General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[CheapLeak]

I’m not a frequent OL rider, but the couple times I’ve taken it recently (including this evening), I’ve noticed the trains move quickly but there’s a surprising amount of dwell time at the stations. In particular, at every station between Back Bay and North Station tonight I counted that there were about 7 to 9 full seconds after we had fully stopped at the platform before the doors even opened. Across 20 stations, that’s about 2.5 minutes added to an end-to-end journey. Have others noticed this? What’s the explanation?

I have no real guess, but my only idea is the T hasn’t updated departure times for each train to account for the end of slow zones.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I’m not a frequent OL rider, but the couple times I’ve taken it recently (including this evening), I’ve noticed the trains move quickly but there’s a surprising amount of dwell time at the stations. In particular, at every station between Back Bay and North Station tonight I counted that there were about 7 to 9 full seconds after we had fully stopped at the platform before the doors even opened. Across 20 stations, that’s about 2.5 minutes added to an end-to-end journey. Have others noticed this? What’s the explanation?

Could it be related to the man getting killed after being caught in the doors? I know that happened since the doors closed on them rather than anything relating to doors opening, but maybe there are extra checks for both?

 

[Delvin4519]

I have no real guess, but my only idea is the T hasn’t updated departure times for each train to account for the end of slow zones.

Probably a contributing factor, looking on TransitMatters, a good portion of the trips are constantly getting backed up at the terminals, being let to persist for up to 2-5 months depending on how long it is until the schedule change.

It's gotten pretty bad at Forest Hills in recent days, with over half of the trips in the southbound direction taking longer than pre-slow zone fixing

The Red Line from Davis to Alewife actually became slower than it was before the Braintree Branch got fixed, and this is despite the fact they actually adjusted the schedules midway through the season in the beginning of October!

 

[Highwayguy]

‘The user experience, physical plant, and organizational structure of the T have quantitatively improved more under Eng’s 18 months of leadership than during the previous ten General Managers, combined.’


‘The user experience, physical plant, and organizational structure of the T are an embarrassment for a self-purported World Class City⁽ᵀᴹ⁾, let alone a tertiary French provincial capital.’


Both are true.
Particularly given the systematic and political factors he has to work against and within, Eng has overseen an unprecedented improvement at the T. An unprecedented improvement from rock bottom can be, and in this case most assuredly is, mediocre transit by first word standards. Acknowledging the (many!!) warts remaining doesn’t mean ignoring the progress made, or vice versa.

Is it embarrassing that our grade separated transit trundles through switches at 10 MPH and is incapable of reaching the top speeds my grandfather commuted at? Is it a miracle that we can bellyache about 40 MPH being too slow when 18 months ago the OL couldn’t even hit 10 MPH on the Community-Sully viaduct? Yes.

TLDR, the process is working, the derivative has a heck of positive slope, and yet the hole is still awful deep. But wow, Phil Eng has proved himself wicked good at hole fillin’.

 

[Highwayguy]

Assuming an average acceleration of 2.5 MPH/s, about 2:30 on the Braintree branch, optimistically 2 minutes on the entire OL, around 40 seconds on the Alewife extension, and ~1:30 on the D branch.

Speeding up the Braintree branch to 50 MPH is the best add the MBTA can buy. After a month or so of trains ripping by stop-&-go traffic on the SE Expressway at the highway speed limit, watch the public perception of the T as the option of last resort start to change real quick.

I-93 congestion is back to a soul-robbing 50 minutes for the 10 mile shot between Quincy-Adams and the Pike. Per Transit Matters Dashboard, a Quincy Adams-South Station trip averages under 25 minutes. There are directional ramps from the Split straight into the parking garage. The only reason those who drive past could willfully subject themselves to an Expressway commute is because they think the T is worse. Last time they rode, it probably still was. Seeing those Pullmans cooking 50 through Savin Hill is the type of thing that will get people to reconsider. Making transit look fast is how we get back to Pre-Covid ridership.

The 2:30 time savings by comparison almost becomes trivial.

