Revitalizing Transportation in Greater Boston
Engineering Sciences 96 Spring 2018
Mary Agajanian Daniel Ayane Michael Connors Ibrahim Elnaggar Alexandra Fehnel Will Fried Elizabeth Healey James Jones John Alex Keszler Matthew Li James McLean Nick Pham Zaria Smalls Nicole Trenchard Adam Vareberg Lyra Wanzer
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction to problem
3. Investigation 3.1 MBTA 3.2 System Mapping Stakeholder Map
4. Defining the problem and ideation
5. Framing of Solutions 5.1 Problem Statement 5.2 Criteria
6. Development of solutions 6.1 Street Transformation 6.1.4 Evaluation of Street Transformation 6.2 Urban Ring 6.2.1 Alignment 6.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Elements 6.2.3 Evaluation of Urban Ring 6.2 Ferries 6.2.1 Evaluation of Ferries
7. Conclusion
8. Acknowledgements
9. Class Biosketch
10. Bibliography
1
1. Executive Summary
There is a major gap in transportation infrastructure between North and South Station in Boston. Trains can’t easily move between the two stations, and there is no direct public transit route to connect the stations. A potential underground rail link has been proposed many times in the past. To tackle this transportation gap, a group of 16 students was presented with the challenge of analyzing the problem, developing problem statements, discussing the issue with stakeholders, and proposing potential solutions to mitigate the issues that arise from the gap between North and South Station. Proposals like street transformation, an Urban Ring, and ferries were suggested and evaluated. A solution space that includes these three solutions would revitalize transportation in the Boston area and provide links between the stations thereby reducing congestion, increasing connectivity, reducing emissions, and increasing public transit ridership.
2. Introduction to problem
The 1-mile gap that exists between North and South Stations divides the Commuter Rail and Amtrak Systems in the Northeast Corridor. To commute from New York to Maine, a passenger would need to depart the train at South Station, walk for 30 minutes or take two T line trains to arrive at North Station.
Hoping to resolve this issue of connectivity dividing the rail lines in the northern and southern parts of the city, the city of Boston contracted design consultancy company Arup to perform a feasibility assessment of one such proposal—the North South Rail Link (NSRL). During this semester, 16 students from ES96: Engineering Problem Solving and Design Project sought to perform their own assessment, and proposed alternative solutions to addressing this problem and the greater challenges facing public transportation in the Boston area.
In the past, there have been many proposals to connect these stations, including the NSRL which would involve building an underground tunnel between North and South Stations. The exact route followed in this link varied with each proposal, and potential ideas included a possible “Central Station” that would be built between the two stations. The ES96 group used this past proposal as a starting idea for connecting the stations and for evaluating transportation in Boston more generally.
Students in the class began early in the semester by traveling between the stations on multiple routes to gain a deeper understanding of the design challenge. They spoke to stakeholders such as the MBTA, MassDOT, Boston residents, and Boston public transportation users to determine further the complications of the system. The group consulted experts from the MBTA and documents describing the structure of existing infrastructure in Boston. Finally, the group proposed a set of solutions to connect the two stations and improve infrastructure in the Greater Boston area. The group’s criteria for evaluation included reducing congestion, increasing connectivity, reducing emissions, and increasing public transit
2
ridership. The combined solution space spanned by all three proposals satisfies these criteria. These proposals include a road transformation of Congress Street, an Urban Ring, and a ferry system.
Congress Street’s road transformation uses the principles of road redesign to include integrated bike lanes and pedestrian friendly zones. The creation of the Urban Ring aims to circumferentially connect the greater Boston area with a bus rapid transit system. Finally, the ferry system utilizes the existing waterways to connect North and South Stations. The implementation of these proposals could assist in revitalizing Boston’s transportation infrastructure.
3. Investigation 3.1 MBTA
Background Looking at the history of rail in Boston allows for a better understanding of the challenges that face transportation in Boston today. Boston’s interconnected train lines were initially built by private companies to serve and develop specific communities. As they were not built in cooperation with each other, two distinct rail lines served the northern and southern parts of Boston. As a result, the constructions of North and South Stations were independent of one another. The two stations were originally linked by the Atlantic Avenue Elevated Line (AAEL), an elevated train line that served inner Boston and connected these two main train stations; however, due to a large drop in ridership the elevated line was shut down in 1938 and was later used in 1942 for scrap metal for WWll, leaving Boston without a North South Rail Link. Since then, Boston has been searching for a way to connect North and South Stations.
A North South Rail Link was first called for in 1912, even before the AAEL was shut down. Greater Boston Area residents and politicians called for the city to find a different way to connect the stations; however the onset of the Great Depression and WWI thwarted any proposed change. The topic of connection was brought up again during the 1970s and 80s in what became known as the Central Artery/Big Dig. This idea—unpopular among Boston citizens for the toll its construction would have on the city—included plans for a central underground railway to connect North and South Stations; however, the “Big Dig” never came to fruition. In March 1987, President Reagan vetoed the federal funding of the project, citing specifically the use of the funds for the construction of a railway as the reason for the veto. In an effort to overturn the veto and receive funding the idea for the rail link was scrapped.
Some years later, Boston created the “Central Artery Task Force” in order to find a way to reintroduce the rail link into the project. This task force proposed building a rail line beneath the Artery 3
tunnels that would connect North and South Station; however, the rising cost of such a project combined with public outcry against the Big Dig caused Governor Romney to suspend the project.
Several years ago, Boston reinvigorated its pursuit to create a North South Rail Link. In 2014, the Massachusetts Legislature authorized funding for the update and completion of the North South Rail Link (NSRL). This led to the state soliciting bids for a $2 million feasibility study for the link. The bid was awarded in July 2017 to ARUP, one of the stakeholders considered carefully when producing the proposals here.1
Today In addressing the NSRL in the context of Greater Boston’s overall transportation system, it was important to understand fully the details of MBTA’s management, ridership, infrastructure, demographics, and project implementations as they exist today.
Management Since 1964, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has managed and controlled the rapid transit rail system (the “T”), which runs in and around the immediate Boston area; however, the operation of the commuter rail system, which relies on heavy rail to transport passengers between Boston and communities within the region, is contracted out until June 2022 to French transportation company Keolis.2 Heavy rail generally refers to traditional passenger trains used to transport larger loads at more regional or extensive distances than a light rail system, which relies on smaller frames and lighter loads to carry passengers in relatively urban situations. Governor Baker has often expressed displeasure with Keolis’ management of the heavy-rail commuter rail.
An important factor to consider is that the management of the commuter rail is likely to change in the near future. This is noteworthy because of the influence of the commuter rail on transportation in Boston and its direct relation to the NSRL, and should be appreciated as an opportunity for the MBTA to revise the commuter rail management system, improve oversight, and ensure that the goals of the MBTA and its commuter rail riders are better met. In addition, as the freedom to make changes is greater with entities that work better and more closely together, a new contracted partner to the MBTA could be instrumental in revitalizing this system.
Ridership/Demographics Further investigation into the challenges facing the MBTA and the transportation system as a whole led the group to conduct research regarding the demographics and other relevant information about MBTA riders.
1“Boston's Two Terminals and Early Efforts to Link Them.” North South Rail Link, Citizens for the North South Rail Link, www.northsouthraillink.org/two-terminals/. 2 Bedford, Keith. “Baker Criticizes Keolis over Post-Storm Commuter Rail Struggles - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 11 Jan. 2018, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/01/11/baker-criticizes-keolis-over-post-storm-commuter-rail-struggles/ynQ2Fd Q0bZ3vtnK5N00fkJ/story.html. 4
Using ridership information including general demographics, overall ridership numbers, trip reason, destination, modes of transportation after egress, and transfers—collected from a survey conducted by the MBTA in 2008–2009—gave an idea of the factors relevant to determining potential ridership of the NSRL. This survey was given to commuter rail passengers during commutes and had a male-to-female ratio of 54% to 46 %. It found that 53% of riders are in a household income bracket of $100k/year, and 80% a bracket of $60k or more. These brackets start at “<$20k” and work their way to “>$100k” in increments of $10k, with two final brackets of $60k–$75k and $75k–$100k. The data shows that 86.6% of the ridership listed “work-based” as their reason for travel, while school was the second highest at 3.2%. Additionally, the Financial District, Government Center, and the Boston Waterfront combined for 35% of the riders’ destinations, with 60% of all destinations located somewhere in Boston Proper. After egressing from the commuter rail system, 63% of riders chose to walk while 23% transferred to the rapid transit system. Table 1 describes transfers, or changes in a passenger’s mode of transit in the same trip, between the commuter rail and rapid transit stations which are relevant to the NSRL.3
To Commuter Rail Commuter Rail South Station or North Station South Lines North Lines Back Bay
From North Station South Station or Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Back Bay North Lines South Lines
Transfers 31 113 649 414
Table 1: Transfers between commuter rail and rapid transit systems
Commuter rail and subway ridership totals are more recent, even with the antiquated counting methods of head counting by conductors and train auditing used on the commuter rail. These totals indicate that approximately 425,000 people enter a T station on the Red, Orange or Blue Lines on a weekday. This number decreases to 200,000 entries on weekends and holidays. In 2015, it was estimated that the weekday ridership on the commuter rail ranged anywhere from 104,000 to 150,000 daily riders.4 Conductor headcounts indicated a 13% decline in commuter rail ridership since 2009, while train audit data indicated a 9% decrease.5 While these numbers vary, it is crucial to realize that ridership in Boston decreased, despite population growth in the area and a general increase in commuter rail ridership nationwide.
3 Pescaro, Mike, and Marc Fortier. “MBTA Will Not Extend Commuter Rail Operator's Contract.” NECN, NECN, 6 Jan. 2017, www.necn.com/news/business/MBTA-to-Part-Ways-With-Commuter-Rail-Operator-Keolis-After-Contract-409826 095.html. 4 Barry, Mike, and Brian Card. “Visualizing MBTA Data.” Visualizing MBTA Data, mbtaviz.github.io/. 5 Koczela, Steve. “Commuter Rail Ridership Numbers Don't Add Up.” CommonWealth Magazine, 26 Mar. 2015, commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/commuter-rail-ridership-numbers-dont-add-up/. 5
Infrastructure/Service Keeping in mind that the NSRL is an infrastructure upgrade meant to, among other things, noticeably change the public transportation system in Boston and the surrounding area, it is crucial to study and understand the state of the MBTA’s current infrastructure and what is being done to make necessary upgrades to this infrastructure.
In their 2008–2009 survey, the MBTA found that 58.5% of commuter rail riders identified reliability as one of the three most important service qualities when commuting, while 33.6% of riders ranked frequency of service in their top three.6 Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) Focus40 report shows the responses of a similar, smaller-scale survey conducted in Summer of 2015, which listed infrequency, speed of service, unreliability and crowdedness as the top four factors that frequently prevented riders from taking the commuter rail. In the same report, MassDOT claimed that—at time of publication—the MBTA met these standards in all areas of service quality, as outlined in the MBTA Service Delivery Policy, except in on-time performance.7 The discrepancy between the sentiment among riders and the standards that are set by the transportation authorities is not only surprising, but also be prove useful in understanding the fundamental challenges that the MBTA faces in service quality and decreasing ridership. Further analysis of the Greater Boston Area during this survey window reveals severe winter weather as the foremost cause of delay, followed closely by delays due to fleet and track/signal issues. The issues of infrastructure failure and outdatedness have also played a major role in these delays.
Numerics skew the MBTA’s initiatives towards improvement. Specifically, the MBTA relies heavily on State of Good Repair scores, which account for the age, condition and performance of the system in consideration, to determine the type of infrastructure repairs needed. These scores are broken down for all asset categories of the commuter rail. Of the 81 locomotives and 410 coaches utilized by the MBTA, many will exceed the predicted useful life of 30 years within the next 5 years, with about 50% of locomotives and 14% of coaches already beyond it.8 To address these infrastructural needs, the MBTA has ordered 40 new locomotives (shown in Figure 2), 100 overhauls, and 75 bi-level coaches to add to their fleet.9 In addition, according to their Focus40 report, the MBTA is updating their signals and communication to meet the guidelines mandated in 2008 by the Federal Railroad Administration and is considering right of way, bridges, stations, parking and platform types for infrastructure improvement. Notably, though the challenges facing the MBTA revolve around users and their experience with service, all of these improvements undertaken by the MBTA are technical.
6Pescaro, Mike, and Marc Fortier. “MBTA Will Not Extend Commuter Rail Operator's Contract.” NECN, NECN, 6 Jan. 2017, www.necn.com/news/business/MBTA-to-Part-Ways-With-Commuter-Rail-Operator-Keolis-After-Contract-409826 095.html. 7 “Focus 40.” Focus 40 The 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA, MBTA, www.mbtafocus40.com/. 8 United States, Commuter Rail. “MBTA STATE OF THE SERVICE Commuter Rail.” MBTA STATE OF THE SERVICE Commuter Rail, MBTA, 2012. 9 United States,“ State of the System: Commuter Rail.” State of the System: Commuter Rail, Massachusetts, 2015. www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/49/Docs/Focus40CommuterRail.pdf. 6
Figure 2: The current, outdated commuter rail locomotives (left) and the newly ordered locomotives for the updated fleet (right)
Finances Given that financial concerns have a large impact on an organization’s actions, it is important to understand and appreciate the MBTA’s current financial situation when determining internal MBTA issues and the sustainability of the MBTA as an institution. These finances also provide a context for the feasibility and viability of this project and any proposed solutions.
With debt over $5.5 billion and steadily climbing operating expenses, the MBTA does not painting a convincing picture of financially sustainability. Its expenses increased by 3.6% from 2014 to 2015, climbing up to 1.93 billion USD.10 In an audit report by financial consulting firm KPMG, much of the expenditure was said to be driven by wages—with the MBTA expanding its staff by 300 positions—as well as increases in service spending, commuter rail support, employee training and efforts to meet regulatory guidelines; however, such operating expenses are consistent with the MBTA’s revenue growth—a consistent year-on-year increase from 2010–2015. More than 30% of this revenue comes from fares, while a significant portion, considered “other operating revenue,” is attributed to advertising, parking, and real estate operations.11
As a result, in 2015, Charlie Baker organized a panel to review the finances of the MBTA and create an action plan to move forward. The panel found an “unsustainable operating budget, chronic capital underinvestment, and a shortsighted expansion program”12 , in addition to many other weaknesses.
10 Garvin, Patrick, and David Butler. “How the MBTA Makes and Spends Its Money - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 2 Mar. 2015, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/02/how-mbta-makes-and-spends-its-money/PL3Z70XaEFfnI42awRcKMO/st ory.html. 11 “Schedules and Maps.” MBTA Operating & Capital Budget: Governor’s Special Panel to Review the MBTA, MassDot, Oct. 2017, www.mbta.com/. 12 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA Back on Track.” Bike Parking | Bikes | MBTA, MBTA, 2015, mbta.com/mbta-back-on-track. 7
Recommendations included “significantly increasing revenue from fares, advertising, and real estate” as well as creating a “dedicated state-funded capital program to modernize” while “pausing construction spending for system expansion”. Additionally, the panel recommended to “rationalize and reform system routes”,13 giving rise to potential NSRL solutions such as road transformation and an external ring around Boston, which are both further detailed later.
Specifically struggling financially within the MBTA is the commuter rail. From 2001 to 2005, though ridership on the commuter rail decreased, the fiscal year budget for the commuter rail system increased by an average of 5.4% per year.14 This increasing budget and falling ridership is unsustainable and could lead to a long term financial crisis.
The MBTA has a great influence on the transportation of people and ideas in and around Boston; however, it faces many challenges regarding ridership, infrastructure, finances and the like. To better grasp the context of the NSRL, the problems it attempts to address, and how specifically it can resolve these challenges, it is valuable to consider other facets of the transportation system, such as alternative modes of transport and underutilized infrastructure or technologies.
Future Envisioning a future in which the city of Boston could look drastically different, the solutions proposed here utilize sustainable modes of transportation that align with the future of Boston.
Over the past few years, the city has taken great strides towards imagining its future. Between Imagine Boston 2030 and Go Boston 2030—both created by the City of Boston as planning guides for the future—many possible changes and novel issues in the future are addressed. These issues cover a broad array of topics, from population and employment projections to climate change. The solutions proposed here must take all of these considerations into account in order to provide sustainable and holistic means of solving transportation issues in the Greater Boston area. 1516
For example, population change is one of the most critical elements to consider in developing a suitable means of transportation for the city. The change in population considered must not only be limited to the City of Boston itself, but that of the Greater Boston Area. The city is guiding growth to create new places to live and work, improve quality of life, and increase affordability. The population is projected to increase considerably by 2030. By this extrapolation, Boston is projected to reach a
13 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA Back on Track.” Bike Parking | Bikes | MBTA, MBTA, 2015, mbta.com/mbta-back-on-track. 14“Schedules and Maps.” MBTA Operating & Capital Budget: Governor’s Special Panel to Review the MBTA, MassDot, Oct. 2017, www.mbta.com/. 15 “Go Boston 2030 Vision and Action Plan Released.” Boston.gov, MBTA, 19 May 2017, www.boston.gov/news/go-boston-2030-vision-and-action-plan-released. 16 “Imagine Boston 2030.” Imagine Boston 2030, City of Boston, imagine.boston.gov/. 8
population of 724,000 by 2030, and 801,000 by 2050. This marks a substantial increase from the reported population of 656,000 in 2014. 1718
The following Figures 3 and 4 show that, relative to the current MBTA service areas, there have been severe population decreases just outside of the core service area and numerous population increases in regions on the outskirts of other MBTA services areas. Cambridge, in particular has been the fastest growing employment and population region, which is consistent with the current boom in tech and biotech.
In spite of Boston’s relatively small population, it is facing a large influx of people, particularly on the northern and southernmost outskirts of the Greater Boston region; however, this increase in population has not correlated to the predicted increase in jobs. As it relates to the MBTA, a large portion of the service area in northern Massachusetts saw significant drops in jobs. Furthermore, there were huge decreases in jobs at the southernmost part of the Core Service Area.
Moreover, as a city very close to the coast, Boston is extremely susceptible to the effects of climate change. To help mitigate the effects of climate change and its potentially financially damaging consequences, the city of Boston is making conscious efforts to reduce its emissions.
Emissions could contribute to major consequences in the future. Figures 5 depicts the projected flooding by 2070 should the current emissions continue. As illustrated, predictions show a majority of downtown Boston to be affected by tides, causing an estimated $20 billion in damages. Additionally, rising temperatures exacerbated by the expansion of Boston’s industry and infrastructure could boost the absorption of heat by the city and cause a higher frequency of days at or above 90° Fahrenheit, as visualized in Figure 6. In its efforts to decrease the possibility of this future, the city plans to be carbon neutral by 2050.
In its efforts to address these environmental concerns and reduce its current environmental impact the MBTA signed the American Public Transportation Association Sustainability Pledge in 2012. Following these guidelines, the MBTA has managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28% and decrease overall energy use by 4.73% between 2014 and 2016.19
This decrease in energy use is critical, as the City of Boston has set ambitious goals for the use of low-carbon public transportation. Currently 40% of the commuters coming into Boston take public transit (10% commuter rail), while 50% drive by themselves. In contrast, by 2030, the City of Boston wants to see the usage of public transit to increase by a third and driving to decrease by a half; however, ridership data does not show an increase in usage but rather a trend of decrease. Instead of taking the T, commuters are using alternate means of transportation such as biking, walking, or ride-sharing apps. In fact, about a
17 “Boston Population.” Google Population Tool, Google, www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&dl=en. 18 “Imagine Boston 2030.” Imagine Boston 2030, City of Boston, imagine.boston.gov/. 19 “American Public Transportation Association (Home).” American Public Transportation Association, www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/sustainability/Pages/default.aspx. 9
third of riders said that they use ride-sharing service like Uber or Lyft instead of taking the T, a trend that could significantly affect the future public transportation landscape.
Figures 3 and 4: Population and employment changes in and around the MBTA service area
10
Figure 5: Projected flooding in the City of Boston in 2070
Figure 6: Projected changes in number of days above 90° Fahrenheit in Boston
3.2 System Mapping
Introduction to System Mapping In order to better understand the problem space in which the group was working, it was important to understand the dynamics of the larger system in which the MBTA functions as well as the behavior within it. Without a clear understanding of existing behavior there is no way to accurately target a problem statement or build a viable solution. The group used system mapping as a tool to understand the
11
bigger picture, then used this information to narrow the focus to the trends, feedback loops, and specific behavior within the selected solution space. Using systems as a model the group was able to find locations on the map that, when altered, created significant positive change. These locations are referred to as leverage points because once identified and properly utilized they can be used to influence system-wide behavior.20 This impact may be visible one node or four nodes away from the initial leverage point or location of system intervention, which inspired the construction of influence maps to describe the scale and type of influence the group’s solutions had on the system. These maps use color to visualize the impact of the chosen leverage points.
System Maps: Broad The first system map the group built (Figure 7) focused on the broad, overarching influences in the Boston Transportation system. The nodes of this map represent different industries and social spaces that have sway over the behavior of the system. Interaction between nodes in this map is represented by arrows that demonstrate the flow of change. The map is most helpful when applied to specific situations or points in time, which is why it was such a powerful tool for the group while defining the problem space.
System Maps: Problem Space The Problem Space System Map shown in Figure 8 describes the specific subset of the Boston Transportation System that the group decided to address. This subsystem was informed by the problems the North South Rail Link Project was intended to address, as well as the symptoms of a radial (as opposed to circumferential) transportation system. The information conveyed by this map is much more specific than the broad system map, as each node is a system phenomenon with direct relationships between nodes represented by arrows and lines. This map was built to visualize the many cause-effect relationships that exist within the solution space so that the group could target problematic nodes/feedback loops and design the solution appropriately.
Influence Mapping Influence Mapping is a method of qualitatively examining the impact a solution or party may have on a system. Colors and graphics are used to conceptualize overall system change and can be used to identify leverage points, visualize influence, determine the characteristics of system change, and evaluate whether the solution meets set criteria. Carrying out the process of influence mapping can also be an effective means of prototyping ideas as the solution space gains clarity and the solution becomes more sophisticated. Influence mapping was a particularly helpful strategy for the group once the solution space and proposed leverage points had been proposed, as the map offered qualitative feedback on how the entire system behavior was changed when the solution was introduced.
The influence map included in Figure 9 shows all of the ES96 solutions mapped onto the original problem space map from Figure 8. Despite the diversity of solutions, most of the proposed leverage points were focused on reducing congestion at downtown transfer points, decreasing delays, and improving
20 Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems. Ed. Diana Wright. London: Earth Scan, 2009. Web. 9 May 2018.
travel times in the MBTA. The influence map indicates that, based on current information, the proposed solutions impact the intended nodes on the system as reflected by the highlighting.
Stakeholder Map The stakeholder map seen in Figure 10 represents all of the parties with significant interest in the NSRL. The map visualizes the direct and indirect influences of a wide network of stakeholders: politicians, government entities, transportation, businesses, people, and suppliers. As our problem statement is focused around making transportation in the Boston area better, it addresses a specific portion of the stakeholders indicated on the map. There are many more stakeholders indicated on the map above which all have an interest in the project, whether it be positive or negative. All of these stakeholders are interconnected and were considered when developing the solutions presented in this report.
13
Figure 7: Broad System Map
14
Figure 8: Problem Space System Map
15
Figure 9: Problem Space System Map with Proposed Solutions
16
Figure 10: Stakeholder Map for the North South Rail Link
17
4. Defining the problem and ideation 4.1 Ridership overview
The NSRL has been consistently introduced as the best way to address the challenges faced the MBTA described in Section 3. Among these challenges is the declining ridership of the MBTA. As a result one of the five goals of the proposed NSRL is to increase ridership of the T and commuter rail systems. The remaining goals aim to increase system capacity and operational efficiencies, improve air quality, and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. Increase in ridership is also one of the key elements in the system diagrams in Section 3. As these diagrams show the influence of ridership on revenue and commuter happiness, the group investigated the ways in which the NSRL anticipated to increase ridership.
The ridership projections produced by the MBTA in 2003 split the quantification of ridership into two subsections—regional projections and intercity projections. This separated commuter rail and Amtrak ridership, allowing the MBTA to isolate the impact of the NSRL on different scales and communities. The MBTA then collected data on egress times, socioeconomic projections, and measures on individual’s values of types of public transport in order to get a grasp on how the NSRL could affect each individual. Though the data was collected from surveys with different sources, the group assumed this data was accurately representative.
Table 2: 2003 MBTA Intercity Ridership Projections21
Table 2 compares the impact on intercity ridership from different NSRL build scenarios. For example, if the NSRL were to be built with approximately 17 round trips through it, this table projects that the number of rail travelers would increase from 18,761 to 20,709.
21 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. “NSRL DEIR Major Investment Study.” 2010. Web. 1 April 2018. 18
Table 3: 2003 MBTA Regional Ridership Projections22
In comparison, Table 3 show the impact of different NSRL build scenarios on regional ridership. The most important data point to highlight here is the number of new transit trips anticipated from each build. In considering intercity ridership, the MBTA scaled the ridership to the number of round trips between Boston and other cities using Amtrak. Each scenario had a 2000 person increase in ridership between the build and no build scenarios.
Within the regional ridership projections, the increases in ridership scale up by build. This is due to the commuter rail being more affected by the capacity of each solution (i.e. 4 track vs 2 track solutions). The greatest increase in new trips is 54,350 trips for a four track solution. This could be due to the fact that more trains could be run between Boston and other regional communities. On the other hand the increase ridership is as low as 19,000 for a two-track solution, which may make it less easy to justify a NSRL.
While this increase in ridership looks appealing, the data used to produce these predictions in 2003 is from the 1990s. This twenty-year-old dataset may not be representative of the current ridership landscape, making it a risky justification for building the NSRL. As a result, the group produced a more modern model that aimed to better project the changes in ridership due to the build of the NSRL.
4.2 Ridership Prediction Model (RPM)
The 2013 Residence to Place of Work dataset from the US Census more accurately represents Boston’s current population. This dataset delineates the municipalities in which those surveyed live and work, and the mode of transport they use to travel. The dataset also presents the total ridership on each potential route and the method of travel along the route within a narrow margin of error.23
Filtering the data for information regarding only those people traveling into areas served by the commuter rail (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire) helped eliminate any unnecessary data
22 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. “NSRL DEIR Major Investment Study.” 2010. Web. 1 April 2018. 23 US Census Bureau. “Journey to Work Dataset.” 2010. Web. 10 April 2018. 19
in this dataset. The group then created clusters based on vicinity to stations to process the data into a projection for the number of users who would benefit from the NSRL. These clusters were created by identifying and grouping together those who lived five miles away from a station on the commuter rail and are visualized in Figure 11. Sensitivity analysis on this parameter didn’t significantly change the number of riders in the clusters, as the five mile range captured over 75% off all commuters in the areas servers by the commuter rail.
Figure 11: RPM clusters visualized24
To find the potential number of people that would benefit from the introduction of the NSRL (as per the MBTA’s goal of acquiring new riders), the group filtered out those people in the clusters who already took public transportation. The remaining dataset gave an upper bound on the number of people who could switch from other forms of transport to public transportation. From the consistently high ratio of people taking public transport to the total number of people traveling to Boston, the group concluded that most of those traveling via public transport were traveling into Boston. Renormalizing this dataset to include only the total of daily commuters traveling into Boston, who could potentially need to travel between North and South lines, gave an upper bound on the number of commuters who could switch to public transport. The results of these calculations are represented in Table 4.
Changes in Ridership from the NSRL (RPM)
Number of additional commuter rail riders 13,550
Margin of error 12,531
90% Confidence Interval [1019, 26,081]
Table 4: Changes in ridership of commuter rail predicted by RPM
24 John Alex Keszler, “Ridership Prediction Model” 2018. Web. 1 March 2018. 20
This model takes the utility of the NSRL as the most important reason for people to switch, making one limitation of the model that it doesn’t consider people switching for other reasons. Additionally, by removing parts of the dataset outside of Massachusetts the model could be excluding those who commute using Amtrak.
In the context of the goals of the NSRL, the 13,000 new riders predicted by the RPM indicate that the NSRL’s goal could be met through the construction of the link; however, the model does not speak to the feasibility of achieving the other goals set by the NSRL. The increase in ridership could even cause additional issues regarding system capacity, were the system unable to cope with the additional ridership. To see how this additional ridership can affect a city, the group then looked at similar situations in New York.
4.3 Ridership comparison
One unexpected trend from the census dataset is that the percentage of commuters who take public transportation (PT), primarily commuter rail, is roughly twice as high in the New York metropolitan area as it is in Greater Boston. As the scatterplots in Figure 12 illustrate, the mean percentage of people taking PT to Boston from surrounding municipalities is roughly 34%, while in NY this mean percentage is 71.3%. This percentage doesn’t significantly change as the distance from either of the cities increases, which suggests that the distance that commuters live from the city doesn’t play a major role in their decisions of whether to take public transportation. Overall, this massive discrepancy coupled with the declining ridership of the MBTA commuter rail system raises red flags about the quality of service offered by the MBTA commuter rail system and indicates room for major improvements. Given the success of New York’s commuter rail systems, the group sought to explore those systems is more detail in order to identify some of the factors that may account for the differences between the two cities’ systems and could be implemented in Boston to revitalize its struggling commuter rail system.
21
Before diving into the details, it’s important to point out that there are significant differences between the two systems. For example, the population density as you move away from Manhattan is higher in the New York metropolitan area than it is in Greater Boston, which means that the New York commuter rail systems are often more accessible and convenient to get to than they are in Boston. Moreover, commuters are more incentivized to take public transportation in the New York Tri-State Area since road congestion is worse and parking is more scarce than in Boston. Despite these differences, careful analysis of the two cities provided insight into some of the reasons for the stark difference in the behavior of commuters in the two metropolitan areas.
In particular, the group noticed the impact that system upgrades to the commuter rail system had on the popularity of that mode of transportation. Metro North’s Harlem Line was one prominent example of this phenomenon. In 1984, the electrified segment of the line, which had previously terminated at North White Plains station, was extended 28 miles north to Brewster (see Figure 13). In addition, the stations along the newly electrified portion of the line were upgraded with high-level platforms, which made these stations more accessible and expedited the boarding and exiting process.25
These system upgrades resulted in a massive boost to the ridership along this segment of the commuter rail line. As illustrated in Table 5, the total annual ridership at Brewster and Brewster North stations increased by 135% within ten years of these improvements, while the total annual ridership along the Dover Plains Branch, which stretches from Brewster to Dover Plains, rose by 440% within that same time period.26 Importantly, the number of daily trains along the line remained the same before and after the upgrades, which means that the frequency of train service was not responsible for this drastic rise in ridership.27 Given that the population of the counties served by this newly electrified rail segment grew by single digit percentages between 1984 and 1994 as well as the fact that the ridership on the other two Metro North commuter rail lines grew by only 8% and 10% between 1984 and 1994, it’s safe to conclude that the infrastructure improvements were directly responsible for the majority of the ridership growth.28
25 U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Metro North Commuter Railroad Company. “Final Impact Statement 4 (f) Evaluation for the Wassaic Extension Project in Dutchess County, New York.” 1997. Web. 4 April 2018.
1984 1994 Percent Average Annual Increase Increase
Dover Plains Branch
Total Annual Weekday Ridership 33,500 157,000 370% 17%
Total Annual Weekday Ridership 14,500 103,000 610% 22%
Total Annual Ridership 48,000 260,000 440% 18%
Upper Harlem Line – Brewster and Brewster North Stations only
Total Annual Weekday Ridership 420,000 1,010,000 140% 9%
Total Annual Weekday Ridership 90,000 190,000 111% 8%
Total Annual Ridership 510,000 1,200,000 135% 9%
Table 5: Wassaic Extension Project: Environmental Impact Statement (1997)
Another encouraging aspect of these system upgrades is that they shortened the inbound commute to Grand Central Terminal (GCT) by only a modest five to ten minutes, as seen in Table 6.29 This suggests that even moderate improvements to the system can greatly boost the attractiveness of taking the train and dramatically increase total ridership.
Another example highlighting the impact of system improvements on ridership was the electrification of the Ronkonkoma Branch of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) in 1987. A survey conducted soon after electrification indicated that 42% of the branch’s passengers began taking the line after the electrification project was completed—34% switched from slower diesel LIRR lines and 8% were new riders entirely.30 While this increase in ridership was much less dramatic than that of Metro North’s Harlem Line as discussed above, it’s important to point out that the majority of Long Island commuters were already using the commuter rail, which means that the LIRR had fewer potential new riders to attract.
29 The Business Council of Fairfield County. “Metro-North Timetable Study.” 2014. Web. 10 April 2018.
Train Station Distance to GCT 1976 trip time 1993 trip time (min) Trip time change (miles) (min) (min)
Brewster 52 91 81 -10
Katonah 41 75 66 -9
Chappaqua 32 60 53 -7
Pauling 64 113 106 -7
Hawthorne 28 50 47 -3
Table 6: Change in trip time due to system upgrades
While these are only a few examples demonstrating the effect of system upgrades on ridership, they are some of the only well-documented major commuter rail modernization projects. This is the case since the majority of commuter rail lines that are electrified were wired at the beginning of the 20th century, and very few significant stretches of commuter rail have undergone similar transformations since the 1980s. Therefore, the lack of a broader range of examples should not be interpreted as an attempt to cherry-pick the examples that support the idea that commuter rail infrastructure upgrades lead to a sizable increase in ridership.
With this potential explanation for some of the disparity between the appeal of the Boston and New York commuter rail systems in mind, the group analyzed the impact that implementing these system upgrades would have on the MBTA commuter rail ridership. While the evidence from the New York commuter rail system presented above suggests that system upgrades would help to bridge the gap between the percentage of commuters who take public transportation in Boston vs New York, the extent to which this would occur is difficult to quantify; however, the focus of this analysis was more towards getting a general sense of the impact of upgrades on ridership than towards pinpointing an exact number. Reasonable lower and upper bound estimates of the impact of upgrades on ridership are a 5% and 50% shift, respectively, in Boston’s PT percentage (34.0%) towards New York’s PT percentage (71.3%).
To translate these percentages into numbers, the analysis started with 66,244 people, which represents the typical number of inbound weekday MBTA commuter rail riders in fiscal year 2013 (to be consistent with the census data, which was collected up until 2013).31 Next, information from the
31 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “Ridership and Service Statistics: Fourteenth Edition 2014.” 2014. Web. 2 April 2018.
2008–2009 MBTA commuter rail survey, which indicates that 84% of inbound commuter rail riders egress at the downtown Boston stations of North Station, South Station, Back Bay and Ruggles, was utilized.32 This means that 55,645 out of the 66,244 total inbound passengers commuted to Boston. Using the calculation that the mean percentage of commuters that use public transportation to commute to Boston from municipalities that are served by a commuter rail line is 34.0%, the group then estimated that 55,645/0.340 or 163,662 people commute to Boston daily. Finally, the shift in the Boston percentage of 34.0% towards the New York percentage of 71.3% associated with the aforementioned lower and upper bounds was applied. The lower bound shift of 5% increases the probability of taking public transportation by (0.713-0.340)/20 = 0.01865, which corresponds to 163,662*0.01865 = 3,052 additional daily riders and 6,104 additional daily trips, while the upper bound shift of 50% increase the probability of taking public transportation by (0.713-0.340)/2 = 0.1865, which corresponds to 163,662*0.1865 = 30,520 additional daily riders and 61,040 additional daily trips.
Overall, these calculations show that the added ridership due to a 25% shift of Boston’s PT percentage towards NY’s PT percentage would match the upper bound estimate of 15,000 for the number of additional daily riders brought about by the NSRL. Given the evidence from New York, this shift seems reasonable to achieve. Moreover, this added ridership due to system upgrades is an underestimate for two reasons: first, these numbers do not take into account the 16% of commuter rail riders that commute to and from a location other than Boston and would also benefit from theses system upgrades; and second, they are based on current demographic data and therefore don’t consider the influx of people who might move to areas served by the revamped commuter rail system to make use of the improved system.
Beyond modernizing the commuter rail system and increasing ridership, these infrastructure upgrades would address all of the other NSRL goals that were outlined above on a larger scale than the NSRL itself would. In terms of increasing system capacity, the NSRL would relieve congestion and reduce capacity issues specifically at North and South Stations by eliminating the need for trains to stop and turn around and by constructing an additional station in between the two existing stations. Meanwhile, system upgrades would increase the overall capacity of the system by speeding up all trip times, which means that the frequency of train service would increase without needing additional rolling stock.
Regarding the operational efficiencies of the commuter rail system, the primary advantage of the NSRL is the logistical improvement it would make to the system by eliminating the two stub ends of North and South Stations and creating one continuous network. On the other hand, system upgrades would reduce the operating cost of the entire commuter rail system, as the maintenance cost of the electric propulsion systems of the electric trains is roughly half that of diesel locomotives.33
32 Central Transportation Planning Staff. “MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey: All Lines 2008-09 Commuter Rail.” 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2018.
In terms of air quality improvements, the NSRL would remove vehicles from the road and diminish locomotive idling at North and South Stations. In comparison, system upgrades would not only remove vehicles from the road, but also entirely eliminate emissions from the diesel locomotives. Considering that each of the 90 locomotives in the fleet burns 228,000 gallons of fuel per year, the replacement of these locomotives with electric trains would be equivalent to removing an additional 42,750 cars from the road (not accounting for the increased electricity consumption).34 35
Finally, system upgrades would lead to significant economic development. The NSRL would stimulate growth primarily to the north of Boston, as this region would become integrated into Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and the larger Northeast metropolis; however, system upgrades would spur growth all throughout Greater Boston from as far west as Worcester to as far south as Providence by making it easier and more convenient to travel and commute throughout the region. The MBTA commuter rail serves roughly 7.5 million people, while the combined population of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont is only 3.3 million. Of these, only a small percentage of individuals would benefit from the NSRL.
This improved transportation network would also address the issue of the rapidly growing population and unaffordable housing market in the urban core of Boston, as it would allow financially strained residents to move further out into the suburbs while still being able to conveniently commute into Boston. In turn, this population growth in the suburbs would further increase commuter rail ridership, which would help make up for some of the costs associated with these upgrades.
NSRL Goals NSRL Infrastructure Upgrades
Ridership growth ~15,000 max additional riders ~3,000–30,000 additional riders ~30,000 max new daily trips ~6,000–12,000 new daily trips
Increased system Eliminates bottleneck at North More frequent service due to faster capacity and South Station trains and boardings
Operational 1. Connects two sides Lifecycle costs of electric trains are Efficiencies 2. Eliminates stub ends half those of diesel
Air quality 1.Removes vehicles from road 1. Removes vehicles from road improvements 2. Reduces locomotive idling 2. Eliminates diesel emissions
Redevelopment North of Boston 1. Across Greater Boston opportunities 2. Housing development in suburbs
Table 7: Benefits of NSRL vs. System Upgrades
34 Jessen, Klark. “MBTA: New Commuter Rail Locomotives.” Web blog post. MassDOT Blog. MassDOT, 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 April 2018. 35 Federal Highway Administration. “Average Annual Fuel Use of Major Vehicle Categories.” 2015. Web. 20 April 2018.
Table 7 summarizes the ways in which the NSRL and system upgrades would address the NSRL objectives. These system upgrades are also very appealing from a cost perspective when compared to the NSRL. Based on recent estimates, the NSRL would cost anywhere from the $4.5B estimated by the Harvard Kennedy School report that was published in 2017 to the $12B predicted by the NSRL MIS/DEIR back in 2003 (both figures are adjusted to 2017 dollars).36
Meanwhile, the cost of system upgrades consists of three primary components. The first is replacing all of the stations which currently have low level platforms or mini-high platforms, which are one railcar-length high level platforms to accommodate handicapped passengers, with high level platforms that extend across the length of the entire boarding platform. In addition to making the process of boarding and exiting trains much faster and increasing accessibility for those with disabilities, these high-level platforms are necessary since the modern electric railcars that will be later discussed cannot serve low platforms. The MBTA commuter rail system currently has 143 stations, of which 51 have high-level platforms.37 This means that the other 92 stations with either low-level or mini-high platforms would need to be retrofitted with full length, high-level platforms. The construction cost per station, which includes additional features such as ramps, elevators and other modifications to accommodate freight traffic, is approximately $9M.38 Altogether, station upgrades would cost roughly $828M to implement.
The second major expense would be electrifying all of the commuter rail lines. The total length of the commuter rail system is 398 miles, but only 335 miles need to be electrified because the 63-mile long Providence/Stoughton Line is already electrified since it shares the same tracks as Amtrak’s electrified Northeast Corridor. The cost to install overhead catenary wires (which makes more sense than third rail since the Northeast Corridor already uses catenary) is roughly $2.3M per mile, which means the total cost of electrification comes out to roughly $771M.39
The final major capital expenditure would be procuring electric multiple units (EMUs) to replace the coaches and diesel locomotives that the MBTA currently uses. Modern EMUs, such as the M8 railcar that are currently being purchased by Metro North and the LIRR to replace their aging fleets, cost around $3.85M apiece.40 To determine the total number of railcars the MBTA would need to buy, the group assumed that the seating capacity offered by the new EMUs would be identical to the seating capacity currently provided by the MBTA’s coach fleet. As of 2014, the MBTA has 410 coaches, 203 of which are single-level. Given that the average single-level and bi-level coach seats 108 and 179 passengers, respectively, the total seating capacity of today’s system is roughly 59,000. This means that the MBTA would need to purchase around 517 M8 rail cars, each of which seats 114 passengers, at a total cost of
36 “New Study Finds that NSRL Less Expensive than Previously Reported.” Moulton.House.Gov. 17 Aug. 2017. Web. 10 April 2018. 37 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA State of the Service: Commuter Rail.” 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2018.
roughly $2B. Although the cost of these EMUs is very high, it’s worth pointing out that as of 2014, 203 of the 410 coaches and 37 of the 90 locomotives in the MBTA commuter rail fleet were at or beyond their 25 year service life, which means that they need to be replaced regardless of whether these system upgrades are implemented.41
Even after an additional $1B in miscellaneous expenses that include consultant fees and cost overruns that would inevitably arise in such a costly project, the total cost of these infrastructure upgrades would come out to approximately $4.6B, which is extremely close to the NSRL lower-bound cost estimate of $4.5B. Figure 14 illustrates the cost comparison:
Figure 14: NSRL vs. infrastructure upgrades cost comparison
All of this indicates that for the same price the MBTA can either overhaul the entire commuter rail system making it faster, cleaner, more accessible, cheaper to operate and more profitable and, in a broader sense, stimulate economic and housing development all throughout Greater Boston, or it can build a two-mile tunnel that would have a much more limited impact and would do little to address the deep-seated issues affecting the commuter rail system which have been causing it to steadily lose ridership. The group isn’t arguing that the NSRL shouldn’t be build—it goes without saying that the NSRL has many benefits that would greatly improve the transportation network in downtown Boston, Greater Boston and the broader Northeast Megalopolis; however, given the decrepit state of the commuter rail system as well as the fact that the NSRL has faced countless political, financial and feasibility-related obstacles since it was first introduced in 1909, there are superior capital investment projects that would
41 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA State of the Service: Commuter Rail.” 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2018.
better address the most pressing issues facing the MBTA today and, at the same time, work toward achieving the broader goals of the region.
While the above discussion focuses on major, long-term capital projects, the main goal of this group was to develop a range of less expensive and more easily implemented solutions that would address the same issues that the NSRL is intended to solve in addition to broader regional goals. The group’s guiding philosophy was that the connectivity issue in Greater Boston isn’t solely driven by a lack of infrastructure (which is what the NSRL assumes), but rather is largely due to the fact that the infrastructure that already exists isn’t being utilized to its full potential and therefore needs to be reimagined and revitalized.
5. Framing of Solutions 5.1 Problem Statement
After mapping the issue at hand and looking at variables such as ridership the group wanted to more formally define what problem that was being addressed. In the ideation to begin addressing this problem, the group kept in mind the NSRL and its intended goals to ensure that all the possible solutions were considered. These possible solutions can be generalized as “viable alternatives” to the build of the NSRL and target specific benefits such as connectivity in and long term sustainability of the public transportation system in the City of Boston. With all of these aspects taken into consideration, the group constructed the following problem statement:
How might the construction of the NSRL, or a viable alternative targeted towards improved connectivity, improve the long-term sustainability of the MBTA public transportation system?
5.2 Criteria Though proposals for changes in the future of transportation can be readily proposed, these proposals need to be evaluated against some set of criteria to determine whether or not they meet the goals that were initially intended. The group therefore compiled a list of criteria against which to evaluate potential solutions for the transportation system in Boston. These criteria were determined from the goals of the NSRL, Go Boston 2030, and Imagine Boston 2030. These documents provide a comprehensive overview of the future of Boston’s connectivity and transportation and provide insights as to the direction in which the city would like to evolve in the coming years. After the proposal were introduced, each was evaluated against the criteria developed from these documents to assess its relevance to the future of the City of Boston. In this section, the goals of each document are broken down and explained in greater depth.
29
NSRL Goals MassDOT gave a presentation during a public meeting on October 17, 2017 that described the Feasibility Reassessment of the NSRL. Included in this reassessment were a list of the goals that the NSRL would aim to fulfill. These goals were: “Ridership growth, increased system capacity, operational efficiencies, air quality improvements, and redevelopment opportunities.” 42
Go Boston 2030 Go Boston 2030 was a plan developed by the City of Boston as a “Vision and Action Plan” for the reimagination of transportation in Boston. The plan began with listening to the people, transitioned into analyzing Boston today, listed goals and targets for the future, imagined Boston in 2030, and delved into specific projects and policies to accomplish these goals. The goals introduced in this document specific to transportation included: ensuring reliability, designing resilient infrastructure, expanding access, creating economic opportunity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and investing in new projects. 43
Imagine Boston 2030 Imagine Boston 2030 was a plan also developed by the City to look at Boston more broadly than just its future transportation needs. This report put the plan proposed in context, evaluated the opportunities that could arise from it, laid out an action plan, and discussed initiatives for housing, education, and land use. The goals of this report focus more broadly on topics such as laying foundational infrastructure, developing resilience plans for climate change, investing in transportation and infrastructure, increasing access to opportunity, promoting a healthy environment, and collaborating to increase the use of Boston’s waterways.44
The goals of the three reports were synthesized and organized into a table, as seen in Figure 15. Overlapping goals are highlighted in the same colors, and a final group evaluation criteria was created from these goals. The final criteria to evaluate the proposed solutions against are:
1. Reduce congestion by increasing efficiency and reliability of public transit and improving resilience through alternative transport opportunities 2. Increase connectivity between where people live and work, particularly in economic growth areas 3. Reduce emissions through environmentally friendly transport options 4. Increase PT ridership by providing desirable, safe, efficient, reliable & convenient public transport options
By creating a solution space that accomplishes all of these goals, the group will feel confident that the proposed solution is one that is applicable and would benefit the city of Boston for the future. By including the NSRL goals, the group aims to propose a solution, or set of solutions, that would satisfy these goals, and other goals for Boston, but do so with lower costs and a greater impact.
42 “North South Rail Link (NSRL) Feasibility Reassessment.” MassDOT First Public Meeting. 17 Oct. 2017, Boston, Atlantic Wharf, Fort Point Room. 43 Go Boston 2030 - Imagining Our Transportation Future - Vision and Action Plan. City of Boston. Boston Transportation Department. 44 Imagine Boston 2030. City of Boston. 2017, Imagine Boston 2030. 30
Figure 15: Solution Criteria developed from goals of Boston reports
31
6. Development of solutions 6.1 Street Transformation
Redesigning the Roads for the Future of Boston The first proposal focuses on improvements to Boston’s current roads. Instead of investing in new infrastructure, Boston can look to improve current infrastructure to improve overall transportation and quality of life. The road transformation suggested here can be easily implemented, has a relatively low cost, and has high impact. The goal was to redesign the roads with a human-centric design focus by getting more individual vehicles off of the road and promoting public transit, biking, and walkability.
The guidelines for transforming roads used here were set by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). NACTO’s mission is to design cities with an emphasis on safety, sustainability, accessibility and equity. It includes officials from over 72 American cities, including Boston. It contains the most up-to-date criteria on road design with specific information about minimum lengths of certain components of the road.45
Demand for Bus and Bike Lanes Biking in Boston Boston currently has a plan to increase the amount of cyclists in Boston by creating more lanes and bike paths called the Boston Bike Network Plan. This plan—put out in 2013 by the Boston Department of Transportation in Collaboration with the City of Boston, the Mayor’s Office, as well as the MBTA and Massachusetts DOT—aims at improving the quality of life for the people of Boston by reducing pollution and improving health through increased bicycle usage. The plan, developed with support from both citizens and state agencies, also aims to improve connectivity within Boston and make safer, more comfortable bicycle paths.46
While Boston has taken initiative to increase its number of shared and dedicated bike lanes in the city, as evident from the anticipated jump from 120 miles of paths to 195 miles in the last 5 years, it has not placed a heavy emphasis on protected bike lanes.
45 “About” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2018, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/. 46 “Boston Bike Network Plan” City of Boston, Boston.gov, 2013, https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Boston%20Bike%20Network%20Plan%2C%20Fall%202013_FI NAL_tcm3-40525.pdf 32
Figure 16: Boston Bike Network Plan47
Changing Road Infrastructure The demand for changing current road infrastructure is clear. This has been seen through pushes from various organizations to increase the amount of dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes. In December 2017, Boston cyclists created a human protected bike lane, meaning people gathered and stood on the edge of the street to form a protected bike lane, on Congress Street as a way to protest the lack of bike lanes on busy streets in Boston.48 The MBTA also echoed this sentiment in December by testing a dedicated bus lane on Washington Street for a few hours on one day. It improved bus-transit time and garnered great feedback from Boston citizens.49 These recent demonstrations show how modifications to the road could be well received and have high-impact.
The group saw firsthand how transforming the roads could have a significant impact on transportation and safety in Boston. Figure 17 shows a bus stopping in a dedicated bike lane. Clearly, this poses safety issues to bikers and is something needs to be addressed in this road transformation proposal.
47 “Boston Bike Network Plan” City of Boston, Boston.gov, 2013, https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Boston%20Bike%20Network%20Plan%2C%20Fall%202013_FI NAL_tcm3-40525.pdf 48 Annear, Steve. “Cyclists to Create Human 'Bike Lane' over Congress Street Bridge - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 1 Dec. 2017, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/01/human-bike-lane-over-congress-street-bridge/ccP97SbDfNPNThUgfxg1 KI/story.html 49 Schmitt, Angie. “Boston Tests Faster Bus Service Simply By Laying Out Orange Cones.” Streetsblog USA, 13 Dec. 2017, usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/12/boston-tests-faster-bus-service-simply-by-laying-out-orange-cones/. 33
Making Way for the Future of Boston The potential solution proposed here takes into account not only the current needs of Boston’s roads, but considers what roads will need to look like to make way for future technology, specifically autonomous vehicles. Boston, like many cities around the country, was slow to react to the integration of ridesharing services on the roads, such as Uber and Lyft. Studies have suggested that these ridesharing services are pulling people away from public transit options and increasing congestion in cities.50 Additionally, road transportation is evolving with the advancements in autonomous vehicles. In fact, Boston already has autonomous vehicle testing going on in the Seaport District.51 These “futuristic technologies” are actually not that far away, meaning Boston needs to prepare for these transitions now.
52 Figure 18: Autonomous Vehicle Testing in Seaport District
This proposal suggests designing roads in such a way that will incorporate the proper infrastructure upgrades for the integration of autonomous vehicles in the future. Adding autonomous vehicles to the road comes with risks that can be ameliorated with roads that are designed with safety in mind. Technical advances in transportation options are coming fast. Infrastructure upgrades, on the other hand, move slowly. To allow integration of future technologies, Boston must plan for the future when redesigning the roads. These designs for the future of Boston were developed by referring to the guidelines set in the Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism, a document endorse by NACTO.53
50 McFarland, Matt. “Uber and Lyft Are Creating a Traffic Problem for Big Cities.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 11 Oct. 2011, money.cnn.com/2017/10/11/technology/future/ride-hailing-cities-public-transit/index.html. 51 Fisher, Jenna. “Self Driving Cars Can Hit The Road Again In Boston.” Boston Patch, Patch Network, 28 Mar. 2018, patch.com/massachusetts/boston/business. 52Fisher, Jenna. “Self Driving Cars Can Hit The Road Again In Boston.” Boston Patch, Patch Network, 28 Mar. 2018, patch.com/massachusetts/boston/business. 53 “Blueprints for Autonomous Urbanism” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2017, nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BAU_Mod1_raster-sm.pdf. 34
Principle Elements of Boston Road Redesign The road transformations proposed here combine elements from the Urban Street Design of NACTO and the Blueprints to Autonomous Vehicles. The design has three main components: Decreasing the number of lanes and lane widths, curbside extensions, and dedicated bus and bike lanes.
Decreasing Number of Lanes and Lane Widths To optimize transportation on the roads as well as quality of life, this proposal aims to promote shared rides and discourage people from driving their cars along the streets of Boston. The short term goal of this is to ease congestion; in the long term, for a future of Boston with streets shared between people and autonomous vehicles, there need to be fewer vehicles on the road. To have the space necessary apply the necessary transformations, the group suggests decreasing individual lane widths marginally so that they are the minimum width accepted by NACTO standards. As more vehicles on the road become autonomous, they will not need as wide and forgiving of lanes.
The most prominent concern raised with decreasing the number of lanes as well as decreasing lane width is that the decreases will increase congestion; however, as proved rigorously in the Fundamental Law of Road Congestion54 the city would adapt to this change and the streets would be unlikely to experience more congestion due to these modifications. As the number of lanes are decreased, people will generally turn to alternative modes of transit.
Curbside Extensions Extending curbs shortens crossing distance for pedestrians, making crossing easier and pedestrians more visible to vehicles. These improvements to the walkability and safety of streets are key to the integration of autonomous vehicles on the roads.
55 56 Figure 19: NACTO Curbside Design Figure 20: Potential Curbside Extension
54 Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew Turner. "The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities." (2009): n. pag. Web. 55 “Urban Street Designs” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2013, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/. 56“Urban Street Designs” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2013, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/. 35
Furthermore, added space on the curbs can be used to transform the roads to be people-oriented. Space can be used for businesses or as public parks. Figures 19 and 20 are examples of how curbs could be transformed on the streets of Boston.
Table 8 gives examples of using curb space to benefit the public good. These ideas could be incorporated into roads in Boston, depending on the specific type of street.
Adding Dedicated BRT Lanes and Protected Bike Lanes This proposal emphasizes the use of dedicated BRT lanes to allow for faster bus transit and make the MBTA a more reliable system, and protected bike lanes with physical barriers. This not only makes biking a more safer and comfortable means of transportation but will lay the structural foundation for how autonomous vehicles and bikes will share the roads in the future.
Figure 21: Protected Bike Lane Design from Mass DOT Guidelines for Curbside Design57
57 “MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MassDOT, 2015, https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planning-design-guide. 36
Motivation Visualization
Market/Vendors Boost Economy + Raise City Revenue Encourage vendors to sell on streets to boost city revenue and improve city life.
Pocket Parks Improving Quality of Life Providing plants and greenery to transit areas and providing seating for pedestrians will make the city better places to live
Bikesharing Spots Making Biking More Accessible Adding areas for more bike sharing docks could make biking in the city easier
Pick-up/Drop-off Improve Safety + Raise City Revenue Zones Having designated pick-up, drop-off zones will improve safety and open the possibility for the city to monetize curbs to make money off of ridesharing services as well as autonomous vehicles in the future.
Public Transit Stops Improve Accessibility Having designated transit stops can improve accessibility of transit systems such as the BRT or MBTA buses
Table 8: Curbside Use Table. Images from Blueprints for Autonomous Urbanism58
58 “Blueprints for Autonomous Urbanism” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2017, nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BAU_Mod1_raster-sm.pdf. 37
The Link: Transforming Congress Street By putting into effect the design principles explained above, the group proposes a transformation of one Boston’s most important downtown streets: Congress Street. This street directly connects North and South Stations and its transformation satisfies many of the goals of the NSRL. This proposal would increase connectivity by providing a link between not only North and South Stations, but also the bustling Seaport district. As MassDOT does not own the streets in the city of Boston, it would need to work with the Boston municipality to implement this solution; however, this would have a lower cost and be implemented more quickly and easily than the NSRL.
Figure 22: Google Maps of Congress Street depicted in blue
The road can be divided into three main sections (North, Middle, and South sections) that have slightly different characteristics in terms of the number of lanes, existing bike lanes, and directions of traffic allowed.
Current North Congress Street North Congress Street includes the part of Congress Street north of Court Street and currently has sidewalks on both sides, three lanes going in each direction, and a central median.
38
Figure 23: Google Street View of North Congress Street
Current Middle Congress Street Middle Congress Street includes the region from Water Street to Court Street and has two lanes in each direction, bike markings (shared lanes), and no parking.
Figure 24: Google Street View of Middle Congress Street
Current South Congress Street: South Congress Street is one way, has 3 or 4 lanes, a separated bike lane with poles and buffer space, and no parking.
Figure 25: Google Street View of South Congress Street
39
Redesign of Congress Street According to the design principles above, North Congress Street could be considered a “Major Transit Street”, Middle Congress Street could be a “Downtown Street”, and South Congress Street could be a “One-Way Downtown Street”. For the redesigns, plans from the NACTO design guide were used. The “Major Transit Street” and “Downtown Street” (which includes One-Way) redesigns are depicted in Figures 26 and 27.
The group focused on the redesign of just the North Congress Street Section, but the same principles can be applied to transform the other sections of Congress Street. Figure 28 depicts North Congress St today and Figure 29 depicts the redesigns.
59 Figure 26: NACTO’s redesign for Major Transit Street
Figure 27: NACTO’s redesign for Downtown Street60
Figure 28: Current North Congress Street
59 “Urban Street Designs” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2013, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/. 60 Ibid. 40
Figure 29: Future North Congress Street
The redesign used the NACTO design guide and restructured many aspects of the road while keeping the same overall width. The number of lanes decreased from three to two and the width of the individual lanes decreased from 10 feet to 9 feet.61 As described earlier, this decrease in lanes encourages more people to switch to public transformation and walk and bike between the stations. With the extra space from these reductions, a protected bike lane and a median were added to the road. This median would have spaces for designated bus and rideshare pick-ups and drop-offs that would allow for the traffic flow to continue in the lanes without interference from stopped vehicles. The median would also provide a buffer between bikers and drivers to create a sense of safety when biking.
Figure 30: Integration of Pocket Parks and Bike Sharing
61 Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew Turner. “THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF ROAD CONGESTION: EVIDENCE FROM US CITIES.” NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, Sept. 2009, www.nber.org/papers/w15376.pdf. 41
6.1.4 Evaluation of Street Transformation The transformations suggested in this proposal reduce congestion by providing another link between North and South station. They also increase connectivity by connecting the stations, reduce emissions by encouraging people to use bikes more safely, and increase ridership on public transportation by allowing people from commuter rail lines to more easily transfer between the stations. Finally, as these transformations would provide a link between the stations that can more readily be traveled, commute times would decrease. These street transformations for Congress Street can be extended to other streets in Boston to improve overall congestion and quality of life.
This solution is feasible, desirable, and viable, as it can be implemented relatively quickly, is desired by residents to provide a safer link between stations, and is a solution that is capable of working successfully.
6.2 Urban Ring
Boston has a heritage rapid transit system. The radial system is efficient at moving people in and out of the downtown; however, this design is unsuitable for modern transportation demands. With major employment centers in Kendall and Longwood, universities like Harvard, MIT, Boston University, and Northeastern, and cultural centers including Fenway Park located away from downtown, the city’s transportation needs are no longer simply to and from the Shawmut Peninsula.
There are only six transfer stations for the four subway lines, all within a mile of each other. Because subway trips between two lines require a transfer at one of these six stations, they are unnecessarily overcrowded. To reduce congestion from riders whose origin and destinations are not downtown, we propose an Urban Ring of rapid transit.
Previous Proposal In the early 2000s, the MBTA proposed a creation of an Urban Ring that would connect six cities in the Greater Boston area to provide faster and more direct transit connections throughout Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett and Chelsea. The MBTA’s primary goals for this Urban Ring were to “improve transit access, travel time and capacity while also reducing crowding in the central subway system and offering opportunities for transit oriented and smart growth development.62” In addition to the increased transit access, MBTA’s Urban Ring project was expected to provide new economic development possibilities and foster a new sense of identity for the Greater Boston area.
In 1996 the six municipalities agreed to investigate the economic and social demand for the Urban Ring. This led to the creation of a three-phase plan for the Urban Ring. The first phase consisted of the expansion of crosstown bus lines in Boston. These lines would provide “express commuter” lines for
62 MBTA. Urban Ring Phase 2 Fact Sheet. Urban Ring Phase 2 Fact Sheet, 2009, web.archive.org/web/20110722105736/https://www.commentmgr.com/projects/1169/docs/URnews0105c.pdf. 42
suburban locations and add eight new crosstown lines for a cost of $100 million for low-floor, low-emission buses. Phase one was expected to have 34,720 riders per day.
The second phase would transform five of the aforementioned crosstown lines (the CT2, CT3, CT4, CT5 and CT8) into a 25 mile bus rapid transit system. The second phase of the Urban Ring project was expected to take 41,500 car rides off the road daily, carry approximately 184,000 daily transit riders and make direct connections with 15 rapid transit station, 7 commuter rail station and 122 MBTA bus routes. Moreover, this BRT system was expected to provide improved transit access for more than 218,000 residents of Environmental Justice Neighborhoods—communities in which annual household income is equal or less than 65% of the statewide media, 25% or more residents identify as minority or 25% or more of households have no one over the age of 14 who is a proficient English speaker63. The proposed budget for this plan was $2.4 billion as of 2007 with a large portion of this budget dedicated to creating a tunnel beneath Longwood. The second phase of the Urban Ring project was never implemented due to funding concerns and as of today, only three crosstown bus lines run throughout Boston. The final phase of the plan would have implemented a rail line through the six municipalities.
Figure 31: Proposed MBTA alignment of phase 2’s Bus Rapid Transit Urban Ring implementation as shown in yellow. BRT stops denoted by the MBTA T logo; commuter line denoted in purple. The red line, green line, orange line and blue line are denoted by their aforementioned color.
While the MBTA’s Urban Ring proposal could not be enacted due to budget constraints, the Urban Ring proposed here focuses on reducing the estimated cost of the project while maintaining the ridership, economic development and environmental justice benefits.
63 Dep. “Environmental Justice | MassDEP.” Mass.gov, Energy and Environmental Affairs, 23 Apr. 2014, www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/service/justice/. 43
6.2.1 Alignment
The alignment of this Urban Ring is vital to its success and was determined with the following five main points in mind.
Direct Access. To maximize impact, the alignment should be able to provide service to important employment, cultural, and residential areas, that are not currently served by the main transfer stations. Major employment centers and destinations include Kendall Square, the Longwood Medical Area, MIT, Northeastern, Boston University, and Logan Airport. Dense residential areas include Somerville, Everett, Cambridge, Brookline, Roxbury, and Dorchester. Providing direct service to these areas reduces the number of required transfers for riders, which in turn improves user experience by reducing complexity and travel time.
Connection to Transit. To reduce the strain on the current downtown transfer stations, the Urban Ring must make as many connections as possible to rapid transit, buses, and commuter rail. This allows riders to transfer to and from radial lines without having to first enter the city center.
Existing Right of Ways. To reduce cost and disruption to the metropolitan area, the alignment should attempt to follow existing right of ways where possible. Such right of ways include current and former rail lines, as well as other government owned areas. If possible, currently underused right of ways such as the Grand Junction Railroad through Cambridge should be prioritized. These can be used to create a dedicated busway and decrease the portion of the route running through bus lanes or in mixed traffic, which should reduce travel time; however, care must be taken such that the use of existing right of ways does not prevent the previous two points from being fulfilled.
Arterial Roads. On a similar note, the alignment should follow larger arterial roads when not in a dedicated busway. Arterial road right of ways are often wide enough to accommodate a restructuring to include dedicated BRT lanes, stations, and other necessary infrastructure. Typically, these roads are less residential as well, which will reduce the impact of removing parking, which may be required during road transformation.
Minimize Turns. Keeping the alignment relatively straight should make service more efficient, so efforts should be made to limit the number of turns. However, this point should not be prioritized over the previous four.
The alignment presented in Figure 32 takes these criteria into consideration. Specific information about the connections with existing rail lines are presented in Table 9.
44
Figure 32: Proposed Urban Ring Alignment (Black) with Silver Line 3 Extension (Grey), existing rapid transit (Red, Orange, Blue, and Green Lines), and commuter rail (purple)
45
Stations and Connections for Urban Ring Proposal
Station Name Neighborhoods Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Bus Connections Distance to Served Connections Connections Next Station
Chelsea Chelsea SL3 Rockport 112, 114 0.9 Newburyport Lines
Everett Everett 97, 99, 104, 105, 1.4 106, 109, 110, 112
Wellington Wellington, Eastern Orange Line Haverhill Line 90, 97, 99, 100, 106, 1.3 Medford (Future Infill) 108, 110, 112, 134, 710
Broadway Somerville 89, 101 0.7
East Somerville Green Line D Lowell Line 80, 86, 88, 91, CT2 0.6 Somerville (GLX) (Future Infill)
Cambridge St Eastern Cambridge 69 0.6
Kendall Kendall Square Red Line 68, 85, CT2 1.3
BU West BU, Northern Green Line B 47, 57, CT2 0.6 Brookline
Fenway Kenmore, Fenway Green Line D Walking 47, CT2 0.7 Connection to (800 ft from 8, 19, Worcester Line 60, 65, CT3)
MFA Longwood, Green Line E 8, 19, 39, 47, CT2, 0.3 Northeastern CT3
Ruggles Lower Roxbury, Orange Line Franklin, 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 28, 0.5 Northeastern Needham, 43, 44, 45, 47, CT2, Providence CT3 Stoughton Lines
Washington Lower Roxbury, SL4, SL5 1, 8, 19, 47, CT3 1 Street Dudley Square
Newmarket Roxbury, Dorchester Fairmount Line 8, 10 1
JFK/UMass Dorchester Red Line Old Colony Lines 5, 8, 41 N/A Table 9: BRT Stations and Route Information
46
6.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Elements
In order to make the Rapid Transit Urban Ring proposal a viable alternative to the North-South Rail Link, the group looked at expert literature and existing bus rapid transit systems. The following section will describe background research, case studies, and finally the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) aspects of the modified Urban Ring.
