General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[davem]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Why is it so hard to expect motormen (outside of equipment failure or a medical emergency) to not plow into each other? The train is on rails, they don't have to steer. It's in a tunnel, nothing else is there. The trolley ahead is covered in lights, which flash when stopped. Stopping and starting is literally the only thing they have to do between stations.
The_Only_Thing.

Don't tell me its because its monotonous travelling the same route back and fourth all day. Amongst a million other things, I run deliveries. I've totally "autopiloted" myself down the wrong series of streets because its the way I go a lot, so I know all about zoning out. But somehow I've managed to never hit the cars, trucks, garbage cans, children, dogs, pedestrians, pedestrians with headphones who walk out between parked cars not even looking, mothers with baby carrages who do the same thing, cyclists on the wrong side of the road on a blind hill, cyclists blowing through red lights, cars making a left without stopping at their stop sign when I'm turning down the same street, and every other asenine thing that happens 10 times or more a day.

To top it all off, my driving style would be catagorized by most people somewhere between "too fast" and "reckless endangerment". And I'm only responcible for someones food. Yet somehow, I've managed to not get so much as a scratch.

If anything should be investagated and have money spent on it it should be to find out why the culture exists within the T that allows people to be hired and placed with the responcibility for a million dollar vehicle with hundreds of lives on board who apparently just don't give a shit. There are good ones to be sure, but the majority of them have abysmal customer service skills, don't seem to know anything about their jobs more then the base requirements, are unkempt, and then fail at the most basic aspect of stopping their train.



I'm sorry for the rant, but it infurates me to no end that not only are these employees grossely overcompensated (IMO) for their job of moving a stick back and fourth and pressing a button, but now there is the prospect of spending millions beause they can't even do that. If PTC helped increase effecency or allow more trains I would be all for it, but it will do the opposite. We need it because people can't be trusted to do their jobs. That is simply unacceptable.

I watched K19 last night and there was a scene where the crew failed to complete a drill in an acceptable time. The captian brought his officers together and told them it wasn't the crews fault they failed, it was theirs. They weren't doing their jobs as managers well enough, so how could the crew? This may be the true issue here.

 

[omaja]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

isn't San Francisco Muni pretty much the same as our Green Line? Multiple surface streetcar lines fanning out from a central subway tunnel?

Yes, I suppose in theory they share a lot (both light rail, multiple routes which share a central subway section, etc.). but two major differences put the Green Line in a class all its own: it carries over 1.5x the amount of passengers that Muni Metro does over a smaller route network (25 versus 37 miles) and it does not have the ATO system that Muni Metro has in its subway sections.

I'm sorry for the rant, but it infurates me to no end that not only are these employees grossely overcompensated (IMO) for their job of moving a stick back and fourth and pressing a button, but now there is the prospect of spending millions beause they can't even do that. If PTC helped increase effecency or allow more trains I would be all for it, but it will do the opposite. We need it because people can't be trusted to do their jobs. That is simply unacceptable.

While I certainly share the sentiment of frustration at the thought of people not being able to do the very basics of their jobs, I don't know that allowing people to remain overpaid for doing even less is the point of CBTC. At the end of the day, the fact that there is no automatic train stop and the whole system works on operator controls is simply ludicrous given the headways they are running in the central subway. Point blank, period.

Again, the Green Line was not designed to operate the way it does today or carry the passenger load it does with the technology it has. There was supposed to be a redundant subway along the river to distribute passengers better, for one, and I don't think anyone thought we'd be using early 20th century technology more than a decade into the 21st.

It's quite frankly a miracle they can provide the service they do given how pathetically primitive the technology they're working with is. You have supervisors parking along Comm Ave and at Kenmore and Boylston marking the times on a paper, for Christ's sake. Upgrading to CBTC will allow for increased capacity and, in turn, help eliminate the oftentimes horrible rush hour congestion in the Central Subway that is caused by manual operator variances.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes, I suppose in theory they share a lot (both light rail, multiple routes which share a central subway section, etc.). but two major differences put the Green Line in a class all its own: it carries over 1.5x the amount of passengers that Muni Metro does over a smaller route network (25 versus 37 miles) and it does not have the ATO system that Muni Metro has in its subway sections.



While I certainly share the sentiment of frustration at the thought of people not being able to do the very basics of their jobs, I don't know that allowing people to remain overpaid for doing even less is the point of CBTC. At the end of the day, the fact that there is no automatic train stop and the whole system works on operator controls is simply ludicrous given the headways they are running in the central subway. Point blank, period.

Again, the Green Line was not designed to operate the way it does today or carry the passenger load it does with the technology it has. There was supposed to be a redundant subway along the river to distribute passengers better, for one, and I don't think anyone thought we'd be using early 20th century technology more than a decade into the 21st.

It's quite frankly a miracle they can provide the service they do given how pathetically primitive the technology they're working with is. You have supervisors parking along Comm Ave and at Kenmore and Boylston marking the times on a paper, for Christ's sake. Upgrading to CBTC will allow for increased capacity and, in turn, help eliminate the oftentimes horrible rush hour congestion in the Central Subway that is caused by manual operator variances.

More simply put, the signal system that was running cars constructed partially out of wood 100 years ago is now running articulated behemoths that weigh several times much. But they can get packed in almost as close in 2012 as they were in 1912, so margin of error ain't what it used to be.

...and that's a dated look at the car weight evolution of the GL. That shiny futuristic-looking Boeing would get the gruesome end of a collision with an 8-7-8 three-car behemoth today. We already are running a "heavy"-rail Green Line in terms of laws of physics. But the headways run just as tight as they were when both those historic cars behind the Boylston fence were trying not to crash into each other rounding that curve.

I don't fully buy that the "talent" driving them has gotten that much worse or that they collectively forgot how to operate safely. But the same reflexes definitely do not buy the same stopping distance it used to.

 

[statler]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Boston.com 12/05/2012

MBTA fires trolley operator in Green Line crash at Boylston Station for being ‘inattentive’
12/05/2012 1:10 PM

By Eric Moskowitz and Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

The MBTA has fired the Green Line trolley driver who rear-ended another trolley at Boylston Station last week, saying he was inattentive, officials said this morning.

The driver had an undisclosed midnight to 8 a.m. shift job, MBTA officials said. The accident happened just before noon Thursday, less than an hour after the operator had begun his shift at the MBTA.

“It’s clear that this individual did not have a sufficient rest period before operating a Green Line passenger trolley. This individual failed to follow MBTA rules and policies regarding fitness for duty and because of his failure, he caused a collision that resulted in injuries to multiple customers, employees, and damage to MBTA property of more than $500,000,” said Jonathan Davis, MBTA acting general manager.

“Because of his alarming disregard for customer and employee safety ... he was fired,” Davis said.

Davis had no comment on whether MBTA officials believe the driver was actually asleep.

Davis said the MBTA has an aggressive fatigue awareness program that the operator had gone through twice and the operator was aware he needed to show up for duty fit to do the job.

However, Davis said, the MBTA has no specific rules on how much sleep operators are required to get and there is no explicit prohibition on having a second job.

Thirty-seven people were sent to the hospital with minor injuries after the crash. Emergency workers created an alarming spectacle as they flooded the busy area.

Officials said the day afterward that they had ruled out trolley or track failure and were scrutinizing the actions of the operator, a 46-year-old man who joined the T in 2006, had an accident-free record, and was slated to receive a safety award.

The outbound trolley arriving at Boylston from Park Street Station was moving at 10 to 13 miles per hour when it rear-ended the trolley stopped at Boylston.

The crash was the second on the Green Line in less than two months and one of several that have occurred over the decades on the original 115-year-old stretch of the nation’s oldest subway.

It came just days before transportation officials were scheduled to receive a report on outfitting the Green Line with automated signals to stop vehicles before they collide, which would probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars and could require trains to run less often.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes...this makes me feel much safer. They are basically admitting here that the Green Line's whole safety margin skates on the cat-like reflexes of their operators. Surely there are no other mundane reasons in the whole wide world that an operator would show up tired for a shift. Nope. We are to believe that this thing is totally safe now because they're clarifying to the staff to "remember to be attentive". Even if it's probably illegal and grounds for damages for them to close this particular second-jobs loophole, so not even that (nevermind the other varying causes of fatigue) is actually being addressed.

Yep. Totally safe.

 

[Semass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

And yet you can buy a Volvo that hits the brakes for you if you get too close to another vehicle.

