THE MASSACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION released a report on Tuesday raising concerns about the state’s ability to maintain and improve its transportation infrastructure, but called for another study of the issues involved rather than more revenues or other steps to address the problem.
The study, portrayed as an update of a 2007 Transportation Finance Commission report, said Massachusetts has spent a lot more than expected on transportation over the last decade but still finds itself short of money to address pressing needs. The report also said the state is likely to face severe funding constraints in the future as people buy fewer cars and consume less gasoline.
The financial analysis is surfacing at a time when the state Senate is suggesting that residents are dissatisfied with the state’s existing transportation system and are willing to pay higher taxes for improvements. The Senate on Tuesday is issuing its MassMoves report, which was paid for by the Barr Foundation and is based on feedback obtained from workshops held around the state and an online poll of residents.
The Taxpayers Foundation, which is backed by businesses, said the state spent nearly $16 billion repairing roads and bridges over the last decade — $4.3 billion more than projected by the Transportation Finance Commission in 2007. The bulk of the additional revenue was obtained by increasing the state bond cap and by borrowing against future federal funding and existing gas tax revenues, the study said.
The report praised current MBTA management for bringing expenses more in line with revenues but said the transit agency’s failure to do so earlier has been costly. The T’s expenses grew twice as fast as revenues for much of the last decade, the report said, requiring the agency to balance its budget with the help of $2.1 billion in state aid and by reducing capital spending and pushing debt obligations into the future.
“The consequences of these actions have been costly and unmistakable,” the report said. “Reduced capital spending over a prolonged period … has degraded MBTA’s infrastructure, undermining its ability to deliver transit services and extending the time needed to repair the system. Further, the current costs to address the MBTA’s asset needs are in excess of $1 billion annually and rising – a target the MBTA has not met.”
The Taxpayers Foundation warned that climate change is likely to increase the state’s transportation needs even as existing revenue sources “are uncertain and could unravel.” The report said the rise of ride-sharing and electric vehicles could put $2.2 billion in revenues from the gas tax, motor vehicles sales tax, and Registry and inspection fees at risk. It said two ballot questions likely to appear on next year’s ballot could scramble the revenue situation even more. One would raise the tax rate on income above $1 million and the other would cut the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent.
With all this uncertainty, the Taxpayers Foundation concluded an independent review is needed to better define the state’s capital needs and lay out a comprehensive plan to pay for them.
James Aloisi, a former secretary of transportation and a member of the 2007 Transportation Finance Commission, said the Taxpayers Foundation report glosses over the fact that relatively few of the commission’s revenue-raising recommendations were adopted.
The commission recommended an 11.5-cent hike in the gas tax indexed to inflation and a 5-cent vehicle-miles-traveled fee for drivers on Massachusetts interstate roads. Instead, lawmakers passed a 3-cent increase in the gas tax indexed to inflation; the inflationary adjustment was repealed by referendum in the 2014 election. Gov. Charlie Baker endorsed the ballot question repealing gas tax indexation and has opposed vehicle-miles-traveled fees.
Aloisi also said the Taxpayers Foundation report seemed to cherry-pick items from the Transportation Finance Commission to include in its report. For example, Aloisi noted the Taxpayers Foundation report criticized the MBTA for failing to make capital investments in infrastructure over the last decade. But he said the report neglected to mention that the commission had recommended that the state make it possible for the T to make greater capital investments by relieving the T of its obligation to pay back debt imposed by the Big Dig. The state never followed through on that recommendation.
“We keep getting independent reviews that no one pays attention to,” said Aloisi, who favors more revenues for transportation. “How many more do we need?”
This article doesn’t have a link to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s transportation report so I went on MTF’s website which has no transportation report released on September 26, 2017. The most recent MTF publication is dated August 15, 2017 “MTF Applauds Appointment of New MBTA General Manager” and the only other current thing that’s transportation related on MTF’s website is the upcoming forum “Transportation in an Era of Transition.” What’s going on? Is Bruce Mohl the only person MTF trusted with its report?
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s website still doesn’t have the referenced in this article. Why would the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation release a report without really releasing a report?
So the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation releases a nonexistent transportation report at about the same time the state senate released The MassMoves Report and among the dozens of contributors to that easily accessible report are towns, airports, colleges/universities, libraries and…wait for it…Mass Inc…but there’s no coverage in CommonWealth on that report even though Mass Inc. is what makes CommonWealth possible. So who funded the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report that no member of the public can access? Who knows?
The Worcester Telegram ran a State House News story “Mass. report: Public dissatisfied with transportation” that noted “The Senate report was published hours after the release a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report that also found significant problems in the state’s transportation system and called for the formation of an independent commission to conduct a full review.” Isn’t the MTF’s timing amazing? The MTF gets its nonexistent report to piggyback on the publicity of a broadly financed, bi-partisan senate report.
A link to the oft purportedly MIA Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation report can found at https://www.masstaxpayers.org/
Among the more interesting points noted in the MTA’s report include that the T was provided with MORE funding than it had sought – a lot more – in recent years, but it is still but limping along in the eyes of most strap hangers.
Another interesting point for numbers wonks that was also noted: the T has few – if any – sound metrics or data upon which to make decisions, plan and/or otherwise manage its operations.
With apologies to the original, this is no way to run a public transportation system.
Just so you know, the report was just posted to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s website. It’s dated September 27, 2017 while CommonWealth’s article is dated September 26, 2017. This isn’t the first time the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation kept a report offline while the news media ran stories on it. That’s designed to keep a lid on informed comments.
So, are you privy to knowing that the MTA purposefully delayed putting the report on its website after apparently distributing copies to the media and probably a few others or are you just a conspiracy theory aficionado?
Either way, you are yet again tilting at window’s in your trying make a distinction out of an ultimately irrelevant difference as regards when someone got around to posting this report on its website rather than doing the actually important work of developing and then posing a factual review of the report.
The fact is the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report was MIA for two days. I documented it, re-confirmed it and wrote about it. You went to the MTF’s website and didn’t even realize the report showed the posted date as the day after CommonWealth’s article.
Would you care to explain how your rancor over the roll out of a white paper by a group with which you are not involved that did not roll out per your curious expectations makes a rodent’s posterior of a difference as regards the contents of that white paper?
If Bruce Mohl provided a link to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report in his article or if the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report was on its website then I would have read it and given comments on it when the article was written – Tuesday, September 26th. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report clearly states in the MBTA section under Revenues and Resources: “To help close the enormous gap between available resources and needs, the TFC (in 2007) urged lawmakers to rely on dedicated transportation revenues. The Commission recommended an 11.5 cents hike in the gas tax indexed to inflation, and a five cent vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) program for drivers on Massachusetts interstate roads. These actions would yield an estimated $16 billion in new, recurring funds over 20 years. Lawmakers failed to enact the TFC’s long-term finance plan…” So the MBTA has not been rolling in the money.
Thanks for confirming that it is all about you.
That and how you don’t appear to understand numbers. Specifically, while the proposed tax increase AND a mile metered VMT were not implemented, the T was still otherwise funded with more than the 2007 ask.
Fact are stubborn things. You, however, are stubbornly clinging to disingenuously presenting but cherry-picked partial facts as the whole truth.
A link to the oft purportedly MIA Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation report can found at https://www.masstaxpayers.org/
Take a look at the date the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation posted its report to its website: September 27, 2017. The date is just above the report. Now take a look at the date this CommonWealth article was posted: September 26, 2017. That date appears right next to Bruce Mohl’s name. The MTF report’s actual release to the public was delayed by two days while publicity about the report ran it’s course. What’s also interesting about the timing of its release is the MTF had a scheduled forum for September 27, 2017 “Transportation in an Era of Transition” featuring Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito and Secretary & Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Transportation Stephanie Pollack. At the forum Lt. Gov. Polito announced Governor Charlie Baker will sign an executive order creating a new commission to review transportation needs and how the state could fund them…just as the MTF’s report called for. Just so you know, the report’s release came after the forum was over. It’s all too conveniently orchestrated. It’s not like the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report said anything important. It’s just a jumble of stuff…like it was thrown together but Polito referenced it as though it contributed to an informed transportation discussion. Who will the Governor appoint to the commission? How much money will it get to produce its own report? What will be the commission’s timeline? Time will tell. I feel like some wool was pulled over the public’s eyes and I don’t like it…not one little bit.
Question: do you wear tin foil helmets and spend your vacation camping near Area 51 watching for alien spacecraft in the night?
Think what you may, but trying to make much of when the MTA report was posted online is a fool’s errand.
For example, for all you know perhaps an intern was in charge of posting it online and was late to post it as he or she was busy up with coursework. Either that or someone forgot to click the upload button.
Or maybe SOP by the MTA is do a roll out of its white papers to the media and other key people first and then post the material released on its website.
Oh, and let’s not forget that the media could have posted a link to their copies of the report, be it a .pdf copy to the likely e-distribution of the document to them or by scanning a copy of a paper copy and then hyperlinking the scanned copy into their article on the report.
More importantly to you, however, is has anyone even been read “Chicken Little” to you?
What’s most frustrating about the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s transportation report is it was “released” one day before the state senate transportation report. By the way, I’d rather take a camping vacation to Area 51 than live in a wet paper bag that apparently has no way out.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions!
Think what you may, it is not all about you, much less when the report was made available online for you to review.
That and how you have yet to offer up even but one plausibly germane point about this MTA report.
My idea of informative reports on the MBTA that are well worth reading are “BORN BROKE: How the MBTA found itself with too much debt, the corrosive effects of this debt, and a comparison of the T’s deficit to its peers” and “MBTA Review” by David F. D’Alessandro. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has an agenda behind their suspiciously timed and thrown together reports. CommonWealth has already run two articles on the MTF report “Polito promises transportation commission” and the one above our comments. In the meantime, a broadly funded, bipartisan report released by the state senate shows up under “Mixed messages on paying for transportation” on The Daily Download with only a few paragraphs and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report in two of those paragraphs. MassInc was one of the funders of the state senate report and MassInc makes CommonWealth possible but CommonWealth backpaged the state senate report while the two articles on the MTF report are still featured on the front page. Sometimes how a report is handled is more important than what’s in the report.
And yet Barak Obama is still a natural born US citizen.
Seriously, a key point of the MTA report is that MORE funding was provided than the 2007 Transportation Finance Commission proposed – a lot more – and yet what was expected to come of this spending did not exactly work out as was projected.
Oh, and think what you may, the bond funding debt load of the T is not the onerous problem that you claim it to be. A problem, no argument, but not a fatal one. Not even close. The T’s woefully underfunded pension, however, is a whole other matter, along with the T’s liberal retirement benefits.
And another key point made in the MTA report is how the MBTA is woefully remiss on having often but merely standard data and metrics in place that would help it to know if it was meeting its operating and improvement plans goals.
In turn, it is thus not up to the MTA to offer a funding plan going forward until such time as the T has in place the means to assess its performance.
In point of long ongoing fact, a key problem has long been that money has been thrown at the T with little in the way of oversight on or hard expectations.for the money.
And yet you still wonder why the T is in the mess that it is in?
The T’s budget was mismanaged for years including accounting irregularity and not having information necessary to develop metric to determine the need for its operational status. Many of the appointees were interested in using the agency as a resume builder. Among the example is paying employee’s salaries out of the capital account when it should be part of the operating budget to begin with. It took the control board to spot light it when the T itself admitted that it is now doing that.
The T’s pension fund is a separate fund that is separate from the T itself because there were no public accountability in how its assets are managed. Now it is under PRIM to be managed.
And now we’re at the point where Somerville and Cambridge have to pay tens of millions of dollars toward MBTA projects in their communities.
Mhmjjj2012
FYI: you forgot Quincy: Tens of millions in air rights deals need to be scored if it wants to see two of its stations redone.
Mhmjjj2012,
Thanks for bringing up the state senate’s transportation via MassMoves!!!
FYI: This report has yet to be posted on the MassMoves.org website – at least nowhere obvious – and is thus at this point is already several TIMES later in its website posting than the short delay in the MTA posting its report and for which you have taken high dudgeon.
In fact, you might care to note that the only way I was able find the MassMoves report was c/o a Bitly link provided by the Greenfield Recorder – see http://bit.ly/MassMovesReport
In turn, and as should only be fair to ask, are you going to now heap even more umbrage upon MassMoves and the state senators behind its report for failing to YET make it available to the general public than the but one day late posting of the MTA’s report on its website?
Oh, and as for problems with the MassMoves report itself, you will find a very solid critic of it – and most especially its deeply flawed methodology – at https://greatbrook.com/massmoves-report-flawed-research-on-transportation-priorities-in-massachusetts/
Please also that I have both done major research resources as well as taught research methodologies and can say without any fear of valid criticism that the above critique of the myriad of problems with MassMoves conducted its research is a sound critique as well as agree that MasssMoves’ reports findings were so all but predetermined before ANYONE in the public was asked for their input.