According to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, there are five essential elements of a good bus rapid transit system: busway alignment, dedicated right of way, off-board fare collection, intersection treatments, and platform-level boarding. When properly implemented these elements combine to make a Gold Standard BRT system, which is the highest ranking possible on the internationally recognized Bus Rapid Transit Standard. While there are no Gold Standard systems in the United States, the group investigated the Mexico City BRT system as a model as the Cleveland Silver Standard BRT system as an example of the highest ranking achieved in America.
Road Transformation Potential road transformations for implementation of the proposed BRT alignment, using the same road transformation principles from the Congress Street proposal (see Section 6.1), were also investigated. BRT can be implemented on a variety of street configurations. Less costly road transformations for BRT implementation include BRT operation in mixed flow traffic lanes, designated bus-only lanes created from existing traffic lanes, and converted parking lanes for bus-only use during peak/operating hours. These bus-only lane transformations can be achieved largely with re-striping of existing lanes; however, some element of active enforcement of bus-only lanes will be required to keep non-transit vehicles out of bus-only lanes. Physical barriers between dedicated bus lanes and traffic lanes can help mitigate potential conflicts between buses and mixed traffic buses, though these require greater capital investment. Dedicated bus-only lanes in new Right of Ways, in at-grade or grade-separated transitways, with barriers such as bollards or raised medians, can therefore offer more reliable and faster service along with improved user safety and comfort, which is particularly desirable for implementation in high frequency high ridership routes.64
The group investigated the implementation of a median BRT rapid transit corridor on Melnea Cass Boulevard, one of the streets in the BRT alignment, as a template for road transformation along the proposed BRT Urban Ring. This implementation applies the road transformation objectives and principles identified in the Congress Street Proposal and emphasizes narrower lanes, shorter crossing distances, bike paths, and parks for improved walkability and safety. The current Melnea Cass Boulevard and a proposed road reconfiguration are shown in Figure 33. Melnea Cass Boulevard currently operates with two mixed use traffic lanes in both directions separated by a median and has an adjacent bike path. It does not offer on-street parking. The proposed median BRT rapid transit corridors follow NACTO guidelines of recommendations, shown in Figure 33, including a fully separate at-grade right of way, thus allowing for fast service and significant capacity.
64 National Association of City Transportation Officials, issuing body. Transit Street Design Guide. Island Press, 2016. 47
Figure 33: Top to bottom: At-grade median BRT transitway configuration concept from NACTO. Melnea Cass Boulevard current configuration and lane designations. Melnea Cass Boulevard proposed lane configurations and road transformation for BRT implementation. Figure adapted from NACTO’s “Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines”.65
This proposal requires reconfiguration of the current road, with new ROW for BRT in the space of the existing median and center traffic lanes as two designated BRT lanes (total width 24’) are added to the middle of the roadway with protective medians on either side. This plan allows for potential on street passenger loading from semi-enclosed shelters on raised 8’ wide medians, with right sided bus pickup stops. It also allows for conversion of medians into pocket parks, given their width. The number of traffic lanes in both directions is correspondingly reduced from two lanes to one and narrows the lane width from a width of roughly 11’ to 9’ to also deter speeding and improve safety. This design conserves the existing bike path, as it offers an established green space with mature trees, which is desirable for enhanced bike user safety and comfort. Median BRT rapid transit corridors also further allow for the opportunity to increase connectivity between where people live and work, as in areas of mixed zoning these corridors can be designed to perform as active neighborhoods anchored by transit66.
65 “Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines,” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2007, https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/service_design_guidelines_vta.pdf 66 National Association of City Transportation Officials, issuing body. Transit Street Design Guide. Island Press, 2016. 48
Figure 34: Top: Melnea Cass Boulevard current. Bottom: Overlay of proposed lane changes.
Parking with BRT implementation may pose an additional challenge. Though Melnea Cass Boulevard does not have on-street parking, other roads identified in the proposed Urban Ring alignment currently have on-street parking; however, there are certainly options, including expansion of the right of way for conservation of on-street parking and design of parking facilities at selected BRT stations, for parking solutions to at-grade dedicated bus-only lanes in new ROW.
Establishing an/or raising parking fees along the Urban Ring in desirable parking locations, along with residential parking permits, in the style of dynamic pricing as in San Francisco, CA, can help with system efficiency, discouraging long term use and allowing users to park quickly. Alternative solutions, such as shared parking, with rental of privately owned parking spaces like that facilitated through apps such as Pavemint, can also work synergistically with other parking solutions. Park-and-ride lots, in the suburban fringes at major points of commuter traffic, as identified in the ridership analysis, can also provide a non-invasive solution to parking demand, as demonstrated in implementation in Houston, TX and Washington, D.C. Moreover, in BRT implementations with converted bus-only lanes, where curbside parking or mixed-flow lanes are converted for BRT use during peak/operating periods, lanes in off periods may revert back to parking use.
49
Lane Technologies/Treatments Intersection and lane treatments are vital components of BRT systems, as they improve operational efficiency, quality of service, and safety. One of these components is Transit Signal Priority (TSP) technologies, which reduce wait time for transit vehicles at traffic signals by extending a green light phase, reducing a red light phase, or allowing left turn swaps.67 This expedites travel through intersections, and allows buses that are behind schedule to get back on schedule. In order to implement this, the system requires hardware and software to allow for communication between the traffic signal controllers and the incoming transit vehicle. When a vehicle approaches the intersection, the traffic signal controller can identify if it is a transit vehicle, and respond accordingly.68 The inclusion of TSP in a BRT system will result in improved transit efficiency, reduced travel time, and higher reliability.
Vehicle Design According to the Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making69 by the Federal Transit Administration and the United States Department of Transportation, there are a variety of elements to consider when designing a BRT vehicle. Taking these options into account, along with factoring in a solution that will be sustainable into the future of the city, the group determined the key elements for BRT vehicles in a Bus Rapid Transit system in Boston.
The ideal bus for this system should first be a stylized articulated vehicle. This refers to the visual and physical design of the vehicle. It should have a sleek, modern design while providing an array of features to make the rider’s experience as enjoyable as possible. These elements include larger windows and enhanced lighting, climate control, high quality materials for seats, enhanced wheelchair securement, and Wi-Fi. Furthermore, the vehicle should be fully electric. While this might’ve been a stretch five years ago, advancements in technology—the Tesla semi in particular—suggest that this will be available and affordable for bus application in the near future. Also, the vehicle should be semi-autonomous, utilizing an optical guidance system and collision sensors. Because of the physical separation of the BRT lane from normal commuter lanes, the technology for autonomous system already exists and could be implemented in a safe manner. Finally, the BRT must have hardware for precision docking to facilitate an efficient boarding process and also improve ease of access for the disabled.
Station Design An ideal BRT vehicle, however, is only at its best when paired with an ideal station. Similarly to the bus design, the characteristics of a BRT station are laid out in the Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making70 as well. The two most important characteristics of the ideal stations are a barrier-enforced payment system and a climate-controlled environment. These elements drastically improve boarding efficiency and the rider experience, especially in harsh weather environments.
67 Maryland Transit Administration. “Transit Signal Priority.” MTA BaltimoreLink, www.baltimorelink.com/baltimorelink-basics/infrastructure/153-transit-signal-priority. 68 Hinebaugh, Dennis, and Roderick Diaz. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. Federal Transit Administration, 2004. 69 Hinebaugh, Dennis, and Roderick Diaz. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. Federal Transit Administration, 2004. 70 Hinebaugh, Dennis, and Roderick Diaz. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. Federal Transit Administration, 2004. 50
Moreover, the stations need to be elevated to bus level and have hardware to correspond to the precision docking capabilities of the BRT vehicle. This optimizes boarding efficiency while also addressing the needs of the disabled passengers. Aesthetically, the stations should complement the buses with a modern design suitable for the future. A simple and effective solution for determining the visual appearance of the station, that has also worked successfully in the past, is holding a design contest; the winner of such contest will then be awarded financially or contracted to design the actual station. Finally, common amenities must also be provided, including – but not limited to – Wifi, restrooms, food or vending machines, and water fountains.
Case Studies In determining the viability of a BRT system in Boston, the group also examined implementations elsewhere. These systems are evaluated using the BRT Standard, which establishes a common rating system for bus rapid transit. The rating is formed using a point based system for 6 categories—including basics, service planning, and stations—along with a set of deductions for issues like overcrowding. This score is then used to categorize the BRT system into one of three classes: Gold, Silver, and Bronze. Currently, no BRT system in the United States meets the Gold Standard. The best American BRT system can be found in Cleveland, Ohio, which meets the Silver Standard.
In the first five years of its implementation, the BRT system in Cleveland resulted in a 67% increase in ridership, a 95% decrease in emissions along the corridor, and $5.8 Billion dollars invested in real estate development in the region. Although Cleveland experienced great results, to create a system that matches and surpasses these results in Boston, the group looked at one of the best BRT systems in the world in Mexico City, Mexico. This system resulted in an estimated 50% reduction in travel time, 35% reduction in pollution, and 54% reduction in traffic. Moreover, only 15% of riders reported owning a car. Based off the success of other BRT implementations, there is great potential for the application of a Gold Standard BRT system in Boston.
Costs In order to estimate the full depth and cost of our proposed BRT the group analyzed the key BRT factors presented in Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making71 and chose those that would be the most appropriate for a BRT system in the City of Boston. The first component considered was the running way, or the physical space allotted for the bus on its alignment and the components that are used to build it. Unlike an ordinary running way, that of the BRT proposal uses an optical guidance system, or system that uses optical sensors on the vehicle to read markers placed on the pavement and delineate the path of the vehicle. For the implementation of a BRT station, the stations from this proposal were modeled off of the stations used in the Cleveland BRT system because they were a good median between cheap simple bus stations and expensive designated stations. For vehicle use, the group recommends the purchase of specialty BRT vehicles, which have a sleek aerodynamic body and propulsion systems. While this option is more expensive than using existing buses, it ensures that the BRT transport is both smooth, inviting, and enjoyable for the rider. The group also chose to implement a
71 Hinebaugh, Dennis, and Roderick Diaz. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. Federal Transit Administration, 2004. 51
transit signal priority system, which would allow for faster travel and better flow of traffic between buses and cars.
Using the technology mentioned above, the group estimated that the price range for the implementation of this BRT system would be $135M to $205. This price includes the cost of the new stations, the running walkways, new vehicles and intelligent transportation system adjusted for inflation. One thing to note is that many of the technologies that were mentioned in the reading that these estimates are based off of would be older and cheaper by the time the BRT could be implemented (2020–2022). On the other hand, as with any large project, there are unforeseen expenses that no one can predict or plan for such as: trouble with contractors, weather problems, breakages, court battles, etc. Any of these could also raise the price range for the BRT.
Ridership Analysis In order to estimate the number of people who could benefit from the Urban Ring, the group applied a similar methodology to that described in Section 4; however, the original dataset from the US Census Bureau gave commuter data on a municipality—as opposed to a station-to-station—level.
As a result, a new dataset from 2008–2009 from an MBTA survey of individuals’ entrance and exit stations, was used and the clustering methodology adapted. By looking at each entry and exit stations, the group identified routes that would benefit from the Urban Ring proposal. For example, for a commuter taking rapid transit from Ruggles to Kendall, there is no single-seat ride. Instead, the commuter must take the Orange Line to Downtown Crossing, transfer to the Red Line, and take the Red Line to Kendall. By contrast, when taking the Urban Ring, this commuter has a single-seat ride with only four stops between the two stations. Figure 35 visualizes these routes.
Figure 35: Source: Google Maps. Left: Rapid transit from Ruggles to Kendall. Right: Urban Ring route.
52
Applying the clustering methodology to determine all such routes that could be taken with the Urban Ring and the number of commuters who could benefit are given in Table 10.
Urban Ring Ridership Predictions
Number of rapid transit riders benefitted by Urban 12,556 riders/day Ring Proposal
Number of commuter rail riders benefitted by 4,231 riders/day Urban Ring Proposal Table 10: Urban Ring ridership predictions using RPM 72
As the Urban Ring intersects with many commuter rail stations with commuter rail riders who could benefit from an Urban Ring, the group also isolated those commuter rail entry stations and destinations that would benefit from the Urban Ring proposal.
The ridership model predicts that 16,787 riders per day may benefit from the Urban Ring proposal. As this data is based on a 2008–2009 survey, the number of people who would benefit today may be slightly different. A 2017 Harvard Kennedy School study estimated around 50,000 trips would benefit from an Urban Ring; though this study wasn’t specific to the alignment proposed here, the predictions from it and from the model developed here are good indicators that an Urban Ring would benefit a large number of Massachusetts’s commuters.
6.2.3 Evaluation of Urban Ring
As the Urban Ring creates an express route that redirects the flow of commuters from the congested downtown core directly to popular destinations like the Longwood Medical Area and Kendall/MIT, it fully addresses the goal of reducing congestion.
Additionally, this route takes advantage of the new Silver Line 3 extension—which began to be utilized starting April 21—by connecting with it at Everett and Dudley. The Urban Ring also creates direct connections with the Red and Green and Red and Orange Lines away from the congested downtown core. All of these contribute to an increased connectivity of the Boston public transport system.
As the BRT vehicles used in the system are fully electric, emissions will be less than those from other transport systems in Boston. Additionally, because the dedicated lanes key to this proposal allow BRT vehicles to avoid the flow of traffic, this route is faster than currently existing options. Thus, this will become a more desirable form of transport and could decrease commute by car, further reducing emissions.
72 John Alex Keszler, “Ridership Prediction Model” 2018. Web. 1 March 2018. https://github.com/jakeszler 53
In terms of long-term increases in ridership, the increase in connectivity and decrease in commute times resulting from this proposal will increase the number of single-seat rides, making the system easier to navigate for those who do not regularly commute in Boston. As a result of this increased usage, traffic apps like Google Maps could begin to recommend the Urban Ring route as the best mode of transport, which will further increase ridership. All of these improvements will lead to a much more efficient flow of people, and an overall reduction in commute time.
As the BRT vehicles needed to implement this solution already exist and the creation of dedicated lanes can be as easy as putting paint on the ground, this proposal is one that is very feasible. Though historically there has been some political pushback against connecting Boston’s neighborhoods, the benefits from the connections the Urban Ring creates, including increased opportunities for economic mobility within Boston, could be extremely desirable for Boston residents and far outweigh any political concerns. Lastly, the comparatively low cost of the Urban Ring solution, which eliminates expensive infrastructure builds like the Longwood tunnel and capitalizes existing right of ways, makes it a more viable solution than its predecessor.
6.2 Ferries
At its roots, Boston is a seaport. The city has a unique, extensive waterfront connecting to the Charles River which stretches deep into the core of the city. While Boston was built largely through the use of these waterways, they have become relatively abandoned in recent history due to the popularity of road transportation; however, this popularity and the highly concentrated downtown core along Boston’s waterfront, has made the roads in Boston highly congested. To address this congestion, it is important to steer attention back towards the waterways, as they are immediately adjacent to many popular locations in Boston, and have the potential to provide quick and direct access to these points of interest.
Figure 36: An aerial view of Boston’s waterways extending around the downtown core. Image from US 73 Harbors
73 “Boston Harbor.” Marinas | Massachusetts, ma.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/boston-harbor. 54
Current MBTA Boat System The City of Boston currently has a few working ferry routes for public transportation. The MBTA Boat system is operated by Boston Harbor Cruises under contract to the MBTA and implements a series of inner harbor and longer distance commuter ferries. The map shown in Figure 37 shows the three general routes operated by the current system.
The routes shown in this figure can be broken down into two types: Inner Harbor and Commuter. Currently, the MBTA system only operates one inner harbor route (F4 Charleston–Long Wharf) and two commuter routes (Park Islands–F1: Hingham–Rowes and F2H: Hingham–Hull–Logan–Long Wharf). Two additional routes were previously operated but were discontinued due to low ridership and budgetary constraints (F3–Lovejoy–Charlestown and F4–Charlestown–Long Wharf).
Figure 37: Current MBTA Boat Map74
The F4 service is particularly interesting due to its implementation within the inner harbor as well as the demographic of its riders, which tends to be a slightly higher commuter percentage when compared to the Park Islands routes. The F4 currently runs with 15 minute headways, has a 9–11 minute commute time, and a total fare of $3.50 that is integrated within the Charlie Cards payment system. Moreover, the F4 also registered the highest On-Time Performance (OTP) percentage out of all the routes (tabulating an OTP of 99% in 2015). The total OTP Performance for the macrosystem as a whole registered 97.5% in 2015 (excluding February due to anomalous weather conditions), deeming the ferry system as the most reliable mode of MBTA transport (MBTA State of the Service Presentation).
74 South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan. VHP - MassDOT (2015). 55
The current ferry system is also the most financially self-sustaining. The system recorded a 62% farebox recovery ratio (the fraction of operating cost met by fares paid) which, when compared to all other forms of public transport (shown in Figure 38), stands out quite significantly.
A third important benefit highlighted in the MBTA February Summary Presentation touched upon the low capital costs involved with ferry operation. With most of the vessels owned by a private operator and a shared usage of waterfront infrastructure, a plan involving the renewal or improvement of the system would introduce relatively low upfront investment; however, though the advantages of utilizing water transportation as a commuter method are evident, its impact and overall effect on ridership and public commuting is slightly more ambiguous. With two routes being discontinued due to low demand, as well as relatively low utilization by commuters, it appears that there is a missed opportunity to explore and optimize the current ferry system.
Figure 38: Farebox Recovery Ratio Comparison75
75 MBTA State of the Service Presentation - Water Transportation. MBTA - MassDOT (2016). 56
Figure 39: Seasonal Ridership trends76
The impressive performance of the current MBTA ferry system, coupled with Boston’s advantageous waterways and congested downtown core, make apparent the room for improvement in utilizing Boston’s waterways. By designing a water transportation network with the goal of improving public transportation in mind, Boston may be able to take advantage of these waterways in order to decrease congestion on the roads and increase connectivity throughout the city. Furthermore, by expanding into the waterways, Boston’s public transportation system can ultimately achieve greater resiliency and sustainability by creating alternate routes and transportation technologies. A a two-part water transportation system could meet these goals: a scheduled ferry from North to South station designed to meet high volumes of traffic at rush hour, supplemented with on-demand water taxis that would follow a multi-phase implementation.
Case Studies In order to understand how the Boston waterways can be modified to provide more efficient public transportation, it is worthwhile to investigate cities around the world with successful water transportation systems to obtain inspiration for how Boston can be transformed.
New York New York is Boston’s neighbor, and the cities are similar in that they both have extensive waterfronts extending deep into the heart of the city, and a dense downtown core which has led to congestion on land forms of transportation. In 2017, New York expanded their ferry network to include four new commuter ferry lines. The city was pleased to report that the expanded ferry system has performed extremely well, with ridership far exceeding expectations by meeting its projections for 2019 almost immediately. The city has additionally begun to order bigger boats and design express commuter
76 MBTA State of the Service Presentation - Water Transportation. MBTA - MassDOT (2016). 57
routes in order to meet the ferry system’s increasing demand. Overall, the expansion has resulted in the New York ferry system becoming a key component of the city’s transportation network by providing an 77 efficient alternative to the congested and delay-ridden subway system.
New York’s success instills optimism in the prospect of expanding and improving Boston’s waterway transportation for a number of reasons. Firstly, the two cities have very similar waterways and geographical layouts which enables a network similar to New York’s to be applied to Boston. Secondly, the two cities have very similar climate. One major concern with ferries is the disturbance from bad weather, and the fact that the ferries operate well in New York’s climate provides good hopes for what can be done in Boston. Lastly, the fact that New York’s service is exceeding ridership expectations provides indication that there is certainly demand for this type of service when the roads and subway systems are congested. Overall, the similarities of New York and Boston provide hope that a water transportation system in Boston has the potential to achieve the same success as New York.
Amsterdam While New York provides a good indication that a ferry system can be successful in Boston, it is also useful to look to cities around the world with unique water transportation systems to find ways Boston can innovate. One such city is Amsterdam, where the city uses long, sleek, low-clearance canal ferries to maneuver an extensive network of tight canals. This ferry technology is of particular interest to Boston because there are currently several locations along Boston’s waterfront—including South Station — that are unable to be accessed by the MBTA ferries due to low bridge clearance. This ferry technology can be seen in Figure 40.
Figure 40: An example of an Amsterdam Canal Ferry
77 Mcgeehan, Patrick. “New York City's Ferry Fleet Is Off to a Fast Start.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/nyregion/new-york-ferry.html. 58
Proposed Solution The proposed solution consists of two parts: a scheduled ferry route between North and South Stations supplemented with on-demand water taxis. These new additions to Boston’s public transportation system allow for greater connectivity, create new routes between valued points of interest, and alleviate congestion by providing users with alternate routes to their usual destinations. Examples around the world indicate that an increase in the number of commuter ferry routes could be a major component of a sustainable transportation system in Boston.
Figure 41: The route from North Station to South Station
Direct Ferry Route The first part of the proposed solution (seen in Figure 41) involves the use of a direct ferry route between North and South Stations. Low bridge clearance currently does not allow MBTA ferries to travel into Fort Point Channel to South Station; however, the clearance issue can be addressed by using an Amsterdam Canal Ferry-style vessel for the scheduled commuter route between North and South Stations. These vessels are beneficial in Boston for a number of reasons, beyond just being equipped with low clearance capabilities. While these vessels are typically used for tourism in Amsterdam, this technology is also suited for commuter routes. Some of the highlights of the vessel are summarized in Table 11.
All of these technical specifications support the decision to use these vessels in Boston. With low vertical clearance, these boats can reach new locations that current MBTA ferries cannot (including South Station). With 100 passenger capacity, these vessels remain on par with the capacity of the boats in the current system, and with a fully heated glass cabin, these vessels have the capability to function year-round in Boston. Finally, these vessels have the capability to go fully electric and have already begun to go fully electric in Amsterdam. This is beneficial in helping Boston reach its environmental goals for the future, as none of the MBTA’s ferries are currently entirely electric.
59
Select Specifications of Proposed Ferries
Vertical Clearance Less than 2 meters78
Capacity 100 passengers79
Emissions 0 emissions (fully electric)80
Weather Protection Heated glass cabin Table 11: Specifications of ferries to be utilized in ferries proposal
While there is currently a port at North Station used by MBTA ferries (Lovejoy Wharf), the same does not exist at South Station; however, there are floating docks at Atlantic Wharf Docks that are currently used by smaller boats. In order to renovate this area of the harbor to enable a larger ferry route between North and South Stations, there would need to be an upgraded wharf installed. One way this can be done would be with a larger, more robust floating dock. Once passengers arrive at the dock, the walk to South Station is shorter than two minutes long. Figure 42 shows the proposed location of the dock, as well as the route to South Station the ferry would take.
Figure 42: A depiction of where the new floating dock could be installed (green), with the route to South Station (red).
78 “Boating | I Amsterdam.” History of Amsterdam | I Amsterdam, www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-your-trip/getting-around/boating. 79 “Amsterdam Canal Cruises.” Amsterdam Cruise Port, www.amsterdamcruiseport.com/partner/amsterdam-canal-cruises. 80 “Zero Emissions for Canal Cruise Boats by 2025.” PPMC TRANSPORT, www.ppmc-transport.org/zero-emissions-for-canal-cruise-boats-by-2025/. 60
Water Taxis The other component of this proposal is on-demand water taxis. In order to provide a method of transport that is innovative, desirable, and flexible, these smaller, on-demand vessels complement the scheduled ferry system. The largest benefit to integrating this section of the solution is to create a way to address fluctuations in on- and off-peak times as well as avoid installing intrusive infrastructure.
One major case study that this solution draws on is from the technology provided by a European startup called SeaBubbles. The company seeks to provide autonomous water taxis that can carry up to 6 passenger and have the ability to travel at 16mph. Drawing on the city of Boston’s desire to become adapt to autonomous technology, the water taxi solution would be able to provide a much easier way of transitioning to that model. Implementing autonomous technology in water is far more easier than land due to the decrease in traffic and requirements to use less vision systems.
Figure 42: Current SeaBubbles working prototype81
The implementation of SeaBubbles requires three key elements: the vessel, the dock, and the app. The docks shown in Figure 43 are an adaptation of standard floating docks that can easily be set up in key locations on the waterfront. They are low cost (see Table 12 for more detailed breakdown) and provide an attraction to meet the city’s goal of developing the Boston waterfront area.
Figure 43: Docks compatible with Sea Bubbles water taxis
81 Caradisiac.com. (2018). Seabubbles : les premiers tests de la voiture volante sur la Seine dans quelques jours à Paris. [online] 61
The proposed solution begins with a connection between North and South Stations. As a preliminary phase, the route has proven demand and can be used as the first step towards a greater system that seeks to transform Boston’s transportation outlook. The maps in Figure 44 outline a what a potential multi-phase implementation plan would look like.
Cost Breakdown Table 12 summarizes the cost breakdown of each of the technologies outlined in this proposal. The capital per vessel for the Amsterdam Canal Ferry-style vessel has been estimated to cost around 28 $1.5M . The annual operational and maintenance costs for this vessel has been estimated to be roughly $1.3M82 from the cost analysis conducted of a similar size of vessel by the State of Washington Joint Transportation Committee. The cost of high quality permanent personal docks are approximately $75K83.
Therefore, to build a large commercial floating dock, the team estimates the costs to be approximately $200K. SeaBubbles are still currently in development and their prototypes are evolving and improving, but the cost per unit has been estimated at $15K per vessel84. It is currently too early to quantify the annual operational and maintenance costs of this system but the factors that should be accounted for include electricity costs, mechanical and software maintenance, and personnel monitoring the system. Finally, the team estimates the costs of a SeaBubbles dock are approximately $75K.
