MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Longfellow]

Perhaps more alarmingly: Any Silver Line route can make the public believe that the MBTA has no intention to ever bring (rail) rapid transit to these areas.

This seems plainly true to me. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

And SL4/5, in particular, was branded as the replacement for the old Orange Line El, leading to many believing that the MBTA had no intention of reinstating the rapid transit service that Nubian lost.

I feel like ever since I learned about this it's seemed very odd to me that nobody is proposing restoring the elevated. You would think with the focus on equity nowadays that the fact we replaced heavy rail service to a poorer area with a literal bus, and then gave hip Jamaica Plain the heavy rail, there would probably be some lasting campaign to fix this. Obviously the SL was the replacement for transit service in that area. I don't think the MBTA intends to revisit the area, heck I don't see anyone on this forum talking about it as much as they talk about things like the urban ring!

In other words, due to the baggage associated with the term "Silver Line", any further attempts by the MBTA -- even for the goal of improving bus service -- run the risk of the public opposing them for fear of suffering the same fate as Nubian. This ends up being a net negative for the communities as they let perfect be the enemy of good; especially if the MBTA did intend to also plan and invest in long-term improvements, and especially if the additional routes were planned to be of higher quality than SL4/5 (I think this is true for SL3x). It fundamentally undermines any good-faith efforts to introduce BRT service, especially in the reality of inability to expand rail service.

Per F-Line's comment, there is plenty that they could have done to make the SL more like BRT, and they haven't yet. Do we think they will at some point in the future? Why?

 

[kdmc]

heck I don't see anyone on this forum talking about it as much as they talk about things like the urban ring!

Basically every version of Green Line reconfiguration/expansion I've seen on this forum includes a branch to Nubian, some as a dedicated-median trolley, others as elevated light metro. Heck, F-Line's username is a callout to the idea. Perhaps we don't talk about it more because it's so obvious that it needs to happen--there's no debate on "whether", only "how".

 

[Longfellow]

Basically every version of Green Line reconfiguration/expansion I've seen on this forum includes a branch to Nubian, some as a dedicated-median trolley, others as elevated light metro. Heck, F-Line's username is a callout to the idea. Perhaps we don't talk about it more because it's so obvious that it needs to happen--there's no debate on "whether", only "how".

Happy to concede that point. It is more interesting to wonder about what it hard than what it obvious.

 

[Teban54]

This seems plainly true to me. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

It may be true for Nubian, but as for other communities, I can't find evidence that MBTA will never, ever, ever consider rail rapid transit to Everett, Chelsea, and other corridors that SL3x/SL6 will cover.

Also, part of my point was that evidence directly supporting "MBTA do want rail to Everett" may be hard to find, for complex reasons beyond "they hate Everett". Specifically:

• Rail rapid transit projects unfortunately progress at a slow, decadal pace. Worse still, no agencies have a concrete long-term plan for how the transit network will look like after multiple projects (unlike LA, Seattle, etc).
• Other projects may take higher priority. Because of the previous point, we unfortunately have a huge backlog of projects (NSRL and electrification, Lynn, West Roxbury and Needham, Arlington, many segments of Urban Ring, etc). It's hard to argue that Everett, Chelsea, and Sullivan-Kendall trump everything here, but that doesn’t necessary mean they won't be on the radar.

In fact, I'd think the need for SL3x/SL6 increases precisely because of these two factors, which mean Everett and Chelsea may need to wait an undetermined number of decades to get rail rapid transit. Having BRT (or at least vastly improved bus service) would at least address their needs in the interim, instead of waiting decades for the "perfect" solution.

I do acknowledge that it's even harder to prove "MBTA won't ever consider rail", as you fundamentally can't prove a negative. But the inability to prove either side of the coin should at least make it a grey area, and not something plainly obvious.

Lastly, given that 95% of fan-made Urban Ring proposals go through Everett and Chelsea, it's difficult to imagine MBTA will purposely skip them if/when they restart planning efforts for the Urban Ring, with or without SL3x/SL6.

(I'll note that even for Nubian itself, the 2003 Program for Mass Transportation studied an alternative of converting SL5 to a Green Line branch, and it scored very highly on ridership. The ultimate decision to rate it "low priority" has more to do with the BRT-centric mindset of that era, specifically its conflict with the ongoing SL Phase III planning, and not due to the project's own drawbacks. So it's technically also incorrect to say planning agencies have never considered rail to Nubian.)

I feel like ever since I learned about this it's seemed very odd to me that nobody is proposing restoring the elevated. You would think with the focus on equity nowadays that the fact we replaced heavy rail service to a poorer area with a literal bus, and then gave hip Jamaica Plain the heavy rail, there would probably be some lasting campaign to fix this. Obviously the SL was the replacement for transit service in that area. I don't think the MBTA intends to revisit the area, heck I don't see anyone on this forum talking about it as much as they talk about things like the urban ring!

In addition to what @kdmc mentioned above regarding a surface Nubian branch, some such as @Riverside and myself have even gone a step further and proposed an I-93 Elevated to bring rapid, grade-separated transit to Nubian. So at a grassroot level, the momentum certainly exists.

There's another factor: People may still be against Els because of their negative impressions of Els from the last century. Truth to be told, they weren't constructed well, and were heavily disruptive to the surroundings. A complication is that those who were most affected by Washington St El are actually South End, not Nubian, and it's a neighborhood that has rapidly gentrified even just in the last 10 years. Not only may they expect the same disruption from the 1901 El (even though that's not necessarily true with modern Els), but they'll get longer stop spacing than SL4/5, making it even less likely for them to support it.

Per F-Line's comment, there is plenty that they could have done to make the SL more like BRT, and they haven't yet. Do we think they will at some point in the future? Why?

For one thing, F-Line's list of improvements was regarding SL Waterfront, whereas I was referring to the phenomenon that anyone who hear of SL may immediately expect standards similar to SL Washington. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the comment I initially quoted. (Despite the many areas of improvement that F-Line quoted, SL Waterfront's main trunk is decidedly not "just a bus".)

For another, I wasn't suggesting that any MBTA attempts need to have a strong "BRT score" for the subsequent train of thoughts to happen. Something that's technically not "fully real BRT" can still be a big improvement, and can still be a good faith effort*. I know there's been disagreements regarding whether the proposed SL3x is "real BRT", but even if it's not, it's most likely still much better than other alternatives. Holding out a good "partial BRT" for a perfect "real BRT" is just like holding out a good BRT of any kind for a perfect rail service.

* In the case of SL3x, this is especially true if the decision for street-running into Everett Square was precisely for the benefit of (mayyybe even demand from) Everett itself.

 

[Longfellow]

...

I think this is a good analysis, I guess I would prefer long term expansion plans coming from the MBTA that we can then chew on and comment on. There's only been one sizeable rapid transit expansion in my lifetime, and I don't see any chatter from state leaders for more beyond NSRL stuff. So my assumption would be that in absence of hearing something from the source, us talking to each other doesn't really mean much in terms of getting new trains actually built. If we broaden 'would the MBTA do X' to mean 'would a future version of the MBTA in a different political economy and planning environment consider doing it', sure, I think you can argue that for a lot of projects.

 

[HenryAlan]

Also, doesn't the drawbridge operate? I feel like I once was stuck waiting for it to lower while on a bike ride, but maybe hallucinated that memory.

@Teban54 already addressed this, but I'll add my personal experience as somebody who occasionally bike commutes through the area, and then Beecham St. to the Chelsea Creek drawbridge. I have never seen the Alford St bridge open to river traffic during commute hours (as noted earlier). But the Chelsea Creek bridge opens quite often, which is kind of a bummer!

 

[Charlie_mta]

I feel like ever since I learned about this it's seemed very odd to me that nobody is proposing restoring the elevated.

At the time the OL was relocated to the SW Corridor, there was serious consideration being given to routing a GL branch to Nubian (Dudley) using the abandoned, but not yet demolished, OL elevated structure along Washington St.

IMO, that would have been ideal, but my own suspicion at the time was it wouldn't happen because of the fear of introducing "those" people onto the GL system. As racist as that was, that was Boston in the 1970s. But a new elevated GL branch would be great.

 

[HenryAlan]

IMO, that would have been ideal, but my own suspicion at the time was it wouldn't happen because of the fear of introducing "those" people onto the GL system. As racist as that was, that was Boston in the 1970s. But a new elevated GL branch would be great.

It was my understanding that the elevated F-Line branch idea was cancelled due to overwhelming structural deficiencies on the elevated structure. But given the era, that could certainly have just been cover for your more cynical explanation.

 

[Longfellow]

It was my understanding that the elevated F-Line branch idea was cancelled due to overwhelming structural deficiencies on the elevated structure. But given the era, that could certainly have just been cover for your more cynical explanation.

It seems like a lot of the retrospectives claim it was falling apart and had to come down either way. Now based on what you guys said how much that was true vs people claiming to be scared of it falling over to get it torn down. For what it's worth the new Lechmere El is quite quiet and pleasant, but needs better placemaking underneath of it. Most of the negative energy in the area is from the Monsignor highway and the overbuilt intersection in Lechmere square.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It was my understanding that the elevated F-Line branch idea was cancelled due to overwhelming structural deficiencies on the elevated structure. But given the era, that could certainly have just been cover for your more cynical explanation.

Chicago has equally old elevateds that are still standing, with portions and parts replaced and updated as needed, in a climate just as harsh as Boston's. Where there's a will there's a way.

 

[bigeman312]

… There's only been one sizeable rapid transit expansion in my lifetime …

This is the root of the problem. If you’re 36 or younger, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your lifetime. Unless you’re over 40, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your living memory.

That means the majority of lifelong greater-Boston residents have no living memory of rapid transit expansion beyond GLX. Convincing them that a hypothetical not-yet-funded rapid transit expansion could come to their neighborhood is a fool’s errand. Their entire lived experience would tell them otherwise.

 

[Longfellow]

This is the root of the problem. If you’re 36 or younger, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your lifetime. Unless you’re over 40, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your living memory.

That means the majority of lifelong greater-Boston residents have no living memory of rapid transit expansion beyond GLX. Convincing them that a hypothetical not-yet-funded rapid transit expansion could come to their neighborhood is a fool’s errand. Their entire lived experience would tell them otherwise.

Agreed, and not to be a doomsayer, but I think for the average person, saying something is 20+ years out is as good as saying it won't happen. Who knows if I'll even live here then? What career I'll be in? I can't really sit on my thumb waiting for new rail lines until then.

 

[Teban54]

This is the root of the problem. If you’re 36 or younger, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your lifetime. Unless you’re over 40, there’s only been one (light rail) rapid transit expansion in your living memory.

That means the majority of lifelong greater-Boston residents have no living memory of rapid transit expansion beyond GLX. Convincing them that a hypothetical not-yet-funded rapid transit expansion could come to their neighborhood is a fool’s errand. Their entire lived experience would tell them otherwise.

While I completely agree with you and think it's very unfortunate that we're implementing rapid transit projects (particularly rail) at such a slow pace, I can't help but come back to this comment that started the whole question:

So yes, I’m highly skeptical of anything the MBTA does that has a silver line moniker attached to it. The T is not doing this to substantially improve public transit service to Everett. That was never even part of the planning effort. They are doing this because this is by far the cheapest, bottom of the barrel, Dollar Store-esque type of transit investment that will still allow them to say they are investing in rapid transit service to Everett.

The fact that this comment became very popular on this forum (11 likes as of writing) is quite telling. It means a substantial part of this community -- which know transit planning processes much better than an average person -- think the MBTA shows an intrinsic lack of any desire or effort to "improve public transit service to Everett", or any "Silver Line neighborhood". When instead, the root cause is exactly as you mentioned: transit planning is so slow that we can't improve (rail) transit to any community, Everett or otherwise, within a reasonable time. This is a complex issue that goes far beyond MBTA's "planning effort".

Which brings me back to my first question: It appears that the branding of "Silver Line" in this case, and all the baggage associated with it, may be clouding the crowds here from seeing the root issue. How much of this was due to the branding itself? If not, then what other reasons are behind this collective opinion?

 

[Longfellow]

Which brings me back to my first question: It appears that the branding of "Silver Line" in this case, and all the baggage associated with it, may be clouding the crowds here from seeing the root issue. How much of this was due to the branding itself? If not, then what other reasons are behind this collective opinion?

