sign in sign up
<<
Home , Greenbush Line

Page 1 of 2

Maryjane Kenney ~$ ~

From: Paul Regan [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:51 PM To: Dore’ Hunter Subject: RE: Looming crisis in the MBTA, a suggestion

Hi Dore- This is excellent! Please let me know if you need me to meet with anyone in your area on this issue. I am working on an overail lobbying plan now and would be happy to coordinate with others. Thank you. Paul Regan Executive Director MBTA Advisory Board 177 Tremont Street , MA 02111 617-426-6054 [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:Dorehunter©aol.comj Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:34 PM To: [email protected]; sledoux©acton-ma.gov Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Looming crisis in the MBTA, a suggestion

Hi Folks, As you will recall I am still the Board of Selectmen’s representative to the MBTAAdvisory Board, that Board reviews the MBTA Director’s annual budgets. In that capacity I attended the Advisory Board’s recent meeting in Boston on 29 May. I have asked that the documents relative to that meeting be put in the Selectmen’s “packet” for the 9 June meeting. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend your meeting that night, but I do not want to delay putting this information before the BOS. At the MBTA Advisory Board meeting we were forced to adopt a budget that all those present found most unfortunate, the least satisfactory one I have seen in the years that I have been attending these meetings on Acton’s behalfi I have submitted the meeting documents, complete with my scribbled notes made during the MBTA CEO’s remarks, foryour 9 June meeting. There is some good MBTA news, but the bad news is much, much worse. The Globe newspaperarticle that was published several days ago ~oiytold the good news - that the rising cost of gasoline resulted in a significant increase in MBTA ridership during the first quarter of 2008. The bad news is that the same rapidly rising cost of fuels is also cutting into the “1” budget big time! Note in this regard that fuel is a transportation authority’s “life blood”. This fuel cost escalation problem arises against a background of other serious “T’ budget troubles which have existed forseveral years. Those serious troubles hark back to what our legislature, the so-called Great and General Court, did when they adopted “forward funding” of the “T” several years ago. And apparently only the legislature can solve the overall problem. THE PROBLEM The annual increases in the share of the sale tax revenue the legislature made available to the “1” have

6/6/2008 Page 2 of 2

been less than halfof the legislature’s worst case assumption, while at the same time ‘T” was remained loaded down with non-relevant debt, assigned it by the legislature, which is strangling it. Fare revenue, as you can see by reference to the numbers in the Statement of Revenue and Expense, constitutes a minority of the MBTA’s income. And it is not consideredfeasible to again so soon ask for another fare increase, which would take more than a year to implement in any case. For some years the “T” sold real estate to close its budget gaps. Now the real estate market is flat or worse and that doesn’t work any longer. The “1” has also resorted to throwing existing debt out further ahead, a tactic of desperation which in the long run costs more money and only postponesthe problem. Now in this Fiscal 2009 budget in order to maintain service levels the “T” is also resorting to wiping out its capital maintenance fund, and drawing fifteen million dollars from its deficiency fund, to complete the closure of what began as a projected seventy-five million dollar budget gap! And we were advised at the meeting that the rapidly increasing fuel costs may have already made obsolete the budget that we voted to approve! It was variously predicted at the 29 May Advisory Board meeting that the MBTA will run out of money before the end of Fiscal 2009 or perhaps be able to avoid draconian cuts in service until sometime in the 2010 Fiscal year! And the truly frightening aspect of the problem is that it is confidently predicted, by folkswho should know, that the only entity which can change the situation, the Great and General Court, will not act before the crisis envelops us and the downward spiral is well under way unless there is a public outcry!! I submit that Acton should not wait to act until its railroad station parking problem is “solved” bya trashing of the commutertrain schedule. A SOLUTION? Acton has some cards that it mighttry to deal out to try and bring the Great and General Court to move toward a solution. Roughly half of the communities the Fitchburg Line serves have been meeting together and working on improvements to shorten the rail travel time to and from Boston, which is going to be partly done with Federal funds, supplemented with already committed State monies. That group should oppose severe commuterservice cuts. The leader of that rail interest group, Peter Lowitt who lives in Acton, iswith the Devens Mass Development organization. His organization is very interested in further development of our rail line which might make a “reverse commute” to Devens into a useful way of drawing laborfrom the Boston core out to Devens. So we have the beginnings of what could well become an important interest group. That group could begin NOW, with the possible technical assistance of Paul Regan, the Executive Director of the Advisory Board, to lobby the legislature to fix our, and thus the MBTA’s, problem BEFORE the crisis actually arrives. Is the Acton Board of Selectmen interested in being pro-active in this manner? Or should Acton just wait and see what happens?

Regards, Dore’ Hunter MBTA Representative, Town of Acton, MA Telephone: 978-263-0882 Email: [email protected]

Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch “Cooking with Tyler Florence” on AOL Food.

6/6/2008 MBTA Advisory Board 177 Tremont SireetBoston MA 02111 Tel: (617) 426-6054 Fax (617) 451-2054 e-mail: [email protected]

MEMORAINDUM

TO: MBTA Advisory Board Members

FROM: Paul Regan, ExecutiveDirector

• DATE: May 15, 2008

RE: Next Advisory Board Meeting v~bi~t.Com

The next meeting ofthe MBTA Advisory Board will be:

META Advisory Board Meeting ~‘ /, Thursday, May 29, 2008 q~1 ivow~~ I~-;~L~~ 9:30 am ~~‘3((t’t +~trç Conference Room #1 State Transportation Building, 2nd Floor ‘.44— 10 Park Plaza ft~Pe~~ 6 C Boston, Ma H’~(2t<~.~,~ ~ o~~T~i~-, ~ 1~)Q~~Jfo~3~ FbH ‘~k~-~cv. AGENDA 1 1. Call to Order T ~o4orLv~ ~ ~ 4 bc.t.v)- 2. Approval ofthe Minutes C1~’c~:+Wt~.”~.s) C)-L~~5~ 3. Executive Director’s report 4. Finance Committee’s Report on the MBTATransfer Request 5. Finance Committee’s Report on the MBTA FY2009 Budget Request 6. Report on the FY2009 Advisory Board Office Budget 7. Presentation on the Project 1, 8. Other Business ~ ~ Materials forthe meeting are enclosed. These are very challengingtimes for the MBTA p and for transportation as a whole and we need your participationto ensure that your th concerns and priorities are heard. I hope to see you in the 29

~z.“c--i’1 ~AtIec~ ~ 3~F~)~6q ‘&‘~Wi~’0-~1 e~O(~-/-o~ ~ L- ~7 ~ l17~q~1 t5~c~±r ~ ~J0~1~ ÷ ~ / ~2~o4( 3.o’~7~ e~-~of ~ o-f~

h’. ~ 454- 3 l~~9 —

~.+~j1C(. \ * ff~-~ç4.cs~~ ~ ~

• — C c,~’v’.-~-f~L4 Y~~

6~~‘ ~ • 4~ ~ k;-,--(-e~~~ PRELIMiNARY REPORT

TO TIlE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD

MBTA FISCAL YEAR 2008

TRANSFER REQUEST

Submitted by the~..

MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee

May29., 2008 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD

• • TRANSFER REQUEST

Submitted by the

MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee

May 29, 2008

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Vineet Gupta Joseph Melican Boston Dover

Jane O’Hern George Bailey Newton Sharon

Robert Guttman • Marcia Crowley Beverly Wayland

Gerri Scoil Sharon Wason Weston Walpole

John Buckley Richard Leary Abington Brookline

ADVISORY BOARD STAFF • Paul Regan Executive Director

Brian Kane Budget and Policy Analyst

Deborah Gaul Executive Assistant • PREFACE •

The MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee transmits the enclosed report

for your consideration. • The committee wishes to thank the MBTA for their efforts in responding to requests for supporting documentation and attending committee meetings.

The committee also acknowledges. the work ofthe Advisory Board staffwho have provided invaluable budget analysis for the committee. FY2008 YEAR-END TRANSFER REQUEST

Recommendation

The fmance committee recommends approval ofthe MBTA’s year-end transfer request among line items within the fiscal year 2008 budget, as submitted to the Advisory Board on May 1st, 2008, as follows:

Uses ofFunds Approved Requested FY2008 Increase • • FY2008 Budget. Year-End Transfer

• • • ~ Budget • Materials, Supplies & $163,796,729 $165,898,486 $2,101,757 Services Purchased Commuter Rail $241,619,981 $247,343,268 $5,814,287

Expenses • • Purchased Local Service $57,537,130 $59,803,500 $2,266,370 4,. Expenses • • • • Debt Service: Interest $229,305,914 $238,378,070 $9,072,156 • Total Use of Funds $692,259,754 $711,423,324 $19,254,570

Sources ofFunds Approved Requested FY2008 Decrease 4k4’.1 ~ ~ FY2008 Budget Year-End • • CL ko~c~.-~ Transfer Budget

Fringe Benefits . $169,733,542 $160,309,564 $9,423,978 PayroilTaxes $28,556,095 $27,797,659 $758,436 Debt Service: Principal $126,200,476 $117,128,320 $9,072,156 Total Sources of Funds $324,490,113 $305,235,543 $19,254,570

,-“‘ C*~1 Pccfty 14C~

r (~~f~1,O ~-Pt~

I Debt Service: Princi:pal Converselyto the Debt Service: Interest line item, the Debt Service: Principal line item is favorable to budget due to lower payments on the principal ofcapital debt owed by the Authority. Principal payments were deferred to offset unrealized savings in interest expenses.

FINAL NOTE

This Board warned in theFY08 budget report ofthe fundamental problemwith the way the MBTA is funded. It has a structural deficit that the Authority itself cannot fix. Sales tax revenuehas not performed as itwas forecast in 2001 and the Authority’s debt service, especially its legacy debt service, is too high.

A year’s worth ofvolatile fuel prices furthercomplicates the financial outlook ofthe Authorityfor the future. It is very unlikely that fuel costs will decrease, yetthe Authority must runits buses, trains and light-rail vehicles for the people of easternMassachusetts. These costs will only increase.

Given the tight budgetthat this Board gave to the MBTA at the start ofFY08, the factthat there are funds available to transfer this late in the FY is testimony to theremarkable performance ofstaying on the path offiscal responsibility set by this Board for the Authority.

However, no organization~be it public orprivate, can maintainthis level of fmancialjuggling for any significant time period. Declining sales tax revenue and increasing fuel costs are a recipe for financial pitfall. This Board called for debt relief last yearfrom the legislature. It is time for the Commonwealth to acceptthose debts on the MBTA’s books that are trulytheir debts and relieve the Authority ofsome of its ôrippling debt burden.

3 • FINAL REPORT TO THE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD

MBTA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

Submitted by the

MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee

May29, 2008 FINAL REPORT TO THE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD

MBTA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

Submitted by the

MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee

May29, 2008

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Vineet Gupta • Joseph Melican

Boston • Dover

Jane O’Hern George Bailey Newton Sharon

Sharon Wason Marcia Crowley Walpole Wayland

Geraldine R. Scoll • Robert Guttman Weston Beverly

John Buckley Richard Leary Abington Brookline

ADVISORY BOARD STAFF

Paul Regan Executive Director

Brian Kane Budget and Policy Analyst

Deborah Gaul Executive Assistant PREFACE

• The MBTA Advisory Board Finance Committee transmits the enclosed report for your consideration.

The committee wishes to thank the MBTA for its efforts in responding to requests for supporting documentation and for attending committee

meetings. •

The committee also acknowledges the invaluable budget analysis the Advisory Board staff has provided in preparation for this report. Bay Transportation Authority Statement of Revenue and Expense FY 2009 Budget Request

0 228 and total expenses of$1,412,021,300 with the expect shortfall of ues Moved: The MBTA Advisory Board approve the MBTA FY 2009 bud~etf~ ~914,748tob~)made up from the Authority’s deficiency fund ($15,000 0 apital

($4,314,748). •

REVENUE Ope~a8n~Revenues RapidTr~n~tRevenue 200.721.218 205,237.443 - 205.237,449 Commuter RailTranalt Revenue f37.252.578 130.026.103 - 138.826.103 SwfecaTranalt Revan~ 84.880~40~ 85.837,050 - 85.937,983 Sohooi. Senioi~& Peratrenalt Revenue 7.556.077 7782,356 • - 7.712,858 ~dvedi~ and Cnnseaskx, Révanue ‘11,008.003 • 13.580.000 13,500.000 Revenue turn Real Eslate Cuerabons 37.382,808 40.904.119 - 40.004,110 Total Operaling Revenue 418,481,900 491,887,273 0 491,887,273

Nn-Op.rat1~gRevenue ~tb~ 3,600,000 4,000,000 4,008,000 Hon~Opps.Income 20,800.080 .282.344 282.344 Funde fromFederal Governm.nf 3.000.000 8.000.000 • a.008.o00 URityR,bn~aments 2,800,000 3.051.000 3,051,800 Total Non-Cpa ating Revenue 36,400,000 30,313,344 0 30,313,344

Revunuefrom Dedløatad Sourees • Funds ton, Lo~lGovemmenta 142.013,220 - 146.485.059 Revenue R.~tatefrnrn Sales Tar Th~st “.~“ ?87.Oto.551 Total D.dlasted Revenues 0 TOTAL R~.VENUES 1,412,757~429 1,435,706,228 0 1,435,706,228

