Fairmount Line Upgrade
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Charlie Baker derails T trains
Move to pare down spending
By Matt Stout, Boston Herald
Charlie Baker derails T trains
Move to pare down spending
By Matt Stout, Boston Herald
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The Capital Investment Plan proposal for FY16 still has $300,000 for DMUs in it
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/DraftFY16CIP052615.pdf
They have not yet formally cancelled the Request for Proposals that are due on August 13. $300,000 would be enough to spend a year reviewing the proposals and then kill or resume the project for FY17. It might also be $ just to close out existing engineering contracts if they cancel the RFP before August.
The Capital Investment Plan proposal for FY16 still has $300,000 for DMUs in it
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/DraftFY16CIP052615.pdf
They have not yet formally cancelled the Request for Proposals that are due on August 13. $300,000 would be enough to spend a year reviewing the proposals and then kill or resume the project for FY17. It might also be $ just to close out existing engineering contracts if they cancel the RFP before August.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
CIP numbers are imaginary money, and that's the only kind of money Patrick ever gave DMUs, anyway. They can't happen until SSX is done, so they're perpetually 5-10 years away. Baker just saw an opportunity to look like a responsible steward of the MBTA (which he isn't) by trimming a commitment that was never going to be advanced within the 4-year CIP time frame anyway.
If something changes to make this more realistic short-term (like the USPS agreeing to GTFO), I bet the DMUs go right back on next year. It's the same as when the Patrick Administration had to scramble to get West Station on the docket when an organized push for it gained steam.
Fact of the matter is, West Station (which Baker supports) and New Balance (which he really, really supports) are pointless without DMUs. The Fairmount improvement project was pointless without them. Kendall business interests will start pushing for them as the Red Line gets more and more crowded through there. They'll happen.
CIP numbers are imaginary money, and that's the only kind of money Patrick ever gave DMUs, anyway. They can't happen until SSX is done, so they're perpetually 5-10 years away. Baker just saw an opportunity to look like a responsible steward of the MBTA (which he isn't) by trimming a commitment that was never going to be advanced within the 4-year CIP time frame anyway.
If something changes to make this more realistic short-term (like the USPS agreeing to GTFO), I bet the DMUs go right back on next year. It's the same as when the Patrick Administration had to scramble to get West Station on the docket when an organized push for it gained steam.
Fact of the matter is, West Station (which Baker supports) and New Balance (which he really, really supports) are pointless without DMUs. The Fairmount improvement project was pointless without them. Kendall business interests will start pushing for them as the Red Line gets more and more crowded through there. They'll happen.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The timing of the RFP was pointless. The FRA's new crashworthiness regs are due to be released end of this year (in "FRA time" that probably means post-snowmelt 2016). Their specs on this existing RFP would've been obsolete before they even got a chance to read the returned bids. The purchase options get a bid broader, and the U.S-specific customizations less invasive and cheaper 2 years from now vs. this Fall. So they were always going to have to re-issue the RFP any which way to make an actual smart buy.
To be completely fair to the T here, they were given no choice in the matter. Patrick wanted his 2024 fantasy map and the West Station renderings released with pomp-and-circumstance while he was still in office, and wanted that teed up as a segue into the Olympics bid while he was still in office. So imaginary money and a rushed RFP were forced on them. He probably was told in full detail about the FRA edict, and how they needed to be targeting 2016-17 for getting the best value for their money. It would have made no difference; he was gonna do what he was gonna do for political legacy-building. And any governor taking office in Jan. 2015 would've had to contend with the issue of the previous admin. jumping the gun on this vehicle purchase by 2 full years and made this same move to postpone. As far as everyone's concerned it did its intended thing for Patrick's legacy-building out the door, and no one was ever going to recommend an immediate proceed to Step 2 with the FRA decision this close to being released. There was always 100% chance of a pause, then a do-over with tweaked specs.
Actually, I would argue the opposite about Fairmount et al being pointless. The vehicle is not the service, and it never was. Frequencies are the service as far as Indigo is concerned, and fare equitability and portability to/from rapid transit are the service. There is nothing a push-pull set can't do to make the intended Indigo frequencies. It's just ops-inefficient to keep using those year-in/year-out and forevermore without an eventual handoff to equipment better optimized-to-task. But they are capable of meeting the service goals. Since no new vehicle purchase ever gets on the property, finished with shakedown testing, and in service at full fleet availability in less than 6 years there was always going to be a need for a half-decade's worth of bridge fleet to handle the service ramp-up. Either that or all the over-optimistic promises dating back 10 years about a relatively quick ramp-up of service levels were--all along--patently misleading. Which is it? Educated guess says it's not the latter, since other transit agencies don't see any constraints to making measurable progress towards all-day clock-facing frequencies starting with the horses they have.
So if we're looking at a re-issued RFP in '16 (or probably '17 because of "FRA time"), that's what...12-18 months before the Olympics before the DMU's get shook down in testing and at full availability for meeting 100% of the real-deal service levels? They can't realistically wait that long for Day 1, see frequencies instantly rocket to 20 minutes, and expect the ridership to instantly be there. This is a slow-cook rollout for realizing ridership; their own studies say that. So beware the "vehicle is the service" cop-out for deferring substantial first efforts. It's little more than an excuse to sit on their hands for 7 more years and make no progress on the implementation front. No progress on realigning the zone layout for the '24 map, no progress with the fare portability, and not nearly enough answers on how frequently the trains are going to run. Much less answers on how each step-up in service levels is going to break out between now and full-blast service.
This agency doesn't get much benefit of the doubt being trusted to wisely spend $200M+ in non- state-of-repair new capital without more proof of follow-through than this. A good--and easy--way to produce that proof in time for a DMU re-RFP in 2017 is for a dramatic ramp-up in Fairmount service to start sooner and some plan...any plan...be released for the fare transferability to take shape. So who cares if it's an F40 and 5 flats with 3 of the cars closed off in the evenings. It's not like there's anything else laying around to work with between now and 2021-22. This is an "if you build it, they will come" service; riders are not going to be doing the pee-pee dance in giddy anticipation of the ceremonial first ride on a DMU and exclaim "Finally I can take the train!" They'll take the train when the train starts running way more frequently than it does now, and word-of-mouth starts building in the neighborhoods that the train is way more convenient than the bus. It's not an instantaneous process...it's a "show me" process. The cars--any cars--are going to be empty for the first few years before it hits its stride and starts climbing the growth curve. The cars--any cars--are going to start getting fuller with each passing year the more each step-up in service establishes itself.
