Reasonable Transit Pitches

[TheRatmeister]

Webster Woods: I think this is delightful, and is the kind of whimsical proposal that always makes me smile

Looking at it further, there's actually already a level crossing that's connected to both the Hammond Pond reservation and the nearby residential area, and the alignment is already wide enough for ~10ft platforms. The only required infrastructure would be extremely basic platforms, a radio controlled signal to request the next train to stop, and a couple basic bus shelters. This would also be the only (easily) rapid transit-accessible woodland and could would be almost entirely unique within the urban area. This started out as a quaint, whimsical proposal but it's sounding more and more like a genuinely good idea.

"Kent Square" (or "Aspinwall" or, my personal favorite, even if a bit silly, "Netherlands")

Longwood station on the D is a 14 minute walk to Brigham & Women's, the largest employer in the LMA, and in general is farther away from the heavier concentration of jobs in LMA's southern half. (Brookline Village is an equally long walk.) A station with access to Netherlands Road would be a 7 minute walk, with the addition of a crosswalk at Riverway to avoid today's obnoxious doubleback.

A station at Kent Square would make the D Line a viable alternative for opportunistic riders who currently ride the E to Brigham Circle to have a shorter walk to their job, potentially reducing crowding. It would also increase convenience for potential Longwood commuters (who, IIRC, cite convenience as their main reason for not using transit).

By itself it's a fair proposal, but would money spent on this project be better spent on D-E connector and Huntington Ave Subway extension? Depends on how cheap it is, I suppose. Also if we're calling it Netherlands then we need to extend the Orange Line there. I don't make the rules.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Riverside]

Looking at it further, there's actually already a level crossing that's connected to both the Hammond Pond reservation and the nearby residential area, and the alignment is already wide enough for ~10ft platforms. The only required infrastructure would be extremely basic platforms, a radio controlled signal to request the next train to stop, and a couple basic bus shelters. This would also be the only (easily) rapid transit-accessible woodland and could would be almost entirely unique within the urban area.

If memory serves, operators would (at least sometimes) stop at that level crossing to check for pedestrians. @nbcoram might know better about current practice.

This started out as a quaint, whimsical proposal but it's sounding more and more like a genuinely good idea.

With the obvious caveat that costs would absolutely need to be kept to a minimum, I agree with you, and what's more I think it's important to propose whimsical ideas -- not just because they sometimes produce actionable ideas, but because the fact that they are whimsical is a benefit itself. We want people to be delighted, not just by transit but by any space or place we create.

By itself it's a fair proposal, but would money spent on this project be better spent on D-E connector and Huntington Ave Subway extension? Depends on how cheap it is, I suppose.

My fervent hope would be that these expenses would differ by at least one order of magnitude, if not close to two. I haven't looked closely at the satellite images to measure things out, but it should be among the simplest stations to build (especially if we don't worry about access from the west side being available in Phase 1 -- yes, this would require a different name than "Kent Square"). I also think this infill could co-exist quite well with any eventual D-E connector and/or Huntington subway design.

Put another way... if these ideas really are in meaningful competition, then we're in even more trouble than we think.

 

[ceo]

Borderline-yes

• Sullivan Square (Newburyport/Rockport and Reading) -- Very very expensive, but probably worth it in the end for the bus connections. Moves into the Definitely category if any permutation of the Urban Ring gets implanted.

The problem here is that Urban Ring will have to eat one of the Orange Line's track locations, forcing OL to move over one and leave no room for a CR platform. Remember that the track locations cannot be moved, because of the supports for the elevated highway, and the corridor can't be widened either (without huge expense) for the same reason.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The problem here is that Urban Ring will have to eat one of the Orange Line's track locations, forcing OL to move over one and leave no room for a CR platform. Remember that the track locations cannot be moved, because of the supports for the elevated highway, and the corridor can't be widened either (without huge expense) for the same reason.

First thing: This made me look at Sullivan on Google Maps and I discovered this beauty:

so thank you very much.

Second, there is plenty of room next to the existing station. The two tracks visible in the screenshot aren't used (for revenue service) and there's the third mostly unused OL track as well.

Third, who says that an UR station needs to be above ground? The station is right next to a giant parking lot, you couldn't ask for a better spot to dig out a station box. Said giant empty parking lot also has plenty of room if we wanted to just, build a new station there and not be constrained by the highway at all.

 

[ceo]

Second, there is plenty of room next to the existing station. The two tracks visible in the screenshot aren't used (for revenue service) and there's the third mostly unused OL track as well.

Those two tracks would have to be used for the Urban Ring station. See my analysis of this here, map here.

 

[Riverside]

Continuing a thread in the Seaport thread about downtown busways:

Yeah, this is mostly my conclusion as well. One alternative worth considering also would be running the service into the new South Station bus terminal.

My analysis suggests that there may be a non-trivial Chelsea <> Seaport market, so I've typically kept SL3 as-is, or striking a middle ground by continuing to run to South Station but on the surface. Alternatively, if we build a Congress St busway that extends from Haymarket into the Seaport, then potentially an extension of the T111 (which serves the residential areas of Chelsea better) could work instead/better.

Yeah, as @kdmc noted, Essex probably needs to maintain some access for private traffic. Buuuuuuuut.... you could steal the other lane of traffic for a contraflow lane. It gets tight in the block between Washington and Tremont, but mayyyybe you could squeeze two bus lanes and a private lane, though I'm skeptical.

In terms of wider streets, a combination of Surface Road + Kneeland + Stuart gets you at least to Park Plaza. The options are less ideal after that... perhaps you could cut up to Boylston? But then the question becomes how to connect to the Green Line and Orange Line around Copley/Back Bay, particularly since Stuart + Kneeland offer poor transfers to either Chinatown or TMC.

View attachment 47935

But to your point, the busway could be used by several routes and extensions of routes (T8, T9, T39, 55, 11, the 500s). There is a network of radial surface routes that operate wholly within the "Inner Belt" and which currently truncate themselves at the first major transfer point they reach, but which are clearly oriented toward downtown. Stronger infrastructure in the congested core could enable modest extensions of those routes, and potentially relieve some pressure on the subway.

I decided to take a quick look and see what routes I would actually include in this "Inner Belt" radial network, and came up with something like this:

The general thinking is "routes that do not travel beyond the 'Inner Belt' of transfer stations like Maverick, Sullivan, Kenmore, Ruggles, etc, and which point toward downtown". I think the list comes out to:

• T7
• T8
• T9
• 11
• T39
• 43
• 55
• T111
• SL4/SL5

It does not include circumferential routes like the T12 or 10, and it doesn't include routes that might otherwise make the cut if there weren't a water crossing (arguably such as the 68).

The T39 and the T111 are both debatable, particularly the T39. Forest Hills and JP are clearly outside of the Inner Belt; on the other hand, Copley isn't otherwise a major radial transfer point (like Kenmore or Central). Ultimately, if the T39 could reliably run all the way to South Station, that seems like it would be reasonable and not overextended. (The T111 also extends beyond the Inner Belt, but it is unusual in its complete lack of an Inner Belt transfer station.)

And what about the T57 you ask? Yeah I don't know. I can't really justify including the T39 but excluding the T57, other than perhaps to point to the fact that, in general, this is currently a map of surface routes that offer 1SRs to employment centers in downtown and Back Bay. The T39 and T111 meet that criterion on a somewhat exceptional basis, but the T57 really doesn't. (And it's a similar argument for the proposed 42, IMO.)

Anyway, the reasonable transit pitch (which I believe @The EGE originally suggested some time ago) is a network of busways in downtown and Back Bay that would allow these routes to through-run with stronger reliability, and would form better links to the Seaport from Downtown and Back Bay:

 

[TheRatmeister]

Continuing a thread in the Seaport thread about downtown busways:

I decided to take a quick look and see what routes I would actually include in this "Inner Belt" radial network, and came up with something like this:

View attachment 47936

The general thinking is "routes that do not travel beyond the 'Inner Belt' of transfer stations like Maverick, Sullivan, Kenmore, Ruggles, etc, and which point toward downtown". I think the list comes out to:

• T7
• T8
• T9
• 11
• T39
• 43
• 55
• T111
• SL4/SL5

It does not include circumferential routes like the T12 or 10, and it doesn't include routes that might otherwise make the cut if there weren't a water crossing (arguably such as the 68).

The T39 and the T111 are both debatable, particularly the T39. Forest Hills and JP are clearly outside of the Inner Belt; on the other hand, Copley isn't otherwise a major radial transfer point (like Kenmore or Central). Ultimately, if the T39 could reliably run all the way to South Station, that seems like it would be reasonable and not overextended. (The T111 also extends beyond the Inner Belt, but it is unusual in its complete lack of an Inner Belt transfer station.)

And what about the T57 you ask? Yeah I don't know. I can't really justify including the T39 but excluding the T57, other than perhaps to point to the fact that, in general, this is currently a map of surface routes that offer 1SRs to employment centers in downtown and Back Bay. The T39 and T111 meet that criterion on a somewhat exceptional basis, but the T57 really doesn't. (And it's a similar argument for the proposed 42, IMO.)

Anyway, the reasonable transit pitch (which I believe @The EGE originally suggested some time ago) is a network of busways in downtown and Back Bay that would allow these routes to through-run with stronger reliability, and would form better links to the Seaport from Downtown and Back Bay:

View attachment 47939

I've made a quick map of a proposal for a downtown bus lane network. I'm sure I've missed some routes with potential or have been perhaps a bit overzealous in some places, feel free to suggest changes.
Here are the major corridors I have right now:

• North-Southish (B1): Brookline Ave to Charlestown via Longwood, St Alphonsus*, Tremont*, Malcom X, Nubian Station, Washington, Kneeland, Atlantic/Surface, Congress/Pearl, and N. Washington St
• East-West (B2): South Station to Back Bay via Atlantic/Surface, Kneeland/Stuart, Charles, and Boylston
• Northwest-Southeast (B3): Mass Ave and Southampton
• Back Bay Loop: Dartmouth, Columbus, Clarendon, Boylston
• Seaport Loop: Summer, Drydock, Harbor, Northern/Seaport, Atlantic/Surface

* No dedicated lanes

Based on this map my proposal for the routes listed would be:

T7: Rerouted from Causeway/Merrimack to B1 via Haymarket
T8: Rerouted along Albany and Malden before going around the Back Bay Loop
T9: Rerouted along B1 and B2 to reach and then go around the Back Bay Loop
11: Diverges at B St and follows its BNRD proposed route, otherwise the same as T9
T12: Brookline Village-Seaport Loop via Brookline Ave, B1, B3, and D St
T39: Goes around the new Back Bay Loop, otherwise unchanged
43: So infrequent that it's not worth changing. Better to focus the effort on Washington St.
55: Extended to the Back Bay Loop and LMA. Not frequent enough to get dedicated lanes through Fenway.
T111: Extended to Seaport Loop via B1
SL4/5: Replaced with the T49, making more local stops than the current SL4 along B1, and the T49X making fewer stops than the current SL4. (Current Herald St, Worcester Sq, Lenox St, and Melnea Cass bypassed)

 

[nbcoram]

If memory serves, operators would (at least sometimes) stop at that level crossing to check for pedestrians. @nbcoram might know better about current practice.

Speed limit is 10 mi/h over that crossing, but we don't have to stop.

 

[Koopzilla24]

And what about the T57 you ask? Yeah I don't know. I can't really justify including the T39 but excluding the T57, other than perhaps to point to the fact that, in general, this is currently a map of surface routes that offer 1SRs to employment centers in downtown and Back Bay. The T39 and T111 meet that criterion on a somewhat exceptional basis, but the T57 really doesn't. (And it's a similar argument for the proposed 42, IMO.)

Could have an additional bus route or two run like the 43 does as a straight shot to downtown from Kenmore and/or Back Bay. The problem is all the one-ways aren’t very conducive to this. Beacon could do a contraflow bus lane east of Mass Ave or something. If Storrow was a grade-level boulevard then a Kenmore-North Station bus around a Nashua St. loop would be perfect for it. Marginal Rd contraflow could run a rerouted 4 that goes Back Bay-North Station via Marginal, Atlantic, and Commercial.

 

[Teban54]

I decided to take a quick look and see what routes I would actually include in this "Inner Belt" radial network, and came up with something like this:

View attachment 47936

[...]

Anyway, the reasonable transit pitch (which I believe @The EGE originally suggested some time ago) is a network of busways in downtown and Back Bay that would allow these routes to through-run with stronger reliability, and would form better links to the Seaport from Downtown and Back Bay:

View attachment 47939

I've made a quick map of a proposal for a downtown bus lane network. I'm sure I've missed some routes with potential or have been perhaps a bit overzealous in some places, feel free to suggest changes.

Great thoughts from you both.

On a high level, I very much like the idea of a three-way downtown busway radiating out from downtown towards North Station, Back Bay and Seaport. These three are precisely what I call the "downtown clusters":

Spoiler: My classifications of "downtown clusters" and different tiers of destinations

• Downtown core: Roughly around the Park-DTX-State-GC transit diamond, Financial District, and Boston Common
  • The "true center" of Boston
• Downtown clusters: North Station-Haymarket, Back Bay-Copley-Prudential, and Seaport
  • Each is about a 20-min walk from DTX and at least 2-3 subway stations away, making them
  • Each is a notable employment, recreational and/or transit center
  • Can arguably include MGH, as either a standalone cluster or part of NS-Haymarket
• Inner belt clusters: These are what I consider to be firmly outside downtown. There are a few categories:
  • Employment: Kendall-MIT, LMA; (more minor ones) Harvard, Kenmore-BU, Lechmere, BMC-Newmarket, Logan Airport, Assembly, Boston Landing
  • Recreation: Harvard, Fenway, Assembly, Allston?, Boston Landing?
  • Transit hubs: Harvard-Central, Sullivan, Ruggles-Nubian, Maverick, Kenmore, Lechmere
  • Residential: Charlestown, Union Sq, Central, Allston, Coolidge Corner, Brookline Village, South End, Nubian, South Boston, Maverick-East Boston
  • Future potential: West Station, Sullivan

Urban Ring obviously tackles the inner belt clusters. Coincidentally, while Green Line Reconfiguration is comparatively more radial in nature, it improves connectivity within the downtown clusters, especially Seaport, by offering a direct connection to Back Bay. For this reason, I think GLR does play an important role in improving the pluracentricity of the network -- it helps people get around downtown, instead of just getting to downtown.

The only missing link among the downtown clusters then becomes North Station to Seaport. The BNRD downtown bus priority corridor does help with this, but I wonder if there's a more long-term solution somewhere.

A three-way busway like what @Riverside has drawn nicely connects each of them to the downtown core. All three spines can also possibly absorb radial bus routes that branch out and connects to other destinations (mostly neighborhoods) around downtown.

This thought exercise also illustrates that a north-south corridor from North Station to Seaport likely has greater importance than an east-west corridor from Back Bay. The latter is already well connected by two subway trunks (and another one with GLR), whereas the NS-Seaport corridor would also double duty as the main connector between two downtown clusters -- such a role is performed by rail rapid transit for the other two pairs of clusters. (Without or before GLR, however, a Back Bay-Seaport connector will see greater intermediate value.)

However, there's another reason why I think a Back Bay busway is worthwhile, and it's one that nobody has mentioned yet: The 50x series express buses. These routes, especially 501 and 504, are very frequent during rush hours, both right now and in BNRD:

15-min frequencies on each route (even in the face of WFH) is absolutely bonkers, especially when the BNRD gets rid of most other express buses. This means Newton Corner gets a bus every 7.5 minutes, and there's a 50x bus every 5 minutes around downtown. It's like a mini subway for Newton Corner; Watertown and Newton Corner even get some off-peak service. (The 505 doesn't serve either Newton Corner or Back Bay.) I actually feel the majority of buses using the Back Bay busway during rush hours will likely be from 501 and 504. (This also reduces the need to send the T57 into the downtown busways, as the outer T57 is covered by 501 and the inner T57 is covered by the GL B branch.)

 

[Teban54]

Infrastructure: Comments on choice of roads for bus priority

Here are the major corridors I have right now:

• North-Southish (B1): Brookline Ave to Charlestown via Longwood, St Alphonsus*, Tremont*, Malcom X, Nubian Station, Washington, Kneeland, Atlantic/Surface, Congress/Pearl, and N. Washington St
• East-West (B2): South Station to Back Bay via Atlantic/Surface, Kneeland/Stuart, Charles, and Boylston
• Northwest-Southeast (B3): Mass Ave and Southampton
• Back Bay Loop: Dartmouth, Columbus, Clarendon, Boylston
• Seaport Loop: Summer, Drydock, Harbor, Northern/Seaport, Atlantic/Surface

* No dedicated lanes

B1:

• I get the intention behind bus lanes for each of the components, but I don't think it's necessary to brand it as a continuous corridor from LMA all the way to Charlestown. A route that runs the entire corridor will never make sense, and the outer parts at LMA and Malcolm X will be used by bus routes that have nothing to do with downtown.
• I'm increasingly doubtful of closing off Longwood Ave to cars completely. The #1 reason is that Longwood Ave hosts the entrance to Harvard Medical School's main garage, and cutting off access to it entirely is potentially enough to kill the idea on its own. Several other buildings also have their main (if not only) driveways on Longwood Ave; this includes the entire Children's Hospital complex, which would end up with the circuitous Blackfan St as its only exit path.
• Regarding the choice of Washington St vs. (part of) Causeway St as per BNRD, I think the intention of the Causeway alignment is to stop much closer to North Station, which IMO is important. (It's also marginally closer to many MGH facilities, and you can actually hit them if you use the entire Causeway St + Merrimac St.) If BNRD is able to implement bus lanes on the T7 alignment, I think there will be value in also sending the T111 there, despite the slightly more roundabout route.

B3:

• Mass Ave south of Melnea Cass narrows to 45 ft, insufficient for bike lanes. (Granted, the road doesn't have any bus lanes currently, but I think it would still be good to provision for them -- Dorchester is very lacking in bus infrastructure currently. Perhaps shared bus/bike lanes?)

Seaport:

• Yes, Summer St and Seaport Blvd are obvious choices for bus priority, but it seems that Congress St also has enough room for bus lanes. In other words, all three Seaport roads can have some amounts of bus infrastructure (along the lines of @Riverside's suggestions).
• Note that Summer St's ongoing bus lane pilot does not have center-running bus lanes. It was proposed but rejected due to the need for delivery trucks.

Miscellaneous:

• I noticed you had Melnea Cass as one-way on your map. I feel it should easily have enough width for bidirectional bus lanes?
• Closing off portions of Albany St near BMC may face similar issues as Longwood Ave: Cutting off main driveways to hospitals (and huge swarths of parking lots). The road seems to have enough width for 4 lanes and 2 bike lanes if you eliminate street parking, so I don't think a full closure is necessary.

The other suggestions are all solid.


Route design (assorted comments to both @Riverside and @TheRatmeister)

• T8: Rerouting to Albany and Malden looks nice on paper, but it moves the route further away from South End's residential density (along Harrison Ave). I imagine it won't play out well, especially when it's the main local route from South End to Back Bay, serving a market not fulfilled by SL5.
• T9: Likewise, I think there's argument for keeping it on E Berkeley and Herald streets, instead of moving to TMC via bus priority. The region between the Pike and SL5, especially Tremont/E Berkeley, seems to have good residential density with a small neighborhood center, and is otherwise hard to serve. However, it might be a draw: the TMC reroute would give the T9 additional access to employment centers at TMC and Stuart St.
• 11: I get the intuition, but this is a route that the BNRD wanted to cut back all the way to Broadway. Even the TMC section was only retained due to community feedback. I can't imagine MBTA wanting to extend it back to the downtown core or Back Bay again, even though I'm sure the residents want it.
• T39: The challenge is that you probably want connections to both Green and Orange lines, as it gets almost equal ridership at Copley and Back Bay, but following the busway to South Station likely means giving up on one of the connections (or at least making it much worse). I guess you can still connect to OL at TMC/Chinatown from Stuart St, but it's far from ideal, especially compared to the current transfer.
• 43: While I agree with @TheRatmeister that it's probably not worth huge investments to improve the service, I do wonder it it can be helped by a shorter loop on the DTX side (similar to today's SL5) rather than the longer Boston Common loop.
• 55: The BNRD initially wanted to extend it to LMA, while moving it to Kendall at the other end. Since that proposal didn't play out, I doubt an extension to LMA is still in the cards.
• T111: Extending beyond Haymarket is a slam dunk to me. Unlike T39's Back bay, T111's Haymarket isn't quite strong enough as a destination on its own (and it doesn't even serve North Station); and that it's much more vital for its users than the T39 (which parallels OL). The only question is how far to extend it to, and I agree that Seaport makes sense, even if the route is a bit long.
• SL4/5: I disagree with sending it to South Station and bypassing DTX completely. The current SL5's ridership patterns show strong demand for DTX and even Chinatown, and I doubt most of them are solely looking for a Red Line transfer or walking to places that are equidistant from DTX and South Station. Not to mention the loss of a Green Line transfer (despite the number of such transfers being small). Even though @Riverside's prior analyses showed SL4/5 riders are mostly opportunistic, I still don't think eliminating the DTX lag completely reflects travel patterns.

I'd add 501, 504 and 505 to the busway, as mentioned earlier. Might also want to include 354 as it survived BNRD.

In addition, as discussed in the Seaport thread, it might be good to launch one or more routes that provides all-day service for the Back Bay-Seaport lag of the bus corridor. This can serve as an intermediate BB-Seaport connection until GLR is completed; it can also provide the Seaport-GL connection that @Riverside mentioned (can be at Arlington or Copley instead of Boylston). The route can extend to Logan Airport (basically an MBTA-operated Logan Express and a longer SL1), and/or extend to neighborhoods further west or east.

 

[Teban54]

Could have an additional bus route or two run like the 43 does as a straight shot to downtown from Kenmore and/or Back Bay. The problem is all the one-ways aren’t very conducive to this. Beacon could do a contraflow bus lane east of Mass Ave or something. If Storrow was a grade-level boulevard then a Kenmore-North Station bus around a Nashua St. loop would be perfect for it. Marginal Rd contraflow could run a rerouted 4 that goes Back Bay-North Station via Marginal, Atlantic, and Commercial.

I'm concerned that, just like the 43, such a route won't generate very high ridership. The 55 probably wouldn't have been cut back to Copley from the Boston Common loop if there was demand for such a east-west route paralleling the Green Line (not to mention the 55 duplicates GL less than your proposal).

 

[TheRatmeister]

Some quick thoughts before I give all the routes a significant rework (And look at SL3 some more):

I'm increasingly doubtful of closing off Longwood Ave to cars completely. The #1 reason is that Longwood Ave hosts the entrance to Harvard Medical School's main garage, and cutting off access to it entirely is potentially enough to kill the idea on its own. Several other buildings also have their main (if not only) driveways on Longwood Ave; this includes the entire Children's Hospital complex, which would end up with the circuitous Blackfan St as its only exit path.

Just thought I'd clarify, Longwood Ave definitely can't be closed off to cars, but private vehicle traffic can definitely be cut back significantly. Obviously ambulances, shuttles, and delivery vehicles would need to be allowed, and you could use a permitting system to allow staff/regular patients/HMS parking permit holders to use Longwood. In terms of Boston Children's, the main garage is already on Blackfan, and accessing the driveway via Blackfan only adds 1-2 mins at most times because of how congested Longwood is. If those 1-2 mins are that critical maybe they should call an ambulance?

Regarding the choice of Washington St vs. (part of) Causeway St as per BNRD, I think the intention of the Causeway alignment is to stop much closer to North Station, which IMO is important. (It's also marginally closer to many MGH facilities, and you can actually hit them if you use the entire Causeway St + Merrimac St.) If BNRD is able to implement bus lanes on the T7 alignment, I think there will be value in also sending the T111 there, despite the slightly more roundabout route.

Fair point, although this would mean a worse transfer at Haymarket since you bypass the busway. Really depends on how you value OL/GL transfers vs CR transfers vs MGH.

Mass Ave south of Melnea Cass narrows to 45 ft, insufficient for bike lanes. (Granted, the road doesn't have any bus lanes currently, but I think it would still be good to provision for them -- Dorchester is very lacking in bus infrastructure currently.

Apart from that one section it looks more like 50ft. Still a bit tight but at least more workable.

Yes, Summer St and Seaport Blvd are obvious choices for bus priority, but it seems that Congress St also has enough room for bus lanes. In other words, all three Seaport roads can have some amounts of bus infrastructure (along the lines of @Riverside's suggestions).

The problem with Congress St is that there is no room on the bridge. You could move over to Seaport Blvd via Boston Wharf or Sleeper St, but adding more messy intersections doesn't really seem like the best option here, especially when Congress St is never more than ~2-3 mins walking from Summer St or Seaport Blvd.

Note that Summer St's ongoing bus lane pilot does not have center-running bus lanes. It was proposed but rejected due to the need for delivery trucks.

If they can be adequately enforced then side-running bus lanes can work too. (It's just a big if though.)

I noticed you had Melnea Cass as one-way on your map. I feel it should easily have enough width for bidirectional bus lanes?

oops

T39: The challenge is that you probably want connections to both Green and Orange lines, as it gets almost equal ridership at Copley and Back Bay, but following the busway to South Station likely means giving up on one of the connections (or at least making it much worse). I guess you can still connect to OL at TMC/Chinatown from Stuart St, but it's far from ideal, especially compared to the current transfer.

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or @Riverside, but the map shows the T39 ending at Back Bay, just using (Most of) the busway loop around BB/Copley.

SL4/5: I disagree with sending it to South Station and bypassing DTX completely. The current SL5's ridership patterns show strong demand for DTX and even Chinatown, and I doubt most of them are solely looking for a Red Line transfer or walking to places that are equidistant from DTX and South Station. Not to mention the loss of a Green Line transfer (despite the number of such transfers being small). Even though @Riverside's prior analyses showed SL4/5 riders are mostly opportunistic, I still don't think eliminating the DTX lag completely reflects travel patterns.

I don't think Chinatown is a major factor for consideration. The 2022 ridership data shows that while it does have a fair number of alightments, there are only ~250 boardings per week. Tufts outbound also has about the same number of boardings as alightments at Chinatown+Tufts Inbound, suggesting that Chinatown SL is basically just used by people who are slightly closer to Chinatown than Tufts, but don't mind walking to Tufts to travel back outbound. That being said, DTX is a bigger loss since it also provides a GL transfer via the Winter St Concourse. I'll probably revise the route with a loop going via Washington and Summer St closer to the BNRD route.

T111: Extending beyond Haymarket is a slam dunk to me. Unlike T39's Back bay, T111's Haymarket isn't quite strong enough as a destination on its own (and it doesn't even serve North Station); and that it's much more vital for its users than the T39 (which parallels OL). The only question is how far to extend it to, and I agree that Seaport makes sense, even if the route is a bit long.

And you could always just short-turn some of the buses at Haymarket during rush hour to increase frequencies.

 

[Teban54]

Just thought I'd clarify, Longwood Ave definitely can't be closed off to cars, but private vehicle traffic can definitely be cut back significantly. Obviously ambulances, shuttles, and delivery vehicles would need to be allowed, and you could use a permitting system to allow staff/regular patients/HMS parking permit holders to use Longwood. In terms of Boston Children's, the main garage is already on Blackfan, and accessing the driveway via Blackfan only adds 1-2 mins at most times because of how congested Longwood is. If those 1-2 mins are that critical maybe they should call an ambulance?

• The thought of using a permit system for HMS is interesting, but I worry about implementability. Sounds like it will either not be enforced well, or if enforced properly, a few disobedient cars trying (and failing) to enter can potentially block the entire lane for a while as they try to turn back.
• I don't thinks it's fair to say "just call ambulance" in the context of a hospital. Many patients may have conditions that are not severe enough for an expensive ambulance, but bad enough that they have to be dropped off (or take a cab/rideshare) instead of using public transit, even if not urgent. Yes, they'll "just" need a detour instead of being completely unable to access the hospital, but the Blackfan -- Ave Louis Pasteur detour looks like a big hassle particularly from the west and south.
• FWIW, @Riverside has been proposing closing off Fenway (the road) as the LMA transitway. It should be pretty obvious that you can only choose one between Longwood Ave and Fenway, and while Longwood Ave offers much much more convenient access to the LMA core, it also faces more political issues as described above (though Fenway also has the problem of dealing with Emmanuel College).
• My personal opinion has been unidirectional bus lanes on both Longwood Ave and Francis St, unless/until you can build a viaduct over one of them.

Fair point, although this would mean a worse transfer at Haymarket since you bypass the busway. Really depends on how you value OL/GL transfers vs CR transfers vs MGH.

Haymarket's OL entrance actually faces Congress St. While it's still possible to access both lines from the GL entrance at the busway, the walk between the lines involves several flights of stairs. Using Causeway St also gets you to North Station GL/OL. (I do see that your inbound T7 can serve both the GL busway and the OL entrance, but so can BNRD's T7 inbound, and any outbound route will miss the GL busway while stopping right outside the OL pseudo-busway regardless.)

