MBTA Construction Projects

Re: T construction news

Fitchburg line would benefit from stop consolidation (Weston & Belmont). Part of a consolidation should include the extension of the trolley bus from Waverley to the new stop on Pleasant Street. I could even see that the consolidated stop would have Waverley at one of its ends and the new accessible entrance somewhere along Pleasant Street that would also be a location good for transit oriented development.

isn't the real solution for Belmont that the greenline come out from Union Square to:
California St
Porter Sq
Sherman St
Fawcett-Cambridge Park Drive
Brighton St (still in Cambridge!)
Belmont Center
Waverly
Beaver Brook

Pleasant St. is a horrible place for a station, and if Green were extended out it would make no more sense to span Center and Waverley with an intermediate than it does to consolidate them here on commuter rail. It's a break in the grid. The hillside on the conservation land is steep and forms a brick wall on that side of Pleasant; there's no access point. And all of the side streets off Waverley St. stub out at half-length because of the town DPW complex. So you end up with this geometrically-constrained "Automile" stretch of Pleasant. There's nothing you can really do with it to traffic calm because the street grid is unbroken, and the sidewalks have very little widening room. Buses wouldn't ever go here because there's nothing to serve here. If there's an east-west route instituted spanning Center and Waverley, it would almost certainly go by Waverley St. where the residential grid is intact.

In this particular case, I don't think there's a problem begging to be solved. "Automile" is probably the correct application for that stretch of Pleasant because it's a cavity in the street grid, and walkers/bikers have so little to gain from using it when Waverley St. on the other side retains the grid. Not all such speed traps are inherently bad when they're self-contained and all the transit/ped demand skews away from it. So I don't buy the TOD angle at all. It's a trojan horse to get a park-and-ride and overinflate parking revenue estimates that'll never be realized in the real world. Construction/procurement grifting, all over again. Ari destroys their argument into a smoking crater way better than I ever could, but the amount of effort it would take to turn this stretch from its natural state in life into some TOD narnia is ham-fisted and not all that high-value. Center and Waverley are where the multi-modal connections are. The Cutoff path will give the peds and bikers a far better alternative than the Pleasant sidewalk OR Waverley St. for getting between the two. There's no slab of contiguous land readily available and close enough to downtown to relocate the DPW lot and infill the grid; they make decent use of every corner of the land.

Sometimes the 2D overhead view of a slice of land convinces amateur planners that there's a problem begging to be solved when on the ground there really isn't a problem at all. That's how I'd describe Pleasant. This is its natural equilibrium. Force-fitting it otherwise is a planning compulsion, not a solution, because it bases its odds of success on pushing against the grain. That's a fool's errand. And somebody at the T and Wile E. Brownsberger's office is apparently banking on someone taking that bait so they can shovel a stupid amount of money into the absurdly expensive P&R for the enrichment of their construction buddies.

The good thing is that this plan is so flimsy it has almost zero chance of happening. The ADA requirement sets too low a bar for success for closing either stop to pass the laugh test, and all it takes is 1 stakeholder--such as McLean--to file a lawsuit under the ADA challenging the Pleasant combo stop's aggregately inferior accessibility to stop it dead. This isn't a "technically correct is the best kind of correct!" loophole where the P&R backers get what they want by bullshitting that they can build a to-spec accessible platform at Pleasant but not at either of the existing two. Take away the buses, take away the hospital walkability and there are too many flanks of worsened accessibility to survive the attack vectors on a suit that pits ADA arguments against ADA arguments and uses cost comparisons as a counterpoint.

Like I said, there's a reason why Brownsberger is the only one "brave" enough to go on-record with this. He's not smart enough to know that his mouth is being used as cover for the officials who are smart enough to know what words will be used against them in an ADA legal challenge. These people know they're riding a flimsy argument, but they don't have anything to lose by trying if they don't have to stick their necks out because they've convinced the dim-bulb local Sen. to stick his out again on their behalf. Again...because he proved so spectacularly useful to them as a human shield with the Alewife Rotary "let's take something bad and make it twice as worse!" plan.
 
Re: T construction news

^I was about to post something similar, shorter, and less eloquent. So instead, I second everything F-Line just said.

Also, I'll add that many, MANY employees of the Waverley Oaks Office Complex take public transportation to/from Waverley. It's part of the reason why I think a Warrendale/Clematis Brook station would be successful. It is also part of the reason why eliminating a Waverley Station in favor of a Pleasant Street one is a travesty. Only part of the reason, though.
 
Re: T construction news

Dudes, you're over-harshing on "Pleasant Street". It could just mean that you make the existing Waverly a double-ended platform and you put the ADA entrance 800' inbound from Waverly (roughly at 1012 Pleasant Street), which is a scrubby collection of industrial parcels across from another fine TOD entrance at 1 White Street (if you've got an ADA overpass, might as well land on both sides of the tracks)

And you've given yourselves the option of either bringing the trolley wires out to one of these points, or, yeah, ADA-ing Waverly itself somehow.

