Maybe the latest insanity coming out of the Transportation Building isn’t as awful as it appears. But if it’s not, someone needs to explain why, and fast. Otherwise, Jim Aloisi’s credibility is shot to hell, and he cannot any longer effectively do the job the Governor appointed him to do. In which case, he should resign.
In retrospect, it’s interesting to review what we all said about the “he knows where the bodies are buried” argument way back when. For now, I’ll just reiterate what I said about Aloisi on the day he was appointed.
[W]hen it’s the bottom of the ninth, two outs, two on, and the home team down by two (which strikes me as a fair description of where we are right now), who do you want at bat? Do you want a .205 hitter with a record of not many extra-base hits and a lot of strikeouts? ‘Cause that’s how Aloisi strikes me, based on his history with Kerasiotes, Amorello, and all the rest of it.
But, hey, sometimes that guy hits a home run, or at least a double that scores two runs and keeps the home team in the game. If Aloisi can manage that, terrific, and we skeptics can all eat our hats. But if it ends up just being business as usual, well, we told you so.
I haven’t eaten my hat yet. And I’m starting to think I won’t have to.
Is spinning in his grave. Assuming there is anything left of him at all.
<
p>Aloisi at the time of his appointment:
<
p>
<
p>Such high hopes.
Sorry. This looks like another episode of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
What is it about the political and managerial abilities of the Governor and his team in terms of dealing with independent public authorities?
<
p> The legislative essence of such entities is their very real “independence”. They were specifically created to remove them from the clutter and infighting of state government in order to focus on their mission. Yes, the Governor generally appoints the Board of Directors and over a period of time effectively takes indirect control over their strategic mission, but Deval Patrick and his team seem to want to continually muddle in the day to day operations and remove effective managers because they are not perceived to be loyalists or simply to create high paying opening for legislators or sycophants.
<
p> Fighting these unecessary battles is counterproductive and meaningless. Indeed,the fights seem to be chracterized by outright lying and purposeful obfuscation, which in an era of electronic communication, inevitably leaks and proves embarassing.
<
p> It is perfectly appropriate to suggest broad goals for independent public authorities, and having a key senior staffer coordinate the relationship of the state administration with various independent entities makes sense. Further, placing knowledgeable and dedicated individuals on governing Boards will, over several years, give sitting Governors effective control. But these blatant back room coups d’etats and resultant coverups is not fooling the public and will come back to haunt the Governor in 2010.
Romney went to the SCJ to get clarification as to how he could take control of the Pike (SJC answer – in the fullness of time, no emergency…). Swift tried to fire Mihos and Levy – and lost in court.
<
p>The Legislature created the quasi-indys in order to avoid meddling by mere Governors. Hynes, Convention Center, MassPort, Pike, and on and on – all of these consume the publci dollar, and have no real accountabiltiy imposed.
<
p>Know when things REALLY went bad at the MBTA? It was when Finneran switched them to forward funding. In the past, they had an unrealistic operating budget, and at the end of every year they presented the Lege with a bill for past services rendered which the state had to pay. Finneran put them on a real budget, insisting they live within their means. They have never recovered, and never ceased to overspend with the enabling of the Lege.
<
p>And here lies a kernal of truth. All spending bills originate in the House. The only power over the Quasi’s is the power of appropriation. Will the Legislatue ever really ACT?
<
p>Are you forgetting the 1979 shutdown and emergency orders? The MBTA has been a track wreck for decades, not just since Finneran. His ‘forward funding’ was just wishful thinking.
<
p>The problem, I submit, is this: The MBTA is the fastest expanding public transit in the US, with the slowest expanding ridership.
<
p>Ridership:
<
p>2004-340.1 million
2005-325.7
2006-334.8
2007-353.1
2008-374.8
<
p>Ridership has grown only 10% in 5 years and even that’s illusory because the 2008 was caused by the jump in gas that has since moderated. 2009 ridership is declining and no doubt will drop more with a fare increase. Meanwhile, operating expenses have grown nearly 40%.
<
p>It’s an “if we build it they will ride” philosophy that has failed and is failing.
… or is that ‘stupid is’…?