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes, lets spend hundreds of millions on a signalling system that will degrade service, cause over crowding and generally push people to much more dangerous cars, just because theres a chance of a fender bender every 3 years.

I just dont think as a society we can bare the costs of those scrapes and bruises.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes, lets spend hundreds of millions on a signalling system that will degrade service, cause over crowding and generally push people to much more dangerous cars, just because theres a chance of a fender bender every 3 years.

I just dont think as a society we can bare the costs of those scrapes and bruises.

It shouldn't degrade service unless they screw it up... though, given we're talking about the MBTA here...

 

[omaja]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes, lets spend hundreds of millions on a signalling system that will degrade service, cause over crowding and generally push people to much more dangerous cars, just because theres a chance of a fender bender every 3 years.

I just dont think as a society we can bare the costs of those scrapes and bruises.

How do you figure upgrading the signal system to allow for more trainsets to pass through the system more efficiently do any of the three things you mentioned? It would do just the opposite.

It came just days before transportation officials were scheduled to receive a report on outfitting the Green Line with automated signals to stop vehicles before they collide, which would probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars and could require trains to run less often.

This was an interesting tidbit... I didn't realize this was supposed to be happening. Anyone know more?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yes, lets spend hundreds of millions on a signalling system that will degrade service, cause over crowding and generally push people to much more dangerous cars, just because theres a chance of a fender bender every 3 years.

I just dont think as a society we can bare the costs of those scrapes and bruises.

Don't read too much into that. Not only was that last sentence in the article a flagrant throwaway line of totally unsubstantiated editorializing, but it's indicative that they didn't even bother to educate themselves on what the hell positive train control is. Key points:

-- Every subway line we've got and every non-NEC choo choo line we've got is some variation of fixed block signaling. Green's and commuter rail northside's wayside signals, Red/Orange's ATO, Blue's mechanical stops, and commuter rail southside's cab signals are all fixed block. Only difference between them is that Blue/Red/Orange and cab signaled CR have stop enforcement in those blocks...Green and the wayside-only CR lines do not. The blocks are unmovable points on a map, like traffic lights at an intersection. Can't physically lengthen or shorten a block without busting out the heavy construction equipment. Can only re-time them.

-- The CBTC that they are studying, and the ACSES system that's on the NEC, are moving blocks. The signal blocks are not fixed points on a map; they travel based on distance ahead/behind the train from the next thing that has to be traffic controlled (the next train, a station, a junction, a stretch of different-speed track). The block occupies whatever space the computer decides is "block-worthy" at that very moment, and the two-way communication between train and signals is continuous so that block can be ever-changing. Those blocks can be arbitrary fixed points like before. They can be set by live distance to the next train in front or next station. They can change by hour of the day and traffic load. They can be incredibly short-spaced if there's enough transponders and bandwidth to fine-tune traffic to that level of detail. They can be never-ending if it's nothing but empty, unrestricted track the whole length of the run. They can be any/all of the above. It's 'positive' train control because the computer can move the goalposts at-will.

-- This shit needs to be traffic engineered to the hilt first. And until it is NO ONE, least of all some Globie phoning up Pesaturo to write their story for them, knows what headways can be. One would presume they're not just going to feed the current 19th century signal blocks into the computer and call it a day. That would suck, service probably would get worse, and there'd be no value-added at all over the 'analog' ATO on Red/Orange...so dispatching flexibility has to be part of the package. On the opposite extreme one would also presume that we're not going down to 20-second headways because that level of precision's unrealistic grafted onto an 1897-vintage subway when curves, switches, etc. all get factored in. Realistically, you're talking a reachable best-case goal of same headways and travel time as as today but better schedule margin of error, fewer ripple effects from late trains, less bunching. Not readily noticed by riders, but much appreciated.


BUT...any which way they have to model the traffic, because they can fuck it up if the layout's either too over-sensitive/over-correcting or too-clumsy/rigid. Just like they fucked up the Red Line's fixed-block ATO in the 80's by setting way too-long blocks downtown that didn't take into account Park/DTX dwell times and force cascading delays at rush. At least with CBTC you can fine-tune it by reprogramming the computer and at most maybe installing a couple extra RF relays trackside instead of needing to rip open the cable plant and do open-heart surgery on the tunnel.

