With snow season waning, grandstanding season is upon us. The Outraged Liberal notes:
Offered an opportunity to fix [T funding issues] two years ago, by raising the gasoline tax to fund the T as well as needed bridge and road repairs, lawmakers opted instead for adding 1.25 cents onto the sales tax, a move that has obviously proven inadequate to meet the increased needs caused by the Great Recession.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
...and the debt
By johnmcboston
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 8:13am
They also transferred a few billion in big dig debt onto the MBTA, so servicing that debt is now out of the T's budget. Plus, greenbush and the Green line Extension were state projects to compliment the big dig, but now the T and not the state is paying for them. None of that is helping the problem any....
Just so
By massmarrier
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:31am
Indeedy, the solution remains in the untenable debt. The legislature gambled on a never-ending growth spiral of sales tax growth that it would share with the T. When that failed (miserably), they didn't admit error and fix it. They need to stop pretending and act like adults.
Why didn't they leave the debt with the Turnpike Authority?
By Ron Newman
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:38am
and then let the Turnpike Authority file for Chapter 11 in the process of being abolished? That would have unloaded a lot of the Big Dig debt in bankruptcy without affecting state finances.
Bond Rating
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:15am
in moving around the Big Dig debt the states hopes were to improve the bond rating. Shortsighted at best.
The MBTA's "Big Dig debt" is
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:06am
The MBTA's "Big Dig debt" is for the required transit mitigation projects like Greenbush. The debt held by the MBTA was not for the actual roadway construction.
The state has taken over responsibility for funding the remaining required transit mitigation projects which are the Green Line extension, additional stations on the Fairmount commuter rail line, expanded parking for 1000 spaces, and design of the Red-Blue connector. The Red-Blue legal commitment is just for design, there is no longer a legal requirement that it be built.
To read about the state of the state transit commitments:
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/sip/SIP_Statu...
Sure, that *sounds* good
By Kaz
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:46am
But those mitigation projects were initially INCLUDED in the Big Dig's project costs...you know, since they were mitigating the increased car traffic/pollution for the bigger highway. When the Big Dig costs overran the initial projections (and just kept going and going and going...), the state decided to make itself "clean" by dumping that debt on the MBTA as part of the "Forward Funding" legislature because the revenue projected was extremely high (and costs projected simplistically low) that it could use part of its funding source to cover that debt over time and the state could wipe its hands clean of the Big Dig. (No way, a
Republican Governorpolitician kicking the can down the road! You don't say...) The high-cost MBTA budget AND remaining Big Dig debt gone in one fell swoop? Good feelings all around! Balanced state budget and nobody gets hurt!So, to say that the MBTA somehow deserves this debt because it was costs associated with MBTA projects is absurd. This was because we wanted/needed a bigger road...and legally we couldn't do it without paying lip service to keeping our air clean. It's completely a result of the Big Dig and the highway and has nothing to do with the MBTA other than they were the whipping boy for getting the highway we wanted/needed. Your argument is a clever red herring...but it's a red herring nonetheless.
There are other projects like
By Where's the E-line
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:55am
There are other projects like that which were build in to the funding that everyone just decided no one actually had to do. If only one of them sprung to mind... I think it rhymes with SchmArborway Line.
Arborway was removed as a
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:36pm
Arborway was removed as a required project and replaced with more stations on the Fairmount Line and adding a Union Sq. spur to the Somerville Green Line extention. The original mitigation agreement did include a process to replace transit projects with different ones if the replacement projects had the same or better air quality benefits.
Only after the NIMBYs convinced the MBTA
By roadman
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:46pm
that maintaining a lousy 'temporary' bus service was somehow better than restoring an efficient streetcar service that had served the same neighborhood for decades.
NIBMYs didn't convince the
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:53pm
NIBMYs didn't convince the MBTA - the closing of the Arborway line was decades in planning. All streetcars running on non-dedicated tracks were planned to be closed - the Arborway line south of Brigham Circle fit the bill.
The MTA started talking about
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:51pm
The MTA started talking about removing the Arborway line in the 1940s. When the Riverside line opened, they took the best cars from the Arborway and gave them to Riverside. When they 'temporarily' shut down the Arborway line, the newly refurbished streetcars were left in the Arborway car yard to rust. When they were later inspected, they were all found to be totaled.
So if the transit projects
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:56pm
So if the transit projects required by the Big Dig mitigation had not been required by the Big Dig mitigation, would they have not been worth spending transit money on to complete?
