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.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Olympics
By Criss
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:47pm
.
The Olympics...
By b from Ros
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:05pm
...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
By cybah
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:06pm
I just read that public support is down now for the Olympics because of the T's issues.
This "historic" winter may be
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:12pm
These two statements would only be mutually exclusive if "public support" had anything to do with the Boston 2024 pushers.
as though
By ian
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:30pm
They've ever worried about public support up to this point...
Just wait a few minutes/weeks
By Belmont
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:59pm
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
By AllstonHipster
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:38pm
Why? The Red Line failed on a pretty regular basis in the summer, too.
correction
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 3:06pm
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
By AB
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:34pm
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...
By bibliotequetress
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 9:48am
... 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
By Walt
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:57pm
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:
By Dot net
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 5:19pm
Here:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Smart_Forms/News...
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
By Cutriss
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:51pm
"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.
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:53pm
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
By Michael
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:07pm
That post was so corporate-buzzword-heavy I think it just sent me a LinkedIn invite
should include future expansion and upgrades
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 3:09pm
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
By BostonDog
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:01pm
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
By Lyndsay
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 5:04pm
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
By Lyndsay
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 5:27pm
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.
By Tom E
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 12:34am
Governor, not mayor.
Why are you guys talking about the Mayor?
By perruptor
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 7:16am
It's the Governor's diversion, not the Mayor's.
MBTA will look closely on how
By WS
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:17pm
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.
By roadman
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:36pm
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
By WS
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:06pm
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
By WS
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:15pm
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
By Lyndsay
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 5:46pm
"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
By Matthew
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:47pm
Buy a ticket: if you are lucky, you get a ride to your destination.
Here is a solution create an
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:14pm
We already have these; they're called commuter rail passes.
Long ago I proposed slot machines
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 3:30pm
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
By ZachAndTired
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:52pm
Step 1.) Don't saddle the MBTA with a bunch of Big Dig debt. WHOOPS, TOO LATE!
Strawman?
By Stevil
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:05pm
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
By John-W
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:25pm
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
By Stevil
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:44pm
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
By cybah
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:46pm
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
By Stevil
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:51pm
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
By cybah
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:02pm
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"
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 2:19pm
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
By anon
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 3:21pm
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
By Kaz
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:04pm
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
By Stevil
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:27pm
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
By Kaz
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 4:42pm
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/13/the-c...
Dukakis (D) improved the MBTA.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015...
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
By Stevil
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 10:07am
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
By Kaz
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 12:45pm
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/...
Depends on what the matter of "Was" is.
By Stevil
Sat, 02/21/2015 - 2:58pm
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
By EM Painter
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 8:48pm
.
Overexpansion is the problem
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:54pm
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*
By cybah
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 12:55pm
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
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:52pm
I've agreed and thumbed up a number of your posts.
Good Reading If You Are Herald Reader Perhaps
By BlackKat
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:24pm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pioneer_Insti...
yup
By cybah
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 1:38pm
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!
Pages
Add comment