General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: The Boston Garden (TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

whighlander said:
Shmess -- don't forget the T pensioners and the soon to be pensioners currently making the $200 K to $300k

I'm sure that on one of their "Sick Day's" they can afford to spend a few $ for some popcorn and beer with a movie as as a palliative for the pain of not working
Click to expand...

Stop trolling.
 
Re: The Boston Garden (TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

bigeman312 said:
Stop trolling.
Click to expand...

Bige -- just noticed a new News story*1 about how the T's been paying mechanics over $300K [through the be sick and then work overtime stratagem] and then low and behold Shmessy brings up spending more on the T -- seemed like a fair juxtaposition



*! Boston Herald Joe Dwinell Thursday, January 28, 2016

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo...ayroll_shows_workers_hitting_overtime_jackpot
Out-of-control overtime fueled by high absenteeism boosted the pay of MBTA employees, with nearly 2,000 workers pocketing more than $100,000 last year, new payroll data shows.

The T payroll, obtained by the Herald under the state’s Open Records Law, also shows two employees with gross pay that topped $300,000 last year, and 34 more took home gross pay of $200,000 or more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Garden (TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

Doesn't matter if its true this isn't the space to talk about that issue this is a space to talk about the TD Garden development so just stop trying to bring up the unions every time you can link it in even the most ridiculous manner. We get it you don't like the T workers/union and are upset. That's cool but calm down with the constant moaning about it.
 
Re: The Boston Garden (TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

citylover94 said:
Doesn't matter if its true this isn't the space to talk about that issue this is a space to talk about the TD Garden development so just stop trying to bring up the unions every time you can link it in even the most ridiculous manner. We get it you don't like the T workers/union and are upset. That's cool but calm down with the constant moaning about it.
Click to expand...

City -- just reacting to the ironic nature of the other post which juxtaposed the T with the high priced apartments

The only relevant aspect of the T to the Garden Development is the temporary suspension of the access, while the permanent underground connection is being made -- something which I've advocated for many years
 
I didn't see anyone post yet about this legal issue between the MBTA and Amtrak:

http://www.universalhub.com/2016/mbta-sues-amtrak-derail-29-million-demand-running

The MBTA this week sued Amtrak over the $29 million Amtrak is demanding the authority pay for the right to have Amtrak keep running trains over Northeast Corridor tracks that are owned by the T.

The T warns that if it's forced to make the payments, it might have to take the money out of its already precariously financed mass-transit services.
Click to expand...

More information in the linked article. Anyone here have any more info on this? Is this really as ridiculous as it sounds?
 
Re: The Boston Garden (TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

whighlander said:
Bige -- just noticed a new News story*1 about how the T's been paying mechanics over $300K [through the be sick and then work overtime stratagem] and then low and behold Shmessy brings up spending more on the T -- seemed like a fair juxtaposition



*! Boston Herald Joe Dwinell Thursday, January 28, 2016

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo...ayroll_shows_workers_hitting_overtime_jackpot
Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of ripping on the employees who are obviously working very hard for that kind of overtime you could rip on them not budgeting more employees in so that there is coverage when someone is sick without authorizing overtime?
 
Shouldn't it be Amtrak paying the T for rights to their property if anything. That sounds backwards to me I can't think of any situation where you pay someone else to use property that is owned by yourself. It would be one thing if Amtrak owned the tracks but they don't they just own the catenary which the T doesn't even use.
 
citylover94 said:
Shouldn't it be Amtrak paying the T for rights to their property if anything. That sounds backwards to me I can't think of any situation where you pay someone else to use property that is owned by yourself. It would be one thing if Amtrak owned the tracks but they don't they just own the catenary which the T doesn't even use.
Click to expand...

Amtrak pays for and performs all track maintenance on the NEC in Massachusetts, not just the electrification. There's no functional difference to the way the NEC operates on the MA side of the state line vs. the way it operates everywhere Amtrak outright owns. Any track work that's done gets performed by an Amtrak crew. Any hardware that breaks gets fixed by an Amtrak crew. Any service improvements construction gets performed by an Amtrak crew. Any delays from Boston to South Attleboro that aren't the fault of broken-down Purple Line trains or a branchline FUBAR cascading back onto the mainline are Amtrak's problem to fix ("we are experiencing signal problems. . ." and the like). All it is is an administrative difference in two partners needing to stay on the same page and keep their stories straight on who's paying for what for whose trains.

The T is only hands-on with the stations, excepting Route 128 which is Amtrak-owned station building + platforms attached to a T-owned garage. As landlord they have to be a co-signer to capital improvements on their portion of NEC track (whether they're paying or not) and be kept in the loop by Amtrak re: what they're doing out in the field. This is very much unlike the situation on the New Haven Line from New Rochelle, NY to New Haven where the MTA and ConnDOT divide respective ownerships at the NY state line, Metro North is lord and ruler over track and dispatching, and Amtrak is totally hands-off. There they have no control or ownership, and Metro North can bully them around or keep them in the dark all they want. Here they have de facto control, just not the ownership...and have to be cooperative but not necessarily subservient. Everywhere else D.C. to New Rochelle, New Haven to the MA state line: full control and ownership.



