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

Shepard said:
But this doesn't answer my question. Aside from aesthetics, and assuming that clean and limitless fuels propel us in our cars... why not?
Click to expand...
Because Suburbia continues to devour Rural America, something everyone claims to value --even its rapists. And once in a while it still takes a little chunk out of Urban America, too.
 
Shepard said:
That would be true in the short term if employment centers remained where they were and the red line was shut down. But long term, this efficiency argument too becomes obsolete. The electric car will herald exurban office parks like we have never dreamed of before. Oh, and as a bonus, our big boxes just got bigger.
Click to expand...

How has that worked in the LA basin? 2 hours for a 20 mile commute sound like fun? The landscape that results when a large metropolis is completely auto-dependent makes Crumb's last panel look bucolic. There comes a point where people are sick of congestion, they want out of their cars.

Density centers served by good public transit give people lifestyle choices. If it's more convenient to have an urban lifestyle, those who are sick of sitting in traffic, of living where everything is a big box, will trade in their half acre of lawn. They aren't going to give up their cars, but they'd like to not have to use them as much.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Shepard, who's going to buy these $20,000 electric cars for private citizens?
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't say it was going to be subsidized. But at some point gasoline cars will be phased out and electric cars will take over.

ablarc said:
Because Suburbia continues to devour Rural America, something everyone claims to value
Click to expand...

Densify urban America to protect rural America? Good luck. I'm sure John McFarmer will gladly give up his farm subsidies - the only thing which keeps his business even remotely competitive - so that a new heavy rail line can grace a city 500 miles away.

The argument makes some sense, but as a persuasive tool it will always be the wrong line of reasoning to the wrong person.
 
My first idea didn't fly. Try this:
Land subdivision tax; plus,
2 cents on gas tax; plus,
1% on booze tax;
Makes the T
Fare free.
 
Shepard said:
But at some point gasoline cars will be phased out and electric cars will take over.
Click to expand...

We're gonna need way more power to charge all those autos. We'll need more nuclear power plants and I know there are a bunch of NIMBYs who don't want them.
 
Shepard said:
Densify urban America to protect rural America? Good luck. I'm sure John McFarmer will gladly give up his farm subsidies - the only thing which keeps his business even remotely competitive - so that a new heavy rail line can grace a city 500 miles away.
Click to expand...

John McFarmer doesn't exist anymore - he grew McMansions in his fields. Farming in the midwest is a corporate function, not a family business. The logic of farm subsidies is a whole other issue, but they certainly aren't protecting John McFarmer's rural America.

Why not fund transit with transportation funds instead of giving all the money to the highways, or call it a matter of national security and use military funds?
 
Wow, the electric car is not going to herald a new golden age of sprawl. There are plenty of other arguments against sprawl than auto emissions:

- it's wasteful/expensive to extend infrastructure and utilities further to serve fewer people (as a consequence of low density)
- there are environmental consequences to paving over the landscape as well
- the electric car is still nowhere near as energy efficient as transit, considering it only carries a few people and requires all kinds of resources to be made
- there's a public health argument that walking/biking supported by transit use are better for people
- pro-sprawl market forces still sideline the consumer who wants to live in an urban setting

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head right at this very moment.
 
I don't disagree with any of those. But those are just arguments against sprawl... think how if sprawl still goes on despite those arguments, how much more so will sprawl become entrenched when a major source of societal guilt disappears (or more likely becomes hidden off-stage) with the electric car? Also, none of those arguments have much economic validity, since market forces have thus far failed to account for them.
 
Shepard said:
none of those arguments have much economic validity, since market forces have thus far failed to account for them.
Click to expand...

Economic validity? Market forces? These are not supporting sprawl - massive government subsidies are. Consider the true costs of roads, utilities, environmental damage, etc. and funding transit looks much more economical.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Well it looks like the new GM is trying to do something to the T. Too bad he'll be shit-on in a few years.
Click to expand...

I can't source it right now, but he's also doing some public Q&A sessions at stations. I have one on my calendar for April 22 between 7-0 at Kenmore. I haven't written him yet becuase of an insanely-behind project at work, but I hope to stop by on my way to work that day to talk for a minute.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for six months or so but suspect he'll run into the same stumbling block everyone else has. The union.
 
you mean this?

Patrick-Murray Administration Announce New MBTA Customer Service Initiative
MBTA GM Davey Kicks-Off Join the GM - for a new train of thought Campaign Next Stop Dudley Square Station


Start Date: 03/25/2010
Email: LRivera@mbta.com



BOSTON ? As part of the Patrick-Murray Administration?s transportation reform agenda to strengthen customer service, newly appointed MBTA General Manager Richard Davey announced a Join the GM - for a new train of thought campaign this week, a back-to-basics approach that will include regular visits to MBTA station to listen and interact with daily commuters in person. On Thursdays, beginning Thursday, April 8, and continuing for eight weeks, MBTA General Manager Richard Davey, along with the T?s top managers will convene at a selected subway or bus station to listen to customers concerns, and promote public transportation.

