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

Shepard said:
Thinking even bigger, now that we have MassDOT, all air rights developments over the pike will see cash flowing to MBTA coffers, right?

And meanwhile the MBTA owns underutilized land ripe for re-development, e.g. Cleveland Circle. Does the MBTA own the land under the proposed South Bay Tower? (I doubt it, but you see where I'm going.) Or, for that matter, all the South Bay land between 93 and Dorchester Ave? New leases can help defray operational expenses.

Additionally: Raise tolls on the pike, add tolls to 93 (such an absolute no-brainer!) all to help cover MBTA operational costs. MassDOT, are you reading this?

Bust the unions, single operators on multi-car sets, etc. etc. etc. ...
Click to expand...

The MBTA purchased South Station outright.(http://www.south-station.net/StationHistory.asp) So depending how close it is to South Station the MBTA/state might own that land now. If you goto the Boston City Assessor's website ( http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/ ) you'll notice how oddly shaped this land parcel is (parcel ID #: 0305364000 ). Grr. not working right now. As the address see "640" "Atlantic".
 
Last edited:
palindrome said:
incorporate them into the state police just as we did with the MDC police.
Click to expand...

Mark my words... That will be the worse idea ever. T police can ride the service for free. If you merge it with State Police I'm willing to bet all state police would probably then seek that same access.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Can we milk the commuter rail lines more in order to improve / maintain the subway and bus lines?

Actually, let's just kill all the buses.

Not recommending it, just saying it would cut a lot of expense, no?
Click to expand...

Those can't really be cross subsidized. MBCR and MBTA are two separate companies for a reason. One, namely since MBCR serves Rhode Island. MBTA (as a former quasi-state agency), doesn't have the legal mandate to use Massachusetts' tax payer money and serve another state. So MBCR must remain separate as long as it is servicing Rhode Island. MBCR essentially has to fund most of its own operations. (e.g. they must pay rail usage fees to any railroad companies that owns the ROW etc.) IMHO, if the state wants to bring costs down they should try to buyout more of these ROWs and own them outright. Then they can charge private industry those same access fees that they're now paying.
I feel in some ways it was better when Amtrak ran the commuter rail since they had the federal government on their side to do whatever they need to do, but the state may be forced to pay pretty much whatever Pan Am Railroad and other companies charge.
Amtrak's return is somewhat of a longshot as they hasn't even bid to run commuter rail in recent years. MBCR's contract was just renewed last year and I don't know what the state will do now that they've regained full control of the MBTA.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
Additionally: Raise tolls on the pike, add tolls to 93 (such an absolute no-brainer!) all to help cover MBTA operational costs. MassDOT, are you reading this?
Click to expand...

Those of us who live west of the city (or who cross the Tobin) have already had our toll fees doubled to pay for the Big Dig. In fact, commuters from west of Boston who never touch 93 pay more for the Big Dig than commuters who live in towns along 93 and who drive its length each day. Now we are to be bilked to pay for a public transit system that few residents west of town use?

How about users of the system pay the actual cost incurred per ride? $3, $4, whatever per ride? While such a move would probably doom the T to abandonment, it's at least a more fair allocation of real costs than just sopping more money from people who rarely use the system.
 
aquaman said:
How about users of the system pay the actual cost incurred per ride? ... it's at least a more fair allocation of real costs than just sopping more money from people who rarely use the system.
Click to expand...

If you actually had the capacity to think beyond your own selfishness, you might realize that the T is major reason why you don't have a New Delhi style commute all the way from whichever bullshit Levittown you live in. It's also a major reason why Boston is a competitive city and most likely why your job is here in the first place.

But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"
 
Shepard said:
If you actually had the capacity to think beyond your own selfishness, you might realize that the T is major reason why you don't have a New Delhi style commute all the way from whichever bullshit Levittown you live in. It's also a major reason why Boston is a competitive city and most likely why your job is here in the first place.

But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"
Click to expand...

+10
 
Now we are to be bilked to pay for a public transit system that few residents west of town use?
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself and not the hundreds, maybe thousands of people who park at Riverside, Woodside, or Alewife to take the T in to work, who use the Fitchburg, Worcester or Needham CR Lines, or even who benefit from the comparative lack of traffic that relieving transit has on MetroWest roads.
 
czsz said:
Speak for yourself and not the hundreds, maybe thousands of people who park at Riverside, Woodside, or Alewife to take the T in to work, who use the Fitchburg, Worcester or Needham CR Lines, or even who benefit from the comparative lack of traffic that relieving transit has on MetroWest roads.
Click to expand...

Actually I am one of those people. I commute into town on the T every day (and not from some B.S. Levittown, angry rants from various posters aside).

I stand by my statement that it is more fair for users of particular systems to pay more of their actual costs (including me as a daily T rider). I recognize roads and bridges are supported by the tax dollars of all citizens of the Commonwealth and that the MBTA also receives state subsidies which are also supported by the general taxing power of the Commonwealth, but to offer levying additional fees on toll-paying drivers alone without asking the users of the T to pay more is completely unfair. And since Pike and Tobin users are the only ones who pay tolls in the Commonwealth and that every pol from Duxbury to Lowell would object to the imposition of tolls on their commuting constituents, it stands to reason that only those currently paying tolls would be put on the hook for both the Big Dig and now the MBTA's cost overruns.

I am a fan of public transport and would support raising user fees of all kinds, but it has to be done in a fair and equal fashion. I would support additional tolls on Pike and Tobin users to help fund public transport but only after equally costly tolls are levied against 93 North- and South-bound users.

As I said, I am a T user and only in the rarest of circumstances ever use the Pike, so raising tolls has no impact on me. With me, it's more about the principal of shared costs, not selfishness. Lastly, T users, ourselves, have to play our part in shouldering the MBTA's debt. Paying closer to the actual cost of each ride than we currently do (I didn't say THE actual cost per ride) is certainly a way to equalize these expenses across the spectrum of a metro-wide transport strategy.
 
Shepard said:
But forget that for a moment. Fair is fair, I guess. So I suppose you wouldn't be shocked if every car owner in MA were mailed a bill for their personal share of the road maintenance, infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and so forth, as a function of the number of miles they've driven in the Commonwealth... and meanwhile T riders like myself wouldn't have to pay a penny of our taxes towards maintaining your onramps? After all, isn't that a "more fair allocation of real costs?"
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be more fair.
 
Great. Hey, let's go for a beer at the White House!
 
All major highways should have a toll upon entering within 128. And all Mass citizens should be offered some sort of discounted or free fast lane transponder. At least half the lanes should be fast lanes... and should actually be fast.
 
Why would you want to facilitate driving for the vast majority of people who use these roads and make it cheaper for them to do so at the same time? That would actually hurt the T on two fronts (primary revenue from tolls and secondary revenue from ridership).
 
czsz said:
Why would you want to facilitate driving for the vast majority of people who use these roads and make it cheaper for them to do so at the same time? That would actually hurt the T on two fronts (primary revenue from tolls and secondary revenue from ridership).
Click to expand...

How does increasing the number of tolls facilitate driving?

What I forgot the mention, is that the fast lane discount (2.50 on the Tobin compared to 3.00 cash) should be eliminated. You're getting the transponder piece for free, and only that, for your own convenience should you decide you're going to continue driving, but it's still going to be a new toll fee (or increase, if you're using an existing toll but no longer receiving a fee discount).
 
Sorry, I misunderstood you to mean the tolls should be discounted or free. You only meant the transponder. I still wonder why we should subsidize the transponder, though.
 
czsz said:
Sorry, I misunderstood you to mean the tolls should be discounted or free. You only meant the transponder. I still wonder why we should subsidize the transponder, though.
Click to expand...

Because it will encourage people to use the electronic lanes which flow much faster. I think tolls tend to be unpopular because of the slowdown, not just because of the cost.
 
I believe the transponder discount is a holdover from the days when you had to buy it. I remember having to pay a fee when I got mine ages ago. I still see the discount as a valuable incentive -- get a free transponder, get a cheaper toll fee, and the Pike doesn't have to man as many toll booths with state employees sucking up time and a half. Of course, once the scales tip so that greater than X% are using transponders, the discount should probably be phased out.
 
A transponder should be required. Why would you want to pay a toll collector a ridiculous salary and create huge traffic jams? Make driving into Boston hell so that 1000's of additional people are forced to trundle along on the already inadequate T?
 
gooseberry said:
A transponder should be required. Why would you want to pay a toll collector a ridiculous salary and create huge traffic jams? Make driving into Boston hell so that 1000's of additional people are forced to trundle along on the already inadequate T?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Once they're forced onto the T the state will be forced to put more money into it and it won't be nearly as inadequate.
 
Does anyone else think this is bad... I always think long term should be weighed very heavily, and not short term. I feel this is very short sighted... Money now for less money in the future...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top