Orange Line Extension to Roslindale/West Roxbury

The OL needs to at least be extended to Roslindale. The T is like a dinosaur. You have to wait for eons for a line to be extended. Look how long it took us to get the GLX!!! :eek:
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
So you're telling me the MBTA is going to drag their feet, then over estimate the cost because they don't want to bother?
Click to expand...
It sure as hell looks that way. Look how long both the Orange Line & the Blue Line have been in existance. Neither one of them have been given an extention at all. The GLX got built, but there were some cuts along the way. Still, it got built. :)
 
Jahvon09 said:
It sure as hell looks that way. Look how long both the Orange Line & the Blue Line have been in existance. Neither one of them have been given an extention at all. The GLX got built, but there were some cuts along the way. Still, it got built. :)
Click to expand...
If a funding shortfall is the problem, then just toll I-93 from Woburn to Braintree and get it over with. The Massachusetts political delegation needs to lobby the heck out of Congress to change the law which currently prohibits it.
Multiple metro areas across the country are extending their lines. Of course there is a massive annual cost for the MBTA to upgrade and maintain its existing heavy and light rail lines and commuter rail, which most of these other metros don't have to deal with. But there's got to be a way to get a couple of the most urgently needed and obvious MBTA extensions built.
 
Charlie_mta said:
If a funding shortfall is the problem, then just toll I-93 from Woburn to Braintree and get it over with. The Massachusetts political delegation needs to lobby the heck out of Congress to change the law which currently prohibits it.
Click to expand...
We should also look into changing our state constitution so individual cities/towns/counties can levy their own sales taxes on top of the state rate. The only places in the us doing massive transit expansion projects (Seattle, LA) are able to do it because they can vote to add a half cent sales tax to fund transit projects. The amount of extensions and projects we need or have in the pipeline if applied to most other cities in the country would equal a massive new metro system in itself. We may be able to get funding for a red-blue even though thats not even likely right now, but what we really need is to be able to go right from one project to the next to keep the expertise in house and costs down. As it stands now we may be lucky to get 1-2 more extensions in the city in our lifetimes. Compare that to Los Angeles that has 2 lines under construction right now, after completing 4 lines/extensions in the last ten years, and a bunch more coming right after. What were doing now isnt working and nobody seems to have any plans to be able to get the sources of funding needed to do these projects. The plan right now for red-blue is basically keep doing what were doing and hopefully the money falls from the sky one day.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
We should also look into changing our state constitution so individual cities/towns/counties can levy their own sales taxes on top of the state rate. The only places in the us doing massive transit expansion projects (Seattle, LA) are able to do it because they can vote to add a half cent sales tax to fund transit projects. The amount of extensions and projects we need or have in the pipeline if applied to most other cities in the country would equal a massive new metro system in itself. We may be able to get funding for a red-blue even though thats not even likely right now, but what we really need is to be able to go right from one project to the next to keep the expertise in house and costs down. As it stands now we may be lucky to get 1-2 more extensions in the city in our lifetimes. Compare that to Los Angeles that has 2 lines under construction right now, after completing 4 lines/extensions in the last ten years, and a bunch more coming right after. What were doing now isnt working.
Click to expand...
I wish the state would just abolish the counties and adopt what CT did and use the RPA boundaries as the new regional level of government, then actually allow them to have some jurisdictional power. It shouldn't be on Boston alone to raise the money for red/blue when its benefits directly accrue to other municipalities as well and the entire region indirectly.
 
The T was being investigated for having too many crashes and other things. Guess they kind of cleaned up their act a little. Which is probably why they are trying to make things better. :)
 
Charlie_mta said:
If a funding shortfall is the problem, then just toll I-93 from Woburn to Braintree and get it over with. The Massachusetts political delegation needs to lobby the heck out of Congress to change the law which currently prohibits it.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why Congress banned it... ironically enough this project is probably not happening unless someone with Real Estate interest in the area bribes the right people.

