MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Riverside]

My picks that would most benefit Everett IMHO:

SL6 from Glendale Square to Haymarket with local service along the Broadway stretch from Glendale to Alford Street bridge and express service from Alford to Haymarket along Rutherford/Washington Sts (no stopping at Sullivan, Community College, North Station, or any other intermediate points). Fastest service to downtown Boston and GL/OL connections to Back Bay CBD at Haymarket. If the proposed North Station to Seaport BRT happens, then connection to Seaport CBD as well.

SL3 to from existing Chelsea terminus to Sullivan via Everett Square / Broadway. SL6 / SL3 / local bus transfer hub created at Everett Square. Plenty of local bus connections to points west at Sullivan and Airport / Seaport CBD east along existing SL3 service. Could consider extending SL3 for one stop ride to Kendall with cross connection at GLX East Somerville station; however street routing is a little wonky and indirect (hence the need for Sullivan to GJ light rail connect, but that’s for a different thread). Probably just rework the local bus routing to better serve Kendall from Sullivan.

The point should be really to keep it simple. Often times these initiatives get bogged down or don’t meet expectations because they try to do too much or forget the project objective, which in this case is to improve access for Everett riders.

Yes, this is basically my view as well. If I have to pick one of these two, I go with the SL6 option (but I think both have merit). And yes -- as few stops as possible after the bridge, assuming that SL6 is implemented without removing buses from the 104/109 (i.e. riders heading for Sullivan still maintain as much access as today). The only exception I would toss out there would be a stop at Bunker Hill Community College -- not the train station, just near the intersection with Austin St. That seems like it could be a potential destination unto itself, so worth considering. But I don't think other stops along Rutherford are necessary, and my gut says that a diversion to Sullivan is not worth it.

I wrote this previously about Rutherford: It directly parallels the OL and the 92, and there's not any useful local stops to add that the OL doesn't serve other than City Square. The only way I can really see it making sense is with a dedicated busway on Rutherford, a lot of infill development on Rutherford to justify a stop at Essex Street, and use of a Congress Street BRT to get to South Station.

However, I do like the idea of that Everett-Sullivan-Lechmere-Kendall corridor. Given how many different nodes that connects, I don't think mixing the radial and circumferential elements would be a big issue

To be clear, my support for the Rutherford route is contingent on it being a speedy route -- I assume that would require bus lanes, but perhaps traffic moves quickly enough that they are unnecessary (I am skeptical, but). And I think the offering is significantly stronger with a BRT extension to South Station, although I think a Haymarket terminus would be perfectly reasonable in the short-term.

Running via Rutherford is not about serving Charlestown -- as you say, already served by the 92. It's about providing Everett a direct connection to downtown -- Everett being one of three municipalities directly bordering Boston that does not have such a connection (once GLX finishes), and by far the closest and probably the most transit-oriented of the three. (The other two are Winthrop and Milton, the latter possibly being debatable.) Rutherford just happens to be the best (only) road connection between Everett and Downtown, but conceptually it's no different than the Haymarket North extension running through/by Charlestown without really serving it, or a hypothetical Green Line branch to Chelsea doing the same.

As for Sullivan-Lechmere-Kendall: I think that needs to be a separate service. As of now, there are no plans for bus lanes in Cambridge between Kendall and Lechmere (as far as I know), so reliability will be significantly reduced. I think that calls for a shorter service. Also, as mentioned above, a Sullivan-Lechmere bus route could tag along with an Everett-Haymarket route by leveraging bus lanes on Rutherford to the Gilmore Bridge (which I believe is a slightly shorter route than going via McGrath).

 

[JeffDowntown]

Yes, this is basically my view as well. If I have to pick one of these two, I go with the SL6 option (but I think both have merit). And yes -- as few stops as possible after the bridge, assuming that SL6 is implemented without removing buses from the 104/109 (i.e. riders heading for Sullivan still maintain as much access as today). The only exception I would toss out there would be a stop at Bunker Hill Community College -- not the train station, just near the intersection with Austin St. That seems like it could be a potential destination unto itself, so worth considering. But I don't think other stops along Rutherford are necessary, and my gut says that a diversion to Sullivan is not worth it.



To be clear, my support for the Rutherford route is contingent on it being a speedy route -- I assume that would require bus lanes, but perhaps traffic moves quickly enough that they are unnecessary (I am skeptical, but). And I think the offering is significantly stronger with a BRT extension to South Station, although I think a Haymarket terminus would be perfectly reasonable in the short-term.

