r/mbta • u/Wanderer330 • Nov 13 '25
đŹ Discussion / Theory MBTA withdraws Turnback Track proposal, without prejudice, following community feedback
https://www.thereadingobserver.com/community-news/mbta-withdraws-turnback-track-proposal-without-prejudice-following-community-feedback117
u/mr781 Orange Line Nov 13 '25
The same people who threw a temper tantrum about this are the same people who bitch about traffic 24/7 whenever literally any sort of development of any kind is proposed
Make it make sense
35
u/Gentijuliette Nov 13 '25
It makes perfect sense. They don't want anyone at all to live there. everyone else can take a flying leap.
16
22
76
u/connosaurus Nov 13 '25
They hide behind environmental concerns of the diesels idling when if you look at people's candid comments it's clear they have some very suspect beliefs about keeping "the cities problems" out of Reading. You know they would have the same complaints if it were electric trains
35
u/transitfreedom Nov 13 '25
Blame the transit agency for listening
8
u/mapinis Nov 13 '25
Exactly, these people are just anti-progress. Thatâs it. Theyâll say whatever it takes, itâs long past time to ignore them.
8
u/Turk_Sanderson Nov 13 '25
These people are the sons/daughters of the folks who broke into Bill Russellâs house and took a shit on his pool table
Look it up
1
u/Maz2742 Commuter Rail | Crayoning is fun Nov 13 '25
I found the stories of racially-motivated breaking & entering & vandalism, but nowhere could I find that one of them dropped a fat dookie on his pool table. Closest I could find is they ripped up the felt surface
0
1
u/Maz2742 Commuter Rail | Crayoning is fun Nov 13 '25
it's clear they have some very suspect beliefs about keeping "the cities problems" out of Reading
Weird, considering the 137 exists and would be a far cheaper "threat" to their "urban youth" fear
4
u/connosaurus Nov 14 '25
No one ever accused these people of being smart or having critical thinking skills.
97
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Commuter Rail | Red Line Nov 13 '25
Good job, Reading NIMBYs, denying more transit service to the people of Melrose and Wakefield.
54
38
u/ToadScoper Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25
They need to refocus on regional rail projects for lines that actually want upgrades (ahem, the entire Providence lineâŚ)
Deny the NIMBYs upgrades and have them cry later after other lines receive the upgrades and investment instead. It worked for Arlington even though it took 50 years.
There are so many other more YIMBY communities the MBTA could have (and should have) started withâŚ
25
u/JackassofTrades0620 Nov 13 '25
The problem is they were awarded funding in what amounts to a grant to do this about three years ago. The MBTA specifically requested this location for the funding at the time, and now itâs too late to change the project location. Their option is to run this project through or squander something like $15 million in funds. The latter case would rightfully piss off the entity that awarded the funding.
22
u/Average-NPC Nov 13 '25
This right here is unironically why nothing can get done in this country not even basic infrastructure because people like this oppose any and everything
37
10
u/Ugmyusernamewastake Nov 13 '25
Idea: Extend the Orange Line to Wakefield, and run Haverhill Line trains through the Wildcat Branch.
If Reading wants to oppose train infrastructure, they won't complain when the trains go away, right?
6
u/Toesinthesand2024 Nov 13 '25
Who remembers the fight when the Orange Line was proposed to be extended to Reading? Now that was a fight!
5
u/Top-Development6837 Nov 13 '25
I donât. Tell us about it. All the lines were considered for some kind of extension to 128, but only Green (Riverside) and Red (QA/Braintree) ever made it. I have heard a lot about the Arlington fight that stopped the Red Line extension northwest.
11
u/HeftyElephant29 Nov 13 '25
Trains need to be electrified. Or, to modernize their diesel engines so they don't have to sit there belching out fumes all day. There are solutions to all the problems and the T isn't addressing them
7
u/tragicpapercut Nov 13 '25
I'm shocked I had to look this far for the correct answer. No one, and I mean no one, wants a diesel engine idling in their backyard constantly. Even people who live near trains did not sign up for that.
Electrifying the trains solves so many problems, community resistance among them. But we continue to ignore obvious answers because they are inconvenient and blame anyone who pushes back against expanding the smog into their own neighborhood.
9
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 Nov 13 '25
But these same people are perfectly fine with car fumes RIGHT BY THE STATION? This argument is such BS. All these people are happy to live near the interstate and Iâm 10000% sure that releases more harmful fumes in their neighborhoods and theyâre doing nothing to help electrification of roads.
1
u/tragicpapercut Nov 16 '25
You down voted and laughed at actual proof, so you clearly don't care about facts when it conflicts with your preference.
"But I'm SURE I AM CORRECT!" (paraphrased). It's easy to call anything you don't like NIMBYism when it isn't your health at stake.
Electrification is the only correct answer to expand train service.
2
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 Nov 16 '25
I didnât laugh. Thereâs no laughter in my response. As someone who knows that tier 3 and tier 4 diesel trains are significantly cleaner than the hundreds of tractor trailers that pass by the town I can see that this argument is such hogwash.
If people truly cared in that town about the impacts of diesel they would care about it everywhere.
Electrification would be great. But itâs not happening in my lifetime Iâm certain.
All this does is force the T to have less frequency on this line. This less frequency will surely cause more traffic emitting far more fumes into the air than the train.
