Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
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.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.
Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy
Comments
He is not zero percent
By Kinopio
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:57am
He is not zero percent responsible. He was responsible for putting tons of debt on the T back in the Big Dig days. Debt they are still paying off. And didn't he come out against raising T fares? That didn't last long...
Deval got late night T going and tried to better fund the T before he left office but the state legislature nixed it.
And the T's previous
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:24am
And the T's previous experiment with late-night service started in 2001, when a Republican was governor. What's your point, other than to distract people with partisan bickering?
that's 3 in a row
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:36am
Accusing Charlie of sticking the T with debt. Which may be true. But the state gave them plenty of revenue to pay for it. Then some fare hikes. Then more money. Then more money. And it's still not enough. Why? The T spent almost every last dime on wages and bennies and deferred pretty much everything else. Unless Charlie's real name is Carmen that's not remotely his fault. If anyone wants to make that ridiculous comment for the 1001st time go read the T's income statement and check back in. My guess is you'll go on radio silent mode.
The state did NOT give the T
By DTP
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:40am
The state did NOT give the T "plenty of revenue" to pay for it. They gave the T sales tax revenue which came in WAY under the forecast amounts, leaving the T with a funding shortfall that they then declined to fix.
Really?
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:06pm
Where do you see this on their income statement?
What I see is a capital intensive agency that doubled revenue over the past 15 years. That's almost 5% increase in income every year for a decade and a half. If they didn't meet revenue goals, those goals must have been pie in the sky with Lucy's diamonds - literally.
Payments for interest and principal barely budged until about 3 years ago meaning there has been almost no incremental investment in capital projects. Almost 100% of the incremental revenue went to wages and bennies (and the commuter rail contract - which is also mostly wages and bennies).
After having looked at this in some detail over the last 8 months or so, I was probably the least surprised person in the state to hear that our transit system's wages FAR outpace those of other large transit systems in the country.
If you still believe what you wrote - you must be thinking a guy in a soot-stained red suit is coming down your chimney on Thursday night.
The MBTA went along with the
By DTP
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:38pm
The MBTA went along with the Forward Funding scheme under the assurance that sales tax revenue would grow 3% annually. In fact, from FY01 to FY09 it grew only 1% on average, decreasing at first, then bottoming out, briefly increasing at around 3%, then plateauing in FY07, and falling again after that.
Costs have increased at a rate faster than revenue, but wouldn't have if the sales tax revenue the state allocated the MBTA had actually lived up to the forecasts. Instead the T has had to increase debt and use capital and operating funds to pay wages and pensions, letting maintenance fall by the wayside and relying on outside funding for any capital projects. As you yourself say, 100% of incremental revenue went to wages and benefits, leaving the T with no increase in revenue to offset the increases in costs.
And honestly, the T doesn't really even have control over these wages. For example, wages increased 3% a year from FY07 to FY09, and then 4% in FY10 as a result of legally binding arbitration. People need to be blaming the unions and the arbitration process for these, not the MBTA, although honestly those percentages don't sound too bad for cost-of-living allowances.
Despite the debt load remaining fairly constant, as you note, it's still possibly the most burdensome part of the T's budget. As of FY10, 27% of the T's budget went toward debt service. This is also the easiest chunk of the budget to do away with, and should be where we're looking, rather than at wages (26%) and benefits (11%), which are much harder to reduce since people need to be paid a decent wage.
[most of my numbers come from this very interesting (but slightly outdated) report from the MBTA Advisory Board: https://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Documents/Finan... ]
This comment is getting kinda long, but lastly I just wanted to address your statement that they doubled revenue over the past 15 years. This may be true, but you also need to consider how much costs have risen. Inflation and the Consumer Price Index rose around 38% over the past 15 years. The cost of a gallon of diesel rose from a national average of $1.49 in 2000 to $3.83 in 2014. I assure you, costs have kept pace with revenue. And looking at the MBTA's FY16 budget, expenses rose 6.5% above last year, while revenues only rose 1.4%. The sales tax revenue has seen a significant jump in the past 2 years, growing at around 6%, but this is not enough to offset the years of underperforming growth.
Several things
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 3:50pm
1) You note the time frame of 2001-2009 - just about the worst possible because of the recession (the analyst you quote ignores that this was due to a brief dip in sales tax revenue - today that revenue is up to over $800 million - 20% on $4 billion in sales tax and I'm assuming the T doesn't get any of the sales tax on cars or meals - not sure if that's the case - but it would add about another $200 million).
2) You completely ignore other revenue sources - if your base salary goes from $100k to $80k but your bonus goes to from $20k to $50k - your income goes up. Likewise, when the sales revenue didn't meet expectations the T got extra fare increases and when that wasn't enough the state threw two additional large supplementary funding sources at them, far more than making up for the loss of the sales tax revenue (you have to review income statements from 2012 and later to find this).
3) Are you serious? "100% of incremental revenue went to wages and benefits, leaving the T with no increase in revenue to offset the increases in costs" - that's exactly the problem. When you are increasing wages faster than revenue - you are in trouble - especially as your system is literally falling apart. At some point you have to tell people - sorry - there's no water in the well - and we have to fix the bucket.
4) No control? Perhaps but the union makes these demands and pushes it to arbitration (hell why not if arbitrators give it to them). But at some point people have to say this isn't a bottomless money pit. Not bad? Are you kidding? The rest of the world gets 0-2% and these guys are getting 3-4%? NOBODY gets 3-4% these days - especially with inflation at 2% or less.
5) This is a capital intensive business. You don't pay for stuff with cash laying around. You borrow and pay it off over time (and you borrow more now that money is cheap - another factor you didn't account for in your claim that we laid all this debt on the T - the principal is the same and the cost of borrowing is half - and inflation has taken another 30% bite - yet they still don't have enough.
6) If wages went up by 38% - at best I would have a weak argument - but they are up over 100%. Costs have kept pace with revenue because nobody's paying attention - until now.
Bottom line - wages should go up at about the rate of inflation - every other dime of extra revenue should be going to servicing debt that is used to whittle away at the maintenance and capital backlog.
Sorry double post
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:00pm
.
Democratics are in control in DC
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:05am
and on Beacon Hill (the general court is controlled by Democrats and has been for what, 50 years?), and we have a left of center Democrstic president, AND had until very recently a two term Democratic governor.
1) Our Democratic US congress people and two Democratic US senators (both so called progressive) don't have enough pull in DC, with their own party controlled house and president, to secure funding for the MBTA extensions, etc.? The state general court, controlled by Democrats who're de facto 'progressive' because there are really no more moderate, centralist Democrats (just as a small hard right faction has held dominate sway among the officially approved opposition party, the Republicans for several generations), are powerless to get these 'progressive' issues up and running with secure funding? It's all the fault of a first term governor and mayor?
I think it would be great if the MBTA was able to function normally, and be able to secure funding for needed improvements, etc., but realize it's a very effed up organization, and has been going back a half century when it was created as a quaai-governmental agency. The MBTA's main $ issues relate to labor costs, especially extravagant pensions, healthcare, benefits, people retiring in their 50s, etc. (BTW: I'm not at all knee jerk anti-union), political issues such as people being appointed jobs because they know a politician, through quotas (benchmarks), etc., and other obvious forms of corruption, not to mention an asinine management (again, like lower level staffing, full of questionable hiring practices, not to mention questionable outsourcing and privatization).
We have today a too intransigent and pernicious public sector union problem at the local, state and federal levels, that resembles the pigs lording it over the other beasts in Animal Farm, corrupt politics and a corrupt, across the board, political system, privatization that in many cases has not delivered except for a handful of executives and insiders. It's a tall order to fix The System because both our main, officially approved left of center and right of center political parties are mostly in it for personal gain, their corrupt friends and associates, and there's a very disturbing merging of business, especially big business and institutional interests with governments, at all levels. I call it fascism, but if that's too disturbing a word, you can substitute a less mean spirited, more PC and Orwellian term.
Democratics?
By adamg
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 11:22am
And they're in control in Washington? Alert Paul Ryan!
no time to respond until now
By anon
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 6:54pm
I meant to say Democrats control the senate, the upper house or chamber. But President Obama's administration coincided for years with Democratic control of the house of representatives.
Also, house Republican leadership are almost as 'progressive' as their Democratic leadership opposites.
Sorry, they don't
By adamg
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 6:56pm
Harry Reid isn't majority leader anymore, and even when he was, the supermajority rule meant Republicans effectively controlled that branch.
And if you really think Republican leaders are as liberal as Democrats, you're not really paying attention.
"Our Democratic US congress
By avjudge
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:02pm
"Our Democratic US congress people . . .don't have enough pull in DC, . . . with their own party controlled house . . ."
Wow, what universe do you live in, where Democrats currently have a majority in the US house? I want to move there.
the President
By tape
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:23pm
...is LEFT of center? aaaahahahahhahahhahaha ok sure.
Then again, in your last paragraph you refered to our "officially approved left of center and right of center political parties," when what we actually have is a right-wing party and a center-right party.
Anon, you warm my heart.
By erik g
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:59pm
☑ Gratuitous German Capitalization Of Unlikely Words
☑ Ham-handed attempt to blame DC Democrats for everything
☑ Enough self-awareness to realize that you sound like a tinfoil-hatter, but not enough to realize what saying "I'm not x, but..." actually confers
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of public versus private sector
☑ Orwell reference
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of Orwell work cited
☑ "Fascism"
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of underlying tenets of fascism
☑ "PC"
☐ Godwin!
C'mon, dude, you were SO close.
I wonder
By ChrisInEastie
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:10am
What kind of service cuts would ultimately be coupled with this if it happens?
Spoiler alert: Probably won't be good.
The service is terrible. Most
By Ms. X
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:15am
The service is terrible. Most of the employees are rude to the general public. Overwhelming delays, trains are not cleaned. I am glad I decided to walk to work rather than deal with the T.
rude?
By bibliotequetress
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 1:50pm
My most memorable experiences with T employees have been the times when they were extraordinarily helpful, like returning a purse to me I left on the Orange Line that had photos of my late mom in it. And to be honest, I've seen T workers be brusque, but not rude...
with the exception of the crazed woman who used to make profane announcements on the Orange Line. Haven't heard her in a while, though.
I can agree with that
By Stevil
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 2:07pm
While all can see my strong opinions on T funding elsewhere - I've had very pleasant interactions with T employees including one this morning who went out of his way to correct himself and advise me to get off one stop further than he initially had told me to arrive closest to my destination.
The state has millions to
By Baker-Christie 2016
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 10:28am
The state has millions to subsidize Mark Walhberg and other hollywood people, and Baker is offering tens of millions in subsidies to convince GE to what we are told is one of the hottest real estate area in the country, but Baker wants to cut service, cancel promised expansion to Somerville (promised decades ago) and wants us to pay more? But he is against raising driver fees like the gas tax?
you
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/22/2015 - 12:41pm
seem to have a firm grasp on the situation, yes
Do you want gas taxes indexed to inflation?
By Markk02474
Wed, 12/23/2015 - 7:13pm
so they go up as gas prices go up and down as gas prices go down,
or negatively indexed to inflation so gas taxes go up as the price of gas goes down?
I'm guessing you want it both ways.
A realistic look at the numbers
By Kaz
Wed, 12/23/2015 - 9:52am
The MBTA is budgeting next year for $620M from fare revenue ( http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Fina... ).
A 10% increase (assuming no ill effects on ridership, etc.) would gain $62M more.
The state is expected to pay $985M next year in sales tax revenue to the MBTA. It would be a 6.3% increase in the amount the state sent to the MBTA to just get that money from the state instead.
Another way to put it: the state is going to pay 1.6 BILLION dollars in Group Insurance for all employees of the commonwealth in 2016. How about we start with the legislature and governor's offices and start making *them* have a co-pay. There's over 10,000 employees of the state making $100,000/yr or more. If they each had a copay of a few hundred a month like the rest of us slobs, there'd suddenly be an extra $62M to give the MBTA in the state budget.
Pages
Add comment