How about some dedicated taxes for the T?
The MassInc think tank explains why the state should look at dedicated payroll or even gas taxes to help fund both the MBTA and the state's other regional public-transit systems. The report says the cost per person would be small and would help increase support for public transportation in the 60% of the state whose residents don't live in the MBTA district yet who help fund it anyway through a portion of the sales tax.
At this crossroads, Massachusetts faces a choice. The state can continue on the current course, applying fresh financial bandages, or Massachusetts can depart boldly from the status quo by giving regions across the Commonwealth tools to invest in public transportation at levels consistent with their needs and aspirations for economic growth.
Comments
Payroll tax catches out of state beneficiaries of metro economy
This sounds interesting - I'll have to read the whole thing later.
At first glance, the payroll assessment has at least one attractive feature - it is a mechanism to get all of the people from NH and RI who work in Greater Boston to help pay for a transit system that helps to take cars out of their way (and in the case of those riding the T, puts them on a more level footing with people residing in MA).
It is only fair that those folks who benefit so much from their proximity to the economic engine of Greater Boston also help pay for the infrastructure at nearly the same level as those who live 10 miles away from them in MA.
it's real simple - parking tax
At first glance, the payroll assessment has at least one attractive feature - it is a mechanism to get all of the people from NH and RI who work in Greater Boston to help pay for a transit system that helps to take cars out of their way
Yeah, except a payroll tax dings everyone who does use public transit or cycles (instead of driving a car.)
Here's a better idea: a tax on parking spaces. Not at point of 'sale', but on the property owners. Apartment buildings, commercial buildings, retail buildings, and parking lots/garages. The more spaces you have, the more taxes you have to pay...
Agreed -- parking tax is the way to go
And for those of you (hi fish brain) who hate the word tax, you can instead view it as a reduced subsidy. We don't charge the true economic cost for parking, so a tax just wipes out the subsidy. Win-win!
So a property owner that must provide
a certain number of parking spaces in accordance with applicable laws and/or permitting requirements will now be taxed on what they were legally required to construct in the first place?
Here's a much better idea - Why not have the Lottery estabish a "MBTA" scratch ticket, with 100% of the net revenue after payouts and expenses going to fund the T's operating budget. Seems to me this would raise far more money than taxing property owners for parking spaces.
Parking minimums / road subsidies
Haven't we begun to move away from mandated parking minimums? I know I've spoken to some folks around here who still believe in them, but I think the City has gotten the message.
Either way, regulations that mandate a minimum number of parking spaces should be abolished, and parking subsidies should be removed entirely.
Just eliminating road subsidies would do a great deal to help the T, helping to put it back on a level playing field, resulting in higher fare revenues and expanded ridership. That would increase the constituency demanding capital improvements, as well.
Of course this will never happen -- people are quite attached to their "free" government-subsidized roads. And there are some benefits to having them -- I just want the costs to be fully realized by the public instead of hidden.
I don't like the idea of the Lottery because it is essential a tax on people too stupid or sentimental to understand probability theory. This is primarily uneducated or lesser educated folks. The MBTA provides economic value to everyone in the region, and its funding source should be derived from that value, not from something arbitrary like the Lottery.
"Free" Is an Interesting Concept
Its time for bold measures so how about bringing the idea of a fare-free public transit system to the table. Yes, you still have to fund it, but include the costs of reduced road travel, reduced health care costs, reduced need for road maintenance, etc. and the cost benefit or investment return may look promising.
Time to stop laying at the edges and move to bolder solutions.
Unfortunately I don't think
Unfortunately I don't think we've gotten rid of parking minimums in zoning laws.
Several recent building projects I'm familiar with in Cambridge had to spend a lot of extra money and lose a lot of important square footage to provide off-street parking that they didn't want.
Lets start by making the
Lets start by making the incredibly subsidized publicly provided parking better reflect costs.
$1 an hour, free after 6pm? What is this, Boise?
SF is now treating parking like....a business! Free market baby!
Rates vary from .50 to $4.00 based on demand, on a block by block basis. Hours vary as well. Some districts are free after 6. Some, not until 11.
Take some of the added revenue and put it back into transit. Things like bus lanes, fancy bus stops etc are handled on the local level, which is where the funding can work.
Congestion charges
Why stop at parking?
Road space is also a limited, valuable resource. The variable pricing model can also be applied there. Everyone wins: the drivers have less traffic to deal with, and the City gains a proper revenue stream to fix the roads and provide transit alternatives, instead of stealing from other funds.
The parking space tax is an idea, but...
I'm not sure that it's better.
First, I didn't mean to suggest that users and other beneficiaries of the T shouldn't pay a bit more, too. We should. I've been on record for a long time saying that the T is too cheap.
While I like the notion of a parking space surcharge, I can only imagine the lengths to which commercial property owners would go to avoid this ("no more lined spaces, so how many do I have? - I'll tie the assessment up in court for years until I can sell my building") and enforcement would be a nightmare. Cost of enforcing compliance is a huge concern - and payroll taxes are arguably the cheapest to collect (all of the bureaucracy and machinery is already in place!)