So we've got a fixed timeframe of 2021-22 that's the best-case scenario for DMU fleet availability. Do we want to defer any meaningful effort at implementation until that date so the DMU's debut empty and don't start filling up till they've been around for 5 years? Or do we put that fixed timeframe to good use and start getting a butts migrating to seats in a 5-car set of flats so that 3-car DMU singlet is running reliably > half full most hours of the day when it takes over? Do we want to start that process of moving towards the growth curve earlier, or later? And what is the justification for starting it later? Wouldn't starting it later risk some self-fulfilling prophecy where the service debuts on the eve of the Olympics, then craters immediately after the Games because the day-to-day ridership base hasn't had nearly enough time to get established (and in the case of West, permanent site development still being years away from filling out Beacon Park). How do we avoid expectations of instant gratification turning into Greenbush-ian service cuts or freeze in service levels...especially when somebody's own studies said it wouldn't be far, far from instant gratification.
They don't need a new vehicle fleet at full availability to answer those questions about the service levels. They can start answering them whenever they want, with whatever cars they want, and start charting measurable progress to those service levels whenever they want. The only excuse for not wanting to start addressing it isn't technical. It's because they don't want to.
So let's see some real Fairmount service, shall we?
The timing of the RFP was pointless. The FRA's new crashworthiness regs are due to be released end of this year (in "FRA time" that probably means post-snowmelt 2016). Their specs on this existing RFP would've been obsolete before they even got a chance to read the returned bids. The purchase options get a bid broader, and the U.S-specific customizations less invasive and cheaper 2 years from now vs. this Fall. So they were always going to have to re-issue the RFP any which way to make an actual smart buy.
To be completely fair to the T here, they were given no choice in the matter. Patrick wanted his 2024 fantasy map and the West Station renderings released with pomp-and-circumstance while he was still in office, and wanted that teed up as a segue into the Olympics bid while he was still in office. So imaginary money and a rushed RFP were forced on them. He probably was told in full detail about the FRA edict, and how they needed to be targeting 2016-17 for getting the best value for their money. It would have made no difference; he was gonna do what he was gonna do for political legacy-building. And any governor taking office in Jan. 2015 would've had to contend with the issue of the previous admin. jumping the gun on this vehicle purchase by 2 full years and made this same move to postpone. As far as everyone's concerned it did its intended thing for Patrick's legacy-building out the door, and no one was ever going to recommend an immediate proceed to Step 2 with the FRA decision this close to being released. There was always 100% chance of a pause, then a do-over with tweaked specs.
Actually, I would argue the opposite about Fairmount et al being pointless. The vehicle is not the service, and it never was. Frequencies are the service as far as Indigo is concerned, and fare equitability and portability to/from rapid transit are the service. There is nothing a push-pull set can't do to make the intended Indigo frequencies. It's just ops-inefficient to keep using those year-in/year-out and forevermore without an eventual handoff to equipment better optimized-to-task. But they are capable of meeting the service goals. Since no new vehicle purchase ever gets on the property, finished with shakedown testing, and in service at full fleet availability in less than 6 years there was always going to be a need for a half-decade's worth of bridge fleet to handle the service ramp-up. Either that or all the over-optimistic promises dating back 10 years about a relatively quick ramp-up of service levels were--all along--patently misleading. Which is it? Educated guess says it's not the latter, since other transit agencies don't see any constraints to making measurable progress towards all-day clock-facing frequencies starting with the horses they have.
So if we're looking at a re-issued RFP in '16 (or probably '17 because of "FRA time"), that's what...12-18 months before the Olympics before the DMU's get shook down in testing and at full availability for meeting 100% of the real-deal service levels? They can't realistically wait that long for Day 1, see frequencies instantly rocket to 20 minutes, and expect the ridership to instantly be there. This is a slow-cook rollout for realizing ridership; their own studies say that. So beware the "vehicle is the service" cop-out for deferring substantial first efforts. It's little more than an excuse to sit on their hands for 7 more years and make no progress on the implementation front. No progress on realigning the zone layout for the '24 map, no progress with the fare portability, and not nearly enough answers on how frequently the trains are going to run. Much less answers on how each step-up in service levels is going to break out between now and full-blast service.
This agency doesn't get much benefit of the doubt being trusted to wisely spend $200M+ in non- state-of-repair new capital without more proof of follow-through than this. A good--and easy--way to produce that proof in time for a DMU re-RFP in 2017 is for a dramatic ramp-up in Fairmount service to start sooner and some plan...any plan...be released for the fare transferability to take shape. So who cares if it's an F40 and 5 flats with 3 of the cars closed off in the evenings. It's not like there's anything else laying around to work with between now and 2021-22. This is an "if you build it, they will come" service; riders are not going to be doing the pee-pee dance in giddy anticipation of the ceremonial first ride on a DMU and exclaim "Finally I can take the train!" They'll take the train when the train starts running way more frequently than it does now, and word-of-mouth starts building in the neighborhoods that the train is way more convenient than the bus. It's not an instantaneous process...it's a "show me" process. The cars--any cars--are going to be empty for the first few years before it hits its stride and starts climbing the growth curve. The cars--any cars--are going to start getting fuller with each passing year the more each step-up in service establishes itself.
So we've got a fixed timeframe of 2021-22 that's the best-case scenario for DMU fleet availability. Do we want to defer any meaningful effort at implementation until that date so the DMU's debut empty and don't start filling up till they've been around for 5 years? Or do we put that fixed timeframe to good use and start getting a butts migrating to seats in a 5-car set of flats so that 3-car DMU singlet is running reliably > half full most hours of the day when it takes over? Do we want to start that process of moving towards the growth curve earlier, or later? And what is the justification for starting it later? Wouldn't starting it later risk some self-fulfilling prophecy where the service debuts on the eve of the Olympics, then craters immediately after the Games because the day-to-day ridership base hasn't had nearly enough time to get established (and in the case of West, permanent site development still being years away from filling out Beacon Park). How do we avoid expectations of instant gratification turning into Greenbush-ian service cuts or freeze in service levels...especially when somebody's own studies said it wouldn't be far, far from instant gratification.
They don't need a new vehicle fleet at full availability to answer those questions about the service levels. They can start answering them whenever they want, with whatever cars they want, and start charting measurable progress to those service levels whenever they want. The only excuse for not wanting to start addressing it isn't technical. It's because they don't want to.
So let's see some real Fairmount service, shall we?
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
For much less than the cost of a quickly-FRA-obsolete DMU fleet they should be running "empty" CRs on Fairmont and "West Line" as soon as New Balance opens, and procure some tech to unify fares then or shortly after.
My sense is that Toronto's GO service agrees with you on this: 15 or 20 or 30 minute headways are doable with the fleet we have (and happen during rush hour). Handheld Charlie Card readers are probably more important for Fairmont & West Station service than DMUs.
For much less than the cost of a quickly-FRA-obsolete DMU fleet they should be running "empty" CRs on Fairmont and "West Line" as soon as New Balance opens, and procure some tech to unify fares then or shortly after.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
I'm with you on this. What I meant was that given that the MBTA's position has always been that frequencies come with equipment, Baker would render the Fairmount improvements pointless in his own eyes by killing the DMUs. Of course you can improve frequencies without DMUs, but it seems not to even occur to the MBTA to do so (or to Keolis, for that matter).
