Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iy81tew wrote

Reply to comment by GM_Pax in could the red line be shut down next... by iFuckingLoveBoston

Cambridge needs its own bus system, with much higher frequency and dedicated lanes and preferably free of charge. The MBTA will never serve the needs of the city because the state has no interest in properly funding public transit and honestly it probably never will. The suburbs hold complete control over the state house.

−13

GM_Pax t1_iy85ld9 wrote

>Cambridge needs its own bus system,

No.

No, no, no, no, NO. We do not need to balkanize public transit EVEN FURTHER than it already is. We need a single, state-wide public transit system.

One of the reasons why European systems work so well, is that they are national - not done piecemeal, community by community. They are a single, unified whole.

18

nattarbox t1_iy8gtfq wrote

I agree in principal but the MBTA is so organizationally broken and seemingly incapable of being fixed, there might not be a better option.

Maybe smaller transit departments built with a fresh start and some foundational charter to eventually merge with larger systems isn't a horrible idea?

But obviously the #1 is completely useless if it ends at MIT instead of continuing into Boston. You can pretty much walk anywhere you need to go in Cambridge so a municipal bus system wouldn't do much without extending past the borders.

IDK hard problem.

1

GM_Pax t1_iy94h8a wrote

>I agree in principal but the MBTA is so organizationally broken and seemingly incapable of being fixed, there might not be a better option.

Because it was set up that way.

​

>smaller transit departments

IOW, further balkanize the system. This is a bad idea. Right now, you could go from Norfolk to Manchester-by-the-Sea, just within the MBTA's core service area. It's all one system; the fares are consistent across the whole thing, as are policies and rules that passengers must adhere to.

Meanwhile, out here, away from the MBTA?

To get from, say, North Adams down to, oh, Chatham?

BRTA, FRTA, PVTA, WRTA, GATRA, and CCRTA ... SIX different transit authorites. Six different fare systems; six different sets of rules; six different web pages to find your way around when looking for schedules.

You absolutely do not want to do that to the MBTA's service area.

...

Also, trust me on this: even if you did it, and balkanized the whole thing anyway? SERVICE WOULD NOT IMPROVE ... it would get worse. I've lived with that worse, all my life ... and the LRTA (Lowell Regional Transit Authority) SUCKS BALLS, and makes the MBTA look like a continuous orgasm of delight and joy by comparison.

5

milkfiend t1_iy8cv6u wrote

That would be great, but a huge majority of voters outside 128 would like to kill the T as they think it's a waste of money. They're wrong, but that doesn't change what they want.

0

WinsingtonIII t1_iy8jidv wrote

Is there polling on this or is this just anecdotal?

This polling suggests that 59% of the state overall wants to see improvements to public transportation as a top transportation priority for the governor: https://www.massincpolling.com/the-topline/massachusetts-poll-78-of-voters-view-transportation-system-in-only-fair-or-poor-condition-59-support-future-mbta-shutdowns-to-expedite-improvements

73% of the state also supports transforming the commuter rail into a true regional rail network. While I am sure there are people outside the Boston metro (which is more like outside 495, not 128), and even within it, who want to gut the MBTA, I'm not sure there is evidence that there is a "vast majority", particularly if we are talking outside 128 as opposed to outside 495.

It is true that 62% of those polled supported making towns and cities within 128 contribute more to the T, but it's worth noting that 64% of voters within 128 itself supported this, so shifting the funding burden of the T more towards Boston and surrounding communities was actually slightly more popular within 128 than it was statewide. Which is a bit surprising.

2

GM_Pax t1_iy90cz8 wrote

Most of those towns and cities have existing Transit Authorities.

Merging them under a single umbrella, statewide so that they had a uniform budget, uniform standards, a uniform fleet of vehicles (and just like toilet paper, if you buy busses in bulk, each one is cheaper than if you buy them one at a time). Apportion the state money available based on both population, and level of service. Let those various towns then pour some of their own money in to the LOCAL system if they choose.

Service literally everywhere would improve.

2

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iy86yle wrote

I would take a realistic solution over thinking that the state is going to change its entire way of life in the next hundred years, sorry. Most of Mass is not dense enough to support “state wide public transit” and won’t be any time soon.

And there is no reason why a city bus system can’t coexist alongside a regional bus system. That is how it works in the NC Triangle/Chapel Hill and it is brilliant.

−1

Difficult-Ad3518 t1_iy8sut6 wrote

You are right that a national rail system that works as well as a European nation's is unrealistic for the USA at this moment, unfortunately. A realistic solution that learns from other agencies' successes in centralized organizing and scratches your implicit desire for more direct planning and oversight would be to:

Reorganize the MBTA as a multi-county, multi-state entity, with subsidiary transit agencies, much like the MTA in New York and Connecticut.

The new Southeastern New England Transit Authority (SNETA) would serve three counties in New Hampshire, eight counties in Massachusetts, all five counties in Rhode Island, and one county in Connecticut, under contract with the associated state's Departments of Transportation:

  • Merrimack County, NH
  • Hillsbourough County, NH
  • Rockingham County, NH
  • Essex County, MA
  • Suffolk County, MA
  • Plymouth County, MA
  • Barnstable County, MA
  • Bristol County, MA
  • Norfolk County, MA
  • Middlesex County, MA
  • Worcester County, MA
  • Providence County, RI
  • Kent County, RI
  • Bristol County, RI
  • Newport County, RI
  • Washington County, RI
  • Windham County, CT

Like the MTA has subsidiary agencies (LIRR, Metro-North, NYC Subway, etc), my proposed SNETA would also have subsidiary agencies:

  • Southeastern New England Regional Rail (SNERR), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Regional Rail lines in the region, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Fitchburg Line
    • Capitol Corridor (Concord (NH) - Boston, via Manchester, Nashua & Lowell)
    • Worcester Line
    • Providence Line
    • South Coast Rail
    • CapeFlyer
  • Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail (MBCR), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Boston-based Commuter Rail lines, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Newburyport/Rockport Line
    • Haverhill Line
    • Lowell Line
    • Franklin/Foxboro Line
    • Middleborough Line
  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Auhtority (MBTA or the 'T'), responsible for the maintenance, operation, and expansion of Greater Boston's heavy rail, light rail, bus, and ferry service, such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Red Line
    • Orange Line
    • Blue Line
    • Green Line
    • Mattapan Trolley
    • MBTA Bus
    • MBTA Boat
  • Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs), such as (not meant to be comprehensive):
    • Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA)
    • Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA)
    • Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA)
    • Manchester Transit Authority (MTA)
    • Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (SRTA)
    • Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MRTA)
    • Concord Area Transit (CAT)

There are currently 176 cities and towns in the MBTA district. Some just have Commuter Rail service or are adjacent to towns with Commuter Rail service. This includes far-flung places such as Bourne, Wareham, Rehoboth, Seekonk, and Bellingham. This presents the MBTA with the challenge of trying to be both a big-tent regional transit agency, but also a single city's urban area's transit agency.

Under the proposal I've laid out above, these hinterlands towns get moved off of the MBTA and to either MBCR, an RTA, or both. Then, the MBTA is left with ~50 cities and towns and can be more narrowly focused on just those municipalities in the Boston area (south to Foxborough, east to Hingham, north to Wilmington, west to Wellesley).

4

GM_Pax t1_iy95boa wrote

I could get behind something like this ... if it had provisions for expanding to include other counties along the way.

Whether it was multi-state, or just Massachusetts: I'd want there to be a mechanism for other counties to opt in and join the system.

And as part of that growth, I'd like to see some uniformity on several fronts, across the entire system. Fares, levels of service, interoperability of fare cards (which does somewhat exist currently: I use a Charlie card up here in the Lowell Regional Transit Authority, right now), signage, and so on.

I want it to be relatively seamless to cross the entire system.

And ideally, I want the busses, trains, trams/streetcars, and whatever else to run so frequently I never need to look at a schedule. :)

2

Difficult-Ad3518 t1_iy9lvl6 wrote

Agreed. This type of proposal actually is beneficial in exactly the ways you desire. For example, this would better enable interoperability of fare cards on regional transit authorities across state lines.

For example, right now there is limited fare integration between MBTA and RIPTA (Commuter Rail monthly pass holders can use it to ride RIPTA), but mostly they operate with entirely different payment methods. A system like this would enable all of the RTAs under the umbrella to use the same fare system, and to leverage inherent economies of scale when upgrading something like payment method.

2

GM_Pax t1_iy94t9g wrote

>I would take a realistic solution over thinking that the state is going to change its entire way of life in the next hundred years, sorry.

You mean like how we did, when we turned the whole state into a car-centric sea of asphalt parking lots?

3

senatorium t1_iy8htfy wrote

AFAIK, there's nothing stopping Cambridge from making routes free as long as they're willing to pay the T for them (as Boston is doing for certain routes, by using federal money). There's also nothing stopping Cambridge from making more dedicated bus lanes on T routes, and I believe giving buses transit priority at signals is also largely up to the city.

2