General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

JeffDowntown said:
Large enough to make it clear from the inside of a train arriving in a station. In some cases the historical signage is the only prominent thing you see out of the window of a given car. (Scollay Under, for example -- they are cool, big signs that used to be the primary wayfinding.)
Click to expand...
They should just rename Govt Center to "Government Center/Scollay" or something like that
 
FK4 said:
They should just rename Govt Center to "Government Center/Scollay" or something like that
Click to expand...
Before the big renovation, the signage in the station suffixed it underneath as "Scollay Square". That's because that signage was leftover from one of the first Cambridge Seven design motif installations, back when the GC name was only about 5 years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
I don't think this has been posted here yet, but the T's projects page has this PDF with the full year shutdown schedule across the system. Those November GL central tunnel closure will be rough: closing basically the entire C, the D inbound of Brookline Hills, and the B terminating at Babcock St for a week? By comparison the two week Copley - N. Station shutdown doesn't look too bad.
1000037513.jpg


 
TheRatmeister said:
As much as I will always mourn what we lost in 62-63, even if I could have never seen it, it's a dead name for a dead and buried place and doesn't belong on modern signage for the station.
Click to expand...
Disagree. It's the urban renewal projects—reflected in the generic name of "Govt Center"—that are now equally, if not even more anachronistic to the zeitgeist. While I do agree with a part of the principle underlying your argument, which is that romanticized resurrections are to be avoided, that does not mean that any specific historical decision need always be set in stone, or that sometimes, bringing a former name back to life cannot be appropriate. The urban fabric, including names of places, is a living thing that is always being continuously updated. Thinking about it even as I write, I think perhaps one of the biggest barriers to ever actually doing anything about the ghastly nightmare of city hall plaza is the name, "City Hall Plaza", alongside the overall name, "Government Center". A more Bostonian name might actually breathe some idea-level life and provide better guidance and impetus to better humanize this area.
 
FK4 said:
Disagree. It's the urban renewal projects—reflected in the generic name of "Govt Center"—that are now equally, if not even more anachronistic to the zeitgeist. While I do agree with a part of the principle underlying your argument, which is that romanticized resurrections are to be avoided, that does not mean that any specific historical decision need always be set in stone, or that sometimes, bringing a former name back to life cannot be appropriate. The urban fabric, including names of places, is a living thing that is always being continuously updated. Thinking about it even as I write, I think perhaps one of the biggest barriers to ever actually doing anything about the ghastly nightmare of city hall plaza is the name, "City Hall Plaza", alongside the overall name, "Government Center". A more Bostonian name might actually breathe some idea-level life and provide better guidance and impetus to better humanize this area.
Click to expand...
I will say, having despaired of trying to fit two of the T’s longest station names (Government Center, Downtown Crossing) into the core of the map, alongside two of its shortest station names (State, Park [{St}reet]), I myself would be quite alright with the name being changed to City Hall. (Which someone did on a recent fantasy map, I think.)
 
Riverside said:
I will say, having despaired of trying to fit two of the T’s longest station names (Government Center, Downtown Crossing) into the core of the map, alongside two of its shortest station names (State, Park [{St}reet]), I myself would be quite alright with the name being changed to City Hall. (Which someone did on a recent fantasy map, I think.)
Click to expand...
On the topic of reverting name changes, I think I'd switch Kendall/MIT and JFK/UMass back to Kendall and Columbia. Charles/MGH I could go either way on.
 
TheRatmeister said:
On the topic of reverting name changes, I think I'd switch Kendall/MIT and JFK/UMass back to Kendall and Columbia. Charles/MGH I could go either way on.
Click to expand...
Riverside said:
I will say, having despaired of trying to fit two of the T’s longest station names (Government Center, Downtown Crossing) into the core of the map, alongside two of its shortest station names (State, Park [{St}reet]), I myself would be quite alright with the name being changed to City Hall. (Which someone did on a recent fantasy map, I think.)
Click to expand...

There is something that's definitely aesthetically displeasing about having a slash in a station name. I think it's because the name alone suggests a lack of focus and also that there is no single identity that is significant enough to tie to the station name by itself. I like the idea of "City Hall". It's old-timey and a little comic-book-ish (like Batman), but also makes sense. Also agree "Kendall Sq" and "Columbia Rd" would sound a lot nicer.

Didn't Charles used to be Charles Circle? Or was it just "Street"? I like either better than Charles/MGH but it's also hard to ignore the fact that that stop really does serve MGH, a lot more than traffic headed to shops or residences on Charles St.

Worth perhaps considering the impact that complete digitalization will have on maps and placemaking. The argument to keeping the other names is that you want people to know how to get to UMass, JFK Library, MIT, MGH, etc....but with everything digital you dont need that anymore. There is also a hybrid option where you could have the digital map (that you could attach to a QR code posted at every station) of the MBTA network have the major institutional destinations listed as a digital pop-out, or easily searchable, etc. Even for the physical maps like those in the bus shelters—it could be a nice addition to list all major museums, universities, hospitals etc as a table next to the map.
 
FK4 said:
Didn't Charles used to be Charles Circle? Or was it just "Street"?
Click to expand...
It was just "Charles". (Although named for Charles Circle.) The same way that the "Sq" in Kendall, Central, Harvard and Andrew was implied, not signed. Same thing with Columbia, it wasn't "Columbia Rd", just Columbia.
FK4 said:
I like either better than Charles/MGH but it's also hard to ignore the fact that that stop really does serve MGH, a lot more than traffic headed to shops or residences on Charles St.
Click to expand...
Agreed. (Hence the "I could go either way" thing). The MIT in Kendall seems undeserved should you ever have the pleasure of needing to walk from the station to where most of MIT is, it's often 15+ minutes away. JFK/UMass is worse. The idea that the station somehow serves the Library (or UMass) is laughable, it's more than a mile away. The fact that the 8 to Columbia Point is being made a High-Frequency route feels like a pretty direct admission of this. By that logic you may as well call Roxbury Crossing "Harvard Medical School".

