General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[Riverside]

I think it can be debated until the cows come home and finer points might find justification. However, the big picture is that it does little to truly improve things, and generally is just feel good politics for those in favor, and polarizing wasteful politics to those against. There are bigger fish to fry.

I mean, a 20% reduction in travel times actually seems like a pretty significant improvement, especially with its resulting impact on equipment needs:

In fact, she said, the pilot cut down the amount of time Route 28 buses lingered at each station by 20% compared to similar routes because riders no longer had to queue up and pay fares to board.

EDIT: Lmao, I can’t read, it’s a 20% reduction in dwell times, as Arlington points out.

 

[Arlington]

To be clear, it cut *dwell time* 20%, not total trip time.

 

[Riverside]

To be clear, it cut *dwell time* 20%, not total trip time.

D’oh! Thank you, edited!

 

[bigeman312]

I'll be pedantic here: I think it's overly simplistic to imply that this is an issue that can simply be solved through spending. As I understand it, these are highly technical roles that require specific background and training, so there will be a limited applicant pool no matter what. And honestly, given, you know, everything else about the T, I'm guessing there is a lot of knowledge that is specific to the MBTA's way of doing things -- i.e. we can't just poach dispatchers from New York; even if we did, it'll take time to train them.

That being said, the fact that they allowed the situation to get this bad is utterly damning either way.

The MBTA itself claimed last summer that the training program takes less than two months for new dispatchers. There is no defense for this timeline if you are to believe the MBTA is a functional organization that is motivated to solve this problem. When they add that there’s a new whack-a-mole reason for the longer headways, the debate is whether the MBTA is sandbagging or unimaginably incompetent.

The Boston exceptionalism you’re exhibiting is just a symptom of your Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[737900er]

I'll be pedantic here: I think it's overly simplistic to imply that this is an issue that can simply be solved through spending. As I understand it, these are highly technical roles that require specific background and training, so there will be a limited applicant pool no matter what. And honestly, given, you know, everything else about the T, I'm guessing there is a lot of knowledge that is specific to the MBTA's way of doing things -- i.e. we can't just poach dispatchers from New York; even if we did, it'll take time to train them.

That being said, the fact that they allowed the situation to get this bad is utterly damning either way.

The published minimums are essentially a HS Diploma and 4 years as a Heavy Rail operator; not particularly limiting. If they do need people "with knowledge of Subway Operations Rapid Transit Lines, particularly in train dispatching operations" then there needs to be some pathway for employees to gain those skills.

Minimum Experience and Required Skills

• Four (4) years of service with the authority
• Two (2) years of experience as a Heavy Rail Motor person, Yard Motor person, Train Attendant, Tower person, Inspector, Chief Inspector, Train Starter or Yardmaster with knowledge of Subway Operations Rapid Transit Lines, particularly in train dispatching operations.
• Have excellent customer service and communication skills.
• Effective organizational, multi-tasking, time management and interpersonal skills. The ability to use Word, Excel or database applications.
• Ability to complete a ten (10) week training period.
• The ability to pass: background screenings; a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) check; and the MBTA's medical requirements, including a physical examination and drug and alcohol screening.
• Have a satisfactory work record including overall employment, job performance, discipline and safety records. For internal candidates, the aforementioned applies to the two (2) years immediately prior to the closing date of this posting. Infractions and/or offenses occurring after the closing of the posting and before the filling of a vacancy may preclude a candidate from consideration for selection and/or placement or retention on a Candidates List.
• The ability to provide internal and external customers with a courteous and professional experience.
• Have the ability to work any and all shifts and/or locations as assigned or directed. Be available to work twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
• The ability to supervise and work effectively with a diverse workforce.

 

[millerm277]

I'll offer a theory which may be controversial and I may have stated before:

I think the MBTA's job structure for many positions is extremely unattractive to most of the general public, and that the traditional seniority-based system of shift/route/task allocation basically makes it impossible to hire people with other options today short of a truly exorbitant salary. (This is not an anti-union rant, just an anti-current job structure rant). They may have gotten to delay that reckoning for a decade post-08 recession with desperate people needing jobs, but it seems to have been brewing since employment recovered.

Here's what I know about this job from the description and recent history:

- It explicitly demands that I'm available and willing to work 24/7.

- If I take this job, I will likely get the worst shifts for years and will probably be working many nights and most holidays whether I want to or not.

