MBTA Construction Projects

Re: T construction news

Updates on some projects that haven't been getting as much news with GC and GLX dominating the conversation.

Ruggles:

Second platform is finally starting to get under way. At 90% design now; will hit 100% and be advertised this summer, NTP in the fall, completion in "winter 2018". This one had been sitting since the TIGER grant came through in 2014; I suspect it got moved up the priority queue because of the proposed new commuter rail schedules which eliminated Ruggles stops from Providence trains (many of which run on non-platform Track 2 inbound). The new platform will allow all commuter rail trains to stop without ugly crossover moves.

Wollaston:
60% design has been released, and it looks pretty good. The weird double-headhouse design has been replaced with a single headhouse, and an elevator from the crossunder directly to the platform has been added. Funding is supposedly identified and being finalized; 100% design should be reached this summer. This will be the last Red Line station to be made accessible; only Bowdoin and Boylston (permanent ADA exemptions), Hynes (renovations to be funded by air rights development), and Symphony (plans made but lower on the queue) will remain inaccessible on the subway lines.

Back Bay:
The Dartmouth Street Underpass is closing on the 6th until the end of the year. This will allow for repairs to the tunnel, as well as Copley Place renovations.

North Quincy:
Bids are in for mixed-use TOD on the parking lot.

Quincy Center:
The closed-in-2012 garage is to be torn down and replaced. I'll just quote what I wrote on Wikipedia: "Three structures would be built: a new garage with the same number of spaces, a "justice center" with a new Quincy District Court, and an office building for the National Park Service and its bus shuttle to Adams National Historical Park. The garage would have street-level retail locations. The busways would be relocated to the Burgin Parkway side and a roof added; the kiss-and-ride dropoff lane would remain on the Hancock Street side. The project is estimated to cost $52 million; the city proposes to use $10 million in state money approved in 2014, $20 million in federal grants, and $22 million from a private partner who would operate the facility for several decades." This should be a nice change for what was a very dead garage right in the middle of a recovering downtown.

Braintree and Quincy Adams
Repairs are underway to the garages, which suffered the same sort of water damage as Quincy Center but are a decade younger. The T is ultimately seeking $56 million to rebuild the garages, and presumably make them less ugly dead zones for development.

Winchester Center:
15% plans are complete for a full renovation of the station. Full-length high-level platforms, gauntlet track for freights to pass, elevators for accessibility. Will cost $26M to built; they're hoping to start in 2017. This will knock off one of the top three non-accessible stations on the commuter rail system.
 
Re: T construction news

The tempered glass railing panels at Assembly unfortunately appear to be failing/experiencing the spontaneous breakage phenomenon. =(

https://twitter.com/TransitMark/status/715337557509292032

Ce1jrkgUAAA3Yew.jpg

Ce1jrknUkAEJ6tW.jpg

Ce1jrknUAAE3Lr1.jpg

Ce1jrmcUUAAlZ3M.jpg
 
Re: T construction news

This does not bode well for the future of the brand new government center stop
 
Re: T construction news

So long as the glass isn't from the same batch or even better if it is from a different manufacturer it should be fine.
 
Re: T construction news

Work has resumed full force on Wachusett station with the coming of spring:


For those who haven't been following the clown show at Ayer where a property owner has been illegally blocking access to the station for years, there's a spot of good news. On April 6th, the town selectmen voted to start the eminent domain process. It goes to a town vote in May; they need a 2/3 majority but I suspect it'll be a landslide because of how many residents are fed up with poor station access.
 
Re: T construction news

Thanks, EGE, for the updates. I find the Winchester news (from March) particularly interesting.
 
Re: T construction news

Good. Maybe the land acquisition can get them starting the ball rolling on a prelim design for rebuild of Ayer station, which they had no means of doing so long as this land ownership dispute was dragging on. The swelling freight traffic into the adjacent intermodal and autorack yards, and necessity for track crossings to reach that very narrow platform, makes it one of the system's most dangerous stops. Maybe the single most dangerous after Hastings. There's urgent need to rebuild that as a full-high island platform (by necessity flanked on both sides by freight passing tracks) with proper up-and-over access. It's either that or start counting down the days till some poor sap gets clipped on the platform to his demise by an 80-car Norfolk Southern train.
 
