Reasonable Transit Pitches

kdmc said:
Monthly passholders. Also, people who don't have access to banking or credit.
Click to expand...
Those could be made RFID compatible. For any of this to work the state would have to hold some sort of fund that gets distributed among the T/RTA’s based on users/taps. If we were to go as far as making the Charlie card universal then you might as well make it compatible with a terminal that anyone can use.

Example: I have a transit card through my employer that has RFID. I can use it to purchase any transportation ticket I choose. You might think that could open up abuse to make any purchase (it might, I haven’t tried) but apparently someone’s keeping track of these purchases, so enforcement is certainly possible.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the mass RTAs already accept Charliecards? I understand that all are currently fare free, but I was under the impression that they all had standardized on Charlie in the 2010s - no idea what the demise of legacy charlie means though for the RTAs, especially since my understanding is that the RTA buses being fare free is basically here to stay with fair share funding.
 
Stlin said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the mass RTAs already accept Charliecards? I understand that all are currently fare free, but I was under the impression that they all had standardized on Charlie in the 2010s
Click to expand...
TheRatmeister said:
I thought this was at least partially already a thing, and that (before the RTAs went fare-free) you could pay on most of them with a Charliecard.
Click to expand...
There are 2 of us!
Stlin said:
especially since my understanding is that the RTA buses being fare free is basically here to stay with fair share funding.
Click to expand...
The MBTA doesn't seem so sure of this. In their 'Mobility Integration Plan' (PDF download warning), they state: "The future state of RTA fare-free funding is unknown; nonetheless, the MBTA’s fare payment system is being designed to consider future fare integration with these services."

So at least whoever wrote and reviewed that sentence does not seem especially confident that it really is here to stay.
 
Arenacale said:
The MBTA should figure out a way to extend the T branding to the other regional bus services if they were to do statewide route numbering.
Click to expand...
I get where this idea comes from - but - I think in the other regions out side of metro Boston, they do not "look up" to the T in the way that this board or Greater Camb-ervill-ett-line-ton-sea residents do. Many actually look down on the T or look at the T as "stealing" their sales tax dollars from local investments in the Southeast, Western, Central, or up north.

However, riffing on that idea, I think something like AMTRAK California, NJTransit, Maryland MTA, or something akin to a new statewide regional bus brand - even if certain services are actually run by local agencies or private intercity buses - that would be very exciting.
 
as02143 said:
I get where this idea comes from - but - I think in the other regions out side of metro Boston, they do not "look up" to the T in the way that this board or Greater Camb-ervill-ett-line-ton-sea residents do. Many actually look down on the T or look at the T as "stealing" their sales tax dollars from local investments in the Southeast, Western, Central, or up north.
Click to expand...
True, but bringing MBTA-branded service to Central and Western Mass communities (in conjunction with improved/increased service) might help some people change their mind (for the better) about the MBTA. Similarly, I think commuter rail/regional rail service between Worcester and Springfield might improve the MBTA's statewide reputation.
 
Last edited:
themissinglink said:
True, but bringing MBTA-branded service to Central and Western Mass communities (in conjunction with improved/increased service) might help some people change their mind (for the better) about the MBTA. Similarly, I think commuter rail/regional rail service between Worcester and Springfield might improve the MBTA's statewide reputation.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the optimism, but, I think we're probably a generation or two away from the MBTA being a trusted brand rather than a begrudgingly accepted brand. I also don't think the T is the right organization to do statewide transit - really - that's more of a MassDOT or a newly chartered organization's job. The T barely gets support for all the interregional transit that it operates on the rail and in my opinion should probably devolve the intercity or interregional transit to another agency that is fit for that purpose.
 
I'm torn. On the one hand, ( T ) is just such good branding that it's basically impossible to replace. T as in train (or transit I guess), what more you need? On the other hand, yikes that brand image.

And yes, if we're doing state-wide rail then the MBTA's current organizational structure is woefully inadequate. But using the logo statewide and rail transport in MA having a new organizational and/or operational structure are not mutually exclusive.
 
as02143 said:
Appreciate the optimism, but, I think we're probably a generation or two away from the MBTA being a trusted brand rather than a begrudgingly accepted brand. I also don't think the T is the right organization to do statewide transit - really - that's more of a MassDOT or a newly chartered organization's job. The T barely gets support for all the interregional transit that it operates on the rail and in my opinion should probably devolve the intercity or interregional transit to another agency that is fit for that purpose.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that we're a long way from the MBTA being a trusted brand statewide. But I don't think the T's statewide reputation will improve much unless the T directly serves some of the (relatively) transit-isolated parts of the state, like Cape Cod, Central MA, and Western MA.
 
Last edited:
I think it's possible to integrate some elements of branding (like the T logo) without having the MBTA itself run RTA services. There definitely is a need for state-level coordination of route numbering, inter-system transfers (especially to MBTA Commuter Rail and future statewide services), and so on, but that can be done by MassDOT rather than by the MBTA itself.
 
My opinion on this, after ruminating over it, is that a few things are possible.

1) A plurality of MA residents may be less aware of their respective RTAs than they are of the MBTA. Thus, RTAs provide valuable services that potential riders are unaware of.
2) the RTAs are bad at cross jurisdictional transit, whether it be to the T or each other.
3) The current organizational setup where the RTAs are independent agencies with independent governing boards is detrimental to an integrated transit system.

The MassDOT Rail & Transit Division (RTD) is effectively powerless and functionally only serves to direct state grant funding to the RTAs, other transit orgs and to collate data from them. Plus, the 15 RTAs are required by state law to outsource basically all of their operations. Checking my notes... WRTA itself has exactly *8* full time employees. LRTA has 6. They do not need independent contracting, payroll, procurement staffs.

