General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[bigeman312]

OK, but if you haven't gotten the line back to design speeds, you have not eliminated all the slow zones.

That is called moving the goal posts.

It’s actually not called moving the goal posts. You are confusing two unrelated things.

“Moving the goal posts” implies that a promise was made, then the promise was changed. In this instance, the promise that was made was that the slow zones would be removed by repairing and replacing the track infrastructure to get it into a state of good repair. That promise is being delivered on.

It appears that you believed the promise was to return service to what it was decades ago. That promise was never made.

There is a difference between realizing you were mistaken and having the “goal posts moved.”

 

[bakgwailo]

Didn't Eng commit to full 50 mph restoration by end of the year (or early next year) on the Braintree Branch? I don't see why he doesn't have the benefit of the doubt at this point on delivering on that, nor do I think it is moving the goal post - if anything a stretch goal that was unexpected.

 

[The EGE]

No, the only timed commitment was 40 mph with no speed restrictions. The work for 50 mph was only described as "lay[ing] the groundwork".

Major Red Line Braintree Branch Improvement Work to Take Place September 6 – 29, MBTA to Remove 20+ Speed Restrictions | 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

 

[Balerion]

No, the only timed commitment was 40 mph with no speed restrictions. The work for 50 mph was only described as "lay[ing] the groundwork".

Major Red Line Braintree Branch Improvement Work to Take Place September 6 – 29, MBTA to Remove 20+ Speed Restrictions | 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

Eng did say this:

Eng cautioned that speeds on the Braintree branch of the Red Line won’t immediately rise to 50 miles per hour at the end of September. He said it will take an extra two months for drivers to receive training on operating at that speed and some equipment will have to be certified for that speed. (Some of the Red Line cars date to 1969.)

Eng says MBTA becoming more and more reliable

Eng also announced that a 24-day shutdown of the Braintree branch of the Red Line in September will eliminate 20 speed restrictions and lay the foundation for raising the top speed of trains on that branch from 40 to 50 miles per hour by early December. Subway trains haven’t gone that fast for...

commonwealthbeacon.org

 

[JeffDowntown]

It’s actually not called moving the goal posts. You are confusing two unrelated things.

“Moving the goal posts” implies that a promise was made, then the promise was changed. In this instance, the promise that was made was that the slow zones would be removed by repairing and replacing the track infrastructure to get it into a state of good repair. That promise is being delivered on.

It appears that you believed the promise was to return service to what it was decades ago. That promise was never made.

There is a difference between realizing you were mistaken and having the “goal posts moved.”

I guess we need to agree to disagree.

If the T can chose any arbitrary speed to not be a slow zone, then what is to stop them from declaring the new optimal speed is 30 mph, or 20 mph. Speed limit all the lines and nothing is a slow zone.

I hold my point that anything below the design speed for the line is a slow zone.

 

[Longfellow]

Is there a time savings estimate for 50mph? I recall someone saying its not that much? I know segments of the long branches benefit from it, obviously.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Is there a time savings estimate for 50mph? I recall someone saying its not that much? I know segments of the long branches benefit from it, obviously.

Assuming an average acceleration of 2.5 MPH/s, about 2:30 on the Braintree branch, optimistically 2 minutes on the entire OL, around 40 seconds on the Alewife extension, and ~1:30 on the D branch.

 

[bigpicture7]

I hold my point that anything below the design speed for the line is a slow zone.

Your logic seems fair, but flipping this around also presents a problem in my opinion:

Even though the speeds people have been used to for decades have been re-achieved -- and, arguably, today's speeds are now better than anyone has in recent memory -- the T ought to get little or no credit for the recent efforts because system performance is still merely at a standard of "bare minimum"

^Well, this is also problem since we are in an era of deep jadedness about institutional performance, where the wrong messaging will just send people further away from using public transit. This is an MBTA administration that is authentically and clearly outperforming any of its predecessor administrations for the past 30+ years. Is it really accurate or beneficial to anyone to say "they're performing just as badly?" I don't see how that is accurate or a useful message. I am all for truthfulness in government accountability, but I actually think it is legitimately useful to "take credit" for performance at/above decades-long norms.

