MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Brattle Loop]

Name me one other city in the history of our planet that ever told the Summer Olympics “Go Away!”

Didn't Hamburg have a referendum on the prospect of hosting in 2024 where they rejected a bid as well?

And yes to the all door boarding. Let’s keep the people moving throughout the city quickly and efficiently.

Watch the T find some way to screw up such a no-brainer improvement.

 

[DominusNovus]

MadMax_ThatsBait.gif

But I'll bite.

First, nowhere in the City's press release, nor in any of the quotes in the article, does any City official "make this an issue for specific ethnic groups". Neither the article nor the press release once mention "black, African-American, Latino, Hispanic," or "ethnic"; the sole mention of such things comes as the Globe cites LivableStreets in noting the well-known fact that the bus routes in question serve a lot of low-income people of color. The only person in this discussion so far who has "made it an issue for specific ethnic groups" is, well, you.

[snip]

But from a moral standpoint: if Boston did decide to eliminate fares on some bus routes that serve majority-minority neighborhoods, intending it as a small form of reparations (which, again, is not what is happening here), that would fucking be okay.

But from a moral standpoint: if Boston did decide to eliminate fares on some bus routes that serve majority-minority neighborhoods, intending it as a small form of reparations (which, again, is not what is happening here), that would fucking be okay.

You specifically cite where the article mentions the racial angle and then say I’m the one that has brought that into the conversation. Just because it doesn’t specify one specific racial group, but a variety of non-white groups, does not change the fact that the article presents this as a consideration. And I’ll note that one could easily read your post in a very accusatory tone toward me.

I’m not saying don’t do things for groups that have it harder 5 than others, I’m saying that, by emphasizing focusing on them, it can be counterproductive. Especially because there are legal issues surrounding favoring groups on racial or ethnic lines - no matter if some think doing so is warranted - which you also acknowledge. I’m saying the same thing. Do this across the entire mbta bus system (or at least within the city limits) and you’ll still be benefitting the groups that need it the most.

Or, if you don’t find that compelling, consider the adage “programs for the poor become poor programs.”

 

[shmessy]

You specifically cite where the article mentions the racial angle and then say I’m the one that has brought that into the conversation. Just because it doesn’t specify one specific racial group, but a variety of non-white groups, does not change the fact that the article presents this as a consideration. And I’ll note that one could easily read your post in a very accusatory tone toward me.

I’m not saying don’t do things for groups that have it harder 5 than others, I’m saying that, by emphasizing focusing on them, it can be counterproductive. Especially because there are legal issues surrounding favoring groups on racial or ethnic lines - no matter if some think doing so is warranted - which you also acknowledge. I’m saying the same thing. Do this across the entire mbta bus system (or at least within the city limits) and you’ll still be benefitting the groups that need it the most.

Or, if you don’t find that compelling, consider the adage “programs for the poor become poor programs.”

For me, I dont look at it from the race angle at all.

I look at it from the economic angle. The biggest beneficiaries of this is the Boston BUSINESS COMMUNITY. What's the biggest problem today for our economy? Along with "Supply Chain" it is clearly "Finding Workers to fill the jobs".

This completely opens doors for worker mobility to jobs that are BEGGING to be filled (hell, I have a mom in an assisted living facility in town - - trust me, this will be a benefit to the City's economy). It is THIS angle that makes this idea so necessary. Think "Cost-Benefit Analysis".

People need to think like Economists and stop knee-jerking the irrelevant (but click-baited) social-racial angle.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So...the Bus Electrification meeting happened last night. Saw one recap on it on an RR.net post: https://www.railroad.net/mbta-bus-fleet-electrification-t173049-60.html#p1591959.


It was exactly as much bullshit as you'd have expected. If anything, more brazen than I would have imagined. And apparently the state steamrolled Cambridge and Watertown into silence by taking the fate of the funded Mt. Auburn St. and Mass Ave. reconstructions totally hostage over forceful elimination of the wires. Stuff of dystopian futures.

 

[Brattle Loop]

So...the Bus Electrification meeting happened last night. Saw one recap on it on an RR.net post: https://www.railroad.net/mbta-bus-fleet-electrification-t173049-60.html#p1591959.


It was exactly as much bullshit as you'd have expected. If anything, more brazen than I would have imagined. And apparently the state steamrolled Cambridge and Watertown into silence by taking the fate of the funded Mt. Auburn St. and Mass Ave. reconstructions totally hostage over forceful elimination of the wires. Stuff of dystopian futures.

Pure Crazy Transit Pitches territory, but is there anything to stop Cambridge from, say, putting up their own wires to continually (attempt to) embarrass the T about running diesels under them? (Or is that God Mode territory?)