<
p>
<
p>That PDF to which you link is from 2002 and notes T expansion between 1988 and 1998
<
p>insert akward silence here… remember to stare at toes…
<
p>The PDF does make note of the 1991 mitigation agreements (i.e, build more to offset big dig), but fails to note the resulting debt service offsets (pay off big dig debt too… double-dip, anyone?). All this is to point out that the MBTA would be solvent absent the debt-dump caused by the Big Dig and the cost overages incurred.
<
p>So? The link refers to 1988 and 1998, and the rapid build up of empty cars and underused rails.
<
p>The numbers I cite, they’re from 2003 through 2008 MBTA statistics, and the 10% increase, well, just divide the 2008 population by the 2004. And the cost increases? That comes from the financial reports on the MBTA website.
<
p>And the ‘debt dump’, well that comes primarily from the costs of fixing Haymarket and submerging the Green line although everyone likes to say it’s Big Dig debt without really knowing exactly what they’re talking about. Regardless, even without that debt, the MBTA still, absent contributions from taxes still wouldn’t be solvent. But I won’t condescend by calling you stupid or disengenuous. Merely wrong.
<
p>So, do you actually have a point or thought? You don’t consider it strange that ridership barely increased 10% yet costs and revenue 3x that amount. Or, are you just sticking with the big dig debt talking point?
<
p>…let us build a giant parkway, sink it underground and invite even more cars into the city… then legally mandate transit expansion (we’ll call it ‘mitigation’, ha ha ha) and, when that works out so well… we’ll underhandedly shift even more debt unto the mbta budget. Two different budget busters: mandated expansion of operations (and thus costs) and underhanded shifting of Big dig debt. Yay us!
<
p>Then we can compare that legally mandated expansion (which, BTW chiefly occurred between 1991 and 1998) to operational costs a decade later, if only for grins and giggles as we then act like the MBTA got themselves in this pickle allby their onesies…. boy, aint that some kinda fun!?!?!?
<
p>Are you professionally disengenuous? Or is it just a hobby?
<
p>BTW: it’s not condescending if I really do believe you’re being disengenous…. or stupid.
Progress. At least now you recognize that there was an expansion, unfair because it was ‘legally mandated’ you suggest.
<
p>History:
<
p>In the 90s, there was an unprecidented expansion. Fair, unfair, legally mandated (in bold, lol as if it matters) or not. Seriously, who cares if it was legally mandated. BTW, all that means is that the Commonwealth of Mass agreed to select a list of projects in exchange for taking Federal funds for Big Dig.
<
p>Ridership cracked 300 million annually in 1991, rising in starts and fits. Extraordinarily mediocre growth.
<
p>To date, from 1991, the ridership grew, at a rate of somewhere around 1% per year. The numbers were entirely predictable, as those of us working on the feasibility noted in the myriad reports issued by some of the then Big-6 firms. On established systems, Transit ridership grows as a function of per capita income and alternative transport prices, and not with an ‘if you build it they will ride’.
<
p>To the contrary, Grabaukas actually was/is an innovator with his customer service approach to ridership, but wasn’t there long enough to note success or failure.
<
p>
<
p>So, let’s look at that debt. Where did it come from? The common dreck, that you lapped up and reguritated was that it was dumped onto the MBTA and was pollution remediation as result of Big Dig. Go with that and consider the expansion costs. We’ll go Line by Line.
<
p>-Silver Line: Washington Street Replacement Service.
<
p>-Silver Line: South Boston Transitway and Airport
<
p>-Orange Line: 18 new cars plus and Signal System
<
p>-Blue Line: Increase platform size to meet 6 car trains.
<
p>-Blue Line: modernize stations
<
p>-Green Line: extension medford hills through somerville.
<
p>-Green Line: move lines to accomodate big dig.
<
p>-Red/Blue Line Connector at Charles/MGH.
<
p>-Arborway Restoration. Restore Green Line in Jamaica Plain.
<
p>-Restore the Old Colony Line from Weymouth to Hingham.
<
p>-Upgrade bus fleet
<
p>-TF Green Rail Service.
<
p>That’s not all of them, but it’s most. There used to be a list on line but it was taken off years ago.
