which will probably never happen but it wouldn't be too hard to build separated bus lanes from chesla to Sullivan). If the urban ring is then extended to Kendall it would solve alot of the transport issues in the area. Currently Kendall only has the red line as a rapid transit option, adding the silver line would open up the area to easy access to more affordable housing in chesla.

If the urban ring is built than it would reduce the need for a commuter rail stop in chesla which would speed up Newburyport/Rockport trains.

The biggest issue with ending the Malden stop would be if assembly becomes an employment center. It would haverhill line commuters to have to backtrack on the orange line to go to Assembly.

 

[stick n move]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Fix thread name please?

 

[tangent]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Fix thread name please?

Because we are a bit off topic in discussing the surrounding area or because it is now called "Wynn Boston Harbor"

Transportation has been a big part of the discussion surrounding the Wynn development... seemed worth discussing the point a bit.

 

[tangent]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

The biggest issue with ending the Malden stop would be if assembly becomes an employment center. It would haverhill line commuters to have to backtrack on the orange line to go to Assembly.

Yes, but I think it would still be a bit better if a Sullivan Square Commuter rail is added to not stop at Malden instead of stopping at both. And if the concern now is a bunch of commuter rail riders filling up Orange line trains at Malden, then better for balancing capacity to have those Assembly bound folks catching the outbound Orange line train during the morning than adding to the inbound crush.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Sullivan Sq stop on the commuter rail, please. Fuck, don't stop at Malden anymore for all I care.

EDIT: actually I do care.

Physically impossible. Between the I-93 decks' support pegs and the Orange Line viaduct not touching down at ground level until it's underneath the Cambridge St. overpass there's no way to worm a commuter rail track over to the 3rd OL platform at proper track geometry and no way to widen anywhere else for a new platform. It's a thoroughly fixed space. There is room on the other side of Maffa Way, but that would've only worked as a superstation if the pre-'75 Sullivan station property were retrofitted for the new alignment. It's a functionally useless block away from the OL platforms, busway, and entrance.

This is why the first CR station on the cleanroomed 1975 ROW stayed at Malden and not Sullivan in the first place. 93 came first and everything...the pit, the viaduct...was shaped by those deck pegs. This Sullivan CR idea didn't escape them; they considered it, revisited the idea years later, and rearranging things between the pegs never washed in any way engineerable in non-broken fashion. Just because you can squint on Street View from the overpasses and conclude "This might work if you nudge X, Y, and Z" doesn't mean it'll work at track geometry that'll preserve service levels on a mainline lead that has to serve 2 masters. If the turnouts can only handle a 5 MPH platform approach you triple-kill every achievable headway to Reading, Newburyport, and Rockport at the same time. That's not an acceptable tradeoff for cramming 3 CR stations for 5 OL stations, or 2 for 3 out of North Station.

 

[tysmith95]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

What about moving the Commuter rail stop to Assembly? That would be convenient to Wynn if a new pedestrian bridge is built (though Somerville might not want all of the rif raff from the casino walking over to their luxurious new neighborhood).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

What about moving the Commuter rail stop to Assembly? That would be convenient to Wynn if a new pedestrian bridge is built (though Somerville might not want all of the rif raff from the casino walking over to their luxurious new neighborhood).

No room between the track switches on the double-track siding for T-spec 800 ft. platform, which you will need at peak on a sardine-packed Haverhill run because the schedule already suffers too much platform dwell time attrition by having too many too-short platforms upstream to N. Wilmington. Northerly track switch is fixed in-place by the start of the bridge incline and associated start of retaining wall. Southerly switch has a considerable grade difference from the fast-converging Eastern Route tracks if you turn on Google 3D view and twist sideways. The only way to plausibly insert a station without killing service levels to Haverhill is to reshape the hillside so it's a full 2 track x 2 track junction (like Beverly Jct.) feeding double-track platform and not a 1 x 2 chokepoint. To achieve that fix you'd have to do some minor earth-moving to build up the Western Route tracks onto a gently increasing embankment to meet the Eastern fully level at a 2 x 2 junction. Very doable for short money, and...yes...they dearly want to do this as soon as funding allows. But that necessary service prerequisite ends up eating all the southerly room for a full-length platform before max allowable platform slope becomes a constriction. 450 ft. isn't gonna cut it for do-no-harm to Haverhill station dwells at-peak. It ends up another one on the pile of too many scheduled stops where a six-pack consist overhangs the platform and forces people in the rear to single-file to the next car to reach an open door.

Assembly's also not a bus terminal like Sullivan and Malden are, so the superstation angle gets thrown out. Note that with exception of JFK (future Urban Ring BRT spur candidate) and Braintree (*some* well-utilized buses, just not many total routes) all of the CR+HRT intermediate combo stations are at big bus terminal stops: Ruggles, Forest Hills, Back Bay, Malden, Porter, Quincy Ctr. The reason it's limited to those? Every proposal that's been kicked around for a combo stop elsewhere on the system has has studied out at nonexistent ridership projections when there's not a very big Yellow Line node driving the demand. That's what informs CR users' transfer choices: the mode they can't get to by staying in their seat till the terminal. Orange intermediates aren't the northside's great transfer attractor because Orange stops at North Station. Malden bus terminal is, and the Red Line + 77 @ Porter are. Assembly would fare at least as bad as JFK if not worse despite being an 'it' destination because that's not at all what makes CR riders tick. How many riders are going to choose a footbridge rather than curbside pickup at a North Station casino shuttle bus, the 97/99/105 out of Malden, or CR-to-Orange-to-bus? Pre-teens per day? Enough similar 'it' destinations have had numbers crunched for studied combo stops that the planners know very well by now that's not a value proposition CR riders are ever inclined to consider in the real world.

