Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail (South Coast Rail)

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yeah but that's still crazy expensive, even by American standards. Here's what a monthly pass for a similar or greater distance costs on various other rail systems in the US:

System	Cost
LIRR	$378 (Port Jefferson to NY Penn or GC)
Metro North	$366.25 (Fairfield to Grand Central, Could it really not be a round number guys?)
SEPTA Regional Rail	$204 (Newark DE to Philly, A little bit shorter than Boston-Fall River but only by <10mi)
NJ Transit	$310 (Atlantic City to Philly), $451 (Princeton Jct to NY Penn), $351 (Trenton to Newark) Oh and a special shoutout to NJT for making their monthly pass fares impossible to find, good job.
METRA	$135 (!!!) (Harvard to Oglevie TC)
Caltrain	$238.80 (San Jose Diridion to San Francisco)

Or if I wanted to buy a pass that lets me travel anywhere in the Netherlands, on any train, at any time, for an entire month, that would cost me about $385.50. No CR pass should cost more than that. (For a size comparison, that's about MA-RI-CT all put together.)

The Old Colony zones are ripe for a redrawing. Quincy should be in 1A, not 1. Braintree should be in 1, not 2. The outbound gradations should shrink accordingly. Campello should be in the same zone as Montello and Brockton given that it's in the same municipality. There shouldn't be a 2-zone jump between Bridgewater and Middleboro given the distance. And so on.

There are a lot of lines on the system with nonsensical zone assignments because "we've always done it that way" that should be redrawn for better equity, but they never propose doing so.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The Old Colony zones are ripe for a redrawing. Quincy should be in 1A, not 1. Braintree should be in 1, not 2. The outbound gradations should shrink accordingly. Campello should be in the same zone as Montello and Brockton given that it's in the same municipality. There shouldn't be a 2-zone jump between Bridgewater and Middleboro given the distance. And so on.

There are a lot of lines on the system with nonsensical zone assignments because "we've always done it that way" that should be redrawn for better equity, but they never propose doing so.

There are so many problems with the current fare zones:

• CR Paralleling subway service has different fares
• Stations in Boston aren't in Zone 1A
• There are just too many zones, making the system more complicated than it needs to be
• Sometimes a zone is just... skipped? Sometimes it makes sense based on the distance, but sometimes it doesn't.
• And by far the worst, traveling from Oak Grove to North Station costs $2.40, but go 1 mile further to Wyoming Hill and now the fare is $6.50. How does that make any sense?

 

[lexicon506]

Or if I wanted to buy a pass that lets me travel anywhere in the Netherlands, on any train, at any time, for an entire month, that would cost me about $385.50. No CR pass should cost more than that. (For a size comparison, that's about MA-RI-CT all put together.)

It's truly wild. In Germany, a monthly pass valid on every bus, tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn, and regional train in the entire country costs.... 49 euros. The only transit I can't ride on that pass are the high speed IC/ICE trains. People are always shocked when I tell them how much a monthly pass for a single city's (far inferior) transit system typically costs in the US.

 

[TheRatmeister]

It's truly wild. In Germany, a monthly pass valid on every bus, tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn, and regional train in the entire country costs.... 49 euros. The only transit I can't ride on that pass are the high speed IC/ICE trains. People are always shocked when I tell them how much a monthly pass for a single city's (far inferior) transit system typically costs in the US.

The D-Ticket is amazing! If I ever want to go to Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg or something it basically just makes sense to get the monthly pass since it's almost the same price as a return ticket.

And on a related note, the fact that Interrail works without seat reservations on the ICE trains is great and makes wandering all over Germany super fun and accessible. 10/10 would recommend.

 

[MrDee12345]

You really can't compare to NY. A Metro North mostly pass does not entitle you to unlimited subway and bus like an MBTA monthly pass does

 

[Brattle Loop]

• And by far the worst, traveling from Oak Grove to North Station costs $2.40, but go 1 mile further to Wyoming Hill and now the fare is $6.50. How does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense. If you're someone who can afford that price jump, you're someone Melrose would welcome

In all seriousness, though, while it is absolutely ridiculous how much the fare jumps from zone 1A to 1 (particularly since you can see Oak Grove from Wyoming. Actually, you can see Oak Grove from the grade crossing more than halfway to Cedar Park past Wyoming), it was slightly less ridiculous when the CR didn't actually stop at Oak Grove, just Malden.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Makes perfect sense. If you're someone who can afford that price jump, you're someone Melrose would welcome

In all seriousness, though, while it is absolutely ridiculous how much the fare jumps from zone 1A to 1 (particularly since you can see Oak Grove from Wyoming. Actually, you can see Oak Grove from the grade crossing more than halfway to Cedar Park past Wyoming), it was slightly less ridiculous when the CR didn't actually stop at Oak Grove, just Malden.

The fare jump between Zones 1A and 1 is just ridiculous, full stop. A distance of at most ~5.5 miles (And that's in the already silly case of Quincy Center to JFK where there shouldn't be a zone change in the first place) should never cause fares to increase by 270%, basically no matter what. And there's actually an even more extreme case. Fairmount is in Zone 1A, while Readville is in Zone 2, resulting in an almost 3-fold increase in fares over a 1.25 mile distance.

My point is that this doesn't need to be a rich areas vs poor areas issue. In some places there is definitely some of that, but ultimately the main issue is that it's just absolutely insane, no matter who or where the system serves.

 

[jklo]

My point is that this doesn't need to be a rich areas vs poor areas issue.

Well... you're basically talking about lowering fares. And the CR ridership tends to be richer.

 

[Teban54]

Well... you're basically talking about lowering fares. And the CR ridership tends to be richer.

Or, how about, think of it this way:

• By lowering CR fares, a greater number of people working in Boston will have more incentives to live along a CR line. This both includes the stereotypical wealthy suburbs (Melrose may fit the description depending on your POV, even though their MBTA buses see good ridership), and other denser, more urban areas that currently have to rely on the CR system, such as Lynn and Brockton (both of which have much lower per-capita income than Melrose).
• This means demand will shift from the Boston metropolitan area itself to regions served by CR.
• This, in turn, helps reduce real estate prices and alleviate the housing crisis in metro Boston, including - but not limited to - poorer neighborhoods such as Roxbury, Everett and East Boston.

 

[jklo]

Or, how about, think of it this way:

Sprawl tho.

 

[malabari]

Once you get past 495, doesn't the population tend to get poorer, and the fares higher?

 

[jklo]

Once you get past 495, doesn't the population tend to get poorer

Yeah but they aren't the ones who ride the CR.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Yeah but they aren't the ones who ride the CR.

That's not what the data says. Yes, CR riders are on average richer than MBTA riders as a whole. But the biggest part of this difference comes from middle to upper middle income families earning $75,000-$93,000 per year. This makes sense, as this is the main demographic that would be commuting into Boston in the first place, people who have jobs in the biotech, university, healthcare, finance, or other sectors highly concentrated within Boston.

But of course, it should be noted that to some extent people are self-selecting here. People than can pay $250-300+ per month upfront for a pass are buying the passes, and the ones who can't aren't. Lowering transit fares could increase the accessibility of higher-paying jobs in Boston for less well off residents in further out suburbs and allow them to potentially even save money on car-related expenses.

 

[Stlin]

For reference, these are the charts the T used last 2 times they did a Title VI analysis of the CR fare system. I can't find the full presentation anymore, but those high non-minority / non-low-income numbers are what catches the T every time on a Title VI equity analysis. (It did get quite a bit better on the 22 data, but that may reflect higher car ownership and usage during COVID)

the MBTA must ensure that any fare increase does not increase fares more for protected populations than all riders, and that any fare decrease does not decrease fares less for protected populations than for all riders.

Unless it's packaged as part of a much larger overall fare restructuring, or the T changes it's policy to look at opportunity equity/ population (which I'm not entirely sure is within its ability to do so,) it's hard to see how lowering fares on the CR wouldn't decrease fares less for protected populations.

 

[JeffDowntown]

For reference, this is the chart the T used last time they did a Title VI analysis of the CR fare system. I can't find the full presentation anymore, but those high non-minority / non-low-income numbers are what catches the T every time on a Title VI equity analysis.

Unless it's packaged as part of a much larger overall fare restructuring, or the T changes it's policy to look at opportunity equity/ population (which I'm not entirely sure is within its ability to do so,) it's hard to see how lowering fares on the CR wouldn't decrease fares less for protected populations.

View attachment 49545

But isn't the whole point of Regional Rail to change the ridership mix on the Commuter Rail routes?

If you don't implement a fare structure that attracts the different mix of riders, Regional Rail will fail. Regional Rail is not about the current riders, it is about the non-users today.

 

[Stlin]

But isn't the whole point of Regional Rail to change the ridership mix on the Commuter Rail routes?

If you don't implement a fare structure that attracts the different mix of riders, Regional Rail will fail. Regional Rail is not about the current riders, it is about the non-users today.

I don't disagree, but that's a fundamental issue with the Title VI policy as currently formulated. The system allows you to include potential riders, but it fundamentally looks at what is, not what could be. The FTA allows you to do a title VI analysis by either population geography (minority census blocks) or ridership. The T has, since inception, used ridership, which I do actually think is the right choice. My understanding is that when it came into force, it functionally froze things in amber, as the DB/DI analysis only looks back at the ridership impacted before the change.

It doesn't really let you do things like "smooth the zone 1 to 1A cliff" without creating that DB/DI finding, because today that would disproportionately benefit non-protected populations like folks commuting from Winchester and Belmont, not the EJ community up in Lynn. To overcome that you'd have to do things in stages (to stay below the threshold), or as a major package, because ridership is fungible. For example, by providing additional Regional Rail service to EJ communities would count as a major service change. The catch is, a lot of the EJ CR ridership is already in 1A, (Fairmont) so you'd have to get creative with the fare /service package. That, or accept the DB/DI finding but include enough mitigation or justification in it to make it worthwhile.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Unless it's packaged as part of a much larger overall fare restructuring

And this is the big caveat. A reformed fare structure wouldn't just mean taking $1 off every fare zone, for example. It would mean changing fare zones for the lower income cities served by the network like Lynn, Fitchburg, Brockton, Worcester, Leominster, etc to provide lower fares. It would mean allowing less frequent riders to connect to an MBTA bus without being charged extra. It would mean expanding the half-fare program to the Commuter Rail (Which as far as I can tell has basically no low-income fare program currently).

That, or accept the DB/DI finding but include enough mitigation or justification in it to make it worthwhile.

And there is no shortage of mitigation options. Increasing funding to local transport agencies to provide better feeder services, building new stations and prioritizing upgrades to existing stations to better serve low income cities and neighborhoods, and of course there's always the 'brute force' approach of just funding rapid transit expansions. (Or 'Rapid transit' in the case of the Fairmount Line)

 

[HelloBostonHi]

Cross posting a couple photos I took recently of the construction progress at East Taunton and Middleborough. There are more on Commons