MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[RandomWalk]

Question about the CNG buses: When are they due to be retired?

Since they’re now the goofball fleet, T management has to be itching to get rid of them. Is the expiration of their tanks the governing factor, or the replacement of the Arborway garage?

 

[HenryAlan]

Dunno, that looks like an attractive urban street to me. That MBTA has figured out separated BRT is a miracle and something we can brag about to other cities. As a cyclist I'm OK with not having a bike lane here -- the next step would be to make cars a guest on the corridor and have bikes/peds/outdoor dining on the other half.

Mostly agree, particularly because I'm comfortable riding in a bus lane. But I know that doesn't work for everybody, so let's hope the final configuration is more like your aspirational take than the version in the render.

 

[Longfellow]

Mostly agree, particularly because I'm comfortable riding in a bus lane. But I know that doesn't work for everybody, so let's hope the final configuration is more like your aspirational take than the version in the render.

If we get these done on a lot of former rows with wide streets, and staff experiences some kind of learning curve with continuing to roll them out, bus riders and activists will clamor for them I hope. Need to change the image of bus lanes from being double parking lanes to being cool and efficient infrastructure.

 

[KCasiglio]

Need to change the image of bus lanes from being double parking lanes to being cool and efficient infrastructure.

Until we get broader mode shift this means we need either physical barriers or rigid enforcement from an ideologically opposed agency.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Question about the CNG buses: When are they due to be retired?

Since they’re now the goofball fleet, T management has to be itching to get rid of them. Is the expiration of their tanks the governing factor, or the replacement of the Arborway garage?

They're due to be replaced by 2028-29 with the expiration of the tanks. The replacement Arborway garage is going to be a BEB facility, with 200 BEB's replacing 118 CNG's and two 60-footer routes (28 and 39) being relocated to Arborway from Southampton with new 60-footer BEB's. So there's a hurry-up to get Arborway done in advance of the retirements, because there's no give on the tank expiration dates.

Not sure what's going to happen to Cabot garage's 55 CNG's. Guessing those will be replaced in the interim by more diesel-hybrids.

 

[Stlin]

They're due to be replaced by 2028-29 with the expiration of the tanks. The replacement Arborway garage is going to be a BEB facility, with 200 BEB's replacing 118 CNG's and two 60-footer routes (28 and 39) being relocated to Arborway from Southampton with new 60-footer BEB's. So there's a hurry-up to get Arborway done in advance of the retirements, because there's no give on the tank expiration dates.

Not sure what's going to happen to Cabot garage's 55 CNG's. Guessing those will be replaced in the interim by more diesel-hybrids.

Is there any reason to believe that the tanks can't be simply replaced at expiry as part of a midlife overhaul? They're mounted on the roof, not exactly deep as far as systems go, and as far as I understand it, those are a standardized component available from multiple vendors. I understand the T might have the capability to do so already as a maintainance item, but didn't want to do it for its previous fleet of CNG buses, and has cut the fleet from a peak of ~360 in 2007, but I also believe those lasted 15 years before their tanks expired. as such, The CNG Xcelsiors might have until 2032 or so?

Edit: Never mind, I see the T has previously said it intends to retire the fleet starting in 2028, but if arborway build is delayed, tank replacement to keep them going for a extra couple of years?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is there any reason to believe that the tanks can't be simply replaced at expiry as part of a midlife overhaul? They're mounted on the roof, not exactly deep as far as systems go, and as far as I understand it, those are a standardized component available from multiple vendors. I understand the T didn't want to do it for its previous fleet of CNG buses, but I also believe those lasted 15 years before their tanks expired, so the CNG Xcelsiors might have until 2032 or so.

You can replace them, but that drives up the cost of the midlife overhaul beyond what they typically spend for a diesel midlife overhaul so they've opted not to do that on the 3 generations of CNG's that they've purchased. The more recent contracts they've inked with New Flyer give the options for vendor trade-in at the end of the original lifespan, so the T is setting itself up to get out of the business of midlife-overhauling its buses. New Flyer would simply take them back, rebuild, and sell to another customer while the T would bulk-renew on shorter timeframes. It's actually a better way of doing things in a substantial-BEB's era because then we can more quickly trade-up in generations of battery tech.

The slides from the presentation I linked to say '28-29 is a hard retirement date that sets the clock ticking for the new garage build. The retirement date wouldn't be immovable if it were any other kind of bus, so that projection must correspond to the tank expiration date. I don't know why it's only 12 years instead of 15, but that's when they say the CNG's need to be gone.

 

[RandomWalk]

If they’re targeting 2028, that means procurement for the new buses some time in ~2026? That seems tight to pull any information from the North Cambridge pilot.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

If they’re targeting 2028, that means procurement for the new buses some time in ~2026? That seems tight to pull any information from the North Cambridge pilot.

North Cambridge isn't a pilot. They've eschewed gaining any information on how BEB's charging range will fare in a New England climate and are jumping without a safety net at deploying them to North Cambridge, Quincy, and Arborway. If it fails and the BEB's can't cover the duty cycles for enough routes, they're screwed. But that's an explicit decision they made to take on the risk.

The 80-bus BEB order for North Cambridge and Quincy has 380 extra options on it, most of which (excepting the 60-footer BEB's which haven't been bid yet) would populate new Arborway.

 

[RandomWalk]

To quote the Grail Knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “[They] chose… poorly.”

 

[KCasiglio]

MBTA, Cape Cod, and Vineyard Transit Authorities Win Federal Funding for Electric and Lower-Emission Buses - Streetsblog Massachusetts

On Tuesday, the Federal Transit Administration announced it would give nearly $60 million to three Massachusetts public transit agencies to help finance new fleets of electric and hybrid-electric buses. The biggest grant – $40 million – will fund the purchase of 40 new battery-electric buses...

mass.streetsblog.org

 

[737900er]

Work looks to be underway at North Cambridge for the charging gantry.

 

[Delvin4519]

New post was made to zombie reddit about the 86 and the 109 buses between now and BNRD (but for some reason the post hasn't gotten here yet, yikes)

The Better Bus Project: 86 and T109

The Better Bus Project is the MBTA’s most significant advancement of their public transportation services in many decades.

bostontransit.substack.com

The post aims to look into how the 86 and 109 function today and how the two may lead into BNRD.

One of the post's criticisms is the Sullivan - Harvard portion of the route having to be mashed with another route into a mega-route. The post suggests that the buses may be more reliable if the Sullivan - Harvard portion of the route could have it's own buses and frequencies independent of the 109 or the Brighton segment of the route.

I kinda agree with the posts suggestion of Sullivan - Harvard should be an independent route. Mostly it is because that way, Sullivan - Harvard bus riders would not need to contend with the traffic nightmare that is Lower Broadway in Everett, Sweetser Circle, that bridge that occassionally needs to lift up, and casino traffic.

The post is also critical of rush hour frequency being slashed for Allston-Brighton riders, and that midday frequencies only go from 32 minutes to 26 minutes under BNRD. Today, the 86 has 12 - 16 minute rush hour headways, and in BNRD, it will be massively reduced to 26 minute headways at peak. It is quite problematic for Allston-Brighton, since there are no frequency improvements for the 64 or the 65 in round one of BNRD, and the remaining BNRD phases are yet to be funded, meaning improvements to the 64/65 are clouded in uncertainity.

 

[Teban54]

New post was made to zombie reddit about the 86 and the 109 buses between now and BNRD (but for some reason the post hasn't gotten here yet, yikes)

The Better Bus Project: 86 and T109

The Better Bus Project is the MBTA’s most significant advancement of their public transportation services in many decades.

bostontransit.substack.com

The post aims to look into how the 86 and 109 function today and how the two may lead into BNRD.

One of the post's criticisms is the Sullivan - Harvard portion of the route having to be mashed with another route into a mega-route. The post suggests that the buses may be more reliable if the Sullivan - Harvard portion of the route could have it's own buses and frequencies independent of the 109 or the Brighton segment of the route.

I kinda agree with the posts suggestion of Sullivan - Harvard should be an independent route. Mostly it is because that way, Sullivan - Harvard bus riders would not need to contend with the traffic nightmare that is Lower Broadway in Everett, Sweetser Circle, that bridge that occassionally needs to lift up, and casino traffic.

