MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

bigeman312 said:
Malcolm X Blvd. Under the redesigned bus network, it will have the most frequent service of any street segment, by far. It is planned to have a minimum of 24 buses per hour from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm, 7 days a week. Not to mention that the boulevard is wide enough to easily accomodate Columbus-style center-running bus lanes. That should be the next choice.
Click to expand...
I hadn't focused on what's happening there - since i'm north of Boston. Kinda wild that the new routes are going to be moving in ways they haven't moved before (or in a long time)!

Going through Malcom X-Tremont today is 66, but, now they're proposing T12 and T28 to do that! That's a lot of buses if they're going from one to 3 high frequency buses. And now T22 will go west on Tremont and South to Columbus Ave.

I definitely see the need for busways on Malcom X and even on the Tremont St-side approach to Columbus Ave.

737900er said:
The BEB RFP has an option for 65 left-door buses in addition to the 35 for North Cambridge. They would presumably end up at Arborway, but for now don't have a clear use. It definitely seems like something they're open to/planning for. If they have to have a sub-fleet of left-door BEBs for the 71/73 (I think the need for this is debatable, but that's not what we're talking about here) they might as well expand the fleet.
I don't think Quincy has any need for left-door.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused. The 71/73 aren't using the lower-busway today because there's no left-side doors today. It seems like left-side doors are obviously necessary to use the facilities we have today for EXTREMELY little cost.
 
as02143 said:
I'm a bit confused. The 71/73 aren't using the lower-busway today because there's no left-side doors today. It seems like left-side doors are obviously necessary to use the facilities we have today for EXTREMELY little cost.
Click to expand...
Not trying to derail the conversation here, but I think if the 77 can unload in the lower busway without left doors then the 71/73 and 86 should be able to board in the lower busway without left doors, especially with all-door fare collection. This was the practice during the ETB era when diesels were substituted for occasional trips. When 71, 73, and 77 are all using BEBs having a distinction between equipment for the routes for historical reasons is silly. (I'm sure there are accessibility reasons I'm leaving out too.)
 
^ Ooops, yeah okay let's see what I can do here.

Harbor Freeway station uses an island platform for LA Metro's J Line (f.k.a. Silver Line), with crossovers at both ends of the station for the bus lanes. You can see the design pretty clearly on OpenStreetMap:

1669911808004.png


It's a bit harder to see on the Google Maps satellite view:

1669911855553.png


Up at the other end of the line, there is an extended stretch of left-hand running bus lanes to accommodate center platforms at Union Station, LA County+USC Medical Center, and Cal State LA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_State_LA_station#:~:text=Just west of,direction.[5]

In both cases, though, it's worth noting that these lanes are mostly physically segregated from general traffic, running in highway medians with restricted/semi-impossible access via ramps. While not impossible, I do think it would be harder to mix left-hand running bus lanes with right-hand running general travel lanes in the same street:

1669913295393.png


And while I like center-platforms in some ways, you can achieve the same space savings with off-set platforms:

1669913389085.png


(And in fact potentially can be narrower overall, since the side platform only needs to accommodate one direction's worth of waiting passengers.)
 
HenryAlan said:
The link seems to be broken, but I'm interested in seeing what you've described.
Click to expand...
The only one in LA I can think of is the Harbor Transitway / Freeway Station. (Difficult to see from the satellite view under the highway interchange, but thus is the lot of much of LA transit planning.) This example out of Minneapolis is a better one, but I don't think these are used outside of highway medians busways, and haven't seen them in urban corridors.

(This APTA report on BRT station layouts is reasonably interesting reading)
 
Has the Bus Network Redesign team specified any proposed/hoped-for infrastructure improvements for LMA? The final design will (I believe) call for 30 bph in each direction on Francis St (8 min headways each on T12, T22, T28, and T66), plus 12 bph per direction on Longwood Ave (T47, 65, 85) and and varyingly 17 to 20 bph per direction on Brookline Ave (T28 + T47 + 60, and T12 + 60 + 65 + T66).

Brookline is probably wide enough to accommodate bus lanes + car lanes, and the western half of Francis probably can, but I don't see have you get dedicated lanes on Longwood without making it one way to cars.

The network also leans heavily on Tremont St to connect LMA to the Orange Line at Roxbury Crossing -- is the expectation that they can grab bus lanes there? Over in the Green Line Reconfig thread, we've noted that some reconfiguration on Ruggles St (mostly already in planning by various parties) could accommodate bus lanes between Huntington and the Orange Line. If the T12 and T66 were rerouted to Ruggles, perhaps you could get away with creating paired one-way bus lanes on Longwood and Francis?

