UMASS/ AMHERST ... ,
31E0bb QEfil bE3M 5 LA ^ u U VJ 52
OVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
I ECT10N
SOUTH OCT 3 1 1985 SHORE BUS STUDY
April 1985 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2014
https://archive.org/details/southshorebusstu01quac .
HMKS^L ^EP©^¥ 52
TITLE South Shore Bus Study
AUTHOR(S) Karl H. Quackenbush (principal author) Thomas J, Humphrey
DATE April 1985
ABSTRACT This report presents the methods, findings and recommendations of a study of bus transit in the South Shore corridor of the Boston metropolitan area. The major goal of the study was to derive recommendations for improving MBTA bus service without increasing net costs to the MBTA.
The areas of potential service improvement emphasized were: increasing ridership per unit of service, improving passenger travel time, improving passenger comfort and con- venience, and serving demonstrated latent transit demand. The three major data sources for the analysis were boarding and alighting counts, an on-board survey, and the U. S. Census
This document was prepared by CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF, an interagency transportation planning staff created and directed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, consisting of the member agencies.
Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Department of Public Works MBTA Advisory Board Massachusetts Port Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council AUTHOR(S) MAPC REGION STUDY AREA Karl H. Quackenbush BOUNDARY Principal Author Thomas J. Humphrey GRAPHICS Janice M. Collen
EDITING Leland N. Morrison WORD PROCESSING Olga Doherty Sybil White
Elaine Goldman TofMlWKI M»mltto* f *•»••
North M«dtng DMMMI \ tMrt, Wtimmglo"
fading
r Bo i uuyh / bu) W06um I^Ston*) ham I
Massachusetts
S.o. f»»"""f ^AtHngton 1
Sudbury
' ' Waytaftfl
SouthOofOwfl h
This document was prepared in cooperation with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the U S Depart- ment of Transportation through the technical study grant(s) cited below, and was also financed with state and local matching funds MA-09-0095 MA-0 9-010 7 MA-08-0115
Copies may be obtained from the State Transportation Library. Ten Park Plaza 2nd door Boston MA 02116 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES v
SUMMARY 1
1 OBJECTIVES 3
2 BACKGROUND 5
2.1 General Study-Area Population and Employment Characteristics 5
2.2 Existing Transportation Services 5
2.2.1 Major Highways 5
2.2.2 Red Line Rapid Transit 8
2.2.3 MBTA Bus 8
2.2.4 Private-Carrier Bus 8
2.2.5 Other Transportation Services and Facilities 8
2.3 Existing Transportation Use 8
3 ANALYSIS OF MBTA BUS ROUTES AND ROUTE -LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS 13
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Weekday MBTA Service 13
3.2.1 Study Process 13
3.2.2 Findings 20
3.2.3 Recommendations 23
3.3 Weekend MBTA Service 44
3.3.1 Study Process 44
3.3.2 Findings 45
3.3.3 Recommendations 45
-i i i - -iv-
4 SYSTEMWIDE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53
4.1 Analysis of Latent Demand for South Shore Bus Service 53
4.2 Private-Carrier Bus Service 57
4.3 General Recommendations 58
APPENDICES (bound separately)
A Route-by-Route Analysis
B Summary of Study-Area Transit History
C Boardings Performance Measures
D Analysis of Pulse System for Evening and Sunday Service
E Analysis of Evening-Service-Headway Lengthening
F Systemwide Comparisons
G On-Board-Sur vey Findings
H Trip-level Data
I Sunday Service
J Public Meetings LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
3-1 Total South Shore MBTA Weekday Bus Boardings by 15-Minute Intervals 15
TABLES
2-1 Relative Population Shares and Population Changes for Study-Area Communities, 1950-1980 6
2-2 Distribution of Work-Trip Locations for Study-Area Residents 7
2-3 Study-Area Estimated Daily Work Trips to Boston Proper in 1984 and Estimated Shares by Mode of Travel 10
3 -1 Measures Used in Route Analysis 17
3 -2 Service Improvements Considered in Analysis 21
3 -3 Total Weekday Per f or mance and Design Characteristics 24
3 -4 Weekday Route Performance - Early Period 27
3 -5 Weekday Route Per for mance - A.M. Peak Period 29
3 -6 Weekday Route Per for mance - Base Period 31
3 -7 Weekday Route Performance - School Period 33
3 -8 Weekday Route Per for mance - P.M. Peak Period 35
3 -9 Weekday Route Per for mance - Evening Period 37
3-10 Socioeconomic Characteristics & Travel Behavior - Weekday 39
3-11 Route Performance - Saturday Daytime 46
3-12 Route Performance - Sunday Daytime 47
3-13 Socioeconomic Characteristics & Travel Behavior - Saturday 48
- v- SUMMARY
This report presents the methods, findings, and recommendations of a study of bus transit in the South Shore corridor of the Boston metropolitan area. The major goal of the study was to derive recommendations for improving MBTA bus service without increasing net costs to the MBTA.
The study area consists of sixteen communities located south and southeast of Boston, as well as the southern fringe of Boston itself. Within this area, sixteen MBTA local-bus routes and two MBTA express routes operated in the Quincy rating station were analyzed. The latent demand for additional bus routes was also analyzed. Privately operated bus service in the area is discussed briefly in this report, but no permanent changes in the extent or level of such service were deemed necessary.
The data base used to analyze existing MBTA bus routes was derived mainly from two sources. In November 1983, ridechecks of all routes were conducted, in which boardings and alightings by stop were obtained for each bus trip, usually on two different days. In January 1984, a survey was administered on board a sample of South Shore buses, and information on passengers' socioeconomic characteristics, travel patterns, and attitudes was obtained. The data base used to analyze latent transit demand in the study area consisted mainly of travel information from the 1980 U. S. Census and comments received from elected officials and other citizens of the South Shore.
The basic findings of this study are that the existing MBTA bus routes in the South Shore currently work reasonably well and that almost all of the South Shore is served (or overserved) by as many MBTA routes as it needs. Consequently, the route-level recommendations of this study are confined to relatively moderate changes in schedules and alignments, except for a single proposal concerning entirely new bus service.
The recommended changes to existing bus routes can be summarized as follows:
Weekdays: a net reduction of 26 vehicle round trips; one route combination; one instance of coordinating the schedules of two routes; two route deviations; and two route extensions.
Saturdays: a net reduction of approximately 17 vehicle round trips; two route combinations; and two route deviations.
-1- -2-
Sundays: a net reduction of three to four vehicle round trips; one instance of combining service on two route variations into service on one variation; and one instance of providing different headways on different sections of a route.
As an alternative to the weekday and Saturday route deviations, the possibility of instituting a new route is discussed.
In addition to these route-level changes being made, it is recom- mended that passenger facilities, primarily Quincy Station, be improved, that passengers be provided with better information on fares, schedules and bus stops, and that Quincy Center starters perform their jobs properly.
This report consists of four chapters and a separate volume of appendices. In Chapter 1, the objectives of the study are set forth. In Chapter 2, background information on the study area, including both socioeconomic and transportation characteristics, is provided. Chapter 3 contains the essential components of the route-level analysis of MBTA service. In this chapter, data- collection and analysis methods are described, and findings and recommendations are set forth for weekday and weekend service. Finally, in Chapter 4, the results of system-level analyses are documented and a few non-route-specific recommendations are pre- sented .
Among the appendices, special attention should be called to Appendix A. This contains detailed descriptions and analyses of each of the eighteen MBTA bus routes, and should be used to supplement the information in Chapter 3. The other appendices are (B) Summary of Study-Area Transit History, (C) Boardings Performance Measures, (D) Analysis of Pulse System for Evening and Sunday Service, (E) Analysis of Evening-Service-Headway Lengthening, (F) Systemwide Comparisons, (G) On-Board-Survey Findings, (H) Trip-level Data, (I) Sunday Service, and (J) Public
Meet i ngs . 1 OBJECTIVES
The goal of the South Shore Bus Study was to develop recommen- dations for improving MBTA bus service in the South Shore corri- dor without increasing net costs to the MBTA. It was decided that such recommendations would consist primarily of measures for achieving the following objectives:
• Increasing ridership per unit of service (productivity)
• Improving passenger travel time
• Improving passenger comfort and convenience
• Serving demonstrated latent transit demand
Several other objectives are related to these major ones and were implicit in the analysis. For example, increasing ridership per unit of service on a route will generally also improve the cost recovery of the route.
-3-
.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 GENERAL STUDY-AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
For the purposes of this study, the South Shore corridor consists of the sixteen cities and towns listed in Table 2-1 plus a small segment of the City of Boston served by MBTA feeder-bus routes from these communities. Population and employment data based on the 1980 U. S. Census are shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
In 1980, 378,888 people, or 6.6 percent of all Massachusetts residents, lived in the sixteen study-area communities. Of all study-area residents, 177,900, or 46.9 percent, were employed. The City of Boston accounted for 26.7 percent of their work-trip destinations. Downtown Boston alone accounted for an estimated 12.3 percent. In general, the proportion of community residents employed in the Boston CBD declined as distance and travel time increased, but there were exceptions.
In 1980, 25 percent of South Shore residents worked in the same community in which they lived. This percentage was second only to that which had Boston as a work-trip destination. For the study area as a whole, Quincy accounted for 13.6 percent of work- trip destinations, more than the Boston CBD, and was one of the four most common work-trip destinations for the residents of all but two study-area communities. Quincy was the only study-area community that was a major employment location for workers from a large number of the other communities. In general, a resident of any community who did not work either in the same community, in Boston, or in Quincy was more likely to work in an adjoining com- munity than in any other individual one, but 30 to 40 percent of work-trip destinations did not fall into any of these four cate- gor i es
2.2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
2.2.1 Major Highways
Limited-access highways in the study area include Massachusetts Routes 3, 128, and 24 and Interstate 93. Route 3 in Boston coin- cides with 1-93, bisects the study area, and continues south to Cape Cod. Routes 128 and 1-93 coincide from Route 3 at the Quincy-Braintree border west through Randolph to the study-area boundary. The overlapping portion of Routes 3 and 1-93 is also called the Southeast Expressway. Route 24 serves the western
-5- i i i i i •, H: » 11
-6-
hirn UJ a If* CO f J CO CJ I-- Ch CO in Cf - •0 _J rH _: r-j o CJ CD C-J -0 r— f"i m a CD 1 i (N rn r-.j rn -0 r-j C J 10 in c-j in Cr- s- < LO 0 0* CO -0 CJ £0 IjD 43 M CJ r-l C-J t rH U h LL <- CJ
~, r. -0 UO 0s rj CO li"! M rH 0- . fN> ^H i— CO cb tp CO i C-J f-J !> <7 n K rv VJ C'-l rH fx -j: f"' C^ D' 11 ti U r.-*j CH" CJ Cs ro i CJ u rH < ~ CH CJ ON
.-1 . 1 , ^ *0 C'-J CO D? 0* 00 CO 0* H
* "I 0* 1- *l Eh u o f C'3 0 f CO < co "l fx f-V f M hi C;J r-- r- CJ H UL IE JJ rH r~ if) r'*' i r Ch PO _£ rj OMMUNI
AND O 00 ,~, in C-J Q- — rH C-J LfJ o rH CO -H U CT\ i-j- •0 N. ' rH '-' rH !j-J LO C rH -0 CO ill W < 1 rH- - — ~, »H ,_, rH — T-i — rH 5 o •r-i rH (J rH < s in s < rn CO 1 tH
n >H- 0 Q CO K' s v'i t-O r-j LI — O D '') rs *rj fs C-J 1> H E-i 0^ Eh CO i—i Q •<— rH ID CJ CJ CO rH rH CO jl < r— 1— CJ rH Pti ( D O Q. Cm 0 OP Pm
~, __. Is, . \Q , CD rn rn pH~ CO K' -J rs rH r-.i !-}- _. rH r, N VL z m g M ::"*! rr , t" pH C-J CJ N in H ,•- i'*J AT rH 1 >- W Pi n |% C, jv. "j r.j f-^
rn i rs \'} CO L- J if) U") CO Li j •J3 - - />. ; — rr sn 'n C'-J 00 CJ H 1 data
>i o v (•'I CO in 3 CN i~> Cj CO § P ID m f% T-l Ki Cj Z'i ^0 *JJ CO 2 rv i -0 r.! CO L J CO +J •rH Cer N C-J CO C'*J 373 i Cj Bus 1985 Repo S.
