MBTA "Transformation" (Green Line, Red Line, & Orange Line Transformation Projects)

There is a Mattapan Line Transformation Program public meeting happening on the 17th that I haven't seen mentioned here yet: https://www.mbta.com/events/2025-12-17/public-meeting-mattapan-line-transformation-program-virtual. This will be the first time in two and a half years (!) that the T has provided any updates on the project. I hope this is a sign that real progress can be expected in the near future, but given how long the planning process has dragged on, optimism feels like a fool's errand here.
 
HenryAlan said:
I wouldn't be so sure. Usually a short turn is for a train that leaves Cleveland Circle (or BC) on time, but due to surface running unpredictability, the train is late by the time it reaches Kenmore. Maybe they could have made the decision before Arlington (or announced if the decision were made earlier), but I suspect the intention at Cleveland Circle was to run per schedule and as indicated on the sign.
Click to expand...
I would bet that there are patterns in the historical data to suggest how frequently to run a short turn train. That could be used to program short turns rather than the surprises.

Proactive rather than reactive operational planning.
 
You cant be proactive on how many passengers will be at each stop, how long they will take to board, cars blocking tracks despite train having green (Hardvard Ave), operator operational variability, emergency vehicles changing signal phases (E on Huntington), etc, all across 4 lines. Dispact changing trains when they do is them being proactive on keeping better schedule consistency before the problem is further exacerbated and doing so at places that inconvenience passengers the least like Park and Kenmore where theres transferability between lines.

In your specific example on the C, when the train was at Arlington, dispatch likely saw an opportunity to slot the C in as a Westbound train at Park which would be ~5min earlier than Gov Center. When trains are running every 8min each line thats a whole trip avoided being lost by just on-the-fly turning it a single stop earlier. I see Bs and Cs turning at Park and switching to the other line all the time and often what happens is they swap in the late train it was replacing back onto the line of the one that was lost. It nets out to each trip being a couple minutes late that can be potentially made up down the route rather than a completely dropped trip and unnecessary bunching
 
JeffDowntown said:
I would bet that there are patterns in the historical data to suggest how frequently to run a short turn train. That could be used to program short turns rather than the surprises.

Proactive rather than reactive operational planning.
Click to expand...

It's entirely plausible that they don't actually have good enough data to do this kind of analysis.

Sorry for posting a screenshot of Excel, but I don't know how else to show this. All I did was filter on car 3881 (literally a random car I thought of) for October 1 2025 and sort earliest to latest event.
According to LREvents dataset this is how it started its day:
1764892548745.png

By the time it got from Riverside to Union Square it had been a part of 3 different trip_ids, had 2 different mates, and teleported backwards.
Trip 71193703 was normal from Union Square to Riverside, except that there was no DEP event from Union Square so we don't know how long it actually takes to get to Riverside from Union Square. We can infer from the time it arrives at Lechmere, but that's additional steps and assumptions.
Trips ADDED-1583150555 and ADDED-1583150682 only have the records shown above, that's the entirety of that trip on 10/1/2025.

These kinds of issues are extremely common in the dataset and makes it incredibly difficult to do analysis, and there are other ones as well (eg Trip 71193770 from row 2 above departed Boston College at 20:02 but arrived at Washington Street at 06:54)

Of the 173 inbound C "trips" in the dataset on 10/1/2025 only 56 have a DEP event at all of Cleveland Circle, Coolidge Corner, Kenmore, and Boylston.

I don't want to say that collecting this data is easy because it's not, but trying to do predictive analytics off of flawed data is very difficult.

Of course, it's also entirely plausible that I just haven't figured out the trick to understanding how to use this data effectively as well.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
I would bet that there are patterns in the historical data to suggest how frequently to run a short turn train. That could be used to program short turns rather than the surprises.

Proactive rather than reactive operational planning.
Click to expand...
From other people's responses, I can see why that would be hard. Not impossible, but hard.

But jeez, I agree with you that that is crap service and we shouldn't have to tolerate it. I don't know that other transit agencies work that way around the world. There are so many possible fixes and we should do them all.

There are so many ways to make the Green Line more reliable and easier to schedule/predict. A lot of that is basic maintenance to avoid things like signal problems. Transit Signal Priority would help. It's something that keeps getting discussed, but never actually implemented. Some left turns across the tracks could be banned to remove some conflicts. We could enact or just enforce stricter penalties for cars blocking trains. Put up automated cameras and ticket people that block trains. That works. That would really help keep the trains on schedule. They still might have to short run a train sometimes, but no one should get hit with that three times in a weekend.

