General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

If it hasn't collapsed in that 100 years, then maybe. At least, without some more uncountable billions being plunked into it. Then we might recoup our costs. EDR Group estimated that the annual benefit of the Big Dig was $168 million. 22000/168 = 131 years.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Fuzzy math Matthew. The cost is more like $15B. I don't know why the Big Dig is the only government initiative that gets saddled with non-discounted future interest payments.
You could also argue that one should back out the cost of dismantling the old central artery since that had to happen anyway.
The benefits number I heard was around $200M per year in traffic savings alone (time and fuel). Not sure how to quantify the benefits from billions spent on mitigation (parks, a pretty design for the zakim bridge, etc.).
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Big Dig Payback:
Matthew's Number: 22000/168 = 131 year payback
Legend's Number: 15000/200 = 75 year payback

We have to hope that the future values go up at the same % rate that the governments had to borrow at (this is reasonable, and sure simplifies the math)

Legend, do you think the useful life of the Big Dig tunnels is 75 years? If not (I don't) and it needs to be substantially rebuilt at year 30, then you'll never get the benefits of year 30 to 75.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Mark02474 said:
What is the lesson to be learned from the existing subway stops which have not stimulated growth? I'm thinking some blue line and orange line stops. Lets fix those places and use the lessons when picking areas for expansion.
Click to expand...

Mark -- no one builds subways to stimulate growth -- just like highways and major streets they get built to accomodate growth that is happening and outstripping the existing transportation infrastructure

You've been reading too many urban planning books

Assembly Sq. will be a good case study as it is accomodating a new urban-density development in the middle of an existing and fairly busy line whose existing use is dominated by commuting to the downtown area

According to the theorey with a few million sq ft of space there should be a significant reverse direction commute as well as off-peak use -- come back around 2025 and we can see how it worked out
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Arlington said:
Legend, do you think the useful life of the Big Dig tunnels is 75 years? If not (I don't) and it needs to be substantially rebuilt at year 30, then you'll never get the benefits of year 30 to 75.
Click to expand...

Sumner Tunnel is at 81 and counting.
But keep in mind the 200M was just congestion savings. It didn't include the harder to quantify benefits (parks, increased re values, "pretty" bridges, etc.)
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

BostonUrbEx said:
MassDOT still lists Red-Blue Connector as a major study: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/CurrentStudies.aspx

I thought it was dropped along with BLX Lynn and Urban Ring? Apparently it still lives... or it's just undead at least...
Click to expand...

It's undead. The MBTA board motioned last year to have it removed from the state Implementation Plan. The CLF is challenging the legal jurisdiction of such a move (can't remember the grounds, but it was a different and potentially stickier tact than simply breaking another transit commitment). And the EOT hasn't acted on the T's request. Because not acting is the only thing preventing the lawsuit filing, so it's at a standoff. And will be until definitely post-election and definitely until somebody takes first stab at agency reform, and probably until they can no longer put off a ruling on the request. Hear no evil, see no evil.

Mind you, this is only for completing the EIS.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Mark02474 said:
Two reactions:
During heavy commuting hours with more frequent trains, some trains should be designated expresses, skipping low load/unload stations.
Click to expand...

That's not possible unless the T implements a third express rail. It wouldn't make a difference if certain trains go express if it runs into the non-express train ahead of it and this situation is bound to happen during heavy commuting hours when they are running trains every five minutes.

While stations from Community College to Wellington Station is outfitted with an express track, there are only 3 (soon to be 4) stations in this section and none of them with the exception of Sullivan Station sees extremely high load of passengers.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Thanks for the info on express rail.

This weekend I stumbled upon a document while doing a search:
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/stip/fy1114/Part3_Status.pdf
Starting about 30% through are MBTA stats. Mean Miles Between Failures look OK for Red, Orange, and Blue lines at roughly 30,000 miles, comparable to our cars. The troubling numbers are for the Green line and commuter rail, around 3,000 miles between failure, one tenth the others. Buses are a little better at 6-9,000 mi. These are awful numbers, so there is no way to run a service well with such equipment. This is what needs fixing, not a GLX!

As an aside, from the National Transit Database, it seems current diesel buses have 20% worse MPG now than before 2005. I wonder how much is due to city roads changed to waste more fuel and how much from the new buses in the fleet.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

New MBTA buses are CNG, so the information about diesel, while interesting, isn't particularly important. I'm curious about the mean miles between failures statistics. What should we expect for each vehicle type? I'm not sure we can say whether 30,000 for rapid transit vehicles is good or bad, simply by comparing it to private operator motor vehicles. Likewise, how do we know that 3,000 miles for LRT and commuter rail rolling stock is bad? What is the industry standard?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

HenryAlan said:
New MBTA buses are CNG, so the information about diesel, while interesting, isn't particularly important.
Click to expand...

You are wrong and need to check facts. CNG buses get less than 2 MPG while diesel get about 4.7mpg. CNG bus refueling is slow and needs to be done more frequently, so too much service time is lost for long or frequent routes. The MBTA made much press around 2005 about upgrades to the diesel bus fleet with lowered emissions. They neglected to include green house gas emissions for their claim, however. Hybrid buses and locomotives are available, but not cost effective (much higher purchase cost, higher maintenance cost). That won't stop the MBTA from buying them, however.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Mark02474 said:
You are wrong and need to check facts. CNG buses get less than 2 MPG while diesel get about 4.7mpg. CNG bus refueling is slow and needs to be done more frequently, so too much service time is lost for long or frequent routes. The MBTA made much press around 2005 about upgrades to the diesel bus fleet with lowered emissions. They neglected to include green house gas emissions for their claim, however. Hybrid buses and locomotives are available, but not cost effective (much higher purchase cost, higher maintenance cost). That won't stop the MBTA from buying them, however.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension isn't your thing. You state that I'm wrong and need to check the facts, then refute a point I didn't make. I made no statement regarding which technology yields the better mileage, simply noted which technology was being purchased. Then you follow-up with a bunch of unverified assertions, all the while neglecting to provide any response to the questions I had about your initial assertions. And for the record, which type of bus gets better mileage might not even be the most important consideration, if we are discussing pollution.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

HenryAlan said:
Reading comprehension isn't your thing. You state that I'm wrong and need to check the facts, then refute a point I didn't make. I made no statement regarding which technology yields the better mileage, simply noted which technology was being purchased. Then you follow-up with a bunch of unverified assertions, all the while neglecting to provide any response to the questions I had about your initial assertions. And for the record, which type of bus gets better mileage might not even be the most important consideration, if we are discussing pollution.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're not doing much in the way of CNG purchasing anymore. It didn't end up being the wave of the future they'd hoped, and they haven't purchased any new ones since 2004. Right now Cabot, Arborway, and Southampton are the only bus garages they're assigned to (Cabot and Southampton so close to each other they may even share a single fueling station). Arborway is the only one that has planned expansion of its CNG facilities, presumably so they can continue to bob-and-weave around the neighborhood air quality concerns on the 39 and Silver Line. I don't think there are currently any new CNG purchases planned, as all the new orders to date have been Emission-Controlled Diesel and that seems to be what they're planning for FY2013-17 procurements to replace the last of the non- low-floor diesels. It's entirely possible when the Arborway facility is expanded that the entire CNG fleet is going to be isolated there and every other garage will stay diesel.

