General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Legislative Agenda Includes Rail Electrification, Congestion Pricing, and Traffic Enforcement Cameras
ElectricTrainRendetring_creditStadtler-MBTA.png




“With the inauguration of Governor Maura Healey, who has promised to make transportation one of her top priorities, leaders on Beacon Hill see an opportunity to make headway.

Sen. Brendan Crighton, who was Senate chair of the joint transportation committee last session, is planning to try again on some legislation that’s been rebuffed in the past.

One is a bill that would set deadlines for the MBTA to phase out its diesel-powered commuter rail trains, calling for the entire system to be running on electricity by the end 2035.

It also sets out earlier deadlines and separate phases for individual lines which would kick the process off sooner. And it would require the commuter rail to meet specific frequencies as it’s electrifying its trains…”


“The bill is neutral on what technology the MBTA uses, but Crighton indicated that he’ll push the T to use proven technologies like overhead catenary wires, which power Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast Corridor trains, rather than the heavier battery-powered locomotives that T officials were eyeing during the Baker administration.”

“We know catenary will work,” Crighton said. “We can look at what's worked for hundreds of years and string up the catenary and get moving. I can’t predict what the future of battery technology is, but right now it’s not being used for systems like this..”

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/0...tion-pricing-and-traffic-enforcement-cameras/
 
stick n move said:
Legislative Agenda Includes Rail Electrification, Congestion Pricing, and Traffic Enforcement Cameras
ElectricTrainRendetring_creditStadtler-MBTA.png




“With the inauguration of Governor Maura Healey, who has promised to make transportation one of her top priorities, leaders on Beacon Hill see an opportunity to make headway.

Sen. Brendan Crighton, who was Senate chair of the joint transportation committee last session, is planning to try again on some legislation that’s been rebuffed in the past.

One is a bill that would set deadlines for the MBTA to phase out its diesel-powered commuter rail trains, calling for the entire system to be running on electricity by the end 2035.

It also sets out earlier deadlines and separate phases for individual lines which would kick the process off sooner. And it would require the commuter rail to meet specific frequencies as it’s electrifying its trains…”


“The bill is neutral on what technology the MBTA uses, but Crighton indicated that he’ll push the T to use proven technologies like overhead catenary wires, which power Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast Corridor trains, rather than the heavier battery-powered locomotives that T officials were eyeing during the Baker administration.”

“We know catenary will work,” Crighton said. “We can look at what's worked for hundreds of years and string up the catenary and get moving. I can’t predict what the future of battery technology is, but right now it’s not being used for systems like this..”

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/0...tion-pricing-and-traffic-enforcement-cameras/
Click to expand...

Unless I am missing a major part of this bill, I don't have any hopes here.. There's definitely some irony in this being posted directly after JeffDowntown's post about lack of funding tied to mandates.

It mandates MassDOT starts CONSTRUCTION (!) by November 1, 2023(!) - an insane deadline for any kind of construction project. Even if they magically determine a way to cancel x amount of projects in the pipeline to meet the mandates of this bill with their current CIP/TIP, the design phase (after procuring someone) would likely take much much longer, even if they went design-build. It also mandates that the MBTA operates electric trains on the Fairmont and Newbury/Rockport lines by the end of 2024, mandating a world-record breaking speed of design and procurement of brand new trains (unless, again, I'm missing something here), and again, with no funding attached.

If what I'm reading is correct, it'll be aggrevating to watch the bill's sponsors, and thereby the Globe's and Herald's headlines and interviews say "look, we told the T to do this and they failed!" and most won't look any further into it.
 
stefal said:
Unless I am missing a major part of this bill, I don't have any hopes here.. There's definitely some irony in this being posted directly after JeffDowntown's post about lack of funding tied to mandates.

