It is embarassing for me to say, but I feel like I'm about the least-informed person in the Commonwealth about the gas-tax/toll-hike/transport-reform goat rodeo. I mean, I really do not know what the hell is going on, or why person X says Y, etc. All in all, the whole discussion seems to be a mighty headache … and yet, one can't exactly say it's unimportant. This is the Big Dig Culture issue.
Perhaps I am not the only one. So here's what I don't know:
- I do not know why it took the Patrick administration so long to present its plan for transportation reform. I do not know if the administration actually intended to wait until after the 'Pike board voted on the toll increases to present its plan, in order to put time pressure on the legislature to act before March 29.
[I have inserted Doug Rubin's responses to Charley's questions in italics throughout this post. -David] Why did it take so long? The problems we are trying to address in our transportation system took over 16 years to create. They span highway, airport and rail operations, and include various regional issues, environmental concerns, workforce issues, complicated bond covenants and financing schemes and pension and health care benefit reforms. In order to address these comprehensively, and to present a plan that is transparent and responsible for the long-term, we felt the need to consult with experts both inside and outside of state government, gain a true understanding of the complicated issues we inherited, and work with the Legislature to consider various alternatives.We did not sit still while we were working on the reform plan. We followed the “reforms first” strategy – joining 49 other states in using civilian flaggers on construction projects, saving over $31 million at the Turnpike by eliminating managers and toll taker positions along with other significant reforms, and cutting $47 million from the MBTA through additional reforms. We also cut the development time for MassHighway projects by 40% and instituted a “scorecard” to increase transparency and accountability of construction projects.
We did not time this for the Turnpike board vote. In fact, we put off vote at the Turnpike as long as we responsibly could in order to give all of us time to work on a comprehensive solution. The financial situation at the Turnpike, despite the great efforts of Alan LaBovidge and his team, is such that we risk default on the bonds if we do not secure a new revenue stream by April 1. The timing is unfortunate, but underscores the serious nature of the problem we are facing in transportation.
- I don't know whether the legislature's apparent outrage at the 'Pike board's vote on the toll increase reflects a.) a clash of institutional prerogatives, b.) “political hardball”, or c.) genuine disappointment at the lack of reforms. I don't know what they think would be a good deal.
Legislative outrage over toll vote? That is probably a better question for members of the Legislature to answer. All I can say is that we have been working closing with Chairmen Wagner and Baddour, and feel that the dialogue has been very constructive to date. I think we all feel a sense of urgency to address this issue, both through reforms and by securing the long-term financial viability of our transportation infrastructure. - I do not know if legislators — or which legislators — are to be taken at face value in complaining about the Turnpike, since the 'Pike has long been the stashing place for marginally-employable friends and family of legislators.
Legislators complaining about the Turnpike? I think legislators have legitimate concerns about the vote and the historical problems at the Turnpike. I think we have addressed a lot of these concerns with the new leadership at the Turnpike, but I take at face value the concerns raised by legislators. - I do not know why the Pike board passing the toll increase jeopardizes a gas tax increase in the legislature. I suppose they don't believe that the board would actually roll back the toll increase if the lege indeed raises the gas tax. In any event, I can't believe that this standoff isn't something that could simply be addressed in the legislation itself: “This legislation requires the rescinding of the toll increases voted upon on date so-and-so.”
Does the toll increase jeopardize the reform plan? The Governor has been clear and unequivocal – he will not support both a toll increase and an increase in the gas tax. Even if the toll increase goes into effect, it can and will be rolled back – this is not an issue that should threaten the passage of the Governor's legislation. I understand that some legislators have legitimate concerns about their constituents dealing with a toll increase, and with some of the confusion around these issues. Again, I think the timing underscores the serious nature of the problems we are facing and the fact that inaction is no longer an option. - I don't know what “reforms” legislators were looking for, outside of the current bill. I thought the reforms were supposed to be baked into the whole cake of re-organization and a gas tax increase. I do not know what a good and responsible bill — including reforms — would look like.
Reforms? The Senate bill is an excellent place to look for the reforms we need to get our transportation system back on track. We built our legislation on this strong foundation, and included other reforms as well. The Governor realizes that there are many good ideas for reforms out there, and welcomes any and all suggestions to help improve the bill. In addition, the Legislature will be holding a series of hearing over the next few weeks on this issue, which should also bring some new ideas to the discussion. - I don't know what a good retirement age for the MBTA is. I will definitely say that 55 for a fully-vested pension, as Sec. Aloisi has proposed — is too young; one can reasonably expect to be productive through the early 60's, at least. I don't see any reason why MBTA pensions should be such an outlier in our culture.
MBTA retirement age? Our legislation attempts to bring both the Turnpike and MBTA benefits in line with the state system. This is consistent with the recommendations from the bi-partisan Transportation Finance Commission report. We remain open to other suggestions in this area. - I do not know why the administration has to propose a hugely controversial alternative funding method right now to take over for diminishing gas tax revenue sometime in the indeterminate future. Here's a plan for our glorious future, when everyone's driving Priuses and Vespas: Raise the gas tax again.
Alternative funding plan? The thinking here was that we have suffered in the past by not getting ahead of problems and preparing for anticipated changes in consumer habits. A prime example of this is our state's reliance on capital gains for the budget – despite the well-known ups and downs of capital gains revenue, previous administrations did not plan ahead to address this problem and this is a major reason for our current budget shortfall (By the way, the Governor included in his most recent budget a plan to address this problem going forward.) The alternative funding method was a good faith effort on the part of the administration to prepare for a future that is mor
e environmentally responsible and less reliant on gas to power our vehicles. - I do not know when Governor Patrick is going to use his considerable communication skills with the public to clearly outline this issue at some length — ie. through radio address, public meeting, YouTube, etc.; but when he does it won't be a moment too soon.
