Hey, there! Log in / Register

Orange Line riders' woes mount as train stops, goes down for the count

Delays on the Orange Line quickly escalated to "severe" after a train pushed up daisies near Wellington.

Blue Line riders had to put up with track issues.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Plus the Blue Line is ending at State and the Fitchburg line had a meltdown.

Isn't it great that the T is now allegedly prepared for another 100-inches-of-snow winter yet can't handle a typical non-weather-event rush hour?

up
Voting closed 0

And they wanna raise fares..

Right so we can pay more for such shitty service

up
Voting closed 0

Smaller ridership = fewer trains = better stats = less complaints

I'm sure there are plenty in the statehouse salivating at the thought of peak-only service with fares to match. Just think about how much better the system would look on paper!

up
Voting closed 0

kinda was saying the same thing to someone earlier..

Just let the service degrade so much it's unusable so they can have lower ridership numbers to start to cut service.

Typical.. now if this was a big pot hole on the mass pike, they would have had a crew out there already fixing the hole (and probably would have been fixed already). No questions on how we're going to pay for it, or a work-a-round to get by, just simply a solution that works and gets the job done to fix it.

But since this is transit, we get the shaft instead, a typical 'who's on first' conversation, more finger pointing, and blame placing, rather than increasing funds and finding solution that works.

up
Voting closed 0

Several people who I know and respect think this is the plan. I can see the point, its attractiveness and some stories/information that support it, but I just find it difficult to believe.

First, if you believe that Baker is a "business guy", then this just doesn't add up. Almost everyone who has really thought about it concedes that the region's continued economic success depends in significant part upon improving public transport around here. Almost all of the big business types are on record acknowledging this since at least the D'Alessandro report. This makes sense - good transport links make life better for workers, which makes them better workers for their employers.

Second, at the employee level, nearly everyone whom I have talked to in the past 2-3 years about work (and that's a good number because I have been trying to make a change) mentions a horrific commute early on in the conversation. It is clear at least to me that we are beginning to choke on our own success, and we have just another year or two to commit to making big improvements before we irrevocably damage our "brand" (the GLX debacle is not encouraging). If you ask people who work in Kendall Sq. or the "Seaport/Innovation District" (or who has tried to buy a property anywhere within reasonable commuting distance of either) whether they are hell-bent on staying around here or would up stakes if the opportunity presented itself, the answers are not encouraging. Baker et al. have to know this (and if they don't, well, that's another issue).

Lastly, on a related note about the disparate treatment of roads vs. transit, I have a theory of my own on this. I believe that roads and airports are generally in better condition than transit because in general, the federal government requires them to be. It does this (at least in the case of airports) through things like "grant assurances" - which require the states to keep the infrastructure built with federal dollars in a condition above a (relatively high) minimum standard. (I can say from experience that these grant assurances and other federal levers strike fear into the hearts of airport operators around the country and keep them up at night).

I do not have the experience in transit to know for sure, but I strongly suspect that any similar obligations on the transit side are not as stringent or not as vigorously enforced (except, perhaps, as applied to Amtrak, which for all of its troubles, is still better run than many commuter operations). Further, since transit often gets a smaller % of federal dollars per project, the failure to keep up on the maintenance would seem to result in lower risk (even it there is enforcement) to the state-level operators. Can anyone else comment on this?

up
Voting closed 0

I usually like your posts, and do agree with most of this however.

First, if you believe that Baker is a "business guy", then this just doesn't add up.

No it complete adds up.

Running a business = to make money
Not making any money = make cuts to said business
make changes to business = to improve said business to improve profit margin.

Business 101..

In basic business sense, it makes total sense. Cut the services to the point where it's no longer useful, then sell of the business to the highest bidder. It's a total business move. (look at any product who's 'brand' has been tarnished for an example on what happens).

You're thinking that "oh we have to provide transit so our employees can get to work" mentality is what these business people are thinking. Keep dreaming..As long as they have a parking deck to park their Mercedes they drove into work in, they do not care about transit systems. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.

It's a nice to think that businesses care about the T and getting its workers to work on time, but it's completely false to believe they actually believe this. Just look at the Late Night Service as an example.. outside of the initial year when the Globe paid for services, not one business ponied up any money for the service afterwards. Now that it's on the chopping block, not one has come forward. Sure the Late Night service is an specialized service, but you'd think the hotel/bar/service industries would come right out and help its employees... nope.

Companies only care about themselves and their shareholders. If an employee cannot find the ways to get to work (i.e. car, the T, etc).. they can very easily replace said employee with someone else who can.

It's nice to have that rosey outlook about companies and transit, but I find that very hard to believe.

up
Voting closed 0

Gov. Baker is trying to treat the MBTA as a business.

However, it should not be treated as a business. Public transportation is a PUBLIC SERVICE -- much like public waste collection and sewer/storm drains. It is not meant to -- nor will it ever -- turn a profit. Of course our system needs to be overhauled -- it needs to be efficient and streamlined so as not to bleed money, as the T currently does.

In other countries, they have figured that out and have invested in state-of-the-art systems that enrich the community it serves.

Until we elect officials that understand this, and the public gains the proper mindset, we will see more of the same. Until we are stuck in gridlock 18 hours per day.

up
Voting closed 0

Regrettably, I can't respond thoroughly now, but I will do what I can.

In a no T situation, a parking deck for the boss's Mercedes is irrelevant. The traffic around here would immediately become so much worse that it would be impossible to get from A to B in a palpable amount of time. Further, if the "bosses" are driving each day anyway (today), most are going to be smart enough to figure out that putting more people on the road in front of them is not going to help anyone.

Late night service is a terrible example. While I by no means mean to demean the people who work overnight hours, they are a comparatively very small proportion of the workforce. Similarly, the number of businesses with significant numbers of employees on those shifts are not numerous enough to support the service (e.g., it's not Marriott corporate paying the late night Marriott workers - it's the local hotel. Obviously individual bars are not in a position to make direct payments, either). Also, it is difficult to argue that cutting the late night service is going to detrimentally affect the rest of service (or even that it wouldn't perhaps slightly improve it), unless we are so jaded as to believe that the cost savings is going right into the pockets of people at the T.

Lastly, on the T as asset matter, even if the T were put on the block tomorrow (before it deteriorates further), I doubt very much that it would be bought by any private interest. As you have pointed out, public transport almost always has to be subsidized (Penn Central and the Boston Elevated would still be in business otherwise). Why in the world would a private business buy into that operational situation (even putting aside the billions in capital improvements that would have to be made to improve it)? The only way I can see the T being bought by a private entity is if the competition (e.g., roadways) were put on a similar footing (i.e., tolled up the wazoo).

Sorry for the short shrift as I did, as usual, appreciate your comment.

up
Voting closed 0

No problem.. I appreciate your comment also.

In a no T situation, a parking deck for the boss's Mercedes is irrelevant. The traffic around here would immediately become so much worse that it would be impossible to get from A to B in a palpable amount of time. Further, if the "bosses" are driving each day anyway (today), most are going to be smart enough to figure out that putting more people on the road in front of them is not going to help anyone.

No it's very relevant. Like I said "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.. as long the fat cats paychecks keep coming in, they will sit in a parking lot on the expressway. (and if they are like thes one I've worked with, most will just 'work from home' anyways)

I agree with what you are saying but I think there's a big disconnect there. This is a far larger argument about the class gap that I want to get into on here, but this is where the 1%ers are mislead.. they forget that NEED us to survive. Most don't see or understand, they just see the rest of us as dispensable workers and don't care as long as their needs are being met.

And yes I know Late Night Service is a bad example.. it was the best I could do off the top of my head, since it's rare that PPP is used to support public transit services. But it was the best example I could give that people could easily relate to it. But I still feel its somewhat valid because people could have ponied up, or the folks at the state could have approached the larger hotel chains to support the service or done something similar, but did not.

Lastly, on the T as asset matter, even if the T were put on the block tomorrow (before it deteriorates further), I doubt very much that it would be bought by any private interest.

why in the world would a private business buy into that operational situation (even putting aside the billions in capital improvements that would have to be made to improve it)?

You'd be surprised. It's been done elsewhere in the US and failed miserably.

But I can easily answer your question. Yes you're right, no private business would want to inherit the T's mess.. except for one thing. SUBSIDIES.

Yes.. good old subsidies is what the private companies will want. A subsidy means guaranteed income whether the service has riders or not. Its nothing more than shifting the subsidies from a public entity to a private one. And guess what happens when the private industries want more subsidies? they cut the route until they recieve it. (unlike public entities that just take a loss and continue service out of public good).

In the end its all about taxpayers dime's.. and who gets a piece of the pie.

up
Voting closed 0

The orange line is killing me slowly.

I work at MGH where most of the 27K employees have to use some form of the MBTA to get to work. (Unless you work nights and are allowed to park on campus.) I've been on a wait list for 3 years to park at either the North Station garage or the Nashua Street lot. I have 3 years remaining until a spot opens up.

I think many riders are in similar predicaments. We own cars but are forced to take the T due to strict parking regulations by their employer or the city. I don't think ridership will decline too drastically. The MBTA knows that for many, taking the T isn't really a choice. We'll bitch about fare hikes and crappy service, but in the end we'll continue to ride.

up
Voting closed 0

...which has been SOP for the 15 years I've used the Ⓣ. Every few years, as service worsens, threaten to raise fairs or intentionally worsen ("cut") service. There have been at least half a dozen fair hikes since 2000 when the subway was just $1. Unlike a private company with competition, the Ⓣ has their riders by the balls, naturally, so they can do this.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree with your comment up until..

Unlike a private company with competition, the Ⓣ has their riders by the balls, naturally, so they can do this.

Private Company BS.. Private company can close up shop and leave riders stranded if they aren't making any money off a route. Which is most of the MBTA routes.. most require a subsidy to run.

Hate to tell you.. if transportation was profitable, we would have many many more BRIDJ clones out there. Which btw,, BRIDJ just removed a few service locations because they didn't have enough ridership.

up
Voting closed 0

I said "private company with competition." Argue against your own strawman all you want...

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah there's so many companies lining up to run bus routes all across the USA and the big bad union run public transportation services are scaring them off /sarcasm off

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to make.. if there was any money to be made off public transit, we would have oodles of private services competing against each other. But there is no profit on transit services, there is no reason for private enterprise to start or run one. Again look at BRIDJ for an example. (and see how well that's going over...)

The only way 'private companies' are interested in running transportation is when there's serious money to be made. There is no money to be made, so we have none. The only reason why you see private service bus companies out there is because someone else is subsidizing the costs.. either property owners (i.e. 101 Seaport), or the state itself in subsidies (i.e. private bus routes like the 712 in Winthrop). Without them, private industry has no interest in running transportation services for the masses since transport is almost always a losing battle.

Your argument for 'private company with competition' only works if companies exist who want to provide service.. hate to tell you, there are none.

up
Voting closed 0

There are also precious few private companies (none?) queuing up to build private toll roads anywhere in the Northeast.

Government has been in the transportation business for a very long time and will be for a very long time. People arguing for privatization need to understand this. PPP is a close as you will get - unless private entities are going to be given the power of eminent domain (this used to be the case, and still is in some cases, with the railroads). I'll let everyone talk amongst themselves about the likelihood/wisdom of that happening (although it would be a very interesting discussion amongst those on the (relatively far) right).

up
Voting closed 0

Mass transit is a terrible way to make money. Private companies are not interested in it. It does, however, have many demonstrable benefits to society as a whole, so we should, as a society, find a progressive way to pay for it just as we do with other public goods like education.

up
Voting closed 0

UHub's CMS software set your subject line to "Plus the Blue Line is ending", which looked like a complete statement in and of itself,... and when I read it I didn't even react to it as if it was out of the ordinary. Oh, the Blue Line is just being shut down? Meh.

up
Voting closed 0

I take this opportunity to remind everyone that a non-trivial portion of the regional economy still has ties to the academic calendar, and hence, many people are not on a "normal" commute this week or next.

That this is the situation during a lighter-than-normal commute on a no-weather-issue day is truly abominable.

up
Voting closed 0

The governor needs to start riding the T, not as a photo op but as a commuter. He seems to think people take it as a hobby.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker has been called on several occasions to ride the T.. especially last winter. He did none of the sort, while other politicians followed suit. That should give you an indication on how much he cares about the T... which is zippo.

