MBTA Bus & BRT

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,219
Reaction score
418
Are you cool if I move this to the OLT thread?
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
183
I have to think implementing true Spanish Solution pedestrian flow at Park on the Red Line platforms would go a long way to easing dwell time penalties there. Or are Americans simply too clueless to be directionally herded as pedestrians?

Can't help you with DTX or SS.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
I have to think implementing true Spanish Solution pedestrian flow at Park on the Red Line platforms would go a long way to easing dwell time penalties there. Or are Americans simply too clueless to be directionally herded as pedestrians?

Can't help you with DTX or SS.
Everything helps, sure. But the point is you can't hand-wave at what's basically the laboratory example of world perfection for achievable headways in supremely well load-distributed system and claim that can be done anywhere but for wearing "big boy pants" (whatever that's supposed to mean). You could dig up Line 14, airlift it verbatim to Boston with all its personnel and even all its Parisian commuters replacing their dumber Boston counterparts...and in total verbatim state its headways would be a minimum 100% worse (3 minutes not 1:30). Because instead of intersecting HRT transfers at majority of its stations it's now crammed the near-entirety of that distribution into 2 consecutive hyper-concentrated stops. How are you going to close those doors faster?...by stationing soldiers with bayonets to pants-shitting fear people to board faster? Your airlifted replacement Parisian commuters aren't going to fare much better than the Bostonians in that kind of loading situation.

This is why modeling world examples to other cities so popular in the transpo blogosphere needs to...you know...actually model its application by plugging the variables before there's any lesson to learn. Stuff like transfer distribution is muy importante to factor before getting into a dick-measuring contest with somebody else's conditions totally unlike our own. Stuff like this is WAY more consequential than the "competency" question.

To bring it closer to topic, this Everett working group is ascribing similar blindness to their Orange branching proposal. When so much of the bus coverage in/around Everett is sourced out of Wellington and Malden the headway reduction from a branching takes away from a share of their transit frequencies. Two steps forward, one step back. Now why do it that way when there are other options that do the same (like a branch off the Urban Ring mainline) without the frequency reduction because they have more source frequencies to cobble together from multiple sources. Blind faith that OLT is somehow a bigger set of "big boy pants" than it actually is and they can magic their way into more headways through the State-DTX limiter so they can pretend Malden isn't taking a hit?

It's not going to happen that way. The mainline-limiting variables are what they are. It's curious that this working group would ignore that when so much of their other package of improvements is bus-related. They're undermining their own network frequencies forming the backbone of this plan if they kick a leg out from under transfer matchups immediately to their west in Malden. That shouldn't escape notice. It takes a certain amount of magical thinking to let that escape notice.
 

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,659
Reaction score
139
How are you going to close those doors faster?...by stationing soldiers with bayonets to pants-shitting fear people to board faster? Your airlifted replacement Parisian commuters aren't going to fare much better than the Bostonians in that kind of loading situation.
In Mexico City, which you ignored, closing doors close. If you stand in the way, you get squeezed like an orange. People learn fast that ding ding ding means youre either inside or outside, but not both. The door is stronger than you.

And since the next train is just 90 seconds away, it's not a big deal. American love to hold doors open because it could be a 12 minute wait if you dont get inside.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
In Mexico City, which you ignored, closing doors close. If you stand in the way, you get squeezed like an orange. People learn fast that ding ding ding means youre either inside or outside, but not both. The door is stronger than you.

And since the next train is just 90 seconds away, it's not a big deal. American love to hold doors open because it could be a 12 minute wait if you dont get inside.
A practice such as that which is absolutely 1000% illegal under ADA laws does not a Boston-relevant example make, so nothing was "ignored". Door sensors do have exact accessibility specs they have to follow on their cycling which outright prohibits such draconian measures as "squishing people like an orange" from ever being allowed.

This is why globe-trotting for cherry-picked comparisons doesn't work unless you're willing to apply a filter to the situation being modeled. Things like "the Americans With Disabilities Act is law of the land" can't be kludged around, nor would they ever be in a civilized society. Stuff foreigners do that's permissible under much more lax accessibility regs aren't 'features' we need to rush to knock over granny-in-a-walker to import here...they most definitely categorize as 'bugs' to avoid at all cost. Take it up with the Supreme Court if superior accessibility standards are getting in the way of door dwells; no transit planner in the country has the authority to do anything about that.
 
Last edited:

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,659
Reaction score
139
A practice such as that which is absolutely 1000% illegal under ADA laws does not a Boston-relevant example make.
Im pretty familiar with ADA law, since its a significant portion of my work, and I dont recall a section mandating that the doors recycle.

I can also give you a laundry list of places where the MBTA has ignored ADA law for 30 years.

This is true even in situations where the cost of following ADA law is zero. IE, when the automated stop anouncements are broken, the driver of the bus/train must make them. Ive yet to find a bus driver that does.
 

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,659
Reaction score
139
Apparently RER A (Paris), which branches on both sides, and has extremely heavy traffic in the center, runs every 120 seconds, with a goal to reach 108 seconds. Each train carries significantly more people than the orange line. Each new train is set to carry 1725 people.

So clearly, impossible to branch the orange line.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
Im pretty familiar with ADA law, since its a significant portion of my work, and I dont recall a section mandating that the doors recycle.

I can also give you a laundry list of places where the MBTA has ignored ADA law for 30 years.

This is true even in situations where the cost of following ADA law is zero. IE, when the automated stop anouncements are broken, the driver of the bus/train must make them. Ive yet to find a bus driver that does.
It's in the accessibility specs guides helpfully hosted on the T website; look it up yourself.

Non-compliance with ADA is non-compliance is non-compliance. That there are examples of non-compliance in our backyard does not mean the barn door is legally open to nullification and anything goes. That is no counterpoint. You claim to be familiar with ADA law, so this should not be news to you in the slightest. It is illegal...illegal illegal illegal...to program vehicle doors to close with excessive force on a person moving slowly through the vehicle entrance. Conditioned behavior of patrons on the platform has nothing to do with that, nor do people holding the door with due or undue courtesy. You can not speed a door queue by enforcing a physical-strength penalty on patrons, and it does not matter AT ALL if that works 'totes awesome in Mexico City. It's illegal.

Filter out the examples that are blatantly illegal or physically impermissible here before posting. Those examples have zero relevance to showing a way this system could do things better.

Apparently RER A (Paris), which branches on both sides, and has extremely heavy traffic in the center, runs every 120 seconds, with a goal to reach 108 seconds. Each train carries significantly more people than the orange line. Each new train is set to carry 1725 people.

So clearly, impossible to branch the orange line.
And here we go again with the context-free strawmen. RER A is a 4-branch system that splits/combines on either end in what's considered "Zone 3" of 5 concentric zones and unites through the CBD in an 8-station interlined mainline segment. Quite obviously not an Orange Line analogue in the slightest. The interlined segment has SIX consecutive transfer stations with transfers to TEN different Metro lines, multiple RER lines, SCNF high-speed rail, and multiple suburban lines. The only two stops that don't have other-line transfers...are the branch-transfer stations at the splits. As alien a setup to Orange's State-DTX gravitational singularity, Haymarket-NS, and Back Bay as humanly possible. Again...you could airlift the whole fucking RER A across the Atlantic--better-mannered Parisian passengers at all--to Boston and it would would have TWICE-or-worse the headways right from the get-go because the transfer density is complete opposite-universe more concentrated and exerts an order-of-magnitude more punitive dwell limit on headways. The biggest-boy transpo pants on Planet Earth will not cover over the fact that it only does what it does because it has that extremely many transfers taming dwells over the 100% entirety of its mainline...and nothing in Boston does or ever will.

This is not hard to filter. World comparisons aren't relevant when they can't be physically and legally implemented here at the most basic of levels. Pick way better strawmen than this if you insist on continuing to beat this horse over and over.
 
Last edited:

ceo

Active Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
245
Reaction score
67
I'm confused as to why transfer stations help with dwell times. I'd think the opposite would be true, as there's more people getting on and off.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
181
I'm confused as to why transfer stations help with dwell times. I'd think the opposite would be true, as there's more people getting on and off.
Transfers (“more people getting on and off”) do increase dwell times. But transfer stations doesn't create more transfers as much as they spread out existing transfers.

If all transfers happen at one station, that station will have a very long dwell (call it X seconds). If transfers are spread out over, say, 10 stations, you’d expect the dwell at each one of those stations to be much shorter than X seconds (call it Y seconds).

The system overall can’t really run faster than its slowest dwell. One station with an X second dwell is going to slow down the line by roughly X seconds. But ten stations all with dwells of Y<X seconds are collectively going to slow down the line by <X seconds.
 

fattony

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
104
F-line - Can you list the top 2-3 changes we would need in order to reduce the singularity at DTX? In JumboBuc's terms - how do we reduce X? Is there is a combination of prerequisites that makes branching Orange feasible?

I assume RBX is one. Does NSRL contribute meaningfully? Urban Ring? and if so, which parts specifically?
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
583
F-line - Can you list the top 2-3 changes we would need in order to reduce the singularity at DTX? In JumboBuc's terms - how do we reduce X? Is there is a combination of prerequisites that makes branching Orange feasible?

I assume RBX is one. Does NSRL contribute meaningfully? Urban Ring? and if so, which parts specifically?
Red-Blue is the #1 reliever be flushing double-transferees from the Park and DTX platforms. You have to complement that with the whole bag of egress tricks at those two stations in tandem. Completing Silver Line Phase III or a Green Line-Seaport equivalent is then #2 with a bullet as R-B's positive effects on Red specifically will not be everlasting as growth continues unabated from both the north and the south. After this many decades of delays on both projects we have to consider the relative shovel-readiness of R-B as a five-alarm urgency, because putting Seaport-Back Bay through a full redesign and funding process is going to easily chew all of the ensuing time before R-B relief gets re-topped by new growth. So getting a study re-start on #2 is also five-alarm urgent.


Beyond that NSRL should help Orange quite a lot especially by disentangling Back Bay (so does relocating the E off Copley Jct. to reattach it to Boylston via a Back Bay stop...but not as much as NSRL). However, NSRL will probably sock Red pretty hard with new ridership sources when the northside gets hooked up to the headway juvenation machine. You will definitely need the Urban Ring by that point if not sooner triaging Harvard, Greater Kendall, and Sullivan on the grade-separated north half...with stiff BRT presence on the street-running Dudley/Ruggles-Broadway south flank and possibly some Green Line interlining augmentation (discussed elsewhere this week) to lend the south Ring buses a load-spreading assist. And in turn working the extra touches at Harvard (UR branch) and Porter (GLX extension) helps Red a lot by fully leveraging the empty contraflow direction from Harvard/Porter as a perma-solve for keeping unbounded Alewife growth from having to chain straight off the downtown singularities.


Consider all of those mandatory...and decades tardy by this point. It's already beyond consensus that we need each and every one of those. After that things get a lot more mid-century speculative (Blue-Kenmore, major Green Line alt.-spining/interlining reboot, possible need to use whichever of the two Congress-or-CA/T alignments doesn't get used for NSRL to alt-spine another north-south HRT line through downtown). Not so much because of questions about whether such additional pieces would be useful, but because they pretty much demand R-B, Back Bay-Seaport, UR, and NSRL all get built first to truly exploit their value. So the top-most priorities end up utterly uncontroversial on need/purpose. Obviously for project sequencing Red-Blue is the duh-obvious most impactful one to pick up because it can be done quickest and its benefits are most laser-like focused on the troublesome Park-DTX-State transfer trio. Green-Transitway is less for taming ten-years-ago's problem dwells like R-B than putting the clamps on exploding South Station loads from grinding everything to a halt by ripping the Park-DTX transfer wound immediately wide open again. But there again, the more decades we keep staring into the abyss on doing it at all the closer that day of dwell reckoning comes, so we've got to start getting this show on the road at least at the re-study level.
 

Top