The Train Mon Rant

No Power to the People

2008-03-03T13:25:00.006-05:00

For as long as anyone can remember (or at least since its inception in 1964), the MBTA has always cited its inability to run the "rapid" transit 24-hours a day as needing the 4 1/2 or so hours to do "track maintenance." Why the bus system can't run 24-hours is the subject of an innumerable number of conspiracy theories ranging from the rational-but-lame "there's not enough overnight demand" to the far-fetched-but-reasonable "the T is in cahoots with Boston's cab companies." But, strictly speaking about the trains, you would think that with all that time to work on the tracks sans revenue trains, you wouldn't have the issue of downed/defective overhead wires on the Green Line North Station, an issue that first surface last Thursday and apparently, according to a most recent "T-Alert," has resurfaced today.

To add insult to injury--because why not--you have to ask this question:
Didn't North Station get rebuilt just a few years ago?! I mean, did I miss something where the old elevated E-Line (briefly E and D, but I'm not going to get into that) got torn down and all new tubes, tracks, and overhead wiring were put in for the new underground alignment?. So why, of all places, North Station?!

But forget that for a second--an even bigger slap in the face was that, last Wednesday, a similar overhead wiring issue happened on the Mattapan High Speed Line (a-k-a "The Other Green Line"). In case you missed it, that entire line was down 24/7 for about a year and a half! In other words, that line should be flawless.

It's issues like these that make riders feel, literally, powerless--is it really too much to ask that for the 4 1/2 hours that the system is down, we the riders can be certain that the juice will flow, uninterrupted, for the other 19 1/2? Hopefully downed/defective overhead wiring won't become a running joke like signal problems on the Orange Line which have required scheduled partial or total weekend shut-downs, as well as impromptu weekday shut-downs, between Wellington and Oak Grove, for almost two years now. Hopefully...

Don't Waste a Dime on That

2008-02-11T15:32:00.000-05:00

First of all, a very belate Happy New Year to all my readers! I apologize for my third hiatus--very busy, as usual. I hope to respond to more current events in a timely fashion in the New Year.

I was going to title this rant in response to this article, "Dear Clueless in Wilmington," but I realize that no everybody shares my same enthusiasm for mass transit vehicles (*gasp*). More on that later. Let me give you a little background on this article since the link may expire within a week:

A woman from Wilmington, who shall remain nameless--if you really want her name, check the article--wrote into Boston Metro's Q & A With Dan Grabauskas and was published today. Her question and concern: what's with the "awful smell that resembles burning rubber" that seems to start at Wilmington (where she boards) and wafts through the coach at each of the stops as her train makes its way to Boston. She is concerned about the potentially carcinogenic nature of the smell.

After consulting, um, consultants, MBTA General Manager Dan Grabauskas correctly replies to her that the awful smell that resembles burning rubber is actually the non-life-threatening smell... of burning rubber. Brakes, specifically. He goes on to say something so bizarre-o I tried paraphrasing it several times, but gave up:

"The odor may also be more powerful for commuters sitting in the end sections of the coach or when the coach doors remain open longer than usual at busier stops. While this is not a quick fix to your concern, I will continue with further action. I have instructed Commuter Rail Chief Jody Ray to work with our commuter rail provider MBCR to ensure proper maintenance to the coaches continues, including maintenance to the breaking [sic] systems."

What the heck is "further action?!" Of all the MBTA/MBCR Commuter Rail's concerns--on-time performance, equipment malfunction, bridge malfunction, that nagging issue of being the last commuter railroad in the Northeast Corridor other than VRE to even partially electrify, etc.--this warrants further action?! Don't waste a dime on it, other than routine maintenance. It's not my fault the poor woman obviously didn't have fun in high school chemistry--I did. Let's just say there were a lot of fun things to let's-see-how-this-burns-and -smells with a Bunsen burner. But even still, I guess she's never been in a vehicle doing heavy braking on a hot day--yes, even your car can give off a burning rubber smell from heavy braking on a hot day.

Personally, I love the smell of train brakes (*surprise surprise*). In that odd breed of people known as rail buffs, train brake smell is sentimental to the operation of trains as the clickety-clack of wheels on jointed rail, the electrical smell in a subway and the hum of generators as units start and stop. Having grown up riding Amtrak 3-5 times a year, I probably knew what the brake smell, and accompanying mixture of humming and screeching, when I was--I don't know--three. Oh well, maybe it's time for a new hobby.

NOT!

-TM

That's One Way to Look At It

2007-09-12T10:56:00.000-05:00

Subtitle: Commonwealth drivers now feeling pinch of transportation deficit too. What's in question is the $20 B or so first reported on about a week ago, and brought to the forefront again by both Channel 7 News and Fox 25 News [I'm citing both of them now, don't bug me later]. Our fledgling Governor Deval Patrick wants to reduce that debt by raising existing tolls; adding tolls to other interstates, especially I-93; raising the gas tax; starting up a "congestion tax"; and privatizing state roadways. Let me give insight:

Tolls work. But you already knew my stance on that issue--I only mentioned it here, here, here and here. If anything, I think the first step in this money-producing initiative, is to return the tolls to the Western Mass. portions of the Massachusetts Turnpike, which were taken away. I've said it before and I'll say it again--the MassPike was a toll road through and through and should remain so. Western Mass. drivers felt like they were simply lining the pockets of Eastern Mass. roadway projects (Central Mass. is just this barren wasteland of small cities and big towns that you pass through to get from Eastern cities to Western farms and vice-versa), but, with the tolls eliminated, now Eastern Mass. is shouldering the cost of the entire Turnpike--which isn't right either. Unfortunately, however, returning the cost of paying for the Western Mass. portion of the Turnpike to Western Mass. residents isn't on the agenda. Nope, step 1 is to raise the tolls on the Eastern-Central half, in addition to the Sumner and Ted Williams Tunnels and the Tobin Bridge... to pay for all state roads. Sound familiar--such was the case, beginning in the early '90's and ending December 31, 2006, where people not living on the surface portions of the Green Line cried fowl because why should people on the Green Line go Outbound for free. So what did the MBTA, trying to make things fair and equitable for all do--return things to their original state: all pay! Take a hint.

But, back to reality, current tolls may be going up. And?!... One woman on Channel 7 News bellyached about the excess time of having to take local roads to avoid the Tobin Bridge because she doesn't like paying the $3.00 to get into the city everyday. I lived in Chelsea for a little over a year; I did the same thing; I still do the same thing, making my weekly pilgrimage to the Chelsea Market Basket. And?!... As I mentioned before, tolls aren't meant to separate the rich from the poor, they're meant to support the road/bridges/tunnels that they are on. In case you haven't noticed, chunks of concrete are falling off the Tobin Bridge; lane closures are way past being over. Clearly that thing needs substantial funding, and that funding can't come from reaching even deeper into an already very dry well of transportation funding. The same goes for the aged Sumner Tunnel and leaky Ted Williams. All costs go up--here's a tissue.

As far as adding tolls to other roads, well, I think you already know what I'm going to say: why not. Forget wayward manhole covers--there are sections of I-93 in Somerville and Medford, just as an example, were if you hit the road in the right spot, you will literally bounce into the next lane; the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the bounce. Adding new tolls is always the "anything but that" concept, but really, do we really want I-93 looking like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (I-278).

Let me digress because this is a good analogy. I-278, like I-93, was "rammed through established [city] neighborhoods"; the former by non other than the anti-public transit, mostly anti-commercial vehicles, lobbyist Robert Moses. Some might call Deval Patrick the anti-Robert Moses with all his pro-toll, pro-gas tax and pro-congestion tax proposals that seem to stick it to Commonwealth drivers all the while he continues to push his desire to restoreg public transit (Commuter Rail) to his constituents in New Bedford. The reality is that he's a the first make-sense Governor we've had in a while when it comes to roadway funding (borrowing only makes more debt, as fun as borrowing is), and a just-slightly-above-average-sense Governor when it comes to transit initiatives (read: Old Colony Railroad restorations can wait--rapid transit and the buses have been, are and will be hurting and will be suffering without adequate funding).

This brings me up to raising the gas tax: people want to know where this money is going to go and what is the real intention. Is the increased tax going toward roadways, public transit or the general pool of transportation funding? Is it going to be raised to discourage driving or is it simply to raise funds? Neither transit advocates nor roadway advocates can do more than speculate on what's spinning in Patrick's ahead (train wheels or tires, hah), and we may never know for sure. Overall: sure! Have I told you how much I like my bicycle (hint: I really do!).

The same goes with a congestion tax. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is already toying with the idea, seriously, in Midtown Manhattan. Governor Patrick may follow suit over certain sections of road in the Greater Boston Area. Yet, just like for the gas tax, there are unanswered questions regarding where funds are to go and who's really getting squeezed. Again, sure (see bicycle comment above).

As far as privatization, let me invoke a phrase used a few years ago when the MBTA Bus System was in such a fiscal crisis that there was talk of privatizing it: " Keep the Public in Public Transportation." Now, let me squash the phrase as it applies to keeping the public in public roads. The truth is we really don't know what's going to happen in the long run. Of course, in the short term it will take the heat off the state to maintain the roads, saving millions. Can we be certain that private firms won't try to charge more on their then-controlled toll roads and/or add more tolls in order to have bigger returns. Gee, I don't know--do we live in a capitalistic society?! Solution: the state can sell rights to the roads, it doesn't have to sell the right to regulate toll prices. That's something the people can vote on (and vote out and screw everybody over like the end of rent control). End of discussion.

Pack up and leave "Taxachusetts" before the going gets rougher... or costlier--that's one way to look at it. Another is to sit back, take a chill pill, and see what actually develops. Almost no portion of travel public transit in the Commonwealth is "free"--motorists will eventually have to pony up to travel on state roads, in addition to paying taxes, as well.

Train Mon! Welcomes the Competition: A Fresh Face in the Age-Old Bus Debate

2007-08-28T12:51:00.000-05:00

After months of trying to break my hiatus from blogging that coincidentally started around the same time that BadTransit started its indefinite "siesta" and the Charlie on the MBTA blog scandal started, I've finally done it! After letting months of good material slip by, from the shipment delays of the new Blue Line cars to the again-shutdown of the surface portions of the D Line to the MBTA Rider's Union Annual Report to my favorite Mayor's insane idea to move Boston City Hall to the public transit-ghost town known as the Seaport District, I finally got inspiration to start--and finish--my latest rant: an article sent to me by a friend and a recent experience I'll simply call "1019 and 1044"--yes, you can weather the suspense of the latter.

Let's start with said article in the Boston Herald, West Roxbury Teen Gets to Route of T Troubles. The implication, at least as my friend got across to me, was that I have "competition": while I sit here, a lifelong public transit advocate and industry insider, currently employed in the training & safety aspect of the field , I have been "one-upped" by a kid ten years my younger who has more knowledge of MBTA bus routes than I'll ever care to know and already has MBTA General Manager Dan Grabauskas's ear-- and eyes--after a professional presentation at a reach-out-the-public meeting, so much so that Mr. GM has his top managers listening to his ideas... and actually taking notes.

Bring it on, Stuart Spina.

Personally I'm happy for the Westie protagonist. Without trying to sound my usual sarcastic, I applaud his ability to stay above the cynicism, tirades, and, yes, sarcasm, that myself and dozens of other bloggers big and small have reduced ourselves to towards the MBTA and other perspective-to-their-areas ill-run transit agencies across the nation. However, I don't agree with his seemingly strictly bus-approach to a system that, contrary to Grabauskas who's lately been putting almost all his chips in the the bus half of things, does have a potentially great rail half. But that's another story; let me finally end the suspense of the second half of the story for this rant, "1019 and 1044."

1019 and 1044 are my short answer to the reason why approximately MBTA Riders' Union Annual Report that approximately 75% of Greater Bostonians are fed up with the MBTA bus system; how I spotted them in the first place places me in that 75%: I was driving over to my parents' this past Sunday evening. Why was I driving--because the weakest link in a transit trip across town is the 93--a bus that boasts one of the highest frequencies in the system: 4-10 minutes, during weekdays, and 20-30 minutes on weekend days, but drops off daily to every 40-60 minutes after hours. 40-60 minutes is unacceptable, and so is the 12-minute walk in the blistering heat to and from Sullivan Square Station, thus I drive it. As I approached Brigham Circle on Huntington Avenue, I noticed 1019 and 1044 both leaving the stop. 1019 and 1044, if you haven't looked them up yet or deduced by now, are two "articulateds" on Route 39. You see, seeing two back-to-back 60' buses brought back years of living in Mission Hill and riding that route and the E Line and wondering why buses, and trolleys, always run in pairs. Now, I've been in the industry too long to not know the myriad of factors that go into why buses, and trains, get backed up to the point where they're tailing one another when they're supposed to be anywhere from 2-20 minutes apart, but the question remains why?

Why in a system that has spend millions of dollars in improvements, including everything from GPS to brand new equipment to more, and better, training of inspectors to monitoring route traffic, do two buses run tandem... on a Sunday? Does it really take Spina's best-pressed clothes and formal report--and uncanny knowledge route knowledge--to get Grabauskas's attention and make him realize that "maybe something's wrong"? Or is Spina just the latest spin, if you will, on the same argument that years-long residents of the City of Boston, like my parents and neighbors, have been saying for years: if the T really cared about the community, if the people who ran the company actually used the system, the system would be better? Years ago, while waiting for a 39 bus back to Mission Hill from Back Bay on a nondescript weekend day with my mother and sister (after they let me do some train watching in the station, of course), I distinctly remember my mother asking a inspector standing in the horseshoe area both why the buses were bunching up at the station and going out of service (about four had pulled in, none had left in about 20 minutes) and how often he or the other bus operators actually rode the system. In a brief, but amiable conversation, the inspector admitted that neither he nor most of the other inspectors or B/O's rode the system often, if at all, and that therefore, it did play a factor in level of care towards the passengers as far as making sure that service leaves on-time--probably the most honest answer I've ever heard out of an MBTA employee.

So, Coca-Cola make good product because employees actually drink it and Nike makes good product because employees actually wear it... and the MBTA will be good once employees actually use the system?! What a concept! Unfortunately, we're going to be waiting a while for Spina to run things. In the meantime...

Uphams Corner: Overhyping the Obvious

2007-03-19T08:00:00.000-05:00

The last time I wrote about Boston Globe transportation columnist Mac Daniel's Sunday Starts & Stops column, I was praising it for mentioning, unlike the MBTA website, that the T had completed construction projects on the E Line. Since then I've pretty much bitten my tongue, or blogging fingers, and left any rants about Mac Daniel or his column to the larger, more famous local blogs, Charlie on the MBTA and Bad Transit, as well as the MBTA Forum, all of which I have nothing but the utmost of respect for, I might add. The general consensus amongst the "Big 3" seems to be a respect for the work Mac Daniel does as far as being able to get "those answers" at the MBTA which us common folk would be given the run-around about, yet at the same time questioning both whether or not he actually rides the system and whether he is a PR machine for the MBTA. After this past Sunday's article on Uphams Corner, I can't take it any more--I have to throw my ring in the hat and rant too, and here's why:

With regard to upgrades to teh Uphams Corner Commuter Rail station on the Fairmount/Readville Line, let me first start off by saying it's about time that the MBTA starting doing anything positive for the Dorchester community. On behalf of low-to-middle class neighborhoods all over the Greater Boston Area feeling more than short-changed by the completion of the Greenbush Line while so many inner-city and inner-suburban projects have been sidelined, or done poorly, it's a baby step, but a step nonetheless, for the positive.

But that's where it ends. Saying it will "now cost you just $1.70 to take commuter rail downtown" is overstating the obvious--Uphams Corner (as well as Morton Street even further out) is a Zone 1A stop--that's how much it costs! It didn't magically come down in price... because the stop was renovated. And, duh, you pay it in cash, where applicable, to the conductors--like Chelsea, it's not like there's a ticket kiosk there--this isn't Metro-North, my friends. The fact that the "commuter rail still doesn't accept CharlieCards" is nothing new either. Look here for a lengthy explanation on why the Commuter Rail doesn't that I wrote months ago. Furthermore, in my rant, you'll see why I think think that, if anything, people with a LinkPass-loaded CharlieCard are getting screwed into paying more to board and exit at Uphams Corner and Morton Street because they didn't opt for the monthly Zone 1A--the non-RFID version of the LinkPass which costs the same and allows for Zone 1A Commuter Rail, Commuter Boat and any other MBTA anomalies where the CharlieCard isn't currently accepted. Still don't get it--let me try this approach: you're already paying for a monthly pass which, is supposed to cover your boarding and drop-off locations--why are you paying additionally?! Still lost--let me put it bluntly: if you buy a monthly pass for a particular coverage area you shouldn't have to pay another dime to use services within that coverage area--that is what people with LinkPass Charlie Cards are doing when they board Commuter Rail trains within Zone 1A and have a LinkPass CharlieCard instead of the Zone 1A CharlieTicket? So I'll reiterate from my earlier rant, until the CharlieCard is universally accepted on all MBTA modes of transport, get the Zone 1A--forget the LinkPass CharlieCard!

Turnpike Toll Take-Away Proposal All But Scrapped

2007-02-06T14:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday and today's Boston Metro, Boston Globe and Boston Herald have been reporting that the Massachusetts Turnpike Board, still getting a "no" vote from governor Deval Patrick's camp on the proposal to take away MassPike tolls west of I-95/Rt 128/Rt. 3, have all but declared the issue dead... at least for now. And in case I haven't made my stance on the issue clear here or here, I'm happy that the issue is finally getting scrapped. I really don't have much new to say about it. I said it was unfeasible monetarily the minute Kerry Healy came out with it as a last-ditch effort to save face with We the People of the People's Republic of Massachusetts and garner more votes for the gubernatorial election last November (boy, time flies). And while I'm not elated that Governor Patrick took the wussy, programmed-politician no-nonsense stance on the "Aqua Teen Scare" of last week, I'm happy that he's at least stuck to his guns on this issue. 'Nuff said.
-TM

Cashing in on Last Week's Faux Pas

2007-02-05T15:34:00.000-05:00

Today's Boston Metro reports that Turner Broadcasting Systems and Interference Inc. have agreed to pay the Commonwealth approximately $2 million as a result of causing last week's fiasco in the Greater Boston Area. As you may have already guessed by the the title of the blog entry, this is literally a result of our adept local public officials grabbing TBS and Interference by the udders and seeing how much they could actually milk them for. Because, let's be honest--the pricetag went up like the Big Dig as local officials, especially the seems-to-always-have-Boston's-back Mayor "Mumbles" Menino, kept piling on random charges: $500 K... $750 K... one million. And an extra million for Homeland Security, are you kidding me?! If anything, I think the two agencies agreed to the additional charges out of sympathy and in hopes that the region will use the money to put better (read: smarter) resources to work to avoid another widespread panic and traffic and mass transit tie-ups (gee, Train Mon, do you mean like the nine other cities "afflicted" by the "guerrilla advertising"-- yes I do).

But my favorite part of the article has to be this section:

"MBTA General Manager Daniel Grabauskas and Joseph Carter, the chief of the MBTA police, assured the public the money [the homeland security allocation to the MBTA] would not be spent on overtime or other intangible expenses.

'We will develop a list of meaningful and effective homeland security and customer safety programs that will have an enduring effect on our customers,' Carter said."

Translation: more bag searches and special training on how to correctly aim security cameras.
Oh yeah... and the Dan Grabauska's recorded "Safety is our number one priority" message" in rapid transit stations and the "Please report any unattended bags or suspicious packages to the bus driver" on buses will repeat even more often (hence, "enduring"). I can't wait.

At the very least, I hope people who were inconvenienced more than a half hour by the T last week are dutifully reimbursed as part of the T's "restitution" allocation.

-TM

Our Tax Dollars Hard at Work: Keeping Boston Trendy, Puritan and Smart

2007-02-01T15:49:00.000-05:00

Given recent events, I don't know why it I should be suprised that Boston, out of ten total cities "afflicted" with the recent Lite Brite-like images of Err and Ignignokt, was the only one to seriously overreact. I guess somehow I figured that Boston could somehow--I don't know--lighten up to controversial advertising.I mean, the Boston Area is supposedly quickly becoming a "trendy" area: takeovers by New York, European and Asian department stores and other mega-corporations, condos galore, overpriced hotels everywhere and what's-left-of apartments so overpriced that even the upper-crusted are fleeing to the North and South Shores, if not to Southern New Hampshire and Northern Rhode Island. Yet is seems the local sentiment on advertising remains as Puritanical as the attitude that drove settlers from the area, and the entire Massachusetts colony, back in 17th and 18th centuries. Let me recap recent advertising issues:

1. Early May, 206: Mayor Menino presses British retailer FCUK to remove scantily-clad female mannequins, yes mannequins, from the front window display of its Boston store on Newbury Street... not because they were scantily clad, but because they were in a fighting pose as actual actors were in TV ads. So-claimed the most adept Mayor that the ads were contributing to Boston's slighter-above-average homicide count for the year... not the fact that the BPD had a deficit of over 100 officers... or a Commisioner to rule them.

2. Late September, 2006: Group of "concerned" citizens, with a C-list politician the helm, set off a mini-campaign to take down the venerable and prominent Citgo sign at Kenmore Square on account of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's mockery of President Bush before the U.N.; this time alone common sense prevailed.

3. Mid-November, 2006: At it again, theMayor presses MBTA GM Dan Grabauskas to remove Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories ads from the side of its Green Line trains, again because they were contributing to the still-running-above-average homicide count for the year for Boston... because young, impressionable children might interpret the ads as a call to arms, or even worse, play the game, and react to their experience.

Trendy--try the butt of a joke for everyone else in the country, including those in other Aqua-Teen ad-"afllicted" cities, such as Seattle and Philly, that otherwise shouldn't even be razzing Boston (I mean, c'mon it's Seattle and Philly). But they didn't overreact and that's all that matters. Sure, new reports are trickling in with PD's at some of the other cities trying to back up their fellow boys and girls in blue in Boston by saying that if they had actually found the things (as opposed to them being removed by the general public and the locals who put them up), they would've reacted the same--good try, but there is equally as much news coming out saying that amongst the other PD's there was little fanfare even when one was found. In New York City, one street was shut down for a few hours for one investigation of the "suspicious devices," but that was it; there were other minor and isolated tie-ups to area pedestrian traffic by PD's in the remaining eight cities. In the Boston Area, too much of the area, including at one point parts of the Charles River was on lockdown, tying up traffic and mass transit for hours.

Interestingly enough, the first incident occurred right near my job at Sullivan Square. After being up in the Boston Area and nine U.S. cities for about a week and a half, all of a sudden, an MBTA employee "locates" one of the Lite Brite Mooninites hanging from the I-93 overpass and from there it was on: buses shuttling people between North Station and Wellington Square while the Orange Line was shut down, buses shuttling between Park Street and Kendall/MIT because Charles/MGH and the Longfellow Bridge were shut down, numerous sections of road and the Charles River shut down, all the while these Lite Brite-like circuit boards, at times labeled "suspicious packages," were removed, and, in some cases, "rendered useless." And with Menino at the helm and newly minted Governor Deval Patrick and State Attorney General Martha Coakley behind him, all it took was copy-cats with there own advertising blitz--posters rolled up in fake pipe bombs--to keep the craziness going.

My only regret on Wednesday was that in biking in (because, in addition to the exercise benefits, it beats the T's longstanding problem of having people go all the way into Boston to go two blocks over to the next neighborhood or take two sparsely-running buses--wake me when they even start the Urban Ring) I just missed the start of the whole thing. At about 7:55, making my way through the perilous Sullivan Square Rotary amongst all the rabid-gotta-get-to-work-NOW! drivers, a lone "Transit Police" cop car with blue lights going was also snaking its way through. But since aforementioned drivers pay near zero attention to emergency vehicles with activated lights anymore--which is partly cops' fault for "crying wolf" with their lights flashingjust to get to the nearest doughnut shop--the cop had a tough time getting through the rotary onto Cambridge Street perpendicular to traffic on Maffa Way which had a green light green light. The car finally got across and into the Sullivan Square T stop, meanwhile I'm further back negotiating the aforementioned intersection myself as the light was going green in my direction (still gotta watch for the less-than-vigilant right-on-redders).

