MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

Hmm, just to give some perspective, there are about 14,250 bus trips per weekday; 8,900 per Saturday; 5,800 per Sunday.

The month of February conveniently began on a Sunday, President's Day is a Saturday schedule, so there were 5 Saturdays, 4 Sundays, and 19 weekdays.

That sums to about 338,450 scheduled bus trips in the month of February 2015, not counting the days on which service was canceled outright.

The report did not provide the overall percentage of bus trips canceled in January and February.
Click to expand...

According to my calculations using the numbers from the article, about 1.4% of scheduled bus trips were canceled in February due to some kind of employee absence.

I mean, look, bus cancellations suck. But is this really the problem? 1.4%?
 
Matthew said:
Hmm, just to give some perspective, there are about 14,250 bus trips per weekday; 8,900 per Saturday; 5,800 per Sunday.

The month of February conveniently began on a Sunday, President's Day is a Saturday schedule, so there were 5 Saturdays, 4 Sundays, and 19 weekdays.

That sums to about 338,450 scheduled bus trips in the month of February 2015, not counting the days on which service was canceled outright.



According to my calculations using the numbers from the article, about 1.4% of scheduled bus trips were canceled in February due to some kind of employee absence.

I mean, look, bus cancellations suck. But is this really the problem? 1.4%?
Click to expand...

The numbers don't add up - If you are missing 10% of your people but only cancel 1.4% of your service, something is off. Possible explanations are that they are building in a high rate of employee absenteeism into their schedules or they are calling people in for overtime work. Neither of which is very efficient.

It's one thing to compare MBTA employees to the general employee population at large, but to be double of other money pits is especially damning.
 
The media frenzy has now moved onto this story about how the T allegedly has $2.2 billion it didn't spend: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/broke_mbta_had_22b_it_never_spent

There has to be more to this story, as the article is quite vague (typical Herald reporting). I'm suspecting that while all this money might have been intended for the T, the amount they were allowed to use by Beacon Hill's pressuring was much less.

Edit:

Ok, so I posed this to TransitMatters & Jim Aloisi on Twitter and TM is contacting the T right now to inquire and Jim is weighing in:

TransitMatters ‏@transitmatters 14m14 minutes ago
.@datadyne007 @JimAloisi We're reaching out to MBTA's Cap Invest Prgm now; initial thought is this $ cannot be used for other projects

TransitMatters ‏@transitmatters 13m13 minutes ago
.@datadyne007 @JimAloisi hence 'earmarked', may be funds specifically authorised for GLX or SCR that haven't had construct contracts awarded

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 12m12 minutes ago
@transitmatters @datadyne007 1/I'm pretty sure the Herald report is about bond authority not cash - so it means adding more debt.

TransitMatters ‏@transitmatters 12m12 minutes ago
.@JimAloisi @datadyne007 gotcha, wasn't sure if the implication was bond authority or unused grants

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 12m12 minutes ago
@transitmatters @datadyne007 2/the T needs to get capital work out more quickly & efficiently but this so called found $ isnt cash its debt

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 12m12 minutes ago
@transitmatters @datadyne007 the Herald report will mislead people to think there is all this cash lying around unspent - not true.

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 11m11 minutes ago
@transitmatters @datadyne007 so I guess the commission will be proposing more debt? We need to relieve the T of debt not add more debt

Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 4m4 minutes ago
@N42_21_W71_04 @datadyne007 @transitmatters I don't know but I'm sure it isn't unspent cash $ - it's likely unused bonding authority
 
Last edited:
I mean it's pretty obvious what the game plan is here, and that will be to starve the T as much as possible. These articles are intentionally trying to mislead the public and it's sickening. I'd expect drastic service cuts coming in the next few months.
 
Interesting (sickening really) how Baker's panel is leaking things only to the Herald. Says a lot. They're setting up a dangerous narrative to mislead and shape public opinion.
 
Most recent MBTA financials had around $200M-$300M in unrestricted cash. Closers to $1B adding in debt restricted cash and short term investments if I recall. Either way - they aren't sitting on a couple Billion.
 
datadyne007 said:
The media frenzy has now moved onto this story about how the T allegedly has $2.2 billion it didn't spend: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/broke_mbta_had_22b_it_never_spent



Jim Aloisi ‏@JimAloisi 4m4 minutes ago
@N42_21_W71_04 @datadyne007 @transitmatters I don't know but I'm sure it isn't unspent cash $ - it's likely unused bonding authority
Click to expand...

Data, If I'm understanding this correctly, an example of this would be the Red/Orange line contract which came in 300M under budget. That would be "unspent" money that the T can't spend anywhere else? (or really issue bonds to enable spending)
 
Media reporting on transportation issues has been absolutely atrocious on all sides, lately.

Sigh.
 
The Globe is doing real journalism:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...or-upgrades/jEzg2ph6H8AuApZkdEme7J/story.html

Reporter Nicole Dungca is concerned with getting the story right:
https://twitter.com/ofsevit/status/585460199273664513

Nicole Dungca ‏@ndungca 45m ago
@ofsevit Updating now. It's bonding authority.

Nicole Dungca ‏@ndungca 16m ago
@dkathunt @ofsevit It means the money is available if the T has the staff/logistics in place to go forward with the projects.

Nicole Dungca ‏@ndungca 15m ago
@dkathunt @ofsevit But that it's not in some capital project slush fund. Does that make sense? Want to make sure it's clear.
 
BPLange7 said:
Most recent MBTA financials had around $200M-$300M in unrestricted cash. Closers to $1B adding in debt restricted cash and short term investments if I recall. Either way - they aren't sitting on a couple Billion.
Click to expand...

While we are talking about waste, the article did say that the MBTA needs like over 6 billion dollars + of improvements. These improvements doesn't include Urban Ring, Blue to Red Line Connection, nor NSRL. Billions > Millions. yes, we should cut waste but the amount of dollars needed still outways the waste by a large margin. Even if we managed to make every MBTA worker cut their pensions, work more for less money, and other benefits, It still won't address the long term MBTA's lack of investment and actual repairs. Also, they could shift the Big Dig's debt to the State House, but it would mean more overall spending cuts to balance the budget, since nobody wants to raise taxes.
 
I'm not sure how any of that relates to posting a few numbers from the financials.

Operational inefficiency and insufficient capital funding are two different animals. I don't think anyone is saying that if the T trims down its operations they could come up with the money needed for capital investments, but it's tough for taxpayers to look at how the T is doing and say - well, you did so lousy with $1B, here is $6B to make up for it - good luck!
 
Aloisi has also been excellent, and has a new piece up today:


http://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/time-to-pop-this-trial-ballon/

He says the leaked report was a trial balloon, to test the push back. He pushes back hard and well, at my first quick read (I don't have time now for a deep read). He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it would get the T to where it needs to be. He's made more sense to me in the past than any other person in the media so far.
 
Last edited:
CS said:
I see why Dr. Scott left...
Click to expand...

CS -- Not nearly quick enough!

Tell you what you give me $100 and I'll promise to give you back $45 after 5 years -- Capiche? ;)

Story in today's Herald
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...nberg_22b_in_unused_mbta_funds_very_troubling
Rosenberg: $2.2B in unused MBTA funds ‘very troubling’

Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg speaks with Boston Herald Radio this morning.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015
By: Owen Boss

Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg today said he finds it “very troubling” that the MBTA failed to spend more than $2.2 billion earmarked over the last five years to improve the beleaguered transit system and is reserving judgement until he finds out whether that amount refers to unused cash or bond authorizations.....“If it’s bonding authorization and they didn’t use it — why didn’t they use it? .... If they were wasting money somewhere else in the budget that could have been freed up to be able to pay those bonds — if in fact it’s bonding authorization and not cash — then shame on them.”

Rosenberg’s comments came as an expert panel appointed by Gov. Charlie Baker to examine the MBTA’s woes are preparing to release a report detailing their findings. The panel has already called out the T for having “limited cost control, low labor productivity and high maintenance costs” and for its high absentee rate, which averaged between 11 to 12 percent in fiscal 2014 – well above the 5 to 6 percent average at comparable city transit agencies, according to the panel report.

