General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

<takes perverse pleasure in seeing Melrose jolted from its complacency>
How's the town coming on finding a place to rebuild the bridge over the Lynn Fells Pkwy?
 
The potential silver lining in CR closures: if Weston wants any stations at all in 2025, they'll need to accept the 128 Multimodal stop.
 
^ I believe they'd still have Kendal Green, unless there's something else going on with that?
 
Riverside said:
I started to wonder whether Cedar Park was maybe a reporting error -- "maybe they said Plymouth/Cordage Park and it was misunderstood??" -- so I went and looked at the slides, and, nope, Cedar Park is right there:

View attachment 8220

It is true, that ridership number is low, but it's still above average: they note a couple of slides earlier that CR ridership is at 13% of normal (but 8.5% of normal during AM Peak). Cedar Park's is more like 20% of normal -- although to be fair, that's literally a difference of 7 people, so probably not statistically significant.

Maybe it's the close stop spacing that's drawing their attention? I think Wyoming Hill and Cedar Park may be the two closest stations in the entire system? (Well, maybe Haverhill and Bradford, but there is, you know, a river between them.) But I'm also not really clear on what cost-saving benefits accrue from its closure? (Especially since the parking lot isn't T-operated.)
Click to expand...
Parking...that's it. Cedar Park is fronted by municipal spaces. It's a fight over dozens of dollars in COVID-demand parking going into city vs. state coffers, nothing more.

I mean, if they're going to flag it for being non-ADA they kind of immediately step in it over the horrible overall accessibility on the Reading Line. That sure isn't a winning argument. I have to wonder if bus service levels are going to take a corresponding dinger. At least when you have nuthin' but inaccessible platforms the close spacing helps to a degree with all of them having adjacent bus stops to minimize that demerit. But if the bus gets bludgeoned too???

Yeah...Melrose goin' fight.


EDIT: Yep...losing the 131 and 136 by elimination, too. So basically a total icepick to Melrose transit.
 
Last edited:
Shutting CR at 9pm makes no sense.

The pandemic has moved peoples travel time around. Less demand at rush hour, more elsewhere.

Stopping service at 9pm means people riding into the city at 11am are going to switch to cars.
 
Riverside said:
^ I believe they'd still have Kendal Green, unless there's something else going on with that?
Click to expand...

KG has full service levels unlike the flag stop -only other two; it won't be replaced until the 128 superstation is fully operational. Walking access to KG can also theoretically be accommodated to the new site via side path through the town DPW yard, so it isn't a total strategic zero as a catchment site even if/when replaced.
 
Wash said:
CSX has become formally interested in purchasing Pan Am Railways.

trn.trains.com

CSX seeks to buy New England regional Pan Am Railways (updated) | Trains Magazine

Norfolk Southern says it will oppose transaction
trn.trains.com
Click to expand...
LOL...like that will ever clear the STB. What are they going to do, abandon Fitchburg-Mechanicville? They have the all-superior lane already. Yeah, that'll totally pass the antitrust smell test.

CSX wants something. But it's favorable alliancing, not purchase. They know they can't purchase outright. What isn't clear is why they want to give the impression of trying to. Who are they trying to stoke a favorable counteroffer from amongst other players is the question to be asking here.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
LOL...like that will ever clear the STB. What are they going to do, abandon Fitchburg-Mechanicville? They have the all-superior lane already. Yeah, that'll totally pass the antitrust smell test.

CSX wants something. But it's favorable alliancing, not purchase. They know they can't purchase outright. What isn't clear is why they want to give the impression of trying to. Who are they trying to stoke a favorable counteroffer from amongst other players is the question to be asking here.
Click to expand...

NS has written Pan Am a very strongly worded letter that they (NS) will get the STB involved if CSX and Pan Am start working more closely together. Possibly Pan Am is trying to make NS realize that they didn't know what they had until it was gone.
 
jass said:
Shutting CR at 9pm makes no sense.

The pandemic has moved peoples travel time around. Less demand at rush hour, more elsewhere.

Stopping service at 9pm means people riding into the city at 11am are going to switch to cars.
Click to expand...

