Crazy Transit Pitches

[The EGE]

Agricultural Branch has decent commuter rail potential. See the 1955 separation at Mansfield, and its decades of making SCR much harder to build, for a good example of why you want to keep the connection intact.

 

[Tallguy]

Agricultural Branch has decent commuter rail potential. See the 1955 separation at Mansfield, and its decades of making SCR much harder to build, for a good example of why you want to keep the connection intact.

I agree. And I think that the viaduct should branch onto the Ag I only meant that with the PAR takeover and the fact that much of the business on the Ag is closer to Clinton, it might make sense to run them out of Ayer

 

[Scalziand]

So, I've been studying options to grade separate and high platform Framingham. My understanding is that 14ft is the minimum clearance for an overpass on a state highway. The tracks east of the station are 50ft from the intersection of 135 and 126. A two ft drop of the street would give you a 4% slope up to the intersection. That leaves you needing 12ft plus, say 3ft, for the bridge floor? It is 1450ft from the switches for the Fitchburg Secondary and the old Holliston Secondary. If you moved the switches west 50ft, you'd get 1500ft. FRA regs allow a 1% slope on platforms. That means that a continuous 1%grade for 1500ft would give you the 15 feet you need. The eastern end of the platforms would be 14ft in the air, but the cost of getting people up and down is probably chump change compared to the alternative s. You would have to put a bridge for the Fram Secondary over 135, unless you get really crazy and get CSX to give up their two yards and move down to the old CP Yard and rebuild the old connection between the CP Yard and the Framingham Secondary. And, yes before anyone talks about the Ag Branch, with CSX acquiring PAR it might make sense to rebuild the connection in Clinton and run it from that end.

Personally, I prefer elevating the commuter tracks a little further so they can clear the Framingham Secondary and CP yard access. Hopefully it would be a bit cheaper than having to elevate the CP yard and Framingham Secondary approaches too, while getting the most gain from grade separating the high frequency passenger trains. I suppose this solution falls apart if freight frequencies increases a bunch.

 

[fattony]

Over on the GLX thread people got talking about making the T free. Several progressive local politicians are talking about it too. However, there are many well known downsides to 100% free transit with no access restrictions (e.g. vagrants edit: hooligans, graffiti). So here is my Crazy Transit Pitch:

What if municipalities purchased T passes out of their own budgets, financed by local taxes, and distributed them to their constituents? I'll use Somerville as an example. ~70,000 residents (age 15 or older) x $90/mo x 12 months = $75M per year maximum possible cost. More realistically, not all 70,000 people will claim a pass and the city could almost certainly negotiate a reduced rate for such a large bulk purchase. Let's say the cost could reasonably be reduced to $40M/yr or even less. That is a substantial 16% increase to the city's ~$250M/yr budget, but it isn't insane. You couldn't make that big of a change to the levy in a single year, but let's put that aside for now. Transit passes would be distributed similar to parking passes, with proof of residency. Possibly a nominal cost (like the parking cost of $40 per year) could stop people taking a pass if they will never use it.

Many, possibly a majority, of households in Somerville are already paying for one or more T passes, so transferring that cost from out-of-pocket to property tax (which is baked into the rent for renters) will be relatively easy to swallow, if not an obvious benefit. For example, my property taxes are ~$5k per year so a 16% hike is $800. Pre-pandemic, my family paid $2160/yr for T passes. Obviously the cost burden is shifted to non-transit riders, but I think that is a net progressive shift in tax burden and is in-line with the prevailing winds in Somerville local politics. With the massive new commercial development boom, it is conceivable for that entire burden to be put on commercial taxpayers.

Over time, this will lead to a greater share of city residents being transit riders which will eventually pay dividends. That happens either through change of mode for long-time residents or (more likely) as the 66% of the population who are renters turn over, the mix will shift more and more toward transit riders. These riders will do more of their working and shopping locally which benefits the local economy and increases the commercial tax base. It increases the desirability and demand for complete streets (which is already official Somerville policy) which leads to reduced road maintenance/life-cycle costs in the long run. It is a virtuous cycle.

The city gets the benefits of free public transit without actually having unrestricted access to stations and vehicles. If neighboring cities adopt the similar policy that is great, but there is no need for a state-level agreement which would face considerable headwind from the no-to-everything and car-is-king crowd.