The post is also critical of rush hour frequency being slashed for Allston-Brighton riders, and that midday frequencies only go from 32 minutes to 26 minutes under BNRD. Today, the 86 has 12 - 16 minute rush hour headways, and in BNRD, it will be massively reduced to 26 minute headways at peak. It is quite problematic for Allston-Brighton, since there are no frequency improvements for the 64 or the 65 in round one of BNRD, and the remaining BNRD phases are yet to be funded, meaning improvements to the 64/65 are clouded in uncertainity.

Oh shoot, I thought about doing a blog series on BNRD changes, and now someone got there before me!

Anyway, my comments on the post and OP's opinions disregarding the above:

It's quite refreshing to see someone viewing the 86/109 situation as not just "we lose OSR from Brighton to Sullivan, so that's bad". And while OP themselves thought the series didn't start on a positive tone, I didn't feel this post was overly negative. Most of its critics make intuitive sense.

That said, I have to strongly disagree with one of its central points, which Delvin also reinforced above. Namely: I think there definitely is value in offering a one-seat ride to Cambridge from nearby neighborhoods, including Everett to Harvard.

Cambridge is a bit different compared to most of the surrounding municipalities and neighborhoods outside of downtown Boston. Far from being just a commuter town, Cambridge is a destination in itself, with its major employment hubs (Kendall), educational institutions (Harvard, MIT etc.), and recreational and cultural centers (Harvard Square). IMO, routes like the BNRD 109 are exactly what we should see more of: routes that bring a sufficient crowd from their homes (Everett) directly to their destinations, especially those outside of downtown, in addition to -- instead of solely for -- connecting them to the nearest subway station.

There's also a minor self-contradicting point in OP's post. They made the claim that the current 86 suffers from load imbalance, "with the Harvard-Sullivan leg driving the majority of traffic". This untrue, as the Reservoir-Harvard leg actually has slightly higher ridership based on data (see below). But even if it were true, it would actually suggest that pairing this section with a more heavily utilized Sullivan-Linden route is better than with a "light" Harvard-Reservoir route

Spoiler: 86 ridership analysis

On a weekday, in Fall 2022: (Assuming nobody boards at one of the two Harvard Sq stops and alight at the other. I didn't include the westbound JFK @ Eliot stop as a Harvard Sq stop, as it's a bit out of the commercial area.)

• Western half, Eastbound: 1634.2 passengers board an eastbound 86 between Reservoir and just before Harvard (south of Charles River). 473.1 of them alight before Harvard, 617.1 alight at the two Harvard Sq stops, and the remaining 544 go beyond Harvard.
• Western half, Westbound: 991.7 passengers board a westbound 86 between Harvard Sq (inclusive, from Garden St) and Reservoir, including 387.6 who board at the two Harvard Sq stops, and 604.1 at remaining stops. 1497.4 alight between just south of Harvard Sq and Reservoir, so 505.7 came from before Harvard.
• Eastern half, Westbound: 1317 passengers board a westbound 86 between Sullivan and just before Harvard. 413.8 of them alight before Harvard, 398.1 alight at the two Harvard Sq stops, and the remaining 505.1 go beyond Harvard.
• Eastern half, Eastbound: 712.8 passengers board an eastbound 86 between Harvard Sq (inclusive, from 16 Eliot St) and Sullivan, including 351.2 who board at the two Harvard Sq stops, and 361.6 at remaining stops. 1258.2 passengers alight between just east of Harvard Sq and Sullivan, so 545.4 came from before Harvard.

Color coding: Blue is intra-section travel that don't touch Harvard; Red is to/from Harvard; Green is beyond Harvard. Purple (Red+Blue) is for trips between Harvard (inclusive) and the terminal, but don't touch the other half.

The Green numbers match by definition, but for both Blue and Red, they're largely on the same scale with the Reservoir-Harvard half having slightly higher ridership.

(It's interesting how the 617.1 number is much greater than all other Red ones. My preliminary guess is they're opportunistic riders on Western Ave connecting to the Red Line, who make take either the 86 to Harvard or the 70 to Central, depending on which one comes first. But I haven't checked the data, and that wouldn't explain the 604.1.)

I'm not convinced that the extended 109 is too long, either. While the 7.3-mile route will indeed be on the longer side among MBTA local routes, my impression has been that our bus routes are generally shorter than sister cities of similar scales. (I recall a Reddit post of a map of all route 69s in various US cities, and our Harvard-Lechmere route was the shortest by far.) Not to mention that many other cities have local bus routes that run into city centers, often even through-running into suburbs on the other side. Factors such as the Alford St bridge and traffic are mostly dispatching issues, and you can theoretically run as-directed short-turns on various sections of the route; Sullivan's traffic and street configuration also has much greater room and realistic hope for improvement than Harvard (86) ever will.

Lastly, I'm skeptical that the 86's headways during rush hours would be reduced to the exact number that the BNRD Remix map shows. It seems that the Remix frequencies use a cookie-cutter set of headways for almost all routes within each tier, as shown below. I'll be very surprised if that's exactly what happens; instead, it seems more likely that it's just a baseline that may be adjusted for each route's ridership and needs.

(This is a snapshot of a much longer spreadsheet with every BNRD route. I've been meaning to post this, but haven't.)

 

[Delvin4519]

It's quite refreshing to see someone viewing the 86/109 situation as not just "we lose OSR from Brighton to Sullivan, so that's bad".

There is something more sinister that no one has discussed regarding that issue, and that is fare transfers.

Let's say you've got a transit dependent passenger near Mystic Ave. in Somerville, trying to get to Oak Square or Newton Corner. This bus rider is too far from being able to access the 89, 101, or the 86 buses directly, or the subway at Sullivan, and relies on the 95 and the 57 buses for last mile connections. Mystic Ave. and McGrath Hwy are extremely pedestrian unfriendly to cross, and improvements to these arterial roads will not be made in time for BNRD round 1 on Dec. 15th, 2024.

The 86 provides redundancy to the GL hot mess that is the forced Govy transfer, for a single bus fare.

Under BNRD, this route will now require an extra bus fare. MBTA fares only allow 2 free transfers.

The only other alternative to make this trip under BNRD is via the forced Green Line transfer, and this route will now require a subway fare, although it is cheaper than 2 bus fares to complete the original trip. 4 transfers are required for this trip instead of just 2.

You can try to find a route that involves only 3 buses (You HAVE to take the 95 from Mystic Ave. and the 57 to Newton Corner, no 504 service after 8pm on Saturdays or at all on Sundays, you are too far of a walk from the 70/71/89/101 and good luck crossing the McGrath/Mystic death trap), but, good luck!

I'm not saying that riders are constantly trying to get from Mystic Avenue to Newton Corner at 8-10pm on Saturday evenings. This probably only affects 1 or 2 transit dependent riders, and probably is not the main source of travel demand for the 86/57/OL etc. However, if the MBTA would be understanding of the impact that BNRD will have on forced transfers, at the very least, the MBTA should allow UNLIMITED bus transfers for the period of 2 hours (plus 15 minutes) after the first bus or subway tap. Given that fare changes require several months of public comment, I highly doubt this change will be implemented in time to meet the December 15, 2024 deadline for BNRD phase 1.

Source: https://www.mbta.com/fares

That said, I have to strongly disagree with one of its central points, which Delvin also reinforced above. Namely: I think there definitely is value in offering a one-seat ride to Cambridge from nearby neighborhoods, including Everett to Harvard.

Cambridge is a bit different compared to most of the surrounding municipalities and neighborhoods outside of downtown Boston. Far from being just a commuter town, Cambridge is a destination in itself, with its major employment hubs (Kendall), educational institutions (Harvard, MIT etc.), and recreational and cultural centers (Harvard Square).

Most bus and streetcar routes (a.k.a surface routes) in Boston had historically have terminated at the nearest rapid transit transfer terminal, meaning many bus routes in Boston are relatively short. The MBTA is especially bad at dispatching buses. Look at the 1 bus with it's horrible bunching and traffic woes, being one of the more central bus routes and relatively long. It is a fair concern that lengthening bus routes will result in horrible bunching. Rail and subway routes generally carry the burden of through running downtown traffic, and I think that is probably the best approach unless traffic situation and bus scheduling/dispatching improves.

I wonder if bunching and reliability of the 1 bus could be mitigated by splitting the 1 bus at Central, with a dinky running back and forth between Harvard - Central, and the rest of the 1 bus south of Central. Or split the 66 into two at Brookline Village.

