BandA wrote:Back to topic. If you were to clean room the next contract, what would it look like? How would you incent the operator?
...But as the Baker administration starts to consider the outlines of the next contract, perhaps it’s time to ask whether it might be us, not them. The contract offered to Keolis — like the contract with Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail before them, and the contracts with Amtrak before that — was relatively short in the context of public transportation. As counterintuitive as it might seem, the best way to achieve breakthrough improvements in service levels might be to take a page from cities and regions that have signed much longer-term agreements coupled with higher expectations.
...A contract in the neighborhood of 20 years, along with an expectation that the next contractor would be responsible for the system’s capital needs, would shift responsibility to that company and give it more of an incentive to innovate. While it’s far too soon to start soliciting bids, the Baker administration shouldn’t miss the chance to craft a transformative deal.
rethcir wrote:WHy does a lo term contract provide incentive to innovate? If I had a 20 year contract at my job, I'd sit on my ass and do nothing all day.
octr202 wrote:And all of that comes at massive expense (particularly the all-high level platforms and faster speeds). Unlikely there's a combination of long-term vendor contract terms and attractive payment by the MBTA that makes that an easy reality.
We've neglected a lot of the incremental improvements that some commuter rail authorities have been making for a long time, since we've been in survival mode for so long. Catch up isn't going to be cheap or easy.
leviramsey wrote:Can we really say that that MBTA has been in survival mode given how much it has expanded?
dbperry wrote:Could ALL the capital funding spent over the last 20-25 years have been better allocated to projects that would have left the MBTA in a better state of good repair or better state for future service? Obviously yes but it's never as simple as that. For a simple example, see the Conservation Law Foundation lawsuit & settlement that required construction of Greenbush as mitigation for the environmental effects of the Big Dig.
+1leviramsey wrote:With friends of transit like the Conservation Law Foundation, who needs enemies?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests