Reasonable Transit Pitches

[as02143]

It could simply be the pragmatic take that Assembly is not set up to be a bus terminus -- Sullivan is. The developers of Assembly may not want buses clogging the roads to the station area.

Assembly has some redevelopment that could provide for a small layover terminal close to Route 28/McGrath-Fellsway. (Edit: Inadvertently, maybe Freudianly called it "Hellsway")

 

[Teban54]

It could simply be the pragmatic take that Assembly is not set up to be a bus terminus -- Sullivan is. The developers of Assembly may not want buses clogging the roads to the station area.

The BNRD does have routes 85, 90 and 113 terminate at Assembly with a loop around the area, even though 113 has hourly headways and 85 is less than hourly. So terminal space is probably not a concern. (Although it may be a reason for not having a Key Bus Route there, another reason may be simply a relative lack of Key Bus Routes terminating at Sullivan from the south/west to be extended to Assembly.)

 

[bigeman312]

Motivated by the ongoing discussion about lack of bus lanes in the McGrath redesign, which is apparently due to a lack of demand for bus routes using that corridor:

Are there any suggestions for a bus route (new or rerouted) to use McGrath Highway for a greater length? (Perhaps especially to the north of Highland Ave)

I feel it may be good for a north-south bus route across Somerville, which the city lacks, but I'm not familiar enough with the area to say whether it's a good corridor compared to other potential routes. Another issue with McGrath is that it misses GLX Gilman Square and has a very inconvenient transfer to East Somerville. You need to go down all the way to Lechmere for a good GLX transfer, but that's something the Bus Network Redesign was trying to avoid because of duplication with GLX.

• Everett <> Kendall (via Broadway, Alford St, Washington St, McGrath, First, Binney, and Third) is a possibility.
• Eastern Ave (Chelsea) <> Kendall (via Silver Line Gateway, Second St, Chelsea St, Broadway, Alford St, Washington St, McGrath, First, Binney, Third) is another possibility.

I don’t know if that’s any better than using Rutherford and going via Community College instead of East Somerville. One or the other should be built with robust bus facilities, though, to facilitate good transit to/from Chelsea/Everett.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Inspired by a topic someone raised on the MBTA reddit about infill stations and express services (no) on the Ashmont Branch, I figured I'd just run through a list of possible infill stations on the whole system ranging from "We should do this" to "Could be worth it" to "Probably not worth the cost"

"We should do this"

• River's Edge: Between Wellington and Malden Center roughly at Little Creek, would be partnered with redevelopment with a rather drab industrial area.
• Dorchester Shores: Between Savin Hill and Fields Corner at Freeport St, would be partnered with a new RL junction/split and Old Colony double-tracking up to JFK alongside redevelopment of various nearby parking lots and commercial/industrial sites
• Morrissey: Between Dorchester Shores (Or JFK) and North Quincy, an elevated station above the Morrissey Blvd Rotary? Circle? you know what I mean. Plenty of crappy strip mall space north of the station that could be redeveloped, along with a major road diet for Morrissey itself.
• Ceylon Park: Kinda cheating because it's on the Fairmount Line, but it should be rapid transit so I'm including it here. Between Uphams Corner and Four Corners/Geneva at Quincy St, It's a relatively dense residential area that's not currently served very well by buses.

"Could be worth it"

• Technology Square/Friedman Sq/Whatever biotech company wants to buy the naming rights: Between Kendall/MIT and Central on the RL at Vassar St, this would act as an interchange with a GJ light rail line and to relieve overcrowding at Kendall. The primary demerit here is cost and challenges of construction in a highly built area, but it could also be worth considering if such an interchange would push too much traffic onto a Grand Junction light rail line.
• Neponset: Between Morrissey (Or JFK) and North Quincy, located at Redfield St to serve a redevelopment of the tip of Port Norfolk. The distance to such a development is the primary demerit here, but it's probably also be good to be careful about developing extremely low-lying, waterfront property.
• River Street: Cheating again with the Fairmount Line, located at Wood Ave between Fairmount and Blue Hill Avenue, the station would close a major gap in Fairmount Line service but density is rather low and redevelopment seems less likely.
• Widett Circle/Flynn Sq: Between Andrew and Broadway, the area is currently industrial sites but redevelopment could significantly raise density to possibly warrant a station, despite being only ~10 mins from an existing station on either side.
• Webster Woods: Between Chestnut Hill and Newton Centre on the D Branch at Webster Woods, this stop would recieve either a limited weekend/holdiay or request stop only service to connect to the recreation area.