 

[RandomWalk]

Cambridge also has the quick-build bike lanes, which are slated for Mass Ave near Porter next. They are hamstrung by the business folks screaming about parking and the wires blocking fire apparatus. TL; DR: unless the wires go, they have to take out a lot of parking.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Pure Crazy Transit Pitches territory, but is there anything to stop Cambridge from, say, putting up their own wires to continually (attempt to) embarrass the T about running diesels under them? (Or is that God Mode territory?)

The T sort of covered that in their responses. They oppose all wires on streets where they don't personally control the right of way. It can be the most willing/go-getter city imaginable, and they would still oppose it to the death because arbitrary turf reasons. They'd simply refuse to run it. Nihilist levels of opposition here.


Chillingly, you can direct-interpret from that statement a direct and still-ongoing threat to street-running trolleys on the outer E Line. Because that's a wired right of way off the reservation that they don't control (in spite of the host city being so supportive of the service that they back the extension to Hyde Sq.).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Cambridge also has the quick-build bike lanes, which are slated for Mass Ave near Porter next. They are hamstrung by the business folks screaming about parking and the wires blocking fire apparatus. TL; DR: unless the wires go, they have to take out a lot of parking.

Exactly. The city is a tough spot to begin with trying to negotiate Complete Streets here, and MassDOT seized upon the weakness by twisting a dagger in them.

They all but admitted that BEB's don't exist that'll run the duty cycles of the TT routes, and that the diesel interregnum is for all purposes open-ended. "Fuck you; sue us if you care that much. What difference will it make when you never see one shovel turned on these paid-for construction projects for as long as you shall live." The local reps were grasping at straws trying to explain away how little leverage they had to hold the state to anything here.

The brazenness of the monomaniacal earth-scorching is almost awe-inspiring. Almost.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Interestingly as well, this part of the RR.net post might explain why our new BEB-capable garages are pricing out so insanely high vs. the rest of the world. . .

7. The T seems to see garage chargers and batteries as "free" in that the manufacturers will maintain them. Seems shortsighted, as we all know that cost will be made up somewhere, but that's clearly where their thinking is and why they can claim that BEBs are so much cheaper. I suspect they're just hiding operational/maintenance expenses in capital costs.

[emphasis mine]

 

[RandomWalk]

The T is expert at installing a new light fixture when a bulb would do, so I am not surprised at hiding the O&M in the CapEx.

 

[Badusername]

So are we all committed to chaining ourselves to the catenary poles on D-day to prevent the tear down?

 

[Brattle Loop]

So are we all committed to chaining ourselves to the catenary poles on D-day to prevent the tear down?

The way the T clearly feels about overhead wires, I think they'd consider us acceptable collateral damage. (I'm not sure if that's me being sarcastic or pessimistic...)

 

[RandomWalk]

I assume they will go down the street after the end of service on the 12th, cutting the wires. They aren’t stuck with the world’s longest ship lead (aka the A line) here.

 

[Charlie_mta]

The MBTA could opt for this quick method to remove the trackless trolley wires.

 

[jass]

Did they talk about how much heavier battery vehicles are, and how they will destroy the pavement?

 

[ant8904]

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.

There's actually a public meeting about this scheduled for February 15th. I'm sure the cities of Cambridge and Watertown will have statements prepared for that.

If that is indeed the case, that both towns favor the move, then I think that's the end.

So...the Bus Electrification meeting happened last night. Saw one recap on it on an RR.net post: https://www.railroad.net/mbta-bus-fleet-electrification-t173049-60.html#p1591959.


It was exactly as much bullshit as you'd have expected. If anything, more brazen than I would have imagined. And apparently the state steamrolled Cambridge and Watertown into silence by taking the fate of the funded Mt. Auburn St. and Mass Ave. reconstructions totally hostage over forceful elimination of the wires. Stuff of dystopian futures.

Welp, we have the result. For all the political power Cambridge/Belmont/Watertown has (or at least the first two reputationally), the state used the road reconstruction projects to silence them.

Honestly, if I was the political class of the two cities, I would have just kept the road in the current design. Maybe I just haven't been on Mt. Auburn Street enough, but I honestly feel like the loss of ETB outweighs the gains of "Complete Streets". Especially that many of the most beneficial features (new bus lanes and larger turnouts, buffered bike lanes in many locations, adjusted driving/turn lanes ) can be done without the major cost drivers of new curb construction and traffic lights.
Keeping ETB and living with bollards and painted lanes as we've been mostly doing since the late 2000's sounds acceptable to me.

Of course, the real messed up thing is they have manage to pit one mission against another mission.

I find it a sad irony that our ETBs manage to survive past the great removals of the mid-twentieth century. That it survive so long that that we are watching other cities that have totally loss their ETBs bringing them back from scratch. We are in a position (with a few others), where we claim with pride our system is a continuation rather than a revival. But of course, we are finally kill it now. Right in the middle when so many other cities are bringing them back or trying to bring them back.

