What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?

[armpitsOFmight]

Just curious to read some of your ideas. Both short term and long term plans.

[czsz]

One of the T's biggest problems financially is its union employees and their massive benefits. Finding creative ways to reduce the number of these would help substantially.

But is there a point? The T will never be run at a profit, and the state will just roll up the savings and allocate them to other agencies, use them to balance its budget, or cut taxes.

[unterbau]

Build stations with more integrated retail/food space. Maybe expand foot tunnels a la Montreal Undergound.

[kennedy]

Introduce legislation barring collective bargaining, so that jobs and pay are based on merit. Stop discretionary spending for a few years. Invest in automated stations and cut jobs which are served by automatic systems.

Either that, or privatize the entire system much in the way utilities are privatized. Require the owner to receive government approval for rate hikes, etc.

[ablarc]

The system should be a tax-supported utility, like the Fire Department or Police.

[jass]

Find a way to get a $1billion "gift" in the next military spending bill. Nobody will notice.

[Beton Brut]

^ That's a start, ablarc.

An independent audit of all positions should be conducted. I wonder how many no-show wage-earners would be uncovered...

[unterbau]

Find a way to get a $1billion "gift" in the next military spending bill. Nobody will notice.
Research funding for 'Subterranean Combat Zone Vehicle'

[ant8904]

Union Busting is a good start in my opinion.

[mass88]

I think the MBTA is a prime example of how a Union can weigh a business, or entity down.

What percentage of MBTA employees belong to a union?

Until we see a major shift on Beacon Hill, I think the MBTA will stay the way it is, its main purpose is to employ people.

[palindrome]

What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?


You don't want to know. Truly unspeakable things.

[palindrome]

Seriously though, how about a controlled bankruptcy a la GM? Rip up the union contracts and start from scratch. End the 23 and done policy. Remove the driver from the second car on the green line and move to a true POP system. Integrate the MBTA police into a division of the state police. No more expansion without clear cut plans on how to pay AND maintain it.

[kennedy]

I like palindrome's ideas.

[armpitsOFmight]

But is there a point? The T will never be run at a profit, and the state will just roll up the savings and allocate them to other agencies, use them to balance its budget, or cut taxes.

The point is that if the T became profitable for the state, they could pump even more money into repairs/maintancence and expansion projects because they would be able to give the excess money to other agencies or give some money back to taxpayers.

[czsz]

Transit is never going to be profitable if you want to keep it as available as it is now.

[bbfen]

Transit is never going to be profitable if you want to keep it as available as it is now.

But should it be profitable? Why not make all highways toll roads. That'd be profitable!

[armpitsOFmight]

But should it be profitable? Why not make all highways toll roads. That'd be profitable!

All highways in Japan have tolls.

[kennedy]

All forums on the internet have trolls.

Um, transit should absolutely be profitable if the state can find a way to make it so. Create a product that people want will go a long way to attracting new customers who want to use transit as a choice, not because it is a necessity.

[czsz]

Um, the only time transit was ever profitable was when it was a necessity.

[kennedy]

Make transit preferable to the car. Then it will be profitable because people will choose it over personal transportation.

[czsz]

Right, as in, make it pretty much necessary to use transit because using a car is too annoying.

You're splitting word choice hairs.

But guess what? It probably STILL wouldn't be profitable because of all the accretions that have plagued transit since its inception. When transit was profitable, there were no unions, and none of the infrastructure was over 100 years old. And even with all incentives for car use removed, it will still compete with the flexibility of the car in many circumstances.

Keep in minds that roads (even toll roads) and airlines are heavily subsidized, too. Virtually no form of transportation is profitable under pure market conditions.

[kennedy]

So part of the problem is public transit itself - as it stands, it's not an efficient system due in large part to unions and management. End the unions and overhaul the management to ensure that jobs are based on merit and the system is constantly working to improve the customer experience.

After these management issues are solved, the T needs to create a better product. Reliable trains and schedules, ease of access to information, streamlined stations (improve on the CharlieCard idea,) improved public image through marketing and graphic design, continued investment into infrastructure, expanding services offered at stations, etc. Instead of trying to make other modes of transportation to suck enough to be at the status quo of the T, improve the T to make it a superior option to the car. Competition is supposed to breed innovation, but it almost feels like the MBTA doesn't recognize the car as competition.

[unterbau]

Keep in minds that roads (even toll roads) and airlines are heavily subsidized, too.
Imagine if the 14.6 billion dollars went towards the MBTA instead of the central artery...

[unterbau]

This whole idea that public transportation aiming to become preferable to driving a car is pretty silly. Now, being better than car ownership, on the other hand, is a very reasonable idea.

[statler]

Imagine if the 14.6 billion dollars went towards the MBTA instead of the central artery...

Half of it would go to paying of their debt, the other half for new BRT service!

[bbfen]

All forums on the internet have trolls.

Um, transit should absolutely be profitable if the state can find a way to make it so. Create a product that people want will go a long way to attracting new customers who want to use transit as a choice, not because it is a necessity.

Troll? Really? I haven't been complimented like that since late 1995.

Half of [14.6 billion dollars] would go to paying of their debt, the other half for new BRT service!

We have a winner.

[Shepard]

Market-rate street parking in all communities served by the MBTA. Congestion pricing. Tolls in the Central Artery. Excise taxes on businesses offering free parking in MBTA-served areas. And then get all that new revenue going to the T.

[ablarc]

^ Not bad!

Politically impossible.

Oh, I guess you could do it in China.

When they need to, they'll do it.

[Shepard]

The sad truth is that the advent of electric cars will push the public transit and density agendas even further off the radar.

[statler]

^^ True.

Jevons paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

[Shepard]

It's a Jevons in many senses. This is where the "denser is greener" argument begins to get unconvincing as we trend towards the future. If electric cars powered from renewable sources become just as efficient as public transit from a fuel and an environmental perspective, then there becomes no reason to maximize land - no rationale for density. The ideal cities in that world become Buckhead, Tyson's Corner, Bangalore, Gurgaon, Sandton.

Even if you count time as the resource in question, it could still be argued that while car commuting can be slow and congested, public transit and walking take time as well.

Should we try to be maximizing social cohesion? But what does that really mean? And does density and public transit maximize it more than suburban autopia?

Or maybe it isn't about maximizing anything... maybe urbanism is just about a certain aesthetic that some people prefer. So then why not let developers build us the Patriot's Place "citycenter" type of Disney-esque "streets of x" developments surrounded by parking?

Whatever we're trying to maximize, the electric car is going to make obsolete. The ultimate future of public transit may not be bleak, but intra-urban public transit will be set back at least a century. HSR and institutional car sharing may be the only foreseeable areas for public transit expansion.

[Ron Newman]

There's an efficiency argument too, which has nothing to do with pollution and energy use and everything to do with congestion. Suppose you shut down the Red Line and put everyone who rides it into clean solar-powered electric cars. Even if every car is the size of a Honda Fit, you just can't move the same number of people in the same amount of time that way. (And now you have a bigger parking problem to solve, too.)

[armpitsOFmight]

Teleportation is the answer to all our transportation woes. More money needs to be pumped into this kind of research.

[Shepard]

That would be true in the short term if employment centers remained where they were and the red line was shut down. But long term, this efficiency argument too becomes obsolete. The electric car will herald exurban office parks like we have never dreamed of before. Oh, and as a bonus, our big boxes just got bigger.

Of course, we could with carrots and sticks push towards density and public transit. Taxes on car ownership and tolls on road use, zoning restrictions on set backs, parking lots, etc. But with the electric car people will ask - perhaps rightfully - why?

And what do we answer?

[ablarc]

Of course, we could with carrots and sticks push towards density and public transit. Taxes on car ownership and tolls on road use, zoning restrictions on set backs, parking lots, etc. But with the electric car people will ask - perhaps rightfully - why?

And what do we answer?
Because otherwise, we can be sure this (http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_Crumbshorthistory.html) will get even worse.

[statler]

^^Which panel do you think we should have stopped at?

[ablarc]

Crumb's panels chronicle rural America's conversion into sprawl. Panel 4 is the last one that's rural.

I'm more interested in the conversion of urban America's conversion to essentially the same sprawl; I look forward to Crumb's take on this. He did about an eight-panel strip on Detroit in Motor City Comics (http://www.shoppalstores.com/ShopPal_Assets/js/popup.html?http://www.shoppalstores.com/fatfreddy/image//motor_city_comics_cgc92.jpg).

He could use Charlotte, Houston or Los Angeles as his model --all long ago urban places.

[Shepard]

But this doesn't answer my question. Aside from aesthetics, and assuming that clean and limitless fuels propel us in our cars... why not? At that point is urbanity and public transit a lost cause? At that point are we just trying to preserve the telegraph in the face of the internet?

[tobyjug]

Sell the naming rights to the stations and lines, e.g.
Government Center=Preparation H Station
Essex=Viagra
Downtown Crossing=Shopzilla
B Line=Clearasil Line,
and so on.

[armpitsOFmight]

Shepard, who's going to buy these $20,000 electric cars for private citizens?

[ablarc]

But this doesn't answer my question. Aside from aesthetics, and assuming that clean and limitless fuels propel us in our cars... why not?
Because Suburbia continues to devour Rural America, something everyone claims to value --even its rapists. And once in a while it still takes a little chunk out of Urban America, too.

[PlanBoston]

That would be true in the short term if employment centers remained where they were and the red line was shut down. But long term, this efficiency argument too becomes obsolete. The electric car will herald exurban office parks like we have never dreamed of before. Oh, and as a bonus, our big boxes just got bigger.


How has that worked in the LA basin? 2 hours for a 20 mile commute sound like fun? The landscape that results when a large metropolis is completely auto-dependent makes Crumb's last panel look bucolic. There comes a point where people are sick of congestion, they want out of their cars.

Density centers served by good public transit give people lifestyle choices. If it's more convenient to have an urban lifestyle, those who are sick of sitting in traffic, of living where everything is a big box, will trade in their half acre of lawn. They aren't going to give up their cars, but they'd like to not have to use them as much.

[Shepard]

Shepard, who's going to buy these $20,000 electric cars for private citizens?

Huh? I didn't say it was going to be subsidized. But at some point gasoline cars will be phased out and electric cars will take over.

Because Suburbia continues to devour Rural America, something everyone claims to value

Densify urban America to protect rural America? Good luck. I'm sure John McFarmer will gladly give up his farm subsidies - the only thing which keeps his business even remotely competitive - so that a new heavy rail line can grace a city 500 miles away.

The argument makes some sense, but as a persuasive tool it will always be the wrong line of reasoning to the wrong person.

[tobyjug]

My first idea didn't fly. Try this:
Land subdivision tax; plus,
2 cents on gas tax; plus,
1% on booze tax;
Makes the T
Fare free.

[armpitsOFmight]

But at some point gasoline cars will be phased out and electric cars will take over.

We're gonna need way more power to charge all those autos. We'll need more nuclear power plants and I know there are a bunch of NIMBYs who don't want them.

[PlanBoston]

Densify urban America to protect rural America? Good luck. I'm sure John McFarmer will gladly give up his farm subsidies - the only thing which keeps his business even remotely competitive - so that a new heavy rail line can grace a city 500 miles away.


John McFarmer doesn't exist anymore - he grew McMansions in his fields. Farming in the midwest is a corporate function, not a family business. The logic of farm subsidies is a whole other issue, but they certainly aren't protecting John McFarmer's rural America.

Why not fund transit with transportation funds instead of giving all the money to the highways, or call it a matter of national security and use military funds?

[czsz]

Wow, the electric car is not going to herald a new golden age of sprawl. There are plenty of other arguments against sprawl than auto emissions:

- it's wasteful/expensive to extend infrastructure and utilities further to serve fewer people (as a consequence of low density)
- there are environmental consequences to paving over the landscape as well
- the electric car is still nowhere near as energy efficient as transit, considering it only carries a few people and requires all kinds of resources to be made
- there's a public health argument that walking/biking supported by transit use are better for people
- pro-sprawl market forces still sideline the consumer who wants to live in an urban setting

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head right at this very moment.

[Shepard]

I don't disagree with any of those. But those are just arguments against sprawl... think how if sprawl still goes on despite those arguments, how much more so will sprawl become entrenched when a major source of societal guilt disappears (or more likely becomes hidden off-stage) with the electric car? Also, none of those arguments have much economic validity, since market forces have thus far failed to account for them.

[PlanBoston]

none of those arguments have much economic validity, since market forces have thus far failed to account for them.

Economic validity? Market forces? These are not supporting sprawl - massive government subsidies are. Consider the true costs of roads, utilities, environmental damage, etc. and funding transit looks much more economical.

[armpitsOFmight]

Well it looks like the new GM is trying to do something to the T. Too bad he'll be shit-on in a few years. (http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=19197&month=&year=)

[bbfen]

Well it looks like the new GM is trying to do something to the T. Too bad he'll be shit-on in a few years. (http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=19197&month=&year=)

I can't source it right now, but he's also doing some public Q&A sessions at stations. I have one on my calendar for April 22 between 7-0 at Kenmore. I haven't written him yet becuase of an insanely-behind project at work, but I hope to stop by on my way to work that day to talk for a minute.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for six months or so but suspect he'll run into the same stumbling block everyone else has. The union.

[found5dollar]

you mean this?


Patrick-Murray Administration Announce New MBTA Customer Service Initiative
MBTA GM Davey Kicks-Off Join the GM - for a new train of thought Campaign Next Stop Dudley Square Station


Start Date: 03/25/2010
Email: LRivera@mbta.com



BOSTON ? As part of the Patrick-Murray Administration?s transportation reform agenda to strengthen customer service, newly appointed MBTA General Manager Richard Davey announced a Join the GM - for a new train of thought campaign this week, a back-to-basics approach that will include regular visits to MBTA station to listen and interact with daily commuters in person. On Thursdays, beginning Thursday, April 8, and continuing for eight weeks, MBTA General Manager Richard Davey, along with the T?s top managers will convene at a selected subway or bus station to listen to customers concerns, and promote public transportation.

Sharing Governor Patrick?s passion for focusing on the traveler, MBTA General Manager Davey said, ?With the support of the Patrick/Murray Administration, we aim to put the customer first by listening to them directly about their concerns and taking action to improve their experience on the system. Our goal is to promote transparency and accountability throughout every aspect of our day to day operations.?

Each week, MBTA managers from various departments will be available at a selected subway or bus station prepared to listen, respond, and follow up with customers concerns and recommendations. Upon completion of eight weekly sessions, ?Join the GM? will continue on a monthly basis system-wide. Below are the remaining seven sessions:


Location Date Time
Dudley Square Station Thursday, April 15 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Kenmore Station Thursday, April 22 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Maverick Station Thursday, April 29 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Forest Hills Station Thursday, May 6 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
North Station Thursday, May 13 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.
Haymarket Station Thursday, May 20 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.
Ruggles Thursday, May 27 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.



For transportation news and updates visit MassDOT online at our website: www.mass.gov/massdot, blog: www.mass.gov/blog/transportation, or follow MassDOT on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot.

[Digital_Islandboy]

You don't want to know. Truly unspeakable things.

Having worked at the MBTA in AFC I wouldn't know where to begin. A lot needs to be done but all require money. Previous investment IMHO were squandered because there was not much extra-long-term planning. For example, some bus routes I think should be reassessed simply based on the fact that there might be better connections that could be served instead based on where people actually live and where they are trying to get to in the system.

[Digital_Islandboy]

My first idea didn't fly. Try this:
Land subdivision tax; plus,
2 cents on gas tax; plus,
1% on booze tax;
Makes the T
Fare free.

Sounds good in-practice but, part of the reasons that the Weld/Cellucci/Romney administrations tried to make the MBTA stand on its own two feet was because the people out in Western Mass didn't feel like they should be taxed, and lobbied hard to have this changed. (Remember, they are a part of the Commonwealth too), and many there feel like they shouldn't have to pay for the MBTA since it doesn't cover them out there. So the fare increases were planned instead. It essentially meant that people who actually rode the service would bare the rise in costs.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Either that, or privatize the entire system much in the way utilities are privatized. Require the owner to receive government approval for rate hikes, etc.

Privatization would be more expensive. All it would take is one accident and rates would skyrocket just over the lawsuits. Not only that, but if customers had to pay what the actual cost of their ride was there would be a mutiny.

[Digital_Islandboy]

I think the MBTA is a prime example of how a Union can weigh a business, or entity down.

What percentage of MBTA employees belong to a union?

Until we see a major shift on Beacon Hill, I think the MBTA will stay the way it is, its main purpose is to employ people.

If you're at the MBTA you are either part of a Union, or else under a temporary work contract. I tried to outline a bit about the unions on the MBTA article on Wikipedia.

The majority are are local 589. IMHO The unions keep most employees content. I believe if you broke them up most of the people that half-way give-a-hoot would probably walk and aim for private sector. To be blunt, instead, you'll wind up with a lot of 'dregs' in society that can't get better jobs. The MBTA is actually pretty strict about performance, and they go through many new employees pretty fast because they can't deal with the minimums about performance. The MBTA is a thankless position for most of its workers and was one of the reasons *I* quit and decided to go back to the private sector myself.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Well it looks like the new GM is trying to do something to the T. Too bad he'll be shit-on in a few years. (http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=19197&month=&year=)

They come and go. Eventually a new Governor will come along and will cue up their own pick. Dan was Romney's guy.... The new guy is Deval's man so we'll see how long it lasts.

[kennedy]

Welcome to the board Digital Islandboy! I'm digging all this insider perspective. Perhaps privatization was just the libertarians out here in the Midwest getting to me - I would usually never suggest something like that. Sometimes, though, I feel like a private corporation might run things more efficiently than the MBTA seems to run at times.

[vanshnookenraggen]

It essentially meant that people who actually rode the service would bare the rise in costs.

This isn't such a bad idea for transportation in general but when you compare it to how the government subsidizes roads (which, to be fair, do serve more people) then you see how the transit systems in this country get screwed over. This comes up every time there is a transportation bill in congress; cities want money for transit and rural areas balk until they get road money. I frequent many sustainable/bike blogs and there is always an urban/liberal outcry when this happens. You just gotta remember, people in the sticks HAVE to drive, biking out there isn't for commuting and the density isn't enough to justify fixed rail.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Welcome to the board Digital Islandboy! I'm digging all this insider perspective. Perhaps privatization was just the libertarians out here in the Midwest getting to me - I would usually never suggest something like that. Sometimes, though, I feel like a private corporation might run things more efficiently than the MBTA seems to run at times.

No not a problem. :-) I know where you're coming from. Often times when certain government offices are incompetent it is often better to let the private sector run-it and streamline things. :-) Since I quit I'm able to talk without feeling like I'm going to be retaliated against. As long as I don't disclose trade secret I think I'm okay. lol....
However, I too think something should be done with the overall cost and management of the authority. As of yet I haven't come up with the right idea exactly myself.
In some ways I wonder what Massachusetts would be like with transportation infrastructure maintained at the county level like it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In some ways it mirrors Mitt Romney's plan of having empowered Regional Transportation Authorities and the like. I believe it was under his administration that much of the county level government in MA was scraped.
I'm curious about what having a smaller unit at the county level would do for the state, and whether it could bring about cost savings or not.

[Digital_Islandboy]

This isn't such a bad idea for transportation in general but when you compare it to how the government subsidizes roads (which, to be fair, do serve more people) then you see how the transit systems in this country get screwed over. This comes up every time there is a transportation bill in congress; cities want money for transit and rural areas balk until they get road money. I frequent many sustainable/bike blogs and there is always an urban/liberal outcry when this happens. You just gotta remember, people in the sticks HAVE to drive, biking out there isn't for commuting and the density isn't enough to justify fixed rail.

I recognize that name. :-) You're with the FutureMBTA site, no? I can safely say in the past I've shown some of your maps to the folks up in GM's office. They were *well* amused.

On a separate note I see your point.
I can point out that the MBTA has also been squeezed by some legal mandates as well. For example: much like how people across many cities are filling out census forms in order that the federal government may decide where to allocate funding in the future, the MBTA also needed to buy this fare system and put in place an automated system if it too wanted to be considered for future federal funding. The federal government works with places with high ridership so the MBTA needs to be able to provide figures.

The token system did its job, but the big problem was the authority has no idea how many tokens are out in the system (if that was to be used to monitor daily ridership.) Monthly pass sales gave *some* idea but not all stores return their monthly passes on time... Etc. all kinds of complications are involved in a tally by that method.
Further, tokens have been given out for decades. Some still make it back into the circulation but some are also lost etc.
So in order for the T to be considered for any federal funding in future it needs to be able to show daily ridership reports. Tokens can't provide that data unless the turnstiles were emptied multiple times per day. But the T is about accountability- so they wouldn't want multiple hands collecting money from the same turnstile unit.
With the newest system, the MBTA is able to show aggregated data in different time frames: daily, monthly, by time of day, (hourly, or morning vs. evening) etc. So that was a next set of funding that had to come out of the MBTA's budget just to meet federal mandates.
But there are other things which can cause sudden cost increases: anti-terrorism-security, fuel costs for the buses, wholesale electricity for all the trains, many of the commuter rail lines are owned by private companies so the MBTA must pay to use those private tracks, overtime pay whenever a line needs to be shutdown and bus drivers need to be called in. Plus you have other things that can throw the whole authority for a loop. The commuter rail (MBCR); water shuttles; and THE RIDE are all private operators that provide service in the name of the MBTA, but should one of those vehicles get into an accident very often the MBTA can end up in the lawsuit too.
Of late, Amtrak wont even bid to run the commuter rail anymore because they feel the requirements which would be placed on them by the MBTA would be too strict. So the MBTA is pressured (to a degree) not to go with the cheapest bid, but also not the most expansive operator either. There is a lot behind the scenes that is complicated. There is a lot of stress that some of the higher-ups go through because they must show results to prove themselves. Not that I'd be offered one of those positions, but I wouldn't want any of their positions myself. :-)

[jenkins]

This isn't such a bad idea for transportation in general but when you compare it to how the government subsidizes roads (which, to be fair, do serve more people) then you see how the transit systems in this country get screwed over. This comes up every time there is a transportation bill in congress; cities want money for transit and rural areas balk until they get road money. I frequent many sustainable/bike blogs and there is always an urban/liberal outcry when this happens. You just gotta remember, people in the sticks HAVE to drive, biking out there isn't for commuting and the density isn't enough to justify fixed rail.

