Salem Station on the Eastern Route Discussion

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Except it doesn't increase schedule capacity much at all beyond the modestly easier level boarding dwell times because they shot their whole wad on that white elephant parking garage instead of adding a second outbound platform outside the portal and making train meets stageable at both ends of the tunnel instead of way the hell back at Beverly. That's going to bite them in the butt in a few years.

Wasn't/isn't there still an option to add a second track at a later date if the T decided to?/Is there enough room to excavate space for another track and platform without affecting the condo complex parking lot? From looking at Google Maps it doesn't appear so unless the existing track were to get shifted a bit more to the west.

One other thing that irks me about this project is the size of the parking garage. Having seen the renderings for the new Beverly garage I was quite impressed with its design and the relative lack of height; anything taller and it would look hideous. When looking at the Salem renderings I can't help but think that it's going to stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to the surrounding architecture (just go onto Google Street View) to see why. Now granted Salem -like Beverly- is not exactly your average "suburb" making it more of a "city" so it's not to say a parking garage would look necessarily out of place there. But at the same time it might just be too tall and too "functional" looking for it's own good. Even the exterior renderings of the Beverly garage make it look a bit like a gutted/refurbished mill/warehouse

I completely agree with you though considering that the North Station-Beverly segment of the Eastern Route is to my knowledge the single most heavily travelled and used part of the commuter rail anything to expand beyond the current timetable would have been money better spent.

There is definitely enough space for a second platform today. However, some of the glossy PowerPoint renderings of the new station showed the high-level platform going almost up to the old tower building and totally blocking any chance of sticking a switch and turnout that would allow 2 platforms to be occupied at once. But that wasn't an engineering schematic...it was a pretty picture for the public dog-and-pony show. Without a real schematic it's impossible to tell what's provisioned. They would need about 75-100 feet of unobstructed running space from the portal to install a track switch and turn out. The embankment's almost level...just a few feet of dirt scooping and a small retaining wall backing the platform would do it. The easy interface with the Bridge St. sidewalk would make it so they wouldn't have to install an overhead walkway/elevator between platforms. If the current southerly stairs stay put as the egress and the first 10 feet or so of the full-high has a railing to collect people for rounding to the ramp they should be fine for a future tack-on. If the whole works advances any closer to the tower...what a monumentally stupid waste of money. They'd have to railing off a few feet of platform and tack on a few feet of platform extension on the opposite end. Probably with the town using that as an excuse to demand yet more shiny things.

Given how extreme a sum of money is being wasted on the parking sink it's baffling that this wasn't part of the original build. If they ever build the South Salem station south-of-portal the schedule choke here would be unbearable. At least if you had 2-track platforms on both sides of the portal the platform dwells would allow huge flexibility to scoot through the tunnel without delaying anything, and basically make the single track a negligible pinch. If they ever do add that station it'll almost be a project dependency to go north and retrofit this one. Pointless.


The best we can say for sure is that Peabody extension is conclusively not blocked. They are keeping the easement clear for the SB leg of the wye and 450 ft. platform on the curve that would only take 1 row of parking (~45 spaces) from the south mini-lot. Grade crossing of the Bridge St. driveway, but that's about it for site impacts.

[dmoisan]

I live in Salem.

In fact, I live within sight of the station. I've held off commenting about the station for a long time.

I have followed this project for nearly ten years and I need to express my thoughts. So many posters here come up with Big Ideas about transit without perhaps asking those that live in the area and use the transit, that it bothers me a lot. I have been a bus rider and occasional train rider for the 30 years I have lived in and near downtown Salem.

Like many transportation projects, Salem Station, the 2014 edition, is a product of many compromises. Many, many compromises. This starts with the very site itself. It's mentioned upthread that the station site was owned by the B&M and held the roundhouse. That's known. What's less known is that while the state took the B&M property (to the MBTA), there's a small triangular wedge of land that belongs to the city. This followed the original wye that exited the tunnel to the Danvers branch; everything from the roadway to the viaduct leading to the overpass is the city's. You can clearly see this in older photos of the site, though during construction this is obscured.

