Again, the 'Pike has managed to make a big chunk of Greater Boston heck, the whole state unhappy. Outraged Liberal suggests that actually it's a way to make a higher gas tax relatively palatable. I hope that's true, since it's plainly a more equitable/less random-ass way to pay off the Big Dig.
Just to respond to a couple of lines of argument that I've heard:
- North Adams and Athol shouldn't be roped into this because “Boston's not the center of the universe.” Well, in this state, yeah, it kind of is. A huge chunk of the population of the state lives within 495; a sizeable slice travels through Boston; and a great deal of economic benefit derives from Boston. Someone heads out to MassMOCA, Tanglewood, and the Clark; and they've got to make their living somewhere.
- This is not actually about the Big Dig anymore, whom it benefits and whom it does not, per se. That cluster**** happened years ago, and those players have mostly gone off to head fake colleges, or Canada, or wherever. This is now about the state's finances, which affect everyone, from Salisbury to Sheffield. Sorry folks, but the time to do something about the Big Dig overruns was 15 years ago — before they happened.
To my mind, the Gov. and lege would do well to kill the tolls as much as possible, and jack the gas tax. If the state's going to take with one hand, it ought to give with the other — even if it ends up as revenue-positive for the state.
But to those who complain about the Governor's (or even the legislature's) leadership on this — disagree on the specifics if you must, but recognize that this is clean-up, not the mess-making itself. And it's a thankless job.
Political strategy perhaps?
<
p>1. Raise the tolls.
2. Piss people off.
3. Create more leverage to eliminate the turnpike.
4. Eliminate the turnpike authority.
5. Take down the tolls.
6 Raise the gas tax.
<
p>Sounds good to me. Of course it would be great if we could go directly to the solution without the circuitous steps.
<
p>
who said raising the gas tax by 10 cents would bring in the state about $160 million dollars a year, but would only cost the average family $50 or so per person per year – compared to the $1820/year tunnel drivers would pay. (please, stomv, feel free to correct those numbers).
<
p>Well, the Big Dig debt is $100 million or so a year. The current toll hike plan goes beyond that, though, so they can make road improvements on the highways. Well, a 10 cent hike will mean $60 million more for road projects in addition to paying off the debt.
<
p>If it would please the good people beyond 495, I’d be fine with making the bulk of that 60 mil go to their needs for the next few years. Would this not be fair, equitable and the best solution?
<
p>http://medianation.blogspot.co…
<
p>So 10 cents would be about $250 million, which would leave gobs of money to repair our failing infrastructure.
Because Boston is ‘kinda’ the center of the universe, western Mass. should pay for whatever you need, no matter what plan was made originally made?
<
p>We should forget that the legislature has refused to raise tolls in accordance with the original revenue plans for the CA/T, forget that the supposed firewall between east and west funds for Chap. 90 projects was ignored for years, siphoning money from our projects and dumping it into Boston, forget that the Metropolitan Highway System was an imaginary entity sold to the legislative rubes to get them off Kerasiotes’ back?
<
p>I love the part about the “cluster****” having happened years ago, and we should therefore bend over and invite more abuse in order to reduce the pain to those of you who choose to live in congestion land.
<
p>In return, you guys promise to keep attending Tanglewood? Gee, thanks, Mr. Urban Sophisticate! What would we humble Berkshire folks do without your largesse?!
<
p>Guess what? The vast majority of Tanglewood, Clark Art and MassMoCA tourist dollars come from New York, not Boston. And while we’re proud of our cultural venues, they are not the economic engine that drives our regional economy.
<
p>The tolls for Boston-area commuters have been planned and are overdue. Pay up, hub lovers.
<
p>Any increased gas tax revenues in the works we will need to make a dent in the list of road and bridge projects on the TIPs for Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire Counties. Many of the projects were deferred without explanation during the years the CA/T was under construction.
<
p>Olive branch: I have an offer that will make this all work out fairly. When we drive east to visit the Boston Science Museum, I promise we will pay the increased tolls inside 128. (Doncha just love condescension? Feels good, doesn’t it?)
<
p>
Well, that’s all fair enough. Can u feel the luv?
<
p>If it makes you happier, I might agree to an increased gas tax within 495, or even 128. I just don’t know how that’s practical. Tolls on 93 (which I should have mentioned) would also be fairer than the current regime, although again, it’s the disruption that causes the political grief.
<
p>Anyway, I don’t think it’s arguable that that western MA economy is somehow divorced from the Boston area.
or maybe just in Wellesley?
you act as though people can just pick up and move. talk about kissing asphalt!
<
p>oh – and Tanglewood itself got hundreds of thousands in the budget this year, as it does many, many years (and you don’t see me complaining).
<
p>This is how government works. We pool resources. If you want to live purely on your own means, I suggest finding a tiny island. Good luck with that…
You have been granted a wonderful opportunity to “pool assets” through this new toll hike.
You should feel fortunate that your needs have been so carefully looked after.
At no small cost or inconvenience the government has agreed to collect and hold your assets and those of others like you and place them all into a collective pool, and when they have collected enough and the pool is quite full, they will announce some new boondoggle that they will spend the entire sum on, leaving you with nothing other than an even bigger pool to fill and some wonderfully catchy rhetoric to hum to.
Now that is “how government works”. đŸ™‚
More condescension is just the thing to persuade me.
<
p>I can’t decide whether this is my favorite part of your related comments on the earlier thread:
<
p>
<
p>Or this one:
<
p>
[Daddy, I want a golden goose! And if I don’t get one, I’ll scream!]
<
p>I don’t recall saying that I wanted to live on my own means (whatever that means), but I did live on an island – Nantucket – for eight years. In fact, that’s where I began my decades-long work with regional transportation funding – a very complex subject. Maybe when you have a few more years of maturity and some geographic diversity under your belt, you won’t be so quick to think that your transportation problem is everyone else’s emergency or that you have all the answers and everyone else must fall into line.
<
p>I hope you can get over your tantrum (including downrating people who disagree with you), because it’s starting to make you look petty and selfish. I like it when we use BMG for respectful dialogue. If you come back again and again with the Johnny-one-note approach that you have the sole solution to the state’s longstanding transportation funding woes, you will undermine your credibility very quickly.
so me being angry that the tolls are about to become vastly more expensive, when there are much better alternatives, means I’m throwing a tantrum? Your remarks on condescension… it sort of reminds me of the famous little kid saying “whoever smelt it dealt it.”
<
p>But, really, asking people – purely because they live somewhere – to pay $1820 a year to pass a certain chunk of real estate, when we could instead spread that around at a rate of $50-150/year for everyone – is absurd.
<
p>And poking fun at the fact that I care about this because it affects my ability to see and meet others doesn’t make me petty or selfish or childish, it makes you… well… I refer back to my comment, “whoever smelt it…”
<
p>My comments specifically illustrate how everyone is impacted differently by this policy, and not in always-easy rectifiable ways. But I guess I’m too young and stupid to think about such broad concepts…
Come on. The tone of this comment is plainly just hostile. “petty, selfish” “when you have a few more years of maturity” …
<
p>Seriously. If you like respectful dialogue, you should engage in some — and don’t take the bait.
I tried to post a response this morning but it got lost when I was double-checking a link.
<
p>I apologize for my tone yesterday. I should have resisted the urge to use the pun about asphalt. I was more than a little upset about two recurring notes I perceived in the related threads about tolls and transportation funding:
<
p>1) It is “fair” to further shift the cost of metro-Boston infrastructure onto taxpayers and consumers of the Commonwealth as a whole. The comments seemed to me to be ignoring the longstanding reality that the non-Metro residents have been subsidizing the MBTA, the Big Dig and other infrastructure costs for decades.
We lost project funds for our own roads and bridges during construction of the Big Dig. We are already on the hook for the GANS (Big Dig bonds to be repaid with federal transportation aid as it flows to MA) and we pay a penny of the five-cent sales tax into the MBTA. This website seems to provide a pretty good picture of the problem: 42% of state transportation funds are spent on the MBTA. I take the T when I’m in town, and I support subsidizing transit, but this is a disproportionate share by almost any standard.
<
p>Granted, some of the “cost” takes the form of foregoing a share of federal funds we would have otherwise received. The effect is the same for us whether it’s federal or state tax dollars.
<
p>EOTC and the legislature had a plan to increase tolls years ago to begin to make something of a dent in the debt owed for the Big Dig. They never got around to implementing the plan – too painful politically. So now the increased bond payments are imminent and the lack of follow-through earlier means that commuters will get the sticker shock all at once at the toll booth. Blame EOTC, blame your legislator, but don’t say that it’s “fair” to get the overdue funds out of people who are not using the infrastructure.
<
p>I realize that the gas tax is likely to increase. No one is happy about that, but I was pretty apoplectic that anyone would say that it is “fair” to further shift costs onto people who are not benefitting from the investment in the CA/T.
<
p>2) That Boston is the center of the universe. This was being used as the rationale for the above-mentioned shifting of costs onto the Commonwealth as a whole. People at BMG have been pretty good at understanding that polarizing rhetoric at the national level has been bad for the U.S. This kind of assertion polarizes us at the state level. If you had statistics to back the assertions about the statewide economic benefit of the CA/T, I did not see them.
<
p>The toll hike is coming. A gas tax hike is likely coming, too. These are short-term fixes, and probably won’t even cover the bills for very long.
<
p>The Governor is on the right track to look at dismantling and then restructuring the transportation culture in MA. This is the long-term fix that is so overdue, and one that will start to approach the “fairness” that BMG readers and writers all crave. Among the changes needed:
<
p>- Truly restructure the regional transportation decision-making groups (MPOs) to take the 51% control away from the state. There has been lip service for this restructuring in the past, but EOTC and MassHighway always seemed to come up with 51% control.
<
p>- Stop the patronage havens at the Pike and the MBTA. Cutting positions does not save money right away, but the attrition should begin immediately.
<
p>- Examine the change orders and cost overruns of projects other than the Big Dig. How can we stop the culture of padding contracts and fudging around the edges of construction projects? (“Sure, buddy. We can add in a driveway apron or some extra landscaping or a new water pipe for your property. No problem.”) The Big Dig was the most obvious manifestation, but this culture has been a problem throughout the Commonwealth for years.
<
p>- Let the congestion pricing begin to reshape the commuter sheds (like a watershed, but for cars). The cost of tolls, time wasted in traffic or extra miles driven to avoid out-of-pocket expenses will cause people to make different choices about where they want to rent or buy; which job offer is in which location; whether to drive or to take transit. It may come as a shock to some people, but there are people who actually pick up and move (or change jobs or begin to carpool) based on economic factors affecting them on a daily basis.
<
p>- Reduce driving in general. Today’s front page story in the Globe makes the point that the giant infrastructure investment in the Big Dig enabled more cars to move through the City, which pretty much negates the effort to reduce congestion. We can’t keep accommodating more traffic through infrastructure.
OK, let’s see… it’s unfair, you say, to pass any of the cost of the Big Dig on to rural folks who would never use it. Let’s just ignore, for the moment, the argument that there is a ‘trickle-down’ effect, that it indirectly benefits you by spurring on the whole state’s economy and keeping the cost of goods lower.
<
p>Instead, let’s run with the idea that it’s unfair to make people pay for things they don’t use. (An idea which is, IMHO, contrary to Democratic governmental philosophies, but let’s ignore that too.) Specifically, it’s unfair to pay for roads and infrastructure you don’t use.
<
p>So, let’s make people pay only for the infrastructure they do use. We’ll outfit everybody’s car with transponders, put sensors on every single road, and charge people appropriately for that roadway. Heavier vehicles get charged more because they cause more wear and tear. Heck, just for good measure, we’ll put sensors on everybody’s tailpipe and charge a little carbon tax there, too, to pay for environmental clean-up and management.
<
p>Is this what you want?
<
p>Because it sounds a lot like a gas tax to me. Instead of transponders and sensors, we can tell how much wear and tear you cause to roads (and the environment) by roughly how much gas you use. Driving twice as far will cost twice as much, just as if you drove past twice as many transponder sensors, and driving heavier vehicles will cost you more.
Don’t make up an imaginary opinion for me, please. To refute your hissy fit, you might try to recall some of the points that actually were in my post:
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis added. What I did not say is
<
p>
was not a hissy fit and so far in this thread, you’ve been guilty of everything you’ve accused others of doing. What’s the word for that? I think it begins with an H.
<
p>The fact is that the roads near where you live are crumbling too. The Pike’s plans called for raising tolls not only to pay for the big dig, but increased road construction to cover repairs. That, in effect, means we’ll be the one’s primarily paying for parts of the state we don’t drive in either, which is exactly the thing you’re complaining about.
<
p>I think you have this perceived slight against Boston that you just can’t get passed. You can’t see how this will actually effect you. We need to raise revenue above and beyond what the big dig costs and make sure that revenue is a shared burden across the state, because the entire state needs a transportation infrastructure reboot. Nothing you’ve advocated for here will actually accomplish that, meaning the roads would get worse, cost more money to fix in the long run and will lead to more accidents and even death. But, yeah, us Bostoners… we’re a bunch of selfish meanies, angry that we have to pay $1820 extra a year and many/most others nothing.
<
p>But I guess I should just pick up and move, selling the house in a horrible market, finding a new one to live in a more expensive area to be closer to the city… with the expectation that the tens of thousands of my neighbors who commute into Boston should do the same… and not worry about what the impacts of that would do to this area, or to any other area all of us tried to move to…
<
p>Oh, right, we could always just get a new job. It’s such a great time to get new jobs now, too!
<
p>I really just don’t get some people…
if you ever ask for my help again in securing a seat on the state committee.
<
p>I can tell that this is an important issue for you, as it is for me. If I misunderstood your original comments, which returned again and again to the assertion that the increased tolls (user fees) could not be allowed to stand, and that a statewide gas tax should be used instead, then I apologize.
<
p>You have clearly decided to close your mind to the substance of my posts, which acknowledge that non-Metro areas are already paying for Boston infrastructure, and that increases are inevitable. You are also ignoring that a number of my recommendations are, as I state, long-term solutions.
<
p>I know that Pike revenue would be used for maintenance of the entire length of that roadway. What percentage of the funds would be used for that, and what percent will be used to pay off the $2 billion in Big Dig bonds? I would be grateful if you could post a link, so I could put this in perspective. Perhaps that is another area where we are just making assumptions without basis. You say that
<
p>
<
p>It’s news to me that Pike funds would be used for road and bridge projects beyond the turnpike itself. Would they be undertaking to fix the crumbling roads before or after the Governor merges them with MassHighway? Please provide links to the “Pike’s plans” to which you refer.
<
p>In one of the last fixes of the Big Dig’s federal funds, the feds required that the state spend $450 million for roads outside of 495. This was intended as a safeguard against the looting of statewide funds for the single megaproject, as had been happening during its construction. But those are not Pike revenues from tolls, so don’t count those.
the tolls aren’t just going up to pay for the big dig, they’re going up by a wide enough margin so they can again do more necessary work on the pike. I have no idea how much would go along the entirety of the pike – I doubt anyone does – but again, it’s going to go mostly to areas that those in the North Shore don’t use. As I’ve made clear in other comments, I don’t think spreading the costs is a bad thing in government – quite necessary in fact – my only problem is the revenue source and the extremes to which the state is going on one small segment of the population.
<
p>Furthermore, there’s no need for threats. There’s enough going on in the world that I can hardly comprehend the need for grudges. I understand the problems Western Mass faces. My family is from Western Mass (the berkshires) and I still have many relatives there to this day. However, this toll situation is utterly preposterous and the idea that there are those in this state who would want some to pay $1820, instead of all sharing that burden for $50-150, is, well, quite shocking. It’s mean, selfish and bad policy.
<
p>Of course we need to do more for Western and Central Mass, as well as the South Coast, as well as the Cape and Islands… as well as a whole host of areas. I’m with you on that. I live in a town greatly ignored by this state, which has so screwed us over in Chapter 70 funds that we’re about to close our 2nd out of 4 elementary schools in less than 3 years, facing class sizes in elementary schools of around 35 kids per class. So, I know exactly what kind of problems you’re talking about. But just because Beacon Hill’s not doing enough doesn’t mean we should lay this high burden on such a small percent of the population. That’s tearing people down instead of trying to raise everyone up. That’s saying we’re all in this alone, in a battle of survival of the fittest, instead of trying to work together to solve our mutual problems in a fair and equitable way. We have centuries of governing to tell us there’s better ways of doing it.
You recommended
<
p>So I took a look.
<
p>Tollroad News, paraphrasing the Massachusetts Transportation Finance System report:
<
p>Globe, Nov. 14:
<
p>Springfield Republican, Nov. 14:
<
p>I guess I’m just not looking in the right places. If you find any links supporting the notion that this revenue will result in more road and bridge projects throughout the Commonwealth, would you let me know? I’ll keep looking, too.
<
p>
This tear-us-all-down strategy is bringing this state, and country, to its knees. I could go into a battle of the links with you, digging up quotes and numbers and whatever else, but what will it serve? You’re hostile to anything I say, or anyone else says, that’s contrary to your point of view.
<
p>Isn’t the whole point here that our roads are crumbling and we need fair solutions to address our infrastructure problems state wide? How does your vehement opposition to any gas tax increase address that problem? 11 cents a gallon would shut down every toll and increase funds for projects all across the state. Not enough for Pittsfield? Let’s raise it 15 cents then.
<
p>We’re going to be paying for these projects now or later. Later will cost much more money – and lives. I really don’t think it should take a Minneapolis bridge type incident to get this state to address its needs, but I fear it just may.
OK, whittle this into a post and I’ll front page.
<
p>Yes, as you say, and as the Globe says, the Big Dig sucks, and even sucks at doing what it was supposed to do, which is relieve traffic congestion. Predictable. More capacity means more drivers, not less congestion.
<
p>While “Boston is the center of the universe” is a tactless way to put it, that is where most of the population is. That was my point. No, that’s not an excuse to bleed the rest of the population dry to finance our high-living ways.
<
p>That being said, as dcsohl says, a gas tax is actually a kind of user tax. Although, some roads are more expensive than others. :4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
that a gas tax hits rural citizens, who are often poorer than their Hubbish counterparts, harder than others. I know that’s the case out in the American west. I imagine it’s at least somewhat true in the Berkshires and the hill towns of the Pioneer Valley.
<
p>Those locales aren’t the center of anyone’s universe, except perhaps of those people who live there, but a grocery store can often be 30 minutes or more away. And public transportation isn’t even an inconvenient option.
<
p>Mark
seriously, we’re talking about a couple dozen dollars over the course of the year…
<
p>the toll hikes = 900 for a few residents
<
p>a 10 cent gas tax increase = around $50 per driver over the course of the year. Maybe $150 for asshats driving suburbans… Seriously, though, even for those suburban drivers, the increase to the gas tax should be less than one day’s parking fee at a subway surface parking lot with the new rates… that thousands pay every single day while not destroying the environment.
<
p>The increase to the gas tax would increase the cost of a tank of gas less than 1 day’s parking at subway stops like Wonderland.
<
p>An average person, who fills up their tank once a week and has a tank with around 15 gallons (mine has 12, but I drive a Civic), would pay around $1.50 more in gas taxes a week. There’s slightly more than 50 weeks in the year, so you’re talking $70-80 bucks for a mid-size car, less than that for those wise enough to drive a compact or with the funds to get a hybrid. Even if my numbers are too conservative, we’re still talking no more than $100 more per year for the average driver – funding not only the big dig debt, but money to improve roads all across the state.
<
p>I don’t know how many gallons a suburban takes, but let’s say it’s 30. That’s $3.00 more per week, $150 per year. As I said, if someone had the gumption to buy a suburban instead of any other much better option, then they can suck it up and pay a measly $150 more per year – $75 more than they would in a mid size car or wagon – as a price to pay for helping destroy the environment far more rapidly, and wearing down our roads quicker with heavier cars.
show better leadership on this, I argue here.
First of all, this seems to play right into the hands of those who seek to tar our side as a tax-crazy bunch; we really don’t need that.
<
p>Secondly, why should there be a specific tax for a specific purpose? I would prefer that we just subject gasoline to the same 5% sales tax rate of everything else. The revenue would then go into the general fund and our elected officials can budget how much gets used on infrastructure.
“it seems to play right into the hands” of no one. People voted about 2-1 on question 1; clearly, people get that we need to pay things. And a lot of people who don’t live in the affected areas have been speaking up about this issue, in favor of removing or easing the burden of those tolls.
<
p>It will cost people around $900 more per year, almost $2000 in total, to pay for these tolls. If we share the burden, it’ll cost everyone around $50-150 depending on how much gas their cars guzzle. But even for those in suburbans, that’s not a high price to pay, especially given the fact that their cars do more damage to our environment and roads, and it could help people steer away from them in the future.
<
p>People want good policy in this state, not silly rhetorics. Deval’s election and Question 1 proved that. It’s time we make good on their trust in giving us an opportunity to fix this state.
I hereby state my definitive opposition to raising the gasoline tax. It’s a bit on the regressive side and people need to drive. We can’t all afford hybrids and we don’t all live close to public transit. I also don’t like the idea of trying to use tax policy to manipulate demand. You also can’t use the question 1 argument. After all, I voted against it as well. I prefer general taxes such as income to either specific taxes OR tolls.
$50-150 more a year?
<
p>Or, to put it this way, you can’t afford that more than the average commuter can’t afford paying $1820 in tolls every year?
<
p>We have to pay for these services. There’s two options on the table: for the state to be total douchebags against a very small set of the population, not only making them pay for the entire big dig, but a great deal of everything else transportation-related too … or sharing the burden so that everyone pays a very small sum and shares in the benefits, as well.
<
p>As I think it was Charley who mentioned this… if all this debate is about is paying off the big dig, we all lose. We need more revenue for our entire, crumbling highway system. This is a cheap way to do it that, I’m sorry, won’t significantly alter hardly anyone’s driving habits.
But yes, my situation is such that every little bit has to be considered.
<
p>And yes, I thought this was about paying for the Big Dig, but even if it isn’t I’d still rather have a more general rather than ad hoc tax structure to finance our needs.
<
p>BTW, I never said I liked tolls, and agree that if lost them we would have to make up the difference. I was just trying to be fair about the people benefiting from the Big Dig paying for it IF we were going to go that route at all.
… saying I find a gas tax to be the more fair option. Yes, we in the left part of the commonwealth have been neglected many times, but slamming it to folks who depend on driving to Boston for their jobs or to tourists who drive to and from Logan will not be productive. And I’m made uneasy by the precipitous drop in gasoline prices. Most of us can afford to pay a little more at the the pump and to conserve our driving. Those cannot afford it deserve all the help we can give them.
, now the gas is more like $2. I’d say it’s time to raise the gas tax to at least $1. That way we’ll collect revenue to support infrastructure (roads and bridges), discourage excess driving and give people incentives to demand the extension local public transportation.
<
p>The current MBTA parking fee hike should be rolled back. We should do everything to have people use public transportation more, not less.
Tolls should be removed from all state roads and toll collectors should go do something productive.
Specifically in Boston – the subway should run 24/7 (at least once an hour in the wee wee hours in the morning). Green and Blue lines should be extended.
public transportation to raise the gas tax by a dollar. If we did, I’d be with you, but I can barely afford to use public transportation now – and I have better-than-average access.
<
p>I do agree about rolling back the parking fee – and I do agree about raising the gas tax. 11 cents a gallon would completely eliminate the need for tolls, as well as increase funds for roads and bridges. I’d probably agree to another 10 cents if 100% of it were to be invested in public transportation.
<
p>If we used that to greatly expand it, especially to areas without current coverage (New Bedford getting a rail, Lynn/Salem getting the blue line, lots of people have called for Springfield to be connected to Hartford, more bus routes all over, etc. etc.)… then we could start thinking about raising the gas tax by a dollar or more. If we had the infrastructure to support it, it would be fantastic policy. But right now, there would just be too many people who couldn’t afford it and didn’t have enough access to other transportation.