Amsterdam Canal Ferry SeaBubbles
Capital cost per vessel $1.5M28 $15K
Annual Operational and ~$1.3M35 Factors include: electricity costs, Maintenance Costs mechanical and software maintenance, personnel monitoring system
Dock costs ~$200K ~75K per dock Table 12: Costs associated with each component of Ferries proposal
82 Parametrix. 2006. Passenger-Only Ferry Cost Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. January 5, 2006. 83 “Learn How Much It Costs to Build a Dock.” HomeAdvisor, www.homeadvisor.com/cost/outdoor-living/build-a-dock/. 84 O'Sullivan, Feargus, and CityLab. “The Future of Paris Water Transit Might Be Driverless 'SeaBubbles'.” CityLab, 17 Feb. 2016, www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/paris-seine-flying-water-seabubble-driverless-alain-thebault-hydroptere/463182/. 62
Figure 44: Top: Initial North Station–South Station Route. Middle: Additional Seaport, CS Galleria, and Chelsea Port. Bottom: Potential westwards expansion to capture higher education institutions. Routes selected based on interviews with MassDOT and MBTA experts. 63
6.2.1 Evaluation of Ferries
From the standpoint of the identified NSRL goals and criteria, the ferry proposal’s main target points are its ability to reduce congestion, increase connectivity, and reduce emissions. With the potential to change the way Boston views the waterway as a method of transport, the goal with the proposed implementation is to alleviate pressure from busy roads in the downtown area as well as provide an opportunity to incentivize investment in transforming the waterfront.
Furthermore, both elements of the solution use technology that is fully electric and can provide an opportunity for the city of Boston to reduce its carbon footprint. Paired with both of these advantages, the solution would also offer an alternative avenue for transportation that would increase connectivity that extends beyond the North–South Station route.
7. Conclusion
This semester, students from ES 96: Engineering Problem Solving and Design Project were presented with the issue of the 1-mile gap between Boston’s North Station and South Station. The goal of this project was to investigate and address this issue, as well as challenges affecting transportation in the Greater Boston area. The group proposed a multi-pronged solution to revitalize transportation in Boston, consisting of a road transformation of Congress Street to incorporate integrated bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly zones, a bus rapid transit Urban Ring to connect Greater Boston through circumferential travel, and a renewed ferry system which leverages Boston’s waterways to connect North and South Stations.
This problem is an example of a human challenge, characterized by many variables and interacting elements over an extended time scale.85 Because of the complex nature of this challenge, a significant part of the project was determining the scope of the problem space. The group used systems thinking to understand the dynamics of transportation in Boston, applying the design process to identify areas of opportunity. This phase of the project is detailed in Section 3: Investigation and Section 4: Defining the problem and ideation. Human challenges must be addressed as systems, taking care to avoid reductionism by investigating them holistically. With this in mind, the goals of the solution must reflect the nuances of the problem. This is discussed in Section 5: Framing of Solutions, which describes the creation of the problem statement and a robust set of criteria. These benchmarks guided the development of the group’s solution.
The set of solutions that the team has developed are proposals which connect the two stations and improve infrastructure in greater Boston in unique and complementary ways. Of the solutions, the road transformation of Congress Street provides the most direct connection between North Station and South
85 Habbal, Fawwaz. “Introduction to ES 96.” Engineering Sciences 96, 22 January 2018, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA. Course Lecture. 64
Station, offering a faster route between the two downtown stations. It provides a low-cost, high-impact way of getting more individual vehicles off the road by redesigning the roads to promote public transportation, biking, and walking. Meanwhile, the Urban Ring reduces congestion from commuters whose origin and destination is not downtown. Instead of forcing commuters to travel in and out of the downtown area, the urban ring seeks to improve circumferential connectivity, thereby allowing riders to travel directly from station to station outside of downtown Boston. Finally, the ferries solution looks beyond roadways and instead makes use of Boston’s waterways, further reducing congestion in the downtown core. Through a direct ferry route between North and South Stations, supplemented with on-demand water taxis, the solution allows for greater connectivity by creating new routes and relieves downtown congestion by providing an alternate means of transportation.
Each solution presented is part of a greater solution to revitalize transportation in Boston. The group’s research into the complex and nuanced problem space revealed areas of need that the solutions seek to address. The overall solution space would revitalize transportation in Boston, reducing congestion, increasing connectivity, reducing emissions, and increasing public transit ridership.
65
8. Acknowledgements
The Engineering Sciences 96 project team would like to thank the following individuals for their support in making this project possible:
ES 96 Teaching Staff Dean Fawwaz Habbal Professor Nabil Harfoush Dr. Chris Lombardo Dr. Kelly Miller Erin McLean Arjun Menon
SEAS Active Learning Labs Andreas Haggerty Maddie Hickman
Lecturers & Research Support May ElKhattab Doug Lee Flavia Perez David Gamble Monica Tibbits-Nutt Michael Dukakis Scott Hamwey Scott Peterson Caroline Vanasse
66
9. Class Biosketch
The project was produced by a team of Harvard College undergraduate students enrolled in Engineering Sciences 96: Engineering Problem Solving and Design Project during the Spring semester of 2018. Students in the course were divided into 3 separate groups based on concentration and Basadur profile, a means of describing an individual’s creative style, in order to create balanced, heterogeneous groups. As a result, the group is composed of students from diverse specialities, including mechanical, electrical, biological, environmental, and design engineering, and the 4 quadrants of the Basadur profile: Generator, Conceptualizer, Optimizer, and Implementer. This semester, students in ES 96 collaborated to address needs of the client, Arup, to consider the issue of the North South Rail Link. As a result, the team sought to improve connectivity within Greater Boston. In the process of developing their solutions, the team used systems thinking to understand the dynamics of complex systems and applied the design process to identify areas of opportunity, leveraging a multidisciplinary collaborative working environment. The team is thrilled with the work that they have completed this past semester, in which they tackled a human challenge through engineering and design thinking.
67
10. Bibliography
Annear, Steve. “Cyclists to Create Human 'Bike Lane' over Congress Street Bridge - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 1 Dec. 2017, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/01/human-bike-lane-over-congress-street-bridge/
Barry, Mike, and Brian Card. “Visualizing MBTA Data.” Visualizing MBTA Data, mbtaviz.github.io/.
Bedford, Keith. “Baker Criticizes Keolis over Post-Storm Commuter Rail Struggles - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 11 Jan. 2018, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/01/11/baker-criticizes-keolis-over-post-storm-commu ter-rail-struggles/ynQ2FdQ0bZ3vtnK5N00fkJ/story.html. ccP97SbDfNPNThUgfxg1KI/story.html
Central Transportation Planning Staff. “MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey: All Lines 2008-09 Commuter Rail.” 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2018.
Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew Turner. "The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities." (2009): n. pag. Web.
Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew Turner. “THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF ROAD CONGESTION: EVIDENCE FROM US CITIES.” NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, Sept. 2009, www.nber.org/papers/w15376.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration. “Average Annual Fuel Use of Major Vehicle Categories.” 2015. Web. 20 April 2018.
Fisher, Jenna. “Self Driving Cars Can Hit The Road Again In Boston.” Boston Patch, Patch Network, 28 Mar. 2018, patch.com/massachusetts/boston/business. Garvin, Patrick, and David Butler. “How the MBTA Makes and Spends Its Money - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 2 Mar. 2015, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/02/how-mbta-makes-and-spends-its-money/PL3Z 70XaEFfnI42awRcKMO/story.html. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2010/demo/metro-micro/commuting-employment-20 10.html
Jessen, Klark. “MBTA: New Commuter Rail Locomotives.” Web blog post. MassDOT Blog. MassDOT, 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 April 2018.
68
Keszler, John Alex. “Ridership Prediction Model.” 2018. Web. 1 March 2018.
Koczela, Steve. “Commuter Rail Ridership Numbers Don't Add Up.” CommonWealth Magazine, 26 Mar. 2015, commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/commuter-rail-ridership-numbers-dont-add-u p/.
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. “NSRL DEIR Major Investment Study.” 2010. Web. 1 April 2018.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA Back on Track.” Bike Parking | Bikes | MBTA, MBTA, 2015, mbta.com/mbta-back-on-track.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “MBTA State of the Service: Commuter Rail.” 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2018.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “Ridership and Service Statistics: Fourteenth Edition 2014.” 2014. Web. 2 April 2018.
McFarland, Matt. “Uber and Lyft Are Creating a Traffic Problem for Big Cities.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 11 Oct. 2011, money.cnn.com/2017/10/11/technology/future/ride-hailing-cities-public-transit/index.htm l.
Mcgeehan, Patrick. “New York City's Ferry Fleet Is Off to a Fast Start.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/nyregion/new-york-ferry.html.
Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems. Ed. Diana Wright. London: Earth Scan, 2009. Web. 9 May 2018.
Metro North Railroad. “2015 Ridership Report.” 2015. Web. 10 April 2018.
O'Sullivan, Feargus, and CityLab. “The Future of Paris Water Transit Might Be Driverless 'SeaBubbles'.” CityLab, 17 Feb. 2016, www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/paris-seine-flying-water-seabubble-driverless-alain-thebau lt-hydroptere/463182/.
69
Parametrix. 2006. Passenger-Only Ferry Cost Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. January 5, 2006. Pescaro, Mike, and Marc Fortier. “MBTA Will Not Extend Commuter Rail Operator's Contract.” NECN, NECN, 6 Jan. 2017, www.necn.com/news/business/MBTA-to-Part-Ways-With-Commuter-Rail-Operator-Keo lis-After-Contract-409826095.html.
Saslow, Linda. “Electrifying L.I.R.R.: Pluses and Minuses.” The New York Times 11 Sept. 1988: LI12. Web. 10 April 2018.
Schmitt, Angie. “Boston Tests Faster Bus Service Simply By Laying Out Orange Cones.” Streetsblog USA, 13 Dec. 2017, usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/12/boston-tests-faster-bus-service-simply-by-laying-out-ora nge-cones/.
Stannard, Ed. “Metro-North to Get 60 New Train Cars, Including 10 Bar Cars, Starting in 2019.” New Haven Register 13 Sept. 2016. Web. 10 April 2018.
The Business Council of Fairfield County. “Metro-North Timetable Study.” 2014. Web. 10 April 2018.
Transit Matters. “Regional Rail Report.” 2018. Web. 4 March 2018.
U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Metro North Commuter Railroad Company. “Final Impact Statement 4 (f) Evaluation for the Wassaic Extension Project in Dutchess County, New York.” 1997. Web. 4 April 2018.
United States, Commuter Rail. “MBTA STATE OF THE SERVICE Commuter Rail.” MBTA STATE OF THE SERVICE Commuter Rail, MBTA, 2012.
United States,“ State of the System: Commuter Rail.” State of the System: Commuter Rail, Massachusetts, 2015. www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/49/Docs/Focus40CommuterRail.pdf.
US Census Bureau. “Journey to Work Dataset.” 2010. Web. 10 April 2018.
“About” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2018, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/.
70
“Amsterdam Canal Cruises.” Amsterdam Cruise Port, www.amsterdamcruiseport.com/partner/amsterdam-canal-cruises.
“Blueprints for Autonomous Urbanism” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2017, nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BAU_Mod1_raster-sm.pdf.
“Boating | I Amsterdam.” History of Amsterdam | I Amsterdam, www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-your-trip/getting-around/boating.
“Boston's Two Terminals and Early Efforts to Link Them.” North South Rail Link, Citizens for the North South Rail Link, www.northsouthraillink.org/two-terminals/.
“Boston Bike Network Plan” City of Boston, Boston.gov, 2013, https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Boston%20Bike%20Network%20Plan %2C%20Fall%202013_FINAL_tcm3-40525.pdf
“Boston Harbor.” Marinas | Massachusetts, ma.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/boston-harbor.
“Boston Population.” Google Population Tool, Google, www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&d l=en.
“Focus 40.” Focus 40 The 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA, MBTA, www.mbtafocus40.com/.
“Go Boston 2030 Vision and Action Plan Released.” Boston.gov, MBTA, 19 May 2017, www.boston.gov/news/go-boston-2030-vision-and-action-plan-released.
“Imagine Boston 2030.” Imagine Boston 2030, City of Boston, imagine.boston.gov/.
“Learn How Much It Costs to Build a Dock.” HomeAdvisor, www.homeadvisor.com/cost/outdoor-living/build-a-dock/.
“MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MassDOT, 2015, https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planning-design-guide.
“New Study Finds that NSRL Less Expensive than Previously Reported.” Moulton.House.Gov. 17 Aug. 2017. Web. 10 April 2018.
“Rail Electrification Costs from Alan Drake.” Web blog post. The Ergosphere. Blogspot, 19 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 April 2018.
71
“Schedules and Maps.” MBTA Operating & Capital Budget: Governor’s Special Panel to Review the MBTA, MassDot, Oct. 2017, www.mbta.com/.
“Urban Street Designs” National Association of City Transportation Officials, NACTO, 2013, nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/curb-extensions/.
“Zero Emissions for Canal Cruise Boats by 2025.” PPMC TRANSPORT, www.ppmc-transport.org/zero-emissions-for-canal-cruise-boats-by-2025/.
72