General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[tysmith95]

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

And frankly, there are more drivers than there are transit users in the state as a whole. So that explains why a gas tax increase is more politically toxic than a transit fare increase.

That's why I honestly think some sort of congestion pricing or toll near the center of Boston would be an easier sell compared to a gas tax. You could more easily sell it to people who don't live in urban Boston.

And honestly this whole thing makes me upset with Baker. The Patrick administration did horrible in handling the MBTA, so Baker isin't horrible by comparison, but I don't like how Baker opposes gas tax increases and congestion pricing but is so quick to raise MBTA fares. At least Patrick raised the gas tax too (though still, at that time MBTA fares went up faster than the gas tax).

It goes back to the whole self interest thing. Baker drives in from Swampscott. Though i'm sure if he listened to Swampscott voters, he'd be less willing to raise transit fares and more willing to support projects like the NSRL (Swampscott station is highly used, and driving anywhere from that part of the North Shore sort of sucks).

 

[George_Apley]

And frankly, there are more drivers than there are transit users in the state as a whole. So that explains why a gas tax increase is more politically toxic than a transit fare increase.

Oh obviously. The state needs to do a better job at framing transportation issues for the public, and educate why it makes sense to use a holistic, rather than zero-sum approach with transportation dollars.

 

[tysmith95]

Oh obviously. The state needs to do a better job at framing transportation issues for the public, and educate why it makes sense to use a holistic, rather than zero-sum approach with transportation dollars.

Though transit is more expensive than roads, if you're talking about per dollar and per citizen (for governments). Just paying devils advocate though. That's why I think it makes sense to focus more on increasing auto taxes in inner Boston. That's where you have a large chunk of people using transit, and where traffic and congestion is the worst. We don't want people in Ubers and private cars during rush hour, we want a good public transportation system. It's better for the environment and region as a whole.

I don't know how any politician can pay lip service to climate change but not fight against MBTA fare increases (looking at you Baker).

 

[tangent]

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.

The public voted to overturn what I thought was a fairly good law that did link the gas tax to inflation.

I have no doubt that will be more costly in the end as the state uses borrowing to smooth out the periods between gas tax increases which must eventually get raised along with inflation just as property taxes, income and sales taxes already do by their nature.

Gas tax will get increased to catch up with inflation, just not every year.

 

[mass88]

I am not sure if this is the right thread to post this in, but how much of a difference does a surface line vs. underground make? In terms of speed, reliability, etc.?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I am not sure if this is the right thread to post this in, but how much of a difference does a surface line vs. underground make? In terms of speed, reliability, etc.?

None, unless you're talking buses vs. constrained spaces...in which case shoulder width (surface or tunnel...but especially in tunnels) and obstructed sightlines play a role because it's a vehicle without a fixed guideway operating under entirely human control (whether there's traffic lights or wayside signals or not).

Choice of tunnel vs. surface is entirely a terrain issue. Unobstructed terrain 99% of the time means surface line for reasons of cost; obstructed terrain (like a big city neighborhood) often means some method of tunneling when cuts or elevateds won't do. Speed on a fixed guideway relates to ROW geometry (curves, inclines, etc.), signaling, service density (offshoot of signaling), presence or lackthereof of auto-stop and/or auto-speed enforcement (signaling-related), grade crossing placement or lackthereof, traffic mixing (e.g. branching, freight/passenger shared, dual-mode shared), vehicle capabilities, stop spacing, and so on. But on an apples-apples comparison of 1 line that's on the surface and 1 line that's below ground...if all those other ROW factors are equal the lines should match 1:1 on native speed.

 

[whittle]

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.

There was sort of an experiment with this a couple years ago when Cupuano used campaign funds to make the Fairmount Line free for a couple weeks.

 

[bigeman312]

If you were looking at going to a $0 fare for any MBTA service, it would make sense to start by targeting bus service. It's the service that serves the most low-income population with the fewest alternatives. It's the service with the highest time-cost of having fares (ie payment on board, cash or otherwise, slows the buses' operation). It is also the service with the lowest existing fares.

The FMCB control board indicates that annual bus fare revenue is ~$108m. That's an attainable funding amount. Exempting Express Buses pushes the amount even lower. Plus, it would increase system-wise ridership and support.

The Siklver Line is fare-free from the airport. As a small first step, you could make all Silver Line services free, given that they serve many of the low-income areas, and expand the free fares from there.

 

[tysmith95]

None, unless you're talking buses vs. constrained spaces...in which case shoulder width (surface or tunnel...but especially in tunnels) and obstructed sightlines play a role because it's a vehicle without a fixed guideway operating under entirely human control (whether there's traffic lights or wayside signals or not).

The silver line as currently built is the biggest waste of money that I can think of. It provides no advantage versus surface buses. In fact for the Chelsea and airport routes, a street running line would be faster and serve riders better.

I mean it's a good tunnel to eventually put light rail on to, but that's not anywhere in MBTA's short-mid range plans.

If possible routing one of the Somerville lines going south to the seaport would make a ton of sense. That combined with a possible shuttle train from Boston Landing, Yawkey, Back Bay, to the Seaport could provide some good transit to the Seaport. The track there exists, I think it should be used.

 

[Arlington]

If you were looking at going to a $0 fare for any MBTA service, it would make sense to start by targeting bus service. It's the service that serves the most low-income population with the fewest alternatives. It's the service with the highest time-cost of having fares (ie payment on board, cash or otherwise, slows the buses' operation). It is also the service with the lowest existing fares.

Great idea. It also puts fare collection and fare machines at the subway, where these are easy processes that don't slow the vehicles.

In DC they have a $1 circulator with low floors and 2 big doors. But a $0 bus with all-door boarding (and maybe 3 doors) would be even better.

 

[tangent]

Pricing should be used to help manage demand of what is a limited and costly shared resource. Induced demand can lead to transit congestion every bit as much as it can with roads.

Although if you can get event sponsors to pay for free fares at certain stops and stations at certain times that could be a way to pay for free fares. But some employers/schools already subsidize less expensive or free monthly passes so "free" or subsidized is already happening. As I mentioned, social welfare services should also be providing free or subsidized passes according to need if they aren't already.

If anything I would argue that we need to look at building in price per mile and congestion into the fare/pass pricing otherwise the system is encouraging people to live farther away from employment and isn't managing demand away from peak hours.

 

[jklo]

The silver line as currently built is the biggest waste of money that I can think of. It provides no advantage versus surface buses. In fact for the Chelsea and airport routes, a street running line would be faster and serve riders better.

True but the Silver Line was supposed to have dedicated ROW all the way to the airport as part of the original Big Dig proposal.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

True but the Silver Line was supposed to have dedicated ROW all the way to the airport as part of the original Big Dig proposal.

...and to Silver Line Way until ohforgetaboutit.

 

[tysmith95]

Pricing should be used to help manage demand of what is a limited and costly shared resource. Induced demand can lead to transit congestion every bit as much as it can with roads.

Although if you can get event sponsors to pay for free fares at certain stops and stations at certain times that could be a way to pay for free fares. But some employers/schools already subsidize less expensive or free monthly passes so "free" or subsidized is already happening. As I mentioned, social welfare services should also be providing free or subsidized passes according to need if they aren't already.

If anything I would argue that we need to look at building in price per mile and congestion into the fare/pass pricing otherwise the system is encouraging people to live farther away from employment and isn't managing demand away from peak hours.

My employer downtown doesn't subsidize MBTA passes, but I can get pre tax monies to pay for a monthly pass (which depending on your tax bracket can save a decent percentage).

 

[FK4]

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

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

Work owns the parking and it’s very cheap... i pay about 6.50 a day, vs $17 for Commuter->subway. Still, even tho my parking is cheap, the cost of transit is pretty damn high, and T passes wouldn’t help that much. Work also would subsidize a T pass, but the commuter and subway passes are separate so it still wouldn’t be anywhere near as affordable. The lack of integration between commuter rail and subway is another big issue, that i don’t think should MBTA should force everyone to have to wait for regional rail to examine as a separate matter.

 

[jklo]

Work also would subsidize a T pass, but the commuter and subway passes are separate so it still wouldn’t be anywhere near as affordable. The lack of integration between commuter rail and subway is another big issue, that i don’t think should MBTA should force everyone to have to wait for regional rail to examine as a separate matter.

???

You get subway for 'free' by getting a commuter rail pass.

 

[HenryAlan]

[T]he commuter and subway passes are separate so it still wouldn’t be anywhere near as affordable. The lack of integration between commuter rail and subway is another big issue, that i don’t think should MBTA should force everyone to have to wait for regional rail to examine as a separate matter.

No, you are misinformed. The Zone 1 pass is also good for any transit that accepts a Link pass. Generally speaking, any higher zoned pass will work for any lower zoned ride throughout the entire system. Where that doesn't work is with the interzone fares, and perhaps some express buses and ferries. So for $200.25, your daily cost if you only use it for workday commuting would be about $10. That's still more than your company's garage, but when you factor in other costs, it's probably competitive.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I find the MBTA website info on passes very confusing.

The way the site reads a Monthly LinkPass (subway, bus) is not usable on Commuter Rail Zone 1a, or the Charlestown Ferry.

But a Commuter Rail Zone 1a Pass, or a Charlestown Ferry monthly pass (both same price as a LinkPass) are usable on subway and busses.

Not a very user friendly way to run a system.

 

[Coyote137]

The website is definitely confusing when it comes to monthly passes.

 

[jklo]

I find the MBTA website info on passes very confusing.

The way the site reads a Monthly LinkPass (subway, bus) is not usable on Commuter Rail Zone 1a, or the Charlestown Ferry.

But a Commuter Rail Zone 1a Pass, or a Charlestown Ferry monthly pass (both same price as a LinkPass) are usable on subway and busses.

Not a very user friendly way to run a system.

I would assume it's deliberately this way so that people who seek out the 1A pass are actually using the commuter rail. It might influence how much Keolis gets, etc.