The start of the T's annus horribilis?
By adamg - 2/5/11 - 12:15 pm
The Globe reports commuter-rail performance is at its worst in three years. Sure, you can blame the weather and antique equipment, but an MBCR honcho is quoted as saying, yeah, they could do better.
Meanwhile, things aren't looking all that rosy on the subways, either. Yesterday, Brian Fluharty posted this chart of Green Line performance, as based on delay alerts sent out by the T:
Comments
"annus horribilus?"
It's horribilis, not horribilus (third declension, not second).
Good catch
from a fellow latin scholar - try this one (extra credit for a freshman latin class at my High school-think freshman boy humor) -
Ubi o ubi est mea sub-ubi
to the point - is it my eyes or do others see a gradually growing trend here - there is an article in Boston Mag this month saying this will get worse, much worse as the T struggles with its debt load.
Took the Latin kid here a moment
She groaned.
ubi
I was kind of proud of myself that it only took me a few minutes to figure that out, based only on the line from Frasier where they talked about "semper ubi sub-ubi".
Ha!
Similarly (although unlike your version it's funny - to a high school student - translated into English and then spoken aloud, but is nonsensical both in Latin and as written English): the old chestnut "Semper ubi sub ubi."
Oy!
What can I say? I'm not the Latin scholar in the family! Thanks, fixed.
Other T language issues
In the midst of everything, they changed "canceled" to "annulled" for commuter-rail trains. Um, what?
On the subway, they're pronouncing "minute" as "mi-nute."
Just now, somebody reported a Green Line announcement involving "Lekmere."
"Anulled" has always been
standard railroad terminology for cancelling a train.
As I understand it, the alert messages now come directly from the people actually dispatching the trains, buses, and subways, and are not routed through the T's PR office or other 'clearing house' for editing or clarification before they go out.
In other words, the actual MBCR railroad dispatchers are composing the commuter rail alerts. And to them, a train that doesn't run is "anulled", and not "cancelled".
Possible sabotage?
I read some of the comments on the Globe website and someone alluded that the signal problems/delays that have been plaguing the T over the past month never seem to happen on Saturdays and Sundays, and that the MBTA workers are attempting to sabotage the system by delaying buses and monkeying with the signals in order to pressure the MBTA management to negotiate new contracts with the unions by using infuriated passengers as pawns.
I'm not sure if it's true or not; if it is, I forsee a gigantic scandal with plenty of firings, subpoenas and arrests, as the MBTA is a public entity and tampering with a public conveyance just because the unions have gone without a contract is illegal.
On the weekends, however, when the demand is lowest, there are hardly any signal/traffic problems at all, and trains and buses run on time (at least the Route 50 bus has on my street today).
Employee tampering is also evident...
... in the bus schedules. Now that there are apps for showing where the buses are, it's possible to see that bus delays have increased substantially - even on good weather days.
I once read that the T can have up to 30% absenteeism on the bus lines on any given day (particularly with inclement weather). Is that still true?
Perhaps Bus Delays Are Up...
...but perhaps the delays are up because many of the roads they travel on are quite a bit skinnier than they typically are due to snow/ice not being pushed back to the curb?
In many of the places I travel, parked cars are at least 6 feet from the curb. That's got to slow the buses down, especially during rush hours when buses are making multiple trips through the same constricted arteries.
30% Absenteeism?
The T's online scorecard shows that they operate in the vicinity of 99% of the scheduled bus trips. Where did you read the 30% absenteeism rate on bus lines?
Comments on boston.com
Maybe someone can help me too. I read on the comments on boston.com that Obama is a Muslim, fascist-commie, born in the bowels of hell who wants to destroy America just because his wife got a big ol butt.
The only thing lower than the quality of posts on boston.com are the posts on the herald's on-line version. The only thing lower than the quality of the herald comments... well happily I haven't encountered anything worse than that.
Turning the debate over how to improve the T into a justification for the continued dismantling of the labor movement is tiresome. No doubt there is deadwood to cut and established bad habits that need to be shaken out (with criminal prosecution if necessary), but then you're still left with deficient investment in infrastructure and maintenance. Go ahead and replace all T workers with trained macaques who get paid in monkey pellets and aren't allowed to use their cell phones and we'll still have the same problems (and the trains would REALLY stink).
One thing I am certain of, no solutions to our society's ills will be found on the boston.com comment boards.
Thank you ...
...for your sensible comment. A perfect antidote to newspaper message board wingnuttery (American right-wing crazies even seem to bedevil the UK's Guardian online comment site).
You know what else causes problems and delays?
Heavy demand and traffic. Like on weekdays. No conspiracy required.