I don't think the vehicles would be obsolete, the RFP would be out-of-date and would need to be rewritten. Hopefully, it wouldn't ever get to obsolete vehicles.
I'm with you on this. What I meant was that given that the MBTA's position has always been that frequencies come with equipment, Baker would render the Fairmount improvements pointless in his own eyes by killing the DMUs. Of course you can improve frequencies without DMUs, but it seems not to even occur to the MBTA to do so (or to Keolis, for that matter).
I don't think the vehicles would be obsolete, the RFP would be out-of-date and would need to be rewritten. Hopefully, it wouldn't ever get to obsolete vehicles.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Well, that's the other big worry. Do Keolis and the T even understand the implications of the ops practices required for running these lines at these frequencies, and those vehicles on these lines at those frequencies. These, after all, are the same parties that can't even get their coach assignments matched up to per-line demands and have to get rotten tomatoes thrown at them at meetings to agree to study and draw up implementation plan for adding a 6th car to a couple overstuffed Franklin rush-hour trains some months in the future. And the same spokesflaks who several months ago were talking not about DMU's to Allston...but DMU's to Foxboro (speaking of not being able to find enough cars to fit a Franklin Line crowd).
The terrifying thought is that Keolis has been nodding politely all this time when it's been described to them that they need to come up with a service implementation plan for these vehicles, but in their own heads they understood it about as well as this:
Yeah. "Proof" of implementation is not such an unreasonable thing to ask for. I hate....hate...the idea that taking any kind of pause just opens up another excuse to back out. But it just seems necessary in this case. We can't get this purchase wrong. And "getting the purchase wrong" in this case can mean awesomesauce DMU's put in the hands of a clueless operator who doesn't run them in the right places at the right proportions, and is totally kerfuzzled as to how the efficiencies are different. You get the worst of all worlds: capital money wasted, not nearly enough service improvement, and even more maddening inconsistency (guest-starring on today's Providence Line commute!...). A "this is why we can't have nice things" shit sandwich all-around.
Show us, guys. Please show us you can handle this. Now. Not 7 years from now if we take your word for it. Show us you're up to the task now.
Well, that's the other big worry. Do Keolis and the T even understand the implications of the ops practices required for running these lines at these frequencies, and those vehicles on these lines at those frequencies. These, after all, are the same parties that can't even get their coach assignments matched up to per-line demands and have to get rotten tomatoes thrown at them at meetings to agree to study and draw up implementation plan for adding a 6th car to a couple overstuffed Franklin rush-hour trains some months in the future. And the same spokesflaks who several months ago were talking not about DMU's to Allston...but DMU's to Foxboro (speaking of not being able to find enough cars to fit a Franklin Line crowd).
The terrifying thought is that Keolis has been nodding politely all this time when it's been described to them that they need to come up with a service implementation plan for these vehicles, but in their own heads they understood it about as well as this:
Yeah. "Proof" of implementation is not such an unreasonable thing to ask for. I hate....hate...the idea that taking any kind of pause just opens up another excuse to back out. But it just seems necessary in this case. We can't get this purchase wrong. And "getting the purchase wrong" in this case can mean awesomesauce DMU's put in the hands of a clueless operator who doesn't run them in the right places at the right proportions, and is totally kerfuzzled as to how the efficiencies are different. You get the worst of all worlds: capital money wasted, not nearly enough service improvement, and even more maddening inconsistency (guest-starring on today's Providence Line commute!...). A "this is why we can't have nice things" shit sandwich all-around.
Show us, guys. Please show us you can handle this. Now. Not 7 years from now if we take your word for it. Show us you're up to the task now.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
It is very expensive to run short sets of conventional equipment. The great theoretical hope of the DMU is to get the operating costs for short trains low enough so that it is economically practical to run high-frequency service especially in the off-peak. In a world of continuous tight operating budgets, it will be very hard to make the case to add more off-peak service to Fairmount with existing equipment while cut-backs or stagnant service levels might be in the offering for the rest of the bus and rail network in general.
Whatever DMU is procured, pre or post FRA changes, is still going to have to be a high-floor car that can mechanically couple to existing push-pull equipment to be pushed in the case of a road failure. Any future spec even under less stringent FRA requirements is most likely still going to resemble the present Nippon-Sharyo DMU design or some knock-off version of that design from Rotem or CRRC.
It is very expensive to run short sets of conventional equipment. The great theoretical hope of the DMU is to get the operating costs for short trains low enough so that it is economically practical to run high-frequency service especially in the off-peak. In a world of continuous tight operating budgets, it will be very hard to make the case to add more off-peak service to Fairmount with existing equipment while cut-backs or stagnant service levels might be in the offering for the rest of the bus and rail network in general.
Whatever DMU is procured, pre or post FRA changes, is still going to have to be a high-floor car that can mechanically couple to existing push-pull equipment to be pushed in the case of a road failure. Any future spec even under less stringent FRA requirements is most likely still going to resemble the present Nippon-Sharyo DMU design or some knock-off version of that design from Rotem or CRRC.
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Frequencies are the most important thing...
Let's suppose that the new locomotives are going to resolve most of the failures/cancellation problems under normal conditions (a big one, I know).
What's the best frequencies that can be achieved on Fairmount today, with no South Station Expansion, given the competition for the slots as it stands:
Peak vs off-peak?
Current ops practice vs modern ops practice?
(I believe that even if peak remains a conundrum, there's still plenty of opportunity off-peak; using the trains in Fairmount service is a lot more productive than parking them in-place all day (but yes, it might cost more)).
Frequencies are the most important thing...
Let's suppose that the new locomotives are going to resolve most of the failures/cancellation problems under normal conditions (a big one, I know).
What's the best frequencies that can be achieved on Fairmount today, with no South Station Expansion, given the competition for the slots as it stands:
Peak vs off-peak?
Current ops practice vs modern ops practice?
(I believe that even if peak remains a conundrum, there's still plenty of opportunity off-peak; using the trains in Fairmount service is a lot more productive than parking them in-place all day (but yes, it might cost more)).
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The round-trip cycle time with conventional sets is 70 minutes, that includes 25 minutes each way travel time and 10 minute recovery time at each end to change ends and do brake tests. If you notice the existing midday weekday schedule, the inbound trains arrive South Station at 25 past the hour while the outbound trains leave at 20 past the our. Thus, two sets are required, even to run every 60 minute service (it would be much more efficient to run every 70 with one set). To try and be efficient, the off-peak Fairmount trains and crews are rotated between other lines so you don't have a train just sitting for 55 minutes at South Station waiting to do its next outbound run to Readville.
The best peak frequency is 35 minutes between trains (5:10 and 5:45 PM departures). That could probably still be improved to every 20 in the peak even with the constraints of South Station, but every 15 would be a stretch. It would require 4 sets to run a 20 minute headway with an 80 minute cycle time (10 more minutes than you need).