In terms of pleasing enthusiasts like us -- probably Eng should have asked the GLX team to stay on, announced that planning of one of the more achievable light rail projects we want is starting, but has to wait for state of good repair to actually break ground. And then for bonus points announce that he's ditching the Pioneer Institute's pet projects, like BEMUs, etc.

In terms of why we don't like the branding -- not to speak for anyone, just for myself -- it's a bus that bills itself as not a bus. The new center running BRT stuff is well heralded and even has guys on Youtube posting videos foaming on it. But that's an upgrade from a mixed traffic bus to something that respects the mode. For the silver line, the branding promises something generally coequal to a rail line with high speeds, stations, even fare vending machines, lighting, etc. and then giving it the same actual respect you give the average mixed traffic bus.* It seems like the total representation of everything we've come to expect from public and private planning -- anything beautiful is expensive, anything useful is impossible. Would rebranding help? Probably not, because then you're suddenly shrinking the transit map, and then you're giving license to the MBTA board to shrink it to 40 minute service. What would work? Eventually we replace a couple of the lines with rail, do other projects, eventually one year when we're updating the map suddenly we don't have room for them, and they go to lower lineweight 'major bus routes'. A few years later the branding is dropped completely.

*Yes the transitway in the seaport is decent

 

[bigeman312]

Eliminating the Silver Line branding makes the MBTA map easier to understand, more readable, and more honest.

I'm sure most people reading this thread feel very comfortable with the MBTA map. It should not be designed for us, though. It should be designed in a way where a tourist isn't surprised that their subway line is a bus that runs primarily in mixed traffic. That just continues the MBTA's bad habit of over-promising and under-delivering.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

Eliminating the Silver Line branding makes the MBTA map easier to understand, more readable, and more honest.

When BNRD finally rolls out and the T lines branding comes with it I think it becomes very hard to explain why the silver line, especially 4/5, is any different from a T line bus. I think having some kind of branding strategy to show limited stop high frequency bus routes (that you can show up and take without referencing a schedule) alongside rapid transit, its a good way to get people who have a stigma about buses to give it a go, but assuming BNRD lives up to it's promises that'll be most bus routes soon and you could just rebrand the silver line 5 into a T bus. SL4 is being eliminated in BNRD already, but I think there would be real political roadblocks to trying to eliminate the SL branding entirely. I can already see the headlines, "MBTA kills only rapid transit line serving low income minority neighborhood"...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I think having some kind of branding strategy to show limited stop high frequency bus routes (that you can show up and take without referencing a schedule) alongside rapid transit, its a good way to get people who have a stigma about buses to give it a go,

 

[KCasiglio]

When BNRD finally rolls out and the T lines branding comes with it I think it becomes very hard to explain why the silver line, especially 4/5, is any different from a T line bus. I think having some kind of branding strategy to show limited stop high frequency bus routes (that you can show up and take without referencing a schedule) alongside rapid transit, its a good way to get people who have a stigma about buses to give it a go, but assuming BNRD lives up to it's promises that'll be most bus routes soon and you could just rebrand the silver line 5 into a T bus. SL4 is being eliminated in BNRD already, but I think there would be real political roadblocks to trying to eliminate the SL branding entirely. I can already see the headlines, "MBTA kills only rapid transit line serving low income minority neighborhood"...

I wish I could give you a better source than “trust me bro” but from what I’ve been told and understand the “T” branding is being dropped. There will be a little clock showing 15 minutes on the bus stop signs, but the route numbers won’t be “T1”

 

[as02143]

Bring it back! Bring it back! Bring it back!

 

[Teban54]

I wish I could give you a better source than “trust me bro” but from what I’ve been told and understand the “T” branding is being dropped. There will be a little clock showing 15 minutes on the bus stop signs, but the route numbers won’t be “T1”

That would be incredibly frustrating if true. We desperately need some effective branding (that are not as pretentious as a "Line") for these bus routes to indicate frequent, reliable service, so that riders feel confident in using them. I can't think of better ways to do so than putting the "T" in the routes' names.