They also need to flush the T's board out. The Fiscal Management Control Board, the predecessor to the current board, was highly regarded for its hands-on approach to the T. The current board is the polar opposite. They mostly praised Poftak, ask few questions, and wander away from their computers during the public comment time.

The state government has a horrible record of transparency, too. Healey has essentially said she'll only release documents when she feels like it. The Legislature has decided that it's largely exempt. Most votes are closed door. The Senate recently repealed the term limit on its President, allowing her to serve indefinitely, a limit that was put in place after a fantastically corrupt Senate President.

For all of MA's progressive rep, its governmental transparency is very poor.

https://actonmass.org/the-campaign

It was, but I'm not sure it's permanent. They published the numbers recently (I wish I could remember where I saw them) and as I recall it cost something like $300K to run and didn't get good ridership.

It’s unfortunate that we even need this system, as opposed to free rides, but free rides would require a financial commitment from the state to make up the lost fare revenue and it’s exceedingly unlikely the state government will do that (Healey, in fact, is today introducing a tax cut bill).

That being said a billion dollars for fare collection absolutely boggles the mind. I can’t even imagine how it could cost that much. I’m not sure we’re even spending a billion to replace the Orange and Red cars and we definitely aren’t to replace the RL and OL signal systems, two projects that will improve the T significantly more than this will. My guess is that the contractor is fleecing the T with billable hours here.

AFAIK the T has said its understaffed to the tune of hundreds of positions.

They have a blog, if you want to follow some of their activity. http://www.tpdnews411.com/

CA implemented "builders remedy" in cases like this (and NY is proposing it). Essentially, if a town doesn't submit a compliant housing plan, their zoning gets suspended and developers are allowed to bypass the zoning code with certain types of buildings (like buildings with a certain amount of affordable units). I'd like to see MA move that way. We have a housing crisis - emphasis on crisis. People are leaving our state and there's a real possibility that MA will be losing a House seat in the next census. People are being pushed into poverty and into homelessness. I have zero sympathy with these towns talking about "neighborhood character" next to concerns like this.

Imagine being denied a home due to landscape design.

But they do have their "Hate Has No Place Here" signs up too?

Meanwhile, in Braintree: https://twitter.com/bycathcarlock/status/1620107100545507329

We can only assume that due to its staffing shortage, the T has turned to amphibian labor to fill the gaps.

Taylor Dolven at the Globe posted part of the T's internal slow zone log: https://twitter.com/taydolven/status/1618374834723098631

Note how the OL slow zones are pretty much all in the areas the T "fixed" last year, and also the sheer size of them: a half mile north of Assembly, a quarter mile south of Tufts and south of North Station.

And, of course, note the start of the huge cropped-out list of slow zones on the Red.

I dunno what this is going to take to fix. I have to imagine the T needs a huge expansion of its maintenance-of-way staff paired with months-to-years of shutdowns and surges.

It's nice to see slow zones being fixed, but if they have to pick a line, shouldn't they focus on the Red? It is absolutely riddled with slow zones now, especially in the south.

I think I saw on Twitter recently that the T has said they're waiting on some kind of track part and will fix it in February. Take that with a grain of salt.

My deepest sympathies to whoever they find to run the T next. I can't even imagine the stack of shit that awaits the next person to take the helm there.

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.

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.

Until the T gets enough rail dispatchers, it's likely to continue. They have yet to commit to when that will be AFAIK.