<
p>These projects were complete, and who better to maintain them than the MBTA? It’s their projects! Finneran et al, knew that the debt couldn’t be ‘self-funded’ and allocated 20% of the sales tax to the debt service, an amount that absolutely would cover the debt service.
<
p>BUT, he didn’t count on the insatiable appetite of the MBTA. The tax cash flows were used as collateral for additional expansion and worse, operating costs.
<
p>Capital invested increased from 6.3 billion in 2001 to 8.0 billion in 2008, or about 4% per year; costs continued at 10%. Ridership continued at 1%. You getting the math here? Cost rising at rate exceeding revenue.
<
p>Eventually, (today) costs + expansion + drop in sales tax cause the current crisis. Everyone points to the debt, because it’s an easy one-line scape goat and it’s the thing that now, cannot be paid BECAUSE THE MONEY FOR THE DEBT WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE.
<
p>Far easier to meme “it’s the debt” than actually parsing the numbers: ridership, costs, expansion, tax collection, fares to see the true story:
<
p>MBTA expanded too fast, spent too much for ridership that never materialized.
<
p>I said nothing about ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. (Whatever it is you think that means…) I was speaking to the reason behind the expansion: third-party mandate. And then further debt piled upon by third party as well as forward funding to complete the mix. Of course, the completion of the big dig added cars to the road and took riders off the T. Duh.
<
p>Your argument, such as it is, boils down to this: the MBTA got themselves into trouble all on their own.
<
p>Irrefutably this is total, complete, utter and indefensible bullshit. I wish there was a nicer way to say it, but there really isn’t. You should look up the definition of ‘political football’. Once you do, you’ll find a circular logo with a large ‘T’ alongside the definition.
<
p>You and I might find agreement in the notion that most, if not all, previous and prior MBTA administrators failed in coping at all well with their status as football. But to simply deny the onus of political cadgery, budgetary shenanigans and feckless legislative thuggery is to open yourself up to accusations of disengenousness.
Peter, I agree in part. From time to time former Governors chose to become more deeply involved in the operations of various authorities. I would point out, though, that Mitt Romney and Jane Swift were quite open about their disagreements with certain Board members and publicly attempted to remove them. Their actions were tonally and substantively different than the practices of the Patrick Administration.
<
p>Second, unlike the MBTA and MTA most independent public authorites recieve no or very little appropriated funds. They usually generate their own revenue and are thus self-supporting. I certainly concede the point that authorities which do receive an appropriation have a duty to the legislature to account for those funds.
<
p>My larger point, however, is that these squabbles are both pointless and illustrative. Pointless in the sense that over time administrations effectively gain control of the broad policy directions of independent public authorities as they appoint or reappoint Board members (not to mention the fact that many Board members appointed by previous Governors cannot wait to suck up to the new, incumbent Governor…). Why fight these battles when they can be won by default in 3 to 5 years? Second, they are illustrative of a significant flaw in the competency if not the character of the current administration. The tactics chosen and the constant prevarications (self-delusion?) do not speak well of the senior team. Whether it is immaturity, inexperience or something deeper, it calls into question the capacity of the administration to govern, solve complex problems and create a credible policies for the state’s future. And, people do notice. They may not understand every twist in the fight, or each turn in the debate, but they understand when someone is fudging the truth and they know that competent management is needed.
Yes – they were transparent, instead of some kind of Romulan Cloaking Bird of Prey strategy. Of course, thanks to the Lege, both are equally ineffective. The 3 – 5 year argument was what the SJC told Romney – he’d eventually supplant the current board. Of course, at that point, Amorello’s Senate ally Diane Wilkerson placed a rider in the Senate budget to increase the board numbers, to prevent Romney from getting control. That effort fell apart when someone was killed in the tunnel, but there’s no reason the strategy couldn’t be revived.
<
p>The revenue ‘generated’ by the Pike and T are chump change in their overall budget. Notice Grabauskas said a hike wasn’t needed because of sales tax? That’s because a portion of sales tax goes to the T without appropriation.
<
p>AND – ever wonder why, after all the squabble over gas tax vs. toll hike, it was SALES TAX that went up?
