General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[The EGE]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

You're absolutely correct - stations have finite capacities, both the number of people you can have at any one time and the number you can fit through the entrances and exits. DTX, Park, and State all have major crowding problems, and solutions are neither easy nor cheap.

If you have good entrances and exits but your platforms are crowded, you need more trains. CBTC (moving-block signal systems) and additional cars carry the promise of more trains, but there are limits. Well-designed CBTC can drop headways to two minutes (30 trains per hour), which London achieves on several of its trunk lines. But that's not necessarily possible in Boston. The Orange Line can actually get down to four minutes (rather than the current six) with its current fixed-block signals; you just need more cars. The Blue Line could add a bit as well. So neither of them have the signalling as a limiting factor. The station-curve-interlocking combo at Harvard (all three of which are very difficult to move) limits minimum headways to about three minutes.

But you can't do that on the Red Line right now, and in fact you don't want to. They took one Red Line train out of service at rush a few years back, and service actually improved! The real problem with the Red Line and Orange Line right now is bunching, which is caused by dwell times. There is not enough platform space to hold everyone, and to get people off the trains before the people on the platform try to cram on. You need wider platforms and more and wider entrances and exits, and those are difficult to come by in downtown Boston. Park Street presents the best opportunity - a new Red Line headhouse from the north end of the platforms - but good luck getting permission to put the headhouse in the middle of the Common.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

You're absolutely correct - stations have finite capacities, both the number of people you can have at any one time and the number you can fit through the entrances and exits. DTX, Park, and State all have major crowding problems, and solutions are neither easy nor cheap.

If you have good entrances and exits but your platforms are crowded, you need more trains. CBTC (moving-block signal systems) and additional cars carry the promise of more trains, but there are limits. Well-designed CBTC can drop headways to two minutes (30 trains per hour), which London achieves on several of its trunk lines. But that's not necessarily possible in Boston. The Orange Line can actually get down to four minutes (rather than the current six) with its current fixed-block signals; you just need more cars. The Blue Line could add a bit as well. So neither of them have the signalling as a limiting factor. The station-curve-interlocking combo at Harvard (all three of which are very difficult to move) limits minimum headways to about three minutes.

But you can't do that on the Red Line right now, and in fact you don't want to. They took one Red Line train out of service at rush a few years back, and service actually improved! The real problem with the Red Line and Orange Line right now is bunching, which is caused by dwell times. There is not enough platform space to hold everyone, and to get people off the trains before the people on the platform try to cram on. You need wider platforms and more and wider entrances and exits, and those are difficult to come by in downtown Boston. Park Street presents the best opportunity - a new Red Line headhouse from the north end of the platforms - but good luck getting permission to put the headhouse in the middle of the Common.

To truly avoid the bunching caused by too many passengers loading/unloading at once, creating chaos, you need to actually manage the passenger flow. Park Street Under (Red Line) for example, could work much better with a Spanish Solution passenger flow. Essentially one-way platforms. All loading from the side platforms, all unloading to the center platform. Also clear directionality on stairs to/from the upper level (one way stairs).

Passenger flow management is why the major subways in Europe can handle so many more passengers in tight old connection stations. I know these types of systems are used in Barcelona and Madrid (hence the Spanish Solution), as well as some stations in London and Moscow.

 

[fattony]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

To truly avoid the bunching caused by too many passengers loading/unloading at once, creating chaos, you need to actually manage the passenger flow. Park Street Under (Red Line) for example, could work much better with a Spanish Solution passenger flow. Essentially one-way platforms. All loading from the side platforms, all unloading to the center platform. Also clear directionality on stairs to/from the upper level (one way stairs).

Passenger flow management is why the major subways in Europe can handle so many more passengers in tight old connection stations. I know these types of systems are used in Barcelona and Madrid (hence the Spanish Solution), as well as some stations in London and Moscow.

Would implementing this really just be a matter of hanging some signs at the stairwells? If that is all there is to it, it seems crazy that it hasn't been tried already.

 

[The EGE]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

No, you would have to do a lot of enforcement, and there are still three major issues. First, much of the delay is that people can't get in or out of the cars themselves, regardless of platform conditions. Too few doors (the new RL cars will have one more door per side than the old cars they're replacing) and too many people crammed into the car. Second, now you're reducing the number of doors that people can exit by half. If you have a southbound train at the morning rush arriving at Park, it may take significantly longer if you're reserving one side for the smaller number of people boarding southbound. Third, the existing stairways and old and narrow. Reducing the number of stairways that arriving Red Line train can dump into will cause queues on the platform.

The Spanish Solution works, but only if your station works first. Park Street outright doesn't work. Widen stairway where possible and build the new headhouse, and then you can add one-way traffic flow to that.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Somewhat related question: Why is there always a long pause between when the operator opens the right side doors and the left? Is there a mechanical limitation on the cars where you can only open one side at a time? Why don't they open simultaneously at Park?

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

You're absolutely correct - stations have finite capacities, both the number of people you can have at any one time and the number you can fit through the entrances and exits. DTX, Park, and State all have major crowding problems, and solutions are neither easy nor cheap.

If you have good entrances and exits but your platforms are crowded, you need more trains. CBTC (moving-block signal systems) and additional cars carry the promise of more trains, but there are limits. Well-designed CBTC can drop headways to two minutes (30 trains per hour), which London achieves on several of its trunk lines. But that's not necessarily possible in Boston. The Orange Line can actually get down to four minutes (rather than the current six) with its current fixed-block signals; you just need more cars. The Blue Line could add a bit as well. So neither of them have the signalling as a limiting factor. The station-curve-interlocking combo at Harvard (all three of which are very difficult to move) limits minimum headways to about three minutes.

But you can't do that on the Red Line right now, and in fact you don't want to. They took one Red Line train out of service at rush a few years back, and service actually improved! The real problem with the Red Line and Orange Line right now is bunching, which is caused by dwell times. There is not enough platform space to hold everyone, and to get people off the trains before the people on the platform try to cram on. You need wider platforms and more and wider entrances and exits, and those are difficult to come by in downtown Boston. Park Street presents the best opportunity - a new Red Line headhouse from the north end of the platforms - but good luck getting permission to put the headhouse in the middle of the Common.

The ideal way to do this is to get some of the crush loads OUT of those transfer stations by constructing flanks (getting at the neither easy nor cheap... $$$). Red/Blue @ Charles/MGH for one helps take some of the load off of Park/DTX/State/Govt Center. Additionally a GLX to Porter via Union takes big transfer numbers off the Red Line downtown; as would a GLX to Harvard via Allston. I'm going too far down the Crazy Transit rabbit hole here, but that's one of the major benefits of filling transit gaps and flanking transit lines. Even if we get all of our existing subways up to a state of good repair, they're functionality is limited by passenger growth and long dwell times. This is why I balk when I hear people speaking about maintenance vs. expansion as if it's zero-sum. Expansion is essential to maintenance and functionality.

 

[FK4]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Question:

Is there a limit of capacity in a T station? (As there is inside trains, buses,...)

I ask because DTX has always been a mess, but in the last few weeks, when I transfer @5:30pm form RL South to OL South, it feels like it is getting out of hand: People trying to get in, out, the tunnel packed, no movement,... to the point where it feels it is close to become dangerous (tons of people with nowhere to go in a closed space is a recipe for disaster). Could it reach the point where they have to say: "No more!"? How would that look like? Could that be how the BLX gets done (when quotas to use DTX are needed)?

Sorry if this is sci-fi, I wonder if it has happened somewhere in the past already.

the city truly blew it by not renovating dtx along with millennium... regardless of easing congestion there by any expansion projects, the transfer ---- especially from orange NB to red NB ---- is so horrendously and perfectly designed to produce two perfectly opposing streams of people, there's no fix without creating alternative passageways for people to transfer between platforms.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Somewhat related question: Why is there always a long pause between when the operator opens the right side doors and the left? Is there a mechanical limitation on the cars where you can only open one side at a time? Why don't they open simultaneously at Park?

IIRC it is the operator crossing from one side to the other. The operator has to be looking out before opening the doors and so the drill is:
1) stand
2) go to side #1 and look out
3) safe? (Alingned with platform?) Open doors.
4) pull head in; cross cab to other side
5) look out; Safe? Open doors

This is standard ops for two-sided alighting near-everywhere (NYC, Chi, DC, anyway). You simply do not want an operator opening doors on a side that isnt being actively looked at.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Makes sense. Thanks!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

To truly avoid the bunching caused by too many passengers loading/unloading at once, creating chaos, you need to actually manage the passenger flow. Park Street Under (Red Line) for example, could work much better with a Spanish Solution passenger flow. Essentially one-way platforms. All loading from the side platforms, all unloading to the center platform. Also clear directionality on stairs to/from the upper level (one way stairs).

Passenger flow management is why the major subways in Europe can handle so many more passengers in tight old connection stations. I know these types of systems are used in Barcelona and Madrid (hence the Spanish Solution), as well as some stations in London and Moscow.

Really think they need to bite the bullet and do an engineering study of the far end emergency exit and whether that can structurally be enlarged into a second headhouse on the Common. Just to answer the question "yes, it may be feasible" or "no, it's definitely not" and either kick off more formal study or put it to bed as possibility.

Put it this way: there's nothing you can do about the folks who have to transfer to/from Green. Do what you can with load relief where Red-Blue yanks off some double-transferees and completing the missing link to the Seaport pulls off some more. But there's still going to be a dwell-lengthening imbalance by the stairs any which way. So see if the people entering/exiting Red to street instead of to/from Green can be better-segregated from the transferees.

I'm thinking setup not unlike the Berkeley St. egresses from the Arlington platform. Small up-and-over mezzanine spanning the 3 platforms. Low/moderate-capacity stairs up from platforms. Elevators to mezzanine grafted into the walls at platform's end. Mezzanine pools into a long escalator pair + elevator straight to the top...mid-capacity and no more. There should be a whole lot of nothing structurally upstairs since that's so far away from anything Green-related. The archaeological dig will be...interesting...to say the least, but shy of a mass Indian burial ground a couple boats and John Winthrop's long-buried porn collection wouldn't be construction stoppers.

But...just find out enough to eliminate or not-eliminate Park-Red egress #2 for further consideration. Because I'm not too sure with all that structurally is crammed around DTX how much platform-widening or egress-enhancing is going to make meaningful impact there.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

There's not much in the way of service loss in those schedules. There are more trains especially to the outer ends, faster travel times, better reliability, higher efficiency, and some nice bonuses like Fitchburg reverse commutes becoming possible. The aft end of afternoon rush hour needs shored up with another train around 7pm, but that's an achievable change and not a crucify-the-MBTA complaint.

You make it sound very solid: simple goals with clear benefits.

What sorts of complaints have there been? There's always going to be a small percent whose lives were tightly integrated to particular schedule who grumble"they took my train and ruined it" (now I miss my bus / now I miss my Yoga class...).

You get the people, like NIMBYs, who want all the same departure and arrival times, but a faster trip in between LOL!

Are there any "big" disruptions?

 

[The EGE]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I was too hasty in making that judgement; it turns out there are other substantial issues as well. Ari has an analysis better than I could possibly provide here.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Amid public furor, T delays rail service changes to 2016

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority will revise new commuter rail schedules unveiled last week and delay putting them into effect until spring 2016, responding to loud criticism from commuters and state legislators who say they were blindsided by service cuts.

State Senator Jason Lewis, a Democrat from Winchester who spearheaded opposition to the schedules, said he was pleased that the MBTA listened to their concerns.

“The MBTA clearly heard what we were saying, what our constituents were saying, and I think that they understood that this process needs another look and it needs more time,” he said.

...

What does everyone think?

It this an example of people who don't understand transit planning whining loudly until they get their way, regardless of how it effects everyone else?

Are these people calling Keolis on instituting service cuts with no warning?

Will this delay hurt Keolis' ability to thwart sagging OTP numbers?

 

[datadyne007]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

It this an example of people who don't understand transit planning whining loudly until they get their way, regardless of how it effects everyone else?

Are these people calling Keolis on instituting service cuts with no warning?

Will this delay hurt Keolis' ability to thwart sagging OTP numbers?

Are you serious? I wouldn't exactly call Ari Ofsevit someone that doesn't understand transit planning. If anything, he understands transit planning better than the MBTA itself.

What do I think? This was a HUGE win for public advocacy. 11 State Reps ultimately wrote in to MassDOT opposing the changes and that only happened because people contacted their representatives. This was democracy at work and highlights the importance of speaking out when you feel something is wrong with a political situation.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

BigE, I was persuaded by Ari Ofsevit's analysis that this isn't just Whinechester gettting its way, but that the new schedule represented a genuine loss in usability.

The best/subtlest criticism in Ari's piece is:

There's also the issue of what I call the "last trip fallacy." Often the second-to-last service a route runs will be relatively busy, and people will see the last service as a safety net. So it appears that the final service doesn't get high ridership, but it is the reason that the run before gets better ridership. If an agency cuts the final service—or in this case, creates a gap between the final rush hour train and the first [post rush] train—people traveling at that time will simply abandon the system. There is no excuse for this type of poor service planning.

(square brackets mine)

Ari's last trip fallacy, which he stated for why not to leave a big gap at the end of the evening rush, can also be applied to the AM rush. If you miss your "9AM arrival" train, you need a poorly-patronized 9:30 arrival train as a morning backup (so I fixed his quote with a more general "post rush"), If you miss your "6pm departure" train, you need a poorly-patronized 6:30 departure train as an evening backup.

And his picture of the AM (and its disappearing "safety" trains immediately after the rush) really helps too:

I'd say that the goal should be to have a train ~35mins to ~45mins after the rush ends. Plenty of meetings start at 10am or morning errands get run before a late 10am to 7pm day at the office.

He's also flat right in his rebuttal that the realities of the schedule don't achieve the goals that they said they did, like even spacing of rush hour trains (which is clearly more valuable than having "many" rush hour trains), which he illustrated thus:

 

[bigeman312]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Are you serious? I wouldn't exactly call Ari Ofsevit someone that doesn't understand transit planning. If anything, he understands transit planning better than the MBTA itself.

What do I think? This was a HUGE win for public advocacy. 11 State Reps ultimately wrote in to MassDOT opposing the changes and that only happened because people contacted their representatives. This was democracy at work and highlights the importance of speaking out when you feel something is wrong with a political situation.

I was serious and I wasn't sure. Good news, then. I just read Ari's take in-depth for the first time. I'm sold. Big win. That graphic really nails it home.

EDIT: I like this quote from his piece, especially:

there are no trains—on any line—arriving at North Station between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., and none which depart North Station between 6:30 and 7:25 p.m. So for anyone who works a 10 to 6 shift is completely hosed. This needs to be fixed. If no one rode these trains, I could see the logic. But people do. MassDOT counts these sorts of things. Some trains in the 6:45 range carry 400 customers. Let's not make them all drive, mmkay?

DOUBLE EDIT: I'm a Fitchburg Line rider, so it didn't negatively effect me as much, and I didn't spend enough time examining the other lines' effects.

TRIPLE EDIT: Ari's piece is incredible.

 

[fattony]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Anyone else see this? Signal priority coming to the 1 bus next year.

 

[Matthew]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[The EGE]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Some questions about Riverside station that I posted at railroad.net but some here may know as well:

What is the purpose of these giant concrete buttresses on the south side of the platforms? They seem massively overbuilt for a simple retaining wall. Were they built to support a future third track?


What was the old low platform next to the trolley in this picture used for? The current accessible platforms were built in 1995, so I assume this would have preceded that. Or was it the temporary platform used in 1996 for commuter rail shuttles when the Green Line flooded? If that's not it, where was the 1996 boarding area?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Pretty sure the buttresses serve no purpose for the trains themselves. They could plausibly support a direct egress into a parking garage if the T were feeling like going vertical with the main lot so they could sell the south lot for more TOD $$$ (which wouldn't be a bad idea at all).


This was the temp CR platform during the '96 floods. It was much further back, in the 3-track yard where they store the flatcars.

There've been many platform reconfigs at Riverside over the years, with many many temp platforms mid-reconfig. That pavement slab could be a remnant of anything. Or just an employee sidewalk that doubles as overflow if the main platform is overstuffed.