MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Arlington said:
Incidentally the MBTA Data Blog has a great, multipage article on bus use during COVID

COVID-19 and MBTA Ridership: Part 4

MBTA Back on Track Blog
www.mbtabackontrack.com www.mbtabackontrack.com

I'd say that given that 28, 23, 111, and SL5 had the least drop (down less than 70%) during COVID, that they represent the most important routes for essential workers:
DailyBusRidership.JPG
Click to expand...
Is this the first time we've gotten real numbers on the SL3's ridership? I remember that number being hard to track down previously.
 
ulrichomega said:
Is this the first time we've gotten real numbers on the SL3's ridership? I remember that number being hard to track down previously.
Click to expand...
They've recently started including SL3 ridership figures on the open data portal too, (SL3 being route 743) https://mbta-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/mbta-bus-ridership-by-trip-season-route-line-and-stop/data?where=route_id = '743'

Needs a bit of excel work to make it human understandable.

They've also got updated by station ridership for the first time in years https://mbta-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/mbta-ridership-guide
 
That SL3 ridership figure strikes me as pleasantly surprisingly high. I'd been worried that the low-ish frequencies, drawbridge, and somewhat indirect route would crater it. And maybe they have -- maybe that number should be much much higher. But, especially for a corridor that didn't have any sort of service along that alignment previously, it's super interesting.
 
It makes total sense that they're suspending a whole bunch express buses like the 325, 326, 351, 428, 434, 502, 503, 505 and consolidating others.
Commuter Bus is probably like Commuter Rail in being the kind that's probably disproportionately working from home.
 
Extracted from the service changes page:

WEEKDAY Increased
22, 23, 57, 65, 66, 70, 71, 80, 86, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 117, 238, 350, 504, 553

Resuming regular weekday service:
CT2, 27, 67, 68, 72, 85, 114, 121, 131, 202, 217, 221, 439, 501, 424

Resuming limited weekday service:
CT3, 4, 52, 79, 214, 554, 556, 558

Continued with reduced frequency
4, 91, 92, 99, 216, 354, 426, CT2, SL1, SL2.

Modified routes
62/76, 78, 136&137, 214&216, 354, 501, 504,
Local Newton Only: 553, 554, 556, 558

Peak hours only
18, 43, 52, 55, 79, 236, and 245

Suspended ("will continue to not run")
62, 76, 84, 170, 325, 326, 351, 352, 428, 434, 451, 456, 502, 503, 505

==================================
WEEKEND Increase
8, 15, 16, 22, 23, 57, 66, 104, 109, 111, 212, 226, 236, 238, 240

WEEKEND Decrease
10, 11, 44, 45, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 211, 216, 504, 553
 
Vagabond said:
What would get the MBTA this capability?
nyc.streetsblog.org

Bus-Mounted Cameras Have Issued 40,000 Tix Since October - Streetsblog New York City

And cameras will be added to the M23 SBS, M34 SBS and M86 SBS on Monday.
nyc.streetsblog.org nyc.streetsblog.org
Click to expand...

Technologically they already have it. Every bus in the fleet except for the Silver Line dual-modes, Cambridge TT's, and remaining Neoplan diesels quickly being whisked off to retirement for year's end are dash-cam equipped. Serves multiple purposes, from incident recordings to triggering a live hazard avoidance audio + visual cue if a pedestrian darts in front at the last second.

Logistics would thus be all back-office in what they scan the recordings for, and maybe some driver procedural training for how to notify dispatch when they've caught an offender on-tape. Rest is all legalese and any legalese changes that would make such enforcement fair game, which is probably a top-down Baker/Pollack decision.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Technologically they already have it. Every bus in the fleet except for the Silver Line dual-modes, Cambridge TT's, and remaining Neoplan diesels quickly being whisked off to retirement for year's end are dash-cam equipped. Serves multiple purposes, from incident recordings to triggering a live hazard avoidance audio + visual cue if a pedestrian darts in front at the last second.

Logistics would thus be all back-office in what they scan the recordings for, and maybe some driver procedural training for how to notify dispatch when they've caught an offender on-tape. Rest is all legalese and any legalese changes that would make such enforcement fair game, which is probably a top-down Baker/Pollack decision.
Click to expand...

Wonder if that would go under traffic cameras, or, more akin to the police scanners that can tag expired plates/etc. I believe the later is legal?
 
Wow, apologies for the momentary derailment, but when I opened this thread it opened to the converastion from a few months back about MBTA bus spottings in NY and Wisconsin. Instead of being shipped somehow, busses are simply driven from the manufacturer to their destination.

Three years ago, I distinctly remember driving through the middle of nowhere Montana and seeing an SF MUNI bus on I-90. Never had the slightest idea what it was doing there.

Today, by happening upon those earlier posts, mystery solved. New Flyer Manitoba plant to SF driving instructions.
 
WormtownNative said:
In Mass you can't issue fines via camera alone. Has to be witnessed by an officer.
Click to expand...
Right now, no. But a bill that would permit automated enforcement for speeding, red lights and school buses etc is something that I would expect to keep appearing in the legislature.