The round-trip cycle time with conventional sets is 70 minutes, that includes 25 minutes each way travel time and 10 minute recovery time at each end to change ends and do brake tests. If you notice the existing midday weekday schedule, the inbound trains arrive South Station at 25 past the hour while the outbound trains leave at 20 past the our. Thus, two sets are required, even to run every 60 minute service (it would be much more efficient to run every 70 with one set). To try and be efficient, the off-peak Fairmount trains and crews are rotated between other lines so you don't have a train just sitting for 55 minutes at South Station waiting to do its next outbound run to Readville.
The best peak frequency is 35 minutes between trains (5:10 and 5:45 PM departures). That could probably still be improved to every 20 in the peak even with the constraints of South Station, but every 15 would be a stretch. It would require 4 sets to run a 20 minute headway with an 80 minute cycle time (10 more minutes than you need).
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Okay -- and 3 sets could do 27 minute headways, but since that's not a round number, should probably be bumped up to half-hourly.
Personally, I think that running every-20-minutes is just fine for beginning the process of building up ridership. Although every-15-minutes would be better, in a better world, falling back to every-20-minutes is a reasonable compromise for being able to do it now, within existing infrastructure and with current equipment. It's not quite show-up-and-go frequency, but it's good enough to beat the bus on average. With better real-time info and signage, that could make up for some of the difference as well.
Reliability remains a barrier: going forward, will we see fewer cancelled trips due to equipment shortage / weather / gremlins?
I guess if I were running things, and were able to overcome these obstacles, then I would plan for introducing every-20-minute service using push-pulls for a number of years, with a hard political push for DMUs under the FRA's new regulations using the following pitch: "The service is attracting riders, and the DMUs will make it cheaper to operate! Oh, and besides the affordable housing component, there's big economic development potential on each station site, plus at Beacon Park and Boston Landing."
Okay -- and 3 sets could do 27 minute headways, but since that's not a round number, should probably be bumped up to half-hourly.
Personally, I think that running every-20-minutes is just fine for beginning the process of building up ridership. Although every-15-minutes would be better, in a better world, falling back to every-20-minutes is a reasonable compromise for being able to do it now, within existing infrastructure and with current equipment. It's not quite show-up-and-go frequency, but it's good enough to beat the bus on average. With better real-time info and signage, that could make up for some of the difference as well.
Reliability remains a barrier: going forward, will we see fewer cancelled trips due to equipment shortage / weather / gremlins?
I guess if I were running things, and were able to overcome these obstacles, then I would plan for introducing every-20-minute service using push-pulls for a number of years, with a hard political push for DMUs under the FRA's new regulations using the following pitch: "The service is attracting riders, and the DMUs will make it cheaper to operate! Oh, and besides the affordable housing component, there's big economic development potential on each station site, plus at Beacon Park and Boston Landing."
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Keep in mind, you're also not starting at 100% throughput from the first day of service. Nothing...least of all something as radically new to the area as clock-facing CR frequencies served up with rapid transit- like fares, is going to be as automatic as flicking a light switch. You can no more accustom the riders to that in an instant as you could the stressed ops people. GO Transit isn't promising an instantaneous rollout of clock-facing frequencies either. This is the stuff of 5- and 10-year plans with 3 gears of measurable step-ups in service level results before you're there. No reasonable implementation plan is going to try to take on too much up-front on a slow-cooker route for demand. And no service plan that's reasonable is going to leave the question of the steps in the process un-answered.
So, ask yourself first if something like this (strictly for argument's sake...it could be anything) is reasonable for Step 1 for calendar year 2016...forces-be-willing:
-- Is it reasonable to run every 25 minutes on average and absolutely no less than 30 in the peak direction? Probably...they do better than that every day on other lines.
-- Is it reasonable to run at all near off-peak hours and in reverse commute direction at average of every 45 minutes with an absolute floor of 50 minutes? Yes...they do better than that every day on some reverse-commute lines.
-- Is it reasonable to run on the far off-peak every 50 minutes on average with an absolute floor at the deadest hours of no worse than 60 minutes? Yes...other lines take that for granted.
-- Is it reasonable to extend Fairmount's weekday service day to 11:00pm? Most definitely...last outbound's currently at 9:40, last inbound's at 10:20. The only nights there's freight moving it's all well after midnight.
-- Is it reasonable to run on weekends at far off-peak frequencies? Yes, it was not 2 years ago that the southside had considerably more weekend service than it has now.
That's an improvement of almost 25% right there. The corridor's going to notice that, especially if they get their fares fixed.
Now Step 2, calendar year 2018:
-- Is it reasonable to extend peak hours by 1 hour in each direction, to 9:00am in the morning, and from 4:00pm in the evening, for intra-city commuters who have much shorter door-to-door commutes?
-- Is it reasonable to increase reverse-commute frequencies during peak to an average of 35 mins. and floor of 40?
-- Is it reasonable to go to an average of 35 minutes and absolute floor of 45 minutes in the near off-peak (mid-morning, lunchtime, mid-afternoon)?
-- Is it reasonable to go to near off-peak frequencies from 10:00am-4:00pm on weekends?
-- Is it reasonable to increase the weekend service hours to match that of weekdays?
Any showstoppers yet?
Step 3, calendar year 2020:
-- Is it reasonable to match the 25 min. rush-hour in the reverse-commute direction for the entire duration of rush hour?
-- Is it reasonable to shorten the near off-peak more uniformly to 30 minutes?
-- Is it reasonable to shorten the far off-peak and weekends to 35 minutes avg. and no less than 40?
-- Is it reasonable to extend hours to match the last M-Th. subway trains of the night at South Station?
Now starting to converge on the clock...but note, we're still not at minimum feasible turnaround time for a push-pull trainset. And we have to live with push-pull for a couple more years because those DMU's purchased in 2017 are still at the factory.
Step 4, calendar year 2022, DMU's either fully deployed or in-progress:
-- Can peak go to 20 minutes uniform, both directions?
-- Can near off-peak go to 25 mins. uniform, both directions?
-- Can far off-peak maintain an absolute floor of 35 mins.?
-- Can late night hours go into effect to match last subway trip out of South Station F-Sa, and Sunday service hours extended to match the subway's?
This is just a sample of how it could break down, but you get the picture. Step 1's very conventional. Step 2 is mostly gap-filler. Step 3 is the first place where we're starting to round towards a different type of service, and Step 4 is more or less the real deal. Assemble the steps as you will, but put the fixed wait time for a vehicle purchase to good use. You are neither going to run push-pulls forever as an annual loss leader nor can you reasonably sit on your hands for 7 years, do nothing to stimulate ridership, then have to run DMU's empty at the start and deal with chicken/egg questions of which comes first: the ridership or the service levels.
And let's face it. . .
"Push-pulls are so expensive to operate we can't even do a 5-page PowerPoint describing how the fare structure will work unless you give us $200M to purchase DMU's then maybe we'll tell you in 7 years...but we're definitely gonna have to cut service levels if you want to know today, so just trust on this."