At any rate, the study ain't done yet. And whatever they do produce with nitty-gritty about how such a system would be laid out is going to be dry, dry, dreadfully dry technical reading. So...not like Pesaturo's re-tweeters in the 4th estate are going to be able to tell us anything helpful.

 

[metasyntactic]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

http://www.wickedlocal.com/brooklin...s-to-pricey-Green-Line-signal-system-overhaul

Boston —

Members of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Board on Wednesday rebuffed recommendations that the board spend between $662 million and $721 million on a Green Line signal system that would automatically deter trolleys from running into one another.

A similar type of automatic crash prevention system already exists on the Red, Orange and Blue lines, and on the Northeast Corridor portion of the commuter rail, though the Green Line presents unique challenges because its tunnels are highly congested and its tracks curve more than other subways, according to MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo.

Board members found fault with the presentation by Assistant General Manager of Design and Construction Edmond Hunter because the so-called positive-train-control options presented did not include anything for a cost of less than $662 million and the timeline for implementation, ending with testing and certification, would take nine years.

“I’ll go out and find it myself and bring it to the board if that’s what has to be done,” said board member Janice Loux. She said, “We lost a woman, she died. The National Transportation Safety Board is going to lose patience with us, and they should.”

In May 2008, a Green Line trolley ran into a stopped trolley in Newton, killing an operator and injuring 49 people in an incident that led to a ban on cell phones by operators. In response, the National Transportation Safety Board wrote, “This accident could have been prevented had the [MBTA] Green Line been equipped with a positive train control system that could have intervened to stop train 3667 before it could strike the rear of train 3681.”

Last week, a trolley operated by an allegedly drowsy driver struck a stopped trolley in Boylston Station leading to injuries and more than $500,000 in damages.

Other board members also called for alternatives to the proposals laid out in the presentation.

“I would respectfully submit that before this board makes any kind of decisions on a three-quarters-of-a billion-dollar project, we know what the alternatives are,” said board member Ferdinand Alvaro.

Hunter also said that a PTC system would slow down service, an outcome that could be mitigated by improvements to the track that would enable faster trolley speeds or the use of more three-car trolleys.

Loux suggested using proximity indicators similar to a device she said she has on her van, though Hunter said that a cheaper system had been reviewed and has drawbacks.

“Those proximity indicators would be constantly going off,” Hunter said.

The presentation concluded with Secretary Richard Davey advising Hunter and the others who had worked on it to return with a revised presentation.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

How do you figure upgrading the signal system to allow for more trainsets to pass through the system more efficiently do any of the three things you mentioned? It would do just the opposite.
?

Nope, these fancy new signal systems REDUCE capacity.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Nope, these fancy new signal systems REDUCE capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication-based_train_control

No, they don't. They run at whatever capacity you design them for. The PTC system used by Amtrak for the NEC has already increased capacity substantially. NYC Subway's PTC implementation is designed to enhance headways. But...like I said a couple posts ago...feed the exact same signal layout of the current GL into the computer with nothing different except stop enforcement and you are going to get a worse-performing system. Moving blocks require different traffic engineering than fixed blocks.


Those details are moot, though. What's clear as day here is that the board isn't interested in solving a problem. It wants the oppressive heat on them for the GL's abysmal safety record to just go away. It doesn't care how, it just wants it gone fast and cheap. It doesn't want to understand the enormity of the problem. It doesn't want to change one single thing the employees who run the line have to do. It doesn't want to hear about this being a holistic long-term cost-benefit analysis about fixing the traffic situation at the same time as fixing safety.

The board wants to hear the first person in the room stand up and tell them it's not really a problem so they can forget it exists. Somebody who'll tell them putting up a sign or more blinking lights or a loud siren, or passing some clarification of the employee rules, or truncating the E to Brigham Circle and raising fares "fixes the glitch" so to speak. And nobody's doing that because...duh...none of that addresses the problem or gets the NTSB off their backs. Either spend the money to fix it, don't spend the money and cripple service to fix it, or...spend the money FAIL and passive-aggressively fix the safety while crippling the service in one shit sandwich for the same cost as fixing it and making it better. But nobody's stepping forward and telling them they can do nothing or next-to-nothing, so they got mad and sent the study team to bed without dessert. Bad studyers! Next time maybe those ingrates will remember to show up to the meeting properly motivated to tell them exactly what they want to hear: status quo now, status quo forever.

