Funding Source and Work Plan for Transit Expansion

[nick]

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I've been following the transit discussions on this board for a while and while we all love to debate the merits and technical feasibility of transit expansion plans, we only somewhat get into the realm of what's feasible from a funding and implementation standpoint. Other cities and regions have implemented dedicated transit funding sources through referendums and/or value capture strategies. And they have big plans and are seeing big results with this money (see Seattle's light rail expansion and LA's regional transit expansion plans).

The Boston region needs similarly bold plans if we want our growth to continue, and in a manner focused on multimodal transportation nodes. My questions:

1. What is the best, most feasible transit funding strategy (or strategies) that the Boston region should pursue beyond existing T income sources? How much money do you think this could result in over a 30-year horizon?
2. Using this funding, what is the most bang-for-the-buck work plan that the region needs? How much would you allocate to state of good repair (SOGR) vs system expansion? Which SOGR and expansion projects are the most critical to regional access, mobility, connectivity, and overall growth that they should be a part of this work plan? How should these projects be phased over a 30-year time horizon?

 

[fattony]

Gas tax and tolls are the new funding sources. Maybe a millionaire surtax (aka a more progressive income tax) too.

We've seen gas plummet $2 per gallon in less than a year. Its a perfect time to significantly increase the gas tax and funnel the money into transit. Car drivers tend to balk at this, but they forget that while the point is to take cars off the road, it doesn't have to be their car. If they prefer to drive or need to drive then transit improvements will benefit them too.

Toll all the expressways coming into Boston and Cambridge. Nobody likes paying tolls and people have absurd ideas about tolls redirecting traffic to local streets (like people are going to drive through 30 stoplights to avoid a $1-2 toll...), but they are an essential deterrent to frivolous trips and they encourage people to choose transit (20 workday a month x $2 toll = $40 or half of a monthly Charlie Card). If you doubt the bit about frivolous trip, check out this http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams. With open road tolling, we can install tolls on any road with minimal construction and no disruption of traffic flow.

I have no idea how much money can be raised with gas taxes and tolls, but they have the advantage of not only raising funds, but also encouraging people to choose transit and demand better transit.

 

[tangent]

No on the gas tax funding transit. Just no. It is both bad policy and bad politics to become reliant on the transportation system you want to displace for future revenue. It is a zero sum game where if you actually succeed and take people off the roads, then you kill your funding source.

Also recall that the sales tax was already increased from 5% to 6.25% in 2009 in order to fund transit and it already provides more dedicated revenue to the MBTA than fares do.

I think the next thing that needs to happen is that local assessments need to be increased proportionally according to ridership and service in those communities. These assessments are paid by municipalities served by the MBTA and the money primarily comes from local property taxes. Maybe look at some prop 2 1/2 exclusion for MBTA communities so that they can raise property taxes to cover the MBTA assessments without taking away from schools or other local services.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I agree a gas tax is bad. Tolling I-93, however, would be very appropriate and effective. Maybe Storrow as well.

 

[fattony]

No on the gas tax funding transit. Just no. It is both bad policy and bad politics to become reliant on the transportation system you want to displace for future revenue. It is a zero sum game where if you actually succeed and take people off the roads, then you kill your funding source.

Also recall that the sales tax was already increased from 5% to 6.25% in 2009 in order to fund transit and it already provides more dedicated revenue to the MBTA than fares do.

I think the next thing that needs to happen is that local assessments need to be increased proportionally according to ridership and service in those communities. These assessments are paid by municipalities served by the MBTA and the money primarily comes from local property taxes. Maybe look at some prop 2 1/2 exclusion for MBTA communities so that they can raise property taxes to cover the MBTA assessments without taking away from schools or other local services.

Taxing the undesirable alternative IS good policy. You want to tax/charge for things you want less of and not things you want more of. Today's highway capacity already exists and isn't going anywhere. Gas taxes and tolls will contribute to easing congestion on that capacity, but we aren't going to clear the roads of cars. If it ever did happen that we removed so many cars from the roads that the lost transit revenue was a problem - then great! It worked! Raise the taxes and tolls even more to make up the lost revenue. That is a win-win scenario, not a weakness at all.

Increasing local government contributions is a mixed bag. We want to encourage people to live in denser communities that CAN be served by transit. Increasing property taxes on urban, transit-served communities gives some incentive for people to choose to live in suburban, car-centric communities instead. On the other hand, quality transit and car-free living reduces cost of living in many ways, so maybe it is a wash. It certainly eases the state politics of it all. Progressive property taxes can help the social justice aspect of it (Cambridge does this already, I don't know if other communities do too).

 

[ant8904]

I don't see how raising the gas tax is bad policy. I can see bad politics because there's always people who will not understand probably always enough that it raises hell.

Okay, then instead raising the gas tax "for transit", raise the gas tax "for infrastructure" to repairs and plans for a whole lot of roads - a lot of them funded by tax money but not via the gas tax... And thus the money planned to fund those infrastructure projects are now free to fund other projects... Like repairing the backlog or building BLX.

 

[boston85]

The MBTA needs to fix the current mess and then create an integrated plan for what they want to achieve before they even consider their sources of funding.

Seattle has a ballot question about funding a $20B expansion of their rapid transit, but they have plans for it all how they tie together and benefits.
http://soundtransit3.org/shaping-st3#compare-projects

What does the MBTA have? A bunch of disjointed proposal and current projects that continue to be hit with costs over runs.

First, the MBTA needs to grow capabilities within the org so we don't have $700M estimates for a half mile Red/Blue connector or a $3B GLX expansion that is 10x the costs of other light rail expansions in the country.

Second, they need to create a process to roadmap and manage a portfolio of projects. Look at the individual projects as a portfolio of projects that provide incremental benefits to the ultimate goal. There are many methods of doing this, but one that is gaining traction in other government agencies is creating efficient frontiers of projects. NOAA uses this method with regards to investments in satellites and define it as such.

Efficient Frontier (EF): The term "Efficient Frontier" comes from economics and decision analysis and refers to a collection of portfolios of investment options arrayed on a graph where performance or satisfaction of goals is on the vertical dimension and aggregate cost is on the horizontal dimension. Using optimization techniques or algorithms, portfolios on the EF represent combinations of assets or investment options that provide the highest possible performance or goal satisfaction for a given cost or budget constraint. It is called “frontier” because the line or curve connecting the portfolios indicates the boundary between the optimal (efficient) portfolios and the non-optimal or inefficient portfolios.

Examine the costs, risks, and benefits provided for each one and group them accordingly to maximize the ultimate benefit/risk reductions for a given resource funding. At that point, the MBTA/State can start looking at funding.

 

[DZH22]

One of these days gas is going to shoot back up. Since we have been adding so many bike lanes recently, how about a tax on bikes? Not as popular with the bike-riding crowd, ehh? In my experience, 1 bike does more to slow down the road than 10+ extra cars, especially when either somebody is too afraid to pass (causing a backup) or else the road is too tight and literally every single car that passes is forced to swing into the oncoming lane. (nothing like just missing an impatient car swinging into my lane coming the other direction) Getting bikes off the road would definitely improve the safety and efficiency of my commute.

The way I see it, it's hypocritical to tax one form of transportation in order to put those funds towards another form of transportation.

 

[fattony]

One of these days gas is going to shoot back up. Since we have been adding so many bike lanes recently, how about a tax on bikes? Not as popular with the bike-riding crowd, ehh? In my experience, 1 bike does more to slow down the road than 10+ extra cars, especially when either somebody is too afraid to pass (causing a backup) or else the road is too tight and literally every single car that passes is forced to swing into the oncoming lane. (nothing like just missing an impatient car swinging into my lane coming the other direction) Getting bikes off the road would definitely improve the safety and efficiency of my commute.

The way I see it, it's hypocritical to tax one form of transportation in order to put those funds towards another form of transportation.

Wow, that couldn't possibly have less to do with this thread topic. Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing.

 

[DZH22]

Wow, that couldn't possibly have less to do with this thread topic. Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing.

Gas is going to go back up, which would make a large tax hike extremely onerous in the future. A non-driver asking drivers to pay an added tax is contributing.... what exactly? Hypocrisy?

 

[bigeman312]

The way I see it, it's hypocritical to tax one form of transportation in order to put those funds towards another form of transportation.

Gas is going to go back up, which would make a large tax hike extremely onerous in the future. A non-driver asking drivers to pay an added tax is contributing.... what exactly? Hypocrisy?

Should all cigarette taxes go to smokers? Should all property taxes go to land-owners? I think you are missing the point of taxes. (Hint: it's for benefits that best help the entire community)

 

[DZH22]

Should all cigarette taxes go to smokers? Should all property taxes go to land-owners? I think you are missing the point of taxes. (Hint: it's for benefits that best help the entire community)

Most taxes should go back towards the people who are paying them. I too enjoy analogies. Would it be fair to only tax all of the registered Democrats to fund a Republican initiative? (or vice versa)

Taxing bikers to fund the roads they ride on is no more of a stretch than taxing drivers to fund a subway.

 

[fattony]

Gas is going to go back up, which would make a large tax hike extremely onerous in the future. A non-driver asking drivers to pay an added tax is contributing.... what exactly? Hypocrisy?

Its like I said above - you want to tax or charge more for things you want less of. I mean that as a matter of public policy, not personal preference. There really is no need to couple one policy objective with another related one (in this case, reducing emissions from cars and increasing transit ridership, both are official policies of the US, the Commonwealth, and local governments) except that in this case there are some mutual incentives.

That isn't hypocritical at all. Trying to fund transit (or any infrastructure) through user fees is both impossible and misguided. There are so many externalities - parties who benefit from infrastructure without directly using it - that it really needs to be paid for from a general fund. Don't directly funnel gas taxes into transit funding if that seems unfair. But do raise gas taxes collected into the general fund and do increase transit funding out of the general fund.

 

[bigeman312]

Taxing bikers to fund the roads they ride on is no more of a stretch than taxing drivers to fund a subway.

Agreed. You are missing the point, though. I wasn't arguing against people (cyclists included) being part of infrastructure funding. I was arguing against your claim that it is hypocritical to spend tax money on anyone but the tax payers. That isn't hypocritical at all. That is how taxes work. The rich aren't taxed for the benefit of the rich. I think you know that.

THis is where we disagree:

Most taxes should go back towards the people who are paying them.

I completely, 100% disagree with this.

 

[DZH22]

Here is the thing, if you want to pass an initiative to raise taxes on Group A (in this case, drivers) in order to benefit Group B (MBTA riders) then you have to expect pushback/opposition from Group A.

It's not like I'm rich either, far from it in fact, so no I don't think I need to fund the rest of you. The T takes way more time from the suburbs, and it's far too expensive at this point to park everyday for it. (especially at places like Alewife) I have free parking where I work anyway, but I don't want to pay a premium every time I drive into Boston just so somebody else can benefit. If you want the added benefits, it should come out of your pocket, not mine.

If any of you were to propose such an initiate, expect this type of pushback on a much larger scale than just some stubborn "troll" on an internet forum like DZH22. I can barely afford to live around here. At this point, I will fight any tax increases tooth and nail if I'm not directly benefited. We already pay enough in taxes and Boston is like the 3rd most expensive city in the country!

 

[statler]

But you do benefit from the T every time you drive into Boston. Just imagine what your commute/parking situation would be if the T wasn't an affordable/reliable option for the thousands of people who use it.

 

[ant8904]

If we're gonna go down that road. Currently the gas tax leave a large portion of road maintenance uncovered to my understanding. Raise the gas tax to cover for those projects and now we have funds for transit expansion.

It pedantic, but your argument that gas tax should pay for roads. Well currently gas tax doesn't cover for all the roads anyways. So how would you object to raising the gas tax to cover for roads projects directly. Which other funds is now free for other things?

 

[DZH22]

But you do benefit from the T every time you drive into Boston. Just imagine what your commute/parking situation would be if the T wasn't an affordable/reliable option for the thousands of people who use it.

I go into Boston all the time, but don't commute quite that far. (just to the edge of Cambridge) My parking situation is great because I know where to find free parking, I'm willing to walk obscene distances (in fact, this is why I go to Boston anyway) and I have my timing down pretty well for when each area is viable.

If the entire MBTA disappeared tomorrow, my work commute would likely be unchanged.

At the end of the day, if you (any of you) want to raise my taxes, you need to make a more compelling argument than anything I have seen on this thread.

 

[DZH22]

So how would you object to raising the gas tax to cover for roads projects directly.

Easily, I am already taxed enough. As I said, at this point I would object to any tax that strains me further. I am the textbook middle-class person getting squeezed in this country. One party wants to help the poor, and the other party wants to help the rich, but either way I am the one footing the bill. So go ahead, try to raise my taxes. I'll show up at these meetings screaming at the top of my lungs, and I won't be the only one.

 

[statler]

I think you may be underestimating the ripple effect of the T on our transportation system. People who commute from Springfield to Worcester would see an impact in their commute, let alone someone traveling to the edge of the city. And all those 'free' spots? You are suddenly competing with thousands on new drivers for them. I doubt there are that many.

There is also a huge economic ripple effect from a well-funded T. Ease of commute is a big reason talented workers stay in city/state and that talent pool attracts more companies which starts a virtuous spiral that effects you whether you can see it or not.