Re: T construction news

Thanks, EGE, for the updates. I find the Winchester news (from March) particularly interesting.

Surprised they chose a gauntlet since those are maintenance-intensive, but that does fix the glitch on one of the system's most immovable objects vs. level boarding: those platforms up on that viaduct. Getting Winch level leaves Wedgemere and Mishawum as the only Lowell Line stations that are physically impossible to tart up with reconfiguration as full-highs. And since those are just about the two most expendable (and overdue to be expended) stations on the whole system, a fix they can easily justify with stop re-spacing.
 
Re: T construction news

F-Line -- Mishawum?

i thought that when they built Anderson that was just surplus property -- although better sited for things such as the Middlesex County Courthouse
 
Re: T construction news

F-Line -- Mishawum?

i thought that when they built Anderson that was just surplus property -- although better sited for things such as the Middlesex County Courthouse

It persists only used for a handful of reverse commutes where accessibility to Anderson is compromised by the disconnect in the street grid west of the tracks. Actually, from its 1984 opening to Anderson's 2004 opening it was exactly the same: limited-schedule reverse commutes. The surrounding mixed-use TOD on that end of Industrial Parkway by the Mall never took off because the industrial zoning at that highway-convenient location was far too valuable to flip for commercial real estate. So it never ended up getting promoted to full-time stop. It was also somewhat illegally downgraded from ADA to non-ADA a couple years ago when the mini-high's retractable platform edges were salvaged to outfit another station, so it's currently sitting in violation of accessibility regs (albeit only about 15 grand in parts-and-labor from being able to regain accessibility). Street grid doesn't even reach the area by the courthouse from there. Have to take the 134 bus out of Winchester Ctr. to reach it at all on public transit.

The funded MassDOT project to rebuild the long-gone New Boston St. bridge over the tracks a tick north of Anderson knocks it down a further peg by making the west-side streets finally accessible to the Anderson lots, station kiss-and-ride, and Logan Express. That eliminates the only remaining non-redundant commuter purpose Mishawum still served. The remainders are just building the missing west entrance to Anderson up-and-over the tracks so the neighborhood along Merrimac St. and Route 38 finally have walk-up access there, and extending the 355 bus to terminate at Anderson instead of Mishawum. Then they're better off just closing it altogether because what microscopic ridership it gets in the Blue Book is going to completely evaporate and make it the system-low in boardings. And it's going to need SGR work on its crumbling platform surface sooner or later, which just isn't worth even a meager expenditure.
 
Re: T construction news

It persists only used for a handful of reverse commutes where accessibility to Anderson is compromised by the disconnect in the street grid west of the tracks. .....

The funded MassDOT project to rebuild the long-gone New Boston St. bridge over the tracks a tick north of Anderson knocks it down a further peg by making the west-side streets finally accessible to the Anderson lots, station kiss-and-ride, and Logan Express. That eliminates the only remaining non-redundant commuter purpose Mishawum still served. The remainders are just building the missing west entrance to Anderson up-and-over the tracks so the neighborhood along Merrimac St. and Route 38 finally have walk-up access there, and extending the 355 bus to terminate at Anderson instead of Mishawum. Then they're better off just closing it altogether because what microscopic ridership it gets in the Blue Book is going to completely evaporate and make it the system-low in boardings. And it's going to need SGR work on its crumbling platform surface sooner or later, which just isn't worth even a meager expenditure.

F-Line -- Thanks its been several decades since I got off at Mishawum and when Anderson opened I thought that the land around the old station would be sold or leased

The failure to connect Anderson to the roads to the West always was particularly perplexing -- it was almost as if the DOT highway and the T folks didn't share a common boss

This one was almost on par with the failure to integrate the Blue Line T into the rebuilt Logan -- which finally thanks to the growth in Terminal E may be done by a pedestrian extension instead of a re-route of the Blue Line as it should have been
 
Re: T construction news

Mishawum was the full-service 128 park-and-ride stop until Anderson came around - check out the 2000 schedule. It had a big lot that was shared with Logan Express; the Logan Express building was still there till they demolished it in 2014 for the Dave and Busters. I believe the 355 was discontinued in the 2012 service cuts; for some reason it never got extended to Anderson to serve as a useful park-and-ride run to midline businesses.

