General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

I would prefer that we had just torn down elevated I-93 and replaced it with nothing.
 
cden4 said:
I would prefer that we had just torn down elevated I-93 and replaced it with nothing.
Click to expand...

That would have been fun for everyone today. Fred Flintstone would run a rickshaw to get you to Logan.
 
Whether or not a project should be undertaken...

And, whether or not a project is well-run...

Are two separate questions.

It is a very good thing that the answer was "yes" to question 1 for the Big Dig.
 
shmessy said:
Would you prefer the Big Dig never happened and we still had the Central Artery going through the heart of Boston and using only the Callahan and Sumner tunnels for Logan access?

Medicine never tastes good. Exercise is uncomfortable. Those who appreciate the long-term benefits deal with it.....and benefit.

The Big Dig - - with all of its cost overruns - - was the single greatest action taken by the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since filling in the Back Bay. I challenge ANYONE to compare where Boston/Cambridge is today compared to 1985. Without the Big Dig, it doesnt happen - - it wasn't Menino's charisma that brought Boston into the big leagues.

I get it and agree - - cost overruns are terrible and need to be reined in. New management systems need to be employed to guard against them.

But the Big Dig reinvented Boston and took it out of the minor leagues. NYC now has a 2nd Ave subway, Seattle will have comprehensive mass transit.

What does sitting on oiur hands and "saving the cost overruns" do for the increasingly unmanageable traffic in Boston? You know who DOESN'T experience cost overruns on mass transit? Anyplace in Kansas.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The merits of the Big Dig took a while to fully come to light.

Make no mistake, it had its drawbacks: The cost overruns, the malfeasance, the cost cutting that really wasn't worth it. Plus, the growing pains of trying out brand new construction methods on a large scale.

But given where we were and where we are now, it's night and day.
 
North Shore said:
Absolutely.

The merits of the Big Dig took a while to fully come to light.

Make no mistake, it had its drawbacks: The cost overruns, the malfeasance, the cost cutting that really wasn't worth it. Plus, the growing pains of trying out brand new construction methods on a large scale.

But given where we were and where we are now, it's night and day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't understand the "Let's bite off our nose to spite our face" crowd.

The better option is NOT to simply say "no" to everything and become Dubuque, Iowa because of temporary traffic inconvenience or cost overruns.

Human progress isn't easy. The goal is to better enforce management cost controls and climb the freaking ladder of human evolution instead of wallowing in a Luddite desert.
 
The biggest failure of the big dig was not slapping a $5 toll on it
 
The biggest failure of the Big Dig was that it wasn't Big enough. GLX, RL/BL connector, and a less sucky Silver Line should have been kept within scope.
 
Trying to get feasibility study for blue-Lynn.

https://www.itemlive.com/2019/01/16/sen-brendan-crighton-files-bill-for-feasibility-study-on-blue-line-extension-to-lynn/

Heres the story on how the money was there in the 70’s and it was ready to go and 1 mayor elect ruined transit for thousands and thousands of people for generations. Then once he realized his mistake environmentalist concerns were much harder to get by and it was DOA. Can only imagine if it had went through. Itll be 10 years AFTER its approved in probably 10 years until the soonest completion. He f**kd up...
https://www.itemlive.com/2018/06/06/doesnt-blue-line-extend-lynn-depends-ask/
 
cden4 said:
I would prefer that we had just torn down elevated I-93 and replaced it with nothing.
Click to expand...

Lol and take surface roads to get to the callahan/sumner to get to Logan. No...

The people saying the only problems are it wasnt big enough... bingo. Yea cost overruns and all that but imagine the cost today where its still going to overrun anyways plus literally everything is wayyyyy more expensive. If all that crap was just done and we just had to pay for it now vs not have anything and having to do it later for even more... Id take the former. Wed figure it out.
 
stick n move said:
Trying to get feasibility study for blue-Lynn.

https://www.itemlive.com/2019/01/16/sen-brendan-crighton-files-bill-for-feasibility-study-on-blue-line-extension-to-lynn/

Heres the story on how the money was there in the 70’s and it was ready to go and 1 mayor elect ruined transit for thousands and thousands of people for generations. Then once he realized his mistake environmentalist concerns were much harder to get by and it was DOA. Can only imagine if it had went through. Itll be 10 years AFTER its approved in probably 10 years until the soonest completion. He f**kd up...
https://www.itemlive.com/2018/06/06/doesnt-blue-line-extend-lynn-depends-ask/
Click to expand...
James Smith, Lynn’s state representative at the time, confirmed Salvucci’s memory. The mayor’s opposition, he said, was fueled by Citizens for a Better Lynn, a grassroots organization formed to stop urban renewal in the downtown. The group helped elect Marino during the so-called anti-highway movement, when residents united to fight the state’s plan for an interstate highway system through Boston, Cambridge and Lynn Woods
Click to expand...

The Massachusetts NIMBY. Winner and still champion.
 
What a disaster that was. It would have been finished decades ago, matured, and built around. Lynn as a city overall would be a much more valuable place to live by now with blue line access. Theres “affordable housing” there for days... which also helps Boston. Its insane that 1 misguided prick can shaft a whole city and tens of thousands of people.. Idiot mayors should be able to be vetoed by the governor is theyre making a generational mistake.
 
Is there any specific reason why as far as heavy gauge subways in Boston the blue line uses overhead wires where red/orange dont?
 
Rails vs wires, DC vs AC, and high amperage vs high voltage are all elements in the standards fights from the dawn of electricity.

