As your cell phone and computer clocks were automatically setting themselves back in the wee hours of Sunday morning, there was a similarly abstract-yet-important change taking place: the Commonwealth’s disparate, sprawling transportation agencies merged into one big super-agency.
The merger has been, and will continue to be, an adminsitrative nightmare. Radically different union contracts have to be reconciled, and lot of people probably have to be let go or have their compensation cut in order to realize the big savings that consolidation is supposed to yeild.
But even if you’re not a toll taker or a member of the Carmen’s Union, there’s still a reason to care about this merger: there are some very big, very controversial choices about transportation financing on the horizon. Apart from the legislature, this new MassDOT (with its new board) is the venue in which those choices will be debated and the decisions implemented.
Should pike tolls continue to help pay for Big Dig tunnels that many pike commuters never use? (Some vocal folks think not.) Should we toll I-93? Should we raise the gas tax to help pay for the MBTA’s crushing debt? Whatever happened to the Oregon-style mileage chips the Governor said he wanted to put on our cars?
Let the new MassDOT honcho Jeff Mullan know what you think this Friday @ 1, when he comes on our show. Also on the guest list is now-Former Mass. Executive Office of Transportation Secretary James Aloisi, who we imagine might have some interesting parting observations.
Why does the T focus on expanding when it has problems delivering current service?
John: I invite you to put that question to Jeff Mullan when he’s on our program Friday, but I can tell you that the big expansions currently under consideration (most notably the Green Line extension) are court-ordered environmental remedies stemming from the CLF lawsuits over the big dig. They have to build it because a judge told them to.
Who makes Jeff Mullan do this?
Users of the transportation infrastructure must be made to realize that “their tax dollars” do not cover the true costs of our transporation infrastructure. Can you, Mr. Mullan, talk about how that point will be communicated to the body politic and which revenue enhancement approach you think would be most equitable and effective way to generate the revenue needed to support our current infrastructure and build that which will be needed for the 21st Century?
I would like to hear the reason why all directions into Boston pay tolls except from the south.
I cannot believe that Jeff Mullan thinks that a per-mile GPS tax would be better received than an increased gas tax!!!! What planet is he on?
If I had my druthers, we would raise the gas tax to the point where we could finance all of our transportation infrastructure, retire our transport-related debts, and abolish MA tolls.
It’s much fairer than a per mile tax, encourages gas conservation and lighter cars that do less damage to roads. This per-mile tax is a stupid sop to wasteful and harmful gas guzzlers.
I’d be willing to see a night surcharge if the T would stay open later in the evening.
The Oregon-style vehicle mileage tax is a terrible idea, but one that may make a gasoline tax more palatable. Contrary to what the transportation secretary, James Aloisi, implied on the show, the internal combustion engine is going to be the major motive power in automobiles for at least a couple more decades, because batteries just aren’t approaching the versatility of petroleum at a cost Americans can afford, and the difficulties of getting them there are truly daunting.* Unlike a vehicle mile tax, a higher gasoline tax could push us towards ever more energy efficient automobiles, allowing us to do more (driving) with less (gasoline).
The VMT is also contrary to American culture, where driving across the country is one of the quintessentially American journeys. (I first went across the country by car at age 4, in the 1950 Studebaker, then at age 7 and 8 in the ‘57 Chevy, and I drove myself across at age 17 in my 8 year old ‘62 Falcon, and finally did the trip by bicycle after I graduated from college.) While traveling is almost always expensive, I suspect and hope that the notion of charging for the actual miles–making use of devices on OUR cars that track them, and can track a lot of other stuff besides, if Big Brother should get elected!–will generate a huge backlash.
* Electrochemistry is hell on materials, says John DeCicco, of the Envirionmental Defense Fund: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/does-better-place-have-a-better-plan/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/consumer-reports-test-day-the-future-of-the-car
Rarely discussed as a matter of environment and quality of life are traffic lights. They back up traffic and cause cars, trucks, and buses to spew pollutants into the air we breathe. What good is it to make vehicles fuel efficient and then park them with engines idling? With the consolidation of transportation agencies, I would like to see the new DOT review existing traffic lights and scrutinize proposed installations. Traffic rotaries, where feasible, are less offensive, and in other cases, consider alternatives, such as blinking lights, reduced speed limits, and better enforcement. Refraining from installing a single set of lights saves $1 million and more. Freeing up road space by not backing up traffic can make space for bicycle lanes and can move vehicle traffic away from pedestrian sidewalks.
Some cities in Germany, England, Belgium, and The Netherlands have tested reduction and elimination of traffic lights. Results of online searches attest to the benefits of eliminating traffic lights.
I can’t get past the feeling that we’re a bunch of schmucks. The big dig goes from 2.5B to 24B or whatever it ended at. We pay toll takers more than teachers. We pay pensions that’d make a senator envious. Then we’re told to trust the government agency that created this mess.
Did I really hear that the speaker claimed to lay off 100 and that was an example of how they’re running more efficiently? I know companies that have been watching pennies for years that just cut back 10% of their workforce.
We really are schmucks for voting for the people who put these dopes in charge.