General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[The EGE]

• All weekend Franklin trains will now run via Fairmount, with timed transfers with Providence trains at Readville. Transfers are timed for 7 minutes inbound and 9-16 minutes outbound. On weekdays, 6 IB and 4 OB also run over the Fairmount Line; all but 1 in each direction have timed transfers at Readville, but these are not indicated in the schedule.
• The last Needham inbound turns at Forest Hills for the next-to-last outbound. It then seems to run deadhead back to Forest Hills to become the last outbound. Why not run in service for that trip? I have no idea.
• Some of these late-night transfers make some sense for train positioning. Some don't. The last Newburyport train is particularly weird - it must deadhead from Newburyport to Salem.
• The South Attleboro service isn't great. IB at 4:23 am, 6:11 am, 7:21 am. OB trains leaving Boston at 2:20, 3:52, and 5:40.
• This may be the final Middleborough/Lakeville Line timetable. The next general timetable update is due in late October; it's still unclear whether South Coast Rail will open by then.

 

[Riverside]

David Perry, who, among other things, is the curator of the online archive of historical commuter rail schedules, and who ran a super fascinating blog about the Framingham/Worcester Line (from which I learned, among other things, about timetable turn tables) has been appointed Director of Commuter Ferry Services! (If you read this, Dave, congratulations!)

 

[TheRatmeister]

David Perry, who, among other things, is the curator of the online archive of historical commuter rail schedules, and who ran a super fascinating blog about the Framingham/Worcester Line (from which I learned, among other things, about timetable turn tables) has been appointed Director of Commuter Ferry Services! (If you read this, Dave, congratulations!)

 

[WestMedford]

Does the omission of Winchester Center from the May through October Lowell Line schedule signal that the station won’t open until the fall? Currently scheduled for Spring reopening and I don’t see anywhere where it says it’s been delayed.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Does the omission of Winchester Center from the May through October Lowell Line schedule signal that the station won’t open until the fall? Currently scheduled for Spring reopening and I don’t see anywhere where it says it’s been delayed.

They'll probably release a new schedule for the Lowell Line whenever it reopens.

 

[Teban54]

I had always been bothered by how hard it is to find a good population density map of Boston. Even though it has obvious value in understanding our transit system and suggesting our own amateur proposals, most existing tools out there are either not well-suited for high-density areas or outdated. (I see that @Riverside had similar concerns in the past.)

So... I made my own population density map. Not just that, but I also overlaid it with MBTA routes - with populations of each station's "walkshed" within 1/2 mile.

(This is a downscaled version so that it can be displayed on archBoston. Here is the full-res map.)


Also check out my blogpost for this map, which has the full-resolution version, a second map zoomed out to the 495-ish areas, more details of methodology, tables of population numbers for each station, and some caveats to keep in mind.

Feel free to give any suggestions or requests! For example, are you interested in comparing populations of various neighborhoods? Or visualizing other census data (e.g. employment, demographics, commuting characteristics)? Just let me know!


(I'm not sure if "General MBTA" is the best thread for this, but on the other hand, it's not a transit pitch either. In the long term, perhaps we may consider opening a thread dedicated to data analyses?)

Edit: I just realized that Chelsea commuter rail station was placed at its old location prior to November 2021, instead of the current one at Market Basket. This is due to outdated data from MassGIS (even though the page claims it was updated in Nov 2023).

 

[TheRatmeister]

I had always been bothered by how hard it is to find a good population density map of Boston. Even though it has obvious value in understanding our transit system and suggesting our own amateur proposals, most existing tools out there are either not well-suited for high-density areas or outdated. (I see that @Riverside had similar concerns in the past.)

So... I made my own population density map. Not just that, but I also overlaid it with MBTA routes - with populations of each station's "walkshed" within 1/2 mile.

View attachment 50345
(This is a downscaled version so that it can be displayed on archBoston. Here is the full-res map.)


Also check out my blogpost for this map, which has the full-resolution version, a second map zoomed out to the 495-ish areas, more details of methodology, tables of population numbers for each station, and some caveats to keep in mind.

Feel free to give any suggestions or requests! For example, are you interested in comparing populations of various neighborhoods? Or visualizing other census data (e.g. employment, demographics, commuting characteristics)? Just let me know!


(I'm not sure if "General MBTA" is the best thread for this, but on the other hand, it's not a transit pitch either. In the long term, perhaps we may consider opening a thread dedicated to data analyses?)

Which population shapefile did you use? I've wanted to do some analysis similar to this but finding a good population shapefile has been annoying enough to push me to do other things. Anyways, my only real suggestion is that it's convention to have a north arrow, so don't forget to add that.

 

[Teban54]

Which population shapefile did you use? I've wanted to do some analysis similar to this but finding a good population shapefile has been annoying enough to push me to do other things.

I downloaded the data from NHGIS. This tutorial explains it pretty well; the actual data can be downloaded here. One advantage of NHGIS (compared to other channels for accessing US Census data) is that not only does it guide you to the appropriate shapefiles for your selected dataset, but both the CSV table and the shapefile will then have a GISJOIN field with a unique ID for you to join naturally, without figuring out which ID field to use for census blocks.

Anyways, my only real suggestion is that it's convention to have a north arrow, so don't forget to add that.

I did play around with a north arrow in QGIS at some point, but didn't end up adding it because I didn't rotate the map at all and I thought it would be intuitive. Will do that next time.

 

[Riverside]

So... I made my own population density map.

Oh hell yeah.

 

[Tallguy]

I had always been bothered by how hard it is to find a good population density map of Boston. Even though it has obvious value in understanding our transit system and suggesting our own amateur proposals, most existing tools out there are either not well-suited for high-density areas or outdated. (I see that @Riverside had similar concerns in the past.)

So... I made my own population density map. Not just that, but I also overlaid it with MBTA routes - with populations of each station's "walkshed" within 1/2 mile.

View attachment 50345
(This is a downscaled version so that it can be displayed on archBoston. Here is the full-res map.)


Also check out my blogpost for this map, which has the full-resolution version, a second map zoomed out to the 495-ish areas, more details of methodology, tables of population numbers for each station, and some caveats to keep in mind.

Feel free to give any suggestions or requests! For example, are you interested in comparing populations of various neighborhoods? Or visualizing other census data (e.g. employment, demographics, commuting characteristics)? Just let me know!


(I'm not sure if "General MBTA" is the best thread for this, but on the other hand, it's not a transit pitch either. In the long term, perhaps we may consider opening a thread dedicated to data analyses?)

Edit: I just realized that Chelsea commuter rail station was placed at its old location prior to November 2021, instead of the current one at Market Basket. This is due to outdated data from MassGIS (even though the page claims it was updated in Nov 2023).

This is very useful. Thank you. Job density, please?

 

[ritchiew]

Which population shapefile did you use? I've wanted to do some analysis similar to this but finding a good population shapefile has been annoying enough to push me to do other things. Anyways, my only real suggestion is that it's convention to have a north arrow, so don't forget to add that.

I've used the census block data you can download here. It's just census data that I think Massachusetts has cleaned up and simplified a bit. I think this is the same data @Teban54 is pointing you too, just easier to find.

I did play around with a north arrow in QGIS at some point, but didn't end up adding it because I didn't rotate the map at all and I thought it would be intuitive. Will do that next time.

Really really, great map!
FWIW, I don't think you need a north arrow or compass rose. Your map pretty perfectly hits that minimalist ethos where you're cleanly showing exactly what you intend to show with nothing more. I think a north arrow would be extraneous and not really add to what you're doing. I wish I could remember the source but I know I've seen some discussion from modern professional cartographers about when/if they include things like a north arrow. There's no right answer, just a lot of considerations.

 

[Justbuildit]

Super cool map! We really need to pump up those financial district and "almost Seaport but kind of industrial area" numbers. Kendall is also begging for some real housing. Thanks for making this!

 

[Teban54]

Kendall is also begging for some real housing.

To be fair, the main reason why areas around Kendall seem rather pale on the map is that those blocks are used by offices, and I suspect an analogous map showing job density would have the area as extremely dense. Housing does exist around Kendall - they just extend further out. And while we could have mixed in more housing within these industrial blocks, it would mean fewer companies or that they'd have to be further out instead, and whether that's a good idea seems debatable.

This is also arguably true for the Financial District: very dense housing exists around it at North End, Beacon Hill and Boylston-Chinatown. (I know, many of them are not affordable, but still.)

Here are the relevant sections zoomed in:

 

[Stlin]

To be fair, the main reason why areas around Kendall seem rather pale on the map is that those blocks are used by offices, and I suspect an analogous map showing job density would have the area as extremely dense. Housing does exist around Kendall - they just extend further out. And while we could have mixed in more housing within these industrial blocks, it would mean fewer companies or that they'd have to be further out instead, and whether that's a good idea seems debatable.

This is also arguably true for the Financial District: very dense housing exists around it at North End, Beacon Hill and Boylston-Chinatown. (I know, many of them are not affordable, but still.)

Here are the relevant sections zoomed in:
View attachment 50347

Out of curiosity, have you considered an alternate shading for the Charles/ other bodies of water, or adding their borders in a different line type? Looking at Rumney Marsh it's fairly clear, but around the Charles it's harder to tell what's bank and what's Memorial Drive. I know a lot of datasets don't differentiate inland waters, but it would help define the edges a bit.

 

[Justbuildit]

No, I absolutely see that and appreciate the historic industrial or pure play commercial uses of both neighborhoods. So much of the "Kendall" area housing is East Cambridge on the grid a bit further out by my eye, with the area closest to the station being office or MIT-associated buildings. There are at least a few new towers in the pipeline for Kendall proper, and hopefully there will be some more drips coming soon. Thinking about this as it relates to transit, there's a lot of talk about which new lines to build, where to extend, etc (it's the remit of transit nerds after all), but it seems the easiest way to build ToD is to just develop around existing stations, especially heavy rail that will eventually be fast and reliable.

For the financial district/Downtown, all it really takes is a few tall buildings to fill those areas out. I think I can see 45 Province, the Devonshire, the Avery buildings, and Millennium Tower on this density map alone. A small number of conversions or new builds on some of the remaining vacant lots would just help add to the mixed use of what is the best transit-positioned area in the region.

Thanks again for making the map, and for what it's worth I also second the call for a jobs density overlay if possible.

 

[Delvin4519]

The March/April update on the bus operator/bus service shortage at the T. Still 6% below pre-COVID levels (over 100 still left to fill).

Another 5 weeks has passed, another update on the bus service/bus operator shortage at the T. Data through the end of April.

Date	Count	Vacant	Change	% of pre-COVID max	Max count
5/2/2023	1,622	201	N/A	88.97%	1,823
6/29/2023	1,611	212	-11	88.37%	1,823
7/26/2023	1,548	368 (275 pre COVID)	-63 (-93)	84.91% (80.79% BNRD)	1,916
8/30/2023	1,559	357 (264 pre COVID)	+11	85.51% (81.36% BNRD)	1,916
10/4/2023	1,572	295 (251 pre COVID)	+13 (+49)	86.23% (84.19% BNRD)	1,867**
10/23/2023	1,644	223 (179 pre COVID)	+72	90.18% (88.05% BNRD)	1,867**
11/28/2023	1,642	225 (181 pre COVID)	-2	90.07% (87.94% BNRD)	1,867**
12/29/2023	1,635***	232 (188 pre COVID)***	-7***	89.68% (87.57% BNRD)****	1,867**
1/25/2024	1,697***	170 (126 pre COVID)***	+62***	93.08% (90.89% BNRD)****	1,867**
2/23/2024	1,714***	153 (109 pre COVID)***	+17***	94.02% (91.80% BNRD)****	1,867**
3/26/2024	1,728***	139 (85 pre COVID)***	+14***	94.78% (92.55% BNRD)****	1,867**
4/26/2024	1,743***	124 (70 pre COVID)***	+15***	95.61% (93.35% BNRD)****	1,867**

****/***The formula the MBTA used to calculate bus vacancies has been changed again this January, to exclude in trainees from the operational count (those in training will now be included in vacancies). No changes to historical data was provided by the MBTA, meaning the data since December 29, 2023 is not directly compariable with May - November data.

**Updated figure from the Boston Globe

View attachment 49460

 

[Teban54]

Out of curiosity, have you considered an alternate shading for the Charles/ other bodies of water, or adding their borders in a different line type? Looking at Rumney Marsh it's fairly clear, but around the Charles it's harder to tell what's bank and what's Memorial Drive. I know a lot of datasets don't differentiate inland waters, but it would help define the edges a bit.

That's a very good suggestion! I thought about doing it, but I didn't import OpenStreetMap data at the time. Since I will have to set it up for the next post anyway, I will try to add the water bodies to the density map in the (hopefully near) future.

Thinking about this as it relates to transit, there's a lot of talk about which new lines to build, where to extend, etc (it's the remit of transit nerds after all), but it seems the easiest way to build ToD is to just develop around existing stations, especially heavy rail that will eventually be fast and reliable.

Very true. Some other candidates may have even greater potential than Kendall and downtown in terms of land available: looking at you, northside Orange Line.

 

[Delvin4519]

I had always been bothered by how hard it is to find a good population density map of Boston. Even though it has obvious value in understanding our transit system and suggesting our own amateur proposals, most existing tools out there are either not well-suited for high-density areas or outdated. (I see that @Riverside had similar concerns in the past.)

So... I made my own population density map. Not just that, but I also overlaid it with MBTA routes - with populations of each station's "walkshed" within 1/2 mile.

View attachment 50345
(This is a downscaled version so that it can be displayed on archBoston. Here is the full-res map.)


Also check out my blogpost for this map, which has the full-resolution version, a second map zoomed out to the 495-ish areas, more details of methodology, tables of population numbers for each station, and some caveats to keep in mind.

Feel free to give any suggestions or requests! For example, are you interested in comparing populations of various neighborhoods? Or visualizing other census data (e.g. employment, demographics, commuting characteristics)? Just let me know!


(I'm not sure if "General MBTA" is the best thread for this, but on the other hand, it's not a transit pitch either. In the long term, perhaps we may consider opening a thread dedicated to data analyses?)

Edit: I just realized that Chelsea commuter rail station was placed at its old location prior to November 2021, instead of the current one at Market Basket. This is due to outdated data from MassGIS (even though the page claims it was updated in Nov 2023).

The maps look very good!

I really appreciate creating the large 495 map, meaning the full MBTA service area (and even past to) Framingham, North Beverly, and Brockton, can be visualized on the map.

One minor issue with the new maps is the the low density tracts do not have enough colors. I would suggest splitting the "2217-7121" bracket into two if possible (maybe even an extra bracket at 1000?).

Would it be possible to re-create the MBTA's market analysis frequencies map if possible? (just the map that shows X census track supports 30 vs. 20 or 10 min frequencies, etc, etc,). The data used by the MBTA is about 10 years out of date, plus the fact that the MBTA's map does not extend past Lynn or Quincy Adams, meaning it's hard to see how Framingham/Beverly/Brockton stack up. The combined market analysis map is essentially a merged version of population + employment density to get the "x-supported frequency" for each city block, extending out to the edge of the T's district.

MBTA market analysis frequencies map (too small ), and a sample market size analysis table, pulled from the T's market analysis PDF. I have been using the market analysis map and the urbanization 10m maps to get map data to work off of)

 

[Teban54]

Would it be possible to re-create the MBTA's market analysis frequencies map if possible? (just the map that shows X census track supports 30 vs. 20 or 10 min frequencies, etc, etc,). The data used by the MBTA is about 10 years out of date, plus the fact that the MBTA's map does not extend past Lynn or Quincy Adams, meaning it's hard to see how Framingham/Beverly/Brockton stack up. The combined market analysis map is essentially a merged version of population + employment density to get the "x-supported frequency" for each city block.

So yeah, that MBTA map had been on my radar for a few weeks (I think it was you who brought it up, so kudos), and I do plan to try recreating that at some point. Of course, working on that also means a dedicated job density map as a byproduct - I hear the calls from all other comments above you.

