Amid all the hype and the hoopla from the hoopleheads, I haven’t heard a thing about the incipient proposal to merge the MBTA and the Mass Pike.
While casinos have the potential impact to change the character of the state, this proposed merger could impact daily life for far more people in ways that could be good or could be bad. What are your thoughts?
[update…] So, the responses to my question have sparked some debate over why DP wants to do this and how he is proceeding. That’s all well and good, but I want to know what people think about the proposal and how it might change their lives. For instance, I commute daily. I hate it. The seats are uncomfortable. It’s overcrowded. The heats on during the hottest days and the AC blows when it’s really cold out. The pike is another story. I hear it costs people mucho bucks to get from one side of the state to the other (if you use the pike).
How is this going to affect these issues?
….I supported this when Mitt wanted to do it in 2003.
<
p>
Do you know WHY he wanted to do it in 2003?
<
p>
We had a budget shortfall – a bad one.
<
p>
Because the MTA is not a state, with the full faith and credit thereof, it must maintain cash reserves to pay off bondholders, in case one day motorists begin to show up at toll windows with machine guns and that revenue dries up.
<
p>
BUT – if they merge, the MTA bonds become STATE bonds, and no cash backup is required.
<
p>
In 2003, the Lake of Money was $87 million. It is a one time infusion, which is why Finneran fought it, as he knew his membership only too well, and wanted substantive cuts instead of a band-aid.
<
p>
Does the Lake of Money still shimmer, or has the T drained it off?
$114,559,000 at end of fiscal 2006. Linked PDF, page 11.
<
p>
http://www.mbta.com/…
…have you identified yet ANOTHER body of currency, attached to the TRANSIT autority, which may also be scooped up in Deval’s Happy Motoring Society? Or does that pond cover both?
<
p>
Come to think of it – what does MassPort have stashed away in its sock drawer?
of a host of former governors is my bet.
<
p>
I see what you’re saying… but I don’t get where MTA bonds are required to become State bonds? Is this a done thing or just so much more maneuvering and political grab-ass? Couldn’t it easily go the other way?
…then Presto! Chango! The bond become state bonds, instead of those issued by what is sort of what the Brits call a QUANGO, and we call an Authority.
<
p>
Say what you will about Mitt, he understands money.
<
p>
Firstly, There’s the Turnpike Authority and then there’s the Mass Bay Transportation Authority. OK. They merge… Two Authorities into one, presumably with all past legal and fiduciary responsibilities and commitments intact and with appropriate oversight. Why now the bond status changes? (presumably with impact on bond ratings and other such actions…)
<
p>
Secondly, I can see why Mitt, or Deval, would want this money and I can’t say I’m against it. I can see that legislation might be submitted that would make it so. I simply don’t understand your contention that it must go this way…
<
p>
Ok. I see that. Simply for the sake of being obstreperous (one does want to keep up appearances… ) I’ll note that there is no proposal, per se, only hints of one. Having said that, I’ll be looking for this when the proposal does come out.
The Herald is reporting he put our a press relese, exasperated at being asked to respond to casino and transportation questions.
<
p>
<
p>
But note – the story of the Lake of Money is true. And Deval needs to stop acting like he has a term paper due, and act like a Governor.
<
p>
I think he’s doing a great job as Governor. Especially with hot-button items. Test the waters. Identify allies and enemies. Grab a hold of the shape of the arguments and responses. Work the issue on your terms. It’s got FDR written all over it. Masterful. I don’t agree with him on casinos but I am quite impressed with his hold on the issue… You realize that he’s completely redefined the debate in just a very short time, don’t you? He’s doing the same with the transportation stuff.
<
p>
Sure, some complain and try their funny little blank paper stunts, but is that any reason to take them seriously?
He can change it at will. It’s never on the record. He can later claim he didn’t mean THAT when challanged on an issue. This is working the issues on your terms? I call it pandering and lying.
… lets ban discussing anything until its on paper and filed somewhere official. Yeah… that makes sense.
Lying! Pandering! and probably Bears! too. The governor will file the bill on his schedule, not yours. Jones putting out a blank piece of paper is too cute by half. Is the minority leader a little upset that he doesn’t really have a piece of the leadership pie? His friend and colleague, Richard Tisei, isn’t so shy with the press. Senator Tisei “believe(s) the governor made the right decision.”
There were the kind who put out the press release when they FILED the bill, to get attention, and the kind who put out the press release when the bill was PASSED, to demonstrate accomplishment.
<
p>
I have developed an opinion as to which sort of legislator Deval would be.
<
p>
He at least needs to begin mentioning on his myriad talk show appearances that he hasn’t FILED anything yet, instead of talking about how it needs to be passed, implying the legislature is failing to act on his red-hot initiatives.
Some trial balloons get shot down quickly. Others might need a bit of twisting to be shaped into the required giraffe. What’s wrong with legislators just saying what they think about a clearly formed idea from the governor about how casinos might be implemented in Massachusetts.
<
p> And don’t forget to include in your government taxonomy the kind of legislator who puts out a press release lauding a bill that was PASSED, but then forgets to include the fact that they voted against it.
Bush never actually submitted a proposed Social Secuiity “reform”. He sent a trial ballon, it got shot down and he stopped talking about it. Everyone does it PP, but you’re to intellectually dishonest to admit it.
It is not as simple as “MA full faith and credit = the reserves are no longer needed”. It depends on what the bond terms are.
<
p>
I had a discussion with my state rep (on the House committee on long term debt) about Mitt’s proposed Turnpike+MassHighway merger a few years ago shortly after it was proposed. Mitt and his advisers were certain that they could raid the bond reserve funds from the Turnpike.
<
p>
Apparently the Turnpike bond underwriters had told Mitt’s advisors & legislators flat out that as far as they were concerned, merging Turnpike into the administration did not somehow magically rewrite the terms of the bonds (just who was responsible for paying). The Turnpike Authority “bought down” the interest rate by guaranteeing the reserves, so if the reserves were raided or simply merged into the general fund as free cash, the the underwriters stated that the $billions in bonds would immediately default. Mitt & co either ignored or chose not to believe them. The legislature prudently chose the underwriters’ understanding of money over Mitt’s.
I’ve added this to the toppost on the diary…
<
p>
So, the responses to my question have sparked some debate over why DP wants to do this and how he is proceeding. That’s all well and good, but I want to know what people think about the proposal and how it might change their lives. For instance, I commute daily. I hate it. The seats are uncomfortable. It’s overcrowded. The heats on during the hottest days and the AC blows when it’s really cold out. The pike is another story. I hear it costs people mucho bucks to get from one side of the other (if you use the pike). How is this going to affect these issues?
<
p>
Plus, I’m a little hurt that nobodies taken my poll (pout =-(.
The orginal turnpike, from NY border to Route 128, was opened in 1957 and it cost $2.50 to travel the entire length.
<
p>
fifty years later that same trip costs $2.70.
<
p>
Tunnel tolls are $3.00.
<
p>
New York Bridge tolls are $8.00.
<
p>
according to the mass pike website toll calculator, $2.70 will get you from springfield to weston (hardly the entire length).
<
p>
<
p>
The entire length, from West Stockbridge to Logan is $4.60 eastbound and $7.60 westbound.
<
p>
There is no tolls from exits 1 to 6, so as I said the original turnpike from NY border to 128 is 2.70. The Boston extension from 128 to the old elevated artery was opened in the early 60’s.
<
p>
My point is that the argument that the Turnpike is expensive is not correct. Name any private sector service whose price has only risen by a little more that 10% in fifty years?
<
p>
People pay $20 a day to park in Boston. What is a fair gas tax for 2000 miles of Mass Highway or 140 miles of Masspike?
<
p>
I support a re-alignment of our transportation agencies but we have to decide what we want and pay for it.
<
p>
We have spent tons of money expanding our highways and the T, but starved these agencies of maintenance money.
<
p>
If we don’t want T fares to increase any more fine but the T is $100 million a year short of keeping up with basic maintenance. We just spent $15 Billion on the Big Dig. These tunnels are loaded with electronice and mechanical systems that are going to be very exspensive to maintain.
<
p>
How will a re-org make all of this work better?
Here’s my concern as a public transit advocate:
<
p>
Will it siphon money away from public transit? After all, most transit planners and admins seem to be coming from the perspective of car use, not public transit use. Additionally, since public transit is run at a loss [the positive externalities justify that] whereas auto usage doesn’t have to be [the detrimental externalities justify that], it could lead to confusion and muddied funding waters.
<
p> – OR –
<
p>
It will mean projects that combine highway stops and arterial roads with commuter rail stops and with parking lots. Projects that combine smart growth with subway stops. Projects that combine bus routes with bus lanes with priority traffic signals. Projects that combine bridges with bike lanes with bike racks at transit hubs.
<
p>
In bad times, I fear that public transit will simply wither. In good times, I suspect that well designed plans could be implemented that are productive for generations.
The question might be put as follows: does having these separate and somewhat independent authorities somehow insulate mass transit from anti-mass-transit politics? Specifically, from preventing the governor or legislature from directing resources away from mass transit? It’s hard to see how, but maybe I am missing something.
<
p>
I suspect the current unfortunate state of affairs–cars and roads subsidized up the wazoo, MBTA saddled with crippling debt (and bike paths nimby’d to death)–roughly reflects the actual balance of power about transit issues. People do not love the T and there is no transit-users’ lobby.
<
p>
People also hate every car on the road–except their own. They feel that artificially low gas prices and free-lunch highways are their right.
<
p>
Consequently I doubt bringing these agencies under greater political control will hurt mass transit, though the merger may be ill-advised for other reasons.
<
p>
To use your feast-famine example, under the current regime mass transit doesn’t do particularly well in bad times. Could this really make things worse?
<
p>
From the point of view of a regular commuter (commuter rail) the present system could be much better and so I welcome new thinking. But you’ve clarified the inchoate fear I have about motives and methods and resources. Maybe Mitt did want to spread the MTA and MBTA resources thin (or elsewhere) and maybe Deval wants that too… But maybe he’s just seeking efficiencies and wanting to see that money put to use on the MBTA and MTA.
The essential Econ question regarding any proposal and the essential questions dorky debaters ask at tournaments “what are the transaction costs?”
<
p>
While on paper it looks like we will get more money and presumably decrease bueracracy there is also a chance that converting both authorities into one would cost more money than we would ultimately save.
<
p>
Another great example is the Charley Card, in theory we can save money by laying off the MBTA workers we replaced with machines, in practice the Unions found a way to protect the jobs anyway, the machines dont work too well and need lots of maintainece, and as usual the solution is to create new taxes out of nowhere and starve the poor to educate the children.
<
p>
If Deval, the leg, or even the state GOP had any balls theyd start cutting, cutting, and cutting some more. Until that happens Massachusetts will continue to be a massive moneypit.
Not that Illinois is any better, at least the MBTA isnt about to shut down due to ZERO dollars left in the rainy day fund (which was raided to pay for a book for every child) oh and guess how Gov. Blogo wants to pay for the CTA? Thats right casinos. and the cycle of waste continues…
<
p>
I think the present situation is untenable. So change is inevitable… how that’s going to happen?
<
p>
<
p>
Cut what? Everything? That makes little sense?
<
p>
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t buy into the corporate need for profit. This lust colors every businessman cum politico who tries to run government on a corporate model. From the point of view of many services and their returns, government is a moneypit of various flavors and sizes. I’m alright with that. We’re asking Deval to manage this, not eliminate it.
…merely a ploy for an excuse for the Turnpike Commission to raise tolls on the Pike and the various bridges and tunnels that they run to further subsidize the woefully inadequate and highly underpriced MBTA.
<
p>
I’m not sure what you mean by “underpriced”? If you mean they are not charging enough, I don’t see it. I started commuting roughly 7 years ago when it was about about $100/month to commute from Leominster into Boston (rent in Arlington too high). It’s now $250/month for the same trip with no improvement in service, scheduling or consistency. If it goes up any more, I’m going to buy a Prius and drive. That means parking, traffic tolls and all those resultant headaches. But they are starting to look attractive compared to commuting at that cost.
…the MBTA passengers are not paying anywhere near the full cost of their transit. Not by a large shot. You might not like the price that you are currently paying, and you might not like the increase over the last 7 years. But, just to let you know, cities and towns that are serviced by MBTA are required to pay a hefty amount for the “privilege” of allowing some of their residents ride on the MBTA–subsidies paid for by those of us who do not and will not use the MBTA.
<
p>
And–get this–the amounts paid by the cities and towns to subsidize the MBTA are paid for out of (ta da!) property taxes. Now, you can feel free to explain why a property owner in–say–Wellesley, should be required to pay extra so subsidize other property owners in town who want to have transit into downtown Boston.
<
p>
If the subsidies were to be paid for out of (again, ta da!) local option income taxes, I might not have such an objection. But the state restricts the ability of cities and towns to levy local option income taxes, so I object to the cities and towns being required to subsidize the MBTA for some of its residents who might want to make use of it.
<
p>
Feel free to buy a Prius and drive into and park in downtown Boston. But that is orthogonal to the issue of MBTA subsidies.
<
p>
I’m certain you don’t mean to, but you seem to suggest that subsidies are paid only by those who ‘do not and will not use the MBTA’. I don’t think this is true. I pay taxes in my town… so in effect, I’m paying for the MBTA twice and therefore probably paying closer to the ‘full cost of [] transit’ than to which you allude. I mean, there must be a ‘nut’… the amount of homeowners living in a given area who pay for a service, and use the service… that is a tipping point to make up for your perceived ‘unfairness’, no?
<
p>
Another issue I’ve not addressed, and one elided by people who ‘do not and will not use the the MBTA’ is that the commuter rail is regularly overcrowded. It’s stuffed full very often. Same for the subway (it’s always crowded) and some buses I’ve been on. People who don’t ride the subway seem to think it’s not a very popular service. Quite the opposite is true.
<
p>
<
p>
What if the absolute value of ‘some of its residents who might want to make use of it’ is a majority of its residents? What if the ‘options income tax’ is the one they chose when deciding upon where to live? I chose Leominster, in large part, because of the proximity to the commuter rail. That’s why I started this discussion. The entire tone of your posts seems to suggest an optionality to the MBTA. For many more people than you would imagine it’s a central part of their daily lives.
..you yourself are not paying for your transit over the MBTA twice. You aren’t even paying for your transit even once. Your neighbors in towns that are subject to MBTA subsidies, but who–like me–do not use the MBTA, are paying property taxes to subsidize your transit over the MBTA.
<
p>
… it’s so simple a five year old could understand it. Unfortunately, I don’t have a five year old handy, so you’ll have to explain it better.
<
p>
Are you saying the $250/month plus the property taxes I pay, aren’t covering the cost to transit my behind but that, somehow, the property taxes you pay is somehow in excess of that??
<
p>
I think that’s kinda… how do the kids these day say it…whack.
Are you saying the $250/month plus the property taxes I pay, aren’t covering the cost to transit my behind but that, somehow, the property taxes you pay is somehow in excess of that??
<
p>
It is not even close, but the local assessments are just the tip of the iceburg. The majority of MBTA income (dwarfing user income and local assessments) is from 1% of Massachusetts sales tax that is handed over to the MBTA:
Income from transit (fares, etc): ~330M
Income from local assessments: ~140M
Dedicated sales tax income: ~$710M
(MBTA also gets about $100M from various other sources)
<
p>
So it isn’t just other people in MBTA towns that do not use the MBTA that are subsidising your commute, it is people in Bourne, Pittsfield, Springfield, etc who live no where near any MBTA service who are also subsidising your commute.
<
p>
People in towns served by MBTA service pay a local tax assessment that is in theory connected to a benefit – less traffic congestion, access to public transport for even those rare uses, etc. What’s worse is that towns around MBTA-served towns also get hit with a local assessment; that is often especially unfair, given the (non-)acess to parking spaces to non-local residents along most of the commuter rail lines.
everything from losing public land for uses only autos can enjoy to dealing with the noise, pollution, and other detrimental externalities, to the cost of building, maintaining, and policing the roadways [which gas tax and tolls don’t completely cover]. Oh, then there’s the subsidies for the oil and gas companies, which help keep the price of gas down.
<
p>
Charge auto users the full cost of their transit — including detrimental externalities — and then do the same for public transit users. I suspect that if everybody paid their true cost, that public transit would look even more attractive, not less.
Auto drivers subsidized too
<
p>
…is far from clear. Regarding roadways, it was reported at least as far back as 20 years ago that more than a bit of the gasoline tax in MA was being diverted to general revenues–ostensibly to subsidize mass transit. Moreover, much of the federal gas tax trust fund has been diverted to general revenues–the obvious purpose being to reduce the apparent federal deficit.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
Oh, then there’s the subsidies for the oil and gas companies, which help keep the price of gas down.
<
p>
To the extent that there are subsidies, they benefit more than just users of gasoline. Oil and gas are used to generate electricity and diesel fuel–which helps to power the MBTA. Oil is also used in a number of products–plastics come to mind. It isn’t only motorists who benefit from low price of oil.
Charge auto users the full cost of their transit — including detrimental externalities
<
p>
A simple, modest improvement would be to increase gas taxes to cover local snow & ice removal, currently paid for by local property taxes. Bigger and better would be to expand gas taxes to cover things like street sweeping (and street sweepers) and various other local highway department operating and capital expenses. Current gas tax local aid has to be connected to specific road construction and repair projects.
<
p>
That would more closely connect use to cost, and could make public transit (where available) noticeably more attractive without getting into the fuzzy area of how to tease out the negative externalities only attributable to auto fuel.