----

But I digressed enough expressing my personal mindset that I know doesn't matter. The question is now again "now what?". The State "Reps" are useless as they already expressed support while throwing words of reassurance they will make the MBTA keep their BEB promise when the barriers to the promise can easily be something they have zero control over. The cities are quelled into silence (or made their choice between two possible options).

So is this it? After all these recent years watching generational MBTA turnover, rise of transit advocacy groups, and greater expression towards environmentalism. The same old MBTA discussed literally on this forum even up to two decades ago just remains? With the same old helpless we read/watch as back in those times?

 

[Wash]

Welp, we have the result. For all the political power Cambridge/Belmont/Watertown has (or at least the first two reputationally), the state used the road reconstruction projects to silence them.

Honestly, if I was the political class of the two cities, I would have just kept the road in the current design. Maybe I just haven't been on Mt. Auburn Street enough, but I honestly feel like the loss of ETB outweighs the gains of "Complete Streets". Especially that many of the most beneficial features (new bus lanes and larger turnouts, buffered bike lanes in many locations, adjusted driving/turn lanes ) can be done without the major cost drivers of new curb construction and traffic lights.
Keeping ETB and living with bollards and painted lanes as we've been mostly doing since the late 2000's sounds acceptable to me.

Of course, the real messed up thing is they have manage to pit one mission against another mission.

I find it a sad irony that our ETBs manage to survive past the great removals of the mid-twentieth century. That it survive so long that that we are watching other cities that have totally loss their ETBs bringing them back from scratch. We are in a position (with a few others), where we claim with pride our system is a continuation rather than a revival. But of course, we are finally kill it now. Right in the middle when so many other cities are bringing them back or trying to bring them back.

----

But I digressed enough expressing my personal mindset that I know doesn't matter. The question is now again "now what?". The State "Reps" are useless as they already expressed support while throwing words of reassurance they will make the MBTA keep their BEB promise when the barriers to the promise can easily be something they have zero control over. The cities are quelled into silence (or made their choice between two possible options).

So is this it? After all these recent years watching generational MBTA turnover, rise of transit advocacy groups, and greater expression towards environmentalism. The same old MBTA discussed literally on this forum even up to two decades ago just remains? With the same old helpless we read/watch as back in those times?

"Let us abandon then our gardens and go home
And sit in the sitting-room
Shall the larkspur blossom or the corn grow under this cloud?
Sour to the fruitful seed
Is the cold earth under this cloud,
Fostering quack and weed, we have marched upon but cannot
conquer
We have bent the blades of our hoes against the stalks of them..."

-Edna St. Vincent Millay, Justice Denied in Massachusetts (excerpt).

 

[Tallguy]

No electric us has made it through a normal Boston service day on a single charge. EVER.
RIPTA gets half a day out of their EBs. The 60 ft diesel heated BEB being tested by the T RIGHT NOW gets 90 miles on it's best day. But, hey, lets tear down the only proven technology we have.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

More details from the meeting, from that same RR.net poster: https://www.railroad.net/mbta-bus-fleet-electrification-t173049-75.html#p1592019

• For all Harvard-assigned BEB's, the only charging spot will be at North Cambridge carhouse...meaning that all routes must do a "77A" semi-deadhead run to recharge. Not all schedules can currently fit within the range for that, but "Feh!". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• They're going to spend a wad of money to upgrade North Cambridge first, but as soon as Charlestown is upgraded for BEB servicing (last-in-queue) they plan to close North Cambridge entirely because it's uselessly small. Though they don't explain how the schedules will work from a charging base much further out. Confirms my suspicion here. Smell the money being lit on fire for preserving an illusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• It'll take a 25% fleet increase to cover the same schedules as the TT's because of the extra recharging downtime...35 BEB's vs. 28 TT's. Again...this BEB order hasn't been placed yet, and there are none on the market in 2022 that'll cover the duty cycles of the 71/73. They claim that by 2024 the market will have caught up, but procurements take 2 years. That means diesels are at minimum a 4-year interregnum. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• The funny math breaks under its own weight when they claim that BEB's + "transition plan" will represent a cost savings over a new generation of TT's + wire maint. This looks like a trademark Baker-special tank job on the numbers-running. Both on the toplines (overinflated TT costs) and the bottom lines (supposed BEB savings that don't add up). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Place your betting odds on "diesel for 10+ years" if you can. They are resolutely setting themselves up to fail, fail hard, and irreparably harm any sensibly-thought BEB deployments elsewhere on the system...and don't care who knows it or tries to call them out on it.

 

[fatnoah]

They are resolutely setting themselves up to fail, fail hard

I think our definition of fail strongly differs from the T's definition. The clear intention is to get rid of the wires and the road projects provide such a good opportunity for them to do so, they've got to contort reality to make a case for it. Once the wires are down, it's a success for the T. By the time it's clear that we're living la vida diesel for the long term for the 71/73, it'll be "too expensive" to go back. The T gets what it wants, so it's a win for them.