MBTA "Transformation" (Green Line, Red Line, & Orange Line Transformation Projects)

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,565
Reaction score
1,935
I think a few bollards could solve that problem. Well built reinforced bollards. If we want nice bus stops with lighting and arrival boards then we need electrical boxes nearby. Better on the island than totally blocking the sidewalk and still being in the crash zone for cars.

Also no transformer costs $60 million. The entire project cost about $10 million. https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/infrastructure/press-release/21151502/massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-mbta-city-of-boston-mbta-break-ground-on-columbus-ave-bus-lane-project#:~:text=The project is expected,transit and active transportation.
+1 Exactly - bollards - - what's so hard about that????

Furthermore, that box was not even centered on that island - - it was right up against that right car lane with only the 18 inch retaining wall right against it. We're not talking about spending any money, just about using some common sense to SAVE money.

Or how about VERY SIMPLY, putting the electrical box on the far side of the station - - NOT at the approach of the cars coming in, but at the exit/rear ???????????
 
Last edited:

stefal

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
2,061
That's quite a ridiculous video. I watched about 2 minutes before skipping to 5 minutes to hear him say he's been waiting for 5-10 minutes, then at 11 minutes saying at least half an hour.... but the T is the only unreliable one....


+1 Exactly - bollards - - what's so hard about that????

Furthermore, that box was not even centered on that island - - it was right up against that right car lane with only the 18 inch retaining wall right against it. We're not talking about spending any money, just about using some common sense to SAVE money.

Or how about VERY SIMPLY, putting the electrical box on the far side of the station - - NOT at the approach of the cars coming in, but at the exit/rear ???????????
Common sense wouldn't place the station/stop in the direct line of traffic... It's a visual and physical safety barrier. Everyone would rather have an electrical box get hit over a person waiting for a bus, or a far more expensive and fragile canopy system. Perhaps it could be shifted slightly inward, but that would have minimal impact on what happened here - it's a large target if a car/truck makes it that far over the curb...

I don't understand why an engineer should be expected to design for a car presumably flying down a narrow lane well over the design speed. There are factors of safety and design standards for everything, the height of the wall likely included. At some point, you have to put a stop to how robust your infrastructure is against rogue drivers: if you don't, people will just complain about high costs for public projects more. Our infrastructure would look insane if we planned for cars to frequently crash over 6 inch curbs and 18 inch concrete walls all over the place... Perhaps bollards could help in preventing them from reaching the wall, but those are additional costs to the MBTA on a small-dollar project. The driver's insurance should also be covering this. There's near-zero chance the MBTA is paying for anything here, likely why it's taking a while to repair, which I didn't hear him talk about in the video likely due to my skipping, but a post above suggests he discusses. It's the same with every accident: wait for insurance, get the money, do the repair.

I also recall a paradox a town engineer recently explained to me: new intersection designs get a lot of bad rep for how many accidents occur after they are implemented, because rogue/stern drivers don't easily adjust to traffic pattern changes. After a few months, the crash rate drops significantly... I'm sure the same is happening here.
 

bakgwailo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
310
+1 Exactly - bollards - - what's so hard about that????

Furthermore, that box was not even centered on that island - - it was right up against that right car lane with only the 18 inch retaining wall right against it. We're not talking about spending any money, just about using some common sense to SAVE money.

Or how about VERY SIMPLY, putting the electrical box on the far side of the station - - NOT at the approach of the cars coming in, but at the exit/rear ???????????
I mean, maybe bollards (that add cost to the build). They already have extra high curbs and a concrete wall in front of the box. That person must have been absolutely flying and got air born clipping the curb to do this damage in the first place - how high are we making those bollards that they would have prevented this (and not killed the driver for that matter). Also, I'd say as-is better to take out the electrical panel than passengers or through to the platform. I can't see how someone could possibly put this on MBTA engineers for not being able to go to the future and design this with perfect 20/20 hindsight, nor not put the blame fully on the driver here and on the City for, again, its complete lack of enforcement of traffic rules.

Sure, if upon seeing this the MBTA decides to add bollards, then w/e fine, but whatever, they can't foresee every batshit crazy suicidal thing a Boston driver is capable of. And lastly - again, I can't imagine tax payer dollars are paying for this repair, it will certainly come out of the driver's insurance.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
1,301
How can anything off of Track 61 get down to Ellery Street to begin with? Per Google Maps there doesn't appear to be sufficient room on the ROW next to the Old Colony track to fit a shuttle track and platform. The longer that transfer, especially if it's exposed to the elements and/or outside of fare control, the lower the ridership will be. Enduring the Silver Line will generally be taken as preferable to an uncomfortable outdoor transfer except on nice days.
I think the idea would be that you'd take land between Ellery and the rail ROW for the terminus. What's there now is mostly car lots and some crappy light industrial.

A large redevelopment there would probably be smart to even give the T an easement.
 
Last edited:

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
491
Reaction score
734
I think the idea would be that you'd take land between Ellery and the rail ROW for the terminus. What's there now is mostly car lots and some crappy light industrial.

A large redevelopment there would probably be smart to even give the T an easement.
I suppose. Moving into the Transit Pitches threads territory. Regardless of how the terminal situation could be resolved, no rapid transit can use that track until and unless something is resolved with respect to the freight rights. Time-sharing is possible, but would require approval from the Surface Transportation Board, and if CSX can unilaterally block it they very well might (even if they don't have any current plans to use their trackage rights, they've demonstrated a tendency to oppose changes that would impact their rights in the future), which would kill the entire proposal. (I still think it probably fails on cost-benefit grounds, but that's something that can be studied.)
 

The EGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,535
At the end of the day, the Track 61 alignment doesn't serve anything other than BCEC very well. If it really is necessary to have a connection from the south, BRT from Andrew is going to be vastly more cost-effective and able to serve more of the Seaport. D Street would be the most direct route, but difficult to BRT-ize. Add a contraflow lane to the I-93 frontage road, and you could run BRT on the bypass road to Andrew. (The bypass road would also be good for service to Ruggles or Dudley, and there might even be room to stick in a platform at West Broadway.)
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
1,060
Electrical box..... not building. Equivalence??????? It's very simple to change and reinforce the location of an electrical box. Let's not get all dramatic now, Henry.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that the real problem is unsafe car operation, something we tend to enable by design. Your practical suggestions for hardening the infrastructure might well work, but the core issue remains bad driver behavior.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,565
Reaction score
1,935
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that the real problem is unsafe car operation, something we tend to enable by design. Your practical suggestions for hardening the infrastructure might well work, but the core issue remains bad driver behavior.

....and which of the two is more posssible to affect?????

The "Serenity Prayer" Reinhold Niebuhr: To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference.

Bad driving, like mean people or rainy days, is not going to be fixable (Until the inner cities ban individually driven cars in ~15 years in favor of on-demand mobility AI pods).

Cheaply fix what can be fixed.
1) Put the electric boxes in better protected/sheltered areas
2) cameras are CHEAP today -We have cameras at each EZ Pass Toll Booth - there should be one at each end of these stations - - Bakgwailo seesm to think we know who the driver was - - I have no evidence of that. Put in cameras and you would be able to hold the reckless driver liable for the damage. This will also be a great deterrent/safety measure against violent crimes at these stations against the innocent people who are waiting for their busses.

Now that is TWO easy things to do going forward to making these stations more safe and economically effective in the long-run. What's the problem with that??? I get it, the video-maker was annoying, had some emotional agenda and simply wanted to throw blame - and that pissed off some of the commenters here. On that, I agree with those commenters here. But what I am proposing is to fix the few nuggets of issues the guy did actually show.
 
Last edited:

bakgwailo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
310
....and which of the two is more posssible to affect?????

The "Serenity Prayer" Reinhold Niebuhr: To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference.

Bad driving, like mean people or rainy days, is not going to be fixable (Until the inner cities ban individually driven cars in ~15 years in favor of on-demand mobility AI pods).
Bad driving behavoir can certainly be mitigated, and doing so is generally revenue positive enterprise for the city.

Cheaply fix what can be fixed.
1) Put the electric boxes in better protected/sheltered areas
2) cameras are CHEAP today -We have cameras at each EZ Pass Toll Booth - there should be one at each end of these stations - - Bakgwailo seesm to think we know who the driver was - - I have no evidence of that. Put in cameras and you would be able to hold the reckless driver liable for the damage. This will also be a great deterrent/safety measure against violent crimes at these stations against the innocent people who are waiting for their busses.
I would only assume given the damage that that car probably didn't just drive away if they were able to hop 3-4+ feet in the air to reach that box. I think it's a fair assumption that the driver would be known vs. not, plus I bet there are tons of existing cameras around there anyways. That said I fully agree that if there are no MBTA cameras, then they should be added just like any rapid transit station.

Now that is TWO easy things to do going forward to making these stations more safe and economically effective in the long-run. What's the problem with that??? I get it, the video-maker was annoying, had some emotional agenda and simply wanted to throw blame - and that pissed off some of the commenters here. On that, I agree with those commenters here. But what I am proposing is to fix the few nuggets of issues the guy did actually show.
I don't think there is anything wrong with those or other mitigations after this accident. I think the issue is blaming the MBTA for this happening in the first place.
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,565
Reaction score
1,935
Bad driving behavoir can certainly be mitigated, and doing so is generally revenue positive enterprise for the city.



I would only assume given the damage that that car probably didn't just drive away if they were able to hop 3-4+ feet in the air to reach that box. I think it's a fair assumption that the driver would be known vs. not, plus I bet there are tons of existing cameras around there anyways. That said I fully agree that if there are no MBTA cameras, then they should be added just like any rapid transit station.



I don't think there is anything wrong with those or other mitigations after this accident. I think the issue is blaming the MBTA for this happening in the first place.

As I mentioned, let's get beyond the obvious attitude of the guy taking the vid. Just because he had a mal-attitude doesn't mean there aren't a couple of things in there that we can take to improve the situation. We can still learn from people whose attitudes we don't enjoy. I've learned much positive info from some politicians I abhor. You can always glean something.

1) I wrote that "bad driving" is like rainy days - you can't outlaw unhappiness or jealousy -it's gonna happen with the general public. You responded "Bad driving behavoir can certainly be mitigated, and doing so is generally revenue positive enterprise for the city." OK, I'm all ears. I've given some in this thread. I'm happy to hear more.

2) "I would only assume given the damage that that car probably didn't just drive away if they were able to hop 3-4+ feet in the air to reach that box. I think it's a fair assumption that the driver would be known vs. not, plus I bet there are tons of existing cameras around there anyways". - - That's alot of assumptions. Personally, I have no idea whether this was even a CAR that did it. Could've been a truck. Could've been a group or gang of youths with iron poles. Glad we agree on the need for cameras.

3) I fully agree with your last point. The object is simply to improve safety and transpo efficiency while saving maintenance/repair money in the future. No blame needed. Just let's do things differently moving forward - bollards, less exposure/positioning to entry side driver lane, cameras, etc.

I fully disown the knee-jerk negative attitude of the video maker - - unfortunately, people here have focused on that and not the lessons that can be gleaned that can bring positive change.
 
Last edited:

Top