Speaking of which, how would people feel when, even though Person A is a good urban doobie and doesn't have a car, his rent is going up because his apartment building has a parking lot? That creates the same problem you're talking about with being hit by a payroll tax. What happens when Person A's employer can't give him a raise again next year because she has to pay the additional taxes for the parking lot or garage at the office? I think that would piss of at least as many people as the 0.16% payroll tax.
There is no free lunch. We're all going to get hit one way or another.
Great timing! More taxes, er "revenues" to feed the beast.
How about, gasp, making these systems run like a business or better yet, privatizing them altogether? Charge a fare that at least somewhat covers the cost of the service, unlike the token (no pun intended) fee charged now? $1.70 from Alewife to Braintree? What would that be, a $60-70 cab ride? $15-20 by car with gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance thrown in? Then, maybe make sure ads that have been purchased for a month don't stay up unpaid for years. Never mind the MBTA real estate division and missed opportunities on parking, air rights, etc. Lastly, stop expanding the system until it can pay for and maintain what it has. The state legislature should pass a law prohibiting court judgments forcing public transit systems to expand when they're broke and seek similar federal legislation. Greenbush is a perfect example, with the T's new unwanted train competing against the popular T ferry service while T buses that go to Red Line stations run alongside much of the track. Maybe they should add a T helicopter service to round out the options. More
taxes"revenues" to pay for this? No thanks.Because it's not just the
Because it's not just the users of public transportation who benefit. More use of public transportation means fewer cars on the road which means better air quality and less traffic for the remaining cars.
Same as we fund public schools. Society has deemed it's more than worth the expense to make sure everyone gets an education, rather than only those who can afford private school.
Positive Externalities
Back when I was studying economics, we used to call these things (education) "positive externalities".
The problem has always been, however, that the value of positive externalities are always under appreciated (just as public utilities are - until they're all gone - see the "tragedy of the commons").
This is one of the reasons why I think that people need to get away from the better air quality type arguments. Not because it's not accurate, its just that people can't really appreciate things that aren't in dollars and cents. I think success would be more likely if you could say something like "x amount of people who use the Southeast Expressway would take the T if it was more reliable and faster, resulting in x fewer cars on the road, and increasing average speeds so that you save $nnn/year in gas." Unfortunately, even that might be too tortuous for the body politic (not least because the T has so little credibility now - see Greenbush promises).
Traffic air pollution has huge costs
Looked at the cost of healthcare for childhood asthma, lately?
Swirly, the connection is too remote for most people.
Yeah, I know, Swirly, but it's too remote for a lot of people. You get the standard explainaways: "well, what do you expect if you live in [insert dense urban neighborhood here]." "Those kid's parents take such bad care of them anyway, how can you attribute it to me driving my car?" All of that stuff.
There can only be one or two degrees of separation before people call BS.
Except that it isn't that remote
Traffic pollution is becoming very important in suburban areas, not to mention in-car exposures ...
I've long referred to the suburban cookie cutter houses built right into the loop of the onramp from 93N to 95N as "NOx Estates".
The relationship between traffic exposures and socioeconomic status is highly variable, as people value easy access to highways.
"I've long referred to the
"I've long referred to the suburban cookie cutter houses built right into the loop of the onramp from 93N to 95N as "NOx Estates".
Congratulations. Without a doubt one of the douchiest phrases I have ever read. You take yourself waaaaay too seriously.
Its not a business
The T is a public utility, like a road or your water service. The T provides a public service and acts as an engine of commerce. There is inherent public benefit to ensuring its existence and its high ridership. It sounds like you would like to live in the Utopian world of the "invisible hand," which you will one day realize doesn't exist, so I am sure this will fall on deaf ears, but public transit systems, like water services, ports, roads, bridges, and schools, were never intended to run like a business and shouldn't be. Taxes are well worth the benefit they provide.
Once upon a time,
nearly all transit services in this country were owned and operated by private companies. Why isn't this the case anymore? Because those companies decided there wasn't enough profit in it, and ceded the business over to state and local governments.
We heavily subsidize highways, airports, and other infrastructure with public money, and few people bat an eye at this spending. But society continues to treat transit systems as an orphan child and unfarily insists such systems must "pay their own way". Until we take serious steps to erase this mindset, we will never make any real progress in improving public transportation in this country.
And this "fear of building anything without getting 100% concensus from the public" mentality that has become all too prelevant in the past few decades (think Greenbush and GLX, among other projects that have been unnecessarily stalled for no legitmate reason) doesn't exacly help the situation. Nor are the resulting practices (expensive and wasteful "studies" and endless "civic engagement" activities to name a few) very cost efficient either.
Don't you know that public transit is for poor people?
Well stated, and I think it all comes back to the feeling, still held by so many of the baby boomer generation (not all) that the transit systems are for poor people who can't afford cars. While that is slowly changing, it has a long way to go given the size of that demographic group and the fact that it currently runs things.
Actually, boomers seem to be
Actually, boomers seem to be OK with the subways. It's buses that make them worry somebody might think they were >GASP< ONE OF THE POORS!
Either way, I don't know why we're getting so excited about this. Somebody has to die before the Legislature will take any action.
Private Transit Operators
Not only did they find it not profitable enough, they were competing against subsidized alternatives. Government killed private transit as a viable model when it built public roads.
As You Say, But...
