So it turns out Beverly Scott did drop the mic at her press conference yesterday.
Scott did not specify reasons in her resignation letter, but did praise T workers and said she was proud to have been part of the Patrick administration's transportation team.
She leaves the job in April.
Free tagging:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 37 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
She definitely gets the last
By Irmo
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:24pm
She definitely gets the last laugh now.
Let's see anyone say anything specific on what might be done differently with her gone.
The Governor should start
By Jimmy
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:11pm
The Governor should start taking the Bus to the blue lines Wonderland station from Humphrey Street Swampscott.
Has he even step foot on an mbta bus before in his life, or is the bus to scummy for him to ride in.
and then take a walk up Paradise Road
By kitty
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:13am
He should then take a walk up Paradise Road at night to see how dangerous it is to be a pedestrian when homeowners and businesses are not required to shovel their sidewalks.
Not sure MBTA disaster
By Silly girl3
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:20pm
Not sure MBTA disaster should be all about having the last laugh.
Sounds a little immature.
And I'm finding some of these comments a bit bizarre.
Beverly Scott took on position knowing All problems with system.
Resigning in middle of crisis is not a sign of a Dedicated problem solver.
Being is not Doing. Being can only take you so far.
Well, if you're going to be
By Irmo
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:41pm
Well, if you're going to be the scapegoat, you might as well remember that it's a contraction of "escape goat," and then do your part and escape.
Charlie Owns It Now
By anon
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 10:36am
The debt. The old cars that don't work. The deferred maintenance. The well earned reputation for unreliable service. Angry commuters. And did we mention the Big Dig debt on MBTA's balance sheet? Plus, an Olympics coming in 2024 that promises to suck all state resources dry. Oh boy.
*snerk*
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:26pm
"proud to have been part of the Patrick administration's transportation team" (though Adam, there's a typo: you have "transportion").
What a beautiful way to send Charlie Baker a raspberry on the way out the door.
Okay, yeah
By M
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:36pm
That struck me the same way, but I couldn't figure out if it was just me.
Well, he refused to talk to
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:49pm
Well, he refused to talk to her during all these storms, but was happy to blast her in the press. A few weeks after he takes office, she quits.
Tough break for the Governor
By Michael
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:27pm
Firing her was probably the beginning (and, frankly, the entirety) of his plan to restore public confidence in our transit system.
Fixed that for you
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:34pm
Absolutely, blame a decision
By JPHipster
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:16pm
Absolutely, blame a decision made 20 years ago rather than the person who was in charge the last 8. Do you place any blame on Gov Patrick? Do you place any blame on the mis-management of the system? Deval had 8 years of unchecked power with a democrat legislature and somehow couldn't fix the problems created by Baker? That makes Patrick look even more ineffective than we thought he was.
Party affiliation doesn't mean squat...
By b from Ros
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:45pm
Political interests can ignore party affiliation, especially in a very blue state. Public transit happens to be a very low priority. You are sorely mistaken if you think the previous Governor can dictate how every dollar is spent.
At least there are Red/Orange line cars on the horizon...
Let me add a presidential level reference, and potentially inflammatory one. Despite popular opinion and control of the house and senate, JFK was unlikely to ever get the civil rights act passed due to the powers that be in the senate. It took a "Master of the Senate" to bypass this barrier (this is a reference to Robert Caro's books).
One man can only do so much, there are plenty of checks and balances to slow process down...
We all know
By anon²
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:56pm
Infrastructure investment in this state is a city / rural divide (in this state inside 128 vs outside until you hit the Berkshires where they know they can't do it alone).
The problem has always been outside of 128 doesn't want a thing to do with investment in Boston, while sure as hell wanting more than their share of the metro tax base.
It's a microcosm of federal tax pressures at play.
Sadly no one looks at the bigger picture on how these sorts of investments work out for every region as more economic prosperity comes to eastern mass and spreads. You;d think people stuck in the dire traffic on the Pike today, or not finding a place to park in the city would come around to that. The failure of the MBTA this week is making their lives hell as well.
Maybe now is a good time to sweeten any deal with that high speed rail with stops in Worcester and Springfield. I can;t think of anything else that would be as big a boon to the regional economy as being able to get from Springfield to Boston in an hour.
Springfield to Boston in an hour?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:04pm
I've driven Newton Corner to Springfield in 70 minutes. A train doesn't sound like a great improvement for the cost.
3AM
By anon²
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:16pm
After you pack up from the bar doesn't count Will. Please clock the same drive at 445 on the weekday, and try not to put a bullet through your skull.
We've also been through talks on how much roads are subsidized and taken for granted, while trains for some reasonable need to be profitable, or break even at the least. Worse case scenario you can now do your drive in 75 min to Springfield at 5 pm on a weekday; meanwhile Worcester and Springfield get a vital commuter link to Boston, and all the benefits people bringing money back to those areas after work afford.
Would you turn down an opportunity to wipe out 1/3 your housing costs for the same length commute?
Headin out west
By John-W
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:55pm
While I agree it would be cool to have some rapid transit out to points in western Mass, I'm not sure the folks out there care that much. I've heard from plenty of people from the Pioneer Valley and further that going North-South is of far more interest to them than heading East.
High speed rail is 180-200mph
By bgl
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:56pm
High speed rail is 180-200mph-ish. It should take a bit over an hour to get to NYC, not Springfield...
MBTA service area extends past I-495
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 6:06am
Cities and towns charged MBTA service assessments most certainly extend to 495, not 128. Even to a town like Harvard, MA in Worcester county with no MBTA service in that town, just commuter rail stops some distance away in Littleton, West Acton, and Ayer. So, people in towns getting charged for service by the MBTA yet getting little to none is a thorn in their side, yet the MBTA extends its hand out for money as far and wide as it can. Not the way to make friends and influence people.
Harvard, MA is close enough to those train stops
By Whurlz
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 7:34am
The Fitchburg line draws large numbers of riders and has grown tremendously in recent years. While I don't have hard data on this, I'd bet good money that folks from Harvard are on that train. Home building in the Nashoba Valley has exploded, too, and the commuter rail is a selling point. Why shouldn't people living there support it economically?
Whoosh
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:37am
The main point is that service extends beyond 495, not 128 as claimed above.
The service is spotty, with little in the way of bus service, parking, subway, and water shuttle. This poor cousin service may then translate into lesser support.
France and other european
By Cal
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 3:55pm
France and other european nations are so far advanced than this country when it comes down to the transit system, maybe they should give us some clues .A major embarresment!
WTF does it take to have an advance transit system in Boston and merto boston.The red line is as old as MIT..The best the mbta can do is replace old train stations to new train stations, mbta has defeated the purpose, first they should buy new advanced trains and then fix the aging tracks and related electrical systems and then replace old stations.yea I heard it before, but where the oldest train system in America and we would like to keep ii that way. Privatize the mbta ! There are loads of MIT and Harvard grads who have billions of dollars and would love to advertise their business name on every train and bus, and rename mbta stations after thier business name. Google are you interested in purchasing the mbta.,
Unchecked power? Hardly.
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:49pm
Remember the gas tax increase that he vetoed because he didn't think it was enough to do the job? That'd be the one the legislature overrode his veto on.
Not what I'd call "unchecked power" there.
Absolutely give it a rest Swirly
By Stevil
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:58pm
As the poster above points out - that was almost 20 years ago. I left a job in 1997. If I went back there and found they were still doing something I implemented back then that hadn't been working for over a decade should I say shame on them or shame on me? There have been 4 governors and 10 legislatures since. Hardly anybody lifted a finger to fix this mess other than a few feeble attempts at raising the gas tax.
It's still useful to remember who pushed the T off the
By MC Slim JB
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:54pm
rails in the first place. I wish I could enjoy the irony of Baker finding the hot potato he chucked 20 years ago back in his own lap. It's a classic GOP move: create a giant problem by gutting funding for public services, then moan and cavil when the other guys don't fix it.
But there's nothing I find tasty about this particular bit of comeuppance. The city and the Commonwealth desperately need a functioning T, but Baker has already painted himself into a corner with the platform he ran on. I don't hold high hopes that he will show the political will to fix it.
Your move, Charlie. You earned it.
Baker's revenge
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 6:16am
Selecting a Transportation Secretary from the anti-car, pro- public transit ivory towers of the Dukakis Center and Conservation Law Foundation and thrusting her into the real world!
For the next MBTA chief, let's not choose someone with a doctorate degree, unless its in physics. Its better they have more years of hands on experience running a transportation carrier than ivory tower and paper mill years.
A hair in the donut batter?
By John-W
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 8:56am
Yeah why don't they find someone with some relevant experience?!?! GODDDAMNED HACKS!!
