Is it time to get the T out of the Commuter Rail Business?

I think it's time to consider creating a state wide agency to take control of the commuter rail system. Why should outlying communities in the state (e.g. Fall River and New Bedford) suffer because of the T's problems?

the T will alwya be geared to serving the inner city and inner suburbs. we need an agency with a better perspective of restoring and operating rail service for communities in the state that could be revived with the creation of effective passnger service.

Gas at $2.38 per gallon for regular today, hmm commuter rail anyone?

How would creating a new bureaucracy mean that it would automatically be properly funded? The T's commuter rail is bid out under contract anyway, so there aren't many T employees that work on it. How about properly funding the T and cleaning out the mangement instead?

My point was that the T is properly focused on Boston. There are however people that live beyond 128 or 495. The T's mandate is not to serve those of us citizens that don't live in T communities. The T will always be controlled by those communities. Those of us that live in towns that are not part of the T have transportation needs too.

Who runs the operation is not my point and there are more than a few T flunkies in the railroad operatons directorate.

My feelings since I live in Roslindale and have never lived further than Medford from Boston. MBTA was BERY 14 towns/cities. People stop riding the B & M, B & A, NYNH&H, Middlesex & Boston, Eastern Mass for their personal cars forcing those companies to fold and the poor MBTA was forced to expand their arms for the few who wanted service taking funds away from having better bus and light rail service in the original BERY towns. Now the T is more interested in commuter rail to NH then they are taking care of the 17K + riders on the 39 for the E line... we got screwed and the T hates streetcars but love suburban rail... go figure. I'm not agianst commuter rail... I love all types of transit, but if the towns could fund it more and free up cash for us inner city folk who really need it (I don't own a car) can't afford one, this would be great I want all transit services to expand for gas does cost way to much. I am agreeing with you partly don't get me wrong
Look at the downeaster, the trains were there decades before buses and the buses forced the B & M to fold that line in 1960 plus autos too. The service comes back and the bus companies want money from the state saying this service will affect them... WHAT! B & M never got money from the new bus companies!!!! Besides the buses only take you to Portsmouth & Portland... the train atleast serves Wells, Biddeford/Saco & Old Orchard Beach... the buses do not.

Look at the downeaster, the trains were there decades before buses and the buses forced the B & M to fold that line in 1960 plus autos too. The service comes back and the bus companies want money from the state saying this service will affect them... WHAT! B & M never got money from the new bus companies!!!! Besides the buses only take you to Portsmouth & Portland... the train atleast serves Wells, Biddeford/Saco & Old Orchard Beach... the buses do not.

I think it's funny about how bus companies claim they never got subsidies to help their businesses along, as they drive along taxpayer funded highways. The hypocricy is staggering.

We need the buses that is for sure. The trip I planned I would have to wait four hours for the downeaster in Portland vs. 45 minutes for the Concord bus back to Boston.

I don't understand what will be gained by creating another money eating agency. What benefits would you get? How would you fund it? How transportation would you get that you don't already have?

re-create Boston & Maine RR....

Here in New York, Metro-North is operated by the MTA... even though the MTA transit (bus and subway) do not extend north of the Bronx... and Metro-North's reach is 75 miles north of Grand Central! Why is it so difficult for MBTA to bring their trains into the fold? Seems like MBTA has been like Chicago Metra where the transit authority subsidizes the service, but the trains are still operated by the railroad ("make your check out to Union Pacific Railroad")... why doesn't MBTA assume operation of the trains themselves? I ask that question blindly, not really knowing what that would require. When Metro-North was formed in 1983, they assumed the trains and support facilities of the old Penn Central Metropolitan Region- which was largely created to operate the commuter services out of Grand Central. What would MBTA be entitled to, and what would they have to create from scratch?

-otto-

I hope to see the commuter rail cross into New Hampshire. I believe they plan to go to Nashua. In addition to that, why not have the same line run up to Manchester and maybe even Concord. If someone could fix up the bridge linking Newburyport and New Hampshire, something could be started to Portsmith. I wouldn't mind seeing service to the cape, to at least Hyannis. If I'm not mistaking, more and more people are moving to that area. Both bridges can be packed at times, especially in the summer.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:I hope to see the commuter rail cross into New Hampshire. I believe they plan to go to Nashua. In addition to that, why not have the same line run up to Manchester and maybe even Concord. If someone could fix up the bridge linking Newburyport and New Hampshire, something could be started to Portsmith. I wouldn't mind seeing service to the cape, to at least Hyannis. If I'm not mistaking, more and more people are moving to that area. Both bridges can be packed at times, especially in the summer.

Money, money, money. Don't look for NH to put money into commuter rail anytime soon. I'm amazed that they're finally getting EZ Pass!

Otto Vondrak wrote: why doesn't MBTA assume operation of the trains themselves?

My first instinct was to say "Massachusetts politics", which is a good explanation for much of what's screwed up in this state, but maybe a better answer is "because they've always been contracted out".

Back in the 1960s, the MBTA began paying operating subsidies to the New Haven and Boston & Maine. Over the next decade that evolved into operating contracts, as the MBTA came to own most of the rights-of-way and all of the equipment, and pay railroads (PC/Conrail, the B&M, Amtrak) to conduct day-to-day operations. This purchase-of-service model was once common and still exists elsewhere, like Chicago, but has been supplanted by direct transit authority operation of the trains in many other cities like Philadelphia and New York/New Jersey. The MBTA, of course, contracts operations to the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad, a private company that was specifically set up for that purpose.

Which is more efficient for the riders and taxpayers? I don't know.

The San Francisco-San Jose Caltrain is pretty much the same story. Originally it was privately operated by Southern Pacific, then the state began subsidizing the service, then they contracted with SP to continue it, then that contract expired and the state contracted with Amtrak instead.

Competitive bidding by companies for public services generally results in a much less inefficient, bureaucratic and costly result. The downside is that you need to find a way to make them accountable for providing adequate service. The MBCR does an especially good job, IMO, in comparison to other competitively bid public services.

I asked this question once and was told that the reason that the MBTA does not run commuter rail service themselves is because "in the eyes of the law", they can't; it is not a railroad. It is a "transit system" (subway, trolley, bus, etc.)

For the "commuter rail" part of the transit system to become and operate as a "railroad," (under current law) it would have to incorporate as a separate entity entirely independent of the MBTA.

That was the answer I was given; has anyone else heard this explanation?

Paul