Some private transit operators were killed by competition from a side-by-side government entity rather than road building. When folks could get a government-subsidized nickel ride on certain parallel operating lines, it became realistically impossible for the private operators to raise their fares to a level that would have made staying in business worthwhile.
Yes, the roads built, from funds that would have likely gone to public transport, helped kill it. But it was hardly a matter of government riding in on a white horse to save the poor subway rider. It was more a matter of government specifically aiming to take over the franchise and then, a few years down the road, killing off part of it, IMHO.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
No disagreement
You've got info on the specifics. I was basically just saying that transit companies in general were forced to compete with a subsidized alternative. I didn't realize that there was a parallel government run service when the private operators were still per-consolidated. I'd like to know more about that if you can point me in the right direction. I had always thought it went roughly like this:
private--\
private---\
BERY----------MTA----MBTA
private---/
private--/
Was BERY subsidized while the others weren't?
I Misled You, Henry Alan
I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough in my reply. I was thinking more of NYC than Boston. Theirs is an interesting one to study because there were clearly delineated private and government entities running parallel lines. The IND (Independent Subway System, which was the government entity, named in a strangely Orwellian fashion) competed side-by-side with portions of the BRT and IRT (Brooklyn Rapid Transit and Interborough Rapid Transit, respectively) during the 1930's.
Great side fact, leading to amazing political wrangling, was that many of the lines of the IRT and BRT were built by government and then leased to the private ownerships, prior to the government deciding to build its own lines.
(It is a fascinating tale for political and subway buffs, and I am both. Much more detail, may be found in a fine little book called 722 Miles, an account of NYC subways and elevated from inception to more-or-less present day.)
The "nickel ride" was a huge political football for years in New York, the (if you don't mind) third-rail equivalent of social security or some such today. Even after the unification of all lines under government authority, and the obvious need for substantial fare hikes, many politicians refused to risk their careers by voting for the needed fare increases.
Road and bridge building became the major focus in the 1950's and 1960's, and that in turn led to dismantling/downsizing/degradation of the system. It has since returned to a tremendously well-run operation, and the T would do well (IMHO) to imitate many of its customer service initiatives.
Your timeline of Boston transit growth/takeover by government is pretty much spot on. Sorry if I stupidly gave the impression that I was talking exclusively about Boston operations. I think the NYC story holds more relevance, even here, when discussing such things as "free rides" and "subsidized rides" and "private versus public" and "road building", since the examples of such are much clearer and the results more readily seen (again, as always, IMHO.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
That is quite a bit of a
That is quite a bit of a stretch, most transportation was co-opted by the state. Believe it or not, there were successful, private/profitable railroads before special interests lobbied for the state to take over (aka Amtrak - Biden's cash burning dream machine). The losing railroads who couldn't run effectively got the state to do their dirty work and wipe out the ones that were run well. Now we have rotting infrastructure and an inability to provide service cheaper than a plane that taxpayers must subsidize for all users.
Transportation is not something ceded to the state in all cases. Companies like ZipCar and many private bus firms work very hard to provide cost effective service. Remember next time you take that $20 Greyhound to NYC (which still profits) instead of the $240 round trip Amtrak train that taxes subsidize.
In other places like LA, companies even build multi-billion dollar highway systems to help alleviate traffic, so instead of sitting on the "free" highway, you pay a variable price to go on the private system. The choice is yours on whether you value a $4 toll vs 1-2 hours of bumper to bumper traffic, but when the state stops blocking such efforts, there's no shortage of will to service customers by private industry.
This isn't even getting to the fact that US law dictates it manage all airports in the country, despite countries like Canada who were able to deregulate their airports, save significant budget dollars, and provide better services (ie: no feeling up grandma via the TSA) to their users.
Incorrect
Amtrak was formed because there were no private profitable passenger railroads by the late 60s. All of the freight operators wanted to get rid of their passenger services -- but at that time they were not allowed to do so by regulation. Once it was permitted, nearly all ceded their passenger services to Amtrak.
There were a few private remnants after Amtrak, but they were either losing money (and held onto out of a sense of pride or as a loss-leader) or some kind of heritage railroad tour.
Amtrak fares to NYC are $49 one-way when booked two weeks in advance. Intercity bus fares range from $1-25 typically. I would put it at $15 average if you don't get the crazy specials.
However, intercity buses operate over massively taxpayer subsidized highways, while Amtrak maintains the North East Corridor with a far smaller subsidy.
In addition, the train service is superior in quality to the buses, as there is something that is bringing customers. Although the scheduled travel times are similar, and the buses cost 2-3x less, the trains have no problem filling seats.
That variable pricing scheme is very nice. I don't see any reason it cannot be applied to state-owned roads as well.
I would love to see private passenger railroad operators once again. But I don't think it can happen anymore. Fixed cost systems, particularly high fixed costs such as the railroads, do not do well when their competitors are subsidized by the government. If you want to see the return of private railroads, then we're going to have to see elimination of highway subsidies from taxpayer dollars.
Also we'd have to abolish the FRA, or see some kind of radical restructuring, as they currently make really bad regulations.
Another option for privatized railroads
I pretty much agree with everything that you've written. There is an alternative to this, though:
Give government direct responsibility for building and maintaining rail right of ways, then privatize operations. This would not only make private passenger rail possible (both Amtrak and new entrants), but would also be a huge boost to the already successful freight operators, who could offer significantly less expensive transportation costs to the nation's businesses.
The other thing we'd have to do is allow the private operators to not service unprofitable routes. We'd get more and better in places like California, the Northeast, and Great Lakes/Ohio Valley regions, but probably would see long distance routes go the way of the Dodo.
Public versus private isn't
Public versus private isn't the problem. It's the bureaucratic nonsense that makes all transportation projects so expensive in this area.
The Green Line Extension is going to cost a billion dollars, for 5 miles of track along the vacant half of an existing right of way. In Germany, such a project would cost about one fiftieth of that.
And the counterproductive federal supposed-safety standards for mainline rail cars ensure that we'll never be able to use the cheap, reliable, mass-produced trains found all over Europe.
I was actually going to say that
But then I deleted the paragraph because I decided the post was too long.
Separation of operations from track ownership is a possibility. In fact, that is the model pursued in Britain since the 90s. However, my enthusiasm for the model is tempered by the experience over there. I have heard from British friends that privatization turned out to be a giant mess.
I'm not sure if it was the way they went about it, or something more fundamental.
Some Googling turned up this: http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2010/11/rail-657-an-open-letter-to-sir-roy-mcnulty/
And also it wouldn't address the problem with the FRA.
um ok, we can treat it like a
um ok, we can treat it like a business....
it's too big to fail. Now give it a trillion dollars
+1 to pierce
n/t
Fine
But they have to pay it back.
Ooops.
I have no problem with a new tax that is more effective and gains regional support for regional benefit. However, what tax are you going to eliminate to offset this?
On a percentage basis Mass is middle of the pack in taxes and on a dollar basis we are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
As long as it's revenue neutral - go for it - but how do you get to neutral?
The point is that it shouldn't be revenue neutral
This suggestion, which I find flawed for other reasons (payroll taxes are regressive) was put forward with the idea that existing revenue streams are not enough to fund transit along with general obligations. The tax is not meant to be revenue neutral, and would have no value if it were.
It has to be revenue neutral
What part of "We're broke" do people not understand? I'm a big fan of the T and I'd be happy to see the government prioritize the T over other things like roads (for example take some of the toll money from the Pike and don't maintain the pike to such a high standard - it's overmaintained already in my opinion anyway)- but the taxpaying base is not an ATM.
Oh let's have a new toy - let's put in a new tax. That's the kind of thinking on a government and personal level that got us where we are.
If it's not revenue neutral it means we can't afford it. Next idea please.
When car owners pay it all back ...
... we'll talk.
Face it, car users are in the vast majority
Once people get away from their comfortable little world that is UHub, they'll find that car owners are the overwhelming majority and want their taxes spent on roads. It's a big world out there, and the only way to get around is with a car, so that's what roads are for.
Yes, we're quite aware
What our tax dollars are currently subsidizing.
only out in the suburbs, cupcake
Once people get away from their comfortable little world that is UHub, they'll find that car owners are the overwhelming majority and want their taxes spent on roads.
Not as overwhelming as you might think.
http://www.tbf.org/indicators/transportation/indicators.asp?id=537&fID=218&fname=Sustainable%20Development#
40% of Bostonians don't own cars, and that's just the people who responded to the city's own census - which skips a lot of immigrant and student populations, which means the results are skewed towards car owners. That also doesn't include Somerville, Cambridge, or any of the other cities serviced by the T.
Unfortunately, there are more people in the suburbs.
There are more people out in the suburbs of our "metro area" (which, of course, now includes southern NH) than there are in the city, even if you include the inner suburbs. So unfortunately, I'm afraid that he's probably right.
Perhaps even more unfortunately, and as I mentioned before, many of those folks are baby boomers who also have little regard for public transit.
Since I'm now feeling pretty down in the dumps, I'm going to go ahead and say that either gas is going to have to go to European prices, or we're going to have to wait a generation for decent transit. Oh well. So much for my RER dream.
Take heart though, those who will celebrate this, like everything else, we'll get to that point where we absolutely have to do it, and we'll pay 10x more, minimum.
Not exactly. Mass
Not exactly.
Mass Pop:
6,547,629
People who live in MBTA district
3,066,394
(excluding rhode island)
So that right there is half the state that sees tangible MBTA results.
Dont forget Springfield and such dont see MBTA, but the taxes fund their transit systems too.
From your own link
You claim 40% don't own cars, yet your own link says 85% in Metro Boston own cars, and 65% in Boston - and that was in 2000. Car ownership rates have been steadily increasing since 1970 (see your link).
But, we're not talking about just Boston if the subject is raising some tax to fund public transportation - we're talking about the whole state, where car ownership would be 90%+. When that overwhelming majority of the population uses a service, it's not a subsidy anymore - it's building something virtually everybody needs.
But, back to the subject - gas tax for public transportation. I've always been an advocate of a much more substantial gas tax than we have now with a lot of the proceeds going towards public transportation. I laughed a few years ago when Deval couldn't even pass a 19 cent increase in gas tax - 19 cents!. I would want a least a dollar to start with.
Back in 2008-2009, we missed a golden opportunity. Gas was ~$4/gal in late 2008 and great things were happening car-wise (bank-wise is something else....) - people were clamoring for small, 40+ mpg cars. New and used SUV's plummeted in value, and there was a wait list for Honda Fits. It was great, people were actually changing.
But then, the floor dropped out, and gas went back down well under $3. We should have added a $1 tax right then. People had experienced $4/gal gas, so it wouldn't be that big a shock. It would also be political suicide for anybody to even mention such a tax - simply wouldn't happen. Too bad.
So again, I would actually encourage heavy gas taxes just for the purpose of forcing people to buy small cars. Then, with the added revenue, improve public trans. All this from a guy that drives ~18K miles a year.
Less than Two Miles
Less than two miles - 40% of trips NATIONWIDE are less than two miles ...
Think about that a minute. LESS THAN TWO MILES.
That there are as many cars used as frequently as they are, and that some of those 2-mile trips (like a friend's commute) occur because there are no alternatives and no pedestrian or transit is a vast failure of planning on a massive scale.
Why perpetuate such a horrendously grave error - particularly in an area where most people live only short distances from where they are going - just because "well, we fucked it up already, so ..."?
Look up the declining car miles per person per year in Portland, OR versus the rest of the country to see that it isn't an insoluable problem.
Yup
This - so much this.
I'm about to leave Boston for a job in southeastern MA and just learned that no matter which of my three top apartment complexes I end up living in, there's no way to take public transportation for the 1.5 mile trip to my office every day. I bought a car knowing I'd need it for longer trips and for some work travel, but it honestly didn't occur to me I'd have no other alternative for getting to work. Sigh.
Walkable?
Wow, 1.5 miles, that's golden. That would be a decent 30-minute walk, weather-and-physically-capable permitting. Even a junky bike would be great.
Good luck with the new job!
1.5 miles
That is, indeed, walkable and my current commute too. But it depends where. In suburbia, 1.5 miles could mean a limited access highway.
Over the summer I biked 2.5 miles to work temporarily. However, one portion was a road where it is illegal to walk, but had a bike lane. Go figure.
(Screw the Man! I walked there once anyway)
.1 mile
I have a friend who lives in Franklin on a very busy road with no shoulder (let alone a sidewalk). There's a park right across the street. They drive to it.
Suburbs can suck like that.
Thanks!
Yeah, I'm planning to walk as much as weather permits. I walk just under a mile now from my place in the North End to Downtown Crossing every day, so it's not much farther. Not as scenic in the new area, but not terrible, either.
If there was only some kind
If there was only some kind of transportation device that is sort of between walking an driving. Maybe two wheels instead of four? I can only dream.
Part of the way is a busy
Part of the way is a busy highway with no bike lane and as far as I can tell the place doesn't really have much a bike culture so that drivers would at least be used to sharing the road. Until I'm more competent on a bike, I won't attempt the highway part of the trip. But I did buy a bike with the intent of becoming a better rider, so eventually it will be an option.
A Segway?
Those are kind of expensive for a short commute
Segways impede all other forms of transportation
Please don't mention Segways. I'm this close to moving out of the North End just to get away from the Segways. They just put the temporary bike lane markings in on Commercial Street and I've already had to swerve into traffic to avoid a tottering bunch of tourists on Segways. Segways are lousy for bikers and pedestrians alike. I thought they were supposed to be illegal in Boston.
The T should pay for itself....
.... in exactly the same way that roads or the police department should pay for themselves.
Internally flawed claptrap
1) Businesses can (and should) fail based on their leadership, profit margin, etc. However, the MBTA can't fail by definition of its necessity for public transportation as a common good. Thus, the MBTA is not a business...so it shouldn't be run like one.
2) If I recall, fares cover about 1/3rd of the total budget of the MBTA. So, fares would have to triple to even begin to cover the current costs of the MBTA. If this were a business (like you want), it'd fail. The public (especially the driving public) benefits from this common good (extra people off the road), thus only putting the burden on the ridership penalizes them for generating the benefit. Again, a failed concept.
3) Certain expansions are actually court-mandated. Other expansions would actually end up as a net gain as more ridership is more fares (something in point #2 you want) while the cost of expansion is easily amortized over time in comparison. However, if it's run like a business (like you want in point #1), then you wouldn't expand until you had enough up-front capital...which you can't get because you're hog-tied by your current limited market reach. Again, another failed concept that can't be made internally consistent with your other arguments either.
4) The legislature has no power over the court's decisions...that's how checks and balances works. The legislature makes laws to decide the boundaries for a good society and the court decides if those laws are inherently just based on their concordance with the Constitution of the state. Federal jurisdiction absurdly doesn't apply either. So, #4 is just flawed from the start.
So, basically, you're wrong in a lot of ways.
So call your State Rep and
So call your State Rep and Senator and demand they raise taxes. We need new blood in the Legislature.
More non-serious MBTA "solutions"...
Sigh. Why is the solution always "make the other people pay more"? The actual needed solution is pretty simple. Raise the fares for the people actually using the service. Cut the egregious salaries and benefits for T employees who have little to satisfy in terms of qualifications.
I have no choice but to drive to work, and already subsidize monthly T users by paying a higher per-ride fee. There's no reason to make people who *aren't dependent* upon the service pick up the tab because they won't make needed cuts and adjustments to service.
The T's ticket price has a negligible effect at best on getting people to take it versus drive cars, as the argument usually goes. It's a matter of what is fastest to get into the city. Traffic regulates itself fairly well in this regard already. Driving into the city is not all that fun. Parking is scarce. If you are drinking even less reason.
Again, already paying a much higher $1.75 per trip than your typical MBTA commuter who gets unlimited rides for $59 a month, the scheme to try to engineer society into taking the T is a pipe dream excuse to disproportionately tax those who utilize something far less than the people who should be paying more.
Why is there a union to lobby for this, and not a "majority of citizens in the state" coalition to be taken into account?
Car payments, insurance, gas and higher non-monthly fares are things I have to deal with already, there's no justification for making those who are not the primary beneficiaries of the MBTA to pay even more, when our roads are in such poor shape - you know, the primary reason for the gas tax to begin with?
Services should be able to stand on their own revenue wise like almost everything else in a modern economy. It'd be nice for the city to let another firm compete for transportation services instead of just letting the MBTA unions let the organization rot in salary and retirement promises it won't be able to realistically keep.
A couple of notes
Drivers do not pay enough gas tax to pay for roads. They do not even pay enough for the interstate highway system, much less local and state roads: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-918
Public transit is a fixed cost system. The trains are going to run regardless of whether you take them or not. The cost to the system of an additional passenger is nearly nil, and there are significant benefits to the city if that takes a car off the roads. Fares cannot be set so high that they discourage usage -- that only leads to further loss and cutbacks in service -- which drive down ridership even more and put more cars on the roads.
The $59 monthly pass is for subway and local bus only. If you are an MBTA commuter rail rider, then you are paying far more per month. For example, a Framingham commuter pays $210 a month for a pass. http://www.mbta.com/fares_and_passes/rail/
Would I like to see more efficiency in how the MBTA is operated? Absolutely. I would also like to see subsidies for roads removed, or at least made explicit, so that people could judge the true costs for themselves.
Excise Taxes
Excise Taxes on vehicles are another contribution drivers make toward road upkeep. I won't argue about upkeep costs versus the revenue stream, in total, because I don't have the figures. You may have those figures, so feel free, but please also feel free to include all sources of revenue (of which I'm sure someone here might be able to name a few more) when doing so.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Excise Taxes are the worst kind of tax
A lot of people own a car that they seldom use, but the excise tax is the same as it is for the person who frequently drives long distances. I have a car, but drive it about 10 miles a week. Why should my tax be the same as a person with the same car who drives it 150 miles each week?
And thanks, by the way, for the info on New York. I think I had read about the IND vs. IRT/BRT at one point, but I don't think I quite realized it was as blatantly anti-competitive.
Weird Sort Of Tax
Excise is an odd bird, as taxes go, because it is charged according to value of the vehicle as opposed to use of the vehicle. It's sort of like an added sales tax that is never completely paid off.
I'm not quite as light a driver as you, but I only do just a bit more than 5,000 miles a year, which is good for a discount on my auto insurance. I'd probably be happy with an excise tax based on mileage as opposed to vehicle value (somewhat of a toss-up, as my ride is a 1998.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
No
because you want the rich people with 4 cars taxed more than the poor person who needs to drive a lot on one crappy car.
I think we are forgeting that there are a lot of people who are poor that need to use cars because public transporation can't get them to 2-3 jobs quick enough.
and...
...they may have to be at a job during hours that the T isn't running or they may live/work in a part of the state with no or poor public transit. I know this is UniversalHUB not UniversalMASS, but the revenue options we're discussing are implemented state-wide.
The vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT tax) is a solution, however it is always presented as Big Brother tracking your every movement. It doesn't have to be. It does present a lot more start up costs though.
VMT tax
The best way to implement a VMT tax is via a gas tax. Gas usage is directly proportional to miles driven and a gas tax encourages fuel efficient cars. Why complicate things?
A gas tax is bad, m'kay
This is going to sound very whiny, but I'm kinda disappointed that I present an option down below that's perfectly cromulent and avoids all this garbage about cars, gas, parking, etc. and puts the bill on the people who can most afford it: the people with big paychecks.
I don't see a lot of opposition to what I wrote...but I don't see a lot of upvotes either, so I'm guessing it's been largely missed.
Not whiny at all...
...but let me give my view.
A gas tax is a use tax. The more you drive, the more tax you pay. Also, I really like the side effect of encouraging fuel efficient cars. But, that's just me.
For income tax, remember there's unearned income (cap gains, interest, etc.), something that a wealthier person would be more subject to than a 99-percenter, and that's taxed @ 12%. That's a big bite. You're option is viable, I'm just curious where you're going to draw the income lines. ;-)
The issue with both methods is a regional one. If one wants to fund the T with this, well, there's a lot of people west of Worcester (an arbitrary line, I admit), that will have issues with funding the T. I wouldn't blame them, either. One solution is that you could apportion the revenues to the various regions for their own public transit systems.
Avoids the "west of Worcester" problem too
I avoid the "where do you live" problem by taxing the rich more. I don't care if you're on Beacon Hill or the Berkshires. If you pay for transportation from the general fund and take more from income to cover it, then the questions are reduced to ones of relativity.
1) Do we want to fund transportation more than film tax credits?
2) Do we each pay enough compared to the rest of us given what we make compared to the rest of us?
Those should be the questions each year because they're questions already forced upon lawmakers just by having to make a budget. Earmarking specific taxes and at certain rates means having them address a whole new question if costs go badly (and who's to tell them it's going badly?)...and I think you can see how poorly that's going with the MBTA's funding already.
VMT
I think one issue is that as cars get more fuel efficient your revenue drops (not huge, but it's there). The greater issue is that for folks who have no choice but to drive it's not particularly fair. Working class people in Pittsfield really are not going to have the transportation options of working class people in Somerville. The VMT system could potentially allow tolls that vary on the class of road you are driving and the time of day that you are driving it. Road out in the Berkshires in the evening, free -- Storrow Drive at rush hour, expensive. The transponder wouldn't need to track which specific road you're on, just its class or rate.
It's one of those sounding good in theory sort of technology solutions (remember "What Will They Think of Next?" with Joe Campanella?) that I imagine would be a disaster in implementation with any govt except the Swiss or the Fins. So, I guess I would lean more towards Kaz's suggestion -- I 'plused' it, so no more whining!
What are we trying to accomplish?
We want drivers to pay for:
The gas tax, as a mechanism (not its current implementation), is best for #2, imperfect but workable for #1 and 4, and totally inappropriate for #3.
VMT shares these characteristics, depending on implementation, and can improve upon it in some ways. For example, it could take into account the type of vehicle, the type of roadway, and maybe even current conditions. I also find it unacceptably intrusive, but driving an automobile is already treated specially by laws, so perhaps it may happen someday.
However, this wouldn't potentially help your example Pittsfield commuter. Those roads need maintenance and upkeep as well including the fixed cost of dealing with weather in this state. There are fewer people to distribute that burden across, and more roads to reach the sprawled developments.
So I don't think VMT is a good way to "help" working class folks who have to drive.
The current situation of absurdly low gas taxes and subsidized roads, combined with the difficulty of building housing in metro Boston, creates a perverse incentive causing people to live in rural areas where they are forced to drive everywhere.
Whether it be gas tax, VMT, or something else, eventually we will have to find a way to pay for these costs. And instead of doing implicit subsidies to low income working class folks through transportation, I'd rather see that help given explicitly, without distorting our infrastructure priorities.
In other words: car subsidies are a really bad form of redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, they are also a really popular form of redistribution here in the U.S.
It's not a subsidy
As I mentioned elsewhere, it's not a subsidy if a vast majority of the population (90%+) uses the service. We all use roads indirectly, and an overwhelming majority uses them directly.
Why all the road hate? Those country roads outside I-495 are great for those 5-hour weekend bike rides. How would you do the B2B or D2R2? ;-)
It is indeed a subsidy
Percentage of users is a red herring. It is an undisputed fact that people do not directly pay for much (maybe even most) of the cost of operating a vehicle. By definition, that means there is a subsidy. It is a subsidy to heavy users from less heavy users. It is a subsidy from the 10% who don't drive to the 90% who do. And it is a subsidy from the people who have no choice about driving to the people who do have a choice.
We all pay taxes for things we don't use.
And some pay more than others.
That's life isn't it?
Yep, that's life, and why Kaz' idea is the winner
The general fund is the way to go, and we should all live with the choices we make (via our elected representatives) about how it is budgeted. My point isn't that things shouldn't be subsidized if they are important to achieving a societal goal. It's simply that he was wrong to claim it isn't subsidized.
I would agree.
As long as riders pay some of it, it makes perfect sense to me.
It's not equal
Think of the Excise tax as a separate flat component of an overall "driving tax" that includes your gasoline taxes as a "usage" fee. The people that drive more pay more in gasoline taxes.
The problem with modifying gasoline prices is that it impacts the entire economy due to shipping. If we want to get more commuters off the road, then lower the diesel tax and raise the unleaded tax.
Want some cheese with that?
Congratulations - you are learning that, despite your protests about having to pay for something you avoid or resist using, your contribution to your luxury of car ownership pays for at most 10-30% of the total per mile costs of operating that car.
Care to start issuing large tax credits to those who don't own cars, if you want to talk about fairness? Care to send me a fat check because we have one vehicle logging about 8-10,000 miles a year for three people of driving age? No? Then maybe you should start reading some of the posted links to learn exactly how very much entitled and ignorant your little diatribe sounds.
Do you always have to be that
Do you always have to be that snarky when you speak your arguments? Only you can take points that I can agree with like "roads are also subsidized" and make me feel a sense of disliking it and more sympathetic to his argument despite I can agree the basis of his argument is flawed (though things like basic costs for a car is higher versus those who just uses the train is not wrong in of itself).
He is misinformed, unaware of the true costs of transportation and the inactivity of different modes. But there's no need to belittle him while calling him ignorant and entitled while chicken calmly explain how mistaken the position that Gas tax is for roads and fares for trains.
Mister Passive Aggressive
Goes off on the lecture circuit again.
Must be nice to be soooo perfect and tell others "nicely" that you are soooo perfect.
Define passive aggressive.
Define passive aggressive. Because I thought that means saying something confrontational while not being confrontational. Do you want me to be show even less passive like tell her to eff off? Or do you mean tell her she just completely wrong? Because I guess saying that I usually and honestly like the counterpoint of drivers are subsidized too is just too passive.
Or maybe you just want me to just hold my tongue...
I don't claim to be perfect. Do I have to be perfect to be irritated every time I see her go like that? Especially since she regularly take points that I usually agree with, but somehow turn it into something I don't like.
Tolls for drivers from the South Shore
Ever since I moved to the area, I've always asked why drivers from affluent areas such as Hingham, DeLux-bury, etc. don't pay any tolls to drive north to Boston (and now to the big tunnel), while folks on the north shore get the royal screw.
All I ever hear in response is "duhhh, I don't know", "it's always been that way" and "the rich people in the South are better at lobbying"
Time to make it fair. People driving from the west pay pike tolls, from the north pay bridge tolls. Time for a Tunnel Toll for drivers from the south.
Probably the explanation
> "the rich people in the South are better at lobbying"
Sounds about right to me.
Collect all the taxes you want
Someone will end up wasting it all.
Who wants to be most of this
Who wants to be most of this money goes to featherbedding or creation of more do nothing positions and funding more overgenerous pensions, rather than essential employees, maintenance, and coverage of BASIC employee benefits?
How about we pay for it from the general fund?
Why would you pay for the MBTA with regressive taxes like payroll or gas sales taxes? Why would you feel the need to earmark certain tax dollars for the MBTA (the same way they do now with the sales tax)?
These are both loser ideas and not very "innovative" or "boldly departing" from the status quo. They already state that those 60% outside the MBTA "already pay through a portion of the sales tax"...so what's so "bold" about making them pay more through gas sales too? Plus, the very people who need the MBTA the most are the ones who can't afford to lose even more in payroll taxes either. Also, earmarking tax dollars like we have with the sales tax has already proven in the past 10+ years why it's a dumb idea! YOU CAN'T EXTRAPOLATE TAX REVENUE ACCURATELY! And it took an act of God last year to get them to deal with the problem by bumping the sales tax up (sigh...) to give a (one time?) payment to let the MBTA balance its books anyways!
Why not try something "innovative" like paying for the MBTA from the general funds of the state and when the state's budget takes the hit, you create a marginal income tax rate system enough to cover the difference and stop letting the limo owners on Beacon Hill and in Belmont pay the same 5.3% FLAT TAX RATE that the ones who are taking the MBTA every day have to pay.
Aren't we supposed to be home to the liberals? Then why are we one of only SEVEN states (come on, we're like UTAH! and MICHIGAN!...) living with the same stupid flat tax that morons like Forbes and Herman Cain are touting while our public transportation suffers?
Paying for it from the general fund...
... would require that the legislators actually DO THEIR JOBS and make tough and occasionally unpopular decisions about how to allocate resources. Much better (for them, at least) to completely punt by allocating specific revenue streams to specific cost items.
I'm confused
I already help support the 'T' even though I don't use it via my sales tax.
So MassInc thinks it woulod build SUPPORT if I get to pay ANOTHER tax to help support it even though I STILL don't use it?
I live in a rural area with virtually no public transit. I see how the Education money get divided up by Boston, and think that we would be treated equally well by a 'T' tax - about ten cents on the dollar would escape the Suffolk County area.
No thanks.
The report says that the T
The report says that the T gets a disproportional share of available transit money vs. the other regional authorities
" Analysis suggests the MBTA has captured
a disproportionate share of revenue, but
like the RTAs, it has not been able to generate
adequate resources to meet its needs.
• Among major US transit agencies, the
MBTA receives the highest share of funding
from statewide sources. This comes at
a cost to regional transit agencies in Massachusetts.
State assistance to RTAs amounts
to just 13 percent of the money RTA communities
send to the MBTA through the
sales tax. On average, RTAs receive only
one-third of their budget through state
assistance, whereas the MBTA receives 57
percent of its budget through state funds.
And while the MBTA has actually seen a 16
percent increase in state support since the
fiscal crisis began in FY09, the RTAs have
faced a 5 percent decrease in state funds..."
The solution
Privatize all modes of transportation, stop subsidizing oil, and laying out utilities in a way to spur sprawl developments. What will happen? Most people move back within 128, with many living in very walkable areas within 5 miles of downtown, using mass transit at extreme rates. Highways are essentially handed over for commercial and essential/emergency traffic. Of course some of the richy riches will continue to use highways as well, but the highway companies will be making all their cash off of commercial volume. Proper land use is instantly restored, making for better economics and environment, and relieving enormous burdens on government.
Also, to people who point out rising car ownership... it can't be sustained. Car culture and suburbs will retract, whether the government tries to stop that from happening or not. We might as well just get rid of all the subsidies and let the market correct to where it should be all along.
The only problem is how to do this in a way that doesn't have massive repercussions. Our housing bubble hasn't fully burst, and if we immediately pulled out the rug, it will. Single family detached homes are still overvalued and seen as something everyone "must" have. The same for the car, there's also a car bubble. When all things correct, demand for these will be minimal and will only be attainable by the rich.
Call me crazy all you want, but I can tell you right now, if my generation doesn't do anything about this, the next generation is going to point fingers at mine for passing the buck to them. These things will eventually happen, and when it does the environmental effects will be showing clear as day, food prices will be high.
The one thing you forgot
There is already a pretty massive demand for housing inside 128. It's caused by an artificial shortage due to misguided zoning laws and NIMBYs.