Red Line Extension to Arlington Heights

[Stlin]

In terms of SoGR, there's a ton more unfunded and unstarted stuff to take care of. power systems alone is probably a multi-million dollar need. I don't disagree that we should be considering future system expansions, but I'd think I'd personally want to prioritize system improvements that aren't true expansions like regional rail and red blue.

That said, when do you think we should be able to expect a new CNAI (Capital Needs Assessment and Inventory)? They're supposed to be every 3-4 years, but the last one was presented in late 2023 citing july 2021 data. I think I'd want to comment on future investment priorities with that in hand, seeing what progress has been made since 2021 - presumably with the many multiday diversions the 2B in identified transit track need has mostly come into SGR, for one.

 

[TheRatmeister]

In terms of SoGR, there's a ton more unfunded and unstarted stuff to take care of. power systems alone is probably a multi-million dollar need. I don't disagree that we should be considering future system expansions, but I'd think I'd personally want to prioritize system improvements that aren't true expansions like regional rail and red blue.

That said, when do you think we should be able to expect a new CNAI (Capital Needs Assessment and Inventory)? They're supposed to be every 3-4 years, but the last one was presented in late 2023 citing july 2021 data. I think I'd want to comment on future investment priorities with that in hand, seeing what progress has been made since 2021 - presumably with the many multiday diversions the 2B in identified transit track need has mostly come into SGR, for one.

I believe the CIP team has said it's in the works and expected next year or so.

 

[CBCArch61]

While it may seem like low hanging fruit, it is also one of the most regressive ways to fund things. Sales tax increases impact the lower income earners way more than other income levels. I voted for a sales tax increase when Nashville, TN did their most recent transit referendum (0.5% for the first 5 or 10 years, then another 0.5% after that) and it was a very hard discussion about using a sales tax to fund transit. Lower Broadway has a "fee" that also jumps the sales tax an additional 0.50%, so if anyone visits Nashville, you will pay just over 10% in sales tax/fee alone. Granted most locals or low income earners are not hitting up Lower Broadway every weekend, but that additional "fee" applies to all retail sales within the downtown area.

With a system like the MBTA, why would a single town want to vote to increase their tax burden to fund something not in their town? I only ask this in context to the MBTA and the Red Line extension. Is the suggestion that Arlington would want to increase their tax burden in or to fund (or partially fund) the extension project? Looks like the sponsors are from Framingham, Lexington and Boston. Framingham and Lexington are probably looking at the surcharge for sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic signals. Boston could use a surcharge for any number of items. I guess I am struggling a bit with understanding how a city specific surcharge could go into a project such as rail extension.

 

[stick n move]

If you read the bill it gives individual towns the means to fund their own transit lines, or group together with other towns/cities to create a transit district. So if its an extension to one town they can pay for it, or if it passes through multiple towns they all can pay. Or if arlington and the towns around it who all benefit create a district then they can all fund it. Then once its paid off the tax sunsets.

If arlington wants a red line extension to arlington and doesnt want to wait 75 years until they complete all the projects ahead of it in priority, plus wait for the money to fall from the sky, then arlington has a means to fund the extension themselves if they choose to do so. If they dont want to then they dont. As it stands now arlington doesnt even have the ability to do so whether they want to or not. So theyre stuck waiting until some day whenever the state can get around to it.

I dont see the problem with a situation where arlington wants a red line extension to arlington so they pass a half cent sales tax to fund a red line extension to Arlington. This also means towns out west arent paying for arlingtons red line extension. Nothing is perfect, but we need more tools to fund transit lines. This doesnt have to be the only way transit lines are funded, under normal administrations theres usually a mix of federal and state funds. Its another tool in the tool bag to get more transit funding if the voters want it. The way its working now is just arlington gets no extension within any of our lifetimes and were lucky to get one more large project in the next 20 years. The more funding options there are the more can happen.

