Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GM_Pax t1_iy6l3gz wrote

Decades of deferred maintenance has consequences.

Honestly, the State (and the Cities and Towns directly serviced by the T) need to put a few billion dollars back into the MBTA - who should never have been saddled with so much debt in the first place.

The total debt carried by the MBTA is over seven and a half billion dollars. And it is in large part due to the pressures of servicing that debt (over half a billion dollars per year!), that maintenance and safety budgets were slashed. That's certainly not the only reason ... but I firmly believe it is the biggest reason. The second largest reason is the wholly inadequate funding provided to the MBTA by the State and Cities/Towns serviced by it's system. The mess we have today, is the inevitable consequence of the intersection between the two of them.

Note, by the by, that fares collected by the MBTA amount to just under 1/3 of it's annual revenue, so just raising fairs "a little" would be like pissing in the ocean. We need the State to step in with a large, ongoing funding comitment.

Specifically, we (all across the U.S.) need to stop treating public transit like a for-profit enterprise, and treat it like we do our roads and bridges: as a necessary Public Good.

It needs to be fully and properly funded from tax revenues. Look at the recent surplus collection, and resulting Chapter 62F rebates. The state collected some $3B more than it actually needed to cover it's budget, so clearly revenues under the current tax rates are adequate to cover a greatly increased budget for supporting public transit throughout the state, meaning: we don't even have to raise taxes to do that...!

If the State committed just $1B/year in additional, direct funding to the MBTA, there would still have been a 62F rebate ... and the T would start getting (literally) back on track in very fast order. They could double the money provided towards their debt, and still have almost half a billion dollars more to spend catching up on the repairs and upgrades they've been forced to skip since 2000.

51

senatorium t1_iy8ioz0 wrote

A lot of this comes down to the Legislature. They're the ones who control the purse strings. They could've modified Chapter 62F if they wanted to, but no one wanted to throw themselves in front of a tax rebate right before an election. Similarly, when the Fair Share Amendment comes through it's going to be up to the Legislature how that plays out - they could prevent a single dollar of it from going to the T if they want to.

Fundamentally, we need a sea change in how the average voter thinks. Cars are popular and most voters seem to think little of throwing billions at highway projects and yet will balk at $1 billion for the T. The costs of cars are generally hidden by high oil subsidies, the use of public land to provide free or heavily discounted parking, and a need to protect our vast car-driven economy. Meanwhile the costs of transit are treated as an extravagance.

13

dyqik t1_iy6qll2 wrote

The rebate would have been the same amount, however big the state budget and surplus/deficit.

There's a (ridiculous) law that prevents the total tax collected from going up by more than a certain amount each year.

Spending more money would mean the same rebate, and a budget deficit.

2

Solar_Piglet t1_iyd83mq wrote

I'd love to see the interest rate and term structure of that debt. If they need to refinance it any time soon the interest increase is going to be killer.

2

[deleted] t1_iy7jqyk wrote

[deleted]

−5

SoulSentry t1_iy7t739 wrote

Can't charge more money for worse service. The only reason most use the T is because it is cheap. If it were expensive more people would drive thus reducing any gains. You need increased ridership to earn more money. The only way that will happen is if service is expanded.

10

[deleted] t1_iy9apzn wrote

[deleted]

0

SoulSentry t1_iyar5w4 wrote

30 cents per ride is a 12.5% increase in price per ride. That's a significant amount of money for a Wall Street banker let alone most people . Spending 12% more on your transportation with no improvement to the speed and reliability of service is a bridge too far and will result in fewer riders which means less revenue. It may not completely negate the gains but it won't result in 12% more revenue for the T. At best maybe 0.5%

A better idea would be to tax all road users for millage travelled and add tolls to I-93, Rte 2, Rte 3, and the other major roadways into and out of greater Boston. Only allow that tax revenue to fund the T. This makes choosing to drive more expensive and thus taking the T a more attractive (although slower) option. This would also have a follow on effect of more revenue from increased ridership. All of that new funding could be used to expand service and improve transit time and reliability.

This is the only serious way to fix a transit system

3

GM_Pax t1_iy87pvt wrote

>The state will probably never fund them at a level where they don’t need to depend on ridership

Actually, they already do provide more funds than ridership does. Of their roughly $2B annual operating budget? Less than 1/3 comes from fares ... the other 2/3 come from other sources, primarily tax dollars.

4

[deleted] t1_iy89kwf wrote

[deleted]

−4

GM_Pax t1_iy91bws wrote

>they need ticket sales to provide services.

Except, really no they do not. They need funding ... and there's nothing saying that funding must come from ticket sales .... except, well, you, at hte moment.

If the State decided to throw $3B at public transit ($1B at the MBTA for non-commuter-rail use, $1B making the commuter rail a true, regional / statewide network, and another $1B to improve public transit outside the MBTA's service area) ...? Once service improvements actually happened, and increased ridership ... fares could be REDUCED. Possibly even eliminated altogether.

​

>You can’t demand what you aren’t willing to pay for.

I want my tax dollars to pay for a statewide transit authority, with a statewide system of public transit.

​

>It’s fair for riders to pay more for the T, especially since the whole state does not get to use the T.

And do you know why they don't get to use it? Because we balkanized the f_cking system. Because we've got dozens of little penny-packet "regional transit authorities" rather than a single entire-State transit authority.

Build out the commuter rail to be a true regional rail system. Take all those penny-packet RTAs under a single umbrella, standardize fares and levels of service across the entire state. Make sure there's good connectivity across the entire system. Make it so you can go from North Adams to Chatham on public transit, without it being a multiday odyssey involving twenty or more RTAs.

1

[deleted] t1_iy935gi wrote

[deleted]

−1

GM_Pax t1_iy94ny3 wrote

If anyone here has been less than genuine, it is you. Good riddance.

1

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iy81tew wrote

Cambridge needs its own bus system, with much higher frequency and dedicated lanes and preferably free of charge. The MBTA will never serve the needs of the city because the state has no interest in properly funding public transit and honestly it probably never will. The suburbs hold complete control over the state house.

−13

GM_Pax t1_iy85ld9 wrote

>Cambridge needs its own bus system,

No.

No, no, no, no, NO. We do not need to balkanize public transit EVEN FURTHER than it already is. We need a single, state-wide public transit system.

One of the reasons why European systems work so well, is that they are national - not done piecemeal, community by community. They are a single, unified whole.

18

nattarbox t1_iy8gtfq wrote

I agree in principal but the MBTA is so organizationally broken and seemingly incapable of being fixed, there might not be a better option.

Maybe smaller transit departments built with a fresh start and some foundational charter to eventually merge with larger systems isn't a horrible idea?

But obviously the #1 is completely useless if it ends at MIT instead of continuing into Boston. You can pretty much walk anywhere you need to go in Cambridge so a municipal bus system wouldn't do much without extending past the borders.

IDK hard problem.

1

GM_Pax t1_iy94h8a wrote

>I agree in principal but the MBTA is so organizationally broken and seemingly incapable of being fixed, there might not be a better option.

Because it was set up that way.

​

>smaller transit departments

IOW, further balkanize the system. This is a bad idea. Right now, you could go from Norfolk to Manchester-by-the-Sea, just within the MBTA's core service area. It's all one system; the fares are consistent across the whole thing, as are policies and rules that passengers must adhere to.

Meanwhile, out here, away from the MBTA?

To get from, say, North Adams down to, oh, Chatham?

BRTA, FRTA, PVTA, WRTA, GATRA, and CCRTA ... SIX different transit authorites. Six different fare systems; six different sets of rules; six different web pages to find your way around when looking for schedules.

You absolutely do not want to do that to the MBTA's service area.

...

Also, trust me on this: even if you did it, and balkanized the whole thing anyway? SERVICE WOULD NOT IMPROVE ... it would get worse. I've lived with that worse, all my life ... and the LRTA (Lowell Regional Transit Authority) SUCKS BALLS, and makes the MBTA look like a continuous orgasm of delight and joy by comparison.

5

milkfiend t1_iy8cv6u wrote

That would be great, but a huge majority of voters outside 128 would like to kill the T as they think it's a waste of money. They're wrong, but that doesn't change what they want.

0

WinsingtonIII t1_iy8jidv wrote

Is there polling on this or is this just anecdotal?