Right now, most CR lines run 2 or 3 outbound trains after 9pm. (The Old Colony branches cumulatively run 4, as does the Fairmount Line.) I'm guessing that the T's aim with floating these drastic cuts is to reduce that number to 1 outbound train after 9pm per line -- probably in the 10:45-11:15 range. Compared to "No Service", they'll instead be able to say "Service Until 11pm," glossing over the 2-3 hour frequency gap.

I mean, to be clear, the whole idea of reducing services during a pandemic and recession is bonkers. The whole point of public services is to bind society together to carry us through good times and bad. Public services are not a business, and the fact that we've allowed them to become run as such is catastrophic.

This ridiculous game of brinkmanship is just another example of that insanity. I don't mean to impugn the character or intention of the individuals involved here -- I could be convinced that this strategy is indeed the best way to help the most people, given the situation at hand. But the problem is systemic, and needs to be understood in that light.
 
I called up Sean Garballey to ask about this, and he told me that he has asked the T for a number of dollars it needs to preserve current service levels and they waffled a great deal before failing to give him a number. This does not bode well.
 
Wash said:
I called up Sean Garballey to ask about this, and he told me that he has asked the T for a number of dollars it needs to preserve current service levels and they waffled a great deal before failing to give him a number. This does not bode well.
Click to expand...

Better start getting on Sean Garballey's case to advocate for more taxes + fees so we maintain service.
 
ra84970 said:
Better start getting on Sean Garballey's case to advocate for more taxes + fees so we maintain service.
Click to expand...

I've had many conversations with Rep. Garballey and can tell you right now that that would be preaching to the choir. He's already firmly in the "Raise revenues for more and better service" camp.
 
Riverside said:
Right now, most CR lines run 2 or 3 outbound trains after 9pm. (The Old Colony branches cumulatively run 4, as does the Fairmount Line.) I'm guessing that the T's aim with floating these drastic cuts is to reduce that number to 1 outbound train after 9pm per line -- probably in the 10:45-11:15 range. Compared to "No Service", they'll instead be able to say "Service Until 11pm," glossing over the 2-3 hour frequency gap.

I mean, to be clear, the whole idea of reducing services during a pandemic and recession is bonkers. The whole point of public services is to bind society together to carry us through good times and bad. Public services are not a business, and the fact that we've allowed them to become run as such is catastrophic.

This ridiculous game of brinkmanship is just another example of that insanity. I don't mean to impugn the character or intention of the individuals involved here -- I could be convinced that this strategy is indeed the best way to help the most people, given the situation at hand. But the problem is systemic, and needs to be understood in that light.
Click to expand...

But if the money isn't there, the money isn't there. Tax revenues are down for everyone. The only solution is Federal deficit spending, which may be coming in January or later, but the T can't count on that right now...
 
Wash said:
I called up Sean Garballey to ask about this, and he told me that he has asked the T for a number of dollars it needs to preserve current service levels and they waffled a great deal before failing to give him a number. This does not bode well.
Click to expand...
Agree with Riverside and Equilibria; the people at the T who had to come up with these cuts probably hate them more than anyone. 100% certain they aren’t trying to cut for the sake of cutting. I think the cageyness about the money needed to maintain service is because no one knows what the sales and gas tax revenue will look like this winter with another possible lockdown looming.

Because the state can’t borrow money forever like the feds, if a bailout isn’t forthcoming (wouldn’t bet on it), cuts have to unfortunately be made somewhere. I do think overall they did OK balancing cost cutting with equity concerns. Hopefully this is the “anchoring” offer and the state can find a few more quarters under the couch cushions to throw the T’s way. Might explain the otherwise head scratcher of Cedar Park.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
How many of those CR stations reopen? Any?
Click to expand...
Honest question: are any of those six stations justifiable anyway? They seem to have almost no ridership and exist only as legacy or political patronage. Closing them doesn't diminish the system at all from what I can tell.
 
