This past week I happened to be at a networking event talking with someone who has worked with the MBTA and knows Newton well. In fact, this person lived in Newton and spent part of his life commuting to Boston through one of the three commuter rail stops we have.
He posed a very interesting question and one that we need to consider: why should the MBTA keep those stations open if we, the City of Newton, don’t supply enough ridership to justify the stations?
When I flip through the comments on the Washington Street vision plan I see a lot of concern about increased density in the village centers with the fear that this will change our city. I also speak with people in Newton who say that the MBTA needs to make the commuter rail better BEFORE we increase our density.
So let’s just ask ourselves what if we stand still? What if Auburndale, West Newton, and Newtonville remain at this population density for the next two decades? And what if a city like Natick builds and increases its density? Where should the MBTA put its resources? Why should a train stop in Newtonville when it can speed more people from Natick into South Station? Why should the MBTA include Newton in a regional rail plan at all? The commuter rail doesn’t have an express track through Newton, so the only way to create express trains from farther out of Boston is to skip (or close) stations.
In that scenario, what happens to all the people who currently take the commuter rail to work? What does that do to our traffic? Worse, most of our villages exist BECAUSE of the train stops. If those trains disappear, what does that do to the very existence of our villages?
I read comments on the Washington Street redesign saying that they don’t want to change the village centers, that what we have is great and we shouldn’t change. But if we don’t change ourselves, the MBTA may do it for us.
I’m all in favor of density, but is it really in the realm of possibility that the MBTA would ever cancel service to those stations, especially if the train to Worcester is running along the tracks anyway? It seems to me that (unfortunately) the MBTA is excessively deferential to the wealthier communities in its service area, so they would never dream of doing such a thing.
Take the 52 bus, which is just about the only public transportation south of Route 9 – there’s nary a soul in that part of town who would ever be caught dead on the bus, so it averages maybe 3 riders per trip (based on personal experience). But it plays an important symbolic role so the MBTA hasn’t axed it.
Actual ridership numbers (from 2014, most recent available) on page 74 /section 4, page 3
https://cdn.mbtace.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edition(1).pdf#page=74
It’s somewhat a chicken-and-egg problem. Right now, it’s physically difficult or impossible for a lot of people to use the existing commuter rail stops whether due to disability or having children in strollers or the like.
I too, believe that more density in and around our village centers would help. But anyone riding the train during rush hour would take issue with the idea that our stops are underutilized. Not to mention that trains are often standing room only. I’m convinced that Newton is somewhat vulnerable to service cuts because of our location, and the fact that we also have alternatives in the express buses and the Green line. The issue as Meredith points out is that accessibility limits even more people from using them. If the T wants to add ridership to justify keeping the Newton stops, that would be the way to do it.
Chuck,
Few thoughts:
1 – The CR -already- skips the Wellesley and Newton stops half the time for trains originating in Worcester. Seems like ridership is already accounted for in the schedule.
2 – Wasn’t the project to redesign the Auburndale CR expanded a bit since the original design was horrible? Unless that’s canceled do you really think the MBTA is going to sink money into it just to close the stations?
3 – The rails are still needed for the Worcester line regardless, I would question just how much savings there is to be had since the rails can’t go away and stops are already there. I believe they did recently close a stop or two on one of the other lines but if I recall correctly the ridership was less than 50 daily, if that.
To play devil’s advocate – why should Newton add significant density around commuter rail stops that are currently an afterthought to the MBTA? With the current single track design there’s no outbound service during morning rush hour and no inbound service during evening rush hour. Outside of that every other train skips Wellesley/Newton for large chunks of the day.
The problem as I see it is these two parts are critically dependent on each other, adding density isn’t going to work without significant improvements to the CR stops themselves and scheduling. What happens if we add the density first and then the MBTA punts on improvements or decides to focus on Worcester regardless? Is there a way to tie these two things in together? I think we absolutely do need more density around our rail stops but that has to go hand in hand with a more fully functional rail system to support that load. If that second part doesn’t happen then we’re stuck with all the issues.
Any cuts to Newton would be for ‘shifting resources’. When budgets must be cut do you
cut service to the affluent community of Newton
or
increase/keep money to a low-income under-served location
MBTA is totally broken and rotten, its foolish to rely on them for anything. Any solution will come from the private sector
– self driving cars
– uber shuttles to Boston
– is ferry service to Boston from northern parts of Newton even possible?
