Garrett Wollman

As @transitmatters notes, the wrong choices made now could lock in inefficient, high-operating-cost equipment and operating patterns for decades to come.

This is why I've advocated that we need a formal policy that all passenger rail will use high platforms, and orienting capital priorities towards ensuring that this is completed ASAP.

High-levels (with freight passing tracks where necessary) are the first step towards unlocking the transportation value inherent in the Commonwealth's rail infrastructure.

Electrification can and should follow, but high platforms give a forward direction to rolling stock procurement that will be necessary over the next two decades (which is probably how long full electrification will take).

I've advocated that the future @MBTA_CR should operate something like the Finnish (@HSL_HRT) class Sm5 electric commuter train, offering level entry, wide passenger-operated boarding doors, accessible bathrooms, 3+2 seating, and plenty of bike/stroller space.

I hate to sound like a shill for Stadler here, but that train is just a broad-gauged version of the FLIRT. Stadler sells a diesel version; it's the same train with an added section containing a prime mover. Other manufacturers can presumably do the same.

This would address the @MBTA's legitimate concerns about fleet complexity and standardization: if we commit to high platforms now, then we can commit to a system of modular DMUs and EMUs that will share design, controls, and passenger fittings.

That would allow electrification to proceed without leaving non-electric lines stuck with ancient 50-year-old coaches and unreliable locomotives.