Simply, yet another example of garbage in, garbage out junk science.
I checked out GreatBrook’s analysis of the senate report which is interesting. While I share some of the same concerns GreatBrook pointed out as flaws, I have to wonder why GreatBrook went to such great lengths to analyze a study that its own author noted “I had never heard of the study before. I consider myself a reasonably well-informed person. I watch 15-30 minutes of local news – actual news beyond weather and sports – each day. I don’t subscribe to a local paper, but I do get the Boston Globe’s daily email news summary. I also read our local weekly newspaper, beyond just the police blotter. Never heard of this study; never saw an invitation to participate.” To me that shows exactly the difference in how the news media will run with a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation press release and not so much with another viewpoint.
How GreatBrook happened onto the MASSMOVES study or who is behind GreatBrook is irrelevant as its criticisms are all valid points.
Next, the Massachusetts Taxpayer Association has been around for 85 years and thus surely have some cred with media. That and knows how to see a press release on a white paper turn into media coverage on that paper.
Finally, you utterly ducked the fact that one has to dig deep to find the MASSMOVES study from SECONDARY sources – and yet you long railed about how the MTA was a day slow posting its study onto its website.
If you are gonna diss one, you have to diss the other or you have no credibility.
I don’t recall exactly how I found the senate transportation report last week. I’m positive it was on the same day it was released: 9/26/2017. That day I came across at least two articles on the senate report: MassLive’s article had a link to the report but the article in The Boston Globe from the State House News Service didn’t have a link. So either I clicked on the MassLive link or I did a search for “mass senate transportation report” after reading the Globe’s article. I know I got the senate report easily, did a quick review, made some notes like the fact it was bipartisan and broadly funded, MassInc’s involvement, the workshop participation numbers were very low, there was nothing about overweight trucks damaging roads/bridges, the Massachusetts regional/metropolitan planning agencies played a role, it was more about soliciting opinions whether informed or not, no real specifics, and there wasn’t anything about the gas tax…just to give the most readable comments I wrote down. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has a history of selectively releasing its reports to certain reporter(s) and withholding those same reports from the public. Now that may not be a problem for you but it’s a big problem for me. Regarding GreatBrook’s analysis of the senate report, it strikes me as an odd effort for them to take on unless someone paid them. If that were the case then that should have been disclosed. PS – this should have been in response to your most recent comment.
Mhmjjj2012,
I see that you are tap dancing around the fact of your screed over how the MTA was a day late in posting its report on its website.
Again, reread my prior post: the MassMoves’ report was still NOT posted to its website for ready and easily public access roughly a week AFTER it was covered by the media.
Instead, I found a link to the report in a newspaper article published by a small western Massachusetts newspaper. That and your yourself acknowledge the possibility that you found the MassMoves’ from somewhere OTHER than its website (and as did I, ed.).
Simply put, tap dance all you want, MassMoves was also sloppy at making its paper readily available. As such, either critique both or none; however, since you only are criticizing one over ultimately bupkis, you are only undermining your own credibility.
Next, your selective cherry picking is further annoying as regards Greatbook’s look at MassMoves’ paper. Questioning who may have funded the report is a shopworn cheap stunt to try to denigrate what is a critique which per any reasonable and knowledgeable read presents thoughtful and valid concerns and problems with MassMoves’ methodology and thus its findings.
This in turn, only gives rise to questions of likely Projection within you as, clearly, you have an agenda as opposed to offering up any truly valid, much less consequential, arguments and as you hide behind an utterly anonymous nom de blog.
The link went to the full senate transportation report posted on the malegislature web page. That was good enough for me. I found it easily and with no effort while the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report was nowhere to be found at all for two days. That’s the difference. If the MTF report was only posted on the website of whoever may have funded it for the first few days then I would have noted the MTF didn’t have it on its own website and that would have been the end of it…most likely. I focused on the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation because just before last year’s November vote on Question 2 the MTF released a pro-charter school report that was only given to The Boston Globe’s reporter and wasn’t posted to the MTF website until well into the afternoon. Delaying the release of a report to the public until the publicity around it runs its course is a pattern that should be called out. Given I previously stated I shared some of the same concerns GreatBrooks brought up about the senate transportation report, what’s the real problem? It’s possible GreatBrook did its analysis as an exercise for its webpage visitors though it doesn’t seem as though that was the point of it. Most commenters are anonymous and most commenters keep their comments open for anyone to read as far back as Disqus let’s them. Since I’m like most commenters I’m very comfortable with my approach. And yes, I do have an agenda. When did that become a crime? The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has an agenda too. . .
So, let me get this right. You are excoriating the MTF for taking a day to post its report on its website but are OK with MassMoves failing to do the same for at least a week as you were able to find its study via roundabout ways the average person on the street would most likely not know how to endeavor.
FYI: protest too much as you long have, but such a minimal delay at best does NOTHING to undercut MTF’s report. Rather, it is little other than whining.
Oh, and your hypothesizing about what was GreatBooks’ motivation to review matters is utterly spurious as its research methods concerns and the like were perfectly sound observations.
And as for anonymity, I have no problem with it.
At the same time, I do have a huge problem with agenda-driven complaints that do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to undercut MTF’s review that are hurled from total anonymity but which agenda is still clearly obvious.
My agenda is an informed public discussion on the issues. When groups like the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation release a report to one or two reporters but not make the report available to the public then that greatly concerns me. Since you seem to want to focus on the MTF report here’s an excerpt from page 3: “Lawmakers issued bonds…that increased the state’s outstanding debt…without raising sufficient revenues to cover the additional debt service costs…” So how smart was that? How useless can a state legislature get? We’re talking about the very same state legislature that fails to meet its financial obligations to local public schools under the 1993 Education Reform Act…its own law for Pete’s sake and there’s a two year old report documenting that fact most news media ignore. All this is playing out while Jeremy Jacobs/Delaware North work the back rooms of the State House for a second taxpayer funded deal of the century with no public oversight or input. Perhaps if the public knew…really knew the extent of the patronage, corruption, tax giveaways, insider deals, privatization schemes and everything else then the public would demand that it stop…just stop…and a real effort to have good government with full transparency working to benefit the public and their school children with our tax dollars would begin. In the meantime, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is on my radar screen because it’s a nonprofit group paying its president vast sums of money…almost $500,000 annually (according to its IRS Form 990 for 2014). The MTF’s specialty is to rail against taxes/spending and undermine local public school funding every chance it gets. So yeah, I have an agenda.
Your agenda is to encourage an Informed public discussion?
Be honest: your railed and railed and are STILL railing over how the MTF was a day late in posting its report on its website whereas MassMoves’ report is still NOT posted ANYWHERE on its website as near as I can tell.
Such does NOTHING to discuss any matters of actually importance.
Next, you have failed to duly acknowledge that the MTF CLEARLY noted that while the tax proposals noted per the 2007 TFC report to fund its proposed transportation improvements were not implemented, BILLIONS more than the total ask of that study were STILL provided – and yet the projected improvements did not happen.
Such to most thoughtful parties is a sign of problems – HUGE PROBLEMS.
Spin things as you have as well as may continue to do, the failure to deliver as promised with even MORE funding provided is not the MTF’s problem; rather, such is Beacon Hill’s problem – for instead mostly opting for going with bond debt funding while imposing few actual expectations or oversight – and the MBTA for not having good performance and other metrics in place to actually make far projections as to what needed to be done and the like.
Next, at the end of the day, you are ultimately railing for more money to be throw at all manner of problems whereas the MTF is saying basically that absent good data and proper financial control systems in place, there is no viable basis to discern what actually needs to be done and/or provide benefit/costs projections.
FYI: my resources for information from the right state entity for knowing such things have found massive wasteful practices c/o poor operational and financial management in virtually every major governmental entity they review such that merely cutting the waste in half would take the state budget out of its current structural deficit status as well as be able to also have the means to fund many needed infrastructure projects GIVEN PROPER operational and financial management.
Again, the only proper road is to first address weak managerial control over spending BEFORE providing any more money as otherwise Beacon Hill is basically just handing out taypayer-funded Benjamins to addicts – millions and millions and millions of Benjamins.
Conversely, the Benjamins provided to the head of MTF are privately funded Benjamins.
And finally, your real agenda is as clear as a sunny fall day in New England.