U. hore m cal ril Qj V QJ Oj .c Gj JZ rH 0 _i > 1 • t CO •h a _i Li. t> — 0 0) c < i n J ^> 0 Qj L M -I u -C 4J n c 7i U u C •H h- ! D 0 cu 0 0 0 Eh U h- CO CO i ! i i
L O If) *-« O -* CD CO z tt O *h U ON*N*m cm cm *r cm n cm d n m m I Pi Q. = W WNNM*NW^**-h W CM CM CM CM CM m O o o~ o *-* o o o — o o o *h o in N W s) «0 CM W Vi CD 0» W CO CO N 01 CM O m tf) CM CM CO CM IN CM in u0 If) C- 3» CM id H H H >H iH CM —I —I iH O 0 H &H D cc > Vi &• >0 ^ Q- CM in 10 CM ". s CO r >* r'i O If) O * IN O O LI E D lii _ o 00 1 IS r > CU i— u in CU -P CU 0: JC T3 — 3 4J i_ CU >• L £ 0 a C +J 4-' • • 4J 4- 1 in L 0 — 0 > l-H 3 CO f— 2' m 3 > L. CJ L 0 0 u 9 — LT> E it 13 c 0 E M to 0 oo E c i-i L_ £ c u — 3 3 a 0 L 0 0 0 B5 0 u 0 O CO CD Q I QC 0) 2 CO a M cu >-i i-l iH 0 x: u u CO •h a. c £ 2.2.2 Red Line Rapid Transit The South Shore Red Line branch, with five stations in Quincy and Braintree, links the study area with downtown Boston and Cambridge. The Dorchester Branch also serves some study-area residents, but has no stations within the area. The Mattapan High-Speed trolley line, which functions as an extension of the Dorchester Branch, has four stations in Milton. 2.2.3 MBTA Bus Eighteen MBTA bus routes, described in detail in Appendix A, serve Braintree, Hanover, Hingham, Holbrook, Marshfield, Milton, Quincy, Randolph, and Weymouth directly. Each route has at least one Red Line connection, but none go through to Boston. Cohasset, Duxbury, Hull, Norwell, Pembroke, Rockland, and Scituate have no direct MBTA service. 2.2.4 Private-Carrier Bus All study-area communities except Quincy, Randolph, and Holbrook have private-carrier express-bus service to downtown Boston, as discussed in Chapter 4. 2.2.5 Other Transportation Services and Facilities The study area is served by various transportation facilities not analyzed in this report. Commuter-boat service to Boston is operated from Hingham, Hull, and Quincy, and is also used by some residents of other towns. As of April 1984, vanpools were running to Boston from Marshfield, Scituate, Pembroke, Hanover, and Duxbury. These provided a relatively small share of the area's transportation. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works has built several fringe parking lots for use by express- bus passengers or as carpool or vanpool staging areas. A number of pre-existing lots at shopping centers, churches, and schools are used for similar purposes. 2 . 3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION USE The two most important study-area transportation facilities are the Southeast Expressway and the South Shore Red Line branch. In March 1984, the expressway carried daily about 48,500 northbound automobiles, containing about 65,000 people, at the Milton-Boston line. As of March 1984, the Red Line South Shore branch carried about 20,500 northbound passengers a day, or about one third the expressway volume. Peak volume differentials are less, because of sharper Red Line peaking. Before expressway reconstruction, . -9- about 20,600 northbound Expressway users left the study area bet- ween 7:00 and 10:00 A.M., weekdays, compared to about 13,400 South Shore Red Line passengers. The expressway itself ends near the Qui ncy-Brai ntr ee border but connects directly with limited-access highways continuing through the study area and beyond. The Red Line ends at South Braintree. Passengers from more distant points must use feeder buses, pri- vate automobiles, or other access modes to reach the Red Line. In general, the higher the ratio of access distance to line-haul distance for a potential user of a mass-transit facility, the less likely he is to use it. Therefore, Red Line-rider origins are concentrated in a smaller area than those of expressway users About 90 percent of weekday peak-period South Shore Red Line riders are study-area residents, compared to 67 percent of expressway users at the Milton-Boston line, so about 12,000 peak Red Line users and 14,000 peak expressway users leaving the study area are study-area residents. There are more expressway users than Red Line passengers from most communities. Quincy, which has four Red Line stations and extensive feeder-bus ser- vice, is an exception, with about 5,800 residents leaving the study area on the Red Line during morning peak hours, compared to about 1,800 via the expressway. Other study-area residents choose the expressway over the Red Line by a nearly two-to-one margin. Study-area residents, mainly from Milton and Randolph, who use the Red Line Dorchester Branch are not included in the comparison above. Private-carrier express-bus service to Boston plays a relatively small but important role in the study area's transportation mix, carrying about 1,500 peak-period passengers a day each way. This is equivalent to 12.5 percent of the overall peak volume on the Red Line, but several distant study-area communities have more express-bus riders than Red Line riders. Commuter -boat service is currently provided from three study-area termini. Like other fixed-route services, commuter boats attract riders primarily from communities where their stops are located and from adjacent communities. Ridership shows large seasonal variations, as weather conditions strongly impact ride comfort and aesthetic appeal. In the spring of 1984, all South Shore boat services combined were carrying about 550 passengers a day each way. During summer months, commuter-boat volumes may increase 50 percent or more, however. The most common destination for South Shore residents using the expressway, the Red Line, express buses, or commuter boats is downtown Boston. During peak hours, about 90 percent of passengers using the mass-transit services to Boston are making work trips. Table 2-3 shows CTPS estimates of current total daily work-trip volumes to Boston proper from each study-area > ! ( 1i -10- n l n * 0) > a o o a C i_ Z li. 7 0 £ h 0~ »h y) |f) K" W t> CM r-j 4hOO>Nh 0- h o CD tO tO sD O ^ f j • N 0> n N N K 0" u • in — O in HI CM CM CD CM — lM O UT < SO Cr- f> U 0l D Sl *t ttk K L W 0 C Cm 2 o -U 4-' P4 c — O O Cm' CD "3- >0 O O «*< «h O IN CO CM O Ci If * ?> o to r-'i cm co o cd ^ o t o in in u z c z; 0 «£ O tO CD N in CD tO O O O in CD -o «r MBTA South Shore bus routes serve both as feeders to the Red Line and as a local transportation system. The 1983 CTPS counts showed that about 10,400 passengers use MBTA South Shore bus routes in each direction on a weekday (this total includes some double-counting, because of bus-to-bus transfers). About 40 per- cent of inbound bus passengers transfer to the Red Line. Use of the South Shore bus system is discussed in much greater detail elsewhere in this report. . 3 ANALYSIS OF MBTA BUS ROUTES AND ROUTE-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains the essence of the South Shore Bus Study. The first section of the chapter is devoted to weekday MBTA bus service. The section begins with a discussion of the bus-service evaluation process, including a description of the data- collection effort and the method employed to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each bus route. The findings of this bus-route evaluation are followed by recommendations for improving the performance of weekday bus routes. Weekend MBTA bus service is dealt with in the second section of the chapter. Findings and recommendations are presented in the same format as for weekday service. 3.2 WEEKDAY MBTA SERVICE 3.2.1 Study Process 3. 2.1. a Data Collection Two primary data-collection efforts provided most of the data used to evaluate weekday MBTA bus service. These data were supplemented by secondary data obtained from a variety of sources, including the MBTA 1 s Passenger Services and Service Planning Division. In the first primary data collection effort, passenger counts and bus-trip times were obtained on all eighteen MBTA bus routes. Individuals were assigned to ride specific bus trips on specific days according to a sampling plan. These "ridecheckers " recorded the number of passengers boarding and alighting at each bus stop and the times at which the bus departed one end of the route, passed specified intermediate points, and arrived at the other end of the route The sampling plan was designed using a statistically-based method. A 90-percent confidence level and tolerance ranges of 10 or 20 percent, depending on the time period, were first specified. Estimates of boardings coefficients of variation were then derived. Using these and other parameters, for each route and for each of six weekday time periods, the number of days and the number of trips per day that would have to be sampled were deter- mi ned . -13- . : : -14- Th e sampling plan resulted in 97 percent of all weekday bus trips that are listed in the public timetables being observed at least once, and most trips were observed twice or even three times to ensure that the data collected were truly representative of fall 1983 boardings, the latter being the sampling frame. Most of the few bus trips that were not observed occurred early in the morn- ing; boardings were imputed to these trips based on sources such as a 1978 ridership survey. The other primary data-collection effort entailed surveying MBTA bus passengers in order to measure their socioeconomic, trip- making, and attitudinal characteristics. Surveyors rode selected buses and offered questionnaires to all boarding passengers. The surveyor subsequently collected the majority of completed questionnaires as passengers alighted; because questionnaires were provided with pre-paid postage, many were returned through the mail. As with the ride-checking effort, surveyors were assigned to spe- cific bus trips on specific days according to a statistically based sampling plan, so the data obtained reliably represent the characteristics of study-area bus riders as a whole. A total of 4,488 questionnaires were distributed on weekdays during the survey period. A total of 3,157, or 70 percent of those distributed, were returned. These returned, useable questionnaires are equal to 17 percent of the boardings estimated to have occurred on all buses on all routes in the 9:00 A.M.-to- 6:00 P.M. period. On a route level, useable returns as a per- centage of boardings ranged from 9 percent on Route 214 to 48 percent on Route 252. 3.2.1.b Data Organization In order to formulate boardings performance measures, the ridecheck data were aggregated to three levels. First, because most bus trips were observed more than once, the mean of observed boardings for each trip was designated as the single represen- tative value for the trip. Second, the boardings per trip were aggregated, for each route, into six time periods for analysis purposes, and finally, they were aggregated into one all-day figure The six time periods to be used were delineated as follows. First, the boardings of all routes were combined and then strat- ified by 15-minute periods based on one-way bus-trip departure times. These boardings by 15-minute periods were then graphed (see Figure 3-1), and like 15-minute periods were grouped together to form the following six analysis periods: Early before 6:30 A.M. A.M. Peak: 6:30-8:44 A.M. Base 8:45 A.M. -1:59 P.M. -15- LU U) a cr h CD u LL i § g § sainou nv - soNiauvoa ivioi . : : -16- School 2:00 P.M. -3:59 P.M. P.M. Peak: 4:00-6:14 P.M. Evening 6:15 P.M. -end of service These same six periods were then used to aggregate boardings on each route individually. Measures of service output (vehicle-trips, vehicle revenue-miles, and vehicle revenue-hours) were likewise aggregated into these six periods, and ratios of boardings to service output were formulated for each route and route variation, for each time period. Along with boardings per- formance measures, two additional measures were calculated from the ride-check data: the maximum load and the running time for each one-way bus trip. On-board survey data were organized into computer files and ana- lyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software package. Frequency distributions and cross-tabulations, by route and by direction, were obtained for the responses to each survey quest ion Additional descriptive and performance measures were formulated using combinations of ride-check data, survey data, and secondary data. These measures were then organized, along with the pre- ceding measures, into comprehensive route profiles. All measures are listed in Table 3-1. 3.2.1.C Analysis Method Each MBTA bus route was analyzed, at various levels of detail, using the measures formulated in the data-organization phase. The measures constructed for each route were judged against various criteria. The weaknesses thus revealed in the design or operation of the route were noted, and, where practical, recom- mendations for redressing these weaknesses were developed. There were four basic levels at which each route was evaluated. For each measure, the performance of a route was first viewed at the all-day, aggregate level. Then, individual route variations were examined for their contribution to the route's all-day, aggregate performance. Following this, the route and its variations were examined within each of the six weekday time periods in order to uncover the contribution of performance per period to all-day, aggregate performance. Finally, at the most disaggregate level, individual bus trips and individual segments of route alignments were examined for their contributions to overall performance. This latter step was possible due to the detailed nature of the ride-check data. The performance of each route was judged against various cri- teria, depending on the specific measure and level of analysis. First and foremost, for all descriptive and performance measures, a route's all-day performance was compared to the mean and/or . 1> ( < H -17- (0 a i- u CD c CD T3 c c CD CC CD 1— N Q. a. > c U_ c o W- — u CD 1 E A3 CD 1 TT eg CD - t C a — "O Q. — u 03 o o 03 £ C C CL > > Cv CD X CO — E CD c CT CO -H eg c Oi 4J fc- ec CD CD E — c V, H -*H CD 09 ~* CT c 4J A3 A3 — A3 C I L. a C c C c c c c 03 o eg u t B CD ev CD 00 £ 0 eg 4J TO TJ E £ *j A3 00 CD C ec CT 0 o eg Eg ? 03 a. a CO _ CO CO _ • • h. CD > — CD CD 03 # , o b 5 CD £ B A3 A3 CO CO CD — t_ Cv CT fa E E CD > 3 > = a § 5 1 03 (J O — n CD cr u u p— U X o eg > ec 8 CD CD 03 03 s CO I CD E a. AJ 1 > > u u CO CD o CT eg c Q. 03 09 c aj C A3 A3 c CD — 03 CO -r CO c E CT c CI e B — — eg i 03 CT 3 3 r u — Cv -3 4J "8 r 3 A3 A3 o 03 u B C fa "S o CD c L a o> a CD 03 O u fa 03 O 03 C E c a. 3 > D, Q a £ £ CJ A3 a E £ E CD C c CJ CI 0 £ i fa CT Q. 3 3 CO CO u a a CI > -*H a eo i O fa CO CD 00 CD CO CO £ 09 £ I 0) A3 CD CD a. X 03 X 03 CO eg eg 1 — o 1 •w A3 AJ -H OD £ 0. E CD k. k. w th. E aj > u £ c C 03 D CI A3 A3 «J A3 A3 CD 03 c A3 — c c c e £ c £ C A3 - - £ — £ 03 03 B 09 B CO 03 CO a O £ B 09 I 03 D D •D TS Ul a < I > _J > CJ CD X CO CD CO 00 CO CO CO fa 03 -j. -i _* JC eg u u 1 cj 1 O 1 CJ 1 CJ 1 CJ l (3 CJ E fa i cd CD B CD 03 CD CD 03 03 0. 03 CD 09 CD « £ D £ c £ c £ -O £ •o £ c £ "D £ t 8 CI •rt CJ r •rt CJ H CJ wi CJ CJ Q. CD CC CC cr EE K cc cc CC i X X X X X X X x X I a*?G-TTV X X X >1 T3 X X X X X X X X P m +J 03 03 C/j 4J i— B U c CJ c CT CT C c 3 Ui O LO £ £ 03 c fa H D 03 03 — B T3 03 c c 03 p a oo > >• «H > 8 CD •0 00 03 c c £ CQ ^ E £ O a 3 3 CJ CO 09 00 1 0) 1 —1 01 £ CC CC in CT CT CD CT 03 CT E a C C 3 c 3 E c A3 1 fa 01 fa 03 QJ C C £ 03 0- OD TS g — i-i i—1 i— -o *D Q. T) eg 03 £ "O AJ CJ CD > 03 CI 0. b li > u > fa o E O E 0, O CO 03 03 s eg £ X — £ a 8 8 £ O CC 5 cr 09 s 1 o CD CO f- 03 m £ u u CD CD cs CD s: CO _i >• —1 •h a, SS9U9AT 1 j 3 SUIT c < ^3 i i 1 X! r- 4-1 "u 0) 0 C/j ' 1 HiI 1 I 1 -18- CO X CO 4J 4J 4J o c CT c m 41 01 Red C 4J C a 4) -4 4-i o c CT • 4-J o -w CU C D a 4- C 01 ce ha ep CO U 8^ ui CO a o 1 1 ie 3 no 3 CO 4J i— c c 0) CO •oute CO ough o CO — u b> c j-> I 0) c CO c CO X X CO h- bl 41 c D o 0 4J *J 41 •-J o O 41 - it it of a sp X CO X 4J a c c o u 4) c 41 3 3 CU jj CO X CO X u CT D a o 3 In bi CO Q. C CO CO CO c • 4-> CU CU 4J CO CO CO •H Q. a. J-> 41 CO CU u en X T3 3 CO CO c CJ c b 2 U o TS D u h TS O o 4-1 CU CD bi 41 u, 41 > CU o ti CO Ui bi CU TJ 41 4- c CO •H a •H X CO CU CO ~- 4 <- 3 3 U -u -4 CO 41 o C CT CT X o 01 CO i— O 4J CU CO CT U- u bl 3 N en b. bl o U- bl o u ts bl 0 x o 01 b- 0) 41 CD c >. >N >- j-' 4-> X > X T3 o X c c D c CJ O 41 4J o CO CO u E 3 CO CO > 0) CD c XI • X •H u_ c 14- bl bl 41 41 3 3 -u -W CO a o a IK > CO CO X CO — X CO u- 4-> a 41 CT CU en CO 41 CO 01 CO h- U a CJ c 41 •H cd TS o »H CU 41 41 b, h- bl 41 o * en u CT CT 41 of MO bl 3 X u 41 44 CD C CO 3 3 >H CO o T3 c a co 4) a a co CO 41 4J CU CD X > 3 CU X CO D CO 4 CO 0 CO CO CT •H CO ts 01 CD 4-> CO CU CU U- H CO 44 fe. o 41 bl bl — 41 CO o a 3 3 C 4J X icf CJ 4J CO u CO CO CU C CO cs c 4-1 CO CO > CU D no c CO C 4) CU -H D CO CO Ind Lin Ind Ide Ld CO X CT LJ u || || CO >. — u co >. J /PV w cj cu •Bay 3}noH-8T ^U9ui5as action dTai,-3-[OTLiaA spoxaaa auiTX •j^A a^noy a^riOH 93UPUIJOja3d >1 CNJ bl X X LO CD CO u -i-> D CT CT •H CO +J C c I s bl CD CD CU CO +J 41 4J CD CO CU bi CO CD CO ii- bl CD CO CO bi U 41 bl co 3 0 a a 3 CD -19- D V a0) CO 0) c u 3 >• c a o D -U c c a. -w o J= Q. CJ CD JZ >. CO a £> C •»< c u 4-> a a £ cs a cj cr c c —< o E C £ 3 O h n I" i § >. « c a. o c - c 0. d — a > c u e a 8 3 "O — u m O 0! •rt "O 2 8 U C E <- a a O u c 09 8 •D CJ T3 O E - — ej -h e ai r ai r t 8 (_>-< c_> a. to •p^S V1HW S^U9Ul£)3S sdT xx ' sauiTi X X X X X X X X X X SAT^dT JDS3G X X X X X >1 in -P CD CO c ^ 8 X I CO 0 LO J-> c CL a 0,00 0) 01 C — 03 c o> a — 03 0) t> — O CD >. — 6 _j «r *J £ CO 3 CJ CD to to — * -O — v CJ BCD i—i i— "5 5 8 j is CD 8 8 0 to to x: 0 u •H D-, c < £L +J u CD 0 E- w . -20- median performance of all the routes. Similarly, within each time period, but for some measures only, a route's performance was compared to the average performance of all routes for that time period alone. Also at this level, a route's performance in one time period was judged against its performance in others. At the route-variation level, for certain measures, one variation was compared to other variations of the same route. At the bus- trip and route-segment level, each was compared to other trips on and segments of the same route. For some measures, and at some levels of analysis, comparisons were also made to MBTA service and design standards, but because many of these standards are outdated, they were not strictly applied Some measures were far more important in the evaluation of the routes than others, and, as alluded to above, not all were used at the disaggregate levels of analysis: either because the measures do not vary by time or by route variations, or because disaggregate data were unavailable. Not all of the values for the measures used in the analysis are reported in the Findings or Recommendations sections of this chapter. Only the values for those measures that turned out in the end to have the most bearing on recommendations are reported. However, Table 3-1 summarizes all measures that were used in the analysis of routes. As indicated in Table 3-1, the most-used measures were those involving the numbers of passengers on buses. For instance, boardings on individual vehicle-trips or groups of trips were often used to judge whether trip eliminations are warranted. Conversely, maximum loads on vehicle-trips and groups of trips were used to judge whether trip additions are warranted. Furthermore, boardings (and alightings) on individual segments of routes were used to judge whether alignment or operating changes are warranted. After each route was analyzed and its weaknesses, if any, were identified, corrective actions were considered. In some instances, no corrective action is recommended for an identified weakness, either because the weakness is not serious enough to warrant a change or because of a lack of practical corrective actions. The universe of corrective actions or service improve- ments considered in the analysis is presented in Table 3-2. 3.2.2 Findings Findings are presented in two ways in this section. First, a narrative list of findings concerning the study-area routes as a whole is presented. Second, a series of eight tables summarizes the values for the important performance and design charac- teristics used in the analysis. Additionally, in the subsequent recommendations section, findings that lead directly to a recom- mended change are listed in tabular form. -21- Qperating Strategies • Change Headways • Short-turn Selected Bus Trips • Mix Express/Limited/Local Bus Trips • Through-route Selected Route Pairs Schedule Adjustments • Drop/Add Bus Trips • Adjust Service Span • Adjust Bus Running Time • Coordinate Schedules • Coordinate Bus Trips with Work/School Times Alignment Changes • Extend/Shorten Route • Add/Delete Deviations • Change Basic Alignment Other • Consolidate Bus Stops • Add Amenities at Bus Stops South Shore Bus Study CTPS SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED IN ANALYSIS TABLE Technical Report 52 April 1985 3-2 -22- 3. 2. 2. a Overall Findings • Few bus trips in the study area are crowded . Only 4.3 per- cent of observed bus trips carry more than their seated capacity at their maximum load point, and only 1.5 percent, or 15 bus trips, carry more than 120 percent of their seated capacity. One-half of the crowded trips occur in the A.M. peak period, approximately 30 percent in the 2:00-4:00 P.M. period, and approximately 20 percent in the P.M. peak period. • A moderate number of bus trips in the study area have unusually low boardings . Nine percent of observed bus trips in the study area carry fewer passengers than the minimum required by MBTA passenger-per-mi le standards. Seven per- cent of these occur during the daytime. Only the evening- period service, from 6:15 P.M. to the end of service, fails, on average, to meet the MBTA standards. • Present route alignments are, with one or two small excep- tions, as productive and sensible as possible . Segment-by- segment analysis of boardings and alightings, coupled with analysis of transit-trip generators, transfer data, latent demand, etc., shows that almost all present route alignments best serve the area's transit-travel needs and are as pro- ductive as possible. • Much unproductive time is built into route schedule s. Of the route-var iat ion-by-t i me -per iod (e.g., 245 . 4/P . M. -peak- period) observations of cycle time to running time, 68 per- cent are greater than 1.20 and 38 percent are greater than 1.30. In some, but not all instances, high ratios of cycle time to running time occur because the running time allowed by the MBTA exceeds observed running time. • All but one route qualifies for reduced performance stan - dards . On 17 routes, the percentage of passengers who are without access to an automobile, or greater than 64 years old or transferring to another MBTA service is high enough that reduced boardings and financial performance standards are technically appropriate for evaluation purposes, according to MBTA service policy. (However, all references are to regular, non-preferential standards). • For the study area as a whole, the revenue-to-cost ratio is 0.41 . The deficit per passenger trip is $0.63, while the deficit per vehicle-mile is $1.97 and the deficit per vehicle-hour is $27.08. As might be expected, the better performing routes tend to be those with the highest unit boardings. Fifteen of the 16 local routes surpass the MBTA revenue-to-cost standard of 0.30, while both of the express routes fail the standard of 0.50 set for premium service. . -23- 3.2.2.b Performance and Design Characteristics (Tabulated Values) Eight summary tables of findings follow. Table 3-3 lists perfor- mance and design characteristics for all routes and route variations on a total-weekday basis. Tables 3-4 through 3-9 display performance and design characteristics by each of the six time periods used in the analysis. The last table, Table 3-10, contains a summary of socioeconomic and travel-behavior charac- teristics for the passengers on each route. 3.2.3 Recommendations The recommended changes at the route level to weekday service are presented below. For each route, an identified weakness is stated and followed by a recommendation or, if no practical means of redressing the weakness is apparent, by "None." Route 210 • Oversupply of service AM peak. Eliminate 210.0 6:55 AM one-way trip. • Oversupply of service in base period. Operate 210.0 and 212.2 as a belt line. Hourly service each direction on each route. Northbound 210.0 becomes southbound 212.2. Northbound 212.2 becomes southbound 210.0. • Low schedule speed, due to travel on congested arterials, high boardings per mile, and comparatively long layover time None Route 211 • Oversupply of service in morning. Eliminate 211.0 8:20-8:50 A.M. round trip. • Oversupply of service in school period. Eliminate 211.0 2:50-3:17 P.M. or 3:00-3:30 P.M. trip. • Low schedule speed, due to travel on congested arterials, high boardings per mile, and comparatively long layover time . None . ' -24- R 2 S S F- — (SI lA lA lA lA tA lA sC — O c \o ^- so r- <*xi co ir\ K\ H h h ws CK O O O ^ N N N H ^ N N N N lA \fi i£ lA O CD K\ »A r»> CO Q SO O f-* lA (si < N CO Q r» © f- C» KN^sfs mOOr«- O N N ^ so ^ dd f»> o — — R 0 c* f- o so f** n r* * K» \fi N CD \C « *a a> < o o csi a id c co — o O r- r- s0 SO O -9 sO —< o — f> m pa CD r«j t> — o o o o lA so CD f> GD CO ks N CO N lA (si CO CD ^ co k\ r- r- lA iA C- C* ' a (SI C* —" rsi © — © « tA O — co C o o o -25- S I *> c — x C r OD CD «y ^ n »r n o N M N I « « -o -~ u 0)f 9k CP- O O* 0< — r r- r» co r tr j r EC — N N O N e a Q. Qj C l/il = x .- « 9 o O - O - L « er* « *»< n n r « cm — ~ <: -c r- no p- r» ^ - u oJ I fat C \C o — — CD p n «^00< P £ S n 0^ >a OO — CD « C> C O : 5 iA N o ^ e> N N «fl ON N ^ _ -«-M N Q> N ^ CM K\ t/"> »»»» ~* K"\ F*\ IM P*N O *N —« »^ O r- — t/N GO On iTi o ^ o o >o to- O OS C> ^ N (7* «A r> »*n, <- CM CM N « N « ^ »Tv — V/^ ^ n 4 (> O ^ IT N N tft N « ^ ff- 0* ^\ ••^ —I CD CD O ec CD CS CC CD CO 00 ^ r- r» so nd NO o" >1 ' A O H CM in +J CO -P ^ O*1 CO cp to *o ^ O* CP* ^ K\ CD iT ^ O O 'N - N M to m CC C N C ^1 vfi « N O I oo*/noon fs» »^ O O CD rr -r — > 0 a 00 pq CD -2 6- & 2 . 3 • t£ • u w a. — N f«i O CO N \C O CM O kTv — CM CM o nc Nfi r- — coo o c — o «. • n • g m B cni 6 CL — 5 ? fj ID in 4J w +j o a> o N N K\ N CM CM w 0 m D acc PQ 0) o> 05 i— (1) S I! iH t— 0 rd -H U M t/*> O O O w •H CU N N -27- r e . 5:a iinos Lycie — Dcs'atinc nr.- Route Tr :c= Heari*3i toar tii?.cs Bj le Hoc l:Tt KCt.CS b9£3' l ? < 210.0 4 30 ... 5 . 5C 2.47 25.19 i.H 10.7 j Ml * C ft A 4 A^ 1 A4 i 5c 1!.' • • V J 12. 30 - -t * * e 1 *f t t -•4. .... t. / 4a 1 . . 3 221. 0 21 10.50 1.E2 21.00 1.40 11. li. 1 211.1 ' * 1 L 4 \ 211 1 0 . 53 1.2. 21 .OS 11. 2i2.: HI £ 91 J i -1 " " 7 < i r fli t \L 2:5.0 . i 7. 75 1.46 IE.:" 1.22 I c * 1 " »? 15. 00 2£ 30.00 :2.2 . IT c 4I f c 9ft 4 if; ; • » - . **4 c - tr-» -e L q if 3£ ii.:l 1 'C c - r-» * 21£ o: i C £.00 ft S i • c , .r • ? 331 7 "- 15. - n c • * c .* : S . bl 2:.Ei :. " 4 1 1 c; :* A * z i. it ft . 11 < 1 i c c z 29 ..00 15.^ "4, ;• i e 222 2; 59 19.33 2.97 _ South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 EARLY PERIOD 3-4a April 1985 !1 I , 1 -28- 4 i C T C- , r a* " 1 a L> L . 6 i. • i I -wa y cor 21 "Cs y 0 ~ _ _ . j U C i u; 2 V Trj Nile r ? _ E - 5:6=; r. uJ » B . r i r J Q L. . H U 3 2 Hcj e 5 n»c <\ Tn 1 07 ,0 i « * ^' . 4E 2 1 19. w' BO 20 00 1 C ' Tic 1 * 29 29. 00 4. '6 t?. BE 36 7 * T 1 n i 5 225.4 1 7.00 1.2° 16. ? 30 ; vi I nnc c L ai *c 1°. 0 3 I > t J .- 3. 51 iJ.i I r.^ - • u s g 20 115 4,2g 1.26 2! s? 1 . 40 * W • . 2S0.fi H A [! 1 ' • J 2 i • » 2 236.3 - 0 233. i, pfj a i" c 238," • g ,02 60 20.2 25.3 ? . C 77 i AO r _ * nc «c - ij U (W) 1,44 1 7 * r > 1 1 * C ,1 ... _ i . i!n '. 3 ii 21. 0C 2.17 4;. 32 !%' c- c < 1.17 22. 7 240 . 2C 4.71 B!.sO cO * » - c nr ! 7 A * £ f f ' - I * 245.^ 2'45 , 1 * *£r-. icr- . 5* ' ft c 12." 1 24.00 22.1 c- Tote". 602 „ ft c ic 77 " 17 2y ,. South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 EARLY PERIOD 3-4b April 1985 C1 -29- / 1-wav Sched. Boarding 5 R.T.Run Cvcle/ Schedule Ooe-at.nc Route Trips Headwav Boardings Trip Nile Hour Tine Funtine Soeed Sseed 8.9 12.1 210.0 1 4 4.00 1.80 19.05 6i 1.36 C 7 1 1 0 7. / 11.7 210.3 11 20 369 33 . 55 6.90 67.09 49 1.Z2 210 12 20 373 31.08 6.70 65.32 9.7 11.9 1 1C a 211.0 8 30 252 31.50 5.45 63.00 46 1.25 11.6 1*. ? 211.1 1! 42 14.00 5.96 84.8! 18 1.11 14.1 15.7 211 11 10 294 26.73 5.52 65.41 11.8 14.6 212.2 7 30 156 22.29 7.63 76.8! 31 0.97 11.7 11.3 1 7 214.0 13 8 297 22.85 7.49 66.20 24 1.67 9.2 5. 1 Ki 1 A t 214.1 13 21 217 16.69 5.20 49.83 24 1 . J*t 1 V . S IS. I g 0 c 214 26 514 19.77 6.32 59.01 7. 0 lu. / 215.0 11 c < ilul 1 14 20 431 30.79 4.68 61.57 52 1.15 13.2 15.2 21!.! 1 35 35.00 6.97 59.83 42 1.19 12.0 14.: IE 21! III 20 466 31.07 4.80 61.44 13.1 15.1 1 1 0 216. 23 10 505 22.09 5.36 65.93 27 1.4] 11. 7 It. c C 216.2 1 36 36.00 7.2 94.74 37 I, Li It v! 1A 7 216 24 10 544 22.6^ 5.94 67.29 JO. / 217.0 7 30 216 30.86 5.08 61.71 1.13 13.8 217.2 217 7 30 216 30.86 5.08 fcl.71 13.5 ^ 1 220.0 1 28 2B.00 3.77 67.47 41 1.22 17.8 1 C 7 220.1 16 10 477 26.50 3.03 49.53 !6 lC.7 I Da / 220.7 220. S 1 7 fi 220 1° 10 50! 26.58 3.07 50.27 1 / . u It.: 221.0 4 57 73 18.2! 3.10 54.4? 33 1.21 17.7 21.4 7 222.0 19 10 478 25.16 3.75 54.10 43 1.28 14.6 18. 222. 222.2 1 39 39.00 19.75 185.71 1.14 9.5 10.6 222.7 1 29 29.00 4.52 69.05 J- 1.15 12.8 14.6 1 A7 57 LQ 222 21 10 546 i6. 00 3/. 07 14.4 18.3 South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE AM-PEAK PERIOD Technical Report 52 3-5a April 1985 :' 3 A J. . 1 i i1 -30- 1-way Sched. Boardings / R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Operatin Mils Route Trios HeadHay Boardings Trio ni le Hour Tiae Runt; Be boeed boee. 1 A AA L 7C O 4 07 1 CI 4 0 O 225.0 1 34 34.00 O. /d DI.tO 32 1.56 12. 18.7 l r in O OP li >c 4 7*> *Vft C 225.1 13 £V mi 19. 15 il.7J 46. 12 38 1.32 15.6 225.2 s 22 ; 4 13 20 314 24.15 4.44 58.20 35 1.43 13.1 18.7 225.5 1* 1 ! in 507 7 77 57 OD 4 O i iZ3 IV J7 / ii.il 0. li 30. iD 14. It. 6 230.1 1 5 5.00 1.23 14.71 34 1.18 12.2 14.4 17 AD i 1 1 L 0 1 O 7 230.3 14 10 473 33.79 O. VU */ OD 72 l.n 16.7 lb. / iOV. J 77ft i 4C 71 Q7 1 J 10 47B 2.96 46.59 16.7 18.6 1 71 1 it' 1 1 A 4 i O 236.2 4 30 55 13.75 1. 11 i'J.OC 57 1.4U 16.7 1 0 AA 7 OA 11 70 4 AO 4 1 i 236.3 4 35 76 17. PQ 0. "4 43. /o 46 11.0 U.6 57 n 1 1 i 73 'a 7" 4 1 C IE A 2oo O OV 10171 16.3d O'J.Oi 11.7 15.0 23B.1 2 44 22.00 6.6B 75.86 24 1.25 13.2 16.5 236. D i7 070 7 70 ?AO 77 1 1R 51 77 1 1 1 1 A O to 0 iOO. / 0 iJV 00. OJ . • IS J 1 . / 6/ i. i«. 10.7 170 1 71 "*A ^ . lv 30 313 01 . OU 3.43 54.15 16.6 16.7 5A 00 1 C •1 11 & 240.0 8 20 244 30.50 O. 1 JO I™ 3i la IS i > . ii. 7 c 1 7 5 AC 11 P7 1 It i . li L i^'j, i 1 0)Vi 1j *. . - DO 1.7. iTj. » 240 15 10 457 30.47 2.91 48.46 17.0 22.0 245.4 6 45 124 20.67 3.20 41.33 46 1.30 12.9 it. e 245.5 K 66 33.00 5.68 66.00 48 1.25 11.6 14.5 245 e 30 190 3.77 47.50 12.6 16.1 CO 250.1 30 63 31.50 1.90 42.00 58 1.21 28.5 34.4 250 30 63 31.50 1.90 42.00 2E.5 34.4 252.0 6 45 34 5.67 1.19 15.11 26 1.73 12.7 22.1 Total 237 5950 He an 13 331 25.11 3.97 54.23 14.4 17.6 South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 AM-PEAK PERIOD 3-5b April 1985 8_C1 7 B B I-way Sched. Boardings R. T.nun Cycled Schedule Operat:-: LI _ , , _ Route Tries Meadway Boardings Trio flue Hour 1 1 ee Runtme Sceed Sceec IP 8.° 210.0 19 30 16! B.47 3.81 33. 89 1.59 14.1 J 4 A 1 TA 210.3 2 43 21.50 4.4^ 43.00 4o 1. iw 9.7 12.7 A - • 7 A A 7t i e 210 21 30 204 9.71 3.92 35. 4B 9.0 13.6 211.0 11 60 171 15.55 2.69 31.09 43 1.40 11.6 16.1 211.1 I 1 L 211 11 60 171 15.55 2.69 31.09 II . fc lo. 1 212.2 11 60 8.09 2.77 27.90 24 1.25 11.7 14.6 214.0 Al A I 7T^ * 7 A 214. 22 30 372 16.91 5.27 jO. /u ti 1. OV 12.8 16.7 4 I A 1 214 22 30 372 16.91 2.27 50. U 12.8 16.7 215.0 215.1 20 30 440 22.00 3.35 44.00 50 1.20 13.2 15.8 215.5 215 20 30 440 22.00 3.35 44.00 13.2 15. 216. 20 Ov - . - 13.40 V J. 40.00 28 1.43 11.3 ic.: A< / ** 216.2 Id ia aa ah - — 1 3 . 40 5.39 40 . O'J 11.3 16.2 217.0 12 6C 172 14.3! 2.36 28.67 47 1 .25 12.2 15.5 A i 7 a 217. 1 A 0 71 *>0 Z.7 1 71 2X7 12 o'J I / i 14. ^3 28. fc/ 12.2 15.5 « A ft/*. A C7 ^7 / c 220.0 10 OVLf\ lot IB. 80 2.5. 37.60 51 1.1c 14. 17.5 220.1 12 60 263 21.92 2.51 40.97 53 1.17 16.9 19.8 220.7 225. AA Crt a m 70 JO 22( 30 451 20.50 *.* Ji 16.0 18.8 221.0 a n AA 1 7 222.0 12 60 175 14.58 2. 17 29. 17 41 1.46 13.4 N.fi 222.1 8 60 130 16.25 2.20 32.50 44 1.36 14. 20.1 nr>~> f — - . L 222.7 0 222 20 30 305 2.19 30.50 13.9 19. South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 BASE PERIOD April 1985 3-6a . 5 ' 29 -32- 1 - u / 1 a 1 *u I fur WO Sched. Dual ul ny n i • nun Schedule Ooerating Tr i Tr i n Mr 1 r Rnutp Headway Boardings nuur Ti is nunii lie Sgeed Soeed p 70 10 it -— . 1 D Li 1 0 /v. ID 15.6 19.0 51 225.2 2 71 35.50 6.90 85.54 w i 0.98 12.3 12.1 225.4 10 60 251 25.10 4.61 60.48 39 1.28 13.1 16.7 70 97 75 1 7A 11 Q7 u2 01/ - . 00.0/ 14.0 17.1 230.3 7 60 162 23.14 2.06 29.24 74 1.22 15.0 18.2 230.5 5 60 147 29.40 2.53 39.20 74 1.22 15.5 IB. iwVl230 0A 230 12 75 7S 9 ?A ''A 60 309 iJ< ill OO a ±0 15.2 1B.5 236.2 11 60 127 11.55 1.44 17.36 55 1.45 iZ.u 1 /• J OTA T AO 1 MM 23c 11 Ov lav/ 11.55 1.44 17. ^6 12.0 17.5 238.1 238.3 "^R 7 AO 770 77 Art 7 50 55 Aa 77 1 fl7 O / v 33. OS / 0 16.9 17.* i o 77 Oi"> 7 cri 60 370 o.-.O't 16.9 17.4 1 1 i 240.0 11 60 259 23.55 2.43 41.44 50 1.34 1/.4 2j . C 171 1 1 240.1 10 Dv 17.10 1.51 22.80 63 1.43 Iw. 1 240.2 240 21 30 430 20.48 1.95 31.27 16.1 59 4 245.4 10 60 167 16.70 2.59 33.40 50 1.20 12.9 15.5 545 S Ai . J a J 50 "7 *.T J 60 167 tA 70 9 40 12.9 15.5 250.0 250.1 250 252.0 Total 243 4430 Hean 16 295 18.23 2. 86 38.13 13.7 17.7 South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 BASE PERIOD 3-6b April 1985 -33- 1-N3V Sched. Boardings , R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Operating Route Trios Headway Boardings Trip Mile Hour Ti «e Runtime Soeed Speed 210.0 8.3 11.2 210.3 8 30 293 36.63 7.54 62.61 52 1.35 210 8 30 293 36.63 7.54 62.61 B.3 11.2 211.0 o 23 264 29.33 5.08 58.67 44 1.36 11.6 15.8 211.1 211 9 23 264 29.33 5. 08 58.67 11.6 15.8 4 ft 212.2 6 117 19.50 6.68 67.24 26 1.15 11.7 13.5 214.0 214.1 10 iv Zoo 28.60 B.91 85.37 28 1.43 9.6 13.B 214 10 20 286 26.60 8.91 B5.37 9.6 13.6 215.0 215.1 10 22 315 31.50 4.79 47.37 58 1.38 9.9 13.6 215.5 215 10 22 315 31.50 4.79 47.37 9.9 13.6 JO' 216.0 10 IV £7v 29.30 7.77 87.46 30 1.33 11.3 15.1 216.2 *)QT 216 10 29.30 7.77 87.46 11.3 15.1 217.0 6 38 139 23.17 v. 81 46.33 51 1.18 12.2 14.3 217.2 217 6 23.17 3.81 46.33 12.2 14.3 XL 220.0 2 18.00 2.42 36.00 1.09 14.9 16.2 c 220.1 J 10' 31.40 3.59 56.69 56 1.11 16." 16.7 220.7 1 JV 30.00 3.73 60.00 50 1.20 16.1 19.3 220.8 220 8 25 223 27.88 3.35 53.41 16.3 18.2 221.0 2 66 33.00 5.60 85.71 40 1.15 15.4 17.7 222.0 0 19 398 44.22 6.60 88.44 45 1.33 13.4 17.9 222.1 2 57 28.50 3.86 57.00 46 1.25 14.8 18.4 222.2 222.7 c 222 11 21 4^— 41.36 6.06 82.73 13.7 1B.0 Bus Study CTPS South Shore WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE TABLE Technical Report 52 SCHOOL PERIOD 3-7a April 1985 237 . C -34- 1-way Sched. Boardings / R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Ooeratin: Route Trios HeadMay Boardings Trip Nile Hour Tiae Runtine Soeed Soeed 225.0 225.1 4 20 89 22.25 3.42 53.61 44 1.14 15.6 17.7 225.2 2 79 39.50 7.68 95.18 41 1.22 12.3 15.1 77 71 1 10 i 7 1 i L 7 225.4 7 XI 0 30.43 J. 37 39 1. xo 16. to 225.5 1 19.00 3.41 45.78 39 1.28 13.4 17.2 225 14 10 400 28.57 5.00 68.85 13.7 16.8 230.1 1 ?n 230.3 3 Dv 40.00 3.56 48.19 84 1.19 13.5 16.1 230.5 2 60 118 59.00 5.07 71.08 84 1.19 14.0 16.6 230.6 230 5 45 238 47.60 4.18 57.35 13.7 16.3 236.2 40 114 22.80 2.84 34.29 61 1.31 12. 15.B 236.3 236 5 40 114 22.80 2.84 34.29 12.0 15.9 238.1 2 8 50 1 A7 0 0 56 28.00 24 7 • 7 16. v 236. 238. 5 45 299 59.80 5.65 92.86 73 1.03 16.9 17.4 238 7 45 355 50.71 5.97 91.26 15.7 17.3 ITS 240.0 4 DV 33.75 3.48 .: 56 1.34 15.5 20. e TC 240.1 4 60 152 36.00 7 50.67 71 1.27 15.1 19.2 240 . B 240 30 287 35.88 w.41 Jj . 1 J * w • v 19 9 tt 245.4 2 72 36.00 5.58 72.00 jj 1.09 12.9 14.1 1 245.5 m 53 26.50 4.56 53.00 49 1 • 22 11.6 14.2 245 4 60 125 31.25 5.10 62.50 12.3 14.: 250.0 250.1 250 252.0 Tcta! 123 3970 Mean 8 248 32.28 5.10 63.73 12.6 15.° South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 SCHOOL PERIOD 3-7b April 1985 1 -35- Roar ri i nnc / R T Run l Me y Sched. nil* r\Ui 1 Cv:le/ Schedule Ooe^atinc Rnuto Tr i nc Tr i n Mi 1 p Hni ir Ti is . c Headway Boardings nuui Runtime Soeed Soeed 210.0 2 30 23 11.50 5.17 46.00 24 1.25 8.9 11.1 c op 0 9Hi 3 7 W 71 "0 1 43 11 «. B 3 30 180 . . . J. 4. *o . 91ft 0 5 7fi 44 in 7 30 203 LL . JO e.4 ii. e 211.0 10 30 208 20.80 3.60 41.60 50 1.20 11.6 13.9 211.1 211 10 30 208 20.80 3.60 41 60 11.6 13.9 212.2 5 60 62 12.40 4.25 42.76 27 1.11 11.7 13.0 214.0 *>R 214 t 20 274 Lit?1 VOOS & 57 92 1.43 9.6 13.8 214 4nw 20 274 2! OS 6 57 62 92 9.6 13.8 215.0 771 C7 215.1 12 20 Wvv 41.73 fcJV 1 51 9.9 14 9 215.5 c 21 12 20 333 27 75 4 22 4! 73 9.9 14.9 216.0 14 20 272 19.43 5.15 58.00 30 1.33 11.3 15.1 I I 34 80.47 38 1.05 14.9 15.6 3A ill216 In 20 306 20.40 5 . 30 WVi60 »'w 11, M 15.1 217.0 7 30 87 12.43 2.04 24.86 49 1.22 14.9 c 217.2 1 15 15.00 2.36 30.00 48 1.25 12.7 15. 217 8 30 102 12.75 2.09 25.50 12.2 15.0 220.0 EC 220 . 1" 10 447 23.53 2.69 40.22 1.27 15.0 19.1 220.7 220.8 T T 220 19 10 447 2 .5 2.69 40.22 15.0 19.1 it 221 ^ 2 35 17.50 2.97 37 1.08 17.7 19.1 222.0 19 10 409 21.53 3.21 43.05 42 1.43 13.4 19.2 222.1 222.2 222.7 7 222 19 10 409 21.53 01 43.05 13.4 19.2 Study South Shore Bus WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE 52 PM-PEAK PERIOD Technical Report 3-8a April 1985 1 7 -36- l~nav Sched. Boardincs / R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Operating Route Tr i ps Headway Boardings Trip Mile Hour Tine Runtiie Soeed Sceed c ?7 ; Ci * 1 c 4? 1 19 15 h 18 Z/j. - 7 20 189 . 1 . w i. i.0 Jv 0 V Hi Mil 225.2 2 3A 17.00 3.30 40.96 42 1.171 19 1? 3 14 7 225.4 14 20 228 16.29 2.99 39.24 39 1.28 13.1 16.7 225.5 2 20 12 6.00 1.08 14.46 39 1.2B 13.4 17.2 225 27 10 463 17.15 2.97 41.32 13.9 17.2 230. 1 20 20.00 4.91 59.70 39 1.03 12.2 12.5 230.3 9 20 33B 37.56 3.34 45.25 80 1.25 13.5 16.9 230.5 230 h 35 3 1.50 0.19 3.61 35 1 29 20 6 26.5 e ' 230 12 LSI 00 1 30.08 2.99 41.81 14 1 17 236.2 7 28 127 18.14 i, 27.28 5B 1.38 12.0 16.6 236.3 236 7 28 127 18.14 2.26 27.28 12 0 16 t 239.1 23B.3 0T o R 7 7 30 251 27.89 2.64 40.81 Bl 0.93 16.9 15. 238 9 Jv 251 27.89 2.64 40.61 16.9 15.7 240.0 0 20 250 27.78 2.87 47.35 56 1.43 14.5 20.8 240.1 9 20 285 31.67 2.79 43.31 65 1.36 15.1 21.0 2*0 2 3d u 6.00 1.77 60.00 12 1.25 34.0 240 19 10 541 26.47 2.80 45.23 15.0 21.0 e 1 TC 245.4 w V 76 15.20 « . 28.04 45 1.33 12.° 17.2 c °45 5 4 60 62 15.50 2.67 28.57 50 1.20 11.6 13. c 245 o 30 138 15.33 2.49 28.28 12.3 • 7 250.0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 1.40 27.2 36.1 h RE 250.1 *. J 27.50 1.66 47.01 58 2E.5 34.4 250 3 25 55 18.33 1.12 31.43 28.1 n n S j 252.0 J 45 34 6. BO 1.42 18.13 27 1.67 12.7 Total 203 4349 fie an 11 242 21.42 3.12 41.48 13.3 17.3 South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 PM-PEAK PERIOD 3-8b April 1985 21 1 -37- 1-way Sched. Boardings / R . T . Run Cycle/ Schedule Operatir,; Route Trips Headway Boardings Trio Mile Hour Tue Runtine 5oeed Soeed 210.0 1 10 D 7 1 1 i 210.3 3 18 12 4.00 0.82 10.00 47 Da 0 210 3 18 12 4.00 0.82 10.00 8.3 12.4 7 211.0 1 j 3.00 0.52 6.00 50 1.20 11.6 13 9 211.1 A Cft L AA 211 1 3 3. 00 D.52 6.00 11.6 13.9 ft i ft ft. 7 AA i at- 1 a "57 it 1 1 11 7 13 () 212.2 1 3 i, 00 £.1 la 1 J 214.0 214.1 214 215.0 C - 1 T 14 < a oft 215 12 60 131 10.92 1.66 23.48 14.6 19.7 216.0 1 4 4.00 1.06 11.94 28 1.70 Haw tDai. 1 AO - 0 21b. l? 60 195 10.26 2. OB 27.31 33 1 7\ 14 17 ft ft e ft / / / c 216 20 60 19? 9. 95 2.04 26. at 17 217.0 Q A A 4 A ft 4 ft /VA, 217*2 30 18 ' . 00 1.42 18.00 1.54 12.7 19. fc ft 0 A A ( C AA 21/ 2 30 IE 7.00 1 .4*. 1 B . O'J 12.7 19.6 f A 11 220.0 13 60 138 10.62 1.43 1.43 1».= *• •* 220. 4 20 35 6.75 1.00 14.96 46 220.7 1 i. c ?A 7 220.8 1 4 4.00 0.48 6.67 «e 1. .j 16. S 1 ft ft ^ i ft ft 220 16 60 177 9.83 1.27 19.75 ia.C 221.0 4 T AT 1 DC 222.0 15 60 196 13.07 1.95 26. 13 07 1.62 13.4 21.7 222.1 *- • - 222.7 222 15 60 196 13.07 1.95 26.13 13.4 mi CTPS South Shore Bus Study WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE TABLE Technical Report 52 EVENING PERIOD April 1985 3-9a 01 1 -38- Sched. Boardings / R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Ooeratin Route Trios Headway Boardings Trip mie Hour Ti»e Runti lie Soeed Soeed 225.0 6 120 48 8.00 1.59 21.92 25 1.76 13.7 24.2 225.1 7 120 66 9.43 1.45 25.B3 35 1.26 17.7 22.3 225.2 225.4 3 30 29 9.67 1.7B 23.29 35 1.43 13.1 18.7 225.5 225 16 60 143 8.94 1.55 23.87 15.3 22.1 230. 230.3 14 60 103 7.36 0.65 11.77 63 1.11 19.3 21.4 230 . c 1 '6 i-JV 1 60 103 7 0.65 11.77 19.3 21.4 ? 236.2 60 20 6.67 0.83 10.03 54 1.48 12.0 17.8 236 3 60 20 6.67 0.83 10.03 12.0 17.8 238.1 23B.3 ?T B 7 12 60 9E 8.17 0.77 13.2* 57 1.32 16.° 236 12 60 98 8.17 0.77 13.24 1^ 9 240. 45 52 17.33 1.79 34.67 48 1.25 19.4 24.2 ?4f' i 12 U60v 116 °.67 0.85 17.85 54 1.11 22.7 25.2 44 it 1. 1 . - 30 1.50 0. 15.00 10 1.50 27.2 40.7 240 17 60 171 10.06 0.99 20.85 22.2 25.4 245.4 245.5 245 {\ fetjv250 . *. -*fl i Oil 1 i 8 9St vv 0 45 13.79 5BJw 1.21 28.5 34.« 250 1 B 8.00 0.48 13.79 2e.5 34.4 n 252.0 10 5.00 1.05 13.33 27 1.48 14.3 it . 6 Total 137 1292 T Hear, 9 86 9.43 1.23 19.39 16.2 J1 South Shore Bus Study CTPS WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE TABLE Technical Report 52 EVENING PERIOD April 1985 3-9b . , -39- Socioeconomic Travel Behavior Characteristics % Transfer Inbound a R -i r\ o Age % % to to 1 5 % % w/o <15K Red Other Days/ Route <18 >64 Auto Income Line Buses Week 210 22 9 82t 47 18/9* 6/24* 73 211 34 8 81t 21 21 4 67 212 61 9 80t 30 4/3* 0/14* 75 214 23 10 80t 61 25 20 75 215 24 6 85t 43 35/13* 12/14 67 216 37 4 81t 38 35 18 80 217 9 16t 74 34 50 4 68 220 13 7 65 24 57 15 64 mm ~m 221 7 0 52 13 79t 7 90 222 22 6 74 33 46 7 66 225 16 13 70 32 58 11 70 230 20 9 77f 34 39 12 69 236 13 11 80t 35 27 27 71 238 33 9 85t 43 29 18 68 240 17 13 70 32 71t 8 66 245 34 10 80t 41 0/14* 29/21* 65 250 0 0 63 46 76t 12 82 252 3 5 54 39 loot 0 70 Mean 23 9 76 36 41 12 70 * Route connects two MBTA stat ions First number inbound second number outbound %. tValue exceeds threshold for application of special, lower MBTA service standards. (Standards: >75% w/o auto or >15% elderly or >60% transfer to another service . ) South Shore Bus Study SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS CTPS AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOR TABLE Technical Report 52 April 1985 WEEKDAY 3-10 . -40- Route 212 • Oversupply of service in base period, with headways already 60 minutes. None • Significant duplication of service between Routes 212 and 210. Operate both routes as belt line. See Route 210, above. • Late outbound departures, A.M. peak. Build a couple more minutes into A.M. -peak schedule. • Low schedule speed due to travel on congested arterial and high boardings per mile. None Route 214 • Oversupply of service in latter part of A.M. peak and overcrowding early in A.M. peak. Eliminate two round trips in latter part of A.M. peak and add one round trip in the vicinity of 7:10 to 7:45 A.M. • Overcrowding in school period. Add one round trip in the 2:40-3:10 P.M. period. • Lack of schedule coordination between Routes 214 and 216. Adjust morning schedules of the routes so that trunk head- ways and Quincy Center Station arrivals are uniform. • Low schedule speed due to high boardings per mile and com- paratively long layover time. Route 215 • Relatively low productivity on Granite Avenue segment of route, with no viable alternative alignment. None • Overcrowding in A.M. peak. Add one 215.1 one-way trip leaving Ashmont Station in vicinity of 7:00-7:40 A. M, . -41- • Lower-than-average schedule speed due to travel on congested arterials, high boardings per mile, and comparatively long layover time. None Route 216 • Overcrowding early in A.M. peak and oversupply of service in latter part of A.M. peak. Eliminate one 216.0 round trip in latter part of A.M. peak and add one round trip in vicinity of 7:25-7:45 A.M. • Overcrowding in school period. Add one round trip in vicinity of 2:40-3:10 P.M. • Lack of schedule coordination between Routes 216 and 214. Adjust morning schedules of the routes so that trunk head- ways and Quincy Center Station arrivals are uniform. • Lower-than-average schedule speed due to travel on congested arterials, high boardings per mile, and comparatively long layover time. None Route 217 • Oversupply of service during transition from A.M. -peak period to base period. Eliminate 217.0 one-way trip leaving Wollaston at 8:45 A.M. • Relatively low unit boardings due to fundamental nature of route (it terminates at Ashmont rather than Quincy Center Station), with high percentage of elderly riders. None • Low operating speed due to travel on congested arterials. None Route 220 • Oversupply of service during transition from early period to A.M. -peak period. Combine 220.0 outbound 6:15 A.M. round trip with 220.1 out- bound 6:15 A.M. round trip. Should operate as 220.1 and should depart Quincy Center at 6:10 and Hingham Depot at 6:45 