General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

We are probably on a course for either of:

A) Combining all the RTAs and the MBTA into a single state-wide Massachusetts Transit Authority.
B) Dump the MBTA and let the private sector sort it out.

Given that there is an impending change of administration, I would give A a higher likelihood of happening.
 
RandomWalk said:
We are probably on a course for either of:

A) Combining all the RTAs and the MBTA into a single state-wide Massachusetts Transit Authority.
B) Dump the MBTA and let the private sector sort it out.

Given that there is an impending change of administration, I would give A a higher likelihood of happening.
Click to expand...
I really can't see A happening. The trend has been for more regional control, not less - and I imagine politically inconvenient to open the door to claims of "control of Pittsfield transit to transfer to Boston elite." While I do think we need a supra RTA entity to provide interdistrict transit, I can't see how a single statewide agency will be any better. Even if we were to merge it all, I imagine we would still see separately managed divisions representing each RTA, in the vein of CT transit.

Plus, if the past decades of corporate mergers have taught us anything, it's that the benefits of mergers come after large amounts of slow, expensive, painful processes integrating disparate cultures and missions - not to mention labor bargaining units. I cannot see it being worthwhile to anyone.

Given this is MA, I would wager that the next leader of the T comes from either a consulting background or academia - someone whose CV includes things like "leadership for change."

Edit: Not saying that we could get one on a government salary, but if I were to be hiring from the private sector some sort of airline exec in operations would probably be my choice. Lots of safety critical responsibilities etc.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
...Plus, if the past decades of corporate mergers have taught us anything, it's that the benefits of mergers come after large amounts of slow, expensive, painful processes integrating disparate cultures and missions - not to mention labor bargaining units. I cannot see it being worthwhile to anyone.

Given this is MA, I would wager that the next leader of the T comes from either a consulting background or academia - someone whose CV includes things like "leadership for change
Click to expand...

While I'm an idealist who would love to see them bring in a transit expert with boots-on-the-ground experience who rose up through the ranks of a transit system...
If such is not possible, then I would say that they should grab someone from MassPort. The latter could strike a key balance between knowing Mass. politics while not taking for granted the operational realities and challenges of running a complex system. Plus, the MassPort folks have a decent track record of late. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I would want a MassPort alum over a transit expert; I am merely saying that the latter could be vastly better than a "leadership for change" academic/consultant -type with no real experience.
 
How about an MWRA alum? Those guys have lots of experience running a transportation system in Massachusetts (for water admittedly), and have been quietly maintaining old and constructing new infrastructure for the better part of three decades with very few failures.
 
While an enthusiastic governor would make a real difference, seems like we're aiming at the wrong spot. Given the feudal system that is the Great and General Court, I think until we get a speaker who thinks transportation is important (and more important than appeasing...well, I'll just try to refrain from commenting about the types and home locations most of the last couple guys' lieutenants had...we're not going to get a lot of progress. It's that lockdown in the House that's stymied progress IMO. Long term planning, real maintenance and the funding necessary to support both are what's required, and that's just not been a priority. And the reps who know it's important have to toe the line or they get nothing. Disasters get short-term attention and some fix-it money, but that seems to be about it so far. There's no "slapping legislators around", it just doesn't work that way; they've got the purse strings, so somehow the voters of Winthrop (or wherever) determine the transportation policy for the Commonwealth. Rather frustrating.

As for the MWRA...well, they've mostly done OK. I haven't forgotten the week spent boiling water a while back, though, thanks to their disaster in Weston.
 
