Reasonable Transit Pitches

So, inspired by a paper on BRT that I'm working on for school and the recent posts about Fenway station in the Landmark thread, would it be a good idea to build some pre-payment structures for some of the busier, above ground Green Line stations?

Like this thing:
r46IEpW.jpg
 
No. It would be a better idea to not waste money on head houses and implement a proof of purchase payment system instead.
 
No. It would be a better idea to not waste money on head houses and implement a proof of purchase payment system instead.

I can't begin to emphasize this enough.

It's funny, we just had a thread discussing why the Alt1 selected for Chelsea is pie-in-the-sky because of expensive, lavish stations. And how we need to end this kind of monument building in order to get budgets under control, and start building effective transit.

But it comes right back around.

I can't see the rest of the BRT station you posted one pic of, but it already looks like a cramped tunnel with potential passenger flow conflicts. The reason we build cramped tunnels underground is because they are underground. No reason to bring that kind of constraint aboveground too.
 
Well, there's also the getting people out of weather advantage...
 
The only reason to build prepayment stations on GLX is because:

1) Lots of them are either elevated on overpasses or under-street in the Lowell Line cut, necessitating single egresses. It's not like any of these are Longwood on the D where you can just amble over to the tracks.

2) They figure ridership will be high enough to merit faregates as crowd and dwell time control. And they're probably right.

3) 4-car trains are the future, so if you're going to be swallowing large crowds on a routing that serves every mainline subway station...save the onboard fares until post-Kenmore when the crowds thin out. Also goes to Reason #2.

4) Compatibility with future heavy rail conversion, if that's ever needed. Although this is probably not a big one.

5) *Theoretically*, on way off-peak the Charlies + security cams could leave these stations unstaffed. Fare evasion problem?...random-sample the tapes and assign Transit Police patrol frequencies to the problem stations and problem hours. Or...wait till the cameras get good enough to do facial recognition and I bet that fare evasion problem starts to dry up.



Of course, all of these are a bit weak with possible exception of #2 at peak hours. And the utter self-defeatingness of their fare evasion crackdowns like resisting POP, killing their own schedules with front-door boarding, and not embracing the nat'l security state like the rest of the world is with camming up every nook and cranny flies straight in the face of all this.

They don't need more prepayment stations if it's not a subway station or an uber-ridership stop that's already staffed (e.g. I can see this working at Riverside since it's at Green Line headquarters, or tapping faregates at the Harvard busway for the same staffing reasons). If anything, they need less of it. And definitely need to stay the hell away from it on anything that's a non-fixed route like any rubber tires outside the Transitway.


But alas...the monument-building temptress. Such beautiful glass headhouses you can forgive yourself for building if only there were a couple Charlie gates to majestically enclose.
 
(I think I've mentioned this idea before, but never really got a feel for whether it's a good idea or not...)

We've talked about the need for a B-line turnback after Harvard Ave to keep headways up for the busier segment of the line. What if instead of a turnback they graft a short spur to Brighton Center?

My assumption is that the A Line isn't coming back. Warren Street has no street parking and almost no residences or businesses directly abutting the line = no resistance. And a median can be built on the very short segment of Cambridge Street by removing just one side of street parking, which currently exists on both sides. The loop would be the current Wirt Street police parking lot... a deck could simply be built over the turnback to maintain the current parking situation for the station.

wRXhw6f.jpg
 
The Brighton suburbanites would scream. Washington Street gets badly congested during rush hour because mode share has shifted heavily towards cars over the last few decades.

Regarding a spur though, perhaps St. Elizabeth's could be interested in making space for one. Similar to the VA Hospital, they might like being the terminus of a branch, and they have room to spare. Too bad they already did a bunch of parking garages though.

But either way, this implies cutting frequencies to the outer portion of the "B" branch and I'm not sure that's really palatable.
 
(I think I've mentioned this idea before, but never really got a feel for whether it's a good idea or not...)

We've talked about the need for a B-line turnback after Harvard Ave to keep headways up for the busier segment of the line. What if instead of a turnback they graft a short spur to Brighton Center?

