General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[Jouhou]

Any "punishment" for breaking MBTA rules is probably the purview of the transit police. The cost of paying a cop to sit around and watch for people fooling with the gates is probably higher than the cost of the subway fares you'd recover.

Also, as demonstrated by NYC Transit's experiments with "broken windows" policing, a crackdown on fare evasion just gives cops another method to racially profile, which is never a good thing.

Is there a non-profit out there that simply pays for the fares of those who struggle to make ends meet? You know, help people out and help the mbta patch it's budget holes at the same time?

 

[JumboBuc]

Thanks for following through with the source -- much appreciated.

That is an interesting figure they provide -- I wish we knew their methodology. If these numbers only referred to subway fare evasion (including surface Green Line, and thus not literally turnstyle jumpers), it would suggest something like an average of 10 evaders per hour at each station (again including each Green Line surface stop), including into the late hours of the night. That seems hard to believe to me, so I imagine a large chunk of the fare evasion occurs on the commuter rail, where the prices are higher anyway (making it easier to reach high evasion costs while keeping number of evaders low) and where fares regularly go unchecked, particularly during the afternoon peak.

The flipside to that is a fair number of commuters use a monthly pass, and so the fair is collected regardless of whether a conductor looks at it or not. (Heck, it's collected even if the passenger never boards the train.)

I wish I knew the distribution of passholders versus ticket users.

Go to, say, the Northeastern stop on the E and you'll see probably 10 evaders per train in the morning. Sometimes the conductor barks over the intercom to "come forward and pay your fare," but nobody does. You can tell they're evaders and not pass holders when they nudge their buddies and have a mischievous smirk on their faces when told to pay their fare. The same can be said for a bunch of surface level Green Line stops. And on the Commuter Rail, plenty of people "evade" simply because fares are never checked. The "evaders" aren't trying to be malicious, necessarily, they just aren't given the chance to pay.

Relatedly, I will never understand why the T doesn't make the Fenway stop on the D fully fare-gated. All it would take is like 100 linear feet of fencing, and maybe a small canopy over the fare gates.

Any "punishment" for breaking MBTA rules is probably the purview of the transit police. The cost of paying a cop to sit around and watch for people fooling with the gates is probably higher than the cost of the subway fares you'd recover.

A lot of the time the cops are already being paid to stand around the station and chat. The T just needs to require them to keep an eye on the turnstiles while doing so. That being said, some stations (e.g., the DTX Red Line turnstiles by the Charlie Card Store) often have plain clothes transit cops picking up turnstile jumpers.

 

[jass]

Thanks for following through with the source -- much appreciated.

That is an interesting figure they provide -- I wish we knew their methodology. If these numbers only referred to subway fare evasion (including surface Green Line, and thus not literally turnstyle jumpers), it would suggest something like an average of 10 evaders per hour at each station (again including each Green Line surface stop), including into the late hours of the night. That seems hard to believe to me, so I imagine a large chunk of the fare evasion occurs on the commuter rail, where the prices are higher anyway (making it easier to reach high evasion costs while keeping number of evaders low) and where fares regularly go unchecked, particularly during the afternoon peak.

The flipside to that is a fair number of commuters use a monthly pass, and so the fair is collected regardless of whether a conductor looks at it or not. (Heck, it's collected even if the passenger never boards the train.)

I wish I knew the distribution of passholders versus ticket users.

10 evaders per hour per station = $22.50 in lost revenue

Im pretty sure the cost of having two cops (since they never stand along) posted at the station to catch these ten folks is well in excess of $22.5 per hour. Probably closer to $120 per hour.

 

[stefal]

Go to, say, the Northeastern stop on the E and you'll see probably 10 evaders per train in the morning. Sometimes the conductor barks over the intercom to "come forward and pay your fare," but nobody does. You can tell they're evaders and not pass holders when they nudge their buddies and have a mischievous smirk on their faces when told to pay their fare. The same can be said for a bunch of surface level Green Line stops. And on the Commuter Rail, plenty of people "evade" simply because fares are never checked. The "evaders" aren't trying to be malicious, necessarily, they just aren't given the chance to pay.

Relatedly, I will never understand why the T doesn't make the Fenway stop on the D fully fare-gated. All it would take is like 100 linear feet of fencing, and maybe a small canopy over the fare gates.

I witnessed at least 5 tourists/suburbanites not understand first door boarding today. Making it clearer that you should board at the first door to pay your fare might also help.

I also have a few (college-age) friends that, if it's close enough to the last train of the night, will wait for that train rather than an earlier one on the commuter rail. They've never been checked on the last train in the last 3 years.

Purely anecdotal, but I've seen many fare evaders trick the gates in plain sight of a transit ambassador. It would be great if part of their job was to prevent and/or punish this type of behavior.

Transit ambassadors in a red collared shirt? They won't have the power to do anything about it any further than pretty much telling them not to do that again. They're a private contractor from Kentucky and would likely not like to include "low-level security enforcement" in their contract.

 

[whittle]

Relatedly, I will never understand why the T doesn't make the Fenway stop on the D fully fare-gated. All it would take is like 100 linear feet of fencing, and maybe a small canopy over the fare gates.

Kind of moot with all door boarding coming. Also I've seen them set up belt barriers and collect fares from handheld readers after Red Sox games.

 

[Riverside]

Go to, say, the Northeastern stop on the E and you'll see probably 10 evaders per train in the morning. Sometimes the conductor barks over the intercom to "come forward and pay your fare," but nobody does. You can tell they're evaders and not pass holders when they nudge their buddies and have a mischievous smirk on their faces when told to pay their fare. The same can be said for a bunch of surface level Green Line stops. And on the Commuter Rail, plenty of people "evade" simply because fares are never checked. The "evaders" aren't trying to be malicious, necessarily, they just aren't given the chance to pay.

That's fair, though I have to admit I find fare evasion on the surface Green Line somehow a bit less... offensive (?) than wholesale turnstyle jumping. Likewise on the Commuter Rail -- both of these feel like failures of the MBTA et al. to actually implement a way to reasonably collect fares. There's an argument (especially on the crowded E Line) that the tradeoff for having a few folks boarding at the back, and thus increasing the speed of the trip overall, could be worth the lost fares.

If that $42 million figure (which was couched as "the high end," for whatever that's worth) mainly comes from Commuter Rail and surface Green Line -- and that sounds plausible -- then I think it's somewhat disingenuous to frame that as "fare evasion", since that term calls to mind the more flagrant turnstyle-hopping and tailgating.

Relatedly, I will never understand why the T doesn't make the Fenway stop on the D fully fare-gated. All it would take is like 100 linear feet of fencing, and maybe a small canopy over the fare gates.

Most of the D Line surface stops would take very little, in the schemes of things, to fare gate. If memory serves, most have platforms that are relatively isolated, with only a couple points of egress.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Most of the D Line surface stops would take very little, in the schemes of things, to fare gate. If memory serves, most have platforms that are relatively isolated, with only a couple points of egress.

Longwood would be an issue because the ped crossing between platforms doubles as an Emerald Necklace egress.

 

[sneijder]

10 evaders per hour per station = $22.50 in lost revenue

Im pretty sure the cost of having two cops (since they never stand along) posted at the station to catch these ten folks is well in excess of $22.5 per hour. Probably closer to $120 per hour.

Fare evasion fines are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and so on. So 10 evaders, assuming we can catch 8 of 10, is $800.

 

[Riverside]

Wire problem on D Line causing busing between Reservoir & Riverside. At least it’s not a derailment.

 

[jass]

Fare evasion fines are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and so on. So 10 evaders, assuming we can catch 8 of 10, is $800.

That puts the state even deeper in the red.

Once you throw in the bureaucracy behind tickets + the appeal process, it costs more than then $100 you get from them.

Same reason why police departments only do enforcement stings when they receive grants from a federal safety agency.

 

[cadetcarl]

We're seeing the problem of ethos rear its head at every scale. You need the public to believe in the competency of the institutions serving them or all sorts of necessary mores and customs start to fall apart. This is wildly simplistic but it seems to ring true:

There are systems around the world with an honor system and light enforcement, and they don't lose money! We can't have these nice things because the T is at a nadir of public esteem.