Wash said:
How about an MWRA alum? Those guys have lots of experience running a transportation system in Massachusetts (for water admittedly), and have been quietly maintaining old and constructing new infrastructure for the better part of three decades with very few failures.
Click to expand...
They also own/run a railroad, Fore River Transportation...the freight carrier that runs from Braintree to Quincy Shipyard.

brazile said:
While an enthusiastic governor would make a real difference, seems like we're aiming at the wrong spot. Given the feudal system that is the Great and General Court, I think until we get a speaker who thinks transportation is important (and more important than appeasing...well, I'll just try to refrain from commenting about the types and home locations most of the last couple guys' lieutenants had...we're not going to get a lot of progress. It's that lockdown in the House that's stymied progress IMO. Long term planning, real maintenance and the funding necessary to support both are what's required, and that's just not been a priority. And the reps who know it's important have to toe the line or they get nothing. Disasters get short-term attention and some fix-it money, but that seems to be about it so far. There's no "slapping legislators around", it just doesn't work that way; they've got the purse strings, so somehow the voters of Winthrop (or wherever) determine the transportation policy for the Commonwealth. Rather frustrating.

As for the MWRA...well, they've mostly done OK. I haven't forgotten the week spent boiling water a while back, though, thanks to their disaster in Weston.
Click to expand...
The only positive here is that Ron Mariano is 75, so he's not going to be DictatorSpeaker for very long. However, the only thing that matters is if he's there long enough to groom a replacement who's exactly like him.
 
Talking about MBTA GMs is making me think about to the GMs we had in the past - particularly the ones that was active while this forum been existing and thus we commentated and discussed about them.

Ordered by Most Recent (interim omitted)

Steve Poftak
Luis Ramírez
Beverly Scott
Rich Davey
Daniel Grabauskas

Well, I don't think any of us are liking Steve Poftak right now. But aside from calling him a Pioneer Institute lackey, he did served on the FMCB and I believe we viewed the board positively even though (at least personally) did not followed his actions as an individual. Though it is notable that while its existence is viewed as a positive (though we were also worried it was a way for Baker to gut the MBTA) with the constant reports and presentation of progress, I thought it would have lead to less incidents (and maybe it did, but it sure does not feel like that).

Luis Ramírez - Did we even talked about him when he resigned? I think his two most memorable thing about him was resigning being under fire from his past... and being hired while being under fire from his past

Beverly Scott - I think a lot of us remembers her. Her stay was short too but for much different reasons than Luis.

Rich Davey - His stay was shorter than I remembered. Though I guess part of the reason it feels longer is because he went on to the Dept of Transportation though he is gone now. I think his longest term impact is allowed us to access data so you can track trains and get time estimates on apps/websites. That was a big quality of life improvement for a lot of people.

Daniel Grabauskas - I remember this board dunking on this man a lot. How his policies seem to love running busses. A bunch of other policies we all hated. And there is no justice in all of this - he got "fired"... with full pay for the remainder of his contract and went on to work in the same field... in Honolulu.

----

Where I'm going with this is looking back, the MBTA has been declining for decades - a more generous version is we've been turning around since 2015 or some other disasters incident - but still, my point is all these issues built up through all these tenures regardless of the person. As much as I like to imagine Maura Healey grabbing someone from Japan and imbue that person with enough power to pretzel the T into a system he came from, it seems the issues is more than just a lack of management.

---

Also as I looked up the old GMs. I also found an old interview from Commonwealth with Beverly Scott that does say the MBTA should be folded into the State. I'm not sure personally if that's the solution, but it's interesting she said that. Albeit, her picture of a State Takeover could be very different Rep. William Straus suggested and Baker says he is open to think about.
 
Last edited:
Badusername said:
I know the Healey campaign has been pretty light on specifics, but are there any ideas of who would (or should) be picked for Sec. of Transportation? Jim Aloisi again?
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that this person would have to want the job. Pollack was Baker's third choice for Secretary - the first two turned him down. Ramirez happened because literally no one in the United States could be convinced to be GM, so GE basically dispatched someone as a goodwill gesture when they moved to Boston.

The money is so tight and the public discourse so toxic that I can't imagine anyone qualified wanting this job. You're guaranteed to fail.
 
ant8904 said:
Talking about MBTA GMs is making me think about to the GMs we had in the past - particularly the ones that was active while this forum been existing and thus we commentated and discussed about them.

