General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Brattle Loop said:
What even is this?

(And does it have anything to do with the stated desire for Commuter Rail storage at Widett?)
Click to expand...
What that is is the official order of taking for the entire Widett Circle site, as the sum of its fractured individual parcels, from its current owners - I've attached the underlying document below, but yea - the T now has fee simple title to the land to do with as it pleases, presumably for that CR storage. Signed by Gonneville a few days ago, and the land court stamp says March 29 so it just happened to work through the system today.
 

Attachments

  • Widett Order of Taking.pdf
    929.3 KB · Views: 139

MBTA completes purchase of Widett Circle, plans for old meatpacking district to become a railyard
The $255 million deal caps a saga that stretches back to Boston’s ill-fated bid to host the 2024 Olympics
By Jon Chesto Globe Staff,Updated April 12, 2023, 5:42 a.m.


1681306439110.png
 
shmessy said:

MBTA completes purchase of Widett Circle, plans for old meatpacking district to become a railyard
The $255 million deal caps a saga that stretches back to Boston’s ill-fated bid to host the 2024 Olympics
By Jon Chesto Globe Staff,Updated April 12, 2023, 5:42 a.m.


View attachment 36436
Click to expand...

Hey this is good news! MBTA needs space and rail yards to improve their infrastructure and get back on track. I am all for this.
 
Massachoicetts said:
Hey this is good news! MBTA needs space and rail yards to improve their infrastructure and get back on track. I am all for this.
Click to expand...

I think this is good news too. I can envision a Hudson Yards type of air-rights development if it's done correctly. A stadium or other structure still isn't out of the question at this location that's so close to downtown. However, it's probably YEARS away from any meaningful development besides the rail yard.
 
The deed I posted was only one piece of the puzzle so I apologize. It wasn't clear that the deal had been consummated since there was no deed with actual dollars filed yesterday or today. The "order of taking" apparently does the same thing. It's not clear how anyone knows how much was actually spent on the purchase. Jon Chesto's article doesn't specify. I know the T sent out a press release on the transfer but I don't know if it had dollar amounts.

I said it was $155 million but it was apparently $255 million. The seller purchased the parcels in 2020 for something like $155 million, so a good return on the investment lol. That transaction in 2020 also didn't show up on the registry's website as the transaction was processed as a change to the LLC and not a purchase. Tricky, I think. They don't have to pay transfer taxes on the sale then. (Some of the parcels are 121A so they are tax-exempt anyway, making it more complicated.)

There was a filing yesterday of a "Termination" of an agreement between the BRA and the sellers. And, the deed that was filed, from the sellers to the BRA for $1 that I posted. I would love if there was a story there, something about perhaps yesterday's sellers having signed some sort of agreement to purchase the BRA's land or something like that but I don't know.

Oh, and this deal was not well-liked by Streetsblog and Transit Matters who both think it will preclude using the area for anything but storage.
 
JohnAKeith said:
The deed I posted was only one piece of the puzzle so I apologize. It wasn't clear that the deal had been consummated since there was no deed with actual dollars filed yesterday or today. The "order of taking" apparently does the same thing. It's not clear how anyone knows how much was actually spent on the purchase. Jon Chesto's article doesn't specify. I know the T sent out a press release on the transfer but I don't know if it had dollar amounts.

I said it was $155 million but it was apparently $255 million. The seller purchased the parcels in 2020 for something like $155 million, so a good return on the investment lol. That transaction in 2020 also didn't show up on the registry's website as the transaction was processed as a change to the LLC and not a purchase. Tricky, I think. They don't have to pay transfer taxes on the sale then. (Some of the parcels are 121A so they are tax-exempt anyway, making it more complicated.)

There was a filing yesterday of a "Termination" of an agreement between the BRA and the sellers. And, the deed that was filed, from the sellers to the BRA for $1 that I posted. I would love if there was a story there, something about perhaps yesterday's sellers having signed some sort of agreement to purchase the BRA's land or something like that but I don't know.

Oh, and this deal was not well-liked by Streetsblog and Transit Matters who both think it will preclude using the area for anything but storage.
Click to expand...