“If we’re having an attendance problem, the legislature can’t fix that — management fixes that,” Rosenberg told hosts Jaclyn Cashman and Hillary Chabot, adding that he expects many of the panel’s recommendations will be put into action, saying “Every time there’s been a report — and there have been a lot of reports over the years — we have implemented virtually if not all of the recommendations made, and many of them worked.”
Click to expand...

Note to the hard-core T--phants -- this is a Liberal Democrat talking not the Governor or Ron Paul

Think of it this way -- Gov's T Repair Panel as Patient goes to see doctor looking for cure for MERS apparently consuming his right leg

Dr. to Patient I've got good news there's no MERS here

Patient what's the bad news?

Doc -- you ought to feed your Pit Bull before using him as a throw rug for your legs
 
West said:
Aloisi has also been excellent, and has a new piece up today:


http://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/time-to-pop-this-trial-ballon/

He says the leaked report was a trial balloon, to test the push back. He pushes back hard and well, at my first quick read (I don't have time now for a deep read). He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it would get the T to where it needs to be. He's made more sense to me in the past than any other person in the media so far.
Click to expand...

He has been a shining star throughout this debacle. He's also very active on Twitter, constantly responding to transit-related tweets. We've chatted back and forth a few times. If you tweet at him and ask a question, he'll almost always respond. I'd argue he should even be brought back to Beacon Hill or maybe even the head of the T. He knows what he's talking about.
 
Last edited:
I realized that in my comment above, I threw an extra negative in and negated what I meant to say about Aloisi’s argument, and made it sound like I disagreed with him;

Original version: “He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it won't get the T to where it needs to be.”

I meant: “He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it would get the T to where it needs to be.”

To be clear: I think he’s spot on. Yes, let’s by all means clean up management, I see issues daily. But that operational reform will only go so far, which will not be nearly enough.

Also edited it in the original post.
 
West said:
I realized that in my comment above, I threw an extra negative in and negated what I meant to say about Aloisi’s argument, and made it sound like I disagreed with him;

Original version: “He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it won't get the T to where it needs to be.”

I meant: “He completely agrees for the need for operational reforms, but scoffs at the idea that even if done to the best degree possible, it would get the T to where it needs to be.”

To be clear: I think he’s spot on. Yes, let’s by all means clean up management, I see issues daily. But that operational reform will only go so far, which will not be nearly enough.

Also edited it in the original post.
Click to expand...

Edited my quoting of you. Thanks for the clarification.
 
aaaaaa said:
So what you're saying is that the panel was completely misguided since they went to the doctor looking for a cure for a viral respiratory illness (MERS) even though they knew they had a bacterial infection (MRSA) in their leg? Basically, they chose not to understand the problem from the start, and sought the fix they wanted rather the one that was needed.
Click to expand...

AAAA -- you got part of it right

When the advisory panel started looking at the trouble walking up the stairs -- i.e. the collapse of the system this winter ---- They thought that there might be a bacterial infection of the leg [equipment failures due to winter weather] -- or it could be a lung infection [failure of long term maintenance plans and investment], or even heart failure [the $2.2B in un-spent or un-bonded authority]

But right now the diagnosis on the $2.2B involves essentially academic questions for Aloisi and Salvucci to debate -- we will hear the definitive diagnosis and we may even have a cure courtesy of the Legislature

While all that is still to come -- We have to address the Pit Bull chewing on your foot problem -- pronto [8 to 10 weeks of annual absences]


It's not at all credible to talk about any long-term issues --- until the T management and workforce is normalized to look like other similar agencies. No one expects perfection from the T -- but getting into near the center of the distribution function on costs and things like absences is essential

In general in program management you go for Best Available Process and Practices -- you try to achieve to be at the top of the heap or beyond 2 standard deviations of the comparables on the positive side

With the T if someone is honest -- what we have now and have had for many years is either a Kleptocracy or a Kakistocracy -- in either case -- before the legislature will have any desire to spend any more $ -- the T management structure and operating processes need to be fixed -- Getting rid of the top of the dung heap is just the start

As the Prophet of the T -- M S duTaxus himself said when he quoted a Greek Aphorism -- "The Fish rots from the head"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top