Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Did I read that right?
Nearly a quarter of T employees make a $100k or more?
Meh
A much greater proportion of people at my company make that and the T employees generally work harder and have far worse jobs. The T's contractors are the ones making a killing. (See: Green Line Expansion)
Really now
I didn't realize that pulling away from the station on me every time, or driving on a rail and not crashing was all that challenging. Please, the MBTA hardly requires much in terms of skills and is very much a "get this job and the unions keep it secure and cushy till you retire at 55 as one of the few workers who still get lavish pensions"
Whatever the contractors get away with, it doesn't make MBTA compensation any less absurd. It wasn't contractors demanding multiple conductors per train in a world where other systems go way faster and deal with only one, among other deals above market rate that unions are able to negotiate.
Get a life
So what makes you an expert in compensation? I think however much YOU make is way out of line and you should be given a 50% pay cut. I'm sure your job could be done by someone else better for far less money.
The T salaries are a red herring. To be sure, some employees game the system. But I don't know enough about their jobs to make any determination who is worth what. I do know that in the private sector you have massive imbalances of pay to worth yet the people who are paid well are complimented irrespective of their actual talents whereas in the public world anyone making more then minimum wage is demonized. That's bullshit. Some high salaries of T employees is a tiny part of a much larger problem.
What I like to say sometimes
What I like to say sometimes during these types of arguments is:
"If their compensation is so great, why dont you apply and try to work there? You'll be living the high life then rather than working at this your desk job."
"I'm not driving a bus, that sucks" Is the usual answer I get back.
Same argument could be for many jobs people look down on that may pay well. eg, garbage men...
Seems like the powerful are
Seems like the powerful are succeeding in turning the working classes against each other.
And what I like to say sometimes
And what I like to say sometimes when people make your argument is:
"if the job is so sucky, why is there a 'random' lottery with a ton of applicants?"
I put 'random' in quotes, because I'm sure someone like Louis Guerriero Jr. got his $120,000 job randomly and appropriately, and not because of Louis Guerriero Sr.
Oh...
Poor you! A T train once pulled away from a station without you. That appears to be what this all comes down to. Though I am sure you'd whine equally had the train been two minutes late, thereby enabling you to board.
Personally, I want the people that maintain T tracks, operate trains, and determine scheduling to be highly skilled professionals. Meaning you're going to need to pay them as such.
Shockingly, the MBTA also
Shockingly, the MBTA also employs things like lawyers, financial guys, planners/architects.... white collar jobs that you have to pay 6 figures for if you want to retain anyone with the slightest bit of talent. Hell, considering how much of continuing T maintenance depends on them machining and fabricating their own supplies, experienced and high-skill machinists and mechanics probably deserve that much too.
If the MBTA had competent
If the MBTA had competent lawyers,planner, architects, and construction project managers worth their salaries on the payroll the Green Line extension wouldn't be ONE FREAKING BILLION DOLLARS over budget.
Buddy I don't know what law
Buddy I don't know what law school you went to but usually the guy on hand to deal with employment/HR issues doesn't also write the contracts for a big capital improvement project.
That's...
....very bold of you.
Say, that sounds like a
Say, that sounds like a Shelbyville idea...
GET HIM!
In light of Star Wars...
"I find your reasonableness disturbing..."
Except for lawyers. Hire cheap lawyers and good paralegals.
T maintenance worker paid
T maintenance worker paid $315,000, reported by Commonwealth Magazine. "MBTA employees received over $100,000 in gross pay this year at a greater rate than executive branch employees, according to Shortsleeve’s presentation. About 24 percent of the 6,482 T employees have grossed over $100,000, compared to 7.7 percent of the 44,141 executive branch employees."
These people even have cushier jobs than the bloody politicians.
Eighty hour weeks
80 hour weeks doing physical work = cushy.
Mmmmm, okay.
Never mind that this is an outlier, not a median ... but that would get in the way of your attempt to grandstand here, right?
Exactly....
Like bdog said above, who knows what they do? I'm sure some of these guys get called at 2am to see if they want to come in on OT to shovel snow in 0 degree temps. Are you willing to go out and do that for $25-$35 an hour? Most people would say no and stay in bed, trust me.
So much for Baker's promise
So much for Baker's promise of no fee increases.
Baker and Walsh said they
Baker and Walsh said they would find the money for plowing and salting roads no matter what last winter even when they were millions over budget. T riders? Shovel your own sidewalk, the T won't run in the snow, green line won't be extended, late night is done and fares are going significantly up.
One group gets whatever they need without paying for it and one gets screwed in every way possible.
Chucking Farley strikes again
But of course he is. Lying is an important strategy of the Repub party. It they really told the truth about what they plan to do, they wouldn't get elected (around here at least). Remember Willard. Same strategy.
By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to raising fares. I also think we should also make every highway a toll road. What I am opposed to is Charlie and his spokespeople repeatedly promising no new taxes and fees and at the first opportunity raising fees. And it doesn't help when DINO DeLeo plays the same game.
And Coakley would have done
And Coakley would have done what differently?
Methinks you didn't read or comprehend my post fellow anon
Did Martha promise "no new taxes or fees" during her campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer.No.
Did Faker promise "no new taxes or fees" during his campaign for governor in 2014?
Answer . Yes
Poor argument. Coakley was a
Poor argument. Coakley was a garbage candidate pushed through by the entrenched Dem establishment and that's why she lost. The more interesting question was what would either of her primary opponents have done differently.
Not really
Coakley was chosen by Democrats (and Independents voting in the Democratic primary). The party pros and activists generally did not support her at the state convention that p[receded the primary. And many top level e3lected Dem officials (viz. De Leo) made little effort to hide the fact that they would prefer to have Baker win.
Coakley wouldn't have been
Coakley wouldn't have been any better, but nothing says we have to like either of the candidates!
Yes the governor with one
Yes the governor with one year on the job is responsible for more than decade of disinvestment by a Democratic dominated legislature which can find freight trains full of money for pet projects, pay raises, pensions, and subsidies but not a penny for non-highway infrastructure maintenance.
What to blame someone?
Start with the contempt filled clowns on the hill with travel expense reimbursement, state town cars, reserved parking spaces, and uncontested 'elections'. There's a reason why they exempt themselves from most laws meant for the good little people they tax farm.
yeah because
Democrats are soooo honest. Lets be real here, all politicians lie. This is unique to one party or the other. Playing devils advocate: perhaps when Bake took office, discovered what a mess the T was, realized he had NO choice but to raise fares since the Union has run amok and MBTA employees are fleecing tax payers.
Herald Reports: "The top T earner so far this year, a maintenance foreman whose annual pay rate is less than $85,000, has pulled in more than $315,000, with more than half of those earnings coming from 2,648 hours of overtime, T records show."
(T)rumpland
A tax on the poor, students and seniors while billionaires get tax breaks. Next move will be to order transit police to arrest homeless fare jumpers. I just returned from Minnesota where the Metro transit police are getting sued by the ACLU and the NAACP over arresting fare jumpers.
I'm sorry, but I don't see
I'm sorry, but I don't see what the problem is with arresting people for breaking the law?
It's kind of a waste, though,
It's kind of a waste, though, isn't it? The administrative costs way outweigh the lost 3 dollars and it's one of those crimes where people take their chances regardless, so you can't even claim it'll cut down on farejumping in general.
I'd rather the T Police go after phone/purse snatchers and assault, personally.
In MA it's something like a
In MA it's something like a $100 fine for fare-jumping, not just being forced to pay the fare after-the-fact.
and when the homeless fare jumper
doesn't pay the fine, what happens?
Okay so let's call the
Okay so let's call the administrative costs $N. By this logic whatever they are I can waltz into your house and take $N-1 of your stuff since the costs to charging me would be greater than what you lost right?
What's your address? I could use some free stuff.
That actually is how it works
That actually is how it works.
Last summer my apartment was broken into while I was at work, and when BPD showed up (several hours after I called), they told me "tough luck kid, you shoulda had renter's insurance". Then when I asked if they could actually try to investigate it or something, the detective got visibly annoyed and lectured me about how it's not worth it for minor crimes like that. Despite the fact that I KNOW the thief left fingerprints (all the stuff on my desk had been moved around), and I lived across the street from a strip mall that I know had surveillance cameras.
So yes, the police will tell you they won't investigate a theft if the cost of doing so is greater than the value of what was stolen. Unfortunately that is how it works, despite some of us recognizing that it's not about the money, it's the principle.
Taxes
In the last few years the cost of fuel has fallen 50%+ meanwhile the cost of taking the T keeps going up while the level of service drops. T riders are disproportionately lower income compared to those who drive to the same places so the fare increase hurts those least able to afford it. There cost of owning a car is still much higher then taking the T so it's not like most have the opportunity to switch.
That's life in America?
If they need to raise fares they should at least raise the gas tax to match and use the money for projects that help everyone, particularly those not as well off.
Imagine if the gas tax
Imagine if the gas tax doubled over the course of 12 years and they shut down highways at night because highways lose billions of dollars per year. That is what T riders have to deal with.
Tone deaf
You don't think that poor people are driving beater cars to jobs out of the city because they also have no choice, dealing with just as shitty commutes on awful roads that have funding siphoned off from them all over the state into one area?
It's an ebb and flow in regard to how much of the gas tax is used for subsidizing the T to help balance how many use both but to claim motorists are driving around in monocles is woefully ignorant.
You should want each system to be as self sustaining as possible so shocks to one doesn't screw the other, and the price of a monthly T pass isn't even in the same league to the cost of a car, insurance, maintenance, higher chances of accidents and stress operating it, parking costs, whatever inevitable fleecing aka revenue generation traffic laws bring often to dubious value.
I'm not here to make light of a 20 cent per ride raise this may have on people with low incomes depending on the T but targeting them for subsidy is separate from also under charging much of the T ridership like today.
Raising the gas tax affects
Raising the gas tax affects everyone. So drivers in North Adams (per capita income around 20K) will be paying more to help Boston residents (per capita income about 34K). That isn't fair. The T funding problem should be resolved by an income based tax or property tax on the residents within the T service area.
But less me guess, but for the "halo effect" from the Boston economy Western Mass residents would be even poorer; so they really should be paying more to support transport in Greater Boston and enjoy the trickle down benefits provided to them by eastern Mass.
If it wasn't for Boston,
If it wasn't for Boston, western mass would be like fucking New Hampshire. Except New Hampshire would be even more of an immense pit without all those people coming down our highways (and not paying for it!) and working in Boston. So maybe more like upstate New York? Good luck with that.
But hey here's a deal: North Adams and the rest of them can have back from the state exactly what they pay in, and everyone in the metro area will keep all our taxes, as well as all the taxes paid by businesses in the area.
If you look at actual distributions of money by the state, which is publicly available, it looks like North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%. As much as they like to bitch and moan, the boonies are HARDLY supporting the metro area.
But yeah let's just choke the economic engine of the state until the entire commonwealth looks like Springfield, what a fantastic idea.
So if EVERYONE...
...is getting more than they pay in, will this wind up like Obamacare?
"North Adams received.... $7,742,275.38, while paying $910,975.00 in assessments. So they pay around 12% of what they're getting. Meanwhile Boston got... $224,221,435.54 but paid $66,133,962.00, which is 30%."
I pay for the roads in
I pay for the roads in Western MA and the burbs to be plowed, sanded, salted and kept up. I don't drive. Is that fair? IT BENEFITS EVERYONE.
I also pay way more than I should for my commuter rail pass considering I am in the city of Boston. I pay 5.75 to go 4 stops. End of linter pay 6.25 (I believe - it could be 6.50). Is that fair?
Western Mass. wouldn't even
Western Mass. wouldn't even have roads in the first place if it weren't for the Eastern Mass. tax base.
*headdesk*
Ah yes. "Not fair." The dulcet song of the man who has just noticed that someone, somewhere, has extracted a dime's worth of utility out of his left pocket, while ignoring the dollar's worth of utility placed in his right pocket.
T workers are not suffering
You may want drivers to suffer for the failings of the MBTA but the blame goes to the cushy wages and benefits that MBTA workers enjoy and continue to increase. That's why your fares are increasing.
Autonomous, self-driving vehicles should start with MBTA subway cars. They are on rails, making it a simpler problem to solve and worth millions in savings!
maybe you havent paid attention recently
but there is at least ONE self driving MBTA car
Wages are a comparatively
Wages are a comparatively small part of the money problem at the MBTA and is really just a distraction from the real problems. It divides us plebes over a few bucks in the bank lobby and distracts us from the real money heading out the back door by the truckload.
Cushy meaning "adequate for raising a family"
Of course.
Nobody but you deserves a "cushy" job, of course.
Maybe your pay should be cut, as it is too high - meaning that you can afford to own a house and have a car.
