According to the Boston Globe, the 15 Mayor Coalition, of which Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller is a member, is among a busload of area mayors who support a 15¢ increase in the state gas tax. The increase could raise $450 million that could be used to fund transit projects, like electrifying the commuter rail through Newton.
A 15¢ increase is both not nearly enough and politically difficult, given the aversion to higher gas prices east of 495. But, bully on the mayors for taking up the cause.
I’ve reached out to the mayor and to our state legislative delegation for comment.
h/t to Councilor Emily Norton.
Thank you Mayor Fuller for joining this coalition and initiative.
The Newton-Needham Regional Chamber is part of two state-wide business coalitions that also support a gas tax increase as part of the a menu of revenue generating proposals designed to support a multi-modal, modern, accessible, innovative and low carbon transportation system. It won’t be easy and a gas tax alone won’t be nearly enough. But action is critical.
Greg & Sean,
If 15 cents per gallon is insufficient, what amount would you think is sufficient — as a deterrent to driving?
I’m thinking this significantly could further increase the value and worth of Newton housing, being so close to Boston; of course great for current Newton homeowners and city property tax revenue, but very bad for current renters and less affluent seeking to rent or buy in Newton.
So is there any thinking on this, especially by those advocating more lower cost housing in Newton?
Talk about wrecking havoc on our local economy this will certainly do it. And then in January, surprise, surprise a 2 1/2 Override is coming. We have a spending problem. You can’t spend what you don’t have. Our elected officials need to curtail spending.
Peter,
As I said above, there is a silver lining for certain Newtonites on the extra gas tax. While property values of houses in further out suburbs will decline because of the added expense of driving to Boston. housing values in Newton will increase because of Boston’s close proximity (incentive to live close to avoid that expense added to everything else).
And, moreover, with the increase in housing value as a basis for real estate taxes, perhaps the Override wouldn’t be needed.
Jim, Newton will continue on the path of Overrides every 5 years because plain and simple there is no long term plan to control spending.
Peter,
If you’re correct on the Override, I don’t see how the Mayor politically can simultaneously try to sell the concept of an expensive NewCAL community/athletic facility, as opposed to simply a Senior Center.
How do democratic socialists feel about this–a tax to help the environment that is, however, quite regressive?
It’s reasonable to be concerned about the repressiveness of the gas tax. But while Massachusetts gasoline tax rates have been frozen since 2014, single-ride MBTA fares have increased by 20 percent over three price hikes in the same period, which particularly hurts our lowest income residents who can’t afford a car and are forced to use a public transit system in dire need of new revenue.
And the good news is, by state law all gas tax revenue must be spent on transportation.
As Bluefootedbooby notes, nationally, Mass’ gas tax (26.6 cents per gallon) is about 2 cents lower than the national average. AND it’s lower than all of our neighboring states except for New Hampshire.
New Hampshire 23.83 cents
Vermont 30.94 cents
Rhode Island 35 cents
Connecticut 39.3 cents
New York 45.81
@Michael – not quite a DSA type, but from an economic point of view, it’s definitely regressive, but less so than many assume. The poorest commuters are generally commuting without a car already, and anything that improves transit (especially the bus network) is going to be beneficial for that group on average. Low-income families are something like 10x more likely to own zero vehicles than higher income families.
Upper middle class on up tends to either not care, and/or they have the resources to switch vehicles (any compact from the last decade is getting 30mpg+ pretty easily, and they’re cheaper than SUVs to start with). The regressive impact is concentrated in the lower-middle and middle-middle class. It’s not great policy, more like okay-at-best! But anyone who really harps on “you’re hurting the poorest people” is going a bit far.
(The policy wonk solution would be a carbon tax, a vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT), or both, offset by tax credits/refunds so that it’s net-neutral for incomes below a certain point, but designed well it still provides an incentive to drive less and/or more efficiently. It’s actually quite elegant if it’s designed well, but color me skeptical that our elected officials would both design and message it properly to get support. Fixing the gas tax to “inflation-adjusted to the early 90s” is probably an easier lift.)
Massachusetts currently ranks 30th out of 50 in state gas tax (26.54 cents/gallon).
A 15 cent increase will move us to rank 10th out of 50. This isn’t some radical leftist proposal.
And if you think this will be devastating to the economy, just wait 35 years when we will be paying billions to deal with the negative impacts of global warming–extreme weather events, crop failures, lack of clean drinking water, etc.
As hinted in my name, I am a strong believer in environmental protection. Save the blue footed boobies!
Greg, since you elect to re-weigh in, can you address the two questions I posed to you near the top of the thread:
1. If 15 cents per gallon is insufficient, what amount would you think is sufficient — as a deterrent to driving?
2. As a low cost housing advocate, have you factored that increase gas tax will drive up close-in Newton housing prices?
I’ll re-ask Sean as well since he’s a low cost housing, disincentive-driving advocate.
@Jim: I’m not going to quibble over the exact increase. One group the chamber is affiliated with settled on “at least 18 cents,” the other had a range.
As for housing prices the only thing that’s going to lower housing prices is more housing.
But really you’re focused on the wrong questions. The key question is how are we going to reduce congestion and curb climate change. (And you know I’ve already vowed that I won’t debate climate with you, again, so feel free to respond, but know that I’m just going to ignore you.)
The first thing I think of when presented with a proposal like this, is how it will impact hundreds of thousands of struggling Massachusetts families and small businesses. It’s not to say that there’s no merit to the argument for increasing the gas tax. I understand why Mayor Fuller supports it. Personally though, I’m just sick of being nickeled and dimed by the government. Like Newton’s new 10 cent shopping bag tax for example.