Maybe if there's a crash.
 
jklo said:
There's a reason why Congress banned it... ironically enough this project is probably not happening unless someone with Real Estate interest in the area bribes the right people.

Maybe if there's a crash.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of tolling interstate highways. It would add a cost burden to shipping as well as impact working people. Besides, even if the tolls were supposedly earmarked for transit projects only, somehow the revenues would bleed off into other politically motivated uses. I like the other idea better for raising revenue for transit projects cited above by Stick and Move and KCasiglio.
 
KCasiglio said:
I wish the state would just abolish the counties and adopt what CT did and use the RPA boundaries as the new regional level of government, then actually allow them to have some jurisdictional power. It shouldn't be on Boston alone to raise the money for red/blue when its benefits directly accrue to other municipalities as well and the entire region indirectly.
Click to expand...

Yea ive been a proponent of enlarging suffolk county to include most of or all of the boston metro within Ma and then giving counties more power. As you stated it would make more sense for transit, but also not having every single town have its own entirely unique set of development rules/regs/laws would help a lot as far as building more housing. Every little town has its own separate approvals process, community meeting process, separate website with varying levels of quality to even find out which projects are happening or if/when there are community meetings, zoning laws, parking, lot sizes…etc. Theres 101 separate cities/towns in the boston metro area within Ma which all do things their own way. The amount of redundancy alone is staggering and incredibly wasteful/time consuming. A lot of things could be standardized at the county level.
 
themissinglink said:
I recently emailed Rep. Bill MacGregor's office about the Orange Line extension study. This was the response:
Click to expand...
Does anyone have a clear explanation of how these resolutions are actually structured?

His statement says "secured funding" but the resolution just places a deadline to complete the study. Is there a separate funding clause somewhere else?

Resolved, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall conduct a feasibility study relative to extending rapid transit service from the current terminus of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s Orange Line at Oak Grove in the City of Malden to the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Rail station through Roslindale Village, in the Roslindale section of the city of Boston.

The study shall examine and evaluate the costs and economic opportunities related to extending Orange Line service or otherwise expanding rapid transit service from the City of Malden to the City of Boston, including but not limited to: (i) the projected capital costs; (ii) the projected operating costs and revenue estimates; (iii) the projected ridership levels; (iv) the prospect of operating on existing rights of way and other operational issues; (v) the environmental and community impact estimates; (vi) the availability of federal, state, local and private sector funding sources; (vii) regional equity in rapid transit investments in the commonwealth, and (viii) the potential economic, social and cultural benefits to the Boston Neighborhoods and the commonwealth as a whole.

The department shall file the report with the clerks of the house and senate, the chairs of the house and senate committee on ways and means and the senate and house chairs of the joint committee on transportation not later than 120 days after passage of this act.
Click to expand...
I'm not finding this study specifically funded in MBTA's CIP, and I'm having a hard time understanding MassDOT's planned funding list - it's not as transparent as the T's it seems.

If this was indeed unfunded, I'm not surprised the T didn't jump on this the day it was passed.
 
KCasiglio said:
I wish the state would just abolish the counties and adopt what CT did and use the RPA boundaries as the new regional level of government, then actually allow them to have some jurisdictional power. It shouldn't be on Boston alone to raise the money for red/blue when its benefits directly accrue to other municipalities as well and the entire region indirectly.
Click to expand...
In your experience is there any real base of advocacy for this? It makes so much sense and they got it done in CT... but I can imagine that there'd be a bunch of opposition from local politicians and groups who'd be poised to lose power.
 
Charlie_mta said:
If a funding shortfall is the problem, then just toll I-93 from Woburn to Braintree and get it over with. The Massachusetts political delegation needs to lobby the heck out of Congress to change the law which currently prohibits it.
Click to expand...
Charlie_mta said:
I'm not a fan of tolling interstate highways. It would add a cost burden to shipping as well as impact working people. Besides, even if the tolls were supposedly earmarked for transit projects only, somehow the revenues would bleed off into other politically motivated uses. I like the other idea better for raising revenue for transit projects cited above by Stick and Move and KCasiglio.
Click to expand...
^^ I'm confused...

FormFollowsBudget said:
Does anyone have a clear explanation of how these resolutions are actually structured?

His statement says "secured funding" but the resolution just places a deadline to complete the study. Is there a separate funding clause somewhere else?


I'm not finding this study specifically funded in MBTA's CIP, and I'm having a hard time understanding MassDOT's planned funding list - it's not as transparent as the T's it seems.

If this was indeed unfunded, I'm not surprised the T didn't jump on this the day it was passed.
Click to expand...

The "Resolved..." language you quoted was a proposed bill, not anything that actually became law. Countless bills are proposed each year (every Representative and Senator proposes plenty of stuff on their pet interests) and practically none of them become law. In some years you can count the total number of bills actually passed in the entire year on your fingers. Most law-making in MA is done through the budgetary process, as budgets are one of the only things that actually need to be passed. The "secured funding" language refers to Chapter 7 of the Acts of 2025, which allocated supplemental budget funds. Section 1596-2507 provides $42.4 million and lists a slew of locally-focused semi-earmark requirements, including the following requirement:

"... not less than $100,000 shall be expended to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study relative to extending rapid transit service from the current terminus of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s Orange Line at Oak Grove in the city of Malden to the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Rail station through Roslindale Village in the Roslindale section of the city of Boston...".
Click to expand...

So this isn't so much additional money secured for a study as much as it is a requirement that at least $100k must be spent on a study in order for much more money to be allocated. The wording of the legislation also makes little sense (shouldn't it be an extension from the current terminus at Forest Hills, not at Oak Grove?) and $100k is realistically barely anything for a study.
 
ball_square said:
In your experience is there any real base of advocacy for this? It makes so much sense and they got it done in CT... but I can imagine that there'd be a bunch of opposition from local politicians and groups who'd be poised to lose power.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the COGs in CT have no power other than as distributors of transpo dollars. But yeah I imagine buy in was easier to get there because the mayors/selectmen are much more directly involved with the COGs as opposed to how most RPAs function in MA. There's significant push for this that I'm aware of.
 
JumboBuc said:
So this isn't so much additional money secured for a study as much as it is a requirement that at least $100k must be spent on a study in order for much more money to be allocated. The wording of the legislation also makes little sense (shouldn't it be an extension from the current terminus at Forest Hills, not at Oak Grove?) and $100k is realistically barely anything for a study.
Click to expand...
Thanks, very helpful.

So, with a little knowledge of how the T's Capital Investment Plan works, this was not an "easy" or "quick" task to set aside $100K unless it was proposed (and approved) in the new FY27-31 plan. The T doesn't have $100K sitting around in its capital fund waiting to be spent at a moment's notice, especially for things like studies - everything is allocated, typically on a July through June basis. $100K can be pulled from a handful of projects if the grants or funding sources allow it, which is a whole other hurdle to figure out, if they really wanted to, but to your second point, $100K is not really going to get you a recognizable study, so why really put priority on this? If this becomes a real thing, a design consultant will have to come in and perform the multi-million dollar study they need for this to actually start anyways.
 
I looked at the available apartments in the area and while there is some, there really isn't that much until you get closer to Forest Hills.

Still though, I'd say convert the Needham Line anyway and just cut off Needham. Add one stop at the VW and call it a day. Even though it looks like there's plenty of parking there, I bet the transit share among workers is pretty high.

Eventually... once the 'political will' (read: desire for a bump in rents) is there.
 
themissinglink said:
No... cutting transit service in Needham is a terrible idea. Any plan to extend the OL that includes ending Needham service is a nonstarter.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't gonna do the one off to Rozzie, even assuming it is possible... and the GL idea isn't happening. So you can see why nothing is happening there until the time is right.

I suppose they could halfass the OL into Needham just to say they aren't killing service completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top