General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Staffing levels are out of control on CR, and not too great on the T. At least they've shown some ability to shift towards OPTO even if it meant shuffling them thru other jobs and shedding them slowly.

I'd be more favorably inclined towards contractors if there was some evidence that they were reasonably priced. But the CR carries far fewer people, with far worse convenience, for far higher a subsidy, than bus, subway or light rail. Simply put: the CR sucks at its job!

What's sad is that MBCR is fairly middle of the road for American commuter rail. But that's mostly because the problem is endemic to our country and American "exceptionalism" in the form of stubborn NIH syndrome.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Would not checking everyone's ticket (but instead doing random checks every once in a while, like Caltrain) noticeably reduce staffing levels? I guess the problem is that you can't buy tickets at every stop...
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Problem with Caltrain is that they did not cut staffing levels (well, that and many other idiocies common to American-style CR). For all of MUNI's problems, at least they had the sense to go OPTO on their light rail with the introduction of POP.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Problem with Caltrain is that they did not cut staffing levels (well, that and many other idiocies common to American-style CR). .

Older U.S. systems (San Francisco-San Jose has run without interruption since the days of the Southern Pacific) usually have very complex labor agreements and negotiated work rules.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Problem with Caltrain is that they did not cut staffing levels (well, that and many other idiocies common to American-style CR). For all of MUNI's problems, at least they had the sense to go OPTO on their light rail with the introduction of POP.

T commuter rail has the same restrictions. For example, the 1 conductor per 2 cars rule is part of the union contract and will take a major shift and protracted standoff to get rid of. So will some of the per-shift staffing quotas that leave too many conductors on near-empty off-peak and weekend trains. And OPTO simply isn't doable on commuter RR's when there are FRA rules about multiple crew members and crew safety checks on doors and clearing platforms at each stop. All of those increase the inherent operating costs of the mode. Including on DMU's. Imperfect legacy union contracts and FRA lard be damned, much of this is not practically avoidable without compromising safety. Common-carrier RR's...anywhere...are fundamentally different from rapid transit. Different mode for different purpose.

Best we can hope for there is increased efficiency. Moving to an all bi-level fleet serves up 1-1/2 times the seating capacity for the same # of cars and same # of conductors. Slowing the rate of growth in the staff as the # of off-peak trains increases (as much as the contracts allow per number of trains) can better distribute the conductors and let them close more cars on sparsely-filled runs. Getting the system Charlied with the conductors tapping hand scanners (or tap-on/tap-off door-mount scanners for the Fairmounts that only have 1 or 2 fare zones) greatly improves the efficiency of fare collection, de-clogs the aisles and all the in-seat shuffling for tickets, helps the farebox recovery on those standing-room only runs so packed the conductors can't process their cars in time, and frees up the conductors to rove around more as customer service agents. Moving to more widespread level boarding reduces dwells, including the time it takes for conductors to move around. All of that tightens things up inside the staffing constraints of the contract.

Realistically, they have to do all of the above. Simply busting up the union contract's staffing requirements doesn't 'fix the glitch' at reducing the onboard overhead. Some of these things require an up-front capital investment to happen, and spending money to make money. And all of it requires a cultural shift within the agency valuing efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. It's not black-and-white, nor is there any sort of magic bullet that solves it all.

I would say the same about DMU'ing everything under the sun. While that can be a lot better at cost recovery than conventional 9-to-5'er commuter rail, it still carries a steep operating cost premium over rapid transit. The places where demand is oversaturated for real rapid transit can't have their needs stopgapped and procrastinated around forever. CR-based options can bridge the gap and definitely are the best option for corridors like Fairmount where no rapid transit ROW is available...but you can only shuck-and-jive around the biggest pieces of this map for so long before the difference in respective modal operating costs, revenue intake, and farebox recovery vs. cost amortized over many many decades starts to matter on the highest-priority corridors. Despite the much larger up-front capital investment required for rapid transit. No magic bullets...they have to get honest about this internally as another big cultural shift in the leadership.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

With the new CR contract, who would be the one to hold up the charlie card implementation? Seems like money out of Keolis' pocket and they would resist (in a way perhaps MBCR has).

The T could do a bit of a work around and install fare validation machines at 1A stops like JFK, Porter and Yawkey so a monthly link pass can print a validated ticket and not have to get the zone 1A pass.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

With the new CR contract, who would be the one to hold up the charlie card implementation? Seems like money out of Keolis' pocket and they would resist (in a way perhaps MBCR has).

