The BNRD interactive map has been updated to reflect this reroute, but the static PDF map (which has not been updated) shows that the routing was originally expected to be mostly unchanged, except that the route would be revised to (somewhat controversially, IIRC) bypass Sullivan to go directly to Assembly. The update to the interactive map shows that they now plan to maintain service at Sullivan (probably because getting from Washington Street to Assembly requires going right past Sullivan anyway.)
As noted in an aside by Teban54 above, this reroute means that all of Cross Street will lose bus service once the BNRD is fully implemented. The portion between McGrath Highway and Pearl Street will still be served by the 80 for the time being, but the portion of the 80 east of Powderhouse Circle is slated for elimination under the BNRD as it essentially duplicates the GLX. However, most people who currently use the buses on Cross Street will likely be able to use buses on Broadway (89 and 101) or Washington Street (rerouted 90 and 109*) instead. Under the BNRD, the 101 is slated to become a frequent route and the 109 has already been made a frequent route in Phase 1.
*The 91 and CT2 also currently serve this segment of Washington Street, but those routes are also slated for elimination under the BNRD.
Here are some minor changes based on what I remember from the Summer 2024 version. Unfortunately, the 2024 version was not archived. (An archive of the original Revised Bus Network Map in 2022 is here; only minor changes were made in 2024 and 2025.)
Route 85
Recall that BNRD's Route 85 is essentially today's Route CT2 south of Ruggles, but with an entirely new alignment between Union Sq (Somerville) and Assembly. This section was changed in 2025:
Amended to McGrath Hwy, skipping Cross St; likely for the same reason as Route 90 above
No longer makes a loop in Assembly Row via the Orange Line station, instead using Grand Union Blvd in both directions
This means the 85 no longer connects to OL
In the Union Square area, southbound 85 (to Ruggles) uses Somerville Ave and Webster Ave again (as per today's CT2), instead of straight through Prospect St in both directions (as per BNRD 2024)
Unclear if this was due to community feedback
The Somerville Ave @ Western Ave stop is closer to most destinations in Union Square and transfers to more buses
However, transfer with GLX Union Square becomes less convenient
Northbound 85 (to Assembly) still use Prospect St northbound, stopping directly at GLX Union Square station
Also note that the 47 remains unchanged and uses Prospect St in both directions, even though its predecessor, the 91, uses Somerville Ave southbound
(Note: Don't take the lack of stops on McGrath Hwy at face value. New stops on roads that do not currently have MBTA buses have not been finalized as of the current maps.)
(Inbound)
Route 90
As @alewife mentioned above, the 2025 BNRD map basically makes the 90's route in the East Somerville-Assembly area identical to the Summer 2025 changes via Washington St.
Previously, the 2022 BNRD map suggested two changes to Route 90 below. Neither appear in the 2025 map, which now uses Washington St instead of Cross St and Broadway.
The 2022 proposal called for Route 90 to skip Sullivan Square, heading directly between Broadway and Assembly.
The 2022 proposal also called for Route 90 to make a loop in Assembly Row via the Orange Line station, just like the 85.
This means the 90 also no longer connects to OL Assembly, but it retains the OL connection at Sullivan (which is more popular)
Note: Route 113, the last of the three Assembly routes, has not yet been changed on the Summer 2025 map, and still makes the loop via Assembly OL. As the 113 comes from Chelsea and Everett, it also serves Sullivan. I think the 113's Assembly loop is also unlikely to last, but for the moment, there's no official evidence of this.
(Outbound)
Routes 66 and 86
Originally, in the 2022 Revised Network Map, the 66 and 86 were planned to make the loop around (and layover at) Waterhouse St north of Harvard Square, similar to what the 71 and the 73 did when they used trolleybuses until 2022.
This change no longer appears in the 2025 BNRD map. Now, it calls for the 66 and the 86 to maintain the status quo:
Northbound buses terminate at Harvard Upper Busway, then makes a non-revenue turn to Dawes Island and layover there.
Southbound buses pick up at Dawes Island as the first stop.
It's unclear why the Waterhouse St loop was suggested in the first place. Unlike the 71 and the 73, the 2022 map didn't even have the 66 and the 86 use the lower busway for boarding; it also didn't have the 66 use the upper busway for alignting. If it did, we could have suspected that they wanted the 66 and the 86 to use left-door buses, but now that's moot.
Perhaps they were initially concerned about Dawes Island's ability for 2 routes to layover? Now that the 86 has been truncated for half a year, they may have decided that it's no longer an issue.
Longwood Notice
A new textbox has been added to Longwood Medical Area:
Originally, in the 2022 Revised Network Map, the 66 and 86 were planned to make the loop around (and layover at) Waterhouse St north of Harvard Square, similar to what the 71 and the 73 did when they used trolleybuses until 2022.
This change no longer appears in the 2025 BNRD map. Now, it calls for the 66 and the 86 to maintain the status quo:
Northbound buses terminate at Harvard Upper Busway, then makes a non-revenue turn to Dawes Island and layover there.
