Excellent news all around.
- High-speed internet access is really not a luxury any more. It’s more like touch-tone telephone service — a basic utility whose availability is close to an economic necessity, as well as a major convenience. From my inbox (press release, no link):
Governor Deval Patrick today signed into law An Act Establishing and Funding the Massachusetts Broadband Institute – legislation that leverages public and private resources to make high-speed Internet available in the state’s 32 communities that currently lack access to broadband. The new law calls for the expansion to be completed within the next three years.
“Broadband is an essential resource in today’s world and economy. This new law is a resounding victory for the residents, students and businesses in communities that have gone without it for too long,” said Governor Deval Patrick. “Expanding access to broadband will create substantial opportunities for economic, academic and cultural growth.”
The new law will bridge the digital divide that persists predominantly in western Massachusetts by providing $40 million in bonds from the new Broadband Incentive Fund to construct fiber, wireless towers and other critical and long-lived broadband infrastructure. Targeted state investments will attract and complement private sector investment, making it more cost-effective for private providers to deliver complete solutions for customers in regions without broadband coverage.
And, in case you were wondering, this is indeed another feather in Governor Patrick’s by now feather-studded cap:
“As someone who has worked on this issue for many years, I can say without reservation that the Governor’s leadership has had a profound effect on crystallizing this issue in the public and the Legislature,” said Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg (D-Amherst). “This is a significant step toward high speed internet access for all of the citizens of Western Massachusetts, access that will be critical to the future economic development, education, and communications in these underserved communities.”
“For far too long, residents of the communities I represent have been blocked from the on-ramp to the information superhighway,” said Senator Benjamin B. Downing (D-Pittsfield). “Today we see true progress, backed by a $40 million state investment, to bring broadband to western Massachusetts. It has been a pleasure working with my colleagues in the delegation and the Patrick Administration to secure swift passage of this legislation, and I look forward to continuing our collaborations to achieve of our collective goal: universal broadband access in all of Massachusetts.”
“With the signing of this legislation, a world of business, educational, and cultural opportunities will open up for thousands of people all across the Commonwealth,” said Daniel E. Bosley (D-North Adams). “This is a remarkable step forward for the entire state.”
- Physical infrastructure is important too. So here is more good news:
Keeping to the economic stimulus plan he laid out in April, Governor Deval Patrick today signed legislation to accelerate the repair and replacement of approximately 250 to 300 of the Commonwealth’s most neglected and structurally-deficient Massachusetts bridges.
With the support of legislative leaders, the nearly $3 billion, eight-year plan addresses hundreds of bridges in most urgent need of repair across the Commonwealth – ensuring public safety while creating thousands of engineering and construction jobs while saving an estimated $1.5 billion in avoided inflation and deferred maintenance costs.
“This program will make our bridges safer at a time of critical need, create thousands of jobs, and provide long-term economic benefits along the way,” said Governor Patrick. “By investing today, we will complete more bridge projects in less time and at a lower cost.”
Due to decades of neglect of state infrastructure, there are now 543 structurally-deficient MassHighway and Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) bridges. At current funding levels, that number would increase to almost 700 structurally-deficient bridges in the next eight years.
Under Governor Patrick’s plan, the accelerated bridge program will repair 250 to 300 bridges across the Commonwealth over an eight-year time period. Instead of seeing the number of structurally-deficient bridges increase by 30 percent, the number will be reduced by approximately 15 percent during that time.
Lots of shared credit for this one.
“It was imperative that we took this immediate action to better maintain our infrastructure for the safety and security of all who travel our roads and bridges,” said House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi. “This new law brings the added boost of a shot-in-the-arm to our workforce through the creation of new construction jobs and a much-need stimulus to our entire economy.”
“The state has gone too long without basic maintenance and preventative work on its bridges, and I applaud Governor Patrick’s attention to what has become a serious public safety concern,” Senate President Therese Murray said. “Our bridges are essential to the daily operations of commerce and travel. By taking action now, we can begin immediately to make up for decades of neglect and avoid higher costs in the future.”
There are, of course, lots more bills to be signed before August 10 (ten days from the end of the session), so look for several more bill signings over the next few days. State House News describes the end of the session for Governor Patrick as “a policy comeback that saw qualified success on most of his major initiatives.” That seems right — big success on environmental matters, corporate tax loopholes, life sciences, broadband, bridges, 1913, and a variety of other things; and a few losses, such as casinos (which may not really be a loss after all), CORI reform, and local option taxes. Pretty good for the first two years!
<
p>So how come every town and city is chipping in for rural broadband, but only communities with MBTA access fund the MBTA [via the sales tax levy]? I’m not suggesting that broadband statewide isn’t a worthy objective that may or may not need public funds to happen… but I am suggesting that us city slickers constantly subsidize the infrastructure of the rural areas [roads and broadband to name two], yet those rural folks don’t contribute to the MBTA. Doesn’t seem fair to me.
