MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[FK4]

It sounds like you're talking about two completely different issues: (1) the bolded part, towards the northern end of Lower Broadway (Sweetser Circle); and (2) the non-bolded part, towards the southern end of Lower Broadway (Alford St).

For (1), the only portion where buses run in mixed traffic on Lower Broadway is the section I highlighted in yellow, according to the SLXAA:
View attachment 48398

However, I think they're overestimating or overdrawing the segment of mixed running needed, for two reasons:

• The northernmost parts of Lower Broadway, where it crosses the railroad ROW, already has dedicated bus lanes. (The northbound bus lane is shared with right-turning traffic.) So even without any new infrastructure, the drawing in the SLXAA isn't precise.
• I imagine the redesigned Lower Broadway will have 2 bus lanes and 2 travel lanes, not 4 travel lanes, in both directions combined. This is because even south of Beacham St (where bidirectional bus lanes start), Lower Broadway at its narrowest (63.5') can't accommodate 6 lanes and 2 bike lanes without taking private properties. If 4 lanes total (+2 bike lanes) are what we're going for, then the section I drew above can also handle it.

As for (2) south of Dexter St, private property taking also doesn't sound like a big deal in this particular area:

View attachment 48399
The 67' at the northern end (just south of Dexter) is easily enough for all we need (52' minimum without additional barriers or wider bike lanes). As for the 60' to the south, honestly they feel enough to me; but even if not, taking out the greenspace between the road and the private parcels should allow you to widen the road to 67'.

One scenario in which all my deductions are wrong would be if they're planning for 4 travel lanes (2 in each direction) in addition to 2 bus lanes. However, I find that hard to believe. That requires 72' minimum, and definitely requires taking away private parking lots at the 63.5' bottleneck mentioned above.



From the SLXAA:

I was talking about some specifics and some general issues that I see with this. The road is already heavily used and once all the rest of the lots get redeveloped into hotels etc, there’s going to be a lot more people entering and exiting, and potentially also pulling over or blocking whatever lane is on the edge of the road. So if “dedicated busway” just means paint, that sounds like a potentially not very effective bus lane. It would be better if it was truly separated at least by a curb, but somehow I get a very strong feeling looking at those plans that that is not what’s being proposed.

I wasn’t raising concerns about the private property taking, which is fine and I assume already baked into older transportation plans, rather I was raising concern that this looks like a common Massachusetts solution where some sort of extra lane is built on a portion of a transportation route that has extra space to spare, only creating a faster way for vehicles to speed toward a key bottleneck which is left unchanged. I see what you mean about the rotary bus lanes so that’s good (hopefully). It still leaves the bridge which currently has four lanes, so a potential bottleneck there. Sure, anything is an improvement, I could see the bridge still adding another few minutes of traffic if the buses have to share with cars.

 

[bakgwailo]

I hope it doesn't degrade service on the Chelsea portion. There seems to be adequate ROW to make almost the entire thing real BRT. Why not branch up Everette Ave (move the Chelsea stop across the street, keep the turnaround loop for short running), and then use the Revere Beach Parkway as a full BRT build-out? From there, you could go direct to Wellington in full BRT, with only that small stretch of Everette Ave as mixed running. Could widen there with land taking, or make it one-way with dedicated bus infrastructure. If you really want to go to Sullivan, then duck back on to Broadway like the current plan which has that as a dedicated ROW. Or just use the CR row to Broadway and use a full BRT build-out with the airport/south station on one end and Sullivan on the other as the catalyst of redevelopment in the area and TOD. Make a bus feed station there for easy transfers from deeper in Everett.

The street running jut up that gets maybe 800' closer to "Everett Square" just seems like such a poor trade-off/compromise to a real BRT corridor that is already plagued by trade-offs on the other end of it.

 

[Teban54]

I was talking about some specifics and some general issues that I see with this. The road is already heavily used and once all the rest of the lots get redeveloped into hotels etc, there’s going to be a lot more people entering and exiting, and potentially also pulling over or blocking whatever lane is on the edge of the road. So if “dedicated busway” just means paint, that sounds like a potentially not very effective bus lane. It would be better if it was truly separated at least by a curb, but somehow I get a very strong feeling looking at those plans that that is not what’s being proposed.

The SLXAA treats "Dedicated Busway" and "Side-Running Bus Lanes" as two different categories, the latter describing the setup on Upper Broadway through Everett Square. So Lower Broadway will be better than just a painted lane at the curb.

As for the specific setup on Lower Broadway and Alford St:

Between the Bowdoin Street and Langdon
Street intersections, one general-purpose lane
in each direction would be removed and the
remaining four general-purpose lanes would
transition to the southern side of Broadway to
accommodate a new bi-directional busway
on the northern side. This configuration, with
a busway on the north and general-purpose
lanes on the south with bike lanes on both
sides, would continue until the Dexter Street
intersection, after which the available right-of￾way narrows significantly.
To continue to accommodate the busway
on Alford Street, bike lanes would be moved
off-street between Dexter Street and the
Alford Street Bridge onto adjacent private
property. Once the LPA reaches the Alford
Street Bridge, the bidirectional bike lanes would
transition back into the street right-of-way via a
separated cycle track . This configuration would continue across the bridge until the approach to Sullivan Station.

This seems to suggest that the "Dedicated Busway", at least at the Encore section, will be separated from the rest of the street, in the following configuration (west to east):

SB bus | NB bus || SB bike | SB travel(s) | NB travel(s) | NB bike

(The SB bike lane may be at the western edge instead of the center, but it doesn't make a big difference.)

If this is true, it sounds very high-quality to me. The wording also seems to suggest that, perhaps, they are actually planning 4 travel lanes (so 6 vehicle lanes total) -- though I maintain that the road isn't wide enough for that without private property taking.

Most likely, though, I'd guess they aren't even close to a full design of this section and that many things can still change.

It still leaves the bridge which currently has four lanes, so a potential bottleneck there. Sure, anything is an improvement, I could see the bridge still adding another few minutes of traffic if the buses have to share with cars.

I think it again comes back to the question of "2 travel lanes vs. 4 travel lanes", which isn't made clear in SLXAA. If you can reduce travel lanes to 2, Alford St bridge easily has room for that (just do 2 side-running bus lanes, or even make the 2 western lanes solely for buses and the 2 eastern lanes for cars). If 4 travel lanes, the bridge doesn't seem wide enough to me without removing bike lane barriers (which may be why they proposed separated cycle tracks). So I can see how they may be looking at 4 lanes, but buses won't be running in mixed traffic in either scenario.

 

[FK4]

The SLXAA treats "Dedicated Busway" and "Side-Running Bus Lanes" as two different categories, the latter describing the setup on Upper Broadway through Everett Square. So Lower Broadway will be better than just a painted lane at the curb.

As for the specific setup on Lower Broadway and Alford St:

This seems to suggest that the "Dedicated Busway", at least at the Encore section, will be separated from the rest of the street, in the following configuration (west to east):

SB bus | NB bus || SB bike | SB travel(s) | NB travel(s) | NB bike

(The SB bike lane may be at the western edge instead of the center, but it doesn't make a big difference.)

If this is true, it sounds very high-quality to me. The wording also seems to suggest that, perhaps, they are actually planning 4 travel lanes (so 6 vehicle lanes total) -- though I maintain that the road isn't wide enough for that without private property taking.

Most likely, though, I'd guess they aren't even close to a full design of this section and that many things can still change.


I think it again comes back to the question of "2 travel lanes vs. 4 travel lanes", which isn't made clear in SLXAA. If you can reduce travel lanes to 2, Alford St bridge easily has room for that (just do 2 side-running bus lanes, or even make the 2 western lanes solely for buses and the 2 eastern lanes for cars). If 4 travel lanes, the bridge doesn't seem wide enough to me without removing bike lane barriers (which may be why they proposed separated cycle tracks). So I can see how they may be looking at 4 lanes, but buses won't be running in mixed traffic in either scenario.

Well that’s more encouraging than I thought, so hopefully this will be truly separate lanes for most of Alford. Re private property takings, basically all the private land on Alford is now owned by casino or casino affiliates, and I vaguely recall reading at some point that there had been discussions about working with private property owners and state land to improve transportation. Since access to said casino is in the interest of the casino owners, it makes sense that in this situation surrendering some land slivers might be more palatable than usual. It’s very hard to imagine a fully built casino complex with hotels strung out along Alford with only a single lane for travel each way. That sounds like terrible planning and more than my opinion, it will be seen as insufficient at the planning level. So I would suspect if we’re getting separated bus lanes, we’re probably going to be seeing a six-lanes-total roadway. Wide roads aren’t pleasant but that seems like where this will head. Which then does come back to the bridge, since in my anticipated scenario, you’ll have six lanes dropping to four at the bridge. The bridges and tunnels are always pinch points for Boston. I hope this can find a way to not have that be so, but when you drop lanes right at a crucial water crossing, you’re bound to get traffic snarls.

 

[Teban54]

I hope it doesn't degrade service on the Chelsea portion. There seems to be adequate ROW to make almost the entire thing real BRT. Why not branch up Everette Ave (move the Chelsea stop across the street, keep the turnaround loop for short running), and then use the Revere Beach Parkway as a full BRT build-out? From there, you could go direct to Wellington in full BRT, with only that small stretch of Everette Ave as mixed running. Could widen there with land taking, or make it one-way with dedicated bus infrastructure. If you really want to go to Sullivan, then duck back on to Broadway like the current plan which has that as a dedicated ROW. Or just use the CR row to Broadway and use a full BRT build-out with the airport/south station on one end and Sullivan on the other as the catalyst of redevelopment in the area and TOD. Make a bus feed station there for easy transfers from deeper in Everett.

The street running jut up that gets maybe 800' closer to "Everett Square" just seems like such a poor trade-off/compromise to a real BRT corridor that is already plagued by trade-offs on the other end of it.

Most of your suggestions have been studied in the SLXAA:

• Concept 1C: Follow Commuter Rail ROW all the way to Sweetser Circle
• Concept 1E: Everett Ave - Revere Beach Parkway to Sweetser Circle
• Concept 2C: Wellington via Santilli Connector

1C and 1E were both rejected in favor of the final street-running alignment (1D) through Everett Square. While the report didn't say why 1C and 1E were rejected, it briefly mentioned advantages of 1D, including "accessible by pedestrians" and "providing direct access to Everett Square and the many jobs in its vicinity". It appears they think a direct, convenient connection to Everett Square is important.

• I mean, I can understand why: Even if Everett Square is a 10-min walk from the CR and RBP stations, most of the density and jobs in Everett are further north or west. They may have 20-min walks instead, which gets to the unfriendly category. Also, the walk across RBP is tedious.

2C did advance to Tier 2 analysis, as Alternative 2 to Wellington. However, it ended up not faring as well as the final alignment to Sullivan for many reasons:

• "Most of the roads on the alignment likely cannot accommodate dedicated bus lanes or platform-style stations"
• "Serves retail plazas and offices along Route 16 and at Wellington, which have far fewer total jobs accessible within walking distance of the alignment than the Lower Broadway concepts"
• "Despite featuring dedicated bus lanes between Chelsea Station and Sweetser Circle, Alternative 2’s transit travel time is quite comparable to the drive time. This is because most of the traffic congestion for this alternative is concentrated on Santilli Circle and Route 16, segments where transit priority treatments were not proposed due to operational and right-of-way limitations."
• Sullivan had 55% of public support, while Wellington had 43%.

In other words, they didn't propose any bus lanes west of Sweetser Circle. Santilli Connector is too narrow for bus lanes, and so do the ramps to Wellington (which can get very jammed); the part of Route 16 inbetween them was deemed too short for bus lanes to be worth it ("West of Santilli Circle, the short operating distance on Route 16 makes it unfeasible to install dedicated lanes in that segment. "). The alignment also misses major employment centers of Encore and other developments along Lower Broadway.

One alignment they didn't consider, though, is exactly what you described: Revere Beach Parkway all the way to Wellington. This gets rid of the Santilli Connector problem. However, the point about Wellington ramps still stands; this, plus the cons of missing Everett Square, probably makes it not worth it.

I personally think of the ability to run into Everett Square (with short mixed running) as an advantage of BRT, not a drawback. That's clearly where people want to go, and yet it's a place that's hard to serve on most Urban Ring proposals. As long as you're able to keep reliability under control, the pros outweigh the cons.

Spoiler: About 1G to Glendale

One other tidbit that I find interesting: in addition to 1D, they also recommended 1G which starts at Glendale and runs entirely on Upper Broadway. However, it's phrased less favorably than 1D:

"While job access is lower for Concept 1G, since its surrounding neighborhood is mostly residential, dedicated transit facilities along Broadway could benefit several local MBTA routes that also operate on the corridor."

This sounds strange since 1G fills a notable transit desert. Perhaps the study was Chelsea-centric?

 

[kdmc]

Haven't read the reports as closely as some of you folks, but I'll say that including Everett Sq is a no-brainer. Connecting people's houses to their jobs is just one of the functions of rapid transit, and it's one that is rivalled in convenience by car travel. Connecting people to walkable town centers, though, is something that rapid transit is uniquely great for.

Davis Sq massively benefitted from the RL stop in the 80s. It has fewer jobs than Porter, but the stop is noticeably busier, at least partially because there's just so much to do in Davis when you walk off the train. (caveat, these are "vibes not facts"--I would cite them but I'm on a work trip and it's 5am here, so if someone wants to prove me wrong with data then please do)

 

[Teban54]

Haven't read the reports as closely as some of you folks, but I'll say that including Everett Sq is a no-brainer. Connecting people's houses to their jobs is just one of the functions of rapid transit, and it's one that is rivalled in convenience by car travel. Connecting people to walkable town centers, though, is something that rapid transit is uniquely great for.

Davis Sq massively benefitted from the RL stop in the 80s. It has fewer jobs than Porter, but the stop is noticeably busier, at least partially because there's just so much to do in Davis when you walk off the train. (caveat, these are "vibes not facts"--I would cite them but I'm on a work trip and it's 5am here, so if someone wants to prove me wrong with data then please do)

I can see a counter-argument, though.

When OLX to Oak Grove opened, "Malden Center" OL station is quite far from what was known as Malden Center back then. It's a 9-min walk to where most retail and dining activities are, if not more:

Coincidentally, this is exactly the same walking distance as that from Everett Square to Sweetser Circle and Eastern Route:

Today, significant TOD has happened between Malden Center OL station and the true Malden Center. In 2015-17, 54% of riders at Malden Center come from bus transfers, and 35% walk or bike to the station. Compared to bus hubs and town centers of similar character, the 35% walk/bike share is lower than Harvard (45%), Davis (58%), Maverick (52%), Ruggles (47%) and pre-GLX Lechmere (54%), but slightly higher than Quincy Center (27%), and higher than "pure bus hubs" like Forest Hills (15%), Wellington (16%), Wonderland (11%), and even Ashmont (27%). This seems to suggest the 9-min walk may have slightly limited Malden Center's walk-up potential, but not by much, and it still resembles more of a town center than a bus hub.

I'd expect similar things for Everett if the only station was at Sweetser Circle. But of course, as long as we are able to put the station at Everett Square (which BRT can), that's much better.

Spoiler: % of riders from walk-ups vs. bus transfers at major bus transfer stations

Here are all rapid transit stations with a significant share (>=20%) of riders coming from buses, including the Silver Line, in 2015-17:

Line	Station	Walk or bike	Bus transfer
Red	Alewife	29% (3560)	51% (6262)
Red	Davis	58% (7434)	37% (4773)
Red	Harvard	45% (9255)	54% (11227)
Red	Central	67% (11145)	31% (5145)
Red	South Station (1)	39% (11591)	23% (6870)
Red	Broadway	50% (3233)	47% (3072)
Red	Andrew	46% (2816)	50% (3041)
Red (Ashmont)	Fields Corner	50% (2512)	46% (2317)
Red (Ashmont)	Ashmont (2)	27% (2330)	39% (3378)
Red (Braintree)	Quincy Center	27% (2283)	64% (5464)
Orange	Oak Grove	21% (1453)	57% (3958)
Orange	Malden Center	35% (4212)	55% (6498)
Orange	Wellington	16% (1137)	58% (4211)
Orange	Sullivan Square	27% (2493)	66% (6180)
Orange	Haymarket	43% (2954)	50% (3366)
Orange	Tufts Medical Center	70% (4467)	30% (1848)
Orange	Massachusetts Avenue	75% (4592)	22% (1324)
Orange	Ruggles (3)	47% (4679)	38% (3842)
Orange	Roxbury Crossing	75% (3422)	23% (1040)
Orange	Jackson Square	62% (3339)	34% (1802)
Orange	Forest Hills	15% (2017)	80% (10860)
Blue	Wonderland	11% (692)	51% (3328)
Blue	Beachmont	44% (1379)	30% (937)
Blue	Suffolk Downs and Orient Heights	44% (2090)	22% (1073)
Blue	Wood Island	63% (1380)	28% (609)
Blue	Maverick	52% (5174)	44% (4385)
Green (Subway)	Lechmere (4)	54% (2998)	44% (2438)
Green (Subway)	Haymarket	42% (1997)	46% (2169)
Green (Subway)	Hynes Convention Center	78% (5937)	22% (1650)
Green (Subway)	Kenmore (5)	39% (6062)	27% (4259)
Green (D)	Reservoir	55% (1168)	27% (589)
Green (D)	Newton Highlands	50% (538)	35% (379)
SL4/5	Nubian	22% (740)	73% (2406)
SL4/5	South Station (Essex St) (6)	36% (311)	26% (229)
	[Commuter rail funsies data below]
Needham Line	Forest Hills	N/A (no walk-ups)	90% (66)
Old Colony Lines	JFK/UMass	N/A (no walk-ups)	52% (105)
Old Colony Lines	Quincy Center	N/A (no walk-ups)	54% (63)

Honorable mentions to North Quincy (bus share 19%), Braintree (18%), and the entire Mattapan Trolley (19%).

Notes:

1. The vast majority of South Station's bus transfer comes from SL1/2 (5916 out of 6870).
2. 27% of RL riders (2373) at Ashmont come from the Mattapan Trolley.
3. 10% of OL riders (1032) at Ruggles are dropped off by another vehicle, likely LMA shuttles.
4. Note that Lechmere is pre-GLX.
5. Kenmore includes transfers between Green Line branches, which account for 31% of all passengers boarding a trolley there (4763), higher than its bus share.
6. Somewhat surprisingly, SL4's rapid transit ridership share is only 15% (128). In contrast, 18% (155) come from commuter rail, and 26% (229) from another bus (probably SL1/2/3).

I used the 2015-17 passenger survey data despite it being pre-Covid. While newer ridership surveys are available as of 2022, it doesn't report the absolute numbers of each category (only percentages), making this analysis impossible.

