MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Hubman]

A perfect world would see high level, fair-controlled platforms with full, built out stations covering the center bus lanes, but this is clearly impossible without a massive overhaul of the MBTA's fleet.

 

[Charlie_mta]

A perfect world would see high level, fair-controlled platforms with full, built out stations covering the center bus lanes, but this is clearly impossible without a massive overhaul of the MBTA's fleet.

The busses for the BRT routes would need replacement, but that leaves a lot of routes that could use the curret fleet of busses. Still a helluva lot cheaper than tunneling new LRV or HRT lines.

 

[Brattle Loop]

The busses for the BRT routes would need replacement, but that leaves a lot of routes that could use the curret fleet of busses. Still a helluva lot cheaper than tunneling new LRV or HRT lines.

Oh, fun, are we on the verge of going back to the Bush-era "BRT solves all problems" mantra?

In all seriousness, though, there's a whole host of routes ripe for BRT-style improvement, without going to the extremes that would require wholesale fleet replacement. (And, uh, I don't know what high-level platforms means in a bus context exactly, but if we're talking about full fare-controlled stations and restricted center lanes, at some point the line's really going to start blurring between what should be BRT and what should be LRT.)

 

[Arlington]

^ the original BRT systems had level boarding at multiple doors (before buses added low floors)

 

[Charlie_mta]

Oh, fun, are we on the verge of going back to the Bush-era "BRT solves all problems" mantra?

I agree LRV is usually preferable to BRT in cities, but transit funding is mighty scarce, to say the least. Even just surface LRV on a reservation in a roadway is much more expensive to construct than BRT on dedicated lanes. It's like the phrase, perfect is the enemy of good. If we were to forego BRT and hold out for LRV, that would be a decades-long wait in most cases. Besides, dedicated BRT lanes can be converted to LRV when the funding becomes available, probably more easily so than if BRT wasn't there, because the automobile lanes and parking would already have been removed for the BRT.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I agree LRV is usually preferable to BRT in cities, but transit funding is mighty scarce, to say the least. Even just surface LRV on a reservation in a roadway is much more expensive to construct than BRT on dedicated lanes. It's like the phrase, perfect is the enemy of good. If we were to forego BRT and hold out for LRV, that would be a decades-long wait in most cases. Besides, dedicated BRT lanes can be converted to LRV when the funding becomes available, probably more easily so than if BRT wasn't there, because the automobile lanes and parking would already have been removed for the BRT.

I entirely agree; the emoji was meant to suggest that that particular line in my post was mostly sarcastic, though that one's always a bit tricky to get across in text. That said, we have some pretty bad history (cough*SilverLie*cough) of the politicians being attracted to BRT's cheapness even where it doesn't make sense, so I get a little touchy about suggesting that we focus too much attention on a mode that has it's uses but isn't a panacea, and it wasn't clear in your post I was initially replying to which end of the spectrum your suggestion was on (now it is clearly on the "where it fits, not force-fitting" side, which is the smart-transit-strategy side).

 

[Tallguy]

So, left side doors would be helpful and there are enough places were they would be useful for center lane bus lanes. If IMC is implemented, then the existing Harvard network could use as many as 50 buses. Add on the 25 for 28&29. Throw in the possible SL3 extension down Rutherford Ave, another 10-15. The possible Congress Ave/Summer St BRT. It would not be tough to ID enough places with possible center running bus lanes to warrant 20% of the fleet having the left side doors.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I entirely agree; the emoji was meant to suggest that that particular line in my post was mostly sarcastic, though that one's always a bit tricky to get across in text. That said, we have some pretty bad history (cough*SilverLie*cough) of the politicians being attracted to BRT's cheapness even where it doesn't make sense, so I get a little touchy about suggesting that we focus too much attention on a mode that has it's uses but isn't a panacea, and it wasn't clear in your post I was initially replying to which end of the spectrum your suggestion was on (now it is clearly on the "where it fits, not force-fitting" side, which is the smart-transit-strategy side).

