MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

Jahvon09 said:
The B Line is shut down again for the 7teenth time again!!!!!! Why in the hell do they just keep on coming frigging back to do this damn trackwork?!!!!! It is so ridiculous!!!!! Like a dog who keeps on coming back to mess up the judge's carpet!!!!!! :mad: :mad::mad:
Click to expand...
Mostly safety systems and other items, not really track work: MBTA

"The MBTA will perform work on a number of critical projects on the B branch during this nine-day service outage, including infrastructure improvements, the continued installation of Green Line Train Protection System (GLTPS) infrastructure, the replacement of the 130-year-old wooden overhead catenary wire “trough” near the Green Line portals, and necessary maintenance work to maintain the system."
 
JeffDowntown said:
Mostly safety systems and other items, not really track work: MBTA

"The MBTA will perform work on a number of critical projects on the B branch during this nine-day service outage, including infrastructure improvements, the continued installation of Green Line Train Protection System (GLTPS) infrastructure, the replacement of the 130-year-old wooden overhead catenary wire “trough” near the Green Line portals, and necessary maintenance work to maintain the system."
Click to expand...
I did see some photos from the Chestnut Hill Ave/Comm Ave intersection where they seem to be doing some track work but yeah not the main focus.
 
Has this story been posted anywhere on aB? (apologies; couldn't find it if it has). In any case, what is the 1,001th attempt at something like this?

bankerandtradesman.com

Brighton Rep Eyes BRT Line to Connect Kendall, Allston, Longwood

Connecting Greater Boston's "eds and meds" hubs with an MBTA rapid bus line would be explored under a budget amendment adopted by the House on Tuesday night.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com
 
bigpicture7 said:
Has this story been posted anywhere on aB? (apologies; couldn't find it if it has). In any case, what is the 1,001th attempt at something like this?

bankerandtradesman.com

Brighton Rep Eyes BRT Line to Connect Kendall, Allston, Longwood

Connecting Greater Boston's "eds and meds" hubs with an MBTA rapid bus line would be explored under a budget amendment adopted by the House on Tuesday night.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com
Click to expand...
It's basically a mash-up of the more-or-less agreed-upon Urban Ring Grand Junction alignment and the Silver Line Allston+Longwood extension off the Phase III tunnel that was evaluated by the 2003 PMT. The latter...at least in its Silver Line form...was sort of hilariously overoptimistic on the required operational perfection.

1777738852808.png

1777738899227.png
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It's basically a mash-up of the more-or-less agreed-upon Urban Ring Grand Junction alignment and the Silver Line Allston+Longwood extension off the Phase III tunnel that was evaluated by the 2003 PMT. The latter...at least in its Silver Line form...was sort of hilariously overoptimistic on the required operational perfection.

View attachment 72450
View attachment 72451
Click to expand...
Easily my favorite part of the 2003 PMT for just how bonkers it is, it really goes to show how far BRT mania was reaching at the time.

The article annoyingly doesn't quote the actual provision, so here it is:
SECTION 51B. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall conduct a comprehensive transit service assessment of the feasibility of establishing direct rapid bus transit between Kendall Square in the city of Cambridge, the Allston and North Brighton sections of the city of Boston and the Longwood medical area in the city of Boston.


(b) The assessment shall: (i) identify the transit infrastructure that needs to be preserved for direct rapid bus transit alternatives between Kendall Square in the city of Cambridge, the Allston and North Brighton sections of the city of Boston and the Longwood medical area in the city of Boston; (ii) review the prospect of constructing and operating on existing rights of way; (iii) analyze the impact of planned, designed, funded or under construction transportation or development projects nearby; (iv) identify the potential market for such transit services; and (v) evaluate the potential economic benefits to the region and to the commonwealth.


(c) The department shall make recommendations on a preferred route and how to preserve the transit infrastructure necessary for direct rapid bus transit alternatives between Kendall Square in the city of Cambridge, the Allston and North Brighton sections of the city of Boston and the Longwood medical area in the city of Boston, taking into consideration nearby transportation and development projects that have been studied, designed, funded or are under construction. Not later than July 1, 2027, the department shall file a report with the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate, the house and senate committees on ways and means and the joint committee on transportation.
Click to expand...
It doesn't actually say 'Bus Rapid Transit' it says 'Rapid bus transit' which arguably could mean basically anything, including basic improvements to the 47/66/70.
 
cubbe8 said:
www.bulletinnewspapers.com

Mayor hits pause button on Columbus Ave busway Phase II

City hopeful to resume project
www.bulletinnewspapers.com www.bulletinnewspapers.com

BTD wants a side running bus lanes from Heath to Malcom X.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see what the benefit is of this project. Doesnt every bus route we're talking about already stop at Jackson, thereby providing BRT <-> Orange connections for everyone who's heading inbound from points south? The only specific benefit I see for this is 1) for the people who board the 22 at Cedar or Whittier, the only two bus stops on the entire leg other than Roxbury Crossing which is also a T station, 2) people on the 22 and other routes from points south who are looking to make bus or commuter rail connections at Ruggles or Roxbury Crossing. This seems like information that should be in the studies—and it also sounds like a likely very small number.
 
I think the value of phase II is that Jackson Square is not nearly as important of a transfer hub as Ruggles when you consider CR, bus, and shuttles. The street is way too wide anyways and I'm all for prioritizing transit and emergency access in places that are straight-forward now before a ton of stakeholders in future P-3 development make it harder in the future. It isn't the most bussed route right now and this stretch runs parallel to the orange line for 3 stops, but as long as the 22 terminates at Ruggles (which BNRD doesn't do) I think the removal of a transfer is positive. It will also make it more familiar to residents who are weary of this treatment when the more important but difficult Malcolm X Blvd and Warren St. come back up in the future (and maybe others like Seaver St. and Morton). The only way to gain community support for change they are weary of (like these center running bus lanes) is to build familiarity over time by implementing effective solutions that positively or at least minimally affect their day to day. I think this would be one of the least disruptive sections to convert, definitely less than phase 1.
 
Last edited:
In 2018, about as many riders on the 22 stayed on past Jackson Square as got off: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/projects/betterbus/route-profiles/22.pdf

With BNRD, the 22 will turn west at Roxbury Crossing to go to the LMA. That will probably increase the number of riders riding past Jackson, and also mean that riders using the 22 between the Orange Line and the LMA will need it to be reliable. Phase 2 also serves the routes coming up Malcolm X from Nubian, which don't have a good Orange Line connection at Roxbury Crossing because it's on the opposite corner from the turning buses.

In what is probably a broken-clock situation, side-running lanes might be just as good here. (I actually convinced myself of this while writing this post.) Center-running lanes work well when buses are staying in the center (or turning to/from other center-running busways); they don't work as well when buses need to turn on and off the corridor. With the current design, almost every bus movement (NB and SB left turns at Tremont/Malcolm X, Tremont EB right turn, Malcolm X WB right turn, SB right turn into the Jackson Square busway) would require bus-only phases, which limit the amount of a signal cycle that buses can move, and reduce time available for pedestrians.

Some of the downsides of side-running lanes are less present on this corridor. There are relatively few driveways and cross streets, so there wouldn't be too many people making right turns across the bus lanes. Same with parking friction, since the existing parallel parking is underutilized and low-turnover.

If center-running lanes are done here, they really need to be done together with center-running lanes on Malcolm X plus one block of center lanes + boarding islands on Tremont.
 
We've got two electric bus stories this morning:

PHOTOS: A Hard-Hat Tour of the MBTA's New Electric Bus Garages - Streetsblog Massachusetts

Check out the MBTA's first new bus maintenance facilities designed for battery-electric buses.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org

The T's New Electric Buses Will Still Belch Diesel Fumes For Winter Heat - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The new buses' supplemental diesel heaters won't work nearly as hard as a typical diesel bus engine, but they're also not regulated by federal air quality regulations.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org
 
My previous thoughts (just from descriptions) here. My revised thoughts from this information (all images are 2019 / current proposal / new proposal):
  • 465 to Danvers Square: this continues to look good. I like the tighter loop in Danvers, and retaining service on Margin is interesting. (This area so badly needs higher-frequency bus service timed to Regional Rail.)
1780424452363.png

  • Boston Avenue service: we're getting three possibilities for this one:
    • Option A: Existing 350 and 67 routings maintained; the 80 becomes a Davis-Tufts-Arlington Centre-Arlington Heights route
    • Option B: The current proposal of the 80 becoming a Davis-Arlington-Centre-Burlington route (taking over the 350) is kept. The existing 94 route, scheduled to be discontinued, is retained.
    • Option C: The current 80 proposal is kept. Instead of the current 96 proposal (College-George-Winthrop), it is routed College-Boston Winthrop

      I'm not sure about this one. I don't love either having Boston Avenue be dependent on the 350 corridor, or pulling the 96 away from George. If it was up to me, I'd keep the existing 350 and the proposed 96, and have the 80 become an Arlington Center-Davis route that could run more frequently than if it goes to Arlington Heights.

