Train lifespans

Right on Derek. But the 015 and 1600s have been doing fine now, mainly with the door mechanisms. The 01800s lately, have had some minute door problems, and they sometimes even check all six cars of 01800 consists to make sure the doors are not "out of whack". Hopefully there'll be a remedy to the 01800 door mechanism closing problem.

mattster wrote:The T must have been in better shape back in the '80s having been able to purchase entirely new fleets for both lines and rebuilding and ordering new cars for the Red Line. Now they seem to have to struggle to get anything done.

There was none of this "forward funding" crap. The MBTA was a state agency and got the proper amount of funding that it required.

What do you mean forward-funding crap? They idea that any state agency should just spend what they needed and provide the taxpayers with a bill is crazy.

I think there is an argument about whether funding is the correct level. But I think the approach is correct. Is there another example of a transit agency that is not forward funded. Even Amtrak has too live with their allocation of funds from the federal gov't.

bierhere wrote:What do you mean forward-funding crap? They idea that any state agency should just spend what they needed and provide the taxpayers with a bill is crazy.

I think there is an argument about whether funding is the correct level. But I think the approach is correct. Is there another example of a transit agency that is not forward funded. Even Amtrak has too live with their allocation of funds from the federal gov't.

Yes, but Amtrak's funds are allocated by legislation each year, not automatically allocated by a certain percentage of taxes. The current system under which the MBTA is funded is completely untenable because sales taxes are extremely unstable and depend on the status of the economy.

dudeursistershot wrote:Yes, but Amtrak's funds are allocated by legislation each year, not automatically allocated by a certain percentage of taxes. The current system under which the MBTA is funded is completely untenable because sales taxes are extremely unstable and depend on the status of the economy.

And depends almost entirely on fares from riders to make up gaps in their funding that the sales tax and whatever other tax pays for the T, hence fare hikes and service cutbacks every few years. Money is finite.

So, is the argument that forward funding is correct, just not how the funds are currently allocated under this method? Or do we truly believe that the MBTA should present a bill at the end of the year to the legislature?

bierhere wrote:So, is the argument that forward funding is correct, just not how the funds are currently allocated under this method? Or do we truly believe that the MBTA should present a bill at the end of the year to the legislature?

The funds are correctly allocated, what isn't correctly allocated is the understanding of how the T is funded. The T can never present a bill to the legislature as it can not run over budget- it has to raise fares or get some kind of bond to cover the expenses. Why do you think the T kept a solid base fare through the 90's while the economy was great and why do you think the T has had to raise the base fare TWICE in the last five years when sales are way down? The legislature can't bail the T out, the T has to bail itself out.



And as an FYI, capital improvements(re: new cars and buses) comes out of bonds that the T has to pay for over time and not out of the general budget. That's how the T manages to buy new buses every 5-7 years and how it managed to replace the whole Orange and Blue Line fleet 25 years ago and buy all the new LRVs over the past 30 years. We only pay a small amount over time and the amount is purposely scattered so as to not interfere with the basic operations of the T. Wouldn't surprise me if all those ads we see everywhere end up paying for all the buses the T bought.

efin98 wrote:

dudeursistershot wrote:Yes, but Amtrak's funds are allocated by legislation each year, not automatically allocated by a certain percentage of taxes. The current system under which the MBTA is funded is completely untenable because sales taxes are extremely unstable and depend on the status of the economy.

And depends almost entirely on fares from riders to make up gaps in their funding that the sales tax and whatever other tax pays for the T, hence fare hikes and service cutbacks every few years. Money is finite.

I'm admittedly not an economist, but I'm of two minds on this. On one hand sales tax reflects the economy overall to a certain extent, and hence its fluctuation ensures that the T is only getting its fair share when times are lean.

But on the other hand, is this really the best indicator of how much money we should kick in to the T? Why a percentage of sales tax and not gas tax? Or is there already a set percentage of gas tax going to it?

Pete wrote:I'm admittedly not an economist, but I'm of two minds on this. On one hand sales tax reflects the economy overall to a certain extent, and hence its fluctuation ensures that the T is only getting its fair share when times are lean.

But on the other hand, is this really the best indicator of how much money we should kick in to the T? Why a percentage of sales tax and not gas tax? Or is there already a set percentage of gas tax going to it?

Probably is a set percentage of the tax going into the MBTA, and still look at the affects of the high gas prices- those aren't helping much...

When you get your funding based on outside factors you have high years and you have low years, when you have a few low years in a row you have to raise fares to cover the same basice service and when you have high years a few years in a row you see expansion to meet the demand...roller coaster funding at it's finest and worst.