Imagine federal officials swooping in to manage your local train station – for “security and cleanliness.” Boston’s South Station commuters have a few choice words, mostly about scrubbing toilets. Local leaders aren’t exactly rolling out the red carpet either. Is this about public safety, or just political theater?
A recent proposal by the Trump administration to potentially assume federal control over Boston’s historic South Station has ignited a wave of skepticism and debate among commuters and local officials alike. While federal authorities cited concerns about security and cleanliness, those who regularly use the major transportation hub question the necessity and legality of such an intervention, suggesting a disconnect between perceived federal issues and daily realities on the ground.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Transportation Steven Bradbury initially floated the concept, suggesting the White House might extend its reach to various East Coast rail facilities, including South Station. Bradbury articulated a vision for “beautiful rail facilities” in Boston, emphasizing the need for enhanced security and improved cleanliness, remarks that quickly drew attention and differing opinions across the city.
However, the immediate reaction from the very people who traverse South Station daily was largely one of bemusement and pointed critique. Linda Radzvilla, a veteran commuter from Mashpee, humorously remarked that the most pressing issue for public transit patrons was the state of the station’s restrooms. Her suggestion that the federal government, or indeed former President Trump himself, might be best served by addressing the specific cleanliness issues rather than a full takeover, highlighted a pragmatic approach from the Boston populace.
Radzvilla, with 25 years of commuting experience between the Cape and Cambridge, also offered a nuanced perspective on safety. While acknowledging the presence of homeless individuals and those with mental health challenges within the station, she recalled only one minor, non-threatening incident. This perspective underscores that while certain social services might benefit from greater attention, a sweeping federal intervention might not align with the station’s actual needs or existing security framework.
Echoing the sentiment of local self-reliance, Aaron DiPilato, a union plumber commuting from North Attleboro, expressed strong reservations about the notion of federal troops being deployed in South Station. He firmly believes in Boston’s inherent safety and fears that an increased military presence would paradoxically foster a sense of unease and insecurity among the general public, rather than enhancing it.
Beyond individual commuters, prominent political figures in Massachusetts swiftly condemned the Trump administration’s proposal. Governor Maura Healey vociferously dismissed the idea as nothing more than “outrageous political theater,” underscoring a clear jurisdictional boundary and a lack of welcome for what she perceived as an overreach of federal power into state affairs.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu joined the chorus of opposition, characterizing the federal proposal as a game of “authoritarian monopoly.” Her critical assessment highlighted a crucial legal distinction: unlike Washington’s Union Station, South Station is not federally owned. Instead, it falls under the ownership of the MBTA and is managed by a private entity, a fact that legally complicates any attempted federal takeover.
Former state transportation secretary Jim Aloisi further solidified the local opposition, expressing deep concern that officials within the Trump administration might believe they possess the necessary expertise to manage a complex transit hub like South Station. This collective resistance from local commuters and political leaders alike illustrates a strong desire to maintain local control and manage Massachusetts infrastructure without external, and potentially unwarranted, federal intervention.
