Red Line Extension to Arlington Heights

[JeffDowntown]

I don't disagree with the flexibility for towns to put a local sales tax on top of the state tax, especially when it is dedicated to improving transit/mobility within their town. I think that would be an amazing way for a town to put dedicated funding into place for things such as local bus, sidewalks, signal improvements, bike lanes (all of these fall under ROW Equity in my mind). Its when we get to the regional/district projects where it gets a bit more murky.

My logistical question would be in regards to RLX would be even if the town(s) raised say 50% of the funds for the project (or more realistically raise the bonds and fund that debt), does that mean they jump the queue on other T projects on the CIP? That kind of extension would have to be managed by the T, would presumably cause disruptions (at some point in the project) to existing service and basically still takes time and money away from the other projects in the queue.

Other than the sales tax or the Fair Share Fund that is being discusses above, are there other tax revenue streams that the state or towns could adjust to help with funding that is a bit less regressive? For example, could the motor vehicle excise tax, meals excise tax or possibly marijuana tax be adjusted with the adjustment being dedicated to transit improvements?

Logical candidate would seem to be tolls on Route 2, Alewife Brook Parkway and Fresh Pond Parkway.

 

[-anarresti-]

Does Massachusetts allow state agencies to propose ballot initiatives? That was how Sound Transit 3 happened in Seattle; in effect letting the agency pitch its plans along with a funding mechanism directly to voters.

If not, I think we need to create the conditions for that to happen. I don't think a big expansion push is going to come out of the legislature, and citizen-led initiatives don't matter.

All that said, there will need to be a culture-shift within the agency to where it would actually have the will and capacity to craft such an initiative and then follow-through on it. That culture doesn't exist today but I do see glimmers of hope, but with a very long way to go.

 

[RandomWalk]

I wonder if the T could say “Here’s the catchment for project X. Go vote on the local option tax to contribute to the project.”

 

[Stlin]

Thanks! Isn’t the MBTA Big Dig Debt obligation now down to just $90M per year? Trying to learn more about this, and why that’s still considered a major impediment when on paper it appears to have become a much smaller proportion of spending. I understand it’s still not nothing though.

It wasn't even that much - $90M was the total remaining balance on it. Their annual obligation was ~$12M, and They actually effectively paid it off completely last year, as the T escrowed the remaining balance, falling off their balance sheet. In fact, my recollection is that the State dedicated a portion of the 2025 fair share distribution to to do so, to open up future debt capacity.

Either way, debt service is still a substantial chunk of the MBTA's total budget - yet less proportionally than in previous years, but only because the operating budget has grown substantially. That said, the agencies total debt has actually stayed pretty well checked - the T had ~$5B in debt in 2007, it has about $5.8B in debt in 2025. In absolute dollar terms, that's pretty well controlled.

 

[jklo]

You should probably have just said that you didn't know, before listing these assumptions as fact.

You should read the ballot text first before suggesting otherwise.

Tangently related, I do still think a 7/7.5% bin is happening eventually. Suppose the 10% bin was the first step.

 

[HenryAlan]

You should read the ballot text first before suggesting otherwise.

Your claim didn't regard the ballot text, but what you stated was actually happening. This was thoroughly rebutted by @BosMaineiac and you can't even try instead to make the fungibility argument, since total general fund appropriations for transportation also increased. People on this board prefer to ground our discussions in verifiable facts, not opinonated suggestions. The verifiable fact is that the fair share tax is at least partly responsible for increased financial support for public transit.

 

[bigeman312]

It wasn't even that much - $90M was the total remaining balance on it. Their annual obligation was ~$12M, and They actually effectively paid it off completely last year, as the T escrowed the remaining balance, falling off their balance sheet. In fact, my recollection is that the State dedicated a portion of the 2025 fair share distribution to to do so, to open up future debt capacity.
View attachment 75888
Either way, debt service is still a substantial chunk of the MBTA's total budget - yet less proportionally than in previous years, but only because the operating budget has grown substantially. That said, the agencies total debt has actually stayed pretty well checked - the T had ~$5B in debt in 2007, it has about $5.8B in debt in 2025. In absolute dollar terms, that's pretty well controlled.

