Infill MBTA stations

Doesn't look like wetlands to me. If contaminated, I wonder why they don't clean it up so it can be built upon. The wetlands are mostly west of Route 16.
 
I'm not justifying it, but the MBTA's recent strategy seems to have been to space stations farther apart. This decreases travel time and makes the stations more like commuter rail stations (nodes where parking or buses will provide the "last mile" of travel) rather than traditional subway stations (where passengers walk to their ultimate destination). The T's focus has been on extending lines to bring in new passengers rather than redirect existing passengers to new, expensive infill stations.

Alewife is a good example of this -- there's very little that is walkable from there except some large apartment buildings which were not the main justification for the station; the parking garage and proximity to the end of Route 2 seem to be the primary draw.

I think a Red Line station near Neponset Circle would be a good fit -- there's a lot of office-park development nearby, as well as a large residential neighborhood. But the T has recently added a JFK/UMass platform on the Braintree branch and probably is not interested in adding another stop. They have not been happy campers regarding the Assembly Square Orange Line station.

Another prime candidate for infill stations would be the Fairmount commuter line, which serves low-income neighborhoods in Dorchester and Mattapan with only two stations. Conversion of this line to lower-fare rapid transit with another half dozen stops would seem to be a no-brainer, but the T has been very reluctant to give up the rail capability of this line, which was used as an alternate route during the years of Orange Line construction alongside the Amtrak main line and still handles some Franklin Line trains.
 
MBTA's recent strategy
Click to expand...

If by recent you mean 1979, then yes. The more cutting-edge MBTA projects (Green Line in Somerville, Urban Ring) are far more geared toward non-driving urbanites.

Oh...and...er, welcome. Sorry for sniping on your first post.
 
There is an active plan to add 4 or 5 more stops to the Fairmount line.
 
Will the fare on the Indigo Line be the same as the subway or commuter rail?

I wish that instead they were creating 2 tracks for the commuter rail(no stops) and two tracks for light or heavy rail, conected to the subway at south station
 
I doubt that the right-of-way is wide enough for that without a serious amount of land-taking.
 
I agree.

I took a look at the corridor on Google maps at close range, and there appears to be only enough room for the two existing tracks.

There is one other way to fit two additional tracks: constuct an elevated two track structure above the center of the existing two track line. The elevated tracks would be for heavy rail transit powered by third rail, and the ground level tracks would serve existing non-transit rail needs.

That may sound expensive, but no more expensive than what several other large cities are investing in elevated rail systems, and would only be a fraction of what tunneling would cost.
 
The Fairmont got approval for 4 new stations when the community wants 5. The fare will still be a commuter rail fare with no transfer at South Station.

NIMBY's in Medford have the luxury of playing games while people in Dorchester would put that expansion money to good use.
 
Yeah I love the "we don't want rail, it's going to increase traffic" argument...
 
Scott said:
. The fare will still be a commuter rail fare with no transfer at South Station.
Click to expand...

By the time these stations open, I hope the T has brought the CharlieCard to commuter rail. Then there can be free transfers. The current Uphams Corner and Morton Street stations are in Zone 1A ($1.70, same as a subway fare).
 
FrankG said:
Is the issue of quantity of subway stations relative to urban density a well-studied matter? ....I ask because this is a little different from the topic that belmont and others are discussing above (a topic that I do also find interesting) - adding stations to spur growth in relatively undeveloped areas.
Click to expand...

I think the questions are related though. In the case of a Kendall/Central intermediate station, the presence of vacant lots at both Kendall and Central would suggest a new station is not necessary to spur growth. And since from a travel time prespective you would always be costing people on the train more time than you'd be saving those using the new station, the only argument for building a station would be to encourage development.

On the Fairmount question, improving service there is better than nothing, but the existing and planned stations are not where one would want them to be (at historic nodes). Improved rapid transit service to this part of Boston is arguably the most critical transit need we have, so it's unfortunate we'll end up with a bandaid solution through Fairmount rather than something ambitious like a rapid transit line along Warren and Blue Hill Ave that would serve the most people.
 
I think the issue of travel time may be more complex - for example, Kendall-area workers commuting from the Alewife direction would save time if they normally have to backtrack to the Kendall station. Similarly, many folks might prefer a few extra minutes on the subway to a similar amount of time walking outside, if it means they get in from the cold, or don't have to carry their groceries as far, and so on.

This is why I ask if this is a topic of formal study - how would transportation planners determine the value of these tradeoffs?
 
FrankG said:
I think the issue of travel time may be more complex - for example, Kendall-area workers commuting from the Alewife direction would save time if they normally have to backtrack to the Kendall station. Similarly, many folks might prefer a few extra minutes on the subway to a similar amount of time walking outside, if it means they get in from the cold, or don't have to carry their groceries as far, and so on.

This is why I ask if this is a topic of formal study - how would transportation planners determine the value of these tradeoffs?
Click to expand...

