While the report only analyzed nineteen state requests because a majority of the wish-lists have not been made public, MASSPIRG sees a troubling development. Most states are seeking a majority of funding for highway expansions that run counter to the promise of a “green recovery.”
Congress wants the funding to be used within 180 days, so the projects must be ready to go very soon and not involve extensive planning or environmental reviews etc. Therefore most of the projects are maintenance focused, like fixing tracks, installing elevators at some stations, fixing signal problems, and replacing outdated trains. While these projects are not as glamorous as a new transit line like extending the Green Line to Somerville and Medford, they are critical to improving service.
Massachusetts’ Preliminary Transportation Request To Congress
Total: $783 million
Public Transit $369 million
Road & Highway Maintenance $233 million
Aviation and Ports $164 million
Bike & Pedestrian $18 million
Eric Bourassa
MASSPIRG
but no, that’s not it.
<
p>Your diary claims
but I get a different number. I got $362 million. Here’s how I got it:
<
p>Page 4: $55,000,000 (fn 1)
MassHighway: $157,300,167
MTA: $58,600,000
MassPort: (fn 2)
PWED: $29,000,000 (fn 3)
DCR: $1,200,000 (fn 4)
Transportation: $18,000,000
<
p>Total: $361,800,167
<
p>Now, there may be specific projects in Page4, MassHighway, MTA, or Transportation which shouldn’t be counted — feel free to point those out.
<
p>Likewise, I’ll point out that airport transportation has almost exactly the same carbon footprint per passenger mile as automobile traffic. Therefore, I think it’s important to break out the people-transportation parts from the commerce/industry/trade parts. Money spent on an airport and money spent on a facility for shipping/receiving frozen food are very different kinds of expenditures. Additionally, I’ll point out that money spent to build parking lots adjacent to MBTA property certainly does have mass transit benefits — but it also clearly has automobile benefits, so to count those dollars solely in the “public transit” category is a bit disingenuous.
<
p>Now don’t get me wrong, I agree that the money for MBTA is limited to things which don’t require massive public hearings, lots of new engineering, etc. I understand that. I also understand that things like safety, accessibility, etc. are important public benefits which are very difficult to measure, whereas expanded lines are easy to measure. I am concerned that lots of that money may be going towards things which add to the MBTA’s cost lines but not (or not much) to their revenue lines. Examples: NEMC elevators, Harvard Station elevators.
<
p>At the end of the day:
1. I’m glad that MassPIRG is working on and thinking about this — and it might even be a place I’ll be applying for a job sooner or later.
2. I’m glad that Massachusetts is asking for lots of public transit money, and I’m hoping that the money will serve to lower the MBTA’s cost burden, improve QoS, and maybe even set the table for proper expansion soon.
3. I disagree with your calculations w.r.t. public transit, road & highway, and ports. I think you slightly overestimated the public transit budget, significantly underestimated the roads & highways budget, and need more careful consideration of the aviation & ports budgets and breakdowns.
4. Sometimes things count in multiple categories, and that makes it tough to add to the estimate. Under PWED, Franklin on the list for $7,400,000 for Downtown Streetscape Reconstruction. My bet is that the project, if done well, will benefit drivers, walkers, cyclists, businesses, etc. Where to count it? Dunno. Likewise, a parking lot for the commuter rail is expenditure which will increase the number of people taking mass transit to Boston, but also the number of people driving (or driving themselves instead of carpooling) to the train station. It’s an expenditure which only benefits those who drive and take the MBTA. Page 4 is full of these difficulties since the projects span multimodes and don’t have many details.
<
p>
<
p>In conclusion… I think your post is, by and large, fair and focused on the important things. I have problems with your math, but acknowledge that it’s a difficult calculation and that there are likely oversights on my part too. I agree with your assessment that the MBTA projects, while not sexy, are important.
<
p>Unless my auto numbers are inflated or your public transit numbers are low [both of which are certainly possible], I disagree with your claim that “almost half of the request dedicated to public transportation, bike and pedestrian modes.” The $55,000,000 in direct spending and the road share of the $135 million in spending from page four obliterate the claim that half of the request is dedicated to public transit, bike, and pedestrian modes.
<
p>
<
p>fn 1:
* Lowell/Hamilton Canal: street & bridge improvements
* Worcester/Downtown: supplement proposed street improvements
* Lawrence/Downtown: supplement investment in street and parking facilities
This doesn’t include the projects which do both roads and something else, such as Somerville’s $40M, Revere’s $25M, Springfield’s $20M, Burlington’s $20M, Haverhill’s $10M, New Bedford’s $10M, or Pittfield’s $10M — totaling an additional $135 million.
<
p>fn 2 The Tobin Bridge is controlled by MassPort but it’s for cars.
<
p>fn 3 Roadway Traffic & Parking Nantucket Airport. It may be at an airport, but that’s all about automobiles.
<
p>fn 4 Traffic Signal Safety Project and VFW Parkway
Stomv, you raise some good questions and make good points.
<
p>One of the challenges with analyzing the 19 state requests was to decide how to “score” projects into one category or another, which is often a matter of interpretation.
<
p>We limited our analysis to the $783 million that Massachusetts lists as transportation. There are various items in other lists that could be classified as transportation. The $55 million “from page 4” as road and highway expenditure is listed under “economic development,” not transportation. Most of the “economic development” projects on page four are a mixed bag of local street, parking, streetscape, utility, sewer, etc. improvements. Pulling out the “highway” parts of these projects is a little wobbly.
<
p>There are also items in various other lists that could be considered. For example, “State Facilities: Parks and Recreation” includes a $10 million DCR item for Trails Construction. The “Municipal and Other Projects: Seaport Projects” list could be reviewed for maritime transportation expenditures. In short, limiting the analysis to the “transportation” list helped avoid ambiguities but is itself a judgment call.
<
p>We scored the $29 million PWED item for “Roadway, Traffic, and Parking Improvements – Nantucket Airport” as aeronautics.
<
p>Our analysis also shows more DCR funding for highways. Our numbers for DCR show $22.2 million for highways, $18 million for “transportation, $1.2 million for the Traffic Safety Signalization Project and the VFW Parkway, and $3 million for Pavement Improvements to the Metropolitan Parkway System in Greater Boston.
<
p>You are correct that MBTA expenditures have automobile as well as transit benefits. But the simplest rule, which our analysis followed, is to classify expenditures requested by the transit agency as “transit.”
<
p>But in the end we are happy to see projects that fix infrastructure. And none that expand highways etc, which is what most other states are asking for.
<
p>Thanks!
<
p>EB
<
p>