A.M. . . -42- • Oversupply of service at end of A.M. peak. Eliminate 220.1 7:30-8:07 A.M. round trip. • Oversupply of service during transition from school period to P.M. -peak period. Eliminate 220.1 3:40-4:15 P.M. round trip. • Oversupply of service in late evening. Eliminate 220.0/220.8 11:30-11:54 P.M. round trip. Route 221 • Overcrowding on the one school-period trip (2:37-3:00 P.M.), with most passenger trips occurring on 220/221/222 trunk and excess capacity existing on 220 and 222 trips near this time. If crowding increases, make passengers aware of 222 outbound trip at 2:35 P.M. and 220.1 outbound trip at 2:50 P.M. • Late inbound departure during P.M. peak. Build three to four extra minutes into P.M. peak round-trip schedule Route 222 • No tapering of headways between early period and A.M. -peak period Move 6:45 A.M. inbound 222.0 trip five to ten minutes earlier. (This would also avoid 220/222 platooning if the first Route 220 recommendation is implemented.) Route 225 • Oversupply of service during latter part of A.M. peak. Eliminate 225.1 7:50-8:12 A.M. round trip. • Below-average performance relative to other routes during the A.M. -peak, school, and P.M. -peak periods. Change trunk headways from 10 to 15 minutes between 6:40 and 8:40 A.M., and between 3:05 and 6:05 P.M. • No tapering of headways between P.M. -peak and evening per iods . Add 225.4 outbound round trip at 7:05 P.M. . . -43- Route 230 • Oversupply of service, mid-morning. Eliminate two 230.3 round trips between 7:20 and 10:00 A.M. • Oversupply of service, late evening. Combine 230.3 9:05-9:40 P.M. and 10:05-10:40 P.M. trips into one 9:35-10:10 P.M. trip. • Relatively low unit boardings due to fundamental nature of route (it traverses low-density areas), but serves important markets that have no alternative transit service. None Route 236 • Oversupply of service in A.M. peak. Eliminate one 236.2 round trip. One possibility is to com- bine 8:10-8:50 A.M. and 8:40-9:20 A.M. trips into one. • Relatively low unit boardings due to fundamental nature of route (it competes with other cheaper and faster MBTA routes ) . Change to 60-minute headways all day and consequently elimi- nate an additional two round trips. Expand market by deviating route to serve areas of probable transit need. Deviate some trips onto Hayward Street, Shaw Street or Quincy Avenue, and Union Street. Also, deviate some trips onto Pond Street, Town Street, and Granite Avenue • Low schedule speed due to comparatively long layover time. None Route 238 • Oversupply of service in evening. Combine 238.7 8:20-9:00 P.M. and 9:20-10:00 P.M. round trips into one at 8:50-9:30 P.M. Route 240 • Oversupply of service in A.M. peak. Eliminate 240.1 7:45-8:30 A.M. round trip. . -44- Routes 238/240 • Oversupply of service during transition from school period to P.M. -peak period. Eliminate combination 238.7/240.0 trip leaving Quincy Center at 3:45 and Crawford Square at 4:20 P.M. • Oversupply of service in P.M. peak. Eliminate combination 240.0/238.7 trip leaving Ashmont Station at 4:50 and Crawford Square at 5:20 P.M. Route 245 • Relatively low unit boardings in P.M. peak, when service is already at a minimum (60-minute branch and 30-minute trunk headways ) . None • Low operating speed due to travel on congested arterials. None Route 250 No notable weakness. Route 252 • Relatively low patronage due to fundamental nature of route (it is short for an express route and does not offer as much of an advantage over auto as other express routes do). Either discontinue route or eliminate one morning and one afternoon trip and extend marginally at both ends to increase market. Extend to South Braintree Square and cir- culate more in South Weymouth. 3.3 WEEKEND MBTA SERVICE 3.3.1 Study Process The collection and analysis of weekend data were conducted in essentially the same manner as for weekday service. However, less extensive data were collected for weekend service. Altogether, just under two thirds each of Saturday and Sunday vehicle-trips were checked. Ridechecks were conducted on Saturday from approximately 9:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. and on Sunday from the start of service until 6:00 or 7:00 P.M., depending on the route. Also, whereas weekday vehicle-trips were checked twice, most weekend vehicle-trips were checked only once. No on-board surveying was conducted on Sunday and no financial data were developed for weekend service. . -45- 3.3.2 Findings 3. 3. 2. a Overall Findings • Unit boardings on weekends are almost always lower than on weekdays . Saturday unit boardings are only 8-percent to 14-percent lower than weekday boardings, depending on the specific measure, but Sunday unit boardings are 33-percent to 46-percent lower than weekday unit boardings. Only 7 vehicle-trips, all on Saturday, experience maximum loads greater than seated capacity. • Route alignments, with a couple of exceptions, are optimal . As on weekdays, most present route alignments adequately serve transit-travel desires in the study area with the shortest feasible passenger-trip times. • Bus operating speeds on Saturday are comparable to those on weekdays, and on Sundays they are faster . This finding is not surprising, since operating speed is largely determined by traffic congestion and the number of boardings. • Excess layover time exists in weekend schedules, as in week - day . Ten of 18 Saturday route variations and 7 of 13 Sunday route variations have cycle-time-to-running-time ratios of 1.25 or greater 3.3.2. b Performance and Design Characteristics (Tabulated Values) Three tables which summarize weekend route data follow. Tables 3-11 and 3-12 list performance and design characteristics for Saturday and Sunday, respectively. Table 3-13 contains socioeco- nomic and travel-behavior information for Saturday riders. On Saturday, there are more young riders and more autoless riders than on weekdays, and there is less interchanging with the Red Line and more interchanging with other buses. 3.3.3 Recommendat ions The recommended changes at the route level to weekend service are presented below. For each route, an identified weakness is stated and followed by a recommendation or, if no practical means of redressing the weakness is apparent, by "None." Saturday serv- ice is treated first, then Sunday service. 3. 3. 3. a Saturday Service Route 210 • Significant duplication of service between Routes 210 and 212 . Operate 210.0 and 212.2 as a belt line. 1 7E -46- Scant 1 -way Sched. Boardings / R.T.Run Cycle/ Schedule Ooe'-atinc Route (hours) Trios! Headway Boarding* Trio Nile Hour Tiae Runtine Speed Speed 1 7 1 4. 1 V V 48 ov iJi 7.64 3.43 30.55 22 1.36 8.° 12.1 "711 ft lit1? 0A 26 ovAft 13.50 2.34 27.00 47 1.28 11.6 14.7 *>17 9 1 1 A Aft lit 1 26 1 Ul 6.31 2.16 25.25 24 1.25 11.7 14.6 214.1 9.0 36 30 617 18.70 5.82 74.79 26 US 12.8 14.8 ifl & 7ft7 i 7 9 1 J 0 4» 1 w > 1 61 OV / VO 19.53 2.97 39.06 53 1. 10 10. i. 14. A 7Q v 36 OV ^07 14.24 3.78 42.71 27 1.48 11.3 16.8 1=; 217.0 11.9 24 60 102 6 00 v«0 997 7 12 00 1.33 12.2 16.2 7?fl 0 19 7 17. / 40 Ov O J7 21.12 2.84 42.24 46 1 . 4(3 14.7 Ib.C 220.1 10.9 22 60 295 17.35 1.99 32.54 51 1.25 16.4 20.6 Mft 10. 7 17. / 62 ov Oj7 19.24 2.38 37.23 15.6 19.6 "6 ID. i Wv60 Ov Jl 7 15 7 28 wV vw 43 1.28 14.6 IB. Aft 4* 7 7 £4(114 I 1 J. c 27 OV 23.94 3.68 57.46 1.14 15.6 ft f » 1 4 225.4 11.8 23 60 387 21.50 3.°! 51.60 1] 1.4.X 11. 15.° 225 16.2 50 30 794 22.69 3.91 54.45 14.3 16. - 7 1Q t Aft 1 c 10. 1 36 24.12 2.14 32.16 73 l.ii 1 2 4 'J lb. 236.2 13.1 26 60 393 21.83 2.72 32.75 62 1.29 12.0 15.5 238.7 17.3 34 60 1066 59.22 5.60 85.62 81 1 . \.U 13.0 240.0 12.9 25 60 314 19.63 2.02 43.61 52 tin. 240.1 17.9 36 60 232 12.89 1.13 17.19 62 1.45 15.1 22.0 1 7 ll 240 18.4 w A 30 546 16 06 1.52 26.38 tit c ' e c 1 6° 245.4 11.9 60 196 i10v • y897 21 7B 50 1 . VI 1 4. . . . Total 610 7080 Mean 15 41 472 17.92 2.82 38.91 13.8 17.0 t All Day + Estimated All 0av CTPS South Shore Bus Study ROUTE PERFORMANCE TABLE Technical Report 52 SATURDAY DAYTIME April 1985 3-11 2 -47- Soanl l-nay Sched. Boardinos / R.T.F.un Cycle/ Schedule Ooeratin- Route (hours) Triost Headways Boarding* Trie Nile Hour Tite Runtine Speed Soeed 215.3 17.5 24 120 130 11.62 1.54 21.17 55 1.22 13.8 16.8 215.4 10.5 12 120 73 6.64 0.93 11.89 45 1.49 12.8 19.1 215 17.5 36 60 203 9.23 1.24 16.53 13.3 17.8 216.2 16. 36 60 576 24.00 4.86 72.00 32 1.25 14.8 18.5 220.0 17.2 34 60 273 13.65 1.84 27.30 40 1.50 14.9 222.0 16.7 34 60 308 12.83 1.91 30.60 36 1.39 16.1 22.4 77 16.6 34 60 206 B.67 1.33 23.11 1.36 17.3 23.6 15.1 30 60 246 11.18 0.99 17.89 64 1.17 18.0 21.1 238.0 8.2 10 60 169 24.14 2.46 51.73 59 0.95 21.1 20.0 c 238.5 6.1 7 60 2.50 0.29 5.36 55 1.02 18.2 18.6 238.6 7.0 6 60 0 4.50 0.43 8.18 49 1.35 19.2 25.6 *>* DA 238.6 7.0 8 60 161 *. - .0- 2.12 4^.01 62 1.06 22.1 23.6 238 17.1 33 60 364 20.22 1.89 39.78 21.0 21.9 c 7 240.0 16.0 1? 60 W 6.90 0.92 19. 7E 42 71 27 240.1 17.4 17 60 103 10.30 0.91 19.31 53 1.2! 21.3 25." 240 17.4 34 60 192 9.60 0.91 19.53 2:. i 26.6 Total 273 2370 Hear 17.0 34 296 13.62 1.70 28.90 17.0 2 '7 t All Da/ Estimated All Dav South Shore Bus Study ROUTE PERFORMANCE CTPS TABLE Technical Report 52 SUNDAY DAYTIME April 1985 3-12 -48- Socioeconomic Travel Behavior Characteristics % Transfer Inbound %Ride e % % to to > 5 % % w/o <15K Red Other Days/ Route <18 >64 Auto Income Line Buses Week 210 40 20 88 41 0/0* 0/6* 52 211 41 2 88 33 30 30 63 212 27 27 94 42 0/0* 0/25* 33 214 32 10 90 76 32 8 76 215 28 2 83 28 19/14 9/24* 72 216 37 7 79 JO JL J ZD b / 217 0 0 100 60 NA NA 60 220 38 3 83 33 41 31 42 222 38 4 80 47 22 24 41 225 22 13 88 47 45 19 61 230 18 13 75 46 29 18 34 236 32 10 88 44 26 19 50 238 45 8 77 36 21 30 46 240 65 2 82 15 22 22 29 245 38 13 84 33 7/13* 27/19* 48 Mean 36 8 83 40 20 26 51 *Route connects two MBTA stations. First number inbound, second number outbound %. South Shore Bus Study SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS CTPS AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOR TABLE Technical Report 52 April 1985 SATURDAY 3-13 .. -49- • Low schedule speed due to travel on congested arterials and comparatively long layover time. None Route 211 • Low schedule speed due to travel on congested arterials. None . Route 212 • Significant duplication of service between Routes 212 and 210. Operate 210.0 and 212.2 as a belt line. • Relatively low unit boardings all day. Change headways from 60 minutes to 75 or 90 minutes. • Low schedule speed due to travel on congested arterials. None Route 214 • Low operating speed due to travel on congested arterials and high boardings per mile. None Route 215 • Oversupply of service in morning. Change headways from 30 to 60 minutes prior to 10:00 A.M. • Low operating speed due to travel on congested arterials. None Route 216 • Oversupply of service in morning. Operate 216.2 throughout morning in place of 216.0 and 214.1. • Low schedule speed due to comparatively long layover time. None . -50- Route 217 • Relatively low unit boardings all day. Change headways from 60 to 90 or 120 minutes. Route 220 No notable weaknesses. Route 222 • Oversupply of service in morning. Extend 60-minute headways until 10:05 A.M. Route 225 No notable weaknesses. Route 230 No notable weaknesses. Route 236 • Does not serve as wide a market as possible. Deviate some trips as described in weekday recommendations. Route 238 • Overcrowding on Quincy Center to South Shore Plaza segment. At minimum, add round trips leaving Quincy Center at 12:45 and 3:45 P.M. Alternatively, add hourly round trips leaving Quincy Center from 12:45 to 4:45 P.M. Added trips should only travel on Quincy Center to South Shore Plaza segment. Route 240 • Oversupply of service on 240.1. Change 240.1 headways from 60 to 120 minutes. Trunk headways would then be 30 and 60 minutes. Routes 238/240 No notable weaknesses. Route 245 • Relatively low unit boardings all day. -51- Change headways from 60 to 90 minutes. 