MBTA Construction Projects

[whighlander]

Re: T construction news

Are you prepared to agree that Massachusetts should pay for 100% of all highway projects too?

What makes you think "the new Congress" will be any different? Because if republicans take over both houses, they will cut all funding for transit and direct all subsidies towards highways and overseas wars?

Mathew -- we are all agreed that local roads should be paid for by the towns and cities where they are located -- and they are -- thus Boston, Concord, etc. build streets which are paid for by the locals not by the people from Worcester

However when there is a regional arterial such a Rt-2 we have accepted that the responsibility for building and maintaining it lies with the Commonwealth -- paid for by Massachusetts residents not the people of Montanna

Similarly -- Interstate Highway System [one of President Eisenhower's greatest legaacies] -- the Federal gov't certainly has a vested interest in insuring quality, standards and the overll effeciency of the integrated IH System as part of the Fed's role in National Defense. That responsibility probably translates into funding IH construction and major rehabbing in-part -- as the current IH system work is funded -- e.g. the Big Dig. You might even include funding for the interchanges betwen the IH and State Highways with some appropriate transition to the State Highway as a logical follow-on. I don't think that Fed $ should be involved in building city or town roads approaching an IH unless the road is qualified by it's inclusion in the above-mentioned State Highwys -- e.g. Interchange between I-95 (Rt-128) and Mass 4/225 (aka Bedford St).

Does that answer your question?

PS: I don't see how the overseas wars in relevant to the discussion of funding US transportantion infrastructure

 

[ant8904]

Re: T construction news

PS: I don't see how the overseas wars in relevant to the discussion of funding US transportantion infrastructure

I think it is just a statement that a republican congress would largely expand on only those two fronts - highway funding and overseas military.

Does that answer your question?

The short version is you believe local, regional, and state roads should be state funded, but the Interstate Highway system should be federal funded. Is that correct?

I disagree with that view because the end result is a system that completely incentivizes highway construction (if the state, let's say have 100,000,000 for a transportation project, would they rather spend it on highway infrastructure where the feds will essentially double the investment or only the other modes?). The last major public transit expansion we saw in this state was after the Feds gave incentives to public transit projects. If you don't think Federal money doesn't affect state policies (thus the Feds will build the highways while the state build the roads and subways), then look at drinking laws how the Feds used highway funding to ensure every state make it to be 21.

But, I want to go back and focus on your train of thought. Does that mean support Federal involvement for tran-state projects - so like passenger railroads - or just Federal Involvement when it comes to Interstate Highways?


If you only support federal involvement for defense. Then I have to point out that you can't just separate highways as a transportation facilitator from its dual purpose as a defense facilitator. Giving funding for Interstate Highways in the name of national defense is also giving favor and subsidization to a mode of transportation. The only way it is not is if you keep the highway closed off from any use except military movement.

If you take a federal funding stance for highways because of its role interstate commerce, then I hope you then this mean you support railroads and specifically high speed rails. I would still disagree, but at least this view seems consistent and logical to me.

 

[whighlander]

Re: T construction news

I think it is just a statement that a republican congress would largely expand on only those two fronts - highway funding and overseas military.



The short version is you believe local, regional, and state roads should be state funded, but the Interstate Highway system should be federal funded. Is that correct?

I disagree with that view because the end result is a system that completely incentivizes highway construction (if the state, let's say have 100,000,000 for a transportation project, would they rather spend it on highway infrastructure where the feds will essentially double the investment or only the other modes?). The last major public transit expansion we saw in this state was after the Feds gave incentives to public transit projects. If you don't think Federal money doesn't affect state policies (thus the Feds will build the highways while the state build the roads and subways), then look at drinking laws how the Feds used highway funding to ensure every state make it to be 21.

But, I want to go back and focus on your train of thought. Does that mean support Federal involvement for tran-state projects - so like passenger railroads - or just Federal Involvement when it comes to Interstate Highways?


If you only support federal involvement for defense. Then I have to point out that you can't just separate highways as a transportation facilitator from its dual purpose as a defense facilitator. Giving funding for Interstate Highways in the name of national defense is also giving favor and subsidization to a mode of transportation. The only way it is not is if you keep the highway closed off from any use except military movement.

If you take a federal funding stance for highways because of its role interstate commerce, then I hope you then this mean you support railroads and specifically high speed rails. I would still disagree, but at least this view seems consistent and logical to me.

Ant -- Ever heard the prase "Dual Use" -- Pres. Eisenhower who was well aware of the yeoman service by the railroads during WWII in moving troops and material -- conceived of the IH System as a key aspect of the Cold War Era National Defence

Note that he differentiated the IH (built to Federal Standards) from the numbered US Highways built by the states as they pleased.

Rail is different for many reasons including the unlikely use of persoal rail vehicles by many members of the public. But I suppose that to provide a robust transportation infrastructure inlcuding roads, air, sea, etc., that some arguement can be made for Federal Rail Construction and Signaling Standards and a slightly weaker argument for Federal assistance in building and major restoration of rail tracks and supporting infrastructure -- although not for stations, or privately owned and operated yards.

Thus i think that a case can be made for Federal aid (something like the IH formula) to the states for replacing bridges in CT on the shoreline to NYC and to NY and NJ for a new tunnel under the Hudson -- although I can't see asking someone in Hawaii to pay NY for buuilding more platforms at Penn Station.

Note that I'm certainly not against states voluntarily agreeing to jointly build and opporate rail facilities such as RIDOT and Mass DOT for the Providence CR and NH, ME for the Amtrak Downeaster.

What I can't see as being justified is having taxpayers subsidiing Amtrack hauling vacationers and "unreconstructed -- hippies" on jaunts from Chicago to SF

Contrary to some conservatives I favor a Federally Insured Infrastructure Bank where states can get good rates (Comparable to Treasury Bills) on borrowing for highways, rail, port and airport projects -- only for construction and major rehabbing.

The bank will be recirculating as the bonds are repaid and also growing in bonding authority as I would put all the current transportation trust funds into the bank and allow the states to have maximum flexibility in the use.

But as a trade-off -- I would teminate all Federal subsidies for operations of Amtrak and local transportation operations after a 3 to 5 year phase out. I would also do away with the earmarks and other Congressional resume padding for transportation -- thus all the silly New Starts, Small Starts and all of the associated Federal BureauKrapsy would be gone. If Massachusets and possibly RI, NH and ME all wanted to fund a tunnel from NS to SS to enable someone from Providence to ride under the streets of Boston en route to Portland -- that would be fine -- they would borrow the $ from the Infrastructure Bank at about 3 to 4% and go and build it

 

[ant8904]

Re: T construction news

Ever heard the prase "Dual Use" -- Pres. Eisenhower who was well aware of the yeoman service by the railroads during WWII in moving troops and material -- conceived of the IH System as a key aspect of the Cold War Era National Defence

I presume you meant "never heard the phrase 'Dual Use'". I don't see how that's a rebuttal to anything I said. The Interstate Highway as conceived might have been justified for its importance if the US ever got invaded by the Soviets, but the practiced use is the facilitation of private commerce and personal use for transportation - akin to passenger trains.

Since the Interstate Highway System is so highly used for personal passenger transportation role, you cannot separate that from its value as a defense role. Regardless of what Eisenhower argued to Congress when he proposed it.

This means to support Federal funding for Interstate Highways on the basis of defense is support Federal funding -thus incentivizing - for automobile transportation as the first priority infrastructure for state to develop over the other forms.
that some arguement can be made for Federal Rail Construction and Signaling Standards and a slightly weaker argument for Federal assistance in building and major restoration of rail tracks and supporting infrastructure -- although not for stations, or privately owned and operated yards.

This sounds like you're okay with Federal money for rails akin to Federal money to highways.

But as a trade-off -- I would teminate all Federal subsidies for operations of Amtrak and local transportation operations after a 3 to 5 year phase out. I would also do away with the earmarks and other Congressional resume padding for transportation -- thus all the silly New Starts, Small Starts and all of the associated Federal BureauKrapsy would be gone. If Massachusets and possibly RI, NH and ME all wanted to fund a tunnel from NS to SS to enable someone from Providence to ride under the streets of Boston en route to Portland -- that would be fine -- they would borrow the $ from the Infrastructure Bank at about 3 to 4% and go and build it

But now you're going back to incentivizing highways over all other modes in the eyes of the state. So highways will be subsidized by the Federal government from money from states near and far, which highways in practiced are used far more as a personal-passenger role than defense, but rail projects and all other forms have to borrow from the government at a 3-4% interest rate.

