Top priorities for new MBTA GM

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:I still don't see how a rehab of the Tremont Street tunnel would cost more than a complete demolition and a complete construction of a new tunnel with a much wider footprint to handle the width of the busses (which would involve disruption and mitigation to the surrounding streets and buildings on Tremont Steet). I don't see how it could even be close to as expensive.

The buses are as wide as the LRVs that would be used, if not skinnier. The same total rebuilding and widening of the tunnel would have to be done. Not to mention the tunnel probably would need structural rehabilitation due to no maintnence in 40+ years.

And as far more LRV's and yard space goes...that'll be necessary well before Phase III (in whatever form it's built) gets done. They need a large order of trolleys TODAY to fill the remainder of the Type 8 order and replace all the Boeings. They'll need another yard when the Somerville/West Medford expansion is done, and if the courts force the MBTA's hands again on Arborway restoration. And they'll get a larger yard when Lechmere is moved...potentially a much larger yard depending on how much of that undeveloped land is actually up for grabs. So it's not an accurate assessment to put the full tab for those shared costs on the bill for Silver Line replacement.

You just proved my point for me. However you are demanding the conversion NOW so it puts the costs of the new yard AND LRVs directly into the costs of the Silver Line. You can't defer the true costs to add onto the other extentions, that is doing the same thing you claim the Silver Line is doing.

[quote="efin98]The buses are as wide as the LRVs that would be used, if not skinnier. The same total rebuilding and widening of the tunnel would have to be done. Not to mention the tunnel probably would need structural rehabilitation due to no maintnence in 40+ years.

Buses do not operate in anywhere near as constricted a footprint as LRV's because they're not fixed to a track. You need to allow significantly wider clearances on the ROW to accomodate the variance and human error involved in steering...and probably even some short lengths of breakdown lane in the tunnel like they have in the current SL tunnel for disabled buses. That means probably making the ROW in each direction 1 1/2 times as wide as it is now...which would require a total teardown of that 107-year-old tunnel. There are center support columns and a grade difference between the two tracks for a good portion of the way, so it wouldn't even be possible to retain the existing structure for one bus lane and construct another lane immediately adjacent to it. Since there are no tight turns on the existing stretch, LRV's can operate in the same clearances that PCC's did thru 1962. They didn't have to widen the active tunnels to accomodate Boeings, T7's, and T8's. They wouldn't have to do it for this stretch, either. Its narrowest sections have got the same clearances as the narrowest parts of the Park-to-Copley tunnel segment, and it's a nearly straight shot from the Boylston outer tracks to the tunnel's current terminus so there would be no need for that massively large-footprint (and thus massively expensive) loop to be built underneath Boylston Station, Boston Common, and the active Green Line alignment (with whatever structural reinforcement that would require of Boylston Station and the active tunnel).

Now, structural rehab...yes, they will have to do that in the old tunnel and it won't be cheap. But will it be anywhere near as expensive as a complete demolition and wider-footprint rebuild from scratch, with mitigation to all underground utilities and building foundations such a large widening would affect? No...not by a longshot, and not by anyone's figures.

You just proved my point for me. However you are demanding the conversion NOW so it puts the costs of the new yard AND LRVs directly into the costs of the Silver Line. You can't defer the true costs to add onto the other extentions, that is doing the same thing you claim the Silver Line is doing.

Who said anything about now, or demanding now? Arborway, the Lechmere relocation, and maybe even the Somerville/West Medford extension will all likely get done well sooner than completion of Phase III. None of those are even remotely as complex as a major tunnel project...and none of those are anywhere near as politically divisive as this one is. With all that still has to be done to reliably secure funding and get shovels in the ground for Phase III, I would be shocked if anyone makes an underground transfer to any mode beneath Boylston Station within the next decade or more. And I know full well LRV's aren't even a possibility for this stretch unless BRT gets killed dead over costs. In the meantime those other projects on the Green Line have to press forward, get funded, and get built. By the time the first trolley ever makes a stop on the outer Boylston tracks, that new yard is already going to be in operation for a few years, and that Type 8 and Boeing replacement order will have already been filled with enough cushion to support some expansion and increased ridership. Hell...any Phase III LRV's probably figure more in the Type 7 replacement order than anything sooner at the rate this project is going. You call it pushing the ledger around...I call it getting other things done while this quagmire festers.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:[quote="efin98]The buses are as wide as the LRVs that would be used, if not skinnier. The same total rebuilding and widening of the tunnel would have to be done. Not to mention the tunnel probably would need structural rehabilitation due to no maintnence in 40+ years.

Buses do not operate in anywhere near as constricted a footprint as LRV's because they're not fixed to a track.

Like LRVs don't have large clearence issues on tight turns that WILL be required for the tunnel? Either way, there is going to be a need to rebuild the tunnel to fit the LRVs with or without the "extra space" crap that is "needed". Oh and about that "extra space"- take a look at the Silver Line Phase II and see how tight those clearences are for the buses there. They are about as small if not smaller than clearences in the Green Line today.

You need to allow significantly wider clearances on the ROW to accomodate the variance and human error involved in steering...and probably even some short lengths of breakdown lane in the tunnel like they have in the current SL tunnel for disabled buses.

Like there isn't the need for the same with LRVs or any other train? Human error is human error and just because it runs on rails doesn't make it any safer...just ask those who were hurt on the D Line last year, or those hurt by the Amtrak train at Back Bay station...

That means probably making the ROW in each direction 1 1/2 times as wide as it is now...which would require a total teardown of that 107-year-old tunnel.

Based on what figure? Seriously, based on what figure? Take a good look at the Silver Line Phase II tunnel at all? Doesn't look like there's a 1 1/2 width there. There is only one place in the tunnel where you MAY make any claim like that and just like the Green Line it's there for disabled vehicles and probably layovers as well.

There are center support columns and a grade difference between the two tracks for a good portion of the way, so it wouldn't even be possible to retain the existing structure for one bus lane and construct another lane immediately adjacent to it. Since there are no tight turns on the existing stretch, LRV's can operate in the same clearances that PCC's did thru 1962. They didn't have to widen the active tunnels to accomodate Boeings, T7's, and T8's. They wouldn't have to do it for this stretch, either. Its narrowest sections have got the same clearances as the narrowest parts of the Park-to-Copley tunnel segment, and it's a nearly straight shot from the Boylston outer tracks to the tunnel's current terminus so there would be no need for that massively large-footprint (and thus massively expensive) loop to be built underneath Boylston Station, Boston Common, and the active Green Line alignment (with whatever structural reinforcement that would require of Boylston Station and the active tunnel).

How about a rebuilding of the Boylston Station and the "flyover" to accomodate the modern weights of LRVs? The tunnel may be a straight shot but like you said it's not on one level so there is going to be a weight issue requiring a massive rehab just to handle the weight of modern cars.

Now, structural rehab...yes, they will have to do that in the old tunnel and it won't be cheap. But will it be anywhere near as expensive as a complete demolition and wider-footprint rebuild from scratch, with mitigation to all underground utilities and building foundations such a large widening would affect? No...not by a longshot, and not by anyone's figures.

The key word there is figures. You haven't presented any of them other than the claim that the busway will be MORE expensive than rebuilding the tunnel. Where are your figures coming from? Cite them please. Otherwise I will conclude that you are either lying about the costs or you have no idea what the costs will be.

Who said anything about now, or demanding now?

You did. You tried to use them as another example to try to defend your stance and I called you on it.

Arborway, the Lechmere relocation, and maybe even the Somerville/West Medford extension will all likely get done well sooner than completion of Phase III.

Again based on what figures? And your own opinion is not a figure. Actual supporting evidence and sources please.

None of those are even remotely as complex as a major tunnel project...

BS. The Medford extention of the Green Line requires at least one major tunnel through the most densely populated city in the state. Not to mention designing a way to move Lechmere east without impacting a major highway AND the current station AND commuter traffic. That's a hell of alot more complex than redesigning an unused tunnel.

and none of those are anywhere near as politically divisive as this one is.

So the truth finally comes out. That's the real reason you are against the Silver Line.

With all that still has to be done to reliably secure funding and get shovels in the ground for Phase III, I would be shocked if anyone makes an underground transfer to any mode beneath Boylston Station within the next decade or more.

The Big Dig shows otherwise. The same thing was said of it yet it got done.

And I know full well LRV's aren't even a possibility for this stretch unless BRT gets killed dead over costs.

You want BRT dead period. Doesn't matter wha the reason, you want it dead. Costs is the flavor of the moment. Next the "destruction of a historic tunnel" will be you flavor.

efin98 wrote:You want BRT dead period. Doesn't matter wha the reason, you want it dead. Costs is the flavor of the moment. Next the "destruction of a historic tunnel" will be you flavor.

Wow, Ed. Seems like you know me better than I know myself. What other words do you want to put in my mouth so I can save the trouble of writing them later?

I've been a dutiful lurker on this forum for the better part of 2 years before first posting this spring. Your breadth of knowledge about the system is a treasure to the members here, but I gotta tell you it's a real pointless exercise to try to debate anything remotely controversial with you because you can't control your temper or lay off the personal attacks. Seriously...you've spent half this thread accusing people of harboring sinister motives. That takes all the fun out of a little shop talk among friendly railfans.




Now...drifting closer back to topic if anyone wants to join. . .

I think one of the top things they need to set into motion for the long term is investing in better traffic management for the existing Green Line. The B, C, and E all need signal priority right away. Just doing that would make such a tremendous and noticeable improvement in riders' quality-of-commute...especially on the B-line. If anyone wanted to score political brownie points with the riders, that one is such a no-brainer. I also think they ought to start extra-long term planning for a transition to a more automated system within the subway. Every morning when I take the E I see all the inbound trains stretched way back in the tunnel to Hynes because of the congestion created at that blasted Copley junction. Nothing against the humans who do great work directing traffic, but it would be nice if there were something more automated to manage the flow of traffic starting several blocks further away from a congestion point than they're able to now (maybe coordinated with signal priority on the surface). I think the Green Line could easily handle more ridership and expansion of its branches if it only had a more efficient signal system than the 19th-century one in place now.

The Green Line extension does not require a tunnel in Somerville. The most popular proposal involves two separate branches -- one dead-ending in Union Square, the other following the Lowell Line right-of-way to West Medford.

Now...drifting closer back to topic if anyone wants to join. . .

I think one of the top things they need to set into motion for the long term is investing in better traffic management for the existing Green Line. The B, C, and E all need signal priority right away. Just doing that would make such a tremendous and noticeable improvement in riders' quality-of-commute...especially on the B-line. If anyone wanted to score political brownie points with the riders, that one is such a no-brainer. I also think they ought to start extra-long term planning for a transition to a more automated system within the subway. Every morning when I take the E I see all the inbound trains stretched way back in the tunnel to Hynes because of the congestion created at that blasted Copley junction. Nothing against the humans who do great work directing traffic, but it would be nice if there were something more automated to manage the flow of traffic starting several blocks further away from a congestion point than they're able to now (maybe coordinated with signal priority on the surface). I think the Green Line could easily handle more ridership and expansion of its branches if it only had a more efficient signal system than the 19th-century one in place now.

Aboslutely, I ride the B line every day - it's just so slow. The closely spaced stops and tons of traffic lights hurts service on the B. There are these traffic lights that are actually "T signals," but they seem to favor cars over trolleys. I've read about traffic lights or signals where the bus driver presses a button on his dashboard sending a signal to extend green lights. Might be well worth investing in for the B, C and E lines.

bierhere wrote:When the new GM starts in July, I'm curious what people think are the top priorities.

Here are mine:

Short term:
1. System reliability - Make the existing system run more better. I've experienced in my opinion too many breakdowns on the Red line and too many missing coaches on the commuter rail.

Long term:
1. Finances: Resolve issues with the existing debt so that the system can expand and can maintain itself in a state of good repair.

Didn't Grabauskas officially start today as GM? I know I read that he's looking to make the existing system run better - and it has to. The Red Line got hit with another breakdown this morning at Charles/MGH. They just don't seem to stop. My hope is that we can start to see some real change with Grabauskas. He's now in a position where he can take a more hands-on approach to reforming the T.

Ron Newman wrote:The Green Line extension does not require a tunnel in Somerville. The most popular proposal involves two separate branches -- one dead-ending in Union Square, the other following the Lowell Line right-of-way to West Medford.

I know about the branches. I also know that the area is tightly crowded with homes and businesses and without land aquisition and relocation of homes the line has to be tunnelled.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

efin98 wrote:You want BRT dead period. Doesn't matter wha the reason, you want it dead. Costs is the flavor of the moment. Next the "destruction of a historic tunnel" will be you flavor.

Wow, Ed. Seems like you know me better than I know myself. What other words do you want to put in my mouth so I can save the trouble of writing them later?

I can tell what someone is really saying by how they say it and how often they say it. It comes with being in the minority constantly. lIt doesn't take a psychic to read what was said before and tie it in with what is said later. Back tracking, reusing the exact same statements, jumping on the littlest detail no matter how trivial adds up. I put 2 and 2 together and saw right through the statements. Bottom line doesn't change, just the current issue.

I've been a dutiful lurker on this forum for the better part of 2 years before first posting this spring. Your breadth of knowledge about the system is a treasure to the members here, but I gotta tell you it's a real pointless exercise to try to debate anything remotely controversial with you because you can't control your temper or lay off the personal attacks.

I didn't get personal. You haven't seen me get personal. I have a temper but I also have also controlled it. Rather than lumping everything together to insult you I took apart you statements to respond to each point individually.

Seriously...you've spent half this thread accusing people of harboring sinister motives. That takes all the fun out of a little shop talk among friendly railfans.

I pointed out that people should not fling around their fantasies that they know will never happen and to focus on things that actually have a chance of happening. That includes stopping the rants about the Silver Line and to actually bother to discuss things that have a chance in hell of happening. If that is the only reason you come here to the forum too bad. There are other things out there other than the Silver Line that should be talked about and just piling on rant after rant does nothing but clog threads and chokes real discussions.

Now...drifting closer back to topic if anyone wants to join. . .

I think one of the top things they need to set into motion for the long term is investing in better traffic management for the existing Green Line. The B, C, and E all need signal priority right away. Just doing that would make such a tremendous and noticeable improvement in riders' quality-of-commute...especially on the B-line. If anyone wanted to score political brownie points with the riders, that one is such a no-brainer.

There you go, that's exactly what I hoped people would bring up in this thread! And I agree with you, if the technology is out there it should be used. The GM would win support directly from riders of the lines and gain allies in the districts the lines service- something that is always needed come budget time every year.

I also think they ought to start extra-long term planning for a transition to a more automated system within the subway. Every morning when I take the E I see all the inbound trains stretched way back in the tunnel to Hynes because of the congestion created at that blasted Copley junction. Nothing against the humans who do great work directing traffic, but it would be nice if there were something more automated to manage the flow of traffic starting several blocks further away from a congestion point than they're able to now (maybe coordinated with signal priority on the surface).

The lack of signal coordingation is the main problem is the bunching caused by the surface portion of the lines. The trains are at the mercy of traffic lights and schedules get screwed up due to the lights not being in their favor. Can easily lose 5 minutes just from bad signals...

I think the Green Line could easily handle more ridership and expansion of its branches if it only had a more efficient signal system than the 19th-century one in place now.

The tunnels can handle it, used to handle much more traffic on an older style signal system years ago...

Where do you think a tunnel will be needed in Somerville? The right-of-way is wide enough for four tracks (2 Green Line, 2 commuter rail) as it is.

Ron, according to the T's own website - specifically the Beyond Lechmere study - http://www.mbta.com/projects_underway/b ... anning.asp, the only way a tunnel will need to be built is if the T chooses Alternative 1B, which is running the Green Line from Lechmere to Union Sq then through the tunnel to reach Gilman Sq and meet up with the Lowell Commuter Rail Line. Alternative 1C, which calls for two separate branches to Union Sq and West Medford - and doesn't call for any tunnels anywhere - would be easier to build and would give the T some flexiblity in where they can send Green Line trains to best suit the needs of Somerville and Medford commuters. And since Alternative 1C isn't calling for any tunnels to be built, it will more than likely be less expensive to build than 1B.

And my understanding, from attending an earlier planning meeting, is that the T long ago rejected Alternative 1B.

Charliemta wrote: One huge issue is the one I mentioned, which is the need to cancel spending on the proposed Silverline III tunnel. The huge amount of money which would be wasted on that useless project could instead be spent on the projects you mentioned, and/or other high priority transit improvements.

ckb wrote: Its not `over' until the bulldozers and tunnel hogs start moving dirt. Or at least until the funding has actually been secured. Neither has happened yet. A transition to a new GM is a perfect time and a perfect excuse to reassess the feasibility and efficiency of this major project.

Charlie and ckb, I agree completely with what both of you have said. It's not written in stone that SL Phase 3 is getting the green light (pun intended) to start construction and it's not over yet.

But it seems to me that our new MBTA GM is in favor of the SL Phase 3 Tunnel. This press release from just three months ago shows that he supports the project, so we can't be sure if he's going to change his mind about Silver Line Phase 3. Although it sounded to me like his support for the SL, while strong, was a little less enthusiatic than Mulhern's support. While Grabauskas pointed out the increasing popularity, the "quick and easy" transfers and the connection to Logan, that was basically all he was quoted as saying about it. Mulhern (still with the T at the time) would have probably said that and more about the so-called advantages of bus rapid transit over rail and pointed to the "success" of the service on Washington St as reasons to fund Phase 3.

However, the press release also states that the T is planning to finish up the Environmental Review and then seek FTA funding for the project. The FTA could look over the review, feel its impact on the environment is questionable and deny Federal funding for this project. "Recommended" does not mean "guaranteed" - and Federal funding for the project is not guaranteed. And Grabauskas has time to change his mind about this project, even if he supports it now.

So it's not over. Not by a long shot.

Ron Newman wrote:And my understanding, from attending an earlier planning meeting, is that the T long ago rejected Alternative 1B.

That is good news to me. The tunnel isn't necessary and doesn't offer much flexiblity in where the T can run GL trains.

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:

Ron Newman wrote:And my understanding, from attending an earlier planning meeting, is that the T long ago rejected Alternative 1B.

That is good news to me. The tunnel isn't necessary and doesn't offer much flexiblity in where the T can run GL trains.

Yes, the tunnel option was rejected early on. Options that did advance to more extensive review (talked about in recent press coverage) were Green Line to West Medford, Green Line to both, BRT to West Medford with Green Line to Union Sq., and commtuer rail shuttle service with additional stops in Somerville and Medford.

The two Green Line options did much better than the other two in the study.