Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujjko7 wrote

That’s a money problem basic supply and demand, not enough people who want to do the job, pay more

1

Ironman2179 t1_iujx49r wrote

We have been throwing money at the T for almost 20 years. We have got nothing back. At this point the solution isn't throw more money.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujxstr wrote

the T still has an unfunded capital budget, and an even more underfunded maintenance budget. It can't hire people. It can't expand. Those are all issues solvable with more money. The MBTA already has one of the least subsidy rates in North America so the solution really is more money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#North_America

The only major city ahead of Boston in terms of reduced subsidy is Seattle, the MBTA is underfunded

1

Ironman2179 t1_iujzi7u wrote

That's because they directed most of their cash towards capital projects and deliberately underfunded maintenance. That's a leadership issue.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujzvlw wrote

again, their capital budget is still underfunded, as is the maintenance, how would you solve that without more money? greater Boston is growing, you can't just say "stop expanding"

1

Ironman2179 t1_iuk02wg wrote

It was underfunded because they pulled money from the maintenance budget to pay for all their projects. They could have done fewer projects and had plenty of cash to pay for maintenance. It's a leadership problem.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iuk7dve wrote

So you mean to say that the T which already underserved a lot of metro Boston should have cut back on service expansion plans because it had insufficient money or otherwise cut back on expansion in a growing region

Sure fine that’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that the T has insufficient money to make it’s near term maintenance goals as well as meeting larger economic growth goals for metro Boston

The real solution is to fund both maintenance and capital projects appropriately and not force the T to choose

1

Ironman2179 t1_iuk93ze wrote

No that's called bad budgeting. Had the leadership properly budgeted their cash they could do both. They didn't. The leadership constantly has been fucking it up.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iukb93q wrote

The MBTA has a 13B unfunded maintenance budget https://www.masstaxpayers.org/mbta-finances-cast-long-red-shadow-incoming-leaders

The 2020-2024 CIP for MassDOT includes 9.4B earmarked for the MBTA

https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=33a118c32b3f47b3b90a769498aa68bd#

Which accounts for both expansion and maintenance / modernization

Even if we assumed all the funds earmarked for both maintenance and expansion went to the MBTA's maintenance shortfall, we're still short more than 3 Billion dollars at minimum, the MBTA needs more money

The approved capital budget says

>This $13 billion capital sources gap does not include sufficient funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor to protect MBTA’s infrastructure from sea level rise and storm surge. Factoring in climate change costs, the MBTA is short approximately $20 billion for the period from 2023 through 2031. The federal infrastructure bill, if passed, will not meaningfully change this shortfall.

How do you propose we address this $20B capital shortfall (not even the operating shortfall which runs approximately half a Billion per year) the state itself acknowledges exists when making its capital budgets without adding more money and/or revenue

1