– an new ‘uber commute’ service? allow registered people to become a uber driver for the duration of their commute
– a company to build a light rail/trolley service to Cambridge or nearest T. could it be done?
Unfortunately, I can’t put images in comments, but if you take the data from Anne’s link above and chart it from 2007 through 2013, you can just watch as ridership drops at all three Newton stations while it has a dip and then rises at stations west of here. I would assume the dip in ridership (2009 to 2011) is related to unemployment, which peaked in the state around that time.
But after the dip, the other stations rise and recover while Newton does not (Wellesley’s stations pass Newton’s in ridership). I’d be curious to see more recent ridership numbers to understand if the trend continued.
The point being, just because we’re a wealthy community doesn’t mean we will get to keep the stations. With new stations east of here being talked about, and regional rail becoming a possibility, why would the MBTA continue to support something that the people don’t use, when they can make service faster for others who do use it?
I understand when people say it’s a chicken and egg thing, but I just don’t agree. I think have a chicken farm with all hens, then we throw away the eggs and wonder why we aren’t getting more chickens.
The MBTA is very responsive to ridership and to economic development and housing. When communities make a commitment to invest in their villages around commuter rail or T stations, the state works with them to improve the stations and service.
Accessibility (AKA get rid of the stairs from hell) must happen, period. And we should keep constant pressure on the state to improve frequency too.
I live in West Newton and work in Wellesley. (Warning: anecdotal evidence coming!) Ridership in Wellesley tends to be higher, from what I’ve heard from friends, because service is reasonable and the other options (basically driving in) are worse due to distance and traffic. And Wellesley’s ridership is definitely not based on density around the stations. In Newton, service is less reasonable (fewer and standing-room only trains going in at peak times, fewer options for getting home), so driving in becomes an easier decision, despite traffic, when the distance is shorter and just involves jumping on the Pike.
I second Tricia’s assessment. In addition to the driving into the city option is is very easy to drive to Riverside, Woodland, Waban, Eliot and park for 1/3rd of what down town parking costs and hope the D line. I know many people who live in Metro West who opt to park at Riverside for $6@day and get on an empty train at Riverside.
Honestly I feel that this post is tinged with a little fearmonger to drum up support for the Washington Street Village. Not buying it.
Rush hour ridership at at least two of the Newton stations is most definitely up markedly since 2014 (I am a West Newton rider so I can’t speak about Auburndale).
I am among those who feel that better stations are a prerequisite for successful transit-oriented development along Washington St. However, what we’re discussing is long-term, zoning-based plans. Despite the fears of some, all these massive developments are not going to spring up overnight. So there is time for some chicken and egg cycles.
What I do think we need, though, is a commitment for discussions between city government and the MBTA, and some assurances from the latter that increased potential ridership near these stations would result in improved service.
I’m going to blue sky this a bit by looking into the future through some kind of long range transportation planning crystal ball.
`1. Let’s suppose we build a lot of new high density housing around all three of Newton’s commuter rail stations and that demand for ridership in Newton doubles or even triples over the next two decades.
2. Let’s also assume that residential growth continues apace in all the municipalities west of Newton -Natick, Framingham, Ashland, Southboro, Westboro etc. spurned on by new homeowners who move there so they can take the commuter rail into Boston.
3. Finally, let’s also assume that a profound miracle occurs and all three commuter rail stations are revamped, restructured and in other ways made fully accessible for anyone who wants to take a train in and out of Boston.
So, now we have all these prospective new commuters eager and waiting to hop on these trains and they will have every right to assume that the ride will be comfortable and that they will be able to get seats. They will also have every right to assume that the trains will be running at greater frequency so that people working different hours will have a commuter rail option.
We hear a lot of talk about how this pent up new demand will result in a series of upgrades, improvements and entirely new transit equipment to accomodate this increased demand. I would simply like some assurance that there really is a plan and schedule for accomplishing all this. The real nightmare scenario would be if we had all this new demand squeezing into the existing system with all its limitations and shortcomings. Then we would have a real public relations disaster. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that all of this had been thought out.
