Fewer Stops on Commuter Rail Lines?

Maybe they had a lot of CR riders get on at Oak Grove, and they want to see what will happen if they leave it open.

When I lived in Malden (1979-81, I think) I asked the T for more commuter rail trains to stop at Malden to allow people to travel north from Malden—a minority of travelers, but I wanted to use the service sometimes. And I remember the RDCs rocking. They reminded me of being on a boat.

Oak Grove being added to the Haverhill schedules is definitely just to bypass the severe speed restrictions left in place on the Orange Line from the massive amount of work that was done and continues to be done. I'm sure the reduced service on the Orange Line due to lack of subway dispatchers also played a part. When things eventually get to an acceptable level of service (sheesh, I hope it's matter of "when"!) then Oak Grove will be quietly dropped due to lack of ridership and no need for the stop to be made.

There are five AM rush hour (before 9) inbound trains and four PM rush-hour (3-7) outbound trains serving OG. Even operating at a frequency of every 15 minutes, there are 16 Orange Line trains going from North Station to Oak Grove in the afternoon window. Assume 15 people (might be high?) board each train at North Station headed to Oak Grove. The commuter rail isn't going to come close to replacing all of those trips.

I worked a block from Malden Center 2003 - 2014, riding the train from Haverhill most days. At that time, the Oak Grove lot was reliably full every weekday. So was the Malden Center lot. They were so reliably full I never tried to figure out how early they filled up. If Oak Grove doesn't fill these days, it's a powerful testimony to Beacon Hill's neglect of the T, and a hint you shouldn't be investing in downtown real-estate.

It's my belief that most commuter rail lines in the US need to be more in line with "regional rail" ideology: clockface schedules with frequent, all-day service and stops that are fairly spread out. Lots of METRA and MBTA stations are far too close together, as well as some on Metro-North. But the Hartford Line and Shore Line East in CT have stop spacing which equals high average speeds. Some of those gaps definitely need infill stations, but that's not much of an issue when it's electrified, ahem MBTA.

Some stops will need to be eliminated, and that stinks for those riders closeby, but if it improves service, decreases travel times, and reduces costs, why not? Many of the commuter rail systems in the US are getting to the age of rebuilding. No need for two, three, or four stations in one tiny town.

daybeers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:54 pm that stinks for those riders close by, but if it improves service, decreases travel times, and reduces costs, why not?

Ok, but be sure that everyone's time, service, and cost is being counted equally (or fairly, which maybe could be different). When I see someone suggesting taking out some intermediate stations to take a few minutes off the total trip time for a commuter train, I hear them saying that people who live further out matter more. You've got to balance the extra time that the passengers who used to use the eliminated stations will have to spend getting to the remaining stations against the time saved by people who already used stations further out than the eliminated stations: total door to door trip time, not just time spent on the train. I'd want to know how many of the people who lost their stations would switch to driving vs. how many people who now drive would switch to train if it were however many minutes faster. If better service means more trains, then increased frequencies = easier planning and effectively faster trip times for everyone, so put that in the mix when deciding about eliminating stations.

Instead of trying to make all commuter rail (or regional rail) lines conform to some general abstract standard, shouldn't we be looking at at the specific situation of each line. If you have three 150-pax/day stations close together where 90% of passengers drive and park, and there's space and money to build a garage to hold all those cars, then maybe consolidating them makes sense. If you have three 150-pax/day stations close together where 90% of passengers walk and there's a little village with shops near each one, then maybe keeping all three makes sense. None of this thread seems to be specifically about the one or two T CR stations with ten passengers a day; this seems to be about stations with dozens of passengers that just happen to be "too close".

Metra has this down to a science. During the morning and evening rushes, they have expresses, and semi-express trains that have staggered originating points to serve everyone going into the city, while also having hyperlocals that make every stop just in case someone wants to use the service for interzone travel.

What a great way of putting it Arborway! You have managed to get me to change my mind about this subject. I agree that having a station near a residential neighborhood is great for the people in that neighborhood, I think everyone would agree with that. I believe the true solution would be to run express trains on longer lines where there are many so stops close together that it adds a significant amount of time to the schedule (Fitchburg, Worcester, Franklin, and Haverhill Lines) and have those express trains stop only at the highest ridership stops, and have locals stop at all stops, like how diburning mentioned METRA does

All those different service patterns take up tons of slots, though, and Metra's stops, especially on the BNSF, are wayyy too close together. Shouldn't be able to see the next station from the platform you're standing on.

The problem with that is that in some cities, as in Philadelphia, they can't afford to lose the parking spaces that become useless if the station is abolished; people can't drive to a nearby station if they can't park when they get there. I would also guess that in some cities there's a significant walk-in ridership at closer-in stations in older suburbs; if people have to drive to some other station you need more parking spots than before to handle the same number of passengers. As noted above, the best solution is some form of skip-stop service.

Commuter service originated with an exorbitantly greater density of stops made by steam locomotives. Frequent stops that serve few need attention, but minor inconveniences to many vs. major inconveniences to fewer must be weighed accordingly. Double tracking all of the lines reduced to single track since the 1950s is helping to allow greater flexibility. The MBTA's pre-covid schedule had a pretty decent choreography of local and express service that served the ridership adequately, that is to say, reasonably well with room for improvement.

Ridership needs deserve constant analysis, and the service must reflect THEM (not the other way around). The train schedule serves the ridership, not the clock. Clock faced scheduling results in empty trains and peak travelers seeking alternate transportation (like their car). Traffic patterns have returned to morning and evening peaks, though finer analysis might reveal that the peaks are less sharp and perhaps wider. Service levels ought to reflect that, not the ill-conceived notion that someone traveling outside of or against the ridership flow deserves the same short wait time as all those who make up the simultaneously commuting masses.

The issue with more frequent service is that without electrified lines you are relying on Diesel and you only have a finite amount of Locomotives. With electrified lines you can have a big fleet of MU vehicles which allow you to run much more service, much like both Metro North and the LIRR in NYC. At the moment, there are only a couple of lines where I could see this working in Boston. The Fairmount line is the one that quickly comes to mind.

As for express vs Local Service. There are a couple of lines I see this working on. The Wachusett line would work because you can run locals to South Acton, and you can run trains express from Porter to South Acton and then local the rest of the way. Worcester is another line this would work with Local to Framingham, and Express to there and then local to Worcester. The only other possibility would be on the Providence Line, local to Providence, but what I see more likely here is for Rhode Island to contract Keolis to run intrastate service between the soon to open Pawtucket station and Westerly.

As for station consolidation. One thing I was thinking about is during the Pandemic, rush hour only stations were closed and haven't reopened. I am talking about Prides Crossing, Hastings, Silver Hill, and Plimptonville. You can keep these stations closed permanently without much difficulty and in the case of Hastings and Silver Hill, it was talked about that just a big renovation of Kendal-Green would be good for the Weston traffic. I don't really see much more of a need for it, and if MU's come down the road, maybe more stations could benefit.

Energy source has nothing to do with it, the difference is locomotive pulled vs. MU. Until the MBTA demonstrates an understanding of the versatility of the EMUs they already have (underground, cutting train length off peak rather than frequency and running 2 or 4 car trains every 10 mins on Sundays vs. 6 car trains every 20...), I don't believe they'd make a difference on Commuter Rail.

Exp/Lcl service already worked well on almost all lines. Off peak had all full distance locals, while rushes had a blend of short locals and varying expresses end to end.

I worked a block from Malden Center 2003 - 2014, riding the train from Haverhill most days. At that time, the Oak Grove lot was reliably full every weekday.

Sorry for replying to a long-ago comment, but I was a regular OL rider from Oak Grove near the end of that time, and 6:50-7:00am was the latest I ever wanted to arrive at Oak Grove to get a parking spot, so I drove all of the way, since the evening bus schedule frequently meant I had zero flexibility to stay a little later at work if I didn't want a two mile walk.