Boston's subway system replacing 1890s-era wooden catenary system
mbta.com29 points by ilamont 2 days ago
29 points by ilamont 2 days ago
> dates back to the late 1890s and will be replaced with a modern, more durable, metal trough.
I think any infrastructure that has lasted over 130 years is already quite durable.
It's wood, I'm sure the MBTA has a workshop that can build replacement parts.
Odds are the replacement is going to be some custom metal machined overseas and will be basically irreplaceable due to cost and skill issues.
And being the MBTA, it will be installed in the wrong size and have to be replaced in a couple of months.
It's probably not the same wood since 1890. Requires more repairs and replacements.
I think there's a good chance it is. Not out in the sun, not in contact with ground/moisture, pretty consistent temperature. Wood can last a very long time under those conditions.
It could be. A lot of wood has been around for longer than that. Wood is easier to damage so I expect some has been replaced over the years, but there is no reason to think it wouldn't last in that application.
Hold a chain at its ends, and let it hang down naturally. What is that shape called? A catenary and its equation is y = a cosh(x/a).
Maybe you all knew that factoid already, but I learned the name of shape only recently.
And efficiency of the line depends on the curvature so for a given target efficiency you can calculate how far apart the poles can be. For electrical lines I mean.
If only they’d make the T fare free and run more frequently and later into the night. The C line in Brookline has the potential to be extremely convenient, but at present most of the time it’s easier to take an Uber, or drive.
the MBTA already absolutely bleeds an incredible amount of money. No businesses in Boston are even open late, theres no night life. 90% of the young people in the city are nerds doing Phds.
I loved living right on the red line, but its just not worth it unless we figure out how to make it not cost a fortune.
It's what, $2.40? I don't think they need to make it fare free.
Free fares would significantly increase ridership, no?
Probably not. For most people cost is not the issue of why they don't ride. Free would increase a little, but most people are not riding because the service isn't there. Service can be one of Frequency, speed, or ability to get to the destination.
Transit needs to: Get you from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to go, in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable cost. If you lack any of those things and transit isn't useful. Generally cost is the only part of transit that is reasonable (but not always) and so it isn't something to focus on.
People who ask for free transit are really saying transit is for the poor and "normal people" should just drive.
Speaking generally, free fairs also provide various benefits to a community such as reduced use of cars and easier access for lower income access to jobs and services.
you probably dont live in Boston, because there is no one on the planet that drives into boston rather than taking the T because its too expensive. people drive downtown and pay $40 for parking instead of taking the T.
Yes, and reduce its revenue that it needs to properly run and upgrade its existing infrastructure.
Why do you think they charge in the first palce?
Rider fair is only one way to fund transit. My city (Corvallis, OR) provides free bus service city wide since 2011. The newest addition is free bus service to surrounding cities (up to McMinville and down to Eugene).
It's paid for with state and federal grants, university (OSU) contribution, as well as a utility fee.
Because governments aren't allowed to simply provide services for free anymore. It is inconceivable that something like moving around on mass transit would be free at point of use.
brother the MBTA arleady bleeds money at an astounding rate despite a large budget and fairs.
Why would your solution to be to make the rest of the state pay more for services they cant even use rather than make the people that use it pay the true cost it take to run it?
People that drive cars actually pay most of the cost to upkeep car infrastructure. people that ride the T dont.
Call me crazy, but maybe mass transit doesn't need to make money to be useful. Maybe the entire point of government is to provide services to its citizens. I mean, I don't pay $2.40 every time we drone strike some Yemeni wedding, right? Why should I have to pay to take a train in a city, which is about a thousand times more useful to me?
>People that drive cars actually pay most of the cost to upkeep car infrastructure. people that ride the T dont.
This is... so ridiculously untrue. Most car-dependent infrastructure is funded with federal dollars, the vast majority of which are conjured up out of thin air and vibes.
> Call me crazy, but maybe mass transit doesn't need to make money to be useful.
This is such a heinous non-sequiter i dont even know where to begin. Government services take money to operate. Government services are paid by taxes. In a democracy, you need to make people agree that they want to pay taxes for particular services.
The 60% of massachusetts residents who dont live in teh greater boston metro area do not want to pay for a service they dont use, so it is nearly politically impossible to raise the budget of the MBTA.
So if you are a massachusetts state legistlator you have a couple options. you can allow the MBTA to continue to deteriorate while also going over budget every year (current state) or you could increase the fare to compensate for the actual cost it takes to run the service, or your third option, which is to decrease the amount of money that goes to an already deteriorating public service.
edit: 50-55% of car related infrastructure costs are paid by gas taxes, tolls, excise taxes etc. currently <30% of the mbtas budget is covered by fares.
The part relevant to the editorialized headline:
“The MBTA will perform work in December to replace the wooden overhead catenary wire “trough” in the Green Line tunnel, which is original to the tunnel’s construction in the late 1890s. The trough houses the Green Line’s overhead wires and will be replaced with a modern, more durable, metal trough.”
It's been a decade+ since I used to catch the Green line at Park St, but at that time it was the noisiest, squealiest station that I regularly used. Not surprising to learn that parts of that station are left over from the 1890s.
The builders should be patting themselves on the back. The fact that some of this infrastructure was built in the 1890s is amazing.
I really like those service diagrams to show which stations are closed and how to get around them.
Boston subway to replace cable duct that worked for 130+ years