A much greater proportion of people at my company make that and the T employees generally work harder and have far worse jobs. The T's contractors are the ones making a killing. (See: Green Line Expansion)
I didn't realize that pulling away from the station on me every time, or driving on a rail and not crashing was all that challenging. Please, the MBTA hardly requires much in terms of skills and is very much a "get this job and the unions keep it secure and cushy till you retire at 55 as one of the few workers who still get lavish pensions"
Whatever the contractors get away with, it doesn't make MBTA compensation any less absurd. It wasn't contractors demanding multiple conductors per train in a world where other systems go way faster and deal with only one, among other deals above market rate that unions are able to negotiate.
So what makes you an expert in compensation? I think however much YOU make is way out of line and you should be given a 50% pay cut. I'm sure your job could be done by someone else better for far less money.
The T salaries are a red herring. To be sure, some employees game the system. But I don't know enough about their jobs to make any determination who is worth what. I do know that in the private sector you have massive imbalances of pay to worth yet the people who are paid well are complimented irrespective of their actual talents whereas in the public world anyone making more then minimum wage is demonized. That's bullshit. Some high salaries of T employees is a tiny part of a much larger problem.
What I like to say sometimes during these types of arguments is:
"If their compensation is so great, why dont you apply and try to work there? You'll be living the high life then rather than working at this your desk job."
"I'm not driving a bus, that sucks" Is the usual answer I get back.
Same argument could be for many jobs people look down on that may pay well. eg, garbage men...
And what I like to say sometimes when people make your argument is:
"if the job is so sucky, why is there a 'random' lottery with a ton of applicants?"
I put 'random' in quotes, because I'm sure someone like Louis Guerriero Jr. got his $120,000 job randomly and appropriately, and not because of Louis Guerriero Sr.
Poor you! A T train once pulled away from a station without you. That appears to be what this all comes down to. Though I am sure you'd whine equally had the train been two minutes late, thereby enabling you to board.
Personally, I want the people that maintain T tracks, operate trains, and determine scheduling to be highly skilled professionals. Meaning you're going to need to pay them as such.
Shockingly, the MBTA also employs things like lawyers, financial guys, planners/architects.... white collar jobs that you have to pay 6 figures for if you want to retain anyone with the slightest bit of talent. Hell, considering how much of continuing T maintenance depends on them machining and fabricating their own supplies, experienced and high-skill machinists and mechanics probably deserve that much too.
If the MBTA had competent lawyers,planner, architects, and construction project managers worth their salaries on the payroll the Green Line extension wouldn't be ONE FREAKING BILLION DOLLARS over budget.
Buddy I don't know what law school you went to but usually the guy on hand to deal with employment/HR issues doesn't also write the contracts for a big capital improvement project.
T maintenance worker paid $315,000, reported by Commonwealth Magazine. "MBTA employees received over $100,000 in gross pay this year at a greater rate than executive branch employees, according to Shortsleeve’s presentation. About 24 percent of the 6,482 T employees have grossed over $100,000, compared to 7.7 percent of the 44,141 executive branch employees."
These people even have cushier jobs than the bloody politicians.
Like bdog said above, who knows what they do? I'm sure some of these guys get called at 2am to see if they want to come in on OT to shovel snow in 0 degree temps. Are you willing to go out and do that for $25-$35 an hour? Most people would say no and stay in bed, trust me.
Baker and Walsh said they would find the money for plowing and salting roads no matter what last winter even when they were millions over budget. T riders? Shovel your own sidewalk, the T won't run in the snow, green line won't be extended, late night is done and fares are going significantly up.
One group gets whatever they need without paying for it and one gets screwed in every way possible.
But of course he is. Lying is an important strategy of the Repub party. It they really told the truth about what they plan to do, they wouldn't get elected (around here at least). Remember Willard. Same strategy.
By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to raising fares. I also think we should also make every highway a toll road. What I am opposed to is Charlie and his spokespeople repeatedly promising no new taxes and fees and at the first opportunity raising fees. And it doesn't help when DINO DeLeo plays the same game.
Did Martha promise "no new taxes or fees" during her campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer.No.
Did Faker promise "no new taxes or fees" during his campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer . Yes
Poor argument. Coakley was a garbage candidate pushed through by the entrenched Dem establishment and that's why she lost. The more interesting question was what would either of her primary opponents have done differently.
Coakley was chosen by Democrats (and Independents voting in the Democratic primary). The party pros and activists generally did not support her at the state convention that p[receded the primary. And many top level e3lected Dem officials (viz. De Leo) made little effort to hide the fact that they would prefer to have Baker win.
Yes the governor with one year on the job is responsible for more than decade of disinvestment by a Democratic dominated legislature which can find freight trains full of money for pet projects, pay raises, pensions, and subsidies but not a penny for non-highway infrastructure maintenance.
What to blame someone?
Start with the contempt filled clowns on the hill with travel expense reimbursement, state town cars, reserved parking spaces, and uncontested 'elections'. There's a reason why they exempt themselves from most laws meant for the good little people they tax farm.
Democrats are soooo honest. Lets be real here, all politicians lie. This is unique to one party or the other. Playing devils advocate: perhaps when Bake took office, discovered what a mess the T was, realized he had NO choice but to raise fares since the Union has run amok and MBTA employees are fleecing tax payers.
Herald Reports: "The top T earner so far this year, a maintenance foreman whose annual pay rate is less than $85,000, has pulled in more than $315,000, with more than half of those earnings coming from 2,648 hours of overtime, T records show."
A tax on the poor, students and seniors while billionaires get tax breaks. Next move will be to order transit police to arrest homeless fare jumpers. I just returned from Minnesota where the Metro transit police are getting sued by the ACLU and the NAACP over arresting fare jumpers.
It's kind of a waste, though, isn't it? The administrative costs way outweigh the lost 3 dollars and it's one of those crimes where people take their chances regardless, so you can't even claim it'll cut down on farejumping in general.
I'd rather the T Police go after phone/purse snatchers and assault, personally.
Okay so let's call the administrative costs $N. By this logic whatever they are I can waltz into your house and take $N-1 of your stuff since the costs to charging me would be greater than what you lost right?
What's your address? I could use some free stuff.
Last summer my apartment was broken into while I was at work, and when BPD showed up (several hours after I called), they told me "tough luck kid, you shoulda had renter's insurance". Then when I asked if they could actually try to investigate it or something, the detective got visibly annoyed and lectured me about how it's not worth it for minor crimes like that. Despite the fact that I KNOW the thief left fingerprints (all the stuff on my desk had been moved around), and I lived across the street from a strip mall that I know had surveillance cameras.
So yes, the police will tell you they won't investigate a theft if the cost of doing so is greater than the value of what was stolen. Unfortunately that is how it works, despite some of us recognizing that it's not about the money, it's the principle.
In the last few years the cost of fuel has fallen 50%+ meanwhile the cost of taking the T keeps going up while the level of service drops. T riders are disproportionately lower income compared to those who drive to the same places so the fare increase hurts those least able to afford it. There cost of owning a car is still much higher then taking the T so it's not like most have the opportunity to switch.
That's life in America?
If they need to raise fares they should at least raise the gas tax to match and use the money for projects that help everyone, particularly those not as well off.
Imagine if the gas tax doubled over the course of 12 years and they shut down highways at night because highways lose billions of dollars per year. That is what T riders have to deal with.
You don't think that poor people are driving beater cars to jobs out of the city because they also have no choice, dealing with just as shitty commutes on awful roads that have funding siphoned off from them all over the state into one area?
It's an ebb and flow in regard to how much of the gas tax is used for subsidizing the T to help balance how many use both but to claim motorists are driving around in monocles is woefully ignorant.
You should want each system to be as self sustaining as possible so shocks to one doesn't screw the other, and the price of a monthly T pass isn't even in the same league to the cost of a car, insurance, maintenance, higher chances of accidents and stress operating it, parking costs, whatever inevitable fleecing aka revenue generation traffic laws bring often to dubious value.
I'm not here to make light of a 20 cent per ride raise this may have on people with low incomes depending on the T but targeting them for subsidy is separate from also under charging much of the T ridership like today.
Raising the gas tax affects everyone. So drivers in North Adams (per capita income around 20K) will be paying more to help Boston residents (per capita income about 34K). That isn't fair. The T funding problem should be resolved by an income based tax or property tax on the residents within the T service area.
But less me guess, but for the "halo effect" from the Boston economy Western Mass residents would be even poorer; so they really should be paying more to support transport in Greater Boston and enjoy the trickle down benefits provided to them by eastern Mass.
If it wasn't for Boston, western mass would be like fucking New Hampshire. Except New Hampshire would be even more of an immense pit without all those people coming down our highways (and not paying for it!) and working in Boston. So maybe more like upstate New York? Good luck with that.
But hey here's a deal: North Adams and the rest of them can have back from the state exactly what they pay in, and everyone in the metro area will keep all our taxes, as well as all the taxes paid by businesses in the area.
If you look at actual distributions of money by the state, which is publicly available, it looks like North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%. As much as they like to bitch and moan, the boonies are HARDLY supporting the metro area.
But yeah let's just choke the economic engine of the state until the entire commonwealth looks like Springfield, what a fantastic idea.
...is getting more than they pay in, will this wind up like Obamacare?
"North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%."
I pay for the roads in Western MA and the burbs to be plowed, sanded, salted and kept up. I don't drive. Is that fair? IT BENEFITS EVERYONE.
I also pay way more than I should for my commuter rail pass considering I am in the city of Boston. I pay 5.75 to go 4 stops. End of linter pay 6.25 (I believe - it could be 6.50). Is that fair?
Ah yes. "Not fair." The dulcet song of the man who has just noticed that someone, somewhere, has extracted a dime's worth of utility out of his left pocket, while ignoring the dollar's worth of utility placed in his right pocket.
You may want drivers to suffer for the failings of the MBTA but the blame goes to the cushy wages and benefits that MBTA workers enjoy and continue to increase. That's why your fares are increasing.
Autonomous, self-driving vehicles should start with MBTA subway cars. They are on rails, making it a simpler problem to solve and worth millions in savings!
Wages are a comparatively small part of the money problem at the MBTA and is really just a distraction from the real problems. It divides us plebes over a few bucks in the bank lobby and distracts us from the real money heading out the back door by the truckload.
Sounds good! And hey there's even other systems in the world that do it, so we can look at Copenhagen and Barcelona and not invent the wheel completely. Let's see, so all we need to do is.... totally replace all the signaling system, fix it so all the car doors open and close reliably, install a whole new dispatch and central computer system, rebuild the entirety of the green line so there's fare gates and street signal priority (and maybe gates? can a computer system detect when some idiot BU freshman is idling on the tracks?), install emergency stops so when drunks fall on the tracks somebody can tell the train, hmm, what else....
Seriously, though, it's a good idea but if the discussion is "the MBTA costs too much money" proposing what's essentially a new system is kind of a red herring, right?
The Green line would be the hardest to automate, so that's why you and the MBTA would choose to do it first. Intelligent people would choose simpler lines first, like the Blue, Orange, or Red line. Blue is already reliable, so less benefit upgrading it first, better to put money where needed anyway, say Red, which is a huge challenge given how bad shape the signaling is and the sheer miles in length.
At some point modernization will be necessary, so sooner or later the work will be done.
I knew we'd get an increase in July. Eventually fewer people will use commuter rail and find a job closer to their house. Paying for a $300 pass + parking + gas to drive to the station is expensive.
Eventually fewer people will use commuter rail and find a job closer to their house.
Not disputing that people may be priced out of the commuter rail, but you can't simply "find a job" if there isn't one to be found. Deciding that you will have a short commute takes money, plus a crystal ball to be sure that your workplace doesn't ever relocate or go out of business.
I live in Newton, don't own a car and pay $50 for unlimited bus service that, in my case, works pretty well. If my fare was hiked to $80, I would still think I'm getting a good deal. People shouldn't squawk about not affording it, because everyone is wielding all manner of electronic devices.
Both are 'suburbs', are located in mistly suburban counties, yet are physically closer and have greater options and access to downtown Boston, back bay, even Cambridge, than many Boston neighbirhoods. And Newton has express buses, the D line (no multi zone pass needed), and commuter rail. If you live. Inside Boston, in a zone 1 or greater area for commuter rail, yiu pay min. $170. Plus instead of $80. for a bus-subway pass. Your options are a local bus to a subway or streetcar connection.
you can get unlimited talk/text/data on a phone for $40/month and a completely viable computer for about $200. these are things that are generally considered essential to survive in the year 2015.
"has a cellphone" isn't the cutoff for "shouldn't care about monthly expenses", sorry.
And Baker is becoming disappointing. Sure, let us keep all options on the table (i.e. fee increases) without really fixing the deep seated T problems. Much easier to just keep raising those fares. Not surprising but sad and disappointing.
All I can say is I am so thankful that my employer covers 1/2 of my commuter rail pass fee each month. But, even, still...
I have no problem with fare increases if I saw service increases. They stated fares could go up 10% every 2 years which we all know means it will happen. This also means that me living in Boston will pay $200 (if it goes up in July) for a commuter rail pass to go 4 stops & this is for a line that isn't all that great.
In regards to the T salaries. I don't have a problem for blue collar workers making a good wage. I am sure some ppl do take advantage of it but why is it when the blue collar/middle class ppl make a good wage ppl get up in arms? Take a look at the higher level of the T and the contractors they use.
The system in broken and none of the politicians care.
Assuming a gas tax is out of the question? That's not Charlie, that's on your democratically controlled state house that couldn't get it done with a dem in the corner office. Are you naive enough to think Charlie can get the tigers to change their stripes?
Personally i say raise the fares as long as you freeze wages for five years and spend it on system upgrades. As I've repeatedly posted the T has gotten enormous funding increases and all.of that has gone to wages not capital improvements. The chickens have come home to roost. And the chickens belong to Deval.
some of us just think that shitbags are shitbags, and grow tired of divisive language on either "side". you have no idea just how much a part of the problem you are. but yeah, an inability to see past political party and harping on the past. you're definitely a guy i want to listen to.
Including me. But the hordes seem to be blaming Charlie simply for having an R after his name. For now charlie shares zero of the blame for this mess. He is 100% responsible for fixing it. It took over a decade to create it and it will take at least as long to fix it. How about the critics lay off at least until the plan is released. It's like telling someone s/he's a lousy doctor after giving you a correct disgnosis.
Anybody remember the name of the guy who was instrumental in shifting much of the Big Dig debt onto the T, where it rests to this day? Sort of tall red-headed guy, if I remember.
Charlie Baker actually has a lot of PERSONAL responsibility when it comes to sticking the T with the Big Dig debt and instituting "forward funding" in 2000, which are the top two reasons the T is screwed today in 2015.
Comments
Did I read that right?
By Scauma
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 7:46am
Nearly a quarter of T employees make a $100k or more?
Meh
By BostonDog
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:05am
A much greater proportion of people at my company make that and the T employees generally work harder and have far worse jobs. The T's contractors are the ones making a killing. (See: Green Line Expansion)
Really now
By Jeff B
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:53am
I didn't realize that pulling away from the station on me every time, or driving on a rail and not crashing was all that challenging. Please, the MBTA hardly requires much in terms of skills and is very much a "get this job and the unions keep it secure and cushy till you retire at 55 as one of the few workers who still get lavish pensions"
Whatever the contractors get away with, it doesn't make MBTA compensation any less absurd. It wasn't contractors demanding multiple conductors per train in a world where other systems go way faster and deal with only one, among other deals above market rate that unions are able to negotiate.
Get a life
By BostonDog
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:14am
So what makes you an expert in compensation? I think however much YOU make is way out of line and you should be given a 50% pay cut. I'm sure your job could be done by someone else better for far less money.
The T salaries are a red herring. To be sure, some employees game the system. But I don't know enough about their jobs to make any determination who is worth what. I do know that in the private sector you have massive imbalances of pay to worth yet the people who are paid well are complimented irrespective of their actual talents whereas in the public world anyone making more then minimum wage is demonized. That's bullshit. Some high salaries of T employees is a tiny part of a much larger problem.
What I like to say sometimes
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:42am
What I like to say sometimes during these types of arguments is:
"If their compensation is so great, why dont you apply and try to work there? You'll be living the high life then rather than working at this your desk job."
"I'm not driving a bus, that sucks" Is the usual answer I get back.
Same argument could be for many jobs people look down on that may pay well. eg, garbage men...
Seems like the powerful are
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:58am
Seems like the powerful are succeeding in turning the working classes against each other.
And what I like to say sometimes
By o hai
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:06am
And what I like to say sometimes when people make your argument is:
"if the job is so sucky, why is there a 'random' lottery with a ton of applicants?"
I put 'random' in quotes, because I'm sure someone like Louis Guerriero Jr. got his $120,000 job randomly and appropriately, and not because of Louis Guerriero Sr.
Oh...
By fairlee76
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:33pm
Poor you! A T train once pulled away from a station without you. That appears to be what this all comes down to. Though I am sure you'd whine equally had the train been two minutes late, thereby enabling you to board.
Personally, I want the people that maintain T tracks, operate trains, and determine scheduling to be highly skilled professionals. Meaning you're going to need to pay them as such.
Shockingly, the MBTA also
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:32am
Shockingly, the MBTA also employs things like lawyers, financial guys, planners/architects.... white collar jobs that you have to pay 6 figures for if you want to retain anyone with the slightest bit of talent. Hell, considering how much of continuing T maintenance depends on them machining and fabricating their own supplies, experienced and high-skill machinists and mechanics probably deserve that much too.
If the MBTA had competent
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:11am
If the MBTA had competent lawyers,planner, architects, and construction project managers worth their salaries on the payroll the Green Line extension wouldn't be ONE FREAKING BILLION DOLLARS over budget.
Buddy I don't know what law
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:27am
Buddy I don't know what law school you went to but usually the guy on hand to deal with employment/HR issues doesn't also write the contracts for a big capital improvement project.
That's...
By John-W
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:28am
....very bold of you.
Say, that sounds like a
By Joe Blow
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 7:28pm
Say, that sounds like a Shelbyville idea...
GET HIM!
In light of Star Wars...
By dmcboston
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:34pm
"I find your reasonableness disturbing..."
Except for lawyers. Hire cheap lawyers and good paralegals.
T maintenance worker paid
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:15am
T maintenance worker paid $315,000, reported by Commonwealth Magazine. "MBTA employees received over $100,000 in gross pay this year at a greater rate than executive branch employees, according to Shortsleeve’s presentation. About 24 percent of the 6,482 T employees have grossed over $100,000, compared to 7.7 percent of the 44,141 executive branch employees."
These people even have cushier jobs than the bloody politicians.
Eighty hour weeks
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:22am
80 hour weeks doing physical work = cushy.
Mmmmm, okay.
Never mind that this is an outlier, not a median ... but that would get in the way of your attempt to grandstand here, right?
Exactly....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:31am
Like bdog said above, who knows what they do? I'm sure some of these guys get called at 2am to see if they want to come in on OT to shovel snow in 0 degree temps. Are you willing to go out and do that for $25-$35 an hour? Most people would say no and stay in bed, trust me.
So much for Baker's promise
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 7:50am
So much for Baker's promise of no fee increases.
Baker and Walsh said they
By Kinopio
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:18am
Baker and Walsh said they would find the money for plowing and salting roads no matter what last winter even when they were millions over budget. T riders? Shovel your own sidewalk, the T won't run in the snow, green line won't be extended, late night is done and fares are going significantly up.
One group gets whatever they need without paying for it and one gets screwed in every way possible.
Chucking Farley strikes again
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:19am
But of course he is. Lying is an important strategy of the Repub party. It they really told the truth about what they plan to do, they wouldn't get elected (around here at least). Remember Willard. Same strategy.
By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to raising fares. I also think we should also make every highway a toll road. What I am opposed to is Charlie and his spokespeople repeatedly promising no new taxes and fees and at the first opportunity raising fees. And it doesn't help when DINO DeLeo plays the same game.
And Coakley would have done
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:39am
And Coakley would have done what differently?
Methinks you didn't read or comprehend my post fellow anon
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:07am
Did Martha promise "no new taxes or fees" during her campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer.No.
Did Faker promise "no new taxes or fees" during his campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer . Yes
Poor argument. Coakley was a
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:34am
Poor argument. Coakley was a garbage candidate pushed through by the entrenched Dem establishment and that's why she lost. The more interesting question was what would either of her primary opponents have done differently.
Not really
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:29am
Coakley was chosen by Democrats (and Independents voting in the Democratic primary). The party pros and activists generally did not support her at the state convention that p[receded the primary. And many top level e3lected Dem officials (viz. De Leo) made little effort to hide the fact that they would prefer to have Baker win.
Coakley wouldn't have been
By DTP
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:34am
Coakley wouldn't have been any better, but nothing says we have to like either of the candidates!
Yes the governor with one
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:52am
Yes the governor with one year on the job is responsible for more than decade of disinvestment by a Democratic dominated legislature which can find freight trains full of money for pet projects, pay raises, pensions, and subsidies but not a penny for non-highway infrastructure maintenance.
What to blame someone?
Start with the contempt filled clowns on the hill with travel expense reimbursement, state town cars, reserved parking spaces, and uncontested 'elections'. There's a reason why they exempt themselves from most laws meant for the good little people they tax farm.
yeah because
By ccd
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:54am
Democrats are soooo honest. Lets be real here, all politicians lie. This is unique to one party or the other. Playing devils advocate: perhaps when Bake took office, discovered what a mess the T was, realized he had NO choice but to raise fares since the Union has run amok and MBTA employees are fleecing tax payers.
Herald Reports: "The top T earner so far this year, a maintenance foreman whose annual pay rate is less than $85,000, has pulled in more than $315,000, with more than half of those earnings coming from 2,648 hours of overtime, T records show."
(T)rumpland
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 7:55am
A tax on the poor, students and seniors while billionaires get tax breaks. Next move will be to order transit police to arrest homeless fare jumpers. I just returned from Minnesota where the Metro transit police are getting sued by the ACLU and the NAACP over arresting fare jumpers.
I'm sorry, but I don't see
By DTP
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:39am
I'm sorry, but I don't see what the problem is with arresting people for breaking the law?
It's kind of a waste, though,
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:49am
It's kind of a waste, though, isn't it? The administrative costs way outweigh the lost 3 dollars and it's one of those crimes where people take their chances regardless, so you can't even claim it'll cut down on farejumping in general.
I'd rather the T Police go after phone/purse snatchers and assault, personally.
In MA it's something like a
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:13am
In MA it's something like a $100 fine for fare-jumping, not just being forced to pay the fare after-the-fact.
and when the homeless fare jumper
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:24am
doesn't pay the fine, what happens?
Okay so let's call the
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:40am
Okay so let's call the administrative costs $N. By this logic whatever they are I can waltz into your house and take $N-1 of your stuff since the costs to charging me would be greater than what you lost right?
What's your address? I could use some free stuff.
That actually is how it works
By DTP
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:52pm
That actually is how it works.
Last summer my apartment was broken into while I was at work, and when BPD showed up (several hours after I called), they told me "tough luck kid, you shoulda had renter's insurance". Then when I asked if they could actually try to investigate it or something, the detective got visibly annoyed and lectured me about how it's not worth it for minor crimes like that. Despite the fact that I KNOW the thief left fingerprints (all the stuff on my desk had been moved around), and I lived across the street from a strip mall that I know had surveillance cameras.
So yes, the police will tell you they won't investigate a theft if the cost of doing so is greater than the value of what was stolen. Unfortunately that is how it works, despite some of us recognizing that it's not about the money, it's the principle.
Taxes
By BostonDog
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:01am
In the last few years the cost of fuel has fallen 50%+ meanwhile the cost of taking the T keeps going up while the level of service drops. T riders are disproportionately lower income compared to those who drive to the same places so the fare increase hurts those least able to afford it. There cost of owning a car is still much higher then taking the T so it's not like most have the opportunity to switch.
That's life in America?
If they need to raise fares they should at least raise the gas tax to match and use the money for projects that help everyone, particularly those not as well off.
Imagine if the gas tax
By Kinopio
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:09am
Imagine if the gas tax doubled over the course of 12 years and they shut down highways at night because highways lose billions of dollars per year. That is what T riders have to deal with.
Tone deaf
By Jeff B
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:05am
You don't think that poor people are driving beater cars to jobs out of the city because they also have no choice, dealing with just as shitty commutes on awful roads that have funding siphoned off from them all over the state into one area?
It's an ebb and flow in regard to how much of the gas tax is used for subsidizing the T to help balance how many use both but to claim motorists are driving around in monocles is woefully ignorant.
You should want each system to be as self sustaining as possible so shocks to one doesn't screw the other, and the price of a monthly T pass isn't even in the same league to the cost of a car, insurance, maintenance, higher chances of accidents and stress operating it, parking costs, whatever inevitable fleecing aka revenue generation traffic laws bring often to dubious value.
I'm not here to make light of a 20 cent per ride raise this may have on people with low incomes depending on the T but targeting them for subsidy is separate from also under charging much of the T ridership like today.
Raising the gas tax affects
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:10am
Raising the gas tax affects everyone. So drivers in North Adams (per capita income around 20K) will be paying more to help Boston residents (per capita income about 34K). That isn't fair. The T funding problem should be resolved by an income based tax or property tax on the residents within the T service area.
But less me guess, but for the "halo effect" from the Boston economy Western Mass residents would be even poorer; so they really should be paying more to support transport in Greater Boston and enjoy the trickle down benefits provided to them by eastern Mass.
If it wasn't for Boston,
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:04am
If it wasn't for Boston, western mass would be like fucking New Hampshire. Except New Hampshire would be even more of an immense pit without all those people coming down our highways (and not paying for it!) and working in Boston. So maybe more like upstate New York? Good luck with that.
But hey here's a deal: North Adams and the rest of them can have back from the state exactly what they pay in, and everyone in the metro area will keep all our taxes, as well as all the taxes paid by businesses in the area.
If you look at actual distributions of money by the state, which is publicly available, it looks like North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%. As much as they like to bitch and moan, the boonies are HARDLY supporting the metro area.
But yeah let's just choke the economic engine of the state until the entire commonwealth looks like Springfield, what a fantastic idea.
So if EVERYONE...
By dmcboston
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:48pm
...is getting more than they pay in, will this wind up like Obamacare?
"North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%."
I pay for the roads in
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:08pm
I pay for the roads in Western MA and the burbs to be plowed, sanded, salted and kept up. I don't drive. Is that fair? IT BENEFITS EVERYONE.
I also pay way more than I should for my commuter rail pass considering I am in the city of Boston. I pay 5.75 to go 4 stops. End of linter pay 6.25 (I believe - it could be 6.50). Is that fair?
Western Mass. wouldn't even
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:13pm
Western Mass. wouldn't even have roads in the first place if it weren't for the Eastern Mass. tax base.
*headdesk*
By erik g
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:49pm
Ah yes. "Not fair." The dulcet song of the man who has just noticed that someone, somewhere, has extracted a dime's worth of utility out of his left pocket, while ignoring the dollar's worth of utility placed in his right pocket.
T workers are not suffering
By Markk02474
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:53am
You may want drivers to suffer for the failings of the MBTA but the blame goes to the cushy wages and benefits that MBTA workers enjoy and continue to increase. That's why your fares are increasing.
Autonomous, self-driving vehicles should start with MBTA subway cars. They are on rails, making it a simpler problem to solve and worth millions in savings!
maybe you havent paid attention recently
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:09am
but there is at least ONE self driving MBTA car
Wages are a comparatively
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:27am
Wages are a comparatively small part of the money problem at the MBTA and is really just a distraction from the real problems. It divides us plebes over a few bucks in the bank lobby and distracts us from the real money heading out the back door by the truckload.
Cushy meaning "adequate for raising a family"
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:27am
Of course.
Nobody but you deserves a "cushy" job, of course.
Maybe your pay should be cut, as it is too high - meaning that you can afford to own a house and have a car.
Sounds good! And hey there's
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:37am
Sounds good! And hey there's even other systems in the world that do it, so we can look at Copenhagen and Barcelona and not invent the wheel completely. Let's see, so all we need to do is.... totally replace all the signaling system, fix it so all the car doors open and close reliably, install a whole new dispatch and central computer system, rebuild the entirety of the green line so there's fare gates and street signal priority (and maybe gates? can a computer system detect when some idiot BU freshman is idling on the tracks?), install emergency stops so when drunks fall on the tracks somebody can tell the train, hmm, what else....
Seriously, though, it's a good idea but if the discussion is "the MBTA costs too much money" proposing what's essentially a new system is kind of a red herring, right?
Why choose worst case scenario?
By Markk02474
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:48pm
The Green line would be the hardest to automate, so that's why you and the MBTA would choose to do it first. Intelligent people would choose simpler lines first, like the Blue, Orange, or Red line. Blue is already reliable, so less benefit upgrading it first, better to put money where needed anyway, say Red, which is a huge challenge given how bad shape the signaling is and the sheer miles in length.
At some point modernization will be necessary, so sooner or later the work will be done.
T
By Elmer Fudd
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:05am
I knew we'd get an increase in July. Eventually fewer people will use commuter rail and find a job closer to their house. Paying for a $300 pass + parking + gas to drive to the station is expensive.
This "find a job" thing
By lbb
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:15am
Not disputing that people may be priced out of the commuter rail, but you can't simply "find a job" if there isn't one to be found. Deciding that you will have a short commute takes money, plus a crystal ball to be sure that your workplace doesn't ever relocate or go out of business.
I live in Newton, don't own a
By Chris77
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:08am
I live in Newton, don't own a car and pay $50 for unlimited bus service that, in my case, works pretty well. If my fare was hiked to $80, I would still think I'm getting a good deal. People shouldn't squawk about not affording it, because everyone is wielding all manner of electronic devices.
Newton and Brookline are gold
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:19pm
Both are 'suburbs', are located in mistly suburban counties, yet are physically closer and have greater options and access to downtown Boston, back bay, even Cambridge, than many Boston neighbirhoods. And Newton has express buses, the D line (no multi zone pass needed), and commuter rail. If you live. Inside Boston, in a zone 1 or greater area for commuter rail, yiu pay min. $170. Plus instead of $80. for a bus-subway pass. Your options are a local bus to a subway or streetcar connection.
agreed, until the end.
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:26pm
you can get unlimited talk/text/data on a phone for $40/month and a completely viable computer for about $200. these are things that are generally considered essential to survive in the year 2015.
"has a cellphone" isn't the cutoff for "shouldn't care about monthly expenses", sorry.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Umy2sKr.jpg[/img]
If you're gonna raise fares
By Adeas
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:21am
1) Also raise the gas tax 10%
2) Impose a congestion charge on downtown Boston & Cambridge during the workday
You need to keep parity between modes of transportation otherwise people will just switch
Gov. Selfie will not sign a
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:24am
Gov. Selfie will not sign a gas tax increase. He may be open to other tax increases, but definitely not that one.
And you can guarantee...
By octr202
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:27am
...a Congestion Charge will never happen for a long time. You know, 'cause that would restrict people's God-given freedom to drive everywhere.
Just wish restricting the freedom of movement of transit riders was seen as a problem...
Switching
By ChrisInEastie
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:22am
You know why I switched? Because I can't trust the MBTA to get me to work and back (especially the latter) reliably or quickly, plain and simple.
This is not surprising.
By whyaduck
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:44am
And Baker is becoming disappointing. Sure, let us keep all options on the table (i.e. fee increases) without really fixing the deep seated T problems. Much easier to just keep raising those fares. Not surprising but sad and disappointing.
All I can say is I am so thankful that my employer covers 1/2 of my commuter rail pass fee each month. But, even, still...
He's been Governor for one
By ccd
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:59am
He's been Governor for one year...
Take a closer look at his
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:58am
Take a closer look at his resume.
ding ding ding
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:39pm
ding ding ding
So?
By whyaduck
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:31pm
Notice I said "becoming?"
Worth Every Penny
By Michael
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 8:44am
EDIT: Sorry, I thought for a second it said T fares would drop to 10¢
I have no problem with fare
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:35am
I have no problem with fare increases if I saw service increases. They stated fares could go up 10% every 2 years which we all know means it will happen. This also means that me living in Boston will pay $200 (if it goes up in July) for a commuter rail pass to go 4 stops & this is for a line that isn't all that great.
In regards to the T salaries. I don't have a problem for blue collar workers making a good wage. I am sure some ppl do take advantage of it but why is it when the blue collar/middle class ppl make a good wage ppl get up in arms? Take a look at the higher level of the T and the contractors they use.
The system in broken and none of the politicians care.
what would all the geniuses out here do
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:44am
Assuming a gas tax is out of the question? That's not Charlie, that's on your democratically controlled state house that couldn't get it done with a dem in the corner office. Are you naive enough to think Charlie can get the tigers to change their stripes?
Personally i say raise the fares as long as you freeze wages for five years and spend it on system upgrades. As I've repeatedly posted the T has gotten enormous funding increases and all.of that has gone to wages not capital improvements. The chickens have come home to roost. And the chickens belong to Deval.
not everybody cares about political party
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 9:50am
some of us just think that shitbags are shitbags, and grow tired of divisive language on either "side". you have no idea just how much a part of the problem you are. but yeah, an inability to see past political party and harping on the past. you're definitely a guy i want to listen to.
You're right
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:35am
Including me. But the hordes seem to be blaming Charlie simply for having an R after his name. For now charlie shares zero of the blame for this mess. He is 100% responsible for fixing it. It took over a decade to create it and it will take at least as long to fix it. How about the critics lay off at least until the plan is released. It's like telling someone s/he's a lousy doctor after giving you a correct disgnosis.
It did take a decade to create
By Michael
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:56am
Anybody remember the name of the guy who was instrumental in shifting much of the Big Dig debt onto the T, where it rests to this day? Sort of tall red-headed guy, if I remember.
Charlie Baker actually has a
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:56am
Charlie Baker actually has a lot of PERSONAL responsibility when it comes to sticking the T with the Big Dig debt and instituting "forward funding" in 2000, which are the top two reasons the T is screwed today in 2015.
Pages
Add comment