My assumption is that the A Line isn't coming back. Warren Street has no street parking and almost no residences or businesses directly abutting the line = no resistance. And a median can be built on the very short segment of Cambridge Street by removing just one side of street parking, which currently exists on both sides. The loop would be the current Wirt Street police parking lot... a deck could simply be built over the turnback to maintain the current parking situation for the station.

wRXhw6f.jpg


The residents will block it cold. And a single loop allows for no storage, which is the same reason Heath (which can at least park 1 set on the second loop) is a perpetually delicate, low-margin dance to dispatch out of Lechmere yard.

But it's also not necessary if/when the state ever puts the Comm Ave. Packards-Warren reconstruction back on the table. It's a basic Beacon St. Brookline setup they're aiming for with the elimination of the batshit local + express lane setup. Beacon averages 145-150 ft. wide sidewalk-to-sidewalk, 4 travel lanes, turning lanes at every single intersection, parallel parking on both sides, angled left-side parking in the WB direction with safe turnout space, and trolley reservation wide enough to have tree plantings its whole length. Comm Ave. is 185 ft. wide between Fordham and Griggs, 2 x 2 express lanes with concrete median, trolley reservation, 2 local lanes with angled parking on each and concrete median, and a second parking row on the EB local lanes that's parallel on some blocks and both-sides angled on others.

Put that in the same lane 2 x 2 + turning lanes roadway setup as Beacon and you've got a huge reservation + equivalent parking capacity as the current fucked-up Comm Ave. with none of the pedestrian insanity or tight parking dance around double-parked delivery trucks. Harvard Ave. will end up with one of the most spacious platforms of any surface stop with the much-expanded room available in the center, which it badly needs with how overstuffed the narrow current platforms get with kids hanging off the railings nearly getting side-swiped by trucks in the local lanes.

Do that, and maybe eliminate the Gorham St. median cut and there's 950 ft. between Harvard and Griggs for a center Blandford-style pocket track with storage for 4 four-car trainsets and multiple crossovers for slipping them efficiently in- and out-of-service. Plus enough space to do a decent-size crew layover hut. Considering Cleveland Circle does an efficient all-day shuffle from 2 small 1-trainset tail tracks without needing to loop at the carhouse, you get the idea of how much capacity and headway-straightening that can add. It's way more flexible than any loop idea in the area.


Since this is a MassHighway project and final design hasn't been released, the T doesn't have anything to work with yet or comment on. But it's a given the space will be there since the roadway has a good 40 ft. extra width than Beacon. If/when public meetings ever start on this, that's the time to carpet-bomb the T with demand to take advantage of the space for more nimble inner-B service. If they predictably come into the meetings with no plans here.

Keep in mind, it is not a natural condition for the B to have no inner turnback. They had Braves Field (later "BU") Loop on Agganis Way next to the old Armory until 1962, the load-spreading A until '69, Union Sq. loop to turn aborted runs until '69, and the emergency turnout on the A stub for disabled trains until '02. Until '53 when the Braves left town they also had a gameday practice of lining all of the Brighton Ave. A trackage between Harvard and Packards with a dozen or more parked trolleys in a row Blandford/Sox-style, and temp-rerouted the A up connecting Harvard Ave. trackage from B/Harvard Ave. for the duration of game hours. The first 70 or so years of Boston's now- 121-year-old first electric streetcar line there were revenue turnbacks in this vicinity--multiple turnbacks for most of that span--and for 110 of those years there's been disabled-train turnouts here. This zero-margin-for-error nuttery on the B is a historically recent phenomenon. They should feel some sustained and intense public pressure to address this.
 
Last edited:
So, when discussions of 24-hour MBTA service are brought up, one area in particular that gets a lot of attention is East Boston, due to its poor access to the rest of the city. Would it be at all reasonable to run one small segment of the Blue Line (Airport-Gov't Center, say?) later than the rest of the system? Admittedly this is in one of the oldest tunnels in the system, but they don't need that much frequency and could single-track.
 
Not sure how the electrical system is wired and whether one track can go out of service while the other is live. It is feasible to do so, and is done in other places. But a bus could work more easily.
 
Yes. They can do single-track ops. But there's not much point to doing so because the headways are far too limited and the track staff has Friday and Saturday overnights off. A surface bus would probably work better. Or just extending regular hours to 2:00am on Fri. and Sat..

