F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:There were only 2 bidders last time. Any pol who thinks this is such a sought-after 'get' that the floodgates will be open is sorely mistaken. That includes the groups capable of doing rolling stock (which the previous 3 incumbents could, if their contracts went that far). Something something definition of insanity.
Baker's steering this somewhere to a preference that's his/his staff's, for reasons that are his. And not offering a lot of tea leaves about the reasoning.
CPF363 wrote: The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is a private company owned by the state after all.
BostonUrbEx wrote:So much misinformation by the media and misunderstanding by the public.
Prediction: Keolis will be deemed the contractor once again with a more lucrative contract. Probably no one else will even bid.
BandA wrote:A bankruptcy or receivership wouldn't help them with CR since it is already contracted out to a private company. It would allow them to tear up the contract, but the T isn't ready to bid a new contract and doesn't have the capability to take things in house. Plus any new contract would be at a higher price. And they already have the Fiscal Management Control Board which seems to be doing a good job and gives them everything on the CR side that receivership would. Bankruptcy would allow the T to renounce their debt, but that isn't going to happen. On the Subway/Bus side there are benefits to receivership / bankruptcy, but that is for another thread.
CPF363 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:12 am
Maybe it is time to consider breaking the MBTA into two, with one piece being the Commuter Rail and the other Subway and Buses.
jaymac wrote:CPF363 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:12 am
Maybe it is time to consider breaking the MBTA into two, with one piece being the Commuter Rail and the other Subway and Buses.
What benefit would happen from such a split?
Before the MTA became the MBTA, the Great and General Court was often unmoved to provide adequate funding for a strictly city-and-inner-suburbs operation. The geographical expansion and rebranding helped somewhat, as did involvement in commuter rail to the outer suburbs. Being taken under the MassDOT umbrella and having T presence on the Knowledge Corridor and the North Adams scenic shuttle have helped increase the T's palatability to the west-of-Worcester-County legislators who vote on the T's budget. It would seem that reverting to a Boston-v.-the-rest-of-the-Commonwealth separation would bring about a return to the even-worse old days.
Red Wing wrote:MBTA is owned by MASSDOT. MBTA Equipment and personal was used to assist with the Knowledge Corridor and I believe North Adams. My guess on the line purchasing it is much more appetizing for many to have MASSDOT buy the lines politically.
BandA wrote:I don't think splitting off CR would help. It's already functionally separate in operations. They share purchasing, do they share planning? I think they even have separate unions. Would be nice if they hurry up the Charlie Card II and make it CR compatible, and implement distance fares that are equitable between modes.
The EGE wrote:And having everything under one roof encourages passenger-experience-enhancing planning like fare commonality, schedules timed for good connections, shared goals on multimodal projects, etc.
deathtopumpkins wrote:Fare commonality:
Sure, you can buy commuter rail fares at subway vending machines, but it's not publicized, hardly anyone actually realizes this, and it's not user-friendly since all it offers you is zones - you have to already know which zone your station is in. But there are no transfers offered, and you cannot use a CharlieCard to pay for the commuter rail. Not even as payment media to buy a ticket from a machine.
Despite being separate agencies, Chicago has better fare integration than that!
Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests