General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

jklo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
491
Reaction score
34
No...they're taking up parking spots in Lowell garage. That's fact, not supposition, documented to the nines in the studies. This is why there's such purely selfish, in-district motivation for hitting Nashua and why they need the minimal assist for the cross-border stations to make it happen. In-district mobility is tremendously upgraded diverting those NH plates so MA plates have a shot.
That doesn't seem realistic commute time wise for people in NH to drive to Lowell on top of the CR then subway. Maybe there are some doing it, but have to figure most are driving to some burb job on 128. I do agree that Job access from SNH is definitely an issue.

The only real option would be an Express that has a couple of stops in Nashua and has no additional stops past the Pheasant Lane Mall until you hit North Station.
 

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,599
Reaction score
979
That doesn't seem realistic commute time wise for people in NH to drive to Lowell on top of the CR then subway. Maybe there are some doing it, but have to figure most are driving to some burb job on 128. I do agree that Job access from SNH is definitely an issue.

The only real option would be an Express that has a couple of stops in Nashua and has no additional stops past the Pheasant Lane Mall until you hit North Station.
There would likely be a New Hampshire express that stops at Nashua, Pheasant Lane, North Chelmsford, maybe UML, Lowell, and Anderson. Maybe a few trains that only do Nashua, Pheasant Lane, Lowell, and Anderson.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
1,176
That doesn't seem realistic commute time wise for people in NH to drive to Lowell on top of the CR then subway. Maybe there are some doing it, but have to figure most are driving to some burb job on 128. I do agree that Job access from SNH is definitely an issue.
It doesn't have to "seem" anything. That is what's happening. They've been studying this for 25+ years, doing plate counts at Lowell, cross-reffing with monthly passes, collecting eleventy-hundred rounds of customer surveys. That is what they're doing. It doesn't take any guesstimating as to what the psychology is of the commuter who's Pn'R-ing from what distance...that's what they're bloody doing for their commute. So from the T's selfish in-district perspective there is a screaming need to buff out district service to the border, to free up LRTA's garage so it's not full so dang early every day for all the MA plates that can't get in, to match the RUR initiative with more bus captures, and to get their ops costs in-line by gaining access to the only layover yard site that'll get their ops costs in-line when it's time to start running RUR frequencies.

That's all-locals to Nashua. Crown St. in Downtown Nashua, specifically, because it's one simple switch throw from the layover (even though they don't really care about the ridership there...it's just too easy not to operate there and "go it alone" City of Nashua already has the site prepped). Schedule with North Chelmsford, Pheasant Lane/South Nashua, and Crown St. clocks in under 60 minutes...UMass-Lowell would probably round it up to even 60. If NHDOT ever wants to subsidize them some pokes past Nashua on an all-locals schedule (as was proposed in some of the latest study's alts. for limited Manchester service), they'll take the out-of-state money as happily as they do from RIDOT for the Wickford runs. But purely selfishly the in-district constituency ends at Nashua and they have no self-interest in lobbying their neighbors for any further than Crown St.

The only real option would be an Express that has a couple of stops in Nashua and has no additional stops past the Pheasant Lane Mall until you hit North Station.
Please re-read the last post. That's exactly what is proposed and studied. Exactly. Nashua in 60 minutes is the terminus for the in-district locals. Concord runs all-local in NH, skips everything in MA except Lowell & Anderson...runs 78 minutes max. That's the real, honest-to-god proposal. There's no un-answered questions here. Your "only real option" is what's been on the books for 20+ years now, only needing NH to get off its ass and start working towards that.

With the past-Nashua stops proposed, the 78-minute schedule on TBD frequency (hourly with peak/off-peak splits???) would run:
NORTH STATION
Anderson RTC
Lowell
South Nashua/Pheasant Lane
Downtown Nashua/Crown St.
Merrimack
Manchester-Bedford Int'l Airport
Manchester
Hooksett
CONCORD

The 60-minute district schedule @ 30-min. RUR frequency would run:
NORTH STATION
West Medford
Wedgemere (if it's still around for RUR)
Winchester Ctr.
(maybe Montvale/Woburn infill)
Mishawum (if it's still around for RUR)
Anderson RTC
Wilmington
North Billerica
Lowell
(probably UMass-Lowell)
North Chelmsford/Vinal Sq.
South Nashua/Pheasant Lane
DOWNTOWN NASHUA/CROWN ST.