Whoa, who says people in the sticks HAVE to drive? I mean, they have to drive nowadays, but (as a resident of Western Massachusetts), I can safely say that we'd be much more partial to MBTA spending if we could get some respectable fixed-guideway transit around here. Springfield to Northampton, Hartford, Albany, and Worcester are all no-brainers. More rural routes, serving Amherst (and its universities), Greenfield, and North Adams would be well-used as well. Unfortunately, nobody even considers this possible. The towns out here in Western Mass are nothing on Eastern Mass, but we do have a fairly good arrangement of dense town centers along rail corridors. Too bad they don't have any passenger service! There are tracks running from near my house directly to downtown Amherst, which I could use to go to work and classes, but of course, there's no train to take.

For the record, here in the Amherst area, public transit is free (all UMass Transit buses are free, even to the general public), comes every 15 minutes (on most routes), and is CROWDED. Even the extremely rare, 8-times-a-day bus to my hometown (population: ≈13,000) is usually standing room only on the morning commute. If it ran a bit more frequently, I'd imagine ridership would increase further.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I recognize that name. :-) You're with the FutureMBTA site, no? I can safely say in the past I've shown some of your maps to the folks up in GM's office. They were *well* amused.


That's awesome. :)

Man, If we ever meet I want to buy you a beer. I had an internship at the Port Authority of NY and NJ a couple of summers ago for their planning department and when I saw how the sausage was made I quickly changed course. Now I make websites lol.

Have you ever seen the movie "In The Loop"? It reminds me of the politics you are describing, albeit with actual politics because the movie is about politicians.

Bringing it back to the topic, what do you think would work to get the T at least on solid footing? What was the big problem with the forward funding thing?

[jass]

I woulddnt complain about the MBTA finances.

Based on what Ive read, the MBTA is the most financially sound transit system in the country.

[armpitsOFmight]

I woulddnt complain about the MBTA finances.

Based on what Ive read, the MBTA is the most financially sound transit system in the country.

http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bullshit.jpg

[kennedy]

How does the T get most of it's funding, anyhow? Just wondering, because here in St. Louis they just passed a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund the Metro (mostly buses, with two measly light rail lines).

[Digital_Islandboy]

That's awesome. :)

Man, If we ever meet I want to buy you a beer. I had an internship at the Port Authority of NY and NJ a couple of summers ago for their planning department and when I saw how the sausage was made I quickly changed course. Now I make websites lol.

Have you ever seen the movie "In The Loop"? It reminds me of the politics you are describing, albeit with actual politics because the movie is about politicians.

Bringing it back to the topic, what do you think would work to get the T at least on solid footing? What was the big problem with the forward funding thing?

Nice I believe the URL you had was different though? I think it carried a part of your name or something rather? I'm trying to think.

In any case one of the things I'd hope that the state will force upon the MBTA are when crafting contracts with companies to service T equipment make sure there are provisions for actual performance guarantees.
There are certain elevators and escalators at the MBTA that *I* feel break-down with a little too much regularity.

Now I know the MBTA's equipment runs from roughly 4 AM until about 2 AM and 7 days per week but, there are lots of private office buildings that I never see them having their escalators and things serviced as often as the MBTA does. I sometimes wonder whether the companies doing the servicing are not just fixing the equipment in such a manner that they'll be back again in 6 months time. Sort of a 'guarantee' for another work assignment. It would involve the state having to go back and look at which companies are doing the best work and which ones appear to be coming back again-and-again all, to service the same equipment. If it is the equipment itself than perhaps the states needs to blacklist buying any further products from that company until they can raise the threshold of quality for that equipment overall. That's one area I'd go after.

[Digital_Islandboy]

I mean, they have to drive nowadays, but (as a resident of Western Massachusetts), I can safely say that we'd be much more partial to MBTA spending if we could get some respectable fixed-guideway transit around here. Springfield to Northampton, Hartford, Albany, and Worcester are all no-brainers. More rural routes, serving Amherst (and its universities), Greenfield, and North Adams would be well-used as well. Unfortunately, nobody even considers this possible. The towns out here in Western Mass are nothing on Eastern Mass, but we do have a fairly good arrangement of dense town centers along rail corridors. Too bad they don't have any passenger service! There are tracks running from near my house directly to downtown Amherst, which I could use to go to work and classes, but of course, there's no train to take.

For the record, here in the Amherst area, public transit is free (all UMass Transit buses are free, even to the general public), comes every 15 minutes (on most routes), and is CROWDED. Even the extremely rare, 8-times-a-day bus to my hometown (population: ≈13,000) is usually standing room only on the morning commute. If it ran a bit more frequently, I'd imagine ridership would increase further.

I've wonder this myself. I also think the state should (in all fairness) look a transit needs for four main areas. Boston-area transit(including north of Boston towards NH), South of Boston + Cape area transit(including Rhode Island), Worcester area transit, and Springfield area transit. I've noticed that the State Governor has had to de-centralise from just a Eastern Mass office and has a Western MA office too. (http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us) So just like the politicians have had to make an effort to cater a bit more towards Western MA, I think these areas should be have more consideration for Long Term planning. Something to consider, perhaps Worcester City officials might have an idea for their own Street Car transit system to spur future development within that city and environs. Perhaps they may want something besides just a bus to the Worcester Airport in hopes of attracting more airlines to that facility in the future. Springfield transit area would be well placed for tapping the Hudson Valley area to the west in New York or Vermont to the north.

[Digital_Islandboy]

How does the T get most of it's funding, anyhow? Just wondering, because here in St. Louis they just passed a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund the Metro (mostly buses, with two measly light rail lines).

State sales tax.... I can't remember if it was wither 2 cents out of the (original 5 cents) or 3 cents out of the original (original 5 cents) sales tax. The rest was then covered by the fare increases as the MBTA was turned into a "quasi-state agency".

I don't know exactly what this structure is now since the state raised the sales tax to six and a quarter percent.

But the MBTA also owns a lot of land throughout Eastern Massachusetts. Most was passed-on by all of their former transit companies that became the T. Some money was made by selling land, some from the sale of aerial rights above T property, stores in the underground, advertisements in terminals and on trains (think of the outfitted green line trolleys or buses), renting of ceiling space along the MBTA's right of way to private companies (i.e. Comcast), cost savings through outsourcing more and more of the MBTA's administrative functions to private industry.(i.e Parking garages , power generation facilities)
The T I believe also made money by investing some capital in investment firms but like many places I believe it took a big hit on Wall Street hence why the state has largely had to take it back over fully. It isn't a really a 'quasi-state agency' anymore. The MBTA also realised some cost savings by cutting out guaranteed wage increases. But the trade off is the souring of a lot of worker moral, and many of the brightest experienced minds of the authority are jumping-ship over the last 2-3 years. Esp. those who vested enough time to retire outright did so. The T is also raising the retirement age (retroactively) on some employees. So that to is a next set of mutiny that the state will have to confront in future among the employees.

[vanshnookenraggen]

@Digital_Islandboy

The site is now at http://futurembta.com but it was once at http://web.mit.edu/jdreed/www/t/maps/ so that might be what you are thinking.

[jass]

State sales tax.... I can't remember if it was wither 2 cents out of the (original 5 cents) or 3 cents out of the original (original 5 cents) sales tax. The rest was then covered by the fare increases as the MBTA was turned into a "quasi-state agency".

I don't know exactly what this structure is now since the state raised the sales tax to six and a quarter percent.



I think it's 2% of the original 5 and then .5% from the recent raise to 6%.

(so 2.5% from the 6%)

The quarter percent is not a state tax, it's a municipal tax, not all cities have it.

[TMcLaughlin]

The quarter percent is not a state tax, it's a municipal tax, not all cities have it.

Which cities don't? I don't think municipalities can have a local option on the general sales tax. They can on meals and lodging.

[jass]

Which cities don't? I don't think municipalities can have a local option on the general sales tax. They can on meals and lodging.

You know, you might be right, the optional tax may just be on meals and lodging.

There was a map available showing which parts of the state charged it or not, but I cant find it. Basically, most of the inner 128 did, but some outside did not.

[TMcLaughlin]

There was a map available showing which parts of the state charged it or not, but I cant find it. Basically, most of the inner 128 did, but some outside did not.

Is this it? (http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/Calendar2010_03_LocalOptionTax.pdf) It's not the whole state but it's the best I could find.

[jass]

Is this it? (http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/Calendar2010_03_LocalOptionTax.pdf) It's not the whole state but it's the best I could find.

Similar to that, but not a PDF and showing the whole state.

It may have even been a Globe graphic, but google hasnt given me anything.

[OneOrangeDoor]

If only we could sell the Silver Line to pay for the years of routine maintenance deferred to pay for the Silver Line.

[JohnAKeith]

The Boston Globe
The search for a national solution to our transit woes
By Dan Grabauskas and Paul Regan

RED SOX and Yankees fans can agree on one thing ? how to get to the game. In New York, about 45 percent of ticketholders take public transportation. In Boston, more than 50 percent of ticketholders take the T ? a percentage higher than any other professional sports franchise in any city in the country. Yet, even as hundreds of thousands pour into rail cars each season, most are unaware that the trains are running on empty.

From sports and entertainment to banking, health care, and higher education, industry sectors in cities throughout the country are dependent on mass transit. In Boston, nearly 60 percent of all workers in the financial district take the T to work. Yet when it comes to valuing these systems, we are a nation in denial, passive about their economic contribution; lacking the collective will to finance them properly; and oblivious to the certainty of their deterioration if their issues are not addressed.

The MBTA faces a $230 million structural deficit and $543 million in unfunded safety-critical projects, according to a recent report by former John Hancock chief executive David D?Alessandro. By deferring maintenance and taking on debt we cross our fingers on another year of business as usual, (with no hope of expansion), after which we may go the way of transit systems around the country that are also retrenching.

According to a 2010 survey by the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of all transit agencies have cut service or raised fares in the last year, or plan to do so in the near future. New York City faces a $800 million shortfall, and has implemented a plan to delay maintenance, and cut entire subway lines and bus routes; Chicago, facing a $300 million shortfall, has significantly reduced service on dozens of bus routes, and rail lines; Philadelphia has announced a 6 percent fare increase to help close a $110 million operating deficit; and Washington has a $189 million operating deficit for next year, with plans to balance it by using capital funds to pay for operating costs (thus deferring maintenance), as well as reducing some bus and rail service.

These ?legacy?? transit systems are starved by budgets in which escalating and intractable fixed costs outpace combined fare revenues and government subsidies. They are pressured by safety and reliability concerns resulting from deferred maintenance, and they face continuing calls for expansion without regard for how to pay to build, operate, or maintain the extensions, let alone the existing system.

Each of these systems has unique funding demands, management challenges, and politics that have led to their financial woes. Yet, their parallel problems indicate a national crisis. A national transit summit next week in Boston will examine these issues as systemic problems, demanding national strategies and broadly applied solutions. It will also offer a front row seat to the elephant in the room: paying for what we have with what little we?ve got.

Before we can answer the call for expansion, we need to fix what?s falling down. This point of contention among well-intentioned transit supporters must be resolved by prioritizing and sequencing our efforts. To do so, we must make a national shift toward support for repair work. A country brought up on expansion must embrace maintenance as the new manifest destiny.

The federal government must respond in a significant way to the most publicly beneficial example yet of ?too big too fail.?? Radical new funding formulas that will help save these systems must be considered. The reauthorization of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act this fall may be the tipping point on a new era of economic renewal and energy efficiency through well-supported mass transit.

The private sector must step up with financial and political support that goes beyond the self-interest of construction request for proposals. And both the public and private sectors must come together around creative financing strategies that can provide a dedicated, reliable, and growing stream of funding for transit.

Dan Grabauskas, former general manager of the MBTA, is senior fellow for public policy at MassInc. Paul Regan is executive director of the MBTA Advisory Board.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/05/14/the_search_for_a_national_solution_to_our_transit_ woes/

[jass]

"According to a 2010 survey by the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of all transit agencies have cut service or raised fares in the last year, or plan to do so in the near future. New York City faces a $800 million shortfall, and has implemented a plan to delay maintenance, and cut entire subway lines and bus routes; Chicago, facing a $300 million shortfall, has significantly reduced service on dozens of bus routes, and rail lines; Philadelphia has announced a 6 percent fare increase to help close a $110 million operating deficit; and Washington has a $189 million operating deficit for next year, with plans to balance it by using capital funds to pay for operating costs (thus deferring maintenance), as well as reducing some bus and rail service."


Its exactly what Ive said a few times: the MBTA is in the best position in the entire country. Why? Because of the sales tax increase last year. If it werent for that, we would have cut lines and raised fares. I would have preferred raising the gas tax, but at least massachusetts found a funding source, something no other agency has done.

[belmont square]

When people on this board propose ideas like a two mile extension of the Blue Line under the Charles River to Kenmore, and then sarcastically suggest it can't happen because it makes too much sense, or that's it too good of an idea, do they do so in ignorance of the information presented in this thread?

It's tough to argue about the T's lack of "sense" until more is done to address their lack of "cents".

[Shepard]

When people discuss extensions and improvements, the assumption is that it is a very long way in the future. But it's still worth discussing the MBTA's "sense" if not "cents" because the planning for these projects begins now, and at some point in the future extensions and improvements will happen. Skewed priorities and bad sense is even responsible for recent debacles like the Silver Line. So, to some extent, these are two seperate discussions.

Personally, I look at the political and economic climate somewhat optimistically. I think there's a shifting consensus and that we're moving towards a breakthrough in how transit is funded in this country.

[kennedy]

The St. Louis Metro system was just recently given funding through a voter referendum, raising the sales tax in Greater St. Louis by something like 0.05%. Metro now has a dedicated, taxpayer supported source of funding on top of it's (measly) fare revenues. I don't particularly like the solution, but at least it works. Perhaps a Gas Tax would have been a better idea.

I think that, especially in Boston where ridership is so high, that a mass transit system shouldn't need a lot of taxpayer of federal funding. I think creative marketing, adjusting fares, and greater involvement of the private sector could help minimize this.

Fare Adjustments: CharlieCards are a good start - incentivizing people to pay for weekly, monthly, or yearly passses is a good way to bring in extra funds. I'd like to see an unlimited yearly, or half-yearly option - perhaps somewhere in the $300-350 ball park for six months. I woudn't mind an increase in Charlie Ticket fares - up to $2.50, maybe even $3.00.

Private Involvement: Allow businesses to lease space in the stations - they're already got this in the bigger ones, but it seems pretty poorly run. A nice, clean, bright Dunkin Donuts in every station would make the T money, and the owner money.

Trim waste: We all know what a burden the union is, what with all the pensions and guaranteed positions. The contracts need to be renegotiated and redundancies need to be eliminated.

[statler]

^^There was a DnD in Oak Grove. They closed. An imitation shop opened in its place. They closed a year later. They put up a sign saying they weren't doing enough business to stay open.

[jass]

When people on this board propose ideas like a two mile extension of the Blue Line under the Charles River to Kenmore, and then sarcastically suggest it can't happen because it makes too much sense, or that's it too good of an idea, do they do so in ignorance of the information presented in this thread?

It's tough to argue about the T's lack of "sense" until more is done to address their lack of "cents".

In government land, operation money and expansion (capital) money are whole different money piles. Thats why DC is building a brand new subway line, but cannot afford to run existing service, and NYC is doing massive cuts even though they have two brand new subway projects happening. San Francisco, who also just did massive cuts, is about to start on a new subway.

[erikyow]

One thing I don't think many people realize is how cheap public transit in the US is. If you go elsewhere, people aren't so lucky. A trip paid in cash on the London Underground will cost you ?4. A trip on the TTC in Toronto, $3. I'm not saying that the US necessarily has to adopt the same fare structures, but let's just say that I'm less than sympathetic that a single fare might jump from $2 for a single cash ride to $2.10 or $2.25 when a cash ride in Ottawa just went from $3 to $3.25 because transit is funded by the municipality, and the city has decided that transit must be funded 50% through the farebox; the other 50% coming from property taxes. I think that's somewhat extreme, but I think that some people need to realize that government can't be funding transit to quite the same extent as it has in the past.

However, I think other methods could be useful. For instance, are there any tax incentives that one gets from buying monthly passes? That could give some people an incentive to take transit if they're going to get back a percentage of the cost of their passes at the end of the year. This would not only boost ridership, it would help give the transit company a more reliable stream of revenue.

Also, following Ottawa's lead. What about a small property tax surcharge affecting the towns and cities serviced by the MBTA? It could potentially add millions to the annual revenue of the T, and probably wouldn't have a serious dent in the overall tax burden on people since it would probably amount to maybe an additional $100, for the average home.

Also, I think we should be pressuring the state to forgive at least some of the Ts debt. Fact is, a lot of it was involuntarily put on the T in order to make those pesky environmentalists go away. The T, as an arm of the government, had no choice in the matter but to get saddled with the responsibility. Now, it's the riders who are taking it, through a system that can't keep up with its regular maintenance and has no way to improve or expand service. Yes, the state can't afford another several billion in debt at the moment, but this should be something to be looked at in the next few years.

[jass]

One thing I don't think many people realize is how cheap public transit in the US is.....

A ticket in mexico city, which has a subway system that blows away* anything in this country costs around 18 us cents.

*rubber tired trains with 9 cars coming every 70 seconds, very extensive network, and yes, safe and clean

[dshoost88]

Private Involvement: Allow businesses to lease space in the stations - they're already got this in the bigger ones, but it seems pretty poorly run. A nice, clean, bright Dunkin Donuts in every station would make the T money, and the owner money.

I completely agree with this! I go to Northeastern and needed to walk through the Ruggles "T" station everyday... not even to use the T necessarily, but just to get from the NU campus to the International Village residence hall on the other side. Easily at least 5,000 people walk through that station during the week, and it's so freaking big! I always wonder how much more sense it would make to add more shops/restaurants along the main walkway above the bus pick slips. You could put a bar there, maybe a burger king/KFC, even a CVS pharmacy would do great there. It's something the MBTA should think about. I certainly have...

[JohnAKeith]

There were shops at Ruggles when it first opened (oh, those halcyon days ...) but they didn't last - too little traffic.

I know it's just an example but give me one (okay, more than one) example of retail / food doing well at a subway station. Well, except for the Subway at the Mass Ave subway station.

Don't see a big money maker.

[Ron Newman]

Dunkin Donuts at Harvard Square, Au Petit Pain at Davis Square, a whole bunch of food vendors at Forest Hills, Nubian Notion at Ruggles (yes, it's still there), a donut & coffee place in Sullivan Square -- those are the ones I can think of immediately.

[BostonUrbEx]

There is a Dunkin Donuts at Ruggles though. Or so I thought.

[jass]

The shop at park seems to do well

[KentXie]

There is a Dunkin Donuts at Ruggles though. Or so I thought.

It's still there.

[HenryAlan]

Backbay has two Dunks and a number of food carts. The burrito cart always has a long line. Shops didn't work at Ruggles in the late 80s, but that by no means they wouldn't work today, given Northeastern's expansion across the tracks.

[Shepard]

Thinking even bigger, now that we have MassDOT, all air rights developments over the pike will see cash flowing to MBTA coffers, right?

And meanwhile the MBTA owns underutilized land ripe for re-development, e.g. Cleveland Circle. Does the MBTA own the land under the proposed South Bay Tower? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bay_Tower) (I doubt it, but you see where I'm going.) Or, for that matter, all the South Bay land between 93 and Dorchester Ave? New leases can help defray operational expenses.

Additionally: Raise tolls on the pike, add tolls to 93 (such an absolute no-brainer!) all to help cover MBTA operational costs. MassDOT, are you reading this?

Bust the unions, single operators on multi-car sets, etc. etc. etc. ...

[JohnAKeith]

I guess I'm thinking of the ones in downtown Boston - there was one at Copley (torn down) and the one at State Street is inconsistent in hours, etc.

[Beton Brut]

Bust the unions, single operators on multi-car sets, etc. etc. etc. ...

Any thoughts on eliminating the MBTA police?

I'm of two minds about it...

[Shepard]

I considered mentioning it, but then who would be drinking coffee in their car while parked directly in the path of the bus stop in front of Hynes during rush hour?

[palindrome]

incorporate them into the state police just as we did with the MDC police.

[JohnAKeith]

Can we milk the commuter rail lines more in order to improve / maintain the subway and bus lines?

Actually, let's just kill all the buses.

Not recommending it, just saying it would cut a lot of expense, no?

[BostonUrbEx]

Can we milk the commuter rail lines more in order to improve / maintain the subway and bus lines?

Actually, let's just kill all the buses.

Not recommending it, just saying it would cut a lot of expense, no?

IMO, there's probably alotttt of money to be gained from cutting buses. I think routes should be heavily cut and redrawn. The 428, for example, is empty by Saugus Center, if not sooner, and then proceeds all the way to Wakefield High. And outbound trips do not reverse and come back, they just end, so what do they do? They must waste gas, time, money, etc and go all the way back to the Everett shops or something. Not to mention numerous empty buses running around the Seaport. Even the Silver Line runs around the streets empty during midday.

[Beton Brut]

How do we reconcile this concept:

incorporate them into the state police just as we did with the MDC police.

with this gap in professionalism?

Who would be drinking coffee in their car while parked directly in the path of the bus stop in front of Hynes during rush hour?

Merging the MDC and Registry forces into the MSP was a trainwreck that is only now being cleaned up through retirements.

A phased integration (rather than uniform-swapping) is a better solution. If the MBTA police force is eliminated, officers should be retrained through the Academy.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Thinking even bigger, now that we have MassDOT, all air rights developments over the pike will see cash flowing to MBTA coffers, right?

And meanwhile the MBTA owns underutilized land ripe for re-development, e.g. Cleveland Circle. Does the MBTA own the land under the proposed South Bay Tower? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bay_Tower) (I doubt it, but you see where I'm going.) Or, for that matter, all the South Bay land between 93 and Dorchester Ave? New leases can help defray operational expenses.

Additionally: Raise tolls on the pike, add tolls to 93 (such an absolute no-brainer!) all to help cover MBTA operational costs. MassDOT, are you reading this?

Bust the unions, single operators on multi-car sets, etc. etc. etc. ...

The MBTA purchased South Station outright.(http://www.south-station.net/StationHistory.asp) So depending how close it is to South Station the MBTA/state might own that land now. If you goto the Boston City Assessor's website ( http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/ ) you'll notice how oddly shaped this land parcel is (parcel ID #: 0305364000 ). Grr. not working right now. As the address see "640" "Atlantic".

[Digital_Islandboy]

incorporate them into the state police just as we did with the MDC police.

Mark my words... That will be the worse idea ever. T police can ride the service for free. If you merge it with State Police I'm willing to bet all state police would probably then seek that same access.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Can we milk the commuter rail lines more in order to improve / maintain the subway and bus lines?

Actually, let's just kill all the buses.

Not recommending it, just saying it would cut a lot of expense, no?

Those can't really be cross subsidized. MBCR and MBTA are two separate companies for a reason. One, namely since MBCR serves Rhode Island. MBTA (as a former quasi-state agency), doesn't have the legal mandate to use Massachusetts' tax payer money and serve another state. So MBCR must remain separate as long as it is servicing Rhode Island. MBCR essentially has to fund most of its own operations. (e.g. they must pay rail usage fees to any railroad companies that owns the ROW etc.) IMHO, if the state wants to bring costs down they should try to buyout more of these ROWs and own them outright. Then they can charge private industry those same access fees that they're now paying.
I feel in some ways it was better when Amtrak ran the commuter rail since they had the federal government on their side to do whatever they need to do, but the state may be forced to pay pretty much whatever Pan Am Railroad and other companies charge.
Amtrak's return is somewhat of a longshot as they hasn't even bid to run commuter rail in recent years. MBCR's contract was just renewed last year and I don't know what the state will do now that they've regained full control of the MBTA.

[aquaman]

Additionally: Raise tolls on the pike, add tolls to 93 (such an absolute no-brainer!) all to help cover MBTA operational costs. MassDOT, are you reading this?

Those of us who live west of the city (or who cross the Tobin) have already had our toll fees doubled to pay for the Big Dig. In fact, commuters from west of Boston who never touch 93 pay more for the Big Dig than commuters who live in towns along 93 and who drive its length each day. Now we are to be bilked to pay for a public transit system that few residents west of town use?

How about users of the system pay the actual cost incurred per ride? $3, $4, whatever per ride? While such a move would probably doom the T to abandonment, it's at least a more fair allocation of real costs than just sopping more money from people who rarely use the system.

[Shepard]

How about users of the system pay the actual cost incurred per ride? ... it's at least a more fair allocation of real costs than just sopping more money from people who rarely use the system.

If you actually had the capacity to think beyond your own selfishness, you might realize that the T is major reason why you don't have a New Delhi style commute all the way from whichever bullshit Levittown you live in. It's also a major reason why Boston is a competitive city and most likely why your job is here in the first place.

But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"

[bbfen]

If you actually had the capacity to think beyond your own selfishness, you might realize that the T is major reason why you don't have a New Delhi style commute all the way from whichever bullshit Levittown you live in. It's also a major reason why Boston is a competitive city and most likely why your job is here in the first place.

But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"

+10

[czsz]

Now we are to be bilked to pay for a public transit system that few residents west of town use?

Speak for yourself and not the hundreds, maybe thousands of people who park at Riverside, Woodside, or Alewife to take the T in to work, who use the Fitchburg, Worcester or Needham CR Lines, or even who benefit from the comparative lack of traffic that relieving transit has on MetroWest roads.

[aquaman]

Speak for yourself and not the hundreds, maybe thousands of people who park at Riverside, Woodside, or Alewife to take the T in to work, who use the Fitchburg, Worcester or Needham CR Lines, or even who benefit from the comparative lack of traffic that relieving transit has on MetroWest roads.

Actually I am one of those people. I commute into town on the T every day (and not from some B.S. Levittown, angry rants from various posters aside).

I stand by my statement that it is more fair for users of particular systems to pay more of their actual costs (including me as a daily T rider). I recognize roads and bridges are supported by the tax dollars of all citizens of the Commonwealth and that the MBTA also receives state subsidies which are also supported by the general taxing power of the Commonwealth, but to offer levying additional fees on toll-paying drivers alone without asking the users of the T to pay more is completely unfair. And since Pike and Tobin users are the only ones who pay tolls in the Commonwealth and that every pol from Duxbury to Lowell would object to the imposition of tolls on their commuting constituents, it stands to reason that only those currently paying tolls would be put on the hook for both the Big Dig and now the MBTA's cost overruns.

I am a fan of public transport and would support raising user fees of all kinds, but it has to be done in a fair and equal fashion. I would support additional tolls on Pike and Tobin users to help fund public transport but only after equally costly tolls are levied against 93 North- and South-bound users.

As I said, I am a T user and only in the rarest of circumstances ever use the Pike, so raising tolls has no impact on me. With me, it's more about the principal of shared costs, not selfishness. Lastly, T users, ourselves, have to play our part in shouldering the MBTA's debt. Paying closer to the actual cost of each ride than we currently do (I didn't say THE actual cost per ride) is certainly a way to equalize these expenses across the spectrum of a metro-wide transport strategy.

[aquaman]

But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"

Yes, that would be more fair.

[Shepard]

Great. Hey, let's go for a beer at the White House!

[BostonUrbEx]

All major highways should have a toll upon entering within 128. And all Mass citizens should be offered some sort of discounted or free fast lane transponder. At least half the lanes should be fast lanes... and should actually be fast.

[czsz]

Why would you want to facilitate driving for the vast majority of people who use these roads and make it cheaper for them to do so at the same time? That would actually hurt the T on two fronts (primary revenue from tolls and secondary revenue from ridership).

[BostonUrbEx]

Why would you want to facilitate driving for the vast majority of people who use these roads and make it cheaper for them to do so at the same time? That would actually hurt the T on two fronts (primary revenue from tolls and secondary revenue from ridership).

How does increasing the number of tolls facilitate driving?

What I forgot the mention, is that the fast lane discount (2.50 on the Tobin compared to 3.00 cash) should be eliminated. You're getting the transponder piece for free, and only that, for your own convenience should you decide you're going to continue driving, but it's still going to be a new toll fee (or increase, if you're using an existing toll but no longer receiving a fee discount).

[czsz]

Sorry, I misunderstood you to mean the tolls should be discounted or free. You only meant the transponder. I still wonder why we should subsidize the transponder, though.

[FrankG]

Sorry, I misunderstood you to mean the tolls should be discounted or free. You only meant the transponder. I still wonder why we should subsidize the transponder, though.

Because it will encourage people to use the electronic lanes which flow much faster. I think tolls tend to be unpopular because of the slowdown, not just because of the cost.

[aquaman]

I believe the transponder discount is a holdover from the days when you had to buy it. I remember having to pay a fee when I got mine ages ago. I still see the discount as a valuable incentive -- get a free transponder, get a cheaper toll fee, and the Pike doesn't have to man as many toll booths with state employees sucking up time and a half. Of course, once the scales tip so that greater than X% are using transponders, the discount should probably be phased out.

[gooseberry]

A transponder should be required. Why would you want to pay a toll collector a ridiculous salary and create huge traffic jams? Make driving into Boston hell so that 1000's of additional people are forced to trundle along on the already inadequate T?

[czsz]

A transponder should be required. Why would you want to pay a toll collector a ridiculous salary and create huge traffic jams? Make driving into Boston hell so that 1000's of additional people are forced to trundle along on the already inadequate T?

Yes, absolutely. Once they're forced onto the T the state will be forced to put more money into it and it won't be nearly as inadequate.

[found5dollar]

MBTA is going to lease the North Station garage for 50-75 years to get soem money now to pay off debt.

http://news.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1333260&format=comments#CommentsArea

this article is not well thought out, and says "selling" when they mean "leasing"

[BostonUrbEx]

Does anyone else think this is bad... I always think long term should be weighed very heavily, and not short term. I feel this is very short sighted... Money now for less money in the future...

[jass]

What a wonderful idea. 75 years without being able to change the garage except with an extremely expensive buy out package?

WHAT CAN GO WRONG?

[nico]

MBTA to Hold Public Hearings on Proposed Fare Hikes, Service Cuts

The MBTA is holding public meetings to discuss their proposed fare hikes and service cuts. Please review the proposed fare increases and service reductions detailed on the MBTA website and provide your feedback by attending one of the public meetings.

Please note: on Monday, Jan. 23, two public meetings will be held from 1-3 p.m. and 4:30-6:30 p.m. in Boston at the Transportation Building, 10 Park Plaza, 2nd floor Conference Rooms 2 and 3.

You also may submit your comments electronically at the MBTA website www.mbta.com, by email at fareproposal@mbta.com, or by phone at (617) 222-3200, TTY (617) 222-5146. Written comments will also be accepted through March 1, and should be mailed to: MBTA, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, Attention: Fare Proposal Committee.

We encourage T customers to attend one of the public workshops to share your comments and discuss your suggestions with MBTA officials. The public hearings are being held in communities across the state. A complete list of public meetings is listed on their website. Comments at all meetings will be considered by MBTA for further action.

TranSComm encourages all T customers to take an active role.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm new to this discussion (and judging by the date stamps on the posts a page back, very late to the discussion), but here's what I'd do.

I'd knock down all of the toll booths on the Pike, and replace them with Open road tolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_road_tolling) stations. Cash will no longer be accepted anywhere on the Pike - if you don't have a transponder already, don't worry! Automatic number plate recognition can also be used to mail you the bill for your toll, a system already in use in Florida (where it's known as TOLL-BY-PLATE. Yes, with the caps.) You will, of course, be charged additionally for the service and as an incentive to pick up a transponder.

After a few months to show that yes, this system works a whole hell of a lot better than the tool booths we've got now (seriously. The most annoying thing about fast lane is slowing down to 15 mph to go through it, right? Not so here!) and doesn't even require us to staff toll booths, I'd have Open Road Tolling stations added to every entrance and exit to the Big Dig tunnels of 93. You would pay once to get on, and once more to get off.

I'd also hike individual ride fares, but leave the monthly passes alone as an incentive to buy. I'd implement the technology that we know the MBTA has already to let them load 1-day daily passes onto a CharlieCard at any ticket vending machine in any given station, just like the monthly passes can be and are. (The 7-day weekly pass would either be discontinued, or become impossible to buy on either a CharlieTicket or CharlieCard except through pass offices, as the trade-off for it being much cheaper than seven 1-day passes.) As long as we're talking about the CharlieCard, make it possible to load commuter rail monthly passes onto the CharlieCard as well.

Bus services will be slashed (including and especially the Silver Line. It comes back as a light rail or it doesn't come back at all), but commuter rail and subway services will be increased in exchange. Run new commuter rail lines out to the folks in Western Mass., and charge everything west of Worcester as a Zone 9 (and beyond) stop. (That last part is probably just my annoyance as a southern Rhode Island resident with the fact that the only Zone 9 station in existence is T.F. Green, and the commuter rail zone fare map posted at Back Bay seems to hint that Wickford Junction will become the first and only Zone 10 stop.) Maybe run new subway lines or subway branches to replace some of the slashed bus service as well.

Yes, it's dramatic and expensive, but I believe that you need to spend money to make money. Ultimately, the huge initial cost of doing these things will be quickly offset by increased ridership and new revenue from tolling the Big Dig.

[Shepard]

Welcome, CBS! Thanks for sharing the thoughts.

I sympathize with your thought to grow the CR, coming as you do from RI, but you'll see a lot of antipathy around these boards to spending scarce capital dollars on suburban improvements that typically bring in a few hundred new riders - rather than extend the subway lines (as legally obligated) or make needed improvements to the network which will impact hundreds of thousands of riders. Definitely, cutting core bus routes like SL Washington to grow the CR is a bad trade off.

I couldn't agree more about tolling the Big Dig. It's incredible that this wasn't the original plan.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying in terms of restructuring fares. I would a) remove all fare gates and related staff in favor of a proof-of-purchase system, and b) eliminate one way fares system-wide by requiring all riders to have a pass - at minimum a daily pass for $5. This will grow revenue while at the same time increasing system utilization.

[Commuting Boston Student]

Welcome, CBS! Thanks for sharing the thoughts.

I sympathize with your thought to grow the CR, coming as you do from RI, but you'll see a lot of antipathy around these boards to spending scarce capital dollars on suburban improvements that typically bring in a few hundred new riders - rather than extend the subway lines (as legally obligated) or make needed improvements to the network which will impact hundreds of thousands of riders. Definitely, cutting core bus routes like SL Washington to grow the CR is a bad trade off.

I couldn't agree more about tolling the Big Dig. It's incredible that this wasn't the original plan.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying in terms of restructuring fares. I would a) remove all fare gates and related staff in favor of a proof-of-purchase system, and b) eliminate one way fares system-wide by requiring all riders to have a pass - at minimum a daily pass for $5. This will grow revenue while at the same time increasing system utilization.

Glad to be here.

I think growing the CR becomes a more valuable or worthwhile proposition when you look at things five or ten years out from the initial expansion - sure, it requires a bit of a leap of faith, but I believe that it would be far more attractive to potential businesses to build out in Western Mass along the new lines if you do so.

I'd much rather see the Silver Line Washington (and the other Silver Lines) become a light rail line. It's interesting that there's a legal obligation to expand the subway - I didn't know that, and now I'm wondering if that's why the Silver Line was added to the subway maps and why the MBTA continues to try and convince me that no, really, BRT isn't just a bus with a peculiar gimmick, but I digress. Since there is a legal obligation to expand the subway system, I'll change my idea slightly and suggest replacing high-volume core bus routes with light rail lines wherever possible. I believe there's also some kind of mandates against new surface level tracks however, and burying the hypothetical light rail lines would involve digging up half the city, so that may not exactly be technically feasible. Elevated rail, perhaps?

If you ask me, it should be a required part of any huge Big Dig-esque road construction packages (such as the I-Way in RI) to include some manner of tolling on the new roads - and I mean, the new roads themselves. You want to use the expensive new infrastructure, you get to help pay for it. Of course, you and I both know how well a proposal like that would actually go over.

When you say proof-of-purchase system, I'm assuming you refer to the system in use on the edges of the Green Line where you tap your CharlieCard after getting on the train? I'm hesitant to support such an idea, since all my experiences with that system have been poor at best.

[whighlander]

Folks -- there is nothing inherently more moral about any form of transportation -- what is however immoral is forcing someone to take one form of transportation to please some planners' whims

The function of the transportation planner is to provide: the commuter, the retired, the student, the visitor --- with the various travel options to enable a successful economy and good quality of life

In different times and places the mix of walking, driving, riding, will evolve under the constraints of geography, geology, demography, etc. to either enable the region to succeed or fade into obscurity

In the case of the Greater Boston Economic Region the approximately 5 M people need a mix which includes:
a) micro commutes (1 mile or less) typically by walking and biking and in some cases driving or riding transit
b) min commutes (<5 miles) typically riding a bus or a rail transit vehicle some biking
c) standard commutes (<15 miles) typically driving, riding rail transit, or combination
d) extended commutes (<25 miles) typically driving or riding rail transit or combination
e) regional commutes (<100 miles) typically riding raid transit when available

The ultimate limitation of the rail transit is the vehicle is locked to the rail network. Boston developed a very effective means of using a combination of light, heavy and commuter rail configured to bring people to a central nexus from residential areas using a roughly radial system of rails

The problem is that today only about 10% of the region live within the central core and only about 20% work in the central core -- thus 75 to 80% of the commutes are extra the central core and some subsidiary close in cores -- Despite our fervent wishes -- NO rail-based system can replace the automobile in this situation

A grid can cover the area -- but outside of the central core there is not enough density
A hub and spokes such as in existence can bring in the minority of people desiring access to the core -- but it can not meet the needs of those people living and working outside the core

Thus for the foreseeable future highways, subways, bike paths, commuter rail lines and even waterways will have to find a way to coexist and even to cooperate in delivering the residents and visitors to their desired destinations

That said -- there are things which can be done better -- I'd start with the Open Road Tolling on all highways penetrating into the I-495 outer loop and a similar set of tolls for all highways penetrating the I-95/Rt-128 inner loop

The money collected from these tolls + the fares from transit riders and bicycle licensing fees should all go into the DOT fund and be used to meet the travel requirements of all

[Kahta]

The problem is that today only about 10% of the region live within the central core and only about 20% work in the central core -- thus 75 to 80% of the commutes are extra the central core and some subsidiary close in cores -- Despite our fervent wishes -- NO rail-based system can replace the automobile in this situation


How dare you suggest that downgrading highways and replacing them with trains no one will use!

[JohnAKeith]

You'd think with all the professional sports celebrations that suburbanites would want the city to have a well-funded subway and rail system. If I have to hear one more "dere were 90,000 of us guys at Government Centa and we had to wait forty-five friggin' minutes to get da train to 'rica" I'll scream.

[whighlander]

You'd think with all the professional sports celebrations that suburbanites would want the city to have a well-funded subway and rail system. If I have to hear one more "dere were 90,000 of us guys at Government Centa and we had to wait forty-five friggin' minutes to get da train to 'rica" I'll scream.

John -- at least you should mention 1st Night, Fireworks 4th and the sports celebrations -- I'd say that in the best case that the T has to do Superhuman service 25 - 30 Times per decade with the sports celebrations, Tall Ships and something else responsible for the 5 to 10 and 20 being the annual 1st and 4th Celebrations

Its very hard to make a case for something that is used only a fraction of 1% of the time. I'd have to say that given the current demographics and employment patterns -- that the T is properly sized and structured to meet the demand 97% of the time.

As F-line has stated -- that after the completion of the currently planned expansion to Medford & Assembly Sq. and the rebuilds of a few Government Center and a couple of other stations with some track work -- that then only a few tweaks will be needed to optimize the system to meet its current demand without an extensive and extremely expensive redesign and reconstruction / expansion

Of course the above ignores: major growth to the SPID; major growth associated with Haaaahvd in Exile (aka Alston); or a Resort Casino on the Blue Line -- then things may need to be seriously re-evaluated

[Commuting Boston Student]

As F-line has stated -- that after the completion of the currently planned expansion to Medford & Assembly Sq. and the rebuilds of a few Government Center and a couple of other stations with some track work -- that then only a few tweaks will be needed to optimize the system to meet its current demand without an extensive and extremely expensive redesign and reconstruction / expansion

Of course the above ignores: major growth to the SPID; major growth associated with Haaaahvd in Exile (aka Alston); or a Resort Casino on the Blue Line -- then things may need to be seriously re-evaluated

Something like a Resort Casino on the Blue Line would be the perfect jumping off point for a pretty near-to-complete overhaul to the system, I think.

You're never going to have quite as much of an opportunity as you would right then to grab a huge wad of cash (from the Resort Casino looking to build, build, build!) and do more or less whatever you wanted with it.

Have any of the potential casino locations been solidly nailed down yet? That's the important question. Well, that, and "is a casino in/near Boston an idea that draws serious interest, or a pipe dream?"

[whighlander]

Something like a Resort Casino on the Blue Line would be the perfect jumping off point for a pretty near-to-complete overhaul to the system, I think.

You're never going to have quite as much of an opportunity as you would right then to grab a huge wad of cash (from the Resort Casino looking to build, build, build!) and do more or less whatever you wanted with it.

Have any of the potential casino locations been solidly nailed down yet? That's the important question. Well, that, and "is a casino in/near Boston an idea that draws serious interest, or a pipe dream?"

Can we cal you CBS for short?

Magnitude of the "contribution" which can be expected by the Urban Boston Casino developer is of the order of building a station -- much as what is being done as part of Assembly Sq.

However, given as there will be several thousand employees who could benefit from transit access to the venue -- I think the Blue Line to Lynn could be jump-started by the process

Nothing is certain -- but given as the current House Speaker and the Mayor of Boston both support the development in East Boston / Revere -- I suspect that at a minimum there will be the high-stakes slots- reno of Suffolk Downs

[Commuting Boston Student]

Can we cal you CBS for short?

Magnitude of the "contribution" which can be expected by the Urban Boston Casino developer is of the order of building a station -- much as what is being done as part of Assembly Sq.

However, given as there will be several thousand employees who could benefit from transit access to the venue -- I think the Blue Line to Lynn could be jump-started by the process

Nothing is certain -- but given as the current House Speaker and the Mayor of Boston both support the development in East Boston / Revere -- I suspect that at a minimum there will be the high-stakes slots- reno of Suffolk Downs

You can call me anything you'd like, except for late to dinner!

Blue Line to Lynn would be a great start and I'd be happy to see that much get put into motion. I suppose it's too much to ask for that starting work on that would spur on additional work on, say, fixing the problems with the Green Line. Oh well...

[JohnAKeith]

The idea that there will be any substantial revenue and that said revenue will actually go toward new projects is impractical. The casino money will be spent five times over before there's anything left of it.

I think I'll call you naive, instead.

[whighlander]

The idea that there will be any substantial revenue and that said revenue will actually go toward new projects is impractical. The casino money will be spent five times over before there's anything left of it.

I think I'll call you naive, instead.

John -- I don't think that we are talking using revenue for the T expansion -- the concept is that the developer would contribute to the T

The Casino developer would probably contribute to the Blue Line to the order of the contribution being made to building the new station at Assembly Sq. or MGM's proposal to build a new Mass Pike Interchange in Brimfield for their proposed MGM Grand Casino

[Beton Brut]

Something like a Resort Casino on the Blue Line would be the perfect jumping off point for a pretty near-to-complete overhaul to the system, I think.

You're never going to have quite as much of an opportunity as you would right then to grab a huge wad of cash (from the Resort Casino looking to build, build, build!) and do more or less whatever you wanted with it.

Blue Line to Lynn would be a great start and I'd be happy to see that much get put into motion. I suppose it's too much to ask for that starting work on that would spur on additional work on, say, fixing the problems with the Green Line. Oh well...

Yes, of course. And 2 + 2 = 5


Have any of the potential casino locations been solidly nailed down yet? That's the important question. Well, that, and "is a casino in/near Boston an idea that draws serious interest, or a pipe dream?"

I've got a pipe right here (http://newsone.com/files/2011/09/crack-pipe.jpg).

[mass88]

Is it me, or does it seem like some T projects seem to take forever? The elevator at Park Street seems to be moving along very slow.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I think I'll call you naive, instead.

Probably.

And I don't think any of the casino's revenue would go towards new projects, no.

I'm suggesting that the MBTA grab money out of them as part of the initial costs of construction etc. Once they're all set up and open for business, we're getting nothing out of them ever again - the time to milk them for project money is when they're already spending money here there and everywhere on land, buildings, furnishings, workers...

I've got a pipe right here (http://newsone.com/files/2011/09/crack-pipe.jpg).

I'm not that kind of Student.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Just curious to read some of your ideas. Both short term and long term plans.

Conduct an open poll with as many persons as possible. Ask people where they live and where they work. Ask if there's other locations people goto. With that information I'd redesign every bus route in the entire system around where the most people are trying to get from/to. Every 20 years the process can be done again. One thing I learned at the T in the Plans and Schedules dept. is every area you provide T service, will likely face the prospect of Gentrification. once that takes hold, and affluence builds, more people will begin to drive cars in that area causing rider-ship to drop in the long term. So certain bus routes in existence now might be irrelevant having been created decades ago.

[Digital_Islandboy]

One of the T's biggest problems financially is its union employees and their massive benefits. Finding creative ways to reduce the number of these would help substantially.

But is there a point? The T will never be run at a profit, and the state will just roll up the savings and allocate them to other agencies, use them to balance its budget, or cut taxes.

Service is going to get worse. The people who actually gave a "hoot" somewhat working at the T are tired of the rules like no cell phones at work, or getting bounced out for a simple fender bender and the loss of perks. Now, instead the MBTA is begging to hire some of the dregs of society who can't get jobs elsewhere but are enticed by the pay. Some of these persons see nothing wrong with turning up to work 15 mins. late and therefore showing up at the bus stop 15 mins. late... The more the MBTA cuts back on perks, mark my words the worse service will get. I will say there are some very bright and intelligent people in the MBTA that could be private sector personnel. Those that have the know-how are leaving. Those that can't do any better are staying. The more perks drop, the more I am noticing the quality of worker is beginning to plummet.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Invest in automated stations and cut jobs which are served by automatic systems.

Either that, or privatize the entire system much in the way utilities are privatized. Require the owner to receive government approval for rate hikes, etc.

You'd be surprise by the number of complaints when there's no CSA in a station and patrons have to fend for themselves. Esp. stations like Kendal or Central where there's two separate entrances.
Some people are careless and tap their card(with monthly pass) two times and get blocked due to passback-restriction meaning they have to wait a full 20-30 mins before tapping again to get in.
One customer I spoke to on the phone was flipping out because he decided answer his mobile, couldn't hear, so he left the station, and then couldn't get back in because he was trying to use the same monthly pass at the same station within the 20 mins. There was nothing I cold do. So sometimes an automated only doesn't remove all probs.

[Digital_Islandboy]

The system should be a tax-supported utility, like the Fire Department or Police.

That's tricky. I think long term if Mass. is *ever* to have a good system, Western Mass. and Eastern Mass. will have to divorce one another. Governor's can't serve the needs of both regions. Personally. I believe W. Massachusetts should join Vermont because they have more in common with them than Eastern Massachusetts. The big problem the MBTA has is it needs more sales tax. But Western Massachusetts people (Esp. under Cellucci, Swift and Romney) lobbied hard to stop anymore sales tax from going into the MBTA because they hated the idea of having the sales tax go up, and they gain no benefits because there's no MBTA subway out there.
Similarly, they don't want tolls to pay for the big dig because the big dig benefits Eastern Massachusetts more.

The aforementioned governors came up with the concept of having the MBTA produce fare-raises on those that use the system instead of spreading the costs around the entire state via sales tax. Since the state can't openly back the MBTA without upsetting westerners I don't think much can change with it unless it narrows down on where people are wanting to get to and try to target how to serve the most people using the least amount of bus routes and such.
These two regions need to just split and go their separate ways. The remaining Governor of Eastern Mass. can then better focus on the transportation needs from Worcester eastward. And Western Mass. if they want to can decide on their own transport needs with their tax dollars, or decide they don't want public transport if that's their cup of tea too.

[Digital_Islandboy]

I think the MBTA is a prime example of how a Union can weigh a business, or entity down.

What percentage of MBTA employees belong to a union?

Until we see a major shift on Beacon Hill, I think the MBTA will stay the way it is, its main purpose is to employ people.

All MBTA people are in a union unless they are contract. The largest two are 589 or 453.

http://www.carmensunion589.org/
http://www.opeiu453.org/

Those aren't the only two though. Like I recall a lot of Mitt Romney's people were like the Executive Union.

[Digital_Islandboy]

I'm new to this discussion (and judging by the date stamps on the posts a page back, very late to the discussion), but here's what I'd do.

I'd knock down all of the toll booths on the Pike, and replace them with Open road tolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_road_tolling) stations. Cash will no longer be accepted anywhere on the Pike - if you don't have a transponder already, don't worry! Automatic number plate recognition can also be used to mail you the bill for your toll, a system already in use in Florida (where it's known as TOLL-BY-PLATE. Yes, with the caps.) You will, of course, be charged additionally for the service and as an incentive to pick up a transponder.

After a few months to show that yes, this system works a whole hell of a lot better than the tool booths we've got now (seriously. The most annoying thing about fast lane is slowing down to 15 mph to go through it, right? Not so here!) and doesn't even require us to staff toll booths, I'd have Open Road Tolling stations added to every entrance and exit to the Big Dig tunnels of 93. You would pay once to get on, and once more to get off.

I'd also hike individual ride fares, but leave the monthly passes alone as an incentive to buy. I'd implement the technology that we know the MBTA has already to let them load 1-day daily passes onto a CharlieCard at any ticket vending machine in any given station, just like the monthly passes can be and are. (The 7-day weekly pass would either be discontinued, or become impossible to buy on either a CharlieTicket or CharlieCard except through pass offices, as the trade-off for it being much cheaper than seven 1-day passes.) As long as we're talking about the CharlieCard, make it possible to load commuter rail monthly passes onto the CharlieCard as well.

Bus services will be slashed (including and especially the Silver Line. It comes back as a light rail or it doesn't come back at all), but commuter rail and subway services will be increased in exchange. Run new commuter rail lines out to the folks in Western Mass., and charge everything west of Worcester as a Zone 9 (and beyond) stop. (That last part is probably just my annoyance as a southern Rhode Island resident with the fact that the only Zone 9 station in existence is T.F. Green, and the commuter rail zone fare map posted at Back Bay seems to hint that Wickford Junction will become the first and only Zone 10 stop.) Maybe run new subway lines or subway branches to replace some of the slashed bus service as well.

Yes, it's dramatic and expensive, but I believe that you need to spend money to make money. Ultimately, the huge initial cost of doing these things will be quickly offset by increased ridership and new revenue from tolling the Big Dig.

I love it! Great contribution!

[Digital_Islandboy]

Imagine if the 14.6 billion dollars went towards the MBTA instead of the central artery...

The MBTA was some of that. For example the silver Line bus tunnel, South Station, N. Station, Haymarket etc.
Bare in mind, the cement exterior walls of the central artery road extend all the way down to bedrock. So literally when Massachusetts is ready, it can excavate the current area of dirt in between the two outer walls and be left with a void with pre-cemented walls still down to bedrock. If the Commonwealth wants to build a people mover between N. and S. Station that option is there.

[JohnAKeith]

How important is customer service to people? Not being difficult, just asking. If the T ran on schedule, if it ran later into the night, if it expanded, we really wouldn't care what the employees did (or got paid), right?

[Shepard]

How about market/garage rate or demand-driven street parking rates in the downtown core, revenues to go to the MBTA. Also, an excise tax on businesses offering parking spaces free or below the new street rates. This ends up being a lot like a congestion charge without all the logistical complexity.

[whighlander]

That's tricky. I think long term if Mass. is *ever* to have a good system, Western Mass. and Eastern Mass. will have to divorce one another. Governor's can't serve the needs of both regions. Personally. I believe W. Massachusetts should join Vermont because they have more in common with them than Eastern Massachusetts. ....

Digit -- you are almost on the target

The real long term solution is to consider Boston to be a City-State in the mold of Singapore

There is the city proper surrounded by its core "trading area" -- this is approximately I-495
Then there are the extensions mostly along the major Interstates:
SE -- R-3 to Plymouth and the Cape
South I-95 to Providence
West I-90 to Worcester
NE -- I-95 to Portland
N -- I-93 to Concord
NW -- Rt-3 to Nashua, Rt-2 to Leominster

I would create a Metro County out of all of the cities and towns inside of or crossed by I-495 and donate to the Metro:
the T,
Logan
BCEC and the Hynes
Boston Common Parking Garage
MWRA
former MDC parks
jails
courts, etc.

the County gets to levy its own sales tax, has a legislature (nominated by each city and town) and an executive committee (elected at large) with an elected "President"

Then we let the people in the "metro County" decide how much they want to spend and on what
Beyond the core the metro county can make cooperative agreements with Worcester, Providence, Manchester, Portland, etc for inter-city rail service

[Digital_Islandboy]

Is it me, or does it seem like some T projects seem to take forever? The elevator at Park Street seems to be moving along very slow.

Contracts at the MBTA are done in pieces. I don't know the specifics on this project because I haven't spoken to anybody in contracts in years now, but sometimes you might have one company do clean up of the area. Then another will do the removal of the old elevator, another might install the new, and then another might come afterwords and do the tiling job around the new area.
Each contract requires the former to be signed off satisfactorily before the next will be begun. Part is holding people accountable, some is so that everything is done be bids, and some so that all contracts don't goto any one company all the time.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Digit -- you are almost on the target

The real long term solution is to consider Boston to be a City-State in the mold of Singapore

There is the city proper surrounded by its core "trading area" -- this is approximately I-495
Then there are the extensions mostly along the major Interstates:
SE -- R-3 to Plymouth and the Cape
South I-95 to Providence
West I-90 to Worcester
NE -- I-95 to Portland
N -- I-93 to Concord
NW -- Rt-3 to Nashua, Rt-2 to Leominster

I would create a Metro County out of all of the cities and towns inside of or crossed by I-495 and donate to the Metro:
the T,
Logan
BCEC and the Hynes
Boston Common Parking Garage
MWRA
former MDC parks
jails
courts, etc.

the County gets to levy its own sales tax, has a legislature (nominated by each city and town) and an executive committee (elected at large) with an elected "President"

Then we let the people in the "metro County" decide how much they want to spend and on what
Beyond the core the metro county can make cooperative agreements with Worcester, Providence, Manchester, Portland, etc for inter-city rail service

That's major. A metro county? I could just envision the Registrars of Deeds in all the fore-mentioned counties wanting to go on strike... j/k

This may require a huge change in the charter of the MBTA. Some municipalities are already members of the MBTA's advisory board so I don't know how this would impact on their (quasi- level of staked ownership to it.)

See map: http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org/area/

The states partial answer to the demands of Western Mass. was to create the Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs). So that for example Western Mass's portion of Sales Tax would fund their RTA instead of the MBTA. But that method still doesn't fix the problem with them not wanting big spending by the State House going directly to the Eastern Mass. region. Your solution might hold some promise if fleshed out more. It seems like it could work but Western Mass. people just don't want to be saddled with any debt (as part of this state) for something exclusive to Eastern Mass. They made that absolutely clear to the past Governors and it appears to me, maybe this governor because I now see the current Governor has a Western Mass. office too.

[whighlander]

Contracts at the MBTA are done in pieces. I don't know the specifics on this project because I haven't spoken to anybody in contracts in years now, but sometimes you might have one company do clean up of the area. Then another will do the removal of the old elevator, another might install the new, and then another might come afterwords and do the tiling job around the new area.
Each contract requires the former to be signed off satisfactorily before the next will be begun. Part is holding people accountable, some is so that everything is done be bids, and some so that all contracts don't goto any one company all the time.

DigiT-- That is just KRAP!! -- in the private sector -- the same project would be done in 1/4 of the time with a far superior outcome -- because Time = Money and the people involved have a financial stake in the outcome.

Public sector construction tends to suffer from the generic problems of waste and inefficiency -- unless there are tight controls on the project, or substantial financial benefits to the contractor to finish early and under budget. It's hard to name a major public sector project which has been delivered on-time and budget -- let alone under budget and early. It's much more common to see the Big Dig effect -- the larger the project the greater the propensity for waste, inefficiency, faulty materials and shoddy workmanship.

[Digital_Islandboy]

I completely agree with this! I go to Northeastern and needed to walk through the Ruggles "T" station everyday... not even to use the T necessarily, but just to get from the NU campus to the International Village residence hall on the other side. Easily at least 5,000 people walk through that station during the week, and it's so freaking big! I always wonder how much more sense it would make to add more shops/restaurants along the main walkway above the bus pick slips. You could put a bar there, maybe a burger king/KFC, even a CVS pharmacy would do great there. It's something the MBTA should think about. I certainly have...

I think it may not be long before NEU tries to buy the air rights between main campus that stretch down to the Mass. Ave station. They would just have to plan for proper ventilation with the diesel powered commuter rail trains. using those tracks.

[whighlander]

That's major. A metro county? I could just envision the Registrars of Deeds in all the fore-mentioned counties wanting to go on strike... j/k

This may require a huge change in the charter of the MBTA. Some municipalities are already members of the MBTA's advisory board so I don't know how this would impact on their (quasi- level of staked ownership to it.)

See map: http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org/area/

The states partial answer to the demands of Western Mass. was to create the Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs). So that for example Western Mass's portion of Sales Tax would fund their RTA instead of the MBTA. But that method still doesn't fix the problem with them not wanting big spending by the State House going directly to the Eastern Mass. region. Your solution might hold some promise if fleshed out more. It seems like it could work but Western Mass. people just don't want to be saddled with any debt (as part of this state) for something exclusive to Eastern Mass. They made that absolutely clear to the past Governors and it appears to me, maybe this governor because I now see the current Governor has a Western Mass. office too.

Mass Population [2010] 6547629

Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area [2005] 7,427,336
Composed of the following Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas:
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,411,835
Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area
Laconia, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Worcester, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

So from the above we can see a strong case being made for the City-State Model as the economic influence zone [aka Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area] includes more people than live in Massachusetts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Greaterboston2.png

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fecon%2Fcensus07% 2Fpdf%2Fmaps%2Fri%2Fmetro%2F33000us148m.pdf&ei=ebskT6CiHaji0QGq7_T_Cw&usg=AFQjCNEMoS5sy74C8MOdUBVz2VX2AVXgRg&sig2=9Uwl76Eix8qyrD-kvg6czQ

[Digital_Islandboy]

Mass Population [2010] 6547629

Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area [2005] 7,427,336
Composed of the following Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas:
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,411,835
Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area
Laconia, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Worcester, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

So from the above we can see a strong case being made for the City-State Model as the economic influence zone [aka Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area] includes more people than live in Massachusetts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Greaterboston2.png

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fecon%2Fcensus07% 2Fpdf%2Fmaps%2Fri%2Fmetro%2F33000us148m.pdf&ei=ebskT6CiHaji0QGq7_T_Cw&usg=AFQjCNEMoS5sy74C8MOdUBVz2VX2AVXgRg&sig2=9Uwl76Eix8qyrD-kvg6czQ

Something to keep in mind, the MBTA charter (nor the Massachusetts Constitution) doesn't allow state agencies to have the mandate to serve, or to spend taxpayer dollars in another state. This is one of the reasons why MBCR is run as a completely stand alone co. (due to partly to the Rhode Island aspect). It has a separate management team and is closer to a structure like a private sector company.

So if you include Rhode Island (and New Hampshire) you're talking more of an MBCR company arrangement to those areas that again can't be supported by taxpayer dollars. Ideally with the On Time Service Guarantee shut down maybe Amtrak will bid for the Commuter Rail contract again.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Something to keep in mind, the MBTA charter (nor the Massachusetts Constitution) doesn't allow state agencies to have the mandate to serve, or to spend taxpayer dollars in another state. This is one of the reasons why MBCR is run as a completely stand alone co. (due to partly to the Rhode Island aspect). It has a separate management team and is closer to a structure like a private sector company.

So if you include Rhode Island (and New Hampshire) you're talking more of an MBCR company arrangement to those areas that again can't be supported by taxpayer dollars. Ideally with the On Time Service Guarantee shut down maybe Amtrak will bid for the Commuter Rail contract again.

Has nothing to do with why the T contracts out its service. They can run anywhere their hearts desire if they are fully 100% subsidized by an out-of-district party for every out-of-district running mile. This practice pre-dates the agency's very own charter and was grandfathered into the rules when the district was set up. Not only for things like Rhode Island service and New Hampshire (1964-66 and 1980-81) across state lines, but also for large chunks of the in-state commuter rail and bus lines that have been in, out, and back in again of the changing district shape over the last 48 years. Montchusett Area Regional Transit was the underwriter for Fitchburg Line service when it was restored past South Acton to Fitchburg in 1980, as was Merrimack Valley RTA when Haverhill Line service resumed past Wilmington to Andover, Lawrence, and Haverhill in 1979. Strictly as a paid mercenary deal until district agreements were cut years later. MART, not MBTA, still runs the station parking in Leominster and Fitchburg to this day so there are still examples of this in effect. Many too on the outer reaches of the bus system. Not every thing stamped Purple or Yellow Line is or always was a true "MBTA" service as defined by the district charter. There's an ever-morphing set of subsidy deals crisscrossing district lines...expanding and contracting...and it's always been that way.

RIDOT's current subsidy agreement is still a strict mercenary deal, and includes a paper ownership stake in the commuter rail fleet so their equipment needs are reimbursed into the general pool. Not only does that allow them to push as implausibly far out of T territory as Wickford Jct., but when they open their Providence-Westerly commuter rail service the T (if Amtrak doesn't put in a more favorable bid) could be the contracted operator for that service that doesn't even touch the state of Massachusetts. It's very similar to how Metro North runs in Connecticut. The MTA's got an even more restrictive charter than the MBTA on how many counties it can legally serve (they can't even cut in-state subsidy deals to stretch their borders), but Metro North has more total route miles and ridership in Connecticut than New York. And, oddly, more expansion potential in CT because CDOT can just pay them to go to Litchfield or Hartford Counties while the MTA member counties would almost have to literally vote themselves out and back into existence to be able to extend a Hudson Line train to the Amtrak stops past Poughkeepsie. They may go to Massachusetts before they go elsewhere in their own state if CDOT taps them to be the mercenary operator for New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail a la the T's chances with the Providence-Westerly contract.

As charters go, the one they've we've got covers the needs. It already has served at varying degrees of greatest and least extent everywhere north to Concord and northwest to Gardner (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/346211745_55c76c4fd8_o.jpg), south to Providence, west to Worcester, and coastal from Cape Ann to South Shore. They don't have to change what the agency existentially is to have the Superstate of Massrhodehampshira...bounded roughly by I-195/US6, I-495, MA 146, I-190, and NH 101...coordinated by a single-source transit operator. It's just more of the same interstate and micro-regional subsidy deals. The rest is all finding sane administration and leadership to find the right proportions and enact it. Say what you will about those challenges, but they are neither guaranteed nor prohibited in any way by the charter. That's more than you can say if you're an NYC exurbanite living just beyond the now-and-forever brick wall of the MTA district.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Has nothing to do with why the T contracts out its service. They can run anywhere their hearts desire if they are fully 100% subsidized by an out-of-district party for every out-of-district running mile. This practice pre-dates the agency's very own charter and was grandfathered into the rules when the district was set up. Not only for things like Rhode Island service and New Hampshire (1964-66 and 1980-81) across state lines, but also for large chunks of the in-state commuter rail and bus lines that have been in, out, and back in again of the changing district shape over the last 48 years. Montchusett Area Regional Transit was the underwriter for Fitchburg Line service when it was restored past South Acton to Fitchburg in 1980, as was Merrimack Valley RTA when Haverhill Line service resumed past Wilmington to Andover, Lawrence, and Haverhill in 1979. Strictly as a paid mercenary deal until district agreements were cut years later. MART, not MBTA, still runs the station parking in Leominster and Fitchburg to this day so there are still examples of this in effect. Many too on the outer reaches of the bus system. Not every thing stamped Purple or Yellow Line is or always was a true "MBTA" service as defined by the district charter. There's an ever-morphing set of subsidy deals crisscrossing district lines...expanding and contracting...and it's always been that way.

RIDOT's current subsidy agreement is still a strict mercenary deal, and includes a paper ownership stake in the commuter rail fleet so their equipment needs are reimbursed into the general pool. Not only does that allow them to push as implausibly far out of T territory as Wickford Jct., but when they open their Providence-Westerly commuter rail service the T (if Amtrak doesn't put in a more favorable bid) could be the contracted operator for that service that doesn't even touch the state of Massachusetts. It's very similar to how Metro North runs in Connecticut. The MTA's got an even more restrictive charter than the MBTA on how many counties it can legally serve (they can't even cut in-state subsidy deals to stretch their borders), but Metro North has more total route miles and ridership in Connecticut than New York. And, oddly, more expansion potential in CT because CDOT can just pay them to go to Litchfield or Hartford Counties while the MTA member counties would almost have to literally vote themselves out and back into existence to be able to extend a Hudson Line train to the Amtrak stops past Poughkeepsie. They may go to Massachusetts before they go elsewhere in their own state if CDOT taps them to be the mercenary operator for New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail a la the T's chances with the Providence-Westerly contract.

As charters go, the one they've we've got covers the needs. It already has served at varying degrees of greatest and least extent everywhere north to Concord and northwest to Gardner (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/346211745_55c76c4fd8_o.jpg), south to Providence, west to Worcester, and coastal from Cape Ann to South Shore. They don't have to change what the agency existentially is to have the Superstate of Massrhodehampshira...bounded roughly by I-195/US6, I-495, MA 146, I-190, and NH 101...coordinated by a single-source transit operator. It's just more of the same interstate and micro-regional subsidy deals. The rest is all finding sane administration and leadership to find the right proportions and enact it. Say what you will about those challenges, but they are neither guaranteed nor prohibited in any way by the charter. That's more than you can say if you're an NYC exurbanite living just beyond the now-and-forever brick wall of the MTA district.

Actually they do. Here's a quick Googled result.
--
MBTA considers the future of commuter rail service
Options include long-term pact
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/11/30/mbta-considers-future-commuter-rail-service/0PYjB4oKlvxRvXijm0CDXO/story.html

MBCR also has its own management team:
http://www.mbcr.net/Our_management_Team.html

When persons filed complaints or claims dealing with MBCR and they reached me, all I do was transfer them to that company because their employees are under MBCR's payroll so that's an MBCR issue... Also train delays and all that they forward that information to the MBTA but they handle all that themselves too.

Some of the commuter rail track routes are owned and controlled by other companies too (not the state). The Worcester Line was purchased by the state a few years ago. The tracks in East Cambridge were also purchased by the state. Amtrak was uncomfortable with the MBTA's on Time Service Guarantee. Meaning if the service was more than 30 mins. late the MBTA (and in this case Amtrak) would have been required to not only reimburse everyone's fare but then to also to give a next complimentary fare. It bled money from the system when it was capital that the T needs to improve the situation. It wasn't sustainable and eventually the MBTA had to drop that programme. The MBTA can is empowered with being able to run anywhere in the Commonwealth. Outside the Commonwealth will be the problem. At least that was the case at one time.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Actually they do. Here's a quick Googled result.
--
MBTA considers the future of commuter rail service
Options include long-term pact
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/11/30/mbta-considers-future-commuter-rail-service/0PYjB4oKlvxRvXijm0CDXO/story.html

MBCR also has its own management team:
http://www.mbcr.net/Our_management_Team.html

When persons filed complaints or claims dealing with MBCR and they reached me, all I do was transfer them to that company because their employees are under MBCR's payroll so that's an MBCR issue... Also train delays and all that they forward that information to the MBTA but they handle all that themselves too.

Some of the commuter rail track routes are owned and controlled by other companies too (not the state). The Worcester Line was purchased by the state a few years ago. The tracks in East Cambridge were also purchased by the state. Amtrak was uncomfortable with the MBTA's on Time Service Guarantee. Meaning if the service was more than 30 mins. late the MBTA (and in this case Amtrak) would have been required to not only reimburse everyone's fare but then to also to give a next complimentary fare. It bled money from the system when it was capital that the T needs to improve the situation. It wasn't sustainable and eventually the MBTA had to drop that programme. The MBTA can is empowered with being able to run anywhere in the Commonwealth. Outside the Commonwealth will be the problem. At least that was the case at one time.

You've totally lost me here. MBCR has zero, zilch to do with the MBTA's charter or where they're allowed to run. They are simply an operating subcontractor providing commuter rail operations management. Every service agreement between a district town, out-of-district RTA, or other state is between those parties and the T. From 1964 on when the commuter rail started being subsidized, the T was the only agency the municipalities ever interfaced with. Even with the private RR's still owning and operating the lines under subsidy for the first 10 years, even with MBCR now the third operator since the full public ownership era began in 1976, even with them having the future option to go all in-house. It's Purple Line all the same as far as the public is concerned. The only time MBCR the company ever interfaces directly with the public is the aforementioned complaint line. Even the RR employees themselves are insulated from their "employer" MBCR by having union contracts seamlessly transferable from one company to the next, or in-house if it ever goes that way. Except for who their managers are, MBCR is just the name at the top of the pay stub. Just as Amtrak was the name at the top of the stub 9 years ago for all those workers doing the same jobs with the same T-owned equipment.


And I don't know what the On-Time Service guarantee has to do here either. That's strictly a clause specific to this subcontractor agreement to compel the operator to stick to a realistic schedule. If it can't, then it's on the operator to either modify its schedules to something it can make, which is where MBCR has been falling apart on the job. Or the operator has to take the agency to task to maintain the equipment that's failing the schedules...which is where both MBCR and the T are falling apart, and where the T-Amtrak working relationship fell apart at the end of the last contract. That's an administrative efficiency hurdle if they're getting tripped up on it, not a structural or "constitutional" hurdle. They can make their operator problems go away whenever they're motivated to hold MBCR to the fire, replace MBCR with somebody better, or do away with subcontracting altogether. Or...by making the On-Time Service guarantee itself go away in the next contract :rolleyes:


Who owns and dispatches what track doesn't have anything to do with who operates where. Each stretch of track and who runs on it is controlled by individual deals. Such as:
-- The T owns the title deed on the NEC to the state line, but Amtrak has controlled all dispatching and all track work on it since its inception 40 years ago. They can't leave South Station anywhere except for Fairmount and the Old Colony Lines without asking the Amtrak dispatcher for permission. They also can't make a single modification to anything on the Providence Line except the stations without Amtrak's permission. But we can thank the "foreign" control for pushing through the electrification, 150 MPH speeds, and slew of other improvements the T would've never been able to spearhead. We'll see the fruits of that once these new locomotives and coaches on-order get to haul the first 90 MPH Providence Line trains.
-- They CAN, however, legally operate the Purple Line as far south as New London, CT without negotiating any new rights deals with Amtrak on Amtrak-owned track in RI and CT. Thanks to a short-lived super-extended Boston-New London commuter train the New Haven RR ran 45 years ago which had perpetual rights conferred to the T when it bought the Providence Line. Hence, Purple Line trains to Wickford Jct. now and possibly Providence-Westerly entirely outside of MA borders later with no eyebrows raised. If RIDOT's paying for 100% of the out-of-district running, they're happy as clams to do it.
-- The T has owned the Worcester Line out to Framingham since the late-60's, but it took buying out the whole CSX works in Eastern MA to get their schedule slots on it...starting later this year when it's finally official. All the years in the 70's and 80's when service was cut back to just Framingham, and they still couldn't slot their own trains on their own track because Penn Central/Conrail had ironclad traffic priority to Beacon Park. They got the raw end of this one as much as they got a sweet deal with Amtrak on the NEC.
-- They still run on CSX-owned track to get to Forge Park from Franklin, but that deal gave the T 100% control of dispatching. And perpetual passenger rights to Milford without need for prior CSX permission.
-- They cut deals with Pan Am last year for perpetual passenger and dispatching rights on Pan Am-owned freight track for the Fitchburg-Wachusett and Haverhill-Plaistow extensions, plus future considerations Lowell-Concord and Worcester-Ayer. And, yes, this means the T has cleverly cornered the market on who can operate NH's own in-state service. If NHDOT wanted to go it alone they'd have to cut their own separate rights agreement with Pan Am, but as long as it's in Purple Line livery they can just reimburse the T to ping a train back and forth between Concord and Nashua to their heart's content.
-- By same token, every time somebody in the Patrick Admin. intermittently blurts out something in an election year about future commuter rail to Springfield...rest assured they are either lying or don't know what the hell they're talking about. Nowhere in any fine print does the T have operating rights west of Worcester Union Station. Only Amtrak. They want it...they're gonna have to buy out the whole CSX Western MA works at a premium to get it. You'll sooner see a conga line of Regionals go to Springfield on quasi-commuter headways than you'll ever see a Purple Line train venture west of I-290.



The transit region at-large is what their wheeling and dealing makes it. And past dealing has already stretched it to pretty much these same "Superstate" boundaries. What they want to operate and how competently they want to operate it are admin and planning decisions. What they're allowed to operate is already structurally protected.

[Digital_Islandboy]

DigiT-- That is just KRAP!! -- in the private sector -- the same project would be done in 1/4 of the time with a far superior outcome -- because Time = Money and the people involved have a financial stake in the outcome.

Public sector construction tends to suffer from the generic problems of waste and inefficiency -- unless there are tight controls on the project, or substantial financial benefits to the contractor to finish early and under budget. It's hard to name a major public sector project which has been delivered on-time and budget -- let alone under budget and early. It's much more common to see the Big Dig effect -- the larger the project the greater the propensity for waste, inefficiency, faulty materials and shoddy workmanship.

Put it this way. Many people will only- do what's in their job description. If you try to eliminate someone's job you get opposition. I got yelled at once for talking about changing my own light bulb in my office because 1) it wasn't in my job description and 2) Maintenance might take industrial action for me doing their job without being in their union. Yea! It's that insane on the inside. Rest assured I placed the service call to have my light changed and waited until it was done. I got an order from above so I didn't want to get pulled up for being insubordinate. Cow toe is the order of the day.

I wont even get into how many people it actually takes to change a light bulb! lol.

~Dig.

[Digital_Islandboy]

You've totally lost me here. MBCR has zero, zilch to do with the MBTA's charter or where they're allowed to run. They are simply an operating subcontractor providing commuter rail operations management. Every service agreement between a district town, out-of-district RTA, or other state is between those parties and the T. From 1964 on when the commuter rail started being subsidized, the T was the only agency the municipalities ever interfaced with. Even with the private RR's still owning and operating the lines under subsidy for the first 10 years, even with MBCR now the third operator since the full public ownership era began in 1976, even with them having the future option to go all in-house. It's Purple Line all the same as far as the public is concerned. The only time MBCR the company ever interfaces directly with the public is the aforementioned complaint line. Even the RR employees themselves are insulated from their "employer" MBCR by having union contracts seamlessly transferable from one company to the next, or in-house if it ever goes that way. Except for who their managers are, MBCR is just the name at the top of the pay stub. Just as Amtrak was the name at the top of the stub 9 years ago for all those workers doing the same jobs with the same T-owned equipment.


And I don't know what the On-Time Service guarantee has to do here either. That's strictly a clause specific to this subcontractor agreement to compel the operator to stick to a realistic schedule. If it can't, then it's on the operator to either modify its schedules to something it can make, which is where MBCR has been falling apart on the job. Or the operator has to take the agency to task to maintain the equipment that's failing the schedules...which is where both MBCR and the T are falling apart, and where the T-Amtrak working relationship fell apart at the end of the last contract. That's an administrative efficiency hurdle if they're getting tripped up on it, not a structural or "constitutional" hurdle. They can make their operator problems go away whenever they're motivated to hold MBCR to the fire, replace MBCR with somebody better, or do away with subcontracting altogether. Or...by making the On-Time Service guarantee itself go away in the next contract :rolleyes:


Who owns and dispatches what track doesn't have anything to do with who operates where. Each stretch of track and who runs on it is controlled by individual deals. Such as:
-- The T owns the title deed on the NEC to the state line, but Amtrak has controlled all dispatching and all track work on it since its inception 40 years ago. They can't leave South Station anywhere except for Fairmount and the Old Colony Lines without asking the Amtrak dispatcher for permission. They also can't make a single modification to anything on the Providence Line except the stations without Amtrak's permission. But we can thank the "foreign" control for pushing through the electrification, 150 MPH speeds, and slew of other improvements the T would've never been able to spearhead. We'll see the fruits of that once these new locomotives and coaches on-order get to haul the first 90 MPH Providence Line trains.
-- They CAN, however, legally operate the Purple Line as far south as New London, CT without negotiating any new rights deals with Amtrak on Amtrak-owned track in RI and CT. Thanks to a short-lived super-extended Boston-New London commuter train the New Haven RR ran 45 years ago which had perpetual rights conferred to the T when it bought the Providence Line. Hence, Purple Line trains to Wickford Jct. now and possibly Providence-Westerly entirely outside of MA borders later with no eyebrows raised. If RIDOT's paying for 100% of the out-of-district running, they're happy as clams to do it.
-- The T has owned the Worcester Line out to Framingham since the late-60's, but it took buying out the whole CSX works in Eastern MA to get their schedule slots on it...starting later this year when it's finally official. All the years in the 70's and 80's when service was cut back to just Framingham, and they still couldn't slot their own trains on their own track because Penn Central/Conrail had ironclad traffic priority to Beacon Park. They got the raw end of this one as much as they got a sweet deal with Amtrak on the NEC.
-- They still run on CSX-owned track to get to Forge Park from Franklin, but that deal gave the T 100% control of dispatching. And perpetual passenger rights to Milford without need for prior CSX permission.
-- They cut deals with Pan Am last year for perpetual passenger and dispatching rights on Pan Am-owned freight track for the Fitchburg-Wachusett and Haverhill-Plaistow extensions, plus future considerations Lowell-Concord and Worcester-Ayer. And, yes, this means the T has cleverly cornered the market on who can operate NH's own in-state service. If NHDOT wanted to go it alone they'd have to cut their own separate rights agreement with Pan Am, but as long as it's in Purple Line livery they can just reimburse the T to ping a train back and forth between Concord and Nashua to their heart's content.
-- By same token, every time somebody in the Patrick Admin. intermittently blurts out something in an election year about future commuter rail to Springfield...rest assured they are either lying or don't know what the hell they're talking about. Nowhere in any fine print does the T have operating rights west of Worcester Union Station. Only Amtrak. They want it...they're gonna have to buy out the whole CSX Western MA works at a premium to get it. You'll sooner see a conga line of Regionals go to Springfield on quasi-commuter headways than you'll ever see a Purple Line train venture west of I-290.

The transit region at-large is what their wheeling and dealing makes it. And past dealing has already stretched it to pretty much these same "Superstate" boundaries. What they want to operate and how competently they want to operate it are admin and planning decisions. What they're allowed to operate is already structurally protected.


I don't think my response took. In-state (yet out of district) are not overly an issue because the sales tax statewide funds the MBTA. It is when sales tax from Mass. is used to pay for services outside of Massachusetts itself. An out of state portion, not being supported by any other entity would be a problem.
As I was made to understand, (and I do need to verify this), but going by what was explained to me on the inside there's a demarcation or sorts between MBTA and MBCR Co. For example it was explained the Combo pass which used to be I think almost $70 dollars was dropped in price during the last fare increase to just $59? (reconstituted as the "Link" pass). Meanwhile, the Zone 8 monthly pass (the non-interlink Zone 8) for example jumped from I believe $198 to $250. What was explained to me was the sharp rise in the Commuter rail monthly passes were mainly to fund primarily into commuter rail division itself and its fare increase was more mirroring the services costs estimated for that unit. The LINK didn't cover commuter rail any longer and therefore it was allowed to drop in price.

The On-Time-Service was one idea of the previous GM that did nothing but bleed more cash from the MBTA and caused Amtrak to turn up its nose at any idea of even considering running the service again for the MBTA. It was fraught with abuse and needed to be done away with anyway.
You stated that could just replace MBCR, although in order to replace MBCR, you need serious bidders. No serious provider was bidding to manage commuter rail, so MBCR almost gets it by default. (That's also part of the problem.)

In terms of huge service schedules modification to mitigate delays, that has to be agreed to according to statelaw by the MBTA Advisory Board. [http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org/about-us/ Again, which is made up of those various cities and towns in Massachusetts. The Red ones (on the map) are the oldest rank-and-file and the lighter shades are the ones which came later.

If RIDOT pays, that is precisely my point. Massachusetts Tax dollars wouldn't be coming into play. What I meant, is your not likely to say see a #45x MBTA local bus or subway line serve a route that straddles the state's border.

The actual sale of CSX ROW I believe was only a few years ago. In exchange the State is having them move from the Allston rail yard (next to the Mass. Pike.) and shift that to Worcester. I believe the media reported that Harvard University has already purchased the land beneath that Allston rail yard, and in exchange for the sale the state of Mass. agrees to lower the grade of all tracks west of the Worcester rail yard all the way to the New York border (and/or raise bridges) along that stretch to allow CSX to run double-stacked cargo trains. But the point about the dispatchers is that on lines not owned by the state, those private entities can favor cargo moves as opposed to passenger moves if those routes are busy.

[whighlander]

I don't think my response took. In-state (yet out of district) are not overly an issue because the sales tax statewide funds the MBTA. It is when sales tax from Mass. is used to pay for services outside of Massachusetts itself. An out of state portion, not being supported by any other entity would be a problem.
As I was made to understand, (and I do need to verify this), but going by what was explained to me on the inside there's a demarcation or sorts between MBTA and MBCR Co. For example it was explained the Combo pass which used to be I think almost $70 dollars was dropped in price during the last fare increase to just $59? (reconstituted as the "Link" pass). Meanwhile, the Zone 8 monthly pass (the non-interlink Zone 8) for example jumped from I believe $198 to $250. What was explained to me was the sharp rise in the Commuter rail monthly passes were mainly to fund primarily into commuter rail division itself and its fare increase was more mirroring the services costs estimated for that unit. The LINK didn't cover commuter rail any longer and therefore it was allowed to drop in price.

The On-Time-Service was one idea of the previous GM that did nothing but bleed more cash from the MBTA and caused Amtrak to turn up its nose at any idea of even considering running the service again for the MBTA. It was fraught with abuse and needed to be done away with anyway.
You stated that could just replace MBCR, although in order to replace MBCR, you need serious bidders. No serious provider was bidding to manage commuter rail, so MBCR almost gets it by default. (That's also part of the problem.)

In terms of huge service schedules modification to mitigate delays, that has to be agreed to according to statelaw by the MBTA Advisory Board. [http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org/about-us/ Again, which is made up of those various cities and towns in Massachusetts. The Red ones (on the map) are the oldest rank-and-file and the lighter shades are the ones which came later.

If RIDOT pays, that is precisely my point. Massachusetts Tax dollars wouldn't be coming into play. What I meant, is your not likely to say see a #45x MBTA local bus or subway line serve a route that straddles the state's border.

The actual sale of CSX ROW I believe was only a few years ago. In exchange the State is having them move from the Allston rail yard (next to the Mass. Pike.) and shift that to Worcester. I believe the media reported that Harvard University has already purchased the land beneath that Allston rail yard, and in exchange for the sale the state of Mass. agrees to lower the grade of all tracks west of the Worcester rail yard all the way to the New York border (and/or raise bridges) along that stretch to allow CSX to run double-stacked cargo trains. But the point about the dispatchers is that on lines not owned by the state, those private entities can favor cargo moves as opposed to passenger moves if those routes are busy.


Dig -- Don't want to intrude into your private debate wth F-Line -- but there is a very complete pdf document related to rail for Massachussetts -- it includes:
track speed limits
track weight limits
height clearances
ownership -- fairly complex
users -- even more complex
proposed projects

etc., etc.

If you are not aware of it -- you can locate it by Googling or directly through the Mass DOT website

[Digital_Islandboy]

Dig -- Don't want to intrude into your private debate wth F-Line -- but there is a very complete pdf document related to rail for Massachussetts -- it includes:
track speed limits
track weight limits
height clearances
ownership -- fairly complex
users -- even more complex
proposed projects

etc., etc.

If you are not aware of it -- you can locate it by Googling or directly through the Mass DOT website

*grin* it' not a debate. We're just discussing. :-) This isn't private either. I'm kinda curious now if I might have worked with F-Line. *inquisitive*

[F-Line to Dudley]

If RIDOT pays, that is precisely my point. Massachusetts Tax dollars wouldn't be coming into play. What I meant, is your not likely to say see a #45x MBTA local bus or subway line serve a route that straddles the state's border.

RIDOT does pay. Every penny. No Mass. tax $$$ for out-of-state services...that's the deal. RIDOT reimburses for all expenses, and T gets a cut of gate receipts at the 3 RI stations. Same agreement in effect if Plaistow, NH goes online. They turn a *small* operating profit on the out-of-state NEC mileage (only the out-of-state mileage...they still pay in more than they take to get to South Attleboro). And RIDOT contributes a share to vehicle purchases for some additional economy of scale. This is why the T.F. Green and Wickford Jct. extensions are so non-controversial in MA. Every mile further the T runs in another state there makes them more money...so long as they don't give all that profit back by running too many more trains through their own state to get there. Hence, limited Green/Wickford service until RIDOT's ready to scale for full-blast service that'll draw revenue outslugging the cost of running +X more trains thru S. Attleboro (it will...that's why they're interested).


Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington. Any district touching the state lines is going to be at least 2 RTA's removed from any MBTA bus or subway. Moot point for the T. RIPTA gets hurt by this, though. There are 2 bus lines in Pawtucket converging on Route 1 barely 500 feet from S. Attleboro station, but they can't cross the state line to loop in the parking lot.


As I was made to understand, (and I do need to verify this), but going by what was explained to me on the inside there's a demarcation or sorts between MBTA and MBCR Co. For example it was explained the Combo pass which used to be I think almost $70 dollars was dropped in price during the last fare increase to just $59? (reconstituted as the "Link" pass). Meanwhile, the Zone 8 monthly pass (the non-interlink Zone 8) for example jumped from I believe $198 to $250. What was explained to me was the sharp rise in the Commuter rail monthly passes were mainly to fund primarily into commuter rail division itself and its fare increase was more mirroring the services costs estimated for that unit. The LINK didn't cover commuter rail any longer and therefore it was allowed to drop in price.

They can justify where the fare goes with any explanation they want. But the state is the only decider on where its fares get apportioned. The public-private MBCR demarcation is operations only. Their contract states what the guaranteed payments and incentives are. They have no stake in where it comes from. Or really want any, because MBCR is only tasked with operating trains and has no internal infrastructure of its own for processing fares. Beyond making sure the conductors get themselves and their receipts physically transported back to the terminal to turn over the proceeds from that shift.

The actual sale of CSX ROW I believe was only a few years ago. In exchange the State is having them move from the Allston rail yard (next to the Mass. Pike.) and shift that to Worcester. I believe the media reported that Harvard University has already purchased the land beneath that Allston rail yard, and in exchange for the sale the state of Mass. agrees to lower the grade of all tracks west of the Worcester rail yard all the way to the New York border (and/or raise bridges) along that stretch to allow CSX to run double-stacked cargo trains. But the point about the dispatchers is that on lines not owned by the state, those private entities can favor cargo moves as opposed to passenger moves if those routes are busy.

Not that simple. The regional rail network was cobbled together from dozens of RR's merged, leased, dismembered, and granting trackage and control rights to each other. On agreements that often have 75-100 year long terms and are held by parties thrice removed from the companies that signed them. The southside was B&A for the Worcester Line, NYNH&H for the rest. Which were both merged into Penn Central, then busted up into publicly-owned Conrail (locals + freight) and Amtrak (intercity) when PC went mega-bankrupt and the government intervened. Then busted up some more to state ownership when Conrail got out of the passenger biz. Then Conrail went private, and then Conrail got bought by CSX and Norfolk Southern and sheared in half. But nearly every one of those old trackage agreements from the steam era passed through intact, and are in somebody's hands. Only reason the New England RR network is functional today was because the gov't takeover of PC safely collected enough of those agreements in public hands and paid off enough underwater creditors to stave off endless litigation.

But it's why we have these oddities:
-- T owns NEC to state line, but Amtrak dispatches and only Amtrak can do track work. It was the last line to qualify for subsidy. Amtrak was created before the T could legally move in and impose control, so when the state bought the title deed Amtrak already had exercised its dibs on the dispatching (not that it's been any problem since).
-- Amtrak owns and dispatches the NEC from the MA/RI border to New Haven, but the T has rights to run to New London (if subsidized by those states). Why? PC ran this crappy little DMU commuter train that bounced between Providence and New London (later Westerly) once per rush. They got denied fed permission to end the route, so it wasn't subsidized by any state when the feds took over. Amtrak's charter doesn't let it self-run non-intercity routes, so Conrail got stuck with it. Took them till '79 to finally kill off enough ridership to scuttle it. Which reverted the route's rights to the line owner, which was Amtrak at this point. Except...they can't legally hold sole rights to a commuter train, so it was passed for safekeeping to the next-nearest public operator, the T. Which never once operated on those tracks until T.F. Green opened 2 years ago.
-- The T has owned the Worcester Line to Framingham for 35 years, but it was the second-to-last private line before the NEC to go underwater enough to qualify for public subsidy. Dispatching passed into Conrail's hands before the T got its dibs, and Conrail (then CSX) guarded it jealously for freight ever since. Including the portion the T and Turnpike Authority owned. It wouldn't have made a difference if they bought the title deed to the whole ROW underneath CSX to Worcester or all the way to the NY state line. CSX still held the papers to the dispatching agreement Boston & Albany signed a century ago to get into then-new South Station. Whoever held that was effectively in charge. CSX leveraged it for maximum sale value.


That's what happens when some little fish signs a 99-year contract then gets swallowed, puked up, and swallowed again by 18 other fish. The contracts can end up pretty far afield. We're pretty fortunate here because the gov't did snap up so many ROW's under public ownership and we were spared some of the horror stories from other parts of the country. Some commuter rail systems have nothing but the CSX's of the world to negotiate with. The T just settled up the last private operator holding down any sort of control in its territory.

[whighlander]

*grin* it' not a debate. We're just discussing. :-) This isn't private either. I'm kinda curious now if I might have worked with F-Line. *inquisitive*

F-Line, -- another T-pedia article -- I hope you and Dig can hoist one together someday

Just ot pick a nit or two:

Fline wrote -- "Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington...."

1) Braintree on the Red Line is outside the average radius of Rt-128
2) both the #62 - Bedford VA Hospital and #76 Hanscom pass beyond both Rt-128 and outside of Lexington
3) Lexington is wholy within the T ditrict and only the privately conrolled Rt-128 Shuttle and the Town-owned and operated lexpress/Liberty Ride can operate in Lexington

PS: the Penn Central bankruptcy was once described as a sinecure for law firms specializing in Railroad Contract Law
because of the scale and magnitude of interelationships involved -- some of the original issues are still being litigated
a generation of partners have come and gone and the firms (or their successors) are still billing hours to some client or its successor

[Digital_Islandboy]

F-Line, -- another T-pedia article -- I hope you and Dig can hoist one together someday

Just ot pick a nit or two:

Fline wrote -- "Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington...."

1) Braintree on the Red Line is outside the average radius of Rt-128
2) both the #62 - Bedford VA Hospital and #76 Hanscom pass beyond both Rt-128 and outside of Lexington
3) Lexington is wholy within the T ditrict and only the privately conrolled Rt-128 Shuttle and the Town-owned and operated lexpress/Liberty Ride can operate in Lexington

PS: the Penn Central bankruptcy was once described as a sinecure for law firms specializing in Railroad Contract Law
because of the scale and magnitude of interelationships involved -- some of the original issues are still being litigated
a generation of partners have come and gone and the firms (or their successors) are still billing hours to some client or its successor

You also forgot the #70/70A bus. That's from Central Sq. (Cambridge)--Waltham (Cedarwood area) and/or Wyman Street. directly east of Route 128.

I would recommend MBTA look at a bus route from Waltham Center, going up Pleasant St., Belmont & Arlington Centers and around to Medford Sq. that could be instrumental in being a connection to routes that go beyond Route 128. and create a way to move up and down 128 without having to go all the way to Harvard Square first.

In terms of routes outside of 128, it might get worse. The #74 route to Belmont Center is one of the routes that I understand the MBTA is trying to cancel all together stating low ridership. Which essentially means the deadzone (gap) between the Mt. Auburn Street bus lines and Alewife will be widened. West of Harvard Square you have a number of buses that travel Mt. Auborn Street, a few on Concord Avenue, a bunch more which travel Massachusetts Avenue and you have another batch at Alewife.

[F-Line to Dudley]

There's still no outliers in the bus system that are going to run into charter trouble, or any reason to expand it beyond making sure the 128 park-and-rides like Anderson/Woburn are well-served. They signed an agreement last year with Brockton Area Transit to convert BAT's fare collection system to be interoperable with Charlie Cards. Huge deal for BAT because they have a well-patronized express route to Avon and Brockton out of Ashmont, and commuter rail transfers at several stops on the Middleboro Line.

That's the model they're pursuing for CR feeder bus studies jointly proposed by the T and regional MPO's. One card to swipe to get you on your regional RTA bus, one card to swipe to get you on your MBTA bus/CR/subway transfer. Follows the EZPASS model where a Mass Pike transponder is compatible with almost every toll road on the east coast, and the single-pass baseline enables more states to move to open-road tolling. The district boundaries don't matter much when the RTA's can "talk" to each other. In the T's case commuter rail is the only mode that presents that challenge to any significant degree, but it has the advantage of having run out-of-district and out-of-state from Day 1 of its founding. Really is a non-issue; they have a lot of freedom to tap, and financial upside to do it. (Now if only they'd proceed with the vaporware feeder study...bleh.)

The stumbling block, as always, is their falling down on the job on basic competency inside the district. Thankfully that isn't totally preventing beneficial deals from being struck with parties like BAT, MART, and RIDOT that do have their acts somewhat together. These are exactly the kinds of auxiliary revenue streams they need to be motivated to pursue if it's more or less free efficiency like the BAT/Charlie deal or conservatively managed net-gain like RIDOT/Providence Line (MART/Wachusett looking a little cost-iffy, though).

[whighlander]

There's still no outliers in the bus system that are going to run into charter trouble, or any reason to expand it beyond making sure the 128 park-and-rides like Anderson/Woburn are well-served. They signed an agreement last year with Brockton Area Transit to convert BAT's fare collection system to be interoperable with Charlie Cards. Huge deal for BAT because they have a well-patronized express route to Avon and Brockton out of Ashmont, and commuter rail transfers at several stops on the Middleboro Line.

That's the model they're pursuing for CR feeder bus studies jointly proposed by the T and regional MPO's. One card to swipe to get you on your regional RTA bus, one card to swipe to get you on your MBTA bus/CR/subway transfer. Follows the EZPASS model where a Mass Pike transponder is compatible with almost every toll road on the east coast, and the single-pass baseline enables more states to move to open-road tolling. The district boundaries don't matter much when the RTA's can "talk" to each other. In the T's case commuter rail is the only mode that presents that challenge to any significant degree, but it has the advantage of having run out-of-district and out-of-state from Day 1 of its founding. Really is a non-issue; they have a lot of freedom to tap, and financial upside to do it. (Now if only they'd proceed with the vaporware feeder study...bleh.)

The stumbling block, as always, is their falling down on the job on basic competency inside the district. Thankfully that isn't totally preventing beneficial deals from being struck with parties like BAT, MART, and RIDOT that do have their acts somewhat together. These are exactly the kinds of auxiliary revenue streams they need to be motivated to pursue if it's more or less free efficiency like the BAT/Charlie deal or conservatively managed net-gain like RIDOT/Providence Line (MART/Wachusett looking a little cost-iffy, though).

F-Line -- you missed the need to convert all parking at the T at Logan, the Common Garage to the Charlie system to get rid of all of the handling of cash and the need for people in booths

You swipe the Charlie by the RF reader or even better with a higher power transmitter you have open gate parking -- drive through your card is debited -- no need for any bottlenecks on the way out -- easy to offer discount parking on weekends to maximize garage revenues and boost T usage

[JohnAKeith]

Solution to the problems is more money from the cities & towns that are serviced by the T ... and maybe a city-run public transportation system layered on top of the MBTA.

[whighlander]

Solution to the problems is more money from the cities & towns that are serviced by the T ... and maybe a city-run public transportation system layered on top of the MBTA.

John -- Not going to happen -- certaily not in the next two to three years -- where are the Cities and Towns going to get more money to give to the T -- propoerty values have been declining for the past four years -- no one is going to tollerate paying higher taxes on a smaller valuation

No the T is going to have to make the tough choices to make the unions somewhat unhappy with respect to work rules, pensions and health plans to keep from having huge service cuts

In fact generically all of the fat-cat public sector unions will have to give-up the fat overtimes and the even fatter pensions based on them -- there is no justification for police, firemen, teachers, elctricians working for the T or Massport getting salaries or pensions over $100,000 -- None

[JohnAKeith]

Mmm. Regardless of any solution, none but one can happen in the next six months ... only a one-year "bailout" from the state would allow them to end the year in the black. A five year plan (or, two, three) would make a lot of sense, but nothing should be done drastically!

[Digital_Islandboy]

In fact generically all of the fat-cat public sector unions will have to give-up the fat overtimes and the even fatter pensions based on them -- there is no justification for police, firemen, teachers, elctricians working for the T or Massport getting salaries or pensions over $100,000 -- None

In the past, when I heard the proposal about T police being merged with the State Police, I thought, does that mean the entire state police force will have to be given free CharlieCard IDs too? Because that is likely what would have to happen because members of T police are supposed to be able to get in and out of the stations as its part of their jobs duties. I'm certain State Police would be glad for the privilege.

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- you missed the need to convert all parking at the T at Logan, the Common Garage to the Charlie system to get rid of all of the handling of cash and the need for people in booths

You swipe the Charlie by the RF reader or even better with a higher power transmitter you have open gate parking -- drive through your card is debited -- no need for any bottlenecks on the way out -- easy to offer discount parking on weekends to maximize garage revenues and boost T usage

Yes...and finally getting the commuter rail fully 100% converted onto the system. And what about that much-ballyhooed Proof of Payment at the rear doors on the Green Line? It's like the Charlie rollout got frozen in its tracks after a bullish start. Of all their big-deal internal initiatives this is the one that maximizes the farebox intake and minimizes the revenue leakage (oh God yes, when it comes to parking), extra administrative overhead, and schedule drag. But they kind of took their feet off the gas at pushing out full-force after the initial rollout. The centralized tech and all that fiber they laid out to every station are fully capable of running the transit universe on a Charlie card, but there's still baffling holes in the rollout plans years later that they've gone silent about fixing.


A thorough top-bottom review probably fingers this as one of the more appalling examples of organizational waste racked up in the forward-funding era. Chances are they are understating by miles the amount of lost revenue from not having their parking fare collection act together.

[Digital_Islandboy]

Yes...and finally getting the commuter rail fully 100% converted onto the system.

You want the real answer? It is more problems than thought. If you crack the CharlieCard it dies. The wire which is coiled inside and acts like a antenna gets tripped. If someone has a Commuter Rail (monthly pass) and that CharlieCard snaps, there's no easy way to verify what the person has. The only recourse would be for the passenger to pay the full-fare for that journey, and they can later file for a "4-6" or 6-8 week later refund.
In case you're wondering, in terms of checking serial numbers, there's nobody at the T with that sole job, persons can do it but it is terribly time consuming. The system that the T purchased from S&B takes FOREVER to look up a single serial number on the CCS. From 10 mins up to 30 mins. So it is never done since nobody has that kinda time in their schedule.
At least- the current monthly passes (printed on CharlieTicket stock) for Commuter Rail are visible. If you put the monthly pass on to CharlieCard you can't tell what's on there.

And what about that much-ballyhooed Proof of Payment at the rear doors on the Green Line? It's like the Charlie rollout got frozen in its tracks after a bullish start.

It was the G.M. D.A.G.'s baby. He up- and decided to leave and those still there may not have the drive to take on the added stress. Many of the upper-brass which have enough intelligence (and enough talents) go into managerial positions in the private sector took their skills and know-how with them. Danny Grabau skas was Romney's guy, so I wouldn't expect him to sit around and be a whipping boy for the Democrat administration anyway. I don't blame him. You still need conductors with card readers on Commuter Rail so it actually really doesn't require much difference from a revenue standpoint. MBCR was dealing with that, so it made no difference to me if they did it or not.


Of all their big-deal internal initiatives this is the one that maximizes the farebox intake and minimizes the revenue leakage (oh God yes, when it comes to parking), extra administrative overhead, and schedule drag. But they kind of took their feet off the gas at pushing out full-force after the initial rollout. The centralized tech and all that fiber they laid out to every station are fully capable of running the transit universe on a Charlie card, but there's still baffling holes in the rollout plans years later that they've gone silent about fixing.
If you put money on the CharlieCard that card will work ANYWHERE that has a system purchase from S&B. As I was made aware a certain supermarket in Germany has the same S&B system and you can use the Charlie Card to pay for groceries there.

In terms of stolen money. C.S.A.s got "shorts" every month for money they were missing from their stock. All tokens are accounted for, and all money they begin their shift with is accounted for, if they don't match C.S.A.'s were billed for it. Simple as that. They have to sign the slip for what their turning in thus indicating they swear that is the amount their turning in and the supervisor also signs the same slip. It is then taken over to another facility (under cameras) where it is counted again. So that urban legend that "they all get away with it" doesn't fly. It catches up with them and the state is perfectly happy prosecuting its employees that do that nonsense. I've seen T people get taken down even the ones which *thought* the T wouldn't miss it. The T will use different *ways* of finding out who in the chain has the sticky fingers.


A thorough top-bottom review probably fingers this as one of the more appalling examples of organizational waste racked up in the forward-funding era. Chances are they are understating by miles the amount of lost revenue from not having their parking fare collection act together.

I don't know if they still are, but, LAZ parking (private sector) as I understand was placed under state-contract for dealing with many of the parking garages. I think outsourcing to private sector is a badd idea. But I don't make the big decisions so those at the top will have to take the fall out for what happens at agencies outside of the MBTA.

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/02/22/just-across-the-river-patrick-and-murray-seem-unreachable-on-mass-transit/

As a leader of the legislature’s MBTA caucus, [Walz] said she approached Patrick to see if he wanted to weigh in on solutions for the shortfall and the devastating solutions that have so far been proposed by the transit agency. A Patrick aide said the Democratic governor had decreed it the legislature’s problem to grapple with because “‘we have other priorities‘ — a judgment call with which I profoundly disagree,” she said.

http://demotivators.despair.com/leadersdemotivator.jpg

[BeeLine]

Why isn't the MBTA installing solar systems on all those flat roofs they owen? If private development companies are finding it cost effective why not the T?
Cummings is very active with solar at major sites north and west of the city.
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x50799869/Solar-power-will-shine-on-Beverly-office-park-roofs
Why don't all the MBTA parking garages have solar roofs? If they install one on the new Salem garage it would generate enough power to keep the waiting room warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

[shmessy]

Why isn't the MBTA installing solar systems on all those flat roofs they owen? If private development companies are finding it cost effective why not the T?
Cummings is very active with solar at major sites north and west of the city.
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x50799869/Solar-power-will-shine-on-Beverly-office-park-roofs
Why don't all the MBTA parking garages have solar roofs? If they install one on the new Salem garage it would generate enough power to keep the waiting room warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

THIS!

Solar panel costs have dropped 50% in the past 2 years. It is INEXCUSABLE for our government buildings not to be plastered with these things NOW.

Interesting that our military is the vanguard in this move these days:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/technology/solar_city_military/index.htm

The T (along with others) should start waking up to the reality of this opportunity.

Mass. Transportation Secretary Davey should be put on the spot and asked what he is doing to accomplish this post haste. This is doable (hell, Solarcity will do it for them for FREE!) and there are no excuses anymore.

[Ron Newman]

Are the roofs of MBTA parking garages used for parking? If so, it would be hard to put solar panels on them.

[BeeLine]

The Cummings people built roofs on two existing parking garages. Weight loads are very different from the floors used for parking. This is the West Garage.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beelinebos/6779878908/in/photostream/ I would suggest it would quiet easy for the MBTA designers to call the Cummings people to find out how they did it. The MBTA could include solar roofs on all new garages (Salem and Beverly, just to mention a couple) and retrofit older garages. The disruption to the top parking was about a month or two.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
If the MA government had done this a year a go. Evergreen might still be in business today.
Another missed opportunity!!!!!

[shockingboston]

It’s easy:
1) Identify and study the top 3 most profitable public transit agency in the country. Then implement the key actions from the study that can help turn things around.

2) Increase rents and fees on MBTA owned property leased to others.

3) IMO…in order to make real change, you need to make at least one drastic change from the norm. Something no one expects or may generate the biggest black lash…
Such as...
a) Eliminate Student Rates. Students pay regular fare.
b) Eliminate the Bus Routes with the lowest ridership on annual basis for the next five years (so every year for the next 5yrs, 2-3 bus routes will be eliminated or consolidated)
c) Sub-contract all maintenance of tracks and trains. Used fixed rates and performance based contracts.
d) Sell MBTA Apparel
e) Set-up a program like “Adopt-A-Highway”- for the MBTA it will be “Adopt-A-Bus” or “…-Train” or “…-Track”. Donating is a Tax write-off, so you will get rich people who would do it.
f) Change all train stations to have entrance fares and exit fares. The entrance fare will be the same at every station. The exit fare will be based on what station you got on the train in relations to what station you exit. Therefore the further you ride from your entrance station the more you pay. The same could be done with buses, but it would be very complicated fare collection system.

[Commuting Boston Student]

It’s easy:
1) Identify and study the top 3 most profitable public transit agency in the country. Then implement the key actions from the study that can help turn things around.

2) Increase rents and fees on MBTA owned property leased to others.

3) IMO…in order to make real change, you need to make at least one drastic change from the norm. Something no one expects or may generate the biggest black lash…
Such as...
a) Eliminate Student Rates. Students pay regular fare.
b) Eliminate the Bus Routes with the lowest ridership on annual basis for the next five years (so every year for the next 5yrs, 2-3 bus routes will be eliminated or consolidated)
c) Sub-contract all maintenance of tracks and trains. Used fixed rates and performance based contracts.
d) Sell MBTA Apparel
e) Set-up a program like “Adopt-A-Highway”- for the MBTA it will be “Adopt-A-Bus” or “…-Train” or “…-Track”. Donating is a Tax write-off, so you will get rich people who would do it.
f) Change all train stations to have entrance fares and exit fares. The entrance fare will be the same at every station. The exit fare will be based on what station you got on the train in relations to what station you exit. Therefore the further you ride from your entrance station the more you pay. The same could be done with buses, but it would be very complicated fare collection system.

Interesting ideas, and I'd like to respond to some of them.

1) Are there even any public transit agencies running at a profit? If there aren't, can you really say 'study the three most profitable agencies' and not 'study the guys who aren't losing money as fast as we are?'

2) I have to disagree with this one, but then again, I'm a strong proponent of the idea that you should be trying to charge more people less instead of less people more. Slashing rents and fees might encourage new businesses to come in at the lower rates, leading to a net gain.

3a) My particular college doesn't actually have a student rate fare program, so this wouldn't affect me at all. I say go for it, but a part of me feels like responding to this with "and if you thought the complaining from all the student activist groups was bad when they WEREN'T the only target of a fare hike..."

3b) Absolutely! Do this! We should have already done this! On top of that, let's reduce the number of overall bus stops on some of the lines that are left - particularly anywhere that there are bus stops just one or two blocks away from each other. People are already walking to bus stops, I'm sure they're able to walk a little bit farther.

3c) See 3a, but replace 'student activist groups' with 'unions.' That'd probably be the quickest way out of the hole we're in, though.

3d) Sure, I'd throw $40 down or thereabouts for an MBTA hoodie. Maybe one with a map of the subway on it? (I don't actually own any hoodies.) I do wonder if that'd really put all that large of a dent in the problem, though, and I also don't really consider this a 'drastic' proposal.

3e) The FedEx Orange Line? I kind of like it, actually.

3f) If you're going to do something like that, a much cheaper and more straightforward option would just be to take whatever the maximum exit fare rate would be and charge that instead, even if you only go one stop over on the subway.

[Lrfox]

I'm fairly certain there isn't a single public transit agency in the US that's "profitable" in terms of simple revenue (fares, ads, rent, etc) vs. expenses. There may be a few in Japan or in Europe, but very few.

On a different note, I read somewhere that Patrick has proposed using some of the leftover snow removal funds the state had set aside to help alleviate some of the MBTA shortfall. Not a bad idea, but I'm guessing it's probably a drop in the bucket.

[JohnAKeith]

There's a "student rate"? Explain.

[Commuting Boston Student]

There's a "student rate"? Explain.

Students ride the T for 50% off the price of standard T fares and are eligible for a $20/month Student T-Pass good for unlimited travel on Bus, Subway, Express Bus, and Commuter Rail Zones 1A, 1 and 2 until 11:00 p.m. on school days.

Discounted rides or passes require a Student CharlieCard or CharlieTicket, available at participating junior high and high schools. See your school administrator for details.

I believe certain colleges and universities also offer the discounted fare options. Mine does not.

[JohnAKeith]

Hmmm. I don't know if I could support charging public school students the full-price. This is how high school students get to and from school.

I don't know how many colleges have programs; I've never heard of it.

[cozzyd]

I think MIT probably just subsidizes T-Passes, but through MIT it's 50% off...

[czsz]

Just a note - sponsored stations were already tried and failed - at least a couple times. Maybe an "Adopt a Subway" program with a smaller donation threshold would be helpful, though.

Oh, and there's already MBTA merchandise: http://www.mbtagifts.com/shop.php

[cozzyd]

I don't know when they started doing this, but I noticed the MBTA is selling antique maps and signs on its web site...

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't know when they started doing this, but I noticed the MBTA is selling antique maps and signs on its web site...

It's via a third part (the Ward Maps stores on Mass Ave in Cambridge).

[vanshnookenraggen]

I moved the solar energy discussions here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4124).

[shockingboston]

1) Are there even any public transit agencies running at a profit? If there aren't, can you really say 'study the three most profitable agencies' and not 'study the guys who aren't losing money as fast as we are?'

I would not study an agency that is losing money, even if it is at a slower rate. If your goal is to be profitbale only study agencies that are profitable. If there aren't any profitable public agency, then find the closest business model that resembles your organizational structure and study that.


3d) Sure, I'd throw $40 down or thereabouts for an MBTA hoodie. Maybe one with a map of the subway on it? (I don't actually own any hoodies.) I do wonder if that'd really put all that large of a dent in the problem, though, and I also don't really consider this a 'drastic' proposal.

You are right- this is not drastic, but I bet there would be a cult like following for these items.

[whighlander]

I would not study an agency that is losing money, even if it is at a slower rate. If your goal is to be profitbale only study agencies that are profitable. If there aren't any profitable public agency, then find the closest business model that resembles your organizational structure and study that.



You are right- this is not drastic, but I bet there would be a cult like following for these items.

