MBTA winter fiasco blamed on excessive worker absences (Boston: homes, to live)

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by lrfox

The most abused leave was FLMA (Family Medical) and it's unpaid. It needs to be approved by a manager. The issue is that there's no way it should be approved in the volumes that it was. 65% (!) of subway drivers (30 percent of all T employees). It's an atrocious abuse, but it is not paid time off. It does call into question whether or not these employees are being overpaid and/or have too many benefits. Personally, I just couldn't afford to take up to 3 weeks off unpaid even if my boss said it was fine.

FMLA doesn't automatically mean unpaid. You would need to read their collective bargaining agreement to see if it was 100% unpaid.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Dm84

FMLA doesn't automatically mean unpaid. You would need to read their collective bargaining agreement to see if it was 100% unpaid.

The only time it's paid is when the employee uses their accrued time as part of the leave. I'm not sure if the MBTA in particular requires employees to use whatever accrued time they have(in some cases it's optional) as part of their FMLA. However, FMLA in general is unpaid leave.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by David223

The T employees take that much time off because they know they can get away with it. In the private sector, they would be canned. If the rules are not changed, this will continue.

But much of transit kinda is the private sector. The management contract of the commuter rail is with Keolis. There are many private companies that deal with transit as the authorities themselves cannot directly run it beyond a given scope.


There T didn't spend 2 BILLION allocated for preventative maintenance.Anything else and they might be put in receivership or worse yet dissolved.

I'm not even sure if the t makes that much sense anymore. Given telecommutting and suburban traveling then what specifically is the point now?

http://www.mass.gov/governor/docs/ne...04-08-2015.pdf

The problem with cars is the high cost structure of self ownership
The problem with public transit is that there is no ownership

Autocars solve both problems because they'll just drive themselves from A to b.

[n1ey]

Originally Posted by mdovell

But much of transit kinda is the private sector. The management contract of the commuter rail is with Keolis. There are many private companies that deal with transit as the authorities themselves cannot directly run it beyond a given scope.


There T didn't spend 2 BILLION allocated for preventative maintenance.Anything else and they might be put in receivership or worse yet dissolved.

I'm not even sure if the t makes that much sense anymore. Given telecommutting and suburban traveling then what specifically is the point now?

http://www.mass.gov/governor/docs/ne...04-08-2015.pdf

The problem with cars is the high cost structure of self ownership
The problem with public transit is that there is no ownership

Autocars solve both problems because they'll just drive themselves from A to b.

Commuter rail has one of the lowest ridership percentages in the country when you review it in relation to the other systems. We have a lot of track mileage. Yet, we have fraction of the ridership in the other systems. Chicago has so many more.

The differences between Chicago, New York, and Boston in terms of commuter rail usage is astounding. The numbers show that continued investment in fringes on the commuter rail network would not be useful. An extension to New Bedford would not produce riders to Boston. It would cost $2Billion. $2Billion would expand the Orange line south to a spot near Mattapan. There even is a right of way that goes from Mattapan towards Needham. An expansion on the Orange line to the north and south would provide service to people that actually want it. It is also targeting a market that would utilize it on a daily basis.

Priorities need to be aligned with the market realities. I have some plans for major capital expansion that would relieve the pressure from the Green Line. I also favor converting the Green Line traffic to heavy rail usage. I am looking to provide service enhancements that would provide transit to more people while also improving the overall system quality. Now, too much is spent on boondoogles. The Middleboro and Kingston commuter rail expansions had been a success. Greenbush has been a failure; it is also combined with reckless spending as required to obtain approval from the local towns.

[timberline742]

Chicago is a MUCH bigger city, not sure that is a great comparison. And New York, well, why even bother comparing NY to Boston?

Really, please compare apples to apples.

[MTQ3000]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how are these workers supposed to get to work if the mass transit is down or severely delayed? Do they all live close enough to their job that they can walk in snow? It's a cause and effect debate, but I wanted to get it out there...

Of course, this point doesn't apply to the rest of the year . . .

Mick

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by n1ey

Commuter rail has one of the lowest ridership percentages in the country when you review it in relation to the other systems. We have a lot of track mileage. Yet, we have fraction of the ridership in the other systems. Chicago has so many more.

List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're behind NYC, Chicago, San Fransisco, and Philly, but ahead of everywhere else in terms of ridership per mile. And the SF system is one line, which isn't really a fair comparison. I agree it could be better, but hyperbole doesn't help.

And commuter rail ridership reflects how many people find it the most effective form of transport. That happens by either making the system more attractive or making the alternatives (i.e. driving) less attractive. We just spent untold billions on improving the freeway system, so is it surprising that people make use of it? Hopefully Governor Baker will make real effort to fixing the underlying problems with the MBTA, but I don't know if that's politically expedient in the short term.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're behind NYC, Chicago, San Fransisco, and Philly, but ahead of everywhere else in terms of ridership per mile. And the SF system is one line, which isn't really a fair comparison. I agree it could be better, but hyperbole doesn't help.

And commuter rail ridership reflects how many people find it the most effective form of transport. That happens by either making the system more attractive or making the alternatives (i.e. driving) less attractive. We just spent untold billions on improving the freeway system, so is it surprising that people make use of it? Hopefully Governor Baker will make real effort to fixing the underlying problems with the MBTA, but I don't know if that's politically expedient in the short term.

I think the bigger problem is the commuter rail is an incredibly poor value for anything other than a rush hour ride.

[n1ey]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Chicago is a MUCH bigger city, not sure that is a great comparison. And New York, well, why even bother comparing NY to Boston?

Really, please compare apples to apples.

We are. The commuter rail is woefully inadequate for Chicago. They do not have enough capacity. There are no new plans to add lines due to budgetary constraints. The comparison is actually on passenger per rail mile. They have more. The immediate areas adjacent to the rail lines are directly comparable.

Please actually learn about this before blatantly posting your stuff.

[n1ey]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're behind NYC, Chicago, San Fransisco, and Philly, but ahead of everywhere else in terms of ridership per mile. And the SF system is one line, which isn't really a fair comparison. I agree it could be better, but hyperbole doesn't help.

And commuter rail ridership reflects how many people find it the most effective form of transport. That happens by either making the system more attractive or making the alternatives (i.e. driving) less attractive. We just spent untold billions on improving the freeway system, so is it surprising that people make use of it? Hopefully Governor Baker will make real effort to fixing the underlying problems with the MBTA, but I don't know if that's politically expedient in the short term.

We are dramatically behind. We actually have more stations, too. The commuter rail loading by station is considerably lower. We have corridors with density approaching the same as Chicago, yet we only have 1/4 of the commuter rail ridership.

Chicago is different in issues of 2 seat rides versus Boston. They have a leg up versus Boston requiring 3 seat rides. It is a marketing advantage.