Late night T service take 2

[whighlander]

Also I don't think it is that big a deal as far as costs are to have more limited time for doing maintenance considering plenty of other subway systems run for longer hours or 24-7 and still complete necessary maintenance.

City -- When you have a system as old as the T; architected such as the T with essentially no reserve tracks; and also due to its radial geometry lacking many alternative subway routes -- well then you need all the night time you can get to do the maintenance without shutting down during a day.

 

[tangent]

Looking at Bridj their service is very limited. The $3 price is pretty good, but how much would that be for late night service?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- The main point that I was trying to make was that most people who pay taxes feel that the level of subsidy of the late night service is just not justifiable in terms of the relatively few users and the difference between the fare box revenues and the cost of operations.

What you misinterpreted as some sort of Bosses versus the heroic workers --- was intended to point out that the T was structured starting way back in BERY days to bring commuters into the manufacturing / commercial core of Boston particularly during / just before normal 9-5 working hours and then to take them home

It was further structured [except for the CR frequented by the Bankers and such from the North Shore and Wellesley] to transport "payroll patriots" such as my father's elder sister who sewed shoes @ Stride Rite shoes [nee Green Shoe Manufacturing] on Harrison Ave. She lived in East Cambridge a block off of Cambridge St., and every working day for decades she took the Cambridge St. Bus to the Green Line at Lechmere, transferred to the Orange Line and rode the EL each day using either Northampton or Dudley and some walking to get to / from work.

No one then [circa 1960] or before, could have imagined today's Seaport and its new commuting patterns, other than there was one bus that crossed the Summer St. Reserve Channel Bridge into Southy proper.

And despite the fact that Green Shoe worked 24 X 6, the T's mostly daytime and early evening Schedule combined with the company's work schedule accommodated the 2nd and 3rd shifts.

No, Professor, that was not the main point you were trying to make. You were packaging your usual talking-points WHARRGARBL into a multi-post love letter to Bridj and making claims about the late-night demand profile not supported by evidence from very similar cities that do run late-night service. Then completely avoiding that question when called on it.

In other words...same threadshit, different day.

 

[tangent]

I heard a good suggestion and looked up the ridership data from the MBTA. It appears that the majority of late night rider's are monthly pass holders. Fares are going up anyway which closes the gap on the per ride subsidy. If the current operating subsidy is a bit under $8, then charge the difference to the pass holders account. Another $8 is probably worth it. Basically the cost of a beer or mixed drink at a club.

And if it isn't worth it to pay what the service costs, then people will take taxis or Bridj or walk or whatever. If the service can be run at around break even, then it should run.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I heard a good suggestion and looked up the ridership data from the MBTA. It appears that the majority of late night rider's are monthly pass holders. Fares are going up anyway which closes the gap on the per ride subsidy. If the current operating subsidy is a bit under $8, then charge the difference to the pass holders account. Another $8 is probably worth it. Basically the cost of a beer or mixed drink at a club.

And if it isn't worth it to pay what the service costs, then people will take taxis or Bridj or walk or whatever. If the service can be run at around break even, then it should run.

Leveling fares for the extra service hours so everyone--ticket or pass--is paying the same as a daytime CharlieTicket or cash fare would probably go a long way to making up that difference if the service were simply left alone long enough to breathe and grow its ridership. I doubt cardholders are going to have any objection to paying the premium when that premium fits within an established tier of the fare structure. Might be a slight inconvenience to make the unlimited monthly holders pay a separate tix fare after 12:30, but at least there's a straightforward explanation they can give as to why that has to be.


The problem is it's never been allowed to breathe. There's been a dagger held over its head from Day 1, where slightest change in the breeze can end it. It happened before, so riders are conditioned to believe it can/will happen again. And the constant rumors and wishy-washiness did nothing to dissuade that notion. When a fixed route service is constantly framed as anything-but-fixed and subject to everything eye-of-beholder in the regime occupying the executive chair at any given moment...half century of established transit rider psychology says the public's not going to buy into it as a fixed route.

Since we know what passes for short-attention span political theatre here, the question now becomes what happens next time City Hall, City Council, et al wake up on the side of the bed (i.e., get nudged by some big businesses who run white-collar second shifts at local HQ in support of globally distributed workforces) that says "We need extra service hours!" and start lobbying for it. It's not going to fly as a year-to-year experiment after Strike Two. Not with the public, not with the big biz the pols want to please. They'd have to enumerate like a 5-year commitment to it...and not 5-year spelled out to the riders because they know that's not worth the paper it's printed on. Think 5-year commitment spelled out in a GE-like Memo of Understanding to whatever CEO's are twisting the screws.

Not-inconsequential aside: can't imagine Wynn's real happy about this. The sun never sets inside a casino. This is a guy who sees profit motive in spending private money to increase off-peak Orange Line service, so you better believe he feels a pinprick-sting from not being able to count on late-night service on the nights his patronage is heaviest. While I doubt Wynn alone has enough juice to make them reconsider...or is going to try that hard while he's still a few years out from grand opening...I wouldn't be surprised if he signals his displeasure somewhere on-record so it's sitting out there for those CEO's overseeing white-collar second shifts to chew on. If couple of them start agitating about their second-shift profit motive...Wynn will smell it and be right there in the thick of it.

 

[tangent]

The ridership is naturally limited I believe the average was 26,000 for boardings and maybe 15,000 riders. I wouldn't expect it to go up significantly. The rise of Uber at the same time as this trial run probably doesn't help either. Still it is enough ridership to justify another mass transit look if the numbers can be made to work.

Level fares with daytime fares didn't work out. 90% don't want to subsidize 10%, when those 10% are mostly people that can afford an Uber/taxi ride home. But I think if they can figure out a way to adjust prices to reflect the extra cost of running the service then that would enable a resumption of service.

Yes, usually you want to lower prices during low demand periods to increase demand, but like I said the numbers aren't going up so the service has to be realistic about cost of running mass transit with less than daytime mass transit numbers.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The ridership is naturally limited I believe the average was 26,000 for boardings and maybe 15,000 riders. I wouldn't expect it to go up significantly. The rise of Uber at the same time as this trial run probably doesn't help either. Still it is enough ridership to justify another mass transit look if the numbers can be made to work.

Level fares with daytime fares didn't work out. 90% don't want to subsidize 10%, when those 10% are mostly people that can afford an Uber/taxi ride home. But I think if they can figure out a way to adjust prices to reflect the extra cost of running the service then that would enable a resumption of service.

Yes, usually you want to lower prices during low demand periods to increase demand, but like I said the numbers aren't going up so the service has to be realistic about cost of running mass transit with less than daytime mass transit numbers.

Oh, I was talking raising prices from the $2.10 (+ pending increase) CharlieCard fare to the $2.65 (+ pending increase) CharlieTicket/cash fare for the overnight, and making the unlimited pass holders pay the out-of-pocket $2.65 for meaningful dent in the subsidy gap. As long as it fits an established tier like the cash fare and isn't 'special' (i.e. a wholly invented high fare) it's a bargaining tactic that the late-night riders will probably swallow...especially if that premium comes with assurance that this thing has more permanence than a forever month-to-month threat of getting the rug pulled from under it.

While there may be a hard cap on total growth, the second-shifters base are a captive audience who are reliably going to use it. Especially because employers don't want to pay for variable-rate car service, crapshoot Uber fares, or surge pricing for downtown parking garages as an employee transportation benefit to be able to attract hires worth their salt. What growth it does have to close the rest of the gap to break-even comes from establishing that this is a fixed route service that's going to be there from one year to the next and overcoming the pervasive skepticism of history always repeating itself when the T board gets cold feet. Other cities similar or even less well off than Boston manage to do that, but they do treat their late-night service as sure-thing fixed routes that are going to be there year-in/year-out. Every time the T tries this and are so wishy-washy that the only thing people read about is how fickle the institutional support is, it's discouragement from changing habits. Especially for the suburbanites who'd be willing to park-and-ride for a night on the town if they had a means of getting back to Wellington or Alewife or Quincy Center/Adams after-hours...but are never going to get in the habit of coming in at all if there's zero confidence that these are truly fixed routes.