Shorter routes are also just easier to provide more frequency. If the 92/93 could be truncated from DTX to N. Station/Haymarket, it would allow buses to complete a duty cycle sooner, and shorten the wait time for buses to be resupplied from the downtown core. The same goes for truncating the 450 from DTX to Wonderland. Plus with less bunching, it is easier for buses to meet the every 8 - 11 minute frequecy target, rather than having 3 buses show up at once due to traffic, then follow it with a 45 minute gap of no buses.

It is also critical to note that the bus lane bill failed it's legislative session in MA, meaning we won't get enforced bus lanes anytime soon, and it has been delayed. I don't think it's going to make the December 15, 2024 deadline for BNRD round 1.

The bus lane enforcement bill died in the unfinished business of the House Ways and Means committee, chaired by Rep. Aaron Michlewitz of Boston (Michlewitz's district encompasses downtown Boston, the North End, and part of the South End).

Looking at this map, it appears that the Everett segment of the route might be slightly longer than the Brighton segment. I'm seeing 7.3km for the Everett segment, 4.1km for the Somerville segment, and 6.1km for the Brighton segment.

IMO, routes like the BNRD 109 are exactly what we should see more of: routes that bring a sufficient crowd from their homes (Everett) directly to their destinations, especially those outside of downtown, in addition to -- instead of solely for -- connecting them to the nearest subway station.

While true, but Allston-Brighton riders are now relegated to a low frequency last mile shuttle to rapid transit transfer stations. This winds up into a zero sum game where half of the city must lose, pitting Allston-Brighton riders against Everett riders on who gets the OSR to Union Sq. The only way to address this is by through-routing as many BERy bus routes as possible. A 17.5km mega bus line running from Reservior to Linden Square. Or perhaps, maybe combine the 77, 1, and 8 buses into a single "Mass Ave shuttle"? Would require massive bus lane enforcement, and huge discipline in bus dispatching/scheduling/etc. I've tried crayoning with through routing the 90, 91, 47, 8, and 10 buses into a "City Point - Andrew - BMC - Ruggles - LMA - Fenway - BU Bridge - Central - USQ - E Somerville - Sullivan - Assembly" mega bus line. Otherwise, it becomes super arbitrary on where to draw the transfer points within the city core. Nubian and Central are just as valid terminating hubs as is Sullivan and Ruggles for splitting a supersized unmanagable ring line into managable routes.

Sullivan's traffic and street configuration also has much greater room and realistic hope for improvement than Harvard (86) ever will.

True, but I highly doubt that roadway improvements will be made and completed in time for BNRD phase 1 by December 15th, 2024. The area is a construction zone around the bridges for the next few years.

 

[TheRatmeister]

You can try to find a route that involves only 3 buses (You HAVE to take the 95 from Mystic Ave. and the 57 to Newton Corner, no 504 service after 8pm on Saturdays or at all on Sundays, you are too far of a walk from the 70/71/89/101 and good luck crossing the McGrath/Mystic death trap), but, good luck!

Walk one street over to Main St and get the 101 to Kedall, then the 70 to Watertown Sq, and any bus between Watertown Sq and Newton Corner (Or just walk, it's only 15 mins).

 

[Delvin4519]

Walk one street over to Main St and get the 101 to Kedall, then the 70 to Watertown Sq, and any bus between Watertown Sq and Newton Corner (Or just walk, it's only 15 mins).

The distance between the 70/71 buses at Watertown Square and the 86 bus at Brighton Center is 3.9km (2.42 miles), with the halfway point 1.21 miles away from either the 70/71/86 buses. This is a 28 minute trek (1.21 mi/1.95km) which involves crossing the Newton Supercollider coming from the Watertown side. (estimated walking time is off by almost double)

The maps in the beginning of the post were intended to place the destination (point B) approximately around the halfway point in the "corridor of inaccessibility". Occassionally there are a few last mile transit dependent riders that are truly coming from an obscure last mile location.

(also, the T101 is NOT in round 1 of BNRD, notice the maps use the present day frequency map of the MBTA?)

 

[TheRatmeister]

The distance between the 70/71 buses at Watertown Square and the 86 bus at Brighton Center is 3.9km (2.42 miles), with the halfway point 1.21 miles away from either the 70/71/86 buses. This is a 28 minute trek (1.21 mi/1.95km) which involves crossing the Newton Supercollider coming from the Watertown side. (estimated walking time is off by almost double)

Who said anything about walking to Brighton? No part of the route between Watertown Sq and Newton Corner requires walking to Brighton. If the 15 minute walk between the two is not acceptable then you can walk 5 minutes to Watertown Yard and take either the 57 or 52 to Newton Corner. For the record though, if you want to get between Brighton Center and Mystic Ave that's also only 2 transfers, and that one works even with BNRD Phase 1. (89 to Davis->RL to Harvard->86 to Brighton Center)

(also, the T101 is NOT in round 1 of BNRD, notice the maps use the present day frequency map of the MBTA?)

So this will just be an unfortunate, but temporary edge case then. Those are basically inevitable with any phased rollout, which is going to be required for a major route adjustment like this. You're right, allowing unlimited bus transfers within 2 hours would be a good remedy, but if you think:

1. This is a major problem affecting a lot of people
2. This is a total dealbreaker for a large project like BNRD

Than I don't really know what to tell you, projects require compromises to be made sometimes and if the sacrifice is a commute or two that very few people are making getting more expensive, but only for people who don't have a monthly pass, then I think that's acceptable.

 

[Delvin4519]

Who said anything about walking to Brighton? No part of the route between Watertown Sq and Newton Corner requires walking to Brighton. If the 15 minute walk between the two is not acceptable then you can walk 5 minutes to Watertown Yard and take either the 57 or 52 to Newton Corner. For the record though, if you want to get between Brighton Center and Mystic Ave that's also only 2 transfers, and that one works even with BNRD Phase 1. (89 to Davis->RL to Harvard->86 to Brighton Center)

So this will just be an unfortunate, but temporary edge case then. Those are basically inevitable with any phased rollout, which is going to be required for a major route adjustment like this. You're right, allowing unlimited bus transfers within 2 hours would be a good remedy, but if you think:

1. This is a major problem affecting a lot of people
2. This is a total dealbreaker for a large project like BNRD

Than I don't really know what to tell you, projects require compromises to be made sometimes and if the sacrifice is a commute or two that very few people are making getting more expensive, but only for people who don't have a monthly pass, then I think that's acceptable.

I already mentioned that there aren't that many riders getting from the segment of the 57 between Newton Corner/Brighton Ctr. to Mystic Ave/Assembly on the 95 via the 86. The bulk of riders using the 86 are NOT making that kind of trip. I only mentioned the issue in terms of fare transfers, and the remendy of that is unlimited bus fare transfers for 2 hours. This covers ALL forced transfers that BNRD is going to make.

I simply couldn't find a good place to put "B" on the map. Newton Corner is 15 minutes from Watertown Square. Oak Square is 15-20 minutes to Brighton Center. The exact halfway point is halfway between Newton Corner and Oak Square on the 57 bus, which is where "B" was supposed to be located; but I couldn't find a good place to plop down "B", like I could for "A". "A" is smack in the middle of Ten Hills in between Mystic Ave. and McGrath Hwy/Fellsway/Assembly. "B" was intended to be a 27 minute walk to BOTH Watertown Square and Brighton Center, but right on top of the 57.

 

[bigeman312]

Who said anything about walking to Brighton? No part of the route between Watertown Sq and Newton Corner requires walking to Brighton. If the 15 minute walk between the two is not acceptable then you can walk 5 minutes to Watertown Yard and take either the 57 or 52 to Newton Corner. For the record though, if you want to get between Brighton Center and Mystic Ave that's also only 2 transfers, and that one works even with BNRD Phase 1. (89 to Davis->RL to Harvard->86 to Brighton Center)

So this will just be an unfortunate, but temporary edge case then. Those are basically inevitable with any phased rollout, which is going to be required for a major route adjustment like this. You're right, allowing unlimited bus transfers within 2 hours would be a good remedy, but if you think:

1. This is a major problem affecting a lot of people
2. This is a total dealbreaker for a large project like BNRD

Than I don't really know what to tell you, projects require compromises to be made sometimes and if the sacrifice is a commute or two that very few people are making getting more expensive, but only for people who don't have a monthly pass, then I think that's acceptable.

@Delvin4519 would be given a free ice cream cone and note that it has two fewer sprinkles than an ice cream cone he had ten years ago. Some people are just like that.