Red Line DTX Abandonment

This is more of a thought problem then a viable proposal, but does anyone think it would speed up operations at all if the red line station at DTX was abandoned in favor of everyone using the Winter Street concourse to Park? Or would the platforms simply be overloaded negating whatever positive effects not stopping at DTX has?

This would of course go in hand with improving connections between the concourse and orange line levels, as well as some way to get people to walk down to the north end of the Park Street Station (which seems to be sparsely populated even when you cant walk on the south end because its so crowded).

Has anyone else ever thought of this or have I just been staring at google maps too long?

I think the best idea would be putting the stop under Winter Street Concourse itself. It'd probably lie along almost it's entire length while not increasing walking by much at all, unless you use the Chauncy Street entrance.

I can't even begin to imagine how much money the T would "require" for such a project.

Either way, I wonder how long it will be before 8 car trains become the next major undertaking for our lines. How much closer can our stations get?

by BostonUrbEx on Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:40 pm

...I wonder how long it will be before 8 car trains become the next major undertaking for our lines.

Instead of OPTO, is the T heading toward OPTTO, One Person Two-Train Operation? From four cars to six, next, eight, ten or twelve. How about they couple all the equipment together, turn off traction power, and then adopt NYC practice so people can go between cars, and then ex-passenger pedestrians can walk from Wellington to wherever with changes as needed. Oh, the savings on power, pay, and parts! And the erstwhile passengers can be charged extra for their increased cardio-vascular workouts!
At the risk of sounding like what I am, a retired (neither transit nor rail) union member, why is the solution always to reduce the rank and file?

There is great difficulty putting Red Line station platforms under Winter St. Note that when the platforms were increased to six car length, both Park St. and Downtown Crossing were expanded away from Winter St.

jaymac wrote: At the risk of sounding like what I am, a retired (neither transit nor rail) union member, why is the solution always to reduce the rank and file?

Because the dumb clucks that run these mass transit agencies never ride their own services. If they did, they'd understand that those "extra" employees are enhancing safety, security, and revenue collection, all of which go to the bottom line.

Since they drive to work (check out any transit agency's "admin" parking lot some day) and drive on the job (check out their company vehicles some time ... pretty funny that they don't "advertise the service" on the job, eh?), all they can think about is making sure that their underlings know who is the big dog in the organization. (Increase my salary, decrease yours. Basic primate mathematics.) Of course, when they do have run-ins with frontline employees, said employees quickly rub it in their face that they couldn't operate a transit vehicle if their life depended on it... so what better incentive to go to the pols asking for authority to "crush labor"?

I'd be shocked if the managers at those tiny rural agencies where everyone in the office has a CDL and GOES ON THE ROAD when there is a driver shortage treat their employees with a similar level of contempt. I highly doubt it.

Requiring all hoity-toity transit managers to sell their car and EAT THE DOGFOOD or GET OUT of the business, OR, to hold an active CDL and put in monthly wheel time in revenue service (you know--like the military, but one step further; for CR, put on conductor's hat for same experience) would do wonders to flush out the hacks and the bad attitude. When employees get screwed, patrons get screwed as well. Never forget that.

FP10 wrote:This would of course go in hand with improving connections between the concourse and orange line levels, as well as some way to get people to walk down to the north end of the Park Street Station (which seems to be sparsely populated even when you cant walk on the south end because its so crowded).

Encouraging passengers to use the entire length of the platform would be as easy as posting signs and repeated PA announcements. It won't do much for the late connecting GL passengers at Park but it's a start. There's also an emergency exit at the north end of the RL that could be turned into a headhouse.

Traffic to and from Harvard and Charles is also drawn to the south end of the platform, so crowding is just as bad at those stations. Epic fail for Charles/MGH, renovated three years ago.

I don't imagine any relocation of either red line platform. Closure of the DTX red line platform at night could cut some costs, but it would also congest Park St. and the green line when it would be a better idea to decongest GL traffic out to the OL.

by FFolz on Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:04 pm
Because the dumb clucks that run these mass transit agencies never ride their own services. If they did, they'd understand that those "extra" employees are enhancing safety, security, and revenue collection, all of which go to the bottom line.

