BOSTON -- Advocates for clean transportation are fighting a proposed ballot initiative, which would prevent Massachusetts from taxing gas and other fuels.

The ballot initiative is in response to the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) supported by Gov. Charlie Baker, a multistate commitment to a "cap and invest" policy in which fossil-fuel-emitting power plants, gas and diesel suppliers pay for the emissions they generate.

Josh Ostroff, interim director of Transportation for Massachusetts, said dropping the gas tax would do more than reject the TCI program, and contended it would put a huge portion of the Commonwealth's transportation funding at risk.

"If this ballot question takes away that revenue source, then we're going to have to find another way to repair our roads and bridges, to fund public transportation, and to make the kinds of repairs and upgrades in the face of climate change," Ostroff pointed out.

Environmental groups have also criticized TCI for not going far enough, and not focusing on communities on the front lines of the climate crisis.

But Ostroff argued there are other ways to bypass TCI, without wiping out a billion dollars in transportation funding. Backers of the initiative are now gathering signatures, after the Attorney General cleared it as technically constitutional.

Ostroff added powerful interests are supporting the ballot initiative, including the petroleum industry, but he asserted it is important to limit fossil-fuel emissions, especially on the heels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent report calling climate change a "Code Red for humanity."

"The 90-degree-plus days we've had across Massachusetts, or the amount of rainfall that we've had and the catastrophic storms that we've experienced, show that human-caused climate change is truly a crisis that threatens the well-being of every community and every person," Ostroff remarked.

He noted many areas have structurally deficient bridges, hundreds of miles of substandard roads and inadequate bus service, and warned losing the state's gas-tax revenue would only allow problems to worsen.

Government leaders are acting with urgency to get underserved communities connected with high speed internet but in Minnesota, underground digging for broadband installation is emerging as a safety concern.

This spring, the think tank North Star Policy Action issued a report noting over the past three years, such installations were the leading cause of damage to buried infrastructure in the state.

Aaron Rosenthal, research director for the North Star Policy Action, said telecommunications crews are coming in contact with a maze of electric lines and natural gas pipes, with the drilling averaging more than 1.25 strikes a day.

"That's a level of damage that we think is very concerning," Rosenthal asserted. "It stands out from other industries and we believe needs to be addressed. Minnesotans should not have to choose between high speed internet and their own safety."

The data is from a trade organization and Rosenthal warned because it is provided voluntarily, the full scope of damage is unclear. The authors contended workers receive inadequate training and a bill in the Legislature would beef up standards. Skeptics worry about effects such as derailing progress on broadband goals with a wave of federal funding spurring projects.

But the researchers and labor leaders predicted the accelerated pace of installations will result in more incidents.

Octavio Chung Bustamante, Minnesota and North Dakota field organizer and marketing representative for the Laborers' International Union of North America, said the workers, many of whom are immigrants, are putting their lives at risk without getting a prevailing wage.

"When you talk about underground work -- electric, or gas, or water and sewers -- a lot of those workers, you know, they earn a good living," Bustamante observed. "But it's a different game for broadband work."

The legislative push also includes provisions to set fair wages for broadband installation workers. As for the data, a key state agency notes overall damage from utility excavation has trended downward. The researchers said it is a symptom of reporting requirement issues, underscoring their argument the information is incomplete.

City and county governments are feeling the pinch of rising operating costs but in Wisconsin, federal incentives are driving a range of local projects, taking off some of the pressure in making communities economically viable.

Dane County is no stranger to embracing clean energy and federal aid from policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are spurring more activity.

Joe Parisi, Dane County executive, said there have been past government credits for things like solar installations and the latest approach is more expansive, with a robust list of those who can benefit.

"Everybody -- a business, a nonprofit, a church, a temple, even a government, and a local government -- gets 30% back on renewable energy projects," Parisi pointed out.

For example, a local construction company put solar arrays on several of its facilities. Parisi noted the new credits speed up the pace of reimbursements, creating more energy savings in the near future. Federal officials said demand has been strong for the programs but Parisi said one challenge is creating broader awareness so under-resourced areas can apply.

Locally, the website for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change has posted details about project opportunities and investments. Beyond clean energy, Parisi emphasized the federal government's push for more "Made in America" manufacturing creates opportunities for local plants and regional economies.

"There's money to help retooling to manufacture (products)," Parisi stressed. "Then, there's a stronger market for those components now because they are made in America."

National polling shows Americans are greatly concerned about things like inflation but Parisi argued long-term investments stand to help reduce operating expenses for government agencies and businesses, hopefully keeping local taxes in check and providing savings for consumers.


get more stories like this via email

Two pieces of legislation in Connecticut could bolster public transportation if they make it through the General Assembly.

Senate Bill 277 would restore funding to Shore Line East to increase rail service. Ridership plummeted during the pandemic, though it's been growing modestly since then.

But as more people opt to work from home instead of commute, some question whether there's a need for more rail service.

Jay Stange, coordinator with the Transport Hartford Academy, said state investments can help transit lines attract the riders they need.

"Ridership on the Hartford Line, which has been supported by state investment, is up every year," said Stange. "We also are seeing huge increases on the Waterbury Line in Connecticut, where those service investments have been made. The bottom line is that if you don't have the service, you won't have the riders."

The 2023 budget cut funding for Shore Line East to 44% of what was required for pre-pandemic service.

The bill received wide support at a public hearing, but some residents don't agree that funding cuts cause low ridership.

Stange said restoring this funding would provide economic benefits through growing jobs and tourism.

Another bill incentivizes transit-oriented development.

House Bill 5390 would provide water and sewer funding for land-use planning and other developments, making it easier to build housing where transit and rail services exist.

Stange said it's time for the state to build better.

"Connecticut is starting to see," said Stange. "that the development pattern of the last 70 years - where we build new interstate to green-land development that's mostly single-family homes - is a money-losing proposition, in the long term."

Studies show transit-oriented development reduces air pollution and uses large plots of land to accommodate growing populations.

The bill faced opposition from communities concerned about the need for local control for developing these projects. The new version of the bill allows communities to "opt in" for these incentives instead.




get more stories like this via email