General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[Digital_Islandboy]

Does anyone know if this study might be looking at adding a commuter rail stop at Newton Corner?

https://www.mass.gov/newton-corner-long-term-planning-study

It's not obvious from the documents posted so far.

First thought is- if you Commuter Rail-ize Newtown corner you'll cannibalize the 502 and 504 express buses of ridership if they're still around? It might make the 57 shaker too in terms of ridership? And if it falls off to much it'll probably be on the chopping block to cut that bus route.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

As of 2021, the MBTA's plans are for the procurement process to start in 2027, contract awarded in 2029, and arrivals from 2032 to 2036. The new fleet would be 130 (versus 94 current), which should be able to handle frequency increases and RBX. I'm personally a bit surprised that there's not plans for a midlife overhaul given that they've been relatively decent so far.

View attachment 55685

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/2021-01-25-fmcb-M-blue-line-update.pdf

Seems soo quick. *I would say (I am only speaking for myself) overhaul them. I mean how long were these trains parked up in Medford at the orange line station for testing before being pressed into service? They didn't immediately reach only for them to a get pressed into service when the Mbta got them. They spent a large amount of time in Wellington Station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Seems soo quick. *I would say (I am only speaking for myself) overhaul them. I mean how long were these trains parked up in Medford at the orange line station for testing before being pressed into service? They didn't immediately reach only for them to a get pressed into service when the Mbta got them. They spent a large amount of time in Wellington Station.

There's two problems:

• They're last-generation AC traction tech, so building a +36 expansion fleet as 0700 workalikes will be expensive for reverse-engineering the computerized parts. And just ordering 36 new-generation cars that can't trainline will introduce operational complexity to the Blue Line and leave the new fleet a bit threadbare on margins. It may actually be a better overall $$$ value to just forego the midlife overhaul and order 130 new cars.
• Siemens lost interest in the HRT market after the MBTA order, and has built very few new orders since. Unlike their booming LRV and mainline rail rolling stock businesses, they corporately haven't focused all that much on metro rolling stock much in the last 20 years (that's only sorta changing now as they market the newer modular Inspiro lineup). So that probably kills a lot of the market for an overhaul, as Siemens themselves would probably not do it and the third-party rebuilder market is likely to be moribund for past Siemens orders.

It would've been nice if the CRRC orders weren't such a clusterfuck. Parts-and-systems standardizing the Blue Line with the current generations of Red and Orange cars to unite the whole HRT division under one make would've saved the agency lots over the life of the vehicles. But I much doubt they ever want to deal with CRRC again once they hold their noses and limp towards the conclusion of the ongoing orders, so it's probably going to be somebody different.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

First thought is- if you Commuter Rail-ize Newtown corner you'll cannibalize the 502 and 504 express buses of ridership if they're still around? It might make the 57 shaker too in terms of ridership? And if it falls off to much it'll probably be on the chopping block to cut that bus route.

And that's a bad thing? The express buses get stuck in Pike traffic all the time, and when the Pike @ Allston gets ripped up for a decade-long reconfiguration the stopped traffic is going to turn into a full-on all-day nightmare. The 50x's schedule adherence is all over the map especially at peak, and that makes planning trips a crapshoot. A rail route, especially if run at good all-day frequencies, is highly desireable as a consolidation/replacement because the orders-of-magnitude better schedule certainty will draw more riders. If anything, a new western bus garage at Watertown Yard that pulses up the Newton/Watertown/Waltham local frequencies + :15 local service on the inner Worcester Line ends up blanketing those communities with hands-down superior transit to using the Pike for buses at all, in spite of it turning a one-seat trip into a two-seat trip for some folks. That's how much the crapshoot schedule adherence is currently hurting the 50x's.

 

[Delvin4519]

First thought is- if you Commuter Rail-ize Newtown corner you'll cannibalize the 502 and 504 express buses of ridership if they're still around? It might make the 57 shaker too in terms of ridership? And if it falls off to much it'll probably be on the chopping block to cut that bus route.

Moving the primary transit corridor for the inner west streetcar suburbs onto the B & A is highly desirable. You can hands down cut down drastically on the 501, 504, and 57 bus routes and redistribute the bodies further westwards. The 57, 501, and 504 are notorious for consuming loads of buses for a who knows what reliability. It takes 7 buses just to run the 57 every 15 minutes during the weekday interpeak and Saturday, let alone the amount of buses need to run it every 4 - 7 it ran in the peaks pre-COVID. The 501 and 504 take ages to complete a cycle back and forth for the same frequency.

Scrapping the 57, 501, and 504 and instead running urban rail service with urban rail stop spacing on the B & A allows for much more frequent running transit. It's only 16 minutes from Boston Landing to South Station, and even a dedicated rapid transit line could give similar travel times to downtown like the CR today.

With those freed up buses and the 57, 501, and 504 scrapped and replaced with the B & A, you can get the 86, 64, and the 65 buses running every 8 - 13 minutes in Brighton all day, with frequent buses serving a functional Newton Corner terminal and points west and northwest.

EDITED to fix 503 and 504, original post had 502 as a typo.

 

[Teban54]

While the 501 and 504 (not 503) will likely be much less necessary in a world with quality service at Newton Corner... I don't know why people are talking about scrapping the 57???

• The 57 is the only bus route along most of its corridor, and even at places where it intersects with other bus routes (64, 65, 66, 86), the 57 is the most frequent or at least one of the most frequent (in any timeline, past, present or future).
• The area around Newton Corner has one of the lowest riderships along the 57's route. As seen from its route profile below, Tremont St (just south of Newton Corner) has extremely low ridership by the 57's standards. Newton Corner itself does a bit better, but is still only equivalent to a single, average stop east of Oak Square. The bulk of its ridership is from Oak Square and points east, and the comparison is not remotely close. Losing Newton Corner riders won't siphon off much demand from the 57, if any.
• The 57's main service area -- Brighton -- is not even close to the B&A. Even an infill station won't make everyone walk there.
• The 57's corridor, particularly towards BU, is a well-established transit corridor that has motivated people to live here specifically for the BU connection. Even for someone living near Newton Corner, you'd need a lot of heavy lifting for Worcester Line to be a true replacement for the BU connection. The Brighton-BU connection is simply irreplaceable. (Similar to the 39 and Huntington.)
• The 57 also serves local connections between numerous points in Watertown, Brighton and Allston. Such trips are rarely replaceable by subways, much less commuter rail.
• Even in a world with quality service at Newton Corner CR station, it arguably makes the 57 more important, not less. It will obviously be the primary feeder bus from Watertown to Newton Corner. You will probably get people from Oak Square (and even Brighton Center) to connect to Newton Corner too, if rail service there is faster than the Green Line.

Also, the 501 and 504 have 15-min frequencies during rush hours, both today and in BNRD. It will take a long, long time for Newton Corner CR station to receive this kind of service. So you may argue that scrapping the 501 and 504 too early will still result in a service downgrade, until true regional rail is implemented on the Worcester Line.

 

[Delvin4519]

While the 501 and 504 (not 503) will likely be much less necessary in a world with quality service at Newton Corner... I don't know why people are talking about scrapping the 57???

• The 57 is the only bus route along most of its corridor, and even at places where it intersects with other bus routes (64, 65, 66, 86), the 57 is the most frequent or at least one of the most frequent (in any timeline, past, present or future).
• The area around Newton Corner has one of the lowest riderships along the 57's route. As seen from its route profile below, Tremont St (just south of Newton Corner) has extremely low ridership by the 57's standards. Newton Corner itself does a bit better, but is still only equivalent to a single, average stop east of Oak Square. The bulk of its ridership is from Oak Square and points east, and the comparison is not remotely close. Losing Newton Corner riders won't siphon off much demand from the 57, if any.
• The 57's main service area -- Brighton -- is not even close to the B&A. Even an infill station won't make everyone walk there.
• The 57's corridor, particularly towards BU, is a well-established transit corridor that has motivated people to live here specifically for the BU connection. Even for someone living near Newton Corner, you'd need a lot of heavy lifting for Worcester Line to be a true replacement for the BU connection. The Brighton-BU connection is simply irreplaceable. (Similar to the 39 and Huntington.)
• The 57 also serves local connections between numerous points in Watertown, Brighton and Allston. Such trips are rarely replaceable by subways, much less commuter rail.
• Even in a world with quality service at Newton Corner CR station, it arguably makes the 57 more important, not less. It will obviously be the primary feeder bus from Watertown to Newton Corner. You will probably get people from Oak Square (and even Brighton Center) to connect to Newton Corner too, if rail service there is faster than the Green Line.

Also, the 501 and 504 have 15-min frequencies during rush hours, both today and in BNRD. It will take a long, long time for Newton Corner CR station to receive this kind of service. So you may argue that scrapping the 501 and 504 too early will still result in a service downgrade, until true regional rail is implemented on the Worcester Line.

View attachment 55870

Original post discussed the 502, which was a typo. Its probably just easier to write it as 50x or 5xx routes.

The rationale is that if you RUR-ize Newton Corner (and Faneuil), you can massively increase frequency on the 64, 65, and 86 to increase crosstown connectivity in Brighton Center, where 25 - 70 minute frequencies on the 86, 64, and the 65 buses are insufficent for the needs of the neighborhood. The 64, 65, and the 86 need 8 - 13 minute frequencies in order to provide alternatives for Brighton Center residents instead of depending on their cars. B & A with urban rail frequencies and urban rail stop spacing is the only way that will achieve that. 15 minute frequency is only the bare minimum. TM has discussed a Faneuil infill station alongside Newton Corner and Beacon Yards. It is about the maximum possible number of stations that can fit on commuter rail, before a dedicated rapid transit line becomes necessary in order to add additional stops.

Source: TransitMatters.

In addition, Faneuil is within the city of Boston, unlike Newton Corner. This allows the station to be in Zone 1A, like Forest Hills, Oak Grove and West Medford, and would put the station better positioned within Boston's hands, instead of Newton's eyes. It would provide faster trips to Downtown Boston with a closer location. Increased frequency on the 64 (or rerouting the route as needed), can pick up Faneuil Station on Brooks St and Parsons St and extend frequent bus service from Faneuil Station to Market St, Boston Landing, Union Square, and Central Square in Cambridge.

Urban rail service on the B & A is the best bet for improved crosstown bus connections in Allston-Brighton, since by freeing up buses consumed by the 57, 501, and 504, they can be redistributed to improve connections across the Charles to Cambridge and points north, and with Longwood Medical and Ruggles.

The 57 consumes a ridiculous amount of buses. 7 buses just to get 15 minute frequency during Weekday interpeak and Saturday, running the 57 every 4 - 7 minutes requires something on the order of 15 buses. Insane.

This is from the 2014 blue book, so it doesn't even reflect worsening road conditions that occurred between 2014 and 2018, prior to COVID-19. The runtimes are longer and the frequencies are lower now.

The 57 bus route is just simply far too long to be managable in one go. It's a contributing factor why the 57 bunches relentlessly due to the length of the route. That's why we should have been charging distance based fares for longer bus routes (the 57 is a good candidate for distance based fares). (The 69 and the 89 are much easier to run, even a GLX dinky from Medford to North Station isn't this costly and expensive. You can run 3 shuttle trains back and forth for 15 minute frequency, ditto the 69, 89, and SL5)

If the 57 consumes this many buses, it is no wonder the 64, 65, and the 86 are left with leftover scraps with measly 25 - 70 minute frequencies, even under BNRD.

 

[737900er]

The 57 is a century-old transit corridor. It's something we want to build on rather than try and kill. There has been development along the route simply because it exists and it is a corridor unto itself, like the 39 as @Teban54 says. Because it's been a transit corridor forever, it has to be run as transit corridor forever,
Based on my quick analysis, ⅔rds of riders on outbound trips board after Kenmore. It's currently the 7th highest ridership route on the system. If you subtract all the people who get on on Kenmore it would still be the 15th highest ridership, with more riders than the 77 and double the ridership of the 71 or 73. This is a corridor worthy of 15 minute all-day frequencies forever.

As the map illustrates, the interface between the main streets in Brighton and the stop locations on the B&A is quite poor, except at Newton Corner. Running bus routes to them would require strange detours or long walks. As it is now, walking from Market Street @ Guest Street to Boston Landing is 8 minutes, and the 86 doesn't even advertise it as a 'Commuter Rail Connection"
15 minutes is probably the minimum headway you can run on the inside-128 section and still maintain decent run times on the Framingham, Worcester, and Springfield services. To get better than that, I think you need to built a Blue Line or Green Line extension over the Pike/B&A.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Based on my quick analysis, ⅔rds of riders on outbound trips board after Kenmore. It's currently the 7th highest ridership route on the system. If you subtract all the people who get on on Kenmore it would still be the 15th highest ridership, with more riders than the 77 and double the ridership of the 71 or 73. This is a corridor worthy of 15 minute all-day frequencies forever.

It's actually the 9th (I think) busiest, for what it's worth, but about 3x the 71 or 73.

Anyways, about 35% of riders outbound riders board at Kenmore, 37% board between Kenmore and Packards Corner and, 26% board between Packards Corner and Oak Sq, and 2% board after Oak Sq. Going inbound 27% of riders board before Oak Sq, 63% board between Oak Sq and Packards Corner, and 10% board between Packards Corner and Kenmore.

 

[Delvin4519]

The 57 is a century-old transit corridor. It's something we want to build on rather than try and kill. There has been development along the route simply because it exists and it is a corridor unto itself, like the 39 as @Teban54 says. Because it's been a transit corridor forever, it has to be run as transit corridor forever,
Based on my quick analysis, ⅔rds of riders on outbound trips board after Kenmore. It's currently the 7th highest ridership route on the system. If you subtract all the people who get on on Kenmore it would still be the 15th highest ridership, with more riders than the 77 and double the ridership of the 71 or 73. This is a corridor worthy of 15 minute all-day frequencies forever.

As the map illustrates, the interface between the main streets in Brighton and the stop locations on the B&A is quite poor, except at Newton Corner. Running bus routes to them would require strange detours or long walks. As it is now, walking from Market Street @ Guest Street to Boston Landing is 8 minutes, and the 86 doesn't even advertise it as a 'Commuter Rail Connection"
15 minutes is probably the minimum headway you can run on the inside-128 section and still maintain decent run times on the Framingham, Worcester, and Springfield services. To get better than that, I think you need to built a Blue Line or Green Line extension over the Pike/B&A.

The issues plauging the 57 are essentially unfixable without huge major costs to the neighborhood. Washington and Cambridge Streets are simply too narrow to accommodate any center running bus lanes + two way bike lanes on the side + bus stops on both sides + 1 travel lane for cars in each direction. You could remove all street parking the entire way from Watertown to Packards Corner, and still have not enough room to do it all, especially west of Union Square Allston.

You're definitely not getting anything on Tremont Street or to Newton Corner either, the streets there are too narrow and it's a huge ridership crater. 43 feet isn't going to give you anything meaningful to work with.

The 57 corridor is the same as the Nubian-Forest Hills corridor. The primary transit corridor was and is going to vacate from the main streets onto the railroad ROW. Why did the Orange Line get rerouted down Stony Brook and Ruggles instead of Egleston and Nubian? Why not build center running bus lanes on Washington between Egleston and Nubian?