Addendum: There certainly can be more complicated schemes than the city buying a full $90 unlimited pass for everyone who wants one, but some of my ideas would require the MBTA getting on board with creating innovative fare offerings. It wouldn't be terribly complicated to change to a system where the cost is pay-per-ride up until the unlimited dollar value. I think London does that automatically for everyone. That would allow the city to distribute passes with little concern whether the recipient is really going to use it or not. Or heck, maybe they go entirely pay-per-ride because the vast majority of people never exceed the break-even for unlimited. Perhaps the MBTA could extended the city a line of credit such that the city pays the accumulated fares at the end of the month instead of in advance. So many possibilities are unlocked when the transaction costs are reduced through bulk purchase.

 

[donkeybutlers]

What if municipalities purchased T passes out of their own budgets, financed by local taxes, and distributed them to their constituents? I'll use Somerville as an example. ~70,000 residents (age 15 or older) x $90/mo x 12 months = $75M per year maximum possible cost. More realistically, not all 70,000 people will claim a pass and the city could almost certainly negotiate a reduced rate for such a large bulk purchase. Let's say the cost could reasonably be reduced to $40M/yr or even less. That is a substantial 16% increase to the city's ~$250M/yr budget, but it isn't insane. You couldn't make that big of a change to the levy in a single year, but let's put that aside for now. Transit passes would be distributed similar to parking passes, with proof of residency. Possibly a nominal cost (like the parking cost of $40 per year) could stop people taking a pass if they will never use it.

Lol, despite dismissing the idea, and besides the last sentence here, you just proposed making the T free. $40 a year even, would be a major saving for anyone who rides the T remotely often but at that point why not incentivize the most sustainable forms of transit more than parking?

e.g. vagrants, graffiti

Homeless people need transportation too. "Vagrants" are not a problem. The fact that people are homeless in the first place is the problem.

Graffiti can be great it can be shit. It is and art form, not inherently a problem. Its usually a sign there isn't enough art in the environment and people want to add some, no matter how amateurish the efforts.

 

[fattony]

Lol, despite dismissing the idea, and besides the last sentence here, you just proposed making the T free.

Not really, Lol. I proposed the City of Somerville (or any municipality acting unilaterally) buying T passes for Somerville residents. That is not the same as making the T free, it is distinctly different in many ways. It has many of the benefits and avoids many of the downsides. Most importantly, the politics are very different.

Homeless people need transportation too. "Vagrants" are not a problem. The fact that people are homeless in the first place is the problem.

A) Don't lecture me about homelessness, I'm as compassionate as they come and support Housing First, and B) vagrancy is not limited to the homeless. People of all stripes are wasteful, abusive, and over-consume "free" things. Exhibit A is traffic congestion. EDIT - I will grant you that "vagrant" was not the right word for what I meant. Allow me to replace it with "delinquent" or "hooligan."

Graffiti can be great it can be shit. It is and art form, not inherently a problem. Its usually a sign there isn't enough art in the environment and people want to add some, no matter how amateurish the efforts.

This, you are just being antagonistic. You know trains don't get decorated with artful graffiti, they have dicks scratched into the plastic.

 

[donkeybutlers]

vagrancy is not limited to the homeless.

Vagrant means homeless.

Not really, Lol. I proposed the City of Somerville (or any municipality acting unilaterally) buying T passes for Somerville residents. That is not the same as making the T free, it is distinctly different in many ways. It has many of the benefits and avoids many of the downsides. Most importantly, the politics are very different.

If every town with the T did this the T would basically be free. Especially if they include all residents including homeless people.

This, you are just being antagonistic. You know trains don't get decorated with artful graffiti, they have dicks scratched into the plastic.

Train's quite often get masterpieces painted on them all over the world: Sao Paulo, Berlin, Barcelona, London, Paris, Mexico City, among many others and ofc it all started in NYC back in the day. The problem with targeting all the amateurs is you potentially prevent genuinely world class artists from forming.

 

[bigeman312]

Thanks for posting a creative idea, fattony. I appreciate your posts tremendously. That idea is definitely something that could work, possible tweaks notwithstanding, and it could be hugely beneficial if the political will to make it happen was there.

 

[Riverside]

@fattony, I think it's an interesting idea. I disagree with the criticism that this proposal is tantamount to making the T free. For one thing, it keeps the funding mechanism structurally the same. There are many companies that purchase transit passes for their employees -- what you are proposing is essentially that municipalities do the same. Your example of Somerville is illustrative, particularly as it demonstrates that this approach -- unlike some other calls for a fare-free T -- can be adopted in phases, rather than all-or-nothing.

I want to give it more thought, but on the face of it, it strikes me as an effective way to shift transit modes on a large scale, and increase T ridership. Depending on how the purchases are structured, it could also provide a better revenue stream than individual ticket sales.

 

[donkeybutlers]

@fattony, I disagree with the criticism that this proposal is tantamount to making the T free.

That wasn't the criticism, the T should be free. Its a criticism of doing a wonkish version of the same thing that actually doesn't resolve the funding gap in any way. (the state still has to come up with the same funding difference that everyone was balking at in the other thread). How would the state/towns pay for buying passes for residents? Thats a new expense just as much as eliminating fares would be.

At that point why would they be spending money enforcing fares they are paying? Why not simply eliminate that redundant spending and make it free directly?

Because of "vagrants" now "hooligans" and "graffiti"? Sounds like the same tough on crime nonsense that has been making cities hostile to poor people and to people of color for decades. And if thats really your concern let's take all the money spent on fare gate enforcement and put it into routine cleanings. You can address the problem (if you grant it as a real problem and not a variation of tired petty crime panic rhetoric we've heard too many times) in other ways.

There is also evidence, such as studies finding a zero price effect, that people might even overvalue things that are free. It does not immediately follow that making something free, and a public good means people don't value it. The idea that making it free inherently means more hooligans etc does show that you do think that poor people who might ride for free but wouldn't (be able to) otherwise are more likely to be hooligans though.

The difference in reaction between this tells me what a lot of people's real issue is with making the T free, that the wrong sort of people will ride it.

 

[Brattle Loop]

That wasn't the criticism, the T should be free. Its a criticism of doing a wonkish version of the same thing that actually doesn't resolve the funding gap in any way. (the state still has to come up with the same funding difference that everyone was balking at in the other thread). How would the state/towns pay for buying passes for residents? Thats a new expense just as much as eliminating fares would be.

At that point why would they be spending money enforcing fares they are paying? Why not simply eliminate that redundant spending and make it free directly?

Because of "vagrants" now "hooligans" and "graffiti"? Sounds like the same tough on crime nonsense that has been making cities hostile to poor people and to people of color for decades. And if thats really your concern let's take all the money spent on fare gate enforcement and put it into routine cleanings. You can address the problem (if you grant it as a real problem and not a variation of tired petty crime panic rhetoric we've heard too many times) in other ways.

There is also evidence, such as studies finding a zero price effect, that people might even overvalue things that are free. It does not immediately follow that making something free, and a public good means people don't value it. The idea that making it free inherently means more hooligans etc does show that you do think that poor people who might ride for free but wouldn't (be able to) otherwise are more likely to be hooligans though.

The difference in reaction between this tells me what a lot of people's real issue is with making the T free, that the wrong sort of people will ride it.

Just quoting the most recent post for space considerations, but I'm replying to multiple points raised.

The top-level question of whether the T should be free at point of use* (and the associated question of "free to all" or "free to some") is a political question about what its role and purpose in the state is. It's effectively an entirely separate question from how it gets done, because the costs involved are not likely to be impossible for the state to bear from other revenue streams.

*Obviously it's not free to run a transit system. Free here is shorthand for "no fares", implying that the system is paid for by other means (taxation or some such thing, which is after all good enough for things such as roads, defense, and salaries for legislators).

Fattony's proposal is not as alleged a wonkishly complicated version of making the "T" free. It's at best a medium-complexity municipal subsidy for transit that is, as Riverside correctly notes, essentially akin to employers (or schools) buying or subsidizing transit passes for their employees (or students). It has nothing to do with the question of the T's financing, because it doesn't change the funding mechanisms, just who's signing the checks. That makes it significantly simpler to implement (the T's not going to say no to Somerville asking to bulk-order passes) but completely bypasses the state-level conversation of "what is this thing's purpose", while also introducing a (series of, if it spreads) municipal conversation of the appropriateness of such a program (and how to pay for it). As an unfortunate resident of a suburb not historically terribly kind to the thought of rapid transit, I don't love this type of proposal because of how easily it could founder in any given city, where the car-loving NIMBY majority (or vocal minority) could have sufficient influence to win the day, which might be harder (or not, it'd be an interesting debate) in a state-level conversation over fare-free transit. Somerville, with its demographics, ethos, and proximity (sooner or later) to the GLX might well see benefit in doing something like this to increase transit usage and decrease road traffic, but it's not a replacement for the fare-free transit conversation even at many-city scale because it doesn't alter the financing mechanism, nor does it help anyone living anywhere that doesn't partake. (Compare on the national level the places that, ah, decline to participate in Medicaid expansion out of political pique, screwing over the citizens who would most need and benefit from it. Raise your hands if you don't think there are plenty of suburbs that would happily do something similar.)

Whether intentional or not, and I tend not to like putting words in people's mouths that they may not mean, the references to vagrants, hooligans, graffiti, and such do smack of the "wrong people" concern (as I recall something similar led my home town to obstruct the possibility of extending the OL to Reading, thanks a lot). I'm not saying that was the intent of the original post, but it is a concern that is and will be brought up as this debate continues, and one that should be called out where it does (or may) appear because it is not a legitimate argument in a civil society.

 

[Riverside]

That wasn't the criticism, the T should be free. Its a criticism of doing a wonkish version of the same thing that actually doesn't resolve the funding gap in any way. (the state still has to come up with the same funding difference that everyone was balking at in the other thread). How would the state/towns pay for buying passes for residents? Thats a new expense just as much as eliminating fares would be.

At that point why would they be spending money enforcing fares they are paying? Why not simply eliminate that redundant spending and make it free directly?

Because of "vagrants" now "hooligans" and "graffiti"? Sounds like the same tough on crime nonsense that has been making cities hostile to poor people and to people of color for decades. And if thats really your concern let's take all the money spent on fare gate enforcement and put it into routine cleanings. You can address the problem (if you grant it as a real problem and not a variation of tired petty crime panic rhetoric we've heard too many times) in other ways.

There is also evidence, such as studies finding a zero price effect, that people might even overvalue things that are free. It does not immediately follow that making something free, and a public good means people don't value it. The idea that making it free inherently means more hooligans etc does show that you do think that poor people who might ride for free but wouldn't (be able to) otherwise are more likely to be hooligans though.

The difference in reaction between this tells me what a lot of people's real issue is with making the T free, that the wrong sort of people will ride it.

Yeah, I mean, to be clear, I'm not onboard with complaining about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti". People are people, and we've got to take care of everyone in our cities. So I disagree with fattony's framing but honestly wasn't focusing on that because I think it's largely unrelated to the structural proposal that was being laid out (which was interesting and new). And @Brattle Loop summarizes very well the distinction between asking "Should the T be free?" and "What are ways we can get there, or at least part of the way there?"; I was engaging with the latter question.

That all being said -- if we ever do come across a winning proposal to (effectively) eliminate fares-at-point-of-entry, that proposal will need to assuage the concerns of those people who complain about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti", unjust and contemptible though those concerns might be. So if we actually want to win, it's not a bad idea to figure out a way to address those concerns. And, as Brattle Loop laid out, breaking this strategy up by municipality means that the likes of Somerville, Everett, and Chelsea can barrel ahead on this as fast as they want (hell, they could implement this within a matter of weeks if not days), while other places (who'll remain unnamed) can take their time.

(And, not for nothing, something like this could be implemented externally to municipalities as well. A private group could fund transit purchases for all residents of a specific ZIP code, for example.)

As for how municipalities will pay for this, there are many options (which -- again -- is a benefit, not a bug, of this idea). Existing budget can be reallocated. Grants -- whether federal or private -- can be applied for to cover the program on a pilot basis. User fees for things like parking passes can be modestly increased. And then of course there is the dreaded "T" word: taxes. There are a wide variety of mechanisms available for fine-tuning taxes so that they are equitable and encourage the kinds of changes we are all gearing toward.

Again, to be clear, I'm not onboard with complaining about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti". And despite all the time I've spent defending it, I'm not super invested in this idea, nor do I necessarily think it's a good one. But I think it's thought-provoking, and worth thinking through (which I'm still doing, even now).

 

[donkeybutlers]

that proposal will need to assuage the concerns of those people who complain about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti", unjust and contemptible though those concerns might be. So if we actually want to win, it's not a bad idea to figure out a way to address those concerns.

We actually don't need to cater to reactionary, racist, and elitist nonsense all the time. People are so concerned with compromising with right wing nuts who are vastly outnumbered in this city and I never get why we cant just dismiss obvious bullshit. Those concerns are a dogwhistle (if they are even that subtle) and can be dismissed as such.

As for how municipalities will pay for this, there are many options (which -- again -- is a benefit, not a bug, of this idea). Existing budget can be reallocated. Grants -- whether federal or private -- can be applied for to cover the program on a pilot basis. User fees for things like parking passes can be modestly increased. And then of course there is the dreaded "T" word: taxes. There are a wide variety of mechanisms available for fine-tuning taxes so that they are equitable and encourage the kinds of changes we are all gearing toward.

I agree that municipalities could pay for it and I actually brought up some similar ideas in the other thread when people acted incredulous about how the state would pay for a public service like a free T. My point though wass that it ultimately raises the same questions about new funding that just making the T free does (and again the latter does not require the state to spend money enforcing payments they are making, which might make it more expensive). My issue here is more in the difference in reaction and why some people act like making the T free is totally out of the question but paying for everyone's fares is somehow reasonable. Seems to be because it keeps the pricing mechanism in tact and thus excludes undesirables.