      1780424781281.png
      1780424792489.png
      1780424838053.png
  • A Street in South Boston: As I expected, it's being proposed as a 42 extension. I continue to like this a lot.
    1780425454341.png
  • 426 to Jack Satter House: It's not clear whether the loop will be before or after serving Wonderland on inbound trips. Hopefully it's the latter.
    1780425612825.png
  • 119/120 to Point Shirley: I continue to say "eh, I guess"
    1780425677433.png
  • 44 to Ruggles: I continue to say "sure, that's fine"
  • Saturday service retained on route 18: Probably a good thing. This route really needs higher frequency to be usable.
  • Weekend service on route 85 (ex-CT2): Definitely a good thing, but also needs higher frequency.
  • Midday and evening service on route 202: Sure, why not.
  • Retain existing service levels on route 43: Very good. Much better than reducing it to midday-only.
  • Retain Saturday service on route 504: Good, though really needs Sunday service too.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with these changes. They're largely adding back service cut in 2020 or in the proposal, and in a few cases (42 extension, and weekend 85) are real improvements.
 
Part of me is rooting for Option C to untangle the Boston Ave situation. I remember being dependent upon the 96 routing via George, and that stretch seemed to screw with the reliability during inclement weather.
 
The T's vendetta against the 34/34E continues in the upcoming summer schedule, hurting passengers across both frequency and span of service.

On frequency, a few snapshots of what "improved coordination" looks like (the T's words on the PDF schedule / the service changes page, not mine):
  • Weekday outbound, leaving Forest Hills: 6:41pm, 7:00 (19min gap), 7:04, 7:25 (21min gap), 7:27, 7:51 (24min gap)
  • Sunday inbound, arriving at Forest Hills: 3:37pm, 3:46, 4:11 (25min gap), 4:17, 4:44 (27min gap), 4:45, 5:18 (33min gap), 5:26, two buses at 5:52 (26min gap), 6:20 (28min gap), 6:23, 6:51 (28min gap), 6:55
  • Sunday outbound leaving Forest Hills is somewhat improved, but significant gaps still remain throughout the day: 2:39pm, 2:48, 3:13 (25min gap); 6:25, 6:30, 6:55 (25min gap), 7:04, 7:26 (22min gap), 7:28
On span of service, the T has silently cut off almost a full hour of Sunday service since March 2025:
  • Winter 2025 (Dec 2024-Mar 2025): last trip 1:15am, waits for last Orange at Forest Hills -- see attachment
  • Spring 2026 (Mar-Jun 2026): last trip 12:35am, does not wait for last Orange
  • Summer 2026: last trip 12:17am
Obviously, this change is very significant and negative for service sector workers who rely on this last-train connection (and post-midnight service more broadly). Saturday service has been similarly affected: while a guaranteed connection is no longer expected due to expanded subway hours, the 1:15am trip has still been eliminated, resulting in a 25-min reduction in span of service (last trip is now 12:50am).

There is a broader implication here too: the T cut span of service on a bus route without any official acknowledgement whatsoever. All schedule changes since March 2025 have only mentioned various iterations of "trips shift" -- according to the T, that means "some trips may leave a few minutes earlier or later for improved service reliability." Apparently a full 58 minutes (plus a guaranteed connection) is considered "a few minutes"...
 

Attachments

  • 34_34E_Winter 2025.png
    34_34E_Winter 2025.png
    184 KB · Views: 9
  • 34_34E_Weekday OB_Summer 2026.png
    34_34E_Weekday OB_Summer 2026.png
    167.7 KB · Views: 9
  • 34_34E_Sunday IB_Summer 2026.png
    34_34E_Sunday IB_Summer 2026.png
    133.5 KB · Views: 10
cubbe8 said:
brookline.news

The 65 bus route is changing. Here's what Brookline riders need to know. - Brookline.News

The new route will terminate at Ruggles Station rather than Kenmore.
brookline.news brookline.news
Click to expand...
“Right now I can’t say how much of an impact it will have on my commute,” said Rahaman Ahmed, who works in the Longwood Medical Area and uses the Brookline Ave at Short St stop, which will no longer be served under the new route. “If I could choose between changing the route or maintaining it, I would keep this one.”
Click to expand...
Genuinely what? If this person gets off the 65 there for work its ~600' from the Longwood galleria stop.

