Reasonable Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

Adding the "extras" layer to the map, I'm thinking about stop placement on a Watertown branch out of Porter.

Here's my brainstorm:

• Porter (subway under Commuter Rail)
• Portal west(?) of Walden St on south side of Commuter Rail tracks

This will be a very shallow tunnel. Shimmy under at the Beacon St. bridge, then the tunnel roof becomes the literal commuter rail trackbed. Bonus: the construction can lower the level of the CR tracks slightly to provide enough overclearance to cap Mass Ave.-Beacon St. for air rights. With the levels adjustment, Green would interface with the Porter fare lobby with a ramp down, and CR would interface with a ramp up that's less steep than today's stairs.

On a Porter-only build they'd extend tail tracks underneath Mass Ave. through the curve. From there when it's time to extend you're just uncovering the capped tunnel wall and building an incline on the Upland Rd. side of the ROW (i.e. switching sides from where you enter the tunnel @ Beacon). Because the tunnel is so shallow you're probably inclined to the surface by the time you're at Richdale Ave. @ Cambridge Terrace.

• Sherman Street (West of Sherman adjacent to extant Jose's parking lot. Potential footpath access to Danehy?)

No stops here. You need to find a way to grade separate at least the rapid transit mode, because Sherman is a living hell at rush hour. That will preclude doing any stops. Unfortunately the City permitted the apartments abutting the crossing to go right up to the property lines and dangerously screw with the crossing's sightlines. Can't sink the CR tracks because of the busy Yerxa Rd. ped overpass, can't easily raise the CR tracks without trains being in rich folks' back windows, and can't raise the road without trying a ham-fisted S-curve through the Jose's and glass co.'s parking lots to get the rise.

I think a minimally-shallow duck-under of just the GL tracks while leaving the CR tracks at-grade is the only possible solution. If any on-road water/sewer utilities immediately under the crossing surface are ripped out and relocated aside, they could pour a tunnel that gets down in the 800 ft. between Sherman & the ped underpass, and up in the 750 ft. between Sherman and the Watertown Branch split. Extremely doable at trolley grades.

• Fresh Pond Either north of Fresh Pond Parkway or elevated over the parkway

Parkway can probably be underpassed, while rear driveway to Mall can be closed to thru traffic and made into a controlled ped crossing and locked service vehicle gate.

Station probably works best sited by the side entrance/lot to the Mall, with egress to New St. near Bay State Rd. Incline down can start roughly behind Hi-Tech Autobody and the new kickboxing place. Incline up would probably then be between Bank of America and the Mobil station. You'd need to relocate the Vassal Lane ped signal closer to the rotary. So, say the signal goes in front of the BoA parking lot, and there's a little S-curve in the path to get behind the portal wall which would start a few feet earlier.

ROW then travels along the parkway on footprint of the current bike path, with the pike path folded in closer to the Reservoir by the remade ped path. Waterworks driveway could be outright closed to eliminate that grade crossing, and the other driveway that passes over the tracks could have its bridge widened if necessary.

• Strawberry Hill (@ Huron Ave)
• Mount Auburn (Behind Star Market)
• Either Grove Street OR Arlington Street (Which would need a new name... Coolidge Hill?)

Note that Cottage St. just south of Mt. Auburn will be a retained grade crossing. Very minor low-traffic street so does not merit a stop, but the crossing is that section of neighborhood's only access to the outside world so it has to stay.

Arlington is busier and is a crossing that can't be eliminated because of the intersection that sits on top of it. Grove's overpass is extremely tall and an accessibility challenge. It'll make stop spacing to the Mall a little awkwardly close, but otherwise it's pretty clear-cut in favor of Arlington. Trolley phase grafted onto the traffic signals will allow for it.

• Watertown Greenway or if you like Watertown Mall (Behind Watertown Mall with path access to Arsenal Street)
• Arsenal (East of School Street where reservation ends and tracks join Arsenal Street)
• Beechwood Ave (Shared bus/trolley station)
• Watertown Square (Shared bus/trolley station somewhere between the branch of North Beacon St and Charles River Rd)
• Watertown Yard (On Galen Street adjacent to the car yard, which would be reactivated)
• Morse Street (Shared bus/trolley station)
• Newton Corner (Station and loop between Pearl and Washington west of Centre)

Note that Watertown Square bulbs out wide enough at the merge w/ N. Beacon that you can have a full reservation platform if the traffic islands adjacent to the Taylor St. intersection were reworked. Otherwise you're looking at some variation of San Fran-style streetcar + bus platforms for Beechwood, H2O Yard, and Morse.

 

[George_Apley]

No stops here. You need to find a way to grade separate at least the rapid transit mode, because Sherman is a living hell at rush hour. That will preclude doing any stops. Unfortunately the City permitted the apartments abutting the crossing to go right up to the property lines and dangerously screw with the crossing's sightlines. Can't sink the CR tracks because of the busy Yerxa Rd. ped overpass, can't easily raise the CR tracks without trains being in rich folks' back windows, and can't raise the road without trying a ham-fisted S-curve through the Jose's and glass co.'s parking lots to get the rise.

I think a minimally-shallow duck-under of just the GL tracks while leaving the CR tracks at-grade is the only possible solution. If any on-road water/sewer utilities immediately under the crossing surface are ripped out and relocated aside, they could pour a tunnel that gets down in the 800 ft. between Sherman & the ped underpass, and up in the 750 ft. between Sherman and the Watertown Branch split. Extremely doable at trolley grades.

That's a shame, leaving over 1.3 miles without any stops between Porter and Fresh Pond with housing density existing to provide ridership. Walden Street crossing is too close to Porter to try for a stop.

Traffic on Sherman is frustrating because it's largely people trying to avoid the Fresh Pond Parkway getting to and from Route 2 by using Rindge instead. The Walden/Sherman intersection is a disaster, with all of the left-turners causing backups on Walden Street all the way to Concord Ave.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That's a shame, leaving over 1.3 miles without any stops between Porter and Fresh Pond with housing density existing to provide ridership. Walden Street crossing is too close to Porter to try for a stop.

Traffic on Sherman is frustrating because it's largely people trying to avoid the Fresh Pond Parkway getting to and from Route 2 by using Rindge instead. The Walden/Sherman intersection is a disaster, with all of the left-turners causing backups on Walden Street all the way to Concord Ave.

Oh, I know...I used to live a block away from the corner of Walden/Sherman. I know that grade crossing better than any other, and unfortunately all the traffic as well. It's going to get several times more terrible if RER frequencies come to the Fitchburg Line, so the City needs to be on-notice now to start thinking of fixes that can remove the excess volume. If I had any better solution for what to do here, I'd offer it. But barring some unlikely miracle that allows the road to get put on a bridge without a lot of yuppies getting very angry, I don't see any other way of doing it than making the trolleys duck under so the neighborhood only has to suffer from the least-worst Fitchburg RER crossing impacts. There's not nearly enough runup space to do a bridge any justice.

Ways to mitigate the station spacing could involve putting a stop by Danehy Park near the Cinemas, where a footbridge over the Fitchburg Line to Jefferson Park & Rindge Apts. and a path plunked on top of the Green Line duck-under running to Sherman from the west via rear of Danehy Park and from the east via tie-in to the Yerxa Rd. underpass ends up providing equitable access to all the residential. Stop spacing would be so that "Fresh Pond North" stop is 1200-1400 ft. from the main Mall/Parkway/New St. stop positioned right before the parkway duck-under. Close, but not off-scale close.

 

[tysmith95]

A new Silver Line route, SL6. Run it from Wellington, through the Chelsea busway, and end it at the airport/blue line.

The 111 is going to be fucked the next few years. So the more additional options for Chelsea the better. The SL3 has pretty crappy headway's, so this would help.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

A new Silver Line route, SL6. Run it from Wellington, through the Chelsea busway, and end it at the airport/blue line.

The 111 is going to be fucked the next few years. So the more additional options for Chelsea the better. The SL3 has pretty crappy headway's, so this would help.

There aren't any 60-footers based out of any garages other than Southampton, so that puts a crimp on this for the short-term because the only thing Charlestown can scramble is a bunch of 40's...which are not going to be a ton of help at rush.


HOWEVER, the Bus Facilities Master Plan study of several years ago called for taking the entirety of the rear parking area at Wellington (to be traded for a vertical garage stacked up near the parkway/KISS 108 building), and building a 200+ 60-footer bus yard to be attached to Charlestown garage by proximity and allowing for closure of Fellsway garage. The FCMB is supposed to be getting a facilities presentation in the next few months amid all this Better Stuff making final recs for garage modernizations and relocations. This proposal would be a game-changer for all the routes that would become 60-footer capable.

Caveat: ...but it's expensive, so it's equally likely they'll kick the can on it some more.

 

[Equilibria]

There aren't any 60-footers based out of any garages other than Southampton, so that puts a crimp on this for the short-term because the only thing Charlestown can scramble is a bunch of 40's...which are not going to be a ton of help at rush.


HOWEVER, the Bus Facilities Master Plan study of several years ago called for taking the entirety of the rear parking area at Wellington (to be traded for a vertical garage stacked up near the parkway/KISS 108 building), and building a 200+ 60-footer bus yard to be attached to Charlestown garage by proximity and allowing for closure of Fellsway garage. The FCMB is supposed to be getting a facilities presentation in the next few months amid all this Better Stuff making final recs for garage modernizations and relocations. This proposal would be a game-changer for all the routes that would become 60-footer capable.

Caveat: ...but it's expensive, so it's equally likely they'll kick the can on it some more.

They already got it:

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...ization-part1-policy-strategic-accessible.pdf

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...facilities-modernization-part2-accessible.pdf

 

[DominusNovus]

Really small one: the footbridge that connects Camden and Gainsborough, and serves as a bsck exit of the Mass Ave stop. Would that make sense to turn into a full entrance for the station?

 

[Downburst]

Really small one: the footbridge that connects Camden and Gainsborough, and serves as a bsck exit of the Mass Ave stop. Would that make sense to turn into a full entrance for the station?

Oh, yes. Please. I'm honestly surprised they haven't already- it's a very useful location and it looks like they could do it pretty easily from my admittedly layman perspective

 

[JumboBuc]

^ Would it would need to be fully ADA accessible to be a full entrance to the station? It isn't now.

 

[DominusNovus]

^ Would it would need to be fully ADA accessible to be a full entrance to the station? It isn't now.

Not sure - but I don’t think it would be too hard to put an elevator there.

 

[DominusNovus]

This one might be on the edge between 'crazy' and 'reasonable' but is there any feasible way to connect the Route 128 station to the Foxboro station? The only remotely reasonable way I can guess is to run down to Mansfield and then reverse up to Foxboro, but while the infrastructure is there, its not exactly practical (and backing up to Readville and then down seems even less practical). On the other hand, the only other option would be running tracks along 95 and route 1, which is pretty nuts.

Basically, my thoughts are for a large 'park and ride' station right off the highway that can go straight to Gillette. I could see that getting a reasonable amount of use for games. Dedham Corporate might work if they built up more parking - hell, just make that a stop for the Foxboro trains and see how popular it is. I'd park there rather than drive all the way down to Gillette and get stuck in traffic and pay a comparable amount for parking.

 

[Riverside]

I believe Dedham Corp already is a stop on Boston-Gillette trains.

 

[tysmith95]

I believe Dedham Corp already is a stop on Boston-Gillette trains.

It is. And Dedham Corporate Center has roughly 500 spots, so I think it's more than enough for the one train that goes to Gillette. I don't have experience using that station though.

The Foxboro track does connect to the Providence line, but that connection occurs south of the stadium (and currently doesn't have a way to go from the Providence Line south to Foxboro without stopping and changing direction.

I'm not sure about the weekday utilization of Dedham Corp Center, but I don't think it would be hard to add a 2nd level making Dedham Corp into a garage (and adding 400 stops). Though i'm not sure if there is a point to doing that because it is so close to the 128 station.

 

[Shepard]

I dispute whether any major infrastructure improvement for ~8-12 traffic-generating events per year can be considered "reasonable" ... especially when it benefits a privately-owned venue.

I think a more "reasonable" question is - how can Foxboro get regular service to a real town-center station (Mechanic Street)? Would sending regular service to Foxboro need to be at the expense of service to Norfolk, Franklin and Forge Park?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I dispute whether any major infrastructure improvement for ~8-12 traffic-generating events per year can be considered "reasonable" ... especially when it benefits a privately-owned venue.

I think a more "reasonable" question is - how can Foxboro get regular service to a real town-center station (Mechanic Street)? Would sending regular service to Foxboro need to be at the expense of service to Norfolk, Franklin and Forge Park?

Foxboro residents already rejected the idea of a town-center stop. The layover yard for "Option 3", the fullest-build F'boro service, also isn't positioned opportune for serving the town center. So some engineering-practical, some attitudinal reason behind that.


No Forge Park slots are being vultured for the trial service, as those are all super-extended Fairmount slots. Full-build would outright double the number of local round-trips to Walpole from 16 to 32, so not only wouldn't impact Forge Park but would massively expand Endicott-Walpole service. Proceeding straight to "Option 3" build after the F'boro trial is the no-brainest of no-brainers. Especially since you'll be hard pressed to find a service expander that big for that cheap.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It is. And Dedham Corporate Center has roughly 500 spots, so I think it's more than enough for the one train that goes to Gillette. I don't have experience using that station though.

The Foxboro track does connect to the Providence line, but that connection occurs south of the stadium (and currently doesn't have a way to go from the Providence Line south to Foxboro without stopping and changing direction.

I'm not sure about the weekday utilization of Dedham Corp Center, but I don't think it would be hard to add a 2nd level making Dedham Corp into a garage (and adding 400 stops). Though i'm not sure if there is a point to doing that because it is so close to the 128 station.

DC is growing enormously due to Legacy Place. The killer feature it lacks is road connectivity across both sides. One lot's only accessible from the Route 1 side, while the other is only accessible from the East St. side. Spanning the tracks with an overpass (however tricky) would make it all a more solid wall of TOD slugging more than the sum of its parts. For all the overhype about Westwood Landing, the area around DC is closer overall to executing on its promise.

 

[DominusNovus]

It is. And Dedham Corporate Center has roughly 500 spots, so I think it's more than enough for the one train that goes to Gillette. I don't have experience using that station though.

The Foxboro track does connect to the Providence line, but that connection occurs south of the stadium (and currently doesn't have a way to go from the Providence Line south to Foxboro without stopping and changing direction.

I'm not sure about the weekday utilization of Dedham Corp Center, but I don't think it would be hard to add a 2nd level making Dedham Corp into a garage (and adding 400 stops). Though i'm not sure if there is a point to doing that because it is so close to the 128 station.

Good to know. The T’s website was very opaque on that matter.

 

[tysmith95]

Good to know. The T’s website was very opaque on that matter.

And, not that I'd endorse this in any way, but there is a huge parking garage near an outlet shopping center a short walk away from Dedham corporate that allows people to park for a few hours.

 

[tysmith95]

Why is reading station only single tracked? It seems like there is plenty of room for double track at the station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why is reading station only single tracked? It seems like there is plenty of room for double track at the station.

Boston & Maine being cheap. There was zero passenger service past Reading from 1959-1979 as all thru service to North Wilmington and beyond was run via the Lowell Line + Wildcat Branch, with Malden-Reading reduced to a short-turn. With this also being a fairly minor freight thru route they did as most cash-strapped RR's of the early diesel era did: rip out the second track and recycle any good rail to plug state-of-repair holes on the rest of the system. Instead of keeping a length of double through Reading station and inserting a new interlocking signal with powered switch, they just cannibalized between the existing interlockings--Wilmington Jct. and Ash St. Interlocking which also controls the middle (former layover) track--and cheaped out on the station itself.

When the station was ADA'd with a mini-high in the 1990's, the T rebuilt the second platform in-total, tactile strip and all. Platform 2 is only missing the track and its mini-high:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Reading_MBTA_station_from_outbound_platform.JPG


Reinstalling Track 2 hasn't been an utmost priority in spite of its usefulness, because of the more serious capacity constraints upstream to Haverhill. First they had to solve the Wilmington Jct.-Lawrence single-tracking to ease delays. Now they still have to find a replacement for small, overstuffed Bradford Layover before schedules can expand.

The RER study's recs for re-divorcing the Haverhill and Reading schedules to run :15 bi-directional headway Urban Rail to Reading will end up forcing the issue once more. 3 capacity enhancements will have to be done:

1. Modify the Reading Jct. split with the Eastern Route in Somerville from a 1 x 2 track split to a 2 x 2 split.
2. Rehab the Wellington passing siding for full service and move its northern tie-in past the Medford St. bridge on an ex- freight siding berth so it reaches 3/4 mile long.
3. Extend DT from Ash St. interlocking through Reading Station past the Woburn St. grade crossing (see where ROW grading for DT ends here by the intermediate signal at edge of the Vine St. parking lot).

Most problematic part is going to be finding a way to place full-high platforms in front of the depot building, which is on the Historic Register. That is going to be no-foolin' brutal. It's possible they may first just raise the unused 2nd platform, flip the single track there, and keep it a single but full-high station in the interim until they can figure out what the hell to do with the depot side. There's only room to do 450 ft. platforms on either side of the building without passing in front, a switch to angled parking on High St. wouldn't serve up any meaningful room to shift the platforms away from the building, undercutting the railbed to 48 inches is futile when the whole works is pinned in by grade crossings, jacking up the building foundation probably isn't an option since it's a street-facing storefront on the side away from the tracks, and it would outright suck to have to flip platforms on the other side of the Woburn St. crossing from lack of alternatives around the building.

Maybe they can just do a T-regulation 800-footer on the Tk. 2 side, and a 450-footer on the depot side ramping-up from the NW side of the building and running to the Woburn St. crossing. Then send any remaining Haverhill thru trains on the schedule to the 800-footer (Haverhill @ RER-frequency :30 headways will end up having a couple daily Downeaster conflicts necessitating one-off diversions via the old routing), while the Urban Rail trains turning at Reading should by all logic not need to exceed 5 cars because of their frequencies and always be able to fit on the 450-footer if they draw that side. Less-than elegant, but that's the best I can come up with.