Sharing Governor Patrick?s passion for focusing on the traveler, MBTA General Manager Davey said, ?With the support of the Patrick/Murray Administration, we aim to put the customer first by listening to them directly about their concerns and taking action to improve their experience on the system. Our goal is to promote transparency and accountability throughout every aspect of our day to day operations.?

Each week, MBTA managers from various departments will be available at a selected subway or bus station prepared to listen, respond, and follow up with customers concerns and recommendations. Upon completion of eight weekly sessions, ?Join the GM? will continue on a monthly basis system-wide. Below are the remaining seven sessions:


Location Date Time
Dudley Square Station Thursday, April 15 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Kenmore Station Thursday, April 22 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Maverick Station Thursday, April 29 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
Forest Hills Station Thursday, May 6 7:00 a.m. ? 9:00 a.m.
North Station Thursday, May 13 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.
Haymarket Station Thursday, May 20 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.
Ruggles Thursday, May 27 4:00 p.m. ? 6:00 p.m.



For transportation news and updates visit MassDOT online at our website: www.mass.gov/massdot, blog: www.mass.gov/blog/transportation, or follow MassDOT on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot.
Click to expand...
 
palindrome said:
You don't want to know. Truly unspeakable things.
Click to expand...

Having worked at the MBTA in AFC I wouldn't know where to begin. A lot needs to be done but all require money. Previous investment IMHO were squandered because there was not much extra-long-term planning. For example, some bus routes I think should be reassessed simply based on the fact that there might be better connections that could be served instead based on where people actually live and where they are trying to get to in the system.
 
tobyjug said:
My first idea didn't fly. Try this:
Land subdivision tax; plus,
2 cents on gas tax; plus,
1% on booze tax;
Makes the T
Fare free.
Click to expand...

Sounds good in-practice but, part of the reasons that the Weld/Cellucci/Romney administrations tried to make the MBTA stand on its own two feet was because the people out in Western Mass didn't feel like they should be taxed, and lobbied hard to have this changed. (Remember, they are a part of the Commonwealth too), and many there feel like they shouldn't have to pay for the MBTA since it doesn't cover them out there. So the fare increases were planned instead. It essentially meant that people who actually rode the service would bare the rise in costs.
 
kennedy said:
Either that, or privatize the entire system much in the way utilities are privatized. Require the owner to receive government approval for rate hikes, etc.
Click to expand...

Privatization would be more expensive. All it would take is one accident and rates would skyrocket just over the lawsuits. Not only that, but if customers had to pay what the actual cost of their ride was there would be a mutiny.
 
mass88 said:
I think the MBTA is a prime example of how a Union can weigh a business, or entity down.

What percentage of MBTA employees belong to a union?

Until we see a major shift on Beacon Hill, I think the MBTA will stay the way it is, its main purpose is to employ people.
Click to expand...

If you're at the MBTA you are either part of a Union, or else under a temporary work contract. I tried to outline a bit about the unions on the MBTA article on Wikipedia.

The majority are are local 589. IMHO The unions keep most employees content. I believe if you broke them up most of the people that half-way give-a-hoot would probably walk and aim for private sector. To be blunt, instead, you'll wind up with a lot of 'dregs' in society that can't get better jobs. The MBTA is actually pretty strict about performance, and they go through many new employees pretty fast because they can't deal with the minimums about performance. The MBTA is a thankless position for most of its workers and was one of the reasons *I* quit and decided to go back to the private sector myself.
 
Welcome to the board Digital Islandboy! I'm digging all this insider perspective. Perhaps privatization was just the libertarians out here in the Midwest getting to me - I would usually never suggest something like that. Sometimes, though, I feel like a private corporation might run things more efficiently than the MBTA seems to run at times.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
It essentially meant that people who actually rode the service would bare the rise in costs.
Click to expand...

This isn't such a bad idea for transportation in general but when you compare it to how the government subsidizes roads (which, to be fair, do serve more people) then you see how the transit systems in this country get screwed over. This comes up every time there is a transportation bill in congress; cities want money for transit and rural areas balk until they get road money. I frequent many sustainable/bike blogs and there is always an urban/liberal outcry when this happens. You just gotta remember, people in the sticks HAVE to drive, biking out there isn't for commuting and the density isn't enough to justify fixed rail.
 
kennedy said:
Welcome to the board Digital Islandboy! I'm digging all this insider perspective. Perhaps privatization was just the libertarians out here in the Midwest getting to me - I would usually never suggest something like that. Sometimes, though, I feel like a private corporation might run things more efficiently than the MBTA seems to run at times.
Click to expand...

No not a problem. :) I know where you're coming from. Often times when certain government offices are incompetent it is often better to let the private sector run-it and streamline things. :) Since I quit I'm able to talk without feeling like I'm going to be retaliated against. As long as I don't disclose trade secret I think I'm okay. lol....
However, I too think something should be done with the overall cost and management of the authority. As of yet I haven't come up with the right idea exactly myself.
In some ways I wonder what Massachusetts would be like with transportation infrastructure maintained at the county level like it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In some ways it mirrors Mitt Romney's plan of having empowered Regional Transportation Authorities and the like. I believe it was under his administration that much of the county level government in MA was scraped.
I'm curious about what having a smaller unit at the county level would do for the state, and whether it could bring about cost savings or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top