Hey, there! Log in / Register
New North Station commuter-rail schedules: Good, bad and ugly
By adamg on Wed, 11/18/2015 - 8:00am
Ari Ofsevit analyzes the new train times:
A consultant and a computer model were used for these schedules, but common sense seems to have been left by the wayside.
The most blatant example of this is the timing of the schedules: there are no trains - on any line - arriving at North Station between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., and none which depart North Station between 6:30 and 7:25 p.m. So for anyone who works a 10 to 6 shift is completely hosed. This needs to be fixed. If no one rode these trains, I could see the logic. But people do.
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
However, credit where credit
However, credit where credit is due, they fixed a lot of problems in the schedules. For example, the Newburyport line used to have no inbound trains between 5:45 and 9 pm. Now there are almost hourly trains. And there are express trains that didn't previously exist.
I'm actually happy with the new schedule.
Sure, a train in the abovementioned gaps might be nice, but on the whole I'd say they improved service.
Fix one problem, create another
There are now no inbound trains between 3 and 6 on the Rockport line except for one inbound that runs express the entire way.
There are a lot of improvements on this schedule (as I pointed out: Afternoon reverse-peak service on the Newburyport line is improved dramatically, with three inbound rush hour departures, no three-plus hour service gap after 5:55, and hourly departures all evening.), and fixing some of these sorts of gaps are good examples.
However, there are some major oversights as well. With some minor changes, the schedule could be made a lot better. But without any public engagement or involvement (not even, say, a rider focus group or something) it suffers.
From the T's announcement
Too bad they didn't actually ask the riders about the new schedules. While the T allegedly set up focus groups for beta testing of the schedules, nobody I know (including myself) who offered to participate was ever contacted to do so. As for the point about no major changes, perhaps there have been no major changes in the past because, for the most part, the schedules WORKED.
FWIW, I consider most of the Reading/Haverhill changes to be highly illogical - like the 1 hour 40 minute gaps between service from North Station to Reading during the midday, and running a 3:30 train to Haverhill via the Lowell line only to be followed by a local train to Reading at 3:45.
I'm also a Haverhill line regular
And I can't comprehend the logic on some of these. Train 208 in particular is needed from the Merrimack Valley, but hardly full from up there. With it running express from Ballardvale in you could operate it with three cars and probably have a seat for everyone.
But we'll get hourly service late nights, if you want to arrive in the Merrimack Valley after midnight! They said that Garden events were a priority for scheduling - sad that it takes precedence over providing basic service for commuters and regular travelers. I can think of three or four ways one more train in the evening could solve the worst problems of the Haverhill schedule, but they would jeopardize those Garden services.
Given that Garden events consistently
end at one or two fixed times, and are not really all that variable, the logic of having hourly service from North Station during mid and late evening makes little sense. Especially when midday Reading patrons are being hosed by these changes.
They probably
Held the focus groups during gap times, when all of the actual train riders were in the city waiting for the train because there wasn't one scheduled to get them from Boston to the focus group town on time.
Um, did you not read what
I stated above about several people (including myself) responding to a MBTA solicitation for people to serve on the schedule focus groups. In our responses (which were sent via e-mail), we were asked to provide information about the lines we used. No information about our employer, what times of day we rode trains, etc. was solicited or provided.
We never heard back from either MassDOT nor the T's focus group coordinator. And I know they received my e-mail, because I got a read receipt about ten minutes after sending my "I'm interested" message.
Lastly, given that these alleged focus groups were never announced on either the T's web site nor on the MassDOT web page (unlike with other "necessary" issues like "choose our next paint schemes" and "tell your about favorite transit app), I don't believe I'm going out on a limb by stating the groups never happened in the first place.
I love it, Ari O.!
Your writing style that is. I couldn't even begin to think about the substance of the schedules before I started laughing at the way your commentary runs. The T apparently loves their new social media person (Lisa B-something - I saw a quick Q&A with her in the most recent CommonWealth Mag [side note, you have to read the story on how ML Strategies is taking over, and the revelation that, allegedly, Stephanie Pollack was Weld's idea]), but they would be smart to have you do some writing, too. Your criticism of the T would actually give it more cred if you were writing it under their banner (which is why I'm sure that you'd decline the opportunity).
Uhm
It hasn't been offered. I don't expect it to. Having someone internally to vet things like this would make too much sense.
To clarify my earlier post, I
To clarify my earlier post, I do agree the new schedule has problems, but I think you'd be able to write a blog post like that no matter what the schedule looked like. It will never be perfect for everyone.
Perfect for everyone
In re this comment and another below:
No, it will never be perfect for everyone. Which is why it would be folly to try to create a perfect schedule for everyone (at least until we decide that mobility is a good thing and trains running hourly on every line makes sense). But most of what I propose (see "suggestions") doesn't take away much of the good which this schedule accommodates: better reverse-peak service on Newburyport and Fitchburg, for example, but fills some glaring holes.
And there are a few examples of service changes which are just plain nuts, like scheduling a local train five minutes ahead of a Downeaster, or having a Lowell express arrive at North Station four minutes behind a local, or running a revenue train from Rockport to North Station without stops and creating a three hour service gap. And the asininity of defining rush hour as ending at 9:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and having no service beyond that point.
Case in point: you live in Salem and work a shift that starts downtown at 10:30 a.m. (as many restaurant shifts do). Currently, you have a train at 9:24 which arrives downtown at 9:55. In the future, you have to take an 8:33 train that arrives at 9:00. That costs you nearly an hour. You're probably going to drive. We don't need six trains between 8 and 9. Five would do: that's service every 12 minutes. The sixth? That can arrive in the 9:30 to 9:45 range.
The key slide of the T's presentation is page 7 here:
* AM Peak North Station Arrival: 6:00 -9:00
* PM Peak North Station Departure: 3:30 -6:30
But they don't even follow their own criteria!
The first three and the last are fulfilled, mostly. But then …
Arrival and Departure from North Station for key job start and end times, though, doesn't take in to account anyone working a job that might run 9:30 to 6; they assume North Station is within 20 minutes of all jobs in Boston (tell that to someone in the LMA hoping the Orange or Green line shows up)
Efficient train movements at North Station to mitigate crowding. No! Having more trains in less time doesn't mitigate crowding! There are more trains getting in at the peak of the peak, and fewer at other times.
Standardized peak "box." That doesn't make sense. The demand curve for access to the city is a parabola, not a box. You should have the most service arriving between, say, 7:30 and 8:30, but there shouldn't be a cutoff at 9. Here's what would make much more sense than the "box":
That would make a lot more sense.
-
deleted comment (misunderstood intent of one criteria)
I've heard that they intend
I've heard that they intend to have all North Side consists be consistent, 5 car trains with one bi-level coach. If that is the case, that provides some rational for some of the changes such as six-trains between 8 and 9 between Salem and Boston, or the two Lowell trains being only 10 minutes apart with the express being the second train. They are trying to split the load of some of the existing heavier ridership trains onto 5-car sets.
Just idiotic...
...I know it's hard to get the right size consists on the correct trains, but jeez, this is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard from the T in a long time. (And, sadly, I'm hearing it multiple places, so it might be true.) Dumbing down the operations at the cost of providing less convenient service for customers. Just idiotic.
As an ex-Philadelphian (well, area, not right in the city), I'm shocked to say this, but I wish the MBTA could run commuter rail the way SEPTA runs its Regional Rail.
Dumbing down the operations
Not if the goal of your "review board" is solely to reduce costs. Another reason why both the practice of "no net change" and this increasingly illogical divide between "operational" and "capital accounts need to be seriously reformed.
-
Duplicate
-
Triplicate
I swear I only clicked once.
Ya, to each his own.
There is a lot changed.
For my reverse commute the train going out to Littleton arrives and 45 minutes earlier than the current schedule. And there are more choices going back to Boston in the early evening. No doubt to accommodate events at The Garden.
Interesting how the new schedules
already pre-designates those trains that will be intentionally cancelled in times of "severe weather". Another idiotic policy that only proves the true intent of these changes is intended to degrade service.
Which raises the next questions - what is the criteria for determining what is "severe" weather, and who makes that decision? I can almost see it now "Crew for Train 000 didn't show up, so we'll declare it's snowing out." Or follow the BPS model "The weather forecast says it might snow this afternoon, so we'll cancel
classestrains just in case."Actually
This isn't that bad. It gives people an idea of "oh, it's snowing tomorrow, so I should be pretty sure that train X will come, and train Y won't."
It's kind of like MARC's S schedules work (see an example here). They also implement them for certain holidays which require more than weekend service but don't need full rush hour service: Columbus Day, MLK Day, etc.
Hey, that probably would save the T money! I don't think anyone would really complain. There would be enough trains run for capacity, but not as many as you need on a regular weekday. Unfortunately, this sort of innovation is the kind of thing that happens at agencies in Philly and DC.
I get what you're saying
However, I see problems with the implementation of the scheme. Example, AM peak hour there are three trains originating from Reading at 7:30, 8:00, and 8:30. Of these three trains, the 8:30 is designated as the SW train that is likely to be cancelled
As the next train out of Reading is at 9:42, seems to me it would make more sense to designate the 8:00 as the SW train instead of the 8:30, so that people who don't understand how the SW system works (or just plain forget that it exists) have a shot at getting into work without having to wait almost an hour and a half for the next train.
Just dropping this off, here ...
Bill Moyers on the Koch Brother's Playbook for Public Transit.
Just a reminder of where some of Baker's campaign money and funding for the Pioneer Institute derives from.
NBPT/RKPT "inner core" flaw
"New Peak Inner Core Service from Beverley to North Station," touts the slide on the Newburyport/Rockport line.
Yes, it's added a "peak" inbound train for Beverly and Salem, but has neglected to mention it has eliminated two inbound peak trains for Swampscott, Lynn and Chelsea, and at the worst possible time.
Using their 15- to 20-minute estimate to get to work once at North Station, and applying a fairly standard office-hour start time of 8 am, you'd want to arrive at North Station between 6:45 and 7:45, ideally. Right now there are three (already crowded) trains that do that for these communities. The new plan reduces that to one.
Because of their relative proximity to Boston, many of these riders are already on the fence as to which is more convenient: train or driving. Eliminating two peak trains for them will lead to not only madhouse conditions on the one train that does run, but will significantly increase the number of cars on the road, making the situation that much worse for those further out where commuter rail is not an option.
The extra slight is that trains will be running through these stations, but not stopping.