The Legislature dropped its long-awaited transportation plan yesterday. It’s the first time I ever felt shock and disappointment at $500 million. I believed that we had the chance to set a visionary course for a post-Big Dig transportation system. It’s like having the opportunity to invest in an exciting new business, but instead you just pay off one of your credit cards.
That being said, it’s important to acknowledge some important victories that we asked for. In terms of good news, the Legislature’s proposal:
- Stops the practice of borrowing $234 million every year to cover salaries;
- Closes the MBTA’s structural deficit for FY14 without fare increases or service cuts;
- Forward funds the Regional Transit Agencies around the state and provides a miniscule increase in funding;
- Provides a modest bump for local transportation projects (basically road re-paving and some sidewalks);
- Finally raises the gas tax for the first time since 1991 and indexes it to inflation; and
- Does these things without further burdening low-income residents except smokers (at least this year).
But the fact remains that it will cost $2 billion just to replace the Red and Orange Line cars and there’s no way of paying for that. Nor major road and bridge repair. Nor the Green Line extension and the other regional rail projects. Nor increasing walking, biking and public transportation around the state in any significant way. Even more troubling, it looks like there is a built-in reliance on hefty fare increases in future years.
Why go so far and yet not finish the job? There is no question that we need to modernize and improve transportation. Families and businesses are losing time and money to a decrepit, congested system. Our economy can’t grow if we don’t increase capacity and connect the state better.
Imagine what life would be like today if we had never transformed transportation in the 1950s through the interstate system. How successful do you think we would be if we all had to use Route 9 to get from one end of Massachusetts to another? I can say with confidence that we would have far fewer jobs and far less mobility.
Now it’s 60 years later. Our society and our economy are transforming, but our thinking about transportation remains in the 1900s.
Automobiles are just one piece of the puzzle, and it’s declining. Today’s economy is driven instead by great places that attract people and investment, and which foster creativity and innovation. MassDOT has finally realized this, and set an inspiring goal of tripling the share of walking, biking and public transportation in the state. Now we need a financing plan that can enable this new generation of infrastructure to materialize.
Already, an increasing number of people are isolated because they can’t afford a car and the alternatives are inadequate. One out of eight households in the state doesn’t have a car, and fewer young people are getting drivers’ licenses. These trends will only become stronger in the coming years. We are becoming less mobile as a society because we have old-fashioned notions about getting around, and we are becoming less competitive and losing jobs to other places with better infrastructure.
There is another way. Businesses and young adults especially must speak for the future. The Legislature needs to do better.
For more information: http://ma-smartgrowth.org/transportation-campaign-2013/
Great summary of the issue. We are missing a historic opportunity to invest in a way that can both reduce green house gases and promote economic growth. The legislature package is not enough to accomplish those goals.
This proposal is barely a crumb.
Another metaphor is that this proposal is perfume sprayed on a dying body in vain hope of covering the stench of gangrene that even now rises from its decaying flesh.
This state committed to build the Green Line extension as part of its negotiations for the Big Dig in 1990 — more than twenty years ago. The equipment used every day is falling apart. Even if new equipment were ordered today, it will take years before that equipment is in use. Commuter rail cars ordered in 2008 are still not in service, and delivery dates remain no more concrete than the lege’s agreement to fulfill the states commitment to build the Green Line.
We see yet another example of gutless elected officials who lie to their constituents and the press rather than face the truth about how dire the situation is and the inadequacy anything short of the Governor’s proposal.
Rather than spreading lies, Mr. DeLeo and Ms. Murray should be using every opportunity to educate the voters about the desperate need for new taxes.
indexing the gas tax to inflation is a *huge* victory.
I really thought we’d get half of the Governor’s plan, which would have been a great step forward, instead of half of half… but in the long run, it may not matter nearly as much since we’ll have the gas tax indexed. That will pay huge dividends going forward.
What the legislature should realize, though, is that by lowballing the number this year, they’re again kicking the can down the road. Do we really want to be in a position that we have to raise taxes again in another two years? Because that’s probably what we’ll be facing.
The leg should seriously consider upping the ante by at least another $250m and put that money towards improving infrastructure. We probably still wouldn’t be spending what we need to maintain the status quo (I believe our shortfall on that front is $1b a year, but someone can correct me if I’m wrong), but it would be something.
it would have been even better if they had *both* indexed to inflation *and* removed the sales tax exemption. A number of states charge sales tax to gasoline in addition to the excise tax.
