General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

I wonder how many additional traffic fatalities the slow zones have already caused and will continue to cause. These “safety precautions” are almost certainly making citizens of the metropolitan area LESS safe.
 
He's just about in! Passengers had questioned him as he toured the T. :)

commonwealthmagazine.org

CommonWealth Beacon

A trusted nonprofit, non-partisan source for in-depth news analysis, reporting & opinion on policy, politics, & civic life in Massachusetts.
commonwealthmagazine.org commonwealthmagazine.org
 
Skimming the 3/23/23 board presentation, I found the numbers presented in a curious manner, that IMO seemed to take some pains to avoid noting anything about historical actual operating headcounts.

The MBTA indicates it currently has approximately 5,600 (operating) workers as of Feb 2023 in that presentation.

But historical data (Slide 5) suggests that's....pretty poor? https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...28-fmcb-5-pro-forma-headcount-assumptions.pdf

FY15 - 5,996
FY16 - 6,142
FY17 - 5,834
FY18 - 5,559 ("VRIP" - early retirement packages/offers)
FY19 - 5,747
FY20 - looks to have been at ~5,870 as of Oct 2019.
FY21 - looks to have been at ~5,958 as of Sept 2020. page 32 + was at ~5,439 as of June 2021. page 8 (6351-438-474)

Someone else can feel free to check my numbers.

---------

But it seems like in the past 1.5+ years we've managed to add...~150 (operating) positions, more or less. And we're still far below the pre-COVID peak or the pre-reduction peak in ~2015-16.

In that light, I'm not sure what the point of "budgeted headcounts" are when it seems like we're currently adding actual employees at a rate so slow that it'd take a decade or more to actually reach the FY23 budgeted numbers or anything close enough to be a realistic minimum of vacancies.

It also does seem to suggest one of the more obvious methods of improving the system: Actually staff the system.
 
king_vibe said:
In the three weeks since the MBTA slow zones were announced, the roads in the state of MA have killed roughly two dozen people.
Click to expand...

I believe that's MORE than 3 weeks. How about a week or so after the Orange Line was reopened for business after the 30-day shutdown? :unsure:
 
millerm277 said:
Skimming the 3/23/23 board presentation, I found the numbers presented in a curious manner, that IMO seemed to take some pains to avoid noting anything about historical actual operating headcounts.

The MBTA indicates it currently has approximately 5,600 (operating) workers as of Feb 2023 in that presentation.

But historical data (Slide 5) suggests that's....pretty poor? https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...28-fmcb-5-pro-forma-headcount-assumptions.pdf

FY15 - 5,996
FY16 - 6,142
FY17 - 5,834
FY18 - 5,559 ("VRIP" - early retirement packages/offers)
FY19 - 5,747
FY20 - looks to have been at ~5,870 as of Oct 2019.
FY21 - looks to have been at ~5,958 as of Sept 2020. page 32 + was at ~5,439 as of June 2021. page 8 (6351-438-474)

Someone else can feel free to check my numbers.

---------

But it seems like in the past 1.5+ years we've managed to add...~150 (operating) positions, more or less. And we're still far below the pre-COVID peak or the pre-reduction peak in ~2015-16.

In that light, I'm not sure what the point of "budgeted headcounts" are when it seems like we're currently adding actual employees at a rate so slow that it'd take a decade or more to actually reach the FY23 budgeted numbers or anything close enough to be a realistic minimum of vacancies.

It also does seem to suggest one of the more obvious methods of improving the system: Actually staff the system.
Click to expand...
I did an analysis on this almost a year ago, and my numbers then basically track yours now. Granted, precovid 2019 staffing the T was generally always able to be more or less at fully staffed, given well-known waitlists for hiring in operator positions, minus early-outs and other reduction efforts then in place for budget reasons. I will say this isn't a MBTA only issue - something like 96% of all transit agencies say they have a labor shortage with 85% saying it impacts their ability to provide service, so it's not just a matter of saying "hire more" - it's a fundamental structural issue. The T historically hasn't had a great schedule for new hires, or pay particularly well as previously discussed on AB, which leads to many people either declining to taking other work. Where there's more separations than hiring, it creates a trap where you're always hiring to replace the guy that left, not growing the workforce. It needs to be "why can't I keep anyone?" APTA recently put a general report out on this, and it's reached entirely reasonable conclusions. Schedule and pay are tops, but so too are things like safety and management.
 
Stlin said:
I did an analysis on this almost a year ago, and my numbers then basically track yours now. Granted, precovid 2019 staffing the T was generally always able to be more or less at fully staffed, given well-known waitlists for hiring in operator positions, minus early-outs and other reduction efforts then in place for budget reasons. I will say this isn't a MBTA only issue - something like 96% of all transit agencies say they have a labor shortage with 85% saying it impacts their ability to provide service, so it's not just a matter of saying "hire more" - it's a fundamental structural issue. The T historically hasn't had a great schedule for new hires, or pay particularly well as previously discussed on AB, which leads to many people either declining to taking other work. Where there's more separations than hiring, it creates a trap where you're always hiring to replace the guy that left, not growing the workforce. It needs to be "why can't I keep anyone?" APTA recently put a general report out on this, and it's reached entirely reasonable conclusions. Schedule and pay are tops, but so too are things like safety and management.
Click to expand...

Question I always wondered even while a bus driver myself is why split shifts? I get having some split shifts for logistical and operational reasons but I couldn’t think of a reason why the majority of service couldn’t be covered by full 6-8hr overlapping shifts other than it’d cost more to pay wages of the workers. You can still factor in a break or return to the garage to swap vehicles or routes as part of the shift and I’d think it’d make the work more attractive to employees potential or current.

