What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?

[whighlander]

Default would be my choice -- follow the successful example of American Airlines, United, etc. and just extinguish the debt.

Ron -- I'm guessing that as opposed to the Massport enabling legislation that created an agency with adequate source of revenue -- the MBTA was always a creature of the state

I don't think it can go bankrupt without MA going bankrupt as the Full Faith and Credit of the Commonwealth is backing its bonds -- certainly that is the case of the Big Dig expenses funded through the T

However, the Legislature has the authority to re-write the rules -- it wont of course as too many of the members of the legislature are deeply in-bed with the unions

Nothing will fundamentally change until the current bums are run out of town and a reform legislature and Governor are elected

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Ron -- I'm guessing that as opposed to the Massport enabling legislation that created an agency with adequate source of revenue -- the MBTA was always a creature of the state

I don't think it can go bankrupt without MA going bankrupt as the Full Faith and Credit of the Commonwealth is backing its bonds -- certainly that is the case of the Big Dig expenses funded through the T

However, the Legislature has the authority to re-write the rules -- it wont of course as too many of the members of the legislature are deeply in-bed with the unions

Nothing will fundamentally change until the current bums are run out of town and a reform legislature and Governor are elected

Well, I don't know if you can even play the bankruptcy card at the state level, but let's get serious: there really isn't a better time to find out.

I proposed the poison bankruptcy choice under the impression that an MBTA bankruptcy would push Boston and maybe Cambridge into bankruptcy as well. That's political suicide for whoever does it but it'd damn well guarantee something like this never happens again.

Take a look at what happened and is happening in post-bankruptcy Central Falls. You may not even have to declare outright - just threaten it and that may be enough.

Too bad nobody has the political will and testicular fortitude to make that call.

 

[whighlander]

Well, I don't know if you can even play the bankruptcy card at the state level, but let's get serious: there really isn't a better time to find out.

I proposed the poison bankruptcy choice under the impression that an MBTA bankruptcy would push Boston and maybe Cambridge into bankruptcy as well. That's political suicide for whoever does it but it'd damn well guarantee something like this never happens again.

Take a look at what happened and is happening in post-bankruptcy Central Falls. You may not even have to declare outright - just threaten it and that may be enough.

Too bad nobody has the political will and testicular fortitude to make that call.

Commute -- since the creation of the T neither Boston or Cambridge has much skin in the game with the T

That's part of the problem -- Boston and Cambridge are the primary employment centers fed by the T -- yet outside of the T Advisory Board -- neither has really much more say than Malden, or Revere. Once you get beyond the Advisory Board - the real power is in the Legislature. While the Cities of Boston, Cambridge, Sommerville, Lowerll, Worcester, Walthm, etc. have concentrations of state reps -- the overall membership of the legislature is dominated by suburban towns and even exurbs

What I've stated for many years is that the re-balancing needs to be done through the merging of all of the Greater Boston infrastructure into something like a Metro-Boston County. This entity would own and operate the T, Massport, Highways, Parks, MWRA, etc. within roughly I-495 and would have an elected "legislature" representing all of the cities and towns and an at-large elected 5 person executive with a chair and 4 other members. The entity would be given the power to levy taxes and issue bonds backed by the tax revenues. During the transition from state authority to Metro-Boston County department of infrastructure and transportation all of the contracts would be open for modification

 

[mass88]

Why was the T saddled with the debt from the Big Dig?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why was the T saddled with the debt from the Big Dig?

I believe it's a combination of legal wranglings that may or may not have been needed to get the project past the Sierra Club and Team Environmentalism.

These would be the same wranglings that led to all the promises of expanded T service (E Line -> Foret Hills/Arborway, Red/Blue Connection, et al) that the MBTA has been backpedaling on and/or throwing BRT at.

Someone more informed is more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Why was the T saddled with the debt from the Big Dig?

Ostensibly because the Transit Improvements were tied to Big Dig mitigation, but that was kind of weak-sauce excuse because it was a veritable double-billing for so much of the transit work. Mostly it was accounting tricks to stuff exploding Big Dig overruns on somebody else's ledger when Massport and the Turnpike Authority were starting to smell rotten. None of the pols who cooked up this and forward funding based on unrealistic peakmost-roaring economy tax revenues had any interest in ensuring long-term fiscal health at the T. It was year-to-year gimmick designed to look wider-reaching than it was and quiet down the Big Dig scandals that were starting to take casualties. Paul Cellucci was already readying his resume to bail the state so the Executive branch didn't care. And the strikes on Tom Finneran were starting to pile up so Mr. Speaker wasn't in his mind sticking around much longer either.

Same general cynicism still permeating the air today with the current crop looking to their next jobs over long-term health...because the current generation of leaders were deputized under that last one (plus we still can't seem to elect a governor who doesn't get bored with the state within 3 years). Punt it forward to the next generation. That's the cycle that needs breaking.


Realistically speaking, an engaged State House should have an easier time structurally reforming the T than the Big Dig criminal enterprise of 10 years ago. It's two artificial structural impediments--road debt and forward funding--, and decades overdue rebooting of several labor agreement lead anvils. Then tightening up the capital waste and operational sloth...that's the T's charge, but that effort gains genuine internal motivation and inertia-of-motion when the structure becomes a level playing field. As long as they're screwed any which way under the current structure, they have no motivation to tighten themselves up. This bullshit service plan is evidence of that low motivation.

It's hard...it requires painful choices the deciders are too exceptionally lazy and pampered to consider. But reforming the MBTA is nowhere near--not in the same universe--as daunting as the Big Dig, where it involved peeling away onion layers of corruption and cover-ups, there was a bona fide criminal prosecution element to dealing with that radioactive mess, and too many pols tasked with that reform had too much to fear from evidence surfacing of their own hands in the till. There are no doubt still some bodies buried and 9 figures more of fumigation yet to uncover in that debacle.

Here, it is reliably certain that if they do their due diligence fixing what only the Legislature/Governor has the power to fix that the T can stand on its feet, do what it has to do to maintain and grow, and still stick to a debt payment plan. The tasks at hand are very concrete, cut-and-dried, with readily predictable effects if it merely gets a whole-assed reform effort. We just have a shortage of elected officials who give a crap at present.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

^An elegant post, but you ignore (or at least omit facts). Something like 1/3rd of the MBTA's debt is directly related to Big Dig mitigation projects. You dismiss things like the E-Line, Old Colony and Greenbush projects as Big Dig "corruption". No, those were mitigation projects required for environmental approval.
Was there corruption in the Big Dig? Sure.
Did that have any impact on subsequent capital expenditures by the MBTA? Not based on any evidence I've heard.

 

[Matthew]

Explain to me again why MBTA transit riders should be forced to pay for projects that mitigate the pollution and traffic congestion caused by the Big Dig?

Shouldn't that money be repaid by the drivers who are using the Big Dig tunnels?

 

[MBTAddict]

Explain to me again why MBTA transit riders should be forced to pay for projects that mitigate the pollution and traffic congestion caused by the Big Dig?

Shouldn't that money be repaid by the drivers who are using the Big Dig tunnels?

Ditto. That's really the issue. Everyone who wants to keep driving (which is their choice, that's fine) doesn't understand that the T is paying for them to drive for free under Boston.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

^An elegant post, but you ignore (or at least omit facts). Something like 1/3rd of the MBTA's debt is directly related to Big Dig mitigation projects. You dismiss things like the E-Line, Old Colony and Greenbush projects as Big Dig "corruption". No, those were mitigation projects required for environmental approval.
Was there corruption in the Big Dig? Sure.
Did that have any impact on subsequent capital expenditures by the MBTA? Not based on any evidence I've heard.

Huh? I didn't say anything about the Transit Commitments not being a drag. They were a big drag. How much did somebody else pick up the bill for Greenbush, Fairmount, and these Salem and Beverly garages that are running hugely over-budget? That came out of the T's coffers, with a huge sum of deferred closeout costs still dragging down the FY2012-16 budget. I think the only project that did get substantial prepaid funding at state-sponsored level was the Transitway because both tunnels had related construction impacts in the same location.