Same goes for Belmont Center. if the CR platform extends for 800' Outbound, you are basically at Pleasant Street too and can put your ADA end of Belmont Center there (a little "in" from the existing Clark St ped overpass)
 
Re: T construction news

Dudes, you're over-harshing on "Pleasant Street". It could just mean that you make the existing Waverly a double-ended platform and you put the ADA entrance 800' inbound from Waverly (roughly at 1012 Pleasant Street), which is a scrubby collection of industrial parcels across from another fine TOD entrance at 1 White Street (if you've got an ADA overpass, might as well land on both sides of the tracks)

And you've given yourselves the option of either bringing the trolley wires out to one of these points, or, yeah, ADA-ing Waverly itself somehow.

Same goes for Belmont Center. if the CR platform extends for 800' Outbound, you are basically back at Pleasant Street again and can put your ADA end of Belmont Center there (a little "in" from the existing Clark St ped overpass)

Dude, as someone who frequently uses Waverley I can assure you I am not "over-harshing" on Pleasant St. It is a terribly inferior location.
 
Re: T construction news

Dude, as someone who frequently uses Waverley I can assure I am not "over-harshing" on Pleasant St. It is a terribly inferior location.
So you are not open to the idea that maybe access can be improved for less $ by double-ending the platform, than blowing up Waverley?
 
Re: T construction news

So you are not open to the idea that maybe access can be improved for less $ by double-ending the platform, than blowing up Waverley?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that means.

:confused:
 
Re: T construction news

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that means.

:confused:

I think Arlington's saying that if you split the baby, put a platform on Pleasant Street, with one entrance on the Waverley end and on on the Center end, access could be improved at a lower price compared the preferred build.

He hasn't convinced me though...
 
Re: T construction news

The Belmontonian says:
No specific location has been advanced for a new station, yet in the past, officials have pointed to the location of the depot for North America Central School Bus at 1000 Pleasant St., within a few hundred feet from Star Market.
Which basically means the "new" station could simply be another entrance to a lengthened Waverley at the location(s) I linked, above (where White St "points to" Pleasant St)

If the assumption is that any new ADA station is going to have high (level boarding) platforms that run 800', one direction to run from the current Waverly pit is inbound 800 feet to White @ Pleasant, which we may call a "Pleasant Street Station" but really it is a Pleasant Street headhouse on Waverley
 
Re: T construction news

I think Arlington's saying that if you split the baby, put a platform on Pleasant Street, with one entrance on the Waverley end and on on the Center end, access could be improved at a lower price compared the preferred build.

He hasn't convinced me though...
I'm workin' here. ;-)

Mostly i'm saying take a breath. Then re-read F-Line's post, which is the side for keeping both stations but does say that whichever station gets the ADA treatment is going to be an 800' full-high and then think about where that might go.

It probably isn't exactly 400' on either side of the existing station entrances, so that the egress points remain exactly where they are today.

Brownsberger is saying there's one 800-footer and the other two could close. The value of this depends on how buses are re-routed and what new density Belmont (and McLean?) want to pile nearby. If there's no change in land use or the network or the grid (as F-Line points out), I agree, Pleasant St is awful.

F-Line is saying there are perfectly fine 800-footer options at one or other (and only one is required). I'm saying that an 800 foot platform "in" from Waverly "lands" at White@Pleasant and an 800 foot platform "out" from Belmont Center lands at Clark@Pleasant, both potential places (though Clark'd pretty much assume everything is on bridgework over the tracks)

Back to that Belmontonian: a "station" on Pleasant St might just turn out to be another end on a lengthened Waverley station.
 
Re: T construction news

I understand now! And, no, that would either not be cheaper or not be ADA compliant. The ADA does not allow for a non-accessible entrance at one end if there is no accessible entrance at that end.

A similar problem arose on the Somerville Community Path extension.

So, you would need to either make the Waverley entrance accessible (thereby not saving any money), or get rid of the Waverley entrance (thereby moving to a far inferior location).

EDIT: To be clear, if there is an entrance to Trapelo, then there must be an accessible entrance to Trapelo, or else it is not ADA compliant, even if there is an accessible entrance to Pleasant.
 
Re: T construction news

1) If you're extending Belmont's platforms to the full 800 ft. regulation, it's extending east towards Blanchard on the ridiculously wide tangent section...not further along the curve. I mentioned in the prior post re: Ari's cost estimates that the curve itself is no constraint so it wouldn't be a Yawkey-complexity situation if you did retain platform on the curve. But in pure dollars and sense, they'd never do that when such luxurious room exists on the tangent end.

Most likely what you're going to see is the 800' full-highs done fully tangent, and the section of low platforms around the curve repurposed as part of the ramp egresses to that side of the Square. Slight skew east in platform length, but access would still be centered same as ever right by the overpass.


