Broadway pit fall stops Red Line

Amy Derjue reports from North Quincy this afternoon, where there is no Red Line service because of a person in the pit to the north - but she reports the person was scooped out off the tracks pretty quickly, so there is hope yet.

At 3:47 p.m., Eric Steinhardt tweeted:

2 ambulances & 2 fire trucks. Person on stretcher at bottom of stairs. Carrying her up now.



Free tagging: 


No safety for pedestrians

By on

Isn't it amazing how millions of dollars are spent on perhaps giving the tiniest little bit of possible accident reduction potential to pedestrians and cyclists on the street, yet nothing at subway and train platforms? People falling in the pits are getting routine.

Make motorists suffer, yet allow pit falls!

Millions of dollars wasted on bump outs, constricted turns, and other unproven safety measures on streets to impede transportation, yet nothing done to stop people from routinely falling in subway pits. Pure hypocrisy.

Your words speaks sense, but

Your words speaks sense, but your intentions still show what you really talking about. You (or we as I have to drive around too) are only annoyed because you have to deal with the designs rather being able to turn so that you can "feel the g's", as you wrote somewhere before.

As for genuine concern and desire for good design for safety and transit - the first line of thought is platform screen doors.

Honestly, it sounds cheap and a good solution at first glance. Putting a glass wall with a couple of automated glass doors line up to where the trains stop sounds pretty cheap and easy.

But then you have consider that where the doors opens actually have a large variance at this moment. We need to upgrade the trains. The Red line is especially the big issue as there are two types of trains with different door setup. Putting up the walls actually take a decent amount of retrofitting.

Then again, it doesn't have to be that expensive - aside the Red Line trains cars issue. Only a couple (like Park St.) would really make good use of it. And it can just be a lower wall with a sliding door rather than a full on separation. Then it is actually a lot more doable.

+----------+ | PLEASE | |

By on

| DO NOT |
| |
| |

Many people have little grasp on reality

Look at the real mortality data and actual daily risks instead of ones you perceive.

Many are obsessed with spending millions to reduce relatively small risks on the street. People just take more risks to compensate for any risk reduction you give them, so its mostly a waste of money and productivity. 2x as many people die in Mass from drug overdoses as all roadway deaths, but there are not news and video for each. Likewise, thousands of people die in our hospitals because somebody didn't wash their hands. Where is the video and outrage for that? Media is struggling to have any gripping video for the NECC fiasco, and Annie Dookan looks too passive and boring to make a good target for anger, unlike a SUV. Its so much easier for sheep to hate motorists than lazy doctors, for example.

The platform issue I pointed out was to show ignored dangers while fixating on infinitesimal, possible, roadway money wasting, risk reductions to profit planning and civil engineering companies.

Mark, Let me tear your


Let me tear your argument piece by piece.

First, the spending sidewalk and curb work is a combination of safety, peace of mind, and aesthetics. So the justification to build elements design for pedestrians is more than just safety, it is to make the area more enjoyable so people would have a better experience. Remember, many of the things are you are talking about are shopping areas and/or major area of pedestrian activity. Thus reasonable to invest to ensure the liveliness for the area. It is justifiable to use tax money because it is common public use and it raises property values for neighbors even without direct use.

Second, the mortality rate of drug overdoses have no baring to what we should invest in roadside work. The way money is spent is not based sorely on fatality rates and allocating money base on that may not yield linear results. Should one not put money to a school or a highway because the same money can be use to buy posters to wash your hands?

Third, your third point about the media is a ridiculous connection. Your point was the media hyping motorist because other news like Annie Dookan is hard to hype. That is an absurd connection and downright false. Look at any local and most major news sites with comments open related to the Dookan scandal. There is PLENTY of outrage and anger. The media is not struggling at all to put up gripping articles or news footage. Thus your thesis that the media is "sheeping" people to hate motorist is absolutely wrong going by your backing argument.

All that wasted bandwidth said. In the end, your arguments that I pointed time and time again, and I will continue until you actually argue with earnestness is none of that matters. Because the true cause is your bias for cars at all cost.

I, and many others it seems, can see that because if you really care about media manipulation, you would make better connections than "lack" of coverage of Annie to support the doctor argument. If you really care about government spending, you would bring up wasteful spending in other aspects in government. If you care about safety, you would talk abut best practices in signal lighting and dangerous intersections.

But no, you don't. Because your real cause is for your driving. The rest of your arguments cherry picked to justify your ideas rather than such arguments to form your ideas.


Because it undermines the people who actually uses the arguments genuinely. Because calling people sheep is only poisoning the well without address any ideas. And because it is dishonest and irritating.