General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

One thing of note with the MBTA's New Year's Eve late night service:

The MBTA extends late night service for Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail, but doesn't do so for buses.

1672532393483.png


This means that late night service extends until 2:45 a.m., for communities like Cambridge, Brookline, and Quincy.

However, Everett, Brighton, Watertown, Roxbury, and Dorchester, having only local bus service, would still see the last buses at 1:10 or 1:15 a.m. for New Year's Eve. The last 57 bus to Watertown is still scheduled to depart at 1:11 a.m. from Kenmore! Even though Green Line is scheduled to have train service at Kenmore until 2:56 a.m.

If one lives along the old Green Line A branch in Brighton, no extended service for the 57. C Branch in Brookline? Extended service.


1672532592900.png



This does mean, through a quirk with the MBTA only extending rail service on New Year's, that Somerville now adds New Year's Eve late night service through adding the GLX to Rapid Transit, therefore providing late night New Year's Eve service to Somerville and Tufts, service runs outbound until 3:13 a.m. at Tufts.

I would've thought at least the Key Bus Routes would keep circulating every 20 or 30 minutes until the last trains, but apparently not. Would this be the case under normal, fully staffed MBTA? I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
Hey, at least there’s a way to get to Roxbury from Downtown from the New Year’s Eve festivities. Just go all the way to Ashmont and grab the 15 bus back in. They didn’t extend bus service, so it’s the only way, at least for the 15 bus route. Other bus routes not so much.
 
lainpimicaja said:
In terms of getting a handle on "what's next" for T expansion projects, it's probably a good time to get reacquainted with priorities identified in Go Boston 2030 since much of it was developed when Finadaca was BTD Commissioner. Much of that plan was put together assuming there would be a federal infrastructure bill passed in 2017, which obvious didn't happen until more recently. With vastly more federal funding available now, Boston-oriented leaders like Fiandaca in place (especially given her connections to Walsh and construction supporters like the GBBTU), and Wu in the Mayor's office, I can imagine the following projects resurfacing from the realm of ideas into projects with funding and staff allocated:
  • Fairmount Indigo Line service upgrades (Page 179)
  • Regional Rail transformation (lot of "Urban Rail" ideas in GOB2030 that sync up)
  • Orange Line extension to at least Roslindale (Page 157)
  • Green Line E Branch Extension to Hyde Square (Page 162)
I would add Red-Blue connector and potentially North-South Rail Link to this list even though they weren't included in GOB2030. I wouldn't be surprised if Red-Blue connector even evolved into a Blue Line extension to both Lynn and Riverside via LMA, which was a "big idea" included in MassDOT's Focus40 plan (page 40-1), and is also being advocated for by other Walsh allies that Fiandaca would be connected with (like David Sweeney at MASCO - formerly Walsh's CoS). I think these two paragraphs from that Globe op-ed from Sweeney that came out after the gubernatorial general election gives you a good take on what Healey administration's stance is gonna be:

Click to expand...
I tried researching this a little first but came up fruitless: how does the tracking for the OLX to Roslindale work when keeping the CR ? Is there a big enough RoW on the tracks as well as at the Roslindale station?

I really think this extension should be fast tracked because it seems much easier than BLX, but there's some land clearing right?
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I tried researching this a little first but came up fruitless: how does the tracking for the OLX to Roslindale work when keeping the CR ? Is there a big enough RoW on the tracks as well as at the Roslindale station?

I really think this extension should be fast tracked because it seems much easier than BLX, but there's some land clearing right?
Click to expand...

Afaik the row is 4 track width to the square at least. I would figure the existing station + parking land would be enough for a station, but could be wrong on that.
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I tried researching this a little first but came up fruitless: how does the tracking for the OLX to Roslindale work when keeping the CR ? Is there a big enough RoW on the tracks as well as at the Roslindale station?
Click to expand...

The Needham ROW is (at least) triple-track width as far as Roslindale station (from the Google map it doesn't look like there's really starting to be any meaningful width constraint until near the Walworth underpass behind Fallon Field). The only structure anywhere near the station on the north side is the apartment building on the corner of Conway, and the property line is right close to the back of the building. That whole area full of trees behind the inbound end of the platform is MBTA-owned land. There's a little bit of room on the south side before they hit the property line of the bank, but a metric ton of space to work with on the north side. They'd just have to cannibalize the existing station and some of the (frankly excessive) parking, and move some stuff around, but the space is there both at the station site and in the ROW.

bakgwailo said:
Afaik the row is 4 track width to the square at least. I would figure the existing station + parking land would be enough for a station, but could be wrong on that.
Click to expand...

