Fairmount Line Upgrade

[Balerion]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

No surprise here

Efforts to raise the Fairmount Line commuter rail’s performance to the level of rapid transit suffered a serious setback under the Baker administration. Last year the administration halted MBTA plans to purchase a new kind of train that would have allowed for more frequent service and this fall, an MBTA official said they were unlikely to resume those plans.

An important piece of the Fairmount Line improvements hinged on acquiring diesel multiple unit trains, which were scheduled for rollout in 2018. DMUs are lighter than the line’s current trains, so can stop and start more quickly, thus trimming transit times, said Pamela “Mela” Bush-Miles, chair of Fairmount Indigo Transit Coalition and lead organizer for Greater Four Corners Action Coalition. Each DMU car carries its own power source, allowing for them to be added or removed to suit capacity needs.

MBTA officials have cited low ridership as a reason not to focus funds on improving service on the line. Transit activists argue that the poor service causes the low ridership.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Huge, unsurprising disappointment. Baker is really anti-transit, it seems. If he were truly fiscally conservative, he would be examining ways to deal with the massive, unfair debt that the T is saddled with. Our transit system will barely survive his tenure.

 

[whighlander]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Huge, unsurprising disappointment. Baker is really anti-transit, it seems. If he were truly fiscally conservative, he would be examining ways to deal with the massive, unfair debt that the T is saddled with. Our transit system will barely survive his tenure.

Bigeman -- take the time to listen [the video is krappy but its all talking heads anyway] to what was announced yesterday

The current focus of Baker's approach to governing is to convert unused or underutilized assets into actual cash or equivalents to try to deal with the structural budget deficit without raising taxes

As was stated when the T's Fin Board went into business -- so-far-they are trying to understand what they are responsible for fixing -- the actual fixing will start sometime in this calendar year when the administration goes back to the Legislature with some specific interim proposals

 

[bigeman312]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Bigeman -- take the time to listen [the video is krappy but its all talking heads anyway] to what was announced yesterday

The current focus of Baker's approach to governing is to convert unused or underutilized assets into actual cash or equivalents to try to deal with the structural budget deficit without raising taxes

As was stated when the T's Fin Board went into business -- so-far-they are trying to understand what they are responsible for fixing -- the actual fixing will start sometime in this calendar year when the administration goes back to the Legislature with some specific interim proposals

I hope you are right. I am not as optimistic. Time will tell, though.

 

[whighlander]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I hope you are right. I am not as optimistic. Time will tell, though.

Bigeman -- just remember that a lot of more conservative voters savaged Charlie for lack of his ideological purity -- the polite word was that he was just a "Pragmatist" and someone who refused to make doctrinaire adherence to principal his guiding compass.

Baker is fundamentally a practical manager not a philosopher. He wants to improve the performance and efficiency of the State Government, to make sure that it delivers the essential services to the residents of the Commonwealth. Therefore, his administration always looks for fiscally sound solutions to problems which it addresses -- including transportation.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Bigeman -- just remember that a lot of more conservative voters savaged Charlie for lack of his ideological purity -- the polite word was that he was just a "Pragmatist" and someone who refused to make doctrinaire adherence to principal his guiding compass.

Baker is fundamentally a practical manager not a philosopher. He wants to improve the performance and efficiency of the State Government, to make sure that it delivers the essential services to the residents of the Commonwealth. Therefore, his administration always looks for fiscally sound solutions to problems which it addresses -- including transportation.

I think that's the right approach, but I do want to know what his vision is. Pure pragmatism without a wider vision can produce haphazard results.

 

[citylover94]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

So what I got from that article was this line goes entirely through high density areas with good transit share and has bad service so people don't use it therefore we shouldn't even spend minimal amounts of money to greatly improve service thereby making it more useful for people in the area causing more people to use it. (Yes this is hyperbole to some extent but it is frustrating when I see arguments like this made)

 

[underground]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I believe we've discussed this before, but the idea that increasing the frequency on the Fairmount hinges on buying DMUs was a red-herring/over-spend to begin with, right? Pretty sure they can do it with existing equipment.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I believe we've discussed this before, but the idea that increasing the frequency on the Fairmount hinges on buying DMUs was a red-herring/over-spend to begin with, right? Pretty sure they can do it with existing equipment.

Per many earlier posts by people more informed than me, Yes. (With certain caveats about track space at South Station).

 

[citylover94]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Not entirely I think with track space as it is now they couldn't get below 20 minutes which conventional equipment could do at higher expense than a DMU but it is possible without them. But below that for example 15 minute headways require both DMUs or EMUs and SSX.

 

[choo]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

The T should constantly be able to look for ways to maximize value of its land near stations and it should get an incentive to do so to maximize value and to promote ToD, which the city and state should get behind.

There should be some 40b-esque rule that says if the T can get a certain amount affordable and limit new parking additions (or be something <1 space per unit depending on area) that they can get around local zoning in favor of streamlined state permitting, and have a greater FAR. I also think the T should be able to do this permitting and flip to a private developer to execute and operate. The T adds value in accessing streamline permitting and gets a better value then if it just sold to a developer and made them go through local cement walls. The T should get rich off of its land assets and put it into transit services.

I know citing anything close to 40b means local pols hate it and all, but Riverside should be a ton more housing and offices rather than a giant surface lot. The T should be pushing its lot at Sullivan Sq. high and fast (and maybe finally Boston will do something there) and all these fairmont lots and suburban commuter rail lots. No reason they can't have a split level garage with some housing above. It would also help with the housing affordability issues around the commonwealth.

 

[CantabAmager]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Lo and behold, I might actually agree with Westie. I'm not too hard on Baker for the MBTA politics - the FMCB is active and I'd argue the most fatal trait of the Legislature's relationship with the MBTA isn't ideological, it's apathy. Boston, Cambridge, and the other towns in rapid transit service district don't have the institutional tools, nor the institutional structures (in both a geographic sense and in the context of policy areas) or cooperation amongst institutions, nor the funds courtesy of the Prop. 2.5 curtailed funding regime to make more than fringe improvements (some exceptions - looking for something big from the Comm. Ave redev phases).

Baker's been far more involved in organizational matters than I've ever experienced from a governor. MassDOT will continue to play a larger and larger role, hopefully bring some coherence to transportation policy in the State. West St, Assembly, NB, and the new Lechmere have all leverage decent private contributions, which MassDOT has helped expedite. Baker isn't anti-transit - I'd like (hope) to think he's more thrifty than stingy: one is qualitative and quantitative (most quality for the least money), the other is just quantitative (less money, who fuckin' cares about quality). Not every action necessarily conforms to that thrift/stinginess split, but writ-large that's been my perception. The vision is coming, we'll see how the MBTA40 (or whatever it's called....the MBTA section of the new LRTP) plays out.

The Fairmount DMU pause plan sorta makes sense in that context. We've been over the economics of buying DMUs for Fairmount usage contexts, but the corridor itself isn't as surefire as we'd like it. The Midland historically represents the 3 or 4th most important corridor in Dot and Rox; the Mainline El, the Shawmut Branch Extension were most important, the Shore Line Main and the OC Mainline were more important from a commuter rr perspective, with a bit of overlap between the Shore and Midland. The most serious passenger congestion/usage of the Midland only occurred when BERy upped the rate for rapid transit while the railroads were forced to maintain a lower rate. So it's not the "can't fail", natural-fit corridor for either intra-Dot or Dot-to-downtown trips - if anything it's smack dab in the doldrums between the respective pulls of Roxbury's and Dorchester's historical centers.

Dorchester would've been best-served if the Dorchester Extension of the now-Red Line had followed it's originally proposed alignment down Columbia and under Washington (or if they'd executed the OC Main-Shawmut-Milton-Midland loop plan), it hit more major trolley hubs and business districts and would've been able to assume more of the slack from the closure of the Mainline El - but obviously that's not how it happened. So, there is clear potential in attracting ridership from both not-100% optimally aligned, Red and Orange lines, but.....

