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

[F-Line to Dudley]

If RIDOT pays, that is precisely my point. Massachusetts Tax dollars wouldn't be coming into play. What I meant, is your not likely to say see a #45x MBTA local bus or subway line serve a route that straddles the state's border.

RIDOT does pay. Every penny. No Mass. tax $$$ for out-of-state services...that's the deal. RIDOT reimburses for all expenses, and T gets a cut of gate receipts at the 3 RI stations. Same agreement in effect if Plaistow, NH goes online. They turn a *small* operating profit on the out-of-state NEC mileage (only the out-of-state mileage...they still pay in more than they take to get to South Attleboro). And RIDOT contributes a share to vehicle purchases for some additional economy of scale. This is why the T.F. Green and Wickford Jct. extensions are so non-controversial in MA. Every mile further the T runs in another state there makes them more money...so long as they don't give all that profit back by running too many more trains through their own state to get there. Hence, limited Green/Wickford service until RIDOT's ready to scale for full-blast service that'll draw revenue outslugging the cost of running +X more trains thru S. Attleboro (it will...that's why they're interested).


Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington. Any district touching the state lines is going to be at least 2 RTA's removed from any MBTA bus or subway. Moot point for the T. RIPTA gets hurt by this, though. There are 2 bus lines in Pawtucket converging on Route 1 barely 500 feet from S. Attleboro station, but they can't cross the state line to loop in the parking lot.

As I was made to understand, (and I do need to verify this), but going by what was explained to me on the inside there's a demarcation or sorts between MBTA and MBCR Co. For example it was explained the Combo pass which used to be I think almost $70 dollars was dropped in price during the last fare increase to just $59? (reconstituted as the "Link" pass). Meanwhile, the Zone 8 monthly pass (the non-interlink Zone 8) for example jumped from I believe $198 to $250. What was explained to me was the sharp rise in the Commuter rail monthly passes were mainly to fund primarily into commuter rail division itself and its fare increase was more mirroring the services costs estimated for that unit. The LINK didn't cover commuter rail any longer and therefore it was allowed to drop in price.

They can justify where the fare goes with any explanation they want. But the state is the only decider on where its fares get apportioned. The public-private MBCR demarcation is operations only. Their contract states what the guaranteed payments and incentives are. They have no stake in where it comes from. Or really want any, because MBCR is only tasked with operating trains and has no internal infrastructure of its own for processing fares. Beyond making sure the conductors get themselves and their receipts physically transported back to the terminal to turn over the proceeds from that shift.

The actual sale of CSX ROW I believe was only a few years ago. In exchange the State is having them move from the Allston rail yard (next to the Mass. Pike.) and shift that to Worcester. I believe the media reported that Harvard University has already purchased the land beneath that Allston rail yard, and in exchange for the sale the state of Mass. agrees to lower the grade of all tracks west of the Worcester rail yard all the way to the New York border (and/or raise bridges) along that stretch to allow CSX to run double-stacked cargo trains. But the point about the dispatchers is that on lines not owned by the state, those private entities can favor cargo moves as opposed to passenger moves if those routes are busy.

Not that simple. The regional rail network was cobbled together from dozens of RR's merged, leased, dismembered, and granting trackage and control rights to each other. On agreements that often have 75-100 year long terms and are held by parties thrice removed from the companies that signed them. The southside was B&A for the Worcester Line, NYNH&H for the rest. Which were both merged into Penn Central, then busted up into publicly-owned Conrail (locals + freight) and Amtrak (intercity) when PC went mega-bankrupt and the government intervened. Then busted up some more to state ownership when Conrail got out of the passenger biz. Then Conrail went private, and then Conrail got bought by CSX and Norfolk Southern and sheared in half. But nearly every one of those old trackage agreements from the steam era passed through intact, and are in somebody's hands. Only reason the New England RR network is functional today was because the gov't takeover of PC safely collected enough of those agreements in public hands and paid off enough underwater creditors to stave off endless litigation.