That's it. That's the whole-enchilada Cap Corridor proposal. No guesswork. If they full-build it, those are the two schedule layers that tag-team for running it. If NSRL enters the picture, the Nashua locals likely get pair-matched with something on the NEC like Providence. The NHDOT expresses...probably still a NS surface-terminator because pair-matching at those long distances gets a bit imprecise with the southside. But Concord would probably be gaining a few Northeast Regional fork slots from NY/DC along with Portland, ME...so the audiences end up dividing pieces of a different-looking pie in that New World Order than today's purely commuter rail universe.
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
169
Most people aren’t gonna be quick to go back until September at the earliest. They can get away with a weekend shutdown at GC.
Yes, but Jahvon is right. I'd assume it would have been far less costly to have done it while the GC was being remodeled. Financial efficiency counts.
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
36
The MBTA said on the news yesterday, that it will bring back the schedule that it had before the corona virus, including all bus routes & rapid transit lines.:)
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,397
Reaction score
524
The UML Riverview Suites / Lowell West / UML South Campus site is just too perfect as TOD (and paid-for vertical circulation), and already staked out as the western beachhead of the UML campus to not serve:

Also, I can't believe that Marty Meehan, as former Lowell City Hall staffer, congressman, UML chancellor and now Chancellor of the whole of UMass would let CR pass the campus by without stopping. He's far too savvy a Lowell-and-Regional-and-Statewide player to not get a stop for his homies.
 
Last edited:

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
897
Reaction score
399
The UML Riverview Suites / Lowell West / UML South Campus site is just too perfect as TOD (and paid-for vertical circulation), and already staked out as the western beachhead of the UML campus to not serve:

Also, I can't believe that Marty Meehan, as former Lowell City Hall staffer, congressman, UML chancellor and now Chancellor of the whole of UMass would let CR pass the campus by without stopping. He's far too savvy a Lowell-and-Regional-and-Statewide player to not get a stop for his homies.
I believe the school's aware of the opportunities here. They've looked into feasibility reports and played with the idea for a while now. When/if they do extend out to Nashua, you'll likely see him pushing for it, but like you mention, if UML is going to get tied in with any of the costs, they'll likely search for a TOD partner or sell the lot off to fund it. They can't really afford adding a stop like this with the long list of facilities they have to update.

Then again, I wouldn't put it past upper leadership to glance over this. UML tried a pilot program for free tickets for students some time last year. Last I heard Keolis/CR ended it. As far as I was aware, there wasn't much effort from Meehan or anyone at UML, apart from a number of students when it was canned. You have to wonder what compelled them to cancel it, considering it was one state agency paying another state agency for students to ride free on a train that's already running...
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
723
Reaction score
517
Next up on the COVID shutdown projects, today they announced the Red Line from Quincy Center to Braintree will be 24/7 shuttling from 6/18 to 7/1 https://www.mbta.com/diversions/red-line
Commuter rail will end at Braintree on weekends during this project to allow for work on the garages.

Green Line D branch has its second 24/7 shutdown from 6/20 to 6/28 for the track and signal project: https://www.mbta.com/diversions/green-line-d

Blue Line finished its 24/7 diversion last week, Green Line C branch starts its 24/7 diversion for the entire month of July soon: https://www.mbta.com/diversions/green-line-c, and then last up is the E branch for all of August https://www.mbta.com/diversions/green-line-e. Obviously Lechmere to N Station is shuttling and at some point I expect to see B branch shuttles since those were cancelled during April.

Orange line bypasses North Station on weekends throughout Summer for floor replacement at North Station: https://www.mbta.com/diversions/orange-line

Worcester line is out on weekends through July, Greenbush Line is out on weekends, Lowell and Fitchburg continue to shuttle on weekends for GLX, Franklin Line shuttles between Forge Park and Walpole on weekends for double tracking work, and the Rockport Line is shuttling at the end indefinitely for the drawbridge. https://www.mbta.com/weekend

I made a joking remark on here last year that there would be basically no weekend service anywhere on the T in 2020 with all the planned maintenance but this is more than I expected, good use of the Coronavirus slowdown, I just really hope there's something to show for it at the end of all this.
 

The EGE

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
810
Reaction score
369
As much as there is to criticize about the MBTA, photographing the BART extension that opened last week hammered home the point that the MBTA is doing much better about accessibility than its peers. These brand new BART stations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars each ($2.3B for the whole two-station extension) have only one elevator per platform. If that one elevator is out of service (and the one at Berryessa was broken on opening day!), it's a five-mile bus ride from the next station. The parking garages, meanwhile, have six elevators each.

Since the 2006 BCIL settlement, the MBTA has had redundant elevators as its standard for new and renovated rapid transit stations. (There are a few exceptions - Ruggles isn't getting a second elevator, and Ball Square will only have one because there's an accessible surface entrance - but few.) They're placed along the main path of travel, whereas BART and other agencies have a habit of tucking them into dark corners. Recent policy also seems to be to place elevators at multiple entrances (and, with this year's design contracts, to add new entrances), which greatly shortens the accessible path.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
1,176
BART is a parking racket dressed up as a transit agency whose sole mission in life is to beg/borrow/steal from the transit funding pot for all Bay Area agencies in the most merciless and opulent fashion possible to show who's really the alpha amongst its peers. It happens to be mostly useful as a transit system (I've ridden extensively on a few Oakland trips), but that's merely accidental spoils compared to its real political purpose.

I won't go as far as certifiable crazy blogo-person Richard Mlynarik and allege "Literally run by the Mafia!!!!" But yeah...corrupt as hell with extremism for parking garage edificial porn that's downright unseemly and diametrically at odds with the era. Some of the most pants-on-head car-addicted "TOD" planning you'll ever see on Planet Asphalt.
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
723
Reaction score
517
Since the 2006 BCIL settlement, the MBTA has had redundant elevators as its standard for new and renovated rapid transit stations. (There are a few exceptions - Ruggles isn't getting a second elevator, and Ball Square will only have one because there's an accessible surface entrance - but few.) They're placed along the main path of travel, whereas BART and other agencies have a habit of tucking them into dark corners. Recent policy also seems to be to place elevators at multiple entrances (and, with this year's design contracts, to add new entrances), which greatly shortens the accessible path.
Ruggles isn't getting a second OL elevator in Phase 1, but there's a mysterious Phase 2 out for bidding right now with a budget of $20 million. Or it was out for bidding last week but it's gone from the bidding page right now. Regardless $20 million is a fair sum and I'd heard it was specifically for orange line accessibility improvements. One could dream about reopening the exit from the platform to Ruggles street perhaps as a secondary accessible entrance. That's just ambitious dreams though, I genuinely don't know the scope of that contract yet.

Related note the upcoming bids page has been updated with projects for FY21 (including Ruggles in March 2021): https://bc.mbta.com/business_center/bidding_solicitations/future_solicitations/
 

The EGE

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
810
Reaction score
369
Hmm, that Ruggles phase II is certainly interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see that exit turned into a full accessible entrance.

The Courthouse headhouse work is certainly interesting, and there's been zero public information there. I wonder if it's changes to the current headhouses, or construction of that planned east headhouse.
 

