Jim O'leary is the man and is so hooked up at Beacon Hill it's ridiculous.  The new T GM is going to find out how business is done in the Commonwealth real quick.  

More expensive, less service and increased safety concerns ain't no way to run a railroad

When I visited the National Railway Museum in York, England three decades back I was able to admire the relics of the steam, diesel and electric engines that pulled trains all over Britain. Now, that I use the Commuter Rail, I often think back to that day as I ride the current "relics" that pull our trains. Given the equipment failures to engines and age-old switching gear that are an everyday part of the system and the apparent lack of investment that those indicate, I am tempted to ask: who is going to take responsibility for updating a system that basically has not advanced much since the 1950s? So, my conditions for any new operater of the MBTA would be simple. Upgrade or just go home and take you bid with you. My feeling is that those who "run" the system have been lulled into a false sense of security by the rising numbers of people using the subway, buses and commuter rail and therefore believe they can continue to ignore the riders' needs. There are many interests involved in havinmg a good transportation system from the mayor of Boston who does not want us all to drive our cars into his city, to the employers who should be screaming for a more efficient (and on time) service, to the politicians who need the voters (many of them of them riders) to exist. Message to you all: stop passing the buck and get serious. We now live in the 21st Century and want a system that reflects that.

MBCR should have been gone after the previous contract.

A new contract should be very detailed, with nothing left to later interpretation and manipulation. It should have specific conditions under which it can be terminated by the MBTA, such as poor performance determined by meaningful measurements.

The winner should be determined by competitive bid -- How much subsidy the company will require to run the system according to the contract. There should be no personalities involved.

You can't let the companies decide what they're going to offer at what cost. That would make comparison impossible, which may be the whole idea, as far as MBCR is concerned. The field has to be level. The MBTA decides what the companies must do. The only consideration should be money.

Beverly Scott and Co. need to take a good hard look at Keolis. They manage public transportation for 1.8 BILLION passengers annually (compare that to ~40 million for the MBTA commuter rail). They've even managing one of the commuter rail lines in DC since 2010, so we have a track record for this company to examine within the US. I hope our state transportation agency does something right for once.

From the web site: The Keolis Group develops tailor-made mobility solutions to suit individual local requirements. The Keolis Group is a market leader in France and a major player on the public transport spectrum in Europe and worldwide. Established in 12 countries, the Group generated revenue of 4.1 billion euros in 2010 and employs 47,200 people.

Now ask yourself this question "Would the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Co. or Keolis an international company be better funded to upgrade the transit system?

Keolis employees over 47,000 people. But now that I think about it the MBTA may have that many on the books too. (grin)

Lately almost every rush hour train I have been on included the announcement: "we have only two conductors on the train tonight. You people in the middle of the train will have to make your way to he front or back to get off the train."  That is the workforce. They can't blame that on the MBTA.  

And tonight the conductor yelled at the people left standing who could not sit: " you are all going to have to move to the back of the car so - I - can get through."  Yes, it's all about him. Not even a perfunctory  "sorry about the lack of seats" just get out of my way! Again Workforce.