So, late last week the MBTA threw down the gauntlet, or issued a threat, or a promise, or what have you: Solve our $160 million deficit, or we cut service drastically. And we also were reminded how well, how fluently, and with what pizzazz and flair the T is able to piss away the money that it does get.
So now everyone's now in an awkward spot. Pity your legislators: How does one choose between
1.) funding an agency perceived as a money sieve with a tax increase, with the payoff being merely maintaining the status quo … or:
2.) allowing the service cuts to happen, thereby preventing folks from getting to work (especially the most vulnerable, who are more likely to take trains at non-standard hours), flooding the roads with drunks on the weekends, creating more traffic congestion and greenhouse gases, and crippling the local economy?
Both will create outrage. But governing often means choosing between which set of problems you're willing to live with, and which you need to fix.
I hope that legislators don't imagine that they could escape blame for letting the cuts go through. If that happens, everyone's in trouble. Sen. Prez Murray claims somehow that she's been blindsided by the cuts. I don't think this excuse flies at all: Have the MBTA's financial difficulties been a secret? This puts her “reform before revenue” mantra in (another) awkward spot. It was always a good political response to populist rage … but maybe an inadequate response to the money arithmetic problem. And given how generous the Senate bill was on the Carmen's health care costs, the Senate doesn't exactly have the high road on fiscal prudence anymore.
So let's just state plainly that the service cuts are unacceptable. The tax increase is bad, but not a catastrophe. We can muddle through — depending on the next steps from the conference committee dealing with the transport bill.
What legislators need is an immediate arguable success in rescuing the T, and in loading the responsibility for running it onto the executive branch. We're now about 18 months away from the next election: The sooner they consolidate the T under the governor, the sooner they can start blaming him and Jim Aloisi for the T's problems. Or to put it more hopefully, the sooner the Gov directly forces the T to clean up its act, and the lege can share the credit.
But one can also imagine the lege doing the cowardly thing, and handing off the hot potato to the Gov, without truly securing the T's finances, washing their hands of a tax increase. Again, the scenario of 1.) above looms. Legislators can't escape that. They will be blamed. They should be blamed if this opportunity passes and the T is no more financially secure than before.
Really, the only way to do it is to do it right: Squeeze out all the structural inefficiencies; fund it properly and well; and make the governor run the damn thing. We deserve a T that is efficient with our money; that is funded well enough to provide quality service; and is responsive and accountable to the people it serves.
Discuss
30 Comments . Comments are closed.$quot;Flooding the roads with drunks$quot;?
I have not noticed that the T is loaded with "drunks" on the weekends, so I would not expect that discontinuing service would "flood" the streets with them. It's not like the T currently runs until the bars close. Perhaps we can turn down the hyperbole down a tad?
North Station, Kenmore ...
Do you think the T reduces drunk driving? How many more instances of drunk driving as a result of cuts to the T do you think would be acceptable?
Not the point
I think the T probably reduces drunk driving very slightly. I do not believe that Boston will be "flooded" with more drunk drivers by any stretch of the imagination. By your logic, the T should be run all night regardless of the cost if it would prevent a single drunk driving incident.
Yes, the T provides many important benefits to Boston, but please let's not pretend that the world will come to an end if there are service cuts. Overuse of hyperbolic rhetoric will just make it that much easier for people who disagree with your fundamental arguments to simply dismiss you.
BTW, I totally agree with your overall argument.
Quite a few
Actually I have seen quite a few people returning from bars and parties by T on weekends. The 12:45 AM train on Friday and Saturday night is usually packed.
Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, and Quincy are all places with high concentrations of college students and 20 somethings. And yeah, a lot of them drink on the weekends. We need to talk about all the implications of reducing service on the T. Drunk Driving is just the tip of the iceberg. How many small businesses depend on customers travelling from other parts of the city by T?
How do you know?
Maybe people feel free to get drunk because they can take the T home.
If your going to get...
... inebriated, securing safe transportation is a responsible thing to do. Declining from getting inebriated because you haven't secured transportation is likewise responsible. Thus the consideration of safe transportation when deciding weather or not to get inebriated is responsible.
the good point
with the T closing so early, you're right. While I'm sure there would be more inebriated drivers without the T running status quo, the people who are drinking late into the night are either already driving or getting rides/cabs.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the people who would fight a late-night T service the hardest would be cabbies...
Accountability
That is the key. You've hit the nail on the head. The idea of the T has an independent agency has run its course. Give it to the Gov.
WBUR
It was a small item tucked into a top of the hour newscast, but WBUR said last week that the commuter trains are worse than we think. The T's study of commuter train delays included all trains. Off-hour trains are less likely to be delayed, so therefore rush hour commuters are more likely to be late than was originally announced (6%, I think).
Two anecdotal points:
- In my experience, off hour trains are more likely to be delayed.
- My train is late every day, in both directions. However, the delays are in the 10-15 minute range (5-10 going home), so I don't know if they show up in the study.
Hot damn
You've nailed it.
The hard part is that squeezing out inefficiencies takes lots of effort for relatively low returns. Reforming pensions to make them what most people would consider appropriate would save a few million bucks a year, maybe as much as $15-$20 million. Not chump change, but a long way from saving the T, and a difficult process sure to leave folks bloody and demoralized.
It might not be "worth it" for $15-$20M, but it might be worth it for $100M. So, here's my suggestion: line up legislative support for a quid pro quo of sorts. If the T reforms it's pension, the state throws them an $80 million dollar bone. Likewise, the T gets about $5.4M revenue from advertising, concessions, and parking revenue. It's too low. Driving it up to $8M (a 50% increase) takes significant effort. Let the lege reward it with a $10 million dollar bone.
I have no idea if this sort of thing is possible, legal, or appropriate. I do know that the sale of tickets to ride the T make up about 30% of the revenue -- which means you've got to raise the price a lot to make up a significant shortfall.
Ultimately, I think there are three problems with the T: 1. They've got a deficit now that they've got to deal with. That's the $160Mish number. That's just a deficit though, that will only get them through this year. How are their costs growing? Faster or slower than their revenue from sales tax, assessments, non-op revenue, parking, and ad+concession (about 70% of their revenue)? Will the deficit be more or less next year?
2. They've got a debt that's killing them. Debt services is the single biggest bill they pay -- bigger than wages, bigger than fringe benefits, bigger than taxes, bigger than materials+supplies+services. They've got to lower the percent of costs that go to debt services, without neglecting necessary capital improvements to maintain quality and safety, improve handicap accessibility, meet Big Dig requirements (green line to Somerville), etc. The problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse. In FY09 they pushed off some of the payments on the debt itself. The nugget:
How can they knock down the debt? In the short term, they need the state to take back the debt which is rightfully not the MBTA's -- namely the $1.6B due to the Big Dig. That would roughly cut the annual expenses on debt service from $368M to something like $285M -- a savings of $83M, half of their operating deficit. In a longer time frame, they need to (a) prioritize capital projects which result in cost savings, (b) de-prioritize capital projects which result in added operating costs exceeding added operating revenues, and (c) get the lege to actually pay outright for some of those projects. They need to reduce their debt substantially -- to about half what it is now. The lege needs to help make this happen. Projects like (a) are a no brainer: lighting upgrades, wiring which improves efficiency, finishing the project of making all D-line (and other green line) platforms 3 cars in length so they can run triple cars and gain fares without increasing operating costs much, that sort of thing. Projects like (b) means, I hate to say it, not doing handicap upgrades. Maybe the T can get an ADA waiver for a while. Maybe they can be clever and not work on the part of the project which requires elevators and escalators, which are very expensive. I'm not suggesting that the T go out of its way to make it difficult, but avoiding the expensive ADA requirements right now might help bang down some of that debt. (b) also means not expanding service to new locations beyond current commitments since it means increasing operating costs faster than the increase in revenues. I hate this too -- the whole damned point of the T is to help as many people as possible get to as many places as possible quickly en masse. But the fact is, the debt burden will kill the T outright and they've got to bang that debt down.
3. The big revenue piece for the T is the sales tax piece. it's worth 53% of the budget in FY09. Here's the problem: a weak sales tax is positively correlated with increased T usage. This makes sense: when times are bad, more people ride the T to save money. When times are bad, people spend less money on consumer goods. This means when ridership is at its highest, the T's available budget actually decreases. I don't know what the fix for this is; after all in tough times the income tax receipts tend to flatline too. Adjusting the timing of capital expenditures can help smooth this curve, but I'm not sure that's so easy or is enough of an adjustment.
So like I said, I have no idea how this stuff can get fixed. It's easier to find problems than solutions, that's for sure. Ultimately, to tread water (and pay down a bit of that debt), the T will need about $200M more a year over the next ten years. Where will it come from? An increase in the gas tax? An extra 0.5% sales tax for Eastern Mass? An extra tax on the purchase/registration/ownership of (fuel inefficient?!) motor vehicles in (Eastern?) Mass? The state just absorbing some of those billions of dollars of debt? The Feds? Cutting costs will help (pensions, overtime) but only by a few tens of millions -- nowhere near enough to close the gap. Some combination of all of the above is probably the easiest way... if I had my druthers, I'd figure out a way to infuse more than $200M a year into the T for the next few years to drive down that debt more quickly, allowing for lower debt service line items sooner.
At the end of the day, we as a Commonwealth need to decide if we value the MBTA -- it's impact on cleaner air and water, less-congested roads and highways, employment opportunities [and the tax base therein], less consumption of gasoline, and a dramatic increase in the ability of people to get where they need to go regardless of wealth, age, disability, or other barriers. There are things we all benefit from, whether or not we're the owner of the Charlie Card. The benefits are real, but they're not free. We must demand our legislators support the MBTA's efforts to hold the line in terms of service and fares.
Why the T sucks...
I've been riding the T for 40 years (but not much over the last 10). I have had tons of firends owrk for he T and they all admitted to being on the "gravy train".
Why don't I feel bad about the T's finicial problems? Mainly becasue theior problems are similar to the many Americans who have sepnt more than they should have, they have overburdened themsleves and now want help from us.
How about this gem concerning the Kenmore Sq. project...
And from this story...
Then there are the four T workers who retired and got their same jobs back as consultants (caching!)
A story last week showing a $53K T worker whose job is to stand guard at an abandoned T building from 8:30-3:00 everyday to make sure nobody vandalizes it. Ever hear of a rent-a-cop?
And finally this story from March 30th...
Until the T can fix all their issues, address pension and benefit reform, deal with retirement ages and maybe conduct a thorough review of their multimillion dollar projects... blow it out your ass!
I see where you're coming from
and also share your frustration with the bad T decisions, including the Kenmore Square debacle and the pension issues. But, do keep in mind that...
the T didn't spend most of the money that they owe now, at least not in the context of your example. The lege put them on forward funding without much warning; had the MBTA management known that they alone would own the debt with a very different revenue stream, they very well may have made different debt decisions. Then there's the $1.6B that's due to the Big Dig -- the legislature made that decision, not the MBTA management.
So I'm not arguing that the T can't do a better job... damn right they could, and they ought to by hook or by crook. But, the big problem they're facing is the debt service expenses, and the MBTA management didn't have a whole lot to do with much of that debt.
Two sides to every story
There are two sides to every story; the Kenmore Square project article said:
I can't speak to how legitimate each of those issues was, but it seems to me that undocumented utility lines having to be moved would certainly add to the scope of the project. A change in plans related to making the place more handicapped-accessible would add to the costs. And given that the work was performed when the cost of building supplies like steel and concrete went through the roof probably increased the cost.
Regarding the "double dipping" consultants, the people in question were entitled to retire. The MBTA seems to have felt that retaining them was important -- neither of us can judge that.
If you were retired and someone said "come work for me, I will pay you $X, but your pension will be reduced by $X", would you? You'd be a fool, because you'd be working for free.
Clearly in this situation there has to be some incentive to hire such individuals. You're going to pay more for them.
The root problem is the 23-and-out policy. People should not be collecting a full pension at age 45. That age should be raised to 62 -- statewide. Social Security is rising, people are physically able to work longer, that should change.
However, even in the private world, I have seen instances of retired people being asked back on consulting arrangements. It is not automatically criminalish behavior. It should be allowed under certain terms. Coupled with pension reform, this could still exist.
Math error?
NoPolitician wrote:
It sounds to me as though I'd be working for $X -- a perfectly fair deal.
If I want to retire, I retire. If I want a raise, I can demand a raise. Moving from salaried to consulting, with a simultaneous doubling of the salary, is a reasonably common practice in private industry. The increase reflects the increased overhead and insecurity of a non-salaried consulting engagement.
Had the MBTA pursued such contracts openly and above-board, without the simultaneous pension kicker, the story would not have been newsworthy. Any pension income received from the state should be deferred while the recipient is receiving consulting income (or salary) from the state.
No math error
Let's say you're retired. Your pension is $3000 a month.
You get hired at $2500 a month, but your pension is reduced by $2500 a month while you're working.
Now, if you take the job you'll get two checks a month totaling $3000. If you don't, you'll get one check a month totaling $3000. That means you'd be working for free if you took the job.
Then don't take the job.
I'm sure there is a not-ready-to-retire younger person who would love the job and now you have 2 people getting $3000/month.
If you want to work, then don't retire.
It's a scam.
If you want to keep working, then don't retire. If you want to stop working, then retire. That's what "retirement" means, and a "pension" is something you get paid in recognition of your prior service. If you want to receive more than your current salary, or more than your pension, then negotiate a higher contract.
The game being played with these double-dippers is a scam.
Tom, you don't get the point
of the MBTA pension system. The dollar amount is one thing; the other is the retirement age (which is absolutely ridiculous). In point of fact, the IRS issued final regulations in 2007 on what defines a "reasonable retirement age" and the bright-line safe harbor is age 62. Between 55 and 62 is on facts and circumstances. Anything under 55 is a joke and has to end. Guess who the major abusers are? Private sector? No. It's silly stuff like the MBTA at 23 and out. Do you have any idea of the astronomical actuarial cost difference between someone starting a $70k pension at 43 v. 62? We're talking 7 figures present value easy. In point of fact, these MBTA pensions are in violation of IRC 415 limits (see Mulhern @ 130k retiring at age 46 - in the private sector the plan would be in violation and subject to disqualification - but wait, IRC 415 also applies to government plans, so where does that leave the T?). A Globe Spotlight article (and a full IRS audit) is in their future.
Yes, it is indeed a scam of "retiring" at a ridiculously low age, and then going back on the payroll, consultant or not. For that matter, since they are also granted full retiree medical, they hit the trifecta with such a maneuver.
Gee--Another example of the taxpayers taking it in the shorts. Oh but this is just an exception
The tax and spend folks who dwell here just can't to wrap their minds around the fact that our prsent government and perhaps governments historically are comprised of people who just aren't the sharpest folks available and many are inherently corrupt or corruptable.
The T needs to be renered null and void and a new transportation system administration formed. many T employees will be let go, and most importantly new union contracts that render the employees more responsible to management. Presently the entire MBTA is out of control and unmanageable. No matter how much money you throw at it---it will be all for naught until fundamnetal changes are made.
Cracking the T
We need a better T, and from all I've heard and read, the organizational viscosity there is almost full-solid, so it'd take some powerful politics to crack it and reorganize it into something that works better. My question: Which path out of this "opportunity" is most likely to allow the Governor to really crack into the T and make it work? Would the sudden shock of service cutbacks do it, and could we then recover the service?
In the medium and long term, we should strive for service enhancement, including: - Green line expansion - Restoration of the E branch - No T fares (or at least much reduced fairs, competitive with cost of gas) - Evening and weekend service in more bus lines - Later hours on the subway (at least until 1:30am)
In the short term, though, is there a way to make the most of the crisis to get a better-running, better-managed MBTA organization?
Restoration of the E branch would be really dumb
There is no right-of-way for the trains past the Mass College of Art, so trains will get stuck in Centre St. traffic along with everyone else, so it won't be much better than the existing bus service. For most people, taking the Orange line would continue to be a faster option.
Furthermore, restoration of that line would require building many curbs out to meet the train so that handicapped riders could board, and would eliminate hundreds of parking spots in a dense area already short of parking. This in turn would result in the residents of pretty much every side street off of Centre to petition the city for resident-only parking, which would take away even more spots for non-residents, and turn JP into a resident-only enclave. Centre St businesses that do not have loading docks would also have to take all of their deliveries during off-hours further adding to their costs and irritating neighbors with truck noise.
Have you ever seen it in operation?
I remember when the E line was running, because I used to ride it. I get really surprised when I hear of these gloom and doom scenarios, although usually it's secondhand, "some people say if the E line were restored ...". I can tell you that it was quite successful when it was in place, and local residents had nothing against it, nor did it cause any of the problems you describe.
When it was eliminated, the reason I recall the T giving was that their new fleet of trains couldn't make the turn, and it was supposed to be temporary.
Driving into JP is extremely annoying. If the E line were restored, I'd probably only ever drive there if I needed to take a lot of equipment, or stay past midnight. I'm sure a lot of other people who currently drive there would jump at the chance to avoid doing so.
Buses present a very large usability barrier: To take a bus, you have to know to take it. You have to know what bus lines run, where the stops are, and check the schedule. If you're a regular it's not that big an effort, but if you're not, there's always the worry that you've looked up something incorrectly, that you'll wait at the wrong street corner, that you won't know where to get off; either way, you worry that it'll be off schedule or you'll miss it and wait half an hour out in the rain. And if you don't know the bus line is there to take you where you want to go, you may not even think of it, or think to check for it. Plus the extra hassle of changing from train to bus, and paying extra or figuring out how to transfer if you're not used to it. So even though there is a bus, it's far from equivalent to extending the green line, and far more people would use the green line than use the bus.
The E line has not run for decades
And since that time, the traffic on Centre St has greatly increased. I saw traffic increase by a huge amount just during the 14 years or so I lived there. I am sure that the E line was fine back when it ran, but JP is different now. The traffic on Centre St is not going to disappear because trains are introduced, and believing otherwise is just wishful thinking. So the trains will not run any faster than the buses. Furthermore, modern accessibility laws add many additional require that the trains be boardable by handicapped individuals, which ultimately will require the removal of hundreds of parking spots, another unavoidable fact.
Other problems include: - There would be fewer trolley stops than bus stops, so riders would be forced to walk further to get to them. - Any time there is a medical or police emergency, the road could be blocked and the trains will not run. - Any time a car breaks down on the tracks, the trains won't run. - Accidents involving the trains (and you can bet there will be some, just as there have been on other branches of the Green line) will much more severe than those involving buses. - When a train breaks down, it cannot simply be towed out of the way. Trains are much longer than buses and a disabled one could easily block one of the many one-way and dead end streets off of Centre or block a major intersection. - The tracks will present a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to cars. - The roads will be more expensive to maintain and will be more prone to pot-holes. Before they removed the tracks, the condition of the road was atrocious. - Overhead electrical lines will make it more difficult to maintain street lights and could interfere with the deployment of rescue ladders if there is a fire in one of the multi-story buildings on Centre St.
You are right that there are issues with buses, but you greatly exaggerate the problems.
Regarding the routes. There are only a couple of routes on Centre St, so there cannot be all that much confusion over them. I can tell you that people in Roslindale manage to deal just fine with having many bus routes. Are you claiming that JP residents are stupider? Any any confusion could easily be remedied by posting details of the routes and schedules at every bus stop. This is already done to some extent and would be far cheaper than reintroducing the trolleys.
Regarding confusion about transfers. That is not an issue for anyone with a Charlie card, so the issue would only be a problem for very infrequent users. But surely we are not going to build a hugely expensive trolley system just to avoid some minor confusion from people who would hardly ever use it?
Some of the other worries you state apply just as well to the trolleys, including not knowing the schedule or not knowing when to get off.
I really like the abstract concept of bringing the trolleys, but the reality is that the current geography and traffic patterns of the roads involved prevent the idea from being feasible.
Perhaps one simple idea would be to run a "Green" bus that would run frequently between Forest Hills and the E line terminus at Heath St, along with improvements to the waiting area at Heath to make transfers relatively comfortable. The Green bus would stop at all bus stops along the route and signage would be added to make it clear that the line is an extension of the E line. This would be much more economical.
Hmmm
Indeed.
NO NO NO
Of course there's more traffic, there's no other way to get there.
Buses are not a solution. They use more energy, they are even more disruptive of traffic, and they are more expensive to operate (aside from their energy costs).
There is a more fundamental issue at stake, though, that transcends all of this -- the issue of credibility and integrity.
When the "temporary suspension" of the E-Line was announced, the community was outraged. The MBTA, city of Boston, and state have lied, reneged on agreements, bobbed, and weaved since service on the Arborway line was halted nearly 25 years ago (in 1986). The city has now paved over the tracks -- even though they committed to restoring service as recently as 2001. My recollection is that the MBTA played a similar shell-game in order to shut down the A-Line that used to go out Allston Street to Watertown.
There is, of course, the nit-picky little detail that restoration of the Arborway line was an explicit commitment given by the State to the Feds in the 1990 mitigation agreement in exchange for Big Dig funding. Picky picky picky.
These lies are why government faces such deep-set resentment, anger and cynicism. It is, sadly, well founded -- and the current round of lies about the E-Line extension, Medford extension, and -- for that matter -- the "Silver" line (which is itself another big lie) -- further confound the already serious issue.
This is the time to be building light rail systems, not killing them.
I see this as part of a strategy.
First, the Turnpike Authority threatens to raise tolls, including an especially onerous doubling of the tunnel tolls to $7.00, which I think was designed to annoy the largest number of drivers the most, thus making them open to a gas tax increase. When the governor came in with a proposal for a 19 cent increase after floating trial balloons as high as 29 cents, anger rose again, especially when it was learned that a mere 4 cents would be used to make toll increases unnecessary. In order to fight back against that anger, they hit drivers with the stick again by having the TPK Auth vote to implement the toll increases unless the tax increase was agreed to quickly. After a couple of back and forths, it got quiet again as the story moved to the media's back burner. Now, in an effort to ratchet up the pressure, the 'T' comes out with the threat to severely cut services unless more money is forthcoming. Is it just me, but does anyone else feel manipulated by all of these machinations by supposedly independent organizations? It's always about 'gimmee more money'. Where is the 'this is what we are going to do to save money, now, while continuing to do our jobs and provide the services expected of us'?
The $quot;saving money...while continuing to provide$quot; part was done a decade ago
Virtually everyone in the public sector did this decades ago, starting in 1982 with the imposition of Prop 2 1/2. The result? More cuts.
I'm a strong advocate for stopping the abuses that are so rampant in the public sector now. At the same time, it needs to be said loudly and clearly that, if anything, these abuses are magnified because the public sector has been so decimated by right-wing populist (and selfish!) tax-cutting for the past two, and now nearly three, decades.
Are these organizations attempting to "rachet up the pressure"? Sure. Isn't that what they should do, when they have been cut far past the breaking point? What would you have them do, slip quietly into the night?
The MBTA was destroyed by the "forward funding" nonsense of Governor Cellucci and Tom Finneran back at the turn of the century. It was intentional and it was effective.
The anti-tax anti-government crowd has been striving to destroy public transportation in Massachusetts for decades. They have finally succeeded.
Now what?
