General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)
- Thread starter Waldorf
- Start date
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,157
- Reaction score
- 4,397
Yes, I would rate all three HRT colors as running very well at the moment. I haven't ridden any Green Line routes in a while, so can't comment on them, but on the other lines, it's all smooth, fast, and frequent.
Whoa. If Harvard to Alewife took you 20 minutes, you had some bad luck and got on slow train. That's supposed to take about 9 minutes, and since all the shutdowns, that's roughly what has actually been happening. Here's stats from a recent weekday: Average travel time between those two stops was 9m 18s; fastest was 6m; and 90% were under 14m.
That does go to show how terrible the service has been that 20 minutes now feels like a victory. I'm just beginning to recalibrate for how long these trips should take, now that the track work is done.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,157
- Reaction score
- 4,397
I missed that part and thought he meant 20 minutes from Park to Alewife. So yeah, that is not good if it was from Harvard. Typically, though, the trains are running quite well.
I know I said that line, but I do want respond that my concerns are not exactly the same.
Like in terms of full disaster, my concern is the worse case scenario have a concerningly high non-zero chance. That they are going to procrastinate, but until past procrastination, they put it off so late that we do inadvertently fall of the fiscal cliff. The danger of brinkmanship is allow stakes to get high enough, one of the times something will actually slip.
But I do think the realistic scenario is just last minute action and a kick-the-can scenario. That is not a worse-case-scenario, that is sadly the norm for decades. It will leave a deficit that will cause drastic cuts and fare hikes, but not one the MBTA had to close before.
Okay, a cut that leaves Eng being scapegoated, half-hour headways, and re-staffed in-house personnel in favor for on-paper-cheaper-but-in-practice-disastrous consultants-as-needed is possible - but realistically any kick-the-can will be enough that it avoids something that looks too obviously bad (like half-hour headways). Meanwhile if they something like reverse the personnel hiring, it wont affect ridership experience in a way we can immediately tell. I'm not a fan of the slow boiled, but it does avoid the most dramatic loss. It also buys time.
I do hope dialog do start ramping up. The sooner we actually hear discussion, the more hope we get a better timeline than what is speculated above
I don't think it would be easy to scapegoat Eng at this point. The shutdowns have been high-profile and the successes of them have been trumpeted. If there are serious service cuts because of a budget shortfall, there will be enough people screaming about it that Eng will not take the blame for the sins of the legislature.
themissinglink
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 3,670
BeansTheCat
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2024
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 320
While this is pretty clearly not what the Millionaire's Tax was intended for, and it's not a long term a long-term fix, I don't hate it. If it weren't for the states abysmal track record of funding the T, I'd say it's a very reasonable stop gap. It's fairly reasonable to expect both sides of the T's operating budget (income and expenses) to improve in the following years. Shorter headways due to new RL/OL cars, increased service on BNRD routes, major GL improvements (Type 10s, stop consolidation/enhancement, GLTPS), continued RTO, and worsening traffic should all lead to consistent ridership increases. At the same time, signal replacements, new bus lanes (or just improved enforcement), and management that actually knows what they're doing should reduce operating costs. While there are some headwinds (like running SCR), the idea that the T's fiscal situation will be significantly different if it can continue current progress over the next 3 or 4 years is understandable.
That all said, it sure seems like the can is just being kicked down the road again.
Not sure if you read the article, but there's this tidbit:
If New York's congestion pricing works as expected and it doesn't cost politicians their jobs in 2026, I have a feeling we'll be seeing it soon after.
I really hope congestion pricing works out in NYC and that this is something that we will live to see here. I wish we could at least just do a pilot of it.
I would be very surprised if we're not by 2030. The MPO, building off of a 2023 study surveying different roadway pricing schemes, is doing a study this year on alternative scenarios for Boston and their impacts (pg. 114).
2030 is 15 years too late. No more studies about studies and task forces which don’t complete tasks.
Sure. But it's not 2010 and we can't do anything about that. It's also never going to get implemented without the political cover of a study. If the best time to be doing it was 15 years ago, the next best time is now.
So reading through, it looks like they'll just recommend using funds from the millionaires tax. Is that right?
I'm going to be at my most cynical for a sec. A quick summary of this task force, as I've seen it:
- Healey set up the task force to figure out a long term solution to financing public transit. They'd be looking at the full range of options. Everything was on the table. This administration would not be kicking the can down the road. (Setting up a task force like this always reeks of kicking the can. When politicians actually want to do something like, say, tax cuts, they don't spend a year analyzing every possible option or consequence. They just pick a policy, close enough, and use their political clout to get it done. So a task force should set low expectations, but maybe something good would come out of it.)
- Actually not everything was on the table. Healey quickly stepped in to say there would be no new taxes, tolls, or fees from anyone. Seeing as how the T actually needs more money, that really put a crimp in available options. Actually, there are so few options available at that point, I feel like they could have wrapped this up over the summer. Or just said there are no long term solutions under those conditions.
- Disputes within the task force kept leaking to the press. I never know what to make of those, but it didn't sound like it was going well. Members complained they didn't think they were solving anything. They weren't clear if they were coming up with specific recommendations or a vague list of options. The task force missed deadlines, and they still haven't issued their report.
- After a year, it looks like the task force came up with nothing. Absolutely nothing.
- In the mean time, it turned out that the millionaires tax was raising a lot more money than expected. Praise be! The task force says go use that money. That will still require an annual fight with public schools, which also get a piece of that money, but good enough for the next couple of years (hopefully). (Note just how little the government is actually doing to save the MBTA in this case. "Tax rich people to fund transportation" was broadly popular, but politically impossible. It took a ballot initiative and a popular vote to enact the millionaires tax. The voters are saving the MBTA. No help from the task force, the governor, or really any of our political institutions.)
- Can successfully kicked.
Also worth remembering that this was money that was supposed to be helping to fund capital improvements. The opportunity cost here is massive.
RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 5,021
It may help to look at how the political landscape changed since the task force was set up. The easiest exit strategy for the Governor was eliminated on 11/5. Now she has to pivot to Plan B.
^^^
Yes, this, so much this. Jeez, what a failure.
So, I agree with you here, kinda. I understand that these studies can work even if they're just political cover for a politician to do something. But the planned congestion pricing study you point to looks pretty ineffective. It's one of dozens of little studies proposed in that document, in a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" kind of way. It's a small budget. Possible outcome could be an "interactive visual document" like StoryMap, which, fine, but that's nothing near the rigor required for a congestion pricing study to be effective. Just playing the odds, it seems like most of these studies go nowhere.
Is there some reason you're more optimistic than I am about a study like that?
It's one of three such small studies, not dozens, to be fair. The MPO doesn't exactly get to choose its own studies, it presents a list of dozens of proposals and a few get selected by the MPO Board's UPWP committee. The budget is small, though I will provide the caveat that MPO study budgets typically look smaller because a lot of the work is charged to generalized budgets. Outreach & engagement, graphics, editorial, finance...basically any support work. It's still not a big study, but tens of thousands more than it's on-paper budget, which is basically supporting the salary of the project manager and data analysts.
My optimism isn't really stemming from "this study is going to be amazing and bring us to congestion pricing" rather than that out of the dozens of proposed studies, roadway pricing is one that the board supported strongly enough to fund not just once, but now twice. I shared the MPO meeting recording from when the first study was presented, and it's clear that some form of roadway pricing has institutional support. I believe that they are laying the groundwork now so that once 2-3 years of impacts from NYC can be looked at they can move quickly.
Historically, you're not wrong! There has been a large and rapid generational shift at the MPO, and we're particularly sensitive to this and want to make sure plans don't sit on shelves.
This isn't surprising... not doing much but looking like they did something...
They won't have to fight with public schools, but will have to fight with other transportation agencies. I think it is set up to be 50% for education, 50% for transportation, and this seems to imply the T would be receiving a good amount of the transportation funding.
The transportation funding portion of the Fair Share Amendment was really geared toward putting capital projects into construction. It was a glimmer of consistent funding for transportation agencies, which would help them greatly in properly developing capital investment plans. It doesn't help these agencies if they don't know how much money they're going to or not going to have in 3-5 years. Now that it's going to MBTA operating funds, capital funding is probably back to being as clear as mud, though it sounds like the actual details of this "suggested" plan aren't even clear either, so what did they really do for a year?
They won't have to fight with public schools, but will have to fight with other transportation agencies. I think it is set up to be 50% for education, 50% for transportation, and this seems to imply the T would be receiving a good amount of the transportation funding.
The transportation funding portion of the Fair Share Amendment was really geared toward putting capital projects into construction. It was a glimmer of consistent funding for transportation agencies, which would help them greatly in properly developing capital investment plans. It doesn't help these agencies if they don't know how much money they're going to or not going to have in 3-5 years. Now that it's going to MBTA operating funds, capital funding is probably back to being as clear as mud, though it sounds like the actual details of this "suggested" plan aren't even clear either, so what did they really do for a year?
The division of the Millionaires' Tax is half the money goes to school and other half is transit. Stefal posted the current break down and Stilin posted the official structure. They can only spend based on what is budgeted. Any excess amount goes to a reserve fund, but future years can budget that extra money into future budget.
Of the budgeted $1 billion of the past year. The division was $510 million went to schools and the other $490 million went to transportation. But only $186 million went to the MBTA (with $5m for reduced fares and $181m to capital projects).
If they start budgeting future spending to be $1.4 billion (they collected closer to $2 billion the past year) or more, then there shouldn't be an annual fight or lingering resentment from public schools. They get their half as stipulated which is the most they are allowed to get regardless of the state of the MBTA.
Assuming that's the plan, then it is notable that the opportunity cost, from the perspective of the MBTA, is as only a fraction of the of the millionaire's tax. They were only getting $186 million of the budgeted billion before. I think it's reasonable to assume they would have still only get a fraction of the of the "transit half" into the future too. But if the gap get closed by purely the Millionaire's tax, then it does mean the other transit departments (previously $100m for local roads, $164m MassDOT Highway, $40m for MassDOT Rail and Transit) will be left mad and fighting for a piece.
Well if they budget $2b, then I guess there's enough to cover the $700m gap and still roughly enough to the other departments (as questionable if the Millionaire's Tax was meant for MassDOT Highway).
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, commissioned by the MBTA board who been seeing the writing on the wall, did the math. I'm having trouble finding the original publication but NBC Boston has the breakdown. Congestion Pricing would raise about $220m to $440m. You might be speaking off-hand, but frankly it's not so simple that rolling out plate readers over 2 months and charging tolls will the hole is plug - not even for current crisis, much less forever.
In they same article, they did list out a whole bunch of other ideas - motor vehicle excise tax ($36m to $570m depending on rate increase), gas tax ($22m to $356m depending on rates), increase highway tolls ($22 to $80m for same), Vehicle Registration Fees ($33m to $104m), increased share of sale tax ($335m, if share raised to .01 to .0125), and roughly five other ideas that all falls under three categories in the end.
Personally, it should be a mix of everything. Politically, it should be ordered in a way to avoid political backlash. So first things to use are Motor Vehicle Excise, Vehicle Registration, ...and Millionaire's Tax. Congestion Pricing, Gas Tax, Tolls, and Fares (personally, raising it to .10 to $2.50 should be discussed), but should try to be avoided until necessary (the first 3 theoretically can already close the $700 million) from likely backlash against it.