General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

No agency has responded to corona in a good way. The two defaults have been "keep doing what were doing" or "modified holiday/weekend service".

As mentioned above, neither of this reflects the fact that people are probably making a lot more off-peak trips.
 
jklo said:
That's really bad news for Boston if that ends up being true.
Click to expand...

Pretty much just bad news for bullish office developers and public agencies..

In a balanced system post-COVID, a few remote days and a few in-person days, some half-days, some people working 5 days in the office, some people working 5 days from home (based on their industry), leads to a much more efficient transportation system, all around. People will (broadly) be going where/when they need to be, not following a 9-5 like everyone else. The T won't be strangled at rush hours, and might be able to handle the smaller rushes that it gets hit with, and same goes for the grid and highway systems.

Office developers are going to take a hit. What can't take a hit is the MBTA and municipal agencies. They're even more valuable post-COVID. I'm optimistic a good percentage of riders will return, and in the very long term, CR or rides from Alewife, Oak Grove, etc. may increase a bit. All the more reason, as outlined above, for RUR, etc.

I do wonder how this impacts the overall housing market going forward. Before, there was incentive for everyone to be as close to work as possible. Now, it will be considered more of a luxury, if you really only have to be in the city 2-3 days of the week. Older and wealthier couples may want to also be closer to the healthcare and entertainment offered downtown. New units built from now on are probably going to take this into consideration, designing larger units for WFH mentalities and more outdoor space, and simultaneously bumping up the prices. (On a humorous note, I saw a tweet yesterday about a NYC unit touting an "Office/Zoom Room.") On the more affordable end, the shear size/area of the housing stock may expand if people begin to take into account a longer commute being worth the extra space/affordability if they only have to commute a few days or during non-rush hours.

I also wonder how WFH is going to pan out in 2-5-10 years. They're great now, as you may have known everyone on your team and in your office, but with new hires, departures, shuffled teams, etc., you may lose the teamwork/company sense you still have now, just 7 months after going remote and in a generally lower-than-normal-hiring/shuffling rate.
 
stefal said:
Office developers are going to take a hit. What can't take a hit is the MBTA and municipal agencies. They're even more valuable post-COVID.
Click to expand...

See that's the other thing. If MBTA ridership remains low, funding is going to be cut. If it's limited to just the CR, just the CR funding will be cut. You know how politics can be too... could be tough to get the funding back.
 
jklo said:
See that's the other thing. If MBTA ridership remains low, funding is going to be cut. If it's limited to just the CR, just the CR funding will be cut. You know how politics can be too... could be tough to get the funding back.
Click to expand...
This is where thoughtful policy has a role. Suppose the city of Boston decides that reduced CBD utilization is a reason to divert some street geography to other purposes. Just read that Paris is eliminating 70,000 street parking spots. Boston could do this. Put bike and bus lanes, and plazas, and beer gardens, and housing all over the city. People might not be able to drive in, but would definitely still need and want to be here.
 
jklo said:
See that's the other thing. If MBTA ridership remains low, funding is going to be cut. If it's limited to just the CR, just the CR funding will be cut. You know how politics can be too... could be tough to get the funding back.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I've been watching what the MBTA is doing with their financials pretty closely.. Nothing's set in stone yet but it's not looking pretty, especially the next FY. They're going to have to get creative going forward if they want to maintain service levels.
 
meddlepal said:
A rather huge chunk of revenue.
Click to expand...

Made up by 200k+ high discretionary income new residents buying goods and services locally and not overburdening the school system, road system, etc.

Basically the demo that capitalists in places like Sun City, Arizona and Ocala, FLA have been targeting for decades. Taxpayers who don't burden municipal services. This is low hanging economic fruit. Only diff is that the folks who go to Sun City and Ocala are seniors in the middle class. These folks will be higher income, but with the same low need for muni services.
 
HenryAlan said:
This is where thoughtful policy has a role. Suppose the city of Boston decides that reduced CBD utilization is a reason to divert some street geography to other purposes. Just read that Paris is eliminating 70,000 street parking spots. Boston could do this. Put bike and bus lanes, and plazas, and beer gardens, and housing all over the city. People might not be able to drive in, but would definitely still need and want to be here.
Click to expand...

It's what I've been saying all along.

That's where we are going, folks..........

It's going to be more efficient, economical, visually beautiful at the street level and vibrant. The city will be more 24/7 and densely populated.
 
Boston is a lot better prepared than WMATA, which is like 99% funded by office workers.
 
jass said:
Boston is a lot better prepared than WMATA, which is like 99% funded by office workers.
Click to expand...

I don't think DC is a good example.

DC has many vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Also a huge hotel market with a future, like Boston, of very profitable international tourism at which to look ahead.

White collar 9 to 5 commuter cities with negligible foreign tourism attractiveness like Houston, Charlotte, Detroit or St. Louis would be in deep trouble. Colorado is a stunningly beautiful state. I'm not sure there will be much reason for folks to congregate in Denver, were it not for offices. That will be a city to watch in decline.

The future belongs to the cities that have indelible historic/culture brands to attract the hundreds of millions (yes, hundreds of millions) of newly minted Emerging Market upper middle class foreign tourists.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Colorado is a stunningly beautiful state. I'm not sure there will be much reason for folks to congregate in Denver, were it not for offices. That will be a city to watch in decline.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree with that one. Colorado is a stunningly beautiful state....but the collection of infrastructure and services is in the Front Range. Most people choosing to live in Denver are doing it because they want to live in a place with urban/suburban amenities and have access to the mountains.

