General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)
- Thread starter Waldorf
- Start date
Tombstoner
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 2
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
I'm sure this has been answered elsewhere, but what becomes of the Green-Blue transfer during the GC renovation? I suspect the answer is "it goes away" but the optimist in me thinks that maybe some alternative has been anticipated and is waiting to be unveiled...
I'm sure this has been answered elsewhere, but what becomes of the Green-Blue transfer during the GC renovation? I suspect the answer is "it goes away" but the optimist in me thinks that maybe some alternative has been anticipated and is waiting to be unveiled...
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
Nada.
Behold, the genius of MBTA management!
Nada.
Behold, the genius of MBTA management!
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
That's all interesting and good to know, but doesn't quite address my question. Did the studies look at potential ridership of trains heading into Fall River and New Bedford at rush-hour? ie people who live in Raynham, Taunton and Freetown but work in Fall River/New Bedford? Or did they just examine riders who work in Boston?
(I don't mean to minimize the helpfulness of your answer; it was very informative and clearly explained, and elaborates in a good way on why the project is problematic. It just doesn't really answer my question.
)
And that business about closing GC really is mind-boggling. I understand why they need to do it, and I frankly am willing to buy the notion that there isn't another solution, because– really, it's not like our society has been proactive about maintaining infrastructure. But however we arrived at these circumstances, it really is absolutely insane.
And, not to be an apologist, but what sort of alternative would actually be feasible? New tunnels? Out-of-system transfers? The latter might work (you pick up a ticket as you walk out of Park or Haymarket, use that to get in for free at State or Bowdoin), but in many cases you'd be just as well off walking to Downtown Crossing in the tunnel and hopping the Orange to State, or transferring to the Orange at North Station or Haymarket and then taking it to state. Hardly an ideal alternative. (Though better than nothing, I grant you that.)
You could run circulator buses on a route like this: http://goo.gl/maps/DIHJ0 But that would be slooooow.
EDIT: I forgot about the Haymarket-State-Bowdoin bus. Those buses will probably run faster, but if they're turning some trains at Park, that'll mean that many more transfers to get up to Haymarket for the bus, at which point you might as well walk. What a mess. I hate to think of the nontrivial travel times and hassles this will add to people's commutes.
That's all interesting and good to know, but doesn't quite address my question. Did the studies look at potential ridership of trains heading into Fall River and New Bedford at rush-hour? ie people who live in Raynham, Taunton and Freetown but work in Fall River/New Bedford? Or did they just examine riders who work in Boston?
(I don't mean to minimize the helpfulness of your answer; it was very informative and clearly explained, and elaborates in a good way on why the project is problematic. It just doesn't really answer my question.
)And that business about closing GC really is mind-boggling. I understand why they need to do it, and I frankly am willing to buy the notion that there isn't another solution, because– really, it's not like our society has been proactive about maintaining infrastructure. But however we arrived at these circumstances, it really is absolutely insane.
And, not to be an apologist, but what sort of alternative would actually be feasible? New tunnels? Out-of-system transfers? The latter might work (you pick up a ticket as you walk out of Park or Haymarket, use that to get in for free at State or Bowdoin), but in many cases you'd be just as well off walking to Downtown Crossing in the tunnel and hopping the Orange to State, or transferring to the Orange at North Station or Haymarket and then taking it to state. Hardly an ideal alternative. (Though better than nothing, I grant you that.)
You could run circulator buses on a route like this: http://goo.gl/maps/DIHJ0 But that would be slooooow.
EDIT: I forgot about the Haymarket-State-Bowdoin bus. Those buses will probably run faster, but if they're turning some trains at Park, that'll mean that many more transfers to get up to Haymarket for the bus, at which point you might as well walk. What a mess. I hate to think of the nontrivial travel times and hassles this will add to people's commutes.
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
When the MBTA was asked if they could provide free transfers, they replied "not feasible".
Even though DC was able to program a 40 year old system to allow free transfers outside the system.
And they have these things called paper transfer tickets....
But no. Not feasible.
When the MBTA was asked if they could provide free transfers, they replied "not feasible".
Even though DC was able to program a 40 year old system to allow free transfers outside the system.
And they have these things called paper transfer tickets....
But no. Not feasible.
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
Well, yes, since these are problems that occur in the first world, that is a technically true statement. But as I understand the way the term is used, I don't think this really counts. This is the sort of stuff I think of as "first world problems: http://first-world-problems.com/.
Let's say that this delay adds 5 minutes to making the transfer. 2 minute walk from Park to DTX. Wait an average of 2.5 minutes at DTX for an Orange Line (which run at a scheduled frequency of 5 minutes during rush hour). Multiple that 5 minutes by going to and from work five days a week and you're looking at an hour of your life wasted because we let ourselves get in the position where we had to close down one of our core stations for years.
But let's say you're not doing this in rush hour. Let's say you're doing it mid-day or in the evening or on the weekends (people work and travel then too). Then the Orange drops to closer to 10 minute headways. Suddenly that extra 5 minutes becomes an extra 7 or 8. 7.5 x 2 trips in and out x 5 days a week, now you're looking at an hour and 15 minutes wasted because we as a society got lazy.
And let's say the Orange Line is experiencing delays. Hey, it happens. That much more of your time is wasted.
By closing GC, the T is making its riders reliant on more components of the system. More components means more opportunities for things to go awry. If you're smart, you'll probably allot extra time into your schedule in case something goes wrong in this suddenly much more fragile system. So what should only be an extra 5 or 10 minutes each day turns into an extra 10 or 20 minutes because of that uncertainty factor. (What if you just miss the Orange Line and then just miss the Blue Line? Suddenly your time waiting on the platform is doubled from average to maximum.) Multiply that out for every day that week...
Now, let's assume you're able-bodied and not so tired from working and/or all-too-common sleep deprivation, and that the weather is nice. You decide to walk. 7 minutes, one way. Same math, comes out to about an hour a week, and you have to pay an extra fare. If you're making MA minimum wage, that extra fare will cost you what you earned in fifteen minutes of work. (Ironically, in one day, it'll cost you a half-hour's wages in order to walk for fifteen minutes.)
Now let's assume that you're carrying groceries, or a heavy backpack, or have been on your feet all day at work. Or let's assume that you're going from one part-time job to the next (not uncommon these days), or that you need to get home by a certain time to pick up your kids from a daycare center that closes promptly at five, or that having to leave that extra ten minutes earlier in the morning makes you leave before your kids wake up, which means they don't see you until you come home in the evening, exhausted and not in a position to pay your kids enough attention.
I get it, life sucks in different ways for everyone. But people already get jerked around enough. Hassles and stressors created by poorly-designed plans such as this are not luxuries that are taken away from a spoiled population, they have tangible ramifications and consequences for hundreds of thousands of people.
Sorry to go on. Hope I'm making sense.
Well, yes, since these are problems that occur in the first world, that is a technically true statement. But as I understand the way the term is used, I don't think this really counts. This is the sort of stuff I think of as "first world problems: http://first-world-problems.com/.
Let's say that this delay adds 5 minutes to making the transfer. 2 minute walk from Park to DTX. Wait an average of 2.5 minutes at DTX for an Orange Line (which run at a scheduled frequency of 5 minutes during rush hour). Multiple that 5 minutes by going to and from work five days a week and you're looking at an hour of your life wasted because we let ourselves get in the position where we had to close down one of our core stations for years.
But let's say you're not doing this in rush hour. Let's say you're doing it mid-day or in the evening or on the weekends (people work and travel then too). Then the Orange drops to closer to 10 minute headways. Suddenly that extra 5 minutes becomes an extra 7 or 8. 7.5 x 2 trips in and out x 5 days a week, now you're looking at an hour and 15 minutes wasted because we as a society got lazy.
And let's say the Orange Line is experiencing delays. Hey, it happens. That much more of your time is wasted.
By closing GC, the T is making its riders reliant on more components of the system. More components means more opportunities for things to go awry. If you're smart, you'll probably allot extra time into your schedule in case something goes wrong in this suddenly much more fragile system. So what should only be an extra 5 or 10 minutes each day turns into an extra 10 or 20 minutes because of that uncertainty factor. (What if you just miss the Orange Line and then just miss the Blue Line? Suddenly your time waiting on the platform is doubled from average to maximum.) Multiply that out for every day that week...
Now, let's assume you're able-bodied and not so tired from working and/or all-too-common sleep deprivation, and that the weather is nice. You decide to walk. 7 minutes, one way. Same math, comes out to about an hour a week, and you have to pay an extra fare. If you're making MA minimum wage, that extra fare will cost you what you earned in fifteen minutes of work. (Ironically, in one day, it'll cost you a half-hour's wages in order to walk for fifteen minutes.)
Now let's assume that you're carrying groceries, or a heavy backpack, or have been on your feet all day at work. Or let's assume that you're going from one part-time job to the next (not uncommon these days), or that you need to get home by a certain time to pick up your kids from a daycare center that closes promptly at five, or that having to leave that extra ten minutes earlier in the morning makes you leave before your kids wake up, which means they don't see you until you come home in the evening, exhausted and not in a position to pay your kids enough attention.
I get it, life sucks in different ways for everyone. But people already get jerked around enough. Hassles and stressors created by poorly-designed plans such as this are not luxuries that are taken away from a spoiled population, they have tangible ramifications and consequences for hundreds of thousands of people.
Sorry to go on. Hope I'm making sense.
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
^^ Wow, really? I wonder if that an "advertised" estimate, or an actual realistic estimate. (ie. Will it really take "just" 9-10 mins, or will it frequently take longer?)
In any case, all the more reason why I don't think this should be dismissed as a "first world problem."
^^ Wow, really? I wonder if that an "advertised" estimate, or an actual realistic estimate. (ie. Will it really take "just" 9-10 mins, or will it frequently take longer?)
In any case, all the more reason why I don't think this should be dismissed as a "first world problem."
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
I feel stupid, but does that mean that it's the hypothetical average time?
I feel stupid, but does that mean that it's the hypothetical average time?
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
I thought you folks might enjoy this.
http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2013/01/trains-go-on-strike-to-demand-better.html
I thought you folks might enjoy this.
http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2013/01/trains-go-on-strike-to-demand-better.html
jdrinboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 557
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
My understanding is that the GC project will involve the near total demolition of the current station layout and the relocation of platforms. Is there really a feasible way to do this and keep the station open? My understanding is that Kenmore turned into a disaster because the station was kept open.
I think the bigger issue is making sure the public and media hold the T accountable to their 2-year timetable. If we ride through the closed GC station next year and only see two guys working, the MBTA should be made to explain how and why that won't affect the construction table.
On a side note, I'm starting to see a bit of this on the Orient Heights project. It seems like they have been working on the same forms and concrete pours for two months. In contrast, the sheer core on 120 Kingston Street has grown to almost 11 stories in less than 4 weeks.
My understanding is that the GC project will involve the near total demolition of the current station layout and the relocation of platforms. Is there really a feasible way to do this and keep the station open? My understanding is that Kenmore turned into a disaster because the station was kept open.
I think the bigger issue is making sure the public and media hold the T accountable to their 2-year timetable. If we ride through the closed GC station next year and only see two guys working, the MBTA should be made to explain how and why that won't affect the construction table.
On a side note, I'm starting to see a bit of this on the Orient Heights project. It seems like they have been working on the same forms and concrete pours for two months. In contrast, the sheer core on 120 Kingston Street has grown to almost 11 stories in less than 4 weeks.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 8,960
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
The reverse commute ridership was pretty meager, in large part because Routes 24, 140, and 79 are always wide open in the contraflow direction and not bad in any direction south of the 24/140 interchange. Weekdays it's overwhelmingly Boston-commute oriented, and throws up all kinds of red flags for incredibly weak off-peak ridership.
Weekends didn't look that bad, however, because of day trips between cities. The outlet shopping, beaches, and shuttle buses to/from UMass-Dartmouth for the students picked up the slack for weekend outbound trips, and weekend inbound to Boston held its own (but still doesn't exactly wow) vs. other CR lines.
Bottom line is it's hard to swallow $2B for a crippled rush hour branch schedule that's too limited to be transformative, and off-peak ridership that looks scary sparse. Much less build parking capacity for a third more riders than those schedules will attract. Really, if they built to Taunton and sent more frequent express buses from NB and FR to that stop it'll draw not too far from the full-build/crippled-schedule branch projections. And be almost a wash on total travel time, simply involving that one extra bus-to-CR transfer. There's no logical reason to do more...that's actually the good route-priming practice that'll help justify building the branches a decade-plus later.
A sane build might be the following:
1) Build to Downtown Taunton on the current single-track plan, completing the track restoration to Cotley Jct. Build all the intermediate stations, but maybe cut back on the initial parking capacity and leave the land to expand a few years later, like they did at Middleboro. Don't build a layover...just sit on a turnout a mile south at Cotley Jct. and deadhead back to Readville on shift changes like they do today for Stoughton. It's not a big deal; they do this for Lowell too because its substandard layover is mothballed.
2) Rope in Amtrak for Cape Codder restoration to get other stakeholders involved and upgrade/signalize the Middleboro Secondary with some fed help. Build Taunton Depot. Use Middleboro layover 7 miles away (expand a little if needed). Beef up the Hyannis service via this route since the Old Colony's got a capacity cap.
3) Rope in RIDOT to rebuild the FR branch from the end of track at the state line all the way to Newport, with replacement Sakonnet bridge. Build the branches (again, with sane and later-expandable parking). Build the layovers. Double track the Stoughton main. Initiate full service to FR, NB and limited continuing service to Newport. See if RIDOT wants to do a *limited* around-the-horn Newport-Providence express at commute hours since that would also serve the E-W Providence-Fall River job market the hours 195 sucks the most. See if Amtrak wants to experiment with a Newport fork of the Cape Codder; they could run from D.C. with 2 locos on the consist and break the train in half at Taunton Depot to very cheaply serve each destination.
Stakeholders, stakeholders, stakeholders. Don't do the second phase till they've swallowed the costs for Phase 1, there's safety in numbers on the build with Amtrak and RIDOT in the mix, and the express bus-to-Taunton ridership crests demand from the cities.
That's all interesting and good to know, but doesn't quite address my question. Did the studies look at potential ridership of trains heading into Fall River and New Bedford at rush-hour? ie people who live in Raynham, Taunton and Freetown but work in Fall River/New Bedford? Or did they just examine riders who work in Boston?
(I don't mean to minimize the helpfulness of your answer; it was very informative and clearly explained, and elaborates in a good way on why the project is problematic. It just doesn't really answer my question.
The reverse commute ridership was pretty meager, in large part because Routes 24, 140, and 79 are always wide open in the contraflow direction and not bad in any direction south of the 24/140 interchange. Weekdays it's overwhelmingly Boston-commute oriented, and throws up all kinds of red flags for incredibly weak off-peak ridership.
Weekends didn't look that bad, however, because of day trips between cities. The outlet shopping, beaches, and shuttle buses to/from UMass-Dartmouth for the students picked up the slack for weekend outbound trips, and weekend inbound to Boston held its own (but still doesn't exactly wow) vs. other CR lines.
Bottom line is it's hard to swallow $2B for a crippled rush hour branch schedule that's too limited to be transformative, and off-peak ridership that looks scary sparse. Much less build parking capacity for a third more riders than those schedules will attract. Really, if they built to Taunton and sent more frequent express buses from NB and FR to that stop it'll draw not too far from the full-build/crippled-schedule branch projections. And be almost a wash on total travel time, simply involving that one extra bus-to-CR transfer. There's no logical reason to do more...that's actually the good route-priming practice that'll help justify building the branches a decade-plus later.
A sane build might be the following:
1) Build to Downtown Taunton on the current single-track plan, completing the track restoration to Cotley Jct. Build all the intermediate stations, but maybe cut back on the initial parking capacity and leave the land to expand a few years later, like they did at Middleboro. Don't build a layover...just sit on a turnout a mile south at Cotley Jct. and deadhead back to Readville on shift changes like they do today for Stoughton. It's not a big deal; they do this for Lowell too because its substandard layover is mothballed.
2) Rope in Amtrak for Cape Codder restoration to get other stakeholders involved and upgrade/signalize the Middleboro Secondary with some fed help. Build Taunton Depot. Use Middleboro layover 7 miles away (expand a little if needed). Beef up the Hyannis service via this route since the Old Colony's got a capacity cap.
3) Rope in RIDOT to rebuild the FR branch from the end of track at the state line all the way to Newport, with replacement Sakonnet bridge. Build the branches (again, with sane and later-expandable parking). Build the layovers. Double track the Stoughton main. Initiate full service to FR, NB and limited continuing service to Newport. See if RIDOT wants to do a *limited* around-the-horn Newport-Providence express at commute hours since that would also serve the E-W Providence-Fall River job market the hours 195 sucks the most. See if Amtrak wants to experiment with a Newport fork of the Cape Codder; they could run from D.C. with 2 locos on the consist and break the train in half at Taunton Depot to very cheaply serve each destination.
Stakeholders, stakeholders, stakeholders. Don't do the second phase till they've swallowed the costs for Phase 1, there's safety in numbers on the build with Amtrak and RIDOT in the mix, and the express bus-to-Taunton ridership crests demand from the cities.
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
A Copley<->Back Bay out-of-system transfer would also make sense, as well as a Symphony<->Mass Ave transfer, to alleviate crowding at downtown stations.
But nope, the Charlie code is impossible to change.
A Copley<->Back Bay out-of-system transfer would also make sense, as well as a Symphony<->Mass Ave transfer, to alleviate crowding at downtown stations.
But nope, the Charlie code is impossible to change.
palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,274
- Reaction score
- 123