Update on the ongoing cluster@%$ which is not merely inconveniencing, but actually endangering a considerable number of MA citizens right now:
RT @GabiSchaffzin: So much for "shuttle busses are waiting upstairs" @mbta @universalhub pic.twitter.com/x88oQVBkWB
— Adam Gaffin (@universalhub) February 3, 2015
@universalhub Commuter rail delays lead to dangerously packed trains. 2 people fainted in our car. No room, but plenty of kindness. #Boston
— Jennifer Tierney (@cubitude) February 3, 2015
Today’s insult:
Shortage of functioning subway cars prompts #MBTA to ask riders to “consider an alternative to the Red Line today.” #Boston #Cambridge
— State House News (@statehousenews) February 3, 2015
Ah yes, “alternatives”. LIKE WHAT.
The @MBTA GM is telling people not to take the T. Lol. How else am I supposed to get to work? — Chelsea Hanna Cohen (@chelseahannac) February 3, 2015
Gov & leg leaders should ride the T today, seriously, to understand system they run. Always rush to survey disaster sites. #LegRideTheTDay — Michael Jonas (@bostonjonas) February 3, 2015
Basically, every MA state legislator of the past 20 years should be forced to drive Bostonians to work today.
— David S. Bernstein (@dbernstein) February 3, 2015
I’m constrained to point out that climate change will make/is making extreme weather events like this more common, which should make weather resiliency a major priority for transit planning. “Transit planning” BWAHAHAHAHA See what I did there? *wipes tear*. Oh mercy.
You simply must call your representatives at 617-722-2000 and give them an earful. wheredoivotema.com will tell you who your reps are.
SomervilleTom says
We had a Democratic governor who attempted to address the problem with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature (at least according to the declared affiliation of its members). That legislature embarrassed the governor, killed the proposal, and was resoundingly re-elected two years later. NO Democrat made any effort to protect the political standing of our governor or do the right thing.
The Democratic Party said virtually nothing about this during a gubernatorial campaign that they ultimately lost. The only candidate who had the courage to even talk about funding public transportation was soundly eliminated in the primary, to the great applause of most of this community.
Isn’t it a little late to be front-paging posts like this now? Wouldn’t it have been more productive to have this debate while it might have had SOME influence in the campaign?
Sorry folks, but we have EXACTLY the government (and public transportation system) that we should expect given our own behavior during the last two years.
Charley on the MTA says
“Told you so” does not get people to work. Not now, and not in the future. Glad you’re always right about everything, at the right time, Tom.
Patrick says
But without the pain and a bit of “I Told You So” no one will remember during the next election.
Our country’s transit systems are creatures of our system – make a state agency to serve a city/region but make it subject to the whims of the whole state & the legislature and you’ll never get good results. There are very few places in the US doing transit right.
What incentive to DeLeo or better yet Rosenberg have to make the MBTA better? DeLeo you’d think would be engaged considering Winthrope’s proximity to Boston, but what does Rosenberg care?
I ask as someone who did not live in MA during the transportation fight under Patrick.
johntmay says
The upcoming generations are not “car nuts” as much as when I was a kid and they are much more interested in mass transit. This demographic is up for grabs with this issue and whose going to grab it? I do recall Juliette Kayyem addressing this issue and demographic during her campaign.
SomervilleTom says
I’m just saying that if this had been front-paged during the campaign it might have had more impact. I got precious little support and a whole lot of push back from here during that time.
centralmassdad says
You guys are all about setting aside the politics and focusing on problem solving, so long as no one is running for anything. If there is an election going, then stuff like this gets soft-pedaled and ignored so as not to embarrass your coveted majority.
jconway says
Did you see the anti-DeLeo coverage here when the revenue bill failed initially? BMG was one of the best sources for that. Consistently anti-DeLeo, and consistently I’ve heard folks say “i wish we had more more Republicans so our DINO majority was smaller”. Sure a lot of folks gave Coakley a free pass on the probation scandal and her utter lack of concern about corruption, but plenty of other folks gave her a pretty hard time. So much so that we were blamed for Baker’s victory.
The biggest problem is that the 40 in the Progressive Caucus are currently leaderless, and don’t seem to know how to work as a team. They could be kingmakers, and instead they are constantly co-opted. For the individual rep, co-option makes sense. It’s the prisoners dilemma on a big scale-unless Hecht “pulls a Markey” and runs for Congress, he will likely lose influence thanks to his vocal opposition to the Speaker’s term limits.
And while being a lone voice backbencher in a safe super liberal district works for him, just as it worked for Alderman DePres during the reign of Richard I, the system is designed so nobody makes any waves or backs a loser. It will require a lot of coordination and a dedicated campaign to really change the structure of the House. All your griping about balance is for naught, since Baker and DeLeo will be the happiest odd couple since Billy and Bill in the 90s.
rcmauro says
Does anyone else remember reading these quotes from the last election:
“Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, storm surges, and ice storms. . . .Responding to and recovering from extreme weather events will further stretch already strained municipal budgets – from increasing the burden on first responders to rebuilding residential properties to providing support to local business as they get back on their feet after more severe and more frequent storms.”
“The connectivity of economic hubs relies heavily on access to and affordability of public transportation….Investments in public transportation are just one component of a sound infrastructure investment strategy, and key to an effective model for job creation and economic success.”
“…lack of rail access has had a significant, negative effect on employment, as inadequate public transit prevents Gateway City residents from accessing employment opportunities that have become more and more decentralized….These investments are especially important for youth, who rely on public transit to gain early work experience that leads to earnings gains that persist into adulthood.”
SomervilleTom says
It’s true that Ms. Kayem said these — to the 17 people paying attention to her.
I think we’re in violent agreement — those of us who felt that public transportation was an urgent priority were marginalized and ignored by our allegedly “liberal” and “progressive” Democratic party.
rcmauro says
At least I now know it wasn’t because her district coordinator ignored my advice to boil those essays down to bullet points.
Maybe something will happen when absenteeism starts biting business in the ass.
Congrats on becoming a BMG subscriber and deciphering the johntmay clue above.
johntmay says
…before it gets better? Or how much better do we (as Democrats) have to get organized and take this issue to the people? While I will agree with somervilletom to a point, I can’t leave this on the laps of the legislature. We’ve got to push, not just on the weeks prior to the election, not just when the pipes freeze and the bridges crumble. We’ve got to push every day. We’ve got to work as hard (or harder) than the lobbyists.
jconway says
One of the reps I talked to did not vote the way I wanted on the Speaker term limits, but had the courtesy to engage me in an extensive dialogue about why he made his decision. Essentially, if progressives want to have power they have to learn how to play ball. We have to master the inside game as well as the outside game. This seems to be something Judy and others have pointed out as well.
Part of that is getting them to honor their commitment. For this rep, voting for DeLeo rewarded him for progressive legislation that was passed like strong gun control, minimum wage, the transgender rights bill, keeping gay marriage off the ballot, and advancing the revenue packages we did get done. Apparently DeLeo got this done over resistance from the middle and right of his caucus, and because he and Stan will have more leverage negotiating with Baker if he is not a lame duck. Can’t say I agree-but, if this is the case, let’s get DeLeo to work for us.
Making transit #1 priority has to be a reward for his continued leadership. I emailed the rep back and said that-if he is the progressive leader you say he is who needed this leverage-get him to work that leverage for us.
TheBestDefense says
but telling others to “keep it constructive” makes me cringe every time I see it, way too prissy.
jconway says
Frankly, I see a circle jerk of bitching and moaning every time progressives get screwed by the regular Democratic party. Whether it’s bigger players like Obama and Patrick falling short, or the realization that the vast majority of the Democratic supermajority is on a spectrum that apparently places DeLeo in the ‘center-left’. And I think this suits those in power just fine. I don’t see conservative activists doing the same thing-I see them winning primaries or willing to lose primaries to get their points across. They take out a Bennett and they get an amiable guy like Hatch-Teddy’s best friend on the GOP side of the Senate-to start voting their way.
We can’t even rely on some of the most Progressive MA scored legislators locally to vote against term limits-that’s how ineffectual we are. And I don’t see the circle jerk making us more effective-I think we have to see things from the legislators perspective and create the incentives they need to do what we elected them to do. This will happen via sticks:competitive and coordinated primaries, and carrots: fundraising bombs to folks that do the right thing and building a better farm team. The days of relying on a white knight from Obama to Patrick to Warren to save liberalism are over. We need a real movement, and it has to start from the bottom up. Let’s have that discussion.
TheBestDefense says
I tried to avoid: stop being so self-righteous. Gawd, you take shots at people all of the time where there is clearly no attempt to be constructive, just an attempt to prove yourself right. It seems no different than what others do here.
Your previous post is a classic example. You have been all over the map about how to deal with legislators who voted to end DeLeo’s ten limits, supportive when you talk to Decker and Twoomey but here castigating the others who voted just as they did. There is nothing wrong with being inconsistent, as sometimes it reflects a learning process, but when you go one way, then the other, then reverse your writing only to reverse again, then it is not learning, it is just argumentative. Please don’t tell everyone else to “keep it constructive” when you don’t.
jconway says
I am saying progressives need to learn how to play the game better. On the one hand, the vote against term limits sucks, and it was a clarifying moment for those of us on the center-left of the state party that we are truly in the minority within our own caucus, let alone the rest of the party’s delegation on Beacon Hill. It was sobering.
So do we vote for the Green Rainbow party or check out of politics or do we roll up sleeves and work the carrots and sticks that we have, while finding carrots and sticks we have yet to acquire, and employ them constructively to advance our legislative agenda?
I think one can state that the status quo sucks, that our progressive legislators are falling far short of where we want them to be, and that this bluest of states can actually be a center of progressive policy innovation again if we try hard at the local level to make these changes.
I am excited at the prospect of catalyzing opposition to term limits, the growing opposition to the Olympic bid, broad frustration at our crumbling infrastructure, and rallying millenials around local action for police reform, affordable housing, and better paying jobs. All of these things can come together under one umbrella and really become a force if we play our cards right. To suggest that the Speaker played a better game of poker than we did this round, or that certain legislators may have had no choice but to put their chips in with him, is not to suggest that we fold or to give them a pass. It is simply to state that we have to build a better deck for ourselves.
jconway says
Robert.DeLeo@mahouse.gov
617.722.2500
jconway says
To be crystal clear about what I meant
Patrick says
So I’m curious what people’s thoughts are on improving the T?
My thoughts process is that while I”m sure you can optimize the business side of the T a bit for cost savings, most of it’s problems are political & revenue in nature.
How should the T get more revenue to actually rebuild its infrastructure & buy new equipment?
Higher fares?
Zone charging?
Congestion charge on the Metro core? (Downtown Boston & Memorial Drive area in Cambridge)?
SomervilleTom says
The MBTA should be funded from general revenue. It is a necessary and vital part of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
For those who whine about people who live in areas not served by the MBTA, I suggest that the highway funding formula be revised so that each city and town in the state receives the same per-capita funding highway funding, capped by the per-capita highway funding for the Boston metropolitan area. The resulting surplus in the highway fund can then be directed to the MBTA.
A good staring point is the plan proposed by Governor Patrick two years ago: raise the personal income tax rate, raise the personal exemption rate, and raise the capital gains tax rate.
howlandlewnatick says
Oh!, that sending more money to the MBTA would solve the problem… In my 60 years of memory of the MBTA, today’s headlines are just copies of yesteryear’s. Service is the same in times of good budgets and not-so-good. Every faithful commuter has their own stories of horror, and the loudspeaker that blares, “ARRRTGHJ! KIIJHFFFG XDZZTY GAZUGA!!” (Someone explained to me that this means, “Help!, I got the microphone caught down my throat!”)
A classic example of the medley of politics, corruption, tax dollars. More will be said than done regarding the problem and service will remain as it is.
If money is the problem, I can think of a way to get some…
SomervilleTom says
Service on the MBTA is MUCH MUCH worse than it was when I arrived in Boston in 1974. At that time, Governor Dukakis rode the Green Line to work pretty much every day, and even the C line (where I lived at the time) was far better than it is today. The Red Line had new cars, and although it ended at Harvard Square instead of Alewife), it’s service was MUCH more reliable.
