Among its many challenges, the MBTA faces a long term moral and legal obligation to make its stations accessible to people with disabilities.

Recently, MBTA management drew to my attention that the state Architectural Access Board has ordered the MBTA to improve access to the Waverley Square commuter rail station.  This is an order which may have important implications for Belmont neighborhoods.

Under state disability access law, structures can remain inaccessible indefinitely, but if an owner improves a public facility substantially then they need to make it accessible.  The AAB has determined that recent improvements to Waverley station trigger an obligation to make the station accessible.  This determination occurred over two years ago and the MBTA was originally obligated to fix the problem by January 1, 2015.

The commuter rail station in Belmont Center is also very inaccessible, but has not been improved or repaired to the degree which would trigger an accessibility obligation.  Eventually, as the platform in Belmont Center continues to deteriorate, the MBTA expects to need to make investments that would require an accessibility upgrade.  However, it is difficult to make the Belmont Center station accessible because it is on a curve.  When straight train cars stop at a curved platform it creates a dangerous gap between the platform and the door and limits accessibility.


The costs of making the existing Waverley station accessible are high — estimated at roughly $35 million — because the station is below grade.  It would cost roughly the same to build an entirely new accessible station at a point along Pleasant Street between Belmont Center and Waverley Square where the tracks are both straight and close to the surrounding grade.  A new station could include parking and could also be combined with development along Pleasant Street.

Twenty years ago, I chaired the South Pleasant Street Land Use Committee.  We considered the possibility of a new single station to replace the two existing Belmont stations.  We recommended against it at that time.  Of course, a single station would mean longer walks for many commuters. People were also concerned that a parking lot on Pleasant Street would be used primarily by out-of-town commuters, bringing more traffic to town.  Additionally, to keep the station within easy walking distance of many Belmont neighborhoods, some kind of pedestrian overpass would be needed.  An overpass would bring more foot traffic and probably drop-off vehicular traffic to the neighborhoods off Waverley street between the town field and the town yard — neighborhoods who already feel pressured by traffic from the town yard.

Now, however, we have to contemplate the possibility that we may eventually need to close at least one of our commuter rail stations.  We need to go through a transparent and public process to examine all the potential options.

The MBTA faces an imminent legal obligation to set a plan in motion and will be scheduling a meeting with the Belmont Board of Selectmen to discuss the challenges and options in greater detail and to design an appropriate public process for decision-making.

Representative Rogers and I are committed to assuring that the MBTA moves in a deliberate and transparent way on this issue and we look forward to working with the Board of Selectmen and with all concerned.

Summary of meeting with Board of Selectmen on September 28, 2015

The General Manager of the MBTA, Frank DePaola, appeared with his team and presented as follows:

  • Waverley station needs to be upgraded to be accessible by persons with disabilities.
  • The MBTA is behind schedule on an order to so issued by the Architectural Access Board.
  • The range of possible costs is $15 to $30 million.
  • The costs at Waverley are driven by the need to keep retaining walls in place to support the deep cut to reach the tracks below grade.
  • The low cost solution involves access compromises which may not be acceptable to the Architectural Access Board.
  • The MBTA has tried to persuade the AAB that alternative access investments elsewhere in the system might make more sense, but the AAB appears committed to forcing an upgrade of Waverley.
  • The Belmont Center station will need accessibility upgrades at some point in the future and these may be costly because Belmont Center is above grade.  However, no engineering study has been made of this site yet.
  • The GM did not present any alternative locations, but did explain that building a station in a straight region of the tracks where the tracks are closer to the surrounding grade could be much less expensive — Pleasant Street offers some locations meeting those criteria.
  • The MBTA hopes to make a decision as to which approach to take by the end of the year.

View the MBTA presentation slides here.

The Board of Selectmen expressed a clear preference for keeping both Belmont stations open.  In the short run, that means fixing Waverley.  The Selectmen were clear in their preference that Waverley be fixed and discouraged the MBTA from continuing exploration of any other sites.

The next step will be a “design charrette” — a public conversation in more depth about the options — that the MBTA will organize in consultation with Selectman Paolillo and Representative Rogers and me.  There may be some pre-conversations involving other Belmont boards in preparation for that meeting.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

70 replies on “A New Challenge for Belmont and the MBTA”

  1. It would seem that for $35 million we get either two stations, with Waverly newly accesible, OR one accessible station in the middle, closing both existing stations. given the concerns you point out, as well as disruption to lately vibrant businesses on Pleasant St. (assume some will need to move), and possible negative impact to Waverly and Belmont Center users and neighbors, maybe fixing Waverly is the better course- albeit not perfect.

    1. That’s definitely a reasonable analysis and may be the final answer. I think in the background, there is the MBTA’s perennial interest in consolidating stations to improve distance throughput. Also, there is the consideration that if Belmont Center eventually closes, Waverley will be a long way for some people to walk.

  2. I would only point out two things:

    1) It is really appalling that the two stations have been inaccessible for so long. It has been pointed out that able-bodied people could be considered “currently able-bodied”; that is, most people have had a broken leg, back injury, or may eventually need to use a wheel chair or walker. While for many people a consolidated accessible station would mean a reduction from two stations to one, for a person with a disability (which could be any of us, if not currently then someday) it would mean an INCREASE from zero stations to one.

    2) If we are going to contemplate a new station, we must also consider the plans for the Community Path. All the more reason for us to make true progress on this community resource TODAY.

  3. I think it would be a serious mistake to close the Belmont Center station. It would essentially make it impossible for a large number of people to use the commuter rail without having to walk an excessive distance. The commuter rail is one of the major benefits of living in Belmont. Closing the center station would force more people to drive to work, thereby harming the environment and adding to traffic in the town. I’m sure it would also reduce business of the shops in the Center. I’m all for making Waverly accessible but don’t see why that means Belmont Center would have to close. Will – please consider this perspective as you start engaging on this work.

  4. Whatever choice is made, it would be good not to do it in isolation. For example, it’s quite likely that the Mass Central Rail-Trail will extend from Waltham and points west into that area. If the MCRT connects to a new or renovated station, and if that station includes good parking (e.g., like that which is at Alewife) there’s a good chance of extra boardings there without any additional car traffic or need for parking. Extra boardings is good — if enough people use the commuter rail, perhaps it will be economical to run more trains.

    It would be good for Belmont if there were more places to cross the tracks on foot or on bike. For a town where the only things we all seem to agree on are that there is too much traffic and not enough parking, we seem surprisingly slow to make the alternatives more practical and attractive.

    On the bike cages at Alewife — sheltered, access protected by prox card, video monitor, cardboard policeman — each time a new cage opens at Alewife, it fills up within about a month, with no apparent reduction in bicycles parked anywhere else at the station. There’s latent demand, if we care to meet it.

  5. I don’t envy the decision-makers, even in trying to agree on a compromise- both present stations are located in easily accessible places for users (who don’t need accommodations)and a stop in between is not close to any large population of users- hmmm.

  6. I live in Waverley Square and would hate to lose the easy access to the station. Also, it makes sense to have the station at the end of the 73 bus line.

    Nonetheless, a new station off Pleasant Street may be the best solution. The idea of out of towners parking there should not be a decisive issue. If every town tries to prevent out of towners traveling there, no one could go anywhere. It’s more important to have a facility that works for Belmont, including Belmonters with disabilities. If it’s also good for out of towners, that’s no reason to reject it.

    I agree with David Chase that the Mass Central bike trail should be factored in. One option would be to run the trail through Waverley Station. That’s probably too expensive to do on its own, but if Waverley Station has to be rebuilt anyway, the bike trail should be considered.

    1. If the parking is on MBTA property the MBTA can’t say “BELMONT ONLY PARKING” so Belmonters will have to compete with the out-of-towners. Belmont could compulsively acquire land from people that live along Pleasant Street and build its own additional parking though under its own rules.

  7. Whichever decision is made, the train station needs to connect both to the bus and to a bike path. If a new station is built on Pleasant Street, will the MBTA extend the 73 trolley line? Maybe if the cost of extending the trolley line is factored in (including the ongoing cost of a longer route) then upgrading the Waverley station will in fact be cheaper for the MBTA.

  8. Good Evening,

    Four computer rail stations in Belmont. Are you trying to say that only the Waverly Square one is not accessible? If so, could people with disabilities use one of the four that is accessible, or is it that there is no wheelchair access at all? Forgive me if I am not clear, the matter has not occurred to me, although, I often wonder if the center’s station is being used at all and if it is at all accessible since I don’t see people, an entrance or trains. Perhaps, our residents need to rely on one commuter rail and we need to address this. Thank you. Have a good long weekend. Lori.