 

[boston85]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Following the tangent this thread is on. Instead of adding a railroad station, why not just switch the Haverhill line to run through Woburn permanently and convert the Haverhill Line from Reading/Willington to the OL. Yes, it would be costly and be a traffic mitigation nightmare for a few years, but it would provide the same benefit to Wynn and there would be a lot of other secondary benefits and it is equally in the realm of crazy pitches.

You could eliminate the 6 or so grade crossings in the stretch from Reading to Malden with about 2 to 3 miles of trenches, which could be done with the conversion.

The frequency of service out to Reading would be improved and it would offer up areas for development near the new stops.

By consolidating the lines there would be better frequency of trains between Woburn and north station, which makes it more convenient for commuters who's work schedule does not allow for leaving on the dot to make a train that leaves every 45 minutes to an hour.

You should be able to reduce trip times out to Haverhill and take some pressure of the passenger loading because you convert some riders to the OL.

Although, there are probably a dozen reasons why it is not feasible.

 

[choo]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

We are getting off a bit, but important to highlight that as big as Wynn/Assembly may be over time, they will not be the reason behind an CR-OL conversion. North Station, NSRL, growth of North Station business areas, and access to Back Bay will be bigger drivers than the casino demand (employees and guests).

Plus any conversion of CR to OL will have to prove to those converted CR stops that a bunch of interim stops at Assembly and Malden are better than a 2 or 3 stop express to North Station, and maybe even south station down the road, or taking the CR to north station and switching to OL for back bay or having the minority back track on the OL to Sullivan/Assembly.

Plus, what would make you think Wynn wants it. Wynn wants a nice Ferry that is effectively a free harbor cruise for big money players flying in at Logan or staying in seaport/ downtown waterfront hotels. Pushing for contentious and expensive trains that bring employees from Haverhill to the back entrance is not going to make his list of Top 1000 things to do.

 

[The EGE]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

There's nothing wrong with that idea; in fact, it was very close to happening in the 70s. The Orange Line cars were delivered with pantographs, as overhead wires would have been used to decrease danger at grade crossings.

The grade crossings are the main issue - not unsolvable, but difficult. Melrose, Wakefield, and Reading never got B&M grade separations like Winchester, Lynn, and Malden did. You might have to do shallow cut-and-cover tunnels with basic decking for a bike/ped path on top. That would let you avoid the grade crossings, but it would substantially increase the cost.

You could get to Wyoming very, very cheaply, though. The ROW is fairly wide between Oak Grove and Wyoming, and you could fit an OL platform without taking anything but some parking lot. Like Roslindale, that's a pretty cheap OL extension that doesn't interfere with commuter rail before it's time for full conversion.

Shifting the upper Haverhill Line over to the lower Lowell Line (via the Wildcat Branch) is something that is good regardless of any OL extension. Fewer problematic grade crossings, and much easier to double track.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Honestly, the Haverhill Line addition that Wynn would most care for if he cared at all for it is an infill stop at Quannapowitt/128 for more P&R's to make the trip inbound to transfer to a connecting casino bus.

He already took his stand by paying for higher evening OL service levels when casino is busiest. He knows shuttle bus or Yellow Line is how most people are getting to his front door from some other transfer.



RE: the off(er)-topic stuff. . .

• Already movement afoot in Melrose to grade a side path spanning Wyoming-Highlands + possibly Greenwood fenced off from the inbound track. Tons of slack space so can probably be made contiguous until the pond abutting tracks before Wakefield forces some detours. No need for a Somerville burial job.

• If Orange ever comes the stations are probably all 2-track open cuts dug below-street like a more compact Oak Grove to zap the crossings.

• Dear God yes Haverhill needs to be sheared back off from Reading and moved permanently back to the Lowell Line like it was in the 70's when Haverhill and Reading were two totally different lines with totally different schedules. You could crank frequencies much higher if they weren't handcuffed to each other as a slow-ass, standing room-only long-haul.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Wynn Everett Casino | Everett

Already platforms for the Orange line under 93. You would just need to add platforms for commuter rail. Really seems like low hanging fruit <$60 million

As noted by others, its really not that simple. If you don't modify I-93, you have to modify the Orange Line, and that is still less ideal than modifying I-93. It is really a tangled mess down there. If you just hamfist it, you could harm the commuter rail lines involved.

Physically impossible. Between the I-93 decks' support pegs and the Orange Line viaduct

Exactly: "The problem is it is tight confines and until we're talking about the replacement of the I-93 viaduct, I don't see Sullivan changing a whole lot, at least not in a smart way." Although, I do wonder if it is possible to shave third track bay from the Orange Line viaduct in the final bridge span. If that doesn't compromise any other part of the viaduct, then you can turn that spare track into a CR track. It really is just a freakin' nightmare in there.

What about moving the Commuter rail stop to Assembly? That would be convenient to Wynn if a new pedestrian bridge is built (though Somerville might not want all of the rif raff from the casino walking over to their luxurious new neighborhood).

Who cares about Wynn? I'm talking about a transportation Hub. I realize it is probably the wrong thread to have dragged this topic off course, but this is more important than Wynn will ever be. Plus, there's no way to serve Rockburyport with an Assembly hub, not to mention the buses that Sullivan has don't go there.

Instead of adding a railroad station, why not just switch the Haverhill line to run through Woburn permanently and convert the Haverhill Line from Reading/Willington to the OL.

Haverhill service should absolutely be via the Wildcat, no doubt. As to the latter, I don't think converting Reading service to Orange Line is the greatest idea in terms of capacity and potential service patterns. I think leaving the Reading service for DMU/EMU in tandem with Orange Line service is how the entire Sullivan-Reading corridor could be beefed up the heaviest. I think layered services are the way to really create a high capacity corridor.