Boston Transportation Thread

[TowerDude]

Is there any serious talk about re-activating the North-South Rail Link project? I think it should be much much higher on Amtrak and New England states priorities. I could see inviting New Hampshire and Maine to pitch in some of the money to finance the tunnel in exchange for enhanced train services, like running some Northeast Regional trains all the way to Concord and Portland.
Meanwhile you could extend the Downeaster all the way to Bangor and/or Augusta.

[Busy Bee]

To be completely honest I'm not sure the single-seat benefits of a link would outweigh the extreme cost. I see Boston as the logical northern terminal of the majority of east coast travel and I'm not convinced the lack of Boston through running is really THE impediment to better north-of-Boston service. A better invesment would be bread and butter investments between Boston and Maine like track speed increases and an exploration of electrification.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

To be completely honest I'm not sure the single-seat benefits of a link would outweigh the extreme cost. I see Boston as the logical northern terminal of the majority of east coast travel and I'm not convinced the lack of Boston through running is really THE impediment to better north-of-Boston service. A better invesment would be bread and butter investments between Boston and Maine like track speed increases and an exploration of electrification.

Boston to Montreal via Concord, White River Junction and Burlington would be a worthwhile route to study too. Being able to have every other train for that service (or the Downeaster for that matter) originate at either Boston South or Boston North would allow for a lot more frequency of service northwards than what happens now.

Also the benefits for local commuters in terms of flexibility of residence would also be a massive game changer in and of itself ... connecting Boston North and South would open up vast new work-home commute options in the region.

Southern NH would benefit enormously from having those two stations connected. And Maine seems to be fairly bullish on train expansion so to be able to have more direct connections to the rest of the Amtrak network with the connector would seem to be good for Maine residents and visitors too.

You could also maybe even have some DownEaster trains go down as far as Providence too.

[Busy Bee]

The benefits to MBTA commuter rail would obviously be a conversation worth having, but again I think the amount of passengers passing through downtown Boston wouldn't be enough to justify it's extreme cost. Plus a transit connection in the form of Green Line trolley/Orange Line/Red Line already connects them, even if it is less than ideal.

[Busy Bee]

https://www.mbta.com/news/2024-10-30...ity-hall-plaza

Unfortunately these "trolleys of the future" will look virtually nothing like the sexy Euro trams like we were teased with. Yet another example of the persistently bizarre lack of prioritizing good design in US transit vehicles.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

https://www.mbta.com/news/2024-10-30...ity-hall-plaza

Unfortunately these "trolleys of the future" will look virtually nothing like the sexy Euro trams like we were teased with. Yet another example of the persistently bizarre lack of prioritizing good design in US transit vehicles.

I am going to disagree. These CAF trains are as modern functionally you can get. Look at all the advance features in the trains, and in their cabs. Although some artists drawings made 7 years ago, yes as early as 2017, had more streamline cab fronts, these are certainly more streamlined than what the trains they will be replacing.
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/10...-arriving-2027

[Nouvellecosse]

Not sure if you two actually disagree or not. BB seems to be saying that the new trams don't look good while EL seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if they don't look good since they'll be well engineered and therefore aesthetics don't matter. So EL doesn't seem to be disagreeing with the claim that they don't look good; and only on whether or not that matters. But I guess there are some people who whom aesthetics just aren't important. They just don't care what things look like.

I think it's true that function is the most important but it's also true that aesthetics do matter to a lot of people and affect public perception. So how much it matters I don't know. But the design in the link definitely isn't what I'd call attractive.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

https://www.mbta.com/news/2024-10-30...ity-hall-plaza

Unfortunately these "trolleys of the future" will look virtually nothing like the sexy Euro trams like we were teased with. Yet another example of the persistently bizarre lack of prioritizing good design in US transit vehicles.

The world needs fewer Value Engineers.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

The world needs fewer Value Engineers.

102 new multi section streetcars for $810 million is around $7.9 million per streetcar. When you are buying 102 streetcars, value engineering is important.
Let's assume streamlined cabs on both ends increases costs for each 102 train a half million dollars, up to 8.4 million per train vs the existing $7.9 million per train. At that price, MBTA would only be buying 96 new streetcar trains, that's potentially 6 less trains......

Of course, since we do not know what the price difference was, no one knows for sure.
But value engineering allows buying more streetcar trains on the same budget.

[Nouvellecosse]

One could just as easily argue that a big order where a design will be been seen repeatedly by millions of people over multiple decades, that it's the last time one should be cheeping out. You could say that by value engineering away the beauty of the public realm which transit vehicles are very much part of, you show a society that only cares about penny pinching and not making a beautiful and attractive place for its citizens. Especially for the wealthiest countries who can afford nice things more easily than many other places.

But of course it's all a matter of balance. You can go too far in either direction by, on one hand, spending on white elephants that are largely about optics, or on the other hand imposing austerity for austerity's sake when it really isn't needed.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Let's assume streamlined cabs on both ends increases costs for each 102 train a half million dollars, up to 8.4 million per train vs the existing $7.9 million per train. At that price, MBTA would only be buying 96 new streetcar trains, that's potentially 6 less trains......

Of course, since we do not know what the price difference was, no one knows for sure.
But value engineering allows buying more streetcar trains on the same budget.

Why would you assume something like that? You have no idea if a more cosmetically stylish face would increase cost. You are making assumption based on unknown data. That's very unlike you electricron.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Why would you assume something like that? You have no idea if a more cosmetically stylish face would increase cost. You are making assumption based on unknown data. That's very unlike you electricron.

Golly, did you not read the last two sentences in the quote of me you replied to? Here it is again
"Of course, since we do not know what the price difference was, no one knows for sure.
But value engineering allows buying more streetcar trains on the same budget."

An assumption is a what if, often used to reinforce a point in an argument. An assumption can be anything I wish to make. You are so worried about my assumption you missed the entire point I was trying to make. Open your mind just a little.

Value engineering is safe to assume, or realize, is doing something to make an item cheaper. My assumption assumed a value easy to calculate, and ended up with 6 less cars. I could have assumed a different value of savings, and ended up with 3 cars less, or 2 cars, or even just 1 car less. The truth in the matter is that you get more items for the same cost with value engineering. That is a truth that should not be questioned.

As if there were actual savings or not, no one knows. But why did someone else first introduce the term value engineering into this thread? Is it safe to assume the design was made to reduce costs? Is it safe to assume the design was actually changed? Many of the drawings with streamlined, three units, streetcars were made in 2017, 7 years before the RFP was released and MBTA chose the final design. It is most likely the 2017 era design was an artist impression of what could be more so than what the winning bidder designers first proposed, which is now a 7 unit streetcar that is twice as long with less streamlined cabs.