 

[Delvin4519]

Look, I don't disagree as far as general themes go. Bus service has pretty clearly taken a hit that hasn't been restored yet, but it's hard to get an accurate picture of how much bus service the T is or isn't providing just on the basis of schedule changes, especially as they launch BNRD which changes routes, run times and more, PATI has closed stops... Since 2019, bus lanes have been built, signal priority implemented... the environment hasn't been static, so you can't really compare them as if it was the same variety of apple; It's like a Granny Smith vs a Fuji at this point. I'm just giving you the datasets to play with that are route agnostic, and provide an aggregate view.

In my view, advocacy carries more weight when it has data to back it up; it's why I had previously taken issue with your screed on bus operators, because the numbers didn't back up the claim, which certainly can be laid at the feet of the T for inconsistent messaging and labeling in its presentations.
You can't extrapolate to Dec 24 when that data doesn't exist yet, but you can extract trends and questions. That said, if you really really wanted to do the data analysis, the T publishes it's departure/arrival times at endpoints for every single bus trip for every single route on a weekly basis. I'm lazy and don't want to, but the dataset is available if someone really did want to crunch the numbers before the T / FTA reports. But overall, saying the T provided 179k revenue bus hours /1.638M miles, in July 2024 compared to 233k hours / 1.780M miles / in July 2019, which is 30% fewer operated hours (but only 8.6% fewer miles) compared to pre-pandemic service, means you can conclude that:

A) bus service is more efficient than in 2019; on average, vehicles are traveling further in revenue service given time. You'd have to adjust for ridership, but that's compounded by I believe the T not including the fare free routes in reported NTD data.
B) given that 1350 is only 6% fewer operators than the 1430 they had in 2019, operator productivity is down massively, given they're spending 30% less time driving buses. You'd have to go through the payroll database to see if that is a reduction in overtime or what, but that's the question I'd be advocating towards getting a answer to.

Decided to finish pulling the entire pre-COVID schedules (from February 2020 using the Spring 2020 rating before the lockdowns arrived), and compare them with the Fall 2024 rating.

If a route has a different number of trips inbound vs. outbound, then I use the count for the direction with the fewest number of trips, and I exclude school-only trips from the calculation). As such, the results may differ from TransitMatters slightly.

These are my results (Sliver Line is counted with local bus)

Type	Pre-COVID trips	Fall 2024 trips	Change	Current service levels
Subway & Local Bus - Weekday	8309	7222	-1087 (-13.09%)	86.91%
Subway & Local Bus - Saturday	5588	5207	-381 (-6.82%)	93.18%
Subway & Local Bus - Sunday	3943	3874	-69 (-1.75%)	98.25%
Subway - Weekday	1340	1266	-74 (-5.52%)	94.48%
Subway - Saturday	996	979	-17 (-1.71%)	98.29%
Subway - Sunday	858	892	+34 (+3.96%)	103.96%
Local Bus - Weekday	6969	5956	-1013 (-14.54%)	85.46%
Local Bus - Saturday	4592	4228	-364 (-7.93%)	92.07%
Local Bus - Sunday	3085	2982	-103 (-3.34%)	96.66%
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Weekday	6819	5956	-863 (-12.66%)	87.34%
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Saturday	4574	4228	-346 (-7.57%)	92.43%
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Sunday	3084	2982	-102 (-3.31%)	96.69%
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Weekday	6502	5605	-897 (-13.80%)	86.20%
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Saturday	4348	3978	-370 (-8.51%)	91.49%
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Sunday	2911	2798	-113 (-3.89%)	96.11%
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Weekday	317	351	+34 (+10.72%)	110.72%
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Saturday	226	250	+24 (+10.61%)	110.61%
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Sunday	173	184	+11 (+6.35%)	106.35%

Since TransitMatter's COVID Recovery Dashboard is now 10 months out of date, this data should be more recent, although I can't use the same exact methodology.

