MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Delvin4519]

Are distance based fees worth all the costs and penalties associated with their capture?

In the Rapid Transit System is means adding fare collection on the exit side of all station exits, including exit only egresses. How else to you prove distance?
On buses and surface streetcars it means exit tapping for all passengers, increasing dwell times. How else do you prove distance?

We don't trust Boston transit users to be honest about proof-of-purchase today. We are not going to trust them to be honest about proof-of-distance.

It would be the same forumla as an OV-Chipkaart in the Netherlands. Failure to tap out means paying a penalty fare like is in the Netherlands. Tapping into the system will draw the maximum fare cap, and tap out for the refund of the actual fare.

 

[JeffDowntown]

It would be the same forumla as an OV-Chipkaart in the Netherlands. Failure to tap out means paying a penalty fare like is in the Netherlands. Tapping into the system will draw the maximum fare cap, and tap out for the refund of the actual fare.

You are missing the point of all the extra equipment that needs to be installed and maintained in all the fare-controlled subway stations to enable tap out. $$$$

The cost penalty on the Green Line and buses is dwell time. The equipment will eventually be there with all door boarding. On a crowded Green Line car it is hard enough to just get to the door, much less get to a door and tap out while trying to exit.

 

[Delvin4519]

You are missing the point of all the extra equipment that needs to be installed and maintained in all the subway stations to enable tap out. $$$$

Isn't tap out already required for the commuter rail at North Station? IIRC I thought North Station added fare gates for the commuter rail.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Do you find the dwell times at bus and tram stops to be of reasonable length and within expectations of dwell times seen in other cities' bus/tram systems outside of the Netherlands? If dwell times on Dutch bus and tram systems are within striking range of those that use flat fares outside of the Netherlands, then this does not make a huge difference.

I can only speak to bus dwell times in Groningen, but in general, yes. There is all door boarding (at least during busy times) which helps a lot, and you don't need to tap out when you're leaving the bus, you can do it as soon as the stop "rolls over" if that makes sense. I see no reason why this type of system wouldn't work on buses, and I'd be surprised if it wouldn't work on the GL. On the off-chance it doesn't, the solution would be installing freestanding fare readers (at least for tap outs) at surface stops, which frankly I think should be done regardless to speed up service.

The commuter from West Roxbury or Marblehead is likely taking Commuter Rail not bus/subway combo. That is already A LOT MORE MONEY.

Lets use a rider from Quincy Adams or Braintree then. Their fare is the same for their 13.5 mile commute up to Cambridge as the fare of an East Boston resident heading 2 stops on the BL to State.

You are missing the point of all the extra equipment that needs to be installed and maintained in all the subway stations to enable tap out. $$$$

Not really. The actual readers aren't the expensive part, all the back-end and support infrastructure is. You'd need as many new readers as there are fare gates, let's say 1000 for the sake of argument, and that each one cost $20,000 which would be incredibly high, you can find basic fare readers for $500 on AliBaba. That brings the total capital cost up to $20,000,000, which is really not a ton, all things considered.

 

[TrolleybusFoaming]

Double-dipping on fares. If you're kicked off a Green Line train at Park, you're still behind the fare gates and can pick up a continuing train free for your troubles. Not so with bus routes that are shorted mid-trip.

However, when surface GL trains run express, the passengers who've been kicked off to board the following train making local stops don't have to pay again. I'm unsure whether dispatchers send an explicit instruction to the operator of the following train, or whether they just hear over the radio something about an express train nearby, see a bunch of people on the platform, and combine that with the knowledge that they've been following a train closely for a while.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Isn't tap out already required for the commuter rail at North Station? IIRC I thought North Station added fare gates for the commuter rail.

I thought they were tapping into the platform, not on the way out, but could be incorrect.

Aren't conductors still collecting fares on inbound trains?

 

[JeffDowntown]

I can only speak to bus dwell times in Groningen, but in general, yes. There is all door boarding (at least during busy times) which helps a lot, and you don't need to tap out when you're leaving the bus, you can do it as soon as the stop "rolls over" if that makes sense. I see no reason why this type of system wouldn't work on buses, and I'd be surprised if it wouldn't work on the GL. On the off-chance it doesn't, the solution would be installing freestanding fare readers (at least for tap outs) at surface stops, which frankly I think should be done regardless to speed up service.

Lets use a rider from Quincy Adams or Braintree then. Their fare is the same for their 13.5 mile commute up to Cambridge as the fare of an East Boston resident heading 2 stops on the BL to State.

Not really. The actual readers aren't the expensive part, all the back-end and support infrastructure is. You'd need as many new readers as there are fare gates, let's say 1000 for the sake of argument, and that each one cost $20,000 which would be incredibly high, you can find basic fare readers for $500 on AliBaba. That brings the total capital cost up to $20,000,000, which is really not a ton, all things considered.

$20 million for what exact benefit? And there is ongoing maintenance plus the software upgrades for tap out calculations. (I know that sounds trivial, but given we are talking Cubic, they would charge millions up front and millions in annual licensing.)

Isn't the real inequity that Lynn to Downtown is $7.00 (CR); but Braintree to Downtown is $2.40 (T)? Same Distance?

 

[TrolleybusFoaming]

I thought they were tapping into the platform, not on the way out, but could be incorrect.

Aren't conductors still collecting fares on inbound trains?

You're required to tap both in and out, and conductors are still collecting fares on both inbound and outbound trains. The two checks are completely separate.

 

[Delvin4519]

$20 million for what exact benefit? And there is ongoing maintenance plus the software upgrades for tap out calculations. (I know that sounds trivial, but given we are talking Cubic, they would charge millions up front and millions in annual licensing.)

Isn't the real inequity that Lynn to Downtown is $7.00 (CR); but Braintree to Downtown is $2.40 (T)? Same Distance?

That's why a full distance based fare system would be a lot more beneficial than this garbage CR vs. transit mode fare inequalities that exist today. Zone 1A is a ridculously expensive fare to pay to get from Maverick to Aquarium, and there should absolutely be cheaper zones inside Zone 1A for those short trips like Nubian to Tufts Medical Center, Central to East Somerville, and Medford/Tufts to Gilman Square. It makes no sense that Lynn is 3x more expensive than Braintree, but to also have Braintree to DTX cost the same as Maverick to Aquarium.

A distance based fare system would mean that CR from Quincy Center to South Station would cost exactly the same as the subway from Quincy Center to South Station. It would also mean CR from Roslindale to Back Bay would cost the same as bus+ subway. Instead of having to choose between an every other hour train for $6.50, or a bus every 10 - 20+ subway transfer for $2.40; a full distance based fare system would rationalize fares.

It also means that fares decrease for each successive stop closer to downtown you start from. So, a fare from Roxbury Crossing to Tufts Medical Center would be $1.40. Starting the trip from Ruggles would only cost $1.15. If you take a bus from Roxbury Crossing to Ruggles, and switch to subway there, it would cost $1.40, the same as taking the subway the entire way. With Lynn and Quincy similar distances to downtown, the fares from Lynn and Quincy would be similar and identical to downtown.

A flat based fare system for bus and subway only, but distance based for CR, would leave behind inequalities inside 128 that would remain unresolved. Rationalizing bus and subway fares alongside CR with full distance based fares, would mean true fare integration and everyone reaps the benefits of fare transformation, encouraging more local trips, discentive sprawl, and keeping transit competitive with cycling as the bike network grows.

There was a huge missed opportunity to rationalize bus and subway fares alongside rationalizing CR fares, in light of the growth of Boston's cycling network and dealing with growing sprawl across the city.

 

[JeffDowntown]

That's why a full distance based fare system would be a lot more beneficial than this garbage CR vs. transit mode fare inequalities that exist today. Zone 1A is a ridculously expensive fare to pay to get from Maverick to Aquarium, and there should absolutely be cheaper zones inside Zone 1A for those short trips like Nubian to Tufts Medical Center, Central to East Somerville, and Medford/Tufts to Gilman Square. It makes no sense that Lynn is 3x more expensive than Braintree, but to also have Braintree to DTX cost the same as Maverick to Aquarium.

A distance based fare system would mean that CR from Quincy Center to South Station would cost exactly the same as the subway from Quincy Center to South Station. It would also mean CR from Roslindale to Back Bay would cost the same as bus+ subway. Instead of having to choose between an every other hour train for $6.50, or a bus every 10 - 20+ subway transfer for $2.40; a full distance based fare system would rationalize fares.

It also means that fares decrease for each successive stop closer to downtown you start from. So, a fare from Roxbury Crossing to Tufts Medical Center would be $1.40. Starting the trip from Ruggles would only cost $1.15. If you take a bus from Roxbury Crossing to Ruggles, and switch to subway there, it would cost $1.40, the same as taking the subway the entire way. With Lynn and Quincy similar distances to downtown, the fares from Lynn and Quincy would be similar and identical to downtown.

A flat based fare system for bus and subway only, but distance based for CR, would leave behind inequalities inside 128 that would remain unresolved. Rationalizing bus and subway fares alongside CR with full distance based fares, would mean true fare integration and everyone reaps the benefits of fare transformation, encouraging more local trips, discentive sprawl, and keeping transit competitive with cycling as the bike network grows.

There was a huge missed opportunity to rationalize bus and subway fares alongside rationalizing CR fares, in light of the growth of Boston's cycling network and dealing with growing sprawl across the city.

If the full system is rationalized, then it might make sense. You might also need a fairly large core base fare zone (and it won't be pennies) because providing the vehicle and infrastructure for any ride costs real money, even if it is only one stop. (Kind of the same way taxi's have a base fare -- any ride has a real minimum cost).

The other major advantage of a comprehensive tap-in-tap-out systems is you get real, accurate ridership data to use for planning. Not just boardings, but where people actually traveled to.

 

[Delvin4519]

If the full system is rationalized, then it might make sense. You might also need a fairly large core base fare zone (and it won't be pennies) because providing the vehicle and infrastructure for any ride costs real money, even if it is only one stop. (Kind of the same way taxi's have a base fare -- any ride has a real minimum cost).

The other major advantage of a comprehensive tap-in-tap-out systems is you get real, accurate ridership data to use for planning. Not just boardings, but where people actually traveled to.

There would still be a minimum fare of say, ~2 rapid transit stops or ~6 bus stops (the distance from State Street to Back Bay). That way, people are not hopping on buses to travel 1 block down the road.

 

[JeffDowntown]

There would still be a minimum fare of say, ~2 rapid transit stops or ~6 bus stops (the distance from State Street to Back Bay). That way, people are not hopping on buses to travel 1 block down the road.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but historically the T subway system had a crude form of zoned pricing, exit fares. For extended surface stops on the Green Line (and street car predecessors) and the Braintree extension of the Red Line, extra fares were collected to exit at those stops. (I have a vague memory of exit fares on the Blue Line in Revere, but may be wrong there.) They were eliminated with the advent of the Charlie Card in 2006.

 

[The EGE]

There would still be a minimum fare of say, ~2 rapid transit stops or ~6 bus stops (the distance from State Street to Back Bay). That way, people are not hopping on buses to travel 1 block down the road.

That's hostile to passengers in multiple ways. You'd have to look up the fare online just to know how much you were paying! Discouraging passengers from using transit for added convenience for short trips doesn't make any sense - that's just going to push them away from transit.

As I said before: Fare policy should never, ever be used to discourage passengers from using a service except for the rare cases that service lacks the capacity to meet demand (and cannot have capacity added).

I support a flat fare (equivalent to current subway fares, or lower) for anywhere inside 128 because that would maximize the value of transit to provide mobility. Let the subsidies come from the whole population (with the wealthy paying the most), rather than nickel-and-diming transit passengers.

 

[Delvin4519]

That's hostile to passengers in multiple ways. You'd have to look up the fare online just to know how much you were paying! Discouraging passengers from using transit for added convenience for short trips doesn't make any sense - that's just going to push them away from transit.

As I said before: Fare policy should never, ever be used to discourage passengers from using a service except for the rare cases that service lacks the capacity to meet demand (and cannot have capacity added).

I support a flat fare (equivalent to current subway fares, or lower) for anywhere inside 128 because that would maximize the value of transit to provide mobility. Let the subsidies come from the whole population (with the wealthy paying the most), rather than nickel-and-diming transit passengers.

Today's fare policy is already discouraging riders from using the transit system effectively. CR vs. bus/subway being one of the most major ones.

Short trips being prohibitively costly is going to hurt transit in the long run, and the problem is going to get worse and worse as more bike lanes are added. Over time, a quick bike ride is going to be more and more attractive over $1.70 or $2.40 for a every 6 to 12 minute bus or subway trip to go from Charles MGH to Central Square. The growth of cycling is only going to eat more and more out of the transit's modal share of the pie. Slow zones have already diverted several transit riders to cycling, and many of those transit passengers who started cycling are sticking to their bikes and not coming back to transit (as often).

Many transit systems in Europe and Asia already have high ridership, and many of them already use some form of distance based fares or zone based fares. In addition, we should not be encouraging sprawl with flat fares. Transit riders can, and have relocated from South End to Allston-Brighton, and they are able to do so because the bus/subway fares are the same. If the bus and subway fares to downtown Boston doubled between South End and Brighton/Watertown, that would encourage riders to make more shorter trips, and discourage super-commuting. It's also more equitable for communities like East Boston, Roxbury, and Chinatown, where low income riders there may need to make more shorter trips, and they would get lower fares with a distance based fare system.

 

[The EGE]

Transit riders can, and have relocated from South End to Allston-Brighton, and they are able to do so because the bus/subway fares are the same. If the bus and subway fares to downtown Boston doubled between South End and Brighton/Watertown, that would encourage riders to make more shorter trips, and discourage super-commuting.

That's a ridiculous thing to want to discourage. Five miles is a completely reasonable transit commute, especially in a city with multiple employment nodes where members of a household may not work in the same node. Fare policy should be set to encourage transit as a primary form of mobility, not to attempt to punish people for living in existing streetcar suburbs. If you want to reduce costs for lower-income areas, there are better ways to do that than confusing fare policies that make transit less user-friendly. The fewer fare zones you have, the easier it is to understand and use.

Absolutely no trip wholly within 128 (~10 miles from downtown) is anything close to super-commuting.* With a well-designed transit system, you should be able to get from any point in that perimeter to downtown/Back Bay/Kendall in under half an hour by transit (and from major hubs in 15 minutes or less) - and between any two arbitrary points in an hour. The vast majority of existing housing and most jobs within 128 - and the vast majority of (re)developable sites - are already in dense enough areas to justify frequent transit. A new apartment building in Quincy or a new office at Brandeis/Roberts is not sprawl.

If you want to discourage actual sprawl, the answer lies in land-use policy and roadway pricing. As long as it's cheap/legal to build housing in low-density exurbs away from transit, to put offices next to highway exits rather than transit stops, and to drive cheaply for long distances, that's where building is going to happen. Transit fare policy is not a particularly impactful lever to pull compared to land use and highway pricing, especially when you're trying to encourage mode shift towards transit.

*Yes, some trips now (mostly perimeter-perimeter) are >90 minutes due to poor transit service, but that's not comparable to 40+ mile trips from auto-oriented exurbs.

 

[Delvin4519]

That's a ridiculous thing to want to discourage. Five miles is a completely reasonable transit commute, especially in a city with multiple employment nodes where members of a household may not work in the same node. Fare policy should be set to encourage transit as a primary form of mobility, not to attempt to punish people for living in existing streetcar suburbs. If you want to reduce costs for lower-income areas, there are better ways to do that than confusing fare policies that make transit less user-friendly. The fewer fare zones you have, the easier it is to understand and use.

Absolutely no trip wholly within 128 (~10 miles from downtown) is anything close to super-commuting.* With a well-designed transit system, you should be able to get from any point in that perimeter to downtown/Back Bay/Kendall in under half an hour by transit (and from major hubs in 15 minutes or less) - and between any two arbitrary points in an hour. The vast majority of existing housing and most jobs within 128 - and the vast majority of (re)developable sites - are already in dense enough areas to justify frequent transit. A new apartment building in Quincy or a new office at Brandeis/Roberts is not sprawl.

If you want to discourage actual sprawl, the answer lies in land-use policy and roadway pricing. As long as it's cheap/legal to build housing in low-density exurbs away from transit, to put offices next to highway exits rather than transit stops, and to drive cheaply for long distances, that's where building is going to happen. Transit fare policy is not a particularly impactful lever to pull compared to land use and highway pricing, especially when you're trying to encourage mode shift towards transit.

*Yes, some trips now (mostly perimeter-perimeter) are >90 minutes due to poor transit service, but that's not comparable to 40+ mile trips from auto-oriented exurbs.

The reason I refer to those distances as "super-commuting" is because I can absolutely attest to a trip from Oak Square to downtown or points north taking over 1 hour and 20 minutes.

Walking out the door to head to the bus stop at 6:00 p.m. at Oak Square, by the time I finally got to Copley all the way from Oak Square, it was already 7:00 p.m., and I still had a ways to go to get to Orange Line northside, let alone the actual downtown of Boston. Oak to Downtown is 1 hour and 15 - 20 minutes. It is very close to "super-commuting" threshold.

And yes, I do find it absolutely ridiculous that a 35 minute bus ride on the 57 is the same $1.70 fare as a short 6 - 8 minute or so bus ride from Maplewood Square in east Malden to Malden Center. They should have different fares. One of the bus rides is 2.5x as long as the other, and therefore the shorter bus ride should absolutely have a lower fare. Someone taking the 95 for a quick 6 minute ish bus ride from the housing complex over by Ten Hills in Somerville to Sullivan Square should get a lower transit fare compared to someone riding the 57 from Oak to Kenmore for over 32 minutes.

Also, routes like the 62/76 in Lexington, or the 137 in Reading are extremely long and therefore are costly for the MBTA to run a full cycle of those routes. On the other hand, routes like the SL4/SL5, 69, or the 91, are very short, and therefore much cheaper for the MBTA to operate. Those very short routes serve much more dense areas than long routes like the 62/76, or the 134/137, which are horrendously long, costly, and struggle to get off peak frequency.

 

[as02143]

Double-dipping on fares. If you're kicked off a Green Line train at Park, you're still behind the fare gates and can pick up a continuing train free for your troubles. Not so with bus routes that are shorted mid-trip.

This is also a problem for express Green Line when they're making schedule adjustments.

 

[as02143]

Why aren't buses as actively managed as the Green Line when bunched?

Fundamentally, resources. The T is organized to not care as much about bus service as it does GL. I hope with the Better Bus now Bus Transformation process, they can make the case that the T need to reorganize and fund more bus dispatchers, new technology, and communication staff.

 

[RandomWalk]

I lived in Oak Square years ago. Thankfully, my job was in Watertown Square. However, hanging out with friends north of the river was an exercise in transit frustration. It was routinely faster for me to walk to Harvard Sq, via Greenough Blvd, than to take the T there.

Setting the fare zones based on the poor transit network that exists is backwards. Instead, define the comprehensive network and then set the fare zones.

 

[Delvin4519]

I lived in Oak Square years ago. Thankfully, my job was in Watertown Square. However, hanging out with friends north of the river was an exercise in transit frustration. It was routinely faster for me to walk to Harvard Sq, via Greenough Blvd, than to take the T there.

Setting the fare zones based on the poor transit network that exists is backwards. Instead, define the comprehensive network and then set the fare zones.

Distance based fares would be based on the distances between where a rider taps on and off the system. This means that a rider travelling from Roslindale to Back Bay would pay essentially the same fare by bus, metro, or commuter rail. If you upgrade a bus route from local bus to BRT, the fare would stay the same for the same corridor. If a rider chooses between bus, metro, or commuter rail, to get between Roslindale and Back Bay, the fare would stay the same.

The only way the fare would change is if a rider opts to make a longer or shorter trip. Riders can, and have, relocated from North End to Roslindale, or Union Square to Arlington. It is reasonable to expect a rider should get cheaper fares for moving closer to their destinations, and pay higher fares if they need to travel longer distances to get to the CBD or other destinations.

• If a rider relocates from Union Square to Arlington, they would pay a higher fare to downtown for relocating further away from downtown.
• If a rider relocates from North End to Roslindale, they would pay a higher fare to Back Bay for relocating further away from Back Bay.

Conversely:

• If a rider relocates from Neponset Circle to Uphams Corner, they would pay a lower fare to downtown for relocating closer to downtown.
• If a rider relocates from West Medford to Lechmere, they would pay a lower fare to downtown (ditto the above)...

It is not punitive. A suburb twice the distance to downtown as another suburb would have twice the cost of running buses to downtown. Systems in Europe and Asia already use distance based systems. Systems like London, Taipei, or those in Japan, see high ridership. Taipei, for example, can have fares as low as $0.50 the shorter it is, and longer, end to end journeys pay higher fares of $1.50. Think of it like this. We're not punishing riders for living in far-flung streetcar suburbs. Distance fares give riders who live closer to their destinations, cheaper fares.

(Sourced from reddit).

Boston is not New York City or London. In Boston, densities collapse below 10,000 per square mile, after about 6 miles to Downtown Boston, in many directions. Putting all of the 128 beltway, and past it to Needham, Braintree, Reading, and Beverly; into a single zone, would be like putting all of London in a single zone. If London needs zones inside the 10 mile radius, Boston is absolutely sprawl-ly enough to justify zones inside 128 as well, too.

Imagine if the entire London Underground used a single fare zone. That's what would happen with putting all of 128 as the same $2.40 fare. We don't have the population base of London, nor New York City, here in Boston. We only have 1/3rd the densities, 1/4th the population, meaning the costs of running service further from downtown Boston is higher. Boston has different demographics than New York City. Everett, Chelsea, Eastie, Chinatown, South End, and Roxbury, are transit dependent, bus dependent neighborhoods that are close in, tucked into the city, and they deserve cheaper fares for the many short trips lower income riders may need to make, tucked into the city. They justify a "Zone 0", relative to Brighton and Watertown being in "Zone 1A".

Look at that map above again? Remember the proposals to extend the Orange Line to West Roxbury and the Blue Line Extension to Salem? You would get an absurd, insane situation of a $2.40 fare from Salem to West Roxbury (or Reading to Needham for that matter if we're doing OLX and GLX there too), and $2.40 for a trip from Lechmere to Haymarket (or Maverick to Aquarium), despite the former pairs being wayyy longer than the latter pairs.

A bus rider taking the bus from Boston Medical Center to Copley absolutely should get a discounted fare, compared to a bus ride from Belmont to Harvard. It is insane to charge the same expensive $1.70 fare, just to use transit from Everett Square to Malden Square, Medford Square to Davis, or Maplewood to Malden Center; as someone taking the 57 from end to end. If Somerville builds bike lanes between Davis and Union Square, why bother paying an expensive $1.70 fare to ride the bus from Union to Davis, if you can take the bike lanes? We should be making transit more affordable and convenient for riders for more off peak, shorter trips in the post-COVID world, and keep transit competitive with biking.