The MBTA has been a patronage haven, for both parties, for decades. Systemic corruption is deeply wired into the culture, from the lowliest worker cleaning latrines someplace to the very top. Please note that I am not alleging personal corruption — I’m sure that the overwhelming majority of MBTA workers are honest, hard-working, dedicated public servants.
I mean, instead, that they are cogs in a wheel that is corrupt. It doesn’t matter where you look, the stink of corruption is there. A new and very expensive fare collection system that seems optimized towards preserving MBTA jobs rather than getting riders on and off the trains and buses. Purchasing contracts that result in transit cars that don’t stay on the track, air conditioners that don’t work, buses that don’t run. Renovation contracts that make the entire Green line look like a West Virginia junkyard (and I love West Virginia) for years, while no visible progress is made, costs double and triple, and service continues to deteriorate.
Toddlers who visit and walk with us along the 66 route call the buses “Banana Buses”, because they come in bunches.
Commuter rail should be operating around the clock, with train frequency increasing.
Instead, Beacon Hill is playing the same old games with the same old tricks as usual.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
The paradigm is shifting and the “not ready for prime time players” just do not seem to get it. I have lost confidence in this administration. I have no confidence that a guy like Tim Cahill can fix this or that the Mass Republican Party can re-organize to address these issues.
<
p>Apparently, together we can’t.
The problem with Andrea Estes story on the four MBTA retirees working as contract employees is that it doesn’t tell much of the story. I know the Boston Globe has financial troubles and morale must be low there, but are there reporters willing (or with the cuts, have the time) to make the extra effort to write a complete, informative story? Or are there anymore editors to ask these questions?
<
p>1) When do these four contracts expire?
2) When were they last renewed?
3) Can these contracts be cancelled?
4) If so, what are the penalties for cancelling them?
<
p>While I am glad these contracts are not being renewed, unlike Brookline Tom I am not willing as a taxpayer to pay more money to these retirees (and for lawyers on both sides) if any or all of these contracts are expiring soon.
<
p>Unfortunately it seems like the Globe lately is trying to steal Boston Herald readers by throwing out raw meat without spending the time to do more in-depth reporting. That was what once separated the Globe from the Herald.
<
p>Instead, in the last months it seems like the Globe is trying to become a “broadsheet tabloid,” which in turn pushes readers like me to blogs like BMG. Although I don’t always agree with everyone, there are checks and balances here that don’t seem to exist anymore in the traditional media outlets.
<
p>MM
<
p>
<
p>Where did I say that I was willing to pay any part of this?
<
p>”Pay whatever penalties need to be paid” is a sweeping statement.
I meant penalties that result from defaulting on loans, canceling contracts, that sort of thing.
<
p>I don’t think a nickel should be paid to these “retirees” or their lawyers.
Brookline Tom –
<
p>If you have a mouse in your house, get a cat or build a better mousetrap. Don’t burn your house down.
<
p>Defaulting on loans or cancelling contracts only saves money for the narrow window of time you are looking at, just as Republican tax cuts made possible by deferred maintenance left us with extraordinarily more expensive repair bills today. And defaulting on loans? You really do want to burn the Commonwealth down, not just the MBTA.
<
p>I would rather let the MBTA contracts expire in a few months, rather than spend a lot of time and money fighting this in court. Remember when Christy Mihos and Jordan Levy sued Jane Swift? They were not even being paid, but they won their sizable legal fees. (This is another argument against the House and Senate creating a new authority, as it allow governors to pass the buck and play a blame game).
<
p>MM
about independent authorities. When they do well, the administration can take credit. When they mess up (as in get in up to their ears in debt and then turn to taxpayers for a bailout), the administration can say, “I had no oversight.” I want my government to have oversight. If things get completely messed up, I want to know who to vote out of office.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. A lot of people who take the Com Rail during peak times base that decision on the fact that they can always catch a late train if they need to stay late at work or decide to go out for some beers with their coworkers and won’t get stranded on the city. So even though they use it rarely, the existence of evening service is a big part of why they take the T to work at all.
That argument doesn’t apply to weekend service, and I doubt that really all that many people would start driving in if the late train service was cut either, although 7pm does seem a little early to cut off service.
<
p>However, I do think that curtailing weekend and night service will hurt downtown restaurants and bars as you suggest. No one is going to go out for a drink after work if that means they are going to miss the last train. Likewise, fewer people will come into the city on the weekends if there is no train.
<
p>On the bright side, this is probably good news for cab and limo companies and parking lot operators. 😉
It’s bad news for neighborhoods near the Fleet Center, Fenway Park, the Hatch Shell, or any other entertainment center with lots of seats — it’s that many more people driving in, causing congestion, pollution, and friction with the neighborhood.
During the Summer I’ll frequently take the Com Rail out to Cape Ann and bike around there. Inevitably I patronize local businesses. If there was no weekend service, I’d probably stay closer to home.
2. It’s still a lot of money and it emotionally frustrates everyone, both anti- and pro-public transit advocates.
<
p>So, in the words of Oscar Rodgers…
Fix it!
<
p>But even once they fix it, the projected deficits will still be there for the most part. The question is: how do we get the MBTA’s expenses under control? Answer:
<
p>Pay down the debt. The T is carrying huge debt loads, and it’s not really because of MBTA managers mismanaging. The switch to forward funding meant that the lege made capital decisions for the T and then left them holding the bag. The Big Dig made commitments for the T in order to get better infrastructure for autos, and then left the T holding the bag. MBTA FY 2009 debt services total $368 million, $246 of which is interest payments.
<
p>That’s right, the total deficit is about $100 million less than the T’s interest payments, much of which is paid on loans that MBTA management didn’t want to take on, but the legislature forced on them.
<
p>To put it in perspective, total pensions were $48 million. Fixing the 23 years and out, fixing the double dips, fixing all of that will save what, $10 million, tops? Yet the deficit is $160 million and the MBTA pays $246 million in interest payments.
<
p>
<
p>So yes, fix the pension crap, because (a) it’s broken, but (b) it’s a distraction from the real problem which won’t get fixed otherwise. But let’s be clear, honest, and reality based: pension reform won’t save the MBTA. It won’t come anywhere close. The T can’t be saved unless the public takes back some of the debt it passed on to the MBTA.
<
p>P.S. Read the budget yourself here: MBTA Advisory Board FY09 Report.
L. John Doerr, one of the most successful venture capitalists ever, is known for being one of industry’s best negotiators. An interviewer once asked him to share his secrets. His reply?
<
p>”It helps to be correct.”
<
p>As usual, stomv is absolutely correct.
<
p>The debt burden was shifted to the MBTA by a cabal of right-wing anti-tax proponents led by then-Governor Paul Cellucci. It was an explicit effort to kill the MBTA — “starve the beast” was the slogan.
<
p>It is working.
…it astonishes me how we Republicans have over and over again been able to foist our deadly schemes upon them. How inept, how naive, how trustung the Demorats are!
<
p>Yes, Paul Cellucci killed the T, and I lurk here in the shadows, waiting and watching. Be very afraid…
with the 50th anniversary of the Republicans’ absolute inability to mount a credible alternative?
<
p>What a coincidence!
The state undertook massive MBTA capital expansion under Weld – Cellucci. Unprecedented, unlike any system in the country. This expansion is now a big part of the T’s problem.
Example: Greenbush line on the South Shore- over half a
$ Billion to build, now loses $28,000 per day.
The “debt burden” you refer to may be Forward Funding?
That was a Finneran initiative.
Keep spewing nonsense.
I remember Mr. Finneran’s role in it.
<
p>”Forward funding” was still a right-wing anti-tax measure, it was still intended to kill the MBTA, and it was still led by Mr. Cellucci.
<
p>The Democrats have held a majority for fifty years. The anti-tax crowd has been calling the shots since 1980. Simple logic therefore suggests that a majority of the anti-tax crowd has been Democratic.
<
p>The pervasive systemic greed, like the anti-tax lunacy that it produces, is thoroughly bi-partisan.
<
p>If the anti-tax crowd is calling the shots, they suck at shooting, at least for the past 10 years:. Taxes have outpaced the CPI in growth.
<
p>
-CPI growth over past 10 years: 27% (from your link above)
-Tax revenue increase over past 10 years: 47% (from your link above)
<
p>That shows that tax revenues have outpaced the CPI. But revenues are related to growth in income. Total personal income in Mass has grown 52% between 1999 and 2008.
<
p>So their aim is pretty good.
<
p>
I rather doubt it. So I don’t think it is meaningful by itself to talk about how much a given line loses per day.
The T is a public service. It costs money, money which is paid for (or not paid for) by taxes.
<
p>Paving the highways and roads, salting and sanding them in the winter, plowing them, etc costs money too, but we don’t talk about 93/95/128/1/3 etc “losing” money every day.
If there were politicians good at politics involved, they would know to make a serious, even if sometimes symbolic, effort to root and and END the kind of egregious nonsense as appeared in today’s paper BEFORE coming to the taxpayer and demanding more.
<
p>Otherwise, the voting public is correct to anticipate that the tax hike will in part band-aid the problem, and in part fund pensioned independent contractors, nepotism hires, and the like, and in a year or so, we will be in exactly the same place, discussing another tax hike.
But here’s the problem:
<
p>Let’s say that they “solve” the pension problem so that any complaint about it is a big stretch. Then it’s the GIC. Then it’s not collecting 100% of the fares 100% of the time. Then it’s leaving the lights on.
<
p>The MBTA has a $1.5 billion dollar annual budget. There’s always going to be millions of dollars of waste in a $1.5 billion budget — I don’t care if it’s a budget from a high profile for-profit, a low profile for-profit, a not-for-profit, or a government. 1% waste is $15 million.
<
p>So while I agree that they ought to go after the waste, and it is real money, and there is a public image to look after, my belief is that no matter how well they do there’ll always be a Herald article and a RMG blog post and a conversation at a water cooler near 128 about the waste at the MBTA (and gov’t in general). Always. At some point, members of the reality based community have to say something like: “Look, we should always fight the waste, but it’s a small percentage of the overall budget problem, and fixing the problems you identify don’t come anywhere near solving the problem — they’re distractions. Find something relevant or stay out of the conversation please.” I don’t know where that sweet spot is, but at some point we’ve got to focus on the actual problem, not some emotional appeal that is in fact a distraction.
We got to look at the big financial picture here, as if the dam breaks, we all drown — not just the four MBTA retirees who have been working as contract employees.
<
p>Perhaps the Boston Globe and the Herald don’t find spreadsheets and charts very attractive to hook people into buying papers or maintaining their subscribers, but too many people I speak with — including some of my own friends and family — think that the Commonwealth can reform its way out of all its problems.
<
p>This is not to excuse abuses in government. The Patrick administration is doing the right thing by ordering the MBTA contracts to expire without renewal. If legal expenses are factored in, firing these employees today would cost the Commonwealth more money, especially if there are only a few months left to their contracts. (Does anyone know the details that the Globe didn’t report?)
<
p>We have created a culture where tax cuts are demanded in good times and tax cuts are demanded in bad times. In neither situation do people really feel good about their government.
<
p>Lest I seem like a biased cheerleader for Governor Patrick, the decision to turn off the Zakim Bridge lights was foolish. One of the few symbols of the Big Dig that most Herald and Globe bloggers feel proud of is now being used as a cheap pawn, and cutting the lights won’t make a difference in the overall budget.
<
p>Likewise, Mayor Menino is foolish for ending the mounted police and bike patrols. Save significant money? Questionable, especially if these officers are reassigned to patrol cars. Savings in quality of life: zero. I have read stories in the papers of how a mounted police officer caught a purse-snatcher or other criminal in the Common or Newbury Street, or how bike patrols are effective with stopping drug and other crimes.
<
p>Dislosure: When my kids were young I brought them into Boston to see Santa feed carrots to the mounted police horses by Filene’s. I also was moved to tears when years ago I saw the photo in the Globe of a cop sobbing at the loss of his horse that had been hit by a car.
<
p>There are somethings in life just not worth giving up, whether it is a few horses, lights on the Zakim, decent public transportation, and safe roads — even if we individually have to pay a bit more to benefit ourselves and our neighbors.
<
p>
Say the legisalture raised income taxes by .2% just for one year. That’s several hundred million dollars. It would instantly solve the T’s debt problem and bring the whole organization back into the black, with money left over. We could expand services, instead of slashing them.
<
p>That, sir, is not a band-aid. That’s a solution.
the interest is $260 m a year. The debt is $8 bil. 0.2% for one year might solve this years deficit problem, but it would take a bit more to solve the $8 bil debt problem.
<
p>Of course, taking just a chunk of that $8 bil off the books would go a long way toward year-to-year solvency…
Sorry, I missed that part, but .2% a year is still a reasonable number to keep for several years, so we can pay it down. As long as it’s going to public transportation, it’s going to be more popular than letting public transportation go bankrupt or cease the bulk of its service.
I’m torn because (a) I know the debt is killing the T, but (b) I want the T to expand even more. Green Line north. Silver Line connection. That sort of thing.
<
p>Ultimately, the debt has to get knocked down. It’s just too large a chunk of their expenses. The question is: how do you find a political way to make this happen?
<
p>The only thing I can come up with is a very slow approach that may be too slow to work — have future capital expenditures paid for out of a different fund so that the T doesn’t float any new bonds for a number of years, allowing them to more aggressively pay down their current debt. I don’t know what the “right” interest:total expense ratio is, but I can’t believe that paying 16% of your entire budget in interest payments is good form.
<
p>
<
p>Long story short: the T is in massive credit card debt. How to fix it? Either bankruptcy (BrooklineTom’s plan) or somehow get ahead of the debt and pay it down more quickly (stomv plan). How to do that, given that the T needs to make capital expenditures every year? Let the lege pay for the capital expenditures for a few years.
<
p>Alternatively, recognize that $1.8 billion of the debt obligations are from the Big Dig. Let the state deal with those. That cuts the T’s debt by roughly 23%. If their interest and payment requirements drop by that much, their expenses are cut by… $83 million, over half of the deficit. Imagine that: not requiring the non-driving MBTA users to pay for a significant chunk of the Big Dig.
<
p>I don’t want to see the T declare bankruptcy if it can be avoided.
<
p>If (and it’s a very big if) the legislature can be persuaded
to go along (leadership from Governor Patrick?), then I prefer stomv’s plan.
<
p>Transferring the Big Dig debt obligations back to the state should happen in any case, whatever the legislature does.
<
p>The cultural issue with MBTA remains, however, and needs to be solved. Whatever the official pronouncements say, the observed behavior of virtually all parties involved is that the primary mission of the MBTA appears to be advancing the self-interest of the MBTA stakeholders — from the top to the bottom — as opposed to, for example, moving the public from one place to another in an affordable, efficient, and convenient way.
Which is a big if, considering that I have never seen any evidence that would allow any confidence in such a prediction.
<
p>Rather, it will be used to fund some nonsense, and then we will have a Debt! crisis, and the Infrastructure is Falling Appart! problem, and thus a need to raise income taxes by another .2%.
That’s a wonderful hypothetical to spout out there. In reality, all we do is cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. Soon, there’s going to be nothing left to cut, because of people like you – who think, horror of horrors, if we ever used a balanced approach, we may just waste a minuscule fraction of the funds.
Butv yet we have retirees in their 50s getting paid a pension while rehired to do their own job. Or to hire an unlicensed and unqualified teacher at an unusually high pay rate. Or, or, or.
<
p>Sounds to me like there is money to spare. It is just a resource allocation issue.
Can’t get that money back now, but we can make sure it doesn’t happen again — which, btw, is just what the House passed not 24 hours ago.
<
p>But thanks for playing.
I glad that everything is all better now.
<
p>Are you so opposed to gambling because you’re susceptible to scams?
do you think is waste, fraud and abuse? I agree with stomv’s point above: it’s there and it’s wrong but it’s a small percentage of the total. It’s just more fun to read and write about.
<
p>Even if you eliminated all of it (which no organization does) we’d still have a debt-ridden MBTA, not enough social services, public health and environmental problems, etc.
<
p>We need a strategy for both: we need reform and revenue.
The point is that our elected officials don’t give a damn, and only act when a lucky reporter stumbles across one of these things. Sheesh, the “reform” relied upon so smugly by Ryan leaves the T retirement age at 55 for chrissake.
<
p>The point is that even if you guys get all of the taxes you want, and more, nothing, not one single thing, will change. Tne infrastructure will not be fixed, though it will be worked on at excssive expense. The debt will not be paid down; rather, the new income stream will simple enable new borrrowing, and there will be a lot of new employees to supervise things. Then, perhaps in 2011, Ryan will be loudly complaining that we need an additional 4% on the income tax.
<
p>I wouldn’t have an issue with paying the tax if I thought it might be used beneficially, but we all know that is the sort of thing that everyone forgets about as soon as the law is enacted.
You state your opinion of future events as fact. That’s just not reality based.
Has already been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Several times over, and just in the last few weeks. The burden is now on it.
how does a few hundred million solve the problem.
<
p>BTW how is that South Coast Rail coming ???
The Gov. has proposed a reasonable increase in the gas tax and the Great and General Court basically are saying it is DOA, and you want them to consider raising the income tax?
<
p>Where is the reality in that?
You claim $160M deficit; the link to the Advisory Board says $42M.
FY10 has a projected deficit of $160 million.