Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Teban54]

Getting rid of Newtonville isn’t ideal as it’s the busiest of the Newton stops by far and has key destinations at it but its proximity to Newton Corner and the increased and more frequent bus connections there outweigh the negatives of removing Newtonville.

There's actually not much of "increased and more frequent bus connections" at Newtonville, even in the Bus Network Redesign (BNRD).

The BNRD has routes 56, 58 and 59 stop at Newtonville station. However, they provide similar service levels compared to today's 553, 554, 556 and 59:

• Both the 56 and the 58 have 50-min frequencies all day, even during peak hours, for a combined average frequency of 25 mins. This is at best a sidegrade, and at worst a downgrade over today's 553, 554 and 556, which collectively operate 9 inbound trips between 6:30am and 9:08am, for an average peak frequency of ~20 mins (albeit uncoordinated, with a 49-min gap between 7:38am and 8:27am).
• The 59 is listed as 25-min frequencies during peak, but it's only a minor improvement from today (30 min during peak).
• All these routes only go as far east as Newton Corner and/or Watertown, so you'd still have to transfer to Commuter Rail at Newton Corner (which, in the Reasonable Transit Pitches world here, will probably only have :30 freqs at best), express buses (501, 504) or local Frequent Bus Routes (T57, T70, T71). The latter two options already exist today, so they're independent of Commuter Rail service.

So even in a world where Newton Corner gets a (much-needed) CR station, I'd argue it doesn't justify removing Newtonville as nothing has been offered to compensate. Newtonville is a 22-min walk to Newton Corner and a 26-min walk to West Newton, so considering the density and that none of them are P&R-heavy stations, those distances are just a bit too far.

 

[Koopzilla24]

There's actually not much of "increased and more frequent bus connections" at Newtonville, even in the Bus Network Redesign (BNRD)...

So even in a world where Newton Corner gets a (much-needed) CR station, I'd argue it doesn't justify removing Newtonville as nothing has been offered to compensate. Newtonville is a 22-min walk to Newton Corner and a 26-min walk to West Newton, so considering the density and that none of them are P&R-heavy stations, those distances are just a bit too far.

The thing with the BNRD is it doesn’t consider a regional rail station at Newton Corner so there’s no reason for there to have been a change in service to facilitate Newtonville disappearing. But I was also going off of the thought if it as a slow stinky less frequent diesel CR station rather than electrified regional rail. So the close proximity to Newtonville point becomes moot with regional rail or better yet, urban rail to Riverside. That’s something that may still be in the realm of reasonable as the Worcester Line is ~#2 on the priority list for electrification.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

I guess Auburndale to Rockport is just a pipe dream. Sigh.

What's funny is that I'm upset with the MBTA in a future that I created (oh, Photoshop you devil).

 

[Smuttynose]

This is debatably reasonable, but I couldn't find a moderate transit pitches forum, so...

I would love to do something big with Mass Ave from the South End to Central/Harvard Area. The #1 bus is the fifth most heavily utilized route in the system which is pretty remarkable as those busses sit in gridlock most of the day. This stretch is pretty hellish to drive in or sit in a bus in during most of the day. I'm not sure if there's a way to move busses/trains measurably more efficiently short of burying them in a tunnel. It's a reasonably wide right-of-way (similar to Washington). Is it feasible to squeeze a centerline bus-only route down the middle and eliminate traffic lights at some of the intersections at minor streets (i.e. Beacon, Marlborough, Belvidere, Shawmut, St. Bodolph, Harrison, etc.) killing left-turns or through traffic on the minor street in the process to try to speed things up a bit? Are there any politically palatable mechanisms to discourage/reduce auto traffic?

This corridor stands out because there is already a proven/established transit base using the very slow #1 bus route and adding a branch from Andrew would provide connections to nine rapid transit stations and six different routes - Fairmount, Red, Silver, Orange, Green-E, Green B,C,D - functioning as kind of short, efficient inner urban ring.

Right now I feel like the corridor tries to do everything -- parking, travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, bus stops, wide sidewalks, deliveries, double-parking -- and just kind of fails at everything in the process.

 

[Charlie_mta]

This is debatably reasonable, but I couldn't find a moderate transit pitches forum, so...

I would love to do something big with Mass Ave from the South End to Central/Harvard Area. The #1 bus is the fifth most heavily utilized route in the system which is pretty remarkable as those busses sit in gridlock most of the day. This stretch is pretty hellish to drive in or sit in a bus in during most of the day. I'm not sure if there's a way to move busses/trains measurably more efficiently short of burying them in a tunnel. It's a reasonably wide right-of-way (similar to Washington). Is it feasible to squeeze a centerline bus-only route down the middle and eliminate traffic lights at some of the intersections at minor streets (i.e. Beacon, Marlborough, Belvidere, Shawmut, St. Bodolph, Harrison, etc.) killing left-turns or through traffic on the minor street in the process to try to speed things up a bit? Are there any politically palatable mechanisms to discourage/reduce auto traffic?

This corridor stands out because there is already a proven/established transit base using the very slow #1 bus route and adding a branch from Andrew would provide connections to nine rapid transit stations and six different routes - Fairmount, Red, Silver, Orange, Green-E, Green B,C,D - functioning as kind of short, efficient inner urban ring.

Right now I feel like the corridor tries to do everything -- parking, travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, bus stops, wide sidewalks, deliveries, double-parking -- and just kind of fails at everything in the process.

View attachment 38293

It is insane that there aren't reserved bus lanes along the no. 1 route on Mass Ave between Cambridge City Hall and Albany St (in Boston). Centerline bus lanes could fit if much of the on-street parking were eliminated. The Mass Ave bridge over the Charles would be tight, but if new sidewalks were cantilevered over the sides of the bridge, with the existing sidewalks converted to bike lanes, there would be room.

 

[dhawkins]

It is insane that there aren't reserved bus lanes along the no. 1 route on Mass Ave between Cambridge City Hall and Albany St (in Boston). Centerline bus lanes could fit if much of the on-street parking were eliminated. The Mass Ave bridge over the Charles would be tight, but if new sidewalks were cantilevered over the sides of the bridge, with the existing sidewalks converted to bike lanes, there would be room.

The sidewalks are on cantilever already! I don't know if that was original or if it was constructed that way in the last renovation (90s)? I think the overhang was added because I noticed a difference in the bridge over the years. To my eye, it appears to be less bulky / lighter because it hides the granite piers below, the sidewalk overhang makes it appear to be floating over the water. The bus lane thru Cambridge has been honored in the passed couple years. I commute through mass Ave/ MIT some days and there are few people using the bus lane believe it or not. The traffic lights could be timed better, but traffic keeps moving.

 

[Koopzilla24]

This is debatably reasonable, but I couldn't find a moderate transit pitches forum, so...

I would love to do something big with Mass Ave from the South End to Central/Harvard Area. The #1 bus is the fifth most heavily utilized route in the system which is pretty remarkable as those busses sit in gridlock most of the day. This stretch is pretty hellish to drive in or sit in a bus in during most of the day. I'm not sure if there's a way to move busses/trains measurably more efficiently short of burying them in a tunnel. It's a reasonably wide right-of-way (similar to Washington). Is it feasible to squeeze a centerline bus-only route down the middle and eliminate traffic lights at some of the intersections at minor streets (i.e. Beacon, Marlborough, Belvidere, Shawmut, St. Bodolph, Harrison, etc.) killing left-turns or through traffic on the minor street in the process to try to speed things up a bit? Are there any politically palatable mechanisms to discourage/reduce auto traffic?

Beacon itself is too major of an intersection because of the (unfortunate) Storrow Dr. access and people that think driving to Fenway events is a good idea. Killing through traffic or left turns is good for speeding up vehicle traffic but it’d limit the already difficult pedestrian and bike crossing of Mass Ave bus eliminating the crossing phase.