I sitll suggest that there's a market on cable channels for 'Reality programs' related to heavy, dangerous and dirty work. If there is a demand for fishing, logging and digging there should be a oportuity to sell the challlenge of keeping the T running -- such as the following promo:

"Witness the constant battle in the wee hours every night to keep the T running for its million riders of trains, busses, trolleys, tracklesss trolleys and subways. Each night in just 4 hours a small army decends into the voids to perform routine and emergency care on the T's 100 year old tunnels underneath Boston's historic streets nd buildings, elevated structures, tracks in busy streets and the overhead wires powering trackless and tracked trolleys. See T-men and T-gals welding, diging, sawing, replacing wiring, filling sinking ground under the tracks, pumping out tunnels filling with water and beset with rats, etc. Watch the commuter rail and trolley mainternnce crews battle downed tree limbs, snow (some years), freeaing and thawing ground. "

I'd bet that such a program would really spur the sale to T-shirts, flashlights and hoodies

Some other highlight from the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA


the subway averaged 598,200 riders -- fourth busiest subway system in the United States.
the combined Green Line and Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line -- the busiest light-rail system in the U.S, with a weekday ridership of 255,100

In 2006, 31.60% of workers in the city proper commuted by public transport.

one of only two U.S. transit agencies that operate all of the five major types of transit vehicles: regional (commuter) rail trains, "heavy" rapid transit (subway/elevated) trains, light rail vehicles (trolleys), electric trolleybuses and motor buses. The other is Philadelphia's Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).

the largest consumer of electricity in Massachusetts,
the second-largest land owner after the Department of Conservation and Recreation
the CNG bus fleet was the largest consumer of alternative fuels in the state

[bbfen]

I would not study an agency that is losing money, even if it is at a slower rate. If your goal is to be profitbale only study agencies that are profitable. If there aren't any profitable public agency, then find the closest business model that resembles your organizational structure and study that.



You are right- this is not drastic, but I bet there would be a cult like following for these items.

Isn't the "profitable public agency" you're looking for an oxymoron? Running in balance? Sure, but the word "profitable" makes me cringe. If there was profit to be found, private enterprise would've stepped in long ago.

[Kahta]

Isn't the "profitable public agency" you're looking for an oxymoron? Running in balance? Sure, but the word "profitable" makes me cringe. If there was profit to be found, private enterprise would've stepped in long ago.

I think "reasonable loss" (60% of costs covered by users vs 25% now) is a fair goal for a public agency.

[Shepard]

Hong Kong's system is in the real estate business, and spectacularly profitable as a result. Imagine if the MBTA could build dense mini-cities around Alewife or Wellington. Even just speaking in terms of land it owns, imagine if the MBTA could itself build towers on air rights over the Reservoir yards by Cleveland Circle.

I have a great picture somewhere of the elevated rail being constructed over Queens Boulevard - in the middle of agricultural farmland. Even in this country the heyday of transit went hand in hand with real estate speculation.

[BostonUrbEx]

Hong Kong's system is in the real estate business, and spectacularly profitable as a result. Imagine if the MBTA could build dense mini-cities around Alewife or Wellington. Even just speaking in terms of land it owns, imagine if the MBTA could itself build towers on air rights over the Reservoir yards by Cleveland Circle.

I have a great picture somewhere of the elevated rail being constructed over Queens Boulevard - in the middle of agricultural farmland. Even in this country the heyday of transit went hand in hand with real estate speculation.

The MBTA building it's own developments? They'd run into terrible cost overruns, look like shit (if not, they will after 10 years), will not be structurally sound in 10 years, and will function poorly.

[whighlander]

Hong Kong's system is in the real estate business, and spectacularly profitable as a result. Imagine if the MBTA could build dense mini-cities around Alewife or Wellington. Even just speaking in terms of land it owns, imagine if the MBTA could itself build towers on air rights over the Reservoir yards by Cleveland Circle.

I have a great picture somewhere of the elevated rail being constructed over Queens Boulevard - in the middle of agricultural farmland. Even in this country the heyday of transit went hand in hand with real estate speculation.

Shep -- in cae you haven't been to Alewife lately I heartily coment a walk about -- in the past decade there has been a significant amount of development around Alewife -- housing, restaurants, office and research and park land

what Alewife lacks:
1) better road connections to Lake Street and the other side of the tracks
2) a nice suite hotel
3) a couple of more restaurants

[Shepard]

^ Not disputing that things are happening at Alewife. I'm saying that in a better world the MBTA would be in on the financial upside.

[whighlander]

^ Not disputing that things are happening at Alewife. I'm saying that in a better world the MBTA would be in on the financial upside.

Sounds - like -- T Incremenal Financing

Perhaps there is a germ of an idea -- not that the T should do or even control the development -- but that the development around a place such as Alewife, Wellington, Riverside could be tied financially to the presense of the T Station and the developers would somehow "pay" for the T facilities in their midst

Perhaps the model is a Business Improvement District -- this would be the Transit Improvement District where as the developer or owner of a structure in a T-nexus you would pay and get in exchange a role in planning for enhanements

there could be 3 rings:
1) inner -- your project can connect to the T station
2) middle -- your project has a substantial number of commuters arriving at your premises from the station
3) outer -- your project has a significant number of commters boarding through the T station

Each ring gets assessed at a rate based on the magniude of the project and the appropriate ring

Anyway -- an idea

[Digital_Islandboy]

Hmmm. I don't know if I could support charging public school students the full-price. This is how high school students get to and from school.

I don't know how many colleges have programs; I've never heard of it.

Some college do have discount passes. I do recall hearing Northeastern for example. However, if you're a student that wants in, you *must* sign up early--- in the school year though. I believe the lady expects to have all forms by August if not September... If you wait until October to try to sign-up I think you'll be told you must wait until November or January? to sign up?

[Digital_Islandboy]

Looks like protests have started in Somerville. Perhaps an "occupy the T movement"? lol
--
Protesters Rally in Somerville
By Mercer R. Cook and Kerry M. Flynn, CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
Published: Wednesday, February 29, 2012
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/29/protesters-rally-somerville/

(Snip)
Over 100 people gathered in front of Somerville High School to protest service cuts and fare increases proposed by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Services before a public hearing with the MBTA scheduled to be held on Tuesday.
(end Snip)

[whighlander]

Looks like protests have started in Somerville. Perhaps an "occupy the T movement"? lol
--
Protesters Rally in Somerville
By Mercer R. Cook and Kerry M. Flynn, CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
Published: Wednesday, February 29, 2012
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/29/protesters-rally-somerville/

(Snip)
Over 100 people gathered in front of Somerville High School to protest service cuts and fare increases proposed by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Services before a public hearing with the MBTA scheduled to be held on Tuesday.
(end Snip)

Digi--- Here's a novel idea for a protest -- the new "Charlie on the MBTA" -- board a subway or LRV and start camping in it until the T Boses are willing to listen to your ideas

Note -- I'm not advocating the above -- just musing on how the media might cover it

[cozzyd]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/03/04/digital-billboards-coming-stations/NYmytMhSo9knAwMx6bKATK/story.html?p1=Upbox_links

[Matthew]

Isn't the "profitable public agency" you're looking for an oxymoron? Running in balance? Sure, but the word "profitable" makes me cringe. If there was profit to be found, private enterprise would've stepped in long ago.

There are profitable public transit agencies. Not in this [transit-backwards] country though. MTR in Hong Kong comes to mind. The public Japan Railways are profitable, as are the myriad private railways that operate closely together in Japan. And that's before you factor in the profits they make from real estate.

What makes our transit systems hemorrhage money is a combination of factors. First and foremost is land use policy. We have an insane fixation on building parking lots on valuable station adjacent land. Parking lots are the least effective way to build ridership, since you are limited by the relatively few number of spaces. The reason why we hurt ourselves this way is due to perverse Federal incentives as well as poorly thought out zoning codes which have proliferated across the country. In order to have profitable transit, you need heavy TWO-way ridership ALL day. That means there must be a variety of destinations at nearly every station on the line, so that people have reason to go there at all times of day (instead of the usual inbound/outbound pattern we focus on).

Second, we have fairly incompetent management of agencies and weird political divisions that get in the way. There is a major NIH factor at work which prevents us from importing best practices from other places. The fact is, Americans have lost the ability to plan, build and operate passenger railroads competently over the past generation or two. We need to get that back. But we're going to have to play catch up for a while. And Americans hate doing that -- it hurts our ego. So they'd rather pretend that everything is just fine, and we continue to run 50s-style commuter operations with lumbering, slow diesel locomotives, in the 21st century.

Finally, the main competition is heavily subsidized by the government: highways and roads. Railroads and public transit are high fixed cost businesses. In order to meet those costs, they need to attract as many fare-paying customers as possible. But if those customers are tempted away by freeways and under-priced gasoline, then the transit system gets screwed twice over. Hence, most have devolved into basket cases on life support, from which most any sane, competent upper management has fled for greener fields.

[Shepard]

Great post. ^

[Commuting Boston Student]

Is there no way we can't have both destinations and parking? Say, build a mall around the station (or build stations inside existing malls...) and have parking around that which would service both the mall and the station?

[Ron Newman]

Parking should be in garages. Surface parking lots, especially near T stations, are a waste of land that has much more valuable uses.

[Matthew]

Is there no way we can't have both destinations and parking? Say, build a mall around the station (or build stations inside existing malls...) and have parking around that which would service both the mall and the station?

Malls aren't a bad idea. If you ever go to Japan, you'll notice that most of big stations are malls. It's pretty neat. You come home from work and can go shopping on your way back from the station.

But building parking around the malls just pushes the problem back one level. Now you trap people in the malls. As Ron says, valuable land shouldn't be used for parking, so garages are an option. But then you run the risk of building large, massively subsidized parking garages that waste space too. No, there cannot be any parking requirements imposed by law -- they invariably lead to some kind of market failure.

The answer is to sell or lease land parcels and let developers decide what is profitable, whether that be parking, or offices, residences, or anything! You would think that is the most obvious answer in this country which prides itself on capitalism. But for all the noise we Americans make about the wonders of the free market, we are some of the worst addicts of road and parking socialism in the world. Every municipality seems to have "minimum" parking requirements: the zoning codes are extremely specific, down to the anal-retentive level about parking spaces required. And god forbid you talk about charging for parking -- you'll have legions of suburbanites screaming for your head if you don't give them free parking.

[Ron Newman]

CambridgeSide Galleria, Copley Place, and Prudential malls all charge for parking in their garages.

[Matthew]

I was thinking of suburban stations when I wrote that. The MBTA does charge a nominal fee for parking in their lots, but it isn't even close to enough to cover the costs of a parking garage (e.g. like the planned Salem garage).

It is true that people do pay for privately owned city garages, although street parking is generally mis-priced. For example, near me you can go out in the evening and be entertained by the sight of people desperately fighting for the free street parking. That's what happens when a limited resource like that is given away for nothing, or for too little. Mis-pricing works both ways. At other times of day, loads of metered spots go empty because people don't want to pay that much, and they hunt for the free spots instead. In that case, the price is too high.

[Commuting Boston Student]

I also want to add that, if we are talking about suburban stations, trapping people in the mall that you would build with the parking that you would build around the mall is not that much of an issue - there's only so far you can walk, after all.

And like whigh said - there has to be parking SOMEWHERE, or you're not going to get any new ridership outside of those already living on or near the system.

But, maybe we can solve all these problems at once.

What about underground parking beneath the station platform and fare areas, with a mall on top of that - maybe even with a "scenic" overlook into the station for people-watchers and railfans - and offices/residences/a hotel on top of that? Kind of like a tiered building.

[HenryAlan]

Malls sound like an okay idea, but what we really need at the outlying stations is jobs. If Forest Hills, Alewife, Riverside all had surrounding office towers and/or lab facilities, some of the people who drive or bus to them, would not get on the subway at all, while at the same time, some of the empty trains heading back out from downtown would carry commuters. Every transit line should ultimately be seen as a high density spine, above which there should be office and residential towers, along with a mall here and there.

Of course, if such a plan actually came together, it would require a real urban ring to be built, to accommodate the large number of people moving from one spine to another.

[whighlander]

Malls sound like an okay idea, but what we really need at the outlying stations is jobs. If Forest Hills, Alewife, Riverside all had surrounding office towers and/or lab facilities, some of the people who drive or bus to them, would not get on the subway at all, while at the same time, some of the empty trains heading back out from downtown would carry commuters. Every transit line should ultimately be seen as a high density spine, above which there should be office and residential towers, along with a mall here and there.

Of course, if such a plan actually came together, it would require a real urban ring to be built, to accommodate the large number of people moving from one spine to another.

Henry -- apparently you've not been to Alewife recently -- it has a considerable number of both residences and office / lab buildings -- some what lacking in retail and food unless you walk down to Fresh Pond Shopping Center

And as the head of the new HQ for "Big Data" for HP said when he was asked why Alewife and not Kendall:
1) he was old DEC and lived in the suburbs
2) he figured there were probably quite a few of his senior staff-to-be who lived suburban style and hence Rt-2
3) he also figured that a number of the younger staff wanted the Cambridge, Sommerville, Boston lifestyle -- so you had Red Line, and biking available and Alewife allowed all of them

So you have the ideal circumstance -- Alewife meets you criteria

[Matthew]

I also want to add that, if we are talking about suburban stations, trapping people in the mall that you would build with the parking that you would build around the mall is not that much of an issue - there's only so far you can walk, after all.

And like whigh said - there has to be parking SOMEWHERE, or you're not going to get any new ridership outside of those already living on or near the system.


Ah, but you see, suburban doesn't have to equal "unwalkable." That's just a perversion introduced by zoning. In most places where zoning doesn't wreak havoc, and also in older neighborhoods in the United States that have retained their character, it is quite possible to walk from place to place in a suburb. Ridership does live near the system, when given the opportunity.

This is why I put forward the "free market" solution. If parking is worthwhile, then someone will build it and charge for it. Or, they can choose to build other things instead. It's quite simple, requires little planning, and little to no zoning. And hey, if nearby businesses want to pool together and build a subsidized parking lot so that people can park for free and come to their businesses, that's fine too. It's government subsidies of parking lots that always end up being artificial and heavy handed, a huge distortion in the market.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Ah, but you see, suburban doesn't have to equal "unwalkable." That's just a perversion introduced by zoning. In most places where zoning doesn't wreak havoc, and also in older neighborhoods in the United States that have retained their character, it is quite possible to walk from place to place in a suburb. Ridership does live near the system, when given the opportunity.
You mean like in Houston?

This is why I put forward the "free market" solution. If parking is worthwhile, then someone will build it and charge for it. Or, they can choose to build other things instead. It's quite simple, requires little planning, and little to no zoning. And hey, if nearby businesses want to pool together and build a subsidized parking lot so that people can park for free and come to their businesses, that's fine too. It's government subsidies of parking lots that always end up being artificial and heavy handed, a huge distortion in the market.
When does the government subsidize private parking lots? In South Boston the city has gone so far as to ban additional parking surface lots (i.e., the "free market" created surface lots, zoning has attempted to correct that).

[whighlander]

Time for the Legislature to "bite the proverbial bullet" and restructure both the union contracts as well as any other employee contracts:

1) No more substantial bonus for overtime -- max of 5% for regular overtime and 10% for extraordinary
2) Cap on total compensation of 130% of base compensation for a given position -- no more $200,000 per year electricians and plumbers
3) No more defined pensions for new hires -- only matching compensation 401-K-like defined contribution plans privately managed
4) No more health plans for retired workers for new hires
5) No more early retirement except based on the value of their 401-K-like plan
6) No more anti-flexibility work rules

all of the above to apply immediately to all except the retirement features which only effect new hires beginning when the plan is signed by the Governor

This will not fix all of the T's problems -- but it will close a lot of the current gap between revenues and expenditures

[shockingboston]

I had an epiphany.

It’s easy:

They do not need to fix the financial mess, but rather change people’s perception of their financial position. I haven’t done the extensive research, but if some of the comments regarding ‘Profitable Public Transportation is an oxymoron’ are true, then the T should focus on improving how people think about the T and their services.

So instead of telling the public it will need a fare hike and service cuts, to help improve the financial bottom line; it would be ‘there will be an increase in rates and changes to service distribution to ensure we are providing the best service possible to our valued customers’ (written more poetically and sincerely though). It should read something like what you get from Telephone Company, Cable Company and Gas Company before they raise their rates. Even when I get a notice from the cable company in regards to a channel line-up change, it always states ‘in-order to provide you with the best service and channel viewing possibilities’, etc.

This will also include some deals with the media, so that the underlining theme to every story about the MBTA is ‘they’re doing their best to provide you with the best’. (Cheesy; I know)

They need a boost in their PR campaign. Convince the public that the huge debt, it not from miss-management, bad public official decision, poor project planning and management, inefficient maintenance (I am just throwing possible reasons out there, I do not know the real reason for the T debt problems), but a result from providing great service and maintaining one of the best transit systems in the world. (It should not include stupid videos that hi-light more of their inefficiencies).

MBTA officials need to show the public, that we are getting the best possible deal there is. That the current fare and new fare, gives us the ‘best bang for our buck’. That with the new services provided, you can still get to anywhere seamlessly.

It’s all about perception. They need to be able to spit on our cupcake and call it frosting and make us believe it. And even after the first sour bite, they come back and convince us that is how great frosting is supposed to taste.

If you think you are getting the best product at a discount, you will tend overlook other stuff. This should alleviate the public concerns that they are getting ripped off and gouged by the T.

[choo]

I think there is something to be said for the T revamping its image and playing up its value. The T's image is largely defined by the Herald Op-ed page and comment board. But, It is public transportation, there to serve the public as a public good. I have the opinion that it should be just that GOOD. meaning properly funded by the beneficiaries (deliberately not using the term users because even non-users benefit tremendously- whether it be through property valuation or reduced car commute time by taking hundreds of thousands of drivers off the road).

The T is wanted by many to serve the interest of the public at no expense to the public. This is not how we think of roads or the police department, or FDA. Currently on the T's busiest days, New Years Eve, July 4, the T operates for FREE to serve the public as it celebrates and SPENDS MONEY. In a private system, not only would it not be free, they would also jack up the price (supply v. demand). Ironically, this is likely one of the few times of year many families from outside the city that don't work in Boston, will interact with the T, and they do it at no cost.

[omaja]

I had an epiphany.

It’s easy:

They do not need to fix the financial mess, but rather change people’s perception of their financial position. I haven’t done the extensive research, but if some of the comments regarding ‘Profitable Public Transportation is an oxymoron’ are true, then the T should focus on improving how people think about the T and their services.

MBTA officials need to show the public, that we are getting the best possible deal there is. That the current fare and new fare, gives us the ‘best bang for our buck’. That with the new services provided, you can still get to anywhere seamlessly.

If you think you are getting the best product at a discount, you will tend overlook other stuff. This should alleviate the public concerns that they are getting ripped off and gouged by the T.

I certainly appreciate the thought behind what you're saying -- especially regarding the T's PR machine being completely broken (if it even exists?).

That said, no matter how you spin it, fare hikes combined with service cuts equates to less value and getting ripped off.

There are seemingly no attempts for the T to renegotiate some of its operating/personnel expenses, I think working on this would do a lot to help their image as a bloated, overpaid, underworked government agency. Then they can start focusing on touting value for customers.

[Shepard]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

GOVERNOR: [*glances at latest Obama 54, Romney 42 polling snapshot*] Hmm...let's see what Georgetown townhouses are on the market this week.

[omaja]

... and at the end of the day the MBTA continues to carry a massive debt load and has no money to keep up the system, let alone expand it. That's the status quo, not an improvement!

[whighlander]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

Shep -- while not as many the Urban hacks are just as incompetent and useless as the proverbial "... on a ...."

The fundamental problem is as has been noted by others -- the enormous amount of waste, some fraud and corruption much associated with the T's really fat union contracts. Not to ignore the equally fat management contracts and the many millions poured down rat-holes of "most favored status" consulting deals.

The citizen taxpayers who support the rest of the state are getting quite annoyed by the failure of their elected reps to do anything. Unfortunately, since there is no real opposition party the reps just keep getting re-elected and have minimal incentive to take on the unions. The current governor and his cronies are apparently unwilling to exercise any leadership -- and so it goes.

Sooner or later -- the clock will strike and the public will throw the bums out -- Note this happened up and down the ballots in almost all of the other states in the November 2010 elections

[BostonUrbEx]

Sooner or later -- the clock will strike and the public will throw the bums out -- Note this happened up and down the ballots in almost all of the other states in the November 2010 elections

Really? Because all they did was elect another slew of bums to replace the bums. John Q. Public is a dumbass and the bums are going to take him for a ride, and if not with a D in front of their name, then with an R.

[Kahta]

Really? Because all they did was elect another slew of bums to replace the bums. John Q. Public is a dumbass and the bums are going to take him for a ride, and if not with a D in front of their name, then with an R.

The newly elected people with an R in front of their name were able to stand up to the status quo on the debt issue about a year ago.

[whighlander]

Really? Because all they did was elect another slew of bums to replace the bums. John Q. Public is a dumbass and the bums are going to take him for a ride, and if not with a D in front of their name, then with an R.

Urb -- Perhaps

But I think that the public has learned a painful lesson and will be willing to keep throwing Bums out -- until the people we elect to represent us in government get the message

You see for about a generation people expressed the opinion that Congress was a 'Bunch of $$$hts" -- but that my guy or gal was OK because he/she 'Brought home the Bacon" over the "Bridge to kNowear"

Now however Joe Sixpack & Marry HamburgerHelper as well as Joseph Pinot Noir & Marie "Brie and Carrrs' Assorted Biscuits for Cheese" have finally figured it out -- the two commandments of good governance:

1) It's Our Money
2) It's Our Seat

The Bums have already started running for the hills (record number of retirements this early in the year -- two in the last week -- 1 from each Party) and the rest who are too dumb to see the handwriting on the wall -- well they'll see it on election night

[F-Line to Dudley]

Urb -- Perhaps

But I think that the public has learned a painful lesson and will be willing to keep throwing Bums out -- until the people we elect to represent us in government get the message

You see for about a generation people expressed the opinion that Congress was a 'Bunch of $$$hts" -- but that my guy or gal was OK because he/she 'Brought home the Bacon" over the "Bridge to kNowear"

Now however Joe Sixpack & Marry HamburgerHelper as well as Joseph Pinot Noir & Marie "Brie and Carrrs' Assorted Biscuits for Cheese" have finally figured it out -- the two commandments of good governance:

1) It's Our Money
2) It's Our Seat

The Bums have already started running for the hills (record number of retirements this early in the year -- two in the last week -- 1 from each Party) and the rest who are too dumb to see the handwriting on the wall -- well they'll see it on election night

I saw some recent article in the Globe about Sal DiMasi's surprise transfer to a local prison and what that may imply about the singing he's been doing to the authorities about other legislators on the take. Some off-record legislator made a telling quote about which pols may be sweating getting tarred with even incidental association with that culture of graft. Basically he said, if they're over 50 they're nervous as hell...under 50, not so much. That pretty much says it. There's a generational break erupting in office-holders. Locally it's anyone who's still covered in residual Bulger/Finneran/DiMasi stench-by-association vs. the ones elected later. That former group is realizing that coattails become tentacles given time and brainrot and by and large are getting out before they run the risk of being told to.