But they took on the lump-sum BD debt on top of that. The debt interest was supposed to be the tradeoff for getting a large state-sponsored advance on funding to expedite these projects on an aggressive, many-simultaneous-builds schedule. It didn't happen that way...the Big Dig needed billions in bailout, and transit's IOU funding sucked that up he same way the snow surplus is punting this year's crisis. Basing forward funding on Polyanna tax revenues was #2 in the 1-2 punch. Nobody in the state budget office could've said with a straight face that the pre-bubble economy would remain exactly as strong without a single dip to fund over span of a decade the kind of revenue needed to thread the needle on the Transit Commitments. Even a consistently roaring overall economy like the 90's had more year-to-year variability than that. The structure made it a fait accompli that the funding would disappear and some Transit Commitments would have to be chopped back. They knew this, but forward funding + the debt transfer reasoning did its job by helping secure the EIS approvals for the Big Dig. Leadership didn't care if those projects were ever built to completion. Like today they were going to cash out before that decade of construction was over.

The T got double-dipped on bigtime to get the Big Dig completed and save the Turnpike Authority's and Massport's face when the jig was up. The structure imposed on them was how that was allowed to happen. That's the wrong that needs to be righted here. Of course it was the T's own fault that they mismanaged these projects so badly they blew out every budget projection and backed out of half of the projects. But it wasn't helped by them getting jobbed on the finances. Like I said, their motivation to act or do anything to reform themselves is very small when there's nothing whatsoever they can try on their own that doesn't leave them equally screwed. So why try? That internal inertia doesn't have a chance of changing until they get a structure that gives them a chance to make it if they then make good on improved efficiency. But they aren't going to care on implementation change if the Gov. and Legislature who wield all the power on structural change don't care. Nobody's picking up the carrot and stick.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Explain to me again why MBTA transit riders should be forced to pay for projects that mitigate the pollution and traffic congestion caused by the Big Dig?

Shouldn't that money be repaid by the drivers who are using the Big Dig tunnels?

Yes. I think most people on this board agree with that.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

F-Line, I misunderstood your post, but as I reread it I understand and agree with what your were saying.
[I had thought you were blaming Big Dig corruption on the fact that the debts (and mitigation commitments) were transferred to the MBTA. I was disagreeing because the debt transfer was a legitimate (albeit unfair) legislative maneuver.]

 

[whighlander]

Ditto. That's really the issue. Everyone who wants to keep driving (which is their choice, that's fine) doesn't understand that the T is paying for them to drive for free under Boston.

AddicT -- No person taking the T even pays for operating the T

Remove all of the debt service from expense side of the ledger -- the T still spends more than it takes in from fares.

While there are very few transit systems which break-even in a Quick-Books way -- most take in enough at the farebox to cover the direct costs of operations: equipment maintenance, consumables, energy and labor

Mostly the Greece-like union contracts the cost of labor including pensions and health care for retired employees, etc., are the killer-app in the T operational budget.

To fix things to make the T Sustainable" :
1) separate capital completely from operations
2) construct a financially sound 5 year rolling capital budget -- make it stick
a) if you can't pay for it yourself or with partners don't even think of it
b) use advertising, sales of items, parking, real estate leasing to cover debt service
c) transfer "extra-T" debt to something else
3) restructure as required to make total cost of operations ( equipment maintenance, consumables, energy and labor ) sum to less than revenues from the farebox

After the T is viable on a sustained basis -- then expansion and improvements can be considered -- not before

 

[omaja]

While there are very few transit systems which break-even in a Quick-Books way -- most take in enough at the farebox to cover the direct costs of operations: equipment maintenance, consumables, energy and labor

Which systems are those covering operating expenses with fare revenues?

I have only ever thought/read/heard that any transit agency breaking even (or, heaven forbid, making a profit) is largely doing so from other revenue streams: government subsidy, advertising, real estate, etc. As you note, the MBTA's major handicaps are its massive debt load and sky-high labor contracts, which its alternative revenue streams help finance.

 

[bbfen]

AddicT -- No person taking the T even pays for operating the T

Remove all of the debt service from expense side of the ledger -- the T still spends more than it takes in from fares.

While there are very few transit systems which break-even in a Quick-Books way -- most take in enough at the farebox to cover the direct costs of operations: equipment maintenance, consumables, energy and labor

Mostly the Greece-like union contracts the cost of labor including pensions and health care for retired employees, etc., are the killer-app in the T operational budget.

To fix things to make the T Sustainable" :
1) separate capital completely from operations
2) construct a financially sound 5 year rolling capital budget -- make it stick
a) if you can't pay for it yourself or with partners don't even think of it
b) use advertising, sales of items, parking, real estate leasing to cover debt service
c) transfer "extra-T" debt to something else
3) restructure as required to make total cost of operations ( equipment maintenance, consumables, energy and labor ) sum to less than revenues from the farebox

After the T is viable on a sustained basis -- then expansion and improvements can be considered -- not before

I think we should do the same for highways.

 

[whighlander]

I think we should do the same for highways.

BBF -- I agree

However, its somewhat more complicated because of the mix of Turnpike Tolls, Fuel Tax, Registration Fees, etc.

As far as I understand it -- money from the above goes into the general funds and then maintenance costs for highways comes out -- So, outside of the Turnpike Authority's responsibilities it is difficult to parce the DOT spreadsheet

As I've recommended for many years the best approach is to take all of the M authorities associated in any way with the Greater Boston area (T, Massport, BCEC, MWRA, Highways within I-495, etc.) and consolidate them all under a Metropolitan Boston County -- roughly everything inside or on I-495 and with:
1) an elected Legislature -- population apportioned by districts
2) an executive council elected at-large
a) Department of Infrastructure and Transportation
b) power to tax and issue revenue bonds

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

BBF -- I agree

However, its somewhat more complicated because of the mix of Turnpike Tolls, Fuel Tax, Registration Fees, etc.

As far as I understand it -- money from the above goes into the general funds and then maintenance costs for highways comes out -- So, outside of the Turnpike Authority's responsibilities it is difficult to parce the DOT spreadsheet

As I've recommended for many years the best approach is to take all of the M authorities associated in any way with the Greater Boston area (T, Massport, BCEC, MWRA, Highways within I-495, etc.) and consolidate them all under a Metropolitan Boston County -- roughly everything inside or on I-495 and with:
1) an elected Legislature -- population apportioned by districts
2) an executive council elected at-large
a) Department of Infrastructure and Transportation
b) power to tax and issue revenue bonds

I would also say that all publicly-owned railroad ROW's in the state be consolidated under the EOT. Right now 6 state agencies split the ownership:
-- the EOT for out-of-district lines.
-- the T, but also including abandoned stuff that will never ever ever be a passenger consideration this century or next, like the Ayer-Pepperell-Greenville, NH branch, the Topsfield and North Reading branches, dead-end Stoneham Branch, dead-end Hanover Branch. Plus the actual MPO-rated commuter rail preservation corridors like Danvers, Millis, Methuen, Portsmouth, NH that they seemingly can't wait to fart away to the first shitty trail lobby that shows up.
-- MassHighway/Turnpike Authority. Owns the Worcester Line next to the Pike.
-- Mass Water Resources Authority. Owns the Fore River freight branch off Greenbush where waste product from the sewage plant gets carted off to CSX in tankers.
-- Massport. Owns the Southie and Charlestown tracks to the shipping docks, with plans to reactivate both for freight.
-- DCR, on some trailed abandoned lines like Franklin-Blackstone...but not most of them which are T or EOT. But they have to get called in to manage when the T doles out a 99-year/$1 lease to some all-volunteer scam lobby that then refuses to maintain its trail...like is happening now in Danvers and Lynnfield, and will for dead-certain happen in Methuen and Dover/Medfield.


And they all fight with or impede each other. Especially the T, which is the most out-of-step with the state's official Freight and Rail Plan with its trail follies, passive-aggressively messing up freight access to Boston with things like the GLX yard shredding Pan Am's yard trackage, and flipping off the PTC mandate with their spending orgy on station headhouses while doing squat to ponder their >50% non-compliant signals. Every other New England state has its RR's owned by the DOT with buck stopping one place. For example, Connecticut DOT owns every piece of Metro North track in its borders, a majority of its freight track, and all landbanked trails as linear state parks with no leases to outside groups or NIMBY malingerers. Not surprisingly they're also in excellent shape to meet the PTC deadline and only have 1 half-funded Metro North branch left to prep. NH owns all its abandoned lines and offers up trails "as-is" with no warranty or amenities...treating them as passable roadbeds, not parks. Single ownership cuts out so much of this riff-raff that's eating the T alive out in the 'burbs and accelerating the decline of freight inside 495 while it's having a big rebirth outside 495.

