davis_square | PSA as of 5:30am

From:

Thanks -- that's good to know.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

It's 7:00am now. The T starts running at 5. I'm no expert trainologist, but I suspect that given over two hours notice I'd find a way to push the disabled work equipment onto a siding. I mean, it is approaching rush hour.

Of course, this is all assuming "disabled work equipment" is not a euphemism for "the longfellow bridge has finally collapsed."

Also, anyone who's more than 1/2 hour late to their destination as a result of this (or any MBTA incompetence for that matter) can click click here (http://www.mbta.com/customer_support/on_time_service_guarantee/) for a refund--a simple "5-step process."

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

The reason that the T shuts down every night rather than running 24 hours a day is that there simply are no sidings onto which they could push the disabled work equipment.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

really?

I don't mean to call you a liar, but I find that pretty damn incredible. Maybe that's the case for the older portions of the system (e.g. around park street), but surely, even given that this is MBTA we're talking about, they included sidings in the newer sections? At the very least I'd think they could move it to the tracks to the old harvard square station.

From:

ron_newman

There aren't any sidings in or around Harvard station. The extension towards Porter went in a completely different direction from the old tracks that led to a yard. The JFK School, Charles Hotel, and JFK park now occupy what was the yard.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

I know a lot of it's gone, but no tracks remain linked to the old branch?

From:

ron_newman

No. Would have been pretty hard to do. The new alignment snakes around the way it does so that it follows street alignments instead of going under buildings.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

why would it have been hard to simply install a switch where the new and old tracks diverge?

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

I'm not trying to be argumentative, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/

New York City is an unusual exception, but rarely is there surplus right of way in modern transit systems -- it simply does not make sense from a cost perspective.

Subway tunneling (nowadays) costs about $1 billion per mile. I do not know what the exact cost of the Alewife extension was in 1985, but I believe it was over a billion. Moreover, rapid transit trackage require intensive maintenance which has a high present worth cost to the transit authority.

The decision making thought process was that the cost of adding spare trackage is not justified by its lack of use in all but emergency situations. This extra track also doesn't add "revenue" to the line. The money could be better spent building a new subway line that brings in new riders (and works to help pay for itself)

On the orange line, there is a swing track from Bunker Hill on out to Wellington but it is not in use (actually, the outbound track is unused and the swing track is used for outbound service). I imagine it will be torn up at some point. In certain limitted instances, there is spare trackage on the green line.

I wish this wasn't the case, but there simply is no way for a (revenue service) train to "go around". If the disabled train is at Central Sq., the closest complete interlockings* are just outbound of Park Street and just inbound of Harvard. It could be argued that there should be more, but again, crossovers are difficult to maintain, and if the space between crossovers becomes too small, the transit system becomes difficult to operate.

Make no mistake, though. The MBTA has many, serious problems most of which stem from finances. Extra trackage just isn't one of them.

* a series of two switches end on end on the T so that a train traveling in any direction can switch to another track without reversing.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

thanks for the response. Is there a map of the trackage (i.e. not just the colorful "system map") somewhere?

given that tunneling is that costly, that's all the more reason use of existing track should be maximized. If a siding is located just inbound of harvard, it sounds at least possible that they did in fact make use of a portion of the older tunnels to the old harvard station.

also, if, as

srakkt says, the lack of sidings is why the T can't run all night, this might be an exception to your observation that spare track doesn't add to revenue.

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

The marginal increase in revenue of overnight trains doesn't come close to covering the cost of widening tunnels or maintaining more rail. Given that the T already has serious financial issues, throwing money at sidings isn't likely to happen.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

I'm sure you're right, but immediate revenue considerations aside, I feel a twinge of vicarious embarrassment every time someone tries to puff up Boston's reputation for "nightlife" or or describes the city with some cloying phrase like "progressive, modern urban center."

And, while I have absolutely no data to back this up, I suspect the incidental benefits from 24-hour T service (e.g. off the top of my head, increased revenue for late-night businesses, fewer drunk driving accidents, intangible cultural benefits) would exceed costs in short order--even if the numbers are in the billions per mile.

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

I agree. It would be awesome. I'd really appreciate an all-night public transit system. But as with so many things that would be awesome, there are really good answers to the question "why not", no matter how awesome the "but! but!" response may be.

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

Erk. that sounded jerky and dismissive, and I really didn't mean it that way. Sorry for my tone and diction. :/

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

no offense taken. My only point was that, taking the long view, the cost-benefit analysis may well slant towards benefit more than the common wisdom would dictate.

From:

ron_newman

many other cities replace subway service with buses in the wee hours. Examples: London, Paris, Amsterdam. That's more likely to be the right approach for Boston.

From:

hammercock.livejournal.com

The MBTA tried that with the Night Owl service, but didn't that service get cut a year or two ago?

From:

violet-helix.livejournal.com

IIRC the Night Owl ran busses along the route of the Red Line. It was cut in early 2006. The T cited low ridership as their reason for cutting.

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

However, the low ridership probably had more to do with the lack of advertising and the buses' pesky tendency to never show up (leaving you stranded and drunk a 3am), than with a lack of demand.

From:

miraclaire.livejournal.com

The one time I tried it, my husband I dutifully waited Kendall Sq (we assumed, that since it followed the path of the T, it would stop at the stop since there's even a nice bus stop there). We waited for a while and then saw it at Main St. and Vassar St. -- way too far to run. It was quite frustrating that the stops weren't marked well, and I suspect that is part of why lots of people thought it didn't show up frequently -- if we hadn't happened to look in the right direction at the right time, we never would have seen it and assumed it never came.

From:

lonelyholiday.livejournal.com

I thought they tried this with the Night Owl bus several years back, and then discontinued it. I'll admit, I don't know how extensive it was - I don't think it replaced all subway service, maybe it just covered the "main" nightlife areas - and I also don't think it ran all night. But I definitely used it to get home from a few concerts that ran later than the T and was sad to see it go.

From:

hrafn.livejournal.com

Boston a "progressive, modern urban center." my ass! Who says that? Seriously.

From:

brianbeck.livejournal.com

This is modern urban transport:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robokubo/sets/72157594495813468/with/395162021/

From:

hrafn.livejournal.com

Aw, man :( Why can't we have pretty modern transportation here?

From:

ilai

I don't know how much has changed since 1986, but here's one: http://world.nycsubway.org/us/boston/mbta-trackmap.html

From:

fantastic-salad.livejournal.com

thanks.

Odd, this still shows all the A-line track (albeit grayed-out), but shows none of the old harvard station track.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/

The A line tracks were left in place for quite some time (until 1994?), even though the T had no use of resuming revenue service (kind of like the Arborway tracks), while the red line yard had been torn down well before the map was made.

From:

ron_newman

The old Harvard track went out of service some time between 1979 and 1984. It closed whenever the temporary "Harvard-Brattle" station closed.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/

Yes, the MBTA track map can be found here (http://images.nycsubway.org/maps/bostontr.gif)*.

Any existing trackage from the original red line terminus in Harvard Sq. could not be used, as there simply isn't the physical space for the red line, the busway, and the station -- the station occupies the space where the tracks used to go. As it is, the red line must make a very unusual (for transit) sharp turn at 6mph to avoid the busway.

A lack of sidings is not exactly why the T cannot run at night. Sidings are of little usage other than to store trains. You would need redundant lines to carry trains while one is serviced (as in NYC). There isn't anywhere near the ridership to justify such added construction cost (or even to keep the T open all night).

* Please not that there are a few errors on the map. There is no siding or crossover just inbound of Kendall, and the interlocking just inbound of back bay is complete (not incomplete, as shown).

Edited Date: 2008-07-15 02:40 pm (UTC)

From:

ron_newman

I don't remember all the details, but I think the new southbound track cuts right across where the old tracks used to go. They had to do a lot of juggling between temporary stations in the late 70s and early 80s just to keep it running at all during the construction.

From:

belladonna.livejournal.com

Well, if the equipment crashed into the river, it certainly would be disabled.

From:

spatch

OH HELL NO.

From:

infinitemorning.livejournal.com

Oh Goddammit. That's -- that's frakking beautiful. Gee. Thanks guys.

From:

wombatbanana.livejournal.com

Might've been different earlier, but right now the T alert says that it's only between Kendall and Park.

From:

anomie666.livejournal.com

Thanks for posting this. I was just ready to hop on the red line and now will take a bus over to the Orange.

From:

cold-type.livejournal.com

The MBTA says the red line is back to normal.

From:

pushupstairs.livejournal.com

I'm pretty stunned that service was as affected as it was. I got to JFK this morning and both inbound trains were sitting at the platforms, which they continued to do for about 15 minutes after I boarded, to say nothing of how long they might have been there before I arrived. The travel in between stations was stop-and-go the whole way to Downtown.

If the trains are going to Park and then turning around as if it was their terminus, why was the whole south side of service so backed up?

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

Because Park isn't designed for that kind of turnaround, and what winds up happening is a shuffle dance where the northbound trains need to be moved over to southbound track using the one operating track north of Park and the switchover. It takes time, and it's clumsy, but it works.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

PSA as of 5:30am

Navigation

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags