What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?

F-Line to Dudley said:
No, no, and no. That's an ideological blanket statement. Let's please not confuse fully sensible and neccessary abuse and waste cleanup the likes of which you noted with going scorched-earth on people's ability to organize. There's plenty of counterpoints where union-busting ruins livelihoods. Nothing is ever that simple to get boiled down to a meme like "[allcaps]ALL[/allcaps] public unions need to be disbanded."

And you know this, whigh, so stop pushing this as a meme.
Click to expand...

+1
 
+1000

Seriously, the way "X is abusing the system so x needs to be abolished" gets applied to somethings and not others is hilarious. If we went down that road and were ideologically even handed about it, we'd all be living in cave by the end.
 
You know, in NYC, you can grab a beer for the ride on the Long Island RR or Metro North. I propose that we have a beer vendor for the commuter rail. Let's say there are ~70,000 one-way out bound boardings daily. Let's say one in 10 of those people wants a cold one (7,000 beers). Lets say a beer is $4. We gross $28K per day. Times 300 days/year = $8.4 million gross. Even if we knock off $1 million for beer & labor, we come out way ahead. And I am a much happier guy. Just sayin'...
 
Have the state acquire a company that manufactures tunnel boring machines. With some of the "profits" to be made of sales to other countries, the state can 'donate' a machine every now and again towards the effort of expanding Boston's subterranean network.

~D.I.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
Have the state acquire a company that manufactures tunnel boring machines. With some of the "profits" to be made of sales to other countries, the state can 'donate' a machine every now and again towards the effort of expanding Boston's subterranean network.

~D.I.
Click to expand...

Clearly a post for the Crazy Transit Pitches thread

One basic problem - most of Boston is land created by dumping miscelaneous fill into a swamp -- so TBMs are mostly useful only really deep (e.g. Porter) tunneling or throughout the original Boston (e.g. Beacon Hill) where there is rock or at least well consolidated glacial till

In the Back Bay for example up Storrow or Commonwealth the TBM would have to be working 150 or so feet underground -- that makes for very expensive stations
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
Have the state acquire a company that manufactures tunnel boring machines. With some of the "profits" to be made of sales to other countries, the state can 'donate' a machine every now and again towards the effort of expanding Boston's subterranean network.

~D.I.
Click to expand...

This is the most boring solution I've ever heard.

;)
 
whighlander said:
Clearly a post for the Crazy Transit Pitches thread

One basic problem - most of Boston is land created by dumping miscelaneous fill into a swamp -- so TBMs are mostly useful only really deep (e.g. Porter) tunneling or throughout the original Boston (e.g. Beacon Hill) where there is rock or at least well consolidated glacial till

In the Back Bay for example up Storrow or Commonwealth the TBM would have to be working 150 or so feet underground -- that makes for very expensive stations
Click to expand...


That's true. Shucks! Cut-and-cover probably wouldn't fly as a solution would it? Could anyone support a cut-and-cover operation along Washington St. today to build a Silver Line tunnel?

~D.I.
 
Digital_Islandboy said:
That's true. Shucks! Cut-and-cover probably wouldn't fly as a solution would it? Could anyone support a cut-and-cover operation along Washington St. today to build a Silver Line tunnel?

~D.I.
Click to expand...

DI -- I remember the great amount of grief involved with the small amount of cut and cover tunneling done in the 1980's to connect the old Orange Line Washington St. subway to the new line running down the old rail right of way -- it took several years and was quite disruptive
 
Gas Tax vs Miles Driven

I would raise the gas tax in a deal combined with fixing pensions.

But let's talk about the VMT (vehicle miles) tax that is now being proposed. (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20220615who_else_is_on_board/)

Why, exactly, is a new tax on miles driven better than a plain old gas tax? Discuss.

Here's why a gas tax is superior:

G1) It has a cheap, proven, existing collection method (good gov't)
G2) The collection method is non-intrusive (no civil liberties problems)
G3) It (tends to) charge heavier vehicles more--and road wear is goes up with the square of vehicle weight. Big vehicles make more potholes than small ones.
G4) It (tends to) charge longer, wider vehicles more--bigger vehicles take up more road and demand wider roads and bigger parking spots.
G5*) If you care about carbon emissions, fuels taxes punish carbon

Here's why a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax is superior:

M1) Revenues will not be driven down by rising efficiency
M2) During the transition to high-efficiency cars (with a mix of big-efficient and big-inefficient on the road) it does a better job of taxing road wear and road space "fairly"
M3) Electric and Natrual Gas Vehicles pay no road tax today. As we switch to them, we'll need a way to make them pay for their road use. VMT is that way.
 
M3 is not a valid argument - you can tax electricity, same as anything else, and natural gas will probably be added to the existing gas tax.
 
VMT is better than a gas tax as it can account for vehicle weight in the wear and tear on roadways. It also keeps rich people from buying hybrids and not contributing to road upkeep by avoiding gas taxes.

The problem with it is proving that all the miles driven have been in state. If someone is constantly crossing state lines, each state would have to figure out how to lay claim to their portion of a driver's mileage.
 
Road wear seems to go up approximately with the 4th power of the vehicle axle weight, not the square.

I see VMT as too onerous to collect and of dubious value anyway. The whole "user fee" model is a big failure, and never worked for roads. I don't foresee it working in the future either.