An example based on a work schedule I had before:

My split shift was a 6-10:30am on a Cambridge route then a 2:30-6pm Dot route. There were shifts that started before me in the early morning and ones that started in the mid afternoon. I couldn’t figure out why there wasn’t a shift that ran 5am-2pm and another from 1pm-9pm. It would’ve covered all service for the day including the bus swapping period in the midday where the morning person returns and the evening person departs the garage.
This example was for a service that ran from 6:40am-9pm with hourly off peak service midday so it doesn’t have a real 9-5 option, but for routes with all-day frequent service, having three shifts covering 4:30am-1:30am next day seems doable with rush hour overlaps.
 
Koopzilla24 said:
Question I always wondered even while a bus driver myself is why split shifts?
Click to expand...
Isn't this done to max service during the 6-10 and 3-7 time slots? We can get in to whether peak service levels should be higher than non-peak, but as long as commuting demand is the driver for how services are scheduled, split shifts are the main way to staff it.
 
HenryAlan said:
Isn't this done to max service during the 6-10 and 3-7 time slots? We can get in to whether peak service levels should be higher than non-peak, but as long as commuting demand is the driver for how services are scheduled, split shifts are the main way to staff it.
Click to expand...

That is indeed why it’s done but I don’t see why they cannot achieve the same with overlapping shifts in the rush hour. Doing so would be easier to accomplish with 24hr service but that’s unrealistic.There are part time workers who can fill in shorter rush hour only shifts and the MBTA for some reason limits new full time hires to 30 hours a week which would be 6 hour shifts making scheduling these overlaps easier. There’s also factoring in switching routes mid-shift that can make this work. I also feel it has a bit to do with seniority incentive. Having limited non-split work on infrequent routes is something that operators with higher seniority will want to grab first and is something they can strive for by remaining with the T. That and the pension.

A theoretical example:

-Driver #1 starts bright and early on the route 1 at 4am. They remain until 10am where they switch to a couple runs on an infrequent off peak route like the 75 for a couple trips until the end of their shift.
-Driver #2 reports to work for the 86 at 5am. They’re on that route until 9:30am where it switches to off peak frequency. Rather than having to wait a few hours to do their remaining 3 hours in the evening, they instead move to the 1 since it’s all day frequent. They remain there until their 1pm end time.
-Driver #3 reports in at 8am on the 1 and remains there until their shift end at 4pm. There’s a bit of a service overlap scheduled in the middle of the day where they have ~30min between trips to break and do whatever.
-Driver #4 reports at noon for the 1 and remains until 8pm.
-Finally, someone runs the late shift from 5pm-1am on the 1

Obviously there’d need to be more coordination with other routes and additional shift patterns like this to cover all Route 1 service for that day, but I think restructuring the T’s shift scheduling to better coordinate and optimize drive time would result in better service with less available operators. That and those operators would mostly be happier with one straight shift. It would be complicated and probably cost more though.
 
If drivers are a truly fungible resource, you might be able to do something like that. However, I thought drivers bid for routes or something like that.
 
RandomWalk said:
If drivers are a truly fungible resource, you might be able to do something like that. However, I thought drivers bid for routes or something like that.
Click to expand...

They do, which further makes it an unappealing job to apply for because as a new hire you will be stuck with one of the worst pieces of work by default as the last to bid. The bidding process would still exist and there would still be some split shifts and undesirable full ones, but this would make those more of the exception than the rule.
 
Here is an overly simplified view of the problem. The "drivers needed" comes from the T's bus operations by hour, which I used as a proxy. This assumes that all drivers work 8 hours, etc.
In the hours after rush hour, you end up with way too many people working to cover the system's requirements. I do think that BRND will partially alleviate this, as it moves towards flatter service hours.

1680111076970.png
 
Last edited:
737900er said:
Here is an overly simplified view of the problem. The "drivers needed" comes from the T's bus operations by hour, which I used as a proxy. This assumes that all drivers work 8 hours, etc.
In the hours after rush hour, you end up with way too many people working to cover the system's requirements. I do think that BRND will partially alleviate this, as it moves towards flatter service hours.

View attachment 35914
Click to expand...

My opinion is that there are no “system requirements” because that just means there’s the capacity to provide service even when not including the routes that would gain no riders during increased off peak service. More routes can be created to facilitate midday movement as patterns change during this time. But this is on the assumption of everyone working full 8 hour shifts when there are part time workers (I’m not sure exactly how many) along with 6 hour shifts that would effect the number of excess drivers for service. Again split shifts would still be required to make everything work as intended but I can’t make a complete illustration of this without knowing exactly how many people are hired for what number of daily or weekly hours worked. The goal is not to eliminate them entirely but coordinate schedules better to make them seldom used. Unions in the EU fought against the rise of split shifts in the early 2010s.

Side note: a driver’s schedule isn’t fixed to split-shift or full shift. There can be differences between days meaning a split-shift 2 days and a full shift the other 3 is another thing that can be done to reduce split shifts and excess drivers off peak
 
Hiring at the MBTA may be a challenge. :unsure:

commonwealthmagazine.org

CommonWealth Beacon

A trusted nonprofit, non-partisan source for in-depth news analysis, reporting & opinion on policy, politics, & civic life in Massachusetts.
commonwealthmagazine.org commonwealthmagazine.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top