I don't think it's conniving of the MBTA or MassDOT to ask whether or not the service offered by DMUs is going to be enough to entice people from the well-trodden travel patterns. Could it? Of course, particularly at Uphams, Four Corners, and Mattapan - basically covering the areas ripped away from service by the SWC realignment with dense housing stock. But if you want to do that, the MBTA really needs to do it and especially considering it's not going to have some basic operational headaches off the bat with regular CR usage and lack of connection to any line other than Red. So, getting it right isn't a "just set it on autopilot" situation - I'd rather the MBTA deferred the DMU plan until they're able to give at least 90% of the requisite attention and, in a "won't happen this way, but it'd be nice" sense, there's some benefit to waiting and deploying DMUs with an already-scaled up network of Riverside-via the B&A-SS and Fairmount-SS pending SSX and probably-not-happening-soon Worcester Line work; that gets you both Roxbury and Dorchester and the railroad villages in Newton and Brighton.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I think I generally agree as well. The MBTA ultimately can't be fixed by any governor, and any governor would be foolish to demand that the Legislature fix it by massive revenue infusion. Governors in this state always lose fights with the Great and General Court. Baker's too smart to put his head on the chopping block for the sake of expediency on the MBTA even if he wanted to.

 

[whighlander]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I think I generally agree as well. The MBTA ultimately can't be fixed by any governor, and any governor would be foolish to demand that the Legislature fix it by massive revenue infusion. Governors in this state always lose fights with the Great and General Court. Baker's too smart to put his head on the chopping block for the sake of expediency on the MBTA even if he wanted to.

Busses and Cantab --- I've been a student of the T since before I started as an undergraduate at MIT circa 1970 -- the key to straightening out the T -- after the current acute maintenance issues are resolved, is to reign-in the Carmen's Union and its incestual relationship with the Legislature -- they didn't call it Mr Bulger's Transit Authority by chance

The key to rationalizing the finances in turn is a forensic examination and then a fiscally sound revision of the Pension Fund which operates as a private sinecure

Only then would the general taxpaying public be open to any general increase in funding the T outside of sale or lease of land, air rights, ads, naming rights, etc.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

The T should constantly be able to look for ways to maximize value of its land near stations and it should get an incentive to do so to maximize value and to promote ToD, which the city and state should get behind.

There should be some 40b-esque rule that says if the T can get a certain amount affordable and limit new parking additions (or be something <1 space per unit depending on area) that they can get around local zoning in favor of streamlined state permitting, and have a greater FAR. I also think the T should be able to do this permitting and flip to a private developer to execute and operate. The T adds value in accessing streamline permitting and gets a better value then if it just sold to a developer and made them go through local cement walls. The T should get rich off of its land assets and put it into transit services.

I know citing anything close to 40b means local pols hate it and all, but Riverside should be a ton more housing and offices rather than a giant surface lot. The T should be pushing its lot at Sullivan Sq. high and fast (and maybe finally Boston will do something there) and all these fairmont lots and suburban commuter rail lots. No reason they can't have a split level garage with some housing above. It would also help with the housing affordability issues around the commonwealth.

The problem with this is that moving some of that property requires spending some money to move facilities. And short-sighted "Spend Absolutely Nothing On Anything Ever" mentality means that never gets done, even when the act of doing it nets a situation where the redeveloped land amortizes its cost and comes out ahead on revenue. There's no indication the FCB is going to get over being gun-shy about this, so we're not likely to see action on moving some properties that can be moved.

This is also the same state-level transpo leadership that's had 40 years of utter futility selling Pike air rights, so there's a systemic failure that extends way above the T's head to the MassDOT mothership. And to the BRA.


As one example of a real net-gain transaction that was for-real proposed, the T's own bus facilities master plan from >decade ago specced this set of moves:

1) Take the existing sprawled-out parking lot at Wellington for a large bus facility.
2) Close old, decaying, cost-intensive Fellsway garage and fold it into this new, more ops-efficient Wellington/Charlestown "super campus".
3) Close outdated Lynn garage's shop and downsize that facility to strictly daytime storage and spot repairs, at significant benefit to noise/emissions in the neighborhood and significant ops cost savings.
4) Compensate the lost parking at Wellington by expanding the west garage or going vertical with a new garage on the KISS 108 land to 1:1 compensate the lost capacity. Or...hell, make it nice and tall for expansion so it can absorb Sullivan's lot for a lucrative Sullivan TOD cash-in.