I would love to hear what the "do nothing anywhere ever with no consequences" answer could be, because there isn't one. They know they're running a system with unacceptably unsafe rear-end collision risk, and say point-blank they're scared shitless of NTSB repraisals. If I had to guess based on the early framing, pushing this "PTC is teh so slow!!" misinformation to the hilt is probably the best bet they think they've got to bury this. Pitch it to the public as a "Don't blame us; we didn't want to ultra-shittify the service, but those stupidhead feds and a bunch of ambulance-chasers say we have NO CHOICE but to MAKE IT SRSLY SHITTY with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS YOUR TAX DOLLARS" wedge. And since none of Pesaturo's re-tweeters are ever going to bother to Google what CBTC actually is or ask a transit engineer to mansplain it to them, that's all we're going to hear. Another setup to a punchline about fare increases and service cuts they were powerless--powerless!!!--to avoid.


Narrative-fitting is the only thing these people are capable of doing, so why expect different? As long as people fall for it without attribution they're going to keep f***in' that chicken. Meanwhile, there are other transit agencies out there still in the business of running a transit system. And they're adopting CBTC by choice, in a budget-constrained environment, because designed-to-task it makes their transit lines run awesomer. We don't do that because, of course, transit officials in this state aren't in the business of running a transit system. Much less making it run awesomer. But they'd like us to believe it's somebody else's fault that's not their profession.

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

NYC and Amtrak may have increased capacity because they went from worse to bad.

Meanwhile, the lincoln tunnel processes 700 buses an hour.

Find me a rail signally system that can even process 1/4 of that.

 

[omaja]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

NYC and Amtrak may have increased capacity because they went from worse to bad.

An increase is an increase. CBTC on Paris's Line 1 resulted in a 20 percent reduction in headways (105 seconds to 85 seconds) and around a 20 percent increase in passenger throughput during peak periods. So, again, how will such a system in Boston REDUCE capacity as you claim? I guess everything is just so different here.

Meanwhile, the lincoln tunnel processes 700 buses an hour.

Find me a rail signally system that can even process 1/4 of that.

Ummm... the current Green Line can handle upwards of 20,000 people per hour. That's nearly 3/4 of what the Lincoln Tunnel handles (700 buses x 40 people each = 28,000 people per hour).

 

[Matthew]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

ask a transit engineer to mansplain it to them

Let's call this "transplaining".

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

An increase is an increase. CBTC on Paris's Line 1 resulted in a 20 percent reduction in headways (105 seconds to 85 seconds) and around a 20 percent increase in passenger throughput during peak periods. So, again, how will such a system in Boston REDUCE capacity as you claim? I guess everything is just so different here.



Ummm... the current Green Line can handle upwards of 20,000 people per hour. That's nearly 3/4 of what the Lincoln Tunnel handles (700 buses x 40 people each = 28,000 people per hour).

Because Paris put in a system that allows 85 second headways, which is an order better than any other state of the art system in the US...

....and thats still less than what you can do on the green line today. So yes, a downgrade.

Best youll find in north america, btw is 90 seconds in mexico City. I dont believe any signalling system in the US does better than every 3 minutes, although please correct me on that.

Lincoln tunnel, we're talking vehicle capacity for signals, not passengers. 700 vehicles.

And the Lincoln tunnel handles over 30,000 in the peak hour, as the buses carry on average 45 passengers each. So 50% more than what the green line is doing....



Find me a signalling system that lets the green line what it does today, that is, have a train enter the station simultaneously as another departs, like a bus can do. No signalling system will let two green line trains park inches apart in park st and load simultaneously.

 

[massmotorist]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

This is silly.

We had two crashes within a few years of each other. It's called a statistical anomaly. Nothing's changed in the system that I know of that would make it the beginning of a trend. The Green Line's been running for a long time without PTC, and it will continue to run for a long time without PTC. Yeah, someone died. He was texting while driving a fucking train. They cracked down and it's unlikely to happen again. $700m is a ton of money that could be better spent elsewhere. The cost benefit isn't even close.

 

[Matthew]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

have a train enter the station simultaneously as another departs, like a bus can do.

The RER achieves this, IIRC, with advanced computer control.