Even if they still have to short run a train, The T could be a hell of a lot better about that. If they're short running trains at Park, they should be able to tell you before Arlington. They probably shouldn't short run one stop before a transfer station like Gov Center.

At the very least, it's possible to have clear, pre-recorded messages played on functional speakers to let passengers know what's going on. Important train announcements don't have to sound like the adults from Peanuts cartoons. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
 
737900er said:
It's entirely plausible that they don't actually have good enough data to do this kind of analysis.

Sorry for posting a screenshot of Excel, but I don't know how else to show this. All I did was filter on car 3881 (literally a random car I thought of) for October 1 2025 and sort earliest to latest event.
According to LREvents dataset this is how it started its day:
View attachment 69116
By the time it got from Riverside to Union Square it had been a part of 3 different trip_ids, had 2 different mates, and teleported backwards.
Trip 71193703 was normal from Union Square to Riverside, except that there was no DEP event from Union Square so we don't know how long it actually takes to get to Riverside from Union Square. We can infer from the time it arrives at Lechmere, but that's additional steps and assumptions.
Trips ADDED-1583150555 and ADDED-1583150682 only have the records shown above, that's the entirety of that trip on 10/1/2025.

These kinds of issues are extremely common in the dataset and makes it incredibly difficult to do analysis, and there are other ones as well (eg Trip 71193770 from row 2 above departed Boston College at 20:02 but arrived at Washington Street at 06:54)

Of the 173 inbound C "trips" in the dataset on 10/1/2025 only 56 have a DEP event at all of Cleveland Circle, Coolidge Corner, Kenmore, and Boylston.

I don't want to say that collecting this data is easy because it's not, but trying to do predictive analytics off of flawed data is very difficult.

Of course, it's also entirely plausible that I just haven't figured out the trick to understanding how to use this data effectively as well.
Click to expand...
I agree that to do predictive modeling you need quality data. Even with reasonable quality data, data cleansing is typically 90% of a modeling effort.

But the fact that the T collects pretty crappy data points to a bigger issue. First rule of performance improvement in operations is you can only improve things you measure. If the T's data is too crappy for predictive modeling, it is also too crappy for meaningful performance improvement efforts.

So if we ever hope to have better performing T operations, they need to get their act together and collect higher quality operations data.
 
I would assume that data is not fully processed, and that internal teams are working with corrected data. All of the issues noted above are very typical of raw transit data, and are fairly easy to correct en masse.
 
Meeting notes from the 12/17 Mattapan Line Meeting:

Overview:
  • There were a lot of big-wigs here tonight, including several execs and assistants. Sam Zhou is the most prominent name.
  • The project had a rejiggering corresponding with leadership changes at the MBTA
    • Parts of the project are being/have been reconsidered and the PCCs will be staying a bit longer, with 4/5 planned refurbished cars completed. MDTF has increased by 2-3x.
  • Ridership is at 80% of pre-COVID on average, Central Ave is actually at 116%.
  • The refurbished cars mean ~15 more daily trips on average
  • Next meeting planned for summer 2026
Planned Construction:
  • New yard, maintenence facility, OCS, retailing wall refurbishment/repair/replacement, and station upgrades are all currently at 15% design, no further timeline given.
  • New Mattapan substation is expected to start construction in January 2027
    • This substation will be connected to Eversource for redundancy on the line (The current Ashmont substation is connected to the MBTA internal network)
  • New Adams Street ramp at Milton station to start construction in February 2026.
  • Bridges, including the Cedar Grove cemetery bridge, will not be replaced, only refurbed after they were studied and confirmed to be able to take Type 9s. This is expected to decrease the previously given $500m pricetag.
  • No assessment of a Red Line extension has been done or is planned.
  • Assessment of station consolidations/closures is not complete, no further details shared.
  • Changes to Ashmont station remain TBD, no details given.
  • No schedules or timelines for closures are currently known.
Other attendees thoughts:
  • State Senator Driscoll in attendance complaining that the legislature has also heard basically nothing from the MBTA for the last 3 years.
  • Lots of questions about if the line would be able to take Type 10s, and the general perception of Mattapan being treated as second-class is alive and well.
  • Someone trying to argue 'hey maybe we should just keep the PCCs and supplement with buses' and either ignoring the fact that even the refurbished cars have an atrocious MDBF or not caring.
  • A couple butthurt Miltonites trying to argue that it's not rapid transit (lol)
 
TheRatmeister said:
Meeting notes from the 12/17 Mattapan Line Meeting:

Overview:
  • There were a lot of big-wigs here tonight, including several execs and assistants. Sam Zhou is the most prominent name.
  • The project had a rejiggering corresponding with leadership changes at the MBTA
    • Parts of the project are being/have been reconsidered and the PCCs will be staying a bit longer, with 4/5 planned refurbished cars completed. MDTF has increased by 2-3x.
  • Ridership is at 80% of pre-COVID on average, Central Ave is actually at 116%.
  • The refurbished cars mean ~15 more daily trips on average
  • Next meeting planned for summer 2026
Planned Construction:
  • New yard, maintenence facility, OCS, retailing wall refurbishment/repair/replacement, and station upgrades are all currently at 15% design, no further timeline given.
  • New Mattapan substation is expected to start construction in January 2027
    • This substation will be connected to Eversource for redundancy on the line (The current Ashmont substation is connected to the MBTA internal network)
  • New Adams Street ramp at Milton station to start construction in February 2026.
  • Bridges, including the Cedar Grove cemetery bridge, will not be replaced, only refurbed after they were studied and confirmed to be able to take Type 9s. This is expected to decrease the previously given $500m pricetag.
  • No assessment of a Red Line extension has been done or is planned.
  • Assessment of station consolidations/closures is not complete, no further details shared.
  • Changes to Ashmont station remain TBD, no details given.
  • No schedules or timelines for closures are currently known.
Other attendees thoughts:
  • State Senator Driscoll in attendance complaining that the legislature has also heard basically nothing from the MBTA for the last 3 years.
  • Lots of questions about if the line would be able to take Type 10s, and the general perception of Mattapan being treated as second-class is alive and well.
  • Someone trying to argue 'hey maybe we should just keep the PCCs and supplement with buses' and either ignoring the fact that even the refurbished cars have an atrocious MDBF or not caring.
  • A couple butthurt Miltonites trying to argue that it's not rapid transit (lol)
Click to expand...

Now i’m confused. The maintenance facility, OCS, and substation work has already been awarded to a contractor, yet they said that only the substation is being done at this time.
 
cubbe8 said:

Now i’m confused. The maintenance facility, OCS, and substation work has already been awarded to a contractor, yet they said that only the substation is being done at this time.
Click to expand...
Yep. They rescoped the program but kept the original contract name and number. That RFQ was awarded, but in practice the only thing in it is Ashmont TPSS upgrades. At the time of the phase 1 RFQ you linked, The Mattapan VMF was still only in conceptual planning, and the mattapan TPSS only broad strokes.
In April 2019, MBTA completed an “Initial Assessment and Future Options Study” of the
Mattapan Line with firm, CH2M Hill. MBTA conducted an options analysis for the following
approaches to the Mattapan Line: 1- Conversion of the line to a dedicated busway, 2- Continued maintenance/upgrades to PCC trolleys, 3 -Implementation of replica trolley vehicles, 4- Implementation of Type 9 Light Rail Vehicles.
Program paused and resumed in November 2021. The Office of the Chief Engineer began the procurement process for engineering services to upgrade all Mattapan Line infrastructure to accommodate Type 9 (or Type 10) vehicles and address all state of good repair issues. In May 2022, Notice to Proceed was granted to firm, HNTB. Early in the project, Type 10s were deemed impractical for the Mattapan Line and the project focused on introducing Type 9s to the line.
In December 2023, a 15% design for the Mattapan Line Transformation Program was submitted. At this time, the scope of the program included all upgrades required for Type 9 accommodation and upgrades to address all state of good repair issues on the line.
In Summer 2024, the project team was directed to rescope the program, removing items that were not required for Type 9 operation.
The current direction is to move forward with the Mattapan VMF and TPSS as a separate project. Both projects are in the conceptual design stage and will be advanced through the CMAR process.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251218_031012_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20251218_031012_Chrome.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 34
brookline.news

96 trees to be removed, 98 replanted: MBTA moves forward with Green Line accessibility project - Brookline.News

An effort to save a tree near Brandon Hall which is home to an owl illustrates the push and pull of the MBTA's Green Line accessibility improvements in Brookline.
brookline.news brookline.news
The improvements are anticipated to decrease travel time by three to seven percent, Conover said. And trees will be replanted along Beacon Street in consistent and evenly spaced rows within a continuous planting strip to eliminate impervious surfaces and reduce urban heat pockets. This tree lawn of continuous plantings is intended to maintain the historic, tree-lined median designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and his partner, John C. Olmsted, in 1886.
While the design harkens back to the Olmsted era, the town is incorporating new insight into how trees share resources. “Instead of having these trees in individualized pits, which is what we see so often in our urban designs, here we have a contiguous lawn at the back of each platform,” said Jack Schleifer, Brookline’s Urban Forest Manager. The hope is that the tree lawns will provide more space for rooting and water infiltration, he added.
The design for these stations calls for removing 96 trees in total: 50 young and 46 mature trees. The MBTA has committed to replanting 98 new trees as part of the project, each with a one-year maintenance period and warranty before the roughly 3-inch-wide saplings would become town assets. More saplings could be added based on MBTA funding, Conover said.
Click to expand...
Nearly 40 Brookline residents joined the Tree Planting Committee meeting held via Zoom on Feb. 3. Many opposed the design for the Fairbanks Street/Brandon Hall consolidated station.
“While I appreciate the efforts to make things accessible, to be honest, I’m just horrified by the Brandon Hall/Fairbanks plan,” said Tara Murray, who has lived near the Fairbanks Street station for 13 years. “Sixty-three trees to be removed is an exceeding amount.”
The current woody hillside is populated by many small oak trees that grew from acorns falling off the nearby larger trees. Dunlevy, of the MBTA, said that the biggest tree slated for removal on the hillside is 12 inches wide, but most are less than six inches, with some as small as an inch and a half wide.
The new configuration for the Fairbanks Street/Brandon Hall consolidated station was selected to impact the lowest number of trees along the hillside while saving the largest, most mature trees on the slope, Conover said.
“I’m hoping that more can be done at the Brandon Hall and Fairbanks stop in particular,” said Kaara Peterson, who lives near Brandon Hall Station. “The entire hillside area now looks to be quite sterile by comparison to the fairly rich environment, including the owl, which I didn’t even know about.”
Residents also expressed concern that removing the smaller trees would lead to reduced stormwater retention and ultimately increase erosion and flooding. Dunlevy said that a short retaining wall will be built along the back of the platform to hold back stormwater runoff and channel it to nearby drains.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:
brookline.news

96 trees to be removed, 98 replanted: MBTA moves forward with Green Line accessibility project - Brookline.News

An effort to save a tree near Brandon Hall which is home to an owl illustrates the push and pull of the MBTA's Green Line accessibility improvements in Brookline.
brookline.news brookline.news
Click to expand...
everyone: give GL signal priority so it can pass through intersections without waiting for 4 cars with 5 people to pass through! Save 5-10 min in travel time from brookline to park st!
brookline: best I can do is trim some trees
 
sneijder said:
everyone: give GL signal priority so it can pass through intersections without waiting for 4 cars with 5 people to pass through! Save 5-10 min in travel time from brookline to park st!
brookline: best I can do is trim some trees
Click to expand...
Brookline actually installed all the street-side signal hardware needed for TSP on Beacon St. many years ago. It's the T that's been flagrantly dragging its feet on the final implementation.


But, yeah, "controversies" about new-growth weed-like oak-tree'lets is very on-brand for the NIMBY's. They're getting a net-gain of trees, and way better-managed plantings at that. The Brandon Hall/Fairbanks hillside segment is currently an ugly, weedy mess with very unkempt undergrowth and too much accumulated trash. They couldn't have given less of a crap about it in all the years leading up to now.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Brookline actually installed all the street-side signal hardware needed for TSP on Beacon St. many years ago. It's the T that's been flagrantly dragging its feet on the final implementation.


But, yeah, "controversies" about new-growth weed-like oak-tree'lets is very on-brand for the NIMBY's. They're getting a net-gain of trees, and way better-managed plantings at that. The Brandon Hall/Fairbanks hillside segment is currently an ugly, weedy mess with very unkempt undergrowth and too much accumulated trash. They couldn't have given less of a crap about it in all the years leading up to now.
Click to expand...
Idk to what extent the TSP activates along Beacon St but I've seen it in action. I was waiting to cross the tracks at the Star Market u-turn and the light turned green, only to immediately go back yellow to red because there was a train approaching heading Eastbound. I've been on the C when experiencing the signals at Centre St and Charles St rapidly switching back to red after a short green because of a train approach as well. I've also been on my bike waiting to exit Hawes St when the green on Beacon went red and gave the u-turning traffic a green, so I thought I was gonna get the next cycle green to release onto Beacon, but instead the straights went back green because of a train approaching. They then skipped the u-turn arrows and went right to Hawes green. All my recent C experiences since the summer have been very consistent and swift, with waiting at lights seemingly only being because the train has to stop at most intersections for a station anyway. The C from Dean to Kenmore has only been a ~5 minutes slower than the D from Beaconsfield to Kenmore as of late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top