. . .is not an appeal you can take to the public that's sick of this bullshit. Or an appeal one can make to a governor who's got a budget gap to plug for his own political hide. If there's not even an implementation plan that can be drawn up in multi-steps without "service cuts" scaremongering being tossed into the conversation...we all know there was never an intention of providing a service in the first place. The public long ago stopped buying this "vehicle is the service" line. If they can't afford to even get as far as two half-steps through a 'bridge' era when there is that long a fixed wait to get a procurement in-service, none of those steps...1, 2, 3, or 4...were ever going to be initiated to begin with.
This isn't an all-or-nothing service rollout, it's a "show demonstrable progress in steps" rollout. At this point the public's in an assume-the-worst position until they see some movement on an implementation plan for the service: fares, transferability, and schedules. So lay out what the movement's going to be...starting from whatever Step 1 is...or let them get on with their lives with a definitive answer that it's never going to happen. No one will buy the line that $200M in new capital purchases is a prerequisite to starting first movement on first steps of a multi-step implementation plan that has a defined schedule and defined triggers for each successive step. If that truly is the story they're sticking to then Dorchester, Hyde Park, and Allston at least know for sure that $200M will be diverted to state-of-repair projects that marginally improve somebody's commute instead of never meaningfully improving theirs. And one way or another we stop wondering aloud about when Indigo's gonna happen.
Keep in mind, you're also not starting at 100% throughput from the first day of service. Nothing...least of all something as radically new to the area as clock-facing CR frequencies served up with rapid transit- like fares, is going to be as automatic as flicking a light switch. You can no more accustom the riders to that in an instant as you could the stressed ops people. GO Transit isn't promising an instantaneous rollout of clock-facing frequencies either. This is the stuff of 5- and 10-year plans with 3 gears of measurable step-ups in service level results before you're there. No reasonable implementation plan is going to try to take on too much up-front on a slow-cooker route for demand. And no service plan that's reasonable is going to leave the question of the steps in the process un-answered.
So, ask yourself first if something like this (strictly for argument's sake...it could be anything) is reasonable for Step 1 for calendar year 2016...forces-be-willing:
-- Is it reasonable to run every 25 minutes on average and absolutely no less than 30 in the peak direction? Probably...they do better than that every day on other lines.
-- Is it reasonable to run at all near off-peak hours and in reverse commute direction at average of every 45 minutes with an absolute floor of 50 minutes? Yes...they do better than that every day on some reverse-commute lines.
-- Is it reasonable to run on the far off-peak every 50 minutes on average with an absolute floor at the deadest hours of no worse than 60 minutes? Yes...other lines take that for granted.
-- Is it reasonable to extend Fairmount's weekday service day to 11:00pm? Most definitely...last outbound's currently at 9:40, last inbound's at 10:20. The only nights there's freight moving it's all well after midnight.
-- Is it reasonable to run on weekends at far off-peak frequencies? Yes, it was not 2 years ago that the southside had considerably more weekend service than it has now.
That's an improvement of almost 25% right there. The corridor's going to notice that, especially if they get their fares fixed.
Now Step 2, calendar year 2018:
-- Is it reasonable to extend peak hours by 1 hour in each direction, to 9:00am in the morning, and from 4:00pm in the evening, for intra-city commuters who have much shorter door-to-door commutes?
-- Is it reasonable to increase reverse-commute frequencies during peak to an average of 35 mins. and floor of 40?
-- Is it reasonable to go to an average of 35 minutes and absolute floor of 45 minutes in the near off-peak (mid-morning, lunchtime, mid-afternoon)?
-- Is it reasonable to go to near off-peak frequencies from 10:00am-4:00pm on weekends?
-- Is it reasonable to increase the weekend service hours to match that of weekdays?
Any showstoppers yet?
Step 3, calendar year 2020:
-- Is it reasonable to match the 25 min. rush-hour in the reverse-commute direction for the entire duration of rush hour?
-- Is it reasonable to shorten the near off-peak more uniformly to 30 minutes?
-- Is it reasonable to shorten the far off-peak and weekends to 35 minutes avg. and no less than 40?
-- Is it reasonable to extend hours to match the last M-Th. subway trains of the night at South Station?
Now starting to converge on the clock...but note, we're still not at minimum feasible turnaround time for a push-pull trainset. And we have to live with push-pull for a couple more years because those DMU's purchased in 2017 are still at the factory.
Step 4, calendar year 2022, DMU's either fully deployed or in-progress:
-- Can peak go to 20 minutes uniform, both directions?
-- Can near off-peak go to 25 mins. uniform, both directions?
-- Can far off-peak maintain an absolute floor of 35 mins.?
-- Can late night hours go into effect to match last subway trip out of South Station F-Sa, and Sunday service hours extended to match the subway's?
This is just a sample of how it could break down, but you get the picture. Step 1's very conventional. Step 2 is mostly gap-filler. Step 3 is the first place where we're starting to round towards a different type of service, and Step 4 is more or less the real deal. Assemble the steps as you will, but put the fixed wait time for a vehicle purchase to good use. You are neither going to run push-pulls forever as an annual loss leader nor can you reasonably sit on your hands for 7 years, do nothing to stimulate ridership, then have to run DMU's empty at the start and deal with chicken/egg questions of which comes first: the ridership or the service levels.
And let's face it. . .
"Push-pulls are so expensive to operate we can't even do a 5-page PowerPoint describing how the fare structure will work unless you give us $200M to purchase DMU's then maybe we'll tell you in 7 years...but we're definitely gonna have to cut service levels if you want to know today, so just trust on this."
. . .is not an appeal you can take to the public that's sick of this bullshit. Or an appeal one can make to a governor who's got a budget gap to plug for his own political hide. If there's not even an implementation plan that can be drawn up in multi-steps without "service cuts" scaremongering being tossed into the conversation...we all know there was never an intention of providing a service in the first place. The public long ago stopped buying this "vehicle is the service" line. If they can't afford to even get as far as two half-steps through a 'bridge' era when there is that long a fixed wait to get a procurement in-service, none of those steps...1, 2, 3, or 4...were ever going to be initiated to begin with.
This isn't an all-or-nothing service rollout, it's a "show demonstrable progress in steps" rollout. At this point the public's in an assume-the-worst position until they see some movement on an implementation plan for the service: fares, transferability, and schedules. So lay out what the movement's going to be...starting from whatever Step 1 is...or let them get on with their lives with a definitive answer that it's never going to happen. No one will buy the line that $200M in new capital purchases is a prerequisite to starting first movement on first steps of a multi-step implementation plan that has a defined schedule and defined triggers for each successive step. If that truly is the story they're sticking to then Dorchester, Hyde Park, and Allston at least know for sure that $200M will be diverted to state-of-repair projects that marginally improve somebody's commute instead of never meaningfully improving theirs. And one way or another we stop wondering aloud about when Indigo's gonna happen.
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
There's a big difference between every-20-minutes vs 35 or 45-minute frequencies.
I get where you're coming from and the need for staging. And perhaps every-30-minutes is the place to start that.
