MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

What's the point of having North Cambridge once Charlestown has been converted to BEB? It's redundant when it's operating the same type of vehicles. North Cambridge can't get any bigger and it's less than half the size of the next smallest facility (Quincy). Closing North Cambridge and moving all operations to an electrified Charlestown would seem like a more reasonable goal than investing a ton of money into North Cambridge.
 
737900er said:
What's the point of having North Cambridge once Charlestown has been converted to BEB? It's redundant when it's operating the same type of vehicles. North Cambridge can't get any bigger and it's less than half the size of the next smallest facility (Quincy). Closing North Cambridge and moving all operations to an electrified Charlestown would seem like a more reasonable goal than investing a ton of money into North Cambridge.
Click to expand...
There is no overall plan; getting rid of the wires is the entirety of the plan. That's why part of the "plan" is upgrading North Cambridge. They spend some money on it, then immediately realize "Oh, this is inneficient and the BEB's aren't doing their stated job to begin with...let's just close it all and run out of Charlestown." Money wasted, but mission accomplished.

It's stunningly and transparently cynical.
 
Yeah, this plan makes zero sense. We want to replace TT with Battery for [reasons] but we're not going to wait for Battery to be ready so we're going to use Diesels in the interim (i.e. forever).

I agree that this is just a ploy to get rid of the wires. Moving forward BEFORE an alternative exists while simultaneously eliminating the fallback position is EXACTLY how you get rid of something forever.

"Whoops, battery tech isn't ready, and it's too expensive to put the wires back up so I guess we're going with diesels for now"
 
This is a very odd choice. I mean, I get that the intended future for the MBTA bus system is an all BEB fleet. But that is going to be phased in, so the statement about this seems to imply the TT routes will be the first routes converted to BEB (with an inexplicable diesel interim). Wouldn't it make more sense, to convert the TT routes to BEB only after the entire rest of the system has been converted? Why should we ever be looking at expanding diesel, and why should we replace an already electrified service with battery electric while there are still diesel and CNG buses throughout the rest of the system? This makes no sense whatsoever.
 
The T has always hated trolleybusses, all the way back to the MTA and BERry days. It's no surprise they want to get rid of the things.

Also, the replacement busses won't come with left-hand doors, which is... problematic. It's quite likely that in the name of accessibility, the T may close the entire Harvard lower busway because they'd rather not spend extra money on busses that can only use two routes.
 
HenryAlan said:
Why should we ever be looking at expanding diesel, and why should we replace an already electrified service with battery electric while there are still diesel and CNG buses throughout the rest of the system? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Because they want to get rid of the wires. It really is that simple.
 
Wash said:
Also, the replacement busses won't come with left-hand doors, which is... problematic.
Click to expand...
Couldn't they just reroute the buses to enter where they now exit, and exit where they now enter? Would that solve the problem?
 
HenryAlan said:
Couldn't they just reroute the buses to enter where they now exit, and exit where they now enter? Would that solve the problem?
Click to expand...
That would be the Sunday routing which runs on the surface through Harvard Square and takes much longer. Also other routes (like 77) drop off in lower busway today. The platforms on both the upper and lower busways are on the same side; that's the fundamental problem.
 
The T is also probably looking at the dollar signs floating over the North Cambridge garage property. That sweet developer cash will offset some of the Baker-shaped hole in their finances.
 
RandomWalk said:
The T is also probably looking at the dollar signs floating over the North Cambridge garage property. That sweet developer cash will offset some of the Baker-shaped hole in their finances.
Click to expand...
Baker-shaped hole indeed. The catenary from the Belmont city line to end of the 73 at Waverley was replaced only six years ago as part of the years-long Belmont St./Trapelo Rd. reconstruction project. It's brand new overhead they're discontinuing.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if the T repurposes some of the poles and conduits for mmWave 5G sites.
 
RandomWalk said:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the T repurposes some of the poles and conduits for mmWave 5G sites.
Click to expand...
No...then they'd have to maintain the poles and conduits. The whole point here is they don't want to maintain any field infrastructure...want to zero it out entirely. If they cared about revenue optimization with their infrastructure they wouldn't be exploring the most ass-backwards possible way of enacting this.

It's pure id hate-boner for their own OCS Dept...no more, no less.
 
ant8904 said:
I have to ask why? Not as in their official justification. Or in the speculated justification. But why are the decision makers are still like this?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a county Ive worked with that now refuses to install overhead lights on their new stop light installations.

Why?

"its a maintenance liability"

What about the people who will be killed because the intersection is pitch dark?

"its a maintenance liability"

But liability for deaths...

"its a maintenance liability"
 
So the next question is there any pushback left? Anything we can do about it?

I know TransitMatters has been advocating to not do this. And I remember reading reasoning that the reason why the MBTA kept using trolleybuses is 1. The lower busway and 2. Belmont and Cambridge would not accept and have levers they can pull without even turning to public outcry and lawsuits.

Well, here we are. Is anyone doing anything about it? What happen to the efforts done before?

----

jass said:
Why?

