Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

BREAKING NEWS – Gov. Patrick suspends fare hikes and service cuts!

By

Confirmation of story

The story was first broken to me by my Rep., Sean Garballey who was part of a group of legislators who spearheaded a circular letter opposing both the fare hikes and the service cuts.  The service cuts and dropped routes would have been devastating to Arlington.  See also: More coverage with statements by the legislators who fought the hikes and cuts

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. The rest of the so-called “hearings” that the MBTA Board didn’t even bother to attend has been cancelled.  Supposedly, a careful “stem to stern” study of the T is to happen first See article

    <

    p>Mind you, how about Aloisi resigns or is put on sabbatical to feed animals at the Stone Zoo???

  3. Despite the universally negative, anti-Patrick comments on Boston.com, I think this sounds good. My rep (Carl Sciortino, D-Medford), also part of the new Public Transit Caucus, said at the hearing that the legislature had given the T 160m on the understanding that that was what it needed to keep going w/out fare hikes/service cuts. So, I don’t see why they can’t do that for a year. Of course, this close shave should teach us all that what is really needed is a big gas tax hike, with a portion of it dedicated to funding public transportation statewide. I hope that the new Public Transit Caucus will push for that as its next step to creating a sustainable public transportation system in Massachusetts.

    • My problem, for example, with the 4.5 million slash to the funding for Zoo New England [ZNE] is that there has been NO evidence of the basis for that cut, how it was studied out and determined that this sudden reduction of 66% or so of state funding would not harm, cripple, or destroy a significant state asset – OR a reasonable heads up first to ZNE.

      <

      p>Similarly, the press to “hike fares, cut routes” has not been supported by documentation just as the slashing of ZNE was done without documentation of any sort of due dligence, either as to sustainability or reasonable notice to ZNE.

      <

      p>Major changes really require due diligence, documentation for the press and the public, and reasonable notice to those effected, both the so called “stake holders” AND ordinary citizens who will be affected and DO CARE and vote with their campaign donations – or lack thereof, and votes.

      <

      p>I am also increasinglhy dismayed that only an elite group, mostly Harvard graduates apparently of so-called “stake holders” [CEOs, lobbyists, and organizational president types] are treated as having any access or information or even a visible existence to this administration.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the administration answered letters from ordinary citizens or someone returned phone calls?

      <

      p>It was the grassroots, in large measure that elected Deval Patrick – and it is the grassroots who love their zoos, take the bus, and require some information and documentation before accepting major cuts to beloved institutions. The grassroots reads newspapers!  We also listen to AM radio.

      <

      p>Voters need to be treated with respect if their loyalty is to be retained;  Deval Patrick doesn’t have a lock on the love of the ordinary citizen.

      <

      p>You know, even if 100% of the so called “stake holders” vote for a candidate, that is NOT a large number of voters.

      <

      p>To quote a very wise citizen-leader in Woburn – “as usual, just my opinion.”

    • Oh please.

      <

      p>Anybody who has looked at this problem for more than twenty minutes (and hopefully that includes Governor Patrick) knows that the fiscal problem is:

      <

      p>1. Debt service from the Big Dig debt dumped on the MBTA
      2. The forward-funding requirement dumped on the MBTA by the lege.

      <

      p>These two both happened in 2001. Mr. Aloisi was instrumental in both.

      <

      p>No capital-intensive operation can function without capital. The expressly-stated purpose of the two decisions above (made by then-Governor Paul Cellucci and abetted by then-speaker Tom Finneran) was to “starve the beast” and kill the MBTA.

      <

      p>This administration has totally fumbled its highest priority. This “stem to stern” review is yet another ploy to buy time. Sufficient facts are already on the table to fully appreciate the political challenge, and have been since Governor Patrick took office. The choice of Mr. Aloisi as transportation secretary was flagrantly incompetent. Whatever his other attributes, Mr. Aloisi’s arrogance, duplicity, and irascibility were already legendary when Governor Patrick chose him.

      <

      p>We should not forget that Bernard Cohen, Governor Patrick’s original choice for transportation secretary, departed in haste late last year. It seems more and more apparent that Governor Patrick has little stomach for actually engaging the hard facts of providing effective, affordable, and efficient public transportation in Massachusetts.

      <

      p>Mr. Aloisi’s role in imposing the Big Debt on the MBTA makes him uniquely unsuitable for his current position — unless Governor Patrick, like Governor Cellucci before him, seeks to destroy the MBTA.

