Revenue? Reform? Try both

ON SOME LEVEL, the idea of a stiff hike in the state's gas tax seems outrageous. People are hurting, and Congress is giving billions of dollars to states in part to avoid tax hikes in the depths of a recession. But the federal stimulus doesn't change the dire arithmetic for Massachusetts. Maintaining the existing transportation system will cost up to $19 billion more over two decades than the state can generate with current revenues. And rising Big Dig debt payments mean that state officials need to look for money sooner rather than later.

A hike in the gas tax is the fairest way to raise the money needed to keep Massachusetts moving. Governor Patrick's long-awaited transportation reform plan is due out this week. Let's hope he takes the plunge.

An increase would allow the state to raise money for repairs, pay off Big Dig and MBTA debt, hold off T fare hikes, and cut turnpike tolls, which unfairly burden commuters from Boston's western suburbs. But a gas tax hike carries a political risk. There was an uproar among legislators recently when it leaked out that Patrick was even considering a hike of up to 29 cents. Then again, such a change wouldn't lift gas prices to where they were last summer, when motorists were paying $2 more a gallon.

Arguing that the transport system needs "reform before revenue," Senate leaders have offered a plan of their own. Significantly, they commit to the recommendations of the Transportation Finance Commission, including reining in benefits for MBTA workers. They also call for merging the state's numerous transportation agencies, which by their estimates could save tens of millions of dollars each year. And to be sure, if the Commonwealth were to rebuild the bureaucracy from scratch, the organizational chart would look a lot like what the Senate is proposing.

But reform and revenue can't be separated so neatly. Year after year, the Highway Department and Executive Office of Transportation have used borrowed money to pay some employee salaries. By some estimates, this costs the state upwards of $100 million a year. Ending the practice would reduce debt costs but would also require the state to identify recurring revenue.

Past governors and legislatures have resorted to fiscal gimmicks instead of asking the public for the money for transportation. Patrick himself has flirted with at least one questionable idea - putting up tolls at the state border. But motorists from New Hampshire and Rhode Island aren't the problem.

Commonwealth residents will end up paying one way or another: if not through a gas tax, then through stiff turnpike and tunnel tolls, through repair costs for broken axles, through the time they spend waiting in traffic or on broken-down trains. Why not get ahead of the problem, and guarantee a transportation system that works?