MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[themissinglink]

Fresh round of public meetings on 'updated' Blue Hill Avenue project set for September - Dorchester Reporter

City and MBTA officials will convene a new round of public meetings in September about a $135M plan to modernize Blue Hill Avenue.

www.dotnews.com

The major infrastructure project, in the works for several years and the subject of dozens of meetings already, has been dogged by vocal opponents who say one of its central features— a center-running bus lane— may be disruptive to businesses and is unwanted by many who live in the community and use the roadway.
The new round of four public meetings will begin with a town hall meeting on Thurs., Sept. 10 at Morning Star Baptist Church in Mattapan. Three additional meetings are planned in both Dorchester and Mattapan through the end of September.
[...]
In announcing the meetings, a city statement provided to The Reporter referred to an updated design and a willingness to “gather additional public feedback.” It also signals ongoing support for moving forward, hailing the project as “the largest investment in the Blue Hill Avenue streetscape in decades.
“It will fund a full reconstruction of the roadway and sidewalks along the three-mile corridor and add new streetlights, trees, street furniture, safer crossings, and additional improvements. The proposed center-running bus lanes are expected to reduce travel times for all bus routes on Blue Hill Avenue. Route 28 trips from Mattapan to Grove Hall will be shortened by approximately 10-15 minutes during rush hour––cutting trip times in half,” the city statement reads.
City and MBTA officials have not yet indicated whether revisions to the design will change the cost estimate or specific design elements. But Osgood emphasized that the revised plans would result in a net increase in parking spaces and retain at least two general traffic lanes in each direction through most of the corridor. The design also calls for signalized left turns and U-turns at selected intersections, nearly 200 new street trees, 185 pedestrian ramps, and 20 additional signalized crosswalks.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Fresh round of public meetings on 'updated' Blue Hill Avenue project set for September - Dorchester Reporter

City and MBTA officials will convene a new round of public meetings in September about a $135M plan to modernize Blue Hill Avenue.

www.dotnews.com

"A net increase in parking" will be provided in the project. Yup, gotta have that parking. Forget the bus lanes, but that parking is sacrosanct.
There weren't any proposed cross-sections provided in the write-up, but I do really hope that continuous (no gaps) center bus lanes are still in the design.

 

[BeansTheCat]

The article seems to mostly be excerpts from this MBTA press release: https://www.mbta.com/news/2026-07-3...phil-eng-mayor-michelle-wu-announce-community
Of note, the new plans will be "providing a two-way protected lane for bicyclists" which is somewhat encouraging. However, I imagine this has more to do with reducing the space taken up by bike lanes than anything else.

"A net increase in parking" will be provided in the project. Yup, gotta have that parking. Forget the bus lanes, but that parking is sacrosanct.
There weren't any proposed cross-sections provided in the write-up, but I do really hope that continuous (no gaps) center bus lanes are still in the design.

I don't think having the bus lanes stretch across the whole corridor is that big of a deal, especially given that they are center-running. The biggest speed increases will come from lanes around stops, to reduce dwell times, and around traffic signals, to prevent delays of multiple light cycles. There will likely be mid-block sections of BHA where the presence of bus lanes will have little to no impact on speeds. While it certainly never hurts to have additional, dedicated bus lanes, if adding some (ideally paid) parking finally gets the project moving forward, it's more than worth it. This could also mean that whatever additional political capital that would have been spent here can now be used for mobility improvements in other parts of the city.

 

[Delvin4519]

Bus routes to be shifted garages in the Fall

(Route 16 will be transferred to Arborway Garage 09/06/26)

(Routes 24, 26, and 33 will be transferred to Quincy Garage 09/06/26)

MBTAInventory.pdf

drive.google.com

Source: NE transit

 

[Delvin4519]

This motivated me to recreate Riverside's 2020/2021 maps of frequent rush hour services. While I have long concentrated my mapmaking primarily on 7 day a week morning til midnight service (i.e., minimum Sunday service standards), rush hour service did take a huge hit during COVID, which Riverside's maps today are essentially useless due to all of those service cuts. In addition, with the MBTA insanely and stupidly plowing "full steam ahead" despite its own forecast indicating it being hudnreds short of 1,750/1,867 by December 2024 & filling in vacancies into January 2025; Fall 2024 is also likely "the last pre-BNRD bus schedule rating".

Here's maps of 15 minute frequencies, based on whatever the MBTA provided in their systemwide map PDF frequencies for Fall 2024.

(Note: 15 minutes still isn't "show up and go", it's still "check departures & go", but using 10 minutes would make the maps essentially empty)

Weekday AM Peak - (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM) - Fall 2024	Weekday Midday (9:00 AM - 4:00 PM) - Fall 2024	Weekday PM Peak (4:00 PM - 6:30 PM) - Fall 2024
View attachment 55229	View attachment 55099	View attachment 55230

Weekday Evening (6:30 PM - 8:00 PM) - Fall 2024	Saturday Midday (11:00 AM - 5:00 PM) - Fall 2024	Sunday Midday (11:00 AM - 5:00 PM) - Fall 2024
View attachment 55231	View attachment 55095	View attachment 55088

Notes:

Even with anaylsis of weekday schedules: Medford, Charlestown, and Malden; still all been really hurt by all the 2021-2024 service cuts. No frequent routes AT ALL in Medford in Charlestown; not even rush hour!!! All TAKEN AWAY since 2020! Malden lost it's Medford Sq. and Main St. combined frequencies of 15 minutes during rush hour it had pre-COVID.

Anyhow, this analysis and update/revision of Riverside's 2020 rush hour frequency maps to reflect Fall 2024 service levels needed to be done. Those pre-COVID maps hardly reflect how much service was cut down, reduced, and cut back between 2021 and 2024.

I have also updated the 15 minute and 10 minute maps by time of day/week to the Summer 2026 schedule, (and fixed a few bugs).

 

[erf51trains]

Anderson RTC Bus Route
I propose an extention of a bus route to the Anderson RTC (known to the T as Anderson/Woburn). This assumes BNRD, with the 131 being extended to Woburn Center and the 350 being renumbered to the 80.

Option 1:
A bus from Woburn to Anderson RTC via Merrimac Street, New Boston Street, and Presidential Way.
Alternative 1a:
All 134 buses turn off Main Street at Merrimac Street, bypassing some residential neighborhoods in North Woburn.

Alternative 1b:
Alternating 134 buses run to Anderson RTC, with the others following the existing route through North Woburn, providing service to both, albeit at a reduced frequency.

Option 2:
A bus from Woburn to Anderson RTC via Salem Street, Washington Street, and Commerce Way, including Cummings Park and the Woburn Mall, with the 131 and 354 dropping their Bow Street/Pine Street and W Cummings Park deviations.
Alternative 2a:
An extension of the 134 terminating at Wellington, with trips alternating to North Woburn and Anderson RTC, either at current 25 minute combined rush-hour frequency splitting to 50 on the branches, or at 15 minute combined rush-hour frequency splitting to 30 on the branches. (Potentially numbered 135, but running with the 134 to Wellington)

Alternative 2b:
A new bus route (135) terminating at either (1) Woburn Center, or (2) the 4 Corners intersection (Lexington Street and Cambridge Road) to transfer with the 80.

Alternative 2c:
A new bus route (135) terminating at (1) Montvale Avenue for transfers to the 354 and 131, or (2) Haymarket (Express) via Pine Street and Center Street, effectively a revival of the 355. Possibly (1) off-peak and (2) rush hour?

Alternative 2d:
A new bus (135) from Woburn (terminating at (1) Woburn Center, (2) 4 Corners, (3) Montvale Avenue, or (4) Haymarket as described in 2b and 2c respectively), running up Salem Street and Washington street, but instead of Commerce Way, running via Mishawum Road , New Boston Street, and Presidential Way, absorbing the Senior Center deviation from the 134.

For options 2b, 2c, 2d, the 135 could be a contracted bus route by the City of Woburn or Cummings instead of a MBTA route

 

[erf51trains]

Anderson RTC Bus Route
I propose an extention of a bus route to the Anderson RTC (known to the T as Anderson/Woburn). This assumes BNRD, with the 131 being extended to Woburn Center and the 350 being renumbered to the 80.

