General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[The EGE]

I think the time to do it would be after a big push to get bus lanes in Roxbury and Dorchester. Get Columbus Phase 2, BHA, Seaver, Malcolm X, and at least something on Warren and in the LMA. Then you can say "oh look, we've got so many routes using these busways, we don't want to put them all in the Silver Line brand, so we're going to have the SL just refer to the Transitway routes", and it doesn't look like you're just giving those neighborhoods the shaft.

 

[RandomWalk]

I agree with all the points backing this up but think it would still be a massive unforced PR nightmare.

It would be the final admission that the old elevated Orange Line “replacement service” through Roxbury was a lie foisted upon the neighborhood by Ray Flynn et al.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I agree with all the points backing this up but think it would still be a massive unforced PR nightmare.

Everything related to the Silver Line is a PR nightmare.

 

[TheRatmeister]

It would be the final admission that the old elevated Orange Line “replacement service” through Roxbury was a lie foisted upon the neighborhood by Ray Flynn et al.

It's always worth remembering that it wasn't intended to be this way. BRT Mania, poor planning, and bad project management brought us here. With SL Phase 3 I think it genuinely could have been 'equal or better' but its entire existence was wrapped up in BRT hype that ultimately introduced fatal constraints to the project.

 

[JeffDowntown]

It's always worth remembering that it wasn't intended to be this way. BRT Mania, poor planning, and bad project management brought us here. With SL Phase 3 I think it genuinely could have been 'equal or better' but its entire existence was wrapped up in BRT hype that ultimately introduced fatal constraints to the project.

I think BRT Lie is a better characterization, because the SL4/SL5 service has never passed muster as BRT. Real BRT has a dedicated right-of way that cannot be infringed on by traffic. The best BRT systems have level, all-door boarding; protected, fare control stations; signal priority at all crossings (or even crossing elimination). Some even segment stations for unloading then loading to speed the process. A BRT should have the efficiency of a well designed LRT system, just using road running vehicles.

SL4/SL5 is nothing more than a standard city bus, painted silver.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I think BRT Lie is a better characterization, because the SL4/SL5 service has never passed muster as BRT. Real BRT has a dedicated right-of way that cannot be infringed on by traffic. The best BRT systems have level, all-door boarding; protected, fare control stations; signal priority at all crossings (or even crossing elimination). Some even segment stations for unloading then loading to speed the process. A BRT should have the efficiency of a well designed LRT system, just using road running vehicles.

SL4/SL5 is nothing more than a standard city bus, painted silver.

But again, put it into the context of Phase 3. Travel time from Tufts-South Station would have been 3-4ish minutes, and that's with the good South Station/Silver Line transfer. And even today, the street section between Tufts and Nubian is not meaningfully slower than the B branch. (About 10% slower for the bottom 10% but depends on the day). If that's your comparison metric, then the added infrastructure cost for center-running seems hard to justify on a space-constrained street like Washington, and I suspect the project rationale was similar. I genuinely think if Phase 3 was built we'd all look at it and go: "well that was kind of silly and it took way too long to build" but I don't think there would be much disagreement about whether it ultimately met the 'equal or better' promise or not, just that, much like the GL, yes improvements to the street section could be made and hopefully we'd see some eventually.

But my argument is that Phase 3 was doomed from the start because of BRT mania and bad planning. BRT made it impossible to reuse the Tremont St subway and necessitated costly multi-berth stations and a weird loop under the Common, the planners were unwilling to even consider a portal at Eliot Norton Park, and the MBTA did not want to operate any 'special' trolleybuses that would have been better able to handle the steep gradients the previous two constraints imposed. (And of course bad project management meant costs kept spiraling and spiraling but as we learned from GLX that's not unique to buses.) Without budging on at least one of those items the project was completely doomed, and it was not structured in a way that incentivized budging. The tunnel was the last thing scheduled to be built which makes it the easiest thing to cancel.

 

[JeffDowntown]

But again, put it into the context of Phase 3. Travel time from Tufts-South Station would have been 3-4ish minutes, and that's with the good South Station/Silver Line transfer. And even today, the street section between Tufts and Nubian is not meaningfully slower than the B branch. (About 10% slower for the bottom 10% but depends on the day). If that's your comparison metric, then the added infrastructure cost for center-running seems hard to justify on a space-constrained street like Washington, and I suspect the project rationale was similar. I genuinely think if Phase 3 was built we'd all look at it and go: "well that was kind of silly and it took way too long to build" but I don't think there would be much disagreement about whether it ultimately met the 'equal or better' promise or not, just that, much like the GL, yes improvements to the street section could be made and hopefully we'd see some eventually.

