West Station discussion

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: West Station discussion

Postby FP10 » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:50 am

a) I brought up the terrible name at the most recent meeting (to a round of applause), it's allegedly a placeholder. It exists not because of the T wanting a hub to compliment North and South Stations, but because BU pitched the idea decades ago to go by the BU bridge to serve their West Campus. Besides, if the name was truly inspired by those two it would be West Union Station.
b) There will be an MBTA maintenance yard at Beacon Park, its been part if the plan from the beginning.
c) The new Riverside Station will be by the existing green line terminal, not on the main line at the old station site. It would be physically impossible for Worcester and Framingham trains to stop there without a reverse move. A rebuilt Newton Corner would make a lot more sense as a local-express transfer.
d) I have a feeling as the conversation advances New Balance will be the terminal for the DMUs. Its the end of the urbanized part of Brighton, and the end of quad tracking, allowing for layovers and passing.
"even a money tree would draw opposition in Boston "
FP10
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:09 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby bostontrainguy » Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:12 pm

FP10 wrote:
a) BU pitched the idea decades ago to go by the BU bridge to serve their West Campus.

c) The new Riverside Station will be by the existing green line terminal, not on the main line at the old station site. It would be physically impossible for Worcester and Framingham trains to stop there without a reverse move.


a): Yeah but Boston University has steadily expanded west along Comm. Ave. and its West Campus is now located almost as far west as Packard's Corner. The Greenline's "BU West" doesn't even make sense anymore. There are now three stations between BU West and Packard's Corner (St. Paul, Pleasant, and Babcock). So time to change BU West to Amory Street.

c): Well not quite impossible. There is an abandoned right-of-way that wyes off of the MBTA's "Test Track" behind the Riverside carhouse and goes west across existing bridges over Interstate 95/Route 128. Now it would then have to run through a golf course . . . but it is possible :)
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby typesix » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:11 pm

bostontrainguy wrote: So time to change BU West to Amory Street.


Should be "...change BU West back to Amory Street."
typesix
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:23 am
Location: Boston

Re: West Station discussion

Postby bostontrainguy » Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:43 pm

Saw this today:

BOSTON — A public meeting outlining a proposal to consolidate four Green Line stops along Commonwealth Avenue will be held on Thursday, October 23 at 6:00 PM at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square, 700 Boylston Street, Commonwealth Salon meeting room.

The proposed project would consolidate the BU West, St. Paul, Babcock, and Pleasant stops into two fully accessible stations that will help reduce travel times and improve safety. The proposed new B Line stops would better serve the Boston University and Commonwealth Avenue community as well as all MBTA customers in this very congested corridor.
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby ns3010 » Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:13 am

bostontrainguy wrote:Saw this today:

BOSTON — A public meeting outlining a proposal to consolidate four Green Line stops along Commonwealth Avenue will be held on Thursday, October 23 at 6:00 PM at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square, 700 Boylston Street, Commonwealth Salon meeting room.

The proposed project would consolidate the BU West, St. Paul, Babcock, and Pleasant stops into two fully accessible stations that will help reduce travel times and improve safety. The proposed new B Line stops would better serve the Boston University and Commonwealth Avenue community as well as all MBTA customers in this very congested corridor.


The B Line consolidation project would be completely independent of West Station. You're probably looking for this thread: http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=157872
User avatar
ns3010
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: MP 226.5

Re: West Station discussion

Postby The EGE » Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:16 pm

MBTA Alert for this weekend:

From Saturday October 25 at 5:00AM until Sunday October 26 at 6:00 PM the outbound platform at Yawkey station will be closed due to track work. All trains at Yawkey station will board on the inbound platform.


Is this the start for work to restore the second Beacon Park track?
"Give me an unobstructed right-of-way and I'll show them how to move the earth!"
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the C Branch

Re: West Station discussion

Postby MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:28 pm

The EGE wrote:MBTA Alert for this weekend:

From Saturday October 25 at 5:00AM until Sunday October 26 at 6:00 PM the outbound platform at Yawkey station will be closed due to track work. All trains at Yawkey station will board on the inbound platform.