"Probably not worth it"

• Constitution Beach: Between Orient Heights and Wood Island, density here is rather low and traffic likely wouldn't justify a station.
• Riverside/Mid-Cambridge: Between Central and Harvard on the RL at Bay St, while density in this area is fairly high, neither Harvard nor Central are too far away to walk, and Central still has plenty of spare capacity. Cost and travel time impact would also be a major demerit here.
• South Commons: Between Quincy Center and Quincy Adams at Water St, density is again rather low and proximity to the parkway makes any residential development undesirable.
• Braintree Square: Between Quincy Adams and Braintree at Elm St, density is low and it's next to a highway so that likely won't change, same deal as previous.
• Peters Hill: Cheating on the CR again, Located at Archdale Rd between Forest Hills and West Roxbury on the Needham Line, density is rather low and redevelopment is unlikely
• Cummins Highway: One last cheat, between Hyde Park and Forest Hills on the Providence/Stoughton and Franklin lines, this stop, partnered with proper regional rail service, would take around 15% of the 32's passengers.

Anything else I missed, or any strong disagreements with my placement?

 

[eber]

Inspired by a topic someone raised on the MBTA reddit about infill stations and express services (no) on the Ashmont Branch, I figured I'd just run through a list of possible infill stations on the whole system ranging from "We should do this" to "Could be worth it" to "Probably not worth the cost"
Anything else I missed, or any strong disagreements with my placement?

I think you've hit all the spots (and then some via Fairmount Line)

For reference: Rapid Transit Half-Mile Walkshed arcgis map (No Silver Line or Above Ground Green Line)

You'll see the spots on the southern Red Line and northern Orange Line where there are breaks in the polygon. Which you've mostly covered in the "We should do this".

The southern Orange Line looks nice and thick. However, the Red Line near Kendall/Central/Harvard is a bit less overlappy considering how dense they are, and you've hit these in the "Could be/Probably not worth it".

 

[bigeman312]

Inspired by a topic someone raised on the MBTA reddit about infill stations and express services (no) on the Ashmont Branch, I figured I'd just run through a list of possible infill stations on the whole system ranging from "We should do this" to "Could be worth it" to "Probably not worth the cost"

"We should do this"

• River's Edge: Between Wellington and Malden Center roughly at Little Creek, would be partnered with redevelopment with a rather drab industrial area.
• Dorchester Shores: Between Savin Hill and Fields Corner at Freeport St, would be partnered with a new RL junction/split and Old Colony double-tracking up to JFK alongside redevelopment of various nearby parking lots and commercial/industrial sites
• Morrissey: Between Dorchester Shores (Or JFK) and North Quincy, an elevated station above the Morrissey Blvd Rotary? Circle? you know what I mean. Plenty of crappy strip mall space north of the station that could be redeveloped, along with a major road diet for Morrissey itself.
• Ceylon Park: Kinda cheating because it's on the Fairmount Line, but it should be rapid transit so I'm including it here. Between Uphams Corner and Four Corners/Geneva at Quincy St, It's a relatively dense residential area that's not currently served very well by buses.

"Could be worth it"

• Technology Square/Friedman Sq/Whatever biotech company wants to buy the naming rights: Between Kendall/MIT and Central on the RL at Vassar St, this would act as an interchange with a GJ light rail line and to relieve overcrowding at Kendall. The primary demerit here is cost and challenges of construction in a highly built area, but it could also be worth considering if such an interchange would push too much traffic onto a Grand Junction light rail line.
• Neponset: Between Morrissey (Or JFK) and North Quincy, located at Redfield St to serve a redevelopment of the tip of Port Norfolk. The distance to such a development is the primary demerit here, but it's probably also be good to be careful about developing extremely low-lying, waterfront property.
• River Street: Cheating again with the Fairmount Line, located at Wood Ave between Fairmount and Blue Hill Avenue, the station would close a major gap in Fairmount Line service but density is rather low and redevelopment seems less likely.
• Widett Circle/Flynn Sq: Between Andrew and Broadway, the area is currently industrial sites but redevelopment could significantly raise density to possibly warrant a station, despite being only ~10 mins from an existing station on either side.
• Webster Woods: Between Chestnut Hill and Newton Centre on the D Branch at Webster Woods, this stop would recieve either a limited weekend/holdiay or request stop only service to connect to the recreation area.

"Probably not worth it"

• Constitution Beach: Between Orient Heights and Wood Island, density here is rather low and traffic likely wouldn't justify a station.
• Riverside/Mid-Cambridge: Between Central and Harvard on the RL at Bay St, while density in this area is fairly high, neither Harvard nor Central are too far away to walk, and Central still has plenty of spare capacity. Cost and travel time impact would also be a major demerit here.
• South Commons: Between Quincy Center and Quincy Adams at Water St, density is again rather low and proximity to the parkway makes any residential development undesirable.
• Braintree Square: Between Quincy Adams and Braintree at Elm St, density is low and it's next to a highway so that likely won't change, same deal as previous.
• Peters Hill: Cheating on the CR again, Located at Archdale Rd between Forest Hills and West Roxbury on the Needham Line, density is rather low and redevelopment is unlikely
• Cummins Highway: One last cheat, between Hyde Park and Forest Hills on the Providence/Stoughton and Franklin lines, this stop, partnered with proper regional rail service, would take around 15% of the 32's passengers.

Anything else I missed, or any strong disagreements with my placement?

Great post. My quibbles:

Snubs:

• North Cambridge: Between Alewife and Davis on the Red Line, at Mass Ave. I put this in the "could be worth it" category. Located in an already dense neighborhood, but about a 10-12 minute walk to either the Russell Field Alewife headhouse or the Holland St Davis headhouse. Great multi-modal opportunity, as it would provide a direct connection with the Alewife Linear Park for micro-mobility transfers, and a direct connection with the 77 (or BNRD T77). It would likely provide significant time-savings for 77/T77 transfers when vertical transportation is taken into account. It would serve as a neighborhood walk-up station for parts of North Cambridge, Teele Square, and West Somerville, which are among the most underserved parts of Camberville.
• Montclair: Between North Quincy and Wollaston on the Red Line, at Wilson Ave. I put this in the "could be worth it" category, contingent upon TOD. Huge TOD opportunity though, with solid surrounding density already. 10 minute walk to either Wollaston or North Quincy.

 

[HenryAlan]

The southern Orange Line looks nice and thick. However, the Red Line near Kendall/Central/Harvard is a bit less overlappy considering how dense they are, and you've hit these in the "Could be/Probably not worth it".

My understanding is that the original plan for the Cambridge subway was 5 stations. This would imply a station between Kendal and Central, and another between there and Harvard Square. The map shows that it probably should have been built as planned. It is, of course, even worse as you go north and west from Harvard Square. But the Dorchester and South Shore branches aren't really much better along sections.

 

[KCasiglio]

Montclair: Between North Quincy and Wollaston on the Red Line, at Wilson Ave. I put this in the "could be worth it" category, contingent upon TOD. Huge TOD opportunity though, with solid surrounding density already. 10 minute walk to either Wollaston or North Quincy.

Plenty of TOD potential in the area, but this station would make Quincy north of Furnace Brook the most densely stopped stretch of the RL outside of downtown. There's just so room left for NQ and Wollaston themselves to pick up TOD before this could be put in the "could be worth it" category. Call me when Wollaston Wine and Spirits is having 100 units put on that lot.

 

[The EGE]

I tend to be iffy on most infill stations; the value proposition often isn't great, especially since it lengthens the ride for everyone not using the station. Many of the existing stations are at nodes where bus routes, walk/bike corridors, commercial squares, etc all come together, so you get demand from multiple angles. If you're just basing it on density/TOD, then you need a lot in order to justify the station. Assembly and JFK/UMass (Braintree platform) are the most recent infills on the system, and they're good examples of what you need to justify a new station.

• Rivers Edge: This is a perennial proposal, but I'm not sure if there's enough TOD potential to make it worthwhile. The walkshed isn't big on the Everett side, and existing housing density is somewhat lower than, say, the neighborhoods around GLX. Unless the Orange Line gets totally made over as a 4-track local/express line in concert with a Reading extension, I just don't know if this really pans out versus putting the money into bus and walk/bike upgrades.
• Dorchester Shores: doubtful. It's less than half a mile from Fields Corner. Put a path along the ROW from Savin Hill to Freeport Street, and a lot of the redevelopable sites are an easy walk to Savin Hill.
• Morrisey: I do like this one; if you're going to add a stop to the Braintree Branch, this is where to do it. Fills in a big gap, walkable to existing housing, good spot for bus connections to better serve Dorchester, and plenty of TOD potential.
• Ceylon Park: This one didn't pan out when they were doing Fairmount infills, and I'm not sure it would now. The 16 gets upgraded to a T route with BNRD.
• Tech Square: Yes please. The density is there and Kendall needs the crowding relief. A necessity for transfer to any Grand Junction service.
• Neponset: Nah. Close to Morrisey, but more of the walkshed is water and I-93.
• River Street: Maybe once NSRL increases the downtown connectivity of the Fairmount Line. Right now, better service on the 24 is probably sufficient.
• Widdett Circle: Nah. Widdett Circle is a terrible spot for development because it's not walkable in any direction. BNRD gives us the T12 which will decently serve any development along Dot Ave.
• Webster Woods: Interesting idea for a weekend-only stop. I doubt there's enough activity at Webster Woods to make it worthwhile, but if cheaply done it wouldn't be a horrible waste.
• "Probably not" - agreed that none of these are worthwhile.
• North Cambridge: Nah. Two Red Line stops and the T77 are plenty. I do see a need for a straighter path from the Alewife headhouse to Alewife Linear Park, though - if you built a 400' cutoff to the northwest corner of Russell Field, it would save a full minute of walking.
• Montclair: Nah. There's not that much space between the stations. North Quincy could use a southwest entrance from Newport/Squantum, though.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It'd literally only do Morrissey convincingly out of that list, because the bus connections are very good, the TOD (and traffic calming-through-TOD) potential is excellent, and it's positioned excellently at the furthest walkshed point from Fields Corner, Shawmut, and Ashmont in the whole very dense neighborhood. Because the bus connections form a superset of what's at Neponset/Port Norfolk, I wouldn't do both and would strongly rate Morrissey over Neponset. Do it now.

River's Edge is sort of permanently on-the-cusp. The lack of unique bus connections distinct from Wellington or Malden Center has always been a big downside, so the TOD would have to be extra-special compelling to make it work at the steep cost it would take to widen the embankment enough to shiv in an infill. Malden kind of has to institutionally show they have the redev chops for this one before I'm willing to buy into it. Right now I'm not quite willing to buy into it.

Tech Square - I get the motivation, but it's going to be a heinously expensive job trying to widen out the 1912 subway for an infill that's not going to be as claustrophobic and crowding-prone as Kendall and Central. You're really going to have to show the math on where Urban Ring LRT is going to overwhelmingly be used as a transfer TO the Red Line instead of as an ending point for Kendall commuters for me to believe in this one. That transfer function has usually been reserved in the studies for service patterns on the UR Harvard spur, not Kendall. It can't simply be a Kendall platforms de-crowder that splits the same pool of ridership amongst 2 stops. The base Urban Ring is the primary Kendall de-crowder, and it adds a whole lot of new transit connection on top of that. I'll listen to convincing TS arguments, but they have to be pretty damn convincing to clear the considerable cost-benefit barrier.

I'm very leery of more Fairmount infills because it's the Franklin/Foxboro mainline in any Regional Rail universe, and it starts becoming too many stops to effectively manage local vs. suburban traffic to start adding more. As is, Forge Park is going to be a borderline-excruciating schedule unless there's some skip-stopping inside 128. And that becomes a complex dispatch undertaking requiring many regular-spaced crossovers and precise timing of meets/overtakes. For similar reasons I'm loathe to overload the innermost Worcester Line for infills; I'm fully down for adding sky-high upside Newton Corner and some de-gunked permutation of West Station, but not adding both those and Faneuil...it starts getting too complex for meets/overtakes and overly-long Framingham local schedules. The current Fairmount stop roster is about the sweet spot for making a dense-ish layer cake of services coexist. None of the proposed infills look quite tasty enough to bite on given the single bus route connections at each. The existing stops pool a lot more connecting transit, and that should be the bar if we're considering any infills in spite of the traffic management challenges. These proposed infills are awfully "infilly"...nothing resembling the transformative upside of, say, a Newton Corner and its fistfulls of bus connections.


Hard pass on all others.

 

[kdmc]

I'm very leery of more Fairmount infills because it's the Franklin/Foxboro mainline in any Regional Rail universe,

At risk of a tangent, I'm curious what makes you view Fairmount rather than NEC as the clear mainline for Franklin/Foxboro in a regional rail future. Transitmatters' Fairmount report frames it as an open question. They have a table of pros and cons, which focuses on Frankling Line impact oddly doesn't mention anything about Fairmount Line impact.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

At risk of a tangent, I'm curious what makes you view Fairmount rather than NEC as the clear mainline for Franklin/Foxboro in a regional rail future. Transitmatters' Fairmount report frames it as an open question. They have a table of pros and cons, which focuses on Frankling Line impact oddly doesn't mention anything about Fairmount Line impact.

The official Rail Vision doesn't make it an open question, that's why. To implement :30/:30 service on Providence + Stoughton/South Coast and absorb all post-Gateway Amtrak growth, the NEC can't be load-bearing for Forge Park. In the fine print you can probably use *some* significant number of NEC flex slots for Forge Park to preserve commuter Back Bay access, but they'd be odds-and-sods not regular-spaced patterns. The stiffening spine of :30 clock-facing frequencies there is going to need to run via Fairmount.

It's not an absolute "no", but practically Forge Park is going to be a Fairmount tenant that sometimes sips from the NEC and not the other way around.

 

[TheRatmeister]

To implement :30/:30 service on Providence + Stoughton/South Coast and absorb all post-Gateway Amtrak growth, the NEC can't be load-bearing for Forge Park

If this is the case it's an operations restriction, not an infrastructure one. Lines like the Munich S-Bahn trunk operate off-peak 40+ TPH frequencies with only double track through the core, although some stations have an extra platform. With Needham Line replacement you wouldn't be cracking 30 TPH, even during peak hours. This is definitely one of the categories where yes, if we accept the current reality this might be the case, but in any Regional Rail world this will need to change and so making this assumption is silly.

 

[KCasiglio]

I know it’s clear there isn’t enough room to run rapid transit along the fairmount line alongside CR, but is there space, at least along sections, for passing track that might allow express service coming in from Forge Park to skip some of the locals?

 

[TheRatmeister]

I know it’s clear there isn’t enough room to run rapid transit along the fairmount line alongside CR, but is there space, at least along sections, for passing track that might allow express service coming in from Forge Park to skip some of the locals?

There's one easy spot south of BHA, and a couple others between Four Corners/Geneva and Newmarket that would require at least a little eminent domain. Besides that, not really.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I know it’s clear there isn’t enough room to run rapid transit along the fairmount line alongside CR, but is there space, at least along sections, for passing track that might allow express service coming in from Forge Park to skip some of the locals?

You wouldn't need passers. 1 full set of crossovers per every 2 stations on the line should be enough to hop/skip over traffic express vs. local. That's pretty much exactly the plan for the innermost Worcester Line, and if it can work there with Amtrak being in the mix it can most definitely work on Fairmount with them not in the mix.

If this is the case it's an operations restriction, not an infrastructure one. Lines like the Munich S-Bahn trunk operate off-peak 40+ TPH frequencies with only double track through the core, although some stations have an extra platform. With Needham Line replacement you wouldn't be cracking 30 TPH, even during peak hours. This is definitely one of the categories where yes, if we accept the current reality this might be the case, but in any Regional Rail world this will need to change and so making this assumption is silly.

Take it up with the Rail Vision. They're the official study with Regional Rail practices that is saying this. TransitMatters isn't even hazarding a guess on a preference.

 

[Teban54]

Tech Square - I get the motivation, but it's going to be a heinously expensive job trying to widen out the 1912 subway for an infill that's not going to be as claustrophobic and crowding-prone as Kendall and Central. You're really going to have to show the math on where Urban Ring LRT is going to overwhelmingly be used as a transfer TO the Red Line instead of as an ending point for Kendall commuters for me to believe in this one. That transfer function has usually been reserved in the studies for service patterns on the UR Harvard spur, not Kendall. It can't simply be a Kendall platforms de-crowder that splits the same pool of ridership amongst 2 stops. The base Urban Ring is the primary Kendall de-crowder, and it adds a whole lot of new transit connection on top of that. I'll listen to convincing TS arguments, but they have to be pretty damn convincing to clear the considerable cost-benefit barrier.

Quickly commenting on this: My own thinking for a Tech Square infill is that it provides a connection between Red Line North and Orange Line North.

The fatal flaw with a "Harvard spur" design (aka two services, Harvard-LMA and Sullivan-Tech Square-LMA) is that it offers zero connection between RL North and OL North. Both are heavy on residential density, and have notable destinations for both commute and non-commute purposes: Harvard, Central, Assembly, and potential future redevelopments in Sullivan Square and Everett. While Kendall is the biggest commute destination on the Red Line north of Charles River, it "only" accounts for half of the commuting traffic. Not to mention having a permanently broken connection between the two major heavy rail lines is no good for regional mobility overall.

People already use existing bus routes for the RL-OL connection, despite none of them having very reliable headways (86, 91). And @The EGE's estimate for the cost of a Tech Square station is way lower than any alternative proposal that connects OL to an RL station.

 

[Riverside]

Agreement all around with @The EGE from me. The only one I might add additional comment to is Ceylon Park. With the addition of the T16 (and maybe bus lanes on Columbia Road) and with significant frequency boosts on the Fairmount (sub-15 min headways), I think it could potentially become a compelling transfer point.

I tend to be iffy on most infill stations; the value proposition often isn't great, especially since it lengthens the ride for everyone not using the station. Many of the existing stations are at nodes where bus routes, walk/bike corridors, commercial squares, etc all come together, so you get demand from multiple angles. If you're just basing it on density/TOD, then you need a lot in order to justify the station. Assembly and JFK/UMass (Braintree platform) are the most recent infills on the system, and they're good examples of what you need to justify a new station.

• Rivers Edge: This is a perennial proposal, but I'm not sure if there's enough TOD potential to make it worthwhile. The walkshed isn't big on the Everett side, and existing housing density is somewhat lower than, say, the neighborhoods around GLX. Unless the Orange Line gets totally made over as a 4-track local/express line in concert with a Reading extension, I just don't know if this really pans out versus putting the money into bus and walk/bike upgrades.
• Dorchester Shores: doubtful. It's less than half a mile from Fields Corner. Put a path along the ROW from Savin Hill to Freeport Street, and a lot of the redevelopable sites are an easy walk to Savin Hill.
• Morrisey: I do like this one; if you're going to add a stop to the Braintree Branch, this is where to do it. Fills in a big gap, walkable to existing housing, good spot for bus connections to better serve Dorchester, and plenty of TOD potential.
• Ceylon Park: This one didn't pan out when they were doing Fairmount infills, and I'm not sure it would now. The 16 gets upgraded to a T route with BNRD.
• Tech Square: Yes please. The density is there and Kendall needs the crowding relief. A necessity for transfer to any Grand Junction service.
• Neponset: Nah. Close to Morrisey, but more of the walkshed is water and I-93.
• River Street: Maybe once NSRL increases the downtown connectivity of the Fairmount Line. Right now, better service on the 24 is probably sufficient.
• Widdett Circle: Nah. Widdett Circle is a terrible spot for development because it's not walkable in any direction. BNRD gives us the T12 which will decently serve any development along Dot Ave.
• Webster Woods: Interesting idea for a weekend-only stop. I doubt there's enough activity at Webster Woods to make it worthwhile, but if cheaply done it wouldn't be a horrible waste.
• "Probably not" - agreed that none of these are worthwhile.
• North Cambridge: Nah. Two Red Line stops and the T77 are plenty. I do see a need for a straighter path from the Alewife headhouse to Alewife Linear Park, though - if you built a 400' cutoff to the northwest corner of Russell Field, it would save a full minute of walking.
• Montclair: Nah. There's not that much space between the stations. North Quincy could use a southwest entrance from Newport/Squantum, though.

Full agree on all of this. And I agree that it's worth comparing infills to the alternative of adding new entrances to existing stations. Three further notes:

• Ceylon Park: While I agree with F-Line's concern that additional infills would slow through-trains, I think that a Ceylon Park infill might merit reconsideration in ~10 years, once high-freq T16 service has settled in and once (fingers crossed) the Fairmount Line starts to see sub-15 min freqs. (Probably 20 years from now, but who's counting?) There might be greater potential for transfers than there was when the last round of infills were built
• Tech Square (Galileo, IMO): Yeah, I've been sold on this. Beyond the Urban Ring transfers, there are also a fair number of jobs out at that end of the neighborhood, so I think there's an argument on its own merits. (See OnTheMap screenshot below.)
• Webster Woods: I think this is delightful, and is the kind of whimsical proposal that always makes me smile

Spoiler: OnTheMap

One more proposal from me:

"Kent Square" (or "Aspinwall" or, my personal favorite, even if a bit silly, "Netherlands")

Longwood station on the D is a 14 minute walk to Brigham & Women's, the largest employer in the LMA, and in general is farther away from the heavier concentration of jobs in LMA's southern half. (Brookline Village is an equally long walk.) A station with access to Netherlands Road would be a 7 minute walk, with the addition of a crosswalk at Riverway to avoid today's obnoxious doubleback.

A station at Kent Square would make the D Line a viable alternative for opportunistic riders who currently ride the E to Brigham Circle to have a shorter walk to their job, potentially reducing crowding. It would also increase convenience for potential Longwood commuters (who, IIRC, cite convenience as their main reason for not using transit).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

BTW...Commuter Rail infills ones I'd do. Part I. . .

