Hey, there! Log in / Register
Governor creates commission to figure out what to do about the T
By adamg on Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:34pm
It's supposed to file a report by the end of March on how to get us "the 21st-century transportation that we all deserve," Baker said at a press conference. "We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result."
Stephanie Pollack, transportation secretary, said the panel will also look at long-term fixes for the "structural problems that have led the T to where it is today."
Baker said that while he'll leave the heavy lifting to the commission, he will be making surprise visits to T stations and other facilities to try to get a handle on what's going on.
From the governor's statement:
The experts include Jane Garvey, a national leader in transportation policy and top pick for Secretary of Transportation in the Obama administration, Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez , the Derek C. Bok Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy at Harvard University, and Katie Lapp, former Executive Director and CEO for the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, North American’s largest transportation network. Paul Barrett will serve as chair.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Olympics
.
The Olympics...
...and the corresponding powers that be are likely to keep public transit in the limelight. This "historic" winter may be one of the best things that could have happened for Boston 2024.
Regardless of opinion, commission or not, there will probably be a significant push for additional transportation financing in the near future.
I suppose we are about to find out where the true power behind government lies. Let's see if it pays off for them, Cotton.
actually
I just read that public support is down now for the Olympics because of the T's issues.
This "historic" winter may be
These two statements would only be mutually exclusive if "public support" had anything to do with the Boston 2024 pushers.
as though
They've ever worried about public support up to this point...
Just wait a few minutes/weeks
But apparently, just as soon as warmer weather arrives, we're going to forget everything that's happened this last month and once again support (at least 98.3723% of us) the Greatest Event Ever For A World Class City such as ours.
(+/- 472.90% margin of error factor)
MBTA woes
Why? The Red Line failed on a pretty regular basis in the summer, too.
correction
best chance to fix the T. boston 2024 (for better or worse) would help keep transit on everyone's minds after all this stuff has finally melted. It also might be a distraction... we'll see.
You think Baker gives a shit
You think Baker gives a shit about the MBTA, the only thing on his mind right now is the 2016 Presidential election, hoping that a Republican wins the nominee (Jeb Bush) who would probably assign Baker to a post in the administration, which in turn Baker will gladly receive..
I don't know if he could get away with it, but...
... if Baker comes out of this weather disaster and neither raises taxes nor takes federal disaster relief, he will have conjured a big notch on his belt for future national Republican runs.
We'll be screwed, but Charlie will score. And that's what it's all about, right?
Is there a list of MBTA
Is there a list of MBTA workers from A to Z and what their salaries are, public information, does anyone out there know of any web site that I can visit to find out this information.please post web site!! thanks.
Here:
Here:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Smart_Forms/News,_Events_and_Press_Rel...
Not sure what good it is though without knowing how many hours people are working, and without another transit agency to compare it to.
Sheer irony
"We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result."
Isn't creating a commission to create a report basically exactly (and exclusively) what has been done every time "The T is in trouble!" happens?
Ya but unlike Deval he's laid out key objectives.
MBTA Special Panel's Objectives:
1. Develop a fact-base from available data and recently published reports to enable the MBTA and the Commonwealth to ground its future plans and recommendations.
• Synthesize the findings and recommendations of the previous reports
• Prepare a 'state of the operations' review on the strengths and areas needing improvement and attention; topic areas to include: maintenance, maintenance planning and preparation, operations, communications, decision-making, and governance
• Conduct benchmark review of similar transit systems operations
2. Undertake a rapid diagnostic on the state of MBTA asset management and maintenance, including:
• A review of reports and/or Request for Proposals issued by the MBTA related to asset management, system preservation, State of Good Repair and maintenance planning, budgeting and implementation at the MBTA
• An investigation of the current size of the MBTA's State of Good Repair backlog, assessing the extent to which previous report recommendations related to asset management and system preservation were followed and evaluating what information the board received as it relates to these issues
• A review of the MBTA's overall capital program to assess the processes for selecting projects, allocating funds between maintenance and expansion projects and delivering capital projects on time and on budget
3. Make recommendations to improve the MBTA's governance, structure, financials, and operations in both the short and longer-terms to enable the MBTA to plan, operate and maintain a 21st century public transportation system.
Well, good to know they have concrete plans
That post was so corporate-buzzword-heavy I think it just sent me a LinkedIn invite
should include future expansion and upgrades
that not only improve operations, but enhance the performance of the entire transportation network. for example... like maybe, just maybe, taking a serious look at the 9 bus lines that run down a 1 mile stretch of washington in roslindale... maybe expanding the orange line... maybe it'll save the T some money in operating costs... you know... things like that...
Rule #1
When a politician wants a problem to go away they create a "Blue Ribbon Committee" of experts to examine and provide recommendations. This makes it look like they are doing something and gets the problem out of the news for a while.
When said committee provides a recommendation -- assuming they do at all -- the governor will be free to ignore what they say or claim that it's too expensive or would require support of Beacon Hill. (Which they know they won't have.)
So in short, this is worthless thing to do. It's a distraction, nothing more.
There is a big difference
There is a big difference between a commission and a committee. A committee holds closed-door meetings. Commissions must hold meetings with the public. So this commission's recommendations or comments from the general public - not that those comments will matter necessarily, but if the mayor identifies this as a commission they HAVE to hold public meetings. I don't know if the previous groups assembled to make recommendations were commissions or committees, but there is a difference and it does matter.
I will also add that nowhere
I will also add that nowhere in the linked article, once I clicked through to it, does the mayor call this a 'commission' OR a committee - so the author of this post might want to correct that, as a 'special panel' is very different from a commission for the above reasons.
Governor, not mayor.
Governor, not mayor.
Why are you guys talking about the Mayor?
It's the Governor's diversion, not the Mayor's.
MBTA will look closely on how
MBTA will look closely on how to increase revenue, one solution is renaming T stations after corporate companies. Another will be adding starbucks service (kiosk) in subway stations as well as in moving trains.Here is a solution create an MBTA $20 lottery scratch ticket , each ticket that will be sold all proceeds go to the mbta. Also Mbta should add electronic billboards on the sides of buses and trains not displaying just one add but a series of adds. Increase the fares will not fix anything, advertisements is a big money maker for the mbta.They also own billboards on alot of thier properties throughout the state.They need to be creative on how to save money and make money.
Advertisng, naming rights, etc. etc.
are NOT a good way to generate sustainable revenue. And forcing advertising messages on a captive audience is also a gross insult to the passengers who use the system, especially when they pay their own money to do so.
Not to mention the fact that the T tried naming rights before. They got only one taker (CItizen's Bank at State Street), and the name disappered from the signs after about a year.
How about this instead - the MBTA is a system that is provided for the public, and benefits the public. So why is it that people like you consider it so unreasonable that we should use public money to fund operating, maintianing, and updating the system?
PS - Advertising is and always has been a horrid waste of money and resources. But nobody seems to care about that as long as it's private corportations that's wasting that money and those resources.
The silver line from South
The silver line from South Boston to Logan airport operated normally throughout the blizzard, silver line requires no tracks,the bus line has rubber tires instead and cables up on the overhead. Maybe this kind of bus will replace the red line and commuter, it requires an asphalt surface oppose to unreliable tracks especially during blizzard conditions.and it will be easy to plow and salt.
