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

JeffDowntown said:
I am guessing, though, that the scale of T bus maintenance would completely overshadow the current private maintenance business.

So the minute they take on the T contract, they start to look like every other government contractor, beholden to the government. Surprise surprise.
Click to expand...

JeffD --that would be a good research project for some enterprising business student

Here are some starting points:
  • 1) How many private buses are there is the approximate MBTA operating district -- say within I-495
  • 2) How many miles / revenue miles do they run per year for each operator
  • 3) How much does the annual maintenance cost per mile / revenue mile run for each operator e.g. Harvard Medical School, Fidelity, MIT, Lexpress, some bus company doing convention shuttle business, tourist 'trolleys", Duck Boats, school buses, etc.
  • 4) allow for special circumstances such as lots of short hauls versus long, average age of the buses, experience levels of drivers, who does what kinds of maintenance, etc., etc., for each operator
  • 5) compare to T for each and in aggregate
  • 6) make a recommendation

Then write it up and send it Charlie and Stephanie
 
whighlander said:
JeffD --that would be a good research project for some enterprising business student

Here are some starting points:
  • 1) How many private buses are there is the approximate MBTA operating district -- say within I-495
  • 2) How many miles / revenue miles do they run per year for each operator
  • 3) How much does the annual maintenance cost per mile / revenue mile run for each operator e.g. Harvard Medical School, Fidelity, MIT, Lexpress, some bus company doing convention shuttle business, tourist 'trolleys", Duck Boats, school buses, etc.
  • 4) allow for special circumstances such as lots of short hauls versus long, average age of the buses, experience levels of drivers, who does what kinds of maintenance, etc., etc., for each operator
  • 5) compare to T for each and in aggregate
  • 6) make a recommendation

Then write it up and send it Charlie and Stephanie
Click to expand...

Whighlander.

Sometimes you don't need to do the PhD Thesis to know something won't work.

There is no private operator in Massachusetts who has anything even close to the 1,200 plus bus fleet of 40 ft. plus vehicles of the MBTA.

There is no private operator who has anything near the maintenance capacity of the MBTA.

There is no private operator who knows how to service the huge range of 40 ft. plus vehicles in the MBTA fleet.

Simply by quickly scanning the largest of the private operators, you discover that their fleets top out in the 100's and many of those are jitneys, not full scale buses.

You don't need a Baker-esk blue ribbon commission, gold plated study to figure out a concept is fatally flawed.
 
What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?
Click to expand...

Some of these may be controversial. But I tried (maybe didn't succeed) to keep it on-topic even if it veered slightly political (i.e. libertarian on a Federal Level). I couldn't help it as it has a lot to do with my proposal to get the T out of its financial mess. If I were pulling the strings, mwahahaha, this would be the order of events:

  1. Cancel SCR
  2. Absorb the Ride into the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Therefore, any Ride-like program in the state that is required by law, can be paid for by Public Health agencies. Also, I believe this would allow better service, as there would be a better connection between the health agencies that determine that these people need help (with transportation), help these people (with transportation), and serve their health-care needs.
  3. Model any current and future expansion projects after Madrid's: design-build, have in-house construction guys, get rid of consultants, decrease reliance on large contractors who have their hands in every aspect of construction. Generally, make the process more predictable and reliable as has been proven elsewhere.
  4. Change the name of the agency to the Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority (without spending a dime on changing any MBTA signage), sending a clear message that the MBTA is only for transportation in Metro Boston, while every urban area in the state has a regional transportation agency to cover transportation to their area in the same manner.
  5. Curtail CR to the Boston Urban Area (as defined by the US Census). For service to Providence, it would have to be fully, 100% subsidized by R.I. including any/all operating costs. Same with WRTA, MVRTA, etc. for service to Worcester, Fitchburg, etc. Use our existing fleet to maximize frequency and service for those in the Boston Urban Area.
  6. Fight the unions on hiring, raises, pension structure, etc.
  7. Decrease our staffing levels to that of industry leaders abroad.
  8. Switch to Proof-of-Payment, where it makes sense (i.e. surface Green Line stops) and provision future expansion to rely more on a PoP model.
  9. Open-road toll I-93, especially entering and exiting the Central-Artery Tunnel, with all funds going towards transportation. This can be done with congestion pricing, and add congesting pricing on the Mass Pike tolls.
  10. Legalize and tax marijuana with all tax revenue going towards transportation.
  11. Rand Paul wins the presidency and less extreme versions of his plans pass through Congress, effectively shutting the Department of Transportation and many other federal agencies.
  12. With new found autonomy at the state level, and lower federal taxes, Massachusetts immediately passes state income tax hikes to match the old federal income tax levels. (Admittedly my plan fucks over poorer states and really benefits MA, but hey I can't fix the entire world, just the MBTA! Haha.)
  13. Use this influx of massive amounts of money at the state level (in combination with the realization that there will be no help at the federal level whatsoever) to establish a Massachusetts General Transportation Fund from a certain percentage of this new tax source.
  14. Have more representative decisions made about the spending of the Massachusetts General Transportation Fund, with portions to automotive, portions to public transit, and portions to walking and cycling. The General fund is as high as the money goes (with no more Dept of Tranportation), so serious decisions will need to be made as there would be no magic bailout and more transparency on that the actual limit to the Mass. Transportation Budget's size.

