Dan Dunn knows from experience that just because a train has its doors open at Alewife doesn't mean it's going anywhere anytime soon. He was the only one to know that around 11:10 a.m. today.
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I hope the writer waved to the other train
By neilv
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 12:32pm
I just deleted some armchair analysis of procedures when I realized that leaving with the empty train in the exceptional situation of everyone on the wrong train might actually have been standard procedure.
Situations like that are what make systems design interesting.
Situations like that
By fenwayguy
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 12:45pm
are just another illustration of the T's institutional incompetence and lack of interest in actually serving their customers.
I dunno
By neilv
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 1:04pm
Sounds like there was an exceptional situation, perhaps an operator error, in the doors not being open earlier on the train.
But in a complex system, I can think of good reason to have a standard procedure that the train leave anyway in that general situation, such as to minimize cascading impact.
The procedure might not be specific to Alewife. There are only so many conditional procedures that people can master. Sometimes you really need a "If X happens, then do Y," even if that's not always the best thing, since either it's usually the best thing or it is avoiding a rare but very bad thing.
I prefer to beat up on MBTA when I'm confident they're wrong. I'm not sure they are in this situation.
Complex conditional procedure
By fenwayguy
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 1:33pm
X = Empty train departing while idle train is full of passengers
Y = Use PA system on idle train to instruct passengers to switch trains
Yeah, that's real complex. It must require a Ph.D. to figure that one out.
What if that rule or goal...
By neilv
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 1:56pm
...conflicts with other rules or goals?
There is much low-hanging fruit for criticizing the MBTA. In this situation, however, I can think of plausible reasons why a standard procedure to do what the driver did would be appropriate. I think that poorly defensible criticisms are counterproductive when there are strong criticisms to be made.
These trains and buses are regularly off schedule. These routes regularly do not have sufficient capacity. This equipment has a substandard failure rate. There is a high rate of trip delays. These areas are not served. These other areas are a 2-hour trip by 3 legs of MBTA, but only 15 minutes by car. There is a high rate of drivers using phones while driving. The fake woodgrain panels incite youth violence. All but the last one are good criticisms to be making.
Huh?
By zbert
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 2:13pm
Given that the principal purpose of the MBTA is to move people from some place to some other place... it would seem that having people on the train that is about to move would be way, way, way up there on the priority list.
the only plausible reason I can think of to explain this one is that the T is badly run and the drivers can be assholes.
Could it be possible that
By anon
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 2:06pm
Could it be possible that the operator/dispatcher was aware of large crowds at Porter and Harvard, thereby making the empty car the more appropriate one a few stops down the line, but not at the expense of the passengers at Alewife?
I'm the first to complain about bus routes that are consistently unstaggered by rush hour, but I also realize that the bus-traffic relationship is much more chaotic than the train-rail relationship. Maybe this was an example of someone making the right choice.
Happens all the time...
By anon
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 3:49pm
...at Park Street, where westbound trains regularly play games of "standby" - but they never tell you when they're going to leave, or if indeed the train on the opposite track is the better bet, or if if too will stand by...etc.
I don't know how many times I've boarded a Park Street train (often only going a few stops, so I could concievably take any of the branches) only to find that it's a standby train; so I get off that one to board the one arriving on the other side, only to find that THAT one is going to be staning by, and the train I was originally on is now closing its doors and leaving...
Personally, I think the T operators secretly love this game. They love to see us run back and forth like idiots, not knowing which shell the pea is under.
It's been a while
By fenwayguy
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 3:15pm
It's been a while since I've been to the end of the line, so I don't recall, but is there no Next Train ===> signage at Alewife station to inform passengers of which one to board? (Of course [b]<=== Next Train, Braintree, Departs in 4 Minutes[/b] would be entirely too much to expect.)
I was in new york on Monday.
By J
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 7:50pm
I was in new york on Monday. We stopped at a station and the PA said
"the train across the platform will be departing first, we will be standing by for 3 minutes"
Simple. Easy. Good customer service.
Protip: Going inbound from kenmore square, if two trains are in the station, the following always happens:
B and C/D close doors at same time.
C/D accelerates, then stops at beginning of tunnel.
B accelerates, proceeded to Hynes before C/D train.
The B train will ALWAYS go first, but it's never anounced.
But even worse, why doesnt the C/D train sit for another 30 seconds with doors open to let people in, instead of moving towards the tunnel where it becomes useless to people entering the station?
not just ny
By anon
Fri, 05/22/2009 - 9:25pm
this is also the case in Washington, DC and San Francisco, among, well, every other public transit system i have ever ridden, and that's quite a few