Your wrong roadman, New
Your wrong roadman, New Balance in Allston, Mass spent millions in building a new state of the art T Station that will stop in front of thier building along the mass pike. A prime example of Corporate dollars working together with the State of Massachusetts.
"Advertising is and always
"Advertising is and always has been a horrid waste of money and resources."
Really? For who? It's the advertisers that are spending the money to advertise, not the riders.
You do realize that advertising dollars are a significant funding stream for a lot of things, right? Like it or not, a lot of things in both the public and private sector don't happen without ad dollars.
It's not going to fix the debt, but ad dollars in the stations do help. Sorry if you don't want to look at them, but if it adds revenue, and I don't see how it hurts riders. Everyone is looking at some form of advertising on their phones anyway. And I actually have more than once used info from ads on the T.
The MBTA already sells lottery tickets
Buy a ticket: if you are lucky, you get a ride to your destination.
Here is a solution create an
We already have these; they're called commuter rail passes.
Long ago I proposed slot machines
on commuter rail trains and a Gamblin' Charlie card that cost more, but could deposit a payout on your card if you win going through the gates or tap on the bus. Odds improve off-hours and on low volume routes to better distribute ridership. Fare jumpers also lose out. These suggestions made during the battles over who got casinos and slots parlors.
Step 1.) Don't saddle the
Step 1.) Don't saddle the MBTA with a bunch of Big Dig debt. WHOOPS, TOO LATE!
Strawman?
While they did put the Big Dig debt on the T - didn't they also give them a HUGE chunk of the sales tax - including the 25% hike from a couple of years ago in order to pay for that? On a previous post I estimated the average Boston city employee gets about $90k in total comp (not just salary - but the other stuff like pensions, health and life insurance, payroll taxes etc). And half of them are highly compensated (for government employees) cops, firemen and teachers. The average MBTA comp was almost 30% higher - and I'm not sure their workforce other than engineers/drivers has the skills and responsibilities that cops/firemen/teachers have.
I'm less and less convinced that this is a Big Dig debt issue and more convinced it's a payroll, inefficiency deal that Pesaturo and others have laid at the feet of the Big Dig to cover for their own mismanagement.
"huge" chunk of something
That was the deal - you take this massive bolus of debt and we'll give you some magic beans that will sprout into a huge...I mean a % of the sales tax that will continue to spiral upwards to the sky because, y'know, the economy never goes down. And, oh yeah, this is not a deal where you say yes or no after considering it, so it's your fault if you take a bad deal -- nope. We are jamming this up your ass, so just lay back and think of England.
The performance predictions for the sales tax were asinine. The politicians did this at the time because it sounded good, but it really was a bad deal. Sales tax revenue plummeted with the recession and the T was still on the hook for the debt payments which is why something like a 1/3 of the budget goes to paying debt while the oodles of sales tax revenue have just never come in.
No doubt there are places for savings to be realized STILL within the T's budget, but really - go ahead and fire every employee and replace them with Americorps volunteers, or whatever, you're still ONLY talking about $750 million (salaries, payroll tax, health & welfare fund and fringe for 2015). Repair backlog estimates are something like $3 billion. If indeed ALL of the MBTA's problems can be pinned on the employees (which I think is totally wrong and I'm not saying that's your argument) it is something that has accumulated over decades of no one fixing it, so there is no way to really fix the current issues by suddenly slashing a bunch of shit. They should institute some transparent changes (like no more overtime so no more "low level" workers earning 6 figures - and people should remember that when crises occur and no one comes out to help them, because, y'know, no more overtime and there's a hiring freeze) but those changes will take decades to accumulate the restored revenue to address issues that need to be fixed now.
This is a wicked problem in management, but Charlie Baker was elected because he was supposedly a great manager. Now's the time to prove it. I really hope he does it.
False
Sales tax revenue for the T has increased about at the rate of inflation since forward funding in 2001 (actually slightly more than inflation). In addition, they have almost DOUBLED operating revenue AND they now have two additional revenue streams (contract assistance and additional assistance - not sure what they are -but they don't appear to be offsets to increases in expenses). Those streams have added $300 million in revenue. The Big Dig debt hasn't expanded in a decade and I'm guessing today's interest rate is lower than the interest rate 10 years ago).
Debt service over that time has increased by only $130 million with total expenses up almost $1 billion. Operating expenses - mostly compensation - have doubled. A lot of that debt increase has been in the past 3-4 years - I'm guessing to pay for some of the new equipment they so desperately need - certainly not for the Big Dig.
Every time I look at this - that Big Dig thing looks more and more like a fairy tale and more and more like cover for overly generous collective bargaining.
interest
How does interest factor into your reasoning?
Much of the debt being paid isn't the debt itself being paid off, they are BARELY making payments on the interest alone, not the principal. In lamens terms, its like having a maxed out credit card and making minimum payments, you won't ever pay it off because you're barely covering the interest to make the minimum payments.
Couple things
I can only speculate that today's interest rate is lower than 10 years ago (only potential negative factor I can think of is if they got into swaps on these deals - basically pays off if interest rates go up - but you pay extra if interest rates go down. You can get out of the deal - but it will cost you).
Actually it's not terrible for a government entity to never pay principal. Unlike people - in theory governments are eternal. If you never pay principal - the value eventually gets eaten by inflation. E.g. - if we borrowed $10 million in 1850 - that might have been a huge burden on the state. But now that money is - relative to a $40 billion budget - irrelevant. Especially when interest rates are like 3% - over the long term, it's likely that this is almost free money if inflation runs at 3%.
yup
buuuuut.. the argument is if we didn't have interest to pay, or actually was paying down the debt OR we didn't have the debt at all, maybe the T would be in a better financial shape.
In short, we're always in a better position with no debt. And with that said, maybe if we didn't have the CA/T mandated project debt the T would be in better shape.
(but yes I get what you are saying.. was more curious to know if you were factoring this into your numbers)
"Born broke"
Here is an internal report from the T in 2009 about the situation with debt load and the errant sales tax projections.
T Debt Service is almost 6x payroll
2014 payroll including benefits was $229 million.
2014 debt service was $1.2 billion
Don't blame it on the employees salaries and benefits.
No
It was not a tit-for-tat.
They used to pay the MBTA's annual costs from a state budget line. If the MBTA made deals with labor that cost a lot, it went on the taxpayers. The Governor (R) didn't like that. He thought the MBTA was out of control. He also didn't like that the Big Dig wasn't "paid for" yet. So, he designed a "punishment" of sorts that would keep the MBTA's budget in check. They would no longer get whatever funds necessary to operate. They would instead be forced to live within a budget of a fifth of the sales tax. Why a fifth of the sales tax? Who knows, it was probably because it was "about the right number" and "projected to grow forever". At the same time, the Big Dig needed to be paid for. The state gave the MBTA its own capital debt from projects unrelated to the Big Dig AND a portion of the Big Dig debt it could attribute to MBTA projects that were purely related to meeting the federal Clean Air Act requirements. Why? Because then the "Big Dig" was no longer a state budget line item, so it was "paid for".
If the MBTA employees were getting too much compensation, instead of tackle that problem along with the MBTA board, the Governor (R) took the easy way out and punted by making the MBTA's budget its own problem instead of keeping it on the state's books.
Not an R only problem
Since this system began in 2001, we've had 5 years of R governors, and 8 years of D governors. We've also had 14 years of D legislatures. Nobody did anything to fix it.
