General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Riverside said:
Given that they say "388 route miles, 650 track miles", I assume that they are counting each track as separate. Which I don't think is actually that disingenous -- wire cost is 1:1 per track mile (at least just in terms of the physical wire itelf), the catenary "poles" also increase in size and material if they cover multiple tracks, and the underlying electrical demand also increases with parallel tracks, since you can run that many more trains.
Click to expand...
Not really. For most out-in-the-open double-track OCS modern installations it's 1 pole overhanging both tracks, alternating sides of the ROW. Amtrak didn't significantly overbuild it when it did New Haven-Boston 25 years ago. There isn't a significant increase in catenary cost for double-track. And constant-tension catenary is a lot less visually intrusive with its structures than those giant old variable-tension towers you see across the New Haven Line and old Pennsy-instlall south-of-NYC NEC. You do need to have substations powered amply enough for 2 tracks, but they'd have to do that anyway for charging BEMU's saturating service on a DT corridor so ultimately the OCS is not bigly variable by track capacity.
Riverside said:
I haven't checked your cost figures for Caltrain, but honestly that sounds like it's probably exactly how they came to their cost estimate (for better or worse). Particularly in a verbal presentation, and one where they are explaining why they are forgoing plans for systemwide electrification in the inital build, saying "$27B" would imply a higher level of precision than is actually accurate, so rounding to "$30B" is more accurate overall.

That all being said, yes, using Caltrain figures is debatable, and it seems like there is a lot of a priori thinking going on.
Click to expand...
Caltrain electrification was a scandal it was so badly mismanaged. And you can't rely on that figure in a contextual vacuum because their whole "Modernization" project wadded up a lot of electrification-unrelated things into the project bucket, like grade crossing treatments and elimination and their disastrously scrapped custom PTC system. And they got absolutely fleeced on their vehicles because Stadler stuck Caltrain with all the financial risk for their invasive vehicle mods, and they took a complete bath on it (and still are, being on the hook for a bonkers $80M for a single 4-car BEMU demonstrator set for the Gilroy tail).
Riverside said:
I mean, I think there are pretty obvious drawbacks. It's not the overhead lines, it's the catenary poles every so many feet and the concrete used to hold them in place, and it's the disruption from construction, both in terms of the physical presence of equipment and in terms of the inevitable runoff.
Click to expand...
Did the NEC screech to a halt when Amtrak mass-erected 155 miles of cat supports over the course of 3-1/2 years? No. And they didn't impale themselves on environmental regs either despite much of the Shoreline in Connecticut being along waterfront estuaries and the straightaways in Massachusetts being heavily based on swamp embankments.
Riverside said:
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying it's a valid justification for not electrifying tracks through wetlands. Far from it: at this point, my heretical take is that we should radically de-emphasize EISs for mass transit projects. (Imagine debating whether to use water from a fire hose on particular corners of a burning house, since the water might damage priceless paintings inside. We must put out the fire, and so we must get people out of cars.)

But the potential impact on wetlands seems relatively easy to imagine; the answer isn't to deny that impact, but to acknowledge it and frame it against the harm of the no-build alternative.
Click to expand...
This isn't a wild speculative question. Those 155 miles of NEC Shoreline were EIS'ed in the modern era. Caltrain was EIS'ed in the modern era. Denver FasTracks was EIS'ed in the modern era. Numerous LRT systems were EIS'ed through wetlands in the modern era. Hell, NJ Transit did some fresh electrification extensions on the North Jersey Coast Line as late as 1988. We have the datasets on how much environmental regs dinged up those projects. It's not an onerous burden. Yes, they'll have to site the off-ROW substations in places where the wetlands ain't. But there's a few linear miles of 'wobble' in where a sub can be sited and still power its designated 30-mile track section, so even that costly item does not incur onerous EIS'ing challenges. We've done this...recently...and extensively even in this country. It's not a "Thar be dragons!" unknown to concern-troll about, though I know that's exactly what they're doing here.
 
My gut tells me they’re downplaying full electrification until they come up with a concrete plan of how to phase it into existence. Even if they’re overestimating the total cost of stringing up wires, it’s still a monumental task to do so systemwide. BEMU’s will have to be rolled out as an interim approach so they can at least attempt to meet the 2030 net zero baseline.
 
