MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) discussion
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
If they keep going at this rate soon they will require more money than needed to fix the NEC
Here is the report
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24169419/mbta-analysis-on-cost-to-fix-the-t.pdf
Might be cheaper to start over
I must admit I was staggered by the number they reported today.
I have no idea how the Commonwealth will fund this - The draconian move would be to install toll gantries on every road coming into the city and congestion tolls in the city itself.
This has been simmering since 1980 and Governor Ed King's administration.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1980/12/6/mbta-service-shuts-down-state-legislature/
I have no idea how the Commonwealth will fund this - The draconian move would be to install toll gantries on every road coming into the city and congestion tolls in the city itself.
This has been simmering since 1980 and Governor Ed King's administration.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1980/12/6/mbta-service-shuts-down-state-legislature/
Last edited:
George Harris
Engineer
Tight gauge is essentially self-correcting over time as tight gauge results in increased side wear of the rail. It is not desirable because this also means increased wear on the side of the wheel flange.
It is quite normal for the construction tolerance to be tighter than the maintenance tolerance. It should be, in fact, it musts be. Same concept as design platform gap should be less than ADA required maximum gap. You should not / cannot build something with the same deviation that is allowed in maintenance as this leaves you nowhere to go in service wear before maintenance is required. Also, virtually by definition if the contractor builds something that does not meet contract requirements it SHALL be fixed at the contractor's expense, otherwise he has not complied with the contract requirements. There is nothing irrational whatsoever about requiring a construction tolerance of +/- 1/16 inch and allowing a maintenance tolerance of, say +/- 1/4 inch, or even more.
Bostontoallpoints
Service Attendant
It's not worth it. It's not worth 1/2 that price.
Why say that?
On some level, I agree (though I think half the price may indeed be worth it).
But given what this country spends on roads and highways without blinking an eye, why should this price-tag raise eyebrows?
We're talking about decades of lack of investment. Its unsurprising that this is what it would cost to get the system running properly again.
Especially if Boston is to evolve properly and recover, having functioning transit is of paramount importance. Its certainly a better investment than all of the senseless highway boondoggles happening state and country-wide
Last edited:
JamesWhitcombRiley
Lead Service Attendant
A certain amount of the cost is good wages and safe conditions, you know, the benefits associated with unions. The money goes back into the economy, and I think even Milton Friedman would say there's a multiplier effect. But corruption and slackness are inherently unfair. So what is the ratio of this side benefit to detriment? It's not great, but it can't be read as 0%.
Let's talk theory. The interesting thing about revenue on publicly owned transit is that it should be higher. As in, charging significantly higher fares. By now, many urban areas in the U.S. that have these high costs for providing transit also have discounts for residents who can't afford the fares, sometimes rather deep ones. Of course there is a hue and cry about higher fares, because the people who say they can't afford the fares, but actually can, feel it is unfair or unpleasant. They have made their budget choices, and often feel on the edge of solvency for their lifestyle, but it's on them. Those choices should be constrained by removing more subsidies on private travel, and/or taxing it in line with costs. By happenstance, and to some extent policy, public transit is the mode of powered travel least harmful to the environment. (Maybe scooters and e-bikes qualify, but they're not accessible.) When transitt is fairly budgetted, middle class people in the squeeze should benefit from the economic improvement.
Charging higher fares is only good policy in this sense when the other transportation subsidies are reduced, of course. But it is good policy, since powered transit should have a cost, or we would overuse it. (Or live in it, as is also the case.) Economic choices work by a certain amount of economizing, after all. The interim solution is low fares, but they should probably be a bit higher even now. The public-private-ish PANJNY has cobbled together an alternate way, using profits on highway tolls, airports, real estate, and, marginally I think, the seaport (lots of competition at the latter), to run PATH trains at a low fare. (For all the complaints about its governance, that's entirely up to the two governors, and to some extent, the state senates, as it's run by board, and does not receive appropriations, as I understand it - could be wrong!) The public-private Brightline relies on low labor costs and rules, frequency (which can drive profit), favorable politics and tax policy, a narrow habitable area for people and highways, and a sort of endgame of automobile travel, where a portion of people drive dangerously on six- and eight-lane freeways, and even on the Turnpike. It's not just flood insurance that is going up in Florida.