But people aren't going to be attracted to service that runs in this weird pattern of occasionally 25, 35, 45, or 60 minutes (and whatever in between). They're just going to keep taking the bus that comes at shorter intervals, even if the overall trip is longer.
At some point we have to bite the bullet and make the leap to regular, predictable, frequent service levels. And yes, cost recovery is going to suck at first as people get used to it. But you will attract a totally new audience with that kind of service provision, vs the commuter rail schedule garbage that usually gets served up.
There's a big difference between every-20-minutes vs 35 or 45-minute frequencies.
I get where you're coming from and the need for staging. And perhaps every-30-minutes is the place to start that.
But people aren't going to be attracted to service that runs in this weird pattern of occasionally 25, 35, 45, or 60 minutes (and whatever in between). They're just going to keep taking the bus that comes at shorter intervals, even if the overall trip is longer.
At some point we have to bite the bullet and make the leap to regular, predictable, frequent service levels. And yes, cost recovery is going to suck at first as people get used to it. But you will attract a totally new audience with that kind of service provision, vs the commuter rail schedule garbage that usually gets served up.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Well, you can stage it however you want. That was just a very conservative sampler. But you're not debuting this service whole from Day 1. It simply isn't going to happen that way. The worst thing that could happen up-front is Keolis choking on running this thing on-time and poisoning that well before anyone drinks from it. And the worst thing that could happen up-front is the schedule being constantly jerked around so they can minimize those 10:00pm trains that only have 5 people on them. That's the whole reason for putting one foot in front of the other. Short leash, because if you just fling it out there they won't stop fucking around with it and inconsistency will be its demand-killing undoing. First route to have weekend and night service trimmed back in a momentary budget crisis, first route to have trains canceled when they fall behind somewhere else.
So T-proof it and Keolis-proof it by setting measurable goals for service level successes and have an implementation plan for each step-up in service levels tied to a calendar date without "we'll get back to you on that" wiggle-out room. Nail them to sticking with the plan. Like it or not, that means a Step 1 that is paper-scheduled like regular commuter rail is unavoidable.
Second, don't overestimate the "paper schedule" barrier. This is not a service designed to outslug the anytime convenience of a car trip. To the extent anyone in Dorchester or Hyde Park is wedded to their cars, they are the most stubborn holdouts who won't even pay attention to this service until 5 years after full-blast frequencies...and only when they look silly to their peers for continuing to hold out. Can't speed up their adoption.
It's also not GLX where everyone lives within a mile-plus of Red or Orange but the density has exploded to the point where their fairly frequent buses just aren't getting it done any longer moving that many bodies through the saturation congestion. Dot and HP aren't Somerville-level density. And their afterthought bus routes reflect that. There are plenty of existing transit riders in the neighborhoods who have to memorize their bus schedule because getting to Forest Hills or Ashmont or Fields Corner 10 minutes on the wrong side of a shift change slashes frequencies by two-thirds. They have to know the bus schedule when working late; they have to know the bus schedule when going into the city after work or on weekends to run errands. And they have to nervously consult the schedule when sitting sardine-packed on a borked Red or Orange train and sweat out whether they're going to make their bus transfer in time before the frequencies crater for the evening. The dirty little secret of large swaths of Boston rubber-tire transit is that there's a large population that has to know its bus schedules as well as the suburbanites know their commuter rail schedules.
Memorizing a schedule isn't an impediment. We want to eventually get to that point where they don't have to do that, but for Step 1...it's not unfamiliar practice. So don't look at the fact that Step 1 isn't clock-facing from the get-go; look at the fact that the current Fairmount Line schedule preceding Step 1 is barely even what you'd call commuter rail. Peaks and off-peaks aren't a constriction for attracting attention; having 25-30% more trains on any given peak or off-peak period is a pretty emphatic attention-grabber right out the gate. The degree of difference is where each step in the rollout announces itself.
Then just be consistent about the schedule without jerking people around and stick faithfully to the phased rollout that ratchets it up to Step 2, 3, whatever...on a set implementation timetable...with all loopholes for a cut-and-run from that implementation sealed off to build trust. In the real world people don't pay attention to Joe Pesaturo or colorful website banners or attend every community meeting about how Indigo service is going to solve all their problems. They certainly don't take a promise by the T at face value. The service will grow by word-of-mouth, from their peers. "Reasonably frequent, hassle-free, doesn't get stuck in traffic, worst-case I've never been more than 5 minutes late." That's what they want to hear, and what'll get them interested. I don't hold much hope that the pols are capable of wrapping brain around this phenomenon, but this is the land of 'competitive shortcutting' when it comes to wayfinding. You better believe a word-of-mouth tip is going to spread and that people are capable of memorizing a peak vs. off-peak vs. night/weekend frequency.
So start off with:
-- A representative spread of slots that's pretty robust by commuter rail standards, and keep it in the top division for the near off-peak, because that's where the dip in bus frequencies constricts the hardest. Don't jump immediately in the deep end with something that doesn't operate like commuter rail; first step has to be something Keolis can reliably succeed at.
-- Have the Zone fares recalibrated accordingly, and if they are still figuring out the mechanics of the subway transfer portability that has to be licked absolutely positively no later than Step 2. Realistically, it probably has to be Step 2, because we want Step 1 to be something implementable today.
-- The very existence of peak vs. off-peak vs. far off-peak isn't a problem right off the bat when the buses operate that way. So 30 minute frequencies at 10:30pm isn't going to be noticed by anyone in Year 1 but the lone guy standing on the Talbot Ave. platform ready to board a train with 7 people on it. These are folks who've never in their Dot or HP lives had a convenient bus at that hour; why would they suddenly start stampeding to the train? That's what I meant by not encouraging the pols to slash service; on a slow-cooker ridership build, it's not going to matter that there is such an animal as 'far off-peak'. They've lived in the 'far off-peak' their whole lives.
-- Address a vulnerability in people's commutes instead. Why do these commuters today cling to their bus schedules? Because "Oh, shit, it's 6:45 and this @#$% delayed Red train hasn't even cleared South Station yet. If I don't make it to Fields Corner by 7:00 I'm going to be waiting for-fucking-ever for the next bus to Grove Hall." So why not extend Fairmount's peak by 1 hour for the peace of mind of every poor sap who has this moment of anxiety after work once or twice a week? That's going to turn a lot more heads up-front than how frequently you run hours after a shift change.
-- Understand that this is Keolis and the T we're talking about, so a conventional-feel commuter rail schedule they can succeed consistently at is a better place to start from than something new and foreign that they fail spectacularly at. Baby steps. Step 1 is well within range of other commuter rail schedules, and is lower-stress because you can only blow the schedule so badly on a SS-Readville trip (it is, after all, CR's most consistent OTP leader through the magic of sample size). If they aren't staffing trains correctly, or the fare collection is ham-fisted, or they're canceling trains to vulture equipment for other lines, or if they're struggling to get things turned around...find out right away and take corrective action while the margins for error are still generous and stakes low. ID if all signs point to the operator not being up to snuff to handle the future step-ups in service, and throw the book at them to get up to snuff. Plan for a future with somebody else at the helm if it's clear the little inefficiencies and little cock-ups will never allow them to come around. By the time you hit full-blast on the rollout and by the time you have very first opportunity to use DMU's a main fleet...it'll be contract renewal time, and the graduation to full-blast Indigo can be planned around hire of somebody who has experience doing that well instead of fear of the ones who couldn't even handle Steps 1 & 2 cleanly.
