MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Delvin4519]

Welcome to reality. Humans aren't robots that perfectly follow rules and react to external stimuli in the same predictable way every time. The thing is, not following rules or acting unpredictably has far more serious consequences in only one of these; being behind the wheel of an automobile. A car is heavy machinery and there is a local/cultural problem that we let just about anyone and everyone drive with next to zero training here. That's a big difference with the rest of the world.

It is very true that individualism and the idea of freedom promote a culture here where everyone feels they should be free to inconvenience others, and that is a problem, but there's a huge difference between inconveniencing people and endangering the lives of others.

If someone is operating something that can so easily cause death or destruction then that needs to be handled with the utmost responsibility. If there were no cars or bikes, a pedestrian not paying attention or making a bad judgment and colliding with another person or structure would result in some scrapes and bruises and only in the most freak of circumstances, death. Add bikes and things become slightly more dangerous. Bikes colliding with each other or pedestrians can result in occasional instances of broken bones but again in only freak instances, death. So bikes should always yield to pedestrians and be more mindful than they currently are, but it's still fine to have bikes and pedestrians mix somewhat. It's still preferred to have separated cycle tracks and pathways to reduce conflict points. Bikes also don't have the mass to cause more property damage than a person can. Now introduce automobiles into the equation. The consequences of collisions between automobiles and anything are drastic. Even at the same speeds that a person or bike can travel, the mass of a vehicle means property can be destroyed and people can be seriously injured. Yet on our city streets where there are people and things not also protected by a metal box, we allow them to travel at speeds that can result in certain death and destruction. Not getting seriously injured at minimum when in a collision with a vehicle is "being lucky." That's not something normally said about collisions with other modes. None of this even includes how when in a vehicle your senses are reduced or how vehicles can experience sudden mechanical failures. Reintroduce natural human unpredictability into the equation and the obvious and most reasonable course of action should be to do everything possible to protect from potential unpredictability and reduce serious consequences right? Be we don't do that. That would mean making things a little less convenient for drivers. Instead, we put the weight of safety and inconvenience when trying to freely move about the world on the most vulnerable who should have the most right to be unpredictable humans. Trying to go to the shop directly across the street 60' away? Sorry, you have to go 200' to the nearest crosswalk, wait to cross the 60' there, and backtrack another 200' because if you try to cross the 4-lane, 30mph road here, drivers have no obligation to yield and if they hit you it'll likely result in at least serious injury and it'll be entirely your fault. It's ridiculous to put every precaution on one party especially when it's not the one that would be the sole cause of any damage. I'm not saying everyone should be always crossing the middle of the street wherever and whenever. I'm describing a normal, common, regular human behavior scenario that happens and was the norm for all human civilization until about 60 years ago. Obviously, times change and this is the modern age where automobiles exist and are in the hands of most adults. Safety is good, but safety doesn't only go one way where the pedestrian has to check off a list of boxes and go well out of their way while a driver only needs to follow colored lights and somewhat obey a number on a sign to be absolved of any responsibility in a collision. Creating a properly safe and equitable modern urban environment means taking precautions for human behaviors and other externalities that will require inconveniences for all parties involved at differing levels depending on the severity of responsibility they hold in safety. This means that yes, pedestrians should cross at crosswalks on their walk phase where present, but since not all will, roads, where people are around, should be designed to force lower speeds and more attentiveness to surroundings so that in the event of someone crossing where there isn't a crosswalk they will be much more easily seen and the driver will be able to make a sudden stop if need be. Yeah, it's annoying that people can just cross the street making you stop your car but it's only that; annoying. They have not endangered the driver or caused any damage to anything. A driver disobeying rules or lapsing in judgment or focus has potentially serious consequences for everything around them. Therefore disobeying said rules and not being attentive should be treated as such. In a private, protected, climate-controlled machine is the short delay more important than a person's life? And should a person be at great risk of being seriously injured or killed for a decision that doesn't have consequences for anyone else?