One noticeable thing that stands out is how much faster subway service has recovered compared to bus service. Weekday subway service is already at 94.48% of pre-COVID levels, compared to only 85.44% for bus service (87.31% excluding discontinued routes). Another noticable effect is how Saturday service is only slightly below pre-COVID levels for subway, but much lower for bus service. Sunday service is mostly stagnet, but bus riders still see less Sunday bus service compared to pre-COVID, unlike subway riders, whom have roughly identical subway service levels to pre-COVID currently.

While StreetsBLOG Mass previously reported the MBTA to have 88% of scheduled revenue service hours for bus operations as of Fall 2024 compared to pre-COVID, the number of scheduled trips is lower, at only 85.44%. This suggests the T likely has lengthened scheduled runtimes on dozens of bus routes. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case, as whenever the T does their quarterly service adjustments, bus routes that get "departure times change for schedule reliability", there is always a few trips that get secretly dropped from the schedule. The 47 bus earlier this year saw this issue when it went from 20 minute midday headways to 30 minute midday headways for "improved schedule reliability" instead of "frequency decreases".

I would assume that this presentation from the T earlier this summer references "percentage of pre-COVID ridership". If that is the case, it is quite bad that despite bus ridership having stayed at a higher fraction compared to subway ridership, bus riders still had to endure longer and heavier service cuts than subway riders.

 

[Delvin4519]

With GTFS for Winter 2025 now out through April 5th, 2025, the situation has never been more dire if you don't have access to a heavy rail line or BNRD route, with once again more trips removed than added for non-BNRD routes, this winter 2025.

31 weekday trips and 12 Saturday trips were removed from the schedule for non-BNRD routes systemwide. 22 bus routes see service cuts this winter, compared to only 14 bus routes seeing service increases. Even if you included all 5 BNRD bus routes, you still have more bus routes with service reductions than service increases! Weekday bus schedules have now fallen from 86.2% to 85.7% of pre-COVID levels on the non-BNRD network, and Saturday schedules down from 91.5% to 91.2%.

The T has never lied to the public this badly when the T promised "we will add a lot of net new service this coming winter".

MBTA officials told StreetsblogMASS on Wednesday that "we are adding a lot more net new service" in December, thanks to "increased operator hiring."

So why is weekday and Saturday services decreasing this winter 2025 on the non-BNRD bus network then, MBTA? Where's our bus service restorations? Over 3 years since the operator shortages struck in Winter 2022 and over 1.5 years since the Summer 2023 service cuts and the new contract. And there's nothing for existing bus riders but more service cuts; on top of the reduced schedules that have been in place since Spring 2020 5 years ago?

Type	Pre-COVID trips	Fall 2024 trips	Winter 2025 trips	Fall 2024 -> Winter 2025 change	Fall 2024 service levels	Winter 2025 service levels
Subway & Local Bus - Weekday	8309	7222	7338	+116 (+1.60%)	86.91% (-1087)	88.31% (-971)
Subway & Local Bus - Saturday	5588	5207	5370	+163 (+3.13%)	93.18% (-381)	96.09% (-218)
Subway & Local Bus - Sunday	3943	3874	4097	+223 (+5.75%)	98.25% (-69)	103.90% (+154)
Subway - Weekday	1340	1266	1313	+47 (+3.71%)	94.48% (-74)	97.98% (-27)
Subway - Saturday	996	979	1015	+36 (+3.67%)	98.29% (-17)	101.90% (+19)
Subway - Sunday	858	892	930	+38 (+4.26%)	103.96% (+34)	108.39% (+72)
Local Bus - Weekday	6969	5956	6025	+69 (+1.15%)	85.46% (-1013)	86.45% (-944)
Local Bus - Saturday	4592	4228	4355	+127 (+3.00%)	92.07% (-364)	94.83% (-237)
Local Bus - Sunday	3085	2982	3167	+185 (+6.20%)	96.66% (-103)	102.65% (+82)
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Weekday	6819	5956	6025	+69 (+1.15%)	87.34% (-863)	88.35% (-794)
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Saturday	4574	4228	4355	+127 (+3.00%)	92.43% (-346)	95.21% (-219)
Local Bus (excluding discontinued routes) - Sunday	3084	2982	3167	+185 (+6.20%)	96.69% (-102)	102.69% (+83)
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Weekday	6502	5605	5574	-31 (-0.55%)	86.20% (-897)	85.72% (-928)
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Saturday	4348	3978	3966	-12 (-0.30%)	91.49% (-370)	91.21% (-382)
Local Bus (excluding BNRD routes) - Sunday	2911	2798	2799	+1 (+0.03%)	96.11% (-113)	96.15% (-112)
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Weekday	317	351	451	+100 (+28.49%)	110.72% (+34)	142.27% (+134)
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Saturday	226	250	389	+139 (+55.60%)	110.61% (+24)	172.12% (+163)
Local Bus (BNRD routes) - Sunday	173	184	368	+184 (+100%)	106.35% (+11)	212.71% (+195)

(Post was too big so I'm splitting it below)

 

[Delvin4519]

(Post was too big so I'm splitting it below)

And the changes by route by route in the actual winter 2025 schedules

Here's the detailed changes for all routes screenshotted since I compiled it in a spreadsheet:

Red Line service increases as follows:
* Weekday service increases from every 12 - 13 minutes to every 11 - 12 minutes (on average)
* Saturday service increases from every 15 - 16 minutes to every 12 - 13 minutes
* Sunday service increases from every 16 - 17 minutes to every 13 minutes
Orange Line service increases as follows:
* Weekday service increases from every 7 minutes to every 6 - 7 minutes (on average)
* Saturday service increases from every 10 minutes to every 9 - 10 minutes
* Sunday service increases from every 12- 14 minutes to every 11 - 13 minutes
Blue Line will run 2 extra trips in the evenings on weekdays, but the average weekday headway only changes by 4 seconds (from every 5m50s to 5m46s)
Green Line frequency will decrease on all days of the week, with one exception
* Weekday frequency decreases on the B and C branches from every 8 minutes to every 8 - 9 minutes.
** D branch weekday frequency increases from every 9 minutes to every 8 - 9 minutes.
* Saturday frequency decreases on the B, C, and E branches from every 9 - 10 minutes to every 10 minutes
* Sunday frequency decreases on all branches from every 10 minutes to every 10 - 11 minutes (only 1 trip removed on each branch, so it only changes by 6 seconds)

There is also a new MBTA frequency map with the following changes to reflect changes in Sunday service
Frequency decreases:
* Route 77 - dropped below 61 Sunday trips and so is downgraded from "Every 15 - 20 minutes" to "Every 20 - 30 minutes"
Frequency increases:
* Ashmont Branch, Braintree Branch, Routes 104, 109, and 116 - all each exceed 81 Sunday trips and so move to "Every 12 - 15 minutes"
* Route 110 - exceeds 61 Sunday trips but not 81 Sunday trips, moves from "Every 30 - 60 minutes" to "Every 15 - 20 minutes"
* Route 86 - exceeds 41 Sunday trips and so moves from "Every 30 - 60 minutes" to "Every 20 - 30 minutes"

Old maps: 2023: Winter, Spring (Slow Zones), Summer, Fall; 2024: Winter, Spring, Summer (News), Fall

But if you try filtering the map to hourly and half hourly service, you get this map with one giant hole in the northwest, it wasn't there pre-COVID:

And the 30 minute network, the hole I highlighted still shows up here. You kinda have to use the 30 minute network to show all KBRs because the 71/73/77 buses decided that having less than 61 Sunday trips is "frequent".

 

[HenryAlan]

The T has never lied to the public this badly when the T promised "we will add a lot of net new service this coming winter".

I mean, your own data table proves that they didn't lie. Assuming your numbers are correct, service levels are increasing in every category over Fall 2024, with the single exception (and highly useless) of non-BNRD bus routes. By excluding the BNRD routes, you are doing something pretty similar to selecting only routes with reductions and throwing your hands up because those particular routes lost service, even though the actual data set shows that in total, bus service is increasing.