 

[Teban54]

I guess the gist of my comment above is more of a question: When is "9-min walk to a point of interest" good enough, and when is it not?

This may apply to several cases:

• Centers and commercial districts in residential neighborhoods and towns
  • As is the case here for Malden and Everett
  • Union Square Allston is a similar walk to GLB's Harvard Ave station
  • Bellingham Square station (SL3) is a 5-10 min walk to the densest parts of Chelsea
• Employment centers
  • Most hospitals in Longwood Medical Area are a 10-min walk from GL D and E stations on average
  • Most Financial District offices are a 10-min walk to nearby rapid transit stations
  • Kendall on Grand Junction

I don't think my post gave anything close to a definitive answer, so feel free to discuss further!

 

[TheRatmeister]

I can see a counter-argument, though.

When OLX to Oak Grove opened, "Malden Center" OL station is quite far from what was known as Malden Center back then. It's a 9-min walk to where most retail and dining activities are, if not more:
View attachment 48434

Coincidentally, this is exactly the same walking distance as that from Everett Square to Sweetser Circle and Eastern Route:
View attachment 48435

Today, significant TOD has happened between Malden Center OL station and the true Malden Center. In 2015-17, 54% of riders at Malden Center come from bus transfers, and 35% walk or bike to the station. Compared to bus hubs and town centers of similar character, the 35% walk/bike share is lower than Harvard (45%), Davis (58%), Maverick (52%), Ruggles (47%) and pre-GLX Lechmere (54%), but slightly higher than Quincy Center (27%), and higher than "pure bus hubs" like Forest Hills (15%), Wellington (16%), Wonderland (11%), and even Ashmont (27%). This seems to suggest the 9-min walk may have slightly limited Malden Center's walk-up potential, but not by much, and it still resembles more of a town center than a bus hub.

I'd expect similar things for Everett if the only station was at Sweetser Circle. But of course, as long as we are able to put the station at Everett Square (which BRT can), that's much better.

I think there's a notable difference here in that Sweetser Circle is surrounded by a polluted industrial site and hellish interchange rather than just normal streets. I think a better parallel would be JFK/UMass, which has a single apartment complex.

 

[Teban54]

I think there's a notable difference here in that Sweetser Circle is surrounded by a polluted industrial site and hellish interchange rather than just normal streets. I think a better parallel would be JFK/UMass, which has a single apartment complex.

JFK/UMass doesn't exactly describe the situation either. The 10-min walkshed from the station is almost entirely residential, without a "town center" next to it.

The closest example I can think of is between Community College station and either ends of its walkshed: either to Charlestown (Thompson Square), or to the Cambridge Crossing development near Lechmere. Both are within a 10-min walk from CC, though I'm not sure how many people use (or do not use) the station this way. (Bellingham Square to Chelsea City Hall may be another example, but SL3 isn't strong enough for a proper comparison.)

 

[bakgwailo]

So, I do get it, and since I was old enough to take the T, one of my main gripes is that stops are generally close to, but outside of the main areas. See anything on the Orange line after realignment, or even Fields Corner or Shawmut and others. Especially compared to say NYC, where Subway stops are generally right at the places of interest and not offset. That said, I can understand the value of having a dedicated row even if it's offset a bit. So, I get routing up to as close to Everette Square as you can get and back down, but I am just saying: by doing this it isn't BRT anymore. It's a bus route. It isn't rapid transit. Given how most of the line is real BRT (vs. the other Silver Line Lies into Nubian), I think it sells the service short to continue to comprise on even the minimal definition of BRT when you have alternatives that are ~ 0.2 miles off the proposed stop but keep a fully dedicated ROW.

Note, I'd also call for the ROW to take the northern two lanes on the parkway and realign the rest of the parkway around that, making it significantly more accessible to pedestrians. Then again: for the cost of this, would it not be better to do a barebones dedicated bridge on the Chelsea side and fix the ROW to be actual BRT there? BRT infrastructure is as cheap as it gets, why should we continue to accept half-assed fake BRT?

 

[Teban54]

So, I do get it, and since I was old enough to take the T, one of my main gripes is that stops are generally close to, but outside of the main areas. See anything on the Orange line after realignment, or even Fields Corner or Shawmut and others. Especially compared to say NYC, where Subway stops are generally right at the places of interest and not offset. That said, I can understand the value of having a dedicated row even if it's offset a bit. So, I get routing up to as close to Everette Square as you can get and back down, but I am just saying: by doing this it isn't BRT anymore. It's a bus route. It isn't rapid transit. Given how most of the line is real BRT (vs. the other Silver Line Lies into Nubian), I think it sells the service short to continue to comprise on even the minimal definition of BRT when you have alternatives that are ~ 0.2 miles off the proposed stop but keep a fully dedicated ROW.

I care much less about being "real BRT" than running fast, frequent, reliable and useful service, and I'm sure most riders also think that way. "Real BRT" is often correlated with the qualities I mentioned, but not always -- and this is a scenario where it doesn't play out that way.

For Everett residents (and Chelsea residents going to Everett), any time savings from the 0.2 miles of street running are negated by a longer and much less pleasant walk. Constraining yourself to a fully dedicated, or even fully sealed, ROW means not only missing out on Sullivan (due to the Sweetser Circle rotary ramps), but also missing out on Wellington (due to the ramps from Revere Beach Parkway to Wellington station). At that point, you really can't build anything.

Overfixation on ROW also neglects a whole lot of other (often defining) factors for BRT: off-vehicle fare collection, signal priority, quality platforms, frequency, etc. These can be done with or without a 100.00% dedicated, center-running ROW, and your service is still crappy without them regardless of whether you call it "real BRT" or not. That's why "center bus lanes" and "physically-separated ROW" only account for 14 points combined out of 100 in the "BRT score" metric by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

If you're really fixated on ensuring no other vehicles run on the same lanes as SL3x ever, it's not like there's no hope of improving things ever:

Spring St is exactly what triggered the "not real BRT" judgment from you, but the report already listed a potential long-term solution for half of it (point 1). If you really, really want to, you can address point 2 with the same method of closing the 0.1-mile section and making it a busway.

Plus, it's not like nobody is looking at Route 16 either:

Note, I'd also call for the ROW to take the northern two lanes on the parkway and realign the rest of the parkway around that, making it significantly more accessible to pedestrians. Then again: for the cost of this, would it not be better to do a barebones dedicated bridge on the Chelsea side and fix the ROW to be actual BRT there? BRT infrastructure is as cheap as it gets, why should we continue to accept half-assed fake BRT?

An alternative Chelsea Creek crossing had been discussed extensively 2 months ago. The conclusion was that it's nowhere close to being "as cheap as it gets". You either need a tunnel, or a 170' bridge, or a drawbridge exactly like the current one (that's still prone to bridge openings -- not "real BRT" by any means). The existing drawbridge alone cost $125 mil (2012 USD), or 72% more expensive than current estimates for the entire SL3 extension (inflation adjusted).

 

[JeffDowntown]

I care much less about being "real BRT" than running fast, frequent, reliable and useful service, and I'm sure most riders also think that way. "Real BRT" is often correlated with the qualities I mentioned, but not always -- and this is a scenario where it doesn't play out that way.

For Everett residents (and Chelsea residents going to Everett), any time savings from the 0.2 miles of street running are negated by a longer and much less pleasant walk. Constraining yourself to a fully dedicated, or even fully sealed, ROW means not only missing out on Sullivan (due to the Sweetser Circle rotary ramps), but also missing out on Wellington (due to the ramps from Revere Beach Parkway to Wellington station). At that point, you really can't build anything.

Overfixation on ROW also neglects a whole lot of other (often defining) factors for BRT: off-vehicle fare collection, signal priority, quality platforms, frequency, etc. These can be done with or without a 100.00% dedicated, center-running ROW, and your service is still crappy without them regardless of whether you call it "real BRT" or not. That's why "center bus lanes" and "physically-separated ROW" only account for 14 points combined out of 100 in the "BRT score" metric by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

If you're really fixated on ensuring no other vehicles run on the same lanes as SL3x ever, it's not like there's no hope of improving things ever:

View attachment 48439
View attachment 48440

Spring St is exactly what triggered the "not real BRT" judgment from you, but the report already listed a potential long-term solution for half of it (point 1). If you really, really want to, you can address point 2 with the same method of closing the 0.1-mile section and making it a busway.

Plus, it's not like nobody is looking at Route 16 either:
View attachment 48437


An alternative Chelsea Creek crossing had been discussed extensively 2 months ago. The conclusion was that it's nowhere close to being "as cheap as it gets". You either need a tunnel, or a 170' bridge, or a drawbridge exactly like the current one (that's still prone to bridge openings -- not "real BRT" by any means). The existing drawbridge alone cost $125 mil (2012 USD), or 72% more expensive than current estimates for the entire SL3 extension (inflation adjusted).

When a high ridership service is based on a bus the only way you achieve: "running fast, frequent, reliable and useful service" is real-BRT. Otherwise you have all the drawbacks inherent with a bus in traffic and long boarding dwell times.

Real-BRT is the only way a bus can become Rapid Transit. Otherwise it is just a bus.

 

[Teban54]

When a high ridership service is based on a bus the only way you achieve: "running fast, frequent, reliable and useful service" is real-BRT. Otherwise you have all the drawbacks inherent with a bus in traffic and long boarding dwell times.

Real-BRT is the only way a bus can become Rapid Transit. Otherwise it is just a bus.