      <

      p>This three-ring circus might be funnier if it weren’t so important. The insistence on punishing anyone who dares contemplate an alternative to Governor Patrick (epitomized by my own experience here on BMG) has sucked the air out of any potential Democratic field of candidates. The GOP offerings are far worse.

      <

      p>We have fu**ed up, big time, boys and girls. We are in for an extraordinarily difficult time.

      • Let’s suppose that your kid runs up a credit card bill of $10K on fast women and beer, then comes to you for help.

        <

        p>You run the numbers and tell him, “I’ll give you 1% of my salary for the next 15 years and that’ll take care of the debt”.  Then you arrange for an auto-deduction from your pay to his bank account.

        <

        p>Over the next several years, he runs up the credit card bill, using your ‘contributions’ as collateral for new debt.  

        <

        p>In addition he buys a cool car, and a nice back bay apartment and has a new high maintenance babe.  To make things worse, you catch a 10% pay cut, so as a result he receives a bit less from you. Now, he comes to you in crisis mode because his salary has only increased at about 1% per year while his expenses increased 10% per year.

        <

        p>-Was the problem the ‘debt dumped onto him or was it the spending?

        <

        p>Because that’s what happened following the forward funding whereby the MBTA receives 20% of the sales tax money.

        • Let me adjust your analogy.

          <

          p>Suppose your kid has taken over management of the family home that you inherited from your parents — an ancient victorian painted lady that hasn’t been seriously touched in 100 years.

          <

          p>The house is, frankly, falling down, and he’s doing the best he can to keep up. He’s run up a credit card bill of $10K on painters, carpenters, and oil to keep it from freezing up in the winter (there’s NO insulation in the walls).

          <

          p>You’re sick to the death of the house anyway, you’d rather be in a golf condo and you’ve always preferred modern architecture. You tell all your friends that it’s time to ditch the house — bulldoze it if necessary — move on. But the terms of the family trust block you from doing that.

          <

          p>So you tell the kid “I’ll give you the house and 1% of my salary for the next 15 years” — knowing full well that when the inevitable happens, it will fall on the kids shoulders rather than yours. Nice dad.

          <

          p>As expected, all the costs continue to rise. The kid can’t afford to do the major structural repairs the house needs. It’s tough to find honest and affordable contractors, and your kid is a bit of a soft touch, so the labor costs spiral higher. Your kid can’t get a mortgage on his own.

          <

          p>You catch a 10% pay cut (even while your kid’s salary is climbing), and so your already-miserly stipend gets even smaller. The kid comes to you in crisis mode because the roof is now leaking, the sills and beams are rotting, and the entire structure is in danger of collapsing.

          <

          p>Was the kid’s management of the property the problem?

          <

          p>Do you do something to save the property and the kid, or do you shout “family value” and “self-responsibility” platitudes at your kid while you watch him or her go bankrupt and the house fall into its basement while you use your own resources to chase that golf condo.

          • Suppose your kid has taken over management of the family home that you inherited from your parents — an ancient victorian painted lady that has been updated periodically through the years.  He’s a pretty good kid, semi-independent and all, and this is his time to shine.  

            <

            p>Your kid has run up a credit card bill of $10K on painters, carpenters, and oil to keep it from freezing up in the winter (there’s NO insulation in the walls).  He’s looking for a little help.  

            <

            p>Your kid decides to turn it into a bed and breakfast, bringing a pretty good revenue stream.  He’s also tickled that you’ve offered him 1% of your salary for the next 15-years.  

            <

            p>Your kid then decides that “it’s all good”, and hangs a disco ball in the dining room and invites all his friends to the party.  “Pension” hors d’oevres and “Project” entrees were on the menu.  Large bottles of “patronage” champagne were quaffed…and the giddy revelers thought the party would never end!  Some of the friends even double-dipped on the pension hors d’oevres!

            <

            p>Ah…but the hangover in the morning.  And the bill for the party was just incredible.  

            <

            p>Although the kid has done pretty well managing the property, he also let things get out of control.  He knew there was a debt to be owed on another project, but still felt entitled to throw the party anyway.  

            <

            p>So – do you save the kid, who might throw yet another damned party on your dime?  Or do you lay down some ground rules for this quasi-independent kid and stake a claim for the future?  

              • To wit: the “party”

                <

                p>Lucrative benefits:

                <

                p>http://www.thesunchronicle.com…

                <

                p>MBTA rehires “retired officials”

                <

                p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

                <

                p>Patronage hires – White Paper by Richard Hogarty, UMB, on “The Paradox of Public Authorities in Massachusetts.”

                <

                p>ttp://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:mnxk9NF6HuIJ:www.mccormack.umb.edu/centers/nejpp/articles/17_2/3_hogarty.pdf+mbta+patronage+hires&hl=en&gl=us

                <

                p>MBTA projects are millions over budget and years behind schedule.  

                <

                p>http://www.thebostonchannel.co…

                <

                p>State transportation HIRES Big Dig contractor to “fix” tunnel.  

                <

                p>

                Official regrets reuse of firm Big Dig error,
                Cogliano says
                Published on October 25, 2006
                Author(s):    Scott Allen

                GLOBE STAFF

                Material from the Associated Press was used to this report.

                State Transportation Secretary John Cogliano said yesterday that he accepts responsibility for his agency’s embarrassing decision to hire engineers from Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to help oversee repairs of a tunnel ceiling despite Governor Mitt Romney’s clear directive not to involve the managers of the Big Dig project.

                <

                p>And none of this stuff is new.  Jack Gallahue, the former pension chief, was a real piece of work.  From September 2000:

                <

                p>http://labor-unions.org/HISTOR…

                <

                p>

                In this tail-wagging-the-dog operation, it’s Gallahue who calls the shots and the shots included giving $7 million in loans to convicted arsonist and all-around nogoodnik Francis Fraine. There are allegations that Gallahue has accepted favors from Fraine (he insists he paid Fraine back for that Super Bowl weekend hotel bill charged to Fraine’s credit card) and from the fund’s managers. How unfortunate that the fund isn’t subject to the state Ethics Commission!

                (Let’s see: Lt. Gov. Jane Swift has to come up with a $1,250 fine because a staffer did some baby-sitting, but Gallahue can take anything up to and including a hot stove and is home free. Is this a great country or what?)

                The Gallahue mess is somewhat tougher to lay at the administration’s doorstep – tougher, but not impossible. After all, three of the six members of the board are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the authority, which is, in turn, controlled by the governor. In fact, one current board member is the MBTA’s general counsel. And yet just last week the six member board voted 5-1 to give Gallahue a vote of confidence. And we don’t know who the only board member with a brain (and a conscience) is because the board isn’t subject to the open meeting law either.

                <

                p>And the hangover, 2009 style…..http://wbztv.com/local/mbta.budget.crisis.2.966141.html

                • Fact is that all the people claiming “it’s the big dig debt” are with the MBTA!

                  <

                  p>Of course the debt and debt service is big. But, fact is that the debt related to the big dig projects, many of which the MBTA would have done anyway (upgrade stations? new buses? Silver line renov that’s still in process?), totaled about $3.8 billion.

                  <

                  p>Debt now stands at $5.3 billion.  Sure the debt is overwhelming; MBTA started with large debt and grew it 50%!

                  <

                  p>The MBTA’s a company with a 1% annual growth in customers and a 10% annual growth in costs while increasing its debt 50%. And that’s Finneran’s error?  

                  <

                  p>The easy fix is obvious:  Mass is on the hook already for the big dig debt; refinance it with GO bonds and take it off the Authority’s books.  

                  <

                  p>The problem with the easy solution: it ignores i) the drooping sales tax revenue source ii) the lousy ridership stats iii) the psycho cost escalation and iv) MBTA’s appetite for debt financed projects.  

                • but you’ve found the easy fix.  Taking 2/3s of the debt off of their books (a debt whos service is 30% of the budget) takes 20% of costs off the books.  That makes the MBTA run a surplus for a while… and that surplus could be used to reduce the remaining $1.5B substantially.

                  <

                  p>I agree that (i) is an overall problem; for my money, a good solution would be to use automobile fees (examples include gas tax, parking meter surcharge, parking space real estate tax, auto registration surcharge).  Moving the debt doesn’t solve the problem, but it does kick it down the road for a substantial period of time.  (ii) the trouble is that some bottlenecks are stuffed.  Check out Park Street station during rush hour — it’s mobbed.  Stretched to capacity.  In fact, the entire Green Line underground is stuffed.  How to fix?  Trench Boylston and make the line 4 tracks wide, allowing for a Kenmore-Copley-Park-Govt Ctr express.  That ain’t cheap though.  The MBTA subway usage on-peak doesn’t have much physical room to grow, and no N-S Rail Link exacerbates the problem of growing commuter rail traffic.  I think with tremendous cooperation by Boston et al buses could be made much better, but to do so 1000s of parking spaces would have to be removed to create dedicated bus lanes, and I’m not holding my breath for that one.  (iii) needs work, to be sure.  There’s been some nibbles with retirement age and GIC, but that’s a component and not the whole fix.  Two-operators-per-train isn’t going away soon, given safety and terrorism concerns.  Split shifts are already the norm for operators.  Cleaning has been subcontracted.  (iv) can be resolved — the lege can simply disallow new projects for XX years or until debt service is below YY% of the operating budget, or unless the project has long term cost savings, or unless the project will generate fare revenue to cover the cost, or whatever.  I think that some kind of restriction to prevent “more digging” for some period of time is entirely reasonable and workable.

                • Fact is that all the people claiming “it’s the big dig debt” are with the MBTA!

                  <

                  p>Except MASSPIRG, which is independent, and states, unequivically ,

                  <

                  p>  “The primary cause of the MBTA’s financial crisis is a huge debt that grows each year, combined with slow growth in the state’s sales tax“

                  <

                  p>

                  Of course the debt and debt service is big.

                  <

                  p>Yeah, it’s big. One third of COST

                  <

                  p>

                  But, fact is that the debt related to the big dig projects, many of which the MBTA would have done anyway

                  <

                  p>MORE than 50% of MBTA debt is ‘prior obligation’ debt: that part of the T’s debt which the legislature created in 1999.  They created this debt in two ways: A) they refused to pony up for some porion of existing T debt when implementing “forward funding” and 2) they foisted $2.9b of state (mostly Big Dig) debt unto the T (this in addition to the 1991 mandated ‘mitigation’ projects).

                  <

                  p>

                  Debt now stands at $5.3 billion.

                  <

                  p>MBTA debt now stands at $8.1 billion if you calculate interest. $4.7 billion of which is ‘prior obligation’.

                  <

                  p>

                  The MBTA’s a company with a 1% annual growth in customers and a 10% annual growth in costs while increasing its debt 50%. And that’s Finneran’s error?  

                  <

                  p>Um… YES.  Not only did Finneran and the lege start the MBTA off with ‘forward funding’ with massive debt, but he (they) also projected a 3% ridership increase.  (If you’re going to pout about overly-optimistic ridership numbers you should at least know from where those numbers derive. )

                  <

                  p>The truth of the matter, and I suspect you know it, is that a good portion of the expansion you so belabor and most, if not all, of the debt carried by the MBTA was placed there by others.

                • Except Masspirg’s numbers were derived in 2007 and are estimates of what could happen.  My numbers come from the financial statements of MBTA, 2008.

                  <

                  p>I wrote:

                  <

                  p>

                  The problem with the easy solution: it ignores i) the drooping sales tax revenue source ii) the lousy ridership stats iii) the psycho cost escalation and iv) MBTA’s appetite for debt financed projects.

                  <

                  p>Your post appears to concur with each point: large debt in the beginning and growing, lagging sales tax, lousy ridership stats.  You didn’t respond to the rising costs, but Justice4all covered that well upthread, and the operating expenses year after year in the financial statements speak for themselves: $965 million in ’01 and $1.553 billion in ’08

                  <

                  p>

                • Except Masspirg’s numbers were derived in 2007 and are estimates of what could happen.  My numbers come from the financial statements of MBTA, 2008.

                  <

                  p>You must have not read page 20, then, wherein MBTA bonds and notes payable principal are listed (in thousands) at 4,986,198 and interest at 3,336,910, which together adds to 8,323,108.

                  <

                  p>

                  Your post appears to concur with each point: large debt in the beginning

                  <

                  p>Beginning?  Beginning of what?

                  <

                  p>

                  and growing, lagging sales tax, lousy ridership stats.

                  <

                  p>I never contended these things, only the reason for them and the fact that MBTA was at the mercy of other parties as a result of them: Finneran, et al, lowballed the sales tax figures to begin with because they were over-optimistic on ridership estimates of 3%.  Under ‘forward funding’ the sales tax revenue was never going to be enough.  

                • You must have not read page 20, then, wherein MBTA bonds and notes payable principal are listed (in thousands) at 4,986,198 and interest at 3,336,910, which together adds to 8,323,108.

                  <

                  p>Come on. No one adds principal owed now, to interest payable through 2038 and says they owe $8.3 billion.  

                  <

                  p>If someone asks how much do you owe on your mortgage do you tell them the principal balance now, or do figure how much interest and principal you’ll pay over the next 30 years!

      • … and how many of them caved on the sales tax vs. gas tax issue when it might have made a difference in the House?

Archives