Anyway, any other day I would've chalked up the Transit Police cop cars' haste to a tip-off of a fresh batch of doughnuts coming out of the oven at the Sullivan Square Dunkies, and so I didn't think too much more of it. However, had I looked up as I was riding under the I-93 overpass and over the Commuter Rail and Orange Line, I might've caught a glimpse--and a quick photo shoot with my camera phone--of the Mooninite circuit board that started it all. Because, as I was to find out later when one of my bosses who T regulalarly, that cop car was actually doing something--investigating that oddly-placed device; the occupant(s) of that cop car, as we all know from history now, were joined by many more cops, State Police, the BPD and prospective bomb squads, by the time my boss came through about an hour and a half later, after the "safety" busing on the Orange Line had begun. When I came through I had just missed the T employee's sighting.

And what of that Sullivan Square sighting as the first one and how the what-the-heck-is-this-creature-on-the-circuit-board thing could've easily been averted. Let's talk about a larger-than-life billboard depicting Err, sans flipping-the-bird-pose, that had been atop a building near the intersection of Crescent Street and Cambridge Street, two blocks from the Sullivan Square Station and I-93 underpass, for weeks (an Alpha Omega sign, more than likely timed for Valentine's Day, is there right now). Somerville police, who regularly fill their quotas sitting one short block away at the intersection of Innerbelt Road and Cambridge/Washington Streets, had to have seen it while watching traffic, if not on regular foot or car patrols down the street. MBTA maintenance employees would also have to have seen the billboard. I regularly see MBTA maintenance and vehicles buzzing in and out of the Commuter Rail maintenance facility on Innerbelt Road and the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail (MBCR) facililty on New Washington Street. I mean, not that seeing a miniature Lite Brite-like version of Err in a precarious place after seeing the billboard should make one automatically think "oh geez, it's just some harmless Lite-Brite-like device bearing the likeness of the creature on the billboard, but, c'mon. Half the day--that's how long it took the millions of dollars worth of new Homeland Security "intelligence" on top of what already existed in local and statewide law enforcement to figure out what the "creature" was... when all any of these geniuses had to do was think back to the Sullivan Square and other billboards in the area... or ask some young adult.?! Do-gooders, mostly in the midlife-crisis age group (35-60), have posted on young adults' blogs with saying things to the effect of, "While you adults were heating up the fiber optics about the likenesses of Ignignokt and Err since early morning, it would've call the police to tip them off to what these signs were of"--as if every police officer is some old, cranky, stuck-in-his/her-ways person ignorant of popular culture. No. Try again. And I'm not buying the "well you can never be too careful"moniker either. The first one at Sullivan Square--sure, proceed with caution. The second, third, sure. The tenth means keep treating every single one like it "could explode"--who are you kidding?!

And this is nothing but bad press for the Transit Police especially coming on the heels of a study questioning the effectiveness of random searches, which I am actually in support of (read: nothing found=GOOD). Because unlike the shoot-to-kill attitude of equivalent Homeland Security training in the UK, especially in the subway, the MBTA Police, since changing their name to the more generic Transit Police, seem to have toned things down in general from their former gun-slinging days of gunning down racial minority groups in Dudley (read: baby in baby carriage does NOT equal terrorist even if you can't see what else in in the baby carriage). And the Good Mayor--a study just came out today saying high school graduate rates are way down; the Boston Public Schools aren't the only ones involved, but as the largest school system in the state, it BPS does stand out like a sore thumb... or a glowing Lite-Brite-like piece under I-93. Here's a thought: why don't we put the all the money that is currently being funneled into Homeland Security training into--I don't know--educating our youth so that when they grow up to be coppers, or politicians, they don't put Greater Boston in undue panic.

P.S. I think Greater Bostonians, and all true New Englanders will agree with me: this is a much scarier image than Ignignokt and Err:

Today's Boston Metro, Page 1: Cutting Costs 101: Squeezing Employees

2007-01-19T08:58:00.000-05:00

Boston Metro, Friday, January 19, 2007 - the headline reads ""Report: T must cut costs."

For the second day in a row, the MBTA has made the front-page headline and story of the Boston Metro. Yesterday's topic, in case you didn't read the article or my rant, was on how the T is going to aggressively fine fare beaters at its newfangled magic gates... and then suspend, via the RMV, their licenses if they don't pay--yes, their licenses. Today's is no much less of a riot: the State Transportation Finance Commission, equally as adept as the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Board, at the conclusion of its "finding" about how the MBTa is supposed to hack way at its mysteriously high debt, is proposing that the Authority play "airline" and significantly lower its employees' retirement benefits. The the debt, if I may remind you, is approximately $5 billion, but reported as high as $8 billion depending on which level of TI calculator is being used at the time; I prefer the 89 myself.

Spearheading this "finding" by the Commission is the President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Michael Widmer. The article basically tries to paint Widmer as a compassionate guy who's simply looking out for the best interest of us, the taxpayers of the People's Republic of Massachusetts, a-k-a "The Commonwealth," and trying to come to a rational solution about how the T should eliminate some of its debt. What he's really saying by this "finding" is a big $^&# YOU! to the MBTA as far as helping to "take over a proposed $2.9 billion of the debt in order to get the authority back on stable footing."

Because God forbid the T's most loyal employees who stick around for decades get full health benefits when they retire. I mean, I'll be honest, operating and conducting trains and/or buses isn't as skilled a job as flying a plane, nor does it pay as much. So is Widmer's line of thinking that because airlines can go after their pilots' and flight attendants' retirement benefits, the T can do the same? If so, he only left out one part--good for business, bad for everyone else--and it has backfired for the airlines in the form of strikes and work stoppages. Welcome to Cutting Costs 101: squeeze your employees. Who cares about morale or reciprocation of company loyalty? It's all customers, dammit--in this case riders and taxpayers--we're the ones getting squeezed--not!

Because if you, as a rider, or a taxpayer, or both, feel that way, do the homework. Almost nowhere in the whatever-so-many-billions-of-dollars-of-debt that the T has mysteriously amassed, an amount greater than Amtrak's I might add, is the reason because of retirement benefits. While the T certainly has made fiscally irresponsible decisions within its last decade, giving all it can to its marginally disgruntled, but overall hard-working and well-meaning employees isn't one of them. And that is why I don't think its remotely fair to even think of going after that; and as the article mentions, the brighter-than-we-give-him-credit for MBTA GM Dan Grabauskas seems to think so too, at least questioning how much of a difference its really going to make.

Nobody wants MBTA fares to go up another cent; or to feel that their taxpayer dollars are just shoveling #$@% against the tide as far as paying down the MBTA's debt. But just the same, if anything, the state owes the MBTA money in terms of numerous projects that, although delayed or failed, have somehow added to the T's debt. Let's not think hastily and go after the little person.

And on Page 2: MassPike Board Revisiting, Again, Taking Down Tolls

2007-01-18T15:26:00.000-05:00

This is the second of a two-part series covering two hot topics (at least in my book) of today's Boston Metro. I highly recommend reading my first one on the MBTA's new "effort" to punish fare beaters.

Boston Metro, Thursday, January 18, 2007, Page 2 - the headline reads, "Means to an end| Pike board members push gas tax to eliminate tolls."

Quite frankly I could care less if the Commonwealth raises the gas tax. I don't drive that often; it wouldn't hurt my wallet that much. My beef is with this issue coming up again after I thought it had been mostly squashed shortly afterKerry Healy was in the recent gubernatorial election (ouch). But no--for whatever reason actually *gasp* charging tolls on a toll road seems to yank at the hearts of certain members of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Board. And since Governor Deval Patrick promises to veto any moves to strictly just take down the tolls without coming up with adequate other funding (i.e. he has common sense), this is the Board's latest ploy to make it happen.

Let me digress here a minute, like I like to do, to say that although this surfaced with Kerry Healy just weeks before the gubernatorial election, I knew all along that this wasn't just some cheap, last minute strategy by her to get votes--I knew the Turnpike Board had already had it brewing and that it would keep it alive, regardless of whether Healy won or lost. My only surprise was that it actually has found the time, and energy, to not focus on, heck, I don't know, recuperating millions lost on the Big Dig.

Back on track, my question is why--why bother? What the heck is wrong for charging tolls on the MassPike. Almost every civilized, industrialized state in this great nation has some form of turnpike, and guess what, they charge tolls. That was the point, that is the point. For some things this Commonwealth has proven itself to be capable of within the last few years--allow homosexual men and women to marry legally, elect its first Black governor--I am proud that we have gone far beyond the status quo. However to be one of the first states to eliminate tolls on a toll road--Ummm, no! "They" tried to do it on the Garden State Parkway--look how far that got. And, let's be honest, tolls there are annoying. Rather than charge you far out the *ss when you exit the highway, they just nickel and dime you, literally, after every so miles. Imagine riding an express bus or other bus or rail service and having to pay after every few stops or face being kicked off. Exactly.

But the real problem is the ironic solution: rather than charge just those who use the MassPike to *gasp* use the MassPike, the gas tax will effect all motorists who fill up in Massachusetts. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the idea of eliminating tolls in the Western part of the state mostly to eliminate the feeling that most toll money was going to pay for things, such as the exorbitant Big Dig, in the Eastern half? So that's the solution--eliminate tolls and make everybody pay?! Am I missing something here; please let me know?!

Today's Boston Metro, Page 1: T Cracking Down on Poorest of Poor to Help Conquer Deficit

2007-01-18T08:29:00.000-05:00

Boston Metro, Thursday, January 18, 2007 - the headline reads, "Fare jumpers, beware: T officials now ticketing."

This one is just too easy. Where do I begin?

Who "jumps" fare gates? Try
A. People too poor to pay out the *ss for the new fares.
B. Ignorant/broke college students

In other words, not the other "95% to 97%" of the T's revenue, that is, the riding public. What I find laughable is that the MBTA is going to spend more money in manpower (and womanpower) to have people constantly looking over our shoulders as we enter the magic gates than it will actually *gasp* collect on from those few amongst us who cheat the system--again, bums on the street, people living below the poverty line and a choice selection of wayward college kids.

And not that it's not an easy system to cheat. In case you missed my rants here, here and/or here, it was the T's dumb-f*** idea to go with the gate system as opposed to a beefed-up version of the turnstile system when converting to "automated" fare collection ("A"FC) in the first place. They brought this upon themselves. They shot themselves in the foot. Should I continue? By actually "cracking down" on fare beaters unde the new gated system, the T is finally admitting what anybody with common sense already knew--the new gates have done nothing to stop or deter the fare beating that existed under the turnstile system--if anything, rather than having to use effort, like crawling under the tripod arms, vaulting over them or squeezing by them after bending them back slightly, the new, simply-walk-through-behind-someone-else-or-after-somebody-comes-through-in-the-opposite-direction method has made it easier. The system is so flawed that T officials rely on it regularly to get riders through when their shiny , brand-spanking new CharlieCards or monthly pass CharlieTickets *gasp* malfunction. So, really, who's to say somebody's not trying to take advantage of the obvious flaw versus just getting frustrated because the system is working right and *gasp* actually has places to go and people to meet rather than haggle with a CSA (customer service agent) or inspector and convince them that their pass is valid but malfunctioning... rather than just go through behind someone else, which is the generally the CSA's and inspectors' solution anyway?

And really, should we feel violated if someone walked through behind us? Honestly, I think, even less so than buying a newspaper, especially one of the more expensive Sunday editions, out of a newpaper box and having someone piggyback on that. Because, really, as the sarcasm of my title of this rant alludes to, does recuperating what little percentage of the "3% to 5% of the T's annual revenue" it actually will through this "aggressive" campaign actual make it, or anybody, really think this is even a first step to lowering the authority's deficit, pegged at somewhere between 5 and 8 billion dollars? Sure, but only if you also believe, as I mentioned, that the cost of keeping one or more Transit Police officers and/or inspectors at some of the worst "trouble spots" in the system is actually going to be offset by the recuperation. Because, let's be honest, how many people per day, is it going to take to make it worth it--25? 50? 100? This is a transit agency, not a casino. Perhaps the real ploy is to make money off the fines for fare beating, the "15 for first offense up to $250 for a third." For me, this only equally laughable.

Taking a queue from Boston's anything-but-a-real-solution Mayor, the T has decided that the best way to punish people who beat the system, get the non-criminal tickets, and fail to pay them... is to have their licenses suspended. In case you missed that, let me reiterate the rundown:
the T (MBTA)
has decided (this is the best that came out of the boardroom)
that the best way (because if the Mayor came up with it, why not use it too)
to punish (yeah, right)
people who beat the system, (the poor and some college students)
get the non-crimal tickets, (it's not a "crime"--it's an "infraction")
and fail to pay them... (again the poor and some college students)
is to have their licenses suspended (because they're really gonna miss the license they're not using while they're not driving the car they either don't have, is uninsured, or safe at home with Mommy and Daddy, which is why they're riding the T in the first place... oh yeah, and *saving the planet from global warming).

Again, this one was just too easy. And, by the way, MBTA, don't worry about me--I subscribe to my shiny, (hopefully all-the-time) functional Zone 1A Pass. Let me know when those conductors' scanners are up and running, will ya?

*Pleased don't take the comment out of context. The point was that there are certain people, not just specifically the poor or college students, so don't get me wrong, who regularly ride the MBTA for various reasons, sometimes the least of which are because they think that they're making a difference socially, economically and environmentally by doing so, which is exactly why I do... when I'm not cycling... or I need to pick up a lot of stuff... or big stuff... you get my point.

Menino Never Runs Out of Ways to Skirt Cop Solution to Boston Violence: Next Step, No-Car-for-You

2007-01-10T15:26:00.000-05:00

Train Mon defending Massachusetts drivers? If I told you why would you forgive me?
Let's start with the fact that I am one, a commercial driver in fact. Not that it matters--I'm not the violent type. My point--that up until age 19 1/2 I didn't drive anything, unless you count training with a permit. Yet I could've still been the violent type. Which begs the question, what set of penalties are equivalent to suspending driver's licenses and revoking auto insurance plans for convicted illegal gun-toters and illegal gun sellers for people who *gasp* A) don't have a license and/or B) don't drive. And even if they do have a (valid) license and do drive and they lose one or both privileges, there's public transit--so do we take away their right to take public transit too? I mean as much as people b**** and moan about public transit in this state as compared to, say, the NYC-Newark-Westchester County Megalopolis, taking away licenses here wouldn't nearly be as detrimental here as, umm, Louisiana. There you can't even catch a bus if the water is rising (ouch, I know). I mean, Mayor, if you think taking away someone's driving mobility is really a crime deterrent, we should take away his/her right to take public transit too since it is available.
But perhaps perps will ride bicycles after they can't drive--think about it, drive-by's and exercise. So, is that the next step, Mayor--no bicycles for perps? I, mean after successfully getting Newbury Street's FCUK store to take down "violently suggestive" mannequins in its store front, putting the screws to MBTA GM Dan Grabauskas to take Grand Theft Auto ads off of trolleys because they were "violenty suggestive" to Greater Boston youth and the proposed license and auto insurance penalties, no public transit and no-bicycle-for-you seem like the next logical steps... in a long journey leading up to the real solution to deter Boston's crime woes: the so-called hiring of 190 new sworn officers the Mayor spoke of in his State of the City address last night. Did I mention perps could still walk...

E Line: Now Featuring Type 8's, South Huntington Reopened, T Could Care Less

2007-01-04T11:48:00.000-05:00

First of all, Happy New Year! This being my first blog entry of the new year, what better way to start it off by than indulging in my favorite pasttime--blogging about the hate-to-love MBTA system. I managed to make it out of 2006 without throwing my $0.02 into the ring about the ups and downs--and downtime--of the MBTA's new website. The reality is, quite frankly, why state the easy--that the downtime of the website due to "the sheer volume of unanticipated traffic" was easily compared to the so-called "revitalization" projects for the aging/ancient subway system and quirky--for lack of a better term--bus network. No, I'll be original and compare the "unanticipated traffic" to the "unanticipated volume" of ridership that occurred shortly after the Big Dig Tragedy this past summer as some of the most hardcore, married-to-their-automobile Greater Bostonians actually stooped to ride the MBTA for a week or so while Big Dig tunnel problems were being sorted out and I-90/I-93 traffic was even worse than usual. Many news sources and blogs, but especially the Boston Herald, which had already been covering ad nauseum the lack of repairs to A/C units on the Commuter Rail trains, had a field day with the fact that the MBTA, the Commuter Rail especially, couldn't reliably handle the temporary spike in ridership. Which brings me back to the T's new website: I'm guessing the logic behind not needing substantial bandwith was that since noboby rides the T, why would anybody check out the new website, let alone actually use features, such as the new Google integration into Trip Planning, that might actually *gasp* crash the servers the website is hosted by--simple shortsightedness, which, interestingly enough, the programmers admitted to, save for the "because nobody rides the T" part.
So how does the up-and-running standout transit website of 2007--to date, anyway--tie into the title of this blog--because for all the millions of dollars spent on it, the T didn't update everything--in fact it made some things disappear, specifically the mentioning of some of its multi-million-dollar projects. I single out the E Line projects because I grew up in the Missio Hill neighborhood and have a vested interest in what goes on there.
So let me start from the beginning of this project. Sometime early in Septemer, the what's-left-of-it portion of the South Huntington E Line from Brigham Circle to Heath Street, was shut down in order to be repaved. For, even with the less-than-honest abandoning of the Heath Street-Aborway portion in the late 1980's, and subsequent pushing-under-the-rug of any efforts to rebuild it, the E Line may be the shortest of the Green Line Branches, yet it has the longest section of true-streetcar track: track built right into, and shared by, the roadway as opposed to only at grade crossings, like the entire B and C Lines, or a completely separate right-of-way like the entire D Line. And let's face it--running on rails amongst tar does do a number on the street after awhile. Meanwhile between above-ground stations Northeastern and Brigham Circle, a separate project involved platform work being done to allow the Breda Type 8 trolleys to run over this stretch. The reality was that the raised platforms would allow the Kinki-Sharyo Type 7's to run in tandem with the low-floor Type 8's and not feel guilty because you have to step in higher to get into the Type 7's--the Type 8's could've been running on the E Line alone or in tandem with each other. The T used to cite traction problems with the Type 8's, namely a derailment that occurred within days after testing them on the E Line. Mind you, this is the same line which, after writing the T to question why the venerable Boeing Type 6's, rebuilt by Amerail, couldn't run on it, got back to me that it was also because of traction issues. That's funny because the E Line was the first to convert entirely to Type 6's from the PCC's in the mid 1980's and, as an avid rider growing up, I remember a lot of things about them, like their pre-rebuild lack of A/C units on top and the old sliding doors, which I loved-- but no derailments. Let me digress to say that I also remember outbound fares from Northeastern-on well into the early 1990's--fares which Bostonian newbloods, especially on the B Line, swear haven't been charged since the beginning of time. But that's another story...
The bottom line is that both projects have been complete as of last Friday, December 29th. And it's not like the T doesn't care--I mean being able to "officially" spread the Type 8's over the entire Green Line network (sans Mattapan High Speed Line) has been, apparently, no small feat. It's just that, if the T is happy about it, it makes no mention of it here. In other words, these apparently weren't "T Projects"--at least not since the website was rebuilt. To be fair, I clicked on "T Projects and Accessibility " as well just in case the T would consider the platform raising to be specifially an "accessibility "project. What I found was a list of just the projects marked on the main "T Projects" Page with "Accessibility" under the heading "Positive Impact for Accessibility." So basically there's no mention of either project. So before I tell you how I found out that it was complete, besides visiting my old neighborhood to visit my parents for New Year's, let me gripe about the column "Positive Impact for Accessibility." What the heck does "Accessibility" or "Planning" mean if it says it for a project?! What about *blank*--what does that mean--"we don't know"?! A simple yes or no would suffice! Either that or make a new headline titled "Type of Project."And put the "Project Status" last--it shouldn't read, for example," Bus Maintenance T-Project in the Facilities Stage of Being Complete and Whose Positive Impact for Accessbility is Still in the Planning Stage." What the heck is a "Facilities" status anyway?! I could go on and on, I think you get the point....
Back off my digression, the news of the completion of the MBTA E Line Projects can be found in the Starts & Stops section of The Sunday Boston Globe. So there it is--if you want to know what's really going on as far as all those projects that impact your commute but that the MBTA has conveniently forgot about, go to Starts & Stops in the Metro Region Section of The Sunday Globe--not the MBTA website!
To be fair, I did a search on the T website to see if there was any lingering informatino about either project. Typing in "Brigham Circle project" or "E Line project" will bring up, second and third on the list, this page about opening the project for bidding for the rebuilding project and this page about the contract being awarded, but at least it's something. The search didn't turn up anything about the platform raising. Oh, but wait, if I wanted to know the status of multi-million dollar contracts which the T can't even bother to list on its website I can always "contact the Customer Support, or join us [the T] at a public meeting to share your [my] input, insights and advice." After all, as the Customer Support page says, "We [the T] promise to provide you with the highest level of customer service everyday—at every stop and station, and on every bus, train, and boat you ride with us." Somebody left out website.

In Needham You Might Make it into Space... If You Survive Today's High School Blues

2006-12-12T12:35:00.000-05:00

The local media is having a field day with cramming down our throats the that fact that engineer Sunita L. Williams of Needham, MA is on board the Space Shuttle Discovery, a key player in NASA's mission to rewire the space station for operation by a permanent fuel source (or something like that--I deal with Earthly transportation, for the time being anyway--check back with me in a few years). A graduate of Needham High School, her work on this mission is most certainly catapulting her, literally, into the at least the top ten, if not top five, of the school's distinguished alumni; and she hasn't exactly hidden her love of Needham and Needham High by having a miniature flag bearing the town seal of Needham specially sent to her just in time for liftoff so she could show it off during the mission. However, as this article in today's Boston Herald points out, perhaps we've come a long way since Ms. Williams graduated from high school: perhaps Needham's teens in today's more pampered, sugar-coated world where Grand Theft Auto ads on the side of trolleys and FCUK ads are linked to violent crime by today's youth, aren't ready for so much fame... even if it's as simple as letting the town know they made--or not--the honor roll.
For, as the Herald describes, apparently in Needham, printing a list of the high schoolers who made the honor roll for the term in the Needham Times has led in recent years to suicides and car crashes... and suicidal car crashes. Of course, by now, I think you can guess I'm mocking Needham's coddling of its high schoolers and the "anxiety" of having your name published or not in town newspeaper based on--get this--whether or not you actually put in due work and made the honor roll much to the same tune that I mocked Concord, NH for coddling its high schoolers from "dirty dancing." Oh, let me tell you, high school must be so much rougher these days where book reports that used to mean countless trips to the local library and countless hours spent flipping through various brands of encylopedias to get relevant content and endless waiting to find those volumes that everyone needed and therefore barely sat in the library long enough to be checked in and rechecked out by the first one to get his/her hands them unless you were smart enough to put a "hold" on them once they returned have been replaced by a few clicks, some minimal typing, and a few dollars from mommy and daddy to pay for the non-free encyclopedia volumes online. Today's youth don't event want to titrate this or Bunsen-burn that--instead they point and click away on virtual "chemistry" online.
I could go on and on--the point is suck it up and deal. With the proliferation of "My Student is on the Honor Roll at... "-type bumper stickers in America, an phenomenon I find equally as insane yet disturbing as the recent proliferation of radioactive "poison" oversees, guess what--this is the world we live in. Honor roll is just that--a recognition of honor of high achievement in grade school. For the longest time I didn't know that the Boston Globe, albiet buried somewhere in the midst of the paper, printed a list of honor roll students in the Boston Public Schools for the term; when my mom told me I had feelings of greatness at having my name published for something good; and when I didn't make the honor roll--oh, baby, let me tell you, instant nervous breakdown because *gasp* the whole city would know that I didn't make it that term (sarcasm). Granted, Needham is a much smaller, close-knit community where it would be much easier for any of the locals to deduce who didn't make the honor roll, but still--so what. Like MIT students and UMass Amherst Sylavan residents who commit suicide every year for everything from bad grades to failed relationships, at what point to do we realize--bluntly--that maybe not everybody is "cut out for it"--it being a normal life. I mean, seriously, what's next--dropping wedding and renewal-of-vows posts from *Local Newspaper USA* because they're a slight to all of us who are single, or even worse, unhappily married?! Heck, why don't we drop obituaries because people who thought "today was gonna be it" might be around tomorrow?! I think you get the point. -TM

