$1.33 billion in T improvement over the next five years

statler

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
496
Boston Globe - March 26
Amid woes, T expects to spend mightily
Plans $562m to expand, add rail cars over 5 years

By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | March 25, 2008

The MBTA expects to spend $562 million in the next five years for new Orange Line and commuter rail cars and a planned expansion of its Silver Line bus service.

The improvements are part of a $3.75 billion capital investment program expected to be approved April 3 by the board of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

The MBTA updates its 5-year repair and expansion plan annually. But the latest update is being considered as the T is struggling mightily, digging into rainy day funds to meet its daily operational expenses, as it manages $8.2 billion in debt and interest payments.

To pay for the repairs, new garages, new rail cars, and the rest, the T will rely mostly on a combination of federal grants and heavy borrowing. That means that the T's debt will grow by $1.33 billion in the five years of the plan.

Yet transit advocates and the T's management say the agency risks losing riders to unreliable service if it does not spend to repair and replace equipment.

"Most of it, you would refer to it as needed improvements," said Eric Bourassa, a transportation policy analyst for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. "If you don't fix these things or do these things, it's going to break. And the system's not going to work."

Expansion projects such as the Silver Line extension, an airport tunnel planned along Boylston Street, make up less than 5 percent of the 5-year budget.

The $81.5 million for the Silver Line expansion would go toward planning and design, not construction. Some of that money could be withdrawn if the federal government decides not to fund its share of the $1.1 billion project.

Other projects will not be as obvious to commuters: a $209 million Arborway bus garage; $17.7 million for tunnel inspection; $26 million to rehabilitate bridges; and $22 million to add elevators and other accessibility upgrades to the Science Park station.

"If we didn't spend, we would simply be deferring maintenance and, in many cases, not making the investments that our existing riders want and our potential new riders want," Daniel A. Grabauskas, MBTA general manager, said in a phone interview.

The MBTA plans to begin rolling out new Orange Line cars in 2016, three years after the five-year plan expires.

Grabauskas put most of the money for the new cars at the end of the current plan, to signal the new priority as the T finishes replacing the aging Green and Blue fleets.

Existing Orange line cars began running between 1979 and 1981. Replacing the entire 140-car Orange fleet will cost far more than the $80 million set aside, though Grabauskas does not yet know how much. New Blue line cars cost $173 million, and that fleet is smaller. Grabauskas said he has to delay a lot of the T's needs, moving spending into future years, because the money is not there to do everything right away.

"Do our needs outstrip what we spend every year? The answer is absolutely, yes," he said.

But the longer that needs are put off, the more expensive the projects become. Last year, the T budgeted $120 million to buy 38 new locomotives for the commuter rail service. Now, as the project draws closer, the price has gone up by $66 million for 10 fewer locomotives.

Grabauskas expects the 28 new locomotives and the $217 million 75 bilevel coaches to arrive during the next three years.

The 5-year plan also includes new ridership numbers, the first annual accounting since the T raised fares in January 2007. Despite the hike, the T did not lose riders last year. Daily ridership on buses, trains, ferries, and subways went from 1,118,071 trips in 2006 to 1,241,631 trips last year.

Although nearly 30 percent of the T's riders use buses, the vehicles get only 15 percent of the money in the 5-year plan. Grabauskas said the T has been replacing a third of the bus fleet last year and this year and has spent more than $1.6 billion on bus upgrades over the past seven years.

Still, bus riders say they have not received their fair share as the T spends relatively more money on commuter rail that largely serves the suburbs.

"We should receive more than 12 percent of the budget," said Lee Matsueda, an organizer with the MBTA Riders Union. "People in these communities have to rely on public transit."
Click to expand...

1206434356_8686.gif
 
The $81.5 million for the Silver Line expansion would go toward planning and design, not construction. Some of that money could be withdrawn if the federal government decides not to fund its share of the $1.1 billion project.
Click to expand...

What can we do to stop this tunnel? How many letters do I have to write.

Anyway, I'm glad the T is spending the money on fixing things and buying new cars, stuff they need to buy. What really needs to happen is for the state to change the way they fund the T and take over most of their debt, the debt that was put on the T when all those rich SOBs from the suburbs wanted better commuter rail for their constituents but didn't want to pay for it.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
What can we do to stop this tunnel? How many letters do I have to write.

.
Click to expand...

The tunnel is a good thing. Look at the growth in the seaport district. People need a better way to get there than green-red-silver.

This isnt a debate about bus or rail. This is about a tunnel to get transit there, and improve downtown transit at the same time. This isnt about a oneseat ride to Logan either, even though the MBTA likes to mention it.
 
There is no need for the Silver Line tunnel. Instead, the Blue Line tunnel should be extended to Charles station.
 
