MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

[Jahvon09]

Who cares?

Obviously, YOU don't.

 

[underground]

Tony Gomez-Ibanez is a public transit guy. He teaches that and economics at HKS and GSD. I've worked with him a few times, and he's always been great to deal with. Odd side note: his brother is the head of the North Bennett Street School.

 

[kevtron2000]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...et_to_unveil_nearly_190m_rescue_plan_for_mbta

"Gov. Charlie Baker will call for a nearly $190 million rescue plan for the MBTA as part of a proposed budget that will be unveiled tomorrow, the Herald has learned.

That plan represents a better than 50 percent hike in annual state aid for the beleaguered transit system, and comes as administration officials acknowledge that their total budget proposal could mean cuts in other state services, given a possible $1.5 billion spending gap they’re facing.

Baker’s proposal, described by aides yesterday, would push direct payments going to the T to $187 million for next fiscal year, a 53 percent boost from the $122.5 million the state is spending this year.

The $64.4 million hike, officials acknowledge, is a rare increase in Baker’s first budget plan in the Corner Office, which is pushing for early retirement of as many as 4,500 state workers, among other cuts.

But Stephanie Pollack, Baker’s transportation secretary, said the transit agency’s disastrous winter — marked by days of system-wide closures, shuttered rail lines and fuming commuters — made it clear some investment was necessary, even as Baker has pledged not to raise taxes or fees."

 

[datadyne007]

Also in that article:
"A $125,000 so-called “peer review,” which officially started yesterday, includes officials from agencies in New York, Chicago, Toronto, Philadelphia and New Jersey, who will make what Pollack called “winter-specific recommendations.”"

 

[Mongo]

Well this is a really good sign

Baker Plans Boost In State Subsidies For MBTA

Gov. Charlie Baker planned to seek a nearly $65 million increase in state subsidies for the Boston-area’s beleaguered public transit system, but House leaders said Tuesday they were skeptical about providing more money to the MBTA until a complete review of recent weather-related breakdowns was completed.

http://www.wbur.org/2015/03/03/massachusetts-budget-mbta-subsidies

 

[George_Apley]

^ Gotta love the irony of Democrats being skeptical of a Republican increasing the funding for public transit.

 

[kevtron2000]

^ Gotta love the irony of Democrats being skeptical of a Republican increasing the funding for public transit.

Ya. The Legislature do control the funding process. Suburban Democrats and Independents can be more conservative than your moderate Republican in Massachusetts. Independents are the 2nd largest group in Massachusetts, so they want to be "skepticial" for any additional spending + taxes and reallocation because those voters can vote those establishment Democrats out.

 

[choo]

Why do Deleo (Winthrop/Revere) and House Majority Leader Ronald Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, seem so anti-T funding. They seem to be saying all the classic kick the can cliches of get the T's house in order, blah blah blah, which certainly needs to happen but shouldn't preclude any funding of major issues like new switches, signals, motors, car maintenance. They represent the heart of the MBTA district, with constituents who's most affordable, direct and fastest way into Boston would be a functional and reliable MBTA, yet they seem like total washouts for any support. You think Baker's proposal to increase funding (as a Republican) and following this winter, they would have whatever cover and impetus needed to fund and reform the T and its fiscal house.

 

[Arlington]

^ More than anything , the leaders stay in power by protecting their members from having to cast tough/controversial votes. The dominant goal to sound noncontroversial and to change as little as possible. Change that might hurt must have either no fingerprints or the Governors.

 

[02127]

Using my first post in likely the wrong place. Please move if there is a better thread.

Is there any reason that would prevent the Southwest Corridor from being covered? At least the Orange Line portion. Could the air rights be sold for development? Seems like a win/win if possible. Orange Line could run from Forest Hills to North Station when conditions are as bad as this year and maybe the MBTA could make a few bucks.

 

[George_Apley]

Using my first post in likely the wrong place. Please move if there is a better thread.