Nearly thirty years later, in 1998-1999, I commuted on the Worcester “purple line” into South Station every day, where I connected to the Red Line to Kendall Square. While the Red Line trains were crowded at rush hour, the service was still FAR better than it is today.
You may remember the headlines — I remember the service.
Today, lack of money is, in fact, the immediate problem. Once the MBTA is funded in a sustainable way, a number of other issues will need to be addressed. Most of those have been documented for years — perhaps the government will finally see fit to actually READ and ADDRESS them.
HR's Kevin says
The bigger/nicer commuter trains are an improvement and the electronic signage and live train tracking is extremely useful.
Unfortunately, there is no nifty technological solution to bread-and-butter maintenance issues.
SomervilleTom says
I love the new commuter rail cars — when the trains they are in run.
As you observe, between worn-out locomotives (see my comment elsewhere about junkers), minimal or no maintenance, and similar consequences of under-funding, the commuter rail today with or without the nice new cars is dramatically worse than it was at the turn of the century.
petr says
.. we built this great big thing that carries over one million people per day.
We knew this system needed maintenance, TLC, upkeep and upgrades. It’s not like we were a third world country an..
*BOOM*
… the fourth busiest subway system (2008 numbers…) in the nation landed in our lap with no explanation and no instruction manual.
We’ve been doing this for over a hundred years. Why, now, of a sudden, is it suddenly an insurmountable problem? We’re committed. Un-committing is simply not an option.
SomervilleTom says
Too many people in government — from both sides of the aisle — have wanted to kill public transportation for decades.
Since, as you observe, “un-committing” is not an option, we have instead chosen to starve it to death by underfunding. It’s a classic strategy, part of the bread-and-butter of the right wing (including right-wing “Democrats”).
Eventually, no matter how dedicated (or not) the targeted entity and its staff are, the entity is no longer able to function. Then the hue and cry begins about how awful it is, and inevitably the calls to “stop throwing good money after bad” follow.
So perhaps un-committing may not be an “option”, but it most certainly is what we’re doing — sadly, it may already be too late.
The truth is that the MBTA is, if not dead, certainly comatose and twitching.
petr says
… which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Neglect is clear, but I do not think it either benign or malign, but feckless, indeed clueless, as others have alluded to herein and elsewhere.
I also do not think the underlying assumptions are different than those used to foment against the proposed 2024 Olympics: People don’t really think of Boston as a big city with big city infrastructure. Charley quoted a recent Onion piece that more or less said this outright. It is just this — and I have no other term for it — inferiority complex that drives our funding decisions. The Olympics push has revealed much about Boston’s ID.
In part, I blame Tom Menino, not for thinking less of the city as I don’t think that was his process at all, but for making his mayoralty all about nuts-n-bolts of daily city life and therefore eliding grander visions: 20 odd years of filling in potholes and tussling with locals maybe leaves the impression that that is exactly how big Boston is… and no bigger. I don’t think that Menino drove the inferiority complex as much as, perhaps, reflecting it… or simply neglecting to do anything to counter it.
Maybe there’s also something to the notion of multiple wealthy towns competing around Boston’s edges for resources: Cambridge, Somerville, Arlington, Brookline, Quincy, etc all think of themselves as distinct from, and apart from (if you take my distinctions), Boston proper. Maybe they are, strictly speaking, just that… but they may not interact in perhaps they way that they ought to make both themselves and the City of Boston even better. Larger cities are made up of boroughs and municipalities that don’t always have their own mayors to push back against the central municipality. I don’t think this can be said of much “Greater” Boston and it has contributed to the issue, I think. By way of example ask yourself: what’s the difference between Cambridge or Somerville to the north and Roxbury or Jamaica Plain or Dorchester to the south? Well, Cambridge and Somerville are ‘towns’. Roxbury, Jamaica Plain and Dorchester are ‘neighborhoods’. Power seems in-equitably distributed in this manner…
According to the electro-encyclo-wiki-ma-thingy, as of 2008, the MBTA was the fourth busiest metro transit system in the nation. This is demand and it spans the City of Boston proper, plus a great deal more area in scope. Supply is barely meeting that demand: Given the distinct lack of serious infrastructure spending (supply) in at least the last 15 years we can infer that a course of deliberate and dedicated funding might meet that demand and, even, perhaps see an increase in that demand.
Infrastructure, almost by definition, is something we take for granted: It forms the background of our efforts and, even as it helps us do other things, we don’t think about it until something happens to it preventing us from completing, or even nearing, those other things. It is then, mostly, we realize it should be tended. The suggestion that others have had, here and in the other thread about the T, that politicians should have their parking privileges revoked and be forced to ride the T is just an artificial method of yanking out infrastructure from beneath them. It might work temporarily, but I don’t really think so, mostly because it relies on a certain assumption of fecklessness on their part. In my experience, leveraging such thoughtlessness against the perpetrator isn’t of much efficacy.
I think it’s more useful to realize Boston is bigger and that Greater Boston — including all the surrounding cities — forms a whole that is far far larger than the sum of its parts: which parts we’ve long grown accustomed to treating apart and without feeling the need to integrate together. Maybe we should be deliberate in our efforts to change this…
SomervilleTom says
I fear you are much to easy on the GOP.
I remind you of “starve the beast” and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
This was no accidental, feckless, or clueless act. This was intentional. And it is working.
petr says
.. a GOP that is more potent and effective than has been seen to be the case…
Or, alternately, that you simply like having enemies.
I repeat, never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
merrimackguy says
I’m not 100% sure of the exact roots (maybe MA law) but 100-150 years ago when most cities were annexing all surrounding communities Boston did not or could not.
If Boston included Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Winthrop, Milton, maybe even Watertown it would be closer to a million people and have a critical mass that would make it a different place. It’s partly a backwater just based on it’s size.
stomv says
Please. Boston is 24th by population. The two cities immediately above: Denver and Washington. The two below: Nashville and Baltimore.
Sure, with help from the lege, the MAPC, and other regional authorities, Boston could be grander, and I hope that happens.
But Boston’s no backwater. Not by a long shot. (I’m writing this from the Columbia, SC airport. You do the math on that one.)
merrimackguy says
We are no longer a center of commerce or technology.
We’re not even running the show when it comes to politics (yes we do have one very vocal and visible Senator).
We have a lot of education and a lot of health care.
And really good sports teams.
Charley on the MTA says
Welp, time to fold up shop. Nothing happening here folks.
SomervilleTom says
Sadly, merrimackguy is more right than wrong. I don’t think that means we should “fold up shop”. If you’re a hot technologist graduating from MIT and you want to be in the middle of where the action is, you do NOT choose Boston.
In the 1970s, that was different. Even in the 1980s, Rt 3 between 128 and 495, Middlesex turnpike alongside, and 127/495 around to the Mass Pike was chock full of aggressive startups — Apollo, Sun, MassComp, Prime, DG, and a host of others.
Those days are over.
chris-rich says
And it’s an outpost for Google. Our tech focus at this point is biotech and and various kinds of high value manufacturing mainly subsidized by the Department of Defense.
SomervilleTom says
There are an astonishing number of meetup groups, happily subsidized by our local outposts of Microsoft, Google, and even Amazon (and yes, they ARE outposts), populated by eager young hipster programmers who are convinced that they will become rich and powerful with their $2.00-a-whack app that helps them find the freshest donuts or something equally useful.
Our local venture community has driven innovative software startups to Silicone Valley. Our financial, insurance, and publishing companies have fled, leaving behind sales offices. Biotech is great so long as you have a PhD (those with a Nobel Prize have a slight advantage).
The Boston area is no longer a magnet for the brightest and best technologists of the world.
chris-rich says
The region has been propped up by defense spending forever and it is often a factor in national elections. Procurement rules demand US manufacture so you have our innovation focused on Patriot missiles and robots.
That’s one of the stranger aspects of this odd liberal bastion, the extent to which we are a corporate welfare economy with the DoD writing the checks.
petr says
If you drew a line from Boston to Manchester NH, a distance of about 50 miles, and used that as a radius of a circle, the center of which is Boston, you would encompass some 8 million people (including those in Merrimack NH). This represents a pool of people who have the option of traveling to Boston within an hour (minus those, actually in the city…).
That’s some impressive backwater… since about at least a third of that circle would, in fact, be water.
If you played that same game with Denver at the center of circle with radius of 50miles you’d get a number that represents the increase in the population of the city that is probably less than 1% (if you include Aurora and Lakewood as part of Denver).
If you played that same game with either Washington DC or Baltimore you would include Baltimore in the reckoning of DC or DC in the reckoning of Baltimore… And even if you did that, you have to add Arlington Va and other surrounding towns to the mix to approach 8 million persons.
Boston is clearly, comprehensively, in greater need of a robust transit system, including heavy rail, than most cities you can name. That’s why we have a pretty extensive one already. It needs to be more, but because it needs to be more doesn’t mean it’s chopped liver at the present…
Trickle up says
Not at rush hour they don’t.
petr says
… the number of other people exercising that same option over the capacity of the infrastructure to handle them…
… thought it might go without saying…
HR's Kevin says
But it started from a very small base. It annexed South Boston, East Boston, Roxbury, Brighton (including Allston), West Roxbury (which included JP and Roslindale), Charlstown, and Hyde Park. It almost annexed Brookline, Cambridge and Chelsea.
Christopher says
…is why the town is an enclave of Norfolk County. West Roxbury used to connect Brookline to the rest of Norfolk, but when it joined Boston it also joined Suffolk County.
HR's Kevin says
I guess it doesn’t really matter all that much given the minimal county government we have in this state, but it sure is strange to have a county that is not physically contiguous. I think it can be really annoying for residents of Brookline when they end up having to do jury duty in Dedham.
Christopher says
Cohasset is part of Norfolk, but attached only to Plymouth because Hingham and Hull opted to leave Norfolk for Plymouth in 1803.
Peter Porcupine says
Ch 90 funding has this formula – in this order –
Miles of Road (public only)
Population
# of jobs (because people from out of town will drive to and from work)
Per capita is just code for – all the money to Boston and screw everybody else
jconway says
What Chicagoans call those who live in the rest of Illinois. There’d be no Massachusetts without Boston. People work and live in cities. I respect the fact that the city is getting unaffordable and people have to live elsewhere, all the more reason to pay and fund better public transportation that can turn places like New Bedford and Springfield and Worcester into streetcar suburbs like exurban Portland, OR got transformed into thanks to light rail.
This is how we benefit everyone. You want no state taxes, shitty roads, shittier schools, and super high property taxes go to the failed libertarian state of New Hampshire. Otherwise, if you live and work in Massachusetts then you depend on Boston, it’s inner ring suburbs, and all it has to offer as the engine of your economy. No matter how local. You didn’t build it. What happened to Burkean conservatism where we act as if we live in a community?
roarkarchitect says
The MBTA has an organizational problem. I just checked the numbers – their income is up 40% since 2007. Don’t forget that the MBTA gets 16% of the states general sales tax revenue – and a fair assessment from local Boston communities.
I can’t remember a purchase of rail equipment that has went well. My first experience with the MBTA was with the green line cars purchased from Boeing. That failed – and now the new engines for the commuter rail?
Trickle up says
That’s my political beef, I guess.
In many ways the broken T reenforces the status quo in which we do not have to try, and pay for, difficult things.
Thus the parade of sage tough solgans that change nothe, eg Reform before Revenue, Its A Spending Problem etc.
These turn into smug excuses to do nothing.
SomervilleTom says
See my junker analogy elsewhere. Once you defer maintenance long enough, then it costs you a fortune and never works. You’re an architect. What happens to the maintenance costs of a building when the owner refuses to repair a leaking roof or repoint failing walls?
The MBTA had its esophagus sewn shut when it was saddled with big-dig debt and made dependent on sales-tax revenues. The best organization in the world (and an seriously underfunded agency will never have that) cannot solve problems like this with no money to spend.
SomervilleTom says
Per capita because the taxpayers of the Boston metropolitan area have already been funding highways and roads that they don’t use for decades.
Your argument seems to be “I don’t use it, why should I have to pay for it?”. I’m asking if you make the same argument when somebody else is paying taxes to support the things you need.
SomervilleTom says
Funny how folks such as, apparently “discernente”, don’t like it when their favorite talk-show bumper-sticker slogans get turned against them.
Apparently it’s perfectly ok for the taxpayers of the Boston metropolitan area (many of them desperately poor working men and women) to fund highways that they’ll never use. It’s completely unacceptable and unfair, however, for the residents of those same towns to contribute to the MBTA.
I’m reminded of the GOP talking-heads and politicians from all those red states — states who are net recipients of federal funds — complain so loudly about “federal debt” and “big-spending liberals” in the blue states who are pretty much all net providers of federal funds.
Simple greed is very good at motivating effective-sounding (and utterly false) rationalizations for perpetuating itself.
discernente says
1) I don’t listen to talk radio.
2) I don’t have have nor subscribe to bumper sticker slogans.
3) You have no business making up strawman rationalizations for my down votes. You’re more than welcome to ask politely (not that I would respond at this point).
SomervilleTom says
Nature abhors a vacuum. When you offer drive-by downrates like this, you invite the contributor to guess at your intent — and I did so.
Please feel free to contribute your own bold, witty, incisive, and substantive commentary. I’m happy to discuss your disagreement with my comments.
discernente says
Of course you’re welcome the guess all the intent you want…but fashioning public strawman attacks on my character isn’t “invited”.
SomervilleTom says
I haven’t seen any “argument” from you.
TheBestDefense says
in saying that your comments cause ST to be reminded of anything. Don’t throw around legal threats where you clearly have no clue what constitutes libel.
HR's Kevin says
If you want to explain your down votes, go ahead.
Otherwise don’t whine if other people do it for you.
scott12mass says
I must admit living in Charlton I know little about riding the T. Twice maybe in 10 years. The last time I bribed a T worker who was hanging around to help “out-of-towners” use the people-less kiosks. There are 0 mass transit options in my town, I live on a dirt road myself, so I’m not looking to raise my tax rates to help eastern mass fix the T. Maybe when we see signs of more honest efficient government I’d be more apt to be sympathetic, but for now explore some outside the box thinking. Maybe the state can buy some 4 wheel drive vans and have non union unemployed people drive the bus routes.
chris-rich says
It is hilariously crappy but cheap and takes a Charlie card.
jconway says
I will never be addicted to opiates, but I support my tax dollars going to help people out in your neck of the woods with the epidemic in the Western half of the state. Even Charlton has a few cases and a center-should I stop paying for that since I have never used one, and I haven’t had a family member need treatment?
scott12mass says
I think it’s actually in Southbridge, and I would ask how many visits to re-hab would you support for people. Worcester telegram did a story about a guy who was on his 20th visit to a halfway house. At what point do you say the problem is inherent and their personal choices should define their lives?
SomervilleTom says
Do you have any clue about the state budget? About the amount spent on highway maintenance? About the amount spent on public transportation?
So some guy allegedly visits a halfway house 20 times — so what?
At what point do we seriously look at how we are investing our transportation dollars and who pays for what?
scott12mass says
I understand more than you think, but I know the interests of citizens in central mass have always been ignored when it comes to the people of Boston. Witness the people who were kicked off their farms and had their homes and churches flooded so Boston could have Quabbin reservoir created to supply their drinking water. Central Mass cities weren’t even allowed to tap into the system. Think of that when you have a glass of water, and you’ll understand the resentment only a generation old. My 92 year old father in law knew people from Dana. jconway brought up opiates, not me.
jconway says
And part of the reason Western MA continues to be ignored is because it is disconnected from the metro areas in the Eastern part of the state. Springfield is one of the most impovershed cities in our state and has no direct public transit connection to Boston. I had to take a Peter Pan out there when I wanted to visit a friend in S. Hadley, and take it back. Another friend has an upward of 2-3 hour commute to Becker College from his home in W. Roxbury. Connecting these cities to one another and to areas where they are more jobs is essential to ensuring their revitalization.
A lot of the Baltimore gentrification has been driven by folks who live in Baltimore and work in DC, and the MARC is a a fine interurban rail system that is fairly reliable. If we can get more commuter rail connections to those cities, and also light rail emanating from those cities to their suburbs, we can start connecting a lot of these towns and revitalizing them. Sustainable agriculture is just one hot industry that Western New England can do well in. Equitable public transit investment is the goal, there should be no reason Western MA or the Cape can’t benefit as well as Boston,
kbusch says
If Boston didn’t exist, a lot of the rest of the economic activity in the state wouldn’t either. If the Boston area loses economic vitality because we’ve stupidly watched our infrastructure crumble, it’s not going to be good for Charlton either.
This is a global competition thing.
chris-rich says
I basically love exploring the whole commonwealth and have been for years. I’d probably rather go on a road trip to the Hoosic Tunnel than do a weekend in Paris.
And years of exploration have given me an interesting sense of the places that aren’t on greater Boston’s radar screen. There were many semi autonomous manufacturing towns like Clinton or Millers Falls where quality tools were made. Gardner was a furniture center. Athol had Sterritt, a maker of machinist calipers.
A lot of this is gone. There was more farming and that may be an economic focus again. Boston resentment is older than the Quabbin in areas that still celebrate Daniel Shays.
The main remedy from the State Government has been the siting of facilities like U Mass as a kind of stop gap regional employer but more fundamental remedies are elusive.
SomervilleTom says
I note that the Hoosac tunnel is a railroad tunnel with a long and fascinating history. The tunnel, an engineering marvel of its day (like our Big Dig) took more than 20 years to build, with construction starting in 1851 and the first train passing through in 1875.
In addition to the extensive network of railroads that served Massachusetts and western Massachusetts, by the first half of the twentieth century the same region was also served by a rich variety of interurban railroads:
.
Our embrace of the automobile in the 1950s, culminating in the construction of interstate highway system, played a huge role in destroying the communities, towns, and cities of western Massachusetts. Premised on unsustainably cheap gasoline, once thriving towns and villages became bedroom communities for far-away cities. “Main street” became a ghost town as residents were somewhere else during the day and asleep in their homes at night. The new interstates became the focus of residential and commercial development, and only a handful of formerly prosperous villages, towns, and cities survived the transition.
Focusing on the Quabbin reservoir, while ignoring the pervasive impact of the automobile on the region, is cherry-picking at its finest.
We know, now, that we cannot sustain today’s economy with an automobile-centric regional transportation infrastructure. Climate change is just one of a huge number of factors that make it vital that we reshape our entire state so that people can live and work without each and every household needing one or more automobiles for each person.
I like the idea of insisting that public transportation investments include building out regional rail systems (using, for example, light rail and DMU cars and trains). We should be talking about how to balance the expansion of public rail service for the Boston metropolitan area with public rail service in our gateway cities.
We should NOT be talking about investing yet more in unsustainable highways while strangling the MBTA.
chris-rich says
They still exist as ghost infrastructure carrying power lines. There’s a great segment of one that went from Haverhill to Newburyport passing through the Martin Burns Wildlife Management Area. I found a few old relics of trolley gear pieces there and saw my first otter.
It is also has a great outdoor array of beaver ponds in in various states of succession from brand new to “reverting to wet meadow”.
Al says
is it responsible to have a celebratory parade for the SuperBowl Champion Patriots in downtown Boston? Fans can’t drive there, they can’t take the “T” there, and it’s dangerously cold. Also, is the city misallocating valuable cleanup resources away from neighborhoods in order to get the parade route clear for Wednesday? As much as I would like to see the parade (on TV for me), we shouldn’t have it. I know players will be scattering in a couple of days, but this is reality, not fandom that we have to deal with. With the conditions we are facing now, it’s just not feasible. Maybe, instead of this parade, a ring presentation event could be held in the city at a better time, instead of at an early season home game. Just a thought.
jconway says
See a lot of well intentioned people saying voters who voted against Q1 have no right to complain. I would argue those voters primarily voted against the buck passing ball-less legislature that had no wherewithall to do it’s damn job and actually pass a responsible transit budget. Blaming the voters is exactly what the legislature would want so we don’t blame them.
I still disagree with the Q1 vote, but remember we could’ve avoided it entirely and gotten a sales tax cut had they done their job and passed Deval’s budget.
Trickle up says
ottodelupe says
Good thing we’re bidding for the Summer Olympics.
dca-bos says
will break because it’s too hot.
johntmay says
Just flew past my office window on Route One in Foxboro, no doubt taking the team to Boston. No long commute with delays do to unmaintained equipment and out of date systems where it counts!
At least we know where our priorities are, as a state and as a people.
Go Pats! The rest of us can freeze at bus kiosks hoping to get to work on time.
rose-by-another-name says
is how you convince the reps and senators from anywhere but near Boston to vote for the T. They very much feel that Boston eats all the state’s money to begin with, so why are they going to give it more so nothing goes to their districts? ALL the Boston or near Boston folks agree with funding the T more, it is the non-Boston folks who are stopping it. What do we tell them they should tell their constituents?
SomervilleTom says
A first step is to stop the plundering of Boston metropolitan area taxpayers in order to subsidize unsustainable development and highway spending outside the areas served by the MBTA. If there is a beast to be starved, it is the out-of-control spending on roads and highways that Boston metropolitan area taxpayers will never use.
A second step is to expand the area served (REALLY served) by commuter rail. Use the money saved by reducing highway spending to invest in commuter rail around Springfield and Worcester, in joining all parts of the state with real commuter rail service, and expanding feeder bus routes around those new commuter rail extensions.
The assertion that “nothing goes to their districts” is simply false. The net flow of government funding is INTO, not out of, those districts — and that funding is provided by Boston metropolitan area taxpayers.
rose-by-another-name says
I wasn’t asserting that no money goes into their districts. I was simply saying that their perception is that no money goes into their districts (a perception shared by their constituents, btw).
SomervilleTom says
I think we’re in enthusiastic agreement.
I agree with your characterization of the perception, and that perception is dreadfully incorrect. In my view, we need to change that perception.
chris-rich says
It isn’t Boston’s fault that manufacturing declined and left all those once prosperous little places high and dry.
Nor have they been beneficiaries of real estate appreciation. The big party that made many wealthier here, never happened there.
They have been failed by their own politicians. No one seems to have much of a sense of what, exactly, we are supposed to do with it all.
I often think we have advantages of water reliability for value added farming and you might see regional food making become a worthy economic activity. This is happening on its own to some extent.
But the problems are structural and these places are in for a long haul of decline with Metro Boston stuck keeping them solvent.
petr says
Presumably, the elected officials from Fitchburg, Framingham, Worcester, Franklin, Greenbush (Scituate), Haverhill, Kingston, Plymouth, Lowell, Middleborough, Lakeville, Needham, Newburyport, Rockport, Providence and Stoughton — and bordering towns therein– are all aware of the sometimes huge parking lots and/or garages surrounding the terminus of the respective commuter rail lines? (The list above cut and pasted directly from the MBTA.com) Would you consider either Haverhill or Providence, RI, to be “near Boston”?
I take the train from Leominster. We just built a spanking new, three story, parking garage immediately adjacent to the T stop. It holds several hundred cars and is often near capacity. People drive to Leominster (because the Fitchburg garage, even larger, is often full) from Gardner and Ashburnham and other places even farther out…
Surely, also, the representative from Hingham and Hull — and bordering towns– are aware of the commuter ferry boats plying back and forth between those cities and the Aquarium in Boston?
Who are these elected officials not aware that the MBTA commuter rail is the sixth busiest commuter rail in the US? Ahead of us on that list: New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Chicago and Philadelphia. Do they, perhaps, think that none of their constituents take the T to work? Ever?
chris-rich says
There are 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth.
petr says
… as noted, 8 million people within a 50 mile radius of Boston. That 50 mile radius is served by the MBTA Commuter rail, including to Providence Rhode Island– and likely includes the majority population of the state (plus populations of other states).
To return the favor of the geography lesson, let me remind you that our bi-cameral legislature — regardless of the total number of cities and town in the CommonWealth — is based upon population.
TheBestDefense says
and your note about a population based distribution of seats in the legislature, but I am unclear about your estimate of the Boston +50mile population. It would include area out to Worcester, southwest to Providence, southeast to Plymouth, a little north of Nashua, but excludes my area of the South Coast (including New Bedford, Fall River and surrounding communities), all of Cape Cod, and all of western Massachusetts.
You may have explained it previously but how did you estimate 8 million?
Christopher says
…but if the highest concentration of people is in T-served areas, so to is the largest bloc of legislators.
TheBestDefense says
I think but I have not seen a tally of the populations that are immediately served by the T. We also need to acknowledge that there are people who live just outside of T-served communities but who drive a few miles into the service area to board the T. The T itself probably knows generally how many people might be so served.
chris-rich says
The Old Colony Line restoration enhanced the property values in suburban communities where platforms are located. It hasn’t been as useful for Brockton, but still.
Adjoining towns probably haven’t benefited in that particular aspect. The Green Line extension will probably enhance home values along its route.
But even within this variously described metro area, there are significant gaps in coverage. The area Between the western edge of Ipswich and North Andover is pretty worthless for public transportation.
Sudbury and Wayland are out of the service loop other than the crappy and sketchy Metro West mini bus system.
Forget Medfield. Easton is in the crosshairs of that South Coast project you despise, (I agree as I’d rather leave the Hockomock alone), but that will probably collapse of its weight.
So even within the artificiality of radius assignations, there are plenty of spots with legislature locations that haven’t much reason to love the T.
SomervilleTom says
The dead zone that you describe on the North Shore is a good example.
The right of way is there or could be re-established. The dead zone exists because we collectively (especially those who live there) choose to encourage that area to rely on automobiles instead. We therefore subsidize that dead zone.
Some bridges fail on I-93 and we immediately institute a high-profile emergency repair program at great expense and with much publicity. If we invested in commuter rail in the region, everybody would benefit.
chris-rich says
And a nice one at that.
Although a rail trail is a contingent use. The rail line through there originates in Wakefield and is a fairly complicated thing that once carried freight.
Really, if they just extended some existing T bus routes a bit further into Middleton and some MVTA routes further into North Andover, it would work.
Jasiu says
Just because an area is served by the T doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll get a ton of support for it out of that population. My town is on two commuter bus lines but is nearly as car-centric as the suburb of Detroit in which I grew up. So even though it is served by the MBTA, I’m sure you’d find plenty of folk who view T spending in the same way as someone in central or western MA.
chris-rich says
When you have a culture that makes a fuss about the individual in preference to the community this is what you get.
It is healthy to strike a balance between self and other but that ain’t the deal here, especially when most culture signals make a fetish of egocentricity because it is easier to con all those egos into buying useless stuff.
“Drink from the bottle when I’m home alone,
Spank the kids with a fork,
Run the appliances on high speed all day,
Switch stations every five seconds..”
“Oh Mr Friction” from Was Not Was.
petr says
It is the estimate of the OMB. The combined statistical area is defined by commuting patterns. The 50 mile radius was derived (by me) using Google Earth measuring the distance from Boston to Nashua NH and then using that radius to make a circle and, by observation, test whether the cities listed fit in that radius. To a first approximation, they do: it includes most of Fall River and most of New Bedford (by Google Earth, the approximate center of New Bedford is approximately 50.9 miles from Logan Airport) but does exclude most of the cape… but the radius is straight area whereas the CSA is commuting patterns so I’m assuming that which is strictly outside of the radius is mostly still a component of the CSA.
To the west, Barre is just about 50 miles from Boston so, yes, anything west of the Quabbin is not included in this area. I hear tell it’s mostly Yankees fans, so…
TheBestDefense says
SMA is $8 million but we were talking about a fifty mile radius. Hence my question. Sorry.
TheBestDefense says
Your original post said 8 million people within a fifty mile radius of Boston. I politely questioned how you obtained that number, as it is clearly wrong. You then chose to come up with a different justification for the 8 million person estimate using the MSA number. In other words you did what you so often do, which is change what you claimed in order to “win” an argument.
You could have simply answered the question but honesty seems outside your grasp.
Here is a fifty mile radius map for Boston and is substantially different from what you initially claimed.
http://www.distances-calculator.com/towns-within-a-radius-of.php?t=Boston&c=MA
petr says
… as that is a map with a diameter of 50 miles. Derp
The determination of the radius is left as an excercise to the reader.
Christopher says
50 mile radius appears to be roughly New Bedford on the South, Sturbridge to the west, and Manchester NH in the north. I still didn’t realize there were 8 million people within that circle. TBD still has to learn how to not turn a correction into an ad hominem attack. (lying, honesty outside your grasp, cover up, I caught you…, etc.)
petr says
After the radius is reset on the web page to which Euclid there pointed, the resulting circle overlays the maps exactly as I said. I used google earth, he used a web page that uses maps.google.com, which is API to a google earth server. So, in effect, he used very nearly the same tools I used, to do exactly the same thing as I did, with precisely the same results. Where is the correction?
There is no ‘correction’ here. I made a statement and Euclid used some faulty reasoning and sloppy legwork to say that something which agrees with my statements actually contradicts them… You can lie with statistics, but it’s not possible to lie with geometry.
BMG seems, more and more, to be straying from the path of the reality based.
TheBestDefense says
inside the 50 mile radius. You just changed the topic by using MSA instead of acknowledging your original point was mistaken. There are not 8 million people inside the 50 mile radius as you claimed. Prove it, as you often tell others.
petr says
…and in keeping with your metier, it is a sloppy one.
MSA is Metropolitian Statistical Area and it is a metric I never once referenced or used, because it is not defined by commuting patterns. The MSA for the Greater Boston area is 4 million people. I did not use MSA.
The metric I did use was CSA, or Combined Statistical Area, and I used it exactly and precisely because it is defined by commuting patterns, which is a subject most germane to this particular diary. That number is just over 8 million. You perhaps either confused MSA for CSA or simply assumed my direct link to the CSA was, somehow, a link to MSA (which is on a different spot on the page to which I linked…)
So, to re-iterate:
The OMB defines the Combined Statistical Area by commuting patterns and which includes a bunch of counties.
The number they derive for the population of the CSA is 8 million.
I looked at a map of those counties and said to myself, “hm, those cities looks like they might be fairly neatly encapsulated in a circle with radius X miles, with center in Boston”. Not content to simply shoot my mouth off, I went and tested this theory, as I do with all the theories i have. And, lo, it was so found, to a first approximation, to be so… with a value of 50 miles for X.
So — stick with me here — If the CSA contains 8 million people and the CSA, to a first approximation, is contained inside a radius of 50 miles, then the radius of 50 miles contains 8 million people.
Have I, or have I not, proved it?
TheBestDefense says
On Fenruary 4 at 1:13pm you wrote:
If you drew a line from Boston to Manchester NH, a distance of about 50 miles, and used that as a radius of a circle, the center of which is Boston, you would encompass some 8 million people (including those in Merrimack NH). This represents a pool of people who have the option of traveling to Boston within an hour (minus those, actually in the city…).
Now you are confabulating your original comments with the CSA population of 8 million people which stretches well past the fifty mile mark into Cape Cod, well past it in New Hampshire and deeply into CT. The CSA is NOT contained within 50 miles of Boston. You made a claim in your original post that seemed extreme, I politely asked for an explanation and instead of explaining, you use a different justification for the 8 million population figure.
Your post was demonstrably incorrect so you are back-pedaling with new definitions and numbers.
petr says
You wrote this, describing what you thought I was talking about:
And now you write this, also describing what you though I was talking about:
Clearly, unambiguously and without doubt, demonstrating your continually shifting, scandalously sloppy understanding of the entirety of what I was discussing. Either that, or you’re swapping your keyboard between alternating personalities not on speaking terms with each other…
TheBestDefense says
Copy and paste is sometimes the easiest way of revealing the truth. Are you denying that on February 4 at 1:13pm you wrote:
If you drew a line from Boston to Manchester NH, a distance of about 50 miles, and used that as a radius of a circle, the center of which is Boston, you would encompass some 8 million people (including those in Merrimack NH). This represents a pool of people who have the option of traveling to Boston within an hour (minus those, actually in the city…).
SomervilleTom says
Sometimes it’s best to just walk away from an exchange.
I’m just saying.
kirth says
The population of the entire state is less than 7 million. The T does not serve southern NH, at all.
scout says
Per the 2010 census, according to this useful site. And not even close to all that area is served by the Commuter Rail. In fact, many areas just 5 or 10 miles from Boston are not served by rail of any kind.
Petr, it is completely, unequivocally, and fully clear that you are wrong. If there is possessed the tiniest inkling, iota, or speck of honesty, honor, or self-respect in your arguments you will admit it and move on to the next one.
petr says
When asked upon a point of contention; I said what I did; I said how I did it; I said what tools I used. I did this specifically to allow anyone who would dispute me to replicate my actions, thereby testing them.
There is no mystery here. You can go download google earth, visit the wikipedia page I referenced, tally the numbers and easily replicate everything I did. It will take you mere moments. Instead of doing this many have chosen to repeatedly insult and call me dishonest and lacking self-respect among a fling of other imprecations, in an ever shifting array of accusations and confusion.
I gave the tools to dispute me, if it was possible to dispute me, and none have used them. If any had used them, they would see that there would not be any dispute.
Here are my final words on the subject:
Within a 50 mile radius of Boston Massachusetts resides some 8 million people. This includes people living in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire. I have never said anything other than this. This population represents the total number of people who can reasonably expect to commute, be it by auto, mbta commuter rail and/or subway from one part of that area to any other part, but most particularly to the City of Boston.
This radius also contains therein, by a large margin, the majority of the 6.6 million residents of the CommonWealth of Massachusetts and therefore this area contains, by a large margin, the majority of constituents of the elected officials of the CommonWealth.
I will not post any more on this topic.
scout says
Guess you didn’t bother with the links. Here’s the county breakdowns:
County Cd Total Pop
Windham CT 4,570
Barnstable MA 17,524
Bristol MA 475,025
Essex MA 743,159
Middlesex MA 1,503,085
Norfolk MA 670,850
Plymouth MA 494,919
Suffolk MA 722,023
Worcester MA 696,984
Hillsborough NH 327,138
Merrimack NH 3,637
Rockingham NH 254,619
Bristol RI 49,875
Kent RI 68,290
Newport RI 6,383
Providence RI 622,061
radius 6,660,142
6,660,142
paulsimmons says
… if we consider that “commuting” does not equate to MBTA (including commuter rail) service coverage; and does not equate to MBTA usage. Nor do the bulk of commuters go to Boston – a plurality probably do, but not a majority.
We also have to consider that even within the MBTA coverage area there are sizable populations for whom mass transit is not a priority. Concord comes to mind…
chris-rich says
If, for example, you live in Dedham and work in Natick, it is pretty useless.
It is designed to convey people from a rim to a hub but the substantial changes to settlement patterns and work locations since the 70s, really, have a lot of commuting that depends on cars and you are pretty well hosed if your car breaks down.
scott12mass says
But it is the mindset of Bostonians “All roads lead to Rome” (and they don’t need to go anywhere else for anything). Ours is the only existence worth considering.
chris-rich says
When I was young, Reading and Andover had lots of fields and remnant farm tracts.
But the advent of super highways and expansion of trucking to convenient highway focused locations has created a very complex and robust set of working and living patterns that have very little to do with Boston.
The burbs are often averse to dealing with Boston save as a lark or adventure. The T has done very little to figure out how to get someone from Wakefield to Burlington or why that might matter.
Christopher says
Looking at a road atlas of eastern MA the spokes of a wheel image is hard to miss: 1A, 1, 95, 28, 93, 38, 3, 2A, 2, 20, 90, 9, 1A, 1, 95, 28, 93, 24, 3 (sequence approximate). At least we have 128 and 495. In fact up here 495 doesn’t feel so much like a Boston bypass as it does the Merrimack Valley Expressway.
chris-rich says
That date back to the mid 17th century. A few even predate euromutts.
However, in the 20th century these paved superhighway things showed up and their impact was far more disruptive for Boston than anyone envisioned.
And this vision problem persists in the current failure to design for reality.