MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

Wedgemere and West Medford become regular stops off-peak.
Click to expand...

What's the practical impact of changing a stop from a flag stop to a full time stop?
 
jklo said:
Depends on how often nobody was there.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but then that begs the question of why trains would stop at location where no one is getting on or off. According to the T, this will "improve the passenger experience" though I'm not sure how no longer having to be visible on the platform or having to inform the conductor of your stop meaningfully improves things.
 
fatnoah said:
Obviously, but then that begs the question of why trains would stop at location where no one is getting on or off. According to the T, this will "improve the passenger experience" though I'm not sure how no longer having to be visible on the platform or having to inform the conductor of your stop meaningfully improves things.
Click to expand...
In the off-peak trains are infrequent, so if someone is rushing to make the train and makes it to the parking lot but not platform before the train gets there and it passes. They’ll have to wait up to a couple hours for another. Having the train stop either way makes it possible to catch the train last second and since it’s the off-peak there’s negligible different in journey time from stopping at the two stations. Improves the experience of the customer no longer having to be there early or bust.
 
From my experience, there aren't a lot of times when a train doesn't make a flag stop. Especially midday and early evening, there's almost always at least one person getting on or off. Better to make it a regular stop and have more predictable travel times.
 
Highwayguy said:
At Wyoming. Where standing on the platform you can see Oak Grove (snark over).

Im assuming you are referring to the new developments right on the Melrose line, but those are 95% residential and aren't really a draw for any CR commuters. Most of the walkshed is SFR on Main St, Pine Banks park and the Fells. Considering Malden Center got less than 150 riders per day pre pandemic, Im not holding my breath Oak Grove would do more than 30.
In my opinion, it’s degrading service for essentially every Haverhill line rider to serve a few dozen passengers who already have excellent bus/subway options.
Click to expand...
I was talking with a friend of mine about how Melrose prohibits the Orange Line for racist/classist reasons and how the OL should replace the two southernmost CL stops. He said that Melrose has great MBTA CL access already. I countered that the Zone 1 privileges Melrose enjoys adds ten minutes to a Haverill train… and that is also kinda racist/classist by design. I’m just wondering how that town holds on to 3 CL stops. Kinda gluttonous when other town get passed by elsewhere. Thoughts?
 
BeyondRevenue said:
I was talking with a friend of mine about how Melrose prohibits the Orange Line for racist/classist reasons and how the OL should replace the two southernmost CL stops. He said that Melrose has great MBTA CL access already. I countered that the Zone 1 privileges Melrose enjoys adds ten minutes to a Haverill train… and that is also kinda racist/classist by design. I’m just wondering how that town holds on to 3 CL stops. Kinda gluttonous when other town get passed by elsewhere. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Same with how closely spaced the Winchester stops are, before Winchester center closed. Winchester center is the only one dense enough in that town to deserve a transit stop imo.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
I countered that the Zone 1 privileges Melrose enjoys adds ten minutes to a Haverill train… and that is also kinda racist/classist by design. I’m just wondering how that town holds on to 3 CL stops. Kinda gluttonous when other town get passed by elsewhere. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

They stick around because they've been there forever and are reasonably well-used, meaning that any time they're proposed to be reduced (and the T did suggest closing Cedar Park in the pandemic closures, though F-Line for one thought that was more about a dispute over the fact that city gets the parking money rather than the T) the locals cry havoc, and the politicians listen. Needlessly antagonizing the politicians isn't generally advisable, and the level of discontent tends to be higher when you're proposing reducing service than simply not expanding it.

It doesn't really cost the T/Keolis much of anything to keep those stations. The time cost isn't hugely meaningful for a full Haverhill Line run, and is (notionally) mitigated by designating them as flag stops for at least some of the trains. And I'd guess they do enough business to cover the costs of upkeep on the quite bare-bones facilities, so it probably is mostly a "don't piss off the politicians" for no meaningful improvement. (And any local politician who suggests reducing service in their town to allow for more equitable improvements elsewhere is likely to find themselves a former local politician quite quickly.)

Also, it's Melrose. The town likes it this way. (Would have made my life so much better if the OL ran here when I was a daily commuter...this city's priorities are...odd.)
 
Wyoming Hill, the least-utilized of the 3 Melrose stops, does almost as many boardings as all seven of the pandemic-closed stops put together (Hastings + Silver Hill + Plimptonville + Prides Crossing + Mishawum + Plymouth). Cedar Park, the one they were trying to make as the 8th one closed...exceeds the other 7 put together handily.

These are well-utilized stops in dense walkable areas, with stop spacing that's just about perfect for Urban Rail service. There's no flaw here that needs to be 'fixed' with a closure. And the Rail Vision already has a solution for speeding up Haverhill run times: run it via the Lowell Line + Wildcat instead of Reading, like it used to in the old days.
 
Electrification would fix a decent chunk of the time loss from closer spaced spots.

They should reopen Mishawum though.
 
BeyondRevenue said:
I was talking with a friend of mine about how Melrose prohibits the Orange Line for racist/classist reasons
Click to expand...

If the T went to the town tomorrow and said we’ll do an OLX to Wyoming ( or Reading), Melrose would be 100% on board, no? I think its an Arlington situation where the opinions/ incentives RE rapid transit have shifted 180 degrees since the 70’s / 80’s; the towns want it (or would at least be neutral) but the T can’t / won’t deliver.

Regardless of ridership, those 3.5 Melrose stops (including Oak Grove) are brutal for everyone North of Reading.
 
Last edited:
Highwayguy said:
If the T went to the town tomorrow and said we’ll do an OLX to Wyoming ( or Reading), Melrose would be 100% on board, no? I think its an Arlington situation where the opinions/ incentives RE rapid transit have shifted 180 degrees since the 70’s / 80’s; the towns want it (or would at least be neutral) but the T can’t / won’t deliver.

Regardless of ridership, those 3.5 Melrose stops (including Oak Grove) are brutal for everyone North of Reading.
Click to expand...

Melrose, 100% on board with anything? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I think there'd be a decent base of support, and a virulent, vocal opposition. (Though we get conniption fits here when they install a stop sign, so...) I'd be curious to see, but I definitely don't agree that we're necessarily in a situation where the town would want/be neutral towards it. There's already more than a bit of consternation over the state's efforts to increase housing density here (you'd think they were building something the size of Millennium Tower, the hysteria some of these really-quite-modest developments generate), and the OL would only exacerbate that. (I wouldn't call that outright racist scaremongering like in decades past, but definitely a "the city's already too full" thing that's definitely classist in the "we made it enough to not have to live in density" kind of way.)

Oak Grove sticking around on the schedule didn't make a ton of sense to me post-shutdown, but I definitely agree with the broader point that that those stops collectively drag on the schedule in a way that's annoying for the Haverhill runs (which, of course, they weren't part of when they were opened and for a good century-plus thereafter; the Reading schedule is short enough that they're not meaningfully problematic on the Reading short-turns).
 
Highwayguy said:
If the T went to the town tomorrow and said we’ll do an OLX to Wyoming ( or Reading), Melrose would be 100% on board, no? I think its an Arlington situation where the opinions/ incentives RE rapid transit have shifted 180 degrees since the 70’s / 80’s; the towns want it (or would at least be neutral) but the T can’t / won’t deliver.

Regardless of ridership, those 3.5 Melrose stops (including Oak Grove) are brutal for everyone North of Reading.
Click to expand...

Can the right-of-way even accommodate a +1 to Wyoming Hill while still retaining Haverhill Line service through Melrose?

I imagine that of feasibility was of no concern, Melrose would be mostly in support of such a project, but I am unsure of feasibility. I’m sure someone on here knows. Thoughts?
 
bigeman312 said:
Can the right-of-way even accommodate a +1 to Wyoming Hill while still retaining Haverhill Line service through Melrose?

I imagine that of feasibility was of no concern, Melrose would be mostly in support of such a project, but I am unsure of feasibility. I’m sure someone on here knows. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but AFAIK the conventional wisdom is that Haverhill trains will be rerouted over to the Wildcat Branch if any OLX happens. That being said, that would make a partial OLX more challenging (eg any build that doesn’t go all the way to Reading).
 
Riverside said:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but AFAIK the conventional wisdom is that Haverhill trains will be rerouted over to the Wildcat Branch if any OLX happens. That being said, that would make a partial OLX more challenging (eg any build that doesn’t go all the way to Reading).
Click to expand...

That was my understanding as well. Hence why I'm questioning the feasibility of what Highwayguy suggested.
 
bigeman312 said:
Can the right-of-way even accommodate a +1 to Wyoming Hill while still retaining Haverhill Line service through Melrose?

I imagine that of feasibility was of no concern, Melrose would be mostly in support of such a project, but I am unsure of feasibility. I’m sure someone on here knows. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It would be problematic. The ROW is barely wide enough for 3 tracks, and pinches tight right after Oak Grove alongside Banks Place. There's no room for tail tracks unless you eliminated the grade crossing, which negatively impacts Orange's resiliency if you have nowhere to stuff an out-of-service consist. The egresses would be very constipated if the CR grade crossing stayed. And unless you eliminated the grade crossing you basically preclude any further Orange extension lest you need to blow up WH and start all over.

Basically, it would be hacky at best if you tried for a stub-end right before the crossing. You really need to eliminate the crossing to give everything space, and that's more expensive in the absolute and considerably more expensive when trying to preserve the CR track because then you need longer inclines for gentler FRA grades. It's probably not going to rate very well when you weigh the compromises of trying to do it cheap with the expenses of trying to do it right. Probably doesn't go on the board unless you go whole-hog to Reading.
 
Fairmount Line is at 130% of pre-COVID ridership:

Fairmount Line Ridership Reaches New All-Time High, Fairmount Ridership at 130% of pre-COVID levels in May 2023 | News | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com

They don't give actual numbers, but based on figures from previous MBTA board meetings, 130% would be around 3,500 daily boardings. That's almost five times what it was in 2012. Systemwide, CR is at about 80% of pre-COVID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top