-- Use these same principles with the next steps. Step 2 you're going to want to have a lot of gap-filler to even out the spread, and probably also get those subway transfers locked down if that wasn't ready before. But then pick a couple spots to really distinguish things. Reverse-commute parity, for example (understanding that it's a bit of a CR ops reach for Step 1). Lunchtime surges like you get on the subway but not in any meaningful way on the buses out here, so people working in the neighborhoods have more options to get things done and get back to work. Stuff like that...stretch it but not so far the T risks falling on its face, make inroads to the ultimate goal, make a distinction they don't get from the bus, and let the word of mouth do its thing.
The stages can be whatever you want them to be, but I don't think you're ever going to arrive at "real Indigo" in fewer than 3 steps, with the first one being rather conventional-CR looking and a not-scary leap for who we're tasking to operate this thing. You just can't sprint a marathon. Going too fast here sets up the risk for failure and another walk-back of promises, and it doesn't matter anyway how fast you go when the riders--at their own pace--will catch on when they catch on. As much as we love our special branding here the boring old GO Transit model tracks a lot closer with how it'll catch on. We don't need to point at Dot and HP from downtown and tell them, "Look!...it's like a subway line! It's got its own color on the map! Run free, little citizens!" to convince them it's better than the bus they're used to and that it's in their best interests to use it. That didn't work with the Silver branding either. The only people who are going to convince Dot and HP it's better than the bus are...fellow Dot and HP riders. That's where the growth curve begins.
Well, you can stage it however you want. That was just a very conservative sampler. But you're not debuting this service whole from Day 1. It simply isn't going to happen that way. The worst thing that could happen up-front is Keolis choking on running this thing on-time and poisoning that well before anyone drinks from it. And the worst thing that could happen up-front is the schedule being constantly jerked around so they can minimize those 10:00pm trains that only have 5 people on them. That's the whole reason for putting one foot in front of the other. Short leash, because if you just fling it out there they won't stop fucking around with it and inconsistency will be its demand-killing undoing. First route to have weekend and night service trimmed back in a momentary budget crisis, first route to have trains canceled when they fall behind somewhere else.
So T-proof it and Keolis-proof it by setting measurable goals for service level successes and have an implementation plan for each step-up in service levels tied to a calendar date without "we'll get back to you on that" wiggle-out room. Nail them to sticking with the plan. Like it or not, that means a Step 1 that is paper-scheduled like regular commuter rail is unavoidable.
Second, don't overestimate the "paper schedule" barrier. This is not a service designed to outslug the anytime convenience of a car trip. To the extent anyone in Dorchester or Hyde Park is wedded to their cars, they are the most stubborn holdouts who won't even pay attention to this service until 5 years after full-blast frequencies...and only when they look silly to their peers for continuing to hold out. Can't speed up their adoption.
It's also not GLX where everyone lives within a mile-plus of Red or Orange but the density has exploded to the point where their fairly frequent buses just aren't getting it done any longer moving that many bodies through the saturation congestion. Dot and HP aren't Somerville-level density. And their afterthought bus routes reflect that. There are plenty of existing transit riders in the neighborhoods who have to memorize their bus schedule because getting to Forest Hills or Ashmont or Fields Corner 10 minutes on the wrong side of a shift change slashes frequencies by two-thirds. They have to know the bus schedule when working late; they have to know the bus schedule when going into the city after work or on weekends to run errands. And they have to nervously consult the schedule when sitting sardine-packed on a borked Red or Orange train and sweat out whether they're going to make their bus transfer in time before the frequencies crater for the evening. The dirty little secret of large swaths of Boston rubber-tire transit is that there's a large population that has to know its bus schedules as well as the suburbanites know their commuter rail schedules.
Memorizing a schedule isn't an impediment. We want to eventually get to that point where they don't have to do that, but for Step 1...it's not unfamiliar practice. So don't look at the fact that Step 1 isn't clock-facing from the get-go; look at the fact that the current Fairmount Line schedule preceding Step 1 is barely even what you'd call commuter rail. Peaks and off-peaks aren't a constriction for attracting attention; having 25-30% more trains on any given peak or off-peak period is a pretty emphatic attention-grabber right out the gate. The degree of difference is where each step in the rollout announces itself.
Then just be consistent about the schedule without jerking people around and stick faithfully to the phased rollout that ratchets it up to Step 2, 3, whatever...on a set implementation timetable...with all loopholes for a cut-and-run from that implementation sealed off to build trust. In the real world people don't pay attention to Joe Pesaturo or colorful website banners or attend every community meeting about how Indigo service is going to solve all their problems. They certainly don't take a promise by the T at face value. The service will grow by word-of-mouth, from their peers. "Reasonably frequent, hassle-free, doesn't get stuck in traffic, worst-case I've never been more than 5 minutes late." That's what they want to hear, and what'll get them interested. I don't hold much hope that the pols are capable of wrapping brain around this phenomenon, but this is the land of 'competitive shortcutting' when it comes to wayfinding. You better believe a word-of-mouth tip is going to spread and that people are capable of memorizing a peak vs. off-peak vs. night/weekend frequency.
So start off with:
-- A representative spread of slots that's pretty robust by commuter rail standards, and keep it in the top division for the near off-peak, because that's where the dip in bus frequencies constricts the hardest. Don't jump immediately in the deep end with something that doesn't operate like commuter rail; first step has to be something Keolis can reliably succeed at.
-- Have the Zone fares recalibrated accordingly, and if they are still figuring out the mechanics of the subway transfer portability that has to be licked absolutely positively no later than Step 2. Realistically, it probably has to be Step 2, because we want Step 1 to be something implementable today.
-- The very existence of peak vs. off-peak vs. far off-peak isn't a problem right off the bat when the buses operate that way. So 30 minute frequencies at 10:30pm isn't going to be noticed by anyone in Year 1 but the lone guy standing on the Talbot Ave. platform ready to board a train with 7 people on it. These are folks who've never in their Dot or HP lives had a convenient bus at that hour; why would they suddenly start stampeding to the train? That's what I meant by not encouraging the pols to slash service; on a slow-cooker ridership build, it's not going to matter that there is such an animal as 'far off-peak'. They've lived in the 'far off-peak' their whole lives.
