Since I last checked in, the comment period for Article 89 in Boston began and is now well underway. Article 89 is a proposed new section of the Boston zoning code that encourages and creates opportunities for commercial urban agriculture citywide. This is an important first step to expanding urban agriculture, and CLF is excited about the possibilities for our local food system. There are some aspects of Article 89, however, that we would like to see changed before implementation of the final version.  We’ll be at the neighborhood meeting in Jamaica Plain tonight to express these views, and hope to see you there!

If you are interested in urban agriculture in Boston, this is your moment to get involved. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is holding a series of public meetings throughout Boston’s neighborhoods to allow for residents and interested parties to express their opinions. The first public meeting, which was for the downtown neighborhood, was held two weeks ago at Suffolk Law School, and drew a great response from the community – urban farmers, residents, and other interested parties voiced a number of thoughtful questions, comments, and concerns.

While CLF is overall very supportive of Article 89, there are several areas we would like to see revised before the proposed language becomes final. In particular:

• Farm stands: The proposed guidelines on farm stands are too restrictive and prevent easy access to fresh, local fruits and vegetables in the city. The recommended rule prohibits farms in some sections of the city from dedicating space on their property to sell produce without going through a burdensome permitting process. This prevents neighbors from reaping the benefits of healthy food grown in their neighborhood.

• Composting: The BRA suggests limiting the area used for composting on urban farms to 5% of the farm’s area. This percentage is unrealistically small and restrictive.

• Comprehensive Farm Review (CFR) Process: The CFR process, which is a new permitting process designed just for larger urban farms, will be challenging for farmers and is difficult to understand. The draft states that the purpose of the CFR is to ensure that Urban Farms are designed in a way that takes into account the needs and concerns of the surrounding neighborhood – which we support. However, the BRA does not provide any guidance to farmers about how proposals will be evaluated. The BRA should consider modifying the CFR process to be less burdensome to farmers, and should issue agency guidance to clarify how the CFR process will work.

• Community Input: Some communities have expressed concerns about bringing farming to their neighborhoods. The community meetings this summer are a useful tool for gathering feedback, and the BRA should be sure to respond to concerns from affected communities. However, this comment period should not be a one-off – the BRA should ensure that community input is heard and addressed on an on-going basis.

We appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge our concerns regarding draft Article 89 and hope that affected communities continue to engage in thoughtful discussion at neighborhood meetings. A list of neighborhood meetings dates and locations can be found here. We hope to see you there!

Urban agriculture is taking off in Boston, from neighborhood gardens and markets to City Hall. Since January 2012, staff from Boston Mayor Menino’s office, along with a number of farming advocates, urban agriculture experts, and neighborhood representatives have met monthly to draft a new section of the Boston Zoning Code, Article 89.  Article 89 addresses the growing interest in urban agriculture – and specifically commercial urban agriculture – by expanding opportunities and reducing local regulatory barriers in Boston.

A comprehensive draft of the proposed rezoning has been completed, and Article 89 is now available for review.  The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has arranged a series of neighborhood meetings in the city to discuss the draft Article.  A list of neighborhood meeting times and dates can be found here.  The first meeting is tonight at Suffolk Law School  (120 Tremont Street, Boston) from 6-8 PM.  Please join CLF in coming to this meeting, or another meeting in your neighborhood, to show your support for urban agriculture in Boston!

Urban agriculture increases access to affordable, healthy food, builds community connections, and fortifies our ties to the local environment.  At CLF, we are excited about the opportunity to help improve urban agriculture in the city of Boston, and thus support moving Article 89 forward.  We do have some concerns with specific provisions in the Article and appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge these concerns at neighborhood meetings.  We will post more regarding Article 89 here, including more detail on our concerns, as the summer community process moves forward – we encourage you to check back here for more information in the coming months.

Kids playing in Boston’s Christian Science Plaza Fountain, by Mindy McAdams on Flickr

The heat is here!

Even though it’s technically still spring until late June, it feels as though summer has already come to stay in southern New England. While we New Englanders pride ourselves on being able to handle all kinds of weather, the health risks posed by poor air quality shouldn’t be ignored.

On a hot summer day, I know I make sure to check the weather in the morning before leaving to see how hot it might get and if there’s a chance of rain. Weather reports and weather websites are good at giving us lots of data about the day’s weather in general (hourly temperatures, chance of rain, and radar maps tracking storms), but don’t always give a detailed explanation when there’s an air quality alert (like there is this weekend).

What does an Air Quality Alert really mean?

The Air Quality Index combines measurements of ground level ozone and particulate matter to determine when levels of those pollutants might be harmful to humans.

EPA’s Air Quality Index

Ground level ozone forms when pollution from cars, construction equipment, factories, and power plants containing oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic chemicals mix in sunlight. While lots of ground level ozone is formed in urban areas on hot days, it can also be blown over long distances by wind. Particulate matter is just what it sounds like, particles from construction dust and pollen down to heavy metals and toxic pollutants. Both ground level ozone and particulate matter can be inhaled and cause serious respiratory problems. Southern New England and the mid-Atlantic seaboard are at special risk for ground level ozone and particulate pollution due to the combination of big cities and winds blowing east.

Ground level ozone and particulate matter at levels that commonly occur here in the summer can cause some very unpleasant health problems for even healthy adults (coughing and wheezing isn’t a lot of fun), but can be dangerous and even life-threatening for kids with asthma or other breathing problems, adults with chronic conditions, and the elderly. And some studies suggest that ground-level ozone can actually cause asthma and breathing problems in kids. Adults at risk and parents of kids at risk probably know more about all of this than the average person, but hearing that there’s an Air Quality Alert on the weather can still leave anyone with a lot of questions.

As you can see from the AQI scale, a score of 50 would be labeled “good” and 51 would be “moderate,” so more precise data is essential. That information isn’t always available on a weather report, which is where the EnviroFlash website comes in. They plot the hourly Air Quality Index measurements on maps, so you can check out the forecast and close to real-time information about local air quality:

What can I do about bad air quality in the summer?

While there are of course steps that people at risk from elevated ground level ozone and particulate levels can take to protect themselves from dangerous breathing events, the good news is that there are simple and very important things we can all do to help prevent elevated air quality:

• Prevent your car from contributing to vehicle emissions: try to limit driving trips and take public transportation if possible.
• Reduce the amount of electricity that your household uses, keeping the worst-emitting fossil fuel fired power plants from being pressed into service: Keep your air conditioner a few degrees higher, and make sure to turn lights and electronics off when you’re not using them.

On April 13, the Massachusetts Senate voted in favor of a $600 million per year transportation funding plan. But can that plan fund all of the challenges facing the Bay State’s transportation system? It’s a question many are asking, and few have the tools to answer.

That’s why we built the Transportation Budget Calculator. Follow this link to see how short this funding falls in the face of the state’s overwhelming transportation needs.

The plan that the Senate approved directs an average of $600 million per year to transportation. While the Senate bill is similar to the proposal previously approved by the House, it added roughly $100 million per year on average in revenue. This additional amount does not require raising any new taxes. Rather, the Senate bill redirects 2.5 cents per gallon from the gas tax that is currently committed to underground storage tank removal to the transportation sector. The Senate bill also calls for new revenues from the leasing of MBTA and MassDOT land to utilities.

A conference committee has formed to try and merge the House and Senate bills. There has been a lot of interest in understanding how much of its transportation challenges the Commonwealth would be able to tackle should legislation emerge that is consistent with the revenue that the Senate bill raises.

The Senate bill raises sufficient revenue to correct some of the Commonwealth’s most egregious financial practices born out of the necessity to fill budget holes created by chronic underfunding. This includes ending the terrible practice of paying for costs associated with the operation of our transportation system with bonds.

The bill also includes about $100 million per year on average for capital projects. This number could be significantly lower depending on two factors: first, whether the bill’s growth projections for payroll and benefits come to pass or not; and second, whether it is realistic for the MBTA to be able to meet the bill’s underlying projections about how much money the agency can raise on its own. Regardless, this amount, unfortunately, cannot resolve all of the infrastructure challenges of our transportation system.

To get a sense of the challenge facing the committee, try our new Transportation Budget Calculator. Using the revenue provided by the Senate bill, the calculator allows you to pick state of good repair and expansion projects off of a project list and will inform you if you can afford the projects you have selected or not.

It’s may not be as exciting as your favorite video game, but you can still enjoy the ride (if you can afford to build the road or the track)!

As an avid cyclist, it is pretty clear to me that Massachusetts is not realizing its true “bikeability” potential. The desire is palpable. The funding, however, remains remote.