EXPENSES Operating Espeeses Wages 388.813.203 987,222.598 367,722,500 Fringe Bens8*s 49.729,488 • 44,888.970 - 44,853.970 Neefthoer~ 180.W&413 112,778.771 - 112.778.771 GroW, Lie 1.714.38* 1.714,381 - 1.714.381 0 ~awanre 63,820 03.819 - 83.810 • Wo~rer~’sOomp 10.820.828 10.829.027 .. 10.829,827 OtherF~ ~‘~“ 290.414 200.414 - 290.414 Total Fringe Bsne8~ 189.733.843 170.828.392 0 170.529.302 Paym8 Taxes • ~TCA 27.422.880 27,302.380 - 21,082.380 Unsw~Joyment 1.133244 008.214 - 900.244 Total Pap’Ofl Tams 28,558.004 270,894 0 • 28.273.504 Materia~,SupllasandSefvloes 483.759.729 182.943.232 - 182,943,232 Casually S Ua*iWty 18,235,893 16.785.693 - 15,736803 Purchased Oo~nnw~RaM Services 241.819.981 208.175,053 - 286.178.003 Piushased L~ocalService SubsIdy 57,837,100 81.53’L255 - 81.531258 Financial ServiceCharges 1,728.980 4,023.080 - 4.320.900 Total OperatingExpenses 1,037,721,333 1,001,230,188 0 4,087,236,788

Debt ServIce Expenses kiterest(Ml) 220,805.014 348.719,878 - 245,718,876 Piinulpal Payments 126.200.478 ‘102.587.312 - 102.587.312 I~easePayments 18,793,577 19.800.000 - 10.500,080 Total Debt ServiceExp.nse~ 374,299,967 387,784,188 0 367,784,188

1 1. BUDGET OVERVIEW On March 18,2008 the MBTA presented its fiscal year 2009 budget request to the full Advisory Board. CFO and Deputy General Manager Jonathan Davis outlined a budget that projectedtotal expenses of $1,455,020,976 and revenues of$1,435,706,228. The FY 2009 budgetis 3.05% greater than the FY 2008 approved budget. Implicit in the FY 2009 budget is a restructuring of $55 millionin debt to reduce the overall expenses line item.

A. Revenue MIBTA FY 2009 Revenues

Operating Revenues 491,887,273 Non-OperatingRevenues 30,313,344 Assessments 146,486,059 Sales Tax Revenues 797.019,55 1 Total 1,435,706,228

Projected operating revenues are $13.4 million (2.81%) greater than budgeted forFY08 and reflect increased ridership on all modes as commuters turn to public transportation in the face of increased gasoline prices., Non-operatingrevenue is budgeted to decrease by $5 million (- 26.62%) thanbudgeted for FY08 primarily due to a virtual halt to all real estate sales. Assessment revenue is scheduled to increase by $3.5 million (2.5%) over the FY 08 budget, while sales tax receipts will grow by 1.46%, an increase of$11 million over FY08. Both the assessment and sales taxrevenue figures havebeen certifiedby the Commonwealth.

MBTA FY09 Budget Revenue Sources

School, Senior & Paratransit

____ 0.54% Surface ransit 5.98/a

Advertising + Concessions 0.94%

Real Estate Revenue Operating (Parking) Revenue 2.85% 2.11%

2 B. Expenses MBTA FY 2009 Expenses

Wages 357,722,598 Fringe Benefits 170,528,392 Payroll Tax 28,270,594 Materials, Supplies, Services 182,943,232 Causality & Liability 15,735,693 Purchased Commuter Rail 266,176,063 Purchased Local Service Subsidy 61,531,256 Financial Service Charges 2,600,000 Debt Service 367.784,188 Total 1,455,020,976

MBTA FY09 Budget Expenses

Financial Service Charges 0.30%

Purchased LocalJ\ Service Subsidy 4.23% Payroll Taxes 1.94%

Casualty& Liability 1.08%

The Authority is seeking a net increase of $42,999,676 (3.05%) over the FY08 expense budget. The Authority’s wage budget is lower than in FY08 by $790,605 which reflects an overall decrease in headcount and overtime. Correspondingly, with. the exception of health care costs, overall fringe benefits are also down by more than $3.8 million. The entire fringe benefit category is up by $794,849 (0.47%) over FY08. The largest driver of the increase is the rising cost offuel to keep revenue vehicles operating. These increases are felt in the Material, Supplies and Services, Purchased Commuter Rail Services and Purchased Local Services line items.

3 MBTA FY 2009 Operating Budget Increase Request

Purchased Commuter Rail Services 24,556,082 57.11% of total increase Materials, Supplies, Services 19,146,503 44.53% Purchased Local Service Subsidy 3,994,126 9.29% Financial Service Charges 2,600,000 6.05% Fringe Benefits 794,849 1.85% Payroll Taxes (285,500) (0.66%) Casualty & Liability (500,000) (1.16%) Wages (790,605) (1.84%) Debt Service (6,515,779) (15.15%) Total 42,999,676 100%

The debtservice budget, overall, is $6,515,779 less than was budgeted in FY08. This is because principal payments due in FY09 are being pushed out into future years. This represents a one-time deferral of expense to balance the budget, and should notbe considered savings.

MBTA FY 2008 Debt Service Budget Request

FY 2008 FY 2009 Inc/(Dec) Interest 229,305,914 245,716,876 16,410,962 Principal 126,200,476 102,567,312 (23,633,164) Leases 18,793,577 18.793.577 706,423 Total 374,299,967 367,784,188 (6,515,799)

FY 2009 is the fourth year since forward funding in which the Authority is budgeting a deficit, which the.Authority proposes to cover with $19,314,748 from its “rainy day” funds including $15,000,000 from the deficiency fund and $4.3 million from the capital maintenance fund.

C. The Review Process

The Finance Committee met four times to consider the Authority’s FY09 budget submission. Staff of the IVIBTA, including the CFO, budget director and numerous department heads met with the committee to present their departmental needs and answer questions. As in past years, the Finance Committee was provided all ofthe requested budget review materials and additional information, and would like to thank the Authority for the timeliness and quality ofthose items.

4 2. DISCUSSION

A. Revenue

Total revenue is budgeted to increase by 1.62% in FY09 or $22.9 million over FY 08’s budget.

OperatingRevenue Operating revenues will increase by $13.4 million of which farebox revenues comprise $7.38 million. Ridership increases throughout the system, especially on the subway lines and bus network will drive these revenue enhancements. Bus revenue is projected to increase by $4.5 million (2.25%), while subway revenues will also rise by $1.27 miUion (1.5%) due to increased ridership. Commuter rail revenue is projected to increase by 1.0%, or $1.37 million. Revenue from the special category for secondary school students, senior citizens and persons with disabilities is projected to increase by 3%, or $226,679.

Advertising & concession revenue and revenue form real estate operations are also counted as operating revenue, although not as farebox revenue. Advertising and concessions revenue will increase by 22.73% from $11 million in FY 08 to $13.5 million in FY09 due to a contractual increase between the MBTA and its advertising partners. Revenue from real estate operations, which includes parking revenue, will increase by 9.48%.

:.~ Fare Box 430,099,182 437,483,154 1.72% 7,383,972 Advertising & Concessions 11,000,000 13,500,000 22.73% 2,500,000 Real Estate Revenue 37,362,808 40,904,119 9.48% 3,541,311 Total 478,461,990 491,887,273 2.81% 13,425,283

Non-Operating Revenue Total non-operating revenues are $5.08 million lower than budgeted in FY08. Although interest income is expected to grow slightly, and utility reimbursements wifi increase by nearly 9%, revenue from the non-operations income line item is projected to decrease by $5.5 million. Non- operations income is comprised ofrevenue from the sale of Authority property. Because ofthe soft real estate market it is unlikely that any property deals will be conducted in FY09. The Authority is examining a new policy ofpreferring leasing over outright sale.