Yes, for a railyard this seems to be a huge swath of very valuable land close in to an extremely in-demand city. This made sense when Boston was a backwater (North Station, Allston Railyard, etc) I hope this is a placeholder, for now and that, long-term, we get the g'damn NSRL, the MBTA builds railyards further out from the city and then flip this land for billions to urban developers (to pay for the help pay for NSRL, - - along with beneficial stakeholders like Amtrak, DC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, NH and ME) .
 
Last edited:
As I wrote elsewhere: Widett Circle is a terrible place for any useful development. It's cut off by an elevated highway on one side, and rail lines and industrial parcels on the other. There's not a walkable or bus-friendly street grid to connect to. It's a minimum half mile walk to the Red Line. There's a reason it's never been anything but industrial.
 
The MBTA has quietly updated transit schedules on the Red Line and Orange Lines to reflect the slow zones. This may have been done a bit earlier then when I am making this post, as I had previously assumed the paper schedules in the GTFS file weren't going to be updated to reflect slow zones

There are new changes I will have to reflect on my MBTA frequency map. (Previous update)

These only impact the paper schedules in the GTFS file. There were no actual changes to subway service, as the changes had previously gone into effect on March 9th, 2023 with the slow zones issued in place.

Orange Line service (number of trips):
* Weekday: 122 -> 100
* Saturday: 122 -> 106
* Sunday: 94 -> 80

Red Line (number of trips Ashmont/Braintree):
* Weekday: 83/82 -> 64/63
* Saturday: 73/72 -> 54/53
* Sunday: 70/69 -> 52/51

There were no changes to paper schedules for the Green or Blue lines. Unfortuantely, due to these changes, the MBTA frequency map will be updated one more time to reflect this change

I have updated the MBTA frequency map to reflect the following changes:

1. Due to the Orange Line's Sunday service falling below 81 scheduled trips (94 -> 80), I have to cut the Orange Line frequency from "Every 12 - 15 minutes" to "Every 15 - 20 minutes".
2. Due to the Red Line's Sunday service dropping below 61 scheduled trips (69 -> 51), I have to cut Red Line branches from "Every 15 - 20 minutes" to "Every 20 - 30 minutes".
3. The Red Line trunk drops from 139 trips to 103 trips. This drops below the 10 minute threshold (121 trips), but remains above the 12 minute threshold (101 trips). Therefore, frequency is cut from "10 minutes or better" to "Every 10 - 12 minutes".

1681348411037.png


Yes, unfortuantely, I WILL update the Boston vs. Amsterdam public transit maps. Stay tuned, I will have updated comparison maps for review shortly. I will post again with the updated Boston/Amsterdam maps for review & comparison.

This came a bit of a poor timing, since I didn't believe the schedules for the MBTA slow zone subway lines would be refreshed a second time this spring. Normally, MBTA only updates bus and subway schedules once every 3 months, aside from diversions. Updated Amsterdam vs. Boston maps, with granular detail, incoming.

UPDATE: The updated comparison maps have been done, scroll to see the new changes: (Individual frames)

https://imgur.com/a/d6TERUJ
 
Last edited:
The EGE said:
As I wrote elsewhere: Widett Circle is a terrible place for any useful development. It's cut off by an elevated highway on one side, and rail lines and industrial parcels on the other. There's not a walkable or bus-friendly street grid to connect to. It's a minimum half mile walk to the Red Line. There's a reason it's never been anything but industrial.
Click to expand...

I agree with your general point.

With that said, Dot Ave is going through redev pretty fast and pretty much none of that industrial on the east side of the tracks is likely to stay long-term. Much of what's industrial/vacant there now already has active redev plans.

Still doesn't provide any obvious way to really integrate Widett Circle as some kind of air-rights/decking development, though. Especially with it not just being yards, but maintenance facilities + other actual objects that are in the way.
 
Hi folks, I am trying to find out more about the history of previous attempts to improve transit to Lynn, especially via a Blue Line extension. I was reading through the Draft North Shore Transit Improvements Project-Major Investment Study from 2004 (which took some digging to find!) and came across this reference:

"Areas from Salem north are better served by improved access to Boston through upgrades to the existing commuter rail system. Lack of highway access for areas from Salem south suggests an investment in a high-density type of transit service. Because of these differing needs and associated solutions, two parallel evaluation processes were established. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared for the southern Revere to Salem Corridor."

I've been looking all over the internet for this DEIS and can't seem to find it anywhere. There are references in the federal register and other places, but not the thing itself.