But my argument is that Phase 3 was doomed from the start because of BRT mania and bad planning. BRT made it impossible to reuse the Tremont St subway and necessitated costly multi-berth stations and a weird loop under the Common, the planners were unwilling to even consider a portal at Eliot Norton Park, and the MBTA did not want to operate any 'special' trolleybuses that would have been better able to handle the steep gradients the previous two constraints imposed. (And of course bad project management meant costs kept spiraling and spiraling but as we learned from GLX that's not unique to buses.) Without budging on at least one of those items the project was completely doomed, and it was not structured in a way that incentivized budging. The tunnel was the last thing scheduled to be built which makes it the easiest thing to cancel.

I acknowledge all your points about Phase 3 being a mess -- horrible concept as BRT.

But I still insist that the bigger point is that the Big BRT Hype was actually a BRT Lie, because the service being built never qualified as BRT. The service serving the former elevated Orange Line (SL4/5) has never been BRT -- those people just got a bus as relacement for HRT.

 

[ritchiew]

It's always worth remembering that it wasn't intended to be this way. BRT Mania, poor planning, and bad project management brought us here. With SL Phase 3 I think it genuinely could have been 'equal or better' but its entire existence was wrapped up in BRT hype that ultimately introduced fatal constraints to the project.

For complicated, interconnected transportation planning, it's kind of hard to say definitively what was "intended." But for a lot of the people involved, yeah, I don't doubt that the current state is basically what was intended. Real rapid transit moved to richer and whiter neighborhoods and away from the heart of Black Boston. There might have been later phases to remedy the loss of transit in Roxbury, but a lot of people in power never believed or really cared if that actually ever happened. The current state was totally predictable. People in Roxbury did predict they'd be stuck with worse service and were angry about it. This is what we did anyways. It's hard to say this wasn't intentional.

 

[Scott]

It would be the final admission that the old elevated Orange Line “replacement service” through Roxbury was a lie foisted upon the neighborhood by Ray Flynn et al.

I disagree about Flynn because he didn't have control over the cuts that were made when things started spiraling out of control particularly when they found that giant erratic boulder in the way of the Ted Williams Tunnel and the fallout from the failed "Scheme Z." I think that Flynn would have preferred that any real expansion of the MBTA happen in Boston but the "Son of Scheme Z" lawsuits would have killed the whole project, so south of the city got shafted

 

[TheRatmeister]

But I still insist that the bigger point is that the Big BRT Hype was actually a BRT Lie, because the service being built never qualified as BRT.

Yes and no. There was (and still is) a lot of BRT that is more just an enhanced bus service with better branding, the term I've heard and quite like is 'BHLS' (Bus with a Higher Level of Service) but that is obviously more clunky than BRT. There was and is willfull, if not lying definitely truth-stretching, about BHLS being 'just as good as rapid transit' or whatever.

But there's also the SL Transitway with its big, expensive stations and Phase 3 that was planned with the assumption of a vehicle every 50 seconds, or the unbuilt Urban Ring (especially the Longwood portion) or the Stuart St Silver Line tunnel that was given 'medium priority' in the 2003 PMT. That's as real BRT as it possibly gets. If you look at these projects rationally, with the number of vehicles you would need to operate this service, the needed capacity, the quality of the service, etc, you would find that some form of rail was probably better. But all the BRT hype and borderline propaganda advertising cheaper, better service with buses would tell you otherwise, and so many politicians and executives were (and still are) just absolutely entranced by it because new and shiny.

But I still insist that the bigger point is that the Big BRT Hype was actually a BRT Lie, because the service being built never qualified as BRT. The service serving the former elevated Orange Line (SL4/5) has never been BRT -- those people just got a bus as relacement for HRT.

And my arguement is that I'm not sure that there's that much of a difference between the prefered light-rail line, which I think was generally considered to meet the 'equal or better' promise, and the Silver Line on the street sections. Without signal priority and crossing elimination (which seem unlikely to have happened in the 1990s/2000s) the speed between Nubian and Tufts would be about the same. So then the big difference is how that link integrates with the rest of the network. With light-rail you get the advantage of high-quality transfers at Boylston and Park St. SL Phase 3 promised the same at Boylston, Chinatown, and South Station. The current SL has neither, with the Temple Place ('DTX') and Essex St 'South Station' being particular low-lights.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Yes, there are tiny directional arrows at the stub ends on the loops, but I couldn't even see them, and my eyes are pretty good.

bigger arrows?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And my arguement is that I'm not sure that there's that much of a difference between the prefered light-rail line, which I think was generally considered to meet the 'equal or better' promise, and the Silver Line on the street sections. Without signal priority and crossing elimination (which seem unlikely to have happened in the 1990s/2000s) the speed between Nubian and Tufts would be about the same. So then the big difference is how that link integrates with the rest of the network. With light-rail you get the advantage of high-quality transfers at Boylston and Park St. SL Phase 3 promised the same at Boylston, Chinatown, and South Station. The current SL has neither, with the Temple Place ('DTX') and Essex St 'South Station' being particular low-lights.

Given that by 2003 they had retreated to planning to short-turn most service at Boylston Loop because of growing deficiencies in schedule-keeping on the trunk, I wouldn't even say Phase 3 was promising "high-quality transfers" in the end. Not being able to get to Orange or Red on a 1-seat from Nubian on a majority of slots would've dropped a big skunk on the projected ridership and exacerbated the general short shrift that Roxbury and the South End were getting vs. the Seaport. Any LRT Washington build would've hit all color transfers behind prepayment in one seat on every run by default due to needing to roam at least as far as North Station to tap a yard and car supply. It would've been a stark difference in trip generation and service quality even if the surface speeds had been the same for BRT or LRT builds.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Given that by 2003 they had retreated to planning to short-turn most service at Boylston Loop because of growing deficiencies in schedule-keeping on the trunk, I wouldn't even say Phase 3 was promising "high-quality transfers" in the end. Not being able to get to Orange or Red on a 1-seat from Nubian on a majority of slots would've dropped a big skunk on the projected ridership and exacerbated the general short shrift that Roxbury and the South End were getting vs. the Seaport. Any LRT Washington build would've hit all color transfers behind prepayment in one seat on every run by default due to needing to roam at least as far as North Station to tap a yard and car supply. It would've been a stark difference in trip generation and service quality even if the surface speeds had been the same for BRT or LRT builds.

Is there a different document with other service plans? The 2003 EIS shows no Dudley-Boylston short turns.

 

[Stlin]

As an sort of aside, Porter Square residents want to see the kinetic sculpture outside the MBTA station repaired and repainted, and while I don't disagree, it turns out the T no longer has folks devoted to its public art. For an agency with a multi billion dollar budget, and acknowledging the budgetary constraints, I still feel like having a curator or two on staff isn't a bad idea. As an extension of that I get that the map updates that the T graphics team puts out are functional but not exactly holistic. Perhaps operational maintenance should comes first, but I don't think the T should abandon aesthetics. Just because its a maintenance burden doesn't mean it shouldn't exist - ref. The Harvard Sq ceiling removal - things looking good isn't a bad thing, and making things look better doesn't hurt the T. A director of design, architecture and art would be appropriate, someone who can actually shape the design language and how the T expresses itself, rather than a mid-level staffer whos job it is to update an existing map graphic by inserting a new bus line rather than holistically redraw it like @TheRatmeister has.

Porter Square sculpture needs repair. Who pays to fix it?

“Gift of the Wind” is perhaps the MBTA’s most prominent artwork. The challenge lies in securing funding for its restoration.

www.cambridgeday.com

In a statement to Cambridge Day, the MBTA wrote, “We continue to evaluate every station element, including art, through the lens of safety, durability, and operational impact… Art should complement — not compromise — the function and longevity of our infrastructure so that we can always give riders what they deserve.”

But restoring its artwork is not exactly a budget priority for the transit agency, which expects to end its fiscal year in June with a $239 million budget deficit. That amount is forecast to more than double or even triple without new revenue sources.

Complicating matters is that the T no longer has a position or program solely dedicated to public art. Internal staff restructuring and cutbacks to federal funding for arts suggests that the agency that was once so proud of its pioneering art collection has moved on.

“I fear very much that, if we don’t solve this, the MBTA will take [Gift of the Wind] down, look at it, decide they can’t afford it, and put it on their ‘lost art’ shelf,” said Ryals.

 

[TheRatmeister]

As an sort of aside, Porter Square residents want to see the kinetic sculpture outside the MBTA station repaired and repainted, and while I don't disagree, it turns out the T no longer has folks devoted to its public art. For an agency with a multi billion dollar budget, and acknowledging the budgetary constraints, I still feel like having a curator or two on staff isn't a bad idea. As an extension of that I get that the map updates that the T graphics team puts out are functional but not exactly holistic. Perhaps operational maintenance should comes first, but I don't think the T should abandon aesthetics. Just because its a maintenance burden doesn't mean it shouldn't exist - ref. The Harvard Sq ceiling removal - things looking good isn't a bad thing, and making things look better doesn't hurt the T. A director of design, architecture and art would be appropriate, someone who can actually shape the design language and how the T expresses itself, rather than a mid-level staffer whos job it is to update an existing map graphic by inserting a new bus line rather than holistically redraw it like @TheRatmeister has.

Porter Square sculpture needs repair. Who pays to fix it?

“Gift of the Wind” is perhaps the MBTA’s most prominent artwork. The challenge lies in securing funding for its restoration.

www.cambridgeday.com

I can't agree more (and not just because of the map). Art on transit is something I'm incredibly passionate about. People rejected the bland and flat functionality of functionalist modernism for a reason, we like to be in beautiful and pleasant spaces and exposure to art and architecture is a great way to do that. In the Metro photos from around the world thread I've posted a lot but some of my favorites are the simple ones, you can do so much with basic tiles, mosaics, murals, and lighting. You don't have to splurge to get good-looking stations (although for stations in key areas it's not necessarily a bad idea to have a couple real good lookers on the system.)

 

[RandomWalk]

I think Harries Heder still has the molds for the Glove Cycle and there was some discussion of recasting them 20 years ago.

 

[FormFollowsBudget]

The new CIP is pretty bleak: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...6-board-of-directors-meeting-proposed-cip.pdf

 

[TheRatmeister]

The new CIP is pretty bleak: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...6-board-of-directors-meeting-proposed-cip.pdf

Without the full CIP I don't know that it's possible to draw a definitive conclusion but from the slides it doesn't look any worse than the past couple CIPs, if anything it actually looks a bit better.

 

[HenryAlan]

The new CIP is pretty bleak: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...6-board-of-directors-meeting-proposed-cip.pdf

Maybe we already knew this, but one thing that stands out to me is a statement about battery electric locomotives for Fairmont, rather than BEMU procurement. Is that just a mistake on the slide, or did they just downgrade that proposal? I'm thinking typo, since a subsequent slide does specify a BEMU maintenance facility. But the disconnect makes me wonder about the quality of information overall in this presentation.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2026-03/4.%20MBTA%20SHE%20Deck_Decarbonization%20Strategy.pdf

Decarbonization update from the T Board Safety, Health, and Environmental Subcommittee.

All told it's worded very bearishly. They play up the downsides to electrification, play up "cleaner diesel", and were a little surprisingly sour on BEB's downsides. . .

And the "Lessons Learned" slide about BEB's sounded real ominous about the relative odds of a smooth service rollout and within-cost completion of the necessary support facilities. . .

The Commuter Rail section of the presentation had no surprises. They slagged off hard on electrification infrastructure being too hard and too expensive. The only twist was this time they were whining about grid reliability, too, which is going to undercut even the "partial electrification" efforts.

And reading between the lines, they're in a real rush to retire the Tier 0+ emissions diesels (F40PH's, GP40MC's, MP36PH's), which draining the option orders on the new diesel + battery RFP can accomplish...but at downside that it leaves nothing on the contract for battery loco option orders. The base batt loco order is more or less confirmed in the slides to be for Providence and Wickford only, so the other NEC branches like Stoughton and Needham would have to be covered on the option orders...if there even are any non-diesels optioned.


It's not Baker's and Pollack's narrative anymore; it's thoroughly Healey's and Eng's now. So if report language like this is their stamp on the proceedings...bleh, we ain't getting anywhere meaningful for a long time.