The rails are common carriers of multiple services. Freight on a majority of them, Amtrak on 3 very critical interstate lines, and even private passenger carriers like Cape Cod Central RR possibly using portions of T territory. The rails should be owned by a single entity that approves the usage considerations. Let the T keep ownership of stations, layover yards...any passenger-only properties. Let them own the rapid transit system and any RR ROW's shared with rapid transit (Braintree, Orange north and south)...at most, draw the line at 128 if they want to keep long-term rapid transit holds like Blue to North Shore, Orange-Reading, Orange-Needham, Red-Lexington in the circular file. Tap the T track dept. for maintenance, even giving them (properly budget-reimbursed) jobs on statewide track to keep it efficient. Take ownership of all the landbanked trails from the T and DCR where a RR operating charter exists for preservation. Trails are good, but somebody's got to decide which places are worth having one instead of one owning agency punking another maintaining agency with garbage trails it doesn't want or have money for.

But treat the FRA-standard rail ROW's like common-use roads under a highway dept. so somebody's ruling for all users' needs and keeping these sub-agencies in line. This works quite well in neighboring states. They don't induce as many dumb mistakes or fall victim to as many NIMBY Operation Chaos games as here. Because this public utility is not a six-headed monster of conflicting interests and turf wars like it is here.

 

[bbfen]

BBF -- I agree

However, its somewhat more complicated because of the mix of Turnpike Tolls, Fuel Tax, Registration Fees, etc.

As far as I understand it -- money from the above goes into the general funds and then maintenance costs for highways comes out -- So, outside of the Turnpike Authority's responsibilities it is difficult to parce the DOT spreadsheet

As I've recommended for many years the best approach is to take all of the M authorities associated in any way with the Greater Boston area (T, Massport, BCEC, MWRA, Highways within I-495, etc.) and consolidate them all under a Metropolitan Boston County -- roughly everything inside or on I-495 and with:
1) an elected Legislature -- population apportioned by districts
2) an executive council elected at-large
a) Department of Infrastructure and Transportation
b) power to tax and issue revenue bonds

I don't disagree with your theories, but I know they'll never happen.

As I see it, the bigger problem is that while it's plausible (if highly improbable) that the MBTA will at some point be forced to run without a deficit, even though the highway system in Massachusestts will NEVER be in that same situation. Ever.

Highways do not pay for themselves (see link). Why should public transit? Both provide an extremely valuable service to the commonwealth. Should both be run more efficiently? Absolutely.

But choking off public transit just because people living in West Armpit paying a mortage on two trucks and an SUV don't want to "pay for it" is just ridiculous.

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.or...d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

 

[whighlander]

I don't disagree with your theories, but I know they'll never happen.

As I see it, the bigger problem is that while it's plausible (if highly improbable) that the MBTA will at some point be forced to run without a deficit, even though the highway system in Massachusestts will NEVER be in that same situation. Ever.

Highways do not pay for themselves (see link). Why should public transit? Both provide an extremely valuable service to the commonwealth. Should both be run more efficiently? Absolutely.

But choking off public transit just because people living in West Armpit paying a mortage on two trucks and an SUV don't want to "pay for it" is just ridiculous.

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.or...d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

bbf -- you ought to take a trek out to a part of " West Armpit " such as Lexington, Weston or even Wellesley -- you neverr know you just might like it

By the way the dirty secret is that there are a whole lot more us "Armpitters" than there are of you and your urban coterie --- and we do:
a) vote
b) pay taxes
c) like to drive on highways
d) dominate the Legislature (see the above about how many of us)

You might as well just learn how to coexist

 

[mass88]

Going through the fare gates at North Quincy this morning and noticed they have been dressed with Metro PCS ads now. They must have done it last night since when I went through yesterday they did not have the ads.