I was able to find the scoping doc that launched the DEIS, which is very cool: https://ia904505.us.archive.org/28/...Shore Transit Improvements Scoping_Report.pdf

Does anyone know where I might find the actual DEIS though?
 
michaelw37 said:
Hi folks, I am trying to find out more about the history of previous attempts to improve transit to Lynn, especially via a Blue Line extension. I was reading through the Draft North Shore Transit Improvements Project-Major Investment Study from 2004 (which took some digging to find!) and came across this reference:

"Areas from Salem north are better served by improved access to Boston through upgrades to the existing commuter rail system. Lack of highway access for areas from Salem south suggests an investment in a high-density type of transit service. Because of these differing needs and associated solutions, two parallel evaluation processes were established. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared for the southern Revere to Salem Corridor."

I've been looking all over the internet for this DEIS and can't seem to find it anywhere. There are references in the federal register and other places, but not the thing itself.

I was able to find the scoping doc that launched the DEIS, which is very cool: https://ia904505.us.archive.org/28/items/north-shore-transit-improvements-scoping-report/North Shore Transit Improvements Scoping_Report.pdf

Does anyone know where I might find the actual DEIS though?
Click to expand...
@F-Line to Dudley and/or @The EGE might know.
 
Jahvon09 said:
The MBTA is operating dangerously & recklessly!!!!!!!!


commonwealthmagazine.org

T officials disclose 4 ‘near misses’ in subway

MBTA OFFICIALS on Thursday disclosed a series of safety incidents over the last month, including four “near misses” involving subway trains and track
commonwealthmagazine.org commonwealthmagazine.org
Click to expand...
In the same time frame, the roads of Massachusetts killed 30 people (as they did the month before, and the month before that) and nobody will write a report or suspend service.
 
king_vibe said:
In the same time frame, the roads of Massachusetts killed 30 people (as they did the month before, and the month before that) and nobody will write a report or suspend service.
Click to expand...
Thanks, we need to keep pointing this out. Driving is significantly more dangerous than even problematic transit. It just doesn't get the headlines, because America is addicted to traveling in private, over sized cages.
 
HenryAlan said:
Thanks, we need to keep pointing this out. Driving is significantly more dangerous than even problematic transit. It just doesn't get the headlines, because America is addicted to traveling in private, over sized cages.
Click to expand...
I agree with this point 99% of the time. That being said, from the CW article:
The near misses were all described as “human capital errors,” situations where workers were fixing track and a train came too close to them. In some of the situations, workers appeared to be at fault, failing to get permission to work in a specific area. In other instances, trains failed to obey a stop signal or arrived unexpectedly at a work area.
...
Another incident occurred March 20 on a commuter rail train operating on the Providence Line. The train left South Station with a handbrake engaged on the last car. The situation was not discovered until the train reached Wickford Junction in Rhode Island. The train had to be pulled out of service and the wheels on the last car had to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Automobile traffic is statistically much more dangerous than commonly realized, because we simply take it (and the resulting injuries and deaths) for granted.

It is also true that the current state of the T is continuing to reveal itself to be more and more worse than we had been lead to believe. I believe the automobile fatality crisis is real and severe, and I also believe that basing a comparison on the number of driving deaths vs MBTA deaths ultimately can only understate the severity of the crisis at the T.

To be honest, I don't see any other way to describe a train driver that fails to obey a stop signal as anything but dangerous and reckless behavior.
king_vibe said:
In the same time frame, the roads of Massachusetts killed 30 people (as they did the month before, and the month before that) and nobody will write a report or suspend service.
Click to expand...
I'll be pedantic here: reports were probably written for each and every one of those deaths, issued by the responding police department. And at least some of those deaths surely resulted in a suspension of service, in that the responsible driver would be barred from driving temporarily or permanently by loss of license. Driving fatalities are relatively transparent, in that the system conditions are visible to everyone and the responsibilities (and culpabilities) of individual drivers are relatively clearly defined. The systemic problems are known and broadly understood, even if there is not sufficient consensus to correct them.

The situation at the T is different. The conditions of the system are not visible to everyone -- we still don't know how much repair work is needed to address the widespread slow zones; the culpabilities of individuals are not clearly defined and what's more it is by now absolutely clear that a number of the T's problems must be systemic (not traceable to any one individual), but the nature of those problems is still a mystery to everyone outside the T -- and I would guess not well understood within the T either.

