Hey, there! Log in / Register
T riders are so screwed: Officials say they don't want more money because they can barely figure out what to do with the money they already have
By adamg on Sun, 10/30/2016 - 5:01pm
You know how for years the T and everybody who studied the T said the system is so far behind repairs that they couldn't even figure out just how many billions of dollars it needed? CommonWealth has a depressing little article that came out Friday - even as legislators were talking about T-related tax hikes after the Orange Line's smokeageddon - that basically has top T and state transportation leaders saying they don't actually want more money because they wouldn't know how to spend it.
Oh, and a reminder for Orange Line riders riding in rusting trains on tracks that catch fire: That 2018 date for delivery of the new Chinese trains - assuming there are no delays by the company that has never built for the US market in a factory that's still under construction - is just for the first test cars. The current 1980's fleet won't be fully replaced until 2022, again, assuming nothing goes wrong.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
2019?
Just last month they were saying 2018 for the Orange Line test cars.
"The first delivery of the Orange Line cars is expected in March 2018, with Red Line cars to follow. "
http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2016/09/crrc_were_intere...
Thanks
You're right, I was thinking of Red Line cars, which are scheduled to get here later than the Orange Line cars. Fixed, but the main point still applies.
I work for the T. My
I work for the T. My department was recently, 10/1, given $10 million to spend on capital improvements. There is a catch, the money must be used on projects that must be invoiced by July 1, 2017. This isn't easy. A contract spec has to be written, drawings created, materials or design and construction has to publish the job to contractors, etc. We can't figure out if management had been sitting on the money or if recently came to the T from an outside agency, DOT or FTA. The money isn't being spent on the right projects because of the July 1 deadline. Bottom line, the T has been set up to fail since I've been there.
So long as you're asking...
(and I know, you weren't really)
Find $10M of capital projects that either (a) lowers operating costs, (b) improves reliability, or both.
Easy, right?
/ducks
it doesnt matter
I honestly think we wouldn't have seen cars "in service" until 2020 at least. There's a big difference in getting the cars and having in service. Remember the Breda's? took them well over a year or so to get the kinks out so they could take passengers. I anticipate the same for this new manufacturer of cars. The Chinese are innovating but I have my doubts they can get a product out the door, error free, on first try.
Just what I was looking for
A Horror story for Halloween!
That article
Right. So that billion dollar backlog is just arbitrary number they pulled out of their ass? *eye roll*
That article reeked of "let's privatize". Every other line out of Pollacks mouth had the word "Consultants" or "Private Contractors" in it. It almost seemed like every which way she could spin it she basically said "well if we could use contractors or consultants we could get this done". Sorry babe, it doesn't work like that. Years of neglect and under funding is why the T is in the shape it is, not because we couldn't use private contractors. We don't need over priced contractors to cost the agency more money that it needs to be to fix its own problems.
Then you have Baker and Shitsleeve (Sorry Brian is nothing more than a little shit in my book these days) stating that the MBTA can fix its own problems if it "cuts cuts cuts". Charlie, hate to tell you, cutting isn't working. It's never worked.. if it worked, the T would have been fixed a long time ago. How about doing the reverse for once?
It also seems like they are trying every attempt to derail any sort of fixing the funding issue so they can just further their own agenda which is privatize the whole thing. These folks will stop at nothing until they are done, even if it means denying customers service that works in order to further that agenda (and to build public support to support their privatization efforts, something they have to have before they can go any further with their union busting efforts. Without it, they will fail).
Don't worry folks, winter is coming. It's gonna be a lot worse then. Get ready for a crappy winter riding the T.
What he said
When does Charlie B stop with the excuses?
As service
As service begins to degrade even more.. he will have no other choice than to stop making them
Everyone tries to tell me to give 'baker a break'.. we're rapidly approaching 2 years from the snowmaggedon winter, and service as not getting better, it's gotten worse. If we have a repeat of that winter, or at a minimum trains that break down just about daily now.. Charlie will have lots of egg on his face. He'll have to renege on his Mr Fix It Attitude and realize fixing the T is alot more complicated than 'trying to run it like a business' like he seems to think it should be run.
Nah.
People have bought his excuses so far. Not just for the T either. I don't see any reason for that not continue.
Seriously?
Any idea what the lead time is on all that old crappy equipment that should have been ordered by the gross under Patrick? About as long as a 2 term governor serves. It will get worse before it gets better. That's on Patrick. If Baker's strategy works, you won't even begin to see any results for years and the next gov will probably get all the credit.
Fine
I'm well aware that Patrick is alot to blame on this. And actually if you wanna point fingers, we can go back several administrations to point the blame at this. Romney, Weld, Swift, Cellucci. Everyone is equally to blame for this.
The Orange Line cars should been on order by the early 2000's and put into service by no later than 2005, since the average shelf life of a subway car is 20-25 years, so we can push the blame game around to just about everyone in office for the past 15 or so years. These cars should have been replaced a long, long time ago.
I honestly think the "made in Massachusetts" requirement is absolutely stupid when there's established car makers in the US, such as Seimens who built the new BL cars. If they weren't so far along now, I'd just say put it out to bid just so we'd get cars with fewer issues initially. And yes, I fault Patrick at this one. It's just so stupid.
The issue I have with baker and shortsleeve is how sleazy they are trying to slide privatization in. Look, you wanna privatize, come right out and say you want to privatize. But don't be shady in the way you present it to the public in order gain support. There's been a few cases lately where Baker and his FCMB have skewed information in order to further their case. And this article is no different.
But don't come off as "we're going to fix this" when you really are going to use this as an excuse to just privatize it. At least be honest about it.. but being honest is something most politicians have an issue with doing.
Can't disagree w most of that
But I don't have the problem with privatizing you do. Was thinking about this point earlier. It's not really about govt v private sector. It's about monopolies. Monopolies suck. MBTA sucks just like comcast. One's govt (kinda) and one's private (kinda). Too much complacency in both organizations has bred contempt for customers. That's changing for both of them.
The problem with privatization
is that in actually it tends to be that private companies get in a position where they aren't properly held accountable for performance failures and yet are in a unique position to hold the public hostage for more funding when things don't work out. See Keolis, etc...
Also unlike say a private contract for ambulance service, any privatization of the MBTA would then involve us paying for many, many billions in equipment and then letting someone else operate it with a profit motive? That also doesn't make any sense. It would be like if we built the Big Dig, then let a private company collect tolls on it to maintain it or something.
There's a lot of issues with the MBTA, its unions, management and funding. These need to be addressed through public leadership, not privatization.
Monopolies are a necessary
Monopolies are a necessary evil when it comes to infrastructure though. It doesn't make any sense to have competing subway lines. And since competition is the hallmark of the private sector, and the justification for privatizing many services, it doesn't make sense to privatize services that can't realistically incorporate competition. The same principle should apply to utilities as well - there's zero logic in having competing water companies laying mains down your street, or competing electric companies running wires on both sides of the street, or competing cable companies running parallel fiber lines. There is some merit in the idea of government owning the infrastructure, and then allowing competing private companies to both pay for access to it, but this only works to a limited extent, and not for everything. Sure, the T could stop directly running subway trains, and instead sell track slots to private companies, but can you imagine how much more confusing that would be for passengers? Do you really think those private companies would actually coordinate fares and schedules, or advertise connections to other companies' trains? Or provide a consistent level of service quality?
The MBTA sucks less than Comcast because the MBTA has a greater degree of accountability, which is true across most services.
Yes and no
For example - one company does maintain the electrical grid - which makes sense - but then multiple companies can sell electricity over that grid. Not always easy/applicable - but many parts can be successfully bid out to competent operators - Keolis, Brinks, operators for the parking lots etc.
some things - have to be kept in house, but many can be outsourced.
I did acknowledge that point
I did acknowledge that point in my post, and explained why it wouldn't work for transit.
Sticking to the electric comparison, no, you really can't - because electricity is not a discrete thing that can be separated. You could theoretically just have both company A and company B pushing X amount of electricity into the grid, with meters to regulate it and bill them accordingly, but that opens the door to a bunch of blame-shifting and confusion, like we're seeing with Keolis. If there's a transmission failure on an electrical grid being fed by both company A and company B, who each are responsible to customers, but only company A actually owns the infrastructure, then company B is helpless to its consumers to do anything but blame the other company, which likely isn't going to fix the problem any quicker, and annoy consumers. In fact, it'd probably just lead to accusations by company A that company B did something wrong, like overload the system. It also opens up a jurisdictional can of worms at the destination end - who maintains customer connections? Why would company A maintain connections only used by company B? And why would company B want to pay company A to do so? But if they did it themselves, then they'd constantly be squabbling over who pays for what work where the connection ties into the main line. Just like we're seeing with Keolis and the MBA squabbling over what is whose responsibility, and who is to blame for problems.
Basically, yes, you can theoretically do that, but it is likely to be worse for consumers.
And as I explained in my last post, just because such an idea is technically possible for electricity distribution, that doesn't make it possible for transportation, for a variety of reasons.
MBTA - Comcast?
I think Comcast's customer service is better than the MBTA's.
Privatization: Alternative Viewpoint
You have to acknowledge that Baker et al inherited a completely failed agency -- e.g., parking lot vendor apparently pocket fees; HR could not do payroll deductions correctly; cash handling operation was over-staff, over-paid and insecure; etc. The T was not badly managed; it was unmanaged. The union took advantage of the situation.
So the Baker team had many issues to address when they took office. They've made a good start, but there's plenty more to do. Baker's clearly adverse to the 'throw money at the problem' approach. It's political expedient, but it's not managing; Baker's by nature a real manager.
On privatization, I think his approach is to privatize the obvious -- like the cash handling operation and the parts room -- and then assess the situation. A key question: When the unions understand that privatization of, say, bus maintenance is a genuine possibility, will they agree to efficiency reforms? Right now, the unions are staging theatrical events. They have not come to grips with reality.
And how exactly did the union
And how exactly did the union take advantage of the situation?
How did the union take advantage of the situation?
Some of my response is personal; some is taken from the Globe's comment section, from remarks by a former T employee.
1. The 23-and-out retirement provision (now changed by legislation). No competent management would ever agree to a pension at age 43 or so.
2. The highest bus driver pay rate in the U.S., $35/hour. If #1 is in effect, the pay rate cannot be also the best -- unless the management is not competent.
3. Second highest bus maintenance cost, measured by cost per mile, in the U.S.
4. Policy permitting excessive, previously unapproved leave.
5. Self-approved overtime.
3
Point three is not wrong exactly, but per mile costs is not the best way to compare bus agencies. The T's bus maintenance costs are in line with the rest of the country. See: http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-ts-bus-maintenance-costs-...
Well, Well — Look Who's Complaining About The Ⓣ Today!
( quoting Cybah: )
ya well
Considering the frequency YOU do it.. I think I'm allowed once in a while :-)
Of Course, You Are — There's So Much To Complain About ...
... I can't possibly do it all myself.
MBTA Commuter Rail's always been privatized
Originally, different parts of it were run by the New Haven, New York Central, and Boston & Maine Railroads. The first two went through a series of mergers to eventually become Conrail, and then all of MBTA Commuter Rail was given to the Boston and Maine. Then it was taken from the B&M and given to Amtrak, which declined to renew after its contract expired, whereupon MBCR was set up. Then MBCR lost its bid for a renewed contract to Keolis, the current operator.
My point is that it's never been run by the MBTA or any other agency of the Commonwealth, and yet it isn't any more dependable than the rest of the MBTA.
Oh, and as for Charlie on the M(B)TA Baker, I knew he wasn't serious about fixing the T when he appointed his ridiculous fiscal control board. When you want to fix something, you hire someone, put him in charge, and tell him to fix it. When you only want to look like you want to fix something, you hire a committee.
Charlie, you may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston, but if I have anything to say, you'll never return. To office, that is. I hope your wife makes good sandwiches.
Is Baker this incompetent or is he trying to destroy the T
The Mbta and state transportation officials doubt want any more money because they wouldn't know how to spend it? Then why did bakers team just raise mbta fares so much? And why are they saying they are already planning another fare increase of they have no use for more money? Baker has been in office two years and still can't figure out how to use money to improve to the T?
Unbelievable
The idea of paying even MORE, albeit in a different manner, wasn't appealing, but the fact that they can say this is just...I don't even know.
{Edit-original comment wondering about a class action suit changed, after rereading it didn't make sense}
CLF
seems like a job for the Conservation Law Foundation. they got a lot of Big Dig mitigation commitments.
Oh yeah, because the T
Oh yeah, because the T totally followed through with all of those, and definitely didn't just weasel their way out of them in court.
There's so much money we are running out of...
...inventive ways to spend it.
https://twitter.com/LaurenDezenski/status/792812843133378560
Spend it on retro-fitting the
Spend it on retro-fitting the ceiling with compartments for oxygen masks. And print up some glossy laminated instructions about how to evacuate in case of fire.
collect
the money. put it in a lockbox, then Chuck and Steph and DeLep can explain how they can't spend it, but then someone with competence can come in and spend it. Let's run an election on how the can spend more money, not less.
A lockbox?
Like where Al Gore wanted to put our Social Security? I think that lockbox was in the MBTA cash room.
You have a lock box, pols and money...
I myself would put the pols in the lock box...(where did the key go?)...and take the money.
No money for bus infrastructure...
Recent meeting in South Boston yielded some great ideas for bus infrastructure. What about money for things that improve existing service, fairly cheaply, today?
Not as bad as I thought
The article didn't strike me as dire as you make it sound. Basically, the agency is stretched thin (who knew?) and needs some restructuring (who knew?) before it can really properly deal with the giant mess it inherited. They don't have a team free to deal with a massive influx of cash effectively, in terms of deciding priorities, managing contracts, using the money efficiently, etc., and it's going to take a couple years to build that team, because the problems they need to tackle are so huge and complex.
How Long Has It Been Since The Winter Of 2014?
... panel will perform an "in-depth diagnostic review of the transit system's core functions."
T Management Limitations
The MBTA is decidedly short on management talent. This has been discussed by the Fiscal Control Board and was noted by the Special Review Team. As a result, the T has been underspending its capital budget for several years.
In addition to new rolling stock and infrastructure, the T needs to hire more capable managers.
25-year timetable for reaching a state of good repair.
Meaning, "Not in your lifetime!"
top T and state transportation leaders?
top T and state transportation leaders
Funny, I'm not seeing anything here that could be described as leadership.
MBTA "Open for Business"
An article today on the MBTA 'overall management' is in Commonwealth Magazine:
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/business-unusual-at-the-t/
The theme is that the T is 'open for business' -- i.e., accepting proposals for improve. This is certainly a good thing.
"Don't have the people to prudently spend the money"
Even months later, this line (paraphrased) still sticks with me.
I heard that from Joe Aiello, the Chair of the FMCB (and dedicated transit guy, East Boston/Winthrop man who loves Boston) at a conference convened by A Better City months ago. Many in the room, including I, audibly gasped when he said this (it might have been the first time it was really put out publicly).
On the one hand it makes you feel okay because it suggests that people are not willing to just throw money at the problem (and watch it be wasted or otherwise diverted yet again).
On the other hand, it confirms something that may of us have known for some time - that the constant drumbeat of "pigs at the trough", "hacks enjoying high hack holy days" and other public-sector-workers-can-do-no-good-blather over the past 30 years has taken its toll. Almost all of the most qualified, talented and driven people have been pushed into the private sector.
And it's not because of the money (although the low public sector salaries for managers with huge managerial responsibility is a huge factor). Few people want to work in a place where loud voices are training a vast swathe of the population to hate/disrespect you.
Perhaps the most ironic and ridiculous part of it all is that the qualified/talented/driven people end up working on these public projects again anyway because it's what they love. The difference is that we get to pay EVEN MORE for them, since they go to work for the consultants and engineering firms that the public sector has to hire anyway (think AECOM, Jacobs, etc.), since the public sector ranks in those disciplines have been hollowed out.
The whole thing is enough to make you sit and cry into your coffee every morning.