What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?

[The EGE]

I feel that Boston has less bus service density roaming the streets compared to places like Chicago or NY. Part of it is the BERy-designed hub-and-spoke structure of the network. But still -- despite the extensive subway infrastructure in NY and Chicago, there is still a thick network of buses laid on top of that, and they run frequently. Also both remnants of disassembled streetcar networks.

I can't really say if Boston of 1940 had a similar density of service provided by streetcars, and lost it, or if this is something more fundamental. The street network seems to make things difficult because only the main roads are really usable by buses and they follow the old intercity / square-to-square routes.

And if Boston did get serious about surface transit (which I think they should, since it's probably the only thing we can reasonably do in the near future), they'd still need more space to store and maintain buses.

F-Line beat me to part of this, but here's my thoughts for completeness's sake:

The problem isn't really BERy's network design - it's excellent for getting a large number of people onto a few trunk lines that serve the most desired destinations. Get better connections to the LMA and the Seaport, and do the eat-ya-peas work to boost Red Line frequencies for Kendall access, and that basic system works pretty well. (And yes - Urban Ring, GLX, BLX-Lynn, and second GL trunk subway were all BERy-originated ideas.)

The problem is twofold: the trunk lines are not running at their full capacities, and the surface routes are pitiful. The heavy rail lines only had four-car trains until the last few decades, but fleet sizes were similar or larger (per line length) so headways were a lot smaller. The Red Line ran 155 cars Harvard-Ashmont, and now runs 220 cars Alewife-Ashmont/Braintree with well over twice the track miles. What are now the B and C lines once ran through to Lechmere with two (and sometimes three) car trains of center-entrance cars (aka crowd swallowers).

While the surface routes haven't actually lost much area since the BERy days. Take a look at this 1943 BERy map; the rapid transit routes have changed, but very little of that surface network is no longer around. And the unified system serves a much larger territory. Route numbered 1-121 are mostly BERy routes (save the 52, 59, 62, 67, 70, 70A, and 76 which are ex-Middlesex & Boston); the 130s, 200s, 350s, and 400s are largely ex-Eastern Mass routes, while the 500s are mostly ex-M&B.

A modern 40-foot bus has more or less the same capacity and average speed as a surface-running streetcar in the first half of the 20th century, so it's not unreasonable to directly compare headways. The frequency of streetcar service was absolutely unbelievable. Major trunk lines like Mass Ave north of Harvard (now the 77) and Blue Hill Ave (now the 28 plus some other routes) had headways under a minute at rush hour. Forget real-time data, there's always a streetcar coming. Even with slow sections and bunching (and real-time headway control is a huge area of active research), buses become a lot more attractive if they come ever 5 minutes rather than every 30.

So yes, the realistic answer is a massive expansion of bus capacity (and some routes eventually converted to BRT, trolleybus, and/or streetcars) which means more bus depots. The long-promised large facilities at Wellington and Arborway would help with that a lot. There's still a lot of industrial land in Boston where building bus depots wouldn't be horribly objected to, and several T-owned parking surface facilities (Riverside, Quincy Adams) where it may also be possible.

 

[Coyote137]

Somewhere between Charlie Baker, Bill Weld, Stephanie Pollack, and Mike Dukakis, they have to know that a congestion charge is, in fact, a "sin tax" a tax on a bad thing (gridlock) that we want to see less of that can be used to fund the mobility that we want to see more of. London's system has basically no losers and I'd expect that to be repeated here. It is like "Romneycare" in that Republicans can claim it as a smart, market-driven and personal-choice driven solution and Democrats can claim it as a progressive win.

You indirectly hit on the problem here. In London, Mayor Boris Johnson was able to implement this largely of his own volition without needing to cajole people in higher levels of government to go along with him. (London has more than 10 times the square mileage of Boston!)

Meanwhile, Charlie has basically backed himself into a corner on taxes/fees/etc., and a congestion charge will be considered a tax by pundits and average joes alike.

I agree with your analysis, though, of how the parties can approach it. If we have another awful winter (and it's looking like we will), the governor is going to own this thing, and he'll need some more drastic solutions.

 

[winstonoboogie]

The Boston region MPO did a small three-part study of the potential for limited-stop bus service along existing routes this summer:
http://bosmpo.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2015/MPO_0709_LimitedStop_Phase1.pdf

http://bosmpo.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2015/MPO_0709_LimitedStop_Phase2.pdf

http://bosmpo.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2015/MPO_0709_LimitedStop_Phase3.pdf

Some of the interesting conclusions:

"Except for the Route 70/70A corridor, the MBTA routes and corridors evaluated in this study should not be considered for limited-stop bus service. Operational or roadway design changes could not correct the characteristics that make them unsuitable for such service; the average passenger trip lengths on these routes are too short to allow onboard travel-time savings from limited-stop service to offset the increased access, egress, and wait times. One of the major findings from the literature review was that for a corridor to be recommended for limited-stop service, at least 10 percent of passenger trips should be longer than five miles, but the entire length of many of the MBTA routes evaluated was less than five miles.

On a majority of the MBTA routes and corridors, the distribution of highly concentrated demand points is inconsistent with appropriate distribution of stops for limited-stop service. Many of the routes and corridors are rapid transit feeders, with high-demand stops at one end and low levels of demand along the rest of the corridor."

 

[Coyote137]

I think I read something somewhere claiming that congestion charges only help to reduce congestion if commuters believe they have a reasonable alternative to the SOV. We might need a significant increase in bus service to go along with any congestion charges. (Conversely, the right increases in bus service might reduce congestion even without congestion charges.)

Collecting any sort of user fees for transportation at all can also be pretty inefficient. Look at all the surface Green Line POP vs front door only boarding vs installing CharlieCard readers at all doors debate, or the concerns about whether commuter rail fares are getting collected; if we could move MBTA funding from fares to income taxes, we could avoid a lot of these problems and save a bunch of fare collection labor costs, while making transit more attractive relative to driving in both cost, and on the Green Line in speed. Is the push to keep income taxes low coming from people who are so rich that they never spend time stuck in traffic because they go everywhere by helicopter or something?

Interesting points. The funny thing is that rich people would benefit perhaps the most from a congestion charge, as they'd be free to keep doing what they want to do - driving their luxury car to work - while paying a fee that is a relative pittance for them. It's the regular folks that would need to start making decisions based upon cost.

As far as collecting the money, it would need to be exclusively electronic. Obviously, getting as many people as possible to install one of the E-Z Pass deals is the first step, followed by mailing a ticket to the registered address of the license plates that were videoed going through.

In Ireland, they don't even mail a ticket. You know there's a charge for tolls on particular motorways, and you have 48 hours to go online and pay the fee, or else. (I can't recall what the "or else" is, but you get the idea.)

And I agree that significantly improved bus service is a key component of this.

Also, I'm on board (no pun intended) with raising income taxes at the top, but it looks like we'll have a ballot initiative soon enough on that one.

 

[Matthew]

Interesting points. The funny thing is that rich people would benefit perhaps the most from a congestion charge, as they'd be free to keep doing what they want to do - driving their luxury car to work - while paying a fee that is a relative pittance for them. It's the regular folks that would need to start making decisions based upon cost.

Funny way to frame the fact that you'd be getting those few rich people to foot the bill for nice transit options for everyone. And you'd also get something that no amount of money can buy right now, and that anyone in a hurry could use, no matter their income level: an uncongested city.

In Ireland, they don't even mail a ticket. You know there's a charge for tolls on particular motorways, and you have 48 hours to go online and pay the fee, or else. (I can't recall what the "or else" is, but you get the idea.)

Similar in London for the cordon charge. See the TfL website.

 

[George_Apley]

You indirectly hit on the problem here. In London, Mayor Boris Johnson was able to implement this largely of his own volition without needing to cajole people in higher levels of government to go along with him. (London has more than 10 times the square mileage of Boston!)

Meanwhile, Charlie has basically backed himself into a corner on taxes/fees/etc., and a congestion charge will be considered a tax by pundits and average joes alike.

I agree with your analysis, though, of how the parties can approach it. If we have another awful winter (and it's looking like we will), the governor is going to own this thing, and he'll need some more drastic solutions.

I don't think Baker's backed into a corner at all. He could break his taxes pledge if he felt like it. He's not going to get primaried from the right successfully in Massachusetts. The state GOP would never do it.

 

[Coyote137]

I don't think Baker's backed into a corner at all. He could break his taxes pledge if he felt like it. He's not going to get primaried from the right successfully in Massachusetts. The state GOP would never do it.

I don't think being backed into a corner is the same as him not being able to switch positions. It'll just make it that much harder, and the Dems can paint him as having broken a promise (even if they're glad he broke it).

 

[Coyote137]

Funny way to frame the fact that you'd be getting those few rich people to foot the bill for nice transit options for everyone. And you'd also get something that no amount of money can buy right now, and that anyone in a hurry could use, no matter their income level: an uncongested city.

Did I say somewhere that I'm against the idea, or that I think people would be getting screwed? Nowhere did I apply a value judgment. We're probably entirely in agreement on this.

 

[ant8904]

Did I say somewhere that I'm against the idea, or that I think people would be getting screwed? Nowhere did I apply a value judgment. We're probably entirely in agreement on this.

Though I have long ago made my stance. But I'm not. If funding is the problem preventing the transit system to be the niceness implied, then I rather just have the tax rates for that level of income be high enough to fund it rather than congestion pricing (not to mention if we need congestion pricing because that's how we can get transit to be funded, then I have ask how Tokyo manage to have their system so nice while they don't do that?). Meanwhile for the congestion side that I view that I rather see a system that have the transit system be nice while not have to set up that non-rich people only use for moments of high urgency.

 

[bigeman312]

I have ask how Tokyo manage to have their system so nice while they don't do that?

Density. Density. Density. The answer to your question is much more simple than you realize: density.

http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2012/05/density-and-transit-some-numbers.html

 

[whighlander]

A little history goes a long way. The suburbs - housing tracts, highways, the auto industry, the whole lot of it - was one big effort to stave off a 2nd Great Depression from settling in after the war was over.

How will we avert a crisis? We'll build houses out in the middle of nowhere, then build roads to get to those houses, then build cars to drive those roads, and then there's the rubber and oil and so on needed to maintain those cars.

All underwritten by massive marginal tax rates on the wealthy, effectively taking money from the upper 1% so that the average person (likely a veteran and his family) could buy a (modest) home on Long Island.

If you're so against income transfer, better hop in a time machine. The landscape in which we live was created by it.

Coyote -- Totally revisionist history as well as highly distorted economics

First -- Germany was not the only country to think of highways -- Massachusetts was thinking of limited access or pseudo limited access roads as early as during the 20's -- However, beyond laying out the state highways as numbers on existing town and city roads -- RT-128 passed through Lexington Center as Massachusetts Avenue and Waltham Street -- there was a hiatus during the depression and then WWII -- but when the war was over the plans were implemented immediately

And then came the concept of the Interstate Highway System for National Defense purposes as promoted by President Eisenhower who was motivated in part by his experience in the 20's when he was tasked with taking a military detachment from coast to coast

Additionally there was a need to resettle the 16 Million returning vets who had grown up mostly in inner cities in large families and in rural areas on farms -- the newly developing suburbs were the obvious answer -- e.g. Levitowns

The new companies such as DEC and the expansion of the existing "high tech" companies such as Raytheon naturally gravitated to the suburbs as land was cheap, construction was cheap and access via the new highways was superb -- i.e. Route 128 America's Technology Highway was born

 

[Coyote137]

Coyote -- Totally revisionist history as well as highly distorted economics

First -- Germany was not the only country to think of highways -- Massachusetts was thinking of limited access or pseudo limited access roads as early as during the 20's -- However, beyond laying out the state highways as numbers on existing town and city roads -- RT-128 passed through Lexington Center as Massachusetts Avenue and Waltham Street -- there was a hiatus during the depression and then WWII -- but when the war was over the plans were implemented immediately

And then came the concept of the Interstate Highway System for National Defense purposes as promoted by President Eisenhower who was motivated in part by his experience in the 20's when he was tasked with taking a military detachment from coast to coast

Additionally there was a need to resettle the 16 Million returning vets who had grown up mostly in inner cities in large families and in rural areas on farms -- the newly developing suburbs were the obvious answer -- e.g. Levitowns

The new companies such as DEC and the expansion of the existing "high tech" companies such as Raytheon naturally gravitated to the suburbs as land was cheap, construction was cheap and access via the new highways was superb -- i.e. Route 128 America's Technology Highway was born

Did you rush over to wikipedia after reading my post?