Every time I ride along the Minuteman Trail through Arlington, the Shining Sea Trail to Woods Hole, along the Charles, or on the Cape Cod Rail Trail towards Provincetown, I am reminded of how utterly inundated these popular trails are with other bikers, runners and joggers, walkers, and the occasional roller-bladers. Every so often, I find myself so fatigued from maneuvering around the congestion that I vow to stay far away, at least on any given weekend in spring, summer or early fall. But I have to roll my eyes at myself for this attitude and realize the actual significance: there are so few scenic, well-maintained paths spanning substantial distances that exist for walkers and riders that everyone and their brother (and kids, and dogs) are flocking to a handful of recreational paths and trails. The demand for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is there. The funding, however, has never been there.

Keith Brofsky Photography, Seattle.

Now, I recognize that not everyone is a self-described “avid cyclist”. Nevertheless, I think most will agree that being active and spending time outdoors is something many aspire to do more. An active lifestyle is healthier than a sedentary one, but thanks to myriad modern-day conveniences in combination with bad habits, we have to really go out of the way to achieve this goal.

In case you needed it, here is some extra motivation:

- Between 1966 and 2009, the number of American children who walked or biked to school each day plummeted by 75%. In fact, about 25% of the traffic you encounter on your morning commute is related to parents dropping kids off at school.

- Not surprisingly, our kids’ decreasing engagement in outdoor activities coincides with soaring levels of child-obesity. Less than fifty years ago, our nation’s youth were a staggering 276% less fat.

- The same consequences are apparent in adults, too. In states where people are walking and cycling the most, you also find significantly better health. The incidence of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes falls dramatically in populations engaged in regular physical activity. Even a brief 30 minutes of aerobic activity each day can have a positive impact on health, and is easily achieved by people who commute to and from work the old fashioned way – using their own two legs.

Recently, commuting by bike has been catching on in the Commonwealth. Yet bike and pedestrian infrastructure continues to suffer from chronic underfunding, as it has for decades. Greater Boston’s bikeways are crumbling and congested, and its “network” of bike lanes is utterly fragmented because many were never funded to completion. The Greater Boston Area has witnessed hundreds of squandered opportunities to enhance infrastructure in recent years, leaving cyclists stranded on paths that funnel into dangerous intersections, or end in physical impasses or narrow bridges with no bike lanes. While rebuilding the BU Bridge, for example, excavators removed and then filled in a section underneath the bridge which, with forethought, might have served as a pedestrian/cyclist underpass and significantly enhanced the safety of non-drivers crossing between Boston and Cambridge. Moreover, of the existing paths that don’t dead-end, many instead lead to vast sections of pavement in shameful disrepair, as is the case along much of the Memorial Drive side of the Charles.

The Boston area is not alone when it comes to poor bike/ped infrastructure. Central Massachusetts could also benefit from a serious cycling-friendly overhaul. There are virtually no biking lanes painted on roads throughout Worcester. Commuting by any means other than by car in this hub and surrounding areas is daunting enough to discourage all but the most hearty. Across the state, projects to improve infrastructure and connect communities are underway, yet still lack the resources necessary to realize these plans. Over $400 million in funding is required to complete each of the 47 bicycle and pedestrian projects scattered across Massachusetts. Once completed, the Blackstone River Bikeway project would connect 15 communities spanning the 48 miles between Worcester and Providence, Rhode Island. Similarly, the East Coast Greenway project will eventually stretch for 146 miles uninterrupted from Boston through Worcester. Only about 20% of trail for either of these bikeways have been completed. Based on the funds currently dedicated to transportation as a whole, funding for bike/ped infrastructure won’t even come close to what is actually needed.

The BU Bridge, a notoriously dangerous area for Boston Cyclists. Photo Credit: nd-nʎ @ Flickr

Certainly, Massachusetts has begun to make some progress over the past few years. The GreenDOT initiative was inaugurated by MassDOT in 2010, and has set a statewide goal to triple the share of travel by any mode other than driving. The City of Boston is also part of a national movement to redesign municipal transportation, known as “complete streets” planning. The concept was developed to improve poorly-designed streets, sidewalks and congested intersections in a way that encompasses safe use by multimodal commuters, integrating the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, and public transit users.

The complete streets movement is catching on in the Bay State, though much of this progress has so far only amounted to elusive policy that lacks funding and is far from set in stone. The creation of pedestrian and bike-friendly areas has the potential to revitalize commercial centers, or make a neighborhood more livable and improve overall quality of life. Furthermore, choosing to walk or peddle to work is not just healthier for our bodies, but also improves the environment. By opting to drive less, you are using less petroleum and helping to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. In order for complete streets to truly be set into motion, Massachusetts must earnestly invest in infrastructure.

