- Jul 15, 2006
- Reaction score
Technically not: the HOT lanes (eg. VA's I-495, I-66, I-395, and I-95) are done as legally separate new facilities, and, critically, leave an unchanged number of untolled lanes (you can't "take" interstate lanes and put a toll on them, but you can take the unbuilt turf and build a toll road). Pennsylvania was cleanly smacked town when it proposed to toll I-80 (it was just a "take-and-toll" ).Many states ARE doing that. They're building additional "HOT" lanes that have electronic tolling on free Interstate system expressways.
This comes up every once in awhile, and needs to be debunked every once in awhile. No one is going to be ordering more Silverliner V's. SEPTA has already sunset those Rotem pieces of shit for its next EMU order by glomming onto NJ Transit's Bombardier MultiLevel EMU order. They have numerous design flaws including a serious truck issue that sidelined the whole fleet two years ago at crippling hit to SEPTA service levels, and lifetime maintenance offsets to keep that flaw from returning are going to blow out the operating costs for running the sets from now until retirement. The overall build quality is shoddy with the same rattles, broken plastic, and electrical shorts that plague the T's Rotem coach lemons that were built at the same factory. They're morbidly overweight, which was a factor in that serious truck issue. And Denver, which has not had the same problems with their fleet because they're lighter (no 25 Hz transformer core needed out west) and run a less taxing schedule than SEPTA, used its later system launch to invest heavily up-front for the starkly higher maintenance costs SEPTA is now taking a bath on in order to get that shock out of the way proactively. Nobody at RTD is claiming they got a "good" product...just that they did what they had to do to accommodate the only product that was readily available.Y
Yup, trainsets like the silverliner that philly and denver use already exist and have been in use for a while. No reason we couldnt order some of them to use here.
Single floor, emu’s, at high frequency, with high platforms, that are tried and tested would work great to turn our commuter rail into essentially a heavier version of heavy rail subway. If we had these on our entire CR network with NSRL it would give basically all of eastern ma a subway ride to downtown.
Sooo much potential with our existing tracks, and many more infill stations, along with within downtown, and high level platforms.
The dead giveaway for ordering pipeline is NJ Transit's MLV EMU order. And the reason for that is NJT's contract with Bombardier for those cars is so ultra, super-slushy that it was clearly designed from Day 1 to be launderable to other agencies. Which has already happened with SEPTA adopting the same car for its Silverliner IV replacement in lieu of trying their hand at another all-new design. The base order is for 113 cars, but there are 636 options. But since a self-powered set includes generic unpowered MLV coach cab cars at the ends, the new powered cars in the middle, and generic MLV coach cars as mid-set spacers there's 3 different car types to order amongst those 749 total cars. Because NJT has so many existing MLV coaches and cabs, they don't differentiate any ratios in the contract as to how many of each car type would be produced. Those units would be set each time they drain a portion of the options.On the first point, I believe they are suggesting latching on to another agency's order, essentially off the shelf. Such purchases are much more feasible for FRA compliant stock, which this would be, so I don't think it's true that too much lead time would be required over any other not yet begun acquisition process. As for the the second part, I don't know enough to make an intelligent comment, but perhaps one of the Transit Matters volunteers who posts here could address the concern.
Does above explanation answer the question? TL;DR: (1) Order stock (no overcustomization) Bombardier MultiLevel coaches for the ongoing push-pull coach RFP for imminent order. (2) In 5 years, swap some back-end NJT slush options for the MLV power cars. (3) Reassign % of MLV coaches already in-service to electric equipment pool, as they can seamlessly operate loco-hauled or sandwiched around the EMU power cars.The problem with that logic, as much as I like the idea, is that EMUs require electrification to work. By definition, you need to replace one line of vehicles at a time. How do you space out your EMU orders and deliveries to account for the likely delay-ridden and long-lead infrastructure work? It's not as simple as "we need rolling stock in 2021 anyway, so let's just make it EMUs!" which is kind of how the report sounds.
^^Make sense why they hand-waved?^^ This has been looked at before, and while the property strips behind Riverside are narrow they did check out as adequate capacity. In particular there is quite a bit of overgrowth on the far west side of the property from the parking lot to the abandoned rail bridge to move/consolidate the porta-sheds in back if they needed to clear space along the Lower Falls ROW for Urban Rail layover tracks.Again, I like the idea, but they kind of rest their vision for two-track service during Allston with a hand-wavey "find a layover yard somewhere near 128". Where do they suggest placing the yard? You're not taking tracks at Riverside and disrupting operations there, and if you took part of the parking lot you'd have to cut across the GL yard to access it. You'd have to close Recreation Road to go south of the tracks, and the tracks aren't either level or at-grade with the road and golf course, so it's probably not constructable on the west side of the Charles... if there were a way to do it, TM would have said so and not hand-waved it.
