At a time when our legislators are facing critical decisions on transportation financing, their ability to properly assess the plans on the table is being hampered by confusion about the different plans’ price tags and where the money is going to come from.

Factions are forming around inaccurate characterizations of the different transportation plans, so before the Senate begins its debate tomorrow and key decisions get made, we thought it would be helpful to lay it out apples to apples.

Following is a simple way to keep the numbers organized. For each plan, we added up the amount to be spent on transportation over the next five years and divided it by five. This gives annualized numbers that are comparable. Here are the average amounts per year for the first five years of the three plans:

• Governor Patrick’s Plan: $858M/year
• House Transportation Bill: $504M/year
• Senate Transportation Bill: $602M/year

There are still significant differences on how these amounts would be raised and the assumptions about growth underlying them. Still, to the extent that the public, the press and the legislature chooses to focus on the size of the plans as a matter of debate, it’s important to be sure we’ve at least got that part straight.

Our bottom line? Bigger is better if we want a working transportation system for all of Massachusetts. Underfunding transportation again is the worst possible outcome. It will still cost taxpayers money; they just won’t have anything to show for it. If you are one of the majority of Massachusetts voters who believe a working transportation system is worth paying for, please call your state senator today.

This post is part of a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

Massachusetts relies on several sources of funding for its transportation system. In addition to user fees—such as transit fares, registry fees, and tolls—and federal dollars for capital projects, a good portion of the system is funded through state gas and sales taxes. Both the gas tax and the sales tax, however, have been providing less revenue than originally expected or planned.

For one, the gas tax has not been increased since 1991. Due to inflation, the value of the gas tax is trickling away over time. In Massachusetts, we’ve lost 41% of the 1991 gas tax’s purchasing power as costs rise and cars become increasingly fuel-efficient. It is now worth only 12.4 cents in 1991 dollars. That’s a paltry amount, especially in light of the fact that it was originally worth 21 cents. Consider that, over the same time period, other staple consumer goods have increased in price, for example, the average cost of a pound of flour has more than doubled. It is clear that the gas tax hasn’t kept pace. Consider also that state gas taxes are higher in every other New England state, with the sole exception of New Hampshire, which is currently considering a gas tax increase whose rate would put Massachusetts in last place in our region. Nationwide, Massachusetts currently ranks 29 in the gas tax; Wyoming’s pending gas tax increase could make the Commonwealth drop to number 30 by July 1st.  That should not be a point of pride.

In 2000, the last time the legislature considered a major funding bill for transportation, the sales tax had just experienced a decade of 6.5% growth per year. A portion of the sales tax was dedicated to transportation at the time with an assumption that it would increase at least 3% per year. In reality, the sales tax, however, only increased an average of 1% per year, leaving the system significantly underfunded. While the legislature responded with some smaller fixes over the last few years, none were large enough to correct the problem.

If we want to solve some of the problems I identified in an earlier post, we need to raise new revenue for transportation. It doesn’t have to come from the gas tax or the sales tax, but it has to come from somewhere.

CLF Ventures is working with Wholesome Wave Foundation to offer a complimentary webinar about the Food Safety Modernization Act and implications for food hub operators. The food hub work with Wholesome Wave continues CLF Ventures’ efforts to build capacity and develop resources for sustainable food organizations in New England.

Proposed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Requirements
for Emerging Food Hub Operators:

Q&A with FDA Representatives
& Perspectives from Local Food Leaders

April 17, 2013
11:00 A.M -12:30 P.M. EDT

 
Comments are due on May 16, 2013 for two proposed rules issued in January under the Food Safety Modernization Act: “Current Good Manufacturing Practices and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventative Controls for Human Food” and “Standard for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.” This webinar aims to help food hubs and related enterprises to understand the implications of the proposed rules in time for them to submit comments to FDA by the May comment period deadline.

The webinar will target small and early stage businesses/operators that aggregate, distribute and process farm food products. Speakers will include representatives from FDA to provide detail on the proposed rules as well as representatives from non-profit organizations who will speak about the impacts of proposed FSMA rules on growing local food hubs. The webinar will include an interactive Q&A with speakers as well as help in finding additional resources about the proposed rules and the comment submittal process.

To register for this complimentary webinar, go to https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/640965334.

For more information about registration, contact gabrielle@wholesomewave.org.

For more information on CLF Ventures’ sustainable agriculture work, visit CLF’s Food and Farm page.

On Tuesday, the Massachusetts House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means jointly announced a transportation finance framework. Upon close review, there is more (or really less) to the supposedly budget-minded proposal than meets the eye.

In short, the legislature’s answer to MassDOT’s ten-year transportation plan would neither be big enough (it does not even attempt to close the one billion dollar revenue gap), nor long enough (only five years) to meet the Commonwealth’s fundamental transportation needs. The framework would not cover the maintenance of our transportation system, nor keep it in a state of good repair, let alone allow for any investment in modernization. This would leave the entire transportation system vulnerable, staunching economic opportunity by locking in another five years of chronic underfunding for transportation. And rather than providing a real, long-term solution to the real problems associated with chronic underfunding, it guarantees we’ll be having this conversation all over again as soon as next year.

Here is what you should know about the framework:

1)    How the revenue will be raised:

• The $519 million per year price tag that the legislature is putting on its proposal includes revenue to be raised from the following sources: a $.03 gas tax increase ($95M), indexing the gas tax to inflation starting in 2015 ($15M), a tax on cigarettes, cigars and tobacco products ($165 M), a tax on computer services ($161M), elimination of utility tax classifications ($45M), and a change in the source of sales for multistate corporations ($35M).

• However, not all of the new revenue is dedicated to transportation. Rather, a total of $260 million per year on average is not allocated to transportation or any other purpose as of now. Apparently no agreement has been reached on how to spend this portion of the new revenue.

• What the legislature did not advertise is that the framework also directs MassDOT and the MBTA to raise an additional average of $214 per year from unspecified revenue sources the agencies have under their own control. Such revenue sources include primarily fares, tolls, and Registry of Motor Vehicles fees. While modest, planned and regularly scheduled fare, toll, and RMV fee increases are advisable, the amount MassDOT and MBTA would be expected to raise from these sources under the legislature’s proposed framework is nearly double the amount MassDOT proposed to raise from this category in its plan. As a result, it is fair to expect that fares, tolls, and RMV fees would go up as soon as July 1, 2014, and again in the fiscal years 2016 and 2018. So much for the committees’ spin that their stripped-down framework is mindful of people’s pocketbooks.

• The framework also includes other transportation revenue sources from gambling revenues, contributions from the Convention Center, and contributions from MassPort ($40M).

2)    How the revenue will be spent:

• While the framework does not list all the particulars on how the money could be spent, it promises to stop borrowing to pay for operating expenses over a three-year period and to provide full funding for snow and ice removal (phased in over a two-year period).

• The MBTA’s operating deficit would be close to covered for five years, but not quite.

• The state’s fifteen regional transit authorities (RTAs) would be forward funded in 2014, but would receive a significantly reduced investment from what MassDOT originally proposed. Instead of an additional $100 million/year, the fifteen RTAs would have to make do with an additional $18 million/year.

3)    What is not covered:

• The framework does not identify any money to borrow for new capital projects. Hence the Commonwealth would not have the ability to address its overwhelming maintenance backlog. Therefore, there would not be enough funding to rehabilitate our structurally deficient bridges (there are over 400 of them in Massachusetts), replace the Red Line, Orange Line, and Green Line cars that are beyond their useful lives, repair the I-91 viaduct, and swap out old RTA buses.

• The RTAs would continue to be underfunded. As a result, a combination of restoration of service previously cut, increased frequency of service, and longer evening and weekend service will not be possible.

• No new investment in our state’s transportation system would occur. Think no South Station expansion, no South Coast Rail, no new bike and pedestrian paths, or other improvements. It is noteworthy that the Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford is legally required, but the New Starts application for federal money, which requires the MBTA’s financial house to be in order, would be put at risk and could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in federal assistance. Additional delays could also be expected.

• Although a separate bond bill authorizes an additional $100 million for next year to be spent on local road maintenance, the insufficient amount of money in the framework for debt service and other more pressing needs would mean that this increase could not be released.

While the proposed framework purports to be sustainable, adequate, and simple, on closer look, it unfortunately achieves none of these laudable goals. No matter which way you slice the numbers, there isn’t enough there to achieve the most basic improvements needed to ensure the safety and reliability of our public transit systems, roads and bridges.

Raising taxes at this time is clearly necessary to fund our transportation system, but if we ask people to pay more, we need to make sure that they have something to show for it. This framework fails that simple test.

CLF and affected community residents will be back in Court on April 11th arguing that the high-level biocontainment laboratory proposed by Boston University (BU) has no place in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End. Please join us in standing up for this important cause by attending the hearing in Boston on April 11th.

As we reported last year, having failed twice before, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and BU have attempted for the third time to adequately explain how the risks associated with placing a high-level biocontainment laboratory (the “Biolab”) that would test pathogens like ebola and the plague are acceptable for an urban environmental justice community. NIH released its latest Risk Assessment in July 2012. For the third time, that Risk Assessment does not meaningfully address the fact that the Boston location selected for siting the NEIDL comes with substantially more risk potential than rural or suburban alternative sites. The final Risk Assessment also fails to fully analyze the ways in which the environmental justice community living near the NEIDL site would be unfairly affected by proximity to the facility. Unfortunately, however, NIH decided that the Risk Assessment was adequate to close out its investigation of the risks of this facility, and issued a final Record of Decision in January 2013. That Record of Decision is the trigger that brought the parties to this ongoing litigation back to Court.

In this case, six plaintiffs (five community residents and CLF), challenge the adequacy of NIH’s Risk Assessment and Record of Decision in the U.S District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Chief Judge Patti Saris of that Court will hear cross-motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction against the Biolab, on April 11^th in Boston. You can read the plaintiffs’ brief here. Judge Saris’ findings from this hearing will be the final judgment in this case at the trial court level.

This hearing is a major milestone in the case against the Biolab, and community presence in the courtroom is powerful. If this issue is important to you, you need to be there. The details for the hearing are:

BU Biolab Hearing
April 11, 2013
2:30 PM
Moakley Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston
Courtroom 19

Moakley Courthouse is located on the waterfront in Boston, and is accessible by transit via the Silver Line (or a 15 minute walk from the Red Line at South Station). Directions to Moakley Courthouse are available here. The courtroom is likely to be busy and may not be able to fit everyone who would like to be present, so please arrive early to ensure a seat. You should bring identification for security clearance and allow extra time for that process at the Courthouse entrance. Anything you bring with you to the Courthouse will be screened by security.

If you care about Boston’s residents – you should be at this hearing. If you care about environmental justice, the importance of hearing the public’s voice, or the importance of transparency in government decisionmaking – you should be at this hearing. This matter is deeply important – for us and our neighbors – and we hope you’ll show your support by standing beside us on April 11^th.

This post is part of a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

Does it seem as though your car is hitting nasty potholes with ever-increasing frequency? That’s because it probably is.

Across the state, our local roads are decaying. Although Massachusetts law, under Chapter 90, reimburses municipalities for road repairs, they aren’t receiving enough. An estimated $562 million is the amount of annual funding required to maintain the streets in a “state of good repair”; cities and towns, however, must make do with only $200 million, or about 36% of the funds that are actually needed. As a result, our roads are suffering, and the safety of our drivers along with them.

Passed in 1973, Chapter 90 compensates cities and towns for expenditures made on maintenance of local roads. In the 40 years since Chapter 90 was passed, the costs of construction have gone up dramatically, essentially reducing the value of Chapter 90 funds and their ability to solve the very problems they were designed to solve. As a result, municipalities are forced to dig into local revenues as well as cut important services, such as salaries for teachers or police officers, in an effort to bridge the funding gap. Less affluent communities are left in the lurch when it comes to maintenance, and are forced to look on helplessly as local infrastructure degrades. This presents the ultimate Catch-22 of the situation: minor cracks in the pavement, when left untended due to budget constraints, soon require far more expensive rehabilitation than a quick patch for communities already unable to afford them.

Massachusetts’s bridges are in a similar state of disrepair. As of January 2013, there were 436 structurally deficient bridges out of a total 4500 owned by municipalities or the state. That means, for every 10 bridges you drive over in the state, at least one of them could be deficient. Ask yourself: does that make you feel safe?

To be fair, “structurally deficient” doesn’t necessarily mean that the bridge is unsound or about to collapse. Once a bridge has deteriorated to a certain degree, an immediate overhaul becomes necessary to avert restrictions on its use. For example, many deficient bridges are subject to weight restrictions, and of these, 38 have degraded to a degree forcing access to be closed off. Since 2008, MassDOT has implemented the Accelerated Bridge Program and has begun the long-overdue process of restoring neglected bridges. Over the last five years, the Program has completed 121 bridges, and expects to restore more than 200 by 2016. Once the Program ends, however, bridges will continue to atrophy and crumble. Without the Program, there would still be upwards of 543 structurally deficient bridges in the state – yet, even with the Program, there will be over 400 deficient bridges left untouched on the day the work ends. Due to the perpetual need for upkeep, Massachusetts really can’t afford to lose initiatives like the Accelerated Bridge Program.

The maintenance backlog precipitates from years of neglect due to underfunding. In order to reverse it, continued investment in programs like the Accelerated Bridge Program is critical. Without devoting resources to infrastructure today, the epidemic of potholes and crumbling bridges will continue its relentless advance.

So the next time you curse out your mayor when next you drive over a particularly treacherous pothole, think twice: that pothole is part of a larger problem. You can be sure people are feeling it in every corner, and every car, of the Bay state.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about bringing backyard chickens back to Rhode Island and paid special attention to the ongoing effort to repeal Woonsocket’s chicken ban. A few days later, the Washington Post ran a feature-length article on low-income Woonsocket residents’ struggles to feed their families.

