With the recent performance of the MBTA during these record snowfalls, coupled with the recently announced departure of the MBTA General Manager Beverly Scott, I took it upon myself to dig more into some of the numbers that got us here to see what sort of options there were for us to get out, while spending some time looking at other transit systems around the world to see how Boston stacks up.
The D’Alessandro Review
A first point of reference is the D’Alessandro MBTA Review commissioned by Gov. Patrick in 2009. It offers a great breakdown of the history for Forward Funding through 2009 and the major areas that impacted the MBTA during that period. Of course as D’Alessandro commented in The Globe, he never got a call from anyone on Beacon Hill about this report, showing you how seriously our elected officials actually take the T.
Let’s start with a quick run-down of the D’Alessandro findings about the T’s costs:
Cumulative Revenues/Costs vs Forward Funding projections through FY2008 in Millions of Dollars:
- Fuel & Utilities Expenses: $-256
- Payroll & Benefit Expenses: $-113
- The Ride Expenses: $-95
- Commuter Rail Expenses: $-37
- Sales Tax Revenue: $-150
- Transportation Revenue: $95
- Non-Operating Revenue: $2
As this illustrates, the T fell behind Forward Funding’s projections in all categories except Transportation Revenue. What does this teach us?
- Forward Funding had many flawed assumptions and created a structural deficit at the MBTA (Even the conservative Pioneer Institute has described the T as “structurally insolvent“)
- More people are riding the T than were projected in 2000 and they’re willing to pay for it (Positive Transportation Revenue)
- Everything cost more than was estimated in 2000 and without being able to raise revenues to make up for these, the T was doomed from the start
- The T effectively saved itself money by restructuring and carefully managing it’s debt service, however without positive cash flows they have not been able to make a positive dent in their debt, leading to the ballooning debt picture we see today.
- Lastly, slashing benefit & payroll expenses to the core could not have saved the T as the rests of its variable costs are still higher than management’s ability to save money elsewhere
Talking About Transportation As An Investment
When we look outside of the United States, there’s a very different attitude about public transit. In most places in Europe and Asia, investing in transportation is seen as an investment into an area’s economic well being. A great example of this is Singapore, which didn’t establish it’s metro system (The MRT) until the 1970s. If you read the history of the MRT, the most interesting note is the foresight of Singapore’s planners. Because they were working within the confines of an island, even though they could have built a bus-only public transit system, they knew that in 30 years time (By the 1990s) they would need a rail based system, due to population & economic growth. They then chose to build rail when it was less expensive to do so knowing they would reap the benefits later on.
You’ll find a similar story in London. Transport for London (TfL), which is steered by an independent board chaired by the Mayor of London, views its expenditures as an investment in the economic well-being of London and the larger UK.
Transportation expenses are an investment in a region, through increased property values, job opportunities, economic impact and time saved commuting via road. If you look at our own local Green Line Extension (GLX) program, The Globe cites a study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council estimating that real-estate within walking distance of the new GLX stations will see property values rise by 16-30% over the next few years. That in turn increases the local property tax base and also increases returns for real-estate investors. It can be harder to measure the indirect economic impacts of transit, but a study by IHS Global Insight from 2014 estimated the economic impact of a 1 day snow storm on Massachusetts to be $265M. If you have reliable public transit that can operate during bad weather, it can make a serious dent in that impact and keep the region humming.
Capital Investment And The Limits Of Public-Private Partnerships
Capital investment, whether it’s in rail, roads or airports, is an expensive business. Critics of public transport often claim that these agencies couldn’t survive as private enterprises due to capital costs vs prices they could charge to recoup them, and they’re probably right. But the same is true for airports and roads. Various studies go into much more detail about the comparisons between the three modes of transportation, so let’s focus on other countries with developed rail networks and how they’re funded as well as the impacts of Public-Private Partnerships and privatization.
The UK
The UK, and the London region in particular, have a great rail system. Between the various rail services and the London Underground, it’s possible to get from almost anywhere in the greater London region (Including outside the M-25 beltway) to anywhere else in the region, often faster than it would be to drive. (I can vouch for this as someone who lived in London from 2001-2003).
There are two major divisions of transport in London – the subways (London Underground) and the rail networks (Network Rail).
The London Underground is owned & operated by Transport for London (TfL). In many ways, its system is similar to Boston’s in that much of the infrastructure was build in the 1880-1920s. Today TfL is funded through ticket revenues and the rest via government grant. The government money comes in the form of separate operating & capital outlays from the national government, which controls the vast majority of taxation powers in the UK & London.
For the year 2013/2014, TfL had fare revenues of £4.7B with projected 2015/2016 revenues of £5.4B. Even at that level, they require a supplemental grant from the Government of £842M (2014/2015) and £665M (2015/2016) to cover operations expenses.
Further to that, the Government is intending to provide another £909M-£925M per year over the next 2 years to fund capital expenditures.
Back in the early 2000’s, TfL attempted to implement a Public-Private Partnership program to help unleash the power of the private sector on its infrastructure costs. The PPP consisted of TfL providing manpower & operations for the Underground network and signing 30 year concessions to 2 separate private sector operations that would provide rolling stock, infrastructure maintenance & improvement and station maintenance & management. The private operators were placed on a performance measurement system where they would receive bonus payments for increased operational efficiencies on the network and would pay steeper penalties for falling behind vs the benchmarks. The benchmarks were set slightly below the public operations, meaning the private operators didn’t even need to meet the current standards on the Underground.
The results were abysmal. Both PPP operators went bankrupt within 7 years, with Metronet going bust in 2007 and Tube Lines in 2010.
Today the Underground is fully operated by TfL using the revenue & grant structure as above. Debate continues over the proper structure of the Underground, but it is seen as a vital engine to London’s economy so investment continues.
There are other examples from the UK such as Manchester’s Metrolink system, which is operated as a PPP. Metrolink does have a positive farebox recovery ratio, but the infrastructure is still owned & financed by Transport for Greater Manchester. It was also less burdened by aging infrastructure, like in London, as the light rail system was built mostly from scratch beginning in 1989 (Repurposing old heavy rail lines and building new purpose built infrastructure).
The UK’s rail system is similarly operated. British Rail was privatized in the 1990’s under the Conservative Government. Infrastructure was devolved into a company named Railtrack and various train operating companies that would provide rolling stock & manpower. This system lasted about 8 years until Railtrack went bankrupt under the strains of proper capital investment. It was then acquired by Network Rail which exists today as a semi-private but government backed infrastructure company. Train operators continue to be private, purchasing “concessions” to operate given routes.
France
France’s rail operations are split between SNCF (Train operator) and RFF (Infrastructure). SNCF is cash-flow positive and operates trains across the globe. But RFF was formed as a “bad railroad” absorbing the large debt of SNCF. It is government owned, meaning national tax dollars are used for infrastructure improvements & debt service beyond what it charges SNCF.
The Paris Metro is entirely operated by RATP. While RATP does have global operations running bus & metro systems around the world (Including operating the above mentioned Manchester Metrolink), it is still government owned.
Germany
Germany’s rail operations are run entirely by Deutsche Bahn. DB is entirely owned by the Government of Germany. The government is obligated by its Constitution to provide capital funding for the national railways:
In accordance with Article 87e (4) of Germany’s Basic Law, the federal government ensures “that due account is taken of the interests and especially the transportation needs of the public […] in developing and maintaining the federal railway system”. – Deutsche Bahn Investor Relations
DB’s gross capital expenditures for 2013 amounted to €8.2B, with €149 billion invested since 1994.
DB, like SNCF in France is interesting, in that even though it is entirely owned by the German government, it has operations around the world. They contract for rail, metro & infrastructure operations in many countries, allowing them to earn profits that they can plow back into their home system. It’s an interesting example of “Government Sponsored Capitalism”.
Japan
Privatizers love to point to Japan’s railroads as an example of how private business can operate successful train companies given the right conditions. However Japan’s railways offer a mixed bag – successful regional private rail companies, and privatized national railways that were given a large leg up by government capital expenditure.
In 1987 there was a major push to privatize the national rail system in Japan. Japan National Rail (JNR) was split into 6 regional railways and 1 freight railway. These 7 railroads were taken over by the Japanese National Railway Settlement Corporation, which became the sole shareholder of all 7 railroads. At formation, the JNRSC inherited ¥25.5 trillion in long term debt racked up by the railroads (About $214 billion at today’s exchange rates). JNRSC sold off shares of the JR East, JR Central and JR West railroads to help pay down the debt. However in 1998, the JNRSC was taken over by the Japanese government, at which time its debts had ballooned to ¥30 trillion ($253 billion at today’s exchange rates). The remaining 4 railroads remain owned by the government today.
Of the 3 public JR Rail companies (JR East, JR Central, JR West), each is profitable without the legacy debt payments required for their infrastructure improvements. To further diversify themselves, each invests in real-estate (Residential, commercial & shopping centers), leasing spaces in their stations, distribution and other activities. Based on 2014 financial filings, each earns 65-70% of their revenue from passenger transportation.
In Tokyo, there are two separate subway systems – Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway. Tokyo Metro is jointly owned by the Government of Japan and the Toei Subway is owned by the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation. Both are highly advanced & punctual and connect with one another as well as JR & regional trains within the Tokyo region to offer a highly versatile & interconnected local transit system.
If we look at Japan’s more successful private railroads, they offer a different model. Leading up to World War II, intercity rail service in Japan was nationalized (Leading to what became JNR and now JR, above). Private rail operators were still allowed to operate regional rail systems. The government encouraged rail operators to build railroads into rural and underserved areas where they then built the communities – engaging in real estate development, building of recreation & leisure centers and commercial real estate along their lines. They then had a captive audience for the rail networks. To draw an American comparison, compare these operators to HP – the rail networks were the printers, and other other services were the ink. The rail development was not necessarily a loss leader, but it was the other business ventures of the railroads that made them successful. A quick review of FY2014 financial filings from Japan’s “Big 15” private rail operators shows that most between 17-40% of their revenue from rail transport – the rest of their income comes from distribution & logistics, real estate, retail operations, diversified financials services, bus & taxi operations and other lines of business.
Singapore
We would be remiss to discuss rail operations without discussing Singapore. Singapore operates a hybrid system for their MRT, where the government provides all capital for construction, then outsources operations of the subway lines to private operators. These operators help keep operational expenses low & competitive, but as the government has sought to expand service, they’ve invested north of $20 billion per line for the latest works. Even at these high levels of investment, as Singapore is a newer system, it doesn’t have the legacy infrastructure maintenance costs of Boston or London.
Hong Kong
Lastly, let’s finish with Hong Kong. The MTR system in Hong Kong was privatized in 2000 to become MTR Corporation. In 1997, MTR was already making profits over HK$278 million, which has continued through privatization. The original development costs for its network were covered by the Government of Hong Kong, along with developers who built along the lines and built interconnections from their developments into the metro system.
Similar to the railroads in Japan, MTR now makes most of its money from real estate and managing transportation operations in other countries. In FY2013, MTR only made 40% of its revenues from transit operations.
As we can see from these above examples, the only transit operations globally that are able to make a profit require either government investment/subsidy or supporting business operations to sustain their capital operations. In this way, railroads are similar to airlines which require government funded airports to operate, and most airlines outside the United States even operate with direct government subsidy.
Rail vs Road, The Chicken & The Egg and The Role Of Integrated Urban Planning
Another major challenge of building a sustainable rail system is building a system that is as cost & time effective to its users as the road system is. Rail dominated America into the 1920’s before government started investing heavily in road infrastructure and then later on airport infrastructure.
All modes of transit have trade-offs. Cars offer autonomy and the ability to go almost anywhere, but have high costs to the individual for gas, maintenance, insurance and time sitting in traffic. Air is by far the fastest, but is very expensive and requires additional travel time due to security and getting to/from the airport. Rail, both long distance & commuter rail, offers the ability to by-pass traffic and connections to transit systems often allow users to get close to their final destinations.
The debate we all face when we go out the door is what will get us to our final destination while balancing cost, convenience and reliability.
One of the largest challenges we have in suburbanized America is enticing people away from cars (Which are great in the dispersed, car friendly suburbs) as they commute into our redeveloping urban cores. People will gladly sit in traffic when they see the rail system as unreliable or too expensive or too slow, relative to driving. If you already have the car and are making financing and insurance payments, if the cost of fuel is less than a train ticket, why would you chose rail? But as we’ve seen in Boston these last few weeks with snowstorms that have not just only crippled the MBTA, but have also restricted the flow of vehicles around towns & into Boston, we can’t rely on cars alone. The outcry from the T riding public, and from car commuters now facing more competition on the roads & highways, speaks volumes about our region’s increasing reliance on the T.
However the Boston area will need to think larger than just fixing the T to shuffle people in & out of work each day. A major challenge we face here is how to make the T pay for itself when it’s not rush hour. With Boston’s many cities and towns, with different planning & zoning responsibilities, makes the sort of integrated, transit oriented development you see in other parts of the world hard to recreate. A great example is the T’s new Assembly station in Somerville. The station was built by a private developer and has made reaching the Assembly Outlets easy for Orange Line ridings from around the area. But the station’s non-integration with the development, the lack of MBTA buses running to the station itself from the surrounding area, and the lack of garage parking to make the stop appealing to local commuters who might otherwise just drive into the city, reveals a lack of regional vision for Boston’s development.
Similar development oversights have made Boston’s transit system supremely downtown oriented. While the MBTA has been planning an Urban Ring plan since the 1990s (And other plans have existed as far back as the 1920s) and the North-South Rail Link during the Big Dig, a lack of transit oriented development in the suburbs and poor interconnections within the city have kept urban dwellers from being able to easily commute outside of Boston without a car. Anecdotally, the author has friends who recently moved from renting to owning in the South End. Long-time car commuters, one friend who is a doctor recently changed jobs from a hospital north of Cambridge (requiring a car) to Quincy Center (Accessible to the Red Line). However bus connections from the South End to Andrew or Broadway make getting to the Red Line difficult (Plus slow & irregular Red Line service), often leading to hour+ commutes, when a reverse commute by car took only 15-20 minutes. Much of the development outside the Boston core focuses on the Rt. 128 corridor, but the Green Line connection to Riverside or Commuter Rail connection to Dedham leave commuters dependent on bus or private shuttle to each the litany of corporate parks along ringing the interstate.
With the re-urbanization of America, and Boston’s growing urban core (Including most areas of Cambridge and Somerville), we will have to reinvest in our rail infrastructure as we’re quickly running out of room to increase road capacity. And considering the cost for the Big Dig, the region will think twice before further increasing road capacity downtown.
Finding Cash Flow – Who Pays, Who Wins, Who Loses
To continue to invest in our region’s development, the State will need to find the revenues to pay for rehabbing our aging infrastructure while trying not to shift too much traffic onto our congested roads, while trying to plug a budget gap of over $760M.
While in the past, MBTA budget shortfalls have been funded from general taxation, it would be worth considering alternatives that could bolster our infrastructure investments.
Different ideas:
- Real Estate – While the MBTA may not have the large rail stations of Europe or Asia, many stations have the room for basic commercial development. Many could be homes to small retail establishments (Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, news stands or similar). Large stations such as Back Bay offer great opportunity for large scale development with mixed retail, residential & commercial. When South Station was rebuilt in the 1980s, the BRA assisted the MBTA, however the BRA retains the air development rights meaning any development over South Station would benefit the BRA, not the MBTA. Now that the state is pushing heavily for South Station expansion, a deal should be structured to return air rights to the MBTA to give it another revenue stream. This would be in-line with the model of successful Japanese & Hong Kong railways.
- A commonly suggested idea is for the Legislature to increase the assessments that towns & cities served by the MBTA pay into the system each year. This would help change the perception that the rest of the state subsidizes the T by increasing the share covered by assessments versus what’s provided by the MBTA’s 20% cut of the State’s sales tax. However one major drawback of this approach is that assessments are paid for out state aid granted to cities & towns. This will impact budgets which are constrained by Proposition 2 1/2. Asking the cities & towns to pay more directly is good politics outside the Boston region, but will put a strain on the areas impacted by it.
- Another idea to have the Boston area pay for the T would be a State level an MBTA property tax surcharge. Proposition 2 1/2 limits the ability of municipalities to raise their property taxes and mill rates, but not the State. In the towns currently served by the MBTA Subway and Commuter Rail (Excluding towns served by only bus), there is a total of $504 billion in assessed property (Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Personal Property) according to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue Municipal Data Management and Technical Assistance Bureau. At even low tax rates, this would minimally add to property tax bills while creating a steady revenue stream (Property assessment levels stay much more consistent than sales tax levels, which are highly correlated with the economy). This could be a potential work-around vs raising assessments. However, as was seen with the 2014 gas tax increase, this could easily be overturned by voters who are looking for someone else to cover the capital costs.
- Corporate tax surcharge in the MBTA region – In New York state, there is a 17% corporate tax surcharge levied on businesses operating in the greater New York City metro region that helps cover the operating costs of the MTA. As many of the beneficiaries of the public transit system are the companies who need their employees to get to work, this would help to add a corporate contribution to the MBTA’s revenue stream outside of the 20% sales tax, which is largely shouldered by individual tax payers.
- Hotel & Airport Taxes – When tourists & business travelers visit our region, many make use of our transit system, but their only contributions are their sales taxes & user fees (In the form of tickets). While these aren’t necessarily cheap, hotel & airport taxes could help capture additional revenue. Boston USA reports that international travelers alone spent 2.5 million room-nights in the Boston area in 2014. Based on an average nightly cost of $250 (Also from Boston USA) that equates to $625M is taxable revenue (before accounting for domestic travelers). Massachusetts does already levy a state hotel tax, along with a local option tax and a 2.75% additional tax in Boston, Worcester, Cambridge, Springfield, West Springfield, and Chicopee to pay for our convention centers, but travelers rarely make travel choices based on local taxes, so this could be a reasonable source of added revenue.
- Tolls, Congestion Charges, Parking Surcharges – Going back to the chicken & the egg problem, increasing the costs of commuting by car is an effective way to move trips onto rail while raising revenues at the same time (However you need to deliver on rail improvements, potentially up-front, otherwise you’ll be left with many disgruntled taxpayers). Massachusetts already has tolls on i-90 and the Tobin bridge, but not on i-93, which is consistently clogged. Placing tolls on i-93 both north & south of Boston would change the financial calculations for car commuters. Congestion charges like those in London or Singapore could be employed to further reduce car travel into the city (Encompassing areas of Boston & Cambridge). While in London the congestion charge has not been a major revenue driver, it changes consumer behavior and drives rail ticket revenue. A last idea would be parking surcharge on all downtown parking garages and non-residential private lots.
- Public-Private Partnerships For Development – While the examples of PPPs in capital maintenance of rail networks outlined above mostly point towards not being an effective way to keep down capital expenses, there may be room for PPPs in terms of development (The proposed MBTA West Station, being built in partnership with Harvard University, is a good example). New developments such as the South Station Expansion are currently being structured as a PPP (Though with the aforementioned note that BRA controls the air rights at South Station). More development PPPs could create additional revenue streams for the MBTA. Examples could be continued expansion at Kendall Square or a new development on top of Back Bay station. Developments could be added to the Fairmount Commuter Rail line where the MBTA could be a partner with the BRA to redevelop areas around the commuter rail stops (Especially once DMUs are added to the CR network, giving higher frequency train services to these areas). Additionally redevelopment along the Worcester line such as at Brighton Landing (New Balance) could fit this model.
