MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

dwash59 said:
Of more direct relevance to this thread, they've divided the position of GM in half and appointed Brian Shortsleeve into the new Chief Administrator position.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-secretary-announces-mbta-leadership-team/
Click to expand...

Interesting choice. It is great that an expert on finances will manage the MBTA. I am just a bit cautious on the MBTA's privatization, which it is moving towards. Of course, privatization is not always bad. Though, keep in mind this plan was started before Baker's term. ->

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...rough-start/TuOX2I4srKKKhnZFyubHQJ/story.html
 
Last edited:
kevtron2000 said:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...sident-says/Cl5hjyben3c2H6aQEpsDZL/story.html

How will privatization of late-night, low ridership, and some express lines help the MBTA's potential business operator? Are they going to have an increase of ridership on those lines for them to operate with higher revenues? How are they going to cut costs on lines without much riders?
Click to expand...

The private contractors might have lower costs per hour to provide the services. The routes presumably would still need an operating subsidy from the MBTA, I doubt they expect any private operator to actually recover the full cost of running the routes from fare revenue.
 
I made a very rudimentary run at the numbers from the last Late Night Report in February.

V4Rq1ej.png


I'm with Boogie on this one, the MBTA's tried twice to entice people on to late night busses and both times they've underperformed. Say what you will about the admittedly poor service levels, but ramping up late night bus services just isn't a politically achievable goal at the moment. Baker's T is trim and sleek and a $15 per cap subsidy is not trim, nor sleek. There's also a psychological element in all this. Aside from the late night workers/commuters make up the bulk of the bus riders (I would imagine), I think there's certainly a bit of mental gymnastics for most people in choosing the late way home: rail (if available) is as good as an uber/taxi, but uber/taxi/walk from T stop beats bus for many. It's well and good to say that we should have accessible late night rubber-tire options, but until people really start to push late night bus ridership the MBTA can't just keep it alive out of sentiment alone.

In that spirit, I think privatization of the late nights at least is the best option on the table for preserving or improving current service levels. Maybe somebody can come in an do a decent job. Won't hold my breath, but it's a definite possibility. Give whomever a 3/5-year contract and see what can happen.

Different calculus for the high net-cost, non Late Night routes, but that's a late discussion.
 
Do the Winthrop buses run by Paul Revere but advertised as MBTA routes (712 & 713) have CharlieCard readers on them yet? Last I rode in 2011, they did not. The website says they still don't.

Privatizing bus routes is a recipe for disaster and we already have examples of how it doesn't work to the riders advantage.

Adult: $1.50; Pupil: 75 Cents; Senior/TAP: 75 Cents; Children 11 and under ride free; Blind persons ride free. All monthly MBTA passes and 1 or 7 day LinkPasses will be accepted ONLY if they are printed on a CharlieTicket with visible valid travel dates. Buses on this route are NOT equipped to read plastic CharlieCards or any stored value CharlieTicket.

http://mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/private_bus/?loc=Winthrop
Click to expand...
 
datadyne007 said:
Do the Winthrop buses run by Paul Revere but advertised as MBTA routes (712 & 713) have CharlieCard readers on them yet? Last I rode in 2011, they did not. The website says they still don't.

Privatizing bus routes is a recipe for disaster and we already have examples of how it doesn't work to the riders advantage.
Click to expand...

They still only take unlimited ride passes printed on tickets (Zone 1A or higher, Local bus, 7-day or 1-day), same is true for the 710, 714, and 716 routes operated by Joseph's Transportation.
 
winstonoboogie said:
They still only take unlimited ride passes printed on tickets (Zone 1A or higher, Local bus, 7-day or 1-day), same is true for the 710, 714, and 716 routes operated by Joseph's Transportation.
Click to expand...

How does the MBTA think this is ok? They are encouraging people to put monthly passes on CharlieCards and use CharlieCards for everything in general and then screw them over when they go to use an official MBTA route.

If you use Google Maps to try to go to Winthrop, it shows you the 713 as an MBTA route and anyone would assume that you'd be able to use your card since it's an MBTA bus.
 
Some of the T's unionized drivers are worried that they might start losing their jobs because of this privatization of some of the bus routes.
 
On low ridership routes, private contractors will have an easier time using smaller busses and playing with the timetable so that said busses are always full. Many places have thriving semi-legal industries based on this principle. A larger operator, like the MBTA, will have trouble running a system with multiple sizes of bus as it ruins the economies of scale.
 
The current privately operated routes should give serious pause to the MBTA debating adding more. Paul Revere operates a quality service all told; service is prompt, buses are clean and reliable and have good rollsigns, and operators are friendly. (They also run the Logan shuttle buses, some Logan Express routes, EZride, and the MASCO shuttles.) But they don't have realtime data integrated with the MBTA system (Logan shuttles feed into signs at the airport, and MASCO has a tracker for their routes), are questionable for ADA (I don't believe they announce stops automatically) and the lack of fare integration is a killer.

The Joseph's Transportation routes are far worse. Zero signage at stops or on the vehicle. No fare integration or realtime data, scuzzy buses, etc. The MBTA schedule claims they will stop at any safe location with a signal to the driver (versus a very small number of designated stops). In practice, I called the number on the schedule as recommended and was grumpily told that they will only stop at official stops.

I would far prefer my tax dollars go to quality buses operated by quality drivers and maintained by quality mechanics, with full fare and data integration into the MBTA system.
 
