General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Arlington said:
I Doubt any in cars on Congress are Boston voters. More like campaign contributors​.

But as for votes, extending Charlestown 92 &93 (which currently terminate at Haymarket) along Congress to South Station and the Seaport would be a pretty sweet political win for any Mayor.

An HOV lane would also mean that tourist attractions and hotels in the Quincy Market area could be easily connected by courtesy shuttle to the convention center.
Click to expand...

Good points. The 92, 93 bus extensions particularly.
 
I think ferries would be more effective if they went faster. They always feel like theyre moving at 10mph.

Maybe jetski share would be more competitive.
 
Proposition Joe said:
An amendment in the House budget calls for a study into running a trolley from Peabody to Salem:https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2018/HouseDebate/Amendments/peabody-salem%20trolley%20study
Click to expand...

No idea where the ridership would be for this considering the abysmal # of riders on the bus service in the area (which also receives a huge boost from the malls and connections to Lynn)

Here's the full text btw:

Amendment #88 to H3600

Peabody-Salem Trolley Study

Mr. Walsh of Peabody moves to amend the bill in section 2, in item 7008-0900, in line 4, by inserting after the word “development;” the following: “provided further, that not less than $50,000 be expended by the City of Peabody for the study of operating a high rail trolley service on the MBTA track running from Peabody Square to the Salem Depot”.
 
tysmith95 said:
Meh, so many projects that are more worthy. Extending the commuter rail out to Peabody would make more sense.
Click to expand...

If the money and political willpower magically appeared for this, here are the pros/cons of light rail vs. commuter rail IMO.

Pro:
  • No frequency limitations at Salem Tunnel and North Station
  • Lighter equipment means lower track upkeep?
  • Cheaper expansion to North Shore Mall and Danvers
  • Potentially less neighborhood resistance in Danvers which would otherwise kill a spur to Danversport or downtown
  • Economic development/ TOD potential from branches

Con:
  • Needs all new equipment
  • Storage space and mant. facility needed
  • Lower ridership potential compared to initial CR/blue line/MU's through the link
  • Nowhere near the urgency/potential of BLX to Lynn or even Salem
  • Not enough ridership between downtown Peabody and Salem
  • Brand new garages at Beverly and Salem still have capacity
  • Misses major north shore cities (Beverly, Lynn, Danvers at first)
  • Ignores major employment centers with TOD potential (NS mall, Salem State, Cummings Center, Centeniel Drive, Danvers downtown, Hawthorne developments, Coco Key/NS community college, etc)
 
bakgwailo said:
Apparently Secretary Pollack is saying they are going to reevaluate Zone 1/1a fairs:

http://www.universalhub.com/2017/state-reevaluate-commuter-rail-fares-close

About time, if I might say so. Hopefully most of Zone 1 gets rolled into 1a/subway level fairs.
Click to expand...

Or eliminate zones. They are arbitrary and unfair. A half mile shouldnt cost $4

All stations get charged on a per-mile basis. Fee for ending/starting in downtown Boston.

TMAs sell based on station, not zone. This is easier for tourists and casual riders that know the name of their stop but not the zone.

Monthlies simply buy their pass based on origin and destination. Anything shorter is free.
 
Another option is to keep fare zones, but change it so that the lowest regular fare is a two-zone ticket. The base fare works in any two contiguous zones, so a short trip across a single fare zone boundary never incurs an additional charge.

But this would likely require completely re-thinking and redesigning how fare zones are set up. An example would be to designate downtown (essentially Back Bay, North, and South stations) as Zone 1, the rest of rapid-transit-land as Zone 2, and then outward from there. Travel within rapid-transit-land would be a two-zone fare - which, again, is the base/standard/regular fare.

It should also be accompanied by a switch to mode-neutral fares (at least on land modes, ferries could be an exception). For example, travel by bus, commuter rail, or subway within any two contiguous zones is $2.50. Travel through three zones is $3.50, four zones is $4.50 - something like that.
 
Unfair is in the eye of the beholder. Which is more unfair: flat fares or mile-based or congestion based? Mostly an individual's answer will depend on whether their trip is long/short or peak/offpeak. I think fairness is the weakest possible standard, mostly because it is so subjective. (basically, if people think they are paying "too much" they say it is unfair)

In Paris, where the poor live on the exurban rings, moving to a flat, systemwide fare was seen as progressive.

In Boston, though, don't the (relatively) affluent tend to live in the suburban Ring? (or fanciest neighborhoods tend to cluster in Zones 1 thru 3)? (eg. Zone 3's Weston & Wellesley, and Belmont, Winchester and Melrose are all Zone 1) And by the time you're zone 4-or-farther, we hope cost of living has fallen enough that high fares are a small price to pay.


I think the standard should be "economically efficient" and "socially progressive" and that favors congestion pricing for the weekday AM-inbound and PM-outbound trips that use the termini because:
1) the office-hour jobs tend to be high-paying (so it is progressive)
2) seats in the terminal zone are in shortest supply (so price cues are efficient)

But then a flat or flat-ish fare is probably ridership-maximizing on:
1) The first train of the day (when service employees travel to "open the store")
2) Midday & Evenings, when we'd like to make useful transit
3) Sat/Sun/Hol, particularly to out-compete drive-and-park
 
I think the Hyde Park can be made, but I think there is an unacknowledged aspect to the fair design in this conversation. I look at Braintree and think the MBTA does not want people to take the commuter rail, they want people to take the red line. Otherwise you could have 300-400 people wait at peak rush wait for an already jammed CR. The price differential is a feature not a bug.

Not saying it is the most equitable or that less directly served areas shouldn't have more subway-esque fairs, but I think this is a design.
 
Arlington said:
Unfair is in the eye of the beholder. Which is more unfair: flat fares or mile-based or congestion based?
Click to expand...

If you are responding to me, I said it should be a flat mile fee.

I dont know the right amount, but for the purpose of discussion, lets say $1 a mile, and here are some made up distances.

Boston - West Medford, 2 miles = $2
Boston - Winchester, 3 miles = $3
West Medford - Winchester, 1 mile = $1
Winchester - Lowell, 6 miles = $6

I think this kind of system is fair. (Again the numbers are just for easy math here)

Compare to something like this, where the zones move around based on what I assume were people complaining

mbta-rail-timescale.png



Going an extra .5 miles from West Medford to Wedgemere for an extra $4 doesnt fit any definition of fair.
 
jass said:
Going an extra .5 miles from West Medford to Wedgemere for an extra $4 doesnt fit any definition of fair.
Click to expand...
Playing devil's advocate:
From an equity standpoint: Crossing from West Medford into Wedgemenere, you're
1) Changing jurisdictions
2) Stepping up about $1m per home in real estate value
3) Leaping up in income

The Zoned fares look nicely progressive (as % of income or trip value) And Wedgemere and Winchester Center are fully-subscribed parkingwise as it is, suggesting that either their parking or their fares (or both) are underpriced even at Zone 1 from an efficiency standpoint.

The "neighborhood tenure & entitlement" factions also consider this fair--that Medford has (somehow) earned this benefit because the private streetcars ran there and Zone 1A was (somehow) the price of merging the MTA with the B&M Lines to form the MBTA. It aint logical, but the concept of "fair" rarely is.

Would Wedgemere like a lower fare? Sure! Everyone wants fare reform to lower their fare! How would it make transit *better* when the constraint on ridership isn't price, but parking?

I might trade: A lower-fare zone for Wedgemere & Winchester Center *IF* Winchester agrees to build more parking so that transit use can increase as fares fall. Otherwise cutting fares is Wedgemere is just a revenue loss, ridership stagnation, and putting extra $ in the pockets of people who mostly don't need it.
 
Flat fee for starting or ending in Boston. Beyond that pay per mile, with graduated rates so miles farther from the city are cheaper. Reverse commute (and weekend?) get a percentage off.

Something like:
Subway fare within current Zone 1A.
$X per mile for distance from station to edge of current Zone 1A, inside 128.
$Y per mile for distance from station to 128, inside 495.
$Z per mile for distance from station to 495, outside 495.
X>Y>Z.

So, for example, fare from Worcester to Boston would be:
[$Z * (12 miles from Worcester to 495)] + [$Y * (17 miles from 495 to 128)] + [$X * (8 miles from 128 to Yawkey)] + Subway fare.

The problem with comparing Commuter Rail fares to subway/bus T fares is that it makes you realize just how cheap the subway/bus T really is.
 
JumboBuc said:
Flat fee for starting or ending in Boston. Beyond that pay per mile, with graduated rates so miles farther from the city are cheaper. Reverse commute (and weekend?) get a percentage off.

Something like:
Subway fare within current Zone 1A.
$X per mile for distance from station to edge of current Zone 1A, inside 128.
$Y per mile for distance from station to 128, inside 495.
$Z per mile for distance from station to 495, outside 495.
X>Y>Z.
Click to expand...

I like this but I'd also set the subway fare as the minimum fare. Also off/reverse peak travelers should possibly get a per mile charge rather than the flat fee within zone 1a (in addition to some other sort of discount, and once again the subway fare would still be the floor).
 
Arlington said:
Playing devil's advocate:
How would it make transit *better* when the constraint on ridership isn't price, but parking?

I might trade: A lower-fare zone for Wedgemere & Winchester Center *IF* Winchester agrees to build more parking so that transit use can increase as fares fall. Otherwise cutting fares is Wedgemere is just a revenue loss, ridership stagnation, and putting extra $ in the pockets of people who mostly don't need it.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Wedgmere and Winchester are in very walkable and bikeable areas. While the parking is certainly at a premium, you can get more people to ride if you lower fares and improve pedestrian and bicycle access.
 
Balerion said:
Which as it happens, is underway:

http://www.tricommunitygreenway.org/maps
Click to expand...

This isn't really a CR-access net win for Wedgemere, since the path just connects it to Winchester Center (which has CR of its own)

This will increase CR-access to Winchester Center from points further north and can increase ridership there. I'm not persuaded that fares have to go down to make it worthwhile or fair.
 
Arlington said:
This will increase CR-access to Winchester Center from points further north and can increase ridership there. I'm not persuaded that fares have to go down to make it worthwhile or fair.
Click to expand...

The biggest issues with the fares are for families, especially on weekends.

$6.25 *4 * 2 = $50

Parking at Post Office Square on weekends = $9.00

It's a no-brainer.

You have to hate yourself to pay $50 for the luxury of enjoying a 3 hour headway.
 
This is why I believe a flat $5 (and kids Free) would be a good weekend fare to get people out if their cars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top