MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[BeansTheCat]

I will agree that the lack of communication by the MBTA here is a cause for concern, but it is not inherently problematic that they start BNRD without restoring all pre-COVID service. The ultimate goal should be to provide all of the service specified by BNRD; the question is how to get there. Restoring pre-COVID service first assumes that was the ideal way to use those operator hours but the whole BNRD planning process showed this was not the case. Everett and Chelsea pretty clearly get much less transit service than they should. Whether they should get service expanded before other communities have transit restored is a value decision, especially if current service levels are compared to post-BNRD levels instead of pre-COVID ones. Again, the T should be explaining these decisions transparently, but they are not necessarily bad decisions.

This ignores the fact that priority infrastructure can mean the same number of trips are provided with fewer operator hours or that trips on different routes aren't directly comparable to each other. This is a whole different can of worms, and I'm not sure it makes much of a difference in evaluating current service.

 

[themissinglink]

Mass. residents left with damaged cars after MBTA bus panel opens

At least 10 vehicles were damaged after an MBTA bus panel unexpectedly opened while the bus was driving, striking parked cars.

www.wcvb.com

 

[themissinglink]

MBTA GM responds to town's queries about service

MBTA, Phillip Eng, letter, Article 66, bus service, town, ArlingtonMA,

www.yourarlington.com

MBTA and CEO General Manager Phillip Eng responded to the Town of Arlington over concerns related to public transportation, specifically bus service, in a three-page letter that was received by the town on Oct. 8.

Some highlights include a new bus line, Route 54, that would link Arlington to Belmont and Waltham, and the letter appears to signal that Route 79, a much-used line prior to Covid, will not return.

In the letter, Eng writes that much of the problems with bus service in the town – and elsewhere in the MBTA system – is that the MBTA has had a shortage of bus drivers, noting that the “bus operator count has steadily grown from 1,385 to 1,571, which has allowed the MBTA to improve the systemwide bus service delivery rate from 95.1% in August 2023 to 98.5% in August 2024.”

 

[Delvin4519]

I will agree that the lack of communication by the MBTA here is a cause for concern, but it is not inherently problematic that they start BNRD without restoring all pre-COVID service. The ultimate goal should be to provide all of the service specified by BNRD; the question is how to get there. Restoring pre-COVID service first assumes that was the ideal way to use those operator hours but the whole BNRD planning process showed this was not the case. Everett and Chelsea pretty clearly get much less transit service than they should. Whether they should get service expanded before other communities have transit restored is a value decision, especially if current service levels are compared to post-BNRD levels instead of pre-COVID ones. Again, the T should be explaining these decisions transparently, but they are not necessarily bad decisions.

This ignores the fact that priority infrastructure can mean the same number of trips are provided with fewer operator hours or that trips on different routes aren't directly comparable to each other. This is a whole different can of worms, and I'm not sure it makes much of a difference in evaluating current service.

Redevelopment of 2nd St in Everett is nowhere near completion, so it would be too soon to give 2nd St. 15 minute frequencies.

We don't necessarily need to go back to the Fall 2019 schedule, a good benchmark to restore service is Fall 2021 service levels. In most cases however, BNRD maintains or increases service levels. As such, we should be going to back to pre-COVID service levels in most cases, unless a route is slated to be cannabalized in BNRD (the 43 is wholly redundent due to the SL5 and OL existing, so scrapping it in BNRD makes sense).

Hardly anyone is asking to restore the 43 to pre-COVID levels, the express buses are not as signficant as they used to be pre-COVID due to WFH post-pandemic. I could care less if they scrapped the 43 to increase service on the SL5 or the 101. On the other hand, the 101 and 108 are supposed to get increased service in BNRD, and both routes had half hourly service on weekends pre-COVID that got cut back to hourly or less than hourly. Restoring weekend service from 68 minute headways to half hourly service to get back to pre-COVID levels is at least, the bare minimum we could do to make the transit system at least as usable as it used to be pre-COVID.

 

[Delvin4519]

MBTA GM responds to town's queries about service

MBTA, Phillip Eng, letter, Article 66, bus service, town, ArlingtonMA,

www.yourarlington.com

I do appreciate that Eng has finally admitted that the service cuts are "temporary" due to the shortage, in the letter to Arlington. Now it is clear to the public for the first time Eng wants to restore bus service, and bus service directly and not just "service" (where people typically only refer to the subway as "the T" - implying that buses aren't important, or buses are "second class" and not as integral to mass transit)

It's just taken so damn long to fill in the roster. It has taken an entire year to go from 1,385 to 1,571. Getting to 1,859 would take like an additional year at that rate (and if we decided that 1,725 out of 1,859 is the goal, accommadating for 125 or so offline positions, it's still gonna take several months to a year to get there).

"Temporary" = just 1 more year reduced service to go (extrapolating the recovery rate in the past year) . At long last, a timeline and a clear wish of the MBTA and Eng to "restore bus service" at long last. Still, I wish the T set 1,700 as the goalpost for BNRD and not 1,560.

 

[StreetsblogMASS]

Relatedly, systemwide bus service is still around 88% of what it was prepandemic:

T Will Launch New 'Frequent-Service' Bus Routes in December, But Overall Service Still Remains Below Pre-Covid Levels - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The T is officially moving ahead with plans to launch “phase one” of its long-planned Bus Network Redesign on December 15, even though overall bus service in the MBTA system still remains about 12 percent below what the agency offered before the Covid-19 pandemic. For its fall 2024 service...

mass.streetsblog.org

 

[Koopzilla24]

Everett and Chelsea pretty clearly get much less transit service than they should. Whether they should get service expanded before other communities have transit restored is a value decision

Something to consider about that value is Everett and Chelsea are entirely reliant on bus service (save for Chelsea Commuter Rail). To a lesser extent Revere. The two are also absolutely tiny cities so simpler and easier to accomplish small changes to fewer routes bring a large increase in service to a very large percentage of people. Bang for your buck.

It's just taken so damn long to fill in the roster. It has taken an entire year to go from 1,385 to 1,571. Getting to 1,859 would take like an additional year at that rate (and if we decided that 1,725 out of 1,859 is the goal, accommadating for 125 or so offline positions, it's still gonna take several months to a year to get there).

Per the StreetsblogMass article: "That leaves the T with 164 vacancies, although the agency does have 128 new bus operators actively in training programs." That's almost 80% of the budgeted vacancies accounted for (that doesn't make up for the inactive count).

There's not much that can be done about the lack of CDL drivers around and in addition, those with the correct endorsements to drive a bus. For basically ready-to-go drivers you'd need individuals who already have a CDL class A or B with passenger endorsements. That latter part is something a trucker typically wouldn't have. Those that do would have to already be or have been bus drivers somewhere and see a better opportunity for them driving in Boston but still need to go through all the specific MBTA procedures training and such. That's a rare few. The crop that the T is primarily pulling from are those that need to go through the exam and road test process to get those endorsements as well as now those without CDLs at all. That they managed to get a net 186 ready and driving in a year amongst all the departures is pretty good. It's not like hiring somebody for an office job where all they need to do is show up and can start contributing to work right away. It's a lengthy process.

 

[Delvin4519]

Something to consider about that value is Everett and Chelsea are entirely reliant on bus service (save for Chelsea Commuter Rail). To a lesser extent Revere. The two are also absolutely tiny cities so simpler and easier to accomplish small changes to fewer routes bring a large increase in service to a very large percentage of people. Bang for your buck.

Per the StreetsblogMass article: "That leaves the T with 164 vacancies, although the agency does have 128 new bus operators actively in training programs." That's almost 80% of the budgeted vacancies accounted for (that doesn't make up for the inactive count).

There's not much that can be done about the lack of CDL drivers around and in addition, those with the correct endorsements to drive a bus. For basically ready-to-go drivers you'd need individuals who already have a CDL class A or B with passenger endorsements. That latter part is something a trucker typically wouldn't have. Those that do would have to already be or have been bus drivers somewhere and see a better opportunity for them driving in Boston but still need to go through all the specific MBTA procedures training and such. That's a rare few. The crop that the T is primarily pulling from are those that need to go through the exam and road test process to get those endorsements as well as now those without CDLs at all. That they managed to get a net 186 ready and driving in a year amongst all the departures is pretty good. It's not like hiring somebody for an office job where all they need to do is show up and can start contributing to work right away. It's a lengthy process.

The point here is that December 2024 leaves too little time to fill in the remaining vacancies, if it is this cumbersome to refill a big giant empty roster. Sure, 128 are in training, but not everyone is going to finish training (whether it be beacuse they failed, etc., etc.). Some will separate in the next few months. Some will get fired. We're at 1,571 right now, but the T needs to get to 1,725 to approximate fully staffed loads (125 of which are inactive), which when added up gives you 1,859.

After the group of 128 finish training, you may add, say 100 - 115 operators; then subtract some of the existing ones for separations, you're now down to the 1,600s range. You have over 50 vacancies with inactive positions counted to fill. Still very far from the 1,725/1,859 target.

The T's own projects put it into February 2025 before it can even approach 1,650 operators; let alone 1,725 which would equal a fully staffed enviornment. That's not gonna happen until March when extrapolating the graph. Just 4 more months of postponement of BNRD could give the T enough time to add one more class's worth of trainees to get to the full target.

7,306 service hours today compared to 8,299 pre-COVID requires 125 - 165 new operators. The current class's worth of 128 trainees are not enough to close this gap.

This ignores the fact that priority infrastructure can mean the same number of trips are provided with fewer operator hours

I don't understand why we're talking about cutting service hours just because center running bus lanes on Columbus Ave. allows buses to complete routes in less time "allowing for lesser bodies on the road". Literally half of the city still lacks access to the frequent network. The T has already removed 8 positions from the roster this fiscal year (1,867 -> 1,859). BNRD requires 25% more service above 8,299 service hours; and so more people are needed to run the extra service. Again, there is no other way around the fact that the T has to get to (1,725 active/1,859 full) to run BNRD service or pre-COVID service. No less. If you want to run BNRD on top of pre-COVID service, or one of the two, no matter what, you have to return to the pre-COVID staffing levels. You can't run 8,299 service hours with just 1,571 operators.

 

[StreetsblogMASS]

Another key difference between now and pre-pandemic service (and one we didn't mention in the article) is that the new Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act took effect in 2021.

We've heard anecdotal reports that under that new law, more employees are on the payroll but not working – i.e., higher numbers of "inactive" employees at any given time.

If that's true, then the T needs to increase its workforce above and beyond the headcount it had in 2019 to make up the difference and restore pre-pandemic service levels.

 

[Koopzilla24]

The point here is that December 2024 leaves too little time to fill in the remaining vacancies

Why would they need to fill all the vacancies back to a full budgeted headcount by December '24 if they're only rolling out ~88% of pre-pandemic service? The routing changes in the area are largely made up by reallocation of drivers needed for consolidated/eliminated routes plus the additional needed to make up for increased headways over a longer route length (for example the airport extension of the 104).

 

[Delvin4519]

Why would they need to fill all the vacancies back to a full budgeted headcount by December '24 if they're only rolling out ~88% of pre-pandemic service? The routing changes in the area are largely made up by reallocation of drivers needed for consolidated/eliminated routes plus the additional needed to make up for increased headways over a longer route length (for example the airport extension of the 104).

As StreetsBLOG MASS noted, due to a 2021 policy change, the T has a larger porportion of operators who are inactive or on leave. As such, to run 100-101% of pre-pandemic service (or Fall 2021 service if we're being overly picky about "pre-COVID service being scarce in Everett/Chelsea"), the T has to reach the full 1,859 headcount to compensate for the extra personnal on leave and run full pre-pandemic/Fall 2021 service levels.

Getting to 1,725/1,859 will take several more months. Your previous post already noted how the process to get from 1,385 to 1,571 has taken 14 months. It's not unreasonable to expect the T getting to 1,725/1,859 will take some time into early 2025 to accomplish, so the T needs additional time.

When the T announced BNRD would be set for late 2024 back in mid-2023, the T thought it could restore headcount in 14 months. 14 months has passed and the T has only restored barely half of the necessary headcount to reach full staffing (1,571 is not 1,725/1,859). The T needs to realize this and perhaps, consider allowing extra time to reach full headcount.

I'm also not sure why AB believes 88% of pre-COVID service is "acceptable". That's like saying a 12% service cut is acceptable despite half of our streetcar suburbs lacking access to frequent service.

 

[TheRatmeister]

and get JP residents to ditch their cars with high frequency service between Riverway, Jackson Sq., and Egleston.

Is that where JP residents are actually going though? That would be a useful connection for people going from Roxbury to the VA but it's not going to do much for JP. Also any route that the 22 would reasonably take would just barely skirt the edge of JP.

I'm not sure what's with this panic that the 22 is the sole connection to Nubian and Ruggles from the southside, and sending it to Brookline Village to reach LMA will cripple southside access. Did AB forget that the 42, 44, 45, 23, 28, and the Fairmount Line all exist?

For a big chunk of Washington Park, yeah the 22 basically is the sole frequent transit connection. As for the rest of the 22, for getting to Longwood the Fairmount Line isn't particularly helpful. And because of the Columbus Ave Bus Lanes the 22 is also faster than the 23/28, sometimes by more than 10 minutes. Sending the 22 to Brookline Village via Heath St before going LMA would extend the trip time by 10-15 minutes, all to serve not a ton more people. By traveling to LMA quickly, the 22 is directly connecting where people live, and where they work. By sending it on a meander through JP and Brookline you're severely compromising that link to serve an area that already has decent alternative transit connections. At best you're just trading one group's convenience for another, at worst you're redirecting resources from a neighborhood with a median household income of around $30,000 to one with a median household income of over $80,000.

 

[BeansTheCat]

I'm also not sure why AB believes 88% of pre-COVID service is "acceptable". That's like saying a 12% service cut is acceptable despite half of our streetcar suburbs lacking access to frequent service.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming a 12% service reduction is acceptable. We just don't agree that all service needs to be restored before BNRD starts. Phase 1 of BNRD seems like a very cost-effective way to provide frequent service and likely result in very positive ridership impacts. It would not surprise me at all if the T is focused on service improvements that will result in the most ridership right now, given their current budget and operator constraints. Again, the biggest problem here is that there is no communication on why the decision are being made, and what trade-offs are being considered.

 

[Delvin4519]

Is that where JP residents are actually going though? That would be a useful connection for people going from Roxbury to the VA but it's not going to do much for JP. Also any route that the 22 would reasonably take would just barely skirt the edge of JP.

For a big chunk of Washington Park, yeah the 22 basically is the sole frequent transit connection. As for the rest of the 22, for getting to Longwood the Fairmount Line isn't particularly helpful. And because of the Columbus Ave Bus Lanes the 22 is also faster than the 23/28, sometimes by more than 10 minutes. Sending the 22 to Brookline Village via Heath St before going LMA would extend the trip time by 10-15 minutes, all to serve not a ton more people. By traveling to LMA quickly, the 22 is directly connecting where people live, and where they work. By sending it on a meander through JP and Brookline you're severely compromising that link to serve an area that already has decent alternative transit connections. At best you're just trading one group's convenience for another, at worst you're redirecting resources from a neighborhood with a median household income of around $30,000 to one with a median household income of over $80,000.

Washington Park already has the 23/28 on it's eastern fringe, plus BNRD extends the 28 to LMA, so you can still access the 8 and the 47 bus there, or the 23 to Ruggles.

This is a case where the 42 needs additional Egleston short turns to Nubian for increased frequency serving the Washington Park neighborhood, or increased frequency on the 44, or some kind of bus priority measures on Warren St. and Malcom X Blvd.

The problem with Columbus Avenue is that once it gets to Jackson Square, it already arrives to hit the Orange Line, and the street starts paralleling the OL the entire way to Ruggles, so it does not make sense to continue any further on Columbus Avenue past Jackson Square. The OL provides north-south travel in this area, and the 22 is oriented east-west. The only options to send the 22 after Jackson Square is either west to Heath St./Riverway/Brookline Village/LMA, or northeast back to Nubian (which is already provided by the 42/38/41).

Both Jackson-Nubian and Jackson-Brookline Village have only hourly bus service. No one is going to use hourly bus service inside the city unless they are truly desperate. With limited bus resources, we should avoid duplicating subway lines where possible, and also avoid having urban corridors with hourly bus service. This is why extending the 29 to Brookline Village is unhelpful. The 22 is the only route with high frequency that is worth the extension.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Both Jackson-Nubian and Jackson-Brookline Village have only hourly bus service.

But both of those have regular service to Roxbury Crossing, so if it's fine for 22 riders to transfer onto the OL to get from Jackson Sq to Roxbury Crossing or Ruggles then I don't see why it's not fine for 66 riders to do the same in reverse.

This also ignores:

1. The fact that Jackson Sq or Egleston Sq to Brookline Village just isn't a trip very many people need to make.
2. For the people that do need to make that trip, the transfer to the 66 at Roxbury Crossing is available.

Yes there should be more crosstown service, but that should not come at the expense of important routes like the 22.

 

[Delvin4519]

But both of those have regular service to Roxbury Crossing, so if it's fine for 22 riders to transfer onto the OL to get from Jackson Sq to Roxbury Crossing or Ruggles then I don't see why it's not fine for 66 riders to do the same in reverse.

This also ignores:

1. The fact that Jackson Sq or Egleston Sq to Brookline Village just isn't a trip very many people need to make.
2. For the people that do need to make that trip, the transfer to the 66 at Roxbury Crossing is available.

Yes there should be more crosstown service, but that should not come at the expense of important routes like the 22.

The 66 is one of the T's bus routes that see signficant crowding. Alleviating crowding on the 66 with an additional crosstown route to the south would be beneficial, as it also allows for one of these hourly bus service corridors to gain high frequency service. Shouldn't we want to alleviate crowding issues on the 66?

Does the Orange Line experience heavy crowding between Ruggles and Jackson Square? IIRC, I thought OL northside experiences heavy crowding compared to OL southside, while OL southside's ridership is depressed in the vinicity around Stony Brook and Green St. OL southside has spare capacity for an extension to West Roxbury, so it is more than fine to utilize OL southside's spare capacity to transport riders between Jackson Square and Ruggles.

Seems bad to leave the OL underutilized and duplicated, while we ask crosstown riders to cram onto overcrowded 66 buses.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Does the Orange Line experience heavy crowding between Ruggles and Jackson Square? IIRC, I thought OL northside experiences heavy crowding compared to OL southside, while OL southside's ridership is depressed in the vinicity around Stony Brook and Green St. OL southside has spare capacity for an extension to West Roxbury, so it is more than fine to utilize OL southside's spare capacity to transport riders between Jackson Square and Ruggles.

But the OL doesn't go to Longwood. That's what we're taking about here. People coming from Dorchester and Roxbury going to Longwood. The OL doesn't help these people. These people are reliant on the 22/23/28+47/CT2 or the BNRD 22/28.

The 66 is one of the T's bus routes that see signficant crowding

Okay, so do the 22, 23, and 28. Peak crowding on the 23/28 is actually higher. Forcing 22 riders onto the already crowded 23/28 instead while trying to relieve the 66 (Which we haven't actually established would even happen, the most crowding on the 66 actually happens around Coolidge Corner) means severely overcrowding those routes. So I'll ask again, what makes 66 riders more important than 22/23/28 riders?

 

[Delvin4519]

But the OL doesn't go to Longwood. That's what we're taking about here. People coming from Dorchester and Roxbury going to Longwood. The OL doesn't help these people. These people are reliant on the 22/23/28+47/CT2 or the BNRD 22/28.

Okay, so do the 22, 23, and 28. Peak crowding on the 23/28 is actually higher. Forcing 22 riders onto the already crowded 23/28 instead while trying to relieve the 66 (Which we haven't actually established would even happen, the most crowding on the 66 actually happens around Coolidge Corner) means severely overcrowding those routes. So I'll ask again, what makes 66 riders more important than 22/23/28 riders?

Generally, you want the bus system to either operate in a grid pattern or a radial pattern, and avoid having bus routes duplicating subway lines, and limiting instances of multiple bus routes on the same street (of course a radial bus network would have some unavoidable trunk&branch routes). This is how a transit system is legible, easy to understand, and runs the maximum amount of frequency.

In this case, we should try to increase speed and frequency on the 23 and the 28 buses. Warren St. obviously is a major transit corridor and some form of priority for transit is needed there. Alternatively extra frequency on the 44 and the 42 is also desirable, such as extra short turns of the 42 between Egleston and Nubian to form a 15 minute corridor between the two. This provides a new 15 minute frequent corridor that does not exist in BNRD, and it also does not duplicate Orange either.

 

[Koopzilla24]

Getting to 1,725/1,859 will take several more months. Your previous post already noted how the process to get from 1,385 to 1,571 has taken 14 months. It's not unreasonable to expect the T getting to 1,725/1,859 will take some time into early 2025 to accomplish, so the T needs additional time.

When the T announced BNRD would be set for late 2024 back in mid-2023, the T thought it could restore headcount in 14 months. 14 months has passed and the T has only restored barely half of the necessary headcount to reach full staffing (1,571 is not 1,725/1,859). The T needs to realize this and perhaps, consider allowing extra time to reach full headcount.

1,571 + 128 operators actively in training = 1,699. That's 26 shy of 1,725 (if all complete training). In training drivers are not part of the active roster because, like you said, they could not complete the training. There are additional factors to consider such as moving from running training courses every 12 weeks to every 8 weeks 12 months ago last October at only 20-30 drivers per class which was upgraded to 66 per class. Following that, in January this year they upgraded further to 90 per class with room for 100. The first 6 months of the new labor contract didn't see many new active drivers but it ramped up once the training program was improved. The last 14 months of recruitment have not been linear so it would not be expected to take the same amount of time to increase operator count the same amount.

 

[Delvin4519]

1,571 + 128 operators actively in training = 1,699. That's 26 shy of 1,725 (if all complete training). In training drivers are not part of the active roster because, like you said, they could not complete the training. There are additional factors to consider such as moving from running training courses every 12 weeks to every 8 weeks 12 months ago last October at only 20-30 drivers per class which was upgraded to 66 per class. Following that, in January this year they upgraded further to 90 per class with room for 100. The first 6 months of the new labor contract didn't see many new active drivers but it ramped up once the training program was improved. The last 14 months of recruitment have not been linear so it would not be expected to take the same amount of time to increase operator count the same amount.

That's why the estimate for reaching 1,725/1,859 is roughly about 3 - 4 months after December 2024, not a full year. April 6th, 2025 seems like an excellent time since 1 more class's worth of ~30 trainees after the current one will pretty much fill the entire roster of 1,859 in.

Filling the roster back in is simply bottlenecked of a process itself and the T did not estimate the time properly back in Summer 2023 when the announced the December 2024 target for BNRD. They underestimated the time by about 3 - 4 months. Prior to the contract they would do sets of 30 or so to keep the roster in check and balanced, so they just need another set of 30 or 40 after the current cadance to complete the process of reaching 1,859.