Planners do treat time spent walking (or transfering) differently than on-vehicle time. But in the Kendall-Central example, look at this rough calculation:

Alewife weekday boardings = 9567
Davis weekday boardings = 10891
Porter weekday boardings = 8089
Harvard weekday boardings = 20212
Central weekday boardings = 11736

Some of these boardings are destined for stations north of Kendall. The percentage drops off significantly once you get to Porter however (because after Porter people would no longer be boarding to travel to Harvar). But for the purposes of this exercise, let's assume conservatively that 80% of all passengers boarding at these stations is traveling to Kendall or beyond. Therefore:

80% X (A+D+P+H+C) = 48396

Let's assume that everyone living or working in the area of an intermediate station is already using the subway (in other words, people living at Windsor and Main Street aren't going to drive to Downtown Crossing because they don't feel like walking 8 minutes to Kendall).

A total of 23,000 people get off at Central and Kendall each day. Given the concentration of development at both Central and Kendall as opposed to any midpoint location, why don't we say that the intermediate station would be the preferred destination for something less than 1/3 of these people, or 5000 people.

For the 5000 people getting off at the new station, each will save between 0 minutes and 4 minutes (since it would take at most 8 minutes to walk from Central or Kendall to a destination at the intermediate station). If these destinations are evenly distributed along the Mass/Main corridor, that would be an average of 2 minutes walking time saved, or a total of 10,000 minutes saved for the people getting off at the new station.

But the 48,000 people traveling to Kendall or beyond are going to lose somewhere between 60 and 90 seconds with the additional stop. Let's split the difference and call it (48,000 X 75 seconds) = 60,000 minutes added for people traveling beyond the new station.

Now, there are many imperfections in this hasty analysis, and as I said, you would value the 10,000 minutes of saved walking time differently than the 60,000 minutes of added riding time, but not by the factor of 6 necessary to make it a wash from a travel time perspective.

A question was asked earlier why someone living midpoint between Harvard and Porter should be treated to second class service (bus) when the subway runs through there already. But why should we treat the time of the tens of thousands of people already on board the trains as worth less than those whose business happens to be in a midpoint location?
 
Thanks very much for the comprehensive analysis, belmont!

Given the time you've invested in this, I assume all the numbers are correct. It seems like the right time for an additional station would be when the 6:1 ratio decreases by some amount. I imagine it would have to take into account the time it would take to plan and construct a new station (so that it's ready when the demand is there), and policy issues of whether it would encourage additional transit use. There are still plenty of cars and parking lots in the area...

As for your question about value of time, I think it goes back to the issue I mentioned earlier - once you're on the subway, a few minutes matter less than walking outside in the cold carrying things, and so on. (To exactly what degree is harder to quantify, of course.)
 
FrankG said:
Given the time you've invested in this, I assume all the numbers are correct.
Click to expand...

Never a good assumption Frank! Although hopefully this rough analysis illustrates the relative scale of the winners and losers in locating a new infill station.
 
Incidentally, where did you get the ridership numbers for the red line?
 
Convenience and time saved aside, any discussion about infill stations really begins and ends with $$$. There is no way you could possibly justify spending big bucks to save people a few minutes travel time. In order for the construction of a new station to be a viable topic politically, you have to show that it'll add new riders, reduce traffic, and/or spur economic development. Showing that it'll be convenient is nice icing-on-the-cake, but not a viable point onto itself.

That's not to say it's not an interesting topic in an academic sense.
 
The numbers are a little stale and are from here: http://www.bostonmpo.org/bostonmpo/resources/CMS/Entrances.pdf

(I also made an error in my above calculations which when corrected brings the time savings for the intermediate station people up to 20,000 minutes--should have been an average of 4 minutes saved, not 2--but the analysis still comes down against an intermediate station).

underground is right that the new station issue comes down to money. While I think too much emphasis is placed on attracting new riders versus improving travel time for existing ones, if people want to advocate for a new station in this funding environment, they had best be able to demonstrate that the station will at least accomplish one of these two goals.
 
belmont square said:
There are still 10 nodal subway stations where almost no vacant parcels have been filled in the past decade or more: Wollaston, Fields Corner, Andrew, Forest Hills, Jackson, Roxbury Crossing, Sullivan, Beachmont, Orient Heights, Maverick.
Click to expand...

In assessing the lack of development around these stations it is critical to note who owns the vacant and/or underdeveloped parcels. The Orange Line stations along the southwest corridor have acres of land trapped in government hands.

Jackson Square: It has taken over a decade of lobbying various state agencies to get the land around Jackson Square rezoned and made available for redevelopment.
Roxbury Crossing: The BRA recently gave away a large parcel at Roxbury Crossing for a religious use, and a parcel directly across from the station on Tremont Street is out to RFP. Acres more along Columbus Avenue are landbanked as parking lots for Roxbury Community College.
Forest Hills: Acres of MBTA land are out to bid for redevelopment, and the city has been running a broad community planning process.

