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.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Since this big ol' thing is now in the works in Medford...

View attachment 39088

The daylighted brook could be nice.

View attachment 39089
View attachment 39090
View attachment 39091
View attachment 39092
View attachment 39093
View attachment 39094

...it seems like it'd be a highly reasonable thing for Medford, Somerville, Cambridge and Everett to get together and lobby hard for an SL7 that goes up Mystic Ave. from either Kendall or Haymarket, presumably terminating in Medford Square, along with the SL6 (Broadway in Everett to Kendall via Sullivan and East Somerville) proposal that looks like it will come out of the SL3 extension progress.

Mystic Ave. is wide enough to be reworked with Columbus Ave-style, center-running BRT lanes between Hancock and the McGrath, where a hop, skip and a jump would let it then plug into the curb-side bus lanes Somerville is planning for the final stretch of Broadway to get you to Sullivan.

If Medford approves this -- and the mayor has been making all kinds of noises about wanting to dramatically grow the city's commercial tax base -- it's not unreasonable for transit planners to assume this stretch of Mystic Ave. and the stretch of Revere Beach Parkway headed towards Wellington could be another big growth area that could justify a high level of service in a not-to-distant future.

But where should a hypothetical SL7 go next after Sullivan? Boston's stated intent to add bus lanes to Rutherford gives you a powerful option that would give you a direct link to North Station and the Green Line. OTOH, turning down Washington and following the likely SL6 to Kendall links you to at least the Lowell CR line at a future East Somerville station, plus the Green Line, Red Line, and the existing life science hubs in Kendall and Cambridge Crossing. AND it adds more buses on the dense Sullivan-East Somerville-Kendall arc.

I probably come down on the side of the latter, but the regional connectivity in the former has a compelling argument, too, if Boston ever gets around to putting center-running bus lanes on North Washington so North Station commuters get an easier time connecting to an SL7 and so any SL7 buses aren't constantly stuck behind boomers and tourists double-parked on their way to their favorite, overrated Italian restaurant in the North End.

What seems to be the likely SL6 route in yellow, with the downtown-bound SL7 alternative in blue:

 

[Equilibria]

Since this big ol' thing is now in the works in Medford...




...it seems like it'd be a highly reasonable thing for Medford, Somerville, Cambridge and Everett to get together and lobby hard for an SL7 that goes up Mystic Ave. from either Kendall or Haymarket, presumably terminating in Medford Square, along with the SL6 (Broadway in Everett to Kendall via Sullivan and East Somerville) proposal that looks like it will come out of the SL3 extension progress.

Mystic Ave. is wide enough to be reworked with Columbus Ave-style, center-running BRT lanes between Hancock and the McGrath, where a hop, skip and a jump would let it then plug into the curb-side bus lanes Somerville is planning for the final stretch of Broadway to get you to Sullivan.

If Medford approves this -- and the mayor has been making all kinds of noises about wanting to dramatically grow the city's commercial tax base -- it's not unreasonable for transit planners to assume this stretch of Mystic Ave. and the stretch of Revere Beach Parkway headed towards Wellington could be another big growth area that could justify a high level of service in a not-to-distant future.

But where should a hypothetical SL7 go next after Sullivan? Boston's stated intent to add bus lanes to Rutherford gives you a powerful option that would give you a direct link to North Station and the Green Line. OTOH, turning down Washington and following the likely SL6 to Kendall links you to at least the Lowell CR line at a future East Somerville station, plus the Green Line, Red Line, and the existing life science hubs in Kendall and Cambridge Crossing. AND it adds more buses on the dense Sullivan-East Somerville-Kendall arc.

I probably come down on the side of the latter, but the regional connectivity in the former has a compelling argument, too, if Boston ever gets around to putting center-running bus lanes on North Washington so North Station commuters get an easier time connecting to an SL7 and so any SL7 buses aren't constantly stuck behind boomers and tourists double-parked on their way to their favorite, overrated Italian restaurant in the North End.

What seems to be the likely SL6 route in yellow, with the downtown-bound SL7 alternative in blue:

View attachment 39109

One note on this - the reason that the T101 uses Main and not Mystic is that BNRD focused on corridors that were dense with multiple uses on both sides. Mystic is hard to get to from any residential areas and at the moment is basically 100% commercial (and this project won't change that). Also, a big chunk of its catchment corridor is water and freeway.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Agreed, but a lot of the current access problems are fixable with the kind of streetscape interventions a Columbus Ave-style rebuild would entail, and which the T couldn't propose at the time of BNRD without municipal buy-in -- which they already had from Somerville City Hall when it came to Broadway. And we'll see how any rezoning that follows the finalization of the city's latest comprehensive plan goes, but I would not be surprised if city planners decide to push landowners on the west side of Mystic towards multifamily/mixed-use, given the smaller parcel sizes and how buildings like that can more easily blend into the residential neighborhood just next door.