Option 1:
A bus from Woburn to Anderson RTC via Merrimac Street, New Boston Street, and Presidential Way.
Alternative 1a:
All 134 buses turn off Main Street at Merrimac Street, bypassing some residential neighborhoods in North Woburn.
View attachment 75068
Alternative 1b:
Alternating 134 buses run to Anderson RTC, with the others following the existing route through North Woburn, providing service to both, albeit at a reduced frequency.

View attachment 75069
Option 2:
A bus from Woburn to Anderson RTC via Salem Street, Washington Street, and Commerce Way, including Cummings Park and the Woburn Mall, with the 131 and 354 dropping their Bow Street/Pine Street and W Cummings Park deviations.
Alternative 2a:
An extension of the 134 terminating at Wellington, with trips alternating to North Woburn and Anderson RTC, either at current 25 minute combined rush-hour frequency splitting to 50 on the branches, or at 15 minute combined rush-hour frequency splitting to 30 on the branches. (Potentially numbered 135, but running with the 134 to Wellington)
View attachment 75070
Alternative 2b:
A new bus route (135) terminating at either (1) Woburn Center, or (2) the 4 Corners intersection (Lexington Street and Cambridge Road) to transfer with the 80.
View attachment 75071
Alternative 2c:
A new bus route (135) terminating at (1) Montvale Avenue for transfers to the 354 and 131, or (2) Haymarket (Express) via Pine Street and Center Street, effectively a revival of the 355. Possibly (1) off-peak and (2) rush hour?
View attachment 75072
Alternative 2d:
A new bus (135) from Woburn (terminating at (1) Woburn Center, (2) 4 Corners, (3) Montvale Avenue, or (4) Haymarket as described in 2b and 2c respectively), running up Salem Street and Washington street, but instead of Commerce Way, running via Mishawum Road , New Boston Street, and Presidential Way, absorbing the Senior Center deviation from the 134.
View attachment 75073
For options 2b, 2c, 2d, the 135 could be a contracted bus route by the City of Woburn or Cummings instead of a MBTA route

I just realized that this is basically what the MBTA wanted to do with the initial BNRD plan

 

[bweiss1967]

Now that the BEBs with left-hand doors are starting to appear with some regularity on runs that go through Harvard, does anyone have a sense when the T will start to run the outbound 71 and 73 on the lower busway? The strange go-north-to-turn-around-and-go-through-the-Square-at-street-level route has definitely lost its charm!

I've been a little surprised to see the electric buses on the 74 and 75, perhaps even more than on the 71 and 73, despite the fact that the left-side door is basically irrelevant on those routes.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Now that the BEBs with left-hand doors are starting to appear with some regularity on runs that go through Harvard, does anyone have a sense when the T will start to run the outbound 71 and 73 on the lower busway? The strange go-north-to-turn-around-and-go-through-the-Square-at-street-level route has definitely lost its charm!

I've been a little surprised to see the electric buses on the 74 and 75, perhaps even more than on the 71 and 73, despite the fact that the left-side door is basically irrelevant on those routes.

North Cambridge garage still isn't open, so they aren't running a full-enough fleet of BEB's to take over 100% of those routes and diesel-hybrids are still load-bearing for them at this time. Charlestown garage, where the fleet is temporarily based, only has a couple charging bays.

 

[Roxxma]

Yeah, that was an inexplicable update to the original plan. Why have the terminus at a dusty turnaround in a low density area just over the Wilmington line instead of at a major regional transportation center less than a mile away with connections to several other modes and is surrounded by hundreds of apartments and businesses? It makes little sense. Maybe plans will change once the new New Boston Street bridge is completed, but in the meantime they should stick to the original plan.

When this came out, I also suggested extending the terminus of the 131 bus from Woburn Center either to Chestnut and Cambridge Streets in Burlington via Winn St -which would provide new service between Burlington and Woburn centers via Winnmere, which is relatively densely populated- to meet the MBTA's 350 and 354 and the LRTA's 13 and 21 buses (the 21 is the LRTA's new hourly route from Wilmington Depot to the Burlington Mall and Lahey Clinic via LaCascia's Bakery (aka Chestnut and Cambridge) and Burlington Center), or extending it to Woburn Four Corners to meet the 350 to make better connections between the Malden/Everett/Revere area and jobs in Burlington.

 

[BeansTheCat]

Updates to the Blue Hill Avenue center bus lanes and road redesign. No full roll plan yet, but there's enough information to get a good understand of what will be there.

Blue Hill Ave. overhaul gets fresh design pitch ahead of community meetings - Dorchester Reporter

City and MBTA officials have a substantially revised plan for the $163 million reconstruction of Blue Hill Avenue to show the public in a series of four meetings that start next week.

www.dotnews.com

The revised proposal shown to The Reporter on Thursday differs significantly from the conceptual design first shown publicly two years ago in multiple ways:

• The new design scales back and consolidates the proposed bike infrastructure. Instead of separate northbound and southbound bike lanes along most of Blue Hill Avenue, the new plan calls for a two-way, sidewalk-level path on the west side of the street, running from Woodhaven Street a half mile north of Mattapan Square and ending at Franklin Park. Officials said the change frees up space for more parking and vehicle travel lanes. The bike path would not continue through every part of the corridor, including Mattapan Square. As Mayor Wu noted, “there are really no bike facilities anywhere along Blue Hill Avenue today,” adding that the project would be “not only protecting them but actually creating them.”

• More than 70 percent of the corridor would now have at least two general-purpose travel lanes in each direction. In lower-volume areas, one lane could be used at certain times for parking and at peak periods for moving traffic. The previous design would have reduced traffic to one lane in a direction on certain stretches.

• It adds 42 new parking spaces along the corridor, a benefit achieved by moving bus stop zones away from curbs.

 

[Badusername]

Updates to the Blue Hill Avenue center bus lanes and road redesign. No full roll plan yet, but there's enough information to get a good understand of what will be there.

Blue Hill Ave. overhaul gets fresh design pitch ahead of community meetings - Dorchester Reporter

City and MBTA officials have a substantially revised plan for the $163 million reconstruction of Blue Hill Avenue to show the public in a series of four meetings that start next week.

www.dotnews.com

Those stretches with two lanes, angled parking, and no bike lane are going to be nightmarish for cyclists. Also expect a lot of pedestrians hit in the double threat crosswalks throughout the corridor. Still an improvement over what's there, but another disappointment from the Wu admin.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Updates to the Blue Hill Avenue center bus lanes and road redesign. No full roll plan yet, but there's enough information to get a good understand of what will be there.

Blue Hill Ave. overhaul gets fresh design pitch ahead of community meetings - Dorchester Reporter

City and MBTA officials have a substantially revised plan for the $163 million reconstruction of Blue Hill Avenue to show the public in a series of four meetings that start next week.

www.dotnews.com

At least they kept the center-running bus lanes, which preserves space for a future LRV line. But the new plan does give way too much to the pro-parking NIMBYs.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Those stretches with two lanes, angled parking, and no bike lane are going to be nightmarish for cyclists. Also expect a lot of pedestrians hit in the double threat crosswalks throughout the corridor. Still an improvement over what's there, but another disappointment from the Wu admin.

Would the absence of bike lanes, and the installation of dedicated bus lanes, encourage bicyclists to (illegally) use the new bus lanes? I know that's what I would probably do, just to take my chances with the occasional bus rather than be mixed into the constant car/truck traffic.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Who is this revision even placating? The opposition led by Culpepper, Worrell, et al. want the whole damn thing scalped because of extremism against any parking or lane reductions whatsoever. They're not going to be swayed at all by this or any other attempt at compromise. The thing has been so debated-to-death that there aren't many true fence-sitters left. It's certainly not going to wow the supporters who want complete streets.

I somewhat doubt any faction was forcing a bike-poorer revision. This may just be the version that Wu's office truly wants to self-advocate for, with the runup to it being some sort of kabuki dance. Which is enormously disappointing.

 

[cubbe8]

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2026-09/2026-09-04-blue-hill-ave-updated-design.pdf

Full roll plan. 2 way cycle track from Woodhaven to American Legion, the a shared use path the rest of the way.

 

[samsongam]

Who is this revision even placating? The opposition led by Culpepper, Worrell, et al. want the whole damn thing scalped because of extremism against any parking or lane reductions whatsoever. They're not going to be swayed at all by this or any other attempt at compromise. The thing has been so debated-to-death that there aren't many true fence-sitters left. It's certainly not going to wow the supporters who want complete streets.

I somewhat doubt any faction was forcing a bike-poorer revision. This may just be the version that Wu's office truly wants to self-advocate for, with the runup to it being some sort of kabuki dance. Which is enormously disappointing.

It's such a weird "compromise". They've made it impossible for bikers to get to shops in Mattapan Square and they've consolidated bike baths to one side. Sucks, but not the end of the world if there are alternate slow street connections to Neponset path + Cummins (I think I remember seeing a planned bike connection from Mattapan station to Babson). There is a little bit more parking and some really weird configurations like pick up/ drop off lanes and legally parking in the median during church hours? I have no clue how that can be considered safe or respected. And there is like 1 intersection removed around Grove Hall?

This won't make the noise go away. Those opposed to the redesgin are fundamentally against the entire point of this improvement and they are in the minority of local residents regardless. This will only give more time to stir up "community tension" headlines and add no new info on top of the hundreds of pre-existing data points/community feedback. The city should be less cowardly and just do what is provably best for safety, health, accesibility, and efficiency of BHA over trying to please a group that is ideologically opposed to safe streets. In what world does Wu win over a group that is actively alligning with Trump to cut funding to their own neighborhood?

 

[BeansTheCat]

Who is this revision even placating? The opposition led by Culpepper, Worrell, et al. want the whole damn thing scalped because of extremism against any parking or lane reductions whatsoever. They're not going to be swayed at all by this or any other attempt at compromise. The thing has been so debated-to-death that there aren't many true fence-sitters left. It's certainly not going to wow the supporters who want complete streets.

This new design is technically an increase parking over existing conditions. While it probably won't mollify many people, it will be a constant talking point the city uses to shut down opposition. I agree that this is an awful way to design infrastructure and most of the safe cycling/complete street groups will be either disappointed or openly hostile to it. But I also have a feeling there won't be any more major design changes after this. Just some tweaks at the edges and maybe cleaning up some intersections. I'd be stunned if bike lanes are put back in all the way to Mattapan Square

 

[subway1500]

Fall 2026 schedules are out; so we can finally see what secret hidden service cuts are there.

Full overview:
View attachment 75427

In other news, we finally hit 90% of pre-COVID weekday bus service, after 6.5 years. That still means 10% less weekday bus service than 7 years ago!

All changes:
Orange Line weekday service cuts
Routes SL1, 44, 216 will have reduced weekend service.
Route 24 reduced weekday and Sunday service
Routes 38 and 40 reduced Saturday service
Route 43 reduced Sunday service
Routes 7, 26, 34, 504, 553 reduced weekday service
View attachment 75428

Updated map:
* Added routes 65 and 465
* Restored 34/34E combined route and 30/34/34E/35/36 combined route
* Downgraded route 44 due to fewer than 21 Sunday trips
* Downgraded SL2 due to fewer than 121 Sunday trips
* Upgraded routes 220, 222, and 220/222; removed West Hingham route variant.
* Upgraded route 435 due to more than 11 Sunday trips
View attachment 75429
Old maps: Pre-COVID; 2023: Winter, Spring (Slow Zones), Summer, Fall; 2024: Winter, Spring, Summer (News), Fall; 2025: Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall 2026: Winter, Spring, Summer

As always, thanks Delvin for staying on top of the T's extremely slow post-COVID recovery for bus service, as posted in the general MassDOT thread.

Unfortunately, there are some notable service cuts, as was the case with the past few schedules. These 2 stand out the most to me, as both are high-ridership routes that have somehow gotten on the T's "bad side" and received significant service cuts:

34/34E is now scheduled for a coordinated 15min headway during PM peak, i.e., 4 trips/hour. In 2019, the 34 ran every 11min, and the 34E separately ran every 20min (express FH to Lagrange St) during the PM peak, which is ~8.5 trips/hour. That's a 50%+ service cut, despite the fact that both demand and demographics along this corridor have not meaningfully shifted since 7 years ago. With this change, I think the scheduling team needs to stand at Forest Hills during the PM rush and observe the crush-loaded buses in-person, especially when a trip runs 15min late and forces half an hour of arriving OL passengers onto a single bus...

216 is now scheduled for a 45-50min headway on both Sat and Sun. Apparently in 2019, the 216 ran every 20min on Sat and every 40min on Sun. The 214 separately ran those same headways (overlapping ~40% of the route). That means service has gone from 6 trips/hour (Sat) and 3 trips/hour (Sun) to ~1.3 trips/hour each day, or a 75%+ (Sat) / 60%+ (Sun) service cut. I'm less familiar with Quincy, but I don't have any reason to believe that demand has dropped off a cliff compared to pre-COVID. It's a peninsula with no other transit to get in or out, and a bus every 45-50min is simply inadequate. 214/216 seems to only have been cut ~40% on Sat and minimally on Sun as the table below doesn't reflect the consolidated routing on weekends, but my point still stands about the 45-50min headway.

Related to the above, two suggestions for Delvin's map and table: (1) the 34/34E fall schedule is still showing some >20min gaps on Sunday that are not filled by the 40 or 50, so the 15-20min map designation is a bit too generous, and (2) perhaps the 214 pre-COVID service numbers should be added to the 216 pre-COVID role, so that it's an apples-to-apples comparison when calculating service changes.

(Edited based on Delvin's response below)

 

[Delvin4519]

As always, thanks Delvin for staying on top of the T's extremely slow post-COVID recovery for bus service, as posted in the general MassDOT thread.

Unfortunately, there are some notable service cuts, as was the case with the past few schedules. These 2 stand out the most to me, as both are high-ridership routes that have somehow gotten on the T's "bad side" and received significant service cuts:

34/34E is now scheduled for a coordinated 15min headway during PM peak, i.e., 4 trips/hour. In 2019, the 34 ran every 11min, and the 34E separately ran every 20min (express FH to Lagrange St) during the PM peak, which is ~8.5 trips/hour. That's a 50%+ service cut, despite the fact that both demand and demographics along this corridor have not meaningfully shifted since 7 years ago. With this change, I think the scheduling team needs to stand at Forest Hills during the PM rush and observe the crush-loaded buses in-person, especially when a trip runs 15min late and forces half an hour of arriving OL passengers onto a single bus...

View attachment 75448

216 is now scheduled for a 45-50min headway on both Sat and Sun. Apparently in 2019, the 216 ran every 20min on Sat and every 40min on Sun. The 214 separately ran those same headways (overlapping ~40% of the route). That means service has gone from 6 trips/hour (Sat) and 3 trips/hour (Sun) to ~1.3 trips/hour each day, or a 75%+ (Sat) / 60%+ (Sun) service cut. I'm less familiar with Quincy, but I don't have any reason to believe that demand has dropped off a cliff compared to pre-COVID. It's a peninsula with no other transit to get in or out, and a bus every 45-50min is simply inadequate.

View attachment 75449

Related to the above, two suggestions for Delvin's map and table: (1) the 34/34E fall schedule is still showing some >20min gaps on Sunday that are not filled by the 40 or 50, so the 15-20min map designation is a bit too generous, and (2) perhaps the 214 pre-COVID service numbers should be added to the 216 pre-COVID role, so that it's an apples-to-apples comparison when calculating service changes.

The 214/216 had 75 trips pre-COVID weekdays and 46 on Saturdays. These are the values used to calculate pre-COVID percentages for the 214/216 bus. The current 216 bus includes both the 214 and 216.

There is not much of a service cut for the 214/216. The pre-COVID schedule called for every 16 minute interpeak midday service between 10:30am-3:00pm and hourly evening service after 6:30pm. The current schedule calls for service every 15 minutes midday and every 25 minutes in the evening after 8pm.

The loss of trips between 7:00am-9:00am and 4:00pm-6:30pm is counteracted by an additional 1.5 tph after 6:30pm. Additionally daytime service extends from 6:30pm to 8:00pm, so you get 4 extra trips between 6:30pm-8:00pm. Weekday evening service on the 214/216 is more than doubled at around 240% pre-COVID levels.

There is no 60% service cut on the 214/216, the service cut is only 8% on weekdays. Saturdays still have a heavy service cut about 40% and the MBTA has not yet restored Saturday service.