MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Sunday afternoon Route 1 service was A BUNCH OF 2s! (i.e. bunched buses). While clearly bus lanes are needed - the T needs to do a much better job of dispatching - leaving Nubian and Harvard bunched is just ... pure laziness.
 
Ok, dumb question re: bunching. Why aren't buses as actively managed as the Green Line when bunched? On the Green Line there are frequently short turned and re-routed trains, but that never happens in the bus network. Why can a B train short turn at Park but a 57 can't short turn at Newton Corner?
 
737900er said:
Ok, dumb question re: bunching. Why aren't buses as actively managed as the Green Line when bunched? On the Green Line there are frequently short turned and re-routed trains, but that never happens in the bus network. Why can a B train short turn at Park but a 57 can't short turn at Newton Corner?
Click to expand...
Double-dipping on fares. If you're kicked off a Green Line train at Park, you're still behind the fare gates and can pick up a continuing train free for your troubles. Not so with bus routes that are shorted mid-trip.
 
737900er said:
Ok, dumb question re: bunching. Why aren't buses as actively managed as the Green Line when bunched? On the Green Line there are frequently short turned and re-routed trains, but that never happens in the bus network. Why can a B train short turn at Park but a 57 can't short turn at Newton Corner?
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's due to bus drivers might not be able to tell apart if passengers waiting at a stop were kicked out of an express/short turn bus, and therefore need to be allowed to ride for free. Whereas with the Green Line is not always consistent with fare collection, or Green Line operators are used to the hybrid system of only half of the stops are meant to have front door fare payment.

On buses, essentially every single stop requires front door payment except if you're in the Harvard bus tunnel or Silver line tunnel. They're so rare that at most it's a single stop at the terminal, or it's the Silver Lie for foresaken's sake.

(EDIT: F-Line got there while I was 85% of the way through my post, whatever).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Double-dipping on fares. If you're kicked off a Green Line train at Park, you're still behind the fare gates and can pick up a continuing train free for your troubles. Not so with bus routes that are shorted mid-trip.
Click to expand...
Man, these are one of the things that may give distance based fares an advantage. No extra charge for tapping midway as long as the same distance is still covered at the same rates. Braintree and Newton Highlands once had double fares due to their excessive distances and sprawl from downtown.

I'm a fan of putting Newton Corner in Zone B to avoid having Oak Sq riders riding backwards in the wrong direction, in order to force them to board my fantasy rapid transit line at Faneuil (Brooks St) or Brighton Depot (Market St), instead of backtracking to Newton Corner. Distance based fares would be really good for that. Taking the long way around? Pay more for a longer route. And pay less if taking a shorter, more direct route. Plus, distance based fares may make bunching more managable. Short turn a bus, and riders have no need to pay extra so long it's the same distance.
 
Having only about 6 dispatchers for 600+ buses on 100+ routes on the road at once means there's basically no headway control - the dispatchers are busy dealing with emergencies, disabled buses, rerouting around crashes, etc. There's simply no time to deal with ordinary bunches and gaps. There needs to be additional dispatchers equipped with software designed for efficient headway management - that should be a priority after we get better terminal headway control via inspectors.
Delvin4519 said:
I'm a fan of putting Newton Corner in Zone B to avoid having Oak Sq riders riding backwards in the wrong direction, in order to force them to board my fantasy rapid transit line at Faneuil (Brooks St) or Brighton Depot (Market St), instead of backtracking to Newton Corner. Distance based fares would be really good for that. Taking the long way around? Pay more for a longer route. And pay less if taking a shorter, more direct route. Plus, distance based fares may make bunching more managable. Short turn a bus, and riders have no need to pay extra so long it's the same distance.
Click to expand...
I don't follow why this would be important. If going via Newton Corner is more efficient for passengers than a shorter route, why force them to pay more? Passengers should always be able to choose the service that is most convenient for them (frequency, travel time, arrival time, whichever is coming first, etc) rather than choosing a poorer service to save money. That is the best way to serve the needs of passengers - treating transit as a public good rather than a business. The only time that a faster service should have a higher fare is if there is a capacity limitation (such as saving seats for Boston-Maine passengers on a full Downeaster rather than it being a commuter express to Haverhill) - and even then only when needed to balance that capacity.

Distance-bsaed fares make sense for longer radial trips (i.e. outside 128). For the urban core (i.e. up to 128 or so) with a wider variety of trips, I would argue that a flat time-based fare would be better. Unlimited transfers in 90 or 120 minutes. Again, treating transit as a public good to maximize mobility.
 
The EGE said:
Having only about 6 dispatchers for 600+ buses on 100+ routes on the road at once means there's basically no headway control - the dispatchers are busy dealing with emergencies, disabled buses, rerouting around crashes, etc. There's simply no time to deal with ordinary bunches and gaps. There needs to be additional dispatchers equipped with software designed for efficient headway management - that should be a priority after we get better terminal headway control via inspectors.

I don't follow why this would be important. If going via Newton Corner is more efficient for passengers than a shorter route, why force them to pay more? Passengers should always be able to choose the service that is most convenient for them (frequency, travel time, arrival time, whichever is coming first, etc) rather than choosing a poorer service to save money. That is the best way to serve the needs of passengers - treating transit as a public good rather than a business. The only time that a faster service should have a higher fare is if there is a capacity limitation (such as saving seats for Boston-Maine passengers on a full Downeaster rather than it being a commuter express to Haverhill) - and even then only when needed to balance that capacity.

Distance-bsaed fares make sense for longer radial trips (i.e. outside 128). For the urban core (i.e. up to 128 or so) with a wider variety of trips, I would argue that a flat time-based fare would be better. Unlimited transfers in 90 or 120 minutes. Again, treating transit as a public good to maximize mobility.
Click to expand...
If someone is coming from west of Newton Corner it would not make a difference and the fares would be the same. They cover the same distance if coming from west of Newton Corner is by bus or by rail, thus the fares comign from west of Newton Corner is unchanged regardless of the mode or transfers. If someone is already east of Newton Corner and they travel west to Newton Corner to board an eastbound service there. The fare would increase than if they travelled eastbound to begin with.
 
Delvin4519 said:
If someone is coming from west of Newton Corner it would not make a difference and the fares would be the same. They cover the same distance if coming from west of Newton Corner is by bus or by rail. If someone is already east of Newton Corner and they travel west to Newton Corner to board an eastbound service there. The fare would increase than if they travelled eastbound to begin with.
Click to expand...
What happens if there's an unexpected road closure or something that means no service from Newton Corner to Kenmore, and everyone has to go the long way around? Are they stuck paying more, or would there be a system for changing fares on the fly, and handling reimbursements for people that paid more before the change was made?

Or you could just set fares by start/end point and then the whole problem disappears.
 
Delvin4519 said:
If someone is coming from west of Newton Corner it would not make a difference and the fares would be the same. They cover the same distance if coming from west of Newton Corner is by bus or by rail, thus the fares comign from west of Newton Corner is unchanged regardless of the mode or transfers. If someone is already east of Newton Corner and they travel west to Newton Corner to board an eastbound service there. The fare would increase than if they travelled eastbound to begin with.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand: if going a longer route is more efficient to get from one location to another, why should passengers have to pay more than a shorter but slower route? Why is backtracking to Newton Corner something that passengers should be penalized for?
 
TheRatmeister said:
What happens if there's an unexpected road closure or something that means no service from Newton Corner to Kenmore, and everyone has to go the long way around? Are they stuck paying more, or would there be a system for changing fares on the fly, and handling reimbursements for people that paid more before the change was made?

Or you could just set fares by start/end point and then the whole problem disappears.
Click to expand...
If the transfer occurs beyond the shortest route between a start end point then there would be an extra fare. If there is no transfer made between the start end point that's outside of the shortest route, then only the shortest route is counted as the fare.

The shortest route between Oak Sq. and Kenmore does not involve passing through Newton Corner, as long as no card is tapped at Newton Corner, they don't pay for a fare starting from Newton Corner there. If they tap at Newton Corner, they pay for a Newton Corner -Kenmore fare instead of an Oak Sq - Kenmore fare.

Distance based fares allows shorter trips to have cheaper fares. A fare from Kenmore to Allston would cost less than a fare from Kenmore to Oak Square.

If there are rail diversions, as with shuttle buses and commuter rail, fares would not be collected.
 
Back in the bad old days, before GPS tracking of buses, I do remember watching 57 bus drivers pull out of Kenmore right after the scheduled bus departure and tailgate it all the way to Watertown.
 
The EGE said:
Distance-bsaed fares make sense for longer radial trips (i.e. outside 128). For the urban core (i.e. up to 128 or so) with a wider variety of trips, I would argue that a flat time-based fare would be better. Unlimited transfers in 90 or 120 minutes. Again, treating transit as a public good to maximize mobility.
Click to expand...

Distance based fares could still make some sense inside the 128 beltway. With so much talk of extending the Blue Line to Salem and Charles MGH, does it really make sense for a Blue Line rider to pay the same fare from Old Salem all the way to Charles MGH, as another Blue Line rider taking it from Maverick to Aquarium? Salem to Charles MGH is 15x times the distance of Maverick to Aquarium.

Nubian to Tufts Medical Center is only half the distance of Kenmore to Oak Square. Why should a Nubian rider heading to Tufts Medical Center pay the same expensive $1.70 fare as Oak Square to Kenmore? A fare from Nubian to Tufts Medical Center should absolutely be half the fare of Oak to Kenmore. A more reasonable fare system would be to only charge $1.15 for Nubian to Tufts Medical Center, then charge double fares for Oak to Kenmore ($2.30), to cover double the distance.

Of course, since it would be undesirable to have bus riders riding the bus for 1 stop, there'd be a minimum fare of say, the distance of 1 or 2 rapid transit stops (more like 3-6 bus stops, around the distance of State St to either Tufts Medical or Back Bay).

We should be encouraging riders to make more local trips, and allow the MBTA to cover operational costs of running service far from downtown with higher fares the closer to 128 a rider travels to and from (where density and ridership decreases with more distance). Riders riding high ridership routes closer to downtown would pay lower fares, and riders of low ridership routes further from downtown would pay higher fares, with low income fares for those who have no other choice.

For example, if a rider is only paying $0.95 to ride the Silver Line from South End to Downtown, then is considering relocating to Newton Corner. Perhaps a rider would balk and reconsider if the rider realizes his or her transit fare would more than triple from $0.95 to $3.25, relocating from South End to Newton Corner.

If the same $1.70 fare is applying to both South End and Watertown Square, it allows people to relocate further away from downtown and encourages sprawl and super commuting as far as 128.

In addition, there is also cycling to consider. Cycling is likely eating the mode share of public transit, with transit riders switching to biking. Cycling is probably not pulling many drivers away from their cars as much as from transit. By making shorter transit trips cheaper, transit can stay relevant for short trips.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Distance based fares could still make some sense inside the 128 beltway. With so much talk of extending the Blue Line to Salem and Charles MGH, does it really make sense for a Blue Line rider to pay the same fare from Old Salem all the way to Charles MGH, as another Blue Line rider taking it from Maverick to Aquarium? Salem to Charles MGH is 15x times the distance of Maverick to Aquarium.

Nubian to Tufts Medical Center is only half the distance of Kenmore to Oak Square. Why should a Nubian rider heading to Tufts Medical Center pay the same expensive $1.70 fare as Oak Square to Kenmore? A fare from Nubian to Tufts Medical Center should absolutely be half the fare of Oak to Kenmore. A more reasonable fare system would be to only charge $1.15 for Nubian to Tufts Medical Center, then charge double fares for Oak to Kenmore ($2.30), to cover double the distance.

Of course, since it would be undesirable to have bus riders riding the bus for 1 stop, there'd be a minimum fare of say, the distance of 1 or 2 rapid transit stops (more like 3-6 bus stops, around the distance of State St to either Tufts Medical or Back Bay).

We should be encouraging riders to make more local trips, and allow the MBTA to cover operational costs of running service far from downtown with higher fares the closer to 128 a rider travels to and from (where density and ridership decreases with more distance). Riders riding high ridership routes closer to downtown would pay lower fares, and riders of low ridership routes further from downtown would pay higher fares, with low income fares for those who have no other choice.

For example, if a rider is only paying $0.95 to ride the Silver Line from South End to Downtown, then is considering relocating to Newton Corner. Perhaps a rider would balk and reconsider if the rider realizes his or her transit fare would more than triple from $0.95 to $3.25, relocating from South End to Newton Corner.

If the same $1.70 fare is applying to both South End and Watertown Square, it allows people to relocate further away from downtown and encourages sprawl and super commuting as far as 128.

In addition, there is also cycling to consider. Cycling is likely eating the mode share of public transit, with transit riders switching to biking. Cycling is probably not pulling many drivers away from their cars as much as from transit. By making shorter transit trips cheaper, transit can stay relevant for short trips.
Click to expand...
Are distance based fees worth all the costs and penalties associated with their capture?

In the Rapid Transit System is means adding fare collection on the exit side of all station exits, including exit only egresses. How else to you prove distance?
On buses and surface streetcars it means exit tapping for all passengers, increasing dwell times. How else do you prove distance?

We don't trust Boston transit users to be honest about proof-of-purchase today. We are not going to trust them to be honest about proof-of-distance.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Are distance based fees worth all the costs and penalties associated with their capture?

In the Rapid Transit System is means adding fare collection on the exit side of all station exits, including exit only egresses. How else to you prove distance?
On buses and surface streetcars it means exit tapping for all passengers, increasing dwell times. How else do you prove distance?

We don't trust Boston transit users to be honest about proof-of-purchase today. We are not going to trust them to be honest about proof-of-distance.
Click to expand...
Is there any data that compares dwell times on Boston's buses and streetcars, compared to other transit systems that use distance based fares? IIRC I though most of the Netherlands pretty much uses distance based fares almost all the time, that includes the buses and trams.

The problem with flat based fares is that city folk have to subsidize the commutes of suburban NIMBY commuters. East Boston and Roxbury residents have to pay high fares to get around the city even though they probably cover less distance than Marblehead or West Roxbury commuters. Commuters are likely travelling longer distances from further away suburbs, than transit dependent riders who need to make more, shorter trips. Public transit is extremely expensive for Chinatown residents, whom already contend with air pollution from I-93 and the Pike next door, even though they are almost dead center in the middle of the transit system.

It's pretty bad to be clobbered for making a short trip. The more bike lanes we build, the more riders the MBTA is going to lose for such high fares for short trips, making the MBTA miss out on fare revenue due to prohibitive costs of transit compared to just biking it.
 
Delvin4519 said:
IIRC I though most of the Netherlands pretty much uses distance based fares almost all the time, that includes the buses and trams.
Click to expand...
Correct, all Dutch public transport is distance-based, although there is a base fare of €1.08 which obviously disproportionately affects shorter bus/tram/metro trips.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Correct, all Dutch public transport is distance-based, although there is a base fare of €1.08 which obviously disproportionately affects shorter bus/tram/metro trips.
Click to expand...
Do you find the dwell times at bus and tram stops to be of reasonable length and within expectations of dwell times seen in other cities' bus/tram systems outside of the Netherlands? If dwell times on Dutch bus and tram systems are within striking range of those that use flat fares outside of the Netherlands, then this does not make a huge difference.
 
737900er said:
Ok, dumb question re: bunching. Why aren't buses as actively managed as the Green Line when bunched? On the Green Line there are frequently short turned and re-routed trains, but that never happens in the bus network. Why can a B train short turn at Park but a 57 can't short turn at Newton Corner?
Click to expand...
F-Line to Dudley said:
Double-dipping on fares. If you're kicked off a Green Line train at Park, you're still behind the fare gates and can pick up a continuing train free for your troubles. Not so with bus routes that are shorted mid-trip.
Click to expand...
Yes. But. It should be very doable for the following bus driver to be notified, "Hey, we just short-turned a bus at Newton Corner, please board all doors and don't collect fares at that stop." Like @The EGE said, it sounds like dispatchers don't have the bandwidth to do that, but I do wonder if there's some way the turning driver could directly notify the following driver without needing to go through dispatch.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Is there any data that compares dwell times on Boston's buses and streetcars, compared to other transit systems that use distance based fares? IIRC I though most of the Netherlands pretty much uses distance based fares almost all the time, that includes the buses and trams.

The problem with flat based fares is that city folk have to subsidize the commutes of suburban NIMBY commuters. East Boston and Roxbury residents have to pay high fares to get around the city even though they probably cover less distance than Marblehead or West Roxbury commuters. Commuters are likely travelling longer distances from further away suburbs, than transit dependent riders who need to make more, shorter trips. Public transit is extremely expensive for Chinatown residents, whom already contend with air pollution from I-93 and the Pike next door, even though they are almost dead center in the middle of the transit system.

It's pretty bad to be clobbered for making a short trip. The more bike lanes we build, the more riders the MBTA is going to lose for such high fares for short trips, making the MBTA miss out on fare revenue due to prohibitive costs of transit compared to just biking it.
Click to expand...
Tap in tap out works pretty well when service is frequent and trains/buses are not crowded. That is usually the case in the Netherlands, because many commuters ride their bikes.

On bad weather days, when more commuters shift to trams and buses, and they get crowded, the tap in tap out slows things down.

The Green Line, Silver Line and the key bus routes in Boston are pretty commonly crowded.

The commuter from West Roxbury or Marblehead is likely taking Commuter Rail not bus/subway combo. That is already A LOT MORE MONEY.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Are distance based fees worth all the costs and penalties associated with their capture?

In the Rapid Transit System is means adding fare collection on the exit side of all station exits, including exit only egresses. How else to you prove distance?
On buses and surface streetcars it means exit tapping for all passengers, increasing dwell times. How else do you prove distance?

We don't trust Boston transit users to be honest about proof-of-purchase today. We are not going to trust them to be honest about proof-of-distance.
Click to expand...
It would be the same forumla as an OV-Chipkaart in the Netherlands. Failure to tap out means paying a penalty fare like is in the Netherlands. Tapping into the system will draw the maximum fare cap, and tap out for the refund of the actual fare.
 
Delvin4519 said:
It would be the same forumla as an OV-Chipkaart in the Netherlands. Failure to tap out means paying a penalty fare like is in the Netherlands. Tapping into the system will draw the maximum fare cap, and tap out for the refund of the actual fare.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point of all the extra equipment that needs to be installed and maintained in all the fare-controlled subway stations to enable tap out. $$$$

The cost penalty on the Green Line and buses is dwell time. The equipment will eventually be there with all door boarding. On a crowded Green Line car it is hard enough to just get to the door, much less get to a door and tap out while trying to exit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top