General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

as02143 said:
This does cause me to remember that I've always wondered what the main sources of the schedule variability of the B branch is. Clearly the Central Subway drives variability outbound to BC, but, what's with the variability inbound? Does the T not manage departures at BC so well?
Click to expand...
The T can't dispatch for shit, essentially.
 
TheRatmeister said:
The T can't dispatch for shit, essentially.
Click to expand...
Dispatch from BC and Cleveland Circle are actually pretty good... until they run out of trains to dispatch. My main qualm with T dispatching practice is that they don't like sending out a train if the next train after they plan to send out hasn't arrived yet. It makes sense with weather and things to have the next one ready for passengers who arrive to board but if that next train is only 5min away is it really that necessary?
as02143 said:
This does cause me to remember that I've always wondered what the main sources of the schedule variability of the B branch is. Clearly the Central Subway drives variability outbound to BC, but, what's with the variability inbound? Does the T not manage departures at BC so well?
Click to expand...
Outbound delays cascade into inbound delays. In the morning and evening, trains are moved between the Reservoir Yard and BC since the BC Yard empties its few trains for service pretty early. Moving trains from Reservoir up to Comm Ave is a very inefficient process requiring the train operator to navigate multiple manually thrown switches whilst also contending with, and blocking, mixed traffic.
IMG_6101.jpeg

IMG_6103.jpeg

The single point switches are circled (except the middle one at Chestnut Hill I can't erase it) and the blue highlights are the signals they usually keep the crowbars leaned against. For each intersection the trains must be secured, the operator wait until it's safe to walk into the intersection to set each switch, and then proceed through. Thankfully during the normal positioning move periods of the day they'll typically have someone remain at Chestnut Hill Ave to throw switches for operators but down at Cleveland Circle and during an emergency move this isn't the case. The end result is, even if you have a train and drivers available to dispatch from the yard to fill a gap or make-up for an emergency it'll take 15min for them to go from yard to boarding at BC minimum, and by then your ate train is already on the line and nearly back to BC anyway. They have started short-turning trains at Washington St when it gets really bad from like a disable train. They've also been swapping C trains to Bs at Park and Kenmore where possible because it's much easier to get another train onto the C and it's a lower ridership line where a missing train can have its pax handled by the next one without breaking capacity.
 
The Chestnut Hill Ave. trackage is long overdue for a rebuild. I believe the eastbound switches at the intersection with Comm Ave. have been out-of-service for more than a decade, ever since a Type 8 wrecked itself beyond repair on a split switch there and took out a pole and some overhead. What they need to do is due-diligence state-of-repair rebuild of the whole connector, while making the sequence of switches automatics controlled from Reservoir so the equipment reinforcements can move without undue manual-switching delay. There's really no excuse for Lake Street being so frequently short of cars when Reservoir is right freaking there with a flush supply via the connection. Just because it's non-revenue trackage doesn't mean it's unimportant to revenue service. The T needs to stop treating it like it is.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The Chestnut Hill Ave. trackage is long overdue for a rebuild. I believe the eastbound switches at the intersection with Comm Ave. have been out-of-service for more than a decade, ever since a Type 8 wrecked itself beyond repair on a split switch there and took out a pole and some overhead. What they need to do is due-diligence state-of-repair rebuild of the whole connector, while making the sequence of switches automatics controlled from Reservoir so the equipment reinforcements can move without undue manual-switching delay. There's really no excuse for Lake Street being so frequently short of cars when Reservoir is right freaking there with a flush supply via the connection. Just because it's non-revenue trackage doesn't mean it's unimportant to revenue service. The T needs to stop treating it like it is.
Click to expand...
It'll become doubly important when they have to close Lake St yard for its type 10 compatibility demo & rebuild (edit: which I believe is going out to bid this winter as part of the B branch accessiblility rebuilds?) thankfully the Reservoir Yard trackage is funded for $30M of trackage reconfiguration in the current CIP, plus it's share of 25M in general GL yard money. That said, those projects have existed since at least May 22/ FY23, so it's high time they get moving and actually do it, especially with the Type 10 pilot cars scheduled for delivery in a little less than 24 months.

1000037410.jpg
 
Last edited:
On the Green Line yesterday I overheard a conversation the operator was having with a regular passenger and heard a couple interesting things about his opinions on the current leadership. He was very adamant that "Eng is a much better GM than the previous 2 at the T." He said that he encounters Eng out riding the trains often and that he's very personable. He's always conversing with T employees on the ground wanting to hear feedback directly from them and simply get to know them. The passenger also asked him how he feels about Gov Healy to which his response was "she's done a lot for our Union, more than prior Governors, so I can't complain. It makes a big difference for me and my family so."
 
cubbe8 said:
Do you know how many more days?
Click to expand...

No extension has been approved at this time and I do not know how much is being asked for. I do know they have asked for an extension.

EDIT: If there is one it will be announced tomorrow at the board meeting. Reason primarily being almost daily derailments of the hi-rail vehicles causing significant time loss.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
The Chestnut Hill Ave. trackage is long overdue for a rebuild. I believe the eastbound switches at the intersection with Comm Ave. have been out-of-service for more than a decade, ever since a Type 8 wrecked itself beyond repair on a split switch there and took out a pole and some overhead. What they need to do is due-diligence state-of-repair rebuild of the whole connector, while making the sequence of switches automatics controlled from Reservoir so the equipment reinforcements can move without undue manual-switching delay. There's really no excuse for Lake Street being so frequently short of cars when Reservoir is right freaking there with a flush supply via the connection. Just because it's non-revenue trackage doesn't mean it's unimportant to revenue service. The T needs to stop treating it like it is.
Click to expand...

It's not just Chestnut Hill Ave, it's the entirely of entrance to Reservoir Yard and Cleveland Circle Station. C trains entering/exiting service jam up the whole intersection, so Cleveland Circle is basically operated as a single-track stub-ended terminal.

Stlin said:
It'll become doubly important when they have to close Lake St yard for its type 10 compatibility demo & rebuild (edit: which I believe is going out to bid this winter as part of the B branch accessiblility rebuilds?) thankfully the Reservoir Yard trackage is funded for $30M of trackage reconfiguration in the current CIP, plus it's share of 25M in general GL yard money. That said, those projects have existed since at least May 22/ FY23, so it's high time they get moving and actually do it, especially with the Type 10 pilot cars scheduled for delivery in a little less than 24 months.
Click to expand...

Are they going to move the Boston College station to the median of Comm Ave where the unused platform is and eliminate the loops or just put in a different loop?
 
KCasiglio said:
No extension has been approved at this time and I do not know how much is being asked for. I do know they have asked for an extension.

EDIT: If there is one it will be announced tomorrow at the board meeting. Reason primarily being almost daily derailments of the hi-rail vehicles causing significant time loss.
Click to expand...
IMG_6109.jpeg

Seems they're confident or that whatever would be missed due to delays can be fixed in a series of overnight works
 
Koopzilla24 said:
Seems they're confident or that whatever would be missed due to delays can be fixed in a series of overnight works
Click to expand...
This tracks. From what I understand the hi-rail derailments cause between a half-hour to an hour of delay each, so even if they're happening frequently I couldn't imagine it was going to be more than a day or two of extra delay. Glad they can fit it in within the deadline, I hate the bike ride to Quincy Center.
 
Koopzilla24 said:
There's enough room on Comm Ave for an 8-Lane stroad and the Green Line ROW if you remove parking and the grade separated bike lanes, which would've already been done if this was Texas. For the most part the Comm Ave section of the 57 isn't actually that bad because the B and 57 eat up so much travel demand. The traffic problems come down to two very specific problem areas: the offset Agganis Way/Pleasant St intersection and the unfortunate BU bridge/Storrow entry combo. The final approach to Kenmore is also hell during gameday and concerts but that could be alleviated with a bus only lane from Blandford to Kenmore even if only coned out during events.
Agganis Way/Pleasant St has terrible signal phasing that reasonably requires a separate cycle for each cross street but it leaves them on far longer than needed to clear out waiting traffic. Traffic rapidly stacks up from the uncoordinated proceeding signals. That's all an easy fix with modern traffic sensing signaling like other developed countries use.
BU bridge/Storrow suffers from the high traffic volumes of one of the few Charles crossings right next to a really poorly placed and designed highway exit combined with two separate signalized intersections very close to each other. Eliminating the Storrow interface is kind of a no-brainer. Leaving the road only as a connection to Bay State Rd that can only be access from Comm Ave westbound. This will allow the Carlton loop nonsense and second intersection to be eliminated with Mountfort allowing normal through traffic to the BU Bridge as a normal, albeit large, single intersection. The traffic reduction and flow simplification should make Comm Ave a much smoother corridor for everyone involved. There'd even be an easier time fitting protected bike lanes down to Kenmore with the reduction in approaches and simplified cross movements.
Click to expand...
I'd still feel like center-running bus lanes the entire length of Comm Ave from Packards to Kenmore are still quite helpful for fixing the eastern tip of the 57 corridor. If there's enough room for an 8 lane stroad with light rail, I'd say thats plenty space enough for center-running bus lanes. Those streches and sources of delay feel like they make up a large enough portion of the entire Comm Ave segment its best to swallow the pill whole and just do center running bus lanes the whole way, We wouldn't do a half hearted combo of light rail and bus sharing a reservation (if the 57 shared space with the B's trackage on Comm Ave, it'd be the entire length of Packards to Blandford).

It seems like the center running bus lanes on Columbus Ave. were successful enough they warrant expansion onto Blue Hill Ave. Why not expand this treatment onto Comm Ave for the 57? Comm Ave, is already wide enough to cross a pedestrian, so narrowing car space as much as possible is helpful for pedestrians and cyclists with the use of center-running bus lanes on Comm Ave.
 
Delvin4519 said:
I'd still feel like center-running bus lanes the entire length of Comm Ave from Packards to Kenmore are still quite helpful for fixing the eastern tip of the 57 corridor. If there's enough room for an 8 lane stroad with light rail, I'd say thats plenty space enough for center-running bus lanes. Those streches and sources of delay feel like they make up a large enough portion of the entire Comm Ave segment its best to swallow the pill whole and just do center running bus lanes the whole way, We wouldn't do a half hearted combo of light rail and bus sharing a reservation (if the 57 shared space with the B's trackage on Comm Ave, it'd be the entire length of Packards to Blandford).

It seems like the center running bus lanes on Columbus Ave. were successful enough they warrant expansion onto Blue Hill Ave. Why not expand this treatment onto Comm Ave for the 57? Comm Ave, is already wide enough to cross a pedestrian, so narrowing car space as much as possible is helpful for pedestrians and cyclists with the use of center-running bus lanes on Comm Ave.
Click to expand...
We recently redesigned/rebuilt that section and there's 1000 other untouched corridors in the Boston area competing for limited road funding/attention/labor (including the rest of Comm beyond Packard's...).

Slight tweaks/paint is one thing, but doing center running bus lanes here or any other significant redesign seems unlikely to even be up for discussion for quite a few years, especially when it's....not really an area that's a major problem at present relative to other sections of the corridor OR various other corridors that need work.

I'm not going to say it's a bad idea, I just don't feel like it makes much of any sense as a place to devote focus in the near future.

(Also, isn't the whole Kenmore intersection area supposed to get reconfigured as part of some development proposal?)
 
Delvin4519 said:
It seems like the center running bus lanes on Columbus Ave. were successful enough they warrant expansion onto Blue Hill Ave. Why not expand this treatment onto Comm Ave for the 57?
Click to expand...
Columbus Ave hosts 3 routes on Phase 1 and 6 on Phase 2, 3 of which being in the top 5 ridership bus routes in the system. Blue Hill hosts 2-4 depending on segment with the same 3 high ridership routes in parts, accounting for 40,000 daily bus riders. Both of those corridors are playing in a different league than the 57 and it's 10k riders. That's not to say that 10k doesn't justify dedicated bus lanes cause the route 1 does as does the 57.
Delvin4519 said:
If there's enough room for an 8 lane stroad with light rail, I'd say thats plenty space enough for center-running bus lanes.
Click to expand...
There's room for the 8-lane stroad plus light rail if you remove the existing parking-protected grade separated bike lane as well as that parking. There are for sure spots where street parking isn't warranted like by the BU Bridge but for the most part there isn't anywhere else for anyone to park which most businesses do need at least a little somewhere. The rest of Comm Ave down to Kenmore is already on the cards to receive the same treatment as the rest so some street parking will be eliminated there. Comm Ave is the only arterial and only east-west street from Allston and points west so as much as I like lane reductions it'd be a bit of a problem less than 4 lanes and 10'
lane widths.
The funny thing is, as-is the 57 often beats the B from Packards to Kenmore because of all the B stops west of the BU Bridge and longer dwell times as well as some bus drivers weaving through lanes while the B is stuck being cautious through every intersection and slow through the BU East-Blandford yard.
 
Koopzilla24 said:
Columbus Ave hosts 3 routes on Phase 1 and 6 on Phase 2, 3 of which being in the top 5 ridership bus routes in the system. Blue Hill hosts 2-4 depending on segment with the same 3 high ridership routes in parts, accounting for 40,000 daily bus riders. Both of those corridors are playing in a different league than the 57 and it's 10k riders. That's not to say that 10k doesn't justify dedicated bus lanes cause the route 1 does as does the 57.

There's room for the 8-lane stroad plus light rail if you remove the existing parking-protected grade separated bike lane as well as that parking. There are for sure spots where street parking isn't warranted like by the BU Bridge but for the most part there isn't anywhere else for anyone to park which most businesses do need at least a little somewhere. The rest of Comm Ave down to Kenmore is already on the cards to receive the same treatment as the rest so some street parking will be eliminated there. Comm Ave is the only arterial and only east-west street from Allston and points west so as much as I like lane reductions it'd be a bit of a problem less than 4 lanes and 10'
lane widths.
The funny thing is, as-is the 57 often beats the B from Packards to Kenmore because of all the B stops west of the BU Bridge and longer dwell times as well as some bus drivers weaving through lanes while the B is stuck being cautious through every intersection and slow through the BU East-Blandford yard.
Click to expand...
Would Brookline Ave be a good candidate for center running bus lanes? After BNRD Phase 2, there will be 8 different bus routes on it.
 
A little early to come to any firm conclusions, but the TM dashboard is showing an immediate time savings of around 16-20 minutes between Braintree and Andrew, an average speed increase of around 10-11 MPH, and a reduction in headways of around 3 minutes.
 
TheRatmeister said:
A little early to come to any firm conclusions, but the TM dashboard is showing an immediate time savings of around 16-20 minutes between Braintree and Andrew, an average speed increase of around 10-11 MPH, and a reduction in headways of around 3 minutes.
Click to expand...

It looks like they need to fix the dispatching/schedule though to run consistent headways north of JFK/UMass. Maybe they're still accounting for restrictions that aren't there anymore?
This is what TM has right now for northbound departures from Andrew:
1727704122617.png
 
737900er said:
It looks like they need to fix the dispatching/schedule though to run consistent headways north of JFK/UMass. Maybe they're still accounting for restrictions that aren't there anymore?
This is what TM has right now for northbound departures from Andrew:
View attachment 56324
Click to expand...
Yeah I think an 'emergency' schedule change for the Red Line is needed given how drastic the improvement to travel times and headways on the Braintree branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top