I actually think it's very important that the complaints about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti" are part of this proposal and that they are not just an aside. The mechanism was proposed as a way to make the T free for some people but explicitly not other people. I see that as inherent to the goals of doing it this way and not at the point of sale. I also see that as shaping why several people reacted more positively to this idea than to a free T.

I agree this could be tried in the meantime and could help put pressure on the state to make the T free in general, but it would have to explicitly and actually include homeless residents as well (and maybe everyone who works in or maybe just for the municipality) and not simply people with permanent addresses in the town/city to be worth it to me.

 

[Brattle Loop]

We actually don't need to cater to reactionary, racist, and elitist nonsense all the time. People are so concerned with compromising with right wing nuts who are vastly outnumbered in this city and I never get why we cant just dismiss obvious bullshit. Those concerns are a dogwhistle (if they are even that subtle) and can be dismissed as such.

I disagree in part with the characterization of these concerns as "obvious bullshit" and the reference to right-wing nutjobs. There's a problematic overlap between legitimate concerns about crime, disorder, misbehavior, and such (where the graffiti example falls is perhaps a matter of perspective...or taste) and illegitimate concerns about the "wrong people" (a handy catchall for racists and people who disdain the poor and homeless for being poor and/or homeless). That overlap is what allows these concerns to be used as dogwhistles (or louder) to arouse fear of the "wrong people", which is why they're problematically difficult to discuss and leave a bad taste in many people's mouths. That said, the underlying concerns are not inherently exclusionary and illegitimate. The T is not, as we are all aware, free of crime and disorder, and it's a legitimately open question as to whether or not removing barriers to entry could, at certain times and places, increase those problems. People may, for legitimate or illegitimate, rational or irrational, reasons over-blow those concerns, whether themselves or to further some agenda, but that doesn't mean the possibility of increased problems doesn't exist, and it shouldn't entirely be discarded out of hand, especially because (rational or not) it will be a fairly-significant factor in the debate even if we think it's overblown and/or illegitimate. That said, it's not an argument for doing it or not doing it (unless, and I think this won't be the case, studies/pilots show a highly likely explosion in crime), it's an argument for how to ameliorate any side effects that come from removing fares (more of the redshirt 'ambassadors' or such to have more station staff who can keep an eye on things as well as provide assistance to customers, perhaps?) such that the concerns (to the extent that they are legitimate) are addressed.

My issue here is more in the difference in reaction and why some people act like making the T free is totally out of the question but paying for everyone's fares is somehow reasonable. Seems to be because it keeps the pricing mechanism in tact and thus excludes undesirables.

Don't know how much the "excludes undesirables" is part of the conscious reaction (though probably part of the subconscious reaction, if not on aB than in the real world), but it's also much closer to the status quo than radically redefining transit from user-supported-service to full public service. It also neatly sidesteps dealing with the thorny question of redistribution, because "subsidizing fares" doesn't read as "tax increase" the same way that needing to replace a huge chunk of the T's funding does. (Don't get me wrong, it's still redistributive on a municipal level, but less noticeably so.)

I agree this could be tried in the meantime and could help put pressure on the state to make the T free in general, but it would have to include homeless residents as well (and maybe everyone who works in or maybe just for the municipality) and not simply people with permanent addresses in the town/city to be worth it to me.

I disagree that it would put pressure on the state to make the T free, precisely because it does not alter the agency's funding mechanism. The size of the pot of fare revenue is what matters to the T. They don't care where it comes from. They don't care if your T-pass was paid for out of your pocket, or by your employer, or by your college or your town, or, hell, even if a billionaire bought everyone a pass just 'cause. A change only comes if they are willing to engage with changing the financing, and municipal subsidies if anything cut against it, because they can frame it as a town choice thing and not have to do any hard work engaging with the hard questions, just by kicking the problem down to the cities.

I sympathize with your desire to make a proposal like this equitable, and I share that goal. That said, what you're suggesting is easier said than done as the categories of eligibility get fuzzier. Who counts as homeless residents? For employees, what if they reside in towns with similar benefits they already receive as residents? What about the logistics of how eligibility is confirmed and cards requested/delivered? It gets very...bureaucratic, which harms the program's effectiveness. That's ultimately one of the big benefits of fare-free T, it's very simple to administer because instead of all of that fare collection infrastructure that chunk of money gets replaced with one state check (or these days a mouse click - if that - transferring from the general fund or wherever to the T.)

