Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA contingency plan for service and job cuts
By neilv on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 6:12am
The Globe reports on an MBTA document that it said had been circulating among state transportation officials:
The MBTA would halt all evening and weekend commuter rail service, eliminate six Green Line stops, discontinue lightly used bus routes, and lay off 805 employees if the agency does not get legislative help with its $160 million deficit [...]
Topics:
Free tagging:
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
Remove the T people from the T stations?
...so fare evaders will think they've got more freedom to skip through someone else's Charlie gate? Oh hey, it's angrily buzzing, but who's gonna stop them?
Not that I've ever seen anyone go after a fare evader, but honestly it seems like this would only encourage more of them.
Unless they'll still be spending the money to have five cops and a dog hanging out as Transit Watch.
And the Commuter Rail and bus cuts are absolutely disgusting.
Good points, Spatch!
Bravo!
Not to defend the T, since
Not to defend the T, since these service cuts will likely cause me to lose my job, but I have seen them nailing people left and right at south station for fare evasion in the morning. I saw the MBTA give some business dude a $250 fine the other day while he tried to argue how "outrageous" the fares were.
Okay, that's pretty awesome.
Okay, that's pretty awesome. I haven't seen 'em go after anyone in Davis or Porter, but South Station does have a lot more foot traffic and I can see its wider space lets them better intercept someone who's just snuck through the gates.
Yep
They have the customer service reps I've seen go after people, and if they head down to the silver or red lines... that's when the MBTA rushed in after the guy (when he wouldn't listen to the customer service rep following him).
It's definitely not everywhere, but they've been making their presence know at south station in the mornings.
However, if it was a transit cop at the faregate instead
of the CSA, what are the chances the guy would've even tried to beat the fare to begin with?
As others have pointed out, elimination of the Transit Police isn't practical. However, getting them out of their cruisers and into the stations is (and IMO a LONG overdue reform). Besides discouraging fare evasion, response time to reported problems can be greatly improved. Wonder why trains always have to be delayed 15 to 20 minutes (to quote the "standard" T alert) due to a medical emergency or similar problem - it's because the operator has to wait for the T police to show up.
As an added benefit, the T can eliminate all the mechanics that service those cruisers, they no longer have the associated fuel costs to deal with, and they can sell off the cruisers as well.
Roadman, that's impractical too.
I don't know how many stations there are but try to imagine the cost to put a cop at each one for the 20 or so hours they are open a day. And, about getting rid of their cruisers...what happens if there is a problem on a bus? Or, when there is a problem involving the commuter rail. These things happen, trains hit people and cars, buses get in accidents, etc... The local police have enough to handle, they can't be asked to do extra...especially when it really isn't their responsibility. Plus, the T has and needs mechanics for a lot of other vehicles they need/have.
It would have been nice if the Globe actually printed
an exact copy of the document that was supposedly leaked to them so the average T user can see all the details.
Just one example - I'd like to know a) WHICH six Green Line stations are proposed to be totally closed and b) how totally closing stations saves more money than just eliminating the CSAs.
According to the current online Globe story
Bu East, BU West, Pleasant Street, and everything on the E line after Brigham Circle.
I heartily concur with losing those three B line stops.
E-line stops
Now that's some pretty blantant screwing of low-income neighborhood. That leaves a nice little one mile radius of very urban neighborhood without any train service.
Anybody notice who lives in that development at Mission Park where the fire truck crashed? Elderly people and low-income families. I used to work across the street, so I know who rides the T there and who lives in the area. I also worked there when they took that part of the line out of service when they were doing construction and saw the kinds of impacts it had for the people who lived in the area.
Gee, make lets make granny walk a half mile or more to Brigham Circle or to Brookline Village instead of getting off right at her home. Nice policy for service, that - even though they can't turn the trains around at the circle and have to run them further up anyway.
I
think that there are bus services that are close to providing the services that the E line does and that is one of the reasons for it shutting down.
Plus wasn't the whole E service closed for a long time at one point? Or am I thinking of the E service from Huntington towards South Huntington.....
E line woes
The bus service is very slow and very packed and highly erratic. This was especially true when the branch of the line from Huntington to South Huntington was closed. For the people who live on that stretch and do not have cars, it was a very unpleasant time.
What I can't see is why in the world they would close the three or four stops in this stretch when they have to take the train out to turn it around anyway? If the idea is to move the trains faster, those stops are not exactly the rate-limiting step - the slog through Huntington Ave at Longwood, Northeastern, and MFA is what delays the E-line.
they can reverse E trains at Brigham Circle
and have often done so in the past. I'm not in favor of this cutback, but it doesn't cause any operational difficulty.
It's obvious why the E line beyond Brigham Circle is included -
because management has slowly been trying to get rid of that portion of the line for years. Look at how often they use a minor car crash or an ambulance responding to an incident in an apartment buliding or some other "traffic problem", "snow problem", (insert almost any problem imaginable here)" as the "E"xcuse of the day to terminate service at Brigham Circle.
However, I doubt they'll actually get away with removing service to Heath Street - the VA probably won't wash it.
That's the way MA works
When you don't have any planning with teeth, when budgets are year to year without foundation, when funding is determined by tantrum versus tantrum versus grandstand, this is what you get.
When you have a governmental system that does not pit agency versus agency in a cage match on a yearly basis, things like, oh, regular maintenance and replacement schedules and system expansions can be planned for years ahead of time and often funded by the federal government. If you have the yearly tantrum theater in lean years and the "not from my budget" in non-lean years, well, here we go.
Lets face it though...
having an above ground trolley in the middle of Huntington Ave probably isnt the best idea for the year 2009 anyway.
I say tear up all those tracks, widen the roads, and have a decent bus system.
Well, it if itsn't the usual
Well, it if itsn't the usual liberal loudmouth.
Much like Adam G trying to find a new job, this is an empty threat by the T to scare people so that the state will bail themout. I'm sure some service will be curtailed or eliminated, but not to the huge extent stated.
And, maybe granny can go food shopping during the week. Old people don't work, you know!
Yes, complaining in your douchey blogs and twitter feeds will really help...not. Complaining won't help, so either get out there and protest, or shut the hell up and go back to Beverly, loudmouths!
Yeah, where's my state bailout?!?
I'm glad my friend here is on the case, because I demand it now.
Sorry you were not too big
Sorry you were not too big to fail Adam!
Eh I always found that line odd. I always felt one of the reasons why these banks were failing was that they were too big and too expansive. Now that they fell because of that they are all of a sudden to big to fail. Seems to me like a perpetual motion machine, but not in a good way.
Anonymous Loudmouth
The only loudmouth being liberally sounded here is Mr. Anonymous.
Not like actually spending time in a a particular area and having to live with the inconveniences over a four year period counts for anything, no. Noticing that poor people are being screwed - like they have throughout time - makes someone a "liberal loudmouth". Sorry, but if the truth has a liberal bias, so be it.
I suppose frail elderly people in public housing will get to levitate on weekdays as a compensation for the loss of service, at least if they are levitating to the grocery store. That's the only way I can see how they can get to anywhere since they are proposing to eliminate train service and drastically reduce bus service AT ALL TIMES. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
And, no, I don't live in Beverly or tweet, either.
Ok, HOW does eliminating these stops, which
are all on the SURFACE, save any money?!?
It doesn't save the T money
I mean, you could say that it does by slicing a few minutes off of each trip and thereby saving a tiny amount of paid time per employee, but it's not much.
Mainly, it's a way of trolling the city and large institutions that will be effected. Cutting back the E line and eliminating it entirely on weekends, skipping some BU (!!!) stops on the B are all ways to call attention to the problem. Only the weekend suspension is going to really save some dough. Even then, an elimination of all E service on the weekend isn't much of a step down from what we have now.
Close the B line stations where the students don't pay the fares
I'm all for closing a couple of the B line stations around BU. Most of the people who jump on there don't pay anyway. The students can walk a couple of blocks to the next station.
BU has too many stops.
Green line stop density
Eliminating some stops on the B line would be a blessing and a service improvement, not a "cut"...so the MBTA will probably reconsider that move.
closing those B-line stops is good
Almost everyone on this blog has, for the longest time, been saying that they should close those stops and for good reason.
BU buys the highest amount
BU buys the highest amount of monthly passes of any institute or company in Boston.
Perhaps you might want to reconsider your bias towards students, most of whom are entering the back doors legally.
"most of whom"
Is this a guess, or do you have information that suggests that?
And if you have information, can you say the approximate percentage?
Pass buying versus Shuttle Service
Most universities pay for shuttle services to get their students around campuses and between campuses.
BU has the green line. If they buy passes - or sell passes to their workers at a reduced rate - this still isn't anywhere near as costly as having to have a shuttle service up and down Comm Ave.
BU is getting a great deal and needs to pony up more money if that is the case. Either that, or it needs to schedule classes such that people have time to walk now that the campus is much bigger than it was 40 years ago!
neilvandyke, I dont have the
neilvandyke, I dont have the number with me on this computer, the PDF was saved to my old one. It was from 2007 data and the percentage was around 30.
SwirlyGrrl, BU does provide shuttle service at 12 minute intervals during the day and 15 at night. They also sell monthly passes at 10% off. I dont know who pays that 10%. I do believe MIT has a higher discount though.
Every time people call to shut these stops they forget that the BU stops are the busiest above ground stops (and harvard ave, which is essentially a BU off campus stop). It makes more sense to cut the entire D line than to cut those 4 stops.
The argument is to cut every other stop, and students will walk to the next one. This is true for off campus students going to harvard ave, but not for those using it as a shuttle.
Heres the problem: Yes, using it as a shuttle slows things down for those coming in from brighton, but how many students would cancel their passes if the BU stops were reduced?
Obviously the MBTA feels that providing high density BU service is in their best interest.
BU service is so important/profitable to the MBTA that they recently converted 1/3 of 57 service to turn at oak square, thus providing more service along the BU-harvard ave trunk.
Injecting some reality
Nobody pays the 11%. It's a discount offered to universities by the MBTA for guaranteeing a semester of passes at a time from the buyer. You pay for 4-5 months up front and they give you a 11% discount. If a school is offering greater than an 11% discount, then the school is subsidizing the difference.
BU's stops are the busiest street car stops because it's relatively inexpensive (and free if you use a back door) and convenient for shuttling down the length of the BU campus. Any student using the B Line as a short distance shuttle doesn't buy the T pass solely for moving around campus. They're using the pass for getting downtown, out to Allston parties, and everywhere else even when they're not going from the gym back to Warren Towers. Even those using it for a shuttle are not using it to go from BU East to BU Central. It's TWO BLOCKS! Removing BU East won't slow down someone who was using the T as a shuttle to get down Comm Ave a little faster. Anyone using it as a shuttle would do it whether they have to go to Blandford or BU Central or had BU East right smack in front of them. The proof is that when BU Central and East were being refurbished just as many people used the Central/East temporary stop in the single block between the two as used both stops otherwise (anecdotal, but I took it every day at all sorts of hours from that exact stop and went in from/out to Washington St).
None of the self-entitled, backpack-swinging, doorway-blocking, BU students are going to stop taking the T when mom and dad are buying them free T passes and they want to get out to BC to get drunk with friends and head downtown to some club...all because they had to walk an extra block or two. You know how I got all around campus when I lived about a mile off campus in a city without good public transit? I walked or rode a bike. You could remove ALL of the B line T stops between Packard's Corner and Kenmore and BU wouldn't shut down and the students wouldn't shrivel up and die. Removing every other stop would be a godsend and speed up the slower-than-walking pace along that line.
PS - I've also been fed nonsense about how if you remove those stops and all those people gather at a single stop you'll just increase boarding times and go no faster. But if you average it out over the distance and time, the average velocity will actually go UP because it takes less time to board than it does to accelerate/brake going in and out of every "station" every block or two as well as missing the timing of the lights. Again, the BU Central/East temporary stop demonstrated this very well and let the T get to full speed for longer coming across the BU Bridge intersection.
PPS - If the MBTA wants to save some money, it could start by firing all of the dispatchers monitoring the traffic density on the rails. It's pretty obvious they don't have a clue how to do their job when you can watch 3 trains running head-to-tail down the B Line at 9:30 AM every morning and not a single train going the other way between Washington and BU West. It seems like the headways get destroyed on the B Line around the end of rush hour and never recover for the rest of the midday.
D-Line and Go Ahead, Make My Day.
"It makes more sense to cut the entire D line than to cut those 4 stops."
But for the fact that if you cut the D line, there is no reasonable east/west public transit alternative in that corridor. The B-Line corridor from Packards Corner to Kenmore is also served by the 57 Bus, in addition to the BU Shuttle for the students. Further, I would prefer to not even think about what cutting the D line would do on one of the 80+ days a year that the Red Sox play at home.
However I'm with Kaz: Go ahead and implement this plan. My guess is that within a matter of a two months we end up with BETTER public transit, because it will create such havoc that even the "I drive - why should I pay for public transit" crowd will be BEGGING for a higher gas tax to get the T back in service since their commuting time will triple. Bring it.
Cutting night service?
so my first thought was, "how can they cut night service? Night starts around midnight and the T only runs for an hour after that"
My grandmother worked a lot on public policy in her little town, drove a car most places, and never made a ton of money. But when the subject came up, she always said public transit should be, if not cheap, free... I looked into it, and she was really right about that.
How and why is it that the Billions of dollars spent to subsidize roads for cars are forgotten when comparing to the Millions of dollars spent to subsidize public transit?
Why not abolish the MBTA police?
I see no reason for this organization to exist at all. If someone calls 911 from a T station, let the police of that city or town respond to the problem.
Because it'd be a
Because it'd be a jurisdictional nightmare. Let's say somebody pisses on the rails at MGH then gets on the train to Alewife. By the time the Boston police show up, he's probably already in Cambridge, Somerville, hell if it's a busy night he might make it to Arlington.
Much easier to just have Transit Police and let THEM deal with it.
DANGER THIRD RAIL
If you're gonna do that, MGH is a great hospital to be near.
That seems like a minor issue
compared to the cost savings of eliminating a redundant department.
Ron, it's been tried, it just doesn't work.
When the T was first ordered to provide a police presence they had Boston cops on it but they'd get off at the boarder with other cities and things just got out of control. There are just too many factors involved to try to coordinate more than one police department with the T when it comes to crime on the T. To have one specialized police department dedicated to the T seems to be the only way that it works. And, if like you say, you want to eliminate redundancy, why not get rid of all the police departments and just have the State Police patrol the whole state???? See what I mean?
What I dont get is why I
What I dont get is why I never see them inside the station (maybe Im just not looking hard enough) but always see them driving around on the highway and down like Storrow Drive? It has never made sense to me that there are so many transit officers driving around above ground.
Makes perfect sense
Because if they had to take the T to get them where they needed to go for their job, they'd never get there in a timely fashion.
Everybody (who takes the T to get where they need to go for work in a timely fashion) knows that.
Shady, there are reasons you might not see them
When you're on Storrow, you're not on the T to see them, so there's one thing. Another is, there are not enough of them. A study done years ago concluded that they should have at least 600 officers, yet today (years after 9/11 too), there are only about 250 officers. Besides that, they handle more than just the inner city subway, they handle the commuter rail and their bus lines. Here's an analogy for you...there are something like 2000 MA state troopers, yet sometimes I've driven all day without seeing one. They're like the T cops in this way...they are just somewhere else doing something else required of them.
Ever see a State Trooper on
Ever see a State Trooper on a horse in the subway?
Yes, the crow flew at midnight.
*furtive eye glances*
Here is your next assignment, Mr. Bond.
Complete list of proposed cuts
The Globe publishes the list it forgot to include in its story: In addition to subway and commuter-rail cuts, privately-run bus service in several towns would be whacked.
That's better. Now the Globe should show some true
investigative reporting and figure out how much REVENUE the T will lose based on the anticipated ridership losses in the T's own report. Then compare that figure against the projected cost savings from some of the more drastic cuts proposed (like wholesale elimination of night and wekend commuter rail service).
Oh wait, that would require real work. Don't think the Globe can actually handle that.
Do some actual reading. The
Do some actual reading. The number you're looking for is IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.
Nothing Like A Bit Of Editorializing In The Headline
"Details of drastic MBTA cuts"
(italics mine)
I suppose just saying "Details of MBTA cuts" would leave far too much to the reader's imagination and judgment.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Green line cuts?
Do it! I dare you! I don't think you've got the guts!
part of a cynical dance
No doubt the T is facing tough times. But this hit list is also calculated to generate exactly the kind of alarm and outrage we're seeing, in order to push through tax hikes.
It's just like what the City is threatening: We'll have to cut essential (or at least direct, service providing) personnel.
These "leaked" hit lists rarely include any members of the immediate entourages of agency heads, top elected officials, etc.
I feel like we're always being played, one way or the other.
You betcha
Couple of interesting things about this story: It's fairly similar to stories that came out around, what, three weeks ago, that said the T was looking at drastic service cuts. Why the outrage this time? It's not necessarily a bad thing - if I relied on the T to get home to the suburbs at night, I'd be concerned, too.
Also, two weeks ago, the T's Rider Oversight Committee met with the T CFO to talk about budget cuts. He basically told them he wasn't going to tell them anything, because the T had yet to look at specific cuts and that he had no idea where the press got the idea the T was already looking at eliminating commuter-rail service on weekends.
Feh.
Dave is right.
None of these proposals mention anything about eliminating high paying positions. Hopefully the final "Transportation Reform Bill" they are working on will.
Not for nothing...
but MBTA management is an easy dog to kick. And if you ever read the comments posted to a globe or herald article, you know what I mean.
What does "eliminating high paying positions" mean, exactly? How much do you think senior managers and executives at the MBTA should be making?
The T has some 6,000+ employees, handles over 1 million customers per day, and has a gigantic budget. Meanwhile, they've got a GM who is making about $250k and a CFO that makes less than $200k as their top paid people....
I don't know what the going rate is for your average CEO or CFO of a 6,000+ person company, but I've got to think it's at least 20 times that... And those other CEOs who are making so much more money are very rarely the subject of so much public criticism as anyone at the T...
Indeed. There's a $160M
Indeed. There's a $160M budget hole; you could fire the top few tiers of the entire organization and probably not even reach $10M. And you wouldn't have anybody running the place.
(For actual numbers, looking at the Herald's FOIA'd list of how much people at the T make, firing and not replacing all 38 of the people who make more than 100K would save about $4.4M. Figure 50% overhead and bump it up to $7M. Still about $153M to go. And really, you probably need somebody to do some of those jobs.)
You hit the nail right on
You hit the nail right on its fat head. Since 9/11, obscene scare tactics have been used to justify outrageous federal government spending. Taking a page out of the federal government playbook, Patrick, Menino (both of whom I voted for...) and the MBTA play us like fiddles, threatening to cut core services rather than genuinely looking for places to cut. How about having ONE customer service agent standing around rather than three or four? How about finding replacements within the MBTA rather than paying twice for the four "retired" employees who are now "contract" hires? How about demanding the unions to face reality and become part of the solution rather than the bulk of the problem?
Ever since I moved back to
Ever since I moved back to Boston from London I constantly compare the T to the Tube - their system is incredibly expensive, however, the service is phenomenal. A "severe delay" on a train line which could entitle one to a refund means waiting more than five minutes at peak travel times. To go so many places in this city it's faster to walk than wait for the Green Line.
No decisions yet, top state transportation official says
Jim Aloisi uses his own blog this time to discuss a Globe story:
Complete and Transparent
When pigs fly.
The only decision they will make: will Boston become Baltimore or Detroit.
Seriously, with priorities like these, it isn't just the red line at Charles that's headed down. Healthy cities don't cut transit like this.
Meanwhile, when will they announce the billion dollar boondoggle that will "fix" Storrow Drive? Note how few people question the "need" for that.
The cuts appear to be more
The cuts appear to be more drastic than hinted at
- Eliminate Mattapan trolley after 8 p.m. weekdays and all day weekends
- Eliminate selected Green Line B branch surface stations: BU East, BU West, and Pleasant St.
- Eliminate selected Green Line C branch surface stations: Brandon Hall, St. Paul St., and Hawes St.
- Eliminate E branch on weekends; extend C Line to Lechmere
- Eliminate E Line service beyond Brigham Circle
No E line at all on weekends!
No Mattapan line on weekends!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200...
Sounds punitive
this sounds completely link a punitive attack, "give us what we want, or else"
wanna organize something on facebook? Organize the IMMEDIATE departure of the MBTA as an organization and everyone above the level of train driver.
Domestic terrorism? you're looking at it.
That's no good.
J: Making the kinds of cuts mentioned in your post would have disastrous results. Most, if not all of the above-mentioned areas are where MBTA public transportation are needed the most, partly because safety is also a real issue for the people residing in those areas.
Organizing on Facebook to fight the cuts
We Can Do Better! Protect Access to MBTA Public Transportation.
Same song, different lyrics
This will end up the same way the Turnpike Authority stopped toll hikes (temporarily) - public fury and anger against them (and not in support of a gas tax hike) forced the TA to find money very, very quickly.
I expect that in the next few weeks, the T will "magically" find extra savings to stave off service cuts and fare hikes without the 19-25 cent gas tax, primarily if the riders storm the State House or the Transportation Building with en masse (and justified) protests.
It's like a coach who wants to get the attention of his players when they're minds are wandering - threaten punishment or benching. The only problem with this attention-getting tactic is that the kids will call the coach's bluff or carry on a full-scale revolt. Hence, this "give us a 19 cent gas tax or we'll cut" tactic is not generating support from the public, but a giant wave of anger and impetus to revolt against the unions, the Legislature, and the Governor and his cronies.
(And even if we do have a gas-tax hike, it'll probably end up being 12-14 cents - just shy of being the highest in the nation, but enough to cause some agita.)
Wait, why should people be
Wait, why should people be mad at the MBTA and not the state?
They should be mad at both...
Sorry I didn't clarify that...I agree that the people who are furious at the T for putting forth such an atrocious idea are also furious at the Legislature for dragging their feet.
The Legislature is also in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" squeeze - if they approve the gas tax hike the MBTA wants, drivers will crucify them for having the highest gas tax in the nation. If they don't, MBTA passengers will crucify them for allowing the T to cut their service.
This is the absolute worst PR move the MBTA can make, and it will backfire, if it already hasn't.
But what *can* the MBTA
But what *can* the MBTA do?
They're notoriously underfunded, the state government threw masses of debt and obligations of the state government onto them during the Romney administration, and if the state government doesn't fix the problem the state government created, the MBTA has no choice but to shut stuff down. Admittedly shutting down Heath Street service is especially stupid (cutting bus service would make more sense), but for the rest of them, *you got a better idea* other than going back to the Legislature?
mbta cuts budget reduction
This problem of increased costs started decades ago. the management of the MBTA has increased..the amount of employees not directly involved with transportaion should be eliminated.
with the use of computers this tool has caused a huge INCREASE in employees ...you would think this would reduce the employees in the management of this agency.
costs have increased with poor management , because of the unqualified management , making poor equiptment purchases..this has helped with greater fleet failures..
all of the repair facilities are in need of updating , this was not done . as a result , this delayed work has resulted in millions being spent to fix the unfixable...this caused a great amount of waste of valuable tax dollars..