bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction score
- 2,042
Exactly this. Staggering the platforms isn't necessarily what kills the idea of dropping a side platform (in fact, it's probably the most feasible way to squeeze one in if you drop it by the lower busway/parking lot where the trench is open).
I'm just not sure 1) how you tie it into the main station (because having it egress into the busway isn't exactly tying it in the way the existing platforms are) and 2) what the price tag would be for everything (since you'd probably have to start messing with the Ukraine Way crossovers if you put a platform that far south)
Looking at it more closely, there is more room between the NEC and MetroMark than I originally thought. Just a rough eyeball of what could be done (apologies for the poor mockup quality, as I have little design experience of this type):
Honestly, this may be more reasonable than crazy.
The most reasonable first step would still be a no-build addition of some Forest Hills outbound stops to the Franklin/Providence/Stoughton Lines (possibly starting with off-peak Stoughton Line trains that already stop at Hyde Park).
But it appears that this platform could be added entirely with a cut (and partial or full cover), with no structures or roads above. The most meaningful entity cut during construction would be the multi-use trail access point. I don't love that, but given the bi-directional cycle track across the street, and a plethora of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the area, I think that section could be severed during construction, and slightly realigned if necessary around the expanded headhouse.
EDITED TO ADD: After examining the property lines on gis, it appears the MBTA owns approximately 55-60 feet of width from the MetroMark property line to the NEC trench. Am I taking crazy pills or is this a bona-fide plausible transit pitch?
Last edited: