General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Koopzilla24 said:
Never said there wasn’t political motivation and bias for being upset with Baker just that his party isn’t being singled out. Yes, the state legislature doesn’t boil down to a single be all and end all person but that governing body is represented by an individual, the Governor. Holding them accountable is holding the whole government accountable. The current admin with Eng is doing exactly that in admitting that the state has gotten this wrong for decades and they’re not singling out Baker or any one figure in doing so.

Bigeman summarizes it great above why the ire directed at Baker’s admin is a bit justified and why Patrick was more a mixed bag than an outright bad. The Patrick board also attempted to procure DMUs for the Fairmount I’ll add as a rolling stock enjoyer.

Remember there’s a whole state of affairs outside the T that the Governor needs to be properly on top of so the best way for them to do their part with the T is put a strong GM in charge. The progress with East-West Rail and RTA funding being nearly doubled is another ball in the Healy admin court on public transportation. We also have strong support for doing things right in other figures like Senator Crighton who pushed to get Lynn CR service restored by years end and repeatedly calls for the Fairmount to be electrified ASAP despite it not being his district.
Click to expand...
I voted for him both times that he ran!! He's the first black governor that we've had in office!! :)
 
bigeman312 said:
In my estimation, the biggest thing a governor can do with respect to the MBTA is appoint a GM.

Baker appointed Poftak, which in and of itself was a hostile move to the MBTA. On that assignment, worth a big portion of your grade, Baker gets an F. Other governors post-Dukakis get D and C range grades on their appointees, with maybe a couple B-range ones like Bev Scott mixed in, speaking of scape goats.

Meanwhile, so far I’d give the Eng appointment an A-range grade and on that alone, I give Healey a ton of credit. She knew she needed an industry expert, not a political hack like Poftak. She went out and got one.

Compare that to Baker who brought in someone with no experience and no knowledge, who is actively hostile to mass transit on a philosophical level, to starve the beast. I can’t see giving Baker higher than a D overall with that big fat F on that assignment.

Compare the to Deval who brought in Bev Scott, an experienced person, yet a bit more of a political appointment. Still, if we had Bev Scott’s stated focus on safety during the Baker years, Eng would have likely inherited a better system. Deval initiated the much-needed Orange/Red transformations, yet kneecapped it by demanding it be built in Massachusetts, causing more reputable manufacturers to bid high, and therefore causing us lots of headaches. Some good. Some bad. Lip service with some politically-caused errors. I’d give him a C for not being actively anti-transit. Hard to argue Patrick/Scott was worse than Baker/Poftak.

But at this early juncture, oh man is Healey/Eng running laps around their predecessors in terms of competence.
Click to expand...

Very grounded and accurate reply. This is very much the case.


jdrinboston said:
This response may come across as overly flippant, so I apologize for the tone, but I feel like there is a political reality here that is going un-discussed or unacknowledged. The single biggest reason why we can't seem to get the T fixed is that there is little to no chance any politician - statewide or local - will ever be voted out of office based on the condition of the T. And I believe our elected officials are well aware of that. So much so, Maura Healey didn't even mention transit during her victory speech last November, though she certainly mentioned roads and bridges.

Simply speaking, on a statewide level, you aren't going to find a coalition of 50% +1 votes from across the state who will vote out a governor because the T is broken. The probability is even less when the governor is a Democrat and their Republican opponent is likely to be skeptical of transit anyway.

On the local level, will a majority of voters in Petersham, Charlton, Carver, Hadley, or Dracut vote out their state rep or Senator because the T is broken? Will a majority of voters in Quincy vote against Ron Mariano because the Red Line is crawling through Quincy Center? They certainly haven't to this point? And as a Winthrop resident, I can tell you nobody here would have ever voted against Bob DeLeo because the Blue Line commute became a slog. I'm not even sure I would and I consider myself a transit advocate. Why would I vote to put a halt to the gravy train of state earmarks to my little town in favor of some back bench rep who will be lucky to get a small office next to the janitors closet?

And if you live in Cambridge or Somerville, who would you vote against to send the message to fix the T? Mike Connolly? One of the legislature's biggest transit advocates?

Again, apologies if this comes across overly flippant or nihilistic. Perhaps crossing over the 40 threshold a few years back around the start of Covid beat my optimistic side into submission. But I just don't see how the T or transit writ large gets put on a path toward really being fixed absent a group of powerful politicians willing to take it on because it's the right thing to do morally, even if the politics dictate they don't have to.
Click to expand...

Hiring eng has put us on the path towards fixing the T in my opinion.
 
bakgwailo said:
I do think Baker is a bit special, though, as he did make a pretty big thing about being Mr. Fix The T after the winter that I will not name, and not only failed on that but left the T in a worse state than it was.
Click to expand...

I want to quote this because he sure fooled me. I operate on the mindset "aim for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land in the stars" or some similar phrase. He did made a big stink that he is working to improve the T post-that-certain-winter. I figured even if he fails, certainly it will be better off still just by the extra effort and transparency stuff. Even as things start to go wrong, I kept reasoning it's just setbacks before we start seeing the dividends on transformation efforts. Surely just by sheer newness means less issues, right? I'm not even to link a certain thread I posted.

I cannot be more wrong.

As for the rest of the discussion, I don't give a free pass the other governors or legislator either. But this one post does rings with me.
 
November 2023 accessibility update is out. Just as with the last update, lots of schedules have slipped.
  • Forest Hills design slipped a year to mid-2024 completion
  • Ruggles has actually progressed; it's to be advertised in December with construction beginning April 2024.
  • Newton Highlands has slipped another few months, but it's to be advertised in "early 2024", as with the four other D Branch stations
  • Hynes is still in limbo, but might move: "Update: As originally envisioned, this project was to be led by a private developer as part of an air rights development over Hynes Station and the Mass Pike I-90, at the northeast corner of Boylston St. and Massachusetts Ave. In the absence of clear development plans, however, the MBTA has proceeded with design work independently in order to advance the station accessibility upgrades (while not precluding future private development). The design is currently at the 30% milestone." Interestingly, the future solicitations page shows a $87.3 million contract going up in March. Perhaps it'll be design-build.
  • Unsurprisingly, the B and C Branch stations have been delayed - construction is now planned to begin in 2025. The C Branch description now includes "Project scopes (including station consolidations) vary from stop to stop". Given that the listing includes every remaining non-accessible C Branch station except Dean Road, I have to imagine they plan to eliminate Dean Road and perhaps relocate Englewood Avenue and/or Tappan Street. Packards Corner - which can probably be modified without major changes to the roadway - is scheduled to begin construction in spring 2024.
  • Perhaps the biggest news: design work for the outer E began in July! Platforms will be long enough for two Type 10 cars (i.e, 225 feet or so). 15% design will be in May 2024. The specific mention of platform length makes me wonder whether Heath Street will be included.
  • Natick Center is now 70% complete and expected to be done in September 2024.
  • The Newton stations... oof. "Design reached the 75% milestone in September 2023. The 75% design revealed an estimated total project cost of $255 million. Various options for identifying funding and/or reducing project costs are currently under discussion; further design work has been placed on hold pending discussion outcomes."
  • Worcester is 70% done, to be finished in May
  • North Wilmington advertised, to begin in spring 2024.
  • The pilot of temporary mini-high platforms at Beverly is now set for March 2024
  • A few elevator projects are coming up. Jackson Square is advertised, Central Square to begin construction in the spring, DTX Phase II to be advertised in mid-2024. Among the large batch of planned redundant elevators, North Station and Arlington (reopening the Berkeley Street entrance) are at 100% design, with Davis and Mass Ave (south end becomes an entrance) nearing 100%, so those are probably the next ones we'll see go to bid.
 
^The hynes project is a part of parcel 12 right? Havent seen any movement on that project in a long time, probably a good thing theyre planning for contingencies if the dev doesnt pull through.
 
stick n move said:
^The hynes project is a part of parcel 12 right? Havent seen any movement on that project in a long time, probably a good thing theyre planning for contingencies if the dev doesnt pull through.
Click to expand...

I was told that it's part of another program, possibly across Mass. Ave, near the former Best Buy building over that part of the Mass Pike. Which is why nothing has even been mentioned from the T about a redo on Hynes yet. :unsure:
 
The EGE said:
Worcester is 70% done, to be finished in May
Click to expand...
Was just over there yesterday. Coming along nicely. Didn’t take any other pictures cause there were a lot of us getting off and I’d be in the way but behind me they’d mostly completed the new stairs from Shrewsbury St and the elevator shaft+stairs to the platform.
IMG_4365.jpeg
 
The EGE said:
The C Branch description now includes "Project scopes (including station consolidations) vary from stop to stop". Given that the listing includes every remaining non-accessible C Branch station except Dean Road, I have to imagine they plan to eliminate Dean Road and perhaps relocate Englewood Avenue and/or Tappan Street.
Click to expand...
Dean Rd's ridership in 2014 was lower than both Englewood Ave and Tappan St, so this choice makes sense from a ridership perspective (though arguably not from a stop spacing perspective). However, several stops on the C have lower ridership than Dean Rd, including Brandon Hall, Kent St and Hawes St, so I wonder what made them decide to keep these stations.

Or could it be the case that some of the other stops may be merged into one like Amory and Babcock on the B, even though they're all mentioned on the report? The exact phrasing (quoted below) would argue against any stop consolidation or relocation, but if Dean Rd is the only consolidation, the word "consolidations" probably wouldn't have been in plural form.
Each of these street-level Green Line stops on the C Branch will be modified by raising the existing platforms by 8 in. and adjusting nearby infrastructure as needed in order to provide accessibility.
Click to expand...
Does anyone recall how the Amory and Babcock consolidations were initially stated?

The EGE said:
  • Perhaps the biggest news: design work for the outer E began in July! Platforms will be long enough for two Type 10 cars (i.e, 225 feet or so). 15% design will be in May 2024. The specific mention of platform length makes me wonder whether Heath Street will be included.
Click to expand...
The update mentioned "reconstruct track and station infrastructure, including potential station consolidations". I wonder if they'll try putting in dedicated LRT lanes; if not, I imagine at least there have to be platforms that separate the travel/LRT lanes from bike lanes and parking (similar to Columbus Ave bus lanes), as accessibility is impossible otherwise. As for stop consolidations, Back of the Hill should be on the chopping block easily, and possibly Fenwood Rd.

Also, I'm clearly dreaming, but this seems like a good opportunity to examine extending the E to Hyde Square.
 
Teban54 said:
Dean Rd's ridership in 2014 was lower than both Englewood Ave and Tappan St, so this choice makes sense from a ridership perspective (though arguably not from a stop spacing perspective). However, several stops on the C have lower ridership than Dean Rd, including Brandon Hall, Kent St and Hawes St, so I wonder what made them decide to keep these stations.
Click to expand...

Dean Rd is basically immediately adjacent to Beaconsfield (D), so that's probably an additional consideration. Also for users coming from the South, the ped tunnel at Clinton Path means Englewood Ave is even less of an additional walk to use instead than it looks at first glance, if you do want the C.

I'd be in favor of closing Brandon Hall + Hawes, though.
 
ant8904 said:
I want to quote this because he sure fooled me. I operate on the mindset "aim for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land in the stars" or some similar phrase. He did made a big stink that he is working to improve the T post-that-certain-winter. I figured even if he fails, certainly it will be better off still just by the extra effort and transparency stuff. Even as things start to go wrong, I kept reasoning it's just setbacks before we start seeing the dividends on transformation efforts. Surely just by sheer newness means less issues, right? I'm not even to link a certain thread I posted.

I cannot be more wrong.

As for the rest of the discussion, I don't give a free pass the other governors or legislator either. But this one post does rings with me.
Click to expand...
I knew Baker wasn't serious about fixing the 'T when he scapegoated Bev Scott over the winter of 2015, which was in no way whatsoever her fault. She knew what was actually required to fix things, and Charlie didn't want to do it, so he fired her, with a weather related excuse.
 
Teban54 said:
Dean Rd's ridership in 2014 was lower than both Englewood Ave and Tappan St, so this choice makes sense from a ridership perspective (though arguably not from a stop spacing perspective). However, several stops on the C have lower ridership than Dean Rd, including Brandon Hall, Kent St and Hawes St, so I wonder what made them decide to keep these stations.

Or could it be the case that some of the other stops may be merged into one like Amory and Babcock on the B, even though they're all mentioned on the report? The exact phrasing (quoted below) would argue against any stop consolidation or relocation, but if Dean Rd is the only consolidation, the word "consolidations" probably wouldn't have been in plural form.

Does anyone recall how the Amory and Babcock consolidations were initially stated?


The update mentioned "reconstruct track and station infrastructure, including potential station consolidations". I wonder if they'll try putting in dedicated LRT lanes; if not, I imagine at least there have to be platforms that separate the travel/LRT lanes from bike lanes and parking (similar to Columbus Ave bus lanes), as accessibility is impossible otherwise. As for stop consolidations, Back of the Hill should be on the chopping block easily, and possibly Fenwood Rd.

Also, I'm clearly dreaming, but this seems like a good opportunity to examine extending the E to Hyde Square.
Click to expand...

These accessibility upgrades present the perfect opportunity for stop consolidation.

Between the major stops (Cleveland Circle, Washington Square, Coolidge Corner, St Mary’s St), I’m hoping to see a movement from 3 -> 2 stops.

For the Cleveland Circle - Washington Square segment, that should mean moving the Englewood Ave stop to the other side of Englewood Ave, which could be called Kilsyth Rd, but I’d get the desire to keep the Englewood Ave nomenclature. The Tappan St stop should be replaced by an accessible station west of the u-turn, which could be re-branded as Regent Circle.

For the Washington Square - Coolidge Corner segment, the two resulting stops should roughly be Intervale Crosscut (consolidated Fairbanks annd Brandon Hall) and Summit Ave (unchanged).

For the Coolidge Corner - St. Mary’s St segment, the two resulting stops should roughly be St Paul St (unchanged), Hawes St (unchanged), while Kent St gets eliminated.

So, in conclusion:
  • Eliminate Dean Rd and Kent St
  • Consolidate Brandon Hall and Fairbanks
  • Shift Englewood Ave and Tappan St towards one another
  • 7 stops stay in the same location
The ridership data supports this as the 4 to be eliminated or consolidated are 4 of the 5 lowest ridership stops on the line. The 7 unmoved stations include the 6 highest ridership stations on the line.
 
The EGE said:
November 2023 accessibility update is out. Just as with the last update, lots of schedules have slipped.
  • Perhaps the biggest news: design work for the outer E began in July! Platforms will be long enough for two Type 10 cars (i.e, 225 feet or so). 15% design will be in May 2024. The specific mention of platform length makes me wonder whether Heath Street will be included
Click to expand...
Does this mean that we'll finally get median-running service all the way to Heath St? If that is indeed the case, and it goes well, that could be very good news for a Hyde Square (And hopefully further) extension.
 
HenryAlan said:
I knew Baker wasn't serious about fixing the 'T when he scapegoated Bev Scott over the winter of 2015, which was in no way whatsoever her fault. She knew what was actually required to fix things, and Charlie didn't want to do it, so he fired her, with a weather related excuse.
Click to expand...

He was all talk & no work. Had everyone believing in him, yet he's shown no intensions of doing anything. Probably the reason why he decided to get out or Dodge & not run again because he probably felt that he couldn't win anyway!! :eek:
 
TheRatmeister said:
Does this mean that we'll finally get median-running service all the way to Heath St? If that is indeed the case, and it goes well, that could be very good news for a Hyde Square (And hopefully further) extension.
Click to expand...
They could also move the tracks to the sidewalk and make the sidewalk the platform.
 
Delvin4519 said:
If the section between North Station and Lechmere had it's diversion cancelled, how will they get the Lechmere Viaduct's slowzones fixed? Are they just going to let the Lechmere Viaduct's slowzones sit all the way through to November 2024?

https://twitter.com/MBTA/status/1731760148228575645


View attachment 45270 View attachment 45272View attachment 45271
Click to expand...
They'll probably insert a diversion during the January track work on the central subway, add some extended night closures, or just try and do the work overnight with the regular amount of time. I'd bet on option #1 personally.
 
cubbe8 said:
They could also move the tracks to the sidewalk and make the sidewalk the platform.
Click to expand...
If anybody involved in this design has any common sense they will look at literally any (non median running) bus lane and immediately realize that is a terrible, terrible idea. Even if they didn't I'd imagine it would meet significant local/government opposition given that just about anything parked on the tracks would mean terminating service early at Brigham Circle, and we all know how people feel about that.
 
Teban54 said:
Dean Rd's ridership in 2014 was lower than both Englewood Ave and Tappan St, so this choice makes sense from a ridership perspective (though arguably not from a stop spacing perspective). However, several stops on the C have lower ridership than Dean Rd, including Brandon Hall, Kent St and Hawes St, so I wonder what made them decide to keep these stations.

Or could it be the case that some of the other stops may be merged into one like Amory and Babcock on the B, even though they're all mentioned on the report? The exact phrasing (quoted below) would argue against any stop consolidation or relocation, but if Dean Rd is the only consolidation, the word "consolidations" probably wouldn't have been in plural form.

Does anyone recall how the Amory and Babcock consolidations were initially stated?
Click to expand...

It's worth remembering that the stops aren't randomly placed - almost all of them are at significant cross streets where much of their ridership will be walking from. Moving stops to midblock, as was done on the B, is often counterproductive by making longer walks for people coming from both the former stops. Merging Kent and Hawes at Amory, and Fairbanks and Brandon Hall, are the only two locations on the C that I think make sense.

I've never been particularly convinced about needing to remove Dean Road. It's not actually that close to Beaconsfield - about a 900 foot walk, the same as to Tappan Street or Englewood Avenue. Moreover, because it's only two stops from the terminal, the only people whose trips it delays are those using Cleveland Circle or Englewood Avenue. I'd rather see improvements further east on the line - in particular, closing some of the closely-spaced grade crossings like Centre and Pleasant - that would benefit more riders and not give anyone a longer walk.

From the beginning of messaging, the B consolidations were messaged as such: "The proposed project would consolidate the BU West, St. Paul, Babcock, and Pleasant stops into two fully accessible stations that will help reduce travel times and improve safety."
 
cubbe8 said:
They could also move the tracks to the sidewalk and make the sidewalk the platform.
Click to expand...
I think there's a pretty universal agreement among transit experts that center running is better than running along the sidewalk. For a bunch of reasons: People will inevitably park their cars on the tracks for "just one minute" if the tracks are along the sidewalk. When tracks are together in a median, it's easier to let a train get diverted around a disabled train. Trains can go faster if they don't have to constantly watch for someone stumbling off a curb. Transit signal priority is supposed to be easier in the median. Etc.

There are some streetcars that run in the right lane, like in DC or Detroit. They're pretty notoriously slow because they get blocked by parked cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top