The MBTA is not a real estate development company, and it should never have been left in charge of so much land around the stations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Banker & Tradesman - Feb 23, 2009
T Trouble
Agency Delays Deadline On Forest Hills Bidding

By Paul McMorrow

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

The T's troubled parcel in Jamaica Plain.The MBTA is struggling to unload more than 7.5 acres of prime land in Jamaica Plain, as high costs, uncertain finances and the specter of a costly environmental cleanup have potential developers passing on the offering.

The T put the land out to bid in late October, hoping the sale would fetch millions. The parcels lie along Washington Street and Hyde Park Avenue, abutting the Orange Line?s terminus at Forest Hills Station. They?re leftovers from a series of 1970s land takings that brought the subway to Roxbury and Jamaica Plain. One large parcel is currently used for commuter parking, while the rest have sat vacant for decades.

Change may not come to the neighborhood anytime soon. Transit Realty Associates (TRA), the firm that handles the T?s real estate development deals, recently extended the deadline for would-be developers to submit bids. Bids were scheduled to be due last week, but now may be submitted until March 4 ? the date by which the T had hoped to have designated a winning developer. TRA also significantly lowered development fees tied to the parcels? build-out.

MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo cast the concessions as a way ?to generate more interest by prospective bidders, particularly in this difficult real estate and finance market.?


?God Knows? What?s There

Unusually tough terms on environmental concerns complicate matters further. Terms in the ITB allow for environmental investigation after the T designates a developer ? a normal order of events. ?It?s like don?t ask, don?t tell,? said one Beacon Hill insider. ?They?d just as soon leave it alone. God knows what?s underground anything they own.?

It?s unusual, however, that the T is insisting developers forfeit all their deposits if they back out after finding some environmental disaster.

?It?s a lot of money ? deposits, engineering studies, architects,? said a development source. ?It?s a serious investment. And it?s not just environmental. You also don?t know what the ground is like. Is it fill? You don?t know. There?s a plan dictated by the BRA, and you don?t even know if it?s feasible.?

?You wouldn?t buy an $80,000 car without taking it for a test drive,? said City Councilor John Tobin, who represents the neighborhood. ?How do they expect to get top price for that? If you think anybody is going to bid for something that expensive and isn?t allowed to do their due diligence, you?ve got to have rocks in your head.?

A number of local developers and investors pulled copies of the T?s Invitation to Bid (ITB). They include Urban Capital Partners, Trinity Financial, Boston Development, Urban Edge, The Community Builders, Duxbury Capital, JPI, JHE Realty and National Development.

One of three parcels the MBTA is trying to sell near Forest Hills station in Jamaica Plain.However, among that group, there seems to be little interest in the T?s Forest Hills offering.

?We?re not planning on bidding. It?s not the right time for us now,? said Noah Maslan of Urban Edge. The CDC is currently stuck in the mud at the other end of Jamaica Plain. It?s a development partner at Jackson Square, a $250-million mixed-use project slated to rise up around an Orange Line station. Last week, the Jackson Square partnership asked the city for a six-month permit extension while it locates financing.

?A lot of projects throughout the city have been delayed, and we?re not immune to that.?

Urban Edge, National Development and Boston Development are certainly out of the running, while Trinity would appear to have its hands full with its bid to build 750,000 square feet of retail, residential and parking above the Massachusetts Turnpike in the Back Bay. And JPI?s $65-million, 272-unit project at Chelsea Station has been stalled for months over financing concerns.

TRA has set a bid floor of just over $2 million for three parcels totaling 4.4 acres. Another 3-acre parcel would be transferred on an 85-year lease, with sliding base rents bottoming out at $40,000 a year. Sale and lease documents would also be subject to development fees ranging from $35 to $55 per square foot beyond certain massing thresholds, depending on use.

When it extended the bidding deadline, TRA also cut the highest development fees by $15 per square foot. But one development source recently joked that the T would have to pay developers $15 a square foot to make the math work on any development on the T?s parcels.

The cost of a required 240-space garage alone would run between $4 million and $7 million. And, at the end of the public process, city planners took a prime residential site, lowered its height and changed its use to commercial. The current site use plan has it at 163,000 square feet of office space, with 42,000 square feet of retail.

?Where are you going to find tenants for that space?? the development source asked. ?And if you can find them, what are they going to pay??

Housing, which is expected to meet affordability levels upwards of 50 percent, is similarly challenged ? especially with a tough neighborhood battle over height awaiting any bidder.

?I just can?t see how the numbers will work without a huge public subsidy,? the development source said. ?And if you need a subsidy, Jackson is in line ahead of you.? This person invoked the T?s failed bid to sell land around Mattapan Station: ?They ran a public process and published development guidelines that didn?t seem to fit with economic realities, and they got no takers.?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top