Whenever if is just stated as "the MBTA has Big Dig debt" I'm sure many people reading or hearing that think that transit money/MBTA debt money was used for roadway construction. Its not that simple, it was used for transit projects required by the roadway construction.
And not all of the MBTA's debt came from the mitigation projects, some of it came from funding required ADA improvements, replacing equipment and infrastructure, etc.
I had the same though.
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:07am
I had the same though. Everyone wants to act like this is the result of incompetence on the part of the MBTA but it seems that most of it is because they're working on old equipment. No one wants to pay for them to refurbish their systm.
This is asinine
By Kaz
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:37am
"Born Broke", an April 2009 review by the MBTA Advisory Board of what's gone wrong since "Forward Funding" began in 2000.
"MBTA Review", a November 2009 review by an independent panel appointed by the Governor of what's gone wrong since "Forward Funding" began in 2000.
HOW MANY MORE COMMITTEES AND REVIEWS DO WE NEED?
Both reports come to the same conclusion: The revenue promises of "Forward Funding" were completely unrealistic and combined with the (now HEAVILY restructured) debt load and cost increases like fuel, energy, and employee healthcare have bankrupted the MBTA.
If James Doohan were around he would have announced "she kenna take any mooor, Cap'ain!"...like 5 years ago. If the politicians are going to want a serious discussion, inviting the public to say "I can't get my bus on time! The Red Line dies EVERY DAY! Wah wah wah!" is USELESS. The system is broke. It's been doomed since 2000 but everyone in the Legislature appears to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Not one of them is suggesting that it's time to take on the problem head on.
Damn, it's really frustrating when we can't even deal with these things as adults on such a local level...it's like they're all auditioning for being part of the federal legislature already...
I wouldn't worry about it . . .
By Chris Dowd
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:05pm
. . . a few more federal stings of our politicians- who are "corrupt" beyond measure- and a few more trillions printed and given to Friends of the Fed should make state government issues moot. Pretty soon- we'll be writing letters to the Federal Subway Administration Agency- or the corporation they hire to run it for us- that will be the extent of our involvement in local issues in say- oh- about 5 more years.
How about starting by raising
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:30pm
How about starting by raising fares? MBTA fares are lower than average around the country. And why raise the gas tax - if the state thinks the MBTA is worth paying for, the state can raise income taxes to pay for it.
Because BIG DIG
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:49pm
Why raise fares when the service ALREADY sucks and the REAL PROBLEM is that transit commuters are paying for a highway project that was massively mismanaged when they were supposed to be getting BETTER service and MORE service as a mitigation to the Big Dig - a project that was not anywhere near paid for by car users and gas taxes alone!
What part of what Kaz has been linking to do you NOT understand?
Raising fares
By John-W
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 9:17pm
Not to mention the fact that you could raise the fares to be on par with NYC or to being the most expensive in the U.S. by a dime, and it still wouldn't fill the gap. People need to get a grip on scale.
Our transit system needs some serious cash.
Who gets money
By johnmcboston
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 9:20pm
Of course, there's a few billion for the accelerate bridge repair program for the highways. Isn't the T in the same 'falling down' condition?
T's probably worse
By John-W
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:26pm
Actually the T seems to be in worse shape, but that's not the fault of the accelerated bridge repair program. All our infrastructure is in rough shape, so anything to address any of its needs is welcomed. I wouldn't want roads and bridges to go to pot just so the T can get good grades. We need to see all of it be fixed.
Must be the fault of them unions.
No fault
By johnmcboston
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:46pm
I didn't say the T was broke because of the bridge program. Just pointing out they found money for one, yet have a hard time 'finding' money for the other....
Raising fares is always a bad
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:52pm
Raising fares is always a bad idea; it encourages people to not take the T, which results in lower revenues, and then you're in vicious circle territory. Frankly, T fares ought to be lowered. If possible, the T ought to be free. Mass transit is a vital public service, but like the police, or the fire department, it isn't the kind of public service that is self-funding.
And yes, I don't mind if the state raises the income tax to help pay for the T -- and improving and expanding the T. Good idea. I'd like to see the state income tax gain some brackets, too.
an idea whose time has come....
By Ed Poon
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:55pm
EZ-Pass Only tolls on major roads and bridges into/around Boston. The tolls can be adjustable (i.e., variable pricing) to meter traffic.... indeed, you could turn them off entirely for off-peak times. More money for a) road maintenance and b) mass transit.
If you don't have an EZ-Pass, you ask? Don't take these roads. Real simple to me.
The general gas tax and T fares also need to be increased to keep up with inflation. But because we put this off for so long, we need something more than just these options.