MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Well, here's the actual presentation from the meeting:


- Commits to 100% BEB by 2040, 40% on urban routes (30% overall) once Arborway opens in 2027.
- MBTA will not buy a non-BEB after 2027.
- Wellington opens in 2029 (first confirmation I've seen of Wellington garage, though it's long been assumed) all-BEB.
- Lynn opens on 2030, all-BEB (50% BEB fleet in 2030).
- Reconstruction on Mount Auburn would have required hybrids anyway for 5.5 years - North Cambridge BEBs can take over part of that period beginning in March 2024.

Their argument is that by the time they'd finished the Mount Auburn work, they'd need to replace the trolleybuses anyway, and the replacements would be BEBs for fleet commonality (and because the catenary gets in the way of fire ladders and trucks), so why not do it now. I don't see much Pioneer Institute in this plan.

1645580327475.png
 
RandomWalk said:
One problem is that they define BEB as including the diesel heater indefinitely. The other is the duty cycles for depot charging which F-line has expounded upon.
Click to expand...
You know what, I think I can accept the diesel heater as an interim solution /as a backup and booster. Per this German Report, a diesel bus heater uses 4L/100km. That works out to about 58 miles per gallon, and only during the winter months. The New Flyer hybrid Xcelsior that the T currently uses gets 5.83mpg, so it almost perfectly represents 90% reductions in winter.

Presumably the future BEB will have a reversible heat pump (think of it as AC being run backwards) but those typically have a sharp drop off in efficiency as you cross 35 or so. That’s starting to improve pretty rapidly, but while it’s not there, I think the trade off of limited diesel works; it’s probably still much more efficient than the resistive heat alternative until either the energy density of batteries improve or the heat pump tech does.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Presumably the future BEB will have a reversible heat pump (think of it as AC being run backwards) but those typically have a sharp drop off in efficiency as you cross 35 or so. That’s starting to improve pretty rapidly, but while it’s not there, I think the trade off of limited diesel works; it’s probably still much more efficient than the resistive heat alternative until either the energy density of batteries improve or the heat pump tech does.
Click to expand...

Was going to say, if range is an issue as is, using diesel to keep the battery and the people warm is a necessity if they are serious about using BEBs here.
 
I don't think that it's impossible for us to be in a place where BEBs make more sense than trolleybusses. However, the T has hated the things for so long and pulled so much bullshit to get rid of them that it calls into question any studies they did on the subject. Especially since they have not released said studies to the public.
 
Wash said:
I don't think that it's impossible for us to be in a place where BEBs make more sense than trolleybusses. However, the T has hated the things for so long and pulled so much bullshit to get rid of them that it calls into question any studies they did on the subject. Especially since they have not released said studies to the public.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the people run Bus Facility Modernization joined the T within the past 3 years. It makes no difference what the agency thought before then.

RandomWalk said:
One problem is that they define BEB as including the diesel heater indefinitely. The other is the duty cycles for depot charging which F-line has expounded upon.
Click to expand...

Well, unless the whole city is going to be strung with wires, the tiny North Cambridge fleet isn't going to make much of an emissions difference on either point, and fleet commonality is a good thing.
 
Equilibria said:
Honestly, the people run Bus Facility Modernization joined the T within the past 3 years. It makes no difference what the agency thought before then.



Well, unless the whole city is going to be strung with wires, the tiny North Cambridge fleet isn't going to make much of an emissions difference on either point, and fleet commonality is a good thing.
Click to expand...
The whole city doesnt need to be wired. IMC buses need about 20-30% on wire to charge.
A $15-20M investment, combined with present wiring,(and include IMC wire along side GL lines) would be enough to move 60% of all passenger s.
 
I’m on the 95 bus this morning using the “dedicated” Mystic Ave bus lane southbound. Dedicated in quotes because general traffic is using the lane with its faded red paint and zero enforcement.

What’s the point of having them if they’re not going to be maintained or enforced??
 
WestMedford said:
I’m on the 95 bus this morning using the “dedicated” Mystic Ave bus lane southbound. Dedicated in quotes because general traffic is using the lane with its faded red paint and zero enforcement.

What’s the point of having them if they’re not going to be maintained or enforced??
Click to expand...

I drive that very often and rarely see traffic for the bus to "skip," although I am on the 6AM early side. It's a pilot project that I haven't seen an update on.

Dedicated Bus Lane Pilot Program on Mystic Avenue to Begin on Monday, June 21, 2021 | MassDOT Blog

blog.mass.gov blog.mass.gov
 
Vagabond said:
I drive that very often and rarely see traffic for the bus to "skip," although I am on the 6AM early side. It's a pilot project that I haven't seen an update on.

Dedicated Bus Lane Pilot Program on Mystic Avenue to Begin on Monday, June 21, 2021 | MassDOT Blog

blog.mass.gov blog.mass.gov
Click to expand...

This project is another great example of MassDOT (which owns / maintains most of Mystic Ave) not living up to the policies it espouses. Word was that Medford and Somerville wanted all-day bus lanes but the MassDOT office wasn't having it and this peak-only approach was the compromise.
 
Oil up another $10 since, uh, Friday.

Did their cost analysis include gas/oil prices?
 
Wash said:
I doubt MassDot planners are required to perform a geopolitical analysis, no.
Click to expand...

I would expect any analysis between electric and diesel operations to include projected costs for both. If they projected say 80 a barrel for the next ten years, their analysis needs to be thrown out
 
Just noticed that 71 and 73 boarding will be moved to the upper busway with the retirement of the TTs. This strikes me as odd given all the work they just put into the lower busway. Comparing the schedules, it looks like they anticipate this adding 3-4 minutes to every outbound trip.
 
Last edited:
For those curious, it looks like the last 71 and 73 departures from Harvard ('w' trips) on Saturdays return as revenue trips back to Harvard, and then continue as revenue trips on 77A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top