Northland Newton | Needham St. @ Oak St. | Newton

tysmith95 said:
How much more branching can you do on the green line? The central subway is already super congested.
Click to expand...

You can do lots more branching after the GLT initiative cleans things up. Signal priority on the B and C + all-door PoP boarding tames most of the dispatching chaos going into Kenmore. The new stretched low-floor cars tame most of the dwell time issues in the subway. The systemwide signal audit whacks a lot of speed restrictions that have been around since the PCC era but make no sense with cleanroomed rolling stock and modern technology giving the operator additional tools. Dispatching reform with more computer traffic management...and hopefully someday actual automated signaling...trims the fat and inflexibility from it being an error-overpadded strictly human-controlled operation.

Remember: there used to be FIVE western branches (in addition to 1 remaining South End branch that lasted into the Riverside era)...daily supplemental short-turn service on the Arborway and Watertown lines throughout their service lives...and episodic trials of short-turns on the BC and Riverside lines when those still had their respective mid-line turnbacks at Nickerson Field and Reservoir. And Needham was supposed to be built in tandem with Riverside, so the D was built from Day 1 with higher-density signaling than it actually makes use of as a solo service.

The last 30 years of ops brainrot in the light rail division is not at all indicative of the Green Line's native throughput, because it used to do lots more. The places where it's failing now are attributed to very clear-cut ops inefficiencies. Take out the trash with all the surface traffic conflicts and dwell hell and rediscover the forgotten art of slotting and there's room off Kenmore for not only the moderate-load Needham Branch but also Urban Ring-North and Harvard Branch spurs off a BU Bridge subway extension.


The worst-case, most conservative scenario for GLT reforms still serves ample capacity for a Needham Branch. Best-case scenario where they optimize the shit out of everything: lots, lots more expansion.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
In this case, though, they didn't punt. The City has rediscovered enthusiasm for the extension with all this redev we're talking about here, because without a transit solution the growth along Needham St. and at New England Business Center won't be sustainable. It's a transit-using neighborhood anyway since the locals are reliant on the 59, sick of the crappy service on that broken route, and dearly want something better. Whatever NIMBY's there might be have powerful incentive to be open-minded given the looming carpocalypse they're looking at.
Click to expand...

All I can say is: I hope you're right. It's possible that the pushback to the Better Bus proposals to drop Eliot St. service could pave the way for some neighborhood enthusiasm, but I think it's going to be hard to overcome 1,000 yard signs that say "SAVE OUR GREENWAY" in Upper Falls.

Newton had some enthusiasm for this before, but it's mostly fallen back on the MBTA not having much interest. It's too bad, since I think Newton could almost fund the whole thing themselves if they wanted to. A one-stop extension to Upper Falls would be straight, flat, pre-graded, and cheap as hell.
 
Equilibria said:
MassDOT is redoing Needham St in the next couple of years, so the current arrangement won't coexist with this project.

Building more road is not the answer - building a Green Line branch next to this development is the answer. I wish the City of Newton were serious about that, but they punted and built a trail on the ROW so now the neighborhood will revolt against the train.
Click to expand...

Building a green line branch, while nice, is not the answer to traffic in this area. They need to expand (modestly) and make the road infrastructure more efficient in the area. You have a large business park adjacent to this area and adding a green line branch is not going to make a large dent in the number of cars that flood this area.

A green line stop does not address the flood of cars coming from the suburbs.
 
mass88 said:
Building a green line branch, while nice, is not the answer to traffic in this area. They need to expand (modestly) and make the road infrastructure more efficient in the area. You have a large business park adjacent to this area and adding a green line branch is not going to make a large dent in the number of cars that flood this area.

A green line stop does not address the flood of cars coming from the suburbs.
Click to expand...

Beyond the induced demand argument, there is currently a road network in the area, while there is no transit. I don't have hard data, but I'm reasonably confident that the impact on local throughout capacity is pretty significantly higher with transit than with an extra turn lane here and there.

By the way, Highland/Needham is already being fully rebuilt through the area, and the junction with 128 just gained C/D roads, new ramps, and a whole new exit to Kendrick. I don't think you can argue that the road capacity is being ignored.
 
Equilibria said:
Beyond the induced demand argument, there is currently a road network in the area, while there is no transit. I don't have hard data, but I'm reasonably confident that the impact on local throughout capacity is pretty significantly higher with transit than with an extra turn lane here and there.

By the way, Highland/Needham is already being fully rebuilt through the area, and the junction with 128 just gained C/D roads, new ramps, and a whole new exit to Kendrick. I don't think you can argue that the road capacity is being ignored.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting that transit is not needed in this area, because it is. Especially once this residential project is complete. The 128 add-a-lane project, while very necessary to expand and upgrade the road infrastructure in this area, did not touch the stretch of Highland Ave starting at the Staples intersection and running all the way to Winchester Street in Newton. It's good to hear there's a project on the books that will hopefully address the road issues in this area.
 
At least it looks like the 59 is getting doubled frequency at Needham street, which is essentially the same section this proposed glx would fill. If we can get more everett-like pro-bus municipal decisions then we could get even better and needed service improvements.
 