London is unique in the UK for its public transit and low car ownership. The rest of the UK's cities seriously lag behind. Rotterdam is known for being the car-centric city of the Netherlands but it still doesn't have a limited access highway to the city center and neither does Berlin.

Boston's downtown and neighborhood centers aren't much different from European counterparts except we still have limited access highways through the city. In that regard, we have far more car-focused downtown access than any European counterpart especially when factoring in the geographic barriers of downtown being a peninsula with random hills and only a mile-wide isthmus connecting back to the rest of the city. Route 1, 1A, 28 (North), I-93, I-90, Storrow, all serve this purpose. There's nothing to compare in most European cities.

In modern Europe and around the world, cities are removing car lanes to reduce car capacity and speed to encourage alternative transportation and create safer streets because that's what's better for the human environment.

Here are some varying arterial transformations:
View attachment 45523View attachment 45524
View attachment 45525View attachment 45526
View attachment 45527View attachment 45528
View attachment 45529View attachment 45530



I've said my peace and I'm no longer going to continue with this. I came here for buses and that's what I'm gonna get back to.

Don't forget that Boston also has MUCH WORSE public transportation than any European city, due to the horrendously low gas prices and gas taxes in Boston, plus the highways in the Boston city center and the waterfront.

There is an entire neighborhood in Boston only 0.5 miles from DOWNTOWN with WORSE bus service than INTERCITY rail in a European country. It doesn't even come close.

https://imgur.com/a/d6TERUJ

 

[#bancars]

Don't forget that Boston also has MUCH WORSE public transportation than any European city, due to the horrendously low gas prices and gas taxes in Boston, plus the highways in the Boston city center and the waterfront.

There is an entire neighborhood in Boston only 0.5 miles from DOWNTOWN with WORSE bus service than INTERCITY rail in a European country. It doesn't even come close.

https://imgur.com/a/d6TERUJ

I think we have it at least better than Leeds

 

[WestMedford]

Don't forget that Boston also has MUCH WORSE public transportation than any European city, due to the horrendously low gas prices and gas taxes in Boston, plus the highways in the Boston city center and the waterfront.

There is an entire neighborhood in Boston only 0.5 miles from DOWNTOWN with WORSE bus service than INTERCITY rail in a European country. It doesn't even come close.

https://imgur.com/a/d6TERUJ

Thanks for reminding us . We appreciate your feedback from not Boston.

 

[Delvin4519]

I think we have it at least better than Leeds

I'm seeing that Boston's MBTA buses are much more limited in geography and frequency than Leeds. Boston might be better, but probably not by that much.

Regional Rail (also known as "Commuter Rail" in North America), is probably much worse in Boston.

CR trains run 2 - 3 hour frequencies on weekends in Boston. In the UK, there is national rail service from Leeds to London UK with several trains within a 3 hour time span, even on Sunday.

(The maps are the same scale, but GTFS for British railways is broken, so it doesn't appear below)
Source: https://www.transit.land/map

 

[737900er]

Almost 2 years after the 71 and 73 started boarding in the Harvard upper busway, this is still here:

The signage in the main lobby is nearly as bad.

If you turn around there's a poster on the pillar that mentions the improvements they're making to the wire system.

Yup, still there. Really doing a great job on the "New signs throughout the busway to meet the latest wayfinding standards" objective too as @Teban54 mentions.
I think the sliding door was working on this occasion, so I'll give them that.

 

[LtKije]

Regional Rail (also known as "Commuter Rail" in North America), is probably much worse in Boston.

CR trains run 2 - 3 hour frequencies on weekends in Boston. In the UK, there is national rail service from Leeds to London UK with several trains within a 3 hour time span, even on Sunday.

Some of these comparison points are getting a bit jumbled I think. While I do believe Leeds has extensive commuter rail, Leeds to London is 200 miles. The fair comparison for that route isn’t MBTA Commuter Rail, it’d be Amtrak to New York, which does have several trains over a 3 hour span, even on Sundays.

 

[Delvin4519]

Some of these comparison points are getting a bit jumbled I think. While I do believe Leeds has extensive commuter rail, Leeds to London is 200 miles. The fair comparison for that route isn’t MBTA Commuter Rail, it’d be Amtrak to New York, which does have several trains over a 3 hour span, even on Sundays.

Leeds has extensive regional rail, not extensive commuter rail.

Locally, there are trains every 10 - 25 minutes to Manchester UK from Leeds UK, even at 12:30 p.m. on Sundays.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Alright, more bus routes. This post will have the rest of the key bus routes, as well as the 86 since I think it's an interesting route, and I've seen a good amount of talk about it.

32:

Takeaways:

• This route is (By far) the most strongly centered around a single terminus. 80% of riders board/alight at Forest Hills.
• Approximately 55% of passengers board/alight at stops within walking distance of Hyde Park/Fairmount and Readville.
• Ridership, particularly ridership going to local stops in between the CR stations, drops off quite dramatically south of Hyde Park
• The highest ridership stops that do not correspond to a CR or Rapid Transit station are Willow Ave/942 Hyde Park, which corresponds with the America's Food Basket, and Cummings Hwy.

My thoughts:

• Another big loss for the CR. I hope you're seeing a pattern. The 32 would likely see its ridership cut in half if CR trains were more frequent and didn't cost $6.50/$7.00 excluding a subway transfer, as opposed to $1.70 or $2.40 including a transfer.
• Ridership may be high enough to support an infill station at Cummins Highway. I haven't actually seen any proposal for this yet, let me know if someone else has more information on this.

71/73

I'll be analyzing these together since they're quite similar, although they don't share enough stops for fitting all the data on one sheet to make sense.

Takeaways:

• Of any of the bus routes looked at so far, these are by far the least used. Compared to the 15, the 3rd least used key bus route, the 71/73 have approximately half the ridership.
• The 73 is used more than the 71.
• These buses are highly commuter focused. They are incredibly well used during peak hours, but surprisingly quiet at other times.
• The busiest stops correspond to termini (Harvard, Waverley, Watertown Sq), Mt Auburn Hospital, but also Homer Ave, which primarily serves the Star Market. (Waverley also has a Star Market)
• On the 73, approximately 60% of westbound boardings come from Harvard Station, while ~40% of alightings come from stops within walking distance of Waverley CR station.

My thoughts:

• Why are these "key bus routes" (Or T routes in the BNRD)? They don't go to areas where a particularly large number of people live, capture a particularly large share of trips, or serve very many major destinations.
• The higher ridership on the 73 was not something I expected. I think I had underestimated the area around Waverley.
• However, ridership data suggests that at least 25% of riders would switch to the Fitchburg line if service were more frequent and more affordable. A trip from Waverley to Harvard via Porter currently costs $8.90 ($6.50 CR fare + $2.40 Subway fare) compared to $1.70 on the bus.
• Ridership on the 71 cannot be easily replaced, and as Watertown is growing into more of a gateway city, this route will likely eclipse the 73 at some point, especially with regional rail and fare reform. This could be an important corridor to watch going forward, time will tell.

77:

Takeaways:

• Unlike the 71/73, the 77 is less commuter focused, with steady ridership even during off-peak hours as well as a larger number of riders traveling against the peak direction.
• Ridership is spread very evenly across the local stops, which suggests that there are relatively few key locations along the route.

My thoughts:

• Any RL extension to Arlington would likely rely on new TOD for much of its ridership.
• Arlington is growing in population, and as such this corridor is another that could become more important in the future.

86:

Takeaways:

• Despite having a much lower frequency, the 86 has average load numbers that rival routes like the 1 and 66, and ridership exceeding routes like the 15 or 77.
• While not as prominent as the 47, there is a noticeable split in ridership at Harvard. Ridership north of Harvard is more similar to the 1 or 66 in that it is very consistent across the day, while ridership south of Harvard has a much more noticeable commuter bump, likely people commuting from Brighton to Cambridge. Both segments feature substantial ridership at all times, however.

My thoughts:

• Why is this not a key bus route, and why is it getting its frequencies cut south of Harvard as part of the BNRD? There is clearly both peak and off peak demand for circumferential service, and the corridor is arguably more suited for this task than the 66.
• An urban ring located closer to the route of the 66 would likely also take many commuters from the 86, while an urban ring that more closely follows the 1 would likely struggle to compete with the 86 on travel times.

111:

Takeaways:

• The average loads on this route are surprisingly low, likely due to the very high frequency of the service.
• While most riders travel to Haymarket, ridership at the stops in central Chelsea is surprisingly high.
• The ridership of the local stops is very high

My thoughts:

• There is clearly sufficient demand for new radial rapid transit, even without new TOD. An orbital line may put a significant load on the OL that could require significantly increased frequencies (And could even justify/allow for branching along the southern end of the line.)
• New rapid transit links should not be created though branching the OL

116/117:
I've included these on a single sheet because they share most of their route and their terminus stations.

Takeaways:

• The ridership pattern is similar to the 111, with very high ridership at one terminus, corresponding with a rapid transit stop, a stop at Chelsea center with very high usage, and a large number of other stops that are also highly used, especially for local stops.
• The sections that are not shared are relatively weakly used, although the 117 features slightly higher ridership at its stops.

My thoughts:

• In terms of rapid transit discussions, I think this route (Or routes, but let's not kid ourselves it's one bus route with a funny weird bit) is most likely to be mostly replaced with rapid transit as part of an urban ring ending at Wonderland.

Having now looked at all the key bus routes, here are some more general thoughts:

• I'd generally put the "Key bus routes" into 3 buckets: Circumferential routes, radial routes somewhat or mostly paralleling existing rail lines, and radial routes that serve areas lacking any other transit options. Bucket #1 features routes that can provide insight into developing an urban ring plan, bucket #3 features routes that could be featured as new lines, branches, or extensions of current lines, and bucket #2, arguably the most interesting, is full of routes that should not be as important as they are, and only exist in their current form because the MBTA cannot (Or will not) effectively utilize current CR lines to provide regular service and reasonable fares. If regional rail were to happen, these routes would likely lose 25%+ of their ridership. This bucket includes the 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, and 73. Notice how many of these routes are close to the Fairmount line. Service improvements along this corridor should be priority #1 in terms of transit projects, over literally everything else. (Although it would probably end up being intertwined somehow with CR electrification)
• An urban ring would need to balance the needs of 1 riders, 66 riders, and 86 riders. Such a balance probably skews geographically more towards 66/86 riders in terms of where stops should be located.
• Is an urban ring too focused on being a ring? Maybe it should be an "Urban horseshoe" instead, taking over ridership in Chelsea, Revere, and Southie/Columbia Point rather than favoring riders going to Seaport or the Airport.

 

[bigeman312]

Alright, more bus routes. This post will have the rest of the key bus routes, as well as the 86 since I think it's an interesting route, and I've seen a good amount of talk about it.
View attachment 45543
32:

Takeaways:

• This route is (By far) the most strongly centered around a single terminus. 80% of riders board/alight at Forest Hills.
• Approximately 55% of passengers board/alight at stops within walking distance of Hyde Park/Fairmount and Readville.
• Ridership, particularly ridership going to local stops in between the CR stations, drops off quite dramatically south of Hyde Park
• The highest ridership stops that do not correspond to a CR or Rapid Transit station are Willow Ave/942 Hyde Park, which corresponds with the America's Food Basket, and Cummings Hwy.

My thoughts:

• Another big loss for the CR. I hope you're seeing a pattern. The 32 would likely see its ridership cut in half if CR trains were more frequent and didn't cost $6.50/$7.00 excluding a subway transfer, as opposed to $1.70 or $2.40 including a transfer.
• Ridership may be high enough to support an infill station at Cummins Highway. I haven't actually seen any proposal for this yet, let me know if someone else has more information on this.

View attachment 45540
View attachment 4554171/73

I'll be analyzing these together since they're quite similar, although they don't share enough stops for fitting all the data on one sheet to make sense.

Takeaways:

• Of any of the bus routes looked at so far, these are by far the least used. Compared to the 15, the 3rd least used key bus route, the 71/73 have approximately half the ridership.
• The 73 is used more than the 71.
• These buses are highly commuter focused. They are incredibly well used during peak hours, but surprisingly quiet at other times.
• The busiest stops correspond to termini (Harvard, Waverley, Watertown Sq), Mt Auburn Hospital, but also Homer Ave, which primarily serves the Star Market. (Waverley also has a Star Market)
• On the 73, approximately 60% of westbound boardings come from Harvard Station, while ~40% of alightings come from stops within walking distance of Waverley CR station.

My thoughts:

• Why are these "key bus routes" (Or T routes in the BNRD)? They don't go to areas where a particularly large number of people live, capture a particularly large share of trips, or serve very many major destinations.
• The higher ridership on the 73 was not something I expected. I think I had underestimated the area around Waverley.
• However, ridership data suggests that at least 25% of riders would switch to the Fitchburg line if service were more frequent and more affordable. A trip from Waverley to Harvard via Porter currently costs $8.90 ($6.50 CR fare + $2.40 Subway fare) compared to $1.70 on the bus.
• Ridership on the 71 cannot be easily replaced, and as Watertown is growing into more of a gateway city, this route will likely eclipse the 73 at some point, especially with regional rail and fare reform. This could be an important corridor to watch going forward, time will tell.

View attachment 45544
77:

Takeaways:

• Unlike the 71/73, the 77 is less commuter focused, with steady ridership even during off-peak hours as well as a larger number of riders traveling against the peak direction.
• Ridership is spread very evenly across the local stops, which suggests that there are relatively few key locations along the route.

My thoughts:

• Any RL extension to Arlington would likely rely on new TOD for much of its ridership.
• Arlington is growing in population, and as such this corridor is another that could become more important in the future.

View attachment 45546
86:

Takeaways:

• Despite having a much lower frequency, the 86 has average load numbers that rival routes like the 1 and 66, and ridership exceeding routes like the 15 or 77.
• While not as prominent as the 47, there is a noticeable split in ridership at Harvard. Ridership north of Harvard is more similar to the 1 or 66 in that it is very consistent across the day, while ridership south of Harvard has a much more noticeable commuter bump, likely people commuting from Brighton to Cambridge. Both segments feature substantial ridership at all times, however.

My thoughts:

• Why is this not a key bus route, and why is it getting its frequencies cut south of Harvard as part of the BNRD? There is clearly both peak and off peak demand for circumferential service, and the corridor is arguably more suited for this task than the 66.
• An urban ring located closer to the route of the 66 would likely also take many commuters from the 86, while an urban ring that more closely follows the 1 would likely struggle to compete with the 86 on travel times.

View attachment 45547
111:

Takeaways:

• The average loads on this route are surprisingly low, likely due to the very high frequency of the service.
• While most riders travel to Haymarket, ridership at the stops in central Chelsea is surprisingly high.
• The ridership of the local stops is very high

My thoughts:

• There is clearly sufficient demand for new radial rapid transit, even without new TOD. An orbital line may put a significant load on the OL that could require significantly increased frequencies (And could even justify/allow for branching along the southern end of the line.)
• New rapid transit links should not be created though branching the OL

View attachment 45560
116/117:
I've included these on a single sheet because they share most of their route and their terminus stations.

Takeaways:

• The ridership pattern is similar to the 111, with very high ridership at one terminus, corresponding with a rapid transit stop, a stop at Chelsea center with very high usage, and a large number of other stops that are also highly used, especially for local stops.
• The sections that are not shared are relatively weakly used, although the 117 features slightly higher ridership at its stops.

My thoughts:

• In terms of rapid transit discussions, I think this route (Or routes, but let's not kid ourselves it's one bus route with a funny weird bit) is most likely to be mostly replaced with rapid transit as part of an urban ring ending at Wonderland.

