Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA to scale back late-night service on Fridays, Saturdays
By adamg on Wed, 04/15/2015 - 4:14pm
WBUR has the details on the plan to stop subway service at 2 a.m. instead of 2:30 and to eliminate several of the late-night bus routes.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
How much weekend commuter
How much weekend commuter rail service are they cutting? Oh right, the burbs were big on Baker, so their large subsidy is fine, just not late night workers in Boston.
I dunno...
...my weekend commuter rail service only has six round trips, ends at 11:30 PM, and costs $17 round trip. Wanna trade?
Heavy rail transit riders
Heavy rail transit riders (Red Line, Blue Line, Orange Line) pay about half of what their rides actually cost, as do light rail users (Green Line). Commuter rail passengers pay about 44% of the cost of their rides.
http://www.universalhub.com/2012/mbtas-fare-recovery-rate-vs-other-cities
So when you ride, we're paying $5 extra for your suburban ass, each way.
When a subway rider rides, the subsidy is under $1.
Imagine he cost effective the
Imagine he cost effective the South Coast rail will be! (If it ever happens)
T buses have a higher subsidy
T buses have a higher subsidy than any other mode. And ferries have the lowest.
How is it anyone's fault but the T's?
I used to have an 11-mile subway and bus commute. I paid $75 per month, and it took about 50 minutes.
Then my job moved to commuter rail land. Now my commute is 17 miles, I pay $265 per month, and it takes about 75 minutes.
Who exactly is paying extra for whose ass in these situations?
Untrue, the commuter rail has
Untrue, the commuter rail has the highest subsidy per ride (about the same cost as the rider pays, so $4-10/ride, and the subway the lowest (84 cents).
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Smart_Forms/News,_Events_and_Press_Rel...
Ok, so we're arguing over
Ok, so we're arguing over subsidy percentage, versus absolute dollars of subsidy per trip.
My point remains: when I was forced to switch from bus to commuter rail, my commute distance got 55% longer, and the average speed is the same, yet I faced a 253% increase in my T pass cost. How am I taking unfair advatage of the taxpayers?
The problem is that the T and Keolis waste money on inefficient commuter rail operating practices. Taxpayers and commuter rail passengers are the ones who suffer.
So, get rid of the Commuter Rail?
And have all the trips take place on the highways? In theory, that would save the taxpayers a lot of money.
You could look at cities across the nation that have commuter rail, buses, and something else, and commuter rail will have the highest per rider or per mile costs. And in return, they charge more for the train for that reason.
Per passenger mile
Heavy rail: 52¢
Commuter rail: 48¢
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2013/agency_profiles/...
The problem with the commuter
The problem with the commuter rail isn't rich constituents or a decision to run too much service. It's inefficient and wasteful operating practices.
We should be converting more lines into approximations of the Green Line D, not buying more double-decker behemoths which will lock us into existing labor-intensive practices for the next 40 years.
And to do this effectively, just how much money
will we have to sink into capital improvements like high level platforms, electrification and the like? And, given the current climate of "we must study everything forever and give communities any and all concessions they demand" (witness GLX - "necessary" community pathway - and South Coast Rail - how dare we build a railroad trestle across the same swamp that had a trestle spanning it for decades - as the most recent examples of this nonsense), do you really expect such changes to be made in a timely and cost-effective manner.
And I agree that high level platforms, electrification, etc. are very good ideas and have real merit. But, until we muster the political will to change our excessively negative attitudes about making capital improvements to our transportation system, at this point it's probably better to continue the current "labor-intensive" practices that, like them or not, serve a valid purpose - to keep a PUBLIC transportation system running.
Overspending on the
Overspending on the construction side is a big part of the problem.
Leave the tracks and stations as they are, but get some low-floor DMUs. Oh, and maybe some EMUs on the Providence line, since the electrification *already exists*.
World-class transit system
World-class transit system for a world-class city.
Let's be great.
.
The T can afford to give
The T can afford to give Hinghamites a commuter ferry AND their new commuter rail, but not an extra half hour 2x a week in Boston?
New rule: for every rich town
New rule: for every rich town that gets two modes of transit, Boston gets an extra half hour of service. Thinking like this will move Massachusetts into the 21st century.
So the T shuts down at the
So the T shuts down at the exact moment the bars close and all the late-night revelers are looking for a way to get home. Abso-fucking-lutely brilliant. Wasn't one of the purposes of late-night weekend service to give people another option to driving home drunk?
Uber
Uber
Sure. Although one can also
Sure. Although one can also say, "taxis," or "walking." The point is, more options are better, and of the available options, the T is the second cheapest after walking (which is obviously not a realistic option if your home and the bar are 5 miles apart).
Third
cheapest. Second is biking (either your own or Hubway).
Yeah, cause operating a bike
Yeah, cause operating a bike while drunk is a wicked good idea.
DUI abuse
Some localities have started abusing DUI laws to cite drunks on everything from riding mowers on their own property to cyclists. Anyone know if this crap has come to the Boston area yet?
Drunk biking
Drunk biking is no better than drunk driving.
Sure it is
A drunk on a bike will hurt themselves but unlikely to hurt anyone else or cause expensive property damage.
A drunk in a car with hurt other people, cause expensive property damage, but commonly isn't hurt themselves.
This same logic is also why auto drivers should be subjected to a far higher standard then someone who just ride a bike.
One question
When was the last time you sobered up by pushing your car on the sidewalk until you were good to drive it?
Also, drunk cyclists kill/injure themselves. Drunk drivers injure/kill other people. But hey, do feel free to find an incident where a drunk cyclist crashed into a house where people were sleeping.
Clearly a deliberate decision
Clearly a deliberate decision to drive ridership numbers farther down so they can justify killing the service altogether. The T hasn't wanted to run late night service from the beginning, and everyone knows that.
Yup, lived through their
Yup, lived through their sabotaged "Night Owl" experiment back in the early 2000s. Half-assed, infrequent bus service run along the subway routes, but priced something like $3-4 (when subway fare was $1.25 or so). Shut down due to lack of ridership after one year.
The previous night owl ran
The previous night owl ran from September 2001 to June 2005
In 2006, Night Owl bus routes
In 2006, Night Owl bus routes that paralleled the subway cost $2, while the daytime subway fare was $1.25.
Night Owl bus fare was $1.50, versus $1 for regular buses.
Also includes this statement:
Also includes this statement:
"Staffers said the MBTA should also start a request for proposals for third party companies that could provide the late-night service."
Get ready for a battle with the Carmen's union.
These things can change.
These things can change.
In the last few years, the T reduced staffing per train on the Blue, Orange, and Red Lines from 2 to 1. Nobody was fired, but the positions will be eliminated by attrition.
The T should tell the union: agree to a 15% pay supplement after 2 AM (like in NYC and pretty much any other American transit system), rather than the current 100% supplement, or we're outsourcing the late-night service.
Deliberately Fudging The Numbers
I've been taking the Ⓣ into Boston almost every Friday night; spending money in the city I otherwise wouldn't have. Shutting it down at 2:00 will make it useless to me, and I'm sure many other riders too.
During late night service, I often see emergency "exit only" gates blocked open with bricks or traffic cones, with passengers entering the station without going through the fare gates. Sometimes the fare gates themselves are left wide open.
When people running the Ⓣ don't like providing late night service, I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately make it look as if ridership was less than it is.
It's ridiculous to end service just before the time of night when it's needed the most. It's inevitable there'll be a increase in drunk driving due to this stupid decision!
Has there been a decrease in
Has there been a decrease in drunk driving in the last year since late night service started?
I doubt it. people who are
I doubt it. people who are going to drunk drive are going to drunk drive. It's probably increasing responsible people bothering to go into boston and spend money though
Someone at the T should
Someone at the T should really get up the courage to cut the late-night subway lines that aren't getting enough passengers.
I think it's highly likely that Davis has the ridership to justify late-night service, while Beachmont doesn't.
And if the T could keep capital spending under control, they'd have more money to run actual trains and buses. The 4.3-mile Green Line Extension should *not* cost $2.2 billion. If they built it sensibly, they could save 90% of that, and use the money to fund late-night service for the next 135 years.
I take the last train home to
I take the last train home to Beachmont whenever possible- while it's not typically full of bar patrons, a fair portion of the low wage restaurant employees rely on this line. If I miss it coming from the South End, it's a twenty two dollar cab ride. Saving forty dollars a week is awesome. Granted, I've never seen Davis at 3:00 AM, but the Blue Line is definitely being utilized.
Restaurant workers were one group that were specifically cited as a reason to keep the T open late. 2 AM is totally useless to us. It's not possible to close at 2 and be on the T immediately.
Do tell
How could the T build GLX for $50 million a mile, including station construction, electrical substations, and other infrastructure (leaving rolling stock aside)?
Ths should be interesting.
*Significant federal funding helps...
Feds do not help with operating costs.
The lines can grey but capital and operating costs require appropriate asterisks when compared. :)
How do they do it in Europe?
How do they do it in Europe? Or even other parts of the U.S.?
The Docklands Light Rail in London opened in 1987. It cost 77 million pounds, was 13 km long, and had 13 stations (twice as many as the GLX). In 2015 dollars, that's about $237 million (sorry, I didn't account for exchange rate fluctuation), or about $30 million/mile.
I've seen the plans for the GLX. There's absolutely no reason to build the giant glass boxes and mile-long viaducts. Just put some tracks in the right-of-way the state already owns, build some platforms with ramps or elevators to the street, and be done with it.
Like they did with the Green Line D in 1959. If an asphalt strip with a bus shelter works for Newton, it can work for Somerville.
Not so simple
Have you ever taken the commuter rail to West Medford?
It isn't at grade. It runs in a channel most of the way through Somerville and Medford.
It was originally a 4-track
It was originally a 4-track right-of-way.
In Europe, they have an even easier solution: run the subway trains or trolleys on the *same tracks* as the commuter rail, except for a short tunnel through the downtown core. But that isn't allowed here, since anything that runs on the national railroad network has to be designed to be rammed by freight trains.
(Note that the crash standards don't do much to protect passengers, and that preventing crashes in the first place by means of a fail-safe signal system is the real way to save lives. And regulations that make trains unsustainably expensive cause more people to drive, which is far more dangerous, but that dumps the problem out of the Federal Railroad Administration's court.)
Please give an example from
Please give an example from Europe of trolleys running on the same rails as freight, commuter, and intercity trains.
I doubt you'll be able to find one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
The definitions are fuzzy. (That's my point -- their government doesn't shove an arbitrary legal wall between two classes of rail systems. So it's not always easy to answer a question like "Is this a commuter train or a trolley?")
They certainly mix subways and railroads all over the place. As I found out when I took the Underground to Kew Gardens, and then mistakenly got on a commuter train for my return trip.
Raise the late night fare
Make it $5, people will pay. It may not be "fair" but people will pay. I read that 80% of users are people going to bars or other late night activities, the other 20% work. Some nights I do work those hours, and while I have always had a car available, it was nice to know I had an option if needed. Many of my co-workers do not.
And as Elmer pointed out, make sure that people are paying.
Whoever Baker appoints as the next MBTA GM should make a point to make surprise visits around the system. It would help keep staff on their toes. A little fear might help curb some of the abuses.
If the T wants to introduce
If the T wants to introduce tiered pricing, the higher prices should be during time periods of higher demand, not higher cost. The latter is ass-backwards. Charging during time periods of higher demand (rush hour) would make more money for the T and even out usage (making rush hour more tolerable and more efficient) as people who don't absolutely need to use it during those high-demand times will instead use it earlier or later in order to save money. Charging based on cost will do the exact opposite.
Other transit systems, including Uber and some cities' public transit use demand-based pricing. Some electric utility providers are switching to this model. And of course demand-based pricing is the concept that virtually all private business / the free market is based on.
So naturally, I'm sure the T would, if they do anything, do the opposite: Charge more based on "cost per trip" and not "demand." Light-demand times will be more expensive, pushing people to use the T during times of higher demand because it's cheaper then. And in this specific case, it'll sabotage late-night service just like it did the last time (Night Owl).
Surge pricing like that is
Surge pricing like that is highly regressive. It would make more people drive and punishes those without flexible work schedules.
Tiered pricing out of late night service is a bad idea.
MBTA late night service is
MBTA late night service is only "unsustainable" if the presumptive goal of infrastructure is profit. Of course, it's not. The point of infrastructure is to provide facilities and services that the citizenry needs to facilitate their lives and also the local/regional economy.
I want to see this argument about the economics of a single infrastructure segment taken in a vacuum applied to roads. "When will our streets and highways be profitable?" The answer is never, and it's not the point that they should be, because without roads we wouldn't have an economy to speak of. In Boston, the economy of Boston taken as a whole would take a gigantic hit if the MBTA just up and stopped, and guess what, we just experienced a real-life example of this!
If you proposed shutting the roads after 12:30 on weeknights and 2:30AM on weekends because they weren't profitable enough, everyone would laugh at you.
The system should still try
The system should still try to pay for itself, on the whole. But you're right that looking at it based on arbitrary time-slices is dumb, and that's what the T is doing here. If they wanted to carry this logic to its natural conclusion, they would also shut down during the afternoon on weekdays, or early morning on weekends. But it's not really about the fact that late-night service is unprofitable, it's about the fact that it's something new and different and therefore scary. No one would suggest they shut down the T service mid-afternoon, because "they've always had service then." But this is new, so as soon as it appears to be unprofitable (or anything about it can be used as an excuse), it has to go.
They shouldn't be looking at how to make 12:15am-2:30am pay for itself. They should be looking at how to make 5am-2:30am, as a whole, pay for itself.
I have to confess that I pay
I have to confess that I pay $50 a month for unlimited bus service and I'm getting away with murder(I don't own a car). They should raise it to $70 or $80 and I wouldn't have a problem. People would complain about not affording it but that would be BS given that EVERYONE on a bus is staring at a nice new smartphone. Cutting back on the late-night service is unfortunate, but facilitating daily commuters is much more important to the local economy than servicing a few late-night revelers who can probably walk home, share a cab, or simply leave the night club at 1:30 instead of 2.
So everybody works in the daytime
The handful of revelers are pouring their own drinks and making their own food, right?