MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Kendall bus service

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.

If we really wanted to get aggressive about bus service to Kendall, perhaps it would make sense to have

• 117 rerouted so that instead of crossing Chelsea Creek on the movable bridge (which probably dosen't help service reliability), it would take the Tobin to Community College on the Orange Line, then Lechmere, then Kendall, then maybe follow CT2's route to the BU bridge, and maybe continue from there to Coolidge Corner.
• 28 extended past Ruggles to Mass Ave, Kendall, Lechmere, Sullivan, the casino, and then maybe along 99's route to Malden Center.
• 85 extended to Medford Sq, maybe Winchester, and maybe even Woburn
• Maybe extend 70 to Kendall.
• Maybe some 73 trips could be extended along 68's route? I do want to see some of the current 73 trips be run as an extension of 1 (along with 1 being rerouted to serve UMass Boston instead of Dudley after extending 23 to Cambridge's Central Sq and maybe even Harvard Sq), but perhaps there's enough demand at rush hour on what is currently 73 for multiple route variations to be operated.

I bet if the Kendall businesses wanted to lobby Cambridge to spend their property tax dollars on increasing Cambridge's payments to the MBTA to cover the costs of these services, the T could run these services. Also, it would be great if the Kendall businesses and Cambridge would push the T to comment on the accuracy of Proterra's claims that battery powered buses cost $0 more than buses with diesel engines, with an offer to consider paying whatever extra costs might exist with the battery-only buses if the T can demonstrate that they turn out to somehow be more expensive.

The EZride buses are sufficiently small that I'm skeptical they're all that valuable by raw number of people carried, although obviously canceling the service would not be a good idea; and it seems like a significant part of what EZride does is Kendall to north side commuter rail connections, which probably should be happening somewhere north of North Station.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: new buses

It would be unwise for the MBTA to make a large scale order without testing the buses first.

Worcester has tested Proterra buses.

Also, the infrastructure for supporting a fleet of battery-electric buses does not yet exist at any MBTA facility.

So sign the contract to build that infrastructure at the same time the order for the vehicles is placed. Tesla seems to be able to build Supercharger stations in less than the lead time for an order of new transit buses.

Is there any dire problem that would be created by delaying the next batch of bus orders for a year or two while we sort this out? We no longer have the pressure of expiring CNG tanks or ADA concerns about high floor buses to deal with, right?

 

[swtat]

Re: new buses

Worcester has tested Proterra buses.

That's Worcester. The WRTA isn't the MBTA. The WRTA is a much smaller transit authority.

Is there any dire problem that would be created by delaying the next batch of bus orders for a year or two while we sort this out? We no longer have the pressure of expiring CNG tanks or ADA concerns about high floor buses to deal with, right?

The Neoplan AN440LF fleet is 12-13 years old and is becoming increasingly unreliable. The T can't wait too much longer to order new buses or bus operations would take a hit. To give you an idea of how long it takes to test new technology, the T received its 2 CNG test buses in 1999 and didn't place a large order until 2002. The first bus from that order was delivered in 2003. As it relates to the current situation, the 5 battery-electric test buses are due to be delivered later in 2018. I believe the T is aiming to have the AN440LF fleet completely replaced by the beginning of 2020.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: new buses

That's Worcester. The WRTA isn't the MBTA. The WRTA is a much smaller transit authority.

Can we get folks from WRTA to show up at an MBTA FMCB meeting to talk about their experiences with Proterra, and get a more detailed explanation of exactly what challenges the MBTA has that Worcester doesn't? Is there public information anywhere that would indicate what the duty cycle is of a Worcester Proterra bus vs the average MBTA bus, for example? (And if there isn't a public answer to that, isn't it reasonable for citizens of a democracy to expect to be well informed of that long before any additional order for more buses is placed?)

The Neoplan AN440LF fleet is 12-13 years old and is becoming increasingly unreliable. The T can't wait too much longer to order new buses or bus operations would take a hit. To give you an idea of how long it takes to test new technology, the T received its 2 CNG test buses in 1999 and didn't place a large order until 2002. The first bus from that order was delivered in 2003. As it relates to the current situation, the 5 battery-electric test buses are due to be delivered later in 2018. I believe the T is aiming to have the AN440LF fleet completely replaced by the beginning of 2020.

But was Worcester or anyone else running any CNG buses in 1999? If the answer is no, then it may be misleading to claim that battery bus technology is currently as immature as CNG technology was in 1999. (And I seem to recall reading that the gas coupling needed for a 60' articulated CNG bus was invented pretty soon before the T's 60' CNG buses were delivered, such that there were no 60' CNG buses anywhere in 1999. But BYD has been making ~60' battery buses for a while.)

How many CNG buses were operating in China in 1999 relative to the number of battery buses operating in China today? https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/03/china-100-electric-bus-sales-grew-115700-2016/ reports roughly 115,000 electric buses sold in China in 2016.

When the high floor buses managed to live well over 20 years, it's really hard to believe that I should be stuck breathing diesel exhaust in 2031 because someone at the MBTA thinks that imaginary problems with battery buses that they can't prove are going to exist at all are worse than the health effects of continuing to buy new diesel engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BOK_CwVies

 

[JeffDowntown]

Yes, that whole make-work testing regime at the MBTA reeks of overtime scam. Lots of other transit authorities, with a lot more buses than the T, have successfully qualified electric buses from a number of suppliers. Is the T basically saying that they are so incompetent that they can break buses no one else can break?

Sure, changing over fueling mode is a big deal, and takes a concerted effort. The city of Shenzhen, China will complete the changeover of a 16,000 (not a typo, sixteen thousand) bus fleet to all electric next year (including all the needed charging infrastructure and maintenance changes). They started the changeover in 2011. Most of the buses are from BYD, the largest electric bus producer in the world now, selling in over 50 countries.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40506877/by-2018-every-bus-in-this-chinese-megacity-will-be-electric

But we need to test, test, test first, because it has never been done before.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: 85 to Medford Sq

If we end up extending 85 to Medford Sq, I've found myself wondering if the right outbound routing might be to stay on Summer all the way to Lowell St and then to turn right directly onto Lowell St. Because there's parking on the north side only of Summer St in the vicinity of Lowell St, the bus would be turning from what is in some sense the center lane of Summer St (it's one lane in each direction plus the parking lane), and with Lowell St being one way there it might be practical to eliminate parking on the west side of Lowell St for the first 100' or so just to the north of Summer St to create more space for a bus to turn. Perhaps it would make sense to introduce new far side bus stops on Summer St at Benton and Belmont in this direction, a near side stop at Crown on Lowell to facilitate trips to Somerville Hospital, and a stop on Lowell St at Highland (on whichever side of the intersection is less steep) to facilitate transfers to / from 88 / 90 / whatever Highland bus service might evolve to in the future.

The corresponding inbound routing might be Lowell to Highland to Benton to Summer, possibly with a new near (or far) side bus stop at the Benton / Summer intersection. There's an existing far side stop on Highland at Lowell used by 88 / 90 that the inbound extended 85 could serve. There's also an existing near side Highland at Benton stop (which in the Google Street View imagery seems to only have its rear sign and not its front sign) which might be usable if a bus is then able to turn right onto Benton from there.

To the north of there, the 85 would get stops at appropriate transfer points for the Green Line's Lowell St Station and for transferring to the 89, and probably a stop at Medford's Albion St. Somerville's Albion St could maybe also get a stop although that spacing would probably be closer than the T prefers, and maybe a stop at Somerville's Richardson St might make sense. And once the bus gets to Medford's Main St it would presumably continue by making stops at 101's stops.

Are you familiar with the intersection of Summer and Lowell beyond looking at lines on a map? It's one of the steepest incline turns in the city. No way a bus navigates that safely.

85 extension would need to continue turning off of Summer onto Central (already a tight turn), and then turn left onto Highland before turning right onto Lowell (another tight turn) and meeting the Green Line station there. From there, the 85 will get stuck in the clusterfuck that is Magoun Square outbound from the Lowell/Medford intersection to the death zone that is the Broadway intersection.

TBH, the forthcoming Lowell Street station is an awful placement for bus connections. But what can you do?

 

[FitchburgLine]

Per today's FMCB meeting, Somerville striped and implemented a new, permanent bus lane across the Prospect St bridge into Union Square last week! https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.n...ng-docs/2017/december/2017-12-18-fmcb-dgm.pdf

 

[sm89]

Per today's FMCB meeting, Somerville striped and implemented a new, permanent bus lane across the Prospect St bridge into Union Square last week! https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.n...ng-docs/2017/december/2017-12-18-fmcb-dgm.pdf

I saw this earlier last week. It used to be severely underutilized parking and a bike lane that drivers would always form two lanes in. Do bus drivers have to be instructed to use it? I saw a CT2 stuck in traffic on Wednesday when the lane was already signed, marked, and open.

This will be very helpful once the 91 is re-routed. Anyone know if that's a January or Spring change?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Kendall to Arlington bus service

If you use the Google Maps ``Measure Distance'' tool in the desktop browser version, and pick the Kendall Red Line station as one end, and Arlington Center or the northern terminus of the 67 bus as the other end, you find that Hampshire / Beacon / Mass Ave from Porter to Arlington Center / the part of 67 northwest of Arlington Center is roughly a straight line.

Perhaps running bus service along this route would make sense, and perhaps a Turkey Hill to Kendall bus could replace the existing 67 service, although there may be a small number of Pleasant St residents who like 67 better the way it is. (On the other hand, maybe subsidizing the difference between Lyft fares and bus fares for folks to get from bus stops on Pleasant St to Arlington Center would be cheaper than running 40' buses there.)

I suspect an outbound routing of Beacon -> Roseland -> Mass Ave would make sense so that the route would serve the stop folks transferring from the Red Line to the outbound 77 at Porter are likely to use; the inbound routing would be Mass Ave -> Somerville Ave -> Beacon.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: Route 66

Witness the outcome of the refactoring of the 86 and 66 buses, back in the 80s and 90s. The 86 used to run from Union Square, Allston to Union Square, Somerville (later extended to Sullivan). The 66 bus ran from Dudley Square to Allston. The Transit History document says that they replaced the 63 bus with a newly rerouted 86 bus (today's route), and then extended the 66 to Harvard Square as compensation. In the past, it made sense for the 66 to turn left onto Brighton Ave to reach Union Square, but now it is a strange detour in a busy, congested place. However, from conversations with folks around here, I've gathered that there was significant community opposition to rerouting the 66 the straight way along Harvard Ave, because people who settled near Union Square, Allston, did so because of the convenience of access to Harvard Square. And so the 66 bus makes that weird jog in its route, and probably will do so for the foreseeable future.

Maybe three 40' vehicles could be assigned to a new Harvard to Union Sq, Allston route and then 66 rerouted to be more direct?

Or maybe keep 66 the way it is, and extend some 32 trips along 39's South St / Centre St / S Huntington segment, and then along a straightened version of 66 to Harvard?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Per the FTA's National Transit Database, The MBTA direct-operated bus network has one of the highest numbers for passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile in a modal comparison to all other bus systems in urban areas (you can do calculations for the other modes as well).

While this might look like a measure of a cost effective system at a first glance, it might also be indicative of failing to provide service on longer routes that happen to not be served well by the subway system.

 

[jass]

Turkey Hill is a national treasure

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: 85 to Medford Sq

Are you familiar with the intersection of Summer and Lowell beyond looking at lines on a map?

Yes.

It's one of the steepest incline turns in the city. No way a bus navigates that safely.

Given how much Proterra's press releases like to show off their hill climbing ability, I think it might be interesting to get their sales reps and engineers to take a look at that turn and see if there's anything they could do in the way of upgraded buses and/or suggesting a viable regrading of the street.

But it might well turn out to be impossible.

85 extension would need to continue turning off of Summer onto Central (already a tight turn), and then turn left onto Highland before turning right onto Lowell (another tight turn) and meeting the Green Line station there.

If we move the Highland bus connection point to Central, maybe it would work for the inbound routing to be Lowell -> Highland -> Central -> Summer and the outbound routing be Summer -> Central -> Albion -> Lowell. The main downside of that is probably the significantly longer walk to Somerville Hospital.

 

[citylover94]

While this might look like a measure of a cost effective system at a first glance, it might also be indicative of failing to provide service on longer routes that happen to not be served well by the subway system.

I doubt that it is a failing to provide routes that serve areas the subway doesn't serve only because Boston's transit system is so heavily built around the idea of bus to subway transfers so there are only a few areas with major overlap between bus and subway routes and those mostly occur in only the core of the city. Unlike in NYC for example where there are many bus routes that were once trolley routes that competed with the Subway and replicate service Boston's system was always combined and so the bus routes are used to feed the subway service with very little replication of routes and are mainly used to provide service to areas without rail service.

If Boston has an under performance issue with bus usage it is more likely to be because the road network in and around Boston is pretty hostile to building a good bus network than because the buses are not serving areas that lack service. An example of this is how the current bus routes serving Somerville carry less than half the ridership the GLX is projected to carry because they are not a very efficient way to provide transit in the area.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I doubt that it is a failing to provide routes that serve areas the subway doesn't serve only because Boston's transit system is so heavily built around the idea of bus to subway transfers so there are only a few areas with major overlap between bus and subway routes and those mostly occur in only the core of the city. Unlike in NYC for example where there are many bus routes that were once trolley routes that competed with the Subway and replicate service Boston's system was always combined and so the bus routes are used to feed the subway service with very little replication of routes and are mainly used to provide service to areas without rail service.

If you're trying to get from an outer station on a radial subway line to an outer station on a different radial subway line, the fastest way to do that in the current network is often to take the subway several miles out of your way (or better yet, just take a single occupancy vehicle). For example, getting from Porter Sq to Brookline / Newton often seems to be most easily done via Park St. A bus going from Porter toward Bookline / Newton is going to involve carrying a bus passenger several miles for a single boarding, whereas most of the trips I actually take on the MBTA bus system are less than a mile to get to one of the nearest subway stations.

 

[citylover94]

I see what you are saying, but that doesn't mean there isn't some efficiency to handling things the way Boston tends to. Plus Boston does have radial routes such as the 1/CT1, 66, 86, 110, and 16 among others. Boston is just heavily weighted towards rail transit because the street system is incredibly hostile to buses and at grade transit in general because of narrow roads that often take indirect routes between destinations or are the main path between destinations and as a result are often congested without space for bus lanes.

I guess I am partially saying that the inefficiency you are describing is essentially built in to Boston's transit network because of street network decisions that were made hundreds of years ago that resulted in an inconsistent or even non existent grid with very few wide straight roads that make it easy to build a coherent and efficient bus system. This inefficiency does, however make grade separated transit (usually rail although the silver line is also a somewhat workable model aside from scaling issues) a fantastic option in the Boston area by being able to ignore the road networks limitations.

 

[dwash59]

For example, getting from Porter Sq to Brookline / Newton often seems to be most easily done via Park St.

Going through Park Street is much slower than if you combine a bus into the route. Saying that just shows a lack of familiarity with a bus system where taking the 66 from Harvard Square to Brookline, or to connect with the D line to ride out into Newton, is significantly quicker, even in rush hour when the bus has to deal with traffic. There's a reason the 66 is ridden heavily; it serves exactly what you claim the buses don't cover, connecting the radial lines (red, B, C, D, orange, SL4/SL5, plus the 39 bus). Passengers regularly ride it several miles for exactly that reason.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I just went to Google Maps and asked for Leave Now transit directions from Porter to Brookline Hills, and the options it gave me were 10:58 to 11:41 via either Red to D or Red to 1 to D, or 11:05 to 11:41 with Red to 47 to D. Perhaps this implies that involving 47 is actually faster if you happen to time it right, but frequency is lacking on that route.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I just went to Google Maps and asked for Leave Now transit directions from Porter to Brookline Hills, and the options it gave me were 10:58 to 11:41 via either Red to D or Red to 1 to D, or 11:05 to 11:41 with Red to 47 to D. Perhaps this implies that involving 47 is actually faster if you happen to time it right, but frequency is lacking on that route.

Bus options that work during the work week often breakdown due to weekend schedules.

That is true for a lot of the T service, which is very commuter focused.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Re: long bus routes

I see what you are saying, but that doesn't mean there isn't some efficiency to handling things the way Boston tends to.

Sure, there are certainly many trips for which the system does function well with relatively short connecting bus routes feeding people into the rail system. But there are other trips which the rail system doesn't serve well which could probably be well served if the T would expand bus service on longer routes.

Plus Boston does have radial routes such as the 1/CT1, 66, 86, 110, and 16 among others. Boston is just heavily weighted towards rail transit because the street system is incredibly hostile to buses and at grade transit in general because of narrow roads that often take indirect routes between destinations or are the main path between destinations and as a result are often congested without space for bus lanes.

I guess I am partially saying that the inefficiency you are describing is essentially built in to Boston's transit network because of street network decisions that were made hundreds of years ago that resulted in an inconsistent or even non existent grid with very few wide straight roads that make it easy to build a coherent and efficient bus system. This inefficiency does, however make grade separated transit (usually rail although the silver line is also a somewhat workable model aside from scaling issues) a fantastic option in the Boston area by being able to ignore the road networks limitations.

Oftentimes the lack of bus lanes is a political decision that bus lanes are not a priority for the street space rather than something that is truly impossible.

And there are plenty of places where the street network has a much more direct path than the current one seat bus rides; if we could find the will to run long bus routes and add bus lanes as needed to keep those routes moving, we could have things like:

• Central Sq Lynn to Malden Center to Medford Sq to Arlington Center.
• Sullivan to Powderhouse Sq to Teele Sq to Clarendon Hill to Arlington Center to Hanscom (though this runs into challenges that service west of Arlington Center maybe wants a direct connection to the Red Line and it may not make sense to extend the Red Line to Arlington Center); and with a bridge from Charlestown to East Boston this could continue to Logan.
• 23 could potentially be extended to Central Sq in Cambridge, although I'm not sure if we currently have a reasonable Ruggles to Mass Ave path.
• 28 could similarly be extended to Kendall if we figure out the Ruggles to Mass Ave part, and with a bit of street reconfiguration near the Main St / 3rd intersection in Cambridge could be extended to Lechmere, and with the potential bridge at the south end of Inner Belt Road in Somerville could continue to Sullivan and the casino.
• Casino to Sullivan to Somerville's Union Sq to Inman Sq to Cambridge's Central Sq to Allston's Union Sq to Brighton Center ought to work just fine on the existing road network (though there might be places where it would get stuck in traffic), and it might even be possible to extend it to Boston College and Newton Centre.
• 22 could probably be extended to the Heath St stop on the E branch, and Coolidge Corner, and maybe even Watertown Sq.
• Once the 23 extension proposed above happens, 1 could be rerouted to serve UMass-Boston instead of its current indirect trip to Dudley, and if it were running on batteries it could probably be extended along 73's route out to Waverly as well.
• 110 could be rerouted to serve Sullivan instead of Wellington and then extended along part of 86's route and along 71's route.
• Maybe 52 could be extended to Belmont Center, Arlington Heights, and the Burlington Mall.
• Perhaps 83 could be extended beyond Russell Field to Alewife Station proper (which would probably require adding a left turn lane on Alewife Brook Parkway to Rindge Ave) and run through onto one of the Route 2 bus routes, and perhaps its east of Porter routing isn't necessarily optimal.
• I don't think there's anything about the street network that would prevent straightening out 117 so that instead of serving Maverick Station, it would take the Tobin Bridge to Community College, Lechmere, Kendall, BU, and maybe Coolidge Corner.
• 91 should run through to one of the Everett bus routes and probably also the part of 47 from Central to BU.
• 245 could be extended onto 30's Mattapan to Roslindale Village segment, especially once the Orange Line serves Roslindale Village, and perhaps it should lose the Quarry St / Granite St / Whitehall St detour.
• 42 should be extended onto 34's route if that can happen without getting stuck in traffic and if the southbound trips departing Forest Hills can be well coordinated between the trips originating at Dudley and the trips originating at Forest Hills.
• 32 could be extended north onto the South St / Centre St / South Huntington portion of 39's route, and from there have two branches, one to Harvard Sq and the other to Cambridge's Central Sq.
• 15 should be extended to Savin Hill Station

In the other direction, where we have missing short feeder service, there should probably also be a Jackson Sq to Monument short turn route along 41's route with frequent service, but perhaps that should wait to get some of the new Orange Line trains in service first.