The only time he cares about the T is when it's time to make cuts, or bust a union. If the T went away tomorrow, baker and his cronies could care less.. unless there's money to be made off of it for 'private' industry.

up
Voting closed 0

If there was ever a time when union busting would be viewed in a positive light, it's now (after last winter and the tie-down-the-controller on the red line thing).

If the Governor doesn't bust soon, then I think the "union buster" label isn't going to stick.

Also, as I commented on at length above, I don't think it's in Baker's (or anyone else who cares about living or working in Eastern Massachusetts) interest for the T to go away.

up
Voting closed 0

There's more to union busting that what is going on here. Baker knows this. Baker knows that many have tried and have failed before him. (Weld being one). He knows he cannot just go in and clean house like people seem to think he should. It has to be a very scripted and tactile move on his part, or he will fail miserably like his predecessors have.

He also needs to have the public's support of removing the union. Remember MA is a very pro-union state, which is why it's been very hard to union bust here so far. Koch Bros and Baker and their cronies haven't been very successful here yet as the union here has a very high support. But keep having mishaps like what happened on the red line, and daily break downs.. support for the union in the court of public opinion will vanish fast. Which is why I keep saying "just let the system get so bad no one will use it".. people will look for someone to blame and baker will quickly push that blame onto the union (like many like him in the past who have tried to Union bust)... and public support will wane.

It may take a year or two, but if he keeps going in the manner like it seems like he is.. it will happen, it just takes time.

Also, as I commented on at length above,

And my reply.. I'll shorten also to "let them eat cake"

The rich do not care about public transportation period... just ask Nashville and their BRT line they wanted to get built (and so desperately needed).. yet Koch and Co just killed it. They did not care about the economic benefits of it at all, whether it improved business or not.

up
Voting closed 0

Again we're both short so:

1) I do not believe there will ever be more support for busting the union than there is now (save for a revelation that the Carmen's union is doing something like the Archdiocese did);

2) it just seems that Baker has spent too much time and political capital on things involving the T to want to be the guy tagged with hastening its demise - even if the Koch's people support the idea of killing public transport, how many voters in the T's service area support that idea (after they think about the implications for a minute, rather than responding to a Herald article)?

3) I guess I just don't view Baker as the ideologue in pragmatist's clothing that others apparently do. Even if his prior governmental experience is viewed as ideological (a case which can be made, but one on which I am not sold by any means), it's one thing to be a ideological chucker when your the Director of a Secretariat - it's quite another when you're in charge and subject to election.

up
Voting closed 0

it just seems that Baker has spent too much time and political capital on things involving the T to want to be the guy tagged with hastening its demise - even if the Koch's people support the idea of killing public transport, how many voters in the T's service area support that idea (after they think about the implications for a minute, rather than responding to a Herald article)?

You keep making service degrade and bring out more 'Union follies" .. and it will quickly deteriorate. People are sick of being late for work, or trains that break down... people want someone to blame..

Look at states that have union busted. Look at the tactics used to gain support from the public. It just takes time and a growing hatred. It's there...

PS - Baker has done this before.. he saddled the Big Dig debt onto the T.. trust me, he's no transit friend by all means. He wants to kill it.. IMHO.

up
Voting closed 0

for ONE year, in that time he's done a hell of a lot more than Deval. The Carmen's Union has a death grip on the Ts budget, and until the union starts being transparent with pension payments we're all doomed.

Citizens shouldn't be paying for someones pension, particularly when 99.99% of the population doesn't receive one.

up
Voting closed 0

Is that you?

Citizens shouldn't be paying for someones pension, particularly when 99.99% of the population doesn't receive one.

Let's start with everyone at the state house and remove their pensions also. We'll see how long that lasts...

PS - Baker hasn't done jack shit for the MBTA except try to make it look like he's doing something. Other than cuts, he's done nothing so far.

PPS - Here we go with the finger pointing..........

up
Voting closed 0

No one should be paying for a public employees pension. Get a f'n 401k like the rest of the workforce.

And pretty sure baker appropriated money to the T and nixed the shit show which was the Green line extension (for now).

up
Voting closed 0

And pretty sure baker appropriated money to the T and nixed the shit show which was the Green line extension (for now).

CITATION please. Please tell us how he's done this..

No one should be paying for a public employees pension. Get a f'n 401k like the rest of the workforce.

So every one can suffer when 401k's tank...

up
Voting closed 0

Would you rather have a 401k which can tank and recover or a pension where if the parent company goes bust the pension ceases to exist?

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, the thing Charlie Baker can be credited with appropriating to the T is the Big Dig debt which has hamstrung the agency for the last decade and a half and required their budget to go primarily to debt service instead of maintenance. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/13/baker...)

As an aside, when in this country did we go from demanding that our employers give us more equitable pay and benefits to demanding that other people lose their benefits?

up
Voting closed 0

Cybah, you don't know what you are talking about. Try doing some research here:

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/MBTABackOnTrack/

up
Voting closed 0

I do know what I am talking about and I have read that report. I've done my homework.. far more than most posters on here.

That report is EXACTLY what I am talking about... Baker making it appear like he's doing something. Fancy webpage with reports and action plans. All PR blitz and nothing else.

There's nothing in that report that is new or hasn't been talked about before in previous years by previous administrations. Same shit, different format. The only thing NEW to that report is the slant to make Baker look better.

I sum up that website to Pharmaceutical Company TV commercials touting the wonders of some new drug they have from studies done by themselves. (aka anything that makes them look good)

up
Voting closed 0

I won't compliment Baker on the T until I see some real improvements. It's nice that he's at least talking about it but last I looked the trains are still late, particularly when it's below 40F. About the only thing Baker has done for sure is cancel the Green Line Extension, Cancel the bid for DMUs (Franklin Line), revamp the T's Board, and speculate that a 5% fare increase might become a 10% fare increase.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker has not done anymore than anyone else in his shoes has done previously. It's almost a "New Governor" play book now

1. Review Finances
2. Review Pension Fund
3. Create more bureaucracy (i.e. "Control Board")
4. Look at cutting service
5. Look at "Streamlining' service
6. Cut "Fat" from budget (i.e. expansion projects, )

Same song and dance... Romney did the same thing. So did Cellucci, so did Weld. It's an SOP now.

Yet the trains are still late. Service still blows, and they wanna increase fares saying it will 'fix' things (yet never does)

up
Voting closed 0

most everyone who had a steady job received a pension. And somehow the world didn't collapse. Time to focus on what's best for people, and not just the bottom line. Especially given the outrageous salaries and benefits that CEOs are making.

The shift from pensions to the 401K system is one of the greatest scams that has been forced on the Americal worker. And it's truly sad how many people have been duped into believing this is a good idea.

up
Voting closed 0

Once upon a time the entire industrialized world was bombed to the ground twice and the US had no economic competition on top of being the largest creditor nation for the better part of a century 1917 to ~1974

That economic paradigm has been gone for 40 years now. Most people did not have pensions prior to that era and the overgenerous underfunded pensions in the public sector are going to bankrupt most states in a decade. Pensions, like promises, which can't bet kept WON'T

up
Voting closed 0

against the salaries, benefits, royalities, etc. that we pay professional athletes, actors and actresses, and other performers, then you might have a point about pensions being 'overgenerous'.

up
Voting closed 0

We can save our pension systems by bombing Europe and east Asia!

up
Voting closed 0

Given all the issues with MBTA service delivery I'm frankly surprised GM DePaola just didn't rally all the inspectors, motormen, yardmasters, trackmen and dispatchers to give people rides to their destinations in their personal automobiles.

up
Voting closed 0

In the Globe today Deleo promised no new taxes or fees for government services. Does that mean that there won't be a fare increase for the MBTA? Or are we exempt from the no fee increase promise, is that just for drivers? If Deleo and Baker insist on killing off the MBTA so only people as wealthy as they and their lobbyists could afford to take it (but of course they wouldn't ever do that) then there will be a lot more traffic in the coming years as more and more T riders drive to work/errands.

up
Voting closed 0