Thanks for the data! It's safe to say that the MBTA has now come out the other side of the Big Dig Debt storm, and that it's no longer a major financial constraint. The impediments to rapid transit expansion now lie elsewhere.

 

[BOS2BON]

I don't disagree with the flexibility for towns to put a local sales tax on top of the state tax, especially when it is dedicated to improving transit/mobility within their town. I think that would be an amazing way for a town to put dedicated funding into place for things such as local bus, sidewalks, signal improvements, bike lanes (all of these fall under ROW Equity in my mind). Its when we get to the regional/district projects where it gets a bit more murky.

My logistical question would be in regards to RLX would be even if the town(s) raised say 50% of the funds for the project (or more realistically raise the bonds and fund that debt), does that mean they jump the queue on other T projects on the CIP? That kind of extension would have to be managed by the T, would presumably cause disruptions (at some point in the project) to existing service and basically still takes time and money away from the other projects in the queue.

Other than the sales tax or the Fair Share Fund that is being discusses above, are there other tax revenue streams that the state or towns could adjust to help with funding that is a bit less regressive? For example, could the motor vehicle excise tax, meals excise tax or possibly marijuana tax be adjusted with the adjustment being dedicated to transit improvements?

Maybe some value capture from any jump in real estate value that's adjacent/close to the transit expansion?

For the sales tax, I wonder how much money would be raised if the communities served by rapid transit put in some sales tax/meal tax. For reference, Boston collected $37.6 million in FY 2023 from a 0.75% excise tax on meals.

FY25 Local Revenue

Local revenue includes revenue from excise taxes, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes, licenses and permits, fees and fines, investment income, intergovernmental revenue, and available funds. The City collected $749.2 million in FY23, a 36.4% increase from FY22. In FY24, $599.1 million is budgeted for...

www.boston.gov

 

[stick n move]

On the local taxes piece, it should not be on Arlington (and/or Lexington) to fund a red line extension alone. The benefits are regional and the costs should be shouldered as such. Cambridge, Boston, Quincy, and Braintree all clearly directly benefit. Every community on the rapid transit system, and then the CR system, benefit. Surrounding suburbs benefit. If the funding isn't statewide it should at least be the MAPC region.

I wonder if the T could say “Here’s the catchment for project X. Go vote on the local option tax to contribute to the project.”

In the bill it states that towns and cities are able to group together to create a transit district where a ballot measure can be passed and then a sales tax issued to fund new transit projects within the district. Unfortunately Boston doesnt have any neat municipal borders that encompass all or most of the boston metro area like LA does with Los Angeles county, so they put this text in there so a single metro “catchment area” can be created since yes everybody in the boston metro benefits from new transit projects so everybody should fund them. My point about Arlington was just that individual towns are also allowed to use this on their own if theyd like, which could be used for funding smaller town specific projects too. What the catchment area or transit district would be would have to be determined later, it could be all the towns in the mbta communities act or something else, but the provision is there for this.

Also when cities go to the feds to get things like an FTA capital investment grant for transit extensions, states are required to match 30-50% of the funds with local funding. A sales tax ballot measure ensures long term funding is secured so you can then go to the feds and get the other 50-80% when it is available. This is how measure R and M are used in LA. Then when something like the bipartisan infrastructure law is passed they already have funding secured and are ready to go. Compare that to here where when the infrastructure law was passed we were trying to use federal funding to help pay for the pike throat project, but we didnt have existing funds ready and couldnt find a way to come up with them and now that project is stalled again and who knows when or if its going to be completed.

 

[KCasiglio]

. Unfortunately Boston doesnt have any neat municipal borders that encompass all or most of the boston metro area like LA does with Los Angeles county, so they put this text in there so a single metro “catchment area” can be created since yes everybody in the boston metro benefits from new transit projects so everybody should fund them.

It does though! While a vague entity, MAPC exists!