Ordered by Most Recent (interim omitted)

Steve Poftak
Luis Ramírez
Beverly Scott
Rich Davey
Daniel Grabauskas

Well, I don't think any of us are liking Steve Poftak right now. But aside from calling him a Pioneer Institute lackey, he did served on the FMCB and I believe we viewed the board positively even though (at least personally) did not followed his actions as an individual. Though it is notable that while its existence is viewed as a positive (though we were also worried it was a way for Baker to gut the MBTA) with the constant reports and presentation of progress, I thought it would have lead to less incidents (and maybe it did, but it sure does not feel like that).

Luis Ramírez - Did we even talked about him when he resigned? I think his two most memorable thing about him was resigning being under fire from his past... and being hired while being under fire from his past

Beverly Scott - I think a lot of us remembers her. Her stay was short too but for much different reasons than Luis.

Rich Davey - His stay was shorter than I remembered. Though I guess part of the reason it feels longer is because he went on to the Dept of Transportation though he is gone now. I think his longest term impact is allowed us to access data so you can track trains and get time estimates on apps/websites. That was a big quality of life improvement for a lot of people.

Daniel Grabauskas - I remember this board dunking on this man a lot. How his policies seem to love running busses. A bunch of other policies we all hated. And there is no justice in all of this - he got "fired"... with full pay for the remainder of his contract and went on to work in the same field... in Honolulu.

----

Where I'm going with this is looking back, the MBTA has been declining for decades - a more generous version is we've been turning around since 2015 or some other disasters incident - but still, my point is all these issues built up through all these tenures regardless of the person. As much as I like to imagine Maura Healey grabbing someone from Japan and imbue that person with enough power to pretzel the T into a system he came from, it seems the issues is more than just a lack of management.

---

Also as I looked up the old GMs. I also found an old interview from Commonwealth with Beverly Scott that does say the MBTA should be folded into the State. I'm not sure personally if that's the solution, but it's interesting she said that. Albeit, her picture of a State Takeover could be very different Rep. William Straus suggested and Baker says he is open to think about.
Click to expand...

Here's another take on the idea of the T being swallowed up by MassDOT: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/merging-mbta-with-dot-is-a-bad-idea/

Have to say I agree with this because the T was a much better transit agency (def not saying there weren't major issues / mistakes made - like removing the El from Washington St) back in the 80's / 90's when it also had more political autonomy. Since Forward Funding was passed over 20 years ago, it's been downhill since for the T, and the 2009 MassDOT reshuffling was a huge contributor. Over the last twenty years, the politics have been "how can we spend the least amount to squeeze out service out of this system without actually meaningfully improving capital facilities AND operations?" (the most over-used Charlie Baker talking point is how his admin has spent billions on the T, but that has been almost exclusively the capital program, not operations).

We need a fully functioning transit system that is continually getting better, not limping from crisis to crisis with politicians playing political football, but the attitude has continually be "reform over revenue," not, "what does this agency need, politically and financially, to succeed?".
 
lainpimicaja said:
Here's another take on the idea of the T being swallowed up by MassDOT: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/merging-mbta-with-dot-is-a-bad-idea/

Have to say I agree with this because the T was a much better transit agency (def not saying there weren't major issues / mistakes made - like removing the El from Washington St) back in the 80's / 90's when it also had more political autonomy. Since Forward Funding was passed over 20 years ago, it's been downhill since for the T, and the 2009 MassDOT reshuffling was a huge contributor. Over the last twenty years, the politics have been "how can we spend the least amount to squeeze out service out of this system without actually meaningfully improving capital facilities AND operations?" (the most over-used Charlie Baker talking point is how his admin has spent billions on the T, but that has been almost exclusively the capital program, not operations).