"its a maintenance liability"

What about the people who will be killed because the intersection is pitch dark?

"its a maintenance liability"

But liability for deaths...

"its a maintenance liability"
Click to expand...


The long history should make it not surprising. But the literal decades of time should also means turnover should have replaced most of such people too with people with other ideas. Are they somehow transferring their hate of overhead wire from father to son or something? Quietly drilling how overhead wire must be destroyed to each successive generation? Or somehow each generation get so many headaches maintaining it that they always develop a hatred while also never truly express outside their circles in how much it is a headache?
 
Last edited:
ant8904 said:
The long history should make it not surprising. But the literal decades of time should also means turnover should have replaced most of such people too with people with other ideas. Are they somehow transferring their hate of overhead wire from father to son or something? Quietly drilling how overhead write must be destroyed to each successive generation? Or somehow each generation get so many headaches maintaining it that they always develop a hatred while also never truly express outside their circles in how much it is a headache?
Click to expand...

I cant speak to the MBTA specifically, but there are pleanty of 70 year old engineers coasting on 4 hour days in government
 
ant8904 said:
So the next question is there any pushback left? Anything we can do about it?

I know TransitMatters has been advocating to not do this. And I remember reading reasoning that the reason why the MBTA kept using trolleybuses is 1. The lower busway and 2. Belmont and Cambridge would not accept and have levers they can pull without even turning to public outcry and lawsuits.

Well, here we are. Is anyone doing anything about it? What happen to the efforts done before?
Click to expand...

City of Cambridge is advancing the interminably long-delayed reconstructions of Mass Ave. north and Mt. Auburn St., with the latest locus of "delay" being protracted negotiations with the T over how to treat the TT overhead on each remanicured corridor. Similar to how Belmont had to negotiate to advance the Belmont St./Trapelo Rd. reconstruction under that only six-year-old wire.

I think this move signals the T unilaterally walking away from the negotiating table, then flipping said table over in a dramatic flourish. It's quite likely City of Cambridge is going to have a strong response to that, since at the very least the reconstructions on both of those streets just sustained punitive further delay over how much they'd have to go back and redesign for streetscapes without catenary.


Really not a good look on a whole lot of fronts. I hope whoever was in charge of this move...and the naked aggression behind it...is prepared for the blowback they're about to face.
 
millerm277 said:
You can make multiple quotes in a single post, FYI. A lot easier to read.



Went looking some more, found this: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2021-04/2021-04-26-fmcb-bus-transformation-update.pdf

Looks like Quincy is budgeted at $305m for a stated capacity of 150 buses.


$300m for construction and $30-70 for design....IN FY22! They have already spent significantly in FY21 and will in FY23...nearly $470M

$400m for 200 buses seems pretty much exactly in line with Quincy's costs.

The PVTA garage looks to have been built on an empty lot in an industrial park, and of course, at Springfield's much lower labor/everything rates. The Arborway garage project is also going to require demolishing an ancient office building that's probably full of asbestos, the current Arborway garage + CNG fueling stations, and various other site work. On the same note, is the PVTA garage fully equipped for a full electric fleet? Or is it just equipped for the ~20 they have now? Lot of difference in electrical work between that. I'm not suggesting that covers the whole of the cost difference, but there are potentially significant differences here.

7 times the cost...for asbestos and chargers? Reallŷ, that's what your going with?


Sounds odd to list the square footage of a building that isn't...the square footage of the building.
Again, a rough estimate based on a render without scale. No diagram of the basement was shown. And, if you have a realtor who tries to include the basement in the sq ftage, RUN!


Looked to me like it was another 20ft above the existing sidewalk, is that not the case?


The drawing showed the "Emerald Necklase" starting from the curb of the existing road, not the existing sidewalk OR the bikeway


Do we have a render or any sort of more detailed plan to suggest that's the intention? Your PVTA example has a fairly attractive frontage.



Yes, that's what the 8 acres are for. Nothing else in the quotes in that article sound like opposition. If they are opposed, it's certainly not obvious from the comments they've made.
Click to expand...
ant8904 said:
So the next question is there any pushback left? Anything we can do about it?

I know TransitMatters has been advocating to not do this. And I remember reading reasoning that the reason why the MBTA kept using trolleybuses is 1. The lower busway and 2. Belmont and Cambridge would not accept and have levers they can pull without even turning to public outcry and lawsuits.

Well, here we are. Is anyone doing anything about it? What happen to the efforts done before?

----




The long history should make it not surprising. But the literal decades of time should also means turnover should have replaced most of such people too with people with other ideas. Are they somehow transferring their hate of overhead wire from father to son or something? Quietly drilling how overhead write must be destroyed to each successive generation? Or somehow each generation get so many headaches maintaining it that they always develop a hatred while also never truly express outside their circles in how much it is a headache?
Click to expand...
Transitmatters advocates using existing wiring(Harvard Sq/Seaport/ Comm Ave/Huntington Ave) and modest(10-15 miles) new wire to carry 50% of ridership on IMC buses. But hey, why use the technology proven to work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top