Gov. Deval says NO MBTA FARE INCREASE FOR NEXT TWO YEARS
Philip Busch
service? By keeping fares the same would there not be some kind of
consequence especially in this economy? I seem to recall hearing
rumblings over the past year or so about cutting and/or eliminating
particularly evening and weekend bus and commuter rail services.
Let us hope us riders can "have our cake and eat it too" for a change
and not a "good-news/bad news" scenario down the road.
-Phil B.
David Z Maze
> After thinking about it...could this lead to serious cuts in bus
> service? By keeping fares the same would there not be some kind of
> consequence especially in this economy? I seem to recall hearing
> rumblings over the past year or so about cutting and/or eliminating
> particularly evening and weekend bus and commuter rail services.
Today's _Metro_ dedicated a full page to the topic [1], pairing this
announcement with an article about the $3 billion of deferred
maintenance around the MBTA system, quoting an MBTA official as saying
he wouldn't ride the Red Line between Harvard and Alewife.
> Let us hope us riders can "have our cake and eat it too" for a change
> and not a "good-news/bad news" scenario down the road.
This seems to come up every time the subject of fare increases come up;
passengers by and large (at least according to major media) are vaguely
disappointed in the quality of service, and they might be okay paying
25% more for their bus fare if the busses ran twice as often and always
on time and there were always empty seats on the rush hour subway
trains. Meanwhile, the T keeps saying it's struggling to keep afloat
and it needs the fare increase to keep the trains running at all, and
the state keeps promising to increase the service area and
correspondingly the ongoing maintenance cost.
I don't think it's appropriate to make implementation changes
"especially in this economy"; consider that the change to forward
funding in 2000 when sales tax revenues were high "in this economy" in
large part led to the current situation.
What are the actual numbers? Pulling things somewhat at random from the
T's FY08 report [2]:
* $489 million in "operating revenue", including farebox receipts (p. 5)
* $1,064 million in overall operating loss
* Farebox receipts are less than a third of the cost to run the system
* $677 million in "nonoperating revenue", including money from the state
and payments on bonds
* $510 million outgoing cash flow in farebox receipts + advertising -
salaries - payments to contractors (again, "keep the system running"
in the very short term) (p. 6)
* $403 million outgoing cash flow for existing financing and new capital
* $901 million incoming cash flow from state and local aid
I think I take that to say that if farebox revenue doubled it would be
roughly cash-flow-even, and if it tripled it would actually be
sustainable, even if state and local assessments stayed even. A 25%
increase would add around $100 million, which definitely helps, but it's
politically touchy. And if the T really does have $3 billion in
deferred maintenance projects that it needs to cover on top of
this...there's a problem.
Where can the money come from, then? I don't have a good answer to
this. Raising farebox revenues is politically bad and drives riders
away; increasing local assessments doesn't work; the state is having
enough trouble making its own budget balance without throwing more money
at the T; the federal budget deficit has moved well into the
"embarrassing" region; and everybody hates a tax increase.
[IMHO one of the better ways to go is to increase the federal gas tax
and give the money to local transit agencies. On the one hand, gasoline
in the US is positively cheap compared to a lot of the rest of the
world. On the other, I also understand that's an awfully big lever with
huge effects on various transportation industries and essentially the
entire economy. And maybe even if you think that change is a good idea
there's a good argument to not do it "in this economy" when we're trying
to tickle macroeconomic systems into growth.]
--dzm
[1] http://metro.us/us/article/2009/11/05/03/0754-72/index.xml
[2] http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/About_the_T/Financials/FY2008%20MBTA%20Audited%20Financials.pdf
John S
Yes, isn't it great that the great governor is diverting even more funds
from the taxpayers across the entire state via a major regressive sales
tax increase so that some transit riders in a limited area can get
cheaper rides? I'm sure the folks in Holyoke and North Adams feel that
is really swell.
Garrett Wollman
John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>Yes, isn't it great that the great governor is diverting even more funds
>from the taxpayers across the entire state via a major regressive sales
>tax increase so that some transit riders in a limited area can get
>cheaper rides? I'm sure the folks in Holyoke and North Adams feel that
>is really swell.
You should probably look at a population map of the state before you
make such assertions. The contribution of the people of North Adams
to state coffers is epsilon -- and I'm not immediately convinced that
it's even net positive. Holyoke is not much bigger. By contrast, the
seven counties in which the MBTA provides some sort of service account
for more than 80% of the state's population. (Middlesex County alone
holds more than 20% of the taxpayers in the state.)
I would certainly have preferred to see the income tax put back up to
6% over the salex-tax increase we got. But you can't honestly claim
that people in Western Mass. are somehow getting screwed, given the
small fraction of the state's economic activity they account for.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Jimmy
> You should probably look at a population map of the state before you
> make such assertions. The contribution of the people of North Adams
> to state coffers is epsilon -- and I'm not immediately convinced that
> it's even net positive. Holyoke is not much bigger. By contrast, the
> seven counties in which the MBTA provides some sort of service account
> for more than 80% of the state's population. (Middlesex County alone
> holds more than 20% of the taxpayers in the state.)
Yes, it's because of that population imbalance that the eastern part
of the state is able to extract money from the west to pay for the
MBTA.
If it's not that much money, then the T could get along without the
sales tax from places nowhere near any T routes. I'm sure western
Mass's roads and transit systems could make good use of their own
sales tax spending.
Jimmy
Garrett Wollman
Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>Yes, it's because of that population imbalance that the eastern part
>of the state is able to extract money from the west to pay for the
>MBTA.
No, it's in spite of that population imbalance that the western part
of the state is able to extract money from the east.
Richard Cobbe
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>
> In article <9b89ff60-dfcf-44be...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>Yes, it's because of that population imbalance that the eastern part
>>of the state is able to extract money from the west to pay for the
>>MBTA.
>
> No, it's in spite of that population imbalance that the western part
> of the state is able to extract money from the east.
Garrett, I suspect you're correct, but do you have any evidence for this?
I'd love to see figures on state spending in each town, as a percentage of
tax revenue collected from that town.
And just to be clear about my perspective: I'm not saying that it's a bad
thing for western Mass to get more in state spending than it contributes in
tax revenue. I'm saying only that if this is true, it's not reasonable for
residents of western Mass to whinge about increased state spending on the
T, since they're already getting a plum deal.
I'm also mildly curious about how the Cape and the Islands factor into
this question.
Richard
Garrett Wollman
Richard Cobbe <richar...@mathworks.com> wrote:
>Garrett, I suspect you're correct, but do you have any evidence for this?
>I'd love to see figures on state spending in each town, as a percentage of
>tax revenue collected from that town.
I don't have figures on this, but intuitively, given that the
per-capita income is not significantly higher in Western Mass., but
the overall population density is much lower, one would expect the
state spending on transportation in particular to be higher per dollar
received in the western part of the state than in the eastern part.
(That's particularly so when you consider revenue sources like
corporate taxes -- Greater Boston is overwhelmingly more popular as a
region for white-collar employment than the Berkshires or the Pioneer
Valley, which also depend to a greater extent on seasonal tourism.)
I tried to get some data out of the Census Bureau but the site was not
working for me this afternoon.
Jimmy
> > Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >Yes, it's because of that population imbalance that the eastern part
> >of the state is able to extract money from the west to pay for the
> >MBTA.
>
> No, it's in spite of that population imbalance that the western part
> of the state is able to extract money from the east.
It's part of the nature of taxes that some geographic regions will pay
more than they receive in spending, and some will pay less (not that
it's easy or even possible to calculate). But it bugs me that such a
large portion of sales taxes, which are the most regressive tax there
is, are earmarked to a government agency that has no presence in the
western part of the state.
It also bugs me that the Mass Pike west of exit 6 is subsidized by the
tolls from exits 6-14.
If Cambridge started collecting a meals tax in Winchester restaurants,
I can't imagine anyone would think that was fair, even if Cambridge
paid more in other taxes to the state than it received back, and even
though Cambridge's institutions are important to the regional
economy. I don't really see how the T sales tax is different.
Jimmy
John S
> In article <hd02du$eum$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> Yes, isn't it great that the great governor is diverting even more funds
>>from the taxpayers across the entire state via a major regressive sales
>> tax increase so that some transit riders in a limited area can get
>> cheaper rides? I'm sure the folks in Holyoke and North Adams feel that
>> is really swell.
>
> You should probably look at a population map of the state before you
> make such assertions. The contribution of the people of North Adams
> to state coffers is epsilon -- and I'm not immediately convinced that
> it's even net positive. Holyoke is not much bigger. By contrast, the
> seven counties in which the MBTA provides some sort of service account
> for more than 80% of the state's population. (Middlesex County alone
> holds more than 20% of the taxpayers in the state.)
>
> I would certainly have preferred to see the income tax put back up to
> 6% over the salex-tax increase we got. But you can't honestly claim
> that people in Western Mass. are somehow getting screwed, given the
> small fraction of the state's economic activity they account for.