- Chief Executive Officer & General Manager of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
- Chief Executive Officer & General Manager of the Sacramento Regional Transit District
- General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority
- senior position with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- senior position with the New Jersey Transit Corporation
- senior position with the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- senior position with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
- awards from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Society of Public Administrators and the National Business League.
- doctorate in political science, with a specialization in public administration
Job hopping work record
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:41am
One has to wonder when someone changes jobs so often, not sticking around longer with an employer!
ahhh yes.
By John-W
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:05pm
Nothing like a Markk post.
You really are stuck in the 70s
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:17pm
In my husband's industry, someone staying in one place for too long (meaning >5years) has been considered to be suspect since the 1980s.
How many times per week would
By MattL
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 10:54am
How many times per week would you say it's healthy to obsessively blame everything on the CLF?
Why did this state elect a
By J
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:28pm
Why did this state elect a republican governor?
I didn't vote for him, but ....
By Ron Newman
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:30pm
would Martha Coakley have handled this situation any better? Maybe Steve Grossman or Don Berwick would have, but we didn't have that opportunity.
Perhaps a better question
By J
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:34pm
Perhaps a better question would be....why was Martha Coakley the other choice?
An excellent question.
By Scratchie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:35pm
An excellent question.
Did you vote in the primary?
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:50pm
Did you vote in the primary? If not its because of you.
Beccause of an idiotic system
By roadman
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:24pm
that a) mandates that only one candidate from a party can advance beyond the primary and b) leaves the decision as to which candidate can advance to a committee, regardless of how the possible candidates did in said primary.
No party committee can override the primary
By Ron Newman
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:29pm
When has that ever happened?
(by the way, the party insiders wanted Steve Grossman. The primary voters didn't agree.)
Perhaps I phrased it badly
By roadman
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:10pm
But if the party committee can't override the primary results - then why do we need a committee to formally select their nominee in the first place.
That's the whole *point* of a
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:34pm
That's the whole *point* of a political party- to back a single candidate. There's nothing forcing anyone to choose either of the establishment parties...
Maybe because
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:37pm
Democrats put up Martha as their choice. Doug Bennett would have been a better candidate.
The Mass economy would be a lot better if he had run
By tachometer
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:57pm
Just think how much plywood and paint he'd have to buy to plaster the state with his campaign signs.
sad sack guy
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:20pm
Would have been a better option.
Oh shit, doug's back
By Couldn't log in...
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:25pm
Oh shit, doug's back
Perfect Storm
By BostonDog
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:37pm
I don't think Coakley would have done any better but Baker has been decidedly childish about the whole thing. I just wish he would admit there is a problem beyond management and you can't cut your way out of a hole.
I didn't vote for Baker but didn't think he'd be too bad. So far he's proving me wrong.
He backed himself into a hole
By Nick
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:02pm
I as well neither voted for Baker nor thought he'd be too bad, but my one concern was his absurd and dogmatic no-new-taxes pledge. Baker's a smart enough guy to have known then and to know now that you can't fix the T without more revenue coming from somewhere, but he went down that road anyway.
Now he has to deal with a budget gap, a vital system that desperately needs more money, and a campaign promise that prevents him from doing anything about it. Charlie knows he can raise revenue without turning Massachusetts into the USSR; he'll earn the image of pragmatic manager he desperately tries to cultivate when mans up and admits it.
Regrets - we've had a few
By Belmont
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:20pm
First Marty, now Charlie. I don't live in Boston but Marty lost me when he decided we needed to have the New England Patriots parade even if it was the last thing he ever did.
Charlie - well, there you go. I wish (wishful thinking) that we could have a judge declare that the MBTA must be rebuilt - no if, ands, or's buts, etc.
Like the Boston Harbor cleanup - Paul Garrity.
The Republican Gov. candidate lost...
By RM
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 10:29pm
The Republican candidate for Governor lost to her opponent, the Libertarian. There was no Democrat in the race for Governor after the Democratic Primary selected a Law-and-Order Republican Attorney General as candidate.
If this state leans any more Right Wing we're just going to keep flying around in circles counter-clockwise.
Who decided to call her in as
By Noahh
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:39pm
Who decided to call her in as a sacrificial lamb? We finally have a manager who is acknowledging the clusterfuck of noninvestment and neglect the MBTA really is, and then she resigns without specificed reasons? Suspect.
The MA political powers at be must be scared shitless of the pissed off electorate right now, and they clearly need to stifle dissent to preserve themselves.
EDIT:
Then again, I wouldn't blame her for wanting to avoid the political and personal evisceration she's being forced to endure because MA politics refuses to own its shit.
I honestly don't think...
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:34pm
... Baker (or DeLeo) gives a flying f*** about what MBTA users think -- and insofar as they care even a little -- they count on voters forgetting their annoyance before the next election cycle .
She didn't get axed...
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:35pm
...she resigned.
While I agree that she inherited a complete mess, I also can't really point at something innovating that she did to make the mess any better. Can you?
Yeah, yeah, she needs the legislature...blah, blah. I don't buy that. Leaders make due with what they have. There is an expression..."don't fight stupid; make more awesome." That is the kind of person we need for this disaster of a public transit system.
Leaders make due with what
By Scratchie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:07pm
Yes, meaningless platitudes are definitely going to fix decades of neglect. You should definitely send your resume in to the Governor.
And yet...
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:53pm
...you still haven't pointed to one innovative thing she did. Same goes for those before her.
Right, because leadership is
By Noahh
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:13pm
Right, because leadership is what will get more blood from from this stone.
"Leaders make due with what they have" = "Let's not get ahead of ourselves by challenging widely documented systematic failure"
At her level, nobody "resigns
By Lyndsay
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:35pm
At her level, nobody "resigns" in the middle of a debacle like this. They are politely asked to resign, or rather, told to resign, and their contract bought out, or some other deal quietly made for them to walk away quietly and uphold their end of a non-disclosure agreement. That's the leverage they have in this case. I noticed in the Globe article on her resignation that one of the board members made a point that she had not completed her three year contract. So there had to be some sort of buyout/severance for her to reneg on her contract like that and not face repercussions and/or burned bridges.
"don't fight stupid; make
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:39pm
Was that Einstein or Disney who said that?
If you just wish hard enough, it'll come true?
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:53pm
Let's say I put you in charge of an agency tasked with transporting thousands of people each day, and give you the following resources:
- a Trabant (broken)
- $20 in pennies
- a maxed-out MasterCard with a $1000 limit
What's your plan to "make do"? Close your eyes and clap your hands until Tinkerbell comes along? Or are you going to say "I can't do the job you've asked me to do with these resources"?
Cut cut cut
By Stevil
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:52pm
a) figure out your revenue
b) deduct your capital costs - including a plan to get the system up to speed.
c) figure out what's left - tell the unions that's what they get to split - any way they see fit
This is how it's done (and this goes for virtually all government)
How much did it cost to run the system last year
Don't fix anything
Add 3% and give it out for salaries
Find 3% more revenue any way possible
Complain that everything's broken and we need even more money.
Not all the T's problems are their own fault - but saying that there are no internal problems is not the answer either. There was a report (I think Herald) today that they've been spending years building a database just to figure out what work needs to be done - much less doing it. You're telling me that's not a senior management problem?
So, just ignore the debt then?
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 8:05pm
FY2014 revenue: $1,879,309,824
FY2014 operating expenses: $1,429,983,519
FY2014 debt service: $435,099,748
(Source)
The only operating expense category higher than debt service is wages, and the FY14 number for that was $450 million -- not that much more.
Now, let's see what $435 million could have bought from the FY14-FY18 Capital Improvement Program list:
$84.0 million for "Track/Right-of-Way"
$185.8 million for "Communications"
and about 70% of the $229.2 million for "Power".
(And these are 5-year numbers, not just FY14.)
I think some of those could have come in handy this past few weeks. Admittedly one year's debt service doesn't come close to the $1035.2 million for "Revenue Vehicles"... but it's more than 1/5 of that number, so it would likely be enough to cover the entire category over the 5 year period.
Here's the problem-or part of it
By Stevil
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:43pm
Operating revenue from 2001 (beginning of forward funding) until 2015 went up by $330 million. Wages - "miraculously" went up by almost EXACTLY that same amount - for what I'm guessing is a similar headcount. Wouldn't we all like to get increases like that.
Sales tax revenues over that period increased by $220 million. Actual principal and interest went up by $140 million. Most of that remaining $80 million got eaten up by operating contracts for commuter rail - again salaries and benefits.
I'd have to dig into a lot more details and get some headcounts etc, but on the surface - this info seems to point out that blaming this on "the Big Dig" debt is a load of crap. The problem is that every time you get an extra dollar - you give it to employees rather than putting it toward capital purchases which doesn't fly in a capital intensive biz. You can get away with giving them 1 out of 2 or maybe 2 out of 3, but in this biz you need to set aside money for capital improvements. It's like the person who decides they want a gym membership, and a cleaning person, and Netflix and goldplated cell service crying when their roof needs to be repaired and they have no money.
This looks a lot like the BPS - oh we're poor, we're poor. Until you look at the numbers and realize that they are only poor relative to themselves last year. Compared to the rest of the world in a similar biz they are Bill Gates.
question
By John-W
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:49pm
interesting. Which report(s) are you pulling these numbers from?
Click on "Source"
By Stevil
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 8:56am
In CKD's post - brings up a P&L for the T back to 1991. I use 2001 as a base because that indicates where forward funding began. 2015 is budgeted numbers. All others are actual.
As I said - in the real world people don't get raises, pensions go away and they have to start paying more for health care when the company is struggling (and these days even when the company isn't struggling). In MBTA land they just give everyone what they had last year, plus a little more and then kick the can down the road on equipment and maintenance.
Municipal finance 101
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:02pm
NOBODY operates debt free! Cities, towns, states, and the fed all use borrowing, so thinking that the MBTA might not is fanciful and bad financial management.
Even then, suggesting any use of funds for expansion is stupid when so much needs repair.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_cov...
good to know
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:04pm
So, how about we stop paving anything.
What's your point that nobody
By RhoninFire
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 1:29pm
What's your point that nobody operates debt free. The MBTA doesn't have to be debt free, but spending +$400 mill on debt service is a huge problem. You don't think having the operation budget spending that much on debt service for capital projects (regardless what projects) not a problem?
And again, what you said earlier that the MBTA traded taking on the debt in exchange for the sale tax cut is false. I have noticed that you keep wording in a way that it sounds the MBTA was a player and played an active role. Like some company buying debt and its debt service in exchange they also get the stores. Stop saying that. The state pass legislation to move the debt and dedicate the revenue. The state made the bet the revenue would cover the debt with some on top and thus all will be well. It failed.
That said, the MBTA needs to funds for maintenance, but expansion is also needed too. The MBTA has not truly expanded in 20 years. It is not expansion that is the problem. It's a priority of funds. Funds towards beneficial projects should continue. As well as increasing funds to maintenance. I can agree actions like what Stevil noted can help, but there's other ways than raiding the money set for GLX (much is federal so we can't use it for operations anyway).
Come to think of it, there's has been calls to cancel South Coast Rail. A project that cost more than any of the others while directly benefiting quite a small number compared to just about any other project. Advocating that might get some traction here rather than every response you got so far, but so far you have only talked about GLX (and CFL alot). Why?
Deal push on MBTA
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:24pm
Call the exchange of debt for income for the MBTA a forced deal. What I complain about are people making it sound like debt got forced on the MBTA with nothing in return, which is incorrect.
I don't point out south coast rail for two reasons:
1. GLX hasn't even started yet, so air quality improvements in Somerville since the Big Dig most clearly point out the falsehood of air quality harm projections by CLF.
2. GLX is local to me, affecting me, so I've studied it. I've not studied south coast rail, so don't comment on it, even though both burdens come from CLF. I suppose the dream of CLF is that these rail stations would solve the insufficient capacity problem of the southeast distressway.
GLX would make more sense if it included parking facilities at stations to take more cars off Boston roads and expand MBTA ridership more than a meager 0.5%. Adding parking sensibly would require more road capacity/widening near stations in Somerville and on Rt. 16 which Curtatone doesn't like, so, GLX ends up as far less bang for the buck than it could be. Bang for the buck is vital in public works, and GLX (also) fails there.
We could go into all the money the MBTA is spending on station renovations and electronic status information instead of maintaining the moving parts and electrical components. This shows the MBTA priorities:
Spend money on personnel first. Spend money where it is visible by the public second. Spend money where not seen last. Maintenance falls into that last category and is why we have the problems we do. Giving the MBTA more money doesn't fix its bad priorities.
Defund highways
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:38pm
That would save more than enough money to properly run the system.
The GLX has been started, dolt.
Also, the GLX is NOT OPTIONAL. It should have been done 10 years ago PER FEDERAL CONTRACT.
Believe in trickle down economics?
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:42pm
Just give the MBTA more money and it will eventually get to the bottom?
Make drivers pay by the mile
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:46pm
That will fix all the funding problems. Public transit is vastly cheaper per person per mile.
Instead of all your bullshit "solutions", make drivers pay for their use of the roads. Transit is far less subsidized than driving. Vastly less subsidized per trip.
LOLz at Trabant.
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:27pm
LOLz at Trabant.
Pages
Add comment