MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[JeffDowntown]

The better model, as Houston shows, is "transit worth walking to" aka "more steps to a shorter wait" ....as opposed to "few steps to a long wait" (our current model)

I do this instinctively in the South End several times per month.

I could wait for a 43 bus on Tremont Street; but unless my app says it is imminent, I walk two blocks to Washington Street and catch the Silver Line inbound instead.

43 -- 20-30 minute headway
SL4-5 -- 5-8 minute headway

 

[Arlington]

I do this instinctively in the South End several times per month.

Most users do, and it is what overloads the few frequent routes and leaves ridership so lame on the infrequent ones.

Infrequent, empty buses are a huge waste of capital assets: bus & garage space (which is what keeps us from expanding rush hour service where it'd be used)

That there are large wedges of the metro area that have no key bus routes:

• Lechmere (no Key in the "80s Wedge" Lechmere-Northwest)
• Sullivan (no Key routes in the "90s Wedge" Sullivan-West)
• Wellington (no Key routes in the 100s Wedge Sullivan-Malden)

This should be your tipoff that we should be eliminating/re-routing between 1/4 and 1/2 of all the 80s, 90s, and 100s buses until you've got fewer "winning" routes where you can the put shelters, benches, and signal priority.

In Cambridge, for example, I'd run everything through Inman (bump the 68 from Broadway to Cambridge-Hampshire) and bump the 83 to over lap theh 87 and 91, and pick a route and concentrate the 91, 85 and CT2 on it between Union and Inman.

Jeff's experience with the 43 is also a tipoff to either beef it up or nudget it to a denser corridor (or eliminate/terminate it)

 

[The EGE]

The "key routes" are just defined by the highest ridership routes. That's it. No consideration of how the routes actually work. No consideration whether the problems with routes were due to not enough frequency. No accounting for routes that serve a common arterial (like a number of the 80s, 90s, and 110s buses do) with different endpoints. The fact that there are zero key routes in those areas only shows you that the key routes metric is flawed, not that the bus routes are.

In Houston, many of the reroutings were onto parallel boulevards 400-800 feet away. The 68 is well over a quarter mile away from Inman and Central at its midpoint; the 43 is that far from Washington Street for much of its length as well. That makes them reasonable independent corridors. Moving or eliminating those routes is a real loss of transit service, not an improvement. (That said, I'd like to see the 43 duplicate the SL downtown loop to allow riders living between the routes to choose on their outbound trips. That's a real increase in efficiency.)

The issues with the bus network are not having multiple routes serving independent destinations and ridership patterns in dense areas. These buses don't run empty. The MBTA system is actually a rather well-laid out network; it's been subject to relentless changes for over a century. There are numerous arterials used by multiple routes with different endpoints; that's a case for integrating schedules for more consistent headways and concentrating TSP on the combined segments, not for eliminating routes.

 

[Arlington]

The fact that there are zero key routes in those areas only shows you that the key routes metric is flawed, not that the bus routes are.

Sorry, but it also shows that the MBTA knows what key routes are, and what they require, but lacks the will to "make" any (either by metric combination of buses that operate in common, or by physical trimming/combination of routes that are un-dense.

I'd also nominate the 96/94/80 (near Tufts) and 87/88/89 as things to be reformed into 2 to 4 key routes instead of 6. Just like JeffDowntown forsaking the 43 to walk to the SL, folks walk a long way to get to the 77 because those other routes are so crazy bunchy-gappy.

In Houston, many of the reroutings were onto parallel boulevards 400-800 feet away.

Uh, like the 64 and 47 are? Or like the 68 is from the 69 at one end and the CT2/85 at the other?

The 68 is well over a quarter mile away from Inman and Central at its midpoint;

Yes, but that midpoint is *exactly* where the 91 & 83 cut north-south on Prospect. Where are these 68 riders going? to a Red connection? If so, either taking the "Prospect Key" to Central-to-Red or walking to Mass Ave or Cambridge or Hampshire--if they ran at high headways--would be better transit service.

 

[fattony]

The 68 is well over a quarter mile away from Inman and Central at its midpoint; the 43 is that far from Washington Street for much of its length as well. That makes them reasonable independent corridors. Moving or eliminating those routes is a real loss of transit service, not an improvement.

Sort of. With its 30 minute headway and complete inability to maintain schedule along a 2-mile route, the 68 is unusable. If you relocate a bus that nobody is riding, does that count as a loss of transit service?

Cantabrigians understand the square-to-square network very well. I think more frequent buses with, god forbid, timed transfers at bus hubs in the squares would do a lot to improve the usefulness of our buses.

