I happened to be on Twitter three hours ago when Governor Baker’s team let loose with a number of tweets about his blue-ribbon committee to study the MBTA. I’m not a frequent tweeter, but 5 overlapping tweets in minutes seemed like overkill to me (See below). Is that normal?
It makes sense for Baker to appoint a committee. Politically, it shows him doing something, and it buys him time. It could also put off the elephant in the room: taxes. From the wealth of existing information about the MBTA, we already know the basic problem: underinvestment aka not paying for stuff we need. Baker can cross the revenue bridge when he comes to it and stop those irritating questions by refusing to comment until his committee completes its work.
Baker, as our Charley has suggested, may not know what much about the MBTA, but his committee seems to have some serious credibility. It’s is loaded with experience and (probably) expertise in transportation. His experts, who are actually experts, include Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, a Harvard professor who specializes in infrastructure, and Jane Garvey, who in addition to many things transportational in Massachusetts, ran the Federal Aviation Administration. (She’s also from Hampshire County, where her husband is sheriff and I live). If there’s a partisan hack on this committee, I don’t see him.
The charge of the committee appears sensible:
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.
2. Undertake a rapid diagnostic on the state of MBTA asset management and maintenance.
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.
I started this diary trying to find fault with the Governor. After writing about it, I will have to postpone my criticism indefinitely. I’d like to find fault with the political effects of the committee, but there are legitimate reasons for its creation. The members have the experience necessary to provide authority their eventual results will need.
We know the eventual fix will cost money. And regardless of the report results, we don’t know where that’s going to come from. Baker has given every indication that he’s as allergic to new revenue as the rest of his party. Even if he knows how to appoint a committee.
Patrick says
I voted for Martha, but I’m willing to give Charlie a shot on this (it would have been Martha’s problem if she’d won). I want to see the T be a successful regional service – if Baker can do it, maybe someday I’ll feel comfortable living more than 1.000 feet from and Orange Line stop.
Peter Porcupine says
….to IDENTIFYING a problem before ‘solving’ it.
And – it will underscore the reality of the 2009 ‘reform’ that effectively removed thr gov. and legislature from oversight. To me, that is what needs to be changed.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t offer resistance to identifying a problem before solving it.
I argue that the problem has already been identified and documented many times over — In particular, by the 2009 D’Alessandro report.
In my view, this latest claim that “the problem needs to identified” is just another misdirection aimed at avoiding the reality.
Trickle up says
You know, if this is what Baker needs to do to get in gear about this issue, it will be worth it.
it certainly increases his ownership of the problem. I am all for that.
Peter Porcupine says
Since that very good report was written we have 5 years of the new org structure that allegedly addressed the problems. So why not detail how that (didn’t) worked out?
goldsteingonewild says
1. PP, what was the new org structure?
I do remember a nothing-burger plan in 2010. For posterity…
And as you know, the “proactive steps” were
-Review
-Hire a GM (interim guy at time)
-Review
-Seal some leaks b/w Harvard and Alewife
-Hire a consulting firm
I.e., kick can.
2. Anyway, whatever the org change, it obviously didn’t work.
My question: what would you do if you were Baker? And by that I mean both:
– what would your governing choice be? own this as your key priority (which is not what you ran on)? or make a judgment that it’s un-winnable, put a bandaid on like in 2010, and focus on the rest of your agenda?
– if you did try to “own it,” what would your plan be? some sort of shared pain thing: fares up, state kicks in more $, and employees take a giant pension haircut, and hire StomV to run it?
Peter Porcupine says
Which moved the MBTA, RMV, MAC, MHD, and MaPike into a single entity called MassDOT free of gubernatiorial and legislative supervision under an appointed board which funds the DOT by issuing its own bonds (not subject to the state bond cap) paid for with the income streams of the Pike, RMV, MBTA and MAC, gas tax revenues, and a dedicated 3.95% of the state sales tax.
It was in the papers at the time…
progressivemax says
Consolidating all the agencies isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can make things more efficient. The question over how independent the MassDOT is a separate issue that is up for debate. Usually having a board is used to isolate an agency from being used as a political football or preventing partisan interference. If the MassDOT was under the governor would that be a risk? I don’t know the answer, but you have to weigh the risks of political interference with the need for efficiency and direct accountability.
Christopher says
…if independent agencies is how we make up for having advice and consent on gubernatorial appointments. There should be civil service protections for careerists below the political appointment level, but there is also something to be said for the buck stopping with the Governor.
petr says
…Why you think the D’allesandro review, which was strictly limited to the MBTA problems with operational deficiencies deriving from funding shortfalls, would have precipitated (or indeed impinged upon in any way) the separate administrative catastrophes leading to the agglomeration of transportation fiefdoms as wide ranging as the Pike and the Aviation Commission under one umbrella, as happened in 2009.
I do not think, by way of example, that if Burger King and McDonalds were to be joined under the umbrella of a single company, that would, automagically, make their respective burgers taste any better or be suddenly full of nutrition as a response. So why do you think an administrative decision should make operational efficiencies appear?
The 2009 reform that created MassDOT was largely administrative in nature and did not specify, except hopefully, that funding would automagically materialize to solve the MBTA woes and that as only a small subset of MassDOT worries.
I guess, to be fair, you may not be the only one who thought that the 2009 administrative reforms were more than sweeping the same problems under a different rug. But, alas, they were not, it appears.
progressivemax says
While government is different than business I’d like to further your analogy. Unlike Government, companies objective is to increase profits for their share holders, not better serve the consumer. So A Burger merger wouldn’t result in a better burger, but it will cut costs for the new company by needing less employees and resources to support operations in the company. The IT staff will shrink because you will have only 1 email system instead of 2, or 1 financial department instead of 2, basically reducing redundancy while increasing the consumer base. I don’t support these mergers though, because they harm consumer choice.
So it does make things more efficient, just not for consumers.
Government is different though, because the resources saved can be reinvested in the program instead of given to shareholder, and communication between various departments can be enhanced.
Mark L. Bail says
agencies is always presented as a money saver until people start to complain of the unwieldiness of the big agency.
I was on my town’s housing authority when Patrick proposed combining them. There was a distinct lack of interest on our part due to the fear of a lack of responsiveness.
Not a criticism of the MassDOT, just a hypothetical consideration.
SomervilleTom says
Why do you this? Do you really believe that “reform” is going to solve the massive debt service problem that was the centerpiece of the D’Alessandro report? Will getting the same information from Governor Baker’s appointees make it more understandable to you?
It is comments like these that give me that impression that you, like Charlie Baker and Bob Deleo, strive to avoid facing the funding problem for as long as possible (actually, longer — we’re seeing the result of the denial that’s already occurred).
You are demanding that we argue about how shiny the silverware is in the Titanic dining room while the ship lists further and further to starboard.
ryepower12 says
I like the 30 days.
Now Governor Baker gets all the accountability (ie “ownership”) on the issue now that he’s put together a full-fledged commission of experts and transportation big whigs. Meanwhile, it’s not slowing down action at all because Beacon Hill would never have done anything substantive in 30 days anyway. It moves way too slowly for that. Activists can still keep activating throughout those 30 days — but now have an additional target, not just the legislature, but the commission. (One would think there would at least be a hearing with public comment — and we should be on the phones with Governor Baker’s office to demand that there is.)
So, we can a) keep pushing the legislature and organize around the MBTA for all 30 of these days, and b) demand even that much more accountability from the Governor now that he’s had a commission to look at the issue of his own choosing, and c) be glad it’s just 30 days, because that’s probably not quite long enough for the public to completely forget about things or deflect attention on Baker’s part.
Meanwhile, when the 30 days are up, the commission’s report will likely be considered important enough that the press will have to give it considerably coverage for at least a day – with every possibility that we can get a full news cycle out of it, so long as Britney Spears doesn’t go into rehab or something.
progressivemax says
Is 30 days enough? That’s like the amount of time to complete a college paper, not a full review of the MBTA. If they work on it 9-5 every work day they should have it done, but…are they meeting that often?
scott12mass says
This will be a quick evaluation of Baker’s management style. If HIS panel comes up with an insightful and thorough evaluation of the situation and more importantly comes up with some practical solutions I hope everyone here gives him his props. I think he’s sticking his neck out and give him credit for taking on the problem in the first place, not hiding behind blaming it on the previous administration. If pension reform along with higher fares is paired with a small tax hike maybe you can all see a light at the end of the subway tunnel.
progressivemax says
While the structure of a board is an interesting philosophical question, it is mostly irrelevant to the problems at hand and a diversion.
I was disheartened that on WBZ DeLeo didn’t even seem to acknowledge the T had been in a deteriorated state before the storm. He said the legislature was not responsible for the mess because they passed two tiny little bond bills that barely put a dent in things. He said he didn’t even know what the problems were, and that we need to “investigate” again.
stomv says
Improve governance, structure, financials, and operations. By all means. We’ll all be better for that.
But don’t hide behind the reality that the MBTA needs more money, and importantly, that any improvements to g, s, f, and o will not be enough money, soon enough, to bring the MBTA to an acceptable level of service.
So during that 30 days when this blue ribbon committee is doing excellent work, go find some one-time money to be used toward the capital backlog. Even if you don’t know if it will be used for AC motors to replace the old and easily breakable DC motors or if it’s used for switch upgrades or if it’s used for phasing out the oldest buses or subway cars.
Governor Baker, there are not enough paper inefficiencies to fix the entirety of the MBTA’s problems, not by a long shot. So fix ’em, but over the next 30 days also find some money to spend on the backlog of capital projects that improve reliability, safety, and cost effectiveness. Reform and revenue, not reform before revenue.
Mark L. Bail says
meet the road in 30 days. And as Ryan points out, the 30 days is a real time limit. The creation of the commission is not a burial service of the issue.
But everyone knows it will take more money to make the MBTA work. Baker will propose dinking around with employees salaries, benefits, and retirements. Maybe he’ll get some concessions, but if he’s going to face the truth, he’s going to have to accept new revenue.
merrimackguy says
1. Reverse a major campaign position (hold the line on taxes) six weeks into office.
2. Charge forward and try to fix a problem decades in the making without any political support/cover.
3. Propose taxing everyone in the state to fix what is a Metro Boston problem, potentially alienating the areas where he has the greatest political support.
4. “FIx the problem” without any new assessment of what the problem is. If you have to know, look back to a five year old report that was totally ignored when it came out.
5. Take advice from people who are never ever going to vote for you.
As Jon Lovitz used to say,”Yeah that’s the ticket.”
Peter Porcupine says
.
Mark L. Bail says
Merrimack for you.
SomervilleTom says
Take it to RMG.
I imagine (I’ve never been there, so I don’t actually know) that you’ll find lots of folks who agree that the right answer is to:
– Cut taxes
– Destroy unions
– Deny plainly visible facts
– Lie about the impact of past, present, and future party policy and dogma
These must be the right answer, so thoroughly and universally right that they are the answer to EVERY problem that faces us at a state or national level.
In this issue, the approach being advocated by the MA GOP, Charlie Baker, and Bob Deleo for that matter will kill public transportation in MA and the MBTA. I guess we have to burn the village in order to save it.
BTW, if somebody — anybody — steps forward and solves the funding problem for the MBTA, they’re much more likely to get my vote than any of the bozos from either party who have so thoroughly f**ked it up.
merrimackguy says
and you don’t like the Republicans. You actually think their goal is to “kill public transportation.” You are not interested in how things need to work politically. So you’re basically ranting because the vast majority (and most people here on BMG) don’t actually believe that, and they know that many moving parts will have to work together (see:discussion on funding).
Are you a fan of superhero comics? Is that who you are looking for with this statement?
PS I get where you’re coming from because you are the inverse of many people that I know…”Obama wants to turn the US socialist, etc”. These are the people that others here refer to as wingnuts.
Charley on the MTA says
So, what’s *your* solution? Greater Boston, the economic powerhouse of the entire region, had a heart attack this month. If what’s been proposed and debated here isn’t the solution, what is?
Nobody here put a gun to Charlie Baker’s head and made him take an untenable “no new taxes” pledge, just as nobody made George H.W. Bush make his equally ill-advised pledge. Now he’s got a problem to deal with, and he’s on the hook. He doesn’t have much wiggle room, and he should have known that in the campaign.
Are you blaming people here — essentially for being right? For having been right for *a long time*?
If Baker (and DeLeo, critically) does the right thing, absolutely, the tone of discourse about him on this site will change. That might not win many votes among this readership, who would still likely prefer candidates more left. But it might win him many votes among more centrist types who have been affected by the T’s catastrophic failure. Some of them probably read this site.
It is not our job to wipe Baker’s political ass for him. It is merely our job to point out what needs to be done. Whether he does it or not is his choice.
nopolitician says
The solution should be:
1) A balanced distribution of revenue increases. Most will need to come from the state, but some should come from the users of the system and some should come from the communities that directly benefit from it.
2) While we’re at it, address some of the other festering problems across the state. If we want to focus on transportation, that’s fine, but we really should be talking about how state aid had largely decreased, year-after-year, under governor Patrick.
To me, that means a small increase in the gas tax (for God’s sake, the 3-cent increase we had last year is absolutely pitiful in a time when the price at the pump can swing by 10 cents per week). This would be used to help the MBTA and to also fund statewide projects.
It also means a small increase in the income tax which would be used to help the MBTA and also increase general state aid to cities and towns.
I would be in favor of lowering the sales tax to 5% if the difference could be made up with income tax increases. Increase the standard deduction a bit to shift a bit more of the increase to the wealthy.
I also think that the film tax credit should be abolished since it is a pure giveaway that costs $100m per year. I’d be open to a little MBTA reform involving retirement age (currently 55 with 25 years of service), which could be gradually increased to 60 provided that this is a reasonable age for people to be operating a bus or train. Although this isn’t a big budget-buster, it is still untenable to the general public who are seeing their Social Security ages increased to 67 and beyond.
progressivemax says
Both are options that can be used in as an interim holdover until more comprehensive progressive revenue reform can be implemented.
Bob Neer says
That can be invested in capital improvements. It needs many billions, not hundreds of millions here and there in response to big storms and short-term outrage. My suggestion was quasi-privatization, which would allow it to operate as a company, raise capital, and exploit its real estate and other assets. It is a model that has worked elsewhere. But in broad strokes, marrimackguy is exactly right: the voters of the Commonwealth rejected new taxes by electing Baker. More practically, there is no way the legislature is going to provide $13 billion, or even $1 billion, probably, in new revenues. Thus, any proposals that look to additional state financing for the system will be more “can kicking” than substantive. The MBTA has been in decline for decades. It needs substantive reform, not a few million here or there.
progressivemax says
By privatizing the MBTA, the MBTA will work in the interest of shareholders to generate them profit, and not in the interest of the general public. What can a private company do differently that the state can’t? Public transportation is a public good that shouldn’t be privatized. Prices will go way up if the intent is to make profit., unless contractually prohibited. Currently prices are subsidized. Increased fares are a regressive form of taxation.
That said the MBTA commuter rail is already privatized, as it is operated by Keolis. Before that it was operated by the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company… It hasn’t worked…
Al says
successfully privatized, and deliver good, responsive service, at prices all parties are satisfied with? As an example, trash pickup in most towns is handled by private companies and paid for through taxes. I can’t name another.
Mark L. Bail says
We have private interests writing legislation, commercial interests funding campaigns.
merrimackguy says
I was commenting on the constant haranguing of Baker on what to do.
On that topic:
Blaming the T’s funding woes on an idea Baker supposedly had in 1998 instead of blaming a law the veto proof DEMOCRATIC legislature created and passed in 2000 is ridiculous. Also if that was a problem the MA legislature and governor’s office were DEMOCRATIC for the last eight years. If Gov. Patrick couldn’t get it done then I guess he was ineffective and not that great. Saying DeLeo is not your guy is bogus- he was elected by all your wonderful DEMOCRATIC legislators. Man-up and take the blame. All I ever read on this site is D is better than R. Maybe that’s not so true.
As to the bloggers of BMG being “right,” what about the Globe? It’s not like these problems only popped up in the last month. They’ve been reported on for years and that includes delays. I read about them. Maybe Patrick thought the problems were just “anecdotes” like all the issues on his watch.
Now my side finally gets a chance and all of you have all these ideas, many of which run counter to what Baker ran on and others that just aren’t going to happen. Fine- bloviate. It’s the Internet.
If you want me to suggest a solution (and note, since I arrived here people constantly point out that I know nothing, so not sure why you, charley, care what I think) here’s what I believe will be the most likely outcome:
Baker will take charge, and take the risk that goes with it.
There won’t be new taxes. Maybe new revenues that aren’t taxes.
Costs will be reduced. Maybe The Ride or the debt will be shifted. Other things will be cut later pay for that.
Ms Scott will shoulder some of the blame for her lack of planning (as Tom says the plan was there was no plan).
If we don’t have record snowfalls in the next three winters Baker will run on the issue “When I came into office the T was a mess. Now the trains run on time.”
Hardly anyone here will give him credit.
ryepower12 says
I wrote an entire fracking diary that came up with half the estimated needed revenue to keep the system going without raising one dime in taxes.
But feel free to continue conjuring up further BS rightwing imagination. Maybe if you say it enough, people will think it’s true.
That’s the ticket, right?
ravi_n says
If you’re talking about this one: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2015/02/whats-more-important-hollywood-or-the-mbta/ you’re calling for the repeal of a tax credit.
The last time I checked, it was the official position of Governor Baker’s party that repealing a tax credit counts as a tax increase (unless that repeal is used to finance other tax cuts). Absent clear evidence to the contrary (I’m not aware of any, though I’ll admit I haven’t been looking for it), I expect that is also Governor Baker’s position. So if you want to find funding for the MBTA that is consistent with his campaign promise of no tax increases, I think you have to try again.
Christopher says
Real leadership sometimes means admitting your previous stance was wrong.
Trickle up says
without the explicit admission part.
That’s cool, I want results more than I want an apology.