Did the MBTA’s late-night service experiment really work? (Boston: 2015, credit)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why mention facts when you really didn't say the right stuff? How about we look at the New Haven as a very problematic entity? There had been considerable change in the management structure repeatedly due to its listing on the stock market. It had so many turn-overs in a relatively short period. Most of the modern companies created since the 1970s did not have as many shake-ups.
Perhaps it had been a problem unique to the corporation rather than a systemic set of issues involving the industry? Let's mention that the Old Colony had long faded as it had been managed by the New Haven for over 50 years. Let's also mention that the B&M suffered similar issues due to its stock being traded.
You mentioned London which has many successes. The business has been booming and tons of private companies have been involved.
Bill
Umm yeah, what major private passenger train company has been founded since the 1970's? Who runs any of our long distance trains, our subway and rapid transit systems, our public buses, etc? Who runs public transportation these days? Do you really think stocks and internal corruption were the only things that did in the New Haven, the Penn Central, and all the other former railroad greats? Or can it be a change in consumer demand and an increased competition from automobile companies and long distance bus carriers contributed to decreased profitability which resulted in internal corruption, opportunism, and soured stocks?
Granted perhaps long distance railroads ought to be put in a separate category than rapid transit and local bus systems, but even so I don't see Amtrak being privatized anytime soon. No railroad company is yet willing to carve up Amtrak into bits and provide quality long distance passenger train service, not CSX, not Guilford, and not Norfolk Southern, etc. The only rail transportation that is gaining popularity these days is freight service and even then a great many lines have been shed and abandoned. Private bus carriers such as Peter Pan fare better because the consumer demand is there and they can charge market rates not to mention many of them do charter service or shuttle service on the side and can charge premium prices for these services. Do you think Peter Pan, Megabus, Paul Revere, Academy, or Locomotion will consider running late night transit buses for $2 a fare instead of $20. Heck no! There's no profitability and worse, the companies won't even break even.
This leads back to the original argument that public transportation is not profitable. You mention that London's public transit system involved a lot of private investment. I can believe you but that same goes for Hong Kong. All of Hong Kong's public transportation providers such as Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and MTR are joint private-public ventures. They get large government subsidies but they also generate revenue from other sources such as real estate, always a hot commodity in tiny Hong Kong. Even then, I sincerely doubt that fare collection and government subsidies alone would make HK's public transportation profitable. Besides, Boston and the MBTA are a world's away from Hong Kong's model. I really don't think we could adapt to that model anytime soon if ever.
They are running some limited bus lines & limited train runs on Friday & Saturday for a total of what....2 hours each night for a total of 4 hours a week. Hardly seems like a burden that can't be shouldered.
With the way the T is running these days, an additional 15 minutes of service is a burden that can barely be shouldered. Until the MBTA's finances are straightened and their priorities set, everything is a burden. Right now, our transportation authority is very poorly managed with no strong leadership or decisiveness up top and inadequate operations know-how at the middle.
Umm yeah, what major private passenger train company has been founded since the 1970's? Who runs any of our long distance trains, our subway and rapid transit systems, our public buses, etc? Who runs public transportation these days? Do you really think stocks and internal corruption were the only things that did in the New Haven, the Penn Central, and all the other former railroad greats? Or can it be a change in consumer demand and an increased competition from automobile companies and long distance bus carriers contributed to decreased profitability which resulted in internal corruption, opportunism, and soured stocks?
Granted perhaps long distance railroads ought to be put in a separate category than rapid transit and local bus systems, but even so I don't see Amtrak being privatized anytime soon. No railroad company is yet willing to carve up Amtrak into bits and provide quality long distance passenger train service, not CSX, not Guilford, and not Norfolk Southern, etc. The only rail transportation that is gaining popularity these days is freight service and even then a great many lines have been shed and abandoned. Private bus carriers such as Peter Pan fare better because the consumer demand is there and they can charge market rates not to mention many of them do charter service or shuttle service on the side and can charge premium prices for these services. Do you think Peter Pan, Megabus, Paul Revere, Academy, or Locomotion will consider running late night transit buses for $2 a fare instead of $20. Heck no! There's no profitability and worse, the companies won't even break even.
