… then Eileen McNamara would ride. Gosh, I wish, I wish I could share her optimism that public transit will seem more attractive in light of recent events:
Skyrocketing gas prices and the collapse of ceiling panels in the Interstate 90 connector could give fresh political impetus to a plan floated last spring by mass transit advocates to invest $2 billion in transportation construction and expansion projects.
etc.
Sorry, I’m with sco and Chris on this: This is very very bad news for fans of public transit, of which I’m one. I love subways. (My online handle might have given that away.) Before I lived here, I remember visiting my brother in Somerville in the early 90s, and thinking the Red Line was just awesome: Clean, efficient, cheap, convenient, with friendly robot voices, like HAL without the self-righteous streak … very cool.
But I’ve been worried about the Big Dig’s chilling effect on transit for quite a while: I mentioned it to Deval Patrick when I met him in Cambridge over a year ago; We mentioned it to Pat Jehlen last year. The public has harbored a justified, simmering cynicism about the Big Dig, which could well boil over into discussions of other large public works projects. Our government has shown itself to be utterly inept and frankly dishonest at running such programs. How can we have any confidence that the Green Line extension (for example) will be carried out efficiently, safely, on time and under budget? A New Bedford line? A North Station/South Station connector? How can anyone credibly tell us these won’t be boondoggles?
Chris may be right about the generally downcast mood of Boston, and I can tell you that people everywhere are sick and tired of non-responsive government — especially those of us who depend on and support public services like transit. “Can’t we do anything right?” seems to be the thought.
Deval Patrick got it right this morning: It is a cultural problem on Beacon Hill. The hacks and contractors have always been first at the trough: First they get theirs, then hopefully there’s something of use left over for the public. That’s just got to change, radically, before we start making huge new investments in infrastructure, however necessary. I support public transit on environmental, economic, and social-justice grounds; but we need to clean house first.
You’re right.
<
p>
Can you define exactly what it means to clean house?
<
p>
I don’t know much about construction. For example, I know we have police details for construction projects, that other states do very little of this, and that studies seem to show no evidence that this practices makes us safer than regular civilian flag guys, it just transfers $40 to $60 million per year from taxpayers and consumers to police.
<
p>
Are you suggesting that several steps like this would change public perception of Beacon Hill? Or what steps exactly adds up to a “clean house”? And which of those steps are remotely politically plausible?
Yeah, that’s a start. It’s ridiculous we don’t have flagmen.
<
p>
Deval’s special prosecutor is a fine idea, as are the rest he enumerated in his op-ed. Getting rid of the pike authority altogether is another, since its supposed independence hasn’t gotten us a better product or saved money.
<
p>
Unfortunately the problem is pretty deep. Clean Elections would definitely help … that sounds pie-in-the-sky right now, even though it was passed by the public. But it seems pretty obvious that contractors buy favor with elected officials — hell, they’re still trying to do so with Reilly. That’s the real problem: the inherent conflict of interest in taking campaign cash and looking out for the broad public good.
While I agree that for many projects flagmen would be adequate and cheaper than police detail, are there unintended consequences?
<
p>
I don’t know exactly how details are assigned, but I’d bet that it’s based somewhat on seniority, and that as long as there’s some cop looking for overtime the person initially assigned can pass. End result? Policemen are more likely to be happy with their paycheck, because those who want more money can earn it, whereas those who want more time with family can have it.
<
p>
Why do I bring this up? Collective bargaining. Is it possible that the detail regulations help keep police salaries lower across the board than they would be otherwise?
<
p>
Furthermore, particularly in the city, it seems police officers can be more effective in dealing with the madness of traffic. Out in suburbia, perhaps a flagman is all that’s necessary to get cars around a cherrypicker trimming trees. But, in Boston, where traffic patterns are more confusing and drivers far less patient, perhaps police detail are a safer, calmer, and saner way to handle things. I’m sure a case-by-case basis could make the determination correctly most of the time.
<
p>
Still, while $40-$60 million can do lots of good things, it’s chump change in the big picture. Surely there are far greater savings to be found elsewhere, no?
Hey, $40 million here, $60 million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money!
<
p>
Anyway, isn’t that the sort of thinking that brought us the Big Dig in the first place? What’s the difference if I skim a couple million off the top? It’s Federal money and there’s a ton of it!
There’s a big difference between inefficient spending (police details) and stealing money from a project.
<
p>
Now, when the detail guy never shows but gets paid anyway, or when he’s napping (see below), then we’re talking apples and apples.
..through collective bargaining or details.
<
p>
I was doing a bit of research for something else, and I came across an interesting story from the June 11, 1999 edition of the Herald (sorry, its off a Lexis search so no link) that perfectly describes the lunacy of the MA system of police details. The story describes a $29/hour who was caught napping by former Pike Chairman Kerasiotes. Here’s the most interesting part though:
<
p>
<
p>
Also, this little gem:
<
p>
<
p>
My point is that there is quite a bit of abuse of the detail system. This cop was almost doubling his salary by working details — by my calculations more than 1,500 hours worth. Here was the City’s response:
<
p>
<
p>
If the guy is too tired to stay awake during a detail, what about his condition when he’s doing real police work?
<
p>
Finally, I’m not sure where you’ve seen detail cops actually directing traffic, but most of the ones I see are sitting in a cruiser. $29/hour for an officer to sit in a car? Aren’t there more important things for police to be doing? Like catching criminals and patrolling neighborhoods? I have nothing against paying the police a fair wage and overtime, but why not pay them to protect us?
about the behavior of details.
<
p>
The question is: is the idea of details a bad one, or is the implementation bad? It seems to me like maybe some of the former, but lots of the latter.
<
p>
If a situation calls for a detail (and I believe that some certainly don’t, but some certainly do), then the detail should be doing a better job. In addition to not being asleep, it means patroling the area on foot and/or car as the situation warrants, ensuring that traffic is moving appropriately, and making sure that construction trucks are able to safely move in and out of the jobsite.
<
p>
The other part of all of the above is the following: if the detail policeman is visible and active, it’s allowing the construction industry (and, by proxy, all companies building or modifying buildings or roads) to subsidize police presence. A would-be criminal doesn’t take note if a cop is on a detail or a patrol; when he sees an officer in uniform he doesn’t commit a crime nearby.
that the contracts given to the police unions in Massachusetts are significantly lower than in other states that use flagmen? And that union relations are friendlier than in those other states?
and I don’t know the answer. Its a tough comparison due to cost of living, union presence, etc. I’d try to compare with some combination of Providence/RI, NYC/NY, and Philly/PA.
Gee, echoes of my (mother’s) aphorism, “If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.” That’s okay — very clever adaptation, and I’m glad it lives on, dressed in modern clothes…
<
p>
More to the point, let me add a couple of observations that I haven’t seen elsewhere, though maybe others have noted these:
<
p>
1) In Eileen McNamara’s column, she makes the statement
<
p>
Now, I don’t know how often you’re heard Deval’s stump speech, but I think more often than not, he highlights his call for this very thing.
<
p>
2) It’s an open question as to whether the CA/Tasrophe will help or hurt the AG’s chances. Arguments can be made either way, but I would think this account of his settlement talks would not be a positive for him. Thoughts?
<
p>
On another, though related topic, which I may want to rant about later at greater length, we citizens of the leftmost part of the state (geographically speaking, that is) have suffered from the Big Dig for years and years. Our bridges and roads are falling apart. One example from my little town: on the main road leading into town from the south, a bridge crossing the Alford Brook was found to be unsafe in a routine bridge inspection earlier this year. The solution? They lowered the weight limit and put up a sign saying “warning, one lane bridge” and put a railing that is designed to keep vehicles from getting too close to the collapsing edge of the bridge. Repairs to this bridge are not even on the Mass Highway list of projects. Outrageous, but all too typical!
Sorry MFW, but that one’s been around a lot longer than you or your Mom! We opera types know it from the end of Tom Rakewell’s first aria in Stravinsky’s great opera The Rake’s Progress, in which he sings, “Come wishes, be horses/This beggar shall ride!” W.H. Auden and Chester Kallman wrote the libretto.
nt