If the 57 had large, wide streets like Columbus Ave's center running bus lanes going through the center of Brighton, Oak, and Newton, ya'll would still have a hill to die on. This isn't the case here.

The only way the 57's traffic woes is ever getting fixed is by ripping up the neighborhood's main streets for 6 years and dig under the utilities for a cut & cover tunnel, or a just as costly or even more so TBM. If the traffic woes of the 57 are unfixable, then that requires distance based fares to cover the costs of running a long windy route frequently. The cheapest, most affordable option is always going to be plopping down RUR stations on Newton Corner and Faneuil, then later quad-tracking the B & A for rapid transit later down the line (with an easy capped cut option available). Brighton Center was and is going to wind up in the same boat as Everett Square and Revere Center, both of which lack direct acess to the Eastern Route, and will all need or have frequent buses extending in all radial directions hitting the rail stations every which way.

RUR at Newton Corner is the first start of the inevitable transit corridor relocation from the 57 to the B & A. It's the only way transit is ever going to expand west for any kind of reasonable price point.

 

[kdmc]

The issues plauging the 57 are essentially unfixable without huge major costs to the neighborhood. Washington and Cambridge Streets are simply too narrow to accommodate any center running bus lanes + two way bike lanes on the side + bus stops on both sides + 1 travel lane for cars in each direction. You could remove all street parking the entire way from Watertown to Packards Corner, and still have not enough room to do it all, especially west of Union Square Allston.

You're definitely not getting anything on Tremont Street or to Newton Corner either, the streets there are too narrow and it's a huge ridership crater. 43 feet isn't going to give you anything meaningful to work with.

The 57 corridor is the same as the Nubian-Forest Hills corridor. The primary transit corridor was and is going to vacate from the main streets onto the railroad ROW. Why did the Orange Line get rerouted down Stony Brook and Ruggles instead of Egleston and Nubian? Why not build center running bus lanes on Washington between Egleston and Nubian?

If the 57 had large, wide streets like Columbus Ave's center running bus lanes going through the center of Brighton, Oak, and Newton, ya'll would still have a hill to die on. This isn't the case here.

The only way the 57's traffic woes is ever getting fixed is by ripping up the neighborhood's main streets for 6 years and dig under the utilities for a cut & cover tunnel, or a just as costly or even more so TBM. If the traffic woes of the 57 are unfixable, then that requires distance based fares to cover the costs of running a long windy route frequently. The cheapest, most affordable option is always going to be plopping down RUR stations on Newton Corner and Faneuil, then later quad-tracking the B & A for rapid transit later down the line (with an easy capped cut option available). Brighton Center was and is going to wind up in the same boat as Everett Square and Revere Center, both of which lack direct acess to the Eastern Route, and will all need or have frequent buses extending in all radial directions hitting the rail stations every which way.

RUR at Newton Corner is the first start of the inevitable transit corridor relocation from the 57 to the B & A. It's the only way transit is ever going to expand west for any kind of reasonable price point.

Yeah. My sense is that the GL-A branch restoration, if it ever happens, would just be an incremental improvement to what the 57 does now: local service for Brighton. Past St. E's, it would certainly require sacrificing at least one of: parking, 2-away auto traffic, bike lanes.

I still think it's worthwhile, somewhere down there on the priority list. But as you point out, it would not meaningfully bring rapid transit to Watertown. We'd need RUR or HRT along the B&A for that.

 

[737900er]

The issues plauging the 57 are essentially unfixable without huge major costs to the neighborhood. Washington and Cambridge Streets are simply too narrow to accommodate any center running bus lanes + two way bike lanes on the side + bus stops on both sides + 1 travel lane for cars in each direction. You could remove all street parking the entire way from Watertown to Packards Corner, and still have not enough room to do it all, especially west of Union Square Allston.

You're definitely not getting anything on Tremont Street or to Newton Corner either, the streets there are too narrow and it's a huge ridership crater. 43 feet isn't going to give you anything meaningful to work with.

The 57 corridor is the same as the Nubian-Forest Hills corridor. The primary transit corridor was and is going to vacate from the main streets onto the railroad ROW. Why did the Orange Line get rerouted down Stony Brook and Ruggles instead of Egleston and Nubian? Why not build center running bus lanes on Washington between Egleston and Nubian?

If the 57 had large, wide streets like Columbus Ave's center running bus lanes going through the center of Brighton, Oak, and Newton, ya'll would still have a hill to die on. This isn't the case here.

The only way the 57's traffic woes is ever getting fixed is by ripping up the neighborhood's main streets for 6 years and dig under the utilities for a cut & cover tunnel, or a just as costly or even more so TBM. If the traffic woes of the 57 are unfixable, then that requires distance based fares to cover the costs of running a long windy route frequently. The cheapest, most affordable option is always going to be plopping down RUR stations on Newton Corner and Faneuil, then later quad-tracking the B & A for rapid transit later down the line (with an easy capped cut option available). Brighton Center was and is going to wind up in the same boat as Everett Square and Revere Center, both of which lack direct acess to the Eastern Route, and will all need or have frequent buses extending in all radial directions hitting the rail stations every which way.

RUR at Newton Corner is the first start of the inevitable transit corridor relocation from the 57 to the B & A. It's the only way transit is ever going to expand west for any kind of reasonable price point.

The B&A corridor from West to Riverside is ripe for new density and transit to support it. Newton is targeting a lot of upzoning here. Once the outdated hotel comes down it's very easy to build an elevated true rapid transit here, and the visual impact wouldn't really be worse than the current Pike.

That doesn't eliminate the need to try and find small wins along the 57 where possible and keep running it at the current headways. Between signal priority, queue jump, reversible bus lanes, etc there are a lot of gains to wring out of the current operation. And, it's ok if we don't have bike lanes everywhere if it means better transit.

 

[as02143]

The issues plauging the 57 are essentially unfixable without huge major costs to the neighborhood. Washington and Cambridge Streets are simply too narrow to accommodate any center running bus lanes + two way bike lanes on the side + bus stops on both sides + 1 travel lane for cars in each direction. You could remove all street parking the entire way from Watertown to Packards Corner, and still have not enough room to do it all, especially west of Union Square Allston.

I don't know if you've seen the City of Boston's plan to eliminate more than half the parking on Cambridge Street and quite a bunch of parking where they add bus lanes on Washington Street. https://www.boston.gov/departments/...-corridors/route-57-transit-priority-corridor

 

[Koopzilla24]

At the most base level, if the B were to be properly consolidated like a tram should be into less stops between Kenmore and Amory, you'd want the 57 around to accommodate your short trips in the gaps between. There's an incredibly amount of housing density and trip generation from Union Sq Allston down Brighton Ave and onto Comm Ave, eliminating the 57 just because it's in the B walk shed would be ludicrous for accessible transportation and equitable mobility. The thing I could see some merit in that would greatly reduce the traffic reliability burden on the 57 would be to truncate it to Brighton Center looping at Union/Winship and then having the 65 extend to Watertown Yard or a new route to cover that section. My pitch would be Brighton Center - Belmont Station via Watertown Sq and Common Street to also fill in a missing North-South routing through Watertown but that's a different conversation.

Edit: After thinking about it another 60sec another idea to maintain the 57 route length and give it a new function would be turning at Brighton Center to duplicate the 86 either to terminate at Reservoir or Boston Landing but that'd reintroduce traffic. That or extending the other direction beyond Kenmore to run through Back Bay via Marlborough and Beacon to loop the Public Garden (which would involve reversing flow on the last block of Marlborough). The shortened route is solid too though

 

[millerm277]

I've lived out by Oak Square. I can't speak to the far end of the run to Watertown (although AFAIK, Galen St is basically the whole problem), but from my experience:

The city's proposed plan would be pretty much sufficient to remove all severe delay that I can think of along the route (at least assuming bus camera enforcement is ever a thing), and you could really get by with only implementing some of the key portions of it if there's opposition. Lake St to Warren/Sparhawk and Union Sq-Packards Corner are the important bits.

Much of the high density in the area and many of the current 57 riders in Brighton are concentrated along Washington St end of the corridor, which is correctly shown as the very edge of or beyond the likely walkshed from the B or any possible B&A/Worcester Line service.

This isn't to say that a proposed "Faneuil" stop would be bad (especially if re-dev creeps along the rest of the SFR strip malls), but that I don't believe it would pull that much ridership off the 57 at all.

The 64 is what you'd probably want to cut or have to really think about, if you had frequent rail service to "Faneuil" + Boston Landing.

 

[Delvin4519]

I've lived out by Oak Square. I can't speak to the far end of the run to Watertown (although AFAIK, Galen St is basically the whole problem), but from my experience:

The city's proposed plan would be pretty much sufficient to remove all severe delay that I can think of along the route (at least assuming bus camera enforcement is ever a thing), and you could really get by with only implementing some of the key portions of it if there's opposition. Lake St to Warren/Sparhawk and Union Sq-Packards Corner are the important bits.

Much of the high density in the area and many of the current 57 riders in Brighton are concentrated along Washington St end of the corridor, which is correctly shown as the very edge of or beyond the likely walkshed from the B or any possible B&A/Worcester Line service.

This isn't to say that a proposed "Faneuil" stop would be bad (especially if re-dev creeps along the rest of the SFR strip malls), but that I don't believe it would pull that much ridership off the 57 at all.

The 64 is what you'd probably want to cut or have to really think about, if you had frequent rail service to "Faneuil" + Boston Landing.

Rerouting the 64 is pretty high on the "B & A subway" bus network reconfiguration in Allston-Brighton. RUR at Newton Corner, Faneuil, Boston Landing, and Beacon Yards is only enough to scrap the 501 and 504. But quad tracking the B & A for rapid transit & slapping extra infills at Allston/Brighton Depot/Cottage Farm for the 2 rapid transit tracks are what it's going to take to make reconfiguring the 64 to replace the 57 actually work. The high frequency every 8 to 13 minute 64 bus would be rerouted to serve Brighton Center and Oak via Cambridge & Washington, then send it to Faneuil Station.

 

[okin15]

Has the MBTA ever explored running the 57 bus down the GL ROW (would require paving along the tracks) as far as Packards Corner?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Has the MBTA ever explored running the 57 bus down the GL ROW (would require paving along the tracks) as far as Packards Corner?

That would only serve to make the bunching problem much worse, because the B's schedule adherence is all kinds of messed up and now you're layering two messed-up schedules on top of each other. Making them share a reservation is an excellent way to tank both services.

 

[Delvin4519]

That would only serve to make the bunching problem much worse, because the B's schedule adherence is all kinds of messed up and now you're layering two messed-up schedules on top of each other. Making them share a reservation is an excellent way to tank both services.

Would it be possible to do bi-directional, center-running bus lanes, on all of the 57’s Comm Ave segment, independent of the Green Line tracks? There’s many ways it could work, counter-flow bus lanes could be used to share platforms, amongst other possible solutions.

 

[as02143]

That would only serve to make the bunching problem much worse, because the B's schedule adherence is all kinds of messed up and now you're layering two messed-up schedules on top of each other. Making them share a reservation is an excellent way to tank both services.

This does cause me to remember that I've always wondered what the main sources of the schedule variability of the B branch is. Clearly the Central Subway drives variability outbound to BC, but, what's with the variability inbound? Does the T not manage departures at BC so well?