Revenue Then Reform, Or Reform Then Revenue? We Need Both And Modernization To Boot
One of the most common debates about the MBTA is should we reform its institutions and methods of operation before it can be entrusted with more funding, or should we get the funding in place to increase safety and ridership? If our last 30 years of history have taught us anything, it’s that we need both.
In 2009, Gov. Patrick & the Massachusetts Legislature created MassDOT as an umbrella “super-agency” combining MBTA, Mass Highway, the RMV and other transportation agencies. Newly appointed Baker Secretary of Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack will need to guide & reform these agencies to achieve some economies of scale. However, to earn the trust of the voting public, reform must continue and be visible.
Many suggestions have been made to directly reform the MBTA’s operations and enhance its service:
- Immediately address the structural deficit the MBTA faces with new revenue streams as outlined above
- Fully fund & prioritize the MBTA’s “State Of Good Repair” maintenance backlog (Currently estimated by the MBTA to be over $3 billion).
- Increase transparency of the MBTA pension system, or during the next MBTA union negotiations, roll the MBTA’s pension into the normal state pension program
- Health care and fringe benefits were one of the largest drivers of costs under the D’Allesandro review. MBTA employees should be brought under the state health insurance program. Adding them to the larger state pool would result in costs would be decreased.
- Outsized maintenance costs should be reigned in if kept in-house, or outsourced to free up working capital. While good paying union jobs & workers can be a great asset to the system, the T’s costs are some of the highest in the country.
- For more frequent service on heavily utilized subway lines (Making better use of trains and providing a more timely service as an alternative to cars), the T needs to upgrade its signaling infrastructure to Communications Based Train Control (CBTC). This would reduce headways and could allows Orange and Red line trains to run as close together as every 2 minutes at rush hour (Based on similar upgrades to London’s Jubilee line). CBTC would also allow for single operator trains (Provided union contract work-rules don’t prevent this), again lowering costs. NYC has done this on the L and 7 trains.
- Return air rights for South Station from the BRA to the MBTA to provide the T with added revenue streams from the redevelopment and future MBTA expansion.
- Invest in the Indigo Line project – The Indigo Line would cross-connect multiple parts of the MBTA system using light weight, faster Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains. It would run trains more frequently on the Fairmount line (which currently sees trains only ever 45 minutes at rush hour), create a new connection between Back Back and the Innovation District/Convention Center, create a new rail connection to Riverside, and put trains back into service along the Grand Junction line, connecting the planned West Station with Cambridge and North Station. So many aspects of this project make sense on so many levels that even the conservative Pioneer Institute, usually highly critical of the MBTA and its management, supports it
- Increase capacity at MBTA Park & Ride facilities and convert all facilities to modern, automated payment machines. This will reduce manpower for parking enforcement and prevent skipped parking fees at remote lots. This should include enlargements of the parking facilities at Alewife, which was originally designed to have 2 extra levels of parking.
- Complete the North-South Rail Link – Without the rail-link, all rails only lead downtown. If we want to keep vehicles going through downtown to other suburban areas, we need to enable commuters to make use of the Commuter Rail. Today this is difficult as commuters need to ride into either North or South station, then transfer across two subway lines to make the connection. By completing the North-South Rail Link, Commuter Rail trains could run through service between the North & South shore with connections to Metro West. Many of the transit oriented development ideas outlined above require it to be easy for passengers to ride the rails to get to their location. Without this vital connection, the Commuter Rail will only ever be exactly that – completing the Rail Link turns the CR into a Regional Rail system.
- Convert all Commuter lines and Green Line surface stops to automated fare collection. Most Commuter Rail stations can have fences and fare-gates installed easily and automated ticket collection would reduce the need for manual ticket collection. Green Line stops may be harder, but all Green Line stops should have CharlieCard/Ticket machines installed which would speed up boarding (No waiting for riders to purchase fares from the conductor at boarding time, which can lead to long delays).
- Work with MassDOT and the City of Boston and Town of Brookline to streamline Green Line train flow on all lines with street lights. Currently Green Line trains wait at traffic lights like all vehicular traffic. Traffic signaling systems should be upgraded to prioritize Green Line trains to help reduce travel times on these lines. Additionally, service on the “E” Line service to Heath Street should be extended to Arborway and research done on grade-separating the trains once they start running at street level at Brigham Circle which is a major choke point in the system at rush hour and in inclement weather.
- Improve the Silver Line BRT service by completing the Silver Line Phase 3 improvements to take Silver Line buses off the congested downtown streets and create “single seat” connections from Roxbury/South End to the Innovation District/Seaport. Additionally, upgrade the Sllver Line right of way along Washington Ave. to include lights that favor BRT traffic to reduce travel times into the downtown.
This is only scratching the surface of the changes the MBTA needs to see. Boston likes to talk about itself as a “Wold Class City” and the Hub Of The Universe. We need to work hard to live up to these titles. As the discussions continue after these winter storms, many people will be worried about funding these initiatives, but we need to look at them as investments in our region, our economy and our population. By investing in tomorrow, we can deliver on the World Class Region we like to think of ourselves as.
…with artificially raising the price of driving. Right now it costs in the high teens for a Lowell-Boston round trip on the Commuter Rail and I certainly would not want driving to cost more than that. If you want me to take the train slash those prices and better yet, don’t charge me to park at Gallagher Terminal.
You think the current cost of driving is natural?
Magical free-lunch thinking soothes us as we dig our grandkids graves.
…by charging tolls, for example, yes that is artificial. Both roads and transit should be funded as public utilities out of general revenue IMO and not subject to fees.
However most real world attempts at making public transit free have had poor results at changing commuting patterns.
http://citiscope.org/story/2014/free-public-transit-tallinn-hit-riders-yields-unexpected-results
Right now even if the T eliminated its fares tomorrow I could still only use it if it were going where I was going when I was going.
everyone would use it, which would mean it people would demand it be vastly expanded.
It would have as much political traction as drivers.
Higher demand is mostly good it would seem. I don’t understand your last sentence.
the bigger its ‘constituency’ on Beacon Hill.
If 50-70% of our population used public transportation nearly everyday, politicians would have to pay as much attention to it as they do roads. You would see a vast expansion of public money spent on it.
I interpreted your previous comment as negative. If that was a mistake I apologize.
would be that fees and taxes that move the actual marginal price closer to the actual marginal cost are justified in the name of economic efficiency. More good for more people, including our grandkids.
These charges improve, rather than distort, markets by fixing market failures.
From that point of view there is no “natural” state to be a reference point for saying something is “artificial.” The closest thing to that is the true cost of driving, including all the environmental externalities.
Which is tragically so much greater than the cost of gas, tolls, et cetera.
isn’t suddenly going to make driving cost more than a roundway train trip into Boston. No where close.
Right now, it’s substantially less. It would continue to be substantially less if we raised the gas tax 1, 5, 10 or even 20 cents.
If we raised the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon, the difference to you for a round trip to Boston would be about 20 cents if your car gets about 30 miles to the gallon.
…and even if the tolls were less than the rail fare all that’s accomplished is I’m still driving rather than taking the train and with more money out of my pocket. If the goal is to get me to avoid driving you need to make it cost less to take the train, but if you do it by jacking up the cost of driving to above train fares you have just taken more money out of my already very shallow pockets. (Before you hit me again for using first person pronouns, that’s just a rhetorical device; plenty of others would be affected similarly i’m sure.)
The “natural” price of driving is much lower than it would otherwise be as a result of a plethora of hidden subsidies — such as highway spending paid for from general revenues, among many others. How much were you asked to pay when the bridges on I-93 between Boston and 128 were rebuilt in just one summer?
In my view, the increased taxes should come from the already wealthy.
Suppose you were faced with a choice between supporting:
A. Significantly increased taxes on the wealth as described elsewhere here, and
B. Significantly increased cost of driving (tolls on highways, reduced subsidies, etc)
as a way of funding sustainable and affordable public transportation.
Which would you choose?
In my view, we should take underfunding the MBTA off the table. It seems to me that an excellent way to motivate support for taxes on the wealthy is to show that the alternative is increased expenses for everybody else.
I would choose option A. I have said both modes should be funded out of general revenues. I have also said that if there must be tolls, charging for the Zakim Bridge and O’Neil Tunnel to pay for the Big Dig made a lot more sense than robbing the MassPike.
The rails exist, I believe, and obviously the roads do. We still operate too much on an “all roads lead to Boston” model IMO. We should integrate the various regional bus systems beyond a connection point here and there. For example, I’m not aware of an easy and logical way to get between Lowell and Worcester on public transit.
Washington DC had a reasonably well-functioning streetcar system (“D.C. Transit”) until it was killed off by GM (who fraudulently claimed that its buses would be cheaper and more reliable) after WWII. By the 1970s, the entire region recognized the need for regional rail transportation system and the “Metro” was born.
The key and hugely important difference between the DC region (Maryland and Virginia) and Massachusetts is the strong regional government of the former. The planning for the Metro was done decades in advance. Regional highways and zoning maps were coordinated with the planned Metro. The regional government in Maryland and Virginia is more than patronage havens.
In Massachusetts, we pay an ENORMOUS amount of overhead for our 351 independent towns and cities. We are about to pay even more as we face these problems that can only be solved by regional planning.
We do desperately need a statewide plan. In fact, we ought to working with New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island. I think it will be very hard to accomplish that statewide-plan without re-establishing functioning regional government (counties) here in Massachusetts.
I also note that the Washington DC area is also served by commuter rail, operated for both VA and MD. The area’s commuter rail serves points west of DC as far as Harper’s Ferry, MD, and points north of DC as far as Baltimore. I’m not familiar with the commuter rail service to VA, but it is extensive.
The region’s commuter rail is well-used, and coordinates with the Metro.
Therefore I’ve had less reason to notice how the outer suburbs are served, though I believe every jurisdiction has a bus service. However, the Metro there is also very spokes of a wheel without any way to get between lines that does not involve going into downtown. One thing I like about the T subway compared to Metro subway is that you can often see one stop from the next above ground here, which is very rare there.
I frankly think a lot of the localized government we have, the fact that annexation died so soon at the Brookline border, etc. is really holding the state back. It also creates this perverse suburb/inner suburb city divide over transit costs, taxes, etc. And regional planning is the best way to socialize the risks and spreading the rewards. It’s ludicrous we have disconnected urban areas like Springfield, Worcester, New Bedford, Lowell, and Lawrence that we are letting rot while Boston thrives.
No reason those cities can’t gradually become bedroom communities for Boston as well as their own metro areas, we just need to have the transit to link them together.
The DC commuter rail, the MARC, is both an interrurban and interstate commuter system. It is cheap, reliable, and usually faster than driving and it connects places in VA, MD, and DC to one another. Baltimore is becoming a bedroom community for DC and Alexandria based urban professionals who want either coastal living or lower housing costs. The MARC is the key reason why.
…why did we eliminate half our counties again?
and because they were managed by total incompetents.
They were like a hangover from the period before the various cities and towns formed. They are far more important out west where towns are still being born.
King County in Washington is a major launchpad to the Governors post. I used to shop in a great multicultural enclave called White Center that was dogged about dodging annexation cause it didn’t want to pay city taxes.
The towns of Lakewood and Shoreline are much younger than I am. Hell they could be my grandchildren.
The township system in Illinois is quite confusing, and seems to be a way, at least at the school level, to lump the rich parts of different towns together at the expense of the poorer sections.
But in Maryland the County government is the closest government you have. Separate towns still exist for cultural reasons, one roommate was from Nottingham and the other from Perry Hall-but when I mailed them Christmas cards both went to Baltimore County, MD*. Seems like a more efficient way of doing services.
City/county consolidation also seems like a good way in theory to urbanize suburbs and make them part of a city and pay their fair share. It has had the opposite effect in Indianapolis and Toronto, to think of just two examples, where it has allowed suburban voters to elect more conservative mayors in those cities. In Toronto anyway, it seems to have had the effect of expanding the constituency for public transit (Ford wanted a subway, which made him a conservative, while his progressive opponents wanted BRT and light rail-still left of America on transit).
It might have made sense to remove the vestigial functions of county government in Massachusetts since the counties were rather redundant with state agencies. It may make more sense to consolidate municipalities into a revived county government system, and they would have to be smaller than the old counties but larger than the current municipalities. The alternative is to have Boston annex the inner ring suburbs, as this Boston magazine article laid out.
*which confusingly, is the suburban county outside of ‘Baltimore’ which is Baltimore City-and is both a city and a county.
There would have been nothing gained from consolidating counties into larger counties. Counties in the urban core performed almost nothing that could not be done better by a state oriented system. The basic functions of the DA and the courts were easily incorporated into a more efficient state system.
The issue came to a head when corrupt cronyism in Middlesex County bankrupted the system and the abolition of Middlesex spilled into other areas when people realized that counties were unaccountable entities. I would have been happy to see a new regionalism take shape but as longs as Cambridge was the seat of Middlesex and was hell bent on exploiting its neighbors, that was not going to happen.
The cardinal rule is that cities and towns gain revenue from development in their borders and if they can shift the social problems to their neighbors, they will not give up power. Look at the way Cambridge continues its development along it’s borders, the way it refuses to remedy the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) that spew untreated sewerage into the Alewife Brook and let Somerville and Medford absorb the problems, all while claiming poverty and an inability to solve a problem that everyone else has had to deal with.
Regionalism is a great concept but almost impossible to create when a party knows it will lose wealth and power.
I never know what to make of Cambridge City gov.
I’ve always thought it was a feather bed for Harvard hacks but this passive aggression wasn’t something I noticed. In a way it is like a working form of that chauvinism we see where greater Boston is more important than everywhere else so it’s okay for it to be high handed.
The pattern is easy enough to spot on Google maps though. There is that new cluster of high rises next to Somerville at North Point and another of various businesses next to Alewife. For older examples there is the W R Grace plant on the Arlington Border at Alewife.
And they have been lame at working with Watertown on the greenway using the Watertown Branch.
…but now I’m seeing calls for regional planning and governance and I’m thinking, but we DID have those once.
At no time did county government fulfill that role.
Heck, planning is a modern idea.
For example, there’s Republican Rome
Maryland is roughly our size in population (we are 6.5 million, they are 6 million) and they have 147 municipalities in 26 counties. By contrast, we have 351 municipalities in 14 counties, two of which (Dukes and Nantucket) could be easily consolidated off the top of my head, if not merged into Barnstable and eliminated altogether. But MA is oddly conservative in the smallest and most petty sense of the word.
The British aren’t coming back-there is no reason cities of 20-30k people should have town meetings, and no reason they can’t be merged into larger entities that would actually provide more services and act like cities. It’s bit of a pipe dream, but it seems like an area where we are grossly inefficient. The Olympic bid should demonstrate why 351 cooks in the kitchen are worse than 147.
that cities of 20k – 30K should not have town meetings. Aside from the fact that cities do not have “town meetings” I am truly curious to know which you speak of. Whether you are talking about the inner-burbs, or the outer reaches, which do you think should give up their autonomy to a larger entity and what would their citizens gain? This is a genuine question and not a snarky point.
And does the grossly overpaid Cambridge City Council represent a better form of government that the town meetings of Lexington, Arlington or Winchester? (okay this one IS a snarky point)
Melrose and Wakefield are roughly the same size by population and area and have similar demographics, even similar looking streets that seem to bleed into one another. Why is one a city with a Plan B charter and the other a representative town meeting? Both should be cities.
Plan E is a failed form of government-I’ve long argued for Cambridge to embrace plan B like Somerville. I am a long time critic of PR and Plan E-don’t look at me to defend the Cambridge status quo when I’ve been fighting it for years. And to the extent that Cambridge fucked over it’s neighbors forcing us to share a larger government with them gives them the power to stop us and forces us to spread our wealth around. Though in my vision those inner burbs would be annexed to Boston like Lakeview and Hyde Park were annexed to Chicago.
It is citizens who get to decide their respective form of government. Really, jconway. “inner burbs annexed to Boston?” Why shouldn’t Melrose and Wakefield have whatever kind of government their respective citizens chose? Just because you think one is better than the other? Oye – that’s Citizenship 101, but I guess they’re not teaching that in school anymore.
Something I’ve long lamented. I never learned how to vote in a PR system and ended up having to explain it to my friends working for Nadeem Mazen. We do a piss poor job getting people excited about local government. Nobody has the free time and dedication to go to town meetings anymore. Direct democracy made sense during the era of the Mayflower compact and might make sense for legitimately small towns, but a representative town meeting is grossly less efficient than the representative ward councilor and strong mayor model in plan b.
It seems to help when large municipalities have a single executive who can make real decisions. Good mayors transformed Boston, Mayor Curtatone in a decade has transformed Somerville, Cambridge with a Plan E model has languished behind. Wakefield seems sleepier and less dynamic than Melrose which has a fairly progressive Mayor interested in bringing greater sustainability and transit to his city. Obviously I can’t change these by fiat and Wakefield and other communities can have the government they want to have-but it keeps us parochial.
As Tom said, Maryland has he same number of people and only 147 municipalities in 26 strong counties. We could do something similar here and it would solve the land use and water use issues Best defense keeps berating me by association over, and also help build a real regional base for transit improvements.
Too many shires has led to a siloing effect where NIMBY rules. County-city consolidations have been the norm in other states and are significantly cheaper and more effective and delivering services. It would also be a great step towards equalizing our schools by pooling property taxes.
but not you, jconway, as I have no reason to believe you have control over what your city has done or continues to do. Cambridge has screwed its neighbors for far too long for any neighbors to trust it. Again, I refer to the way Cambridge has chosen to stick its neighbors with the costs of its growth while keeping the revenues. The decision of the Council to re-zone the Alewife area and bring thousand of daily vehicle trips to the Rte 2/Rte 16 bottleneck is a classic example of the Cambridge Swells willingness to screw commuters from the northwestern burbs and it won’t be cured by bringing Arlington, Belmont and Lexington into an expanded city. Add to that the refusal of the city to fix the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that dump raw sewerage into Alewife Brook, letting it float down river into Somerville, Medford and the Mystic River. The damage has been done by Cambridge over and over so neighbors would be foolish to join with the city now.
Then look at the $5 million dollar retirement package for its immediate past city manager, Bob Healey, and the $330,000 annual salary for his successor Richard Rossi granted on a 7-2 vote by the obsequious city council. In what rational world would the Cambridge City manager get paid fifty percent more than the Governor, the Mayor of Boston or the manager of the MBTA? Hell, both Healey and Rossi refuse to even live in the city.
Cities and towns are not likely to agree to join others in a consolidation of muni governments. Prop 2.5 alone would present a massive hurdle for communities trying to harmonize tax rates and the funding of core services.
They will not even quickly join in regionalization of services unless there are guaranteed escape routes. There have been too many examples of regional schools and solid waste districts that exploit one or a few member communities and not let them leave. The average town managers in MA is over 50 and they have spent their professional lives in local government. They know the horror stories.
Look how quickly the lege torpedoed Deval’s attempt to consolidate the number of local housing authorities. It is hard to get communities to even share in the construction costs of a fire or police station that might serve two communities let alone share a unified fire or police department.
Regional government could have worked if it was implemented one hundred years ago. Talk of reducing the number of political jurisdictions, taking away the Town Meeting form of government, shredding Prop 2.5 and union contracts is not especially practical today.
It really lies at the root of a lot of our long term planning and policy problems. I can’t afford to live in Cambridge anymore. The house I grew up in was sold by my folks for 450k a year ago, quickly flipped, and is now on the market for a million which is just insane to me. I do think if we had a Plan B system we would have a better local government, but it wouldn’t solve the issue of NIMBYism by itself. We all need to work together more and put the entire commonwealth first.
That Alewife zone is a poster child for Cambridge meddle impacts.
Behold this charming thing http://youtu.be/_OtG1_zw0tA
It is an artificial habitat that needed to be made to offset the damage done to watercourse drain fields adjoining that pile of corporate high rises Cambridge has been shoving into that old poorly drained clay pit.
It is a nice amenity but it would have been nice if it wasn’t needed. What’s worse, expansion on the other side of the Alewife has a further derangement of water tables coming from the elimination of water absorbing swamp maples. They were somehow able to dodge process for wetlands regs in a very process happy city.
And something IS happening to the stream. You can tell by the turbidity levels. The lagoon area is pretty clear but the core stream is turbid and the feeder streams coming from the T facility are redolent with a whiff of effluence born of affluence.
Saintly Somerville is just dumping raw sewage right into the Alewife Brook.
I made video of the Mystic River Greenway all the way to Winchester Center and regularly visit the Alewife parcel for bird watching. There are also homeless encampments in two locations.
It’s mostly a backup overflow when the system floods. No one is just dumping anything. It’s just a default when the system fails.
None of these towns are in any shape to make the watershed pristine but it’s getting better. It didn’t help that there have been a couple of oil tanker spills over at the Arlington Medford border in the same crappy intersection.
The Charles sections I was exploring last fall are generally in better shape with some effluent in Newton across from Watertown and a pile of road sand from Cheesecake brook forms a neat bar.
I promote them in my blog and other web platforms.
http://mysticriver.org/myrwa-blog/
That way, if you’d rather get involved with the watershed than speculate on what town sux more, you’ll have an option. They have an event on the 23rd.
I can’t image more different similar communities than Melrose and Wakefield. Vive la difference.
Cambridge’s environmental opportunism is not demonstrably caused by its form of government.
Chicago _may be_ the right size for Chicago. It would be very much the wrong size for Boston.
By the way: The last time the central government tried to suppress town meeting it did not end up so well for central government.
I didn’t argue it was! Best Defense did! take that up with him.
Melrose has 26,000 people, Wakefield has 24,500. Melrose is 91% white while Wakefield is 94% white. Median income is $64,000 in Melrose, $61,000 in Wakefield. Wakefield is 12% free or reduced lunch, Melrose is 13%. They are awfully similar demographically, and yet one is governed by a charter designed for a medium sized city and the other is governed by one designed for a small town. Granted, I have never argued the state should suppress town meetings or end home rule, I am arguing that it is time we start thinking like a commonwealth and less like a fiefdom.
These are thought experiments, not proposed policies. But we have to do something to encourage regional planning, mixed development, and sustainability. Those solutions aren’t coming out of 351 entities doing 351 different things with 6 different forms of government.
the form of government in Cambridge is the cause of its refusal to fix its CSOs, merely that the city is willing to screw its neighbors. I doubt that would change with a change in government structure.
BTW, the CSOs are regulated by a series of state and federal laws but administered by a regional agency, the MWRA which for years granted Cambridge delays in implement a fix.
allowed for politics at a level we no longer have. County commissioners had political organization and clout. Granby actually had a state rep at one point, a Republican named Winston or Winslow Forward. He was able to get that far with the county as a base. There is no longer any organization or identity at that level. Cities have that kind of organization to a certain degree, but the small towns in my area are now politically isolated in comparison to what they once were.
That’s not to say that counties shouldn’t have been changed to what they are now.
there are frequently unincorporated areas between town boundaries that are governed by the counties they are contained within. For example, county sheriff depts are true police departments and are law enforcement in those areas. Here in MA, we have no such situation. We go from town to town as we cross boundaries, with no unincorporated space between. Counties were once the government we looked to beyond our own small locales.
Yes, as you mention, regional planning is a hot topic today. Right now, our main regionalization appears in education where many small communities have joined together into school districts that combine towns for greater efficiency. Why shouldn’t these same towns, united by smaller size and geographic proximity, also combine police, fire, public works and engineering talent into similar regional units? Think of the efficiencies of size that could be gained instead of each town building redundant systems. The biggest obstacle seems to be ego, the pride of any town power structure seeking to retain their own x, y, or z department. Otherwise, it’s a natural course to follow.
It is absolutely correct that they were going bankrupt and managed by total incompetents. That’s because they were a patronage haven. Hmm. Where else have we heard that?
It doesn’t mean they weren’t needed. It means our thoroughly corrupt political system betrayed us and used a vital governing tool to instead enrich the poohbahs of the time.
were once under the control of the legislature’s Committee on Counties. That typically meant that the House chairman was in control, as there are more House members than Senate members on committees. Former House Chairman Charlie Flaherty used that budget control to pack county payrolls with his people, lifting him to power as Chairman of the MA Democratic Party, Chairman of the House Committee on Taxation and set him on the path to become Speaker of the House.
n/m
…why did you downrate a question?
was a really ill-informed question. Sorry but we have different standards on what garners an update and a downrate on comments. I have recently given you a bunch of uprates where it felt intellectually dishonest to do so because your comments were not worthy of the uprate but they felt honest. Your latest question, well, you just should have googled a little history on the subject.
…and since people here were calling for regionalism I wanted their take on why we did, or should have, abolished them. Google would not have helped me there. Questions are by definition for the purpose of becoming informed where one is not.
when there is either unincorporated land that needs service in between municipalities (not the case in New England) or counties/regional governments can demonstrate they can deliver efficiencies as the rare examples of the Cape and Franklin County have demonstrated. Otherwise, ad-hoc regional & voke-tech schools and solid waste disposal districts fill the regional gap.
The MAPC is largely powerless and it covers a large part of the state’s population. Look at the way they are the tail being wagged by the dog of Boston 2024. I wonder if Draisen asked the cities that pay his salary if they agree with him embracing the Olympics proposal on their behalf (hello Cambridge and Somerville!)
The home rule impulse in MA trumps all. Look at the way Cambridge screws its neighbors by putting all of its big development projects on its edges to stick the adjoining communities with the traffic problems while collecting the tax revenues for itself. If there was regional planning, Cambridge would not screw Somerville, Arlington and Watertown the way it does now. Regionalism is on its death knell in Massachusetts.
Perhaps you meant how county government operated here.
It seems to me that MD provides an example of well-functioning (in comparison to MA) county government that is analogous to the health care systems of Europe and Canada and how they compare to ours.
It’s true that county government did not work well here. It’s also true that it works much more effectively in MD. MD does not have large tracts of “unincorporated land that needs service in between municipalities”. It also has much higher quality highways, much more consistent police and fire protection, a much better public transportation system, and a local tax system that is far more fair.
I wonder how many voters understand just how expensive our “home rule” is in comparison to MD-style county government. The urge to cut taxes seems particularly strong in western MA and the Cape — each places where effective county management could drastically cut the cost of government.
If the unenrolleds and Republicans really wanted less government then they should embrace bigger county governments that consolidate services, reduce inefficiencies, and spread burdens lowering tax rates. But instead we are fearful the Kings gonna come back and cling to our town meetings and governors councils.
The public is not afraid that the Kings gonna come back and [so we] cling to our town meetings and governors councils
There have been too many abominations of regionalization in Massachusetts because of a mix of incompetence in legal writing followed by a willingness of a bunch of towns to screw another and not let them leave a regional project. And as long as the Cambridges of this state screw its neighbors, people will not trust joining it.
Plus, the two places in the state that have most enthusiastically embraced regionalism are the Cape and Franklin County, doing it years before you wrote your post.
I don’t think anybody fully embraces the Gov’s Council. I think most people just don’t think it is worth a Constitutional amendment fight to get rid of it.
They were turned into bke paths.
And on another note, the diarist talks about the re-urbanization of MA and speaks as if a majority of suburban drivers commute into the city. Any back-up for that? Because looking around, more and more jobs which had to be urban based are now on-line and there seem to be fewer commuters into these urban areas than there were even 20 years ago.
My company moved its offices from Cambridge to Waltham this summer.
One of the more expensive aspects of building a new route from scratch is right-of-way acquisition. Turning a bike path back into a rail line can be more affordable.
I’m inclined to doubt that such constituencies currently exist in sufficient numbers to politically justify the land takings necessary to recreate rights-of-way.
In other words, did the ownership of the rights of way change hands upon conversion and would they have to again?
below
Irrespective of who “owns” a given right of way, there will be no serious attempt to re-utilize it for rail of any type, absent the concurrence of a critical mass of support from the cities and towns through which it runs.
And that, I repeat, is highly unlikely.
For example, the DOT might decide to designate it as a road if it makes sense.
The Mass Central is fairly large at 40 feet wide. Bay Colony is probably half or less than that. Linear corridors were a bitch to set up, way back when, so there is considerable reluctance to unwind them, which is probably also a handful.
You’d have to go back to the formation date and find all the land title data to discover who gets what back.
A rail restoration would have to make sense as a route. Mass Central stopped running in 1970 or so but went as far as Hudson for a while and ended up at Wayland when it shut down.
A lot of its infrastructure stuff is still there including a few large steel bridges in Waltham and Weston.
The main restoration plan under consideration is the South Coast Route that TBD despises.
It’s an old route to Taunton that goes through the middle of the Hockomock, the largest bit of quasi wilderness left in Eastern MA.
I’ve used that rail bed as an access trail.
The Greenbush line was the last restoration of an old run and that has become the whipping boy for complaints about excess expansion.
It’s a nice run though. I have around 40 minutes of window video of the run I need to mix down.
You assert that a “concurrence of a critical of support from the cities and towns through which it runs” is “highly unlikely”. If that “highly unlikely” event were to come to pass, however, then retaking a bike trail as a right-of-way is, in fact, far more affordable than the alternatives.
Let me offer my view of a “highly unlikely” scenario. I think it is highly unlikely that an automobile-centric regional economy will be sustainable in a timeline measured in decades.
Let me, therefore, pose this as a question. Assuming that reliance on automobiles and highways, as we know them today, is NOT a long-term option, what ARE the alternatives?
…against auto-centric lifestyles; furthermore, if prioritizing long-term planning were part of those cultural changes; and finally if public transit activists gained the upper hand over green space and bike trail activism (I know that these groups currently overlap, but what if a choice is foisted between these options?), then you would have a point.
I don’t see such changes in the foreseeable future.
I would argue that Massachusetts is become more car-centric over the years, not less. I further think that local NINBYism would at present prevent a majority of local (in particular abutting) residents from supporting such takings.
My belief is that – at present – green space, bicycle activists, and generic NYMBY types would join forces against public transit activists and win at both the municipal and regional levels.
They mainly want it to accommodate bicycles and they are happy.
Here’s a video clip animation Mass DOT did with input from the Bicycle Lobby for the community path near Somerville Tom’s place.
http://youtu.be/ZcU03_W9z1Q
They want to see plenty of racks and secure bike sheds as many of them are happy to pedal to a Station, lock up and take the T from there.
They tend to be more involved with process than nearly anyone and they often have planner and legal backgrounds. One of my faves is an attorney in Lower Allston who pedals to a job in Waltham.
Another works for the town of Milton and waxes ecstatic if he gets Milton to improve road safety for some busy stretch of the Neponset Parkway.
Their interests converge as they dread cars and are ecocentric so supporting public transit comes natural. The NIMBY critters are mainly rich assholes who worry about burglars.
You can see it just in the way the T Buses nearly all have bike racks. Commuter rail has accommodation areas for bikes and only proscribe full sized bikes at peak rush hour. Foldable types are welcome anytime.
If you really want a sense of their social anthropology just go over to Universal Hub and pull up any post involving Bicycles… any post and watch the fur fly. It has a very militant bicyclist engineer who calls herself Swirly Grrrl. She seems to live in West Medford.
She is easily my favorite regular there.
…but I’m not certain that the alliance between bike activists and transit supporters would pass an either/or reality test.
And greenspace activists constitute a class in itself, again overlaps notwithstanding.
I still remember some of the more infantile games between and among them during the Arborway Yard battles in Jamaica Plain during the late Nineties and early Oughts.
Even allowing for the points you raise, it’s not at all evident that the folk you cite constitute a voting majority in neighborhoods where proposed takings would be necessary. Were they so, I think there would be more support for the MBTA (and for transparency in the agency’s operations) on Beacon Hill
NINBY types can also be affluent (but not necessarily rich) types who genuinely like the pseudo-rusticity of trails unspoiled by rails, and consider bus access to their towns to be a fate worse than death. While I don’t share that opinion, I’ve encountered it.
The big points of activity for the Bike Milton guy involve working within the system. He’s a town employee.
His big source of satisfaction at this time is working on the last bit of the Neponset Greenway between Milton Central Station and Hyde Park.
http://youtu.be/XUE-NkJyvKI
They are also working on a counterpart system on the Quincy Side. I scouted it and made video they used in preparation for building a trail from Squantum Point to the bridge at North Quincy.
http://youtu.be/CWW5b5Q2DJ8
They are also working on the Boston section between Savin Hill and the Butler Station including new parcels being turned to parks at the Point Norfolk parcel that once was a lumber wharf.
http://youtu.be/tXHYTZDAUZQ
As best as I can tell the work they are doing already went through process and is wanted.
This is one of the groups http://www.bostonnatural.org/index.htm
And they work with this one http://www.neponset.org/
They are pretty earnest and mainly implement things already wanted. Jessica Mink was instrumental in getting support for the East Boston Greenway that used another dead rail line.
http://youtu.be/7mb6mxb8ZIg
It is a very different bunch than can readily be found here. They are all doing stuff instead of agonizing, speculating or jaw boning and it gives me great stuff to make content for. I can’t wait for spring.
If a demand ever returns for some more complex use like light rail to Sudbury or whatever, it is fairly easy to build out. The ties are mainly half rotted and the rail is an old spec.
The basic railbed surfaces are generally stable although some have epa toxin issues. If they are just given a finish grade and layered over with rock dust it is like the base prep for new rail anyway.
Paved traiils are more problematic but the Commonwealths ultimate ownership of the access way stays until formally dissolved.
The Mass Central project is was being spearheaded by the DCR although it wasn’t easy to tell until I figured the right search query term.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/conservation/planning-and-resource-protection/projects/mass-central-rail-trail-wayside-branch.html
It all may be up in the air now but it was looking like Weston was finally getting ready to play ball and the important urban sections in Waltham are champing at the bit. It already is a paved bikeway at the Belmont Cambridge border where it is called the Fitchburg Cut off path.
Mind you I have walked the whole thing from Somerville at Lowell Street where it’ll be a Green Line Extension station to the Route 20 crossing in Wayland and I have the whole thing up on you tube.
It took me a couple of seasons and was a real ball.
To make it gone forever involves returning the bits of property that were taken long ago.
Many of these abandoned rail lines ended up being owned by the commonwealth after the railroads went bankrupt. Mass became ‘owner of last resort’.
They are valuable assets to infrastructure as they are commonly used to make routes for power lines. The commonwealth extends leases in 99 year units unless otherwise specified.
The bikeway rail trail conversion arrangement has been evolving. Bike advocates typically demand a fully paved surface and all year access but that isn’t entirely realistic. It is also expensive per road mile.
So the DOT recently handed down a new ruling for a provisional basis that is pretty imaginative.
The trail group will get a 99 year provisional lease and be allowed salvage rights for the rail steel and ties to pay for the project. The surface is initially allowed to be rock dust, way less expensive than paving.
And then it is like a test. If the thing becomes wildly popular and heavily used like Minuteman, they can move it up to a paved surface.
There are a bunch of projects in the pipeline. The Patrick people were enthused about the need for a bikeway system counterpart to a road system and we have a great basis for it. It gets bicyclists off of roads which local cops loooove as I discovered when I had a conversation with a Needham officer over at High Rock Forest last summer.
Bicycle/car road problems are a major element of concern for many metro area forces where their mission tends to be road management more than crime handling.
The completion of the things tends to turn on towns getting along. Watertown finished its part of a great conversion for the old Watertown Branch Route but Cambridge dithered.
Weston is still sandbagging Mass Central and Dover is doing the same for Bay Colony. Lynn isn’t helping with completion of Northern Strand even though Malden, Revere and Saugus are mainly done.
And in Cholly Baker’s home town of Swampscott, sandbagging ensues for the Marblehead line while Salem made it a thing of beauty a while ago and Marblehead loves it as it gives kids a safe way to get to and from schools.
Newburyport went one better and made a wonderful path that doubles as a linear sculpture garden using the old trolley route.
You can’t even use the Charlie Card to pay for MBTA commuter rail, which is nuts. The right way forward is to have the same Charlie Card work for all public transit in the state, be in MBTA territory or elsewhere. I’m not arguing that a monthly rail pass for the MBTA should let you ride buses at no additional charge in Springfield, but I am arguing that the “cash” on your card should work everywhere.
Not only is it easier for passengers, but in the long run it lowers both capital and operating costs for the transit agencies.
… it’s the short-sighted stuff like this that drives me crazy. There does not seem to be agreement on an overriding vision for the MBTA: between this BRA poaching, and more-or-less arbitrary bike-paths, shoveled on Big-Dig debt, Green Line cars stuck in auto traffic, the truncated Alewife parking garage, the half-assed Silver line and the insanity of arbitrarily forgoing a north south connector the MBTA seems like a loose collection of the agendas of other agencies and/or their cast off burdens. There is no over-riding vision, just a series of quick-fixes, gimmicks, tie-downs, cast-offs and encumbrances… it’s a wonder anybody gets anywhere.
As much as I quite appreciate the effort and time you’ve put into this (and I do, well done) I think that the problem starts with the fact that, instead of a vision for transportation, we have fractured, peacemeal, loose collection of poorly adumbrated parts that, together, form much much less than a whole. If we didn’t, the very idea that the BRA would retain air rights over MBTA property would be laughed at. Instead, in this instance, somebody took the BRA far more seriously than they took the MBTA. It seems the MBTA gets the shit end of the stick whenever they interact with some other agency or agenda…
As long as that continues to happen the MBTA will continue to be broken. The CommonWealth also..
They are optional uses that can be rescinded should something more important happen. They are mainly created through volunteer effort, usually in far less time than any type of infrastructure and they are used.
And they share uses with power corridors. It is a common sight in my explorations. The Marblehead line, the old Haverhill Trolley line in Newbury the Northern Strand and the Mass Central are all power line corridors.
Some get intensive use like the Minuteman. Railway construction was an early form of bubble speculation with all the boom and bust cycles that have attended every transformative innovation since the Steam Engine.
The oldest railway outside of the Quincy Granite line is fully abandoned and it is a challenge to even find its bed. Others have been valuable in some form or another forever.
The Fitchburg Line you take from Leominster used to wake Thoreau up when it chuffed past Walden.
… why is any one path a bike path and yet others rail? Arbitrary as in done by caprice or whim (volunteers?) and not by reason of principle, plan or component of a system.
They were designed to serve a bunch of manufacturing plants and patterns that haven’t existed for years. The first one hauled quarry granite from Quincy and the second hauled soapstone from Andover to the Middlesex Canal.
The main lines went from Boston to somewhere.. Providence, Worcester and Lowell. The rest followed the rise of the industrial era. Some croaked and were abandoned.
But the right of way remains as an option. The current working rail grid is covered by CSX and Panamerican. There is a lot of oil in tank car consists passing through to a refinery in New Brunswick every day. Produce is shipped by rail and a daily run of refrigerator cars goes from Framingham to Chelsea. I can hear it pass at night and aim to get a video of it.
The commuter rail system for the Old Colony Line and Greenbush is partly a remnant of the New York Central bankruptcy. There aren’t that many businesses left in Mass that need rail cars of stuff. Trucks work for most.
And some of these routes passed through residential areas near Boston like Needham, Waltham, Saugus and Milford that want to use them as safe motor free travel corridors to the urban core.
There are a growing number of vocal, well organized bicycle advocates who really want a dedicated system that gets them off of roads where they risk their lives in traffic from inept masshole drivers.
Local police forces that have road grid congestion like that too as it’s one less hazard potential. My bikeway video content is fairly popular for that reason. It lets cyclists scout routes from their desk in leisure time for trip planning and exploration.
And a popular bikeway like the Minuteman is usually a busy melange of stroller moms, skaters, dog walkers, regular pedestrians and bicyclists.
People love the things and are enjoying these motor-less access ways.
n/t
Since you like to call them “spite votes”, one would suspect that you only downrate out of pure pique and you have just confirmed that.
You asked, ‘why the spite vote?’, which is sorta silly since, if it is a ‘spite vote’, you know why, so you have no need to ask.
If it is not a spite vote (and not every downrate is…) your use of the term suggests a mind closed to reasons other than spite… so I downrate in disagreement and move on.
Since you press the point I’m compelled to ask A) why is it so important to you? and 2) when do you get promoted to the 10th grade? ( I’ll send a congratulatory note…) .
When other people downrate you its a “spite vote”, but when you do it is simply registering your “disagreement”? That makes sense. 😉
To answer your questions: A) it is not “important” to me, it simply amuses me to see how blind you are to the fact that your own behavior appears awfully like that of others who have downrated you; you can rationalize this all you want, but the only person you will be convincing is yourself, and B) thanks for proving my point.
… that every downrate was a “spite rate”. That’s just you lacking an appreciation of nuance. To suggest that every downrate is out of spite — or even that I once hinted that every down rate is done out of spite — indicates that spite, or the appearance of it, plays a not insignificant part of your imagination.
Well, apparently your own amusement is very important to you because you’ve already spent more time on this than is seemly. As for ‘proving your point’ I wonder, exactly, what point that is?
Downrating is often just disagreement. But there are tests that can be done to see if it is out of spite: one such test is to ask yourself if there is a legitimate question that is being downrated… that’s most often a spite-rate. It happens. I’ve never done it. But it happens. Another test is to see if a clean fact, presented without bias, that gets downrated: the downrater assumes a bias where none exists. That’s a bit of spite there. Another test to perform is to ask if it’s a response that, given by another, gets either an up rate or an affirmative response, but which gets a downrate. That’s an indication that it’s personal. Again, I’ve never done that either. But others have done. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it… but it does happen.
Another test is to see if the respondent actually addressed the point and whether or not it’s just some netiquette fascist trying to control the debate…
I pay attention to what gets written, responded to, uprated and downrated . If you did likewise you’ll find a whole new layer of meaning here. It’s quite fascinating actually…
I think many of those “spite rate” downvotes could be interpreted as simply disagreement under your definition.
In any case, you downrated Chris Rich’s thoughtfully written comment, one that contained nothing objectionable nor anything false. You did it purely because you disagreed with the larger point of the relative arbitrariness of bike trails. Fine, everyone understands your opinion. Downrating that comment was not a good way to make that point and you really should not expect others to interpret that as anything other than “spite”, especially when not accompanied by a reply.
Re “proving my point”, the 10th grade remark was a gratuitous insult. It doesn’t bother me, but it makes it more difficult to make a convincing argument that you are never motivated by spite.
I suppose you could argue that the locations of Worcester, Providence and Lowell are arbitrary, but the 19th century rail lines that went to them are about as deliberate as anything gets.
The DOT is not unwinding the existing bunch any time soon. There has just been an evolving outlook as to what potential post-rail uses are best.
Power pylon routes are fairly easy choices and Greenways are fairly popular in the communities they serve for the reasons I’ve already cited.
It is located along a stretch of the Merrimack River where the water drops 30 feet within a mile, most of which is at the Pawtucket Falls. The mills for this industrial city needed that as the source of their power. Even before the city the Pawtucket Canal, conveniently attached to the Concord River on its lower end, was built for transport purposes to bypass this stretch of the river. Either way it was going to be a bit of a regional hub. Heck even Sachem Passaconaway ruled the Pennacook Confederacy covering the land between the Charles and St. Lawrence Rivers from his base near the Pawtucket Falls.
I’m just trying to find the most arbitrary spot in another fatuous petr argument.
One could always argue that mills are an arbitrary euromutt invention that might have never happened.
The utility of the place long predates euromutt money schemes. The Red Earth people had sturgeon weirs off of Tyngs Island that are as old as the Pyramids.
The Lowell Dracut Forest is where some of the last Red Earth reservation land sleeps. I’ve been to Pow Wows there.
Most cities and towns still around today are located near whatever motivated their original formation.
Until the invention of the automobile, cities and towns nearly always formed around water — rivers, lakes, and harbors. Rivers usually form when topography like hills and mountains forces water into the closest thing to a straight and level path it can find. Railroads follow rivers (often around tortuous curves) because the river is already at the smallest grade possible, and the river bed follows a topographical contour determined by the surrounding mountains and hills.
All this changed, for a time, with the automobile. The cities of the west coast are largely formed by convenience to highways rather than geographic features (I’m thinking of, for example, the entire San Francisco peninsula from San Jose all the way up to San Francisco). Similarly, the new towns that have been built even in the east are ugly sprawls of shopping malls and tract housing because they were built around highway access and assume that automobiles and gas are cheap.
The locations of Worcester, Providence, and Lowell are most certainly NOT arbitrary. Nor is the location of Springfield, Lawrence, Salem, Newburyport, New Bedford, Haverhill, nor any other similar city or town arbitrary.
I’ve been walking through parts of a 200 mile arc through Mass since June of 2012 and have been keeping track of it for much of my life as a hobby. I’ve even been on paths that were Red Earth trails before Euromutts showed up.
It’s how I play with hollow arguments that are too loaded with crap to wade through.
If you really think about it, there is some point where arbitrary passes into ‘destined’ If we go before Wisconsin Glaciation it gets less destined unless we know the prior history of the watercourses.
Maybe the line was crossed from arbitrary to destined when the fault plate tipped and made a Connecticut Valley.
… there are many railways, railway tracks, rail beds, fallow right-of-ways and railroad infrastructure THROUGHOUT the CommonWealth. ALL of them were RAIL for a reason and were not, either by placement, intent or use, put in place for arbitrary reasons. Ya’ll can pretend that I said that, but you’d be lying to yourselves, ’cause I never did. And, as I refuse to believe you are all as dense as that, you know it.
SOME of that infrastructure fell into dis-use. Of that sub-set, some was re-purposed altogether ARBITRARILY as bike paths. Nobody, anywhere said, “let’s come up with a purpose for dis-used railway infrastructure” or “let’s connect point A with point B by bikeway”. Some people said “Hey, let’s ride our bikes here.” And then, after riding their bikes or walking they said, “let’s get the city to pave it.” It was an organic process that was not conceived as other than present and convenient…
There remains SOME rail infrastructure throughout the CommonWealth that is neither bike path or used at all. This too, is ARBITRARY as in: conforming to no plan; a component of no system; and without deliberation or willful intent to integrate into any system or plan. There is, in fact, a bridge over Rte 2 on the Leominster-Fitchburg line that does nothing, carries nothing and no longer has any purpose, either as rail, walking path, bikeway or even critter corridor. It just is. It is, however, inspected regularly and maintained to prevent it falling unto the aforementioned route over which it spans. A-r-b-i-t-r-a-r-y.
For those who practice a wilful fatuity let me spell it out clearly: all rail, as rail, is not and never was arbitrary. After rail, use or disuse is arbitrary: no bike path you can name started out as anything other than an arbitrary squatters choice. I don’t know how to spell it out more cleanly or clearly than that.
To bring it back (again) to my original point: the MBTA is the grab-bag of resources and storage space for agencies, municipalities, citizens and politicians to arbitrarily nibble off bits and pieces here and there for their own agendas and to the very great detriment of the MBTA. As much as we like to figure out solutions to the general bundle of sub-problems besetting the MBTA, this is THE CENTRAL PROBLEM: until the MBTA, and it’s central purpose is taken seriously and not arbitrarily poached upon by surrounding entities nothing will change. Bike paths are a part of this. Giving away the South Station air rights to the BRA is part of it. Deciding to build just five stories of a planned seven story building is part of it. Sweeping Big Dig debt under the MBTA rug is part of this. Cutting transportation funding in the face of a collapsing MBTA is part of this unwillingness to take the MBTA seriously. Refusing to raise taxes is refusing to take the MBTA seriously.
I agree with you that the choice of which former rail routes shall become bike paths has been arbitrary. I enthusiastically agree with your last paragraph.
If people want to go through process at town meetings and cheerlead for a bike path rail trail, then it will eventually happen, but there are a bunch of deliberate things that need to be done and it has very little to do with the T or budget deflection or priority distraction any more than volunteering to maintain the Appalachian Trail does..
Here’s a look at three groups who made web sites to promote different facets of a Bay Colony line conversion.
1. http://www.baycolonyrailtrail.org/ probably the oldest.
2. Here’s a Needham specific version. http://needham.baycolonyrailtrail.org/
Both of these are focused on the section between Needham and Medfield.
3. Then we have this group which is mainly interested in the section between Needham Highlands and Newton Upper Falls.
http://www.needhamrailtrail.org/
They have a rivalry with the other portion advocates and their focus is getting a corridor that is a safe pedal through to Newton Highlands because.
4. http://www.upperfallsgreenway.org/ covers the part of it between the Newton border on the Charles and the point where it merges with the Riverside line.
Isn’t it a wonder of odd little community groups doing ground level stuff?
This is how the open space advocacy world works around here and it is a lot more engaging than the usual quasi sterile turf wars over how the legislature should spend money.
