A report by several do-gooder groups says the state needs to do more to improve public transit inside the core of the state's economy - Boston and the other communities clustered around it within and along 128.
The report, by A Better City, with funding from the Barr Foundation and the Boston Foundation, comes just two days after state officials re-affirmed their commitment to building a new commuter-rail line between Boston and Fall River.
Although the impending new cars on the Red and Orange Lines, when paired with signal improvements, will dramatically increase capacity on those lines - 50% on the Red Line and 30% on the Orange - the rapidly growing 20 "core communities" of the greater Boston area need far more to keep the region growing as the state's economic engine, the report says, estimating good public transit pays for itself several times over, through such things as reduced travel times, crashes and vehicular emissions
One possible solution: Purchasing new commuter-rail cars with their own diesel engines, which would allow for subway-like "urban rail" service on current rail lines. The Patrick administration had proposed these; the idea was one of the first things Charlie Baker killed when he became governor.
The report also calls for development of "bus rapid transit" corridors, similar to the theoretical Silver Line "rapid transit" service between Dudley Square and downtown.
BRT could connect places like Forest Hills, Blue Hill Avenue, Dudley, the Longwood Medical Area, Kendall, Lechmere, Everett's Lower Broadway and the Seaport.
The complete report (7.5M PDF).
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Adam?
By anon
Tue, 02/13/2018 - 1:08pm
Can you think twice before approving substance-free GLX and CLF comments?
Pretty pretty please?
By DTP
Tue, 02/13/2018 - 3:42pm
Pretty pretty please?
not what it says
By HarryMattison
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 12:09pm
My internet defines do-gooder as "a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer." That's not how I would describe A Better City, The Boston Foundation, and the Barr Foundation.
And I don't think the report says "Before the state expands the T, it should upgrade its existing services". It says we need to eliminate the State of Good Repair backlog, enhance core capacity of the rapid transit backbone, and a set of service enhancements (new infill stations, urban rail, regional rail, bus rapid transit, and better ferry service).
Forget diesel engines. We
By Kinopio
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 12:29pm
Forget diesel engines. We need the commuter rail lines electrified. They'd have lower emissions and faster speeds. Also no more choking on toxic diesel fumes when a train goes by. Lets join the rest of the developed world in the 21st century.
The beginning of the report does a good job explaining why public transportation is a great investment especially compared to the disaster that is planning a city around cars.
That's a lot of money
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:02pm
That could be spent on things like switches and a better signaling system that could lead to decreased headways between trains.
Also, the emissions don't disappear. They just get concentrated in the areas around power plants. And since Pilgrim is shutting down, that's a lot of natural gas exhaust.
re: emmision, centrally-sourced = better managed
By Jeff F
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:35pm
What you say about the concentration of emmisions in an electrified system is true. But centrally located emisions are far more easily managed and at a lower ultimate cost.
It also adds flexibility and robustness to the system because electrical devices, including trains, cannot tell the difference between electrons produced by a gas, coal, wind, or wave power plant.
Finally, in terms of immediate impact on individual human health, natural gas exhaust is less onerous than deisel (although, of course, mitigating the release of CO2 + assorted byproducts from any combustion is important).
that's true for sure
By Parkwayne
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 3:25pm
but I do think fixing the existing infrastructure stuff like switches would be the best initial use of money over evolving the system to a new standard.
Decarbonization
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 7:17pm
Check out the state's web pages - the electric generation sector has been substantially decarbonized. It is the transportation sector that is holding things up now.
Good
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 8:37pm
I'm glad to hear that natural gas does not contribute to global warming.
Lol
By bgl
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 11:24pm
No where near the levels of other fossil fuels - you know, like diesel.
True
By Waquiot
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 9:01am
But when someone who works in environmental science notes that the Commonwealth has "decarbonized" electricity production, one has to note that the statement is at odds with the truth.
thus the word
By BiMonSciFiCon
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 9:19am
substantially, which means significant reduction, not elimination
There's an implication
By Waquiot
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 9:36am
That we don't need to worry about carbon now in electricity generation, which is not really true.
Please read comments
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 5:49pm
Before replying by saying stupid things.
And before doubling down on the stupid when it is called out.
Substantially = nearly as much as is possible = quite a lot: http://www.mass.gov/eea/air-water-climate-change/c...
Substantially = going to be a lot easier to get further reductions from the transportation sector.
Substantially? he asks again
By Waquiot
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 5:55pm
Places with good hydro or geothermal sources of electricity can say that, or nations like France where 90% of electricity production comes from carbon free sources. Massachusetts can say correctly that carbon emissions have decreased, but we still burn gas for most of our energy, and that produces greenhouse gases. As long as electricity production produces carbon emissions, I will continue to take issue with the phrase “substantially decarbonized.”
There is a finite capacity to
By bgl
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 11:28pm
There is a finite capacity to diesels engine and their acceleration/speeds. Electric locomotives accelerate much, much faster. They are also an order of magnitude more reliable that diesels (as far as issues vs # miles) and last quite a bit longer, making it a wise investment into the future. BTW, do you have any actual sources where signaling and switches are a large limiting factor of time of trip and headways? I'll wait.
Stadler DMUs do just fine for
By anon
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 1:24pm
Stadler DMUs do just fine for acceleration and reliability. And federal regulators have shown willingness to allow them.
Once the concept of frequent, short trains is proven, and ridership increases while operating costs drop, we can look into electrification. Except of course on the Providence line, where we should deploy EMUs ASAP.
I mean
By bgl
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 1:09am
DMUs are nice and should be looked into, but, like the NEC is almost fully electrified already and should be EMUs and the Fairmont Line at least should be electrified for EMUs. The NEC is already crazy overcrowded, though, so increasing service on it will be tricking (and probably cause the death of the Needham line).
Other issue with running DMUs or EMUs will be that they will require either both the South Station Expand and North Station Expansion, or the NSRL (and probably both eventually) to be done to free up capacity at the end terminals - neither of which have capicity today for either EMUs or DMUs, and the NSRL would require EMUs and electrification of any lines using it.
No
By anon
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 2:08pm
BART built a diesel mu line that starts at the end of it's electrified service. Wherever the GLX ends, a diesel line can begin
BART?
By bgl
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 1:02pm
What does that have to do with the price of milk? And, no, it can't - not at least with a much different station layout at the end of the line, and even then ops will be a nightmare (and service degraded where it used to directly be a one seat ride to North Station).
By the way
By Waquiot
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 2:12pm
The line in question is not is service yet and runs on a dedicated right of way. It's kind of like the Mattapan High Speed Line. So I guess what he is thinking is to lay a dedicated line next to the Lowell Commuter Rail line with all the stations planned, just not connected to the Green Line at Lechmere and using diesel cars. I mean, what's not to like about that? All the costs plus more diesel emissions along the route.
Multiple Units with a waiver
By anon
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 4:40pm
Multiple units with a waiver mean the new trains can run on the same tracks as traditional commuter rail. Green line trolleys cannot. They need their own tracks. MUs + waiver means you don't need to build two new track lines or widen the existing commuter rail trenches. The T can save millions if not billions.
Or
By Waquiot
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 11:07pm
And this might be a crazy idea, they could just build what they have signed contracts and accepted federal money for, which is what the people of Somerville by and large want.
By the way, how can you save "billions" on a $2 billion project?
Brilliant
By bgl
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 6:03pm
Just Brilliant. I am kind of surprised at how this odd anti-GLX group (or single person) has instead latched onto DMUs as the alternative/their savior.
Let's be honest
By Waquiot
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 11:10pm
It's a single person.
I could even track down his name. He replied to some article noting that if the GLX is built, the Lowell Line and Amtrak will be doomed because they would not be able to put in a third track. Of course, north of Medford they cannot put in a third track anyway, but since when should logic get in the way of an argument.
Probably refers to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in California
By anon
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 3:27pm
They built a diesel rail extension from their Pittsburg Park & Ride. Diesel train passengers get off at Pittsburg and transfer onto the electrified portion of BART. They could build something similar here. A diesel train that ends wherever the GLX begins. You get off the diesel train and onto the GLX. No need for North Station commuter rail bays
Stadler DMUs are low-floor vehicles
By anon
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 2:04pm
Boston needs high floor vehicles
Boston can use both low-floor and high-floor DMUs
By anon
Mon, 02/12/2018 - 3:32pm
Some Massachusetts commuter rail lines still have low platforms. An example. You could run a low-floor DMU with waivers from the end of the GLX to Brandeis University on the Fitchburg Line. Each station between and including the GLX and Brandeis have low floors
Maintenance and Priorities
By AllstonHipster
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:10pm
Before we get new engines, I'd like to see more investment in fixing rails and bridges, so that we have fewer sections with speed restrictions due to poor conditions.
I am excited to hear about more capacity on the Red and Orange lines, I hope this helps with stability and reliable service.
Well we have one line that's
By cden4
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 2:54pm
Well we have one line that's already electrified, the Providence Line, since it used by Amtrak. So we could start by converting the commuter rail to EMUs on that line quite easily!
Or even running it with electric locomotives
By Ari O
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 3:20pm
I used my magic GPS watch to time the acceleration out of Route 128 station for two trains, an eight-car MBTA train and an eight-car Amtrak train. The MBTA train filled with passengers weighs about 18% more, but the Amtrak train has 86% more horsepower (8600 hp vs 4600) so it accelerates more quickly. It actually doesn't do better below 30 mph, this is where DMUs and EMUS rule the day, because they can distribute power over more wheels to prevent wheel slipping: they each get to 30 mph in about 25 seconds.
But above 30 mph, they diverge. The MBTA hits 40 mph in a minute, 60 in two minutes and 70 in four minutes climbing the hill after the Canton viaduct. Amtrak, on the other hand, continues to accelerate, 100 in four minutes and nearly 120 in three minutes. With the stop spacing on the Providence Line, an MBTA train with that sort of acceleration and a top speed of 100 would shave 10 minutes off the travel time between Providence and Boston, even making all of the stops it currently does.
Oh, and the electric locomotives are basically diesel locomotives with all of the stuff that doesn't work well stripped off since they get their power not from an on-board generator but from the wire above.
Not to mention fewer fights
By eherot
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 12:03pm
Not to mention fewer fights with the neighbors about the hazards of diesel exhaust every time you want to increase or expand service.
Incremental change is better
By anon
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 2:02pm
A sudden shift would be catastrophic
There's no before/after
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 12:45pm
Don't pit one kind of mass transit supporter against another. We need both improvements on existing service, expansion of service 'between' lines of existing service, and to expand the MBTA to new areas in the 'burbs.
I might ride CR twice a year, but I support it. I would hope that folks around 128 also support an improved Red Line. Good investment in mass transit is economically wise and socially just, both in Boston proper and in the outskirts.
Same ABC report : Celtics fans on a Dmu
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 4:39pm
ABC comes out with the same report every five years. There's nothing to worry about. Few items moved under Patrick. Nothing is moving under Baker. In regards to their diesel multiple unit pitches, or dmu pitches, there's alot of bluster. Dmu fans tell you the vehicles will cure all of Boston's ills (they won't). Environmental groups like the ELM and CLF tell you the vehicles will destroy all of Boston in an instant (they won't). However, they can help in certain cases if Bostonians knew what a Dmu was. For example. A dozen of my co-workers went to the recent Celtics game in Toronto. They flew in and took the train from the airport to the arena in Downtown Toronto and back. When they returned I asked about their ride to the game. They praised the "bullet train" between the airport and the arena. I told them, that isn't a "bullet train", that's just a plain (and ugly) dmu train. It does its job and does it well. It has problems (like engine malfunctions) but I'm sure Bostonians dream of the day when they have one train breakdown per year. Maybe as more Celtics fans visit Toronto, the concept of what a dmu is will start to sink in.
Yes
By bgl
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 11:32pm
The problem with the SCR project is that its a boondoggle - what $3+ Billion for a projected 4,570 daily riders. GLX, as an example, is a ~$2 Billion for a projected 52,000 daily riders.
Bulk of GLX projected ridership comes from North P. Build Out
By anon
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 11:31am
The new Lechmere station is technically part of the GLX. And Somerville is technically part of North Point aka Cambridge Crossing. North of Lechmere, the ridership numbers are similar to SCR
Not quite
By Waquiot
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 11:12pm
Increases in ridership from North Point would have been reflected in the model where nothing was done, since they would be using Lechmere Station which, you'd be surprised to find out, already exists in a location slightly to the west of the proposed station.
You should really visit Somerville some day. Union Square is happening. Tufts has a lot going for it. It's a really dense area. You know, the kind of place that could really benefit for a project like this.
Nope
By bgl
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 1:11am
Incorrect as Waquiot pointed out. BTW, Lechmere, even with the GLX needed to be redo either way. It is true, though, that some of the ridership will be cannibalized from existing bus users (generally that terminated at Lechmere), but, I mean thats the point right - better service than the existing buses.
Cannibalizes the Red Line and underperforming buses
By anon
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 2:12pm
The CLF pushed the GLX as an electrified Park & Ride from Rt 16. Everything else was an afterthought
These are great ideas, but
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 12:48pm
These are great ideas, but the real question is who is going to pay for this?
You can produce as many white papers as you want but it does no good unless you know how you are going to get the funds.
Well the whole whose going to
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:34pm
Well the whole whose going to pay for it issue and pitting basic upkeep that's been postponed for decades vs expansions that have been proposed for decades doesn't happen with highway projects. How did the route 2 expansion, or the 128 expansion get paid for, what basis upkeep was cancelled for that. How is the billion dollar turnpike project in Allston getting paid for. Certainly not the gas tax, that has only increased a few cents over the past few decades, while the t has doubled in that time.
If you read the report...
By Jeff F
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:54pm
...you will see that they are not so much suggesting additional money overall for transit, but rather a reconsideration of where the current Commonwealth transportation budget is directed. Their thesis is that the current scheme is unbalanced, inefficient and unsustainable; that is to say - more costly than what is neccessary for an effective transportation network.
Reader's Digest version: The report says that right now we are spending more to get less.
Maybe local governments
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 2:56pm
Maybe local governments should pay to maintain tracks the same way local governments are responsible for maintaining roads.
I think it's high time the
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:29pm
I think it's high time the colleges, universities and sports teams start kicking in their fare share.
There is a local government MBTA assessment already
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:40pm
They already do. Is it the right amount? Dunno. But cities and towns do, in fact, pay an MBTA assessment.
Show me the money
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:16pm
Excellent report and some great ideas but the Feds aren't funding transit projects like they use to so where is the money coming from?
What's especially sad is the
By anonyrat
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 1:29pm
What's especially sad is the 30% "improvement" on the Orange Line simply brings service back up to the level of the late 1980s, which operated with the exact same trains and exact same tracks that we have now, back when the trains were still new and reliable and the tracks were faster. I'm not sure why they now need almost 30% more trains to provide the same service that they did in 1988, but I suspect it's because of "temporary" slowdowns that slowly become permanent.
I think you missed something
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 3:35pm
They are ordering new Orange Line trains, so it would not be the exact same trains. It would be entirely different trains.
And if you cannot figure out what they want to up the capacity of the Orange Line by 30%, you haven't been riding the Orange Line.
What he is saying is that in
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 4:09pm
What he is saying is that in 1987, with the same 120 trains from 1980 we have now, they were running trains every 4.5 minutes instead of the present every 6 minutes. In a few years, with 152 new trains, we will be improving the frequency from the present every 6 minutes, back to what it was in 1987. With 32 more cars, you might think they could improve the frequency to something even better than what it already once was 30 years ago.
I don't think the orange line
By bgl
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 11:36pm
I don't think the orange line ever hit that (on schedule) after the El came down - the new fleet was undersized. The new headways is what it always was supposed to be if we had ever had the correct number of cars to do it.
Coordination of trains can help
By Daan
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 8:34pm
There often are trains that run too close together resulting in trains that are infrequent. It will be a waste if new trains replicate the same pattern.
Same applies to buses. It is demoralizing when 39 buses leave Forest Hills bunched together, 2 and even occasionally 3 buses minutes after each other.
Leads one to think no one is paying attention.
They already do this.
By DTP
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 8:26am
They already do this.
People complain that trains are bunched up.
The MBTA holds the second train for a schedule adjustment.
People complain that their train is standing by "for no good reason".
--
Bunching is largely a function of crowding. The schedule depends on short dwells at stations - open the doors, close them again 20 seconds later, and you're off. But when the trains and platforms are so crowded that it takes 2-3 minutes to get a train through a single station stop, it falls behind schedule, causing larger crowds to build up on platforms farther down, causing the train to fall farther behind. Meanwhile, it has taken a disproportionate load at each stop, leaving fewer people for the trains behind it to pick up, letting them have shorter dwells, and thus catch up to it.
The new trains should help a bit, in that they have more doors per car, which should cut down on dwells. But the bunching problem is going to still happen now and then.
Kind of
By bgl
Sun, 02/11/2018 - 1:14am
The Orange Line actually keeps the same number of doors, but they are significantly wider - a wheel chair can fit through a single leaf of the door in the new ones. They will actually be, afaik, the widest doors on any rapid transit system. There are some good studies from London, HK, and I think NYC that actually show significant dwell time reductions from these wider doors, and the MBTA took that and went even further. The red line has the same thing - but it standardizes now on 4 sets of doors for everything.
Yawn...
By E
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:06pm
Discussions have been going on since the early 1980's to extend the Blue Line into Lynn and Salem.
38 years later, where is it...
But Big Dig Baker likes cars not public transit
By Trump-Baker 2020
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:25pm
But in that 38 years, theres been tons of expansions of the highways built in greater Boston, most of them free! We are looking to Houston as a model instead of a transit oriented city. Even LA has added over a hundred miles of new light rail. Baker is focused on the MA pike in Allston project while he cancels/delays transit projects. Its what he knows, he was pretty central in the Big Dig, especially some of the flim flam aspects with the cost.
They missed one important issue
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:07pm
Where is the affordable housing in MA?
Worcester
New Bedford
Leominster
Gardner
etc.
Much easier to build ways for people to rapidly get to those place than it is to build enough affordable housing inside that little special service area.
The T is spending a fortune
By anon
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:26pm
The T is spending a fortune on 500 hyper-bright digital signs... what a colossal waste of money that could have been spent to improve service.
Pretty sure those are being
By DTP
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 8:27am
Pretty sure those are being paid for by the contractor that handles advertising, rather than by the T itself (though I may be mistaken).
Also, the cost of a few hundred LCD screens would still only buy you maybe 1 new subway car.
But I'm old!
By anon
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 9:40am
And if I think that anything involving technology must be horrifically expensive YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT!
One thing that annoyed me about the report
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:26pm
Since when has there been something called "the Hyde Park Villages." I'm fairly certain the area is called "Hyde Park," and has been called that since at least 1868.
They did this
By TiminCharlestown
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 5:57pm
when discussing the GLX extension too, on one of the maps.. I think they were just trying to specify the various squares in the neighborhood.
Funny
By cybah
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 7:00pm
About a month ago I received a message on my flickr about getting the rights to some of the photos I've taken. Was a woman from this group.
I didn't think of it until this afternoon when she sent me a copy of this report.
Then I sit down to dinner and I see Adam's post.
Hmmm
Oh
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 7:10pm
But it's a nice photo. Your photo will probably be one of those go-to photos of the project.
Yes
By cybah
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 7:12pm
Which reminds me. It's time for another photo set soon. Probably the last photo set before it opens in April.
I wanna try to get a tour again but my daytime time is limited to be missing from work.
My plan
By Russ
Thu, 02/08/2018 - 7:29pm
First fix transit within the urban part of metro Boston. An urban ring rapid transit line and a new link between North Station, South Station and the Seaport are needed badly. Then, rather than extending the present rapid transit lines, turn the Commuter Rail system into a grade separated semi- rapid transit system along the lines of the BART in the Bay Area. For instance, if Lynn had frequent and fast service to Boston via this service, there would be no need to extend the Blue Line there. Of course, an expensive link between North and South Station must be built, enabling through service throughout the region. To pay for this, increase the gas tax by a quarter and charge all Uber-style trips an extra buck. Everybody can't drive into Boston, which means the T is vital to our city's success. It's time to take the hit and start investing. However, like many people, I don't have much confidence in the present MBTA management. Before I'd give them more money, I'd insist on some major changes.
Anyone else here been on the
By Chris77
Fri, 02/09/2018 - 7:15am
Anyone else here been on the dedicated busways around Pittsburgh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Busway
Pages
Add comment