This polling suggests that 59% of the state overall wants to see improvements to public transportation as a top transportation priority for the governor: https://www.massincpolling.com/the-topline/massachusetts-poll-78-of-voters-view-transportation-system-in-only-fair-or-poor-condition-59-support-future-mbta-shutdowns-to-expedite-improvements

73% of the state also supports transforming the commuter rail into a true regional rail network. While I am sure there are people outside the Boston metro (which is more like outside 495, not 128), and even within it, who want to gut the MBTA, I'm not sure there is evidence that there is a "vast majority", particularly if we are talking outside 128 as opposed to outside 495.

It is true that 62% of those polled supported making towns and cities within 128 contribute more to the T, but it's worth noting that 64% of voters within 128 itself supported this, so shifting the funding burden of the T more towards Boston and surrounding communities was actually slightly more popular within 128 than it was statewide. Which is a bit surprising.

2

GM_Pax t1_iy90cz8 wrote

Most of those towns and cities have existing Transit Authorities.

Merging them under a single umbrella, statewide so that they had a uniform budget, uniform standards, a uniform fleet of vehicles (and just like toilet paper, if you buy busses in bulk, each one is cheaper than if you buy them one at a time). Apportion the state money available based on both population, and level of service. Let those various towns then pour some of their own money in to the LOCAL system if they choose.

Service literally everywhere would improve.

2

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iy86yle wrote

I would take a realistic solution over thinking that the state is going to change its entire way of life in the next hundred years, sorry. Most of Mass is not dense enough to support “state wide public transit” and won’t be any time soon.

And there is no reason why a city bus system can’t coexist alongside a regional bus system. That is how it works in the NC Triangle/Chapel Hill and it is brilliant.

−1

Difficult-Ad3518 t1_iy8sut6 wrote

You are right that a national rail system that works as well as a European nation's is unrealistic for the USA at this moment, unfortunately. A realistic solution that learns from other agencies' successes in centralized organizing and scratches your implicit desire for more direct planning and oversight would be to:

Reorganize the MBTA as a multi-county, multi-state entity, with subsidiary transit agencies, much like the MTA in New York and Connecticut.

The new Southeastern New England Transit Authority (SNETA) would serve three counties in New Hampshire, eight counties in Massachusetts, all five counties in Rhode Island, and one county in Connecticut, under contract with the associated state's Departments of Transportation:

  • Merrimack County, NH
  • Hillsbourough County, NH
  • Rockingham County, NH
  • Essex County, MA
  • Suffolk County, MA
  • Plymouth County, MA
  • Barnstable County, MA
  • Bristol County, MA
  • Norfolk County, MA
  • Middlesex County, MA
  • Worcester County, MA
  • Providence County, RI
  • Kent County, RI
  • Bristol County, RI
  • Newport County, RI
  • Washington County, RI
  • Windham County, CT

Like the MTA has subsidiary agencies (LIRR, Metro-North, NYC Subway, etc), my proposed SNETA would also have subsidiary agencies:

  • Southeastern New England Regional Rail (SNERR), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Regional Rail lines in the region, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Fitchburg Line
    • Capitol Corridor (Concord (NH) - Boston, via Manchester, Nashua & Lowell)
    • Worcester Line
    • Providence Line
    • South Coast Rail
    • CapeFlyer
  • Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail (MBCR), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Boston-based Commuter Rail lines, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Newburyport/Rockport Line
    • Haverhill Line
    • Lowell Line
    • Franklin/Foxboro Line
    • Middleborough Line
  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Auhtority (MBTA or the 'T'), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Greater Boston's heavy rail, light rail, bus, and ferry service, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Red Line
    • Orange Line
    • Blue Line
    • Green Line
    • Mattapan Trolley
    • MBTA Bus
    • MBTA Boat
  • Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs), such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA)
    • Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA)
    • Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA)
    • Manchester Transit Authority (MTA)
    • Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (SRTA)
    • Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MRTA)
    • Concord Area Transit (CAT)

There are currently 176 cities and towns in the MBTA district. Some just have Commuter Rail service or are adjacent to towns with Commuter Rail service. This includes far-flung places such as Bourne, Wareham, Rehoboth, Seekonk, and Bellingham. This presents the MBTA with the challenge of trying to be both a big-tent regional transit agency, but also a single city's urban area's transit agency.

Under the proposal I've laid out above, these hinterlands towns get moved off of the MBTA and to either MBCR, an RTA, or both. Then, the MBTA is left with ~50 cities and towns and can be more narrowly focused on just those municipalities in the Boston area (south to Foxborough, east to Hingham, north to Wilmington, west to Wellesley).

4

GM_Pax t1_iy95boa wrote

I could get behind something like this ... if it had provisions for expanding to include other counties along the way.

Whether it was multi-state, or just Massachusetts: I'd want there to be a mechanism for other counties to opt in and join the system.

And as part of that growth, I'd like to see some uniformity on several fronts, across the entire system. Fares, levels of service, interoperability of fare cards (which does somewhat exist currently: I use a Charlie card up here in the Lowell Regional Transit Authority, right now), signage, and so on.

I want it to be relatively seamless to cross the entire system.

And ideally, I want the busses, trains, trams/streetcars, and whatever else to run so frequently I never need to look at a schedule. :)

2

Difficult-Ad3518 t1_iy9lvl6 wrote

Agreed. This type of proposal actually is beneficial in exactly the ways you desire. For example, this would better enable interoperability of fare cards on regional transit authorities across state lines.

For example, right now there is limited fare integration between MBTA and RIPTA (Commuter Rail monthly pass holders can use it to ride RIPTA), but mostly they operate with entirely different payment methods. A system like this would enable all of the RTAs under the umbrella to use the same fare system, and to leverage inherent economies of scale when upgrading something like payment method.

2

GM_Pax t1_iy94t9g wrote

>I would take a realistic solution over thinking that the state is going to change its entire way of life in the next hundred years, sorry.

You mean like how we did, when we turned the whole state into a car-centric sea of asphalt parking lots?

3

senatorium t1_iy8htfy wrote

AFAIK, there's nothing stopping Cambridge from making routes free as long as they're willing to pay the T for them (as Boston is doing for certain routes, by using federal money). There's also nothing stopping Cambridge from making more dedicated bus lanes on T routes, and I believe giving buses transit priority at signals is also largely up to the city.

2

Apprehensive-Hat-494 t1_iy6rpg6 wrote

>We’re getting people to expect two years of major shutdowns.

Why doesn't this country have any pride in having functioning public transit, or infrastructure in general? Boston is one of a few US cities with the gift of a comprehensive public transit system - and we've seemingly done everything wrong, ignored needed repairs, and then turned to shutting down entire lines for a month and not even solving all the problems. We don't need another city in the US with a pet-project light rail and a useless bus-only system.

Obviously this is a first world problem, but if we can't get trains to go on tracks without problems that need 730 days to repair, how are we ever going to solve major issues facing the city, such as systemic inequalities? We should round up all the MBTA employees and send them to Tokyo for a month. I don't even use the decrepit T, but the kinds of issues the system has are unacceptable. In Japan people would be in prison for this kind of continued neglect and malfeasance, but evidently no number of excuses are too many in Boston. Maybe a few days out at the Souza Four Seasons Resort in scenic Shirley would do the trick.

When will people take pride in the T and fix the damn problems for once? The trains breaking down is one thing, but we've had people dragged to death by the trains, trains catching fire and filling with smoke, derailments, and a nasty FTA report detailing the lack of safety culture on the T. Meanwhile, as detailed in said report:

>During the on-site portion of the SMI, all levels of the organization, from leadership to frontline workers, expressed surprise and occasional alarm at the MBTA’s declining safety performance but tended to view incidents as “one of a kind” or “freak accidents” rather than the result of systemic failures in operating procedures, training, staffing, and supervision

The best time to fix these problems was during routine maintenance that never happened about 15 years ago.

38

Conan776 t1_iy6gg6e wrote

Plan ahead? No. No! That's just what they'd be expecting us to do!

18

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iy81dee wrote

We’ve lost any sense of civic duty and togetherness in this country. We have become fundamentally incapable of doing things that benefit the public. Talk to anyone in the suburbs and they will tell you they would sooner die than take public transit, and that it shouldn’t be funded because they don’t use it and because it is mismanaged.

14

Admirable-Towel3709 t1_iy7vs2a wrote

It’s been already talked about that the red line is next for a month long shutdown.

5

djohnstonb t1_iy6g0j6 wrote

I sure hope so! /s x1000

4

[deleted] t1_iy8cz9v wrote

Shut it down 21 July-25 August when use is at its lowest. That gives them a week and a half until Labor Day and the resumption of peak work commutes.

3