We need a fully functioning transit system that is continually getting better, not limping from crisis to crisis with politicians playing political football, but the attitude has continually be "reform over revenue," not, "what does this agency need, politically and financially, to succeed?".
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the 2009 legislation has to do with it, honestly. The failure to realize redundancies doesn't mean the concept was bad, just that the execution was. MBTA funding has nothing to do with whether it's part of MassDOT or not.

Rather, the ups and downs of the MBTA have had much more to do with (a) a lack of money relative to backlog and (b) the degree to which there is meaningful oversight. Meaningful oversight existed under the FMCB. It has not existed under the new BOD. It really doesn't matter where you house the agency, it matters whether the people conducting oversight know and care about providing quality transit service.

If an independent BOD can provide that, great. If directly reporting to MassDOT can provide it, that's fine too. What isn't working is having the agency basically be accountable to nobody because nobody wants to be responsible for its perpetual politically poisonous mess. Baker said in 2015 that he'd own it. He didn't. Who will?

As for actually fixing this stuff, until the people of Massachusetts get out of this toxic outrage loop and realize that they have the MBTA they're willing to pay for, I have a limited amount of hope.
 
Equilibria said:
I'm not sure what the 2009 legislation has to do with it, honestly. The failure to realize redundancies doesn't mean the concept was bad, just that the execution was. MBTA funding has nothing to do with whether it's part of MassDOT or not.

Rather, the ups and downs of the MBTA have had much more to do with (a) a lack of money relative to backlog and (b) the degree to which there is meaningful oversight. Meaningful oversight existed under the FMCB. It has not existed under the new BOD. It really doesn't matter where you house the agency, it matters whether the people conducting oversight know and care about providing quality transit service.

If an independent BOD can provide that, great. If directly reporting to MassDOT can provide it, that's fine too. What isn't working is having the agency basically be accountable to nobody because nobody wants to be responsible for its perpetual politically poisonous mess. Baker said in 2015 that he'd own it. He didn't. Who will?

As for actually fixing this stuff, until the people of Massachusetts get out of this toxic outrage loop and realize that they have the MBTA they're willing to pay for, I have a limited amount of hope.
Click to expand...
Need a Speaker of the House from an truly MBTA dependent district, and one who cares about their constituents. Most problems flow from there. Frighteningly being from Quincy apparently does not make one care about the T.

Please repeat after me: The Speaker of the MA House is the most powerful person in MA government, not the Governor.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Need a Speaker of the House from an truly MBTA dependent district, and one who cares about their constituents. Most problems flow from there. Frighteningly being from Quincy apparently does not make one care about the T.

Please repeat after me: The Speaker of the MA House is the most powerful person in MA government, not the Governor.
Click to expand...
Have you seen what a lovingly gerrymandered abomination 3rd Norfolk is?
3rd Norfolk.jpg
 
JeffDowntown said:
Need a Speaker of the House from an truly MBTA dependent district, and one who cares about their constituents. Most problems flow from there. Frighteningly being from Quincy apparently does not make one care about the T.

Please repeat after me: The Speaker of the MA House is the most powerful person in MA government, not the Governor.
Click to expand...

Given that there are a relatively small number of those, as long as we're notionally a democracy we'll be waiting a long time.
 
If a turnaround is dependent on state politics and there's no "rock bottom" where dysfunction finally forces action or somehow a system can't decline past, then I think logic says the only place we can go is ultimately collapse. As in train line is shut down, train can't run, tunnel is closed, here's a bus.

Our newest disaster is already reduction of service to weekend levels. There's only so much more "worse incidents" until the only failure left is just a total shutdown of a train line (or even more).

----

I hope that's other factors than just hoping the Speaker of the House to be someone who cares. Like some have speculated the FTA's investigation is one of the scenarios that forces a turnaround (if not by the finding themselves coming soon, then by the long-term non-compliance). Or the transformation stuff actually starts paying off
 
ant8904 said:
Or the transformation stuff actually starts paying off
Click to expand...

