MBTA Construction Projects

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

Can someone hire F-Line to be a mental patient at Bridgewater State Hospital.

^^Fixed the job title for you.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Re: T construction news

This project has begun. Fencing is up in the Shopping Concourse.

Note that this contract will build a new pair of elevators between the northbound Red Line and northbound Orange Line using space in the old Filenes Burnham Building that was cleared for the MBTA as part of the reconstruction of that building. It will also include moving the faregates at the northbound Orange Line platform to accomodate the elevator entrance. Elevators from the soutbound Orange to the south and northbound Red Line and from the soutbound Red Line to the northbound Orange Line will be part of a future "phase-II" project.

 

[Scalziand]

Re: T construction news

Worcester's schedule is capped because the small yard in the Union Station parking lot is too small already and needs one 2 to 2-1/2 times the size to absorb schedule increases...or the schedules never increase. They need to go fishing for scarce land within 1-2 miles of Union Station on the various diverging CSX and P&W lines.

I've been silently cursing WRTA for taking the giant rail adjacent parcel they did for the new bus depot+ garage, instead of leaving it for some industry that needs rail access, like expanded rail yards, or an expanded MBTA layover in this case.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

I've been silently cursing WRTA for taking the giant rail adjacent parcel they did for the new bus depot+ garage, instead of leaving it for some industry that needs rail access, like expanded rail yards, or an expanded MBTA layover in this case.

They might have to look at the city landfill on the P&W Providence main 2+ miles from the station to find a spot that's not imminently being filled by new development, too awkwardly shaped, and/or too close to residential or the river. Nobody's down there except for the P&W intermodal yard and the city water treatment plant, because they've only very recently capped the last of the dump acreage. Running distance from Union Station isn't terrible. Few layovers are right adjacent to the last stop, with 0.5 to 1.5 miles being about the norm and 2 to 2.5 being a tolerable upper bound. Definite setback, though, for not picking up land within 4-6 blocks of the station in all those years when real estate near downtown was still abundantly available and cheap. Boom times around downtown last 3-5 years have gobbled it all up, and it's now moving at a market rate comparable to the rest of MA. Southside needs this.



RE: Haverhill...this was the "Alternative 1" layover from the killed Plaistow extension that was situated on the Haverhill side of the border: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailt...ents/plaistow_public_mtg_02242015.pdf#page=31. Parcel is just grasslands across the tracks from a warehouse. They would have to redesign it so the tracks point the opposite direction towards Haverhill as last station instead of Plaistow. And they'd have to redo that driveway to stay the hell away from the state line. Towns of Atkinson and Plaistow will probably file suit in a nanosecond, but it's a very weak hand on jurisdiction made weaker by the lack of abutter impacts they can cite with the strong tree/river buffering at this location. Relocating out of Bradford is still an environmental justice priority, so who's going to come up with the purely not-sexy capital costs for what's basically an SGR project by any other name? Ever since Plaistow collapsed...nobody. Another year, same set of news stories in the Eagle Tribune about how emissions readings are coming out too high on the residential streets abutting Bradford and Haverhill pols asking why 20 years of this crap hasn't moved anything forward.


Unsexy stuff...why is it so hard to sell plain-English schedule improvements or, to beleaguered Haverhillians, quality-of-life improvements from doing these very necessary capital projects?

 

[WormtownNative]

Re: T construction news

They might have to look at the city landfill on the P&W Providence main 2+ miles from the station to find a spot that's not imminently being filled by new development, too awkwardly shaped, and/or too close to residential or the river. Nobody's down there except for the P&W intermodal yard and the city water treatment plant, because they've only very recently capped the last of the dump acreage. Running distance from Union Station isn't terrible. Few layovers are right adjacent to the last stop, with 0.5 to 1.5 miles being about the norm and 2 to 2.5 being a tolerable upper bound. Definite setback, though, for not picking up land within 4-6 blocks of the station in all those years when real estate near downtown was still abundantly available and cheap. Boom times around downtown last 3-5 years have gobbled it all up, and it's now moving at a market rate comparable to the rest of MA. Southside needs this.

What about the yard next to 290 up on the Gardner Branch? Granted, you'd have to change ends because of the split at Union Station, but Google Maps has it at about 1.4 miles or so.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

What about the yard next to 290 up on the Gardner Branch? Granted, you'd have to change ends because of the split at Union Station, but Google Maps has it at about 1.4 miles or so.

