Re: North-South Rail Link
I'm working somewhat closely with the NSRL coalition through TransitMatters and would have to agree with a lot of what's being said here.
I agree on the very essential premise that NSRL should be sold as a down payment on frequent regional service and connectivity. We're working on building a vision internally to cement frequent, 'stepless', electric, regional rail because we also want to push the state toward a more solid commitment on transit investment.
We've been thoroughly technical about envisioned NSRL service in this thread. My question is: how do we pay for it? Do any of you have any concrete ideas that we could walk up to the legislature and municipalities with to make this happen?
Also, always looking to involve folks in transit circles since it still sometimes seems like the transit community has yet to fully break past armchair planning and railfanning into advocacy. I'd prefer to feel like I'm including the ArchBoston community rather than plagiarising the wonderfully technical and insightful posts here. Thanks, again, to everyone who made it to and donated toward our premier Beer & Transit event with Dukakis in October!
Hey DigitalSciGuy. I've been listening to the Transit Matters podcast from the outset. Not only do I think you fill an important void in the transit advocacy conversation but you guys continually get more on point and less rough around the edges with every podcast. Between the cogency of the dialogue, the guests you have and the outside the podcast events like Beer & Transit you guys are becoming a force to be reckoned with. I could really see your efforts as the fulcrum of a transit advocacy sea-change that could transform the landscape of Boston for many decades to come.
As to your question- how do we get the North South Rail Link/Regional Rail built in reality?- I want to talk about the transit expansion environment today in the US including the some key lessons to bear in mind in order to achieve major transit expansion within that environment, then I want to outline my idea of what a sort of transit expansion I think mostly meets those criteria in Boston then including roughly how much capital I think we would need in order to fund that vision, and finally the method I think that would prove the most politically expedient in light of the political dynamics here in Massachusetts.
Transit Expansion Environment Today
Transit is in the early stages of a renaissance in America that is becoming more pronounced year after year. We can see this in the way car-centric cities like LA, Denver, Phoenix and Dallas are embracing transit expansion and we can also see it in the increased participation in and support for transit advocacy that supports a variety of transit causes whether it be for complete streets or specific transit projects. Your podcast is a concrete example of this trend.
One of the outcomes of this transit renaissance has been a major increase of sizable transit expansions. This has been enabled by an increased voter willingness to pay for transit (i.e. to tax themselves) if they can see a direct and tangible benefit to themselves or their community at large. I would argue that for the most part while this transit renaissance has certainly reached Boston we still have not seen that coalescence around a major transit expansion project agenda like Denver and LA have. However, just like LA and Denver we have just as much of an ability to rally the electorate around a transit expansion. The question is will we be able to engineer the right environment to facilitate the public desire to see major increased transit expansion.
The Critical Components of a Major Transit Expansion
Denver FasTracks and LA Measure R (Seattle Sound Transit is as well but to a lesser degree) are very instructive on how to create the public groundswell that facilitates a major transit expansion. Their key components are:
1. The proposed projects were spread fairly widely over the metropolitan area and therefore brought in a lot of stakeholders over a wider geographic range;
2. The projects were clearly articulated and their benefits were clearly outlined so that a layman could understand the vision;
3. It was an all or nothing approach (i.e. lines were not voted on specifically). This is maybe one of the most important aspects of the proposal and one that I think is essential we bear in mind in Boston; and
4. The revenue raising (i.e. sales tax increase) was limited to the communities (in this case counties) that would receive the new service.
To put is more succinctly- come up with a bold proposal that benefits a lot of people, make sure those people can clearly understand the benefits, make one big push so that you can keep that coalition united (i.e. all of nothing approach) and come up with a revenue mechanism that recognizes this immutable human fact: we are more willing to pay for things if we can see how it will tangibly benefit us directly.
No one in Boston is really trying to achieve what Measure R in LA and Denver FasTracks achieved. I think there are three main reasons for this:
1. We tend to advocate for individual projects and not for a holistic vision that buys in a lot of stakeholders.
Despite the huge benefits of BLX to Lynn by and large the electorate sees that as a project that just helps Lynn. The end result is that proponents and opponents get into a fight about how each side does and doesn't deserve that project. This is compounded by the fact that these one off transit expansions need to be scrounged up from the same existing capital budgets and/or begged for from the Fed. This puts any singnular expansion into competition with other potential projects. In the end it creates a beggar they neighbor attitude whereby if you kill one project then you might stand to benefit from the freed up dollars to advance your pet cause... until the other side does that to you.
When you have a whole large project that sinks or swims on the whole thing getting done there is no incentive for the beggar thy neighbor approach. If you link a large transit expansion together then killing BLX to Lynn might also kill my indigo line to Riverside or my one seat ride to Back Bay from Salem. This helps makes sure a broad group is pushing in a the same direction.
In this case the Big Dig is instructive. When we think of the Big Dig we very rarely will differentiate between its litany of individual projects because in our head they were all linked. Do you think the we would have gotten all that willpower aligned just to build a third harbor crossing by itself? Definitely not. In essence Daniel Burnham says it best, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized."
[An aside on the Big Dig. If you read the Herald or talk to someone older they might say that it goes without saying that Boston is allergic to major civil engineering projects after the Big Dig. I disagree. We were hungover but like any hangover you get over it. In fact, we as a metropolitan area are ready to hit the bar again. Greater Boston is ready for another major undertaking partly because enough time has passed and people are starting to think about the next things that need to be done, partly because the city is younger than ever and has a lot of people who don't remember or weren't here for Big Dig and partly because a lot of people are wallowing in the benefits the Big Dig provided like opening up the Seaport and the Waterfront. So I'm unpersuaded by the argument that we can't do big things anymore because of the Big Dig. To the contrary, the time is nigh.]
In addition to the above practically speaking you need to have a large group of stakeholders in order to buy in enough people to raise the significant revenues that are required. The more potential beneficiaries the easier it is to pass taxes.
So in order to facilitate a major transit expansion in Boston we need a vision that brings in a lot of stakeholders that is an all or nothing approach. That is part of the magic of Denver FasTracks and Measure R.
2. Boston has an existing transit system.
As counter-intuitive as it may seem, exacerbating the above problem is that, since Boston already has an existing transit system, it's very difficult to imagine an expansion that will markedly change people's lives in a practical manner. This wasn't so much the case for Denver and LA that were essentially building transit from scratch. In those cases it's almost easier to imagine what transit will do. Sure people can imagine one off projects like GLX (although I think a lot of people have trouble envisioning how that is accretive) but as noted above the problem with that is that one-off projects can foster a beggar thy neighbor attitude and fail to rally broad based support.
North South Rail Link/Regional Rail is probably one of the best candidates (even though I will argue it is not quite enough) to bring in the huge amount of stakeholders necessary to push a major expansion but again it's hard to envision. The commuter rail tracks are already there running through people's town. In people's minds what difference would the tunnel downtown make? F-Line has really nailed how one goes about articulating the true vision of NSRL and what is could be but the advocates need to work on bringing that into focus. Frankly, I think the advocates are so close to the project that they have trouble understanding that people don't get how transformative this will be. They need to understand that those commuter rail tracks will mean a whole lot more to them even if there aren't new rails being laid.
3. Jurisdictional complications:
We've talked a lot about how Boston's massive decentralized municipal governance structure puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to raising revenues for transit. Unlike a lot of cities out in the Western US where one or two counties might more or less encompass the metropolitan region; Boston is a hodge podge of counties and towns that makes drawing that magical line of "ok you guys in this zone pay a penny more in sales tax so that you can have transit" nearly impossible. That is why so much of this is done on the state level which I think is mainly just a default workaround to actually dealing with this issue.
I know that metro Boston is the engine of the Massachusetts economy but I can still empathize with our brethren in the western part of the state who would fight to the death to not have to pay more for it. Is it shortsighted and parochial? Possibly. However, rather that decry people from outside the metro area for not wanting to pay for a service that they don't think they benefit from it's better to just accept that possibility and try to come up with a funding mechanism that draws more heavily from the more directly impacted citizens. The cities in the American west of just accepted this reality.
That being said this might be the most intractable problem that we face in Massachusetts for undertaking a major transit expansion. I don't know that we could ever draw the lines in the right way so that funding transit isn't a state issue. Whoever, can solve that problem in a practical manner in light of the constraints we live with regarding the history of this region surely would deserve much acclaim. However, in my revenue raising proposal later in this post I don't try to redraw the lines but instead opt of a statewide initiative that I think is the best solution considering the political realities. However, I try to mollify the critics by making sure the benefits of the tax are felt statewide while promoting a very specific transit agenda.
Vision for a transit expansion that would
As has been stated above the key to a successful transit expansion proposal is one that reaches that beautiful equilibrium between bringing in enough stakeholders to make sure there is broad based support and while at the same time being feasible. Upon first glance NSRL looks like it would pass this test so long as we focused on service level increases and not crazy through routing possibilities. However, I don't think there is enough there.
For a project of this size and scope I think the pitch has to be: relieving transportation bottlenecks for Eastern Massachusetts. With that in mind we need to make sure the benefits of the transit expansion radiate out in almost all directions. That is one of the problems with limiting the proposal to just the NSRL and then some regional rail. We know from having looked at this that the Reading line and the Needham line don't really partake in the benefits because of fundamental constraints. Those are two major constituencies left out in the cold. Also, since there is no commuter rail towards Arlington/Lexington so they by definition won't benefit in that direction. We need to bring them into the fold as well. Finally, downtown circulation left unaddressed can swoop in to murder much of the gains of NSRL and that really antagonizes a lot of stakeholders in the core who, while not as widely distributed as other potential stakeholders still are critical to success.
So here is my proposal with my rough estimates based on 2015 dollars on how much these proposals would cost (these are really rough numbers and I tried to estimate on the high end. We can debate these numbers sure but I don't think they are "on another planet off-the-mark" and they represent a good faith effort to put something down). Again, I think this all should be proposed as one large package under the mantra of fixing transportation for Eastern Massachusetts (insert catchy name here. FixMass perhaps?):
NSRL/Regional Rail- $5bn USD with another $5bn USD in Federal Matching
This is the heart of the proposal. It involves the digging on the NSRL tunnel as well as North and South Station under (eliminate Central Station). This also involves platform raising for level boarding, electrification, equipment purchases and grade crossing elimination where applicable. I won't dive into the details because F-Line has done it so much better but you more or less set up the optimal realistic service that you can from this tunnel. Moreover, this sum includes some key commuter/regional rail expansions that get talked about but are usually done in a one offs. This includes new service to Foxboro, Peabody, Buzzards Bay/Cape Cod and potentially Portsmouth and SCR.
In essence we get a proper regional rail that goes to the places we've talked about sending it for a long time at service levels that will make sure that is well patronized. This is the beating heart of the new expansion that brings along most, but not all, of the necessary Eastern Massachusetts stakeholders.
Needham line elimination- $3bn USD; Reading line elimination $4bn
These expansions are direct consequences of NSRL. Needham really won't benefit enough from NSRL and electrifying the Western Route to Reading so that it would benefit is really a fool's errand. However, it is essential that these corridors feel like they are benefiting from this massive transit expansion so therefore transferring these lines over to rapid transit is essential to add to the scope of this transit expansion. This means OLX to Reading, OLX to West Roxbury and branching off the D-line to Needham Junction.
RLX to Arlington Heights- $2.5bn USD
Again, to make sure the tentacles of this transit expansion are radiating out of the state capital equally in all directions we are going to have to include the side that doesn't have commuter rail to ramp up. I think RLX to 128 might be too much of a push so I've stopped at Arlington Heights. I think this brings in a lot of buy-in from that corner of the Commonwealth while recognizing the practical limitations of what can be achieved.
BLX to Lynn- $2.5bn USD; Red-Blue Connector- $700mm USD
Necessary and overdue. Eastern Route increased frequencies doesn't quite satisfy the demand enough to cover the blue line along this segment and the stakeholders realize it up there. Also, BLX doesn't make sense without Red Blue so it should be part of the scope.
Core connections- Green line Seaport-Back Bay connection including Green Line to Dudley- $5.8bn USD
If the transit expansion looks to be too suburb centric you can lose the wealthy people and business interests whose domain is the CBD. Even though NSRL will be a boon for the core this project will ensure the city core stakeholders firmly more have skin in the game. This is on top of the fact that circulations outside the main transfer stations is a non-negotiable necessity with NSRL.
That is the all encompassing expansion I think that need to be proposed along with NSRL. My proposal is based on the fact that NSRL immediately creates some needs as a direct result of its implementation and by addressing those needs you not only increase the stakeholders and the vision but make a better system as a whole.
How I would pay for it
I outlined the above because as I stated I think a major transit initiative has to be a bold push. I made rough estimates for cost so that I could show how I would raise the necessary revenues and said revenues would be sufficient to pay for a project of this scope.
So if you total up the above projects it comes to $28.5bn with $23.5bn coming from the Commonwealth (I think presuming the Feds are only participating in a limited way is a safe assumption). While this number is eye popping it is by no means unreachable. In fact there are a number of people in the world who could personally pay for this expansion right now with billions left over. This couldn't be too much of a challenge for a state who's GDP is equal to about Saudi Arabia; especially with the powers of finance and the fact that we could bond these projects and pay them off over a number of years with the right revenue source.
Moreover, if you look at the sums that Denver FasTracks, LA measure R and Seattle Sound Transit raise over the life of their sales tax increases this number seems right within the ball park. If they can do it so can we.
As I stated above it is very difficult to come up with a sales tax increase that is properly limited in scope so that it could both fund this major transit expansion but not be foisted upon areas of the state that won't benefit directly from this major expansion. The most logical solution is an additional penny sales tax increase in just the MBTA district. Despite their regressive nature sales tax prove popular because because people understand them and, if they know that it is only going to a worthy project (i.e. not the general fund because that is typically deemed "unworthy" despite the worthiness of the expenditures of that fund), are willing to increase them by ballot initiative.
