Doctrina_Stabilitas

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_je1dzva wrote

That’s because of poor engineering, water infiltration would cause longer term and even more expensive damage if it wasn’t fixed

So completely necessary

There’s also flood resiliency work going on, also completely necessary because of climate change and the location of the seaport

7

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jdesuyt wrote

I’ll add Somerville did a study when prepping for assembly square that’s briefly referenced in the neighborhood plan for assembly and it found that increased density offsets the cost of new housing, if you’re on a town planning thing maybe you could reach out to the city government for the full methodology and results of that study

http://www.somervillebydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ASN_Plan-Update_Final.pdf

2

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd999va wrote

it still might not help in the near term because the article / report does say that while overall revenue almost always positive, towns might still experience negative net revenue without state transfers because of how revenue is divided between states and towns

2

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ja8q8qy wrote

yeah sure, but it wouldnt be a bigger improvement if you have to cut 30% to match the new revenue. We could do it if we increased the MBTA sales tax from 1% to 2%, but i highly doubt that would ever happen, and a reduction in service (like to 20-25 minutes between trains) would be a disaster given that trains now are already 15 minutes apart and packed to the gills (or at least the orange line is at sullivan)

4

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ja8l7e4 wrote

well i mean not collecting fares would mean 450 million bigger hole? Also implementing this will improve service by reducing dwell times and overall make transit more attractive

​

the alternative of course is to do this, then throw it out right away by passing a 1% sales tax increase for the MBTA, because the contracted money is spent already, it's not like we'll get it back

9

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ja805sa wrote

That’s now how contracting works. The money is spent; we are contractually obligated to spend it, if we don’t we get assessed a penalty for the lost business so they can still be made relatively whole

The sunk cost is a real sunk cost, not in a logical sense, but an economic one

27

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ja7vh5n wrote

They money is already spent, the cost has been sunk, it’s not like cancelling the project would get the money back and may be even more expensive with termination fees

Also automated fare collection is a good thing in the long run, it allows for faster boarding and all door operation for street level surface routes

The new system would also allow differentiation of fares by income, bringing us in line with most other modern metros

The plan is now to implement it gradually to minimize issues, according to the herald, I think that’s a relatively good thing

The MBTA expects to collect 450M in fares this year, making up about 25% of the budget, this project will last about 20 years given the last fare implementation, so with straight line depreciation that’s still only 10% of expected post pandemic revenue

47

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_j2duudi wrote

It could be more efficient but it isn’t that bad a large portion of the US budget goes into healthcare and r&d

Am you are after all writing this text against military spending against on a thing developed using military r&d, mainly the internet (and likely on a GPS enabled device)

7

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ixly5nj wrote

And we don’t really have the money to upgrade stuff, when the star is forced to send back tax surpluses because it rises faster than some predetermined maximum amount based on an expected increase in tax revenue we’ll wee out of luck

Nice for those of us who won the housing and work lottery I guess

0