Submitted by ToadScoper t3_125s8xm in boston
Comments
Maxpowr9 t1_je5ohu2 wrote
Why the FTA should have taken over the MBTA. I give him at most 18 months before he straight-up quits.
man2010 t1_je5zes1 wrote
What would that have accomplished? The FTA taking over wouldn't have unlocked more resources for the MBTA, it simply would have forced the MBTA to use its existing resources to improve safety like it's currently doing. We're now seeing what happens when the MBTA starts to take safety more seriously while not having the resources in place to maintain service.
specialcranberries t1_je63ch2 wrote
It might at least embarrass a few people into action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and I feel like the FTA is probably very squeaky.
man2010 t1_je645v0 wrote
The people who need to be embarrassed intro action are in the legislature, and after 2+ decades of watching the MBTA struggle with insufficient resources in various degrees, I doubt the FTA taking over would change anything
MgFi t1_je91z4p wrote
Quits? That a $2.5M contract he's got there. He's not going to quit.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5pl3y wrote
Especially when considering the current MBTA control board is as effective as damp cardboard
NEU_Throwaway1 t1_jeb3xyw wrote
Well if we follow the trajectory of any previous MBTA failure, clearly the solution is to appoint another control board to oversee this control board.
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_je7uumo wrote
It's too late for the T. Not enough resources will be able to solve it to everyone's satisfaction.
That said, the other issue is people are ceasing to use the T. I stopped. Just started driving again. Couldn't rely on it. Trust is lost. And it's dirty, expensive, not a nice experience.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5ltpr wrote
Beyond funding, the MBTA needs way more than a new manager to fix its woes; it needs an entire governance restructuring that relieves the current hands-off Baker-appointed control board that has been more than a failure for operating the T as of recently. If the governor wants the T to be more transparent, it needs to appoint a proactive board of transit experts instead of the wet towels that currently occupy the board.
MrNRC t1_je64rq5 wrote
Can you think of a better way to definitively determine the true need for government intervention than to put forth a qualified candidate who shines a light on the many inadequacies that can not be resolved under the current framework?
wittgensteins-boat t1_je6cm1x wrote
The Paper Trail: Documenting Our Underfunded Transportation System, 2000-2022.
Transportation for Massachusetts.
https://www.t4ma.org/publications.
throwawaysscc t1_je6qtli wrote
Governor Weld hired Charlie Baker. They loaded the T with debt incurred by road construction. That was somehow legal. Somehow, the roadways are still jammed, and the T is totally screwed too.
wittgensteins-boat t1_je7rj8b wrote
Charlie Baker is not Darth Vader.
The Beacon Hill House and Senate passed the bill, and the Governor signed it, transferring debt to the MBTA.
The Governor and Legislature were responsible then, and are responsible now for the financial well being of the MBTA.
senatorium t1_je5s6rx wrote
They also need to flush the T's board out. The Fiscal Management Control Board, the predecessor to the current board, was highly regarded for its hands-on approach to the T. The current board is the polar opposite. They mostly praised Poftak, ask few questions, and wander away from their computers during the public comment time.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5u6up wrote
Precisely- the 2021 control board was set for failure by Baker himself. He ordered the current board to be as hands-off and passive as possible to lower capital costs, and he got exactly that. Unfortunately, our current governor does not recognize this issue and has made no indication of appointing a new board.
Suddenly_Suitable t1_je6inp8 wrote
How is this misinformation upvoted? Baker didn't order anything like that.
The FMCB was proposed by Baker in 2015 and is the board structure the state supported.
The legislature allowed the board to expire in 2021 and replaced it with appointees they chose, overriding Baker's proposal.
The expiration of the FMCB coincided with the pandemic and disastrous decay in MBTA operations over the last two years.
Also, capital spending increased massively during the past administration - it was not cut, rather more than doubled. The critique is actually that the T has focused too much on capital expansion at the expense of operations recently.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2021/06/30/mbta-fmcb-rip/
CitationNeededBadly t1_jebfenj wrote
Your article states that 5 of the 7 on the board of directors were appointed by the governor, not the legislature. The MBTA board of directors web page also says this. https://www.mbta.com/leadership/mbta-board-directors
The other 2 are the secretary of transportation, and one chosen by the cities and towns in the MBTA advisory board.
downthewell62 t1_je5uyrm wrote
What is the legal process to do this? Can Wu just...do it? If so, she needs to
Sheol t1_je5x7o4 wrote
Wu basically isn't in the conversation for the MBTA. She can exert influence, but has not jurisdictional power.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5wqdl wrote
Wu can't do anything, the T control board answers to the governor (which is a whole issue of its own). Baker created the control board to manage the T’s finances, management, and operations to ultimately "fix" the T. This idealism was thrown out of the window in 2021 when he appointed the current board, so we're left with a powerful board that does jack. Healey would need to directly intervene and appoint a new board or even create some form of new governance, which she seems totally uninterested in doing as of now.
michael_scarn_21 t1_je5nmyk wrote
We need an honest manager who is not a yes guy. "This is the funding we receive and this is why it's inadequate to meet our needs." This new guy is near the end of his career so I hope he won't be afraid to rock the boat like this. Call the state out for underfunding the T. Also fix the culture of bad management at the T, no more safety inspections being signed off without an actual inspection and we need an effective oversight board that holds the T to account.
ik1nky t1_je61nhq wrote
I don't think he's the guy to say this. He was asked 2x at the press conference if he had Healey's full support including increased funding if needed. The first time he didn't answer the funding portion, the second time he said he would not use funding as an excuse and would work with what he has. It's hard for me to read that as anything other than Healey telling him that he will get no more funding for operations, which is reflected in her budget.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5os92 wrote
The real issue with the T is the Baker-appointed control board which has failed the agency on every possible level since it was formed in 2021. Unfortunately, our governor does not recognize this, so even if the new manager is competent and transparent nothing will happen with the current board in charge. Imo appointing a new competent and proactive board is far more of a priority than a new gm
chrfr t1_je5p92r wrote
This board is the one which didn’t ask any questions at all when Jeff Gonneville went in front of them to provide an update on the latest CRRC Red/Orange train car fiasco. They’re not actually taking any leadership and need to be removed immediately. Until that happens, there’s no GM who will ever find success with the MBTA.
Aroon164 t1_je5qs6h wrote
There is no need for a control board. Let the GM manage as he sees fit if he fails it’s on him. The fiscal management control board was a bad idea to begin with. The fiscal management control board only added another layer of bureaucratic BS and less of a chance that change would happen. Charlie Baker was given everything he asked for as far as the T goes and he didn’t change anything for better.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5us92 wrote
The previous board was highly regarded and actually ran the T very well. They got capital projects such as the GLX and SCR back on track and even planned for commuter rail electrification. Any progress the previous board made was pulled back when the Baker-appointed board was put in charge in 2021.
Aroon164 t1_je6r3ok wrote
The board was Baker appointed from the beginning. GLX has never been on track over budget and behind schedule from the beginning. AFC 2.0 is the same. Green line train protection is even worse. The orange and red line trains speak for themselves. What did they get correct? They had a 3 year moratorium on the tax payer protection act and all they did was give private contractors capital projects that went over budget and behind schedule.
BobbyBrownsBoston t1_je6bwv1 wrote
He already finished his career. He’s here for some money and won’t rock the boat.
I guess that’s the best we could hope for
BobbyBrownsBoston t1_je6b8k2 wrote
He’s here to grab a bag, get blamed for stuff, and quit.
Dude just retired and prolly has a huge pension/401k whatever from New York City. One year here and he can pay a kid/grandkids college with the extra bread.
NoButThanks t1_je7ku3h wrote
$185k a year pension. $470k salary for MBTA role. If he fails: who cares, new boat. If he succeeds, golden boy. Probably set up to be stonewalled by literally everyone.
BobbyBrownsBoston t1_je7magm wrote
Literally one year here and he’s got two kids through 4 years of college
NoButThanks t1_je7par1 wrote
He's got 4 kids, so let's hope he makes it two years!
BobbyBrownsBoston t1_je7ud6r wrote
That’s probably the plan, honestly.
tfjgjt t1_je7cfgd wrote
He is not gonna like our bagels or pizza.
superiority t1_je6g60l wrote
I would like a transit economist to estimate in some way the costs to the state economy of the MBTA's current woes (the low speeds and reduced service). Surprised I haven't heard of a newspaper trying to figure that out.
robthad t1_je6yfd0 wrote
It's a never ending revolving door. The woman two people before was great, but scapegoated just like this guy will be.
Pinwurm t1_je8btaq wrote
Beverly Scott - and the T ran fairly okay under her leadership until the 2015 Snowpocalypse. MBTA didn't have the equipment to de-ice the tracks and shit couldn't move.
Falling on the sword was, in retrospect, the wrong move. But the public was angry and Baker needed a head. I remember her press conference, she did not want to resign. But it seems like it was either that or get fired. Scott was appointed under Patrick and resigned under Baker, therefore Baker looked like he was cleaning house and it boosted his support.
If Eng is scapegoated, it's a poor reflection of Maura Healy's judgement. She appointed him. It also would reflect poorly on the State senate - since they often hid behind the excuse of Republican leadership as to why the T doesn't work.
So it's in everyone's best interest for this to succeed.
