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

timsox6 said:
One of the MBTA's biggest problems is that it got hit with all the Big Dig debt, despite the fact that it was not as involved as other agencies. To pay off that debt, we really just need higher taxes, but MA house and senate are both lead by largely anti-tax people. A great way to raise revenue would be to link a person's driver's/ car insurance to the number of miles he actually drives.
Click to expand...

How about cutting costs, unprofitable routes, reducing crazy pension costs, etc. We could also raise fares and make people pay more of the actual costs of transit. $2 to ride anywhere on the subway is very cheap. Its $2.50 for the Pike toll to drive from 128 to Boston. Drivers paying more doesn't fix the Ts problems.

Massachusetts is NOT anti-tax by any means. They just raised the sales tax from 5% to as high as 7% with the local add ons and stopped the automatic increase in personal exemption which is an income tax increase.
 
The T's obsession with park-n-ride lots means that most of those folks are going to have to drive home from the station however :(

We're in a state where everyone is punished -- even the car-less -- because some dumb woman drove drunk after happy hour years ago.

As for removing unprofitable routes, TallIsGood, you forget that the T is also charged with the mission of providing a social service, which is not expected to make a profit. And as always, roads don't make a profit either.
 
Drivers don't pay more under an insurance plan linked to mileage. Many drivers would pay less. And that money would go to fixing roads and bridges, automating tolls, etc.
 
timsox6 said:
Drivers don't pay more under an insurance plan linked to mileage. Many drivers would pay less. And that money would go to fixing roads and bridges, automating tolls, etc.
Click to expand...

Car insurance doesn't fund infrastructure projects.
 
TallIsGood said:
How about cutting costs, unprofitable routes, reducing crazy pension costs, etc. We could also raise fares and make people pay more of the actual costs of transit. $2 to ride anywhere on the subway is very cheap. Its $2.50 for the Pike toll to drive from 128 to Boston. Drivers paying more doesn't fix the Ts problems.

Massachusetts is NOT anti-tax by any means. They just raised the sales tax from 5% to as high as 7% with the local add ons and stopped the automatic increase in personal exemption which is an income tax increase.
Click to expand...
Because if there's one thing the MBTA hasn't done, it's raising fares and cutting service. :rolleyes:

There needs to be a method other than the usual slash-and-burn.
 
See BBJ article: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2013/03/why-deval-patricks-tax-plan-will.html

A few points:
- Last year, the MBTA spent 50 percent more on employee wages and benefits than all of the fare revenue collected on its trains, subways, buses and ferries.
- All told the MBTA spent $679 million in cash on interest and debt payments last year, yet another cost that far exceeded its $470 million in fare collections.
- It has around $2.7 billion in unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities floating about that arent even on its balance sheet. This is in addition to its $5.3 billion debt load.
- It would have taken a 390 percent across-the-board fare hike just to get the MBTA’s operations to break even last year, assuming passengers didn’t revolt in the process.
- Nowhere does his plan call for reforms at the MBTA. Not at the operating level. Not within its bloated bureaucracy. Not within its five different retirement plans, one of which pays a pension to “retired” executives who are at least 30 years old and have worked with the authority for at least 10 years.
 
This is the right thread for it given the heading. Also, not debunked. The T made a bad decision to swap floating rate debt for fixed rate debt. How is that not the T's fault? Are they not smart enough to make that decision? They believed that it was better to have a fixed interest rate than suffer the market fluctuations. They got it wrong.

Do you not mind the retirement plan that allows someone at age 30 and 10 years of service to retire? No problems there.

The T is a mess. People should pay for it if they use it.

I agree the debt for the Big Dig doesn't belong there. Maybe 93 should be tolled instead of the T and the Pike.
 
The retirement issues were handled back in 2009. Wicked Local:

Under the category of “reform,” the package eliminates the existing “23-and-out” pension rule for MBTA employees. New MBTA employees will now have to serve at least 25 years and attain the age of 55 to qualify for retirement benefits from the MBTA. MBTA employees will have to decide between pension and disability compensation if out on disability.
Click to expand...

And I might mention that MassHighway is in an even bigger mess, borrowing year-to-year to pay operating costs.

The BBJ article is debunked because it ridiculously assumes that fares are supposed to cover expenses. That never, in any incarnation, has ever been intended by any budget or any plan drawn up for public transportation in this state, or in this country for that matter. Same goes for roads, which have long been funded through alternate sources beyond tolls, and beyond even the gas tax.
 
Debunk debunked.

From the T's website, footnote 6 to the T's 6/30/2012 audited financial statements provides in part: "Covered employees include all actively employed non-union employees who are participating in the Authority's Main Fund or the Police Association Retirement Plan. Employees are eligible after ten years with the Authority, if they have reached age 30 and are paid as part of the executive payroll."
 