Then there is the Danvers Branch, which the MBTA does not own. The city has recently put up solar-powered lighting and pathways from North Salem. North Salem residents were very insistent on access. Any future plans for the Danvers Branch would need to take this in account. (A long story short: The North Street Overpass, built around the same time as the train tunnel, split Salem into quarters. While it probably needed to be done at the time, along with the train tunnel, it has had a number of negative effects, and North Salem station access is just one of them.)

Any new station would have to adjust to the realities of different parcels with different ownership. Salem has needed an improved station for many years; I would argue, it was inadequate when it was originally built, and people have been trying to improve the situation for over 20 years. I have been involved in this as a citizen and town official for 10 years.

The garage has the extra level because the community screamed for it. They screamed for it. I don't drive so I'm indifferent to whether there is a extra level or not. People wanted heaters, or at least they wanted a heated enclosed waiting area.

We also have our NIMBYs just as in Hingham. The Federal Street Historic District Neighborhood Association is very influential, and loud. They are also very near the station. They sought to delay the project for years until it could be made "historical". (Salem has always been a busy place. It has never been a quiet historical town.)

Last summer, the neighborhood groups nearly got the state to perform another environmental review; there was already a review done and doing another would have delayed the project. I believed at the time that if there were a delay, the project would probably die. By this time, it was on its third architectural firm--I had attended many meetings by the previous firm--and I believe that it probably would have faded right then and there. There's no money and you know, just wait a few more years, a few more years to study it some more and get it right. (My own ward councilor tried this one. Expressing my fury would be truly an understatement.)

I wanted to give up right then and there and forget I ever lived in Salem.

I have no patience for grand ideas anymore.

I use the service all the time--buses and trains--and I know about service cuts. I have told my mayor to park outside GE, either on Rt. 107 or 1A, her choice, and count the buses that go between Salem and points south. You cannot look at that and not conclude the southern North Shore, in general, is underserved by transit.

I don't want to hear about how the station would be better if it had bubble cars or MUs or Budds or trackless trolleys or all that. I'm drained. If Peabody rail service is such a good thing, let the residents of that town push for it. I'm not going to sacrifice the present for some kind of magical two-tracked tunnel that probably won't ever happen in my lifetime.

I'm drained by the years of telling people I know that we can't have parking for everyone in Salem. Telling them they have to look at other alternatives besides cars because we can't have the space for more cars within the 8 square miles of our town. I'm tired of being told that "the car has won, get used to it." or that the T is "welfare transit" and if I can't do better enough to drive a car, move. I'm tirred of hearing about yuppie condo owners that have actually sued the city for not giving them parking subsidies (!!)

During the last public hearing before construction started, I heard from a woman on Federal St. No, it's not the conversation you're expecting. She talked about not being able to drive, and talked about the same things that I have been trying to say for years.

That woman is on a higher social strata than I am. I hope she has better luck convincing people than I have had. Maybe she could work for the MBTA and reverse those service cuts. I sure hated thinking about all the years I wasted on this cause.

If you want to see the project mismanaged, I have a Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmoisa ... 961026890/

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I live in Salem.

In fact, I live within sight of the station. I've held off commenting about the station for a long time.

I have followed this project for nearly ten years and I need to express my thoughts. So many posters here come up with Big Ideas about transit without perhaps asking those that live in the area and use the transit, that it bothers me a lot. I have been a bus rider and occasional train rider for the 30 years I have lived in and near downtown Salem.

Like many transportation projects, Salem Station, the 2014 edition, is a product of many compromises. Many, many compromises. This starts with the very site itself. It's mentioned upthread that the station site was owned by the B&M and held the roundhouse. That's known. What's less known is that while the state took the B&M property (to the MBTA), there's a small triangular wedge of land that belongs to the city. This followed the original wye that exited the tunnel to the Danvers branch; everything from the roadway to the viaduct leading to the overpass is the city's. You can clearly see this in older photos of the site, though during construction this is obscured.

Then there is the Danvers Branch, which the MBTA does not own. The city has recently put up solar-powered lighting and pathways from North Salem. North Salem residents were very insistent on access. Any future plans for the Danvers Branch would need to take this in account. (A long story short: The North Street Overpass, built around the same time as the train tunnel, split Salem into quarters. While it probably needed to be done at the time, along with the train tunnel, it has had a number of negative effects, and North Salem station access is just one of them.)