 

[sm89]

Pollack said that she would like a comprehensive study of all lines to see what changes can be made that would actually have an impact. Whenever we need to cut costs, it's always eliminate this route or that route. Finally someone in power is saying wait, just because the routes have always been the same, doesn't mean they're efficient. There are no more trolley tracks. Stops can be moved. Routes can be adjusted. That wasn't happening or being looked at at all. The last BIENNIAL Service Plan Update was in 2008. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/?id=12769
If you look back at the older reports, they responded to many of the route change suggestions that people have made over the years and other efficiency changes. No routine improvements have happened in over 8 years. The only ones that do tend to be forced because of politics (not always a bad thing, just saying more can be done).

This brings me to late night T... What makes the current service hours "THE" service hours. Instead of "late night T" how about "what's the impact of running one more trip on existing routes?" "What about two extra trips", etc. It shouldn't be a huge production to make a meaningful change.

 

[whighlander]

Pollack said that she would like a comprehensive study of all lines to see what changes can be made that would actually have an impact. Whenever we need to cut costs, it's always eliminate this route or that route. Finally someone in power is saying wait, just because the routes have always been the same, doesn't mean they're efficient. There are no more trolley tracks. Stops can be moved. Routes can be adjusted. That wasn't happening or being looked at at all. The last BIENNIAL Service Plan Update was in 2008. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/?id=12769
If you look back at the older reports, they responded to many of the route change suggestions that people have made over the years and other efficiency changes. No routine improvements have happened in over 8 years. The only ones that do tend to be forced because of politics (not always a bad thing, just saying more can be done).

This brings me to late night T... What makes the current service hours "THE" service hours. Instead of "late night T" how about "what's the impact of running one more trip on existing routes?" "What about two extra trips", etc. It shouldn't be a huge production to make a meaningful change.

SM -- how can you be so naive -- do you really believe that the T which is still using paper sheets to schedule drivers can handle sensitivity analysis

Let's fix what needs fixing first such as signals and rails and worry about other nice ideas once the T is delivering reliable service consistently

In the mean time between scheduled and private buses the 2nd and 3rd shifters can continue to muddle throuogh

 

[sm89]

SM -- how can you be so naive -- do you really believe that the T which is still using paper sheets to schedule drivers can handle sensitivity analysis

Let's fix what needs fixing first such as signals and rails and worry about other nice ideas once the T is delivering reliable service consistently

In the mean time between scheduled and private buses the 2nd and 3rd shifters can continue to muddle throuogh

This has nothing to do with signals, or even timesheets. There is a whole department dedicated to service planning. That's their job. Service changes, reroutings, etc are to be budget neutral according to their opening statement in the Service Plan Update.

 

[Scipio]

“We are aware of and concerned by the February 29, 2016, Fiscal Management Control Board’s decision to eliminate the late-night service by March 18, 2016,” wrote FTA Office of Civil Rights Associate Administrator Linda Ford. “To ensure full compliance with [civil rights guidelines], MBTA must prepare a service equity analysis and revisit the service changes to determine whether all options that would eliminate or mitigate disparate impacts have been implemented.”

Feds ain't happy, and are requiring that the T then puts together an equity analysis. If done fairly then it will probably show that there is a disproportionate impact on low-income people or people of color.

http://www.boston.com/news/2016/03/...1oBBtY5rLChUOTtO/story.html?p1=feature_pri_hp

 

[datadyne007]

"“In this case, the MBTA’s late-night service has been operating since March, 2014, nearly double the twelve-month demonstration project timeline. ... Second, the service reduction exceeded MBTA’s own adopted threshold for major service changes,” the letter reads."