You took that out of context. Full paragraph (the slice you pulled out of it in italics):
The Authority created a qualified deferred compensation plan effective January 1, 2001. The plan is
designed to supplement the Authority’s Retirement Plan (Main Fund). Covered employees include all
actively employed nonunion employees who are participating in the Authority’s Main Fund or the Police
Association Retirement Plan. Employees are eligible after ten years with the Authority, if they have
reached age 30 and are paid as part of the executive payroll. The plan currently provides benefits for
187 retirees. The MBTA Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan does not issue separately audited financial
statements. An actuarial valuation was performed on this plan; however, the cost of this plan to the
Authority for fiscal year 2012 was minimal and no contributions were made to this plan in fiscal year 2012.
In addition, the net pension obligation is considered immaterial.
Click to expand...

Further context:
The Authority provides retirement benefits to employees through four defined benefit retirement plans and
one defined contribution plan: The MBTA Retirement Plan, the MBTA Police Association Plan, the
MBTA Deferred Compensation Plan, the MBTA Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, and the MBTA
Deferred Compensation Savings Plan.
Click to expand...

The slice you took out of context was talking about the MBTA Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan which is tiny.
 
Here was my original point from the article:

"- Nowhere does his plan call for reforms at the MBTA. Not at the operating level. Not within its bloated bureaucracy. Not within its five different retirement plans, one of which pays a pension to “retired” executives who are at least 30 years old and have worked with the authority for at least 10 years."

This was supported by my point and was not taken out of context. You raised the 23 and out issue which was unrelated to my original point.

Getting a pension after 10 years of service and age 30 is a DISGRACE. This shows how the T operates. It is not operating efficiently. Reform the agency before spending billions more on it. We already gave the T 1% of the sales tax revenue as a dedicated revenue source. That was supposed to be enough. Now they want billions more every year. Reform before revenue.
 
The BBJ reporter has completely misinterpreted the retirement plan options.

In fact I found that quote in the article to be mystifying. I have known of past problems with the retirement plan (e.g. 23 and out) but nothing as egregious as the supposed "30 year old retirement age."

Thank you for pointing out footnote (6) which shows the source of the misinterpretation.
 
TallIsGood said:
We already gave the T 1% of the sales tax revenue as a dedicated revenue source. That was supposed to be enough...
Click to expand...
That was supposed to be enough, but growth in the sales tax revenue was expected to be more than what actually happened, too. (I'd be curious to see how the numbers run if that growth was what had been expected, but I've never seen it documented.)
 
TallIsGood said:
- It would have taken a 390 percent across-the-board fare hike just to get the MBTA’s operations to break even last year, assuming passengers didn’t revolt in the process.
Click to expand...

What? The MBTA breaks even at a 200% increase, assuming ridership remains constant.
 
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...tion-system/mxlqtGEOXOct5OBNJfXmQO/story.html

House and Senate leaders this morning unveiled a $500 million plan intended to shore up the state’s ailing transportation system by raising taxes on gasoline and tobacco, among other changes.

The plan, while it represents a significant tax increase, falls far short of the $1.9 billion tax hike that Governor Deval Patrick has been seeking and would not fund the major expansion of rail and road projects that the governor wants.

Instead, the House-Senate proposal is designed to solve the immediate and long-term deficits at the MBTA and the state Department of Transportation, without the expansion that Patrick argues is essential to the state’s economic health.

The House-Senate plan calls for raising the state gas tax by 3 cents, and indexing the rate to inflation beginning in 2015, to bring in $110 million a year. Taxes would be increased on cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco, to raise an additional $165 million annually.

Changes to the tax code affecting computer services would raise an additional $161 million a year, while changes to the code for utilities would raise $83 million.

...
Click to expand...
 
The merits of South Coast Rail aside, the proposal from the legislature doesn't seem to do any of the things we need it to. Essentially their proposal fixes the T's operational deficit, moves MassDOT employees from capital to operations, and forward funds the RTAs. These are very important, but they certainly aren't the type of things a state rep or state senator can point his constituents to when he needs to justify why he voted for the project.

Did the guv's plan maybe have a little too muchfluff in it? Sure, but it was done with the knowledge that in Massachusetts, these decisions are incredibly political. His plan hits every corner of the Commonwealth (read: every senate and house district) and would free up money from the MPO process currently being designated for things like the Green Line Extension so other projects that have been sitting on the back burner thee could move forward.

If they are going to take a gas tax increase vote, will the average person in opposition really care if that vote is to increase if 3 cents or 5? or 10? It would make so much more sense to take a big vote like that once and not have to come back and do it all again in a year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top