Green Line extension Newton to Needham

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
376
Reaction score
536
Loop the C trains back at Kenmore for plenty of capacity.
Transforming the C into a forced-transfer shuttle would go over like a lead balloon, politically. That said, the Kenmore Loop is absolutely a useful piece of infrastructure for keeping headways even, and for adding capacity on both the C and D. I'd be perfectly fine with Kenmore short turn runs from the branches mixed in with run-throughs in preference to cutting one of them to a permanent short-turn. (I'd imagine that they're going to have to revive that particular lost art with the Brattle Loop for the GLX.)
 

RandomWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
869
They will also need to complete the work to use both tracks at Park Street for runs north of Park.
 

nick

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
41
Reaction score
7
Would there be enough room, generally, for a rail-with-trail OL extension?

AB consensus is to reuse the ROW through Cutler Park as a path. Wonderful idea. But Why not continue through West Roxbury and Roslindale to connect directly with the Southwest Corridor at Forest Hills? Aerials and property maps indicate a consistent 80'-100' ROW between Forest Hills and VFW Parkway (where folks here suggest a terminus should be located), which should be wide enough for a parallel high-quality grade-separated shared-use path, even at station locations. The only pinch point that I can see is between Bellevue Street and Lagrange Street, but the solution there seems pretty obvious: create a deck above a station with the path serving as station access, ala Davis Square. Aside from connecting to Needham via Cutler Park Reservation, this could connect to a redesigned VFW Parkway to Dedham.
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
211
I think that they got too many irons in the fire to think about this new project right now. :unsure:
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,742
Reaction score
894
Would there be enough room, generally, for a rail-with-trail OL extension?

AB consensus is to reuse the ROW through Cutler Park as a path. Wonderful idea. But Why not continue through West Roxbury and Roslindale to connect directly with the Southwest Corridor at Forest Hills? Aerials and property maps indicate a consistent 80'-100' ROW between Forest Hills and VFW Parkway (where folks here suggest a terminus should be located), which should be wide enough for a parallel high-quality grade-separated shared-use path, even at station locations. The only pinch point that I can see is between Bellevue Street and Lagrange Street, but the solution there seems pretty obvious: create a deck above a station with the path serving as station access, ala Davis Square. Aside from connecting to Needham via Cutler Park Reservation, this could connect to a redesigned VFW Parkway to Dedham.
While the ROW is indeed mostly 80' wide, that's still a *tight* 80' when it comes to how close it is to these homes. In order to fit this all in there the earth retaining walls would need to be cut back and every single bridge, road or rail, replaced. This is all possible, but it makes the prospect of adding a bike path MUCH more expensive, almost prohibitively so.
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
359
Reaction score
149
As the GLX project winds down, the MBTA should use the same team to take on this project. Lets assume that the T can get some Fed bux and they can put this together in 5-6 yrs. That would be perfect timing for GL GJ, getting that done around the same time as the Pike.
 

RandomWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
869
The T should learn from the GLX that the backspan approach to expanding the ROW under the bridges is a boondoggle. Instead, they should use some combination of the Fast 14 and other ABP techniques.
 

ceo

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
428
Reaction score
308
The T should learn from the GLX that the backspan approach to expanding the ROW under the bridges is a boondoggle. Instead, they should use some combination of the Fast 14 and other ABP techniques.
The Fast 14 approach only works for replacing the span on existing abutments. Widening the ROW requires replacing at least one abutment.
 

Top