Green Line extension Newton to Needham

They will also need to complete the work to use both tracks at Park Street for runs north of Park.
 
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.
 
I think that they got too many irons in the fire to think about this new project right now. :unsure:
 
nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
RandomWalk said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Fast 14 approach only works for replacing the span on existing abutments. Widening the ROW requires replacing at least one abutment.
 
One has to wonder whether or not this program might end up becoming another "GLX-type" one where the tracks were put down incorrectly!! :unsure:
 
IMO, they would have a real hard time touching the Greenway. To the point that it would only be realistic to do this if it was OL the whole way. And as mentioned upthread... I don't know how well that would be received.
 
jklo said:
IMO, they would have a real hard time touching the Greenway. To the point that it would only be realistic to do this if it was OL the whole way. And as mentioned upthread... I don't know how well that would be received.
Click to expand...
This was already studied by City of Newton as settled issue. The ROW has more than enough room to accommodate rail-with-trail north of the Charles. That area used to be double-track and was lush with freight sidings.

And OL the whole way??? In what way does that statement compute vis a vis hand-wringing about the trail?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
This was already studied by City of Newton as settled issue. The ROW has more than enough room to accommodate rail-with-trail north of the Charles. That area used to be double-track and was lush with freight sidings.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it wasn't feasible. Just that people like rail trails enough to want to kill touching it.
 
jklo said:
Didn't say it wasn't feasible. Just that people like rail trails enough to want to kill touching it.
Click to expand...
Again...City of Newton studied this with broad support. And the Upper Falls trail isn't the most-key cog in the trail system. That's the yet-to-be-built mile-long freight spur trail between Needham St., Newton and Kendrick St., Needham connecting to the whole Cutler Park path system. That's the one that's going to get the higher utilization in the end, and it doesn't go anywhere near the Green Line. The Upper Falls stub is basically going to act as a feeder for the greater Charles River system.

Can you please start putting some effort for a change into this lazy concern-trolling? Cite some facts, not hazy personal vibes.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Again...City of Newton studied this with broad support. And the Upper Falls trail isn't the most-key cog in the trail system. That's the yet-to-be-built mile-long freight spur trail between Needham St., Newton and Kendrick St., Needham connecting to the whole Cutler Park path system. That's the one that's going to get the higher utilization in the end, and it doesn't go anywhere near the Green Line. The Upper Falls stub is basically going to act as a feeder for the greater Charles River system.

Can you please start putting some effort for a change into this lazy concern-trolling? Cite some facts, not hazy personal vibes.
Click to expand...

It's not just vibes. I've been on the Greenway, and a parallel light rail line (while possible and desirable IMO) would change its character so profoundly that I think it would be a very tough sell. The neighborhood loves the Greenway.
 
Equilibria said:
It's not just vibes. I've been on the Greenway, and a parallel light rail line (while possible and desirable IMO) would change its character so profoundly that I think it would be a very tough sell. The neighborhood loves the Greenway.
Click to expand...
And a lot of the neighborhood LOVES having GL access. The apartments and condos built or being built along Needham Ave far outnumber the SFHs north of the track
 
If only we could have rails AND trails.

I don’t mean right up against each other. I mean creating new ROWs for one or the other so both can exist independently.

The two things shouldn’t be competing or at odds with each other.
 
jklo said:
Rail Trails in general are super popular. All I can say.
Click to expand...
Public transportation is also super popular. This doesn't need to be an either/or problem; there are countless examples of pedestrian/cycling infrastructure coexisting with a rail line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top