I disagree, with the non-significant exception that it is far more than
western Massachusetts that is getting screwed. Gov Patrick and his pals
in the statehouse increased sales tax overnight by 25% (!) to largely
pay for the MBTA. That was on top of the fact that nearly 20% of the
pre-increase sales tax already went to the MBTA. Have there been
reforms? No. Cost savings? No. Pension reform? No. Why bother--just
send the bill to the poor folks across the state. So now we have a
system that is falling apart, found to have serious safety issues, and
there is no end in sight to expanding an ailing system before fixing it,
all the while sending the bill to everyone, even low income folks in
small towns like North Adams.
Richard Cobbe
Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> writes:
>
> woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>> > Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >Yes, it's because of that population imbalance that the eastern part
>> >of the state is able to extract money from the west to pay for the
>> >MBTA.
>>
>> No, it's in spite of that population imbalance that the western part
>> of the state is able to extract money from the east.
>
> It's part of the nature of taxes that some geographic regions will pay
> more than they receive in spending, and some will pay less (not that
> it's easy or even possible to calculate). But it bugs me that such a
> large portion of sales taxes, which are the most regressive tax there
> is, are earmarked to a government agency that has no presence in the
> western part of the state.
The government agency in question *does* have a significant presence in the
western part of the state, and has since Nov 1.
That said, I agree that sales taxes are regressive and wouldn't mind
finding another way to raise the funds. However, every time Beacon Hill
talks about raising *any* kind of taxes to fix T funding shortfalls, people
from Western Mass complain. So I see the specific tax structure and the
use of revenue from Western Mass to fund the T as separate issues.
> If Cambridge started collecting a meals tax in Winchester restaurants,
> I can't imagine anyone would think that was fair, even if Cambridge
> paid more in other taxes to the state than it received back, and even
> though Cambridge's institutions are important to the regional
> economy. I don't really see how the T sales tax is different.
Well, I see two differences.
First, with the state sales tax, it's not the case that only (say) North
Adams is paying for the T. It's the case that the entire state, including
both Cambridge and North Adams, is paying for the T.
Second, as I've said up-thread, I suspect very strongly that some of
Cambridge's tax revenues are used (and have long been used) to fund
state spending in North Adams. (MassMoCA?)
Put more bluntly: I live in Cambridge. If you don't want to pay for our
expenses, fine, but don't ask us to pay for yours (or demonstrate that
we're not paying for them).
Richard
Jimmy
> Put more bluntly: I live in Cambridge. If you don't want to pay for our
> expenses, fine, but don't ask us to pay for yours (or demonstrate that
> we're not paying for them).
I make extensive use of the T, and I don't live in western Mass
(though I did visit Mass MoCa once). But I still dislike the current
arrangement.
Apparently 20% of statewide sales tax was not enough. Where do we
draw the line at how much of a statewide regressive tax should pay for
a single agency that's only in the eastern part of the state?
Jimmy
David Z Maze
> I make extensive use of the T, and I don't live in western Mass
> (though I did visit Mass MoCa once). But I still dislike the current
> arrangement.
>
> Apparently 20% of statewide sales tax was not enough. Where do we
> draw the line at how much of a statewide regressive tax should pay for
> a single agency that's only in the eastern part of the state?
Do you have a proposed alternative?
The most obvious thing I can think of is funding the T through levies to
the towns in its service area, which presumably would get translated
back into property tax. That brings up its own set of questions -- does
Lowell, for instance, double-pay for having both MBTA commuter rail and
LRTA bus service? If someone lives in Gardner and commutes to Littleton
they have a second-order benefit from MBTA commuter rail service to
Fitchburg taking cars off of Route 2, do they get it for free? Do
Malden property owners (who have bus, subway, and commuter rail service)
pay more than Scituate (only commuter rail)?
The absolute fairest answer to this is to increase T fares to the point
where the system is self-sustaining. Then nobody would pay the $5
subway fare who doesn't ride the train -- but that includes both your
hypothetical North Adams resident and people in Dorchester for whom
you've just made the auto commute on state-subsidized roads much
cheaper. That argument can also apply to any sort of regional-based
funding proposal, and if I have a choice of living in Revere with subway
service or Lynn without but there's a 50% difference in property tax
based on that it'll push people further from the MBTA service area.
--dzm
Jimmy
> Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> writes:
> > Apparently 20% of statewide sales tax was not enough. Where do we
> > draw the line at how much of a statewide regressive tax should pay for
> > a single agency that's only in the eastern part of the state?
>
> Do you have a proposed alternative?
A higher sales or income tax rate in the eastern part of the state, or
dedicating the western sales tax revenue to transportation in that
area. Plus a reduction of wasteful spending -- see the
"Transportation Payroll Soared Under Patrick" thread.
> The most obvious thing I can think of is funding the T through levies to
> the towns in its service area, which presumably would get translated
> back into property tax.
The T already gets some funding this way, from the towns in the MBTA
district (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mbta_district.svg
).
Jimmy