As I've stated elsewhere - the T's debt payments - especially interest payments, have barely budged in 14 years (interest up about $75 million annually). Meanwhile, the T's budget has doubled from $1 billion to $2 billion. Where oh where did the remaining $13 billion go over the past 14 years?
Nonsense
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/13/the-charlie-baker-problem-n...
Dukakis (D) improved the MBTA.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/02/15/baker-helped-pu...
Weld and Celucci (along with Baker) (all R) killed transportation budgets which led to the idea that the MBTA "cost too much each year" and was writing big checks that the state wasn't willing to budget for. They're the ones that threw the critical switch that sent us down this dark path with Forward Funding.
Deval even attempted to undo a lot of the revenue problem with proposals for higher gas taxes and a fund just for transportation expenditures.
You are right, the legislature (all D all the time) has been entirely reticent and even been able to deflect a lot of its blame. Their problem isn't a party problem, it's a leadership problem. They don't tackle the hard problems because they don't have to and everything remains "pretty good" everywhere in the state...so they remain in charge.
This isn't a deep and biting political party issue here. I wasn't saying it was by bringing up party affiliation. However, it is entirely true that Republicans were the ones who caused these problems even if since then Democrats have been irresponsible in not cleaning them up quickly.
Not sure that's true
As to your assertion the R govs killed transit budgets:
Look at the budget - from 1991-2001 -
operating revenues increased at 6.5% annually.
sales tax revenue increased at 3.6% annually
local assessments are the stick - only increased 2.2% annually
This rate has slowed but continued from 2001-2014
operating revenues increased at 5.5% annually.
sales tax revenue increased at 3.7% annually
local assessments are the stick - only increased less than 1% annually
Bottom line - NOBODY has gutted the total revenues at all in the past 24 years. Since 1991 (the earliest date on the spreadsheet from an earlier posting) - the T's budget has increased at a fairly steady 4.2%. You do need to make an adjustment for the forward funding in there - but even after that - you are probably looking at pretty healthy increases - and if you are looking for a fly in the ointment - it's over how those local assessments are set - I don't know - do you? The person/group/formula that determines that is your culprit.
Not true
It was all about shifting operating costs to capital costs, mortgaging the running of the operation to make it look like Weld's lackey, Kerasiotes, was pimping the "small government" line that Weld ran on.
https://archive.org/stream/mortgagingmbtamb00mass/mortgagingmbtamb00mass...
Depends on what the matter of "Was" is.
Kaz - that was 1995. I am quoting actual from 1991 to 2015 (budgeted for this year - not actuals) numbers - the T has had VERY healthy revenue increases since -and what at one time may have been a huge part of the T's operations is down to about 8%. I'm on your side on this one - I live in the city and use the commuter rail and T and buses with some regularity. I want a functioning system -but laying this off on something politicians did 20 years ago is not reasonable. Two things
1) almost all of the T's revenue sources have had very generous increases over the past 20 years plus we've apparently somehow generated hundreds of millions in new streams - and yet the system remains on life support - that sounds like a spending problem - not a revenue problem.
2) If you are looking for a bogeyman - it's that local assessment line item - which hasn't even come close to keeping up with inflation - but probably a moot issue - this comes from cities and towns who themselves are screaming bankruptcy because they've done the same thing as the T and don't have a spare $200 million to throw at the transit system.
T debt was for T projects
.
Overexpansion is the problem
Overexpansion has befallen empires and corporations alike throughout history. Don't need no stinkin commission to determine what history has demonstrated over and over again. The MBTA has grown to an unsustainable size with more expansion still to come. Time to pare back like an overgrown shrub.
*gulp*
I'm about to be your new best friend Mark.
I read many reports a few nights ago from the Pioneer Institute (see below).
And you have been right about this 100%, and now I agree with you. I will say your method of explaining isn't clear enough (but was made very clear after reading reports on what you meant to say)
Seriously folks, read up. Good reading.
http://pioneerinstitute.org/
Its OK
I've agreed and thumbed up a number of your posts.
Good Reading If You Are Herald Reader Perhaps
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pioneer_Institute_for_Public_Policy...
yup
I didn't say I agreed with all of it, I disagreed with many points they make. I just said it was interesting reading. However much of it is just simply true. You just can't deny facts and numbers.
But to their defense, there was very little in there that I didn't already know, it was just explained in better detail. And trust me, I don't read the herald, and I'd be the first one to tell you it's utter bull shit. I say otherwise, because it's mostly not BS.
They just make many many many points that are true and can back them up with figures and numbers. Much more than I can say for many 'reports' or 'news folks' who spend all of 10 minutes doing research.
PS - if this was a 'left wing' group, anyone could easily tie to some group someone else may find offensive regardless. Those "source watch" sites are kinda BS because its all about which slant you want to believe.
And please, read the reports. Just read it. Don't make comments about sources that you have not read yourself!
Yeah, Herald readers!
I mean, dammit, including multiple sources and points of view in your information consumption is so dangerous! We're all in favor of diversity, as long as it's the right kind of diversity, you know?
"Because if I disagree with
"Because if I disagree with their politics it must be false."
Right Wing Think Tank
Cybah invites everyone to read up on the work of the Pioneer Institute.
I, anon, advise you that the Pioneer institute is a well know right wing think tank. The last thing we need is the fantasy right wing nonsense that the solutions to our problems are lower taxes, privatization, trickle down economics, layoffs of workers, no unions, blah, blah, blah.
The Pioneer Institute doesn't want to improve anything except the bank accounts of the rich.
anon invites
readers to read unsubstantiated left wing screed. Do you work for the bus drivers union?
Not really a PI fan, but unlike your post, the stuff Cybah cited had actual, you know, data.
thank you
I'm not a PI fan either.. but it was eye opening and just confirmed what many of us have known for years.
Give me one example Vaughn
of right wing Republican "solutions" as promoted by Pioneer and listed by me that actually work or worked to do anything except improve things for the 1%. By the way I'm not a union member as you suggest, but I am smart enough to realize the value unions have and had in creating and maintaining the middle class in America. I also am smart enough to realize that the Pioneer Institute has an agenda, and it's not good for the 99%.
Accuse me of a "left wing screed", call me a union member, call my post unsubstantiated, it still doesn't change who the Pioneer Institute is and what their agenda is.
Try reading a post
Cybah, as he pointed out repeatedly now, thought their article raised some specific details about the MBTA situation which were interesting. The. End. There was nothing in there that the Pioneer Institute was also right about unions or anything else. Yet your reaction was essentially that there could be nothing of value in that link due to the origin, due to the issues you have (many legitimate) with the cabal of right winger behind it.
Ted Cruz could post an article about the funding problems of the T which could have merit, regardless of the fact that it's Ted Cruz.
The union remark on my part was due to the fact at the time of the last illegal action by the BPS bus drivers, their website was full of truly rambling jargon and it reminded me of your post. Sorry my reference was too obscure for you.
I totally disagree with you VK
So you admit Ted Cruz and the Pioneer Institute are agenda driven and not interested in the truth, yet you still would read what they have to say because they might possibly tell the truth sometimes.
I prefer to seek facts and solutions elsewhere. When looking for real solutions, why listen to or read the works of any person or organization that is a known and repeated liar?
And I remind you of the bus drivers union? OK, whatever. I guess its the tone of the argument, not the accuracy, that matters to you. The Pioneer Institute must have some really nice, pretty, polite sounding reports, maybe with multicolored graphs. I'm still not interested in what they have to say. The bus union has some legitimate issues. Maybe if they speak in the tone that makes you feel good, you will listen to them.
The Pioneer Institute was
The Pioneer Institute was started by a man who made millions in the oil and gas industry, and according to his obituary, the institute "honed the careers of key figures in political circles, including recent Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2010/11/19/lovett_...
If you read their position papers, it is not difficult to see what their goal is and how it structures their "research" - the superiority of the free market and the limitations of government programs. I can't say they "prop up the rich" necessarily, but their research does revolve around taking down government-funded programs specifically public schools, Obamacare, lowering costs for businesses (i.e. taxes), and "job creation" by reducing government regulation. These are all big talking points with the Republican party, and the Pioneer Institute is not vague about where they stand on these issues. So their research specifically goes to supporting those positions, and I'm sure is funded that way as well. Claiming that you are 'independent' and 'bipartisan' is not the same as conducting research in an independent, nonpartisan fashion. They can say whatever they want about themselves, but once you read their white papers, it's pretty easy to see what their goals are. I mean, their name is "Pioneer" - as in, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want in this country without the government or those sensitive liberals getting in your way.
There are no non-partisan think tanks. Funding has to come from somewhere.
facts are facts
Have you read ANY of these reports? I doubt you have. So please don't make ANY comments about something you have not read. Really love all the comments people are making about something they've never read.
Look, I'm VERY liberal leaning, and a registered DEMOCRAT. If I smell a rat, I'm going to call out a rat. I don't smell a rat in these reports AT ALL. If I did, you'd know it.
Like I said above, they contained nothing more than stuff I already know (and many of us know, regardless if you have a D or an R next to your name).
I also stated I didn't agree with everything they stated, but its very hard to ignore a lot of research with real facts and numbers.
Regardless of the PI report(s), most reports about the T have all pretty much the same thing. So the opinions of the PI are not alone here. I'd be skeptical if it was all "new to me" facts, but it's not.
So again, please read the reports before you make ANY comments about them. They aren't filled with ANY of what you state, so its clear you haven't even glazed over them. Please do before you comment again because you're just talking rubbish that you know little about.
Combo of right and wrong
Their facts are right. However their attributions as to how the facts developed are not in many places in the report. They also have horrible ideas for how to solve the problem in their recommendations.
that's right
And this is where "I don't agree with some of what they said".
I'm more interested in their facts, not their solutions. They aren't a transit agency or some look out group (that is transit focused).
This is where people keep thinking I think the PI is 100% correct, and that's just false. I don't believe its 100% true, however their facts are right, but solutions suck.
So you can't smell a rat Cybah, but most of us can
Just because you cant smell a rat in the Pioneer reports, doesn't mean they are not filled with rats. Pioneer is a right wing think tank funded by the Kochs, the Waltons, and others and affiliated with ALEC. If you are a liberal Democrat, or even if you're not, that should tell you all you need to know. And there is no reason to believe that such an organization will ever provide reports with "real numbers and facts" as you say. Look at the list of Pioneer people associated with Mitt Romney, the most prolific pathological liar in American politics.
I invite you to actually read the entire link provided by BlackKat
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pioneer_Institute_for_Public_Policy...
And if you still cant smell a rat, please see a doctor. You apparently have some serious problems with your olfactory system.
again
Have you read the reports? no you havent. So again your making BROAD assumptions about something you have no clue about. Please stop while your ahead.
And yes I have read that link and it's rubbish. They don't even do a good job at linking it to people like the koch brothers and what not. All they say is "linked with" with nothing really to back up their claim. Just because ONE internet page says its true, doesn't mean it's true.
Let me break this to you.. I can take ANY company or any organization and link them to some right wing or left wing org on a whim. The world is far too small, and everything is too connected.
And please if the reports are so wrong, how about you READ them, then come at me with REAL proof and facts and numbers to prove Pioneer 100% wrong. But you won't, no one ever does. God for bid people actual back up their claims they are saying rather than just throw crap on the wall and hope it sticks.
"Crap on the wall"
Irony. I don't read Pioneer Institute articles now -- haven't for years. The reason I don't is the same reason I don't read Global Warming deniers, Creationists, or Holocaust deniers. Their agenda always overwhelms any token reality that my be in their messages, and there are much better places to find facts. If you want reporting that pushes the Corporatist agenda, go for it -- follow the PI. For me, life is too short to bother trying to sort the little bit of truth from their mountain of BS.
Wrong and Right Cybah
You're Wrong
Sourcewatch does a great job linking the Kochs to Pioneer. Read the footnotes, including IRS filings.
You're Right
I did not and will not read what Pioneer has to say about anything. A major element of the conservative/right wing/Republican strategy is to lie about everything. That they way they roll.
Indeed
Irving Kristol, one of the founders of Neoconservatism, is famous for explicitly saying that it's OK to peddle falsehoods in order to achieve an ideological goal.
His son William has continued in this "noble" tradition, and is famous as the guy who's Wrong About Everything.
mark & cybah, slow down, hombres
I just looked through the Pioneer Institute white papers & policy briefs, and cannot find a source (or footnotes) for their report. Can you? If so, would you please post the link? It might be on the site, but I've looked & am not finding them.
Why I'm asking is this: in my last job, my union had to go to bat to save our partial transit reimbursement program. At that time (2009) I knew that Boston had the lowest monthly pass cost of any comparable city. The Pioneer paper makes much of the T fares doubling over the past 12 years, "no other commuter rail system increased their rates as much [besides Dallas, which uses a pass system only]" so I decided to look into how we compare, per single rail ride, cheapest rush hour non-special fare:
San Francisco...........$2.25
Chicago.....................$2.25
Atlanta.......................$2.50
DC............................$2.15 (minimum work commute going 1 stop; longer rides cost more)
Boston.......................$2.10
So our "doubling" brought us up to par with typical single ride costs.
Our monthly pass compares even better-- $75 for us versus the next cheapest equal pass of $95 in Atlanta. (San Francisco does not offer an all-inclusive one, but a limited subway/BART for $80)
The Pioneer reporting reminds me a lot of a Reason Foundation white paper on infrastructure costs I read a few months ago (yes yes,envy my life). While much of their info was pulled from FTA stats, it was so unbelievably cherrypicked that it was useless for my purposes. I would love to get the Pioneer paper, if there is one, and compare it to the Reason one. I think Pioneer culled some from Reason.
Mark, the Census link you provided earlier shows that the majority of commuters using public transit in Boston is actually from outside the city, and that we are in the top 5 cities for having "mega commuters" traveling more than 50 miles, so the idea that expansion is an unnecessary burden is questionable, at best. I think the Pioneer Institute is on shakey ground particularly with that, but I don't want to dismiss it out of hand without looking at their sources.
http://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/transit/fares-passes
http://www.transitchicago.com/fares/
http://www.itsmarta.com/fares-passes.aspx
http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_to_station_fares.cfm?src_station_id=84...
http://www.mbta.com/fares_and_passes/subway/
http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/Daytime%20Pop%20-%20Places_MA...
Expansion of a public transportation system
especially to areas that have historically been underserved is not a bad thing. And it is perfectly reasonable and practical to continue expansion while doing basic maintenance and repair to the core system at the same time.
