The odd history of the 66 Bus Wiggle

One frequently-mentioned (and usually fallacious) argument is that we need to rework our bus routes because they follow the same routes as they did in the days of the streetcars. (This is a fallacy because, in most cases, the streetcars followed the path of least resistance: straight, wide roads with mixed uses and density. In Houston the uses had changed so drastically since the streetcars it made some sense, in older, denser cities, it doesn't.) Then there's the case of the 66 bus in Boston, Brookline, Boston again, and then Cambridge, particularly the two-sides-of-a-triangle "wiggle" to Union Square in Allston. (Here's a visual primer on the 66)

This isn't entirely true. There are a lot of reasons why the
66 bus sucks. But this shows the wiggle well.
Via here.

The wiggle stems from a route realignment in 1989, where several routes were rejiggered, which is the type of route realignment I think the T should do more of. Before 1989, there were several routes which terminated in Union Square in Allston, not because it is a major activity locus, or a major transfer point, but because back in the day, there was a car barn there and BERy decided to start and end routes there. Back then, the following routes served Union Square Allston:

• 57 Kenmore to Watertown Yard
• 63 Cleveland Circle to Central Square via Western
• 64 Oak Square to Central Square
• 66 Allston to Dudley (note that there was never a streetcar line across the Anderson Bridge; this was always a bus line)
• 86 Union Square Allston to Union Square Somerville via Harvard

After the changes, except for the 57 and 64, the routes were split apart and recombined at Union to better serve the needs of the traveling public (what a thought!). The 63 was combined with the 86 to form the current 86 bus (which had been extended to Sullivan in 1981 a few years after the Orange Line was realigned). The 66 was then extended to Harvard Square to cover the section in Lower Allston the 86 bus missed. This better focused service towards Harvard (where subway connections were, since 1985, available in both directions, and which has more terminal capacity than Central) and provided a one-seat ride between Brookline and Harvard for the first time, leaving us with the current routes:

• 57 Kenmore to Watertown Yard
• 64 Oak Square to Central Square
• 66 Harvard to Dudley 
• 86 Cleveland Circle to Sullivan

Initially, the 66 was routed straight through on Harvard Ave. Apparently there were protests (not sure by whom; see comments) and that the route no longer served Union Square and it was realigned, and since then has cost through-riding passengers (the majority, although maybe not at the time on the new route) several minutes of travel time. The gist of the protest, as far as I can tell, is that you couldn't get to Union Square on the 66. But this is not a valid argument. The 66 intersects the 57, another high-frequency bus route, which serves Union Square. If you are unable to make the (short) walk to Union, you can instead utilize the transfer feature of the bus network. Most users can walk the 1200 feet (a 4 minute walk) to Harvard Ave; others can use the every-ten-minutes 57 bus and transfer (or the every not-nearly-as-often-as-it-should-run 64). Apparently, planners at the time kowtowed to these complaints. It probably costs the T tens of thousands of dollars in operating costs every year, and likely reduces ridership as potential riders choose other modes because of the length of the route.

A straightened route would consolidate several stops at Harvard and Commonwealth, which could be rebuilt as a high-amenity stop (larger shelter, higher curb, real-time arrival display, signal priority, etc). The few passengers who need to get to Union Square and can not make the walk could, instead, ride the 57 (or even the 64). No stop would lose service (the entirety of the wiggle duplicates other routes) and it would make the 66 faster and more reliable. We hear that the T should replicate Houston's bus realignment program (it shouldn't). But small changes like this which would pay dividends are barely even considered. They should be.

Visualizing Street Widths in the Boston area

There has been a lot of discussion in the Allston task force about street widths in the area there. Since Google Maps and StreetView gives us a great way to measure the widths of streets and look at their profiles, here are many streets in Boston—most of them commercial streets but some others shown as well. They start from narrow streets in the oldest neighborhoods and range to the widest streets of the Seaport (I left out highways and streets with transit reservations). This should be a good resource for looking at what different street widths can accommodate. 

Note that these widths are building-to-building, or the outside edge of the sidewalk on each side. 

There seem to be groups of streets, and how a street is built is often very different even when the width is similar. In Boston, there are many streets that are 36 feet wide, 50 feet, 60 feet, 66 feet, 80 feet, 90 feet and 98 feet (many major roads are this wide, and their character varies significantly). Very few roads are any wider than that, except for some streets in the Seaport which are 132 feet wide. Here are streets shown, from narrowest to widest.

20 feet, Margaret Street, North End.

32 feet, Temple Street, Beacon Hill. 

32 feet: Melrose Street, Bay Village.

36 feet: Pinckney Street, Beacon Hill.

36 feet: School Street, Downtown.

50 feet: Mount Auburn Street, Harvard Square, Cambridge.

50 feet: Washington Street, Downtown Crossing.

50 feet: West Newton Street, South End.

58 feet: Centre Street, Jamaica Plain.

58 feet, Tremont Street, Downtown

60 feet: Elm Street, Davis Square

60 feet: JFK Street, Harvard Square.

66 feet: Cambridge Street, Inman Square.

66 feet: Charles Street, Beacon Hill.

66 feet: Harvard Ave, Allston.

75 feet: Beacon Street, Back Bay.

80 feet: Washington Street, Brookline Village. 

82 feet: Mass Ave, Back Bay.

82 feet: Kneeland St, Chinatown

82 feet: Columbus Ave, Egleston.

90 feet: Newbury Street, Back Bay.

90 feet: Boylston Street, Copley Square. 

90 feet: Columbus Ave, South End.

90 feet, Main Street, Kendall Square (under reconstruction).

98 feet: Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill .

98 feet: Brighton Ave, Allston.

 98 feet: Cambridge St, Allston.

98 feet: Mass Ave, Central Square.

98 feet: Mass Ave, north of Harvard

98 feet: Summer Street, Seaport.

98 feet: Tremont Street, South End.

98 feet: Boylston Street, Fenway.

98 feet: Mass Ave, South End

110 feet: Columbia Road, Uphams Corner.

120 feet: Blue Hill Avenue.

132 feet: Seaport Blvd

132 feet: Congress Street, Seaport.

Allston presentation link

A lot of people have asked for the Allston presentation that I gave to the Task Force. It's here. Enjoy (?).

Update 9/28: Here is the "dueling" presentation from ABC. Dueling very much in quotes, because I think they are 90%+ the same. I've worked a lot with the authors, and think both have merits. (You may even see a slide in there from me :)

How the North South Rail Link could work

North South Rail Link schematic showing current train volumes for Commuter Rail

lines, potential future RER-style connections and new and existing stations.

Discussion about the North South Rail Link has bubbled up again, with Mike Dukakis and Bill Weld writing in the Globe about how it should be a priority, Commonwealth magazine calling them out on where the money would come from, and Dukakis replying that if you wanted to find the money, you certainly could. A thread started on Universal Hub with a lot of people wondering how the rail link would function. Here are my thoughts/explanations.

Efficiency. The crux of the issue is that MassDOT wants/needs more space at South Station (and eventually North Station) and is limited by the number of tracks. Turning trains around is time-consuming: you have to unboard (deboard?) the train, board the train (even at rush hour, 50-100 or more reverse commuters may be waiting), have the crew change ends, and then thread out the same slow trackage you came in. Even with the best of practices, a terminal station track can only accommodate a train every 15 minutes or so. But if trains run through, boarding and alighting is faster and easier, there's no need for the crew to change ends, and with more destinations,  fewer passengers get off at each stop. You could route 20 trains per hour per track, meaning that four tracks in the rail link could do the work of 20 at South Station (currently there are 13; the expansion would add about a half dozen more).

Electrification. You need to electrify the whole system (and maybe Amtrak to Portland). Maybe you could get away with dual mode engines, but that's lipstick on a pig. Electrification of the Commuter Rail network would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 to $2 billion dollars. Not cheap. But huge operational efficiencies: electric trains are cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, and have faster acceleration meaning that trip times (and staff costs) are shorter, while ridership is higher (faster trains = higher ridership).

North/South imbalance and the Grand Junction. The idea behind the North South Rail Link is that trains coming in to South Station run through the tunnel and out one of the North Side lines. This is the Philadelphia model. This works well in theory (some passengers would get a one-seat ride; others would have to change), but in practice more trains run in to South Station than North Station (although this was not always the case; in 1972 there were twice as many passengers at North Station). Several pair off relatively well:

Needham-Haverhill
Providence/Stoughton-Lowell
Franklin-Fitchburg
Old Colony Lines-Eastern Route

But falls apart when you realize that all the North Side routes are taken and you haven't accounted for the Worcester or Fairmount Lines. You could route them through to other terminals, say, to Anderson Woburn, but this seems wasteful; you don't need a train every 8 minutes inbound from Woburn. This is where the Grand Junction comes in. If it were grade-separated in Cambridge (or maybe even if not; there are grade crossings in downtown Chicago with 20 trains per hour at peak times), Worcester Trains could split off at West Station (hopefully) and make a loop (much like lines in Melbourne, where a similar imbalance existed), serving Yawkey, Back Bay, Downtown and Kendall. As for the Fairmount Line …

Potential for RER(/S-bahn/Crosslink)-style service. Having the rail link in place with the Grand Junction connection would not only allow you to route trains through the city, but it would also allow you to implement RER-type service filling much of the urban ring and providing more frequent service than Commuter Rail (although Commuter Rail could run more frequently as well). If all the paired lines shared one set of tunnels, the Worcester Line could share the other with the following RER-type services:

Allston to Assembly via Cambridge (Kendall) and Sullivan
Readville to Allston via Downtown and Cambridge (Kendall)
Allston to Chelsea via Downtown and Sullivan

These would operate frequently all day, every 10 to 15 minutes, allowing transfers between subway and Commuter Rail. This leverages the capacity of the rail link to create a complementary urban rail network to provide new connections and take some pressure off the existing hub-and-spoke network.

Get rid of North Station. Most ideas about the Rail Link include three downtown stations. But you only need two. Where North Station is today is convenient to very little, and the half mile to its north is taken up by highway ramps and water. A better idea would be a station between Aquarium and Haymarket. It still allows for transfers to all subway lines, and there is very little that is less than a 10 minute walk from North Station but more than a 10 minute walk from Haymarket. It would save money, too. (Obviously, the existing Green/Orange line station would remain.)

Open new land to development. Much of the land near North and South Stations is taken up by trackage, and the Rail Link, obviating the need for these stations (a couple of tracks to use in emergencies and for trains like the Lake Shore Limited might make sense, at South Station especially, although these trains could operate to West Station and provide connections there instead), and this would be very valuable land. In addition, it would render Boston Engine Terminal obsolete as maintenance would be for electric vehicles, and if maintenance facilities were rebuilt on less valuable land (say, in Billerica or next to the Anderson/Woburn station). Based on what Northpoint just sold for, it would be worth maybe half a billion dollars in development rights. A lot of this money could be captured to help pay for the rail link itself.

Will the North South Rail Link happen any time soon? Probably not. But hopefully this will help people understand its potential (which is huge!) and what we're talking about when we talk about the NSRL.

Allston: Let's look for a win-win

This is a straight quote from Fred Salvucci about the Allston viaduct: instead of talking about shared pain, we should talk about a win-win. He also referred to my plan as "genius" (or maybe me as a genius, I am too verklempt). Anyway, talk amongst yourselves; I'll give you a topic: here are a couple of updates regarding some technical-ish aspects of the Allston project, to address a couple of concerns I've heard from some people.

1. There won't be a direct yard lead from the Worcester Line trackage east in to the train stabling yard. The answer is … yes, probably, let's talk about it further. In the previous iteration, I had the Grand Junction viaduct descending from to West Station at the same time as the Worcester Line ascends. The issue is that for a Worcester yard lead to leave the Worcester alignment, it needs to stay fully at the base grade until the end of the "throat" section before crossing under the Grand Junction.

So, how do we do this? Well, first, the Grand Junction viaduct needs to continue at its grade (24' above grade) for about 50 more feet to allow the railroad track to pass under it, feasible with no more than a 1% grade. And the Worcester Line would need to proceed at its grade (0') to the end of the viaduct, before ascending to the station and assume a low grade beyond since it will be made for low-speed yard moves (let's assume 0.5%). This all works (although the yard may have to be dug out a bit lower, which will be better for eventual air rights). I discussed crossing one of the Worcester Line tracks under the Grand Junction recently, to allow for island platforms and easy transfers.

The issue is that then the Worcester Line would have to ascend to West Station, and it would have to do so at a higher grade, in this case, 1.5%. However, I think this is feasible. There is currently no freight east of the Beacon Park area on the Worcester Line. 1.5% is steep for passenger trains, but there is a mitigating factor: it would be traversed uphill by trains decelerating westbound to West Station, and downhill by trains accelerating eastbound from the station. So the gravity would actually aid the trains in and out of the station.

Here's a drawing:

2. There is a question of the support structure for the Grand Junction viaduct. I am not a structural engineer (as I've said before), and it's certainly a possibility that the single center posts would not be sufficient to support freight rail. This could be mitigated with supports on both sides of the eastbound Turnpike. While not as elegant as the single post design, it's quite possible that it would be required for 150-ton freight railcars and heavy rail passenger trains. This is obviously something that needs further study.

Quick Allston update

I've had some questions about my Allston plans along the lines of "how steep do the slopes need to be to match the grade of the Worcester Line and Grand Junction Line at the proposed West Station?" There have also been concerns about the grade of the Grand Junction rising from beneath the BU Bridge to ascend over the Turnpike.

The answer to the first question is: not very steep. I've gone over the grades before but have illustrated it in somewhat more detail below. It's perfectly feasible with a 1% grade; basically, you have about 1100 feet for the two lines to meet, and one can ascend while the other descends. This would put the grade of the track in the station at 14 feet—slightly lower than the current railroad—and about 10 feet lower than the adjacent streets in the BU Campus.

[Quick clarifying update on the above chart: dashed lines for the Grand Junction and Turnpike show areas where their alignments are outside of the constrained right of way area; for the Grand Junction, across the BU Bridge, and for the Turnpike, towards the toll plaza.]

The long and short of it is that the further west you move West Station, the lower it can sit. If it were moved to Cambridge Street, it could be at a grade of 0 feet, well below the current grade, although it would be much further from the core of the BU Campus. Wherever it is is a compromise: further east is higher (really anywhere west of Ashford Street would be a split-grade station with ramps or stairways between the two lines) and further west is lower. It would also be possible to have the Grand Junction in the center and the Worcester Line split on the outside; this might be preferable to easily enable cross-platform transfers. NB: Drawing not to scale:

Phasing the Grand Junction viaduct

In a previous post, this page explored how the Allston Turnpike relocation could be built without a large road viaduct. Thanks to input from several sources, here is a very rough idea of how it could be phased, with no interruption to Turnpike traffic or Worcester Commuter Rail line (aside from quick weekend-long changeovers) and only minimal closures (in the months range, not years) to the Grand Junction railroad. Note that while these are largely to scale, they are by no means engineering drawings, and that (especially laterally) there may be changes, as I am estimating this off of measuring aerial photographs on Google Maps, not actually surveying the highway.

I am first going to show the elevations for each phase, crossing at a point in the middle of the current viaduct. There will obviously be differences at either end, where roads and railroads will have to ramp up or down to reach the construction phase. However, those will be shown in the aerial views, further down. In each of these, the Charles River is on the left, and Boston University is on the right, in other words, they are looking east. The scale in feet, with a grid showing every 20 feet horizontally and every 10 feet vertically.

Current conditions have the Turnpike on a viaduct over the railroad, Soldier's Field Road (SFR) and the bike/ped facility (Paul Dudley White Path, or PDWP).