Chávez, Trans Fat Take Top Priority for Yesterday's Metro

2006-12-07T09:39:00.000-05:00

Two of my favorite topics--President Hugo Chávez and American obesity gracing the cover of yesterday's Metro--I couldn't believe it. I know I'm a day late, but I just had to comment on it. Let's start with the former.
My history of respect for Hugo Chávez starts with a rant I made defending his actions before the U.N., mocking President Bush. I later followed it up by saying how ironic it was that race-for-Governor-of-Massachusetts underdog Christy Mihos denounced Chávez's actions as buffoon-like and unprofessional in light of his own commercial that painted the Romney-Healey administration's and Big Dig big shots' lack of oversight which led to the Big Dig being billions of dollars over budget in the exact same manner. And there Chávez was yesterday, almost larger than life, on the bottom half of the front page, as if looking down on the millions of Metro readers worldwide, having won, by an even greater margin than Deval Patrick over Kerry Healey for Massachusetts Governor, reelection for President of Venezuela. But, of course, some might confuse my respect of Chávez for total support, so I will clarify now as I did previously.
When a politician can stand before the U.N., or any other important assembly and use seemingly inconsiderate words and gestures to make his best assessment of another another politician in this case our President George Walker Bush, I feel that it takes a level of sophistication, that, to reiterate a previous point, seems to be lacking both at home and around the world. And while most, such as those who wanted to take down Kenmore Square's beloved over it, would take off the "essment" part and say that that was what Chávez made of himself, and follow it up by saying it may cost Venezuela a coveted seat at the U.N. Security Council to Guatemala, the proof is in the pudding: Venezuelans like Hugo Chávez. And not like "50% of the country likes you, 50% doesn't" like President Bush; not like "vote-for-me-or-die" ex-President Saddam Hussein or President Fidel Castro; no, this a a true like, an "over-60%-of-the-country-actually-likes-me" like. Overkills, on the "likes," but you get the point. He must be doing something right. The Metro though so too--Chávez on the cover; new Defense Secretary Roberts Gates on page five. I, for one, will at least give him respect that he tries to do good things. Will I eat these words a few years down the road--I doubt it. He would have to at least have to reach the status Hussein had--which he isn't aspiring for--and even then, as with Hussein, a decent majority will question how much of a threat he really is.
But moving on to the yesterday's cover story: the issue of American obesity, specifially trans fats. In a rant that I, honestly, think about from time to time because the point was to attack the eating habits and treatment of subordinates of the upper-crusted of America--not where they come from or what they believe in and I may have gone slightly too far (not far enough to remove the post, ha!) , I questioned how buying, generally more expensive, "healthy" foods could possibly be the cure-all for American obesity, especially in today's youth. Is trans fat the cigarette of the '00's in the sense that it, like cigarettes will no longer be permitted in restaurants and other public establishments.

Let me digress for a moment to say that I'm the first, baby, to make the comparison, so you read it here first!

Back on Earth and off my literary high, my point is how far will the government go to regulate people's lifestyles? While I don't smoke (never have, never will) and eat minimal trans fats just out of habit from what I eat, it seems like there's an underlying notion here: the government hates unhealthy people. Sound farfetched to you? Consider the recent case of a man fired from working at the Cape Cod branch of the Scotts landscaping company because the company, to save on health costs, had a zero-tolerance on smoking in or out of the workplace and nicotine showed up in a random drug test administered to the man. Many city and state governments, including Massachusetts, have zero-tolerance smoking policies in place for first-responder type positions such as the police and firefighters for the same reason--to save on health costs. So why else would New York City, and Boston which will more than likely soon follow suit, place a ban on the use of trans fats citywide other than that it hates picking up the tab for the general public, mainly on those with no or "weak" health insurance, for hospital visits as a result of the health risks associated with eating foods made with trans fats? I mean it can't be about public image--New York City with the highest percentage of users of mass transit in the nation and Boston being the "walking city" (and having a "decent" transit system ridership numbers) certainly are way below average when it comes to obesity as a percentage of the population. So while some media sources add "obesity" to the list of trans fat concerns, I think it's more about healthcare. But, of course, write back! Disagree! I'm a very open-minded individual if you don't know by now.

Zone 1A: Read the Fine Print, Do the Detective Work

2006-12-05T09:50:00.000-05:00

By now, after reading a few other's blogs, it seems those chosen few savvy of us, such as myself, who live in the inner-city and inner-suburbs and regularly chose to beat the "rapid" transit bus and subway system by taking the Commuter Rail have come to the realization that, once January hits, the newly minted "Monthly Zone 1A Pass," not a CharlieCard loaded with the "Monthly LinkPass" will be the way to go. This is especially a concern for those of us who get our passes, way a gracious discount, through our prospective employers and have only another week or so to make sure we're getting the right pass for next month. An e-mail I sent to "Team Charlie," teamcharlie@mbta.com, about this concern and that has yet to be answered despite the MBTA's new "Driven by Customer Service" motto, sums up the problem:

"To Whom it May Concern:
I would like to propose and interesting problem for you. I live near Chelsea Station (Newburyport/Rockport Lines), which is Zone 1A and for which I currently use my Monthly Combo Pass. When the CharlieCard comes out, and I get my first CharlieCard next month through my employer, I therefore am going to load it as a Monthly LinkPass. The LinkPass, as the new Subway/Combo/Combo+, will therefore still be good on the Commuter Rail thru Zone 1A. However, until the conductors' scanners come out, how will the conductors know whether my CharlieCard has been loaded as a Monthly LinkPass or as a Monthly Local Bus, which doesn't cover Zone1A, because they look exactly the same? Thanks for your time and consideration."

Yes, I did bold the "exactly the same." Maybe that upset somebody at the T--they did get back to me about the Green Line thing. Anyway, the two-fold answer to my question is that A. the conductors won't know the difference and therefore B. the MBTA has come out with a separate-but-equal pass known as... drum roll please... the Zone 1A. Of course, Train Mon does his Transit Detective Work before he makes irrational decisions and winds up "faring" badly--the question is how come the MBTA doesn't make difference in coverage between the same-priced LinkPass and Zone 1A more explicit on the website? So, for you not-so-savvy-people, I'm going to take you step-by-step through the website just to show you how to sort through the rhetoric and decide that the Zone 1A Pass reigns supreme over the LinkPass:

Step 1: Click on gloating MBTA New/Events link. Cut to picture of MBTA General Manager Dan Grabauskas actually standing in a subway stop (and without bodyguards, is he sure?!) handing out and hooting and hollering about the new CharlieCards. Read article; note how, for the billionth time the T swears "CharlieTickets aren't the same as "CharlieCards." Laugh, because they left out the fine print: unless you're riding the Commuter Rail. Let Train Mon rephrase: a montly Commuter Rail (Zone 1A-8) CharlieTicket is not the same as a pay-per-ride CharlieTicket, but is the same as a CharlieCard, with respect to surcharges (there are none)--the only difference, save for the coverage area, is the proximity effect. Wow.

Step 2: Navigate your way to the 2007 Fare Increase Information Page. Note, that the per-ride and monthly fares for the LinkPass and the Zone 1A Pass are... exactly the same. What the...?! Scratch head, think--hmmm--maybe Zone 1A Pass is better because I can actually do everything I can with the LinkPass and will be able to continue riding the Commuter Rail through Zone 1A for the same cost. So therefore why the heck would I get the LinkPass... oh yeah, because, with the proximity feature it's faster. Sorry, I think I'll take coverage over speed--especially when we're talking about 3/10 second. Which begs Step 3:

Step 3: How the heck to determine which Commuter Rail station is covered by which Zone, especially with the new zoning for inner-city and inner-suburban stations. Let's start with the Commuter rail Fares Page. All this page does is list the current fares. But we are getting somewhere. Note under "Standard Fare" a disorganized list of current Zone 1A and Zone 1B stations, including mine, Chelsea. Great--except I need to know specifically if it's Zone 1A or 1B! And what about the other eight Zones?! The T doesn't even bother listing them here. I mean they could at least insult your intelligence by saying "and here's a laundry list of all the stations in Zones 1-8" and then proceed, in no rhyme or reason of order to list all the out-suburban station. Moving on, I click the Commuter Rail Schedule Page, because perhaps this page can help me find the Zone number. Once, there, good thing I'm young and can read the this clickable, distorted .gif image. Note that "River Works" on the Newburyport/Rockport Line still hasn't been put in. I click on the line and--whoa--go straight to a page specifially for the Newburyport/Rockport Line where there's an outline of just that Line, with almost every stop and it's Zone number--that is, every stop except, again, River Works. To find the Zone for River Works, FYI, find it in the scrolling menu, highlight it, and click for "Station, Parking and Fare Info," which brings up this page. Scroll to the bottom and find out that the "Fare/Zone" for Riverworks is Zone 2. Now, I really don't care too much about a stop that only GE plant employees can get on or off at--I'm making point--if it's a stop, it's a stop and should be on the maps. It's just south of Lynn and should be put in a such. But then again, we're talking about a company which can't make a complete subway map. Furthermore, on a Commuter Rail map near the old Track 1 entrance at North Station, somebody drew in "Rowley" and "Newburyport" as well because the T didn't bother to update (the line used to terminate at Ipswich). The map may have changed since--I'm usually going through there in too much of a hurry either running to a Commuter Rail train or the Orange Line to notice. Getting back off that tangent we've completed Step 2--determining that Chelsea Station is Zone 1B. At least Chelsea gets some recognition.

Step 4: But if Chelsea is Zone 1B, why isn't there a Zone 1B Pass being created? Ah, the fine print. We go back to the 2007 Fare Info Page. It's not here, but the link is--FAQ's. Here's what we're looking for--Chelsea and all the rest of the Zone 1B stations are lumped in Zone 1A. So a few dozen clicks later I've gotten all the info we need to make an educated decision as towhich pass to get through my employer next month.

The End Result: Combining the 4 steps, we've determined that Chelsea, being a Zone 1A stop next month, will use the Zone 1A Pass only, although, by default, it should be good on the LinkPass since they have the same coverage. So... get the Zone 1A Pass, everyone! You get all the benefits of the entire Rapid Transit system, plus all the Zone 1A and former Zone 1B stops that are now Zone 1A... and all your sacrifice, at least until the summer when the Commuter Rail conductors get scanners and start allowing the CharlieCard, is no proximity feature. If it sounds like my steps were more than childish, consider that I was doing it for the benefit of, again, those less savvy who are getting tripped up by all the changeover of passes and might, one day, decide to use the Commuter Rail instead of "Rapid" Transit only to learn that the LinkPass is currently useless on it. Let's not even talk about visitors...

Speaking of the "Rapid" Transit system and new passes, let's talk about another anomaly: since the entire "Rapid" Transit system is now covered by the LinkPass, and the Zone 1A and the LinkPass are now equivalent... why isn't Braintree Commuter Rail Stop included in Zone 1A, as opposed to its former Zone 1 since you will be able to get to Braintree and back on the LinkPass? The answer, although it's not really an answer but an excuse, is that Braintree Commuter Rail Stop was never even a "Combo +" stop--it was always "Zone 1," irrespective of the fact that it shares the exact same station complex with the Red Line. Let me rephrase that: the exact same station on the Red Line as it is on the Commuter Rail requires a higher fare--because it has a higher Zone number--than the Red Line. So, the new LinkPass combines Subway through Combo+ Passes... Braintree included, Braintree Commuter Rail Stop not included. Stupid. Enough said.

