The Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority (MBTA, or “T” for short) is in deep financial trouble, with nearly $9 billion of debt and a $3 billion maintenance backlog that is growing more every year. According to a Boston Herald op ed by Harvard researcher Charles Chieppo, the blame for this can be placed on the Dukakis administration and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).
When Massachusetts was planning the Big Dig, CLF sued demanding investments in transit to mitigate the air pollution generated by new auto traffic resulting from the Big Dig’s minor expansions in highway capacity. Dukakis settled by agreeing to build 14 new transit projects.
In fact, those transit investments did little or nothing to clean the air. For one thing, relieving congestion actually reduces air pollution. For another, cars today are so clean that persuading people to ride transit instead does little for air quality.
According to the op ed, a Harvard think tank called the Rappaport Institute once calculated that “air quality could have been improved just as much if the commonwealth took 200 dirty cars off the road and replaced them with hybrids.”
Every time it acquires the male erectile organ, it is not at all matter to procrastinate over purchase viagra no prescription it. tadalafil overnight delivery PDE5 inhibitors enable men to regain the ability to achieve an erection. 3. Premature ejaculation – It cialis prices in india is a situation where a man reaches to a certain level of excitement. Another culprit for female infertility is overweight. go to these guys viagra generika online
That’s not exactly right. In fact, the Institute estimated that replacing 500 dirty cars with hybrids would do more to clean the air than one of the 14 new transit lines. Still even if the state had to replace 7,000 (14 times 500) dirty cars, it would have been a lot cheaper than building the rail lines.
Chieppo comments that, “the so-called transit mitigation requirements weren’t about clean air; they were about dictating how people should live.” “Dictating” is such a strong word; it’s more like nudging: live the wrong way, face a lot of congestion; live the right way, get huge transportation subsidies. Right-thinking is rewarded; wrong-thinking is punished.
The dual problems are that the environmental consequences of the “wrong way” aren’t that much different from the supposed right way, but the fiscal consequences are huge since roads largely pay for themselves (highway subsidies in Massachusetts are less than a penny per passenger mile) but rail transit can’t (MTBA’s 2010 operating subsidies averaged more than 60 cents a passenger mile; when added to annualized capital subsidies the total must be around a dollar).
Unfortunately, few major cities have learned this lesson. As Chieppo notes, Massachusetts is moving to build another rail line at a cost of $2 billion. Will it improve the environment? No. Will it help sink a transit agency that is already mired in debt? Yes.
WMATA,
L enfant Plaza station,
Why did they hang that red netting on the escalator that’s being rebuilt?
Is it to keep people from spitting on the workers????
The Antiplanner wrote:
When Massachusetts was planning the Big Dig, CLF sued demanding investments in transit to mitigate the air pollution generated by new auto traffic resulting from the Big Dig’s minor expansions in highway capacity. Dukakis settled by agreeing to build 14 new transit projects.
I am not defending the actions of the Dukakis Administration, but back when he was in office, motor vehicle emissions (especially nitrous oxides, or NOx for short, the main precursor of ground-level ozone, which is a summertime problem in some parts of the United States) were significantly higher than they are today. Ultra-low-sulfur Diesel fuel, now universally used for on-highway Diesel vehicles, has reduced the emissions of all Diesels on the road.
Persons opposed to highways and improved mobility were using air quality (and especially ground-level ozone) as an excuse to not add to (or improve) the highway network at all.
In fact, those transit investments did little or nothing to clean the air. For one thing, relieving congestion actually reduces air pollution. For another, cars today are so clean that persuading people to ride transit instead does little for air quality.
Absolutely correct.
Anti-highway activists and groups do not generally wish to discuss the benefits of reduced traffic congestion, if that congestion relief comes about from an improved or expanded highway network.
And this highlights another pet peeve of mine – I don’t the MBTA network well enough to know which of its lines use Diesel-electric locomotives and which use “pure” electric locomotives to pull and push its trains, but transit providers using “clean electric” trains do not have to account for the source of that traction power in regional air quality conformity determinations, and there should be an honest discussion of same, especially if the power comes from dirty coal-fired electric generating stations.
Antiplanner:
The Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority (MBTA, or “T†for short) is in deep financial trouble, with nearly $9 billion of debt
Most of the debt is not from Big Dig projects. Only $1.8 billion is from projects like Greenbush and the Silver Line. Some of the projects have never even been built. And all of the projects were supposed to be funded by the state and Feds, not the T through its bonding capacity.
When Massachusetts was planning the Big Dig, CLF sued demanding investments in transit to mitigate the air pollution generated by new auto traffic resulting from the Big Dig’s minor expansions in highway capacity.
Minor expansions? The Central Artery was expanded from 6 lanes to 10. A new 4 lane tunnel was built under Boston Harbor to the airport, doubling trans-harbor capacity. The Charles River bridge was doubled and went from 6 lanes to 14.
Dukakis settled by agreeing to build 14 new transit projects.
Most of the projects were going to be built eventually anyway and have been on the Long Range Plan forever.
In fact, those transit investments did little or nothing to clean the air. For one thing, relieving congestion actually reduces air pollution. For another, cars today are so clean that persuading people to ride transit instead does little for air quality.
I call BS on that. One only needs look at the smog over any city vs. the clean air out in the middle of nowhere in say Utah, South Dakota, or Appalachia.
The dual problems are that the environmental consequences of the “wrong way†aren’t that much different from the supposed right way, but the fiscal consequences are huge since roads largely pay for themselves (highway subsidies in Massachusetts are less than a penny per passenger mile) but rail transit can’t (MTBA’s 2010 operating subsidies averaged more than 60 cents a passenger mile; when added to annualized capital subsidies the total must be around a dollar).
As usual, you ignore that 75% of gas taxes are generated by traffic on local streets, but that all of that money is shifted to pay for arterial highways. Local streets are paid for by property taxes. Gasoline is also exempted from the sales tax, an effective subsidy at present of around 21 cents per gallon at 6%, and 26 cents per gallon at 8% – your rates and price may vary. The excuse is that gas is already taxed ad valorem, so it shouldn’t also be taxed at sale, but when you go to buy liquor and cigarettes and even phone service, all of which was or is taxed ad valorem through excises, you also always have to pay sales tax. Its really just another BS subsidy to oil companies and prolific drivers. When you don’t pay sales tax on gasoline, it has to be made up by raising taxes on everything else an equivalent amount.
The only roads that come close to paying for themselves are turnpikes, and the rate on turnpikes is 10 cents per mile, not 2 cents per mile paid by the gas tax. If gas taxes were quintupled and used actually to pay all road costs directly, police patrol, snow plowing, street sweeping, pothole filling, bond/interest payments, etc. and other costs, gas would be $5+ per gallon right now, not $3.50, and driving mileage would nosedive much faster than it is doing with gas at $3.50 to $4 as it has been the past few years.
Roads paid for by the gas tax also don’t “pay for themselves” in any normal sense of the word. Roads are not entitled by divine right to taxes laid on gas and tires any more than distillers are entitled to revenue from taxes laid on whiskey bottles.
I am a dividend loving investor. Please let me know where I can sign up to receive dividends from the profits made by the Massachusetts road system, since it “pays for themselves” and thus obviously must make a profit and be able to pay out to eager investors. Right? I am sure it would be a winning investment, just like airline stocks.
O’Toole is using a false premise, he knows damn well that roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.
“The Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority (MBTA, or “T†for short) is in deep financial trouble, with nearly $9 billion of debt and a $3 billion maintenance backlog that is growing more every year.”
The solution is simple – raise compulsory bonds for investment instead of through taxation. The bonds absorb money in good years, which can be released back in bad years on the bond markets – but with taxation, the money is lost to the citizen forever. Now that we have well-defined bonds, we know how much we are spending (unlike with a certain percentage of sales tax), and for each bond a line of money for maintenance must be identified by law.
Under this system, the $3bn backlog would not exist since the taxes associated with the bond would pick up the tab. Nor would the debt exist, since the money would come from these public bonds.
Andrew wrote:
I call BS on that. One only needs look at the smog over any city vs. the clean air out in the middle of nowhere in say Utah, South Dakota, or Appalachia.
Even if “nowhere” is next to a large coal-fired electric generating station (like this one) churning out “clean” electric traction power for those electric trains and streetcars and light rail vehicles?
Most power in the northeast for electric trains and transit is hydropower and nukes. Coal is a very minor part soon to be almost nothing with the pending closing of a few PECO plants near Philadelphia.
You need to take into account the automobile emission standards already on the books. As older cars get junked and new ones delivered, the air quality will continue to improve. It might say something about the Obama economy that folks are hanging onto older cars longer and longer.
It might say something about the Obama economy that folks are hanging onto older cars longer and longer.
I don’t know about that, but it speaks volumes about the BushCo economy in particular and the hourglass economy in general.
Rewriting history aside, as we found out in another thread, Americans drive everywhere, even for short trips. A lot of that is due to the built environment. Unttil that changes, large improvements in air quality will be problematic, even with carbon reduction laws, mileage standards, etc. Gas is simply too cheap in this country to change habits.
DS
Dan, for the record, I am no fan of the Bush (43) presidency in general, and the massive recession that he and his Republic Party allies on Capitol Hill helped to engineer.
Rewriting history aside, as we found out in another thread, Americans drive everywhere, even for short trips.
I drive when it is convenient to drive. I also walk when that is convenient. I don’t “drive everywhere.”
A lot of that is due to the built environment.
Why is it that there seem to be plenty of private automobiles even in Smart Growth-approved areas like Arlington County, Virginia and Portland, Oregon?
Unttil that changes, large improvements in air quality will be problematic, even with carbon reduction laws, mileage standards, etc. Gas is simply too cheap in this country to change habits.
Those large improvements in air quality have happened (and improvement is forecast to continue), even with no increase in transit patronage or politically correct land use plans.
CPZ, evidence abounds that in supportive environments, even Americans walk more. There has been some…erm…argy-bargy on another thread about a paper that finds a nice relationship between obesity and km walked. Of course, we know that is not the sole reason for high BMI, but it is a contributing factor.
I also agree that the Clean Air Act has saved tens (likely hundreds) of billions of dollars by cutting air pollution from internal combustion transport. As I implied above, further reductions are problematic, as many analyses show. Our built environment was made for auto-dependency and will take a long time to get even 1/4 of the population into a walkable area to reduce VMT.
Note this is not a call for socialist taking of McSuburbs and bulldozing them down to warehouse Patriot-Americans in energy-efficient apartments, and anyone who says it is needs to set an appointment with a counselor.
DS
Note this is not a call for socialist taking of McSuburbs and bulldozing them down to warehouse Patriot-Americans in energy-efficient apartments, and anyone who says it is needs to set an appointment with a counselor.
Of course it isn’t. Instead, plans call for taxing & fining Americans out of being able to afford the sort of house they really want. And Danny Boy will refer to this taxing and fining as reflecting the “true cost” of suburban housing, as if he, or government, are the true arbitrators of what anything actually costs in real life.
So what we have are de facto plans to drive Americans into so-called “smart” growth and puny apartments, while avoiding the backlash if this were directly achieved with guns & badges.
…there seem to be plenty of private automobiles even in Smart Growth-approved areas like Arlington County, Virginia and Portland, Oregon…
This is so true. On the rare occasions that I don’t commute via bike now (too broke to afford gas, too stubborn to give TriMet my money, too old/unhealthy to circumvent exercise any longer), I am fascinated that our supposedly “green” city has parking garages full of automobiles. I usually have to ascend to the highest floors of these capacity-filled garages to ferret out a space for myself.
One would think that a city full of green stewards (who constantly and LOUDLY advertise their environmental stewardship, often on their cars’ bumper stickers, ironically enough) would have less traffic.
What we realize, though, is that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with being “green”, and everything to do with iron-fisted control over civilization. The conceit that government can save us from “cars” or “carbon” comes from the same bottomless pit of lunacy that killed 6 million Jews based on made-up ideas & excuses. It’s government run amok, basically.
Ask yourself this. If METRO is really concerned about pollution and CO2 emissions, then why, for example, are they timing traffic lights to ensure a steady stream of red lights and stop & go traffic? (This also happens in Seattle, another hypocritical Green bastion). After all, cars pollute more in stop & go traffic, and there is no legitimate traffic control reason for lights to be red in such a synchronized manner.
What one realizes, after careful thought, is that this has nothing to do with the environment, which government doesn’t care about, and all to do with tyrannical control of the citizens.
I’m not in agreement about the tyranny thing; ultimately we’re dealing with somewhat well-meaning albeit completely droned-out/bureaucratic stooges. Lunk-headed, soulless automatons who are trying to get by like anyone else.
But I do get a chubby when PDX’s Planning and Sustainability representatives politely tell local news outlets that “it’s hard to make people change their behaviors.” As though its implicitly understood that I should stand compliantly aside and allow faceless dolts to micro-manage my day-to-day life.
They can eat a hot bowl of d*cks.
To wit:
http://overlawyered.com/2012/06/attention-citizens-of-portland/
Amen, brotha! And don’t force me to mow my lawn if I want prairie grass, mofos!
Auto oriented built environments are social engineering, though you aren’t complaining about those!
Auto oriented built environments are social engineering, though you aren’t complaining about those!
Perhaps, but to my knowledge, creators of the auto-oriented infrastructure have never encouraged the reprehensible snitch culture alluded to in my aforelinked article. I mean, really. Is there anything worse than a snitch or a tattle-tale?
These people are begging to have fists rained down on their trim, caring faces. The forecast calls for a torrent of fist showers! Hoo-rah!
Interestingly, I did notice when I moved into my new place recently that one of Portland’s bearded, emaciated do-gooder twats was standing on my property STARING at me while I threw my crap into the recycling bin. After I offered him a polite “hello,” he continued staring at me, for an extended period, at which point I said “IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN HELP YOU WITH!?!”
To his pathetic credit, he scurried away apologetically. Perhaps he has Asperger’s Syndrome or some sort of mental retardation, or maybe he was just an indie-rocker. More likely, he was simply another Portland do-gooder who couldn’t mind his own damn business.
That makes no sense.
This might help you understand.
Frank, thank you for reminding me that you’re a crook.
I call BS on that. One only needs look at the smog over any city vs. the clean air out in the middle of nowhere in say Utah, South Dakota, or Appalachia.
Well, I call BS on that. It’s the wrong comparison.
One should look at the smog over cities in old photographs vs. the clean air in those same cities today. The countryside could be expected to be cleaner. What would that prove?
It would prove that the Clean Air Act, an environmental regulation actively opposed by Tea party types, worked.
There are, IIRC, about a dozen studies that show the benefits of the CAA are much, much larger than the costs, somewhere variously 6-8:1.
DS
The problem with the big dig was that there was no rail link built between North Station and South Station.