Reasonable Transit Pitches

Commuting Boston Student said:
You've done a very good job in outlining all the separate projects/enhancements that need to be completed and open for business before we can actually take over the Grand Junction. Some of these projects can be lumped together under a single unified banner and most of them are all things that needed to happen 15 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that there's absolutely a rather frighteningly long checklist of stuff to get done with before the Urban Ring can proceed.
Click to expand...

Yes...but nearly all of them are happening regardless of a GJ project.

-- Southside will be getting a maint facility of its own because BET is overloaded with the system's growth. It definitely doesn't have the space to lump DMU heavy maint on top of all else, so we've already hit 'trigger' for a southside facility build. So long as the site selection and building configuration leaves lots of expansion space to add to the facility later (no-brainer, because if they ever add electrics that'll require a new wing) this is happening. And can scale up.

-- Ditto the storage space with the efforts to relocate the cold storage building at Widett Circle, possible use of Beacon Park, and possible future relocations @ Widett of the BTD tow lot and Boston Food Market. Southside will get more storage space than the northside. This is happening, and can scale up.

-- Every new vehicle purchase cycle adds to the fleet. Exercising the Rotem coach option order would give them full flex to bank a few Bombardier single-levels as a reserve or specialty conversions (bike car, Cape Flyer cafe car). The DMU's are not displacing any push-pull equipment because the daily push-pull usage stays the same (except for the meager Fairmount contingent getting scattered elsewhere. RIDOT is increasing its % ownership of the fleet, allowing better economy of cost scale on each purchase. This is happening, and can scale up.

-- The Worcester Branch is in the State Freight and Rail plan for upgrades: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/17/docs/freightplan/MAFreightPlanSeptember2010v2.pdf. See p. 46 of the document. It needs this for freight only because it's a heavy-use interchange between Pan Am and CSX and the primary autorack route for Massachusetts. Now, it's behind mainline improvements to Pan Am, P&W, and NECR in the priority queue, but since all of those are 2015-2020 projects this will be a 2020-2022 target. The increase in rail weight pretty much will ensure the pure shit infrastructure gets upgraded enough to support 25 MPH freight/35 MPH passenger. This is happening, and it gets taken care of from freight-only MassDOT funds so it's not coming from the T's budget.


All that leaves left on the RR side are the paperwork stuff like freight re-routes and Amtrak/Downeaster maint. Then making sure the facility and fleet expansions scale up enough to provide adequate north vs. south separation. The base builds happen on a timetable shorter than the earliest conceivable design for an Urban Ring conversion. The only additional dependencies are the follow-through on acquiring the last of the Widett storage space and adding onto the (likely Readville) maint building to be self-sufficient on all the southside coaches. Those are not big costs when the rest is in place.

The big one is going to be the Red and Orange improvements to square the on-peak transfer times to NS and Kendall with the existing off-peak times. That is the major-major follow-through that all the dire predictions say is necessary by 2030 or else downtown locks solid. So that's a wholly independent issue from Urban Ring project scope needing wholly independent motivation to get it done. CBTC, 3 min. headways, reliable vehicles, flow/egress improvements at the overstuffed transfer stations, and load-spreading links (at bare minimum Red-Blue).


But did I not specifically say this can't all happen in a one tactical nuclear strike? All that stuff that is happening is on its own schedules, with its own stakeholders. The vehicle procurements only happen once every few years, take 3 or 4 years to procure after signing a contract, and have to get programmed into the fiscal year budgets 2 or 3 years ahead of that. The next big one (retirement of all remaining single-level coaches and all 1980's-90's locomotives) times at 2020. There are labor agreement things to square before that Readville building they're going to build can get staffed.

You can't just say "DO IT ALL NOW!" when bureaucratically it's impossible to accelerate some of that timing-specific and logistics-specific stuff. I keep saying this; you keep doubling-down on your denial of this. It doesn't fucking work that way. You can't dictate it to work that way. Again...how do you plan to get elected Planning God and "make it so"? Answer that for us before the next time you stamp your feet about this with indignation.

Now, I'm not calling for the full trench like some other posters because it is a massive overbuild and more trouble than its worth, in the context of a half-assed Diet Urban Ring to replace the satisfying full-bodied taste of an Urban Ring Classic.