I mean, I'm sure the MBTA has run ridership projections when evaluating the final alternative vs. the ones on Revere Beach Pkwy and Eastern Route that they included in the report.

Edit: Actually, looking at it again, I'm not sure how much they did ridership projections for the "Tier 1" evaluations in choosing the specific corridor to Sweetser Circle. The first mention of ridership in the report only appears in Tier 2 metrics, after they've already selected the Everett Square alignments. However, several Tier 1 metrics are proxies for ridership, such as "total trips served", "total employment within 1/2 mile" and "number and quality of transfers". There are also other Tier 1 metrics where the alignment has an obvious advantage over the RBP or CR ones, such as safety (pedestrian and bike connections), compatibility with other buses and corridors, and "major cost items". In particular, the alignment that follows the CR ROW (1C) was called out for having implementation issues, namely where it turns onto Lower Broadway.

I'll note that "proportion of alignment that could support dedicated transit facilities" was explicitly listed as an evaluation metric in Tier 1. This means the Everett Sq alignment must have scored much higher on other metrics to offset a disadvantage in this one.

Spoiler: Tier 1 metrics

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

In particular, the alignment that follows the CR ROW (1C) was called out for having implementation issues, namely where it turns onto Lower Broadway.

I'm not sure how they could've done 1C at all. You'd have to switch sides of the ROW from the southerly to northerly sides by 2nd St. to avoid the freight turnouts, and shimmying across the 2nd St. grade crossing at a bad/blind angle with a 60-foot bus to do the switching wouldn't have been safety-kosher. The only way to do that one safely would've been flyovers or flyunders, which is a budget blowout beyond the scope of this project. Perhaps that one scored so low in the absolute that they just didn't give much thought to those particular logistics.

 

[Teban54]

Motivated by this comment from the Mattapan thread (quoted below), I'd like to raise the following question for discussion:

Should the MBTA heavily reduce its use of the "Silver Line" branding, or even get rid of it altogether, for either its current or future bus routes? (Examples of "future routes" include SL3 extension and the proposed SL6.)

I think anyone who’s used the original ‘Silver Lines’ has a right to be heavily suspect of yet another Silver Line extension. I lived off Washington in the South End for a while. It had a bus line the MBTA markets as a rapid transit line — it is no such thing. The bus lanes mostly function as turn lanes for cars or space for idling Ubers/Amazon trucks/delivery drivers. If you need to re-up your Charliecard to ride, there’s no facilities for you. There are virtually no facilities to speak of at all. The buses get stuck in endless traffic.

So yes, I’m highly skeptical of anything the MBTA does that has a silver line moniker attached to it. The T is not doing this to substantially improve public transit service to Everett. That was never even part of the planning effort. They are doing this because this is by far the cheapest, bottom of the barrel, Dollar Store-esque type of transit investment that will still allow them to say they are investing in rapid transit service to Everett.

While I do agree that every argument made in this comment is completely reasonable, it highlights two consequences of the Silver Line branding, whether intentional or not:

1. Any Silver Line route can make the public believe it will be of substandard and questionable service quality, or in other words, "just a (non-BRT) bus".
2. Perhaps more alarmingly: Any Silver Line route can make the public believe that the MBTA has no intention to ever bring (rail) rapid transit to these areas.

Both points have obvious roots from the history of the existing 5 Silver Line routes. The present-day SL system (even just SL1/2/3) was deemed "not BRT" by the ITDP's BRT score metric. Aside from the Transitway and the Chelsea section, most bus infrastructure pale in comparison to the Columbus Ave bus lanes. And SL4/5, in particular, was branded as the replacement for the old Orange Line El, leading to many believing that the MBTA had no intention of reinstating the rapid transit service that Nubian lost.

Of course, it's possible that both points are indeed parts of MBTA's beliefs and intentions when introducing more Silver Line routes (SL3x, SL6), and maliciously so. In other words, it's very possible that they knowingly introduce half-hearted, substandard routes, while pretending and branding them as BRT; it's also possible that by branding such "Silver Line" routes as rapid transit, they genuinely treat them as replacements for more expensive rail rapid transit, and will use them as excuses against implementing rail rapid transit to these communities in the foreseeable future.

But there's another aspect to this: Even if the MBTA thinks of additional Silver Line routes as genuine short-term improvements for the community, the public will almost never be truly convinced, because of the two factors above. To make things worse, there's little that MBTA can do to prove themselves, particularly for point #2. Given limited economic and political will for expansion of rail rapid transit, it's impossible for all communities served by Silver Lines -- Nubian, Chelsea, and soon Everett and Kendall -- to receive rail rapid transit in a timely manner, as the current priority is Red-Blue. It's very plausible that MBTA intended to SL3x and SL6 as short-term measures to help Everett, Chelsea and Kendall, that are not contradictory with future rail service such as Urban Ring; However, it is also completely natural and understandable for the public to immediately treat them as excuses against implementing the Urban Ring, such as the comment above.

In other words, due to the baggage associated with the term "Silver Line", any further attempts by the MBTA -- even for the goal of improving bus service -- run the risk of the public opposing them for fear of suffering the same fate as Nubian. This ends up being a net negative for the communities as they let perfect be the enemy of good; especially if the MBTA did intend to also plan and invest in long-term improvements, and especially if the additional routes were planned to be of higher quality than SL4/5 (I think this is true for SL3x). It fundamentally undermines any good-faith efforts to introduce BRT service, especially in the reality of inability to expand rail service.

Given the unfortunate situation that anything labeled "Silver Line" will inevitably find itself in, should they (SL3x, SL6, even the existing SL lines) avoid the use of "Silver Line" altogether? Should all Silver Lines be removed from the rapid transit map, and the routes possibly renamed?

 

[kdmc]

In other words, due to the baggage associated with the term "Silver Line", any further attempts by the MBTA -- even for the goal of improving bus service -- run the risk of the public opposing them for fear of suffering the same fate as Nubian.

I understand your logic, but I haven't seen instances of that reasoning (outside of this forum) applied to SL3x. Anecdotally, I've seen one non-railfan person in my Facebook feed actively post the SL3x map, saying how excited they are about what it will do for them and their coworkers who commute that route.

With that said....

Should the MBTA heavily reduce its use of the "Silver Line" branding, or even get rid of it altogether, for either its current or future bus routes?

I vote yes unless every SL route has significantly better headways than any "T" key bus routes. My reasoning is that there is a cognitive load added by every distinct brand of service, so if SL and key bus routes are roughly equivalent, then let's just have them all be key bus routes.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

They're not out of rope for things they can do to improve the Silver Line and make its BRT score better. Basic Organization before Electronics before Concrete stuff.

• Real signal priority on all routes.
• Increase frequencies in the Transitway by buying more buses, expanding Southampton Garage, and running more buses so the headways are closer to the original design target.
• Guided bus steering in the Transitway so speeds can substantially improve (and with that improved throughput, more frequencies). Optical guidance would be fairly inexpensive to implement, and could also be used on the SL3 busway.
• Signal system in the Transitway tied to the guided bus steering so there is speed and stop enforcement within the tighter frequencies.
• Platform level-boarding in the Transitway, on the SL3 busway, and at the SL1 Logan terminals stops by topping off the platform surfaces a few inches. This would significantly help dwell times with luggage.

At worst I think you've got a case for downgrading the Nubian route to a plain old Yellow Line Txx route because...short of re-doing the whole corridor with center bus lanes (if that's even possible on Washington)...it's just never going to score high enough on BRT features to plausibly meet a non-joke 'Silver' standard. But the Transitway routes have a considerable degree of optimization left in them, and SL3 can improve enough on its busway portion to offset any performance drag the SL3X street-running extension induces.

 

[Longfellow]

Perhaps more alarmingly: Any Silver Line route can make the public believe that the MBTA has no intention to ever bring (rail) rapid transit to these areas.

This seems plainly true to me. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

And SL4/5, in particular, was branded as the replacement for the old Orange Line El, leading to many believing that the MBTA had no intention of reinstating the rapid transit service that Nubian lost.

I feel like ever since I learned about this it's seemed very odd to me that nobody is proposing restoring the elevated. You would think with the focus on equity nowadays that the fact we replaced heavy rail service to a poorer area with a literal bus, and then gave hip Jamaica Plain the heavy rail, there would probably be some lasting campaign to fix this. Obviously the SL was the replacement for transit service in that area. I don't think the MBTA intends to revisit the area, heck I don't see anyone on this forum talking about it as much as they talk about things like the urban ring!

In other words, due to the baggage associated with the term "Silver Line", any further attempts by the MBTA -- even for the goal of improving bus service -- run the risk of the public opposing them for fear of suffering the same fate as Nubian. This ends up being a net negative for the communities as they let perfect be the enemy of good; especially if the MBTA did intend to also plan and invest in long-term improvements, and especially if the additional routes were planned to be of higher quality than SL4/5 (I think this is true for SL3x). It fundamentally undermines any good-faith efforts to introduce BRT service, especially in the reality of inability to expand rail service.

Per F-Line's comment, there is plenty that they could have done to make the SL more like BRT, and they haven't yet. Do we think they will at some point in the future? Why?

 

[kdmc]

heck I don't see anyone on this forum talking about it as much as they talk about things like the urban ring!

Basically every version of Green Line reconfiguration/expansion I've seen on this forum includes a branch to Nubian, some as a dedicated-median trolley, others as elevated light metro. Heck, F-Line's username is a callout to the idea. Perhaps we don't talk about it more because it's so obvious that it needs to happen--there's no debate on "whether", only "how".