  9. Closing a commuter station may burden people who require supported transit where they may not be able to provide it themselves. Further, closing stations is inimical to a policy promoting transit as the likely, lowest cost, most practical way to allow a growing number of commuters between now and 2040.

  10. Waverley Square and Belmont Center are two distinct and vitally important geographical hubs. Both hubs need to be upgraded, period!
    Putting a new station somewhere in between would create a new hub in the middle of nowhere. I believe that the new hub would require too many improvements to make it practical.

  11. My firm has worked and is presently working on multiple MBTA stations’ upgrades to conform to ADA requirements.
    The tasks are challenging as the stations must continue to operate while construction is ongoing.
    Consequently, planning and public outreach, design and construction phasing need to be meticulously coordinated.
    I live on 9 Marlboro street, and will be willing to help out my Town and our rep WB, should this be needed.
    Thank you for keeping us informed.
    Best regards

  12. Thanks Will for this notice. But the obvious question is where will the MBTA come up with $35 million? Given Governor Baker’s reluctance to look at revenues for the MBTA, I’d guess this is a long way from happening.

    Have tolls on the north & south arteries (I-93) or a congestion fee been raised at the Statehouse? Do you think the administration is open to fee generated revenue to fix the T?

      1. It’s not just the MBTA/state that is afraid of triggering ADA. Even Town committees are wary of that when making repairs. (eg, library and high school)

  13. Thank you for the update, Will. I hope this will be a thorough process giving thought to the economic effects to the businesses, citizens and green impact. My concern is that the Waverley Station is the keystone in the densely populated area of Belmont, serving many people that have no cars and some who are also lower income and rely on public transportation. Adding on a further walk up Pleasant St, or even a provided connecting bus, adds to their commute time and they can’t simply drive up to the station as people in higher economic circumstances are able to do. I hope their voices will be heard.

    Also, removing the station access from both Waverley and Belmont Town Center seems like it would be detrimental to the businesses in both areas and to keeping our communities vibrant with a vision of green initiatives promoting public transportation and less car centered reliance. This is especially true, as people have pointed out, with the bus and train lines meeting at Waverley. For the option of extending the bus line, this would also mean extending the overhead cables if the buses are going to return to this once the Trapelo project is complete, which could be a heavy infrastructure cost as well.

  14. It would be helpful to know why making Waverly accessible AFTER it has been upgraded would cost another $35 M. Certainly an elevator does not cost that much, maybe there is something more?

    After reading all the other comments, I’m of the opinion that we should keep both stations and make them both handicap accessible.

  15. It seems Belmont stations market analysis is in order which considers the relative costs and benefits of both the commuter rail and regular T subway. This should be done for each demographic sector : workers, students, the elderly, and disabled commuters, and high and low income groups.

    How much time is saved by using the commuter train and bus vs the T and bus for various destinations? And what is the comparative expense.

    How many low income residents are actually within walking distance to the commuter train stations now vs. how many need to take a bus?

    My quick analysis seems to indicate that it about half the price to use the bus / T combo than the commuter train both for single rides as well as for monthly passes.

    So, low income residents may not in fact be using the commuter train anyway. In which case, the single Belmont station with parking becomes more attractive.

    How much faster is the commuter train / bus / T combos to the non-commuter options given various Boston destinations?

    Eliminating one Belmont commuter train stop would speed up the commute time.

    And, what about the out of towners. The commuter train is being paid for by all Massachusetts citizens. Shouldn’t the needs of all citizens, not just residents of Belmont be considered?

    Lastly, a significant added expense is on behalf of disabled residents. What are their preferences?

  16. Putting a station served by no existing bus service and where no one can reasonably reach it without a car makes no sense whatsoever. I’m with Paul Santos. Why would it cost $35,000,000 to make the Waverly Station accessible with an elevator and a platform upgrade?? As an aside to this issue, I have often thought that a municipal North-South shuttle between the Center, Cushing and Waverly Squares would be an excellent idea. Perhaps this could be incorporated if you decide to build a $35,000,000 new station on Pleasant Street… Keep us posted, Will. Great job.

    1. Couldn’t agree more. Any new station must include bus access.

      Also, perhaps decommissioning of the old stations would open up some development activities near or above those stations.