Unfortunately the realities of our political body make instituting a penny sales tax on a more localized basis very difficult. For example, how would one try to enact an MBTA district penny sales tax. Statewide ballot? That would mean a person from outside the district (e.g. the Berkshires) can vote yes on a sales tax increase inside the MBTA district (e.g. in Boston). This inherent unfairness makes this unworkable (not to speak of the fact that a huge portion of the MBTA district would not assent to the tax).
If you reverse the order, assuming you passed the necessary legislation at the state level so you have the MBTA go to all it's members and say, "Ok, we are going to do this like WMATA, if you vote to pass a penny sales tax in your town you can stay in the district and fund this expansion plan." What if towns say no? Would you do some expansions but not others depending on which towns voted in favor? This would more or less require you to campaign in favor of each specific project and as I stated above this is a losing approach. It has to be all or nothing so that proponents don't fight amongst themselves and instea unite in support.
We are in a tough spot in Boston. We can't start a transit agency from scratch and figure out its funding mechanisms from day one with local buy-in like WMATA, BART, MARTA, etc. and the metro area isn't a large enough jurisdiction geographically to encompass most of the area that needs rapid transit like NYC, Chicago or LA. I think for these reasons Boston is still going to have to rely on a state wide revenue raising initiative.
Pulling its revenue from the whole state has been a structural problem with funding the MBTA so I'm reluctant to propose a new mechanism to repeat that. However, using the premise that people are more willing to pay taxes as long as they know where the funds are going I think this tax proposal might have legs. Moreover, my plan is to take the proceeds of that tax and rebate half of half of them back to the voters in the form of a rebate. So even though one might not live near that proposed transit expansion (although the vast majority of the state population will based on the above transit expansion proposal) you will still have something tangible to gain from this proposed tax.
That is why I think Massachusetts should enact a Carbon Tax.
This is an issue that has been studied (
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/fuels/mass-carbon-tax-study.pdf). In this exhaustive study the authors articulate that by 2020 a baseline tax could be raising an amount equal to 7% of the amount of revenue Massachusetts brings in in FY2015. Massachusetts was projected to bring in $25bn in FY 2015 so the tax would equal around $1.75bn. That would mean the tax could bring in $875mm per annum with the remainder being paid back to the people of the Commonwealth as a rebate. $875mm in per annum transit proceeds is more than enough to issue bonds that could pay for the transit expansion proposal outlined above. In fact, it could probably pay for a lot more.
There are a lot of advantages to this approach. I have outlined them as follows:
-There is definite and widespread desire to reduce carbon emissions in Massachusetts. This tax could help achieve this enviable goal;
-In furtherance of above, the proponents of the above would be in league with proponents of the transit expansion plan. This could create enough support to pass a ballot initiative that enacts the carbon tax;
-Since half the tax is rebated back that means every resident "gets" something from this tax. This helps mitigate that fact that part of the state is paying for transit expansion in a whole other part of the state;
-According to the above study 45% of emissions in Massachusetts come from vehicles. So the use of the funds would be going directly towards reducing those emissions;
-Other subnational jurisdictions have passed carbon taxes before, including British Columbia;
-The pride of being the first in the USA to pass a statewide tax might be too much from Bay Stater's to resist; and
-It's tried and true; California is using cap and trade money to finance high speed rail.
Before anyone tells me the pitfalls of using a carbon tax to fund tangible things please bear in mind I propose this in light of the other less appealing alternatives to fund transit. The point of the carbon tax is achieved because by putting a price on carbon it is effective at reducing carbon emissions regardless of how the revenues are spent. However, we get the added benefit of reducing carbon while paying for new transit. This achieves the ends of the carbon tax while at the same time making a major investment in the future of Massachusetts.
For practical purposes this would have to be done by ballot initiative. There is no way the legislature would enact this. However, if people had a fancy map icon in their head of all the gee-wiz transit expansion I think in combination with environmental concerns people who vote for this.
Conclusion
Going back to DigitalSciGuy's question- how do we pay for the NSRL- my answer is that we create a major vision for transit expansion that includes NSRL at its heart but does not stop there. Once that vision has been well articulated the proponents put forth a proposal to pay for that vision with a carbon tax.
There has been a sea change in this country regarding how we view transit and how much we are willing to pay for it. Despite what it might seem like this zeitgeist has not passed Boston over. The problem is that there is no vision for a new transit system for Greater Boston; there are just a bunch of one-off worthy projects (that includes- even despite its huge scale- NSRL) that don't bring enough stakeholders together to get people on board with the revenue raising we need to do something big. If we can rally behind a greater vision then I think there will be the impetus to get this done. The question is whether we will seize upon this moment to marshal the forces for building a better future to get something big and bold done.
There are a lot of groups advocating for transit in Boston, including Transit Matters. However, when one group puts forth a true vision- a Boston FasTracks so to speak- then I think a lot of people, including the railfans on AB, will join the ranks of advocates and start pushing for change.
