General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

ritchiew said:
Seriously though, that paragraph is bonkers. Austin has no subway. California's electrification probably isn't the world's best because they still don't run any electric trains. Is any part of that list of ideas even close to reasonably true?
Click to expand...
The part about Quebec and the PNW might be true? Although that paradigm of electrification, California, is giving Quebec a run for the money on hydrogen.
 
HenryAlan said:
The part about Quebec and the PNW might be true? Although that paradigm of electrification, California, is giving Quebec a run for the money on hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the idea that the PNW is better with funding, that might be true. But that's me guessing, and it's hard to give her the benefit of the doubt, here. Do you know much about that?

And as for Quebec, yes, they've got that train. But looking at hydrogen powered trains for the MBTA is one of the things I think I'd call bonkers. This isn't my wheelhouse, but I generally don't see serious transit people get excited about hydrogen power. Stringing up catenary wires is relatively straightforward, has more than a century of accumulated standards and best practices, and there's a massive international market for parts and expertise. Hydrogen power is comparatively new and untested. It seems to be useful on short branches or where it's impractical to put up wires, but that's not our situation yet. The Providence and Fairmount lines must be the lowest hanging fruit for electrification in the country.
 
ritchiew said:
Yeah, the idea that the PNW is better with funding, that might be true. But that's me guessing, and it's hard to give her the benefit of the doubt, here. Do you know much about that?

And as for Quebec, yes, they've got that train. But looking at hydrogen powered trains for the MBTA is one of the things I think I'd call bonkers. This isn't my wheelhouse, but I generally don't see serious transit people get excited about hydrogen power. Stringing up catenary wires is relatively straightforward, has more than a century of accumulated standards and best practices, and there's a massive international market for parts and expertise. Hydrogen power is comparatively new and untested. It seems to be useful on short branches or where it's impractical to put up wires, but that's not our situation yet. The Providence and Fairmount lines must be the lowest hanging fruit for electrification in the country.
Click to expand...
I cannot overstate how much the idea that we need to innovate our way out of our transportation problems rather than just adopt international best practices dominates institutional culture. I don’t think it’s that way in terms of professional staff, mind you, but the decision makers…the boards, the elected officials, they don’t want to hear about what other countries do because We’re Not Europe/Asia
 
KCasiglio said:
I cannot overstate how much the idea that we need to innovate our way out of our transportation problems rather than just adopt international best practices dominates institutional culture. I don’t think it’s that way in terms of professional staff, mind you, but the decision makers…the boards, the elected officials, they don’t want to hear about what other countries do because We’re Not Europe/Asia
Click to expand...
Speaking generically about typical disconnects between advocates (including specialists on staff) and who they are advocating to: it's not merely that "we are not Europe/Asia"...its that the key stakeholders here have fundamentally different interests. That's just an elaboration on your "we are not..." point.
We (advocates) need to do a better job framing things not to be centered on the 'what,' but on how are the interests served. Typically if some pie-in-sky innovation is getting more traction than some internationally-recognized best practice, it's because, conceptually, some interest is better served (in peoples' brains at least) by the former. It's depressing, but human.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Speaking generically about typical disconnects between advocates (including specialists on staff) and who they are advocating to: it's not merely that "we are not Europe/Asia"...its that the key stakeholders here have fundamentally different interests. That's just an elaboration on your "we are not..." point.
We (advocates) need to do a better job framing things not to be centered on the 'what,' but on how are the interests served. Typically if some pie-in-sky innovation is getting more traction than some internationally-recognized best practice, it's because, conceptually, some interest is better served (in peoples' brains at least) by the former. It's depressing, but human.
Click to expand...

People don’t like hearing that the solutions to their problems have been known all along and their suffering has been entirely avoidable, and quite often a result of their own decisions to advocate for things and vote for people and causes that are against their best interests, sometimes for many decades of a long life. People aren’t wired to accept that reality.

They’d rather hear that something new has come along that can help them.
 
KCasiglio said:
I cannot overstate how much the idea that we need to innovate our way out of our transportation problems rather than just adopt international best practices dominates institutional culture. I don’t think it’s that way in terms of professional staff, mind you, but the decision makers…the boards, the elected officials, they don’t want to hear about what other countries do because We’re Not Europe/Asia
Click to expand...
How much do you think decision makers actually believe we can innovate our way out of problems? As a cynical outsider, if often looks like a way for them to not have to fund a project or accomplish anything. If they admitted that electrification is the one and obvious solution, they might feel some pressure to move forward with that. If they can point to some emerging technology, they can stall, do some cheap feasibility study, and keep kicking the can down the road.

I guess these aren't mutually exclusive, either. They might not want to have to fund anything, so they better believe some innovation in coming.
 
bigeman312 said:
People don’t like hearing that the solutions to their problems have been known all along and their suffering has been entirely avoidable, and quite often a result of their own decisions to advocate for things and vote for people and causes that are against their best interests, sometimes for many decades of a long life. People aren’t wired to accept that reality.

