General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[HelloBostonHi]

I didn't make it, but supposedly there was a packed house for the fare proposal meeting tonight in Boston.

Yeah I saw some pictures it definitely was, wish people would turn out like this for other transit proposals... The unfortunate thing is they are all yelling at the wrong people, sure the FMCB has the final say over the fare increase but if you want change and want to get to the root cause of the issue then people should be contacting lawmakers in the state and their reps, the FMCB can really only work within their bounds to make the budget work within the restrictions they are given...

 

[393b40]

What's the use in having these meetings? They're gonna raise the fares anyway!! Supposedly, they are allowed to raise them every 2 years! Seems like it's every year to me!

It's to make you believe you have a voice. Gotta keep the illusion of transparency and democracy going in this day and age.

 

[tangent]

A 6% increase over 3 years is just a basic inflation/cost of living increase. If anything they should just do it every year, but it costs more in signage and printing costs.

Although I recognize that transit is often the only option for lower income people, the mbta is a transportation system and shouldn't have to subsidize poor people by lowering fares. We have social welfare systems and transportation subsidies that can go to individuals based on need and circumstances through those programs.

 

[Kinopio]

A 6% increase over 3 years is just a basic inflation/cost of living increase. If anything they should just do it every year, but it costs more in signage and printing costs.

Then the gas tax should be tripled immediately to make up for all the decades it wasn't raised. But that won't happen. Only the responsible people have to pay up. The drivers who are killing others and ruining the planet don't pay more, they just get more welfare.

 

[tysmith95]

Yeah I saw some pictures it definitely was, wish people would turn out like this for other transit proposals... The unfortunate thing is they are all yelling at the wrong people, sure the FMCB has the final say over the fare increase but if you want change and want to get to the root cause of the issue then people should be contacting lawmakers in the state and their reps, the FMCB can really only work within their bounds to make the budget work within the restrictions they are given...

I have already contacted my state rep, and she is great at responding. I'll try with my state senator.

 

[tysmith95]

Yeah I saw some pictures it definitely was, wish people would turn out like this for other transit proposals... The unfortunate thing is they are all yelling at the wrong people, sure the FMCB has the final say over the fare increase but if you want change and want to get to the root cause of the issue then people should be contacting lawmakers in the state and their reps, the FMCB can really only work within their bounds to make the budget work within the restrictions they are given...

I have already contacted my state rep, and she is great at responding. I'll try with my state senator.

There's a commuter rail vision open house on March 5th that I'll be attending.

 

[Equilibria]

A 6% increase over 3 years is just a basic inflation/cost of living increase. If anything they should just do it every year, but it costs more in signage and printing costs.

Although I recognize that transit is often the only option for lower income people, the mbta is a transportation system and shouldn't have to subsidize poor people by lowering fares. We have social welfare systems and transportation subsidies that can go to individuals based on need and circumstances through those programs.

The central problem here is a fallacy that Michelle Wu and others are spreading that fare increases must be tied to improving service... why? The MBTA talks a big game about their "customers" as they should, but at the end of the day public transit is not a business, it's a social service. Your users aren't customers, they're partners, and we collectively fund transit in order to gain a collective benefit. [Note - transit CAN be a business in cases where you've contracted it out, as the T has to Keolis on Commuter Rail, but that doen't apply here].

This attitude of "why do you ask us to pay when you aren't giving us anything in return?" is silly. The MBTA is giving you transit. If the increasing cost of providing that transit requires that you contribute more, that's entirely appropriate.

FWIW, as Steve Poftak pointed out in the Globe the largest source of the MBTA's funding is a Statewide sales tax. I believe that fares are third, also behind Federal funding generated from the Federal gas tax. On the whole, MBTA riders are already receiving a spectacular subsidy from Massachusetts residents who either choose not to use it or who don't live in the service area. I think that's a good and necessary thing, but the whining from riders when they're asked to pay any share at all of the cost of their transportation is grating.

Making transit free for people who need it to be free is a great idea that's entirely in keeping with the concept of public transportation - being able to move freely should be a basic right that government supports. However, the share of people riding the T daily who need it to be free is not 100%, or even 50% (or probably even 30%). I have no sympathy for the person complaining about a $90 pass when they can and should pay $300.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The central problem here is a fallacy that Michelle Wu and others are spreading that fare increases must be tied to improving service... why? The MBTA talks a big game about their "customers" as they should, but at the end of the day public transit is not a business, it's a social service. Your users aren't customers, they're partners, and we collectively fund transit in order to gain a collective benefit. [Note - transit CAN be a business in cases where you've contracted it out, as the T has to Keolis on Commuter Rail, but that doen't apply here].