GTA: Liberty City Stories: At Least the Mayor's Paying Attention to the Subway System

2006-11-27T14:27:00.000-05:00

Put yourself in the Mayor "Mumbles" Menino's shoes: You're relaxing in the back seat your state-funded luxury car that's driving down Huntington Avenue by the Northeastern University Green Line MBTA stop. In a quick glance out the left window you notice a single E-car sitting in the station. Something about the scene upsets you. Is it:

A. The paint chipping away nearly everywhere on the streetcar after years of bodily neglect?
B. The for-emergency-use-only red and green lights flashing on the front and rear of the train that the T/O' like to use?
C. The fact that after over 109 years of "renovations" and "modernization," at no point in the trip has or will the streetcar reach speeds higher than 30 mph; in many spots the train will come to a dead stop due to speed restrictions and antiquated signaling even if there's no train ahead for 1/4 mile?
D. The huge throng of people attempting to cram into this single streetcar because the last one was runnning so far behind it went "express" right on through to Copley?

Nope, try E. The ads on the side which depict the latest video game from the smash-hit (literally) Grand Theft Auto series: Liberty City Stories. Dear Mayor, I could stomach your whining about the FCUK ads earlier this year, depicting, in the storefront of the English fashion company's Newbury Street store, lifelike *gasp* scantily-clad female mannequins engaged in a fight scene. This was no random fight scene, to be sure, but the one FCUK was already running in selectively shown (i.e. not in conservative areas) TV ads. While I tried to entertain your correlation between the wax fight scene and rising homicides in Boston, I just couldn't get the Kool-Aid down. Guess what... it's not working here either. Here, again, the ads are of scantily-clad women; again, there are fight scenes (albeit this time it's all about guys with weapons). And again you, Mr. Menino, are whining... not about the scantily-clad women,

but about your incomprehensible correlation between advertising and violence.

Here's the Mayor's, and other "save the children's" groups' warped logic:
A. The Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories ads are appalling.
-That's fine, but you're going to need to elaborate. I find it equally as "appalling" that a public transit company sells millions of dollars of ad space every year to companies promoting automobile usage, the most offensive ad of all, which I will never forget, being one a few year ago which read "wouldn't your rather be in a company car instead of this bus." Did I mention it was on the side of a bus. I mean the implication was good--if you worked for us, i.e. a better, higher-paying job, you'd get perks, such as driving a company car. But the underlying theory is that you've not only moved up in the world, you've moved beyond public transit. That's what the old, slow MBTA needs--to be de-promoting itself.
B. The Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories ads encourage kids to buy (and play) this "violent" game.
-Sure, except for one TINY thing. Anybody young enough and impressionable enough to be influenced by the game... probably isn't buying the game--his or her parents are. Which means it's at his or her parent's discretion whether or not he or she even plays the game. Got an older kid who works at McMinimumWageFastJoint and can afford to buy the game him/herself? If your teenager is that impressionable, I wonder what else he/she is getting him/herself into. Hint: don't wait 'til the police blotter comes out. It's time for that talk about what's really being grown in the bedroom.
C. "Violent" games like Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories are a major force behind the spike in city-wide homicides this year (70 to date).
-Here's the grand-daddy of all excuses: A + B = C. Just like with the FCUK ads, sure, let's blame video games on the high homicide rate this year. Heck, why stop there--how about the rash of new "violent" shows from Cold Case to Criminal Minds that young, impressionable minds watch every day. Here's Train Mon' idea: why don't we out the truth:

The Boston Police force has a deficit of over 120 sworn officers.

And if that doesn't leave a foul enough taste in your mouth after saying it over a few times, consider the fact that, between overly-abundant vacation, sick and injury time, on any given day the force is only at 80-85% of its current numbers (taken from reports in Boston Metro, The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald). That's funny because the police department recruiting hardcore right now, throughout the U.S., is NYPD. You can pretty much search for any type of job in the Metro-Boston area from transportation to to tourism... up bubbles NYPD. Why: Boston's not hiring new officers anytime soon; instead all of the fanfare goes to the recent (overly dramatized) changing of the guard on the Commissioner level, and a subsequent hosting by BPD of a meeting of city police chiefs to discuss, of all things, lowering city violence. *Lesson #1: How to lower violence without increasing your ranks, using BPD as a model*. It's becoming a joke to hear from a BPD spokesperson after every single incident, violent or not, such as this morning's Channel 7/NBC reports of break-ins in Westie, that the force will "step up and increase patrols in the area." Somehow, for Westie in particular, while that should mean more police presence in the neighborhoods, all that's really going to mean are more speedtraps on the VFW Parkway. Because, as we all know, speedtraps generate revenue... for more vacation and sick time, as well as overtime pay to help out the fellow officers Downtown "directing" traffic on every street corner, which is itself ironic because "directing" traffic basically means waving people through the red lights and "No Turn on Red" signs designed to generate revenue for the city by ticketing people who run red lights and take turns on red where there's a sign posted. Is your head spinning enough yet?

But I digress (as usual). It's nice to know the Mayor's paying attention to our antiquated, but beloved transit system, and its dire attempts to generate revenue to fill an $8 billion deficit, even if it's just the ads clinging to the sides of the rickety coal carts known as the Type 7's (*3600-/3700-series). Maybe he can earmark more money--$8 billion, please--for the MBTA, but Green Line in particular, so the company won't have to post any "appalling" ads to keep itself running.

*For those who know me, you know that I'm old-school: I love the President's Conference Committee (PCC) 3400-/3500-series cars, soon to be reactivated on the Mattapan High-Speed Line and I love the old Type 6, 3500-/3600-series Boeing Light Rail Vehicles (LRV's), rebuilt by Amerail in the early 1990's. I've disliked (not hated, because you can't hate) everything since. But that's another rant (or two) for another time.

MBTA proposes $334 million just to keep things rolling "as is"

2006-11-22T13:51:00.000-05:00

It's finally here! That is, the MBTA's capital spending plan for 2007-2008 as outlined in detail by this Boston Globe article. So here's my reaction:

I don't doubt that any of the proposed spending should in any way be changed or altered, nor am I going to write about how the proposed fare increases aren't going to good causes--in my longest rant to date, I'm going to spend considerable time nitpicking at projects the MBTA has taken on so far that definitely either weren't worth it at all or could've cost millions less, some that I've already ranted about, some that I've barely touched on. So let's dig in.

A. The Silver Line.
Verdict: Over half of the millions spent on it to date has been a complete waste.
Why:
1. Pricey, "modern" looking bus shelters that are about as effective at keeping out the wind, rain and snow as an inverted umbrella... because that's exactly what the "bus shelters" look like.
2. Articulate buses: Surprise surprise after years of fanfare and rhetoric, all the Washington Street Silver Line is is a fancy, updated version of... Route 49! If the 49 could do it with 40' buses then the Silver Line can do it to. Any articulated buses on the Washington Street Silver Line should be redeployed on some of the system's heaviest routes such as the 66 and 111 which currently use nothing but 40'-ers that are regularly brimming with people. Read: nobody likes standing in the bus stepwells all the way from Bellingham Square to North Station or Union Square/Allston to Brigham Circle. The same thing goes for the Seaport/Southie/Logan Airport Silver Lines (SL1-3)--you could run these lines with vans even during weekday rush hour--the only exception being today, it being the heaviest travel day to/from Logran Airport. The dual fossil fuel/catenary buses would work wonders on the 71, 72 and 73--heavy routes that could utilize either, the fossil fuel part especially when detours are in effect or the catenary is down or being repaired.
3. Exact departure/arrival times: If they haven't worked on the Commuter Rail for years, who, in their right mind (or left) thought they would work on the Silver Line?! I mean, sure, you get approximate times sometimes--the rest of the time you're guessing. I think the MBTA's Trip Planning system is good enough. Plus, it's big city public transit: you should be able to go out to your average bus or train stop and wait less than 20 minutes for a bus or train day or night (except between 12:30 and 4:45 am when the T is doing "repairs').
4. Connectivity: Board the SL1, 2 or 3 underground, pay the subway fare. Board it above-ground, pay the subway fare. Only problem: it's not subway. It doesn't really integrate into the subway, merely offering a pay-again transfer at South Station to the Red Line. You might as well be boarding a Commuter Rail train or Amtrak. It could've been built underneath and along Southie/the Seaport District as a light rail line, which transferred to/from bus just before the Ted Williams Tunnel. But no--it's just a ridiculously long, and ridiculously slow, busway. So let's recap: pricey underground tunnels which don't connect with any part of the MBTA Rapid Transit System and should be carrying trains, not buses through them.
But that's only half of it. Add to it the fact that there is no connection between SL1-3 and the Washington Street SL and you begin to wonder who was smoking what when it was hinted at that a ride from Roxbury to Southie and vice-versa could once again be a near-seamless ride like it was back when the Old Orange Line was running. Oh well.

B. New fareboxes
Verdict: I think I've already beat this issue into the ground. Money very ill-spent.
Why: They're monstrous(ly slow). And the T continues to a crap-job of implementing them.
1. Vehicle fareboxes: Just about all the bus routes have them now; the trolleys will have them shortly. That's bad news for the trolleys considering they're already doubling or tripling boarding times, unless the operator uses common sense and just starts waving people with passes on by--the trolleys are slow enough (oh wait--capital spending improvements are coming--we're all going to save a whopping 3-6 minutes with new ties and upgraded signals). A B/O I rode with on the 111 yesterday even joked with passengers to "iron their dollar bills." When the CharlieCard comes out next year, sure, we'll all think it's great to just wave proxy cards at these gigargundous boxes and walk on by. But that still won't stop those who insist on paying by-the-fare. The only upside is, at $1.25, the T will finally be using a nice number that won't make these idiots t feel like you're being ripped off every time you shove $1.00 in a box for the $.90 fare, like putting a second stamp on an envelope because it's one gram over the one-stamp weight limit. We're still going to have to wait for them to fish their money out while they're standing at the farebox, holding up the line.
2. Station fareboxes: Enough can't be said about the "magic gates" which take forever and day to open and then stay open long enough to get the entire family you've invited over for Thanksgiving through. In short, they slow down commuters and they make it easier to go through... unless of course there are no less than two station attendants and two Transit Police officers sucking down doughnuts and sipping coffee, watching everybody go through. Which brings up point C:

C. Transit Police
Verdict: Worth (almost) every penny, but misdeployed and misguided.
Why: Changing the name from "MBTA Police" to "Transit Police" isn't enough to actually get the job done... effectively.
1. In the rapid transit stations: As mentioned in B. 2., with at least one station attendant on duty, that should be enough to deter people from taking advantage of the obvious flaw in the system: unlike turnstiles, aside from an annoying buzzing, they allow unpaid travel once they open for a little over 3 seconds. You don't need one cop; you don't need two; you don't even need more than one station attendant. If a cop wants to be on patrol at the station, that's one thing. But doing the same job the station attendant, or two, is already doing--waste of time and manpower.
2. On the road: "Transit Police" means just that: Transit. Not "let's pull people over on the everything from the MassPike to I-93 to local roads" Police. In Somerville, for example I've seen more people pulled over by the "Transit Police" for traffic violations that Boston Police should be taken care of. Yet, if cars accidentally, or purposely, drive through the Sullivan Square Busway, a $500 fine, they go through--guess what--uninhibited. Somehow the Transit Police seem to have an inferiority complex they feel the need to overcompensate for and have begun pulling people over on every stretch of Eastern Massachusetts except MBTA property. I'll give 'em the fact that they work for the state, but c'mon. Get out of your cars and into the stations and onto the trains and buses where we need you--don't give Mayor "Mumbles" Menino the idea that he doesn't need to close a deficit of over 100 Boston Police officers because the Transit Police are assisting them. That's goes doubly for traffic details, even if they are on MBTA property. It doesn't take a BPD Officer, a Transit Police Officer and a State Trooper to work the same detail--and yes I'm talking to you guys at Charles Circle for the Charles/MGH "Rehab Project." Which brings up point D:

D. "Rehabilitation" Projects
Verdict: Less on aesthetics, more on praticality--could've saved millions!
Why:
1. Charles/MGH Station: Years behind schedule, overbudget to the point that so much money has been spent on the new fancy glass panelling and new stairways and elevators to the replace the old-but-functional ones that there isn't enough money left over to build back the pedestrian bridge taken down for the building to commence. Great. Plus, the station, if and when it is truly complete, will be in sharp contrast to the crumbling Longfellow Bridge the Red Line trains rumble over at a whopping 40 mph, if that. Where's Mitt Romney's with his "Stemp-to-Stern" review of that?!
2. Science Park Station: Somehow connecting the Green Line tracks to the now-underground routing towards North Station had something to do with why the pedestrain bridge there has also disappeared--and won't be back because it's not "in the budget." To be fair, proponents of not putting either pedestrian bridge back aren't just MBTA auditors, but also certain pedestrian groups who would rather tie up the already hectic, unsynchronized Boston traffic flow to have people cross the street rather than walk by, more safely, overhead.
3. North Station Rapid Transit Complex: How it should've been built: Outbound Orange Line-- Outbound Green Line--Inbound Green Line--Inbound Orange Line, with the Green Line as it is at Park Street so that you can walk right across the tracks. How it was actually built: The OB Orange Line completely sectioned off on a far platfrom; the IB Green and Orange Lines are connected by a ridiculously wide platform; the Outbound Green Line has an entire level all to itself. I can't say "wasted space" and "inefficient use of space" enough. My version allows seemless connection how matter how you want to trasfer. The actual version: umm, yeah, you walk and walk and might make a transfer from an IB Green Line to an OB Orange Line or an IB Orange Line to an OB Green Line; of course in a "feasability" study these were probably deemed "not very common transfers." Add to all this the fact that the only Green Line trains going to Lechmore right now are E trains--"E" being the stepchild of the Green Line.
4. North Station Commuter Rail Station: What the HECK are they doing--covering the tracks to make more waiting room--who knows (that is it, I'm just ranting)?! It's just that it's taking forever (surprise surprise). And why, for off-peak trains and weekend trains does the MBCR insist on the rule that the last two or three cars be off and everybody walk all the way up the platform to the first two or three?! I'm no "expert," but doesn' the reverse make more sense--and actually allow trains to leave on time with respect to stragglers not having to run all the way up the platform before the train leaves? This project isn't really overbudget, just late (as usual), and really should be it's own rant. But I felt I'd throw it in.

Happy Thanksgiving to all! -TM

Amtrak is Advertising Again...And, Yes, I Will Nag

2006-11-13T12:53:00.000-05:00

Because let's consider what has happened over the few years since Amtrak last advertised.

1. The familiar arrow symbol emblazoned on the side of equipment since American Travel by Track a-k-a the National Railroad Passenger Corporation had its inception in 1971 has been done away with, replaced with aerodynamic "whisps of air" meant to allude to the high-speed rail technology that Amtrak has embraced within the last decade (I'm not making this up--this was mentioned in the Amtrak's pamphlets that marketed the advent of Acela service). There're only a few problems with the new symbol and what it stands for. A. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, there is no Acela Express or Regional, just [Insert Corridor Name] Service/ Regional Service/Corridor. B. Outside of the Northeast Corridor and a few other beefed-up corridors (read: those which either don't run or don't run significantly on freight rights-of-way and therefore have actually been able to be beefed-up such as the Florida Corridor, the Texas Corridor, the Cali Corridor and North Carolina Regional Service), Amtrak rail service can hardly be regarded, by today's standards as high-speed: most of the same 79 mph speed limits imposed on trains pulled by the venerable F40PH's and GP40's a decade ago... gues what, they're still there! Sure, the shiny new P32's (AMD103's) et al. have taken over and some lines now top out at a whopping 103 mph, but, the way freigh railroads are running things, that 24 mph speed gain has been offset by more and more losses getting, literally, sidelined by mainline freights for which 79 mph is lightning. C. But last but not least, as I'm equally t'ed off at New York's MTA for changing the familiar "M" logo to "MTA" and US Air for changing the "US Air" to a stupid flag, why do transportation companies feel like they ever need to change logos--it's just one more way to alienate your longtime patrons who already feel alienated by switching up long-established route names and route numbers?

2. Which leads right into the next area of change: train names. Since Amtrak doesn't run with subway-frequency (or even commuter rail-frequency as compared to the likes of Metro-North, LIRR or Metra), hardened Amtrak riders took for granted that the company was able to name every single train, a throwback to the olden, and golden days of railroading. Sure, there was some overlapping: for example, trains out of Springfield in the 400's, that merged with their 100-counterparts from Boston in New Haven, bore the same name (e.g. Train 472, the Fast Mail, merged with Train 172, the Fast Mail at N.H. going South and split just the same going North). But overlapping train names for joint trains was forgiveable--what isn't is naming every single train Northeast Corridor train that doesn't continue on to Florida an or Acela Express or Acela Regional. And on other corridors, most trains are simply Keystone Service, for example--named after the corridor they work on. Sure, some names have survived--Northeast Corridor trains that continue all the way to Florida such as Auto Train and the Palmetto and East-West trains such as the Clockers and Sunset Limited have kept their throwback names. But why not all--again why alienate long-time riders?!

3. Which leads me to the commercial's content. Amtrak's old simple but catchy jingle was "All Aboard Amtrak," and no matter what corridor you rode on or in what type of equipment you felt like you were part of the nationwide Amtrak experience. Apparently Amtrak is new and improved to mentioned nothing of that. Outside of the Northeast Corridor--which, again, actually has Acela Service at all--this new commercial has very little appeal. It says nothing, as outline in point (1) of the infrastructure of the rest of the system, but you don't even have to venture that far--it says nothing of Acela Regional Service either.

So then, who, really, is the commercial appealing to: business people who still believe that Northeast Corridor train travel is still as antiquated as riding in a dusty old box car with smelly "vagabonds," or so a recent Capitol One commercial would have you believe. Make no mistake about it--this is all about business and capturing the eye of the business traveler who, with his/her company's Travel account funding his/her next trip wants to decide between Amtrak which, long before this commericals put out billboards and postcards proclaiming fast, convenient, amenable and comfortable downtown-downtown Northeast Corrdior service and flying airlines such as Delta, which has responded with an equally simple bilboard with a Delta plane's tail showing and a Amtrak Acela train tucked at the bottom proclaiming "Planes are Faster than Trains."
So then, where, along the Northeast Corridor, does that leave the casual traveler, family of four and college student who has come to find an almost equal balance between time, cost, convenience and comfort as the Acela Regional by driving, taking Peter Pan or *gasp* braving the Fung Wah--high and dry as usual. And outside of the Northeast Corridor: well, I think I've already established that the ad alienated the other 4/5 of the system from the get-go.

How Dispatch is Supposed to Be Done

2006-11-08T08:24:00.000-05:00

After my ranting about bad dispatching at North Station yesterday, today was a similar situation, save for the fact that, having caught the 6:48 inbound train from Chelsea, I was meeting the Orange Line at North Station instead of Haymarket, and at least two trains ahead of yesterday.
However, again, the situation was similar. As I'm walking throught the tunnel underneatch Causeway Street toward the "magic gates" and "Enter Here" (as opposed to "There") signs at the North Station Green Line/Orange Line megaplex, I hear the "Attention Passengers... The Next Orange Line Train to Oak Grove is Now Arriving." So I hasten a little, trying to find an available set of magic gates amongst those being gone through by everybody exiting. But then it hits me: most, if not all of the people are coming from the Outbound side. Which means a train had just come through. So I get downstairs and the Oak Grove train pulls in moments later and the conductor annoucing the train is going to wait; and it does for about 45 seconds.
Now here it made sense. Why?--let me tell you. Because the platform was empty meaning that the previous train did not run express to Wellington, displacing everybody who would've been on it like it did yesterday. So since the previous train did not run express, it did make sense to hold up this train. That's all I was getting at yesterday. You Orange Line dispatchers (as well as on the Blue and Red Lines) don't need to do both: running the behind train express and holding up the next train. And if you can help it, especially during rush hour, try not to do either. Just let the trains run. They'll separate themselves by the end of the line. Such as the case yesterday when I'm transferring at North Station from a Forest Hills trains to an E to Lechmere and miss a double E sitting right there in the station as the Orange Line was pulling in and taking off as I get to the top step on the upper level (and proving a rant which I never actually made about how the everybody should be on one level with the Green Line in the middle). Another double E to Lechmere was there within, literally 20 seconds. Besides the annoying speed stops through the "train yard" just past North Station, our train was held up only about 15 seconds just before Science Park by a red light because of the train ahead--that was it.

Bring Me the Head of an Orange Line Dispatcher!

2006-11-07T10:17:00.000-05:00

My day actually starts with the 111 bus this morning and my third experience with the new gargantuan fareboxes that have now cropped up on North Shore inner-suburb (Somerville, Chelsea, Revere, Everett, etc.) routes. I put my card in the right slot (as opposed to the dollar bill slot which I almost did the other day, not my fault) and it kept trying to take it, but at the same time deciding that it didn't want to. After about 10 seconds, as the operator was winding the bus up Chelsea's 4th Street onramp onto US 1 South/Tobin Bridge, he just politely said "don't worry about it." Our practially empty bus (15 seats to spare!) got passed just before the Charlestown Bridge by a very full 111 bus, and then we got stuck behind it at the stupid stop just before Haymarket, but we still made it to Haymarket a whole two minutes sooner than normal--which, if you've ever driven a bus, is significant.
But then there's the Orange Line. The Orange Line that comes promptly enough for Oak Grove and had myself and every other Community College and Sullivan Square-bound person who got on at Haymarket and had just settled in get off at North Station because the train then decided to go express to Wellington. Express--really--were we that far behind? But, whatever, you can't argue with the conductor--that just holds up the train even more. So, fine, most of us bound for Community College and Sullivan Square get off (save for the poor saps who actually think it's faster to go express to Wellington and then backtrack on a "local"), and it's about 7:15 so I figured, well, hopefully, if the next train was really on our heels then I'd still make it to Sullivan Square by 7:20 and make my employee shuttle connection. And sure enough it did come less than 45 seconds later... and sat for 30 seconds at North Station. And guess what--I missed my connection by a little less than 30 seconds. Because apparently sending the first train express was not enough to separate it from the next train--the next train had to wait even longer "for scheduling reasons," although the conductor simply said that we'd be waiting. So here's my rant to whatever dumb dispatcher made this call, because this has happened before: if one train goes "express" then that's more than enough to separate trains. Don't further insult everybody's intelligence and infuriate them, causing them to miss bus, commuter rail, and other subway connections because you want to hold up the next train to further space them apart. Convince me that the next train is actually running "early," warranting a delay. No, I wasn't late, because I'm coming in a half hour early anyway--I simply caught the 7:30 connecting van ride. But it's a matter of principle. Honestly, I don't think that first train was so far behind that it couldn't have made up the time by the time it's turnaround time came at Oak Grove. I mean, ok, maybe the operator and conductor get a little less of a coffee and bathroom break, but oh well--join the club. Ask me how I loved doing UMass Transit's Smith/Hampshire/MHC full loop (Route 39) and barely get 3-5 minutes on either end! And that was if everything went ok...

A VERY Rough Day to be a Democrat!

2006-11-01T08:07:00.000-05:00

Ouch! There really aren't any other words to describe the recent controversy surrounding two big headlines this morning: the more major one, of course, being Massachusett's (beloved?) Senator John Kerry's slander of the military Monday and continued defiance yesterday, the minor being prominent Maine lawyer and Democratic activist Tom Connolly's dressing up as Osama bin Laden yesterday--complete with fake semi-automatic rifle and fake ammo--and walking along the highway, scaring motorists. While the latter is obviously more local, Democratic candidates for next week's elections are distancing themselves from both of these men. And who can blame them?!
Connolly sounds like some radical wacko, but Kerry, to be honest with you, shocks me. As one who served in the military as a "well-educated" young man, his "joke" was all over the place: he did mean to make fun of himself and poke at President Bush's lack of military action, but instead all that really sticks is slander towards the troops--not a good time at all coming on the heels of October being reported as the deadliest month yet for U.S. troops. And of course the elections now less than a week away. Democratic candidates nationwide, given a boost by the recent Republican page scandals and other minor scandals, have lost much if not all that momentum in two short days with the Kerry and Connolly hijinks. While, locally, I don't see this as hurting Deval Patrick much, it does give "the other Kerry," Lieutenant Governor Healey, plenty of fodder for the last Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate tonight--and as we all know she doesn't need another thing! Blogs that I've skimmed are buzzing with conspiracy theories saying that John Kerry was paid off by Republicans to make such remarks--to be honest with you that was one of the first things that came to mind for me. Has he flipped sides; does he want to be reduced to flipping burgers; is he committing "political suicide" on purpose?! Who the heck knows?! One thing's for sure... it's a very rough day to be a Democrat, especially one going for an office next week.
Furthermore, the rumors of him taking another shot at the Presidency in '08--and perhaps winning this time--may stay just that after this. Just think--if Dubya hadn't been kept in the Oval Office by the moronic half of the country that though he was actually *good* for this country, Kerry would be President right now. And now we all get a taste of what it could have been like. Good job, Kerry, way to prove you're just as much of a bumbling talk-before-I-think idiot as Dubya! Even Dubya's seemingly unscripted rants in reply to Kerry that the "troops really are educated" sound more plausible, and this coming from the King of unscripted and buffoon-like rants over the last six years. Again, way to go Kerry and Connolly--you haven't brought down the house, but you've certainly flooded the basement. One word: apologize. Both of you. Now.