The problem with expansion is that, for political and other reasons, the T is often forced to commit to things (like the "necessary" community pathway on the GLX) that are not directly related to the service the project is intended to provide and raise the overall cost of the projects.
And we really need to reign in the whole "environmental impact" aspect of expansion projects. That alone will greatly reduce costs and speed up the whole design and construction process - and the earth will not fall off its axis or enter a new ice age because of it.
The expansion dilemna
Expansion in and of itself isn't the issue at all, it's a failure to recognize that there are different types of expansion, for different purposes and requiring different levels of financial backing. An expansion to a low density, low utilization destination, for example, is probably a good idea if there is an underserved population without alternative options. But it's not a cost effective expansion, so we need to recognize that such a choice involves a wealth transfer. It's this latter piece that has been missing from the discussion.
People want the 'T to run a financially efficient operation, but demand from it projects that are incompatible with this idea. And worse, we don't do the projects that are financially efficient, because the up front capital infrastructure costs have too much sticker shock. Look at GLX, for example, which was one of the easiest, and cheapest core expansion options available. We should do a few more, like Dudley light rail, say, or BLX to Lynn, but the sticker shock keeps these things off the table, even though the operational cost would require a much lower subsidy than all these less expensive commuter rail projects.
So we choose the projects with low up front costs, but extremely high operating subsidies over the projects with high up front costs but low to no operating subsidy requirements. Then we wonder why the system fails in core areas.
The T is way too small as it
The T is way too small as it is. It doesn't go enough places, it doesn't run often enough, and it doesn't go far enough. People crying "Overexpansion" would never have wanted the red line out to Davis Square, but look at the wonders that's done for Somerville. The fact that they stopped at Alewife instead of 128 is a damn shame.
They've done audits on this before. There's a certain amount of efficiency to gain here and there, and they should - this crisis may be enough to push that through.
But the biggest problem is simply 40 years of not-quite-good-enough funding. Not enough upkeep. Not enough new rolling stock. Those switches should have been replaced decades ago. The signals should have been replaced decades ago. The DC-powered motors have well-known problems that have well-known solutions.
But the legislature doesn't seem interested in finding the money in the budget for key items like transit. We'll get an organization dedicated to promoting Boston as a film location, we'll get a software procurement scandal, we'll get the Probation department scandal, but we won't get decent transit until the voters demand it.
but but but
Look I agree with you about expansion. But don't lump the alewife extension into this, this was planned and built long before CA/T requirements. When people talk about expansion issues, its not any line built prior to 1996, its everything after.
The T just expanded too quickly in the 1990s. It was the fastest expanding transit system in the country at the time.
The problem is, the system expanded with no real way to maintain it. You can expand all you want but if you don't have the funds to continue to support the new service, you're in trouble. This is the T's biggest woe.
PS - It's not the T's fault that the Red Line doesn't go to 128, it's because of Arlington. Blame the 1970s/1980s residents of Arlington. The T wanted to go to 128, but the residents didn't.
Nonsense
The residents of Quincy didn't want the Red LIne either, because it would make it easier for the dark skinned rif raf from evil Boston to come to Quincy. But the Red expanded anyways.
what is this? Atlanta?
Are we talking about MARTA? You know.. the transit agency that can't expand because the counties don't want 'undesirables' in their communities
*eye roll*
No, this is Boston
And he is 100% correct. It's also part of why the Orange Line doesn't go to Reading and the Red Line doesn't go to Lexington.
okay
now to a Uhub standard question...
Got a citation to back that up?
Here's one (of many)
http://tuftsobserver.org/red-tape-why-the-red-line-stopped-short/
This was an entirely predictable NIMBY response, by the way. The exact same thing happened 100 years earlier, when entrepreneurs wanted to build a streetcar line to what is now Rte 128 in Lexington. The farmers in Lex rose up in opposition, explicitly saying that undesirable elements like Irish and Italians would ride the streetcar to the proposed amusement park, like the town and move there. When the entrepreneurs prevailed and built their streetcar line and amusement park, the farmers' fears proved well-founded. Lexington grew with a wave of transplants from Boston. The descendants of those transplants were a large part of the opposition to the Red line extension, and of the similar opposition to the Minuteman Bike Path, using much the same arguments about undesirables (without the ethnic specifics) that their predecessors had used.
Well, you know it was because
Well, you know it was because of that "urban element." AKA ppl that weren't white.
I would love more expansion. We should have been concentrating on this for the last 40 years but we don't seem to have enough foresight to do that. "World class" cities have world class transit. We are not a world class city when it comes to that. We have to get away from the car mentality. Having a strong transit system is actually a good thing!
I have been taking the T my whole life and I would pay more for it IF the money actually went to maintenance, expansion, etc. I am also for T workers making a good living. But the last 5 T hikes I have seen nothing but the system get worse. It must be Obama's fault.
Arlington opposition
We see in some ways the red line expansion south has been a failure. Its a long distance that snow removal operations failed to clear in a reasonable time frame. In another way, the expansion was appropriate given the number of riders. Other expansions, not so many riders. It takes good planning to predict which expansions will grow enough ridership to become sustainable. The expansion of route 3 north by a lane each way only took 10 years to fill up. I-495 drove lots of economic development over its initial 30 years, and is now congested during commute time. The red line north took many years before it drove up property values and rents in Davis Square. A chief difference is that areas with much open space for population growth present more opportunity than ones built out. Davis Square and Arlington are both largely built out with lower potential for population and ridership growth.
Much of Arlington's opposition to red line stations in the town was increased auto traffic to/from stations and criminals commuting to work in Arlington. Both were valid concerns at the time as traffic congestion in Arlington was worse than now with our shrunken population. Arlington had 25% more residents then and crime rates in the area and the country were much higher than now. The MBTA changed the route of the Orange line in part because it went right through where many criminals lived and people got mugged daily on the orange line. Crime was a real issue.
Radio Shack does serve a large population, but many outlets do not serve enough customers to be sustainable, nor is there any viable plan to grow sufficient customers. Public transit faced the same issue with the decline in passenger rail service in decades past, and here the T is expanding past sustainability. The CLF lawsuit was based on fictitious pollution projections more than financial sustainability of expansions.
Arlington aside, funding to bring the red line to 128 doesn't seem likely. Alewife parking garage was to have two more levels, but ran out of money, so money to reach 128 is unlikely. Besides, if the red line ran through Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford, bicyclists wouldn't have the Minuteman commuter path.
Traffic in Arlington you say?
Well, I think permanently closing Route 2 would do wonders for that.
Crime was also a reason for opposing the Minuteman
because criminals were going to ride their bicycles up to Arlington, steal things, and then ride back to wherever (presumably Cambridge and Somerville), all while decreasing property values in Arlington.
Funny how so many of the houses that go up for sale along the Minuteman now have two signs: one on the street leading to the house, and one in the backyard in view of the Minuteman.
So Mark's right in one regard - things change.
On the issue of Rt. 3, I don't think that we've been adequately thanked for building a better road for people living in NH to get to their more lucrative jobs in MA (and no, the income tax that they pay is not enough, because they don't pay as much in other taxes to MA as MA residents do). We should remember that when we start exploring revenue options for transport.
NH residents commuting to Mass
Not only do they pay MA income tax, but their employment bolsters Mass companies (paying corporate taxes) along 495, 128, on into Boston. They also spend money in Mass, even if just for lunch and meals taxes. Workers come to MA from other states too, NY, CT, VT, ME, and especially RI. NH puts tolls on its roads into MA, so ones on the MA boarder only seems fair to fund bridge repairs!
