MBTA Construction Projects

tysmith95 said:
Last minute change they postponed the planned work on the Newburyport Rockport line inside of Beverly.
Click to expand...
Hum :unsure: maybe the T should tell their trip planner software that. Still getting 3 and 4 bus connections taking 2 hours +

And Google Maps thinks the Newbury/Rockport line is a shuttle, but that the Blue Line is still running into Boston?

Not exactly great communication of the schedule changes.
 
TrolleybusFoaming said:
The harbor tunnel Blue Line shutdown has been extended another week. On May 12th and 13th, Blue Line riders north of Orient Heights will enjoy the experience of a shuttle to there, a train to Airport, and another shuttle downtown.

On a side note, do we really need to shut down a line for 2 weeks to repair a pedestrian footbridge?
Click to expand...
OK so today the T says the derailment of a "tool cart" means the shutdown needs to be extended to May 17. Do they think the public is too ignorant to know what a rail "tool cart" which commonly looks like this------ https://rrtools.com/product/tool-and-supply-cart-steel-body-1-piece/s It's a F*****g hand cart that two men can pick up by hand and put on the tracks. Public relations isn't the T's strong point.
 
MBTA’s Codman Yard Expansion project advances, construction by late 2022

MBTA-Codman-Improvements-Map-002-1-755x402.jpg
“As part of the MBTA’s Capital Program and Red Line Transformation (RLT), the MBTA has announced that the construction contract for the Codman Yard Expansion and Improvements project has been advertised to bid…”

https://www.rtands.com/passenger/ad...d-efficiency-and-reliability-to-the-red-line/
 
30% design presentations are available for the elevator upgrade projects:

Elevator Accessibility Upgrades | Projects | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com

Not a lot of new information, but some nice maps and graphics. Broadway in particular shows how great this is for improving walksheds.
1654099804910.png
 
It's striking to me how, if these projects are built, we're well on the way to haing redundant elevators at every station - particularly the major stations. Those without redundant elevators constructed/planned are in bold.
  • Alewife: Multiple platform elevators
  • Davis: 1 headhouse elevator, 1 platform elevator (planned for 2/2)
  • Porter: 2/2
  • Harvard: 2 surface elevators, ramps to platforms
  • Central: 1 elevator per platform, 2nd in planning
  • Kendall/MIT: 2nd elevators being added currently
  • Charles/MGH: 1 per platform; 2nd may be added with RBX
  • Park: multiple elevator routes for every transfer; outer RL platforms are not accessible
  • DTX: Redundant elevators for all transfers in design
  • South Station: 2 elevators to every platform
  • Broadway: 1/1, 2/2 in design. Northwest entrance not accessible.
  • Andrew: 1 surface elevator, 1 to each platform
  • JFK/UMass: 1 per RL platform. Lobby to busway and CR is ramp only.
  • Savin Hill: 1 platform elevator
  • Fields Corner: 1 per platform
  • Shawmut: 1 per platform
  • Ashmont: 2 to NB platform, 1 to SB platform. Both RL platforms also have accessible ramps to side streets.
  • North Quincy: 1 at each end
  • Wollaston: redundant elevators
  • Quincy Center: 1 elevator per platform
  • Quincy Adams: 2nd platform elevator recently added
  • Braintree: 1 RL platform elevator. CR is ramp only.
  • Oak Grove: redundant elevators being added
  • Malden Center: 1 per platform
  • Wellington: 2nd elevators in design
  • Assembly: 1 at each end
  • Sullivan: 1 per platform - current project does not add redundant
  • Community College: 1 platform elevator
  • North Station: redundant elevators in design
  • Haymarket: redundant elevators (though only 1 per transfer)
  • State: redundant elevators (though only 1 per transfer). Additional headhouse elevators in design.
  • Chinatown: 2nd elevators in design
  • Tufts Medical Center: 1 per platform, 1 lobby elevator
  • Back Bay: 1 per platform. Some redundant may be added if adjacent tower is built.
  • Mass Ave: 2nd in design
  • Ruggles: 1 per platform; project in design will likely add second headhouse
  • Roxbury Crossing: 1 platform elevator
  • Jackson Square: 2nd in design
  • Stony Brook: 1 platform elevator
  • Green Street: 1 platform elevator
  • Forest Hills: 2 OL elevators, 1 CR elevator. 2nd busway elevator in design.
  • Wonderland: redundant accessible paths
  • Revere Beach: 1 per platform
  • Beachmont: 1 per platform; may be modified for Suffolk Downs redev
  • Suffolk Downs: Ramp only; may be modified for Suffolk Downs redev
  • Orient Heights: 2 per platform
  • Wood Island: 1 per platform
  • Airport: 2 per platform
  • Maverick: 1 at each end
  • Aquarium: 1 at each end
  • Bowdoin: not currently accessible
  • Medford/Tufts, Magoun Square, Gilman Square, Lechmere: multiple platform elevators
  • Ball Square, Union Square: 1 platform elevator with alternate accessible path
  • East Somerville: ramp only
  • Science Park: 1 per platform
  • Boylston: not currently accessible
  • Arlington: 2nd in design
  • Copley: 1 per platform
  • Hynes: not currently accessible; redundant elevators in design
  • Kenmore: 1 lobby elevator, 1 per platform
  • Riverside: ramp only; 2 elevators planned with TOD
  • Prudential: 1 lobby elevator, 1 per platform
  • Symphony: not currently accessible; redundant elevators in design
The most important candidates to me are Andrew, JFK/UMass, Fields Corner, Ashmont, Quincy Center, Braintree, Malden Center, Sullivan, Tufts Medical Center, Back Bay, Roxbury Crossing, Copley, and Kenmore. All are important transfer locations with high ridership.

