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

[Roxxma]

THe small loss in fares is more than made up for by the increase in speed-of-commute (and ridership gains among the honest) and the better capital efficiency.

The 99%+ of honest riders is today made to suffer through barriers and stops that take too long, just to accomplish a task (ensuring fare payment) that can be carried out in a way that really just inconveniences the dishonest (instead of everyone).

Yes, and the atrociously slow service on the South End branch of the Silver Line and front door exit only on the Green Line are testament to this. Whoever thought front door exit only on the Green Line was a good idea should be fired and face a lifetime ban from working in public transit. Either that, or they should be forced to ride at the very rear of an outbound B line train and be forced to fight the crowd to get off at every other stop for eternity.

 

[JonFrum]

I realize you're trolling, but this is silly. The 5 least corrupt states in the country (received a grade of "B") are 4 blue and 1 red. The 8 most corrupt (got an "F") are 2 blue, 5 red and a toss up.
Replacing a "D" with an "R" won't change the fact that politicians are loathe to cut taxes or reduce service. And unfortunately the MBTA probably needs both.

No, I wasn't trolling. That's a typical internet-coward's way of shutting down discussion. I stated a simple fact - Democrats run this state, and any existing problem is in their laps. No one who responded to me actually gave a response to that fact. I didn't say anything about other states - your response is irrelevant and disingenuous. And your statement that 'politicians' are loathe to cut taxes is laughable. Republicans have made a fetish of cutting taxes, and people like you hate them for it.

I repeat - the MBTA's fiscal mess is not an act of God, as you lot want to pretend to protect your own political prejudices. The MBTA's financial mess is the product of the Democrat power structure in the state. Who do you think is to blame - the French? Scientology? A rational person could be a committed Democrat themselves and still recognize this fact. It's not like stating the obvious is going to bring a flood of Republicans into office tomorrow.

I was voting for Democrats in this state before many of you were born - did you vote for McGovern? That doesn't make me stupid.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Right, you're a super smart person and I'm pretty dumb.

Please explain to this stupid poster how "the problem isn't politics, it's Democrats" is anything other than a contradictory statement?

Oh, and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how assigning blame is going to solve any problems, too. Man, how dumb am I?

 

[underground]

I stated a simple fact - Democrats run this state, and any existing problem is in their laps.

People who breath air run this state. Clearly, the real enemy is AIR!!!

 

[davem]

People who breath air run this state. Clearly, the real enemy is AIR!!!

Seriously, I'm just going to repost this:

The uber wealthy exurbanites (R) that have zero interest in infrastructure that isn't completely self-serving (aka road miles) are just as much of an issue as the union cronies (D) that want to be paid as much as possible for doing as little as possible. The T is so far gone in a state of disrepair and its issues transcend the perennial R versus D debate; if you can't see that then, well, you're only part of the problem.

Bold added by me for emphasis.

 

[massmotorist]

We can try to assess fault and argue about it; It's true that the Democrats were in charge and the problems did occur on their watch. I'd say the problem is underfunding and not mismanagement, and the D'Allesandro report agrees, but whatever. This is a pointless discussion unless it's seen in context.

The relevant question looking back is, if Republicans were in charge, would this have been better? That's a counterfactual we can't have a clue about and it's pointless to speculate. But we can look at other states and see that Republicans underfund and/or mismanage things just as much as (and perhaps more than) Democrats. And they're far more revenue-averse.

The relevant question looking forward is, who can fix it? I think the Democrats in this state under Patrick are most likely to reform and fix the nuts and bolts of government (see: police details, MassDOT, CORI, etc.). In recent years Republicans in this state (particularly Healy and Baker) have stepped away from moderation and focused more on ideology and divisive irrelevant nonsense like illegal immigration. I see no reason to believe they would (or could) manage the T any better.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I didn't say anything about other states - your response is irrelevant and disingenuous.

But Jon, by your logic you could blame men for the MBTA's troubles since males have historically been over-represented in the State House (or white people, or college grads, or people between the ages of 30 and 60).
Doesn't it make sense to look at other states that are run by the other party to see if your theory holds up (unfortunately I couldn't find any states that are dominated by women or minorities or high school drop-outs or teenagers).

 

[omaja]

No, I wasn't trolling. That's a typical internet-coward's way of shutting down discussion. I stated a simple fact - Democrats run this state, and any existing problem is in their laps. No one who responded to me actually gave a response to that fact. I didn't say anything about other states - your response is irrelevant and disingenuous. And your statement that 'politicians' are loathe to cut taxes is laughable. Republicans have made a fetish of cutting taxes, and people like you hate them for it.

I repeat - the MBTA's fiscal mess is not an act of God, as you lot want to pretend to protect your own political prejudices. The MBTA's financial mess is the product of the Democrat power structure in the state. Who do you think is to blame - the French? Scientology? A rational person could be a committed Democrat themselves and still recognize this fact. It's not like stating the obvious is going to bring a flood of Republicans into office tomorrow.

I was voting for Democrats in this state before many of you were born - did you vote for McGovern? That doesn't make me stupid.

What does any of this have to do with solving the MBTA's financial issues? You make it seem as if only one privileged (or underprivileged) sector of the economy has benefited from the MBTA being broken, which is hardly the case. Banks are cashing in on the soured credit default swaps, auto makers continue to be propped up by inflated demand, construction benefits from anything sprawl and road-related, many local governments don't support expanded public transportation, and the list goes on. Note that these areas are on both sides of the political spectrum. Meanwhile, MA's largest city has some of the worst traffic in the country along with a severely underfunded, rapidly deteriorating infrastructure system.

Blaming and complaining about how people screwed up in the past isn't going to fix any of that. Realizing that the entire Greater Boston region benefits - directly or indirectly - from increased infrastructure investment is the first step to making things right. All of this infighting is a ridiculous distraction from actually getting shit done.

 

[ant8904]

Everyone, on the politician front. It's simple. The Democrats FAILED. That is a statement we can all agree. I don't see any reason why that point to debate. They have long been in power with only some exception the governorship, but we can't lay the blame when the legislation had a supermajority over and over again.

The question becomes if the situation can be any different. Since we are talking about Democrats and rather than just saying politicians in this scenario, this means the alternative is the Republicans. Historically, the Republican view of transportation have not been friendly to public transportation. The Democrats have bee traditionally viewed as they, and was a source of hope when Deval Patrick took the reigns. We all know how much Patrick have done so far.

So with the Democrats in power, we have a declining MBTA. The Republicans seems more likely to be even more hostile. So what's the point of this debate?

Our best hope is not looking to a rise of Republicans. It is probably another governor or maybe a mayor who have an active interest for transit. Neither Deval nor Menino seem to not have that desire. It could be a Republican, but I think it is the matter of a single individual with the ability to make it happen rather than the collective actions of either group.

My best hope is Curtatone rising beyond Somerville. My next best hope is I'm wrong about Deval and he's just penned by fiscal realities (I hold none for Menino, he's been around long enough to mean no change is coming from him).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Blame solves all problems. Look backward, not forward. That is clearly the correct answer to the question "What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?".

 

[TheRifleman]

Blame solves all problems. Look backward, not forward. That is clearly the correct answer to the question "What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?".

#1 Cut-out Lifetime-Pensions convert to 401k and let the employee be responsible for their retirement.
#2 Raise MBTA Fares
#3 Look for Waste (Fire useless lazy people) in the MBTA system and cut spending on basic expenditures.
#4 Take out long-term debt bonds and upgrade the entire MBTA to more energy cost efficient system (cars & tracks).
#5 Reasses management salaries possibly 15% wage cut across the board
#6 Considering outsourcing depts like Maintaince, Security, cleaning, for the MBTA to the Unions or another organization.

Just some ideas.

No matter what the MBTA needs to take on additional debt to restructure & re-organize the system. Hopefully the Long-term bonds would help sustain monthy maintaince costs on the shitty cars they have now.

The long-term bonds would cover New high efficient low energy costing Cars running on the tracks.

I think the life-time pensions killed the MBTA.

As I noted Before, If Kraft got the Greenlight for the Seaport district we would have have gotten a much needed massive upgrade with Transit running in the city. Kraft would have generated unlimited amounts of tax revenue for the city. But the Politicans do not have our best interests in hand and that is why we are in the situation we are in.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

My best hope is Curtatone rising beyond Somerville. My next best hope is I'm wrong about Deval and he's just penned by fiscal realities (I hold none for Menino, he's been around long enough to mean no change is coming from him).

