Report: MBTA not even spending the capital funds it has

But what would be really nice (not to mention actual journalism) would be for the Herald to point out what funded mandates were not allocated or spent. The way transportation funding works is that mandates are funded and the funds for them are locked into that project. Much of the capital improvements require Federal assistance which cannot be spread through out the system and those Federal dollars are only active once MassDOT funds their potion of the project - if MassDOT doesn't, then Feds take their money back. That means lots of capital money is tied up in projects which are delayed all sorts of reason. For example the South Station expansion money can't be spent until the USPS decides to sell the mail sorting facility and decamp to the Seaport. Even if MassDOT wanted to reallocate that money - they can't. Without referencing which monies sit dormant, and for what projects those monies are destined, there's nothing of value in this report. But maybe I'm expecting too much for the Herald.

The exact amount of money at the T’s disposal “still needs to be defined,” Sullivan said. But last fiscal year alone, the T spent just $631 million, or less than half of the $1.3 billion it set aside to upgrade and modernize the system — a fact that even “surprised us,” he said.

So, you don't know how much money of the "unspent" amounts actually exists. It could have all been spent, in some cases used for a different purpose when available or necessary, but you don't know that so you're just going to claim that it "wasn't used" and that's on them not you?

In other words, let's say I put aside $130 for fixing the drain in my bathroom's sink. I spend $63 of it for some parts, but my car breaks. I can't get more parts for the sink until I fix my car, so I spend the remaining $67 on my car and am out of money for the sink. Then some panel comes along and says "you only spent $63 of the $130 you put aside for sink repairs! You could have fixed the sink with the other $67 you set aside for it, so clearly you're wasting money!!".

Is that what happened here? We don't know! Because they only analyzed half the problem and then started shooting their mouth off to the press.

“It’s no way to run a railroad,” Sullivan said. “There’s just been an inability to get the work out the door. Some of that has been due to (job) vacancies and absenteeism. ... But it begins by making it a priority.”

Vacancies can be solved by hiring...but that has the possibility of increasing operational costs (unless it's reducing overtime usage which I pointed out in yesterday's comments). Also, if you kept whipping me to do 2x the work I should be doing because you won't hire a second engineer with me, then it's going to lead to shitty morale and my desire to use any excuse possible to skip work to avoid the beatings. But they have to SLIM DOWN and be MORE RESPONSIBLE. If they went on a hiring binge, guess who would be chomping at the bit to yell at them for wasting money on new employees when the old employees aren't "doing enough"??

A Herald analysis of new data provided by the T yesterday also found FMLA absences drained more than $3.7 million from the T’s overtime budget last fiscal year — the largest overtime expense outside of police details, which are mainly paid through construction contracts and not the MBTA’s budget. FMLA absences already account for nearly $2.9 million in overtime expenses for the first nine months of the current fiscal year.

None of which is determined to be justified or unjustified use of the FMLA time off. How about you figure that out first. Otherwise, if they're paying overtime to cover for FMLA absences, then we're back to the same problem as before. HIRE MORE PEOPLE to account for whatever your given percentage of FMLA absences are.

Management issues at the MBTA play directly into Baker and Deleo's narrative about the MBTA. "if we give the T additional money they would squander it" Left unsaid is the complicity of Beacon Hill in the creation of the management morass at the T in the first place. Critically neither the Governor or Beacon Hill, want to own this, as if the T was monster not of their own making.

The governor and his allies use strategically leaked portions of a report created by a committee he appointed to further their agenda, provide cover for Deleo and the legislature to kick the can down the road thus avoiding the need to confront the MBTA's many problems some of which "might" require additional funding.

The governor and the speaker don't want to own the T problem blaming the MBTA is good politics, providing a handy rationale to slow roll things in the hopes they go away.

In the heat of the crisis Baker tried to disassociate himself from the MBTA only to be foiled by the timely resignation of Beverly Scott, pressure from the business community and rider outrage. He's running the same play again with a bit of misdirection, very slick indeed, It would be beautiful in another context.

...covers time taken for maternity leave. Unpaid, of course-- the MBTA does not have specific paid maternity leave, but an employee can use up her/his vacation, personal, and sick days

As soon as I saw the FMLA/MMLA conflation in the herald story, the bullshit sirens went off. My current workplace does not have paid maternity/parenthood leave for most employees (maybe all, I don't know), so people take unpaid absences interspersed with maybe a few sick or vacation days a week, so the health insurance is covered and some small check is coming in.

And this was the case at my former job as well, and the one before that.

I mention that because I'm not clear on what exactly they're insinuating-- is it that FMLA absenteeism is somehow worse? Or different? To the extent that it is different, it would only be that it is mostly unpaid.

This article, at least as reported by the herald, raises more questions than it answers for me.

When I helped take care of my mom in the last years of her life, I used the FMLA maximum two years running-- mostly unpaid. Is the considered absenteeism? I was often told to -- wink, nudge-- call in if I didn't have enough time to get approved in advance for that pay period. I had the type of job that didn't require that anyone cover my shift, so long as I met my deadlines. So, were those missed days considered FMLA absenteeism?

I wonder-- what do they mean by blaming FMLA for excess costs? Are T workers not supposed to use FMLA? What exactly does this panel consider a day of ? Maybe it's a problem, maybe not. Many people look for jobs with public agencies or in civil service because they expect it to be more family friendly then private industry. Actually, let me rephrase that-- many women take jobs in public agencies or civil service because they expect it to be more family friendly than private industry, that they are less likely to be fired for being pregnant or taking a day off to be with a sick family member.

When I think of absenteeism as a problem, I think of people calling in at the last minute so that a shift can't be covered. But, then again, if someone plans in advance to be out for four months and her supervisor is not able to cover every on of her shifts during that time, is that absenteeism?
And, why are they complaining that

...the Herald reported absences were to blame for most of the 39,937 missed bus trips in 2014.

then whinging about the overtime to cover this?

As someone in the industry, it bothers me that no one has pointed out to the media how earmarked funding works.

The state (be it T or DOT or whoever) wants to build a project, and convinces legislators to appropriate funding that is earmarked specifically for this project.

However, that money is usually earmarked in one huge chunk for the entire project, even if it's a multi-year project, so obviously money is sitting unspent for a few years. Then throw in some delays and litigation, and that money could be tied up for years. It's not like the T is choosing not to spend this money, but it physically can't. Unless you want to start paying contractors in advance, rather than as the work gets done, that is.

Take for example the Green Line Extension, which has (correct me if I'm wrong) over $900 million in earmarked federal funding, which will be spent over the next few years as construction kicks into higher gear.

Add to that the smaller amounts of earmarked funding for other capital projects (new rolling stock, South Station expansion, Silver Line Gateway, etc.).

And we're not even sure where these numbers are coming from, since if it includes state earmarks as well as federal, the number should be bigger, to include $2.2 billion earmarked for South Coast Rail, $1.3 billion for the GLX, and $300 million for South Station expansion.

So I'm very skeptical of these numbers and am thoroughly convinced that no one in the media understands how capital funding works.