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

millerm277

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
231
Reaction score
45
So lurking around, I found this guy who seem to did some back-of-the-napkin math.


If this guy is right, we'll need 5-6 years of weekend downtown shutdowns. Is this what we're looking at? Shutting down whole weekends in the Downtown core to replace ~300'-~500' feet of track against 58,000' of track for the Orange Line alone?

If this guy is right, then the start of the weekend Downtown shutdowns was not a "ripe-the-banndaid" moment to finally start to bring service back to someone respectable. It's the start of a new even lower-service normal. And that amount of track they're replacing, is 300'-500' a number indicating a make-the-most-of-it-round-the-clock replacement work? Or more indicative of a cost-cutting measure of track replacement that could be achieved overnight? Or is it neither, like it is round-the-clock, but incredibly slow (or is actually even fast)?

I don't know, but that's why I post here. Is this what we're looking at?
Circling back around to this, today's presentation on RL/OL weekend work says they did (among other things) last weekend:


OL: Replaced 520 linear feet of track + Installed 2,682 linear feet of Continuous Welded Rail strings (I'm unsure why they split up the numbers like this)

RL: Replaced 2,400 linear feet of track between Harvard and Porter Square

So it seems it is possible to do much more work in a weekend than we've seen out of previous weekends of work. Didn't have time to watch to see if any explanation was provided regarding the drastically increased productivity, but it looks ike some of the productivity assumptions from the initial weekends may not be accurate.
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
790
Reaction score
272
It may be due to the fact that the work being done previous weekends was in the pit areas at stations, which may have limited movement for workers and equipment.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583

Bid advertised for expanding RL Codman Yard at Ashmont by 6 additional tracks and to replace all the switches and crossovers in/out of the station in support of the headway bump to 6 min. branch frequencies. This will infill about three-quarters of the unused weedy infield inside of the loop (possibly with the rest of the slack being landscaped for more formal materials storage than today's random piles of rail/ties).


Note that Codman's empty 35,000 sq. ft. 'wedge' area bookended by the Red loop track, Hillsdale St., and the Mattapan Line is still fair game for building an LRV maint garage and mini-yard for the Type 9's, as Mattapan maint shed isn't long, tall, or spacious enough to jack a modern LRV up on lifts with all the right tools. Ultimately, busting Mattapan down to strict car storage and moving maintenance to 24/7 staffed and securely-enclosed Codman probably ends up the better deal.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,219
Reaction score
418
^ Is Braintree getting a similar expansion, or is there enough storage space there already?
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
^ Is Braintree getting a similar expansion, or is there enough storage space there already?
"Upgrades"...whatever that means...but no expansion at Caddigan Yard since it maxed out all available space upon being first built. I've rarely seen Caddigan get as full for storage as Codman so there's probably less need out there.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
919
Is there a chance they can upgrade/expand other facilities to free up land in fort point/south bay? Itd be great to clean up a lot of that mess some day and get room to build.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
Is there a chance they can upgrade/expand other facilities to free up land in fort point/south bay? Itd be great to clean up a lot of that mess some day and get room to build.
Absolutely effing not if you even want to have transit capable of moving all the people going to those supertall SimCity acid dreams. There's not enough transit storage downtown to begin with...we can't be shortsightedly squeezing the acreage.

Start here: The northern 2 city blocks of Red Line Cabot Yard have already been provisioned for air rights cover-over for 49 years now. Just like all those unbuilt Pike air rights that have been malingering for 55 years. Why don't we learn first to take two hands off necks planning-wise--MassDOT, BDPA, and City Hall--and start using the prime air rights acreage we already have before wishing more transit capacity away in the name of ground-level land hungriness. This is scarcity by planning incompetence, not REAL scarcity. Building a new city block along the Broadway Bridge over the Red yard tracks already spaced for stilts ends up being 10x the sweeter location than the Widett Circle 'bowl' and its far shittier street grid. But we haven't figured ass from elbows on how to finance these builds so all those choicest existing over-transpo parcels continue to languish while folks keep asking if we can evict one more mission-critical storage yard from ground level.

No...that's not an excuse for avoidance. The dev planning powers that be have to learn how to bloody utilize the better-located stuff that was set aside specifically for them to build over, not keep begging for more transpo-use land to get unilaterally forked over because it's "easier" to covet new acreage than follow-through on a set plan that happens to be boo-hoo hard.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
121
Absolutely effing not if you even want to have transit capable of moving all the people going to those supertall SimCity acid dreams. There's not enough transit storage downtown to begin with...we can't be shortsightedly squeezing the acreage.

Start here: The northern 2 city blocks of Red Line Cabot Yard have already been provisioned for air rights cover-over for 49 years now. Just like all those unbuilt Pike air rights that have been malingering for 55 years. Why don't we learn first to take two hands off necks planning-wise--MassDOT, BDPA, and City Hall--and start using the prime air rights acreage we already have before wishing more transit capacity away in the name of ground-level land hungriness. This is scarcity by planning incompetence, not REAL scarcity. Building a new city block along the Broadway Bridge over the Red yard tracks already spaced for stilts ends up being 10x the sweeter location than the Widett Circle 'bowl' and its far shittier street grid. But we haven't figured ass from elbows on how to finance these builds so all those choicest existing over-transpo parcels continue to languish while folks keep asking if we can evict one more mission-critical storage yard from ground level.

No...that's not an excuse for avoidance. The dev planning powers that be have to learn how to bloody utilize the better-located stuff that was set aside specifically for them to build over, not keep begging for more transpo-use land to get unilaterally forked over because it's "easier" to covet new acreage than follow-through on a set plan that happens to be boo-hoo hard.
At the very considerable risk of incurring your wrath, I humbly venture the (very probably) stupid question: "Would the NSRL help with some of the in-town transit storage issue"?

.
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
At the very considerable risk of incurring your wrath, I humbly venture the (very probably) stupid question: "Would the NSRL help with some of the in-town transit storage issue"?

.
No. Because the surface terminals aren't going away, Amtrak in 2040 is going to be running way more surface service, and the Red Line and buses aren't going anywhere. Where does NSRL uncork a land bonanza???

At "most" maybe if Widett goes to all ground-level train storage with provisions for a deck-over you might be able to reduce the T's 30 trainsets of ground-level storage and trade that space over to more bus storage. Not a single "easy" acre gets freed up. You're still taking both hands off neck to learn how to cleanly build air rights. And you're still targeting the Pike and Cabot parcels that have been advertised for 50 years on more centrally located parcels first.

Nothing changes. Nobody's going to out-lazy the air rights dilemma for planners by making it easier to steal transit properties. As is we need more transit properties...like Widett...to make this century buildable. MOST of it can be air rights'ed, so that's not a problem. The institutions who can't fucking wrap heads around air rights are the problem. This is on them to start belatedly figuring it out.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
121
No. Because the surface terminals aren't going away, Amtrak in 2040 is going to be running way more surface service, and the Red Line and buses aren't going anywhere. Where does NSRL uncork a land bonanza???

At "most" maybe if Widett goes to all ground-level train storage with provisions for a deck-over you might be able to reduce the T's 30 trainsets of ground-level storage and trade that space over to more bus storage. Not a single "easy" acre gets freed up. You're still taking both hands off neck to learn how to cleanly build air rights. And you're still targeting the Pike and Cabot parcels that have been advertised for 50 years on more centrally located parcels first.

Nothing changes. Nobody's going to out-lazy the air rights dilemma for planners by making it easier to steal transit properties. As is we need more transit properties...like Widett...to make this century buildable. MOST of it can be air rights'ed, so that's not a problem. The institutions who can't fucking wrap heads around air rights are the problem. This is on them to start belatedly figuring it out.

OK, thanks for the answer. I had been under the impression that NSRL would take a lot of the non-revenue turn-around and "overnighting" Amtrak stock out of that area and around North Station (perhaps to be stored in less congested areas north and south of the city).
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
OK, thanks for the answer. I had been under the impression that NSRL would take a lot of the non-revenue turn-around and "overnighting" Amtrak stock out of that area and around North Station (perhaps to be stored in less congested areas north and south of the city).
It is an absolute reduction in downtown storage needs because the system will be better-distributed to the endpoint layovers and shift changes will be a lot lower-'intensity' than the jarring all-or-nothing peak vs. non-peak of today. But the notion that some transpo advocates who should know better (Ari Osevit...looking immediately in your direction) have erroneously spouted that storage starts getting zeroed-out en masse because "the trains are always in motion" is utterly divorced from all reality. Does NYC not have a whole slew of giant honking subway yards even though they run some of the densest all-day service in the world...with an overnight revenue shift...because they have so many trains in constant motion? Of course not...the more trains and the bigger the fleet the bigger the staff shift changes are going to regularly be, the more floors there are to pause and sweep, the more onboard toilets there are to empty...and so on. The same Eurozone that the transpo blogosphere loves to lecture us on our inferiority towards has city-size passenger yards for its immense layer cake of hyper-local, semi-local, urban-regional, intercity-regional, and HSR services. That's not born failsons failing to keep the trains forever moving...that's simply the raw-most network effects of their enormous scale showing itself. If we want that kind of scale, we're going to have to support it with matching facilities. That really shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp because we get it intuitively when bus and rapid transit modes are the topic. But bring up NSRL and/or RUR and all of a sudden Boston Engine Terminal becomes this physics-melting 'white hole' where trains go in and high-rent supertalls spit back out. The thought doesn't even follow its own logic to arrive at that endpoint from an ostensibly service-centric point of origin. Some of Ari's recent writing on the subject of yards has bungled this bad by tipping its hand too obviously about a craving for a new real estate canvas to SimCity with rather than any actual concern for transpo network efficiency.

With South Station/South Bay it's simple.
  • Red Line is going nowhere, because it cannot physically run 3-min. headways without a maxed-out Cabot firing on all cylinders. But we shouldn't be coveting anything on the interior of Cabot anyway because the Broadway-Traveler block and Traveler-Ft. Point Channel blocks have been pre-provisioned for air rights infill for 49 years and those are 'the' greatest-location parcels of all for knitting SS, South End, Southie, and Seaport together at their crossroads.

  • The 3 downtown bus garages are going nowhere if you ever want more BRT-ification of the most overloaded Yellow Line routes within 2 miles of the CBD. The T is already aggressively investing to max out Southampton garage's footprint with expansion to get more 60-footer capable routes running near the CBD. Remember Boston 2024?...this garage was being coveted along with razing half of everything else around Newmarket Sq. for Olympics facilities. The T is very intentionally trying to act faster than City Hall and the BDPA can poke their heads in and interfere it to spit. Albany Garage sits on very highly-coveted property. Unless the state can somehow get interference-free buy of the whole of the ground-level Widett bowl where some of the space (say, by the to-be-relocated BTD tow lot) can be worked in for bus storage, they can't afford to listen to any real estate offers for Albany. And...shit...the Olympics coveted Cabot Garage on Dot Ave., too, an even more mission-critical facility than Albany. But no matter how many times you tell the City that they won't have a functioning bus system without these 3 dead-center downtown garages or equivalents very nearly across the street...pols still buy into magical thinking like everything will be just fine if you parked every Yellow Line vehicle overnight in Weston like that's no big change.

  • Amtrak is not going to be running thru NSRL to Woburn or something with every train. Every Boston run of theirs--whether it's an Acela, Regional, Downeaster, Lake Shore Ltd., future Inland Route and Montreal service, or future long-distance trains super-extended up here from New York after the Gateway Tunnel opens--all come with mandatory between-run downtime for crew changes, food service restock, cleanup, and a run around the loop to change directions since the lion's share of their trains (all Regionals + Lake Shore) are run pull-only not push-pull. With NSRL you'll probably see Downeasters (which by that point will probably have been extended outward to Bangor) going through the tunnel just so they can join the rest of the Southampton crowd between-runs, and then a modest share of Portland- and Concord-badged Regionals continuing north Virginia-style (with the necessary caveat that NH + ME ≠ VA + NC on demand, so by no means will it ever be more than a minority share of Regionals continuing up). AMTK needs Southampton Yard forever just to turn around and head back out to D.C. or Albany/Springfield in one piece; it can't practically be done with an on-platform reverse out in the suburbs given the nature of those services and their crews' work hours. So plug all of their 2040 Superduper Regional/HSR growth and the NEC FUTURE study's most acid-fever expansionary dreams into surface South Station. They are already figuring out how to expand Southampton Yard space by reimagining the whole currently non-railed side of the property along Frontage Road: moving employee parking offsite, stacking the collection of sheds and signal bungalows vertically by the main building so they can lay more track, and even trenching underneath the Fairmount Line embankment so they can ram a bunch of new yard tracks straight into the loop while passing underneath Fairmount. Every square inch of that yard is, like RL Cabot, sacrosanct.

  • The T right now needs an enormous increase in downtown southside storage because they lack the ability to effectively pair-match train lengths with routes...and that's going to be a problem with RUR because even if headways stay more even-keel there's still big demand spikes and dips to handle at rush. The 3-4 car trains you have rolling out on regular 15-30 minute churns all day aren't elastic enough--even with denser headways--to upshift to 5:00 when Providence can fill an eight-pack to standing room. And conversely it's going to maim operating costs if you have to over-hedge on train lengths for the far emptier off-peak from lack of flexibility. Even EMU sets assigned to NSRL duty are going to need to skip a shift for a yard stop to split/combine into bigger or smaller trains for those shift-related dips and surges. Readville (which the city also covets way too much for redev) is too far away for that; it's got to be nearer to downtown. And Boston Engine Terminal in Somerville is soon to be maxed out for space once they claim the last available strip along the Northpoint property line, with its shop duties becoming all the more intensive the more total trains you run. Further, the tunnel isn't replacing SS Surface so "the trains are always in motion" fantasy deeply held by some doesn't apply at all to NSRL. Systemwide capacity doesn't increase without utilizing both tunnel and surface, and the tunnel's upper limits for mixing-and-matching pretty much constrain all manner of surge service, alt routing, and otherwise non- rote-standard schedule types to choosing the surface rather than trying to worm their way into the churn down below. So even if/when NSRL reduces the storage needs, it won't be by massive amount. And for what substantial amount it does reduce in Purple Line storage, Amtrak and buses have immediate need for gobbling right back up. They really need the Widett 'bowl' and BTD lot. It's 30 trainsets (avg. 6 cars apiece) of space immediately available, where the Beacon Park easement next to would-be West station has already been withered down to 8 trainsets by a land-hungry Harvard and is likely to get zeroed out. And ALL of it would be built with decking provisions, which actually makes it easier than the harebrained Olympics plan to have the developer float the whole cost of building up from the 'bowl' to the street grid on stilts. Then if NSRL reduces the total storage requirements for Purple Line trains, a little bit of Amtrak overflow from Southampton could be accommodated and you can change over some of those storage tracks to bus parking bays for 100+ Yellow Line vehicles. Maybe that's what ultimately lets them barter Albany Garage for redev.
However it works out, ain't no way the total acreage needs for all-modes transpo storage will ever decrease. And that's after it substantially increases to plug the dire downtown storage shortfalls facing Purple, Yellow/Silver, and Amtrak in the immediate term. It'll shape-shift with changing needs, but always have to be there. Fortunately, nearly all of it except for the tall structures like actual Cabot Carhouse, Cabot Garage, Southampton Terminal, etc. is pre-designed for air rights. So again, the problem is that our civic planners can't seem to stop perennially pwning themselves like Stooges on the air rights opportunities we've already had in-hand for 50 years...not that there isn't so little golden land available in the CBD for playing real-life SimCity that we somehow have no choice but to shoot all our transit networks square in the head with eviction notices.
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
121
It is an absolute reduction in downtown storage needs because the system will be better-distributed to the endpoint layovers and shift changes will be a lot lower-'intensity' than the jarring all-or-nothing peak vs. non-peak of today. But the notion that some transpo advocates who should know better (Ari Osevit...looking immediately in your direction) have erroneously spouted that storage starts getting zeroed-out en masse because "the trains are always in motion" is utterly divorced from all reality. Does NYC not have a whole slew of giant honking subway yards even though they run some of the densest all-day service in the world...with an overnight revenue shift...because they have so many trains in constant motion? Of course not...the more trains and the bigger the fleet the bigger the staff shift changes are going to regularly be, the more floors there are to pause and sweep, the more onboard toilets there are to empty...and so on. The same Eurozone that the transpo blogosphere loves to lecture us on our inferiority towards has city-size passenger yards for its immense layer cake of hyper-local, semi-local, urban-regional, intercity-regional, and HSR services. That's not born failsons failing to keep the trains forever moving...that's simply the raw-most network effects of their enormous scale showing itself. If we want that kind of scale, we're going to have to support it with matching facilities. That really shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp because we get it intuitively when bus and rapid transit modes are the topic. But bring up NSRL and/or RUR and all of a sudden Boston Engine Terminal becomes this physics-melting 'white hole' where trains go in and high-rent supertalls spit back out. The thought doesn't even follow its own logic to arrive at that endpoint from an ostensibly service-centric point of origin. Some of Ari's recent writing on the subject of yards has bungled this bad by tipping its hand too obviously about a craving for a new real estate canvas to SimCity with rather than any actual concern for transpo network efficiency.

With South Station/South Bay it's simple.
  • Red Line is going nowhere, because it cannot physically run 3-min. headways without a maxed-out Cabot firing on all cylinders. But we shouldn't be coveting anything on the interior of Cabot anyway because the Broadway-Traveler block and Traveler-Ft. Point Channel blocks have been pre-provisioned for air rights infill for 49 years and those are 'the' greatest-location parcels of all for knitting SS, South End, Southie, and Seaport together at their crossroads.

  • The 3 downtown bus garages are going nowhere if you ever want more BRT-ification of the most overloaded Yellow Line routes within 2 miles of the CBD. The T is already aggressively investing to max out Southampton garage's footprint with expansion to get more 60-footer capable routes running near the CBD. Remember Boston 2024?...this garage was being coveted along with razing half of everything else around Newmarket Sq. for Olympics facilities. The T is very intentionally trying to act faster than City Hall and the BDPA can poke their heads in and interfere it to spit. Albany Garage sits on very highly-coveted property. Unless the state can somehow get interference-free buy of the whole of the ground-level Widett bowl where some of the space (say, by the to-be-relocated BTD tow lot) can be worked in for bus storage, they can't afford to listen to any real estate offers for Albany. And...shit...the Olympics coveted Cabot Garage on Dot Ave., too, an even more mission-critical facility than Albany. But no matter how many times you tell the City that they won't have a functioning bus system without these 3 dead-center downtown garages or equivalents very nearly across the street...pols still buy into magical thinking like everything will be just fine if you parked every Yellow Line vehicle overnight in Weston like that's no big change.

  • Amtrak is not going to be running thru NSRL to Woburn or something with every train. Every Boston run of theirs--whether it's an Acela, Regional, Downeaster, Lake Shore Ltd., future Inland Route and Montreal service, or future long-distance trains super-extended up here from New York after the Gateway Tunnel opens--all come with mandatory between-run downtime for crew changes, food service restock, cleanup, and a run around the loop to change directions since the lion's share of their trains (all Regionals + Lake Shore) are run pull-only not push-pull. With NSRL you'll probably see Downeasters (which by that point will probably have been extended outward to Bangor) going through the tunnel just so they can join the rest of the Southampton crowd between-runs, and then a modest share of Portland- and Concord-badged Regionals continuing north Virginia-style (with the necessary caveat that NH + ME ≠ VA + NC on demand, so by no means will it ever be more than a minority share of Regionals continuing up). AMTK needs Southampton Yard forever just to turn around and head back out to D.C. or Albany/Springfield in one piece; it can't practically be done with an on-platform reverse out in the suburbs given the nature of those services and their crews' work hours. So plug all of their 2040 Superduper Regional/HSR growth and the NEC FUTURE study's most acid-fever expansionary dreams into surface South Station. They are already figuring out how to expand Southampton Yard space by reimagining the whole currently non-railed side of the property along Frontage Road: moving employee parking offsite, stacking the collection of sheds and signal bungalows vertically by the main building so they can lay more track, and even trenching underneath the Fairmount Line embankment so they can ram a bunch of new yard tracks straight into the loop while passing underneath Fairmount. Every square inch of that yard is, like RL Cabot, sacrosanct.

  • The T right now needs an enormous increase in downtown southside storage because they lack the ability to effectively pair-match train lengths with routes...and that's going to be a problem with RUR because even if headways stay more even-keel there's still big demand spikes and dips to handle at rush. The 3-4 car trains you have rolling out on regular 15-30 minute churns all day aren't elastic enough--even with denser headways--to upshift to 5:00 when Providence can fill an eight-pack to standing room. And conversely it's going to maim operating costs if you have to over-hedge on train lengths for the far emptier off-peak from lack of flexibility. Even EMU sets assigned to NSRL duty are going to need to skip a shift for a yard stop to split/combine into bigger or smaller trains for those shift-related dips and surges. Readville (which the city also covets way too much for redev) is too far away for that; it's got to be nearer to downtown. And Boston Engine Terminal in Somerville is soon to be maxed out for space once they claim the last available strip along the Northpoint property line, with its shop duties becoming all the more intensive the more total trains you run. Further, the tunnel isn't replacing SS Surface so "the trains are always in motion" fantasy deeply held by some doesn't apply at all to NSRL. Systemwide capacity doesn't increase without utilizing both tunnel and surface, and the tunnel's upper limits for mixing-and-matching pretty much constrain all manner of surge service, alt routing, and otherwise non- rote-standard schedule types to choosing the surface rather than trying to worm their way into the churn down below. So even if/when NSRL reduces the storage needs, it won't be by massive amount. And for what substantial amount it does reduce in Purple Line storage, Amtrak and buses have immediate need for gobbling right back up. They really need the Widett 'bowl' and BTD lot. It's 30 trainsets (avg. 6 cars apiece) of space immediately available, where the Beacon Park easement next to would-be West station has already been withered down to 8 trainsets by a land-hungry Harvard and is likely to get zeroed out. And ALL of it would be built with decking provisions, which actually makes it easier than the harebrained Olympics plan to have the developer float the whole cost of building up from the 'bowl' to the street grid on stilts. Then if NSRL reduces the total storage requirements for Purple Line trains, a little bit of Amtrak overflow from Southampton could be accommodated and you can change over some of those storage tracks to bus parking bays for 100+ Yellow Line vehicles. Maybe that's what ultimately lets them barter Albany Garage for redev.
However it works out, ain't no way the total acreage needs for all-modes transpo storage will ever decrease. And that's after it substantially increases to plug the dire downtown storage shortfalls facing Purple, Yellow/Silver, and Amtrak in the immediate term. It'll shape-shift with changing needs, but always have to be there. Fortunately, nearly all of it except for the tall structures like actual Cabot Carhouse, Cabot Garage, Southampton Terminal, etc. is pre-designed for air rights. So again, the problem is that our civic planners can't seem to stop perennially pwning themselves like Stooges on the air rights opportunities we've already had in-hand for 50 years...not that there isn't so little golden land available in the CBD for playing real-life SimCity that we somehow have no choice but to shoot all our transit networks square in the head with eviction notices.

Thanks, F-Line for the detailed answer. As always, much to review and digest, but always great insight.

.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
919
At the very considerable risk of incurring your wrath, I humbly venture the (very probably) stupid question: "Would the NSRL help with some of the in-town transit storage issue"?

.

F-Lines responses would be soooo much better if 1. They were much shorter and 2. He didnt try to belittle everybody who asks a question.

This is the transit section of the forum, if you dont know something about transit this is where you should ask a question, I dont get what the problem is. People shouldnt feel like if they ask a question in here theyre going to get shit on, thats ridiculous. We can be better than this. If you have a question, ask it, you shouldnt feel like youre going to get anybodys “wrath”. Not everybody knows everything, thats why questions even exist, plus everybody learns if someone asks a question, even the ppl who didnt ask. It should be encouraged to ask questions and get respectable answers. Everybody wins in an environment like that.
 
Last edited:

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,415
Reaction score
448
F-Lines responses would be soooo much better if 1. They were much shorter and 2. He didnt try to belittle everybody who asks a question.

This is the transit section of the forum, if you dont know something about transit this is where you should ask a question, I dont get what the problem is. People shouldnt feel like if they ask a question in here theyre going to get shit on, thats ridiculous. We can be better than this. If you have a question, ask it, you shouldnt feel like youre going to get anybodys “wrath”. Not everybody knows everything, thats why questions even exist, plus everybody learns if someone asks a question, even the ppl who didnt ask. It should be encouraged to ask questions and get respectable answers. Everybody wins in an environment like that.
At the risk of incurring wrath from known sources

Act like this is a specialized Wikipedia

  1. Put the highlights in the top section which most will read
  2. Link the details which you provide to series of #'d references
  3. Put the References at the End of your posting
    1. Link to other sources of information through the same numbering system

Thus [as a purely hypothetical example]

I disagree with X's comments because my experience with measuring YYYY GHz signals *1 In particular X quoted the work of Prof BagsofDogWaste*2 and Mr. CatBoxContents*3 neither's of which information are apropos to the discussion and my original posts -- because of the excessive amounts of Ground Water*4 during the period mentioned by X compared to recent periods.

References:
*1 my [hypothetical] personal experience with measuring GHz signals including my published papers *5,6
*2 Prof BagsofDogWaste paper
*3 Mr. CatBoxContents testimony in front of Congressional Committee Chaired by Rep Markey [Congressional Record March 17, 1988]
*4 US Dept of Agriculture Report on Ground Water levels in Southeastern Middlesex County 1950 through 1960
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
919
I was talking about asking questions not how to have respectful disagreements.

Literally all I was saying is that people should be free to ask questions when they dont know something and get respectful answers. Thats all.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
121
F-Lines responses would be soooo much better if 1. They were much shorter and 2. He didnt try to belittle everybody who asks a question.

This is the transit section of the forum, if you dont know something about transit this is where you should ask a question, I dont get what the problem is. People shouldnt feel like if they ask a question in here theyre going to get shit on, thats ridiculous. We can be better than this. If you have a question, ask it, you shouldnt feel like youre going to get anybodys “wrath”. Not everybody knows everything, thats why questions even exist, plus everybody learns if someone asks a question, even the ppl who didnt ask. It should be encouraged to ask questions and get respectable answers. Everybody wins in an environment like that.
I hear ya. In my case, F-Line's answers to my questions were exceptionally informative, I learned much from them and they were very much appreciated. I think F-Line's a great resource, stays on subject and I'm learning a lot from the posts. I'm very grateful for the non-confrontational tone he took in his thoughtful answers to my questions. Although I had read F-Line's posts for many years, I had never before gotten up the courage (because I am truly a novice in the Transpo realm) to ask a question directly. I appreciated the informative answers very much.
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
121
At the risk of incurring wrath from known sources

Act like this is a specialized Wikipedia

  1. Put the highlights in the top section which most will read
  2. Link the details which you provide to series of #'d references
  3. Put the References at the End of your posting
    1. Link to other sources of information through the same numbering system

Thus [as a purely hypothetical example]

I disagree with X's comments because my experience with measuring YYYY GHz signals *1 In particular X quoted the work of Prof BagsofDogWaste*2 and Mr. CatBoxContents*3 neither's of which information are apropos to the discussion and my original posts -- because of the excessive amounts of Ground Water*4 during the period mentioned by X compared to recent periods.

References:
*1 my [hypothetical] personal experience with measuring GHz signals including my published papers *5,6
*2 Prof BagsofDogWaste paper
*3 Mr. CatBoxContents testimony in front of Congressional Committee Chaired by Rep Markey [Congressional Record March 17, 1988]
*4 US Dept of Agriculture Report on Ground Water levels in Southeastern Middlesex County 1950 through 1960
Now THIS is a different example of a poster...............

.
 

Tallguy

New member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
78
Reaction score
6
Regarding Albany Garage: most of the busses running out of Albany are expresses from Newton,Waltham and Brighton. As very few people are traveling out of the CBD in the AM or into it in the PM, a better place for them would be to the west, perhaps the Weston tollbooth space.
 

Top