 

[JeffDowntown]

If you read the bill it gives individual towns the means to fund their own transit lines, or group together with other towns/cities to create a transit district. So if its an extension to one town they can pay for it, or if it passes through multiple towns they all can pay. Or if arlington and the towns around it who all benefit create a district then they can all fund it. Then once its paid off the tax sunsets.

If arlington wants a red line extension to arlington and doesnt want to wait 75 years until they complete all the projects ahead of it in priority, plus wait for the money to fall from the sky, then arlington has a means to fund the extension themselves if they choose to do so. If they dont want to then they dont. As it stands now arlington doesnt even have the ability to do so whether they want to or not. So theyre stuck waiting until some day whenever the state can get around to it.

I dont see the problem with a situation where arlington wants a red line extension to arlington so they pass a half cent sales tax to fund a red line extension to Arlington. This also means towns out west arent paying for arlingtons red line extension. Nothing is perfect, but we need more tools to fund transit lines. This doesnt have to be the only way transit lines are funded, under normal administrations theres usually a mix of federal and state funds. Its another tool in the tool bag to get more transit funding if the voters want it. The way its working now is just arlington gets no extension within any of our lifetimes and were lucky to get one more large project in the next 20 years. The more funding options there are the more can happen.

I would also assume that the local sales tax funding is not all or nothing. If a town were willing to come up with, say, half the funding for a project, that could shift where it sits in the state priority order.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I dont see the problem with a situation where arlington wants a red line extension to arlington so they pass a half cent sales tax to fund a red line extension to Arlington. This also means towns out west arent paying for arlingtons red line extension.

I would like to see the government of Arlington work with it's counterpart in Lexington, and have both towns pass a sales tax to fund the RLX to Arlington Heights. Both towns would benefit, and both towns could help fund the project.

 

[jklo]

I would like to see the government of Arlington work with it's counterpart in Lexington, and have both towns pass a sales tax to find the RLX to Arlington Heights. Both towns would benefit, and both towns could help fund the project.

What are we talking, multiple B? A sales tax in two towns isn't going to cover that. This is the kind of thing the Feds would have to pay most of.

 

[bigeman312]

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't a dedicated portion of the Fair Share surtax revenue already go to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund? What are the limitations of that funding? What has it gone towards so far?

 

[jklo]

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't a dedicated portion of the Fair Share surtax revenue already go to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund? What are the limitations of that funding? What has it gone towards so far?

If you're talking about the Millionaire Tax, the talk about transportation and education was just PR to get it passed. It's being used for whatever they want really.

Probally best to think this isn't happening short of property values dropping big time. (And a President willing to fund burb transpo projects like this)

 

[bigeman312]

If you're talking about the Millionaire Tax, the talk about transportation and education was just PR to get it passed. It's being used for whatever they want really.

Probally best to think this isn't happening short of property values dropping big time. (And a President willing to fund burb transpo projects like this)

Sure the RLX to Arlington isn't happening anytime soon, but can Fair Share surtax ("Millionaire Tax") revenue be used for rapid transit extensions that are higher in the pecking order, like BLX to Charles? What has it been used for?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

What has it been used for?

Plugging the T's operations deficit, and little else.

As long as they're band-aiding this, band-aiding that instead of looking for perma-fixes (ahem...Big Dig debt...ahem) the state's not going to be in a position to go on offense when it comes to transit improvements. We're still very much in a reactive defensive crouch despite the Baker-era austerity scourge more or less ending.

 

[BosMaineiac]

If you're talking about the Millionaire Tax, the talk about transportation and education was just PR to get it passed. It's being used for whatever they want really.

Probally best to think this isn't happening short of property values dropping big time. (And a President willing to fund burb transpo projects like this)

This is categorically false. The “Fair Share Amendment” is specifically allocated to education and transportation spending. It was estimated to raise $2B in revenue and has continually surpassed that. A quick google AI search yields the following projects that have been funded by that tax. If there are surpluses, that money can go to other specific projects.

 

[Scott]

He is not completely wrong. What they do is "supplant" or "backfill." Essentially they use the money on budget items they would have had to pay for before and then use the savings on whatever they want.