It's been this way ever since 1973 when the T purchased the southside lines from bankrupt Penn Central...two years after Amtrak was established to take over NEC intercity trains from Penn Central. And it's the logical way to run it because Amtrak has needs for track standards way, way above and beyond short-haul commuter rail and short-haul commuter rail's stop spacing. There's a lot of fine print in that legacy agreement from 43 years ago, a lot that's evolved in 43 years about where the NEC's future is heading, and a lot of coordination required between Amtrak and the T to stay in sync on the big picture.

This isn't the first time it's gotten chippy between them. It won't be the last. Both of them have previously taken cracks at being the initiating party in a dispute. It isn't the first time lawyers have been dispatched or legal game of chicken has been hatched. And so far for 43 years they've eventually gotten over themselves in due time with peace prevailing. It's a complicated relationship; this will happen every several years on a regular churn.



I don't know if there's much more to read into this than gamesmanship and one party playing hard-to-get at sitting down and hashing out some financial business. Simply look at what political winds are stirred up on each side at the moment.

  • You've got the T under the FCB's jurisdiction.
  • You've got a new governor and new MassDOT regime that until now really haven't had any high-level direct dealings with Amtrak yet.
  • You've got one of the longest-serving Chairmen in Amtrak's history announcing his retirement and aggressively pushing through a bucket list of fundraising initiatives before he leaves.
  • It's a hotly-contested election year in D.C.
  • You've got this NEC FUTURE hullabaloo making the rounds, with the FRA pushing that initiative somewhat outside Amtrak's control and adding an additional layer of complexity to the Amtrak/state partnerships.
  • All of this change is converging at once, and the Amtrak / MA partnership hasn't been stress-tested in awhile amid all these unknowns and new strangers on the other side of the bargaining table.
Therefore...time ends up well ripe for them to do another periodic round of ritualistic political-territorial marking. That's all you can really read into it: peacocks fluffing their feathers to get a look at each other's plumage and update the flock's pecking order.
 
Busing earlier between Beaconsfield and Reservoir (and briefly as far as Fenway) on the D branch. Car 3844 derailed just east of Reservoir.

 
^ That link took me to an article dated Jan.29 2014
 
Oh lord. Just saw it on Twitter a few minutes ago and read without looking at the date. My bad.
 
Downburst said:
In other news, the Hyundai Rotems continue to suck:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...r-rail-cars/0WOOTVM6DWMty4nXvUtnpL/story.html
Click to expand...

It's not just ours, nor is the story over yet. The Rotem warranty mods encampment in Davisville, RI still--as of 2/1/2016--has not closed up shop and is struggling to get the last 2 cars in the program modified and sent back. Metrolink out in L.A. had to recently remove all their Rotem cab cars from service and start running them as mid-set trailers because Hyundai's crash-resistant design for the cab ends failed inspection. And Tri-Rail in Florida is hurriedly investigating their similar Rotem cabs to pinpoint if they've got a similar problem.

Passengers with all 3 users of their push-pull coaches report the same pervasive problems with the ride being so rough that the cars are literally shaking themselves to pieces: flimsy plastic fixtures breaking off, poorly-latched restroom doors flying open, electrical shorts from connections jarring loose, problems with the A/C units, deafening brake squeals. And this is pervasive across multiple Hyundai plants, not just the Philly one that fucked up the T and SEPTA orders and which the company promised was an isolated case of mismanagement.

SEPTA's Silverliner V's have at least rounded up into fleet-best uptime...though that isn't saying much compared to the rolling ruins that make up the rest of Regional Rail. Similar 'less-than-solid' feeling reported by riders on those long-cursed Rotem EMU's, similar scuttlebutt from within SEPTA that they are still a shop disaster. The only real distinction there is that SEPTA's warranty situation seems to have settled down, the T's is simply past the point where they can do anything but continue to be patient until the last of theirs emerge back from the Davisville warranty mods black hole...while Metrolink's and Tri-Rail's problems are heating back up to the point where lawyers may be donning warpaint if those cab cars are no easy fix.



At this point you can change the masthead on all your "Breda" jokes to "Brokem". Breda's off its de facto probation on U.S. orders after its 90's trolley follies and finally getting a little bit of renewed domestic action. Hyundai-Rotem's nuclear winter of being blackballed from commuter rail orders has only begun. And what a long winter it will be.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/mbtainfo/status/695259397040312324

Stop the presses: T fare revenue's gone up FASTER than operating expenses http://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/mbta-riders-are-holding-their-end-bargain … by @FrontierTony
Click to expand...

CaYOu6oWQAE1zwX.jpg
 
JeffDowntown said:
I am assuming that "operating expenses" do not include proper GAAP accounting for amortization for deferred capital expenditures
Click to expand...
I suspect it doesn't cover any capital costs or retiree costs, just what the system lays out to fuel and staff the system plus operating maintenance.
 
Yeah. I get looking for a reason to stop the fare increase but that is really disingenuous.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I am assuming that "operating expenses" do not include proper GAAP accounting for amortization for deferred capital expenditures needed to keep the T in a state of good repair.

The $7 billion hole they dug themselves.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this looks to be using the same number for "operating expenses" as this bit of propaganda from the Financial Management Control Board.

I5yVRHC.png


The FMCB claimed their graph shows revenue from ridership is not tracking expenses ("flat" ridership vs. soaring expenses). Never mind the totally arbitrary maximum value on the ridership axis. The Frontier Group's graph is a direct response, using the same figure for expenses, but showing fare revenue instead of ridership, and using a common axis of percent growth, so you cannot manipulate the ordinate to pretend one value is spiralling upwards while the other is "flat".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top