General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Mattapan High Speed Line might be shitcanned:

4cnCz6k.png
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Lame. Lame. Lame. Lame. Lame.

That is my purely subjective response.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

When has the MBTA ever saved money through a capital project? You'd have to pave the tracks and convert the loop at Ashmont to accommodate buses. You'd have to convert the Mattapan storage yard to some kind of bus maintenance facility. Yeah I'm sure that project would be on time and on budget...
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

If this is a serious proposal then I think we are starting to see what Governor Baker and the administration is truly up to. They are not planning to fix the T but to gut the T.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

The Mattapan trolley has very low ridership according to the 2014 Blue Book. Why keep throwing money at repairing antique trolleys that don't serve many people, especially with everyone all up in arms about the petty costs of the (projected-to-be much higher ridership) GLX?

MATTAPAN 1,504
Capen St 58
Valley Rd 44
Central Ave 521
Milton 240
Butler 143
Cedar Grove 91
Ashmont 2,036 Trolley

The solution for Mattapan might just be to get new trolleys, not buses.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

How's Blue Hill Ave Station going?

EDIT: Apparently it is now scheduled to open next year.

This should be a prerequisite for any downgrade in service on the Mattapan trolley.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Yeah, they float that idea about once a decade. And then their ears start bleeding from the screams of unified Milton opposition. And then somebody actually pulls out a calculator and ballparks the cost of paving that thing into a busway vs. keeping it as-is and snorts "Yeah, no...we can't sell that turkey."

And then nobody hears another peep until it's whispered again the next decade.



The PCC's do need to be replaced sooner than later, not so much because of their condition (far better than most lines) but because there's too little in-house knowledge left on how to service them thanks to early retirements.

They're not without options once they exhale and realize "oh, that busway idea is just as idiotic as it was 10 years ago."

  • Every Mattapan station except for Valley Rd. (ADA-exempt because of the steep staircases) has front door mini-high platforms with bridge plates for making high-floor cars 100% accessible.
  • The Ashmont Branch electrical feed, which Mattapan siphons off of, has to get upgraded for the new Red cars. So it will be able to handle the draw from an LRV by the time a fleet decision has to be made.
  • The Ashmont station reconstruction fixed the weakest bridge on the line preventing any future LRV usage. Most of the other small ones have gotten SGR renewal in the last 10 years. If *any* still have posted weight limits, it's down to the last/smallest 1 or 2 remainders.
You can absolutely truck some Type 7's down there, swap their pantographs for trolley poles, re-equip the maint shed at Mattapan, retire the Mattapan-end loop for a stub-end, and run a fully ADA-compliant line. Probably on fewer cars because of the much greater seating capacity.

Is that an everlasting solution? No. Eventually the 7's are going to go by the boards and you've got another set of yard, etc. upgrades to do to get the next-most recent not-Breda thing down there. And flatbedding to Riverside for any moderate-or-better maintenance is a pain. The permanent fix is eventually going to have to be real Red one of these decades.

But is that good enough to net another stable dozen years of SGR on the line while they've got many, many more pressing issues to tend to elsewhere? Yeah, probably.

Is that cheaper than trotting out this transparently disingenuous busway turkey yet again? By a mile.

Is this a bunch of posturing to confuse separate SGR issues in a lump? You bet.




The truly terrifying unfunded vehicle procurement is the next commuter rail purchase: all 200 single-level coaches and all 45 remaining legacy locomotives converge on one 2020-22 projected retirement singularity.

  • CR employees are apoplectic today about the fast-deteriorating condition of the ancient GP40MC's, 12-15 of which have to remain because the new locomotives are only enough to retire half of them. You're looking at fleet uptimes becoming just as awful as the mercifully-retired Screamers.
  • Every other user of similar Pullman/Bombardier single-level coaches (Metro North + NJ Transit + ConnDOT + AMT) has committed to aggressively retiring their full fleets to go 100% bi-level. Meaning the cost-effectiveness of attempting a rebuild is going to crater. Vendors won't put in good bids for the overhaul work because nobody will be using those car types and all the competitive bidding now is for rebuilds of earlier-gen bi-levels. And parts supply is going to be a problem near the end of that rebuild lifespan with no one else using it. Rebuild instead of new is something they do out of desperation, knowing they'll be sacked for a loss on total cost of ownership.
  • The F40PH-2C locomotives are still the most widely-used passenger loco in North America and actively being rebuilt. Somewhat more flexible options for those 35 units. But at a performance price...the T has outgrown the 3000 HP standard that's hauled them for the last 38 years. They just aren't enough anymore for pulling a six-pack of overstuffed bi-levels at rush hour without wheezing. They had/have to transition to brawnier power just like Metro North did 15 years ago when diesel territory got too demanding, and like NJT has been actively transitioning over the past 5 years. The -2C's are nearly half the fleet. Forget about being able to hide them from the busiest slots, and forget about being able to have a Providence Line schedule predicated on 90 MPH speeds when the wimpier engines could draw the assignment at any time. Great locomotives...they'll be running with somebody else for 15 more years as fresh rebuilds when the T is done with them. But that's another sack for a loss if they have to get backed into rebuilding obsolete old because they can't fund their own fleet management plan.
^There's^ yer panic time. But hey...name-drop a bunch of other nonsense to divide attention spans and maybe it'll stay out of the papers that last winter is going to repeat itself again...and again, and again...for commuter rail riders if they don't come up with almost a couple $B for 250 pieces of new equipment--ink dried on the contracts by FY18--so the new stuff is in-service by '23 when the old junk is 80% dead.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

In response to F-line's post about the commuter rail's cars, it is bad, but not as apocalyptic as F-Line implies. Due to the roughly $200 million or so that the MBTA saved with the red/orange car replacement, the MBTA was supposed to (or did?) order 75 bilevel coaches to make a dent in the 200 single level coach mega order replacement. Additionally, we do not know if the MBTA will replace every single level with a bilevel. If the MBTA goes "we just have enough to get to replace the current number of seats, not cars", they will order about 1/3 to 1/2 less bilevels to replace the single levels. For the locomotives, that is an unavoidable expensive order (the last order was $222 m for 40).

On the bright side, this is slowly chipping away at the $7.3 billion SGR backlog. Does anyone know of a breakdown on what makes up that number? I've been searching for a budget of what exactly determines it but I have not been able to find it - if it exists.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

The subway/light rail/bus fleet plan that was presented to the control board is here:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/A...Presentation - Updated Version RevF-Final.pdf

What to do about the PCC fleet was just a part of the discussion, and replacing with electric buses is just one option. Running any type of articulated car there would require a new carhouse. There is a large gas main that prevents extending the existing pits at the existing small facility to a length longer than a PCC car and it only has small hoists to lift one end of a PCC to replace a truck. You need a full lift for an articulated car or else risk major damage to the articulation everytime you lift up one end of the car. There is plenty of room at Codman Yard however to build a small light rail carhouse.

This same discussion came up around 1996-97, and the solution at that time was to rebuild the cars yet again. It is however difficult to find parts for the cars, 3 of the 10 cars are out of service long term for parts including trucks, accelerator drums, and motor generators for the low-voltage power. El Paso just awarded a contract to rebuild 6 PCC cars built in 1937 that have been in storage since 1974 for a new line:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...restore-modernize-el-paso-pcc-streetcars.html
While the 1937 carbodies are being restored, these cars are getting all new mechanical equipment including new trucks and solid state controls. If the Mattapan cars go through yet another rebuild, the focus will have to be on a complete mechanical change out to parts that are cheaper/easier to get.

There are other big issues that need to be decided this year:
-Whether or not the 86 #3 Red Line cars will be rebuilt or replaced. They have stainless-steel carbodies that are in excellent condition, but the electrical system is obsolete, a GE system that is hard to get parts for. If they can get 86 more cars from CRRC at the same price as the 132 Red/152 Orange that are now under construction, it will probably make sense to buy new vs rebuild.

-Finding a $Billion to buy 220 Type 10s to replace the Type 7 and Type 8 fleets will need to be discussed. The 24 car Type 9 order does have an option for 30 more cars. If it seems unrealistic that money will be found to buy 220 cars anytime soon, look for them to consider picking up the 30 car option and spending more money than they would like on Type 8 component replacement/overhaul to hold things over.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

BuilditDenser said:
In response to F-line's post about the commuter rail's cars, it is bad, but not as apocalyptic as F-Line implies. Due to the roughly $200 million or so that the MBTA saved with the red/orange car replacement, the MBTA was supposed to (or did?) order 75 bilevel coaches to make a dent in the 200 single level coach mega order replacement. Additionally, we do not know if the MBTA will replace every single level with a bilevel. If the MBTA goes "we just have enough to get to replace the current number of seats, not cars", they will order about 1/3 to 1/2 less bilevels to replace the single levels. For the locomotives, that is an unavoidable expensive order (the last order was $222 m for 40).

On the bright side, this is slowly chipping away at the $7.3 billion SGR backlog. Does anyone know of a breakdown on what makes up that number? I've been searching for a budget of what exactly determines it but I have not been able to find it - if it exists.
Click to expand...

No. The +75 option order on the Rotems, which would've pushed that total fleet size to 150, was passed on because of their reliability problems. Had that happened they would've been in a lot better shape, been able to retire one of the classes of Bombardier cars, and had a third fewer total cars converging on that 2020 target. As it stands it's 203 single-levels:

  • 58 Pullman BTC-1C trailers; built 1978, remanufactured 1996
  • 40 Bombardier BTC-1A trailers; built 1987, never rebuilt
  • 52 Bombardier BTC-1B trailers; built 1989, never rebuilt
  • 52 Bombardier CTC-1B cab cars; built 1989, never rebuilt
Last edition of the fleet management plan called for the Pullmans to last the longest, past 2020, because that '96 remanufacture was a "like-new" gutting. The oldest flats are ironically the "newest". The Bombardiers got minor refreshes during the '08-09 Crash Safety and Reliability Program (CRASP) upgrades that extends their probable lifespan another 5 years or so beyond those now-outdated charts in the fleet plan. Another round of CRASP-level refreshing on them is now non-optional, because a new procurement funded in FY16 won't net a contract inked any earlier than 2017 won't net a replacement fleet fully in-service or Bombers retired before 2023. Move outward accordingly with each year's slip in that schedule. Since these are still chugging along in 1987-89's factory configuration without a major midlife overhaul along the way, there's only so much you can milk out of the diminishing returns of a new mini-refresh every 5 to try to wring another 3-5 life extension out of them. Starts to become the sort of losing battle Red and Orange are going to have to fight the next 4 years to keep those fleets going while they wait for the new cars. So will not be a pretty sight on the Purple Line during the arse-end of the wait for new equipment if we've churned through FY2019 before enough of a down payment has been programmed to bid out a new procurement.




Locomotives...better options available because F40PH-2C's are actively being rebuilt like-new and there are competitive bids to be had for an overhaul of those units. If they want to rationalize the deviation from the moar horsepower gameplan. But they're between rock and hard place with the GP40's. They were built in 1973 as freight units, rebuilt in '96 with Frankenstein mods that never worked right to remake them passenger units, overhauled again 5 years ago. They're cooked. And the national numbers of them in passenger service has dwindled from >150 to <60 (half of them NJ Transit) in the span of about 7 years...so they're not just cooked, they're nearly extinct in the wild. More rent-a-wrecks are always an option; there'll be more of those hitting the leaser aftermarket as other agencies ditch their old stuff. But it's not enough band-aids to cover for 15 units that'll have to keep running past their 50th birthday if programmed funds don't hit the CIP in the next 48 months. Something brand new has to get purchased, even if it's a small order to buy them time for a big order.


It's not that these cars are bad. Excepting the mangled FrankenGeeps, it's some of the best and most lifetime-reliable commuter rail equipment ever purchased. Everybody used "Comet"-class Pullman and Bombardier coaches for 4 decades. Everyone still uses 2nd-generation F40's. They've had an outstanding service life, and have held up better than anyone could've predicted. But it's an unfortunate confluence of events:

  • Too many extended-lifespan retirement dates lining up in the same calendar range through coincidence.
  • Rotems being "Brokems" and not being able to get the extra 75 bi-levels.
  • The max-size HSP-46 order awkwardly splitting the GP40 fleet and leaving some unable to be retired. 40 new locos was expensive, 55+ new locos in one shot was never doable.
  • Ongoing mass retirements of everybody else's single-level coaches suddenly evaporating the bid market for putting the Bombardiers through a thorough midlife rebuild at acceptable price point.
  • Only so much each additional round of mini-refreshes can do to stretch out the single-levels for another 3-5 years here/there.
  • Unlike the Midwest/West and Canada which are awash in good-condition secondhand low-boarding bi-levels for resale/rebuild, East Coast bi's are all newer and still with their original buyers. No secondhands or rebuilds available from anyone for at least another 10 years.
  • The horsepower dilemma with the F40PH-2C's making rebuild--a no-brainer for most midsize agencies--a diminishing-returns concern for the agency's needs. Albeit one they may have to engage out of necessity.
  • Shit hitting the fan in every other sector of T-world doing what it does to across-the-board stability.


Some of this is their fault, some of this is nobody's fault. Some of this is a quirk of the calendar. Some of it is a changing market. All of it is piling on top of itself at one very unfortunate juncture. This was gonna be a hard set of SGR procurements to stay on top of in the best of times. Now we get to find out how they handle it amid the worst of times.
 
Re: Driven By.... Uhh... Hello? Anybody?

Proof of Payment totally beats Point-of-Entry fare collection
CYdtTH2U0AA-cvp.jpg:large
 
I won't argue with that and I think from here on out POP would be the best thing to implement on any current sections without fare gates or future lines that have not gone through final design. However on areas that already use POE I think it makes sense to continue to use that for now.
 
Last edited:
Hey, whatever happened to the university pass idea? The MBTA was going to sell passes to the universities at a discount, as long as the university bought one for every student (and presumably passed along the cost in tuition/fees). Any progress?
 
WormtownNative said:
There is now a petition to make Symphony ADA accessible. It's making the rounds on the MBTA Facebook groups.

https://www.change.org/p/massachuse...-massdot-make-symphony-station-ada-compliment

Isn't it already in the list to get done anyways?
Click to expand...

Last one of the non-exempteds (i.e. Boylston, Bowdoin, and Valley Rd.), but it hasn't got any design funding yet. Now that Hynes is looking like the new air rights tower will give it a public-private fueled makeover ripe for expediting the job, it's time to get an advocacy going for Symphony so it doesn't become the subway outlier that time forgot.

Won't be an overly expensive job...not like Hynes. They just can't let the lower ridership at one of only two branchline subway stops on the system become a self-fulling excuse excuse to stall indefinitely.
 
WormtownNative said:
There is now a petition to make Symphony ADA accessible. It's making the rounds on the MBTA Facebook groups.

https://www.change.org/p/massachusetts-governor-massachusetts-state-house-mbta-massdot-make-symphony-station-ada-compliment

Isn't it already in the list to get done anyways?
Click to expand...

I actually started that petition this afternoon after seeing a senior citizen struggling down the steps, a far to common site for a station that lies directly below "Retirement Housing" in the Symphony Plaza towers. I think ridership would go up quite a bit there if it was accessible. This is not evening mentioning the numerous times I have seen people going to attend an event at the Hall only to be dumbfounded (most likely out of towners) that the station was not accessible.

As for a bit of history, yes, it was planned to be renovate with planning stalled at 15% completion...in 2011. I would really just like to see the T get a move on it, especially when they have been able to do so much surface work in the area. It really must suck for a large portion of residents directly above to be unable to use that station and instead having to use Mass. Ave (which is a good deal further away) or another service.

I do understand that it is wishful thinking under the current state of affairs, but felt it was better than doing nothing.
 
Symphony, Wollaston & Hynes were supposed to get elevators at the same time in 2011 under a broad accessibility upgrades contract. They had gone through SD, DD & 15-30% CD (I've seen the schemes for them). The contract was eventually broken up, as Hynes was decided to be left to the developers of Parcel 13 and Symphony was deemed unfeasible at the current time, leaving the only station getting elevators now to be Wollaston, which is currently in the Construction Docs phase.
 
datadyne007 said:
Symphony, Wollaston & Hynes were supposed to get elevators at the same time in 2011 under a broad accessibility upgrades contract. They had gone through SD, DD & 15-30% CD (I've seen the schemes for them). The contract was eventually broken up, as Hynes was decided to be left to the developers of Parcel 13 and Symphony was deemed unfeasible at the current time, leaving the only station getting elevators now to be Wollaston, which is currently in the Construction Docs phase.
Click to expand...

Wollaston got all messed up by the complexity of the fix for the flooding issues, uncovered as lot bigger P.I.T.A. than expected during the design stage. A lot of that delay was unavoidable as they had to switch gears on-the-fly to lick the problem for good and satisfy that major project goal. At least it's on-track now and should be a rather mundane, drama-free project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top