I think he's going to go straight for US Senate, and I was surprised to hear from some other pols that they expect that to happen as well. He has a better shot than Setti Warren, and frankly I'm surprised Setti Warren didn't beat out Elizabeth Warren, I mean come on, seriously?

But at any rate, that'd mean Curtatone will have no direct impact on the MBTA. Maybe he can bring home the bacon, though.

 

[Mark02474]

I have some free-market suggestions to help the MBTA:

1. Congestion hour pricing - Raise fares during congested times, lower in off hours. This reduces high capital and more workers costs of peak service delivery. Fewer buses adding to traffic congestion is an added bonus. Riders are encouraged to shift when they take trips. Those who don't shift times enhance MBTA revenues.

2. Base city/town assessments on stops and runs and types of services provided. This helps reduce resistance from towns not wanting to lose money-losing routes and stops. Suddenly, they could approach the MBTA wanting to remove some stops or trips/day!

 

[omaja]

I have some free-market suggestions to help the MBTA:

1. Congestion hour pricing - Raise fares during congested times, lower in off hours. This reduces high capital and more workers costs of peak service delivery. Fewer buses adding to traffic congestion is an added bonus. Riders are encouraged to shift when they take trips. Those who don't shift times enhance MBTA revenues.

Are you going to suggest the same for vehicles on Boston's freeways and major surface arterials as well? Buses don't "add to traffic congestion" when they carry up to 60-70x the number of people in the mostly single-occupant vehicles clogging streets during rush hour.

Aside from that general nonsense, the T's issues aren't really related to fare revenues (or lack thereof), so I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

2. Base city/town assessments on stops and runs and types of services provided. This helps reduce resistance from towns not wanting to lose money-losing routes and stops. Suddenly, they could approach the MBTA wanting to remove some stops or trips/day!

What happens to service in areas like Dorchester and Roxbury? They would just be priced out and eliminated.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

What happens to service in areas like Dorchester and Roxbury? They would just be priced out and eliminated.

How so? They are packed with riders. I'm not sure Mumbles would be so quick to cut the subsidy.

 

[omaja]

Dorchester and Roxbury see a disproportionately high amount of service compared to the revenues they bring in. Mark's plan would see the elimination of service in those areas that most need it, yet couldn't possibly afford to keep it all. In a word, it's absurd.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Dorchester and Roxbury see a disproportionately high amount of service compared to the revenues they bring in. Mark's plan would see the elimination of service in those areas that most need it, yet couldn't possibly afford to keep it all. In a word, it's absurd.

I don't understand.

So because Dorchester is poor but has more full buses, you think they'll lose their buses to West Roxbury because they're rich with empty buses?

Doesn't make sense. If anything, West Rox loses buses and Dorchester keeps theirs.

 

[12345]

1.How about congestion tax for drivers coming into the city that doubles during peak times.
2. Rezone the areas around stations for higher density.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

At this point, I really do feel like the MBTA (or the city of Boston itself) declaring bankruptcy is the best of a wide range of bad options.

Bankruptcy, at least, would presumably allow us to shift a lot of the MBTA's deficit (which, as you know, is not being helped by 'Big Dig mitigation debt') back onto the Commonwealth as a whole, if not discharge it altogether. It might also be exceedingly beneficial if you're coming from the 'T needs reform badly!' school of thought. Bankruptcy gives us our best chance at reorganizing and coming out of this with a first-class transportation system - I'd say it's worth it.

 

[omaja]

I don't understand.

So because Dorchester is poor but has more full buses, you think they'll lose their buses to West Roxbury because they're rich with empty buses?

Doesn't make sense. If anything, West Rox loses buses and Dorchester keeps theirs.

Unless I'm completely missing the boat, if each community is asked to shoulder the actual cost (or close to the actual cost) of providing all of that service, places like Dorchester are going to have to pay more to keep all of those buses. They wouldn't lose buses to West Roxbury, they just wouldn't be able to afford all of what they have; meanwhile, the wealthier, more car-dependent areas would opt to trim or eliminate service since no one uses it.