Late night T service take 2

TransitMatters
@transitmatters

Please show your support for our latest overnight bus plan that #MBTA will be reviewing [TOMORROW AT NOON AT THE STATE TRANSPORTATION BUILDING]!

http://action.transitmatters.info/initiative-nightbus

Cs-Mim5XYAAPmtJ.jpg:large


A6AQek0.png
 
The purple line takes a weird route. Why wouldn't that just be routed through the silverline on washington street? Besides that I like how these routes serve the poorer areas of Metro Boston well.
 
I would think Green should go out to Westie, and Purple to Hyde Park. Also, no high speed line replacement service ?
 
tysmith95 said:
The purple line takes a weird route. Why wouldn't that just be routed through the silverline on washington street? Besides that I like how these routes serve the poorer areas of Metro Boston well.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with the confusion about the Purple route to Copley. It should follow the SL route to DTC.
 
bakgwailo said:
I would think Green should go out to Westie, and Purple to Hyde Park. Also, no high speed line replacement service ?
Click to expand...

This is not about replacement service or convenience service to low density areas. This is about serving the densest low income/minority areas in the most efficient way possible. The FTA found that ending late night service has a disparate impact on low income & minority riders (& the T never probably did the study to discover this). This is intended to reduce the blow.
 
Public Comments: https://www.facebook.com/TransitMatters/videos/608495075999502/

MBTA presentation to FMCB & FMCB Discussion: https://www.facebook.com/TransitMatters/videos/608553885993621/

LOTS of support from elected officials from Boston (mayor's office), Somerville, Cambridge, Roxbury, etc.

FMCB worried about too many unknowns, no data, cost per trip subsidy.They seemed to want to at least study it more? They didn't really say no but they didn't give the MBTA planning representative the answer he wanted.

Pollack was perhaps the most understanding noting that the frustration of both some members of the Board & members of the community is that proposals get made then there's radio silence about them. Called for more community meetings to gauge interest, opinions (who would be ok with buses running down their street at 3 AM?, how long they'd wait, how much they'd pay) and establish some metrics for ranking late night proposals. She also noted that 40' buses might not be the most appropriate vehicle for all routes, but there's no way of knowing until metrics are gathered.

The MBTA representative indicated to the Board that they are willing to scale it based on the Board's recommendations for budget & findings of whatever studies they do.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
This is not about replacement service or convenience service to low density areas. This is about serving the densest low income/minority areas in the most efficient way possible. The FTA found that ending late night service has a disparate impact on low income & minority riders (& the T never probably did the study to discover this). This is intended to reduce the blow.
Click to expand...

Sure, but, I don't think its really right to not include an entire neighborhood (that is already incredibly under served by the T) of the city because they aren't poor enough form late night service.
 
bakgwailo said:
Sure, but, I don't think its really right to not include an entire neighborhood (that is already incredibly under served by the T) of the city because they aren't poor enough form late night service.
Click to expand...

If anything this is going to be scaled back even more. Again, this is not about serving the entire metro area.
 
datadyne007 said:
Pollack was perhaps the most understanding noting that the frustration of both some members of the Board & members of the community is that proposals get made then there's radio silence about them. Called for more community meetings to gauge interest, opinions (who would be ok with buses running down their street at 3 AM?, how long they'd wait, how much they'd pay) and establish some metrics for ranking late night proposals. She also noted that 40' buses might not be the most appropriate vehicle for all routes, but there's no way of knowing until metrics are gathered.
Click to expand...

The MBTA/DOT doesn't seem to understand that there are ways to get some of these answers, without running the service.

Figure out who the target population for the service is. (Likely restaurant, bar and cleaning service workers; students on weekends).

Pick some large employers of said workers in the target geography.

Get the employers to survey their workers to see what type of service would be useful, and what would not get traction. (Have the survey tools professionally developed and deliver them in multiple languages).

From that you could at least get a rough approximation of what the service needs to look like to be used.

Why would the employers help? Because many of them actually provide some level of backup transportation to their workers at the end of late night shifts!
 
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/n...lks-with-boston-startup-about-late-night.html

The MBTA is working with Bridj to restore late night service. Users will downlowd the Bridj app and the MBTA will set the fairs. To pay for the service the MBTA will provide the difference between the late night fares and the 85 dollars per hour that Bridj is expected to charge. It is estimated that with 10 vehicles it will cost 1.55 million dollars annually (minus the fare revenue).

10 buses seems like a low amount in my option but it would be amazing if the MBTA started up with this proposal. Of course one issue would be the low income workers without a data plan or a smartphone. The people that need the service the most are these poorer workers, hopefully the T can install some Bridj stations in key locations where users can request a ride without the help of a smartphone.