Personally, I think the MBTA's failings lie in a failure to manage the budget they already have. Other public transit systems do more for less. I'm keen to give this dude a chance.
MgFi t1_je92ovh wrote
As far as I can tell, it's not the state Senate that's the problem as much as the house. It always seems to be Mariano that's dragging his feet.
RandyCheeseburgers01 t1_je6lxvj wrote
File this under "Yeah No Shit". What's one person gonna do if nothing else changes with MBTA organization or funding?
NoButThanks t1_je7kw1t wrote
Keep that seat warm.
FoodGuy44 t1_je5lc1u wrote
It doesn’t matter who the GM is. It’s a matter of the wasted money and corrupt Union that he has to contend with.
ToadScoper OP t1_je5mdze wrote
Precisely. Even if this guy is a transit wizard the state won't allow him to do jack.
CanIShowYouMyLizardz t1_je7pdpr wrote
I'm just glad we're giving hedge fund managers tax breaks during this trying time.
millvalleygirl t1_je7cjn6 wrote
"Transit experts?" I mean, c'mon, anybody who's ever ordered a large regulah at Dunks could've told you that they'll fail without more resources.
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_je7vkob wrote
The biggest limitation to the T as it stands today is the inefficiency. And it won't be solved because express trains are not possible. Ever ridden the green line more than a few stops? You could walk faster.
Such a bummer.
just_planning_ahead t1_jea1lbk wrote
The one thing I want to note is how much room left if failure is the outcome.
Failure back in 2015 means the MBTA has declined was no longer resilient enough to stay up after the most snowiest winter in recorded history all packed into roughly a month.
By 2022, failure means the MBTA has declined to the point they can only provide weekend level headways during rush hour at best with trains moving at half the speed on average and increasing questions of safety including a person dying.
If the new MBTA general manage fails, it means the MBTA will decline even deeper in into hole. We're already at weekend headways, slow zones everywhere, and even one person dead. So what's the next level? At some point, the only thing worse that can happen - well I'm not even gonna say it out loud. But if things does get worse, there is a bottom that we can hit.
I hope this new GM succeed. Hope does not mean I expect he will. But we're approaching the point imagining what state the MBTA would be if he fails is not something we like to imagine.
Positive_Juggernaut8 t1_je81p1o wrote
So the article is partially right and partially wrong. The MBTA's operational annual budget is 2.5 Billion. They have the resources. But that money is not being spent correctly. They categorically piss that money away on construction contracts. It was one of the major findings from both the state and the feds. Its death by feature creep and incompetence. You don't add a bunch of stuff to your already badly broken foundation when your ridership is down 40% and all your shit is on fire. The reality for the new GM is the state is likely not going to give him more money and he realizes that the case Day 1 on the job, His only option is to hope they allow him to reconfigure how the MBTA operates as a business.
Stirling-Newberry t1_je97qid wrote
In other news... water is wet.
geffe71 t1_je9cr5p wrote
No, water makes things wet.
BrexitBad1 t1_jeag5gy wrote
No one cares bozo, do you cry when people say it's raining cats and dogs
geffe71 t1_jeg9szr wrote
No, because I step in poodles
rimshot
fatfuckery t1_je7kxma wrote
What's this "will" shit?
scolfin t1_je68wi2 wrote
Doesn't the T get a lot of money already? It feels the same as Boston's school bus system, which gets enough that we could pay for all its riders to get taxi rides instead but can't be trusted to even show up at each stop each day.
I feel like the state needs some dedicated office of audits and budgeting that goes in each year to work with departments to find where the money's going and how much its goals will cost. Also, outline priorities so maybe it will top wasting money making one of the cheapest subway systems in the world free when it claims to be in dire need of funds to make itself usable (unless it's literally paying me for my time, I'm not waiting half an hour for a piss-soaked Orange Line train I can out-walk no matter how cheap it is).
wittgensteins-boat t1_je6dg39 wrote
The Paper Trail: Documenting Our Underfunded Transportation System, 2000-2022.
Transportation for Massachusetts.
https://www.t4ma.org/publications.
tb2186 t1_je66ex9 wrote
Surprise! MBTA needs 100s of more billions to fund pensions for workers to retire at 40.
ik1nky t1_je687hw wrote
The budget for FY23 pensions is $152 million out of the $2.5 billion dollar operating budget. Before you move on to your next uninformed talking point, overtime is budgeted at $43 million. So about $200 million/year combined which is less than their debt interest payments alone.
Nuggets155 t1_je6ws5c wrote
Since he his a NYC reject and ruined the LIR he will def fail
reaper527 t1_je5ygyj wrote
so the guy hasn't even started yet and we're already making excuses for why nothing will get fixed?
BobbyBrownsBoston t1_je6bzg1 wrote
That’s how things tend to go
prototypingdude t1_je6ym7j wrote
Guys lets just pay more taxes the government will fix everything
NaggeringU t1_je5mkx1 wrote
Austerity is necessary. Get back to consistency, then we can talk improvement.
​
- Lobby the state to remove the price caps on MBTA
- Increase subway price to $150
- Decrease frequency of all lines during rush hour to once a half hour
- Use increased revenue and decreased expenses to fully audit (really this time) and repair tracks on all lines
- Remove slow zones on all lines
- Increase speed to precovid 25mph+ speeds
- Once above four have been done successfully begin to increase rush hour frequency back to pre-covid.
- Stop any expansions of any line on the MBTA until the debt is completely paid off. Lobby the state to refinance the debt to make it more manageable, if necessary.
If by some miracle the state gives any meaningfully high amount of money to the MBTA it should be used to pay off the debt. IMHO state money should be used to pay off the debt, so in the future, revenue can be used to expand the MBTA as exposed to running in place.
Of course, no one wants to pay more for less, so ...
PunishedDommyMommy t1_je61s41 wrote
This has got to be the least plausible plan to fix the T I have ever seen...
And that includes just demolishing it and starting over
NaggeringU t1_je63uw9 wrote
What’s implausible about it?
PunishedDommyMommy t1_je64aw9 wrote
> trains once per half hour
> increased revenue
🤡
NaggeringU t1_je64opj wrote
Most people on the T do not pay per ride, they have time passes per their last annual report, and I also mentioned hiking the price of all passes including the subway.
Good luck, tho. Complaining on Reddit when nothing changes next year will work.
PunishedDommyMommy t1_je64zax wrote
Hiking the passes that amount will not make up for the lost revenue from cancellations and lost individual fares. It's not like I didn't read your comment...
> Complaining on Reddit when nothing changes next year will work.
Thank goodness no policy makers read your complaining on Reddit for tips and tricks to fix the local transit agency.
NaggeringU t1_je6578d wrote
Ok, then. Good luck to the T without raising more revenue and reducing expenses.
PunishedDommyMommy t1_je65lhv wrote
> posts the worst possible way to reduce expenses
> complains that other people don't want to reduce expenses at all
30 minute headways would be a death sentence for ridership...
NaggeringU t1_je65s80 wrote
Good luck.
Brave_Ad_510 t1_je67121 wrote
Have you ever heard of a transit death spiral? Yoh seem to have no basic knowledge of how successful transit systems are run. Lowering frequency will not reduce expenses enough to cover the completely collapse in ridership that will be caused by your proposed measures. The mbta spends almost $600M on wages, $550M on debt service and only $365M on materials and services.
NaggeringU t1_je67woy wrote
Sounds good. Good luck!
RogueInteger t1_je5omkt wrote
Things are bottoming out... austerity measures don't seem prudent or safe.
CaptainWollaston t1_je5qw1y wrote
OP sounds like some libertarian teenager. Ignore.
RogueInteger t1_je5uk13 wrote
We must educate the youth so as not to punish them as men
NaggeringU t1_je64ecb wrote
What exactly is unsafe about austerity? The T needs more money and needs to lower its expenses.
Anything else is delusional.
RogueInteger t1_je6guar wrote
The people making sacrifices in your comments are the ones that depend on the T, not the MBTA. The idea of taking a failing service that many depend on and increasing pricing while reducing availability and access will result in reduced ridership and quality fo experience.
> Anything else is delusional.
I don't know how to tell you how unhinged you come across. There are other public transportation systems that have been resurrected through improved management and government intervention... why do you think the T can't be helped without hurting everyone that depends on it?
NaggeringU t1_je6p7jr wrote
You are right. The T will improve. Good luck.
RogueInteger t1_je6zute wrote
Luck to me or the T my prescient pedant?
ToadScoper OP t1_je5nprn wrote
Austerity is not viable when nobody trusts a failing agency. Governance and management need to be restructured, and transparency needs to be restored with the public. A new manager is not going to solve anything if there are no other changes to T management. Only then will we might see the T get back on track, or at least to the point of it operating beyond the bare minimum
NaggeringU t1_je6449l wrote
Even if the management were perfect the reality is that ridership, and therefore revenue is down. It’s only common sense to increase revenue and decrease expenses.
Justtryme90 t1_je78eo8 wrote
Fuck worrying about the Ts ability to generate revenue. It's a public good, it should be invested in until it actually fucking works.
RailRoad_Candy t1_je5laia wrote
LOL, this dude is toast. He's being Tee'd up for failure and the state will end up blaming anything and everything on him. There's no way they're giving him more money, power, or ability to determine how his existing budget is spent. This poor guy is doomed.