This should mean war! Deval unleashes his inner tax and fee child!

Ok, so... (3.00 / 1)

The report outlines the state of underfunding currently facing all of our state's transportation systems. How do you recommend we pay for our transportation infrastructure needs?

Alternately, if you think we shouldn't pay more, what do you propose we reduce or eliminate? Be specific. Which T services should be eliminated? Which roads and bridges should be shut down?

Note that the answer "cut out the fat" or "fire half the DOT" won't actually address the very real problem of how to pay for maintaining roads, bridges, and the nation's oldest public transit system.  

---

by: eury13 @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 19:49:04 PM UTC

I would be for raising the gas tax. However I would first (4.00 / 2)

demand that the Pacheco anti-privatization bill be repealed. Then I would remove all prevailing wage laws for construction and maintenance projects. I would also explore, if possible, development of the MBTA's or any regional transportation system's air rights. Lastly we should not expand the MBTA's footprint by one inch.  Then and only then would I support a reasonable increase in the gas tax.  

"Work is the essence of Man."

---

by: Karl Marx @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 20:22:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gas Tax (0.00 / 0)

Is inherently regressive as it hits those unable to afford to live closer to work as well as those who cannot afford an upgrade to a more fuel efficient vehicle such as a hybrid.  Therefore, we need to do something to ensure that those vehicles that do not use gas yet are heavy and cause considerable wear and tear on the roads pay their fair share of maintenance and upkeep.

Yeah, find it very hard to be arguing for a more progressive tax and for "fair share"   But I find it even more unbelievable that Patrick is sticking it so badly to the very people he proudly proclaims to help.  Sir may I have another!

---

by: ConsEph @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 20:36:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Work that into the registration fee (0.00 / 0)

You are right, since the gas tax is used to pay for roads, that electric cars aren't paying their share. But electric cars are already so much more expensive, that the promise lower fuel costs is one way to incentivize buying one. If we try to recoup that lost gas tax revenue in the registration fee, we remove one of the main reasons people get them. But perhaps we could make the extra registration fee an "optional gas tax replacement" fee and appeal to liberal guilt to pay an extra $50 a year. They aren't buying electric cars in order to starve government from revenue, after all.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 20:51:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He gave you a 4 Karl (0.00 / 0)

Eury rated your comment a 4.  I was surprised when I saw that ... I would have given you a 5!

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 21:37:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was a good response (0.00 / 0)

I don't agree with all of the points, but it was thought out and addressed the question at a substantive level

---

by: eury13 @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 17:52:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed - I just couldn't resist. I wanted to make it look like I was telling on you. : ) (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 18:09:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about (3.50 / 2)

come back to us AFTER they have "cut out the fat" or "fire half the DOT" and then "actually address the very real problem of how to pay for maintaining roads, bridges, and the nation's oldest public transit system."    

---

by: Term Limits @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 20:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$2 Billion in savings (5.00 / 2)

Don't build the South Coast Rail - that will cost OVER $1 billion to build - then hundreds of millions to maintain.  

Don't build the $800 million greenway extension and other NEW services on the MBTA.  

Stop expanding.  

---

by: plymouth99 @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 21:06:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

South Coast Rail (0.00 / 0)

Agree 100%. MassDOT and its predecessors have been consistently inaccurate in their estimates for ridership.  The Greenbush line is a great example of how they vastly overestimated ridership to achieve a result that they wanted.  So prove that the South Coast rail would actually make sense economically rather than politically pandering.

The Green Line extension is, for all intents and purposes, a must do.  It is part of the Big Dig (yeah, that again) mitigation.  If the extension is not completely then the State foregoes its federal highway monies. That's not good and a very large number so it will be built.  

---

by: ConsEph @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 21:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a few (0.00 / 0)

1) Reform prevailing wage laws.  The Beacon Hill institute has shown that prevailing wage costs us a tremendous amount in construction costs over private.

2) Don't go Cadillac.  Often things can be done for cheaper than what they are.  For instance, did we really need to have fake clocks on the Winter Street Bridge over 128 in Waltham?  How much did that add?  

3) Don't do the green line extension.  IT is a waste.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 21:40:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree 1 and 2 (0.00 / 0)

But number 3 is a legally mandated mitigation arising out of a lawsuit against the Commonwealth because of the Big Dig so there is legal and financial ramifications to not doing the Green Line Extension that should be factored into the cost benefit analysis for a Green Line Extension.  What should be done though is ask why has the cost continued to balloon in the last couple of years from under $800 million to over $1.3 Billion now.

---

by: ConsEph @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 21:54:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How many $$millions....$$billions (0.00 / 0)

are being wasted putting up aesthetic noise barriers along miles upon miles of the Commonwealth's highways?

FIRST, what must be done is identifying EXACTLY how much is NECESSSARY to maintain the highways.....THEN tax the People accordingly.

...but with the sheer fraud and waste going on...without even touching the high costs of the labor that goes into it....it is a fruitless endeavor.

This is nothing more than "we need more" to do what they want to do.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 20:22:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Driver's Licenses should be $0 (0.00 / 0)

They are needed for ID whether people drive or not, and everyone would benefit equally from making them cost $0. Registering a car should still cost something, but doubling the rate is regressive, it should maybe be a sliding scale based on blue book value, like excise taxes are.

If we make ID's free, then that legal block against voter ID goes away. They have to be free to require them for voting.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 20:41:09 PM UTC

Question for John Howard! (Dun Dun Dunnnnnnnnnnn) (0.00 / 0)

Would you support free gun licenses?

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 14:12:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS: I'm just kidding about the "Dun Dun Dunnnnnnn" (0.00 / 0)

I just wanted to be dramatic.  :)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 14:14:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, it shouldn't cost anything to be allowed to own a gun (0.00 / 0)

In general, licenses ought to be free, or rather paid for by the public, since it is the public that is demanding people get a license. But especially for driver's licenses that are pretty much required to be able to function in society, even if people don't drive. Everyone needs an ID, so making them free benefits everyone. Other licenses like guns, or plumbing or practicing law, aren't as necessary for everyone to have, so there is more of an argument that people that want a license to practice law should have to pay more of the cost of licensing lawyers.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 19:45:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks John ... I agree too (0.00 / 0)

It would be nice to card people at the polls and it would seem that providing an ID free of charge would be a nice compromise (can I use that word these days?).

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 16:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't this just a user fee? (0.00 / 0)

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 00:37:59 AM UTC

Reaction from the SouthCoast (0.00 / 0)

Our daily newspaper, the Standard-Times, is reporting that the "SouthCoast would be biggest beneficiary of costly state transportation plan".  The rail extension is fully funded to the sum of $1.8 billion.

I used the Commuter Rail extensively as a graduate school student at UMass Boston and yes, I do prefer it as a way to get in to Boston for a social event (although, it really doesn't run late enough for a night game at Fenway).  

In theory, I support the extension.  I've long said that if the SouthCoast Rail Project could be done in an economically responsible manner that let the trains come on down.  Backin April 2007, I had a letter to the editor of this same newspaper titled "Governor, show us details".  In that piece, I wrote "However, notably missing from his display was any concrete plan to pay for the extremely expensive project."  Well, now Governor Patrick has given us a plan but it's far from concrete.  Rather, it's very slushy and could quickly turn to quicksand.  

If we were going to have SouthCoast Rail, perhaps we should have listened to Richard Tisei back in June 2010 when the then would-be lieutenant governor came to the area during gubernatorial election and suggested tying the extension to SouthCoast casino legislation, but I digress.  

One detail I do notice is that in 2007, the estimate was $1.4 billion, 6 years later, we've increased the cost by $400,000,000.  If money, thus taxation, were no object then I'd be along side Deval Patrick driving in the golden spike but this isn't Fantasyland and Deval is governor, not King of the Magic Kingdom.  My jaw dropped when I saw the possible tax & fee hikes.  I can't support this draconian tax hike scheme.  The average Massachusetts resident, and indeed the average Bay Stater living here in the SouthCoast, simply cannot afford this long-sought project.  For those who would be the hypothetical beneficiaries of the SouthCoast Rail Project and other sweet gifts from the candyman, be careful what you wish for as you just may get it!

As for me, the best improvements that the MBTA ever made for the SouthCoasters using Commuter Rail was the expansion of the Lakeville/Middleboro parking lot some years ago which virtually doubled the parking capacity.  Since then, I've never had a problem of not having a parking spot, even at peak times.  Even if the rail is extended to New Bedford & Fall River, the vast majority of us are going to have to drive to those T stations.  These cities are not walking cities.  The drive to Middleboro/Lakeville is just a proverbial hop, skip, and jump away.

Below are some quotes from two different Standard-Times articles today from a SouthCoast perspective.  

