I wanted to select several options in your poll!

So cutting services is going to increase thier bottom line HMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

What does the cost of security refer to? Currently we have Transit police which I thought was part of Massport. State public safety I would think is State Police? I dont see how we can save any money by expanding the State Police.

Maybe I'll just cut paying my taxes for money I earn after 10pm and on the weekends. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Nothing like jump starting the economy by limiting the way citizens and tourists access our cities and towns. Completely shameful. Why don't we eliminate some of the 600 jobs they filled last year and lower some of the 100's of employees that make over $100K......

Massport is currently policed by the State Police so it sounds like the proposal is to eliminate the Transit Police.

Thanks Klassy, That is the additional info we needed.

Although much of this information is helpful, it dosen't answer my first question,who will be responible for security once the cost of security is shifted to the Dept. of Public Safety? As stated above the State Police provide service for all Massport operations but the MBTA is not part of Massport and has it's own police force. The bottom line is, is it possible that what they are not saying is that they would eliminate the Transit Police as a cost saving measure and hand it over to the State Police? All that does is shift the cost to the taxpayer.

If you go to the MBTA website it says that they are part of the Mass DOT but retain a seperate legal existince. This is an attempt to eliminate that existince and dump the debt in the laps of the taxpayer. The MBTA has been a source of political handouts (jobs) for years. This should be allowed to run it's course and take us where it may. They want a bailout.

My point is that the MBTA was never suppose to be a cost to taxpayers.It was suppose to be self sustaining and to make money or at least cover it's cost. Amtrack is also in trouble should we as a state takeover security on trains? Ma State Police are some of the best paid in the country and they are paid with tax dollars with few exceptions like details. That would not be a cost saving for the MBTA but a tax burden to the taxpayer through State Police payroll.

I voted for the third alternative but that is certainly not the best solution. I don't mind paying more and have been saying for a while that MBTA services are undervalued.

I've gone into this in more detail here: http://swampscott.patch.com/blog_posts/whos-john-galt

We have reached the point where the obviously ill-managed and unsustainable public transportation system that (like so many other public services) is dominated and factually drowned by irrational union demands, pensions and related benefits. It's time to cut the public's losses and sell off the MBTA and divide it up into various privately operated service lines that open up choice and competition. Not an easy task given how deep in the hole they are and how little economic common sense has been going around lately. Government (and unions) are still the problem and not the answer. In the meantime: charge more money and bring me to work in time. And then let's take it from there.

That's the easy way out, blame the unions. It's the new American way. I wonder if you recall the last director of Massport who retired with about $800k in severence? It's not a union problem it is a management problem. I will give you one example to prove my point,UPS is 100% union with high wages and an excelent benifit and retirement program and year after year they post new highs in profit. Union bashing is unamerican. Unions built this country.

Dick, the fact that these publicly funded activities are not fully disclosed doesn't weaken my case - quite to the contrary. But even without fully available records it should be a valid concern that the MBTA can have their equipment fail left and right while paying generous pensions to people "retiring" in their 40s. That shows some disconnect with the real world and clearly is not sustainable.

Tyson,
Exactly. That is one of the problems. You say that and people look at you as if you're a mean person or some kind of radical. It doesn't have to be that way. Now may still be enough time to phase things out and move to something more reasonable. Nobody wants to take away pensions from people who already receive them now and are at or near retirement age. It's the same way I'm thinking of Medicare and Social Security: I'm 42 and I'm willing to give it up. I know that by the time I'm ready to retire the system will be broken unless we are willing to tax our children the European way. I don't want that. For now I'm willing to pay double (for the current retirees and my own retirement). And we have to start telling the younger folks the truth which is that there will be no money left for them because current generations are using it up.
Private trains should be the right directions. Let's perhaps keep the actual rails public. Make it similar to the aviation industry. Not that certain industries by nature won't face problems every now and then (just like the airlines) , but it would still be better then the current MBTA monopoly.

My wife and I both work in Boston. We depend on the 448/449 bus. If this route is eliminated, it will force us to buy an unwanted second car in order to work around our daughter's daycare schedule.

Gov Patrick today mentioned the possability of using the unused snow removal money to bail out the MBTA.

There's really not enough information about the MBTAs operational buget here to make a decision. I don't want to pay more, no real reforms here. Moving the policing to the State Police just moves the cost to the taxpayer much the same as TSA taking over security from users of the airlines. Clearly the management at MBTA isn't being asked to hold the line on salaries, overtime, or fare increases.
Money that would go into equipment repairs and upgrades is going to salaries overtime and pensions. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, people should be paid fairly. Too bad there isn't some leadership that knows how to sell this to us and let us know what we'll get for our money. Right now it sounds like the same operation for a higher cost.

The T has to become able to support itself. For the state to pay one time to put them back on level ground would be like pouring water into a bucket full of holes once. Soon it will be empty again.

I agree with John Moynihan. I'm not sure why we expect the T to pay for itself, when we publicly fund many other projects that serve the public good. We don't expect kindergarten to pay for itself, for instance. Why the T?

It's basic business. If your loosing money, and have a solid source of income, raise your prices. That's life. We pay more and more for everything year after year.

I suggest that the MBTA comes under the term "infrastructure" in that with fewer trains, people will use their cars more, and the roads will come under more strain so needing more repairs. Guess who ends up paying for them?
To those who declare that the MBTA must support itself, I seriously suggest you do a bit of homework first. Rail transportation worldwide has always needed subsidies of one kind or another and before you quote the "privatized" system in the UK, I would enlighten you by saying that the infrastructure maintenance and one of the main arterial routes reverted to public ownership having failed under privatization.
It's also interesting that the company currently running the Commuter Rail is a company that was thrown out of the UK system after they messed up a high density franchise before being hired by the MBTA!
I would, on the other hand, agree that a more enlightened attitude is needed from MBTA management and staff. It seems to me that the issue is not money but attitude and culture - much more difficult to change.