Transportation Funding under Debate

Legislators will hold a rare session Saturday in Boston, in which senators will debate how to pay for transportation improvements over the coming decade.

The senate proposal would add $120 million more than a House plan approved this week in that chamber, as well as duplicate the House plan to raise the gas tax by 3 cents a gallon and increase the cigarette tax by $1 a pack, according to the Associated Press.

.

The state House voted 97-55 this week to approve its own plan, which fell short of the $1 billion that Gov. Deval Patrick wants, but would accomplish several goals, said Rep. John Fernandes (D-Milford), including solving the MBTA operation issues.

Fernandes, who voted for the House bill, said in an email that his support came not only from what is in the bill, but what's not in it. The bill would raise $500 million, including through a 3-cent increase in the gas tax.

"What is not in the bill we passed in the House is the $1.9 billion tax increase that the Governor wants to impose. His plan is inclusive of significant tax deduction elimination for things as important as the home mortgage deduction, which is the single biggest deduction that most middle class families utilize, as well as elimination of tuition tax deductions. I could not support such action."

He continued: "The Governor’s significant revenue piece, which would have funded some new projects across Massachusetts, did not have new projects for the Milford region. In fact, I asked Secretary Davies at a Transportation Committee hearing a few weeks ago when he testified on the Governor’s 10-year Transportation Bond Bill, which plan will commit our bond money for the next 30 years, the following question: “If I live between Routes 128 and 146 along the Mass Turnpike Corridor, what project in this plan benefits me?” The answer was additional Ch. 90 money for local roads. That additional local road money is something we in the legislature intend to do separately. So, we cannot go another 30 years without addressing the inadequacy of the Pike to handle today’s traffic let alone future needs. In addition, I did not feel that the economy, which is still going through a fragile recovery, could handle the impact of such a large revenue plan."

Fernandes served for four years on the House Transportation Committee when he was first elected.

He said any package should include:  

• some additional amount of that money coming from efficiencies and savings built into the budget through performance management initiatives.
• The plan should recognize some amount of future revenue that should result for the casino gaming build out dedicated to transportation, and some amount from new growth from new businesses and more jobs, natural growth as the economy recovers.
• Then, some new revenue to fill gap, which new revenue should be spread around and not hitting one source. 

"The plan passed by the House Monday meets those goals, perhaps not exactly as I would have done had I written the bill, but closely enough. We require continued reform, performance management improvements and asset management. We limit the new revenue to an amount that solves the T operational issues, funds regional transit, and eliminates a terrible decision made long ago to pay for $230 million of salaries through bonding, an approach that no business person would ever undertake. By doing so, we also manage free up that $230 million for roads and bridge work."