I agree with many other posters that they should have gone bigger, and I don’t buy this idea that we can’t *both* put operating funding where it needs to be *and* fund capital projects. The lege could have “only” spent another half billion on “good repair” capital projects instead of expansion, which would accomodate their purported concerns about increasing operating costs while taking advantage of this unique set of circumstances surrounding the opportunity to raise revenue.
plan was for $800 million… from an organization that’s pretty darn conservative and representative of business interests. If even they think we need $800 million, why not go for at least that much?
It seems much better to raise a little more revenue now than be in a position where we need to raise more revenue in a few years from now, when you *know* there will be a lot of people on Beacon Hill (and in the public) saying, “didn’t we just raise taxes a few years ago? Taxachusetts!” when there’s a need to increase taxes in a few years.
Plus, you know those same people will forget the fact that our legislative leaders were pushing this proposal as a ‘let’s just do this now and see where we’re at in another few years’ kind of proposal.
Which seems to be their main reasoning for why their plan isn’t more ambitious, based on my reading:
So, while I’m still happy to see them offer this proposal and include some great ideas in it, I hope they’ll find an opportunity to at least match the MTF’s proposed revenue, or at least explain why we’d need a few more years to figure out how much more revenue we’d need, when that calculation seems pretty straight forward to me and there’s work to be done now.
If it were moving backwards I can understand being upset, but I generally see moving forward as a good thing on balance.
There seems like a good chance this plan, by not factoring in the green line extension, would cost as much as it would save:
At the very least, the legislature needs to fix this. We cannot afford to lose out on $500 billion in federal funding for a project we’re legally obligated to do.
but it certainly does address your question.
Like Obama’s stimulus and New Year’s Day 2013 deal. You get one shot and if it’s too small that’s it for quite a while.
In 2 years, we don’t know what the political mood will be. We do know we won’t have Gov. Patrick, who has really gone to the bat for progressively raised revenue.
The opponents of revenue are opposed to $500 million as much as they are $2 billion.
The difference is that at $500 million, no one is going to feel the effects. With $2 billion, we restore painful cuts and make improvements and investments. Citizens would actually experience real improvements in education, transportation, infrastructure and services.
Do legislators really want to get the grief of a “tax hike” without the benefits? Why?!!
Do it right; do it once, and actually make a difference in people’s lives. Isn’t that why they ran for office in the first place?
If this were last year or next year, I could see it as a small but positive step in the right direction. BUT, this is really an historic opportunity to raise taxes in a progressive and significant manner. Several important factors make *now* the best chance to do the right thing and raise the money we need to make the needed investments over the next decade:
– We have a “lame duck” Democratic Governor (and Leutenant Governor) who does not need to run for re-election.
– We have a lame duck Democratic Senate President and a Speaker with apparantly little interest in higher office.
– It’s not an election year for the already overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature.
– The economy is at the “sweet spot” needed for a new tax proposal to really succeed. We’re not so bad off that nay new taxes are inpalatable and not so well-off that increasing revenue seems unecessary. As we (too slowly) recover from the Great Recession, it is the ideal time to seek needed tax reform and new investments.
With all that in place, I hardly see it as a “good thing” that a real, progressive tax increase is being replaced with this pile of insubstantial manure.
Progressive Massachusetts joins the Campaign for Our Communities and activists across the state in opposing the revenue plan unveiled yesterday by Speaker Deleo and Senate President Murray.
Lawmakers should vote against the plan next week (Monday in the House, Thursday in the Senate), and go back to the table for further discussion on how to truly meet the Commonwealth’s investment needs.
To our fellow members of the progressive community let’s phone bank the legislature.
In fact, if you’re at an Ed Markey phone bank tonight, spread the word with fellow campaign volunteers. Tell them about what’s happening, and get them to CALL right then and there! (We have a call script and handy legislator contact info, right here)
Governor Patrick and many state lawmakers showed real vision and a commitment to supporting our communities with their nearly two billion dollar proposals. We don’t see that in yesterday’s proposal from leadership.
We support any proposal that will raise substantial revenue, in a progressive manner, to invest in education, transportation and human services.
Join us in demanding our elected reject the current proposal, and in watching carefully to see how our legislators vote. Whatever revenue package passes in these coming weeks, this will have the biggest impact — on every Massachusetts resident’s life — of just about any other vote this session. The fate of transportation, education, human services, and infrastructure will be affected for years to come. Leadership’s proposal is so underwhelming, it doesn’t deserve support. This is a battle worth a continued fight.
We weren’t kidding when we said we want to hold legislators accountable.
(about that accountability thing… #ICYMI, our new scorecards)
And we can get much of the money we need for improvements from the capital markets, improve service, and allow the government to focus on what it should be doing: administering the state, not running a railroad. Hong Kong’s mass transit system is run by a private company controlled by the government and it provides a level of service so superior to ours that there really is no comparison. Our current system delivers barely adequate service with no prospect for systemic improvement and requires recurrent public subsidies that could much better be spent on investments with broader benefits.
Hasn’t worked great for prisons, for one sector. I don’t want a Charles Koch running a public services. I just don’t. Besides, privatized = profits flow out to someone else, not back into the system.
Not the same, but related, from Nick Kristof:
I agree completely. On the other hand, if one system works poorly and another one works well, we should try to learn from the one that is working better. Moreover, the United States, big though it is, is not the only source of instructive examples. Finally, I don’t know about you but I consider the MBTA to provide an unacceptably poor level of service. All it really has to recommend it is charm and history, and those aren’t enough to get to work on time. We must do better.
…since not funding it hasn’t worked so great. : )
And how does privatizing the MBTA solve it?
As I wrote in a reply to your initial thread, I don’t think the answers to those questions does anything to help your opinion… but they are the relevant questions.
How is a company controlled by the government private?
It’s just a better system. There is no comparison between the MBTA and the HK MTR. The former may be the oldest in the world, but it definitely has not maintained its advantage. It is second-rate, compared to systems in many other world class cities. Wikipedia:
systems all over the world that work beautifully and are not privatized. The RATP in Paris works so smoothly that it has purchased systems in other cities, outside France, and won contracts to operate them. And Munich, for example, has an integrated system that is entirely public, with a holding company to manage planning and coordination among different public entities.
China, and most of Europe, is kicking our behind in anything infrastructure related. The roads in France and Germany put ours to shame and Tom Freidman’s been going on about China for years. Airports, trains, everything, our fetish for funneling all of our society’s wealth to a small number of private hands is calling us to fall behind.
… you’re friend is only mostly dead… And mostly dead is slightly alive.
I would consider that mostly public is only slightly private. I would consider this ‘quasi-” private, FWIW.
has always seemed like a disaster, or at least some Republican Magic Fairy Dust that never seems to have the magical results promised. The idea that privatizing something will magically fix something is as much a fantasy as supply-side economics.
Whether it’s public education, transportation or health care, I’ve seen very few examples where privatization has led to the elimination of inefficiencies, and a lot of examples of where the opposite has occurred. The only thing privatizing the MBTA could do for Massachusetts would be to remove our politicians from being able to take the blame when fees go up or services are cut. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Maybe privatization works in Hong Kong. We’re not Hong Kong. We have a different culture, different politics and we’re not just one giant mega-city.
In fact, that later reason seems the most important: all too many legislators, from parts of the state that don’t use the MBTA, won’t ever want to see the MBTA heavily invested in.
Even a lot of legislators in areas that use the MBTA’s buses aren’t always going to make it a priority, because most of those riders aren’t the ones making a million phone calls and maxing out on donations, which leads their legislators to bend more towards the status quo or band-aid fixes, not committed to fully funding our needs or expanding service.
Finally, the problem isn’t that the MBTA is run poorly, it’s that the MBTA doesn’t have the resources to be run well. If you see some particular area where the MBTA is not efficiently run or wasteful, feel free to let us know about it.
I discussed this with candidate Patrick in 2006 and he was open to the idea. Its worked in Britain and France as well. Privatization as an ideology is a terrible idea, and some services it’s not suited for. But railroads were once privatized and could be again. Not a solution for every public service. Doesn’t work for the post (Japan and UK are bad examples there), doesn’t work for highways or parking meters (Chicago), but privatizing Chicago airports made sense, and conceivably it makes sense to sell off Massport and the MBTA and use the profits to make needed long term investments and then leave the operations to the private sector. It also removes one of the last bastions of patronage in the Commonwealth.
