MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

sneijder said:
this is extremely depressing.
Click to expand...
It is. It's a depression and malaise that won't go away until we fix some major things in society.

However, in the world of harm reduction, getting even just the bus lanes on Blue Hill Ave should help reduce the harms of the dangerous crossings.
 
as02155 said:
It is. It's a depression and malaise that won't go away until we fix some major things in society.

However, in the world of harm reduction, getting even just the bus lanes on Blue Hill Ave should help reduce the harms of the dangerous crossings.
Click to expand...
Ironically, opponents of the bus lanes at a public meeting a few weeks ago claiming that the bus lanes on Columbus Ave made crossing more dangerous.
 
BeansTheCat said:
This has certainly been brought up before, but I always like to add in these conversations that modern trolleybusses with modest batteries can handle discontinuous electrification, with wires only strung for part of the route. This means (mostly) less infrastructure to maintain, less overhead wires, and a lot more ease in handling diversions/road work. And of course, Dayton, OH started doing the work of converting a legacy trolleybus system to one with in motion charging over a decade ago. The last point being especially relevant to shame politicians and T leadership
Click to expand...
I think the bus department likes the route planning freedom that the lack of fixed infrastructure provides. If they want to reroute a bus, they can simply tell the driver. Overhead wires get in the way of that.
 
RandomWalk said:
I think the bus department likes the route planning freedom that the lack of fixed infrastructure provides. If they want to reroute a bus, they can simply tell the driver. Overhead wires get in the way of that.
Click to expand...
How often does that happen, though? Most of the route system today follows the same exact trolley wires that were in place on those routes over a century ago. Even the BNRD isn't touching most of them. And given that wires in a discontinuous charging system would only appear on very frequent trunks, it plays no role in how you finesse the ends of the system.

Overhead wires require an OCS department and interagency cooperation with municipal road departments and utility providers. They hate that passionately and irrationally. The T's aversion to wires is much, much more venal than it harshing on their crayons. Given how infrequently they redraw routes and how constipated even the once-a-century BNRD process is proving to be, I doubt that even registers as a factor.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Overhead wires require an OCS department and interagency cooperation with municipal road departments and utility providers
Click to expand...
And, crucially, paying for it. You know what the T doesn't pay for? Road maintenance for heavier BEBs.

(For buses, I know the Green Line is different.)
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Overhead wires require an OCS department and interagency cooperation with municipal road departments and utility providers. They hate that passionately and irrationally.
Click to expand...
Everything here is well said, but I completely understand why the T would want to avoid working with municipal DPWs and, to a lesser extent, utility providers. These are mostly small departments subject to severe micro-management from local public officials. Regardless of how capable these city staffs are, they simply don't have the capacity/authority to be reliable partners. Just imagine how difficult it would be for the T to string up wires along the 66 route in Brookline with it's current authority. This is the type of issue where the T should be given greater power and doing so would reduce costs, delays, and project uncertainty. While this is not a sufficient reason to abandon trolley-busses, it is at least rational and I have some sympathy for it.
 
BeansTheCat said:
Everything here is well said, but I completely understand why the T would want to avoid working with municipal DPWs and, to a lesser extent, utility providers. These are mostly small departments subject to severe micro-management from local public officials. Regardless of how capable these city staffs are, they simply don't have the capacity/authority to be reliable partners. Just imagine how difficult it would be for the T to string up wires along the 66 route in Brookline with it's current authority. This is the type of issue where the T should be given greater power and doing so would reduce costs, delays, and project uncertainty. While this is not a sufficient reason to abandon trolley-busses, it is at least rational and I have some sympathy for it.
Click to expand...
It's not a rational concern at all where they had the trolleybuses, and where they played the aggressor saying the cities can't have nice things like road reconfigs if the wires didn't first come down. Cambridge didn't do anything to make their planning lives a living hell; they did this to themselves. An IMC network hubbed at Harvard would've been able to TT the 77, 74, and 75 too and extend the 71 to Newton Corner...upscaling the incumbent system by a lot. The Silver Line IMC network could've strung up some wire on the SL3 busway they already own and/or on the Airport roads that Massport wholly owns. You'd have two sizeable nodes of scale to build off of that would cost a lot less to operate than other pure-BEB nodes because spare ratios and charging range wouldn't be an issue. And from there it's a momentum thing about where to go next. Nobody is saying that unruly Brookline has to be the one key linchpin that upends the whole system because they don't want to play ball easily. They can go with the coalition of the willing and/or just continue building off the incumbent scale with incremental expansion. That's how other TT systems have played it with IMC.

The T hates wires because they hate wires. That's the be-all/end-all of it.
 
I think they hate the public - assuming that this also includes cities and towns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
TheRatmeister said:
This just in, people do in fact want what they voted for.
Click to expand...
Fantastic evidence to show the reality of public opinion rather than the well-funded propaganda that consistently focuses on the opposition and "controversy" angle as if it's the majority. The Globe and other local establishment news networks will elevate these small groups opinions and insist that everyone else online is in a bubble. The insanity of opinion sustained by the Globe is even called out in the leaked presentation!

Mattapan is the only neighborhood in the city where BHA can be considered even close to "polarizing", and support outnumbers opposition by 17 points. The vast majority of opposition is in "strongly oppose", meaning there is no negotiations or ways to get these residents over by giving up bike lanes or anything else. The polling shows they are loud but a minority of residents, and even then they are wrong on the outcomes. Support for bike lanes that remove parking spots is more popular by 11 points city-wide and that support is overwhelmingly similar between races. The only consistent group that consistently oppose them are residents over 55. That is also the group that has the largest percentage of opposition to BHA bus lanes (not a majority though).

There is no reason for Wu or any of us to concede even a little bit on street improvements. It's incredibly important but so frustrating to see more examples of seniors standing in the way of a healthier/safer future of younger generations. I wonder if there will be a Globe or NBC10 piece on this.
 
Is there a reason the new 85 doesn’t run on nights or weekends? Whats the MBTA’s resistance to making this specific route run like any other bus? It’s close to being useful.

Edit: to explain, the current way to get from Somerville to the BU area is to take the 83 to the 47, which are infrequent and annoyingly don't attempt to make a timed meet. 85 in theory is the solution to this and would make the trip much faster (aka the purpose of the old CT2). Otherwise you're stuck taking the central subway which takes hours. If this is supposed to be our urban ring route, shouldn't it be actually a pretty high ridership route if we actually had a useful bus for it?
 
Last edited:
Longfellow said:
Is there a reason the new 85 doesn’t run on nights or weekends? Whats the MBTA’s resistance to making this specific route run like any other bus? It’s close to being useful.

Edit: to explain, the current way to get from Somerville to the BU area is to take the 83 to the 47, which are infrequent and annoyingly don't attempt to make a timed meet. 85 in theory is the solution to this and would make the trip much faster (aka the purpose of the old CT2). Otherwise you're stuck taking the central subway which takes hours. If this is supposed to be our urban ring route, shouldn't it be actually a pretty high ridership route if we actually had a useful bus for it?
Click to expand...
The 47 is supposed to be frequent route; but for some unknown reason the MBTA opted to have 2 infrequent routes (85+CT2 got prioritized) rather than just 1 frequent route (prioritze the 47 first).

It would make far more sense to combine the 47 and 91 buses first (and extend the 42 to Broadway).

Remarkably stupid. Even if the combined 47 could only run every 18-20 minutes instead of every 15 minutes (still an improvement from every 30min); it would still have far higher utility than 2 limited low frequency buses.

---

I still maintain that as of now, the most pressing gaps the fill in the bus network at the moment are these routes
1775830831201.png
1775830998605.png
 
Last edited:
Delvin4519 said:
The 47 is supposed to be frequent route; but for some unknown reason the MBTA opted to have 2 infrequent routes (85+CT2 got prioritized) rather than just 1 frequent route (prioritze the 47 first).

It would make far more sense to combine the 47 and 91 buses first (and extend the 42 to Broadway).

Remarkably stupid. Even if the combined 47 could only run every 18-20 minutes instead of every 15 minutes (still an improvement from every 30min); it would still have far higher utility than 2 limited low frequency buses.
Click to expand...
In theory yes 47 is frequent, but I try to make this combined route virtually every week and it it works out maybe once a month. That area is subject to notorious delays (it goes thru the BU Bridge area) and the 83 is an every 45 min route off-peak.
 
Longfellow said:
In theory yes 47 is frequent, but I try to make this combined route virtually every week and it it works out maybe once a month. That area is subject to notorious delays (it goes thru the BU Bridge area) and the 83 is an every 45 min route off-peak.
Click to expand...
I'm saying is that right now, the 85, 47, and 83 are infrequent low frequency routes. So they are frustrating to use as they don't form "the useful network". The 47 right now is every 30 minutes Saturdays and midday dropping to every 45 minutes nights and Sundays. That makes connections to other low frequency buses almost meaningless. It would have been far more useful to put the extra bus on the 47 and combine it with the 91 to make the Somerville-Cambridge-BU-Longwood route usable. Adding it to the CT2+85 right now is basically almost meaningless at the moment since nothing is frequent right now.
 
The 31 and 9 buses are KBRs now, but the MBTA still hasn't added these 2 buses to the list of KBRs on their website still yet.

Schedules & Maps | MBTA

Schedule information for MBTA subway, bus, Commuter Rail, and ferry in the Greater Boston region, including real-time updates and arrival predictions.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com


1776214691234.png
 
Delvin4519 said:
The 31 and 9 buses are KBRs now, but the MBTA still hasn't added these 2 buses to the list of KBRs on their website still yet.

Schedules & Maps | MBTA

Schedule information for MBTA subway, bus, Commuter Rail, and ferry in the Greater Boston region, including real-time updates and arrival predictions.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com


View attachment 72114
Click to expand...
some how the 104 and 109 (pretty significant promotions a year ago) are tho!
 
Longfellow said:
Edit: to explain, the current way to get from Somerville to the BU area is to take the 83 to the 47, which are infrequent and annoyingly don't attempt to make a timed meet. 85 in theory is the solution to this and would make the trip much faster (aka the purpose of the old CT2). Otherwise you're stuck taking the central subway which takes hours. If this is supposed to be our urban ring route, shouldn't it be actually a pretty high ridership route if we actually had a useful bus for it?
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of the 91 (which runs parallel to the old CT2, new 85) rather than the 83 which does also leave from Central.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top