General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[bigeman312]

I guess we need to agree to disagree.

If the T can chose any arbitrary speed to not be a slow zone, then what is to stop them from declaring the new optimal speed is 30 mph, or 20 mph. Speed limit all the lines and nothing is a slow zone.

I hold my point that anything below the design speed for the line is a slow zone.

I don’t understand this logic. The track conditions (which can necessitate slow zones) and the line speed limit set by regulatory standards are two completely different things.

Maybe a road analogy will help you understand the situation better:

My street used to have a speed limit of 25 mph. Now, my street has a speed limit of 20 mph. Imagine the city promises to repair and repave the street to remove all pot holes and bring the surface up to a state of good repair. Now, imagine they do exactly what they promise. Hooray! They achieved their stated goal!

Did they move the goal posts by not reverting back to the 25 mph speed limit of yesteryear? Obviously not.

If you don’t agree with that, and believe that means the city moved the goals posts, then you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye about what the phrase “move the goalposts” means, and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I don’t understand this logic. The track conditions (which can necessitate slow zones) and the line speed limit set by regulatory standards are two completely different things.

Maybe a road analogy will help you understand the situation better:

My street used to have a speed limit of 25 mph. Now, my street has a speed limit of 20 mph. Imagine the city promises to repair and repave the street to remove all pot holes and bring the surface up to a state of good repair. Now, imagine they do exactly what they promise. Hooray! They achieved their stated goal!

Did they move the goal posts by not reverting back to the 25 mph speed limit of yesteryear? Obviously not.

If you don’t agree with that, and believe that means the city moved the goals posts, then you and I are simply not going to see eye to eye about what the phrase “move the goalposts” means, and will have to agree to disagree.

In the 1970's and 80's we (transit consumers) bought Red Line transit extensions, parts of which had 50 mph capabilities. That was the spec of what we purchased.

Today, those line extensions can only operate at 40 mph -- only 80 % of what we purchased as a transit line. 40 mph is slower than 50 mph -- we do not yet have back what we purchased as transit.

I am not saying this track work was supposed to get us back to design specifications. But until ALL the work needed to restore full performance is completed the line is still slower than what we paid for.

 

[Delvin4519]

BNRD Phase 1 is starting and the MBTA failed to undo the Summer 2023 bus service reductions for the Winter 2025 service changes.

Bus service that was taken away under Eng and under the previous administration, from Winter 2022 - Summer 2023 for the operator shortage has still NOT been brought back and restored.

Winter 2025 Service Changes | Previous Service Changes | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.

www.mbta.com

Here are some frequency reductions for non-BNRD routes:
Route 9: Frequency decreases in the late morning
Route 83: Frequency decreases during the midday period for a more imbalanced peak heavy schedule
Route 101: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 210: Weekday frequency decreases during all daytime hours
Route 220: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 222: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 450: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 505: Eliminated 1 AM roundtrip.

 

[Stlin]

BNRD Phase 1 is starting and the MBTA failed to undo the Summer 2023 bus service reductions for the Winter 2025 service changes.

Bus service that was taken away under Eng and under the previous administration, from Winter 2022 - Summer 2023 for the operator shortage has still NOT been brought back and restored.

Winter 2025 Service Changes | Previous Service Changes | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.

www.mbta.com

Here are some frequency reductions for non-BNRD routes:
Route 9: Frequency decreases in the late morning
Route 83: Frequency decreases during the midday period for a more imbalanced peak heavy schedule
Route 101: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 210: Weekday frequency decreases during all daytime hours
Route 220: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 222: Frequency decreases on all days
Route 450: Weekday frequency decreases
Route 505: Eliminated 1 AM roundtrip.

Look, I know this is a subject you care deeply about, so I'm going to point you at another data set. The below is what transit agencies report to the FTA on a monthly basis for the NTD. You'll want to filter it to the MBTA before downloading it, but you can filter mode to MB, Directly Operated (so as to exclude the Silver Line [characterized as RB,] DPV operated routes and contracted shuttles). The columns you'd be interested in are total vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours - those represent how much total bus service the T is providing over the monthly period. You'll notice it isn't adjusted for 30/31 day months, let alone February, and the most recent available data point is July 24, which I'll point out is when the T was at the bottom of its operator count - per the payroll, they had 1351 operators then. Given that, this is probably the most accurate way of quantifying exactly how much bus service the T in the aggregate is providing without relying on schedule changes, which don't reflect the reality of dropped trips or traffic.

