How Loud Is That Bus Outside My Window?

Posted on by

How loud is that diesel (or natural gas) city bus?  Too loud: about 93 decibels (peak volume) measured from a bus stop when the bus is pulling away from the curb.  On the sound scale, that is more than four times louder than a vacuum cleaner (70dB) and more than twice as loud as an alarm clock (80dB).    That makes the MBTA’s city bus Boston’s noisiest neighbor.  No wonder why people have a hard time adapting to living near a bus stop.  Just don’t open the windows.

The only thing louder?  Interestingly, riding in the back seat of the bus is as much as four times louder than staying at the stop.  My handy Radio Shack meter clocked a very impressive 112dB (peak volume) when the bus was accelerating at moderate to high speeds.  That puts riding on the back seat of the bus on par with … sandblasting or attending a loud rock concert!  Better change seats after 15 to 30 minutes; sitting in that back seat much longer could exceed OSHA’s daily permissible noise level exposure.  Incredibly, standing ten feet away from an MBCR locomotive accelerating through an underpass did not beat that peak from the interior of the bus, although the locomotive may have sustained a higher average noise level.

It probably would not exaggerate much to guess that the MBTA’s diesel and natural gas bus fleet has become Boston’s de facto alarm clock.   Of course, it didn’t have to be that way.  Years ago, the diesels replaced whisper-soft trackless trolleys.  Trolleys of the trackless variety still operate through Harvard Square on overhead lines, and still barely make a sound over the background traffic.  Sure beats having a double-volume alarm clock for a neighbor.

You Can’t Get There From Here

Posted on by

One of the fascinating things about the T is how it shapes riders’ views of the world.  If you rely on the T to get around, you know that many of the stops on the T are places that you can travel without much effort.  And there is a netherworld of gauzy space that is beyond.  Having browsed to this blog, you may be someone who understands what I’m talking about.

Travel times for walking and riding the T

Red is fast; blue is not.

Let’s say you live near Porter Square, Cambridge.  From Porter Square, destinations in Cambridge, Somerville, and downtown Boston are close — less than a half-hour by T. Almost by default, practically speaking that becomes the entirety of your city.  You might plan a shopping trip to Harvard Square, a movie at Kendall or Boylston, or you might schedule a bus out of South Station. You’d think carefully before you would put the time into visiting places like Chestnut Hill, Roxbury, or Mattapan — even if you needed to be there — because those all are basically day-long excursions on the T.  The ride one way on the T is at least an hour, including a bunch of connections.  (By contrast, in an hour of driving in a car, you could be at least a state away.)  And places like most of Needham, Westwood, or parts of Dedham?  Fuhgettaboutit.  Two hours or more, on average.

Well, finally we have an interactive graphical representation of what this looks like, on a map.  Software guru Dan Tillberg has done a fabulous job illustrating the world traveling by T, in color.  Using the T service information database posted by developers at MassDOT (kudos to the government folks for posting the extensive dataset), the map shows in red and yellow the places that are relatively close by T (and walking).  The places that are further away are in greens and blues.  Dan’s map is interactive, and it is pictured above.  Click the image to browse through to his site, and check T connectivity of other locations.

Of course, there are some assumptions behind the map that would change the way it looks depending on, for example how far or fast you were willing to walk, and whether you were willing or able to time your trip precisely to meet a particular bus or train.  Transit diagramming is tricky.  And this map probably is something like a best-average case … the dataset of delayed or dropped MBTA routes isn’t presently available and so Dan was left to assume that, for example, the Number 1 bus midday from Harvard St. was right on time.  Even though we all can guess is was late and overcrowded.  That will be another project ….

MBTA Math: $4 Minus $2.80 Equals $4

Posted on by

I don’t begrudge the MBTA for charging fares for its services.  Actually, I think it is very important that the T get its fare structure right.

Unfortunately, the T never has gotten one particular aspect of its fares right: monthly passholders pay full fare in cash when they ride on a higher-level service.  A pass might be good for several dollars credit against the fare on one service, and not a dime on another.  The T inexplicably fails to give passholders the full value across the entire system that they purchased for one particular service.

An illustration might help.  There are two levels of express bus service, inner express and outer express.  The outer express bus generally travels to more distant stops.  An $89 inner express bus pass is good for the entire $2.80 inner express bus fare.  Not surprisingly, the pass is not good for the $4.00 outer express bus; there is a more expensive pass for that bus.  But here’s the riddle: if I offer an inner express pass good for a $2.80 fare, and the actual fare is $4.00 for the outer express bus, I only should have to pay an extra $1.20 cash, right?  Not so, at least on the MBTA.  Passholders receive no discount on the more expensive service.  They pay full fare, even though they hold a pass that would entitle them to credit for all of the fare on a different bus.  (And as an aside, there is an additional complication that the T charges different cash fares and prepaid pass/charlie card fares).

This has been a problem for years.  It is most obvious with the flexible passes for the express bus, commuter rail, and boat, because there are multiple levels of service.  However, “Link Pass” on the stored value card offers no solution, except to add a further technological hurdle to the administrative one.  Fare-takers on the commuter rail and boat don’t have the equipment to verify that a rider has a valid “Link Pass” on their stored value card.

To their credit, T fare takers typically are generous when it comes to making accommodations to passengers to ameliorate this nonsensical no-discount policy.  But wouldn’t it be better if the T used a more rational fare structure?  A $4 fare, minus a $2.80 credit for a monthly pass, ought to result in a $1.20 cash fare.

Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Study Group Reports that MBTA Requires Another Study

Posted on by

Governor Patrick’s shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to the MBTA yielded a slick, graphics-laden book report.  The “independent” special committee of four “authors/researchers” released their bombshell conclusion that … wait for it … someone else should make another study of the MBTA.  Preferably that someone will be more important than the four “authors/researchers” who wrote this report.  They recommended that the next study should be by someone at a “high-level” in “MassDOT.”

Query: what have the “high-level” people at “MassDOT” been doing all this time?  And why weren’t they involved in this particular study which was initiated by no less than his Excellency the Governor.

Overall, the report was a disappointing exercise in stating the obvious as if it was being noticed for the first time.  Proverbially, lots of trees and very little forest.  But then again perhaps that is all that could be expected from four lower-level “authors/researchers” in a short sixty-day window of time.

I would have been pleased to have seen some more comprehensive thought about what ought to be, both in terms of services and finances.  Is Boston receiving the transit services that it needs?  Practically speaking, how can services be maintained or improved while cutting costs?  Where are the inefficiencies?  The report did not make even a baby step in that direction.  It defies credulity that all the low-hanging fruit really was picked.

What about removing door-openers on the Red Line?  If the MBTA was in such dire shape, why all the excess attention to prettying stations and broken air conditioning units in the past few years?  Was the Silver Line tunnel-to-nowhere at South Station the massive costly mistake that it appears?  What would be the cost savings from standardizing all of the multiple vehicles from the Green, Orange, Blue, and Red lines (all of which are different)?

As for financing, the solution seems obvious and perhaps it already is being implemented.  The MBTA simply should operate transit services, and those services should be near-fully funded by fares.  If a bus costs $3 to operate, riders should pay.  On the other hand, infrastructure should be 100% funded and maintained by other sources and those projects and monies should be outside the direct control of the MBTA.  That appears to be at least part of the theory of the recent reform legislation that created MassDOT.  The challenge, of course, would be in the details.

The content of the report was unimpressive … but the format and web site sure were snappy!

Fare Hike Averted

Posted on by

Turns out the T doesn’t need a fare hike this year after all!  Last month the T announced that it would increase fares again — subway fares would break a 28-year inflation-adjusted record to set an all-time high of $2 per ride.  Around the same time, I noted that the last two occasions when fares broached the inflation-adjusted $1.75 mark, strange things happened.  Fare increases implemented in 1954 and 1981 that took prices over the inflation-adjusted $1.75 mark were rescinded the next year.  Those were the only two years in more than a century of transit in Boston that nominal subway fares actually receded.

Looks like history is repeating … or at least rhyming.  Gov. Patrick directed that the proposed 2009 hike is off the table, for now.  Hopefully major service cuts also were averted.  If the consensus economic view is correct that inflation will remain subdued for some time — and assuming the inflation-adjusted fare of $1.75 remains the third-rail of subway pricing — that proposed hike won’t be finding its way to riders anytime soon.

Grabauskas Retrospective; What Now for T?

Posted on by

Say what you will about Dan Grabauskas; he is a political survivor.  The public servant who reformed the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles resigned under pressure from Governor Patrick and his appointee James Aloisi today, nearly a year short of the end of his five-year term as general manager of the MBTA.  The Democratic governor will have his chance to appoint a successor, but the bitter partisan flavor probably will linger with voters for some time.  The tab for buying Gov. Patrick an extra nine months of direct control of the MBTA: $327,487.  I hope that turns out to be a good investment, but at the moment it’s not so clear that Messrs. Patrick and Aloisi gave taxpayers a good deal.

In 2005, Grabauskas took the job of general manager with a clear vision.  The T would treat riders like customers; the system would be reliable, clean, courteous, and safe.  But mainly clean.  And accessible; inaccessibility “impacts not only on the disabled, but on parents with children in strollers, as well.” Grabauskas professed to be a neatnik; he was particularly concerned about the condition of elevators and escalators.  He apparently believed that if he made the T a comfortable place to be, riders would flock and revenues would soar.  And, of course, he wanted to control costs.

So four years later, how did he do?

Grabauskas never shrunk from the gaze of his “customers,” for example writing a regular Q+A column in the free daily paper Metro, and appearing more than once on WBUR public radio.  He was determined to keep riders safe; he initiated random, highly visible police screening checkpoints.  He committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make the T more accessible, installing announcement screens and elevated platforms on the Green Line.  He resisted union contract demands and agreed to wage increases only after being overruled by a labor arbitrator.  The T renovated the Charles Street station and installed a new train control system on the Red Line that permitted more frequent service.  And there is the electronic fare system.

The list goes on.  Grabauskas was nothing if not engaged in the goings-on at the T.  Perhaps one can disagree with him on policy matters — for example it might be reasonable to question the wisdom of a having a broke organization with heavy capital needs spend hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to meet the unique requirements of less than 0.1% of T riders — but the man demonstrated integrity and dedication to his “customers.”

But many things never changed.  Yes, the trains still are slow and late.  Yes, the escalators have at times been scandalously unreliable.  Yes there still are door-openers on the  Red, Green, and Orange Lines.  Yes, Kenmore Station still is under construction nearly five years later.  No, Dan Grabauskas does not commute to work on the T.  Yes, the T still is broke.

No Cell Zone

No Cell Zone

But none of those were the reasons that Governor Patrick and his appointees gave for the reasons they had lost faith in Grabauskas.  The breakdown occurred, they said, because two Green Line drivers in two years apparently had ignored traffic signals for different reasons, and Grabauskas was not in Washington, D. C. when the NTSB released its report on one of the accidents.  And there was a power outage on the Green Line.  That’s it.  Never mind that Grabauskas nearly overmanaged the aftermath of the Government Center Green Line collision by banning cell phones from drivers.  And never mind that he was on an unpaid budget-related furlough at the time the NTSB report was released.  And never mind he is not the T electrician.

No matter; Grabauskas is out, but to Gov. Patrick’s likely chagrin, the former T general manager emerges from the tussle virtually unscathed.  That isn’t true for the Governor and his appointees.  The termination looks like short-term political retribution — at taxpayers’ expense.

Unfortunately, the real loser here looks to be the T.  The authority is leaderless at a critical time where the patchwork of agencies is being reexamined and when the modes of transportation finance are in flux in a way they have not been in memory.  The Governor has made noises time and again that he is a friend to transit.  Now he has an opportunity to go from words to action.

Waiting With a Bicycle at a Light that Never Turns Green

Posted on by

A change in the law governing bicycles recently was in the news.  In January, the Massachusetts legislature adopted a regime of traffic-ticketing to enforce existing laws that require bicyclists to, for example, stop at red traffic lights.

The Legislature was wise to insist that bicyclists err on the side of safety and caution.  Someone on the road has to, and it probably won’t be automobile drivers, chatting on cell phones and shuffling through the songs on i-pods.

Traffic Sensor Doesn't Notice Bikes

Traffic Sensor Doesn't Notice Bikes

So here’s a question:  what is a bicyclist lawfully required to do when the light never turns green?  It’s a frequent problem.  Modern traffic lights (i.e. the ones used everywhere except the city of Boston) are triggered by sensors that detect automobiles.  Roll over the sensor in a Chevy, and the light turns green.  Roll over the sensor on a Raleigh bicycle and … the light stays red.  It never turns green.  Ever.  Roll back and forth on it.  Jump up and down.  Nothing.

The question is sort of academic; the obvious answer is that you treat the traffic signal an ornament with little relevance to a bicyclist … but still you do so at your own risk — risk of physical injury and risk of legal jeopardy.  Injury because the lights are most frequently used at the most dangerous intersections.  There is a chance that the ornament will be you.  Jeopardy because who is to say the law enforcement officer will agree with your choice.  And it takes some significant waiting and experimenting to be sure the sensor really doesn’t work; that’s not a small inconvenience with traffic lights every few blocks.

I wish I had the answer.  It’s unfortunate, but perhaps the only safe thing to do is to drive.

Google Maps Adds Boston Transit Routes

Posted on by

It just became a little little easier to figure out if you can get there from here on the MBTA. Google Maps rolled out a new service that allows users to map directions on buses and trains operated by the MBTA.  The visual aspects of the Google service are a little easier to use; the map is easier to see and to manipulate.  On the other hand, there still are some quirks to work out … fares aren’t listed, which is an important consideration for many trips … the system doesn’t seamlessly recognize the names of transit stations the way the MBTA’s system does … and Google is more tolerant of transfers and plodding travel times than is the MBTA.  And some of Google’s selections clearly are not the best routes.  For example, for directions from South Station to Needham Center station (just west of Route 128) departing at 2 pm today, Google’s first choice is an hour-long, two-transfer odyssey; if instead you set the clock to arrive at 3:06pm (the time that leisurely trip is scheduled to arrive), Google’s first choice becomes more sensible 40 minute railroad trip.  Hmmmm…. 40 minutes and no transfers in a reasonably comfortable railcar or 1 hour and two transfers on the subway, trolley, and bus … not a tough choice, at least when the fare is unknown.  On the other hand I guess all of the routes are in the list.  And, of course, it would help if the route data was cleaned up a bit.

Kudos to Luke Bornheimer and the “Put the MBTA on Google Maps” Facebook group for influencing the T and Google to make this happen.

[eds. note:  After this was posted, Google adjusted the way that it selects routes; the original post contained another link that now is outdated]

Green Line Is a Railroad and Other Urban Myths

Posted on by

The Suffolk District attorney charged former Green Line conductor Aiden Quinn of gross negligence in the control of “a railroad train,” according to published reports.  Quinn was at the controls on May 8 in Government Center when his trolley struck another.  His trolley, not his train.

The criminal charge apparently stems from a Massachusetts law that applies to a “railroad or railway of the class usually operated by steam power.”  One probably can’t begrudge the District Attorney for not knowing the precise history of the Green Line and the Scollay Square trolley stop; that history never involved steam.

But it certainly would be interesting if the railroad law applied on the Green Line.  The law has some interesting, specific requirements.  A few things would need to change.  To be a trolley conductor, Quinn would have needed to serve as a “brakeman” for two years.  Not a bad idea … except trolleys only have one driver (and a door-operator) and no brakeman.  Any trolley conductor who never worked as a “brakeman” (probably all of them) would be subject to a $500 fine and year imprisonment.  (There’s no such thing as a railroad “operator”)  Bare-headed Green Line employees also would be no more; all railroad employees must don a “cap.” An employee without a “cap” forfeits $45.

But on the other hand, maybe some changes would make some sense.  If the Green Line was a railroad then it would be required to accept bicycles, one per rider.  Of course, as I’ve written previously, the Green Line irrationally prohibits bicycles under all circumstances. And don’t try to hold the door to keep the Green Line train from leaving the station; if it’s a railroad that offense carries up to a $1,000 fine and 20 years in prison, which makes what Quinn is facing look like tiddly-winks.

Obviously the Green Line isn’t run like a railroad.  There is a reason for that; it’s a street railway, apparently subject to an entirely different law.  That law doesn’t require employees to wear caps, has no obvious requirements for the qualifications of conductors, and (unfortunately) doesn’t require that trolleys accommodate bicycles.  If you merely obstruct a trolley you only can be jailed for three months (instead of 20 years).

And if you drive a trolley at excessive speed like Quinn allegedly did — even willfully — you forfeit $500.  That might conceivably seem like a bit light of a maximum penalty.  But fear not; all operators of common carriers — from steamboats, to buses, to trolleys — also are subject to an entirely different law that the District Attorney apparently did not specifically name, which carries a penalty of two and a half years in jail for gross negligence in the control of any common carrier (not just a railroad).

What does all of this add up to?  Well, ultimately if the District Attorney succeeds in sending Quinn to prison for three years (instead of to jail for 2 1/2)  for crashing a railroad train (and not a trolley), then the T should get ready to welcome bicycles and their riders on that same line.  Because that’s the law!