It mandates MassDOT starts CONSTRUCTION (!) by November 1, 2023(!) - an insane deadline for any kind of construction project. Even if they magically determine a way to cancel x amount of projects in the pipeline to meet the mandates of this bill with their current CIP/TIP, the design phase (after procuring someone) would likely take much much longer, even if they went design-build. It also mandates that the MBTA operates electric trains on the Fairmont and Newbury/Rockport lines by the end of 2024, mandating a world-record breaking speed of design and procurement of brand new trains (unless, again, I'm missing something here), and again, with no funding attached.

If what I'm reading is correct, it'll be aggrevating to watch the bill's sponsors, and thereby the Globe's and Herald's headlines and interviews say "look, we told the T to do this and they failed!" and most won't look any further into it.
Click to expand...
The news article did mention the bill had been rebuffed in the past. I wonder if the deadlines were from when the bill was first presented (during the Baker administration?), and they'll adjust the deadlines this time.
 
stefal said:
Unless I am missing a major part of this bill, I don't have any hopes here.. There's definitely some irony in this being posted directly after JeffDowntown's post about lack of funding tied to mandates.

It mandates MassDOT starts CONSTRUCTION (!) by November 1, 2023(!) - an insane deadline for any kind of construction project. Even if they magically determine a way to cancel x amount of projects in the pipeline to meet the mandates of this bill with their current CIP/TIP, the design phase (after procuring someone) would likely take much much longer, even if they went design-build. It also mandates that the MBTA operates electric trains on the Fairmont and Newbury/Rockport lines by the end of 2024, mandating a world-record breaking speed of design and procurement of brand new trains (unless, again, I'm missing something here), and again, with no funding attached.

If what I'm reading is correct, it'll be aggrevating to watch the bill's sponsors, and thereby the Globe's and Herald's headlines and interviews say "look, we told the T to do this and they failed!" and most won't look any further into it.
Click to expand...

Reads like it was written by someone who has no idea how any of the details work. To be fair, while the specific dates are wildly unrealistic in and of themselves, that error is something that is easily fixed by legislative fiat (feels like the kind of thing that'd get modified after its first encounter with a committee that hears from anyone vaguely competent in transportation capital projects; also, it's hardly unheard of for bills to be introduced with ambitious deadlines knowing they'll be watered-down as part of the legislative process). But the scattershot mandating of specific lines really illustrates the lack of knowledge at work, given the thing would mandate electrification of (at least part of) the northside terminal district a full eleven years before the rest of the northside lines are required to be wired...or maybe they could use dual-modes...it's utterly unclear?

10 out of 10 for the basic goal, but minus several million points for utterly impossible execution.
 
The photoshopping of that electric train to look like an MBTA commuter train is so funny.
 
king_vibe said:
The photoshopping of that electric train to look like an MBTA commuter train is so funny.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's from the slide deck from the presentation of the T's EMU RFI to the board a couple years ago. I don't know if it's Stadler's work or not, but it's something. (I particularly like how literally zero effort was taken to make the T logos match the perspective, they're just copy-pasted.)
 
Brattle Loop said:
Reads like it was written by someone who has no idea how any of the details work. To be fair, while the specific dates are wildly unrealistic in and of themselves, that error is something that is easily fixed by legislative fiat (feels like the kind of thing that'd get modified after its first encounter with a committee that hears from anyone vaguely competent in transportation capital projects; also, it's hardly unheard of for bills to be introduced with ambitious deadlines knowing they'll be watered-down as part of the legislative process). But the scattershot mandating of specific lines really illustrates the lack of knowledge at work, given the thing would mandate electrification of (at least part of) the northside terminal district a full eleven years before the rest of the northside lines are required to be wired...or maybe they could use dual-modes...it's utterly unclear?

10 out of 10 for the basic goal, but minus several million points for utterly impossible execution.
Click to expand...
I can understand the frustration of politicians at the fact that nearly 4 years have passed without any significant action by the T.
 
JeffDowntown said:
This is the classic problem with an unfunded mandate.