But it's why we have these oddities:
-- T owns NEC to state line, but Amtrak dispatches and only Amtrak can do track work. It was the last line to qualify for subsidy. Amtrak was created before the T could legally move in and impose control, so when the state bought the title deed Amtrak already had exercised its dibs on the dispatching (not that it's been any problem since).
-- Amtrak owns and dispatches the NEC from the MA/RI border to New Haven, but the T has rights to run to New London (if subsidized by those states). Why? PC ran this crappy little DMU commuter train that bounced between Providence and New London (later Westerly) once per rush. They got denied fed permission to end the route, so it wasn't subsidized by any state when the feds took over. Amtrak's charter doesn't let it self-run non-intercity routes, so Conrail got stuck with it. Took them till '79 to finally kill off enough ridership to scuttle it. Which reverted the route's rights to the line owner, which was Amtrak at this point. Except...they can't legally hold sole rights to a commuter train, so it was passed for safekeeping to the next-nearest public operator, the T. Which never once operated on those tracks until T.F. Green opened 2 years ago.
-- The T has owned the Worcester Line to Framingham for 35 years, but it was the second-to-last private line before the NEC to go underwater enough to qualify for public subsidy. Dispatching passed into Conrail's hands before the T got its dibs, and Conrail (then CSX) guarded it jealously for freight ever since. Including the portion the T and Turnpike Authority owned. It wouldn't have made a difference if they bought the title deed to the whole ROW underneath CSX to Worcester or all the way to the NY state line. CSX still held the papers to the dispatching agreement Boston & Albany signed a century ago to get into then-new South Station. Whoever held that was effectively in charge. CSX leveraged it for maximum sale value.


That's what happens when some little fish signs a 99-year contract then gets swallowed, puked up, and swallowed again by 18 other fish. The contracts can end up pretty far afield. We're pretty fortunate here because the gov't did snap up so many ROW's under public ownership and we were spared some of the horror stories from other parts of the country. Some commuter rail systems have nothing but the CSX's of the world to negotiate with. The T just settled up the last private operator holding down any sort of control in its territory.

 

[whighlander]

*grin* it' not a debate. We're just discussing. This isn't private either. I'm kinda curious now if I might have worked with F-Line. *inquisitive*

F-Line, -- another T-pedia article -- I hope you and Dig can hoist one together someday

Just ot pick a nit or two:

Fline wrote -- "Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington...."

1) Braintree on the Red Line is outside the average radius of Rt-128
2) both the #62 - Bedford VA Hospital and #76 Hanscom pass beyond both Rt-128 and outside of Lexington
3) Lexington is wholy within the T ditrict and only the privately conrolled Rt-128 Shuttle and the Town-owned and operated lexpress/Liberty Ride can operate in Lexington

PS: the Penn Central bankruptcy was once described as a sinecure for law firms specializing in Railroad Contract Law
because of the scale and magnitude of interelationships involved -- some of the original issues are still being litigated
a generation of partners have come and gone and the firms (or their successors) are still billing hours to some client or its successor

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

F-Line, -- another T-pedia article -- I hope you and Dig can hoist one together someday

Just ot pick a nit or two:

Fline wrote -- "Of course you're not going to see any other mode cross the border. No subway line physically crosses 128. The rubber-tire distance holder is the 34E Forest Hills-Walpole. With only a handful of exceptions the bus district stops at 128 and gives way to other RTA's on their own charters as close to town as Dedham and Lexington...."

1) Braintree on the Red Line is outside the average radius of Rt-128
2) both the #62 - Bedford VA Hospital and #76 Hanscom pass beyond both Rt-128 and outside of Lexington
3) Lexington is wholy within the T ditrict and only the privately conrolled Rt-128 Shuttle and the Town-owned and operated lexpress/Liberty Ride can operate in Lexington

PS: the Penn Central bankruptcy was once described as a sinecure for law firms specializing in Railroad Contract Law
because of the scale and magnitude of interelationships involved -- some of the original issues are still being litigated
a generation of partners have come and gone and the firms (or their successors) are still billing hours to some client or its successor

You also forgot the #70/70A bus. That's from Central Sq. (Cambridge)--Waltham (Cedarwood area) and/or Wyman Street. directly east of Route 128.

I would recommend MBTA look at a bus route from Waltham Center, going up Pleasant St., Belmont & Arlington Centers and around to Medford Sq. that could be instrumental in being a connection to routes that go beyond Route 128. and create a way to move up and down 128 without having to go all the way to Harvard Square first.

In terms of routes outside of 128, it might get worse. The #74 route to Belmont Center is one of the routes that I understand the MBTA is trying to cancel all together stating low ridership. Which essentially means the deadzone (gap) between the Mt. Auburn Street bus lines and Alewife will be widened. West of Harvard Square you have a number of buses that travel Mt. Auborn Street, a few on Concord Avenue, a bunch more which travel Massachusetts Avenue and you have another batch at Alewife.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

There's still no outliers in the bus system that are going to run into charter trouble, or any reason to expand it beyond making sure the 128 park-and-rides like Anderson/Woburn are well-served. They signed an agreement last year with Brockton Area Transit to convert BAT's fare collection system to be interoperable with Charlie Cards. Huge deal for BAT because they have a well-patronized express route to Avon and Brockton out of Ashmont, and commuter rail transfers at several stops on the Middleboro Line.

That's the model they're pursuing for CR feeder bus studies jointly proposed by the T and regional MPO's. One card to swipe to get you on your regional RTA bus, one card to swipe to get you on your MBTA bus/CR/subway transfer. Follows the EZPASS model where a Mass Pike transponder is compatible with almost every toll road on the east coast, and the single-pass baseline enables more states to move to open-road tolling. The district boundaries don't matter much when the RTA's can "talk" to each other. In the T's case commuter rail is the only mode that presents that challenge to any significant degree, but it has the advantage of having run out-of-district and out-of-state from Day 1 of its founding. Really is a non-issue; they have a lot of freedom to tap, and financial upside to do it. (Now if only they'd proceed with the vaporware feeder study...bleh.)

The stumbling block, as always, is their falling down on the job on basic competency inside the district. Thankfully that isn't totally preventing beneficial deals from being struck with parties like BAT, MART, and RIDOT that do have their acts somewhat together. These are exactly the kinds of auxiliary revenue streams they need to be motivated to pursue if it's more or less free efficiency like the BAT/Charlie deal or conservatively managed net-gain like RIDOT/Providence Line (MART/Wachusett looking a little cost-iffy, though).

 

[whighlander]

There's still no outliers in the bus system that are going to run into charter trouble, or any reason to expand it beyond making sure the 128 park-and-rides like Anderson/Woburn are well-served. They signed an agreement last year with Brockton Area Transit to convert BAT's fare collection system to be interoperable with Charlie Cards. Huge deal for BAT because they have a well-patronized express route to Avon and Brockton out of Ashmont, and commuter rail transfers at several stops on the Middleboro Line.

That's the model they're pursuing for CR feeder bus studies jointly proposed by the T and regional MPO's. One card to swipe to get you on your regional RTA bus, one card to swipe to get you on your MBTA bus/CR/subway transfer. Follows the EZPASS model where a Mass Pike transponder is compatible with almost every toll road on the east coast, and the single-pass baseline enables more states to move to open-road tolling. The district boundaries don't matter much when the RTA's can "talk" to each other. In the T's case commuter rail is the only mode that presents that challenge to any significant degree, but it has the advantage of having run out-of-district and out-of-state from Day 1 of its founding. Really is a non-issue; they have a lot of freedom to tap, and financial upside to do it. (Now if only they'd proceed with the vaporware feeder study...bleh.)

The stumbling block, as always, is their falling down on the job on basic competency inside the district. Thankfully that isn't totally preventing beneficial deals from being struck with parties like BAT, MART, and RIDOT that do have their acts somewhat together. These are exactly the kinds of auxiliary revenue streams they need to be motivated to pursue if it's more or less free efficiency like the BAT/Charlie deal or conservatively managed net-gain like RIDOT/Providence Line (MART/Wachusett looking a little cost-iffy, though).

F-Line -- you missed the need to convert all parking at the T at Logan, the Common Garage to the Charlie system to get rid of all of the handling of cash and the need for people in booths

You swipe the Charlie by the RF reader or even better with a higher power transmitter you have open gate parking -- drive through your card is debited -- no need for any bottlenecks on the way out -- easy to offer discount parking on weekends to maximize garage revenues and boost T usage

 

[JohnAKeith]

Solution to the problems is more money from the cities & towns that are serviced by the T ... and maybe a city-run public transportation system layered on top of the MBTA.

 

[whighlander]

Solution to the problems is more money from the cities & towns that are serviced by the T ... and maybe a city-run public transportation system layered on top of the MBTA.