 

[Matthew]

Re: T construction news

Local roads in this state are not funded entirely locally. Look up Chapter 90 and "cherry sheets." Last year $200 million was distributed.

Anyway, my question was: should highway (including interstate highway) projects be 100% funded by Massachusetts on the segments within the state?

Your answer to that seems to be "no".

That's a hypocritical stance, as ant has said. The fact is, Feds guaranteed 90% of Interstate highway construction costs, and that drove people at the state level crazy to get their hands on that money. We all know what happened next. The fact of the matter is that those massive subsidies drove people to build roads that were inappropriate and uneconomical otherwise. The urban freeways that resulted were something that President Eisenhower never expected and never wanted.

If highways could solve our transportation dilemma, then that would be one thing. But they can't. They just don't carry the kind of capacity that is needed at the hearts of cities. And all the vehicles that use them require some kind of storage space at the end of their journeys. So we spent hundreds of billions building inappropriate transportation infrastructure all through our cities, and then wonder why it's causing so many problems?

If we could start over and not drown ourselves in that deluge of Federal highway money, I could support the "no outside money" option. Because then the decisions about infrastructure would have been driven by practical, economic realities rather than an obsession with connecting highway lines on a map. Also the Feds wouldn't get to dictate unrelated regulations to the states, which I would appreciate.

But in our world, we've driven trillions of dollars into the road system. It's about $600 billion in the red. There is no hope for anything to compete on a level playing ground with something that's received a $600 billion and rising subsidy. The fact that transit system usage has been rising despite all these disadvantages is, I think, testament to their necessity.

 

[rdeastcl]

Re: T construction news

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...idership_could_overwhelm_system_report_warns/

Maybe this will help get the T, the city, and the state moving on some updates before its to late.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: T construction news

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...idership_could_overwhelm_system_report_warns/

Maybe this will help get the T, the city, and the state moving on some updates before its to late.

I doubt if this thing were published in the esteemed scientific journal "DUH!" would it make any difference at this point. There's nothing in this report that they didn't know 22 years ago when they inked those Big Dig Transit Commitments that they then cut-and-ran from. You can only get so many more people traveling to the city before needing to contend with the issue of moving them around the city. And that was spoken in terms of congestion management way back then too. They know this. And they knew what was going to come to a head soon enough if they ignored that. And ignored basic maintenance. This report may do some of the same good the "Born Broke" paper did at focusing the ire of a pissed-off public on useful specifics as opposed to unfocused general agitation, and that is a useful public service. But at the end of the day the leadership knows where it failed without needing to have those findings vetted and published by public policy institute or blue-ribbon panel. It knew 20 years ago exactly how, where, and to what extent it would fail if it slacked off on the follow-through. And it didn't care. I/me/my friends, and whatever locks down the swing votes for the next election.

It's a leadership problem. And it will be until the leadership feels threatened on its own turf for job security. So far, mad-as-hell urban commuters aren't sufficiently threatening enough to impact their comfort level. The service cuts "debate" this spring was more sobering proof that the dissatisfaction is not hitting them nearly close enough home to matter. Closer, maybe, but we're discovering just how high that public dissatisfaction ante has to go to get a rise out of the elected and appointed officials who've been coasting on known outcomes like this. If/when things boil over enough for a fumigation, it's going to be a lot broader and messier than just transit.


But, yeah, if we ever do get that day where a chorus line of officials get paraded in front of Legislative hearings reports like this make for very satisfying waterboarding when they're forced to spin their way around the bleeding obvious. So keep 'em coming. First things first, though, we gotta solve that little problem that they are still after all this time so unthreatened on their own turf by the T's converging crises to be motivated to call Legislative hearings at all. That to me is the scariest part.

 

[whighlander]

Re: T construction news

Local roads in this state are not funded entirely locally. Look up Chapter 90 and "cherry sheets." Last year $200 million was distributed.