Sorry for the rant. To be clear, like I said, I agree that the automobile fatality crisis is vastly underreported and underappreciated. I also feel that it's ultimately apples and oranges to compare it to the T. And while I disagree with posting broad, unnuanced takes about the T "operating dangerously and recklessly", I do ultimately agree that, yes, there are aspects of the T's conduct today that appears dangerous and reckless.
 
Java King said:
I think this is good news too. I can envision a Hudson Yards type of air-rights development if it's done correctly. A stadium or other structure still isn't out of the question at this location that's so close to downtown. However, it's probably YEARS away from any meaningful development besides the rail yard.
Click to expand...

Revs stadium with an electrified shuttle from south station when?
 
Riverside said:
I agree with this point 99% of the time. That being said, from the CW article:

Automobile traffic is statistically much more dangerous than commonly realized, because we simply take it (and the resulting injuries and deaths) for granted.

It is also true that the current state of the T is continuing to reveal itself to be more and more worse than we had been lead to believe. I believe the automobile fatality crisis is real and severe, and I also believe that basing a comparison on the number of driving deaths vs MBTA deaths ultimately can only understate the severity of the crisis at the T.

To be honest, I don't see any other way to describe a train driver that fails to obey a stop signal as anything but dangerous and reckless behavior.

I'll be pedantic here: reports were probably written for each and every one of those deaths, issued by the responding police department. And at least some of those deaths surely resulted in a suspension of service, in that the responsible driver would be barred from driving temporarily or permanently by loss of license. Driving fatalities are relatively transparent, in that the system conditions are visible to everyone and the responsibilities (and culpabilities) of individual drivers are relatively clearly defined. The systemic problems are known and broadly understood, even if there is not sufficient consensus to correct them.

The situation at the T is different. The conditions of the system are not visible to everyone -- we still don't know how much repair work is needed to address the widespread slow zones; the culpabilities of individuals are not clearly defined and what's more it is by now absolutely clear that a number of the T's problems must be systemic (not traceable to any one individual), but the nature of those problems is still a mystery to everyone outside the T -- and I would guess not well understood within the T either.

Sorry for the rant. To be clear, like I said, I agree that the automobile fatality crisis is vastly underreported and underappreciated. I also feel that it's ultimately apples and oranges to compare it to the T. And while I disagree with posting broad, unnuanced takes about the T "operating dangerously and recklessly", I do ultimately agree that, yes, there are aspects of the T's conduct today that appears dangerous and reckless.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what world you’re living in, but you can kill someone with your car and be back on the road the next day and the street will only be closed long enough to hose the blood off.
 
Riverside said:
I'll be pedantic here: reports were probably written for each and every one of those deaths, issued by the responding police department. And at least some of those deaths surely resulted in a suspension of service, in that the responsible driver would be barred from driving temporarily or permanently by loss of license. Driving fatalities are relatively transparent, in that the system conditions are visible to everyone and the responsibilities (and culpabilities) of individual drivers are relatively clearly defined. The systemic problems are known and broadly understood, even if there is not sufficient consensus to correct them.
Click to expand...
I know this is a MBTA forum but driving fatalities are not transparent though. We continually make news reports with headlines like “Car collides with pedestrian in fatal accident” signifying that it was an unavoidable reality of cars and driving. These are not accidents and not committed by a car, they’re made by drivers and could’ve been preventable. We obfuscate fault away from drivers and get them back on the road as soon as possible unless there’s alternative factors like being an unregistered vehicle (or person). We do away with the transparency when we cover up the factors of traffic collisions and violence with language like that.

To bring it back to the T, we hold our public transportation to such high standards of safety that we have this much outrage towards close calls where nobody was actually hurt, and that’s a good thing. Everyone using, operating, and maintaining our transit should be entirely aware of the safety measures taken and the T has failed to do that. But this is something everyone knows due to the reporting on it. What they don’t know is the preventable dangers everyone is put in by almost every factor surrounding automobiles.

And that is the important comparison here to be made to the T’s safety and reporting on it. Safety is so important so why do we criticize something, rightfully, for potential dangers while letting known and anctive auto-related dangers go largely unaddressed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top