HenryAlan said:
Honest question: are any of those six stations justifiable anyway? They seem to have almost no ridership and exist only as legacy or political patronage. Closing them doesn't diminish the system at all from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

Cedar Park...definitely. Last Blue Book it had higher ridership than Wyoming Hill or Greenwood. Not sure why that has turned on its head in the last couple years' CR counts, as it's usually been a par contributor. Might be the drag effect from Haverhill's strung-out dwell times. It's closest stop to Melrose City Hall, Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, several schools, several new TOD apartment buildings, the municipal parks at Eli Pond, and lots of local retail...checks all the boxes for vibrant surroundings. Parking is larger than Wyoming (though who knows if muni control is inducing some warfare there). 2 blocks from buses. And the stop spacing Wyoming-CP-Highlands is right in-line with the Fairmount Line for enacting the Rail Vision's plan for :15 Urban Rail frequencies to Reading and divorcing the thru-Haverhill crowding back to the Lowell Line where it belongs. By every metric we value for the Rail Vision this is a high-leverage stop that should contribute accordingly with the flip to higher frequencies (so long as they don't permanently bludgeon the multiple bus route frequencies up Main St. per the Moving Forward axe).

Without question it's the sore-thumb 'one of these is not like the other' of the cuts list. The *only* argument ever for cutting it is if current Haverhill ops are forever and streamlining the thru-495 schedule with zero Lowell Line/Wildcat augmentmentation requires further gapping out the stop spacing. But that's not a real-world plan because the Rail Vision already specs out the best of all worlds with the realignment of Haverhill back via the NH Main to clear bandwidth for the higher Reading frequencies, so high-gap stop spacing is never a metric to value here over drawing more local ridership.


The others on the cuts list have pretty much always been the usual-suspects on the cuts list, with flag-stop limited service to boot.
  • Plimptonville -- The stop simply outlived the village center that *used* to be there; it hasn't been a location per se in >75 years. The pending funded/designed double-tracking Phase III through there with 800 ft. platform extension @ Windsor Gardens will backfill access closer to the nearest 34E bus stop absorbing what little unique catchment is left.
  • Prides Crossing -- Way too close to Beverly Farms, and has a full private-owned station building that can't have its adjoining platform renovated to ADA or flipped across the street without getting ever more uselessly closer to Farms. Rockport Line needs some infrastructure speedups for RUR to hit a reliable :30 + :30 = :15 mainline churn in-tandem with Newburyport. Trimming that stop, signal improvements, full-high platforms, and (NIMBY's willing) some judicious closures of superfluous grade crossings all qualify as bolt-tighteners for schedule adherence.
  • Hastings -- The most dangerous stop on all of commuter rail, forcing patrons to loiter in the middle of a sidewalkless road with poor sightlines before boarding the train. Extreme-limited catchment because of the access constraints on the surrounding roads and no bus routes on MA 117. Too close to both adjacent stops when :15 Urban Rail is scheduled to terminate at the 128 superstation and :30 RUR to 495-land won't be enough to expand its catchment.
  • Silver Hill -- Not much better than Hastings (or to-be-displaced Kendal Green) for street accessibility. Similarly held back by lack of buses (current or future) on MA 117. Has grade separation and viable kiss-and-ride unlike Hastings + KG. Can *theoretically* be ADA'd with a paved lot/slope and 1-car ADA platform, and *theoretically* conforms to representative station spacing if 128 + Lincoln are the only adjacent stations. But catchment won't expand enough to be viable unless MA 117 has a bus route and Merriam St. gets about 1300 ft. of sidewalk. If the town really wanted to stan for this one as a spacer with some upgrade self-investment of their own I could see it being a compromise keep for Hastings going away and KG getting expedited move...but Weston convincingly doesn't want to spend that money so there's no there-there.
Obviously Cordage Park appears on the list for a different set of reasons because of the politics and ops demerits of the Plymouth Line's forked termini. See the CR General ops thread for my thoughts on a master plan refresh for what ails the Plymouth Line post-RUR. It's not a throwaway by any means...not when the so-called TOD next to the Kingston stop is looking like a wipeout in the making.

Beyond these, it's the Mishawum and Wedgemere pair (with lack of proper downtown Woburn accessibility via a missing Montvale infill) that are the sorest stuck thumbs on the map for future viability regardless of future service levels. Hyde Park on the NEC has all sorts of question marks about whether it can be rebuilt at all worth a service levels damn after NEC Track 4 comes back, or whether physical difficulty means it'll be time to let it go in favor of much-increased Fairmount Station service w/ recalibrated down-the-street bus loopage. But until Tk. 4 is joint-funded by the state and Amtrak it's status quo. That's about it in terms of existential question marks.