3.3.3.D Sunday Service Route 215 • Relatively low unit boardings. Eliminate trips prior to 10:00 A.M. Combine most productive segments of 215.3 and 215.4 — operate all or most trips over Water, Copeland, and Willard streets in Quincy and Adams Street in Milton. Routes 214/216 No notable weaknesses Route 220 No notable weaknesses Route 222 No notable weaknesses Route 230 • Relatively low unit boardings all day. Change headways from 60 to 90 minutes all day, or follow recommendation immediately below. • Lower productivity on Quincy Station to Braintree Station segment than on Braintree Station to Holbrook segment. Cycle one bus from Quincy Station to Holbrook to Braintree Station to Holbrook back to Quincy Station. Quincy Station to Braintree Station segment gets 120-minute headways and Braintree Station to Holbrook segment gets alternating 45- and 75-minute headways. Routes 238/240 • Oversupply of service in morning. Eliminate one morning driver run. Would eliminate 9:35 and 11:35 A.M. Ashmont Station departures and 8:30 and 10:30 A.M. Quincy Center Station departures. 4 SYSTEMWIDE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 ANALYSIS OF LATENT DEMAND FOR SOUTH SHORE BUS SERVICE Passenger counts and surveys made on existing bus routes measure demand for service as currently operated, but may not show travel desires of people for whom present routes are unsuitable. Demand for new routes can be determined by implementation, but advance screening is needed to select those with the best potential. Relevant available screening data include census-tract popula- tion, population density, and socioeconomic characteristics; synthetic trip tables; and data on performance of existing routes serving similar areas. Repeated service requests from certain areas can be an indication of potential demand, but do not ensure that those requesting service would use it if it were available. The most densely populated South Shore census tracts are in Quincy, Braintree, Weymouth, Milton, Hull, and Randolph. In general, densely populated tracts have large concentrations of residents over age 65 or under age 20. All tracts with 1980 autoless-household rates of over 10 percent are in the same com- munities listed above. At present, mosl tracts with over 2,000 residents per square mile have MBTA or private-carrier feeder-bus service to the Red Line. The MBTA subsidizes some of the private-carrier routes. Most tracts with under 2,000 people per square mile have no Red Line feeder service, but do have some private-carrier express-bus service to Boston. Based on route location relative to population concentration, the most poorly served tract with a high population density, a high concentration of elderly or young residents, and a high percen- tage of autoless households is tract 4193, East Braintree. In recent years, residents of this area have made several requests for service to Braintree Station. There does not appear to be enough potential demand to justify a route serving only the East Braintree-Braintree Station market, but deviation of an existing route through East Braintree or establishment of a new route also serving other functions may be worthwhile. Various possibilities are examined later in this section. The U. S. Census place-of -work tables provide information on town-to-town work-trip volumes. Non-work trips are also an important part of bus-service demand. Non-work travel can be estimated by applying factors to work travel, but work/non-work -53- -54- trip ratios vary greatly among existing routes. Therefore, a separate information source for non-work trips is desirable. The A. M. Voorhees 1975 trip tables are the most comprehensive attempt to estimate non-work as well as work trips at the town- to-town level. These tables were generated from a computer model of trip-making behavior rather than from actual regional travel data. Comparisons between 1980 Census work-trip tables and Voorhees work trip tables show general agreement in order of magnitude, but there are many large discrepancies in specific values. There is no simple way of verifying the Voorhees esti- mates of non-work trips between most town pairs, so it is advis- able to use the tables only in evaluating the relative and not the absolute importance of various trip markets. According to the Voorhees tables, the largest South Shore travel volumes are trips entirely within Quincy. The MBTA already pro- vides bus service throughout Quincy. All but one of the routes intersect at Quincy Center Station, so it is possible to travel between most points on the Quincy bus system with no more than one transfer. There are no obvious areas needing new routes. Through-routing certain route pairs at Quincy Center would be worthwhile if there were high interchange volumes between them, but the route-by-route analysis did not identify any such pairs. The second largest travel volume consists of trips entirely ' within Weymouth. The MBTA provides feeder-bus service to the Red Line from the major Weymouth population centers, but intra-town travel connections are much less complete than in Quincy. The third-largest travel volume consists of trips entirely within Braintree. The MBTA currently operates bus service from most of the densely populated areas in the town to Braintree Station, where passengers can transfer among routes. The most heavily populated area without service is the Union Street corridor between Braintree Station and East Braintree. The fourth-largest travel volume, according to the Voorhees tables, consists of trips between Weymouth and Braintree. At present, the only MBTA routes serving both towns directly are Route 225, which passes through the northeast corner of Braintree on the way from Weymouth Landing to Quincy Center Station, and Route 252, which runs only during peak hours and makes no stops in Braintree except at Braintree Station. There are also two private-carrier bus routes with stops in both Weymouth and Braintree, but they run infrequently. To travel from Weymouth to Braintree by bus, most people would now have to follow circuitous paths through Quincy Center Station. The findings above indicate that the best potential new bus route on the South Shore would be one running from Braintree Station via Union and Commercial streets into Weymouth. No single route . -55- could connect all points in Weymouth with all points in Braintree. As an initial strategy, an attempt should be made to find the alignment with the greatest unmet demand. From the Braintree border, a route could head east or south. A route to the east would serve a greater total population and a greater number of likely transit users than one to the south. Two possi- bilities for an eastern route are Commercial Street and Broad Street, both of which run through densely developed areas. At present, MBTA Route 222 from Quincy to East Weymouth serves Broad Street between Essex Street and East Weymouth. Commercial Street now has bus service on only three short sections covered by Route 222, but has been used as a bus route in the past. A new route could either terminate at East Weymouth, continue on Commercial Street toward Hingham, or continue on Pleasant Street toward Massachusetts Route 53. The running time for a bus from East Weymouth to Braintree Station via Commercial Street would be about 23 minutes, or the same as the running time from East Weymouth to Quincy Center Station via Route 222. The Red Line running time to Boston is 6 minutes less from Quincy Center than from Braintree, and the total round trip fare to Boston 10 cents less. A Braintree route would, therefore, be unlikely to divert Boston passengers from Route 222 in the vicinity of East Weymouth. Similarly, on the section of Commercial Street between Middle and North streets where the new and old routes would overlap, bus times to the respective Red Line stations would be equal, but the old route would save six minutes in Red Line time, so no diversions would be expected. From the intersection of Washington and Commercial streets, in the Weymouth Landing area, to Braintree Station, bus travel time would be about 10 minutes. MBTA Route 225 runs to Quincy Center from this intersection. There are several routing variations, with running times ranging from 15 to 18 minutes. A bus to Braintree Station would save up to two minutes to Boston compared to the existing bus to Quincy Center, but the total round-trip fare would be 60-cents less via Quincy. Hence, a Braintree Station bus route would be unlikely to divert Boston passengers from Route 225 Less than half of South Shore bus passengers now transfer to or from the Red Line. The others make local trips, and Quincy Center is the single most important destination. The activity center nearest to Braintree Station is South Braintree Square, about half a mile west of the station. Passengers going from East Braintree or Weymouth to South Braintree Square could transfer from a new route to Route 230 or 236 to reach South Braintree Square, but a direct continuation of the new route would provide better service. Beyond South Braintree Square, the route could continue west on Pond Street toward Randolph or northwest on Franklin and Granite streets to South Shore Plaza. The latter routing would probably attract more passengers, but -56- would overlap Route 236. The Voorhees tables indicate relatively low demand for transportation between Weymouth and Randolph. Travel between Randolph and Braintree is greater, but a route between Randolph and Braintree Station via Pond Street that was run by the MBTA from March to June 1984 attracted few riders. This may be partly attributable to poor publicity. A third possibility would be for buses to run west along Pond Street to Granite Street, then north on Granite to South Shore Plaza. Although this routing would be longer than a Franklin Street route to the Plaza, it would restore service on Pond Street, which traverses a relatively thickly settled residential area and is the location of Braintree Hospital. It would also provide direct bus service, for the first time, from Braintree Station and points east to the Campanelli Industrial Park and to Braintree High School. The Pond Street-route schedule could be coordinated with that of MBTA Route 238 to allow Randolph passengers to transfer at Granite and Pond streets. The present MBTA Route 236 has relatively few passengers boarding or alighting between Braintree Station and the intersection of Elm and Commercial streets. Therefore, in lieu of establishing a new route to East Braintree on Union Street, the alignment of Route 236 on some or all trips might be revised to serve East Braintree. The shortest diversion would be to follow Commercial Street to Union, but a field inspection by CTPS indicates that the intersection of these two streets is too sharp and too steep to be negotiated safely by a standard MBTA bus. McCusker Drive, which runs through the Monatiquot Village apartment complex from Commercial Street to Union Street, is unsuitable for bus opera- tion, as it is narrow and winding, and has speed bumps at fre- quent intervals. An alignment from Commercial and Hayward streets along Hayward Street, Quincy Avenue, and Commercial Street to Union Street would be feasible. It would overlap existing MBTA Route 225 for about one mile, and would be 1.6-miles longer than the existing Route 236 alignment. Route 225 service on the segment that would be overlapped by a relocated Route 236 is nearly as productive as service on the entire alignment, exclusive of Quincy Center. There are 70 passenger-trip-ends per route-mile on this segment of Route 225, compared to 73 on the whole route, exclusive of Quincy Center. This finding, combined with the fact that Route 236 serves some- what different origin-destination pairs, indicates that a rerouted Route 236 would not seriously affect Route 225 produc- tivity. In the past, the MBTA has cited encroachment on existing private- carrier rights as a reason for not implementing MBTA bus service along Union Street. Hudson Bus Lines has a certificate of public convenience and necessity for service along the entire length of Union Street, but has not served this route west of Commercial -57- Street for many years.* Two Hudson express routes to downtown Boston run on Union Street between the Weymouth border and Commercial Street, continuing on Commercial, Elm, and Church Streets to Massachusetts Route 3. At present, there are three northbound trips and one southbound trip a day on this alignment, all during peak hours. Union Street boardings and alightings are not readily available. For trips to downtown Boston, direct bus service is faster than a f eeder-bus/Red Line combination via Braintree would be. The express-bus fare is $1.75 one way, com- pared to $1.70 one way for a bus/Red Line combination. Lower fares can be obtained using MBTA passes, but there are no multiple-ride discounts on the bus. Since the present low level of bus service implies that ridership is limited, and since a feeder bus to the Red Line would not result in a travel-time improvement to Boston, implementation of a feeder bus should not cause major economic damage to the Hudson express service. If Union Street service were operated as a new route rather than as part of MBTA Route 236, one possibility would be for the MBTA to contract with Hudson to run it. Hudson would need an addi- tional local license from the Town of Braintree to operate on Ivory Street into Braintree Station or on Pond or Granite streets south of Five Corners. Hudson already has rights on Franklin Street in Braintree and on Commercial Street from the Braintree border to the Hingham border. 4.2 PRIVATE -CARRIER BUS SERVICE All study-area communities currently have some private-carrier express-bus service to downtown Boston, except for Quincy, which has four stations on the Red Line, with numerous feeder buses, and Randolph and Holbrook, both of which have Red Line-feeder service. April 1984 CTPS counts found about 1,200 passengers at Boston boarding buses with only study-area destinations between 4:30 and 6:30 P.M., and about 200 boarding buses serving both study-area and further points. The distribution of destinations among towns was estimated by CTPS by applying various factors to the count totals. As of February 1984, 13,400 passengers a day traveled inbound from the five stations on the Red Line South Shore branch between 7:00 and 10:00 A.M. Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield, Duxbury, Pembroke, Hanover, Rockland, and Norwell, combined, accounted for about 1,100 inbound peak Red Line boardings, or about the same as the estimated number of outbound peak express-bus riders to these communities. Therefore, in the southern half of the study area, express-bus and Red Line service should be of equal public *As of October 1984, Hudson Bus Lines was in the process of transfering all of its South Shore business to Carey's Motor Transportation of Weymouth. . . -58- concern. Since the two modes are now about equally attractive, improvements to one may divert riders from the other. Peak work-trip ridership on the Red Line, express buses, and com- muter boats from the eight southern study-area towns accounts for over a third of the total number of their residents working in the Boston CBD, based on 1980 U. S. Census data. This is within the typical range of suburban transit mode split, so the poten- tial for attracting new transit riders from these towns to Boston is probably limited. In conjunction with the Southeast Expressway reconstruction, CTPS examined service and ridership levels on all study-area express- bus routes. Service was increased on most of them in March 1984, based largely on CTPS findings, and one new route was started. Results varied, but most new trips carried substantially fewer riders than the base-case average for the same route and time of day Over half of the new trips were dropped in June 1984, because of low ridership and high per-passenger subsidies. Although the performance of the remaining new trips was satisfactory, in most cases preexisting trips preceding or following new trips had ridership losses about equal to ridership on the new trips. Some prior bus passengers found the new schedules more convenient than the old ones, but the number who continued to use each old trip generally exceeded the number diverted from that trip to a new one. Therefore, discontinuing an old trip in favor of a new one would inconvenience more people than it helped. Inadequate promotion may have contributed to the results discussed above. Express buses on certain trips are regularly filled, but the existing system as a whole has substantial excess capacity. Promotion aimed at improving ridership on present service would be more cost-effective initially than adding more service. The CTPS evaluation indicated that a new express-bus route serving East Weymouth and Hingham would have the best demand potential in the study area. This route was implemented in March 1984, attracted an average of under four passengers a trip by May, and was discontinued in June. 4.3 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the route-specific recommendations in Chapter 3, the following general recommendations were developed, based on such sources as the January on-board survey, field checks made during the data-collection phase, and testimony at public meetings. They are not necessarily listed in order of impor- tance . 1) As resource constraints allow, passenger facilities should be improved . . -59- Th i s recommendation pertains chiefly to Quincy Center Station, where 14 of the 18 study-area bus routes terminate. It is usually the most active stop on each route, and is thus the most used study-area bus-passenger facility. The appearance of Quincy Center Station was the only service attribute consistently rated more negatively than positively by on-board-survey respondents. Of 2,583 respondents, 52 percent rated the appearance of this station below average, 29 percent average, and only 19 percent above average. Based on this and on other comments by survey respondents, it is recommonded that cleaning, maintenance, and patrolling of Quincy Center Station be substantially improved. A secondary recommendation on facilities concerns shelters. There are now 23 shelters on study-area bus routes. Under MBTA standards, a minimum of 300 daily boardings at a stop warrants a shelter. Two stops without shelters in the study area meet this criterion and should definitely receive shelters. Several other stops in the range of 100 to 200 daily boardings should also be considered for shelters, as resources allow. The two stops with the greatest need for shelters are at Washington Street and Cottage Avenue, and at Hancock Street opposite Cottage Avenue, both on outbound routes. The first stop, serving Routes 220, 221, and 222, has 316 total daily boardings. The second, serving Routes 215, 225, 230, 236, and 238, has 302 total daily boardings. The MBTA should provide better information to passengers. This is a broad recommendation based on testimony at public meetings held in conjunction with this study, and on written comments on survey forms Many of these concerns are beyond the scope of this study. For example, many people wanted better information about Red Line delays. Many complained of often-busy telephone infor- mation lines. Some felt that overall MBTA information to users or potential users is inadequate. However, two specific recommendations relate directly to South Shore bus service First, drivers should be better informed about the routes they operate. Many people commented that drivers should supply schedule cards and should know the correct zone fares. Buses change routes frequently, so keeping appropriate sched- ules in racks on buses is difficult, but drivers should be -60- able to carry small supplies of schedules for their routes. Drivers should either memorize route zone boundaries and prepaid-pass rules or carry printed information. The second recommendation concerning information is that all bus stops be provided with signs. Field checks of all routes in October 1983 revealed that 17 percent of the 2,163 study- area MBTA bus stops did not have standard red and yellow MBTA signs. Of these, 15 percent, or 315 stops, had no markings, and 2 percent or 46, had only painted orange bands on utility poles. All stops should have standard MBTA signs, which minimize confusion for both drivers and passengers. Several people complained of being passed by buses while waiting at official stops. Job performance of Quincy Center Station bus starters should be improved. Although related to the above recommendations concerning information, this issue merits separate treatment. In the data-collection phase of this project, CTPS personnel and ride-checkers hired by CTPS found the starters at Quincy Center Station to be generally unhelpful and uncooperative. Specifically, starters did not appear to monitor missed or late trips. In most cases when a CTPS supervisor or ridechecker asked a starter about a particular trip that appeared not to have been run — and it was later found through other means that the trip had indeed not been run — the starter stated that the trip had left the station on schedule. Aside from misinforming people, the starters at Quincy Station do little or nothing to help passengers connect with their buses. For example, many survey respondents complained of missing buses that loaded on the outer side of others parked at the curb of the loading platform. More conscien- tious starters could help alleviate this problem and others for passengers at this station. The observed conduct of personnel at Quincy Center Station damages both the image and the performance of MBTA South Shore bus service. It is recommended that Quincy starters be required to monitor missed or late trips and to make public- address-system announcements about these, to announce bus departures and platform locations, to dispense schedule cards on request, and in general to act courteously to passengers.