 

[Delvin4519]

I mean, your own data table proves that they didn't lie. Assuming your numbers are correct, service levels are increasing in every category over Fall 2024, with the single (and highly useless) data point of non-BNRD bus routes. By excluding the BNRD routes, you are doing something pretty similar to selecting only routes with reductions and throwing your hands up because those particular routes lost service, even though the actual data set shows that in total, bus service is increasing.

Well the new service they added isn't meant for existing riders whom are still seeing less trips than pre-COVID. The T literally only added the bulk of new service on BNRD routes only.

Any frequency increases on non-BNRD routes is essentially mostly just 1 or 2 new trips added to schedule. It's not restoring an entire bus that was removed from the schedules ages ago during COVID or right after COVID ended. Even though the 57 is getting extra service, it's coming at the expense of reduced Watertown service and it's still only 1/4th of the way back of returning to the pre-COVID service levels, and that still left Saturday service unrestored.

The T added 69 trips on weekdays across the entire bus system. However BNRD routes saw 100 new trips and non-BNRD routes had 31 trips removed from the schedule.

The new BNRD service didn't just come from new bus operators. Rather, the T took away some resources from existing bus riders (whom are still stuck with 85% of pre-COVID service) and re-allocated them to BNRD routes.

It is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We're not in a situation where the T is running 101%-102% of pre-COVID service levels systemwide across the bus network (which BNRD promised to go above pre-COVID levels by 25% to 125%). We're only at 86% of pre-COVID service levels systemwide.

 

[HenryAlan]

Well the new service they added isn't meant for existing riders whom are still seeing less trips than pre-COVID. The T literally only added the bulk of new service on BNRD routes only.

So no existing riders ride the routes that are re-configured under BNRD? Is that really your position, that it's entirely new ridership on BNRD and all existing riders are therefore less well served? This is utter nonsense and I can't believe you are actually staking out that position.

 

[Delvin4519]

So no existing riders ride the routes that are re-configured under BNRD? Is that really your position, that it's entirely new ridership on BNRD and all existing riders are therefore less well served? This is utter nonsense and I can't believe you are actually staking out that position.

BNRD would be worth the resources if both BNRD routes and non-BNRD routes saw service increases, which is what failed to happen. The T increased service on BNRD routes and decreased service on non-BNRD routes, which is the exact opposite of what needs to happen when you're at 86% of pre-COVID service levels and need to return to full service levels.

This is what I mean by when I say the T "lied about service increases", since non-BNRD routes saw an additional service decrease even with extra bus operators.

 

[stefal]

...Wasn't this known BNRD would do this?

 

[Delvin4519]

...Wasn't this known BNRD would do this?

BNRD was slated to increase bus service 25% above pre-COVID service levels. We are at 86% of pre-COVID service levels, which essentially means BNRD is a 45% increase in bus service levels from where we are today.

BNRD was never a project just to redistribute existing bus service levels, it was intended to increase bus service levels 25% systemwide.

If you're increasing bus service by 25% from where we are today, you're only increasing bus service by 7% above pre-COVID service levels. That would force cannabalization of existing routes to redraw the network.

The goal to increase overall bus service by 25 percent above pre-pandemic levels would require "an extra 440 additional drivers" plus dozens of other support positions, like bus mechanics and dispatchers, according to Melissa Dullea, the T's Senior Director of Service Planning.

That would be in addition to the 312 new bus operators the T needs to hire now to address its current shortage of bus drivers – a shortage that forced it to cut bus service this summer and last winter.

"All in all we’re looking at hiring something around 750-plus bus operators, which is closer to a 50 percent increase in the number of bus operators that we have today," said Dullea. "So it’s a really quite massive number."

 

[stefal]

BNRD was slated to increase bus service 25% above pre-COVID service levels. We are at 86% of pre-COVID service levels, which essentially means BNRD is a 45% increase in bus service levels from where we are today.