The problem with Congress St is that there is no room on the bridge. You could move over to Seaport Blvd via Boston Wharf or Sleeper St, but adding more messy intersections doesn't really seem like the best option here, especially when Congress St is never more than ~2-3 mins walking from Summer St or Seaport Blvd.

Well... That is indeed a significant problem with the channel crossing at Congress St.

The biggest appeal with Congress St is that it offers the fastest way to the Ted Williams tunnel and thus Logan Airport (with or without stopping in Seaport); moreover, it offers the easiest way to loop at South Station. This makes it the perfect corridor for a revamped SL1, and no other alignment comes close. (You can do it with Seaport Blvd, but not only does it add more detour, the loop around South Station is also slower and more tedious.) Perhaps closing off the Congress St bridge to cars, and redirecting traffic to Seaport Blvd and Summer St, may work?

Also, even though Congress St's 2D distance from Summer St appears quite small on a map, the 3D distance absolutely matters. Summer St is way above the rest of Seaport, and to get downstairs is an absolute hassle. For this reason, I've always felt Summer St is better suited for "through-Seaport" traffic than "to-Seaport".

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or @Riverside, but the map shows the T39 ending at Back Bay, just using (Most of) the busway loop around BB/Copley.

Yeah, that was specifically a response to Riverside. I did see your T39 using the Back Bay loop.

Regarding your route, what's your rationale for moving to Dartmouth St outbound instead of Berkeley St (as it is)? The current stop on St James St to the south of Copley Square is absolutely huge as the main connection point between the 39 and the Green Line. If you're instead making the acute turn from Dartmouth to Huntington, I don't see a good spacious spot for a bus stop, and even if there was one, it would have been further away from Copley station.

I don't think Chinatown is a major factor for consideration. The 2022 ridership data shows that while it does have a fair number of alightments, there are only ~250 boardings per week. Tufts outbound also has about the same number of boardings as alightments at Chinatown+Tufts Inbound, suggesting that Chinatown SL is basically just used by people who are slightly closer to Chinatown than Tufts, but don't mind walking to Tufts to travel back outbound. That being said, DTX is a bigger loss since it also provides a GL transfer via the Winter St Concourse. I'll probably revise the route with a loop going via Washington and Summer St closer to the BNRD route.

Yeah, Chinatown wasn't the main concern with my initial comment (though I do think some people who alight at Chinatown inbound may use Boylston outbound instead of TMC). Regardless, DTX is the main story.

And you could always just short-turn some of the buses at Haymarket during rush hour to increase frequencies.

Agreed, and in reality, I imagine it may be more likely for the T111 short-turns to be around downtown (Post Office Square?) or South Station, as opposed to just Haymarket.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Regarding your route, what's your rationale for moving to Dartmouth St outbound instead of Berkeley St (as it is)? The current stop on St James St to the south of Copley Square is absolutely huge as the main connection point between the 39 and the Green Line. If you're instead making the acute turn from Dartmouth to Huntington, I don't see a good spacious spot for a bus stop, and even if there was one, it would have been further away from Copley station.

There was a lot of trying (And not really succeeding) to get a good GL and OL transfer at Back Bay both inbound and Outbound for all the routes while maintaining the one-way loop on Dartmouth/Clarendon to avoid closing either one of those streets entirely. I think if the 39 is routed along Exeter/Ring to connect with the Boylston St Busway then a stop for both directions could be placed right by the entrance to Copley. The T8 also needs a rethink about this to allow for buses to dwell at Back Bay to normalize headways while also connecting with GL passengers going inbound and outbound.

moreover, it offers the easiest way to loop at South Station.

Should a revamped SL1 loop at South Station? Maybe looping at Back Bay for the OL+GL connections would be better so that every rapid transit station has a 2 seat ride to the airport available. It would also allow for consolidation of the Logan Express and SL1, spreading some of the load out.

Perhaps closing off the Congress St bridge to cars, and redirecting traffic to Seaport Blvd and Summer St, may work?

I would worry that the political capital cost isn't worth it compared to the time savings from doing the Congress St/D St/Summer St loop coming inbound, but if you could do it without annoying everyone it would work.

 

[kdmc]

Should a revamped SL1 loop at South Station? Maybe looping at Back Bay for the OL+GL connections would be better so that every rapid transit station has a 2 seat ride to the airport available. It would also allow for consolidation of the Logan Express and SL1, spreading some of the load out.

While we're extending SL1 to Back Bay, how about an SL0 that would start at North Station, follow T7's route to South Station, and continue with SL1 to the airport? That'd give northern CR riders a 2-seat ride to the airport, and also provide a one-leg "rapid transit" link between the two halves of the CR network.

 

[jklo]

While we're extending SL1 to Back Bay, how about an SL0 that would start at North Station, follow T7's route to South Station, and continue with SL1 to the airport?

Be faster to take Orange -> Blue?

 

[kdmc]

Be faster to take Orange -> Blue?

You mean Orange -> Blue -> Shuttle?

The power of SL1 and the hypothetical SL0 is that they will bring you right to your terminal. Transfers are extra brutal when you're lugging around suitcases.

