Red Line Extension to Mattapan

TheRatmeister said:
Basically any project is possible, so anyone saying something to the contrary needs to either provide some very good reasons or admit by "impossible" they mean that they are just unwilling to spend the necessary money, political capital, or both.
Click to expand...
They're bald-faced lying. The BTD public-records build documentation about the 1928 Dorchester extension of the Red Line and the construction of the High-Speed Line extensively cites how HRT extension to Mattapan is explicitly provisioned. The only reason HRT wasn't done all the way from Day 1 in '28 was because BERy didn't feel the Milton-Mattapan ridership at the time would amortize the extra cost of building and operating prepayment stations, so they cut it at Ashmont terminal and repurposed trolleys for doing the rest of the Old Colony Shawmut + Mattapan Branches. And conversion was studied as late as the 60's.
 
Yes, but this specific project faces many unique challenges, and has a few drawbacks, if is to be built at grade on its current ROW. For example, it cuts through a cemetery, it has 2 grade crossings, and it would run heavy rail along a river

I would love to see the Red Line extended to Mattapan, but the only way it could be done well is by putting it under ground
 
Scott said:
Yes, but this specific project faces many unique challenges, and has a few drawbacks, if is to be built at grade on its current ROW. For example, it cuts through a cemetery, it has 2 grade crossings, and it would run heavy rail along a river

I would love to see the Red Line extended to Mattapan, but the only way it could be done well is by putting it under ground
Click to expand...
No, that is not the only way it could be done well. The ROW was built by the Old Colony concurrent with the cemetery being laid out. It pre-dates any burials. There is no legal consideration due to the cemetery for continuing to run at-grade through it in perpetuity. There is no technical issue with HRT running along a river. Or alongside the existing fence-separated path, for that matter. Steam-hauled trains pulling heavyweight coaches used to run along the same river, and so did freight trains on the residual freight track until the early-90's. The Central Ave. grade crossing elimination is already pre-provisioned by the incline 'hump' between Milton Station and the Central Ave. crossing. All that's needed is some backfill on the ROW to bridge over the road. Capen St. is not a technically complicated elimination as the ROW has a 50 ft. buffer on both sides from adjoining properties to fill an embankment for the rail bridge.

There are no modern factors that negate the 1928 provision for conversion. It's there forever if they ever want to do it.
 
Scott said:
Yes, but this specific project faces many unique challenges, and has a few drawbacks, if is to be built at grade on its current ROW. For example, it cuts through a cemetery, it has 2 grade crossings, and it would run heavy rail along a river

I would love to see the Red Line extended to Mattapan, but the only way it could be done well is by putting it under ground
Click to expand...
Two of those aren't a problem. The grade crossings could be dealt with by running the line through a cutting and then capping it, the riverside bit would possibly need structural reinforcement and maybe a short viaduct but that's far from impossible. The cemetery is not at all a problem from a technical standpoint, but from a political perspective it could be problematic as people may object to running larger trains more frequently above ground. I'm not sure how feasible placing the line in a cutting through the cemetery is but it should be possible, as F-Line pointed out there shouldn't be any grave sites under the ROW.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Two of those aren't a problem. The grade crossings could be dealt with by running the line through a cutting and then capping it, the riverside bit would possibly need structural reinforcement and maybe a short viaduct but that's far from impossible. The cemetery is not at all a problem from a technical standpoint, but from a political perspective it could be problematic as people may object to running larger trains more frequently above ground. I'm not sure how feasible placing the line in a cutting through the cemetery is but it should be possible, as F-Line pointed out there shouldn't be any grave sites under the ROW.
Click to expand...
The cemetery was populated largely before the trolleys, when it was smoke-belching steam trains hauling heavyweight coaches over clackety jointed rail. They really don't have a leg to stand on with any noise complaint. It's not like the trolleys are silent, either; it's still jointed rail, and the PCC's now have HVAC units adding to the noise.

Central Ave. is explicitly provisioned for a rail-over-road bridge. They poured the 'hump' incline between Milton and Central for the '28 conversion for the expressed purpose of later topping it off to achieve full grade separation. Capen I guess you could evaluate either/or, but the fat wooden buffer along both sides of the ROW seems awfully well-provisioned for a future embankment and another rail-over-road bridge. They thoroughly thought of all this 100 years ago, so it isn't a lot of guesswork.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They really don't have a leg to stand on with any noise complaint.
Click to expand...
Has that ever stopped people? You're right that it's not really a problem if we're thinking rationally about this, but "Keep the cemetery tranquil" is a decent, if extremely shallow, rallying cry against any conversion.
F-Line to Dudley said:
Central Ave. is explicitly provisioned for a rail-over-road bridge. They poured the 'hump' incline between Milton and Central for the '28 conversion for the expressed purpose of later topping it off to achieve full grade separation.
Click to expand...
Would this still allow a station to be built at the site? Central Ave gets a lot more passengers than Milton so it would be the preferred location for an intermediate stop.
F-Line to Dudley said:
Central Ave. is explicitly provisioned for a rail-over-road bridge. They poured the 'hump' incline between Milton and Central for the '28 conversion for the expressed purpose of later topping it off to achieve full grade separation. Capen I guess you could evaluate either/or, but the fat wooden buffer along both sides of the ROW seems awfully well-provisioned for a future embankment and another rail-over-road bridge. They thoroughly thought of all this 100 years ago, so it isn't a lot of guesswork.
Click to expand...
I suppose that would also likely lead into an elevated Mattapan station. That being said, this is Milton so NIMBY objections can be expected, if a cutting avoids those with no/minimal extra cost then I think that should be the preferred option.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
Well, considering the actual abutters are all dead, they are unlikely to show up at a community meetings. If they do, we have bigger issues.
Click to expand...
It won't be pretty. Wow, talk about po'd NIMBYS!:
77153.jpg
 
But there has been no study that actually says that you can squeeze heavy rail through it without digging up grandma. If it exists I would love to see it.
 
Scott said:
But there has been no study that actually says that you can squeeze heavy rail through it without digging up grandma. If it exists I would love to see it.
Click to expand...
You don't need to "study" it. The Boston Transit Commission reports on the design and construction of the Red Line + High Speed Line are fully archived by Boston Public Library, and detail at length the provisioning for heavy rail. It's century-proven fact left to us by the original builders. And nobody is buried on or within inches of the ROW. As I said earlier, the ROW easement was purchased while the cemetery was in the process of being laid out, long before anyone was laid to rest. The nearest graves are 25 ft. away from the tracks behind fencing that's been there as long as the cemetery has...not a "squeeze" in the slightest. The tracks were retained from the steam RR days and didn't change position (only being re-ground to rapid transit wheel profile)...so if they were able to "squeeze" full-size steam trains in both directions for nearly 50 years there is more than ample clearance today to pass Red Line consists.
 
Last edited:
Serious question. Is there anything preventing a tunnel straight down Dot Ave from Ashmont to Milton, thus by-passing the cemetery?
 
Scott said:
Serious question. Is there anything preventing a tunnel straight down Dot Ave from Ashmont to Milton, thus by-passing the cemetery?
Click to expand...
  1. Even if there wasn't and even a tunnel through the cemetery is required, that would still be cheaper and easier. The cemetery is the only major potential problem point and the worst case there is a short cutting that gets covered over.
  2. Getting from under Dorchester Ave over to the current alignment would be tricky and certainly require a bored tunnel and probably an underground station as well. If we're doing that then it would be easier to keep the tunnel north of the Neponset River, put a station under the condos/Star Market, and then go into a cutting on the other side of the Neponset to reach Mattapan. But again, this is really expensive and the alternative is a lot cheaper.
 
Well, the cemetery is not the only problem. Putting heavy rail at grade, next to a river/ park/ bike trail shouldn't happen in the 21st Century, it is bad urban planning, and neither should heavy rail be elevated next to housing. The old Washington Street proves that.

I like the idea of it being on the Dorchester side of the river. A flaw to the Mattapan-Ashmont is that it isn't accessible to many people who live close to it
 
Scott said:
Putting heavy rail at grade, next to a river/ park/ bike trail shouldn't happen in the 21st Century, it is bad urban planning
Click to expand...
  1. It's not like the Mattapan Line is silent, it's definitely not.
  2. Why can a rail line not go next to a river exactly? Like seriously, what is the concern there, over-vibrating the fish? I'm not sure they particularly care.
  3. If noise is a large concern on the section you can put it in a cutting, and only leave a few exposed sections.
Scott said:
and neither should heavy rail be elevated next to housing. The old Washington Street proves that.
Click to expand...
  1. The only sections that would be truly "elevated" under any proposal would be the final bit at Mattapan and maybe a station above Central Ave, both of which would be enclosed because they would be a stations
  2. None of the rest of the line would be within sight of any houses. Any embankment around Valley Rd would be behind the treeline that exists for that very reason
  3. That wasn't the (major) problem with the El. The problem was that it made Washington St dark and miserable. If the land underneath is just a railway ROW with maybe some new bonus green space it doesn't really matter.
Scott said:
I like the idea of it being on the Dorchester side of the river. A flaw to the Mattapan-Ashmont is that it isn't accessible to many people who live close to it
Click to expand...
Given that an RL conversion would probably drop down to 1 intermediate station rather than 6, this doesn't really make a difference, especially since there are already apartment buildings on both sides of the Neponset around Central Ave/Milton.

Again, anything you could do to the alternate routing you could also do with the current routing, just easier. If you want a tunnel it's easier to dig a tunnel under an existing ROW.
 
TheRatmeister said:
  1. It's not like the Mattapan Line is silent, it's definitely not.
  2. Why can a rail line not go next to a river exactly? Like seriously, what is the concern there, over-vibrating the fish? I'm not sure they particularly care.
  3. If noise is a large concern on the section you can put it in a cutting, and only leave a few exposed sections.

  1. The only sections that would be truly "elevated" under any proposal would be the final bit at Mattapan and maybe a station above Central Ave, both of which would be enclosed because they would be a stations
  2. None of the rest of the line would be within sight of any houses. Any embankment around Valley Rd would be behind the treeline that exists for that very reason
  3. That wasn't the (major) problem with the El. The problem was that it made Washington St dark and miserable. If the land underneath is just a railway ROW with maybe some new bonus green space it doesn't really matter.

Given that an RL conversion would probably drop down to 1 intermediate station rather than 6, this doesn't really make a difference, especially since there are already apartment buildings on both sides of the Neponset around Central Ave/Milton.

Again, anything you could do to the alternate routing you could also do with the current routing, just easier. If you want a tunnel it's easier to dig a tunnel under an existing ROW.
Click to expand...
One thing to add that I have since thought of, the one advantage of a bored tunnel on the north side of the river would be the potential for a station roughly where the BPHC building is now to serve some senior housing and potential new developments, but I have a hard time seeing how that one benefit makes up for the gigantic cost increase of not just a new deep level station but also all the other deeper stations and bored tunneling.
 
What about the more centrally located corner of Richmond Street and Dot Ave, and forget Milton Station? It's a CVS with a huge parking lot. It would serve all the new construction, St Greg's, the Carney, Dot Park, Dorchester Village and replace service to Milton, Butler and Central Ave
 
Scott said:
What about the more centrally located corner of Richmond Street and Dot Ave, and forget Milton Station? It's a CVS with a huge parking lot. It would serve all the new construction, St Greg's, the Carney, Dot Park, Dorchester Village and replace service to Milton, Butler and Central Ave
Click to expand...
That site has both less current development and less potential for future development than the Star Market location. Local schools aren't big for subway ridership, more for buses although in a perfect world they should be within walking or cycling distance, so in terms of nearby land use I'd consider them a drawback to a site rather than a boon. And again the Star Market alt already doesn't make sense when a much, much easier (almost) equivalent option is available.
 
Just a reminder that the other option has not been proven to be viable either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top