People who'd otherwise support a fare increase or gas tax increase as a necessary measure during funding shortfalls oppose them here because they don't feel like they're getting any value for their money.

People who'd otherwise be jumping down a Republican governor's throat for not addressing this crisis are mollified by the argument that the T's fiscal house is not in such an order that they can be entrusted with the levels of funding that they need.

I'll leave it to others to determine whether our beast was deliberately starved into this condition or just neglected for decades, but it seems clear that the first thing that needs to change is the public's belief that the T can do a good job. It's an incredibly hard battle to fight and win, and they're making big strides. The new Orange, Red and Green line rolling stock will go a long way to shake off the whole "old and busted" vibe the T has going on right now.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

First time I've seen the FMCB board really push for something new and innovative. Joseph Aiello suggested the MBTA offer $50 million in grants to local municipalities for them to build bus priority/bus lanes on their roads in an accelerated program, instead of the current long mess of coordination and funding hurdles. They would have to meet MBTA bus guidelines and be approved by July 2020. Using the MBTA's large budget and outsourcing to groups that have the management capacity to spend it sounds like a great idea... However he ends with "I don't know if its possible or if its legal" so just a proposal for now.

Also specifically called out Massport and said they can't be given any of the grants, citing their unwillingness to add transit priority for Silver Line 3 buses in the Logan airport area.

 

[whighlander]

First time I've seen the FMCB board really push for something new and innovative. Joseph Aiello suggested ........

Also specifically called out Massport and said they can't be given any of the grants, citing their unwillingness to add transit priority for Silver Line 3 buses in the Logan airport area.

Ultimate problem is at the Top organizational level
Ostensibly -- the T, Massport and all sorts of regional transit & the Steamship Authority are all under the Mass Dept of Transportation

Reality -- the Mass DOT is in charge in name only

Ultimate Solution:
a Metro Regional County-level government for Boston and everything inside the T or the MWRA's field of contact

Boston Metro would "own" the T, Massport, MWRA, Turnpike, Convention Center, etc., etc. -- then there could be coordination between projects at Logan, projects in the Seaport, projects in East Boston, the Casino, Assembly, Alston, etc., etc.

The cities and towns retain their local flavor and local ordinances for noise, public intoxication, local speed limits, etc.

Anything that is "global" within Metro is dealt with by the Metro Government -- with an Executive, a Legislative and a Judicial branch

Do away with all the stupid petty fiefdoms replete with deadwood nepotism

PSA: -- for all you who remember me -- well I'm back --- New Big Stuff is coming:
Winthrop, Congress, Logan Terminal E, Volpe

 

[Lrfox]

Fare evasion fines are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and so on. So 10 evaders, assuming we can catch 8 of 10, is $800.

You're assuming all 8 who are caught simply pay the fine without appealing or ignoring the citation altogether. That's not an assumption I'd be willing to make. BART is learning this the hard way.

Once you throw in the bureaucracy behind tickets + the appeal process, it costs more than then $100 you get from them.

Same reason why police departments only do enforcement stings when they receive grants from a federal safety agency.

Yep - just look how it's working for MUNI Metro. They net about $2.6 million per year and the program costs $6 million.

 

[millerm277]

First time I've seen the FMCB board really push for something new and innovative. Joseph Aiello suggested the MBTA offer $50 million in grants to local municipalities for them to build bus priority/bus lanes on their roads in an accelerated program, instead of the current long mess of coordination and funding hurdles. They would have to meet MBTA bus guidelines and be approved by July 2020. Using the MBTA's large budget and outsourcing to groups that have the management capacity to spend it sounds like a great idea... However he ends with "I don't know if its possible or if its legal" so just a proposal for now.

Pollack followed up with a "we'll figure out how to make it legal" type of comment, though.

My impression from watching prior meetings is that she's usually the one pumping the brakes on "wild ideas", so that was interesting to see the support coming from her corner.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

You're assuming all 8 who are caught simply pay the fine without appealing or ignoring the citation altogether. That's not an assumption I'd be willing to make. BART is learning this the hard way.