Any new station would have to adjust to the realities of different parcels with different ownership. Salem has needed an improved station for many years; I would argue, it was inadequate when it was originally built, and people have been trying to improve the situation for over 20 years. I have been involved in this as a citizen and town official for 10 years.

The garage has the extra level because the community screamed for it. They screamed for it. I don't drive so I'm indifferent to whether there is a extra level or not. People wanted heaters, or at least they wanted a heated enclosed waiting area.

We also have our NIMBYs just as in Hingham. The Federal Street Historic District Neighborhood Association is very influential, and loud. They are also very near the station. They sought to delay the project for years until it could be made "historical". (Salem has always been a busy place. It has never been a quiet historical town.)

Last summer, the neighborhood groups nearly got the state to perform another environmental review; there was already a review done and doing another would have delayed the project. I believed at the time that if there were a delay, the project would probably die. By this time, it was on its third architectural firm--I had attended many meetings by the previous firm--and I believe that it probably would have faded right then and there. There's no money and you know, just wait a few more years, a few more years to study it some more and get it right. (My own ward councilor tried this one. Expressing my fury would be truly an understatement.)

I wanted to give up right then and there and forget I ever lived in Salem.

I have no patience for grand ideas anymore.

I use the service all the time--buses and trains--and I know about service cuts. I have told my mayor to park outside GE, either on Rt. 107 or 1A, her choice, and count the buses that go between Salem and points south. You cannot look at that and not conclude the southern North Shore, in general, is underserved by transit.

I don't want to hear about how the station would be better if it had bubble cars or MUs or Budds or trackless trolleys or all that. I'm drained. If Peabody rail service is such a good thing, let the residents of that town push for it. I'm not going to sacrifice the present for some kind of magical two-tracked tunnel that probably won't ever happen in my lifetime.

I'm drained by the years of telling people I know that we can't have parking for everyone in Salem. Telling them they have to look at other alternatives besides cars because we can't have the space for more cars within the 8 square miles of our town. I'm tired of being told that "the car has won, get used to it." or that the T is "welfare transit" and if I can't do better enough to drive a car, move. I'm tirred of hearing about yuppie condo owners that have actually sued the city for not giving them parking subsidies (!!)

During the last public hearing before construction started, I heard from a woman on Federal St. No, it's not the conversation you're expecting. She talked about not being able to drive, and talked about the same things that I have been trying to say for years.

That woman is on a higher social strata than I am. I hope she has better luck convincing people than I have had. Maybe she could work for the MBTA and reverse those service cuts. I sure hated thinking about all the years I wasted on this cause.

If you want to see the project mismanaged, I have a Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmoisa ... 961026890/

Correction...the T does own the Danvers Branch all the way to Peabody Sq. That is not the city's. The currently active leg of the wye (the one that had the accessibility controversy about putting in a pedestrian grade crossing) may be the murky-jurisdiction piece. But the branchline itself was conferred part-and-parcel to the T from B&M in 1976. State GIS property records show no break in the ownership from the branch split coming out of the tunnel to the start of the main branch track west of the station.


My point is...if you care about improved service, the second platform matters the world for future expansion of the train schedule. It solves for the tunnel bottleneck by being able to stage opposite-direction train meets through the tunnel while one train is doing a normal 2-3 minute platform dwell at Salem. Doing that, plus general improvements to the aging infrastructure downstream buys all the Newburyport/Rockport capacity that'll be needed for 2+ decades of schedule expansion without ever needing to consider the tunnel itself. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate to ask..."How did this slip through the cracks when you guys were making your great convoluted bundle of compromises?" It's going to be a big added expense and another major construction disruption to have to go back in 8 years and tack on another platform. It's a going to be a bigger pain if their current design for the new platform blocks the path and requires still more construction to reshape the two tips of the brand new platform. What's the ultimate goal here? Better transit service? Or maximizing parking capacity so non-transit riders have a place to stuff their cars? Something got compromised away here when very little of the cost for this massive project gets set aside for the one thing that could substantially increase transit frequencies at the station. And we're not talking particularly large cost for that platform. In the competition for resources parking eclipsed quality of transit. It's not inappropriate to ask "Why is that?" when this is...in fact...a transit station. And a transit station that very badly needs increased service.