As for Airport...just continue SL1 into the wee hours. There's no traffic that late at night. Maybe loop it at Maverick Sq. after the terminals to approximate the only other Blue Line stop out there likely to get any utilization at those hours.
 
Yes please. While I would still need a cab to get to/from South Station for those early morning/late night flights, it should be much cheaper.
 
Here's a reasonable pitch: put CT1, CT2, and CT3 on the fucking subway map. How is this a Phase 0.5 Urban Ring without being on the map? More like Phase 0.25!
 
20-minute headways and last service at 7pm? No thanks!
 
20-minute headways and last service at 7pm? No thanks!

If they were marketed better, they'd need better headways. They also are either redundant, or compliment multiple routes, thus diminishing their true value. For example: 1 and CT1, 47/91 and CT2, and 8 and CT3. But I think we should make no mistake, they have potential to make it to Urban Ring Phase I status, if they're treated as such. Although I'd like to skip over Phase I and dive right into a full on Phase III heavy rail subway.... but at any rate, the MBTA needs to work with what it's got. And what it's got is some dysfunctional CT buses that need a boost and fine tuning.
 
I don't think that the UR will ever be "heavy rail subway." Dedicated ROW Light Rail is the best we're going to get for the northern/western half. The southern half may never be railed.
 
Speaking of the CT1, we really need more limited stop bus routes (with light-rail like spacing).

For example:

70L:
Central Square Cambridge - Putnam St - HBS - N Harvard St - New Charlesview - Watertown/Arsenal Mall - The Arsenal - Watertown Square - Waverley St - Waltham/Watertown border - Waltham Common

111L: Haymarket - Downtown Chelsea - Bellingham Square

57L: Kenmore, Packard's Corner, Union Square, Brighton Center, Oak Square, Newton Corner, Watertown Yard

77L: Harvard - Porter - Rindge - Alewife Brook Pkwy - Arlington Center

86L: Sullivan - Union - Harvard - Stadium - Western - New Charlesview - N. Beacon - Brighton Center - Commonwealth - Cleveland Circle

66L: Harvard - Stadium - Western Ave - Union Square - Comm Ave - Coolidge Corner - Brookline Village - Brigham Circle - Roxbury Crossing - Dudley

28L, 39L, 9L, I don't know these routes well but they should exist
 
Careful, "light rail like spacing" in Boston means every other block ;)

Truth be told, I'm not sure of the utility of such "limited" stopping patterns in all those cases. The big slowdown on the heavily ridden routes comes from lack of capacity, which causes buses dwell overly long at stops, and then bunch up. Probably better to put those "limited" resources towards higher frequencies.

Plus, the "limited" buses will just get stuck behind the locals on many streets. Maybe if they took a different route in some cases it would be better.
 
Careful, "light rail like spacing" in Boston means every other block ;)

Truth be told, I'm not sure of the utility of such "limited" stopping patterns in all those cases. The big slowdown on the heavily ridden routes comes from lack of capacity, which causes buses dwell overly long at stops, and then bunch up. Probably better to put those "limited" resources towards higher frequencies.

Plus, the "limited" buses will just get stuck behind the locals on many streets. Maybe if they took a different route in some cases it would be better.


All good points. Here is a link to a planning document from the TTC in Toronto to show how a larger peer agency does things:
http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Service_Summary_2013_11_24.pdf

Compared to the MBTA, Toronto has quite a few bus routes that operate at intense high frequencies in the peak (buses every 2-4 minutes) and they make greater use of short-turns, running the most intense service along the main trunk of a route. The MBTA has increased the use of short-turns on key routes in recent years (the 57/57A, the 111/111C) but its still not nearly as common as the Toronto comparison.
Just looking in a little more detail at one of the MBTA routes mentioned: The frequency of the 66 in the peak is only every 8 minutes in the morning peak (not counting all the extra trips they operate to Brighton High to accommodate the intense student ridership) and every 10 minutes in the evening peak.
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/bus/routes/?route=66

If the MBTA had the funding, there is quite a lot of opportunity to improve frequencies to be comparable to what you might find on the same type of route in Toronto. But funding is the key, for many years the MBTA's bi-annual service plan process has assumed the total hours of service must be a zero-sum game, so if bus service is added one place, it must be removed some place else to pay for it.
 

Back
Top