This attitude of "why do you ask us to pay when you aren't giving us anything in return?" is silly. The MBTA is giving you transit. If the increasing cost of providing that transit requires that you contribute more, that's entirely appropriate.

FWIW, as Steve Poftak pointed out in the Globe the largest source of the MBTA's funding is a Statewide sales tax. I believe that fares are third, also behind Federal funding generated from the Federal gas tax. On the whole, MBTA riders are already receiving a spectacular subsidy from Massachusetts residents who either choose not to use it or who don't live in the service area. I think that's a good and necessary thing, but the whining from riders when they're asked to pay any share at all of the cost of their transportation is grating.

Making transit free for people who need it to be free is a great idea that's entirely in keeping with the concept of public transportation - being able to move freely should be a basic right that government supports. However, the share of people riding the T daily who need it to be free is not 100%, or even 50% (or probably even 30%). I have no sympathy for the person complaining about a $90 pass when they can and should pay $300.

I would completely agree with this, if we were also increasing the gas tax or other transportation related support taxes at a rate that also is equivalent to inflation. But we don't.

Transportation funding, as a general public service (all modes), is broken.

 

[Equilibria]

I would completely agree with this, if we were also increasing the gas tax or other transportation related support taxes at a rate that also is equivalent to inflation. But we don't.

Transportation funding, as a general public service (all modes), is broken.

Those ideas aren't tightly linked, though. Increase the MA gas tax if you need to pay for replacement/safer bridges and roadways. Increase the T fares if you need to pay for transit operations, which drivers pay for almost entirely out-of-pocket.

I agree that we should raise fees generally if we can program the money into needed projects and hire/train personnel and ensure local contractor capacity to deliver the projects successfully, but I don't think we need to raise fees on drivers every time we raise them on transit riders out of some 1st grade sense of fairness.

The gas tax isn't a punishment for driving, regardless of how much some people want it to be.

 

[fattony]

The central problem here is a fallacy that Michelle Wu and others are spreading that fare increases must be tied to improving service... why? The MBTA talks a big game about their "customers" as they should, but at the end of the day public transit is not a business, it's a social service. Your users aren't customers, they're partners, and we collectively fund transit in order to gain a collective benefit. [Note - transit CAN be a business in cases where you've contracted it out, as the T has to Keolis on Commuter Rail, but that doen't apply here].

This attitude of "why do you ask us to pay when you aren't giving us anything in return?" is silly. The MBTA is giving you transit. If the increasing cost of providing that transit requires that you contribute more, that's entirely appropriate.

FWIW, as Steve Poftak pointed out in the Globe the largest source of the MBTA's funding is a Statewide sales tax. I believe that fares are third, also behind Federal funding generated from the Federal gas tax. On the whole, MBTA riders are already receiving a spectacular subsidy from Massachusetts residents who either choose not to use it or who don't live in the service area. I think that's a good and necessary thing, but the whining from riders when they're asked to pay any share at all of the cost of their transportation is grating.

Making transit free for people who need it to be free is a great idea that's entirely in keeping with the concept of public transportation - being able to move freely should be a basic right that government supports. However, the share of people riding the T daily who need it to be free is not 100%, or even 50% (or probably even 30%). I have no sympathy for the person complaining about a $90 pass when they can and should pay $300.

You make really good points here. I'm inclined to strongly agree because you outline a philosophy I can agree with that is also in close keeping with the status quo (and thus highly feasible).

However, I don't want to dismiss removing fares too quickly because there is a political/psychological element to it and there are operations implications. We do spend time and money setting fares, collecting fare, and talking about how much fares should be. We also design stations, vehicles, and schedules around collecting fares.

How much operating expense (salaries, equipment, sign printing, accounting) is cut by going to zero fare?
How much ridership is generated?
How many more trips per day can we make on the same equipment?
How much can passenger circulation be improved by stripping out fare gates and opening more stations entrance/exits?
What is the impact on people's psychology - do they begin to value our free/communal public transit the way they value our parks?