"“Poor survey data, operational concerns, and budgetary constraints do not obviate the requirement to conduct the analysis,” the FTA letter says."

This is amazing.

 

[Balerion]

I bet the MBTA will argue that the scaled-back hours introduced in March 2015 constitute a new pilot and therefore reset the clock.

 

[datadyne007]

I bet the MBTA will argue that the scaled-back hours introduced in March 2015 constitute a new pilot and therefore reset the clock.

If you read the article, that's what the T said and the FTA said that is not a valid argument.

 

[Balerion]

If you read the article, that's what the T said and the FTA said that is not a valid argument.

Sorry - I missed that.

 

[Scipio]

Surprising nobody, the equity analysis for late night service found disproportionate impacts on low income and minority riders when comparing a survey of riders using late night service. Note that they did not find an impact when compared to the population as a whole, which is the version that the T is sticking with.

The worst burden according to the survey appears to be low-income late night rapid transit riders: 59% of them are low income, compared to 24% of the people who live in the late night rapid transit service area. This bodes poorly for private sector services trying to promote themselves as a replacement for late night T service.

The summary slide deck is here: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Board_Meetings/LateNightEquity031616.pdf

They will be examining some "mitigation" options over the next couple weeks, mostly weaksauce proposals like slightly improving headways in the early morning and late evening.

 

[Lrfox]

Shutdown process costly for the T
Tab for well-meaning gesture may be $3.8m a year
JAMES ALOISI Sep 15, 2016

IT BEGAN WITH A TWEET, sent in the early morning hours.
James Jay, a TransitMatters advocate and transit enthusiast, tweeted: “One E-Line train is the reason the entire MBTA system sits idle for over 30 min.”

That bit of information sparked a subsequent exploration by three TransitMatters advocates — Ari Ofsevit, Andy Monat, and Marc Ebuna — into how exactly the MBTA shuts down subway service every evening. What they found illustrates how good intentions can sometimes lead to inopportune outcomes.

When the MBTA shuts down its subway service every night, it follows a procedure that allows passengers to transfer between lines. On its face, the procedure seems logical and laudable, as it is designed to ensure that no passenger is stranded in the midnight hour. In practice, thanks to a questionable scheduling quirk, this process requires two Red Line and Orange Line trains, one Blue Line train, four Green Line Trains, and 56 buses to wait an average of 34 minutes for one lonely E-Line train. Why is the E-Line train so late? It’s a combination of schedule and the need to have a place to layover for the evening. There’s nowhere to store a train at Heath Street, so the last E-Line train has to turn around there and come back into the city.

Full Story: http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/shutdown-process-costly-for-the-t/

 

[winstonoboogie]

Aloisi makes a mistake is his evaluation of the last train from Heath St. and its impact on the connecting trains at Park St. The Lechmere train that waits at Park St. is indeed the 12:47 trip from Heath, but on weekdays the 12:47 trip is the third from last train from Heath not the last as he assumes. The train leaves Lechmere at 12:12 and returns from Heath at 12:47. The next train leaves Lechmere at 12:21 and returns from Heath at 12:52. The 12:52 trip does run in service back to Lechmere, but it is not shown in the PDF schedule because it offers no conections to other trains downtown. The last train to Heath leaves Lechmere at 12:30. When that train arrives Heath, it runs empty (deadheads) back to Lechmere. The empty deadhead is the actual last train from Heath. Sometimes if there is a major track repair job going on in the central subway, they will hold this train at Heath St. and use it to test the track work later in the early morning when it is complete (that's one reason why it is scheduled as a deadhead).

 

[sm89]

I always wished that deadhead in from Heath took passengers to Northeastern. I mean, why not?

 

[jass]

I always wished that deadhead in from Heath took passengers to Northeastern. I mean, why not?

Yup, deadheading is "we hate customers 101".

Just mark in on the schedule as a no transfers option. that terminates at the last unlocked station.