The State rules that spending over a certain threshold triggers the requirement for full ADA compliance in the facility does not also come with a funding means to pay for the ADA compliance. So the T has to steal budget from other maintenance and capital work to cover the ADA compliance part. The big budget buster for most station upgrades is ADA compliance.

The stations need the ADA compliance. But if we were really serious about that need, the compliance regulation would also come with dedicated funding to complete the work -- not a perverse incentive to redirect maintenance and capital spending needed to keep the system running at all.
Click to expand...
And despite all this, I feel that the MBTA doesn't get nearly enough credit for the very real accessible station improvements made over the last 30 years. It has consistently been one of the biggest capital projects during that time, and nobody really notices, instead assuming the T isn't doing anything unless we see new colors or lines on the spider map.
 
HenryAlan said:
And despite all this, I feel that the MBTA doesn't get nearly enough credit for the very real accessible station improvements made over the last 30 years. It has consistently been one of the biggest capital projects during that time, and nobody really notices, instead assuming the T isn't doing anything unless we see new colors or lines on the spider map.
Click to expand...
The MBTA has done a lot to make many stations accessible.

I would argue though that all the unfunded mandate spending on accessibility is part of why the T is in such a maintenance backlog mess. They have deferred and shaved corners elsewhere to cover the extra costs of ADA every time they do anything significant to the old infrastructure.
 
stefal said:
Unless I am missing a major part of this bill, I don't have any hopes here.. There's definitely some irony in this being posted directly after JeffDowntown's post about lack of funding tied to mandates.

It mandates MassDOT starts CONSTRUCTION (!) by November 1, 2023(!) - an insane deadline for any kind of construction project. Even if they magically determine a way to cancel x amount of projects in the pipeline to meet the mandates of this bill with their current CIP/TIP, the design phase (after procuring someone) would likely take much much longer, even if they went design-build. It also mandates that the MBTA operates electric trains on the Fairmont and Newbury/Rockport lines by the end of 2024, mandating a world-record breaking speed of design and procurement of brand new trains (unless, again, I'm missing something here), and again, with no funding attached.

If what I'm reading is correct, it'll be aggrevating to watch the bill's sponsors, and thereby the Globe's and Herald's headlines and interviews say "look, we told the T to do this and they failed!" and most won't look any further into it.
Click to expand...

They are also asking for 4tph on the Worcester Line and 12!!! tph on fairmount and providence/NEC line. Is 12tph even possible with 100mph EMU's, interlaced with the acela's and northeast regionals?
 
Last edited:
Are they trying to kill the CR?

sneijder said:
They are also asking for 4tph on the Worcester Line and 8!!! tph on fairmount and providence/NEC line. Is 8tph even possible with 100mph EMU's, interlaced with the acela's and northeast regionals?
Click to expand...

4 tph is doable on the Worcester Line - after all they were doing that in 2019. More than that would be a stretch however.
 
jklo said:
Are they trying to kill the CR?



4 tph is doable on the Worcester Line - after all they were doing that in 2019. More than that would be a stretch however.
Click to expand...
I believe that only Canton Jct inwards would have 8 tph and Readville inwards is triple tracked. Amtrak very rarely has more than one train on that section at a time. If Needham is converted to OL, then 8 or even 12tph should be well within the capacity of the NEC
 
Tallguy said:
I believe that only Canton Jct inwards would have 8 tph and Readville inwards is triple tracked. Amtrak very rarely has more than one train on that section at a time. If Needham is converted to OL, then 8 or even 12tph should be well within the capacity of the NEC
Click to expand...
Assumedly, the Viaduct would be the pinch point
 
Is the MBTA simply not going to announce any Spring 2023 schedule changes?

Obviosuly if its going to stay the same, it could be assumed as such, but this is extremely unusual and might be unprecendented for the MBTA to have a quarterly service change with no service changes.

The winter schedules end March 11th, 2023.

It would be extremely untransparent and cumbersome to fitler through every single bus and subway route to check for any changes. This might as well be the worst way to hide a service cut, if there was a service cut, since there's no easy way to check. Right now, one must go through every single schedule and compare. There's no new downloadable schedule PDF, nothing. The only way to know of any changes is after TransitMatters refreshes the COVID-19 recovery dashboard after the fact, if there was any service changes.

1678314186488.png

1678314231915.png


Head to mbta.com/service-changes

....and, empty, dead silence of any service change March 12th, 2023.
1678314417640.png
 
This is the shortest notice that the MBTA has published a schedule change, being 2 full days before the schedule change (last fall was the Wed. before schedule change).

Here's a debunk of the MBTA's schedule changes:

Spring 2023 Service Changes | Previous Service Changes | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com

MBTA: "The Red Line will see departure time changes throughout the day on weekdays."

Each Red Line Branch will actually see 1 fewer weekday trip. Each branch drops from 83/84 to 82/83 weekday trips, respectively. A 1.2-1.3% service cut.

MBTA: "The Blue and Orange lines will see departure time changes throughout the day on weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday."

The Orange Line will see 4 fewer weekday trips, 125 -> 122 trips. a 2.4% service cut. Saturday and Sunday service will increase by 3 trips from 119/91 to 122/94 trips each, a 2.5 and 3.2% increase.

The Blue Line will see increase in service 7 days a week, from 169/120/108 to 173/129/124 trips, weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. A 2.3%, 7.5%, and 14.8% increase.

The MBTA also claims that 3 bus routes will see service increases, 1 with service decreases, and 27 with "departure time changes". In actuality?

Since the 34 and the SL3's changes only occur in 1 direction, it's not reflected in the total number of trips. For the 137 bus, this service increase is reflected, increasing service by 1 trip. (I evaluate service totals based on the direction with less service if each direction has differing number of trips on the schedule).

The 35's service cut only affected 1 direction with higher service, therefore, the service cut isn't reflected in the total number of trips.

Now the most egregous bit, bus routes with "departure time changes". How many bus routes saw service cuts but were not announced as such? 3 bus routes. The 90, 430, and 450 bus routes. Let's see how many service cuts the T implemented.

Route 90: Service decreases from 21 to 19 trips weekdays, a 9.6% service cut.
Route 411: The inbound direction only, loses 1 weekday trip, 20 -> 19 trips, a 2.5% service cut.
Route 430: Service decreases from 20 to 18 trips weekdays, a 10% service cut.
Route 450: Service decreases from 32 to 28 trips weekdays, a 13.5% service cut.

Therefore the following routes are all seeing reduced weekday service: Orange, Red, 35, 90, 411 (inbound only), 430, 450 lines.
This is a total of 7 routes, 2 subway routes and 5 bus routes (inbound only on 1 bus route).

And finally; an updated MBTA frequency map. Since Blue Line service levels have exceeded 121 trips on Sundays (increasing from 108 to 124 trips), therefore, the Blue Line will now be marked as a "Every 10 minutes or better" route, an upgrade from "Every 10-12 minutes". There were no other transit routes that crossed any other service threshold on Sundays.

This updated and revised MBTA frequency map will be effective for SPRING 2023. Commuter Rail schedules update in late Spring, as such, there may be changes then.
1678386759511.png
 
Last edited:
^^^^

Do you think it's because the MBTA simply doesn't have the employees?
 
And has anyone spoken to Canton about building a modern viaduct right next to the nearly 200 yr old historic structure?
 
Tallguy said:
And has anyone spoken to Canton about building a modern viaduct right next to the nearly 200 yr old historic structure?
Click to expand...
Given that there's houses snugly abutting one side of the structure, and a dam and a 3-way intersection snugly abutting the other...no.

But there wouldn't need to be. Up to 3 tracks can go right up through the station to the north approach, and 3-4 tracks to the south approach. A 1000 ft. squeeze-down to double-track is absolutely no constraint to dizzying midcentury traffic levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top