Fitchburg Line Extension

P

pharmerdave

Guest
An Environmental Notification Form has been filed with the Executive office of Energy and Environmental affairs to extend the Fitchburg Commuter Rail line 4.5 miles further to a park and ride at Rt 2 and 31. The station will be named Wachusett Station. The extension will be built on an active freight corridor. The project is estimated to start 1st quarter 2010 and be completed in the 1st quarter of 2012. The approximate cost is 65.5 million dollars.


http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2009/112309em/nps/enf/14516.pdf
 
I don't mean to sound snarky, but shouldn't the correct completion date be 2032?

Anyway, wasn't there a plan to double-track the area around South Acton? What happened to that?
 
manrush said:
I don't mean to sound snarky, but shouldn't the correct completion date be 2032?

Anyway, wasn't there a plan to double-track the area around South Acton? What happened to that?
Click to expand...

Its happening, also due to be done in 2012
 
I'm sorry but what is the point of this extension? This money could be going to more worthy projects.
 
Evidently, the MBTA thinks their efforts should facilitate further suburbanization. Having lived for a while in Paris, it's obvious to me that the inner development of Boston's subway is embryonic at best. Where, for example, are Boston's Washington Street and Massachusetts Avenue heavy rail? Where is convenient rail access to dense Charlestown? Where's the Atlantic Avenue waterfront streetcar?
 
Is this one of those situations where they simply needed to find a project they could get moving quickly so they wouldn't lose the stimulus funds?
 
It would be convenient for Boston's subway to reach the density of Paris' lines, but few of the places it serves approach Parisian densities. The South End certainly doesn't - it has on average about 30,000 people per square mile, about the same as triple decker neighborhoods of Dorchester. Crisscrossing it with any more transit would be a waste. The Orange Line is too close to the Green Line in many places to properly serve the South End, but it also makes serious investment in the Silver Line a bit silly as well. If I could play god, though, I'd rip out the Orange Line east of Ruggles and make the Silver Line a light rail or subway - the Washington Street route always made more sense than situating the Orange Line where it is now.

I wouldn't strenuously object to rail under Mass. Ave., but it really only makes the connection between a couple major nodes slightly more convenient. Better to assign priority to an Urban Ring that basically encompasses the route of the 66 bus.

Now what really needs to happen to serve Boston where it's densest (the Back Bay does approach Parisian densities) is to convert the Green Line to heavy rail, or to double-up its route with a Blue Line extension under Beacon.
 
i lived in fitchburg for a while and i can tell you the transit to and from boston sucks. route 2 is a nightmare any time of day but way better than the train. I lived with in a 10 minute walk of the commuter rail stop but would never use it because it was faster to drive into alewife. any sort of upgrade on the rail is great in my book, the extension i can take or leave, but if it makes the train more reliable i am for it.
 
Not sure I see the point of a Mass Ave subway, other than to make the T look more like le Metro.

Just doesn't seem worth it if LMA and Dudley are left out. A modified 66 bus makes more sense. Continue it eastwards through Uphams Corner to the 'Boston Bronx' @ JFK. Also, no point trying to put heavy rail through Coolidge Corner, so tunnel under Park Dr to reach Harvard via the brand spanking new Allston Science Center (est. 2075).

LMA really needs a subway stop right in its heart. Longwood (D) is embarrassingly far away and probably treacherous for some in the winter, and the E line sucks generally.
 
4.5 mile extension...$55m...over $11m per mile. WTF?
 
czsz said:
4.5 mile extension...$55m...over $11m per mile. WTF?
Click to expand...

The report says:

"Extends commuter rail service 4.5 miles west on the existing Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line

Provides a new commuter rail station, layover facility, and infrastructure and track improvements"

I think 55m is pretty accurate amount for a rail extension and new facilities. I'm sure this won't be the most complicated of stations as well. It won't be a terminus like Worcester, that's for sure.
 
So when the F- is the subway going to get attention? Almost every commuter rail trip transfers to the subway. We need an urban ring, blue line extension, various orange line extensions, and Red line track repairs before another dime gets spent on Commuter rail. What a disappointment!

BTW, I am totally against any light rail even the "F" line to Dudley, it should be a heavy rail extension of the O-line. Boston is too dense for it. Light rail works in less dense sunbelt cities.
 
Plus, don't forget Paris, London.

(Also San Francisco, Milan and Berlin.)
 
Exactly Pierce,

Munich- EXTENNNNSIVE U/S bahn system with a small tram system functioning in a secondary role.
Oslo - pop density: 3,000 sq. mi.
Bergen - pop density: 1,000 per sq. mi probably less than half of Phoenix
Cologne - pop density 6,000 sq. mi.


S. F. is another story... A city with an extensive light rail system that serves half of what 1 BART line services.
 
Marley said:
Oslo - pop density: 3,000 sq. mi.
Bergen - pop density: 1,000 per sq. mi probably less than half of Phoenix
Cologne - pop density 6,000 sq. mi.
Click to expand...
Those figures are worth nothing for comparative purposes. Each city has a different legal basis for determining its limits, and this has almost nothing to do with physical reality.

Some include lots of Suburbia, and some include less. Bergen's area probably includes farms.

Meaningless statistics as applied to the present discussion.

How dense you say a city is depends on how big an area you consider. There are three common ways of doing this, one informal and non-governmental. How Big is a City?

.
 
Last edited:
That would have to be one MASSIVE F-ING FARM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Logan takes up about 10% of the city's land area, but if you were to remove it, it wouldn't have much of an effect even on a city's overrall density as small as Boston.

Those cities are the same size if not larger geographically than Boston, so I would have to disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top