That part was really funny
Even in 1993, there were plenty of studies that indicated decreases of crime due to bike paths, because they often took over rights of way that could not be patrolled before. Before the path went in, there were bonfires that went out of control, drinking and vandalism sprees, etc. Not after.
We had a neighbor who was paranoid that the bike path was going to bring criminals and ruin his property value, etc. The family moved to Billerica (nearer their jobs, to be honest), and sold out long before the prices went bigtime. Then they came back every halloween because the houses were too far apart where they moved.
They were flummoxed that they had more of a crime problem where they moved to, as well.
Any warm Sunday, you can now ride that stretch of the Minuteman and see "open house" signs all in a row.
ah but you see?
All those open houses are due to people trying to secretly escape the crime riddled horror of Arlington. It's all a facade.
Criminals must have been buying the houses!
Yeah ... that's how we were priced out!
Whoooda thunk? They stole all the money and then ... invested it!
Just wait
soon you'll be awash in the criminal element in Medford, commuting north to pillage from East Cambridge and the Back Bay.
Come from Malden instead!
I think more criminals are coming to Medford from Malden than East Cambridge and perhaps Charlestown these days.
Favorite police log entry in
Favorite police log entry in my hometown of Lexington: "A woman reported a suspicious man on the bike path. It turns out the man was from Waltham."
Expansion
I don't want to talk about this too too much because there's a lot to talk about.
But the way the Pioneer Institute explained it was that the T was required to take on all these expansion projects and fund them. Of course the T didn't have money so it came out of everywhere else like maintenance.
A good example of one of this is the greenbush line. It was a CA/T requirement. But yet has a negative gain on "new to transit" transfers (i.e. from a car). They gained ZERO new riders, and all they did was take riders away from other modes (ferry, bus, etc). Frankly, according to the PI report, it was a waste of money. Same with South Coast rail.
Sure it was nice to some people but the ROI on these extensions is so low its in the negative.
However not all projects were a boondoggle. The Silver Line being one. Regardless of what you may think about the Silver Line, it does meet and way exceed ridership numbers than it ever did when it was proposed.
So it really is hit or miss on what was really needed and warranted vs what was just a boondoggle.
About that debt
When the pro transit folks used the courts to force expansion of the MBTA, Legislators responded with "OK transit, you get to OWN all the debt your CLF friends put upon us using the courts, ha ha!"
I agree completely that the silver line being a worthwhile expansion with many passengers served.
Why do you hate the rule of law so much?
The CLF didn't put any debt on anyone. The courts required that a contract be fulfilled.
What part of IN THE CONTRACT and COST OVERRUNS do you not get?
All of it, apparently. In that case, give me some money to clear the ice dams on your roof. I will take the money, not do the work, and then use MarkkLogic(tm) to pretend that I owe you nothing because the CLF EPA BOOGYMAN is evil or something.
Why do you hate America so much?
okay
I'm sure to get a slap from Swirly but..
No but they did sue the state and said if they didn't get their transit projects they would sue to block the big dig.
So yes in a round about way, they are responsible for the debt (partly). No its not debt from the highway but debt from requiring certain projects to be built in leiu of getting the CA/T.
Friendly torts
are popular now when the EPA, transit, or whatever doesn't have the political will to achieve their progressive visions, they get some friendly private non-profit to use the courts to force them to happen. When a minority group needs its civil rights protected the courts properly intervene. When minority interests want things that don't serve the greater public, I'm less supportive.
The MBTA hurt themselves by using courts for expansion because the Legislature retaliated by giving them the debt for that expansion plus their previous debts. Now, if they try using the courts again, it again costs the MBTA. CLF brought this debt on the MBTA for their tactics.
Let's play what if
Markk, what if the state had budgeted a larger budget that included full payment for all Big Dig-related transit projects and instead of stalling them had made them a top priority, meaning that parts of the Zakim Bridge were completed late while new funding was found to pay for it as the project's budget overran itself?
What if? So, all the MBTA stuff is done up-front. No CLF lawsuit. No whining from you about the Clean Air Act and pollution levels. But the state ended up coming in late on finishing the ROAD portions of the Big Dig and taxpayers had to pay an extra $0.10/gal at the pump in gas tax to cover the funds necessary to finish installing the Zakim at all.
Would you be irate at the extra gas tax? Or the fact that traffic into the city from the north was fubared like in 2001 but all the way until say 2014 instead?
Because your PERPETUAL rant about the CLF is entirely misplaced. The STATE agreed to do these projects to satisfy FEDERAL requirements (neither of which is the MBTA). The state doesn't get to ignore them afterwards just because it's financially inconvenient. Don't like it? Complain to the Feds who made the law that added these MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. Then think about what I proposed in the What If. If those mandatory requirements were fulfilled but the mandatory requirement of building the Zakim were not instead, then whose fault is that? If the North Shore cities sued the state to finish the Zakim, would you be flipping out at them or the state for coming in over budget and underfunded and uncompleted?
Part of the problem was the
Part of the problem was the planning that went into the expansion of the T that was forced under the Conservation Law Foundation mitigation agreement. Instead of prioritizing projects that would have made more sense for expansion of the system (like the green line extension to Somerville) you had grandstanding politicians who supported the expansion of the commuter line (like greenbush). Greenbush cost over 500million to build to service commuters who were in most cases already taking public transit. Then a few years after greenbush is built you have study after study showing ridership declines, to the point where service was cut. On top of that you had the whole snafu over the concrete rail ties that were purchased from ROCLA that went bad 10 years after the line was opened forcing the T to replace 150,000 of them. Granted the T claimed ROCLA said they would last 50 years, ROCLA countered that they only said they would last 3 and they went to court, the two sides reached an agreement after the T couldn't prove that they had the 50 year warranty, and which when all said and done cost another 91.5 mill to replace. It is definitely true that the T HAD to take on all this expansion because it was part of the Big Dig mitigation agreement, and I agrwee with you that it's hard to blame the T when it was the politicians/gov at the time making decisions about what would be done first. I would think if you expanded service to a place like Somerville you would at least have far more potential riders than commuter service to the south shore. In short it's hard to the blame the T for what was being prioritized by our then governor and other politicans.
Green line extension worthwhile?
$2.2 Billion and rising for less than 5 miles of track, now with an added bike/pedestrian path. Perhaps 5,000 new riders, more just switching modes from existing bus lines. I've always complained that the GLX would be more sustainable if it included parking to get even more riders. Like the town of Arlington, Somerville doesn't seem to want out of towners driving to their community to park and take the T from new stations. Parking space has held back the MBTA at many existing commuter rail stations. More riders could be gotten with just parking without extending rail lines and building new stations.
The GLX has done one thing already, its increased property values along its proposed routes in Somerville. Those property owners are getting a huge windfall, so too is the city of Somerville with increased tax assessments. Unfortunately, none of that money gets back to the MBTA which shoulders the debt for their gains. The MBTA needs to tap this money as a new funding source instead of adding more burden to existing ones.
Wrong context for parking
Projected ridership for GLX is 50,000 total rides per day. It helps that in addition to the already-dense communities near the proposed stations, Somerville is engaging on a massive upzoning to embiggen itself by 9,000 new units of housing and 30,000 jobs,primarily around its new T stations. Given their success so far with Assembly Row, Somerville seems capable of meeting this goal.