My last post focused on the ways that historical justifications for chicken bans have become outdated, and also noted some health and environmental benefits of backyard chickens. The Post article casts the Woonsocket chicken issue in a new light: Woonsocket suffers from food insecurity, and backyard chickens can help.

The Post article is worth your time to read (here’s another link to it), but here are a few important takeaways: Every month, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) injects $2 million in benefits (formerly called food stamps) into the Woonsocket economy. With a local unemployment rate of 12% and only low-paying jobs available to many employed residents, a full one-third of Woonsocket residents receive SNAP benefits. In fact, some local grocery stores make up to 25% of their monthly profits on the first of the month, the day when SNAP benefits are transferred to recipients. Together, these numbers – and the article’s well-drawn profiles of several Woonsocket residents – present a picture of food insecurity.

Backyard chickens are not a panacea by any means, but they can help to alleviate food insecurity and promote economic self-reliance. They can turn food scraps, beetles, and grubs into fresh eggs. And their droppings (if dealt with appropriately) are great for growing vegetables too. They add resilience to a broken food system. You can read more about chickens and chicken care by poking around Southside Community Land Trust’s website.

Once you’re satisfied that backyard chickens make sense, you should come out to Woonsocket City Hall on Monday, April 1 at 7 p.m. to show your support for repealing Woonsocket’s chicken ban!

This post is part of a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

If you have ever tried to get from one place to another in the Bay State, you could get the impression that everyone in Massachusetts must have a car. If you’ve ever tried to ride your bike across the Longfellow Bridge (as currently configured), or walk around Agawam, you know what I’m talking about.

You’d be surprised to find out, however, that one in every eight Massachusetts households does not have a car. Even more interesting is the fact that the percentage of Massachusetts residents of driving age without driver’s licenses has been increasing steadily from 8.67% in 2006 to 13.41% in 2010. Since few people who have a driver’s license tend to give it up, a growing number of young people are deciding not to drive. They’re taking to the streets, en masse, but on foot or on bike.

The number of miles traveled on public transit among sixteen to thirty-four-year olds in the United States increased by 40% between 2001 and 2009. That’s an important trend to be aware of when we decide how to spend our transportation dollars going forward. When we build transportation infrastructure today, it will be used by a generation or two to come. We need to keep their habits in mind when building today or we’ll lose them tomorrow.

Regardless of young people leaving cars behind, there are other important reasons to open up travel options for people. Consider that the average cost of owning a car in the United States is almost $9,000/year for a sedan—money that can be spent in better ways when there are other options to get around. Likewise, to reduce our energy consumption, we have to look to the transportation sector. Transportation consumes roughly 33% of all the energy in Massachusetts – the most of any end-use sector. Emissions from our vehicles accounts for 36% of our entire statewide greenhouse gas emissions – and it is the portion of our emissions that is rising the fastest. Since not all ways of getting around are created equal—e.g., buses during rush hour use much less energy and don’t contribute fewer emissions per passenger per mile than SUVs—we will have to develop our transportation system with the goals of reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change in mind.

As a result, I think it is fair to conclude, it would make little sense to spend money on maintaining our current transportation system without developing it in a way that meets our future needs. Today’s construction builds tomorrow’s infrastructure. If we build like we always have, recent trends suggest that people may not use it. That would be a waste, for our economy, our health, our environment, and our communities.

We all expect our transportation system to work. But what happens when it doesn’t and we don’t fully understand the alternatives? Image: shoothead @ flickr

This post is the first in a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

We all expect our transportation system to work. We get upset when we wait for the bus, drive through a pothole, sit in traffic, or are stuck on the T behind a broken down train. We expect our transportation system to be in place—for roads to be paved, for sidewalks to be built, for bike lanes to be marked, for train track and trains to be available, and for tunnels to be dug and lit. What’s more—we not only expect them to be there, but to also be in good service when we need them: for roads to be smooth and not congested, for buses and trains to be timely, for sidewalks to not be treacherous, and for tunnels to, well, not leak.

As Paul Levy, a distinguished Massachusetts public servant, however, has pointed out, the nature of our democratic system, and the slow deterioration that all infrastructure goes through do not mesh well. Almost two years ago, Mr. Levy wisely called for a cheering section for infrastructure. With legislators on Beacon Hill now finally actively trying to tackle the long-standing, severe underfunding of our transportation system, we believe it’s time to put on the cheerleading uniform, pull out the pom poms, and cheer loudly.

But how can we cheer, if we‘re not armed with important facts about the root of our transportation system’s problems? This blog series attempts to shed light on facts about the Commonwealth’s transportation system that can help us be informed supporters of new revenue for our transportation system, even if it takes a billion dollars a year over the next ten years to solve the problem.

I hope you’ll follow as we post this. They’ll make great reading while you’re waiting for the T.