When will Governor Patrick communicate with the public? The Governor has been talking about this issue publicly for a long time. Last Friday, he gave a speech that is available on YouTube and elsewhere to outline the problem, review the reforms, and transparently detail where each penny of the gas tax increase would be used. All of this information is also available online. He has been available to the media regularly to promote the plan and answer questions, and plans to travel around the state to discuss his reform plan and its importance to our economic future with residents and local media outlets. We are committed to addressing this problem in an open, honest, and responsible way and look forward to the public debate.
OK, tell me what a goof and an ignoramus I am.
Please share widely!
goofball =p
<
p>On a serious note, those a good questions. Perhaps a particular secretary will post some answers to them…
<
p>One thing I know: The VMT plan is just a stupid plan. They should ditch that immediately.
It seems to me that they could easily keep this to 15 cents instead of 19 cents.
<
p>The “alternative tolling” for 1 cent is not necessary now.
<
p>The MBTA should bear some the burden — instead of devoting 6 cents of a gas tax to preventing fare increases, how about 4 cents and riders pay the difference?
<
p>The toll increases could be scaled down instead of eliminated. Take a penny away from that category.
<
p>This would have the added benefit of not making us the “highest gas tax in the nation”, a lightning rod for anti-tax foes.
<
p>Again, I wonder if this could be phased in. I know that gas prices are somewhat volatile right now, but this would seem to be more palatable if it went in 5 cents at a time, maybe per quarter or even per month.
<
p>This really needs to be sold though. I have heard virtually every Western MA legislator come out against this proposal. They say that the western part of the state is getting no benefits, and that we are paying for Boston and the Big Dig.
<
p>Fees and fares at the MBTA have skyrocketed. As far as I’m concerned, a small chunk of change from the gas tax to help support the MBTA is finally getting close to ‘sharing the burden.’ If we want less drivers and more public transportation, we need to create some disincentives to drive and more incentives to use public transit – 6 cents a gallon is pretty measly, but will still help. And it’s after years of massive fee and fare hikes. (Get your facts straight.)
<
p>
<
p>Tolls = incredibly inefficient way of taxing people because they’re costly to create and staff. Gas tax = incredibly efficient tax where the government takes probably every cent of the dollar. Why would you ever want to prop up bad policy? Government should be about efficiency where possible; tolls are intrinsically inefficient.
<
p>
<
p>Construction projects in Western Mass are incredibly expensive – more expensive, per capita, than projects in other parts of the state. That much is a fact. Moreover, I bet Western Mass receives a larger portion of Massachusetts’s resources, per capita, than Greater Boston. It is simply more expensive to prop up rural areas and the people living in those areas tend to have greater needs and thus require more services per capita. I’m not complaining – that’s fine. But to not support a necessary tax hike because of percieved and almost certainly non existant slights, when our state (and country) is on the verge of bankruptcy, is not only selfish, but self-defeating. A lot of this funding will go to Western and Central Mass – almost certainly their fair share. Instead of turning off from the process, maybe if they took command of this issue they could even get a bigger slice of the pie. The parties of no should get jack as far as I’m concerned – luckily, the people in government are more benevolent than I.
We’ll have to differ on whether having drivers pay extra to prevent a fare increase on the MBTA is “sharing the burden”. I tend to think it is not.
<
p>Regarding tolls, it may be a more expensive way to collect revenue, but there is almost zero incremental cost to increasing tolls versus the gas tax (maybe printing new tickets and resetting the Fast Lane machines). I’m not suggesting adding new tolls — I’m suggesting that we spread that one around a little bit.
<
p>Regarding the “Western Mass” effect — I don’t know one way or another who is benefiting. I would agree that since there are less people in the west, a project probably has a higher per-capita expense. I don’t know if the number of projects being done are higher or lower here. We each have our theories, but neither of us seems to have facts.
<
p>Personally, I think that tolls should be reinstated on the Western part of the Pike. We still have toll collectors out here, the booths are still standing. It might not be popular, but it would shut up the people who say that all the money is only going to Boston.
<
p>FYI, a local morning radio personality has been running a campaign all week to “fight” the toll increases. He is a self-admitted Republican, but he is getting people riled up. He is bringing up all the standard talking points — “Big Dig”, “$80k to collect tolls”, “relatives of politicians on the payroll”. His points are going largely unchallenged.
I have a simple suggestion, track where the tax is collected and disburse the funds back to where they were generated. I’d even support reserving 10% of the funds to be disbursed based on project need and cost effectiveness, regardless of location.
<
p>I’d like to see the facts behind your statement that WMass construction projects are “incredibly expensive”. Have any examples 8 mile road projects in WMass that cost $15 billion?
<
p>Saying hold on a minute to tax increase and demanding that your interests be defended is not being a party of no. I don’t see anyone “turning off” from the process. I see people taking “command of the issue” and trying to get a fair slice of the pie (your reassurances that we’re getting enough aside).
<
p>The simple fact of the matter is that 10 cents on the 19 cent increase is earmarked for Greater Boston through the MBTA and Turnpike. 1.5 cents is earmarked for regional transit authorities, which are weighted towards the eastern end of the state. 1.5 cents are regional road projects, want to bet where most of that will end up? Even if you throw in $20-30 million for a rail project in Springfield that barely crosses the state line, of the $600 million being raised by the gas tax, how much do you figure will make it west of Worcester?
you keep gas tax in the same location. Let’s do the same for income tax and capital gains tax and any corporate taxes. Government doesn’t work that way. We’re not 351 fiefdoms or city-states.
meant, at least in a large part, to fund road construction and maintenance. There is a relationship between where the tax is raised and the need it is intended to meet. I am not advocating fiefdoms or city-states, I am looking for a fair distribution of targeted revenues.
We already have proven methods of measuring traffic. Measuring traffic in gallons of gas purchased seems less accurate. If I purchase gasoline in Quincy, it is more likely that it will be used traveling to and from Boston than to and from Weymouth.