BNRD was never a project just to redistribute existing bus service levels, it was intended to increase bus service levels 25% systemwide.

If you're increasing bus service by 25% from where we are today, you're only increasing bus service by 7% above pre-COVID service levels. That would force cannabalization of existing routes to redraw the network.


View attachment 58562

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the next page in the report you're quoting:

However, with a constraint on total available resources, allocating 60 percent to highfrequency service would necessitate a significant decrease in other bus service throughout the network

 

[Delvin4519]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the next page in the report you're quoting:

That is if they did not increase bus service by 25% above pre-COVID 2019 levels. By increasing bus service by 25% above 2019 levels, the T would be able to maintain coverage of existing routes without cutting frequency back.

All of the extra frequencies BNRD would provide would come from new operators, new funding, new resources only. They would not come at the expensive of existing operators or existing routes/funding.

The T is pulling resources from existing routes this winter 2025, since weekday service is only increasing by 1% (with a net loss on non-BNRD routes), which is only 1/14th of the way to get back to just 2019 levels, let alone 25% above pre-COVID levels.

Read the second paragraph after the quote you provided:

The project team was concerned about the impacts of these constraints on the network’s ability to achieve the BNRD goals of increasing access to all-day high-frequency service while providing increased off-peak and weekend service on lower frequency service across the service area. The project team estimated that a 25 percent increase in resources would provide sufficient operating capacity to achieve the desired increases in high-frequency service while allowing the MBTA to achieve its goals of increased service on off-peak hours and weekends. The 25 percent resource increase was internally approved by the Secretary and General Manager in fall 2021, and was subsequently solidified through the following spring release of the initial draft map.

 

[Jouhou]

YOOOOOO. The green line is an absolute disaster right now. I remembered it was bad, not this bad. It took me 45 minutes to get from prudential to park street on the E line. Looking at the time for the next train reminded me of when I rode the last red line train during the snowpocalypse of 2015. It said 7-4 minutes for about 15 minutes, and then said "Stopped". When the train finally rolled up it was packed full and the people getting off were commenting on how "scared" they were by their ride amongst their selves. I stepped back and decided to just take the next train that was at that point immediately behind it. But then it was announced we were waiting for a minute before we were going to move, and then we waited for a while just short of park street too. I opted to take the orange line and walk on my way back.

 

[subway1500]

It seems there is some misunderstanding here -- @Delvin4519, what specifically are you referring to as "BNRD routes" vs "non-BNRD routes"? Are you talking about the Phase 1 BNRD routes only?

In any case, I agree with Delvin in principle. It's pretty clear that the MBTA is prioritizing the Phase 1 BNRD routes at all costs, aggressively adding service while keeping all* other bus routes at a frequency below pre-Covid levels, sometimes substantially below. (*all except obvious ones like 28 and 111)

I've mentioned the example of the 34/34E before in another thread, but here is the Winter 2025 schedule, which features a "service increase" and "trips shift throughout the day to improve crowding". Key highlights:

• 20-25min gaps still exist during the critical PM rush (e.g., 5:26 to 5:47, 6:16 to 6:35, 7:06 to 7:31). Notice the nonsensical scheduled bunching around these gaps (5:20/5:26, 6:09/6:16, 7:05/7:06)
• Late night service actually gets worse vs today: a 10:45pm trip got eliminated, creating a 40-min gap (from 10:23 to 11:04)

This is on a route that carries the same # of daily riders today as the 15, 70, 77, and 86, which also happens to be more riders than (pre-BNRD) 104, 109, 110. As an added bonus, the 34/34E are slated to get even worse once BNRD is implemented (30min headways on the 34, 60min on the 34E).

Would love to hear a defense for this, but I find it hard to imagine what that could possibly be.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Would love to hear a defense for this, but I find it hard to imagine what that could possibly be.

To try and play devil's advocate in the case of this single route, you could say that since the CR now has a reduced fare program, some people might switch to that.

Although there are a lot of flaws with that argument that make it... Questionable, at best.