  17. I live on Beech St. & was not aware of any changes done to the train station, particularly so expensive. The same with the changes on Trapelo Rd. The traffic is much worse now & that is the general concensus! The pool is going to be public. Town houses are replacing churches & fire stations. The complaint of no parking… Living here for three generations, I have seen the charm taken away. I completely agree the train station should be accessable for all, but the other changes are not warranted! So many who grew up here are no longer happy with this town. The schools were a draw in the past, but now due to poor planning there are not enough. Every bit of R.E. is being used up. Too crowded, too much traffic, not enough schools, no attention paid to infrastructure, & sneaking changes in w/o our citizens being informed properly. I no longer read the town newspaper,as there is precious little about Belmont in it, so unless we go to all town meetings, information is not widely given out!

  18. The argument that we need to close stations in order to improve service strikes me as very much equivalent to the argument made by universities that cancel men’s sports programs in order to comply with Title 9 requirements; it might work on paper, but in both cases, opportunities are reduced, not enhanced. If we truly believe that mass transit is the way of the future, then we need to stop grumbling about the cost and get to work ASAP. Not only should we upgrade both existing stations at Waverley Square and Belmont Center, but let’s add a new station in between, as well. And while you’re at it, get the commuter rail to build a stop at Alewife, too. A hundred years ago, there were 4 stops between Belmont Center and Porter Square. Today, there are none, even as the population of West Cambridge is in the process of exploding. Time to stop whining about how hard everything is to do, and just get on with doing it.

    1. Doug, you are right, that from a local perspective, more stations is always better. From a regional perspective, more stations means slower train travel. If you are coming from Fitchburg and have to stop every mile on the train, you’d rather drive. That’s the dilemma.

  19. The idea of adding a station near Alewife is an excellent suggestion. And an elevator should not cost $35 million. Decommissioning the existing station at Waverly I would think would be more costly than making it accessible.
    Keep the T honest Will. Thanks for your work.

    1. Is the cost estimate so high, because of a need to modify the platform so train doors open level with it? I know that would be true at Belmont Center, which I commute from daily. Passengers must climb up (down) 3 steps from the platform into the train car.

  20. Thanks for the update. I understand the accessibility issue, but how imminent is the obligation and where will the T get the money, as all of the options are very expensive.

  21. Dear Senator, I appreciate you sharing the information.

    I agree with you that all these stations need to brought up to the code and we should not lose anyone of them. Public transportation is the way to go and we should not be reducing the infrastructure.

    The real problem is COST. I am a Belmont TMM. Based on my limited experience, I feel that any public project runs at 300 to 500% (maybe more) the cost of privately funded project.

    Not to mention the big dig, the government center station updating project will take two years (I dropped my eye ball when saw that) and most of times equipment are sitting idle. Even if the construction crew showed up, it will be a few and in slow motion.

    So really, it is a not a funding issue, but efficiency issue.

    I understand that it will be tough (dealing with construction unions and contracting procedure). Do you think there are any ways to improve efficiency in public projects?



    1. Lots of ways, but they are more about management than about legal changes. The one thing that can’t changes is that public projects have a lot of different constituencies driving them and the pressure to accommodate all tends to drive up costs.

      1. Thanks for the reply and I agree with your points.

        Not sure if the MBTA budgeting process is similar to other government. I am very much in doubt of the 35 million $ escalator elevator process. How could it cost so much?

        I bet it can be done at $5 million, just my 2 cents

        Please advise.

  22. I use the Waverley station frequently and the only “improvements” noticeable are a sign that is often wrong or not working and a paint job. They can build wooden platforms to match the height of the train doors, I have seen these at other stations around the system. The biggest expense would be an elevator on each side of the tracks which shouldn’t cost $35 million….but then again I’ve been watching the Trapelo Rd. project for the last few years so never mind.

    1. Two very different projects. The hard things about a road project are the number of users and abutters and the subsurface surprises.

      Waverley Station should be a lot simpler and the proposed cost does sound high — that is a very early unvetted number. We’ll need to give that a very hard look. It is worth noting that Waverley, like Belmont Center is on a curve, although less so. And as you note — there is a need for platforms, not just an elevator.

  23. I find it unacceptable to close either station. Both are located in business and residential districts, as train stations should be. Many trains already skip Waverley and some skip Belmont, so consolidating stations is not an argument for speeding up service. In fact, the T should run much more frequent service on the line between Boston and Waltham. It’s mind-boggling that making the station accessible could cost $35 million, but if the Green Line extension is now approaching $3 billion, there is rampant corruption in the system. This question affects not just Belmont. Waverley is close to Watertown as well, where I live.

  24. Thanks for the update.
    Was there any discussion of why Belmont is chosen for closings – are they closing other stations with even lower ridership?
    Where/how is the MBTA going to come up with the money?
    Did they discuss a parking lot at a new station- no point in having one if there is no parking-

    1. The only reason that Waverly is being upgraded at this time, is because the architectural Access Board has ordered that it be upgraded. The MBTA has made an effort to persuade the AAB to allow it to invest in stations that have higher ridership. But, the AAB seems to be bent on enforcing its rules directly on this station.

  25. Thanks for the update.

    I agree with the Selectman about keeping both stations open. All good statements here supporting the reasoning. It should also be noted that many people choose to live in a place because of the public transportation options open to them. That was certainly the case for me when I moved to Belmont.

    The more efficient use of money we can put into supporting public transportation (not reducing stations, increasing number of trips, reducing fares by increasing public support of the T) the less money we have to put into battling the effects of too many cars on the road (congestion, traffic, pollution, etc.).

    1. I fully agree with your point. More public transportation and efficient use of our tax money @ MBTA is the key to move forward.

      I am also glad to see that the total request for budget allocation dropped from 35 $MM to 15 to 30 $MM.
      (Thank you, Senator)
      This demonstrates how much air-pocket are usually built-in in the current budgeting process at MBTA. I bet there is more room to be squeezed out…

  26. This may be a tremendous opportunity to think big and move Belmont transportation infrastructure out of the 19th century into the 21st.

    Create a new station that is ADA compliant and has off street parking adequate to accommodate the projected traffic.

    Include the Belmont Community Path in planning the new station along with sunsetting of the old stations.

  27. Last evening’s presentation and discussion were very interesting, and the staff seemed knowledgeable and able. But I was left with an uncomfortable feeling: that the MBTA well knew that if they did a substantial renovation of the Waverley station, they would then be required to make it ADA compliant.

    If such a requirement were inevitable, why did they not fold the ADA changes into the renovation to begin with? Doing so would surely have saved money and also reduced the mayhem of construction in public spaces. Do we conclude that long-range thinking and planning are not part of the culture? Or does the on-going budget crisis inevitably lead to minimalist corrections?

    1. My impression is that the expenditures made at Waverley by the MBTA were relatively minor, and they may have reasonably believed that they would not trigger a major upgrade obligation. In fact, it is a fair question as to what the outcome of a lawsuit would be. However, we do want to make all of our stations equally accessible to people.

      1. Will, your impression is spot on; the only “improvement” at Waverley was a fresh coat of paint and an electronic sign. How that is sufficient to trigger a complete renovation escapes me, the AAB needs to find better uses for their time.

  28. If I understand correctly, one of the main problems with making the Belmont Center station accessible is that elevated platforms can only be installed where the tracks are straight, or the gaps have to be too wide to cross with a wheelchair.

    Belmont center is on a curve, but (looking at Google maps) the curve seems to start right at the western end of the overpass, and the tracks are straight as an arrow across the bridge all the way to Brighton Street. Could the platforms for the Belmont Center station just be moved a few hundred feet to the east, across the bridge? The station building could remain exactly where it is.

    A ramp could be built from the eastern end of the existing platforms up the 3 or so feet to reach the new elevated platforms extending eastward along the straight section of track.

    Are elevators required at the center, or would a zig-zag walkway on the side of the hill between Concord Ave (east of the old Municipal Light building) be sufficient? The walkway would connect to the existing pedestrian tunnel under the tracks and to the Concord Ave sidewalk and crosswalk to the disputed green space in front of the bank.

    Maybe an elevator is needed on the other side of the tracks because there is less room and it looks steeper… Could one be built inside or adjacent to the Lions Club/Station? Would that make it cheaper or more expensive?

      1. I think that in the short term, we should keep both commuter rail station in the most economic and efficient way . The commuter rail ridership is not high, why wasting hundreds of millions build a new station and scrap two existing ones? If adding escalator would cost 15~30 million, how much will be the real cost to scrap two old and build a new?

        In that long run, can we explore other more cost and time effective transit options, extend the redline, or light rail instead of the train for the inner 95 circle?
        I feel that Fixing commuter rail will not providing fundamental improvement for Belmont.