~. Interest Income 3,800,000 4,000,000 0.87% 200,000 Non-Operating Income 20,800,000 15,262,344 -24.13% (5,537,656) Federal Funds 8,000,000 8,000,000 0.00% 0.00 Utility Reimbursements 2,800,000 3,051,000 1.09% 251,000 Total 35,400,000 30,313,344 -22.17% (5,086,656)

Dedicated Revenue Dedicated revenues will increase by $14.6 million (1.63%) comprised of an increase of $3.57

(2.5%) million in assessments and $11.03 million (1.46%) in sales tax revenue. . The growth in sales tax revenue, the single largest source of funding for the Authonty, is less than half ofwhat was envisioned when forward funding was implemented.

5 Assessments 142,913,229 146,486,059 2.50% 3,572,830 Sales Tax 755,982,210 767,019,551 1.46% 11,037,341 Total 898,895,439 913,505,610 1.63% 14,610,171

Revenue RecoveryRation The revenue recovery ratio (calculated as operating and non-operating income divided by operating expenses) is projected at 48.03% in FY09 down from a high of 49.52% in FY08. The 2001 Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission’s report on the MBTA recommended a goal of 50% revenue recovery ratio. This calculation does not include debt service costs.

B. Operating Expense

Wages Thewage line item is projected to decrease by $3,174,571 compared to the FY08 budget. This is a decrease of 0.92%. Based on the actual wage bill of the Authority from FY’s 2001 —2007 and the budgeted amounts for FY’s 08 and 09, the average annual wage increase is 2.86%, meaning that this year’s wage budget is well below the historical average.

At the time ofthis report it is unknown what the final FY08 wage bill will be. The Authority is currentlyin binding arbitration with one ofits unions over their compensation package for FY08

- FY10. This arbitration may be retroactive to FY07. Any retroactive pay must come from the FY09 budget, thus making any budget projection difficult, and adding pressure to a budget already in fragile balance.

Overtime Overtime is projected to increase by $2.38 million compared to the FY08 budget, meaning that the comprehensive wage and overtime line item will decrease by $790,606 from last FY’s budget. This is an increase of 17.58% over the same line item in FY08; however that line item was down 55% from the FY before that. Based on the actual overtimebill of the Authority from

FY’s 2001 — 2007 and the budgeted amounts for FY’s 08 and 09, the average annual overtime increase is 6.15%.. Even though the overtime budget is up for FY09, it is still less than was budgetedin any year between FYO2-FY07.

Overtime (historical)

$40,000,000

$35,500,000

$30,000,000

$25,000,000

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$1 0,000,000

$5,000,000

$0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY08 FY07 FY08 FY08 ~udget) ~ud~et)

6 Headcount The MBTA’s net headcount is down 47 fuiltime positions (-47) which affect the operating budget. There is a slight increase in positions charged to the capital budget. The total workforce of the Authority charged to the operating budget for FY09 is projected at 5927 (5322 full-time and 605 part-time), down from 5957 in FY08. Overhalf ofthe Authority’s departments will see their headcounts decrease under this budget.

Departments with headeount reductions (fuiltime) • Bus Operations -28 • • Subway Operations -21 • Treasurer/Controller -8 ~ Systemwide Modernization -7 • Systemwide-Maintenance & Infrastructure -3 • Operations Support -2 • General Counsel -2 • Diversity -2 • Planning -2 • Interagency -2 • Chief Operating Officer Staff -1 • Systemwide Accessibility -1 • Environmental Affairs • Budget Office -1

• Human Resources • • -1

• Marketing • -1 • System Safety -1 Total -85

Departments requesting headcount increases (fulltime) • Vehicle Procurement 15 (13 shifting from capital budget) • Police 8 (6 paid from DHS grant for 3 years) • Operations Planning & Scheduling 5 •. Materials 4 • Commuter Rail Supervision 2 •ITD’ 2

• Customer CareCenter • 2 Total 38

Absenteeism The MBTA Advisory Board has closely tracked the MBTA’s trends in absenteeism in recent years. On average, MBTA employees were absent (unexcused) 17.59 days in calendar year 2006. This is an increase from CY 06 (16.01) and the highest rate since 2003 when the rate was an astonishing 21.61- a month’s worth ofworking days.

7 Annual Average Days 21.61 17.34 15.76 I 16.01 I 17.59

Fringe Benefits & Pensions The FY08 budget transfer seeks authorization from the Advisory Board to reduceits budgeted amounts forthe various line items that constitute the fringe benefits category by $9.4 million. Taken into account, the new FY08 budgeted fringe benefit category totals $160,309,566. For FY09 the Authorityrequests a budget of $170,528,391, an increase of$10.2 million or 6.37%. With the exception ofpension contributions, all line items within the category will increase.

Pensions 44,856,272 44,853,979 -2,293 -0.01% Healthcare 103,726,841 112,776,771 9,049,930 8.72% Group Life 1,639,124 1,714,381 75,257 4.59% Disability Insurance 60,990 63,819 2,829 4.64% Worker’s Comp 9,817,655 10,829,027 1,011,372 10.30% Other Fringe Benefits 208,684 290,414 81,730 39.16% Total 160,309,566 170,528,391 10,218,825 6.37%

Since 2001 the fringe benefit line has risen annuallyby an average of 7.12%.’ This budget’s increase is less than the decade’s average.

The MBTA’s contribution to the main pension fund will be almost unchanged from FY 2008. While the number ofpension-eligible retirees is expected to increase before the end ofCY 2008 due to legislative mandate, the strong average performance of the retirement fund’s investments are expected to cover its obligations without further funding from the Authority’s operating budget. Furthermore, the Authority is completely caught up in its obligatory payments into the retirement fund, which lagged in past years.

The funds budgeted for pension expenses also include contributions to the Police Pension Plan, the Executive Deferred Compensation plan and an annual Medicare supplement.

Materials. Supplies, and Services Included in the FY08 budget transfer document was an increase in this line of$2,101,757 from $163,796,729 to $165,898,486. Based on this, the FY09 budgetrequest of$182,943,232 is a $17 million + increase, or 10.27%. The high cost of fuel is to blame. The week the MBTA submitted their budget to this Board (first week of March 2008) the average cost of gasoline in Massachusetts was $3.1 12. The first week of May 2008 (the last week for which data is available), the price was $3 .603 per gallon, a difference of$0.491 per gallon.2

% increase on previous FY 10.34% I 8.23% I 14.13% 10.27% I

‘Calculation based on actual costs FYO1-08 and budgeted amount for FY09. 2 US Department ofEnergy, EnergyInformationAdministration. http://tonto.eia.doe.govloog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

8 The Authority’s existing fuelhedge expires atthe end of the currentFY. According to statements given to the Finance Committee, MBTA officials believe that entering into a long- term hedge contract at the present time is not in the best interest ofthe Authority.

Purchased Commuter Rail Services The FY08 budgettransfer also requested an increase in this line item of$5.7 million (2.37%) from $241,619,981 to $247,343,268. The FY09 budget is greater than this amount by $18.8 million or 7.61%. Part ofthis increase is the contractual cost increase in the MBCR contract, and part is the added cost to the Authority forMBCR to run the Greenbush service for a full year. However, thebiggest driver ofthis cost increase is the rising price offuel. Under the MBCR contract theAuthority is responsible for fuelingthe locomotives. MBTA commuterrail operations staff toldhe Finance Committee that the cost of train fuel increased by more than $1 per gallon between the time the budgetwas drafied and the time themet with the committee.

At the last full Board meeting commuter rail operations staffand staff from MBCRincluding its GM Jimes O’Leary discussedproblems commuter rail experienced with on-time performance in the final months ofcalendar year 2007. All staff assured Board members that OTP was trending positively in 2008. Furthermore, Boardmembers were assuredthat heating and air conditioning issues would not be repeated in the summer, fall and winter of2008/2009.

Purchased Local Services Similar to the Materials, Supplies and Services and Purchased Commuter Rail Services line items, the Purchased Local Services line item also increased in FY08 over its budget. The original FY08 budget amount of $57,537,130 was increased by $2,266,370 to $23g,378,070, a 3.94% increase. The FY09 budget seeks a $1.7 million increase on this amount; a 2.89% increase. This increase is also the result ofincreased fuel prices for The RIDE and double-digit ridership growth.

C. Debt Service

The MBTA currently carries more than $8 billion in total debt, including over $5 billion principal and $3 billion in interest. In FY09 that translates into budgeted debt service expens s of$367,784,188, a decrease of the FY08 ofover $6.5 million. Part of the FY08 budget trer in principal payments. Based on these changes the FY09 budget calls for reduced principal payments of $14.56 million (12.43%) and a slight increase in interest payments (3.08%).

This $14.56 million decrease in principal payments is one of e stop-gap tools e Authority is using this year to fill it~c~75 niUlicn deficit. it is part of a to address its s~f~~it for funding its core transit obligations. Postponing principal payments now

9 only increases the total debt costs in the long-run, even if interest rates are lowered. This is not a sustainable method of funding transit.

Lease payments will increase by $706,423 over the FY08 budget as well. These payments go towards the leasing of police cars, RIDE vehicles, non-revenue vehicles, and retail sales terminals supporting the CharlieCard program. ~- interest (All) 238,378,070 245,716,876 7,338,806 3.08% Principal Payments 117,128,320 102,567,312 (14,561,008) -12.43% Lease Payments 18,793,577 19,500,000 706,423 3.76% Total 374,299,967 367,784,188 (6,515,779) -1.74%

TheAuthorityhas implemented a number of debt reduction strategies in order to reduce debt service costs for FY09. These initiatives include an advance synthetic fixed rate refunding ($11.6 million) and a debt restructuring ($28A million). TheAuthority will also delaythe issuance ofnewmoneyby using commercial paper to fundcapital projectswhich is projected to save $5.0 million. A current refunding is also planned for FY09 that will reduce debt service costs by up to $10 millionin FY09, but will increase debt service costs overall in thelong-term. These four debt management initiatives reduced the FY09 debt service costs by $55 million from $422.8 million to $367.8 million, but increase costs in future years.

Debt Management Initiative FY 09 Budget

Management initiatives Advanced Synthetic Fixed RateRefunding S-i 1,600,000 Debt Restructuring $-28,400,000 Commercial Paper IssueDelay $-5,000,000 Debt Service Refunding $-10,000,000 Debt Service Budgetary “Savings” $-55,000,000

Recommendations

Last yearthe Finance Committee wrote: “The MBTA is in the middle of a fiscal crisis that ha no end in sight. The past three years have been extremely difficult because ofthe lack of ensure that they can wring maximum value out ofeach dollar.” The Committee recognized then that theresources available to the MBTA could not keep pace with the increases we all knew were coming. Fuel costs were rising, the MBTA was negotiating with its unions for a new contract and therewas no real expectation of strong growthin the sales tax revenue stream that could soften the blow for the Authority. As it turns out, the Committee was optimistic.

10 Sales taxrevenues grew atan anemic 1.5%; less even than the average since the advent of forward funding of 1.6% and far less that the once conservative assumption that sales tax growth would average 3% a year. Had sales tax growthmet expectations, the MBTAwould be receiving $817 million for FY09 instead ofthe $767millionit will receive. Had this revenue stream performed as expected over time, the MBTA would have received an additional $200 million since FY2000. Fuel costs have skyrocketed, and the Authority paid an additional $9.5 million in fuel costs in FY08 even with a fuel hedge in place. That hedge expires at the end of the fiscal year and the full force ofthe increase in the market price will hit the MBTA. The increase in farebox revenue due to commuters leaving their cars and taking the IVIBTA will not • offset the increase in fuel costs.

As with any organization the size and scope ofthe MBTA there are savings and efficiencies that canbe garnered through better management. ‘The Authority needs to makemore progress on • employee absenteeism. The Authority needs to continue its focus on preventing fare evasion. TheAuthority needs to continue to bring energy and innovation to its operations to be sure that’ they are getting themost value out oftheirlimited funds. This discipline will bring benefits today and in the long term. But we note that the MBTA cannot“manage” its way out ofthis crisis. One look at thebudget proposal shows that the twin drivers ofthe current problems are poor sales tax revenuepe~f ond the control oftheAuthority.

The Committee would havepreferred to find ways to reduce the amounts the Authority d to access from the reserve accounts. The.MBTA does not have adequate cash reserves under an circumstances and we would haverather seen these.savings found from another source. The reality is that fuel costs haverisen significantly since this budgetwas sent to us in March. The fuel line items forbus, commuter rail and the RIDE are already millions ofdollars under funded and the fiscal yearhas not begun yet. The wage line item, which the MBTA carefullypreserved with strong controls on headcount growth, will likely grow significantly as well. The decision of the arbiter between the MBTA and the unions is due in June and, barring a miracle, the Authority i ificant increases that itcannot afford.

The Authority has embracedthe recommendations ofthe Transportation Finance Commissionin manyways. They are movingpersonnel from the capital budget to the operations budget because itis sound financialpractice to do so.. Recent legislation requires that future MBTA retirees must pay 15% oftheir health care costs. Other labor concessions arebeing negotiated with the transit unions. But other recommendations cannot move forwarduntil the Commonwealth takes the Transportation Finance Commission’s bipartisan advice and takes responsibility forthe estimated $1.8 billion in Central Arteryfrunnei Project obligations that properly belong to the state.’

The MBTA AdvisoryBoard has asked the Legislature to address the issue of debtrelief. We have written letters, supported legislation and raised the issue consistently. The Board notes with disappointment that whilethe Legislaturehas voted to expand MBTA services, it has done address the certain disaster the Authority faces in the_immediate. Had the Legislature ~ i~ãised,’theAuthoritywoti èii~fiscalshape than it is o As it is, the choice nowbelongs to the Legislature and the Administration: Correct t

11 structural funding problems, relieve the MBTA ofthe Commonwealth’s debt orbe responsible for deep service cuts.

TheFinance Committee does not recommend any reductions to the budget submitted by the Authority because ofthe challenges the MBTA faces in the coming months. The Finance Committee recommends that the full Advisory Board direct the staff to draft legislation, working with all parties, which directly addresses the issue ofdebtrelief forthe MBTA. The staff is further directed to contact both the Legislative and Executive Branches to make members aware ofthe depth oftheproblem and solicit support of a solution.

12 MBTA Full Advisory Board Meeting Tuesday, March 18, 2008 The MBTA Full Advisory Board meeting was held on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. in the State Transportation Building, Ten Park Plaza, Boston, in Conference Room 1. Mayor David Cohen of Newton th chaired the meeting. Mayor Cohen thanked Richard Leary ofBrookline for chairing the January 24 meeting in his absence. The following communities were present at the meeting: Abington, Acton, Attleboro, Beverly, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Cohasset, Dover, Groton, Hamilton, Hingham, Kingston, Lexington, Lincoln, Lowell, Marblehead, Medford, Needham, Newton, Scituate, Sharon, Swampscott, Topsfield, Waltham, Wenham, Westwood, Whitman, and Worcester.

Approval ofthe Minutes

Mayor Cohen asked for a motion to accept theminutes ofthe January 24, 2008 meeting. Theminutes were amended to add the City ofBeverlyto the list ofattendees. Minutes were accepted. Mayor Cohen welcomed Brian Kane as a new staffmember at the Advisory Board office. Brian is replacing Ulla Hester as the Policy/Budget Analyst. Executive Director’s Report

Paul Regan gave his report and confirmed’ that assessments were approved by the MBTA Board of Directors and forwarded to the Department of Revenue. The assessments will be distributed to the cities and towns. Copies of last years’ assessments versus this years’ assessment and a detailed spreadsheet were ‘available as handouts. Assessments will rise by $3.5M for a total this year of$146,486,060. The Advisory Board office has been working with communities without ParaTransit, to take advantage ofthe ParaTransit credit. There are a total of six communities taking advantage of this credit There was a recent state law change that allowed communities to move and join or form new RTA’s, which happened in Metrowest.

Presentation on the MBTA budget for FY09

Jonathan Davis gavehis presentation to the Advisory Board. The MBTA has an AAA rating, meaning that the MBTA has access to the capital markets at a reasonable cost. This year has been a struggle for the MBTA to comeup with a balanced budget for presentation. Higher energy costs, higher debt service costs, the meltdown in the capital markets, all have contributed to a difficult process for putting together the FY2009 balanced budget. The MBTA’s revenues are where the problem lies. The MBTA strives to fmd a way of delivering quality service at lower costs. The IVEBTA is seeing operating costs increase at a faster rate than revenues. FY2009 revenue is approximately $1.4B, which is an increase of 1% in total. Fare revenue is continuing to grow, as a result of new fare collection technology that was put into place. There has been a steady growth on commuterrail, due to high gas prices. Fare revenue in FY2006 was $335M. As a result ofthe fare increase the MBTA did better than expected, getting $75M additional. Implementing the policy for fare evasion that resulted in an additional $l4M. FY2007 fare revenue was $437M. Advertising has also been strong with the build out of the commuter rail system. A bonus check of $lM for the first six months of this fiscal year was already received. Property sales have been delayed due to the economy. Assessments are up to 2.5%. The problem with the structure is due to the lack of growth in sales tax collections. The MBTA will only be receiving a 1 ‘/z% increase in sales tax receipts in FY2009. If sales tax growth has grown at 3% as expected from FY2000 to today, the MBTA would have $200M more today. parking net revenue is $5m. TRA concessions are up to $9.3m. Airport Silver Line is going extremely well, especially from the area.

Iffurther information on the MIBTA budget for Fiscal Year 2009, you may contactthe Advisory Board office. Mayor Cohen asked for a motion to refer the Fiscal Year 2009 budget to the Finance Committee. The motion was made, seconded and sent to Finance Committee. Mayor Cohen stated that the Advisory Board, State Legislators and the Executive Office ofTransportation have been warned ofthe debt structuring dilemma and a need for the state to reduce the legacy.

Mark Brennan of Cohasset asked that a copy ofthe FY09 budget be forwarded to him.

The Advisory Board needs to strongly express to the State Legislators know that the MBTA can not work with the existing debt service they are carrying. Jonathan Davis stated that the MBTA can provide to Paul Regan a two-page write-up on Legacy Debt and what do the Central Artery Mitigation projects cost the MBTA. Al Bangert from Scituate asked what is fare recovery percentage and what steps are used to get from 35% to 50% goal? Jonathan Davis responded that fare recovery is actually taking fare recovery and dividing it by operating expenses. The one the MBTA focusing more on is revenue recoverythe IVIBTA takes everything except for the dedicated revenue sources, i.e., advertising, fares, property, etc. and add non fare revenue to it and divide it against operating expenses to come out with the percentage. The 50% target mentioned by the Blue Ribbon Committee wasbased ontherebeing fare increases. Thereneeds to be further discussion on what triggers a fare increase and what metrics are used to detennine how big ofa fare increase.

Paul Regan added that the Blue Ribbon Committee wanted to review total operating revenue ratios as opposed to fare recovery ratios because the MBTA had the capacity to find other ways to raise revenue and wanted to encourage the MIBTA to pursue these avenues. It is ‘the sole source ofrevenue that the IVIBTA can generate or control.

Richard Creem of Needham asked about the issue ofusing capital reserves to fund the operating budget. Is there any other alternative to the use ofthe capital improvement fund for operating this year?

Jonathan Davis said that is why its’ called a structural deficit and it is not going away. The MBTA needs to reduce operating expenses. His strategy would be, not to draw from reserve and look towards not paying $5M worth of principal payments due March 1 in order to preserve that. Jonathan Davis believes that this is a watershed year.

Stephen Crane of Worcester asked about expansion services and with the additional revenue potential how much ofthe operation cost is covered and does it pay theMBTA to expand lines and service?

Jonathan Davis stated that expanded service is being handled by the Executive Office of Transportation and the MBTA needs to look at providing public transit where thereis none.

Rick Patoski of Marblehead stated that given the trend’ line of sales tax revenues fiat or negative what is currently being done by the MBTA’to find other sources ofrevenue from the public sectorin the State? He also asked if the MBTA has pursued leads based on other transit agencies. In NYC the Triboro Bridge Authority turns over $500Mintolls

2 Jonathan Davis response was that he has testified before the Transportation Committee, and worked with constituents as itrelates to filing legislation, increased the base revenue amount and changedthe formula. It is evident to everybody that the MBTA has a dilemma as far as the structural purchase standpoint.

Paul Regan stated that he served on the Transportation Finance Commission Report, which reviewed the concept ofopen road tolling to find a wayto create a system that will fund transportation over the next twenty years. There is a deficit ofbetween $15 and $20B for all modes that have to be filled. There are a group of interested parties to want a serious debate on adequate funding for transportation as a whole.

Rick Patoski ofMarblehead commented that the BRA and Massport have beenvery aggressive where instead of selling off their real estate they have “ground leased” it obtaining a lot of their operating funds. What is the • MBTA doing to go from outright sales to ground leasing?

Jonathan Davis stated that the MBTA has periodic income stream and an equity stream in some of these developments. Mark Boyle is the manager of the Real Estate Division forthe MBTA.

George Bailey of Sharon stated at the last Finance Committee meeting it discussed the recommendations ofthe Transportation Finance Commission and was agreed to bring up specific amounts of funds can be developed from the recommendations and bring them to the Advisory Board at the time the ItvIBTA’s budget was discussed. The recommendations have already been reviewed by the Executive and Legislative Committees of the MAPC. They are the only hope for solving the MBTA’s operation crisis.

Mayor Cohen asked for a motion to refer the MBTA FY09 budget to the Finance Committee. It was moved and seconded.

Mayor Cohen requested that ‘another letter be sent from Paul Regan to the State Legislature highlighting the debt service issues, the revenue source issues, and the recommendations of the Transportation Finance Committee. The Mayor asked for a motion to have the Executive Director ofthe Advisory Board prepare and send a letter to the Legislature referring to specific’ legislation that is pending. IfAdvisory Board members felt that the letter being sent needed to include additional information, they were asked to speak with Paul Regan after the meeting. Themotion was moved and seconded and passed.

Discussion of Commuter Rail Performance

Mayor Cohen welcomed James O’Leary, General Manager of MBCR and Jody Ray from the MBTA. The Advisory Board had a Commuter Rail Committee at the Advisory Board office and many issues were answered. Several issues resulted inthe overall decline ofthe commuter rail service. Labor issues, such as crew schedule changes, which have been stabilized. The opening of Greenbush was scheduled for the end of October, with some integration issues with the Middleboro and Plymouth operation coming into Braintree and on into South Station. Most of the issues have been sorted out, with some minor schedule changes in April, 2008. The significant tie workbeing done on the FraminghamlWorcesterline had a dramatic impact during the months of September and ‘October. Schedule changes in the Fall on that line had a positive impact on the operation with going from a 60% on time performance to a 92-94% on time performance. During the past week CSX was doing track work with modest impacts compared to the impacts last Fall. Another positive impact on the operation is the investment of seventy-five new double deckers and new locomotives. Overhaul of eighty coaches havebeen completed and with help significantly with the air conditioners during the Summer.

Mayor Cohen stated that during James O’Leary tenure as General Manager at the MBTA he made management rights work. Taking on labor problems are for efficiency improvements and sometimes the workforce retaliate and slow down service.

3 Charles Chittick asked about the passenger traffic on the Greenbush line and wanted to know if it has been up the MBTA’s expectations?

Jody Ray of the MBTA stated that counts are being performed every Wednesday morning during rush hour service using it as a measure to judge on time performance and ridership.

James O’Leary added that it is between 15 and 18 months before you can see an actual increase in ridership. There’has been a fair amount ofmigration from the boatto train service.

Charles Chittick asked if the MBTA is anticipating continuing with the strong boat service that they have had from the South Shore?

Paul Regan responded that it is in the budget and the contract still has a couple ofyears on the boat service to run.

Robert Guttman ofBeverly asked if this is part of the semi-annually train passenger count that the MBTA does periodically? Bob had a request to receive a passenger count by station for the past two years, which he has received in the past.

Mr. O’Leary stated that MBCR does a lot of counting ofpassengers on the trains, with daily counts conducted ofhow crowded the trains are. Also, quarterly counts are used to determine how many coaches are on a train; and how much staffing is on eachtrain. Greenbush has on Wednesday mornings a count is done of all inbound rush hour trains to see where passengers are getting on to see which stations are used more heavily

Dann Chamberlain of Groton stated that in 2006, the commuter rail had air conditioner failures, in 2007 it was locomotive failures, and he wanted to know what changes either in budget, personnel or maintenance schedules have beenput in place that can minimize the changes ofa repeat ofa lot offailures in one area?

Mr. O’Leary stated that it is the new investments, such as in the air conditioning the MBTA approved a $4M upgrade ofthe existing older Pullman cars. A number ofmanagement changes havebeen made in the MBCR mechanical department, with new senior managers from outside of the Northeast region to strengthen the team. A new set of locomotives are about to be orderedby the MBTA, which will be critical in the locomotive fleet. Demand on the system with an increase iii ridership that wasn’t there 8-10 years ago. Ridership at South Station in 1987 was 6M people in 1996 therewas l6M and in 2007 there were 24M people using the system.

Robert Guttman ofBeverlyasked about the laborissues reduction in Conductors on the trains.

MBCR responded that when Greenbush came on line, they felt it was an opportunity to integrate all of the schedules. When the original Old Colony caine on ten years ago the crew schedules were changed to provide formore efficiency and resulted in reductions in personnel. -

Stephen Crane ofWorcester asked about the on-time performance on the Worcester/Frarningham line and is the trip time still the same?

James O’Leary stated that the performance of the WorcesterfFramingham line was the worst of all the lines being operated. Given the growth in ridership it dictated a change in schedule. MBCR, MBTA and CSX went out separately and looked at the train schedules and determined that they needed to be changed. They added about 10 minutes from Worcester into Boston, and 7 minutes from Framingham to Boston.

4 George Bailey ofSharon spoke about the very productive meeting atthe Advisory Board office. The Worcester Line was discussed and we were reminded ofthe 1900 and 1930 schedules were built around a four-track line and all havebeen reduced substantially.

Mark Brennan of Cohasset wanted to know if there are going to be any changes to the schedules on the Greenbush Line? He also wanted to know about the significant amount ofpunch list items, town by town that need to be completed and whenwill they be addressed?

Jonathan Davis answered that on April 7 all commuter rail schedules will be reprinted. There are changes to a number ofschedules including the Old Colony Line and Greenbush

James O’Leary stated that they wanted to complete the punch list items done in 2007 since access to the railroad out there is much more difficult to them now.

Dan Salvucci from the Town of Whitman asked about securing the safety ofpassengers opening doors while trains are in motion. He expressed his problem with the train moving while doors can be opened, and what is being done to secure that once thetrain is in motion the doors must be locked.

Jody Ray of the MBTA stated that it is federal law that all doors must be able to open from the inside at all times.

Rick Patoski ofMarblehead asked about collection offares while passengers ‘are standing in the aisles and have these collection problems been addressed?

James O’Leary said it is an ongoing issue that MBCR is trying to address. If any Advisory Board members have any specific issues or complaints get as much information you can, such as train or coach by number, time oftrain, etc. and get them to Paul’ Regan or MBCR.net and they will investigate the issue.

Mr. O’Leary announced that the NTSB in Washington is releasing its report today on the Wobum accident. He wanted to assure the constituents on improving the service. All transportation personnel are subject to random drug testing. The track workers are not subject to random drugtesting, and MBCR feels they should be subject

to the same testing. -

Charles Chittick asked whether the MBCR has considered using the Charlie Card on the commuter rail and where does it stand atthis time?

Paul Regan stated that the MBTA is trying to make a final choice on what themechanism will be for collecting

the fares. ‘ ‘

Jody Ray added that the collection of fares will be unique from the busses and subway because of zone based • fare collection. Is the IVIBTA trying to work out a wayto eliminate the onboard sale oftickets?

Mayor Cohen thanked IVIBCR for addressing the Advisory Board members. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

5 Welcome to the Project The project team is currently finalizing the best route and station locations for the Green Line Extension. This work includes conceptual engineering and envi- ronmental analysis. To comply with State requirements, EOTPW is developing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). At the same time, EOTPW is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for federal review to support efforts to seek federal funding through the New Starts program, which is wn by the Federal Transit Administration (ETA). New Starts is the federal government’s financing program for supporting local public transit expansion projects. EOTPW is looking at five alternatives for the Green Line Extension: 1. No-build alternative; 2. Green Line extension to Medford Hillside with a spur to Union Square; 3. Green Line extension to Mystic Valley Parkway with a spur to Union Square; 4. Green Line extension to Medford Hillside with a spur to Union Square via Somerville Avenue; and 5. Green Line Extension to Mystic Valley Parkway with a spur to Union Square via Somerville Avenue. Siting the proposed stations is an important part of the environmental process. The project team is devel- oping criteria to evaluate potential locations, including spacing, platform configuration, and connections for buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Station work- shops are also underway to seek public input as part of this process. me -

Schedule

Monday, January 28 Somerville High School Library 81 Highland Avenue, Somerville This meeting will focus on stations proposed forthe Washington Street, Gilman Square, and Inner Belt/Brickbottom neighbor- hoods (in the vicinily of the existing Lowell Commuter Rail Line).

Tuesday, January 29 Visiting Nurses Association Community Room, 259 Lowell Street, Somerville This meeting will focus on stations proposed for the Magoun Square (Lowell Street) and Ball Square neighborhoods (in the vicinity of the existing Lowell Commuter Rail Line).

Thursday, January 31 Sophia Gordon Hall, Tufts University, 15 Talbot Avenue Somerville (Ta!bot Ave. is off College Ave. at the city line) This meeting will focus on stations proposed for the College Avenue and Winthrop Street neighborhoods (in the vicinity of the existing Lowell Commuter Rail Line).

Wednesday, February 6 South Medford Fire Station Community Room Zero Medford Street, Medford This meeting will focus on the proposed stations in the Mystic Valley Parkway area (near the intersection of the Lowell Commuter Rail Line and Route 16/Mystic Valley Parkway).

Tuesday, February 19 Cummings School Gymnasium 93 School St., Somerville This meeting will focus on potential alignments and proposed station locations in the Union Square area.

-~ • Green ~ Line ~ Extension

Project History Extending Green Line service to Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford has been the subject of several studies over the last 40 years. One of the objectives ofthe 1962 North Terminal Area Study was to “design a new transit alignment to permit a future branch extension (of the Green Line) to Somerville and communities northwest along the right-of-way of the Boston and Maine Railroad.” The 1973 Boston Transportation Planning Review Northwest Study focused on identifying and evaluating various bus, commuter rail, and Green Line extension alternatives in the “Somerville Radial Corridor.” In 1981, the MBTA conducted the Green Line Northwest Project Study, which evaluated transit alternatives beyond Lechmere Station. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in obtaining environmental permits for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in the early 1 990s, commuted to implementing a number of Boston region transit improvement projects as mitigation measures, induding a Green Line extension to Medford. This commitment was embedded in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality conformity. In 2005, the MBTA prepared the Beyond Lechmere Study, a Major Investment Study! Alternatives Analysis (MIS/AA), to define the most appropriate transit investment strategy for improving mobility and regional access for residents in Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford. On October 2, 2006, EOTPW submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) to the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA} for an extension of the MBTA Green Line to Somerville and Medford. Public comment for the project was received for

eight weeks from the initial filing — including at

public meetings in Somerville and Medford — after which the Secretary of EOEA issued a certificate requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). EOTPW is working with a consulting team led by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin and with the communities to prepare the DEIR for submittal in 2008. ____ LINE EXTENSION

_____ PROJECT Winter 2008

Line ______Extension Public Involvement Where Can I Get More EOTPW is working closely with the communities of Information? Cambridge, Somerville and Medford on the Green Line Extension design and environmental review. The project website, www.GreenLineExtension.org, The outreach includes monthly meetings with includes project documents, relevant regulatory members of a Citizens Advisory Group. Members reports, and an opportunity to sign up for the represent the three communities. They review and project mailing list. comment on project concepts and plans, bring suggestions and ideas to EOTPW, and share project information with the groups and Citizens Advisory Group communities they represent. The Green Line Extension Citizens Advisory In addition to the Advisory Group, EOTPW is Group includes representatives from Cambridge, reaching out to sfcikeholders using: Somerville, and Medford, as well as representatives of regional groups with an interest in the project. • Public Meetings and Open Houses, timed to The members were recommended by the respective provide information at key milestones so the municipalities and appointed by the Secretary of public can review and comment on project plans Transportation. The Green Line Extension Citizens • Station Workshops, to involve neighborhoods in Advisory Group provides important guidance and discussions about proposed station locations, design input to the project on a range of issues relating to elements and potential neighborhood impacts the project. The Advisory Group meets approximately • Project fact sheets, like this one, which are once a month; all meetings are open to the public. available at meetings and on the website Members of the Advisory Group are listed below: • The project website — David Aposhian, Appointed by City of Somerville www.GreenLineExtension.org — which contains project documents, meeting minutes and maps Lee Auspilz, Davis Square Task Force • Community or group meetings, which can be set Paul Cote, Appointed by City of Cambridge up on request William Deignan, City of Cambridge • Email blasts to provide notice of meetings, new Councilor Frederick DelloRusso, City of Medford website postings and information on key milestones Mimi Graney, Union Square Main Streets If you would like to be added to the project mailing list or email database, please contact Joe Guelpa, Appointed by City of Somerville Regan Checchio at [email protected] David Jordan, Appointed by City ofSomerville or 617-357-5772. EOTPW welcomes your Kenneth Krause, Appointed by City of Medford participation in the project. Barbara Lucas, MAPC Steve Mackey, Somerville Chamber of Commerce Jim McGinnis, Appointed by City of Somerville Ellin Reisner, STEP/Green Une Forum Barbara Rubel, Tufts University Carrie Russell, Conservation Law Foundation William Wood, Appointed by City ofMedford Open Seat, To Be Appointed by City of Medford