I hear you about the Silver Line to Roxbury. That absolutely should have been LRV, and it easily could have been if the political will had been there to pull it off. The fact that it ended up as a half-assed version of a BRT route instead of LRV is because, in my opinion, it passes through a marginalized community of poor people and people of color.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I hear you about the Silver Line to Roxbury. That absolutely should have been LRV, and it easily could have been if the political will had been there to pull it off. The fact that it ended up as a half-assed version of a BRT route instead of LRV is because, in my opinion, it passes through a marginalized community of poor people and people of color.

I'll put it this way; neighborhoods and communities with lots of money and political clout aren't going to have their existing transit taken away in exchange for "equal or better replacement" smoke-and-mirrors, and they're not going to have their sub-par replacement made even more sub-par by stapling it to an unrelated (Seaport/Logan) project for reasons of political and financial expediency.

That said, part of the SL Washington Street's problem wasn't in design, it was that the design (although subpar) never got built because Phase III was so bloody expensive (though Phase III was a necessary condition of having stapled Elevated 'replacement' to the Seaport transitway in the first place, a decision so stupid it would never fly anywhere where the politicians are actually afraid of consequences from screwing people over, which brings us full circle back to your point.)

 

[Teban54]

I'll put it this way; neighborhoods and communities with lots of money and political clout aren't going to have their existing transit taken away in exchange for "equal or better replacement" smoke-and-mirrors, and they're not going to have their sub-par replacement made even more sub-par by stapling it to an unrelated (Seaport/Logan) project for reasons of political and financial expediency.

That said, part of the SL Washington Street's problem wasn't in design, it was that the design (although subpar) never got built because Phase III was so bloody expensive (though Phase III was a necessary condition of having stapled Elevated 'replacement' to the Seaport transitway in the first place, a decision so stupid it would never fly anywhere where the politicians are actually afraid of consequences from screwing people over, which brings us full circle back to your point.)

I always wondered: What was the reason for the closure of Washington Street El in the first place? I knew land was available for Southwest Corridor, but why couldn't they just use it just for CR and Amtrak while leaving Orange Line as it was?

 

[The EGE]

The elevated lines were never popular - they were noisy and blocked light getting to the street. (Modern concrete viaducts are certainly quieter and can have a bit thinner profile.) The Charlestown Elevated was proposed for replacement as early as 1917, and replacement of the north part of the Washington Street Elevated actually got as far as permission to issue bonds in 1948. The stations were aging - they would have needed major renovations for accessibility, as well as extension to six cars, to make it past the 1980s. There was general public support to retain the northern section of the WSE as a Green Line branch, but no one wanted the southern half kept.

Tooting my own horn again, I've written a pretty good history of the Silver Line and its development on Wikipedia - see here.

 

[Brattle Loop]

There was general public support to retain the northern section of the WSE as a Green Line branch, but no one wanted the southern half kept.

Out of curiosity, where would the 'northern half' have become the 'southern half', Dudley (now Nubian)?

Tooting my own horn again, I've written a pretty good history of the Silver Line and its development on Wikipedia - see here.

I'll add mine to the chorus of thank yous for all the impressive work you've done towards making the T's Wikipedia pages extremely useful.

 

[The EGE]

Out of curiosity, where would the 'northern half' have become the 'southern half', Dudley (now Nubian)?

Correct. Egleston was close enough to Stony Brook, its walkshed was pushed west by Franklin Park, and its bus terminal duties were adequately served by extensions to Jackson Square. Green and Forest Hills were just a stone's throw from their replacements. Dudley/Nubian was a major bus terminal and fully outside the SWC walkshed, so now you have this densely populated area without good service to downtown, and you have a bunch of bus routes awkwardly extended to Ruggles just to get a rapid transit connection.