This leads back to the original argument that public transportation is not profitable. You mention that London's public transit system involved a lot of private investment. I can believe you but that same goes for Hong Kong. All of Hong Kong's public transportation providers such as Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) and MTR are joint private-public ventures. They get large government subsidies but they also generate revenue from other sources such as real estate, always a hot commodity in tiny Hong Kong. Even then, I sincerely doubt that fare collection and government subsidies alone would make HK's public transportation profitable. Besides, Boston and the MBTA are a world's away from Hong Kong's model. I really don't think we could adapt to that model anytime soon if ever.
There are 30 new private railway companies in Britain since 1970 that are profitable. Others have failed. All of these companies have served passenger markets.
Your first post twisted the actual facts to suit your overall representation of the events. However, your story is quite wrong.
A key problem to the MBTA is the allowance of multiple car types instead of the reliance upon car type.
Another problem lies in the high labor costs. Scheduled maintenance costs twice the national average.
None of these problems have anything to do with your theories.
Bill
There are 30 new private railway companies in Britain since 1970 that are profitable. Others have failed. All of these companies have served passenger markets.
Your first post twisted the actual facts to suit your overall representation of the events. However, your story is quite wrong.
A key problem to the MBTA is the allowance of multiple car types instead of the reliance upon car type.
Another problem lies in the high labor costs. Scheduled maintenance costs twice the national average.
None of these problems have anything to do with your theories.
Bill
30 new private railway companies in Britain not the US. Name a highly successful one in the States right now. I gave you Hong Kong, a former British colony, as an example in another part of the world that would not work here in the States.
No doubt the allowance of multiple vehicle types has some impact on costs but many other systems throughout the world have the same too. Toronto, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and even London all have different car types. Did I mention that many of the MBTA's vehicles are much older than average and require much more maintenance? Could it be that the age of the vehicles and the tunnels contribute to the high maintenance costs? All you are doing is listing other shortcomings the MBTA as and passing them off as the only shortcomings in place of the ones I listed. Therefore your argument holds no water. BTW, what I state are not theories. My current supervisor at work used to work for the MBTA for over two decades as did many of my coworkers and they are all saying the same thing.
So you're saying that a private company without unionized workers can fix up the MBTA and run it efficiently under half the operations budget as it currently has? Where are you going to get the non-unionized workers? Who's going to do the job? Keolis is already having a hard time coping with our antiquated commuter rail equipment and they and the MBTA are already pointing fingers at each other. Oh and what private company is willing to invest in new vehicles without getting some profit in return? To do that, they would have to charge market rates which goes against the whole idea of subsidized public transportation and therefore would not be allowed to do.
The only rail transportation that is gaining popularity these days is freight service and even then a great many lines have been shed and abandoned.
Uh, no. Urban rail systems (Commuter Rail, Subways, Streetcars, etc) are at record highs for ridership in most of the US at the moment and there's a ton of new construction going on across the country. Active lines/areas served has been growing for years. It switched from shrinking to growth in the ~90s in most places.
Even inter-city rail (Amtrak's domain) is putting out record numbers and improving year after year.
Uh, no. Urban rail systems (Commuter Rail, Subways, Streetcars, etc) are at record highs for ridership in most of the US at the moment and there's a ton of new construction going on across the country. Active lines/areas served has been growing for years. It switched from shrinking to growth in the ~90s in most places.
Even inter-city rail (Amtrak's domain) is putting out record numbers and improving year after year.
Uh, no. Record high ridership is not always a determinant to increased service or else this thread would never have been started. Besides, I was speaking from the supply side, not the demand side. That goes back to my argument that fares alone do not pay for the rail infrastructure which no one so far has come up with evidence to the contrary. Freight companies usually own the tracks they run or otherwise can afford to pay for the use of tracks or else they wouldn't be doing business at that place. Can transit systems and Amtrak do the same without subsidies?
If you want to put forth the argument that rail transit is growing, there are cities such as Minneapolis and Washington DC that are building new rail systems but for every Minneapolis or DC, you'd get a Cleveland, a Cincinnati, a Buffalo, a New York, and a Boston that either canceled entire rail projects or foregone rail to invest in cheaper bus rapid transit instead. What's the catch with Minneapolis and DC? They're growing in population, their systems are relatively new, and the populace as well as elected leaders recognize the need to expand rail transit. Even so, these cities cannot do it alone with fares. They would need substantial government investment to expand their systems. There is a likely economic profit gained from this but the accounting profit would not be there and it's the accounting profit that ultimately determines whether a project is profitable or not. What's wrong with Boston and New York? They already have old established rail transit systems that they need to take care of before further expansion regardless of ridership.
As for Amtrak, I'd like to know where you are getting your info. The most heavily ridden Amtrak region is the Northeast Corridor and even there, the number of riders are likely offset by the number of potential riders who choose to fly, ride coach lines, or drive instead. Then you have Pennsylvania and California as well but I'd like to know where else if Amtrak is really growing. Is it going to grow to the extent it can be financially self-sufficient?
Here's another article Amtrak: Delays up, ridership down in Illinois - Chicago Tribune that talks about having to share tracks with freight companies. This and many other articles tell that investment in infrastructure is currently not keeping up with ridership and unless something is done to make our nation's rail system more economically sustainable, ridership will substantially go down again.
[quote=Urban Peasant;39004621]
As for Amtrak, I'd like to know where you are getting your info. The most heavily ridden Amtrak region is the Northeast Corridor and even there, the number of riders are likely offset by the number of potential riders who choose to fly, ride coach lines, or drive instead. Then you have Pennsylvania and California as well but I'd like to know where else if Amtrak is really growing. Is it going to grow to the extent it can be financially self-sufficient?
Both the Northeast Regionals and the Acela have an operating surplus. The number of riders isn't offset by the option of other modes so much as it is offset by the limitations of the contemporary rail infrastructure in the US. The Acela rarely if ever is able to reach what we would consider "high-speed" due to inadequate track, particularly along the Shoreline. The Inland Route via Springfield and Worcester is yet up to grade and can't bear frequent headways, and the NEC terminus at South Station is horrendously over-capacity, thereby limiting viable headways and increasing travel time. In turn Amtrak has its own issues going south from NY - but all those negatives taken together along with high prices still don't prevent the NER and Acela from turning a profit.
The new Amtrak funding bill working it's way through Congress is going to be interesting - it for the first requires the profits from NEC lines to be reinvested there in stead of spread out to prop up the long-distance lines. Remember those lines are there because they have political backing - even if Amtrak wanted to cut them, they couldn't. NEC upgrades, if executed correctly, could be a revelation for rail transit in the Northeast, an are which has seen massive growth since Amtrak's inception in the 70s.
There are 30 new private railway companies in Britain since 1970 that are profitable. Others have failed. All of these companies have served passenger markets.
Your first post twisted the actual facts to suit your overall representation of the events. However, your story is quite wrong.
A key problem to the MBTA is the allowance of multiple car types instead of the reliance upon car type.
Another problem lies in the high labor costs. Scheduled maintenance costs twice the national average.
None of these problems have anything to do with your theories.
Bill
High labor costs - yes, an issue in every way.
Rolling stock interchangeability though is not a problem, at all. The RL trainsets are too wide to fit in the BL tunnels. The OL and BL have similar widths, but the BL cars are lower so you'd need to renovate every station on the OL to accommodate them as well as reinforce the bridge crossings because BL 8-car consists are heaving than OL 6s (you'd need to run the 8-car consist to account for the loss of capacity as the BL sets are smaller than the OL). The GL is a whole 'nother mode entirely, you can't have heavy rail along it's route at all (with the exception of the D branch west from Kenmore), but that isn't the point.
You can never have rolling stock interchangeability because the costs of renovating the system to accommodate it would be astronomical - for no immediate gain. You can't connect OL-RL at all, can't connect BL-OL at all, would still need to keep the carhouses to pull the trains out for changes in services, there's absolutely no benefit to be had from running the same trainsets throughout the system. The MBTA does fine as is with it's procurement (so long as they choose a qualified builder, not Breda or Rotem) and they can tie two procurements together for cost savings as they are doing with the new RL and OL cars.
As someone just said, Uber and Lyft can be an option for some nowadays in place of late-night T service.
Yes, still pricey for some but not others.
The problem is they usually surge price during peak bar hours, making them almost as costly or more than cabs if it's a very high surge price in effect. Then, many may need to just rely on cheaper lste-night T service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