But undertaking comparatively smaller projects to zap the Mass Ave, Cambridge St, and Medford St crossings (and, if possible, Binney by just dead-ending Binney) gets rid of three (or four) out of six grade crossings and improves the situation substantially. You're down to two (okay, the worst two) crossings, but they're both within close proximity of each other. You might then be able to run an extended glorified passing siding through here in such a way that two trains can move through the crossings going in the opposite direction at the same time, and you can then time it out so that the crossing is only blocked for 30~60 seconds, every 15 minutes or so. Not great, but a fraction of the cost of the megatrench and will last us 35 years.
Click to expand...
What part of my explanation of "the lesser crossings don't matter until the #1 limiter is solved" do you not understand here? There is NO gain from a "smaller project" as long as Mass Ave., Main, and Broadway exist. None. It's lighting money on fire for pure Transit OCD aesthetics and diluting the focus and resources from a permanent solution. It is not checking something off a to-do list. It is not even established that you have to get rid of anything more than Mass Ave. on LRT or BRT to achieve the full headways of those modes. So why are we wasting our time with "must be so's" that don't fucking matter.

And did I not say sinking Mass Ave. crossing is not a transit project that the T can initiate? MassHighway + MIT. That's a separate thread altogether. You cannot hang a grand DMU vision on that as a project requirement, only pounce on it if the other parties do it for campus or road reasons. And furthermore, Main and Broadway then become the limiters...significant ones at that likewise preventing 15 min. headways. And it is equally superfluous fluff to check off Cambridge, Medford, or Binney with those as the service limiters. The traffic counts in the study show that in plain numbers.


It does not matter how often facts get cited, CBS, when every time you just cover your ears and double-down on the "must be so's" in your own head. You won't accept the traffic counts listed plain as day. You won't accept the concept of headway-limiting crossings. You won't accept that DMU's are not capable of rapid transit headways. You won't accept that we have two union stations mixing all manner of traffic.

There's nothing more to discuss if you refuse to substantiate your counterpoints with anything more than intensity of belief.

We want it to last us 35 years - because that's how long it's going to take us to get through the laundry list of railroad projects pre-requisite to Grand Junction closure - at which point, we pay again to upgrade this thing to the full-fat Urban Ring. Sure, we paid twice when we didn't have to. But in paying the first time, we got a stop-gap measure to extend "good enough" transit over this thing and hold us over for the next 35 years. It isn't worth paying for if stop-gap patch-ups are what the Grand Junction gets as transit forever, but I'm arguing that it's worth paying extra to have the appetizer 35 years ahead of the main course.

Who knows? Maybe, against all odds, it takes off like a rocket to the moon and causes everything else to fall into place just a little bit faster, greased by proven demand.
Click to expand...
And see all of the above. You won't accept the validity of empirical data. What are you substantiating this with beyond your own intensity of belief? There's no discussion taking place here when facts get trumped by one's own transit religion. I'm all out of ideas. Either live in your bubble or join the real fact-based world. It's your choice alone.
 
Interrupting your scheduled program, I have a question for those with more knowledge about bus operations:

Could the 1 and the 77 be combined into a super-route?

Similarly, could the 32 and the 39 be combined into a super-route?

My first impression:

Pros:
  • Two-seat rides become one-seat rides.
  • Better connectivity from suburban areas (Arlington, Lexington, Roslindale, Hyde Park) to the core (Back Bay, Central Subway)).

Cons:
  • Overwhelming bus ridership on the busiest routes.
  • Bus routes that are so long they would be impossible to dispatch and would be even more succeptible to bunching.
 
bigeman312 said:
Interrupting your scheduled program, I have a question for those with more knowledge about bus operations:

Could the 1 and the 77 be combined into a super-route?
Similarly, could the 32 and the 39 be combined into a super-route?
My first impression:

Pros:
  • Two-seat rides become one-seat rides.
  • Better connectivity from suburban areas (Arlington, Lexington, Roslindale, Hyde Park) to the core (Back Bay, Central Subway)).
Cons:
  • Overwhelming bus ridership on the busiest routes.
  • Bus routes that are so long they would be impossible to dispatch and would be even more succeptible to bunching.
Click to expand...

The 77-to-Subway connection works pretty well, so it is hard to say you're doing this for Cambridge-bound Arlingtonians, and do folks on the 1 need to go beyond Harvard Square?

I'd want both the 77 and the 1 to have signal priority for most of their route, and for the 77 to get a dedicated, rush-direction curb lane through Porter Sq (and the 1 probably needs similar, but I don't know it as well).

Without signal priority, yes, the cons of bus bunching and schedule reliability would be out of control, and frankly both should have them now (and we'd figure out later whether to put them together)

But it can be done, or at least RIPTA (Providence) thinks so, since it is basically doing something closely analogous to the 1 + 77 by taking their two busiest lines and joining them end-to-end. (see http://www.ripta.com/r-line-). I hope it succeeds, because it has been a fast&cheap mix of stop consolidation and signal priority--I hope it becomes the poster child for Reasonable Transit Pitches.

Is there a lot of Through-Harvard demand? Beyond Porter, its all residential. I'd guess the 1's patrons are better served on the Red Line beyond Harvard.

I can see how an Arlingtonian would want 1 service, but not at the price of giving up the bus-tunnel connection.
 
Arlington said:
The 77-to-Subway connection works pretty well, so it is hard to say you're doing this for Cambridge-bound Arlingtonians...
Click to expand...

I am not "doing this for Cambridge-bound Arlingtonians." Nothing to gain on trips between Arlington/Lexington and Cambridge. The 77 already goes to Cambridge. This is for the Back Bay, Fenway, South End, Roxbury bound trips that originate in Arlington or Lexington. And vice versa.
 
bigeman312 said:
I am not "doing this for Cambridge-bound Arlingtonians." Nothing to gain on trips between Arlington/Lexington and Cambridge. The 77 already goes to Cambridge. This is for the Back Bay, Fenway, South End, Roxbury bound trips that originate in Arlington or Lexington. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Understood. I was unclear. I was trying to convey something more along the lines of "the current 77 riders, content/complacent with their Hvd Sq connection, might not be willing to suffer the cons if their buses didn't turn back in the bus tunnel"

I think that if people work along the 1, they haven't settled in Arlington. Another thought is combine the 1 with some other line to an area that's more hard up for transit.
 
The 1-77 connection could make sense- I often go between Symphony and Porter myself- but I do wonder if it would make sense from a time perspective... Google gives 30 min by subway, 40 min by bus excluding transfer time. (Actually it gives 27 min., but seems to rely on the 77 bus moving back in time) Considering the 77 runs at fairly frequent headways, that might be enough time to catch the bus in front...

Of course, a one-seat bus ride is more comfortable and cheaper than a two-seat subway (or a three-seat subway+bus)... so there is that.
 
It's too long and congested a route to combine and make anything resembling an on-time schedule.

But each route can definitely be improved. Certainly Mass Ave. from Harvard to Porter needs a bigtime overhaul with signal coordination and left-turn lanes installed at every signalized intersection by taking corner parking spots. The all-vehicle flow is excruciating on that whole stretch. Bringing in some smart traffic signals and left-turn sanity that doesn't back up the travel lanes would do wonders for every vehicle on the road and slice a lot of time off the 77's schedule. Arlington's already getting its Mass Ave. makeover from the city line to Arlington Ctr., so there needs to be reciprocation on the Cambridge side to really do something transformative with the corridor.

The 1's got fewer issues in Cambridge since the Central Sq.-Mem. Drive rebuild fixed a lot of the old bottlenecks and installed better-timed signals. Central-Harvard was never all that bad and doesn't require a wholesale reconfiguration. Just a little follow-through on ADA bus stop installations and smart signals on the few lights that are on that stretch. Nearly every major issue on the 1 today is on the Boston side where it's one hot mess from Beacon to Washington. And, well...taking parking spots at the corners to accommodate left turns that don't back up the travel lanes is a lot more politically contentious there than in Cambridge. I'll believe it when I see a City Hall that has the will to take on the BTD fiefdom. The flow issues are just as solvable here; I just don't trust the city to bend on corner parking spots like Cambridge has demonstrated it will.

Both routes also need some articulated buses on the next vehicle order. They each need some crush-load seating capacity mitigation. If Mass Ave. gets improved past Harvard the 77 stops will be fully able to take advantage of the longer vehicles. The 1 too, although they'll be a little cumbersome if the road's flow isn't improved.
 
bigeman312 said:
Interrupting your scheduled program, I have a question for those with more knowledge about bus operations:

Could the 1 and the 77 be combined into a super-route?