The problem is not your core value, IMO, but with a paradox in using the goalpost analogy. Here, the T can (and should, IMO) legitimately check the box that they made a substantive jump in performance. At the same time, a binary perfect/not-perfect metric of success doesn't make sense either.

 

[HenryAlan]

I guess we need to agree to disagree.

If the T can chose any arbitrary speed to not be a slow zone, then what is to stop them from declaring the new optimal speed is 30 mph, or 20 mph. Speed limit all the lines and nothing is a slow zone.

I hold my point that anything below the design speed for the line is a slow zone.

From my perspective, you are the one who picked an arbitrary speed as the benchmark for what is and is not a slow zone. We've already explained to you that state of good repair rail and track bed is not all that is required to achieve 50 MPH. We've also explained to you why changing regulatory and other issues render this era as not directly comparable to the 70s and 80s. The MBTA is taking the view that track related slowdowns have been eliminated. They are correct, and there is no basis for disputing this fact. It's okay to acknowledge that you didn't understand what they meant by slow zone. It's not okay to demand that they use your personal definition and have therefore made no progress.

 

[Delvin4519]

Assuming an average acceleration of 2.5 MPH/s, about 2:30 on the Braintree branch, optimistically 2 minutes on the entire OL, around 40 seconds on the Alewife extension, and ~1:30 on the D branch.

3 minutes and 10 seconds on the entire Alewife - Braintree segment is still significant enough to improve the off peak headways. It'd be comparable with the amount of time you can gain on the OL (since the Braintree end to end time is just over 50 min compared to 37 min for OL).

If the OL is spend up from a 37 minute roundtrip to 35 minutes, you'll still shaving 20 - 30 seconds off the Saturday and Sunday headways. That'd net you 3% more trips with 3 extra roundtrips on the weekend schedules. You can run 101 Sunday trips instead of 98 in the same time.

2 minutes is still pretty signficant in amount the off-peak headways can decrease.

8 trainsets on Sunday means you shorten Sunday headways by 15 seconds.

Fall 2024 schedules use runtimes as of mid-2024, which was 42 minutes for a one way trip. Early data from TransitMatters suggests OL is currently able to run a one way trip in 36 minutes. For sake of simplicity, let's say a roundtrip of the OL includes 9 minute buffers on either terminal.

# Trainsets	Fall 2024 schedules (mid-2024 runtimes = 42 mins one way) Headway:	36 minute runtime (estimate of one way trip for full speed OL today) Headway:	35 minute one way trip runtime (raise speed from 40 -> 55 MPH) Headway:
8 (Sunday)	12.8 min	11.3 min	11 min
9	11.3 min	10 min	9.8 min
10 (Saturday)	10.2 min	9 min	8.8 min
11	9.2 min	8.2 min	8 min
12 (Weekday evening)	8.5 min	7.5 min	7.3 min
13 (Weekday interpeak)	7.8 min	6.9 min	6.8 min
14	7.2 min	6.4 min	6.3 min
15	6.8 min	6 min	5.9 min
16	6.4 min	5.6 min	5.5 min
17 (AM/PM weekday peak)	6 min	5.3 min	5.2 min

IMO I still think making the Orange faster at 55 MPH is a worthwile endeavor. Saturday and Sunday headways each shave 15 seconds off the wait time from the scheduled headway.

10.2 minute headways on Saturday is unacceptably long and requires printed timetables with scheduled departures. 9 minutes is still meh, but 8.8 minute headways allows for 7 trains per hour service, which is SUAG, and means timetables are only needed for Sunday service. Weekday interpeak and evening service also improve decently. Today's it's every 7.5 - 9 minutes, but frequency increases to every 7 - 7.5 minutes. Raise operating speeds from 40 to 55 and headways further decrease to every 6.8 - 7.3 minutes.

 

[bigeman312]

I guess we need to agree to disagree.

If the T can chose any arbitrary speed to not be a slow zone, then what is to stop them from declaring the new optimal speed is 30 mph, or 20 mph. Speed limit all the lines and nothing is a slow zone.

I hold my point that anything below the design speed for the line is a slow zone.

