General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

You dont need a multi-year study to remove a stop sign that was put up as a knee-jerk reaction (ie, with no study) to a crash 12 years ago.
 
jass said:
You dont need a multi-year study to remove a stop sign that was put up as a knee-jerk reaction (ie, with no study) to a crash 12 years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in defense of the MBTA, there have been so many minor changes like the one you note, that, because of the mismanagement of the past several decades, never got documented in a central location or got to the right people. The asset management system being set up is aiming to solve these issues (and others), but starting from the ground up with such a massive and dynamic system is difficult in the first place. It's not a great excuse, but it's a big problem for those trying to take on and track the entire system with nothing to work off of.
 
jass said:
You dont need a multi-year study to remove a stop sign that was put up as a knee-jerk reaction (ie, with no study) to a crash 12 years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree with jass. The locations being pointed out aren't because of faulty signals or old equipment, but because at one point in the past few decades, someone didn't look for a green line trolley when they made a turn and crashed into it.

The example above on Comm Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/tm7FcMQ6cA12 is a good one of an unwarranted stop sign, but more concerning is this one on Huntington and Longwood (https://goo.gl/maps/ouGAVY7cwVT2), which is not only unwarranted, but against the law. You can never have a stop sign AND a traffic signal control the same movement. The green line already has it's own dedicated signal and the left turns across the track go during a completely different phase. WHY IS THE STOP SIGN THERE?
 
^ And what about stops signs that are at the crest of a hill with no intersection whatsoever (even though there's a fence blocking pedestrian crossovers)? Such as:
https://goo.gl/maps/goJQFYcJshm

I get that the operator can't see over the hill, but there must be a better way than come to a full stop here? I have seen the trolly miss the subsequent stoplight (several hundred meters down the road) so many times because of having to come to a full stop/re-accelerate here. Maybe this is what we really need TSP for!

And here's another stopsign where there's already a stoplight on comm ave AND a stoplight for the intersecting street:
https://goo.gl/maps/npHe4r1o5A12

(It is making me angry just typing this thread). It takes 33 freaking minutes for the B branch to go from Washington St. to Kenmore Sq (a total of 2.5 miles, which means an average speed of 4.5 MPH). Arrrggh.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
You'll have to wait for the Green Line Transformation study to come out in 2019. FCMB has been presented with a few slides of what they're tackling, but still too early for any meaty details.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. They're doing rail rehab and full-depth reconstruction on the D branch this year to eliminate the slow zones there...
 
A zoomed in elaboration on the beauty (sarcasm) of one example above:

In this one view we can see: stoplights for both intersecting streets, a stop sign for a trolley, AND a "yield to trolley" sign:
https://goo.gl/maps/RDz18ChhTKJ2

Anyone have any ideas about additional redundant signals or signage we could throw in here for good measure?
 
stefalarchitect said:
I agree, but in defense of the MBTA, there have been so many minor changes like the one you note, that, because of the mismanagement of the past several decades, never got documented in a central location or got to the right people. The asset management system being set up is aiming to solve these issues (and others), but starting from the ground up with such a massive and dynamic system is difficult in the first place. It's not a great excuse, but it's a big problem for those trying to take on and track the entire system with nothing to work off of.
Click to expand...

Read the entire NYT article. They have a couple of folks riding in the front of the trains noting exactly these type of issues.

Over the summer, Mr. Byford created a new “speed unit” — a three-person team that traveled every mile of track on the system in an empty train to find areas where trains could safely move faster. The team identified 130 locations where the speed limit should be increased. So far, a safety committee at the transit agency has approved 34 locations for speed increases.

Workers recently started to change speed limit signs on the first segment on the Fourth Avenue line in Brooklyn between 36th Street and 59th Street. Overall, officials plan to change the speed limits at 100 locations by the spring.
Click to expand...

These immediate fixes arent signals...theyre signs. Im pretty sure the green line has a 3mph sign somewhere, but I cant remember where exactly. Maybe it was replaced by a stop sign.

bigpicture7 provided some fantastic examples of idiotic controls that could be fixed tomorrow if anyone at the MBTA took five minutes to think about it.

You also have company culture issues:

Train operators had become so afraid that they would get in trouble for setting off “grade time signals” that they traveled below posted speed limits, said Mr. Arcidiacono, who joined the transit agency as a train operator in 2007.

“We were trained to go 5 to 7 miles per hour below the posted speed,” he said. “It became part of the work culture.”
Click to expand...
 
jass said:
Read the entire NYT article. They have a couple of folks riding in the front of the trains noting exactly these type of issues.

These immediate fixes arent signals...theyre signs. Im pretty sure the green line has a 3mph sign somewhere, but I cant remember where exactly. Maybe it was replaced by a stop sign.

bigpicture7 provided some fantastic examples of idiotic controls that could be fixed tomorrow if anyone at the MBTA took five minutes to think about it.
Click to expand...

I'll certainly read the article when I'm not on mobile. From what it sounds like, what NYC is doing is what Boston needs, but the MBTA just won't ever do it. And I understand your point about signs. You could do the same thing here with a few interns and have it all back "up to speed" in a few short weeks, but despite how easy it sounds, I'm doubtful it will ever happen with the current state of the T.
 
Last edited:
stefalarchitect said:
I'll certainly read the article when I'm not on mobile. From what it sounds like, what NYC is doing is what Boston needs, but the MBTA just won't ever do it. And I understand your point about signs. You could do the same thing here with a few interns and have it all back "up to speed" in a few short weeks, but despite how easy it sounds, I'm doubtful it will ever happen with the current state of the T.

I'm not going to go further into what's happening behind the scenes because the plans are still in the works, but I can certify that there are people looking at any and all types of restrictions very thoroughly, including signs, signals, gauge width, etc. But with the way the MBTA works, this study can be completed with every single recommendation they could ever need or ask for, and top management will do 1 of 2 things. They will say "good work," pat their backs, and do absolutely nothing with it, or, if we're lucky, and knowing how they've been functioning lately, put it out to bid in multiple contracts with a tangled mess of buearacracy that would push back these improvements to 2025+. Maybe with the new GM, we'll see some changes in this trend and we'll have a team out in the field dictating what signs can be removed in no time, but I'm doubtful to be honest.
Click to expand...

MBTA isnt unique.

MTA was operating the same way. Thatwas why trains were getting slower every year for 50 years.

The thing is, advocates started making a lot of noise. And then the NYT gave those advocates a platform by giving the issue a big old feature.

So the MTA was forced to act, and now we're seeing results 3 months later.

The same is needed in Boston. Transit Matters has been very effective at pointing out long-standing issues that could be fixed immediately, like the E train that was delaying everybody else by 20 minutes every night.

This just needs to get on the radar.
 
Equilibria said:
That's not quite true. They're doing rail rehab and full-depth reconstruction on the D branch this year to eliminate the slow zones there...
Click to expand...


Those are slow zones that have crept up from deferred maintenance and fallout from the fatal rear-end crash that slapped new restrictions on obstructed-visibility signals in low sun angle. New high-visibility LED heads address the NTSB's concerns and allow lifting of those more recent restrictions.


Those aren't the kinds of optimizations GLT is looking at. The D stuff is obsolete-infrastructure rollback and related 21st century restriction creep.
 
stefalarchitect said:
I agree, but in defense of the MBTA, there have been so many minor changes like the one you note, that, because of the mismanagement of the past several decades, never got documented in a central location or got to the right people. The asset management system being set up is aiming to solve these issues (and others), but starting from the ground up with such a massive and dynamic system is difficult in the first place. It's not a great excuse, but it's a big problem for those trying to take on and track the entire system with nothing to work off of.
Click to expand...


Yes. The whole reason there's conflicting signage is because there was never any asset management or communication. So where do you begin to solve that: knee-jerk with no documentation in the opposite direction and make the overall problem worse, or actually doing it right by surveying the system and scaling up an asset management back-end?


Some of these hottakez need to self-check themselves on whether they want instant gratification one place but a continuing shitshow elsewhere or things actually done right so an end-to-end schedule gets treated holistically. That doesn't happen overnight. GLT gets released in months, not years. Hold your horses...it's coming.
 
bigpicture7 said:
^ And what about stops signs that are at the crest of a hill with no intersection whatsoever (even though there's a fence blocking pedestrian crossovers)? Such as:
https://goo.gl/maps/goJQFYcJshm

I get that the operator can't see over the hill, but there must be a better way than come to a full stop here? I have seen the trolly miss the subsequent stoplight (several hundred meters down the road) so many times because of having to come to a full stop/re-accelerate here. Maybe this is what we really need TSP for!
Click to expand...

I believe I've heard that the stop signs on the hill are to test brakes before the descent.
 
^interesting. I have no doubt there's a "reason" for all of these signs, and that sounds as plausible as any. However, it still begs to be better optimized...a) there is literally a stop ~250 yards prior to here on this same stretch (Sutherland Rd)...what are the odds that the brakes failed since then?, and b) does the trolley really need to come to a full stop to test brakes? (and I witness this as part of my commute, so I know with certainty that it comes to a full stop and dwells for several seconds every single time...and then often misses the subsequent Comm/Wash stoplight and gets stuck there for another ~60 seconds)...you see "Truckers Test Brakes" signs on highways all the time (especially out West) and they do not need to come to a full stop. I would think one could get the sense whether one's brakes are working or not based on their responsiveness.

The B branch is like death by a thousand cuts. Any one of these things seems like no big deal, but when you count the shear number of them from the terminus to Kenmore, it's unreal.
 
So yesterday, we at TransitMatters raised hell about the North Station tunnel which has been delayed from Oct 1, to Nov 1, to Dec 1, and now "this winter" and managed to get the media to make the MBTA comment (FINALLY):

https://twitter.com/adamtvaccaro/status/1073248199236874240

Adam Vaccaro said:
MBTA: "The project team continues to target this month for an opening." (Though it had previously been early December.) Expecting a certificate of occupancy from the state building inspector’s office next week after final tests. Also working out easement terms w/ TD Garden devs.
Click to expand...
 
Shepard said:
I believe I've heard that the stop signs on the hill are to test brakes before the descent.
Click to expand...


And that's either leftover from the Boeings, which had issues with braking on hills, or leftover from the early days of Type 8 testing before lingering issues were pounded into shape.


This is exactly why you need a comprehensive asset management inventory. Things that had well-reasoned point for existing some time ago fall through the cracks and can't be tracked into obsolescence. Staff overturns, records are incomplete and inconsistently kept in 20 places, and the anachronisms like this start to pile up.


If there's one thing the FCMB has done extremely well since taking power it's been implementing asset control in every major department. You would not have all these performance improvement plans getting cued up across all 4 color lines without those comprehensive field inventories recent and ongoing.
 
I saw a post on the TransitMatters website about a holiday party on the 18th. Could someone involved with TransitMatters confirm if the public is welcome at this event?

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top