- Recent history has indicated the MBTA has severe staffing/retention challenges in this area and is willing to demand I work as much overtime as is legally allowed or more for long periods of time.

Who other than the desperate would take that?

------

I don't know what I propose as a fix, but I'll suggest breaking jobs up into at least an assigned (1st/2nd/3rd) shift instead of "must be available to work 24/7" would be a start. It's one thing to take a night-shift job. It's another to take a job where you have absolutely no idea what schedules you'll have to work.

 

[Delvin4519]

I'll offer a theory which may be controversial and I may have stated before:

I think the MBTA's job structure for many positions is extremely unattractive to most of the general public, and that the traditional seniority-based system of shift/route/task allocation basically makes it impossible to hire people with other options today short of a truly exorbitant salary. (This is not an anti-union rant, just an anti-current job structure rant). They may have gotten to delay that reckoning for a decade post-08 recession with desperate people needing jobs, but it seems to have been brewing since employment recovered.

Here's what I know about this job from the description and recent history:

- It explicitly demands that I'm available and willing to work 24/7.

- If I take this job, I will likely get the worst shifts for years and will probably be working many nights and most holidays whether I want to or not.

- Recent history has indicated the MBTA has severe staffing/retention challenges in this area and is willing to demand I work as much overtime as is legally allowed or more for long periods of time.

Who other than the desperate would take that?

------

I don't know what I propose as a fix, but I'll suggest breaking jobs up into at least an assigned (1st/2nd/3rd) shift instead of "must be available to work 24/7" would be a start. It's one thing to take a night-shift job. It's another to take a job where you have absolutely no idea what schedules you'll have to work.

What are the best ways to remove split shifts from the rush hour schedules, such as for buses? Would it be better to just run slightly decreased rush hour schedules and increase midday schedules to compensate in order to eliminate split shifts? I know it was one of the problems, especially with retention of bus operators.

Getting rid of express buses such as the 428 bus is one way; and transit should really be more than just 2 inbound buses in the morning AM peak, and 2 outbound buses PM peak.

 

[Riverside]

<snip>

All of this. Also, seriously, WTF is this: "Have the ability to work any and all shifts and/or locations as assigned or directed. Be available to work twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week." <--- THIS is what says to me that the T isn't serious about this problem. I understand that this requirement appears to be standard for the operator positions as well, but it's still unreasonable (all the more so for the additional reasons @millerm277 lays out). What kind of outside hire would agree to a job like this?

Which bring me to the next point:

The published minimums are essentially a HS Diploma and 4 years as a Heavy Rail operator; not particularly limiting. If they do need people "with knowledge of Subway Operations Rapid Transit Lines, particularly in train dispatching operations" then there needs to be some pathway for employees to gain those skills.

I disagree about the *2 years of experience requirement not being limiting. (And note that it explicitly requires 4 years of experience with the MBTA, which means that they aren't accepting external hires at all, which also reduces the pool of potential applicants further.) I'm not saying that the potential applicant pool is minuscule, but it does seem to me that there are enough non-cash problems in this situation that it's overly simplistic to say the T just needs to spend more money on it; the problem is much deeper and more damning than that.

The MBTA itself claimed last summer that the training program takes less than two months for new dispatchers. There is no defense for this timeline if you are to believe the MBTA is a functional organization that is motivated to solve this problem. When they add that there’s a new whack-a-mole reason for the longer headways, the debate is whether the MBTA is sandbagging or unimaginably incompetent.

The Boston exceptionalism you’re exhibiting is just a symptom of your Stockholm Syndrome.

Like I said, the two months timeline is only relevant if you can find people who are both willing and qualified, and that number is probably quite small. Particularly because, as recently as last summer, "Federal investigators said at the time some dispatchers were required to work 16- or 20-hour shifts followed by only four hours off, creating safety risks." That is insane, but it also required someone (probably multiple people) to look at the situation and say, "Hmm yeah, this is fine."

If you were applying for a job and found out that the only reason your prospective boss stopped having people work 20 hour shifts was because the federal government told them they had to stop, that tells you an awful lot about the work environment right there. Maybe there's some salary that would convince people to take that on, but I'm guessing lots of folks would not consider that for any amount of money. And since, definitionally, everyone applying for this job already has a job, there's even less incentive.

There is no defense for this timeline if you are to believe the MBTA is a functional organization that is motivated to solve this problem

I'm not defending it -- just saying that it's not just a matter of throwing money at the thing.

And as for my Boston exceptionalism -- if by that you mean that I believe that the T is exceptionally bad at following industry best practices, exceptionally bad at maintenance of infrastructure and organizations alike, exceptionally parochial with a "if it wasn't built here" mindset, and because of all of this exceptionally reliant on "local knowledge" and "institutional memory" in order to keep things working...

then yes, I plead guilty to Boston exceptionalism.

 

[bigeman312]

And as for my Boston exceptionalism -- if by that you mean that I believe that the T is exceptionally bad at following industry best practices, exceptionally bad at maintenance of infrastructure and organizations alike, exceptionally parochial with a "if it wasn't built here" mindset, and because of all of this exceptionally reliant on "local knowledge" and "institutional memory" in order to keep things working...

then yes, I plead guilty to Boston exceptionalism.

No. I think it was clear I was referring to this:

I'm guessing there is a lot of knowledge that is specific to the MBTA's way of doing things -- i.e. we can't just poach dispatchers from New York; even if we did, it'll take time to train them.

The idea that a dispatcher's skills aren't transferrable from NYC to the MBTA is absurd. It's a 2-month training program.

If the problem is terrible shifts, then hire more dispatchers, so that everyone can have predictable shifts. It's a basic role. This isn't difficult for most organizations. And it can be solved with money (and a willingness to solve the problem), and not very much of it.

 

[Riverside]

The idea that a dispatcher's skills aren't transferrable from NYC to the MBTA is absurd. It's a 2-month training program.

I agree it's an absurd idea, and that's kinda my point: it is all-too-conceivable that it's a 2-month training program if you're already familiar with the T and its, shall we say, quirks. It should be perfectly reasonable to hire NYC dispatchers, but I am guessing a lot of weird operational stuff has built up at the T over the years -- potentially enough to significantly complicate the training for an external hire.

But regardless, let's say that a dispatcher's skills are transferable from NYC to the T; in that case, the problem isn't that the T is refusing to spend money, it's that they are imposing unnecessary job requirements.

Look -- we're both saying that the current situation is absurd and unacceptable. And we both agree that the T is either uninterested or unable to solve this problem. I'm just saying that we shouldn't only hold the T accountable for being cheap -- we should also hold them accountable for operational decisions and employment policies.

 

[737900er]

I wonder how much the shift to OPTO has caused the dispatcher shortage. That significantly reduced the pool of qualified applicants, but didn't reduce the need for inspectors/dispatchers.

 

[djimpact1]

All of this. Also, seriously, WTF is this: "Have the ability to work any and all shifts and/or locations as assigned or directed. Be available to work twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week." <--- THIS is what says to me that the T isn't serious about this problem. I understand that this requirement appears to be standard for the operator positions as well, but it's still unreasonable (all the more so for the additional reasons @millerm277 lays out). What kind of outside hire would agree to a job like this?

I am extremely happy someone else has pointed this out. This is one reason why I haven't applied to anything there. I had great interest in a non-safety office management role, then I saw this statement, and said there's no justification in my life for having someone want me / call me to come in & push papers at 2:30am (regardless of how rare an occurrence that may be)...this, plus absent hope of having any form of scheduling consistency.

 

[bigeman312]

I agree it's an absurd idea, and that's kinda my point: it is all-too-conceivable that it's a 2-month training program if you're already familiar with the T and its, shall we say, quirks. It should be perfectly reasonable to hire NYC dispatchers, but I am guessing a lot of weird operational stuff has built up at the T over the years -- potentially enough to significantly complicate the training for an external hire.

But regardless, let's say that a dispatcher's skills are transferable from NYC to the T; in that case, the problem isn't that the T is refusing to spend money, it's that they are imposing unnecessary job requirements.

Look -- we're both saying that the current situation is absurd and unacceptable. And we both agree that the T is either uninterested or unable to solve this problem. I'm just saying that we shouldn't only hold the T accountable for being cheap -- we should also hold them accountable for operational decisions and employment policies.

Okay. I agree with this.

