General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Out of curiosity, is there any real reason we don't regularly park trains at stations overnight rather than at yards? Obviously you have less slack for startup, you have to get operators to each station, maint access etc, but it can't be impossible to do to some degree. That would allow for smaller end of line yards or fleet expansion beyond yard capacity.

Same thing with buses. We're told that the MBTA bus fleet is constrained by yard/garage capacity. Why not park a few in busways overnight?
 
Stlin said:
Out of curiosity, is there any real reason we don't regularly park trains at stations overnight rather than at yards? Obviously you have less slack for startup, you have to get operators to each station, maint access etc, but it can't be impossible to do to some degree. That would allow for smaller end of line yards or fleet expansion beyond yard capacity.

Same thing with buses. We're told that the MBTA bus fleet is constrained by yard/garage capacity. Why not park a few in busways overnight?
Click to expand...

Vandalism?
 
Stlin said:
Out of curiosity, is there any real reason we don't regularly park trains at stations overnight rather than at yards? Obviously you have less slack for startup, you have to get operators to each station, maint access etc, but it can't be impossible to do to some degree. That would allow for smaller end of line yards or fleet expansion beyond yard capacity.

Same thing with buses. We're told that the MBTA bus fleet is constrained by yard/garage capacity. Why not park a few in busways overnight?
Click to expand...
I imagine it mostly comes to getting operators to the vehicles. Do operators just park around the stations all day? Especially for downtown stations I can't see that working great... And then at the end of their shifts they would have to be paid until they are returned to their starting station, which adds more deadhead pay
 
Stlin said:
Out of curiosity, is there any real reason we don't regularly park trains at stations overnight rather than at yards? Obviously you have less slack for startup, you have to get operators to each station, maint access etc, but it can't be impossible to do to some degree. That would allow for smaller end of line yards or fleet expansion beyond yard capacity.

Same thing with buses. We're told that the MBTA bus fleet is constrained by yard/garage capacity. Why not park a few in busways overnight?
Click to expand...

HelloBostonHi said:
I imagine it mostly comes to getting operators to the vehicles. Do operators just park around the stations all day? Especially for downtown stations I can't see that working great... And then at the end of their shifts they would have to be paid until they are returned to their starting station, which adds more deadhead pay
Click to expand...

In addition, trains parked in the stations would be an immediate road/"track" block to any work being done in the tunnels and stations. They are normally as clear as possible for overnight track work and system maintenance. Even with no revenue or non-revenue trains in the way, it's a very orchestrated performance each night to get the right materials, equipment, and personnel out and working in the very short amount of time they have to perform work...
 
A Green Line train split a switch ("stopped short") at Park Street at 10:15 tonight; service is suspended between Arlington and North Station. No injuries among the 7 on board. Early reports said derailment, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10159538626866259&id=18029071258

Temporary entrance looking better than most permanent MBTA entrances
Click to expand...


MBTA take note: you could have done a barebones treatment like this (new concrete floors, bright new lighting, new wiring via external conduit, clean new signage, OSHA-compliant handrails, etc...) 2 or 3 times over in the timeframe while we've been waiting for Peebles to get off his ass to build Parcel 13 at Hynes station. Seriously, the excuse of "we're not going to fix Hynes station because Parcel 13 is on its way" is total B.S. when we can see that something like this is worthwhile for a mere 12-18 months service life for this particular project. Let this be a benchmark for not allowing stations to degrade to a total state of decrepitness simply "because a future upgrade is planned at some unknown date."
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
MBTA take note: you could have done a barebones treatment like this (new concrete floors, bright new lighting, new wiring via external/protected electrical conduit, clean new signage, OSHA-compliant handrails, etc...) 2 or 3 times over in the timeframe while we've been waiting for Peebles to get off his ass to build Parcel 13 at Hynes station. Seriously, the excuse of "we're not going to fix Hynes station because Parcel 13 is on its way" is total B.S. when we can see that something like this is worthwhile for a mere 12-18 months service life for this particular project. Let this be a benchmark for not allowing stations to degrade to a total state of decrepitness simply "because a future upgrade is planned at some unknown date."
Click to expand...

By state and federal law, the MBTA is extremely limited as to what improvements can be made to non-accessible stations without triggering the requirement for accessibility modifications to be made during those improvements. If the work is less than 30% of the replacement cost of the station, the improvements themselves must meet accessibility codes; if it's over $100k, an accessible entrance must also be provided. If it's over 30% of the replacement cost, the whole facility must be renovated for accessibility. (See MAAB requirements; the 1990 MBTA Guide to Access has some old numbers but is very useful.) There is a specific exception allowing up to $500k in "general maintenance and on-going upkeep" for underground transit stations, provided the work does not involve the entrance.

What it takes to trigger accessibility modifications can be surprisingly small. The MBTA has been dilly-dallying for a while on dealing with the B and C surface stops - but whoops: " Throughout 2018-2019, the MBTA conducted track replacement along parts of the Green Line’s B and C branches. As part of that work, portions of the platforms were removed and replaced – motivating the need to make them accessible." Now, the MBTA has to make a dozen B and C stops accessible by about 2024. (In this case, it appears that poor planning meant that the accessibility requirement was not noticed until afterwards. For a normal station renovation, it would be determined in the course of planning and getting permits.)
 