I'd question the notion, however, that even a frequent bus like the T101 can adequately service growth on the Mystic Ave. corridor while, running in mixed traffic on Main Street, if that development signals the direction things are headed in.

Edit: Last sentence edited for clarity

 

[fattony]

Agreed, but a lot of the current access problems are fixable with the kind of streetscape interventions a Columbus Ave-style rebuild would entail, and which the T couldn't propose at the time of BNRD without municipal buy-in -- which they already had from Somerville City Hall when it came to Broadway. And we'll see how any rezoning that follows the finalization of the city's latest comprehensive plan goes, but I would not be surprised if city planners decide to push landowners on the west side of Mystic towards multifamily/mixed-use, given the smaller parcel sizes and how buildings like that can more easily blend into the residential neighborhood just next door.

I'd question the notion, however, that even a frequent bus like the T101 can adequately service growth on the Mystic Ave. corridor while, running in mixed traffic on Main Street, if that development signals the direction things are headed in.

Edit: Last sentence edited for clarity

I guess it is just hard to see that corridor go from not even meriting a T-route in the BNRD to getting an SL-route

 

[Equilibria]

I guess it is just hard to see that corridor go from not even meriting a T-route in the BNRD to getting an SL-route

There is really no functional difference between those things, or at least there shouldn't be.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

I guess it is just hard to see that corridor go from not even meriting a T-route in the BNRD to getting an SL-route

Right now, yes, but Medford's planning process has historically been fairly ad-hoc. If that were going to continue, and development along this corridor were to rely entirely on the good graces of the loudest voices in the local Facebook groups, as it were, I can understand the T's decision there.

The current mayor seems to be bent on changing that, though. The city had a structural budget deficit not too long ago because it doesn't have much commercial development, and the administration is explicitly targeting this corridor for growth. That's where I'd argue this turns into a "reasonable" pitch instead of some kind of fantasy for a world where we do transit investments a bit more like Chongqing. Just relies on the city following through with a rezoning to match the goals outlined in their new comprehensive plan.

There is really no functional difference between those things, or at least there shouldn't be.

Does anyone have any inkling -- rumors, even -- about if/when/how BRT-like street upgrades might get rolled out along these lines?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Does anyone have any inkling -- rumors, even -- about if/when/how BRT-like street upgrades might get rolled out along these lines?

I don't have that info. I do want to say, however, that with the very tight/miniscule transit funding available from the Feds, that new dedicated bus lanes such as those established on Columbus Ave, and also separate surface bus ROWs like the Silver Line to Chelsea, are the future of transit expansion in the Boston metro area for awhile. These types of bus facilities are relatively cheap and give a lot of bang for the buck, without the decades long process for establishing new LRV and Heavy Rail lines, especially anything in a new tunnel.

 

[Stlin]

Seeing the conversation around the wellington circle redesign prompted me to think about how to make wellington station itself more friendly to it's walkshed. How plausible would it be to rebuild and relocate the station just north of Rt 16, to where the wall notches at 6th St?

While it'd screw stations landing somewhat, It looks like there would still be enough width for a platform serving 2 tracks, though maybe not the 3rd. The yard / siding turnouts would be simple enough to relocate, but I don't necessarily know there's anywhere better to put the bus loop.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Seeing the conversation around the wellington circle redesign prompted me to think about how to make wellington station itself more friendly to it's walkshed. How plausible would it be to rebuild and relocate the station just north of Rt 16, to where the wall notches at 6th St?

While it'd screw stations landing somewhat, It looks like there would still be enough width for a platform serving 2 tracks, though maybe not the 3rd. The yard / siding turnouts would be simple enough to relocate, but I don't necessarily know there's anywhere better to put the bus loop.

Probably not worth doing given how extremely snug it would be, and losing the walkway connectivity to Station Landing.

One enhancement for the walkshed would be phoning up CSX about its plans for the Medford Branch, which hasn't had a freight train in 13 years now and can't possibly be in the company's long-term plans. If that stub were to be abandoned you could plunk a walking/biking trail on it and do an up-and-over footbridge to Rivers Edge Drive, opening up non-terrorscape ped access to the dense residential along Middlesex Ave. and Fellsway. Distance-wise it would be comparable to the Minuteman vs. Alewife in East Arlington, so would definitely get commuter utilization.

 

[Tallguy]

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.

I would move the Newtonville station east to just west of Church St, close enough to NC to count, move West Newton just west of it's present location(studied by T when station consolidation was on the plate) and move Auburndale to Weston at 128. Keeps the number of stations on this route manageable while covering the need for a 128 RR P&R, provides better spacing of stations and is an inexpensive means of providing the Corner with decent service.
Add a new one Fanuiel infill and provide a Brighton-Watertown Sq pinger and you get good coverage for a lot of people. Might even put a passing track east of the Pike tunnel.