Thread by @garrett_wollman

Hey all, I went to the @MBTA board meeting today, and now that I'm home and I've eaten it's time to recap a busy meeting. The start time was shifted early for some reason, but the meeting ended at 2p without going into executive session. Director Kornegay was absent.

In the public comment period, I was up first, and made some pointed remarks about catenary-phobia on the part of Sec. Pollack, but moved on quickly to a bigger point (see my thread from this weekend) about bus corridors that deserve better-than-bus service models.

I specifically mentioned the SL4/5, 22/23, and 28/29, and perhaps I'll have some time and energy to make a more complete proposal for how this should work and how much it would cost. This may be a challenge given my limited access to GIS data and tools but we'll see.

After me were regular commenters Louise Baxter (T Riders Union) talking about bus schedules and Marilyn McNabb (accessibility advocate) talking about dropped trips on THE RIDE and the central dispatching number being offline for an extended period with no published alternative.

Next up, a group of older Chinese immigrants from Charlestown gave testimony (translated after the fact) about the 93 bus, which many of them depend on to get to their jobs in Chinatown. They asked for more weekend and night service to get home from their restaurant jobs.

They also asked for bus shelters, next-bus signs, and for the 83 to follow a consistent route whether or not there is snow. (Currently, "snow" 93 trips use Medford St. and regular 93 trips use Bunker Hill St.)

One rider reported discrimination at bus stops, having the bus door closed on them or drivers not stopping, being unsure where or how to report this. A third speaker specifically requested 20 minute headways and asked for the downtown stop to be closer to Chinatown.

The fourth and final speaker in this group complained about bad information in trip planner apps when 93 trips are late or dropped, and specifically raised the issue of empty 92 buses leaving Haymarket when many poorer riders are waiting for the less frequent 93.

The final public speaker, who didn't sign up and whose name I didn't catch, talked about the maintenance benefits of electric rail over diesel, which wasn't on the agenda, but was presumably motivated by last week's press coverage. The board then moved on to its regular agenda.

Both GM @spoftak and deputy GM Jeff Gonneville had short, single-slide reports this week. Poftak talked about the graduation of 39 municipal police officers from the MBTA's police academy, 8 of whom will join the Transit Police.

DGM Gonneville explained the (unsurprising) additional delay in bringing the new Orange Line cars into service. Alstom, a subcontractor, has to fix a software problem in the safety systems (cab signals) of the new trains, and get the independent auditor to sign off on the fix.

The MBTA then has to conduct its own safety review and testing to seek approval from the Department of Public Utilities to put the new cars in revenue service. This is now expected by "summer".

Meanwhile, there are 10 cars on the property now, 2 more to be delivered this week, and 50 additional Orange Line cars (out of 152) in manufacturing or on the boat from CRRC's factory in China, and the T will continue to accept deliveries of the new cars for testing in Medford.

Chairman Aiello emphasized putting rider safety first. Pollack asked if this was going to slip the schedule for full delivery on this order, and Gonneville said it would not. There was a separate presentation on the Red/Orange Line update program which was submitted in writing.

You can read that slide deck at cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/… if you are interested in more details on the schedule and progress.

One highlight in the preso: the Orange Line will be using track-mounted RFIDs to control the automated stop announcements. The first six-car train of the Red Line order is nearly complete and MBTA staff are going to inspect the train at the factory in China.

(Federal procurement regulations allow a limited number of foreign-made test articles to be foreign-built but the remainder of the Red Line cars will be assembled from Chinese parts at CRRC's facility in East Springfield on the site of the former Westinghouse plant.)

The discussion moved on to the new "Station Brightening" program. This has been a major focus of vice-chair @MonicaTibbitsN, who has been asking for the staff to be more responsive to customer demands for visible improvements in station cleanliness, lighting, and maintenance.

A major theme of the comments on the fare increase was that maintenance and cleanliness was inadequate, and in addition to a short-term cleanup project the T is looking into changes for the next cleaning contract RFP that would include more substantial station cleaning.

DGM Gonneville describes the current project as a "short-term blitz", which will use $25 million from the MBTA's "pay-go lockbox". In addition to the current cleaning contractor, they are letting a number of small construction contracts.

In addition to power-washing station platforms and other surfaces, the program includes re-lamping, painting, repair of asphalt and masonry surfaces, and replacement of maps and station wayfinding. Program will start at most heavily trafficked stations, mainly during off-peak.

Aiello thanks Tibbits-Nutt for her leadership, asks for a communications plan so the general public is made aware of the work (scheduled to start April 1). Tibbits-Nutt asks the staff to work on process, and make sure the board is clear about the ongoing spend required in budget.

The meeting then moved on to the "meat" of the agenda, three consecutive, related presentations about bus service and facilities. The first is an update on the Better Bus Project's near-term cost-neutral service change proposals. Public outreach and comment concluded 3/13.

The staff received 3500 comments on 47 proposals, and also asked participants to rate the proposals on a 5-point Likert scale. 30 proposals received a neutral or higher average rating. They have broken the proposals into three groups based on public reaction.

The first group of proposals are "likely to move forward", and include changes to the 5/16, 9, 34/34E, 36, 37, 44, 52, 64, 70/70A, 92, 106, 111, 120, 134, 201/202, 222, 225, 350, 428, and 424. Some of these are marked with an asterisk but the slide deck doesn't explain why.

The second group, 16 proposals "under deeper review", which were either rated unfavorably or had specific issues raised in the public comment. Routes: CT1/1 merger, SL2, 4, 59, 60, 72/74/75, 89, 90, 95, 131/136/137, 220, 411, 435, 441/442/448/449, 455/459, and 501/502/503/504.

The third group of proposals were listed as "Requires further analysis, not likely in CY19", and included the 8, 18, 19, 26/27, 47, 65, 93, 215, 238, and 430. Chairman Aiello asked for the team to respond specifically to today's testimony from the Charlestown group about the 93.

Vice-chair Tibbits-Nutt said the board needs to have a discussion about tradeoffs, particularly as they get more deeply into consideration of service changes that will require substantial investment.

Director @BrianShortsleev comments that the T is "good at addition, not so good at subtraction"; in past meetings he has been the most eager to cut low-performing bus routes entirely. Sec. Pollack asks where non-proposal-specific bus route feedback received during outreach goes.

Answer: comments are sent to both the Bus Network Redesign program office and service planning dept. if they could be resolved with immediate action. Pollack says the public needs to understand how the process works for responding to feedback.

Immediate next steps are to finish the determination of which proposals will proceed for the fall rating, completing the FTA equity analysis, and a board vote in two weeks. Some of the proposals require coordination with third-party landowners and municipalities.

The staff will do a topological sort on the dependency graph to determine the critical path for the service changes, and expects to stagger implementation during the fall rating -- this seems to be mostly about access issues (relocated stops require new curb cuts).

Bus presentation #2 was about the bus network redesign, delivered by Scott Hamwey. Hamwey is also in charge of MassDOT's Rail Vision program, and as I've complained before, doesn't seem to be much of a visionary. He got a good bit of pushback from the board, even Pollack.

The presentation started with a recap of the board's charge to the team and the project's deliverables and scope. Noted deliverables included network-level performance metrics and evaluation tools to determine how well the proposals match the priorities established by the board.

There's frustration that there's a lot of talk about pilots, to start in CY20, when the board is well aware that there is no garage capacity in the system to increase service, and it's hard to see how this qualifies as a "redesign".

Hamwey has a couple of "well Boston is different so we can't do anything like what our peer systems do" slides. Baltimore and Philly are identified as possible comparable bus network projects. The three points listed as the "redesign focus" are super-weaksauce.

Quoting Hamwey's slides:
1. Recommending improvements to major corridors consistent
with the high demand/frequency corridors identified through
the Better Bus Project and Focus40
2. Improving low ridership routes based on existing productivity
(cont'd)

3. Identifying new routes to better serve the region’s travel needs
This doesn't sound like much of a comprehensive redesign. The state goals seem reasonable, though:

(quoting again)
Equity: Provide competitive service and increase access for
vulnerable populations.