Doing mini roundabouts at the minor intersections could work with proper approach profiling to slow traffic speeds. That’d maintain through capabilities but eliminate unneeded signals for minimal minor street traffic. At the same time the parking lanes can be removed and turned into larger protected bike lanes and a part of a bus lane with stop bump outs.

(Drew these on my phone from Marlborough and St. Botolph so messy but to illustrate the point)

The problems that arise with having roundabouts though are with the major intersections and the backups resulting from them. Beacon St could be another roundabout but maybe eliminating through traffic would be best there. There aren’t too many left turns but with the elimination of the street parking at that corner there may be room for a dedicated turn lane? Mass and Comm can be right turns and straight on Mass Ave only, no need for the light other than a possible pedestrian crossing cycle. Raise the whole intersection to create a crossing table while at it. The same can be done with Huntington but that’s a bit more complicated with it being the connecting route to I-90 (dumb place for a highway exit). The rest of Mass Ave is wide enough to Albany to have bus and protected bike with either eliminating/shrinking the Median, not good for pedestrian crossing, or doing so to parking.

 

[Charlie_mta]

The sidewalks are on cantilever already! I don't know if that was original or if it was constructed that way in the last renovation (90s)? I think the overhang was added because I noticed a difference in the bridge over the years. To my eye, it appears to be less bulky / lighter because it hides the granite piers below, the sidewalk overhang makes it appear to be floating over the water. The bus lane thru Cambridge has been honored in the passed couple years. I commute through mass Ave/ MIT some days and there are few people using the bus lane believe it or not. The traffic lights could be timed better, but traffic keeps moving.

The bridge probably needs additional piers to widen it. In any case, yes, there are intermittent bus lanes on one side of Mass Ave or the other, here and there. But there is sufficient width on Mass Ave (except for the stretch from Cambridge City Hall to Harvard Square) for center-running bus lanes plus, in each direction, one lane for general traffic and a bike lane. This is one of the very major bus routes on the system and it should be public policy to have dedicated bus lanes on major routes where the street width allows it

 

[sneijder]

The bridge probably needs additional piers to widen it. In any case, yes, there are intermittent bus lanes on one side of Mass Ave or the other, here and there. But there is sufficient width on Mass Ave (except for the stretch from Cambridge City Hall to Harvard Square) for center-running bus lanes plus, in each direction, one lane for general traffic and a bike lane. This is one of the very major bus routes on the system and it should be public policy to have dedicated bus lanes on major routes where the street width allows it

On such a major thoroughfare street parking should be eliminated along the entire length (with exception of some loading zones). I'm honestly not even sure if bus lanes would do much good here (cars will constantly be spilling into it due to all the intersections/traffic lights. It might be more realistic to turn this corridor into a bike "superhighway" with a few additional Blue bike stations along the route and beefing up the few remaining sections of unprotected bike lane. Hopefully that encourages mode shift from cars (rather than just pulling bus users onto bikes).

 

[Charlie_mta]

On such a major thoroughfare street parking should be eliminated along the entire length (with exception of some loading zones). I'm honestly not even sure if bus lanes would do much good here (cars will constantly be spilling into it due to all the intersections/traffic lights. It might be more realistic to turn this corridor into a bike "superhighway" with a few additional Blue bike stations along the route and beefing up the few remaining sections of unprotected bike lane. Hopefully that encourages mode shift from cars (rather than just pulling bus users onto bikes).

I like that idea except bus lanes are still needed for the winter months (when bike riding is problematic) plus for people who physically can't ride a bike. The width of pretty much all of Mass Ave, from just West of Central Square Cambridge to Albany St in Boston, is 60+ feet. Eliminate all street parking and you have enough width for two bus lanes, one general traffic lane each direction, and bike lanes. The only tight spots would be to fit in islands for the bus stops next to the bus lanes, where some kind of lane sharing could be done for those short stretches. Columbus Ave in Boston with it's new center bus lanes is a great model for many wide streets in the Boston area, and Mass Ave is definitely one.