I don’t understand this logic. The track conditions (which can necessitate slow zones) and the line speed limit set by regulatory standards are two completely different things.

Maybe a road analogy will help you understand the situation better:

My street used to have a speed limit of 25 mph. Now, my street has a speed limit of 20 mph. Imagine the city promises to repair and repave the street to remove all pot holes and bring the surface up to a state of good repair. Now, imagine they do exactly what they promise. Hooray! They achieved their stated goal!

Did they move the goal posts by not reverting back to the 25 mph speed limit of yesteryear? Obviously not.

If you don’t agree with that, and believe that means the city moved the goals posts, then you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye about what the phrase “move the goalposts” means, and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I don’t understand this logic. The track conditions (which can necessitate slow zones) and the line speed limit set by regulatory standards are two completely different things.

Maybe a road analogy will help you understand the situation better:

My street used to have a speed limit of 25 mph. Now, my street has a speed limit of 20 mph. Imagine the city promises to repair and repave the street to remove all pot holes and bring the surface up to a state of good repair. Now, imagine they do exactly what they promise. Hooray! They achieved their stated goal!

Did they move the goal posts by not reverting back to the 25 mph speed limit of yesteryear? Obviously not.

If you don’t agree with that, and believe that means the city moved the goals posts, then you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye about what the phrase “move the goalposts” means, and will have to agree to disagree.

In the 1970's and 80's we (transit consumers) bought Red Line transit extensions, parts of which had 50 mph capabilities. That was the spec of what we purchased.

Today, those line extensions can only operate at 40 mph -- only 80 % of what we purchased as a transit line. 40 mph is slower than 50 mph -- we do not yet have back what we purchased as transit.

I am not saying this track work was supposed to get us back to design specifications. But until ALL the work needed to restore full performance is completed the line is still slower than what we paid for.

 

[Delvin4519]

BNRD Phase 1 is starting and the MBTA failed to undo the Summer 2023 bus service reductions for the Winter 2025 service changes.

Bus service that was taken away under Eng and under the previous administration, from Winter 2022 - Summer 2023 for the operator shortage has still NOT been brought back and restored.

Winter 2025 Service Changes | Previous Service Changes | 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

Here are some frequency reductions for non-BNRD routes:
Route 9: Frequency decreases in the late morning
Route 83: Frequency decreases during the midday period for a more imbalanced peak heavy schedule
Route 101: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 210: Weekday frequency decreases during all daytime hours
Route 220: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 222: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 450: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 505: Eliminated 1 AM roundtrip.

 

[Stlin]

BNRD Phase 1 is starting and the MBTA failed to undo the Summer 2023 bus service reductions for the Winter 2025 service changes.

Bus service that was taken away under Eng and under the previous administration, from Winter 2022 - Summer 2023 for the operator shortage has still NOT been brought back and restored.

Winter 2025 Service Changes | Previous Service Changes | 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

Here are some frequency reductions for non-BNRD routes:
Route 9: Frequency decreases in the late morning
Route 83: Frequency decreases during the midday period for a more imbalanced peak heavy schedule
Route 101: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 210: Weekday frequency decreases during all daytime hours
Route 220: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 222: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 450: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 505: Eliminated 1 AM roundtrip.

Look, I know this is a subject you care deeply about, so I'm going to point you at another data set. The below is what transit agencies report to the FTA on a monthly basis for the NTD. You'll want to filter it to the MBTA before downloading it, but you can filter mode to MB, Directly Operated (so as to exclude the Silver Line [characterized as RB,] DPV operated routes and contracted shuttles). The columns you'd be interested in are total vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours - those represent how much total bus service the T is providing over the monthly period. You'll notice it isn't adjusted for 30/31 day months, let alone February, and the most recent available data point is July 24, which I'll point out is when the T was at the bottom of its operator count - per the payroll, they had 1351 operators then. Given that, this is probably the most accurate way of quantifying exactly how much bus service the T in the aggregate is providing without relying on schedule changes, which don't reflect the reality of dropped trips or traffic.

