General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

FCMB board presentation on the Green Line's derailment issues: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Board_Meetings/G. Green Line Derailments -TO POST.pdf

Yep. 7 out of 10 of the derailments in the reporting period were Bredas. Of the Type 7 derailments, only 1 was a vehicle fault: the others were an icy plow mound blocking a grade crossing during one of the '15 blizzards, and a mis-thrown switch from dispatcher error. With the Bredas it's almost totally those problematic trucks starting to suffer the ravages of age on track that isn't pitch-perfect.

Most of the prevention is going to involve clamping down ever-tighter on operator speed enforcement, because there's only so much you can do to stay ahead of the cars' aging process with more track work and preventative maint before diminishing returns send derailment rates inching right back up.
 
The following URL links to a dynamically scaleable map which displas jobs by type and $, $$, $$$ for cities and towns in the primary MBTA Assessment District
http://coaxs.mit.edu/job-map/
LEGEND
MANUFACT. & CONSTR. | $
MANUFACT. & CONSTR. | $$
MANUFACT. & CONSTR. | $$$
RETAIL & WHOLESALE | $
RETAIL & WHOLESALE | $$
RETAIL & WHOLESALE | $$$
UTILITIES & TRANSP. | $
UTILITIES & TRANSP. | $$
UTILITIES & TRANSP. | $$$
INFORMATION SERV. | $
INFORMATION SERV. | $$
INFORMATION SERV. | $$$
FINANCE | $
FINANCE | $$
FINANCE | $$$
PROFESSIONAL SERV. | $
PROFESSIONAL SERV. | $$
PROFESSIONAL SERV. | $$$
EDUCATION | $
EDUCATION | $$
EDUCATION | $$$
HEALTH CARE | $
HEALTH CARE | $$
HEALTH CARE | $$$
HOSPITALITY | $
HOSPITALITY | $$
HOSPITALITY | $$$
PUBLIC ADMIN. | $
PUBLIC ADMIN. | $$
PUBLIC ADMIN. | $$$
Click to expand...

This map is basically all you need to know to understand why all of the complex schemes using the T beyond its original model are destined for failure -- at least in the short term
 
But how are you defining failure? If you define it by not making a profit or losing more funds than current service. Then yeah it fails.

But why not judge it by how many people use it to travel, then clearly it is a success because by increasing off peak and weekend frequencies and using shorter trains at those times the number of people using the system and therefore not using cars or choosing to stay home goes up which could be viewed as a success.

This really is about how you define success as well as about development patterns like the map above shows.

Also the most effective way to get people to use transit isn't higher residential density although that is helpful especially when moving from low to mid densities, but the most important thing according to several studies is actually how centralized jobs and retail establishments are. Boston for an American city at least is very centralized for jobs which is weekday ridership as well as retail which helps with weekend ridership. That map shows quite clearly that most jobs are located near where there is transit service already with only a minority being located in areas with limited or no transit. And the ones without good transit access tend to be to spread out to effectively serve anyways so they do not matter that much. The focus for off peak service should be on the bus and rail lines that go through the towns/cities of Lynn, Salem, Waltham, Newton, Dedham, Norwood, Quincy, Arlington, Woburn (in the town center), Melrose, and Reading. But wait that is all the commuter rail lines plus some bus routes.
 
using the T beyond its original model are destined for failure -- at least in the short term
Click to expand...

And exercising won't make me healthy today so fuck it! And that's without getting into the fact that you continue to not come remotely close to getting this project. 495 to 495 committing won't be helpful? You don't fucking say!
 
Last edited:
citylover94 said:
Also the most effective way to get people to use transit isn't higher residential density although that is helpful especially when moving from low to mid densities, but the most important thing according to several studies is actually how centralized jobs and retail establishments are.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. We are fortunate that jobs sprawl has not made transit in Boston completely useless as it has in many cities. And now employers are flocking even more into downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods. If we want to reduce car traffic, that's the best way to do it. When commuting patterns are everywhere to everywhere, transit can't possibly serve people in a useful way, not without being prohibitively expensive to run.
 
cden4 said:
Yes, this. We are fortunate that jobs sprawl has not made transit in Boston completely useless as it has in many cities. And now employers are flocking even more into downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods. If we want to reduce car traffic, that's the best way to do it. When commuting patterns are everywhere to everywhere, transit can't possibly serve people in a useful way, not without being prohibitively expensive to run.
Click to expand...

Look where the stuff out in the 'burbs is clustering, too. Along your would-be Indigo Lines and the outer bus routes (most notably Quincy-east) that offer good frequencies. This doesn't contradict anything we know from past transit demand studies. It underscores it by showing that real demand lights up the map like a Christmas tree exactly where the studies said it would be and said the better transit should go. The only failure is the lack of follow-through. Yes...even the follow-through that would start getting the dark gaps on the map lighting up by frequencies leading new last-mile feeders by the nose (e.g. thicker net of radial 128 biz shuttles growing if/when holes get plugged in 128 spoke frequencies and station coverage).

It's a sledgehammer to the head to start acting on piles of their own study recs.
 
Overall, i think the cost benefit analysis for transit greatly underestimates the opportunity cost of not investing. Yes, we should use better bids and prudent prioritization, but general system maintenance and upkeep really needs to account for issues and realities that say, if winter reliability goes down 10%, how many more people drive, what is the added system cost. Peoples time and system cost to not having it. To judge the T by its operating profit margin is a bad metric. the SE X-way has never made the state a dime. That does not mean it is worthless and shouldn't be paved.

Overall, Massachusetts is a relatively confined and dense region, and i think our transit systems need to be looked at more holistically and not as a zero-sum dollar game between modes.

(talking as a driver from suburbs to city that has a drive that is shorter in time and hundreds of dollars cheaper a month than best public transit alternative).
 
choo said:
Overall, i think the cost benefit analysis for transit greatly underestimates the opportunity cost of not investing. Yes, we should use better bids and prudent prioritization, but general system maintenance and upkeep really needs to account for issues and realities that say, if winter reliability goes down 10%, how many more people drive, what is the added system cost. Peoples time and system cost to not having it. To judge the T by its operating profit margin is a bad metric. the SE X-way has never made the state a dime. That does not mean it is worthless and shouldn't be paved.

Overall, Massachusetts is a relatively confined and dense region, and i think our transit systems need to be looked at more holistically and not as a zero-sum dollar game between modes.

(talking as a driver from suburbs to city that has a drive that is shorter in time and hundreds of dollars cheaper a month than best public transit alternative).
Click to expand...

Also transit investment advocates never seems to get the message across to drivers that an investment in transit IS AN INVESTMENT IN PRESERVING HIGHWAY CAPACITY. If the person isn't using the train, they are competing with you as a SOV on the limited road space.

Getting people onto the trains makes more room available on the roadways.
 
F-Line for Dudley,

Get to work and start writing solutions for the entire surroundings of BOSTON choking itself to death with Traffic.

It seems over the past year TRAFFIC is completely out of control. The highways seem maxed out. MBTA completely outdated.

We need a viable 50 Billion dollar infrastructure plan to help decrease traffic at this point.

WE NEED HELP---Really worried about the Casino being dropped into Everett and what that will do to traffic by 2019.
 
Yeah F-Line, what the hell? Quit lolly-gagging around and fix this shit. Geez.
 
citylover94 said:
But how are you defining failure? If you define it by not making a profit or losing more funds than current service. Then yeah it fails.

But why not judge it by how many people use it to travel, then clearly it is a success because by increasing off peak and weekend frequencies and using shorter trains at those times the number of people using the system and therefore not using cars or choosing to stay home goes up which could be viewed as a success.

This really is about how you define success as well as about development patterns like the map above shows.

Also the most effective way to get people to use transit isn't higher residential density although that is helpful especially when moving from low to mid densities, but the most important thing according to several studies is actually how centralized jobs and retail establishments are. Boston for an American city at least is very centralized for jobs which is weekday ridership as well as retail which helps with weekend ridership. That map shows quite clearly that most jobs are located near where there is transit service already with only a minority being located in areas with limited or no transit. And the ones without good transit access tend to be to spread out to effectively serve anyways so they do not matter that much. The focus for off peak service should be on the bus and rail lines that go through the towns/cities of Lynn, Salem, Waltham, Newton, Dedham, Norwood, Quincy, Arlington, Woburn (in the town center), Melrose, and Reading. But wait that is all the commuter rail lines plus some bus routes.
Click to expand...