There are other ways to collect revenue that is fair and progressive. I think progressive income tax can be part of it, especially if it were levied on a geographical basis. I think property taxes can easily be part of it as they are already geographic. I don't worry too much about collecting money specifically from the riders because non-riders in metro Boston benefit too. Its really the farther flung areas of the state that we need to figure out how to not overtax.

Its just food for thought. We only collect 30% of cost by fares. We can increase that percentage or we can decrease it. The thing is, there is a big delta when you actually let it go to zero.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Those ideas aren't tightly linked, though. Increase the MA gas tax if you need to pay for replacement/safer bridges and roadways. Increase the T fares if you need to pay for transit operations, which drivers pay for almost entirely out-of-pocket.

I agree that we should raise fees generally if we can program the money into needed projects and hire/train personnel and ensure local contractor capacity to deliver the projects successfully, but I don't think we need to raise fees on drivers every time we raise them on transit riders out of some 1st grade sense of fairness.

The gas tax isn't a punishment for driving, regardless of how much some people want it to be.

But transportation funding, like transportation planning, needs to be wholistic, rather than balkanized. The fantasy that these different transportation modes are not intimately linked needs to end.

Fail to fund transit properly and dump the T riders with a driving option back on the roads and see what happens to traffic. Fail to fund bike infrastructure and force biker to drive and see what happens to traffic. Fail to properly tax ride sharing and see what happens to traffic. Fail to manage parking availability and see what happens to traffic. Comprehensive regional transportation (not just transit) policy and funding is needed or we face the mobility equivalent of a massive heart attack. (See Seaport as Exhibit A)

 

[Coyote137]

Those ideas aren't tightly linked, though. Increase the MA gas tax if you need to pay for replacement/safer bridges and roadways. Increase the T fares if you need to pay for transit operations, which drivers pay for almost entirely out-of-pocket.

I agree that we should raise fees generally if we can program the money into needed projects and hire/train personnel and ensure local contractor capacity to deliver the projects successfully, but I don't think we need to raise fees on drivers every time we raise them on transit riders out of some 1st grade sense of fairness.

The gas tax isn't a punishment for driving, regardless of how much some people want it to be.

It's not a first grade sense of fairness when fares have risen several times while the gas tax has gone up once in the last couple decades. And as a rider, I am not only paying "$90" per month. I pay the sales tax, and I pay state income taxes, so my contribution to the system is far higher than $90 per month.

Again, this conversation chooses for some unknown reason to ignore externalities, which I will keep pounding on like a broken record until those costs are brought into this calculation. The gas tax does NOT currently account for the extent of pollution, health care costs, etc., that driving introduces to the world - nor does it adequately fund the cost of road/highway/bridge infrastructure for cars and trucks.

Ultimately, I would probably be fine with paying higher fares, but politically this needs to be pushed back upon for a variety of reasons. As with all things, this is a negotiation. Wu knows damn well T fares aren't going to be free, it's a matter of the range of possibilities under discussion (i.e., Overton Window).

 

[cadetcarl]

Back of the envelope calc from this summary of the FY19 budget indicates that to go to zero-fare we'd need to replace $671.4M. That's just about $100 per capita. I don't know what a good assumption is for number of taxpayers vs total population, but let's say it's half. $200. Let's pad it a little to get in the black, $250.

I know my figures could use some refinement but that's a figure on an order of magnitude that seems worth entertaining. In its most basic form, to me the prospect of paying an annual fee of about that much in exchange for being able to walk on any bus, train, or ferry is wildly appealing. That's three months of passes. Ridership would balloon, and then we could have the same fight about the T tax as we do about the gas tax. But the dollar amount seems pretty reasonable.

 

[tysmith95]

But transportation funding, like transportation planning, needs to be wholistic, rather than balkanized. The fantasy that these different transportation modes are not intimately linked needs to end.

Fail to fund transit properly and dump the T riders with a driving option back on the roads and see what happens to traffic. Fail to fund bike infrastructure and force biker to drive and see what happens to traffic. Fail to properly tax ride sharing and see what happens to traffic. Fail to manage parking availability and see what happens to traffic. Comprehensive regional transportation (not just transit) policy and funding is needed or we face the mobility equivalent of a massive heart attack. (See Seaport as Exhibit A)

The majority of Commuter Rail customers have cars, so increasing fares could bring some of them to just drive to work.

