Hey, there! Log in / Register
The new Assembly Square T stop
By adamg on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:01pm
The Somerveille Transportation Equity Partnership has posted some renderings of the proposed new Orange Line stop at Assembly Square.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Functional T stop
Can't wait!
I do get annoyed, though, that all these T construction projects need to include elevators on both sides. It seems so wasteful. Can't they just build it street-level? Yes, I realize you have to cross the street braving the elements.
There doesn't seem to be any way to get to the trains without going through that building.
If you wanna get smooshed
Nope, you couldn't make it street-level - trains are going both ways and you'd have to cross, street level, over the T tracks which could be quite uncomfortable if a train is also crossing on said tracks at the same time. Also the elevators are for accessibility issues, something the MBTA has been woefully negligent about in the past - get ready to not use the Government Center stop for 1-2 years, by the way
It's the law, jackass.
It's the law, jackass.
Cripes.
I think because it's a center
I think because it's a center island platform and because of the Commuter Rail ROW you have to get over a set of tracks to get to the platform, requiring two elevators and sets of stairs.
Yep, Haverhill Line commuter train tracks here
I don't think it would be a good design to require passengers to cross them at grade to reach the Orange Line. That's asking for fatalities.
The Haverhill line tracks are on
the east side of the Orange Line and are unaffected by access to the new station.
Two entrances?
I can't tell from the rendering - does it have the two entrances that IKEA and Assembly Square Mall wanted - but the T resisted? The IKEA site and the Assembly Square Mall are separated by most of a kilometer, and one might reasonably expect people to be carrying things on this journey.
Someone should tell them
Cars don't ride the T. People do. Yet these pictures show once again that the designers don't get it. All they show is a bunch of car infrastructure surrounding a pedestrian destination. Why does a T station need a highway sized road around it? Especially here. This neighborhood is all within easy walking distance of the station. There are already thousands of parking spots in the nearby garages. Are they expecting residents to take their car out of the garage and drive it around the block to the T station?
This is going to be a major fiasco of a project. The developers do not know what they are doing.
Highway Sized Road Was There Before
I bike that road fairly regularly. It is the connector for that whole swath of redevelopment coming from just north of Sullivan Station. These are not new roads, or unnecessary roads. I cut down there to avoid the Rt. 28 Mess along by where Home Depot is. It was an industrial area before, with a strip mall stuck on to it.
This are cannot be charactarized as "primarily a pedestrian destination", either. To one side will be the New Ikea. To the other side, Assembly Square Mall, with connections to Rt. 28 and McGrath/O'Brien Highways and I-93. This is already car habitat - human centered amenities are being worked into it during the redesign, and rightfully so. There should have been an Orange Line station here years ago, when Assembly Square was redeveloped the first time.
Are we talking about the same road?
The one I am talking about has water at one end, and the IKEA at the other. From the map top down view, it does not appear to be an intended through route. People going to the mall would turn off much sooner.
My understanding of the entire project is that it is taking a desolate area and redeveloping it as ped-friendly. All the roads are being redone. Leaving a highway-width road in the middle of a ped area is not friendly design.
Okay, I see
But that road was there before ... and seems intended for some sort of delivery access to the new complexes. There may be some "fire road" access needed, too, although that can be done without having through traffic all the time.
Why do I get the impression that the MBTA somehow fundamentally fails to "get" the entire concept that people need and want to use it for purposes other than getting to work at 8 or 9 am and leaving work at 4 or 5pm?
Because that's the only thing the State Legislature wants
Get to work, you Boston residents! Raise us the tax money we need to fund the rest of the state, and stop complaining about how you can't go anywhere!
It's New Urbanism - Boston Style
Check out the Seaport / Innovation District / South Boston Waterfront / New Kendall Square sometime. Every street is built to be a major artery, and most of the buildings greet the street with a mini-park or an endless glass-fronted lobby.
The Greenway was built to replace a highway - but six lanes of traffic were laid-down on either side. Whoops. On top of that you're lucky to walk for two minutes without hitting another wide cross street.
Pedestrians are an afterthought these days.
Neither place has bike lanes
Considering that the Greenway was constructed quite recently, and that it is a major connector between North and South Station, and North Station and jobs in the Seaport District ... and there are no direct shuttles from North Station to that area ... it isn't excusable.
A fairly high percentage of folding bike users coming off at North Station are headed to the Financial District and Seaport area via the Greenway. We tend to share space with hubways and people who stash clunker bikes at North Station.
Remember the "old" Kendall Square?
Your mentioning the "new" Kendall Square (and you were right on the money, by the way) made me momentarily think of the "old" Kendall Square of the 70s and early 80s, when it was still pretty much nothing but abandoned industrial warehouses, plus the Terminal Barber Shop (what a name) and that diner and that poem written in big colored letters on the side of an abandoned building. It all had the strangest, otherworldly kind of "science fiction" feel to it. And the diner always had a sign that said "closed" on it, even when it was open.
Yes, it's quite disgusting
I don't understand the reasoning behind putting a 6 lane highway at grade level on top of the Big Dig.
Then they go and claim to be building "Transit Oriented Development" and come up with stuff this Assembly Square project which is shaping up to be yet another disaster -- it's mostly parking lots and roads.
It's like all they know nowadays is how to build suburban sprawl. So they build more of it, check off an extra box marked "TOD", and call it "progress."
This is not a highway-sized road
It looks to me like a fairly narrow two-lane road running along side the railroad right-of-way.
I think it looks wide
But I also checked out the site plans, and it calls for this road (G Street) to be between 40 and 47 feet wide.
By comparison, where I live the street is 32 feet wide according to Google Earth. And that's with 2 lanes of traffic and street parking on both sides. And I think it's still fairly wide.
If you examine the site as it currently exists, the railroad adjacent road is fairly small. However, it also looks like it will need to be repaved and I suspect that is when they will widen it.
For another example, it seems that Memorial Drive near Microcenter is about 50 feet wide. That's why I think it is highway width.
Not to mention that the published images feature many automobiles and parking lots prominently, but only one lone pedestrian (dressed completely in black, for some reason).
On the other hand, the site plans and the generated imagery don't seem to be necessarily consistent with each other. So who knows what the final result will be. I'm not optimistic though.
Delivery Access
It looks to be sized for trucks to get in and make deliveries to the rear of the buildings situated there.
The station drawing, above, has bump outs to form what I would expect to be a "kiss and ride", as the Canadians call them ... which is reasonable given the amount of car traffic through that area for commuting. It looks like the T can't get over this idea of commuting, though, and it gets really silly when you get to the Airport station, which has no space for two people towing suitcases to pass on the shuttle bus platform. FAIL.
I was amused by the "cars everywhere" theme in the drawings, too.
I'm also not sure what Arborway's problems are with Kendall Square. I pass through there frequently, and my husband has worked in various locations in the area going back into the early 1990s. I can say with certainty that it works well for pedestrians and cyclists, and that it has steadily improved for pedestrian access, safety, and cycling since that time. Even in 1990 it was vastly better and safer than when I was a student in the area and even a 6'5" tall 250 lb friend got mugged walking home from the lab at night.
Chicken!
Why do you hate cars so much??? They are so fun to drive!
It seems as if you feel that your hate of suburbia and love of walking or whatever is somehow the "morally correct and superior" point of view. It is as if you have held this belief for so long that it is not even possible for you to consider the other viewpoint. You're rabid.
"It seems as if you feel that
"It seems as if you feel that your hate of suburbia and love of walking or whatever is somehow the "morally correct and superior" point of view."
Considering this site IS IN A CITY! Heaven forbid someone want the development to be urban.
Maybe in the "outskirts of the city," you mean?
There's a helluvalotta cars that drive through that area. As someone who lives nearby, it's pretty obvious to me how few of you have actually been to Assembly Square.
Not allowing for vehicle traffic at the site of a big-box mega-store would be an incredibly poor choice for everyone- consumers, businesses, and yes, even you pedos.
Mystic's already there, so please go cry your river someplace else.
The street in question
Is not at the site of any big box store, nor is it a through street. All of the mall traffic will have already found a parking lot by the time you get to this street.
You may want to read the site plans, and consider the orientation of the river, the railroad tracks, the highways, and especially the planned mixed-use residential and commercial districts adjacent to the street in question.
I like driving cars
I hate sitting in traffic though. Who doesn't? And I like cities more than cars. And car infrastructure -- highways, parking lots -- tends to destroy cities. We've discovered that the hard way over the past century (Exhibit A: Central Artery).
When building a neighborhood, you have a choice: you can design it to be car-friendly, or you can design it to be people-friendly. I haven't seen any reasonable, cost effective design that can do both. It's not a "morality play" it's an engineering analysis. Somerville asked for a people-friendly neighborhood. The developers promised one. So this discussion is largely about whether or not those goals will be met.
Don't worry about your car, Ron. There always will be plenty of places you can drive it, even if Assembly Square does end up being pedestrian friendly. The vast stretches of suburbia are not being threatened by one urban development. And you will still be able to drive in Assembly Square -- just not at high speeds.
P.S. I've never seen a Rabid Chicken. I suppose it can exist. Sounds like a good band name though.
Rabid Rooster
That sounds like a great opener for Gutter Helmet and Cadaver Dog.
Walking & Bicycling is Morally Superior...
...furthermore, as to who is rabid, I would suggest it is the opposite. People who insist that we waste our nation's/planet's all-too-scarce-resources on building and catering to autotopia are the ones who haven't even considered another viewpoint. Who the hell thinks that car parks and 12 lane highways are even pleasant places to inhabit!? Well, I suppose the typical obese suburban American does, but I'm not inclined to cater to the preferences of those too lazy and socially inept to to walk and be in public.
To be clear though, I'm not anti-car. I use zip-cars, taxis whenever I need. I use transit or walking whenever either are appropriate/best fit; which is most of the time. The latter two modes require virtually no precious resources (hehem Oil), generate no pollution, and in fact generate a tremendous amount of personal benefit (economically, mental relaxation, and exercise). And accordingly, I believe that the built environment should then be designed to accommodate the comforts and needs of people most, not cars.----Oh, and yes, I have often suggested that we should carpet-bomb the vast majority of suburban America. I'm not the only one who hates it. No one would ultimately miss one square inch.
Oh Please
Get off your high horse. You might notice there's a gigantic shopping mall at this place. Ever think that people will be regularly hauling goods to and from? Yeah, what is the most convenient way to do that? Cars.
The T requires no resources and generates no pollution? Where do you think the electricity comes from in the first place? Protip: most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels too, not to mention the continuous upkeep costs of a transit system - one that if it was truly economically superior to cars wouldn't require that people who don't utilize it pay subsidies to maintain it.
This whole argument is absurd. Guess what happens to populations over time - they grow. It's better to be prepared for eventual congestion otherwise you get the status quo of most of the city - poorly aligned roads that make it painful for both drivers and pedestrians.
Carpet bomb suburban America. Right, nobody would miss oh... the majority of the middle class in this country. You know, the one that pumps MA full of federal funding for everything ranging from transit to it's non-self-sufficient healthcare plan.
Robust transit is needed. Period. Whether it's cars, bikes, subways or buses. People simply need a wide variety of effective ways to get from point A to point B. There is no perfect solution, and the MBTA certainly isn't close being that it can barely keep up with demand yet at the same time can't even operate at a profit.
If you wanted the most economical/efficient solution, it would be to encourage building more buses than subway cars. Unlike fixed trains, cars and buses can be deployed to meet demand far more easily. You not only get benefit for public transit but also for cars that YOU WILL NEVER GET RID OF NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU CLENCH YOUR FISTS AND SQUINT HOPING THAT THEY ALL GO AWAY. Better design for future proofing the best you can, meeting the demand of ALL than some holier than thou "cars are the devil I'm so much better as a human being riding my fixed gear bicycle". Please. Get. real.
The advantage of trains is that they hopefully go underground, but if a station is underused you are stuck with the cost of it long term, as well as significantly higher costs for maintenance. Bus routes can come and go. The green line is stuck with tubes too narrow to have longer subway cars and then must crawl through pedestrian roadways down the line.
Frankly, you are the absurd kind of zealot that believes they can somehow plan the perfect utopia when time and time again people like you are proven wrong because predicting future nigh impossible. I bet you also argue for the asinine argument that the only people who benefited from the big dig were the drivers too.
Sincerely,
Eye-rolling car driver, T rider, and bike rider.
Needs some bike parking right
Needs some bike parking right out front.