Citylover -- Back to the Private version of Reality ??

Accidentally, while trying track down the origins of the Map I came across a study about BRT for Boston --conducted by an MIT group, and funded by the Barr Foundation.

They seem to agree that the place to introduce BRT [with only a couple of exceptions] was where there were already a lot of regular bus users -- not to go exploring far afield.

Here's their recommended list:
Corridor PPHPD Rank
  • Washington Silver Line 2100 1
  • Silver Line extension Dudley to Mattapan 1269 2
  • Silver Line Extension to Government Center ??? 3
  • Allston Union Square to Dudley Square 1465 4
  • Downtown Chelsea to Govt Center 1580 5
  • Forest Hills to West Roxbury 1400 6
  • Harvard Square S. to Newton Corner 1180 7
  • Forest Hills to Wolcott Sq 1039 8
  • Corridor 9, [Mass Ave Br Scenario] 994 9
  • Corridor 9, [BU Bridge Scenario] 908 10
  • Allston Union Square to Longwood Medical Center 689 11
  • Harvard Square to Watertown 533 12
Click to expand...

5 quick notes:
  • This is funded by Barr -- not Pioneer
  • Corridor 9 -- was not part of their original list -- it was added after a lot of the analysis was complete
  • The criteria for BRT viability is 1400
  • the authors admit to "juicing the numbers" by 30% to account for some projected growth in demand
  • for some unfathomable reason -- nothing was looked at relevant to the Seaport

Anyway -- there is a lot here to digest -- Enjoy
http://www.bostonbrt.org/s/Technical-analysis-for-BRT-in-the-Boston-areacompressed.pdf
 
Ah, ITDP rises from the moat once more.

That's not an MIT group...that's a BRT lobby astroturf group (how early-aughts retro!) funded by political thinktanks. They've tapped MIT for some of their data analysis...but it is not an MIT effort. It's also not new. Their methodology has been thoroughly debunked for using very fuzzy math and arbitrary assumptions. Some of Ari's blog posts on the subject: https://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/search/label/ITDP.


This is somebody's version of reality. But it doesn't correspond very well to empirical reality.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Ah, ITDP rises from the moat once more.

That's not an MIT group...that's a BRT lobby astroturf group (how early-aughts retro!) funded by political thinktanks. They've tapped MIT for some of their data analysis...but it is not an MIT effort. It's also not new. Their methodology has been thoroughly debunked for using very fuzzy math and arbitrary assumptions. Some of Ari's blog posts on the subject: https://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/search/label/ITDP.


This is somebody's version of reality. But it doesn't correspond very well to empirical reality.
Click to expand...

F-line -- Thank's for cleaning up the complex nature of the connections -- as there is an MIT group whose work is involved at least peripherally [see for example page 11 of Appendix A]
Appendix A: ITDP Results of Corridor 9 Modeling
The results show that once the projected shift of passengers from current rail passengers are included, the Western section of Corridor 9 north of the Charles River, whether it takes the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge or the Boston University Bridge, would rank 9th or 10th using our corridor ranking process based purely on opening year projected passengers per peak hour per direction (i.e., increasing all corridors by 30% to match opening year demand on Corridor 9)......

With a baseline scenario calibrated to existing demand conditions, the remaining piece of the analysis was to model the expected shifting demand from T lines. To forecast this demand on a future Corridor 9 BRT we used MIT’s model results for the West Ring corridor scenario. The West Ring corridor used is shown in the following picture.
Click to expand...

F-line -- you make a good point about empirical reality -- the report admits to adjusting some of the numbers to make the projections of some of the model runs agree more with the measured data from the T and the result of passenger use surveys

Despite agreement with F-Line on these points -- I still think that the key takeaway is that the work was quite thorough and it was was funded by the left-leaning Barr Foundation --not a group skeptical of Transit pitches such as Pioneer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top