General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

I'll take the "malicious compliance". Does the additional information truly change the situation, I guess it won't. But information and transparency has value in-and-of itself. Weren't y'all annoyed back then when the delays happens and all we get the exact same vague statements? How they will (sometimes) announce the exact issue and now y'all want them to stop?

Information is information. And prefer to know more rather than know less regardless how much I can act on it.
 
I'll take the "malicious compliance". Does the additional information truly change the situation, I guess it won't. But information and transparency has value in-and-of itself. Weren't y'all annoyed back then when the delays happens and all we get the exact same vague statements? How they will (sometimes) announce the exact issue and now y'all want them to stop?

Information is information. And prefer to know more rather than know less regardless how much I can act on it.

But you don't actually "know more". You know some excuse. I guess I am surprised anyone finds that comforting?

I think the kind of message people were hoping for is something like:

Red Line is experiencing delays of 15 minutes due to a door problem at Alewife. This problem should be resolved in 20 minutes and normal service should resume at 6:45 PM.
 
I like detail. It gives the impression that they're tracking root causes (and will eventually have the numbers to fix those with the greatest benefit/cost ratio)
 
I find it interesting to see the different POV's around the T's communication and competence with repairs. There's one cohort that falls into "they're trying to make things better but issues remain complicated. Hopefully the planned improvements stick". The other is the more conspiratorial "they're trying to surreptitiously cut service and deliberately obfuscate. Things will continue to get worse as a new normal."
 
I find it interesting to see the different POV's around the T's communication and competence with repairs. There's one cohort that falls into "they're trying to make things better but issues remain complicated. Hopefully the planned improvements stick". The other is the more conspiratorial "they're trying to surreptitiously cut service and deliberately obfuscate. Things will continue to get worse as a new normal."

No, I am in neither of those camps.

I am in the "rooting strongly for the T; really wanting the T to succeed; NOT defeatist about it...BUT, have not seen enough evidence yet that they've got the right competencies; the right management; the right funding...and until I do, want to continue holding them to the fire (so as to prompt more improvement and positive change); not celebrating prematurely; and calling BS when I see it...but all the while consistently advocating to all my friends to stick with the T through tough times"-camp.
 
No, I am in neither of those camps.

I am in the "rooting strongly for the T; really wanting the T to succeed; NOT defeatist about it...BUT, have not seen enough evidence yet that they've got the right competencies; the right management; the right funding...and until I do, want to continue holding them to the fire (so as to prompt more improvement and positive change); not celebrating prematurely; and calling BS when I see it...but all the while consistently advocating to all my friends to stick with the T through tough times"-camp.

Great, that's a good bridge.
 
No, I am in neither of those camps.

I am in the "rooting strongly for the T; really wanting the T to succeed; NOT defeatist about it...BUT, have not seen enough evidence yet that they've got the right competencies; the right management; the right funding...and until I do, want to continue holding them to the fire (so as to prompt more improvement and positive change); not celebrating prematurely; and calling BS when I see it...but all the while consistently advocating to all my friends to stick with the T through tough times"-camp.

I am firmly in this camp as well. I really want them to succeed. But at times, I feel they are their own worst enemies.

They also desperately need real communications specialists who understand how to concisely communicate information in easily digested form. T communications are way too text based, not making use of graphics, easily understood symbols, etc. Good communications experts can say way more with much less distraction.
 
I am firmly in this camp as well. I really want them to succeed. But at times, I feel they are their own worst enemies.

They also desperately need real communications specialists who understand how to concisely communicate information in easily digested form. T communications are way too text based, not making use of graphics, easily understood symbols, etc. Good communications experts can say way more with much less distraction.

This is what I was saying two days ago — the T needs a brand and signage for every project they are doing. City of Boston has “Building a Better Boston” signs on every project that’s city funded now; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did the same. Date mentioned the T finally has someone who understands communications, but so far, that has not translated into anything visible on the ground (the websites are excellent, now, though).

There needs to be a consistent slogan and subslogan - eg, Making a Better MBTA subheading “Your Tax Dollars at Work”, on big white signs that have 4-6 bullet points and 1-2 images of what work is being done. For complicated and “boring” stuff like track work, they could simply have a single bullet point on what’s wrong the tracks and then show pics of new tracks being put in... or something... you get the drift. These signs should be all over any station that’s the site of, or near the site of any work.