Similarly, could the 32 and the 39 be combined into a super-route?

My first impression:

Pros:
  • Two-seat rides become one-seat rides.
  • Better connectivity from suburban areas (Arlington, Lexington, Roslindale, Hyde Park) to the core (Back Bay, Central Subway)).

Cons:
  • Overwhelming bus ridership on the busiest routes.
  • Bus routes that are so long they would be impossible to dispatch and would be even more succeptible to bunching.
Click to expand...

Interesting ideas.

Some thoughts:

-As Arlington said, I think a big concern would be dispatching and bunching. If either of these corridors were converted to semi-BRT status, that would be different, but certainly as is, this problem makes the proposal DOA.

-The one-seat aspect is tempting, but perhaps not as much as you'd expect. As it is, for example, it takes at least 26 minutes to get from Wolcott Square to Back Bay Station (14 mins on the 32 [assuming good traffic] plus 12 mins on the Orange Line). With a 32-39 superroute, it would certainly take longer. (Looking at the schedule, there seems to be some serious variance for trip length of the 39– not sure I'm reading it right, but it looks like it's anywhere between 15 and 40 minutes [!]). Yes, this would save you transfer time, but not that much, and you still wouldn't be getting people all the way into the CBD. Remember, many of these bus routes are legacies from the streetcar days, when BERy treated streetcars as local feeders into rapid transit stations, from which people would zip into downtown. That model still basically works, and you'd be pushing up against it ineffectively with these superroutes.

-All of that would mean that you're not really getting improved connectivity to the core. HRT is more efficient at carrying large numbers of people than buses, so I don't think the thing to do really is to encourage more people to be on buses for longer. That's not gonna be a better experience for the riders.

You mentioned improved connectivity to the core, but really, I think your proposal is getting at improved connectivity to certain satellite regions within Boston, particularly Longwood Medical Area.

A 32-39 superroute would just siphon people away from the 32-Orange Line path. However, an extended 32, terminating in the Longwood Medical Area and doubling the 39 south of Riverway, would provide a single seat ride between Hyde Park and Longwood Medical Area, a major employment center, and would also increase frequency of service along the 39 corridor in JP. That cost-benefit equation might just work out, and could provide some relief for the east-west services between Longwood and Dudley (ie, the 8, the 19, the 47, CT3 and to a lesser extent, the 66), by drawing commuters from the southern neighborhoods of Boston away from the 28, 29, 31 and 14.

(Then again, it might not be worth it.)

I don't think a 1-77 superroute would really work. Beyond the reasons addressed above, I'm not sure how many Arlingtonites and Cantabrigians really feel a need for a one-seat ride to MIT, outer Back Bay, the South End or Dudley Square. Is there that much demand?

Compare, according to Google Maps: 40 minutes on the 1 right now (5pm) will get you from Harvard to Massachusetts @ Washington. 32 minutes on the Red and SL5 will do the same. The time for Harvard-Hynes is equivalent between the two modes. Harvard-Symphony? Red-Green wins by 5 mins. Harvard-Massachusetts @ Tremont? Red-43 wins with 31 minutes, Red-Orange-walk takes 34 and the 1 takes 37 minutes.

So, from what I can see, any demand that there currently is for, say Arlington-South End service, is actually better served by the bus-subway transfer model. (Which means there would be little incentive for customers to use a 1-77 superroute, which means you'll lose out on yet more revenue.)

(The only way I can really see something like this working [aside from BRT] would be, again, an extended 77, maybe down to Central or MIT or Kendall. Treat it more like a local service than a commuter service. But even that model suffers because the Red Line is just so damn fast in Cambridge. It's a looooong way between Harvard and Central, and Central and Kendall, and the Red Lines just flies.)

Lastly, one comment about RIPTA's proposed R-line: first of all, they have already implemented through-running between their 1 and 99 routes (which is a very good thing). Secondly, though, it's important to remember that this corridor has very heavy anchors at all three key points: Pawtucket, downtown Providence, and the border of Providence and Cranston at the south. It's less about providing crosstown transportation for all those folks in Pawtucket who work in northern Cranston, than it is about simplifying operations and catering to, say, folks who live along Hope Street on the East Side who work on the other side of downtown. So I'm not sure the model is really applicable to the routes bigeman312 is suggesting.
 