John -- Not going to happen -- certaily not in the next two to three years -- where are the Cities and Towns going to get more money to give to the T -- propoerty values have been declining for the past four years -- no one is going to tollerate paying higher taxes on a smaller valuation

No the T is going to have to make the tough choices to make the unions somewhat unhappy with respect to work rules, pensions and health plans to keep from having huge service cuts

In fact generically all of the fat-cat public sector unions will have to give-up the fat overtimes and the even fatter pensions based on them -- there is no justification for police, firemen, teachers, elctricians working for the T or Massport getting salaries or pensions over $100,000 -- None

 

[JohnAKeith]

Mmm. Regardless of any solution, none but one can happen in the next six months ... only a one-year "bailout" from the state would allow them to end the year in the black. A five year plan (or, two, three) would make a lot of sense, but nothing should be done drastically!

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

In fact generically all of the fat-cat public sector unions will have to give-up the fat overtimes and the even fatter pensions based on them -- there is no justification for police, firemen, teachers, elctricians working for the T or Massport getting salaries or pensions over $100,000 -- None

In the past, when I heard the proposal about T police being merged with the State Police, I thought, does that mean the entire state police force will have to be given free CharlieCard IDs too? Because that is likely what would have to happen because members of T police are supposed to be able to get in and out of the stations as its part of their jobs duties. I'm certain State Police would be glad for the privilege.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- you missed the need to convert all parking at the T at Logan, the Common Garage to the Charlie system to get rid of all of the handling of cash and the need for people in booths

You swipe the Charlie by the RF reader or even better with a higher power transmitter you have open gate parking -- drive through your card is debited -- no need for any bottlenecks on the way out -- easy to offer discount parking on weekends to maximize garage revenues and boost T usage

Yes...and finally getting the commuter rail fully 100% converted onto the system. And what about that much-ballyhooed Proof of Payment at the rear doors on the Green Line? It's like the Charlie rollout got frozen in its tracks after a bullish start. Of all their big-deal internal initiatives this is the one that maximizes the farebox intake and minimizes the revenue leakage (oh God yes, when it comes to parking), extra administrative overhead, and schedule drag. But they kind of took their feet off the gas at pushing out full-force after the initial rollout. The centralized tech and all that fiber they laid out to every station are fully capable of running the transit universe on a Charlie card, but there's still baffling holes in the rollout plans years later that they've gone silent about fixing.


A thorough top-bottom review probably fingers this as one of the more appalling examples of organizational waste racked up in the forward-funding era. Chances are they are understating by miles the amount of lost revenue from not having their parking fare collection act together.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

Yes...and finally getting the commuter rail fully 100% converted onto the system.

You want the real answer? It is more problems than thought. If you crack the CharlieCard it dies. The wire which is coiled inside and acts like a antenna gets tripped. If someone has a Commuter Rail (monthly pass) and that CharlieCard snaps, there's no easy way to verify what the person has. The only recourse would be for the passenger to pay the full-fare for that journey, and they can later file for a "4-6" or 6-8 week later refund.
In case you're wondering, in terms of checking serial numbers, there's nobody at the T with that sole job, persons can do it but it is terribly time consuming. The system that the T purchased from S&B takes FOREVER to look up a single serial number on the CCS. From 10 mins up to 30 mins. So it is never done since nobody has that kinda time in their schedule.
At least- the current monthly passes (printed on CharlieTicket stock) for Commuter Rail are visible. If you put the monthly pass on to CharlieCard you can't tell what's on there.

And what about that much-ballyhooed Proof of Payment at the rear doors on the Green Line? It's like the Charlie rollout got frozen in its tracks after a bullish start.

It was the G.M. D.A.G.'s baby. He up- and decided to leave and those still there may not have the drive to take on the added stress. Many of the upper-brass which have enough intelligence (and enough talents) go into managerial positions in the private sector took their skills and know-how with them. Danny Grabau skas was Romney's guy, so I wouldn't expect him to sit around and be a whipping boy for the Democrat administration anyway. I don't blame him. You still need conductors with card readers on Commuter Rail so it actually really doesn't require much difference from a revenue standpoint. MBCR was dealing with that, so it made no difference to me if they did it or not.

Of all their big-deal internal initiatives this is the one that maximizes the farebox intake and minimizes the revenue leakage (oh God yes, when it comes to parking), extra administrative overhead, and schedule drag. But they kind of took their feet off the gas at pushing out full-force after the initial rollout. The centralized tech and all that fiber they laid out to every station are fully capable of running the transit universe on a Charlie card, but there's still baffling holes in the rollout plans years later that they've gone silent about fixing.

If you put money on the CharlieCard that card will work ANYWHERE that has a system purchase from S&B. As I was made aware a certain supermarket in Germany has the same S&B system and you can use the Charlie Card to pay for groceries there.

In terms of stolen money. C.S.A.s got "shorts" every month for money they were missing from their stock. All tokens are accounted for, and all money they begin their shift with is accounted for, if they don't match C.S.A.'s were billed for it. Simple as that. They have to sign the slip for what their turning in thus indicating they swear that is the amount their turning in and the supervisor also signs the same slip. It is then taken over to another facility (under cameras) where it is counted again. So that urban legend that "they all get away with it" doesn't fly. It catches up with them and the state is perfectly happy prosecuting its employees that do that nonsense. I've seen T people get taken down even the ones which *thought* the T wouldn't miss it. The T will use different *ways* of finding out who in the chain has the sticky fingers.

A thorough top-bottom review probably fingers this as one of the more appalling examples of organizational waste racked up in the forward-funding era. Chances are they are understating by miles the amount of lost revenue from not having their parking fare collection act together.

I don't know if they still are, but, LAZ parking (private sector) as I understand was placed under state-contract for dealing with many of the parking garages. I think outsourcing to private sector is a badd idea. But I don't make the big decisions so those at the top will have to take the fall out for what happens at agencies outside of the MBTA.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/02...-and-murray-seem-unreachable-on-mass-transit/

As a leader of the legislature’s MBTA caucus, [Walz] said she approached Patrick to see if he wanted to weigh in on solutions for the shortfall and the devastating solutions that have so far been proposed by the transit agency. A Patrick aide said the Democratic governor had decreed it the legislature’s problem to grapple with because “‘we have other priorities‘ — a judgment call with which I profoundly disagree,” she said.

 

[BeeLine]

Why isn't the MBTA installing solar systems on all those flat roofs they owen? If private development companies are finding it cost effective why not the T?
Cummings is very active with solar at major sites north and west of the city.
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x50799869/Solar-power-will-shine-on-Beverly-office-park-roofs
Why don't all the MBTA parking garages have solar roofs? If they install one on the new Salem garage it would generate enough power to keep the waiting room warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

 

[shmessy]

Why isn't the MBTA installing solar systems on all those flat roofs they owen? If private development companies are finding it cost effective why not the T?
Cummings is very active with solar at major sites north and west of the city.
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x50799869/Solar-power-will-shine-on-Beverly-office-park-roofs
Why don't all the MBTA parking garages have solar roofs? If they install one on the new Salem garage it would generate enough power to keep the waiting room warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

THIS!

Solar panel costs have dropped 50% in the past 2 years. It is INEXCUSABLE for our government buildings not to be plastered with these things NOW.

Interesting that our military is the vanguard in this move these days:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/technology/solar_city_military/index.htm

The T (along with others) should start waking up to the reality of this opportunity.

Mass. Transportation Secretary Davey should be put on the spot and asked what he is doing to accomplish this post haste. This is doable (hell, Solarcity will do it for them for FREE!) and there are no excuses anymore.

 

[Ron Newman]

Are the roofs of MBTA parking garages used for parking? If so, it would be hard to put solar panels on them.

 

[BeeLine]

The Cummings people built roofs on two existing parking garages. Weight loads are very different from the floors used for parking. This is the West Garage.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beelinebos/6779878908/in/photostream/ I would suggest it would quiet easy for the MBTA designers to call the Cummings people to find out how they did it. The MBTA could include solar roofs on all new garages (Salem and Beverly, just to mention a couple) and retrofit older garages. The disruption to the top parking was about a month or two.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
If the MA government had done this a year a go. Evergreen might still be in business today.
Another missed opportunity!!!!!

 

[shockingboston]

It’s easy:
1) Identify and study the top 3 most profitable public transit agency in the country. Then implement the key actions from the study that can help turn things around.

2) Increase rents and fees on MBTA owned property leased to others.

3) IMO…in order to make real change, you need to make at least one drastic change from the norm. Something no one expects or may generate the biggest black lash…
Such as...
a) Eliminate Student Rates. Students pay regular fare.
b) Eliminate the Bus Routes with the lowest ridership on annual basis for the next five years (so every year for the next 5yrs, 2-3 bus routes will be eliminated or consolidated)
c) Sub-contract all maintenance of tracks and trains. Used fixed rates and performance based contracts.
d) Sell MBTA Apparel
e) Set-up a program like “Adopt-A-Highway”- for the MBTA it will be “Adopt-A-Bus” or “…-Train” or “…-Track”. Donating is a Tax write-off, so you will get rich people who would do it.
f) Change all train stations to have entrance fares and exit fares. The entrance fare will be the same at every station. The exit fare will be based on what station you got on the train in relations to what station you exit. Therefore the further you ride from your entrance station the more you pay. The same could be done with buses, but it would be very complicated fare collection system.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

It’s easy:
1) Identify and study the top 3 most profitable public transit agency in the country. Then implement the key actions from the study that can help turn things around.

2) Increase rents and fees on MBTA owned property leased to others.

3) IMO…in order to make real change, you need to make at least one drastic change from the norm. Something no one expects or may generate the biggest black lash…
Such as...
a) Eliminate Student Rates. Students pay regular fare.
b) Eliminate the Bus Routes with the lowest ridership on annual basis for the next five years (so every year for the next 5yrs, 2-3 bus routes will be eliminated or consolidated)
c) Sub-contract all maintenance of tracks and trains. Used fixed rates and performance based contracts.
d) Sell MBTA Apparel
e) Set-up a program like “Adopt-A-Highway”- for the MBTA it will be “Adopt-A-Bus” or “…-Train” or “…-Track”. Donating is a Tax write-off, so you will get rich people who would do it.
f) Change all train stations to have entrance fares and exit fares. The entrance fare will be the same at every station. The exit fare will be based on what station you got on the train in relations to what station you exit. Therefore the further you ride from your entrance station the more you pay. The same could be done with buses, but it would be very complicated fare collection system.

Interesting ideas, and I'd like to respond to some of them.

1) Are there even any public transit agencies running at a profit? If there aren't, can you really say 'study the three most profitable agencies' and not 'study the guys who aren't losing money as fast as we are?'

2) I have to disagree with this one, but then again, I'm a strong proponent of the idea that you should be trying to charge more people less instead of less people more. Slashing rents and fees might encourage new businesses to come in at the lower rates, leading to a net gain.

3a) My particular college doesn't actually have a student rate fare program, so this wouldn't affect me at all. I say go for it, but a part of me feels like responding to this with "and if you thought the complaining from all the student activist groups was bad when they WEREN'T the only target of a fare hike..."

3b) Absolutely! Do this! We should have already done this! On top of that, let's reduce the number of overall bus stops on some of the lines that are left - particularly anywhere that there are bus stops just one or two blocks away from each other. People are already walking to bus stops, I'm sure they're able to walk a little bit farther.

3c) See 3a, but replace 'student activist groups' with 'unions.' That'd probably be the quickest way out of the hole we're in, though.

3d) Sure, I'd throw $40 down or thereabouts for an MBTA hoodie. Maybe one with a map of the subway on it? (I don't actually own any hoodies.) I do wonder if that'd really put all that large of a dent in the problem, though, and I also don't really consider this a 'drastic' proposal.

3e) The FedEx Orange Line? I kind of like it, actually.

3f) If you're going to do something like that, a much cheaper and more straightforward option would just be to take whatever the maximum exit fare rate would be and charge that instead, even if you only go one stop over on the subway.

 

[Lrfox]

I'm fairly certain there isn't a single public transit agency in the US that's "profitable" in terms of simple revenue (fares, ads, rent, etc) vs. expenses. There may be a few in Japan or in Europe, but very few.

On a different note, I read somewhere that Patrick has proposed using some of the leftover snow removal funds the state had set aside to help alleviate some of the MBTA shortfall. Not a bad idea, but I'm guessing it's probably a drop in the bucket.

 

[JohnAKeith]

There's a "student rate"? Explain.