I noticed in the UK recently that they take things a step further; when I visited sites that received public funding, there were always big signs that broke down the exact amounts funded and the sources and acts under which the funding was received... which was nice, because it was transparent as well as informative.
 
I'll take the "malicious compliance". Does the additional information truly change the situation, I guess it won't. But information and transparency has value in-and-of itself...

Information is information. And prefer to know more rather than know less regardless how much I can act on it.

Ant, sure, transparency = good; information = good.

But leaving it at that is setting way too low of a bar for the T. The problem with "malicious compliance" is that it is tied to a "see, we checked that box. we're done with that, now moving to the next complaint" type of mentality. It allows Steve Poftak to "manage up" by saying things like "customers raised 20 issues, and we closed 20 issues" (I am not saying Steve is actually doing that here; this issue pre-dates him - but I am pointing to the risk of such thinking).

As others have chimed in: no, all information is not equally good/valuable.

What riders need is the best answer the T can provide to the question of "how is this situation going to impact me?" And, more specifically: "should I or should I not continue to stand here waiting on this platform?"
These riders are real people. Most of them are trying to get to their jobs and/or important appointments. They need to know whether to get off that platform asap and find an alternate mode, OR, to send that timely text/email/call to their boss about being late, OR, to arrange for the babysitter to stay late, etc. REAL. FREAKING. STUFF.

The design of a communication scheme needs to specifically address the needs of its recipients. In this case: the T's best advice to stay on that platform, or not?...to make that call, or not?

For starters, I'd prefer a scheme that:
1) Does provide insight into cause of issue, but categorically: vehicle/mechanical, track/signal, medical issue, police action...probably that's enough; maybe 1 or 2 more. This lends transparency to the question of: was this T's poor performance or something outside their control.
2) They should provide status as to whether the corrective action path has been established or not. Why? Because it is understandable for them to not yet be able to provide a time estimate if the issue isn't done being diagnosed...yet we should expect a best-guess time estimate if the issue has been diagnosed and corrective action identified.
3) Depending on the answer to #2, they should provide a time estimate that's accurate to within +/5min and they should continuously update the estimate.

The scheme would look something like this:
"We expect a 10 minute delay in service due to a mechanical issue with a train at Downtown Crossing. The issue has been identified and is in the process of being resolved."
OR,
"We are facing an unknown delay due to an unresolved issue tied to police action at Park Street. Updates to follow as soon as possible."
ETC.

This at least gives the rider more agency to make the best possible plans for their personal/work lives.

I apologize that my snarky post about "malicious compliance" above was a bit hyperbolized, but in reality we still see things like:
On the green line: "train is stopped 5 stops away"...wtf does that mean? Is that OK? (e.g., it is normal for the train to be stopped now? If so, OK. But the operative question is: should I or shouldn't I continue to wait here?).
On the orange and red: arrival: 20+ minutes (really?...well, if that's longer than the scheduled headway, would you mind telling us whats up? Because if it's really just 20-25 min, then at least I can make an informed decision about that. But if 20+ min means "who the eff knows" then that's a different story. I feel like they don't post "24 min" because that looks embarrassing/ridiculous, but REAL transparency puts customer's needs ahead of that - in fact, that's kind of the whole point of transparency).

I have such high standards not because I am defeatist/conspiracy theorist about the T, but because I truly care. I don't want them to bleed riders to Uber/Lyft. Or for people to face ramifications at their jobs because of this.
 
Last edited:
Completely agree with bigpicture7. They need to provide enough information so commuters can adjust their routes for what best works for their commute.
 
Completely agree with bigpicture7. They need to provide enough information so commuters can adjust their routes for what best works for their commute.

I second the agreement with bigpicture7. The information needs to be actionable for T riders.
 
I heard plenty of time of "signal issue" or "mechanical issue". I can categorize the issue myself, sometimes hearing the exact issue means I can get a guess on the severity of the issue too. Meanwhile telling me the vague "signal issue" means a whole larger level of vagueness that leaves me guess a lot higher degree.

If you want to hear if someone is on the issue and time estimates, that's fine with me. I think the issue why they don't already is I'm pretty sure they just don't know it either. It's hard to give a time estimate when it involves something like getting a guy on site. Or know when will a train to arrive to push. Airlines with all their logistics systems have a hard time. I have a feeling what y'all are advocating will just make the MBTA more opaque. And more opagueness mean less agency.


Ultimately, you know what would be the real solution? If we don't needs these alerts so much at all. Having a well-crafted communication mechanism and ample coordination to have guys on site and thus clear time estimations isn't needed if disruptions just isn't that common in the first place.
 
This is what I was saying two days ago — the T needs a brand and signage for every project they are doing. City of Boston has “Building a Better Boston” signs on every project that’s city funded now; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did the same. Date mentioned the T finally has someone who understands communications, but so far, that has not translated into anything visible on the ground (the websites are excellent, now, though).

There needs to be a consistent slogan and subslogan - eg, Making a Better MBTA subheading “Your Tax Dollars at Work”, on big white signs that have 4-6 bullet points and 1-2 images of what work is being done. For complicated and “boring” stuff like track work, they could simply have a single bullet point on what’s wrong the tracks and then show pics of new tracks being put in... or something... you get the drift. These signs should be all over any station that’s the site of, or near the site of any work.

I noticed in the UK recently that they take things a step further; when I visited sites that received public funding, there were always big signs that broke down the exact amounts funded and the sources and acts under which the funding was received... which was nice, because it was transparent as well as informative.

"Your Tax Dollars at Work" is a more comforting message when the agency in question has its act together.

I do agree that London's system does a much better job of informing the riders of whats going on, though. I remember being impressed that they rarely obfuscated anything when I was there, and gave people timely info.
 
I am firmly in this camp as well. I really want them to succeed. But at times, I feel they are their own worst enemies.

The orange line cars are a great example of this. At any point they could have done a long interview with any of our TV stations, inviting them in and giving a detailed explanation of what the 9+ months of delays have been - describing what needs to be fixed/tested. Instead we get a generic "software issues".

Then they have a big press conference putting the new train in service. Only to pull it 3 hours later - and only here in archboston do people surmise they are still working out the bugs. Why not, at this press conference, say "it will only be on line 3-4 hours a day as we continue testing and working out small kinks"??

sigh
 
The orange line cars are a great example of this. At any point they could have done a long interview with any of our TV stations, inviting them in and giving a detailed explanation of what the 9+ months of delays have been - describing what needs to be fixed/tested. Instead we get a generic "software issues".

Then they have a big press conference putting the new train in service. Only to pull it 3 hours later - and only here in archboston do people surmise they are still working out the bugs. Why not, at this press conference, say "it will only be on line 3-4 hours a day as we continue testing and working out small kinks"??

sigh

They did give detailed updates on the initial delay in OL vehicle rollout to the FMCB, meetings of which are livestreamed and reported on by local media. I distinctly remember Jeff Gonneville explaining the details of what was wrong. Livestreams are available here: https://www.mbta.com/events. I believe you can watch archival recordings at the "Livestream" website.
 
Maybe it is just because I just didn't know where to look before. But the existence of the FMCB is acting like a regular press release of information. Also seems like is acting like a force making the MBTA constantly posts projects and updates on them.

I'm not sure on the truthfullness of that thought because I know a lot reacted that the creation of the FMCB is just a way for Baker to stuff the system with his people and their anti-transit ways. But it does look like to me that it is (semi-unintentionally) aiding transparency with constant presentations and having to regularly update activities. Or maybe it's all been there before, but I didn't know where to look.
 
Maybe it is just because I just didn't know where to look before. But the existence of the FMCB is acting like a regular press release of information. Also seems like is acting like a force making the MBTA constantly posts projects and updates on them.

I'm not sure on the truthfullness of that thought because I know a lot reacted that the creation of the FMCB is just a way for Baker to stuff the system with his people and their anti-transit ways. But it does look like to me that it is (semi-unintentionally) aiding transparency with constant presentations and having to regularly update activities. Or maybe it's all been there before, but I didn't know where to look.

IT WAS NEVER THERE in the past! -- give your rhetoric a rest

None of the alphabet soup was transparent from the get go -- they were designed for obscurity, behind the back dealing and general corruption

Today we have actual records of meetings by the T and Massport -- in some cases live streaming -- the T is gradually evolving [its been huge struggle] from Mr. Bulger's [Whitey?] Transit Authority

Thank the winter of '15 for our window into the obscurity
 
IT WAS NEVER THERE in the past! -- give your rhetoric a rest

If you're talking about the "I don't really know" style of my recent posts, deal with it. It's an acknowledgement when I state stuff that I know that I don't really know.

One of those things are that I have noticed recently is that I am learning a lot more now from official mouthpieces. I pick up so much more these days by listening to FMCB that before I would heavily rely on posters (along with places like UHub or Reddit). They got their information from somewhere back then. But somehow either I forgot or never figured out how they consistently gather it from. It very much lends a possibility that I just didn't know where to look back then. Regardless how much I spent my time here and similar forums, I didn't really ventured into the state website that much.

Meanwhile, I am noticing the existence of the FMCB have been personally informational for me in both learning about what's being worked on and the nature of the system. Yet, I don't really hear a lot of positive buzz (or any buzz to be fair). But, I definitely remember the negativity when it was first formed back then. I recognize when there are contradictions and I try to keep that in mind when I post.

At least your post is kinda verifying that there is more searchable information than from back the. But I will not apologize if I'm annoying you with my rhetoric.
 
IT WAS NEVER THERE in the past! -- give your rhetoric a rest

None of the alphabet soup was transparent from the get go -- they were designed for obscurity, behind the back dealing and general corruption

Today we have actual records of meetings by the T and Massport -- in some cases live streaming -- the T is gradually evolving [its been huge struggle] from Mr. Bulger's [Whitey?] Transit Authority

Thank the winter of '15 for our window into the obscurity

They made meeting materials available and did livestreaming well before the FCMB came into existence. Social media coverage was not the saturation-level it is today, but the records were most definitely available in the Grabauskas and Scott eras.

Criticize based on what they're doing or not doing to communicate today, not from unreliable memories, please.
 
Just checked out the bidding list for upcoming MBTA projects and its undeniably the biggest list I've ever seen on that page... IF you're wondering what projects are in the pipeline and when, this is the way to know...
https://bc.mbta.com/business_center/bidding_solicitations/future_solicitations/
DESCRIPTION ADV. DATE
South Attleboro Station Improvements 8 / 2019
Green Line B - Branch Station Consolidation 8 / 2019
Natick Center Station Accessibility Improvements 8 / 2019
Court House Station Head House 9 / 2019
Lechmere Viaduct Rehabilitation 9 / 2019
On-Call Track and ROW III (Transit) 10 / 2019
Roberts Street Bridge 10 / 2019
Wayfinding Improvements (South Station, Harvard, Back Bay, Malden) 10 / 2019
Wayfinding Stations, Phase B 11 / 2019
Orange Line Tunnel Repairs 12 / 2019
Green Line Track Work Grade Crossing, Phase 2 12 / 2019
Winchester Station 12 / 2019
Court House Station Ground Water Mitigation 12 / 2019
On-Call Track and ROW IV 1 / 2020
On Call Facilities II 2 / 2020
Norfolk Ave. Bridge 2 / 2020
Structures Repairs 4 / 2020
On Call Parking and Paving II 6 / 2020
AFC 2.0 Installation Design Build 6 / 2020
Bus Stop On-Call 6 / 2020
Wayfinding and Station Improvements (5 Stations) 6 / 2020
Pawtucket Layover Shelter 6 / 2020
Station Lighting (N. Sta., Haymarket, State, DTX) 6 / 2020
Roofing Contract III 6 / 2020
East Cottage Street Bridge 6 / 2020
On-Call Track, Ties and Switches II 6 / 2020
Hingham Ferry Dock 6 / 2020
West Street Bridge 6 / 2020

Of note AFC 2 now has a 6/2020 BID date which isn't great... Also headhouse for Courthouse for 9/19 is good news. I'm seeing a lot of bridges I honestly don't know of but I expect more shutdowns from all them. GLGrade Crossing Phase 2 is also interesting considering they've done such a large number this year already.
 

Back
Top