If buses were running slower due to traffic, for example, you'd expect to see revenue hours remain high while miles decline - the inverse should be true if buses were running faster due to bus lanes. If all else remained equal, If the T were decreasing service, both would decline in equal proportion.

Monthly Modal Time Series | Department of Transportation - Data Portal

data.transportation.gov

 

[Delvin4519]

Look, I know this is a subject you care deeply about, so I'm going to point you at another data set. The below is what transit agencies report to the FTA on a monthly basis for the NTD. You'll want to filter it to the MBTA before downloading it, but you can filter mode to MB, Directly Operated (so as to exclude the Silver Line [characterized as RB,] DPV operated routes and contracted shuttles). The columns you'd be interested in are total vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours - those represent how much total bus service the T is providing over the monthly period. You'll notice it isn't adjusted for 30/31 day months, let alone February, and the most recent available data point is July 24, which I'll point out is when the T was at the bottom of its operator count - per the payroll, they had 1351 operators then. Given that, this is probably the most accurate way of quantifying exactly how much bus service the T in the aggregate is providing without relying on schedule changes, which don't reflect the reality of dropped trips or traffic.

If buses were running slower due to traffic, for example, you'd expect to see revenue hours remain high while miles decline - the inverse should be true if buses were running faster due to bus lanes. If all else remained equal, If the T were decreasing service, both would decline in equal proportion.

Monthly Modal Time Series | Department of Transportation - Data Portal

data.transportation.gov

Well of course I'm very disillusioned with the T's decision to rob Peter to pay Paul in not recovering service levels that were cut for the operator shortages, then move ahead with Phase 1, knowingly still a ways to go to get to Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

I'm seeing 200-220k revenue service hours between September 2019 through February 2020.

July 2024 is about 175k revenue service hours. Still 83% of pre-COVID service levels. How would one calculate if the upcoming MBTA schedule's release in the next week or two, if there are 220k scheduled service hours per month, instead of just waiting until June 2025 for the federal dataset to be updated?

I'm quite certain that based on what the MBTA written in their Winter 2025 service changes, they did not increase service levels by 14 - 22% to return to the Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

 

[Stlin]

Well of course I'm very disillusioned with the T's decision to rob Peter to pay Paul in not recovering service levels that were cut for the operator shortages, then move ahead with Phase 1, knowingly still a ways to go to get to Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

I'm seeing 200-220k revenue service hours between September 2019 through February 2020.

July 2024 is about 175k revenue service hours. Still 83% of pre-COVID service levels. How would one calculate if the upcoming MBTA schedule's release in the next week or two, if there are 220k schedule servive hours per month, instead of just waiting until June 2025 for the FTA dataset to be updated?

I'm quite certain that based on what the MBTA written in their Winter 2025 service changes, they did not increase service levels by 14 - 22% to return to the Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

Look, I don't disagree as far as general themes go. Bus service has pretty clearly taken a hit that hasn't been restored yet, but it's hard to get an accurate picture of how much bus service the T is or isn't providing just on the basis of schedule changes, especially as they launch BNRD which changes routes, run times and more, PATI has closed stops... Since 2019, bus lanes have been built, signal priority implemented... the environment hasn't been static, so you can't really compare them as if it was the same variety of apple; It's like a Granny Smith vs a Fuji at this point. I'm just giving you the datasets to play with that are route agnostic, and provide an aggregate view.

In my view, advocacy carries more weight when it has data to back it up; it's why I had previously taken issue with your screed on bus operators, because the numbers didn't back up the claim, which certainly can be laid at the feet of the T for inconsistent messaging and labeling in its presentations.
You can't extrapolate to Dec 24 when that data doesn't exist yet, but you can extract trends and questions. That said, if you really really wanted to do the data analysis, the T publishes it's departure/arrival times at endpoints for every single bus trip for every single route on a weekly basis. I'm lazy and don't want to, but the dataset is available if someone really did want to crunch the numbers before the T / FTA reports. But overall, saying the T provided 179k revenue bus hours /1.638M miles, in July 2024 compared to 233k hours / 1.780M miles / in July 2019, which is 30% fewer operated hours (but only 8.6% fewer miles) compared to pre-pandemic service, means you can conclude that:

A) bus service is more efficient than in 2019; on average, vehicles are traveling further in revenue service given time. You'd have to adjust for ridership, but that's compounded by I believe the T not including the fare free routes in reported NTD data.
B) given that 1350 is only 6% fewer operators than the 1430 they had in 2019, operator productivity is down massively, given they're spending 30% less time driving buses. You'd have to go through the payroll database to see if that is a reduction in overtime or what, but that's the question I'd be advocating towards getting a answer to.

