rstb: Boston: Media and Conclusions!

My trip to Boston was great for me, and I got to revisit the place I was born in, this time with Jonathan. But what is my evaluation of Boston's transit system? Is there anything Seattle actually does better than Boston in some respects, or is Boston simply incomparable? Also in this post will be a small collection of photos and videos from the trip.

For reference, here is the official map of Boston's Rapid Transit system: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Documents/Schedules_and_Maps/Rapid%20Transit%20w%20Key%20Bus.pdf

Conclusions

Subway/Light Rail/Streetcar

Let's start with subway and light rail. Obviously, Boston blows Seattle out of the water in terms of the largeness and completeness of the network. Seattle doesn't actually have any form of subway, it's technically called light rail and will be light rail for a large amount of time. However, the U- and Northgate Link projects projected for completion in 2016 and 2021, respectively, will be a subway-like system in a few ways.

There are two reasons why subway works in Boston: the city has more people and more density than Seattle does by a long measure. While Seattle is growing in this respect, it would be hard to come close to consistently filling up an eight-car subway running every 3-4 minutes at rush hour and every seven or ten minutes at off-peak hours. In this respect, Boston is not closely comparable to Seattle, which only runs two-car Link trains.

However, the Green Line, Boston's light-rail/streetcar network and its first "subway" in the downtown portion of it, is in many ways comparable to Seattle's light-rail/streetcar network. The Green Line runs equally short, two-car trains; however, the system is much more complete. The multiple extensions of the Green Line all converge in this downtown area (see map), which creates truly mind-blowing frequencies for this small portion of the Green Line.

Each individual line on the Green Line also runs at similar frequencies when compared to Seattle's light rail. They tend to run slightly more often during rush periods, but have almost identical frequencies in off-peak periods.

Boston's Green Line is also comparable to our Link system in how slow it is downtown. Because it runs in one shared tunnel, the Green Line ends up being backed up by its own trains: if buses were to run in such a tunnel, it would be sure chaos. While it is still faster than Seattle's Link in the bus tunnel, they face similar problems with scheduling.

When at-grade, however, the Green Line has properties much more comparable to a streetcar. In many places, it has a shared right-of-way with cars, and has stop spacing comparable to that of Seattle's streetcar system, or even some bus routes! In that respect, the Green Line provides excellent service for a streetcar, but definitely not as a light-rail system, except for maybe the "D" line portion of the Green Line, which has wider stop spacing.

In the end, Seattle is quite comparable to Boston in terms of streetcar/light-rail, and in some categories is quite equal to their system, if it weren't for completeness and expansiveness. However, Boston's excellent heavy rail (subway) lines have no equal or even distant equal in Seattle, due to a smaller population and density in our city.

Buses/BRT

Let's start this portion with Bus Rapid Transit. Boston calls its BRT system the "Silver Line," and it has 5 routes, with only four of them operating full-time. There are portions of this system that compare directly to Seattle's RapidRide, and portions that absolutely blow it out of the water.

First, let's start with the good portions of Boston's Silver Line. The SL1 and SL2 (refer to map), which connect the airport terminals and Design Center with South Station, are excellent interpretations of BRT. The first portion of their route, the portion they share, is actually a separated, sometimes underground right-of-way. The bus technology is great too: they are buses that use catenary in their right-of-way, but in places like the airport, they run without catenary. In both cases, the BRT is actually quick and effective as well as frequent. The most comparable experience in Seattle is a trip through the Bus Tunnel when it isn't crowded and backed up with buses.

It goes downhill from there, however. The SL4 and SL5 routes, which connect Dudley Square to the Downtown area of Boston, remind me of RapidRide in endless ways. In my ride on the SL5, it was equally slow, packed, and it stopped on the frequency level of a local bus route (if a slight exaggeration). For a comparably dense area, the SL4 and SL5 do not provide quality the service that is needed: it is almost a carbon copy of Seattle's RapidRide, except with worse, older buses and lower-quality stations and stops.

Onto local bus routes. On my ride on the 28, which goes through rougher portions of the city, and throughout the city itself, one thing really struck me: the frequency of these routes. The 28, for example, runs practically every ten minutes ON SUNDAYS. There are very few routes in Metro's system that run so frequently on Sundays, yet there are MULTITUDES of routes in MBTA's system that run this kind of frequency (see the bus routes in the background of the map). Increased population and demand in Boston is a reason, but there are many corridors in Seattle that could benefit from this kind of frequency.

However, that is really the only thing I can directly see Boston edging Seattle in. Bus facilities are equally low-quality for the most part, and Seattle seems to have a comparable amount of bus shelters. Next-stop announcements are on Boston's system too, and are of similar quality. Stop placement is also fairly equal; both are many times inefficient but other times fairly good.

Surprisingly enough, there are many parts of Seattle's bus system that I think are deliberately better than Boston's. Many corridors in Boston, such as the one the 28 runs up and down, could deliberately see improvements that would make service quicker and more efficient. Many of these corridors are in dire need of Dexter Avenue-like redesigns, with dedicated bike lanes, signal priority and bus bulbs. Bus shelters along the 28 line are also frequently punched out, with broken glass on the ground, but that's another problem.

Another way that Seattle's bus system edges Boston's is the buses themselves. Seating on both the 28 and the Silver Line somehow manages to be worse than Seattle's. Who would have thought that was possible? Boston's seating arrangements are equally inefficient when the bus is crowded, with clogged aisles.

The seats themselves and their spacing is also significantly worse. The seats have a cheap, plasticky frame, like the ones found on older Seattle buses, but worse, have barely any padding, much less than the padding on new Orion buses. They are also smashed together, which made even me and my smallish frame uncomfortable no matter which seat I chose. The material used on the seat padding is also more like a rug, which makes it disgusting when anything is spilled on it, unlike the more durable padding found on all of Seattle's fleet.

Boston's buses are in general more comparable to Seattle's older, articulated buses, the 2300 and 2400 series. They are loud, inefficient and ugly. Seattle's newer buses easily take the cake in this comparison.

In the end, BRT in Boston is a definite mixed bag, with portions that are much better than RapidRide, and portions that are somewhat worse. Local buses in Boston are in many ways an embarrassment as well, with Seattle overall providing better service and facilities, as long as frequency is not taken into account.

Bikes/Miscellaneous

This is a short category, but one that Seattle easily takes the cake in as. Not once in Boston did I see a dedicated bike line, let alone something along the lines of bike optimization on Dexter Ave. in Seattle. Seattle is much more bike-friendly in the center city, while bikes are more common in the suburbs of Boston, in places like Arlington, where you can find dedicated bike trails that are actually fairly used.

I also did not see many bikers in the center city of Boston, but this is because drivers in Boston tend to be more aggressive than the overly courteous, wishy-washy type found in the Seattle area.

Transit centers, like the one at Dudley Square shown below, are the same in terms of design and connectivity. They provide decent transfers to buses, and overall no major differences are to be found. However, it is sometimes a little confusing to transfer from the subway to a bus if there is not a dedicated transit center, because bus stops tend to be slightly understated.

In conclusion, Boston is much more of a real city than Seattle: it is much more dense and overall provides excellent transit service to the people served by subway and light rail. As a city, Boston is light years better than Seattle in terms of high-speed, rail transit. It is also much more connected than Seattle overall because of the frequency of all modes of transit and the largeness of its HCT network.

Media!!!