I tried to look up the full quote on amazon but it won’t allow me to search that specific page for fuller context. I can’t find a perfect comparison, but either way, of persons 25 and over in the US 86.68% have graduated high school (presumably more were merely enrolled at age 17). Furthermore, not all states force teens to go to high school. Several states allow students to leave between the ages of 14-17 (usually with parental permission). It’s also unclear if your quotation’s figures included private, vocational, and/or home-schooled teens.

Am I missing something?

In this case, they are suing the town to keep a tower off of a soccer field/aesthetically pleasing open space. The arguments they are using are those provided by the planning board and some obscure and inappropriate reference to the State Constitution. What they should be doing is looking to certify that coverage would be just as good with the tower placed elsewhere and if true, then working with that information to force it to relocate. Instead, they are chasing their tails down the rabbit hole and instead of getting justice, they will get a dance with the mad hatter.

All of this, of course, could have, perhaps, been prevented had the planning board had useful information on the location and overlap over individual “cells or zones” of transmission/reception by people who demand and rely upon consistent wireless technology. But, the planning board had no clue as to such conditions and punted by trying to use the same “stalling tactics” other towns have used and failed at in court.

The shame of it is that these people will lose in court. The tower will be an eyesore, at least initially. But, the saddest part of all is that neither they nor the town officials have yet to study the telecommunications law, court precedent in adjudicating similar cases, or made a move to bring our telecommunications bylaws up to date and more battle ready.

It is my opinion that the judge will rule in favor or the 7 “p’s” of competence: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performances, or A Failure to Act on Your Part Does Not Constitute Sympathy on My Part.

Thanks for the visit, the comment and your insights. I hope you will make a return appearance from time to time. Best!

Please tell me that you are NOT shocked by most actions in your city?

This is just a smoke screen for excessive costs that have been built into the T for years. Anyone that wants to see The MBTAs budget, revenues and expenditures can look them up on the MBTAs website.

Now for the Debt. service. The total debt payments for the T in F/Y 2012 is $362,184,811.00. In 2009 the State contributed $767,056,684 to subsidize the MBTA, In order to help the MBTA the State actually increased the subsidization another $160,000,000 in F/Y2010 bringing total State aid to $927,056,684.00 that year. State aid this year is $937,028,421.

The total MBTA budget in 2012 is $1,656,143,204.00. The State, Cities and Towns contribute $1,151,384,601.00. Fares collected to run the MBTA are estimated to be $504,758,603.00. The debt service at the MBTA is up only 8% in 10 years, the Ts budget is up 45%. So the debt service is not a major source of new costs.

In other words 2 out of every 3 dollars used to run the MBTA are paid with subsidies. The issue is, how much more should the State, Cities and Towns pay for this service. Many think it’s time for the MBTA to start running the service in a more fiscally prudent manner. Until this is done the MBTA will be nothing more than a money pit.

However, privatization of the MBTA makes a lot of sense in terms of being able to best utilize a service that many people value and use in a way that is self-sustaining by being properly priced according to supply. The T functions opposite to normal economics. As prices remain artificially low, demand (and hence wear and tear) grows until there comes a time where service demands can no longer be met because repairs cannot be affordably made and contraction of service becomes necessary for survival. Keeping prices artificially low actually encourages and ultimately creates a shortage in comparison to demand. [One can find similar outcomes with rent controlled properties.] By limiting the ability of the T to perform proper maintenance or to use ill repaired equipment, the low price of the service also puts riders at a greater risk of something going wrong in the operation of the train and the result could be tragic.

On the other hand, if prices are compatible with demand, the system will either fail or succeed on its own. If it is truly a desired service, then, it will be priced according to its level of success. If the price becomes too high, less riders will be able to afford the service and will find other means of transportation to conduct essential business. If the service does not reflect the price as providing a value equal to the fee; filthy cars, torn upholstery or broken seating, insufficient numbers of cars to avoid long trips standing, poor security, etc., people will find the service less desirable and stop riding until conditions improve or prices fall.

So, the question regarding the MBTA and the service it provides is if it is as popular a service as advertised by government, or is it a popular alternative to other forms of transportation because it is subsidized, under priced and being abused or taken for granted by those who use it at the expense of those who do not?

If it is in the former category, then it will succeed even with a substantial fare increase because people truly want, appreciate and freely choose to use the service. If it is in the latter case, price increases will not be tolerated unless conditions and services (such as cleanliness, aesthetic maintenance, security and comfort) are improved to the point of matching the fare being charged. Getting into this latter state is a real challenge to the MBTA given their massive debt and limited ability to borrow.

Perhaps, the Commonwealth could more equitably assist by taking back the share of the “Big Dig” costs it shifted onto the MBTA. As I understand local/State government, managers at the MBTA do not have the authority to initiate legislation such as that which was necessary to approve and begin the Big Dig. The MBTA is not an arm of law enforcement when it comes to State run project management. The MBTA has no authority to ask for federal funds or to supervise how those funds are managed by project administrators in the Governor’s office. So, why was the MBTA strapped with this debt? Was it to hide the gross incompetence of government officials who mismanaged federal and local taxpayer funds?

Does the MBTA truly deserve to be forced to carry such an obligation? If not, then the transfer of that debt back to the Commonwealth’s general accounts will go a long way to freeing the MBTA to afford new borrowing to make essential repairs, clean up the trains, add more cars down the road during rush periods, and to set fares at a rate equitable for the service provided with the necessary additional revenue to become and remain self-sustaining by meeting the expectations and demands of their ridership instead of mandates from Beacon Hill.

–Rick