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

When was the last time that state or city police had time or interest to deal with theft of any part of a bicycle?

True. And this is a problem. But the solution isn't for the MBTA to investigate it.

I believe this is an interesting microcosm of a larger theme in American transportation:

Cars get a massive portion of the pie. All other modes are forced to fight over the rest. The most obvious manifestation is in physical space. There's an old rail ROW? Well, either transit or bike/ped can go there. Oh, there's an overbuilt highway? No, that's always for cars and nobody else. Here, we have another manifestation: the only organization willing to investigate a bike theft (well, bike tire) is the cash-strapped MBTA. Womp.
 
True. And this is a problem. But the solution isn't for the MBTA to investigate it.

I believe this is an interesting microcosm of a larger theme in American transportation:

Cars get a massive portion of the pie. All other modes are forced to fight over the rest. The most obvious manifestation is in physical space. There's an old rail ROW? Well, either transit or bike/ped can go there. Oh, there's an overbuilt highway? No, that's always for cars and nobody else. Here, we have another manifestation: the only organization willing to investigate a bike theft (well, bike tire) is the cash-strapped MBTA. Womp.

Bigeman -- try flipping your polarizer -- not everything is the result of some malicious conspiracy by Big Rubber

The reason cars, buses, trucks get the massive portion of the pie is that they PAY TAXES for the privalenage including of course Fuel but also license fees, registration fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. -- the other vaunted means of ground transportation don't pay for what they consume in resources
 
Bigeman -- try flipping your polarizer -- not everything is the result of some malicious conspiracy by Big Rubber

The reason cars, buses, trucks get the massive portion of the pie is that they PAY TAXES for the privalenage including of course Fuel but also license fees, registration fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. -- the other vaunted means of ground transportation don't pay for what they consume in resources

539w.jpg


Oh, Professor...now look how absolutely silly you're making yourself look. You're gonna have to stop Cadillacing it on this here bullshit-o'-thon if you want to keep up faux-intellectual appearances around this subject. Weak effort.
tsktsk.gif
 
539w.jpg


Oh, Professor...now look how absolutely silly you're making yourself look. You're gonna have to stop Cadillacing it on this here bullshit-o'-thon if you want to keep up faux-intellectual appearances around this subject. Weak effort.
tsktsk.gif

F-Line -- what part of "YOU DIDN"T PAY for THIS" -- concerning the operations of the T don't you understand

If the T was paying for itself -- then you'd have a point BUT:
the T has:
  • fare revenue
  • ad revenue
  • sales tax revenue
  • other revenue

Yet the sum of the above is only a fraction of its expenses let alone the carrying cost on the capital, etc.

The rest comes from the Taxpayer through Massachusetts and Federal channels a major one is the taxes paid by drivers who buy gasoline!
 
F-Line -- what part of "YOU DIDN"T PAY for THIS" -- concerning the operations of the T don't you understand

If the T was paying for itself -- then you'd have a point BUT:
the T has:
  • fare revenue
  • ad revenue
  • sales tax revenue
  • other revenue

Yet the sum of the above is only a fraction of its expenses let alone the carrying cost on the capital, etc.

The rest comes from the Taxpayer through Massachusetts and Federal channels a major one is the taxes paid by drivers who buy gasoline!

You're seriously using the roads aren't subsidized million-times-debunked talking point by omission here? Seriously?


I hope you're not wondering why you're being mocked for spreading such weak sauce over this thread.
 
If the roads were paying for themselves -- then you'd have a point BUT:
the roads have:
  • toll revenue
  • motor vehicle inspection trust fund revenue
  • excise tax revenue
  • registry fee revenue

Yet the sum of the above is only a fraction of its expenses(retracted).

The rest comes from the Taxpayer through Massachusetts and Federal channels a major one is the taxes paid by residents who: can not buy a car due to any number of impairments, or non-driving residents who are suffering from diseases such as asthma that are experienced at a higher rate by those living near highways, or non-driving residents who have even been seriously injured or had family members killed by the automobile-industrial-complex!

Fixed that for you.
 
You're seriously using the roads aren't subsidized million-times-debunked talking point by omission here? Seriously?


I hope you're not wondering why you're being mocked for spreading such weak sauce over this thread.

Fline -- apparently you haven't heard of the Highway Trust Fund and the Federal Gasoline Tax
 
The same Federal highway trust fund that is going bankrupt every few years and needs several dozen billion dollars pumped into it just to stay afloat? That one?
 
Fline -- apparently you haven't heard of the Highway Trust Fund and the Federal Gasoline Tax

That wonderful gas tax held constant at 18.4 cents since 1993. So the current 18.4 cents now equivalent to 11.2 cents of 1993 buying power. Sounds like those drivers have really been getting railed with those tax increases!!
 
Fline -- apparently you haven't heard of the Highway Trust Fund and the Federal Gasoline Tax
Brookings study says only 40% to 60% of road spending is paid for by user fees (state&fed&local fuel taxes, truck tire tax, tolls) depending on the jurisdiction and the road(and if it is tolled). The rest comes from real estate taxes (for city/county roads) and general revenues (income tax and sales taxes for state level spending).

So drivers get about the same subsidy (a dollar of subsidy for each dollar of user fee) that Bus and Subway riders do (whose fare pay about half the cost of their rides).

Further, to the extent that all consumers pay indirectly for truck taxes (that deliver stuff we consume) and many vehicles in cities drive on very little Interstae (but pay fuel taxes that pay for Fed roads), Ronald Reagan thought it fair to lockbox 10% of fuel taxes to go to urban transit (where trucks burn a lot of gas but do not use as much road and even less "federal" road but still pay fed diesel tax). as traffic slows and cites grow, it's possible that a lockbox of 20% would be better

Your Federal gas tax would have to nearly triple or be 4x {in order to displace sales/income/property taxes and make it be true that} our "motorist" taxes pay for road spending.

Worse, the roads are being worn out by drivers faster than we spend to replace them {this is the "crumbling infrastructure" problem...it is falling apart faster than we pay to fix it and demolish-rebuild at the end of design-life costs more than greenfield construction did in the 60s/70s/80s} So for "road fees" to pay the full replacement cost of what car/trucks are using/depreciating, I think the estimate was that fed gas tax would have to be 5x or 6x what they are.

Finally bus (and bikes) impose relatively little wear-per-taxpayer on the roads (we pay our state sales and income taxes) but from a wear-pound-mile standpoint we consume less road than our non-gas taxes are paying for, subsidizing SOV commuters and trucks
 
Last edited:
^Thanks for those numbers Arlington.
You are most welcome. I'm still looking for a best set of numbers. Brookings (R. Puentes), US PIRG, and Pew Charitable Trust all re-work the numbers from time to time.

Here are averages by level of government (via Pew) of where our "highway" money comes from. Because different states and cities rely more or less heavily on fed/local sources, and local sources vary (eg Virginia upped its income tax and slashed its gas tax), the numbers vary depending on how you blend them and what kind of roads we're talking ("Federal highway" vs "State highway" vs "Metro streets" (eg. Rt3 is a Federal Highway even when it is Storrow Drive, whereas Mass Ave is a State Highway 2A)

As you can see, the more "local" a road, the more that general revenues (sales & income) and real estate taxes are paying for the road, not gas taxes. {Urban areas like Boston are particularly prone to using local property taxes to pay for streets/roads, not fuel taxes. And urban states like plenty of sales and income tax for their road budget}

And the reality at the Fed level is that as the gas tax has lost its buying power they've been sneaking general revenues into the trust fund more and more (about 10% to 15%)
FederalStateGovernmentsRelyHeavilyonGasTax.jpg


Rural states like South Dakota (northern Rockies and the Old South) with huge per-capita road spening appear to be using primarily user fees to fund their roads, but that's because half of their budget comes from the Feds. In such states, motorists pay for the roads (because the Feds rely on fuel taxes), but it is MOTORISTS FROM OTHER STATES (and more-urban areas) who pay for rural-state roads.
 
Last edited:
I would reorganize and restructure the system and bring in analysts to help out.
 
Brookings study says only 40% to 60% of road spending is paid for by user fees (state&fed&local fuel taxes, truck tire tax, tolls) depending on the jurisdiction and the road(and if it is tolled). The rest comes from real estate taxes (for city/county roads) and general revenues (income tax and sales taxes for state level spending).

So drivers get about the same subsidy (a dollar of subsidy for each dollar of user fee) that Bus and Subway riders do (whose fare pay about half the cost of their rides).

Further, to the extent that all consumers pay indirectly for truck taxes (that deliver stuff we consume) and many vehicles in cities drive on very little Interstae (but pay fuel taxes that pay for Fed roads), Ronald Reagan thought it fair to lockbox 10% of fuel taxes to go to urban transit (where trucks burn a lot of gas but do not use as much road and even less "federal" road but still pay fed diesel tax). as traffic slows and cites grow, it's possible that a lockbox of 20% would be better

Your Federal gas tax would have to nearly triple or be 4x {in order to displace sales/income/property taxes and make it be true that} our "motorist" taxes pay for road spending.

Worse, the roads are being worn out by drivers faster than we spend to replace them {this is the "crumbling infrastructure" problem...it is falling apart faster than we pay to fix it and demolish-rebuild at the end of design-life costs more than greenfield construction did in the 60s/70s/80s} So for "road fees" to pay the full replacement cost of what car/trucks are using/depreciating, I think the estimate was that fed gas tax would have to be 5x or 6x what they are.

Finally bus (and bikes) impose relatively little wear-per-taxpayer on the roads (we pay our state sales and income taxes) but from a wear-pound-mile standpoint we consume less road than our non-gas taxes are paying for, subsidizing SOV commuters and trucks

Arlington -- Please don't obfuscate -- we are not talking town and city roads as they are common thoroughfares for:
people, dogs, cats, bikes, electric scooters, an occasional horse, Teslas, Leafs, buses, taxis, trucks, the occasional parade, and in Lexington the occasional Llama

What the car haters are always talking about in the suburbanization versus their urban utopia debate is Highways whose access is limited to motor vehicles

Those Highways get very little funding from real estate taxes [towns and cities very rarely build or maintain them] == they are paid for almost entirely by the drivers who use them through the state and federal fuel tax, highway tolls and various licences and fees

and forget Brookings -- we are only interested in what happens in Massachusetts

So why not go to the source Commonwealth of Massachusetts FY2016 [as enacted, signed sealed and delivered] [in thousands $]:

Transportation 643,578

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 704,865,801 total budgeted spending [in $]
Section 2E
  • 1595-6368 Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund
    For an operating transfer to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund established in section 4 of chapter 6C of the General Laws; ..... 365,025,340
  • 1595-6369 Commonwealth Transportation Fund transfer to the MBTA
    For an operating transfer to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority pursuant to clause ...... 187,000,000
  • 1595-6370 Commonwealth Transportation Fund transfer to Regional Transit
    For an operating transfer to the regional transit authorities organized pursuant to chapter 161B of the General Laws or predecessor statutes pursuant to clause .... 82,000,000
  • 1595-6379 Merit Rating Board
    For the operation of the motor vehicle insurance merit rating board, including the rent, related parking and utility expenses of the board; provided ... 9,553,119


Money comes from a from a number of sources but principally Federal Grants for specific construction projects and transfers from the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund [specified in very bureaucratic and obscure manner] in the following document [excerpt follows]
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6C/Section4
Section 4. There shall be established and placed within the department a separate fund to be known as the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund which shall be used for financing transportation-related purposes of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

The secretary shall be authorized to enter into agreements with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the regional transit authorities and, for so long as it shall continue to exist, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to commit any funds generated from fares, fees, tolls or any other revenue sources including, but not limited to, from federal sources of these authorities to the fund. There shall be credited to the fund all turnpike revenues and other toll and non-toll revenue collected by the department after assumption of the assets, obligations and liabilities of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, all tolls collected by the department after transfer of the Maurice J. Tobin Memorial Bridge by the Massachusetts Port Authority to the department, all refunds and rebates made on account of expenditures on ways by the department, any revenues from appropriations or other monies authorized by the general court and specifically designated to be credited to the fund, any gifts, grants, private contributions, investment income earned on the fund's assets, all monies received by the department for the sale or lease of property, all monies received by the department in satisfaction of claims by the department for damage to highway and bridge safety signs, signals, guardrails, curbing and other highway and bridge related facilities, and other receipts of the department. Money remaining in the fund at the end of the year shall not revert to the General Fund.

and the aforementioned Federal Grants which go directly to the projects
Federal Grant Spending 61,287,342 which is not part of the Mass Budget appropriation
  • 6440-0088 Perform Registry Information System Management
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Performance Registry Information System Management 80,473
  • 6440-0089 Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks 200,000
  • 6440-0090 Commercial Driver License Information System Enhancement
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Commercial Drivers Licenses Information System Enhancement 298,998
  • 6440-0097 Commercial Driver License Information System
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Commercial Drivers License Information System Modernization Program 87,600
  • 6440-0098 Safety Data Improvement Program
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Real ID Demonstration Program 457,742
  • 6440-0099 Real ID Demonstration Grant Program
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Safety Data Improvement Program 485,433
  • 6642-0018 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program 3,762,374
  • 6642-0020 Job Access and Reverse Commute
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Job Access and Reverse Commute 2,000,000
  • 6642-0023 Metropolitan Transportation Planning
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 3,432,390
  • 6642-0026 New Freedom Operating Segment
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, New Freedom Operating Segment 1,000,000
  • 6642-0029 BusPlus Replacement Program
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Bus Plus Replacement and Springfield Union Station ITC Section 5309 15,535,802
  • 6642-0030 Transit Grant Bus and Bus Facilities
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Bus and Bus Facilities Section 5339 942,000
  • 6642-0049 Special Needs for Elderly Individuals
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Special Needs for Elderly Individuals 5,500,000
  • 6643-0012 Knowledge Corridor Restore Vermonter Project - ARRA
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, ARRA Knowledge Corridor Restore Vermonter Project 15,310,130
  • 6643-0013 Boston South Station Expansion
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Boston South Station Expansion 10,000,000
  • 6643-0014 High Speed Rail Corridor Feasibility and Planning
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Inland Route High Speed Rail Corridor Feasibility and Planning 694,400
  • 6643-0015 Patriot Corridor Double Stack Clearance Initiative
    For the purposes of a federally funded grant entitled, Patriot Corridor Double-Stack Clearance Initiative 1,500,000


When all is said and done the bottom line is the $187M transfer to the MBTA over and above the normal sources of funds dedicated to the MBTA
 
No Whighlander, when we talk about equitable funding for all modes of transportation, we are talking about Complete Streets -- meaning mostly ROADS not Highways. Because it is the proper design and funding of ROADS that make bus, bicycle and pedestrian travel possible, and give people access to rail options.

Also, Highways are pretty useless without the ROADS that feed to them.
 
No Whighlander, when we talk about equitable funding for all modes of transportation, we are talking about Complete Streets -- meaning mostly ROADS not Highways.

Jeff -Roads or city streets are used by everyone -- there is no argument that property taxes and a myriad of other sources of money from all the citizens should go to maintaining the roads

The entire discussion is about the claim that general taxes paid by non-car drivers [e.g. sales and income] go to highways -- you are just off-base as the budgetary figures indicate
 
whighlander said:
The reason cars, buses, trucks get the massive portion of the pie is that they PAY TAXES for the privalenage including of course Fuel but also license fees, registration fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. -- the other vaunted means of ground transportation don't pay for what they consume in resources
This is what we were talking about. Don't you try to obfuscate. No "highway" focus then. You were talking about big mode-vs-mode money and spouting the utter nonsense that taxes on cars, buses, and trucks "pay for what they consume". A serious and clear discussion has to begin with you being clear that you were seriously wrong.

You are desperately trying to shift the focus to highways late in this game because there you have a slightly better case that users are paying for what they use (and yet still not addressing the point that even now the road budget is failing to pay the true costs of the value that trucks and cars are beating out of our highway assets). Some of this is the fault of the trucks which beat life out of roads far faster than they pay it back through taxes

Only if rush hours only happened 100% on highways would you approach even 80% users-pay-for-roads, and still be proven wrong on the last 20% of asphalt welfare you're collecting (a mix of the ~10~15% top up of the Federal trust fund and larger Mass general fund contributions). Problem for you is, all trips, particularly commuting trips which are transit-competitive begin and end in parking spots on town roads and that cars (qua cars) clearly do not "pay {for}". Instead, we all pay in many ways for those streets which should be "complete" for many users and local uses.(but for a different thread)

whighlander said:
Arlington -- Please don't obfuscate -- we are not talking town and city roads as they are common thoroughfares for:
people, dogs, cats, bikes, electric scooters, an occasional horse, Teslas, Leafs, buses, taxis, trucks, the occasional parade, and in Lexington the occasional Llama

What the car haters are always talking about in the suburbanization versus their urban utopia debate is Highways whose access is limited to motor vehicles
{No, the issue has always been how we share the roads in the core communities of MBTA Zone 1A. The complaint is never that bikes and peds can't share 128, it is that cars act like they own Mass Ave or Tremont St. To the extent that all that {multi-modalism} is going on on CITY roads, you are likely 80% to 90% wrong because car fees likely pay only 10% to 20% of the costs of the streets which bike/ped users want to "complete" in Camb/Som/Boston)

Instead of doing a cut-and-paste dump from the budget (which reinforces F-Line's skepticism on your comptroller skills), which only served to show that yes, there are non-fare transfers into the MBTA budget, how about you show some [clear and succinct, not cut-and-paste] evidence (now that your "Federal trust fund" line has been debunked) that road-user fees exceed the costs of road {spending+unremedied depreciation} in Massachusetts (and doing so across all jurisdictions, including those local roads clogged with buses and bikes)
 
Last edited:
Jeff -Roads or city streets are used by everyone -- there is no argument that property taxes and a myriad of other sources of money from all the citizens should go to maintaining the roads

The entire discussion is about the claim that general taxes paid by non-car drivers [e.g. sales and income] go to highways -- you are just off-base as the budgetary figures indicate

We are talking about paying for the entire NETWORK, because highways alone are useless roads to nowhere.

YOU are the one talking about highways. Just stop it already.
 

Back
Top