The gas tax should be detached from roads and those revenues put into the general fund. It's kind of ridiculous currently. What other product has its own dedicated governmental revenue stream? When you pay sales tax on shoes, it doesn't go into a dedicated "shoe trust fund." Right now, gasoline taxes are dedicated solely to maintenance or producing more roadways. That's screwy.

Gasoline should be subject to the sales tax and a carbon tax, or whatever is needed for environmental mitigation.

Tolls using convenient, high speed transponder or camera based technology should be more widely deployed. They also have the benefit of being easily adjustable to help manage congestion: if the road has low demand, then lower the price (maybe to zero), and if it has high demand, then raise the price.

Trucks should be paying more than they are now to cross bridges and to use certain roads. Remember, they cause the vast majority of the damage: axle-weight to the 4th power. Also, it is conceivably more realistic to track VMT on commercial vehicles, because it's something that their owners already want to do.
 
Lurker said:
The problem with it is proving that all the miles driven have been in state. If someone is constantly crossing state lines, each state would have to figure out how to lay claim to their portion of a driver's mileage.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a problem Lurker. There are plenty of people that commute NH to MA and they get taxed based on where they buy the gas, not where they burn it. The VMT could be tied to registration and charged to the car when it's inspected (they check the mileage anyway).
 
Matthew said:
Road wear seems to go up approximately with the 4th power of the vehicle axle weight, not the square.

I see VMT as too onerous to collect and of dubious value anyway. The whole "user fee" model is a big failure, and never worked for roads. I don't foresee it working in the future either.

The gas tax should be detached from roads and those revenues put into the general fund. It's kind of ridiculous currently. What other product has its own dedicated governmental revenue stream? When you pay sales tax on shoes, it doesn't go into a dedicated "shoe trust fund." Right now, gasoline taxes are dedicated solely to maintenance or producing more roadways. That's screwy.

Gasoline should be subject to the sales tax and a carbon tax, or whatever is needed for environmental mitigation.

Tolls using convenient, high speed transponder or camera based technology should be more widely deployed. They also have the benefit of being easily adjustable to help manage congestion: if the road has low demand, then lower the price (maybe to zero), and if it has high demand, then raise the price.

Trucks should be paying more than they are now to cross bridges and to use certain roads. Remember, they cause the vast majority of the damage: axle-weight to the 4th power. Also, it is conceivably more realistic to track VMT on commercial vehicles, because it's something that their owners already want to do.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything here - except for the idea of creating an economic moat around the state through widespread tolling, something which is of dubious legality and would face too much opposition at every level - local, state, federal.

A commercial VMT is definitely doable and worth doing, even when private VMT isn't - but what I think is the best solution for restructuring 'car taxes' is this:

- Vehicle ownership tax, based on the valuation of the vehicle after the first... oh, let's say $2500. Broke college kids in 'the burbs' driving beat up junkers pay nothing, and smug Prius/Hummer owners pay extra for the privilege of owning a super high end Prius/Hummer. Sounds fair to me.
- Toll ALL infrastructure improvements retroactive to 2000 and going forward, including every part of 'The Big Dig.' This nicely gets around the dubious legality of tolling Interstates that weren't built as toll roads, and means that people benefiting from new bridges and tunnels are the people paying for those new bridges and tunnels.
- Cut the gas tax and/or institute 'gas tax breaks' (i.e. reductions) for border gas stations, so that it's always cheaper to fuel up in MA instead of RI, NH, VT, CT or NY. This will help us recapture lost revenue as people choose to fuel up where it's cheapest - just over the border.
 
Not looking to create an economic moat around the state. Tolls would only go where there's sufficient demand to justify them.

Borders create a number of problems with taxes already. We don't have it as bad as NY/NJ/CT at least. But we shouldn't be looking to lower taxes on gasoline necessarily. After all, there is a significant externality that needs to be priced in the form of carbon emissions, as well as other pollution associated with gasoline production and distribution.

Similarly, I'm not sure what taxing junkers less than Priuses accomplishes. Is that supposed to be a "smug tax?" Perhaps when levels of "smug" need to be controlled, we can consider that.
 
Matthew said:
Borders create a number of problems with taxes already. We don't have it as bad as NY/NJ/CT at least. But we shouldn't be looking to lower taxes on gasoline necessarily. After all, there is a significant externality that needs to be priced in the form of carbon emissions, as well as other pollution associated with gasoline production and distribution.

Similarly, I'm not sure what taxing junkers less than Priuses accomplishes. Is that supposed to be a "smug tax?" Perhaps when levels of "smug" need to be controlled, we can consider that.
Click to expand...

No, I just hate Prius drivers and Hummers.

It's a wealth/means tax - the more you can afford, the more you pay. The less you can afford, the less you pay. That's why it's a charge on the valuation of the vehicle. If you're driving around a car worth $50000+, you're probably not going to notice the tax. And if you are driving around a beat up junker, it's probably worth so little (and you probably can't afford) tax money that going after those people makes no sense, hence the deduction.

What I'm thinking for vehicle tax is this:

Pay $10 for every $500 in value after the first $2500, rounded down.
Pay an additional $40 for every $500 in value after the first $40000, rounded up.

The numbers would need some hashing out, of course - but the general idea is that if you're driving a car worth $10000, you probably can afford less and thus will pay less than the guy driving a car worth $90000, who pays more because he's probably not even going to notice it.

As for the gas tax - I'm not necessarily looking to lower the tax for the sake of having a lower tax, I'm looking to lower the tax so that more people purchase here, resulting in a net gain on tax revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top