Bob Burke,
You forgot about point 4. New management at MBTA
I’m fairly sure MBTA decisions are not driven by profit/loss/ridership but rather political, unions and addressing the ‘outrage of the day’
If they had any long term vision, the MBTA wouldn’t be the mess it is today (it can’t even keep up with existing maintenance)
This post is clearly a thinly-veiled way to frighten people into supporting more development. And I say this as someone that leans pro-development.
Funny, I have been wondering the opposite. Why should Newton residents continue to patronize a system that is not accessible to all because of the stairs? How much do Newton residents collectively spend on commuter rail passes? Don’t you think if it were say, black people who were not allowed to ride the CR, people would stop using it in solidarity and team up to rideshare or carpool by Uber or figure out some other way to get to work?
Julia, as much as I think we need to demand accessibility your suggestion is ridiculous. A lot of people don’t have the option to rideshare and routinely Ubering is ridiculousmy expensive. And not to mention how time consuming it is to be stuck in rush hour traffic.
The alternatives to commuter rail as they exist now: enriching Uber, three-hour commutes that increase traffic congestion on our already crowded roads, especially near/on the Pike, and paying $30 to park in the city. As for the other transit options, riding the express bus is like being stuck in traffic (because it is), or taking the archaic Green Line. Also, many who use Newton’s T stops aren’t from Newton. Let’s remember that not all of us have the option of working from home or have free parking at our jobs.
In interesting experiment one year could be to enforce HALF of all traffic lanes to be HOV. Any major road (with 2 or more lanes) leading into the city, half the lanes MUST be HOV during rush hour only
Would be very interesting how people would adapt
– private companies would rush into providing shuttles
– would nudge uber into “uber shuttles”
– residents would be forced to pool or public transportation if possible
Any politican have the guts to try this for 1 year?
Hmmm. So it sounds like the answer to my third question is ‘no.’ But Bugek is right, people are creative when it’s necessary. I remember that long before Internet and apps, my cousin in Falls Church VA used to carpool into DC with three other people because of the HOV lane. And I see from googling there are many ride matching apps down there. I’d forgotten about ‘slugs,’ the passengers who I guess are doing the driver a favor by being the extra bodies in the car. 🙂
@Ted is exactly right. Think about the alternatives. The commuter rail can be a lifeline for our community. Political will to expand service and accessibility doesn’t happen overnight, you need to commit to it and demand it of your local and state government. And we need to be open to different opportunities to find a package of private, state, and local funding to make expanded service a reality.
I didn’t put this up to instill fear. The person who mentioned it to me has a background in real estate, sustainability and government service. He also worked for the MBTA, so when he brought up the question it forced me to think in a different way.
When we talk about development in Newton there seems to be an underlying assumption that if we don’t do anything, the things we like will remain, but the things we don’t like will get worse. Then, when you layer in development, it becomes a question: will the things we don’t like get worse and will we lose the things we like?
This raised a different point: is inaction a deliberate act that comes with its own set of negative consequences?
I just got back from Japan and used subways and trains a lot. The stations are huge and have several levels with stairs similar in height to the CR stairs; sometimes, you needed to take four of those stairs to make a connection or just to get to the right exit. After the first day, we noticed (maybe because our calves were hurting!) that there was an elevator next to each staircase: from the platform up/down to one level; also from the street down to one level. The elevators were right there: no need to hunt for them around a corner or a long hallway. Seems to me, there is plenty of room for elevators at our CR stations!
I don’t know if there has been a lot of increased development in Wellesley, but changes were made to the commuter rail station which favors more train service that stop in Wellesley and skip Newton. Specifically, 526 (8:22 a.m.) 528 (9:32 a.m.), 530 (10:02 a.m.) and 532 ( 10:37 a.m). That’s to get into Boston. Coming from Boston to get to Newton or to use the Commuter Rail to get from Newton to points West of here – the 583, 505,587, 589, 509, 519 and 525 skip Newton but go to Wellesley and allow Wellesley residents to get out of Boston and go west. Maybe it’s not so much inaction in terms of development and increased density as much as political and monetary capital.
Excellent data points, Amy. Maybe Chuck can point out the correlation of increased development density in Wellesley and improved service/access