I would love a one-seat ride bus from North Cambridge to Symphony station so I could get to my music lessons more painlessly. but I cannot speak for everyone.
 
asap_mozart said:
I would love a one-seat ride bus from North Cambridge to Symphony station so I could get to my music lessons more painlessly. but I cannot speak for everyone.
Click to expand...

One thing to consider: would you actually be guaranteed a seat? In my experience, standing room only is more uncomfortable on a bus (starts and stops) than on the subway.
 
In general, these long bus routes just deteriorate the longer they have to wind through the crowded streets before reaching a control point. I don't think it's feasible. Just look at the 66, which was extended from Allston to Harvard a while back. Speaking of long bus routes, Pittsburgh is infamous for doing that, and the buses are always late. Meh.

I did take an interesting trip last month from Hyde Park to Allston: 32, 39, 66. I guess I could have saved a transfer if the 32 ran thru. But it was painless, just run up the stairs, and even that will be gone after the renovations.
 
This discussion does bring up an interesting problem:

100 years ago, BERy designed a system that was very good at getting people in and out of downtown: walk to your local streetcar, ride it to the rapid transit station, take the subway downtown. Reverse in the afternoon.

This worked back then, but now, there is significant demand for multiple locations outside of the Financial District: Back Bay, LMA, Seaport (well, you know) and various others to lesser degrees. How can/should the T adjust its bus system to better focus on these satellite hubs? The "buses as rapid transit feeders" model might not work as much going forward.
 
Interesting discussion.

Thank you all for the thoughtful feedback (Arlington, F-Line, Riverside, others).

I'm definitely going to do some research about the old BERy routes. I know very little about the current bus operations and the history of their predecessors. Interesting stuff.
 
bigeman312 said:
Interesting discussion.

Thank you all for the thoughtful feedback (Arlington, F-Line, Riverside, others).

I'm definitely going to do some research about the old BERy routes. I know very little about the current bus operations and the history of their predecessors. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

An amazing resource is Jonathan Belcher's Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2013. So much information in there. (Recommend downloading it and saving it. Aside from being that valuable, it's nearly been lost to the internet graveyard at least once already; don't want to check a chance!)

EDIT: lol, Matthew beat me to it!

EDIT 2: fixed link
 
Last edited:
Mr. Belcher seems to be updating it more regularly these days - there have been four or five revisions in the past year.
 
The EGE said:
Mr. Belcher seems to be updating it more regularly these days - there have been four or five revisions in the past year.
Click to expand...

That is fantastic news. I had gotten the impression that he had stopped updating it some years ago, so I never bothered to go looking for an up-to-date copy online.

This document has been with me since my earliest days on the internet, and I must say, it is still unmatched in its value as a freely available resource. Nothing I have encountered (with the possible exception of Wikipedia– I kid you not) has impressed me as much as this document; an incredible amount of work, done by a single person working diligently for years, made available easily and at no cost to readers. It remains unsurpassed after years of surfing the internet, at least, in my books.
 
Riverside said:
That is fantastic news. I had gotten the impression that he had stopped updating it some years ago, so I never bothered to go looking for an up-to-date copy online.

This document has been with me since my earliest days on the internet, and I must say, it is still unmatched in its value as a freely available resource. Nothing I have encountered (with the possible exception of Wikipedia– I kid you not) has impressed me as much as this document; an incredible amount of work, done by a single person working diligently for years, made available easily and at no cost to readers. It remains unsurpassed after years of surfing the internet, at least, in my books.
Click to expand...

I think he's got help these days with the updates or has dished them off entirely. He's got those two contributors now where before it used to be totally his own document. The MBTA vehicle roster page that used to be his has also been under new management for a few years.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I think he's got help these days with the updates or has dished them off entirely. He's got those two contributors now where before it used to be totally his own document. The MBTA vehicle roster page that used to be his has also been under new management for a few years.
Click to expand...

Heh, I think I can forgive him that. It's still an incredible achievement, and, frankly, would be Exhibit A if I ever needed to convince someone of the wonderful enriching capacity of the internet.
 
Well, it's also one of my primary sources for Wikipedia. I try to grab original documents where I can - recent access to old newspaper archives has helped - but that document is one-stop shopping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top