T finance report renews questions on transportation pick

Janice Loux, a union leader for hospitality workers, already had been the target of criticism since Patrick appointed her to the new Massachusetts Department of Transportation board late last month.

Loux has been a close political ally of Patrick and was instrumental in the ouster of former MBTA general manager Daniel A. Grabauskas when she served on the recently disbanded MBTA board.

Legislators and other political insiders who criticized Loux pointed out that she served for a dozen years on the old MBTA board. They also suggested that her labor ties prevent her from pushing back against unions that are now suing to overturn Patrick’s plan to reduce their benefits.

According to that view, the state needs fresh blood on the board that is supposed to reform the way transportation is delivered, a major political promise of Patrick’s. The new board wields tremendous power over billions of dollars in construction and real-estate contracts and labor agreements. It’s also the last line of defense for commuters on the state’s roadways and its public transit.

Patrick has portrayed Loux as someone who asks hard questions and dismissed critics he said would prefer a go-along, get-along type.

Patrick had to answer questions about Loux again after the recent release of the independent report on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, written by David D’Alessandro, former chairman of John Hancock. The report painted a grim picture of an agency so deep in debt that it cannot afford long-term maintenance projects deemed critical to passengers’ and employees’ “life and limb.’’

The report did not name names, but it left the door wide open to wondering who at the highest levels of oversight had been watching during all the years of neglect. Loux and other members of the former MBTA board approved a list of long-term maintenance projects every year, providing them an opportunity to ask some of those questions about which projects were not being funded.

The other holdover from the MBTA board, Ferdinand Alvaro Jr., who only served for about a year and was a leader on debt issues, insisted the board create a finance committee to outline its problems and held up approval on some spending projects.

I asked MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo on Friday to tell me how Loux voted over the years on the spending plan, which defines the long-term maintenance and expansion priorities. He said the board’s secretary could not recall any board member ever voting against it.

Steve Crawford, Loux’s spokesman, said Loux has consistently emphasized safety at the T since she arrived on the board.

In 2002, she was the only member to oppose expanding commuter rail to Scituate, a project that ultimately added hundreds of millions of dollars to the MBTA’s long-term debt and helped cause the current problems. She has also insisted on efforts to fix the T’s neglected maintenance facilities, upgrade its bus fleet, and rebuild its subway stations, particularly Savin Hill, Fields Corner, and Shawmut, he said.

Last week, Senator Steven A. Baddour of Methuen, cochairman of the Legislature’s transportation committee and top Loux critic, called on her to resign because of what he described as a conflict of interest, according to State House News Service.

She serves on the MBTA retirement board, and Baddour said her obligation to the agency’s retirees and their pensions could trump her obligation to taxpayers. But the retirement board requires an MBTA board member to sit on its oversight board, meaning it could require a rule change, even if Loux were ousted.

D’Alessandro said he intentionally avoided establishing any blame in his report because it would have been a distraction from the public’s much-needed attention to the agency’s multibillion-dollar spending, performance, and safety issues. He said he did not interview board members for his report.

In an interesting twist, one of the staff members who worked on D’Alessandro’s report also works for Loux.

Bryan Woliner, a Boston University graduate student, does freelance financial work for Loux’s union, Unite Here Local 26.

D’Alessandro said Woliner came recommended to him by a dean at BU. Woliner disclosed his work for Loux before he took the job, but never discussed his work on the MBTA review with Loux until it was nearly complete, D’Alessandro said.

Woliner did not return a call.

D’Alessandro said Woliner, like others who worked on the MBTA review, was not paid for his time on the project.

Going carless doesn’t save what it used to

Looks like New York beat Boston this year in the amount commuters could save if they gave up their cars. Last year, Boston was number one in that category, according to the American Public Transportation Association, an advocacy group. This year, the Hub fell a notch, behind the big metropolis to the south. That still puts Boston ahead of San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle, the other cities in the top five.

The latest survey says Boston drivers in a two-person household can save $12,324 a year if they ditched their sedans or sport utility vehicles in favor of trolleys, buses, and feet. That’s down from last year’s estimate of $13,490 a year, calculated using data when gas prices were higher.

As I’ve noted in the past, I think the survey’s methodology has a few flaws. It relies on a number of cost factors - including gas, insurance, and parking rates - to determine how much average car commuters spend in every city. The parking rates come from the Colliers International Parking Rate Study, which assumes we all drive to the Financial District every day and pay to park in one of those ridiculous garages that charge half a year’s salary every 15 minutes.

Still, the larger point is valid. It costs a ton to drive a car in this city. And it’s not just the gas, the tolls, and the oil changes. Think about all those parking tickets you get when you miss one of the carefully scripted signs hidden behind tree branches.

Earmarks are rarely a boon for bad bridges

Last week’s debate for the open US Senate seat featured a sharp dispute over congressional earmarks, the process by which representatives designate money in the federal budget for local goodies.

Representative Michael E. Capuano came out most strongly in favor of the process as a way to use the nation’s elected representatives to divvy out tax dollars to deserving local projects.

“My earmarks are all on my website,’’ Capuano said at one point. “I’m very proud of them if you want to know the truth.’’

But a new study out last week from an advocacy group cast a harsh light on what that process does to our transportation system.

The study from the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group said most transportation earmarks go to new highways, lane widening, and other construction rather than to fixing the nation’s stock of 73,000 structurally deficient bridges.

Nationally, just 74 of 704 transportation earmarks went to repair or maintenance for a bridge, tunnel, or overpass, according to the report. That includes just one of 17 earmarks in Massachusetts, a state with 585 structurally deficient bridges.

The report blames political contributions from developers and other construction interests for influencing the process.