MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

Copying this from Reddit, because it sums it up really well

No. Fuck this shit, this analysis is a fucking joke.

Let's start with the basics. How are capital projects funded in Massachusetts? MA issues capital investment programs covering a span of five years, the individual project on those plans come a number of source that I won't get into fully, but includes everything from local road repair costs reimbursed by MassDOT to major infrastructure projects. In the simplest way, a problem is identified by a local government and/or transportation agency, then a design and public input process occurs, the Feds and the State usually have to perform a review (carried out by different agencies, for the MBTA it's generally an environmental review and a review from the Boston MPO and/or MAPC). If a project passes review, the bidding process can be implemented and the Commonwealth is bound by law to go with the lowest technically complete bid offered on these projects.

Funding these projects comes from local municipalities, the State, and the Federal Gov't. Federal money comes in the form of grants from a constellation of programs housed with the FRA, FTA, FHWA, etc.. State money comes in two forms: "pay-as-you-go" and transportation bonds. The pay as you go money is basically paying for capital investments with already existing cash, but it's generally eaten up by smaller projects or operating expenses. The vast majority of projects funded by the State are done so by issuing a transportation bond for that specific project. There are a bunch of other restrictions here, but that's not important. There's also the background politics, that puts certain less than worthy projects on the CIP - but again, that's not at issue here.

Now for the Herald. It's hard to say what projects they are talking about, because they don't fucking mention any specifically. It is however, safe to assume that the MBTA does not have $2 billion lying around - it has multi-billion dollars levels of mandated debt that are only applicable to a certain project. Most projects receive a certain amount of Federal financing, money which goes away if the State doesn't issue debt for the State's share, but oftentimes the actual disbursement of this money is tied into the individual project's timeline. So the South Station Expansion is funded through CIP, but none of the money is spent because the USPS won't sell the MBTA their mail sorting facility. That money cannot be reallocated, at all. If MassDOT were to cancel their funding of SS, the Federal money disappears, and the transportation bond is cancelled. Many projects on the CIP won't go out to bid for a while, even though they are funded. That's just how the system works.

It's beyond fucking disingenuous to portray debt as actual money, MassDOT does not have oodles of cash lying around, it has debt. That's it. Period. Anyone who wants to look at MassDOT's CIP can do so here.

tl;dr Herald doesn't understand the difference between debt and money
Click to expand...
 
Mongo said:
Copying this from Reddit, because it sums it up really well
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound as if Reddolt has a clue either -- as they don't seem to understand that borrowing costs real money

Why don't you T-ophants either learn something about government financing of projects and or wait for the committee report to be released

To repeat something earlier -- the advisory committee is composed of people with sufficient relevant track records and pedigrees

Its unlikely that such a group is just going through the motions -- I suspect that they will mostly tell us the truth -- a truth that most people who just want to spend will find distasteful -- but necessary
 
whighlander said:
Doesn't sound as if Reddolt has a clue either

Why don't you T-ophants either learn something about government financing of projects and or wait for the committee report to be released

To repeat something earlier -- the advisory committee is composed of people with sufficient relevant track records and pedigrees

Its unlikely that such a group is just going through the motions -- I suspect that they will mostly tell us the truth -- a truth that most people who just want to spend will find distasteful -- but necessary
Click to expand...

The "analysis" that was refereed to in my comment is the analysis the herald did of the leaked report, which is pretty shitty and doesn't present actual factual information. We don't yet know what is in the final report.
 
whighlander said:
Doesn't sound as if Reddolt has a clue either -- as they don't seem to understand that borrowing costs real money
Click to expand...

Wasn't one of the Reddit guy's line said this:

disingenuous to portray debt as actual money, MassDOT does not have oodles of cash lying around, it has debt
Click to expand...

Thus he is explaining that debt is not money. Which is what you seem to saying about finances... except you also saying you disagree and insult him?

whighlander said:
Why don't you T-ophants either learn something about government financing of projects and or wait for the committee report to be released

To repeat something earlier -- the advisory committee is composed of people with sufficient relevant track records and pedigrees

Its unlikely that such a group is just going through the motions -- I suspect that they will mostly tell us the truth -- a truth that most people who just want to spend will find distasteful -- but necessary
Click to expand...