Having now looked at all the key bus routes, here are some more general thoughts:

• I'd generally put the "Key bus routes" into 3 buckets: Circumferential routes, radial routes somewhat or mostly paralleling existing rail lines, and radial routes that serve areas lacking any other transit options. Bucket #1 features routes that can provide insight into developing an urban ring plan, bucket #3 features routes that could be featured as new lines, branches, or extensions of current lines, and bucket #2, arguably the most interesting, is full of routes that should not be as important as they are, and only exist in their current form because the MBTA cannot (Or will not) effectively utilize current CR lines to provide regular service and reasonable fares. If regional rail were to happen, these routes would likely lose 25%+ of their ridership. This bucket includes the 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, and 73. Notice how many of these routes are close to the Fairmount line. Service improvements along this corridor should be priority #1 in terms of transit projects, over literally everything else. (Although it would probably end up being intertwined somehow with CR electrification)
• An urban ring would need to balance the needs of 1 riders, 66 riders, and 86 riders. Such a balance probably skews geographically more towards 66/86 riders in terms of where stops should be located.
• Is an urban ring too focused on being a ring? Maybe it should be an "Urban horseshoe" instead, taking over ridership in Chelsea, Revere, and Southie/Columbia Point rather than favoring riders going to Seaport or the Airport.

Thanks for posting these!

Sorry if I missed it, but what/when is your data source? You questioned the inclusion of the 71 and 73 as key bus routes, but it’s important to recognize that if your data is from this decade, things are different from when the key bus routes were designated. As a transit data nerd (and former regular 73 rider who went remote during COVID), I’d bet good money that ridership on the 73 is proportionally lower relative to when key bus routes were designated than bus routes that serve a lower income area, like the 28, 15, or 22, for example.

There have also been some minor changes in the bus map and perspective of the map. For example, in the years since, there has been a move towards assessing corridors rather than routes. Back then, the 70/70A were two different bus routes and their individually lower ridership prevented them from being considered key bus routes. Now that the MBTA has woken up to the reality that corridors are a more appropriate thing to assess, as well some minor changes such as the 70 being its own route, the key bus routes would not be designated the same now. In fact, you can see that bear out in the trunk routes of the bus network redesign. I’m happy to see the T71 and T73 remain as trunk routes, but also happy to see that designation extended to corridors like the T70 and the T96.

Thanks for posting. I love reading your stuff as always!

 

[TheRatmeister]

Thanks for posting these!

Sorry if I missed it, but what/when is your data source? You questioned the inclusion of the 71 and 73 as key bus routes, but it’s important to recognize that if your data is from this decade, things are different from when the key bus routes were designated. As a transit data nerd (and former regular 73 rider who went remote during COVID), I’d bet good money that ridership on the 73 is proportionally lower relative to when key bus routes were designated than bus routes that serve a lower income area, like the 28, 15, or 22, for example.

There have also been some minor changes in the bus map and perspective of the map. For example, in the years since, there has been a move towards assessing corridors rather than routes. Back then, the 70/70A were two different bus routes and their individually lower ridership prevented them from being considered key bus routes. Now that the MBTA has woken up to the reality that corridors are a more appropriate thing to assess, as well some minor changes such as the 70 being its own route, the key bus routes would not be designated the same now. In fact, you can see that bear out in the trunk routes of the bus network redesign. I’m happy to see the T71 and T73 remain as trunk routes, but also happy to see that designation extended to corridors like the T70 and the T96.

Thanks for posting. I love reading your stuff as always!

All of the data comes from this mega spreadsheet published by the MBTA. All the actual analysis I've done is basically just =SUMIFS (With some AVERAGEIFS sprinkled in there) a whole bunch of times.

In terms of what's up with the 71 and 73, you're bang on about COVID. (I probably should have looked into that just based on how commuter focused they are.) The 71 and 73 have had by far the worst recovery out of any of the key bus routes/maybe should be key bus routes, with ridership still sitting at under 50% of pre-Covid ridership. That being said, that's still a pretty terrible showing for the 71 in particular. I guess it gets special treatment since it was a trolleybus route? You can also see the routes that have had the best recovery, mainly the 23, 28, the 47 (Which I didn't really expect), 66, and 116/117.

 

[ceo]

With those considerations in mind a full transit (And other essential traffic) conversion of Longwood Ave between Brookline and Huntington probably makes the most sense. I'd suspect adding a bus lane on Francis St still makes sense though, even with Longwood Ave being fully set aside for buses/shuttles/delivery vehicles.

Catching up with this, speaking as a parent whose kid just spent a while at Boston Children's Hospital (he's fine now), you cannot ban private vehicles from Longwood Ave. Most of the time he was there I did take the T back and forth (and was very grateful to live a single T ride away from one of the best pediatric hospitals on the planet), but that's definitely not a practical choice with a kid who is sick or recovering from surgery.

 

[bigeman312]

All of the data comes from this mega spreadsheet published by the MBTA. All the actual analysis I've done is basically just =SUMIFS (With some AVERAGEIFS sprinkled in there) a whole bunch of times.

View attachment 45566
In terms of what's up with the 71 and 73, you're bang on about COVID. (I probably should have looked into that just based on how commuter focused they are.) The 71 and 73 have had by far the worst recovery out of any of the key bus routes/maybe should be key bus routes, with ridership still sitting at under 50% of pre-Covid ridership. That being said, that's still a pretty terrible showing for the 71 in particular. I guess it gets special treatment since it was a trolleybus route? You can also see the routes that have had the best recovery, mainly the 23, 28, the 47 (Which I didn't really expect), 66, 70 and 116/117.

Thanks for the follow-up. I recommend removing the 70 from those findings of “recovery.” Through fall of 2019, the 70 was only one half of the service on the corridor, so its “recovery” is severely bolstered by the fact that it took over for the 70A in December of 2019.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Catching up with this, speaking as a parent whose kid just spent a while at Boston Children's Hospital (he's fine now), you cannot ban private vehicles from Longwood Ave. Most of the time he was there I did take the T back and forth (and was very grateful to live a single T ride away from one of the best pediatric hospitals on the planet), but that's definitely not a practical choice with a kid who is sick or recovering from surgery.

Are there any facilities that patients need to drive to that can only be accessed from Longwood Ave? The main entrance and parking garage are both accessible via Blackfan St. Even if some trips would require using Longwood, there's no reason you can't ban most private vehicles. Boston Children's only has 485 beds, I can't imagine there are that many daily trips by families to/from them. You could use a system where the hospital gives out special bumper stickers, vehicle tags, or some other way to identify specific vehicles that would be allowed to use otherwise bus/delivery only lanes.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Thanks for the follow-up. I recommend removing the 70 from those findings of “recovery.” Through fall of 2019, the 70 was only one half of the service on the corridor, so its “recovery” is severely bolstered by the fact that it took over for the 70A in December of 2019.

Added the 70A to the table, thanks.

 

[bigeman312]

Added the 70A to the table, thanks.

Thanks! I know I’m coming off as nit-picky, but that isn’t quite sufficient either. The 61 now runs part of the old 70A route, so it isn’t a clean 2 -> 1 swap. I honestly recommend not including the 70 in the “COVID recovery” analysis.

Anyways, keep up the good work fellow transit data nerd.

 

[Delvin4519]

Thanks! I know I’m coming off as nit-picky, but that isn’t quite sufficient either. The 61 now runs part of the old 70A route, so it isn’t a clean 2 -> 1 swap. I honestly recommend not including the 70 in the “COVID recovery” analysis.

Anyways, keep up the good work fellow transit data nerd.

Note that there is a pre-COVID schedule to compare to, and that is the MBTA winter 2019-2020 schedule between December 22, 2019, and March 14, 2020.

Route 70 was split from Route 70A on December 22, 2019.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Note that there is a pre-COVID schedule to compare to, and that is the MBTA winter 2019-2020 schedule between December 22, 2019, and March 14, 2020.

Route 70 was split from Route 70A on December 22, 2019.