2) At Waverley, platform extensions are most likely to stay centered on the Square. And that's because there's no room for the Fitchburg Cutoff path to stay at track level, so it must go up and down crossing the middle of the square at the current station exit crosswalks. Unless you're in a mood to spend a kajillion dollars widening out both the Trapelo and Lexington overpasses of the station.

So...the hillside conveniently dies out quickly past each end of the station retaining wall. Cutoff path is thus going to ramp gently up to Trapelo next to the car wash: https://goo.gl/maps/MsBouTWp5bk. Extend the outbound platform +200 ft. in that direction and you conveniently get to where that hillside has lowered to track level. Wrap off the full-high to switch back up the bike path incline, and there's your ADA egress. Hillside would need to be remanicured closer to Trapelo for the path construction regardless, so the main station expense is whether/how much the retaining wall needs to be extended (at gradually lowering height) to hold back the bike path incline.

Opposite side of outbound is almost a mirror image: https://goo.gl/maps/yfonhdGpnMt. After crossing Lexington on crosswalk, Fitchburg Cutoff path would resume next to parking lot of that small residential cluster. Only here the hillside fizzes out even faster than it does on the carwash end. So +150 ft. platform extension, some retaining wall construction to hold back the bike path incline grading, then the platform egress is the bike path itself.

Inbound side would mirror this setup, just the egresses would be station-only and not shared with the bike path. Lexington egress next to the Gulf station, Trapelo egress next to Waverley Insurance.

They can keep the mid-Square stairs verbatim in this setup since both Trapelo and Lexington would have ramps thanks to the bike path trajectory and inbound-side's perfunctory mirroring of said outbound-side bike path ramps.


^All^ of this easy to EIS because that hillside was all 1952 human creation to create the RR cut for the grade crossing elimination. Cost is strictly how much the state is willing to pay for the retaining walls. But if the Cutoff path is happening at all, station mods or no station mods, the outbound hillside is going to be reinforced all the same.



^^There is no relationship whatsoever--on either station mod--to Pleasant. Or anything that puts you closer to Pleasant or opens up Pleasant to development. There is no relevance to Pleasant here. That's why Pleasant is irrelevant.

And, yes, the legal requirement is "ADA one of them", not both. So the odds overwhelmingly favor Center being the one to get the retrofits and not Waverley. Center would get the Cutoff path extended to it first, Center is cheaper because of how ridiculously wide the ROW is, and Center has an easier time ramping down. They'll want to do Waverley eventually...and it may block further extension of the path if they aren't willing to fund that mutually-serving retaining wall work. But legal pressure is off if they ADA Belmont Ctr., and timetable for Waverley unbounded. So Pleasant is doubly, triply irrelevant.

As manufactured crises go, this is about as lame as they get.
 
Re: T construction news

^ He brings up a lot of good points, but fumbles a bit with the ADA of his proposed design (which granted, is practically a napkin sketch in his terms), where the stairs from A street to the inbound platform need to have an accompanying ramp. This biggest issue I have is with the 'professional services' fee of 23%, which should be no higher than 10% at the max. I also agree with the ridiculousness of the platform and stair/ramp costs for the full build option, and the redundancy of the elevator.

Edit:

Wait what? The plan is to carve out the embankment building a new retaining wall, and then elevate the ramps on their own expensive structure?

szVbFAO.png
 
Re: T construction news

Four switchbacks. Four. Really, now. Who did they pay eight times the going rate to design this garbage...Rube Goldberg?
 
Re: T construction news

An elevator won't work?

Right? I find it insulting to handicapped people when people propose ramps like this. I get that outdoor elevators have some maintenance issues and shorter life spans, but it just makes sense and in the winter you don't have to salt & shovel the literally hundreds of feet of ramp.
 
Re: T construction news

While I understand the grievance, we were also complaining about the MBTA policy of elevators for GLX. From my perspective, the additional costs is gouging, but it remains true that adding elevators adds a lot costs and many were just complaining about that. The one area I can see that is a fair complaint is it can be designed with less switchbacks. Else, if the choice is this or elevators, we can't complain about both.
 
Re: T construction news

While I understand the grievance, we were also complaining about the MBTA policy of elevators for GLX. From my perspective, the additional costs is gouging, but it remains true that adding elevators adds a lot costs and many were just complaining about that. The one area I can see that is a fair complaint is it can be designed with less switchbacks. Else, if the choice is this or elevators, we can't complain about both.

Given how quickly that hillside levels out into a rump little mound 200 ft. past the end of the platforms, ONE switchback is all that's needed from an easterly extension of the platforms. It's the same number of footsteps to Trapelo despite originating further east, but it rides up the top of the retaining wall extension in a straight line instead of requiring a giant metal erector set to be built into the sky that's twice as dangerous when coated in ice. If the Cutoff path is coming...it is riding up the outbound hillside to street level. Was there not a soul on this project team who thought of any construction synergies there?
 

Back
Top