Re: TorontoStephanie Pollack at the FMCB is pursuing a line of questions that suggests she is skeptical of electrification for Boston. If I may say so, she also went out of her way to shut down the population of Greater Boston compared to Toronto by saying, "Yeah, well that includes RI and NH and greater Toronto is more populated than all of MA" which completely ignored that the commuter rail goes all the way to Wickford Junction and the entirety of Providence ridership. Also pretending that because Boston has >700,000 people that Brookline/Cambridge/Somerville/Everett/Quincy/Chelsea don't factor into the core. I am someone who appreciates her know-how and leadership, but that was trash logic to try and out-maneuver a correct comparison of like regions.
|• Provincial capital city (single-tier)||2,731,571 (1st)|
|• Density||4,334.4/km2 (11,226/sq mi)|
| • Urban||5,429,524 (1st)|
| • Metro||5,928,040 (1st)|
| • Region||9,245,438[a]|
|• Density||14,344/sq mi (5,538/km2)|
| • Urban||4,180,000 (US: 10th)|
| • Metro||4,628,910 (US: 10th)|
| • CSA||8,041,303 (US: 6th)|
I try to contextualize it as her understanding of the fiscal limitations. Her angle of attack here was on the electric subsidies in Toronto that Boston lacks as well as the service need (through population). Baker is not raising more funds for the MBTA and has been very vocal about it. Aiello asked the Toronto delegation how they have approached their mission financially, pointing out how the MBTA has allocated the money it has for the next few years. If I'm remembering correctly, Pollack pushed back against the bi-directional platforms in Newton by pointing out that they could either allocate that money to these three stations or to ten-fifteen stations over the same period. The angle is always the financial limit. That's the Baker perspective and that's her boss.Yeah, its what + 1.4 million on the metro & uban and about 1.2 million on Region vs CSA - Toronto is bigger, but, not that much bigger. I would define Greater Boston as the MSA, not CSA. Not that shocked that Pollack was against it - she really has seemed to flip 180 after joining the MBTA, and this isn't the first time she has seemingly made things up to try to shoot down projects.
The DMU discussion contrasted so much with the Toronto question about electrification where Pollack wanted to point out that they were not fully electrifying and the woman was like, "Well, with five lines transforming we didn't want to assume that electricity wouldn't be outdated by the time we got to the last."Further along in the meeting... 260 bi-levels coming in the short term, with an RFI for DMU/EMU vehicles next fall. Aiello wants to wait for the multiple unit RFI to go out before the T buys more conventional vehicles - Pollack responds that the bi-levels are needed today and they T would have no trouble selling them if they're no longer needed some day.
Personal opinion: I wouldn't bother with the DMU RFI. Electrify and then do EMUs.
In the context of the Toronto delegation, they were talking about speculative technologies. They are updating five commuter rail lines in succession, not all at once. The secretary made a pointed question about why all five lines were not being electrified on the back of a question about electricity subsidies in Toronto that don't exist in Boston. Hydrogen powered trains was the example given to the secretary as an example of why the lines where they could electrify were not currently slated to be electrified. It was the exact opposite of the MBTA's "design for multiple futures" concept. Boston's was inaction so as not to spend money wastefully. Toronto's was to use best practices for current builds and to be open to transitioning if those best practices change.I'm confused what "Well, with five lines transforming we didn't want to assume that electricity wouldn't be outdated by the time we got to the last" means?
It seemed like Toronto considered it be just an example of future tech and not something they were actively provisioning for. It was more that they didn't specifically provision for electric, they just left that build un-tethered for now.Ah, makes sense. I mean, not really — electricity has been powering trains for over 100 years now, and something doesn’t become outdated overnight. Even if some magical technology does come along, it’s not going to make hydro-powered electricity “bad”.
Either way — glad to hear the T listening to other agencies.
Toronto's going to electrify the rest of its system someday. But wires and substations don't exactly get strung up in an instant, so they--like us--are prioritizing the highest-ridership segments first. I mean, it's not like it isn't well-understood here that some lower-ridership outskirts like Greenbush and outer-Fitchburg are going to have to wait their turn and spend some interregnum making the most of diesel service increases. Hell, the whole northside is pretty much going to be waiting its turn until three-quarters of the south is done, simply because the money goes further expanding off electrification already available. Metrolinx is stepping it out in the GO Transit district similarly. The only difference there is that their ridership scales a little more heavily zonal so they're prioritizing more total lines with their initial electrification...but aren't going to the endpoints of all of them yet. Those will be second-wave infills.It seemed like Toronto considered it be just an example of future tech and not something they were actively provisioning for. It was more that they didn't specifically provision for electric, they just left that build un-tethered for now.