What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?

[Matthew]

Isn't the "profitable public agency" you're looking for an oxymoron? Running in balance? Sure, but the word "profitable" makes me cringe. If there was profit to be found, private enterprise would've stepped in long ago.

There are profitable public transit agencies. Not in this [transit-backwards] country though. MTR in Hong Kong comes to mind. The public Japan Railways are profitable, as are the myriad private railways that operate closely together in Japan. And that's before you factor in the profits they make from real estate.

What makes our transit systems hemorrhage money is a combination of factors. First and foremost is land use policy. We have an insane fixation on building parking lots on valuable station adjacent land. Parking lots are the least effective way to build ridership, since you are limited by the relatively few number of spaces. The reason why we hurt ourselves this way is due to perverse Federal incentives as well as poorly thought out zoning codes which have proliferated across the country. In order to have profitable transit, you need heavy TWO-way ridership ALL day. That means there must be a variety of destinations at nearly every station on the line, so that people have reason to go there at all times of day (instead of the usual inbound/outbound pattern we focus on).

Second, we have fairly incompetent management of agencies and weird political divisions that get in the way. There is a major NIH factor at work which prevents us from importing best practices from other places. The fact is, Americans have lost the ability to plan, build and operate passenger railroads competently over the past generation or two. We need to get that back. But we're going to have to play catch up for a while. And Americans hate doing that -- it hurts our ego. So they'd rather pretend that everything is just fine, and we continue to run 50s-style commuter operations with lumbering, slow diesel locomotives, in the 21st century.

Finally, the main competition is heavily subsidized by the government: highways and roads. Railroads and public transit are high fixed cost businesses. In order to meet those costs, they need to attract as many fare-paying customers as possible. But if those customers are tempted away by freeways and under-priced gasoline, then the transit system gets screwed twice over. Hence, most have devolved into basket cases on life support, from which most any sane, competent upper management has fled for greener fields.

 

[Shepard]

Great post. ^

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Is there no way we can't have both destinations and parking? Say, build a mall around the station (or build stations inside existing malls...) and have parking around that which would service both the mall and the station?

 

[Ron Newman]

Parking should be in garages. Surface parking lots, especially near T stations, are a waste of land that has much more valuable uses.

 

[Matthew]

Is there no way we can't have both destinations and parking? Say, build a mall around the station (or build stations inside existing malls...) and have parking around that which would service both the mall and the station?

Malls aren't a bad idea. If you ever go to Japan, you'll notice that most of big stations are malls. It's pretty neat. You come home from work and can go shopping on your way back from the station.

But building parking around the malls just pushes the problem back one level. Now you trap people in the malls. As Ron says, valuable land shouldn't be used for parking, so garages are an option. But then you run the risk of building large, massively subsidized parking garages that waste space too. No, there cannot be any parking requirements imposed by law -- they invariably lead to some kind of market failure.

The answer is to sell or lease land parcels and let developers decide what is profitable, whether that be parking, or offices, residences, or anything! You would think that is the most obvious answer in this country which prides itself on capitalism. But for all the noise we Americans make about the wonders of the free market, we are some of the worst addicts of road and parking socialism in the world. Every municipality seems to have "minimum" parking requirements: the zoning codes are extremely specific, down to the anal-retentive level about parking spaces required. And god forbid you talk about charging for parking -- you'll have legions of suburbanites screaming for your head if you don't give them free parking.

 

[Ron Newman]

CambridgeSide Galleria, Copley Place, and Prudential malls all charge for parking in their garages.

 

[Matthew]

I was thinking of suburban stations when I wrote that. The MBTA does charge a nominal fee for parking in their lots, but it isn't even close to enough to cover the costs of a parking garage (e.g. like the planned Salem garage).

It is true that people do pay for privately owned city garages, although street parking is generally mis-priced. For example, near me you can go out in the evening and be entertained by the sight of people desperately fighting for the free street parking. That's what happens when a limited resource like that is given away for nothing, or for too little. Mis-pricing works both ways. At other times of day, loads of metered spots go empty because people don't want to pay that much, and they hunt for the free spots instead. In that case, the price is too high.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I also want to add that, if we are talking about suburban stations, trapping people in the mall that you would build with the parking that you would build around the mall is not that much of an issue - there's only so far you can walk, after all.

And like whigh said - there has to be parking SOMEWHERE, or you're not going to get any new ridership outside of those already living on or near the system.

But, maybe we can solve all these problems at once.

What about underground parking beneath the station platform and fare areas, with a mall on top of that - maybe even with a "scenic" overlook into the station for people-watchers and railfans - and offices/residences/a hotel on top of that? Kind of like a tiered building.

 

[HenryAlan]

Malls sound like an okay idea, but what we really need at the outlying stations is jobs. If Forest Hills, Alewife, Riverside all had surrounding office towers and/or lab facilities, some of the people who drive or bus to them, would not get on the subway at all, while at the same time, some of the empty trains heading back out from downtown would carry commuters. Every transit line should ultimately be seen as a high density spine, above which there should be office and residential towers, along with a mall here and there.

Of course, if such a plan actually came together, it would require a real urban ring to be built, to accommodate the large number of people moving from one spine to another.

 

[whighlander]

Malls sound like an okay idea, but what we really need at the outlying stations is jobs. If Forest Hills, Alewife, Riverside all had surrounding office towers and/or lab facilities, some of the people who drive or bus to them, would not get on the subway at all, while at the same time, some of the empty trains heading back out from downtown would carry commuters. Every transit line should ultimately be seen as a high density spine, above which there should be office and residential towers, along with a mall here and there.

Of course, if such a plan actually came together, it would require a real urban ring to be built, to accommodate the large number of people moving from one spine to another.

Henry -- apparently you've not been to Alewife recently -- it has a considerable number of both residences and office / lab buildings -- some what lacking in retail and food unless you walk down to Fresh Pond Shopping Center

And as the head of the new HQ for "Big Data" for HP said when he was asked why Alewife and not Kendall:
1) he was old DEC and lived in the suburbs
2) he figured there were probably quite a few of his senior staff-to-be who lived suburban style and hence Rt-2
3) he also figured that a number of the younger staff wanted the Cambridge, Sommerville, Boston lifestyle -- so you had Red Line, and biking available and Alewife allowed all of them

So you have the ideal circumstance -- Alewife meets you criteria

 

[Matthew]

I also want to add that, if we are talking about suburban stations, trapping people in the mall that you would build with the parking that you would build around the mall is not that much of an issue - there's only so far you can walk, after all.

And like whigh said - there has to be parking SOMEWHERE, or you're not going to get any new ridership outside of those already living on or near the system.

Ah, but you see, suburban doesn't have to equal "unwalkable." That's just a perversion introduced by zoning. In most places where zoning doesn't wreak havoc, and also in older neighborhoods in the United States that have retained their character, it is quite possible to walk from place to place in a suburb. Ridership does live near the system, when given the opportunity.

This is why I put forward the "free market" solution. If parking is worthwhile, then someone will build it and charge for it. Or, they can choose to build other things instead. It's quite simple, requires little planning, and little to no zoning. And hey, if nearby businesses want to pool together and build a subsidized parking lot so that people can park for free and come to their businesses, that's fine too. It's government subsidies of parking lots that always end up being artificial and heavy handed, a huge distortion in the market.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Ah, but you see, suburban doesn't have to equal "unwalkable." That's just a perversion introduced by zoning. In most places where zoning doesn't wreak havoc, and also in older neighborhoods in the United States that have retained their character, it is quite possible to walk from place to place in a suburb. Ridership does live near the system, when given the opportunity.

You mean like in Houston?

This is why I put forward the "free market" solution. If parking is worthwhile, then someone will build it and charge for it. Or, they can choose to build other things instead. It's quite simple, requires little planning, and little to no zoning. And hey, if nearby businesses want to pool together and build a subsidized parking lot so that people can park for free and come to their businesses, that's fine too. It's government subsidies of parking lots that always end up being artificial and heavy handed, a huge distortion in the market.

When does the government subsidize private parking lots? In South Boston the city has gone so far as to ban additional parking surface lots (i.e., the "free market" created surface lots, zoning has attempted to correct that).

 

[whighlander]

Time for the Legislature to "bite the proverbial bullet" and restructure both the union contracts as well as any other employee contracts:

1) No more substantial bonus for overtime -- max of 5% for regular overtime and 10% for extraordinary
2) Cap on total compensation of 130% of base compensation for a given position -- no more $200,000 per year electricians and plumbers
3) No more defined pensions for new hires -- only matching compensation 401-K-like defined contribution plans privately managed
4) No more health plans for retired workers for new hires
5) No more early retirement except based on the value of their 401-K-like plan
6) No more anti-flexibility work rules

all of the above to apply immediately to all except the retirement features which only effect new hires beginning when the plan is signed by the Governor

This will not fix all of the T's problems -- but it will close a lot of the current gap between revenues and expenditures

 

[shockingboston]

I had an epiphany.

It’s easy:

They do not need to fix the financial mess, but rather change people’s perception of their financial position. I haven’t done the extensive research, but if some of the comments regarding ‘Profitable Public Transportation is an oxymoron’ are true, then the T should focus on improving how people think about the T and their services.

