Today is the launch of the newly formed MBTA Legislative Caucus. With financial challenges at the T, and the critical need to improve public transportation for both economic and environmental reasons, I am very excited by what opportunities this Caucus will create.
I am proud to see this caucus organizing by such a geographically diverse group of House and Senate members. I am joined by Senators Pat Jehlen (Somerville) & Jamie Eldridge (Acton), along with Representatives Sean Garballey (Arlington), Katherine Clark (Melrose), Mary Grant (Beverly), Denise Provost (Somerville), Byron Rushing (Boston), Joyce Spiliotis (Peabody), and Alice Wolf (Cambridge). We expect many others to be joining us today as well.
Rep. Wolf and I have already filed legislation dealing with the MBTA’s financial crisis, which is the result of a crushing debt burden placed on the T by the state, as well as by the sales tax revenues coming in below projections over the past several years. We were successful this past spring, as a part of the transportation reform debate, to target an additional $160 million to the MBTA from the sales tax increase. While that addressed the T’s projected deficit for the current fiscal year, it does not address the long-term financial stability of the system. The administration ordered a top to bottom financial review of the T, and I expect we will see the debate over a fare increases to begin again.
The MBTA Caucus will be meeting today with T advocates from organizations including the T Riders Union, MassPIRG, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Smart Growth Alliance, and the On the Move Coalition. We have invited these groups to share their views on the current challenges facing the T, as well as their view of the long-term challenges and potentials for improvements to the system.
The goal of the caucus is in part to advocate for the financial needs of the T and its riders (both the inner core service area, and the outlying commuter rail users). But we also need a coordinated effort in the legislature to present a vision of what is possible long term, and to help make Massachusetts a leader in providing high quality, accessible, and affordable public transportation.
With limited resources, and so many of our transportation dollars drained away into road projects, we need a coordinated effort to prioritize the needs of public transportation in the legislature. The MBTA Legislative Caucus will give us a forum in which to do the planning and organizing work necessary, and to provide a public transportation system our T riders across the state, from Haverhill to Braintree, and from Worcester to Boston, can be proud of.
Carl Sciortino
State Representative
A few quick thoughts:
<
p>1. Ignore other regional transit agencies at your own peril. While the others pale in comparison to the MBTA in terms of budget, ridership, miles, etc… there are plenty of reps who won’t lift a finger for the T but will fight for their own region. You need their votes, and the “cost” of throwing their transit agencies another bone or two is very small — and worth doing anyway.
<
p>2. Gotta get the debt down. That’s the diagnosis, no doubt about it. How to do it? One way might be for the state to take on specific projects that (a) the MBTA has to do anyway, or (b) will lower the operating costs of the MBTA. An example of the first include things like bridge replacement. An example of the second is bus rapid transit or signal prioritization, which often also includes work with local government. Give the bus and the street car the “green light” and efficiency improves — schedules are kept tighter, people are happier, and necessary overtime is reduced, thereby lowering operating costs. If the state just simply paid for a few of those and allowed the MBTA to retire some debt instead of paying for the bridge, you cut the debt a bit. Every bit counts.
<
p>3. Figure out how to take the cost of paratransit off of the MBTA, if only partially. This is everything from reducing the MBTA paratransit requirements when ADA-spec transit is sufficiently available, to paying for the ADA-spec transit requirements in stations (elevators, ramps, etc). It’s a huge cost on the MBTA with very small financial returns, but it’s a social good. We should have it, but general taxes should pay for it. It shouldn’t be on the MBTA’s back.
There’s no one from the Worcester area or South Shore, and Eldridge is from Acton, which is barely on the periphery of the Metro-west area. The South Coast and Merrimack Valley are absent, too. Rushing is the only one from south of the Charles River.
…whether this was intended just for bus/subway in metro Boston or if commuter rail was part of this too.
question for you…
<
p>have you thought about recruiting some of the more fiscally conservative electeds for your caucus? (or perhaps you’ve already done so).
<
p>i wonder if a caucus which combined your long-term vision with a truly ruthless effort to weed out wasteful spending, while more politically challenging to your base, might be able to get a larger group of independent voters to support the cause.
<
p>i think when people hear “they retire at 40 years old” or whatever the mbta “reform” conversation. stops. dead.
<
p>for taxpayers, it just so violates a sense of reasonableness – “i will work til 65 so i can pay for more people to retire at 40?” – that is paralyzes mbta change.
But wasn’t it the “fiscally conservative” administrations of Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci who either initially negotiated these benefits in the MBTA contracts or failed to negotiate them out in subsequent contracts? (Does Charlie Baker, who was secretary of A&F, care to answer?)
doesn’t really answer the question. Just a tu quoque argument. All it says is that the Repubs weren’t fiscally conservative in 1998.
<
p>True. Now what?
<
p>Speaking of waste … simplification?
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
That long term vision of what’s possible needs to include fare-less transit, at least in the urban areas where we have a lot to benefit from taking cars off the road. But we could also consider some fare-less transit between the main Pioneer Valley cities/towns, for example, because those bridges across the Connecticut River get as clogged up as many urban roads. Portland, OR has fareless public transit in downtown and I always envy them for it. I think of this even when I’m driving through Portland, because it’s a big part of what makes it possible to drive through Portland without going crazy like one does in Boston. Meanwhile, here in Cambridge, anytime I’m unemployed or working for low pay, I stop taking the T and start driving in order to save money. It’s crazy. Why do we pour so much taxpayer money into roads and road-related infrastructure to preserve everyone’s ability to drive cheaply, while starving our public transit and forcing people to pay orders of magnitude more to use it?
to protect the non-MBTA regions of the state from continual MBTA rent seeking?
and in return lets make sure that income tax revenue from the Boston metro area is not given to towns outside the region. Fair trade?
The MBTA has long been the problem relationship of Massachusetts. For many reasons that are listed here in comments and Rep. Sciortino’s message, and for many reasons not listed, it has been an issue.
<
p>We, as a state, have taken advantage of the MBTA. It’s an infrastructure that cannot just pick up and move out. If it goes bankrupt, we have to keep it going or people won’t be able to get to work and our streets will suffer. It is the boy/girl-friend we won’t break up with and so far has been hesitant to stand up for itself and build it’s own confidence.
<
p>But all of that has to end. MBTA is the gear that turns this state’s economy. We need to repair the damage we have done and (albet slowly due to money) build its confidence in the public. We are out of options and the time has come that we respect the infrastructures we have built that make this state run day after day.
<
p>But in order for it to be taken seriously, we also have to stop ignoring the needs of Worcester and west. ShillelaghLaw mentioned that we folks from Central Mass and the South Shore. This is correct, but they feel like Beacon Hill only pays attention to the immediate surroundings. We need to connect them with reliable transit and build their confidence in public transit. It will only be then that I see any chance of them joining this caucus.
<
p>I have written my two State Reps requesting that join this cause and I hope you do too.
Just to let everyone know, I am actually a member of new MBTA legislative caucus.
<
p>I thank Sen. Jehlan and Rep. Garabally for putting this caucus together. I think it could prove to be a particular important and influential caucus as it involves one of the state’s most critical pieces of public infrastructure.
<
p>Collectively, we should be able to bring a number of different perspectives to the table that will help us develop a fuller understanding of the MBTA and the issues surrounding it.
<
p>Personally, I hope to bring some insight as a suburban lawmaker whose communities are directly serviced by boats, trains and buses, as well as a veteran of the State House who has been concerned about the fiscal health of the MBTA for many years.
<
p>I hope the new MassDOT board, which will also manage the MBTA, will spend some time reading the findings and recommendations of both the McGovern blue-ribbon commission report from 2001 and the Mass. Transportation Finance Commission report from 2006. I think the McGovern report was particularly prescient in predicting the fiscal problems the MBTA is experiencing today.