MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

TheRifleman said:
MBTA sells South Boston waterfront land to Massport for $7M

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has sold a 17.8-acre portfolio of properties ....

The MBTA had owned the parcel since 1911....

"Like all non-fare revenue generated by the MBTA, the proceeds from this transaction will help fund the MBTA's operating budget," Pesaturo wrote in an email.
Click to expand...

Why does public sector management get to pretend that there is no such thing as a balance sheet?
 
It's sad how for so many people it's either/or: one group demands more money for the T, the other demands financial restructuring. It clearly needs both. BUT I don't care how enthusiastic you ar about transit, but the T NEEDS restructuring now. It's leadership is a catastrophe. Any time there are delays, snow or no, nothing on the website for hours. Lack of branding. Lack of vision. Overblown budgets. Absurd policies, many of which are named in the Globe article. The MBTA itself, if any of these weren't the case, would publicly disavow the notion that south coast rail, on its face, isn't anything but a massive waste of money ESPECIALLY for a time like now. The auditing should be done. Where is the political will to abolish the Pacheco Law? Why can an mbta employee retire at age 55, 7 years prior to other state employees? Why does the mbta continue to have to pay social security when other public agencies don't? I personally am one hundred percent behind more taxes for the t, but the time to put the organization in line with other public agencies is now. It's simply not reasonable to throw more money at something that doesn't know how to use it. If the organization itself were improved, this would mean so many better possibilities for the whole system as well... It's about a lot more than the money.
 
Yes, I don't get why the two factions is pushing either restructure and reforms or bring more revenue. It really does need both.

Technically, if I have to pick a side, I pick more revenue. Because while it is enraging at the idea that people are retiring at 55, stopping that won't free up enough money to fix the maintenance backlog, modernize the signal program, or anything that make our experience with the MBTA suck. Most of those reforms can help reduce the amount of money needed to fix the MBTA, but it's going to need revenue. Or the suck is just going to increase no matter how much we restructure happens.
 
^
I see what you're saying, but what's frustrating about that mindset is that this is about more than just the money. Perpetuating a dysfunctional organization doesnt just mean that cash is squandered, but it means that less than qualified people are hired, and that things like branding, advertisement, customer service, basic repairs to keep up appearances, and an overall vision all suffer. This leads to public scorn and general cynicism and lack of confidence of the voting public. You could have the agency flush with cash and I still dont have much confidence that the T would do a much better job with the money. I think that for those many reasons, reform within the agency is equally critical.

The fiscal savings are actually a rather small part, or ought to be, of the impetus behind reform.
 
FK4 said:
^
I see what you're saying, but what's frustrating about that mindset is that this is about more than just the money. Perpetuating a dysfunctional organization doesnt just mean that cash is squandered, but it means that less than qualified people are hired, and that things like branding, advertisement, customer service, basic repairs to keep up appearances, and an overall vision all suffer. This leads to public scorn and general cynicism and lack of confidence of the voting public. You could have the agency flush with cash and I still dont have much confidence that the T would do a much better job with the money. I think that for those many reasons, reform within the agency is equally critical.

The fiscal savings are actually a rather small part, or ought to be, of the impetus behind reform.
Click to expand...

Exactly on point. You can only get world class transportation services from a world class organization. Just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. The MBTA needs a total organizational reboot.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Why would the state adopt an anti-tax group's metric for fixing the T?
Click to expand...

I think I remember Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation being one of the most persuasive opponents of the 2002 ballot initiative to repeal the state income tax.
 
FK4 said:
^
I see what you're saying, but what's frustrating about that mindset is that this is about more than just the money. Perpetuating a dysfunctional organization doesnt just mean that cash is squandered, but it means that less than qualified people are hired, and that things like branding, advertisement, customer service, basic repairs to keep up appearances, and an overall vision all suffer. This leads to public scorn and general cynicism and lack of confidence of the voting public. You could have the agency flush with cash and I still dont have much confidence that the T would do a much better job with the money. I think that for those many reasons, reform within the agency is equally critical.

The fiscal savings are actually a rather small part, or ought to be, of the impetus behind reform.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The problem is, that's NEVER the rationale "reformers" use. It's always about the supposed savings of restructuring.
 
It's official. MassDOT approved the T's "customer gratitude measures."

Free fare day on April 24 on all modes.
15% off all monthly passes in May.

"I think we're trying to strike a balance between acknowledging what people have gone through and expressing our gratitude to our customers and drawing our customers back and the fact that we can only spend so much on that so that we have money to invest in the system, and I think this strikes a good balance," said Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack.
Click to expand...

http://www.whdh.com/story/28396048/massdot-approves-mbta-fare-discounts-for-passengers
 
datadyne007 said:
It's official. MassDOT approved the T's "customer gratitude measures."

Free fare day on April 24 on all modes.
15% off all monthly passes in May.



http://www.whdh.com/story/28396048/massdot-approves-mbta-fare-discounts-for-passengers
Click to expand...

That isn't much for a refund..... though... they do need the revenues to maintain the system....

ant8904 said:
Yes, I don't get why the two factions is pushing either restructure and reforms or bring more revenue. It really does need both.

Technically, if I have to pick a side, I pick more revenue. Because while it is enraging at the idea that people are retiring at 55, stopping that won't free up enough money to fix the maintenance backlog, modernize the signal program, or anything that make our experience with the MBTA suck. Most of those reforms can help reduce the amount of money needed to fix the MBTA, but it's going to need revenue. Or the suck is just going to increase no matter how much we restructure happens.
Click to expand...

Yep. The real solution is to cut waste and increase revenues.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Association is an ideological group. Of course they'd advocate the neutering of the expensive MBTA. Thing is (and call me crazy for saying so) Charlie Baker is not Scott Walker in moderate clothing. The goal isn't going to be busting the MBTA into something different. I'd be very surprised if his MBTA working group comes back with any recommendations that would suggest such a thing. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but all this squealing going on as if Massachusetts is going to go the way of Wisconsin is overblown nonsense.
Click to expand...

In case you want to read the report -- --- rather than just someone's pontificating and soapboxing -- here's the link
http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/MTF_The T-The End of Its Line.pdf

The report is imminently readable and has several quite explicative charts to accompany the well documented observations

It also suggests a number of immediate reforms only three of which can be considered anything but very restrained:
  • 1. the elimination of Social Security eligibility for employees]
  • 2. one year moritorium on new construction contracts
  • 3. two year moritorium on Pacheco Law [requiring union contractors]
 
Without commenting on their conclusions, I have to say that Figure 9 on page 25 is a classic example of "lying with statistics." Look at the scale on the Y-axis: it ranges from 5,800 to 6,400. That makes a fluctuation in employment headcount of plus-or-minus 0.5% look like a huge swing, when it's not.

They are trying to make an argument that the MBTA has wildly expanded service and wildly expanded employment, but I don't see any reason to believe them, and they don't substantiate their claims with anything but laughable nonsense.

First of all, they claim expansion: what expansion? Buses (minus SL) and subway services haven't expanded in decades. Adding some off-peak frequency is not very expensive, and there's no capacity for adding peak frequency at all in the core system. The Silver Line is an expansion within the past few decades, and its capital costs were over the top, but it runs an operational profit during the weekdays. The commuter rail has expanded -- irresponsibly I agree -- but does that account for all the costs? Probably not.

I don't have time to fully read everything else, and I'm not sure it's worth my while, but I did notice while skimming that they seem to believe that Orange Line to Forest Hills was a 1980s "expansion" of service. That kind of mistake doesn't bode well for the report.
 
Matthew said:
Without commenting on their conclusions, I have to say that Figure 9 on page 25 is a classic example of "lying with statistics." Look at the scale on the Y-axis: it ranges from 5,800 to 6,400. That makes a fluctuation in employment headcount of plus-or-minus 0.5% look like a huge swing, when it's not.

They are trying to make an argument that the MBTA has wildly expanded service and wildly expanded employment, but I don't see any reason to believe them, and they don't substantiate their claims with anything but laughable nonsense.

First of all, they claim expansion: what expansion? Buses (minus SL) and subway services haven't expanded in decades. Adding some off-peak frequency is not very expensive, and there's no capacity for adding peak frequency at all in the core system. The Silver Line is an expansion within the past few decades, and its capital costs were over the top, but it runs an operational profit during the weekdays. The commuter rail has expanded -- irresponsibly I agree -- but does that account for all the costs? Probably not.

I don't have time to fully read everything else, and I'm not sure it's worth my while, but I did notice while skimming that they seem to believe that Orange Line to Forest Hills was a 1980s "expansion" of service. That kind of mistake doesn't bode well for the report.
Click to expand...

They just don't want to fund any public transit expansion such as Green Line to Medford, Commuter Rail to Springfield, South Coast Expansion because it "cost a lot" to taxpayers, who "might not even use it" because cars are more reliable due to efficiency, timing, way of life, cost, and "don't want city people to go out of the city". In Georgia, you will find opposition to public transit expansions because it "would attract crime" to the suburbs. Plus, I am pretty sure many of them would also oppose any gas tax increase to discourage car usage, fund roads, with increasing gas prices (due to short supply, example: 1970s).
 
Let's be fair -- they do explicitly exclude GLX from their "no expansion" suggestion. That's smart.

Unfortunately, the media has failed to convey that subtlety in most reporting, so it sounds like they are opposing GLX, when in fact they are not.

Maybe they expected and desired that, trying to have it both ways at once?

In any case, it is good to distinguish between "good expansion" like GLX and "bad expansion" like South Coast rail. Not all expansion is equal. Good expansion satisfies the fundamental principles well: high frequency, reliability and accessibility. Bad expansion does poorly on those metrics. Good expansion opens opportunity, gains revenue, and benefits the region in many ways. Bad expansion is just a waste of time and money.

But there's no use calling for a moratorium. Putting off bad expansion is still bad expansion, and it just costs more. They should have called for a cancellation of South Coast Rail, not a pointless moratorium that will just raise costs even more.
 
Matthew said:
Let's be fair -- they do explicitly exclude GLX from their "no expansion" suggestion. That's smart.

Unfortunately, the media has failed to convey that subtlety in most reporting, so it sounds like they are opposing GLX, when in fact they are not.

Maybe they expected and desired that, trying to have it both ways at once?

In any case, it is good to distinguish between "good expansion" like GLX and "bad expansion" like South Coast rail. Not all expansion is equal. Good expansion satisfies the fundamental principles well: high frequency, reliability and accessibility. Bad expansion does poorly on those metrics. Good expansion opens opportunity, gains revenue, and benefits the region in many ways. Bad expansion is just a waste of time and money.

But there's no use calling for a moratorium. Putting off bad expansion is still bad expansion, and it just costs more. They should have called for a cancellation of South Coast Rail, not a pointless moratorium that will just raise costs even more.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- that's the first comment you've made about the report that didn't involve kneeing

Actually if you look you will find that the authors of the report represent many of the large employers in the T district

The "They" know that the T is essential to the success of the Greater Boston Region

They are writing the report to let the people on the outside understand what it will take to just give the T a chance to survive

It doesn't take an advanced STEM degree to realize that expenses growing faster than revenues every year by many percent is untenable

The two have to be put back together -- a bit of a plus or a minus year to year is understandable -- but a trend where expenses grow further and further apart from any reasonable estimate of revenues is impossible to continue

Unfortunately we don't really know how out of whack the T reality is at this point so the proposed moratorium and the rest of the 9 suggestions is only a starting point to reform

  • 1. The FY 2016 state contract assistance to the release of up-to-date SGR backlog data
    The MBTA’s asset management system, which quantifies the SGR backlog and helps to
    prioritize maintenance projects, has been inoperative for several years and full
    implementation of a new Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-funded system is several
    years away. This is an enormous management failing and the state should withhold additional assistance until the T can produce a comprehensive SGR backlog project list that clearly and accurately states both the size of total maintenance shortfall and the cost to keep the system from deteriorating further.
  • 2. Conduct a detailed audit of the MBTA’s maintenance protocols
    The state should insist on an independent assessment of the T’s maintenance protocols,
    project selection criteria, and capital spending to determine whether the T has the capacity to bring its infrastructure into a state-of-good repair.
  • 3. Require an independent fiscal audit of the T
  • 4 . Halt expansion contracts for the remainder of 2015
    Before the MBTA undertakes any further expansion (with the exception of the Green Line
    Extension), it must get its current fiscal house in order.
  • 5. Reform the procurement process including a two-year moratorium of the Pacheco Law with a report on savings
    Just as its maintenance systems require a careful review, so too do the T’s procurement
    practices. A series of problems with T procurement practices and other policies have further
    eroded public confidence in the T. The size and uniqueness of the T’s capital purchases
    warrant a centralized procurement process with in-house experts overseeing contracts to
    ensure purchases are delivered on time, on budget, and fully operative.
  • 6.Reexamine the MBTA’s governance structure
    The T’s long-term problems cannot be addressed effectively unless the Authority’s own
    leadership is fully committed to the reform effort. Currently, the T’s Board is independent
    and not accountable to the Secretary of Transportation, the Governor, or the Legislature and management has too often been resistant to external examination and proposals for change.
  • 7. Eliminate Social Security eligibility to align with the state pension system
    The unique dual pension eligibility of T employees, dating back to the state takeover of
    private operators, makes no sense decades later, and it imposes significant unnecessary costs on a financially stressed system.
  • 8. Eliminate binding arbitration
    Binding arbitration stands in the way of the responsible cost-conscious management the T
    requires. It was eliminated for most public employees a generation ago.
  • 9.Require full disclosure of the pension system finances
    Despite efforts by the Legislature, the T has not released details regarding its pension system and assets because it asserts that the pension system is a private entity. However, the T would have no hope of meeting its annual pension obligations without the annual infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues. At a minimum, the T pension system should release the details on its investments and cash flows and provide actuarial valuations.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew said:
Let's be fair -- they do explicitly exclude GLX from their "no expansion" suggestion. That's smart.

Unfortunately, the media has failed to convey that subtlety in most reporting, so it sounds like they are opposing GLX, when in fact they are not.