Change ends...that's the whole problem. Many lines do exactly that because layover's some distance behind the last stop (see: Middleboro, Newburyport, Franklin, Needham, Bradford, Pawtucket). But the end change gets slipped in on the platform itself inside the normal time it takes for the conductors to sweep the train to make sure it's clear of passengers and left-behind items. Can't do that at Worcester. Requires moving straight forward from platform onto the P&W tracks after the post-alight seating check, then stopping for 10 mins along Southbridge St. middle of the tracks to do their thing, then heading north to Barbers Yard. And do the same reverse on or under the viaduct on way back to the platform.

That's not going to work for a line as busy as Worcester. Minimum time between layover and platform would end up too long for some densely-packed rush hour slots and put A.M. peak dispatching under excess stress during the densest cattle corral. No such stress running from the dump...straight off the platform to layover, straight off layover to platform. Despite the meh running distance that's a lot faster.

 

[Scalziand]

Re: T construction news

They might have to look at the city landfill on the P&W Providence main 2+ miles from the station to find a spot that's not imminently being filled by new development, too awkwardly shaped, and/or too close to residential or the river. Nobody's down there except for the P&W intermodal yard and the city water treatment plant, because they've only very recently capped the last of the dump acreage. Running distance from Union Station isn't terrible. Few layovers are right adjacent to the last stop, with 0.5 to 1.5 miles being about the norm and 2 to 2.5 being a tolerable upper bound. Definite setback, though, for not picking up land within 4-6 blocks of the station in all those years when real estate near downtown was still abundantly available and cheap. Boom times around downtown last 3-5 years have gobbled it all up, and it's now moving at a market rate comparable to the rest of MA. Southside needs this.

Are you talking about any plot in particular? It looks like there would be plenty of room where the scrapyard currently is between the landfill and the treatment plant is.
Putting the layover down there would make it very tempting to +1 at the park and ride lot at the 90/146/20 interchange.

 

[WormtownNative]

Re: T construction news

I forgot how much of a time sink changing ends was.....

Are you talking about any plot in particular? It looks like there would be plenty of room where the scrapyard currently is between the landfill and the treatment plant is.
Putting the layover down there would make it very tempting to +1 at the park and ride lot at the 90/146/20 interchange.

Not a bad idea either

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

Are you talking about any plot in particular? It looks like there would be plenty of room where the scrapyard currently is between the landfill and the treatment plant is.
Putting the layover down there would make it very tempting to +1 at the park and ride lot at the 90/146/20 interchange.

Right here: https://goo.gl/maps/BQ2QTVfiX5E2. North end of the landfill, opposite the tracks from the P&W autorack yard and south of the property line for Intransit Container, Inc. Note that the big warehouse off Blackstone River Rd. opposite Intransit was demolished this past year and is being redeveloped, so won't be on that site.

Long and narrow strip needed. See Kingston layover for generic comparison.

• 1200-1400 ft. x 200 ft. strip of land, stub-ended.
• For a mainline it would start with more tracks than branchline Kingston: 6 layups with power hookups for the trainsets, +1 unpowered work storage track that can be upgraded into a +1 layup later (i.e. Wachusett's configuration).
  • Maybe for Worcester you hedge on caution by buffing out unbuilt space for an 8th slot...but that's the paranoia-level limit for Union Station. Remember, plenty of trains are reversing on-platform immediately back to Boston and Worcester will have healthier/more-balanced reverse-commute and off-peak schedules than most. Layover's primarily for rush-hour surges and overnights.
• Transformer shed for the power hookup, employee break room, small employee parking for the conductors who commute to work at the end of the line.
• General 'scratch space' along the perimeter fence for staging work crap like tie/rail piles, etc.

Not talking very much land. Southernmost extent probably wouldn't even pass the Foodliner building much less stretch as far as where the autoracks are stored. P&W has expressed some interest in the dump to bank itself more linear track space for the autoracks, so might be a good tag-team opportunity. Can't exactly build much taller than that on a freshly-capped landfill that's still self-compacting.


There is no way you're getting a P&R station here, though. There's absolutely no street connection smack in the middle of the dump. The small water treatment plant driveway is the only access to Greenwood St. or Route 20...too small and constipated to handle the volumes from Pike/146/20, and too many wetlands abutting the tracks by the treatment plant to try to play station siting games nearer to the tollbooths. Next point north at McKeon Rd. off 146 doesn't have any access to I-290 from the Auburn direction of the 290/146 interchange, so it offers very little value or load diversion when all roads are pointing to Union Station. And there's no TOD hook or anything down by the dump that's going to steal focus from Union Station as the center of the universe and make it conceptually attractive to chew paper studying this.