Skip the buses, build the tunnel, and upgrade the whole darn thing to light rail.
 
cden4 said:
Skip the buses, build the tunnel, and upgrade the whole darn thing to light rail.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to a tunnel from Boylston to South Station, I'm opposed it it being for a bus. There were previsions made when the subway was constructed for a tunnel down Essex St that could be extended to South Station. This would connect the hotels, convention centers, offices, and entertainment in the SBW with South Station, the Financial District, the Theatre District, and the offices, hotels, and convention centers of the Back Bay. If it so simple that only the T could fuck it up, and here they go, fucking it up.
 
One problem: if you convert the Silver Line tunnel to light rail, how will it get to the airport?
 
Grabauskas is definitely right about the spending part. No matter how much debt they're in, its better to be in debt than to be loosing ridership.

It would be nice if the MBTA could start syncing each line as a way of saving money. Every line is so complex and different from one another ... why not spend money on making them compatible? For instance, in New York the N,W,R,Q (Yellow Line) trains are able to run on the 4,5,6 (Green Line) tracks in case more cars are needed. Maybe these new Orange Line cars should be custom built to fit the Red and Blue Lines as well?

And now we're adding and underground BRT system to the rotation? The subway system needs to start functioning as a SYSTEM and not a hodgepodge mix.

I know this is easier said than done, but it's something the MBTA has never tried to fix (or at least that I know of).
 
I've never heard any NYC subway line referred to as 'Yellow Line' or 'Green Line' or any other color. The numbered lines are narrower than the lettered ones, and equipment can't be interchanged between the two.
 
Riverworks said:
Grabauskas is definitely right about the spending part. No matter how much debt they're in, its better to be in debt than to be loosing ridership.
Click to expand...

Does debt work differently for government agencies than it does in the real world?

In real life if you borrow too much money banks and investors stop loaning money to you.

Also, the more you borrow, the higher your debt load and thus more of your operating expenses are tied up in debt services, leaving less for things like daily maintenance and repair. And the cycle starts all over again.
 
Riverworks said:
For instance, in New York the N,W,R,Q (Yellow Line) trains are able to run on the 4,5,6 (Green Line) tracks in case more cars are needed.
Click to expand...

The tunnel clearances for the BMT and IND are wider than that for the IRT. An N train will not fit on the 4 line. All work cars are old (narrower) IRT cars so they can fit through the whole system. NY's subway will never be unified to the point where any car can run on any line.
 
And for the T, the reason each line is different is that the Blue Line tunnel was originally built for trolleys, and only later converted to rapid transit.
 
Ron Newman said:
One problem: if you convert the Silver Line tunnel to light rail, how will it get to the airport?
Click to expand...

The bus would still go to South Station, or just have a shuttle from Silver Line Way to Logan that also goes to the Blue Line Airport station. Remember, the tunnels were built to allow conversion to Light Rail. It is the bus that travels under the common that is useless. The new tunnel would only allow light rail cars, not buses.

Riders on the Washington St Silver Line aren't trying to get to the Airport (most of them anyway). If a branch of the Green Line, lets just say C, was diverted to South Boston then there would be enough room for Washington St light rail service (even though there is enough space in the central subway for it now, but I digress).
 
Right - but the one-seat ride from South Station to the airport is useful, even though it's a bus that has a power change enroute.

Your proposal would eliminate this, as there would be no place for buses to turn around at South Station without entering the new rail-only tunnel.
 
You could also make the tunnel from South Station to the waterfront a bus/rail tunnel, as they are currently doing in Seattle. Basically, the rails are flush to the floor of the tunnel, similar to street-running rail a la the E line past Brigham Circle. The airport buses could then share the tunnel with the rail service and turn around at South Station.
 
/\ Bingo /\

You said:
Your proposal would eliminate this
Click to expand...

And I said:
The bus would still go to South Station
Click to expand...

There is a turn around loop at South Station for the buses. All that would change would be an addition of light rail.

I think then South Station might just be the greatest transportation hub in the country (Amtrak, Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Intercity Bus, local bus, BRT connecting to the Airport). Hell, build a heliport over the train yards and a ferry terminal at Ft. Point Channel and I think you'll cover everything (though I think the ferry terminal is out of the question given all the fixed bridges, but I can dream.)
 
You guys forget that we'll have flying submarines before rail is installed down washington street
 
Heh thanks everyone for the clarification on my previous post. Even though the NYC subway analogy doesn't exactly add up in that example, you get the general idea. I'm looking to unite Boston's transportation system, not find ways to make it more different ... and thus more confusing and less efficient.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Hell, build a heliport over the train yards and a ferry terminal at Ft. Point Channel and I think you'll cover everything (though I think the ferry terminal is out of the question given all the fixed bridges, but I can dream.)
Click to expand...

Yeah. The Congress Street drawbridge had its counterweights removed last year, which was fascinating to watch; the Northern Ave bridge hasn't swiveled in many a moon, and I don't know when the Summer Street bridge was affixed, but there we go. And the Seaport Boulevard bridge was dropped in there, too.

Funny to think that at one time, three radically different styles of drawbridge were operating right next to each other on the Channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top