Passenger Trains > Possibly only one bidder for MBTA contract

MBTA could have 1 bidder for $1 billion rail contract
Boston Globe
by Sean Murphy

> One of the two companies competing to provide Greater Boston’s
> commuter rail service is threatening to drop out if the MBTA does not
> provide key information by Friday, potentially leaving the state with
> only one bidder for the largest contract in Massachusetts history.
>
> The MBTA had promised to create an even playing field in the
> competition for the $1 billion-plus commuter rail contract, even
> though one of the bidders, Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail, currently
> runs the system and has close personal ties to state transportation
> leadership.
>
> But the only other bidder, Keolis America Inc., said that Mass Bay
> has not turned over to the MBTA crucial information on the railroad’s
> huge labor costs, making it impossible for Keolis to complete its bid
> and undermining the MBTA’s promise of fairness.
>
> More than 70,000 commuters depend on the rail service daily, and MBTA
> officials had hoped robust competition might force bidders to promise
> better service and lower costs in order to win the contract.
>
> “We can only conclude that [Mass Bay] is deliberately withholding
> this information” to hurt Keolis’s chances of taking over the rail
> service next year, according to a March 27 letter to the MBTA from
> Astrid Stumpf, Keolis’s commuter rail project manager.
>
> “We may be forced to withdraw from the competition.”

Link to full story:

MBTA could have 1 bidder for $1 billion rail contract

Sounds like the Boston I knew and loved...!

There is always the question in my mind as to what primary purpose behind these systems.

Affordable, efficient transit does not often seem to top the list.
Personally I don't think the long term future for big transit is good. The jobs need to
move where the people live and work or the people need to move to the jobs.

Bob

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The jobs need to
> move where the people live and work
>
> Bob

Aren't the jobs by definition already located where the people work?

Dave

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally I don't think the long term future for
> big transit is good. The jobs need to
> move where the people live and work or the people
> need to move to the jobs.

=============================================

Not everyone lives (or wants to live) in the fabled urban villages
(read: ghettos of the future) that some social engineers seem to
favor.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like the Boston I knew and loved...!


the "close personal relationships" with decision makers sounds pretty familiar, too

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> robj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The jobs need to
> > move where the people live and work
> >
> > Bob
>
> Aren't the jobs by definition already located
> where the people work?
>
> Dave

Delete work, you know what I meant but.............


Bob

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> robj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Personally I don't think the long term future
> for
> > big transit is good. The jobs need to
> > move where the people live and work or the
> people
> > need to move to the jobs.
>
> =============================================
>
> Not everyone lives (or wants to live) in the
> fabled urban villages
> (read: ghettos of the future) that some social
> engineers seem to
> favor.

There are many suburban complexes, I'd submit that if people had to actually pay for their
urban commutes the present downtown model would wilt. At the middle and lower end of the
wage scale of people who work downtown office and support it would no longer be feasible.

Bob

Just why does Boston have to "farm out" its train operation?

Metro-North, MJT, and SEPTA plus others seem to run their own trains without a 2nd party interfering!

And from you guys, how about some SERIOUS answers!

stone23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just why does Boston have to "farm out" its train
> operation?
>
> Metro-North, MJT, and SEPTA plus others seem to
> run their own trains without a 2nd party
> interfering!
>
> And from you guys, how about some SERIOUS answers!

MBTA has NEVER run its own trains. Since the bankruptcy era they have always been operated by B&M, Conrail, Amtrak, or now Mass Bay. MBTA in essence has no professional railroad transportation management competent to actually run the railroad on a day-to-day basis. At SEPTA, NJT, and Metro North, it was possible to transfer an entire railroad divisional level staff and workforce to the new entity (PRR Philadelphia Terminal division, Reading RR Philadelphia Division, CNJ New Jersey Division, EL Hoboken Division, PC Metropolitan Division) in the 1976-1983 period, just like the Amtrak NEC was formed out of the PRR Eastern Region and New Haven Boston Division, or how the Chicago Union Station Company was transferred wholesale to Amtrak.

MARC is in a similar situation. B&O/CSX and Amtrak have always run the trains for them, and there was never anything that could be transfered to form a new commuter railroad.

At MBTA, because the B&M ran the north side and was not bankrupt, while the south side was split between Conrail's Albany Division and Amtak's New England Division which remained intact in their new entities, there was again never a local divisional level staff to form a nucleus of a new railroad as at SEPTA, NJT, or Metro North.

Responding to stone23m abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> MBTA has NEVER run its own trains. Since the
> bankruptcy era they have always been operated by
> B&M, Conrail, Amtrak, or now Mass Bay. MBTA in
> essence has no professional railroad
> transportation management competent to actually
> run the railroad on a day-to-day basis. At SEPTA,
> NJT, and Metro North, it was possible to transfer
> an entire railroad divisional level staff and
> workforce to the new entity (PRR Philadelphia
> Terminal division, Reading RR Philadelphia
> Division, CNJ New Jersey Division, EL Hoboken
> Division, PC Metropolitan Division) in the
> 1976-1983 period, just like the Amtrak NEC was
> formed out of the PRR Eastern Region and New Haven
> Boston Division, or how the Chicago Union Station
> Company was transferred wholesale to Amtrak.
>
> MARC is in a similar situation. B&O/CSX and
> Amtrak have always run the trains for them, and
> there was never anything that could be transfered
> to form a new commuter railroad.
>
> At MBTA, because the B&M ran the north side and
> was not bankrupt, while the south side was split
> between Conrail's Albany Division and Amtak's New
> England Division which remained intact in their
> new entities, there was again never a local
> divisional level staff to form a nucleus of a new
> railroad as at SEPTA, NJT, or Metro North.


Hmmm. Sounds like a serious answer to me...

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> robj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Personally I don't think the long term future
> for
> > big transit is good. The jobs need to
> > move where the people live and work or the
> people
> > need to move to the jobs.
>
> =============================================
>
> Not everyone lives (or wants to live) in the
> fabled urban villages
> (read: ghettos of the future) that some social
> engineers seem to
> favor.

Today's "fabled villages" are tomorrow's ghettos, and are, in turn, the day AFTER tomorrow's, "fabled villages" once again. It's a cycle. Look at the situation in the formerly "ghetto" urban cores and the formerly "desirable" inner suburbs.

One other note about moving jobs out to the countryside - the best way to commute to them is probably by car, and this leads to MASSIVE traffic jams with no options at relief really possible.