 

[donkeybutlers]

Graffiti I grant you has more room for debate but terms like vagrants and hooligans carry long racial and class based histories that cannot be stripped from them. That being said crime factually has been waning for decades and we should acknowledge that openly. There is no crime wave according to the actual data. Interestingly that decrease is very possibly due to decrease in lead levels (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3), and I wish people who were so concerned about crime when it means excluding people ever talked about that now mountain of evidence and used it to argue for better state funding for lead removal. If you are concerned about crime, municipalities could do way more to address lead exposure. The funding for pipe removal is nowhere near enough, and replacement should be mandated for all rental properties. This map alone is frankly disturbing and I doubt Boston is alone in it.

I agree that there are people who do think that way, I will explicitly disagree when i see it, but I also think we can better resolve even the problems they claim to care about (to the extent they are real problems not dog whistles) in very different ways. Whether it is explicit or implicit doesn't really matter either the result is the same.

I disagree that it would put pressure on the state to make the T free, precisely because it does not alter the agency's funding mechanism. The size of the pot of fare revenue is what matters to the T. They don't care where it comes from. They don't care if your T-pass was paid for out of your pocket, or by your employer, or by your college or your town, or, hell, even if a billionaire bought everyone a pass just 'cause. A change only comes if they are willing to engage with changing the financing, and municipal subsidies if anything cut against it, because they can frame it as a town choice thing and not have to do any hard work engaging with the hard questions, just by kicking the problem down to the cities.

I sympathize with your desire to make a proposal like this equitable, and I share that goal. That said, what you're suggesting is easier said than done as the categories of eligibility get fuzzier. Who counts as homeless residents? For employees, what if they reside in towns with similar benefits they already receive as residents? What about the logistics of how eligibility is confirmed and cards requested/delivered? It gets very...bureaucratic, which harms the program's effectiveness. That's ultimately one of the big benefits of fare-free T, it's very simple to administer because instead of all of that fare collection infrastructure that chunk of money gets replaced with one state check (or these days a mouse click - if that - transferring from the general fund or wherever to the T.)

I think you are probably right about that point about keeping the funding mechanism the same. That is why i think we need to be talking about taxes here and there are lots of options (graduated taxes, taxes on fossil fuels, taxes on cars or certain roads/on entering the city, if the cities could do this could they just pay into the MBTA budget directly?). That is how the state funds services and this would be a hugely beneficial one

On the second point about the bureaucratic inefficiencies of doing that, that and the state paying to collect fares they are paying just create unnecessary hurdles which is why I think making the T free across the board is better. So I wholeheartedly agree there. I was bringing that up in part to show that real equity can be better addressed via freeing the T so glad you came to that conclusion from it.

 

[JumboBuc]

To me, the best case for a free T is that it eliminates the need for fare infrastructure and collection altogether. That expands a demand-side solution (making it easier for users of the T to afford it) into a supply-side solution as well (making it cheaper for the T to provide service). And honestly, the T’s collective supply-side challenges are much greater and more insurmountable than the demand-side affordability challenges of its riders.

Setting up a system where the T is free but fares are still collected seems like the worst of both worlds, from an operations point of view.

If you want an incremental solution, eliminate fares and fare collection from local busses but keep collecting fares on the other modes.

 

[guitarguynboston]

I think it's a great way to start getting our public transportation in this state to be free. Going by city each paying the cost for their residents is a very Massachusetts solution. Obviously if there was a greater Boston region governed on its own where the subway and buses operate within that area it could be done in one but that's not the case. Once some cities and towns start with giving their residents free T passes others will eventually jump on board out of jealousy and/or see how it helps with lessening traffic on roads and slowing the need for maintenance of the roads. We need to start somewhere to get ourselves to free Public Transit and this is the start or we can just argue about the outcome without giving solutions like us Massholes do.

As for the homeless they would just need to provide proof of residency like every other service from MassHealth to Food stamps to other local services that require it. An ID can be hard to get for the homeless but there are other ways to prove your residency. Heck that's another thing that should be free as it's needed so often State IDs.

 

[Wash]

In Edinburgh, tourist busses (think: Old Town Trolley Tours) are operated by the local public transit operator, not a private tour company (although the tour bus routes run with their own dedicated equipment and tour guides). This offers several concrete and several more theoretical advantages over the way the bus networks currently work. Here's a few reasons why the T should purchase Old Town Trolley Tours.

Definite advantages to this system in Edinburgh:
1: Tourist busses board passengers at handicap-accessible regular city bus stops, making for a better experience for tourists (and making transfers between tourist and non-tourist busses unbelievably convenient; see advantage #3).
2: Tourist busses show up just like regular routes on information signs at said bus stops (and in Boston would show up on the Transit app or similar).
3: Tourist bus tickets are valid on the rest of the bus and tram network in Edinburgh (although I'm reasonably sure they're classified as a "premium service" so riding one costs more than a regular non-tourist bus). This gets tourists "in the door" of the public transit system and makes it easier for them to decide to take public transit during the rest of their stay in Edinburgh, since they already learned how to use the bus network when they were figuring out how to take their tour.
4: Tourist bus routes might actually be practical for locals to ride in some cases. Making it possible to ride them with a regular farecard makes this process easier.

Possible advantages of such a system existing in Boston:
1: The T would gain an important source of revenue. With folks warry of raising taxes to pay for the system and the federal money pipeline less reliable than ever (especially given the unwillingness of the most recent Republican administration to hand out money to Democratic states), giving the T a source of revenue independent from either of those two funding sources is of vital importance. Granted, catering to tourists is not the most reliable source of income in the world (see: the past 18 months), but income is income (especially when rainy day funds exist).
2: The T could gain some efficiencies over a private operator. In Edinburgh, the tour busses are just regular double-decker city busses with the roof chopped off so that tourists can ride in the open air. I doubt a New Flyer would be suitable for such a conversion, but even still, a larger operation can realize efficiency thanks to economies of scale.
2: Drivers and employees currently working for Old Town would get better jobs. Providing that all of this can be worked out with Boston Carmen's 589 (one of the major sticking points for this idea and why it's in Crazy Transit Pitches), hundreds of mechanics, drivers and tour guides would come under the protection of a powerful union, and enjoy better wages, hours and working conditions.

An actual economist with actual numbers would have to actually see if it would actually be possible for the T to make money on the deal, and an actual labor negotiator would have to sit down and work everything out with Local 589, but there's a good chance that an investment in tour busses could be a great investment for the T, the city, and the State of Massachusetts.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I think it's a great way to start getting our public transportation in this state to be free. Going by city each paying the cost for their residents is a very Massachusetts solution. Obviously if there was a greater Boston region governed on its own where the subway and buses operate within that area it could be done in one but that's not the case. Once some cities and towns start with giving their residents free T passes others will eventually jump on board out of jealousy and/or see how it helps with lessening traffic on roads and slowing the need for maintenance of the roads. We need to start somewhere to get ourselves to free Public Transit and this is the start or we can just argue about the outcome without giving solutions like us Massholes do.

Friendly neighborhood cynic here, come to dump cold water on yet more optimism but I think you're underestimating the byzantine - and frankly sometimes bizarre -mess that is local politics here. Anywhere outside the reach of the subway lines the calculus for municipally-subsidized fares is very different from within what is effectively fare zone 1A. That's a result of both the lower-quality service (CR frequencies < RT frequencies) and the CR's rapidly-escalating cost-over-distance fare zone structure. In the CR belt, you'd very likely be talking much higher costs per rider, for a significantly-smaller population that would benefit. That's not a formula that tends to be politically successful, something which does double in the gadfly-strewn NIMBY-mania that is some town politics. Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, maybe Brookline (though that's dicey) could probably have a critical mass of people in line to benefit (and people politically inclined to support it even if they don't personally benefit) but I question whether a good number of the other cities and towns in the district would go for it. That doesn't mean that the cities I mentioned shouldn't consider municipal subsidies for their own benefits, but the idea of it as a chain-reaction way of achieving the goal of no-fare-on-entry strikes me as highly unlikely to be successful.

As for the homeless they would just need to provide proof of residency like every other service from MassHealth to Food stamps to other local services that require it. An ID can be hard to get for the homeless but there are other ways to prove your residency. Heck that's another thing that should be free as it's needed so often State IDs.

This speaks to why a town-by-town solution is inherently less desirable than a radical policy shift at the state level. It's bureaucratic hoops to jump through that, even if you make it as easy as humanly possible, is still harder than being able to enter without trouble because there's no faregates. It would also fail to help boost use of the system by tourists (by definition not residents) and would be complicated for commuting workers and students, who you want to incentivize to not drive, but who would have to hope they were living in a town that chose to subsidize.

I'll reiterate my contention that while these proposals are not bad, they have significant drawbacks compared to doing it properly. It makes them worth consideration as interim steps if they have sufficient value on their own merits, but I don't agree that it's a way to bootstrap our way to a policy change on the statewide level, because I don't think it can reach the necessary critical mass.

 

[Brattle Loop]

In Edinburgh, tourist busses (think: Old Town Trolley Tours) are operated by the local public transit operator, not a private tour company (although the tour bus routes run with their own dedicated equipment and tour guides). This offers several concrete and several more theoretical advantages over the way the bus networks currently work. Here's a few reasons why the T should purchase Old Town Trolley Tours.

