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

I'm not really seeing how bureaucratic account transfers does anything to solve the problem. Taking MBTA Transit Police off the books will not free up funding for the MBTA, it will just transfer money to the State Police. It would lighten the books and maybe alleviate debt burden? It might be worthwhile for bureaucratic efficiency to have all state law-enforcement agencies under the same umbrella (enviro police too?) but it's not really a cost-cutting measure is it?

It cleans up the oversight and back-office in much the same way the reorganization of MassDOT put things on a path to a *little* more transparency by eliminating mundane administrative redundancies at the sub-agencies. But yeah...if you need transit-specialized security it's a purely lateral transaction that saves $0 off the T's budget because they'd be primary users. That might be something to consider once the MassDOT mothership consolidation hits its second decade and tightens the screws on some redundancies, but it's a 30th priority for troubleshooting the T's budget. And not a good idea to skimp on if we want to maintain Boston's rep for having a very crime-few transit system compared to its peers.


There's too many purely lateral moves like this that seem like busywork in the name of reform but really do nothing but shuffle paperwork in a circle. Certainly a full examination of the best way forward with The Ride is worth doing, but the list of potential admin consolidations and privatization possibilities gets very small indeed once you toss the treading-water substitues or the ones that have high probability of worsening the efficiency like mutating the commuter rail contractor setup to other modes.

No easy answers. Never were easy answers.
 
All the discussion of transfer of the Transit Police misses an important point. Transit Police are about the "lightest qualification" police force in the Commonwealth. Essentially none of the force are qualified to be Boston Municipal or State Troopers.
 
I think people eligible for The Ride should have the option of calling a Ride vehicle or using a taxi/Uber/Lyft voucher. There are people who would opt for the taxi option rather than the long waits often needed to get a Ride vehicle.

Here's at least one example of someone who would:
http://goboston2030.org/victors-trip/
 
The average price per passenger trip on The Ride was $49.60 in 2013. If some riders can be shifted onto cabs, ubers, or social service agency vans at a cost less than $50 per trip then it's saving money.
 
I see! Well, I believe that underscores the amazing cost-savings that are hidden in using contract labor instead of union labor. To that point, you would need to fight the unions to use contract (Uber/Lyft) drivers to do "their' (union) jobs. But, this could be a great first step in fighting the bloat inherent in paying union salary/pension for every job in the MBTA.
 
I see! Well, I believe that underscores the amazing cost-savings that are hidden in using contract labor instead of union labor. To that point, you would need to fight the unions to use contract (Uber/Lyft) drivers to do "their' (union) jobs. But, this could be a great first step in fighting the bloat inherent in paying union salary/pension for every job in the MBTA.

Pretty sure that the Ride is already outsourced and that the drivers are NOT MBTA employees.
 
The average price per passenger trip on The Ride was $49.60 in 2013. If some riders can be shifted onto cabs, ubers, or social service agency vans at a cost less than $50 per trip then it's saving money.

Bingo.
 
Transit Police is more complicated than that. Most large transit agencies have a police department, and most large private railroads have a police department (yes, even CSX and Pan Am have guys with badges and guns who can legally arrest you). State Police don't have the training to safely patrol some of the more dangerous transit infrastructure. Different story on a bus-only system, but if a suspect makes a getaway down the Red Line tunnel to slip out at one of the emergency exits you need the officers who have the training on doing a footchase on crossties 2 feet from a live third rail and has recall of every hiding place. Or know the layout of a yard when they're hopping between tracks doing a routine security pass around the sprawling South Station terminal district. An in-house PD just becomes a more necessary practicality the bigger the scale of the system. Most definitely if you have an established PD it's not wise to consider abolishing it or slashing it too far back, because State and Local PD's just don't end up filling the void because of the onerous safety training. NYC Subway has not fared well at all during past budget swings when they've let the MTA PD ranks atrophy with retirements in an attempt to save money. The T is a very, very safe system compared to NYC, Chicago, Philly, SF, etc. and any troubling upticks in crime tend to get stamped out pronto. It's one of the good things we've got going for us, so there should be great reluctance to mess with that.