In London decades ago, a local told me it was the prevailing opinion that the Underground was pricey, and while he resented it, I think the idea was it was frugal to find cheaper ways around, such as buses and walking, or just traveling less. Tourists don't see this, because it's not a daily expense. (Same for tolled HOV highway lanes.) The UK has a different culture, more resentment, more frugality, but it certainly colored my tourist's eye view of the Undergound. In the US, politics drives low fares, so maybe that's wise after all!
The Amtrak routes with low fares also tend to have better frequency (not good enough yet), and some show an operating profit. That's not the multiplier effect, but just a yield curve on investment.
Let's talk theory. The interesting thing about revenue on publicly owned transit is that it should be higher. As in, charging significantly higher fares. By now, many urban areas in the U.S. that have these high costs for providing transit also have discounts for residents who can't afford the fares, sometimes rather deep ones. Of course there is a hue and cry about higher fares, because the people who say they can't afford the fares, but actually can, feel it is unfair or unpleasant. They have made their budget choices, and often feel on the edge of solvency for their lifestyle, but it's on them. Those choices should be constrained by removing more subsidies on private travel, and/or taxing it in line with costs. By happenstance, and to some extent policy, public transit is the mode of powered travel least harmful to the environment. (Maybe scooters and e-bikes qualify, but they're not accessible.) When transitt is fairly budgetted, middle class people in the squeeze should benefit from the economic improvement.
Charging higher fares is only good policy in this sense when the other transportation subsidies are reduced, of course. But it is good policy, since powered transit should have a cost, or we would overuse it. (Or live in it, as is also the case.) Economic choices work by a certain amount of economizing, after all. The interim solution is low fares, but they should probably be a bit higher even now. The public-private-ish PANJNY has cobbled together an alternate way, using profits on highway tolls, airports, real estate, and, marginally I think, the seaport (lots of competition at the latter), to run PATH trains at a low fare. (For all the complaints about its governance, that's entirely up to the two governors, and to some extent, the state senates, as it's run by board, and does not receive appropriations, as I understand it - could be wrong!) The public-private Brightline relies on low labor costs and rules, frequency (which can drive profit), favorable politics and tax policy, a narrow habitable area for people and highways, and a sort of endgame of automobile travel, where a portion of people drive dangerously on six- and eight-lane freeways, and even on the Turnpike. It's not just flood insurance that is going up in Florida.
In London decades ago, a local told me it was the prevailing opinion that the Underground was pricey, and while he resented it, I think the idea was it was frugal to find cheaper ways around, such as buses and walking, or just traveling less. Tourists don't see this, because it's not a daily expense. (Same for tolled HOV highway lanes.) The UK has a different culture, more resentment, more frugality, but it certainly colored my tourist's eye view of the Undergound. In the US, politics drives low fares, so maybe that's wise after all!
The Amtrak routes with low fares also tend to have better frequency (not good enough yet), and some show an operating profit. That's not the multiplier effect, but just a yield curve on investment.
The $24B is over many years (maybe a decade), not a single lump sum. A lot of it is already budgeted, including new trains for the Red, Orange and Green lines.
This is paying the piper for calling the tunes over many decades. It is a little shocking how much it has added up to, but isn't really unexpected by anyone who has been watching the situation evolve.
Boston (or more accurately, the greater Boston metropolitan area, economically the 15th largest metro area in the world), isn't viable without it.
This is paying the piper for calling the tunes over many decades. It is a little shocking how much it has added up to, but isn't really unexpected by anyone who has been watching the situation evolve.
Boston (or more accurately, the greater Boston metropolitan area, economically the 15th largest metro area in the world), isn't viable without it.
It would cost many hundreds of billions to rip it all out and start from scratch, including acquiring new, more rationally laid out ROW. Plus no public transit for a couple of decades. It might feel emotionally satisfying to say that, but it would be a very bad idea. But bad ideas have a lot of currency (no pun intended) in the twenty-first century.
Bostontoallpoints
Service Attendant
No, there have decades of investment into the T. It was squandered. Four years ago it was $10 billion the T needed. The MBTA has the highest operating costs in the country. This bill will make it the highest in world bar none. What city is spending $25 billion on roads? The bid dig cost over $12 billion and eyes were doing a lot more than blinking. In this state if they say $25 billion it will cost us $50 billion. I remember the boondoggle of the Big Dig. It was still fresh in everyone's mind when the state was entertaining holding the Olympics in Boston. The taxpayers knew what that was going to cost. We said no thankyou.
I think you need to do some research on costs of roads and transit around the world - your statements are blatantly false. Also consider that it’s 25B over many years, though I think that’s obvious.
I’m not sure I have a moment right now to pull up the DOT website PDFs for every transit agency and their expenditures, but I think NYDOT and MTA (among others) would have a bone to pick with your statement “most expensive in the world.”
If you figure cost by ridership Boston will certainly be near the top
west point
Engineer
Although impossible to measure a better metric would be costs per revenue passenger mile.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It is easier to get the metric cost per rider per year, which is also an useful derived metric for comparing systems. Then there is a slightly more refined pair of metrics - (i) capital cost per rider per year, and (ii) operating cost per rider per year.
True - but that is not what was said.
There is also a correlation between lack of investment, causing subsequent repair backlog, and high cost per rider per year.
George Harris
Engineer
One major problem that can be seen in many public versus private systems is that maintenance is essentially invisible. Thus, in public works projects maintenance tends to be neglected to the point that replacements are necessary for things that could work for many more years with proper maintenance. Replacements look pretty for the politicians to go out a pontificate and pat themselves on the back. This plays out frequently / usually in both highway and rail transit systems. Conversely, for the railroad companies maintenance is everything. As one railroad chief engineer said many years ago, if the ties are not dead when they are changed out, I will be. Perhaps a good example would be the replacement of the eastern half of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. In the original opened in the 1930's the tension members were eyebars and some were showing failures. It was decided to replace the whole bridge, at an ultimate cost of some 4.5 billion. Then let's take the BNSF at Memphis: Same general construction style, eyebar tension members, opened in 1892, still carrying full railroad loading. Good aggressive maintenance. Different mindsets, different results.
MBTA GM Phil Eng talks about the estimated $24.5 billion repair costs for the system.
Bostontoallpoints
Service Attendant
No, that is what was said.
"highest operating costs per rider in the country"
Putting semantics aside, if you want good transit, consistent, plentiful, and yearly investment into the system is required. Kind of like how we treat our interstate highways. That is not what the MBTA has done.
Bostontoallpoints
Service Attendant
"That is not what the MBTA has done." I agree with you on that. I was hoping for the MBTA to fix its problems and then expand the system. That is impossible with these numbers.
west point
Engineer
Viewing all these problems from a distance makes one wonder. How long can Mr. ENG maintain a political honeymoon? Sooner or later some pol's favorite project is going to be postponed indefinitely due to all the capital being processed by MBTA's need for all the stated upgrades and state of good repair needs. Too many pols and ENG is in trouble of something not of his making,
Mr. Eng best strategy p[robably will be a constant list of new items found. As well Makie every ongoing project's completion date at longest possible time and when completion is sooner, then real progress will be assumed by the MBTA public. If SouthCoast service starts sooner than planned that will be a good first start.
Mr. Eng best strategy p[robably will be a constant list of new items found. As well Makie every ongoing project's completion date at longest possible time and when completion is sooner, then real progress will be assumed by the MBTA public. If SouthCoast service starts sooner than planned that will be a good first start.
The legislature has been kicking the can down the road for 50+ years.
They need to separate commuter rail from the subway and bus portion of the network.
west point
Engineer
NO!! Do not separate. Instead make all fiefdoms coordinate much like southern California does.. 30 years ago SoCal did not . Now what a difference. Look how fast changes were made when the I-10 mess happened.
Completely agreed - The commuter rail needs to be run by DOT. The MBTA has its hand full anyways, and the commuter rail at this nearly serves as an intercity train service anyways on many of the routes.
How do you figure? Would this be better or worse for trains in MA if the DOT ran the commuter rail? California is no model state government wise, but they run better trains than we do.