The EGE said:
By state and federal law, the MBTA is extremely limited as to what improvements can be made to non-accessible stations without triggering the requirement for accessibility modifications to be made during those improvements. If the work is less than 30% of the replacement cost of the station, the improvements themselves must meet accessibility codes; if it's over $100k, an accessible entrance must also be provided. If it's over 30% of the replacement cost, the whole facility must be renovated for accessibility. (See MAAB requirements; the 1990 MBTA Guide to Access has some old numbers but is very useful.) There is a specific exception allowing up to $500k in "general maintenance and on-going upkeep" for underground transit stations, provided the work does not involve the entrance.

What it takes to trigger accessibility modifications can be surprisingly small. The MBTA has been dilly-dallying for a while on dealing with the B and C surface stops - but whoops: " Throughout 2018-2019, the MBTA conducted track replacement along parts of the Green Line’s B and C branches. As part of that work, portions of the platforms were removed and replaced – motivating the need to make them accessible." Now, the MBTA has to make a dozen B and C stops accessible by about 2024. (In this case, it appears that poor planning meant that the accessibility requirement was not noticed until afterwards. For a normal station renovation, it would be determined in the course of planning and getting permits.)
Click to expand...

I appreciate the background, but I am not sure that leaving Hynes as-is (including its lack of accessibility) for decades while waiting for Parcel 13 is at all an example of how things should go regardless of minimum legal compliance. Furthermore, this temporary Kendall headhouse has a fully functional elevator: basic can be accessible basic. Is it going to cost a bunch of money even for the most barebones of upgrades, yes. Is it the right thing to do in many cases, yes. To your points above, though, I don't doubt there are also some cases where the value math just doesn't work out (in which cases: fair enough). But the broader point is that "we can't" is a statement that should be scrutinized more often.

I know it's far from a perfect match, but the reason I chose to compare this Kendall example to Hynes is that they are both public/private partnerships where the private component was at risk of disrupting the public component. This (Kendall) is what it looks like to actually mitigate public disruption, and, yes, it costs money. I think the T needs to learn its lesson that private promises without $$ to back it up and/or time-bound commitment and accountability cannot be considered acceptable planning. Let the developer contribute financially to an offset (down the road) for a present-day interim solution if the developer's permanent solution is not ready in time for when an affected station needs upgrades (and I get that means the T would need to maintain buffer funding for such purposes); but don't just hinge all plans on empty promises and let 10+ years go by.
 
Last edited:
It's worth noting the timeline for Hynes. It was on the lower end of priority for GL subway stations because it's not a major transfer station, it's not super-high ridership, and it's a short trip on the 1 and 55 from accessible stations. (The only underground GL stations with lower ridership are Arlington [packaged with Copley], Prudential [packaged with 111 Huntington construction], Symphony [same timeline as Hynes], and Boylston [who knows]). Planning started in 2010 and took a while because of the MBTA's poor finances; when Parcel 13 was approved in 2015, construction was to begin in 2019. As of current, station renovation is to begin later this year if funding is arranged. So during the time the MBTA has had funding for non-emergency station improvements, it hasn't been worthwhile because construction has been imminent.

Re elevators: plunking a single elevator in an open plaza with known utilities for an already-accessible station is vastly different from adding 3 elevators (6 if they're permanent) in a constrained space under a 9-story building for a not-otherwise-accessible station.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
I imagine it mostly comes to getting operators to the vehicles. Do operators just park around the stations all day? Especially for downtown stations I can't see that working great... And then at the end of their shifts they would have to be paid until they are returned to their starting station, which adds more deadhead pay
Click to expand...

They should just take transit to all the sta---oh wait....😭
 
The EGE said:
It's worth noting the timeline for Hynes. It was on the lower end of priority for GL subway stations because it's not a major transfer station, it's not super-high ridership, and it's a short trip on the 1 and 55 from accessible stations. (The only underground GL stations with lower ridership are Arlington [packaged with Copley], Prudential [packaged with 111 Huntington construction], Symphony [same timeline as Hynes], and Boylston [who knows]). Planning started in 2010 and took a while because of the MBTA's poor finances; when Parcel 13 was approved in 2015, construction was to begin in 2019. As of current, station renovation is to begin later this year if funding is arranged. So during the time the MBTA has had funding for non-emergency station improvements, it hasn't been worthwhile because construction has been imminent.

Re elevators: plunking a single elevator in an open plaza with known utilities for an already-accessible station is vastly different from adding 3 elevators (6 if they're permanent) in a constrained space under a 9-story building for a not-otherwise-accessible station.
Click to expand...

EGE, you are doing an excellent job explaining why things are they way they are. That assures me there are good, smart people working hard to do the right thing, likely having made many of the best choices they could given the constraints they faced. It doesn't change, however, my strong feeling that Hynes has looked and performed unacceptably for 20 years. Please do not mistake me for being someone angry at or antagonistic toward the MBTA; to the contrary, since I care so much and want the T to be amazing, I keep my standards high and advocate for them to stretch their aspirations (I don't do that for people or organizations I don't care about ; ) ).
 
Last edited:
The EGE said:
Re elevators: plunking a single elevator in an open plaza with known utilities for an already-accessible station is vastly different from adding 3 elevators (6 if they're permanent) in a constrained space under a 9-story building for a not-otherwise-accessible station.
Click to expand...
I can't quite tell from the photos, but isn't that the same elevator that was there already? (And aren't they going to have to add another one now?)
 
ceo said:
I can't quite tell from the photos, but isn't that the same elevator that was there already? (And aren't they going to have to add another one now?)
Click to expand...

Assuming these 2019 plans are still accurate, the temporary headhouse has its own elevator separate from the old one:

1643176318686.png


The final configuration will have redundant elevators, two sets of stairs, and one escalator:
1643176624699.png


The outbound headhouse is also getting redundant elevators as part of the 325 Main Street (Google) project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top