  29. What are the reasons given by the Selectman for not building one new accessible station at a site that would be economical? Are they pandering to some part of the population as they did with the “park” in Belmont Center?

    With Belmont’s capital needs it seems foolhardy to spend money trying to fix the two out-of-date stations.

  30. On the NY subway there is one station (Union Square in Manhattan) that is on a very tight curve. The gap is covered by platform sections which extend automatically after the train has stopped and then retract when the train is ready to depart. Such a system might work for Belmont.

  31. I have a question — is the MBTA responsible for upgrading the station or stations or is it Belmont’s responsibility?

  32. Two stations less than a mile apart is an extravagance many would not be willing to pay for. If another town were to do this, many of us in Belmont would object, both for cost reasons and slowing others’ commutes unnecessarily. $30M for 117 boardings per day (April 2013 stat from MBTA) is a lot. Belmont is not that special.

    If any town were starting from scratch, would they create 2 so close together? No.

    Belmont train ridership is among the lowest on the Fitchburg line. In the MBTA 2013 audit, Belmont Ctr ranked 108th (of 133 stations, system-wide), Waverley ranked 117th.

    How about info on how people get there? (walk, drive, bike, bus) I doubt many (or any) take a bus to Belmont Ctr station. I’d also bet few drive, given lack of parking. Would extending an existing bus route (73,74) to a new station satisfy that need? Or something a bit more creative, like having the 74 do a loop up Waverley St to Waverley, to Pleasant, and back to the center.

    1. John, I heartily agree — too many stations is the bane of efficient travel. How can we have high speed travel if the train must stop frequently?

      I would much rather see us combine our resources to create one good station, with parking, shelter from bad weather, etc. than splitting our resources and winding up with two inadequate stations.

  33. It makes no sense whatsoever to locate a single station that is inaccessible by transfer to any other public transportation.

  34. The subject of parking for the commuter rail should be part of the discussion. I know that many more commuters are using the streets to park all day. I am sure there will be a pushback in the future and the selectmen will be pressured to put up no parking signs. A new station without parking is not good planning.

  35. Ari over at the Amateur Planner has written a nice blog post that may be of interest here, explaining how the MBTA’s cost estimates for the Belmont station rebuilds are far out of line with peer station rebuilds to reach AAB compliance:

    The MBTA seems to have a deliberate agenda here of destroying two walkable stations and forcing people to drive to a single park & ride station. The cost estimates for fixing the walkable stations are suspiciously high.

  36. Rep. Brownsberger,

    I wanted to make sure you saw these two posts from Ari Ofsevit about the MBTA’s commuter rail proposal for Belmont. It appears that their costs for renovating the two existing stations are excessively high compared to other recent commuter rail station projects. They seem to be using these inflated numbers to push for closing the existing stations and building a new one in a worse location, but it’s not really clear why.

  37. This is a good example of why I support Governor Baker’s proposal to privatize MBTA.

    The MBTA don’t put the tax payer as their highest priority.

  38. And we should identify the group of person that come up with the $35 MM escalator budget.

    They may want to follow the path of the former MBTA GM Beverly Scott.

  39. The Architectural Access Board got involved because the improvements to the Waverley station cost more than 30 percent of its value. Since the improvements were so minor, the T must carry the station at a very low value. Perhaps your staff could look into that, Will. I don’t know whether the T planned to require accessibility as part of a scheme to reduce the number of stations or whether they were taken by surprise.

    Nevertheless, the long-run goal should be 1) to make both stations accessible; 2) to keep them both because they’re in business and residential centers and should be the basis for much more frequent and rapid transit in the future; and 3) to increase ridership by providing small-scale parking and bike access. Do the stations even have bike racks? Both should be easily reachable from the future community path.

    Re parking, the Planning Board recommended and Town Meeting adopted a few years ago a provision for churches to rent out their lots for commuter parking. Unfortunately, none of the ones near the two stations have taken the town up on this (though Beth El Temple does rent out space.)

    1. Thanks for bringing this letter to my attention. I don’t read it as inconsistent with the T’s prior statements. They have a severely constrained capital budget. They aren’t eager to invest millions in Waverley Station because they know they could use that money in many other ways that would benefit a larger number of people, both able and disabled.

      I encourage you to participate in the meeting upcoming on November 16 — that is the next step in what I am hoping will be a fully transparent public process for sorting the issues out.

Comments are closed.