Is the Green Line B Branch the worst line in the MBTA?

I was watching a video about some random college students expressing his anger and disapproval of the Green Line B Branch service. I don't if the Green Line B Branch is the worst service in the MBTA, but here's the link: http://www.nickilosh.com/movies.htm and click on "Greenline". Warning: Contains strong language!

Whichever one you want is always the last to come!

I think you might have better luck getting a D from park street, as D's are, from my expirience, rerouted there more than any other train.

Actually, it's the B that they usually turn there. But personally I'd rather they get rid of that loop at Park Street because it greatly angers most of the passengers. But it's the T, you can't always get what you want.

Reddy Rocker wrote:Actually, it's the B that they usually turn there. But personally I'd rather they get rid of that loop at Park Street because it greatly angers most of the passengers. But it's the T, you can't always get what you want.

They turn the D around there at Park very frequently, I get it all the time

People complain most about whatever line they are on... the B line is too crowded, the D line has all the old LRV cars, the E line runs single car trains during some of it's most busy times...

Street cars don't do what heavy rail does, despite people wishing that were true. At least it's not a bus that the T likes to pretend is a subway line.

JS

My rule of thumb when riding the green line west from anyplace east of Park, is to take the first train, regardless of what line it is. If its the line I want, great. If not, get off at Park and wait for the one I want. Park will have all trains, and more of them because of the turnbacks there.

You won't get to your destination any slower, and at least you are occupied for a bit and have a sense that at least you got _somewhere_. There is the VERY RARE possibility that if you had just missed the train you needed, you will catch up to it at Park and be able to get on before it leaves...

Of course, one time I applied this, they decided to turn the train back at Government Center...but at least I got to ride through the old loop. Had to hop another train to get to Park St. - and I only wanted to go that far anyways...

blink55184 wrote:

Reddy Rocker wrote:Actually, it's the B that they usually turn there. But personally I'd rather they get rid of that loop at Park Street because it greatly angers most of the passengers. But it's the T, you can't always get what you want.

They turn the D around there at Park very frequently, I get it all the time

I didn't say they didn't do it with the D line, I just said I noticed it happens more often on the B line. And in rare instances (such as a switching problem at the track split after Boylston), the C and E.

caduceus wrote:My rule of thumb when riding the green line west from anyplace east of Park, is to take the first train, regardless of what line it is. If its the line I want, great. If not, get off at Park and wait for the one I want. Park will have all trains, and more of them because of the turnbacks there.

Yeah, same here and for the the same reasons.

As for the B-Line and that video..LEARN HOW TO RIDE THE 57 BUS! Seriously, if your time is worth that much, I think you can afford to pay subway fare outbound to kenmore and then hop a 57 for 90¢.

Also, it is the slowest trolley line because of all the college students, not despite them. The BU kids ride it like a shuttle bus for three (or less) stops and really slow it down. Geez, will it ever be the day if this fare increase goes through and they start charging outbound with only one door (the front door of course) operartion going both directions.

I think there are a couple B-line stops after Packard's corner going inbound (the area that runs next to the 57 bus) that should be elimated as well. BU East and is it Blanchard Street? come to mind.

trider2066 wrote:I was watching a video about some random college students expressing his anger and disapproval of the Green Line B Branch service. I don't if the Green Line B Branch is the worst service in the MBTA, but here's the link: http://www.nickilosh.com/movies.htm and click on "Greenline". Warning: Contains strong language!

Believe it or not, the Green Line is my favorite line, for several reasons:
First, is the history! I remember in 1980 back when the those Green and Orange duces rolled down Beacon St. I also remember my Grandfather taking the Riverside line home from South Station where he worked.
Second, it travels to some of the nicest places in Boston in my view. It's for the most part, a one seat ride to Suburbia. Again, this has some sentimental value for me. But I also think that it is still a good concept!

Yes, the Green Line does have issues now. The trains are crowded, especially if you go to BU, or a Sox game. But the student who is complaing should be glad he has the Green Line at all. What would he say if he had to ride the bus? He thinks it's a bad line now, just wait...

Trains are turned at Park St. to provide service on the outbound side when there is a delay also, to assure that cars will be available to cover inbound trips. The inconvenience to people out on the line if all the equipment was up at No. Sta.would be much greater than having to change at Park (it never rains in the subway). Some of the problems of the Green Line are not within the control of the MBTA. The cost of Light Rail equipment has risen faster than the cost of other types of transit vehicle (particualrly in per passenger terms) leading to reduction of actual cars available (very few triples these days). Unfortunately, worldwide design fashions (and laws) have led to cars which do not have the capacity that similar size cars would have had at an earlier date. The same design limitations, which the 'T' must follow, have slowed down loading and increased the running time on busy lines (B, for instance)
so, requiring more cars! The cars cost too much and must be bought with scarce money so, the service suffers.
Center Entrance-58 seats, 120 standees 28 MPH
PCC-(rebuilt) 42 seats, 100 standees 42 MPH
Type 7-42 seats 110 standees 45MPH
In service however each type took longer to get over the line (B) than the one before. Fortunately there are new cars appearing in other countries that will probably become the standard and they do offer hope of eventual relief.
LS

davedeboston wrote:
Yeah, same here and for the the same reasons.

As for the B-Line and that video..LEARN HOW TO RIDE THE 57 BUS! Seriously, if your time is worth that much, I think you can afford to pay subway fare outbound to kenmore and then hop a 57 for 90¢.

Also, it is the slowest trolley line because of all the college students, not despite them. The BU kids ride it like a shuttle bus for three (or less) stops and really slow it down. Geez, will it ever be the day if this fare increase goes through and they start charging outbound with only one door (the front door of course) operartion going both directions.

I think there are a couple B-line stops after Packard's corner going inbound (the area that runs next to the 57 bus) that should be elimated as well. BU East and is it Blanchard Street? come to mind.

If you take a look in the AFC thread you'll see my post referencing the MBTA talking about putting CharlieCard readers on the back doors of the green line. This is common on other systems and something that would prolong the "Show & Go" program into the AFC era.

JS

Yes. It is that bad. Not to dredge up an old topic, but thats why I posted this: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21980

One poster mentioned the cost of light-rail equipment is rising, and that is one cause behind having too few cars to support service demands. Well, I agree with the high cost of this equipment, but one epidemic that afflicts the rail industry overall (be it light- or heavy-rail, passenger or freight) is the reduction in the number of suppliers of this equipment.

And the organizations don't help this by requesting very specialized equipment for each system. For example, was it necessary to build the Number 8 streetcars to be incompatible with existing No. 7 and LRV types? That only led to a retrofit of the T7s ($$) and temporary capacity reductions while these cars are trucked far from the system for repair.

Remember the PCC was a very successful car because it had a standard design that was adjusted for use in certain places. If public agencies are so strapped for funding, then why not build a group-designed car along the lines of the partnership that created the PCC? Low cost, good reliability, and interchangability. These same principles are why EMD and GE outlasted all other locomotive builders--and why not follow such a good example?

Beyond that, why is it necessary to continually replace older equipment as opposed to augmenting it with newer equipment until a strong supply industry is rebuilt that would permit the acquisition of sensibly-priced equipment? Yes, progress is important, and yes most straphangers like new things but I am sure they would not mind riding in either a rebuilt (SEPTA-style) PCC one day, an LRV the next, and a Type 7 after that. As long as the fare is sensible and the system is flexible it will accomplish its job.

But the only way that clear-headed policies like that would be implemented is by privatizing all publicly-owned passenger rail, bus, etc. operations. Now, I know what the other side will say about this but the fact is that these services have been profitable in the past but were done in by poor regulatory regimes--that were the result of poor lobbying policies. We all wonder how the airlines get multi-billion dollar bailouts but they were suddenly deaf and blind to the needs of railroads like the old BRB&L, New Haven, or Rock Island. But the fact is that good lobbyists hang out everywhere from K Street to Beacon Street to Monroe Street and with them on board, privately-owned and operated rail services can survive and thrive--covering capital costs, covering operating costs, making a profit from the farebox, and not giving passengers a new reason to complain with every trip.

Feel free to flame away, but ask yourself if you would rather risk another bad day in the Central Subway or to take a chance at overturning 70 years of poor transportation policies.

CR4014

DOn't take this as a flame, CR, but I'm not sure what direction your heading with the call to privatize. Where we do see some private enterprise, its in the likes of the MBCR's of the world, wherein equipment descisions are still made by the public agencies, and are just as subject to the political/bureaucratic process as anywhere else.

The example you cite, the PCC, was the product of private companies that were not under contract to public agencies, but were merely regulated. They had a freedom which a contractor does not have, however, they also were practicing a business model which is unsustainable under pressure from publically financed highways and roads.

Comparing the airline industry to the transit business is not an apt comparison in this case -- airlines (admittedly not all) can still make a profit because they do not have competition for the product they offer from another mode. Most airline flights are of a distance where driving takes much longer -- not the same competition faced by transit.

In short, the model you desccribed sounds only possible with sizeable government funding, which, with it, comes strings pulled by the political interests. Which brings us back to square one...the equipment designs aren't that great.