 

[whighlander]

Re: T construction news

Right here: https://goo.gl/maps/BQ2QTVfiX5E2. North end of the landfill, opposite the tracks from the P&W autorack yard and south of the property line for Intransit Container, Inc. Note that the big warehouse off Blackstone River Rd. opposite Intransit was demolished this past year and is being redeveloped, so won't be on that site.

Long and narrow strip needed. See Kingston layover for generic comparison.

• 1200-1400 ft. x 200 ft. strip of land, stub-ended.
• For a mainline it would start with more tracks than branchline Kingston: 6 layups with power hookups for the trainsets, +1 unpowered work storage track that can be upgraded into a +1 layup later (i.e. Wachusett's configuration).
  • Maybe for Worcester you hedge on caution by buffing out unbuilt space for an 8th slot...but that's the paranoia-level limit for Union Station. Remember, plenty of trains are reversing on-platform immediately back to Boston and Worcester will have healthier/more-balanced reverse-commute and off-peak schedules than most. Layover's primarily for rush-hour surges and overnights.
• Transformer shed for the power hookup, employee break room, small employee parking for the conductors who commute to work at the end of the line.
• General 'scratch space' along the perimeter fence for staging work crap like tie/rail piles, etc.

Not talking very much land. Southernmost extent probably wouldn't even pass the Foodliner building much less stretch as far as where the autoracks are stored. P&W has expressed some interest in the dump to bank itself more linear track space for the autoracks, so might be a good tag-team opportunity. Can't exactly build much taller than that on a freshly-capped landfill that's still self-compacting.


There is no way you're getting a P&R station here, though. There's absolutely no street connection smack in the middle of the dump. The small water treatment plant driveway is the only access to Greenwood St. or Route 20...too small and constipated to handle the volumes from Pike/146/20, and too many wetlands abutting the tracks by the treatment plant to try to play station siting games nearer to the tollbooths. Next point north at McKeon Rd. off 146 doesn't have any access to I-290 from the Auburn direction of the 290/146 interchange, so it offers very little value or load diversion when all roads are pointing to Union Station. And there's no TOD hook or anything down by the dump that's going to steal focus from Union Station as the center of the universe and make it conceptually attractive to chew paper studying this.

F-Line -- what about the Toll booth area

Eventually -- 5 or so years after everyone gets use to the new tolling -- people will start to reevaluate all the land the Turnpike consumes because of the toll booths

Build some modern interchanges and lots of land will suddenly be available for re-use

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

F-Line -- what about the Toll booth area

Eventually -- 5 or so years after everyone gets use to the new tolling -- people will start to reevaluate all the land the Turnpike consumes because of the toll booths

Build some modern interchanges and lots of land will suddenly be available for re-use

I...just...explained...that, dude who never ever reads before hitting reply.

Wetlands along river and narrow space between tracks and water treatment plant outflow canal make platform placement near the Pike or 20 overpasses a no-go, and feasible driveway access down to track level is extremely poor because toll ramps are 15-20 ft. up a steep embankment. Nearest feasible platform location is north abutting the dump where road access is virtually nonexistent.


In the event there's ever Providence-Worcester commuter rail along the P&W main, the nearest intermediate stop to Worcester Union is going to be MA 146 Exit 9 in Millbury next to the mall in the existing sand pit. Way out of range for any Worcester Line +1's.

 

[The EGE]

Re: T construction news

Lot of interesting MBTA bid solicitations coming up. Some we've discussed here, some we haven't.

• Rockport Yard improvements (10/2016): Some overnight plug-ins to reduce idling and so on. Useful eat-your-peas stuff, but a major downgrade from the full-high platform and covered layover once planned.
• Wollaston station rebuild (10/2016): The last heavy rail station (save permanent-exemption Bowdoin) to get ADA'd. Real nice looking plan, and a milestone for the MBTA.
• Mansfield station upgrades (10/2016): Can't find much info on this. Looks like parking lot drainage fixes, replacement mini-highs, and so on. Not the full-highs with center passing track we need, though.
• Blue Hill Avenue station (11/2016): Finally going to start construction on this long-delayed infill, now that the abutters have mostly shut up. Should open in 2019.
• North Station drawbridge (12/2016): $75M contract. Not sure if this is the first drawbridge, or both.
• Orange Line Test Track at Wellington Yard (12/2016), Wellington Maintenance Facility (2/2017), and Red Line Test Track - Cabot Yard (2/2017): The test tracks and yard upgrades needed for the new cars.
• Winchester station rebuild (12/2016): Long-needed ADA rebuild for one of the busiest non-accessible CR stations left on the system.
• Gloucester Draw (12/2016): Replacement of an old and unreliable drawbridge with a modern span.
• Ruggles station improvements (1/2017): Second CR platform and repairs to the existing station. This one's been waiting on Northeastern's construction project, I believe.
• Silverline Gateway Phase 2 (3/2017): New CR station at Mystic Mall, and Silver Line station at the current CR station location.