Yeah and with increased
Yeah and with increased ridership it's really no wonder that the delays are increasing (and more impactful) too.
That I do understand...
The more load you put on the system, the quicker it tends to break down. It could very well be the case vs. a few disgrunted MBTA employees wanting to put the screws to the MBTA management by agitating riders.
I know this isn't going to be a popular comment, but I think the demand can be lessened if the T implements peak/off peak fares during rush hours. I would say a 25-50% surcharge on all fares throughout the system from 6:30am to 9am and from 4:30pm to 7pm would cause people to think twice about overloading the system, as they would pay the extra for the privilege. The extra monies generated from those peak fares would go straight to repairs, purchasing new vehicles, and adding more buses/trains to routes. (Monthly and weekly passes would not be affected.)
Do a 180
Boy! I say..Boy! You're swingin for the fences but you're facing the backstop! /end Foghorn Leghorn/
If we lessen demand on the T that just justifies not giving it any funding. Decreased ridership means less money. The idea is to present our public transportation system as an integral component of our Metropolitan area that requires the appropriate level of funding and maintenance (and professionalism) that an economically viable 21st century city requires. If we disincentivize and stankify /end Rev. Jackson/ the T during peak hours, it's not like the people stay home or start biking. They get into cars and that then justifies investing and expanding our 20th century highway infrastructure in the city (and we all know how well that works out).
The disincentive idea is not a bad one, only it needs to be focused at translating the hidden costs of car commuting to the driver so that s/he might start thinking about taking public transportation instead. And maybe prompt his/her elected official to invest in that system. ...whichmightbeawholeloteasieriftheexperienceoftakingtheTwasn'tlikeburnignninhell!!! /end Bobcat Goldthwaite/
Peak price driving, not transit!
Great post, John, right down to the Yosemite Sam at the beginning. We really want to incetivize using the 'T, especially for commuting. The only way to get enough attention focused on fixing and improving the 'T is to increase demand. Snow clogged roads have done this, but the snow won't last for ever. Our public transit strategy seems to be geared toward the idea of settling for status quo, when it should be based on the assumption that ridership will increase.
Peak Pricing only helps when there are alternative times
Problem is, the T locks commuters into a tight commuting window because they decided some time ago that people:
1: work 7-8 hour days
2: only commute between 6am and 9am and return between 4:30pm and 6pm
This makes any attempt at peak pricing useless. You can't shift your hours if, say, the T doesn't even run to your area after certain hours and/or cuts service so sharply after 9am and 6pm that things get really crowded as it is.
Very much, I say, very much true
Call it frustration from being in a can of human sardines and a rotten commute from hell over the past few weeks (although I've gotten smarter and taken the T much earlier - the problems were virtually non-existent then), with a bit of claustrophobia and cabin fever mixed in.
Let me reverse things instead. In order to encourage riding the T and to get more money into the T's coffers, the T should charge cheaper fares during rush hour, which will bring in more revenue from passengers who don't normally ride the T but don't want to be stuck in traffic. Then, concentrate on the traffic choke points and decongest them - and in this case, charging drivers $1 or $2 would be fair and appropriate.
50% of why the T is broken
The end goal is to make life better for the people who will still drive their cars?
Congestion pricing
I'm not opposed to variable pricing on distance and possibly time, but it would take a whole lot of infrastructure work to make it happen on the T. When I rode the Tokyo metro you got a ticket stub which you used to enter and later exit. If you didn't pay enough fare up front, then you had to fill it at a machine before exiting. Our MTA famously had an exit fare as well at one point, but I just don't see how that could work today on the Green Line surface-level stations. It's a giant mess where people just jump on and off using all doors during peak periods. The drivers even allow it many times, in order not to completely destroy headways. And as for peak periods on the "B": I've seen packed trains even at 9pm on a regular basis.
As for pricing by time, I sincerely doubt that the people who are regularly commuting by T are paying per-ride. Monthly and weekly passes are a good deal for those riders, who would compose the majority of peak passengers. In addition, it is counterproductive for the city to raise the ticket fares: the marginal cost of an additional rider is heavily outweighed by the benefit of taking a car off the road.
Where peak pricing does make sense is on the roads: we need to overcome the political obstacles and implement congestion pricing for automobile traffic into the city. Those funds can be used partially to fund public transit: the nice thing is that it is self-balancing. If more people drive then public transit gets more money to make improvements. If more people use transit then then more fare revenue will be received, and congestion charges can be lowered.
It's hard to get people to admit that their "free-ride" (or rather, woefully underpriced ride) on our network of roadways is a problem, sadly.
Fare hikes have fallen behind
Fare hikes have fallen behind inflation. Time to goose 'em up - and give the transit cops b-b guns to shoot fare evaders.