Wrapping up a study of northern tier passenger rail options, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation says it examined six options to transport people from the state's northwestern corner to Boston without driving on Route 2.
The rail options come at a cost of as much as $3 billion dollars. State Rep. John Barrett, D-North Adams reminded us that western Mass. residents are already paying for Boston area transit through the state's sales tax. Reporter Chris Lisinksi of the State House News Service explains what the bottom line is -the cost of the service versus economic benefit for the state.
Chris Lisinksi, SHNS: MassDOT’s study experts found that each of these six options could definitely provide some economic benefits for the region - bigger benefits from more investment, which tracks, logically. The highest ridership option, which is the one that has nearly $3 billion dollars in upfront costs, could draw some 540 to 830 people per day on trips anywhere between North Adams and Boston.
As I'm sure your listeners are very familiar, there is no consistent passenger rail west of Worcester right now in Massachusetts or west of Fitchburg, I guess would be the more apt corollary here for the Northern Tier, so, it would be a really significant change.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: So, this 112 page report, like the earlier draft, remains skeptical on how cost effective the plan really would be. But the report now includes loads of public comments in support of the plan from residents and leaders here in western Mass. Does that kind of thing actually sway decision makers?
I don't know that commentary in the report is going to sway decision makers, because its' arguments that they've likely already heard before, especially from figures like Senator Jo Comerford, who has long been a vocal supporter of the Northern Tier passenger rail. That being said, you know, linking something like this to the ongoing conversation about economic development, housing costs and competitiveness seems like there could be some traction, albeit, you know, traction in the face of a pretty high price tag.
There's always a lot of movement and political momentum behind the west-east rail plan to the south going through Springfield and Pittsfield. Does the state see that project as a competitor to the Northern Tier, or is there any possibility of both becoming a reality?
The sense I get is that the — I guess you want to call it southern option — is much further along. Northern Tier is still being studied, still being examined as something abstract and conceptual, whereas west-east rail [or] east-west rail, whichever order you prefer, there is some initial federal money already flowing to start laying the groundwork to get that up in place. So, I don't know that they're necessarily competitors. It's more that one is further along in the process than the other.
In other news, Massachusetts voters in November passed that ballot question, authorizing a performance audit of the legislature. It's been a month since that vote, and last week, Auditor Diana DiZoglio sent a second letter to top Beacon Hill lawmakers and clerks demanding they comply with her probe. In the letter, she requests the setting of meeting dates to move the process forward. But there's a hiccup - a disagreement between DiZoglio and Secretary Bill Galvin over when the voter approved law actually takes effect and can be enforced. What's going on?
All of this seems to hinge on [the] reading of the [Massachusetts] Constitution, which says that ballot approved laws shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law.
So, to put that in plain English, DiZoglio says that the measure explicitly empowering her office took effect Thursday, which was 30 days after the November 5th election. Galvin insists that it actually takes place 30 days after certification of the election results. That certification happened on Wednesday. So, in his mind, the effective date is basically a month later in early January.
We don't really know what happens next. DiZoglio is trying to plow ahead. Based on her reading of the Constitution, legislative leaders who have always resisted the audit effort are probably going to point to Galvin's interpretation and say that she can't seek this data because the law is not effective yet, and it might wind up needing some kind of adjudication from Attorney General [Andrea] Campbell or the courts.