Anyway, my question was: should highway (including interstate highway) projects be 100% funded by Massachusetts on the segments within the state?

Your answer to that seems to be "no".

That's a hypocritical stance, as ant has said. The fact is, Feds guaranteed 90% of Interstate highway construction costs, and that drove people at the state level crazy to get their hands on that money. We all know what happened next. The fact of the matter is that those massive subsidies drove people to build roads that were inappropriate and uneconomical otherwise. The urban freeways that resulted were something that President Eisenhower never expected and never wanted.

If highways could solve our transportation dilemma, then that would be one thing. But they can't. They just don't carry the kind of capacity that is needed at the hearts of cities. And all the vehicles that use them require some kind of storage space at the end of their journeys. So we spent hundreds of billions building inappropriate transportation infrastructure all through our cities, and then wonder why it's causing so many problems?

If we could start over and not drown ourselves in that deluge of Federal highway money, I could support the "no outside money" option. Because then the decisions about infrastructure would have been driven by practical, economic realities rather than an obsession with connecting highway lines on a map. Also the Feds wouldn't get to dictate unrelated regulations to the states, which I would appreciate.

But in our world, we've driven trillions of dollars into the road system. It's about $600 billion in the red. There is no hope for anything to compete on a level playing ground with something that's received a $600 billion and rising subsidy. The fact that transit system usage has been rising despite all these disadvantages is, I think, testament to their necessity.

Mathew -- under "Crazy Infrastructure Pitches" -- please note the folowing:

Contrary to some conservatives I favor a Federally Insured Infrastructure Bank where states can get good rates (Comparable to Treasury Bills) on borrowing for highways, rail, port and airport projects -- only for construction and major rehabbing.

The bank will be recirculating as the bonds are repaid and also growing in bonding authority as I would put all the current transportation trust funds into the bank and allow the states to have maximum flexibility in the use.

But as a trade-off -- I would teminate all Federal subsidies for operations of Amtrak and local transportation operations after a 3 to 5 year phase out. I would also do away with the earmarks and other Congressional resume padding for transportation -- thus all the silly New Starts, Small Starts and all of the associated Federal BureauKrapsy would be gone. If Massachusets and possibly RI, NH and ME all wanted to fund a tunnel from NS to SS to enable someone from Providence to ride under the streets of Boston en route to Portland -- that would be fine -- they would borrow the $ from the Infrastructure Bank at about 3 to 4% and go and build it

In the ideal world the Revolving and Growing Transportation Infrastructure Bank would replace all of the Federal grants and mechinations with respect to transit and highways -- states and with appropriate state legislation, cities, towns, counties. could all tap the low cost borrowing from the Bank. The only direct Federal money for transportation beyond that would be for Federal installations such as military bases, prisons, court houses, Area 51?

however, I don't really think anything like that will happen -- nor do I think that we will be able to climb into a time machine and convince Pres. Eisenhower to base his transport policy on the Tube and British Rail rather than the Autobahn

So how do we proceed realisticly:

1) the IH system, short of the Electric Power Grid is the single largest built infrastructure National Asset of the country
a) it must be maintained and if possible improved though probably not much increased in milege
b) the US highways and major state routes [e.g. Rt-2, 3] provide critical local connections to the IH System -- some perhaps should be adopted as part of the IH system -- although certainly with a high standard of acceptance
2) Rails are also a Nationl Asset -- although mostly in private, state or municipal hands -- hence the Federal responsibilities are different and they are further different for the various categories of rail infrastructure:
a) major freight links equivalent to the primary IH 2 digit routes -- critical National Assets in private hands
b) major passenger coridors -- where they are viable -- not just pipe dreams or wishful thinking -- e.g. North East Corridor
c) regional routes -- e.g. Downeaster
d) Commuter rail
e) heavy, light, BRT -- any permanent rail or equivalent urban transit
3) Airports are similar to [2] with the air traffic control system a wholly Federally controlled and owned National Asset
4) seaports are similar to [3] with the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers in place of the FAA

As much as possible the funds from the various transportaton trust funds should be block-granted to the states for their internal political processes to decide how to allocate them with the priority to maintain, rehab and improve the in-place transportation assets

As much as possible the deck should be cleared to permit voluntary regional compacts such as Downeaster; MA + NY cooperating on rail from Boston to Albany; RI + MA, etc.

 

[Matthew]

Re: T construction news

Huh? Eisenhower did base his vision on the Autobahn, and that is why he was extremely surprised to discover the FHWA was building urban freeways. The Autobahn vision does not include urban freeways.

I too would prefer more local cooperation. But the avalanche of Federal money that was tossed around for the past 60 years has had an extraordinary effect. It's going to take time to readjust.

 

[ant8904]

Re: T construction news

Mathew -- under "Crazy Infrastructure Pitches" -- please note the folowing:


In the ideal world the Revolving and Growing Transportation Infrastructure Bank would replace all of the Federal grants and mechinations with respect to transit and highways -- states and with appropriate state legislation, cities, towns, counties. could all tap the low cost borrowing from the Bank. The only direct Federal money for transportation beyond that would be for Federal installations such as military bases, prisons, court houses, Area 51?

My original objection was you were suggesting that the Fed will cover the costs to the Interstate Highway system and have an Infrastructure Bank system for all other forms of infrastructure. Now you seem to be saying that you want to replace all grants and other fed tools with a system of loans to all with no reference to your earlier lines like this:

Similarly -- Interstate Highway System [one of President Eisenhower's greatest legaacies] -- the Federal gov't certainly has a vested interest in insuring quality, standards and the overll effeciency of the integrated IH System as part of the Fed's role in National Defense. That responsibility probably translates into funding IH construction and major rehabbing in-part -- as the current IH system work is funded -- e.g. the Big Dig.

So which is it? Are you suggesting a system where Interstate Highways gets direct funding while all other modes gets loans at 2-3%? Or are you saying you want to replace all Federal funding with a loaning system?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Re: T construction news

I too would prefer more local cooperation. But the avalanche of Federal money that was tossed around for the past 60 years has had an extraordinary effect. It's going to take time to readjust.

Honestly, I believe we should go in the other direction. It's almost impossible at this point to decouple federal subsidies from the Interstate Highway network, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't level the playing field, as it were.

Just the opposite, huge infrastructure projects with national impact like HSR or (more locally) an N-S Rail Link should be subsidized by federal money at the same or better rates than highways are.

The incentive to dump as much money as possible into the roads disappears when the same incentives are provided to alternative modes of transportation, and this is doable without losing access to 'fed money.'

And if there's anything I think the government needs to be spending more on, its our infrastructure - roads AND rails.

 

[whighlander]

Re: T construction news

Honestly, I believe we should go in the other direction. It's almost impossible at this point to decouple federal subsidies from the Interstate Highway network, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't level the playing field, as it were.

Just the opposite, huge infrastructure projects with national impact like HSR or (more locally) an N-S Rail Link should be subsidized by federal money at the same or better rates than highways are.

The incentive to dump as much money as possible into the roads disappears when the same incentives are provided to alternative modes of transportation, and this is doable without losing access to 'fed money.'

And if there's anything I think the government needs to be spending more on, its our infrastructure - roads AND rails.

Commute -- its a matter of there is no more Federal Money -- we've spent well beyond our means - -we've got to cut back substantially until the overall economy can grow by about a factor of 2

In the meantime there are pockets of relative prosperity such as Greater Boston and Massachusetts that need to take more responsibility for what they feel is critical

If the Commonwealth wanted to build the N-S Tunnel at say $4 to $5 B -- this could be done within the framework of the current $30B per year of State spending

But, so far the fundamental lesson has not been learned -- If you want it -- do it yourself -- or join with your neighbors (e.g MA with RI,ME, NH, perhaps CT and even NY) could easibly fund the N-S rail link

 

[HenryAlan]

Re: T construction news

The lack of federal money stems from revenues being cut significantly bellow historic trend. We're down to about 15% of GDP, which I agree is not enough to sustain major infrastructure investment. Taxes are two low, so our government is constrained to perform only the least amount, rather than the required amount. If revenue got back to the levels seen during Clinton or Reagan (~ 19%) we'd have a lot more that could be done.

 

[Matthew]

Re: T construction news

Commute -- its a matter of there is no more Federal Money -- we've spent well beyond our means - -we've got to cut back substantially until the overall economy can grow by about a factor of 2

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you some kind of defeatist? Cutting back will simply result in economic contraction and a return to the depression. Just like Great Britain is experiencing right now. The Federal government isn't running out of money, the only thing stopping us now is political dysfunction.


P.S. The N/S rail link would primarily benefit Boston commuters by allowing the creation of an RER-style express rapid transit system. Intercity travel between northern New England and the rest of the Northeast corridor would be relatively insignificant.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Re: T construction news

Commute -- its a matter of there is no more Federal Money -- we've spent well beyond our means

Take a look at how much money we're wasting on pork projects like studies of the effects of cocaine on the Japanese Quail's sex life, the creation of basketball clinics in India, or conferences in Vegas (complete with clown!) and tell me why we can't be spending that money on hospitals or infrastructure instead?

Hell, we may very well need higher tax revenues. I'm not saying we don't. But we're hardly out of money if 'business as usual' can go on still.

 

[rdeastcl]

Re: T construction news

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...e_opens_535m_parking_garag.html?p1=News_links

 

[DominusNovus]

Re: T construction news

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...e_opens_535m_parking_garag.html?p1=News_links

I've never understood why articles about the opening of new sites will use artists' concepts...

 

[Mark02474]

Re: T construction news

What I don't see in posts here about state vs fed funding is that road user fees are collected by both states and the fed governments - in the form of gasoline taxes. One pays in proportion to how far one goes, diesel users pay more because they are mostly trucks which do more damage to roads. So, fed gas taxes are there to pay for Interstate and FHS roads, as a minimum. Fuel taxes are regressive and hurt the economy more than other types of taxes, so gas taxes have fallen behind levels used to build the Interstate system 50 years ago. Unfortunately, there seems to be a general lack of economic analysis when deciding policies now compared to decades ago.

 

[PaulC]

Ruggles Station platform project

There is a hearing on Oct 18th for this project. Do enough people get off at this station?

"The Ruggles Station Platform Project will include the development of conceptual and final design for the construction of a new high-level platform to service Track 2, the only track not currently served by a platform. With the addition of this new platform, passengers that are riding the MBTA commuter trains traveling on Track 2 will be able to have access to Ruggles Station rather than bypassing the station and returning via the Orange Line from Back Bay Station, as they do under the current operation. The project will enhance customer service and convenience for commuter rail riders destined for Ruggles Station and improve overall operations for both the MBTA and Amtrak on this section of the Northeast Corridor."

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/default.asp?id=25059

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Ruggles Station platform project

There is a hearing on Oct 18th for this project. Do enough people get off at this station?

"The Ruggles Station Platform Project will include the development of conceptual and final design for the construction of a new high-level platform to service Track 2, the only track not currently served by a platform. With the addition of this new platform, passengers that are riding the MBTA commuter trains traveling on Track 2 will be able to have access to Ruggles Station rather than bypassing the station and returning via the Orange Line from Back Bay Station, as they do under the current operation. The project will enhance customer service and convenience for commuter rail riders destined for Ruggles Station and improve overall operations for both the MBTA and Amtrak on this section of the Northeast Corridor."

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/default.asp?id=25059

No, it's pathetically light-use and probably shouldn't exist at all as a station were it not for the half-assed concession to Needham Line riders for not extending the Orange Line. But since it does exist the extra platform is badly needed because the track-switching dance the T has to do to maneuver trains to/from the platform totally fucks up thru-service Amtraks. They are the party insisting on this, not the T. It's in their NEC capital improvements plan as a high-priority congestion mitigator, so there'll probably be some fed funding to help out. The T doesn't really have a choice as to whether they want to move on it or not.

I'm a little surprised they're getting a jump on it this early because the 3rd track restoration from Readville to Canton Jct. is the consensus #1 priority for inside-128 improvements. But that one doesn't require any public meetings because it's just plonking down a track and doesn't touch any publicly accessible areas. I suppose it's never too early to start the initial scoping for Ruggles, though. Even fast-tracked that one's got to be a few years of paperwork in the making (not that opinions are going to run real strong about this in the community).