Teban54
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2021
- Messages
- 865
- Reaction score
- 2,189
I just revisited the discussion of Newtonville's proposed 400' platforms, as part of building an index of the excellent discussions on the forum on my website. I decided to write to MBTA Public Engagement to voice out the disagreements with 400' platforms, and I've quoted my email below. While I did not mention this forum or specific comments here, most of my reply was based on highly informative comments like the above, which I acknowledge and appreciate here.
I have recently watched the public recordings of the Newton stations accessibility project, and I appreciate the work for the project and its outreach. I would like to raise a concern regarding the current concepts of Newtonville station: in particular, I think the decision to shorten the platforms to 400 ft from the full 800 ft warrants a closer examination or at least a stronger justification.
I believe 400 ft platforms will create serious issues for both current and future operations. Today, the diesel trains running on the Framingham/Worcester line typically run sets with at least 5 cars (often much more), which means not all doors can open at the redesigned 400' Newtonville platform. This worsens passenger experience significantly as they rush to find cars with open doors - often limited to those with a conductor - when alighting. More crucially, this also increases dwell times at the station substantially, reducing speed and reliability of trains, and may even negate the time savings from high-level platforms.
It was mentioned during the meeting that regional rail and electrification were part of the consideration, assuming trains are run more frequently with shorter sets. However, I think there are two major flaws with this justification. For one, there has been no official commitment to implement Rail Vision by the MBTA, no concrete timeline for implementation, and especially no timeline for electrifying the Framingham/Worcester Line. Even the most aggressive official proposals to date only expect EMUs to start running by 2027 and only on the Fairmount Line, and since the other high-priority targets are the Providence/Stoughton Line and Newburyport/Rockport Line, there is nowhere near enough time to procure enough fleet for the Framingham/Worcester Line and electrify the ROW. Given that a rough preliminary estimate of 3 years for Newtonville station's planning and construction was mentioned during the meeting, current operations with diesel trains should play a big part in station design, with the expectation that the rebuilt station will probably not be electrified by the time it opens in around 2027 (and the timeline for electrification is highly uncertain).
For another, 400' platforms may still be insufficient even in the long term, under regional rail and EMU operations. Most bids to the MBTA's previous Request for Proposal (RFP) for EMUs were for 3-car trains and 6-car trains. Given that the Framingham/Worcester Line is one of the most heavily utilized lines in the system, it appears very unlikely that the line will be dominated with 3-car trains; in fact, 6-car and even 9-car trains will likely be the majority. However, 400' platforms cannot accommodate 6-car EMU trains. Thus, if the plan is to have trainsets that are longer than 400' skip the station (as mentioned during the meeting), it will result in very little service at Newtonville, which massively undermines the improvements with bidirectional platforms and is undesirable for an urban station.
I understand that the primary reason given for shortening the platforms is to reduce construction costs. However, based on what I have been told, including from professional transit planners, the cost difference between 400' and 800' platforms is insignificant and not a major part of the costs, especially in comparison to station accessibility and hiring consultants. The concept with a center island platform appears especially short-sighted, as it precludes extension of the platform to full 800' without even more track shifts in the future.
Overall, I believe the decision to shorten the new platforms to 400' is unwise in both the short and long terms for marginal immediate gains. Any minor cost savings from the shortened platforms will likely be negated in the future when the need to lengthen the platforms inevitably arises, incurring much greater future costs. If the station absolutely needs to be built with 400' platforms for any reason, I would encourage the MBTA to provide a more detailed justification; moreover, I strongly recommend being in favor of the concept with side platforms in this scenario, such that they can be extended to full-length platforms in the future much more easily.
I believe 400 ft platforms will create serious issues for both current and future operations. Today, the diesel trains running on the Framingham/Worcester line typically run sets with at least 5 cars (often much more), which means not all doors can open at the redesigned 400' Newtonville platform. This worsens passenger experience significantly as they rush to find cars with open doors - often limited to those with a conductor - when alighting. More crucially, this also increases dwell times at the station substantially, reducing speed and reliability of trains, and may even negate the time savings from high-level platforms.
It was mentioned during the meeting that regional rail and electrification were part of the consideration, assuming trains are run more frequently with shorter sets. However, I think there are two major flaws with this justification. For one, there has been no official commitment to implement Rail Vision by the MBTA, no concrete timeline for implementation, and especially no timeline for electrifying the Framingham/Worcester Line. Even the most aggressive official proposals to date only expect EMUs to start running by 2027 and only on the Fairmount Line, and since the other high-priority targets are the Providence/Stoughton Line and Newburyport/Rockport Line, there is nowhere near enough time to procure enough fleet for the Framingham/Worcester Line and electrify the ROW. Given that a rough preliminary estimate of 3 years for Newtonville station's planning and construction was mentioned during the meeting, current operations with diesel trains should play a big part in station design, with the expectation that the rebuilt station will probably not be electrified by the time it opens in around 2027 (and the timeline for electrification is highly uncertain).
For another, 400' platforms may still be insufficient even in the long term, under regional rail and EMU operations. Most bids to the MBTA's previous Request for Proposal (RFP) for EMUs were for 3-car trains and 6-car trains. Given that the Framingham/Worcester Line is one of the most heavily utilized lines in the system, it appears very unlikely that the line will be dominated with 3-car trains; in fact, 6-car and even 9-car trains will likely be the majority. However, 400' platforms cannot accommodate 6-car EMU trains. Thus, if the plan is to have trainsets that are longer than 400' skip the station (as mentioned during the meeting), it will result in very little service at Newtonville, which massively undermines the improvements with bidirectional platforms and is undesirable for an urban station.
I understand that the primary reason given for shortening the platforms is to reduce construction costs. However, based on what I have been told, including from professional transit planners, the cost difference between 400' and 800' platforms is insignificant and not a major part of the costs, especially in comparison to station accessibility and hiring consultants. The concept with a center island platform appears especially short-sighted, as it precludes extension of the platform to full 800' without even more track shifts in the future.
Overall, I believe the decision to shorten the new platforms to 400' is unwise in both the short and long terms for marginal immediate gains. Any minor cost savings from the shortened platforms will likely be negated in the future when the need to lengthen the platforms inevitably arises, incurring much greater future costs. If the station absolutely needs to be built with 400' platforms for any reason, I would encourage the MBTA to provide a more detailed justification; moreover, I strongly recommend being in favor of the concept with side platforms in this scenario, such that they can be extended to full-length platforms in the future much more easily.