CNG had a lot of promise, especially before hybrid tech got its footing. But unless they were to go whole-hog and replace damn near everything with it the advantages aren't big enough over diesel to merit the expense of retrofitting every single garage with a second set of fueling facilities and then have a decade-and-a-half overlap of having to support both fuels at every location. If they're going to experiment with new fuel tech, experiment with some diesel sippers and better hybrid/regenerative braking performance. It's not like the trumped-up air quality benefits of CNG as excuse to not invest in overstressed transit corridors has worked too well at snowing over the lower-income neighborhoods.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Actually, they're not doing much in the way of CNG purchasing anymore. It didn't end up being the wave of the future they'd hoped, and they haven't purchased any new ones since 2004.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised. I figured with natural gas price being so low right now I would think there would be real operational savings over diesel. Ignoring for a moment the (substantial) upfront investment - does anyone know if the CNG buses are cheaper to run?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

AmericanFolkLegend said:
I'm surprised. I figured with natural gas price being so low right now I would think there would be real operational savings over diesel. Ignoring for a moment the (substantial) upfront investment - does anyone know if the CNG buses are cheaper to run?
Click to expand...

They're not cheaper to manufacture. About a quarter of the current fleet was built by Neoplan, the manufacturer the T literally bankrupted by forcing to design the never-before-attempted Frankenstein dual-modes on the Silver Line. NABI has the majority of the CNG fleet with 300 vehicles, and New Flyer built the small original order of them back in '99-00. They've been buying a lot of the newer ECD diesels from New Flyer of late, so they seem to be the choice vendor of the moment. But they've gone the longest of the 3 CNG builders since last delivery so who knows if they're interested or putting out overly competitive CNG bids. The T isn't hard-wedded with its new orders to any particular fuel type...the ECD's have simply won out on value the last couple orders and they appear to be staying the course with them.

I think buses last about 15 years before they need a rebuild, and the oldest high-floor ones they're phasing out date to 1994-95. Unlike rail vehicles and TT's the regular buses top out at about 20-year lifespan and rarely, if ever, go longer than that (not surprising...that's about the max 95% of the population ever pushes a car or truck). So the first order of CNG's hasn't got too many more years of service before they need to make a procurement decision on whether to replace/supplement or phase out. Too far ahead of the FY13-17 projects for them to list it, but we may know in a year or two when they spec out the FY18 and FY19 needs whether they even want to order any more CNG's.

I don't really see why they'd have much enthusiasm for it if the ECD's are filling the need and have more room to grow on the fuel efficiency side, and if the CNG fleet is going to become a primarily Arborway garage-centric assignment not mixed in elsewhere on the system.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Buses getting lower average miles per gallon has nothing to do with traffic calming. Stricter emissions regulations requiring a reformulation of fuel to low sulfur variety, and safety and accessibility standards adding weight to buses are responsible.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

omaja said:
I'm not betting they have anywhere near the sophisticated data collection nor proper modelling or analysis required to truly show that this policy has had any material difference to ridership. And they don't really need to, either.

Implementing the policy was a knee-jerk reaction to the whining of the public at the fare increase hearings. People kept complaining about fare evaders so they provided a zero-sum "solution".

I would think other factors, such as a residual influence from the spike in gas prices in April, would have had a greater impact. The weather in May this year was also much nicer than a year ago which would influence weekend and non-essential travel to a degree as well. Basically - could be anything while they are trying to spin it as "Gee, look, we're still increasing ridership and now it has to be because of our new policy - see, it's working!!"
Click to expand...

It just dawned on me this morning as the conductor kept opening the back doors to speed up boarding... is there any way to accurately measure boardings for people with passes not on CharlieCards? They never make you validate because the machines take too long. Or, for that matter, any passes that were boarded through the back?

Seems like this whole miraculous "increase" in ridership in May is not from any actual increase, nor does it mean that the MBTA is really capturing any more revenue than it was previously. Sure, there are a few fare evaders that get by but I have to think that the single largest uptick was capturing all of the undocumented monthly pass boardings. Still missing plenty of non-CharlieCard monthlies and weeklies, though.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I have been wondering about that as well (people who wave passes). It seems like a significant undercount if only machine reader counts are considered.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'm pretty sure I've read that they use sampling and visual counts and a number of statistical methods rather than only relying on the card readers for data. Transit systems have been keeping ridership statistics from the beginning, with techniques that were effective long before any kind of fare box data collection was possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top