Very few CR stations (that aren't transfer stations) have elevators. Many have very long ramps that aren't exactly good for accessibility. Some notable cases:
  • Lansdowne: redundant platform elevators
  • Boston Landing: 1 at each end
  • Newton and Wellesley stations: rebuilds planned, will likely have elevators
  • Natick: under-construction with 1 elevator per platform plus ramps
  • Framingham: 1 per platform. Accessible surface route is 2,000 feet long.
  • Ashland to Grafton: huge ramp structures. Definitely a candidate for elevators.
  • Worcester: 2nd elevator under construction
  • Needham Line and Franklin Line: no elevators, unlikely to need them unless track crossings are eliminated
  • Hyde Park and Readville: long ramps, definitely elevator candidates
  • Route 128: 1 per platform; SB platform has accessible surface route. These elevators have poor reliability and redundant elevators are desperately needed.
  • Canton Junction, Sharon, Mansfield, Attleboro: all nominally accessible, but with lengthy ramps. High priority for full-highs and elevators.
  • South Attleboro: in planning; will probably have elevators and ramps
  • Pawtucket/Central Falls: under construction; I believe it will have elevators and ramps
  • Providence: 1 per platform, candidate for redundant
  • TF Green: platform accessible without elevators. I believe there are redundant elevators to the airport skyway.
  • Fairmount Line: long ramps for accessibility. Low current ridership; candidates for elevators if service increases result in higher ridership.
  • Old Colony Lines and Greenbush Line: no elevators, largely unlikely to need them unless second platforms are added
  • North Leominster and Ayer: CSX might push to eliminate pedestrian level crossings to separate passengers from freight, in which case elevators would be useful. Ayer will likely need them for any rebuild.
  • South Acton: 1 per platform, candidate for redundant
  • Waverley: plans for rebuild a few years ago had ramps only. Elevators here and at Belmont Center would be best.
  • Lowell: I believe there's only 1 elevator here, candidate for redundant
  • North Billerica and Wilmington: platform access is primarily via track crossing; may need footbridge/underpass someday
  • Anderson RTC: 1 elevator, candidate for redundant
  • Bradford, Lawrence, Greenwood: platform access is primarily via track crossing; may need footbridge/underpass someday
  • Salem: redundant accessible paths
  • Lynn: second elevator in design
  • River Works: If ever made a full-time station with TOD, footbridge would be advisable due to lack of streets nearby
 
It’s odd that so many of the transit stations lacking redundancy were refreshed relatively recently.
 
RandomWalk said:
It’s odd that so many of the transit stations lacking redundancy were refreshed relatively recently.
Click to expand...
The Mass Architectural Board's transit accessibility standards were significantly toughened after 2005, so only stations that went into design after that had to bake in redundancy above-and-beyonds. There are stations built or reno'ed in the last 20 years that were grandfathered under the old regime. Such as all those Blue Line stations that finished up accessibility renos in the early-2000's; the standards have advanced a lot since those touches.
 
Transit has been particularly slow to embrace accessibility, largely because it costs money up front, and redundant accessibility even more so. Not until the 2006 settlement of Joanne Daniels-Finegold, et al. v. MBTA were redundant elevators required in new MBTA designs. I believe this current set came out of the 2018 settlement update.

Sad to say, the MBTA is ahead of the curve on accessibility, largely because of the MAAB and that BCIL lawsuit. Most of the other systems in the US lack redundant elevators entirely; BART is still building $200M stations with only one platform elevator. Almost every non-accessible Green Line station is in active planning; Philadelphia has zero accessible light rail stations, while SF plans to leave most of its surface stops permanently inaccessible. Among legacy commuter rail systems, only Caltrain (with 1/4 the stations) and LIRR have more of their system accessible.
 
Speaking of accessibility, the May 2022 accessibility update is out:

Some highlights:
  • New elevators at Oak Grove should be finished by July
  • Ruggles Phase II design should be 100% this month. Funding is in the 23-27 CIP, so construction will start next year
  • Further delays to Newton Highlands - construction beginning in 2023
  • Hynes design is still only at 30%, two and a half years into the contract.
 
The EGE said:
  • Ruggles Phase II design should be 100% this month. Funding is in the 23-27 CIP, so construction will start next year
Click to expand...
The first public outreach for this project was last night, a month from 100% design. I don't understand why some projects work like that, while others spend a year in public engagement just to get to 30% design.

Also disappointing to see Symphony Station apparently delayed by a year, now starting construction in "fall 2023" while the last public meeting presentation said construction would start "Summer 2022" https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...-accessibility-improvments-public-meeting.pdf
 
The EGE said:
Transit has been particularly slow to embrace accessibility, largely because it costs money up front, and redundant accessibility even more so. Not until the 2006 settlement of Joanne Daniels-Finegold, et al. v. MBTA were redundant elevators required in new MBTA designs. I believe this current set came out of the 2018 settlement update.

Sad to say, the MBTA is ahead of the curve on accessibility, largely because of the MAAB and that BCIL lawsuit. Most of the other systems in the US lack redundant elevators entirely; BART is still building $200M stations with only one platform elevator. Almost every non-accessible Green Line station is in active planning; Philadelphia has zero accessible light rail stations, while SF plans to leave most of its surface stops permanently inaccessible. Among legacy commuter rail systems, only Caltrain (with 1/4 the stations) and LIRR have more of their system accessible.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are thankfully not like NY on this front - only 23% of MTA stations have elevators. Good report available here from TC on those accessibility issues.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
Also disappointing to see Symphony Station apparently delayed by a year, now starting construction in "fall 2023" while the last public meeting presentation said construction would start "Summer 2022" https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...-accessibility-improvments-public-meeting.pdf
Click to expand...

It may not actually be that much of a delay. That October 2021 presentation said construction in Summer 2022, with the station closed from mid-2023 to late 2024. This document says utility work beginning in September 2022, with station construction in Fall 2023. If the "station construction" in the latter document means the closure, then it's only a 3-month delay.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The Mass Architectural Board's transit accessibility standards were significantly toughened after 2005, so only stations that went into design after that had to bake in redundancy above-and-beyonds. There are stations built or reno'ed in the last 20 years that were grandfathered under the old regime. Such as all those Blue Line stations that finished up accessibility renos in the early-2000's; the standards have advanced a lot since those touches.
Click to expand...
Quincy Center had a ton of work post-2005. Did they avoid the obligation by basically leaving the platform untouched?
 
Not quite an MBTA project as it's RIDOT, but as it's a CR station I figured its close enough. As I was in the area, here's a few photos of the Pawtucket/Central Falls Station under construction.
20220630_153415.jpg
20220630_153137.jpg
20220630_153407.jpg
20220630_153409.jpg
20220630_153422.jpg


In the area: I can't wait for the former P&W yard to be redeveloped with the density envisioned by the TOD plan.
20220630_153745.jpg

And this rather funny ADA curb ramp which is useless until new pavement comes in to raise street level.
20220630_153459.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20220630_153137.jpg
    20220630_153137.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 78
Who is going to do all that walking to get to the platform? Isn't an elevator going to be put in?:eek:
 
I must say even with everything else going on/crumbling at the MBTA, this push for reopening and new headhouses across the system is a refreshingly positive and uncharacteristic move by the T. I hope they continue to identify stuff like this that improves the access to stations and thus the rider experience considerably. The difference of having to walk outside an extra block or two can really make a difference in attracting people to the T, and I think just having more headhouses visible on the street gives an impression of a more expansive system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top