MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[BeansTheCat]

I don't have strong opinions on distance-based fares, but I did want to push back on the negativity of shorter transit trips becoming cycling trips. While I agree that flat fares make quick cycling trips more attractive relative to transit, having these trips occur on bike is neutral at worst and probably a net positive.

Cycling will almost always be better suited for shorter trips than transit. The fixed time costs associated with transit (getting to the nearest station, waiting for the next vehicle, possibly transferring, and going from the final station to your destination) are much higher than those for biking (unlocking/locking bike, walking maybe a block from the nearest rack to an origin/destination). Transit also suffers from typically having less direct routes, but this is very situation dependent. This structurally means that transit is better suited to compete with cycling for longer trips.

If an agency focuses more on longer trips than those that are easily handled by cycling (<2-3 miles), a number of benefits emerge. The capacity used by those shorter trips now opens up for the longer ones that again, are structurally more competitive. It also becomes easier to implement stop consolidation (or just have reasonable stop spacing from the start), because more direct trips can be made on bike and average speed becomes more important for longer rides. The only downside here is that fare revenue could decrease, but that would occur under distance-based fares anyways, and has very little do with the quality of transit provided.

There are also a myriad of benefits that come from cycling, the two most prominent being health benefits for cyclists and cycling being inherently cheaper for both riders and the infrastructure owner. While these benefits are smaller for ebikes, they should still come ahead in comparison to transit.

Again, I do not have strong opinions on distance-based fares and others in this thread have been providing solid arguments and sharing many global examples. Concerns about cycling are not one of those strong arguments. Worrying about cycling competing with transit trips is probably counter-productive in general, and barely relevant to this discussion.

 

[BeansTheCat]

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.

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.

Another brief point: Maverick to Aquarium (or State) is a quite poor example of a short trip that is too expensive. The fact that this provides one of only a few direct transportation connections to Eastie from downtown (and the only one accessible without a car), makes it quite valuable. Providing efficient transportation across difficult geographies is one of the key benefits of transit and helps it compete with other modes. Portraying the value provided by the Maverick to Aquarium trip as equivalent to that provided by a Lechmere to Haymarket or Medford/Tufts to Gilman Square trip (both of which are 10 minute bike rides) is fairly disingenuous.

 

[jbray]

Here's a different angle: In a Boston metro where affordability barely exists, distance-based fares essentially punish people with lower income who cannot afford to live near their destinations while offering discounts to wealthier residents. That doesn't change that longer distances are more expensive for an agency to run but the largest percentage of end users would be affected.

 

[Koopzilla24]

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.

People aren't enabled to move out by Brighton because transportation cost is the same, otherwise Brighton and Watertown wouldn't have a 50%+ driving commute modeshare and the 500s wouldn't have 1200 riders each packed in only 20-something daily trips. People move where housing is cheaper and don't typically think about higher transportation costs as part of that expense.

The cheaper transit for poorer communities argument can be tackled by key free bus routes like the 23/28 or more directly expanding reduced fare programs and making it easier for residents to apply to them. When people need to take shorter trips, especially Chinatown and downtown neighborhoods, in this small walkable city they typically walk. The only thing about MBTA fares that really needs restructuring is Regional Rail and expanding reduced fare programs such as post-secondary students with a smaller 20% reduction or things like reduced fares for construction workers when their site is in Boston.

Also the common practice on transit in this city if your card doesn't have fare is to just tap and walk on anyway. 90% of bus drivers will not waste time causing a stink about it. There's even a driver on the evening 66 that covers up the fare reader and yells "Let's get you home everybody, use all doors!" as well as others who do similar things. (MBTA if you're reading you better not do a damn thing about it).

 

[Teban54]

Cycling will almost always be better suited for shorter trips than transit. The fixed time costs associated with transit (getting to the nearest station, waiting for the next vehicle, possibly transferring, and going from the final station to your destination) are much higher than those for biking (unlocking/locking bike, walking maybe a block from the nearest rack to an origin/destination). Transit also suffers from typically having less direct routes, but this is very situation dependent. This structurally means that transit is better suited to compete with cycling for longer trips.

Agreed: As long as you're willing to do the active physical activities yourself, time savings with cycling typically outweighs transit for short trips, even with frequent transit service. This is especially true in an American context (even in urban environments like Boston) because:

• Due to lower density, most households will still need a moderate walk to the nearest bus stop.
• "Frequent" bus service is typically defined as 15-min headways, so the worst-case waiting time alone can be longer than the entire bike trip. (BNRD does have 11-min daytime headways for all its Frequent Bus Routes, but the difference still applies. I personally think headways need to be down to 5-7 mins for a real difference.)

But this is often still true even in places without these drawbacks.

Here's a different angle: In a Boston metro where affordability barely exists, distance-based fares essentially punish people with lower income who cannot afford to live near their destinations while offering discounts to wealthier residents. That doesn't change that longer distances are more expensive for an agency to run but the largest percentage of end users would be affected.

IIRC, someone mentioned earlier that WMATA was considering distance-based fares for its subway, but it wouldn't pass an equity analysis because the change would disproportionately harm low-income riders and POCs. (My memory on this is very faint, though, so please correct me.)

People aren't enabled to move out by Brighton because transportation cost is the same, otherwise Brighton and Watertown wouldn't have a 50%+ driving commute modeshare and the 500s wouldn't have 1200 riders each packed in only 20-something daily trips. People move where housing is cheaper and don't typically think about higher transportation costs as part of that expense.

I also think that even for people who do have a preference for transit (and thus are willing to pay a greater premium in house prices to live in transit-friendly neighborhoods), they're probably moving where transit service is better, not where it's less expensive.

 

[sean99090900]

IIRC, someone mentioned earlier that WMATA was considering distance-based fares for its subway, but it wouldn't pass an equity analysis because the change would disproportionately harm low-income riders and POCs. (My memory on this is very faint, though, so please correct me.)

I think WMATA's had it for a while now. I remember paying like 6 bucks to get out to Tyson's corner ~2018

 

[Teban54]

I think WMATA's had it for a while now. I remember paying like 6 bucks to get out to Tyson's corner ~2018

View attachment 55456

Gotcha, yeah I misremembered pretty badly lol. The equity concerns may have been for getting rid of the distance-based fare and replacing it with flat fare?

 

[samsongam]

I think WMATA's had it for a while now. I remember paying like 6 bucks to get out to Tyson's corner ~2018

I lived in Virginia (quite close to Tyson's as well) for some of high school and visited my parents there when I was in college. As a broke student without a car, I hated the distance-based fare system on WMATA and having to pay 4-7 dollars to go into DC or get home. Plus, tapping out is such a hassle, especially in a rush. Having subsequently lived in NYC and Boston I really like that a trip from Brooklyn to Rockaway Beach, or a trip from Roxbury Crossing to Quincy Center is made more affordable in relation, if they were distanced-based I might not have taken the trip at all.

As long as the flat fare is reasonable (I think around $2-$3 is fine, most of those who are most likely to take short trips in the urban core can eat that) and there are some special reduced-fare programs for students, the elderly/disabled, and folks with lower-income, I'm opposed to distance-based fares on the subway lines and busses. For the commuter rail though, it needs to be competitive with relevant MBTA bus costs. We should be making CR more affordable rather than making buses more expensive. I'm surprised the Transit Matters proposal for rezoning the map and making CR more affordable haven't come up.

 

[nortor]

Making an equity argument for distance based or flat fares is tough because the metro is economically segregated but not in a way that maps simply and broadly onto distance from the city center. (Although I agree that distance based fares particularly on the Commuter Rail are probably regressive). I think means testing might be a good way to avoid these issues — in particular I’d like to see flat fares on the Commuter Rail for reduced fare recipients, or at least highly discounted passes. Barring that the Transit Matters proposal seems reasonable.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Man, that TM map shits all over 3 of 4 northside mains' inside-128 stops by punting them into Zone 2 while every southside line's + Fitchburg's 128-and-in stations (and then some...Weymouth, Holbrook) get the Zone 1 advantage. I can't believe Lynn is still outside of the inner core fare zone; that's a big FAIL right there. The general concept of fewer fare zones is pretty good, but the 'equity' still needs lots of work geographically.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I get that yes, zone fares lead to inequality, but I think there's definitely such a thing as too equal, and the fare for a 5 minute subway ride from Eastie to Downtown and a regional rail ride from Framingham to South Station being the same crosses that line.

flat fares is tough because the metro is economically segregated but not in a way that maps simply and broadly onto distance from the city center.

You need to get creative with how you draw the fare zones. For example it would probably be a good idea to put Lynn into Zone 1 while Winchester Center gets Zone 2, or Brockton in Zone 2 while West Hingham gets Zone 3. In the CR thread I previously made a table where I rezoned all the CR stations (Although looking back I'd probably change some things) which uses these principles, being more generous to places like Lynn, Brockton, Waltham, etc and less generous to places like Hingham, Wellesley, or Winchester.

in particular I’d like to see flat fares on the Commuter Rail for reduced fare recipients

Or just, any reduced fare program for the Commuter Rail. From what I understand the new Income-Eligible Reduced Fare Program is the first all-ages income-based reduced fare program for the Commuter Rail. If cheaper fares are available for the people who really need them then that significantly reduces the equity problems introduced by distance-based fares.

 

[Delvin4519]

I lived in Virginia (quite close to Tyson's as well) for some of high school and visited my parents there when I was in college. As a broke student without a car, I hated the distance-based fare system on WMATA and having to pay 4-7 dollars to go into DC or get home. Plus, tapping out is such a hassle, especially in a rush. Having subsequently lived in NYC and Boston I really like that a trip from Brooklyn to Rockaway Beach, or a trip from Roxbury Crossing to Quincy Center is made more affordable in relation, if they were distanced-based I might not have taken the trip at all.

As long as the flat fare is reasonable (I think around $2-$3 is fine, most of those who are most likely to take short trips in the urban core can eat that) and there are some special reduced-fare programs for students, the elderly/disabled, and folks with lower-income, I'm opposed to distance-based fares on the subway lines and busses. For the commuter rail though, it needs to be competitive with relevant MBTA bus costs. We should be making CR more affordable rather than making buses more expensive. I'm surprised the Transit Matters proposal for rezoning the map and making CR more affordable haven't come up.

View attachment 55472

The goal would not to be making the buses or the subway expensive, they would make shorter trips cheaper.

In an ideal world, $2.40 could be set as a base fare for travel distances of 6 - 9 miles or as 9 - 12 miles. Taipai's distance based system is quite affordable, and in my earlier comment, I mentioned a redditor who described the fares as $1.50 being the cost of crosstown journeys in Taipei, and shorter, local trips in the city of Taipei cost $0.50.
We need not make the system needlessly complicated like Singapore. Singapore's system is clearly poorly implemented without meeting the prerequisites (all door boarding, single decker/level vehicles, contactless fares), and we should look to London, the Netherlands, and Taipei for inspiration (there may be others that do this well, but definitely not Singapore). Double decker buses would not work well in Boston due to tight clearances in the Sumner Tunnel, or the 32 bus in Wolcott Square. It is not necessary to have Singapore's 400 fares across 45 different fare zones in Boston to make distance fares work. London, England only has 9 zones inside the area of Boston's Route 128.

50% of all trips are 3 miles or less. Over 60% are less than 5 miles.

If you set the minimum base fare as 3 miles within tap-on, and increment fares for every 3 miles onwards; it would be a very simple distance fare system. You'd only need 6 zones to travel from the border edge cases of 128 into the city, or 12 zones going from the opposite end to the other end (Walpole to Beverly). We'd have fewer zones to manage compared to London's fare zones (unless for some reason you're travelling from Needham to Salem by GLX - Needham & BLX - Salem).

If 80% of your trips are below 12 miles, you only need to know 4 fare zones for those 80%, 66% of them need to remember only 2 fares, and just 1 single fare for half of those trips. For city residents, distances are even lower. If Route 128 is 11 miles out from Downtown and 50% of trips are less than 3 miles, that means the 11 mile zone is 4 times too big to be a single zone, and more zones are needed inside 128.

The risk, of course, with fewer fare zones, is more arbitrary fare jumps. The effects of this are mitigated with a distance based system rather than a zonal system, if it's based on where you tap on.

There are dozens of MBTA bus routes that are really short, like the 69, SL4/SL5, and the 89. These bus routes don't even crack 3 miles at all. These routes are much cheaper for the MBTA to operate than the 62/76, 134, or the 441/442. You could run just 3 buses on the 69/89/SL4/SL5 to get 15 minute frequencies, and these bus routes are generally productive. Moving further out, the 57 may need 6 buses to get 15 minute frequencies. Finally, towards the 128 beltway, bus routes like the 62/76, 134, 137, or 441/442, would need 8 buses to get 15 minute frequencies, and densities further from Downtown are lower, and buses more costly to operate.

The 62/76, or the 441/442, may serve commuters who have no access to Commuter Rail, but routes like the 69 or 89 may serve lots of local trips in dense streetcar suburbs in between the rapid transit lines, not just commuters. Not all local bus routes are created equal, and so a one size-fits-all bus fare isn't really reasonable in Boston.

 

[samsongam]

The goal would not to be making the buses or the subway expensive, they would make shorter trips cheaper.

I guess I just don't get why that is such a positive. For buses, you're proposing saving at most like $1? on a super short trip in the urban core (which is really only competing with walking or biking because a car is already wildly expensive) compared to $1.70 by inconveniencing everyone and adding another layer of friction with tapping out. And you are punishing those who are taking the bus a longer distance because they are in a place with either less or more expensive transit. If you're taking the 442 to Wonderland because CR is too expensive or down then we should surely try to keep it reasonable for them, that trip would be a lot more comfortable and fast on RR or metro.

While fare-free transit is a great thing (I think in large part because it removes all the friction of payment), I doubt more people will start to take the bus because they're saving at most a dollar for a short trip and it definitely won't make them take it if it's more expensive for longer trips. We're talking about irregular use of the system because those that are commuting regularly we can assume will have a monthly pass.

I think there's definitely such a thing as too equal, and the fare for a 5 minute subway ride from Eastie to Downtown and a regional rail ride from Framingham to South Station being the same crosses that line.

Are we talking about recouping costs for individuals or for the MBTA? If the flat fare was 10 cents (just insanely inexpensive for all) would you still feel like longer trips should pay more? If we're all paying a reasonably cheap fare (which I feel is the case right now at $1.70 and $2.40) then why must others pay more, we're all riding and supporting the cleanest and most efficient system for our city and metro area.

In any case, I don't think public transportation needs to make a profit or even be largely funded by fares, it's a public service that dramatically improves the economy when it's implemented and working well. I think the goal should be to find different funding sources and try to improve ridership as much as possible to avoid the death spiral, I think you do that by making longer trips affordable rather than making short trips extra affordable. And when affordability is an issue, we should have a robust reduced-fare program.

Man, that TM map shits all over 3 of 4 northside mains' inside-128 stops by punting them into Zone 2 while every southside line's + Fitchburg's 128-and-in stations (and then some...Weymouth, Holbrook) get the Zone 1 advantage. I can't believe Lynn is still outside of the inner core fare zone; that's a big FAIL right there. The general concept of fewer fare zones is pretty good, but the 'equity' still needs lots of work geographically.

Idk, the way I see it there are some advantages to being in that zone 2 for Lynn. Since you only pay more if you cross 3 zones it means you can get to the end of the Rockport/Newburyport line and you can get to Boston (the majority of trips) at no extra cost, which I think are the most likely trips. So unless you're trying to leave rt128 on the south half or going deep on the Fitchburg line you're paying the lowest possible fare coming from Lynn.

 

[Delvin4519]

I guess I just don't get why that is such a positive. For buses, you're proposing saving at most like $1? on a super short trip in the urban core (which is really only competing with walking or biking because a car is already wildly expensive) compared to $1.70 by inconveniencing everyone and adding another layer of friction with tapping out. And you are punishing those who are taking the bus a longer distance because they are in a place with either less or more expensive transit. If you're taking the 442 to Wonderland because CR is too expensive or down then we should surely try to keep it reasonable for them, that trip would be a lot more comfortable and fast on RR or metro.

While fare-free transit is a great thing (I think in large part because it removes all the friction of payment), I doubt more people will start to take the bus because they're saving at most a dollar for a short trip and it definitely won't make them take it if it's more expensive for longer trips. We're talking about irregular use of the system because those that are commuting regularly we can assume will have a monthly pass.


Are we talking about recouping costs for individuals or for the MBTA? If the flat fare was 10 cents (just insanely inexpensive for all) would you still feel like longer trips should pay more? If we're all paying a reasonably cheap fare (which I feel is the case right now at $1.70 and $2.40) then why must others pay more, we're all riding and supporting the cleanest and most efficient system for our city and metro area.

In any case, I don't think public transportation needs to make a profit or even be largely funded by fares, it's a public service that dramatically improves the economy when it's implemented and working well. I think the goal should be to find different funding sources and try to improve ridership as much as possible to avoid the death spiral, I think you do that by making longer trips affordable rather than making short trips extra affordable. And when affordability is an issue, we should have a robust reduced-fare program.


Idk, the way I see it there are some advantages to being in that zone 2 for Lynn. Since you only pay more if you cross 3 zones it means you can get to the end of the Rockport/Newburyport line and you can get to Boston (the majority of trips) at no extra cost, which I think are the most likely trips. So unless you're trying to leave rt128 on the south half or going deep on the Fitchburg line you're paying the lowest possible fare coming from Lynn.

The issue at talk, is that, at some point, a single zone becomes "too big" to continue justifying having dense lower income areas making short bus rides closer into the city, subsidize longer bus trips made by wealthier commuters who live further away from the CBD in less dense areas. Framingham to South Station definitely crosses the line. A bus rider taking the 109 or 104 for short local bus rides in Everett shouldn't have to directly subsidize bus riders taking the 134 for long bus trips between North Woburn and Meadow Glen Mall with their bus fares. Given fixed time and access costs of accessing transit, it's reasonable to have a lower fare for a shorter trip to offset those fixed costs.

The 442 bus route would have the same cost as the BLX or RER for the same distance. There wouldn't be a difference, if it's $1.70, that would be the cost for the that particular distance travelled. Like I said, not all local bus routes are created equal. Distance fares is a tool that mitigates this fact and acknowledges the differences of each local bus route. One-size-fits-all is not true with the MBTA's buses or bus system at all.

Bus riders being charged fares by distance essentially better captures the cost of running bus service to each area. A suburb further away from downtown would have higher operational costs of operating buses twice the distance, compared to another suburb thats only half the distance. A longer bus route requires more buses to run the same frequency, so it would cost more for the MBTA to operate buses longer distances. How many buses are needed for 15 minute frequency on the 69 vs. the 442? 3 for the former, 8 for the latter. Distance based fares encourages shorter trips with cheaper fares relative to the base fare, and disincentives sprawl with keeping longer trips at roughly the base fare.

With 3 miles being the threshold of 50% of all trips that are made by people in the US, I'd say a a single fare zone for bus and subway becomes "too big" after 3 miles. As such, a single large zone, that's 6 miles wide, should be split into two 3 mile zones, 3 zones if its 9 miles wide, and more for larger zones.

Plenty of bus routes across the MBTA are less than 3 miles, the SL4/SL5, 69, and 89 being some of the major bus routes that are less than 3 miles.

 

[Stlin]

So I have to imagine there's at least one more confounding factor to distance based fares - monthly passes. What portion of those currently taking the bus two stops are doing so not having to pay $1.70 for that trip because they're already paying for a monthly pass? For many folks the marginal trip is "free." Besides, we do already functionally implement a surcharge for the longest of the suburban bus routes - Express Buses charge 4.25.

Now what happens to someone with a monthly pass under distance based fares is, if we use WMATA's model, you're allowed to use your pass for all trips under whatever fare represents your usual commute (and which you would buy a pass for). That actually seemingly creates the perverse incentive of discouraging longer trips on transit, since you'd now have to pay an additional exit fare.

Now, I don't disagree that distance based fares is how we should reconfigure the CR fares. I disagree that we should ever implement it on Local Bus or Subway.

 

[TheRatmeister]

In any case, I don't think public transportation needs to make a profit or even be largely funded by fares, it's a public service that dramatically improves the economy when it's implemented and working well. I think the goal should be to find different funding sources

The only potential alternative long-term funding source is tax revenue. So either every worker in the state can pay an extra $200 tax, or people can be charged only for the services they use. One of those sounds significantly more fair to me.

 

[jbray]

The only potential alternative long-term funding source is tax revenue. So either every worker in the state can pay an extra $200 tax, or people can be charged only for the services they use. One of those sounds significantly more fair to me.

If your implication is that the people using the transit is more fair, I disagree. The economy of the Boston metro subsidizes the entire state and depends on the MBTA for mobility inside of the core for it to function. If you took the average weekday ridership for the MBTA in July (760,224) and put them all in cars laid end-to-end (assuming the 14.7ft average is true), it would be 2,116.5 miles of traffic. And again, that's cars laid end to end. I-90 in 138mi for comparison. Car owners across the entire Commonwealth are vastly UNDERPAYING for the benefit they get from the T.

 

[TheRatmeister]

If your implication is that the people using the transit is more fair, I disagree. The economy of the Boston metro subsidizes the entire state and depends on the MBTA for mobility inside of the core for it to function. If you took the average weekday ridership for the MBTA in July (760,224) and put them all in cars laid end-to-end (assuming the 14.7ft average is true), it would be 2,116.5 miles of traffic. And again, that's cars laid end to end. I-90 in 138mi for comparison. Car owners across the entire Commonwealth are vastly UNDERPAYING for the benefit they get from the T.

"Drivers need to pay more" and "People should pay for the transit they use" are not even close to being mutually exclusive. Car infrastructure is subsidized and negative externalities are not adjusted for. Drivers, particularly in Boston, should need to pay higher taxes on gas, vehicle registration, and congestion charges.

 

[jbray]

"Drivers need to pay more" and "People should pay for the transit they use" are not even close to being mutually exclusive. Car infrastructure is subsidized and negative externalities are not adjusted for, drivers, particularly in Boston, should need to pay higher taxes on gas, vehicle registration, and congestion charges.

That's only one half of my point. I'll restate: Western, Central, and South Eastern Massachusetts are subsidized by the economy of Boston. That economy cannot function if everyone drives. Given that transit users choices (and cyclists and pedestrians) are allowing this economy to continue, car users underpay. By charging ALL taxpayers in the economy, transit users pay for THEIR service and drivers help fund a system THEY unequivocally benefit from either in time savings or redistributed tax dollars from the economy. You are saying that is "less fair" and I disagree. Also, such a distributed tax would include monies for RTAs in local areas and not just the MBTA. I'm part of the advocacy for reducing fares or making public transit free at point of service because the benefits to the environment and economy are undeniable.

 

[HenryAlan]

Man, that TM map shits all over 3 of 4 northside mains' inside-128 stops by punting them into Zone 2 while every southside line's + Fitchburg's 128-and-in stations (and then some...Weymouth, Holbrook) get the Zone 1 advantage. I can't believe Lynn is still outside of the inner core fare zone; that's a big FAIL right there. The general concept of fewer fare zones is pretty good, but the 'equity' still needs lots of work geographically.

It also makes no sense to me. Is it the same cost for both Zone 1 and Zone 2? Why have both? Maybe I'm just not interpreting the key correctly.