With urban transit, there is competition from cars too. Uber Pool and Lyft Line can be pretty affordable at times, I know people who use it to commute regularly despite available transit options.

I think the proposal (I forget who made it) to increase revenue by adding a tax on parking in the Downtown/Back Bay/etc and on Uber/Lyft trips in downtown areas would make a ton of sense. You wouldn't upset central/western Mass voters, who don't want to foot the bill for MBTA waste, and you could prevent a MBTA fare hike.

In the center of the city we should do all we can to encourage transit use and discourage driving.

 

[FK4]

I literally live a 3 minute walk to the station, and I could take the commuter rail from Roslindale but 1) it’s twice as much money as parking and 2) the morning trains, unless you get really early ones, are horribly packed (as a side note, they don’t collect fare when it’s packed, so the T is losing thousands on this every day). Driving is misery but if the misery is equivalent and the price better, I’ll drive instead.

 

[statler]

Where are you parking downtown for <$200/month?

I'm not being snarky, I would love to find a place to park that cheaply.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

How much operating expense (salaries, equipment, sign printing, accounting) is cut by going to zero fare?
How much ridership is generated?
How many more trips per day can we make on the same equipment?

Based on a simple cost and demand curve, removing the cost would greatly increase demand. The problem is on the supply and demand curve suddenly there would be way way more demand than supply. I can barely shove my way onto an OL train in the morning at 7:30am, I hate to think how much worse it would be with no fares, I honestly suspect the increased crowding and likelyhood of being unable to board would push me into alternative options like driving/TNC as much as I dislike them. If our trains were consistently running empty then sure I understand it, which is why I am SUCH a big proponent of peak fares or off peak discounts, whichever way you look at it providing cheaper fares in the off-peak to boost ridership is a great idea. It also can benefit the non-traditional work hour people who tend to be lower-income groups who need it.

 

[statler]

I wonder how good our transit system would have to be to handle zero fare? Probable a thread better for crazy transit pitches.

 

[George_Apley]

But transportation funding, like transportation planning, needs to be wholistic, rather than balkanized. The fantasy that these different transportation modes are not intimately linked needs to end.

Fail to fund transit properly and dump the T riders with a driving option back on the roads and see what happens to traffic. Fail to fund bike infrastructure and force biker to drive and see what happens to traffic. Fail to properly tax ride sharing and see what happens to traffic. Fail to manage parking availability and see what happens to traffic. Comprehensive regional transportation (not just transit) policy and funding is needed or we face the mobility equivalent of a massive heart attack. (See Seaport as Exhibit A)

This. Absolutely this. Most folks are too blinded by self-interest to get it.

 

[fattony]

Based on a simple cost and demand curve, removing the cost would greatly increase demand. The problem is on the supply and demand curve suddenly there would be way way more demand than supply. I can barely shove my way onto an OL train in the morning at 7:30am, I hate to think how much worse it would be with no fares, I honestly suspect the increased crowding and likelyhood of being unable to board would push me into alternative options like driving/TNC as much as I dislike them. If our trains were consistently running empty then sure I understand it, which is why I am SUCH a big proponent of peak fares or off peak discounts, whichever way you look at it providing cheaper fares in the off-peak to boost ridership is a great idea. It also can benefit the non-traditional work hour people who tend to be lower-income groups who need it.

Granted, the OL in its current crush-loaded state may not be looking for a ridership boost. After the fleet overhaul however, it should be primed to swallow up a lot more demand. Even still, that load is only in the peak. You could open the turnstile outside of rush hour.

More importantly than our HRT lines though - buses and above ground trolleys could get a performance boost by not collecting fares. Reduced dwell times turn into a free (i.e. no additional vehicles or driver's wages) increase in frequency. Couple that with the basics of supply and demand you pointed out and you have a virtuous cycle for ridership growth.

Free commuter rail zone-1A is something we could pilot today. It is not well known by bus and subway riders that you can ride commuter rail several stops from downtown for a subway fare. Make that free today by having conductors only check tickets outside of 1A and promote the hell out of it just to see what happens.

EDIT - Just had a great idea. Brand my CM idea as "ZONE ZERO" for $0 fare. I can see big purple posters all over subway stations and bus stops with a spider map of Zone Zero and all the points you can reach for free.