Hey, there! Log in / Register
T about to collapse under its own weight?
By adamg on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 8:04am
The T just can't catch a break. The Globe reports a study due out today will say that those 15 straight months of increasing ridership are putting the local subways near a breaking point - where it will soon have more riders than it can handle, especially when coupled with new riders from massive new developments built near or atop subway stations.
[W]ithout investment in more subway cars, better power and signal systems, and other tools to relieve MBTA crowding, scattered congestion will become widespread, with riders at "hot spots" unable to board because cars are too full, and with backups and bottlenecks causing delays systemwide ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The fare increases should
The fare increases should help the crowding.
Yeah, that extra 30 cents is
Yeah, that extra 30 cents is totally a deal-breaker.
I am not sure that the fare
I am not sure that the fare increases are going to drop ridership much. Parking is scarce and expensive, and with finances being what they are, I see several things happening.
1. When the car dies, it isn't getting replaced. People are switching to using the T, to save money (even if that means using cabs if you have to commute when the T is not running).
2. People are trading longer MBTA commutes for lower rent.
3. People already using the T to commute don't really have another choice. (Cycling or walking to and from work is not for everyone!)
The main problem is the green
The main problem is the green line. Streetcars [sorry, LRVs] are inadequate for the passenger volume and population density of this city. Plus, there are a million above ground stops. And judging by the stop and go, one foot on the accelerator/one foot on the brake way the greenline trains move, there appears to be problems with the signal system.
Anyone who has tried to get
Anyone who has tried to get on the B or D lines at rush hour already have to wait for several trains to pass before they can get on.
Ah, yes, the memories I have
Ah, yes, the memories I have of the B line. Watching several trains pass at rush hour was a problem 12 years ago, when I used to take it to and from work.
Yup it was a bit of an "er,
Yup it was a bit of an "er, this already happens" moment for me (I take the B). If I'm trying to get home any time between 445pm and 600pm I seek don't even try the green line.
You can outrun the green line
by running. No joke. I used to do it regularly from Packards Corner to Kenmore.
Not to mention as you mentioned it regularly takes 45-1:15 door to door to commute from out there, due to skipping full trains.
Got fed up with my wasteful MBTA and decided to put that money towards rent and move closer. Now I walk to work, and have a lot less stress.
Don't even need to run
I regularly outwalk the green line from Lechmere to Arlington.
what a pathetic lack of
what a pathetic lack of political leadership - an environmentally friendly, economically essential piece of infrastructure is collapsing due to A) its usefulness and B) lack of funds. How is fixing up the T not a worthwhile investment for the state? It amazes me.
It's because half the state doesn't think it's part of the state
Nobody west of I-95 wants to spend any money on Boston because they can't comprehend (or are outright offended by) the idea of benefiting from the success of Boston.
Massachusetts is a microcosm of the political divide that engulfs this nation today.
Fine
cut off their road repair fund and emergency funds.
Didn't tax dollars disproportionately collected from metro areas go to fixing their washed out roads after two years of moderate flooding in western MA?
If we're going to squeeze the lemon, time to start squeezing the areas that provide the least tax revenue until they learn the hard way we're in this together.
West of what?
There. Fixed that for you.
You'll have to forgive me,
You'll have to forgive me, I'm not from 'round these parts.
In addition to the badly
In addition to the badly needed "investment in more subway cars, better power and signal systems" so that our existing infrastructure can be more productive, we badly need something to take pressure off the downtown hubs. Employment and housing density both exist away from the historic city center, and the transit system would function much better if people did not need to travel downtown to connect. The urban ring is an ideal solution but unrealizable in the current political and economic climate.
I've been dreaming lately about a streetcar line along Memorial Drive / Land Blvd / Gilmore Bridge / Austin St. It would connect Charlestown, Orange Line at Community College, Green Line at Lechmere, Galleria Mall, Red Line at Kendall Square, MIT/Mass Ave/1 Bus, and Cambridgeport and/or B line at BU. That would achieve the connectivity that half of the urban ring would while directly serving major centers of employment, population, and entertainment. Designed a certain way, it could also draw tourists wanting a trolley ride through a parkway along some of the most dramatic scenery in New England. Mem Drive could probably withstand losing a lane of autos or parking, but traffic impacts on the Gilmore Bridge could be problematic.
I really don't get the Urban
I really don't get the Urban Ring.
It turns a two-seat ride into a three-seat ride, with the associated extra waiting time and transfer inconvenience. There aren't many busy origin-destination pairs directly on its route. And it doesn't really serve many neighborhoods that don't already have rail service. All at a hideously expensive price we'll be paying back for decades to come.
I'd much rather see rail replacements for the busiest and slowest bus routes.
Thing is
A wheel and spoke would decrease times for A LOT of commuters. Not only that, it makes the connection areas that much more attractive for businesses and density.
Hit up DC and check out all the very dense mini-cities around Washington and Arlington.
The investment is well worth in economic and social returns it would foster of the next 30 years.
Hell, property values and the ability to live further out would also increase, for those who like that sort of thing. It would help alliterate the housing problems in Boston proper, while making it even more attractive.
Urban Ring
Why do you say there are no busy pairings on its route? It covers major employment centers including the airport, Kendall, MIT, Longwood as well as bus hubs and sites of current/proposed residential density including Chelsea, Sullivan Sq, East Cambridge, Kenmore, Ruggles, and Dudley. Moreover, I think the urban ring project would transform the T from primarily serving commuters (in and out) to primarily promoting urban mobility (with options for getting around the whole city).
That said, the price is prohibitively expensive. I don't know if Boston would or could ever grow quickly enough to justify financing such a piece of infrastructure. And, the current thinking about it as BRT just seems ridiculous to me.
BRT is just Phase One. At
BRT is just Phase One. At least on paper, anyway. Phase Three is heavy rail.
I've come to this conclusion too
The ring looks appealing, but it provides an ineffective rail alternative to riders who already have a rail option. I would strongly advocate for some linear cross town lines, but ones that are designed to make better network connections. An example might be a line that runs from Brighton to Chelsea, following the Worcester Line, then crossing to Cambridge via the Grand Junction. It brings rail rapid transit to two neighborhoods that do not currently have it. And it connects to BU, MIT, and Kendal Square, all major employment areas.
Attention Passengers
Attention passengers. We are experiencing delays in service due to decades of underinvestment and deferred maintenance.
Here's a link to the ULI Boston report
Here's a link to the ULI Boston report
http://boston.uli.org/~/media/DC/Boston/Boston%20D...
Silver Line Waterfront congested?
The Silver Line Waterfront is "congested?" Huh? Did they mean Silver Line Washington St? That bus had the highest weekday intensity of usage in the system, at 120 boardings per vehicle-hour. The Waterfront route had 36 boardings per vehicle-hour.
Now that data was from 2008, but when I asked the MBTA for the newer Service Plans, they informed me that it would be published in 2011. If only I could live in the past too.
If Silver Line Waterfront is "congested," then Washington Street is way overcapacity. More likely, the Waterfront is not congested at all, since 120 boardings per hour is appropriate for a "BRT" vehicle and 36 is a travesty.
Whenever I've taken the
Whenever I've taken the Silver Line to the airport, I've regretted it for several reasons. One of them is how cramped the buses get. They're entirely incapable of handling the crowds they get plus their luggage.
Things are so bad on the SL1 that they have two boarding lines at South Station. They try to make non-airport passengers wait until airport passengers had a chance to board.
I assume the ridership figure you got for the Silver Line Waterfront also includes the SL2, which isn't too busy outside rush hour. And the ride to the airport on the SL1 is painfully slow, so that reduces the number of boardings per hour even though the bus might be crowded.
My theory
It includes anything that goes via SL-Waterfront, which has changed nomenclature over the past few years.
And yes, it's a few years old, so maybe things have changed. It's hard to know, because MBTA has thus far refused to release any data that's up to date.
My theory is that SL-Washington sees a lot more hopping on and off the bus, shorter trips, and each seat gets more than one passenger. Thus, high intensity. This is good for farebox recovery in a flat fare system, and thus SL-Washington actually turns a slight profit during the weekday.
SL-Waterfront sees more end-to-end passengers, ones who take up more room thanks to travelers from the airport with baggage. Thus, lower intensity, worse farebox recovery, despite higher fares. And as you say, the SL2 isn't too busy outside of rush hour so that drags weekday intensity down further.
I'm trying to get the T to publish the numbers they were supposedly committed to release in 2011, we'll see...
The four-year old 2008 MBTA
The four-year old 2008 MBTA Service Plan
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/About_the_T/T_Pr...
has data in the chart at the end which shows the SL5 has a net cost per weekday rider (the subsidy per rider) of 9 cents while the SL1 has a cost of 48 cents and the SL2 15 cents. Some of the best operating cost per rider numbers in the bus network. If you amortize the capital cost of the SL1 and SL2, that would of course increase it.
Their are tables for total hours and miles of service and total passengers from 2008. I would expect teh SL1 will be even more cost effective when new numbers come out, as the ridership has increased since 2008.
The Washington St. SL5 has reasonably good peak ridership out in the AM and back in the PM besides the expected heavy ridership inbound in the AM and outbound in the PM. That's part of what makes it so efficient.
The SL2 is very crowded out in the AM and back in the PM peak, but runs pretty light in the "reverse peak" direction.
That's it
There's also a Federally funded Washington Street corridor study floating around out there, as well as a Waterfront one.
I saw SL-Wash had achieved slight profitability in some more recent numbers, but I can't find them again.
And the T is still being recalcitrant.
What are you asking for?
What are you asking for? What would have become the 2011 Service Plan was shelved while everyone who works on that had to be diverted to working on planning and implementing the fare increase/service cuts to close the budget deficit.
So getting the 2011 Service Plan isn't possible because it doesn't exist. If you want newer ridership numbers, ask for newer ridership numbers. Somewhat newer numbers are in the MBTA Blue Book (search for it from the MBTA home page), whose last published edition is 2010. And yes, that is also overdue for an update. But it is also done by the same people who had to work on the service cut planning. Since those changes are about to take effect in a couple of weeks, they've been incredibly busy lately.
Silver Line waterfront (the SL1, SL2, and the short "Silver Line Waterfront" loop trips) ridership has been increasing significantly, and quickly, over the past few years.
I'm asking for up to date numbers
I'm still working with Bluebook 2010 which is measurements from Spring '09 at best.
The Service Plan website says this:
So, I think it is quite reasonable to ask "where is the service plan that was supposed to be released last year?"
Especially when the only response I can elicit from them is "we will publish the service plan in 2011." Seeing that this e-mail was sent to me in 2012, it's hard not to get a little cynical.
And I realize they were working hard on the service cut (makes me feel all warm and cuddly inside) but this was supposed to be done last year. Before all of this mess. And it's mandated.
They received public comments
They received public comments for ideas for the 2011 service plan, but they never developed an actual plan before being told to come up with a cut list. The cuts about to start on July 1 essentially are the 2011 service plan, and if there are new cuts next year if the legislature doesn't come up with a plan, then that will be the 2012 "service plan". Don't expect any real service plan until the MBTA is at least in a position to not have annual cuts.
Good to know
Thanks.
On the Red, Orange, and Blue
On the Red, Orange, and Blue Lines, the limiting factor is the signal system.
And it's not due to lack of funding. We've *spent* millions of dollars over the last 30 years "upgrading" to this new signal system which can handle far fewer trains per hour than what it replaced.
The 2004 upgrade of the northern Orange Line signals was helpful, but we're stuck with the inefficient Red and Blue Line signals.
The Green Line doesn't have this particular problem yet (though it's limited by other factors), but they're working on it.
Green too
The signal system does limit the central subway. Counts from ninety years ago show the system handling far more than it does today.
New signal systems for the
New signal systems for the Green Line would improve safety, but they would actually reduce capacity compared to what is essentially a line of sight signal system that we have now. As the schedules 90 years ago showed, you can pretty much have an umlimited slow conga line of streetcars in the green line central subway, as long as you are not too concerned with travel speeds or collision potential.
No, that already happened
They moved from line-of-sight to the signal system underground to help improve safety. But it's too simplistic and restrictive, hence, the limitations.
I mean that the present
I mean that the present signal system from 1922 is essentially de facto line of sight. Short blocks with no automatic stop protection.
Even an advanced moving block signal system would not allow the cars to get as close toether as they do now on the Green Line but it would prvent rear-end collisions.
Ah, those were the days! Need
Ah, those were the days! Need to get from Downtown to Lower Mills? Don't mind zig-zagging through the South End and JP for ninety minutes? We've got your one seat ride outta Park Street covered!
Then again, ninety years ago the signal system was nonexistent. God help the motormen and official at Park Street.
A hilarious thought: this problem of capacity (and the resulting issues such as bypassing riders) has plagued the bus system for years. I've seen this being cited as an urgent problem as early as the late 1970s. The T's purchase of artics has only been a small step forward; frankly, there are some bus corridors that are presently busy and overtaxed enough to warrant rapidtransitization (sorry, I was aiming for a term that's the opposite of "bustitution".)
If only to have my dream team: Edward Dana as GM; Salvucci as secretary; and Dukakis as governor. Then again, we'd have to alter space and time (hmm, and I think the MA constitution too) to pull it off. And of course their labors would prove fruitless w/o the needed funding for it all. Well, a bored surface lines superintendent can dream, can't he?
Of course the majority of the
Of course the majority of the surface streetcar system was dismantled under Mr. Dana between 1922 and 1958 (not that he was anti-streetcar, the economics of the operation dictated the majority of conversions to bus or trackless)
The Orange Line runs a
The Orange Line runs a 5-minue headway in the peak. The signal system can handle at least 3 minute. Buy enough additional cars and you can significantly increase service and capacity.
The Blue Line used to run a 3.5 minute headway with four-car trains and now just under a 5 minute headway with 6-car trains. It could handle a 3.5 minute headway with 6-car trains if needed.
The Red Line does have enough signal capacity to accomodate more service in the shoulder of the peaks, but would need more cars to do that.