[jbvb]

I will check the next time I can look out the end windows, but IIRC the wye end of the tunnel was built for two tracks toward Beverly and one toward Peabody. It was only the middle part which is limited to single-track. It might take somewhat fancy turnouts to accommodate both a double-track transition and passenger service to Peabody, but that's a lot less $$ than new excavation.

[BostonUrbEx]

Just some general notes here: does Bridge St really need to be grade seperated if there's service to Peabody Sq or beyond? I imagine it will be fairly infrequent, and that making a fully protected grade crossing would be safer, more appealing, and more cost effective than maintaining the Bridge St bridge.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I will check the next time I can look out the end windows, but IIRC the wye end of the tunnel was built for two tracks toward Beverly and one toward Peabody. It was only the middle part which is limited to single-track. It might take somewhat fancy turnouts to accommodate both a double-track transition and passenger service to Peabody, but that's a lot less $$ than new excavation.

Correct. The turnout for the ex-Peabody track is in the tunnel, and until that leg of the wye went away thru freights and passenger turned out in the tunnel never interacting with the area that's now the platform. The space outside the portal for a second Salem platform is here, from the photo spread dmoisan posted: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmoisa ... 961026890/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. As you can see, space is clearly available to do it very easily. But what has to be provisioned is 75-100 ft. of running space outside the portal to turn out onto that would-be second platform. So building out this new full-high too close to the portal means the front car of a stopped inbound train would be blocking the space for that turnout switch.

To fix that would require:
1) Closing off the first x dozen feet of platform edge with a railing. Does not involve tearing up any platform, just blocking about 1 car's worth of boarding access.
2) Moving the front car stop back behind the new switch so an outbound can move freely out of the tunnel onto the new platform while an inbound is stopped for boarding.
3) Constructing x dozen more feet of full-high on the north end of the platform to offset the approx. 1 car's worth roped off at the front.

Since nothing being constructed today has to be outright torn up, it's not a fatal oversight if they have to come back and do this. Just a really annoying oversight because it will involve some heavy construction equipment on the north end building that 'excuse me' platform extension to compensate for the length they have to rope off at the front. And then of course the bang-for-buck proposition of were all those extra parking-related frills worth it when a second platform in the renovation could've increased service immediately and a second platform several years after the renovation would be lots more expensive than doing it now. I don't want to take away from the real concerns about parking in downtown Salem that dmoisan described...they are real, because Salem is getting more urbanized. But it goes to the question about "Is this a transit project, or is it a municipal parking project that the T is picking up the tab for? And did the focus of this project shift too much from the former to the latter during the tortured political sausage-making that led to the final design?" If they have to come back in 8 years to add a second platform because the capacity pinch rears its head towards better service, I think we'll know the answer to that. And the finger-pointing will not be pretty (it already isn't).

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Just some general notes here: does Bridge St really need to be grade seperated if there's service to Peabody Sq or beyond? I imagine it will be fairly infrequent, and that making a fully protected grade crossing would be safer, more appealing, and more cost effective than maintaining the Bridge St bridge.

It's not Bridge, just the station driveway to Bridge. That wouldn't be an issue for having a grade crossing. On a 3-branch mainline Peabody's headways are not going to be any tighter than current Newburyport/Rockport, and will run shorter consists than Newburyport/Rockport because of fewer stops and that Salem provision only allowing a 450 ft. platform instead of 800 ft. The dwell times are going to be much shorter on that side.

If worst comes to worst you put a crossing tender there on the 7-10am, 4-7pm shifts at crush load keeping the queues moving while the train is stopped on-platform abutting...but clear of...the crossing. But that's not going to have a tangible effect one way or the other on the degree to which traffic is going to suck at crush-load. There's already a bonkers number of traffic signals on that block. The equivalent of one more red cycle inside the station for 2 minutes once every 15-30 minutes doesn't do much to the other 4 or 5 street-level cycles on that gridlocked block. May be worse on the A.M. if station traffic backs up onto Bridge, but it may actually help the city streets breathe a little on the P.M. shift if the exiting station traffic got held for the equivalent of 1 set of surface-level signal cycles.

Overall, not something to get too concerned about should CR to Peabody ever pick back up steam. It's doesn't rank very high at all in the universe of traffic stressors around that site.