<
p>Patrick trashed the bond cap, and issued all the bonds. To issue a bond, you have to identify a revenue stream in case nobody BUYS said bond, to repay the billions dollar loans. Over time, a half-percent here and a quarter-percent there, the sales tax has been pledged away. About 3 percent of sales tax is pledged before it’s collected.
<
p>So the hike is really just a return to the past revenue gernerated – and perhaps that’s why Aloisi felt the mere tax hike wasn’t enough without a fare hike as well. Since that money is spent already.
<
p>And by raising the rate, they may depress the return, and their projections will fall to hell – just like the planning for a boost in capital gains worked earlier this year.
the idiocy of tying public transportation to the sales tax.
<
p>The recent gas price runup was not some temporary aberration that won’t happen again. It was, instead, a harbinger of things to come. Petroleum is not a renewable resource. We are not paying nearly its replacement cost. It seems that the steadfast denial of fundamental realities like these is a modern Republican trait.
<
p>The infrastructure of our highways is crumbling alongside our public transportation network. We have spent down the endowment, invested in the currency of public infrastructure, that our predecessors bequeathed us. We must replenish it — or condemn our children and grandchildren to far bleaker future than we inherited.
<
p>Capital investment in the Massachusetts subway and commuter rail network is crucial to the state-wide economy. An efficient, affordable, and convenient public transportation system is crucial to our way of life — state-wide.
<
p>Those who deny this drive us directly towards oblivion.
Peter, the reason that the Romney administration failed to remove the two Board members was actually pretty simple: you can only forcibly remove a Board member “for cause”. A disagreement in policy or a clash of personalities does not constitute cause – case closed.
<
p>As to the legislature, it is not likely that the legislative leadership would ever go along with the shoot from the hip suggestions of rank and file members to alter the composition of the Boards of Directors of indpendent public authorities as they (the leadership) understand the value of keeping their distance from the various authorities. Remember, it was the legislature that created the indepedent public authority to begin with and usually for important (to them) political and financial reasons – either the issue to be addressed was too politically charged for the Commonwealth to want to touch or too expensive for the Commonwealth to afford, or both.
<
p>I am not saying that the leadership would never make changes as they might if an authority went “rogue”…but the advantages to the state of keeping their distance from the authorities generally trumps mucking around with them (something the current administration continually and strangely fails to appreciate).
Romney was being held responsible for Big Dig shenanigans, and wanted to clarify what authority, if any, he had. The answer was zilch, until he could place his own people on the board.
<
p>BTW – doesn’t that SJC answer assume that all governors will appoint puppets instead of competent individuals?
<
p>These ‘appoint your own drones’ argument makes me think of Earl Warren- Ike thought he was a conservative…
<
p>And the only change leadership has even tried to make at a rogue agency – and please, the Pike was pretty darn rogue – was to further dilute the authority of the Governor. Until they handed the car keys and a bottle of gin over to Mr. Aloisi.
Romney, Swift, Swift, Romney…was there a difference?
<
p>The court simply applied what is settled law; i.e., cause means cause. The Governor needs to demonstrate factually that a Board member has acted negligently or criminally or beyond his or her authority….you get the picture. The fault (though I do not believe it to be a fault) therein lies with the legislature. If the legislature wished to create an entity were a Governor could appoint Board members at whim, it would simply draft legislation deleting “removal for cause” language. I would suggest that, in fact, is where you will have “puppets” appointed to Boards, knowing that he or she could be removed for any reason. Say, for example, a situation where a Board members refuses to contribute to a relection campaign…
<
p>At least “for cause” language protects good Board members who sincerely try to do the right thing. [Which is true with respect to the vast number of folk serving on Boards and who serve, in most cases, for free.] “For cause” provisions permit Board members to stand up aginst serving Governors (and sometimes the legislature) and make the correct, though sometimes unpopular, decisions.
<
p>Perhaps Romney and Swift were right…certainly one of the Board members mentioned acted in what might be viewed as a self-serving manner. But, Board members need to be protected from political whimsy and retribution. There were other, more pragmatic ways to have handled that and the current situation. Why administrations act the way they do – why they let their collective ego overtake their better political instincts – is interesting.
Re these emails: Grabauskus has been on the way out for a while. This email is dated July 6th, about a month ago. My guess is that he wrote it exactly for the purpose of creating what has taken place: negative publicity for Aloisi and the Gov. If this had been months earlier, I might find it more credible. I would also guess that there are earlier emails/memos with Grabauskus advocating a fare hike which will be leaked shortly. We’ll see.
<
p>On the situation more generally: Management, whether it’s Grabauskus or Aloisi, gets blamed for the T’s plight, but the situation is really the fault of political leaders:
* refusal to raise the gas tax
* refusal to upset the T’s labor unions and risk pickets/protests by streamlining jobs and getting labor costs in line
* refusal to shut down redundant / underused services, especially certain bus routes and train stations
* refusal to play hardball with the environmental and disability advocates, who are the counterparties to economically crippling settlements
* and on, and on.
<
p>I’m sure the managers would like to do these things, but their hands have been tied.
I can’t tell you why he shouldn’t resign, but I confess I’m not entirely clear on why you think he should. Because he pushed out his predecessor with the governor’s help? Isn’t that sort of why he was there in the first place?
No. Because, if the emails that came out today tell a true story, Aloisi has been untruthful about the fare increase, saying one thing publicly and another privately, and in the process making the Governor look like an idiot.
<
p>That’s why I want someone to explain it. Maybe Ed upthread is right — though what’s really damning is not Grabauskas saying that he could stave off a fare hike ’til 2011, but Aloisi himself saying he wanted one in 2010. Still, perhaps there’s another shoe set to drop.
:-!
Just in case there is another case to be made:
<
p>
<
p>(No need to eat the “Hitler” mustache.
More here.
<
p>Something is very, very wrong with our culture.
… some things just can’t be unseen.
<
p>Deval Patrick chose Aloisi. Aloisi should resign. Therefore, Deval Patrick should…..
<
p>It’s not like we just found out that Aloisi has been visiting hookers or something. This is policy we’re talking about. Aloisi is Deval’s man. Deval’s judgement is on the line. A Governor doesn’t actually do much. Most of the work of the state is carried out by the Governor’s appointed managers. Tell me where the buck should stop.
Yours is as good as this one:
<
p>Deval Patrick chose Aloisi. Aloisi is of Italian heritage. Therefore, Deval Patrick is of Italian heritage.
<
p>If Patrick knew that Aloisi was talking out of both sides of his mouth about a fare increase, that’s a big problem for Patrick (though obviously there’s a difference between an appointee stepping down and the Governor himself doing so — the latter is appropriately reserved for Spitzer-like misconduct). Otherwise, though, this looks like Aloisi on a frolic and detour that has created a PR disaster for his boss, and has also potentially derailed sensible transportation policy for some time.
heads do roll for this kind of thing in the dreaded private sector every day. Aloisi IS Deval’s guy. Blessedly for Deval, in government do people get a pass for “trying.”
<
p>Nevertheless…
<
p>Aloisi is a knucklehead. Aloisi should resign. The Governor’s appointment of him (among several) was not one of his finest. I’m not suggesting he should resign, but a mea culpa would be nice.
time to designate him for assignment.
which means you can’t without his approval. You can, however, bench him.
…we can get Steve Buckley to write some nasty columns on him being a grump around the office, taping a “do not cross” line around his desk.
<
p>Then we can trade him for a new governor, a development secretary, and two aides to be named later.
<
p>… Grabauskas, it is clear, leaked this to the press. Furthermore, he was talking up a rate hike fairly recently and fairly publicly. It’s entirely plausible that he changed his mind in the course of the sales tax debate, but that doesn’t make him credible here, or, at least, any more credible than Aloisi. It’s also plausible that Aloisi, in the course of the gas tax push and the sales tax implementation, felt an increase was a fait accompli, and necessary, as he said. Now Aloisi says to hold off on the rate increase, which is, I should think, something to be expected after you fire the GM for poor performance. Best case scenario: both Grabauskas and Aloisi are extremely fluid in their approach to fare hikes. No crime that, though it is a disappointment.
<
p>At the core it seems an essential policy debate and hardly the happy hour at ye olde Donnybrook faire. Yawn
That could be the grandest rationalization I’ve ever heard.
<
p>Grabauskas leaked it!! Really? Who’d a thunk. That’s what people do when you stab them in the back. And Grabouskas’ credibility isn’t the issue.
<
p>… So I can come up with rationalizations far more grand than this. As rationalizations go, this is pretty tame, so maybe you need to get out more.
<
p>
<
p>Sure it is. If we’re expected to attack Aloisi on the basis of what Grabauskas leaks, then Grabauskas gets the same amount of scrutiny, credibility wise… Both Grabauskas and Aloisi, it seems to me, fancy themselves as political hatchet men, so backstabbing, while regrettable, isn’t unexpected.
<
p>
the email to the statement made at the hearing. Nothing more, nothing less. Charles Manson could have leaked this and that would still be the issue.
Aloisi appears to have been less than straightforward in his statements regarding the fare hike. I don’t care if Santa leaked them, the email, far more than anything Mr. Grabauskas says or does, tells me all I really need to know. And the timing of Grabauskas’ “resignation.”
The Patrick administration, from the start, has played bait-and-switch with the sales tax increase, the [proposed] gas tax increase, and the toll and fare hikes — the bait being the implication that there were some either/or choices there, the switch that they weren’t really going to be taking anything off the table. Now, legislators are incensed that they voted for a very unpopular tax increase, and their excuse (“the alternative was a fare hike”) has been pulled out from under them.
<
p>I’m sorry, but Aloisi and Grabauskas are bit players in all this.
Is that true? Wasn’t the point of the email that the fare increase was not necessary because of the sales tax increase? The sales tax also wasn’t just 100% devoted to the MBTA. So how has the excuse been pulled out from under the legislature?
<
p>Also, since when have inter-departmental emails become a substitute for public policy? Government is messy business, and — *gasp! — people inside it are actually strategizing? Horrors! This is internal discussion — even at face value, Grabauskas says “hey, I’m not so sure on the fare hike now, things have gotten better since we started talking about it”, Aliosi says “hang on, I’m not ready to take that off the table just yet”. Big deal. That’s called “people doing their job”, discussing issues internally before going public with them.
Yes, the job entails “discussing issues internally” — but it also requires, as you say, “going public with them.” That’s what didn’t happen here; it’s all winks and nudges, no actual plan laid out by the executive. (Something similar is happening in DC over health care, I’m afraid.) The whole T controversy is over who supports what action, and no one can tell!
<
p>The “strategizing” here has left those who supported a gas tax increase, and now those who supported a sales tax increase, feel betrayed and abandoned. In politics, that is an actual, real-world outcome, with legislative and perhaps electoral repercussions.
<
p>I haven’t voted for a Republican for Governor since (reluctantly) Frank Hatch, and I won’t in 2010 either, but I’d sure like to see a proposal to address our fiscal crisis that goes beyond killing a few zebras.
<
p>
I still don’t get it. You seem to be claiming that since Grabauskas has said that a fare increase no longer appears to be necessary because “there would probably be enough new state sales tax revenue and federal stimulus money”, that this somehow undercut the sales tax increase.
<
p>Am I missing something? Isn’t some of the money from the sales tax increase the “new state sales tax revenue” that Grabauskas is speaking about? If so, then without the sales tax increase, the fare hike would still be on the table, right?
<
p>So just how is this leaving those who supported either the gas or sales tax hike out in the cold? To me, it appears that the sales tax increase worked.
of budget deficit, but didn’t treat the disease of massive debt service payments.
<
p>They’ve got to figure out how to deal with debt service payments making up about 30% of the budget. It’s the highest percentage in the nation, and it just eats up everything else. They’ve got to get some of that debt off the books, either with a transfer, a one time payment, something. Cutting back on future capital projects can only go so far; there are very real safety projects needed, and preventative maintenance to keep costs lower in the long term. Those capital expenditures simply can’t be eliminated.
<
p>
<
p>The lege needs to work with the MBTA to get some capital projects out from the MBTA’s budget which — given the requirements due to the Big Dig — ought to be financed by motorists in one shape (gas tax) or another (tolls).
How the Governor has no conrol over the MBTA board and its vote to raise fares…but somehow has the control to shut down the hearings of the fare increases?