The Reddit guy seem to gave a very detailed explanation how money for project is spent. He breaks down the spending budgets, note their funding origins, explains how budgets are earmarked and its implication in context of the MBTA's budget. A cohesive and consistent explanation that at least sound informed and informational.

You just spat out an insult then tell everyone to learn more about how financing works but give no counter explanation nor explain what he said was wrong or omitted. Rather than insult and disdain, how about you explain what he said that was false? What is contradictory?
 
It's also worth noting, the "guy on Reddit" is a thesis student who is rather prolific on there (fantastic detailed posts) & has extensively studied the MBTA's financial data:

CantabKBH
No, not in the industry. I'm a student, writing a thesis, and I have reams and reams of MBTA financials and capital plans and ridership/performance chart so I just have the info readily on hand. That's all - there are far, far better and more interesting people to talk too there. PM me if you want I can send you a list of sites, forums, blogs, that are all pretty interesting and on topic.

http://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/31mdgf/bakers_expert_panel_have_diagnosed_the_t_with/cq4ak1i
Click to expand...
 
Matthew said:
That means you need a lot of people living and working within a short walk of the station entrance(s). A LOT of people! And not 9-5ers or some limited segment of the population. You need a diverse group of people, who all have different schedules, different ways of life, different things to do, so that the station is used all of the time.

This is pretty much the opposite of 20th century American city planning, which has been about segregation, homogeneity, and sprawl; the big three killers of transit ridership.

If you want to know why American transit has such anemic farebox recovery rates, you need to look at American city planning, land use planning, zoning, and the way regulation has been manipulated by snobs, racists, highway builders, and idealistic enablers in order to force segregation, homogeneity, and sprawl on us all.

That's not to say that transit agencies are innocent. There's plenty of corruption and mismanagement in your typical American transit agency. But they're playing on an uneven field, with the power of government, from the Federal level on down to the municipal, deployed against them.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or did you equated highway builders and idealists of the middle of the 20th century to racists by writing them in the same sentence togerher. With implication that the highway constructions as segregation (and from what I can you mean racial segregation and suburbia) of malicious manipulation. Like it or not, some people like the suburbs.

According to my understanding, you object to highways in urban areas for geometric and urban destructive reasons. This sounds hostile to any form of highways even if space permits.

Not to mention what you said ignore other pretty reasonable explanations. Like HK is highly population but in a small island? I can totally get behind that were smart of maximizing usage near stations to general 24hr heavy usage (basically able to have Boston Rush Hour utilization - the few hours where it is "profitable" with fare revenue outstripping costs - but for most of the time). I have no objection to your explanation about efficiency or how policies of the 20th century would not allow transit to pull the same feat. Just your explanation to their policies seems to imply maliciousness.
 
You need to read some history, Antoine.

Not all highway builders and idealistic "City Planners" were interested in segregation. But many of them were.

It's no accident that highway alignments were often drawn straight through minority neighborhoods. It's no accident that such neighborhoods were often designed as "blighted" by agencies such as our BRA, and similar ones around the country. And it's no accident that highway builders often happily "fixed" these "blighted" neighborhoods by ramming a highway through them.
 
Also Hong Kong's subway lines were first built in 1979, while the various lines in Boston were first built from 1897-1924. I think if the MBTA had been given carte blanche for a do over in 1979 things would be a lot better.
 
CCAysmYWAAEFh-f.png:large


Chart from 2007 Transportation finance report on employees in capital vs. operating budget.

Previous governors essentially hid fiscal problems by funding operations from the capital budget.
 
Matthew said:
You need to read some history, Antoine.

Not all highway builders and idealistic "City Planners" were interested in segregation. But many of them were.

It's no accident that highway alignments were often drawn straight through minority neighborhoods. It's no accident that such neighborhoods were often designed as "blighted" by agencies such as our BRA, and similar ones around the country. And it's no accident that highway builders often happily "fixed" these "blighted" neighborhoods by ramming a highway through them.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of history Matthew. I don't think history is the issue here. Excuse my comprehension if you don't mean this, but I am reading some implication as you used "segregation" and "racism" in explaining the difference between US transit systems and HK. More than just that some city planners policies at the time. But more about to also the populations that moved to the suburbs back then.

