General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[datadyne007]

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/2017/03/green-line-weighs-heavily-mbtas-long-term-fleet-plans/

This was in the Globe yesterday, too, for when this goes behind the paywall.

Basically, the MBTA is looking to almost fully replace the Green Line fleet (presumably with CAF Type 9s) and is having the right discussions around electrifying commuter rail or buying new diesel locomotives. They're also looking to standardize the bus fleet as a single model.

The overall goal seems to be a single model on each line/mode, with appropriate changes made to infrastructure to ensure that the MBTA can buy more standard vehicle models instead of customized ones.

Finally.

The GL standardization would likely be Type 10. The Type 9 order is mainly just to supplement GLX service. There's an option for 30 more that the T is seeming unlikely to take, especially given their new stated goals of standardizing as much of the fleet as they can. Green would probably be the holdout on the single model goal with 9s and 10s operating for a while.

 

[Equilibria]

The GL standardization would likely be Type 10. The Type 9 order is mainly just to supplement GLX service. There's an option for 30 more that the T is seeming unlikely to take, especially given their new stated goals of standardizing as much of the fleet as they can. Green would probably be the holdout on the single model goal with 9s and 10s operating for a while.

The only reason I could think of to go through another whole procurement process would be if the T commits to infrastructure changes to widen curves and raise portal roofs to accommodate a more standardized LRV. In that case, I could see a new procurement to include models/manufacturers scared off before.

Otherwise, unless there's an issue with the CAF design or the MBTA believes they were overcharged, why not consolidate everything under the model you already vetted and picked? There are benefits to having one factory and vendor for these things. Remember, the FMCB already did this once - they recommended expanding the initial CRRC order to replace the entire Red Line fleet - in part because they want to send maintenance and rehab business to Springfield for decades.

 

[Arlington]

The overall goal seems to be a single model on each line/mode, with appropriate changes made to infrastructure to ensure that the MBTA can buy more standard vehicle models instead of customized ones.
Finally.

The discussion on Railroad.net seems to say that the Green Line can consider standard-dimensioned LRVs because the GL will not have to be constrained by:
1) Lechmere Loops being too tight ('cause GLX solves this)
2) Park street inner loops ('cause they'll send OOS cars out to GLX shops, add inspection pits at Park, or turn them at North Station)

Which leaves the wild cards
3) Boylston curve (said to be 81' radius instead of 82')
4) Kenmore turnaround (is it Red Line clearance?)

Is that the current understanding? Switching to US-Standard Dimensioned cars (and curves) would be a huge, long-term money-saver (and better assurance that cars will work right out of production instead of a long, painful shake-down such as the Type 8 Bredas never really emerged from)

 

[Equilibria]

Switching to US-Standard Dimensioned cars (and curves) would be a huge, long-term money-saver (and better assurance that cars will work right out of production instead of a long, painful shake-down such as the Type 8 Bredas never really emerged from)

Not that I disagree, but remember that the Bredas built for Muni were complete failures also... it's not just about standardization.

 

[The EGE]

The standard 82-foot radius will never happen - there are other sharp curves that are unlikely to be modified to that radius. GC westbound, for example, butts up against the JFK Building, and there are many tight curves in the yards. However, several of the major manufacturers currently have off-the-shelf models with radii smaller than 82 feet - including Toronto's Bombardier Flexity models with a 36' radius. LRV technology has made enormous strides in the 2+ decades since the Type 8 order. The MBTA has also changed; they made a number of small changes to the Type 9 process that should avoid the Type 8 debacle.

I'm currently doing part of my thesis on this, so forgive me for being vague. There will probably be more public information on this in coming months; I wouldn't waste too much time speculating (as good as we all are at it...)

 

[jass]

They're also looking to standardize the bus fleet as a single model.

Uh, how?

There are 10 bus models because orders are on a running basis. You dont just replace the entire fleet in one go.

 

[Semass]

The only reason I could think of to go through another whole procurement process would be if the T commits to infrastructure changes to widen curves and raise portal roofs to accommodate a more standardized LRV. In that case, I could see a new procurement to include models/manufacturers scared off before.

Otherwise, unless there's an issue with the CAF design or the MBTA believes they were overcharged, why not consolidate everything under the model you already vetted and picked? There are benefits to having one factory and vendor for these things. Remember, the FMCB already did this once - they recommended expanding the initial CRRC order to replace the entire Red Line fleet - in part because they want to send maintenance and rehab business to Springfield for decades.

CAF is absolutely unable to keep delivery targets for any customer on this continent in any of its business lines. The product may be fine whenever you get it but for a huge procurement like a green line replacement, the T would be making a huge mistake to go with them.

 

[The EGE]

I suspect - and this is not something I know anything non-public about - that the idea would be to settle on a single body type (40 and 60 foot versions) with as few types of propulsion as possible. Battery-electrics could potentially replace trackless, diesel, dual-mode, and CNG, for example. Or you could even have a diesel hybrid that has enough battery range for the SL tunnel.