Also I'd be willing to bet that Uber, Lyft, or another technology company acquires Bridj in the next few years. It seems like a perfect evolution from services like UberPool or LyftLine.
 
tysmith95 said:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/n...lks-with-boston-startup-about-late-night.html

The MBTA is working with Bridj to restore late night service. Users will downlowd the Bridj app and the MBTA will set the fairs. To pay for the service the MBTA will provide the difference between the late night fares and the 85 dollars per hour that Bridj is expected to charge. It is estimated that with 10 vehicles it will cost 1.55 million dollars annually (minus the fare revenue).

10 buses seems like a low amount in my option but it would be amazing if the MBTA started up with this proposal. Of course one issue would be the low income workers without a data plan or a smartphone. The people that need the service the most are these poorer workers, hopefully the T can install some Bridj stations in key locations where users can request a ride without the help of a smartphone.

Also I'd be willing to bet that Uber, Lyft, or another technology company acquires Bridj in the next few years. It seems like a perfect evolution from services like UberPool or LyftLine.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- why is there always an assumption that poor necessarily means backward -- I seem to remember pix this summer of Syrian refugees arriving on a raft at some Greek Island with a smartphone and only the close on their backs.

By the way there is an outfit called FreedomPop which claims in its ads to offer
The First 100% Free
Mobile Phone Service
Free voice, Free text, Free data
Click to expand...
https://www.freedompop.com/phone
 
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

Last year 68% of Americans owned a smartphone. That means that 32% of Americans don't own a smartphone. Public Transit is something that should be available to everyone and not everyone can afford expensive data plans.

Of course if they added municipal wifi networks it could solve some of this problem. A municipal wifi network plus an 100 dollar Ipod touch could allow people to use this service.

And just saying Syria wasn't a poor country before the war. It was more of a middle income emerging economy. And not just the poor were affected by the war, many formally wealthy Syrians lost their businesses, homes, etc.
 
tysmith95 said:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

Last year 68% of Americans owned a smartphone. That means that 32% of Americans don't own a smartphone. Public Transit is something that should be available to everyone and not everyone can afford expensive data plans.

Of course if they added municipal wifi networks it could solve some of this problem. A municipal wifi network plus an 100 dollar Ipod touch could allow people to use this service.

And just saying Syria wasn't a poor country before the war. It was more of a middle income emerging economy. And not just the poor were affected by the war, many formally wealthy Syrians lost their businesses, homes, etc.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- Yes what you say about Syria is true

However, equally wrong is the assumption that the 32% of the non-smart-phone using adults are all too poor to afford one

Many of the non-smart phone users just still cling to their basic and simple cel phones. If that survey included the age of the respondents, I'll bet that quite a few of the 32% were 50+.

In particular, I would assume that a lot of boomers are not necessarily full wedded to smart phones, as their experience with cel phones began while they were already mature adults. They got a phone for the convenience of calling from somewhere away from home -- to them its not a very portable computer -- just a phone.

My wife for example and many of her gardener friends -- all they want is a phone -- and then only for "emergency calls". The last thing they want when in the garden is people calling, texting or sending pictures -- they just want to dig or snip or weed. She keeps a turned-off phone with her in case the car breaks down.

Full disclosure -- I have both an Android phone and an old Verizon flip phone which the dog tried to disassemble [he succeeded in removing the battery and it has tooth marks as a badge of honor]. I actually prefer the flip sometimes when I travel [depending on where and for how long]: Its small [less obvious]; runs in standby for a very long time; and since there's nothing but phone numbers on it -- if its lost or stolen -- no great concern
 
^You're correct a large portion of the 32% (probably closer to 25% now) are older folks.

86% of those ages 18-29 have a smartphone, as do 83% of those ages 30-49
Click to expand...

However 10-15% of the under 50 population does not own a cell phone. Most of those people are low income workers. Low income workers are the ones working late at night in restaurants or other service jobs. They are the ones who need late night transit and can't afford an Uber every night or their own car. A transit service requiring the use of a smartphone could fail to benefit a good chunk of low income workers.

Again I think this service is a great idea I just think there should be some designated pick up points or other remedy for people without a data connection. Young professionals can afford an Uber/Lyft so there is little reason to create a subsidized service for them.

And full disclosure I've had different Android smartphones for the past 7 years and the first gen Ipod touch before that.
 
Owning a smartphone isn't necessarily an impediment to this proposal, as has been noted many people across different income ranges own smartphones. What IS a major impediment and makes the Bridj proposal unworkable is that riders would not be able to use Charlie Cards and be required to pay with a credit card. One of the main reasons for implementing late night service is to enable lower income people working those late hour shifts access to cheaper and more reliable transportation, but financially insecure people have problems with accessing/maintaining reliable banking services. (And would have issues with paying higher fares for the late night service for that matter.) Hubway has taken awhile to expand into the RDM neighborhoods because of similar issues.

Bridj appeals to, and is designed for, a more bougie crowd and I doubt that this sort of proposal is dedicated to the idea of transportation equity that should be the main driving force of returning late night service. Maybe Bostonians can get to and from Logan Airport easier when they have late night flights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top