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.

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.

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.