Now, if they are too bloated in ranks (and we'd need to see some hard figures and comparisons with other systems to determine) there may be some shaving they can do on the bus side. But I really don't think you're talking more than pocket change because most bus depots and routes are spot patrols and any bus locations large enough to require semi-constant Transit Police tend to be at conjoined rapid transit stations.


The Ride...yes, that one I think has no business being entirely under their purview. It's too large a paratransit district to cover in-house, and there are enough private and municipal carriers providing same or similar general service that an outsource program subscribed to a common fare structure and interoperability clauses if one carrier has to cross districts to drop off a passenger would help a lot on the efficiency front. Paratransit is a very common loss leader for transit agencies; the T is hardly an outlier in being saddled with it. They tend to be legacy operations absorbed from similar private carriers as when the public agency cobbled together its bus district from formerly private carriers, and then the ADA's passage cemented it in place. But after 25 years of the ADA enough private paratransit service has infilled the auxiliary demand that the same circumstances that led the transit agencies to take on the task in the first place from lack of other options...no longer exist. Especially in an urban core, and especially where a whole ecosystem of private shuttle and personal transit operators have sprung up around the universities and medical centers.

That one just needs to have lawmakers craft up some legislation setting up a common fare program and creating the licensing rules and standards for Ride-spec service divvied up across the district...with no loss of cross-district mobility. It's not hard to do, but it's action only the Legislature can initiate. And, you know, "Reform Before Revenue" hasn't exactly gotten any show of hands in either chamber of volunteers willing to take the first crack at crafting a reform...any reform.

F-Line -- lot's of important minutia --But State Police manage to handle the security of all of Massport operations including Logan

No -- I think the the T Police are a vestigial bureaucratic element akin to the old [Patronage-ridden] MDC Police and the former unit that policed the State Capital complex

Now all of the above are part of one unified State Police with adequate training to operate on Boston Harbor, in tunnels and in Parks and tourist venues
 
I'm not really seeing how bureaucratic account transfers does anything to solve the problem. Taking MBTA Transit Police off the books will not free up funding for the MBTA, it will just transfer money to the State Police. It would lighten the books and maybe alleviate debt burden? It might be worthwhile for bureaucratic efficiency to have all state law-enforcement agencies under the same umbrella (enviro police too?) but it's not really a cost-cutting measure is it?

Busses -- at the minimum it means:
  • one training staff and curriculum development team
  • one State Police Training Academy
  • One State Police HR department
  • one police equipment and materials procurement agency
  • added bonus more officers available with cross training for special deployments

Seems like lots of opportunity for cutting costs
 
Busses -- at the minimum it means:
  • one training staff and curriculum development team
  • one State Police Training Academy
  • One State Police HR department
  • one police equipment and materials procurement agency
  • added bonus more officers available with cross training for special deployments

Seems like lots of opportunity for cutting costs

That just doesn't seem like it would add up to much. Yeah it is one agency now but staffing levels would have to be similar maybe not quite as high but close. All you did was move people from several different offices to one (that might not even happen because of space constraints) and the training services are now in one building, etc. Congrats you pretty much only save money in maintenance costs if that even happens as it assumes all the offices are fully consolidated.

This just wouldn't have that big an impact as far as I can tell. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but it should be done for the right reasons such as streamlining government services not for the minimal cost savings it would provide. Saving money is not and should not be the be all end all for how the utility of a proposal is rated. Improving allocation of services, streamlining so a service is more responsive, and increasing transparency are all equally valid reasons for doing something.

As such why not just accept this won't save that much money and move one while realizing is has merit for other reasons.
 
One of the major Giuliani-era policing reforms in NYC was the merging on the MTA transit police (on the subways) with the NYPD (and another couple smaller departments). This has been widely cited as increasing efficiency and safety. For instance, coordination was significantly less of a problem when a criminal fled into the subway.
 
One of the major Giuliani-era policing reforms in NYC was the merging on the MTA transit police (on the subways) with the NYPD (and another couple smaller departments). This has been widely cited as increasing efficiency and safety. For instance, coordination was significantly less of a problem when a criminal fled into the subway.