With a master's degree in urban planning, I hardly need you to tell me any of this. Nor does anything that you've posted significantly contradict what I wrote, really, but I'll fill in the gaps and inconsistencies.

1. Who said Germany was the only country to think of highways? I didn't even mention Germany - nor imply anything about that country - in my post.

2. If you think the interstate highway system was only about national defense, you're clueless. Regardless, the point about subsidized highways crowding out mass transit stands.

3. You skated right past the subsidies for mortgages I mentioned (which helped make the Levittowns possible). Regardless, the point about subsidized sprawl development being an INCOME TRANSFER (which you said was a bad thing) from those at the top to those in the middle and at the bottom stands. Moreover, the point about government-subsidized sprawl being a key part of why mass transit isn't used by more people stands.

4. These "new companies" were able to go out to the suburbs for the exact reasons I stated, and which I have now restated. Employees were given government-subsidized mortgages, and the highways on which corporate trucks delivered goods were likewise government-subsidized.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you even bothered replying, nor why you thought what I wrote was somehow in massive opposition to what you wrote. It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about. Almost.

 

[Shepard]

Back to the subject of tolling to help fund MBTA ops: putting tolls up on the CAT is probably impossible because of Federal regulations. But what about a modified "exit charge" that acted more like a congestion charge?

I-93 through traffic - no toll
I-93 on-ramps from Greenway - no toll
I-93 off-ramps onto Greenway - pay toll to enter onto city streets

So, there isn't any charge for using the highway. The charge is actually for entering city streets.

 

[bigeman312]

I like it. And that is a good path-of-least-resistance approach. But, given that this is tolling related to the most expensive highway project in United States history for which there is still outstanding debt, don't you think there could be leeway with the Feds? I'm asking because I don't know, but this should seem like the kind of "if there ever was a time, it's now" type of thing the Feds would consider.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Back to the subject of tolling to help fund MBTA ops: putting tolls up on the CAT is probably impossible because of Federal regulations. But what about a modified "exit charge" that acted more like a congestion charge?

I-93 through traffic - no toll
I-93 on-ramps from Greenway - no toll
I-93 off-ramps onto Greenway - pay toll to enter onto city streets

So, there isn't any charge for using the highway. The charge is actually for entering city streets.

FTA's probably going to frown on that. What Baker needs to do is just join the growing lobby of governors pushing the feds to allow expansion of interstate tolling. It's really the only way to make the process clean enough. May even have to be limited like state-line tolls (which CT really wants to implement) or truck-only tolls so the fees are progessive--not regressive--to the vehicles that put the most punishment on the infrastructure and the vehicles least likely to be paying any in-state taxes. It's a significant revenue source nonetheless, and Massachusetts would be doing its part to join the growing coalition of states getting behind this lobby.

 

[Arlington]

FTA's probably going to frown on that. What Baker needs to do is just join the growing lobby of governors pushing the feds to allow expansion of interstate tolling. It's really the only way to make the process clean enough. May even have to be limited like state-line tolls (which CT really wants to implement) or truck-only tolls so the fees are progessive--not regressive--to the vehicles that put the most punishment on the infrastructure and the vehicles least likely to be paying any in-state taxes. It's a significant revenue source nonetheless, and Massachusetts would be doing its part to join the growing coalition of states getting behind this lobby.

I'm all for it, generally, as long as locals don't target out-of-staters (looking at you NH, DE, and MD(JFK-95)) But Tolls would be as unpopular as a congestion charge and probably legally harder (unless there is some kind of national uprising)

Meanwhile a congestion charge "catches" the "worst" (most-congesting) trips at their AM endpoint: we know where 50% to 80% of I-93N/S and I-90 are going to the CBD, where the city (or State, I suppose) could impose a congestion charge without making a Federal case of it.