GLX stations aren't exurban commuter rail stations near highway interchanges; they're serving dense neighborhoods in the urban core, where most streets are no more than one lane in each direction. We shouldn't expect or encourage encourage people to drive this far into the city just to take the T for the last mile of their commute, just like we shouldn't expect or encourage people to drive into Harvard Sq to take the T to Kendall. The one exception is the hypothetical Rt 16 station, where I would have no objection to a park-and-ride.
I do mostly agree with you about value capture.
I been wanting to ask you this
You are strongly against GLX. I'm not going to get into a debate about it because I don't have the time and it's not my goal to bring it up. But do you stand against South Coast Rail? A just as expensive (originally more but GLX costs has ballooned) but projected to capture far less than GLX? And we have the Greenbush line showing more doubt on top? I never hear you say anything bout SCR, but if you view GLX as wasteful, than the metrics stands even worse for SCR.
Not to mention that if you want to argue stuff that win some support here. Arguing how SCR is a waste gets a lot more traction here than GLX.
OK, they are bad too
In another article I replied to you that I had not studied SCR so that's why I didn't make an example of it. GLX is near to me, so I read documents and attended hearings. I did neither for south shore rail lines. I'll take your word for it that they are more politically sustainable than financially sustainable. GLX has even more political support from Somerville residents, the Mayor, and financial beneficiaries like property owners and developers.
Note, all those sound reduction walls in the GLX project are to silence community political opposition more than train noise.
Why do people complain about
Why do people complain about the T expanding but not the highways and roads? 128 is being expanded, as is Rt 2, 93 was recently expanded, there is talk of expanding roads in the Seaport to increase the amount of cars that can drive in, a new vehicular bridge (Moakley) was added to the seaport. There were all done while bridges (along 93, McGrath, etc.) were repaired or totally rebuilt, roads were repaved. Why can drivers get expansion and maintenance, while people constantly whine that the T shouldn't be expanding (when in fact it needs to much more to accommodate increasing demand), and that that is the reason for the poor state of affairs, not things like Baker and Celluci dumping highway debt onto the T or the legislature refusing to fund the T properly.
Commuter rail expanded; subway and bus stagnated
Let's be clear just which parts of the MBTA have been expanding. Over the last 27 years, the subway system has gotten only one new station, Assembly, which was a relatively cheap infill station with a good chunk of the costs paid for by Somerville and by the developer. Other than that, the only expansion actually completed in the inner core was the Silver Line, which achieves the lowest subsidy per ride of any part of the T, despite its many flaws.
Meanwhile, the commuter rail has expanded by dozens of miles and several new lines in search of suburban votes. Each ride on the commuter rail costs the T far more than a subway or bus ride, even though commuter rail riders are much wealthier on average. Then, the T loses even more money by subsidizing parking - they just spent $100 million building parking garages in Salem and Beverly that cost more than $50,000 per parking space.
The commuter rail's problem is overexpansion; the subway and bus system's problem is underinvestment.
ding ding ding WE HAVE A WINNER.
Thank you! I've been trying to say this all day.. you just worded it better.
This is EXACTLY it.
Political strategy over financial one
You have nailed it here. The MBTA has been spending money on winning votes to grow funding support, even if a operationally bad use of funds. We see that in many ways. Its unsustainable service expansion into the suburbs and exurbs for their votes. Its facelifts for stations. Its wifi and cell service. Its train/bus location info and publishing it. Its more customer service workers, tweets and texts. Its a fancy operations center to get media coverage on. Its working to get more riders. Its all the things a voting public will see getting money. Maintenance projects not so much.
Another way to increase T ridership and its political power has been by reducing the quantity of parking in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville etc. and raising the cost of parking. Anti-car, pro-transit, pro-bicycling forces have been hard at work doing that here and in some other metro areas nationally. Often the loss of parking is for a small number of bicyclists.
Federal funding is also structured this way: Money for shiny new things re-electing legislators, not so much for maintenance. Even curb extensions are for show while not actually reducing accidents! Towns get stuck too - All that streetscaping added to roadway projects is on the cities and towns to maintain. Political realities trump financial ones.
yay another report. yay more wasted money
not. seriously. we've had.. how many now? and they've all collected dust and nothing was done.
We know what the issues are with the T, but we want solutions on how to fix it, not another g-d committee to tell me what we already know.
And while I want to believe Baker and his team will attempt to change this after the findings come out, but I've just lived in MA too long to believe much of what these politicians are saying. I just fear that when these findings come out in a few weeks, it'll be quietly brushed under the rug with little or no fan fare and no resolution. Just more hot air as usual.
Talk is cheap folks... very cheap. Actions cost money. We'll see how this plays out in the weeks to come.
PS - I spent a good chunk of an evening Wednesday night reading Pioneer Institute reports about the T. I suggest anyone who is an insomniac or really into transit like I am to read up. Lots of interesting reading.. http://pioneerinstitute.org/
Shirley point # 2
Her piece included the concept that a plan without a time frame is useless - exactly your point pretty much.
You've lived in Mass how long???
These don't sound like the words of someone who has lived here that long.
/s
I'm just quoting what they said in the presser
I'm just quoting what they said in the presser. I don't believe it, but they said 30 days... not me.
30 Day timeframe...
...with a little wiggle room will put us past snow season. Probably hopes everything will magically heal itself by then and we can all go back to ignoring the T.
30 days must be a magic number...
Dr. Scott had original used the same figure.
I worked on a committee for a
I worked on a committee for a similar purpose - advising the legislature on public safety via a panel of experts. These things take way longer than initially anticipated. Schedules have to be coordinated, and these people still have their own jobs to report to. They aren't getting paid to do this, it's all on their own time.The true irony would be if they couldn't meet because snowstorms prevented it. Anyway, I'd give them until the summer at least, especially if there's a professor on it - their class schedule takes priority. There's no way this gets done by March.
well
If they just crib a bit from the scads of existing reports and then just take the Pioneer Institute's recommendations, they'll probably be all set for then getting into gridlock with the Legislature. This should be loads of fun.
Due Deliberation
If those findings do come out in that short a time frame, it indicates to me that the committee may already have their minds made up about what to do at the first meeting.
Yup, recurring problem
1. Form commission of experts to study problem with air of legitimacy and credibility.
2. Insufficient political will to implement the most significant recommendations.
3. Minor ones implemented, politicians pat selves on back, major problems remain to crop up again.
The T board has been part of the problem with years of service expansions instead of shoring up fundamentals. CLF has been a partner in over expansion.
You've lived in Mass how long???
These don't sound like the words of someone who has lived here that long.
/s
Surprise visits
"OK, guys, tuck in your shirts, a fleet of black SUVs will be pulling up in about 15 minutes"
visits
Makes total sense. Those photos of crowds at North and South Stations were clearly doctored and the alerts on mbta.com are clearly false.
When Baker Rides the T...
He'll take it on a sunny weekday afternoon from Arlington to Park St and then compliment the T on how they are doing a good job and complains about the system must be overblown.
Arlington to Park? That's
Arlington to Park? That's asking for trouble. How about Arlington to Boylston?
Better just bypass Boylston altogether.
Can't have the Governor hearing all that screeching going around the tight corner.