[Matthew]

The newly elected people with an R in front of their name were able to stand up to the status quo on the debt issue about a year ago.

Please share what you are smoking. It is only fair.

[whighlander]

Please share what you are smoking. It is only fair.

Mathew -- I'd love to see someone put a link to the Deficit / Debt "Clock"

Latest estimate on ObamaCare is 2X the original numbers -- CBO scoring when the full period of both benefits and revenues are included -- in classic "Timeshare Condo" sales approach when Obamacare was initially scored -- it only included partial activation of benefits but full revenue sources**

Latest estimates for the budget gap in 2020 is many T$s bigger than the estimate when the Administration took office

** Note the CBO only 'scores" what the Congress asks for -- in FY 2010, the proponents desperately wanted to keep the cost side of the ledger to under $1T -- so a lot of not-quite FASB tricks were played

[Matthew]

Check your facts. The Affordable Care Act is fully paid for, and will ultimately reduce the deficit (http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/news/economy/health-reform-costs/), unlike most Republican initiatives of the last decade, including the debt-financed Bush tax cuts.

Last year, [the CBO] determined that the Affordable Care Act as a whole would reduce deficits by $210 billion between 2012 and 2021.


Current estimates of budget gaps still account for the largest depression in American history since the 1930s, and also assume that the budget-busting Bush tax cuts will be permanently extended. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/28/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts/index.htm) according to current law at the end of 2012, then most of the deficit problems will be fixed.

I am curious about why we are still talking about service cuts when research shows that usage of public transportation is booming and returning to heights not seen since the 50s?

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120312_2011Ridership.aspx

[FrankLloydMike]

There's a generational break erupting in office-holders. Locally it's anyone who's still covered in residual Bulger/Finneran/DiMasi stench-by-association vs. the ones elected later.

It's worth noting that in New Hampshire, one of the many states mentioned by whighlander that went Republican last year, the Speaker of the House is William O'Brien, former law partner of Tom Finneran at Finneran, Byrne, Drechsler & O'Brien.

With New Hampshire's excessively large state house, individual representatives tend to be fairly anonymous. Most people had no idea who William O'Brien, who previously held no leadership role, or the other representatives who have become members of the majority leadership, or simply primary sponsors of unpopular legislation were prior to November 2010. It was simply a combination of a lopsidedly motivated turnout, protest votes, and I'd guess people not really knowing who they were voting for. It was Republicans in New Hampshire, after all, who voted for an income tax and to abolish the death penalty (both vetoed by a Democrat) as recently as 12 years ago. So that's all fair--that's how elections work--but I don't think it's accurate to say the people--at least in New England--were voting to end infrastructure investments and the like.

It's not quite the same as the corruption of the House leadership in Mass--though O'Brien has certainly had his fair share of controversies--but I'd guess that even most people who voted Republican in 2010 were not looking for the sort of policies and tactics O'Brien has employed. The next election will help answer how those elected in 2010 or who have become well-known as part of O'Brien's cohort fare now that they are better known.

It's telling, though, that Democrats have won all but one special election (the other being won by a pro-choice, pro-union Republican who was not endorsed by O'Brien), including for a seat in the same district as O'Brien. That, and that in the latest UNH Granite State Poll, in response to the question asking what is the Most Important Problem Facing NH, 10% of respondents answered "Other" and specified that the Republican-led legislature is their biggest concern (http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2012_winter_govapp020612.pdf).

[bbfen]

words, words, word

Please, dear, stop trying to confuse the conservatives with facts. (Said in my best Maggie Smith Downton Abbey/Gosford Park impressionation.)

[FrankLloydMike]

Please, dear, stop trying to confuse the conservatives with facts. (Said in my best Maggie Smith Downton Abbey/Gosford Park impressionation.)

Haha. Good impression, and even better point.

[whighlander]

Haha. Good impression, and even better point.

Frankly my Loyd I don't give a damn -- said in my most credible antebellum Southern Aristocratic accent

[FrankLloydMike]

Frankly my Loyd I don't give a damn -- said in my most credible antebellum Southern Aristocratic accent

Also very good. And I like that you got rid of the superfluous "L" in Lloyd--it's about time we streamline that name!

[whighlander]

Also very good. And I like that you got rid of the superfluous "L" in Lloyd--it's about time we streamline that name!

Frank -- always disliked double letters in English

NOTE for all concerned -- This thread is being formally hijacked -- control will be returned later!

The following is a proposal for Euro-English

European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.


As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi TU understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.


Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/mbta-unveils-percent-fare-hike-limited-service-cuts-also-proposed/EPs6zCdnFMtk7nMu19BGuO/index.html?p1=News_links

Fare Increase plan v2.0 revealed. As expected, a lot less punitive than the doomsday cuts of a couple months ago. No weekend service for Greenbush (appropriate...it's underperforming), Kingston/Plymouth (not so sure about this wisdom...people want to go there on weekends, esp. in-season), Needham (that's going to rankle the outer neighborhoods and a 128 construction-addled Needham bigtime, but this line has had no weekend service for most of its existence so that's not an unfamiliar feeling. I do think with 128 hitting the heavy-heavy duty Needham construction schedule over the next 18 months that they may have to revisit this one on construction mitigation grounds). Quincy ferry loses weekend service (appropriate...ferries have near-nil demand outside commute hours). 4 bus routes eliminated entirely + 14 with reduced schedules (no routes specified yet, but if that's it they'll probably be obscure or redundant ones). E line runs to Brigham Circle but not Heath on weekends (huh???...does -1/2 mile really matter other than forcing a new fake wedge issue to eliminate street-running? Zilch labor/ops savings in this...smells like a divide-and-conquer Northeastern vs. the rest of the corridor on quelling the opposition. JP is going to loudly call bullshit.).

I would've whacked all the weekend ferries in lieu of punishing Needham while 128 is a mess or hurting Plymouth in beach weather, or short-turned more lines on the schedule to soften that blow a little. And this half-assed plan on the E is such transparent passive-aggression against the in-street tracks it should be spiked on simple grounds that it saves no money to begin with. But those are nitpicks and horse-trading for the "service cuts generator" phone app...not the apocalypse.

That's it for service reductions. Fare hikes all over, 23% on average (as expected, but less severe than the doomsday proposals). And they get some band-aid funding sources to patch in the interim.

But no structural reform. That's still the disinterested Legislature's and Governor's problem.


I'd say this isn't over by a longshot because everything's got such a short-term focus and no outlook beyond the remainder of this fiscal year. Either there's some other behind-closed-doors commitment being dangled to address the structural flaws or this is #1 of a 1-2 punch of proposals. Otherwise what leverage did the doomsday proposals buy them when this is a full retreat to a minimal band-aid? The diverted funding patches are so very very month-to-month that can't be the only move.

Return serve...not a resolution. The chess game will go on.

[InTheHood]

The elimination of weekend E line service between Brigham Circle and Heath really rankles. As you correctly note, F-Line, this has bupkus to do with budget and everything to do with the T's decades-long efforts to extract themselves from any and all street operations. E Line cut-backs are automatically included in any service change they raise, and "justified" by redundancy with the 39 bus overlap that exists primarily because of the elimination of Arborway service. The argument is circular and cynical.

I'd like to force the entire inept T management team to spend a week in Zurich (or, hell, even Toronto) to see how a massive street-running light rail network can and should be managed, in very crowded cities that get a bunch of snow and foul weather. T management is stuck navel gazing and always sniffs about the issues they face running service in the streets ... they should instead be embarrassed that they can't manage what others view as routine. Show a little pride, guys.

[Shepard]

Or, if the T truly hates running streetcars, then politely ask the city to remove parking from that stretch of Huntington/South Huntingon, remove an outbound travel lane, and ban cars from the median.

[BussesAin'tTrains]

^ and if that fails, extending the Huntington Ave tunnel! Right? RIGHT?

[KentXie]

Are the roofs of MBTA parking garages used for parking? If so, it would be hard to put solar panels on them.

Nonsense! There are many surface parking lots that have solar panels that are attached to light poles. Erect those on parking lots and place them there.

[datadyne007]

The E-Line should have been cut at Brigham Circle years ago. The nail in the coffin of the streetcar branch of the E was driven in 1986 and the pathetic Heath St. section has been compromising service ever since with trolleys stuck in traffic and involved in accidents. F-Line, you say "what harm can the 1/2 mile stretch do?" but it is actually the part that completely ruins the E-Line's timeliness. By crossing back at Brigham Circle, the E-Line will now be in its own ROW the entire time. This shouldn't just happen on weekends. This should happen all the time. The end of the E-line should be Brigham Circle. Maybe if the T wishes to continue playing games instead of actually improving E service, they could run every other train to Heath and cross the others at Brigham Circle.

The T has proven that they don't care about the state-mandated requirement to restore the "temporary service disruption." The streetcar portion is on life support with the Heath St cutback. Why not just pull the plug and end the misery? The 39 has been beefed up with articulated buses (some brand-new) to make up for the service. That is already the solution for one part of the former trolley service. Why can't it be the solution for the additional 5 stops?

I live on the E-line and I'm sick of this bs with the streetcar portion.

[F-Line to Dudley]

The E-Line should have been cut at Brigham Circle years ago. The nail in the streetcar branch of the E was driven in 1986 and the pathetic Heath St. section has been compromising service ever since with trolleys stuck in traffic and involved in accidents. F-Line, you say "what harm can the 1/2 mile stretch do?" but it is actually the part that completely ruins the E-Line's timeliness. By crossing back at Brigham Circle, the E-Line will now be in its own ROW the entire time. This shouldn't just happen on weekends. This should happen all the time. The end of the E-line should be Brigham Circle. Maybe if the T wishes to continue playing games instead of actually improving E service, they could run every other train to Heath and cross the others at Brigham Circle.

The T has proven that they don't care about the state-mandated requirement to restore the "temporary service disruption." The streetcar portion is on life support with the Heath St cutback. Why not just pull the plug and end the misery? The 39 has been beefed up with articulated buses (some brand-new) to make up for the service. That is already the solution for one part of the former trolley service. Why can't it be the solution for the additional 5 stops?

I live on the E-line and I'm sick of this bs with the streetcar portion.

The turnback at Brigham is painfully awkward to pull off. Staggered platforms, crossover configuration that only allows stops/reverses on the inbound platform. Turning back there on single-track operation is an outstanding way to maim headways on the whole branch, INCLUDING the Copley-Brigham stretch. Want worse service to the Pru/Symphony/NU/MFA/Hospitals area on the reserved right of way...be my guest and advocate for this turd. Heath loop has survived umpteen assassination attempts because they haven't found a better way to turn back cars on the line.

But that's not the point. It doesn't save a dime because they pay the same operators on the same shifts to operate the same number of cars. They don't run less cars because the line is shortened some piddly amount or cut back their operators' hours on the Carmen Union's watch. If they did that's just more operators collecting pay by scratching their asses and playing cards at the carhouse. If they wanted operational efficiency they'd: 1) knock out the redundant Back of Hill and Fenwood stops, which are the #1 and #3 lowest boardings on the entire Green Line, 2) rework the whole set of crossovers at Brigham and possibly the platforms if that's the only way, or 3) cut Heath and South Huntington in favor of the much more useful D-to-E connector at Brookline Village.

Guess what...#2 costs $1M to do, #3 costs $15M, and doing the free one that probably gains them more revenue from efficiency than what they lose from piddly boardings. And we can't have that on our self-loathing little E, can we!

Pure...cynical...bullshit.

[Shepard]

Data, as I said, why not consider separating the ROW for trolleys all the way out to Heath Street (or even beyond)? This could be done at the expense of street parking and an outbound travel lane.

Yes, this section of Huntington is narrow, but we're not talking about North End narrow here.

[datadyne007]

Data, as I said, why not consider separating the ROW for trolleys all the way out to Heath Street (or even beyond)? This could be done at the expense of street parking and an outbound travel lane.

Yes, this section of Huntington is narrow, but we're not talking about North End narrow here.

Because Huntington past Brigham Circle is a major auto-corridor whether we like it or not. Making the road even smaller will only amplify the problems of the current traffic situation from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village on Rt 9.

This response also works in response to F-Line's post. Trolleys should not be involved with the incredibly dense Huntington Avenue traffic. I get at least 5 T-alerts a day on my phone saying that the E-Line is delayed due to traffic, emergency vehicles, accidents, etc. Nearly all of them are consistently in regards to trains that are past Brigham Circle.

[Shepard]

Well, my crazy transit pitch has been to turn the E at Brigham Circle onto far-less-busy Tremont Street (cut and cover or street running), OL connection at Roxbury Crossing, and then in a median on Malcom X to Dudley.

[datadyne007]

Well, my crazy transit pitch has been to turn the E at Brigham Circle onto far-less-busy Tremont Street (cut and cover or street running), OL connection at Roxbury Crossing, and then in a median on Malcom X to Dudley.

I would totally be on board with that. Street running would be fine on Tremont. Malcolm X is the prime location for a ROW because it is ridiculously wide.

I'm all for transit-oriented urbanism, but in Huntington's current state, it needs to only have auto traffic running on it after the Brigham Circle ROW ends. It is sadly a road that transit has lost the battle with.

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Fare_Proposals_2012/MBTA%202012%20Fare%20and%20Service%20-%20RecommendationV2.pdf

Looking at the PowerPoint, these are the ones that don't pass the smell test:

-- Citing one-man Red Line operation as staff reducer. This was proved bunk when Orange did it last year. Carmen's Union nullifies this. All staff reduced off trains work the same shifts as roving inspectors. Permanent reductions from doing OPTO 7 days a week including rush hour has in real-world terms meant mass promotions for a number of excess operators to become better-paid inspectors. Which ends up COSTING more money. While in theory this ought to allow them to reduce headcount, THEY CAN'T DO IT WITH THESE SUFFOCATING UNION CONTRACTS. So they bleed more money. Legislature!...this is your charge! Structural reform or the staffing flab just gets worse.

-- "Projected savings in MBCR contract." WTF does that mean for 2012-2013 when the contract doesn't expire until 2014??? Does this mean they're promising to not look the other way while MBCR bilks the contract for extra incentives, or are actually going to start fining them for doing a shit job with maintenance and on-time performance? Oh yeah, real golf-clap there. I totally expect that inside ball to be played totally voluntarily honestly now...8 years into that disaster of a contract. Borderline insulting to list this in the plan.

-- Ridership increases. I think no weekend service on 3 CR lines, a ferry, 5 E stops, and reduced runs elsewhere is going to add up to >$1.8M in FY2012 revenue reductions, so that line item is a wash. You can't base it on service levels today unless you expect that growth to outstrip the cuts (which calls into question the rationale for the $0/zilch/nada savers like the E).

-- Gas/electricity/jet fuel. This is flukey-warm winter savings...the jet fuel is the giveaway there because the beastly rail snowblowers are the only equipment requiring those. Electricity = above-ground 3rd rail, switch, and Blue Line trip-arm heaters that operated well under-load this winter. Gas = snowblowers. Much like Patrick's somewhat sad cure-all of scraping the MassHighway snow plow surplus and transferring it over, it's not sound fiscal strategy to bank on Mother Nature to get you out of debt. Who cares if next winter in 9 months away. Remember the tornadoes...the flooding rains...the unprecedented number of downed trees during warm months last year? Heat waves...delay-city on continuous welded rail with the heat kinks that surface and require the track gangs to be ready on a moment's notice to fix one. You guys really gonna bank on fluffy fair-weather clouds and balmy winter begetting cool summer as your path to FY2012 salvation? Folly. Don't ever wager against New England weather.

-- Commuter rail extra work and CSX. OK...I'm not real sure what both have to do with each other. Cutting back extra work = deferred maintenance. FAIL. Proceed immediately to the principal's office for detention...today's assignment will be a book report on the D'Alessandro Report. And CSX track workers belong to the same exact unions the MBTA's do...because BOTH railroads' union contracts descended from the same original private RR (Penn Central/NYNH&H). Outsourcing to them saves nothing over their own internal track gangs. And the Haverhill and Fitchburg projects are stimulus-tied and time-limited per the terms of the stimulus, so they don't have the option to go any molasses-slower than they already are.

-- The RIDE, one of the biggest money pits needing intensive structural reform, gets no service reductions or basic fare increase and only a surcharge for far-flung commutes on the district fringes. That's not a lifesaver when the city is the densest coverage. Legislature...outside help, please.



I still don't see a list of the bus routes, and as I noted in previous posts the Route 128 construction that rips the living shit out of the Needham stretch and accelerates during off-peak is a short-term blocker that may well force them to pull that service reduction off the table. And that's not going to go over well with Rozzie and West Rox. What else can they substitute? Not Fairmount...that craps all over an even bigger urban minority community during a time when the line was supposed to be expanding. Not Rockport/Newburyport...there's money in those towns. And beaches. The other 7 mainlines + Stoughton Branch have too much ridership. I would also argue that running the Hingham ferry on weekends instead of a very limited-schedule Greenbush probably cancels out a lot of the supposed savings here.

Sorry...there's not a panacea here. Especially when they're dumb about shortening off-peak consists. 1 conductor per 2 cars @ 5 open cars = 3 conductors on a light-use train. They would be able to do this if they capped every weekend train at 4 cars and assigned the bi-level coaches to the hilt on Providence, Worcester, etc. to keep the high-ridership lines lean on staff. But they DON'T do that. I watch the Fitchburg go by on the other side of Danehy Park several times a day when I'm out and about...Sunday consists are usually 5 (very empty) cars. Everything's all locked in and cookie-cuttered. They don't save if they don't mind the ops efficiency at BET, and they won't give a crap about ops efficiency until somebody slaps them. This is MBCR, remember! This problem ain't going away until there's structural reform on the labor contracts, incentive to mind their P's and Q's, and an operator who's not got a singular goal of bilking the contract for all the extras they can wring.

Seriously...the inefficiencies that add up blunt most of the supposed savings from closing the lines. Nothing anywhere near as egregious as the $0 E kneecapping, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced that they're going to recover what that PPT says they will with the chronic overstaffing on weekend trains and the operator's track record for honest business practices.

[Ron Newman]

Because Huntington past Brigham Circle is a major auto-corridor whether we like it or not. Making the road even smaller will only amplify the problems of the current traffic situation from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village on Rt 9.

Getting rid of parking here would not interfere with traffic at all. It would probably improve traffic, and make the trolleys run better.

[datadyne007]

Getting rid of parking here would not interfere with traffic at all. It would probably improve traffic, and make the trolleys run better.

He also proposed removing an "outbound travel lane."

[InTheHood]

Respectfully, Data, I suggest that you spend some time in other cities that run light rail in mixed traffic without incident. The area around the Bahnhofquai in Zurich makes Huntington look like a country lane, and the Zurich trolleys manage to arrive and depart and criss-cross according to a posted schedule even during rush hour. I don't disagree with your conclusion that E line service isn't great ... reflecting the fact that the T is inept, but the question is, should we accept incompetence as a given and reduce our ambition? Or should we instead insist that our transit authority figure out how to operate a piddly half mile section of trolley line in mixed traffic, since other cities seem to manage much more difficult light rail configurations with fewer problems? I vote for the latter. Frankly, the more densely packed B and C lines are far less reliable than the E during busy periods as it is.

And as F line notes, there's no savings here. As with the single-man operations and many other issues, the T's first response is "can't be done!" when, in fact, it is done all around the world. The T's vision extends no further than Worcester, and its ambition doesn't even get that far. "Bus substitution" is their mantra and solution for every problem, big or small.

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/mbta-unveils-percent-fare-hike-limited-service-cuts-also-proposed/EPs6zCdnFMtk7nMu19BGuO/index.html?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=0

Newspaper article comment sections are generally not a source of much rational thought (and this certainly isn't), but it's telling that it took 5 comments and 8 minutes after the story was first posted for someone to cut right to the chase. I think they're dangerously misreading the public discontent. They seem to think that negotiating down from the apocalypse placates the public as if its only aim was to have its cake and eat it too. That was never the vibe behind the Occupy-ish level of uproar here. People generally didn't have a problem with the fare increases. It's the accountability. There is nothing here compelling them to clean up their own act. It's an insurance/tax adjustment, lucky weather circumstances, and...a service plan with so many $ leaks in it the waste will instantly regress back to mean, coupled with some of the same political obsessions of theirs (Kill the E, short-shrifting the outer neighborhoods and South Shore, gerrymandering to protect the money 'burbs) that are broken-record by now and predictable from miles away. Nada about how they'll overcome the institutional resistance to pull this off, whether they feel compelled to expend any effort to doing so, where the shared sacrifice is for cronies, or what the segue is going to be into structural reform that engages the Legislature and Governor in...something?

It's the same "you suck on this/I got mine...my special interests > yours" song and dance that is...well, very Occupy-ish in the type of resentment it fuels. People aren't going to care that it's less punitive...they're not going to care if Version 3.1a of the plan is less punitive either. It's the same exact parlor trick. People are rebelling against the parlor trick. The state thinks they're tribally rebelling against the individual route numbers or whining about fares. That's not it at all. It's either very disingenuous, very naive, or both to pretend this is about anything other than truly toxic levels of mistrust in the political and bureaucratic leaders ready to boil over. Can that not have possibly been made any clearer at all these community meetings? The usual script to distract the rabble isn't working...it's focusing the vitriol even more. This is different than before.

I guess we'll see how many times they can call a press conference to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic before people rush the stage and start grabbing and breaking chairs. And we'll find out if they react amongst themselves with a knowing sigh or a total deer-in-headlights blank stare. So be it. I think the public's patience is shot and they're provoking something ugly by doubling down on these same ineffective memes that long ago stopped evading anyone's BS detector.

[omaja]

Completely agreed, F-Line.

High time to face this ugly mess head on. When you think about a 23 percent increase in something, you usually expect something in return. Even with this fare hike we're still looking at a hopelessly inefficient and delay prone rapid transit network. When you're operational expenses are ballooning due to debt servicing, deferred maintenance and outrageous compensation/benefits plans, there comes a point where you simply cannot extract more from the customer.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think that I will be paying $11 more a month just for the pleasure of experiencing the daily luxury of perpetual delays, vehicle malfunctions and surly employees on the Green Line.