And you could tax the "donut" around the core with a surtax on "commuter" parking spaces (in Boston,Cambridge,Brookline).

So I'm up to 3 taxes:
- Congestion Zone catches everyone who drives to or through the coare
- Parking Tax catches all with an endpoint in the near-core
- Transit-Access Tax on land (<1000' from transit and 1000-2000' of rail)

Through-commuting that skirts or passed under the core would go untaxed, like getting to the airport from North or South), but we'd catch the Airport crowd at the Tunnels in the PM. That leaves only North-to-South commuters...a problem, but way better than the status quo.

 

[EricS]

Is FTA involved in highway tolling decisions? Or would that be FHWA? Or is that a different FTA? Not trying to play gotcha, just curious which federal agency is involved here.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is FTA involved in highway tolling decisions? Or would that be FHWA? Or is that a different FTA? Not trying to play gotcha, just curious which federal agency is involved here.

One or both. I'm probably getting my "F__" alphabet soup mixed up.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Bus Route Optimization

The bus network is more or less unchanged from the old streetcar network, right down to a majority of the route numbers being the same. That's mainly a result of the Square-to-Square layout of the cowpaths-begat-thoroughfares we've got here in lieu of any semblance of orderly grid. There aren't that many 'new' Yellow Line routes you can invent between any 2 demand points when charting all the ways it gets squeezed, contorted, funneled, and split by the spaghetti streets between those points. And there aren't that many routes with an obvious "Eureka!" moment to be had in retooling their routings. Even most of the alt routings between destinations are more or less legacy because of these factors.

What about Brighton Center to Central Sq Cambridge? It's pretty much a straight line by SOV, but after a short trip on the 57 you have to change to the 64 if going by bus, and the 64 doesn't even take the direct route on River St through Cambridge.

Or what about Wonderland to Malden Center to Medford Sq to Arlington Center? It vaguely resembles a straight line, but you need about four buses (411, 101, 94, 80) with the current network.

Just let the bus be a bus in a network of seamless bus routes. Do you need to take the 1 or the CT1 today? The 77 or "77E" that runs skip-stop for getting deeper into Arlington faster? The primary local or the "A"-suffixed alt route that runs on a parallel street for part of the way and shortens the normal walk to your friend's apartment by a couple blocks? The primary or the "X"-suffixed short-turn that's a little less crowded for lugging a personal cart of groceries? These should be second-nature daily questions with wholly mundane answers across the system on every corridor that merits, not an invitation to inaction through overthinking or one-size-fits-all thinking.

http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-to-improve-transit-including-buses_5.html seems to be arguing the opposite, that CT1 and 1 should merge into a single route. (And I think 23 should get extended to Central Square in Cambridge, probably including stops at Symphony and Hynes, and then 1 should go to Umass-Boston instead of Dudley.)

Regarding 77, I think there ought to be a Red Line stop at Mass Ave between Davis and Alewife, and another at Arlington Center, and probably even one at Arlington Heights; do that, and the all-local 77 would probably work out just fine.

 

[whighlander]

Re: Bus Route Optimization

What about Brighton Center to Central Sq Cambridge? It's pretty much a straight line by SOV, but after a short trip on the 57 you have to change to the 64 if going by bus, and the 64 doesn't even take the direct route on River St through Cambridge.

Or what about Wonderland to Malden Center to Medford Sq to Arlington Center? It vaguely resembles a straight line, but you need about four buses (411, 101, 94, 80) with the current network.



http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-to-improve-transit-including-buses_5.html seems to be arguing the opposite, that CT1 and 1 should merge into a single route. (And I think 23 should get extended to Central Square in Cambridge, probably including stops at Symphony and Hynes, and then 1 should go to Umass-Boston instead of Dudley.)

Regarding 77, I think there ought to be a Red Line stop at Mass Ave between Davis and Alewife, and another at Arlington Center, and probably even one at Arlington Heights; do that, and the all-local 77 would probably work out just fine.

Joel -- you seem to be new to the area -- i suggest you do some reading of what is available by googling, etc. -- much of this is material which has been discussed over the past 100+ years