If buses were running slower due to traffic, for example, you'd expect to see revenue hours remain high while miles decline - the inverse should be true if buses were running faster due to bus lanes. If all else remained equal, If the T were decreasing service, both would decline in equal proportion.

Monthly Modal Time Series | Department of Transportation - Data Portal

data.transportation.gov

 

[Delvin4519]

Look, I know this is a subject you care deeply about, so I'm going to point you at another data set. The below is what transit agencies report to the FTA on a monthly basis for the NTD. You'll want to filter it to the MBTA before downloading it, but you can filter mode to MB, Directly Operated (so as to exclude the Silver Line [characterized as RB,] DPV operated routes and contracted shuttles). The columns you'd be interested in are total vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours - those represent how much total bus service the T is providing over the monthly period. You'll notice it isn't adjusted for 30/31 day months, let alone February, and the most recent available data point is July 24, which I'll point out is when the T was at the bottom of its operator count - per the payroll, they had 1351 operators then. Given that, this is probably the most accurate way of quantifying exactly how much bus service the T in the aggregate is providing without relying on schedule changes, which don't reflect the reality of dropped trips or traffic.

If buses were running slower due to traffic, for example, you'd expect to see revenue hours remain high while miles decline - the inverse should be true if buses were running faster due to bus lanes. If all else remained equal, If the T were decreasing service, both would decline in equal proportion.

Monthly Modal Time Series | Department of Transportation - Data Portal

data.transportation.gov

Well of course I'm very disillusioned with the T's decision to rob Peter to pay Paul in not recovering service levels that were cut for the operator shortages, then move ahead with Phase 1, knowingly still a ways to go to get to Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

I'm seeing 200-220k revenue service hours between September 2019 through February 2020.

July 2024 is about 175k revenue service hours. Still 83% of pre-COVID service levels. How would one calculate if the upcoming MBTA schedule's release in the next week or two, if there are 220k scheduled service hours per month, instead of just waiting until June 2025 for the federal dataset to be updated?

I'm quite certain that based on what the MBTA written in their Winter 2025 service changes, they did not increase service levels by 14 - 22% to return to the Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

 

[Stlin]

Well of course I'm very disillusioned with the T's decision to rob Peter to pay Paul in not recovering service levels that were cut for the operator shortages, then move ahead with Phase 1, knowingly still a ways to go to get to Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

I'm seeing 200-220k revenue service hours between September 2019 through February 2020.

July 2024 is about 175k revenue service hours. Still 83% of pre-COVID service levels. How would one calculate if the upcoming MBTA schedule's release in the next week or two, if there are 220k schedule servive hours per month, instead of just waiting until June 2025 for the FTA dataset to be updated?

I'm quite certain that based on what the MBTA written in their Winter 2025 service changes, they did not increase service levels by 14 - 22% to return to the Fall 2021/2019 service levels.

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.

 

[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.

If operators are having less overtime, that's going to require more operators to make up the shortfall of operators running 30% fewer hours.

8% fewer revenue service miles is still a service reduction of 8%. That's not acceptable. At the very least, either scheduled hours, revenue hours, OR revenue miles needs to be equal to the pre-pandemic equivalant. If all 3 metrics show a reduction (or a still understaffed bus operator headcount) from pre-COVID (or Fall 2021), that means that Eng has still failed (or yet) to deliver the promise of restored service for bus riders.

It's been 5 years since COVID. The service cuts have been in place for 2 -3 years now. The new contract will have been in place for 19 months by March 2025. Bus riders cannot continue to put up with a 6th year of 45 minute weekday headways or 70 minute Sunday headways, when pre-COVID the buses ran every 7 - 20 minutes. BNRD would restore service to these routes to every 8 - 15 minutes, but the answer cannot be to tell them to wait for BNRD Phase 5 in 2029 just to get their pre-COVID service back.

You also have to note that the T also have more bus operators out on leave at any given time now, than pre-COVID. This means the T has to to reach the full headcount to make up such a shortfall.

Another key difference between now and pre-pandemic service (and one we didn't mention in the article) is that the new Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act took effect in 2021.