EDIT: added PoP.
 
Stop with all expansion, (Greenline, South Coast, etc) and spend that money on modernization, new equipment (cars and the more basic-switches, heaters, rail) and maintenance.
 
navigator4 said:
Stop with all expansion, (Greenline, South Coast, etc) and spend that money on modernization, new equipment (cars and the more basic-switches, heaters, rail) and maintenance.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that you need to consider the fundamentally different types of expansion that take place, and the fact that there is often a gray area between expansion and modernization. For example: which is adding Proof-of-Payment or improved fare service technology? How about a new yard and maintenance facility to allow more frequent service? What about the Red-Blue Connector which undeniably lays new revenue-service rail, but does not expand service to new areas, rather improves and modernizes our existing system through better load balancing and transfer-capablities? Blanket statements like "stop with all expansion...and spend that money on modernization" ignores the necessary nuance to these issues.
 
navigator4 said:
Stop with all expansion, (Greenline, South Coast, etc) and spend that money on modernization, new equipment (cars and the more basic-switches, heaters, rail) and maintenance.
Click to expand...

This is very short-sighted.

A lot of that money is earmarked, and can't be spent on anything else. Not without a long re-appropriations process anyway.

Expansion and maintenance go hand-in-hand. Certain expansion projects (like GLX, like Red-Blue, like SSX) address structural deficiencies in the system itself. Other expansions are going to need funding for study to address future capacity and efficiency issues (Green+Orange flanks to replace Needham Line, NSRL, Green Line reconfigurations, etc.). Cancel or scale back projects that don't enhance the functionality of the system, while adding considerable costs (SCR).

It's an easy trap to suggest canceling expansion in the name of maintenance; but it's not a zero-sum game. Smart expansion is itself a form of maintenance.
 
I think the state should work together with engineers from MIT and try to come up with a Energy Self sustaining transportation Grid. (First of its kind)

Every Position should be Audited:
Investigation in the Pensions

After a complete investigation and overhaul in the Finances:
Their should be a massive transportation tax on the colleges to support a better grid for the city.

Just a coupe of thoughts.
 
Wow, I got a series of quotes that irritates me today.

whighlander said:
FTony -- you are starting to sound like FLine
Click to expand...

It remains that you meant that as an insult. F-Line has repeatedly wrote shown a demonstration of knowledge that stands him out of most of us. You probably don't agree, but F-line repeated backs his points citing engineering, operations, and regulation principles. How many other people can write a post keeping in mind what the FRA requires? Or the grade and width requirements for on-ramps? Or how certain engineering will make certain idea add up to that much more than anyone else would imagine? The only other person in this forum that demonstrated a similar level this forum is winstonoboogie (and I remember there was a time it somehow annoyed him).

whighlander said:
Jeff -- all those examples are situations where the Feds are either the only customer or payer

Private bus companies haul people for private corporations, for excursion groups or just for individuals traveling on the cheap -- they have to have reasonably efficient and cost effective maintenance
Click to expand...

