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

vanshnookenraggen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I recognize that name. :) You're with the FutureMBTA site, no? I can safely say in the past I've shown some of your maps to the folks up in GM's office. They were *well* amused.

On a separate note I see your point.
I can point out that the MBTA has also been squeezed by some legal mandates as well. For example: much like how people across many cities are filling out census forms in order that the federal government may decide where to allocate funding in the future, the MBTA also needed to buy this fare system and put in place an automated system if it too wanted to be considered for future federal funding. The federal government works with places with high ridership so the MBTA needs to be able to provide figures.

The token system did its job, but the big problem was the authority has no idea how many tokens are out in the system (if that was to be used to monitor daily ridership.) Monthly pass sales gave *some* idea but not all stores return their monthly passes on time... Etc. all kinds of complications are involved in a tally by that method.
Further, tokens have been given out for decades. Some still make it back into the circulation but some are also lost etc.
So in order for the T to be considered for any federal funding in future it needs to be able to show daily ridership reports. Tokens can't provide that data unless the turnstiles were emptied multiple times per day. But the T is about accountability- so they wouldn't want multiple hands collecting money from the same turnstile unit.
With the newest system, the MBTA is able to show aggregated data in different time frames: daily, monthly, by time of day, (hourly, or morning vs. evening) etc. So that was a next set of funding that had to come out of the MBTA's budget just to meet federal mandates.
But there are other things which can cause sudden cost increases: anti-terrorism-security, fuel costs for the buses, wholesale electricity for all the trains, many of the commuter rail lines are owned by private companies so the MBTA must pay to use those private tracks, overtime pay whenever a line needs to be shutdown and bus drivers need to be called in. Plus you have other things that can throw the whole authority for a loop. The commuter rail (MBCR); water shuttles; and THE RIDE are all private operators that provide service in the name of the MBTA, but should one of those vehicles get into an accident very often the MBTA can end up in the lawsuit too.
Of late, Amtrak wont even bid to run the commuter rail anymore because they feel the requirements which would be placed on them by the MBTA would be too strict. So the MBTA is pressured (to a degree) not to go with the cheapest bid, but also not the most expansive operator either. There is a lot behind the scenes that is complicated. There is a lot of stress that some of the higher-ups go through because they must show results to prove themselves. Not that I'd be offered one of those positions, but I wouldn't want any of their positions myself. :)
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whoa, who says people in the sticks HAVE to drive? I mean, they have to drive nowadays, but (as a resident of Western Massachusetts), I can safely say that we'd be much more partial to MBTA spending if we could get some respectable fixed-guideway transit around here. Springfield to Northampton, Hartford, Albany, and Worcester are all no-brainers. More rural routes, serving Amherst (and its universities), Greenfield, and North Adams would be well-used as well. Unfortunately, nobody even considers this possible. The towns out here in Western Mass are nothing on Eastern Mass, but we do have a fairly good arrangement of dense town centers along rail corridors. Too bad they don't have any passenger service! There are tracks running from near my house directly to downtown Amherst, which I could use to go to work and classes, but of course, there's no train to take.

For the record, here in the Amherst area, public transit is free (all UMass Transit buses are free, even to the general public), comes every 15 minutes (on most routes), and is CROWDED. Even the extremely rare, 8-times-a-day bus to my hometown (population: ≈13,000) is usually standing room only on the morning commute. If it ran a bit more frequently, I'd imagine ridership would increase further.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
I recognize that name. :) You're with the FutureMBTA site, no? I can safely say in the past I've shown some of your maps to the folks up in GM's office. They were *well* amused.
Click to expand...

That's awesome. :)

Man, If we ever meet I want to buy you a beer. I had an internship at the Port Authority of NY and NJ a couple of summers ago for their planning department and when I saw how the sausage was made I quickly changed course. Now I make websites lol.

Have you ever seen the movie "In The Loop"? It reminds me of the politics you are describing, albeit with actual politics because the movie is about politicians.

Bringing it back to the topic, what do you think would work to get the T at least on solid footing? What was the big problem with the forward funding thing?
 
I woulddnt complain about the MBTA finances.

Based on what Ive read, the MBTA is the most financially sound transit system in the country.
 
jass said:
I woulddnt complain about the MBTA finances.

Based on what Ive read, the MBTA is the most financially sound transit system in the country.
Click to expand...

bullshit.jpg
 
How does the T get most of it's funding, anyhow? Just wondering, because here in St. Louis they just passed a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund the Metro (mostly buses, with two measly light rail lines).
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
That's awesome. :)

Man, If we ever meet I want to buy you a beer. I had an internship at the Port Authority of NY and NJ a couple of summers ago for their planning department and when I saw how the sausage was made I quickly changed course. Now I make websites lol.

Have you ever seen the movie "In The Loop"? It reminds me of the politics you are describing, albeit with actual politics because the movie is about politicians.

Bringing it back to the topic, what do you think would work to get the T at least on solid footing? What was the big problem with the forward funding thing?
Click to expand...

Nice I believe the URL you had was different though? I think it carried a part of your name or something rather? I'm trying to think.

In any case one of the things I'd hope that the state will force upon the MBTA are when crafting contracts with companies to service T equipment make sure there are provisions for actual performance guarantees.
There are certain elevators and escalators at the MBTA that *I* feel break-down with a little too much regularity.

Now I know the MBTA's equipment runs from roughly 4 AM until about 2 AM and 7 days per week but, there are lots of private office buildings that I never see them having their escalators and things serviced as often as the MBTA does. I sometimes wonder whether the companies doing the servicing are not just fixing the equipment in such a manner that they'll be back again in 6 months time. Sort of a 'guarantee' for another work assignment. It would involve the state having to go back and look at which companies are doing the best work and which ones appear to be coming back again-and-again all, to service the same equipment. If it is the equipment itself than perhaps the states needs to blacklist buying any further products from that company until they can raise the threshold of quality for that equipment overall. That's one area I'd go after.
 
jenkins said:
I mean, they have to drive nowadays, but (as a resident of Western Massachusetts), I can safely say that we'd be much more partial to MBTA spending if we could get some respectable fixed-guideway transit around here. Springfield to Northampton, Hartford, Albany, and Worcester are all no-brainers. More rural routes, serving Amherst (and its universities), Greenfield, and North Adams would be well-used as well. Unfortunately, nobody even considers this possible. The towns out here in Western Mass are nothing on Eastern Mass, but we do have a fairly good arrangement of dense town centers along rail corridors. Too bad they don't have any passenger service! There are tracks running from near my house directly to downtown Amherst, which I could use to go to work and classes, but of course, there's no train to take.

For the record, here in the Amherst area, public transit is free (all UMass Transit buses are free, even to the general public), comes every 15 minutes (on most routes), and is CROWDED. Even the extremely rare, 8-times-a-day bus to my hometown (population: ≈13,000) is usually standing room only on the morning commute. If it ran a bit more frequently, I'd imagine ridership would increase further.
Click to expand...

I've wonder this myself. I also think the state should (in all fairness) look a transit needs for four main areas. Boston-area transit(including north of Boston towards NH), South of Boston + Cape area transit(including Rhode Island), Worcester area transit, and Springfield area transit. I've noticed that the State Governor has had to de-centralise from just a Eastern Mass office and has a Western MA office too. So just like the politicians have had to make an effort to cater a bit more towards Western MA, I think these areas should be have more consideration for Long Term planning. Something to consider, perhaps Worcester City officials might have an idea for their own Street Car transit system to spur future development within that city and environs. Perhaps they may want something besides just a bus to the Worcester Airport in hopes of attracting more airlines to that facility in the future. Springfield transit area would be well placed for tapping the Hudson Valley area to the west in New York or Vermont to the north.
 
kennedy said:
How does the T get most of it's funding, anyhow? Just wondering, because here in St. Louis they just passed a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund the Metro (mostly buses, with two measly light rail lines).
Click to expand...

State sales tax.... I can't remember if it was wither 2 cents out of the (original 5 cents) or 3 cents out of the original (original 5 cents) sales tax. The rest was then covered by the fare increases as the MBTA was turned into a "quasi-state agency".

I don't know exactly what this structure is now since the state raised the sales tax to six and a quarter percent.

But the MBTA also owns a lot of land throughout Eastern Massachusetts. Most was passed-on by all of their former transit companies that became the T. Some money was made by selling land, some from the sale of aerial rights above T property, stores in the underground, advertisements in terminals and on trains (think of the outfitted green line trolleys or buses), renting of ceiling space along the MBTA's right of way to private companies (i.e. Comcast), cost savings through outsourcing more and more of the MBTA's administrative functions to private industry.(i.e Parking garages , power generation facilities)
The T I believe also made money by investing some capital in investment firms but like many places I believe it took a big hit on Wall Street hence why the state has largely had to take it back over fully. It isn't a really a 'quasi-state agency' anymore. The MBTA also realised some cost savings by cutting out guaranteed wage increases. But the trade off is the souring of a lot of worker moral, and many of the brightest experienced minds of the authority are jumping-ship over the last 2-3 years. Esp. those who vested enough time to retire outright did so. The T is also raising the retirement age (retroactively) on some employees. So that to is a next set of mutiny that the state will have to confront in future among the employees.
 
Last edited:
Digital_Islandboy said:
State sales tax.... I can't remember if it was wither 2 cents out of the (original 5 cents) or 3 cents out of the original (original 5 cents) sales tax. The rest was then covered by the fare increases as the MBTA was turned into a "quasi-state agency".

I don't know exactly what this structure is now since the state raised the sales tax to six and a quarter percent.
Click to expand...

I think it's 2% of the original 5 and then .5% from the recent raise to 6%.

(so 2.5% from the 6%)

The quarter percent is not a state tax, it's a municipal tax, not all cities have it.
 
jass said:
The quarter percent is not a state tax, it's a municipal tax, not all cities have it.
Click to expand...

Which cities don't? I don't think municipalities can have a local option on the general sales tax. They can on meals and lodging.
 
TMcLaughlin said:
Which cities don't? I don't think municipalities can have a local option on the general sales tax. They can on meals and lodging.
Click to expand...

You know, you might be right, the optional tax may just be on meals and lodging.

There was a map available showing which parts of the state charged it or not, but I cant find it. Basically, most of the inner 128 did, but some outside did not.
 
If only we could sell the Silver Line to pay for the years of routine maintenance deferred to pay for the Silver Line.
 
The Boston Globe
The search for a national solution to our transit woes
By Dan Grabauskas and Paul Regan

RED SOX and Yankees fans can agree on one thing ? how to get to the game. In New York, about 45 percent of ticketholders take public transportation. In Boston, more than 50 percent of ticketholders take the T ? a percentage higher than any other professional sports franchise in any city in the country. Yet, even as hundreds of thousands pour into rail cars each season, most are unaware that the trains are running on empty.

From sports and entertainment to banking, health care, and higher education, industry sectors in cities throughout the country are dependent on mass transit. In Boston, nearly 60 percent of all workers in the financial district take the T to work. Yet when it comes to valuing these systems, we are a nation in denial, passive about their economic contribution; lacking the collective will to finance them properly; and oblivious to the certainty of their deterioration if their issues are not addressed.

The MBTA faces a $230 million structural deficit and $543 million in unfunded safety-critical projects, according to a recent report by former John Hancock chief executive David D?Alessandro. By deferring maintenance and taking on debt we cross our fingers on another year of business as usual, (with no hope of expansion), after which we may go the way of transit systems around the country that are also retrenching.

According to a 2010 survey by the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of all transit agencies have cut service or raised fares in the last year, or plan to do so in the near future. New York City faces a $800 million shortfall, and has implemented a plan to delay maintenance, and cut entire subway lines and bus routes; Chicago, facing a $300 million shortfall, has significantly reduced service on dozens of bus routes, and rail lines; Philadelphia has announced a 6 percent fare increase to help close a $110 million operating deficit; and Washington has a $189 million operating deficit for next year, with plans to balance it by using capital funds to pay for operating costs (thus deferring maintenance), as well as reducing some bus and rail service.

These ?legacy?? transit systems are starved by budgets in which escalating and intractable fixed costs outpace combined fare revenues and government subsidies. They are pressured by safety and reliability concerns resulting from deferred maintenance, and they face continuing calls for expansion without regard for how to pay to build, operate, or maintain the extensions, let alone the existing system.

Each of these systems has unique funding demands, management challenges, and politics that have led to their financial woes. Yet, their parallel problems indicate a national crisis. A national transit summit next week in Boston will examine these issues as systemic problems, demanding national strategies and broadly applied solutions. It will also offer a front row seat to the elephant in the room: paying for what we have with what little we?ve got.

Before we can answer the call for expansion, we need to fix what?s falling down. This point of contention among well-intentioned transit supporters must be resolved by prioritizing and sequencing our efforts. To do so, we must make a national shift toward support for repair work. A country brought up on expansion must embrace maintenance as the new manifest destiny.

The federal government must respond in a significant way to the most publicly beneficial example yet of ?too big too fail.?? Radical new funding formulas that will help save these systems must be considered. The reauthorization of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act this fall may be the tipping point on a new era of economic renewal and energy efficiency through well-supported mass transit.

The private sector must step up with financial and political support that goes beyond the self-interest of construction request for proposals. And both the public and private sectors must come together around creative financing strategies that can provide a dedicated, reliable, and growing stream of funding for transit.
Click to expand...

Dan Grabauskas, former general manager of the MBTA, is senior fellow for public policy at MassInc. Paul Regan is executive director of the MBTA Advisory Board.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e..._for_a_national_solution_to_our_transit_woes/
 
"According to a 2010 survey by the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of all transit agencies have cut service or raised fares in the last year, or plan to do so in the near future. New York City faces a $800 million shortfall, and has implemented a plan to delay maintenance, and cut entire subway lines and bus routes; Chicago, facing a $300 million shortfall, has significantly reduced service on dozens of bus routes, and rail lines; Philadelphia has announced a 6 percent fare increase to help close a $110 million operating deficit; and Washington has a $189 million operating deficit for next year, with plans to balance it by using capital funds to pay for operating costs (thus deferring maintenance), as well as reducing some bus and rail service."


Its exactly what Ive said a few times: the MBTA is in the best position in the entire country. Why? Because of the sales tax increase last year. If it werent for that, we would have cut lines and raised fares. I would have preferred raising the gas tax, but at least massachusetts found a funding source, something no other agency has done.
 
When people on this board propose ideas like a two mile extension of the Blue Line under the Charles River to Kenmore, and then sarcastically suggest it can't happen because it makes too much sense, or that's it too good of an idea, do they do so in ignorance of the information presented in this thread?

It's tough to argue about the T's lack of "sense" until more is done to address their lack of "cents".
 
When people discuss extensions and improvements, the assumption is that it is a very long way in the future. But it's still worth discussing the MBTA's "sense" if not "cents" because the planning for these projects begins now, and at some point in the future extensions and improvements will happen. Skewed priorities and bad sense is even responsible for recent debacles like the Silver Line. So, to some extent, these are two seperate discussions.

Personally, I look at the political and economic climate somewhat optimistically. I think there's a shifting consensus and that we're moving towards a breakthrough in how transit is funded in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top