Alright, so just modeling out what BEMU vs electrification costs would look like, and the formula I have right now for fast-charging at the terminals is [(Round trip time*TPH*BEMU cost delta)+(Total charging time*TPH*BEMU cost)]/Electrification cost+Charging station cost/Electrification Cost. This take into account the BEMU premium for X number of trains running on a line given a length of time and desired frequency, and the number of extra trains required given an amount of charging time. So, with the numbers I could find, which are for Germany so double everything for US numbers. (haha jk... unless?):
  • BEMU cost premium is around $3m
  • Charging time at each end is around 20-30 minutes, I've estimated 45 minutes round trip.
  • BEMU cost of around $7m
  • Electrification cost of around $4m per mile
  • Charging stations run around $8m per, so 16m total.
That should allow us to evaluate if BEMUs would be worthwhile on a given line, assuming a maximum distance on battery of around 50 miles. For example, on the Fairmount Line which is scheduled to take 34 minutes round trip, with a target headway of let's just say 15 minutes for now (4 TPH), that puts the electrification break-even point at ≤9.5 miles. Therefore, since the Fairmount Line is 9.2 miles, electrifying it definitely makes sense. If we increase the number of TPH, the break-even point keeps going up. However, if we look at the Greenbush Line, which takes about 130 minutes round trip and let's aim for 15 minute headways again to be generous, the break-even point is ≤15 miles. Since the line is 27 miles long, electrifying it wouldn't make sense and BEMUs would be cheaper over the long run. (However, if we think that we need bigger trains on the Greenbush Line to handle to peak commuter loads, that pushes the BEMU premium up, and break-even moves. to ~20-25mi. At that point, electrification seems like a better bet.)

The one thing I'm aware of is station cost increases on short lines, where more than one train might need to be charging at once for example. That's very difficult to model so I'm probably just going to ignore it for now. Are there any other cost factors people think I should include?

Techno-Economic Assessment of Battery Electric Trains and Recharging Infrastructure Alternatives Integrating Adjacent Renewable Energy Sources and First Passenger Operation of a State-of-the-art Battery-Electric Multiple Unit (BEMU) in Germany.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Where the hell is that number pulled from? Firstly, 600 miles is not the length of the CR system, it's around 450. I have no idea how you get 600, that's way more than you could possibly have just in yards/depots. Maybe if you count each track as separate? That's more than a little disingenuous. Secondly, even if we take that 600 mile number at face value, and use the Caltrain Modernization program as our cost reference, which is absolutely insane and should not be the baseline since the project was generally mismanaged plus they got shafted on rolling stock costs, paying around 30% more compared to the MTA/LIRR for example, we still come out under $30 billion. (Not by much, it's around $27 billion, but still.) If we use the costs of the NE Corridor Electrification in 2000 as a baseline, we get $4.5 billion instead. Given the rolling stock procurement presumably the end result would be somewhere in the middle, I'd guess around $8-10 billion for the entire system.
Click to expand...
One of the slides explains the mileage number, which was 650. That is all track miles, not route miles (388). So they are saying $30 billion to string 650 miles of wire, which is what would be required for a non-hybrid approach. But the main reason that the cost per mile looks off is because you aren't using the time value of money in your calculations. The NEC numbers are essentially worthless without inflating them to 2025 dollars, and then you need to continue inflating them over the project timeline. So even the CalTrain figures are too low when you consider an inflation factor over the next 15 years. The $30 billion seems like a reasonable estimate to me when you include the full economic model.
 
HenryAlan said:
One of the slides explains the mileage number, which was 650. That is all track miles, not route miles (388). So they are saying $30 billion to string 650 miles of wire, which is what would be required for a non-hybrid approach. But the main reason that the cost per mile looks off is because you aren't using the time value of money in your calculations. The NEC numbers are essentially worthless without inflating them to 2025 dollars, and then you need to continue inflating them over the project timeline. So even the CalTrain figures are too low when you consider an inflation factor over the next 15 years. The $30 billion seems like a reasonable estimate to me when you include the full economic model.
Click to expand...
Even adjusted for inflation, Caltrain made much for electrification than Amtrak did for the NEC Shoreline. I can't how much electrification costs should scale with route miles vs track miles, but it's not hard to calculate both for these projects. Some quick numbers I scrounged up (feel free to correct any of them):
  • $2.44 billion for Caltrain to electrify 51 route miles (140 track miles) in 2025
  • $600 million for Amtrak to electrify 155 route miles (at least 310 track miles) starting in 1995
  • Inflation factor of 2.08 from 1995 to 2025 (much of Caltrain's work finished earlier and should have a lower inflation adjustment)
From this Caltrain spent roughly $47 million per route mile ($17.5 million per track mile) compared to Amtrak's $8 million per route mile ($4 million per track mile) in 2025 dollars. At Amtrak's prices and 25% inflation over the next ten years, electrification of the entire CR network would cost $3-4 billion.
 