 

[Delvin4519]

It seems there is some misunderstanding here -- @Delvin4519, what specifically are you referring to as "BNRD routes" vs "non-BNRD routes"? Are you talking about the Phase 1 BNRD routes only?

In any case, I agree with Delvin in principle. It's pretty clear that the MBTA is prioritizing the Phase 1 BNRD routes at all costs, aggressively adding service while keeping all* other bus routes at a frequency below pre-Covid levels, sometimes substantially below. (*all except obvious ones like 28 and 111)

I've mentioned the example of the 34/34E before in another thread, but here is the Winter 2025 schedule, which features a "service increase" and "trips shift throughout the day to improve crowding". Key highlights:

• 20-25min gaps still exist during the critical PM rush (e.g., 5:26 to 5:47, 6:16 to 6:35, 7:06 to 7:31). Notice the nonsensical scheduled bunching around these gaps (5:20/5:26, 6:09/6:16, 7:05/7:06)
• Late night service actually gets worse vs today: a 10:45pm trip got eliminated, creating a 40-min gap (from 10:23 to 11:04)

This is on a route that carries the same # of daily riders today as the 15, 70, 77, and 86, which also happens to be more riders than (pre-BNRD) 104, 109, 110. As an added bonus, the 34/34E are slated to get even worse once BNRD is implemented (30min headways on the 34, 60min on the 34E).

Would love to hear a defense for this, but I find it hard to imagine what that could possibly be.

View attachment 58575

The only bus routes I'm aware of that are planned to see service cuts in BNRD (aside from the 34/34E), is the 100 in Medford (going from every 30 to every 60), the 225 in Quincy, and the 87 in Somerville. Otherwise, all other bus routes are slated to retain pre-COVID frequencies or improve upon them.

The T really went plowing full steam ahead with BNRD despite being woefully understaffed. Despite scheduled bus service continuing to decrease since Summer 2023/Winter 2022, the T spent funds on building new bus lanes and bus stops on 2nd Street where there is no bus service today, while existing riders saw continued and repeated bus service cuts on their existing routes with each passing season since early 2022. Even after 18 months of hiring operators with a new contract with 200 new operators on board since August 2023. The 15% increase in bus operators only netted a 1% increase in weekday bus service. An absolute shameful waste of funds on brand new bus lanes and stops for new routes on new streets, while already existing bus service continues to decrease on other already existing parts of the system.

There shouldn't be any goalpost moving from restoring pre-COVID service levels. BNRD was slated to go above and beyond pre-COVID levels by 25%. There are only 3 or 4 or so routes in all of BNRD that are slated for less service than pre-COVID. Every single other route in BNRD keeps or expands frequencies. The T committed to restoring 100% of pre-COVID service levels way back in April 2021, and they've been budgeted for the full headcount all this time. Building new bus lanes does not mean allowing the T to only run 85% of pre-COVID service levels systemwide is acceptable, despite what some on the board believe is an acceptable goalpost change,

Spoiler: List of BNRD corridors slated for improved BNRD frequencies compared to pre-COVID, but have signficantly reduced current service levels compared to pre-COVID

These are all the bus routes with hit the worst with service cuts during COVID or the operator shortages, but note that Fall 2021 had 99% of the systemwide pre-COVID service levels (per TransitMatters), so almost all of these service cuts are entirely bus operator induced. All routes with arrows are those slated for BNRD frequency improvements compared to pre-COVID.

17% Weekday service cut from pre-COVID or worse	Saturday service cut compared to pre-COVID	Sunday service cut compared to pre-COVID

The coordination issue also affects the 99/106 on Main St in Everett, the 35/36 in West Roxbury, and the 134/100/108 on Fellsway in Medford. I have no idea why the schedules aren't coordinated for these corridors. That would give 40 minute Sunday frequency on Main St. in Everett, 20 minute frequency to West Roxbury, and 25 minute frequency on Fellsway in Medford to Wellington. Lack of coordination results in these corridors having less than hourly Sunday service (save for 30-60 minute Sunday service in West Roxbury).