Is there any reason that would prevent the Southwest Corridor from being covered? At least the Orange Line portion. Could the air rights be sold for development? Seems like a win/win if possible. Orange Line could run from Forest Hills to North Station when conditions are as bad as this year and maybe the MBTA could make a few bucks.

Nothing to prevent it other than cost. That cost increases dramatically if the whole NEC is covered due to the height of the catenary. Plus the point that air rights developments are - as we've seen many times in this city - no sure thing. But no, there's no engineering reason not to do it.

 

[Uncivil_Engineer]

The other consideration beyond the catenary is that the T seems to be quite happy running an all-diesel commuter rail system for the foreseeable future. Ventilation systems would add cost, and effective ones that don't fumigate the platforms (looking at you, Back Bay) would add even more.

 

[George_Apley]

The other consideration beyond the catenary is that the T seems to be quite happy running an all-diesel commuter rail system for the foreseeable future. Ventilation systems would add cost, and effective ones that don't fumigate the platforms (looking at you, Back Bay) would add even more.

True. They won't consider more electrification until NLRL is ready to go.

 

[West]

Shirley Leung on the front of the business section of today's Globe:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...n-have-both/zPElqfvLmJK7lgoHAxQhzJ/story.html

On the website the headline reads: "Better T service or bigger convention center? Can we have both?"

In the physical paper the headline reads "You're Governor Baker and you've got $1 Billion. Do you spend it here or here?" With an arrow from each "here" pointing to the two pics visible online: one of the convention center and one of the Red Line.

Stan Rosenberg's staff gave her a well-worded, cautious, written reply, saying they'd prefer to fund both, but if push came to shove, they'd prioritize the T. All other comments from legislators range from lame to delusional to idiotic.

She notes that the bond allocation cannot be simply shifted from convention expansion to the T, it would require legislation. But she also notes that the idea has been "bouncing around town" and that Baker as a candidate was lukewarm to the convention center bond and ordered a delay once in office, and without his signature, it dies. Convention center head Jim Rooney says to kill off convention center expansion would be "You are making a panic decision to cut one foot off". I suspect he's the one panicking. Putting off that expansion for a few months, or years - or a few decades - looks neither panicky nor irreversible to me. Failing to respond to the T's situation is deeply irresponsible, and immediately so. IF we do the convention center expansion (big if, I'm not at all sold we need it at all), doing it in three or four years won't be nearly as much trouble as putzing around another four years on T response.

Leung is starting to do some good trenchwork on this front. Maybe she's just being a weathervane, I don't recall her being good on T issues previously, but whatever: better late than never.

 

[MBTAddict]

From the article:

“I hope he’s not stupid enough to say either-or,” House Majority Leader Ron Mariano said of the possibility that Baker will fund the T instead of the convention center. “It’s crazy. One has nothing to do with the other.

He is form Quincy. It boggles the mind that he can be that out of touch with what his constituents needs are.

 

[FK4]

I have no idea what the numbers are for what this convention center expansion would do in terms of increasing revenue in the long term or not - but I haven't seen anyone else on here put forth any data on this either and it basically sounds like a lot of opinions of folks who want money for the t and feel that the deal itself for the BCEC was shadily done. As I recall, however, the plan for th expansion was a bond that would be paid off through a raise in hotel taxes. This is not something that in any way could be easily shifted to the mbta. I'm also inclined to wonder strongly whether, and despite the clearly shady deal and union/construction job benefits of the act itself, the BCEC might be a big benefit to the city. But I don't have those numbers, so I don't know. But saying the deal itself was rammed through the legislature doesn't in and of itself mean that the final outcome is bad for boston.

 

[West]

I don't have studies to cite, either, but there is no conceivable way that the convention center ever has been, is, or ever will be as important to the Boston Metro (or greater New England) economy as the MBTA is. If such a study could be accurately done, comparing the T's overall regional economic importance to BCEC's, I am confident it would be many orders of magnitude more important.

I don't know whether the BCEC expansion bond was pushed through shadily or not. Don't care too deeply at this point; it's on a new governor's desk for signature whether it went through the state house sensibly or stupidly. The funding mechanism is hotel and other tourist-type taxes, not more general revenues, which makes sense from a BCEC-expansion point of view. And it may be that $1B to expand the BCEC "makes sense" from the perspective of the BCEC IF - big if - the BCEC existed on its own island. By that, I mean that the increased revenue from the expansion may well adequately cover the bond debt service, and throw off some other jobs benefits besides.

But unless I'm mistaken, even a dedicated-stream bond bill like the one for the BCEC impacts the Commonwealth's overall borrowing capability. So this $1B proposed bond is not out on some isolated economic island, even with a unique funding stream. It has to be justifiable in the context of everything else the Commonwealth might need to accomplish via borrowing. For Baker to push this thing to the backburner for a bit makes all the sense in the world; if the BCEC expansion somehow doesn't seem to make sense four years from now, that will be retroactive proof we didn't need to float those bonds in 2015.

Along with a T crisis, the new governor has a more general budget problem to deal with, and a legislature and apparently an electorate that will not raise revenues. So some stuff's going to get cut, and it's nice to see the T not being at the top of the "cut" list for once. I am absolutely in favor of keeping the BCEC expansion bond very firmly on that backburner till Baker's T commission has reported back AND we've all had a good six months to argue over the results.

 

[davem]

I don't have studies to cite, either, but there is no conceivable way that the convention center ever has been, is, or ever will be as important to the Boston Metro (or greater New England) economy as the MBTA is. If such a study could be accurately done, comparing the T's overall regional economic importance to BCEC's, I am confident it would be many orders of magnitude more important.

I think that the BCEC could use expansion, it certainly draws enough crowds and I think expanding a successful venue to allow it to be even more successful is a great idea. However, it is not required. The BCEC will continue to book events, it just won't be able to draw even bigger ones. As the seaport continues to build out as a multi-use district, I don't even know if that's such a bad thing. While ours certainly is not, many cities convention centers have been white elephants, and they never draw as much of the expected economic benefits as are toted.

The T, on the other hand, impacts not only the success of the BCEC (they wouldn't want a dedicated DMU line otherwise), but the success of the entire region. If there is a chance opportunity to redirect the funds, then by all means do it. I'd even be okay with a 75/25 split, giving the convention center a quarter billion to do some upgrades to stay marketable. Even better, it might force them to look at doing a partnership with a private developer, likely making the BCEC expansion contingent on having a mixed use component, something we all would want since the current expansion plans turn the area into a blank-faced desert.

The one reason I think redirecting the funds might gain some traction is that both the BCEC and the T are solidly eastern Mass resources. While the rest of the state should really be able to see that a well funded T is good for everyone, they don't. But I can't see some western Mass legislator raising holy hell about money being redirected from one Boston thing to another, and they might even support it since the T has a greater reach than the BCEC. Potential improvements to the Springfield line actually impacts people out there, I doubt being able to pack more cosplayers into a warehouse in the seaport does as much.

 

[whighlander]

I think that the BCEC could use expansion, it certainly draws enough crowds and I think expanding a successful venue to allow it to be even more successful is a great idea. However, it is not required. The BCEC will continue to book events, it just won't be able to draw even bigger ones.....

I'd even be okay with a 75/25 split, giving the convention center a quarter billion to do some upgrades to stay marketable. Even better, it might force them to look at doing a partnership with a private developer, likely making the BCEC expansion contingent on having a mixed use component, something we all would want since the current expansion plans turn the area into a blank-faced desert.