Economy: Deliver a high capacity transportation network that
provides peak service where needed to support the continued
economic development of the metropolitan region.
(cont'd)

Environment: Reduce transportation emissions by supporting the
ability to live car-free and attracting ridership from cars.

A great deal of frustration on the board that this is basically ships-in-the-night with the required facilities expansion. Shortsleeve emphasizes that the T needs to be able to expand peak service _before_ the garage expansion/reconstruction project is completed.

Shortsleeve reiterates his long-standing interest in outsourcing maintenance/.garaging, sees this as necessary to get short-term improvements in service. Aiello asks for a strategic dimension linking equipment procurement, facilities modernization, and service delivery planning

Pollack raises the issue that most other bus network redesigns have emphasized the creation of a high-frequency network, also asks about electric buses. Aiello points out that electrification has substantial implications on route design (in terms of deadhead, terminal charging).

Some more talk about metrics: matching service with demand, speed and reliability improvements, and network simplicity (which I guess means what I'd call legibility; Hamwey writes "network follows logical travel patterns"). Team wants an origin-destination dataset.

Current origin-destination dataset covers only within-system trips, they are using a third-party provider to get cell-phone location data to identify trips that are currently unserved by the bus network More talk about pilots.

Director @BrianLang123 asks why do revenue-neutral pilots. Hamwey responds that the team will identify both kinds of opportunities. Shortsleeve asks the team to answer what they could deliver for a given $ amount or number of revenue-hours. GM Poftak says they'll look at that.

Sec. Pollack injects a note of realism: "some problems can be solved with money", but other problems can't (as witness the backlog of projects that the T had the money for but lacked the contracting bandwidth to actually execute).

Pollack notes that the market has a limited capacity to deliver both buses and facilities, whether the T outsources or uses in-house resources, to deliver increased service in the short term.

Finally, we move on to the discussion of bus maintenance facilities. This presentation does not go as planned at all: the board has already read through the slides and jumps to specific questions about individual items in the deck.

Sec. Pollack asks how the T can expand peak-period bus operations in FY21, given the time required for facilities expansion. Shortsleeve asks whether this plan actually results in the required added capacity vs. just getting to state of good repair at 1000 buses in 13 years.

Answer: they are looking to maximize bus storage and maintenance capacity at the existing locations as a part of facility modernization. Gonneville adds: the team needs some idea of capacity requirements, they are planning now for +150 buses.

Of course if they replace the whole fleet with battery buses they are going to need 1500 bus bays, not 1150 (plus all the land required for substations for the huge electrical demand with overnight battery charging). There's a target of one maintenance bay per 8.7 buses.

Pollack comments that the T needs to add capacity for more buses well before they get to that 8.7:1 ratio. Aiello says planning *must* include at least one outsourced garage/maintenance facility.

There's a map in the deck showing the existing bus garage locations. Pollack notes 700 buses are currently garaged within @CityOfBoston limits, emphasizes the need to partner with the city on land use, garage locations and permitting.

A major driver for the current discussion is that two garages -- Albany and Quincy -- are functionally obsolete. The oldest buses in the MBTA fleet are garaged there, because newer buses won't fit within the clearances of those facilities. Those buses must be replaced in 2022.

The bus facilities team is concentrating on this issue because it's more urgent. They think that Southampton garage can be expanded to provide enough "swing space" to allow for reconstruction of Albany and Quincy on their existing footprint.

Once again, they're looking to replace the North Cambridge trolleybus fleet with battery buses and demolish the electrical infrastructure in Cambridge. At the highest levels of management, they genuinely think tearing out trolleybus infrastructure is a good thing.

There's a three-phase facilities modernization plan, which takes 13 years, but the board didn't really get into that. Pollack asks specifically how the Silver Line fleet fits in. (She had just gotten out of a Massport board meeting so I guess the SL1 was on her mind.)

Whoof! Final topic was the parts warehouse contract with Mancon. This was the subject of some press attention last week, and last Monday Brian Lang asked for a presentation on it. The preso didn't really address the issues raised in the @CommonWealthMag article, but had metrics.

The board adjourned at 3 PM without going into executive session.

FIN

@threadreaderapp please unroll