That would still leave the T22 and T28 going somewhat roundabout but need to use Huntington to cut over to Longwood from Tremont, but maybe it's workable?

1670000693667.png


(T28 in red, T22 in blue)

Actually, looking at now, St Alphonsus is potentially wide enough to take a single bus lane:

1670000607215.png


The downside is that northbound T28 riders end up with a longer walk to the southern corner of LMA, so I dunno.

Just to be a little clearer about what I meant about rerouting the T12 and T66 (in green below) to Ruggles:

1670001639312.png


Though stepping back, I'm not sure you really get much by rerouting to Ruggles, even with the pair of one-way routes through LMA -- you avoid the Longwood-Huntington-Tremont jog, but trade it for the Huntington-Ruggles-Tremont-Malcolm X jog (purple vs orange):

1670001798072.png


So maybe the answer is:
  • two-way bus lanes on Brookline Ave
  • paired one-way lanes on Francis St and Longwood Ave
  • bus lanes on Huntington (larger reimagining needed there to improve reliability of T39)
  • two-way bus lanes on Tremont St from Huntington to Roxbury Crossing
Thank you for attending my meandering TED Talk.
 
Last edited:
as02143 said:
With all this stuff about a redesigned bus network, I was wondering what people thought of as the next logical bus priority/BRT street? I think Mass Ave is probably the one that would make the most sense, but, now on the Mass Ave bridge, they just took out 1 lane to create bike lanes on the bridge. There's at least a short bus lane on the Boston side and ones going to the bridge on the Cambridge side. Maybe they can redo the bike lanes and create bus lanes too?
Click to expand...
I have no clue about the numbers (so don’t know if it would be worth the effort) but I’d like to see Washington street all the way to the Dedham Mall get a lane. Other roads would be Hyde park Ave, blue hill ave, Seaver st.
 
Riverside said:
Has the Bus Network Redesign team specified any proposed/hoped-for infrastructure improvements for LMA? The final design will (I believe) call for 30 bph in each direction on Francis St (8 min headways each on T12, T22, T28, and T66), plus 12 bph per direction on Longwood Ave (T47, 65, 85) and and varyingly 17 to 20 bph per direction on Brookline Ave (T28 + T47 + 60, and T12 + 60 + 65 + T66).

Brookline is probably wide enough to accommodate bus lanes + car lanes, and the western half of Francis probably can, but I don't see have you get dedicated lanes on Longwood without making it one way to cars.

The network also leans heavily on Tremont St to connect LMA to the Orange Line at Roxbury Crossing -- is the expectation that they can grab bus lanes there? Over in the Green Line Reconfig thread, we've noted that some reconfiguration on Ruggles St (mostly already in planning by various parties) could accommodate bus lanes between Huntington and the Orange Line. If the T12 and T66 were rerouted to Ruggles, perhaps you could get away with creating paired one-way bus lanes on Longwood and Francis?

That would still leave the T22 and T28 going somewhat roundabout but need to use Huntington to cut over to Longwood from Tremont, but maybe it's workable?

View attachment 31352

(T28 in red, T22 in blue)

Actually, looking at now, St Alphonsus is potentially wide enough to take a single bus lane:

View attachment 31351

The downside is that northbound T28 riders end up with a longer walk to the southern corner of LMA, so I dunno.

Just to be a little clearer about what I meant about rerouting the T12 and T66 (in green below) to Ruggles:

View attachment 31354

Though stepping back, I'm not sure you really get much by rerouting to Ruggles, even with the pair of one-way routes through LMA -- you avoid the Longwood-Huntington-Tremont jog, but trade it for the Huntington-Ruggles-Tremont-Malcolm X jog (purple vs orange):

View attachment 31355

So maybe the answer is:
  • two-way bus lanes on Brookline Ave
  • paired one-way lanes on Francis St and Longwood Ave
  • bus lanes on Huntington (larger reimagining needed there to improve reliability of T39)
  • two-way bus lanes on Tremont St from Huntington to Roxbury Crossing
Thank you for attending my meandering TED Talk.
Click to expand...
Great ideas! Now, would these bus lanes possibly be useful for SW quad of Urban Ring as street-running LRT, if implemented as shared LRT/bus lanes?
 