Image reconditioning
My understanding is that Baker comes across as a wealthy businessman - and that's unsurprising. I would LOVE to see him promise to take the T EVERY day for say - 6 months - and see what happens. Yes, I remember Mike D. doing just that and I think he still does on occasion - it was unremarkable for him - but for Baker to even attempt to connect with the "everyday" people - I would practically fall over reading a blog that focused on that.
Did you also request Patrick
Did you also request Patrick take the T ever day?
Just curious as it seems people are expecting this of Baker but never expected it of Patrick.
The Reason Why
Patrick was fully in support of the T from the beginning. He and his administration tried very hard to expand the system for better or worst. So that might be why people think of Patrick as being "Pro MBTA" whereas Baker who refused to even call MBTA HQ during the storms and generally has said they need to fix their own problems could be seen as "Anti MBTA"
People change and Baker just took office so perhaps he'll fix the problem. But so far everything he's done points to cutting services perhaps drastically. He sees the T as a liability not an asset.
Visits?
How about trying to get to work or anywhere on time, via the T, like the average rider?
This is the moment to make it happen
The report is going to say a few things, most of which will require spending money. I know this, because there have already been two such commissions, and there reports said the same thing. Baker has an opportunity to push the spending through, because right now it's foremost in everybody's mind that the system is broken. When the former reports came out, nobody was paying attention, and people were mostly accommodating of a limping but mostly functional system. This time needs to be different.
Somewhat ironically, I
Somewhat ironically, I watched this press conference while waiting for a train at north station.
Anyone else note the conspicuous absence of ANYONE from the MBTA at this press conference?
And of course, typical government. More bureaucracy is always the answer!
My favorite part
Commission was asked if they rode the T - Baker turned around and a sad bunch of suits all scrambled. Might should get someone who actually rides the publication transportation to be part of the commission unless they are afraid the T will make them late for all the commission meetings.
I'll give Shirley Leung credit.
She raised the idea that the $1b bond issue planned for the Convention Center should be cancelled and a $1B bond should be issued for the MBTA instead. I can't imagine that $1b spent on the MBTA wouldn't have economic benefits well above $1b on the BCC. However, the BCC folks appear to be political geniuses, unlike the MBTA folks, so I suspect this won't happen.
Disclaimer - I am not a finance person so I may be referring to the mechanics of bonds, the state and these two entities incorrectly. I know it's not the same as simply moving $1b from one budget pool into another. The concept that the state should back further debt to fix this critical piece of the regional infrastructure vs. a local, limited economic sector is the key idea.
Jon 1 should be for the
Jon 1 should be for the commission, Baker and Deleo to read the D'Alessandro report made a few years ago. Then move from there, don't start over.
Charlie is a coward not a leader
"We need to know what the problems are" says Charlie. So we will appoint a commission to study it again for the umpteenth time and he'll be dropping in to see some T stations (but not actually waiting for, and riding the T).
And don't forget. No new taxes. How about new taxes if we need them, none if we don't. What a total fraud.
Chuck you Farlie
He has good reason not to ride the T
They may trap him ... FOREVER ... neath the streets of Boston.
Did Patrick ride the T
From his home in western Mass? Hint: the state is more than metro-Boston.
Deval Patrick lives in Milton
Deval Patrick lives in Milton. Hardly western Mass.
His official residence is in Milton, yes
But he has a house in the Berkshires, too.
Of course it isn't
But it is Metro Boston that's footing much of the bill for the rest of the state. Chapter 90 funds pay to grade or pave and maintain the roads in, say, Charlemont, Hancock and Florida, etc at a cost that's probably far exceeds the amounts residents of those towns contribute. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just how it is.
petition
can we please change the state motto to "Chuck you Farlie"? because I have been lolin for a solid 5 minutes.
I like Bakers response. Why
I like Bakers response. Why is the first knee jerk reaction "more taxes".
In case you haven't noticed, the middle class is really quite strained at this point.
How about some fare hikes? How about some creative thinking? How about a complete audit of the system? How about look at the D'Alessandro report?.
No, lets jump on the middle class first. Considering most people in the state don't take the T, don't even live near the T. Ya, it's going to go over real well.
Considering most people in
Care to back up that second claim with some numbers? What's "near"? How many residents of Massachusetts live within, say, a mile of a T stop or station?
Yeah
... Math is hard, you know...
Population of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts : ~6.75 million, or thereabouts.
Population of the Boston Metro area : ~4.7 million (both stats via wikipedia)
Does not a minority make... But why let facts get in the way of a good argument.
US Census data to the rescue!
Generally the data used to determine what transit modes make up what percentage of transportation is from US Census data, and in particular the travel mode to work survey results:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/
Living near the T would be another data set.
Fare hikes
You don't think fare hikes will impact the middle class? Those rate hikes will hit their wallets pretty hard, and kneecap the working poor who rely on the T to get to and from work.
With all due respect...
I pay close to $200 per month for my T-Pass and I have one of the cheaper monthly passes! There have been steady fare hikes over the years.
I would like to see some other types of creative thinking.
Here is a link to the D'Allesandro Report
This is only 36 pages long and quite thorough. It seems to me that a new report is not necessary at all. I recommend that everyone here, as well as the Governor, read it.
http://www.mbtareview.com/MBTA_Review_2009.pdf
We HAD a group make do a study & make recommendations -- in 2009
I'm glad you posted the link to the MBTA Advisory Board report. It is nonpartisan, clearly written, provides and explains data on finances and makes recommendations. The "deep dig" Baker wants was done six years ago and just a Google search away. Even Jim Stergios of The Pioneer Institute linked to it in the PI blog recommend above.
lots of options
Patricia, we can increase income taxes on the highest, leaving the middle & upper middle class alone. Or we could increase sales tax on alcohol. Or the restaurant tax. Or find any number of ways of increasing revenue without hurting the middle class.
Another Commission - just what we need Charlie...
I do so hope he plans on visiting South and North Stations very soon. I, for one, would love, just love to have a chat with him as I wait and wait for my commuter rail train home. I could tell him right now what the problems are since he appears to need help.
We know about the long term problems regarding the system but Baker and Keolis have to come up with short term solutions to get more commuter rail trains on the tracks. I heard Baker and his team are waiting for Keolis to submit their "recovery plan" before they take action. Can't some of these men and women meet around a table, get a nice lunch, and have a brainstorming session now in regards to getting more trains on the rails?
This would a bad comedy if the situation was not so dire.
Charlie did respond to a debt question about a week ago
He dismissed it by saying that the Big Dig debt that he (and others) dumped on the T represented "only a third" of the T's total debt.
So there. Problem solved.
notable omission?
how much of the current debt is interest on the Big Dig debt?
debt payments
For 2015: $240,945,845 in interest payments and $178,695,803 in principal payments. Don't have a breakdown on how much was Big Dig versus the original debt they were carrying versus any other subsequent debt they've taken on.
As long as we're reading the Pioneer Institute's take on things, here's a brief angle from the other side via Truthout.
Right, the hapless T tried to
Right, the hapless T tried to fund the debt with interest rate swaps (which they did not understand) and lost even more money.
Extrapolated
Baker said about 1/3 - which means $80 million - or 4% of the overall budget. That sounds about right because elsewhere I read the amount was $3.3 Billion - at a bit less than 3% - about the going rate - that's $80 million.
Bottom line - that's clearly not even remotely the reason that the T is broke and broken.
Pages