The T could do a bit of a work around and install fare validation machines at 1A stops like JFK, Porter and Yawkey so a monthly link pass can print a validated ticket and not have to get the zone 1A pass.

There's no holdup. The contractor has nothing whatsoever to do with the method of fare collection. That's all about the MBTA's back-end system and integration with it. Which they had intended to do from the start, then backed away from. It's all on the agency to get back on the horse and finish the job.

All MBCR or Keolis do is manage the staff who physically collect the fares, tally those fares at the end of the shift, then deliver it to the T. It doesn't matter if it's ticket, cash, smartphone. The means of paying has already evolved to different methods within MBCR's tenure as operator with the big smartphone app rollout. Implementing Charlie, conductor hand readers, and/or the door-mount tap surfaces would just be a different 'app' as far as Keolis is concerned.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Older U.S. systems (San Francisco-San Jose has run without interruption since the days of the Southern Pacific) usually have very complex labor agreements and negotiated work rules.

T commuter rail has the same restrictions. For example, the 1 conductor per 2 cars rule is part of the union contract and will take a major shift and protracted standoff to get rid of. So will some of the per-shift staffing quotas that leave too many conductors on near-empty off-peak and weekend trains. And OPTO simply isn't doable on commuter RR's when there are FRA rules about multiple crew members and crew safety checks on doors and clearing platforms at each stop. All of those increase the inherent operating costs of the mode. Including on DMU's. Imperfect legacy union contracts and FRA lard be damned, much of this is not practically avoidable without compromising safety. Common-carrier RR's...anywhere...are fundamentally different from rapid transit. Different mode for different purpose.

These are all political reasons (well, some require capital investment, such as level boarding). And I get it. That takes time to change. But it must change, eventually.

There's no inherent reason why CR has to be run like an old-timey 19th century railroad, except that a bunch of entrenched assholes like it that way because it lines their pockets.

I don't know what it's going to take. Some kind of crisis (like the 1970s weren't a kick in the junk?). But until the mode modernizes and runs as efficiently as it is easily capable of doing, then I see no reason to ever support any kind of commuter rail extension from here on out. And stuff like Greenbush never should have happened. A major shift, a protracted standoff, a transitional period, whatever it takes. We cannot keep going on like this. The childish behavior on the part of the RR unions and the idiotic behavior at the FRA must end if we are going to move into the 21st century of passenger service.

It doesn't mean loss of jobs, btw. It means the jobs are better, more efficient, and providing more service for the passengers. Instead of staffing a train with 3 conductors, you can have 3 separate trains with 1 conductor. Yes, this requires capital investment, but it's not worth doing that investment if those 3 trains are going to use up 9 conductors!

Once upon a time, trolleys and buses had a driver and a conductor. Today, that idea would be considered ludicrous. CR needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if need be, into the present day.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Its not changing anytime soon. From the Globe article:

Janice Loux, another member of the board and a union organizer, said she was also concerned that the smaller pricetag for Keolis’s services could have an effect on union workers’ next contracts.

“The proposed savings are remarkable, just remarkable!” said Loux, with a touch of sarcasm in her voice. “Has the general manager verified that the savings are true and achievable? What are the impacts to the size of the workforce, labor agreements, and benefit packages?”

She continued, “I’m looking forward to seeing this workforce taken care of.”

Representatives of various commuter rail unions — including former state senator Steven A. Tolman, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO — expressed similar concerns, saying they were dismayed to learn of the change.

Andrew Mannion, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said union officials would not accept lower salaries for members. “Under no scenario would we agree to terms that does not fairly compensate our members.”
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

She continued, “I’m looking forward to seeing this workforce taken care of.”

And all this time I thought the purpose of mass transit was to efficiently move people around the region. I had no idea it existed to take care of a workforce. Very educational...
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Changes I'm talking about don't result in loss of employment. Probably gain, actually, in the long run. The staff gets used more efficiently, we get more service, MassDOT decides to up service levels, hire more people, and voila: Boston Overground.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

^North/South Link= Crossrail?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Ok, but that's a political reason. Fine. But if that's it, then the T should be looking to get around it eventually.

The other part of my comment was about costs. The commuter rail, as a mode, serves far fewer passengers than bus or subway, while costing about the same or more annually. It's hard not to conclude that CR is basically gold-plated transit for rich (mostly white) commuters.

The T needs to rein those costs in.

Mathew -- The T is a a creature of the Legistalture and that by definition means the " rich (mostly white) " suburbanites

Make a person who works a couple blocks from South Station who lives in Wellesley take a bus -- you can then kiss-away not only the Urban Ring and the Fairmont Upgrade but rest of the T

That commuter boarding in Wellesley or the person driving from Lexington to Alewife to take the Red Line makes the inner city stuff possible

Thus the nature of the contract to operate the Commuter Rail is one of the most important elements associated with operating the T.

This REALITY will not change unless the population of Boston / Cambridge / Sommerville doubles while the whole of Greater Boston stays about the same in size -- in other words don't hold your breath waiting
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Mathew -- The T is a a creature of the Legistalture and that by definition means the " rich (mostly white) " suburbanites

Make a person who works a couple blocks from South Station who lives in Wellesley take a bus -- you can then kiss-away not only the Urban Ring and the Fairmont Upgrade but rest of the T

That commuter boarding in Wellesley or the person driving from Lexington to Alewife to take the Red Line makes the inner city stuff possible

Thus the nature of the contract to operate the Commuter Rail is one of the most important elements associated with operating the T.

This REALITY will not change unless the population of Boston / Cambridge / Sommerville doubles while the whole of Greater Boston stays about the same in size -- in other words don't hold your breath waiting

Until those rich suburbanites can't get around downtown because the transit system is too over-capacity to move people. As many a doomsday report has warned is is looming by no later than 2030, a mere 6 years after this vision statement.

http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/Final-Hub-and-Spoke-Report.pdf

Oops. The rich suburbanites are mad and are going to write their Legislators about why they didn't do something about this sooner.



Divergent class, income, and political inequality is a bug not a feature, whigh. A wholly pan-society and non- transit-specific bug to be exact when high finance's diminishing returns leave the whole economy stagnant. You're right...don't waste your breath waiting for growth. It's going to fizz out if the jobs are here, 'burbs-to-CBD is the only transportation priority getting investment, and the 'burbanites have a tougher time getting to their jobs once dumped off at the terminal than they do getting to the terminal. If you're suggesting this is somehow the natural order of things, the natural order of things eventually involves the comfiest top 19-out-of-20% of society embracing the same stagnation the bottom 80% have already been put in their place to like or lump.

Is that a talking point that's going to sell to the votes these pols most court?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Mathew -- The T is a a creature of the Legistalture and that by definition means the " rich (mostly white) " suburbanites

Make a person who works a couple blocks from South Station who lives in Wellesley take a bus -- you can then kiss-away not only the Urban Ring and the Fairmont Upgrade but rest of the T

Kiss away what Urban Ring? It's not happening under the current political configuration, white suburbanites regardless. Newton and Brighton certainly switched to buses, and they're pretty affluent out there. But that's a sidebar to this conversation.

I think you may have misinterpreted my whole statement. I'm just opposing extensions of the commuter rail until it reforms. Lucky ducks in Wellesley can keep their current crap service. If they want service increases beyond what's already slated, then let it be through greater productivity.

This isn't a black and white topic though, because we need to spend capital funds in order to reduce operating costs, by fixing old timey infrastructure. And it's going to take time to shake out those folks who are stubbornly inefficient, retrain staff, bring regulatory agencies around, etc. It's not going to be easy. But having a real vision of what the service ought to look like in a few decades, that's something doable. I think it ought to aim at something like the RER. That's probably a leap too far, but it's a nice vision. London Overground might be a middle ground, but it was mostly a relabeling of already-existing, competent service -- something we don't currently have. I feel like Davey's DMU plan might be the start of a vision, pitched as a change in vehicle. Perhaps that's the right approach, he knows the politics better than I.

In the meantime, forget about South Coast Rail or any other kind of money pit/over-extension of service, though. No more parking garage/station monument building projects either. Reform first, and fix the core.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Sad news...

Boston Magazine said:
Vandals Tag Two Old MBTA Trolleys On Display at Boylston Street Station
Police are on the hunt for the alleged culprit.

By Steve Annear | Boston Daily | January 14, 2014 2:59 pm

photo-2.jpg


PHOTO BY STEVE ANNEAR

Transit Police are trying to figure out who painted their mark on two historic trolleys on display at the Boylston Street station this week.

Peering in between the small holes of the metal gate that separates passengers from the two vehicles, a T employee, who was not authorized to give his name, said he was in shock at the extensive graffiti that was tagged along the sides of the trolleys, in large black and white lettering.

“Man, someone tagged that up real good,” the T employee said, surveying the damage.

Officials from the MBTA said they’re turning to video surveillance to try and nail whoever may be responsible for the graffiti found Tuesday. In the meantime, the black-and-white taggings remain an eyesore to the general public congregating on the platforms nearby, waiting for their Green Line trains to arrive.

“I’m totally bummed,” said Nick, who declined to give his last name.

A train fan, Nick came down to see what happened to the trolleys once he had heard about the act of vandalism. ”It’s a disgrace. I hope whoever did it left enough of his calling card,” he said. “That’s what they like to do, leave their mark. I hope they bag him.”

Two trolleys were hit with the spray paint, one worse than the other, however. Police said the incident happened sometime between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.

Sprawled along the side of the first trolley, a PCC 3295, Car No. 3295, one of the last of its kind built by the Pullman-Standard Company based in Lowell in the 1950s was nearly covered from top to bottom in the mid-section of the trolley. The words appear to say “FUGUE,” a tag that instantly comes up when searched on Google and the photo-sharing site Flickr. ”Fugue not only has the most intellectual name in Boston, he’s gettin [sic] up all around the city,” one website boasts.

The other tag name appears to say “CIGA,” which has been spotted in other prominent spots in the city, including the sides of buildings.

The car was one of 50 purchased by the Metropolitan Transit Authority—the name of Boston’s railway system before it became known as the MBTA—more than half a century ago.

During the early 1980s, the trolley car was restored to its original condition, to be put on display, by the “Friends of 3295,” an MBTA volunteer group. it was fixed up in order to commemorate the Riverside Line’s 25th anniversary. The trolley is owned by the MBTA, according to an email from officials.

The second car, donated for display by the Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, had less damage to its exterior but was still marked by white lines and tags. The No. 5734 trolley, a Type 5 car, is a “semi convertible” that was built specifically for Boston’s subway system by the Brill Car Company in 1924. “The last of these cars ran in service in 1959, having operated in all parts of Boston and its suburbs,” according to a sign posted next to the trolley.

MBTA officials would not say how the alleged suspects gained access to the area, but said they are investigating. The transit agency has special officers assigned to tracking down graffiti artists. “The Transit Police Department’s Special Crimes Unit investigates graffiti cases. A detective with experience in graffiti investigations and prosecutions dedicates as much time as needed to handle such cases,” said T Spokesman Joe Pesturo in an email. “The detective, if necessary, also gets assistance from others in the Unit.”

A call to the Board of Directors at the Seashore Museum was not immediately returned.

The Boston Street Railway Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and promoting the Boston area’s rich public transit history, called the news of the vandalized trains “sad.”

More pix: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/01/14/mbta-graffiti-vandalized-boylston-street/
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I always wonder how these guys manage to find a time to tag their graffiti when nobody is there to notice it. How do they gain access without being caught?

On a side note, I think I know who this Nick guy is.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'm scared to ask, but what are the prospects for restoration?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'm scared to ask, but what are the prospects for restoration?

Not hard. This is the umpteenth paint job those cars have had over the years; the motif they're in is a historically accurate re-creation, not the literal original paint chips that came out of the factory. Erasing the damage is little different than what they do when some chucklehead breaks into the yard and vandalizes a revenue car all over. They know how to do it; the Mattapan cars have been repainted and repainted and repainted again, and there's work cars floating around the Orange Line older than that Type 5.

There is the issue of who'll pay for it. The Type 5 car is property of Seashore Trolley Museum, not theirs. But given what an extremely public place this is and how hard it is to move those cars out of view, I bet they fix it FAST. Throwing a tarp over them isn't exactly an option for getting this incident out of the papers and off Flickr.




HOW THE HELL did they manage to get away with this and escape facial recognition when every bloody inch of Boylston is covered in fisheye security cams?!? The entire incident has to be on tape in high res from like 5 different angles.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

FYI...cleanup of the cars was supposed to happen last night, so graffiti should be removed by today and any required touch-up on the paint done before week's end.
 

Back
Top