We've heard anecdotal reports that under that new law, more employees are on the payroll but not working – i.e., higher numbers of "inactive" employees at any given time.

If that's true, then the T needs to increase its workforce above and beyond the headcount it had in 2019 to make up the difference and restore pre-pandemic service levels.

We realistically won't get any data on the December 2024 revenue service hours from the T itself until around January 20th, when the T posts it's monthly bus arrival departure report, unless @StreetsblogMASS asks the T again in the next two weeks. The most recent report from StreetsBLOG Mass has the T at 12% below pre-COVID service levels during Fall 2024 in terms of revenue service hours, which was directly quoted from the MBTA.

 

[as02155]

I am not saying this track work was supposed to get us back to design specifications. But until ALL the work needed to restore full performance is completed the line is still slower than what we paid for.

As a regular Green Line rider - I agree generally that the Track Improvement Program is not delivering us to before this whole mess. It's much better than rock bottom, but, we still have quite a bit to go. The best example is that the MBTA is running at 10 mph on all switches. Before 2020, the T would run their Green Line trains on a switch regularly at 25 mph. They changed their speed limits because of the state of decay in the multiple systems that we have - signals, tracks, vehicles.

My coworkers coming from the South Shore on the Red Line also note a lot of slower zones as well - inbound more than outbound - what should be 40 mph sections seem to also have the same switch issues that the Green Line does with 10? 15 mph speeds over switches? I don't understand why that would be the case.

Perhaps a good example is how long it will take the T to get back on the good side of the Feds and State safety organizations is WMATA. It's taken them 15 years to get back to operating with ATO - the crash was in 2009 - they're just now announcing the launch of operator-monitored ATO in December. Eng and Co. can clearly move organizational and engineering mountains to get from rock bottom, but, it will be a steady climb back from where we are until where the subway needs to be.

 

[Delvin4519]

As a regular Green Line rider - I agree generally that the Track Improvement Program is not delivering us to before this whole mess. It's much better than rock bottom, but, we still have quite a bit to go. The best example is that the MBTA is running at 10 mph on all switches. Before 2020, the T would run their Green Line trains on a switch regularly at 25 mph. They changed their speed limits because of the state of decay in the multiple systems that we have - signals, tracks, vehicles.

My coworkers coming from the South Shore on the Red Line also note a lot of slower zones as well - inbound more than outbound - what should be 40 mph sections seem to also have the same switch issues that the Green Line does with 10? 15 mph speeds over switches? I don't understand why that would be the case.

Perhaps a good example is how long it will take the T to get back on the good side of the Feds and State safety organizations is WMATA. It's taken them 15 years to get back to operating with ATO - the crash was in 2009 - they're just now announcing the launch of operator-monitored ATO in December. Eng and Co. can clearly move organizational and engineering mountains to get from rock bottom, but, it will be a steady climb back from where we are until where the subway needs to be.

This is backed up in TransitMatters data as well.

Kenmore - Haymarket eastbound was 14 minutes pre-COVID, now with all eastbound slow zones gone since March 2024, it's still 1.5 minutes slower than pre-COVID.

The Green Line is slower than it ever has been even before all this slow zone saga started, slower than almost every point pre-COVID.

Between an extra slow Green Line that has somehow resulted after "fixing all Green Line slow zones", and a promise from Eng to "restore bus service" that has failed this winter after 5 long years. I've never felt that the T has ever been even worse than it ever has been since 2023, 2022, or 2018-19.

The only single benefit of the TIP program or from any of Eng's promises made since 2023 that I've ever received is a slightly faster Orange Line (and I will only finally be receiving shorter off peak OL headways this upcoming winter, I've had to wait a whole extra year to get improved OL off-peak frequencies). All it does is that it means spending more time waiting for buses that have yet to get their pre-COVID service restored, and more time spent creeping along the Green Line where slow zones were allegedly fixed but somehow slower than pre-COVID.

This all absolutely blows. Can the T even get around fixing the buses next spring before the fiscal cliff arrives?

The extra OL frequencies and speed do very little to make up for the doubled bus headways or extra-slow Green Line. Hard to enjoy the extra OL trains with extra speed when only half of the buses from pre-COVID are running. Any time saving on the OL is instead used up by the GL or the buses.

 

[LtKije]

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?

 

[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?

(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.