Davem -- Your comment about give'm a $Quarter Billion is how we got to this sorry state of a state government to begin with

With the Legislature -- Everything is a deal and no deal is too small to be worked

If the BCEC expansion is needed then let's do the proper analysis and design and fund it fully -- giving the expansion a roughly 25% as a consolation prize will do nothing expect allow $250M to be wasted

There have been copious quantities of studies that make a fairly persuasive case that to continue to attract the high profile Conference / Trade Shows such as Bio relevant to the local economy the BCEC needs to expand and the price tag seems to be about $1B:

• 1) floor space for booths
• 2) Ballroom area for dinners
• 3) New HQ Hotel
• 4) Hotel rooms in the immediate area

The T's challenges are far more fundamental --- requiring first a deep review of the entire structure and then a new operational plan to end the embedded waste and malfeasance

The Herald has a series which has been looking at salient points such as the huge increase in the number of structurally deficient bridges

Fixing `structurally deficient' MBTA bridges carries $800M tab
Fixes mean more delays
Friday, March 6, 2015
By: Erin Smith

Long after the snow melts, commuter rail passengers and subway straphangers will still face widespread slowdowns and delays as the MBTA grapples with nearly 50 crumbling bridges that will cost a staggering $800 million to fix, a Herald review found.....

The beleaguered transit agency has classified 48 bridges that carry commuter train and subway passengers as “structurally deficient,” the review found. In all, that’s more than 10 percent of the MBTA’s bridges that are rated in poor condition or worse, according to state transportation officials....

State officials said train trips have already been slowed for T passengers crossing 13 commuter rail bridges. And experts say others could face dramatically lower speed limits if repairs aren’t made....

Taxpayers could be on the hook for the $800 million bill to fix the failing spans.

T officials currently plan to spend $516 million for bridge repairs over the next five years, but the cost of fixing transit bridges will only continue to soar as more infrastructure ages, experts say....

Gov. Charlie Baker has proposed giving the MBTA $187 million in state aid in the coming fiscal year — a better than 50 percent funding increase from this year but still not enough to fix all the T bridges.

The number of dangerous rail spans has skyrocketed by 30 percent in the past four years, the review found. The MBTA reported 40 of its bridges were structurally deficient in 2010....

MassDOT officials have estimated a whopping $7 billion price tag to bring the transportation system into a “state of good repair,” which includes repairs on dilapidated bridges.

The MBTA maintains 302 commuter rail bridges and 57 subway bridges, according to MassDOT officials. The agency also oversees more than 100 other bridges, including one pedestrian and three highway bridges also labeled structurally deficient, according to transportation data.

 

[whighlander]

Where are the T's Mission Critical Employees?

We just want to know Why when the going got tough this Wintah the T stayed at home -- its almost as if the T's employees decided to get the Snow Flu

Today's Herald has the amazing statistics on the recent numbers of T employees who just called in sick the day after a storm

Note that in a well run organization which has a critical role to play in the immediate aftermath of a storm -- more than the average number of folks would have been available canceling vacations, etc.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/03/absent_t_during_snow

Absent T during snow
Time off surges within stormy span
More than half of all MBTA workers called in sick or took at least one day off during the snowiest three-week span this winter as the public transit agency was dealing with an epic paralysis of the system, a Herald review found.

In all, MBTA employees used 14,178 sick, vacation or personal days between Jan. 27 and Feb. 16 — a 32 percent increase over the same 21-day period last year, according to T attendance records obtained by the Herald.

Sick days made up about half of the T absences while vacation days came next and personal days accounted for less than 2 percent of the time off, according to T data. The T employs more than 6,200 people....

The largest number of MBTA absences, records show, were during blizzards or the day after a major snowstorm:

• More than 1,200 T employees were absent on Feb. 2 as more than a foot of snow fell — meaning nearly a quarter of the agency’s workforce didn’t punch in. In contrast, only 363 employees called out the day before on Super Bowl Sunday.
  
• On Jan. 28, the day after the first major blizzard of the season dumped more than 2 feet of snow, the MBTA reported 1,018 of its workers stayed home — a more than 55 percent increase over the same day last year.
  
•  On Feb. 9, the Monday after a weekend storm began that would bring nearly 2 feet of snow, 980 staffers — or 17 percent of the all MBTA employees — didn’t report to work.