MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

As promised, here are my notes from last nights meeting for the Alford St/Lower Broadway project:
  • Overall this meeting was kind of a nothing-burger, they didn't have much to present and they didn't generally have specific answers to people's questions.
  • 15% design expected by the end of the year
  • More meetings to come, including a couple in-person ones in Everett and Charlestown
  • The Alford St bridge is not expected to be widened, the project is being designed with the current bridge as a given.
  • The proposed transitway will end at Beachham Street, leaving around a 0.25 mile discontinuity between Sweetser Circle and the transitway
    • The stated reason was that traffic impacts were too significant for this area to take away travel lanes
  • Travel time savings for bus riders are estimated at 2-4 minutes during peak periods
  • A pedestrian bridge over Lower Broadway near Encore is in the works
 
TheRatmeister said:
The proposed transitway will end at Beachham Street, leaving around a 0.25 mile discontinuity between Sweetser Circle and the transitway
  • The stated reason was that traffic impacts were too significant for this area to take away travel lanes.
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous and unacceptable.
 
I'm guessing they modeled vehicle queues backed up into Sweester Circle? I feel like you could make some other adjustments to prevent that though. Why not make Bowdoin a 1 way and eliminate that signal
 
CBCArch61 said:
I think the biggest failure of the Blue Hill Design is the disconnect at Seaver Street (and someone please correct me if there is a future plan I am missing). Why on earth would the design go all the way to Warren Street and just terminate not at a hub of some kind? Why not turn left and connect into the Columbus Ave bus lane that is already built and terminates at Jackson Square? Especially considering the investment in White Stadium within Franklin Park, why not push to build a connected system? If you could take a dedicated bus lane to a single transfer point of Jackson Square, that could dramatically help with car commuters. Seems like the biggest miss of the entire project and probably more pandering to the people who want to keep their curbside parking along Seaver (my dramatic reaction only).
Click to expand...
The city and state have a long track record of lacking any creativity and being very stuck in anachronistic transit patterns. They also have a pattern ofproposing and often also implementing transportation projects that simply grab low hanging fruit to throw on a bus lane or a bike lane or a road, but then have it terminate at the first choke point. It’s like the stupid idea of the urban ring to take over space on MCB— get a great bus lane that sits in traffic for two blocks by Boston Medical Center, then rushes everyone to Tremont and then sits in traffic trying to get to Ruggles. This is the same. It’s a fundamentally stupid idea without some kind of determination as to whether anything EVER will be done for a Warren to Nubian ROW. I think it’s pretty unlikely that will ever happen, so it begs the question, why are they still stuck on Nubian being the terminus? You would think from various recent plans that Jackson doesn’t even exist in anyone’s minds. I thought the same thing about the proposed Columbus bus lane, which doesn’t really seem to add much value, either, since isn’t the vast majority of ridership of those bus lines just going to be able to get off at Jackson as they are already? Why not just make Jackson a bigger hub and you can get people coming from further south onto rapid transit more quickly than sitting through multiple stoplights on the way to Ruggles.
 
This doesn't seem to be a new development actually. The SL3X study shows the same thing:
1774041157531.png
 
TheRatmeister said:
This doesn't seem to be a new development actually. The SL3X study shows the same thing:
View attachment 71453
Click to expand...
The two are a bit different. The SL3X study shows no bus lanes from Bartlett St to Sweetser Circle, but your notes from from last night's meeting show bus lanes ending at Beacham Street, about 0.2 miles south of the Bartlett St/Broadway intersection. That's quite a difference.
 

• Improving Boston Avenue in Medford (Routes 94, 80, possibly implicating the 350, 67, 96)

• Extend Route 426 to Jack Satter House

• Serve A Street in South Boston

• Retain service to Point Shirley, Winthrop

• Retain Route 44 service to Ruggles

• Changes to operating hours and days on Route 18, 43, 85, 504, 202

• Restore Route 465 to Danvers Square
Click to expand...
 
Improving Boston Avenue in Medford (Routes 94, 80, possibly implicating the 350, 67, 96)
Click to expand...
Very curious to see what this involves. I can't imagine bus lanes on a street that's 40 feet with with an existing bike lane. Maybe some queue jumps? The current plan only has the worse-than-every-30 route 80 on Boston Avenue. The 94 and 350 are scheduled to go away with BNRD. The 96 currently uses a few blocks of Boston Avenue, but under BNRD it's planned to shift to College. Under BNRD the 67 won't have any unique coverage east of Arlington Center (save for a few blocks of Alewife Brook Parkway with no likely stops), so I suppose you could redirect it to Tufts or Davis, but why?

Extend Route 426 to Jack Satter House
Click to expand...

I like this one. Revere Beach Boulevard north of Revere Street has some big complexes including Jack Satter House, and it's far enough from North Shore Road (with no cross streets) to be a pain. Hopefully it's a little loop after serving Wonderland, not forcing all the 426 riders to go the extra distance before reaching Wonderland.