But MGH is clearly different, it's right there. If we're dropping anything it feels like the Charles part of the name should go first.
 
TheRatmeister said:
The MIT in Kendall seems undeserved should you ever have the pleasure of needing to walk from the station to where most of MIT is, it's often 15+ minutes away.
Click to expand...
...an urban ring or GLX on the Grand Junction would solve the problem, since then we'd have a proper MIT station!
 
In theory, a "better" name for Charles/MGH would be Mass General... but the now-merged parent company of Mass General Brigham may have complaints about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Riverside said:
In theory, a "better" name for Charles/MGH would be Mass General... but the now-merged parent company of Mass General Brigham may have complaints about that.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with calling MGH "Mass General", in the same way that there's nothing wrong with
calling Brigham and Women's "Brigham". They're two different hospitals, owned by one parent company. If you're lucky you might even be able to get them to sponsor that name change. That's one place I'm definitely okay with station sponsorships, I think if we ever get a proper LMA station and the Huntington Ave station needs to be renamed, I have no qualms with just letting the bazillion local institutions bid on the naming rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
At last belatedly, TransitMatters finally updated the COVID recovery dashboard, which confirms my previous findings from last December and January.

1740443464901.png


My findings from last December indicated the MBTA had 88.31% of pre-COVID trips systemwide (7,338 non-school trips in Q5 2021 compared to 8,309 non-school trips in March 2020 before the lockdowns), a loss of 971 trips.

TransitMatters has the MBTA at 7,628 scheduled trips systemwide the week of February 17-21, 2025, versus 8,478 scheduled trips from late winter 2020, a difference of -850 fewer trips.

This places the MBTA at 89.97% of pre-COVID service (7,628/8,478). We're still not even yet at 90% of pre-COVID service 5 years later!

Back on August 17, 2023, the MBTA had 7,084 trips scheduled, which was 83.55% of pre-COVID service, the lowest observed following the Summer 2023 service cuts. Most gains and restorations since then were on the subway network, and on only BNRD routes.

1740444352884.png


1740444239967.png
1740444160240.png
1740444212333.png
 
Last edited:
Tallguy said:
First off, TM are volunteers, so cut us a little slack. TM shouldn't have to do this, the T should.
Second, how much of this might be due to OL and RL fleet size?
Click to expand...
That's why I went through and tried to do the analysis myself to get the data sooner without relying on TM.

The T is really opaque on this. Their latest board meeting showed increases in service levels on subways in their presentation, but they don't talk about systemwide bus service levels.

OL and RL fleet size are not the problem. OL is running more service than pre-COVID, by about 14%. Something like 90%+ of this issue is mostly a bus service issue. We only have 27 fewer weekday subway trips compared to pre-COVID, versus 944 fewer bus trips. It is literally the buses that are the problem.

If you look at my analysis from last December for the Winter 2025 rating, the subway is running 97% of pre-COVID weekday service versus only 86% for local bus. The reduced service is almost all because of the bus service being reduced, yet the MBTA refuses to talk about it, other than this so called "we have 'restored' the 'workforce'".... without actually delivering results.

The only reason the subway service is not yet at pre-COVID weekday service levels is due to reduced RL, ML, and GL service. The RL, is still running 6.5% reduced weekday service; as well as a 10% weekday service reduction on the Mattapan line. The Green Line now has reduced service from pre-COVID by about 5-18% across the B, C, and D branches on weekdays and Saturdays. The B branch here stands out as the only one with reduced Sunday frequencies, with over 10% service cuts every day of the week compared to pre-COVID.


1740584114631.png
 
If I understand correctly, the reduced bus service is due to a group of factors:
  1. fewer operators (getting close to being resolved)
  2. fewer busses
  3. bus maintenance facilities under construction, which maybe is causing #2?
#3 is a very long-term project IIUC. Arborway is only at 15% design, and there are 9 total existing facilities. Does this mean they cannot increase capacity until all maintenance yards are complete ~2040?

A lack of busses feeding stations such as Alewife, Harvard, and elsewhere might contribute to lower subway ridership as well.
 
okin15 said:
If I understand correctly, the reduced bus service is due to a group of factors:
  1. fewer operators (getting close to being resolved)
  2. fewer busses
  3. bus maintenance facilities under construction, which maybe is causing #2?
#3 is a very long-term project IIUC. Arborway is only at 15% design, and there are 9 total existing facilities. Does this mean they cannot increase capacity until all maintenance yards are complete ~2040?

A lack of busses feeding stations such as Alewife, Harvard, and elsewhere might contribute to lower subway ridership as well.
Click to expand...
4. Operators not putting in as many hours as they used to. My understanding is that pre-COVID bus drivers were doing crazy amounts of overtime.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Non-residential construction costs have escalated faster than general inflation. The multiplier from 1995 to 2025 is more like 3X
Click to expand...
And that's likely to inflate significantly further over the next 15 years to get to the real price tag. So again, the $30 billion is probably not too far off, especially when we don't know the funding source. If the state has to issue bonds, for example, then there is also a large financing cost. I'm not arguing that they put together a precise cost estimate. I'm sure they didn't, as there are many unknown variables. But I suspect when all is said and done, they are closer to the number than what I'm seeing from others in this thread.
 
Tallguy said:
One Billion Dollars gets you 21 miles of double catenary? Reasonable? On what world?
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant by reasonable, sorry. I used it to mean that the estimate probably is in the right ball park for what it would in fact cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top