 

[Renegade334]

Does anyone else believe that a future state for the T is to shadow how Transport for London runs? To me, i think this is one way to cut the bureaucracy and able to make decisions more quickly and efficiently.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I suspect - and this is not something I know anything non-public about - that the idea would be to settle on a single body type (40 and 60 foot versions) with as few types of propulsion as possible. Battery-electrics could potentially replace trackless, diesel, dual-mode, and CNG, for example. Or you could even have a diesel hybrid that has enough battery range for the SL tunnel.

If Proterra's claims that battery buses are cheaper than fossil fuel buses are true, then indeed, there's no good reason not to standardize on batteries everywhere.

I do hope the one type of bus principle is imprecise reporting, because excessive obsession with a single type would either lead to eliminating all 60' buses in favor of only running 40' buses, or vice versa, and I don't think either would be a sensible approach.

I also assume that the buses delivered in 2017 and the few years preceeding don't necessarily need to be the type that the T standardizes on in the future (especially since the new buses we've gotten in the recent past can't be regularly run in the South Station bus tunnel).

It would be nice for the 40' buses to be as similar to the 60' buses as possible if one manufacturer offers good buses in both sizes, but right now it seems like Proterra is doing much more to claim that batteries are affordable than New Flyer, and yet Proterra doesn't seem to have publicly said anything about making 60' buses available, unlike New Flyer, BYD, and GreenPower.

I get the impression that New Flyer charging infrastructure is likely to be incompatible with Proterra charging infrastructure (and Proterra seems to offer a mix of fast charging for use during layovers and slower charging while parking overnight). (In the personal automobile world, it seems to be the case that companies that want to keep making gas powered cars as long as possible have been pushing quick charging standards that are not as good as the Tesla Supercharger, and it seems possible that they may have been doing this to try to delay the transition to battery powered vehicles.)

Is the T expressing a belief that left side doors will be going away when the current batch of route 71 / 73 trolleybuses are decommissioned? Or is that more sloppy reporting? (Having left side doors on some small fraction of the fleet where the buses are otherwise identical might make sense.)

Making sure we have a consistent front door height so that the level boarding that will first appear in the Chelsea busway can be replicated everywhere that is reasonably flat and not overly space constrained would be good. I have not been able to find good data about how consistent the current fleet is or isn't in that regard.

 

[fattony]

If the cost savings are really there for the 40ft electrics, then maybe we could afford to increase the fleet size and do away with some or all of the 60ft buses (replacing them with more frequent 40 footers). Obviously the extra drivers cost money, but supposedly we'd be saving labor costs in the maintenance yard on electrics.

Regardless, I'm sure at some point in the not too distant future 60ft electrics will emerge that are competitive.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Turning Trains at Park St

2) Park street inner loops ('cause they'll send OOS cars out to GLX shops, add inspection pits at Park, or turn them at North Station

If we want to restore service through the Pleasant St Incline to connect to Dudley and/or the Seaport, we're probably going to want to be able to have some trains turn around at Park (given the four tracks toward Boylston but only two toward Government Center), although maybe changing ends on the inner tracks could be the answer (or maybe even building a fifth track, just two cars long, at the south end of the middle of the northbound platform to reverse the A branch to Harvard trains).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: level boarding

Making sure we have a consistent front door height so that the level boarding that will first appear in the Chelsea busway can be replicated everywhere that is reasonably flat and not overly space constrained would be good. I have not been able to find good data about how consistent the current fleet is or isn't in that regard.

The planning for this also ought to be thinking about how level boarding is expected to work for a platform shared between bus and Green Line.

With a 8.5' wide vehicle (which I think the buses and Green Line both more or less are), the vehicle center is going to be a bit more than 4.25' from the platform edge. With 4' 8.5" rail spacing, the rail closer to the platform is going to be roughly 2' 4" from the center of the vehicle, or roughly 2' from the platform edge. That may mean that a 1.5' wide strip of pavement between the platform and the rail could be at an elevation several inches different from the rail height, but if the pavement could be flush with the rail, that would probably make life easier for bus drivers.

 

[Riverworks]

Below is an excerpt from the Boston Globe's "Talking Points" section on potential electrification of MBTA service. I am not sure if there is an issue with posting Globe content, but let me know if there is. Electrification makes a lot of sense (operationally, financially, environmentally, etc.), but it is obviously a costly endeavor. New fleet, centenary wire, substation and other power generation infrastructure, etc. I say, incrementally begin with electrifying all lines branching onto the Providence Line (Northeast Corridor) - the Needham, Franklin, Fairmount and Stoughton Lines. Other ideas?

The T Could Go Electric

Generating discussion: Is the MBTA finally ready to start leaving diesel trains in the dust?