ceo

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
297
Reaction score
125
The Courthouse headhouse work is certainly interesting, and there's been zero public information there. I wonder if it's changes to the current headhouses, or construction of that planned east headhouse.
I was wondering that too. My understanding is that it's going to be built into whatever building is supposed to go up in that parcel (where the skating rink was), but I've seen no indication that they're anywhere near rolling the backhoes for that one.
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,510
Reaction score
323
As before...that is not the primary issue. Every time you take a train in/out of service to/from the subway for a shift change from Cabot HQ you need to pull a reverse move at a platform that takes (if the operator hurries up and runs cab-to-cab) the full duration of a maximal 3-min. mainline headway to stage. Therefore you must have a quad-track platform in which to stage those moves, or else inability to have an alternate place to platform will 100% of the time disrupt a regular headway. If any platforms at JFK are compacted to 2-track only for space considerations with the branch junction moved outbound, you will immediately have buttloads of skipped 3-min. headways scattered throughout the service day because those OOS reverses will be bogarting a platform berth from a live slot. And the effects of those random skipped headways will be felt in platform overcrowding all the way back into Cambridge, with most-acute crowding effects slamming the line directly at the 9:00am, 3:30pm, and 6:30pm peak/off-peak shift changes when the Cabot leads see their biggest daily surge in use. That isn't mitigable; the end-of-line yards (Alewife especially) aren't large enough to absorb all the downtime staging for staff breaks, cleaning pauses, and peak upshift/downshift.

^This^ is a very bad outcome that will be the #1-with-a-bullet Red Line rider gripe from all the disrupted headways. Therefore you must have a quad-track/2-island JFK station to inocuously absorb those movements at no disruption to mid-stride headways, or else service is regularly hosed. No alternative. How you arrange tracks south of there at maximal pinch against I-93 can be accomplished umpteen different ways, but the only service-preserving choices are (1) junction before JFK like today but in more compact fashion or (2) quad-track Savin Hill platforms if the junction is arranged after. Option #2 is self-defeating by requiring more real estate at the point of maximal pinch, so all the arguments that center around what you could/couldn't flyover or grade separate from there are moot. If the split happens off a 2-track platform...any 2-track platform...service is already hosed with skipped headways. Therefore the only service-acceptable alternative is going to be retention of a quad-track/double-island JFK where you have ample space for that and a 2-track commuter rail island under the highway stilts with very minimal surrounding modification.

This practically means that anything/everything you choose to do with infrastructure south of there will involve accommodating 4 RL tracks of 2 branches that have already pre-split from each other. While conceivably you could re-mash the whole works together back into 2 tracks between JFK and Savin Hill, that would be a pointless waste which would rate intensely non-preferred as a build alt. Duplicating junctions on both sides of JFK then doing it again for a branch split south of Savin Hill means multiple-duplication of a known/infamous RL failure mode (demon spawn of Malfunction Junction!), and the only justification for doing so would be capitulation to the asphalt lobby's decidedly anti-transit lane capacity grab. Shit sandwich for ops brittleness, but moreso a sucker's game on the overall politics. While in absolute terms you may be able to lower the topline rail-side capital costs over a pricier but ops-robust Braintree-under-Ashmont burial, (1) Rapid Transit Div. is going to finger it loudly for inducing new everlasting maint and ops-side cost headaches, and (2) as per the budget-buster MPO proposal the asphalt lobby cannot politically be trusted to keep its capacity-grab costs in line with the savings. We know up-front that transit vs. highway is nowhere near a level playing field, so #1 is a sticking point for the inversion in which capacity mode's making the sacrifice for some other lower capacity mode's gain. And when #2 politically exerts itself you are far more likely to net a more expensive total-package price tag in the end--and make taxpayers feel like complete suckers for it--simply because the 93 side of the fence sees absolutely no reciprocal motivation to control its own costs, but feels entitled to bending the transit side over into punitive self-compromise. For that reason the "if the rail side exerts cost control, so will the highway side by fairness" assumption does not hold up to rational public scrutiny, and will be accurately chastized for selling itself well short while giving MassHighway zero motivation to better-police its own self.


TL;DR: these arguments on what to do with Savin Hill tend to get lost on a 2D crayon-drawn "what-if's" without acknowledging the fact that the one study actually real-world conducted is tantamount to a drawing of the political & modal warfare battle lines. The asphalt lobby wants this to devolve into a reductionist argument of how the transit side can self-own itself with the full burden of ops-compromising cost reductions so it doesn't have to do the same rationalization with HOV capacity politics. We really shouldn't be taking that bait if the resulting proposal makes RL ops any way/shape/form more cumbersome or less resilient because congestion isn't going to get any better making the highest capacity-per-headway mode of all on the corridor shoulder all the sacrifices for all of the other lower-capacity modes. So beware which master thy own cut-rate Savin Hill renders are actually serving. Those waters have already been pre-chummed with tons of bait by political forces playing a turf war that aims to force transit into shouldering all compromises for their terms.
Bringing this conversation over to this thread since it isn't really about RUR.

Someone on twitter asked this very question so I showed them this response. The question that came up was what trains actually do this? The movement in question, if I understand, is a train coming from Cabot JFK and then reversing or a train going southbound to JFK and reversing to Cabot. But according to this chart (https://t.co/zUMiswNRT1?amp=1) of all Red Line runs no trains actually do this. So this would suggest these are non revenue trains, correct? Then the question is would this not also be workable with three tracks at JFK with one converted to CR?
 
Last edited:

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,397
Reaction score
524
The bus lane inbound @ Museum of Science is a huge boon for bikes, buses, & museum trips.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
1,176
Bringing this conversation over to this thread since it isn't really about RUR.

Someone on twitter asked this very question so I showed them this response. The question that came up was what trains actually do this? The movement in question, if I understand, is a train coming from Cabot JFK and then reversing or a train going southbound to JFK and reversing to Cabot. But according to this chart (https://t.co/zUMiswNRT1?amp=1) of all Red Line runs no trains actually do this. So this would suggest these are non revenue trains, correct? Then the question is would this not also be workable with three tracks at JFK with one converted to CR?
Is that an internal document or a train tracker data pull? I can't even zoom it down enough to see what all that tiny text is logging. Train tracker data pull can't differentiate between revenue and non-revenue moves because it's only pinging the lead car. As per the mystery appearance of the new RL car test set showing up "in-service" in the New Red/Orange car thread, the RFID tag pinged a lead car entering the mainline and logged a false positive. So you need a real internal operations log to tell what each set is doing.

If the preferred means of yanking into/out of service on scheduled shift changes is a non-revenue run thru to Codman or Caddigan Yards at the ends of the branches, then the Cabot refills are accomplished in swarms of non-revenue movements between Ashmont-JFK and Braintree-JFK in between regular branch headways. Such that, for example, at the end of a peak shift you're going to have the 'traffic' of a peak headway upheld for some period after the rush shift ends as the non-revenue moves get slotted. You still need a hefty amount of slack capacity to do that, so cutting off one's nose to spite their face is not a real winner of a counterpoint.

In a delay recovery scenario they definitely reverse on-platform @ JFK to scramble units into the subway...but that would not be reflected in a daily log because it's all on-contingency, and if it's a sample taken in the last 4 months with the reduced service you're not going to be seeing the delays to begin with because traffic is so much lighter that a disablement can get triaged without bunching. Beware your sample sizes.


---- ---- ---- ----

As mentioned in earlier posts JFK Station is not the primary pinch point, so there is absolutely no reason to over-focus attention on infrastructure compacting at that site. Right then and there I have to wonder what's being proven by throwing out reams of charts as counterpoint, because JFK Station is begging for no reimagining. There is plenty of space to widen the CR platform into a 12 ft.-wide 2-track island off its current footprint by (1) reconfiguring the busways, (2) lane-dieting Old Colony Ave. for a few feet west where it's a glorified 4-lane wide/2-lane striped station driveway, and (3) replacing the little-used south RL headhouse which semi-obstructs the CR platform with a quick replacement that does not. That's it...the 2 extant RL islands don't even need a single touch, and anything that attempts to touch them is instantaneously going to be more expensive. Rapid Transit Dept. is going to correctly finger this as pointless Civil Engineering Strongman to try to force-fit only 2 RL tracks for integrity-of-concept's sake and zap their routing flexibility when there is no space shortage here compelling that move. Leave JFK alone on the RL sides, because the capacity solution here exists where there's currently little more than bare pavement.

