Time to revive the Red/Blue connector, only this time without state blather

This came up during the Gov't Center construction and the answer was something along the lines of "the CharlieCard can't handle it." I'm not entirely sure I buy that it's impossible, but I do believe that it's something they don't want to bother with trying to fix. (Their justification, perhaps reasonable, but perhaps not, is that the number of people wishing to do this overwhelmingly have passes)

Of course, if you ask now, you'll surely get a bland response about how the "new fare system" will solve this, same as all other questions about fares these days.

I agree. His name calling doesn't help his point at all, just makes him look a bit like a spoiled kid who doesn't get his way so he resorts to name calling. Don't burn bridges, it's these same people that you're going to have to be nicey with to get anything you want done. Best not to piss off people, even if you don't like what they are doing. Make friends, not enemies.

Finally, while this is an excellent analysis, and I completely agree that cut-and-cover would likely be a better option than a bored tunnel, I would like to see the state's justification for why they ruled it out. As an engineer I'm inclined to believe they have a reason beyond intentional sabotage, especially given that they have a LOT more information to work with than Ari does - in the form of surveys, etc. Unless, that is, Ari has also paid for a survey and associated research?

I also agree here too. This is an arm chair discussion that really doesn't get to the root why, other than his own opinion. And like you, I agree that MassDOT has the surveys and documentation to say why they didn't want to. Sure a cut and cover would be cheaper. but from my attendance to those meetings like well over 10 years ago, I remember alot of NIMBY's on Beacon Hill didn't want any blasting or pounding at the surface in fear of foundations cracking and damaging their homes. (and about that time the city was wrapping rebuilding of Cambridge Street).

The deeper you go, the less earth will be jolted at the surface. Plus the other thing his write up does not include is the fact that the T (and many transit projects in general) will not build 'dead end' stations anymore. (whereas there's no track beyond the station for turning around or layover). The tunnel needs to be deep enough so track/tunnel can extend beyond under Charles/MGH station piling's and go UNDER the station. A cut and cover track won't do that nor will will provide the correct amount of incline to do that.

This ain't my first rodeo.

As you've mentioned, I've written about this before. I happened to dig up some more documents and look in to the costs and methodology and realize how bogus it was (an alternatives analysis should have, well, alternatives). However, I decided to take a different approach here than the first time, mainly due to the status of this project.

For instance, when I first wrote about Allston, I wrote about it from a "looking outside the box" perspective. The kernel of that idea is now being considered as a major alternative to the state's that's-how-we've-always-done-it approach.

With the T's late night service, I took a different approach. First, in wrote about the "secret" early morning buses they don't publicize and barely note on schedules. Within an hour or two I had a nastygram from someone at the T (Well, something supposedly sent to them, that they forwarded to me; I'm pretty sure they sent it to themselves to mask their intentions. I really should post that letter some time.) which was set up well for the already-conceived follow-up posted soon thereafter, which has been iterated in to a potential for 24/7 bus service in Boston for the first time in more than half a century.

I've written before about what certainly appears to be gross incompetence at the T (and I'd back this up by saying most other transit agencies have in-house staff which run procurement (Chicago, for example, uses a long-range in-house contractor); they don't farm it all out piecemeal). And I've used ad hominem as a device, mainly when someone runs amok with misusing data. I sort of take it to a logical extreme. (Long and short of it: it only works if the person really is wrong.)

In this case, I believe that MassDOT's agenda is most certainly to inflate the numbers to the extent that the project is too expensive to build. There is no way in a logical universe that a 1300' tunnel extension would cost $750 million (or, by their calculations, the cut-and-cover version would cost $900 million). Utility relocation ain't cheap, but it ain't that expensive either. And this is emblematic of a larger issue: projects MassDOT wants to build move forward whether they are merited or not. Did 128 really need another lane south of Route 9? The cost of that project was only 3.5 times the original cost. But since MassDOT (read: MassHighway) wanted to build that in the first place, the original cost was low enough to go forward. If they hadn't wanted to build it, they certainly could have come up with a scheme to inflate the cost higher and then apologetically told motorists to deal with the congestion.

So here's the deal. I won't humblebrag about it: I've had more success at getting things done with transportation in Boston than most. (Coming soon: a bus lane on the North Washington Bridge. Didn't even make the blog; I just showed up at a meeting with several friends and we nicely badgered the DOT types who hadn't even considered whether this was possible.)

At play here are the concepts of ethos, pathos and logos as methods of persuasion, and that they have to be used in that order for maximum effect. Ethos establishes authority. While an outsider, I've had some success in establishing some authority with the page I've been writing for—well, let's just say a for a long time. Am I a thorn in some people's side? Sure. But a constructive thorn, mostly. Pathos is going after the audience's emotions. Here, the audience is less MassDOT (which has made its intentions plainly clear, as I argue here) and more the general public. So what may be perceived as petulancy is rather a method to connect with the audience. The layman who hasn't read the dry reports may not realize how outlandish $750 million is for a project extending a quarter mile (I've linked to several cases which point out how ridiculous this is). It is to try to connect with this audience that I seek to discredit MassDOT. But then comes logos. This is the meat of the argument. Having established ethos and pathos, I am able to present the logical information in a way that cements the thesis—that MassDOT has no idea what they're doing—while (hopefully) being engaging as it is informative.

Now, would I go in to a meeting and call MassDOT's engineers morons to their faces? Probably not. (Well, actually, I might, in this case.) But that is a very, very different audience, one which requires a very different ethos and pathos (even if the underlying logic remains the same). Since I don't see any meetings on the horizon, the main point here is to continue to point out how ridiculous these cost estimates are, and to have something to point to should this discussion come back in to the fore in the future.

Now, to get to the engineering question: an alternative analysis at this stage should not reject something as impossible (cut-and-cover tunneling) without any explanation, especially if the cost is similar. Yet that is exactly what is done. The only alternatives here are whether to build an intermediate station: it was assumed that the cost—which, as I've pointed out, is more expensive than much more complex projects in cities like New York and San Francisco—was reasonable. I call BS: any engineer worth their salt would see how ridiculous such a cost estimate is. I'm not saying I have the same set of data as whoever wrote this report—I certainly don't—but the preponderance of evidence certainly points to a skewed set of priorities. If the report said "cut-and-cover tunneling would result in the relocation of multiple critical steam/water/life science lines and the cost to relocate them along is x" then I'd see their point. But I've seen far too often MassDOT (and other agencies) setting an agenda and then writing a less-than-truthful report to support said agenda. I believe this to be the case here, too.