Has the MBTA mentioned the exact formula, or weighting between residents and jobs, that they used to create their "composite transit demand" metric? I see your second screenshot about some general ranges of residential and employment density they used to categorize service levels, so I can try reverse-engineering the weights, but a more explicit measure would obviously be better.

One minor issue with the new maps is the the low density tracts do not have enough colors. I would suggest splitting the "2217-7121" bracket into two if possible (maybe even an extra bracket at 1000?).

I do see how that can be a concern. The color scales were generated automatically using the Jenks natural breaks optimization, which I picked because it shows the nuances of urban areas pretty well - and urban areas were my initial focus. I'll see if there's a systematic way to finetune low-density areas further (perhaps adding one more color class?).

 

[Delvin4519]

The maps look very good!

I really appreciate creating the large 495 map, meaning the full MBTA service area (and even past to) Framingham, North Beverly, and Brockton, can be visualized on the map.

One minor issue with the new maps is the the low density tracts do not have enough colors. I would suggest splitting the "2217-7121" bracket into two if possible (maybe even an extra bracket at 1000?).

Would it be possible to re-create the MBTA's market analysis frequencies map if possible? (just the map that shows X census track supports 30 vs. 20 or 10 min frequencies, etc, etc,). The data used by the MBTA is about 10 years out of date, plus the fact that the MBTA's map does not extend past Lynn or Quincy Adams, meaning it's hard to see how Framingham/Beverly/Brockton stack up. The combined market analysis map is essentially a merged version of population + employment density to get the "x-supported frequency" for each city block, extending out to the edge of the T's district.

MBTA market analysis frequencies map (too small ), and a sample market size analysis table, pulled from the T's market analysis PDF. I have been using the market analysis map and the urbanization 10m maps to get map data to work off of)
View attachment 50350View attachment 50351

I've just tried to generate a map of "population densities within 10 minute walking distance of an R/R crossing" by testing what happens if Teban54's population map is overlaid on top of the map, and the map cuts off North Beverly Station by 220px (oh no).

In any case I probably would need to change the colors of my own RR crossing map anyways.

I don't think there's anything too surprising or brand new from overlaying my RR crossings map onto Teban54's population map. The same underserved areas show up as usual mostly. In any case, it still shows how any westward expansion of rapid transit, should still aim to hit the Watertown <---> Waltham Center corridor. The Waverley <---> Waltham corridor is worse performing than it is from Watertown.

The biggest takeaways I see is that Boston Medical Center and Longwood Medical Area are horrendously underserved by the ROWs given their exceptional densities. Same with the hill on the B branch towards the west.

Northside Orange Line, especially in Charlestown, is also notoriously empty and devoid of housing in close proximity to the ROWs, especially in Charlestown's floodplains; save for some commercial areas near Assembly and Malden Center. Charlestown is especially criminally underserved compared to East Boston. The giant parking lots near Cambridge Crossing and Thompson Sq., really eats away at potential density.

I've leaving these as screenshots in the paint editor program, since if there's a better map in the future, it may be better to overlay it on that map instead.

So yeah, that MBTA map had been on my radar for a few weeks (I think it was you who brought it up, so kudos), and I do plan to try recreating that at some point. Of course, working on that also means a dedicated job density map as a byproduct - I hear the calls from all other comments above you.

Has the MBTA mentioned the exact formula, or weighting between residents and jobs, that they used to create their "composite transit demand" metric? I see your second screenshot about some general ranges of residential and employment density they used to categorize service levels, so I can try reverse-engineering the weights, but a more explicit measure would obviously be better.

I do see how that can be a concern. The color scales were generated automatically using the Jenks natural breaks optimization, which I picked because it shows the nuances of urban areas pretty well - and urban areas were my initial focus. I'll see if there's a systematic way to finetune low-density areas further (perhaps adding one more color class?).

Yea, that map and the urbanization maps have been my primary maps I've used to get useful data for underlying demand. I'm not aware of any exact values the T used for their underlying demand maps, so reverse engineering would probably be needed. The PDFs as far as I know only have some "weighted propensity" for population demand, but getting that data, I'm not sure how that would work out.