Is this the start for work to restore the second Beacon Park track?


negative...MOW crews replaced all the ties on the UGB over the Muddy River on Track 7, just beyond MP 2 (which was completed today)
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:57 pm

Re: West Station discussion

Postby johnpbarlow » Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:46 am

Thread bump:
Boston Globe article: BU may help pay for West Station if station-bound road traffic through campus is prevented:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/15/had-planned-contribute-west-station-project-record-shows/xOJcYh9BHCa38N5wJwJXHI/story.html
johnpbarlow
 
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:50 pm

Re: West Station discussion

Postby dbperry » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:56 am

bostontrainguy wrote:
c): Well not quite impossible. There is an abandoned right-of-way that wyes off of the MBTA's "Test Track" behind the Riverside carhouse and goes west across existing bridges over Interstate 95/Route 128. Now it would then have to run through a golf course . . . but it is possible :)


And I found out that if you go snowshoeing at the golf course, you can hike all the way out to the end of the golf course and cross over 128 on those bridges and walk right up to the fence at the back of the Riverside car barn! This path is off limits for the cross country skiers, and access to the bridges isn't advertised, but if you follow the "snowshoe" only path you will come to the embankment for the old route. Didn't see any signs of fences or "no trespassing" signs either, and the path was clearly worn down by previous snowshoers on the day I was there.

Dave
User avatar
dbperry
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Suburbs of Boston

Re: West Station discussion

Postby BandA » Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:34 pm

dbperry wrote:
bostontrainguy wrote:
c): Well not quite impossible. There is an abandoned right-of-way that wyes off of the MBTA's "Test Track" behind the Riverside carhouse and goes west across existing bridges over Interstate 95/Route 128. Now it would then have to run through a golf course . . . but it is possible :)


And I found out that if you go snowshoeing at the golf course, you can hike all the way out to the end of the golf course and cross over 128 on those bridges and walk right up to the fence at the back of the Riverside car barn! This path is off limits for the cross country skiers, and access to the bridges isn't advertised, but if you follow the "snowshoe" only path you will come to the embankment for the old route. Didn't see any signs of fences or "no trespassing" signs either, and the path was clearly worn down by previous snowshoers on the day I was there.

Dave
I think you are talking about the Upper Falls branch. Bike trail would be awesome there (how to shield against golf balls?)
FP10 wrote:...c) The new Riverside Station will be by the existing green line terminal, not on the main line at the old station site. It would be physically impossible for Worcester and Framingham trains to stop there without a reverse move.
Having trains from the Boston & Albany Main Line turn onto the Highland Branch to get to MBTA's Riverside is a Bad Idea. Instead extend the Green Line out to the Main Line at Auburndale. This would require running catanery wire above the existing single track. Green line platform could be built west of the Mass Pike overpass with a path under the bridge to the existing CR platform. To do it right would require widening the bridge over the tracks, push the green line under the bridge (3 tracks at this point), make the existing CR platform an island with green on one side and purple on the other. Put a second parking lot side platform in. I think there is enough room to make Auburndale fully ADA compliant using ramps at both ends of the existing platform rather than elevators. This would also restore Auburndale to it's prior "transit oriented development" state.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby BandA » Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:57 pm

Getting back on-topic...instead of waiting for "West Station", just cut a hole in the fence at Allston Depot & put in a wooden mini-high or full high. Better access to under-served tax-paying transit patrons than "West Station" will ever provide. Add an automatic gate that closes when there are no trains scheduled.

I am sick of the neglect and dis-investment in the inner service on the Framingham-Worcester line. Driving passengers and freight away from service that is car-competitive to blow it on boondoggles. This includes converting a busy freight yard into an empty tax-exempt lot.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby Arlington » Thu May 21, 2015 10:46 am

BandA wrote:This includes converting a busy freight yard into an empty tax-exempt lot.