Al French basically talked this 200 mile thing into existence over the course of 20 years work for free. http://www.baycircuit.org/
And these rail trails function like spokes and make it easier for people in the urban core to get to the outer rim, in addition to the role of alternate bike routes for commuters(… less cars… right?)
And I promised him I’d beat a drum for it particularly because it is very important to him that it doesn’t become a toy for the affluent suburbs. He wants inner city people, especially low income citizens in troubled neighborhoods to know it is there for them to experience nature and fresh air, etc.
While it may seem kind of idealistic, it’s worth trying.
Here’s an example of what is possible and why it might matter.
http://youtu.be/zrbh2q-6K_E
So I am aware of theis very elaborate fabric of efforts of hundreds of people and organizations who work to make stuff like this happen without much worry as to whether the pompous Commonwealth gov and political system is involved.
And to be honest, I have no idea what anyone’s party affiliation is. They seem to be old school Frank Sargent republicans and some neoliberals.
With any luck this will open up whole new worlds of citizen advocacy and activism and at least provide a useful sense of what’s up with rail trails.
You would thing some funereal gloom cloud darkens their day cause: “Oh no’ I got downrated on a funny little presumably liberal politic blog…”
Time to call the Waaahmbulance.
It’s gotten worse in recent weeks taking some of us by surprise. Since you’ve only been here a couple of months you may not have that frame of reference.
I just usually glance at it all. I have a link to BMG at my blog just because I think it is a nice add for a sense of local politics. It’s been there forever.
I used to comment back when I still drank booze and the results were even more gawdawful than the stoned rubbish I cough up now.
But really, if you believe in the merit of you’re arguments and contributions, that should be all you need.
The Olympics are contentious because of the way process has been handled. And, as we see from these MBTA financial engineering fiascoes,
the various denizens of the poobah class, they should never be taken at face value about anything any more than I should.
FWIW, I still miss the previous rating system which allowed for a bit more nuance. To only have + and – as choices is a rather blunt instrument IMO.
… happenstance that is not contained within your rather blanket statement “There’s nothing arbitrary about bike paths.”
Your word count suggests a hand-wavey slide between the general and the specific that elides the fact that bike paths are just as much a part of public transit as commuter rail or subway and should therefore be under the purview of the transportation department and a component of a system… not a volunteer effort that, in other circumstances you, in particular, would label ‘yuppie luxury’.
To bring it back to my original point: the arbitrary nature of the bike paths exhibits very cleanly how the MBTA priorities have taken a back seat to more parochial concerns, time and time again. The problem. And it is no different than BRA swiping resources from the MBTA at South Station.
Bike paths are useful, don’t get me wrong, and this isn’t a means of, however much you might like me to, denouncing them. They should be integrated and part of the system and not arbitrarily decided upon to the detriment of the system as a whole.
I’m a huge supporter of The Ride and the mobility it gives seniors and the disabled — it’s a critical service — but why in all that’s holy is the T supposed to fund it?
Why isn’t that budgeted directly through the state, as it’s own service?
This is some serious messed up policy. $95 million a year means a lot to the T.
This should be one of the giant priorities of any activist agenda for the MBTA — get The Ride off the back of the MBTA and onto the back of the state as a whole, otherwise it’s a very small subset of Massachusetts ctizens — T riders (many of whom are less affluent) — subsidizing a costly service for the entire state. That’s seriously messed up.
Again — I’m not attacking The Ride here, just attacking the fact the state is forcing the MBTA to subsidize it when the state should directly cover those costs, or create some new funding mechanism that does it.
It should be moved to another department. It would also be great if there was a way to spin off the debt into another financial entity that could be paid out of general funds rather than the MBTA revenue stream. We should really look at altering the revenue stream to divert more funds to the T in the interim. Obviously, we will need to raise taxes to fix this revenue problem.
and gauranteed the T’s debt (so it could get better rates), seem like the two lowest hanging fruit items that could be sold on Beacon Hill.
The state guaranteeing the loans would get the interest rates down, potentially saving a decent chunk of change in a refinance, and as an added bonus would make the state really “own” the MBTA.
I think that’s a highly critical issue — Beacon Hill can ignore the MBTA right now, because they can say, “hey, that’s the MBTA’s problem” whenever something comes up. If the state is on the line for the MBTA’s debt, they can’t do that anymore and it would at least force the state to step up and deal with this stuff.
These two fixes aren’t going to solve all the MBTA’s problems, but it’s a good piecemeal step and has longterm potential to force Beacon Hill to step up and take accountability for the MBTA.
I didn’t think The Ride operated outside of Boston and Metrowest
Legally, The Ride operates within x miles of any MBTA station — subway, bus, rail, boat, whatevs. In practice, The Ride operates within any city or town that has 1 or more MBTA stations.
60 cities and towns in the MBTA district are served by The Ride.
.
Since dirt doesn’t really ride the thing, you have to do some monkey counting and and all the local Bosto-centrics will be quicker than lightning to make sure you know just how important Boston is, should any doubt still exist.
tax like they have in London? It might lead to increased ridership and more money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Avoidance_and_evasion
The article says it’s in effect 7AM to 6PM whereas I would do it during rush hours AND possibly discount transit fare rather than increase it like the DC Metro does. I suppose London has an easier Tube alternative within the zone keeping the convenience factor up, but that has to be key. In general I will always favor making transit cheap over making driving expensive.
Right now the position of the State Government is that, like the post office, the MBTA should be (mostly) self sufficient. This ignores that fact the public transportation is a public good and should have some public investment. Rail has a positive externality on the economy though property values and growth for businesses. It also, if done right can reduce greenhouse emissions, (especially with new hybrid locomotives). Some people are unable to drive, and need public transportation to get around.
We need to both expand and improve service, what I see a lot the rhetoric present a false choice.
Anyway, back to my point: the MBTA shouldn’t be self sufficient, it should be invested in by the state because doing so enhances the public welfare.
….if wages were higher for many of those individuals who used it. Not all, for sure, but a good number earn low wages. But since that’s not going to happen in the American version of capitalism (winner take all), then we are left with the current option of externalizing the actual costs of labor in the private sector to the public sector. I’m not against the externalizing of costs to a degree but I am against our current tax structure in which the class that truly benefits the most from low cost labor is the same class that pays a lower percentage of their wealth in taxes.
…that the MBTA will not be fully operational for another month!
Again, my junker-in-the-driveway analogy.
When somebody drives a car into the ground — never adding oil, transmission fluid, checking brakes and power steering, changing plugs, etc — so that the car finally breaks down, it should be no surprise that the car might remain dead a LONG time.
No parts are available (because the car hasn’t been manufactured in a decade) and have to be scrounged from a junkyard. Only a handful of mechanics have ever seen a similar car, and they’re nearly retired — and may not want to touch it. The damage is likely to be catastrophic (seized engine) and expensive to repair.
We drove this system into the ground, and it has failed. It began failing YEARS ago when Red Line doors didn’t close, the train didn’t stop, and we blithely did nothing as if nothing had happened. The D’Alessandro report is from 2009, more than FIVE years ago. We did nothing.
Sadly, we are not surrounded by MBTA dealers offering President Day sales on new systems (“Not your father’s Red Line”).
from having to play any political drama games. She is free to tell it like it is, no matter the fallout. There is no longer any need for tact or political calculation.
The state spends money to maintain I-93 and the commuter rail lines into North Station from Haverhill and Lowell… anyone know the relative investment? Obviously this is one of the most congested roads in the state for the entire 9 miles from Wakefield to Charlestown. Same thing for route 3 north from Hingham to Boston.
Why is the head of the MA Building Trades council wasting ink supporting a tiny number of jobs in building the Kinder Morgan pipeline when the real jobs and the real need is in improving transportation infrastructure?
I’d like to see the amount spent on maintaining I-93 between Boston and the NH border, so that it can be compared with the amount spent on commuter rail maintenance between North Station and the northern terminus of the several commuter rail routes (Lowell, Haverhill, Newburyport, Rockport).
I’d like to see the average travel time delta between drive-time and off-peak for these routes, so that we can also include an estimate of lost wages and so on due to travel delays.
For extra credit, I’d like to see the carbon footprint, per passenger mile, for these alternatives.
In my view, we should be looking at the TOTAL cost of our transportation alternatives.
I’d like to see the same analysis done for route 3 between Burlington and the NH line, including the trips added to 128, 93, and 2.
Finally, I’d like to see some data on New Hampshire’s share of the drive-time traffic of our major highways north of the city.
1. What is the total subsidy being given to New Hampshire residents?
2. How much could MA save by shifting that NH automobile traffic to commuter rail, given Governor Hassan’s stated desire to provide commuter rail service between NH and Boston?
One interesting number is around 297 million allocated to fix the hell interchange up in Stoneham and Reading where it meets 128 in Woburn.
That is slated to begin in 2017.
That simple wonder bridge repair in Medford ran to around 97 million or what the T collects in fares or what “the Ride” adds to the T’s budget.
One of my original goals with this article was going to be a comparison of state spending on highways vs our public transit system, but the numbers are hard to come by. I think you have the main variables however.
Not much to say bc it’s all been said it seems — thanks for a really great post and for all the great discussion, everyone.
After my hellacious 3hr+ commute from Malden to Longwood Medical this morning, this was a very good read. We need to start thinking about ways we can fix this, including many creative ideas as proposed by the author and the commenters.
I especially like ryepower12’s idea to move The Ride off the MBTA budget and restructure the MBTA debt to the state. Small steps maybe, but I agree they would be improvements for the reasons cited. Beyond that we need more revenue to deal with the maintenance backlog.
Just want to say, best darned post on BMG in a long time. THANK YOU!
Thanks Mobeach!
Thanks so much! Really informative. And underlines that the #1 problem facing the T is political leadership: the system can be fixed, but to do so it must be changed.
Thanks Bob – appreciate the note!