No dough, no go

First in an occasional series on issues that are important in the race for governor.

THE IMPORTANCE of state government in providing for the transportation needs of Massachusetts residents was nowhere more evident over the last few weeks than in Ipswich, where crews paid by the state were repairing an important bridge washed out by the rains of early June. ``I don't think we missed a beat," said Ray Morley, president of the Chamber of Commerce and owner of the Ipswich Bed & Breakfast, but the town would have been in deep trouble had the state not stepped in to help.

Repairs on local bridges are usually a local responsibility but the state is spending $400,000 to $500,000 to fix the Choate Bridge, and hopes to be reimbursed by the federal government. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey was on hand to announce the repairs, which were completed late last month. It probably didn't hurt Ipswich's prospects for aid that she is running for governor this year. Transportation is an enduring priority of state government. Whoever becomes governor will need to find new money to maintain the existing system and finance new projects to enhance mobility and promote economic development.

One project getting much attention from the candidates is the long-discussed extension of commuter rail to Fall River and New Bedford. That would connect two struggling cities to the Boston region and open up the affordable housing of the South Coast to commuters.

Ipswich has enjoyed commuter rail service to Boston for years, enhanced by an extension to Rowley and Newburyport in 1999. But that was planned and built when the Legislature gave the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a blank check to pay for what it needed. In 1999 the Legislature insisted the T be held to a fixed budget and that the state subsidy be limited to one penny of the 5-cent sales tax, about $300 million a year.

So who's to pay for the New Bedford-Fall River extension? Democrats Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrieli, and Thomas Reilly, and independent Christy Mihos don't say in any detail. Healey said she supports the project in principle, but doesn't make it a priority. Candidates ought to provide voters an explanation of how they would pay the $670 million to build it and the millions more to operate the service.

Candidates seem more interested in limiting the money available for transportation. All candidates oppose the proposed MBTA subway fare increase to $1.70, even Healey, whose administration proposed it. (She accepts the notion that the T needs more money but thinks $1.70 is too high). No one gains votes by proposing higher fares, but what's the alternative?

So far the candidates are silent beyond Gabrieli's wish that the T pursue other revenue sources and Green -Rainbow Party candidate Grace Ross's hope that money would be diverted from business tax credits. But advertising income, a prime source of nonfare revenue, is going down, and many of those tax credits are worth retaining to promote economic development. Money has to be found elsewhere.

One proposal by the Urban Land Institute would mandate that the state assume much of the long-term debt of the MBTA, which paid for such projects as the Newburyport extension. Debt service consumes 27 percent of the T budget, or $363 million a year. The fare increase would raise only $70 million a year. The Urban Institute proposal is intriguing, but would compete for state resources with education, healthcare, local aid, and other urgent needs.

The Legislature, aware that funding for transportation financing would require new solutions, set up a special commission in 2004. The commission is focusing on issues the candidates prefer to ignore.

These include the high cost of MBTA employee health benefits and the limitations on management prerogatives that the Legislature imposed in the 1990s. Any discussion of T finances needs to address whether it can afford the cost of its present labor-management structure and benefits.

The commission is also considering how the state will pay for its transportation needs in a time of declining federal support. It's unreasonable to expect tollpayers on the eastern section of the Massachusetts Turnpike to endure regular toll increases to pay for the Big Dig. Mihos has an intriguing idea: Drop tolls on the Pike west of Route 128 and make up the revenue by selling off the turnpike rest areas. This needs to be independently analyzed to make sure it wouldn't shortchange maintenance of the Pike.

Some commission members are talking about proposing tolls on other highways. They would be unpopular and would be difficult to collect without the construction of toll booths, which would delay travel.

The Massachusetts gasoline tax, at 21 cents a gallon, hasn't been raised since 1991. With gasoline prices hovering at $3 a gallon, this is not an ideal time to talk of higher taxes. Healey wants to declare a holiday from the tax over the summer. Even with high prices, a gasoline tax is still the most equitable way to finance highway projects. A diversion of some of the money to the T would be appropriate to maintain a reliable alternative to motor vehicles. It's unfortunate the commission report will probably be delayed until after the election. Its release during the campaign would force the candidates to address the inconsistencies of their own sketchy transportation proposals.

In Ipswich as they waited for the Choate Bridge to reopen, people weren't talking about transportation financing. They were grateful that the state had stepped in. ``It's awesome," said Jeff Gold at Fat Dadeez sporting goods. The state can afford one-time repairs, but a long-term transportation policy requires greater thought and emphasis on financing than the gubernatorial candidates have chosen to give.