City of Newton response to proposed transportation mitigation by Northland:

http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=96257

They're... um... not buying this magic shuttle thing. However, they seem fatalistically willing to let Northland off the hook in exchange for $275,000 in study funding pertaining to possible transit on the Upper Falls Greenway corridor (read: Green Line Extension to Needham).

In my opinion, that's not good enough. They should get a commitment from Northland to build at least the Green Line station behind their development now, with some wiggle room based on what recommendations the study makes (Green Line is the only idea that makes sense there, regardless of the prior MAPC study focusing on a busway). Not that they'd build white elephant platforms, but they'd be legally-obligated to fund it if it happens.

Given that the Planning Department saying the right things about first-mile/last-mile issues and shuttle frequency and not competing with MBTA service, I'd hope for a bit more toughness in their approach after they say all of that.

Without the Green Line this project doesn't work. With the Green Line (and as a catalyst for the Green Line) this project is a huge step forward for Newton. It's really that simple.
 
APPROVED. RightSize is talking referendum, but I doubt that happens. They'll get distracted when Riverside is approved in a couple of weeks.

Site plan at approval:


Recommend thread title change to "Northland Newton | Needham Street at Oak Street | Newton".

EDIT - Globe coverage:

www.bostonglobe.com

Newton City Council approves Northland’s plan for 800 apartments, offices, and retail in Upper Falls - The Boston Globe

A local group, meanwhile, is organizing a voter referendum to overturn the council’s zoning changes.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

1575388274505.png
 
Last edited:
Huh. Considering where this is and what’s already there, I’m shocked that there’s so much resistance.
 
etik said:
Sorry to be the bearer of annoying news....

village14.com

Right Size Newton submits signatures to call for a Northland referendum | Village 14

The group Right Sized Newton has reportedly submitted signatures to the Newton City Clerk asking the city council to reverse its 17-7 approval of the zoning for Northland project. Two sources say they
village14.com village14.com
Click to expand...

I doubt they win this. They'll get on the ballot (partially because they've been documented lying to people in grocery stores and such to get them to sign it), but Newton just rejected their slate of candidates for City Council, and in the end the fact that all 3 Upper Falls councilors are vocally opposing the referendum, as well as the Mayor, as well as 2/3 of the incoming Council (roughly), will make the difference.

Then, hopefully, RightSize will disband. Yeah, right.
 
The Globe Editorial Board is not being very subtle here:

www.bostonglobe.com

Newton wakes up to the dark side of Americaâs housing laws - The Boston Globe

The reigning rules of suburbia have led to a country segregated by income, with the best zip codes and schools closed off to poor families. What happens when a rich city tries to reverse course?
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

www.bostonglobe.com

With a âyesâ vote on March 3, Newton can pave the way to fairer future - The Boston Globe

The proposed 800-unit housing development in Newton Upper Falls would include the largest single infusion of subsidized affordable housing in the city's history. With the Northland project, Newton can build momentum for a transformative housing movement.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
 
Equilibria said:
The Globe Editorial Board is not being very subtle here:

www.bostonglobe.com

Newton wakes up to the dark side of Americaâs housing laws - The Boston Globe

The reigning rules of suburbia have led to a country segregated by income, with the best zip codes and schools closed off to poor families. What happens when a rich city tries to reverse course?
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

www.bostonglobe.com

With a âyesâ vote on March 3, Newton can pave the way to fairer future - The Boston Globe

The proposed 800-unit housing development in Newton Upper Falls would include the largest single infusion of subsidized affordable housing in the city's history. With the Northland project, Newton can build momentum for a transformative housing movement.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...

I will grudgingly give the Globe credit here. Used to be every NIMBY was portrayed as a freedom fighter battling evil developers who were trying to pave over the town common. They've come a long way and while they still give too much deference to CLF extortion outfit I like what they're doing on this one as well as the Winthrop Square and South Boston power plan development coverage.
 
Rover said:
I will grudgingly give the Globe credit here. Used to be every NIMBY was portrayed as a freedom fighter battling evil developers who were trying to pave over the town common. They've come a long way and while they still give too much deference to CLF extortion outfit I like what they're doing on this one as well as the Winthrop Square and South Boston power plan development coverage.
Click to expand...

And it's really important for them to do it in this case - the "Yes" campaign doesn't inspire people to lawn signs in quite the same way that "No" does, and Right Size Newton has (shrewdly) refused to participate in any debate or discussion event not held by themselves. There's real danger that people would think that no one other than the developer was making a case for this.
 
APPROVED (by the voters)


58% Yes, 42% No with something like 45% turnout among eligible voters (over 31,000 votes cast). That's why you have your referenda on the same day as another election, kids.

Related: I wonder if Biden's push over the weekend actually pushed Yes over the line. He won Newton, so clearly voting for him was a motivator to show up to the polls in the first place.
 
Equilibria said:
APPROVED (by the voters)


58% Yes, 42% No with something like 45% turnout among eligible voters (over 31,000 votes cast). That's why you have your referenda on the same day as another election, kids.

Related: I wonder if Biden's push over the weekend actually pushed Yes over the line. He won Newton, so clearly voting for him was a motivator to show up to the polls in the first place.
Click to expand...
Most like coincidental. One would assume that Biden supporters are probably a bunch of NIMBY’s. The ones who troll the planning and development meetings and drive Lexus's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top