-- Address a vulnerability in people's commutes instead. Why do these commuters today cling to their bus schedules? Because "Oh, shit, it's 6:45 and this @#$% delayed Red train hasn't even cleared South Station yet. If I don't make it to Fields Corner by 7:00 I'm going to be waiting for-fucking-ever for the next bus to Grove Hall." So why not extend Fairmount's peak by 1 hour for the peace of mind of every poor sap who has this moment of anxiety after work once or twice a week? That's going to turn a lot more heads up-front than how frequently you run hours after a shift change.
-- Understand that this is Keolis and the T we're talking about, so a conventional-feel commuter rail schedule they can succeed consistently at is a better place to start from than something new and foreign that they fail spectacularly at. Baby steps. Step 1 is well within range of other commuter rail schedules, and is lower-stress because you can only blow the schedule so badly on a SS-Readville trip (it is, after all, CR's most consistent OTP leader through the magic of sample size). If they aren't staffing trains correctly, or the fare collection is ham-fisted, or they're canceling trains to vulture equipment for other lines, or if they're struggling to get things turned around...find out right away and take corrective action while the margins for error are still generous and stakes low. ID if all signs point to the operator not being up to snuff to handle the future step-ups in service, and throw the book at them to get up to snuff. Plan for a future with somebody else at the helm if it's clear the little inefficiencies and little cock-ups will never allow them to come around. By the time you hit full-blast on the rollout and by the time you have very first opportunity to use DMU's a main fleet...it'll be contract renewal time, and the graduation to full-blast Indigo can be planned around hire of somebody who has experience doing that well instead of fear of the ones who couldn't even handle Steps 1 & 2 cleanly.
-- Use these same principles with the next steps. Step 2 you're going to want to have a lot of gap-filler to even out the spread, and probably also get those subway transfers locked down if that wasn't ready before. But then pick a couple spots to really distinguish things. Reverse-commute parity, for example (understanding that it's a bit of a CR ops reach for Step 1). Lunchtime surges like you get on the subway but not in any meaningful way on the buses out here, so people working in the neighborhoods have more options to get things done and get back to work. Stuff like that...stretch it but not so far the T risks falling on its face, make inroads to the ultimate goal, make a distinction they don't get from the bus, and let the word of mouth do its thing.
The stages can be whatever you want them to be, but I don't think you're ever going to arrive at "real Indigo" in fewer than 3 steps, with the first one being rather conventional-CR looking and a not-scary leap for who we're tasking to operate this thing. You just can't sprint a marathon. Going too fast here sets up the risk for failure and another walk-back of promises, and it doesn't matter anyway how fast you go when the riders--at their own pace--will catch on when they catch on. As much as we love our special branding here the boring old GO Transit model tracks a lot closer with how it'll catch on. We don't need to point at Dot and HP from downtown and tell them, "Look!...it's like a subway line! It's got its own color on the map! Run free, little citizens!" to convince them it's better than the bus they're used to and that it's in their best interests to use it. That didn't work with the Silver branding either. The only people who are going to convince Dot and HP it's better than the bus are...fellow Dot and HP riders. That's where the growth curve begins.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
However if the ridership does not build as anticipated, there will be pressure to bail on a conventional service faster than the DMU service as the cost to provide it will be higher, and there will be no capital item consequences for dropping the service.
However if the ridership does not build as anticipated, there will be pressure to bail on a conventional service faster than the DMU service as the cost to provide it will be higher, and there will be no capital item consequences for dropping the service.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 9,004
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Fear. Fear is an awesome justification for spending $200M.
Sure, they might cut the service anyway, but. . .
Fear. Fear is an awesome justification for spending $200M.
Sure, they might cut the service anyway, but. . .
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The fact remains that when large capital is committed to a service it is more likely to remain and a greater effort is made to find the precious operating dollars to keep it running. If GLX ridership is lower than expected they won't just shut it down, one could argue that before committing to GLX, Route 80, 87, 88, and 96 bus service should have been boosted to key route levels (Route 80 only runs every 20 minutes in the rush-hour, every 60 on Sunday, dosen't seem like a prime candidate to convert to rail). Making the commitment to the DMUs for Fairmount results in a service commitment that would remain for the life of the vehicles.
It is going to be hard to make the case to find operating money to keep on adding conventional service if ridership doesn't follow. Fairmount already has far more service on Saturday and Sunday than any other commuter rail line (17 round trips on Saturday and Sunday vs. 13 between Boston and Beverly or 9 on Saturday, 7 on Sunday on Boston-Providence as examples). Making the case to double costs to run it every 30 minutes when that money could be used to boost crowded bus service or run more weekend commuter rail trains on lines were there is greater immediate ridership potential will be hard. On the other hand, buy a fleet of DMUs and there will be an obligation to make use of the investment, much the way Greenbush will still be around for a generation despite the low ridership, or that you can take an SL2 bus to BMIP at Midnight even when no one is on it. Depending on how much faith you have in Fairmount future ridership, you can take it as a good thing or a bad thing that a DMU procurement will force the service to run even if ridership is slow to build.
The fact remains that when large capital is committed to a service it is more likely to remain and a greater effort is made to find the precious operating dollars to keep it running. If GLX ridership is lower than expected they won't just shut it down, one could argue that before committing to GLX, Route 80, 87, 88, and 96 bus service should have been boosted to key route levels (Route 80 only runs every 20 minutes in the rush-hour, every 60 on Sunday, dosen't seem like a prime candidate to convert to rail). Making the commitment to the DMUs for Fairmount results in a service commitment that would remain for the life of the vehicles.
It is going to be hard to make the case to find operating money to keep on adding conventional service if ridership doesn't follow. Fairmount already has far more service on Saturday and Sunday than any other commuter rail line (17 round trips on Saturday and Sunday vs. 13 between Boston and Beverly or 9 on Saturday, 7 on Sunday on Boston-Providence as examples). Making the case to double costs to run it every 30 minutes when that money could be used to boost crowded bus service or run more weekend commuter rail trains on lines were there is greater immediate ridership potential will be hard. On the other hand, buy a fleet of DMUs and there will be an obligation to make use of the investment, much the way Greenbush will still be around for a generation despite the low ridership, or that you can take an SL2 bus to BMIP at Midnight even when no one is on it. Depending on how much faith you have in Fairmount future ridership, you can take it as a good thing or a bad thing that a DMU procurement will force the service to run even if ridership is slow to build.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,261
- Reaction score
- 2,068
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The point should be to reach the goal of good-transit in a cost-efficient, gradual fashion. No more white elephants. Right now, the goal should be 30-minute off-peak frequency with good on-time-performance. As sexy as DMU-ing multiple lines at once is (and that should still be a distant goal), achieving 30-minute off-peak frequency in a cost-efficient manner should be priority #1.
CapeFlyer > Greenbush Line
The point should be to reach the goal of good-transit in a cost-efficient, gradual fashion. No more white elephants. Right now, the goal should be 30-minute off-peak frequency with good on-time-performance. As sexy as DMU-ing multiple lines at once is (and that should still be a distant goal), achieving 30-minute off-peak frequency in a cost-efficient manner should be priority #1.
CapeFlyer > Greenbush Line