 

[737900er]

I am extremely happy someone else has pointed this out. This is one reason why I haven't applied to anything there. I had great interest in a non-safety office management role, then I saw this statement, and said there's no justification in my life for having someone want me / call me to come in & push papers at 2:30am (regardless of how rare an occurrence that may be)...this, plus absent hope of having any form of scheduling consistency.

There's also the irony that, even for an office role, a requirement like that basically means you must have a car. In fact, many jobs at the T are not really accessible by transit.

 

[Riverside]

In fact, many jobs at the T are not really accessible by transit.

Absent some level of 24-hour service (even including, for example, a Night Bus network), I'll admit that this irony doesn't bother me very much. Unless we decide to build employee housing at the garages and yards (don't get any ideas, MBTA!), there's always gonna have to be someone to get there first and turn things on for the day. But still, your point is well-made.

 

[stefal]

I agree it's an absurd idea, and that's kinda my point: it is all-too-conceivable that it's a 2-month training program if you're already familiar with the T and its, shall we say, quirks. It should be perfectly reasonable to hire NYC dispatchers, but I am guessing a lot of weird operational stuff has built up at the T over the years -- potentially enough to significantly complicate the training for an external hire.

But regardless, let's say that a dispatcher's skills are transferable from NYC to the T; in that case, the problem isn't that the T is refusing to spend money, it's that they are imposing unnecessary job requirements.

Look -- we're both saying that the current situation is absurd and unacceptable. And we both agree that the T is either uninterested or unable to solve this problem. I'm just saying that we shouldn't only hold the T accountable for being cheap -- we should also hold them accountable for operational decisions and employment policies.

Gonneville mentioned in the recent board meeting they're potentially going to expand the position to external applicants.

It'll likely be a lot more in-depth training on the system if they go this route. Everything from what lines go where, what station is on what branch, where oddities occur, etc., that a typical internal hire is going to know in a split second, which is essential for this role. I've overheard the radio from dispatch while sitting on the train when something goes wrong. It's constant communication regarding stations, locations, who's where, and where different people need to get to, especially in the core green line. I give them props - it's not impossible for an external hire, but I imagine 4+ years of driving a train or bus in those places certainly helps.


From what I've heard, for what it's worth, is that the "24/7" requirement on most job postings is just a regulatory copy and paste because it falls under some sort of classification. Some are certainly giving OT for night work with a days notice, but your typical 9-5 office job isn't going to see that even if it's listed in the description. Could be wrong there, but it does fit seem to fit the bill of outdated rule #1,001

 

[Riverside]

Gonneville mentioned in the recent board meeting they're potentially going to expand the position to external applicants.

It'll likely be a lot more in-depth training on the system if they go this route. Everything from what lines go where, what station is on what branch, where oddities occur, etc., that a typical internal hire is going to know in a split second, which is essential for this role. I've overheard the radio from dispatch while sitting on the train when something goes wrong. It's constant communication regarding stations, locations, who's where, and where different people need to get to, especially in the core green line. I give them props - it's not impossible for an external hire, but I imagine 4+ years of driving a train or bus in those places certainly helps.


From what I've heard, for what it's worth, is that the "24/7" requirement on most job postings is just a regulatory copy and paste because it falls under some sort of classification. Some are certainly giving OT for night work with a days notice, but your typical 9-5 office job isn't going to see that even if it's listed in the description. Could be wrong there, but it does fit seem to fit the bill of outdated rule #1,001

That's great to hear!

 

[Tallguy]

Absent some level of 24-hour service (even including, for example, a Night Bus network), I'll admit that this irony doesn't bother me very much. Unless we decide to build employee housing at the garages and yards (don't get any ideas, MBTA!), there's always gonna have to be someone to get there first and turn things on for the day. But still, your point is well-made.

Not only do they expect every employee to drive to work, whether you work 9-5 or open up, they provide about 120% of parking spaces per total employees, even though what is the likelihood that every employee will be there at the same time?

 

[Jahvon09]

Wu should've made more buses have free rides instead of just the ones to Mattapan . That is ridiculous to just have a few of the bus lines offering free rides!!

 

[Jahvon09]

The fam of Robinson Lalin is planning on suing the MBTA over the death of Lalin, who was dragged to his death off the platform after his arm got caught in a doorway of the train. I believe that it's for the wrongful death. No specified amount was given. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) has confirmed that the cause of the tragic accident was the result or a faulty door switch that had short-circuited, holding the transit agency Soley responsible for the accident.