MBTA presents updated Turnback Track proposal at public forum
(12-14 minute read)
Watch the full presentation here on RCTV’s Youtube page.
On Monday, September 15, 2025, the MBTA held a public forum in Reading to update residents on the proposed turnback track project. The meeting aimed to address concerns and provide updates before the MBTA files a Notice of Intent with the Reading Conservation Commission, required because two portions of the project fall within wetlands jurisdiction.
While the MBTA may otherwise proceed with the project by right, it must still demonstrate compliance with state and federal environmental standards.
Key takeaways
MBTA representatives presented updates since the February 2025 forum, including noise and traffic studies.
Residents expressed mixed reactions - supporting the goal of increased rail service but questioning execution, environmental impacts, and reliability.
Abutters along Hunt, Vine, and Hancock Streets announced the formation of the Reading Turnback Committee (RTC) to coordinate neighborhood advocacy.
Project summary
The MBTA proposes a turnback track that would allow 30-minute bidirectional service between Boston and Reading and 60-minute service to Haverhill, compared to today’s 45-90 minute headways.
Challenge: Reading Station has only one track, which limits train movements
Solution: A 4500-ft turnback extending from Reading Station at Woburn Street to Willow Street
Operations: Every 30 minutes on weekdays (5:30 am - 7:30 pm), with turnaround times estimated at 15-20 minutes (maximum 30 minutes by law)
Mitigation: The MBTA pledged a locomotive drip pan to collect fluids and privacy plantings to buffer noise and sightlines
Timeline: Service could begin in Fall 2026
Alternatives considered
Six options were reviewed, including relocating the station, building a new platform, or using the Wildcat Branch. Each was dismissed due to cost, delay, or operational limitations. The MBTA concluded the current Reading extension is the only viable option to meet its service goals.
Review of MBTA data (with fact-checks)
Noise analysis
MBTA claim: Microphone data from Hunt, Hancock, and Willow Streets showed noise levels increase by only 5 dBA when a train idled, which they described as “barely perceptible.”
Fact-check: According to the GC Audio Decibel Comparison Chart, a 3 dBA increase is barely perceptible, while a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable. The MBTA’s description understates the impact.
Resident concern: Overnight data on Willow Street showed spikes from 50 to 63 dBA, attributed by the MBTA to frogs. Residents questioned this explanation and noted that it does not reflect the potential for constant idling near homes.
Traffic analysis
Crossing activations at four Reading locations will increase significantly:
Ash/Main Street & Washington Street: +20 activations (42 → 62/ day)
Woburn Street: +38 activations (24 → 62/day)
Willow Street: +10 activations (24 → 34/day)
MBTA claim: Average wait time per crossing will decrease slightly
Resident view: More frequent interruptions - even if shorter - represent a quality-of-life and traffic congestion issue, especially at Woburn Street, where activations will more than double.
Air quality analysis
MBTA claim: Shifting to renewable diesel fuel will decrease most greenhouse gases and particulate matter, though nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions will rise.
Fact-check:
MBTA data projects N₂O emissions will more than double (21.89 → 45.98 tons/year)
According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the EPA, N₂O is nearly 300 times more potent than CO₂ and persists in the atmosphere for 114 years, while also depleting the ozone layer.
While reduced particulates are beneficial, the MBTA did not fully address the long-term climate implications of increased N₂O emissions.
Community discussion
Residents raised concerns that:
Ridership demand may not justify the project, especially if schedule adjustments could improve service without construction. The MBTA asserted that the infrastructure updates were necessary to support future electrification.
Noise analysis may understate impacts, and “frog noise” does not explain overnight ambient noise increases at one location.
Service reliability is already inconsistent on the Haverhill line. Keolis’s ability to maintain new schedules was questioned.
Supporters, however, emphasized that reliable commuter rail is a major asset to Reading, and improved service could reduce car dependency.
Reading Turnback Committee (RTC)
The Reading Turnback Committee (RTC), formed by abutters and concerned residents, outlined key objections:
Safety risks: More frequent crossings increase hazards for drivers, pedestrians, and school children
Health impacts: Greater noise, vibration, and diesel emissions near homes and schools
Engagement issues: Residents said MBTA has not followed through on promised engagements since February and ignored viable alternatives, such as reinstating pre-COVID schedules
Community investment at risk: The $5 million investment of the Maillet, Sommes, and Morgan conservation land and Thelin Bird Sanctuary could be undermined by diesel pollution and noise.
The RTC stressed that they support responsible transit expansion, but argued the current MBTA plan prioritizes speed of implementation over environmental and community health.