 

[mass88]

Re: T construction news

It would be fantastic if they could include an underground walkway at Wollaston which would allow people to easily, and safely cross Newport Ave.

 

[The EGE]

Re: T construction news

Newport is a bit of a drag strip - too wide lanes, too few crosswalks - but it's not so bad as to justify a pedestrian tunnel. The lobby isn't deep enough to support a ped tunnel without some additional undercutting; that's both costly and liable to increase the flooding problem that the renovation is supposed to mitigate. A tunnel would need additional security, and an accessible ramp on the west side of the road; you're talking in the range of $10M additional cost.

The 60% design plans show a sidewalk bump-out next to the station to accommodate the ramp width. That drops the 12-foot lanes by a substantial amount, right next to the traffic light. Paint the crosswalks better, maybe raise them slightly, and that should be enough traffic calming to make the crossing a lot safer. The solution here is to make things better for pedestrians, not to abdicate the road to cars.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

• Rockport Yard improvements (10/2016): Some overnight plug-ins to reduce idling and so on. Useful eat-your-peas stuff, but a major downgrade from the full-high platform and covered layover once planned.

After 15 years of trying, this is all the BANANAs of Rockport would allow them to do. Sure, there's a fumes-spewing layover right downtown, but can't mitigate that...because concern-trolling. Can't move it down the street away from downtown where there's nothing but trees and some hermit living in the woods with a makeshift auto junkyard on his property...because concern-trolling. Can't add 1 stinking extra track berth to knock out the overnight equipment deadheads from Somerville that wake up the neighborhood. Can't reshape the driveway around the Little League field to get rid of the dangerous unprotected grade crossing. Can't do full-highs. Can't re-stripe the parking lot. Can't give the historic freight house a fresh coat of paint and integrate it with its surroundings.

All of this has been offered to them with umpteen plan revisions...and they're so terrorized by change they'd rather have their current shitty terminal forever. These people are hopeless.

• Wollaston station rebuild (10/2016): The last heavy rail station (save permanent-exemption Bowdoin) to get ADA'd. Real nice looking plan, and a milestone for the MBTA.

Still grinds my gears that the plan doesn't even attempt to carve out space for a second commuter rail track...at the same time the state is having dog-and-pony show presentations about the South Coast FAIL "Middleboro Alternative". Consider:

• ROW through Wollaston station for 1 CR x 2 RL tracks + the Red island platform: 80 ft. wide wall-to-wall (incl. at the entrances).
• ROW through North Quincy station for 2 CR x 2 RL tracks + the Red island platform: 80 ft. wide fence-to-fence.
• N. Quincy island platform for ~7000 daily boardings: 25 ft. wide even.
• Wollaston island platform for ~4650 daily boardings: 35 ft. wide in center, tapering to 25 ft. wide at ends.

Now...why did no one ever think to put 2 and 2 together here? That platform is way too wide for the load it carries. Re-shaping it to an even 25 ft. by cutting back the bulge and cramming the inbound berth as close up to the parking lot-side fence as possible serves up all the room to double-track CR through here without any touches to the Newport Ave. retaining wall or the to-be-ADA'd street-level entrance. Weekend shutdowns and a few temp bridge plate installations while they do surgery to the platform edges and realign track, but given that they already are budgeting for a major structural refurb of the whole station would that have been so much costlier an add?

I get that City of Quincy doesn't have a dog in any commuter rail fights because Red is all that matters for their own needs, but during all the years where this ADA'ing was stalled in design somebody should've been paying more attention than this. Doing this ADA job with the verbatim platform slab just prohibits there ever being possibility of knocking out another 1-1/4 miles of single-tracking in Quincy, because why should the city ever support the station getting gutted and disrupted twice in a short span for major reconstruction?

Failing that...at least some spokesflak willing to give an explanation as to why that is engineering-infeasible instead of Board Meeting attendees trying to pretend there isn't a big elephant in the room when the PowerPoint update on Wollaston design segues right into a PowerPoint update on the SCR M'boro Alternative plowing right through here.