Yep - just look how it's working for MUNI Metro. They net about $2.6 million per year and the program costs $6 million.

What is much harder to quantify is how many people are choosing to pay and not fare-evade because there is a real threat of being caught and fined. Very challenging to enumerate the number of people who are deterred by these programs. Take the Prague metro, very high amount of fare evasion because there is little to no threat of being caught. London Underground, very low fare evasion because the threat of being caught is much higher, and the fines are easily enforceable and not cheap. But if you look at the numbers, TfL spends millions combating fare evasion and in exchange gets pennies back from fines, it appears useless from that perspective. But if you calculate in the number of people who *would* evade if the enforcement wasn't there, it balances out much better.

Pollack followed up with a "we'll figure out how to make it legal" type of comment, though.

My impression from watching prior meetings is that she's usually the one pumping the brakes on "wild ideas", so that was interesting to see the support coming from her corner.

I was equally surprised, but this is the kind of thinking I'd like to see from the board more often, where they can using a more startup approach, skip the bureaucracy and studies where possible and just try things, sure it won't all work but at least give it a go and see, I think a lot of riders would be happy to see more near-term, fast implementation proposals. I know its incredibly hard in a government org but still...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Pollack followed up with a "we'll figure out how to make it legal" type of comment, though.

My impression from watching prior meetings is that she's usually the one pumping the brakes on "wild ideas", so that was interesting to see the support coming from her corner.

It's a great idea where they can get it, but it's unfortunately going to be very balkanized by municipality where town-control roads are concerned. For every Everett there's some other NIMBY'ville who'll crap all over it because reasons. Or even neighborhoods within a town if the local government has a district-based council; it wasn't that long ago where doing this in City of Boston was like doing business with 6 or 7 city governmentlets at once with how much the neighborhoods could play divide-and-conquer. It's also a problem even on some numbered Massachusetts state highways when parts of those roads passing through the immediate downtown areas often revert temporarily to town control. So sometimes MassHighway can't force it, either.

It would lead to town-by-town inequities galore that would have to be stamped out in later appropriations, but since it pretty much takes a state constitutional amendment to do top-level planning overrides on town-control roadways I'd love to see them just start with a coalition of the willing for sake of getting best-practices on the ground soonest. And not just willing in a "Yay! Free money!" sense...but willing to take strings attached at adopting all design practices for the priority lanes to their fullest. That way nobody's allowed to do the priority transit lane with great fanfare, then quietly turn off the signal preemption 6 months later so instant gratification once again rules every signal. Float it with the buy-in conditions and see who jumps highest. If this is to become a sustainability thing where the grant chest gets replenished again and again for more awards, we need to see who's willing to out themselves as enthusiastic for it instead of just along for the money. Jealousy of thy neighbor ends up an effective motivator for getting the more indifferent or deadlocked municipalities drawn into the fold.

 

[whighlander]

Story in today's Globe about T's Crisis -- mostly the usual --- except:

Kendall Square "heavies" have come out directly requesting "West Station" and Grand Junction Line be put on the Fast Track [Pun ?]

 

[Lrfox]

What is much harder to quantify is how many people are choosing to pay and not fare-evade because there is a real threat of being caught and fined. Very challenging to enumerate the number of people who are deterred by these programs. Take the Prague metro, very high amount of fare evasion because there is little to no threat of being caught. London Underground, very low fare evasion because the threat of being caught is much higher, and the fines are easily enforceable and not cheap. But if you look at the numbers, TfL spends millions combating fare evasion and in exchange gets pennies back from fines, it appears useless from that perspective. But if you calculate in the number of people who *would* evade if the enforcement wasn't there, it balances out much better.

I agree with you. And to be fair, I'm not anti fines/enforcement for fare evaders. I'm just trying to highlight that the notion of "ticketing makes money!" is inaccurate. I actually am a fan of the way MUNI enforces - pairs of officers board vehicles (buses and light rail) at random, scan cards and check transfer slips, ticket on the spot, then move on to the next. There's really no good way to avoid it other than paying. I'd support something like that here.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

Baker just had a press conference about accelerating MBTA investments, key takeaways from the Globe: