What's New (Or Not) With Arborway?

I think that one of the original points that I made when I posted has been lost in the discussion shuffle: The State is MANDATED to restore the service for environmental mitigation reasons. So far, none of the substitutions that have been presented to restoring streetcar service have met environmental muster. Thus, the T and the state are LEGALLY bound to restore the service, or they are going to be sued, case closed.

To say that this issue is dead and say "move on" disregards this very basic legal fact, and I personally think that that sets a very scary precedent by which there are laws that the state can disregard when it suits its purposes. We cannot lose sight of the law in this whole debate. I will argue over feasibility, practicality, sensibility, and constructability any day, but I will not argue the law. Something here must be done, at the threat of legal peril.

At this point, I almost could care less if the service is restored so long as the state is held to obeying its own laws. I want to see someone ( or some state entity) held accountable for agreements made and broken to the people. So far the state (eg: the T) has been able to wiggle out of two of the consent agreement's deadlines. Based on the attitude of the DEP towards the State and T the last time they tried to make a change to the consent agreement, I don't think that there will be much chance that the DEP will allow them to get away with eliminating Arborway restoration from the consent agreement, or allow for a bustitution for that matter. I am sure that the DEP can see what seems readily apparent; that the state and T are really playing a waiting game against the law. As much as I love trolleys, if the T can come up with a solution to this issue that is environmentally sound and provides a one seat ride from JP Centre St. to Park St, I would accept it. This attitude of using slightly better buses and stalling to get the problem to go away is what infuriates me more than anyting else in this whole saga.

I really hope that the CLF is able to get this case off the ground and into Federal court so that something is done about this blatant disregard for the law.

-A

As much as I love trolleys, if the T can come up with a solution to this issue that is environmentally sound and provides a one seat ride from JP Centre St. to Park St, I would accept it.

Even a Trackless Trolley would be something. CNG buses don't cut it in my (largely uninformed) opinion.

Let's not pit rail project against rail project. That's silly and counterproductive. Also this shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Either build one extension or the other. The bottom line is, ALL these projects are going to be needed sooner or letter for the long term growth and health of Boston.

In fact ALL these extensions (Arborway, Somerville, and let's throw in Blue line extension to Lynn, the Greenbush Line, and the Urban Ring ) could have been completed for a FRACTION of what the Big Dig cost.

Isn't the whole Arborway situation just like what happened to the A line? They stopped running the trains "temporarily" and used buses instead. Then they PROMISED to restore service. Next thing you know, they're tearing up the tracks.

(I wasn't alive for most of this, but this is what I understand happened from what I have read about it.)

I think some people don't realize that just because they are "mandated" to restore the service, the Federal Goverment or any of its agencies cannot force the MBTA, city or state to implement (or in this case, restore) a service that does not make technical or economic sense. If, since the decision was made as part of mitigation efforts, studies show that the benefits of the service are dwarfed by the cost, and the money could be better spent on another mitigation project, then that is what will happen.

Although we may all dream of extensive public transportation and trolleys down every street and to every town, those days are past.

We are lucky these days to get the MBTA to build anything. Lets get them to build what would be most useful.

As for the projected ridership numbers, sure, 200 seems quite small - but how many who would use the Arborway line currently use the Orange line a few blocks away? If the addtion of _new_ ridership is small, this will never happen.

IIRC, when the Green Line extension to West Medford was declared, the Arborway restoration was relegated to the long-term backburner, as the state decided that mitigation projects with higher projected riderships and less cost would take precedence.

Since 1987, the T's done a pretty good job of wiggling out of DEP deadlines. I think that the 2006 deadline will come and go, and if something comes up, the T will delay restoration in favor of more feasability studies or something like that. Unfortunately, the state government hasn't been putting any pressure (or funding) on the T for restoration. No matter what the DEP says, the administration will have to push for it too. However, if adminstration changes in 2006, it's possible that the T might just be forced in to restoration. juni0r75, don't get me wrong, I think that the state should follow the law. When I said it was dead, I was just expressing my dissapointment that the state is allowed to dance around such issues. I just don't have faith that another ruling will change anything.

caduceus wrote:I think some people don't realize that just because they are "mandated" to restore the service, the Federal Goverment or any of its agencies cannot force the MBTA, city or state to implement (or in this case, restore) a service that does not make technical or economic sense. If, since the decision was made as part of mitigation efforts, studies show that the benefits of the service are dwarfed by the cost, and the money could be better spent on another mitigation project, then that is what will happen.

Exactly. The law as it currently is is not set in stone, and either way, the law is not a suicide pact, to be a bit hyperbolic.

darksun23c wrote:. juni0r75, don't get me wrong, I think that the state should follow the law. When I said it was dead, I was just expressing my dissapointment that the state is allowed to dance around such issues. I just don't have faith that another ruling will change anything.

*Nods* I agree with that point as well as the point made that the law is really not the be-all and end-all. The problem is however that the T is just trying to get away with doing nothing. None of the ideas that they have put forth at this point come anywhere close to restoring the level of service that was lost when the line was suspended temporarily. To be blunt, I don't think that the T really cares about this area and is perfectly ready to leave it be. It is really sad that the bureacratic inertia is strong enough to override the law, and when people are disorganized and divided to the point that they can get away with it.

-A

Im all for the Arborway restoration but It won't happen through local presure. I know that one day, when gas prices go over $5, the T will be strangled by all of its busses and street cars will look like a good option again.

vanshnookenraggen wrote:Im all for the Arborway restoration but It won't happen through local presure. I know that one day, when gas prices go over $5, the T will be strangled by all of its busses and street cars will look like a good option again.

I seriously doubt that. Until gas goes up to $20+ a gallon, streetcars will probably still be much more expensive. I do expect, however, electric buses or hydrogen buses or something of that nature.

I really have to question the study they came up with. Boston is growing and continues to grow. The roads are already choked and traffic increases constantly.
I dont know the last time anyone walked down the old Arborway route, but it's a pretty densely populated area! There's plenty of people to ride both lines. The idea of Arborway "siphoning" all it's riders from the Orange Line sounds to me like a smokescreen, and just because the Heath Street portion of the line is the busiest doesn't mean the Heath St. to Arborway routing should be discounted.
I'm sorry, but most of the major arguements presented against restoration, with the possible exception of capacity in the tunnel don't convince me. I belive that if Arborway isn't restored it should be because annother more favorable route, say Jamaica pond to VFW Parkway-for example-is being explored. There is and always will be a need and a justification for a new route, but it seems to me that it OUGHT to be easier to restore an existing ROW than build from scratch.
But what do I know, I'm just a dumb sailor from Westwood!

I have read a couple of times in this forum about "capacity in the (Tremont St.) tunnel" which makes me wonder.

In 1960 when we moved to Boston, the T (or MTA then) had the following services in the tunnel in addition to what is there now:
- Watertown (A line)
- Full Arborway service
- Lenox St. via Tremont

Note that by this time the Riverside line was in service (1959 I believe).

so unless there was a less frequency in those days, I don't see how that tunnel could not handle more traffic. Perhaps those old PCC's could accelerate better and keep better schedule?

jonnhrr wrote:I have read a couple of times in this forum about "capacity in the (Tremont St.) tunnel" which makes me wonder.

In 1960 when we moved to Boston, the T (or MTA then) had the following services in the tunnel in addition to what is there now:
- Watertown (A line)
- Full Arborway service
- Lenox St. via Tremont

Note that by this time the Riverside line was in service (1959 I believe).

so unless there was a less frequency in those days, I don't see how that tunnel could not handle more traffic. Perhaps those old PCC's could accelerate better and keep better schedule?

That's a really good point! It kinda makes you wonder. I'm betting though, that frequency of the trains was lower then, and possibly car lengths might factor in as well. I'd really like to hear some good info on that, though.

They were probably quite a bit more lax in terms of the signals back then.

jonnhrr wrote:I have read a couple of times in this forum about "capacity in the (Tremont St.) tunnel" which makes me wonder.