 

[JeffDowntown]

You mean Orange -> Blue -> Shuttle?

The power of SL1 and the hypothetical SL0 is that they will bring you right to your terminal. Transfers are extra brutal when you're lugging around suitcases.

Also, due to ancient station designs, Orange -> Blue is no picnic!

 

[Teban54]

There was a lot of trying (And not really succeeding) to get a good GL and OL transfer at Back Bay both inbound and Outbound for all the routes while maintaining the one-way loop on Dartmouth/Clarendon to avoid closing either one of those streets entirely. I think if the 39 is routed along Exeter/Ring to connect with the Boylston St Busway then a stop for both directions could be placed right by the entrance to Copley.

It certainly feels like if you build a bidirectional Boylston St busway and want to make the T39 use it, making the T39 go Dartmouth -> Boylston -> Exeter may be the best option (improves GL transfer while maintaining similar roundabout-ness as today for OL transfer); but if not, it might be better to just maintain the status quo, having the one-way loop be Clarendon/Berkeley instead of Clarendon/Dartmouth.

The T8 also needs a rethink about this to allow for buses to dwell at Back Bay to normalize headways while also connecting with GL passengers going inbound and outbound.

I'd argue no: connection between the T8 and the Green Line is important, and it already has a very direct route coming from the south via Dartmouth. Any loop for the bus to layover at Back Bay means either GL passengers will need to stay on the bus during layover, or the loop will be very circuitous. The 10's current layover point on St James Ave to the south of Copley Square looks like it has room for a few buses to layover, and it has been used for GL shuttle buses occasionally.

Should a revamped SL1 loop at South Station? Maybe looping at Back Bay for the OL+GL connections would be better so that every rapid transit station has a 2 seat ride to the airport available. It would also allow for consolidation of the Logan Express and SL1, spreading some of the load out.

Yeah, I do think SL1 doesn't necessarily need to terminate at South Station, but:

• There may still need to be short-turns at South Station, since I suspect demand for SS-Logan may outweigh Back Bay-Logan.
  • These include run-as-directed short-turns: uncertainties with traffic downtown and the Ted may drag a BBY-Logan route's performance, such that SS short-turns may be needed to regulate headways.
  • (Edit: Running both the North Station SL0 and the Back Bay SL1 may be able to resolve this)
• Placing a pair of bus stops at South Station is a very non-trivial task. The best shot for a westbound route's South Station bus stop is on Purchase St (Surface Rd), which is less convenient than what a loop enables. (Granted, this is not as big of a deal as the others.)
  
  • The exception is if you use Summer St, but Summer St doesn't allow easy access to the Ted.
• Other reasons in favor of Congress St still hold, especially it being the most direct route to/from the Ted.

Otherwise, I do think it's a good idea to have a Back Bay-South Station-Logan route (and another BBY-SS-Seaport route), provided we have bus priority downtown.

I would worry that the political capital cost isn't worth it compared to the time savings from doing the Congress St/D St/Summer St loop coming inbound, but if you could do it without annoying everyone it would work.

Congress-D-Summer still sounds quite tedious to me, and may defeat the purpose of moving SL1 out of the Transitway.

Spoiler: Alternative surface routings between South Station and the Ted for SL1

If using Congress St to cross the channel is really a no-go, Google Maps says the following route is the shortest and fastest going inbound. Congress St can support bus lanes east of the channel crossing, so it only has short mixed-running segments on A St and Melcher St (though both may still present problems).

The outbound route is much trickier. The following route seems the shortest, but may have too many turns to be worth it:

Otherwise, the following three routes are all similar in length and time:

Something along the lines of Congress-D-Summer may be better for SL3, though, since its need to serve WTC is much higher than SL1's.

While we're extending SL1 to Back Bay, how about an SL0 that would start at North Station, follow T7's route to South Station, and continue with SL1 to the airport? That'd give northern CR riders a 2-seat ride to the airport, and also provide a one-leg "rapid transit" link between the two halves of the CR network.

That's a very interesting idea! It does sound doable, and can also remove the possible need for SS-Logan short-turns as I mentioned above, since the busiest sector (SS-Logan) is shared between SL0 NS-SS-Logan and SL1 BBY-SS-Logan. One possible disadvantage is it locks you into using Summer St both ways, and thus one of my alignments above that uses Seaport Blvd outbound would no longer work well, but luckily there are other alternatives.

Also, due to ancient station designs, Orange -> Blue is no picnic!

FWIW, ironically it's still faster than an Urban Ring route to Airport BL station via Everett and Chelsea, simply because of how direct the Orange-Blue transfer is. This also highlights the need for "SL0" to enter Logan terminals.

On a more serious note, I'd argue the convenience of a transfer may have little to do with the age of station designs. Park St and Government Center are both old but have convenient transfers. Outside Boston, I've also seen many new subway stations with long transfer walkways between two separate station boxes, especially when one of the lines was built without provisions for the other. (Singapore has some very long transfers even between new lines.)