A Real Shame
I am a new poster here on this website. I am 19 years old and I have lived in Allston/Brighton my whole life. I have taken the MBTA to high school and college. I have never owned a car or drivers licenses and nor do I plan on getting one in the near future. The MBTA is my only mode of transportation, it is how I get around for the most part (at times I'm lucky to bum rides). When I saw the news on the front page of the Boston Globe a few days ago, I was devastated to see that they would reduce services, especially at night. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only person in Boston or the Metro Boston Area in this position. But I somehow guess that this could be a good think for the people of the commonwealth. Finally maybe the MBTA will be fully under the executive branch of the governor, and we will be able to hold someone accountable. I happen to study trains, maps, and skyscrapers in my spare time (some people choose to read gossip magazines, I like trains). The MBTA has a huge infrastructure problem that runs deeper then just rebuilding their stations. The problem is that they have a transit system in this generation that was designed for the previous generation. Don't get me wrong, I think the rides on the 'B' branch of the Green Line up Commonwealth ave are some of my most cherished memories from my childhood. Getting to see all tall buildings on both side of the street as I sat on the window seat of the train was beautiful, especially in the summer, but the Green Line is ancient and slow. I live near two bus stops in Brighton, the 64 and 57, when going to school I have the choice of taking the 64 to Central Square, then the Red Line and the Orange Line, or I have a choice of taking the 57 to Kenmore and then the Green Line. I actually get there faster taking the 64 and two trains instead of taking the 57 and the Green Line. Now I understand that it would be close to impossible and ridiculously expensive to switch the Green Line from light rail to heavy, and for that even to be feasible it would all have to be underground, but with travel time on the Green Line so damn long, it would probably be the only way that the Green Line and the MBTA for that matter stays competitive. I was shocked when I spent Christmas break with my cousin in New York and found the Metro to not only be so fast, easy, and convenient to navigate, but also it was one of the coldest weeks of the year and I found out that I could get to almost anywhere in the city that I wanted to (with in a couple blocks of the destination), without having to get out of the subway. Then I came back to Boston and back to reality of what most transit systems around the world are like. I know Boston isn't New York, but seriously was 50 million needed on Kenmore. I, and many of my friends for that matter, are of the opinion that Kenmore was a lot better before they rebuilt it. Take it from someone who has frequently waited at both stations, the new and the old Kenmore, and by far was the old one more comfortable. First, there was a guarantee in the old one that I wouldn't get rained on. Secondly, there wasn't any 45 MPH gusts in the old Kenmore. And Finally, does any one else besides me notice that the Post Modern architecture for the Kenmore Station doesn't go that well with the architecture around Kenmore. Then of course there is the huge problem that their is no train line that directly crosses the city. If I want to get from Central square to Ruggles, I have to go through Downtown. The MBTA plans to create another train line that would run a similar course, of course though they considered to make it light rail. Again I wonder who these geniuses are. I have actually designed my own expansions and my own lines for the MBTA, including the transition of the Green Line to full subway and heavy rail, and the transitioning of major bus lines into subway lines, which would do its part to eliminate congestion and green house gases, in addition to creating faster travel times for people taking the MBTA, maximizing efficiency overall. But I doubt the people running this corrupt organization would listen to common sense. I very much doubt that the majority of the people running the MBTA actually ride the MBTA to work, or else we wouldn't see this huge investment in aesthetics over performance.
A gem...
BINGO, give that man a cigar.
I think it's time for a Globe spotlight cam on Mr. Aloisi. Where does he live, and how does he get to work?
Not sure what the $quot;hmmm$quot; is for
Are you implying that the restoration of the E line would noticeably reduce traffic? That would be nice, but there is no good reason to believe so. Most of the people clogging up the road aren't traveling between destinations that would be served by an extended Green line. The fact that there is not nearly as much traffic on Huntingdon between Angell and the VA Hospital as there is between the two library branches clearly indicates that most people aren't actually following the Green line route, and aren't going to view the trolley as a good alternative to driving.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 4:10 AM