 

[BosMaineiac]

He is not completely wrong. What they do is "supplant" or "backfill." Essentially they use the money on budget items they would have had to pay for before and then use the savings on whatever they want.

But the state has increased transportation spending in addition to using revenue from the fair share tax on transp spending, so it hasn’t just been a “backfill”. Sure, most of it has been going to SOGR and investments into existing infrastructure, but that’s certainly the priority right now.

As for the “Big dig debt”, that money was specifically allocated to transit spending such as the GLX and South Coast Rail which were transit obligations to offset the big dig, exactly what transit advocates want. How it’s labeled is misleading as it implies that the T is somehow paying for the roadway tunnels part of CA/T project when that’s not the case.

 

[Scott]

But the state has increased transportation spending in addition to using revenue from the fair share tax on transp spending, so it hasn’t just been a “backfill”. Sure, most of it has been going to SOGR and investments into existing infrastructure, but that’s certainly the priority right now.

As for the “Big dig debt”, that money was specifically allocated to transit spending such as the GLX and South Coast Rail which were transit obligations to offset the big dig, exactly what transit advocates want. How it’s labeled is misleading as it implies that the T is somehow paying for the roadway tunnels part of CA/T project when that’s not the case.

This is not in the spirit of the law and they are going to erode it away to nothing. It would never have passed with the voters if it was essentially going into the general fund.

 

[BosMaineiac]

This is not in the spirit of the law and they are going to erode it away to nothing. It would never have passed with the voters if it was essentially going into the general fund.

Tough to argue with hypotheticals, I can’t predict the future . Regardless, I agree that a new dedicated funding source is needed and the tax is not (and was never intended to be) enough.

 

[KCasiglio]

Sure, most of it has been going to SOGR and investments into existing infrastructure, but that’s certainly the priority right now.

That's not what it has been going towards though, it's been going into the operations budget. Most of the SOGR work is funded through the CIP.

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.

All that said, frankly, it's wild that we get south coast rail and now east-west prioritized while it's somehow considered politically offensive for the state to fund something like RLX or R/B connector. Heaven forbid the region subsidizing the rest of the state invest in itself.

 

[HenryAlan]

If you're talking about the Millionaire Tax, the talk about transportation and education was just PR to get it passed. It's being used for whatever they want really.

Probally best to think this isn't happening short of property values dropping big time. (And a President willing to fund burb transpo projects like this)

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

 

[bigeman312]

Plugging the T's operations deficit, and little else.

As long as they're band-aiding this, band-aiding that instead of looking for perma-fixes (ahem...Big Dig debt...ahem) the state's not going to be in a position to go on offense when it comes to transit improvements. We're still very much in a reactive defensive crouch despite the Baker-era austerity scourge more or less ending.

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.

 

[CBCArch61]

If you read the bill it gives individual towns the means to fund their own transit lines, or group together with other towns/cities to create a transit district. So if its an extension to one town they can pay for it, or if it passes through multiple towns they all can pay. Or if arlington and the towns around it who all benefit create a district then they can all fund it. Then once its paid off the tax sunsets.

If arlington wants a red line extension to arlington and doesnt want to wait 75 years until they complete all the projects ahead of it in priority, plus wait for the money to fall from the sky, then arlington has a means to fund the extension themselves if they choose to do so. If they dont want to then they dont. As it stands now arlington doesnt even have the ability to do so whether they want to or not. So theyre stuck waiting until some day whenever the state can get around to it.

I dont see the problem with a situation where arlington wants a red line extension to arlington so they pass a half cent sales tax to fund a red line extension to Arlington. This also means towns out west arent paying for arlingtons red line extension. Nothing is perfect, but we need more tools to fund transit lines. This doesnt have to be the only way transit lines are funded, under normal administrations theres usually a mix of federal and state funds. Its another tool in the tool bag to get more transit funding if the voters want it. The way its working now is just arlington gets no extension within any of our lifetimes and were lucky to get one more large project in the next 20 years. The more funding options there are the more can happen.

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?