Reasonable Transit Pitches

Riverway Island/Kent Square/Aspinwall/Francis St/Netherlands: a new infill for Longwood

I've referenced this idea sporadically over the last couple of years, and in fact it isn't even originally mine. @davem quietly included it on his crayon map over ten years ago! But in any case, this is a proposal for a Green Line infill station between Longwood and Brookline Village, near the Brookline Water & Sewer building, just off of Netherlands Road, about 750 feet (as the crow flies) from the intersection of Brookline Ave & Francis St:

1731371695770.png


1731372552446.png


An infill here would significantly improve access to the southern half of Longwood Medical Area from the D Line. It may also relieve some congestion from the E Line, as the hospitals along Francis St would now be accessible from both the D and E, rather than being largely covered by the E today.

That's the idea in a nutshell. Let's talk details.

First, what's wrong with the status quo?

1731371902971.png


The D's Longwood station sits just north of Longwood Ave, which bisects LMA down the middle. If it's centrally located, then shouldn't that be enough?

However, when we layer in data from OnTheMap, we see that jobs are asymmetrically concentrated in Longwood's southwestern half:

1731372068784.png


In particular, Brigham & Women's -- Longwood's single largest employer -- is as far as possible from Longwood station. This becomes clearer when we layer on the 10 minute walksheds:

1731372267033.png


Brigham, Children's, and Harvard Medical School all sit more than 10 minutes away from Longwood station.

An infill closes that gap significantly:

1731372418762.png


I went through and measured Google's estimated walking time to the main entrances of various Longwood hospitals, from the extant Longwood, Longwood Medical Area, and Brigham Circle stations. As we can see, Brigham and Children's are much easier to access from the E; the western campus of Beth Israel, plus the nearby Yawkey and Joslin Centers, aren't particularly easily accessed from any line.
1731372783231.png


Adding in an infill at Netherlands Road fills that gap:

1731372831203.png


The D and E would both have stops at Longwood Ave and Francis St under this proposal. If we choose the best stop from each line for each hospital, we see that Netherlands Road beats Longwood station across the board, even if only slightly for Children's and HMS:

1731373042912.png


The main question here is feasibility. The ROW itself is almost but not quite tangent. Both parcels to the east are owned by the City of Brookline. To the west, the Kent Street Apartments get a bit close to the tracks, but the northern western parcel has large parking lots separating the buildings and ROWs. The proximity to the Muddy River (and the Emerald Necklace) is a bit of a wild card, but, all in all, it shouldn't be the most challenging site for an infill.

One interesting wrinkle is that Riverway has no crosswalk at this location. (Something to be aware of if you are looking to check my math.) I can't imagine it would be an enormous challenge to add a crosswalk, but I suppose there's always room for surprises.

Finally: what's in a name? DaveM called this station "Riverway Island", which seems to be a name that realtors have suggested to create a distinct "neighborhood" here. "Aspinwall" is a nearby cross-street (though some distance away). "Kent Square" is just on the other side of Kent Street in Brookline, though would sound quite similar to the nearby Kent Street station on the C Line. "Francis St" actually exists on both sides of the station: Brookline has one just to the north, and Longwood's is less than 400 feet away; given Francis St's prominence within Longwood Medical Area, this would probably be the best name in terms of being readily identifiable.

But I find "Netherlands" (or "Netherlands Road") to be a delightfully absurd name, all the moreso because its titular street is a minor one, less than 1,000 feet long. On the other hand, that still beats out the street for which one of our most famous and most prominent stations is named.
 
Last edited:
Idea: Leverage East-West Rail to enable same-day trips from Boston to Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT with a transfer at Albany

Boston's options for direct or at least same-day trips to destinations to the W and N are limited. The Downeaster is a great service for reaching Portland, ME but what about Toronto? Montreal? Burlington VT? You can reach these places from Boston by train today, if you're willing to do an overnight in lovely Albany (which I am only sort of mocking! There's beautiful architecture in Albany and I'm on my way there on the Maple Leaf as I'm typing this). The reason for the overnight layover is that all the relevant services here - Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and the Ethan Allen Express, run only once daily. And the Lake Shore Limited coming westward from Boston, arrives in Albany station at 6:10pm, after all the connecting services have already come through:

Maple Leaf to Toronto - 9:50am
Adirondack to Montreal - 9:50am
Ethan Allen Express to Burlington VT - 4:49pm

So how can this be fixed? It would be wonderful to see direct services added to connect Boston to Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT by running them through Albany. But I think that's probably God-Mode territory.

