Hey, there! Log in / Register

End game: Increase in the gas tax

The Outraged Liberal considers a possible real motive behind the humongous toll increases approved by the turnpike authority yesterday: Put pressure on the legislature to increase the gas tax.

He notes the tolls don't take effect until February or March, and not until after a public hearing (where will they hold that? Gillette Stadium?).

... Presumably, that would be enough time for Deval Patrick and legislators to get off their, um, sidelines, and approve a comprehensive plan to tackle the transportation nightmare (hey, throw in the disaster known as the MBTA while you are at it.) ...

Dan Kennedy on the turnpike authority: What, are they insane?

Jay Fitzgerald predicts we'll wind up with a toll increase, a gas-tax hike and the transfer of turnpike "hacks" to a new state authority. He uses a classic cartoon to illustrate how he feels this morning.

Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

As Mass. Liberal undoubtedly knows, the Turnpike cannot raise the gas tax. Only the Legislature can do that.

That said, I think that M.L.'s feeling that the toll increases are merely clearing the path for a gas tax increase is right, but I think that the intended recipient of those funds is not the transportation system at large.

The gas tax is not on the table to pay off the Pike's debt because the Commonwealth needs to use the forthcoming increase in the gas tax to pay of the T's debt (which, at $8B, is almost 4 times that of the Pike).

Now, as I have said before, before you driving T haters out there get outraged about how "your" increased gas tax payments are being used to fix the T and not the roads (the existing 23.5 cents will still be used for roads), remember this: for every incremental improvement in the T's service, more people will take it, which means fewer people in cars in front of you. That's why you should not complain about an increase in the gas tax, and that's why it's not the worst idea in the world.

up
Voting closed 0

I ride the T almost every day, so you will get no argument out of me if the gas tax is raised and within a few months, the T gets remarkably better in service. It will also prevent the T from hiking fares.

On the other hand, what constitutes a fair gas tax? At 23.5 cents per gallon now, plus federal at 18.4, the tax is already 41.9 cents. Making the total gas tax to $1.00 total (i.e. 81.6 cents state, 18.4 cents federal) will bring up prices, but if demand slackens as it has been, it won't affect retail prices that much.

I also mentioned that the gas tax is regressive in another post. Fuel efficiency and environmentalism at the expense of shelling out most of your paycheck to fill your tank is counterintuitive, so the Legislature has to be careful.

up
Voting closed 0

For years, I've always wanted to raise the gas tax a LOT. None of this measly 25 cents or whatever it is, but more like a buck or two. Expensive gas is the only way you're going to get people to drive more fuel efficient cars. Years ago, 4-cyl cars were more common, but the trend for the last 15 years or so is bigger and bigger cars and engines. You can only educate people so much about pollution, etc., but the only way you're going to affect their car purchases is with gas prices.

My gas tax philosophy is probably one of the many reasons I'm not in politics, as this would be political suicide. ;-)

up
Voting closed 0

The problem is that we can't link gas tax revenues to transportation initiatives because of our medieval governing structures that give that money to the legislature to do as they please on a yearly basis.

Personally? I'd like to see everything based on miles driven, including insurance, excise taxes, etc. Those of us who don't drive a lot shouldn't be subsidizing the driving of those who do drive a lot.

I don't buy the argument that people would pull the "but I drove out of state all year" card, because MA is just about the most expensive place to insure a vehicle already. I know that when I was an undergrad, I kept my self licensed in Oregon and my car registered there until I graduated, and then switched it over at nearly triple the yearly cost.

up
Voting closed 0

My own preferred modes of transportation are motorcycle and bicycle. The idea that I should be taxed the exact same, per mile, on my motorbike as someone who is driving around in an Escalade just doesn't make any sense.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, you are already taxed more because of the stooopid "license every year" bullcrap already. I know this because my husband owns a motorcycle and we do use it to cut down on our car usage. Why take a minivan when you only need to get your prescription or run a short errand?

A gas tax is a good way to level this out as well - the more you use, the more the impact and the more you pay.

I was intending this system for cars ... but it could apply to motorcycles as well if there was a different rate for different vehicle types according to their impact and infrastructure demands.

This would also be a good way to price out the two-stroke smoke bombs and other emissions nightmares that masquerade as high mileage vehicles as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Licenses...gas tax...fees...makes me glad I take the T, but I gotta be careful, 'cuz they could raise prices too XD.

up
Voting closed 0

Expensive gas is the only way you're going to get people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

I disagree. Expensive gas also got people deciding between filling their tanks at $40-$100 a toss, or feeding their family, and as fuel costs skyrocketed, so did food costs. The good thing about these prices is that demand for fuel dropped like a rock, and hence gas prices are heading well under $2.00 a gallon, fuel efficient or not. People are beginning to feel less rooked at the pump, and that feeling will return as soon as the gas tax is hiked.

And remember this: gas taxes ARE regressive taxes. If you're earning $7.50 an hour and filling your tank at $100 a pop, that's $100 out of your weekly paycheck of $300, or 33%, just to fill your car. Do you really want the lower earners in this state subsidizing most of the roads and repairs? You think MetroWest residents are p.o'd now, wait until you survey the urban centers on how they like high gas prices. Seven second delays won't be enough.

The Legislature also has an interest: keep the status quo, keep their seats, OR raise the gas tax and have a "throw the bums out" party in 2010, especially if they raised it by a buck. And, if you think people flock to New Hampshire and other states for cheaper cigarettes, wait until New Hamsphire gets new customers for cheaper gasoline.

up
Voting closed 0

Eastie is generally poorer than other regions, lets say Winchester or Belmont.

Why are the people making 300 a week being asked to pay large tolls for a short trip, while the rich up north can drive 30 miles and not be hit by any additional fees?

A high gas tax penalizes those who CHOSE to live outside of the MBTA region, drive more, pollute more and cause more harm to our roads.

up
Voting closed 0

There should be huge financial incentives for people who make life choices that are kinder to the planet. That's what it's going to take to get people to use existing public transportation and to create it where it doesn't yet exist. It's worked in most of the world.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Poor people aren't very well equipped to "create" public transportation. They can barely afford to use it in some cases, and in the areas under discussion,it can be a pretty huge burden to access.

Maybe you live along the red or green lines and didn't notice this.

So, one must come before the other, and "creating" the transportation doesn't seem very likely, looking at the T's failings to help people move around other than in the city center, where it works pretty well...

Don't forget this is the T that did all it could to make the attempted "night owl" service fail. How do those low wage workers get to their 5am and 6am jobs these days, anyway? I thank any and all applicable gods that until now anyway, I've been spared the need to find out, but i can't help wondering about that.

up
Voting closed 0

I live in Roxbury, make less than the median income, and regularly ride the orange line and buses. So, no, I'm not trying to speak for groups of people with whom I have no experience.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Part of the problem here is that some of the most heavily impacted areas are where people can't yet vote ... and can't afford lobbyists or other ways to fight back.

Basically, this is a Screw East Boston plan hiding under a "make money from the airport" cover. Isolating people in East Boston from employment sounds like a bad idea, but the turnpike folks couldn't give less of a shit about that because the cost of supporting people who would like to work or used to work but can't get to jobs isn't their problem. This is what it means to be disenfranchised.

Besides, the transit to East Boston doesn't help you if you have a job that demands your presence before 6am. Meanwhile, transit service to the airport is atrocious by modern standards ... the train doesn't even serve the terminals directly, the bus shuttle service is tricky to navigate with luggage and/or kids if you can wade through the self-congratulatory bullshit to find where you are supposed to catch it, the brand new blue line station doesn't even have sidewalks wide enough for two luggage-carrying people to pass one another without hitting a pole or bench, the blue line gets randomly closed without announcements on the website, and the system doesn't run 24/7.

up
Voting closed 0

Gas taxes are a user fee. I think such user fees are less regressive than the excise taxes I currently pay, given that these actually penalize me for not using my car as much. Furthermore, this is a proven model used in other states to fund road costs in a way that is DIRECTLY linked to road usage and vehicle weight and mileage.

The more you use, the more you pay. This means that the more miles you drive, or the more carbon you put into the air, the more criteria pollutants and mobile source air toxics you contribute to the local airshed, the more you pay. The amount you pay is thus proportional to your share of the damage. That doesn't sound unfair to me.

That isn't a regressive tax, as even lower income people can choose smaller vehicles and use them less - just like my parents did when I grew up in a shitty trailer on the outskirts of a city in the 70s. Furthermore, MA has vastly more people living in urban areas who qualify as impoverished than those living in rural areas. Maybe in Texas or Indiana you would be right, but in MA your "save the poor" arguments are but a strawman. I don't see why I need to subsidize people who chose to live in the exurbs and drive 30 or 40 miles each way out of the foolish belief that gas would always be cheap, which is what the current system does.

up
Voting closed 0

Your mention of our shared rural-Northwest background reminded me of this:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?...

Makes me so proud to say I was born in the Spokane Valley. I think some of the people in those math problems are my cousins.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0