[dmoisan]

[quote="F-line to Dudley via Park]

Correction...the T does own the Danvers Branch all the way to Peabody Sq. That is not the city's. The currently active leg of the wye (the one that had the accessibility controversy about putting in a pedestrian grade crossing) may be the murky-jurisdiction piece. But the branchline itself was conferred part-and-parcel to the T from B&M in 1976. State GIS property records show no break in the ownership from the branch split coming out of the tunnel to the start of the main branch track west of the station.


My point is...if you care about improved service, the second platform matters the world for future expansion of the train schedule. It solves for the tunnel bottleneck by being able to stage opposite-direction train meets through the tunnel while one train is doing a normal 2-3 minute platform dwell at Salem. Doing that, plus general improvements to the aging infrastructure downstream buys all the Newburyport/Rockport capacity that'll be needed for 2+ decades of schedule expansion without ever needing to consider the tunnel itself. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate to ask..."How did this slip through the cracks when you guys were making your great

[/quote]

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that everyone in the room was screaming about parking in every meeting. They scream about parking in my building. Parking, parking, parking! I wish we could trade places. Cambridge would be a lot friendlier to my daily transportation life. We are not Cambridge, as much as I wish it. Can we please accept this in this thread? Pleasey-please? Thanks.

As an example, the big apartment complex next to the station, the Jefferson, was not designed around any transit-oriented-development. It was built during the previous administration. I was there to see this--I can see it from my apartment window as I type this.

It was done to give the mayor (Stan Usovicz) a cheap, easy win. The buildings there are all yellow crapboxes that we have seen polluting the suburbs everywhere. One of the buildings sunk into the ground (Parker Brothers was built on fill.) Another building had to be re-sided. Twice. Stan never used the train. He didn't care.

Here's a revelation: Most Salemmites don't care either. Oh, they know traffic just sucks, and they have a faint idea of taking the train to the Garden for the Broons or the Celts or the circus. Trust me. I have tried. I know our current mayor Kim Driscoll does know about transit oriented development. She pays attention at the mayors' conferences she attends. I know this. And I have talked to her about this on numerous occasions.

The ward councilors? The neighborhood associations? Not so much. I consider it a victory that Mayor Driscoll was able to get as far as she has pushing the Salem Station project. Now, oops, we're doing it rong! We didn't factor in those magical EMU's of 2050. Now, if Stan had been a train buff 10 years ago, I would agree with you. We've waited so long, and have had too much bad experiences with NIMBYs who love to run out the clock, for me to be patient.

Just accept that.

[NH2060]

From what I've read you're both right on target. Salem Station looks nothing more than a quick fix that somehow lasted a lot longer than it should have. The high level platform there looks like an old freight platform. Even Swampscott and Beverly look more up-to-date with their concrete mini-highs. At least now Salem will finally have a PROPER station with *more ample* parking capacity. I still say the exterior could be made to look a lot more like a converted warehouse/factory for the historic feel, but it really doesn't all that bad to be honest.

Now could/should a second track and platform be in the cards at some point? I really don't see why not since ridership is what it is at Salem and on the Newburyport/Rockport Line as a whole. If a Blue Line extension to Salem never comes to fruition (idk where they'd route it with the RR ROW being only wide enough for 2-3 tracks altogether) an expanded CR between North Station and Beverly really would be the next best thing, if not just as good. Even if they never go with either electrification or DMUs and stick with diesels and single level and/or bilevel coaches it would still be at the very least adequate for the population it serves. If anything the only real problem with that line (aside from the handful of speed restrictions) is the limited schedule (which at 28 RTs per day is saying something!)

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

From what I've read you're both right on target. Salem Station looks nothing more than a quick fix that somehow lasted a lot longer than it should have. The high level platform there looks like an old freight platform. Even Swampscott and Beverly look more up-to-date with their concrete mini-highs. At least now Salem will finally have a PROPER station with *more ample* parking capacity. I still say the exterior could be made to look a lot more like a converted warehouse/factory for the historic feel, but it really doesn't all that bad to be honest.