Southbound buses pick up at Dawes Island as the first stop.
It's unclear why the Waterhouse St loop was suggested in the first place. Unlike the 71 and the 73, the 2022 map didn't even have the 66 and the 86 use the lower busway for boarding; it also didn't have the 66 use the upper busway for alignting. If it did, we could have suspected that they wanted the 66 and the 86 to use left-door buses, but now that's moot.
Perhaps they were initially concerned about Dawes Island's ability for 2 routes to layover? Now that the 86 has been truncated for half a year, they may have decided that it's no longer an issue.
Based on my observations, the 66 and 86 currently loop around Cambridge Common via Waterhouse Street to lay over after alighting in the upper busway, as the 71 and 73 did in the trackless trolley era (and are planned to when left-door-equipped BEBs enter service at North Cambridge).
However, unlike the 71 and 73, those routes do not serve any of the stops on the loop (Garden St/Mason St and Waterhouse St/Mass Ave), which is likely why it doesn't appear on the map.
Based on my observations, the 66 and 86 currently loop around Cambridge Common via Waterhouse Street to lay over after alighting in the upper busway, as the 71 and 73 did in the trackless trolley era (and are planned to when left-door-equipped BEBs enter service at North Cambridge).
However, unlike the 71 and 73, those routes do not serve any of the stops on the loop (Garden St/Mason St and Waterhouse St/Mass Ave), which is likely why it doesn't appear on the map.
The Waterhouse and former Dawes Island layovers also have space on Mass Ave south of Waterhouse now: these parking spaces: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Yjgax8HRhADaYWgd7
They're trying to address bus layover in active stops because a bus laying over at Dawes Island for example blocks accessible boarding for other routes.
Mattapan meeting set for 4-7 at veterans’ post A city council oversight hearing planned for Tuesday afternoon (June 10) in Mattapan Square will offer a fresh update on the long-anticipated infrastructure plan intended to improve safety and access to public transit along the Blue Hill Avenue...
Differences aired at Tuesday hearing in Mattapan Square City officials and their key supporters reiterated their support this week for the advance of plans for a controversial center bus lane on Blue Hill Avenue, while a considerable number of the residents spoke roundly against the idea at a...
Differences aired at Tuesday hearing in Mattapan Square City officials and their key supporters reiterated their support this week for the advance of plans for a controversial center bus lane on Blue Hill Avenue, while a considerable number of the residents spoke roundly against the idea at a...
First, these people don’t represent the “community”. It was 100 people. Second, the whole idea of community process has gone so far to the extreme… maybe urban renewal in the 60s was too extreme, but at a certain point the govt needs to make changes for the greater good and recognize that individuals never embrace the changes most needed if you ask them.
One wonders how the 28 ever had the ability to become the highest-ridership route in the entire MBTA bus system when we're told so repeatedly that every user of BHA needs a parking space and that local civilization would collapse with even 1 space's worth of reduction.
This would be a great improvement. Similar to the Blue Hill Ave conversation, bike lanes would be a great plus (I want them as much as possible) but the bus lanes are the shining gem of that proposal.
I get a kick out of the folks who talk about not seeing bikes as a reason for not have the space for them. I'm willing to bet back in the early days of cars, the idea of building roads with asphalt that was bad for horse's feet was also looked upon poorly.
This would be a great improvement. Similar to the Blue Hill Ave conversation, bike lanes would be a great plus (I want them as much as possible) but the bus lanes are the shining gem of that proposal.
I get a kick out of the folks who talk about not seeing bikes as a reason for not have the space for them. I'm willing to bet back in the early days of cars, the idea of building roads with asphalt that was bad for horse's feet was also looked upon poorly.
Also, you don't see many cars on dead end streets for the same reason you don't see many bikes on dead end bike lanes. Until the network is complete, connected, and goes somewhere, it will be underutilized.
First, these people don’t represent the “community”. It was 100 people. Second, the whole idea of community process has gone so far to the extreme… maybe urban renewal in the 60s was too extreme, but at a certain point the govt needs to make changes for the greater good and recognize that individuals never embrace the changes most needed if you ask them.
Somehow they dont see the irony in claiming making all spots 15min only would fix everything but also that they themselves ignore the current 30min limit. They then claim they want people to come and stay in the neighborhood patroning their business but also want people to get ticketed for their 15min parking idea. I grabbed a sub at Brothers last week (by bus) and just getting my order in and recieved was 15min. All the other business in the area like groceries, appliance stores, and hair salons will take even longer. This is all not to mention they already did a parking analysis study that revealed only like one side of one segment had parking usage at or exceeding 100% during rush hour only. Which they accounted for in their redesign, strategically increasing spots in that area at a reduction in a less utilized area. This is all all not factoring a single 28 carries more people than every car filling every spot on one side of the existing BHA configuration.
