MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

[Java King]

Not this 400-footer insanity. Somebody on the contracted-out design team flat-out doesn't care about dwells, and Commuter Rail ops apparently doesn't care enough overall to do basic fact-check of the design team's work.

Remember when they were proposing all the single platforms on the WRONG side? That was absolutely crazy too.

 

[thepianoperson]

If they absolutely have to shorten the platform because of blowout costs (though that's a hella dubious claim because platform length isn't anywhere close to the biggest cost driver...egresses and utilities are), then pick something that can berth a 5- or 6-pack matching current Framingham consists.

Doesn’t shortening the platforms change the amount of egress required? The old concept had two overhead bridges and this only has one - there’s a good chunk of cost savings. For the record I don’t agree with the 400’ platform decision either for all the reasons listed but that may a driving factor.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Doesn’t shortening the platforms change the amount of egress required? The old concept had two overhead bridges and this only has one - there’s a good chunk of cost savings. For the record I don’t agree with the 400’ platform decision either for all the reasons listed but that may a driving factor.

No...there's no MAAB-codified accessibility triggers tied to platform length. Nothing that says "exceed x-hundred feet, must build additional egress". They're simply selling it as a major cost saver when foot-length of poured platforms is not in fact a major cost saver. The transparency has been opaque-as-@#$% throughout this whole process...dating back to the big fiasco a few years ago with the single-side Auburndale design. They're willfully choosing to be passive-aggressively obtuse with the stakeholders.