Sounds good! And hey there's
Sounds good! And hey there's even other systems in the world that do it, so we can look at Copenhagen and Barcelona and not invent the wheel completely. Let's see, so all we need to do is.... totally replace all the signaling system, fix it so all the car doors open and close reliably, install a whole new dispatch and central computer system, rebuild the entirety of the green line so there's fare gates and street signal priority (and maybe gates? can a computer system detect when some idiot BU freshman is idling on the tracks?), install emergency stops so when drunks fall on the tracks somebody can tell the train, hmm, what else....
Seriously, though, it's a good idea but if the discussion is "the MBTA costs too much money" proposing what's essentially a new system is kind of a red herring, right?
Why choose worst case scenario?
The Green line would be the hardest to automate, so that's why you and the MBTA would choose to do it first. Intelligent people would choose simpler lines first, like the Blue, Orange, or Red line. Blue is already reliable, so less benefit upgrading it first, better to put money where needed anyway, say Red, which is a huge challenge given how bad shape the signaling is and the sheer miles in length.
At some point modernization will be necessary, so sooner or later the work will be done.
T
I knew we'd get an increase in July. Eventually fewer people will use commuter rail and find a job closer to their house. Paying for a $300 pass + parking + gas to drive to the station is expensive.
This "find a job" thing
Not disputing that people may be priced out of the commuter rail, but you can't simply "find a job" if there isn't one to be found. Deciding that you will have a short commute takes money, plus a crystal ball to be sure that your workplace doesn't ever relocate or go out of business.
I live in Newton, don't own a
I live in Newton, don't own a car and pay $50 for unlimited bus service that, in my case, works pretty well. If my fare was hiked to $80, I would still think I'm getting a good deal. People shouldn't squawk about not affording it, because everyone is wielding all manner of electronic devices.
Newton and Brookline are gold
Both are 'suburbs', are located in mistly suburban counties, yet are physically closer and have greater options and access to downtown Boston, back bay, even Cambridge, than many Boston neighbirhoods. And Newton has express buses, the D line (no multi zone pass needed), and commuter rail. If you live. Inside Boston, in a zone 1 or greater area for commuter rail, yiu pay min. $170. Plus instead of $80. for a bus-subway pass. Your options are a local bus to a subway or streetcar connection.
agreed, until the end.
you can get unlimited talk/text/data on a phone for $40/month and a completely viable computer for about $200. these are things that are generally considered essential to survive in the year 2015.
"has a cellphone" isn't the cutoff for "shouldn't care about monthly expenses", sorry.
If you're gonna raise fares
1) Also raise the gas tax 10%
2) Impose a congestion charge on downtown Boston & Cambridge during the workday
You need to keep parity between modes of transportation otherwise people will just switch
Gov. Selfie will not sign a
Gov. Selfie will not sign a gas tax increase. He may be open to other tax increases, but definitely not that one.
And you can guarantee...
...a Congestion Charge will never happen for a long time. You know, 'cause that would restrict people's God-given freedom to drive everywhere.
Just wish restricting the freedom of movement of transit riders was seen as a problem...
Switching
You know why I switched? Because I can't trust the MBTA to get me to work and back (especially the latter) reliably or quickly, plain and simple.
This is not surprising.
And Baker is becoming disappointing. Sure, let us keep all options on the table (i.e. fee increases) without really fixing the deep seated T problems. Much easier to just keep raising those fares. Not surprising but sad and disappointing.
All I can say is I am so thankful that my employer covers 1/2 of my commuter rail pass fee each month. But, even, still...
He's been Governor for one
He's been Governor for one year...
Take a closer look at his
Take a closer look at his resume.
ding ding ding
ding ding ding
So?
Notice I said "becoming?"
Worth Every Penny
EDIT: Sorry, I thought for a second it said T fares would drop to 10¢
I have no problem with fare
I have no problem with fare increases if I saw service increases. They stated fares could go up 10% every 2 years which we all know means it will happen. This also means that me living in Boston will pay $200 (if it goes up in July) for a commuter rail pass to go 4 stops & this is for a line that isn't all that great.
In regards to the T salaries. I don't have a problem for blue collar workers making a good wage. I am sure some ppl do take advantage of it but why is it when the blue collar/middle class ppl make a good wage ppl get up in arms? Take a look at the higher level of the T and the contractors they use.
The system in broken and none of the politicians care.
what would all the geniuses out here do
Assuming a gas tax is out of the question? That's not Charlie, that's on your democratically controlled state house that couldn't get it done with a dem in the corner office. Are you naive enough to think Charlie can get the tigers to change their stripes?
Personally i say raise the fares as long as you freeze wages for five years and spend it on system upgrades. As I've repeatedly posted the T has gotten enormous funding increases and all.of that has gone to wages not capital improvements. The chickens have come home to roost. And the chickens belong to Deval.
not everybody cares about political party
some of us just think that shitbags are shitbags, and grow tired of divisive language on either "side". you have no idea just how much a part of the problem you are. but yeah, an inability to see past political party and harping on the past. you're definitely a guy i want to listen to.
You're right
Including me. But the hordes seem to be blaming Charlie simply for having an R after his name. For now charlie shares zero of the blame for this mess. He is 100% responsible for fixing it. It took over a decade to create it and it will take at least as long to fix it. How about the critics lay off at least until the plan is released. It's like telling someone s/he's a lousy doctor after giving you a correct disgnosis.
It did take a decade to create
Anybody remember the name of the guy who was instrumental in shifting much of the Big Dig debt onto the T, where it rests to this day? Sort of tall red-headed guy, if I remember.
Charlie Baker actually has a
Charlie Baker actually has a lot of PERSONAL responsibility when it comes to sticking the T with the Big Dig debt and instituting "forward funding" in 2000, which are the top two reasons the T is screwed today in 2015.
He is not zero percent
He is not zero percent responsible. He was responsible for putting tons of debt on the T back in the Big Dig days. Debt they are still paying off. And didn't he come out against raising T fares? That didn't last long...
Deval got late night T going and tried to better fund the T before he left office but the state legislature nixed it.
And the T's previous
And the T's previous experiment with late-night service started in 2001, when a Republican was governor. What's your point, other than to distract people with partisan bickering?
that's 3 in a row
Accusing Charlie of sticking the T with debt. Which may be true. But the state gave them plenty of revenue to pay for it. Then some fare hikes. Then more money. Then more money. And it's still not enough. Why? The T spent almost every last dime on wages and bennies and deferred pretty much everything else. Unless Charlie's real name is Carmen that's not remotely his fault. If anyone wants to make that ridiculous comment for the 1001st time go read the T's income statement and check back in. My guess is you'll go on radio silent mode.
The state did NOT give the T
The state did NOT give the T "plenty of revenue" to pay for it. They gave the T sales tax revenue which came in WAY under the forecast amounts, leaving the T with a funding shortfall that they then declined to fix.
Really?
Where do you see this on their income statement?
What I see is a capital intensive agency that doubled revenue over the past 15 years. That's almost 5% increase in income every year for a decade and a half. If they didn't meet revenue goals, those goals must have been pie in the sky with Lucy's diamonds - literally.
Payments for interest and principal barely budged until about 3 years ago meaning there has been almost no incremental investment in capital projects. Almost 100% of the incremental revenue went to wages and bennies (and the commuter rail contract - which is also mostly wages and bennies).
After having looked at this in some detail over the last 8 months or so, I was probably the least surprised person in the state to hear that our transit system's wages FAR outpace those of other large transit systems in the country.
If you still believe what you wrote - you must be thinking a guy in a soot-stained red suit is coming down your chimney on Thursday night.
The MBTA went along with the
The MBTA went along with the Forward Funding scheme under the assurance that sales tax revenue would grow 3% annually. In fact, from FY01 to FY09 it grew only 1% on average, decreasing at first, then bottoming out, briefly increasing at around 3%, then plateauing in FY07, and falling again after that.
Costs have increased at a rate faster than revenue, but wouldn't have if the sales tax revenue the state allocated the MBTA had actually lived up to the forecasts. Instead the T has had to increase debt and use capital and operating funds to pay wages and pensions, letting maintenance fall by the wayside and relying on outside funding for any capital projects. As you yourself say, 100% of incremental revenue went to wages and benefits, leaving the T with no increase in revenue to offset the increases in costs.
And honestly, the T doesn't really even have control over these wages. For example, wages increased 3% a year from FY07 to FY09, and then 4% in FY10 as a result of legally binding arbitration. People need to be blaming the unions and the arbitration process for these, not the MBTA, although honestly those percentages don't sound too bad for cost-of-living allowances.
Despite the debt load remaining fairly constant, as you note, it's still possibly the most burdensome part of the T's budget. As of FY10, 27% of the T's budget went toward debt service. This is also the easiest chunk of the budget to do away with, and should be where we're looking, rather than at wages (26%) and benefits (11%), which are much harder to reduce since people need to be paid a decent wage.
[most of my numbers come from this very interesting (but slightly outdated) report from the MBTA Advisory Board: https://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Documents/Financials/Born_Broke.pdf ]
This comment is getting kinda long, but lastly I just wanted to address your statement that they doubled revenue over the past 15 years. This may be true, but you also need to consider how much costs have risen. Inflation and the Consumer Price Index rose around 38% over the past 15 years. The cost of a gallon of diesel rose from a national average of $1.49 in 2000 to $3.83 in 2014. I assure you, costs have kept pace with revenue. And looking at the MBTA's FY16 budget, expenses rose 6.5% above last year, while revenues only rose 1.4%. The sales tax revenue has seen a significant jump in the past 2 years, growing at around 6%, but this is not enough to offset the years of underperforming growth.
Several things
1) You note the time frame of 2001-2009 - just about the worst possible because of the recession (the analyst you quote ignores that this was due to a brief dip in sales tax revenue - today that revenue is up to over $800 million - 20% on $4 billion in sales tax and I'm assuming the T doesn't get any of the sales tax on cars or meals - not sure if that's the case - but it would add about another $200 million).
2) You completely ignore other revenue sources - if your base salary goes from $100k to $80k but your bonus goes to from $20k to $50k - your income goes up. Likewise, when the sales revenue didn't meet expectations the T got extra fare increases and when that wasn't enough the state threw two additional large supplementary funding sources at them, far more than making up for the loss of the sales tax revenue (you have to review income statements from 2012 and later to find this).
3) Are you serious? "100% of incremental revenue went to wages and benefits, leaving the T with no increase in revenue to offset the increases in costs" - that's exactly the problem. When you are increasing wages faster than revenue - you are in trouble - especially as your system is literally falling apart. At some point you have to tell people - sorry - there's no water in the well - and we have to fix the bucket.
4) No control? Perhaps but the union makes these demands and pushes it to arbitration (hell why not if arbitrators give it to them). But at some point people have to say this isn't a bottomless money pit. Not bad? Are you kidding? The rest of the world gets 0-2% and these guys are getting 3-4%? NOBODY gets 3-4% these days - especially with inflation at 2% or less.
5) This is a capital intensive business. You don't pay for stuff with cash laying around. You borrow and pay it off over time (and you borrow more now that money is cheap - another factor you didn't account for in your claim that we laid all this debt on the T - the principal is the same and the cost of borrowing is half - and inflation has taken another 30% bite - yet they still don't have enough.
6) If wages went up by 38% - at best I would have a weak argument - but they are up over 100%. Costs have kept pace with revenue because nobody's paying attention - until now.
Bottom line - wages should go up at about the rate of inflation - every other dime of extra revenue should be going to servicing debt that is used to whittle away at the maintenance and capital backlog.
Sorry double post
.
Democratics are in control in DC
and on Beacon Hill (the general court is controlled by Democrats and has been for what, 50 years?), and we have a left of center Democrstic president, AND had until very recently a two term Democratic governor.
1) Our Democratic US congress people and two Democratic US senators (both so called progressive) don't have enough pull in DC, with their own party controlled house and president, to secure funding for the MBTA extensions, etc.? The state general court, controlled by Democrats who're de facto 'progressive' because there are really no more moderate, centralist Democrats (just as a small hard right faction has held dominate sway among the officially approved opposition party, the Republicans for several generations), are powerless to get these 'progressive' issues up and running with secure funding? It's all the fault of a first term governor and mayor?
I think it would be great if the MBTA was able to function normally, and be able to secure funding for needed improvements, etc., but realize it's a very effed up organization, and has been going back a half century when it was created as a quaai-governmental agency. The MBTA's main $ issues relate to labor costs, especially extravagant pensions, healthcare, benefits, people retiring in their 50s, etc. (BTW: I'm not at all knee jerk anti-union), political issues such as people being appointed jobs because they know a politician, through quotas (benchmarks), etc., and other obvious forms of corruption, not to mention an asinine management (again, like lower level staffing, full of questionable hiring practices, not to mention questionable outsourcing and privatization).
We have today a too intransigent and pernicious public sector union problem at the local, state and federal levels, that resembles the pigs lording it over the other beasts in Animal Farm, corrupt politics and a corrupt, across the board, political system, privatization that in many cases has not delivered except for a handful of executives and insiders. It's a tall order to fix The System because both our main, officially approved left of center and right of center political parties are mostly in it for personal gain, their corrupt friends and associates, and there's a very disturbing merging of business, especially big business and institutional interests with governments, at all levels. I call it fascism, but if that's too disturbing a word, you can substitute a less mean spirited, more PC and Orwellian term.
Democratics?
And they're in control in Washington? Alert Paul Ryan!
no time to respond until now
I meant to say Democrats control the senate, the upper house or chamber. But President Obama's administration coincided for years with Democratic control of the house of representatives.
Also, house Republican leadership are almost as 'progressive' as their Democratic leadership opposites.
Sorry, they don't
Harry Reid isn't majority leader anymore, and even when he was, the supermajority rule meant Republicans effectively controlled that branch.
And if you really think Republican leaders are as liberal as Democrats, you're not really paying attention.
"Our Democratic US congress
"Our Democratic US congress people . . .don't have enough pull in DC, . . . with their own party controlled house . . ."
Wow, what universe do you live in, where Democrats currently have a majority in the US house? I want to move there.
the President
...is LEFT of center? aaaahahahahhahahhahaha ok sure.
Then again, in your last paragraph you refered to our "officially approved left of center and right of center political parties," when what we actually have is a right-wing party and a center-right party.
Anon, you warm my heart.
☑ Gratuitous German Capitalization Of Unlikely Words
☑ Ham-handed attempt to blame DC Democrats for everything
☑ Enough self-awareness to realize that you sound like a tinfoil-hatter, but not enough to realize what saying "I'm not x, but..." actually confers
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of public versus private sector
☑ Orwell reference
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of Orwell work cited
☑ "Fascism"
☑ Fundamental misunderstanding of underlying tenets of fascism
☑ "PC"
☐ Godwin!
C'mon, dude, you were SO close.
I wonder
What kind of service cuts would ultimately be coupled with this if it happens?
Spoiler alert: Probably won't be good.
The service is terrible. Most
The service is terrible. Most of the employees are rude to the general public. Overwhelming delays, trains are not cleaned. I am glad I decided to walk to work rather than deal with the T.
rude?
My most memorable experiences with T employees have been the times when they were extraordinarily helpful, like returning a purse to me I left on the Orange Line that had photos of my late mom in it. And to be honest, I've seen T workers be brusque, but not rude...
with the exception of the crazed woman who used to make profane announcements on the Orange Line. Haven't heard her in a while, though.
I can agree with that
While all can see my strong opinions on T funding elsewhere - I've had very pleasant interactions with T employees including one this morning who went out of his way to correct himself and advise me to get off one stop further than he initially had told me to arrive closest to my destination.
The state has millions to
The state has millions to subsidize Mark Walhberg and other hollywood people, and Baker is offering tens of millions in subsidies to convince GE to what we are told is one of the hottest real estate area in the country, but Baker wants to cut service, cancel promised expansion to Somerville (promised decades ago) and wants us to pay more? But he is against raising driver fees like the gas tax?
you
seem to have a firm grasp on the situation, yes
Do you want gas taxes indexed to inflation?
so they go up as gas prices go up and down as gas prices go down,
or negatively indexed to inflation so gas taxes go up as the price of gas goes down?
I'm guessing you want it both ways.
A realistic look at the numbers
The MBTA is budgeting next year for $620M from fare revenue ( http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/FY16Preliminary... ).
A 10% increase (assuming no ill effects on ridership, etc.) would gain $62M more.
The state is expected to pay $985M next year in sales tax revenue to the MBTA. It would be a 6.3% increase in the amount the state sent to the MBTA to just get that money from the state instead.
Another way to put it: the state is going to pay 1.6 BILLION dollars in Group Insurance for all employees of the commonwealth in 2016. How about we start with the legislature and governor's offices and start making *them* have a co-pay. There's over 10,000 employees of the state making $100,000/yr or more. If they each had a copay of a few hundred a month like the rest of us slobs, there'd suddenly be an extra $62M to give the MBTA in the state budget.