Profit from a land sale on a juicy corner of Medford, a lot of ops cost savings from consolidation, and no NIMBY's to worry about on the asphalt wasteland of the Wellington lot they already own. Exactly the sort of thing they should be considering, if they can keep the construction costs for the compensatory garage capacity in-check.

Has there been any action on this? Nope. Because spending money on absolutely anything ever is verboten unless somebody's got something political to gain from it. Lateral efficiency moves like this just don't stuff some connected person's pants pockets like a piggish Beverly and Salem parking expansion does. So it never happens. Even when there is no-foolin' profit to be made.



There are other such places they can target too:

-- Sell the whole massive west lot at Riverside for more TOD development, and go vertical on the east lot directly abutting the station platforms. Nope. It's a lateral capacity move; nobody in town wins political favors backing that.


-- Start barking way harder at the federal EPA to finish the decades behind-schedule Superfund cleanup at Billerica Shops. It took till last year for them to finally close out the wastewater pool landfill caps that were supposed to be done 20 years ago. Who knows when there's going to be funding to demolish the derelict shops buildings and do the rest of the site cleanup. Freight-rail accessible industrial park 2 miles down Route 129 from Route 3/I-495...huge light industry and shipping node revenue potential. MassDOT's studied its rezoning potential, and as long as the NIMBY's don't drag it down it's hella bullish on economic impact.

But the T can't partition it for sale, and nobody's able to build shit on it because too few of the parcels have clean enough EPA bill of health to get re-zoned. Somebody untie their hands, please. Congressional delegation...hello? Little sabre-rattling in Washington would really help here. Legislature...can state-level EPA pick up any funding where the feds have stumbled to at least pry open a couple more parcels for rezoning so we can get this show on the road?


-- "Fix the glitch" that killed Midtown @ Widett Circle for Boston 2024 by offering a BRA-coordinated package of:

** Relocate the Food Market to the Seaport, as proposed by others.
** Take a permanent easement for transit storage on the lowest level of the 'bowl'.
** Underwrite the cost of the decking above so the Master Developer doesn't have to, and so they don't scare away potential Master Developers like B24 did.
** Fold in Readville Yard 2's train storage onto this easement and the Beacon Park easement they retain after the Pike's straightened. Then combine Albany + Southampton + Cabot garages' bus storage onto the 'bowl' easement as another ops-savings "super campus", with freed-up space at Cabot swallowing the maint facilities.
** Sell that sweet, sweet South End Albany parcel for redev.
** Sell Yard 2 + the recycling center easement to the city to zone residential and add ~1000 housing units to Wolcott Sq. The 4-track mini-yard west of the maint shed remains strictly for the Fairmount + Stoughton Lines' layover. This would be the most massive infusion of middle-class -affordable housing units the city has seen in the modern era.
** Sit on Southampton for a little bit until the Newmarket area gets developed out enough that the land hits sell-high critical mass.
​

This is probably the single most lucrative sequence of transactions they could pull. It'd be complex because of the moving parts, but so very very lucrative. The sale profits and infusion of tax revenue would be obscene given how valuable these parcels are. And it could've saved B24's hide. But B24 had its head up its ass, and the BRA perennially snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


-- Fill some density cavities around the higher-utilization commuter rail lots. 2 in particular.

** Canton Junction. Nice little neighborhood density pocket there, but its potential for becoming its own town square is dashed by all that asphalt (which is pretty full during the day). Go vertical on a small rectangle of Jackson St. lot and sell all the rest. Make the Chapman/Beaumont triangle the center of a new square, and infill the density down Chapman and Sherman. That's a pretty nice haul, and revenue infusion an otherwise NIMBY-ish town would get behind.

** Norwood Central. Yuck. Such a prime location at the absolute heart of downtown, and such an asphalt crater clogging it up. But it's unfortunately an asphalt crater that's full most of the time. Why not garage the rear lot on Floyd St. set back behind the street where few people can see it and infill everything else with new development? Why not build the Central garage high-enough capacity that they can sell the larger of the two Norwood Depot lots to get a few more apartment blocks built up by the corner of Central St. and Railroad Ave.? Make Depot the neighborhood walk-up stop and pack the parkers in a single location.
​

Maybe a couple more such examples that would be real net-profit if the garage trade-ins were kept in-check on cost. They'd tend, however, to fit more the profile of CJ and NC in being downtown stops where 'square'-level development is severely inhibited by those asphalt craters in central locations. Most lots aren't going to do better than fighting to a draw, and the parking capacity temptress is like crack for local politicians so discipline is suspect. And keep in mind that the non-MBTA RTA's run a lot of the lots at suburban CR stations out in 495 land so the parking-sprawl real estate pool that directly benefits the T's coffers isn't quite as systemwide as you'd think.

But they're not at a loss for couple high-profile net-gains like those two showcase examples. If there was enough give-a-damn to politically go around.



Can they do this? Sure. Cost discipline on the lateral maneuvering is the only real challenge, especially when those 1:1 compensatory garages are unavoidable. Otherwise there is real net profit to be made. Will they do it? Not if fear of spending money for any non-political reason whatsoever remains the ruling paralysis, and lateral efficiency consolidations have such lukewarm support vs. politically-connected naked parking capacity grabs. Same as it ever was.

 

[Savin Hill]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Commuter rail stop in Mattapan no sure thing as T balks on funding

Top state transportation officials have informed advocates for the Blue Hill Avenue/Cummins Highway commuter rail station that the $25.2 million needed to build it have not yet been budgeted, meaning the proposal will have to compete for approval with other MBTA infrastructure projects that are also under review.

MBTA General Manager Frank DePaola told Fairmount Line proponents in a meeting last week that they will need to make a “strong case” if they want to see the long-anticipated station that was slated to open next year actually built between Cummins Highway and Blue Hill Avenue.

Funding for the station project is being vetted in the ongoing MassDOT/MBTA Capital investment Program (CIP) process, which begins in earnest next month and will be completed in May. The five-year spending plan will include current and future improvement and investment projects for the state transportation system.

http://www.dotnews.com/2016/commuter-rail-stop-mattapan-no-sure-thing-t-balks-funding

 

[Semass]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Refurbished old equipment, whaaat?
http://www.dotnews.com/2016/despite-rescinded-rfp-state-still-exploring-dmu-rail-service-options

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Refurbished old equipment, whaaat?
http://www.dotnews.com/2016/despite-rescinded-rfp-state-still-exploring-dmu-rail-service-options

Frank had one too many candy bars that time he rode Berskshire Scenic's restored Budd RDC on his last trip to North Adams and still hasn't come down from the sugar high.

 

[DigitalSciGuy]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Noah Berger of the Boston Foundation (and formerly FTA) gave a presentation on Indigo/Fairmount Line during his session at TransportationCamp New England yesterday.

Some engineers from HDR who have worked with MassDOT/MBTA added some context to the conversation about technical challenges of simply achieving headways below 8 minutes with current equipment. Otherwise it sounds like the 8 min required brake test/crew change + 7 min buffer for delays (15 min total turnaround) at South Station is the most restrictive barrier to transit-level frequencies.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Noah Berger of the Boston Foundation (and formerly FTA) gave a presentation on Indigo/Fairmount Line during his session at TransportationCamp New England yesterday.

Some engineers from HDR who have worked with MassDOT/MBTA added some context to the conversation about technical challenges of simply achieving headways below 8 minutes with current equipment. Otherwise it sounds like the 8 min required brake test/crew change + 7 min buffer for delays (15 min total turnaround) at South Station is the most restrictive barrier to transit-level frequencies.

From the above:

Vision: Indigo dives under South Station, enters Silver Line tunnel, replaces that service