The thing is, Cambridge is a dense city with a major trunk-line. For trips that don't involve the red line, you can generally walk in <20 minutes, so waiting at a bus stop for more than about 5-8 minutes makes you feel like a real idiot.

I vote for whatever changes produce 10 minute headways.

 

[winstonoboogie]

This has come up before, but if you look at the FTA NTD data, Table 19 Transit Operating Statistics, Service Supplied and Consumed, you can calculate that the MBTA bus network is fairly effective in use of resources when compared to peers. For 2014, the number of unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile for direct-operated MBTA bus was 4.9, while Houston (pre-reconfiguration)was only 1.5.

The top five were : New York City Transit at 8.7, S.F. Muni 8.2, Chicago 5.2, while L.A was tied with the MBTA at 4.9. Note that New York City Transit, S.F. Muni, and CTA are all unique in that the large agency only serves the city proper, while other agencies serve the suburbs. In Boston and L.A., the large agency services a mix of municipalities.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Sort of. With its 30 minute headway and complete inability to maintain schedule along a 2-mile route, the 68 is unusable. If you relocate a bus that nobody is riding, does that count as a loss of transit service?

Cantabrigians understand the square-to-square network very well. I think more frequent buses with, god forbid, timed transfers at bus hubs in the squares would do a lot to improve the usefulness of our buses.

The thing is, Cambridge is a dense city with a major trunk-line. For trips that don't involve the red line, you can generally walk in <20 minutes, so waiting at a bus stop for more than about 5-8 minutes makes you feel like a real idiot.

I vote for whatever changes produce 10 minute headways.

Question, Dudley Square is a huge bus hub. How well timed are the transfers there?

 

[CSTH]

Right, but the question is about the distribution within that aggregate. That 4.9 contains some Nyc and some Houston - the task is to shift the balance to the former from the latter...

 

[sm89]

What if both the 43 and 55 were rerouted to not go around the Common? As a one way circulation, there isn't much use for anyone to board Beacon/Charles St South if they can't easily go home that way.

43 - Move Charles St South stop to New England Law at Stuart, turn right on Stuart, left on Washington (onto new to-be-built busway), stop at Chinatown (SL4 or 5 stop), terminate at Downtown Crossing (Temple Place). Then turn left on Tremont and outbound route remains the same.

55 - Inbound stays on Boylston. Stop at Tremont St (Boylston Station). Straight and left onto Washington. Stop at Chinatown (SL4 stop), and terminate at Temple Place. Then turn left on Tremont and outbound route remains the same.

Beacon St always backs up during peak hours and there's limited benefits for routes that loop. Moving buses off Tremont near Park St allows them to layover without taking a travel lane. This also turns Temple Place at Downtown Crossing into a convenient bus transfer station. Thoughts?

 

[JeffDowntown]

What if both the 43 and 55 were rerouted to not go around the Common? As a one way circulation, there isn't much use for anyone to board Beacon/Charles St South if they can't easily go home that way.

43 - Move Charles St South stop to New England Law at Stuart, turn right on Stuart, left on Washington (onto new to-be-built busway), stop at Chinatown (SL4 or 5 stop), terminate at Downtown Crossing (Temple Place). Then turn left on Tremont and outbound route remains the same.

55 - Inbound stays on Boylston. Stop at Tremont St (Boylston Station). Straight and left onto Washington. Stop at Chinatown (SL4 stop), and terminate at Temple Place. Then turn left on Tremont and outbound route remains the same.

Beacon St always backs up during peak hours and there's limited benefits for routes that loop. Moving buses off Tremont near Park St allows them to layover without taking a travel lane. This also turns Temple Place at Downtown Crossing into a convenient bus transfer station. Thoughts?

If we do a busway on Washington, we should also make Tremont two way to allow smarter traffic flow (and some traffic calming on the "raceway out of town").

 

[fattony]

Question, Dudley Square is a huge bus hub. How well timed are the transfers there?

Good question that I don't have an answer to. Can anyone comment on timed transfers? Or whatever you call it when a vehicle waits for the arrival of another (for transfers) before departing.

I assume we have no timing policy for buses or trains, although I have had the last train of the night held for transfers.

 

[Arlington]

Question, Dudley Square is a huge bus hub. How well timed are the transfers there?

Are you asking about Synchronized transfers, or the usability of transferring between two high-frequency lines?

The focus should be on higher-frequency (shorter headways) and countdown timers, because not only do these make one-seat rides immensely more useful, it makes two-seat bus rides much more practical/pleasant--not unlike connecting at the Airport between a Blue Train and a Massport Bus.

Actually expecting two *particular* bus runs to meet (a 5:40 scheduled arrival and a 5:50 scheduled departure) is a mirage, but expecting that two bus lines with 10-minute service to connect is a fairly-reasonable connection--that's what Houston's going for: much better 1-seat rides & much better two seat rides (often the only way to move "diagonally" on Houston's grid is a North-South bus connecting to an East-West one)

 

[fattony]

Are you asking about Synchronized transfers, or the usability of transferring between two high-frequency lines?

The focus should be on higher-frequency (shorter headways) and countdown timers, because not only do these make one-seat rides immensely more useful, it makes two-seat bus rides much more practical/pleasant--not unlike connecting at the Airport between a Blue Train and a Massport Bus.

Actually expecting two *particular* bus runs to meet (a 5:40 scheduled arrival and a 5:50 scheduled departure) is a mirage, but expecting that two bus lines with 10-minute service to connect is a fairly-reasonable connection--that's what Houston's going for: much better 1-seat rides & much better two seat rides (often the only way to move "diagonally" on Houston's grid is a North-South bus connecting to an East-West one)

When I brought up timed transfers, I was thinking of this article. This "pulse" or "timed transfer" concept only really applies to low-frequency routes, which should not apply anywhere in Cambridge. My mistake for bringing it up. Cambridge needs a high-frequency network and then we don't need to think about timing.

I still think a square-to-square routing in Cambridge and many parts of Boston would be a superior organization compared to the largely incomprehensible spaghetti routing we have currently.

The beauty of rail is that it permanently goes where it goes and there isn't much to memorize. A rail line is important enough that it forms the basis for orientation. A bus route that follows a single road on a grid is simple to remember. We don't have a grid and that makes things hard, but it does have to be as hard as it is.

Figuring out where the CT2 goes requires you to hold a map in your hand. You can't even described the route in words: "Sullivan to Union to ... eventually Kendall to ... eventually LMA to Ruggles."

 

[winstonoboogie]

Are you asking about Synchronized transfers, or the usability of transferring between two high-frequency lines?

The focus should be on higher-frequency (shorter headways) and countdown timers, because not only do these make one-seat rides immensely more useful, it makes two-seat bus rides much more practical/pleasant--not unlike connecting at the Airport between a Blue Train and a Massport Bus.

Actually expecting two *particular* bus runs to meet (a 5:40 scheduled arrival and a 5:50 scheduled departure) is a mirage, but expecting that two bus lines with 10-minute service to connect is a fairly-reasonable connection--that's what Houston's going for: much better 1-seat rides & much better two seat rides (often the only way to move "diagonally" on Houston's grid is a North-South bus connecting to an East-West one)

Houston was also looking to reduce the number of bus routes going direct downtown, to move toward high-frequency bus service that feeds the light rail network. Boston has been moving to a system like that since 1901, when the Main Lin Line El opened and surface streetcars were cut-back to feed it instead of operating through to downtown.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Are you asking about Synchronized transfers, or the usability of transferring between two high-frequency lines?

The focus should be on higher-frequency (shorter headways) and countdown timers, because not only do these make one-seat rides immensely more useful, it makes two-seat bus rides much more practical/pleasant--not unlike connecting at the Airport between a Blue Train and a Massport Bus.

Actually expecting two *particular* bus runs to meet (a 5:40 scheduled arrival and a 5:50 scheduled departure) is a mirage, but expecting that two bus lines with 10-minute service to connect is a fairly-reasonable connection--that's what Houston's going for: much better 1-seat rides & much better two seat rides (often the only way to move "diagonally" on Houston's grid is a North-South bus connecting to an East-West one)

No one really worries about transfer to/from a reliable high frequency line.

But bus hubs are likely to always have lower frequency lines as well (I suspect). These should be coordinated to allow fast, easy transfers at logical transfer points.

I mean, you wouldn't run a hub and spoke airline without coordinating the transfers at the hub. Without that no one would use it. And every route cannot be a high frequency "shuttle" (the airline equivalent of a key bus route).

 

[Arlington]

Boston has been moving to a system like that since 1901, when the Main Lin Line El opened and surface streetcars were cut-back to feed it instead of operating through to downtown.

Glaciers move too, I suppose. We seem to have have that will-to-change only when new heavy rail opens (or not even, given that nothing's changed at Assembly). This is about finding the will to make it better even when it does not involve changes in the rail system.

Land use, household size, ridership, and commuting hours/choices, & information systems have changed radically over the last 20 years, but the bus network is essentially unchanged. The odds that the network of 1990 is adequate to 2016 is so low that it is unreasonable to think that the bus network cannot be improved any faster that it has (or hasn't ) been going.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Glaciers move too, I suppose. We seem to have have that will-to-change only when new heavy rail opens (or not even, given that nothing's changed at Assembly). This is about finding the will to make it better even when it does not involve changes in the rail system.

Land use, household size, ridership, and commuting hours/choices, & information systems have changed radically over the last 20 years, but the bus network is essentially unchanged. The odds that the network of 1990 is adequate to 2016 is so low that it is unreasonable to think that the bus network cannot be improved any faster that it has (or hasn't ) been going.

The MBTA's high number of unlinked passenger trips for bus per vehicle revenue mile suggests they do a better job a allocating the resources than you might think. I bet if you combined the city and suburban agencies in NYC, S.F. and Chicago into one number for comparison to the MBTA, the MBTA would do well in the comparison.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

When I brought up timed transfers, I was thinking of this article. This "pulse" or "timed transfer" concept only really applies to low-frequency routes, which should not apply anywhere in Cambridge. My mistake for bringing it up. Cambridge needs a high-frequency network and then we don't need to think about timing.

I still think a square-to-square routing in Cambridge and many parts of Boston would be a superior organization compared to the largely incomprehensible spaghetti routing we have currently.

The beauty of rail is that it permanently goes where it goes and there isn't much to memorize. A rail line is important enough that it forms the basis for orientation. A bus route that follows a single road on a grid is simple to remember. We don't have a grid and that makes things hard, but it does have to be as hard as it is.

Figuring out where the CT2 goes requires you to hold a map in your hand. You can't even described the route in words: "Sullivan to Union to ... eventually Kendall to ... eventually LMA to Ruggles."

I don't know if the current CT_'s are a good example because there were supposed to be 11 of them forming an entire express bus system. Had that rollout not stalled out at CT3 and buried like a shameful secret, Boston would've had its own high-profile express bus spider map.

Copypasta list. . .

• CT1 - Central Square (Cambridge) to Andrew Station via Massachusetts Avenue
• CT2 - Sullivan Square to Ruggles via Union Square (Somerville), Kendall Square and Boston University Bridge
• CT3 - Longwood Medical Area to Airport Station and terminals via Ruggles, Boston Medical Center, and Ted Williams Tunnel
• CT4 - Ruggles Station to UMass Boston Campus via Dudley Square and Uphams Corner
• CT5 - Logan Airport to Sullivan Square via Downtown Chelsea, Wellington, and Assembly Square
• CT6 - Downtown Chelsea to Kendall/MIT via Community College and Lechmere
• CT7 - Kendall/MIT to Franklin Park via Mass Ave Bridge, Kenmore, Longwood Medical Area, Ruggles, Dudley, and Grove Hall
• CT8 - Sullivan Square to Longwood Medical Area via Union Square Somerville, Central Square Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Boston University Bridge, and Fenway Station
• CT9 - Kenmore to Harvard Square via Commonwealth Ave and Allston
• CT10 - Kenmore to JFK/UMass via Longwood Medical Area, Ruggles, and Boston Medical Center
• CT11 - Longwood Medical Area to Fields Corner via Ruggles, Boston Medical Center, and Uphams Corner
• EC1* - Anderson Regional Transportation Center to MIT at Mass Ave via Sullivan Square, Lechmere, and Kendall
• EC2* - Riverside to Lechmere via Mass Pike, Central Square, and Kendall
• EC3* - Natick to Copley Square via Mass Pike

*EC = "Express Commuter"

Some of these would've beckoned changes and tweaks to the baseline Yellow routes because of the scope of the express system and how much demand it would move at high frequency. Similar but lowercase analogy to how the rapid transit lines set the parameters top-down for the Yellow Line route network. Things stay perennially static because the rapid transit system has been static for so long, and the express bus network never got large enough in scope to exert its influence.


Bottom line is that as long as all the formally-vetted Game Changer™ system expansions and service enhancements remain on-ice, there's not a lot of wiggle room for wide-scale tweaks. Those tweaks happened decades ago during the last RT builds. In a static era like this we're left with little more than due diligence touches like congestion mitigation on the roads, tightening bolts on individual route stop spacing if something's inefficient enough to be an OTP drag, and single-line tweaks to serve purely evolutionary redistributions in demand induced by new development, etc. It's more a State of Repair analogue than anything else, where congestion shifts over time are the proverbial cracks that need to be patched.

Probably the easiest Game Changer™ that would open up some long-static routes to re-evaluation is resuming that Crosstown rollout, since that's mainly an ops, not capital, rollout that was capital-dependent on little more than recalibrating systemwide garage capacity and distribution. Re-branding the Crosstown program as "Urban Ring Phase I" made it sound a lot more capital-intensive than it really is, and a lot easier to scuttle.


For brainstorming purposes, you might want to envision the system with a fully-developed Crosstown system. Those routes were well-vetted by the studies, and covered a wide enough geographic scale for their demand served to exert the type of gravitational pull that influences optimal configuration of *some* individual local routes. Could also look at the post-GLX needs assessments since that's going to reshape a lot of bus demand throughout Somerville. Small amount of the same with Indigo to Riverside vs. the Pike express buses.

The common thread is a change in the rapid (or rapid-ish) transit system is the primary change agent for the local buses. As long as it's another decade of same as it ever was, a Yellow Line route network pivoting top-down off a same-as-it-ever-was RT system doesn't have much potential for Yellow-led reinvention. But it doesn't take Crazy Transit Pitches or infinite budget to see where top-down change can come from. The unfinished Crosstowns are Exhibit A of a potential gravity well of minor but consequential influence.

 

[fattony]

I can't help but look at our bus network, including the CTs and everything else, and see it as entirely commuter oriented with no regard whatsoever for spontaneous users. Seriously, how are you supposed to take a bus in Boston without having maps and timetables on you at all times? These convoluted, arbitrary routes down minor streets and cutting through low density areas may work great for someone who takes the same bus to the same destination at the same time every day. No surprise that the UR studies found people willing to ride the bus in areas where the bus already goes with no regard for what would change if, you know, the network changed.

I'll return to my original example of the 68 as a HORRIBLE bus route. It connects Harvard with Kendall, never diverging from the Red Line by more than a quarter mile. And it has 30 minutes headway and can't manage to maintain schedule. You have to be literally disabled to save travel time by taking the 68.

Look at this map again for more absurdities. http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/Schedules_and_Maps/System_Map/MBTA-system_map-boston-1.pdf

You can't take a bus from Inman to Kendall. That's right.

NS to Lechmere to Kendall, through one of the biggest employment centers in the state, is served only by a private shuttle. Not a single MBTA bus. I know, crazy.

Look at the 85/CT2, 91, 83, and 64 - all these weird doglegs and jaunts down minor streets. Displacing these routes from major thoroughfares and common-sense straight lines makes the system completely incomprehensible. You could be standing on Cambridge and Prospect Streets looking for the 91 stop because you know the 91 goes from Union to Central, but you'll never find it because it is a block over. What?

I have lived in Camberville for over 6 years, I'm a transit advocate, and a car-light/car-free advocate. I do not use this bus system. Every time I try I get frustrated, exasperated, and arrive at my destination late. You can't tell me this is a well planned transit network.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I can't help but look at our bus network, including the CTs and everything else, and see it as entirely commuter oriented with no regard whatsoever for spontaneous users. Seriously, how are you supposed to take a bus in Boston without having maps and timetables on you at all times? These convoluted, arbitrary routes down minor streets and cutting through low density areas may work great for someone who takes the same bus to the same destination at the same time every day. No surprise that the UR studies found people willing to ride the bus in areas where the bus already goes with no regard for what would change if, you know, the network changed.

I'll return to my original example of the 68 as a HORRIBLE bus route. It connects Harvard with Kendall, never diverging from the Red Line by more than a quarter mile. And it has 30 minutes headway and can't manage to maintain schedule. You have to be literally disabled to save travel time by taking the 68.

Look at this map again for more absurdities. http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/Schedules_and_Maps/System_Map/MBTA-system_map-boston-1.pdf

You can't take a bus from Inman to Kendall. That's right.

NS to Lechmere to Kendall, through one of the biggest employment centers in the state, is served only by a private shuttle. Not a single MBTA bus. I know, crazy.

Look at the 85/CT2, 91, 83, and 64 - all these weird doglegs and jaunts down minor streets. Displacing these routes from major thoroughfares and common-sense straight lines makes the system completely incomprehensible. You could be standing on Cambridge and Prospect Streets looking for the 91 stop because you know the 91 goes from Union to Central, but you'll never find it because it is a block over. What?

I have lived in Camberville for over 6 years, I'm a transit advocate, and a car-light/car-free advocate. I do not use this bus system. Every time I try I get frustrated, exasperated, and arrive at my destination late. You can't tell me this is a well planned transit network.

I find that the transit mode on Google Maps does a pretty good job of offering bus and rail combo options. Because of this I find myself using bus legs on many infrequent trips, that I would not have done in the past. Yes, it take a modicum of planning (like looking before you leave the house).

Combine that with the real-time schedule apps for checking on the way -- seems to work pretty well.