MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Brattle Loop said:
I don't know what 'proof' as such there is or may have been, but the idea that they promised "equal or better" has been kicking around for a while.

This Boston Globe piece from 2006 (when the Silver Line Phase III was in its death throes) quotes a Sierra Club spokesman saying "[the Silver Line/Phase III proposal] does not meet the commitment that the T made to provide 'equal or better' service when the Orange Line was torn down."

So it's definitely not just here that there's been an understanding that the Elevated was not supposed to get an inferior replacement.
Click to expand...

Watch around the 12-min mark of this documentary, which goes into SL planning history - the "equal or better" line came from the draft environmental impact report that was sent to the feds, so it was an actual claim the state put out there. Strongly recommend watching the whole video if you haven't already - does a good job of exploring the tensions in planning and Boston's recent history (great interviews, too).
 
Riverside said:
Actually this was indeed part of what I meant! Which makes my point all the more so: the reliability of SL1 is garbage, but so is the reliability (for example) of the B, and we don't let that disqualify the Green Line from being considered rapid transit (even if we are tempted at times).

That being said, I would be willing to adjust my claim slightly, and argue that specifically the SL2 and SLW service within the Transitway qualifies as BRT, with SL1 and SL3 buses being layered in as non-BRT elements. I think that distinction rapidly approaches becoming a "distinction without a difference", but I could still be convinced.
Click to expand...
To me, it's wild that we have no "BRT" but will have 5 different transitways in the nearish future:
  • Piers Transitway (SL1-2-3)
  • Chelsea Gateway (SL3)
  • Columbus Ave (22, 29, 44)
  • Columbus Ave Extension (15, 22, 23, 28, 29, 44, 45)
  • Blue Hill Ave (28)
 
The SL4 and SL5 are not BRT and the MBTA has repeatedly chosen marketing over honesty in their portrayal of the Washington Street corridor. Whether that is one lie, or a lie on top of a lie, is beside the point.
 
lainpimicaja said:
Watch around the 12-min mark of this documentary, which goes into SL planning history - the "equal or better" line came from the draft environmental impact report that was sent to the feds, so it was an actual claim the state put out there. Strongly recommend watching the whole video if you haven't already - does a good job of exploring the tensions in planning and Boston's recent history (great interviews, too).
Click to expand...

The earliest use of the phrase I can find in the Globe archives (granted, the accuracy of their character scanning is low) is November 1986. This May 1988 article claims the phrase dates to 1973, which is roughly when the Southwest Corridor environmental documentation was being prepared.
 
The problem is, what is “equal or better” to an El (dedicated right of way)? Basically “equal or better” would have had to have been a subway. Even if we had “true BRT” or E branch style LRT, it could be fairly said neither is equal or better than an. El.
 
Arlington said:
The problem is, what is “equal or better” to an El (dedicated right of way)? Basically “equal or better” would have had to have been a subway. Even if we had “true BRT” or E branch style LRT, it could be fairly said neither is equal or better than an. El.
Click to expand...

That's a fair argument, though mode/grade separation isn't the only valuable criteria. Especially given that even if LRT was in some respects inferior to a subway replacement, the fact that it would be able to hit all the transfer stations (and do it inside fare control for that matter) makes it a lot closer to an equal replacement than any BRT, including the woeful Silver Line as-built.
 
As I recall at the time, the "equal to or better" expectation of the Roxbury community, the Sierra Club and others would have been satisfied by a surface LRV line from the Tremont subway to Dudley Square.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Claiming that the MBTA never made the promise, with no evidence whatsoever to support that statement, is somewhat of an odd statement given the rest of the post (and the previous one I replied to).
Click to expand...
So you want evidence to prove a negative? I’ll look at what you and the other posters provided in more detail.
 
My belief of what would state as equal or better service could technically mean any mode of transit......

- that can move the same amount of riders to the same destinations close to or quicker in travel times.
- the mode should come at least every so many minutes as the el or better.

Basically that's the 2 things that needed to be hit on the head with the Silver Line.
 
According to The Belmontonian, the last run of the 73 as a trackless trolley will be in March (and I'm assuming the 71 as well), to be replaced with diesel buses for a couple years 😞, and eventually BEBs.

This is pretty sad, not just because of the "temporary" replacement of fully-electric vehicles with fossil-fuel vehicles, but also because abandoning the wires rules out more creative solutions to bus transit in the area, like BEBs that ran off overhead wires for a portion of their route with in-motion charging
 
I don't know how to put it into words that encapsulate this right. I guess the closest way to say it is that it is not surprising, but it kinda is.

I guess the reason of this odd felling is past dumb decisions on this level feels like a different era or at least a different generation. Like this time it's different - we have a management control board that didn't exist back then, people now also operating on concepts that zero-carbon where that wasn't even an academic concept back then, and we have organized advocacy groups that focuses just on transit now.

Yet, the first action of "modernization" in a time where we want electrification for zero-carbon emissions is to take the one system that runs entirely on electric... and replace it diesel, where hopefully in only two years, then replace it with battery-powered buses... that also still has a diesel engine to supply heat. Replacing a system where one can constantly bring electrons in a cable rather than struggle to carry enough in a box - a box where we still struggle to fit enough to be a primary mode... and what it takes to make the box has its own questions.

It's like taking 1950's fad chasing, 1980's "temporary" replacements, and 2000's "sexual fixation" with diesel busses - all wrapped in a 2020's zero-carbon modernization mindset.

I have to ask why? Not as in their official justification. Or in the speculated justification. But why are the decision makers are still like this?
 
ant8904 said:
I don't know how to put it into words that encapsulate this right. I guess the closest way to say it is that it is not surprising, but it kinda is.

I guess the reason of this odd felling is past dumb decisions on this level feels like a different era or at least a different generation. Like this time it's different - we have a management control board that didn't exist back then, people now also operating on concepts that zero-carbon where that wasn't even an academic concept back then, and we have organized advocacy groups that focuses just on transit now.

Yet, the first action of "modernization" in a time where we want electrification for zero-carbon emissions is to take the one system that runs entirely on electric... and replace it diesel, where hopefully in only two years, then replace it with battery-powered buses... that also still has a diesel engine to supply heat. Replacing a system where one can constantly bring electrons in a cable rather than struggle to carry enough in a box - a box where we still struggle to fit enough to be a primary mode... and what it takes to make the box has its own questions.

It's like taking 1950's fad chasing, 1980's "temporary" replacements, and 2000's "sexual fixation" with diesel busses - all wrapped in a 2020's zero-carbon modernization mindset.

I have to ask why? Not as in their official justification. Or in the speculated justification. But why are the decision makers are still like this?
Click to expand...
Hate to say it, but a lawsuit may be the only way to stop this. The judge presiding over the lawsuit could issue a temporary restraining order to halt this work until the lawsuit is resolved.
 
ant8904 said:
Yet, the first action of "modernization" in a time where we want electrification for zero-carbon emissions is to take the one system that runs entirely on electric... and replace it diesel, where hopefully in only two years, then replace it with battery-powered buses... that also still has a diesel engine to supply heat. Replacing a system where one can constantly bring electrons in a cable rather than struggle to carry enough in a box - a box where we still struggle to fit enough to be a primary mode... and what it takes to make the box has its own questions.

It's like taking 1950's fad chasing, 1980's "temporary" replacements, and 2000's "sexual fixation" with diesel busses - all wrapped in a 2020's zero-carbon modernization mindset.

I have to ask why? Not as in their official justification. Or in the speculated justification. But why are the decision makers are still like this?
Click to expand...

I don't know if anything's changed since they first announced the plans for this, but at the time (as I recall) it was discussed in one of these threads that the official plans didn't even call for sufficient BEBs to cover the trackless trolley service in the first place, meaning that removing the OCS was inherently going to lead to either service cuts and/or diesel backfilling on a permanent basis, which only makes it worse. Naturally none of their statements at the time mentioned anything whatsoever about electric service being "temporarily suspended" as now they're saying will be the case in the interim between removing the OCS (which of course they don't give any evidence as to why the ETBs have to stop running now) and the arrival of the BEBs (did they order them yet, even?). Of course, in MBTA-world, "temporarily" has an unusual habit of becoming permanent (see also the perma-diesel conversions of the ex-A branch to Watertown and the E-branch past Heath Street) so I won't be at all surprised if they come back two years and now with a shrug saying, oh well, we couldn't find BEBs that had the range in the winter.

Charlie_mta said:
Hate to say it, but a lawsuit may be the only way to stop this. The judge presiding over the lawsuit could issue a temporary restraining order to halt this work until the lawsuit is resolved.
Click to expand...

I'm mildly surprised Cambridge hasn't sued them already, to be honest. They'll bear the brunt of this idiotic decision.
 
The same businesses that would agitate are focused on the quick build bike lanes.
 
Brattle Loop said:
I don't know if anything's changed since they first announced the plans for this, but at the time (as I recall) it was discussed in one of these threads that the official plans didn't even call for sufficient BEBs to cover the trackless trolley service in the first place, meaning that removing the OCS was inherently going to lead to either service cuts and/or diesel backfilling on a permanent basis, which only makes it worse. Naturally none of their statements at the time mentioned anything whatsoever about electric service being "temporarily suspended" as now they're saying will be the case in the interim between removing the OCS (which of course they don't give any evidence as to why the ETBs have to stop running now) and the arrival of the BEBs (did they order them yet, even?). Of course, in MBTA-world, "temporarily" has an unusual habit of becoming permanent (see also the perma-diesel conversions of the ex-A branch to Watertown and the E-branch past Heath Street) so I won't be at all surprised if they come back two years and now with a shrug saying, oh well, we couldn't find BEBs that had the range in the winter.



I'm mildly surprised Cambridge hasn't sued them already, to be honest. They'll bear the brunt of this idiotic decision.
Click to expand...

Heh. They haven't even issued the RFP for that insufficient-quantity order of 40-footer BEB's yet. They're running about a half-year late from original schedule on the documentation. So this "temporary" diesel-stitution is very much open-ended as of now. They're not even being coy about it.
 
ant8904 said:
I have to ask why? Not as in their official justification. Or in the speculated justification. But why are the decision makers are still like this?
Click to expand...

Getting rid of the overhead wires for aesthetic reasons presumably.
 
What's the point of having North Cambridge once Charlestown has been converted to BEB? It's redundant when it's operating the same type of vehicles. North Cambridge can't get any bigger and it's less than half the size of the next smallest facility (Quincy). Closing North Cambridge and moving all operations to an electrified Charlestown would seem like a more reasonable goal than investing a ton of money into North Cambridge.
 
737900er said:
What's the point of having North Cambridge once Charlestown has been converted to BEB? It's redundant when it's operating the same type of vehicles. North Cambridge can't get any bigger and it's less than half the size of the next smallest facility (Quincy). Closing North Cambridge and moving all operations to an electrified Charlestown would seem like a more reasonable goal than investing a ton of money into North Cambridge.
Click to expand...
There is no overall plan; getting rid of the wires is the entirety of the plan. That's why part of the "plan" is upgrading North Cambridge. They spend some money on it, then immediately realize "Oh, this is inneficient and the BEB's aren't doing their stated job to begin with...let's just close it all and run out of Charlestown." Money wasted, but mission accomplished.

It's stunningly and transparently cynical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top