Definitely

• West Station (Worcester) -- A little more layout definition required, but pretty much a consensus.
• Newton Corner (Worcester) -- Consensus slam-dunk.
• Millbury (Worcester) -- At the US 20/MA 122 interchange, 2/3 mile from the Pike exit. Density, TOD potential, large park-and-ride potential (where such is needed because no Worcester Line stop has direct Pike access)
• Weston/128 (Fitchburg...w/closure of Kendal Green) -- Much-needed park-and-ride, nearby TOD, hub for office park shuttles, short-turn spot for :15 Urban Rail on the Fitchburg Line.
• Quannapowitt/128 (Reading) -- At the Subaru of Wakefield site at the North Ave. exit from 128. Park-and-ride relief for Anderson RTC that helps de-clog the 93/128 interchange, very TOD'able surroundings, 137 bus
• Salem State University (Newburyport/Rockport Line) -- Commuter student access to campus, high projected study ridership
• Montvale (Lowell) -- Walking-distance access to downtowns Woburn and Stoneham, 131 & 354 buses, easy I-93 exit (for kiss-and-rides, not park-and-rides)
• Salem Street (Haverhill) -- On the Wildcat branch at the pre-1965 stop site. Necessary in a Regional Rail universe if thru Haverhill service vacates North Wilmington to run permanently over the Wildcat Branch. Projects to slightly higher ridership than NW because of less walkshed duplication with Wilmington Station and better street grid access to South Tewksbury, while absorbing pretty much anyone in current N. Will's catchment.
• official-proposed RIDOT infills: Cranston, East Greenwich, West Davisville (all Providence/Wickford Jct. Line) -- Impetus for *generous* backfill of Wickford schedules and institution of true RIDOT intrastate Commuter Rail. All study out to high ridership if they get the service levels.

Borderline-yes

• Sullivan Square (Newburyport/Rockport and Reading) -- Very very expensive, but probably worth it in the end for the bus connections. Moves into the Definitely category if any permutation of the Urban Ring gets implanted.
• Colonial Heights (Haverhill) -- South Union St., Lawrence by the 495/28 interchange. MEVA buses 2 and 28 out of Lawrence, dense Lawrence residential out-of-walkshed from Lawrence Station, TOD, easier parking from 495 than Lawrence garage. Needs full :30 Regional Rail service to Haverhill to be implemented first, but this is probably the single most urban outside-128 infill candidate.
• Weymouth Columbian Sq. (Plymouth) -- TransitMatters rec. At the old NYNH&H "South Weymouth" stop @ Derby St. This was studied by the T for the '97 service restoration, but passed over for the parking sink by the (not-real-TOD-happenin') air base. Dense neighborhood walkup and 226 bus terminus. Fairly straightforward, but let's not jump the gun...get :30 RER to Plymouth established for a Blue Book cycle or two first so the ridership pops right at the ribbon-cutting.

Borderline-no

• Faneuil (Worcester) -- Pros: TOD, pedestrian access to Watertown/Arsenal. Cons: only the same 64 bus as Boston Landing with no others in walkshed, escalating traffic management difficulties on a dense Worcester Line layer cake. I could be convinced if the TOD goes en fuego, but it really needs to hit at the hotter end.
• Ward Hill (Haverhill) -- Industrial Ave. @ MA 125 and I-495. Pros: TOD at the industrial park, lots of 495 relief for the downtown Lawrence garage, easy access (1 exit down) to MA 213 out of Methuen. MEVA Route 14 out of Haverhill loops there, so it's getting some transit utilization already. Keep the Pn'R hordes off the streets of Downtown Lawrence by diverting them at well-designed interchanges north and south (Colonial Heights) of the city. Cons: TOD would need to fire on all cylinders, City of Haverhill already has 2 stops. I could be convinced with a study that shows the right mix of native TOD demand and Pn'R diversion.
• West Acton (Fitchburg) -- Pros: nice village stop with good surrounding density, town has plans for the area. Cons: on the lighter end ridership-wise, probably need to see how :30 Regional Rail boosts the ridership at the other small-town stops before committing. I like it overall, but get :30 service going first.
• North Abington (Plymouth) -- TransitMatters rec. Similar to Columbian Sq. in that it was at the old NYNH&H neighborhood stop before the T looked elsewhere in search for more parking. Density merits a stop with densified Regional Rail service, but it lacks buses unless BAT and Town of Abington are willing to draw up a new route to terminate here. Definitely must wait until :30 RER established.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Part II. . .