Columbia Jct. to the north is easily compactable without sacrificing grade separation into the 2 JFK islands, by replacing the numerous space-intensive flyovers with simple crossovers and having the Cabot leads flank the sides of the portal to frame the start of the branch split. Columbia Jct. is as overbuilt as it is because it was 1960's-designed to facilitate high-speed (>60 MPH) South Shore service to Weymouth, Brockton, etc. outright replacing the RR mode. As soon as the line was drawn no further than Braintree, RR preservation + reactivated CR became the primary priority for points past 128, and the infill Braintree island was added to JFK...the flyovers instantly became obsolete relics. So half the space they take up can vanish, and the only thing that changes at JFK is that the 2 islands (beneficially!) change from Braintree IB/OB + Ashmont IB/OB layout to "all-inbound" + "all-outbound" layout. And then the flyovers to the south simply get modded in-situ to send each track of the branch splits on their merry way with the new directional alignment. Columbia compacting is simple enough unto itself with only that switcheroo of the south-of-JFK flyover set that you likewise would get your sanity questioned for trying to over-mod the JFK platform layout when no such squeeze calls for that.

Now...Savin Hill, the legit pinch point. You could, in theory, mash the 4 tracks back into 2 after JFK and stage the branch split further downwind. Technically that is available. Now here's why that would be non-preferred. To do so you would have to create TWO more sets of interlockings: south-of-JFK re-mash, and south-of-Savin Hill re-split to go along with your much-simplified Columbia compacting. Rapid Transit Div. is going to howl about that, because heavily-used crossovers (like, for example, the Alewife "switching problems" from hell) are an outsized failure point amongst regular ops being pounded throughout the service day. Overbuilt Columbia is infamously called "Malfunction Junction" for the same reason. So you are going to increase the rate of faults to have the JFK split, the post-JFK re-mash, and the post-Savin Hill re-split tripling up a known failure point. The zeal towards saving a few topline bucks by at-gradeing everything at Savin Hill induces a lifetime ops tax for increasing the number of failure points in a short stretch. It'll make the shift changes harder because the equipment pipe will have to traverse the new failure points several times a day. And it'll compel as a "solution" the over-compacting at JFK to eliminate the extra interlockings for same proof-of-concept motivation that adds nothing but empty-calorie additional cost, such that the money wasted rebooting all of JFK eats the lion's share of the savings from doing that capped box tunnel through Savin Hill instead.


And let's not forget the highway politics here. The only reason transit is under such enormous pressure to contort itself into limitations here is because the lobbying is strong for a wasteful I-93 HOV lane expansion that eats as much transit space as it can bully for itself for an add-a-lane grab that does not address 93's primary Dorchester deficiency at all: lack of breakdown lanes, and the associated lack of resiliency. The more work the transit side does twisting itself into a pretzel over cost-saving tensions vs. overly precious proof-of-concept overload, the less the asphalt lobby is forced to rationalize the crummy value proposition of the CURRENT zipper lane and its eating of all of the Expressway's breakdown resiliency...much less the insatiable appetite to keep adding more lane capacity. This is an explicit trap. The MPO's garbage study here that called for burying both Braintree AND Old Colony to total cost blowout should've been the reddest of all flags that cost control is seen as a one-way street that only transit is held to. So realize up-front that all that temptation to go scorched-earth compacting for high-concept's sake is taking the bait hook/line/sinker. With the number of bridge touches required to extend the HOV, the 93 side of the fence will spend several times over the cost of a Braintree-under-Ashmont capped box cut burial through Savin Hill with 2 at-grade OC tracks that nets all capacity gains at zero ops demerits. Spend several times more on the highway side of the fence. Every scheme that tries to squeeze blood from RL ops to the minimum possible margins is doing so the highway can get a few freebies for its own blowouts. Why are we in such a rush to do this to ourselves at the expense of the highest-capacity mode first, next-highest capacity mode second...lowest-of-all capacity modes reaping the spoils?

