We’re not anti-labor. There will be people downsized when we merge the Turnpike and the Highway Department, and we want to offer people workforce retraining and other initiatives, because we care about people. But at the same time, the practice at the MBTA of 23-and-out in terms of pension, or the practice of not having the same health care plan as everyone else in state government, those things have to come to an end. And we’re going to make sure that in this bill, we’re not going to be unfriendly to people, but we’re going to be clear that the perks and the special deals of the past are over.
Aloisi said that they have looked at legal and collective bargaining issues regarding the benefits at the T, and that they see no legal obstacles to the changes. Collective bargaining agreements currently in effect would be honored until they expire.
In response to Charley’s follow-up on the T issues, Aloisi said that the new rule will be
Fifty-five…. We’re not going to disturb 23, but you won’t be able to retire until you’re 55 years old. And new employees, we’re going to move to the chapter 32 system like everybody else. So we’re going to try to phase out the T’s current approach…. With new employees, and with employees at the Pike as well, everyone will be under the state pension chapter 32 system.
“Vehicle miles traveled” system
Of interest to many on this site, Aloisi confirmed that the Governor will propose a pilot program to adopt a “vehicle miles traveled” system, along the lines of what is currently underway in Oregon. According to Aloisi, a pilot program could be started as soon as a bill is passed that would begin testing the plan, including strategies like peak pricing. He believes that “you can do this is a way that is completely clean with respect to people’s concerns about privacy.” He also explained that a system like this is necessary because as cars become more fuel efficient, the value of the gas tax will plummet.
If we don’t act now to anticipate a very soon-to-come greener vehicular fuel efficiency environment, we’re dead. There’s no alternative. The best solution is to say to people, you pay for what you use. It’s transparent, it’s fair, and it’s fungible, and I’m really excited about it….
Aloisi confirmed that there will be a credit for vehicle-miles-traveled against the gas tax, so that drivers will not be double-taxed.
Hummer tax and people with disabilities
I asked Aloisi about billxi’s concern that the “Hummer tax” would adversely affect the disability community. He responded:
Maybe we need to think about that. It’s a point I haven’t thought about until this minute, but I think the answer is we’ve got to be open to understanding how normative approaches to things often do discriminate against various categories of people. I’ll think about it, and we’ll see what we can do…. I’m sensitive to it, and you can always figure out, I think, how to create appropriate exceptions to rules.
We also understand that the RMV would be authorized to create regulations with respect to the “Hummer tax,” so RMV should have the ability to carve out exceptions for situations like billxi’s.
A new website
Finally (for now), part of the reform is to increase interactivity with the public. And to that end, they’ve set up a new website that is designed to improve transparency and to enhance the ability to interact directly with the state transportation agencies. I haven’t had a chance to explore it yet — if you do, let us know what you think.
And a much more fascinating look than what you can get from the Glob or Sun IMHO. Obviously this is in line more with an interview than reporting, but I think some very valid points and tough questions were raised.
<
p>It’ll be interesting to see what happens this year on this subject.
was, wow, that’s a huge increase.
<
p>My second thought was, that’s $1.90 every time I fill my small-tanked car. Not so bad.
<
p>My last thought: wow, what does Western Massachusetts get out of the deal?
Something that politicians have promised for years, but never delivered on.
of the Regional Transit Authorities.
Because we use public transit so heavily (well, the hubby does), we barely fill up our one car’s ~10-gal tank once a week or so. For us then it’d be about a $100/year increase in taxes. But then, less of an increase in the MBTA pass that we buy each month, or in our property taxes hopefully…to pay for things like our regional transport authority or fixing roads, etc.
<
p>For us it works out, because we behave responsibly. (We bought our home deliberately where we did because of the train proximity.) I can see where an extra $100+/year in gas taxes (more likely more than $100, since lots of people own bigger cars and commute in them) will make people upset, but then, why should we reward poor behavior (and it is poor behavior to buy a car bigger than you really need) and not good behavior (buying a hybrid which costs more but less to operate in the long run)?
<
p>Growing up, my family had medium sized cars and we did juuuust fine in them. I don’t understand why such small families (3-4 people) need minivans and SUVs. Sure, taking our 2 nieces around for a day in the little Corolla was cramped, but that car is tiny…you could buy a slightly larger car with more trunk space and do just fine.
<
p>Here you are, having kids and wanting the best for their future, and you buy something that pollutes twice as much or more than my 13-year old clunker Toyota. Talk about not thinking long term…
If we’re talking about the MBTA, it is not accessible. And the Worcester WRTA is horrible, with broken buses and rude drivers.
What is accessible?
<
p>The Ride
Most buses
About half of the Green Line
Most of the Red, Blue, and Orange Lines
The Silver Line
About half of Commuter Rail
Commuter Boat
<
p>Now, half isn’t anything to celebrate — after all, a rider needs accessible start and end, which means roughly 25% of all trips (.5 * .5) will be accessible. However, the MBTA is spending oodles of money revamping stations, which include elevators, ramps, and other handicap accessibility improvements.
<
p>Note that these expenditures are money losers — the additional riders will never make up for the expenditures. Still, it’s the right thing to do and we ought to continue pressuring the MBTA to make improvements not just for those with mobility handicaps, but also those who are blind and deaf.
<
p>
<
p>But honestly, the statement
makes you a crank and a liar.
Here ’tis.
<
p>
<
p>They’ve also released a spiffy chart (pdf) that summarizes the Transportation Finance Commission report’s recommendations and lines up how prior reforms and this bill match those recommendations.
One of the points that I heard the governor make was the cost to drivers to their cars, beyond normal wear and tear, for poorly maintained roads.
The increase in price due to the tax will likely reduce the demand on the product, thereby reducing the pre-tax price of the product.
This is a pretty big challenge being thrown at the Legislature, particularly when it comes to MBTA employee benefits. Gov. Patrick is arguing from the moral highground and with popular opinion on his side — one of the few times he’s been able to do that since being sworn in.
<
p>It will be interesting to see what the Legislature’s response is: do they go along with it, or defend a very well-organized voting bloc?
That new web site seems unresponsive. Is it really set up yet?
Might not be fully live ’til next week.
Here is my Western MA perspective.
<
p>1) There are already no tolls from Ludlow to West Stockbridge, so removing tolls “West of 128” actually benefits Central MA, not Western MA.
<
p>2) Forward-funding and increased funding of the RTAs isn’t going to excite many people because I think the conventional wisdom out here is that public transit is for the poor or elderly who have no cars. Why? Because given the choice of driving 15 minutes to your destination or taking the bus which will take an hour, only those forced to do so will do this.
<
p>3) There is a pervasive perception that this money is needed because of the Big Dig, and people out here are sick of that project continuing to be a black hole for dollars. At the very least, if it is true, let’s “retire” the Big Dig once and for all.
<
p>4) Although the population center of this state is in the East, there are probably more roads and bridges in the West. The conventional wisdom is that most of the infrastructure repair will, as always, go to the Boston area, with the majority of it being inside of 128. It might help to get more specific on additional projects being funded with this, other than “outside of Boston”.
<
p>5) Is this proposal shifting revenue sources from out-of-state drivers (like those coming from New York) to MA residents?
<
p>6) I think it is really important to pump up the “reform” part of this proposal, because the perception is still driven by Howie Carr, that MTA employees are politically connected overpaid hacks.
<
p>7) It would have been nice to phase the tax increase in too. Instead of a 19 cent overnight jump, why not 5 cents a month or something? Might be harder on gas station owners, but it won’t be as in-your-face.
<
p>8) It would be nice to keep the increase just low enough so that we can’t be called “the highest gas tax in the country”. That will be a rallying cry for “Taxachusetts” whiners.
I so would have loved to have been a part of that discussion.
<
p>In any case, a few observations:
1.
Public transit share of increased gas tax:
6.0 cents MBTA
1.5 cents Regional transit authorities
—
7.5 cents
<
p>Auto transit share of increased gas tax:
4.0 cents Turnpike
3.0 cents Toll Removal
1.5 cents Highway dept budget revision
—
8.5 cents
<
p>Mixed transit share
3.0 cents Regional road/bridge/rail projects outside Boston
—
3.0 cents
<
p>Given that there’s far more infrastructure in roads than non-road transit outside Boston, I’d bet that the majority of that 3.0 cents also goes toward auto.
<
p>Is that share fair? Meh. One man’s fair is another man’s cross-subsidy. Personally, I’d like to see another two cents: one penny additional earmarked specifically to pay for debt obligations handed to the MBTA by the lege when conjuring the Big Dig financing. I’d also love to see one more penny out of that gas tax to go straight to human-powered-transit improvement: crosswalks, curb cuts, sidewalk installs and repairs, bike lanes, bike paths, DCR paths (Esplanade etc), etc. In each case, is a penny the right amount, based on budget analysis? No idear. In any case, while this increase isn’t exactly the way I’d like to see it, there is a lot for me to like.
<
p>
<
p>2.
Like Aloisi, I’m not anti-labor. I also understand that the financial differential between the MBTA’s retirement policy and a typical gov’t retirement plan is a teensy tiny part of the MBTA’s budget deficit. But, changing it from “23 and out” to “23 and out if you’re 55 years old, otherwise work another year or three” seems like a pretty small change. Why not go for more? I don’t know how much more, but maybe “25 and out if you’re 57 years old, otherwise work more” would be a little better. Or, how about: “whatever other state employees get in terms of retirement terms”. Heck, if they did that for all new hires and didn’t change a thing for existing employees, we’d grow our way to a system which was treating all state employees fairly.
<
p>
<
p>3.
The idea that “as cars become more fuel efficient, the value of the gas tax will plummet” is pure nonsense. Cars will become more fuel efficient, but it is going to take many years for it to happen. Furthermore, since the average lifespan of a car in the USA is 7 years, even as new cars do become more fuel efficient there’s a tremendous lag in the time for that efficiency to propagate through the system. Check out this data, which is a bit dated but not too old:
Notice that total fleet fuel economy was the same in 1979 as it was in 2004. The same. So, this idea that within a few years the revenues from gas tax will drop dramatically is really unfounded. If the gas tax revenue drops two or three years in a row, then you raise the gas tax. After all, if people are getting higher MPG then they’re paying less total money in gas taxes — so by raising the tax per gallon you’re merely restoring the dollars they’re paying in gas tax to the previous level.
<
p>The idea that paying per mile makes sense in some regard as a use tax. But, there’s a few things that the gas tax does which per mile doesn’t:
a. It puts a premium on the environmental cost of burning fuel. Use fee only charges for road use, not for the externalities of burning fuel.
b. Large vehicles (SUVs, etc) damage the road significantly more than small vehicles. Large vehicles tend to get worse MPG. A road use charge doesn’t charge the large vehicles more for the extra damage… the gas tax does (though not perfectly of course).
c. Universal use fees really do run the risk of privacy invasions — and even if I trust the current state administration, I don’t trust future state or federal administrations with my transportation information.
<
p>
<
p>All told, I’m pretty happy with the plan and very impressed that Mr. Aloisi came and talked with BMG.
I like your three points on gas tax instead of use fee, because the gas tax for me was always partly about making sure we pay the real cost of usage of the fuel, rather than for merely its own sake. Also, that as fuel efficiency goes up, that raising the gas tax to compensate still makes sense, that’s a good point, IMHO. That way, you’re still incentivizing people to get even MORE efficient, and charging the people who are not bother to.
Make the exception for Disability Plates. I’m ok with excepting Veterans Plates too. Disability placards really don’t need an exception, because they are transferable from vehicle to vehicle. Chances are good that the placard user is a passenger. My thoughts onlty, subject to critique. I’m sincerely trying to be helpful here, so recognize that please?
I was using the Dell.
but not all folks who have disability plates need a particular vehicle. In fact, I’d venture that most don’t.
<
p>So, instead of having a one-size-fits-all exception, why not just create a form which allows for anyone to apply for an exception. One reason might be for disability access (van or SUV with motorized wheelchair accessory, ease of getting in and out of vehicle, etc). There might be others, though I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
<
p>Of course, like anything, care must be taken so that the exceptions aren’t abused, and care must be taken so that the exception process isn’t overly cumbersome.
<
p>Then again, it might be that the percent of disability plates is so low that it’s just easier to make the exception for all plate holders, and not worry if a few disabled folks whos disability doesn’t justify a gas guzzler buy one anyway.
I know that placard abuse is rampant. i also know that any police type person will jump at the chance to nail the inconsiderate bastards. Just two days ago, I noticed a lady in her SUV grab the handicapped spot and it’s accompanying diagonal spot for disabled folks to actually be able to use the space. I asked her to move her vehicle. “why, I left you room?” “not enough for my wheelchair”. She grudgingly moved over enough, still parked illegally. It happens all the time.
19.5 cents..per gallon..but only 1.5 cents goes to road/bridge ..’repairs’? no thanks deval,it sounds
like those of us who drive the most (i.e.-still have jobs to commute to) will get nothing besides worsening roads.
I’m not interested in free passage thru the tunnels or bridges as I don’t use them now. As for the T,find some
stimulus money to bail them out,useless hacks…