I'm not too convinced the only thing holding them back from living in a small mountain town with all the pros/cons that brings was the location of their office. Certainly a factor for some, but probably not most. (and you run into a lot of issues with a complete lack of infrastructure out in a lot of rural parts of the West, as well.). Denver lets you have the mountains without actually dealing with the mountain climate other than when you want to. 6ft of snow is great for skiing, but not what most of those people want to wake up to in their driveway on a typical day.

I think cities/towns where the answer to "why here" and not an infinite number of alternative places is typically "because my job is here" and not much else, are the bigger decline risk.
 
millerm277 said:
I'll disagree with that one. Colorado is a stunningly beautiful state....but the collection of infrastructure and services is in the Front Range. Most people choosing to live in Denver are doing it because they want to live in a place with urban/suburban amenities and have access to the mountains.

I'm not too convinced the only thing holding them back from living in a small mountain town with all the pros/cons that brings was the location of their office. Certainly a factor for some, but probably not most. (and you run into a lot of issues with a complete lack of infrastructure out in a lot of rural parts of the West, as well.). Denver lets you have the mountains without actually dealing with the mountain climate other than when you want to. 6ft of snow is great for skiing, but not what most of those people want to wake up to in their driveway on a typical day.

I think cities/towns where the answer to "why here" and not an infinite number of alternative places is typically "because my job is here" and not much else, are the bigger decline risk.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about rural.

What I'm referencing are places like Fort Collins, Boulder, Holly Hills, Parker etc. they will continue to thrive and will see Denverites migrate. Being downtown in urban Denver (office buildings)? What can you get downtown Denver that you can't get in those places?

Boston has international tourism for historic tours and a much more vibrant science/lab scene. The difference between living in Worcester or Natick vs. Boston is far great than between Fort Collins to Denver. Downtown Denver is a 9-5 city and its surrounding areas are cutting edge small urban. The medical/cultural/food amenities in Boulder or Holly Hills aren't much less than downtown Denver.

Once again, this isn't about Colorado which WILL thrive. I'm separating out urban downtown Denver.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
DC has many vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Also a huge hotel market with a future, like Boston, of very profitable international tourism at which to look ahead.
Click to expand...

WMATA doesnt serve them that well though.

Between 22 minute weekend headways, stations spaces pretty far apart, and not even serving areas like Georegtown, people use bike share or take the circulator buses (provided by the city).
 
Apparently a decent-sized sinkhole has opened up underneath the Mass Coastal's tracks in East Sandwich. An alert neighbor stopped a train from being eaten as well, and repairs are ongoing and are expected to be completed within the month.

(Via the Cape Cod Times)

www.capecodtimes.com

Emergency work underway to repair railroad tracks damaged by sinkhole

Collapse disrupts service, raises concerns about cleanup of abutting pond
www.capecodtimes.com
 
Wash said:
Apparently a decent-sized sinkhole has opened up underneath the Mass Coastal's tracks in East Sandwich. An alert neighbor stopped a train from being eaten as well, and repairs are ongoing and are expected to be completed within the month.

(Via the Cape Cod Times)

www.capecodtimes.com

Emergency work underway to repair railroad tracks damaged by sinkhole

Collapse disrupts service, raises concerns about cleanup of abutting pond
www.capecodtimes.com
Click to expand...

Umm...holy shitballs.

5fa4576a861ba.image.jpg



And the loaded trash train from Yarmouth was less than 7 minutes out from crossing this collapsed embankment at the time neighbors spotted the damage and called it in. That could've been real fucking bad.
 
Last edited:
Ouch. I imagine some of this is indeed the "worst case scenario", but still.

As for "temporary" -- the suspension of service to Arborway was "temporary" enough that even as late as last year, there was signage at Park Street that directed passengers to such-and-such a platform for trains to "Boston College, Cleveland Circle, Riverside, Arborway".

On the other hand, they also suggest curtailing the E at Brigham Circle full-time, which is indeed something that has been done on-and-off many times, so could truly be temporary.

Six commuter rail stops with especially low ridership during the pandemic would be closed: Plymouth station, Plimptonville station in Walpole, Cedar Park station in Melrose, Prides Crossing in Beverly, Silver Hill and Hastings stations in Weston.
Click to expand...

All except for Cedar Park, I would bet on closing permanently -- which in most cases (in my opinion) would be reasonable under any circumstances. Cedar Park is strange, and has more infrastructure than arguably any of the others (except maybe Plymouth). If it did close, I would expect it would reopen eventually. But the others seem unlikely.

I worry about the reductions in bus route frequencies. That seems like an opportunity rife for funny business, flown under the radar.
 
Cedar Park is a very one-of-these-is-not-like-the-others pick. That has never ever appeared on any proposed closure list before...ever. Even with close proximity by Haverhill stop spacing standards it certainly doesn't belong in conversation so long as Reading Urban Rail is a thing the Rail Vision is considering. And even for stet Purple Line service levels it's a bizarre inclusion while the likes of Mishawum and Wedgemere stay open for business.

Don't know what waters they're attempting to chum here but that'll get Melrose suitably enflamed.
 
I started to wonder whether Cedar Park was maybe a reporting error -- "maybe they said Plymouth/Cordage Park and it was misunderstood??" -- so I went and looked at the slides, and, nope, Cedar Park is right there:

Commuter Rail Station closures.png


It is true, that ridership number is low, but it's still above average: they note a couple of slides earlier that CR ridership is at 13% of normal (but 8.5% of normal during AM Peak). Cedar Park's is more like 20% of normal -- although to be fair, that's literally a difference of 7 people, so probably not statistically significant.

Maybe it's the close stop spacing that's drawing their attention? I think Wyoming Hill and Cedar Park may be the two closest stations in the entire system? (Well, maybe Haverhill and Bradford, but there is, you know, a river between them.) But I'm also not really clear on what cost-saving benefits accrue from its closure? (Especially since the parking lot isn't T-operated.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top