"The SouthCoast has been economically cut off for a long, long time and now is the time to deal with that," the governor said. "We've had some self-defeating economics in the commonwealth for a long time, starving certain regions of infrastructure investments in favor of one big project in downtown Boston. In the future, we need to pay attention to the whole of the commonwealth."

The rail project "will result in greater mobility for SouthCoast residents and less congestion on Route 24," the administration said in a prepared statement. "The project is expected to create 3,800 jobs and generate $500 million in new economic activity statewide annually."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com...

Rep. William Straus, D-New Bedford, chairman of Legislature's Joint Committee on Transportation: "I'm assuming the public is in agreement that we have to do something. I think the public is more accepting of revenue that is raised in a way that relates to transportation use and only goes to transportation needs.

"There are key regional programs in different parts of the state that are needed for our transportation system. We will be raising money and spending money for projects all across the state. Everybody has a stake in this."

Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford: "We start out today with good news. This is something worth celebrating. But this is still the beginning of what will be a very painful discussion. Once we get over our initial glee, there will be very significant criticism from those who will be paying. All new revenues are painful.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com...

Rep. Antonio Cabral, D-New Bedford: "If people clearly understand where the money will be spent, I think a good number of people understand what's needed and will be supportive.

"I'm happy that on the menu of proposed new revenues is a green fee that I've been proposing since 2006 and is on that menu exactly as I proposed it. A green fee is a solution that raises revenue directly related to transportation. It benefits the environment while providing the revenue we need to invest in transportation.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com...

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:05:10 PM UTC

Brock (4.50 / 2)

Shouldn't New Bedford and Fall River pay the expansion costs.  Shouldn't the riders pay more.  Why do my tolls have to go up for your train?

Rob

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 15:18:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do his taxes pay for your roads? (0.00 / 0)

With the exception of the pike tolls, we don't pay for roads based on who uses them. We pool our money together and pay for the road infrastructure for the entire state.

Those who ride the T to work every day are still paying taxes that go to road maintenance, even if they don't own cars. That's on top of the T pass they have to buy (that, admittedly, doesn't cover the full cost of their ride).

I don't see value pitting different types of commuters against each other or having east/central/west debates over who's paying or getting more than their fair share. The state as a whole benefits from an updated, maintained infrastructure.

---

by: eury13 @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 18:28:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pittsfield to NYC (5.00 / 1)

Is a direct attempt to acquire the support of the residents of Western MA who would be paying the taxes but not seeing much, if any, benefit in their part of the state, particularly with a miles driven tax as things are just farther apart out west.

---

by: ConsEph @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 19:03:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re-Read (0.00 / 0)

Rob, you may want to re-read what I wrote as I live in the SouthCoast and I'm not even convinced we need the darn thing much less agree with the absurd funding mechanism that requires a plethora of draconian tax increases.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 21:42:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$2 billion (5.00 / 1)

We can't afford it.  It's that simple.  

We don't have an extra $2 billion.  It's a nice to have project and will bring ZERO money to the southcoast.  

The entire economic plan of New Bedford is this stupid rail - think about it.  The plan is - let's make it easier for people to LEAVE our city.  No one will be commuting 'into' New Bedford, that's laughable. Everyone will be commuting into Boston.  

Typically people with vision have plans to attract people to their city, not build new ways to make it easier to find employment in another city.  

---

by: plymouth99 @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 17:16:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Entirely (0.00 / 0)

New Bedford also pins its hopes on a casino.  The Whaling City arguably started the siren's call years upon years ago.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 21:44:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Green Fees (0.00 / 0)

Here we go again.  Tax the poor and working folks who need a car for work, etc. but cannot afford the same hybrid cars that the good folks in Brookline, Weston and Cambridge can.  Do have to like the idea of "Progressives" proposing a regressive tax.

And, let us not forget, that someday these hybrid vehicles will need to be replaced which means the batteries will need to be disposed of, recycled, exactly what do we do with the batteries?  Not a scientist, but I think that the batteries are made of some pretty nasty stuff, not Green.  So will we be looking at a Green Car disposal fee in the future?

---

by: ConsEph @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 18:08:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shoddy reporting (0.00 / 0)

Also worth noting, unlike how the CBS article makes it sound, the Governor's document did not call for specific fees to be raised in any amount. Rather, it laid out the scope of the problem and listed possible solutions for the legislature to discuss. The Gov seems to have learned better than to tell Bobby and Terry what to do!

---

by: eury13 @ Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 19:57:50 PM UTC