MA Proposed Transportation Reform(Service Cuts/Impact)

sery2831 wrote:Lets keep this topic to how the money will relate to the MBTA. Not any other authority... please.

Won't the Turnpike and the MBTA be merged? I hear about that a lot lately.

Discussion about the MBTA and the Pike becoming one agency is allowed. Discussion about the gas tax impact on the Pike solely is not allowed.

So I heard next week, legislators will begin looking at this...what do people think is going to happen? Are we going to be paying more in July? One thing I keep hearing is "the MBTA pays its employees too much: pensions, health insurance, etc", would say even taking away ALL of this help the T? I tend to believe that the T is so far gone, cleaning up these "extras" really won't help the T that much, but I could be wrong. Anyone have hard figures?

I heard that the gas tax may be lowered by 10 cents, failing to meet Patrick's 19 cent goal. Does this mean the T will have to cut back on service and routes and train frequency? I remember the whole doomsday and Chicken Little routine by the MBTA chairman a couple weeks ago or so. Is it actually going to happen if the gas tax is reduced to 8 - 10 cents instead of 19 cents?

If no new funding source is identified for the MBTA, my understanding is that we should expect fare hikes of 25 to 30 percent across the board, and also service cuts of about 30 percent, all of this taking effect in September or October of this year. My impression is that funding from the increase in the gas tax requested by the Governor could enable continuation of current services at existing fares. If the legislature approves a smaller gas tax increase, and does not find other funds for the MBTA, then presumably we would be looking at fare hikes and/or service cuts that are proportionally in between these two scenarios.

Bernard Cohen and Dan Grabauskas were harbingers of the financial apocalypse last fall when I heard them deliver the (unsurprising) news to the Ridership Oversight Committee. Make no mistake about it, the situation is beyond critical. This isn't going to be a simple fare hike - the T is nearing a point where it simply cannot continue to function. Either the debt goes, or the trains (and everything else) stop running nearly as often as they do now every last bit of maintenance that can possibly be deferred will be, ridership collapses with the drop in service and hike in fares, and the T's income drops with the loss of passenger revenue.

Forget about expansion. The T needs to prove to the Feds it can afford to run a new line before it can get funding to help build one. If things go the way they are going now, the idea that it could do such a thing is fairly ridiculous.

If you want infrastructure you have to pay for it. It's not fun, but taxpayers need to realize the "Pfft. I don't use that specific thing" / "I don't feel like paying for that" mentality is setting them, and our local economy up for failure.

Arborway wrote:Bernard Cohen and Dan Grabauskas were harbingers of the financial apocalypse last fall when I heard them deliver the (unsurprising) news to the Ridership Oversight Committee. Make no mistake about it, the situation is beyond critical. This isn't going to be a simple fare hike - the T is nearing a point where it simply cannot continue to function. Either the debt goes, or the trains (and everything else) stop running nearly as often as they do now every last bit of maintenance that can possibly be deferred will be, ridership collapses with the drop in service and hike in fares, and the T's income drops with the loss of passenger revenue.

Forget about expansion. The T needs to prove to the Feds it can afford to run a new line before it can get funding to help build one. If things go the way they are going now, the idea that it could do such a thing is fairly ridiculous.

If you want infrastructure you have to pay for it. It's not fun, but taxpayers need to realize the "Pfft. I don't use that specific thing" / "I don't feel like paying for that" mentality is setting them, and our local economy up for failure.

What kind of service cuts could we be looking at? No more weekend service? Abandoning branchlines like Stoughton and abandon Kingston and run to Plymouth instead (or vice versa)? Longer headways between subway trains? Suspension or dissolution of bus routes?

The MBTA has not decided what would be cut, if sufficient funding is not located, making service cuts necessary. Several options are being developed, and it is expected that political and public feedback would influence the final selection.

My impression is that there is no consensus within the MBTA. Some want to preserve peak-hour service without cuts, since that is when most passengers are using the system, which would probably push the cuts towards midday/evening/weekend service. Some want to preserve evening and weekend service in something like its present form, so transit-dependent people still have access to some public transportation during MBTA service hours. It's not clear how these factors will play out as the options are developed, and choices are made.

Likely full-route cuts would include tens of bus routes with the lowest cost per passenger performance rating, and the commuter boat service (Quincy and Hingham). That doesn't get to the quantity of cuts required. I would expect to see significant cuts to commuter rail off-peak service, lower frequency of service throughout the subway and bus system, etc. I've heard rumors of 50% cuts on nights and weekends (imagine 30-minute subway headways!), but of course any specifics of this nature will depend on the priorities used for deciding what service is preserved.

The heavy weight on the MBTA is the debt burden, especially from the Big Dig commitment projects. In rough terms, the annual expense to service the Big Dig debt burden matches the amount of money needed to keep the MBTA afloat (with current service and fares). Of course, the expense of that debt remains 100% unaffected, regardless of how deeply the MBTA cuts service.

MBTA is thinking of scaling back service on the commuter rail on nights and weekends. See Story

http://www2.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO108318/

Never happen. Too many people depend on it, and there's just too many variables as far as labor contracts and employee guarantees to make this a reality. Service cuts, maybe. Total eliminations on the weekend, not gonna happen.

Im just reporting it. I dont agree with it.

Its just a scare tactic to get the Hill to move the bill through for more money. It's all spelled out in the news story.

Thank you Grover Norquest!

TheOperator wrote:Never happen. Too many people depend on it, and there's just too many variables as far as labor contracts and employee guarantees to make this a reality. Service cuts, maybe. Total eliminations on the weekend, not gonna happen.

Can you provide details?

This does seem like a case of scare tactics to move politicians. I'm personally thinking back to recent rounds of cutback proposals in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that pushed Pennsylvania to come up with new mass transit funding. They were similarly, if not more, draconian that these, but of the same nature. Normally, these sorts of things are just that, negotiating tactics. But, sometimes no one blinks and they happen. Mass transit cuts have been happening around the country. The biggest wildcard will be the precarious financial picture at the state as a whole, and with the other transportation agencies. If the T does get some money from Beacon Hill, I would have to image its going to be a good deal less than desired, as the T's not the only ones with the tin cup out.

The T has also posted the text of the budget presentation on its website. Not as good as looking at the whole budget, but it does include quite a few figures that illustrate the situation - but it doesn't detail any specific cuts nor the specific savings from said cuts.

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news ... nth=&year=