Kerry Healey, Question One Nay-Sayers Put Out Last Minute "Tame" Ads; and "Hello" Question 3!

2006-10-31T09:32:00.000-05:00

The elections are but a week away and for the last few days both Kerry Healey's campaign team and the nay-sayers of Question One, concerning increased wine licenses in "convenience stores," supermarkets and gas station markets, have put out new "tame" ads! Go figure--it's only taken them a good two months to realize that all the negative campaigning has been highly ineffective. But, if anything, these new ads simply will go down in history as a way of saying that the people and ideas they represent weren't completely crazy--not nearly effective enough to actually sway many voters. Let's start with the Healey ad:
"Healey ad" follows "average suburban jogger guy," as he's narrating the "average suburban sentiment" towards Deval Patrick. It's not entirely untrue: Patrick did crop out pretty much out of nowhere. But the rest, concerning his stance on political issues and crime is just more of the same rhetoric, clearly aimed at striking fear and awareness in the "nice neighborhood" suburban communities, and timed well to come on the heels on Newton being knocked off the rank of America's safest (suburb of a) city. In short, more creative, but still accusatory and saying nothing of her own "50-point" goals. I'll give it a B.
Next to the new nay-sayer Question One ad which, this time, features your average-boy-in-blue Somerville, MA, cop talking about the how passage of Question One is going to "double the number of wine licenses," with Somerville going "from 26 to 46." This is just the next random Chief of Police being used as a pawn for bad statistics which have already proven that even with passage of this Question, since each supermarket/"convenience store"/gas station market franchise will need town/city approval to obtain the license, the number may not increase by more than 50%, if that. Yet a Somerville cop this was a doubly bad pick: anybody who's been following the news knows that this is coming from the same paranoid city which wanted to literally ban for today the sale of eggs citywide in order to prevent children from egging houses! Good try; still voting "yes."
And last but not least, Question Three--although, honestly, very near least because I haven't seen or heard of a single ad for it until watching 7-NBC this morning. Something about children and caregivers and education and something; I'm keeping it vague to prove my point. I really don't know anything about this Question, or any of the others, except One, for that matter. I mean, there was something a while back about the Mass. insurance thing, but, to be honest with you, Question One has so dominated the headlines that I don't know if that was an earlier referendum or if it's still on the ballot. My point: I really don't know. Apparently they're not controversial issues--not even the media gives them airtime. I'll go look them up sometime before next Tuesday.

Question One Fear Ads Have Gotten Out of Hand

2006-10-27T08:57:00.000-05:00

People who know me know that I have to have a very, very long fuse. But between Kerry Healey's "Hail Mary" smear campaign and the Massachusetts Ballot Question One fear ads I am actually genuinely getting ticked off at this upcoming voting session.
Forget Healey-I've already expressed my thoughts on her reckless, last-ditch efforts to bring down Deval Patrick. Let's talk about the Question One issue. Let's talk about how, disbarring the fact that police chiefs and public officials across the state are taking sides, it's simply down to a matter of control and monopoly... like Iraq has always been about oil. Care to deny?
A. It's a fact that "convenience stores" and supermarkets can already carry liquor, including wine, if they wish--a "yes" vote doesn't grant them this right, it simply lifts the three-franchise-statewide limit.
B. Who are these "teenagers" hanging around "convenience stores" (or, God forbid, supermarkets). What is this, some random suburb in New Jersey, because, seriously, the first time I heard that, it conjured up the opening scene of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back where that's all the do all day? I've been a city boy through and through--trust me, city kids have better things to do than hang out outside their local "convenience store" every hour of the day they're not in school, especially since nearly all the local mom and pop shops where you might actually know the owner and his/her children have been driven out by rising rents and stiff competition from the 7-Elevens and Store-24's, hence why I'm quoting every instance of "convenience store" in this rant.
C. Even if there were 100 kids hanging out outside of a "convenience store,"
a. What normal kid under 25 buys wine as a "quick fix," i.e. consuming it the minute they buy it, and then go hop in their car, over the legal limit.
b. Why are these ads assuming that nobody gets carded?
D. Seriously, why are these ads assumming that nobody gets carded? Or that carding will get "harder" because of what--an increase in customers? This coming from a latest ad I'm hearing on the airwaves: that it will be "harder" for the "mostly young" cashiers to check ID. What?! Ok, first of all you're assuming that
a. most "convenience store" cashiers are teenagers (I'd say about half)
b. most "convenience store" customers are underage teenagers (not even a third)
c. "convenience store" and supermarkets cashiers, in general, are idiots, as opposed to liquor store cashiers who must clearly be the next best thing to Jesus H. Christ Himself because only they can be trusted to properly check ID's. *Please, local law enforcement and State Police, please save us all from underage people drunk driving because they're buying wine from non-liquor-store cashiers who aren't checking ID's*
E. But forget underage: are all Massachusetts residents over 21 with a (valid) driver's license idiots?! *Sure, let's all buy wine at our local "convenience store" or supermarket, get liquored up over the limit and go out and drive right away.* I swear to God, if this ballot question passes and we have one, just one, more occurence of drunk driving fatalities next year, "no" people are going to blame it all on this ballot question, as opposed to simple fluctuation. "We have some of the nation's lowest drunk driving fatalities and we'd like to keep it that way," they say. Right back out you: so that's why we have some of the nation's highest insurance rates.?! Quite frankly I think that seatbelt use and other safe driving practices in this state are low because it doesn't matter--wear your seatbelt, use your directionals and 4-way flashers (and not after you're already in a turn or lane change), drive with your headlights on, don't tailgate, drive within 15 over the speed limit even on the expressways... and still pay out the *** in insurance!! A step 9 "perfect" driver in Mass. pays the same as a step 15 "neutral" driver in most places elsewhere (unofficial stat). And you wonder why people don't care here about what they do on the road. And you wonder why people snub their nose at road cops.
But I've digressed. Let's sum it all up: all you "no" people are against fair competition. You're insulting everyone's intelligence. You give just a little too much credit to law enforcement for controlling the drunk driving issue in the Commonwealth, and too little on the average Commonwealth resident's ability to police him/herself. To quote blogs that I've read recently on the issue, "I'd vote yes just out of spite." But I think I'll do it more because there hasn't been a single rational reason not to.

Gubernatorial Debate Review; My Ever-Waning Respect for Christy Mihos; MassPike Tolls Part II

2006-10-20T09:43:00.000-05:00

I turned on the TV last night, 7-NBC to be exact, just in time to catch the tail-end of the third gubernatorial debate, which, as far as I'm concerned was as much of any of these debates as I needed to see. Indeed this is the first time I've caught any of these "live" at all for the upcoming election--I usually just get the minutes in the Boston Metro or Herald the next day. So let's get started.
I tuned in right at a good spot: some woman was grilling Christy Mihos about where the money would come from to maintain the Western Mass. part of the MassPike once the tolls are taken away; like the politician that he is, he simply kept referring to the fact that this section, is already "paid off," as in the initial construction. No, really?! Yeah, we all know the whole thing is technically "paid off." What rational people, including myself as in yesterday's rant, want to know is where is the money going to come from, after all is said and done, to maintain that section of roadway. So let me digress from the Debate to further yesterday's rant:
Disbarring everything I mentioned yesterday with regarding the environment pluses and minuses and job placement for toll grunts, the question truly is where is the money for the upkeep Western Mass. part of the Pike going to come from once the tolls go away? How ironic is it going to be that all these "Westerners" currently boo-hooing about having to pay for "Eastern Mass." transportation problems, e.g. the Big Dig, through tolls, will, if this really does happen, be literally getting a free ride on the Pike on the backs of Eastern Mass. drivers who will still be paying tolls and thus then contributing to the entire Pike, not just the eastern half? In short, from a monetary perspective, the amount of money the Pike takes in will literally be stretched thinner to account for the lack of income on its western half. Great. And what of this mystery "reserve fund" that's supposed to cover the debt of paying off the western part "for good." Pardon me, but when I think of "reserve" I usually think of something that shouldn't be touched unless it's absolutely necessary, say a natural disaster. But what do I know? Sure, spend the reserve cash; I mean if it doesn't go for that cause, it'll wind up as part of Billy Bulger's pension fund. Go UMass, by the way.
So back to the Third Debate and Christy Mihos (you others are next, don't worry!). In light of his staunch support for getting rid of those tolls, my respect for him is waning; it started with his random outburst against my political hero Hugo Chávez. Ok, as mentioned in the rant, I don't
particularly supportPresident Chávez; but I admire his raw candor. And as someone who can't seem to run a compaign other than to badmouth Healey and Romney's incompetence, with a commercial equally as comical and buffoon-like as Chávez's mimics of President Bush, I should think Mihos and Chávez have something in common. So that's it--I'm losing respect in Mihos because he doesn't support Chávez, his Venezuelan equivalent... and the toll thing. His 30-second "three accomplishments" and closing remarks were only more of the same rhetoric, especially when he took a dangerous step by comparing his campaign the 2004 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox back when they were down three games to the Yankees--a move right in step with his political personality, but that may hurt him more than help. I mean, he "loves this state," probably even more so than the Red Sox who keep running to New York after boosting their major league cred in Beantown, but just the same... c'mon... it's the Sox! We actually feel sorry when they don't win.
The only breath of fresh air last evening, but really in this whole gubernatorial race, was and is Grace Ross. And that's why she can't win. Minus her random jab at Healey in her "three accomplishments" and remarks, she actually has plans--and not ones "listed on her website" (Mihos and Healey) or that simply involve "change" (Patrick). Running a campaign on a budget no larger than the average soup kitchen's (unfortunate for her and the average soup kitchen), these debates are really her only chance to get the word out to millions across the state. I wish her the best in all her personal endeavors; hopefully with her exposure she can carry out more of her personal pursuits with assistance.
Then there's Kerry Healey who, might I add, all but wrote off Ross pretty much the minute Ross threw her hat into the ring for the election, and I can hate her just for that; that and her annoying love-hate relationship with Christy Mihos--don't tell me there wasn't "something going on" when he was was on the Big Dig Board--she looks like she likes rebels. Her "three accomplishments" and closing remarks were the usual mix of verbal punches at Patrick and whining about having Mihos and Ross at these debate at all--God forbid she have to wade through their responses to get out even more verbal punches; she's itching for a game of heads-up like Guantánamo Bay detainees are itching for pillows and blankets. Plus, was it just me, or did 90% of what she said come verbatim from her TV ad about the fact that "both her and Patrick will make a 'little history' (first Black governor or first female) once in office," and that "yet, there are differences." She even went so far as to outline the exact same differences (taxes, crime, etc.) in the same order as in the commercial. I wished she'd turned around so we could all see the pull-cord: *pull pull pull* "The Kerry Healey says..."
Deval Patrick was his usual smooth-talking lawyer self who, in his "three goals" and closing remarks, made the expected slight jab at Healey while offering his usual calls for "change." The highlight, as the news stations and the Boston Herald today are carrying on about, was his telling her to "get off her high horse" and (paraphrasing) to be shown by Patrick how life is on the streets whenever she does "come down." I more admired his closing with the fact that including everyone across the state means including all of the candidates in all debates. Yes, Patrick, I'm still with you. Ross can't win because she's not a millionaire and Mihos because he's stuck on babble.