 

[Delvin4519]

Look, I don't disagree as far as general themes go. Bus service has pretty clearly taken a hit that hasn't been restored yet, but it's hard to get an accurate picture of how much bus service the T is or isn't providing just on the basis of schedule changes, especially as they launch BNRD which changes routes, run times and more, PATI has closed stops... Since 2019, bus lanes have been built, signal priority implemented... the environment hasn't been static, so you can't really compare them as if it was the same variety of apple; It's like a Granny Smith vs a Fuji at this point. I'm just giving you the datasets to play with that are route agnostic, and provide an aggregate view.

In my view, advocacy carries more weight when it has data to back it up; it's why I had previously taken issue with your screed on bus operators, because the numbers didn't back up the claim, which certainly can be laid at the feet of the T for inconsistent messaging and labeling in its presentations.
You can't extrapolate to Dec 24 when that data doesn't exist yet, but you can extract trends and questions. That said, if you really really wanted to do the data analysis, the T publishes it's departure/arrival times at endpoints for every single bus trip for every single route on a weekly basis. I'm lazy and don't want to, but the dataset is available if someone really did want to crunch the numbers before the T / FTA reports. But overall, saying the T provided 179k revenue bus hours /1.638M miles, in July 2024 compared to 233k hours / 1.780M miles / in July 2019, which is 30% fewer operated hours (but only 8.6% fewer miles) compared to pre-pandemic service, means you can conclude that:

A) bus service is more efficient than in 2019; on average, vehicles are traveling further in revenue service given time. You'd have to adjust for ridership, but that's compounded by I believe the T not including the fare free routes in reported NTD data.
B) given that 1350 is only 6% fewer operators than the 1430 they had in 2019, operator productivity is down massively, given they're spending 30% less time driving buses. You'd have to go through the payroll database to see if that is a reduction in overtime or what, but that's the question I'd be advocating towards getting a answer to.

If operators are having less overtime, that's going to require more operators to make up the shortfall of operators running 30% fewer hours.

8% fewer revenue service miles is still a service reduction of 8%. That's not acceptable. At the very least, either scheduled hours, revenue hours, OR revenue miles needs to be equal to the pre-pandemic equivalant. If all 3 metrics show a reduction (or a still understaffed bus operator headcount) from pre-COVID (or Fall 2021), that means that Eng has still failed (or yet) to deliver the promise of restored service for bus riders.

It's been 5 years since COVID. The service cuts have been in place for 2 -3 years now. The new contract will have been in place for 19 months by March 2025. Bus riders cannot continue to put up with a 6th year of 45 minute weekday headways or 70 minute Sunday headways, when pre-COVID the buses ran every 7 - 20 minutes. BNRD would restore service to these routes to every 8 - 15 minutes, but the answer cannot be to tell them to wait for BNRD Phase 5 in 2029 just to get their pre-COVID service back.

You also have to note that the T also have more bus operators out on leave at any given time now, than pre-COVID. This means the T has to to reach the full headcount to make up such a shortfall.

Another key difference between now and pre-pandemic service (and one we didn't mention in the article) is that the new Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act took effect in 2021.

We've heard anecdotal reports that under that new law, more employees are on the payroll but not working – i.e., higher numbers of "inactive" employees at any given time.

If that's true, then the T needs to increase its workforce above and beyond the headcount it had in 2019 to make up the difference and restore pre-pandemic service levels.

We realistically won't get any data on the December 2024 revenue service hours from the T itself until around January 20th, when the T posts it's monthly bus arrival departure report, unless @StreetsblogMASS asks the T again in the next two weeks. The most recent report from StreetsBLOG Mass has the T at 12% below pre-COVID service levels during Fall 2024 in terms of revenue service hours, which was directly quoted from the MBTA.

