63°
State Sen. Richard T. Moore and state Sen. Michael O. Moore were part of a bipartisan effort against a $51 million MBTA bailout this week.
“The Commonwealth should not be asked to fund the perpetual mismanagement of MBTA operation,” said state Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge. “Until there is a comprehensive management plan to prevent this from happening time and time again, we shouldn’t be asked to dedicate precious statewide resources that could otherwise maintain vital services or revert to our cities and towns.”
With the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) facing another substantial budget deficit, this time in the amount of $159 million to cover expenses for Fiscal Year 2013, legislation to cover $51 million of the debt passed the Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 26-9.
Changes have already been approved by the MBTA Board for a 23 percent fare increase and service cuts across the board to account for two-thirds of the debt.
An amendment supported by both legislators would have put in place an MBTA control board for at least three years to oversee all MBTA finances and operations, as well as make the bailout an eight year loan rather than an appropriation. The amendment was defeated.
“To issue what amounts to a blank check to the MBTA, without oversight and without transparency, is irresponsible to the taxpayers of Massachusetts,” said state Sen. Michael Moore, D-Millbury. “State funding without accountability, without addressing the heart of the problem, will only compound that problem in the future.”
The MBTA is one of the most-heavily subsidized transportation systems in the country, receiving a 60 percent subsidy from the state. The New York City transit system receives 40 percent of its funding from the state; New Jersey 34 percent; and the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority in D.C. 17 percent.
“While I believe there is a need to resolve the fundamental issues facing the MBTA, I could not support a bill that lacks oversight and accountability,” state Sen. Michael Moore said.
Users of The Ride, a service for disabled passengers, will be hit with increases of 100 percent to 150 percent under the fare hikes scheduled for July 1.
Comments (5)
Paying $24 a day now (with parking) to ride the commuter rail, I suppose I am glad for the bailout so that it is not more. Yet it remains frustrating that I was a half hour late to work because of a "mechanical failure" and the guy sitting in front of me was able to get a free ride by convincing the conductor to feel sorry for him because he was a veteran. My husband is a veteran too, but he doesn't ride for free. They really need to tighten the reigns on collecting fares and find a way to keep up the maintenance on their trains so that more people can rely on them to get them to work, etc.
Beginning in July I am going to pay over $300 for a monthly commuter rail pass. If I were paying that increase so that we could repair our engines, like the one that broke down Wednesday night leaving a train full of passengers stranded in cars with no air in 90 degree heat, that would be one thing. If we needed to pay for more conductors so that we didn't have to close off most of the train cars in the morning and squeeze passengers into a few cars because their aren't enough conductors on the train, I would be ok with that. But, given what I know about how the MBTA has been managed, it makes me want to get into my gas-guzzeling, air polluting SUV and drive to work rather than give the MBTA more money.
I just wish we had an answer for fixing the underlying problems rather than discouraging people from taking the train. With the increase, it is cheaper for me to drive and park in Boston, which is ridiculous. We should be encouraging people to take the commuter rail, a much better option for the environment, rather than discouraging it. How is it that other states seem to do this so much better than we do?
Elizabeth Spinney
Welcome to Massachusetts home of the biggest HACKS
Mismanagement?
The mismanagement occurred when the commonwealth's legislature transferred massive amount of debt onto the T.
Yes John, you are 99% correct! But from a legislative, tax burden process the transfer of debt to the T. was precisely to spread the tax pain of the big dig onto commuters of all sorts.