Serve A Street in South Boston
Click to expand...
I like this one too. A Street is set to lose its current unidirectional route 11 service, but it's an area primed for (continued) redevelopment. The two current stops pull decent ridership despite one-way service and limited frequency. Extending the 42 from Broadway to Courthouse to get bidirectional service seems like an easy win.

Retain service to Point Shirley, Winthrop
Click to expand...
Eh, I guess. Very little ridership on the segment that's due to be cut, but it's probably not a schedule-killer to retain.

Retain Route 44 service to Ruggles
Click to expand...
Sure, if there's enough riders who want to get to Ruggles, that's fine.

Changes to operating hours and days on Route 18, 43, 85, 504, 202
Click to expand...
The current BNRD plan calls for:
  • 18: Weekday middays only. I could see this justifying peak service.
  • 43: Weekday middays only. This absolutely should have peak service (and really should be an every-30 route)
  • 85: Weekdays, 6 am to 7 pm. I can see the case for evening or weekend service (remember, this is replacing the CT2), but I think making it better than every 90 midday is more important.
  • 202: Weekday peak only (201 will be daily). I'm still mad that the May 2022 plan to get rid of the loop route got nixed. (The 215 would have taken over Adams Street with more consistent service, while the new 20 would take over Neponset Avenue and the east half of the 26 (another frustrating loop).
  • 504: Weekdays, 6 am to 7 pm (every 15 at peak and 90 otherwise). This badly needs weekend service and better midday service until we get a Newton Corner infill. Otherwise, anyone on the 500-series routes wanting to get to downtown at those times has to change to the 57.
Restore Route 465 to Danvers Square
Click to expand...
It is absolutely criminal that a city of 28k people 16 miles from Boston has no transit service except to the mall.
 
The EGE said:
Very curious to see what this involves. I can't imagine bus lanes on a street that's 40 feet with with an existing bike lane. Maybe some queue jumps? The current plan only has the worse-than-every-30 route 80 on Boston Avenue. The 94 and 350 are scheduled to go away with BNRD. The 96 currently uses a few blocks of Boston Avenue, but under BNRD it's planned to shift to College. Under BNRD the 67 won't have any unique coverage east of Arlington Center (save for a few blocks of Alewife Brook Parkway with no likely stops), so I suppose you could redirect it to Tufts or Davis, but why?



I like this one. Revere Beach Boulevard north of Revere Street has some big complexes including Jack Satter House, and it's far enough from North Shore Road (with no cross streets) to be a pain. Hopefully it's a little loop after serving Wonderland, not forcing all the 426 riders to go the extra distance before reaching Wonderland.


I like this one too. A Street is set to lose its current unidirectional route 11 service, but it's an area primed for (continued) redevelopment. The two current stops pull decent ridership despite one-way service and limited frequency. Extending the 42 from Broadway to Courthouse to get bidirectional service seems like an easy win.


Eh, I guess. Very little ridership on the segment that's due to be cut, but it's probably not a schedule-killer to retain.


Sure, if there's enough riders who want to get to Ruggles, that's fine.


The current BNRD plan calls for:
  • 18: Weekday middays only. I could see this justifying peak service.
  • 43: Weekday middays only. This absolutely should have peak service (and really should be an every-30 route)
  • 85: Weekdays, 6 am to 7 pm. I can see the case for evening or weekend service (remember, this is replacing the CT2), but I think making it better than every 90 midday is more important.
  • 202: Weekday peak only (201 will be daily). I'm still mad that the May 2022 plan to get rid of the loop route got nixed. (The 215 would have taken over Adams Street with more consistent service, while the new 20 would take over Neponset Avenue and the east half of the 26 (another frustrating loop).
  • 504: Weekdays, 6 am to 7 pm (every 15 at peak and 90 otherwise). This badly needs weekend service and better midday service until we get a Newton Corner infill. Otherwise, anyone on the 500-series routes wanting to get to downtown at those times has to change to the 57.

It is absolutely criminal that a city of 28k people 16 miles from Boston has no transit service except to the mall.
Click to expand...
The 67 is more of a coverage route; and I’d suppose it’s because having the 350 rerouted to Davis is too big of a detour; so the might rather leave the 350 unchanged and instead send the 67 in lieu of the 350 to provide the GLX connection to Arlington, with maybe longer hours.

For the Boston Avenue case; I wonder if the MBTA is probably looking to cancel the rerouting of the 96 bus away from the GLX and instead leave it on Boston Avenue as it is today rather than bypass the GLX completely.

The 43 bus isn’t high frequency or high ridership; I think they’re just looking to cancel the service cuts proposed in BNRD since what it provides today is mostly just a mirror version of the 68 bus.
 
Last edited:
mass.streetsblog.org

Wu Administration Delays Columbus Ave. Transit Project; City Hall Planners Told to Cancel Meetings With MBTA - Streetsblog Massachusetts

A public records request reveals that Boston transportation planners were "directed to not participate in external meetings, including meetings with partner agencies, without express approval" from City Hall leadership.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org
Mayor Wu's administration is throwing up more roadblocks for MBTA transit improvements in Boston while her constituents struggle with rapidly-rising transportation costs and worsening congestion on the city's streets.
Through a public records request, StreetsblogMASS has obtained emails that reveal how senior officials in Mayor Wu's administration have delayed work on a long-planned MBTA project to create a dedicated bus transitway in Roxbury, potentially putting $34 million in federal transit funding at risk.
The emails concern the proposed "Columbus Avenue Phase II" bus lane project, which would extend an existing center-running busway built on Columbus Avenue in 2021.
[...]
At the beginning of March, StreetsblogMASS filed public records requests to the City of Boston and to the MBTA for email correspondence related to the project. The City of Boston did not fulfill that request, but the MBTA did.
The emails show that MBTA project managers were repeatedly asking City of Boston to review final design plans for the Columbus Avenue project over the winter – and City of Boston Chief of Streets Nick Gove repeatedly denied those requests.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:
mass.streetsblog.org

Wu Administration Delays Columbus Ave. Transit Project; City Hall Planners Told to Cancel Meetings With MBTA - Streetsblog Massachusetts

A public records request reveals that Boston transportation planners were "directed to not participate in external meetings, including meetings with partner agencies, without express approval" from City Hall leadership.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org
Click to expand...
IMG_0744.jpeg

This is on the agenda for tomorrow’s Public Improvement Comission…

www.boston.gov

Public Improvement Commission Hearing

This Thursday's Public Improvement Commission hearing is scheduled for its regular time, 10 a.m. Project teams and Commission members will be participating in this hearing primarily from remote locations. Hearing participants will be digitally connected in real time courtesy of the City’s...
www.boston.gov www.boston.gov
 
cubbe8 said:
View attachment 71619
This is on the agenda for tomorrow’s Public Improvement Comission…

www.boston.gov

Public Improvement Commission Hearing

This Thursday's Public Improvement Commission hearing is scheduled for its regular time, 10 a.m. Project teams and Commission members will be participating in this hearing primarily from remote locations. Hearing participants will be digitally connected in real time courtesy of the City’s...
www.boston.gov www.boston.gov
Click to expand...
That could also be Ruggles Station Phase 2 work (been a lot of construction activity at Ruggles lately): https://www.mbta.com/projects/ruggles-station-improvements

Forsyth St and Northeastern seem to be the giveaway on that.
 
The EGE said:
Very curious to see what this involves. I can't imagine bus lanes on a street that's 40 feet with with an existing bike lane. Maybe some queue jumps? The current plan only has the worse-than-every-30 route 80 on Boston Avenue. The 94 and 350 are scheduled to go away with BNRD. The 96 currently uses a few blocks of Boston Avenue, but under BNRD it's planned to shift to College. Under BNRD the 67 won't have any unique coverage east of Arlington Center (save for a few blocks of Alewife Brook Parkway with no likely stops), so I suppose you could redirect it to Tufts or Davis, but why?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine that the improvement here means changing the street design - Medford is changing but not as fast as putting bus lanes on such a local street. I think it must be about the lack of a replacement for the 94 and that the 96, as proposed doesn't hit the same neighborhoods. Plus the lack of a good connection to the Medford GLX station.
 
Delvin4519 said:
The 67 is more of a coverage route; and I’d suppose it’s because having the 350 rerouted to Davis is too big of a detour; so the might rather leave the 350 unchanged and instead send the 67 in lieu of the 350 to provide the GLX connection to Arlington, with maybe longer hours.

For the Boston Avenue case; I wonder if the MBTA is probably looking to cancel the rerouting of the 96 bus away from the GLX and instead leave it on Boston Avenue as it is today rather than bypass the GLX completely.

The 43 bus isn’t high frequency or high ridership; I think they’re just looking to cancel the service cuts proposed in BNRD since what it provides today is mostly just a mirror version of the 68 bus.
Click to expand...
The T is going to chicken out on really reimagining the buses around the GLX, which is criminal. There is near zero reason to leave the 80 heading to Lechmere. Similarly, the 96 and 94 overlapping so much inside of the Medford/Tufts stop.
 
BNRD currently calls for the 80 to terminate at Davis, with the portion east of Powder House Square discontinued. That makes sense to me - Davis is a bigger destination, has more frequent rapid transit, and has a dedicated busway. It also calls for the 94 to be discontinued, while the 96 will be rerouted over College-George-Winthrop. Union Square/East Somerville will also be a terminal for the extended 47 and rerouted 96.
 
All of those are sensible. Maybe there needs to be some replacement West Medford service. Clearly the folks in Medford can’t suffer the pain of bus stops moving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top