Third rail was the preferred "tunnel" power early on (saving $ on tunnel diameter, and the only "fat pipe" that could power a whole train) and overhead was the dominant surface- streetcar power (had a 6 year head start, Edison's support, and safer at grade crossings)

Third rail also dominated on Elevateds, and because early Edison-Sprague DC systems were high amperage and needed a fat, heavy conductor. Early DC overhead wires (1886) had enough power to move lightweight wooden single car street cars, but were not a good way to move a multi-car heavy rail train.

(AC and the ability to deliver lots of power through a high voltage skinny wire came in the Westinghouse-Tesla era 1890s...but Edison and Sprague had already established DC as the streetcar standard, and many L's and subways in order to stay with DC used third rails to power their trains of DC cars)

The GL shows its "fully streetcar" heritage, and the Blue ends up a hybrid thanks to the pioneering underwater tunnel, but a desire to interconnect with all the street cars of East Boston, either by running them into the tunnel with a power transition at the airport, or turning the wire powered streetcars back underground at Maverick after a cross-platform connection.

(Chicago's Brown & Purple show their El heritage in their oddball third-rail-with-grade-crossings https://youtu.be/fnaqgfEn_OQ )
 
Last edited:
The tunnel part is kind of contradictory because it says 3rd rail is better because it allows a smaller diameter. So it was because they had considered the tunnel to be mixed use for street cars, but it never came about so now we have 1 subway with overhead lines. Interesting, thanks.
 
Arlington said:
Rails vs wires, DC vs AC, and high amperage vs high voltage are all elements in the standards fights from the dawn of electricity.

Third rail was the preferred "tunnel" power early on (saving $ on tunnel diameter, and the only "fat pipe" that could power a whole train) and overhead was the dominant surface- streetcar power (had a 6 year head start, Edison's support, and safer at grade crossings)

Third rail also dominated on Elevateds, and because early Edison-Sprague DC systems were high amperage and needed a fat, heavy conductor. Early DC overhead wires (1886) had enough power to move lightweight wooden single car street cars, but were not a good way to move a multi-car heavy rail train.

(AC and the ability to deliver lots of power through a high voltage skinny wire came in the Westinghouse-Tesla era 1890s...but Edison and Sprague had already established DC as the streetcar standard, and many L's and subways in order to stay with DC used third rails to power their trains of DC cars)

The GL shows its "fully streetcar" heritage, and the Blue ends up a hybrid thanks to the pioneering underwater tunnel, but a desire to interconnect with all the street cars of East Boston, either by running them into the tunnel with a power transition at the airport, or turning the wire powered streetcars back underground at Maverick after a cross-platform connection.

(Chicago's Brown & Purple show their El heritage in their oddball third-rail-with-grade-crossings https://youtu.be/fnaqgfEn_OQ )
Click to expand...

The Blue Line could have embraced third rail all the way when it was converted to heavy rail. But I suspect that catenary was kept in the above ground section (at extra cost for rolling stock -- so a conscious decision) because of the flooding risk along that stretch of surface rail -- keep the high voltage away from the sea water!
 
Also, AC and catenary wires for heavy rail trains were still weird as of 1910 when the Pennsylvania RR went with a custom 25Hz AC system (a European thing instead of normal American 60Hz or even normal European 50Hz).

The proven DC choices were wires for streetcar and third rails for trains (as the NY Centra,l and LIRR use(d))

So if you were designing an El or Subway in 1900-1925 you chose DC third rail

(Plenty of more recent Subways outside the US use an overhead AC wire, just like most modern HSR)
 
Last edited:
It was thought in the 1940's when the Revere extension was being planned that third rail would have big icing and corrosion problems in the salty air. That turned out not to be the case, so lines with similar maritime conditions like New York's Rockaway Beach line were subsequently constructed with all third rail.

The Blue Line sea level rise resiliency study is considering an outright conversion of Airport-Wonderland to entirely third rail, because blown-down wires ends up being a bigger problem in major storms. It's one of the bullet items on an FCMB presentation from November. Third rail contact surface can survive a multi-day submerging just fine, only needing a "rust-buster" truck with dummy third rail shoes to run over it a few times before turning back on. It's mainly the copper feeder cables that are at risk for getting ruined in an intrusion, so the resiliency study has to determine how to install those: in water-tight conduits at ground level, or hung above flood stage on short poles.
 
The GL ends up with overhead wires in a tunnel because in 1895, nobody in Boston was picturing a train-of-streetcars (whose DC power needs would be better met by third rail). Philadelphia's "Subway-Surface" green line and SF's Muni also uses an overhead wire in a tunnel, also betraying their streetcar-dominant early heritage.

But by five years later, by 1900, everybody assumed ELs and Subways would have third rails powering multi-car trains.

Boston Blue and Chicago's Brown & Purple end up strange hybrids. Washington DC also had streetcar weirdness: third rail in a cable car groove within the original L'Enfant city, and overhead wires on suburban (and a guy in a pit who de-shoed and put up the trolley pole)
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
What a disaster that was. It would have been finished decades ago, matured, and built around. Lynn as a city overall would be a much more valuable place to live by now with blue line access. Theres “affordable housing” there for days... which also helps Boston. Its insane that 1 misguided prick can shaft a whole city and tens of thousands of people.. Idiot mayors should be able to be vetoed by the governor is theyre making a generational mistake.
Click to expand...

LOL at you guys crucifying the mayor for seeing what Boston was doing downtown and west end and not wanting it there.

How dare he not trust the master planners!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top