Agreed, but the MTA is much more concentrated in NYC (because NYC is bigger). The MBTA lines cut across a huge number of local jurisdictions.

City police are a much better candidate for the transit service (as opposed to State troopers, because of the nature of the crime issues), but Boston does not have jurisdiction for a lot of the area needed.
 
A state police unit specializing in transit and transportation seems likely to be much more cost efficient than a separate Transit Police department. As whighlander mentions, cross-training seems the key. Over-specialized transit cops can be making other contributions when their special skills aren't required.
 
Agreed, but the MTA is much more concentrated in NYC (because NYC is bigger). The MBTA lines cut across a huge number of local jurisdictions.

City police are a much better candidate for the transit service (as opposed to State troopers, because of the nature of the crime issues), but Boston does not have jurisdiction for a lot of the area needed.

We're also debating a whole lot of nothing until we have numbers to look at for exactly what Transit Police cost, and how those costs compare with other systems. If there's no evidence it's out-of-line with standard-issue transit security, and no evidence that jurisdictional folding into the State Police will be any cheaper...or end up more expensive because of the particularities of the MA State Police vs. NYPD...this is hand-wringing without purpose.
 
I guess I'm still confused. Taking the Transit Police out of the MBTA would be a transfer of money off of the books. It would cut the T's budget. It's not as though the money spent on the Transit Police would be coming back to the T to be spent in another way... it would just be going to the Staties instead. Sounds like a general conversation about bureaucratic reform, not fixing the T's finances.
 
I guess I'm still confused. Taking the Transit Police out of the MBTA would be a transfer of money off of the books. It would cut the T's budget. It's not as though the money spent on the Transit Police would be coming back to the T to be spent in another way... it would just be going to the Staties instead. Sounds like a general conversation about bureaucratic reform, not fixing the T's finances.

The T's going to have to pay for continued police presence and training on their premises across a district that spans 5 of the 7 State Police troop divisions. That's a transfer of considerable money back onto the books; they do not get those services for free. How much it sheds is key. If this is fighting to a draw or the very act of executing a complicated administrative transfer incurs more short-term cost for the wishful thinking of pennies-on-dollar of long-term savings...it's not worth their while to over-focus on footnotes. Diminishing returns for their effort; it would take a lifetime to make any substantial progress if they got locked into a mentality of chasing pennies down a wormhole.

We don't know what Transit Police cost in-house vs. the same services provided externally. It might be a win. It might not. But I think we're overestimating by a wide margin the number of sources of operational bloat that can be squeezed for any meaningful net gain. If they were that obvious, the Legislature would've taken the free throws on one or more of those very specific reforms and patted itself on the back years ago. Nearly every substantial source of leakage they do have to tackle are the hardest ones, or the most politically inconvenient ones.
 
If I'm not mistaken the base salary for staties is up to a 1/3 more than that of the transit police (who have bi-state jurisdiction with RI to further complicate a merger)
 
Okay okay....but can someone explain why we need MBTA Police to investigate this:

MBTA Police Seek Stonybrook Station Thief

A male suspect is wanted for theft after stealing from a bike rack at Jamaica Plain's Stonybrook MBTA station.

Transit Police are asking the public for help with identifying a man wanted for theft at the Stonybrook MBTA station in Boston’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood.

On Sept. 28, the male suspect entered the station riding a bicycle and approached the designated bike rack. The man then stole a tire from a secured bicycle, police say.

...

Why is investigation of petty theft outside of an MBTA station something that has to be carried out by people on the MBTA payroll? Why not let local and state police handle these issues? The MBTA does not have room in the budget for these frivolous, non-transit related expenses.

And, by the way, these stories happen all the time. This happens to be from today, but nearly every day the MBTA police are doing things that local police are very well trained to do. Heck, I'd argue that the majority of what MBTA police do can be very easily conducted by local or state police.
 
When was the last time that state or city police had time or interest to deal with theft of any part of a bicycle?
 

Back
Top