Greg,
Thanks for getting back.
First, I wasn’t seeking to get a precise gas tax increase you’d favor, but since Sean states above that “a 15¢ increase is not NEARLY enough”, I was seeking a general or estimated range suggested.
Second, I’m not questioning your directing the gas tax increase to “reducing congestion and curbing climate change” (discourage driving), but rather, how this would increase housing prices on close-in suburbs (particularly Newton). You say curbing driving is the key question, but aren’t their other key issues which you and Sean have strongly advocated, that is, availability of more low cost housing in Newton? Is it really reasonable to consider one objective to the exclusion of other objectives which might be adversely affected?
Or is it simply that you and Sean have not really thought through the negative implications of the gas tax as increasing Newton property values?
If the Mayor reads this — as has been repeatedly said she reads V14 — I’d respectfully ask her as well.
I think it’s worth considering the impact of the tax. Someone who drives 12,000 miles per year and averages 30 miles per gallon would consume 400 gallons of gas. At $0.15 per gallon, the tax adds $60 per year or $5 per month to the cost of operating the vehicle. Compared to maintenance, depreciation, excise tax, and insurance, this seems pretty insignificant.
Jim: David Hruska just answered your question. A five dollar a month gas price increase isn’t going to have much of an impact on $1 million-plus homes. It’s still going to be the same out of reach for most folks as it is now.
Creating more muti-family housing is the only way to help drive prices down.
David,
If it’s so insignificant as you say, the extra tax won’t be the required driving disincentive as people like Greg claim is needed to “reduce congestion and curb climate change” or the tax increase is not “nearly enough” as Sean claims. That’s not to say the increase will not have a regressive impact on the less affluent — and make it more difficult/costly for them to drive while at the same time further pricing them out of communities like Newton.
Greg,
My reply to David above, fully responds to part of your question. And as to the other part, to say that it will have no impact on lower cost housing and that it’s impact on higher price housing won’t matter, is to deny that the lower cost housing will be precisely affected as more seek and compete for that housing to avoid the longer, more costly commutes.
Economics 101.
The biggest impact of the gas tax increase could come from how the money is spent. I think the point is not so much to make driving less attractive but to make the alternatives more appealing.
If we had an electrified commuter rail, with trains running every 15 minutes, with cheaper fares, that might be enough for some folks to drive less.
There’s a possibility that improvements to public transit could somewhat reduce the demand for housing in Newton by making it easier to live farther from Boston and still commute into the city quickly and easily by train.
Again what David said.
The gas tax revenue, as part of a total revenue package, is to invest in improving our transportation system so a segment of the public will be less motivated to drive.
Remove five percent of the cars and you improve traffic 20 percent.
Jim,
Do you believe in global warming? The globe’s consumption of fossil fuels is voracious and MUST change. Is petroleum something where there is no wiggle room?
For a reference point, one may look at the international data. According to the Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development, the average gas tax rate among the 36 advanced economies is $2.24 per gallon as opposed to $0.56 combined federal and average state gas tax in the US.
Greg,
Sleight of hand in your answer Greg. Initially the point was a higher gas tax would discourage driving now, not just years from now with better mass transit.
So getting back to Sean’s post, in enacting added gas tax to discourage driving, wouldn’t that enhance desirability of close-to-Boston Newton, hence increase the worth and price and also rent in Newton — because living in Newton entails much less driving and commuting than the farther out suburbs? Since this desirability of Newton and higher property prices and rent would apply to new housing in Newton as well, doesn’t this work against your goal of lower cost affordable housing to attract a diversity of income levels in Newton?
@Jim: I never wrote anything about discouraging driving through higher taxes. If it inspires us all to change habits, great. But I support a gas tax as part of a menu of revenue streams to repair and upgrade our woefully inadequate transportation ecosystem.
Greg, are you saying that you DON’T agree with Sean when he states: “The way to generate revenue AND discourage driving is to significantly increase the gas tax…”?
https://village14.com/2018/03/06/councilor-norton-urges-better-response-to-rising-sea-levels/#axzz65LIINBCn
It all seems to be on hold for the time being: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/deleo-calls-off-transpo-tax-debate-for-now/
Historically the legislature does not consider tax increases during election years.
There is no question that our state is underfunding transportation needs in all areas: roads and bridges; MBTA; commuter rail; high-speed rail; regional transit authorities; charging stations; and more. Since transportation affects business, job and housing choices, I am very supportive of raising necessary funds. In 2013, I voted for a 3 cent increase in the gas tax -to 24 cents- and for an automatic inflation adjustment, but a 2014 ballot question repealed the indexing. Going forward, we will likely need a combination of revenue sources to adequately address the needs. And, it would certainly help if the federal government were to make a bigger financial investment as well.
Thanks for your support and leadership Sen. Creem and for weighing in on Village 14.
Thank you Senator Creem for weighing in here. I will admit that I haven’t read the details of this proposal yet, but anything that can be done to show specific projects that will be funded in the coming years with this increase will go a very long way in public support.
@greg….
This is one of those rare times we agree (Sean too)! The benefits outweigh the cost.
But then you HAD to bring up housing.
Supply and demand does not relate to housing – or at least not the way you’re thinking.
Cities like San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have been building for decades, yet housing rates remain high and climbing. You can include Boston too.
What’s a more applicable scenario is “supply” as it relates to personal INCOME. Last time housing values dropped was in 2008, due to the RECESSION. Come to think of it, that’s roughly when we moved to Newton – at 80% less than what our home is worth today.
And now that Austin Street is up, have Newton housing prices come down even a little bit?