Pedestrians and cyclists pass undisturbed by motorists over a busy boulevard in Portland, Oregon; the bridge is part of the Springwater Corridor Trail. Photo Credit: By Finetooth via Wikimedia Commons

The great biking city of Portland, Oregon, is light-years ahead of us – they began investing in cycling infrastructure in the 1990’s and never stopped. Portland boasts about 6 percent of commuters regularly biking to work, as compared to under 2 percent in Boston, and has set a goal for cycling to make up a quarter of all commuting trips by 2030. In order to get there, Portland has focused on building infrastructure that promotes safety and encourages an ever-increasing number of bikes on the roads. Cycle tracks, for instance, are bike lanes that are removed from automobile lanes by distinct physical barriers serving to shelter cyclists. By investing in improvements which promote safe riding for all ages and abilities, Portland increasingly attracts more cyclists, and this in turn fosters a growing acceptance of bicycles. Over time, the culture of the city has changed as once-predominant motorists have been eclipsed by riders on two wheels.

Here in Massachusetts, we still have a lot of work to do, and the urgency of this work is particularly apparent when we look at how underfunding and poor infrastructure affect safety in Massachusetts. Pedestrians make up about 16.8% of all traffic fatalities in the Commonwealth, and 2.4% are cyclists. All too often, the inferior design and lack of maintenance of roads and bike lanes is the principal culprit at the crux of these accidents. With the proper funds and planning, we can help bikers and walkers to safely navigate the hazards spawned by neglect and underinvestment.

By investing in infrastructure that is designed to accommodate growing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, we are improving overall health and safety in the Commonwealth. Someday soon, Bay-Staters may not have to risk life and limb to live active and more fulfilling lifestyles. For now, though, we still have a long way to peddle.

MA DOER Commissioner Sylvia, Chelmsford Town Manager Paul Cohen, MA EOEEA Secretary Sullivan, and MA DEP Commissioner Kimmell at the Earth Day announcement in Chelmsford. (Photo credit: Emily Norton)

Today the Patrick Administration took an important step toward meaningful deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) in Massachusetts. Building on momentum from the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Roundtable that CLF co-hosted with the Administration in March, the Patrick Administration launched a new incentive program yesterday: the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Incentive Program for Municipalities. The Administration announced this new program on Earth Day at events in Greenfield and Chelmsford. CLF attended the announcement, and you can watch a video clip of MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Kimmell and MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Sullivan announcing the new program in Chelmsford here and here (pardon the occasional wind!).

Following the MA EV Roundtable in March, the Administration created the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Initiative to promote EVs in the Commonwealth. The new incentive program, focused on helping increase use and visibility of EVs in Massachusetts towns, is a noteworthy first step for the MA EV Initiative. This program will help municipalities purchase EVs as well as fund installation of charging stations. The program offers $7,500 grants per EV and $15,000 per publicly accessible charging station to eligible communities. The program, which is administered by the MA DEP,  has $2.5 million available for these grants.

At yesterday’s Earth Day launch for this program, Secretary Sullivan noted that increased deployment of EVs is an essential step toward meeting the climate commitments contained in the MA Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Increased EV deployment is indeed an important step if the Commonwealth is to meet its mandatory greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction targets, and CLF is pleased to see the Commonwealth taking initiative with this measure. At the same time, the big picture for GHG reductions in Massachusetts still requires significant progress that can only be achieved through markedly stepped up action. The Administration has not met the GWSA’s deadlines for adopting and implementing regulations to reduce GHGs commensurate with the requirements of the GWSA across all sectors – including transportation. While steps to promote EVs will help move the needle, the newly announced Initiative must complement, rather than serve as a substitute for, much more expansive action that is urgently needed across the transportation sector and beyond.

The Commonwealth’s press release following the launch indicated that this program “is the first of what the state plans will be other state incentive programs to increase electric vehicle deployment and ease their use.” CLF is pleased that the Patrick Administration is taking its commitment to fostering meaningful deployment of EVs in Massachusetts seriously, applauds the Commonwealth for this important first effort, and is optimistic for meaningful next steps for the MA EV Initiative. We hope that the successful launch of this program will help fuel a broader effort to reduce GHGs and ‘green up’ all of our transportation options!

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.

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.