If operations is as incompetent/incapable/crippled from staff shortages as it appears to be, I feel like that's not an issue that can be solved by capital projects, which is what all the rapid transit transformation stuff is?

Wave a magic wand and the MBTA is now in as perfect shape as the Tokyo Metro....doesn't seem like that's going to stop the kind of errors that are leading to things like this. And their seeming inability to actually do routine maintenance that doesn't rise to the level of major capital project (track slow zones and the like) suggests said perfect system would just decay back to a mess over time.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
Need a Speaker of the House from an truly MBTA dependent district
Click to expand...

Awhile back I was considering something similar that I think could have an outsized effect on how the MBTA is run and prioritized: I want a bundle of small rule changes that force our legislators to face the same transportation choices that everyone else does. Via sticks and carrots, get them onto the broken down MBTA and get them intimately familiar with its failings. This could be some combination of:

- Remove all parking for legislators at the State House so that the costs of car usage in the urban core are actually felt
- Mandate that legislators from MBTA-served districts commute by public transit X days per legislative session
- Make legislators report what mode of transportation they use to arrive to the State House and make this data public. The data viz folks at our newspapers and on Reddit would eat it up

In the world of software development, "dogfooding" is the practice of forcing yourself to use your own product to better understand it from a user's perspective. We need a lot more dogfooding in government. I think a world in which legislators and MBTA leadership were much more dependent on the transit system they're responsible for would lead to much better outcomes.
 
ant8904 said:
If a turnaround is dependent on state politics and there's no "rock bottom" where dysfunction finally forces action or somehow a system can't decline past, then I think logic says the only place we can go is ultimately collapse. As in train line is shut down, train can't run, tunnel is closed, here's a bus.

Our newest disaster is already reduction of service to weekend levels. There's only so much more "worse incidents" until the only failure left is just a total shutdown of a train line (or even more).
Click to expand...

I do think it’s worth gaming out the “endgame” scenarios here. For example, I think we’re unlikely to see a train line outright close, but I do think some still-drastic things are conceivable, like:
  • No subway service after 9pm
  • Certain stations or branches closing on weekends
  • Absurdly low subway headways (20 min or worse)
  • Significant fare hikes in the midst of all this
But I do think there is a rock bottom: I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where the subway tunnels are shut down. Those tunnels will always be there: the expense of safely dismantling them and filling them in would be extremely high, as would maintaining them even if trains aren’t running through. And make no mistake: the tunnels will have to be maintained, lest they become a risk to the street above, to say nothing of nearby building foundations (especially in Back Bay).

As long as the tunnels are there, I think we will see at least some nominal service through them. Closing them, letting them go derelict, or maintaining them without providing service would all I think be politically untenable.

That all being said, I think it’s all the more important to be mindful of the more subtle ways we may see the T hollowed out. Because even if the T is nominally “open”, it absolutely would be possible for bad actors to create a T that appears vaguely functional on paper but in fact is essentially useless for nearly everyone — as good as shutting the whole thing down, without all the bad press.

Though, on that note, here’s an article from today’s Globe, featuring interviews with riders who, among other things, have needed to take rideshares due to the service reductions. It also features a damning infographic of the T’s incidents over the last year.

www.bostonglobe.com

âFor a major city to not have reliable public transportation is a huge problem.â Rider frustration with T cuts is palpable. - The Boston Globe

The MBTA slashed service on the Blue, Red, and Orange lines last month by more than 20 percent in response to safety edicts from the federal government.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
 
Sorry to say it, but what we really need is a strong reaffirmation -- politically, public sentiment-wise, etc -- of the impact and importance of cities (not just for urban dwellers, but for regional vitality). So much hinges on that. It will inevitably come, but capable politicians are needed to make it arrive sooner than later. We will pay a steep price if this sentiment arrives late and the system is allowed to decay substantially in the mean time. The Baker administration were never going to be the ones to provide this reaffirmation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top