General Infrastructure

davem said:
I voted no, of course. However, I can understand a lot of the yes vote, and I don't think it has to do with "not wanting to pay for infrastructure". The no taxation without representation was a good tagline (although I think it was absurd, we don't get to vote on inflation rates), but the main argument I heard for repealing the tax was that the money touched the general fund. People didn't like that they couldn't trace the gas tax to a specific project, and saw it as going to fund other programs they did oppose. We do somehow have one of the better funded DOTs and yet abysmal quality roads.
Click to expand...
Well, I saw it as going to a program I oppose (SCR) but I still voted and supported No as well. Because we're now plunged into a real problem of how to fund all the maintenance that was supposed to be funded by the indexing. And I don't know how that's going to pan out.

"Taxation without representation" is absurd because it was taxation with representation: our representatives voted on it and actually did something fiscally responsible for a change. And they were punished by the voters for doing so. Next time someone claims to be a "fiscal conservative" ask them if they voted No on Q1. Bet you they did not.

Btw, I had your house on my canvass list but you weren't home ;)

underground said:
Taxes and fees get introduced, go up, and go down all the time. Just because one of them became a ballot question doesn't guarantee that all future ones will as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, one thing I have started to worry about is that the success of Q1 will inspire future ballot questions about exactly that. Once people realize that they can vote this stuff down, why not?
 
Actually, one thing I have started to worry about is that the success of Q1 will inspire future ballot questions about exactly that. Once people realize that they can vote this stuff down, why not?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, dude. That's just over the top fear mongering. There are ballot questions every year, and they don't necessarily lead to ensuing ballot questions. Like, now that we have mandatory sick time, we'll be voting on mandatory vacation next election cycle? Of course not.
 
underground said:
Oh, come on, dude. That's just over the top fear mongering. There are ballot questions every year, and they don't necessarily lead to ensuing ballot questions. Like, now that we have mandatory sick time, we'll be voting on mandatory vacation next election cycle? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Well I think that particular example is not as compelling as the potential to vote yourself tax cuts. Having said that, let's look at history:

In 2010, Q3 would have cut the sales tax to 3%, and was defeated 57-43.
In 2008, Q1 would have eliminated the income tax, and was defeated 69-31.

So 2014 Q1 is just another anti-tax question, but one that happened to be successful. What does that mean? Well, 2014 was always going to be a more Republican-oriented year than 2012 was or 2016 will be. So perhaps it's just an artifact of that. Or maybe it gives some more steam to the anti-tax brigade and they come out again with something in 2016 or 2018. Maybe they set their sights a little lower and ask for a 1.5% cut in the sales tax. Why not? It might work.
 
Well, 2014 was always going to be a more Republican-oriented year than 2012 was or 2016 will be.
Click to expand...
2016 will get high turnout due to the presidential cycle. When turnout in MA is high, it trends liberal. That's why the marijuana legalization folks sat out this year; 2016 is a better bet. Seriously, there's absolutely nothing that makes Q1 winning look like an anti-tax trend, and there's nothing to be worried about (not we're not already worried about. Seriously, MassDOT needs appropriate and stable funding) for the future.
 
Speaking of 2016, look what I spotted today:

IMG_20141105_115559.jpg


Hill-arious.

Anyway, yes, I knew 2014 would be a more Republican-y year and that probably helped tip things. If the gas tax indexing had been done in 2012 this probably would have gone the other way. However, I also know that the legislature is basically going to do nothing to fix these problems and the cited excuse will always be: "look what happened with Q1."

This reminds me that Secretary Davey once told me, in a conversation at some event this past year, that if Q1 passes then all bets are off. Welp, Q1 passed. Now it's a matter of waiting to learn what the hammer is going to drop on.
 
Q1 passed, but it only removed the indexing. It didnt reverse the increase in the gas tax that was passed with the indexing. There are still additional funds coming in due to the gas tax increase.
 
Crazy Infrastructure Pitch

So, when built the Sumner/Callahan simply emptied onto the city streets in eastie. Eventually they built 1A, ect, ect.

Just as reconstructing 93 north has made Rutherford and the McGrath redundant and due for a downgrading, I wonder if the 90 extension could pave the way for demolishing the McClellan viaduct that cuts East Boston in half. As I understand it, the new tunnel for 90 are under capacity, and traffic seemed to be fine when the tunnels were closed for reconstruction recently.

Demolishing the viaduct and rerouting 1A via the Pike tunnel would allow a massive simplification of the ramps around Airport Station, open up some developable land where Visconti Road currently is, take a lot of idling traffic off the surface trying to get through the tolls, and eliminate that suicide right turn coming out of the tunnel going north.

Thoughts?
 
Personally, I hope that Q1 really did mean "we're OK with taxes as long as the legislature has the courage to vote on them and tell us what they're going to spend it on"

We may see specific, popular projects not happening because indexing failed. Well, tie the increases to those specific projects. After all, that's how we got the current hike: it was tied to things like Conn River rail, Worcester Line/West Station, and the GLX.

One of the problems that Q1 opponents had, was that we couldn't point to any specific, much-loved project that was going to get cancelled, just a vague "safe roads" message. Blech. For all we knew, the extra revenues were going to get eaten up not by projects by construction companies hiking rates to eat the budget allotted.

I'd rather see an annual more-than-inflation hike (always round up to the next-higher cent), and a five year repaving, repairing and replacement menu of stuff it specifically funds.

Otherwise, we did have the risk that all indexing would have done would be to encourage overspending on a shorter list of projects...we'd never quite know if we were getting our indexed money's worth. Maybe this way we will. I live in hope, anyway.
 
If you think auto demand for those tunnels has dropped that much, why not flip one of them to light rail for the urban ring?
 
Re: Crazy Infrastructure Pitch

davem said:
So, when built the Sumner/Callahan simply emptied onto the city streets in eastie. Eventually they built 1A, ect, ect.

Just as reconstructing 93 north has made Rutherford and the McGrath redundant and due for a downgrading, I wonder if the 90 extension could pave the way for demolishing the McClellan viaduct that cuts East Boston in half. As I understand it, the new tunnel for 90 are under capacity, and traffic seemed to be fine when the tunnels were closed for reconstruction recently.

Demolishing the viaduct and rerouting 1A via the Pike tunnel would allow a massive simplification of the ramps around Airport Station, open up some developable land where Visconti Road currently is, take a lot of idling traffic off the surface trying to get through the tolls, and eliminate that suicide right turn coming out of the tunnel going north.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You're going to have some issues selling a DOT that just spent billions on a fully-underground highway interchange into those tunnels on pulling their designation and flipping them to local-only. Also, remember that routing all airport-bound traffic through 4 lanes of tunnels was a big part of the disaster the Big Dig solved. The Ted may have faster access, but it's still the same number of lanes.

MassDOT should already be planning to sacrifice the EZ-PASS service center to get some more reasonable curves on that approach once AET eliminates the toll booth. It might be possible to get everything high enough for Porter St. to reconnect underneath the highway, with a simple ramp from 1A.
 
There's no direct access to 90E from 93S without the callahan. And the two older tunnels allow traffic bound for 93N and Storrow to bypass the heart of the CBD.

And 1A doesn't 'split the neighborhood' that badly - it crosses chelsea st. perpendicularly, and doesn't impact Meridian - those are the two major thoroughfares.

The toll plaza / interchange could certainly be cleaned up a bit, especially because the abutting properties are also state-owned (DOT and State Police). And we'd all love to see some air rights development on Meridian.

But a 1a reconfig is way down the priority list for the neighborhood. A solution in search of a problem....
 
My friend was in town for a couple weeks and was put up at at the Embassy Suites. Walked to Santarpos with him a few times and that viaduct was gross to be near. That's really what got me thinking about it.
 
Matthew said:
I saw a car with a "NORTH SOUTH RAIL LINK" bumper sticker parked in the Fenway today ;)
Click to expand...

There's a few around. Mostly union guys. They even slapped some on light posts around the Seaport during the Big Dig. I see a couple of poles that still have them near the Pike ramps in the Seaport.
 
It doesn't seem under capacity when I try to take the Silver Line to a Friday evening flight =P
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ng-disguise/6bx4ufo21RhXRdpXAXFkSK/story.html

Just read this piece from McMorrow, and he's basically arguing that now that the gas tax was repealed, we've got the opportunity for the legislature to go back and re-do the transportation bill the right way. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him on the idea, tho have no faith in the state gov doing the right thing when it comes to voting on a transport bill. Curious to hear what everyone else's thoughts are on this?
 
Deetroyt said:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ng-disguise/6bx4ufo21RhXRdpXAXFkSK/story.html

Just read this piece from McMorrow, and he's basically arguing that now that the gas tax was repealed, we've got the opportunity for the legislature to go back and re-do the transportation bill the right way. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him on the idea, tho have no faith in the state gov doing the right thing when it comes to voting on a transport bill. Curious to hear what everyone else's thoughts are on this?
Click to expand...

Well, upthread you saw a lot of Coakley cities at the fringes of the MBTA district defect on Q1:
1. Lawrence
2. Lowell
3. Worcester
4. Brockton
5. Fall River

I say, go back and tie local projects to local-option revenues. Does the South Coast want better transit *enough* to use up its local-option taxes on SCR? Let 'em.

Will Lowell and Lawrence want DMU service? Let us North Station users tax ourselves for it.

And maybe Worcester will go for it if its clear that the Worcester-Springfield line will get upgraded and Inland Service to NYC or Montreal will get added.

And Brockton should get the Middleboro line unpinched and South Station expanded. That'll swing 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top