General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

The presentation is not entirely promising and honestly excludes some helpful info.

They have really only successfully hired 1 net new dispatcher, with 5 additional "loaned," and 1 in training. They were forced into the reduced service with 15 or 16 dispatchers, now they have 16 long term and 5 "on loan" from other departments (or possibly retirement). That brings them to "21" with a comfortable goal of 24, and ultimate goal of 36. I'm sure once they hit 25 or 26, one of the loaned employees will drop, until they're all replaced with long-termers. They have a long way to go, and I'm hoping they don't lose too much steam on their efforts.

Edit: currently at 26 with 5 on loan, 3 in training
 
Last edited:
Is anyone willing to address the elephant in the room?

The MBTA is coming up with excuses to keep the long headways, look like they are trying to remedy the situation, and not trigger a lawsuit for failure to deliver the minimum mandated service.

The cost to solve these staffing issues is minuscule. Given how long this has lingered, it’s clear they do not want to solve this problem.
 
stefal said:
The presentation is not entirely promising and honestly excludes some helpful info.

They have really only successfully hired 1 net new dispatcher, with 5 additional "loaned," and 1 in training. They were forced into the reduced service with 15 or 16 dispatchers, now they have 16 long term and 5 "on loan" from other departments (or possibly retirement). That brings them to "21" with a comfortable goal of 24, and ultimate goal of 36. I'm sure once they hit 25 or 26, one of the loaned employees will drop, until they're all replaced with long-termers. They have a long way to go, and I'm hoping they don't lose too much steam on their efforts.
Click to expand...
The 21 does not include the loaned dispatchers; with the loaned the total is 26. And there are 3 in training, not 1. See slide 8 of the GM report
 
I thought that they were supposedly strapped for cash. For a transit agency to say one thing, then another, then another, it would seem like something is wrong somewhere. Unless there is new-found funds coming from some unforeseen source. Maybe from the covid-19 pandemic. :unsure:
 
bigeman312 said:
Is anyone willing to address the elephant in the room?

The MBTA is coming up with excuses to keep the long headways, look like they are trying to remedy the situation, and not trigger a lawsuit for failure to deliver the minimum mandated service.

The cost to solve these staffing issues is minuscule. Given how long this has lingered, it’s clear they do not want to solve this problem.
Click to expand...
i wonder how this plays out with the Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement for the GLX as it also includes some level of MBTA committment to run a certain level of service, too.
 
737900er said:
This is an interesting claim given that their hiring page doesn't have a listing for rail operators, although it does look like they're trying to hire more bus operators.
Click to expand...

They hire rail operators cyclically - the position closes and then reopens again every couple of months.
 
as02143 said:
i wonder how this plays out with the Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement for the GLX as it also includes some level of MBTA committment to run a certain level of service, too.
Click to expand...


They had promised to end the staff shortage early last summer. Now eight months later, there has been no change in this, yet they are still coming up with excuse after excuse as to why this snafu still has yet to be resolved!! They ARE so full of it & full of excuses!! :mad:
 
Something amusing if you've been following the "fare free" debate, but the MassDOT Beyond Mobility phase 1 survey included questions about priorities. Respondents from "equity populations" pretty roundly voted for better reliability and connectivity, ranking ticket cost literally the lowest of the various options: https://beyond-mobility-massdot.hub.arcgis.com/#participate

Seems like a resounding vote in favor of the T's to-date position that making portions of the system free is not a good use of funds, vs. the "free the T" cheerleaders around Mayor Wu et al.

1677450838936.png
 
^^^

Can totally see it. Esp if you get any discounts... the subway pass is not that much of a burden. The CR is a completely different story. But I'm guessing the people polled don't use it.
 
Aprehensive_Words said:
Something amusing if you've been following the "fare free" debate, but the MassDOT Beyond Mobility phase 1 survey included questions about priorities. Respondents from "equity populations" pretty roundly voted for better reliability and connectivity, ranking ticket cost literally the lowest of the various options: https://beyond-mobility-massdot.hub.arcgis.com/#participate

Seems like a resounding vote in favor of the T's to-date position that making portions of the system free is not a good use of funds, vs. the "free the T" cheerleaders around Mayor Wu et al.