Definite advantages to this system in Edinburgh:
1: Tourist busses board passengers at handicap-accessible regular city bus stops, making for a better experience for tourists (and making transfers between tourist and non-tourist busses unbelievably convenient; see advantage #3).
2: Tourist busses show up just like regular routes on information signs at said bus stops (and in Boston would show up on the Transit app or similar).
3: Tourist bus tickets are valid on the rest of the bus and tram network in Edinburgh (although I'm reasonably sure they're classified as a "premium service" so riding one costs more than a regular non-tourist bus). This gets tourists "in the door" of the public transit system and makes it easier for them to decide to take public transit during the rest of their stay in Edinburgh, since they already learned how to use the bus network when they were figuring out how to take their tour.
4: Tourist bus routes might actually be practical for locals to ride in some cases. Making it possible to ride them with a regular farecard makes this process easier.

Possible advantages of such a system existing in Boston:
1: The T would gain an important source of revenue. With folks warry of raising taxes to pay for the system and the federal money pipeline less reliable than ever (especially given the unwillingness of the most recent Republican administration to hand out money to Democratic states), giving the T a source of revenue independent from either of those two funding sources is of vital importance. Granted, catering to tourists is not the most reliable source of income in the world (see: the past 18 months), but income is income (especially when rainy day funds exist).
2: The T could gain some efficiencies over a private operator. In Edinburgh, the tour busses are just regular double-decker city busses with the roof chopped off so that tourists can ride in the open air. I doubt a New Flyer would be suitable for such a conversion, but even still, a larger operation can realize efficiency thanks to economies of scale.
2: Drivers and employees currently working for Old Town would get better jobs. Providing that all of this can be worked out with Boston Carmen's 589 (one of the major sticking points for this idea and why it's in Crazy Transit Pitches), hundreds of mechanics, drivers and tour guides would come under the protection of a powerful union, and enjoy better wages, hours and working conditions.

An actual economist with actual numbers would have to actually see if it would actually be possible for the T to make money on the deal, and an actual labor negotiator would have to sit down and work everything out with Local 589, but there's a good chance that an investment in tour busses could be a great investment for the T, the city, and the State of Massachusetts.

After reading this proposal, I'll say this for it, it sounds more insane than it actually is. Don't get me wrong, it's still firmly in the right place here in Crazy Transit Pitches.

OTT itself is far larger than Boston, with operations in seven cities, and it's part of an even larger Florida-based tourism company. Despite the name, it's not an only-Boston local operator. Annoyingly that and the fact that it's not a public company makes it quite difficult to find any financials, so even an amateur non-economist would have a hard time even trying to look at the numbers. That's the hill on which this Crazy Transit Pitch goes to die, though. OTT-Boston is part of a much larger whole, and presumably (at least in non-pandemic times) a profitable part, meaning the only way you pry it out of its owners' hands is to pay the going rate for it, if they're even willing to sell at all. Even if they are, the premium you'd have to pay to 'compensate' them for taking a source of profit off their hands is going to do nothing to make the economics of such a deal look any more favorable to the state.

What information I can find (and its validity is questionable because privately held company finances are extremely hard to find) suggests that OTT's parent company has an annual revenue of something like $130-140 million, across all of its operations, not just OTT. That's something like roughly one-sixth of the MBTA's revenue from fares alone pre-pandemic, for the entire company; OTT-Boston's revenue would be a significantly-smaller slice of that number, and that's revenue, not profit. It's not nothing, but even with whatever efficiencies you could find in economies of scale (and does the desirability of a tourist ride change if the vehicle's basically just a transit bus where it wasn't before?) plus the worker-but-not-MBTA benefit of presumably higher-paying jobs under the Carmen's Union, the actual additional revenue is not likely to be particularly significant. On top of that, you'd be asking a transit agency to run what amounts to a side business outside of its core competence in a competitive market with a very different customer base. Meaning it's distinctly possible that it gets botched (raise your hand if you see money earmarked for the "frivolous" trolley tour operation re-directed to track maintenance or some politicians' favored expansion, leading competing operators - remember, the transit system does not have same-mode-and-market competitors in the same way that OTT does - to corner the market and, whoops, there goes the profits that were the purpose of doing this.

Get an economist and some operations people to say the benefits pan out (I don't think they will say it, but I've been wrong before) and I'll reconsider, but, at the moment, I'm thinking this one should stay here where it belongs as a Crazy Transit Pitch.

EDIT: In case it's not clear, I spent most of the time writing this grinning like a madman. I think it's crazy, but I love how out of the box an idea it is, which is what makes this thread so fun. So thank you, Wash, for providing some excellent fodder for discussion, I mean that absolutely sincerely.