If MBTA privatizes, it will be more in line of the Fed's dealing with the private sector than the Private bus companies hauling people for private corporations.
 
ant8904 said:
If MBTA privatizes, it will be more in line of the Fed's dealing with the private sector than the Private bus companies hauling people for private corporations.
Click to expand...


I think privatizing the MBTA is a very bad idea.
 
I meant in the context of maintenance operation. I should have said "MBTA's maintenance operation privatizes". But regardless, I agree, privatization would not go well. It would likely go in the same way when Chicago privatized parking meters. Unlikely some viewpoints, I view capitalism like a tool, and thus it means it works only in the right contexts (and/or right sturucture). MBTA as a private entity would likely not go well.
 
ant8904 said:
I meant in the context of maintenance operation. I should have said "MBTA's maintenance operation privatizes". But regardless, I agree, privatization would not go well. It would likely go in the same way when Chicago privatized parking meters. Unlikely some viewpoints, I view capitalism like a tool, and thus it means it works only in the right contexts (and/or right sturucture). MBTA as a private entity would likely not go well.
Click to expand...

We have our perfect local example. It would work as well as the MBCR LLC.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Whighlander.

Sometimes you don't need to do the PhD Thesis to know something won't work.

There is no private operator in Massachusetts who has anything even close to the 1,200 plus bus fleet of 40 ft. plus vehicles of the MBTA.

There is no private operator who has anything near the maintenance capacity of the MBTA.

There is no private operator who knows how to service the huge range of 40 ft. plus vehicles in the MBTA fleet.

Simply by quickly scanning the largest of the private operators, you discover that their fleets top out in the 100's and many of those are jitneys, not full scale buses.

You don't need a Baker-esk blue ribbon commission, gold plated study to figure out a concept is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

Jeff -- do you understand the word Aggregate -- & No I'm not talking about broken rock

And its Masters-level work we are talking about -- kinda 5th year

There are literally hundreds of bus operators -- Somehow and Someway -- they seem to get their buses serviced without the massive overhead, union waste-rules and burearucrapcy of the T

The new era which we are entering is the era of Uber versus the entrenched Taxi cartel, etc.

Buses are an area ripe for review and innovation -- the T has no monopoly on the technology, the infrastructure or the operations for buses -- rather than replicating what always worked at such and such a garage back in the days of the MTA -- the T is going to have to learn to take advantage of the modern world or it will one day just seize-up and stop
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
This is very short-sighted.

A lot of that money is earmarked, and can't be spent on anything else. Not without a long re-appropriations process anyway.

Expansion and maintenance go hand-in-hand. Certain expansion projects (like GLX, like Red-Blue, like SSX) address structural deficiencies in the system itself. Other expansions are going to need funding for study to address future capacity and efficiency issues (Green+Orange flanks to replace Needham Line, NSRL, Green Line reconfigurations, etc.). Cancel or scale back projects that don't enhance the functionality of the system, while adding considerable costs (SCR).

It's an easy trap to suggest canceling expansion in the name of maintenance; but it's not a zero-sum game. Smart expansion is itself a form of maintenance.
Click to expand...

Buses -- Google Frank "he's not a Lieutenant Sargent" and the Southwest Expressway -- that was so much of a done deal that the land had already been cleared -- yet today we have a linear park and a relocated Orange Line and new commuter rail stops -- no expressway
 
bigeman312 said:
Some of these may be controversial. But I tried (maybe didn't succeed) to keep it on-topic even if it veered slightly political (i.e. libertarian on a Federal Level). I couldn't help it as it has a lot to do with my proposal to get the T out of its financial mess. If I were pulling the strings, mwahahaha, this would be the order of events:

  1. Cancel SCR
  2. Absorb the Ride into the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Therefore, any Ride-like program in the state that is required by law, can be paid for by Public Health agencies. Also, I believe this would allow better service, as there would be a better connection between the health agencies that determine that these people need help (with transportation), help these people (with transportation), and serve their health-care needs.
  3. Model any current and future expansion projects after Madrid's: design-build, have in-house construction guys, get rid of consultants, decrease reliance on large contractors who have their hands in every aspect of construction. Generally, make the process more predictable and reliable as has been proven elsewhere.
  4. Change the name of the agency to the Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority (without spending a dime on changing any MBTA signage), sending a clear message that the MBTA is only for transportation in Metro Boston, while every urban area in the state has a regional transportation agency to cover transportation to their area in the same manner.
  5. Curtail CR to the Boston Urban Area (as defined by the US Census). For service to Providence, it would have to be fully, 100% subsidized by R.I. including any/all operating costs. Same with WRTA, MVRTA, etc. for service to Worcester, Fitchburg, etc. Use our existing fleet to maximize frequency and service for those in the Boston Urban Area.
  6. Fight the unions on hiring, raises, pension structure, etc.
  7. Decrease our staffing levels to that of industry leaders abroad.
  8. Switch to Proof-of-Payment, where it makes sense (i.e. surface Green Line stops) and provision future expansion to rely more on a PoP model.
  9. Open-road toll I-93, especially entering and exiting the Central-Artery Tunnel, with all funds going towards transportation. This can be done with congestion pricing, and add congesting pricing on the Mass Pike tolls.
  10. Legalize and tax marijuana with all tax revenue going towards transportation.
  11. Rand Paul wins the presidency and less extreme versions of his plans pass through Congress, effectively shutting the Department of Transportation and many other federal agencies.
  12. With new found autonomy at the state level, and lower federal taxes, Massachusetts immediately passes state income tax hikes to match the old federal income tax levels. (Admittedly my plan fucks over poorer states and really benefits MA, but hey I can't fix the entire world, just the MBTA! Haha.)
  13. Use this influx of massive amounts of money at the state level (in combination with the realization that there will be no help at the federal level whatsoever) to establish a Massachusetts General Transportation Fund from a certain percentage of this new tax source.
  14. Have more representative decisions made about the spending of the Massachusetts General Transportation Fund, with portions to automotive, portions to public transit, and portions to walking and cycling. The General fund is as high as the money goes (with no more Dept of Tranportation), so serious decisions will need to be made as there would be no magic bailout and more transparency on that the actual limit to the Mass. Transportation Budget's size.

EDIT: added PoP.
Click to expand...

Bigeman -- I liked the first few then it seems that you started smoking the green-non folding stuff that you wanted to tax

But once and forever the answer is the Metropolitan County -- making Boston into a virtual Singapore-like city-state with all the legislative and taxing authority needed to run Logan, the MWRA and the T, etc.
 
I want an "emergency" tax on motor fuels: 1 cent for each dime that gas is below $3.50. If price = $3.50, tax is zero. If price falls to $3.40, tax of 1c is imposed to take it to $3.41. If the price falls to $2.00, tax takes it to $2.25

(or functional equivalent imposed at the wholesale level based on some benchmark)

For as long as the Saudis' targeted discount for US motorists last (you know these prices are designed by the Saudis to kill oil fracking competition, yes?), 100% of proceeds go into a mass transit lock box.

Right now, with gas retailing at $2.11, a tax boosting it to $2.34 ish would net the state 23c/gal.
 
Arlington said:
I want an "emergency" tax on motor fuels: 1 cent for each dime that gas is below $3.50. If price = $3.50, tax is zero. If price falls to $3.40, tax of 1c is imposed to take it to $3.41. If the price falls to $2.00, tax takes it to $2.25

(or functional equivalent imposed at the wholesale level based on some benchmark)

For as long as the Saudis' targeted discount for US motorists last (you know these prices are designed by the Saudis to kill oil fracking competition, yes?), 100% of proceeds go into a mass transit lock box.

Right now, with gas retailing at $2.11, a tax boosting it to $2.34 ish would net the state 23c/gal.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- I hope you don't think that there is anything of value in the Social Security Trust Fund "Lock Box" -- that concept is kinda like the Confederate Currency some 150 years ago, or the Phrase "Not-Worth a Continental" about 4 score and 7 years before the former

No -- the last thing the Political Hacks need is more of our money unless and until they prove that they can manage what they already are entrusted with managing

PS: care to share with rest of us where you saw gasoline in Massachusetts at $2.11
 
whighlander said:
Jeff -- do you understand the word Aggregate -- & No I'm not talking about broken rock

And its Masters-level work we are talking about -- kinda 5th year

There are literally hundreds of bus operators -- Somehow and Someway -- they seem to get their buses serviced without the massive overhead, union waste-rules and burearucrapcy of the T

The new era which we are entering is the era of Uber versus the entrenched Taxi cartel, etc.