• Mansfield station upgrades (10/2016): Can't find much info on this. Looks like parking lot drainage fixes, replacement mini-highs, and so on. Not the full-highs with center passing track we need, though.

None of the Providence Line platforms in MA can be done up as full-highs without Amtrak's cooperation, because they're the track maintainers who have to throw down the passing tracks and switches. That was why the Mass Architectural Board didn't quibble with Sharon only getting mini-highs when it was under ADA deadline, why the new repairs to the Canton Jct. ped overpass didn't trigger any level boarding requirement there, why repairs to the pile of rust that is South Attleboro's stairs won't trigger it there, and why this Mansfield parking job isn't triggering anything more than in-situ platform repairs. Both sides have to march lockstep on design for the final-configuration stations and do some varying share of lockstep co-funding. Even raising quad-track Attleboro in-place requires just enough Amtrak cooperation to install a single freight crossover so the wide-clearance CSX daily to Middleboro can back on/off Attleboro Jct. away from the inbound platform.

The final platform configurations Amtrak and the T agreed to 6 years ago for the NEC Improvements Master Plan are going to have to change anyway with the new traffic modeling information available via the NEC FUTURE studies. For reasons unknown they specced Sharon, Mansfield, and 128 to only be 3-track stops and Canton Jct. to remain only 2 tracks on the NEC side...while every stop Attleboro-Wickford + Hyde Park were going to be New Haven Line-style quad-trackers w/ side platforms. That makes no sense given traffic density and number of max-speed overtakes that take place in MA, the extreme congestion between Canton and Readville, and fact that 128 station was designed out-of-box to be quad-track/twin-island by just slapping down new side tracks.

Next Master Plan revision's going to have to spec Mansfield and Sharon to have Attleboro-clone double center passers, 128 to use all 4 tracks of native island platform capacity, and Canton's NEC side to have a slower-speed center passer (luxurious room before the viaduct if 1 parking row gets sacrificed) so Amtrak is never bottled up by a stopped CR local. I guess another reason why Mass Architectural Board's not in a position to hold them to the toothiest ADA standard for these near-term repairs.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: T construction news

• Rockport Yard improvements (10/2016): Some overnight plug-ins to reduce idling and so on. Useful eat-your-peas stuff, but a major downgrade from the full-high platform and covered layover once planned.
• Gloucester Draw (12/2016): Replacement of an old and unreliable drawbridge with a modern span.

These will be happening concurrently, I believe. But, obviously, there's potentially two different contractors. Drawbridge work also includes creation of a full interlocking with power switch at CP Wilson. I hope to God they plan on removing the damn stop posts for outbound trains at Washington St in Gloucester, but I'm not sure on that one.

• Silverline Gateway Phase 2 (3/2017): New CR station at Mystic Mall, and Silver Line station at the current CR station location.

I'm surprised this wasn't already bid out, but that would explain the lack of any work on that front. Hopefully it will still be completed at the same time as Phase I. Phase I is very far along, but I suppose the new station is primarily a matter of plugging together your prefab station platform segments, so that should be quick work.

• Winchester station rebuild (12/2016): Long-needed ADA rebuild for one of the busiest non-accessible CR stations left on the system.

I didn't realize the plans for this were fully drafted. Anyone have renders, charts, etc?

 

[The EGE]

Re: T construction news

No way that SL Gateway Phase II will be completed along with Phase I. Pending the buses, Phase I should be going into operation sometime in Q2 or Q3 of 2017.

If Phase II isn't getting bid till March, we're looking at an NTP absolutely no earlier than May. If they push it, the CR platform could probably be finished during 2017. However, I don't think they can do much on the SL station until the CR station is moved, and then it's probably another few months of construction before you're ready to stop buses, so I'm guessing early 2018 before the project is functionally complete.

Winchester information has been trickling out. I keep seeing news articles about the local pols getting updates, but no presentations have been made public yet. The last I've seen with technical specs was a news item from January. 724-foot platforms (shorter than the MBTA's usual specs, but still enough to fully platform 8 cars with one door on a ninth), fully high-level. Probably a gauntlet track for freight service. Elevators and rebuilt ramps to to the platforms. New interlocking south of the station to replace the old Woburn Branch interlocking.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

Winchester information has been trickling out. I keep seeing news articles about the local pols getting updates, but no presentations have been made public yet. The last I've seen with technical specs was a news item from January. 724-foot platforms (shorter than the MBTA's usual specs, but still enough to fully platform 8 cars with one door on a ninth), fully high-level. Probably a gauntlet track for freight service. Elevators and rebuilt ramps to to the platforms. New interlocking south of the station to replace the old Woburn Branch interlocking.

This is what Town of Winchester has for the station project as of the December 2015 15% design release: https://www.winchester.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1605. Not sure if that's up-to-the-minute current design, but it's got all the renders starting on p.20.

The big add in addition to general station accessibility is a ped overpass to the other side of the rotary. Very beneficial because those crosswalks are dangerous and unimprovable within the tight confines of the rotary.

The 75 ft. shorter platform is a fire code thing. If I had to guess, it's probably because 800-footers wouldn't leave enough room atop the viaduct to put in those emergency swing gates at each end of the platform with short ramps down to the trackbed. Can't evacuate the platforms onto the trackbed in event of a blocked egress, and can't get emergency personnel onto the trackbed without those. See this one at Hanson as an example: 15 ft. ramp + a 20 ft. gravel clearing safe to the side of the tracks. Ground-level platforms usually only have one per platform, but up on the viaduct they'd probably be required at both ends.

Only 1 door on a 9-car consist would be unable to open, so it doesn't actually shorten max possible trainset length (see render on p. 20 which shows the door spots for a sample 9-car train). Nine-packs are an extreme and probably forever unlikelihood out of North Station because the terminal is constrained with so many sub-800 ft. platforms. Providence and Worcester are the only two lines on the system now-and-forever that would ever produce a 5:05pm sardine can loaded enough to require a ninth car (Providence is the only current one that has any scheduled trips with as many as 8). Only time you're ever likely to encounter that in practice is if a disabled revenue train is being pushed into the station by another revenue train.


Freight clearance accommodations are TBD, which is why they still show renders for low platforms + mini-highs. But full-highs have been pretty much decided, so gauntlet track is the only available option for freight because there's no other way to pass full-highs on the viaduct. The write-up on that details the accrued damage the platforms would absorb from trying to slip large cars through at restricted speed (it's not raw width, which is exactly the same as a passenger car, but differing suspension for tall and/or long freight cars allowing much more lateral movement). And the unacceptable dangers of a platform strike -induced derailment high up on the viaduct. There'd just be an interlocking reconfiguration to install automatic switches for the gauntlet on either side, with crossovers at those switches for switching from opposite track onto the gauntlet.



The only thing I'm disappointed not to see here is ped improvements to the south-tip parking lot/driveway that dead-ends at Ginn Field. Probably out-of-scope for the project since I think that's all town-owned land. Many commuters living along Mystic Valley Pkwy. walk the length of the lot to cross the Aberjona River footbridge. There's no sidewalk so people have to walk and bike through the middle of the lot and dodge cars. It needs a nice fat side path w/cycle track...preferably lit. And then a side path along the field to Bacon St. for hook-in at Wedgemere and the Mystic path system. Doubly-important to touch the Mystic paths with the Tri-town path about to reach into Winch. Ctr. from the north. And if you ever have any notions of getting rid of redundant and permanently low-platformed Wedgemere, it is ironclad-mandatory to have a 2000 ft. commuter path connection spanning the Winch. station entrance and Bacon. Why not now while they're sprucing up the works?

 

[CBCArch61]

Re: T construction news

Was just on the red line north on my way to work and noticed the bridge just south of Savin hill T stop that theyve been working on has been sealed off. I remember seeing the question here awhile back about repair or remove. Guess there no need for it anymore after all.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

Was just on the red line north on my way to work and noticed the bridge just south of Savin hill T stop that theyve been working on has been sealed off. I remember seeing the question here awhile back about repair or remove. Guess there no need for it anymore after all.

The freight on that spur died out about 15-18 years ago, almost immediately after the switch was rehabbed for start of Old Colony commuter rail. It forked into 3 separate sidings after crossing under the Ashmont tracks and formed a backwards "C" shape running from Dewar St. to the north to intersection of Freeport/Ellsworth to the south. Switch to the 1995 view on Historic Aerials and you can see one lonely boxcar sitting behind the electrical substation intended for the 60's-era factory building that's now been renovated to house Boston Public Schools. Other than Logan Furniture outlet there is not one single building from 1995 on that whole ugly slab that's still standing or hasn't been hastily converted into something non-industrial. Very quick total flip in land usage, even though that whole wedge along Freeport is as fugly as ever.