Mishawum does seem like a plausible future stop - there's enough retail and some residential nearby that's not walkable from Anderson that it might be worthwhile as a conventional-service stop ten years down the line when you've got real local/express service patterns on the line. Especially if you can thread a ped path under 128 to get better access to Olympia Ave, and make crossing the street to Woburn Mall less painful. I'd say it's worth keeping the bare minimum service around for a while.
 
Re: T construction news

It hasn't drawn any tangible residential walkup in 30 years after multiple attempts at promoting the station. Another 30 years isn't going to show anything different. Mishawum Rd. is an unfriendly walk, and the sidewalk grid in the adjacent neighborhood along School St. is very incomplete. Anderson, if they completed the west entrance, taps a much larger residential density pocket via Merrimac St. and upper Main St. with a much more complete sidewalk grid and much easier would-be station access, requiring simply a crosswalk at the Merrimac/New Boston intersection and crossing of a much lower-volume 2-lane road vs. the intersections around Mishawum Rd. and Industrial Pkwy. Finish Anderson and tart up the Mishawum schedule and the result is going to be much the same: Anderson grabs nearly all demand, Mishawum draws too little to be sustainable on a full schedule or justify the repair bills for basic upkeep.

If the TOD had come together as well as originally envisioned, maybe the story would've been different. But Woburn City Council spiked a bunch of the planned developments because of over-density concerns, and the 200+ unit apartment complex that was approved fell through and is now kaput. This is all it's ever going to be: one adjacent office building, 3 adjacent chain hotels, the utterly generic mall, a sprinkling of midsize big boxes, and the industrial park that's doubling down on truck warehouses instead of ceding its territory to retail. Barely a quarter of what TOD the T thought it was going to be getting around that stop a decade ago when it sank money into the last station revitalization. North end of Presidential Way next to Anderson is where the mixed-use demand has shifted: Raytheon, Randstad, Target, more hotels, and lots of open parcels left to go (including on New Boston St. when it's reconnected).


Keeping it is doubly problematic if anyone has aims on adding a real downtown Woburn-serving intermediate at Montvale Ave. or Salem St. Those sitings cannibalize whatever is left of Mishawum's native demand that Anderson's west entrance doesn't swallow. Downtown Woburn hasn't had a walk-up stop since the Woburn Branch was abandoned in '81, so it's badly needed. But Fairmount-level stop spacing with 3 stops in 2 miles isn't going to work with Woburn's middling density, and the Lowell Line schedule has to keep moving to avoid toilet-clogging the Downeaster. It's effectively a binary choice: hold onto Mishawum too dearly attempting yet another reboot where every prior one failed and never get a chance to build that higher-demand infill...or rationalize 3 decades of failure and (now) redundancy by mercifully cutting bait.
 
Re: T construction news

Mishawum was the full-service 128 park-and-ride stop until Anderson came around - check out the 2000 schedule. It had a big lot that was shared with Logan Express; the Logan Express building was still there till they demolished it in 2014 for the Dave and Busters. I believe the 355 was discontinued in the 2012 service cuts; for some reason it never got extended to Anderson to serve as a useful park-and-ride run to midline businesses.

Mishawum does seem like a plausible future stop - there's enough retail and some residential nearby that's not walkable from Anderson that it might be worthwhile as a conventional-service stop ten years down the line when you've got real local/express service patterns on the line. Especially if you can thread a ped path under 128 to get better access to Olympia Ave, and make crossing the street to Woburn Mall less painful. I'd say it's worth keeping the bare minimum service around for a while.

Correct, Mishawum was a full service station with a parking lot that filled early. The 1997 MBTA blue book claimed 714 daily inbound boardings at Mishawum but only 205 parking spaces for commuters. The intent was to fully close it when the much larger Anderson opened. This partial article from 2001 explains why the reverse-commute service was saved, basically low-income workers at the hotels and the Mall that would have been left without a way to get to work:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2001/06/04/story7.html

The MBTA 355 bus was in practice route 352 (Burlington-Boston) buses running in service in the reverse direction of peak (the 352 runs only in the peak direction, inbound AM outbound PM). They weren't going to make any change to the route that would delay getting to the 352 departures on time, and the route was discontinued with the 2012 cuts because there still was an added cost/travel time to run the buses in service to Mishawum that was not justified by the low ridership to service the stop.
 
Re: T construction news

Globe article today on having to tear up and replace the platforms at the relatively new Salem station: the platforms exceeded the cross-slope limit under ADA.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...ain-station/vZ0HvOUtFtLw3Bb6dpGWbM/story.html

(ADA requirements are something to bear in mind when designing bridges as well. For example, a sidewalk which rises one foot vertically every 12 horizontal feet requires a five foot level landing area every 30 feet.)
 
Re: T construction news

Globe article today on having to tear up and replace the platforms at the relatively new Salem station: the platforms exceeded the cross-slope limit under ADA.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...ain-station/vZ0HvOUtFtLw3Bb6dpGWbM/story.html

(ADA requirements are something to bear in mind when designing bridges as well. For example, a sidewalk which rises one foot vertically every 12 horizontal feet requires a five foot level landing area every 30 feet.)

Nice that the bullshit "mitigation" suburban car-giveaway projects they used as barely-plausible cover to excuse the GLX delays are going about as smoothly as the namesake. Has that garage managed to outpace its Beverly counterpart's whopping 30% utilization yet? :rolleyes:
 
Re: T construction news

Nice that the bullshit "mitigation" suburban car-giveaway projects they used as barely-plausible cover to excuse the GLX delays are going about as smoothly as the namesake. Has that garage managed to outpace its Beverly counterpart's whopping 30% utilization yet? :rolleyes:

Salem is more popular

The [nearby municipal] lot has 121 spaces, meaning utilization during this time period was 12%. On an average day, 107 parking spaces were empty at the lot.

For comparison, the MBTA garage utilization in FY15 was 57% and in FY16 YTD [through Jan 2016] is 76%. The City’s surface lot at the MBTA has had an average utilization of 29% since it re-opened on October 16, 2015.

Future Demand
The utilization rates for the MBTA garage and the City lot at the MBTA means there are typically 171 empty spaces on average in the garage and 47 empty spaces on average in the City lot at the MBTA. This combined capacity of 218 empty spaces is more than sufficient to meet the parking needs of the 90
employees of the Probate Court after it re-opens. This lot and garage, as well as the thousands of other available off-street spaces downtown, are closer to the MBTA, downtown businesses, and courts than the Universal Steel lot.
http://www.buildingsalem.com/wp-content/uploads/02-01-2016-parking-utilization-memo1.pdf
 
Re: T construction news

Globe article today on having to tear up and replace the platforms at the relatively new Salem station: the platforms exceeded the cross-slope limit under ADA.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...ain-station/vZ0HvOUtFtLw3Bb6dpGWbM/story.html

(ADA requirements are something to bear in mind when designing bridges as well. For example, a sidewalk which rises one foot vertically every 12 horizontal feet requires a five foot level landing area every 30 feet.)

As a civil engineer who not only designs wheelchair ramps and sidewalks for a living, but often supervises the construction of them, it infuriates me that something like thins happens yet again. All it takes to make sure that the platforms are ADA/AAB compliant is for someone to use a $150 digital level and check the forms before the concrete is placed.

Yes, The T is off the hook for the cost, but it speaks to the greater problem of no one (contractor's representative or state inspector) checking ahead of time to correct the error before the construction was completed.
 
Re: T construction news

Globe article today on having to tear up and replace the platforms at the relatively new Salem station: the platforms exceeded the cross-slope limit under ADA.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...ain-station/vZ0HvOUtFtLw3Bb6dpGWbM/story.html

(ADA requirements are something to bear in mind when designing bridges as well. For example, a sidewalk which rises one foot vertically every 12 horizontal feet requires a five foot level landing area every 30 feet.)

Stellar -- by how much?

These one size fits all with no margin requirements created by unelected Federal Bureaucrats are a large part of why a a large amd growing segment of the population now Hates the Federal Government
 

Back
Top