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

Did you mean to quote CommutingBostonStudent and accidentally quote me instead? My statement was only meant to point out that a flat gas tax isn't actually very regressive.
I quoted you because you pointed out questions that CBS needed to address, but more to point out that rethinking gas taxes mostly raises questions that take a lot of work to answer and ultimately (should) bring us back to gas taxes (and raising them).
 
Great, but what about miles driven out of state? How about out of state commuters?

What about cars registered out of state, or depreciation to the Kelley Blue Book value that occurs during driving out of state? It's the same problem. Both taxes would be based on where the cars are registered (I assume that's how you're basing your ownership tax).
 
What about cars registered out of state, or depreciation to the Kelley Blue Book value that occurs during driving out of state? It's the same problem. Both taxes would be based on where the cars are registered (I assume that's how you're basing your ownership tax).

Correct. The difference is a car tax would NOT be a tax on owning the vehicle - not driving it. The car tax doesn't care where the miles are coming from, a VMT would.

Of course, we know that the majority of road wear comes from commercial vehicles. So, here's my compromise: commercial VMT, and a car tax for personal vehicles. VMT's invasiveness doesn't bother trucking companies who track their vehicles anyway. Right?
 
Don't I already pay an excise tax on my car? Don't they get the mileage on my car from when I get my sticker?
 
Don't I already pay an excise tax on my car? Don't they get the mileage on my car from when I get my sticker?

Does the valuation in the excise tax (levied at the municipal level) take into consideration the mileage from the sticker (which the RMV does). I've thought it was just age.

It seems to me for gas-powered vehicles, gas taxes on everyone who tanks up here (including NY, RI CT and ME residents beating their own state's taxes) are still the best method of taxing. Mass charges 23.5c/gal. RI = 33, ME = 31.5 and CT and NY = 49 ish. Happily this is not one of those things that NH undercuts: they charge ~20c per gallon.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-january-1-2012

For non-gas vehicles (electric and natural gas) I suppose we should do a VMT tax at about what the "fleet average" of similar-weight gas vehicles pay per mile (about a penny). At 23 cents per gallon, the average car in the Mass. "fleet" pays about 1 cent per mile (assuming 23mpg for easy math) and trucks pay about 2 cents per mile (assuming 11.5 mpg for easy math).
 
Today's T funding discussion at the State Senate

Mass. Senate Approves T Bailout, Rejects Bid For Loan, Control Board

By State House News Service [quoted by the Herald]
Jun 20, 2012, 7:04 AM
Updated at 8:30 AM, June 20th, 2012

BOSTON — The Senate on Tuesday approved a plan to deliver $51 million in bailout funds to the MBTA during a tense debate as lawmakers vented their anger and frustration with T officials for failing to put the transit agency on a self-sustaining path.

The bailout funds ... are designed to help the agency meet spending needs not covered even with an average 23 percent fare hike set to take effect on July 1, along with parking fee increases and service reductions.

The Senate voted 26-9 to approve the short-term fix for the T’s financial woes, with a debate looming on long-term funding next year. Senators engaged in an extended debate over whether to put the agency under a state finance control board, and make the funding an eight-year loan, rather than an appropriation.....

Under an amendment pushed by three Senate Republicans and Sens. Gale Candaras and James Welch, a pair of western Massachusetts Democrats, a control board would have taken over for the current MBTA Board for at least three years.

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr called the amendment, rejected without a recorded vote, a choice between continuing to making “sporadic contributions scavenged” from other parts of the state budget, or fundamentally changing the financial management at the T.

Candaras predicted the Legislature would find itself in an identical position next year if it continues to hand out “blank checks” to the MBTA, and Sen. Michael Knapik called the bill a “bitter pill to swallow” for residents in western Massachusetts and a “sugar fix” for the T.

At a pre-session press conference, control board supporters said the MBTA has resisted management reforms for years, is among the most debt-ridden and heavily subsidized agencies of its type, and is pressing for expensive service extensions despite three major taxpayer bailouts required since 2000.

Candaras, during debate in the Senate, said the MBTA was the most-heavily subsidized transportation system in the country, receiving a 60 percent subsidy from the state. She said the New York City transit system receives 40 percent of its funding from the state; New Jersey 34 percent; and the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority in D.C. 17 percent....

Sen. Thomas McGee, the Senate Transportation Committee chairman, also urged his colleagues to allow for the debate over long-term transportation financing to play out before enacting a control board. House and Senate leaders have identified a fix as their top priority in the next session.

