MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[FK4]

So here's the thing. I'm most familiar with how the NYC MTA has implemented their system, and unfamiliar with anyone elses, but if we take their automated bus lane enforcement program as our model, we would need both mobile and fixed cameras, because they do different jobs. (That said, there's probably no reason a different logic could be applied in Boston, but I'd imagine bus mounted cameras struggling with acceptable bus lane use [ie, turns.])

At least in NYC, the bus mounted cameras only capture standing "parked in the bus lane" violations. The 2022 report described it as follows:

Driving in the lane, on the other hand, is the province of the fixed camera system.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bus-lane-camera-report.pdf

I think the parking in the bus lane is more egregious. But in Boston, just parking wherever the fuck you want is completely allowed and unenforced, so good luck ever getting anyone to do this. Cameras are the only hope.

 

[bakgwailo]

The purpose of enforcement is not just to catch the proximate offender to the bus -- it is to train Massholes not to use the lane.

And for every offender who is right in front of the bus (where it can be caught) there will be ten more ahead of that offender who cannot be captured on the bus cam.

I do fully agree, but I would also say that perfect is the enemy of good: I think taking the steps to get real-time enforcement going via bus cameras is a great first step, and would end up sending a decent message to people in the bus lanes. That said, yes, we should also do general enforcement of the lanes outside of the buses themselves.

I'd also ask: could we lump littering enforcement out of cars in all of this? Given the amount of things I have to clean so much trash out of my driveway, that I am in favor of jail time on the first offense of the owner of a vehicle caught throwing trash out the window, and the death penalty on subsequent violations.

 

[Roxxma]

Driving in the lane, on the other hand, is the province of the fixed camera system.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bus-lane-camera-report.pdf

I've long thought as an alternative, they should put up plate/E-ZPass readers and charge private vehicles a $25 or $50 "toll" to drive in the bus lane.

 

[Teban54]

Responding to this comment in the General MBTA thread, but redirecting it to a thread called MBTA Buses & Infrastructure:

Moving away from politics and back to

General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)​

my 65 commute this morning had 3 back to back to back buses two of which being full seating and standing and one being full seating (the one I strategically got on). The MBTA’s bendy bus fleet is slim and dedicated to few routes. I know a lot of this is due to space constraints but surely there should be ways to work around things like this and overcrowding on routes like the 66 and 23.View attachment 45184
In particular with the 66 the only real constraint I can think of is the turn from Eliot onto Western Ave leaving Cambridge which should be able to be fixed by changing the lane configuration. As the third highest ridership route in the system this should be a top priority for the T to increase capacity yet the next route to get bendy’s will be (reasonably) the 32.

I'd say that many high-ridership routes (according to the 2014 blue book), such as 1, 23, 66, 111, 57, 116/117 etc, can benefit from articulated buses. I'd even say the 39 and 28 should probably use

One factor that currently limits the number of articulated buses is that only Southampton Yard can host them. I'm not sure if that will change anytime soon with the garage renovations.

However, reliability may play a bigger role in routes like 1 and 66 than capacity per vehicle alone. Three artics coming every 30 minutes is better than three standard 40' buses, but much less ideal than even one 40' bus every 10 minutes. I personally think the primary focus should be to have buses run more reliably (signal and ROW priority, dispatching, pre-boarding fare collection, etc), and that they may do better than simply increasing capacity with articulated buses (and even LRT conversion, which is a very popular proposal for the 1 bus).

 

[lainpimicaja]

Responding to this comment in the General MBTA thread, but redirecting it to a thread called MBTA Buses & Infrastructure:

I'd say that many high-ridership routes (according to the 2014 blue book), such as 1, 23, 66, 111, 57, 116/117 etc, can benefit from articulated buses. I'd even say the 39 and 28 should probably use

One factor that currently limits the number of articulated buses is that only Southampton Yard can host them. I'm not sure if that will change anytime soon with the garage renovations.

However, reliability may play a bigger role in routes like 1 and 66 than capacity per vehicle alone. Three artics coming every 30 minutes is better than three standard 40' buses, but much less ideal than even one 40' bus every 10 minutes. I personally think the primary focus should be to have buses run more reliably (signal and ROW priority, dispatching, pre-boarding fare collection, etc), and that they may do better than simply increasing capacity with articulated buses (and even LRT conversion, which is a very popular proposal for the 1 bus).

Sounds like the 32 would be getting articulated buses when Arborway Garage is redone. Today you can luck out and get an articulated 16 on some trips, which could also benefit - one of the few bus routes that is steadily growing: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/1...om-for-hundreds-of-new-transit-oriented-homes

 

[Teban54]

Sounds like the 32 would be getting articulated buses when Arborway Garage is redone. Today you can luck out and get an articulated 16 on some trips, which could also benefit - one of the few bus routes that is steadily growing: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/1...om-for-hundreds-of-new-transit-oriented-homes

I don't think the article explicitly states the 16 is a candidate for articulated buses. Today, artics trips on the 16 are mostly buses from Southampton going to/from Forest Hills to operate on the 39.

But yeah, the 16 and the 32 are definitely among the next best options for articulated buses out of the new Arborway garage, after the obvious 28 and 39. Prioritizing the 32 makes sense considering that it does have high ridership (much more so than you may expect for what seems like a suburban route), and that other routes in the rest of the region (like 66) still face garage limitations even if they have higher needs than the 32.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Responding to this comment in the General MBTA thread, but redirecting it to a thread called MBTA Buses & Infrastructure:

I'd say that many high-ridership routes (according to the 2014 blue book), such as 1, 23, 66, 111, 57, 116/117 etc, can benefit from articulated buses. I'd even say the 39 and 28 should probably use

One factor that currently limits the number of articulated buses is that only Southampton Yard can host them. I'm not sure if that will change anytime soon with the garage renovations.

However, reliability may play a bigger role in routes like 1 and 66 than capacity per vehicle alone. Three artics coming every 30 minutes is better than three standard 40' buses, but much less ideal than even one 40' bus every 10 minutes. I personally think the primary focus should be to have buses run more reliably (signal and ROW priority, dispatching, pre-boarding fare collection, etc), and that they may do better than simply increasing capacity with articulated buses (and even LRT conversion, which is a very popular proposal for the 1 bus).

In numbers the 1 and 66 carry 9306 and 10954 daily pax respectively (transitmatters data as of 10/12/23) which equates to 45.6 and 47.2 riders per trip. Of course riders aren’t spread equally across all trips but that’s statistically every trip filling all 39 seats and having a handful of standees. The real problem with the 1 is its Harvard Sq turnaround at Dunster onto Mt Auburn. I’ve done this turn many times in a 40’ New Flyer and it already requires taking curb, not to mention delivery trucks regularly park in the No Stopping Anytime zone behind the Mike’s Parking spots during morning rush hour, and there is no alternative that’d work to get back to Mass Ave at Putnam with an articulated bus. You could have it loop Flagstaff and go Brattle but that’d add so much time in lights and traffic decreasing reliability. I’d suggest double decker buses like GO transit but that might pose a problem at Nubian.

That’s a great point about garage capacity I completely forgot about. The 39 has a daily ridership of 8745 or 37.7 per trip. Do you think it would be justifiable to split the bill with the 66 where both run some articulated and some 40’ buses during peak? Maybe in conjunction with lower headways from not relying entirely on the bendy fleet?

 

[Stlin]

In terms of the bus network redesign, do we need bendy buses, or would a lot of that need be captured by increased frequencies of 40fters? A 60ft bus isn't exactly 1.5x the capacity of a 40ft bus, but I feel like more buses spreads the load out more reducing bunching. I feel like the 60s would be most valuable to boost capacity in already very frequent service, but I don't know enough about the routes to comment on that.

That said, I'd love the idea of double deckers in Boston and in cities in general for longer trips, since if you're on the upper deck you're not in the way - let's make new England feel a little bit more like old england!

 

[BosMaineiac]

In terms of the bus network redesign, do we need bendy buses, or would a lot of that need be captured by increased frequencies of 40fters? A 60ft bus isn't exactly 1.5x the capacity of a 40ft bus, but I feel like more buses spreads the load out more reducing bunching. I feel like the 60s would be most valuable to boost capacity in already very frequent service, but I don't know enough about the routes to comment on that.

As @Koopzilla24 mentioned above, I think the issue with bendy buses is road geometry for a lot of routes. I would imagine all the City Point routes would struggle with some of the narrow roads in Southie that need to be travelled over.

That being said, I’m in favor of increased frequency over capacity, but some routes I’m sure could handle and use the bendy buses that don’t have them now. With the BNRD, it seems to focus more on frequency to attain the increased capacity instead of larger buses.

 

[737900er]

Can articulated buses run in the Harvard bus tunnel? The 66 used to be in there before Cabot switched to CNG.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Can articulated buses run in the Harvard bus tunnel? The 66 used to be in there before Cabot switched to CNG.

I'd be very surprised if the tunnel required anything more than minor modifications. As far as I know it doesn't have any sharp curves and is generally build similarly to the SL Transitway, except layered rather than parallel tunnels.

 

[Teban54]

Articulated ("Bendy") buses vs. Double-decker (DD) buses
I lived in Singapore for a few years (2012-2016). The vast majority of their extensive bus network features 40' single-decker buses and double-decker buses, with a smaller number of bendies. My stay was also during an era when they were replacing most of the older bendy fleet with newer, more innovative double-deckers (with a small number of new bendy buses for routes where DDs can't be used). So while I'm not an expert, I feel I may be one of the more knowledgeable people on this board to speak on this topic. (For background knowledge, Singapore's payment system requires boarding at the front door and alighting at the back door(s) where you tap out.)

Capacity: The "standard" 35-ft, dual-axle DDs have lower capacity than bendies. For this reason, all DDs in Singapore are now 40', triple-axle ones, which have similar capacity as 60' bendies.

Dwell times: However, there's still a massive problem with DDs - Boarding and alighting take a lot more time, due to a few factors:

• Two doors on DDs vs. three doors on bendies
• Needing to wait for passengers on the upper deck to go downstairs
• And, one factor you may not even think of: The stairs can only be occupied in one direction. Very often, passengers boarding the bus are stuck just before the stairs, waiting for alighting passengers from the upper deck. In the most extreme cases, this blocks the entire line of boarding passengers.

DDs do worst with two types of ridership patterns:

• When certain stops have high turnover (both boarding and alighting passengers)
  • Especially on crosstown routes (Boston's 1, 66, even 28), and routes that through-run two feeder routes at a single transfer station (think Boston's 99, 106 and 108 at Malden Center, or 86 at Harvard)
• When most passengers only take the trip for a few (2-5?) stops, due to resistance to climb stairs for a short trip
  • Especially on feeder routes that solve last-mile problems

On the other hand, DDs do much better on routes with the opposite characteristics: When ridership is mostly unidirectional and have long journeys. This is the most applicable to express buses (Boston's 500 series etc), but also to long radial routes (Boston's 32, 34E etc).

Footprint savings: On the other hand, DD's biggest advantage is that they have less footprint than bendies. This is the key reason why Singapore favors DDs, as land is very scarce on this tiny island. (Another advantage is more comfortable rides for long-distance riders due to more seats.)

Turning radius? I'm not super sure on this topic, but from what I've heard, bendies' minimum turning radius is the same as 40-ft buses (single-deckers and DDs). So they're theoretically not harder to maneuver tight turns, just that you need to be more careful because bendies traverse the junction for a longer period of time.

Singapore's innovations for DDs: To address the aforementioned drawbacks of DD (most notably dwell time) while still reaping the benefits of their footprint, Singapore has recently introduced customized DD units with special designs. As of the time when I left Singapore, the main features were two stairways (a front stairway largely for boarding, and a rear stairway largely for alighting), and three doors (an extra rear door). They might have added even more features since then. However, I don't think these innovations are easy to replicate elsewhere, especially in the US due to Buy America and much lower local demand for DDs.

Transit fans' reactions: During the time I was there, they generally preferred bendies over DDs. Some of it was due to personal preference, or the older bendy fleet being seen as more historic or ironic, or identity issues (at one point, one of the two major bus operators only used DDs, and the other only used bendies). However, some of them have the preference due to DD's drawbacks as mentioned above, and they were especially against putting DDs on the massive number of last-mile feeders. I'm not sure if the perceptions have changed since I left.


How does this apply to Boston?
To be honest, I'm not sure if that many bus routes here really need high-capacity buses. For most corridors, frequency boosts and having a more robust bus network (more alternatives) should go a long way. Even for routes that are kind of "maxed out" in frequency due to bunching (1, 66 etc), I think signal and ROW priority should be the next steps in order to boost reliability.

But if we do consider having more high-capacity buses, and wonder what types we need... TL;DR: There are arguments for both bendies and DDs, or a mix of them.

Here are the bus routes whose riderships are within top 20 systemwide on any of weekdays, Saturdays or Sundays* according to the 2014 Blue Book: (very outdated, but using it for ease of access)

1. Radial, lower turnover*: SL5, 111, 32, 77, 9, SL4, 73, 31, 15, SL2, SL1, 70
2. Radial, higher turnover*: 39, 28, 23, 57, 22, 116, 117
3. Crosstown: 66, 1, 86

* The weekday rankings uniquely include 9 and SL2, while both Saturday and Sunday uniquely include 70 and 117. Also, the 71 is #21 on all days: it is the Key Bus Route with the lowest ridership on weekends, and only above 117 on weekdays.
** Turnover measurements are subjective, loosely based on the Bus Route Profiles and not thoroughly checked. Some of these are at the boundary of low vs. high.

From the Singapore case study above, it appears that type (1) is better suited for DDs (aside from vertical clearance constraints) and types (2) and (3) are better suited for bendies. However, DDs for type (2) should also be fine: For most of them, the boardings and alightings are not as perfectly symmetric as (3), and it's possible that they're coming from different directions at different times of the day (so no concurrent boardings and alightings).

Another consideration with high turnover routes (types 2 and 3) is that their total ridership may not translate perfectly to peak load, and the latter is what determines capacity needs, as I explained here. Especially when considering this comment:

In numbers the 1 and 66 carry 9306 and 10954 daily pax respectively (transitmatters data as of 10/12/23) which equates to 45.6 and 47.2 riders per trip. Of course riders aren’t spread equally across all trips but that’s statistically every trip filling all 39 seats and having a handful of standees.
[...]
The 39 has a daily ridership of 8745 or 37.7 per trip.

Turnover on the 39 (most of which occur where it overlaps the E) is still lower than the 1 and 66. So it's entirely possible that the average load (i.e., number of riders on the bus) on the 1 and 66 is lower than the 39 despite higher ridership, because people who use the 1 and 66 don't traverse the entire route. While that itself doesn't argue against the need for high-capacity buses on the 1 and 66, it may be more crucial for other crosstown routes like 86 with even lower ridership.

 

[737900er]

Has the T changed their stance on operating 60 foot buses in the snow? Historically they've substituted 40 buses during storms.

Edit: do double decker busses have clearance under the Green catenary?

 

[Koopzilla24]

For informational contribution I have 4 years of transit bus driving experience with 35’, 40’, and 60’ articulated buses and the bendies are actually better at maneuvering than 40’ buses because where the articulated section is located shifts the pivot point a few feet forward of a 40’s rear axle. This makes it closer to a 35’ in tigh spaces. The problem is at the tightest turns the rear section behaves like a trailer and will cut the turn shorter than the leading axles. 90 degree turns will need more inside corner space so that may require moving curbs, parking, or pushing back the cross-traffic lane.

The 66 hits Harvard Sq, Allston Village, Coolidge Corner, Brookline Village, Brigham Circle, Roxbury Crossing, and lastly Dudley/Nubian. These points themselves are jam packed with housing, employment, and leisure, and in between them the bus passes through high density residential. At these hub points a mass of people get off but also get on, and then in between them depending on morning or afternoon it’s heavily skewed boarding or alighting. Any pairing of these hubs is in high demand so there’s always a large chunk of people that are in for the long haul. Halving the frequency to every 6min would add capacity but I can only see it also even furthering demand especially since pre-pandemic the route carried an additional 3000+ daily. Unfortunately with the route being inundated with traffic as one of the limited north-south routes in the city reliability will always take a hit. With the 1 at least there’s space to LRT with dedicated lanes most of the route but the 66 is stuck with many more narrow roads with street parking and Brookline making transit priority infrastructure at the expense of car storage a challenge.

 

[Teban54]

For informational contribution I have 4 years of transit bus driving experience with 35’, 40’, and 60’ articulated buses and the bendies are actually better at maneuvering than 40’ buses because where the articulated section is located shifts the pivot point a few feet forward of a 40’s rear axle. This makes it closer to a 35’ in tigh spaces. The problem is at the tightest turns the rear section behaves like a trailer and will cut the turn shorter than the leading axles. 90 degree turns will need more inside corner space so that may require moving curbs, parking, or pushing back the cross-traffic lane.

The 66 hits Harvard Sq, Allston Village, Coolidge Corner, Brookline Village, Brigham Circle, Roxbury Crossing, and lastly Dudley/Nubian. These points themselves are jam packed with housing, employment, and leisure, and in between them the bus passes through high density residential. At these hub points a mass of people get off but also get on, and then in between them depending on morning or afternoon it’s heavily skewed boarding or alighting. Any pairing of these hubs is in high demand so there’s always a large chunk of people that are in for the long haul. Halving the frequency to every 6min would add capacity but I can only see it also even furthering demand especially since pre-pandemic the route carried an additional 3000+ daily. Unfortunately with the route being inundated with traffic as one of the limited north-south routes in the city reliability will always take a hit. With the 1 at least there’s space to LRT with dedicated lanes most of the route but the 66 is stuck with many more narrow roads with street parking and Brookline making transit priority infrastructure at the expense of car storage a challenge.

Good info, thanks. This actually relates to a question I've had for a long time:

What do people take the 66 bus for?

• Residents of Allston, Coolidge Corner and Brookline Village transferring to Red and Orange lines (instead of transferring downtown via GL or 57), or other buses at Harvard and Nubian?
• These residents traveling to work along the 66's route, at Harvard, LMA or maybe Nubian?
• These residents traveling between neighborhoods (likely for recreational purposes)?
• LMA and Harvard workers transferring from subway lines (Red north, Green west, Orange south) or other bus routes (from Harvard and Nubian)?
• Or anything that I missed?

It's easy to say "all of the above", but I'm curious about the more detailed composition of these groups.

The motivation is that I want to understand both the transit needs of these westside neighborhoods (especially Allston that doesn't have good rapid transit connections), and demands for circumferential routes in general.

A curious case is that the 64 bus, which also connects Union Sq Allston and Oak Sq to the Red Line and even goes further to the major employment center of Kendall, doesn't have nearly as good ridership and has surprisingly low frequency given its route. Meanwhile, the 65 also goes through many westside neighborhoods (just on a different corridor from the 66), and its ridership and frequency are both much more peak-oriented, consisting of mostly LMA workers.

These seem to suggest that not every circumferential line can be successful. So what makes the 66 special?

 

[Delvin4519]

These seem to suggest that not every circumferential line can be successful. So what makes the 66 special?

The 65 is a duplicate routing of the Green Line D branch from Kenmore to Brookline Village, and fails to provide connections with the Red Line or Orange Line. It's also a silly route to ride from end to end (Brighton Center to Kenmore), when the 57 is much more direct and more frequent. The same stretch of the 65 bus is also duplicated by the 60 bus, also running alongside it from Brookline Village to Kenmore.

The 64 only has a single rapid transit connection at Central Square on the Red Line and no other connections. It's also sandwiched extremely close in with the 70 and the 57, which have higher frequencies. East of Allston Union Square, the 64 is duplicated by the 66, and by the 70. It's only unique segment being a short depopulated area from where the 66 turns off and before the 70 merges in at Storrow Drive. Other portions of the 64 in Brighton have better rapid transit connections if riders instead take the 86, which provides Green Line connections, or the Boston Landing commuter rail station.

The 66 has an extremely valuable connection from Brookline Village to the Orange Line, which is a unique segment of the route not shared by any other route. The 66 also rides up the area in Brookline where the distances between the Green Line branches are the furthest apart (i.e. that area has no redundency of GL branches since in that portion of the 66, the GL branches are a full mile apart).

The 65 could be improved upon if it is rerouted to the Orange Line after Brookline Village, as long as it is rerouted a ways away from the 66. Such rerouting of the 65 to reach the Orange Line could reduce pressure and crowding on the 66. The 64 primarily has a frequencies and indirect routing problem (remove the deviation at Market St. near the WGBH studios building).

 

[Teban54]

The 65 is a duplicate routing of the Green Line D branch from Kenmore to Brookline Village, and fails to provide connections with the Red Line or Orange Line. It's also a silly route to ride from end to end (Brighton Center to Kenmore), when the 57 is much more direct and more frequent. The same stretch of the 65 bus is also duplicated by the 60 bus, also running alongside it from Brookline Village to Kenmore.

I think this is is understating the 65's rush-hour ridership. During rush hours, the 65's frequency is even better than the 66 as seen below (Summer 2023 schedule). It appears to be primarily due to LMA workers who live further west along the 65's route, and that can't be served by the 60 (whose rush-hour frequency can't even compare to the 65).

But yeah, this nicely illustrates how ridiculously skewed the 65 is towards rush hours. 8-min AM rush frequency and 70-min midday frequency???

The 64 only has a single rapid transit connection at Central Square on the Red Line and no other connections. It's also sandwiched extremely close in with the 70 and the 57, which have higher frequencies. East of Allston Union Square, the 64 is duplicated by the 66, and by the 70. It's only unique segment being a short depopulated area from where the 66 turns off and before the 70 merges in at Storrow Drive. Other portions of the 64 in Brighton have better rapid transit connections if riders instead take the 86, which provides Green Line connections, or the Boston Landing commuter rail station.

The 64's unique section west of Union Square Allston actually looks pretty decent to me:

While Boston Landing's competition from commuter rail may render it hopeless (though another way to argue is that the 64 should have benefitted from a direct RR connection), the section west of 86 is intriguing, as it seems to serve a part of Oak Square that's distinct from the 57, and is not at all close to the 70. The detour north of the Pike is worthless, but otherwise it probably should get more riders near Brooks St than it does. Density here isn't super high (mostly single family housing), but neither is the 57 corridor, and the 57 between Oak Square and Brighton Center is a major ridership generator.

• The pink line is a reroute I initially suggested, that seemed to serve more homes. But then I realized that the Bus Network Redesign (BNRD) initially proposed the same reroute, but went back to the current routing in the revised plan. Alas.

Regardless, my point is that the 64 goes through two major nodes - Oak Square and Union Square Allston - that seem to be huge for the 57 and 66, while serving different destinations in Cambridge. Kendall should be huge, and even Central is a notable job destination itself (these two combined have more people commuting there than Harvard). So I'm very puzzled why the 64 seems to flop (relatively speaking). Do Kendall workers generally not live in this area? Or is it a chicken-and-egg problem where the 64's lower frequency means not many riders even get a chance of taking it?

The 66 also rides up the area in Brookline where the distances between the Green Line branches are the furthest apart (i.e. that area has no redundency of GL branches since in that portion of the 66, the GL branches are a full mile apart).

I actually think distance alone is not the only reason. The 65's section between Beacon St and Brookline Village is even longer than the 66, and even after removing a short parallel with the C, they're still similar:

For now, I think the lower density along 65's corridor compared to 66, especially south of the C branch, may be part of it. Harvard Ave there is notably denser than Washington St. (The 66 does traverse a longer distance between B-C than the 65, but density is low on both routes. The B-C segment is one of the weaker parts along the 66's route.)

Another factor seems to be that Coolidge Corner itself has higher ridership than Washington Square, and likewise Harvard Ave (B) vs Washington St (B). The 66's demand here mostly come from Allston (Union Sq to Harvard) and Coolidge Corner themselves, and much less along the B-C and C-D segments:

Regardless, the B and C stations that intersect the 66 have higher ridership than the 65, though these numbers include transfers to the 66:

The 65 could be improved upon if it is rerouted to the Orange Line after Brookline Village, as long as it is rerouted a ways away from the 66. Such rerouting of the 65 to reach the Orange Line could reduce pressure and crowding on the 66.

The BNRD does reroute the 65 to Ruggles, so the Orange Line connection will be provided (though I remain unaware how many riders use that connection). It needs better midday frequencies, but thankfully the BNRD also guarantees 30-min or better. It's a shame that the original proposal of combining T15 and 65 to a 15-min route was rejected, and the 65 didn't retain the 15-min frequency that it almost got.

The 64 primarily has a frequencies and indirect routing problem (remove the deviation at Market St. near the WGBH studios building).

I actually disagree with removing the Boston Landing connection. In a Regional Rail world where both Boston Landing and the 64 have good enough frequencies (and Boston Landing becomes a pseudo-rapid transit station), preserving the connection can be important. It allows the 64 to act as a last-mile feeder for Oak Square, and may also be okay as a Worcester-Kendall connector until West Station and its rapid transit routes are built.

 

[RandomWalk]

I remember when the 64 did the even more convoluted routing up Hobson to Hobart, which locals fought to keep for years. It really served as a local pseudo-streetcar for a neighborhood that lost its real streetcar decades before.

 

[TrolleybusFoaming]

I'd be very surprised if the tunnel required anything more than minor modifications. As far as I know it doesn't have any sharp curves and is generally build similarly to the SL Transitway, except layered rather than parallel tunnels.

If my memory serves me correctly, a dual mode was going to go through the tunnel for the BSRA trolleybus fantrip, though it didn't end up happening, I think just because of tight (though feasible) clearance.

Re: the 65, it really only serves one market, getting people from Brighton Center and Washington St to the LMA and Kenmore. It doesn't have strong destination nodes on both ends like the 66 does. One can see in the Better Bus profile that ridership is very unidirectional.

Same goes for the 64 when comparing it to the 66. In addition, and this is super subjective: the 64's route (at least before Market St) just feels much sleepier than Washington St, which has fairly constant retail between Oak Square and Brighton Center.

 

[Delvin4519]

But yeah, this nicely illustrates how ridiculously skewed the 65 is towards rush hours. 8-min AM rush frequency and 70-min midday frequency???

Due to the bus operator shortage, the MBTA has reduced rush hour service on the 66 and midday service on the 65, due to a lack of available drivers. Without enough bus operators, the MBTA is not currently able to run full pre-COVID pre-pandemic bus service. The 65 is supposed to run every 35 minutes midday, not 70. The 66 is supposed to run every 9 - 10 minutes during rush hour, not every 10 - 11 minutes.

Here's the screengrab from fall 2019.