In 1960 when we moved to Boston, the T (or MTA then) had the following services in the tunnel in addition to what is there now:
- Watertown (A line)
- Full Arborway service
- Lenox St. via Tremont

Note that by this time the Riverside line was in service (1959 I believe).

so unless there was a less frequency in those days, I don't see how that tunnel could not handle more traffic. Perhaps those old PCC's could accelerate better and keep better schedule?

That's just service the tunnels have handled in the last 45 years. There was no Riverside pre-'59, but there was one more branch splitting off the Tremont Tunnel in addition to Lenox St., plus all the BERy-era surface lines that entered the subway ROW at Lechmere. The tunnels themselves used to handle way, way more trains than they do now.

In the last 50 years when capacity has been an issue...it's mostly been an issue of fleet capacity, not tunnel capacity. Riverside didn't overwhelm the tunnels with traffic when it opened, necessitating killing off Lenox St. and Watertown. The PCC car shortage did. Likewise, Arborway went when the PCC fleet just wasn't viable anymore for regular operation and the T was stuck with too few Boeings and too long a wait for Type 7's. They plugged the gap by shutting the entire E for incline reconstruction, and then waited until '89 when the full 3600 order was in-service before even reopening the Brigham-to-Heath leg. The fact that they've never really had a full fleet since given that they couldn't scrap the Boeings fast enough and the given the Type 8 disaster has only calcified the institutionalized resistance to restoration. If there actually were 100 reliable T8's available to go along with the 105 active T7's...I'd bet they'd be a little warmer to the idea of sending some of that bounty up South Huntington. But the Boeings are forbidden to go on non-reservation trackage in revenue service, and they never even tried to re-introduce the Type 8's after the order was cancelled...because why bother when there's only enough of 'em to do true regular ADA-compliant service on one branch at a time. There's nothing particularly vexing from a technical standpoint about the E's current Breda ban...it was the damn reservation trackage that caused the last derailment, just like it was damn reservation trackage on the other lines that caused the other derailments on those lines. They've performed without problems on street-running trackage. But if they've got speed restrictions, why run them in the fast Huntington subway stretch...and if there's only 38 of them total why not just do good ADA service one line instead of borderline-nonexistent ADA service on most lines because there ain't enough cars. The B is the most natural-sized line right now in terms of number of cars to absorb the whole fleet neatly enough.

The E is an all-Kinki line, and probably will have to be until the next car order is fulfilled...and it's not like there's a bulging surplus of T7's lying around on any given day. The near 50-year car shortage continues with no end in sight. There's never going to be enough impetus to increase capacity (which the tunnels can handle) and implement signal priority on the surface (which is the one thing that would make the most dramatic difference in quality of service EVERYWHERE on the Green Line) until they've actually got a full-enough fleet to think bigger things. How many generations have to pass before the T can string together succesful consecutive large car orders that'll do that trick? We've already been waiting three generations.

Was at Prudential this afternoon waiting for an inbound train. A two-car train pulls up outbound...noticed the lead car (didn't catch the number) was a grey color-schemed LCD/ASA-equipped rehab, while the trailing 3684 was rollsign-equipped (in mismatched peeling white paint to boot). Which was a weird-enough sight as is.

But get this...3684 was signed "E Arborway" in that big, bold late-era T7 font on both its interior and exterior side rollsigns. The exterior one facing me was even fully-centered, like it was supposed to be there (usually if you see an "Arborway" it's either upside-down, cut-off, or only on the inside signs...unmistakable cues the sign electronics have overshot their target). I was spacing out anyway after a long day, so for about 10 wonderful seconds my mind did a "Oh my god, they restored service <i>right under our noses!!!</i>" double-take and excitedly hedged whether I had enough time to run upstairs and get on the other platform, or if I was gonna have to make a break across the tracks to get on in-time.

Then I saw the depressingly familiar Heath sign on the rear rollsign, and again on the LCD of the lead car's rear...and was crushingly dissapointed for about a split second before I had an "Wait a minute...they didn't restore service. You idiot!" snap back to reality.

Oh, well. Was fun while it lasted.