<
p>Further, I’d suggest that “fair” is precisely the wrong criterion. We want the transportation system to work; we’re not handing out cookies or bonuses.
is that we raise the gas tax 25 or 30 cents, and demand 5+ cents go toward Western Mass as part of your willingness to vote yes.
<
p>But no one’s doing that – hence the party of no. And the stupidity. There’s a large enough contingent in Western and Central Mass that they could get a whole lot more working with the NS and Metro West than knee-jerking against it.
After the tax is increased and the monies allocated? Maybe its just my stupidity, but I don’t see what is unreasonable about demanding reform first and a fair and equitable sharing of the new revenues before the tax increase is put in place. I can’t speak for everyone who is calling for an examination of this proposal, but I don’t consider my reaction knee-jerk. I favor an increase in the gas tax. I’m am also concerned that not enough attention is being paid to wmass transportation needs and I am encouraging my representatives to look out for this region’s interests, that is what we elected them to do. Honestly, would you be so gun-ho for this proposal if half of the revenue was directed away from the Pike and MBTA and as a result your tolls and fares would be going up?
that the MBTA has three huge debts, whereas all other transit agencies have one.
<
p>When we built the Central Artery (you know, that huge project for cars) huge debts were shifted to the MBTA in 1999. Because cost overruns on the automobile portions were so far above and beyond, the T is paying for (part of) the Big Dig on their balance sheet. That ain’t the kind of public transit I’ve always believed in.
<
p>Meanwhile, when the MBTA was shifted to forward funding, the budget was based on a 5% increase in sales tax revenue each year for the 2000s. It turns out that sales tax revenue has essentially flat-lined, resulting in a huge gap between the revenue forecast and the revenue. That was the legislature’s decision, and it was a poor one.
<
p>
<
p>As for the Western MA folks — where do you think the vast majority of the tax revenue comes from? It ain’t Western MA. They’ve got more roads per person than the rest of the state… and they’re not paying for them; the folks in Boston Metro are. I’d like to see more public transit westward, including medium-speed rail (not Acela but quick) all the way to Albany NY.
<
p>I regularly fly to Albany, Buffalo, Rochester. The flights are so empty since some of the large corps downsized up there, it’s hard to book direct flights and the flights are usually small turbo-props, and those are usually 5 or 6 people. The Albany-to-Boston route can’t possibly have very much demand to justify a public boondoggle rail.
It’s to get people between Albany-Pittsfield-Chicopee-Springfield-Worcester. The idea is to extend the commuter rail and open up non-Eastern-MA cities to transit. These right of ways can also lead to easier transit to Hartford, NYC, and even Montreal. Given that Amtrak already has rail there, the idea is simply to work with USA to make track improvements to increase speed and get some local service for commuters.
<
p>Given the increased concern over energy and carbon, and given that the Dems are in Congress, and given that MA will only have two senior senators for a short future, now is the perfect time for MA to work with USA gov’t to improve our rail transportation.
<
p>Why shouldn’t the gas tax designed to go toward mass transit that is collected in Western and Central MA improve mass transit in Western and Central MA?
<
p>I can’t imagine the demand to justify spending the bucks on Central/Western Massachusetts mass transit, even if the money derives from that area. Particularly to get from one of those towns to Albany. You just don’t have the population centers in place to justify ‘if you build it they will ride’.
<
p>
I actually have to agree with Gary here. Transit projects should be cost-justified, not a boondoggle spoon-full-of-sugar for politicans from areas where large scale transit don’t make sense.
<
p>Instead of extending commuter rail lines all over the state (to place where it doesn’t make sense at all, cough, South Coast, cough), they should improve the existing service. Specifically, they should build more tracks on existing rights of way to handle express trains that will make the system more functional. It currently takes around 50 minutes to get into the city from places like Natick, Andover, Concord, Norwood, etc. And when you factor in the additional time to get from North/South Station to get to most jobs, the public transit option starts making less and less sense. By way of comparison, it takes around 50 minutes on the Metro North to get from Greenwich/Stamford, CT to Grand Central — a distance of around 40 miles compared with the 15 or so miles of the towns I just mentioned. Finally, the state should mandate higher density, mixed use zoning around the stations. As development grows up around the system, it will start being a better option for more and more people.
by watching how many people swim across a river.
<
p>There are existing right of ways thanks to Amtrak et al. We as a society have got to make it easier for people to reduce their gasoline consumption dramatically — and that isn’t just limited to dense urban areas.
<
p>I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be doing the things you suggest… we should also do those. But, there’s no reason why those smart growth areas you refer to can’t also be in places like Springfield and Pittsfield, and there’s no reason who folks who live in those areas shouldn’t be able to commute by rail to Albany, W/Cent MA, and CT.
<
p>My bet is that most of the gas tax is collected in Eastern Mass, so it’s not like I’m arguing that we should siphon off huge truckloads of money and dump them in Western Mass. I am arguing that mass transit can work statewide, and that we ought to invest in mass transit statewide. That doesn’t mean installing subways in Chicopee, but it does mean intra-city transport throughout the state.
would make a lot of sense. it’s not the only western mass track plan that would make sense, either.
As a Western Mass commuter, I would love to use public transportation, but there’s no way a train could get me from my rural home to my suburban job 25 miles away in a cost effective manner.
<
p>There isn’t enough population density to support public transportation for the ten miles I drive to the highway or the five miles I travel when I exit. I also doubt that there’s enough people who travel from the Springfield area to Pittsfield to warrant that kind of rail system.
<
p>In spite of what some people think, Western Mass is more than the Berkshires, which are more sparsely populated that Hampshire and Hampden Counties. I’m sure a lot of folks in the Berkshires commute to Albany, but they may be too spread out to warrant a rail connection.
<
p>
people have chosen their jobs and their homes given that there is no train. Put some train stations in, and watch how people will choose to live nearby and work nearby another one. Watch how employment centers and more dense housing grows around those train stations.
<
p>The demand won’t be instantaneous… it will grow as the demographics change over time to take advantage of the new resource.