In Phase 1, several steps would occur:

1. Soldier's Field Road is relocated towards the river and potentially narrowed slightly (Memorial Drive is 10 feet narrower than SFR yet still has four lanes of traffic). The PDWP is moved slightly towards the river.
2. The DCR "parkland" between SFR and the Turnpike—currently weeds and gravel—is excavated approximately four feet and three westbound Turnpike lanes are build there. Three lanes are viable during the project, as the current three westbound lanes (owing to the Commonwealth Avenue bridge project) are suitable for traffic volumes. This grade is four feet lower than the current Soldiers Field Road, level with the lowest point where the Turnpike crosses under Commonwealth Avenue.
3. The Grand Junction is retained under the westbound Turnpike lanes. A new, permanent bridge is built for the railroad over SFR, with extra width to accommodate a bicycle/pedestrian path looping up to the BU Bridge (and eventually the "People's Pike" along the Grand Junction to BU and Allston). The new bridge is also built for the Grand Junction under the existing Turnpike viaduct, while the Grand Junction's current connection is kept to the north. A ramp down to grade is also built below the current viaduct.
4. Once at grade, the Grand Junction alignment is moved slightly south to allow excavation and construction for foundations for supports for the new Grand Junction viaduct. These can be built during or after the Turnpike viaduct is removed.
5. The PDWP is relocated under the new, wider Grand Junction bridge along SFR, eliminating the dangerous (narrow, bumpy, slippery when wet, poor sight lines) boardwalk under the BU Bridge. There is plenty of room under the BU Bridge for both a level path and a ramp up to parallel the Grand Junction (24 feet, enough for each path to be 12 feet wide).
6. The Turnpike is moved under the new Grand Junction bridge and on to the temporary alignment. At this point the Grand Junction's current alignment is removed and service is suspended until the viaduct can be removed above the easternmost section of the Grand Junction. Once this is done, the rest of the removal can proceed with the line in service, with care to be taken to allow for daily and as-necessary traffic on the Grand Junction. 
7. The westbound Turnpike ramps back up to the viaduct near where the current exit ramp leaves the mainline. A spur track is built under this westernmost area to serve Houghton Chemical. 

Phase 1A (above) shows how temporary supports would be built on the south side of the highway (near BU) and the right of way slightly widened to allow for the Worcester Line to be relocated from underneath the viaduct structure.

Once Phase 1 is completed, half of the Turnpike has been removed, and the supports for the Grand Junction viaduct have been put in to place. In this phase, second half of the Turnpike comes down. For this to occur, the following has to happen:

1. The three westbound Turnpike lanes are kept as-is, and four eastbound lanes are built between the current eastbound structure, above the location of the Grand Junction viaduct.
2. The Worcester Line is moved to the outside of the Turnpike structure. This may require temporary supports and/or the temporary taking of some land from Buick Street behind Boston University. This will need to be explored further. Another ramp is built under the to-be-demolished Turnpike, again for the Grand Junction, and a temporary bridge across the location of the eastbound lanes. The Grand Junction will be placed out of service while the viaduct is demolished above this grade; again, this would be the first priority to minimize disruption.

At this point, the main highway work is mostly complete, with the ability to have four 12-foot lanes for each direction of highway in the main cross-section, as the eastbound Turnpike lanes are built at the same level as the westbound lanes where the viaduct previously stood. The Grand Junction is again put on a temporary ramp (with a potential short shutdown), this time alongside the Worcester Line railroad. Some extra room is left in the median of the Turnpike to allow for construction of the Grand Junction viaduct. This could be pre-cast off-site (perhaps in the Allston yards area) and assembled at off-peak times with temporary lane closures.

Once the Grand Junction viaduct is built, several punchlist items are completed:

1. The bike path and Storrow Drive are moved four feet to the south, as the westbound Turnpike is narrowed slightly taking up space previously used for construction of the viaduct. 
2. Both sides of the turnpike now reach their final alignment with four twelve-foot lanes with three-foot shoulders (wider than most of the Turnpike extension today; so perhaps a few feet of this leeway which could be better used for the PDWP), and with far better grades and sightlines than the current highway; important since with open road tolling vehicles will no longer be slowing down or speeding up at the toll plaza.
3. The Worcester Line is double-tracked lowered to the same grade as the Turnpike (or perhaps a couple of feet lower) to allow future overbuild.
4. Supports for a wide bicycle/pedestrian/park facility are built over the eastbound Turnpike and railroad tracks, connecting Allston to the BU Bridge and PDWP, and eventually along the Grand Junction bridge to Cambridge and beyond.

This is the final elevation of the project. Here are the corresponding aerial views:

The approximate location of the cross section is shown. A is on the right side of the cross sections, B on the left. Colors on the aerial views match those on the cross sections.