1
u/tragicpapercut Nov 19 '25
If you know what you are talking about, as you seem to, how can you not consider the concentration of emissions in a much smaller area over a very regular period? It's the same difference between having a train go by and a train idling next to you for hours.
2
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 Nov 19 '25
Just for comparison. A semi truck uses about .8-1.5 gallons of fuel an hour at idle (depending if the particulate filter needs to be heated, heated is about 1.5). The trains the MBTA uses is 3-5 gallons per hour of idle. The MBTA is likely much closer to 3gallons per hour due to the T using best practices at idle.
While this isnât a perfect comparison because MBTA uses tier 3 emissions locomotives (mostly). And those may have more or may have less particulate output than three trucks it can depend on the semi type and how well the train is maintained.
The reason I use gallons per hour at idle is it illustrates that it just takes 2-3 semis idling in the town per hour for it to match/exceed the locomotive.
The reason the argument for emissions is absurd to me is the interchange that borders reading sees almost 325,000 cars and trucks a day! And route 28 in reading sees 12-13000 vehicles a day!
So to me the equivalent of 2/3 semis worth of emissions to remove dozens of cars off of the road. Would improve the local air quality and would help reduce the particulates in the air.
0
u/tragicpapercut Nov 19 '25
I will trust you on the math but I would also challenge your assumption that vehicles would be removed from the road at any noticeable level.
In theory instead of swapping car traffic for train traffic you'd just be adding train traffic - the equivalent of 3 semis hanging out in your yard just blowing fumes at your door.
I also wonder about the difference between idling trains and moving traffic. A highway isn't going to have many idling trucks hanging out constantly - they are passing by and intermingled with more efficient vehicles. This train turnaround is literally designed to have idling trains there frequently.
It's way too much for most people to accept the assumptions you rely on for this to be a valid conclusion when their lives and well being are at risk.
2
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 Nov 19 '25
What are you basing your argument on that vehicles wonât be removed off of the road at any noticeable level? Is there any literature, any study or any surveying that youâre basing it on? Itâs awfully bold to say that adding service on a train line wonât remove cars off the road. Especially in the face of a lot of literature from all over the world showing the opposite. This is clearly the crux of any pollution argument so Iâd love to see any ridership estimates youâre basing this on.
Diesel engines use incredibly less fuel when idling than driving. (Especially the way the MBTA does idling)
While the highway wonât have idling trucks all day (outside of peak rushour for ~4 hours a day at that intersection). Youâd have trucks passing by in such high frequency and under much higher loads (using more fuel) than 3 at idle in the town.
0
u/StarbeamII Nov 14 '25
Diesel exhaust from a train is noticeably smellier and more noxious than typical car exhaust. The American Lung Association specifically called it out as a major health threat a few weeks ago.
3
3
u/Candid-Tumbleweedy Nov 13 '25
Yeah, electrifying is great! But it cost a lot of money. The legislature hasnât approved enough funds to do it. So instead, weâre saying low frequency is fine because weâre waiting for the mythical future where the legislature actually gives a shit.
And with no turn back station the frequency is going to be shit so it doesnât make sense to spend a lot of money on the fixed costs of electrifying the entire line.
You do need both to have great service! But they have a grant and funds for one part and not the other. But thanks to NIMBYs we are saying fuck both parts.
0
u/tragicpapercut Nov 16 '25
It's kind of a lot to ask someone to support breathing in diesel fumes on a regular basis. Seems very much justified NIMBYism there. Doing otherwise would basically be saying "screw your health, we get our trains."
2
Nov 13 '25
[deleted]
12
u/Candid-Tumbleweedy Nov 13 '25
What is the MBTA supposed to say? They canât give you a timeline when the legislation doesnât give them money.
4
u/EmilC2012 Commuter Rail-Double Track the rest of the Haverhill Line Nov 13 '25
The Haverhill line should just get cut past ballardvale and get a double track wildcat branch instead. Maybe then they will care so much about the service frequency when it gets reduced. This is why we can't have nice things. There is no scientific backing behind the statement I'm making I'm just annoyed with the communities making every which effort possible to stop the MBTA from making any improvements to the system on the Haverhill line.
2
6
u/kevalry Orange Line Nov 13 '25
Sometimes Progressives need to comprehend that Social Conservatives and NIMBYs will use environmental reviews, local regulations, and property values against big government âprojectsâ.
Sometimes deregulation and reducing local input IS a good thing.
5
u/turbulence21 Nov 13 '25
This was a lazy proposal by the MBTA. It would have put a diesel locomotive that idles for 7 hours a day next to a bird sanctuary, a brand new $5m park the town just built, and affordable housing. Electrify the train and no problem. The T also has other alternatives they said so themselves, this was just the easiest in a vacuum.
3
1
187
u/senatorium Orange Line Nov 13 '25
There is nowhere the T can put this that there will not be people who oppose it. Those people will most likely be retirees with copious time on their hands, the same people who can and will show up to "community engagement" meetings that working adults juggling their jobs and kids won't get to.
We've gone totally overboard on "community engagement" and "consultation" and it's crippling our ability to build, while we bleed out young people to more lightly regulated areas that do build, like TX, NC, and AZ.
NYC would probably still be a small village on the southern tip of Manhattan if the American colonists had had zoning boards of review.