EARLIER THIS YEAR, a Massachusetts governor finally decided to stop kicking the transportation funding question into the long grass. Many of us cheered on the creation of a task force to consider the various funding sources and develop “a comprehensive transportation finance plan.” Gov. Maura Healey stated this plan “must include long-term measures to address the critical transportation investment needs and deferred maintenance backlogs facing the Commonwealth.”
Those are Gov. Healey’s words, not mine.
And yet, virtually every piece of news since the launch has been more disappointing than the last. The commission may not even issue any recommendations and important tools (some might call them essential) are reportedly being taken off the table.
This pivotal moment cannot be squandered on yet another commission presenting policymakers with “transportation revenue options” or a mere “tool kit.” We know the available options, backed by countless reports outlining various revenue sources.
How can anything be “off the table?” The T grapples with a staggering $25 billion backlog of repairs and a persistent structural deficit, a consequence of tethering T funding to an underperforming sales tax, which has shortchanged the T by about $8.9 billion to $15.5 billion over two decades. This looming deficit threatens imminent cuts as early as next year.
Massachusetts is burdened with over 600 structurally deficient bridges, numerous unfunded highway repair projects, and numerous towns that still need evening and weekend regional transit authority service. The imperative for a concrete plan, not just another report, has never been more palpable.
Transit fares have skyrocketed by 200 to 300 percent over three decades, while the gas tax only saw a meager 14 percent increase. Yet, many of our roads remain perilous for vulnerable users, and our transit systems, particularly regional transit authorities, desperately need more funding for service expansion and future planning. This predicament will only worsen with the declining relevance of the gas tax amidst the state’s push for adoption of electric vehicles – unless alternative revenue sources from these often heavier vehicles are found.
New York City’s approach offers a viable solution to address the most pressing issue: the MBTA budget deficit. By implementing a wide array of taxes and fees, including those levied on Uber and Lyft, rental cars, and a modest payroll tax hike, New York City has steered clear of an operating deficit—emerging as the only large agency to do so. With no single revenue source resolving the budget crisis independently, this balanced approach is a thoughtful model the governor and the task force ought to emulate.
Resolving the medium and long-term funding problems for maintenance and future vision may prove more daunting, but it is feasible.
The Los Angeles region is poised to raise $120 billion for all transportation modes through a regional sales tax initiative endorsed at the ballot. Massachusetts should join the majority of states and finally legalize this helpful tool.
Back in New York City, the congestion pricing program is set to generate $15 billion for the system’s capital plan. According to INRIX’s Global Traffic Scorecard, Boston’s congestion surpasses New York’s—yet not a single penny will be generated to go towards relieving congestion by bolstering public transit. Given the traffic, why not harness revenue to rectify it? New York’s program took five years to implement and the initial proposal surfaced 17 years ago.
Locally, Senate President Karen Spilka has extended an opportunity to the governor to rectify the so-called “toll inequity,” where only select regions pay tolls for their highway usage. Expanding tolls is fairer and represents a crucial revenue source for our entire transportation system, particularly as more and more electric vehicles are adopted.
While it’s clear that voters are reluctant about tolls or congestion pricing, it’s time to see how they respond when presented with a compelling vision. Bay Staters are tired of losing countless hours in traffic and dealing with the repercussions of underfunded transit systems. Despite notable progress at the T and with quick bridge repair projects, there’s still much work to be done. Let’s channel this weariness into optimism for a brighter future.
We’re confronted with a choice: do we resign ourselves to perpetual gridlock and dilapidated infrastructure? Or do we invest in a transportation system that champions regional and socioeconomic equity, sustainability, and economic prosperity?
We need leadership, not indecision. Voters are weary of endless options devoid of vision. If the task force merely presents a menu of choices without any recommendation, the administration can’t pretend to value competitiveness. We need “all of the above” solutions learned from the reports already written and from regions that have addressed deficits and have bold-funded visions for their transportation futures.
Benching effective strategies before the game has even started won’t help Massachusetts solve any of the challenges holding us back. It’s time for action, not just words.
Jarred Johnson is the executive director of TransitMatters.
The post Troubling signs at Healey’s transportation funding task force appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.