Last week, Governor Baker released new legislation aimed at restoring stability to the MBTA. While the centerpiece of the bill is a provision that would give the governor greater control of the transit system, there are two other aspects that may prompt public reaction: the possibility of future fare increases and potential changes to union transit worker arrangements. Taken together, all three components pose a challenge to ‘business as usual.’
Governor seeks control
The most prominent change within the governor’s bill would hand oversight of the MBTA to a new body known as the Fiscal Management and Control Board.
“MassDOT has many other responsibilities, especially now during the construction season, and it’s imperative that we have more manpower focused specifically on improving the T to restore the reliable, sustainable system here in the Commonwealth,” Governor Baker said at the press conference announcing the bill.
The MBTA has been overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) board since 2009, when MassDOT was formed by merging several other state transportation entities. The new FMCB would be managed by a chief administrator appointed by the governor and consist of five members: three appointed by the governor, and one each recommended to the governor by the Senate president and speaker of the House. The bill provides that the FMCB would be temporary, lasting only through June 2018.
The entire MassDOT board, except for Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack, a Baker appointee, resigned last week after calls from the Governor for them to step down. His action squared with new leadership recommendations made by the special panel convened by the governor in late February. The panel’s report, issued earlier this month, called on Baker to secure the resignation of existing MassDOT members and to create a new entity to oversee the MBTA for three to five years.
The Governor said at the press conference that he expected a new MassDOT board to be put in place “over the course of the next couple of weeks.”
Possible fare increases
Baker’s legislation also would remove the cap on fare increases that was put in place in 2013, which limits the MBTA to fare increases of 5 percent every two years.
Secretary Pollack said that the changes would not happen “overnight” and that other revenue options would be explored. The governor’s bill would retain existing discounts for students, senior citizens and individuals with disabilities.
Currently, the base fare for an MBTA subway ride is $2.10 with a Charlie Card. Elsewhere, the base fare in New York City for a subway ride is $2.75, although riders can receive an 11 percent bonus if they put $5.50 or more on their cards. In Washington DC, fares are determined based on the length of a trip and time of day, although a typical work-day commute during rush hour can cost $3 or more.
Pacheco law
The FMCB’s powers would include the ability to enact new performance measures, restructure the organization of the MBTA, and lift the application of the so-called Pacheco law to the MBTA. The Pacheco law is a 1993 requirement that state agencies engage in a cost-comparison analysis before contracting work performed by state workers out to private agencies. Critics of the law have long viewed it as a bow to political pressure from unions. The budget proposal released by the House Ways and Means Committee on April 15 called for repeal of the Pacheco law in reference to the MBTA — but not any other state agency.
The Boston Carmen’s Union, which represents 6,000 MBTA transit workers, released a statement in response to the governor’s proposed legislation saying that while it agreed with many of the bill’s provisions, the elimination of the Pacheco law “will only make a bad situation worse for riders and taxpayers.” The group highlighted the slowness of Keolis, the private company that runs the commuter rail, to resume service in the wake of the snowstorm. Keolis and the MBTA are currently subjects of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of commuter rail passengers due to poor service this winter.
What about those
$2.2 billion?
Baker’s bill also would seek to develop 1- and 5-year operating budgets with a clear separation between operating and capital budgets. The concern about the separation of the funding categories stems from the MBTA panel’s finding of an apparent underspending of capital funds.
“In the past five years, the MBTA spent only $2.3 billion of the $4.5 billion it had planned to spend on capital construction,” the report said.
When the Boston Herald first broke the news of the unspent funds earlier this month, many saw it as a sign that the T was leaving money on the table, and therefore was not in such dire straits as many thought. However, the question remains as to whether that $2.2 billion was sitting unused in a bank account, or represented future financing that the T might have raised through bonds.
Transportation Secretary Pollack and MBTA interim general manager Frank DePaola have launched an internal investigation into the matter. A MassDOT official who did not want to be named told the Banner by email on April 24 that the agency is currently “conducting a review and analysis of the capital underspend,” but that no updates could be provided at that time.
Further battles ahead
At a hearing held Monday April 27, the governor’s MBTA panel appeared before the legislature’s joint committee on transportation. There was standing-room-only as many MBTA employees packed into the chamber.
The gathering signaled one area in particular that might invite further political battles: claims of high rates of absenteeism among MBTA employees. When one member noted the report’s findings on this matter – including an average absenteeism rate of 57 days per year – the MBTA workers in the room shook their head in visible disagreement.
One man in an MBTA uniform muttered to himself, “That’s a lie.” He declined to give the Banner his name, but said that for starters, the data should not have included medical leave days, as it did. “We have so many families that need that,” he said. “I don’t think they should have included it in the count.”
Representative Evandro Carvalho asked the panel how the concerns about absenteeism fit within broader federal protections provided under the Family Medical Leave Act. Panel members emphasized that they were not opposed to the FMLA, but that they thought the numbers signaled a failure at the management level because of the high rates of MBTA employees who are certified to use the law – 30 percent overall and as high as 65 percent in some sub-groups of employees, according to their analysis.
“It gets back to a management question – how well and how effectively are they using [the law]?” said Jane Garvey, panel member and former head of the Federal Aviation Administration. “We just want to make sure it’s being used in the best way, and the way it’s intended.
“If the legislature passes the Fiscal Management and Control Board, we will be able to look at that [issue] further,” said panel member Robert Gittens, who also is vice president of public affairs at Northeastern University.
