Watertown Infill CR Station

S

Smuttynose

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
623
Reaction score
3,287
The MBTA is planning accessibility improvements to the three CR stations in Newton. But the T has been advertising this planning effort since at least 2019, so I'm not sure how actively it is actually being pursued. If Newtonville station requires significant investment anyway, would it make sense to just move the station one mile east? Here's the basic pitch --

For a suburb, Newton has pretty extensive rail transit options - three commuter rail stations along the Worcester line and an extensive number of stations along the Green Line Riverside line. Newton has a population density of approx. 5,000 per square mile, which places it on the lower density side of communities within Route 128 - more dense than Winchester, but less dense than Belmont or Melrose. Newton also doesn't appear super enthused about the idea of welcoming additional growth (Zoning debate heats up in Newton after voters oust pro-housing councilors - https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/...r-voters-ousted-pro-housing-councilors-121768).

Watertown, on the other hand, has a population density nearly double that of Newton and appears more welcoming of growth - Watertown Square Plan Approved by Council & Planning Board; Zoning & Design to Occur This Fall https://www.watertownmanews.com/202...nning-board-zoning-design-to-occur-this-fall/. Yet there are no rail transit options within a reasonable walking distance of Watertown Square/Downtown Watertown.

But the Worcester line gets pretty close to Watertown Square at Centre Street (near the Four Points Hotel over the Pike). A station here would be located in Newton, but you could throw a rock across the city line into Watertown (about a 15-minute walk to Watertown Square). This would also be the closest rail station to the Arsenal redevelopment area The land in Newton already appears public - it is fenced off and houses the Newton Corner Bell Tower (not it's original location, so I'm assuming relocation would be relatively straight-forward). Just interested if there's any logistical considerations, beside basic costs to construct, that would make this more challenging or not feasible.

Watertown CR.JPG
 
- Newtonville has had a bunch of recent ToD surrounding the station with hundreds of units + more likely coming (~300 units at 78 Crafts St under 40B). It's IMO, not exactly sending a great signal to developers about how much you can rely on the MBTA service continuing to exist if you're moving/closing long-standing stations. - especially after the MBTA has committed some some other sins there in terms of Middleborough + Plymouth recently.

- I'm not sure the various bridge supports are far enough back from the tracks to leave enough width for your platform, and you're going to need to fit under at least 2 bridges for the full platform length, at least for what my 30 seconds of measuring on google maps suggests.

- More minor - the homeowners along the tracks to the east are going to be very unhappy with the train horns that stations mean.

- I don't necessarily have a problem with Watertown's plan, but it's worth noting that a lot of that density basically already exists or was already possible if someone proposed it under existing zoning. There's certainly a number of opportunities but it's not all that exciting in terms of how much it's realistically likely to lead to once you consider the current built environment on those sites. Other than the MBTA yard there's not all that much South of the Charles offered by that zoning map to actually build up substantially from today on.
 
In a scenario with electrified regional rail, adding a station at Newton Corner without eliminating any other wouldn't effect travel times with any significance. A reality with West Station and the Grand Junction restored could operate the Newton Stations to a new Riverside. Even with diesel Newton Corner and Newtonville have about the same distance between them as Newtonville-West Newton so nothing would really need to be eliminated.
millerm277 said:
- I'm not sure the various bridge supports are far enough back from the tracks to leave enough width for your platform, and you're going to need to fit under at least 2 bridges for the full platform length, at least for what my 30 seconds of measuring on google maps suggests.
Click to expand...
I believe there is just enough room for side platforms but the tracks would need to be realigned under the supports and it'd be a very precise squeeze that I'm not sure would be compatible with the very occasional freight move through there.
millerm277 said:
- More minor - the homeowners along the tracks to the east are going to be very unhappy with the train horns that stations mean.
Click to expand...
Trains don't typically sound horns without a grade crossing unless there are workers on the tracks ahead or just feel like it so that shouldn't be an issue with a silence order.
 
I like the idea of adding a station there, but probably not at the expense of an existing station. I also just don't think there's enough space there, maybe half of what you need to get a center-platform station (using Boston Landing as a model).

I think the more valuable station is directly across the river from Arsenal area. A Parsons Street station near-ish to Oak Square seems more valuable as it is near both jobs and housing density. Both are discussed in this Transit Matters report:
 
okin15 said:
I like the idea of adding a station there, but probably not at the expense of an existing station. I also just don't think there's enough space there, maybe half of what you need to get a center-platform station (using Boston Landing as a model).

I think the more valuable station is directly across the river from Arsenal area. A Parsons Street station near-ish to Oak Square seems more valuable as it is near both jobs and housing density. Both are discussed in this Transit Matters report:
Click to expand...
The bus connections aren't anywhere near as rich at Faneuil vs. Newton Corner. Faneuil would have only the same infrequent 64 that also stops at Boston Landing. Newton Corner has the 57, 52, 553, 554, 556, and 558...and could if the station were built easily also get an extended 71. Newton Corner is one you try like hell to structurally fit in, cost be damned, its connections are so good. Faneuil is heavily dependent on area TOD taking off before it's worth putting on the board at all.
 
okin15 said:
I like the idea of adding a station there, but probably not at the expense of an existing station. I also just don't think there's enough space there, maybe half of what you need to get a center-platform station (using Boston Landing as a model).

I think the more valuable station is directly across the river from Arsenal area. A Parsons Street station near-ish to Oak Square seems more valuable as it is near both jobs and housing density. Both are discussed in this Transit Matters report:
Click to expand...
Havent seen grade separation at framingham mentioned in a long time, so this is nice to see that this is still something they see as a priority. Even at current rail frequencies it creates a complete nightmare for traffic downtown, so with the plan to eventually move to regional rail frequencies they might as well just leave the gates down at all times because nobodys getting through there. Hopefully they seriously figure something out.

IMG_0870.jpeg
 
stick n move said:
Havent seen grade separation at framingham mentioned in a long time, so this is nice to see that this is still something they see as a priority. Even at current rail frequencies it creates a complete nightmare for traffic downtown, so with the plan to eventually move to regional rail frequencies they might as well just leave the gates down at all times because nobodys getting through there. Hopefully they seriously figure something out.
Click to expand...
The Framingham crossings have been subject to 40 (!) separation/mitigation studies over the last century, and the city has deadlocked itself every single time. Right down to deadlocking on common-sense short-term tweaks to the street grid and crossing equipment. It's incredibly unlikely they'd agree this latest time it's brought up. Since gates-down there is no constraint to train traffic (there's a 25 MPH speed restriction, but it's on a station approach for everything on the schedule including Amtrak so not a performance demerit), what's probably going to need to happen is a solid decade of Framingham suffering under the traffic of gates-down every 7.5 minutes to shock them into some sort of consensus on taking action. It's tough medicine, but it's probably the only way they'll seriously consider separation schemes.

But no, it shouldn't be a prerequisite for implementing Regional Rail in the first place...and I take issue with TransitMatters framing it that way. RER traffic doesn't "necessitate" anything there.
 
Oh I definitely agree that its going to take regional rail being put into place first and ppl having to deal with the complete traffic apocalypse that comes with it… every single day first hand until they finally move on grade separation. I was just saying its nice to see it at least pop up again somewhere in writing because its been a while since anyone even acknowledged the 2000 lb gorilla that is coming if regional rail is built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top