Hey, there! Log in / Register
Grabauskas gone in May
By adamg on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 7:33am
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
No tears here....
While I think the GM is a generally well-meaning individual, the overall incompetence of the MBTA for the last 3+ years requires recourse. The buck stops with him. Maybe once he leaves it won't take 45 minutes to go 5 stops on the Green Line during the evening "rush hour".
Little will change
When he's gone every competent and incompetent manager and lower-level employee will keep on keeping on as they did before.
I'm past the point of believing anything short of a complete outside audit and subsequent total rebuild of the agency can change anything.
Which takes an competent
Which takes an competent leader who has the (audacity) to make some hard changes.
We never tough we'd be able to dissolve the TPA, but look, it's finally being done. We just need someone competent, with a plan, and the will to rub against the entrenchment.
So far, the post has been nothing but a cushy, half assed job for political appointments to inflate their pensions and pocket books. If they reach out to someone who knows, likes, and supports reliable and all encompassing public transportation, you might see some changes.
exactly right
That's the real shame here. Instead of pursuing substantive reform at the T, Patrick is wasting fire on this bush-league stuff that is loosely equivalent to blaming the weatherman for all the rain.
Seriously, a comprehensive tax/funding/reform package that addressed substantive change across the Commonwealth should have been in the offing long ago for the Patrick administration. Instead, we got some dithering, then some business as usual, and now the inevitable dismay and blame-shifting once the poll numbers are low.
FINALLY !
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
Now, will the Board and Governor pick someone competent in regional transportation planning and public transit, or just install another lackey looking for a cushy political appointment with a great pension.
Menino and Deval have a real chance to do something right here.
He gave us the "next train
He gave us the "next train is now approaching" system which I approve of.
He took away the "free friend on sunday with monthly pass" system, which I do not approve of.
His biggest failure I think is not working harder with patrick to get the gas tax raised, instead of the sale tax crap we're getting.
And he also gave us an awful fare collection system,
message boards that management primarily uses for annoying nanny and self-promotion messages, cameras to spy on the passengers, and a lot of other nonsense that have done absolutely nothing to make it faster to get from Point A to Point B by using the T.
And, with respect to your comment, I have to laugh whenever I hear somebody laud the praises of the "next train is now approaching/arriving" system. If Danny Boy and his minions wanted to really improve things for their passengers, why haven't they just put more trains in service so you don't have to wonder how long you'll wait for a train in the first place?
Agreed on the "now arriving" messages
As I've said before, how can you trust my eyes and my ears to report suspicious activity when you can't even trust them to alert me to an Orange Line train barreling into the station?
At stations where there is a
At stations where there is a very long distance between the fare collection area and the platform (Aquarium and Porter being the two most extreme examples) I find the next train approaching/arriving announcements to be very usefull, as I know whther or not I should run down to the platform or walk at a normal pace. You cannot always just feel or hear the approaching train from some areas of some stations.
Fare system
The fare system is loads better than the old system, which was basically just a means by which T employees could pilfer money from the T, as proved by the numerous T employees caught on tape attempting to continue their pilferage despite installation of the cameras, which are obviously necessary if for no other reason than to monitor the employees. If the previous poster was an employee I can at least understand your logic of not wanting to be spied upon but, please, stop texting your messages onto this site while you operate the train.
I expect that more cars weren't put on the tracks because it would require an upgrade of the antique signalling system, not to mention to the purchase of more cars, and the undoubted hiring of additional employees to ride in the front, back, and on top of the new trains under carmen's union regulations, which would all require additional money, which isn't available due to a $2 billion deficit and, as you may have anticipated me saying, pilferage.
Nanny Messages
I know that we're all venting a bit here, but I feel obligated to mention that the nanny messages to which roadman refers are required by federal law. If the T doesn't make them, they will have even less money as federal grants depend on compliance with federal requirements. So nannyistic they may be, but I'll take the brief interruption over even fewer resources.
With respect to the "next train approaching/arriving" system, I also find it useless, and in the case of the outbound Government Center Blue Line platform, inaccurate. What that system should, and I have been told eventually will, be used for is to tell you exactly how many minutes it will be until the next train (this would be so very European of us). But I have my doubts about it, particularly as it will have to be specially configured for the Green Line (knowing when the next outbound train is coming is useless if you're going past Kenmore, or in some cases, Copley).
Pre-Danny
I think the fare collection system was designed before Danny G came on board in 2005.
The problem with the T is that they half-ass everything. They lack the foresight to really be effective as a public transportation system. They keep putting a band-aids on their wounds while simultaneously slashing their wrists.
overall, give him the benefit of the doubt
I respect dedicated public servants who are willing to take on responsibilities for running horribly bureaucratic agencies with cultures of dysfunction that go waaaay back.
Most of us would trip over ourselves fleeing from such "opportunities."
Grabauskas got high marks for his management of the license registry, no small achievement. I've never met the guy, but I'm sure he gave the T his best efforts. The jury is still out on whether anyone on this planet could come in and turn this agency around.
spot on, David
an openly gay man in a highly-visible public job is asking for a ration of grief, no matter how things are going. Further evidence that no good deed goes unpunished.
Do you think...
...that people are criticizing Grabauskas because of sexuality?
Not because they think he is not (or must not be) managing the MBTA well enough?
Nor because (in the conceivable case of some politicians) of political reasons having nothing to do with sexuality?
Wha?
Can you identify a single incident in which complaints about trains stuck in tunnels, trains that never come, station projects that run years behind schedule or crack neighboring churces, fares that are going up, etc., etc., were really coded attacks on a gay man?
There was one debateable incident in Feb 2008
And it was newsworthy:
http://www.universalhub.com/node/12906
That, and some 'conservative' group complaining about some gender change checkbox on RMV forms as evidence of Romney's appointed 'homosexual activists' are the only negative references I could find to Grabauskas and sexuality. I gave up searching after a while, though I expected to find more, just from random idiot Internet commenters. I even tried Googling his last name together with some vile slang terms (no offense intended to anyone; this was research), and got nothing.
Probably some of both
I mean, the MBTA is incompetent, and probably would be regardless of who was running it. I'd wager that a majority of the complaints are due to exactly that.
But I also have to say that we need to be realistic about the world we live in. GLBT people often do receive unequal treatment that's either malicious on the part of someone who wants to give any queer a hard time, or is less intentional but coming from someone whose worldview is that GLBT people are inherently self-centered, have poor judgment, can't function in normal society, etc. Or can be even less malicious, but is related to people having less positive perceptions of people who don't talk or dress or socialize quite like they expect that good people should. There's been plenty of research showing that GLBT people get fired for offenses others don't, receive more complaints from customers, etc.
I hardly think it's the salient issue in the case of Mr. Grabauskas, but we can't pretend that anti-GLBT bias doesn't play a part in most queer people's lives.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
This isn't about GLBT bias though
I'll grant you there's plenty of that around (California, anyone?).
But I bet you if you went to South Station on Monday morning and asked people, in a scientific-polling kind of way, if they know Grabauskas's sexual preferences, the vast majority would have no idea. It's not like stories about him always say "the state's first gay MBTA general manager" - as opposed to stories about Randy Price, which always have the phrase "the nation's first openly gay anchorman" somewhere in them.
And that's a good thing. Love or hate Grabauskas, he's being judged on his job performance, not on his off-hours activities.
Yes, in general, I'd say you're right
But there are also a surprising number of people out there who, when they find that a GLBT person is in a position of power, start making complaints, often about the person's department in general. The people he works with certainly know something about his family and home life, and their varying degrees of bias certainly come in when working with him.
I agree that the poster who originally went in that direction was a bit off topic, but I'm certain that Mr. Grabauskas has had additional stress at his job by virtue of being a minority. Again, well documented that job stress is higher, criticisms (internally and externally) are harsher, etc.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
i agree with your general point...
... that there is a lot of subtle, and not-so-subtle, discrimination against many members of the LGBT community, but i am not sure that clothing is the best example. i was not aware the well dressed gay men were at risk for their awesome clothing and impeccable personal grooming ;)
Wasn't talking only about gay men
Was thinking more of lesbian/bi women, or genderqueer women when I gave that particular example, but also subcultures of queer guys who are super effeminate, or have piercings or whatnot.
Women who tend toward the butch side are often spoken to at work by well-meaning managers who don't realize it's illegal to have different dress codes based on employees' genitalia -- telling women they need to "dress up more" at work when they're wearing khakis and polos just like all the guys are, etc. I've also worked places, especially female-dominated places, where the couple of queer women get left out of the loop on things because a big group of the female staff have bonded over shopping dates and bridesmaiding and whatnot, so they naturally tend to approach the coworkers who are in their circle of friends.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Grabauskas to be Gone - T Troubles to Remain
Very quickly - any person, superheros included, will not be able to do an adequate job as GM of the T because that person will not be given the resources to do a job that meets our standards unless: 1) additional resources are given to the T; 2) the Commonwealth relieves the T of a substantial amount of its crushing debt (for which the Comm. is mostly responsible in the first place); or 3) the T is somehow unshackled from various costly endeavors, including, but by no means limited to, its collective bargaining agreements. Since 3) is pretty much legally impossible (with respect to the CBAs and certain other requirements), the real options are 1) and 2).
With respect to 1), and as I said in this space two or three days ago (sorry, but I don't know how to link to my original comment under the post announcing that the 3 member cabal of the MBTA board wrote their no confidence letter), the Commonwealth should immediately enact legislation which adds a surcharge (similar to the Community Preservation Act surcharge currently in place) onto each real estate transaction in the T's Service Area. Such a surcharge exists in the (NY) MTA's service area, and represents a significant revenue stream for them (even though it has not saved them from the current cruch). The surcharge could be scaled to increase proportionately with the value of the property (a number in the low 100s for most residential transfers, and a much bigger number for the transfer of a downtown tower). This is both fair (the presence T increases real estate values) and progressive (poorer people buy fewer properties and do so less frequently).
With respect to 2), some of the T's debt simply must be assumed by the Commonwealth until such time as the T can be given a more reliable revenue stream and "forward funding" can resume (everyone on the Hill knew all along that the 1% of the sales tax take was not going to be enough just as they knew the Big Dig wasn't going to cost $2 billion). I realize that the Commonwealth doesn't have very much money right now, but it is in far better shape than the T, and will recover much more quickly (think about the uptick in capital gains tax revenues that will be associated with this little rally, even after accounting for prior losses). This option is also morally sound because the Comm. saddled the T with most of its debt (by legislatively mandating expansion projects and transferring its Big Dig mitigation responsibilities to the T).
The problem is not the GM. It is much larger and structural.
Isn't it the GM's and boards
Isn't it the GM's and boards job to stick their necks out there and make those difficult structural changes to the MBTA?
If not, why have a GM at all?
yes, his job is part do the best he can with what he has, but it's also fighting for and making necessary and difficult changes.
Smiling Dan did neither. While ridership is up (due to the economy), Service has declined, Punctuality has declined, Safety has declined, and the infrastructure is worse off.
But we got a shiny new bus terminal, and a charlie card system that has proven to lose more in fare hopping then the old method.
The buck starts and stops with the GM. And I hope we put someone in there that is competent, and not afraid to rock the boat a bit to get things done.
GM and Board's Job? No.
Neither the GM nor the the MBTA Board have the authority to make either of the changes I suggested. Both would require legislation. That is part of the structural problem to which I referred.
I also do not believe that Grabauskas did not fight for additional resources. It would have been counter to his own interest not to do so (more $$ = more power, a natural objective for someone who is heading up the T). I also cannot believe that the T's Board sat there and said, "er, no thanks, you can send that additional revenue from the raised gas tax elsewhere."
You almost got it right at the end though, anon. The bucks sure stop when it comes to the T, but not because of the GM. The GM and the Board can rock every boat in the harbor, but until you rock your legislators who didn't have the guts to stand up to the Speaker and Senate President to get the T more revenue, the T boat will just continue to roll with the waves out into deeper and deeper waters.