So instead of telling the public it will need a fare hike and service cuts, to help improve the financial bottom line; it would be ‘there will be an increase in rates and changes to service distribution to ensure we are providing the best service possible to our valued customers’ (written more poetically and sincerely though). It should read something like what you get from Telephone Company, Cable Company and Gas Company before they raise their rates. Even when I get a notice from the cable company in regards to a channel line-up change, it always states ‘in-order to provide you with the best service and channel viewing possibilities’, etc.

This will also include some deals with the media, so that the underlining theme to every story about the MBTA is ‘they’re doing their best to provide you with the best’. (Cheesy; I know)

They need a boost in their PR campaign. Convince the public that the huge debt, it not from miss-management, bad public official decision, poor project planning and management, inefficient maintenance (I am just throwing possible reasons out there, I do not know the real reason for the T debt problems), but a result from providing great service and maintaining one of the best transit systems in the world. (It should not include stupid videos that hi-light more of their inefficiencies).

MBTA officials need to show the public, that we are getting the best possible deal there is. That the current fare and new fare, gives us the ‘best bang for our buck’. That with the new services provided, you can still get to anywhere seamlessly.

It’s all about perception. They need to be able to spit on our cupcake and call it frosting and make us believe it. And even after the first sour bite, they come back and convince us that is how great frosting is supposed to taste.

If you think you are getting the best product at a discount, you will tend overlook other stuff. This should alleviate the public concerns that they are getting ripped off and gouged by the T.

 

[choo]

I think there is something to be said for the T revamping its image and playing up its value. The T's image is largely defined by the Herald Op-ed page and comment board. But, It is public transportation, there to serve the public as a public good. I have the opinion that it should be just that GOOD. meaning properly funded by the beneficiaries (deliberately not using the term users because even non-users benefit tremendously- whether it be through property valuation or reduced car commute time by taking hundreds of thousands of drivers off the road).

The T is wanted by many to serve the interest of the public at no expense to the public. This is not how we think of roads or the police department, or FDA. Currently on the T's busiest days, New Years Eve, July 4, the T operates for FREE to serve the public as it celebrates and SPENDS MONEY. In a private system, not only would it not be free, they would also jack up the price (supply v. demand). Ironically, this is likely one of the few times of year many families from outside the city that don't work in Boston, will interact with the T, and they do it at no cost.

 

[omaja]

I had an epiphany.

It’s easy:

They do not need to fix the financial mess, but rather change people’s perception of their financial position. I haven’t done the extensive research, but if some of the comments regarding ‘Profitable Public Transportation is an oxymoron’ are true, then the T should focus on improving how people think about the T and their services.

MBTA officials need to show the public, that we are getting the best possible deal there is. That the current fare and new fare, gives us the ‘best bang for our buck’. That with the new services provided, you can still get to anywhere seamlessly.

If you think you are getting the best product at a discount, you will tend overlook other stuff. This should alleviate the public concerns that they are getting ripped off and gouged by the T.

I certainly appreciate the thought behind what you're saying -- especially regarding the T's PR machine being completely broken (if it even exists?).

That said, no matter how you spin it, fare hikes combined with service cuts equates to less value and getting ripped off.

There are seemingly no attempts for the T to renegotiate some of its operating/personnel expenses, I think working on this would do a lot to help their image as a bloated, overpaid, underworked government agency. Then they can start focusing on touting value for customers.

 

[Shepard]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

GOVERNOR: [*glances at latest Obama 54, Romney 42 polling snapshot*] Hmm...let's see what Georgetown townhouses are on the market this week.

 

[omaja]

... and at the end of the day the MBTA continues to carry a massive debt load and has no money to keep up the system, let alone expand it. That's the status quo, not an improvement!

 

[whighlander]

Their PR machine is in action, actually, and it's working as I think it should.
MBTA: we need to cut service and raise fares, but we'll hold a bunch of very publicized meetings so the public can vent their anger at the legislature.
PUBLIC: Wtf, legislature!
MBTA: We'll do our best to not make it as bad as we originally "planned" ... but call your MA representative if you disagree with our staggering debt load.
LEGISLATURE: We are incompetent suburban hacks.

Shep -- while not as many the Urban hacks are just as incompetent and useless as the proverbial "... on a ...."

The fundamental problem is as has been noted by others -- the enormous amount of waste, some fraud and corruption much associated with the T's really fat union contracts. Not to ignore the equally fat management contracts and the many millions poured down rat-holes of "most favored status" consulting deals.

The citizen taxpayers who support the rest of the state are getting quite annoyed by the failure of their elected reps to do anything. Unfortunately, since there is no real opposition party the reps just keep getting re-elected and have minimal incentive to take on the unions. The current governor and his cronies are apparently unwilling to exercise any leadership -- and so it goes.

Sooner or later -- the clock will strike and the public will throw the bums out -- Note this happened up and down the ballots in almost all of the other states in the November 2010 elections