Or, maybe someday the Maple Leaf, Adirondack, and Ethan Allen Express could get a second daily train. Or some or all of those 3 routes could get a NYC/BOS split at Albany added, like the Lake Shore Limited does today. But I those options fall into the "crazy pitch" territory as there is likely not enough demand to justify the cost for it right now.

So the reasonable pitch would be to connect Boston with Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT with a transfer in Albany instead. Because when East-West Rail is completed, it's expected to bring 2 or 3 additional daily trains connecting Boston to Albany. Would it be possible for these new trains to be timed so a 1-2hr layover going from whatever-Amtrak-names-East-West-Rail to the Maple Leaf, Adirondack, or the Ethan Allen Express?

People don't love having to transfer trains, so this would generate less demand then direct service would. But it does have the virtue of being far more like to actually be built. Additionally, Albany-Rensselaer station has good amenities: a large and warm building with plenty of seating, restrooms, Amtrak staff for customer service, a cafe, and a convenience store. And if it were a 2hr transfer, some more experienced travelers would consider taking the city bus from the train station downtown to walk around or get lunch (it takes about 30mins roundtrip on the bus).
 
Idea: Leverage East-West Rail to enable same-day trips from Boston to Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT with a transfer at Albany

Boston's options for direct or at least same-day trips to destinations to the W and N are limited. The Downeaster is a great service for reaching Portland, ME but what about Toronto? Montreal? Burlington VT? You can reach these places from Boston by train today, if you're willing to do an overnight in lovely Albany (which I am only sort of mocking! There's beautiful architecture in Albany and I'm on my way there on the Maple Leaf as I'm typing this). The reason for the overnight layover is that all the relevant services here - Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and the Ethan Allen Express, run only once daily. And the Lake Shore Limited coming westward from Boston, arrives in Albany station at 6:10pm, after all the connecting services have already come through:

Maple Leaf to Toronto - 9:50am
Adirondack to Montreal - 9:50am
Ethan Allen Express to Burlington VT - 4:49pm

So how can this be fixed? It would be wonderful to see direct services added to connect Boston to Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT by running them through Albany. But I think that's probably God-Mode territory.

Or, maybe someday the Maple Leaf, Adirondack, and Ethan Allen Express could get a second daily train. Or some or all of those 3 routes could get a NYC/BOS split at Albany added, like the Lake Shore Limited does today. But I those options fall into the "crazy pitch" territory as there is likely not enough demand to justify the cost for it right now.

So the reasonable pitch would be to connect Boston with Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington VT with a transfer in Albany instead. Because when East-West Rail is completed, it's expected to bring 2 or 3 additional daily trains connecting Boston to Albany. Would it be possible for these new trains to be timed so a 1-2hr layover going from whatever-Amtrak-names-East-West-Rail to the Maple Leaf, Adirondack, or the Ethan Allen Express?

People don't love having to transfer trains, so this would generate less demand then direct service would. But it does have the virtue of being far more like to actually be built. Additionally, Albany-Rensselaer station has good amenities: a large and warm building with plenty of seating, restrooms, Amtrak staff for customer service, a cafe, and a convenience store. And if it were a 2hr transfer, some more experienced travelers would consider taking the city bus from the train station downtown to walk around or get lunch (it takes about 30mins roundtrip on the bus).
A Boston - Toronto Amtrak route on existing trackage shouldn’t be crazy, let alone “god mode.”

The hurdles are all self-created political problems. The infrastructure is already there.
 
A Boston - Toronto Amtrak route on existing trackage shouldn’t be crazy, let alone “god mode.”

The hurdles are all self-created political problems. The infrastructure is already there.
More Albany lash-ups would require enough capital funding to uprate the track class to Albany from Class 3/59 MPH to Class 4/79 MPH. It's planned Worcester-Springfield and will shrink Boston-Springfield travel times from 2:28 to 2:03, but you'd need a MA funding dump to do Springfield-state line and a NY appropriation to do state line-Schodack so SPG-ALB can shrink from 2:23 to closer to 2:00. The Lake Shore Ltd. will be better with the paid-for WOR-SPG upgrades, down from 5:05 BOS-ALB to about 4:40, but you need to get that down closer to 4:05-4:10 if anybody's going to ride it in serious quantity. Greyhound's travel times range from as little as 3:20 BOS-ALB to as much as 4:45 (owing to the great uncertainty of Pike traffic by time-of-day), so the train needs to split the middle range for its superior schedule certainty to really draw.


For a Maple Leaf Boston section this is going to be especially key, because to make a 9:50am arrival in Albany the train would have to depart Boston before 5:00am when all connecting transit is closed for the night. Those track class upgrades are pretty much necessary to make it happen at all. And even then the departure comes so soon after the T opens for the day that it's questionable that any connections are makeable before the train has to leave, severely limiting the Boston audience for such a service. I have my doubts; it's questionable whether you'd even be able to complete a rapid transit transfer to South Station before the Amtrak train would have to leave. We might be waiting until when/if New York State and VIA Rail agree to fund a second later-in-the-day Maple Leaf slot to make it work.

For Montreal and Burlington, it's key that we enact the NNEIRI service development plan which does a 9:03 direct between Boston and Montreal (faster if the Canadians ever uprate their track speeds) and also coordinates an Inland Route (Boston-New Haven) slot to cross-platform transfer to the existing Vermonter at Springfield, and a cross-platform transfer to a new expansion New Haven-Montreal slot. The Adirondack has the same problem as the Maple Leaf of a too-early departure time from Boston to effectively support a Boston section, as well as being quite a bit longer on the clock vs. the NNEIRI direct because of the additional distance. The NNEIRI plan also hits Burlington directly via the Essex Junction stop (which is a city bus ride from dead-center Downtown Burlington), so the one direct slot + the 2 timed SPG transfers pools ridership targets much better than flooding the zone with a bunch more Albany lash-ups diluted by audience.
 
More Albany lash-ups would require enough capital funding to uprate the track class to Albany from Class 3/59 MPH to Class 4/79 MPH. It's planned Worcester-Springfield and will shrink Boston-Springfield travel times from 2:28 to 2:03, but you'd need a MA funding dump to do Springfield-state line and a NY appropriation to do state line-Schodack so SPG-ALB can shrink from 2:23 to closer to 2:00. The Lake Shore Ltd. will be better with the paid-for WOR-SPG upgrades, down from 5:05 BOS-ALB to about 4:40, but you need to get that down closer to 4:05-4:10 if anybody's going to ride it in serious quantity. Greyhound's travel times range from as little as 3:20 BOS-ALB to as much as 4:45 (owing to the great uncertainty of Pike traffic by time-of-day), so the train needs to split the middle range for its superior schedule certainty to really draw.


For a Maple Leaf Boston section this is going to be especially key, because to make a 9:50am arrival in Albany the train would have to depart Boston before 5:00am when all connecting transit is closed for the night. Those track class upgrades are pretty much necessary to make it happen at all. And even then the departure comes so soon after the T opens for the day that it's questionable that any connections are makeable before the train has to leave, severely limiting the Boston audience for such a service. I have my doubts; it's questionable whether you'd even be able to complete a rapid transit transfer to South Station before the Amtrak train would have to leave. We might be waiting until when/if New York State and VIA Rail agree to fund a second later-in-the-day Maple Leaf slot to make it work.

For Montreal and Burlington, it's key that we enact the NNEIRI service development plan which does a 9:03 direct between Boston and Montreal (faster if the Canadians ever uprate their track speeds) and also coordinates an Inland Route (Boston-New Haven) slot to cross-platform transfer to the existing Vermonter at Springfield, and a cross-platform transfer to a new expansion New Haven-Montreal slot. The Adirondack has the same problem as the Maple Leaf of a too-early departure time from Boston to effectively support a Boston section, as well as being quite a bit longer on the clock vs. the NNEIRI direct because of the additional distance. The NNEIRI plan also hits Burlington directly via the Essex Junction stop (which is a city bus ride from dead-center Downtown Burlington), so the one direct slot + the 2 timed SPG transfers pools ridership targets much better than flooding the zone with a bunch more Albany lash-ups diluted by audience.
When I talk about self-created problems that don’t rise to the level of “god mode” transit pitch territory, I’m referring to things like having to abide by current timeslots for the current Maple Leaf.

I’m unaware of a good reason why it’s considered unreasonable to pitch an additional Toronto-bound trip from the Northeast US. Heck, it could be simply a Boston-Toronto trip without linking up with the existing Maple Leaf. It could even be a once a day per direction. Let’s say, departing Boston at 8:00 am and arriving in Toronto a bit after 10:00 pm. With existing (and paid-for) infrastructure. The biggest hurdle I see for that, outside of self-inflicted political limitations, is procuring a single trainset. What’s unreasonable about that transit pitch?
 
More Albany lash-ups would require enough capital funding to uprate the track class to Albany from Class 3/59 MPH to Class 4/79 MPH. It's planned Worcester-Springfield and will shrink Boston-Springfield travel times from 2:28 to 2:03, but you'd need a MA funding dump to do Springfield-state line and a NY appropriation to do state line-Schodack so SPG-ALB can shrink from 2:23 to closer to 2:00. The Lake Shore Ltd. will be better with the paid-for WOR-SPG upgrades, down from 5:05 BOS-ALB to about 4:40, but you need to get that down closer to 4:05-4:10 if anybody's going to ride it in serious quantity. Greyhound's travel times range from as little as 3:20 BOS-ALB to as much as 4:45 (owing to the great uncertainty of Pike traffic by time-of-day), so the train needs to split the middle range for its superior schedule certainty to really draw.


For a Maple Leaf Boston section this is going to be especially key, because to make a 9:50am arrival in Albany the train would have to depart Boston before 5:00am when all connecting transit is closed for the night. Those track class upgrades are pretty much necessary to make it happen at all. And even then the departure comes so soon after the T opens for the day that it's questionable that any connections are makeable before the train has to leave, severely limiting the Boston audience for such a service. I have my doubts; it's questionable whether you'd even be able to complete a rapid transit transfer to South Station before the Amtrak train would have to leave. We might be waiting until when/if New York State and VIA Rail agree to fund a second later-in-the-day Maple Leaf slot to make it work.

For Montreal and Burlington, it's key that we enact the NNEIRI service development plan which does a 9:03 direct between Boston and Montreal (faster if the Canadians ever uprate their track speeds) and also coordinates an Inland Route (Boston-New Haven) slot to cross-platform transfer to the existing Vermonter at Springfield, and a cross-platform transfer to a new expansion New Haven-Montreal slot. The Adirondack has the same problem as the Maple Leaf of a too-early departure time from Boston to effectively support a Boston section, as well as being quite a bit longer on the clock vs. the NNEIRI direct because of the additional distance. The NNEIRI plan also hits Burlington directly via the Essex Junction stop (which is a city bus ride from dead-center Downtown Burlington), so the one direct slot + the 2 timed SPG transfers pools ridership targets much better than flooding the zone with a bunch more Albany lash-ups diluted by audience.
I have two questions: Firstly, at the moment, there's been a long running proposal to extend the Vermonter to Montreal, restoring Montrealer pending construction of a pre clearance facility at Gare Centrale. It currently has a mid-afternoon arrival in Springfield - plenty of time for an East West train to meet it, and if my guestimate is correct, given its existing class 3/4 track it'd be faster than making the connection at Albany and the mess that is the Canadian Subdivision. Surely as far as phase 1s go, an Inland Regional meeting a Montrealer would be easiest to accomplish, and wouldn't be too much worse than a direct trip?

Secondly, both the Maple Leaf and Adirondack have 7:15 departure times from NYP, arriving Albany at 9:50. If you were to insist on a meet there, would it not be simpleist to delay departures for a period, as little as 15 minutes?
 
I have two questions: Firstly, at the moment, there's been a long running proposal to extend the Vermonter to Montreal, restoring Montrealer pending construction of a pre clearance facility at Gare Centrale. It currently has a mid-afternoon arrival in Springfield - plenty of time for an East West train to meet it, and if my guestimate is correct, given its existing class 3/4 track it'd be faster than making the connection at Albany and the mess that is the Canadian Subdivision. Surely as far as phase 1s go, an Inland Regional meeting a Montrealer would be easiest to accomplish, and wouldn't be too much worse than a direct trip?
NNEIRI specs exactly that as one of the travel options: an Inland meeting the existing Vermonter at Springfield. They envisioned the whole shebang as not the BOS-MTL direct being the be-all/end-all, but the timed transfers to the Montrealer and the expansion NHV-MTL slot contributing to net a total of three whacks per day at making an efficient BOS-MTL trip. Now...it's not known what time slots they're eyeing for the current 2 RT's starter plan for the Inlands. The Inland Route Service Development Plan specced 8 RT's total, albeit the slots they chose didn't have a direct-enough affinity with the current Vermonter to make a :15-:30 timed transfer @ SPG. But the SDP insisted that their time slot selection was only preliminary because they didn't have complete information on freight schedules, so it sounds like there's a lot of flexibility for moving things around. If the 2 RT's starter plan aims for a midday slot, it should be relatively easy to set up a Vermonter transfer as a Day 1 option. It suits the in-state constituency for trying to achieve that, as Holyoke-Northampton-Greenfield definitely deserve to get some easy-transfer opportunities to/from Boston ASAP. The Vermonter should by all logic be a prime target for timed transfers because of those 3 in-state intermediate stops.
Secondly, both the Maple Leaf and Adirondack have 7:15 departure times from NYP, arriving Albany at 9:50. If you were to insist on a meet there, would it not be simpleist to delay departures for a period, as little as 15 minutes?
You can easily do that assuming the track class uprates for making BOS-ALB time tolerable enough to actually ride. But, again, the departure times from Boston would have to be too early in the morning to make any effective use of MBTA connecting transit...which is going to markedly depress the audience for such a service. I don't think it's ever going to work if it's relegated to Boston departure in the 5:00am hour for timing an ALB transfer or lash-up. There would have to be a second daily Maple Leaf slot added, and that's going to be politically very complicated when it's New York State and VIA Rail who jointly sponsor the Maple Leaf and would have to approve the new slot. NY only runs two additional New York-Niagara Falls Amtrak slots, and VIA only runs 1 Toronto-Niagara Falls, ONT short-turn. It's slim pickings for trying to fashion a new NYP-TOR thru train out of the that which a BOS-ALB slot could meet up with, so both parties would likely need to see fit to add a whole-cloth new train at a whole-cloth new time slot. And I'm not sure either New York or VIA are reliable enough partners to count on for serving that up for us. We don't fully control our own destiny here, unfortunately. It has to be their self-interest that drives it, with us in Massachusetts just pouncing on an opportune match.
 
Riverway Island/Kent Square/Aspinwall/Francis St/Netherlands: a new infill for Longwood

I've referenced this idea sporadically over the last couple of years, and in fact it isn't even originally mine. @davem quietly included it on his crayon map over ten years ago! But in any case, this is a proposal for a Green Line infill station between Longwood and Brookline Village, near the Brookline Water & Sewer building, just off of Netherlands Road, about 750 feet (as the crow flies) from the intersection of Brookline Ave & Francis St:

View attachment 57761

View attachment 57766

An infill here would significantly improve access to the southern half of Longwood Medical Area from the D Line. It may also relieve some congestion from the E Line, as the hospitals along Francis St would now be accessible from both the D and E, rather than being largely covered by the E today.

That's the idea in a nutshell. Let's talk details.

First, what's wrong with the status quo?

View attachment 57762

The D's Longwood station sits just north of Longwood Ave, which bisects LMA down the middle. If it's centrally located, then shouldn't that be enough?

However, when we layer in data from OnTheMap, we see that jobs are asymmetrically concentrated in Longwood's southwestern half:

View attachment 57763

In particular, Brigham & Women's -- Longwood's single largest employer -- is as far as possible from Longwood station. This becomes clearer when we layer on the 10 minute walksheds:

View attachment 57764

Brigham, Children's, and Harvard Medical School all sit more than 10 minutes away from Longwood station.

An infill closes that gap significantly:

View attachment 57765

I went through and measured Google's estimated walking time to the main entrances of various Longwood hospitals, from the extant Longwood, Longwood Medical Area, and Brigham Circle stations. As we can see, Brigham and Children's are much easier to access from the E, and the western campus of Beth Israel, plus the nearby Yawkey and Joslin Centers, aren't particularly easily accessed from any line.
View attachment 57767

Adding in an infill at Netherlands Road fills that gap:

View attachment 57768

The D and E would both have stops at Longwood Ave and Francis St under this proposal. If we choose the best stop from each line for each hospital, we see that Netherlands Road beats Longwood station across the board, even if only slightly for Children's and HMS:

View attachment 57769

The main question here is feasibility. The ROW itself is almost but not quite tangent. Both parcels to the east are owned by the City of Brookline. To the west, the Kent Street Apartments get a bit close to the tracks, but the northern western parcel has large parking lots separating the buildings and ROWs. The proximity to the Muddy River (and the Emerald Necklace) is a bit of a wild card, but, all in all, it shouldn't be the most challenging site for an infill.

One interesting wrinkle is that Riverway has no crosswalk at this location. (Something to be aware of if you are looking to check my math.) I can't imagine it would be an enormous challenge to add a crosswalk, but I suppose there's always room for surprises.

Finally: what's in a name? DaveM called this station "Riverway Island", which seems to be a name that realtors have suggested to create a distinct "neighborhood" here. "Aspinwall" is a nearby cross-street (though some distance away). "Kent Square" is just on the other side of Kent Street in Brookline, though would sound quite similar to the nearby Kent Street station on the C Line. "Francis St" actually exists on both sides of the station: Brookline has one just to the north, and Longwood's is less than 400 feet away; given Francis St's prominence within Longwood Medical Area, this would probably be the best name in terms of being readily identifiable.

But I find "Netherlands" (or "Netherlands Road") to be a delightfully absurd name, all the moreso because its titular street is a minor one, less than 1,000 feet long. On the other hand, that still beats out the street for which one of our most famous and most prominent stations is named.
Jumping back to this one, I really like the idea. Do we have any recent, comparable infills to guess how much a new station here would cost?
 
Jumping back to this one, I really like the idea. Do we have any recent, comparable infills to guess how much a new station here would cost?
In Boston, the most recent infill was Assembly, which looks like it was... in the mid-2-figure millions? But arguably that was a much larger project than this would be (especially if we could get away with a level pedestrian crossing). As a point of comparison, SL3 originally had funding to the tune of $80M, but that included relocating Chelsea station; a subsequent contract was $34M and only included the busway, the stations, the Chelsea Greenway, and some roadwork. On the other hand, Francis station would be on an active ROW, with catenary wires overhead and obviously rails. So that would make it more complex than SL3.

So... maybe I'd SWAG it at $20M? ("Scientific wild-ass guess" likely being an overstatement of my confidence/expertise.)

I'll try to think of recent light rail infills in North America for comparison also.
 
In Boston, the most recent infill was Assembly, which looks like it was... in the mid-2-figure millions? But arguably that was a much larger project than this would be (especially if we could get away with a level pedestrian crossing). As a point of comparison, SL3 originally had funding to the tune of $80M, but that included relocating Chelsea station; a subsequent contract was $34M and only included the busway, the stations, the Chelsea Greenway, and some roadwork. On the other hand, Francis station would be on an active ROW, with catenary wires overhead and obviously rails. So that would make it more complex than SL3.

So... maybe I'd SWAG it at $20M? ("Scientific wild-ass guess" likely being an overstatement of my confidence/expertise.)

I'll try to think of recent light rail infills in North America for comparison also.
Out of curiosity, would the recent / upcoming GL consolidations not be instructive? By building a new consolidated station in a different location, from a technical/construction perspective it's functionally indistinguishable from an infill station. Amory/Babcock combined cost ~30M in 2021 dollars, and something like the relocated BC or consolidated Chestnut Hill/South Street stations would provide 2025 numbers. Since they're part of bigger programs it's not yet possible to parse out costs for specific stations, but it would probably be a good starting point.
 
Out of curiosity, would the recent / upcoming GL consolidations not be instructive? By building a new consolidated station in a different location, from a technical perspective it's functionally indistinguishable from an infill station. Amory/Babcock combined cost ~30M in 2021 dollars, and something like the relocated BC or consolidated Chestnut Hill/South Street stations would provide 2025 numbers. Since they're part of bigger programs it's not yet possible to parse out costs for specific stations, but it would probably be a good starting point.
It's not quite apples to apples comparing the D branch to the B/C branches but I think it's probably close enough. If anything I'd expect costs on the B/C to be higher.
 
It's not quite apples to apples comparing the D branch to the B/C branches but I think it's probably close enough. If anything I'd expect costs on the B/C to be higher.
It depends heavily on whether a D infill would require any re-spacing of signal blocks to fit in a new station block. Involve the Signal Dept. and signal mods, and the price jumps quite a bit higher.
 
I recently learned about the regional park and ride plan being implemented by Intuit Dome, the new home of the LA Clippers. It's basically akin to how Logan Express operates, but using contracted coaches, and it got me thinking about how something like this could work in the Boston Area... And it strikes me that while not a good match for Garden and Fenway events, and hard to compete with free/pay you to park/CR at Gillette, it might not be a bad idea for the next generation of stadia currently proposed or being built relatively far from transit, and extremely constrained parking - White Stadium or the new Revs stadium in Everett. For both they're already proposing game day shuttles to proximate T stops, but honestly? More distant shuttles from regional hubs / parking sinks could be a great idea - For the Revs, perhaps a South Station or even a PVD shuttle could work. I have to imagine they have, or will have, pretty good demographic data on where their fan base lives. I know that the Logan Express facilities are often at capacity, but once their expansions are built?For existing infrastructure you can't really beat that.

1000038765.jpg

On a related note, It's kinda embarrassing how bad the transit connections are in that Kia Forum/ SoFi Stadium/Intuit Dome bit, and that they are in serious jeopardy of losing their 1.2B federal funds commitment after other South Bay cities (SoCal municipal governance is weird) rejected 500m in matching local funds for the 2.4B Inglewood Transit Connector people mover project after all the stadium owners and their congressional rep came out against it.
 
I recently learned about the regional park and ride plan being implemented by Intuit Dome, the new home of the LA Clippers. It's basically akin to how Logan Express operates, but using contracted coaches, and it got me thinking about how something like this could work in the Boston Area.
They have a similar system in place for events at Hollywood Bowl, which works exceptionally well. Much of the planning for the Olympics will follow this model, too, wherever there are gaps in Metro coverage. It could definitely help for Everett and Franklin Park stadia, although I maintain that both locations are not terrible vis-a-vis public transit access.
 
They have a similar system in place for events at Hollywood Bowl, which works exceptionally well. Much of the planning for the Olympics will follow this model, too, wherever there are gaps in Metro coverage. It could definitely help for Everett and Franklin Park stadia, although I maintain that both locations are not terrible vis-a-vis public transit access.
We'll probably have something similar here during the World Cup with buses to Quincy Adams and Riverside.

Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2024 says that "service was operated from Riverside, Forest Hills, and Quincy Adams to the World Cup Soccer games at Foxboro in June-July 1994. Contractor buses ran for Monday-Friday World Cup games, and MBTA buses were used for shuttles to two Saturday World Cup Games"
 
Last edited:
Now that Pawtucket/Central Falls has been open for (almost) 2 years, where should the next RI infill station be?

A station in Cranston should be the next priority for Rhode Island IMO, but I know they've also considered stations in Olneyville, East Greenwich, and West Davisville.
 
None of those are likely to see substantial demand unless frequency is massively increased. For service to downtown Providence, Cranston and Olneyville stations will be outcompeted by RIPTA buses like the R-Line (10 minutes much of the day), 20 (15 minutes) and 1 (20 minutes) unless rail is operating at similar headways. Anything south of downtown Providence seems unlikely to have much Boston commuter ridership - there's just never been a real supercommuter market beyond there - so you're mainly looking at the intrastate market.

The first priorities should be increasing Wickford-Providence frequency, timing connecting buses to every train, and extending south to Kingston which has proven demand. Once the MBTA service on the line is fully electric, then you can start thinking about infill stations and adding non-Boston-centric service. Eventually work your way up to something like 30-minute Boston-TF Green service plus 30-minute Woonsocket-Kingston service (with maybe every other serving Worcester and Westerly). That gives you 15-minute headways in the urban core between Pawtucket/CF and TF Green, which can serve as your trunkline to focus bus service around.

At that point I think your NEC stations are P/CF, Providence, Onleyville, Elmwood, Auburn/Cranston, TF Green, East Greenwich, Wickford Junction, Kingston, Shannock, and Westerly. Woonsocket service would have Manville, Ashton, and Valley Falls. You'd want to look at Smithfield Avenue, Atwells, Norwood, Apponaug, West Davisville, and Bradford as additional infills, but I can't imagine most panning out even in a maximal service scenario.
 
None of those are likely to see substantial demand unless frequency is massively increased. For service to downtown Providence, Cranston and Olneyville stations will be outcompeted by RIPTA buses like the R-Line (10 minutes much of the day), 20 (15 minutes) and 1 (20 minutes) unless rail is operating at similar headways. Anything south of downtown Providence seems unlikely to have much Boston commuter ridership - there's just never been a real supercommuter market beyond there - so you're mainly looking at the intrastate market.

The first priorities should be increasing Wickford-Providence frequency, timing connecting buses to every train, and extending south to Kingston which has proven demand. Once the MBTA service on the line is fully electric, then you can start thinking about infill stations and adding non-Boston-centric service. Eventually work your way up to something like 30-minute Boston-TF Green service plus 30-minute Woonsocket-Kingston service (with maybe every other serving Worcester and Westerly). That gives you 15-minute headways in the urban core between Pawtucket/CF and TF Green, which can serve as your trunkline to focus bus service around.

At that point I think your NEC stations are P/CF, Providence, Onleyville, Elmwood, Auburn/Cranston, TF Green, East Greenwich, Wickford Junction, Kingston, Shannock, and Westerly. Woonsocket service would have Manville, Ashton, and Valley Falls. You'd want to look at Smithfield Avenue, Atwells, Norwood, Apponaug, West Davisville, and Bradford as additional infills, but I can't imagine most panning out even in a maximal service scenario.
I fully agree if you're talking about building infill stations for a RI intrastate rail service - increasing frequencies to pass the minimum "usefulness" threshold is where that conversation starts. But if you're building stations for MBTA service, I think Olneyville and Cranston could be justifiable. Pawtucket-Central Falls and Olneyville have very similar fundamentals within a mile radius of their (existing/proposed) stations...at least per the charts on p.7-8 here, combined population and jobs within a mile radius of existing/proposed station locations is a little over 50,000 in both cases. (Olneyville skews more heavily toward population than PCF does.)

It's true that demand for Boston-oriented MBTA service drops off south of Providence, but where that cutoff point lies is hard to tell from south-of-PVD ridership numbers because those stations only receive limited service. I remember reading in a RIDOT study (which I can't seem to find online now) that curtailing MBTA service at Providence actually doesn't gain as much capacity as terminating at TF Green. The recommendation was to make TF Green the Providence Line's southern terminus once intrastate rail was able to take over Wickford Junction. In a world where TF Green and any stations north enjoy full service, Olneyville would probably post similar MBTA ridership numbers as PCF; Cranston wouldn't be quite as strong (only about 40% as many people/jobs within a mile radius) but I suspect it would still be respectable; and TF Green probably wouldn't be further behind since it's fundamentals aren't too far behind Cranston's.
 
Cranston and Olneyville certainly wouldn't be an issue on Boston service, especially with zippier electric service that gets TF Green more time-competitive from Boston. I'm just not sure whether they have as strong an orientation towards Boston as P/CF does. I'm not an expert on using census data, but someone who is may be able to extract data to prove/disprove that idea.
 

Back
Top