Or noting minorities being victims of the city planning but that ignore Mattapan or West End (for the Boston sense of this). Granted they were minorities in their own way, but I'm not sensing that in your usage of minorities.

Meanwhile, you gave no mention of geographic considerations where HK is an island meanwhile metro Boston can look to the hinterland. While many here like urbanity, like being near towers and density. Many people do and continue to like the idea of a house with a yard. That reasoning is why SF has reached absurd level of Real Estate prices because they are not willing to give that up in such prime locations.
 
If I understand what you are saying, which I might not be, here is my response:

I know plenty of history Matthew. I don't think history is the issue here. Excuse my comprehension if you don't mean this, but I am reading some implication as you used "segregation" and "racism" in explaining the difference between US transit systems and HK. More than just that some city planners policies at the time. But more about to also the populations that moved to the suburbs back then.
Click to expand...

Transportation and city planning is a political process. Politics of the 20th century in the United States were heavily dominated by the politics of segregation and racism. There's no escaping the fact.

Or noting minorities being victims of the city planning but that ignore Mattapan or West End (for the Boston sense of this). Granted they were minorities in their own way, but I'm not sensing that in your usage of minorities.
Click to expand...

I'm using the term 'minority communities' in an expansive, inclusive sense. The communities that were targeted by redlining, by urban renewal, by slum clearance, by all the assortment of racial and ethnically targeted policies of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, you gave no mention of geographic considerations where HK is an island meanwhile metro Boston can look to the hinterland. While many here like urbanity, like being near towers and density. Many people do and continue to like the idea of a house with a yard. That reasoning is why SF has reached absurd level of Real Estate prices because they are not willing to give that up in such prime locations.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong is one example. Japan also provides great examples of this style of development, where land use supports transit, and the agencies are profitable.

Oh, and it looks like this:

neighborhood1.jpg

(near Shinjuku, Tokyo)

Hong Kong-style towers aren't necessary.

I will say that Tokyo does have a sprawl problem because so much of the city is low-rise. But unlike San Francisco, Tokyo has housing costs under control. And very unlike SF, very unlike Boston, Tokyo's multiple transit agencies are well-run and profitable.
 
It is probably evident by now that redevelopment, density, and new development must center on transit or places with demand for riders to promote more riders, which in turn increases revenues for the MBTA. Otherwise, we will be stuck on sprawl, reliance on cars, which demand even more LOW gas prices.
 
aaaaaa said:
So what you're saying is that the panel was completely misguided since they went to the doctor looking for a cure for a viral respiratory illness (MERS) even though they knew they had a bacterial infection (MRSA) in their leg? Basically, they chose not to understand the problem from the start, and sought the fix they wanted rather the one that was needed.
Click to expand...

An more apt medical analogy is the patient with alcoholic cirrhosis who wants to get on the transplant list (and needs to, to save his life) but keeps drinking. He doesn't get on the list because the number of transplants is limited and they need to be meted out to those who will make the best use of them.

This state isn't a bottomless pit... I feel silly "debating" on here and having to state the obvious again and again but people just hear what they want to hear. Nobody, including the report, is saying the MBTA will be alright if they restructure the agency in line with other transit agencies. But this needs to happen first. AND there's no reason why it can't happen this year and next year - an 18 month process, will yield clear results in 2-3 years. In the meantime there will be more ground to stand on for the budgetary issues (for maintenance), and if things are done right then there will be even more ground to stand on 4-5 years down the road for rational transit projects. Hopefully by then the T will have some decent planners who don't do what we love to here - draw lines all over abandoned rail ROWs and connect dots on maps - but rather take hard, analytical studies on which projects can be done for the biggest passenger increase per least dollar spent. We all deserve a better T - it certainly would be better from a transit advocacy standpoint. And maybe it might get some people (higher up than now) who read "Crazy Transit Pitches" regularly.
 
FK4 said:
An more apt medical analogy is the patient with alcoholic cirrhosis who wants to get on the transplant list (and needs to, to save his life) but keeps drinking. He doesn't get on the list because the number of transplants is limited and they need to be meted out to those who will make the best use of them.

This state isn't a bottomless pit... I feel silly "debating" on here and having to state the obvious again and again but people just hear what they want to hear. Nobody, including the report, is saying the MBTA will be alright if they restructure the agency in line with other transit agencies. But this needs to happen first. AND there's no reason why it can't happen this year and next year - an 18 month process, will yield clear results in 2-3 years. In the meantime there will be more ground to stand on for the budgetary issues (for maintenance), and if things are done right then there will be even more ground to stand on 4-5 years down the road for rational transit projects. Hopefully by then the T will have some decent planners who don't do what we love to here - draw lines all over abandoned rail ROWs and connect dots on maps - but rather take hard, analytical studies on which projects can be done for the biggest passenger increase per least dollar spent. We all deserve a better T - it certainly would be better from a transit advocacy standpoint. And maybe it might get some people (higher up than now) who read "Crazy Transit Pitches" regularly.
Click to expand...

it's a matter of degree. what's being reported of course will never mention the debt service costs saddling the T - probably the single, easiest thing that they could fix that would yield the best results - but instead brings up crap that at best will yield 1-2%. i'll be SHOCKED if they mention the word "debt" in the final released report.

when I took strategy classes back in the day the one thing that stuck in my mind was that in a sea of information and problems to solve- always focus and solve the biggest, most difficult, most important problem because that's the one that will get the best results.
 
datadyne007 said:
It's also worth noting, the "guy on Reddit" is a thesis student who is rather prolific on there (fantastic detailed posts) & has extensively studied the MBTA's financial data:
Click to expand...

I'm glad that he's studying -- just doesn't seem to have done the right library work

Here's a simple model leaving out minor elements:

Let TTot == Total Cost of the T for the Fiscal Year

TTot === TOp + TNop
  • Where TOp == sum of total operating expenses such as: [not exhaustive]
    • Salaries + benefits for the Bosses
    • Wages + benefits for the Hourly employees
    • Fuel
    • Electricity
    • Services purchased such as: cleaning, digging snow, patching holes, accountants, lawyers, etc.
    • Materials purchased such as salt, air filters, light bulbs, other materials used in ordinary maintenance of vehicles and facilities
    • Office expenses
    • Travel & other reimbursements
    • Insurance, rent, printing, etc., etc.
    • additional payments for pension plans to cover losses, etc.
  • Where TNop === sum of non operating expenses such as [not exhaustive]
    • Payments on existing financial obligations -- i.e. interest and perhaps refunding
    • Direct Capital expenses including enhancements [i.e. extensions, ADA compliance] and non-ordinary maintenance + minor capital [new snow blowers, snow plows]
    • Costs associated with new financial obligations such as lawyers, accountants
    • Non Capital expenses associated with Capital Expenses such as Consultants, Architects, etc.
    • Costs associated with real estate and other non operating transactions

By Law the T overall has to balance Total Cost with Total Funds -- Note that the T can not borrow outside of the Bonds authorized for issue by the Legislature

Total Funds are a sum of:
  • FOp == Funds raised from operations -- mostly farebox + ads
  • Finv == Funds raised from investments in financial obligations such as associated with pension plans
  • FRnt == Funds raised from rental and leasing
  • FNop == Funds raised from other non operations such as sale of real estate or sale of licenses, etc.
  • FBon == Funds raised from Bond Issues
  • FFed == Funds received from Federal Sources [principally for Capital Projects such as ADA, etc]
  • FMa == Total funds from Commonwealth of MA including:
    • FSTax == Funds from 1% Sales Tax on all eligible sales
    • FAss == Funds from Assessments on T District via local real estate taxes levied on all taxable real estate in the T district
    • FGap == Funds to make up the missing directly appropriated by the Legislature -- basically hitting on all Income Earned and "Unearned" in MA + some of the rest of the sales tax on ordinary purchases, gasoline tax, excise tax on cars, sales taxes on purchase of vehicles, fees on hunting and fishing licenses, licences on cosmetologists, barbers, business incorporation fees, etc., etc., etc.

Since the last "Reform of the T" FGap is supposed to be 0

Hasn't quite worked out that way
 
FenwayResident said:
Also Hong Kong's subway lines were first built in 1979, while the various lines in Boston were first built from 1897-1924. I think if the MBTA had been given carte blanche for a do over in 1979 things would be a lot better.
Click to expand...

Fenway -- actually a lot of the T has been built or rebuilt in the 1970's and 1980's and some even the past year or so
including:
  • Red Line
    • Red Line to Quincy and Beyond
    • JFK / UMass mega station
    • Harvard mega Station and all track to Alewife
    • Porter to Alewife Stations
    • platform extensions and other enhancements at Central, Kendall, Charles, Park, DTX, South Station, Broadway, Andrew, ..
  • Orange Line
    • DTX to Forest Hills -- from Tufts Med to Forest Hills -- all new track and Stations
    • North Station super station and tunnel under Charles to Community College
    • all new track and stations from Community College to Oak Grove
    • Assembly in Somerville
  • Green Line
    • Nothing really since the D about 1960 and North Station
    • major rebuilds of a lot of stations such as Kenmore, Park, Gov't Center, for ADA, etc.
    • rebuilds of street running and median stations
  • Blue Line
    • Airport Station
    • ADA and platform lengthening rebuilds of many stations including State, Aquarium, Wonderland. etc.
  • The entire Silver Line
  • lots of Commuter Rail including Yawkee and New Balance and earlier major rebuild of Westwood Rt-128 Station

This actually seems like a fairly modern system with a few exceptions
 
None of what you just said relates to a carte blanche situation. You can rebuild stations all you want, but it doesn't mean the infrastructure serving them is adequate.
 
Max Power said:
it's a matter of degree. what's being reported of course will never mention the debt service costs saddling the T - probably the single, easiest thing that they could fix that would yield the best results - but instead brings up crap that at best will yield 1-2%. i'll be SHOCKED if they mention the word "debt" in the final released report.

when I took strategy classes back in the day the one thing that stuck in my mind was that in a sea of information and problems to solve- always focus and solve the biggest, most difficult, most important problem because that's the one that will get the best results.
Click to expand...

Max -- the Dept of the T is a Political Expedient / Exigency -- its all part of the huge expansion of the costs of the Big Dig over the original estimates -- ball park $20B versus $2B

Between the real over-runs due to engineering surprises, expansion of scope [mostly driven by the CLF to include "Mitigation Measures" such as expanded Commuter Rail], ineptitude in management, corruption and waste built into the Project Agreement, etc. -- the cost of the Big Dig that had to be covered by MA grossly exceeded the original funding structures -- the Federal Contribution was capped

As a result of all kinds of deals within the various interests and the Legislature -- things like the all manner of the "Mitigation Measures" -- ended up on the T's Balance Sheet as Assets / Liabilities and of course expanded carrying costs

No magic here -- just a giant Ponzi Scheme or perhaps 3 Card Monti, or the old Pea under the Cups Game -- your choice of metaphor
 
datadyne007 said:
None of what you just said relates to a carte blanche situation. You can rebuild stations all you want, but it doesn't mean the infrastructure serving them is adequate.
Click to expand...

Data -- I never said it was Clean Sheet or anything ideal -- there was historic infrastructure needing support and upgrade as well as annoying things which could have been fixed with all the money that was spent -- but the T chose to do otherwise

For example -- my own pet peves:
  • Orange Line north to Oak Grove -- 3rd track exists some of the way -- yet?
  • Never bothered to get rid of the screech when entering Harvard
  • Silver Line could easily have crossed under D Street
  • Why was the Airport Station moved -- but not to the proper location such as the Hilton Parking Lot from which a moving sidewalk could take people to the terminals
  • walking connection from State to DTX to allow access to all of the lines from 3 core Stations for maximum redundency
  • Loss of the use of the crossing of the Mystic to Everet
  • opportunity to build new station for the original Mega-development of Telcom City -- now the Rivers's Edge
  • etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top