Thanks to Casey for gathering the highlights of the Transportation Finance Commission’s recommendations, which must be adopted by the legislature and the Governor.
Here’s a breakdown of the recommended tax and toll hikes:
– Hike the gas tax by 11.5 cents, increasing it from 23.5 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon. In subsequent years, index the gas tax to inflation. The report indicates this tax has not been raised since 1991. Overall, the increases would generate $10.5 billion over 20 years.
– Institute new tolls on all interstate highways, charging motorists a 5-cent-per mile fee by using video tolling or other methods to tabulate the distance they travel. The tolling system would be instituted on I-93, I-95, I-495 and other highways, and would replace the tolls currently used on the Mass Pike. The new tolls would generate $550 million per year, or $5.5 billion over 10 years.
– Increase MBTA fares 10 percent every three years to keep pace with escalating costs. This would raise roughly $2 billion over the next 20 years. Currently, a T bus fare is $1.25; a subway fare is $1.70.
– Hike tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike immediately and enact additional increases planned for 2014 and 2020, unless an alternate tolling system is established. (The Turnpike board today postponed a vote on the toll increase.) The increases planned for the tolls would raise $530 million.
– Increase taxes or tolls to pay for the western Turnpike. The report calls for one of three moves to pay for maintaining the Turnpike outside 128: Reinstate tolls at exits 1-6; Hike existing western Turnpike tolls; or further increase the gas tax.
The report also includes $2.5 billion in proposed cost cuts. It calls for slashing MBTA costs for pension benefits, retiree health care and other measures ($1.1 billion reduction); and ending the practice of borrowing money to pay employees at transportation agencies ($825 million reduction).
It also, as already noted, calls for ending police details on state road and bridge projects.
As far as I know, Governor Patrick hasn’t commented yet, but he has voiced skepticism on hiking the gas tax as recently as last week. How all of this dovetails with the casino proposal will be interesting indeed to watch.
Finally, I have to say that Barbara Anderson’s suggestion isn’t crazy:
“First do a bill with all the reforms [i.e., T pension and police details] and then let’s come back and talk about the gas tax increase,” said Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group Citizens for Limited Taxation.
IOW, “prove to us that you can actually piss off well-connected special interest groups in the course of trying to save money, and then maybe we’ll all be willing to pitch in.” Like I said, not crazy.
I have no faith whatsoever that Barbara Anderson would be willing to back any kind of tax/fee/use/whatever increase, even if government spending were nigh eliminated.
<
p>
For what it’s worth (very little), the report is well-balanced and extremely difficult. The gas tax isn’t the only thing that will take a lot of political will. Cutting future T employee benefits, transferring authority of various roadways from one agency to another, reducing bureaucratic logjams… all of these will require immense commitments to get past their respective entrenched parties.
<
p>
And, like it or not, all of the proposed cost cuts will only get us 12.5% of the way there. The rest comes from new and restructured revenue.
<
p>
Barbara Anderson doesn’t get to ask everyone else to play ball first while she decides if she wants to join in.
What about folks who don't live in Mass and are just passing through? If an automated system is used and they're not in it, how do they pay?
I should have previewed. Screwed up the blockquote….
…what your intention to post in the block quote was fairly obvious. And your 2d paragraph was one of the “issues” that I have raised here before.
<
p>
How do you enforce tolling for out of state vehicles that do not have the GPS or transponder systems?
Just a guess.
This is absolutely the way that it works. The method is currently used in other parts of the country — Houston, San Diego and parts of Florida, to name a few (if I remember correctly).
She does have that right, same as anyone else. Barbara Anderson's voice is the only rational response to the incessant Patrick Pandering for money: raise the local taxes, casino revenue, raise the tolls. If there's a single voice out there that says cut costs first, then raise taxes if needed, it's Barbara Anderson?
Hit a pothole? Thank a teacher.
Lame.
The teacher union, police union, and other public-sector unions are powerhouses in the state, demanding and getting higher salaries, pensions and benefits for years, while the otherwise unrepresented infrastructure takes a back seat.
So, not the word I'd have chose, but indeed, the public sector unions are lame.
I actually agree that we're approaching a precipice in Massachusetts where the cost of benefits for public employees may rise beyond the point of our being able to deal with it the way we are now.
That having been said, “Hit a pothole, blame a teacher” is not at all constructive, and is very divisive. Why can't I then say, “Hit a pothole, blame Gary.” The irresponsible voter who wants things like schools, quality teachers, police to protect him, fire departments to respond to him, and pothole-less roadds to drive on – but can't be bothered to pay for any of it.
You could, in fact you did, say that, but it's inaccurate. I pay quite a bit in gas and income tax, but much is siphoned off to pay for excesses demanded and received by public unions.
Saying health insurance and pension demands for public emplyees are “excesses” is about as inaccurate as saying you pay “quite a bit” in the form of a gas tax.
Let's pull out the trusty calculator to see the impact. I travel from Norwell to Needham as part of my commute; in a perfect world (i.e., no traffic) I find myself on Rte 3 then 128. Roughly about 28 miles each way to work.
Car I drive (not a hybrid but a commuter car w/ 5 speed manual) consistently gets about 33 mpg in this slog; although some of this takes place on a highway, I don't think that rush hour going past Derby Street or Rte 24 is what the EPA has in mind as “highway” driving. Not too bad mileage w/o splurging for a Prius for 8 grand more.
I drive roughly about 24,000 miles per year; equates to roughly 720 gallons per year, or additional gas taxes for me of $82.80. My kids won't starve at that type of increase, so I'm not going to get too worked up about that type of increase. I drive over the Hanover Mall bridge every day, which they started fixing last year until they discovered that it was in far worse shape than they thought. In a logical world, think that this type of finding would expedite matters, rather than the actual situation of a complete stoppage of work.
Now let's talk about that 5 cents per mile. Assuming that I stay on the highway the whole way, we're talking about 25 miles each way, or 300 miles on the highway per week to get back and forth to work. Now we're talking some impact. Say I commute 48 weeks per year, we're now talking $720. Coupled w/ the GPS requirement, think this one is a nonstarter, to say the least.
Also, of course, the 5 cents/mile approach does nothing to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, while the gas tax obviously does.
But in my example at 33 mpg and 24k driving (which is probably high for this little bitty state), the same driver at half that mpg is only going to see an additional $82.60 in tax, which probably is not going to push them over the cliff of buying a new more efficient vehicle.
Actually thinking about it further, it runs against the Commonwealth's interests to get that person out of the SUV. Again, look at someone getting 16 2/3 mpg @ 24k per year driving. Current state gas tax rate is 23.5 cents per gallon, or total gas tax of $338.40 paid per year.
This person becomes “enlightened”, and picks up something getting my example of 33 mpg due to this increase of 11.5 cents to 35 cents. Now total gas tax paid in year is $252.00 per year, so his revenue is actually down -25.5% to the beloved commonwealth.
Maybe to save the Commonwealth from this impending bill the Guv should be promoting Hummers rather than Prius's (tongue in cheek).
Also points out another thing, as inconvenient as it is: that SUV is paying twice as much to drive on the roads as I am for the same amount of miles driven.
with taxes on “undesirable” behavior. Cigarette taxes, for instance, pay for a lot of health care. If everyone suddenly stopped smoking, like the government says it wants them to, we’d be seriously in the hole revenue-wise.
That is why they proposed two types of income.
1. Gas tax. Obvious problem is that when/if cars become more efficient and use less gas there'll be less gas tax income. This helps encourage people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles.
2. Usage tax. Tax people for actually using the roads… kind of like we do for using public transit, planes and taxis. What a novel idea. This encourages people to drive less.
This also has an interesting value that for people who live in areas where public transit is not an option (too much of the state, IMHO) they have a financial incentie to carpool, therby lowering gas consumption, energy efficiency, etc.
And I ask: what exactly does that 40 cent per gallon federal tax go to anyway? As far as I can tell, they are proposing this additional 5 cent per mile on federal highways. Not exactly like us poor motorists haven't been ponying up already for roads nationwide.
that is, in some ways, the point.
The idea that we should be able to have everything that we want without some more than trivial sacrifice (or without us being the ones to have to make the sacrifice) is one of the biggest problems in trying to get a handle on government spending/taxation.
While i have no idea what you would decide to do or, for that matter, how hard the $720 would really hit you, maybe you could make some decisions to lessen the blow. Perhaps you would decide that it was finally worth your while to carpool and you could cut the $720 down to $360 or $240 or even $180. Perhaps you'd decide that if you were going to have to take a $720 wack, you'd just as well take that other job that was going to pay you $2,000 less per year (say $1,400 less take home) but that kept you closer to home and allowed you to spend more time with the kids. Maybe you'd talk to your company about telecommuting and they'd jump at the suggestion because they were trying to figure out how to fit a few new hires into already crowded office space. Whatever you decided, the Commonwealth would benefit, either through increased revenues or decreased congestion and emmisions.
And just to clarify, you wouldn't have to get a GPS system; cameras would record your license plate at certain points such as on- and off-ramps.
One added benefit to this type of system is that it would allow for the implementation of regional congestion pricing. Unlike “Downtown” congestion pricing where people are charged a flate rate to enter or travel within a certain defined area, regional congestion pricing seeks to optimize traffic flow by shifting tolls from areas of low traffic to areas of high traffic. At a base rate of 5 cents per mile, those highways being underutilized could be dropped to 4 cents or 3 cents or even free and those highways that were most heavily congested could have their tolls increased to 6 or 8 cents per mile. Some people would switch from the congested highway to the less congested highway in order to save a few bucks and traffic would move more smoothly, saving us all time and reducing gas consumption and emissions.
Seth, I'm very happy that you can walk to work. Now in the real world, try to explain to the guy making 30k that he now has to fork over another 500-700 dollars in these tolls. I wouldn't really want to be the pol out on the edge trying to push this one through, to say the least (and as one of the few GOPers posting on this board, I really would like to see you push this one through).
In fact, I commute nearly an hour each way. But that's beside the point.
The gist of my comments wasn't whether the plan should or shouldn't be implimented (though I support the idea of increased tolling in principal), merely that perhaps the size of the resulting “hit” might be intentional in order to incentivize/deincentivize various travel decisions.
As to the likelyhood of it passing, you're probably right. Though, as we're all aware, the Commonwealth's legislators are absurdly safe in their various seats and most could certainly survive voting against public opinion on this one if that's what they wanted to do.
Love the Barbara quote. She's damn right.
I might also add that I really, really doubt we're spending $12 billion in health care spending at maximum efficiency, or anything like it.
Come on Charlie… you’re supposed to be the smart one here.
<
p>
You honestly expect that Barbara Anderson will come back and say “The state did a good job saving money per the recommendations of the transportation finance commission. They cut back T workers’ benefits and stopped paying cops to direct traffic at construction sites. So now, in good faith, I’m 100% supportive of an 11.5 cent gas tax increase and a 5 cent mileage fee for highway travel.” ????
<
p>
If so, there’s a Tobin Bridge I’d love to sell you…
Hey, wait a sec! 😉
<
p>
No one’s really saying that we think Barbara’s going to come out swinging for a gas tax hike if they pass the reforms first. But it would go down a lot easier with everyone else. If that’s her point, she’s right. Plus, having said what she said, she can’t very well go back on it if the lege actually comes through, so her anticipated opposition will be muted at best.
Look, she's got the half right, and IMO progressives don't need to wait for anti-tax absolutists to talk about making the state's spending on infrastructure more efficient, transparent and rational. I wrote last year that the Big Dig (the Mother of All Infrastructure Projects) is still the biggest issue in Massachusetts, as a symbol that our political culture is not to be trusted with tax money. That trust needs to be rebuilt: carefully, publicly, transparently, persistently.
That's why the casinos piss me off: They're an end run around all the hard work that needs to get done anyway. So what if we get more revenue, but the state's still willing to light it all on fire anyway? Or to look at it another way — if we had a relatively clean, transparent political culture, would the casinos even be necessary, or would we be able to raise the revenue some more rational way, like a progressive tax amendment?
etc… If things were different, then things would be different. Time to stop wanking, per Atrios.
I'm with Barbara Anderson on this one. But more than that: let's rethink how we provide public transit to make sure we're not throwing new money at old ways of moving people. The current “rapid” transit system relies almost entirely on local trains, i.e. a traveler from Quincy to Somerville must stop at every Red Line station stop from origin to destination. That's 14 stops from Quincy Center to Davis Square. And about 12 miles. So the Quincy to Somerville trip takes about 35 minutes or longer depending on the congestion on the line as passengers board and unboard at each station. Cost now is $2.00. With a fare increase, we'll simply pay more for the same ride (albeit with fresh paint and maybe cleaner train cars).
If we're about to spend money to improve our transit infrastructure, let's upgrade it too. Heck, our forebears had the courage to transition from horse-drawn trolley technology, so maybe it's our turn. A better approach is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) which is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit. Interestingly, the concept was developed in Massachusetts: http://www.taxi2000.com/ Each subway station platform becomes a siding for smaller train cars that take passengers non-stop to their destination. The T would construct the new track (or monorail) inside the existing tunnels in place of the old track. Quincy to Somerville? With PRT, it's about a 10 minute trip. Only 5 minutes from Quincy to downtown Boston. There's never any waiting in the station for a train, since each platform always has a line of cars waiting to carry customers to the destination indicated on their Charle Card. Just climb aboard, swipe the Charlie Card into the card reader, and zoom to your designated stop express. Then it makes sense to charge customers more for a trip that takes less than half the time.
The beauty of PRT is that the T can retrofit one line at a time, since the subway lines can support independent technology. Or we can take a pass on this technology and simply wait for Matt Amorello's monorail….http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=356981
Why don't we cut the gas guzzling Cadillac the Governor drives?
Stop the State police from driving their cruisers home and to God knows where else, along with all the other union perks.
Reform political patronage and their huge retirement “Plush Plans” for certain government employees.
Actually cut the Department of Social Service and stop abusing families.
Take the Department of Education and teach them a lesson about the unemployment line
We would save millions in tax dollars and guess what
WE WOULD NOT NEED A GAS TAX HIKE!!!!!
Only if Mitt Romney retro-actively chips in for the gas on the Suburban he used to tool around in.
Is there anyone else who is somewhat concerned about the Big Brother nature of the video tolls idea?
The state maintains cameras that record how many miles you've driven with video tolls, keeping a record of when/where you've gone?
Seems a bit much, no?
The state maintains cameras that record how many miles you’ve driven with video tolls, keeping a record of when/where you’ve gone?
<
p>
were some of the things that were raised against cameras at intersections to record car movements, which may be used to determine when someone drives through a red light. Such things have been proposed.
<
p>
I don’t know how video tolls would work with out-of-state vehicles. Transponder or GPS systems clearly won’t work, since MA can’t require out of state vehicles to be equiped with such in order to drive on MA highways. A video system would allow an out-of-state vehicle to be identified, but how would the toll be enforced?