They’d rather hear that something new has come along that can help them.
Click to expand...
I think this is part of it, as well as an instinctual "well if this would work, then we would have done it by now, and since we haven't surely there must be a reason", with the assumption being that that reason is merit/practicality based as opposed to a political one tied up in the particular interests of key stakeholders as @bigpicture7 I think correctly pointed out.

ritchiew said:
How much do you think decision makers actually believe we can innovate our way out of problems? As a cynical outsider, if often looks like a way for them to not have to fund a project or accomplish anything. If they admitted that electrification is the one and obvious solution, they might feel some pressure to move forward with that. If they can point to some emerging technology, they can stall, do some cheap feasibility study, and keep kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's entirely as cynical as that, though yes I'd agree that there is a hope that something will just come along that is either A: insanely cheap or B: the private sector will provide. Hence why so many leaders around the country wanted to believe in the hype around Elon's hyperloop, or in autonomous vehicles. It would all just be so much easier if Someone Else took care of it, rather than me putting my neck on the line for expensive long term investments that may not even be completed before I've lost my job, nevermind have truly and fully realized their benefits.
 
#bancars said:
????

She was quick with an answer when asked if there are other states or cities that are doing transportation right. She said California is the best in the world at electrifying trains. She hailed Quebec for its hydrogen-powered trains (“that’s something we’re looking at,” she said). She said the Pacific northwest is the best at funding transportation, Chicago is tops in expanding services, and Austin, Texas, is the best at building new subway lines. She said Washington State’s free bus service is the best in the US and London and Paris are leaders in keeping the cost of service reasonable.

commonwealthbeacon.org

Tibbits-Nutt seems more like her old self in Chamber talk

She engaged in what amounts to a transportation standup routine, blending personal and sometimes funny observations with policy commentary on a wide range of issues.
commonwealthbeacon.org commonwealthbeacon.org
Click to expand...
I just posted this on Reddit, and wrote a few fact checks that I'll copy over here:
  • California is not running any electric trains yet as of writing, though EMUs are scheduled to begin service on Caltrain this fall. Caltrain electrification is also known for high costs due to hiring of consultants.
  • Austin does not have a subway or any rapid transit as of writing. A light rail through downtown is being planned, but while the plan initially called for a downtown subway in 2020, the tunnel was removed and replaced with surface light rail later.
  • In case it has to be said, hydrogen-powered trains are currently seen as a much less proven and possibly less reliable technology than traditional catenary electric trains. This point was echoed by StreetsBlogCal, from the same state that Tibbits-Nutt praised for "electrifying" trains.
  • While Chicago is indeed pursuing its Red Line Extension, even if we ignore other US cities that are expanding their rapid transit system at faster rates (LA, Seattle, etc), this directly contradicts her earlier statement in October 2023 that "In the United States, especially places that have these legacy systems, they don't do these [expansions of the system] projects anymore".

ritchiew said:
California's electrification probably isn't the world's best because they still don't run any electric trains. Is any part of that list of ideas even close to reasonably true?
Click to expand...
To be fair (and that's being extremely generous), she might be referring to the ongoing "progress" of Caltrain electrification that's scheduled to start service this fall, if that's the only ongoing electrification project that she's aware of.
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
To be fair (and that's being extremely generous), she might be referring to the ongoing "progress" of Caltrain electrification that's scheduled to start service this fall, if that's the only ongoing electrification project that she's aware of.
Click to expand...
Even if you very generously count the progress of electrifying Caltrain,* she said California is "best in the world." That's quite a claim. For some comparison, India recently electrified half of its entire national rail network in 5 years. I also want to be fair and generous in interpreting what people mean, but here, she's just wrong.

*To be clear, I'm not dumping on Caltrain. They're actually getting it done, and I'm thrilled they're making progress. I wish we had that kind of progress.
 
ritchiew said:
*To be clear, I'm not dumping on Caltrain. They're actually getting it done, and I'm thrilled they're making progress. I wish we had that kind of progress.
Click to expand...
Please, do dump on Caltrain. They completely screwed the pooch on cost control with their consultants-managing-consultants-managing-consultants special, and the overall management of their modernization project (which also included a botched PTC implementation, a botched vehicle overcustomization, and several botched grade crossing eliminations) was an all-world shitshow.

It's terrifying that she's celebrating them. Not just factually wrong, as you point out, but Caltrain picked just about the most corrupt way to implement a straightforwardly good thing. Doubly terrifying because the only other electrification project planned in Cali is *shudder* CAHSR, quite possibly (depending on what you think of East Side Access) the most mismanaged megaproject in the world since the Big Dig. Which also doesn't even have its electrification house in order yet on last-mile into San Fran OR L.A.
 
The framing of the article sure makes it seem like she might've been joking, but it's not clear, and knowing little/nothing about her bona fides besides that she's an American "transportation professional"....Sincerity in those thoughts seems, tragically, possible.
 
Well, there's one thing I agree with in her comments: "She called Fred Salvucci 'hands down the best transportation secretary ever'". Yup, and there's absolutely no sign that's going to change during her tenure.
 
ritchiew said:
And as for Quebec, yes, they've got that train. But looking at hydrogen powered trains for the MBTA is one of the things I think I'd call bonkers. This isn't my wheelhouse, but I generally don't see serious transit people get excited about hydrogen power. Stringing up catenary wires is relatively straightforward, has more than a century of accumulated standards and best practices, and there's a massive international market for parts and expertise. Hydrogen power is comparatively new and untested. It seems to be useful on short branches or where it's impractical to put up wires, but that's not our situation yet. The Providence and Fairmount lines must be the lowest hanging fruit for electrification in the country.
Click to expand...
She took one look at her predecessors' BEMU fascination and said "Hold my beer." It's even worse than BEMU's because there isn't even lip-service at wiring up anything, along with many other downsides.


Disadvantages of hydrogen on trains include:
  • Stupidly expensive fuel. And limited market for buying fuel, meaning prices are not likely to fall anytime soon.
  • Massive fueling facilities needed to run the trains at all, with very high storage costs.
  • Short component lifespans and high midlife overhaul costs. Hydrogen fuel cells only last 5-10 years before they're shot. That's even worse than CNG fuel tank lifespans on buses, and the replacement costs are astronomical. How can an agency so incompetent at state-of-repair possibly expect to manage such a finely-tuned vehicle lifespan???
  • Fuel cells (which are essentially a type of battery) have higher capacity-to-weight than standard storage batteries, but are *wildly* less efficient. External catenary is 95-99% efficient against transmission losses, batteries are 90-95% efficient and improving, and hydrogen is only about 50-60% efficient. It's somewhat better than diesel on efficiency, but enormously worse than any externally-powered or externally-charged source.
  • Fuel cells are bulkier than BEMU batteries, meaning more trainset design overcustomization and performance losses for fitting in components.
  • Extremely limited procurement options (at least BEMU variants are offered by most major manufacturers of EMU's...hydrogen is almost strictly an experimental platform).
  • Most production hydrogen fuel is made as a byproduct of natural gas...so its "green" bona fides are deeply suspect. Splitting a water molecule by electrolysis is so extremely expensive it only makes up about 5% of global hydrogen supplies and isn't growing in market share vs. much easier methane recombining. Renewables' share of the existing power grid IS growing by lots, so catenary and catenary-to-batteries ends up much greener overall. Hydrogen checks off the "zero" local emissions box...but still has a *very* significant carbon footprint because of how it's wholesaled.
  • Inappropriate for tunnels because of the explosion risk in a leak. It gets us absolutely no closer than diesel to having NSRL fleet readiness, whereas even a 25-year-lifespan procurement of BEMU's are a very significant step forward.

It's irresponsible and dangerous to be subscribing to this hype.
 
KCasiglio said:
I cannot overstate how much the idea that we need to innovate our way out of our transportation problems rather than just adopt international best practices dominates institutional culture. I don’t think it’s that way in terms of professional staff, mind you, but the decision makers…the boards, the elected officials, they don’t want to hear about what other countries do because We’re Not Europe/Asia
Click to expand...

Didn't the T do a "Regional Rail" study where they looked at comparable systems around the world? I seem to remember the regional rail network of Melbourne being an example, and that's mostly electrified.

Found it:


Great tidbit of info:

Very few peer systems operate diesel-powered trains alone, with only two other systems (Caltrain and Metrolink)relying solely on diesel-powered locomotives. The majority (ten) operate a fully electrified system, with the remaining four systems operating both diesel-powered trains and electric-powered trains.
 
Java King said:
Didn't the T do a "Regional Rail" study where they looked at comparable systems around the world? I seem to remember the regional rail network of Melbourne being an example, and that's mostly electrified.

Found it:


Great tidbit of info:

Very few peer systems operate diesel-powered trains alone, with only two other systems (Caltrain and Metrolink)relying solely on diesel-powered locomotives. The majority (ten) operate a fully electrified system, with the remaining four systems operating both diesel-powered trains and electric-powered trains.
Click to expand...
They did...and then Baker's appointees immediately got so distracted by shiny things that they pivoted to the BEMU Great White Hype, and doing it ass-backwards by not electrifying the mainlines. So I'm not sure the fact that they studied world best practices is actually informing action and decision-making on the ground.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They did...and then Baker's appointees immediately got so distracted by shiny things that they pivoted to the BEMU Great White Hype, and doing it ass-backwards by not electrifying the mainlines. So I'm not sure the fact that they studied world best practices is actually informing action and decision-making on the ground.
Click to expand...
BEMUs MIGHT make sense for Rockburyport and outer Fitchburg, particularly if they were done as dinkys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top