No way does the South Street bridge look quad-width. Triple, yeah, but I don't think quad. Don't need quad, though, so we're fine either way. By my eye they'd need to chop some of those trees down on the big plot of land they own on the north-inbound end of the station to make the platforms fit unless they're wanting to do a lot more work around the Robert St. bridge over the road on the outbound end of the station, but they've got plenty of space to play with.
 
Last edited:
Brattle Loop said:
The Needham ROW is (at least) triple-track width as far as Roslindale station (from the Google map it doesn't look like there's really starting to be any meaningful width constraint until near the Walworth underpass behind Fallon Field). The only structure anywhere near the station on the north side is the apartment building on the corner of Conway, and the property line is right close to the back of the building. That whole area full of trees behind the inbound end of the platform is MBTA-owned land. There's a little bit of room on the south side before they hit the property line of the bank, but a metric ton of space to work with on the north side. They'd just have to cannibalize the existing station and some of the (frankly excessive) parking, and move some stuff around, but the space is there both at the station site and in the ROW.



No way does the South Street bridge look quad-width. Triple, yeah, but I don't think quad. Don't need quad, though, so we're fine either way. By my eye they'd need to chop some of those trees down on the big plot of land they own on the north-inbound end of the station to make the platforms fit unless they're wanting to do a lot more work around the bridge over the road, but they've got plenty of space to play with.
Click to expand...
South St? Do you mean Robert St bridge?
 
Tallguy said:
South St? Do you mean Robert St bridge?
Click to expand...

Map says South St. I'm talking about the old stone arch bridge near the Arboretum, because the original post I was responding to was talking about quad-track width to Roslindale Square (and in my opinion the stone bridge is triple-track at most). Re-reading my post, I think I should have been clearer that the subsequent discussion of a bridge was a reference to the Robert St. bridge adjacent to the station. I'll edit that to clarify.
 
How easy is it to build a busway at Roslindale Village (perhaps converting one of the parking lots)?

That will be a mandatory part of the project so that you can actually shorten the bus routes from Forest Hills (30, 34/34E, 35, 36, 37, 40, 50, 51, plus 14 that already terminates at Roslindale), but that seems to require a big bus terminal. The southside parking lot doesn't look large enough to me; the northside lot looks okay but is less convenient for buses.

Even if a West Roxbury extension eventually gets built (or if you skip Roslindale terminus and go straight to West Roxbury), you will still need a bus terminal at Roslindale.
 
stefal said:
What are reasonable repercussions for a public transit agency?
Click to expand...

Being forced to re-instate frequencies that meet their obligations. If still non-complaint, maybe something along the lines of removing the GM from their position if there is a failure to meet minimum service requirements, with a waiver possible but arduous to acquire in extenuating circumstances.
 
Teban54 said:
How easy is it to build a busway at Roslindale Village (perhaps converting one of the parking lots)?

That will be a mandatory part of the project so that you can actually shorten the bus routes from Forest Hills (30, 34/34E, 35, 36, 37, 40, 50, 51, plus 14 that already terminates at Roslindale), but that seems to require a big bus terminal. The southside parking lot doesn't look large enough to me; the northside lot looks okay but is less convenient for buses.

Even if a West Roxbury extension eventually gets built (or if you skip Roslindale terminus and go straight to West Roxbury), you will still need a bus terminal at Roslindale.
Click to expand...

Which bus routes would make the most sense to shorten, and which bus routes would still need to continue on to Forest Hills? In some cases, a bus route or so would still need to continue to Forest Hills to maintain connections with other bus routes, similar to how the 77 continues past Porter onwards to Harvard, even with the Red Line paralleling it.

The 51 seems like a no brainer to cut back to Roslindale immediately if the OLX were to happen. The 40 and the 50, I think also should be shortened. 34E is also a good candidate. In the meantime, I think the regular 34, 35, 36, 37, should all continue on to Forest Hills for direct connections with other buses. So about 4 of the 8 bus routes would be shortened.

Then, if OLX2 to West Roxbury were to happen. The 35 and the 37 should all be axed, and instead run a modified 35 using the 37's terminus, and run to Dedham Mall as a combined 37/35 route, picking up at West Roxbury. The 36 would continue to make local stops out to Forest Hills. This leaves only the 36 and the 34 as the last remaining 2 bus routes running between Roslindale and Forest Hills. This is similar to how the 39 operates between Heath and Copley.
 
Delvin4519 said:
Which bus routes would make the most sense to shorten, and which bus routes would still need to continue on to Forest Hills? In some cases, a bus route or so would still need to continue to Forest Hills to maintain connections with other bus routes, similar to how the 77 continues past Porter onwards to Harvard, even with the Red Line paralleling it.

The 51 seems like a no brainer to cut back to Roslindale immediately if the OLX were to happen. The 40 and the 50, I think also should be shortened. 34E is also a good candidate. In the meantime, I think the regular 34, 35, 36, 37, should all continue on to Forest Hills for direct connections with other buses. So about 4 of the 8 bus routes would be shortened.

Then, if OLX2 to West Roxbury were to happen. The 35 and the 37 should all be axed, and instead run a modified 35 using the 37's terminus, and run to Dedham Mall as a combined 37/35 route, picking up at West Roxbury. The 36 would continue to make local stops out to Forest Hills. This leaves only the 36 and the 34 as the last remaining 2 bus routes running between Roslindale and Forest Hills. This is similar to how the 39 operates between Heath and Copley.
Click to expand...
Good point that I didn't consider. I myself would also shorten 35 and 37 soon after the OL Roslindale extension, since the general West Roxbury region will still have the 36 to Forest Hills. This way, there will also be less inertia when OL-to-West-Roxbury opens and these 2 routes get modified again. Dedham Mall still has 34 to Forest Hills (plus 36 in the redesign).
 
Teban54 said:
How easy is it to build a busway at Roslindale Village (perhaps converting one of the parking lots)?

That will be a mandatory part of the project so that you can actually shorten the bus routes from Forest Hills (30, 34/34E, 35, 36, 37, 40, 50, 51, plus 14 that already terminates at Roslindale), but that seems to require a big bus terminal. The southside parking lot doesn't look large enough to me; the northside lot looks okay but is less convenient for buses.

Even if a West Roxbury extension eventually gets built (or if you skip Roslindale terminus and go straight to West Roxbury), you will still need a bus terminal at Roslindale.
Click to expand...
Roslindale has 143 spaces on the property, plus the 85+ space municipal lot right next door behind the bank. Just a bonkers amount of parking for such an urban station. The station lots are on the former footprints of the NYNH&H station buildings: 2 buildings, each side of the tracks, for the station and its tenant businesses, plus a freight house that the 3rd-track siding served. You could zero-out all parking at the OLX stop and the muni lot would still arguably be excessive for the neighborhood. Could easily do busways on both sides, with the layover idling spots mainly clustered to the bigger north lot. Terminating routes I would say are best confined to the north lot, where there's less consequential schedule penalty for the maneuvering around Robert St. FH thru routes can use the quicker on/off of the south lot.
 
Last edited:
Brattle Loop said:
Map says South St. I'm talking about the old stone arch bridge near the Arboretum, because the original post I was responding to was talking about quad-track width to Roslindale Square (and in my opinion the stone bridge is triple-track at most). Re-reading my post, I think I should have been clearer that the subsequent discussion of a bridge was a reference to the Robert St. bridge adjacent to the station. I'll edit that to clarify.
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah, I was referring to the ROW itself. Agree the bridge is maybe 3 tracks and would need to be replaced/widen if four were really needed (and possibly for just a third depending on what is needed for separation between subway and commuter rail tracks).
 
Teban54 said:
Good point that I didn't consider. I myself would also shorten 35 and 37 soon after the OL Roslindale extension, since the general West Roxbury region will still have the 36 to Forest Hills. This way, there will also be less inertia when OL-to-West-Roxbury opens and these 2 routes get modified again. Dedham Mall still has 34 to Forest Hills (plus 36 in the redesign).
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I could also see that working. 37 is barely longer than the 36, and 35 is longer than the 37 and 36. However, shortening the 37 to Roslindale is a much larger cut at the northern end of the routes than the differing lengths of the southern potions of the 36/37. This leaves the 37 with a very short route, which would make it hard to run corrdinated headways between the 37 vs. 35/36. Honestly, this really means that OLX to West Roxbury is going to need to happen.

Also, my original post forgot to mention the 30. That route would be axed to Roslindale, the 31 already goes to FH from Mattapan.
 
bakgwailo said:
I swear that included the Orange line +1 to Rozzie Square, but can only find the green line to Hyde Square. Both of which would be great improvements.
Click to expand...

Arlington said:
OL+1to RozSq was the 5th most popular project, but they bustituted it to be in-scope for the City:
Click to expand...

It's still there, labelled as urban rail to Roslindale, and listed as a longer range goal. Something called rapid bus is listed for a shorter term improvement, which I guess is the commute hours bus lanes, though they aren't so rapid, especially when lots of people park in them.
 
This dispatching thing is annoying. It's a closed track.
 
HenryAlan said:
My understanding is that the main capacity constraint is lack of dispatching staff. More trains can't run until that issue is resolved.
Click to expand...
Yes although I think @KentXie is pointing out that the T was already running x trainsets with current dispatching staff; this new problem has reduced the trainsets to, like, x - 9 (can’t remember exact number), so in theory the existing staff should be able to handle any number of trains back up to the original x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top