That's harvard's doing. Though the T pays not taxes either.
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3197
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: West Station discussion

Postby BandA » Thu May 21, 2015 2:41 pm

Arlington wrote:
BandA wrote:This includes converting a busy freight yard into an empty tax-exempt lot.

That's harvard's doing. Though the T pays not taxes either.
Harvard can locate their buildings basically anywhere. They don't need to drive out functioning, job creating businesses. Not to mention the blight caused by leaving large areas empty for 5-15 years. The Turnpike Authority enabled this by selling the land to Harvard. The state didn't stop them, and helped enable CSX to move out of town. Or the state could have given the "T" money to buy out the Turnpike, who then hands it back to cover "Big Dig" debt payments.

No need for West Station yet. With New Balance funding Boston Landing station, Developers/Harvard/BU should fund 100% of West Station.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: West Station discussion

Postby deathtopumpkins » Thu May 21, 2015 5:22 pm

BandA wrote:The Turnpike Authority enabled this by selling the land to Harvard. The state didn't stop them, and helped enable CSX to move out of town. Or the state could have given the "T" money to buy out the Turnpike, who then hands it back to cover "Big Dig" debt payments.


You do realize that since 2006 there hasn't been a Turnpike Authority, right? And that since 2006 the T has been folded into the state DOT right alongside MassHighway, right? (Admittedly the T does have more autonomy than other DOT divisions though)
You talk as if these are distinct, competing entities.

So the "state" didn't stop the "Turnpike Authority" from selling Harvard the land because they aren't separate entities. And the "state" couldn't have given the T money to buy out the "Turnpike Authority" because that would have been buying out itself, and a completely internal transaction. It was one agency that orchestrated all this.

The state DOT owned the land and sold it to Harvard.
And frankly, I think Harvard developing the land is better than leaving it as a rail yard. It's in a prime location close to the city, and while increased tax revenue would be nice, a cohesive urban neighborhood would be better for everyone, which is hopefully what we'll end up with.

I personally feel West Station is unnecessary though. I think we're unlikely to ever actually see "Indigo" service, and Worcester schedules are slow enough already, so building all these close-in stops slow down trips from Worcester without providing much benefit, as very few people are actually going to want to take the train from Allston to South Station given that they'd be packed in with Worcester commuters, it'd be a relatively slow trip, and the fare system is neither integrated with the rest of the T system nor suitable for the 21st Century. It seems like interested parties want a rapid transit line without paying for one.
Call me Connor or DTP

Railfan & Roadgeek from the North Shore of Mass.
deathtopumpkins
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am
Location: Somerville, MA

Re: West Station discussion

Postby BandA » Thu May 21, 2015 5:47 pm

deathtopumpkins wrote:
BandA wrote:The Turnpike Authority enabled this by selling the land to Harvard. The state didn't stop them, and helped enable CSX to move out of town. Or the state could have given the "T" money to buy out the Turnpike, who then hands it back to cover "Big Dig" debt payments.


You do realize that since 2006 there hasn't been a Turnpike Authority, right? And that since 2006 the T has been folded into the state DOT right alongside MassHighway, right? (Admittedly the T does have more autonomy than other DOT divisions though)
You talk as if these are distinct, competing entities.
This transaction occurred before those authorities were merged into DOT, so yes, they were separate agencies working at cross-purposes. The "T" protested, and they received rights to the second track and a couple of storage tracks. Imagine if the T had all of Beacon Park & the small engine shed & fuelling facility, it would have eliminated their space crunch for the next 25 years, albeit not as well located as Widet Cir. I believe this was after the Metropolitan Highway was setup (assigning Big-Dig maintenance & debt reponsibilities to the unrelated Mass Turnpike Extension) and before the fatal tunnel roof collapse, so the Turnpike Authority needed a few millions to pay for their inflated operating costs and/or big-dig debt. The turnpike authority didn't care at all about freight, freight customers or public transportation, or even their own highway congestion!
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests