New Red and Orange Line Cars

Increasing the gas tax could be construed as a roundabout way of making motorists cover the externalities of driving. But I agree that politically any increase in taxes, whatever the form, is going to need to be framed as primarily a congestion mitigation measure. That shouldn't be too hard given Boston's current level of congestion.
 
Coyote137 said:
Increasing the gas tax could be construed as a roundabout way of making motorists cover the externalities of driving. But I agree that politically any increase in taxes, whatever the form, is going to need to be framed as primarily a congestion mitigation measure. That shouldn't be too hard given Boston's current level of congestion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think we’d have a much better time raising the gas tax than we did with the automatically adjusting gas tax (which I still oppose on philosophical grounds). Only problem is that we’d have to raise it on people who don’t commute to Boston, which hampers the congestion argument. Too bad we don’t have viable county governments anymore, because Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex, Essex, Bristol, and Plymouth line up pretty well with the source of most of your Boston commuters. They also have most of the voters in the state, so that’d be a challenge.
 
DominusNovus said:
Agreed. I think we’d have a much better time raising the gas tax than we did with the automatically adjusting gas tax (which I still oppose on philosophical grounds). Only problem is that we’d have to raise it on people who don’t commute to Boston, which hampers the congestion argument. Too bad we don’t have viable county governments anymore, because Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex, Essex, Bristol, and Plymouth line up pretty well with the source of most of your Boston commuters. They also have most of the voters in the state, so that’d be a challenge.
Click to expand...

We also lack state legislators with a spine, so we've got that going against us.
 
DominusNovus said:
Agreed. I think we’d have a much better time raising the gas tax than we did with the automatically adjusting gas tax (which I still oppose on philosophical grounds). Only problem is that we’d have to raise it on people who don’t commute to Boston, which hampers the congestion argument. Too bad we don’t have viable county governments anymore, because Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex, Essex, Bristol, and Plymouth line up pretty well with the source of most of your Boston commuters. They also have most of the voters in the state, so that’d be a challenge.
Click to expand...

The whole argument of I don't drive to Boston so why should I have to pay for it is the dumbest excuse to not raise it. It's like me arguing that because I don't have a car and I don't drive, why should the state use a part of my state tax to maintain roads and highways throughout the state.

You live in Massachusetts, you live with all of us. Tough shit.

The state should start shifting a larger percentage of the state tax that goes to road maintenance to transit while conveying the message that due to a lack of gas tax increases needed to supplement the cost of public transportation, additional state tax will appropriated to public transportation.

See how quickly drivers will howl as their roads deteriorate.
 
KentXie said:
The whole argument of I don't drive to Boston so why should I have to pay for it is the dumbest excuse to not raise it. It's like me arguing that because I don't have a car and I don't drive, why should the state use a part of my state tax to maintain roads and highways throughout the state.

You live in Massachusetts, you live with all of us. Tough shit.

The state should start shifting a larger percentage of the state tax that goes to road maintenance to transit while conveying the message that due to a lack of gas tax increases needed to supplement the cost of public transportation, additional state tax will appropriated to public transportation.

See how quickly drivers will howl as their roads deteriorate.
Click to expand...

If we are framing a proposal of a new gas tax as a measure to fight congestion, then it absolutely is reasonable to object if you are not driving in the congested area. Either way ‘tough shit’ is not a good campaign slogan.
 
DominusNovus said:
If we are framing a proposal of a new gas tax as a measure to fight congestion, then it absolutely is reasonable to object if you are not driving in the congested area. Either way ‘tough shit’ is not a good campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

I think the really issue in the logic of (mainly Western Mass) in general complaining about taxes and spending in Boston and on the MBTA is that Greater Boston also sends a ton of money out there for their schools, roads, etc. Boston is the economic engine of MA (and most of New England), and Boston straight up can't exist/continue without public transit and the MBTA working.
 
bakgwailo said:
I think the really issue in the logic of (mainly Western Mass) in general complaining about taxes and spending in Boston and on the MBTA is that Greater Boston also sends a ton of money out there for their schools, roads, etc. Boston is the economic engine of MA (and most of New England), and Boston straight up can't exist/continue without public transit and the MBTA working.
Click to expand...

There’s a very compelling argument there. But regardless of its strength, its several degrees away from the immediate issue.
 
DominusNovus said:
If we are framing a proposal of a new gas tax as a measure to fight congestion, then it absolutely is reasonable to object if you are not driving in the congested area. Either way ‘tough shit’ is not a good campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty unreasonable. If every public good was charged based on whether one uses it or not, then there will be no cities, no infrastructure, no parks. It's the fact that suburban people have this "I got mine" mentality that makes them think this is something "reasonable" to object.
 
KentXie said:
It's actually pretty unreasonable. If every public good was charged based on whether one uses it or not, then there will be no cities, no infrastructure, no parks. It's the fact that suburban people have this "I got mine" mentality that makes them think this is something "reasonable" to object.
Click to expand...

Beyond the inaccuracies in both the premise and the conclusion, you’re more focused on casting blame than finding a solution.
 
DominusNovus said:
Beyond the inaccuracies in both the premise and the conclusion, you’re more focused on casting blame than finding a solution.
Click to expand...

What part was inaccurate? You're saying it's reasonable that drivers who don't drive to Boston object about a new gas tax but I say it's unreasonable because a public good should not be funded based on usage. It should draw from the entire population pool. Tell me how it would be feasible to then fund every public good based on who uses them.

Also, you can't find a solution without first identifying the problem and the problem here is that there are people who don't understand how public infrastructure are funded and managed and think that they should only pay for something they use. That's not how states, cities, and towns work. People don't exist in vacuums. And no matter how you "frame" it, if people feel like they are not going derive any direct benefit from a project, they are not going to agree to it.

And in your case, those same people who don't drive into Boston will never agree to it because the fact is, they actually aren't going to get much benefit from expanding public transit in Boston (for example people working in Springfield won't get any benefit whatsoever). However, the purpose of a tax is to fund different projects that benefit specific areas so while one project may not benefit a town in the west, a separate project could but this can only happen if everyone contributes.

If these people feel that a higher gas tax are targeting drivers unfairly, then get rid of the gas tax and just raise the tax on everyone.
 
Last edited:
People would accept a gas tax increase if they felt the money was going to be spent wisely and for a good purpose. The consensus is that money goes into a black hole of government, wasted on corruption, bureaucracy, bloat, pensions, etc. and not actual efficient spending on transportation.

Is it really any different than transit riders saying they don't want a fare increase since they don't see any tangible improvements?
 
KentXie said:
What part was inaccurate? You're saying it's reasonable that drivers who don't drive to Boston object about a new gas tax but I say it's unreasonable because a public good should not be funded based on usage. It should draw from the entire population pool. Tell me how it would be feasible to then fund every public good based on who uses them.

Also, you can't find a solution without first identifying the problem and the problem here is that there are people who don't understand how public infrastructure are funded and managed and think that they should only pay for something they use. That's not how states, cities, and towns work. People don't exist in vacuums. And no matter how you "frame" it, if people feel like they are not going derive any direct benefit from a project, they are not going to agree to it.

And in your case, those same people who don't drive into Boston will never agree to it because the fact is, they actually aren't going to get much benefit from expanding public transit in Boston (for example people working in Springfield won't get any benefit whatsoever). However, the purpose of a tax is to fund different projects that benefit specific areas so while one project may not benefit a town in the west, a separate project could but this can only happen if everyone contributes.

If these people feel that a higher gas tax are targeting drivers unfairly, then get rid of the gas tax and just raise the tax on everyone.
Click to expand...

The inaccuracy is most obvious in the statement that, if the costs were passed onto only those that use the infrastructure, the infrastructure would not exist. This requires one to ignore the systems built by private enterprise.

Regardless of that, my point regarding targeting the gas tax was in response to it being pitches as an anti-congestion measure; if we’re looking at it that way, then of course the people who don’t have to deal with the congestion are going to object.

I’d say a workable solution: a very modest gas tax increase across the board, tolls on I-93, and increase metered parking rates. At the same time, however, there needs to be some serious reform, because I don’t know about the reat of you, but I don’t trust Beacon Hill to actually spend this hypothetical new revenue on actual infrastructure projects. Indeed, if any of these measures reduce congestion, I can imagine many lawmakers saying the goal has been achieved, and that they have a pet project that could use the revenue more.

That said, this is a pretty broad conversation, shall we move it to another thread?
 
Last edited:
DominusNovus said:
The inaccuracy is most obvious in the statement that, if the costs were passed onto only those that use the infrastructure, the infrastructure would not exist. This requires one to ignore the systems built by private enterprise
Click to expand...

No that isn't inaccurate nor does it ignore systems built by private enterprises. Look at my entire statement. If EVERY, not some, EVERY public good was to charge based on people who use, there will be no city and no infrastructure. Name a city that relies on solely private enterprises. Name a state that relies on solely private enterprises and name a private enterprise who is willing to build system where there are no public goods funded by taxes. I'll wait.

And my point is some of these taxes shouldn't require input from every city and town in MA. You can't make everyone happy and trying to do so gets nothing done.
 
KentXie said:
And my point is some of these taxes shouldn't require input from every city and town in MA. You can't make everyone happy and trying to do so gets nothing done.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone does get a say. Thats how the system works.
 
Not to break up this lively debate, but the Red Line mock-up will be unveiled on City Hall Plaza tomorrow.
 
Jahvon09 said:
That's what I thought. :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I can't stay silent anymore as someone who enjoys the Transit section here. Was a post like yours (above) REALLY necessary? What did it contribute? What are we supposed to get out of it?

The fact that you thought something was going to be the case, as it turned out to be, is something you feel is worth mentioning, because...? Vanity? Empowerment? Ultimately, posts of this nature contribute NOTHING to the topic at hand...it's filler. (The point of mine, is to help someone like you understand that.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top