Once the original Pike bonds were paid off, there was no good reason to keep collecting tolls except that some people just couldn’t bear to part with a revenue stream. It used to be, you could argue drivers got their money’s worth from the tolls because the road was in better shape than most other highways, especially in winter. But from what I’ve heard, after the last snowstorm the Pike wasn’t any better than other state highways. What are toll-payers getting for that money exactly that commuters on Rte. 495, Rte. 128 and every other highway aren’t?
I am in favor of an increase in the gas tax, with some sort of offsetting reduction or tax credits for low-income people who would be particularly hurt by this.
For those who favor “user fees” like a Pike toll, I say it’s time for all vehicle users pay their fair share, instead of assessing an extra burden on the users of one highway only. In general, if all drivers start shouldering the true cost of roadway infrastructure, instead of spreading those costs either among the entire taxpaying public (general revenues used for road construction, repair, snow removal, etc.) or dumping an unfair share of it on the users of one roadway, it could at long last bring some market forces to bear on our extraordinary rate of fuel consumption in this country.
Hang on a minute. If the complaint is that “It is not fair to have one portion of the population subsidize the transportation needs for the rest of the state”, then isn’t a plan to raise the gas tax to cut the tolls the exact opposite of solving that problem?
<
p>
The tolls go to support the Pike. As far as I know, the tolls aren’t subsidizing other roads. The gas tax goes to support other roads, not the Pike. For the vast number of people in this state who do not regularly drive on the pike, an increase in the gas tax would be precisely taking money from that group to subsidize the transportation needs of the people using the Pike.
<
p>
I suppose you could argue that the gas burned on the pike is subsidizing the drivers elsewhere, but I think that would be a stretch because the proportion of people who don’t drive on any road but the Pike is certainly far smaller than the portion of people who don’t drive on the Pike.
<
p>
How about raising the tolls on the Pike going into Boston so that more people have incentive to take commuter rail in? That seems to be a better solution than cutting them, giving the overuse of cars there that we have now.
…The TP tolls should have been taken down decades ago, when the first set of bonds used to build the road were paid off. In Ohio, the Ohio TP tolls were taken down decades ago after those bonds were paid off.
<
p>
The MA TP Commission is nothing more than a dumping ground for elderly politicians, Republican and Democratic. The last time we went on the MA TP west of Sturbridge, it was clear to us that it was one of the worst-kept roadways in Massachusetts.
Can you give me a citation for “The turnpike tolls are, indeed, used to support other roadways”, please?
<
p>
Here’s my citation:
<
p>
http://www.massturnp…
<
p>
While I agree with the Big Dig subsidy, I can’t find anything in that budget that says that the Turnpike subsidizes other roadways.
<
p>
I will agree with you that the MTA is a patronage parking ground, but that alone does not justify taking down tolls. It’s like shooting someone to cure their cold.
What money do you think paid for all the Turnpike Authority personnel allegedly working on and overseeing the Big Dig? What money do you think is paying back $800 million+ in Turnpike Authority bonds that were sold to help fund the Big Dig? It’s not all from Ted Williams Tunnel tolls. The financing of all this includes Pike toll money from 128 eastward (128 west is a separate financing mechanism, which is why my example included Newton). From the Globe:
<
p>
<
p>
I repeat my question: Why should someone commuting between West Newton and Framingham be paying higher tolls to fund the Big Dig in Boston, when many commuters into Boston using the actual Big Dig roadway are not paying tolls to fund it?
<
p>
From the SEC administrative proceedings related to the bond sales:
<
p>
<tongue planted semi-firmly half-in-cheek>
<
p>
Western Mass doesn’t contribute to the MBTA. Western Mass doesn’t want to contribute to the roadways in Boston Metro.
<
p>
Western Mass has no problem benefiting from the economy of Boston — an economy not possible without adequate transportation to and from the city — and a transportation infrastructure that also allows for all of those lovely malls on 495.
<
p>
I’d love to see Tim Murray connect commuter rail from Boston clear to Albany. Bring more of Western Mass into the fold, tickle their economy a little bit, and result in their contribution to (and their interest in) the MBTA.
<
p>
</tongue></off topic meandering></cranky Friday>
West Newton and Framingham are well within Boston’s economic influence. Those towns exist as they are because of the huge economic engine that is Boston. While that doesn’t give Boston a blank check, it makes criticism of tolls from West Newton to Framingham somewhat less valid. Plus, how many people onlydrive the Pike from West Newton to Framingham? Probably a lot less than those that drive from West Newton or Framingham into Boston.
<
p>
Your solution seems to be that the entire state should pay for the Big Dig, but you seem to want this because you think it isn’t fair that Boston drivers aren’t paying for it. I fail to see how the fact that it isn’t fair that Boston drivers aren’t paying for it results in the belief that everyone across the state should pay for it instead.
<
p>
Also, I think that when you say “the turnpike pays for other roads” it strongly implies that the MTA is pushing money into maintenance of other interstates and local roads far outside Boston. That is false. The only “other roads” that the MTA is “paying for” — in the way of paying interest on bonds issued — are Big Dig roads.
…why people who drive into Boston from Danvers and Peabody from the north, and from Quincy from the south, are not paying tolls on the roads on which they drive.
<
p>
Your implicit rationale for charging only people who drive into Boston from the western suburbs really does fall on deaf ears.
That’s better; I understand your point more clearly now. I’m from Western MA, so to me, most traffic enters Boston via the Pike. I can now see that’s a misconception.
<
p>
Again, though, if we’re talking in terms of subsidies, and the massive cost that was the Big Dig, it makes far more sense for communities near Boston to pick up more of that tab than to socialize the cost across the state, because most people outside of Worcester (and a significant portion outside 495) don’t see much benefit at all from the Boston economy.
<
p>
While I can see that there could be a small group of people getting hurt by the current way of things (those that drive primarily on the Pike, but don’t go into Boston), and another small group that is benefiting without paying (those that drive into Boston on roads other than the Pike), I don’t think that former group of people is losing out too much because they enjoy a significant economic benefit of being near Boston, probably worth far more than the $400 that they’re spending. I also think that for the most part, a majority of people are probably paying tolls somewhere in line with their economic benefit.
<
p>
Are others skating by not paying that $400? Sure, but why stick people who aren’t economically benefiting from Boston with another $20 bill to make up for the fact that there is a group of people living near Boston who are benefiting, but aren’t paying? Especially when the people you’d stick for $20 have had their own projects put on hold as money was consumed by the Big Dig?
…Less than 10 years ago, there was a 17 (or so) mile bridge/tunnel built between Denmark and Sweden, at a cost of less than US$4billion (or so). Half bridge, half tunnel. US$4billion.
<
p>
The Big Dig, as initially envisioned, was estimated to cost on the order of US$2 billion, more or less. That was in the mid 1980s. That was for some 2.3 miles of roadway. The cost ballooned under both Democratic and Republican mismanagement to US$14billion and counting.
<
p>
If the Scandinavians can build a 17 mile bridge/tunnel for US$4billion, why cannot the Americans build a 2.3 mile tunnel for something on the same order? Hell, the Swiss are talking about doing a longer tunnel between (I don’t recall just where, but it’s under the Alps), and they aren’t going to spend anywhere close to US$14billion for anything.
<
p>
It is obvious that the corruption in the Big Dig has been astounding. But, it was managed (I would put it mismanaged) by the Republican company Bechtel.
Hate the cliché but it fits.
<
p>
The original estimate for the CAT project was done without any planning. Politicians went to an engineering/architectural firm and asked them to provide an estimate for the project with out test borings, soil and rock studies, investigation of the stability of existing structures, looking at locations of underground utilities, etc. It was never a realistic budget to begin with.
<
p>
I am not saying there was not mismanagement and graft going on. But from an engineering stand point this project had never been done before. Take the section of tunnel under South Station for example. That entire area is built on fill material on top of old swamp and marsh land. To tunnel under this area, the ground was frozen. And I don’t just mean a couple of feet but roughly a hundred feet deep for the entire area; all without moving a track by more then a 1/8 of an inch or the trains could derail. None of which was included in the original cost estimate.
<
p>
If I recall correctly from what I read in a trade mag, the Scandinavian project involves more tunneling and constructing on actual rock, not fill material. That is a huge difference and a huge advantage.
<
p>
Bechtel is not solely responsible for the cost over runs. There were fraudulent contractors, corrupt unions, paid off inspectors, etc.
…if asked to provide an estimate for a job of that magnitude without being provided with–or being able to obtain–the information necessary to do the estimate would have declined to provide an estimate.
<
p>
Bechtel wanted the job, and that’s why they provided the estimate. Hell, they could have picked any number out of the air. And, you’re suggesting, that’s exactly what they did. And, it appears, they low-balled the estimate to make sure that the go-ahead for the job would be made. That’s the long and the short of it, isn’t it? They provided a low estimate to make sure that the job would go ahead, and they wanted to make sure that they would get the job. And they succeeded quite well at that didn’t they, even though they didn’t succeed very well at much of anything else.
<
p>
It should be clear that I do not believe a word that any politically connected contractor–which Bechtel is–says to the politicians, merely because they say it.
<
p>
I’ll save you the rant. I’m a cynic:
<
p>
<
p>
–Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.
raj,
<
p>
You need to do a little homework on this. You don’t understand the history. I just looked at the wikipedia entry for this and it seems accurate enough from what I know having worked on some of the environmental issues for this project.
<
p>
In general, the CAT project was not designed by Bechtel. It was designed by the Boston Transportation Planning Review. This was composed of project managers, architects, etc. but not Bechtel.
<
p>
As I have said, the estimate was bad because no one wanted to sink the money into the planning that was needed. I once saw the executive summary of the original proposal, can’t provide a link to it because it is not online. It was shown to me by someone involved with the project. There were about three pages of I think 20 that were just discussing the potential data gaps due to not having a sufficient planning budget.
<
p>
Yes, Bechtel did a bad job on this project. But they were not responsible for the initial planning; they were responsible for getting the job done.
<
p>
The technology involved in this project was unprecedented in public construction. I thing only a few projects in Dubai can even compare. There is a good documentary on the project that you should watch, I can’t remember the name of it, if I remember I will post it.
Building a tunnel through a mountain is much easier than building a tunnel through historic landfill. Some of the big dig cost overruns were because they didn’t measure the soil properties well enough. It’s a stupid place to build a tunnel because the soil isn’t strong enough to hold up around a big hole, so the tunnel needs more structural support than if it were going through granite and other mountain rocks. The cost also increases when you are digging through 400 year old garbage because the garbage contains useful historical information about what life in Boston was like centuries ago, so people prefer saving it and analyzing it. When you go through a mountain, you normally don’t find anything worth studying.
<
p>
The initial cost estimates also underpredicted inflation. Look up inflation data over the past 50 years and you will see why. The 70s and 80s had inflation rates almost 10x normal. The inflation adjustment alone would have doubled the initial estimate, which means the cost really only tripled (which is still bad).
<
p>
The corruption and mismanagement made all of this worse. But it isn’t fair to compare the cost of building a tunnel under Boston to the cost of building a tunnel through solid rock. It is fair to ask why anyone thought building a tunnel through loose soil and sludge would be a good idea.
…the path from Denmark to Sweden (which what I was primarily referring to) is mostly over and/or under water. There was one island in between.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but at some point this becomes ridiculous. A 17 mile bridge/tunnel in Scandinavia comes in at about US$4billion, and a 2.3 mile tunnel in the US, originally estimated in the mid 1980s to cost some US$2billion comes in at US$14billion and climbing. I hate to tell you, but that is stupid. Inflation was high in the 1970s, but it cannot be used to explain the cost increases from the mid- to late 1980s and now.
<
p>
I will grant you that it is easier to build a tunnel through the Alps (which are not solid rock: they are moraines left over from the last ice age, after all) than under water, but the Scandinavian bridge/tunnel example more than suggests that Bechtel in conspiracy with politicians at all levels–state and federal–basically screwed the taxpayers. That is unforgivable, and the fact that people are willing to minimize it is, too.
…we here in Wellesley cannot get the state to finish the project of the Route 16 (Washington Street) Route 9 overpass completed. It has been years since the state started working on that overpass. It is a complete mess, tying up traffic at that intersection.
<
p>
And the reason that the state will not fund the completion (both are state roads) is that they have diverted funding of road work to…the Big Dig.
That is spot-on, but it isn’t all that relevant to the discussion. A lot of people are mad at the Big Dig. But how does it follow that tolls around Boston should come down, and gas taxes on everyone should be raised because of that, especially since that would mean that more people across the state would have to pay for the Big Dig, and less people near Boston would have to pay for it?
…raise the gas tax on everyone in the state–and maybe even nationwide (why should Massachusettsians have paid for Interstate highways through the corn fields of Nebraska, for gawds sake?), or impose a huge toll on people who are actually using the travesty referred to as the Big Dig–the people who are driving north-south through the Shitty of Boston (as Kevin White used to put it).
<
p>
I’m sorry, but at some point this gets to be silly. People have to pay for infrastructure. Why should east-west motorists pay for a highway that benefits north-south travelers?
<
p>
But people shouldn’t have to waste money on infrastructure, and that’s what the Big Dig was. The Big Dig was nothing but a Big Screwing, and I don’t mean that in a non-pornographic sense.
I commuted for 8 years between Framingham and West Newton. A large number of people I worked with in West Newton drove in from the western suburbs. I work in Framingham now, and work with many people who drive here from Newton and Waltham. All the jobs in the metro area are not in Boston/Cambridge proper.
<
p>
Framingham is not a bedroom suburb. Awhile back I did an analysis of census data showing changes in population in eastern Massachusetts communities, daytime due to workers vs. full-time residential. Framingham’s daytime population rises 14%. Waltham’s rises 34%. I’m quite sure many of the people working in Waltham live to the west and drive in on the Pike to Rte. 128.
<
p>
The fact that western suburban communities derive some economic benefit from being close to Boston is not a justification for specifically singling out Massachusetts Turnpike commuters to pay for a roadway 20 miles to the east, while those in other suburbs north & south don’t have to pay, and while Bostonians themselves don’t have to pay. Framingham already pays a substantial assessment to the MBTA for inferior service compared to service available in communities closer in, because we happen to get a few commuter rail trains a day stopping here.
<
p>
And by the way, there’s likely to be some significant increases in property values around the Big Dig area now that the central artery is underground. Is it fair that specifically commuters to the west get to subsidize that while residents of Boston itself pay nothing extra beyond what residents of Pittsfield pay?
…on Route 9 and Route 16 between Framingham and West Newton is because of the increases in tolls on the Pike and the elimination of the tolls on the Rt. 16 Pike entrance and exit.
I do believe that the Pike carries the bonds for the Central Artery Tunnel project, which is why Patrick thought it was absurd for Romney to propose eliminating tolls.
<
p>
The tolls are paid by drivers from Metro West, and the CAT benefits, mostly, drivers from the north and south shores.
<
p>
I can’t find something specific to link right now, but I think you may find it here, after Romney’s proposal was made last November.
Legislation in 1997 effectively transferred Big Dig responsibilities and about $2 billion in Big Dig costs to the Turnpike. As part of the legislation, the Turnpike was divided into two separate financial entities, the Metropolitan Highway System, east of Route 128, and the western Turnpike. The Big Dig costs and related debt was allocated to the eastern portion.
<
p>
It is within the Metropolitan Highway System where the toll increases are expected to occur. The proposal supported by Governor Romney was to eliminate tolls on the western Turnpike, a first step in reducing the inequity experienced by drivers from the west.
if there was a toll instituted solely on the road you use to commute, and no other road, which would pay for that road AND other roads, while you also paid the same income and gas tax to pay for everyone else’s roads?
<
p>
Would you be OK with the fact that you were being asked to pay another $400+/year to use your specific road, while nobody else anywhere in the state paid anything extra to use any other roads? Or perhaps would you want the gas tax to also “subsidize” your road?
<
p>
You know what? If gas tax pays for every other roadway in the state except one, then making the funding mechanism the same for that roadway too is not a “subsidy.” It is equity.
<
p>
Separately from the blatantly unfair issue of western suburbanites subsidizing Boston’s Big Dig directly while many drivers on the Central Artery use it for free, you’re darn right I’d argue that it’s unfair to single out one road to be paid for by user tolls.
<
p>
Please to me why it’s fair that users of one specific highway only pay a toll to use their road – and also pay for everyone else’s roads; while everyone else gets to have their roads paid for out of general maintenance.
<
p>
Why should a Pike driver pay an extra $400+/year in tolls for that road that nobody else is asked to pay, while drivers along Rte. 128, 495, 3, 2 and every other road don’t have to pay that kind of extra money? Paying off initial construction bonds is arguable, but beyond that, no. Not unless you come up with a way to make users of every other highway pay an additional user fee too.
won’t you have more people driving on it? Can it handle the capacity? Is there any way to improve commuter rail parallel to the road to encourage more ridership and less driving?
<
p>
For that matter, why stop at 9 cents? Just FYI, here are the state gas taxes of neighboring states, in cents per gallon:
<
p>
MA 21
NY 23.9
CT 25
RI 31
ME 25.9
NH 19.625
VT 20
<
p>
9 cents actually seems like quite a lot, given that the tax is currently 21 cents per gallon. Could it be raised to 30 cents? Right now MA gas tax is low relative to neighbors; it would then be on the high side (relatively).
<
p>
Maybe 9 is too much. Maybe they could raise the tax 4.5 cents and cut the tolls in half. Then, the MA lege could egg on other legislatures to raise their gas taxes, so that MA could raise the other 4.5 cents without being too far of an outlier. Gas companies aren’t allowed to collude on prices, but state legislatures are allowed to collude on taxes.
…I hate to tell you, but the fact is that public transportation in Massachusetts is a travesty. Commuter rail is merely designed to shuttle people living in the suburbs into and out of Boston for work. If they actually provided real public transportation, they might actually make Boston–the center city–usable by suburbanites for other things, like, you know, dining, entertainment, shopping, or whatever.
<
p>
I hate to keep harping on Munich (Germany, not North Dakosta) but that is the foreign city I’m most familiar with. If you want to see what a real public transportation system can do, take a look at http://en.wikipedia…. The Munich S-Bahn (Schnell Bahn Netz) makes the center city readily available to suburbanites living out to 20 miles from the center city at regular intervals (every 20 minutes) from 5AM in the morning to 1AM in the next morning, and every ticket to the symphony, opera, or theater events includes a complementary ticket to the S-Bahn and U-Bahn (the subway) and trams (streetcars). It serves to unite the far suburbs and even rural areas with the center city, so that people living in the suburbs and rural areas feel at least some unity with the center city. That is real public transportation, not this silliness that they have in Boston.
although the rail system in Switzerland is incredible (every train we took while visiting friends in Geneva and travelling around to nearby communities was on time to the minute. Every single one!)
<
p>
I grew up using the Long Island Railroad to get into Manhattan on weekends. The LIRR has its problems, but at least the schedule expects that people want to go into the city during the middle of the day, at night, and on weekends.
…when I lived in New Haven CT 30 years ago (no, I was not going to Yale) I used the train service to get from there into NYC quite often.
<
p>
But the public transportation system in Boston is a joke.
and you won’t hear me sing it’s praises locally.
<
p>
However, I’ve now lived in Southie and then Brookline for five years, without a car. Not even a zip-car. So, the MBTA is chugging along as far as I’m concerned.
<
p>
In my mind, the MBTA’s big problem is funding. Tying the funding to sales tax is double retarded. It’s retarded because the revenue fluctuates in ways that aren’t always so easy to predict, and it’s retarded because ridership goes up in a recession and down in an economic boom, since public transportation is in aggregate an inferior good.
<
p>
I’d like to see the MBTA stop funding capital projects. Figure out a way for the lege to float the bonds and budget for the project, and take that debt away from the MBTA. Let them use fares and advertising to pay for operations, and let the state cover the interest payments. This also includes handicap accessibility — something the T is slowly addressing but is something the legislature should also work to fund so that accessibility is increased more quickly.
<
p>
As for commuter rail, there’s a supply-demand problem. The demand is low, so the supply (which by definition of mass is either massive or nonexistent) is nonexistent. So, demand fizzles. In the mean time, with no North-South Rail Link, many suburban commutes are much longer because they now involve more line changes then otherwise.
<
p>
Ugh. We spent gajillions on the Big Dig, and peanuts on the T. Man that bugs me.
Raising the tax by 9 cents to 30 is probably OK. But where does that money go?
<
p>
Under the system we have now that money goes directly into the general found, like so many of our other tax dollars. This is more of the problem then the amount of the taxes. If the taxes collected went directly into an account that was ear marked for use only for road maintenance.
<
p>
The biggest problem with almost all of our taxes is that they go into the general fund and then programs are funded out of the general fund. This has been recognized at the city and town level and now most of our sewer and water departments work under something called an enterprise fund. This allows the water and sewer departments to collect and hold its own money, instead of giving it over to the town or city general fund. This has been greatly successful in stabilizing water and sewer rates while allowing the saving up of funds for capital improvements. Something similar should be done for taxes collected from gasoline.
<
p>
By the way, there are some more things you should know about taxes on gasoline.
<
p>
Stomv was correct that there is a $0.21 per gallon tax that is supposed to pay for road maintenance. But there are other taxes on gasoline. There is a $0.025 per gallon tax that is paid for on the delivery side (and passed right on to the consumers) to establish a fund for cleaning up gasoline that is spilled or leaks from the underground tanks, it’s called the 21J fund. There is also a $0.185 per gallon federal tax. I paid $2.06 per gallon when I filled up my truck this week. That means $0.42 per gallon went to taxes and $1.64 per gallon went to the gas station.
<
p>
In 2005 we used 2,848,205,564 gallons of gasoline in this state. That means we collected approximately $598 million for road maintenance. MassHighway has an annual budget of $890 million per year.
<
p>
I would be willing to pay $0.31 per gallon in taxes that would go directly to a MassHighway fund and eliminate other taxes and fees that fund this agency.
I hate the idea of taxing A to only pay for A. How far does it go? What does it do for things that are public goods but are then marginalized because there’s no responsible tax structure to pay for those particular things?
<
p>
I’d like to see the gas tax raise more money than is spent on roads. How much more? Meh. Why more? While roads are important for economic development, they also result in all sorts of detrimental externalities — externalities that are reduced by converting more drivers to mass transit users.
<
p>
The trouble is, it’s hard to raise taxes to be significantly higher than neighboring states when the land area is as small as Massachusetts. So, the lege has to figure out how to encourage neighboring states to raise their taxes too. Fortunately this part of the nation is bordered by ocean and Canada, so it’s a bit easier to convince those neighbors.
<
p>
Maybe MA could go up to 26 or 27, making them a smidge higher than ME, NY and CT, higher than VT and NH, and still lower than RI. Gas stations on the borders couldn’t really complain about a massive loss in business compared to the present (except those near NH and VT perhaps), and the money could be used to (a) cut tolls in half, and (b) fund a bit more MBTA — perhaps an expansion project.
<
p>
Who would be opposed to that? Certainly not those who use the Pike. Certainly not those who use the MBTA a bunch. Certainly not those who are worried about global warming and/or constantly rant about the SUVs and other gas guzzlers. That doesn’t cover everybody, but it does seem to cover quite a few folks.
Yes Tax A to pay for A.
<
p>
Fees paid by restaurants for permits fund the health inspectors. Fees paid for building permits fund the building inspectors. Taxes collected on gasoline for road repair actually fund road repair. Why is this such a bad prospect? Why should money collected from taxes on gasoline go to building a school in Andover or some other equally absurd comparison?
<
p>
I’m not saying eliminate the income or property taxes. Things like schools, town government, state government, social programs could all be paid by taxes that are collected from the traditional sources. This would mean some taxes would go up while others would go down, but things would even out. This would lead to more transparency in government.
<
p>
This is the same problem on the federal level. Why should money collected from my paycheck for social security go into the general fund and be spent on anything but social security?
<
p>
The whole money goes into the general fund thing is ridiculous and does not benefit anyone but politicians.
and it creates a very selfish anti-community of taxpayers because they point to the money trail.
<
p>
I’m not saying that the current method is great, but the alternative ain’t great either.
I didn’t say it should be a direct fund system solely. I said that there should be some direct fund things, like the gas tax going to road maintenance, and other things, like social programs, would continue to be paid by property and income taxes. Under this system, there would be some increases and some decreases, likely resulting in a similar tax burden that we now have. The benefit would be added transparency.
<
p>
I fail to see how this would under fund programs that we would agree on supporting or build an anti-community bias.
…A croc is a crocodile. A crock is a pot of horse manure. Or maybe Bullescheiss. I’m not sure that I would be able to post the correct term here. But what you obviously intended (correctly) to say was that direct funding is a pot of horse manure (or the other thing).
<
p>
It’s a crock.
<
p>
I’m being fascetious, of course, but not by much.
Why not raise the gas tax to, say 25 cents as a way of (1) providing fairness for ALL drivers and (2) encouraging reduction of gasoline consumption and funding energy conservation programs?
<
p>
For example, why not use some funds of the funds which would be raised and not spent on eliminating Pike tolls to subsidize cities and towns to replace gas guzzlers used for routine transportation with hybrids? Or to put solar panels on schools? Or to enlarge grant programs for low-cost loans for energy-saving home improvements? You get the idea.
My family is full of carpenters, electricians, etc. Everyone of them has a truck or a van full of tools they use to get from site to site. Not everyone works downtown where you can get off the train at North Station and walk a couple blocks to work. It would be a huge burden on them, and plenty of others, to raise the gas tax that high.
<
p>
I do think that knocking down the tolls and raising the gas tax is probably a more far way to do it, but we shouldn’t be gouging people.
Economics ain’t pretty, and capitalism ain’t fair.
<
p>
But, if the price of gas goes up (for all carpenters) then we expect to see the price of their work go up (for all carpenters). Those who figure out how to minimize their fuel costs with efficient vehicles, not idling, etc. will be the best off.
<
p>
Not everybody can take the T. But, with higher gas prices, many more will take the T. Or carpool. Or take it easy on the gas. Or check their tire pressure. Or make sure their next vehicle gets more MPG. Or walk/cycle for local trips.
<
p>
It ain’t perfect, but the aggregate effect is what we’re after, and the only known alternative is a far more socialistic method: quotas.
One, if a tradesman needs to transport his “office” to his place of work–which is what you are describing regarding carpenters, electricians, etc.–his transportation expenses are tax deductable as a business expense. All of the expenses. Including not only the gas tax but also the entire cost of the gas.
<
p>
Two, commuting expenses for employees are not tax deductable as a business expense, regardless of whether the expense is in the form of a tax or other. A bit of a difference.
<
p>
I have read that people theoretically can get reimbursement for the gas tax portion that might be attributable to turnpike usage, but that has not been widely advertised and the record keeping that might be required to get the reimbursement would probably be so horrendous as to make it virtually impossible to get.
After deduction for the cost of collecting them. I believe this amount is surprising small, especially in the context of all of the costs associated with these tolls, from the delays to the unfairness, to the violation of the founding promises. I always thought the idea proposed by Mihos was a potentially excellent solution:
Every time I have to go into Boston I have to pay $3 in tolls, yet people from the South Shore pay zero.
<
p>
I’m all for getting rid of tolls and raising the gas tax to compensate – because tolls really bite into my funds (and I hate the traffic). However, you can’t justify getting rid of the Pike tolls – based on fairness – yet keep the Tobin and Ted Williams, which is exactly what every proposal I’ve seen so far would do.
For a number of reasons.
<
p>
1. They ain’t paid for yet. The Pike is. Until those entities are paid for (and, I think, they have quite a bit of extra to pay for future maintenance), the tolls pay for it.
<
p>
2. There are alternatives for much of the Tobin and TW which aren’t much more costly (time + money), including other road routes and blue line and silver line. There’s really not much alternative to much of the Mass Pike.
<
p>
3. The Tobin & TW serve as a (quite imperfect) method to implement congestion charges to Boston proper, whereas the Pike Tolls aren’t nearly that precise.
I highly doubt that. It’s been there for as long as I can possibly remember, and probably longer than I’ve been on this Earth.
<
p>
That said, it shouldn’t matter. Boston couldn’t function without commuters from the North Shore – or South Shore. Boston, quite honestly, depends on its commuters – for good or bad. Since everyone depends on bridges like the Tobin, it’s everyone’s responsibility to pay for it. $3 for a toll is a lot of money for some people (for example, me), why should I have to pay for it when the companies that hire people out of the North Shore don’t? They call Massachusetts a Commonwealth for a reason.
<
p>
The Blue Line doesn’t get me to where I need to be all the time; other times it’s either much more expensive/less conveinent and would mean I’d have to leave Boston earlier than I normally would. That can be problematic if I’m visiting friends and don’t want to leave at all, with my car parked at Wonderland.
<
p>
Saying that North Shore residents don’t deserve the same treatment as Pike commuters is h y p o c r i t i c a l. We build bridges as a state; we pay for them as a state. I depend on the Pike drivers as much as Pike drivers depend on me.
…the ex-politician hacks on the Turnpike Commission haven’t been paid for yet. It is the latter that you would be paying for by crossing the Tobin.
<
p>
There is no reason for the turnpike, bridge or tunnel tolls (except maybe for the Ted Williams tunnel, which is new) other than tot pay the ex-politician hacks on the Turnpike Commission. And their hangers on. And their hangers on.
<
p>
A case could be made for charging tolls on all major thoroughfares into the central city, but they would have to be on all major thoroughfares, not just a few. And, with transponder technology (Easy Pass) it could be easily done.