View attachment 34747
Click to expand...
I've always thought the free fares thing was ridiculous. It's basically a blend of sloganeering and virtue signaling that does nothing for the vast majority of people harmed by transit inequity. I wouldn't say that it's a debate not worth having at some point, and certainly some sort of system of scaled costs according to means could be worth thinking about, but no countries im aware of has free fares, and for most people, having a reliable system that gets you where you need to go is the most important thing. Obviously. Fix the T, expand it, get more people riding it, then tinker with the issues of cost.
 
FK4 said:
I've always thought the free fares thing was ridiculous. It's basically a blend of sloganeering and virtue signaling that does nothing for the vast majority of people harmed by transit inequity. I wouldn't say that it's a debate not worth having at some point, and certainly some sort of system of scaled costs according to means could be worth thinking about, but no countries im aware of has free fares, and for most people, having a reliable system that gets you where you need to go is the most important thing. Obviously. Fix the T, expand it, get more people riding it, then tinker with the issues of cost.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

What you’re saying may have merit, but in the name of accuracy, it’s worth mentioning that Luxembourg and Malta have free public transport nationwide.

Estonia has fare-free public transport in 11 of their 15 counties, including the capital and largest city, Tallinn.

In Scotland, public transport is free for those under age-22.
 
bigeman312 said:
Emphasis mine.

What you’re saying may have merit, but in the name of accuracy, it’s worth mentioning that Luxembourg and Malta have free public transport nationwide.

Estonia has fare-free public transport in 11 of their 15 counties, including the capital and largest city, Tallinn.

In Scotland, public transport is free for those under age-22.
Click to expand...
I wasn't implying that my knowledge covered all transit systems; I'm not surprised, and I didnt google it to find out.
 
FK4 said:
I've always thought the free fares thing was ridiculous. It's basically a blend of sloganeering and virtue signaling that does nothing for the vast majority of people harmed by transit inequity. I wouldn't say that it's a debate not worth having at some point, and certainly some sort of system of scaled costs according to means could be worth thinking about, but no countries im aware of has free fares, and for most people, having a reliable system that gets you where you need to go is the most important thing. Obviously. Fix the T, expand it, get more people riding it, then tinker with the issues of cost.
Click to expand...

Bus fare elimination has other benefits, particularly with the T's archaic fare collection policies -- all door boarding, shorter dwell times, etc.

Just because they're collecting bus fares doesn't mean they're actually making that much money from the endeavor. I would love to see an analysis of what the net income from collecting bus fares on local buses is. The T's bus network is mainly designed to funnel people to the rapid transit network and the transfer structure means that rapid transit riders get free bus trips anyway. From the 2015-2017 CPTS survey 69% bus riders have some kind of rail or reduced fare pass. If we guesstimate that a similar ballpark of the pay-per-ride riders are reduced fare or transferring to rapid transit, that means they're probably only collecting meaningful revenue from 15%-25% of bus riders who have a monthly local bus pass, are paying cash on board, or are tapping a stored value CharlieCard without connecting to a rail service. Eliminating bus fares would also result in equipment savings, labor savings, etc.

1677507347216.png
 
Last edited:
737900er said:
Fare elimination has other benefits, particularly with the T's archaic fare collection policies -- all door boarding, shorter dwell times, etc.

Just because they're collecting fares doesn't mean they're actually making that much money from the endeavor. I would love to see an analysis of what the net income from collecting bus fares on local buses is. The T's bus network is mainly designed to funnel people to the rapid transit network and the transfer structure means that rapid transit riders get free bus trips anyway. From the 2015-2017 CPTS survey 69% bus riders have some kind of rail or reduced fare pass. If we guesstimate that a similar ballpark of the pay-per-ride riders are reduced fare or transferring to rapid transit, that means they're probably only collecting meaningful revenue from 15%-25% of bus riders who have a monthly local bus pass, are paying cash on board, or are tapping a stored value CharlieCard. Eliminating bus fares would also result in equipment savings, labor savings, etc.

View attachment 34752
Click to expand...
I think this is a really valuable point -- there are operational benefits of not collecting fares (or, specifically, not collecting fares when boarding). This gives me an idea for a Reasonable Transit Pitch...

EDIT: Reasonable Transit Pitch: eliminate fares-at-boarding on outer services, offset by increased fares when boarding in the core (i.e. where there already are faregates).
 
Last edited:
Riverside said:
I think this is a really valuable point -- there are operational benefits of not collecting fares (or, specifically, not collecting fares when boarding). This gives me an idea for a Reasonable Transit Pitch...

EDIT: Reasonable Transit Pitch: eliminate fares-at-boarding on outer services, offset by increased fares when boarding in the core (i.e. where there already are faregates).
Click to expand...
The whole performance degradation from on-board fare collection is a huge issue with high ridership routes like SL4 and SL5.
 
bigeman312 said:
Is anyone willing to address the elephant in the room?

The MBTA is coming up with excuses to keep the long headways, look like they are trying to remedy the situation, and not trigger a lawsuit for failure to deliver the minimum mandated service.

The cost to solve these staffing issues is minuscule. Given how long this has lingered, it’s clear they do not want to solve this problem.
Click to expand...
I'll be pedantic here: I think it's overly simplistic to imply that this is an issue that can simply be solved through spending. As I understand it, these are highly technical roles that require specific background and training, so there will be a limited applicant pool no matter what. And honestly, given, you know, everything else about the T, I'm guessing there is a lot of knowledge that is specific to the MBTA's way of doing things -- i.e. we can't just poach dispatchers from New York; even if we did, it'll take time to train them.

That being said, the fact that they allowed the situation to get this bad is utterly damning either way.
 
737900er said:
Bus fare elimination has other benefits, particularly with the T's archaic fare collection policies -- all door boarding, shorter dwell times, etc.

Just because they're collecting bus fares doesn't mean they're actually making that much money from the endeavor. I would love to see an analysis of what the net income from collecting bus fares on local buses is. The T's bus network is mainly designed to funnel people to the rapid transit network and the transfer structure means that rapid transit riders get free bus trips anyway. From the 2015-2017 CPTS survey 69% bus riders have some kind of rail or reduced fare pass. If we guesstimate that a similar ballpark of the pay-per-ride riders are reduced fare or transferring to rapid transit, that means they're probably only collecting meaningful revenue from 15%-25% of bus riders who have a monthly local bus pass, are paying cash on board, or are tapping a stored value CharlieCard without connecting to a rail service. Eliminating bus fares would also result in equipment savings, labor savings, etc.

View attachment 34752
Click to expand...
I think it can be debated until the cows come home and finer points might find justification. However, the big picture is that it does little to truly improve things, and generally is just feel good politics for those in favor, and polarizing wasteful politics to those against. There are bigger fish to fry. America is drowning in issues like this, with a micro focus on things that either do little or nothing to change the big picture, and thereby avoiding the big picture altogether. What the mayor should do and can do now to actually really make a big change is something that’s going to be politically unpopular — star t removing parking and building many more bus only lanes at a much more rapid pace. The community usually will oppose this—not always, but the community engagement processes are a waste of time. What people seem to always forget in the “but Europe does it so much better” is the fact that European transit projects get done under MUCH more centralized and powerful governments, with far less time arguing neighborhood by neighborhood and making everyone happy. Ram thru bus lanes, and in five years people will realize it was actually a great decision for everyone. Sometimes our democratic process actively works against the true common good and people just need to be told what to do (not to mention the insanely lopsided composition of who actually attends community meetings versus the general public)
 
FK4 said:
I think it can be debated until the cows come home and finer points might find justification. However, the big picture is that it does little to truly improve things, and generally is just feel good politics for those in favor, and polarizing wasteful politics to those against. There are bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...

I mean, a 20% reduction in travel times actually seems like a pretty significant improvement, especially with its resulting impact on equipment needs:
In fact, she said, the pilot cut down the amount of time Route 28 buses lingered at each station by 20% compared to similar routes because riders no longer had to queue up and pay fares to board.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Lmao, I can’t read, it’s a 20% reduction in dwell times, as Arlington points out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top