Alright...if we're going to keep grinding at this high-concept obsession for compacting all that doesn't need to be compacted and which creates more problems than it solves, let's at least start doing that eyes-wide-open here for a change. MassHighway and the MPO want us to get distracted and lost down a wormhole finding a way to zero out track space, because it's doing all the heavy-lifting for their HOV capacity grab. They're going to be at their concern-trolliest at "tunnel" cost and onus being all on transit to zero that out, when in reality this is not a subway at all but a Wellington-style capped cut and the highway bridge mods for extending the zipper lane into the Airport HOV's will exceed the cost of that cut several times over. The more mental energy transit advocates waste twisting themselves into a pretzel on this, the easier a job asphalt world has self-justifying HOV expansion that they know up-front will never amortize itself.
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
1,176

FCMB gets a one-year stay of execution to figure out what ultimately replaces it, because House and Senate can't agree on replacement Board bills.

Aaaaaaand they deadlock on the Chapter 90 road repair fund, so its funding levels will remain static for a tenth year in a row until TBD and blah blah blah maybe someone helpfully walks by and starts pulling heads out of asses.


Surprising no one, our Legislature continues to play like a 53-man roster full of punters. :sleep:
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
1,176

Town of Bourne holds rare outdoor town meeting to debate a petition on withdrawing their membership from the MBTA district, which they joined in 2015 on promise that Buzzards Bay commuter rail was a good fast-track prospect. They were summarily fucked over by the state with the South Coast Rail Phase I scheme depriving all frequencies that could continue to BB, and despite the state's token ovatures of a new study (tokenism because...there's nothing left to study with demand a service specs already checking out beyond reasonable doubt in the most recent study) it's wildly uncertain whether there's any Old Colony slots left to go around unless SCR relocates to Phase II on the Stoughton main. The petition was in direct reaction to that slighting, with hot debate about whether the town should continue paying district dues at all.

Apparently patience prevailed and they're still buying into their RUR future, rejecting the petition. Which is encouraging on the local advocacy front because Cape Chamber of Commerce worked everyone over preaching the long game. Still remains to be seen what service options they truly have, but the state is now in a real bind to bend over backwards for them now that they've demurred from biting back after being screwed.


FWIW...the prior BB study was for full extension of all Middleboro frequencies to Buzzards Bay Station, planned TOD infill (study specced that it could be added after Opening Day if needed) at Wareham Crossing right near the 495/195/28 interchange, no service at Cape Flyer Wareham Village stop (thought at the time to be hard to regulate for parking, since it sits in an open municipal lot...but attitudes have changed significantly given success of the Flyer stop). All demand increases accommodated by running the M'boro Line as all- bi-level cars, no-flats during rush hour (Old Colony lines are capped to max 6 cars by the shortie South Station platforms next to USPS). BB would have a short-term idling siding at the 'old' layover site other side of the grade crossing, but shift-change trains would deadhead back to Middleboro Layover (which has expansion room). To-be-signalized mainline M'boro-BB would be 79 MPH with 1-2 passing sidings south of M'boro, and 1-2 pre-existing passing sidings between Randolph and Bridgewater doubled in length. Cape officials had their own reciprocal proposals in that study for expanded near-site parking and bus connections at the extension stops.

No bridge crossings were assumed for the base build, but by getting signalized full-schedule M'boro service to the foot of the bridge there was potential (to be studied out separately) to add up to 2 unidirectional AM / 2 unidirectional PM extended express commuter runs to Hyannis making TBD on-Cape intermediate stops. Those would skip-stop on the mainland like a Flyer, and fit into the daily schedule limits the FRA exempts for the unsignalized/un-PTC'ed track outbound of Cape Jct. on the Cape (with Cape Rail getting the remaining daily apportionment for the 3-day-a-week trash train and the rest-of-week dinner train).

The sad thing is the ridership is probably comparable to the entirety of the SCR Phase I shit sandwich, at about 1/15th the price tag. And Bourne joined the district thinking basic-ass logic like that would prevail in their favor. :(
 
Last edited:

Top