Hedlund criticized the T for pressing a $1.3 billion Green Line extension plan and a $2 billion extension of commuter rail service to New Bedford and Fall River, citing a lack of financing plans and saying those projects are unaffordable given the T’s fiscal condition, management and level of indebtedness – “the most indebted transit authority in the world.” Hedlund cited a years-long “leadership vacuum” regarding the MBTA and transportation agencies in the legislative and executive branches.

Welch said a state control board put in place in Springfield had stabilized that city’s rocky finances and he hoped a similar board would be able to do the same at the MBTA. “It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t certainly something that people were jumping for joy to see happen but the reality was it was needed,” said Welch.....

During debate on the bill, senators adopted an amendment requiring MBTA officials to inform lawmakers when they plan to go before federal transportation officials to discuss future projects.....

Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole) offered an amendment – which he later withdrew – prohibiting the MBTA from undertaking any expansion projects without first conducting a study to look at how it would be paid for.

“At some point you can’t do everything that is on everybody’s wish list,” Timilty said. “When an agency is tone deaf, and doesn’t have the understanding that you can only do what you can pay for, we are going to come back on many instances to pay for this agency.”

The Senate rejected an idea advocated by Tarr that would have required the attorney general to review all projects T officials say they are mandated to build, including the Green line extension project that was mandated as the result of a court case as part of the Big Dig project. Tarr wanted the AG to “review all those things we perceive to be committed to,” to possibly take some projects off the to-do list.

“This requires the attorney general to say what is real, and what is not,” Tarr said before the amendment failed.

Looks as if the minimal things have been done to coast past this current short-tem financial crisis and defer the real review and changes needed to the management and hopefully the pension and other benefits structures for next year after the election.
 
It's really unbelievable sometimes how stupid some of the State Senators are. I mean, I should expect it, but still. The responsibility for the fucked up finances of the T lies with Beacon Hill, but they keep on trying to duck it and blame others when they are the only ones who can fix what they broke.
 
It's really unbelievable sometimes how stupid some of the State Senators are.... they are the only ones who can fix what they broke.

Mathew -- Yes the scewed-up MTA was just grafted onto the much larger T district with no substanticve management changes and no attempt at all to clean-up the embedded union corrupt practices, fat-cat pensions and general featherbedding

Ever since the creation of the T -- the Legislature just kicks the ultimate can down the Mattapan Hgh Speed Trolley Line

Face-it for more than a generation the T has been an employment agency for the neer-do-well relatives of the legislators -- not a "TQM" Transit Agency

I thought that things might change when the Legislature switched the budget to the "Forward Financing" and then again when the T was merged into the DOT -- However, as we now know -- the Legislature hired Steve Gotkowski as a kicking specialist to really kick the can down the road again.

Perhaps, next year something might change -- but I'm skeptical
 
It's really unbelievable sometimes how stupid some of the State Senators are. I mean, I should expect it, but still. The responsibility for the fucked up finances of the T lies with Beacon Hill, but they keep on trying to duck it and blame others when they are the only ones who can fix what they broke.

Totally agree Matthew. It really is unbelievable.
Step 1: Beacon Hill dumps debt and unfinanced mitigation projects on the MBTA.
Step 2: Beacon Hill reams out the MBTA for being unable to handle it's debt load and for pursuing those very same mitigation projects that were foisted upon it.
If the public were more educated in how the T got into this mess than this whole dog & pony show wouldn't have been possible.
 
If the public were more educated in how the T got into this mess than this whole dog & pony show wouldn't have been possible.

But hey, we can always have fun scapegoating the unions right?! Anything to keep the lovely Howie Carr employed.
 
But hey, we can always have fun scapegoating the unions right?! Anything to keep the lovely Howie Carr employed.

Uground -- not to get into a political dog and tree contest

Just look at the operational cost structure of the T -- ignoring the debt service -- and compare it to other transit agencies even in other union-centric states such as NY and IL

The T looks like Greece to the others Germany -- the expression Mr. Bulger's Transit Agency for the T was expressed for a reason -- and even though Bulger is long-gone the featherbedding and retire at 55 on nearly a full salary pension --- they are still there

The one significant thing that improved was that there are now fewer unions involved in the wage and pension negotiations than previously -- so there is less positive feedback on costs at contract times.

Many years ago (circa 1970's) the union work ruies were unbelievable with more than a dozen individual union members (driver, mechanic, sheet metal worker, rubber worker, glass worker, electgrical worker, plumber......) involved in simple, routine maintenance of a bus:

1) the driver drove to the bus to the gargage apron
2) a mechanic got in drove the bus into the garage
3) a sheet metal worker raised the hood
4) glass workers cleaned the windows
5) rubber workers replaced hoses and belts
6) plumbers were involved with any metal pipes
7) electrical workers with wires, switches, bulbs
....
...

Today a lot of the above is gone -- so I guess that's another small area of improvement.
 
Totally agree Matthew. It really is unbelievable.
Step 1: Beacon Hill dumps debt and unfinanced mitigation projects on the MBTA.
Step 2: Beacon Hill reams out the MBTA for being unable to handle it's debt load and for pursuing those very same mitigation projects that were foisted upon it.
If the public were more educated in how the T got into this mess than this whole dog & pony show wouldn't have been possible.

AMF -- don't forget that the CLF held up the Taxpayers by demanding the mitigation projects -- I don't remember voting for the CLF to represent me for anything.
 
AMF -- don't forget that the CLF held up the Taxpayers by demanding the mitigation projects -- I don't remember voting for the CLF to represent me for anything.

By quoting and saying the CLF's in getting the T to do the project, you speak of that as a bad thing?

The point of his post was the debt should have never been there in the first place as the T didn't put themselves into that debt. Yet they are trying to argue the debt, being the T's fault means projects like they should be cancelled until it is paid off, which is probably the next century.

So what are you trying to say when you point out the CLF is making the T do this? That the T is right for dragging its feet where its attitude may or may not stems from debts it shouldn't have been stuffed with in the first place? Or are you trying to say something else?
 
Last edited:
@ant8904, It's better not to reply when someone goes off the right-wing deep end.
 
Is there anywhere there's a list of what mitigation projects were even agreed to, or something?

It's hard to even tell anymore what they're 'obligated' to do. Did South Coast Rail make it on there somehow?
 
By quoting and saying the CLF's in getting the T to do the project, you speak of that as a bad thing?

The point of his post was the debt should have never been there in the first place as the T didn't put themselves into that debt. Yet they are trying to argue the debt, being the T's fault means projects like they should be cancelled until it is paid off, which is probably the next century.

So what are you trying to say when you point out the CLF is making the T do this? That the T is right for dragging its feet where its attitude may or may not stems from debts it should have been stuffed with in the first place? Or are you trying to say something else?

Ant -- in so much as the T is a entity of the DOT and even before it was formally merged into the DOT - -the T was a creature of the Legislature -- where the debt went really was a matter of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or perhaps "3 Card Monty"

I agree that ethically and morallly any borrowing unrealted to the transit operations should not be part of the balance sheet of the T. However, borrowing associated with the expansion of the T to comply with the CLF's "deal with the DOT" is part of the T's heritage. The Legislature just took a look at the immense cost of the Big Dig (some of which was due to the "mitigation projects") and freaked out -- thinking -- "this thing could cost me my cushy synecure." After calming down with a couple of adult beverages, someone in the "Great and General Court" conceived of the idea of "divide, hide and get away with it" -- they divided the Big Dig's immense costs into sub-projects and squireled parts away in various bins most significantly the T and Massport.

The long term solution as was pointed out by Thomas McGee, (D. Lynn) Chair of the Senate Transportation Commitee is to revamp all of the financial and management structures of the T -- that may include the Commonwealth refunding with its bonding authority some of the debt currently covered through the T's bonding (backed by revenues)

The fundamental problem with the T's financing is that as opposed to Massport that actually is a profitable enterprise taking nothing directly from the taxpayers -- the T is so ineffecient that even if you remove all of the debt service -- its operations cost more than the farebox revenues.

from a Globe Article on the Senate debate
But some lawmakers Tuesday called the T badly mismanaged. It “is clearly a broken system in need of dire repair,’’ said Senator Gale D. Candaras, a Wilbraham Democrat, unsuccessfully seeking a control board to take over the T. “Not only is this proposed bailout with no strings attached unfair, it would be irresponsible.’’

In current parlance -- that is not a "sustainable operation" !!!!
 
Is there anywhere there's a list of what mitigation projects were even agreed to, or something?

It's hard to even tell anymore what they're 'obligated' to do. Did South Coast Rail make it on there somehow?

Old Colony restoration, commuter rail parking expansion - these were done. Greenbush alone cost $500 million. Big surprise, they benefit rich, affluent commuters the most.

Silver Line phase II - also done, the tunnel underneath the Fort Point channel for buses.

Green line extension - something that should have been done 60 years ago, but since it serves a lot of working class folks, it's been a constant struggle.

Red/Blue connector - also something that was supposed to have happened 80 years ago. I believe that they dug about a third of the tunnel and then stopped.

Arborway restoration - they managed to wriggle out of this commitment by offering up a few crumbs to the 39 bus.

South Coast Rail isn't a mitigation project. And unless something radically changes about it, it is a terrible value proposition.
 

Back
Top