BeansTheCat said:
Even adjusted for inflation, Caltrain made much for electrification than Amtrak did for the NEC Shoreline. I can't how much electrification costs should scale with route miles vs track miles, but it's not hard to calculate both for these projects. Some quick numbers I scrounged up (feel free to correct any of them):
  • $2.44 billion for Caltrain to electrify 51 route miles (140 track miles) in 2025
  • $600 million for Amtrak to electrify 155 route miles (at least 310 track miles) starting in 1995
  • Inflation factor of 2.08 from 1995 to 2025 (much of Caltrain's work finished earlier and should have a lower inflation adjustment)
From this Caltrain spent roughly $47 million per route mile ($17.5 million per track mile) compared to Amtrak's $8 million per route mile ($4 million per track mile) in 2025 dollars. At Amtrak's prices and 25% inflation over the next ten years, electrification of the entire CR network would cost $3-4 billion.
Click to expand...
Non-residential construction costs have escalated faster than general inflation. The multiplier from 1995 to 2025 is more like 3X
 
It makes me think there’s serious money to be made in government contracting like this. Obviously there are ridiculously hard aspects to it that escalate the cost. But some smart guy with a bunch of money should try to get some people together and bid way closer to the true cost.
 
Longfellow said:
It makes me think there’s serious money to be made in government contracting like this. Obviously there are ridiculously hard aspects to it that escalate the cost. But some smart guy with a bunch of money should try to get some people together and bid way closer to the true cost.
Click to expand...
Given that the rest of the world is in-process of electrifying new route miles pretty much 24/7/365 every single year, foreign bidders should be able to make hay with much better prices because of their incumbent scale doing cookie-cutter electrifications with all the usual (non- in real practice) challenges like bridge clearances and far-ish away feeder lines. I doubt that's how it's going to go, however. Bids that are tilted towards the usual-suspects U.S. engineering consultant conglomerates will achieve pretty much the same results of runaway cost inflation. If we're using Caltrain's mismanaged contractors-upon-contractors-upon-contractors boondoggle as the standard-bearer for cost estimates, we're going to get what we've always gotten. It doesn't have to be that way.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Given that the rest of the world is in-process of electrifying new route miles pretty much 24/7/365 every single year, foreign bidders should be able to make hay with much better prices because of their incumbent scale doing cookie-cutter electrifications with all the usual (non- in real practice) challenges like bridge clearances. I doubt that's how it's going to go, however. Bid that are tilted towards the usual-suspects U.S. engineering consultant conglomerates will achieve pretty much the same results of runaway cost inflation. If we're using Caltrain's mismanaged contractors-upon-contractors-upon-contractors boondoggle as the standard-bearer for cost estimates, we're going to get what we've always gotten. It doesn't have to be that way.
Click to expand...
Don't we need to include the Trump tariffs as part of the cost if we're taking anything foreign like from Canada or the EU? So that price advantage won't be so much of an advantage anymore.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Don't we need to include the Trump tariffs as part of the cost if we're taking anything foreign like from Canada or the EU? So that price advantage won't be so much of an advantage anymore.
Click to expand...
Major electrification of the T is not going to be initiated or completed in a Trump Administration at the rate they're hemming-and-hawing, so...in all practicality no, it's not a factor. It's unlikely that whoever gets elected in 2028 is going to have the semi-automatic aimed as squarely at foot on repeat as this current Administration is on tariffs, even if the '28 winner is a Republican. And the "Trump tariffs" are evolving and de-evolving on an almost daily basis as they Fuck Around and Find Out, so there's no figure you can reliably project on them today for expenses not starting until several years from now.

Again...there's (with inflation and track miles projection) a greater than $20B discrepancy between the largest modern-era 25 kV electrification in the United States and the scare quote the T's Commuter Rail czar just disingenuously puked out. Tariffs can't even begin to explain the size of that whopper.


EDIT: Also, tariffs wouldn't affect non-goods professional services like project management. There's no reason why electrification wouldn't be able to use good ol' U.S.-sourced steel for the cat towers and wire, and good ol' U.S.-sourced electrical components for the substations and lineside equipment while being managed by an experienced foreign vendor. 25 kV electrification is the most common railway electrification scheme in the whole world, with standardized parts available from dozens of countries and no need to sole-source anything. That shopping variety...and the ability to shop around per-country tariffs...is why 25 kV costs around the world generally scale so predictably pretty much anywhere but here. So steer clear of the slovenly usual-suspect U.S. engineering firms that have to hire 4 equally-slovenly subcontractor firms to screw in a light bulb in twice the time at 4x the cost, and get a professional services manager who does this every single day in some other country.
 
Last edited:
HenryAlan said:
One of the slides explains the mileage number, which was 650. That is all track miles, not route miles (388). So they are saying $30 billion to string 650 miles of wire, which is what would be required for a non-hybrid approach. But the main reason that the cost per mile looks off is because you aren't using the time value of money in your calculations. The NEC numbers are essentially worthless without inflating them to 2025 dollars, and then you need to continue inflating them over the project timeline. So even the CalTrain figures are too low when you consider an inflation factor over the next 15 years. The $30 billion seems like a reasonable estimate to me when you include the full economic model.
Click to expand...
One Billion Dollars gets you 21 miles of double catenary? Reasonable? On what world?
 
TheRatmeister said:
Seems like some of the old Chinatown station entrances might be getting reopened
Click to expand...
And this mosaic might actually become visible again, here's hoping they keep it
1739704169427.png
 
TheRatmeister said:
And this mosaic might actually become visible again, here's hoping they keep it
View attachment 60212
Click to expand...
These old mosaics are really great, and definitely should be salvaged -- in a transit museum.

They have no place in active transit stations, particularly when they refer to station names that no longer exist. This is the ultimate example of poor wayfinding for infrequent transit users (like our 1 million plus tourists!).
 
JeffDowntown said:
These old mosaics are really great, and definitely should be salvaged -- in a transit museum.

They have no place in active transit stations, particularly when they refer to station names that no longer exist. This is the ultimate example of poor wayfinding for infrequent transit users (like our 1 million plus tourists!).
Click to expand...
If the entrance has modern signage on the outside, I don't think it's a concern. This mosaic is above the Lagrange St entrance, which is definitely not the main entrance, so again I'm not super concerned about tourists being misled. I also think the mosaic style makes it reasonably clear that it's quite an old sign.

There is the mild concern about the station name, given that under that steel 'Essex' sign it probably actually says Boylston which is obviously a different station. But so long as the exterior is well-signed, and there's a heritage plaque visible, it's probably fine.
JeffDowntown said:
They have no place in active transit stations
Click to expand...
I'd also just like to call attention to this specifically. Transit should not just be functional, it should be interesting, even beautiful. There is a reason why, at least for me, using Forest Hills is a significantly better experience than Sullivan or Community College. The bare-concrete stations of the Haymarket North Extension, while certainly functional, are as soulless as they come. Leaving historic elements in places where they can be appreciated by everyone, not just nerds at a museum, goes a long way to making the station better. Yes there are wayfinding concerns that need to be managed, but it's not even unprecedented on the MBTA, the Scollay Under mosaics at Govy are also preserved, but we've added more modern signage. to avoid confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
TheRatmeister said:
If the entrance has modern signage on the outside, I don't think it's a concern. This mosaic is above the Lagrange St entrance, which is definitely not the main entrance, so again I'm not super concerned about tourists being misled. I also think the mosaic style makes it reasonably clear that it's quite an old sign.

There is the mild concern about the station name, given that under that steel 'Essex' sign it probably actually says Boylston which is obviously a different station. But so long as the exterior is well-signed, and there's a heritage plaque visible, it's probably fine.

I'd also just like to call attention to this specifically. Transit should not just be functional, it should be interesting, even beautiful. There is a reason why, at least for me, using Forest Hills is a significantly better experience than Sullivan or Community College. The bare-concrete stations of the Haymarket North Extension, while certainly functional, are as soulless as they come. Leaving historic elements in places where they can be appreciated by everyone, not just nerds at a museum, goes a long way to making the station better. Yes there are wayfinding concerns that need to be managed, but it's not even unprecedented on the MBTA, the Scollay Under mosaics at Govy are also preserved, but we've added more modern signage. to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...
People are definitely confused by the Scollay Under signs at Government Center -- they typically exist apart from modern signage. I have had to help tourists on the Blue Line realize that the stop was in fact Government Center. This is typical Boston arrogance that if you are not from here, you don't deserve to know how to navigate here.
 
JeffDowntown said:
People are definitely confused by the Scollay Under signs at Government Center -- they typically exist apart from modern signage. I have had to help tourists on the Blue Line realize that the stop was in fact Government Center. This is typical Boston arrogance that if you are not from here, you don't deserve to know how to navigate here.
Click to expand...
The obvious solution for historical signs like this is a plaque that says something like "This is a historical sign"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top