<
p>I thought of moving away from my friends and family to be closer to a public transportation. I even tried to get my friends and family to quit their jobs and move closer to a commuter rail, but we shortsightedly didn’t see the gas shortage coming and decided to stay in Western Massachusetts.
<
p>I understand your build it and they will come logic. In some locales, it might even work. I can’t imagine it in our relatively undense Western Mass counties. Build train stations? We barely have trains. Half of our rails have been converted to bike trails.
<
p>Maybe you know more than I do, but the homes and jobs in Hampshire and even Hampden County, are too spread out to be served cost effectively by rail. Perhaps buses. I don’t know.
<
p>
I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as opportunity for new people to commute, particularly if housing is built close to the train station.
<
p>I then think of the people who do take advantage of it as “traders” — they are going afar, peddling their services, and returning home with their money. They spend the money locally.
<
p>That benefits the others in their community even if none of those others are the ones doing the commuting. It injects “foreign” money into the local economy.
<
p>It isn’t a lock — but there are some communities which have a lot to offer which would attract more people if there were more opportunities. If you could get from Northampton to Hartford in 45 minutes, wouldn’t some people latch onto that route? The question is, how many?
I’d love to get to Boston without a hassle.
<
p>The question of “how many” is the question. It’s a cost-benefit issue. An existing rail might work for some.
<
p>I’m 20 minutes from a rail. Would it be worth it for me to drive to twenty minutes, wait for a train, then take a bus to my job? There are no rails in the area. It could turn my 25 mile, 35 minute commute into more than an hour. I probably use a gallon and a half of gas on my commute each day.
keep in mind that you can read on the train. You can’t (mustn’t!) do that while driving.
<
p>So, for some the total time of the commute is longer, but the amount of productive time allowed by train is worth the trade-off.
There is a beautifully renovated train station in Palmer that would be a fantastic pick up/drop off point. Amtrak flies by daily but doesn’t stop. Parking would have to be considered and of course the “NO” people would be protesting in droves but it is such an exciting idea. It would draw commuters to our area and finally there would be growth! growth! growth! This area here is so stagnant (with regard to business)and with the housing crisis at hand I don’t see improvement any time soon. It would be so awesome to have a bustling business district again. Just the thought of it makes me want to jump for joy!
And then there is the casino topic (which I am for). A casino in Palmer would really make Western Mass POP. There could be a shuttle from the train to the Casino which would solve a lot of the traffic problems that the “NO” people always talk about. I don’t want to get into the casino debate here. I know there are a lot of people against it but I think it would grow the entire area of Western Ma which would give it back it’s sparkle from decades ago.
to CT and RI where the casinos are going bankrupt. Don’t bet your region’s well being on a promise from get-rich-quick jerks who sell you dazzle on casinos. It’s not a good long term strategy.
It’s not that I’m necessarily pro casino, I am pro growth.
The area across from Mass Pike Exit 8 in Palmer has so much potential for any type of entertainment, shopping, recreational development. I rarely go to the casinos, but there are other things to do there besides gamble. There are shows, shops, restaurants. I know about the concerns about gambling addiction, but the people who are at risk or in crisis are already buying hundreds of dollars worth of
scratch tickets and Keno drawings anyway. A hotel, mall, movie theater, restaurant, nightclub complex would make me just as happy.
Although I wouldn’t need it to commute to work, I would definitely use it to travel to Boston for pleasure. I love visiting Boston but it is such a nightmare to get there from here so I rarely go. It would be so nice to pick up the train in Palmer and travel easily to Boston. Now how streamlined and simple is that. One parking fee in Palmer,
and then car free freedom from there. Drop off in Boston and use the T and walk the entire day. Sounds like a great time.
Just to share a story about what it’s like driving in or near Boston, for those of us from West MA. Years ago I drove to the JFK Library. As we were driving along, (nearly in a state of panic at the way the layouts are set up) I came upon a sign that said. “Squeeze Right”. I looked at my sister and said, how do you “squeeze right”?
We don’t “squeeze right” here in Western Mass. We merge from time to time, but squeezing seems like a whole different skill level. Glad to say we made it there and home safely. So with that said, I would definitely use the train for fun trips to the Boston area.
it would be really nice for the people who live in Boston metro to take the train out West and spend their tourism dollars there. For example, I’ve got friends in Pittsfield, and I’d go see them more often if there was easier rail access. Then, we’d spend money at MOCA, restaurants, bars, go to state parks, that sort of thing.
<
p>Same goes for the Cape, FWIW.
Not to mention people who work in the Boston area might consider moving to Western MA because the commute would be more friendly. With an updated and quicker rail system, the possibilities are endless.
Are you really saying that cutting 4 cents will make or break this proposal? That’s what we’re arguing about? Four fucking cents?
<
p>Does it really matter that no western mass legislators have come out in favor of this? A huge percentage of the legislators are inside 495. More than enough to pass it.
Removing four cents does a few things:
<
p>1) It shows that this process is a collaborative one, not one being imposed from “the government”.
<
p>2) It reduces the taxes just enough so that we don’t have Barbara Anderson screaming “highest gas taxes in the country” week after week.
<
p>3) It shows people in Western MA that we expect a shared sacrifice from all constituents. Right now, the feeling is that we out here are sacrificing for Boston, particularly for Big Dig expenses, Boston transit, and toll increases within 495. Either show that is not the case or throw some bones into the plan.
<
p>True, you could probably pass things without the Western MA contingency. But that’s a crappy Democratic process, isn’t it? Particularly if people truly believe that Boston is taxing Western MA for Boston projects. That’s the kind of long-standing believe that makes people switch party affiliations.
There are no answers to almost every point you bring up.
The whole process is not open to review in a clear and
sensible format. You’re right. Gov Patrick should be out
discussing this, but he can’t do that because the whole thing has to be connived and manipulated in a way that will save all those family jobs you mentioned, and give pats the back to the right people, and pretend to shine brightly on the “important ones” when really it is a complete disservice to the people of this state. It’s trying to fit corruption into a package that appears legitimate. It takes time and a lot of imagination and confusion for them to accomplish this. I watched Obama’s speech again tonight and it was a fantastic speech. He speaks in plain lanquage that everyone can understand. He basically said that in all aspects of government there is to be transparency, accountability, and dedication to the common good. It’s time for all of the states to pick up on that theme and stop playing games with taxpayer money, with government jobs, and with government services. It really doesn’t have to be as difficult as it is. It is too many selfserving people in elected and appointed positions that create all of the twisted, disingenuous, complicated legislation and policies to be brought forth.
I know that this sounds like a republican talking point against democrats but that is not what it is. I am a moderate Democrat. I am not railing here against democrats but against politicians in general, and the way that governments have isolated themselves into a selfserving, separate entity that is devoted to it’s own survival. For the most part, I feel that it is the republican administrations that set the stage for this type of corruption, then unfortunately democrats get sucked in and become a participant in the vicious scene. It really has to stop. We need our elected officials to be courageous and to stand strong within the vacuum that is our government. I am really excited about President Obama stepping up and setting the stage for an altruistic government. Maybe change can really happen on a state level too. At least I hope so.
<
p>If that meme gets rolling the administration has a problem.
<
p>Come to think of it, if Charley is this confused after almost an hour on the telephone with Secretary Aloisi, and the best will in the world (and did I mention, I am equally confused? The smart chip mileage tracker eye in the sky thing in particular seems very hard to understand — economically, practically, and most of all politically) then I suspect the administration already has a problem.
With this pressing question of my own: are there really goat rodeos?
Now my question is, what do we observe here. One interpretation might be that the goats represent various random ravings by Howie Carr, the women wrassling them to the ground represent the rational members of the Commonwealth, and the chap in the Stetson hat personifies divine Providence, who supervises all.
<
p>Another might be that the goats represent the people of Massachusetts, the chap in the Stetson hat is Governor Patrick, and the folks doing the wrassling and tying are various secretaries and heads of departments.
<
p>One could go a long way with this.
<
p>The crucial unresolved issue is: just what does the woman drink at the end. A shot of goat’s milk perhaps? And how does that fit into the metaphor.
<
p>
This is serious!
<
p>As Usual just my opinion
Is scared now.
The questions you asked, indicate to me that government is playing a little game of poker here. Who has what cards?
The games should end and some serious leadership needs to take place in this state. As some of the commenters pointed out “Tolls are ineffective, gas tax works but should be less at 15 cents not 19 and phased in. Also pointed out that the western part of the state is disenfranchised by paying for essentially a Boston area benefit a la big dig. Maybe it is time to do something different. Get rid of the pike authority and the tolls.
Break up port into port and airport, place highways solely
under Mass. highway. institute a 15 cent gas tax, allocate the majority to pay down the debt. Take the MBTA, make retirement age 62 at a reduced percent of full retirement say 80% and full retirement at 65 or tied to SSI retirement age. Get rid of the bureacrarcies built up around these organizations. Streamline T management to reflect new realities and make it a self sustaining operation. To me, other transit systems need to be looked at around the country to find a model that works and set it up so it is not a burden on taxpayers and that riders are getting the best bang for the buck. As long as this state keeps dabling with the archaic good old boy model, this state will continue to be burdened and saddled by
organizations that squander taxpayer dollars. Governor Patrick has a choice, lead or lead better. As far as secretary aloisi’s VMT, perhaps Alaska needs a new Secretary of transportation and the Russians could monitor citizens whereabouts for him. This would alleviate any privacy issue for him. Further Alaska has big oil revenue and could probably afford the chip. Our state has been incapable of taking the necessary steps to put its citizens first, when money is needed, the first response seems to be let’s come up with a scheme to get more money out of us poor working slobs who have already had every extra cent wrung out of us. There needs to be a shift in political thinking which should be “lets use the money we have in the most effective way possible”. If the everyday Joe feels that happening, they will not be screaming when a real need arises.
That seems like a bit of a waste to me. The two operations do have to be coordinated to some extent anyway — for example, the cranes at the Conley container terminal are directly in one of the Logan flight paths. If they ever want to upgrade from post-Panamax to super post-Panamax, they’ll have to work something out with the airport.
<
p>That said, the more important reason to keep them together is because the port of Boston is so rinky-dink in the grand scheme of US ports, while Logan is a top-20 US airport. There’s no reason to break it out, and there’s probably a cost in duplicated support services.
there’s plenty of coordination of shippers between the two, there’s some duplication in security services, they serve similar purposes governed by similar land use laws, etc.
First, is that reform must by definition address costs. Costs by definition must address labor. And labor is either headcount or dollar per person.
<
p>If that’s a reasonable premise, it’s a fair question to ask how the plan will reduce headcount or how the plan will reduce salaries/wages. That’s my starting point.
<
p>The Governor’s reform says it will eliminate 300 “positions”, not 300 people. Steve Baddour says his plan calls for no one to lose their job. How can anyone call this reform if there appears to be no labor reduction?
<
p>
Look, I’m not saying you don’t have an interesting point. But there are situations where I could easily imagine good reform would equal not losing positions.
<
p>Let’s say reform had us increasing public transit and decreasing the #s of toll booths. The increase in buses and trains might mean a staff increase to run it, while the toll booths would staff down. However, knowing as I know just how packed the rush hour T and commuter rail is (at least to Lowell), an increase in trains at that time would make total sense, make the trains more usable and get more people off the roads, and at the same time shifting people around/retraining them to new positions created by the T needs means less layoffs – and trust me, we really don’t want MORE people on unemployment right now, if we can help it. Because we’re paying for that, too.
<
p>To me, something like that scenario would be a win win for everyone. If that were the case. However, neither you nor I have knowledge about what scenario is going to be presented, so your assumption that reform has to equal layoffs is unfounded.
It’s a big stretch to ‘reform’ a service organization without reducing the single largest cost: labor.
Reform doesn’t have to address costs at all. Valid reform can include things like transparency, accountability, and process reform.
<
p>Some reform addresses costs.
<
p>Not all cost reformation must address labor. The T spends an inordinate amount of money on debt financing. A reform could be one in which debt is paid down more quickly (perhaps by deferring capital projects). That would be a significant reform addressing costs which doesn’t address labor one bit. Another would be to stop spending money on ADA compliance upgrades. It would cut cost, though I’m not advocating that the MBTA take that tack.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not true that reform must address cost, and it’s not true that cost must address labor. I’m not arguing that labor costs shouldn’t be considered; I’m simply pointing out that you’re a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to you.
The actual legislation, filed here, calls for:
<
p>- “moving all transportation employees, including those at the MBTA and at the Turnpike, to the same group insurance plans as other public employees”
– “aligning the MBTA pension system with the state pension system”
– “reduc[ing] personnel by about 300”
<
p>Who knows if all of that will survive the in the legislature, but at least the proposed bill from the Governor seems to be serious about addressing these issues.
do we hear this “reform before revenue” meme? Isn’t reform precisely what’s being offered?
<
p>And when challenged by this line, why does the administration point to a few million dollars saved by Mr. LeBovidge et al, instead of pointing the the bill and saying “READ THE DAMN BILL!” Well, I guess they didn’t have a bill until lately. But you get my drift.
My guess is that maybe there are other reforms that members of the House or the Senate might want to examine, rather than just accepting the Governor’s reforms.
<
p>Addressing debt structure being one issue that several members of both bodies have specifically pointed out yet is not part of the Governor’s bill.
Not necessarily, anyway. People retire. If they aren’t replaced, then there’s a labor reduction, but nobody lost their job.
<
p>Now I feel stupid for having to point that out to you.
There are plenty of ways to address labor costs. I’m merely seeking to know how the Governor intends to do it. Transparency and all…
You can reduce labor costs without layoffs through attrition.
<
p>You realize that revenues are going to be down and that, therefor, operating costs must be reduced in the short term. So you institute a temporary hiring freeze in Fiscal Year X as a precaution with the understanding that those positions can be filled later if it turns out that the downturn isn’t all that severe. Over the course of that year 300 people leave the agency because they retire or take jobs elsewhere. Those positions aren’t filled. BUT, because the “position” still exists, it must be budgetted for in the following fiscal year. Remember, as soon as the hiring freeze is lifted, those positions will be filled.
<
p>You then decide that the economic downturn is lasting and that the agency must cut labor costs in the medium term. So, in Fiscal Year X+1 you do away with those 300 positions. Now your budgetted (and actual) labor costs are substantially lower than in Fiscal Year X.
<
p>You then reorg the agency to operate efficiently under the new labor constraints.
<
p>Fits your definition of reform to a T.
<
p>(Though I don’t agree that reform has to “by definition” involve cost reductions.)
I don’t agree with all your premises. (Hint: stomv’s been depriving me of things to say.) However, a very clear, snarkless question.
<
p>We don’t get enough of those.
The transit reforms are pitiful – in that the state will continue to fund the MBTA and all these little regional transit authorities. People actually travel across these boundaries, but the folks who run the transit system haven’t discovered this fact.
<
p>100 years ago, I could have walked out my front door in Arlington and hopped a trolley to Lowell. The trolleys are gone, and the replacement bus service doesn’t get the job done. The MBTA bus heads north and ends at the Burlington-Billerica town line. The Lowell RTA bus makes it as far south as the Burlington Mall.
<
p>Old bus routes, that actually crossed town lines, have been replaced by little town bus services that don’t cross the town line. The MBTA 77 and 79 buses end a couple of blocks short of the Lexington line in Arlington, but the little L’Express bus system in Lexington doesn’t cross the line to meet the MBTA buses.
<
p>Go to New Jersey, a state of similar size, and you will find one integrated agency (NJ Transit) that provides a unified statewide transit system. THAT’S the kind of transit reform we need to get people out of the cars and onto public transportation.
<
p>Enough ranting, while I drive to work because the trolley isn’t running any more.
I also agree our regional transits need reform/coordination, as well as an evaluation about the hours and frequency. The LRTA stops service way too early to be useful for, say, the average commuter.
<
p>I’d consider taking the bus places around Lowell but I can’t figure out the bus routes, the service ends too early, and the switchover at Gallagher would basically make my 5 minute commute a 30 minute one. When I weigh how much money I could make staying that extra 25 minutes at my office, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis.
Remember, though, that those regional bus companies are filling the void left by similarly regional streetcar companies (thanks to GM).
<
p>Also note that MBTA Bus 62 runs from Alewife to the Bedford VA Hospital via Arlington Heights and Lexington Center.
Some times it feels like Maine. Take for instance you work in Waltham but live in a bedroom community like Reading you must drive to work or you must spend up to 2 hours getting from commuter rail to the t back on either a bus or street trolley and then depending on the industrial park either a health walk or a cab. This is just one example along the 128 corridor. Yet we find 99% of the MBTA funds going to the spokes in the wheel that feeds only Boston.
<
p>We either need to create a real 21st century transportation plan or we need to force communities to stop building commercial and direct all commercial development to Boston. Menino is now drooling from my statement and Woburn and Waltham had a collective heart attack
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Lateral public-transit commutes are possible, but not practical. There are auto commutes that are similarly difficult, but they are usually longer distances point-to-point.
you ignoramous.
<
p>the governor just made a proposal last week. I don’t think his bil has been filed yet/
<
p>You are watching the first minutes of a three act play and are bitching because you don’t know how it will end.
<
p>WTF Charley? Your questions are untimely.
<
p>I’ll tell you what i don’t know. Answers to my previous posted questions on the Aloisi/Patrick V-Chip?
<
p>Doesn’t anyone want to know about that?
Aside from the colorful verb, you are making a good point Ernie. Twenty five folk organized through a post at Red Mass Group got pretty good coverage yesterday and their photo was used in the Globe to illustrate a Noah Bierman and Matt Viser story about the public outcry denouncing the increase.
<
p>This is not a well structured three act play with a script. This is guerilla theater where all the actors are working with nothing more than an an outline and nobody knows how it will end.
<
p>The Governor and Secretary Aloisi are playing their roles pretty well so far, trying to energize some public support. A good friend asked me today–
<
p>”And where are the supporters of the Governor’s plan? I’ll tell you where they are. Diddling around on the sidelines while our infrastructure crumbles.
<
p>
What this whole thread shows is how complicated it is to understand this transport reform process. It is also hard to know where to stand.
<
p>On the one hand I have questions like those above about what is going on behind the scenes. I want an honest proposal, and public input about how this reform plays out. My instinct is to reserve judgment until I see all the details of the plan.
<
p>On the other hand I have known for years that we focus too much attention and money on making it easy for people to get around by car. We have a huge global warming problem and horrible traffic problems everywhere I go. For such a dense city, Boston’s mass transit is pitiful. The trains are packed full, buses are 25 minutes apart, and when they propose construction of any new T lines it takes minimum 20 years for the thing to get built. We can do so much better, and a higher gas tax would help us get there.
<
p>So I think my position is this: I completely support the raised gas tax no matter what. People need to pay for the roads they use and the pollution they create. Yes the details are important, I want to see pension reform, and I demand transparency. But, I support the gas tax.
Well said my friend!!
<
p>
I have no idea what “23 and out” means, nor exactly what the “fully-vested at 55” is in terms of benefits.
<
p>But, no public pension should exceed that provided by the State. For the most part, that should be the “Group 1” benefits, which combine length of service, age and salary to calculate the pension benefit.
<
p>As one data point, age 55 in Group 1 would have an age multiplier at 55 of 1.5. So a person retiring at age 55 after 30 years of service would get 1.5 times 30 times his/her best 3 contiguous years salary. That would be a “45% pension”. At age 60 the age multiplier would rise to 2.0, and the years of service increase to 25, so the benefit would be a “70% pension”.
<
p>Why would the MBTA pension be greater than those?
<
p>Now there are other Groups within the State pension system that have been assigned more generous (or outlandish, depending on your point-of-view) pension formulas, such as the public safety group. Should any jobs in the MBTA earn that level of benefit?
A better solution would be for the economy to return to the days when a private job provided this kind of retirement. We have all these rationalizations for two-earner families, a chaotic economy where everybody changes jobs every two years and never builds up a pension, and a workplace where the employer soaks the employees as fast as he can and vice versa. It doesn’t have to be this way.
<
p>
I don’t know how we can return to a period of stable employment. There’s too much churn in technology and market conditions.
<
p>Or is there a school of thought somewhere that I haven’t heard of yet?
I’d add two ignorant questions of my own:
<
p>
The Legislature HASN’T been paying attention.
<
p>The Turnpike is notorious for keeping their documents secret — even from their own members. Ask Christy Mihos and Jordan Levy how easily they were able to get answers to some of their questions — and they were freakin’ on the board of directors!
<
p>If you noticed, Rep. Linskey all but said he called LeBovidege’s bluff: that there is no official notification that failure to raise tolls will result in the swaptions kicking in. Linksey said he asked for the documentation and was told there was none…that the info had been conveyed through phone messages.
the Turnpike abolished and folded into the real executive branch already.
Why did it take so long? The problems we are trying to address in our transportation system took over 16 years to create. They span highway, airport and rail operations, and include various regional issues, environmental concerns, workforce issues, complicated bond covenants and financing schemes and pension and health care benefit reforms. In order to address these comprehensively, and to present a plan that is transparent and responsible for the long-term, we felt the need to consult with experts both inside and outside of state government, gain a true understanding of the complicated issues we inherited, and work with the Legislature to consider various alternatives.
<
p>We did not sit still while we were working on the reform plan. We followed the “reforms first” strategy – joining 49 other states in using civilian flaggers on construction projects, saving over $31 million at the Turnpike by eliminating managers and toll taker positions along with other significant reforms, and cutting $47 million from the MBTA through additional reforms. We also cut the development time for MassHighway projects by 40% and instituted a “scorecard” to increase transparency and accountability of construction projects.
<
p>We did not time this for the Turnpike board vote. In fact, we put off vote at the Turnpike as long as we responsibly could in order to give all of us time to work on a comprehensive solution. The financial situation at the Turnpike, despite the great efforts of Alan LaBovidge and his team, is such that we risk default on the bonds if we do not secure a new revenue stream by April 1. The timing is unfortunate, but underscores the serious nature of the problem we are facing in transportation.
<
p>Legislative outrage over toll vote? That is probably a better question for members of the Legislature to answer. All I can say is that we have been working closing with Chairmen Wagner and Baddour, and feel that the dialogue has been very constructive to date. I think we all feel a sense of urgency to address this issue, both through reforms and by securing the long-term financial viability of our transportation infrastructure.
<
p>Legislators complaining about the Turnpike? I think legislators have legitimate concerns about the vote and the historical problems at the Turnpike. I think we have addressed a lot of these concerns with the new leadership at the Turnpike, but I take at face value the concerns raised by legislators.
<
p>Does the toll increase jeopardize the reform plan? The Governor has been clear and unequivocal – he will not support both a toll increase and an increase in the gas tax. Even if the toll increase goes into effect, it can and will be rolled back – this is not an issue that should threaten the passage of the Governor’s legislation. I understand that some legislators have legitimate concerns about their constituents dealing with a toll increase, and with some of the confusion around these issues. Again, I think the timing underscores the serious nature of the problems we are facing and the fact that inaction is no longer an option.
<
p>Reforms? The Senate bill is an excellent place to look for the reforms we need to get our transportation system back on track. We built our legislation on this strong foundation, and included other reforms as well. The Governor realizes that there are many good ideas for reforms out there, and welcomes any and all suggestions to help improve the bill. In addition, the Legislature will be holding a series of hearing over the next few weeks on this issue, which should also bring some new ideas to the discussion.
<
p>MBTA retirement age? Our legislation attempts to bring both the Turnpike and MBTA benefits in line with the state system. This is consistent with the recommendations from the bi-partisan Transportation Finance Commission report. We remain open to other suggestions in this area.
<
p>Alternative funding plan? The thinking here was that we have suffered in the past by not getting ahead of problems and preparing for anticipated changes in consumer habits. A prime example of this is our state’s reliance on capital gains for the budget – despite the well-known ups and downs of capital gains revenue, previous administrations did not plan ahead to address this problem and this is a major reason for our current budget shortfall (By the way, the Governor included in his most recent budget a plan to address this problem going forward.) The alternative funding method was a good faith effort on the part of the administration to prepare for a future that is more environmentally responsible and less reliant on gas to power our vehicles.
<
p>When will Governor Patrick communicate with the public? The Governor has been talking about this issue publicly for a long time. Last Friday, he gave a speech that is available on YouTube and elsewhere to outline the problem, review the reforms, and transparently detail where each penny of the gas tax increase would be used. All of this information is also available online. He has been available to the media regularly to promote the plan and answer questions, and plans to travel around the state to discuss his reform plan and its importance to our economic future with residents and local media outlets. We are committed to addressing this problem in an open, honest, and responsible way and look forward to the public debate.
<
p>Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to at least attempt to be responsive to each question (I am sure that the BMG community will let me know if they think I succeeded in that effort!). I look forward to your comments.
Your comments certainly add more to the pot in this discussion and have made clearer the thought process and the issues and their complexity. Thank you again!
<
p>I want to ask a follow up question and hope you can find a minute to respond. I would like to know the thought process and reasons for only an increase in Auto Drivers to fund all of transportation. It seems on the surface to be a double edged sword, first the need to improve the roads and bridges is a direct link to the gas tax second why are we not sharing the burden with a surcharge on commuter rail for electric and diesel consumption or a t fare increase to cover utility increases. Yes I know the t has had fare increases.
<
p>Next were there thoughts on breaking out the money for the MBTA into 2 sub categories one the big dig debt and two the improvement of service? if so do you have the figures for that it may make a share of that increase more sellable.
<
p>Thank You inadvance
<
p>As Usual just my Opinions
<
p>By the way I still support the idea for a host of my own reasons but we need to sell this to many more people then a progressive dem like my self if we want to make it fly.
for going for this. I think many of us underestimate the political risks the Governor is taking in seeking these reforms. A lesser politician would have ducked the issue, blamed the pike hike on previous failures and hoped it would all blow over in a year or so, leaving the whole tired system in place for the next Administration to deal with. The Governor has finally decided that our State can no longer pass the problem to future generations.
<
p>And from my point of view, I like how Aloisi and the Governor have been willing to consider alternatives such as the VMT. Its not just Oregon that has looked at this. I have a friend living in Britain and their Government has been considering such a solution for some time now he tells me. The workability is a the problem and public opposition will take time to overcome. But nothing wrong with experimentation if you ask me. Below is a link to the British Department of Transport’s demo projects on road pricing.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/road…
<
p>A big question is how do you sell the public on a major gas tax hike. The Governor is rightly pointing out the years of underinvestment that will hurt Masschusetts’ competitiveness. Building the evidence base on the economic benefit of transport investment and getting business and municipal leaders fully invested in reform will be important in driving this point home. I think there is also a key point here about trying to connect the issue locally to the critical investments that will be funded in people’s communities. When people think of Beacon Hill and transportation they have roof collapses on the pike extension or the Zakim Bridge in mind. They don’t think about all the myriad projects that benefit their home towns and they need to. They have to be shown how doing nothing will further erode their quality of life – not just when they come into the city to catch a Celtics game or pick relatives up at Logan, but when they can’t get down Main Street at rush hour or get another flat on the way home. Tie the reforms back to where people live and that cynicism may just begin to thaw. Maybe some cut of the funds could be provided for local transport innovations – ideas that reduce congestion and cut down vehicle miles and emissions.
<
p>In any event, if the Governor pulls this trick he will have done a great deal to change the way Massachusetts works and rides. All the best to him in tackling this challenge.
Whatever people can say about how we got here, or whether it took our State leaders too long to come to the conclusions on reform they have now come to, this is the absolute best debate on an issue of critical importance we have had in decades. We haven’t had a Governor that wanted to touch comprehensive transportation reform since Dukakis.
<
p>Romney saw reform only in terms of a turnpike power grab and big dig press mongering. For Cellucci, it was neglect as the turnpike expenses got out of control. Weld, no ideas came out of him. Legislative leaders like Finneran, while looking to make the MBTA more responsible through forward funding, never wanted to grab the nettle of full reform and ultimately left the T in worse shape through its dependence on the highly volatile sales tax for one. Now finally, after years of underinvestment, unfair burdens and unsustainable finance are we at last getting the debate we have needed. We are finally moving past the Big Dig Era to something better.
<
p>Ultimately, the solution was always somewhat self-evident. Every time tolls were increased over the last decade you have had western suburban and north shore lawmakers call for a gas tax as a substitute. There was a brief discussion and then the issue went away as the pain of the toll hike receeded. Now, we have a Governor pushing for the full enchilada – willing to expend political capital and risk his own political ass in pushing for a major tax hike in a difficult economic climate. When was the last time we had a leader willing to do that.
<
p>Now of course the plan has to be sold to the people. They have to know the stakes, the costs and the benefits. The Governor has that ability and has to use his strengths to get this done. He could retire after that having achieved something fundamental in changing the way Massachusetts runs.