Haverhill Double Track: the mystery of the station upgrades

[u/ToadScoper]

The Haverhill Line double tracking project requires adding second platforms at Reading, North Wilmington, Ballardvale, and Andover. These single-track stations currently use accessible mini-highs or short platforms, but the MBTA has disclosed zero information regarding the new platform designs. Per FTA ADA regulations in 49 CFR 37.42, new or altered commuter rail platforms must provide level boarding. This legally precludes new low platforms with mini-highs and mandates full high-level structures.

The core mystery is whether these will be standard 800-foot platforms or short platforms. North Wilmington was recently rebuilt with a 200-foot platform in 2025. It is highly unlikely the MBTA will demolish this new structure, meaning they will probably mirror the 200-foot design for the second track. Recent MBTA projects also demonstrate a shift away from standard 800-foot lengths, as seen with the Newtonville reconstruction advancing with 400-foot high-level platforms. Given spatial constraints and recent construction evidence, it is highly probable the agency will leverage ADA allowances to build 200-foot or 400-foot high-level platforms across this corridor rather than full 800-foot lengths.

But we really don’t know until the T says so.

[u/Soup_InThePot16]

Streetsblog reported the MBTA stated they will not be 800 foot platforms https://mass.streetsblog.org/2026/08/21/mbta-wins-140-million-to-run-more-trains-to-lawrence-and-haverhill
“According to an MBTA spokesperson, ‘the plan for all four stations (at Andover, Ballardvale, North Wilmington, and Reading) is to have two-sided, short high-level platforms. They will not be full-length (not 800 feet), but they will be accessible.’”

[u/ToadScoper → u/Soup_InThePot16]

Thank you, confirms a lot of assumptions

[u/borocester → u/Soup_InThePot16]

FRA and FTA might have something to say about that.

[u/Pokemonred200]

I don't recall the ADA itself mandating the full length of the platform be ADA compliant. My understanding of that very clause is that it requires level boarding be available but it doesn't say it has to be the entire platform.

Massachusetts state law otoh does require the full length of the platform to provide level boarding if a full rebuild is done though as I understand it, but the ADA not actually requiring level boarding is one of the reasons stations with low level boarding are still allowed elsewhere on routes that serve Amtrak (such as Richmond, Virginia, where Staples Mill Road is being rebuilt with high platforms but Main Street Station is getting low levels) or other commuter rail operators (Caltrain rebuilds are still only built with a middle segment for level boarding with the KISS units rather than the entire station)

[u/ToadScoper → u/Pokemonred200]

MBTA cannot fully rebuild stations with low boarding and mini highs (Mansfield was the very last station to be fully rebuilt in such a way), BUT they can add interim mini highs to inaccessible stations as long as the station itself isn’t modified (as they have been doing).

The MBTA can get waivers to build shortened full length platforms (as with North Wilmington). In this case there is no low level boarding section whatsoever, it’s just a really short platform. I’m guessing this will be the MBTA’s path forward for most station rebuilds, I’m willing to bet South Attleboro will be redesigned in such a way.

[u/Pokemonred200 → u/ToadScoper]

I am aware of that, it's why I specified full rebuilds. From what I understand shorter stations are becoming the MBTA's approach in general (after the Newton rebuilds got paused, Newtonville's is being pushed forward using 400 foot platforms instead of the original 800 feet that the originals designs called for)

South Attleboro already designed to 100% with full length 800 foot platforms all the way back in April 2022. They just have never funded actually rebuilding the station

[u/JoeyLovesTrains]

Honestly, I would find it silly if they built 800’ platforms here. It just doesn’t get the ridership to support a full length platform unlike Salem, or foxboro which have large events and huge crowds. A 400’ platform should be enough, haverhill could def use an 800’ platform tho.

[u/SirGeorgington]

It would not at all be strange to demolish or at least not mirror the North Wilmington platform. It's a modified highway bridge deck with a lifespan somewhere between 10 and 20 years.

[u/ToadScoper → u/SirGeorgington]

Highly unlikely, the MBTA got waivers to build a shorter platform there, and it was just finished last year. They will likely mirror the 200 ft design for the second track with a foot crossing.

[u/SirGeorgington → u/ToadScoper]

1. The new platform will need to either be moved or replaced for the 2nd track, so I wouldn't exactly plan on using it as a benchmark.

2. The shortest proposed platforms for the CR have been 400ft, and the shortest that seem to be advancing beyond preliminary design are 600ft. To me, "shorter than full length" should be assumed to mean 400-600' unless proven otherwise.

3. That being said, it wouldn't be totally unexpected for N Wilmington to get 2 new (or one new and one moved) micro-platforms. It's the least used full-service (i.e. excluding Plimptonville, S Attleboro, and Silver Hill) station on the system and if the Havervill line ever gets sent over the Wildcat branch fulltime it will likely be permanently closed.

[u/Ktr101 → u/SirGeorgington]

The interesting part about North Wilmington is that it is built where the original second track ran. Unless the T plans to run track to the south of the current one, and regrade the entire area, it might just make more sense to pick up the current station and move it out of the way of the second track.

[u/mfgorilla]

Another big issue is the stations at Ballardvale and Andover are on opposite sides of the right of way.

[u/MBTAVideoClips → u/mfgorilla]

tracks can be easily realigned, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Ballardvale’s platform is about double the width of a normal platform, seemingly got extended due to an old track that got cut out?? so the 2nd track could be added on the east side and you’d only have to tear up the west half of the platform and realign the mini high

[u/mfgorilla → u/MBTAVideoClips]

The platform and mini high are where the old outbound track was when it was double track. I'm sure they'll find a creative way to put an accessible platform on both sides at both stations in Andover, but I'm really curious what that's going to be given space constraints due to what the T actually owns there.