Buses are an area ripe for review and innovation -- the T has no monopoly on the technology, the infrastructure or the operations for buses -- rather than replicating what always worked at such and such a garage back in the days of the MTA -- the T is going to have to learn to take advantage of the modern world or it will one day just seize-up and stop
Click to expand...

And the problem with your argument is already bypassed by pointing out MBCR. Whatever ails maintenance won't be fixed just by merely having a private entity that functions with an objective to make a profit. That's the thing, theoretically, the profit motive of capitalism would motivate and generate the behavior that would lead to having buses that is well maintained, but MBCR (and other examples) shows profit doesn't always mean keeping up in quality. Thus, merely adding a profit motive by outsourcing may well not do a thing except paying the cost to maintain plus the margin they want so can profit.

Whatever the cure is, outsourcing in-and-of-itself is not it. The cure might be somewhere inside one the practices of the private companies, but not the being manage by a private company in and of itself. Saying to go do a master thesis on the matter does not contend that point. If you're merely saying maybe we should look into some bus companies (which then we should look around the world rather than limit ourselves to just MA) to figure how they are maintaining practices so well, that's one thing and arguably has a point - assuming we study a somebody that does maintain their buses well.

But your initial line that bring to this was citing the Pioneer's Institute suggestion to outsource, thus unless you indicate differently, you were saying more than that.
 
whighlander said:
Buses -- Google Frank "he's not a Lieutenant Sargent" and the Southwest Expressway -- that was so much of a done deal that the land had already been cleared -- yet today we have a linear park and a relocated Orange Line and new commuter rail stops -- no expressway
Click to expand...

You really need to pull back your rhetoric style. A simple line would "If MA was able cancel the Southwest Expressway, then MA can find a way to cancel other projects already started". Telling to go google with rambling quote is just condescending and dick-y.

PS: care to share with rest of us where you saw gasoline in Massachusetts at $2.11
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are making another snarky quip implying you are contesting the claim gas is more expensive or genuinely asking. From the previous posts, you have to realize it sounds like the former. But I'm going to keep civility and treat it like the later. Current average price has decline to $2.14 a gallon. That would mean many places has went lower than that. One place I know is Cumberland Farms - including one in Somerville going $2.11 last week and can be $2.01 if you pay through their membership card.
 
ant8904 said:
And the problem with your argument is already bypassed by pointing out MBCR. Whatever ails maintenance won't be fixed just by merely having a private entity that functions with an objective to make a profit. That's the thing, theoretically, the profit motive of capitalism would motivate and generate the behavior that would lead to having buses that is well maintained, but MBCR (and other examples) shows profit doesn't always mean keeping up in quality. Thus, merely adding a profit motive by outsourcing may well not do a thing except paying the cost to maintain plus the margin they want so can profit.

Whatever the cure is, outsourcing in-and-of-itself is not it. The cure might be somewhere inside one the practices of the private companies, but not the being manage by a private company in and of itself. Saying to go do a master thesis on the matter does not contend that point. If you're merely saying maybe we should look into some bus companies (which then we should look around the world rather than limit ourselves to just MA) to figure how they are maintaining practices so well, that's one thing and arguably has a point - assuming we study a somebody that does maintain their buses well.

But your initial line that bring to this was citing the Pioneer's Institute suggestion to outsource, thus unless you indicate differently, you were saying more than that.
Click to expand...

Ant -- not the right example -- MBCR and any equivalent are not competing except once in a decade for the right to operate the CR for the T

I'm talking about either:
  • T puts some of the bus maintenance -- perhaps starting with the Ride out to bid for a year
  • T could put some bus operations out to bid with a private contractor -- again for a period of 1 year

These are small enough contracts that there might be more than 2 bidders -- and then we can see how things progress
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top