<
p>
<
p>As for the bridges, hopefully upgrading them comes with thoughts on greener travel, be it making the bridge include extra capacity for pedestrians, cyclists, HOV, or even in some cases, rail. I’m all for upgrading infrastructure, particularly of the preventative maintenance/replacement variety. But, there’s no reason to just blindly replace infrastructure built 50 years ago with the auto-centric planning of 50 years ago with identical capacity today. Let’s build for the 21st century, not the last half of the 20th century. Let’s build for a future where the percentage of people traveling by themselves in an auto decreases substantially.
<
p>Didn’t think there was delineation of town sales tax receipts for the MBTA. My understanding was that 20% (or 1 penny, if you want to have fun with numbers) of the state sales tax from all receipts goes to the MBTA, including purchases in North Adams,; then also you have the town levies. Not sure I get this, unless you’re posting with your tongue firmly in your cheek here.
<
p>Know there is a propensity in this teeny little state to think we’re bigger than we are (the New Yorker cartoon adaption of the Midwest starting at the Connecticut River comes to mind), but I have no problem whatsoever with a jump start for Western MA Internet. Of course the density problems will come into play from an economic standpoint, as is prevalent in the aforementioned real Midwest. Big difference between 1 mile of cable/copper feeding 100s, rather than 10s or 1s, of paying customers.
The 1% only comes from communities with MBTA service [almost exactly half of MA’s 351 towns and cities]. The communities without MBTA still pay 5% sales tax, but all 5% goes to the general fund instead of MBTA communities, where it’s 4% general fund, 1% MBTA.
If you are then I stand corrected, but everything I’ve read (and I’ve been trying to Google around this morning) is that the MBTA gets 20% of the State Sales Tax revenue plus assessments on the cities and towns in the district; doesn’t state 20% of the sales tax only from those cities and towns in the district.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws…
<
p>My reading is that 20% of all sales taxes goes to the MBTA, not just sales taxes derived from municipalities in the district. Or am I missing something?
I can’t find any reference to only “dinging” the sales tax from communities with MBTA. What I did find was this:
<
p>
<
p>So, according to that MBTA web page, every community in the state contributes some, but places with MBTA contribute an additional assessment. I wonder: will the rural communities contribute an additional assessment for fiber? Should they? Should communities with MBTA be required to contribute an additional assessment?
We’ve been subsidizing all along rural areas via electrification, telephone, et al. Given where our society is going, high speed Internet access is also starting to be viewed in that light. Have no problem with the state helping out western MA (especially given that West MA traditionally feels taken advantage of in this state; after all, what does some guy in Pittsfield feel about the Big Dig et al?). Maybe now I can finally start e-mailing stuff to some of my professional contacts out in the Berkshires (sorry Fedex).
And I’m not arguing against those principles, although I’m not so sure they are as important now as they were back then since the percentage of people living in rural areas directly employed by agriculture is so much less than it was 50, 100, 150 years ago.
<
p>At the same time, productivity per unit energy is much lower in cities, and in the twenty first century, we’ve finally noticed that consuming fossil fuels is bad for all of us. Therefore, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for folks in rural areas to contribute just as much as those in urban areas toward reducing our fossil fuel consumption — and that means subsidizing the MBTA and other mass transit systems.
the rest of us east of the CT river can help Comcast et al string more wires out in the Hills. Don’t think $40m is a huge number in the scheme of things, especially when compared to outlays by We MA for the Big Dig and the MBTA. Who knows, maybe that broadband will even allow for telecommuting out in the Berkshires finally (ever try running PCAnywhere over dialup?), possibly even reaching, say, Richmond? You use even less fossil fuel when you’re just stumbling down to the home office (he says with a grin).
and to answer your question
<
p>
<
p>I haven’t used a Windows machine since 2001. I’m a NetBSD guy.
But I have to give my support to the much needed, long overdue bridge infrastructure project from the State. I think the people in MA have been “typical” of so many people having a problem brewing but not wanting to face it.
<
p>However, my concern is this $3B will be mispent and squandered like so many State dollars. There will be many bridges and over passes rebuilt and they will take months and months and months to complete. Or as my union friends tell me (yes I have them), “Don’t kill the job…” The Big Dig is a great example of how the public can speak out o both sides of their mouth. We have people speaking gleefully out the left side of our mouth on how much money our Congressional group(Tip, Ted…) brought to MA with the Big Dig while the right side of our mouth screams about $2B becoming $26B(?).
<
p>This $3B could be incredibly incisive to fixing our crumbling infrastructure, but not if “prevailing wages”, “paid details”, 3 guys leaning on their shovels while one guy digs mentality and the “typical” bid process causes each overpass to cost $50M and take 36 months. I see those “inefficient” projects daily! We need “action” and influence from the private sector (local hungry companies not Haliburton…) to drive these projects. Divide them up into smaller projects (example – don’t bid out 50 miles of highway paving, bid out ten 5 mile jobs). Put penalties in place for going over schedule, don’t allow change orders driving up costs, allow non-union companies to compete, use materials for structure that won’t rust in 5 years (stainless), get insurance policies on work so if cement falls off a bridge we can get compensated. Think smart – don’t cause huge traffic jams wasting thousands of gallons in gas and productivity.
<
p>Time for CHANGE!!! (Did I say that?)