General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

TheRatmeister said:
Because they don't want to guarantee (At least in the eyes of the public) that work will be done several months in advance. Prematurely announcing closures could cause any number of problems from unneeded external pressure to meet targets, frustration and anger from local communities if they have not had time to take into account local events, and general annoyance if some unforeseen circumstances cause schedules to change. If they were to announce work between Forest Hills and Ruggles 3 months in advance for example, but then more urgent repairs needed to take place between Alewife and Porter requiring the scheduled work to be canceled, now you have local politics getting involved, and people start accusing the MBTA of putting wealthy Cambridge in front of poorer Roxbury for improvement works, regardless of the importance of the work. This can all be avoided by playing it safe and announcing works only for the near future.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, those are the downsides of publishing a track work schedule. But then why did Eng promise to publish a schedule of when track work would get done? And why did he change his mind? He knew everything you're saying when he made the promise and nothing really changed between then and his reneging.
 
king_vibe said:
Why is Eng getting permission from LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS to do track work? What the fuck kind of logic is that?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, the T doesn't need "permission" from local businesses. The article says that track shutdowns "requires discussions with elected officials and local business owners." Whatever the "discussions" are is pretty vague, but local businesses can't veto track work. People want the T to get fixed quickly, anyways. The collaboration with local businesses seems to mostly be about setting up alternative transportation plans, especially if there are large schedule events during track repairs, like this one https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/09...-during-union-square-stop-closure-green-line/
 
ritchiew said:
Absolutely, those are the downsides of publishing a track work schedule. But then why did Eng promise to publish a schedule of when track work would get done? And why did he change his mind? He knew everything you're saying when he made the promise and nothing really changed between then and his reneging.
Click to expand...
The other missing consideration was the Eng may have (mistakenly) initially thought that the T had a handle on the magnitude of the deterioration and hence needed track work.

What he has since discovered is that the T was not only neglecting maintenance, it was also neglecting looking for maintenance needs (and cataloging such needs). Therefor you cannot provide a schedule for the repair of an unknown magnitude problem, one that is likely getting worse every day.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The other missing consideration was the Eng may have (mistakenly) initially thought that the T had a handle on the magnitude of the deterioration and hence needed track work.

What he has since discovered is that the T was not only neglecting maintenance, it was also neglecting looking for maintenance needs (and cataloging such needs). Therefor you cannot provide a schedule for the repair of an unknown magnitude problem, one that is likely getting worse every day.
Click to expand...
This basically has to be true to some degree, there's no way Eng knew (Or even still does know, maybe nobody really does) quite how bad things have gotten.
 
ritchiew said:
None of that really explains why they can't provide a timeline for fixing slow zones. I mean, they can't give a timeline because they have to follow safety protocols? That makes no sense.
The T does actually have an internal schedule for when work will be done. They could make that public.
Click to expand...
Unknown externalities make it impossible for the T to know whether they'll be able to keep that internal schedule. Imagine if the schedule were public and kept changing, just how much chaos that would create.
 
HenryAlan said:
Unknown externalities make it impossible for the T to know whether they'll be able to keep that internal schedule. Imagine if the schedule were public and kept changing, just how much chaos that would create.
Click to expand...
Sure. They could mitigate those problems. A repair schedule might be incomplete and only show the slow zones they will fix imminently. Any schedule could come with a pile of caveats that "dates are subject to change." And when deadlines slip, that's useful for the public and policy makers to know so we can figure out what is going on. That's a part of transparency.

I think my main point was this, though: Not putting out a schedule and just getting the work done can be a fine policy. Or they could put out a schedule to promote transparency, which is my preference, but I see the downsides. The worst policy is to promise transparency then not do it, which is what they did. That's exacerbated by their explanation for the reneging which is just pointing to totally foreseeable obstacles. It's like they're saying "We promised a schedule, but we didn't expect to have to collaborate with third parties or strictly follow safety protocols."
 
Jahvon09 said:
It might seem hard to believe, but according to GM Phillip Eng, there are no more slow zones on the GLX!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...&cvid=009f2de6d3284bdf8966ff140d369019&ei=18e

He said that the line is fixed & that the trolleys are now running at normal speeds of 40mph. :)
Click to expand...
Lynn Commuter Rail station will have temporary platform ready 9 months early, another piece of good news. Note: the temporary location will be 3 blocks away from the typical station.

Temporary Lynn Commuter Rail Station Platform Expected to Open in December, Nine Months Ahead of Schedule | News | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
 
MBTA bus vacanies update:
2023-08-30: 357 vacancies
2023-10-04: 295 vacancies

1697120912127.png
1697120878156.png
 
Last edited:
ritchiew said:
Sure. They could mitigate those problems. A repair schedule might be incomplete and only show the slow zones they will fix imminently. Any schedule could come with a pile of caveats that "dates are subject to change." And when deadlines slip, that's useful for the public and policy makers to know so we can figure out what is going on. That's a part of transparency.

I think my main point was this, though: Not putting out a schedule and just getting the work done can be a fine policy. Or they could put out a schedule to promote transparency, which is my preference, but I see the downsides. The worst policy is to promise transparency then not do it, which is what they did. That's exacerbated by their explanation for the reneging which is just pointing to totally foreseeable obstacles. It's like they're saying "We promised a schedule, but we didn't expect to have to collaborate with third parties or strictly follow safety protocols."
Click to expand...
The reality of it all is more “We promise we’ll reveal a schedule whenever we can even make a schedule”

They have been scheduling repairs for closures and notifying the public over a month in advance since the spring. We’ve only just gone beyond 6 months since the systemwide slow zones implementation. They can’t exactly create a multi-month or multi-year plan to solve a problem that hasn’t even been figured out entirely. That’s exactly what they tried to do and it’s resulted in, as folks have pointed out, delays and fixes that appear to have not done anything as while they’re fixing things they find new things that are broken. This leads to the complaints that “the T is doing nothing and saying nothing.” The extent of neglect of the system means that it’d take time until the T found every problem and took the steps necessary to address it all in a comprehensive plan. If they had gone that route instead of pop-up surges, then between March and now almost nothing would have gotten done.

This Ashmont/Mattapan shutdown has been the first major scheduled plan to perform repairs to eliminate slow zones since this mess started. Everything up until this point has been minor works (tamping and adjustments), already scheduled major works (Tufts Curve), and responses to sudden major issues (Packard’s Corner derailment). With this step 1 the T has disclosed the specific details of what, where, and when. In the background, the level of transparency of what the T is doing has become greater than any public agency. While I wish they’d publish more things in an obvious manner it is all available on their website if you look for it.

If you have any specific things you feel as though the T isn’t transparent about I’d be happy to dig through the site to find answers because they sure didn’t make it the easiest thing to do.
 
The strange case of the disappearing MBTA podcast

Last week, the MBTA debuted a new podcast, "Spilling the T," billed by host and T staffer Andrew Cassidy as a regular "deep dive" into the big issues facing the system. The first guest? General Manager Phillip Eng, who made for a more engaging interviewee than some might have expected.

Instead of coming across as a bland, guarded bureaucrat, Eng was refreshingly forthright about the T's ongoing struggles, from the slowdowns that frustrate riders to safety concerns that have put workers and the public at risk. At the same time, he spoke with genuine enthusiasm about the satisfaction that comes from working collaboratively to solve massive, seemingly intractable problems. And — notably — he stressed that better communication between the T and its customers will be an essential part of improving the system.

"We certainly can do better at sharing why we are doing things. ... The more information we share, the better feedback we get," Eng said. He added: "If people don't have information, that's where the frustration comes in ... the lack of trust, the lack of confidence in us."

If you were a former T rider who's been steering clear lately, Eng's pitch just might have been enough to make you give it another try. But the audience wasn't nearly as big as it could have been — because, less than two hours after it was posted, the episode was wiped from podcast platforms. Fortunately, you can still hear it thanks to StreetsblogMASS, which found someone who'd downloaded the episode and then reposted the audio.

The T told State House News Service that the inaugural episode was posted in error, and that "Spilling the T" will return soon. But that explanation raises other questions. If last Thursday wasn't the intended drop date, what was? If there weren't any problems with the interview, why not leave it online once it was sent out into the world? When can we expect the episode to resurface? And did anyone involved consider the implications of disappearing — almost instantaneously — an interview stressing the importance of transparency and good communication?

There's another key piece of context here, and it involves the Healey administration. As a candidate, Maura Healey said she'd stop claiming the exemption to the state's public records law invoked by past governors. Now that she's in office, though, she continues to do so while handling requests on a case-by-case basis — effectively the same approach used by her predecessor, Charlie Baker.

And yet, when the topic comes up, Healey continues to tout the virtues of transparency, including when it comes to the MBTA. During a photo op on the Red Line earlier this year, Healey said of the T: "I'm not gonna sugarcoat anything. ... We will be transparent with whatever the facts are."

In this particular case, though, the facts remain murky. Here's another question: might someone in the Healey administration have balked at something Eng said during his interview — a criticism of the Baker years or the present moment, say, or a pledge of future improvement? (At one point, Eng linked the T's problems to "years and years of disinvestment," a characterization that could rankle Baker and other policymakers.) Might that have played a role in the episode's disappearance?

A Healey spokesperson didn't immediately respond when asked if the governor's office was involved in some way. A T spokesperson reiterated that the inaugural episode was posted prematurely, and said it would be reposted "soon," followed by additional episodes. When that happens, you may want to listen as quickly as you can.
Click to expand...
 
It is almost certain that the Healey admin stopped the podcast. I have heard from people on the inside that similar things occurred under the Baker admin and the Patrick admin where seemingly benign stuff was held back from release by someone in the Gov's office. I don't know or care what they objected to but the T will not really improve until its leaders are able to do things without micromanaging from people in the Governor's office who are more concerned with the political future of the Governor than the long-term health of the transit system.

This is the key issue; the Governor essentially manages the MBTA but suffers no real electoral penalty for it being bad and especially not for dysfunction under the hood or issues like deferring long-term maintenance. And not very much of the Legislature cares either (especially to stick their neck out on anything). So unless you are lucky enough to get a governor who actually cares about sustainable transportation, the incentive is just for the governor to do enough for the bad news to go away and not really to give autonomy to the GM or Secretary to make any promises or do any of the deep, hard work that will give short term pain and only pay off after the Governor is out of office. Also, the political incentives favor expansion of the system over efficiencies (like closing a barely-used commuter rail station) or state of good repair, which is another huge issue for decision-making and prioritizing funding and competent managers.

Things have gotten so bad that Healey will be forced to do something, particularly with the fiscal cliff upcoming, but it remains unclear whether it will be just enough to make the bad news go away or will actually have positive long-term outcomes. Shuttering a podcast may seem minor but it's not a good sign.
 
Not sure the best thread, but, I can say traffic so far has been markedly worse with the Red Line/HSL shutdown. I was also impressed with the MBTA's setup for the temp bus stops on the HSL - as someone who took it when it was bustituted all those winters ago and the MBTA drivers couldn't even figure out the stops themselves, this is a huge step up. So hats off there. What I don't quite get is that they have a person at every single stop (well two people - one on each side of the road). Just doesn't seem like the best use of resources and is a bit overkill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top