6 ms·

Got it in 1. MBTA is 8 billion dollars in debt. They are the MA poster child for "too big too fail."

ajross 15y ago
It's a public transit system. Is the goal to turn a profit or provide transit services? For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")? I'm always amazed at the libertarians who freak out at the idea of subsidized transit (which is clearly what this is, even if there's a nominal balance sheet attached) as they drive their cars to work on the road system provided entirely at taxpayer expense.
- anamax 15y ago
  > For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")? When did MA repeal its gas taxes, license fees and taxes, and sales tax on auto related stuff?
  - ajross 15y ago
    Ancient argument long settled. Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff. Even roads (e.g. the pike) which are expressly mandated by law to support themselves via usage fees fail to break even. It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad, except for the method of transportation you use. Some people actually take those buses and subways and have different perspective.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff Not so fast. The claim, which I refuted, was "which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")?" Not enough revenue is very different from "zero revenue". > It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad, except for the method of transportation you use. Except that I wasn't making an argument - I was showing that your "zero revenue" claim was false. Note that it isn't at all hypocritcal to say that some subsidies are worse than others. And, when you're arguing for subsidies, you can't argue that all subsidies are bad.
mcritz 15y ago
The Commonwealth saddled the MBTA with its transit debt at the onset of the MBTA's current incarnation. It's a poster child for dishonest representation of public expenses. Hiding mass amounts of state debt in the MBTA (along with effectively losing every negotiation with its union and failing to timely increase fares to market value as compared to other major US cities) has sandbagged public transportation in Massachusetts.

It's a public transit system. Is the goal to turn a profit or provide transit services? For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")? I'm always amazed at the libertarians who freak out at the idea of subsidized transit (which is clearly what this is, even if there's a nominal balance sheet attached) as they drive their cars to work on the road system provided entirely at taxpayer expense.

anamax 15y ago
> For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")? When did MA repeal its gas taxes, license fees and taxes, and sales tax on auto related stuff?
- ajross 15y ago
  Ancient argument long settled. Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff. Even roads (e.g. the pike) which are expressly mandated by law to support themselves via usage fees fail to break even. It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad, except for the method of transportation you use. Some people actually take those buses and subways and have different perspective.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff Not so fast. The claim, which I refuted, was "which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")?" Not enough revenue is very different from "zero revenue". > It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad, except for the method of transportation you use. Except that I wasn't making an argument - I was showing that your "zero revenue" claim was false. Note that it isn't at all hypocritcal to say that some subsidies are worse than others. And, when you're arguing for subsidies, you can't argue that all subsidies are bad.

mcritz 15y ago

The Commonwealth saddled the MBTA with its transit debt at the onset of the MBTA's current incarnation. It's a poster child for dishonest representation of public expenses. Hiding mass amounts of state debt in the MBTA (along with effectively losing every negotiation with its union and failing to timely increase fares to market value as compared to other major US cities) has sandbagged public transportation in Massachusetts.