MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Psyched to see that a priority bus is in the Boston 2030 plan at #6 (page 195)

Good News: it runs North Station-Haymarket-POSq-Atlantics Ave @ South Station-Seaport (D St)

Bad News: they've pegged implementation at $21m and 6 years.

Hello? Just slap some paint down and drop some friggin' traffic cones on Congress Street. Call it 1 year, $2m, and $1m/yr in police detail work.

Hire the Mayor of Everett as a consultant.

I think a lot of the cost is they want the full package all at once. Upgraded stops with shelters as well as traffic signal upgrades for transit priority. Bus lanes and que jump lanes. It also sounds like they want physical separation and not just paint.
 
I would take out the south bound general traffic lane there, and route south bound general traffic on Devonshire. They have both Water and Milk Streets to connect back over.

Make Congress: BRT south/general traffic north/BRT north from PO Square to State.

thats always been my thought as well. you would need to lose parking on 1 side along Devonshire though. small price to pay.
 
I think a lot of the cost is they want the full package all at once. Upgraded stops with shelters as well as traffic signal upgrades for transit priority. Bus lanes and que jump lanes. It also sounds like they want physical separation and not just paint.
and if you want funding for any of that from the state/feds, 9' lanes and 10' bus lanes isnt going to cut it because they dont meet standards.
 
I thought 9' travel lanes were permitted in areas with low speed limits. 10 foot bus lanes I will admit I had no idea about. And Jeff's idea probably makes more sense anyways.
 
Last edited:
I thought 9' travel lanes were permitted in areas with low speed limits. 10 foot bus lanes I will admit I had not idea about. And Jeff's idea probably makes more sense anyways.

SEPTA runs buses on 9.5 foot lanes
 
A great many streets in Boston that bus lines running on 10' travel lanes, including Washington Street in Roslindale. To be fair, the dedicated bus lanes on Washington St in the South End are 11', but so are the travel and turn lanes and the parking lanes are over 8' wide.
Buses (and tractor trailers) can run in lanes 10' wide. In fact, the FHWA relaxed it's requirements for 11' lanes last year and now accept narrower lanes.
 
Re: Lower Broadway and Sweetser Circle

After studying the TransitMatters video some more and thinking some more, I'm not so convinced that a lower Broadway bus lane is necessarily necessary, although it's clear that something should be done about the multiple minutes through Sweetser Circle (minute 11 through 14 or so of the video).

There are five signalized intersections/crossings of Lower Broadway: Bowdoin, Beacham, the pedestrian crossing, Dexter, and the power plant / water and sewer commission.

An oversimplified model of the major traffic flows could consider simply the Beacham light, which sends two lanes of traffic flowing along Broadway during one signal phase, and a single lane of Beacham to the two lanes of Broadway during the other signal phase, and the Dexter light which involves similar phases and lane counts.

During the time a traffic signal feeds a single lane of traffic into two lanes, those two downstream lanes seem to tend to be uncongested and flow relatively freely.

I think if these five signals are not already coordinated that upgrading them to be coordinated would be valuable, and given that some are in Everett and others are in Boston, letting MassDOT run all of them would make sense (it's nominally a state highway, so is MassDOT already running them)? I suspect in the morning peak it's desirable for the power plant light to be set up to give Broadway traffic a red light only while traffic from Dexter is arriving, and likewise at the mid block pedestrian crossing to only give Broadway traffic a red light while traffic from Beacham is arriving, and the amount of green time that traffic from Beacham turning left onto Broadway gets should maybe be a bit less than double the green time that traffic turning left from Dexter to Broadway gets. Also, the Dexter light should probably give Broadway traffic a yellow light just as the traffic from Beacham starts arriving (or would arrive if it wasn't being stopped by the mid-block crossing).

It does seem that this coordinated signal design doesn't really interact well with transit signal priority: if optimizing for maximizing total vehicles per hour across the bridge, signal timing downstream of Beacham probably should provide yellow lights at the start of the arrival of the one lane worth of Beacham traffic taking up two whole lanes (except at the power plant, where the traffic from Dexter starting to arrive should be when the yellow light can appear if there's a vehicle waiting to turn left or pedestrian waiting to cross). It might be possible for Beacham itself to delay switching from the Broadway mainlane flow to Beacham->Broadway phase in response to a bus approaching, but if we end up not having a bus lane through that narrow section at the north end of lower Broadway, the total Sweetser Circle to Beacham travel time may be long enough that having the bus pause for 15-30 seconds somewhere between Sweetser Circle and Beacham might be inevitable.

I'm also wondering how peak hour traffic counts across the highway 99 Mystic River bridge compare southbound in the morning vs northbound in the afternoon, given that Rutherford Ave sort of looks like the continuation of that road and has asymmetric traffic flows (though of course interactions with I-93 are probably significant in that asymmetry as well).
 
The congestion is almost entirely from the Dexter signal.
 
Re: Lower Broadway

It seems to be the case in the TransitMatters video that the Dexter light provides right around 40 seconds of green time to Broadway followed by about 32 seconds of not-green time. I'd been assuming that Broadway would get substantially more green time than Dexter, but apparently that's not the case.

The followup question here is whether MassDOT and / or the City of Boston have made a deliberate decision about how many vehicles per hour they want travelling south across the Mystic on that bridge during the morning commute. If this is an intentional signal timing decision to limit the bridge to carrying roughly 2800 vehicles per hour southbound toward the North Washington St Bridge bottleneck to limit the amount of queue storage that lands on Rutherford Ave, maybe that's appropriate; on the other hand, if there was a goal of getting more vehicles across the bridge, either adding a second left turn lane on Dexter or giving Broadway more time relative to Dexter would be effective.

If Broadway only gets green barely more than 50% of the time at Dexter, then there may not be a need to have two southbound lanes on Broadway for more than about enough distance to the north of Dexter to queue cars for one cycle of that light at Dexter, and everything north of that could possibly be reduced to a single general purpose lane without any major decrease in the number of vehicles that would cross the Mystic (perhaps we'd go from 2800 vehicles per hour to 2600 vehicles per hour if the light allows 40 vehicles per cycle from Broadway and 16 vehicles per cycle from Dexter through but the one lane bottleneck would only allow 36 vehicles per cycle to reach the light from Broadway), although turning the southbound right lane into a dedicated bus lane from perhaps Sweetser Circle to Beacham would probably move queue storage back to Sweetser Circle / 16 if we don't introduce congestion tolling on the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Re: 60' battery buses

BYD's website describes a 60' battery powered bus and GreenPower Bus also claims to have a 60' option.

It's not clear whether these are any further along than New Flyer's 60' battery bus development project, but they may be interesting options for getting competitive bids as alternatives to New Flyer.
 
Re: 60' battery buses

BYD's website describes a 60' battery powered bus and GreenPower Bus also claims to have a 60' option.

It's not clear whether these are any further along than New Flyer's 60' battery bus development project, but they may be interesting options for getting competitive bids as alternatives to New Flyer.

There have been huge scandals in China with the BEV transit buses over the past year.

About a dozen suppliers have been found to be cheating on the amount of Li-ion cells being included in the battery packs (basically cheating on battery capacity). This was done to scam the Chinese government out of incentive payments.

Everyone is being really cautious about Chinese made BEV transit buses right now (like BYD).
 
Re: 60' battery buses

If that's the failure mode you're concerned about, all you have to do is develop a specific test plan involving charging the batteries all the way as soon as the bus is received, and go through a specific test route to ensure that the bus really has the claimed battery range, and make sure the contract gets written so that the manufacturer doesn't get paid unless the bus passes this test. If you're concerned about repeatibility of the test, an indoor test track in a climate controlled building is an option when you don't have to worry about diesel exhaust.

Longevity of the batteries and quality is harder to test for, but if you're optimistic that the next generation of 60' SL1 buses will be built by a company that doesn't go bankrupt as fast as the company that built the previous generation of SL1 buses, perhaps there can be a warranty saying that the bus is guaranteed to have a certain range when retested multiple years after delivery.
 
If the silver line gets battery buses/if other lines do, would there be advantages to having them be dual mode and able to run off of trolleybus wires as well as their own internal batteries?

It might extend their range a bit (and potentially allow them to charge their batteries while driving on some routes), but unless the switch from battery to catenary power is more like plugging in a laptop and less like switching from electric to diesel power (looking at you, silver line to the airport), I don't think it would be practical. Are there any cities using dual-mode battery/trolleybuses at the moment/are there any companies developing them?
 
The Silver Line will receive pure-electric buses. There are 5 New Flyer XE60s on order right now. I am not sure if they will be capable of using the catenary in the Waterfront tunnels to charge their batteries.

The current long-term solution for the Silver Line is to buy New Flyer XDE60 buses with higher capacity batteries than the standard models. They would run solely on electric power inside the Waterfront tunnels and a diesel engine would turn on once they exit the tunnels to charge the batteries. One requirement of the T is that the batteries must be fully charged before the bus re-enters the tunnels, especially on the SL2 route since it is the shortest. The T placed an order for one of these buses so they can test that requirement. If it is tested successfully, they will place an order for 45 more to replace the dual-mode Neoplan fleet.
 
I don't get it: is the XE60 Battery + Overhead?
Is the XDE60 Battery + Overhead + Diesel?

All three seems like overkill.
Not using the catenary in the SLWaterfront seems like a waste
 
I am not sure about the XE60s, but the XDE60s definitely will not have trolley poles (current collectors); that's why the batteries need to be fully charged before they re-enter the tunnels. I believe the T is trying to get rid of the catenary in the Waterfront tunnels.
 
Re: batteries vs trolley poles

The economies of scale probably completely fail to exist for trolleybuses once we have affordable batteries.

The T wants to have standardized, interchangable vehicles (see the complete lack of electric locomotives on the Providence Line commuter trains, although on the other hand see the 39 vs SL5 paint scheme), and the market for North American trolleybuses is tiny compared to the market for North American urban transit buses.

And indeed, the process of switching between trolley poles and some other power source without delays is one that seems to be unsolved, and it's not clear that any existing route should really be limited to where the trolley wires currently exist. (73 could maybe go from Waverley Sq to Harvard and then continue onto 1 as far as Boston Medical Center and then continue to UMass Boston and 71 could maybe continue onto part of 86 and then maybe make its way over to part of 117 to become a Watertown to Wonderland route.)

If the SL1/SL2 tunnel gets converted to be able to handle Green Line trains plus SL1 buses, the current Green Line power system is not compatible with the current trolleybus wires. Just running the buses on batteries and converting the overhead wiring to the format expected by the Green Line is probably the easiest solution there.

And I think the Tesla Model 3 pretty strongly suggests that big enough battery packs aren't really an actual challenge.

And IIRC some of the folks along the 73 aren't fond of the aesthetics of the overhead wires.
 
Re: batteries vs trolley poles

And I think the Tesla Model 3 pretty strongly suggests that big enough battery packs aren't really an actual challenge.

A passenger car that takes an hour to recharge says very little about battery packs for buses. In terms of relative scale, it is like saying a powerwheels jeep suggests anything about electric cars.
 
Re: batteries vs trolley poles

https://www.proterra.com/technology/ lists Proterra bus weight in the 26,000 to 33,000 pound range. https://www.tesla.com/support/model-s-specifications lists about 4647 pounds; roughly a factor of 7 difference. 1/7 of 4647 pounds is about 664 pounds. Does a Powerwheels Jeep weigh 664 pounds?

Regardless, https://www.proterra.com/products/catalyst-40ft/ has some range and battery size numbers for 40' buses. The middle model there claims to be able to go 136-193 miles on a charge with less than 3 hour charging time. If some such buses charge from 9AM to noon and others from noon to 3PM, and all buses charge from roughly midnight to 6AM (if we ignore the NightBus possibilities), the key question might be whether 136 miles covers 6AM to noon usage. (And the key to making NightBus work with this might be to put charging stations at the outer ends of each NightBus route, and have the drivers swap buses around 3AM at the outer end of each route.)
 

Back
Top