Even without NH support for a trip up to Nashua, I think the T should extend the Lowell Line up to the Pleasant Street Mall. The Southern Part of that mall is located in Massachusetts.
That has been debated, since US 3 Exit 36 recently had work done to make it a completed interchange. I think the fact that the Mall is HQ'd across the state line makes it jurisdictionally complicated enough that it still ends up a de facto two-state project without a lot of end-run potential.
City of Nashua
does have its downtown stop locked up and ready to build. They purchased a derelict industrial property on Crown St. to put in a
commuter lot. Note how the back property fence perfectly traces the outline of an 800 ft. platform and the track turnouts which would separate it from the freight yard. (The T already has wink-wink understandings with Pan Am about building a layover in the unused back portion of the yard). Realistically, they could proceed to Crown St. if NH/Nashua is a-go and hash out the South Nashua station siting as they go along, on hope that they'd be able to make up time and get that one open too with the rest of the extension.
For stations, UMass Lowell somewhere near the Pawtucket Canal, Roruke Bridge, North Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, and lastly the Nashua Mall (though at the Massachusetts part).
Note: that portion of the line abutting the river and running between the back side of Lowell Station and North Chelmsford Jct. is shared with the busy Pan Am freight main. And it's a complicated traffic area because freights from Ayer come off the Stony Brook Branch on the south-facing side of the ROW but have to depart for Andover via the Lowell Branch off the north side of the ROW. Commuter trains come from the south end of the ROW from Lowell station but break north at N. Chelmsford Jct. Those exchanges have a total of 3 miles to happen, but the track layout has to stay pretty clean for it to happen without conflicts. You most definitely have to have extra passing tracks where possible, and well-staggered crossovers for doing the exchanges. This limits *somewhat* the station placements.
UMass by the
existing track overpass @ Broadway/Riverview would work very well; there's room to quad-track, and you can easily shaft down an egress from the overpass to an island platform. Canal area slightly east wouldn't work well because of bridge, curve, and nearby crossover placement. Rourke Bridge doesn't need a stop, because LRTA bus Route 17 hits Vinal Square at the North Chelmsford stop a mere half-dozen stops away. Station siting for use of the bridge to tap Pawtucketville on the other side of the river also runs into major accessibility issues: a 1000 ft. walk from Middlesex St. on-foot if siting by the bridge, and a 50+ ft. high climb onto the high onto the bridge...whose sidewalk is so narrow it can't possibly meet ADA regs, meaning no station egress dumping onto it can be considered ADA-compliant. That one won't work any which way.
N. Chelmsford station site has been ID'd for the
Butterfield + Sleeper St.'s backlots, which are the closest you can get to Vinal Square without dealing with wetlands. The old B&M stop used to be behind what's now Kennedy Dr., but new residential has taken up that space. Wotton St. grade crossing is planned for closure.
No Tyngsboro stop has been studied (old B&M stop: under the bridge). Since bus coverage cuts out at the town line, first move to means-test demand would be to flush more LRTA coverage between Vinal Square and South Nashua (giving LRTA permission to cross the state line like RIPTA does at South Attleboro)...then see if anything starts stirring demand-wise. If yes, consider an infill later. If no, continue improving the bus frequencies. They'll be surrounded by enough coverage that I don't think it's necessary to plop down a stop because reasons; this is much more a test case for infills and showing infill demand.
Even if it attracts NH passengers, most of those passengers will be traveling to Boston/Lowell to work (paying MA income tax) or traveling to Boston/Lowell to spend money (helping the economy). That's why I think this should be built even if it receives no NH money.
Unfortunately MA has already gerrymandered all that it can by cutting the lifetime trackage rights agreement with Pan Am for Concord (which remains in effect even if NHDOT buys the line or it passes to another freight carrier). They have all the operating rights they'd ever need, as well as access to the freight yards and/or tail tracks in all 3 of the cities for any layover yard configuration. City of Nashua has also done all that can be done outside of state purview by purchasing its downtown station site on Crown St., cleaning up the brownfields, and landscaping it so platform + platform tracks are literally plug-and-play. But the T and City of Nashua can't float a subsidy agreement for the train and the T can't directly launder money to Pan Am for the mainline track work (only make sure it's done to their passenger specifications). The volatile NH legislature has to convert on the goal line.
It's not much of an ask, mind you. But this is the bugfark "People's Legislature" we're talking about here, as well as the Vatican-like Governor's Council. They change their minds more than most folks change underwear.
For the Haverhill line, add a south Lawrence location. South Lawrence is dense, the station dosn't even need additional parking. Also reconfigure bus service there to serve the mbta stops better.
Contingent on Haverhill running via the Lowell Line to Wilmington, I'd also add
Ward Hill in North Andover for the good TOD potential, direct 495 access, and close access to MA 213. And, contingent on a state line (Hilldale Ave. industrial park) location for a Bradford-replacement layover yard, add
Rosemont Ave. as the terminal stop on the station property the T has owned since the failed 1981 attempt to expand here. Adjacent junkyard is redevelopable for TOD, decent amount of Haverhill residential density that's not near any other station, and MVRTA bus Route 13 can be redrawn to loop here opening up access to the residential/commercial density around Main St. that's not all that close to the downtown stop.
For the nbryprt rckprt line, add a South Salem station. Also, with electrification, add a new East Lynn stop between Lynn and Swampscott. You could still run the rush hour express trains. It looks like there's space for a passing 3rd track if needed. You could also put an East Cheslea/Revere stop (though I'm not sure exactly where). Maybe something near the Chelsea River bridge, with some better pedestrian connections.
You don't need a third track. Unless you've got wild variety in who's skipping what, the only thing you would need are more crossovers. Oh, and definitely double-up that Salem mainline platform they forgot to do when they dropped huge coin on that parking garage. Peabody's fine because they've got a separate turnout in the tunnel, and South Salem will add a useful throttle for staging orderly tunnel slots...but at RER service levels Newburyport and Rockport are going to butt heads around that single platform.
The Revere station has been proposed ad nauseam in umpteen different places, and projected a ridership loser each time. Even the Eastern RR and B&M couldn't draw flies there back in the old days, so through most of its history the Eastern Route has never locally served Revere. The only place that makes a lick of sense is by MA 145 and MA 16, but its in a scuzzy industrial neighborhood with the those two parkways and adjacent 1A entombing the would-be station site in a wall of cars preventing any easy access to the residential to the west. And, Beachmont is pretty damn close.
West on the other side of the creek towards Eastern Ave. it's slimmer pickings with more scuzzy industrial, and water. SL3 takes the much tastier routing that direct-connects with Broadway buses.
Anything near Wonderland has already failed on ridership study so many times that the repeated attempts to make it a 'thing' are now self-parody. It's a 1000 ft. walk to the Blue + bus transfer, the TOD isn't taking off, and NECCO's implosion only complicates the ineptitude at getting something more functional than a Logan aux lot going at the ex- dog track. RER frequencies aren't nearly enough to fish this site out of the water.
For the Providence line, Providence should have multiple stations. Add a West End and a Cranston stop, plus the Pawtucket stop already planned.
Cranston is already planned by RIDOT at
Station St. Will be a quad-track station, 2 side platforms, 2 center passers. They still have to fund renovations of Westerly for 3 tracks and full-high platforms before tackling this one, but they've nailed down where it'll go and what it'll be. An
Olneyville stop was considered, but uncertainty about the design for the 6-10 Connector rebuild had them passing on it until it became clearer what canvas they had to work with. If the highway ramp sprawl gets compacted in orderly fashion allowing for 4 NEC tracks + side room for platforms, they will probably put that back on the front-burner pronto since it's highly desired.
For the Worcester Line, bring the line down to the Auburn Mall, with an additional 2 Worcester stops in between.
This is never going to happen. The T doesn't own or dispatch the B&A west of the Worcester Union Station turnout, so there's an immediate rights blocker that won't be solved without buying the B&A. Second is how excruciatingly long that schedule ends up getting. You have to draw the line somewhere, and Worcester Union Station and the headquarters of WRTA is the highest-leverage point to draw it. Going outside WRTA's bus service area brings fast-diminishing returns on the ridership dragged further by how freaking long it takes to get between Boston and Auburn. Third, going to Auburn means additional adjacent towns--Oxford, Spencer, Charlton--would have to be voted into the MBTA district for using the services in Auburn at the western frontier of the district. That's not going to be an easy sell when trying to assess fees, because they'll want discounts over the rest of the municipalities for being forced to put up with such extreme-outlier travel times. It's not a geographically statewide transit service; the boundary has to go somewhere.