That question will likely come up at the transit agency in the coming months, after oversight board member Steve Poftak raised the issue of converting the diesel-fueled commuter rail system to electric power in a meeting last week.

Poftak later told me he’s trying to get some answers before preparing a vehicle purchase plan for the T by July. He says he’s keeping an open mind, and doesn’t favor either fuel source yet.

Supporters of electric trains point to the reduction in air pollution, a goal that would help the state meet its aggressive greenhouse-gas limits. There’s also the possibility of speedier service, with less time lost for accelerating away from each station. Electricity could be crucial if state officials get serious about rapid-transit service on the Fairmount Line — or bigger projects like the North South Rail Link or South Coast Rail through Stoughton.

You can’t just throw electric cars on the rails and flip a switch. The Providence line is already electrified — thanks to Amtrak — but that still leaves more than 300 miles of overhead wires to be installed. This wouldn’t be cheap. Electrifying the Caltrain line connecting San Francisco and Silicon Valley would cost $2 billion, for example.

The MBTA also has a bandwidth issue: Just how many big-picture items can management tackle at once? The electricity question is worth considering, however, before the T goes too far down the track with its fleet purchases.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...ts-and-more/khFORPeXA3UnzGp7YYQLjJ/story.html

 

[bakgwailo]

Aren't electric locomotives also more reliable (less maintenance) and last much longer? I remember reading an article on it, and it was something like 3x the lifetime which seemed impressive.

 

[EdMc]

Excerpt from an opinion article by a member of the Denver City Council in the Denver Post when the area's FasTracks program was ramping up:

"But there’s a simple way to avoid those problems: EMUs. Electric Multiple Units are the cleanest, quietest commuter-rail vehicles in existence. They’re common all over Europe, Asia and Australia. A number of commuter lines in the eastern U.S. use them, too.
However, most of the commuter- rail systems in this country operate on diesel power. Cities tend to gravitate toward diesel for a couple of reasons. First, it has a proven track record. Second, diesel-based lines are easier and cheaper to implement than electric-based ones. And maintaining the power lines for an electric-based route requires additional time and money.
But the return on that investment is a better quality of life – which is the reason voters approved FasTracks."

Full article at http://www.denverpost.com/2006/11/16/use-electric-trains-for-next-line/

* The East Rail Line is part of RTD’s 2004 voter-approved FasTracks plan to expand transit across the Denver metro region.
* 22.8-mile electric commuter rail line between Denver’s Union Station and Denver International Airport (DIA).
* The steel car bodies were manufactured at Hyundai Rotem’s plant in South Korea, then shipped to the company’s plant in Philadelphia for fitting and assembly of various components including wheel trucks, brakes, seats, etc.
* The vehicles will travel up to 79 miles per hour, go longer distances and make fewer stops than a typical light rail system.
* Sixty-six vehicles were purchased to serve the East Rail Line to Denver International Airport, the Northwest Rail Line to Westminster, the Gold Line to Arvada/Wheat Ridge and the North Metro Rail Line to Thornton.

Opened to the public on April 22, 2016 as the University of Colorado A Line. It's a nice ride.

"FasTracks is funded through a combination of funding sources, including the voter-approved sales tax increase of 0.4 percent (4 pennies on every $10), passed in 2004".
Boston and Massachusetts should do this also to get sorely needed transit projects started sooner rather than later. Los Angeles voters did the same. Denver and Los Angeles make Boston look like a chump.

 

[jass]

I havent taken the ferry to Charlestown in years.

The website says it is $3.50. Since when does it cost more than the subway?

Do they take Charlie these days, or cash only if you dont have a pass?

Also, WTF happened to the 3 day pass and how is $12 for a 1 day pass an option that anyone would buy unless you want to ride the ferry all day?

 

[dwash59]

> how is $12 for a 1 day pass an option that anyone would buy unless you want to ride the ferry all day?

They do a crappy job explaining it, but that gets you a Link Pass that can be used on the subway, bus, and commuter rail zone 1A as well.

http://www.mbta.com/fares_and_passes/passes/

 

[jass]

> how is $12 for a 1 day pass an option that anyone would buy unless you want to ride the ferry all day?

They do a crappy job explaining it, but that gets you a Link Pass that can be used on the subway, bus, and commuter rail zone 1A as well.

http://www.mbta.com/fares_and_passes/passes/

No I get that. You'd have to take 6 trips. And since transfers are included for two hours....

How is $12 for a 1 day pass an option that anyone would buy unless you want to ride the ferry all day?

 

[whittle]

No I get that. You'd have to take 6 trips. And since transfers are included for two hours....

How is $12 for a 1 day pass an option that anyone would buy unless you want to ride the ferry all day?

It's for tourists doing a day trip who don't want to bother with understanding the fare system or having to worry about reloading their card throughout the day. And as such its probably priced relative to Charlie Ticket fares since tourists aren't likely to get a Charlie Card.