Other quasi-official past proposals to do things like move Waverly to a parking sink, combine Ayer/Shirley, move Ballardvale to Lowell Jct., etc. have gone over like a lead balloon and are total D.O.A. with the public. And other marginal ones have large potential to increase their catchments with minor in-situ touches (e.g. Islington platform extensions + ADA opening up accessible entrance from East St., the private apt. developer proposal to redev Riverworks into a full-time stop, etc.) so are verboten from a cuts list because of inexpensive future potential.
 
Last edited:
From the 2018 counts, here are the 20 lowest stations by total bidirectional boardings:
  • Silver Hill (11): bye
  • Plimptonville (12): bye
  • Prides Crossing (15): bye
  • Hastings (18): bye
  • Plymouth (21): not useful now; as F-Line said, good for a future downtown extension
  • River Works (27): has definite TOD potential
  • Mishawum (32): byeee
  • West Gloucester (37): not great, but it's near the end of a branch line
  • North Wilmington (58): not bad for 20 parking spots. Useful village stop that would benefit from residents-only parking expansion.
  • Newmarket (75): I'm amazed it gets any ridership in the middle of industrial hell. Might actually do well as South Bay Center access with better frequencies.
  • Greenwood (92): Village station, might benefit from better frequency once Reading is decoupled from Haverhill
  • Melrose/Cedar Park (99): I think you could make a case for combining Cedar Park and Wyoming Hill (with a trackside pathway to Emerson Street) which would be marginally closer to the downtown area, but eliminating Cedar Park outright makes no sense.
  • Beverly Farms (107): Now we're getting into the realm of stations in reasonable village centers, but lacking enough density for high ridership. Many can be improved, though.
  • Rowley (113): Same here.
  • Kendal Green (114): Makes sense as Weston's station until the 128 superstation comes about
  • Waverley (115): definite potential here with increased frequencies, especially if there's fare parity with 73+RL
  • Islington (128): definite potential with more parking and access to East Street.
  • Wachusett (132): Still new. Not sure how many supercommuters there will be post-COVID, though.
  • Wyoming Hill (138)
  • Forest Hills (142): Even with the bus terminal, I don't think it'll ever justify stopping anything but Needham trains.

    Wedgemere, incidentally, had 310 daily riders in 2018 - with 103 parking spaces. (Winchester Center had 456 riders with 237 spaces, for comparison.) It clearly serves a heavily walk-up ridership base that would be significantly inconvenienced by the extra walk or bus ride to Winchester Center, and it has 70% of WC's ridership. Even with Woburn and Tewksbury infills, it's still only a 9-stop local to Lowell. I just can't see that being a fight the MBTA would ever want to pick for a minor ops convenience.
 
Im not pro "bye". If theres so few riders, making it a flag stop doesnt really hurt.

My understanding with Mishawum is that Anderson was badly designed to only allow access from the east. Mishawum serves both directions. Upgrading Anderson is needed first.
 
From my perspective, it's not obvious to me what the benefits to closing stations are, though? What are the actual cost savings?
  • Maintenance: how much maintenance do these stations really get? I'm sure it's not non-zero, but? I mean, there's snow removal?
  • Lighting: seems like a very small savings, and potentially not even available if you need to keep the lights on for liability reasons
  • Parking: probably the biggest immediate savings -- end the contract with the "pay to park" company, although likewise lose out on any possible revenue -- again, absent snow removal, it seems like there's very little maintenance cost here
  • Operations: Okay, so you shaved 2 minutes off the train's runtime... that's not really, you know, a lot
I suppose that if you severely cut multiple stations on a line, you could justify running shorter sets with smaller crews, but... again, like, what's the point?

With the exception of Cedar Park, these proposed closures seem like a cross between "closing stations we've long wanted to close" and "sacrificing low-ridership and unadvocated stations in order to be seen to be doing something." All of which distracts from the things which will impact more people...

...like buses. As far as I can tell, there isn't actually published list of proposed route changes? Even though it looks like there is a map included in the powerpoint with exactly that information? (i.e. the list seems to exist, somewhere, internally)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top