Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Also, 350 should probably go to Davis via 87's route instead of going to Alewife. I first noticed the inefficency looking at 350's schedule and not 79's.
MBTA Buses & Infrastructure
- Thread starter Arlington
- Start date
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
While rerouting 350 to Davis and getting rid of 79 in favor of 87 to Arlington Heights might be good for Arlington residents west of Arlington Center, it may not be so good for folks who live near Mass Ave between Arlington Center and Alewife Brook Parkway.
And if 350 is going to terminate in Davis, there's the question of how to best handle layovers. 94 buses typically lay over at the Grove St bus stop, which then tends to prevent other routes from pulling up to the curb, which may be a violation of the BCIL settlement, so it would probably be appropriate to thoroughly explore how to best handle Davis Sq layovers for all routes terminating at Davis before rerouting 350. And surveying 350 riders about the tradeoffs to see what they prefer should also happen.
The 57th page of https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.net/uploadedfiles/documents/2014 BLUEBOOK 14th Edition(1).pdf says that 79 gets 3 vehicles in the PM peak, and 87 gets 5 vehicles with 20 minute headways. That suggests that the Lechmere to Arlington Center round trip is 100 minutes long including schduled layovers. The PDF schedule for 79 shows a 5:44 Arlington Center to 5:56 Arlington Heights trip, which is 12 minutes, and then a 5:47 to 5:53 trip in the opposite direction, 6 minutes, so that segment may be somewhere around 18 minutes round trip. If the entire Arlington Heights to Lechmere round trip can be done in 120 minutes and 8 vehicles are available, that should enable 15 minutes headways. But if folks who live west of Arlington Center are added to the Clarendon Hill to Davis segment, will 15 minute headways on that segment be enough to avoid overcrowding? If some 77 vehicles subsequently get moved to 87 to improve 87's headways to less than 15 minutes, will 77 riders complain of increased headways there?
And if 350 is going to terminate in Davis, there's the question of how to best handle layovers. 94 buses typically lay over at the Grove St bus stop, which then tends to prevent other routes from pulling up to the curb, which may be a violation of the BCIL settlement, so it would probably be appropriate to thoroughly explore how to best handle Davis Sq layovers for all routes terminating at Davis before rerouting 350. And surveying 350 riders about the tradeoffs to see what they prefer should also happen.
The 57th page of https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.net/uploadedfiles/documents/2014 BLUEBOOK 14th Edition(1).pdf says that 79 gets 3 vehicles in the PM peak, and 87 gets 5 vehicles with 20 minute headways. That suggests that the Lechmere to Arlington Center round trip is 100 minutes long including schduled layovers. The PDF schedule for 79 shows a 5:44 Arlington Center to 5:56 Arlington Heights trip, which is 12 minutes, and then a 5:47 to 5:53 trip in the opposite direction, 6 minutes, so that segment may be somewhere around 18 minutes round trip. If the entire Arlington Heights to Lechmere round trip can be done in 120 minutes and 8 vehicles are available, that should enable 15 minutes headways. But if folks who live west of Arlington Center are added to the Clarendon Hill to Davis segment, will 15 minute headways on that segment be enough to avoid overcrowding? If some 77 vehicles subsequently get moved to 87 to improve 87's headways to less than 15 minutes, will 77 riders complain of increased headways there?
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Re: 134 alternatives
Yet another option for the northern part of 134 would be an extended 85: start at Kendall, remove the Avon St routing and instead follow Central to Highland (duplicating a bit of 88 and 90) to Lowell (if the turns to / from Highland can be made; the right turn from Highland to Lowell is a bit awkward in a 17' long vehicle), follow Medford St, part of which would be duplicating 80, then follow 101's route along Main St to Medford Sq, and from there follow 134's route.
I do think 15 minute headways from North Woburn to Davis and possibly also 15 minute headways from North Woburn to Wellington should happen before North Woburn to Kendall bus service is introduced, and if there's simply not demand for that much service, I'd be OK with never seeing North Woburn to Kendall bus service.
Yet another option for the northern part of 134 would be an extended 85: start at Kendall, remove the Avon St routing and instead follow Central to Highland (duplicating a bit of 88 and 90) to Lowell (if the turns to / from Highland can be made; the right turn from Highland to Lowell is a bit awkward in a 17' long vehicle), follow Medford St, part of which would be duplicating 80, then follow 101's route along Main St to Medford Sq, and from there follow 134's route.
I do think 15 minute headways from North Woburn to Davis and possibly also 15 minute headways from North Woburn to Wellington should happen before North Woburn to Kendall bus service is introduced, and if there's simply not demand for that much service, I'd be OK with never seeing North Woburn to Kendall bus service.
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
MBTA bus 60
The western part of bus route 60 runs along the residential signalized freeway known as Route 9.
In the long run, perhaps we should figure out whether Route 9 is supposed to be a freeway or a residential street and reengineer it appropriately, because both is not really a good answer.
But in the meantime, most of the homes to the north of Route 9 are probably served by the D branch of the Green Line or in some cases the 51 bus, and so I suspect that the western portion of 60 probably primarily serves the neighborhoods to the south of Route 9.
Therefore, I think 60 should be rerouted onto quieter residential streets just to the south of and parallel to Route 9. A possible reroute for an outbound 60 turning off of Cypress would turn onto Walnut instead of Route 9, the follow Warren St and Heath St to Hammond St to Woodland Rd, and probably then along a short bit of Heath St and along Hammond Pond Parkway; in the outbound direction, it could serve The Shops at Chestnut Hill, and perhaps then have a short stretch along Route 9 and take Langley Rd to Newton Center Station; in the reverse direction, perhaps it would serve Avalon at Chestnut Hill instead of The Shops. Perhaps bus stops near the southern part of the Route 9 / Hammond Pond Parkway intersection along with pedestrian infrastructure from those stops to the malls could facilitate access for people who need to get to / from a mall not directly served by the bus in the direction they're going.
The western part of bus route 60 runs along the residential signalized freeway known as Route 9.
In the long run, perhaps we should figure out whether Route 9 is supposed to be a freeway or a residential street and reengineer it appropriately, because both is not really a good answer.
But in the meantime, most of the homes to the north of Route 9 are probably served by the D branch of the Green Line or in some cases the 51 bus, and so I suspect that the western portion of 60 probably primarily serves the neighborhoods to the south of Route 9.
Therefore, I think 60 should be rerouted onto quieter residential streets just to the south of and parallel to Route 9. A possible reroute for an outbound 60 turning off of Cypress would turn onto Walnut instead of Route 9, the follow Warren St and Heath St to Hammond St to Woodland Rd, and probably then along a short bit of Heath St and along Hammond Pond Parkway; in the outbound direction, it could serve The Shops at Chestnut Hill, and perhaps then have a short stretch along Route 9 and take Langley Rd to Newton Center Station; in the reverse direction, perhaps it would serve Avalon at Chestnut Hill instead of The Shops. Perhaps bus stops near the southern part of the Route 9 / Hammond Pond Parkway intersection along with pedestrian infrastructure from those stops to the malls could facilitate access for people who need to get to / from a mall not directly served by the bus in the direction they're going.
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
I'm not really convinced that you really want Alewife and Clarendon Hill for something like this, but maybe you could elaborate on what you had in mind.
I think following 426W's route from Lynn's Central Sq along Salem St and the continuing onto 108's route along Salem St to Malden Center and then following 101's route to Medford Sq has potential as a single long route. I think the question from there is whether you continue along some approximation of 96's route (hopefully without the Winthrop St detour) to Davis, or continue instead to West Medford Station and Arlington Center.
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Casino bus service
Bus routes that might be good for the casino and in some cases also good for Cambridge jobs via connections at Sullivan:
Bus routes that might be good for the casino and in some cases also good for Cambridge jobs via connections at Sullivan:
- 110 rerouted so that its portion west of Sweetser Circle follows the 104/105/109 route to Sullivan, and then extended along 86's route to Harvard, and possibly extended along 71's route to Watertown Square. (And maybe even extended along Route 16 to Woodland for the MetroWest connection.)
- A new route following 117's route from Wonderland to the Broadway / Webster intersection in Chelsea, then following Webster to Summit, 112's route from Quigley Hospital to Sweetser Circle, then following 104/105/109's route to Sullivan.
- A 109 variant extended along 426W's route from Linden Sq to Lynn's Central Sq.
- A 109 variant extended to follow 426W's route to Route 107 to Salem, and maybe extended from there to Beverly.
- A 109 variant extended along part of 426W's route and then much of 435's route to Peabody and Danvers. The connection from 426W's route to 435's route might optimally end up on roads which don't currently have bus service.
- 132 extended along 99's route to Sweetser circle and then the 104/105/109 route to Sullivan.
- 134 extended to Sweetser Circle, then along Broadway, Beecham St, Williams St, the McArdle Bridge, then following Meridian St along the 116/117 route to Maverick Sq, and following the portion of 120's route south of Maverick Sq and looping around the airport terminals.
citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
Alewife is really farther out than where most radial transit would seem to be most helpful. Generally when you look at potential routes for the crosstown buses or urban ring rail options the trend seems to have been to try and link secondary business districts and neighborhood centers such as Everett, Chelsea, East Boston/the Airport, Assembly Sq. or Sullivan Sq., Harvard Sq. or Porter Sq., BU campus area, Longwood Medical Center. Boston Medical Center or Dudley Square, and the JFK/UMass area.
Alewife is too far out to really work well as a transfer hub. The crosstown routes or urban ring are really meant to work as a distribution network connecting the squares more directly and creating transfer hubs that allow people to be distributed around the region more easily so they will work best in areas like Sullivan Sq. and Harvard Sq. that are already major transfer hubs that have the capacity for the additional riders and a road network with good connections to other walkable transit connected areas which Alewife lacks in comparison to the other places I have mentioned.
Alewife is too far out to really work well as a transfer hub. The crosstown routes or urban ring are really meant to work as a distribution network connecting the squares more directly and creating transfer hubs that allow people to be distributed around the region more easily so they will work best in areas like Sullivan Sq. and Harvard Sq. that are already major transfer hubs that have the capacity for the additional riders and a road network with good connections to other walkable transit connected areas which Alewife lacks in comparison to the other places I have mentioned.
From NETransit:
Presentation to MBTA Control Board meeting on 12/04/2017 suggested MBTA hopes to exercise option with New Flyer for 194 hybrids in 2018 for 2018-2019 delivery if board approves later in 2018. These buses would replace the 192 2004-2005 Neoplan AN440LF fleet, however hybrid buses cannot be directly assigned to Albany or Quincy garages because they do not fit in the facilities. Because of this, Neoplans at Albany would be replaced by pre-2014 buses transferred from other garages and not directly by new buses. Option for 200 diesel buses will not be exercised. A future order for an additional 500 buses may be placed by 2020 to be delivered as 100 buses per year for five years (2021-2025). Some or all of these buses may be battery buses. This future order would allow the replacement of the 4101-4128, 0600-0909, and 1400-1459 series as well as fleet expansion. 1400s would be retired at end of future order in approximately 2025-2026 when they are 12 years old. The eventual goal by 2025 would be to acquire 100 new buses every year and retire buses at age 12.
Presentation to MBTA Control Board meeting on 12/04/2017 suggested MBTA hopes to exercise option with New Flyer for 194 hybrids in 2018 for 2018-2019 delivery if board approves later in 2018. These buses would replace the 192 2004-2005 Neoplan AN440LF fleet, however hybrid buses cannot be directly assigned to Albany or Quincy garages because they do not fit in the facilities. Because of this, Neoplans at Albany would be replaced by pre-2014 buses transferred from other garages and not directly by new buses. Option for 200 diesel buses will not be exercised. A future order for an additional 500 buses may be placed by 2020 to be delivered as 100 buses per year for five years (2021-2025). Some or all of these buses may be battery buses. This future order would allow the replacement of the 4101-4128, 0600-0909, and 1400-1459 series as well as fleet expansion. 1400s would be retired at end of future order in approximately 2025-2026 when they are 12 years old. The eventual goal by 2025 would be to acquire 100 new buses every year and retire buses at age 12.
Uncivil_Engineer
New member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 4
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
Don't sweat it. If anything the 79 and 350 are viewed as annoying decoys that mask the arrival of the 77. I never considered them useful transit when I lived in East Arlington (rode each once and learned never to ride them again)
Mass Ave between Arlington Center and Alewife Brook Parkway, aka East Arlington, is half walkable to Alewife (if you're on the Minuteman's side of Mass Ave) and half closer to Broadway and the 87 (if you're on the Broadway side).
I suspect that detailed ridership would show that the East Arlington (between Arlington Center and the Cambridge Line) folks near-unanimously wave off the 350 and 79 and wait for the next 77. That's certainly been my personal experience and my observation of others when I lived in East Arlington (and when I sometimes did a park-and-bus in recent years from West Medford to use the 77)
1) From East Arlington, if you really need to get to/from Alewife T, you bike/walk on the Minuteman because you know that the 79 & 350 are going to get stuck in traffic on Route 16/2. Or you take the 77 to Mass@ABP and then walk the swamp boardwalk built c. 2012
2) From East Arlington, if you need to go anyplace on the Red Line (besides Alewife), you ride the 77 to Porter and transfer (or, if Mass Ave ever gets signal priority, you might ride onward to Harvard Sq)
3) From East Arlington, if you need to get to Davis you've got only:
- 87 if you happen to get it at its extension hours
- A longish walk to 88/87 at Clarendon Hill
- A longish walk to/from the 80 at Powderhouse (and probably a long walk on the Arlington end, too)
- 77/Porter backtracking
- 79/350+Alewife slog (though better at non-rush)
4) From East Arlington, to North Station, Lechmere or any "non-Red" place
- Long walk to West Medford CR (North Station)
- Full length ride on the 80 (if you live near Arl Ctr)
In all, I'd think that East Arlington would jump at the chance to have an all-hours 87 (which might as well go to Arl Heights) or its functional equivalent, the 79/350 switched to Davis (and all "upstream" 79/350 riders would save exactly the time you describe.
So how do we tell the MBTA Bus people to include either an "all hours 87 to Arlington Center (or Arl Heights)" (and eliminating the 79) or rerouting the :79& 350 to Davis" in their upcoming review of routes?
Tom Bombadil
New member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Some MBTA Bus people like to lurk in these threads and take note of ideas from this community for more detailed consideration
As for more formal channels, look for the Service Plan website and other opportunities for comment in early-2018. See the FMCB presentation from Monday (slide 18).
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
Barr Foundation has awarded $300k to cities that want to try cloning Everett's success with improving bus service.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...bus-service/BH6WC3RTFVEJDAHTzXfMzN/story.html
Arlington: Test on Mass Ave (77 Key Bus + 79 & 350, discussed above)
Watertown-Cambridge: all-day bus lanes on parts of Mount Auburn Street
Everett: upgrades to stops on its existing lane
All 4 say they plant to test TSP, too.
(Separately Boston's plan for an AM bus lane on Washington St between Rolindale and Forest Hills is not in the Barr program)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...bus-service/BH6WC3RTFVEJDAHTzXfMzN/story.html
Arlington: Test on Mass Ave (77 Key Bus + 79 & 350, discussed above)
Watertown-Cambridge: all-day bus lanes on parts of Mount Auburn Street
Everett: upgrades to stops on its existing lane
All 4 say they plant to test TSP, too.
(Separately Boston's plan for an AM bus lane on Washington St between Rolindale and Forest Hills is not in the Barr program)
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
The first places that should have bus lanes are trunk areas near terminals where a bunch of lines come together. You'd see the most use and they would be the easiest to enforce.
Off the top of my head: Washington St to Forest Hills (though this is a serious candidate for a T extension), Warren St to Dudley Sq and on to Ruggles, Blue Hills Ave (although maybe fuck them for shooting down the bus lanes a while back), around Waltham Common and Moody St, Arsenal St, Western Ave and River St to Central Sq, everything around Sullivan Sq, ditto Wellington and Malden Center down Salem St. I'd also add lines that go to Lynn but again, candidate for T extension instead.
If they are focusing on the 71,73, and 77 then also the TTs could use some love. Then you'd have a truly world class BRT since they'd be electric as well (although with faster bus times and less idling you do end up with less pollution).
Off the top of my head: Washington St to Forest Hills (though this is a serious candidate for a T extension), Warren St to Dudley Sq and on to Ruggles, Blue Hills Ave (although maybe fuck them for shooting down the bus lanes a while back), around Waltham Common and Moody St, Arsenal St, Western Ave and River St to Central Sq, everything around Sullivan Sq, ditto Wellington and Malden Center down Salem St. I'd also add lines that go to Lynn but again, candidate for T extension instead.
If they are focusing on the 71,73, and 77 then also the TTs could use some love. Then you'd have a truly world class BRT since they'd be electric as well (although with faster bus times and less idling you do end up with less pollution).
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 497
- Reaction score
- 555
There was a major study finished recently regarding Arsenal St in Watertown: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/CurrentStudies/ArsenalStreetCorridorStudy.aspx
Transit signal priority at the lights along the corridor is one of the recommendations.
Bus lanes are studied but discarded as an option (with an explanation).
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Probably because no one can see past the current suburban auto strip that it is now. It's truly a sin that the old Watertown Branch ROW has been allowed to be developed. Bus lanes are probably the only realistic transit option now.
100% correct, but as the Key Bus Routes showed, the MBTA is not capable of thinking about corridors, just routes.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UhJv-b1I8zTvUa0HvGg6TM1ownhzS_86&usp=sharing
I've sketched up some ideas on this map. Major bus hubs are labeled, the Sliver Line is there in the sections where bus lanes exist, black lines are proposed or in design, blue lines are trunk lines which see the most concentration of bus routes, and red are new BRT routes either as bus lanes or separate ROW (but often a combination of both).
A couple of the trunk lines I've altered from there current courses (most notably through Longwood and BMC) as a way to speed up travel.
New routes aren't fully developed, some are new crosstown lines taken from combining existing lines and some are new routes which parallel existing trunks which could be developed to replace the many different routes.
Let me know what I might be missing or better ideas.
I've sketched up some ideas on this map. Major bus hubs are labeled, the Sliver Line is there in the sections where bus lanes exist, black lines are proposed or in design, blue lines are trunk lines which see the most concentration of bus routes, and red are new BRT routes either as bus lanes or separate ROW (but often a combination of both).
A couple of the trunk lines I've altered from there current courses (most notably through Longwood and BMC) as a way to speed up travel.
New routes aren't fully developed, some are new crosstown lines taken from combining existing lines and some are new routes which parallel existing trunks which could be developed to replace the many different routes.
Let me know what I might be missing or better ideas.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 482
No love for Kendall? It has laughable bus service at present, so maybe that is why you overlooked it. The 64, 68, and CT2 get bogged down on Broadway outbound. I suspect auto traffic in the area will only get worse when Longfellow reopens. The EZ Ride is also an absolutely critical bus route for Kendall though it is not provided by the MBTA. It could use some help too.
Nice. Thanks.
A couple of thoughts.
- Does your Marblehead BRT use the old rail ROW? What about BRT (/trunk) marblehead-salem-peabody-128 instead / also? Other trunks feeding salem and bev CR?
- What if the mystic-north BRT continued via lowell st through lexington to Rt. 3 / Burlington Mall? (especially in crazy pitches future world where redline goes to arlington center)
- Is there a gap on Rutherford Ave?
- Gap over chelsea river?
- Summer st @waterfont, and the greenway?
- Also you forgot the cross-allston route via Alcorn St. and West Station (kidding / not kidding)
The 68 is a joke. It has 40 minute headways and no service on nights or weekends. They should extend it somewhere, maybe across the Gilmore Bridge to Community/Charlestown on one end and to Allston on the other?
The one thing that bothers me about the 64 is that most people that I've talked to about it have no idea what/where "University Park" is.