THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS transit budget for FY25, previewed earlier this week, is an important step forward as Massachusetts grapples with the realities of transport sector funding in the post-pandemic 21st Century.  I recently wrote a three-part series (see one, two, and three here) on the topic of state transportation funding, and did not expect to write another article so soon, but the proposed House transit budget is important enough to warrant special attention and support.

In brief, the House takes Gov. Maura Healey’s budget and, in several ways, improves it. 

Both the governor and the House appear to solve the projected FY25 operating budget shortfall by adding sufficient additional funds to the annual state contribution to close the anticipated gap. I say “appear to solve” because budget projections are challenging things, and a lot depends on imponderables like ridership recovery and workforce size, which can be estimated but not with 100 percent certainty.

In addition, the House provides more funding for necessary capital investments in state-of-good-repair projects, capacity (workforce) building, training and retention, and some modest funding toward climate resilience efforts (nothing even remotely close to what we will ultimately need to build a resilient system, but a nod in the right direction). The House also includes additional funding for regional transit authorities, making this a fair budget proposal.

I’m writing this short piece for three reasons. First, to acknowledge that the governor and the House have recognized and acted decisively on an undeniable reality: the T needs more state operating budget support to deliver transit services that are essential to the quality of life in Metro Boston. Those transit and rail services support multiple state policy goals and provide people across the region with access to jobs, healthcare, education ,and other opportunities. The MBTA needs to ramp up its efforts to improve service quality and delivery, and that takes money and workforce resources.

Second, the budget, once approved by the House, will next go to the Senate, and it is unclear if this same level of support for the MBTA exists. People both inside and out of state government need to acknowledge and act on the realities of the moment. This cannot be another year of political jockeying where transit funding is viewed differently in the House and Senate and becomes a point of leverage in a budget conference committee. 

I’m not naive. There will be points of leverage in the budget conference between the House and Senate because that is (for better or worse) how the system works.  But transit funding this year should not be one of those leverage points.  The stakes are too high, the future of metro Boston is literally at stake, and Massachusetts needs the executive and the two legislative branches of government to be aligned in advancing a new way of thinking about and funding public transportation.

My third reason for writing is to point out that while we have much to applaud in how the governor and House are dealing with transit funding for fiscal 2025, everyone needs to understand that FY25 is a stop-gap year.  We are only months away from the real fiscal cliff for the MBTA and avoiding this cliff will require decisive changes in how Massachusetts funds its transportation system.

The future of transit (and transportation) funding in Massachusetts needs to be grappled with in a fundamental way.  Transit operating expenses will continue to increase; indeed, projected needs through FY29 increase year after year – not because of profligate spending or inefficiencies, but because that is the floor, the baseline, of what the T needs to deliver the service we need.  

At the same time, the gas tax will gradually, and then rapidly, diminish as we transition to an electric-powered vehicular fleet. The real challenge won’t be getting FY25 right; it will be getting future fiscal years in synch with our values, and with the realities of 21st Century life.

As I have written, the old ways of thinking about transportation funding, characterized by the current highly regressive, environmentally destructive, modally inequitable, and demographically unfair system that provides substantial hidden subsidies to drivers while demanding unrealistic fare recovery ratios from transit riders, have to end if we are serious about achieving the consensus-based shared goals we say we support. 

We can’t have better air quality, or inclusive economic growth, social equity, regional equity, and less traffic congestion – all the things we say we want – without a high functioning, connected urban, and regional public transportation system. It’s just not possible folks, and anyone who says otherwise is not playing straight with you.

We are living at a time when we should expect and demand leadership on these transit and transportation funding issues.  Not bold leadership, because nothing I am advocating for is bold. Not visionary leadership, because nothing I have written about is visionary.  What we need is leadership that has a realistic and accurate understanding of the moment, that can “read the room” of our times and anticipate the needs of the second quarter of the 21st Century – which begins in less than a year!

We need leadership, in short, that is able to anticipate and embrace the future optimistically and confidently. The governor has shown that leadership when it comes to transit funding, and the House, with the clear support of Speaker Ron Mariano and Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz, has taken further steps in the right direction.  We look now to the Senate to do likewise.

The future of metro Boston depends on it.

James Aloisi is a former Massachusetts secretary of transportation.