An innovative and fresh idea emerged from our family’s discussion of the recent legislative photo op at the expense of the MBTA: take bold steps to increase efficiency and decrease waste in state government.
Instead of one highly-publicized “Gov On The T Day” (why am I reminded of “take your daughter to work day”?), I propose that we restructure government incentives so that EVERY member of Massachusetts government (Governor, Governor’s staff, legislator, legislative staff, etc.) is rewarded for taking public transportation, and simultaneously end all stipends, parking privileges, and so on for those employees. Any member of government who chooses to use a soft-tired conveyance (other than a public bus) must pay the entire cost of that use from personal funds.
Here’s how my plan would work:
1. The state will save money by ending daily automobile stipends, parking privileges, and so on. Parking space in downtown Boston is a scarce and expensive resource. The state can earn more by renting those downtown parking spaces to the public.
2. Each member will be awarded a CharlieCard that is prepaid each month, valid for travel on any MBTA conveyance in the state. If regional systems require a separate physical item, those will be provided as well.
3. Members will be provided pre-paid parking at the nearest Commuter Rail/MBTA lot near them (where they can compete with other commuters for space).
4. Daily stipends will be paid for the distance between the member’s home and the nearest MBTA/Commuter Rail access point.
5. No special accommodations will be made for members on board any conveyance. Each member will wait the same time as the general public. Each member will stand in the same over-crowded and unventilated car as other commuters. This has the benefit further increasing transparency in government, as the public has greater opportunity during daily commutes to share their opinions and views with members of government, and vice-versa.
The public transportation system is an expensive asset. We increase government efficiency by encouraging each member of government to take advantage of that investment, rather than wasting taxpayer funds on the luxury of expensive and wasteful automobile travel when a reliable and convenient transportation system is already available for their use.
If each member of our government was:
A: Dependent on reliable public transportation to do their work, and
B: Exposed on a daily basis to the on-going reactions of their constituents, and
C: Required to handle the same flaws, delays, overcrowding, and sub-par performance as their constituents
then the stance of government towards public transportation might change. Call me cynical, but I suspect that we might see rather more government support for expanding commuter rail parking lots, increasing service on existing lines, improving conditions on existing lines, and adding new routes.
Plus, we’d increase efficiency and decrease waste — the mantra of every candidate of every party for every office in recent memory.
I remember bringing that up to a less then enthusiastic reception (from you) on fixing the MBTA on Feb20. I wasn’t presenting “an empty gotcha point”. We need to bring government employees especially the elected ones down off their pedestals.
I remember the exchange, but not the specifics (I guess I can go look).
I suppose it’s fair to say that my views have evolved.
I reread my my comment that you refer to.
I did begin by saying “Fair enough”. I grant that I perhaps misinterpreted your comment as snark, and I apologize. That thread then got derailed into a rathole of rumor and response.
I agree with you, though, that if members of our government were encouraged to use the public transportation they ultimately control (rather than being subsidized by the taxpayer to avoid such use), they might at least be more aware of its condition. They might also be more aware of the feelings of those who, like them, depend on it.
I think we need to encourage (force) our politicians to experience life by walking in the shoes of their constituents as often as possible. The idea that their election elevates them above the fray leads to situations where they create exemptions for themselves. Obviously some instances exist where politicians/govt workers need to have their own rules. In general though whether it’s commuting, health care or the penal system we’re all just citizens.
Plenty of civil servants work something like a 9-5. For those folks, a plan like this works.
The reality is, however, that government leadership lives aren’t 9-5. When they’re “in town” the MBTA doesn’t get it done for them. Session, then perhaps an event in your district, then perhaps an event in another district. Sure, one could get there by T, but not on the tight schedule that legislators are working.
I have no sense for how many are in the first group and how many are in the second. I want more folks in government to ride the T. Push comes to shove though, if you made the changes you suggest, the 200 legislators are still going to drive to Beacon Hill every day they’re in town, but you’ve effectively cut their total compensation, which is already relatively low relative to the job skills required to do a good job.
* by government leadership I mean folks who are elected pols and plenty of staffers who travel along the same schedules. The folks for whom every day has a different start/end timing and likely a different travel itinerary.
A great many workers outside government have the same constraint. Their work lives aren’t 9-5, they often have events and meetings in-town before or after work hours, they often have events and meetings at home (for family, social organizations — even local politics. I want legislators to feel the same pressures as any other professional. Most employers do not pay private parking expenses. Some enlightened employers offer T passes.
As MBTA and commuter rail is expanded, the number of workers — including government workers and legislators — for which it is viable will also expand.
The total compensation of thousands of workers — professional and otherwise — was similarly reduced this winter. I want our government to share the pain it already imposes on the rest of us.
I don’t disagree with your analysis, mind you — I’m just not sure I land in the same place as you on what to do with the results of that analysis.
My rep would drive 45 miles to Plymouth (across the Sagamore bridge under repair) to take a train 37 miles to South Station where he can walk or cab the remaining 2 miles to the State House. Shouldn’t take more than 4-5 hours each way when there are no detours.
What could go wrong there?
The Urbancentricity of BMG is astonishing sometimes.
Or your rep would pay to drive and pay to park, just like everyone else.
Sounds like a way to help your rep understand the importance of public transportation, even for those who live on the Cape.
…for the idea that some legislators still live well outside the T’s reach because that is where their districts are. Maybe a compromise is use your plan for legislators who have Commuter Rail running through their districts and maintain the status quo for those who do not.
Districts that are “well outside the T’s reach” will remain so unless and until commuter rail is expanded. Residents of those districts suffer all the inconveniences of the legislators, and incur the extra costs already.
A physical consequence of living far away from a workplace is higher transportation costs. Public transportation helps reduce those costs. That will always be true for both workers and legislators alike.
In my view, the “compromise” you suggest would impair several fundamental purposes of the initiative — to stop taxpayer subsidizing of special privileges for legislators, and to encourage legislators to expand public transportation to include the entire state.
…I strongly suspect there’s not going to be that much demand. I too have advocated for an expanded network, but take Sen. Downing for example. He represents what he has said his colleagues refer to as “the beautiful suburbs of Albany”. How many of his constituents are also commuting to Boston on a daily basis? I suspect hardly any. Legislators ARE different precisely because they CAN’T just choose to live closer to work. I also don’t have a problem with parking spots. After all, plenty of places of employment provide parking specifically for their employees.
Senator Downing is not forced to hold office. Many professionals find themselves facing impossibly long commutes after, for example, an employer closes a local office or a locally-owned firm is acquired and “restructured” to “improve efficiency and decrease waste”.
Perhaps its time to stop treating legislators as if they were entitled to expensive special treatment. Sounds like an opportunity to rein in another entitlement program — perks for legislators.
Perhaps if our taxes were higher, so that state budgets weren’t so tight, then perks like this might be possible. Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo have, however, determined that the state may not raise taxes and must instead increase efficiency and decrease waste. Perhaps Senator Dowling can encourage his colleagues to revisit those policies.
Parking in Boston is an expensive perk. Companies who offer this also ensure that they keep their prices and profits high enough to support the cost. Few companies who are teetering near the edge of insolvency are so generous.
As far as I’m concerned, the fact that our government is as serious as it apparently is about refusing to increase the funding needed to sustain public transportation — citing the need to increase efficiency and reduce waste — means that Mr. DeLeo, Mr. Baker, and the legislature that empowers them are playing hardball.
Perhaps it’s time the rest of us throw a few high inside fastballs ourselves.
…but SOMEBODY has to represent that part of the state in both chambers, so if not Downing another Senator will be in the same situation. At least in the short term I stand by my compromise proposal. There are enough legislators within the reach of the T (including commuter rail) that even just getting them to use it regularly will create enough of a voting bloc to start making improvements.
> South Station where he can walk or cab the remaining 2 miles to the State House.
2 miles? Try 0.6 miles. The Ruralcentricity of BMG is astonishing sometimes.
Also, not sure why anyone would walk from South Station, when they could just take the Red Line directly from there to Park St and walk a couple hundred yards up the hill to the State House.
Just likes the walk — and the time to walk is roughly the time to ride if you include waiting for the subway to pull into the station.
However, it seems that porcupine’s rep is too fragile to venture outside of his personal vehicle, so walking over half a mile would definitely be beyond consideration.