Here's the town webpage for the Framingham crossing, last updated 2010! http://www.framinghamma.gov/269/Downtow ... d-Crossing
Final Draft Report is from 2009. Section 2: http://www.framinghamma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3271
Recommended alternative is RT 135 under RT 126, leaving the railroad grade crossing as-is! Analysis seems to underplay the problem of the railroad crossing at grade. Nothing about provisioning bicycle lanes; Conclusion section talks about bicycles generically. This project fixes the worst intersection, does not fix all the other intersections that are a mess. It will still be hard to get to the train station at rush hour.
Need the gates to be "smart", i.e. come down earlier for the "heart to hub", come down normal for freights, come down late for westbound trains stopping at the station, and not come down at all for the eastbound trains stopping at the station, and come down on demand for eastbound trains departing the station (apparently this is already implemented). I'm assuming the gates are not fully optimized yet?
Good news is, with a pedestrian & vehicular grade crossing, no fancy ramps or elevators are needed for ADA compliance. So question is how fast the "heart to hub" or other MBTA express/limited trains will be allowed to travel through a grade crossing. When Amtrak restores inland regionals, they will presumably stop at Framingham.
Report also states there are about 600 spaces for commuters (2009), and the downtown has a parking deficit of about 600 spaces because buildings are highly underutilized (or maybe the people are poor and don't have cars?). How is the parking situation for commuters in 2016? The "T" needs to provide enough parking to handle demand at all major stations.