Not sure if anyone has seen this...

the gas tax is too low if you want those that use public transit to pay fair, make those that park pay the same. take out zoning that requires parking spaces- free parking is a huge government subsidy, especially in cities-, have the gas tax cover the cost of paving, repairing, maintaining, plowing, and building the new roads, take none out of the general fund. I bet you people would clamor for the T upgrades real fast. The gas tax doesn't cover the cost of driving let alone public transport. Also, i think its very easy to argue that public transport is itself a taxpayer subsidy of driving. take everyone on the south shore that ride any Old Colony commuter rail, ferry, or red line to boston and put them in a car on the southeast express way, then say how people on the cape shouldn't pay for the T. It would be a nice 8 hour commute. Or you can try and annex all the land in dorchester and quincy to make the expressway 7 lanes in each direction. that should be much cheaper.
 
Another selling point on the gas tax is that the currently doesn't cover the costs of driving anyway. The money is fungeable, so in reality general funds that could be earmarked to transit are instead diverted to roads. The current system isn't fair, which is something that motherboard I he climate of 1% and Tea Party arguments.
 
statler said:
Yes, I don't see any drawback for the western part of state if Boston becomes a completely gridlocked mess and business start leaving the state in droves.

That won't affect the rest of the state at all.
Click to expand...

And no businesses will leave the state if the cost of doing business within the state goes up...
 
choo said:
the gas tax is too low if you want those that use public transit to pay fair, make those that park pay the same. take out zoning that requires parking spaces- free parking is a huge government subsidy, especially in cities-, have the gas tax cover the cost of paving, repairing, maintaining, plowing, and building the new roads, take none out of the general fund. I bet you people would clamor for the T upgrades real fast. The gas tax doesn't cover the cost of driving let alone public transport. Also, i think its very easy to argue that public transport is itself a taxpayer subsidy of driving. take everyone on the south shore that ride any Old Colony commuter rail, ferry, or red line to boston and put them in a car on the southeast express way, then say how people on the cape shouldn't pay for the T. It would be a nice 8 hour commute. Or you can try and annex all the land in dorchester and quincy to make the expressway 7 lanes in each direction. that should be much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, not everyone in the state commutes into Boston or goes anywhere near the 128 corridor on a regular basis.

What is wrong with having the MBTA district municipalities pay for the MBTA?
 
DominusNovus said:
Believe it or not, not everyone in the state commutes into Boston or goes anywhere near the 128 corridor on a regular basis.

What is wrong with having the MBTA district municipalities pay for the MBTA?
Click to expand...

Because we are a commonwealth. Do you really want to start paying for your own roads?
 
choo said:
the gas tax is too low if you want those that use public transit to pay fair, make those that park pay the same. take out zoning that requires parking spaces- free parking is a huge government subsidy, especially in cities-, have the gas tax cover the cost of paving, repairing, maintaining, plowing, and building the new roads, take none out of the general fund. I bet you people would clamor for the T upgrades real fast. The gas tax doesn't cover the cost of driving let alone public transport. Also, i think its very easy to argue that public transport is itself a taxpayer subsidy of driving. take everyone on the south shore that ride any Old Colony commuter rail, ferry, or red line to boston and put them in a car on the southeast express way, then say how people on the cape shouldn't pay for the T. It would be a nice 8 hour commute. Or you can try and annex all the land in dorchester and quincy to make the expressway 7 lanes in each direction. that should be much cheaper.
Click to expand...

25% of the expenses for the T are covered by operating revenue. 80% of expenses from roads are covered by the gas tax.
 
Kahta said:
25% of the expenses for the T are covered by operating revenue. 80% of expenses from roads are covered by the gas tax.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see your source on that. Especially since it's widely understood by the rational and sane that the bridges and highways have not been maintained as they should.

$2.2 trillion dollars are required to bring the nation's bridges and highways from a grade of "D" to something adequate (per American Society of Civil Engineers). It may take another I-35-style collapse to get the government leeches moving, but the highways will get their money.

Meanwhile, public transportation will get the bill.
 
Here's the revenue breakdown for the T.

mbta.png
 
So the greatest growth has been in fare box revenue and contract assistance. Do we know what that is? Is it something that pertains to operations?
 
bbfen said:
I'd love to see your source on that. Especially since it's widely understood by the rational and sane that the bridges and highways have not been maintained as they should.

$2.2 trillion dollars are required to bring the nation's bridges and highways from a grade of "D" to something adequate (per American Society of Civil Engineers). It may take another I-35-style collapse to get the government leeches moving, but the highways will get their money.

Meanwhile, public transportation will get the bill.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/T_CaucusDay_32311.pdf Page 2 and 3

Fare revenues are 28% of revenue for the MBTA

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/downloads/InfoCenter/financials/FY12_BudgetHearing.pdf

Page 13 and 14

RMV fees + Fuel tax total 80% of MassDOT revenue (not including sales tax revenue from the sale of cars, since that's not broken out separately)


the MBTA has more of an expense issue than a revenue issue: http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/MBTA52499.pdf

From 10 years ago:

The MBTA’s current contract with the American Transit Union, Local 589 covers about 3,600 employees or 60% of the MBTA workforce. For almost all theoccupations covered by this contract, the MBTA pays, on average, about 65% more than other Massachusetts employers pay workers in the same occupations.

That's not factoring in overtime, free healthcare for life, or 20 year pensions. Those benefits add another 30% premium to the hourly wages.

The study is 10 years old, but there's no reason to believe that things haven't substantively changed since then on any of the other metrics that are been discussed. If things had substantively changed in favor of the customer, the employees would have likely gone on strike.


CAPEX for highways and bridges is a completely different issue than mass transit systems run as an urban jobs/stimulus program. I don't have an issue with tolls to fund highways, tunnels, bridges, etc. Most other states see their highways and bridges (rightly so) as an enabler of trade and commerce. Take a drive in any state outside of New England, NJ, and NY. It's the exception to experience rough pavement anywhere or a pothole or a bridge with rebar that has corroded and expanded, breaking the concrete. Bridges and overpasses were largely in good shape and it was evident that they had been replaced within the last 10-15 years.
 
Kahta said:
Completely untrue.


CAPEX for highways and bridges is a completely different issue than mass transit systems run as an urban jobs/stimulus program. I don't have an issue with tolls to fund highways, tunnels, bridges, etc. Most other states see their highways and bridges (rightly so) as an enabler of trade and commerce. Take a drive in any state outside of New England, NJ, and NY. It's the exception to experience rough pavement anywhere or a pothole or a bridge with rebar that has corroded and expanded, breaking the concrete. Bridges and overpasses were largely in good shape and it was evident that they had been replaced within the last 10-15 years.
Click to expand...

Kahta - that last statement is manifestly false:

The ultimate enemy of roads is frozen water
The ultimate enemy of bridge and overpass decks is salt water
both are exacerbated by usage (e.g. traffic counts) especially by heavily laden trucks
die to our climate we have an abundance of both

There are essentially 4 cells in the matrix of road damage (similar for bridge decks and overpasses) with the two axies:

Intensity of use
Weather conditions

intensity of use:
Heavy density of use -- i.e. many vehicle miles traveled per year / infrastructure mileage = small area high population densiy states = North East
Light density of use -- i.e.. few vehicle miles traveled per year / infrastructure mileage = Large area low population densiy states = Upper western Midwest, mountain states

Weather effects on pavement:
Extended time pavement is subjected to freeze thaw cycles -- i.e. cold states with some intermediate warming = MA
Minimal time pavement is subjected to freeze thaw cycles -- t.e. cold states with no intermediate thaw or warm states == Mississippi or Minnesotta

Now fill in the matrix assigning 2 point for evey "bad condition" and ) for the good condition or 1 for half and half

On one diagonal you have Missisippi wih 0 at the lower left == No dirvers / mile and no weather effects
on the othe end of the diagonal you have MA, NJ with 4 == Lots of drivers / mile and the worst possible weather for roads
the other two cells are essentially 1s such as NH with lousy weather but not many drivers per mile of roads; and Florida with a significant intensity of use but very benign weather

Now you exacerbate the problem with the fact that our climate limits road construction to the 6 months between Freezing periods when its warm enough to fix roads; and in the winter we heavily salt the roads which tears up the concrete on bridges and overpasses

when you apply these criteria you don't find anything unusual at all
 
How much federal money comes in for the highways vs. the T?

I cannot understand how you couldnt see that the T is a public good for the mass economy as a whole. Plus, those times that people from other parts do come in in large numbers (i.e. the fourth, parades, new years), guess what they do, they make the T free! Transportation of all kinds is an economic engine. The T pays for itself a lot more than some state road in the berkshires, so if you want all forms to pay for themselves, get ready for less roads and more public transit.
 
choo said:
How much federal money comes in for the highways vs. the T?

I cannot understand how you couldnt see that the T is a public good for the mass economy as a whole. Plus, those times that people from other parts do come in in large numbers (i.e. the fourth, parades, new years), guess what they do, they make the T free! Transportation of all kinds is an economic engine. The T pays for itself a lot more than some state road in the berkshires, so if you want all forms to pay for themselves, get ready for less roads and more public transit.
Click to expand...

If you read the other links, you'd see that highways are substantially more self-funded than the T.

Roads and highways are a substantially better engine for economic growth than mass transit.
 
whighlander said:
Kahta - that last statement is manifestly false:

The ultimate enemy of roads is frozen water
The ultimate enemy of bridge and overpass decks is salt water
both are exacerbated by usage (e.g. traffic counts) especially by heavily laden trucks
die to our climate we have an abundance of both

There are essentially 4 cells in the matrix of road damage (similar for bridge decks and overpasses) with the two axies:

Intensity of use
Weather conditions

intensity of use:
Heavy density of use -- i.e. many vehicle miles traveled per year / infrastructure mileage = small area high population densiy states = North East
Light density of use -- i.e.. few vehicle miles traveled per year / infrastructure mileage = Large area low population densiy states = Upper western Midwest, mountain states

Weather effects on pavement:
Extended time pavement is subjected to freeze thaw cycles -- i.e. cold states with some intermediate warming = MA
Minimal time pavement is subjected to freeze thaw cycles -- t.e. cold states with no intermediate thaw or warm states == Mississippi or Minnesotta

Now fill in the matrix assigning 2 point for evey "bad condition" and ) for the good condition or 1 for half and half

On one diagonal you have Missisippi wih 0 at the lower left == No dirvers / mile and no weather effects
on the othe end of the diagonal you have MA, NJ with 4 == Lots of drivers / mile and the worst possible weather for roads
the other two cells are essentially 1s such as NH with lousy weather but not many drivers per mile of roads; and Florida with a significant intensity of use but very benign weather

Now you exacerbate the problem with the fact that our climate limits road construction to the 6 months between Freezing periods when its warm enough to fix roads; and in the winter we heavily salt the roads which tears up the concrete on bridges and overpasses

when you apply these criteria you don't find anything unusual at all
Click to expand...

Cleveland has the most freeze-thaw cycles in the country and the best roads on my drive from Boston to Northwest AR were in Ohio. Upstate NY (I-86) and Pennsylvania on I-90 weren't bad either. Ohio had absolutely great roads.

Those roads almost certainly experience higher truck volumes than anything in MA-- we are the end of the road for supply chains, while in those places, they are the road.

I'm not going to engage on the salt issue-- I was on I-44 between Oklahoma City and Tulsa yesterday for something and many of the original overpasses were still there with the circa 1955 with the steel in decent shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top