Kills two birds with one stone. Takes cars off the road making more T riders and generates money to fund the T. It’s a fairly progressive tax. Doubt our leadership has the cajones to get it done though.
drivers use the roads at times wholly of their choosing. I think that, from my past commuting experience, drivers are under the control of their employment as to when they use the roads. With the high price of gasoline, people aren’t gallivanting for the fun of it, clogging up the roads. They use the roads because they have to. Offer a viable economic alternative to that use, don’t threaten them with even higher costs for these trips.
is not a choice for many people, and the constant threats to increase fares even more, make it even less of a choice. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to make that choice for work, but what used to be a spur of the moment trip into Boston to shop or for entertainment, on the ‘T’, now frequently ends with a decision to stay home and not go in.
Sure, some folks actually “work” for a living instead of sitting at a computer desk, and they often have less flexible hours. Then again, they often work in service industries which aren’t 9-5, work in the trades [7-4, not 9-5], or in retail [often not 9-5].
And, it’s not a matter of 10% of the people driving in an hour earlier every day. If 50% of people drove in an hour earlier 1 day a week, you’d see the same impact. If extra funding for the T resulted in less-packed-trains, you’d also see some folks switch to the MBTA, thereby reducing congestion even more.
There are lots of ways to head in early, head home early, head home late, or work from home. Encouraging as many folks to do that just some of the time would really make a difference on our roads. Congestion pricing helps discourage folks from driving during rush hour, and the revenue from congestion pricing helps fund mass transit and bike/ped accommodations which get motorists off the road, thereby alleviating the congestion.
Makes it more expensive to drive to work and cheaper and more reliable to take the T in. And I am not some lilly eyed suburbanite, I’ve taken the CTA to work every day I’ve lived in Chicago and I took the T to school and work everyday when I lived in Cambridge. At the end of the day you save maybe 10-15 minutes taking the car, unless you have a very long commute. Considering it can take 90 minute to get down to the South Shore during the summer I’m surprised commuter ridership hasn’t increased down there. Government incentivizes choices. In the 1950s we incentivized cars, buses, and highways over trains and electric buses/trolleys. Today its time to reverse that damage.
Passenger service for US railroads always lost money, even during the glory days of passenger trains. Railroads viewed their passenger services as marketing and promotional tools, and the simultaneous expansion of broadcast media and automobiles destroyed the value of passenger service as an advertising medium. The automobile caused people to stop riding trains. Highways displaced railroad tracks, and once-thriving passenger stations became dilapidated and abandoned eyesores.
US railroads today are thriving, and haul only freight. Private passenger cars can be attached to AMTRAK trains — for those who live far away from the ocean, these are sometimes an alternative to private yachts.
In my view, the best long-term outcome is to nationalize the right-of-way and infrastructure (signals, stations, etc) and then encourage private carriers to operate passenger equipment on that infrastructure.
If that is what we mean by “privatizing” the MBTA, then perhaps I can support it. Even if we do that, we must acknowledge that it will still cost far more than we’ve been investing in it for the past two decades.
While a privatized mass transit system might work delightfully in Hong Kong, that may be because being a government functionary is a legitimate and lucrative career path in China. Many other countries generally have better bureaucrats, and better bureaucrats buy you better oversight. In our fair commonwealth, a company running public transportation would provide excellent transportation — to legislators and regulators to Caribbean resorts and ski lodges in Utah.
American exceptionalism, taste it.
Was that a biblical or Bioshock reference? Either way I approve
I’ve alluded to this before, but I like the idea of recognizing the good in the proposal and criticizing the bad, as well as keeping the dialogue adult-like, as the Governor would say. I love the indexing piece. It means that we won’t need to lobby the legislature for $500m to maintain the status quo ever few years. That opens up the possibilities of other revenues being raised. Although I think you should try, you’re just not going to get legislators to vote against it. Also, the Republicans look really stupid opposing this. The business community says its not enough, but the GOP reflexively opposes it? I wonder why they’re irrelevant. I must say, it’s less revenue than I expected, and probably less than they could have pulled off while still looking like the moderate balance to the Governor’s plan.
Such a ridiculously small step forward. Jack Kennedy talked about “profiles of courage”, but that phrase doesn’t apply to our state legislature.
But it’s a positive sign that a disappointing outcome is a revenue positive bill and not another tax cut. Speaks not only to the need for revenue but also the political tide.
if it doesn’t cost us the matching funds for the green line extension we’re legally obligated to build.
The MBTA thinks it will.
Not funding the Green Line extension violates existing commitments, common sense, and fiscal responsibility. The legislature should insist on funding the Green Line extension and raise taxes to pay for it.
Governor Patrick should veto any proposal that fails to meet this standard, and progressive legislators should vote to sustain that veto.
And raise fares?
n/t
for the main question — the $500,000 plan – yes or no
for amendments to the $500,000 plan – maybe 50 or 75 or 100 amendments that will be due on Friday for everything from protecting the elderly and disabled and students from fare increases to extending certain bus lines to privitizing. All simple (actually not so simple) majorities needed to pass each amendment.
At trhe same time of course, the whole cast of characters aginst the $500,000 plan will be assessing whether or not they have a couple of votes over 1/3 to sustain the Governors veto, if it ever comes to that.
If the House rejects the $500,000 plan, it’s dead, or more likely goes back to HW&M for a rewrite.
If the House amends the $500,000 plan it goes over to the Senate and SW&M will propose their own plan which may or may not look like the House’s $500,000 plan as amended. The Senate will debate and amend their plan, and then the two different plans are sent to a House/Senate Conference Committee — 3 Members each of the House & Senate, appointed by the Speaker and the Senate President.
The Conference Committee will deliberate and send a report to the House and Senate for approval (simple majority) and THEN it goes to the Governor for further amendment and or a veto.
Every step along this path the Governor and the Legisaltive Leadership will be counting votes. And all the various coalitions that have been lobbying for more revenues and the multiple advocates for health and human services, higher education, early education, k-12 education, the enviornment, the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, MBTA, regional transit, Chapter 90, and on and on will be counting votes at least to to protect their own priority line items and hopefully supporting for necessary new revenues through an increase in the income tax proposed by both the Governor and the Coalition for Our Communities.
Most of this is pretty transparent to Members, who will hopefully be hearing from constituents and to all the advocacy groups who will be busy organizing and moobilizing their constituents along the way.
My experience has taught me how important it is to moderate my clients energy because all too often the long process wears them out and they succumb to temporary cynicism because it’s easier to blame the process and the “hacks” than admit we failed to convince a “simple majority” to adopt our solution to our sympathetic compelling problem.
While our legislators count the votes for Monday, the Red Line is operating trains with open doors. This sort of political wrangling has been going on for decades now, and we face an MBTA that by all rights should be shut down right now.
You’re right, I’m cynical. I think its time to shut down the MBTA altogether. Abrogate all the labor agreements, declare bankruptcy, whatever. Dissolve it.
I am absolutely convinced that the result will be catastrophic for Massachusetts. I’m becoming equally convinced that such catastrophe is the only way to get anything changed.
Is this website real life?
It’s politics. It’s about exercising your influence and taking bold stands. Each legislator has the opportunity to vote against a truly bad plan. Whether they stand with the Gov or cower in shadow of the leaders, that’s on them. I’ll do what I can to influence legislators so they can understand that.
The veto is part of the Governor’s constitutional office.
He can accompany the veto with a statement that he will veto EVERY bill that fails to address the real and present needs of the Commonwealth.
That’s “real life”. Courage is, after all, still real — even if rare.
If he digs in and the legislature digs in, you end up with nothing rather than the “half loaf.”
1. Legislators who will support more than the $500m.
2. Legislators who will support $500m.
3. Governor who ran saying no new taxes then proposed them when he was a lame duck.
4. Democrats who won’t support the $500m.
That’s what I’m offering so you’ll LIKE it. I’m newish here, so I’m not sure if you’re a conservative or what, but this seems exactly like what’s wrong with Democrats. Fear, defensive crouch.
“If I stand up for what I really want, I might not get ANYthing!”
…there is more to enhancing the Green Line than simply expanding its reach. I for one dread the Green Line. It’s trains are cramped and they lurch back and forth. They also stop too often and thus take forever.
It’s not just a matter of enhancing. It’s also a matter of statutory requirements.
I just hope there is more to it than extended distance.
The trains lurch back and forth because they travel over antique infrastructure that belongs in a museum. The extension will be new track laid on new roadbed alongside class-I tracks.
Our trains will remain unsafe and unusable until we invest in upgrading them.