The most recent incarnation (S2553) just failed this Feburary, but would have created a minimal $25 non surchargable fine. I can definitely see some variation on this passing in the coming years, with an non controversial issue like school buses leading the way. An expansion for bus lanes seems reasonable, but I would have questions about how this would work when some buslanes double as turn lanes.
 
theSil said:
Wow, apologies for the momentary derailment, but when I opened this thread it opened to the converastion from a few months back about MBTA bus spottings in NY and Wisconsin. Instead of being shipped somehow, busses are simply driven from the manufacturer to their destination.

Three years ago, I distinctly remember driving through the middle of nowhere Montana and seeing an SF MUNI bus on I-90. Never had the slightest idea what it was doing there.

Today, by happening upon those earlier posts, mystery solved. New Flyer Manitoba plant to SF driving instructions.
Click to expand...


This seems to becoming more the norm for saving money for cash strapped government agencies. In fact, I'm expecting to see lots of US Mail trucks driving into lakes soon............
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Right now, no. But a bill that would permit automated enforcement for speeding, red lights and school buses etc is something that I would expect to keep appearing in the legislature.

The most recent incarnation (S2553) just failed this Feburary, but would have created a minimal $25 non surchargable fine. I can definitely see some variation on this passing in the coming years, with an non controversial issue like school buses leading the way. An expansion for bus lanes seems reasonable, but I would have questions about how this would work when some buslanes double as turn lanes.
Click to expand...
This would open a big can of worms.
 
Tallguy said:
This would open a big can of worms.
Click to expand...
It need not open a can of worms.

Electronic toll enforcement already works smoothly: take a picture and impose a monetary penalty on the car's registered owner. It is a civil penalty not a criminal one. It is imposed on the car not the driver.

"Non surchargeable" means it has no effect on the driver or the driver's insurance. As noted above, the bill imposes penalties in this way.

I have gotten "civil fine" speeding tickets from MD & PA. They come in the mail and have a picture.

They say: we are not saying who might have been a bad driver; nobody's legal or insurance rates will be affected, but your car is going fast you would like our $70.

It has changed our family's behavior in construction zones in Maryland and Pennsylvania. We can do the same thing here in Massachusetts in bus lanes
 
Arlington said:
It need not open a can of worms.

Electronic toll enforcement already works smoothly: take a picture and impose a monetary penalty on the car's registered owner. It is a civil penalty not a criminal one. It is imposed on the car not the driver.

"Non surchargeable" means it has no effect on the driver or the driver's insurance. As noted above, the bill imposes penalties in this way.

I have gotten "civil fine" speeding tickets from MD & PA. They come in the mail and have a picture.

They say: we are not saying who might have been a bad driver; nobody's legal or insurance rates will be affected, but your car is going fast you would like our $70.

It has changed our family's behavior in construction zones in Maryland and Pennsylvania. We can do the same thing here in Massachusetts in bus lanes
Click to expand...
 
I know it at least was controversial in AZ. Accusation s of revenue raising vs actual public safety.
Slippery slope type stuff.
 
Tallguy said:
I know it at least was controversial in AZ. Accusation s of revenue raising vs actual public safety.
Slippery slope type stuff.
Click to expand...

That was/is pretty much the case in every state until the Legislature passes a bill actually enumerating the reach and limits of such enforcement. Everyone here was deeply suspicious of open-road tolling because of what other surveillance uses the license-plate cams on the Pike and bridges/tunnels could technologically be used for. But it stopped being any concern once the state actually drew up the legalese of the limits and the consumer protection experts were able to chime in with layman's explainers that it was bottled up airtight enough to not be a paranoia concern.

Same process has taken place pretty much anywhere you get automated cam enforcement, and differences between states that allow and states that don't allow largely boils down to whether their Legislatures have yet taken up an attempt to codify the limits. Rinse, repeat when you get a hybridized case like the bus cams where the cam is always on (i.e. monitoring like an automaton) but the bus driver--a non- enforcement personnel--has discretion to expedite an enforcement priority by phoning it into dispatch. That'll take its own separate top-down legal missive to get codified, but process would be fundamentally no different than how all other automation-assisted forms of enforcement came to pass (and had their outer limits spelled out clear-as-day).

I mean...we don't have a lot to worry about here. The ACLU will red-flag ASAP literally anything in a cam-enforcement bill that's the least bit squishy. And then the pile-on from consumer advocates and public at large is fierce enough that it's no-go until they tighten up the verbiage. Public alertness (but especially in the land of Masshole drivers) is naturally very high when it comes to getting fines for crap one does in/with their car, so here there'd be almost zero chance of slipping something bad or overly-permissive past without it getting immediately pummeled. They were very careful about the toll cam wording to avoid stirring up a hornet's nest, and the end result was extremely low-drama. I would expect similar P's-and-Q's minding if the Legislature took up dash-cam enforcement or anything else likeminded.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top