Teban54 said:
Great ideas! Now, would these bus lanes possibly be useful for SW quad of Urban Ring as street-running LRT, if implemented as shared LRT/bus lanes?
Click to expand...
I've been chuckling to myself since I made the post and saw all the (very kind) "Like" reactions rolling in, because, like, a) I did not think my post was of particular quality, and b) I was legitimately asking, "Anyone got any [better] ideas?" 😂

One downside that occurred to me is that combining the Francis and Longwood corridors would mean that each of those bus lanes would see a huge throughput -- I think over 40 buses per hour. To @The EGE's points in the Green Line Reconfiguration thread, there's only so much you can do with transit signal prioritization; think of your typical traffic light cycle, and now consider a transit vehicle coming every 90 seconds -- it's going to be hard to consistently give the bus priority, meaning there will be a cap on the speed with which you can shovel buses through.

That's also going to create problems if we wanted to introduce LRT vehicles into the mix - at some point, you're gonna hit a capacity limit. Granted, LRT would probably replace some of the buses (e.g. the T47), but it's still going to be on the slower side.

The other problem with running LRT on those lanes is that those LRT trains need to go somewhere else, and, even with dedicated lanes, the level of congestion and number of traffic lights will produce a different level of reliability than a dedicated ROW (e.g. on the Grand Junction) would; "contaminating" those dedicated ROWs with the lower reliability of what'd we see in the LMA will be less efficient.

Everything is a matter of degree, of course. A lot of the same dynamics that impact an LMA bus lane loop would impact my proposal for a Transitway; but, my Transitway is intended for a lower frequency of vehicles, only needs to accommodate crossing (not parallel) auto traffic, and has fewer abutters (due to running along the park) which should slightly reduce jaywalking. (My Transitway also avoids the medical buildings, reducing concern about access for ambulances.)

Finally (again, thank you in advance for attending my TED Talk), it's worth remembering that the BNRD was explicitly designed with a 5-year scope in mind, with a strong focus on the "art of the possible." I think we're unlikely to see any LRT expansion in the next five years, but even on a 15-year timeline, there are a number of projects that would be prioritized over LRT in Longwood, including:
  • F Line to Nubian
  • Needham Extension
  • Porter Extension
  • maybe D-E connector and/or an extended Huntington Ave Subway
Long term, we (as a City and a region) need to sit down and have a serious and honest conversation about transit to Longwood Medical Area. Longwood is a behemoth and that's not going to change any time soon. An expansion of transit access on Huntington and Brookline Aves seems relatively feasible, and maybe that will be enough! But if it isn't, then there are tough conversations to have. F-Line to Dudley once compared a cross-LMA tunnel to a North-South Rail Link expense, which may well be the case. But Longwood is valuable enough that it may well be worth spending that kind of money. (And on my more cynical days, I admit to seeing it as a better investment than the NSRL. [*cue the throwing vegetables*]) I think the BNRD is an excellent improvement, which does not negate the need for a long-term conversation.
 
Riverside said:
Long term, we (as a City and a region) need to sit down and have a serious and honest conversation about transit to Longwood Medical Area. Longwood is a behemoth and that's not going to change any time soon. An expansion of transit access on Huntington and Brookline Aves seems relatively feasible, and maybe that will be enough! But if it isn't, then there are tough conversations to have. F-Line to Dudley once compared a cross-LMA tunnel to a North-South Rail Link expense, which may well be the case. But Longwood is valuable enough that it may well be worth spending that kind of money. (And on my more cynical days, I admit to seeing it as a better investment than the NSRL. [*cue the throwing vegetables*]) I think the BNRD is an excellent improvement, which does not negate the need for a long-term conversation.
Click to expand...


THIS.

And there is no amount of clever configuring of surface lanes that will ever solve the problem. I see why you suggested the one way circuit, but the reality is that those types of circuits work decently well in cities that planned for them and have uniform road widths, but not well when imposed on an inconsistent network. I think, aside from the emergency access issues (which would be solvable, probably), it would lead to nightmarish traffic, worse than how things are now.

However, I do wonder if major expansions to the rapid transit network, particularly the whole Green Line redesign that was discussed years ago, might actually indirectly alleviate a lot of the access issues to LMA. Im talking about the full-build proposal to create a massive expansion of the Green Line, with
1) a line off the B that connects to Harvard
2) a line off the B that goes over Grand Junction into Somerville
3) a Stuart St subway parallel to the main trunk
4) a superstation at Tufts
5) F Line to Nubian
6) a line from the new Stuart St line <-> Tufts <-> South Station <-> Seaport
7) a line to Needham off the D
8) crucially, finally, a connection between Brookline Village (D) and South Huntington (E)
9) now, F-Line always argued hard to re-extend the E to Forest Hills as well, and while I don't really see that being feasible, that would critically connect the southwestern hoods to LMA

This became a crazy transit pitch, but the idea is that if you really had great coverage on the light and heavy rail networks, I think people would be more likely to take it to work. It's the misery of multiple transfers, excess time heading downtown to head back out when the crow-flies distance between A and B is actually small, and related issues that make the T a turn off for a lot of people who "wish" they "could" take it, but don't.


That being said, something needs to be done. And the conversation you advocated for really needs to happen. The outcome cant be bullshit -- there should be sit-down of all the players and they either decide to pony up a huge amount of money to address the issue, or conclude that it's simply to expensive and admit that the problem is insoluble for the foreseeable future and that the state's largest employment area will remain without great public transit access. I just would hate to see the usual Boston approach of taking space where space exists for bus lanes that make a really nifty nice fast trip over a few blocks on Brookline Ave only to wind up sitting in the exact same traffic once they hit Longwood. That kind of stuff doesn't make any more sense to me than the people who stomp on the gas only to sit at the same red light up ahead.
 
FK4 said:
particularly the whole Green Line redesign that was discussed years ago
Click to expand...
Still very much under discussion over in the thread :)

And given my participation in said thread, it's no surprise I agree with you about the value of those/similar expansions. The most important, in my opinion, is improving reliability and expanding capacity on Huntington, which I agree is best accomplished by a combination of an extended subway and a D-E Connector. Even then, though, I think there will still be key pieces of the puzzle missing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Riverside said:
Still very much under discussion over in the thread :)

And given my participation in said thread, it's no surprise I agree with you about the value of those/similar expansions. The most important, in my opinion, is improving reliability and expanding capacity on Huntington, which I agree is best accomplished by a combination of an extended subway and a D-E Connector. Even then, though, I think there will still be key pieces of the puzzle missing.
Click to expand...
Haha glad to hear it is. Haven’t been on here as much lately. And I agree with your assessment.
 
FK4 said:
I have no clue about the numbers (so don’t know if it would be worth the effort) but I’d like to see Washington street all the way to the Dedham Mall get a lane. Other roads would be Hyde park Ave, blue hill ave, Seaver st.
Click to expand...

I hope this helps provide some context to the sections you propose.

The very-high frequency sections, with the bus network redesign (8+ bph per direction):
  • Washington Street
    • Downtown <-> Nubian
    • Forest Hills <-> Roslindale Village
  • Blue Hill Ave
    • Grove Hall <-> Talbot Ave
    • Morton St <-> Mattapan Square
The high frequency sections, with the bus network redesign (4-8 bph per direction):
  • Washington Street
    • Roslindale Village <-> Stony Brook Reservation
  • Hyde Park Ave
    • Forest Hills <-> Readville
  • Blue Hill Ave
    • Talbot Ave <-> Morton St
  • Seaver Street
    • Columbus Ave <-> Grove Hall
The medium frequency sections, with the bus network redesign (2-4 bph per direction):
  • Washington Street
    • Nubian <-> Forest Hills
    • Stony Brook Reservation <-> Dedham
  • Blue Hill Ave
    • Dudley St <-> Grove Hall
 
Riverside said:
Has the Bus Network Redesign team specified any proposed/hoped-for infrastructure improvements for LMA?

...

Thank you for attending my meandering TED Talk.
Click to expand...

I like your TED Talk.

If I were god-emperor, this would be my preferred phased approach:

Phase 1 - BRT on Malcolm X Blvd

MalcolmXBlvd.png


With an 85' width, Malcolm X Boulevard could be completely reimagined as an urban boulevard that prioritizes mass transit, walking, cycling, and micromobility, while still maintaining one through-lane for autmobiles (with turning lanes etc in between BRT stops).

These center-running bus lanes would serve the T15, T23, T28, T66, 19, 38, 41, and 45. They would improve service, expand ridership, and serve to further normalize BRT elements in this area.

Phase 2 - BRT on Tremont St between Malcolm X Blvd and Huntington Ave

At it's most narrow within this section, Tremont Street appears to be about 60'. I'll take a page out of the Western Avenue Corridor Study. Here's what I'd propose:

Continue with an approximation of the above road design to Parker St, where the road narrows. The westbound automobile lane becomes a right-turn-only lane onto Parker St.

Between Parker and St Alphonsus, there is only eastbound automobile travel:

TremontSt.png


To remove conflicts:
  • Closed to automobiles:
    • The alley entrance behind 695 Parker
  • Re-route automobile access via Smith St:
    • Faxon St
    • Tobin Community Center parking, alleys, and deliveries
    • Parker Hill BPL parking, alleys, and deliveries
West of St Alphonsus, the street narrows further, with no private automobile access retained:

TremontSt2.png


To remove conflicts:
  • 1575 Longwood's driveway retains automobile access via Worthington St, but not Tremont
  • South Whitney St closed to automobiles
  • Worthington St becomes a two-way dead-end that dead-ends just north of Tremont
  • Torpie St closed to automobiles
  • The Shell at 1600 Tremont get purchased by the city for redevelopment
  • Wigglesworth St becomes a two-way dead-end that dead-ends just north of Tremont
  • Automobile access to the alley between 1631 and 1625 Tremont is rerouted to via Wigglesworth St and/or Hungington Ave
These center-running bus lanes would serve the T12, T22, T28, and T66. They would improve service, expand ridership, and serve to further normalize BRT elements in this area. They would also dramatically improve the human experience on Tremont Street, improving urban living for Mission Hill's residents.

Phase 3 - BRT on Francis St between Huntington Ave and Brookline Ave

I didn't do a deep dive into street widths here and what modifications would need to be made. Compared to Tremont St, seperated cycling facilities should be de-prioritized in favor of retaining automobile access, while still prioritizing BRT first and foremost.

These center-running bus lanes would serve the T12, T22, T28, and T66, as well as emergency vehicles.

Combined with the bus network redesign, there would be much better mass transit connections between LMA and:
  • Mission Hill
  • Roxbury Crossing and the Orange Line, so therefore:
    • Jamaica Plain
    • Downtown Boston
    • Chinatown
    • Charlestown
    • Somerville
    • Medford
    • Malden
  • Roxbury
  • South Boston
  • Dorchester
  • Mattapan
Phase 4 - BRT on Brookline Ave between Park Drive and Brookline Village

A relatively wide corridor that accomodate a variety of modes. These center-running bus lanes would serve, over various segments, the T12, T28, T47, T66, 60, 65, and 85.

Combined with what's described above, there would be much better mass transit connections between LMA and:
  • Brookline
  • Allston
  • Fenway
  • Cambridge
For improved connections to destinations further afield (East Boston/Logan Airport, Roslindale, Hyde Park, West Roxbury, Brighton, suburbs), bus improvements aren't going to cut it. Rail improvements are necessary.

Phase 5 - Blue Line Extension to Kenmore via Charles

This improvess access to LMA in a couple of ways:
  1. Freeing up capacity on the Green Line central subway allows for better service for riders on the D- and E-Branches.
  2. A quicker two-seat ride via the Blue Line and T28 than exists today for trips between LMA and Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Downtown Boston, East Boston, and Revere.
Phase 6 - Blue Line Extension to Lynn

This improves mass transit access between LMA and the North Shore.

And then beyond that, I've got some very crazy pitches that involve the North-South Rail Link as a component.
 
737900er said:
Unsurprisingly the Winter 2023 schedule changes are extremely minimal.
Click to expand...
Nothing at the T counts as "unsurprising" anymore... anything that is unsurprising is itself surprisingly so, alas.

In other news, I took a stroll through the revised Bus Network Redesign and looked at the Txx series of routes and their frequencies. Most of them are 8 min peak/11 min off-peak, with lower frequencies in later evening and early morning.

But there are a handful of routes which see higher frequencies:

RoutePeak FreqOff-Peak FreqCorridor
T17 min9 minMass Ave
T238 min9 minAshmont-Ruggles
T288 min8 minMattapan-Kenmore
T326 min8 minHyde Park
T576 min9 minA Line
T668 min10 minBrookline Crosstown
T1115 min9 minChelsea
T1168 min9 minRevere Broadway

No surprises here, all were previously all-day high-freq services (map from 2020):

1670446738629.png


The only mild surprise is that the T31 didn't join this club, "only" getting 8 min peak/11 mean off-peak -- which is still turn-up-and-go, and I'm guessing was mild trade-off to provide the same frequencies across the entire Txx network.

Which is itself notable: this is advertised as 15-min-all-day-all-week, which it is, but during peak hours and the midday off-peak, I believe the entire network is 8-min-or-better at peak and 11-min-or-better off-peak, which really is something.
 
bigeman312 said:
I like your TED Talk.

If I were god-emperor, this would be my preferred phased approach:

Phase 1 - BRT on Malcolm X Blvd

View attachment 31447

With an 85' width, Malcolm X Boulevard could be completely reimagined as an urban boulevard that prioritizes mass transit, walking, cycling, and micromobility, while still maintaining one through-lane for autmobiles (with turning lanes etc in between BRT stops).

These center-running bus lanes would serve the T15, T23, T28, T66, 19, 38, 41, and 45. They would improve service, expand ridership, and serve to further normalize BRT elements in this area.

Phase 2 - BRT on Tremont St between Malcolm X Blvd and Huntington Ave

At it's most narrow within this section, Tremont Street appears to be about 60'. I'll take a page out of the Western Avenue Corridor Study. Here's what I'd propose:

Continue with an approximation of the above road design to Parker St, where the road narrows. The westbound automobile lane becomes a right-turn-only lane onto Parker St.

Between Parker and St Alphonsus, there is only eastbound automobile travel:

View attachment 31449

To remove conflicts:
  • Closed to automobiles:
    • The alley entrance behind 695 Parker
  • Re-route automobile access via Smith St:
    • Faxon St
    • Tobin Community Center parking, alleys, and deliveries
    • Parker Hill BPL parking, alleys, and deliveries
West of St Alphonsus, the street narrows further, with no private automobile access retained:

View attachment 31450

To remove conflicts:
  • 1575 Longwood's driveway retains automobile access via Worthington St, but not Tremont
  • South Whitney St closed to automobiles
  • Worthington St becomes a two-way dead-end that dead-ends just north of Tremont
  • Torpie St closed to automobiles
  • The Shell at 1600 Tremont get purchased by the city for redevelopment
  • Wigglesworth St becomes a two-way dead-end that dead-ends just north of Tremont
  • Automobile access to the alley between 1631 and 1625 Tremont is rerouted to via Wigglesworth St and/or Hungington Ave
These center-running bus lanes would serve the T12, T22, T28, and T66. They would improve service, expand ridership, and serve to further normalize BRT elements in this area. They would also dramatically improve the human experience on Tremont Street, improving urban living for Mission Hill's residents.

Phase 3 - BRT on Francis St between Huntington Ave and Brookline Ave

I didn't do a deep dive into street widths here and what modifications would need to be made. Compared to Tremont St, seperated cycling facilities should be de-prioritized in favor of retaining automobile access, while still prioritizing BRT first and foremost.

These center-running bus lanes would serve the T12, T22, T28, and T66, as well as emergency vehicles.

Combined with the bus network redesign, there would be much better mass transit connections between LMA and:
  • Mission Hill
  • Roxbury Crossing and the Orange Line, so therefore:
    • Jamaica Plain
    • Downtown Boston
    • Chinatown
    • Charlestown
    • Somerville
    • Medford
    • Malden
  • Roxbury
  • South Boston
  • Dorchester
  • Mattapan
Phase 4 - BRT on Brookline Ave between Park Drive and Brookline Village

A relatively wide corridor that accomodate a variety of modes. These center-running bus lanes would serve, over various segments, the T12, T28, T47, T66, 60, 65, and 85.

Combined with what's described above, there would be much better mass transit connections between LMA and:
  • Brookline
  • Allston
  • Fenway
  • Cambridge
For improved connections to destinations further afield (East Boston/Logan Airport, Roslindale, Hyde Park, West Roxbury, Brighton, suburbs), bus improvements aren't going to cut it. Rail improvements are necessary.

Phase 5 - Blue Line Extension to Kenmore via Charles

This improvess access to LMA in a couple of ways:
  1. Freeing up capacity on the Green Line central subway allows for better service for riders on the D- and E-Branches.
  2. A quicker two-seat ride via the Blue Line and T28 than exists today for trips between LMA and Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Downtown Boston, East Boston, and Revere.
Phase 6 - Blue Line Extension to Lynn

This improves mass transit access between LMA and the North Shore.

And then beyond that, I've got some very crazy pitches that involve the North-South Rail Link as a component.
Click to expand...
I'm really sorry, this completely slipped under my radar! These look great! I need to dig in to what you’ve proposed for Tremont a bit more closely, but so far I like what I see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top