"Show me the numbers" or else no

• Clematis Brook/Warrendale (Fitchburg) -- TransitMatters rec, at the site of the pre-1978 stop at Beaver St. Not awful, has BNRD 54 bus. But let's get a solid few years of :15 service to Weston/128 and a couple Blue Books on what it does to bus ridership before getting too far ahead of ourselves.
• Beaver Brook (Fitchburg) -- The other pre-'78 Waltham stop (not a TransitMatters rec), halfway between Clematis Brook and Waltham Center under the Main St. overpass. T70 bus. Ditto above...let's see a couple Blue Books of :15 service + T70 numbers before looking at it.
• Tufts (Lowell) -- TransitMatters rec. GLX is already here 6 stops from North Station, and TM conceded that land acquisition costs would be a big issue. Has the T96 and 80 buses, but I'd have to see some whopper numbers on the number of Tufts commuting students or transferees to the T96 to buy into this one given the cost considerations.
• Santilli Circle/Everett Jct. (Newburyport/Rockport) -- TransitMatters rec. Good bus connections (T109, T110, 99, 106, 113), but duplicates too much of what the Orange Line does (and certainly will do if Sullivan CR gets built) for pooling transfers. Ops-awkward being in a distended slow zone coming off the bridge, through a freight junction, around a curve, and into a grade crossing cluster. Not at all close to Encore casino. Needs a study with eye-popping numbers.
• North Andover (Haverhill) -- Old B&M stop location at N. Main St. Occasionally desired by the town, but not proposed by anyone. Dense surroundings, but only a 3-minute bus ride from Lawrence on MEVA #33. Unless the ridership projections explooooode at :30 RER frequencies, this one continues best being served by an increasingly frequent bus.
• Hingham Depot (Greenbush) -- TransitMatters rec, at the old NYNH&H stop. Hingham made its bed 20 years ago with that stupid tunnel and bypassing downtown. We are not throwing more good money after bad unless they can show some B.U.F.F. ridership numbers for this one. 220 terminates here and 714 originates here; I don't think buses are going to be enough. :30 Greenbush service will have to make downtown a destination for it to float, and do the locals even want that???

Hard no

• Wonderland (Newburyport/Rockport) -- TransitMatters rec. Studied multiple times, and always too-low ridership unless an expensive-ass APM was built allowing luggage-carrying Logan travelers to cover the walking-distance hardship between here and the Blue Line. It flat-out doesn't do what everyone who keeps studying it thinks it's supposed to. No more distractions from building BLX-Lynn, please.
• Alewife (Fitchburg) -- TransitMatters rec. This suuuuuuucked on ridership when the PMT evaluated it, and that was even with the PMT forecasting the buttload of area TOD coming to fruition. Like...almost no ridership. :15 frequencies can't possibly bail it out.
• Union Square (Fitchburg) -- TransitMatters rec. GLX is already here 3 stops away from North Station, and because GLX was built you need to eminent domain strips on some hot dev parcels to make it happen. There are far more pressing needs.
• Brickbottom (Fitchburg) -- TransitMatters rec. Is there even physical room to build this? Just an insane number of totally superfluous Fitchburg infills that TM was stanning for.
• Revere Center (Newburyport/Rockport) -- TransitMatters rec., at the ancient Eastern RR stop by MA 16 & MA 145. 119 bus access. Terrorscape asphalt apocalypse all around. It's sandwiched between Revere Beach Parkway on one side, Route 1A on the other side, and 6 lanes of Route 145 in-between. Absolutely un-walkable to the nearest residential, and the immediate surroundings are all crud industrial as a result. I don't even know what you could do to tart up the surroundings enough to make it usable. TM was looking at density maps, not access conditions when drawing up this one.
• Osgood Landing (Haverhill) -- Discussed here. At the Amazon Warehouse in North Andover. Steep hill to climb for the TOD to hit well enough, in a town that hasn't shown it can build TOD. Not much residential in the catchment unless an improbable pedestrian span gets built across the Merrimack to Methuen, and street grid orients more to tiny Boxford than rest of North Andover. Already has a bus to Haverhill; just needs one to Lawrence to be about as good as it's ever going to get.
• Braintree Highlands (Middleboro) -- TransitMatters rec., at the old NYNH&H flag stop. Their reasoning was that it fit the traffic modeling for doing 100 MPH meets on a mostly single-track branch. It's on the 230 at very reasonable travel time without any noticeable bump-out in bus ridership. Don't know what they were thinking on this one; it's a dud.
• Bridgewater Center (Middleboro) -- TransitMatters rec., at the old NYNH&H stop. Waaaaaaay too close to Bridgewater State U., which is doing quite well on ridership. Most of downtown skews closer to campus anyway, and Town of Bridgewater does very poor sidewalk buildouts (especially along Route 18), meaning very little to the north is actually walkable to this site. There definitely isn't enough here for 2 stops in a half-mile.