 

[Equilibria]

Slides are up from the 11/18 presentation on the Quincy garage:

https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021-11-18-quincy-bus-facility-mod-meeting-presentation.pdf_0.pdf

I don't think I'd seen this chart before:

 

[Stlin]

The MBTA recently posted a short "Key Takeaways" about the life cycle cost differentials between maintaining trolleybus service and switching to BEB for the 71 and the 73. It's only 2 pages, so it's all below. I'm not qualified in the least to vet these numbers, but it seems to justify the MBTAs desire to pull down the wires, even if keeping the wires makes sense for enroute charging.

 

[Wash]

The MBTA recently posted a short "Key Takeaways" about the life cycle cost differentials between maintaining trolleybus service and switching to BEB for the 71 and the 73. It's only 2 pages, so it's all below. I'm not qualified in the least to vet these numbers, but it seems to justify the MBTAs desire to pull down the wires, even if keeping the wires makes sense for enroute charging.

View attachment 19301

Transit Matters ripped the hell out of this document on their Twitter account a while back. The T's math is still funny.

 

[Wash]

Seriously, I get the T's reluctance to keep maintaining a fleet of busses that lengthen operator training by weeks, can only be used on two routes, and require specialized maintenance personnel to run. Instead of getting rid of the wires, though, the T should be expanding the system-which would make sense from an environmental, economic, political and social perspective. Replacing the TT's with diesel busses will result in more operator and equipment hours being needed to provide worse service.

This feels like the T cutting of its nose to spite its face. Even back to the MTA days, trackless trolleys were always seen as stopgaps in Boston, and only a lack of money prevented us from becoming one of the many cities that ripped out their trolleybus wires in the 50's.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Seriously, I get the T's reluctance to keep maintaining a fleet of busses that lengthen operator training by weeks, can only be used on two routes, and require specialized maintenance personnel to run. Instead of getting rid of the wires, though, the T should be expanding the system-which would make sense from an environmental, economic, political and social perspective. Replacing the TT's with diesel busses will result in more operator and equipment hours being needed to provide worse service.

This feels like the T cutting of its nose to spite its face. Even back to the MTA days, trackless trolleys were always seen as stopgaps in Boston, and only a lack of money prevented us from becoming one of the many cities that ripped out their trolleybus wires in the 50's.

Kinda touches on something in that MBTA slide that bothered me; the apparent (presumably intentional) decision to omit any discussion of benefits to upgrading (and expanding) the wires and use of them. I mean, obviously it's going to look horrible on a cost-comparison basis if you're talking about just the Cambridge service, wired or battery, but there's absolutely nothing there about the fact that if you keep the wires you can use battery-ETB hybrids to run and charge under the wires then run full-electric the rest of their routes (completely removing the diesel hybrids from the 77 seems like low-hanging fruit). Add that to the part they don't bother mentioning at all, which is their own plans don't call for enough BEBs to cover the service without either cuts or diesel backfilling, and it's patently obvious that this isn't about what's best from a system perspective or environmental standpoint, it's about them not wanting to maintain the wires. (Sadly in character for them, though I'd be surprised if Cambridge doesn't put up one hell of a fight.)

 

[Tallguy]

This is all about the Ts irrational dislike of catenary maintenance. The present wires(N Cambridge, Seaport Transitway, B Branch and E Branch) could support 12-4% of the present fleet, and just wiring Blue Hill Ave would get it closer to 17-9%. Instead we will continue to kill people with diesel heaters. Because MBTA convenience is more important than kids lungs

 

[millerm277]

use battery-ETB hybrids

Do these actually exist for sale in North America/seem likely to exist in the future from a sufficient variety of vendors to get reasonable pricing/have any sort of negotiating power?

I ask, as hasn't that been part of why the MBTA has had trouble with what to do with the SL fleet and the tortured overhaul process for them? Not many vendors on the market selling to this side of the Atlantic with a product for that use?

5 US cities with wires and 1 in Canada isn't much of a market, and I doubt any city with no wires is going to start stringing them up rather than just move to full BEB.