It is unfortunate that the Legislature didn't provide any opposition what-so-ever to the Pacheco Law exemption. Proving your argument, that privatization will result in lower costs for equal or better service, should not be considered a burden because if you don't have a any evidence for your proposal then you shouldn't be proposing it in the first place. That someone could argue that privatization would be beneficial but balk at the prospect of having to prove that says a lot about the motives for these kinds of moves.

If the MBTA isn't bothering to submit potentially beneficial proposals because of the Pacheco Law then that leaves two options: 1.) The MBTA is institutionally lazy and apathetic. 2.) These proposals would not have been approved because they weren't actually beneficial.

Both situations require someone, maybe someone who considers themselves to be a master "manager", to fix the MBTA so that it can either make an effort to improve service or make legitimate proposals and plans. But instead the Pacheco Law was temporarily lifted because this was never about management of the MBTA, this was Koch fueled anti-labor politics.

Our only hope here is that these privatizations are not far reaching, do not negatively impact riders too badly, and are easily fixed when the Commonwealth gets a good Governor and DOT Secretary again.
 
^ I believe all Pacheo limits snap back when these emergecy exemptions expire in 3 years.
 
If they really wanted to save money, they'd scrap the Build in America requirement. Dropping Pacheco is window dressing.
 
underground said:
If they really wanted to save money, they'd scrap the Build in America requirement. Dropping Pacheco is window dressing.
Click to expand...

Have fun with the Feds on that one. This is one of those areas that no politician is going to engage with willingly, but any change in procurement probably comes as part of TTIP.
 
CantabAmager said:
Have fun with the Feds on that one. This is one of those areas that no politician is going to engage with willingly, but any change in procurement probably comes as part of TTIP.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for the Fed "buy American" provision being expanded to include Canada. I think it is OK to insist that Japanese and European designs be assembled here. Done right we'd get away from the pop-up-factory quality problems.
 
I have mention before, but beyond Pacheco at the state level, any agency using FTA funds must also follow Federal labor requirements for transit:

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/statute-sect5333b.htm

The state said today that there won't be any layoffs, that drivers removed from contracted routes will be redeployed on other service. The Federal law makes clear that it was never an option. However the Federal law also protects against "a worsening of their positions related to employment", so even a reduction in seniority status or average overtime hours might result in a claim against the contracting.

I posted this link before, but there was an excellent TCRP study from 2002 about the use of small transit buses in large systems.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tsyn41.pdf
essentially, the larger the agency, the less potential benefit from using small buses. Labor costs make up a large percentage of your hourly costs to provide bus service. The only way small buses really save a large agency money are if you are paying small wages to the people driving them.
 
Arlington said:
I'd settle for the Fed "buy American" provision being expanded to include Canada. I think it is OK to insist that Japanese and European designs be assembled here. Done right we'd get away from the pop-up-factory quality problems.
Click to expand...

It does actually extend to Canada, sorta. It's not "official", but NAFTA pushed a bunch of loopholes and work-arounds into the trade relationship - it's far easier to Buy Americanadian (think New Flyer, Bombardier) than anywhere else.

What's the status on the foreign-subsidiary plants in NY/PA that services the big transit agencies (Hornell, etc...)? Are they mostly repairs with a bunch of workers added to meet demand (pop-ups) when needed? I know the MBTA got burned by Rotem's Philly plant, but is that endemic problem in the industry or just a niggling inefficiency?
 
winstonoboogie said:
I have mention before, but beyond Pacheco at the state level, any agency using FTA funds must also follow Federal labor requirements for transit:

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/statute-sect5333b.htm

The state said today that there won't be any layoffs, that drivers removed from contracted routes will be redeployed on other service. The Federal law makes clear that it was never an option. However the Federal law also protects against "a worsening of their positions related to employment", so even a reduction in seniority status or average overtime hours might result in a claim against the contracting.

I posted this link before, but there was an excellent TCRP study from 2002 about the use of small transit buses in large systems.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tsyn41.pdf
essentially, the larger the agency, the less potential benefit from using small buses. Labor costs make up a large percentage of your hourly costs to provide bus service. The only way small buses really save a large agency money are if you are paying small wages to the people driving them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for these details. It seems to me that the fears of a privatization, complete with Koch Brothers cameo are overblown, and that by limiting the Pacheo exemption to 3 years the Legislature has ensured that any private contractors are essentially only going to be around for a "Surge" campaign to fix stuff.

Particularly if current T workers must be redeployed (as Winston shows, above), doesn't that essentially guarantee that current workers will be used to intensify work done on most of the system, while some peripheral stuff gets temporarily handled by contractors?

It seems a good middle path. I'd hate to see them go the other way: a huge T hiring binge for some temporary reason that in 3 years left us with a big overhang of staff.

If the extra staff and spending are "working" and still needed, I'd expect them to be replaced by regular T staff. Other wise, the surge is over, the spending ends, and the contractors go.
 
Arlington said:
If the extra staff and spending are "working" and still needed, I'd expect them to be replaced by regular T staff. Other wise, the surge is over, the spending ends, and the contractors go.
Click to expand...

While not laying anyone off, they have not said if the regular T staff will be reduced over time by attrition. The MBTA is constantly hiring new field staff just to keep up with retirements.
 
The MBTA has announced that it has gotten or is getting & stocking replacement traction motors for their rail cars, will be installing heaters for the 3rd rail on the Red and Orange Lines.

It says that it now has a contingency plan in place for this coming winter season. To handle & stay ahead of any rough snowstorms that may come. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top