The MBTA commuter rail system can perform better than it has in the last ten years. Since 2003, when private rail firm Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Co. began running the trains under a contract with the T, passengers have suffered through long weather delays in the winter and broken air conditioning in the summer. During bad stretches, frequent cancellations often left riders fuming.
These woes weren’t all MBCR’s fault. The company rightfully points to big on-time improvements over the last few years. But as the contract expires and the T mulls what to do next, the agency owes it to riders to demand more reliable performance in the next contract. That should include stiffer penalties if performance lags, but it should also involve extra incentives for the winning contractor to invest in locomotives and coaches. Under the current contract, the MBTA provides that equipment, but the perennially cash-strapped agency has failed to supply promised new locomotives that would have increased reliability. A private contractor could upgrade the system’s rolling stock more quickly and allow the sprawling MBTA to focus on its myriad other troubles.
Comments
This is a very long comment to a very strange editorial.
First, I fail to follow the logic of this editorial: The MBTA, the agency that failed to hold the MBCR accountable by failing to collect millions of dollars in contractually-required fines for that company's failyre to provide adequate service and on-time performance, should "sign a deal with a better mix of sticks and carrots to ensure its contractor provides riders the service they need"? And then, as the headline in my edition suggests, and as is implied in certain portions of the text, that the new contract should be extended to 30 years, because "Longer contract for commuter rail could ease system's many woes"? Huh? How would it do that? The editorial never explains why Denver's 30-year contract is a good thing, worthy of emulation. On the face of it, such a contract seems like a nightmare, especially in the context in which the MBTA operates: Imagine being handcuffed to an incompetently-run service provider for 30 years with no escape because the MBTA board and the Legislature refuse to hold the contractor accountable for non-compliance! I am tempted to say that this is what we already have, albeit without explicit recognition in law. A number of the earlier bidders on the new contract seemed to think so when they dropped out of the bidding because they saw it as a "done deal" with a firm run by cronies. I am not asseting that this is true--yet--as I am not a betting man when odds are less than 100 percent. I should think that the suggestion of the 30-year contract came from the MBCR, supposedly a supplicant for the contract and not the beneficiary of a "done deal," would be a strong argument against entering into such a contract, but this, after all, is Massachusetts, and another ethos obtains.
Speaking of ethos, or ethics, how does the MBTA's failure to demand payment of millions of dollars in fines excuse the MBCR from responsibility? To me, in view of the cash rewards for service the T has awarded the MBCR while failing to collect the fines, this makes T management a co-conspirator in defrauding the ridership and taxpayer, who are entitled to adequate service at a reasonable price. A different kind of contract would hardly remedy that, given the ethical qualities of those who will continue to administer these contracts. What was were the writer and the Editorial Board thinking when they let this pass?
As for the purported "improvement" in service for whose original deterioration the MBCR created following their assumptiuon of commuter rail service from Amtrak, it is ludicrous to adduce it in the company's defense. It is akin to the story of the man who has beaten his wife daily for the duration of his marriage, stops doing so for a couple of weeks, and then asks the wife to renew their marriage vows. In any decently-run system, the creation of a need for such "improvement" would disqualify any company that had done so from being awarded contract. But then, again, this is Massachusetts, and MBCR's top managers (sic.) have "experience" with the T.
her aspects of this editorial make me scratch my head. The editorial asserts that the antiquated equipment it says is responsible for the many delayed trains and cancelled runs (are there other reasons, and if so, what are they?) are on the tracks because the "cash-strapped" MBTA has been unable to provide them and then claims that "a private contractor could upgrade the system’s rolling stock more quickly and allow the sprawling MBTA to focus on its myriad other troubles." Uh-huh. How? Contracts of this nature are operating contracts, not capital ones. The system owns its track and rolling stock--or its lessors do, if they lease equipment and running rights from others. There is a good reason that this is so: If the contractor receives "incentives"--i.e., cash provided by the taxpayer--to acquire rolling stock, who owns the rolling stock after the contract runs out? The one of the reasons that these companies compete for these contracts is that they do not have to put up much of their own money, aside from lobbying expenses and a the cost of their own money. Bidders, understandably, do not wish to take on the costs and liabilities of capital investment for a limited-term contract. There are ownership and liability issues here, and because of these, the MBTA cannot and should not make ownership a part of a service contract. And, if the contractor does not own the rolling stock, what are "incentives" but payment in addition to the money that the contractor is already breceiving to do the job that he/she is supposed to be doing. Indeed, the MBTA has already given the MBCR "performance awards," rathgewr than taking the $36.2 million in fines it was owed, a sum which, incidentally, would have defrayed the cost of a few locomotives and passenger coaches. No, the MBTA and the legislature should get the agency's finances in order (a cent or two increase in motor fuel tax and an outside audit of T operations, anyone?) and improve its capital budget. If MBCR management failed to inform--as opposed to using it as a universal excuse for poor performance--T management of their real equipment needs, then they are too incompetent to merit renewal of a contract of any length.