Yes, I would support a reasonable tax increase if I knew the money was actually going to be used directly for transportation.  Unfortunately, the level of hack jobs and bloated pensions in this state strongly suggest that most of these tax increases will go towards padding the wallets of politicians, their relatives and political supporters.  Of course, this is our fault.  We continue to elect a one party state like a bunch of obedient lemmings blind to the failings in front of us.

The overall state budget exceeds $30 billion.  Is there not the possibility that there may be effeciencies that can be implemented to re-allocate funds?  Those to rush to assume tax hikes are needed, believe current funds are spent properly. When all one needs to do is read the paper and listen to the news to know our state is riddled with fraud and waste at the expense of good government and effective use of funds.  The percepetion of waste and fraud is not imagined, it is based on actual documented instances.  Perhaps politicians should read the papers.

Pension refore , misperception ? Get real!

The state is seeking ways to tighten it's belt ? Start with PREVAILING WAGE requirements... there's a huge pot of gold there! Do some serious pension reforms .

Most of the citizens have close to ZERO expendable cash as it is.

of course the transportation system is running in the red. Look at the salaries, raises, benefits and pensions being paid to employees, administrators and "executives." Raising taxes on those least able to afford it is not the answer.

If we can't afford the T we have now, then someone needs to find a way to tell Somerville that they can't have an Orange line stop within a few blocks of two others and that they can't have Green lines stops near their Red line stop.  You can not say the only solution is more taxes when you are expanding where service already exists.  Legal needs to find the loop hole in that Big Dig agreement that says you can't build something that will tax us unreasonably or take away from vital programs to fund it.

Oh no! We are driving more fuel-efficient cars and not using as much gasoline! I blame the environmentalists for the loss of state revenues. Where oh where is that EBT card reform? and other readers will have more suggestions for savings I'm sure. Except the prevailing wage law repeal, moose; foolish MA voters rejected that repeal in 1988. Not the only foolish decision MA voters have made; could have gotten rid of Deval in 2010.

Patrick needs to pay for shortfall with his own money.  He has demonstrated nothing but incompetence and mismanagment since he took office.  Just look at his achievements: 33 people killed and hundreds injured by meningitis, thousands of criminals released because of fraudulent State lab tests.  The cost to address for these two bozo incidents is staggering to taxpayers.  These are just two examples there is much much more.  The future also looks very bad - he hired an incompetent  director to run the MBTA.  JUST SAY NO more.

The Mass Clean Energy Center MACEC has been granting and loaning multi-millions in ratepayer dollars to green businesses that lack merit, from the public perspective. We are now on the hook for these failures--Evergreen, Konarka, A123 Systems, Beacon Power, with even more to come. On July 2, 2008, Governor Patrick signed the Green Communities Act, sponsored by Sal DiMasi, stating this legislation will reduce electric bills: Governor Patrick: "Today, Massachusetts has taken a giant step forward toward a clean energy future," said Governor Deval Patrick, who signed the bill at a ceremony at the Museum of Science. "This legislation will reduce electric bills, promote the development of renewable energy, and stimulate the clean energy industry that is taking root here in the Commonwealth…" http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/speeches/termonespeech/070208-energy-bill-signing.html Not so, according to the representative of ratepayers, AG Coakley, who confirmed that instead of saving money, ratepayers were put on the hook for an extra $4 billion by the Green Communities Act. Boston Herald: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2011_1110ag_green_act_costs_4b_calls_for_bay_state_power_contracts_to_be_competitively_bid/srvc=home&position=5 Martha Coakley: ‘Green’ act costs $4B By Greg Turner Thursday, November 10, 2011 - "The Patrick administration’s clean energy agenda will shock Bay State ratepayers with $4 billion in extra costs tacked onto their electric bills over the next four years, the state’s top consumer protection advocate warned yesterday..." Maybe the Boston Globe could stand behind taxpayers and ratepayers now being targeted for tax hikes due to repair our infrastructure needed. Citizens are already on the hook for multi-millions in MA failed green businesses. Add a $4 billion rate-hike, and find out if this includes the $4 billion rate hike attributed to Cape Wind, (to triple the cost of energy), the products of the Green Communities Act. The Globe should call for an audit of the MACEC to determine if there is funding available for needed improvements to the state's infrastructure.

Instead of "robust taxes", why don't we institute fiscal sobriety? Found money- Energy Secretary Sullivan has announced a $100 million dollar conversion of the nation's most recognized fishing port, New Bedford, by the MA Clean Energy Center, on that promise of green jobs. "The price tag for the South Terminal development, which includes a 1,200-linear-foot bulkhead, was initially stated in 2010 at $35 million but could cost as much as $100 million, Sullivan said, citing additional fees on top of construction costs for permitting, land acquisition and dredging." "The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which is managing the bidding process, has also committed $6 million, with an additional $4 million possible, he said." Depending on the price tag in the end, we might need to actually pass additional bonds in the Legislature," Cabral said, noting that despite the increased cost, he continues to back the project. "I think the investment is well worth it." http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121109/NEWS/211090337/-1/NEWS But, the MA Clean Energy Center already operates The Wind Technology Testing Center in Charlestown, MA. The first customer is First Wind supplier for wind turbines, Clipper Wind. This publicly-funded $40 million dollar Wind Turbine Testing Center has provided 0.00 jobs for the past 1 1/2 years. by the federal government's recovery tracker: http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientInfoJobs&DUNS=830778390

Earlier comments captured some of my questions about possible new taxes for transportation needs: 1. How well is CURRENT funding being used? (For example, is competitive bidding being used aggressively for transportation projects?) 2. Can any current NON-transportation funding be shifted to transportation? (In other words, is all current NON-transportation funding being effectively used?) 3. What is the justification for NEW transportation projects in the wake of a purported funding shortfall to handle EXISTING infrastructure? Should we try to repair what we have BEFORE building something new?

It is about time the legislature and governor make this happen. Going back too many years the government has underfunded this sector, resulting in a T that is falling apart, cutting back service every year, and running on outdated equipment and infrastructure. It is about time we acknowledge that we have to pay for this. The payback will be in a better transportation system that gets us all where we need to go more quickly, more reliably, and more safely. Will the system ever be perfect? No -- and it needs adequate funds to be in a state of good repair and able to meet current and future needs.

Mr. Moskowitz could use some training on legislative actions. He wrote, "Lawmakers called for the plan last June in the emergency legislation that balanced the T's budget for the year." The bailout bill did not call for a plan from "the administration." It did not call for a plan specifying "what is needed to bring the state's roads, bridges and transit systems into good condition and keep them there." [ Section 11, Chapter 132, Acts of 2012 (H 4174), at http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/desktop/Current%20Agenda%202011/H4174.pdf ] What the bailout bill requires is a "study at the direction of the Secretary of Transportation of all issues relating to the need for additional revenue for transportation operations, maintenance and capital funding." A canny reader will note a focus on "need" and not on "ways and means." Such a reader will also remember that the revamped Department of Transportation is being run by a board, not a secretary. Running a state agency through an executive board has always been awkward, as the Board of Pharmacy and the Board of Education continue to show. The General Court continues to impose this asinine approach, most recently in the Transportation Bond Bill, which Mr. Moskowitz apparently did not think mattered enough to warrant his attention. Besides being loaded with dozens of legislative earmarks, the bond bill folded the Transportation and MBTA boards of directors into one seven-member board. [ Sections 3 and 9, Chapter 242, Acts of 2012 (H 4371), at http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/desktop/Current%20Agenda%202011/H4371.pdf ] It's particularly awkward for either a board or a state employee such as the Secretary of Transportation to propose new or higher taxes. That is probably why Gov. Patrick is getting directly involved, although last summer's law does not call for him to do that. We might see Gov. Patrick advocate ways and means to bring surface transportation facilities "into good condition and keep them there," but that would be his call and not the General Court's.