Unfortunately there isn't data for each schedule. There's "Fall 2019" and "Fall 2020" and that's all you get.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Catching up with this, speaking as a parent whose kid just spent a while at Boston Children's Hospital (he's fine now), you cannot ban private vehicles from Longwood Ave. Most of the time he was there I did take the T back and forth (and was very grateful to live a single T ride away from one of the best pediatric hospitals on the planet), but that's definitely not a practical choice with a kid who is sick or recovering from surgery.

Echoing @TheRatmeister , none of the hospitals have direct patient entrances on Longwood Ave that are not accessible from alternative or cross streets. Blackfan itself would have reduced traffic as well. Since you’d no longer be able to turn on or off it from Longwood, the only traffic that would use Blackfan are vehicles dropping off at children’s, and those going to the parking garages. That would also mean peak traffic times would be reduced in length. That said, if this were to be implemented, I’d imagine there would be a policy in place so that anyone in a serious emergency that understandably didn’t want to incur an ambulance fee and bypassed Blackfan or Binney to use Longwood they would not be fined. Maybe some sort of emergency hotline to alert of your vehicle make/model/plate and reason you need Longwood access. This in conjunction with enforcement only confronting vehicles that used Longwood to access Boston Children’s after exiting the hospital to verify if they had a valid emergency to not use Blackfan.

 

[FK4]

Thanks for posting these!

Sorry if I missed it, but what/when is your data source? You questioned the inclusion of the 71 and 73 as key bus routes, but it’s important to recognize that if your data is from this decade, things are different from when the key bus routes were designated. As a transit data nerd (and former regular 73 rider who went remote during COVID), I’d bet good money that ridership on the 73 is proportionally lower relative to when key bus routes were designated than bus routes that serve a lower income area, like the 28, 15, or 22, for example.

There have also been some minor changes in the bus map and perspective of the map. For example, in the years since, there has been a move towards assessing corridors rather than routes. Back then, the 70/70A were two different bus routes and their individually lower ridership prevented them from being considered key bus routes. Now that the MBTA has woken up to the reality that corridors are a more appropriate thing to assess, as well some minor changes such as the 70 being its own route, the key bus routes would not be designated the same now. In fact, you can see that bear out in the trunk routes of the bus network redesign. I’m happy to see the T71 and T73 remain as trunk routes, but also happy to see that designation extended to corridors like the T70 and the T96.

Thanks for posting. I love reading your stuff as always!

I imagine the four former trackless trolley lines as being once sort of “green lines for the Cambridge side”, and going back to a time when Cambridge itself was very different than it is today. This is based on nothing but observation since growing up around here, but Cambridge especially Harvard Square used to have a much more robust independent feeling—an endless number of small, independent businesses and shops and services that don’t really exist anymore. Now, there’s Harvard, of course, but other than that it feels very hollowed out, employment opportunity wise, unless you’re looking to bus tables or something similar. Take into account the fact that Belmont and Watertown used to be very affordable neighborhoods as well. So while this may be partly biased by romanticization here, I imagine that in, say, 1985, you had much lower pressures on small businesses in and around Harvard Sq and the adjacent squares, and much lower pressures to home buying in Belmont etc, and that the 73 and 71 probably carried a lot more semi local traffic headed to the Harvard Sq part of Cambridge and not further afield. Think of how much more affluent Belmont has become and who lives there now, and where they likely work. I just think that these used to be much more hyper local street car neighborhoods than they are now and that pattern probably persisted well into the late 20th century. At any rate my guess is that now it’s mostly biotech and finance people heading to Kendall or downtown Boston, rather than petit bourgeoisie who’ve been mostly driven out of the Boston core neighborhoods.

Fwiw, I had to fairly regularly get to Cushing Sq back in the day from JP, and would take the OL-RL-73. It was pretty good time for the miles traversed. It would be great if Belmont could increase density along Trapelo (and Watertown along Mt Auburn) since I think the 73 and 71 would be prime true BRT lines.

 

[737900er]

Going back to the 1990 Blue Book, the 71/73 were never doing huge ridership. 77/A alone was much bigger. 86 seems to have really moved up the rankings though.
With today's by-stop ridership data we can see that the ridership is oriented towards the junction at Star Market and the branches than the shared trunk.