I'd propose a new org chart, reforming RTD - The 15 RTAs should be merged, such that they are a single corporate entity, with the CEO embodied in the role of the RTD administrator, who in turn should be a dual report to the MBTA GM & MassDOT Sec. In essence, in my view the RTAs can continue to act as independently funded, regionally branded operating divisions of a single transit entity answering to a single governing authority, as appointed by the state - then give that authority a mandate to interoperate with the T/ intrastate regional bus. Given that the state provides a substantial majority of their operating funding, the current advisory boards can continue in that role - they already don't exercise any day-to day oversight.

RTD's statewide rail functions can go to MBTA, and its RTA competitive grant process could be made functionally redundant. Ideally, such an integrated system would be able to prioritize resources internally, and incentivise multimodal statewide connectivity instead of independent RTA fiefdoms.
 
Stlin said:
Ideally, such an integrated system would be able to prioritize resources internally, and incentivise multimodal statewide connectivity instead of independent RTA fiefdoms.
Click to expand...
This sounds a bit too Socialist (scare text) to most Democrats in the State House.
 
What if Washington St had a side-running transitway between the BDPA Parcel and E Berkeley St?
1779919147122.png

Color code:
Red: Transitway
Dark Blue: Platforms
Light blue: Ramps up to platforms

The side running transitway for this portion was chosen to make use of the C-Mart Parking lot as additional room to put the 'Herald St/Ink Block' station, to avoid the light rail service needing to wait at an extra light at the tunnel portal, and to keep access to Tufts relatively easy for cars. The platforms at Tufts are further south than would be ideal for an easy transfer to enable ambulances to turn on/off Nassau street from the transitway. All platforms are 225ft long and 14 inches high, and the design sends the transitway into a new portal at the same location previously intended for SL Phase 3. (But would connect to the much shallower Tremont St subway rather than trying to immediately dive 50+ft underground.

In order to fit a bikeway, two travel lanes, the transitway, and platforms there have to be some compromises made. These include:
- Removing a lot of parking. I have to imagine a necessary compromise here would be building more parking somewhere, probably a new garage at/around/under C-Mart. Around 40 street parking spaces are removed north of Marginal Rd and 18 south of Marginal Rd, plus at least a large portion of the C-Mart lot.
- Oak Street gets cut off
- A couple turn lanes get removed.
- Travel lanes are only 10.5' wide, the transitway 22', and the bikeway is only 8'. Some sidewalks are also cut back to 7' (but others are widened). All of these are compliant with relevant regulations and guidelines (as far as I can tell) but they are all a bit on the narrow side.
- The bikeway has very little/no buffer between it and the roadway. This can be somewhat compensated for with bollards and the little concrete 'turtle' things I don't know the name for but it's not perfect.
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
What if Washington St had a side-running transitway between the BDPA Parcel and E Berkeley St?
View attachment 72926
Color code:
Red: Transitway
Dark Blue: Platforms
Light blue: Ramps up to platforms

The side running transitway for this portion was chosen to make use of the C-Mart Parking lot as additional room to put the 'Herald St/Ink Block' station, to avoid the light rail service needing to wait at an extra light at the tunnel portal, and to keep access to Tufts relatively easy for cars. The platforms at Tufts are further south than would be ideal for an easy transfer to enable ambulances to turn on/off Nassau street from the transitway. All platforms are 225ft long and 14 inches high, and the design sends the transitway into a new portal at the same location previously intended for SL Phase 3. (But would connect to the much shallower Tremont St subway rather than trying to immediately dive 50+ft underground.

In order to fit a bikeway, two travel lanes, the transitway, and platforms there have to be some compromises made. These include:
- Removing a lot of parking. I have to imagine a necessary compromise here would be building more parking somewhere, probably a new garage at/around/under C-Mart. Around 40 street parking spaces are removed north of Marginal Rd and 18 south of Marginal Rd, plus at least a large portion of the C-Mart lot.
- Oak Street gets cut off
- A couple turn lanes get removed.
- Travel lanes are only 10.5' wide, the transitway 22', and the bikeway is only 8'. Some sidewalks are also cut back to 7' (but others are widened). All of these are compliant with relevant regulations and guidelines (as far as I can tell) but they are all a bit on the narrow side.
- The bikeway has very little/no buffer between it and the transitway. This can be somewhat compensated for with bollards and the little concrete 'turtle' things I don't know the name for but it's not perfect.
Click to expand...
that looks like a street that active hates pedestrians - people would need to have an owl's neck to cross at anything unsignalized.
 
as02155 said:
that looks like a street that active hates pedestrians - people would need to have an owl's neck to cross at anything unsignalized.
Click to expand...
You're right. I think for everything past Oak St or so it should be possible to fit pedestrian islands between the bike and travel lanes. That would come at the expense of some sidewalk width but it's probably necessary. The further south you go the less of an issue it is, Washington widens quite a bit to almost 75ft and the station locations become a lot more flexible. The stations with transfers (Tufts and Nubian) are essentially fixed in place. Nubian is fine, there's plenty of space there. Tufts is not and frankly I don't see any way of freeing up another 4-8ft for pedestrian islands for those two crossings that is not absurdly difficult/expensive. Those sidewalks are near minimum width already so as far as I can tell basically the only option would be to move the light rail platforms underground, probably under the BDPA parcel, which would likely necessitate a total rebuilt of Tufts station.
 
1780148274216.png

Nevermind it was actually not too hard to fit pedestrian islands in. There isn't enough room for two so I put them between the bike/travel lanes. There is one north of Herald St/Ink Block station where there just isn't room, unfortunately. If anyone has ideas for that one I'd appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top