Now could/should a second track and platform be in the cards at some point? I really don't see why not since ridership is what it is at Salem and on the Newburyport/Rockport Line as a whole. If a Blue Line extension to Salem never comes to fruition (idk where they'd route it with the RR ROW being only wide enough for 2-3 tracks altogether) an expanded CR between North Station and Beverly really would be the next best thing, if not just as good. Even if they never go with either electrification or DMUs and stick with diesels and single level and/or bilevel coaches it would still be at the very least adequate for the population it serves. If anything the only real problem with that line (aside from the handful of speed restrictions) is the limited schedule (which at 28 RTs per day is saying something!)

Salem does 2,010 boardings per day, per the most recent Blue Book. That is #5 on the commuter rail system after Mansfield, Attleboro, South Attleboro, and Sharon. In other words, the single busiest non-NEC station on the system.

There's no question it merits a better station with more parking. But the capacity ceiling with one platform is a big deal, and has nothing to do with EMU's, DMU's, Blue Line, or the far far future. You simply can't increase the schedule very much at all without an ability to stage nimble train meets around the tunnel. This is going to manifest itself in less than 10 years. Salem can't get enough trains now to satiate today's demand, and the capacity ceiling can't be raised enough to meaningfully draw more North Shore cars off the road. Even if you did some basic state-of-repair work downwind like quadrant-gating the Chelsea grade crossings to lift most of the speed restrictions there, cab signal + PTC the line for 79 MPH on the long straightaways, and repair the decrepit movable bridges...stuff that has to be done in the next dozen years to keep the Eastern Route infrastructure from further decaying and slowly degrading service...the inability to stage meets with any degree of flexibility around the tunnel wastes most of those downwind capacity gains and schedule slots it could gain. The Eastern Route is far from firing on all cylinders and could really open the floodgates if the current double-track mainline got the Fitchburg-like spiff-up. But all that relatively low-hanging capacity gain hits a brick wall at the single Salem platform if you can't shuffle through the tunnel in constant movement while something opposite-direction is simultaneously en route to a Salem platform dwell. Everything stops. Everything stops with MORE schedule bottleneck if you add any more trains or improve the travel times with mainline state-of-repair work. If the second platform were there the tunnel would be a total non-factor. It's such a short stretch of single track anything could pass through inside the span of a standard Salem platform dwell. If only the platform could handle dwells in either direction without blocking the tunnel.


Really...8-10 years and Salem is going to be complaining loudly that there's just not more trains to be had, and demanding the second platform at considerably higher expense than if they'd planned it from the start. I'm sorry, but there is no comfort to be had in "getting it done already" and telling oneself the second platform only matters for some future generation when the commuter rail is running Jetsons stuff under electrification or something. The capacity pinch gets felt almost immediately. Potentially much much faster than 8-10 years if that new garage sells out in no time flat every morning and the upgraded platform gets significantly more crowded than the old. It will be cold comfort that they can't get more train service than they currently have, and there will be immediate regrets that the hyper-focus on parkingparkingparkingparking to the exclusion of all else did not help their transit situation. Planning fatigue is not an excuse for not addressing what matters. One can tell himself that today, but he's not going to feel any better about it tomorrow.

[jbvb]

More concisely, there is no worse place to put a mandatory, slow-to-board low platform stop than in a congested segment of single track interrupting a double track line. The Old Colony has two, the Fitchburg has one, Malden is high-level and has an alternate route, I don't recall anything having been done about the 'numerous Newtons' either. The MBTA seems to be collecting them...

[wicked]

Which ones on the Old Colony?

[MBTA3247]

Last I checked the Old Colony lines were 100% full highs.

[jbvb]

Sorry I wasn't clear, the OC's have high platforms but operationally they're worse than Malden, because of the multiple routes radiating from the S. end of the single track.

[jbvb]

On Halloween, I wound up standing in the last car (the 2 plainclothes & 1 uniformed cop present were all seated), so I watched out the rear end as we entered Salem. The tunnel widens to 2 track width a bit before the location of the former Peabody line wye turnout's points. The single track tunnel enters the double-track portion on the westerly side, but swings to the easterly side before it reaches the portal by the former tower. So there is room for both a Peabody turnout and an end-of-double-track turnout under Bridge St, albeit they might have to be lapped, and both would be curved.

I note that the excavation for the parking garage comes right up to the ballast of the current single track, which is on the east side of the available RoW. If they put garage or garage appurtenances there, it will be in the way of the potential 2nd platform/track.