 

[as02143]

I am not saying this track work was supposed to get us back to design specifications. But until ALL the work needed to restore full performance is completed the line is still slower than what we paid for.

As a regular Green Line rider - I agree generally that the Track Improvement Program is not delivering us to before this whole mess. It's much better than rock bottom, but, we still have quite a bit to go. The best example is that the MBTA is running at 10 mph on all switches. Before 2020, the T would run their Green Line trains on a switch regularly at 25 mph. They changed their speed limits because of the state of decay in the multiple systems that we have - signals, tracks, vehicles.

My coworkers coming from the South Shore on the Red Line also note a lot of slower zones as well - inbound more than outbound - what should be 40 mph sections seem to also have the same switch issues that the Green Line does with 10? 15 mph speeds over switches? I don't understand why that would be the case.

Perhaps a good example is how long it will take the T to get back on the good side of the Feds and State safety organizations is WMATA. It's taken them 15 years to get back to operating with ATO - the crash was in 2009 - they're just now announcing the launch of operator-monitored ATO in December. Eng and Co. can clearly move organizational and engineering mountains to get from rock bottom, but, it will be a steady climb back from where we are until where the subway needs to be.

 

[Delvin4519]

As a regular Green Line rider - I agree generally that the Track Improvement Program is not delivering us to before this whole mess. It's much better than rock bottom, but, we still have quite a bit to go. The best example is that the MBTA is running at 10 mph on all switches. Before 2020, the T would run their Green Line trains on a switch regularly at 25 mph. They changed their speed limits because of the state of decay in the multiple systems that we have - signals, tracks, vehicles.

My coworkers coming from the South Shore on the Red Line also note a lot of slower zones as well - inbound more than outbound - what should be 40 mph sections seem to also have the same switch issues that the Green Line does with 10? 15 mph speeds over switches? I don't understand why that would be the case.

Perhaps a good example is how long it will take the T to get back on the good side of the Feds and State safety organizations is WMATA. It's taken them 15 years to get back to operating with ATO - the crash was in 2009 - they're just now announcing the launch of operator-monitored ATO in December. Eng and Co. can clearly move organizational and engineering mountains to get from rock bottom, but, it will be a steady climb back from where we are until where the subway needs to be.

This is backed up in TransitMatters data as well.

Kenmore - Haymarket eastbound was 14 minutes pre-COVID, now with all eastbound slow zones gone since March 2024, it's still 1.5 minutes slower than pre-COVID.

The Green Line is slower than it ever has been even before all this slow zone saga started, slower than almost every point pre-COVID.

Between an extra slow Green Line that has somehow resulted after "fixing all Green Line slow zones", and a promise from Eng to "restore bus service" that has failed this winter after 5 long years. I've never felt that the T has ever been even worse than it ever has been since 2023, 2022, or 2018-19.

The only single benefit of the TIP program or from any of Eng's promises made since 2023 that I've ever received is a slightly faster Orange Line (and I will only finally be receiving shorter off peak OL headways this upcoming winter, I've had to wait a whole extra year to get improved OL off-peak frequencies). All it does is that it means spending more time waiting for buses that have yet to get their pre-COVID service restored, and more time spent creeping along the Green Line where slow zones were allegedly fixed but somehow slower than pre-COVID.

This all absolutely blows. Can the T even get around fixing the buses next spring before the fiscal cliff arrives?

The extra OL frequencies and speed do very little to make up for the doubled bus headways or extra-slow Green Line. Hard to enjoy the extra OL trains with extra speed when only half of the buses from pre-COVID are running. Any time saving on the OL is instead used up by the GL or the buses.

 

[LtKije]

I’m not a frequent OL rider, but the couple times I’ve taken it recently (including this evening), I’ve noticed the trains move quickly but there’s a surprising amount of dwell time at the stations. In particular, at every station between Back Bay and North Station tonight I counted that there were about 7 to 9 full seconds after we had fully stopped at the platform before the doors even opened. Across 20 stations, that’s about 2.5 minutes added to an end-to-end journey. Have others noticed this? What’s the explanation?