Running via Rutherford is not about serving Charlestown -- as you say, already served by the 92. It's about providing Everett a direct connection to downtown -- Everett being one of three municipalities directly bordering Boston that does not have such a connection (once GLX finishes), and by far the closest and probably the most transit-oriented of the three. (The other two are Winthrop and Milton, the latter possibly being debatable.) Rutherford just happens to be the best (only) road connection between Everett and Downtown, but conceptually it's no different than the Haymarket North extension running through/by Charlestown without really serving it, or a hypothetical Green Line branch to Chelsea doing the same.

As for Sullivan-Lechmere-Kendall: I think that needs to be a separate service. As of now, there are no plans for bus lanes in Cambridge between Kendall and Lechmere (as far as I know), so reliability will be significantly reduced. I think that calls for a shorter service. Also, as mentioned above, a Sullivan-Lechmere bus route could tag along with an Everett-Haymarket route by leveraging bus lanes on Rutherford to the Gilmore Bridge (which I believe is a slightly shorter route than going via McGrath).

One note on this, the Gilmore Bridge experiences severe backups at rush hour (both AM and PM), and the traffic volume is such you probably cannot put a bus lane there. Routing via McGrath is probably faster.

 

[Riverside]

Ah, RIP that idea, alas.

 

[WestMedford]

Malden Center bus lanes painted Thursday. Main and Centre Streets shown in photos.

 

[737900er]

Not sure if this is of interest to anyone, but I put the Fall 2019 ridership data and trip data in Tableau.
For some strange reason you have to press Shift while you drag around the map.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/pw3911/viz/MBTA2019RidershipVis/BetterBus

 

[Riverside]

Not sure if this is of interest to anyone, but I put the Fall 2019 ridership data and trip data in Tableau.
For some strange reason you have to press Shift while you drag around the map.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/pw3911/viz/MBTA2019RidershipVis/BetterBus

This is amazing. I had actually been mulling trying to figure out how to do something like this myself — had no idea Tableau could do this.

As far as I know, no visualization like this exists elsewhere on the web. A couple come close, but not quite. This is fantastic!

 

[737900er]

There are definitely a few things to clean up still in it. It's Tableau Public, so you should be able to download it and muck around with it if you want.

One of the first things that really stood out to me is just how badly you can see that regional rail on Framingham/Worcester Line is needed. I know this is pre-pandemic data, but the lack of a Newton Corner CR stop is glaring -- it's one of the main reasons that 501/502/503/504 exist given they parallel the tracks for basically their whole journeys. I know we don't talk about these routes on here that much because they're boring commuter routes, but in aggregate they're a pretty high ridership corridor. A Newton Corner infill would zap those routes, (given that they entirely parallel the Key 57), an extended 71 down Galen St. would make it a big hub with the 57. Waltham is also really underserved for how close in it is, except for the disaster that is the 70. A West Newton or Riverside bus hub for Waltham could be successful if Regional Rail on the Fitchburg isn't a top priority compared to Framingham/Worcester. Waltham could look like Quincy with a better rail connection.

 

[jklo]

but the lack of a Newton Corner CR stop is glaring

It's a Ped disaster. You could easily justify a NC stop but I think that's why they are hesitant.

 

[Balerion]

A few tidbits regarding the upcoming bus redesign. The greater weekend service sounds promising.

MBTA Head: New Bus Map Gives 25 Percent More Service

The transformation will “roll out over a number of years,” Poftak said, but taken together, it will increase the number of buses running across the MBTA by 25 percent over current levels. Changes will be even more significant on the weekends, which are set to see a 70 percent increase in bus service, Poftak said.

Officials expect the new maps and schedules will make 275,000 riders able to access “high-frequency service,” defined as their bus running at least every 15 minutes. Of those, 115,000 would be residents of color and 40,000 would be low-income households, Poftak said.

 

[737900er]

Increasing the quantity of buses is not a good metric when the buses being procured are not capable of operating as much as the current buses. The 28 TTs formerly at North Cambridge are "planned" to be replaced with 35 ETBs -- exactly 25% more.

 

[Wash]

Increasing the quantity of buses is not a good metric when the buses being procured are not capable of operating as much as the current buses. The 28 TTs formerly at North Cambridge are "planned" to be replaced with 35 ETBs -- exactly 25% more.

T officials are on the record stating that they expect the BEBs to provide an equal number of service hours per day as the TTs, but that's... probably not happening.

 

[lainpimicaja]

T officials are on the record stating that they expect the BEBs to provide an equal number of service hours per day as the TTs, but that's... probably not happening.

The number of new buses doesn't directly translate into more service. There's a potential for more service hours just with the existing fleet (more service the rest of the day outside of morning / evening rush hour, late night, weekends). Big issue is having the staff to operator that.

 

[Brattle Loop]

T officials are on the record stating that they expect the BEBs to provide an equal number of service hours per day as the TTs, but that's... probably not happening.

Total? That's only because they're claiming they can run the same service with 25% more BEBs than ETBs, right?

 

[Wash]

Total? That's only because they're claiming they can run the same service with 25% more BEBs than ETBs, right?

No, they're claiming that they could run the TT schedule with just 28 BEBs, and the seven additional ones will be for additional service.

 

[Arlington]

It's a Ped disaster. You could easily justify a NC stop but I think that's why they are hesitant.

I am confused by these pronouns:
“It” Is that a Newton Corner station or its lack that is a pedestrian disaster? Or Newton Corner itself is currently a ped disaster?

“They” is that Newton or the T who is hesitant (and what are they hesitant to do?

 

[Brattle Loop]

No, they're claiming that they could run the TT schedule with just 28 BEBs, and the seven additional ones will be for additional service.

Seems difficult to believe, unless they've somehow managed to dramatically reduce charging times.

 

[Tallguy]

Increasing the quantity of buses is not a good metric when the buses being procured are not capable of operating as much as the current buses. The 28 TTs formerly at North Cambridge are "planned" to be replaced with 35 ETBs -- exactly 25% more.

Whats worse is that they've only been using 13-16 TTs since 72 went away

 

[sneijder]

City of Boston Reboots Plans for Bus-Priority Corridor Between North, South Stations

In addition to bus-priority infrastructure and enhanced bus stops, the city is also examining the possibilities for cross-town protected bike lanes and safer, more visible crosswalks along the rout…

mass.streetsblog.org

North-to-South Station high frequency bus was rebooted with initial designs due next year. This feels like a temporary solution to NSRL but I feel this needs some legitimate infrastructure (center-running dedicated bus lanes w/o right-turning cars , signal priority) to make the travel times competitive to get downtown core commuters to switch from driving to CR + bus connection. My sense is that we need <10 min travel times during peak between SS and NS for this to have a large impact on congestion.

Also, why didn't they propose routing it via atlantic avenue (right over the Central Artery)? Seems to be plenty of ROW Width to run dedicated bus lanes.

 

[Riverside]

Very exciting to see!

A few points in response to your comments:

City of Boston Reboots Plans for Bus-Priority Corridor Between North, South Stations

In addition to bus-priority infrastructure and enhanced bus stops, the city is also examining the possibilities for cross-town protected bike lanes and safer, more visible crosswalks along the rout…

mass.streetsblog.org

North-to-South Station high frequency bus was rebooted with initial designs due next year. This feels like a temporary solution to NSRL but I feel this needs some legitimate infrastructure (center-running dedicated bus lanes w/o right-turning cars , signal priority) to make the travel times competitive to get downtown core commuters to switch from driving to CR + bus connection. My sense is that we need <10 min travel times during peak between SS and NS for this to have a large impact on congestion.

Agreed about the need for infrastructure. But, it's very important to realize: this is not what the NSRL is about. Providing a shuttle service between North Station and South Station is not the point of the North-South Rail Link: the point is to create a unified job market, where northside commuters can access Back Bay and Longwood just as easily as southside commuters can. Creating a direct frequent North Station-Seaport link is very valuable, but still keeps those commuters at a remove; transfering to the new T-7 bus isn't going to be any more convenient than transferring to the Green Line to reach Longwood is right now.

[EDIT: Sorry, I should moderate my tone a little bit. You are right, this definitely will help northside commuters more easily reach the southern end of the Financial District and the Seaport, and will make it easier for southside commuters to reach the northern end of downtown, just like the NSRL would. I just got frustrated because it sounded like you were comparing the NSRL to a North Station-South Station shuttle, which is a bugbear of mine. But I realize you were criticizing this as a poor replacement for the NSRL anyway, so I apologize for the stand-off-ish tone from me. Thanks for sharing the article! This is one of my favorite projects.]

Also, why didn't they propose routing it via atlantic avenue (right over the Central Artery)? Seems to be plenty of ROW Width to run dedicated bus lanes.

Atlantic Ave is much less direct to where the jobs in downtown actually are; half of Atlantic's walkshed is literally in the harbor.

 

[737900er]

That T7 proposal is fascinating because it violates the "no through service in the core" bus network philosophy the T has had for decades (if not forever).