Maybe they expected and desired that, trying to have it both ways at once?

In any case, it is good to distinguish between "good expansion" like GLX and "bad expansion" like South Coast rail. Not all expansion is equal. Good expansion satisfies the fundamental principles well: high frequency, reliability and accessibility. Bad expansion does poorly on those metrics. Good expansion opens opportunity, gains revenue, and benefits the region in many ways. Bad expansion is just a waste of time and money.

But there's no use calling for a moratorium. Putting off bad expansion is still bad expansion, and it just costs more. They should have called for a cancellation of South Coast Rail, not a pointless moratorium that will just raise costs even more.
Click to expand...

Ya. The South Coast Expansion isn't the most feasible type of expansion because it is wide spread in terms of coverage with fewer and fewer coverage as you expand. The Green Line expansion is a good short term expansion because the area is already highly populated. Even I would agree on holding off the South Coast Expansion a bit.
 
whighlander said:
Mathew -- that's the first comment you've made about the report that didn't involve kneeing
Click to expand...

It's only my second comment about the report. And I would have said something nice in the first comment, except while I was reading, I came to Figure 9 and realized that they were lying with statistics.

kevtron2000 said:
Ya. The South Coast Expansion isn't the most feasible type of expansion because it is wide spread in terms of coverage with fewer and fewer coverage as you expand. The Green Line expansion is a good short term expansion because the area is already highly populated. Even I would agree on holding off the South Coast Expansion a bit.
Click to expand...

You're falling into the same trap that the authors of the report did.

"Holding off on South Coast Rail" does not make it a better project. There is no sensible universe within which the South Coast Rail project adds up. MassDOT is proposing to spend $500,000 per rider on a train that is permanently hobbled in frequency and will produce slower trips than driving. Waiting does not fix this problem. There are only three actions to fix it:
  • Cut the costs by an order of magnitude at least
  • Replace the project with something cost effective
  • Cancel it
We'd be better off as a Commonwealth if we just took that $2.3 billion, split it up, and cut checks to every resident of the South Coast. Or used it to operate a network of free, frequent local buses for the next 50 years. Or just about any other economic development measure would produce better results than South Coast Rail. It is THAT bad.
 
$2.3 billion could probably pay to bury the Orange Line below its current location in the Southwest Corridor, thus providing a full 5 tracks to at least Forest Hills. That would allow for the original (early 90s) SCR alignment (NEC to Mansfield, follow the power line ROW to cut the Attleboro corner) for probably less total cost than the current through-the-swamp plans. While benefitting Amtrak and the Providence/Stoughton and Franklin lines, and making that section of the Orange Line safe from snow forever. Coupled with major upgrades to the P/S and Franklin lines (like all-day 30 minute EMU service to Providence), that might be a useful project in, oh, 20 years.

For now, the South Coast needs better service to Providence, not to Boston.
 
Matthew said:
It's only my second comment about the report. And I would have said something nice in the first comment, except while I was reading, I came to Figure 9 and realized that they were lying with statistics.



You're falling into the same trap that the authors of the report did.

"Holding off on South Coast Rail" does not make it a better project. There is no sensible universe within which the South Coast Rail project adds up. MassDOT is proposing to spend $500,000 per rider on a train that is permanently hobbled in frequency and will produce slower trips than driving. Waiting does not fix this problem. There are only three actions to fix it:
  • Cut the costs by an order of magnitude at least
  • Replace the project with something cost effective
  • Cancel it
We'd be better off as a Commonwealth if we just took that $2.3 billion, split it up, and cut checks to every resident of the South Coast. Or used it to operate a network of free, frequent local buses for the next 50 years. Or just about any other economic development measure would produce better results than South Coast Rail. It is THAT bad.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- I presume that South Coast is Toast

As for any $2B -- it should be spent on making sure that the current T can run without needing constant increasing boosts from the General Fund

There is only one Core Project which should be done that is not already under construction and that is the pedestrian connection between Orange DTX to Orange State

This walkway enables Green-Red-Orange-Blue one walk connection -- opens up 3 stations as portals to full system access:
  • State [Blue, Orange + walk to DTX Red and then Park Green]
  • DTX [Orange walk to State Blue or walk to Park Green, Red]
  • Park [Red, Green + walk to DTX Orange and then State Blue]
That makes DTX the master hub and enables underground retail / service development for system robustness and potential additional income

With just a bit more effort Blue Gov't Cent can connect to Blue State enabling the 4 major stations to link on foot

The other project is Silver Line under D St.

Anything else needs to await a complete restructuring of all the T from top to bottom
 
whighlander said:
They are writing the report to let the people on the outside understand what it will take to just give the T a chance to survive

It doesn't take an advanced STEM degree to realize that expenses growing faster than revenues every year by many percent is untenable
Click to expand...

How do they propose making the highway and road system survive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top