Dave Porter, chair of the Brookline Shared Mobility Advisory Committee, said he originally feared the reroute could make commuting to jobs in the Longwood Medical Area more difficult for some riders.
“My initial concerns sort of did a U-turn once I saw the actual route,” Porter said.
Click to expand...
If this meeting or recently leading up to it was their first time seeing the routing it should be a red flag for someone who's supposedly chair of a Mobility Advisory Committee. This re-route has been displayed as such since 2022. Should be due dilligence to be on top of whatever transportation proposals are active in your jurisdiction as chair.
 
This one snuck in a bit under the radar: the Maffa Way and Mystic Avenue Bridge Superstructure Replacement Project, which was recently completed, included several segments of transit lanes at Sullivan Square. Broadway EB (connecting with an existing block on Maffa Way), Mystic WB, and Lombardi SB now all have transit lanes:
1781069832153.png


It's not a huge amount of length - 1,500 feet or so - but the segments are used by routes 85, 89, 90, 95, and 101. With BNRD complete, those routes will combine for 36 buses an hour (18 per direction). TSP was also added at the two Lombardi Street intersections.
 
The EGE said:
This one snuck in a bit under the radar: the Maffa Way and Mystic Avenue Bridge Superstructure Replacement Project, which was recently completed, included several segments of transit lanes at Sullivan Square. Broadway EB (connecting with an existing block on Maffa Way), Mystic WB, and Lombardi SB now all have transit lanes:
View attachment 73239

It's not a huge amount of length - 1,500 feet or so - but the segments are used by routes 85, 89, 90, 95, and 101. With BNRD complete, those routes will combine for 36 buses an hour (18 per direction). TSP was also added at the two Lombardi Street intersections.
Click to expand...

I'll always look on this project nostalgically as it marked a personal, professional milestone: thinking (and acting) outside the box to fund a federal aid project.

A few months before this project was due to advertise for construction in July 2022, Boston MPO and MassDOT didn't actually have all the funding lined up to pay for it. Normally bridge investments on the national highway system are paid for with National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) formula funding, but Massachusetts was fully committed on NHPP funding in 2022 and had a $20M hole to fill in funding this project.

Around the same time, the Green Line Extension (GLX) into Somerville completed and came in under budget; the MBTA no longer needed $20 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) highway formula funding the State and Boston MPO were planning to flex to that project. CMAQ funding can only be used for projects that have a demonstrable air quality benefit and reduce vehicle congestion--Massachusetts usually prioritizes it for bike/ped expansion, intersection improvement projects, and occasionally transferring to RTA's/MBTA for eligible bus projects. And if MA couldn't find a deliverable highway project by summer 2022 to use the CMAQ funding, then it was at risk of lapsing (i.e. getting clawed back by the federal gov't). It's usually not eligible for a bridge project, and until then had never been used for one.

I proposed we run a CMAQ eligibility determination to see if the Mystic Ave & Maffa Way project was CMAQ eligible. The priority bus lanes, protected bike lanes, and expanded pedestrian accommodations were not only unique for a replacement bridge project, but were in fact deemed eligible for about 31.5% of the project's linear geometry, or a little more than $20 million. Federal Highway Administration and I reviewed all federal laws around the respective funding sources and project detail, and confirmed that it was allowable. So Boston MPO amended the CMAQ funds onto the project, and the bridges advertised for construction without delay or funding gaps. And the construction project finished nine months ahead of schedule.

--

Why the long story?
It's not just a humble brag. ;)

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, AKA Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)) which funds our federal aid transportation investments nationwide is due to sunset on September 30, 2026. Congress is reviewing a proposed reauthorization bill--the BUILD America 250 Act. Despite a lot of mixed press on the bill, BUILD America 250 is not colossally different from IIJA/BIL. There is so much more broad project eligibility with the federal formula funding states receive than how MPOs, RTAs, and DOT's actually spend it. Mystic Ave & Maffa Way have been my physical evidence the last 5 years that there is always more than one way to pay for a transportation project, including the weird ones. A reminder to learn what's possible with the money, and then go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top