Since they drive to work (check out any transit agency's "admin" parking lot some day) and drive on the job (check out their company vehicles some time ... pretty funny that they don't "advertise the service" on the job, eh?), all they can think about is making sure that their underlings know who is the big dog in the organization. (Increase my salary, decrease yours. Basic primate mathematics.)

I normally discourage people from doing anything painful, but a reading of any of the Shakespeare history plays, Richard II through Henry VIII, will more than adequately show that when the royalty or its middle-management (maybe that should be muddle-management), the nobility, has anything to do with the common people, the common people usually pay the price. But this is off-topic.

This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m having a hard time understanding how replacing two of the busiest stations on the entire system with one giant station is not going to create an even worse crowding issue.

I don't think NYC allows people to walk in between cars anymore after some train surfing incidents, but I think some people still do anyway. Could be wrong though.

RailBus63 wrote:This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m having a hard time understanding how replacing two of the busiest stations on the entire system with one giant station is not going to create an even worse crowding issue.

Agreed. It seems that every few months or so someone brings this up and I have no idea why. I would hazard a guess that none of these suggesters are frequent riders.

jscola30 wrote:I don't think NYC allows people to walk in between cars anymore after some train surfing incidents, but I think some people still do anyway. Could be wrong though.

Yes, it is illegal now. I know someone who was arrested for changing cars because he apparently couldn't get off at the station he needed from the car he was in (That's not the reason WHY he was arrested, normally it's a citation or fine, but due to a very messed up system, they had to because in combination with a prior charge it's just what they do... I don't know...)

danib62 wrote:

RailBus63 wrote:This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m having a hard time understanding how replacing two of the busiest stations on the entire system with one giant station is not going to create an even worse crowding issue.

Agreed. It seems that every few months or so someone brings this up and I have no idea why. I would hazard a guess that none of these suggesters are frequent riders.

The topic wasn't really about reducing crowds but saving time I believe. That's why the topic is about eliminating one.

I don't think stopping at Downtown Crossing and Park Street wastes that much time. It only wastes time when you have hoards of dumb@$$ riders who don't understand that if they block the doors the train can't leave. Closing one of the stops could actually exacerbate this, since there would be more people at one stop.

At the risk of sounding like what I am, a retired (neither transit nor rail) union member, why is the solution always to reduce the rank and file?

Because labor are a major cost in any organization, including transit. In the private sector they are always looking to "increase productivity" which is another way to have fewer people doing the same work. So far public agencies seem to be immune to this (which is why public sector unemployment is down around 4% while private sector is at 10%). I suspect that may change as the Great Recession drags on and governments are squeezed even more once the one time "stimulus" runs out.

I agree with the posters above that combining two very busy stations would not work - at rush hour the time spent loading and unloading is significant and you still have to load/unload x people no matter whether you do it at one station or two.

Jon

danib62 wrote:

RailBus63 wrote:This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m having a hard time understanding how replacing two of the busiest stations on the entire system with one giant station is not going to create an even worse crowding issue.

Agreed. It seems that every few months or so someone brings this up and I have no idea why. I would hazard a guess that none of these suggesters are frequent riders.

First off the Green and Red lines are my primary transportation, and I use them near every single day. I also prefaced this thread saying it was more of a conversation topic then an actual suggestion. I also can't remember my specific proposal ever being discussed, hence why I started a thread; there was a bit of a lul in theoretical conversation and I had just come back from New York where it seemed that it was typical to walk very far underground to make a connection, so I was curious if anyone else thought it could happen in Boston.

As has been talked about, the crowding at these two stations is immense, and ONLY closing one station or the other without significant mitigation would not work. The one suggestion of closing DTX during off-peak times however seems like it could be a good cost-saving measure.

I also liked the idea of opening the emergency exits at the northern end of the RL platform as a permanent point of egress, however if they are the bulkhead-looking thing smack dab in the middle of the common this would be extremely impractical, as well as unsafe at night. A headhouse near the steps by the State House with tunnels leading to the exits could be a nice addition, and way to reduce crowding though.

FP10 wrote:The one suggestion of closing DTX during off-peak times however seems like it could be a good cost-saving measure.

How much money are you saving, though, that would justify inconveniencing thousands of riders? Would the Orange line station remain open, or would you have riders make a State-to-Government Center-to-Park St. circuit to transfer from the Orange Line to the Red Line?