MBTA Fare System (Charlie, AFC 2.0, Zone, Discounts)

[Lrfox]

Weirdly, in the second picture the purple label looks like it dead-ends at the base of the arch near the escalators to the bus station (in the second picture, in front of the construction fencing), while the label is clearly denoting fare gates in front of the elevator access to the bus station (in the third picture of the set).

Either they just couldn't put the purple label across the escalator access because of the construction fencing, or they screwed up somewhere, because it'd be insane to have the escalator entrance to the bus station outside the gates but the elevator entrance inside them.

I'm assuming the labels are just not placed exactly as the gates will be once they're installed. They look to be purely informational. They'll probably end on either side of the elevator too (so that the elevator doors will be outside of the gate controlled zone just like the escalator), but it doesn't look like it was possible to put the placeholders up against the edge of the elevator while they're working. I have about as much faith as anyone in the MBTA (not much), but I'm skeptical that they're so inept as to put the elevators inside the fare gate and the escalators outside.

 

[nortor]

Toronto and Sydney don't have free fares. Why is the discourse here "we need to do free fares", if there is a massive 300-500 million fiscal cliff looming? We're literally less than a year away from something that could kill 70% of all of service that exists. Eng should really stress the fiscal cliff and warn of dangerous "service cuts", and "service cuts" with a stern voice pointed directly at the free fare advocates.

The fact that domestic discourse is this bad and frustrating is demoralizing. Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton inspire hope. Boston and everything else, does not.

View attachment 65413

It’s awful. I’m fully in support of free or subsidized fares for riders who genuinely can’t afford transit, but that Ed Markey tweet… come on. The real “transit equity gap” is between drivers and transit riders, and it’s getting even worse on blue states’ watch. Maybe they could exert a little pressure on the governor and legislature rather than introducing pointless, quixotic messaging bills.

 

[ritchiew]

The sixty-fith thousand five hundred thirty-fifth reason that frustrates me with discourse here.

In Canada, Australia, Japan, or Europe*, free fares simply aren't used at all anywhere on massive scale. They focus on expanding service frequency and therefore have high ridership.

Meanwhile domestic discourse here wastes time and energy on free fares, while Chicago, Portland, Providence, and Philadelphia get ready to massacre mass transit completely with 25-45% service cuts.

Nobody is going to want a free bus that runs once an hour. But'd they'd be happy to pay a fare for a bus that runs every 10 minutes. Why not just do unlimited transfers for 2 hours?

Toronto and Sydney don't have free fares. Why is the discourse here "we need to do free fares", if there is a massive 300-500 million fiscal cliff looming? We're literally less than a year away from something that could kill 70% of all of service that exists. Eng should really stress the fiscal cliff and warn of dangerous "service cuts", and "service cuts" with a stern voice pointed directly at the free fare advocates.

The fact that domestic discourse is this bad and frustrating is demoralizing. Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton inspire hope. Boston and everything else, does not.

View attachment 65413

A few things here:

1. You skipped over any part of the bill Markey was actually promoting. It would offer $5B per year in federal grants to transit agencies to run fare-free programs. This is a bill to give money to public transit agencies.
2. That means it is incorrect to suggest this could lead to worse service or bigger deficits for agencies. Agencies can keep doing exactly what they've been doing, but make the buses free. The federal government would simply cover the lost fare revenue.
3. Fare-free transit is, like, fine. Sometimes. It really depends on the details and depends on your priorities. Jarrett Walker is one of the people most publicly wary of fare-free transit (and I know you read his work). Even he points to situations where it is totally reasonable. I suspect there are plenty more instances like it. Even for larger agencies this might make sense for certain services, certain routes, certain days, etc. This might make sense for any agency that needs to drop a ton of money to replace their fare collection system. This bill would give agencies a zero-risk way to try out fare-free transit. That seems good.
4. Eliminating fares is a straightforward, proven way to boost ridership. All else equal, it works. I understand that agencies could usually (but not always) get better ridership for the same money by improving frequencies/service. (Markey has pushed much larger bills tacking those problems, too). But this does actually boost ridership.
5. That means the situation here is "Senator wants to give money to public transit agencies to implement proven ridership-boosting programs, but not necessarily in every case the optimal ridership-boosting programs." I'm just not going to get too mad over that.

 

[FK4]

The sixty-fith thousand five hundred thirty-fifth reason that frustrates me with discourse here.

In Canada, Australia, Japan, or Europe*, free fares simply aren't used at all anywhere on massive scale. They focus on expanding service frequency and therefore have high ridership.

Meanwhile domestic discourse here wastes time and energy on free fares, while Chicago, Portland, Providence, and Philadelphia get ready to massacre mass transit completely with 25-45% service cuts.

Nobody is going to want a free bus that runs once an hour. But'd they'd be happy to pay a fare for a bus that runs every 10 minutes. Why not just do unlimited transfers for 2 hours?

Toronto and Sydney don't have free fares. Why is the discourse here "we need to do free fares", if there is a massive 300-500 million fiscal cliff looming? We're literally less than a year away from something that could kill 70% of all of service that exists. Eng should really stress the fiscal cliff and warn of dangerous "service cuts", and "service cuts" with a stern voice pointed directly at the free fare advocates.

The fact that domestic discourse is this bad and frustrating is demoralizing. Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton inspire hope. Boston and everything else, does not.

I really dont get why or how progressive politics went from a focused emphasis on redistributive economics and social safety to a combination of cultural issues and absurd demands for "free everything for everyone". There is nothing wrong with charging fares for transit. It's idiotic to make it free for all. Only someone living in the elite bubble would advocate for this. Discounted or free rates for students, seniors, etc and that's it. Yes, build more transit and that IS equity. Not making it free for everyone.

It’s awful. I’m fully in support of free or subsidized fares for riders who genuinely can’t afford transit, but that Ed Markey tweet… come on. The real “transit equity gap” is between drivers and transit riders, and it’s getting even worse on blue states’ watch. Maybe they could exert a little pressure on the governor and legislature rather than introducing pointless, quixotic messaging bills.

Yes, it's so insane and frustrating.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I really dont get why or how progressive politics went from a focused emphasis on redistributive economics and social safety to a combination of cultural issues and absurd demands for "free everything for everyone". There is nothing wrong with charging fares for transit. It's idiotic to make it free for all. Only someone living in the elite bubble would advocate for this. Discounted or free rates for students, seniors, etc and that's it. Yes, build more transit and that IS equity. Not making it free for everyone.

Yes, it's so insane and frustrating.

Free transit is expanding in Europe. Luxembourg has had free transit for almost 5 years. Belgrade recently implemented it. Capitals in the Baltic States have free transit. But you also have to build more transit and offer frequency of service. Maybe through congestion pricing on cars?

Right now fare collection on much of the T is just making Cubic very rich.

 

[as02155]

Free at point of service is a valid option for many transit systems. The subsidy rate for so much of public transit in the US is so high and CUBIC sees the opportunity to get a cut of the remaining fare revenues with their platinum plated fare equipment.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Capitals in the Baltic States have free transit.

Only Tallinn.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Right now fare collection on much of the T is just making Cubic very rich.

Free at point of service is a valid option for many transit systems. The subsidy rate for so much of public transit in the US is so high and CUBIC sees the opportunity to get a cut of the remaining fare revenues with their platinum plated fare equipment.

The contract with Cubic may be pricy, but it is demonstrably nowhere near expensive enough to justify just getting rid of fares. The MBTA is paying around $1bn for installation and 10 years of maintenance for the new fare system, over which time, assuming fare revenue remains static, the T will collect around $3-4bn in fare revenue. So unless you can cough up $2-3bn in extra funds, the MBTA should keep the current system.

And if you can get an extra $2-3bn over 10 years, I'd much rather it go to expansion and other capital costs.

That being said, I have to imagine that fare revenue doesn't cover fare equipment costs on many bus routes, either from low ridership or a high proportion of subway transfers. Free fares as an operational benefit could make sense here, although this has the negative effect of dividing the bus network into paid/unpaid routes.

 

[ritchiew]

Does anyone know where to find a copy of the actual contract with Cubic? I'm curious what the cost breakdown is for all the equipment and services.

 

[bakgwailo]

That being said, I have to imagine that fare revenue doesn't cover fare equipment costs on many bus routes, either from low ridership or a high proportion of subway transfers. Free fares as an operational benefit could make sense here, although this has the negative effect of dividing the bus network into paid/unpaid routes.

Kind of always the thing, right? It's somewhere in the grey on routes like that, and if all other things were equal, it would make sense fiscally to not do fares on low ridership routes where fare collection costs more than what you actually collect. On the other sides of that though would be: where is this route? Is it a low ridership route going through extremely wealthy towns because people simply don't take the bus there? Would that make sense to have free fares there but not in low income areas? Although, I suppose with a good multi prong strategy of low income subsidies that might still work out - or charge the wealthier towns more in fares to cover the service provided (looking at you, Commuter Rail which has the highest per rider subsidies in the system, excluding the Ride and ferries).

I would say subsidizing new lines w/ lower or free fares can also make sense to boost ridership and create a base. Thinking of say the Fairmount Line which has benefited from this strategy despite hand me down equipment and terrible schedules historically.

 

[TheRatmeister]

On the other sides of that though would be: where is this route? Is it a low ridership route going through extremely wealthy towns because people simply don't take the bus there?

Probably not, it would likely be the infrequent local routes within Boston that exist to ensure that everyone is a short walk away from the bus if they cannot walk further. Routes like 26, 44, or 121. I'll look at vehicle loads sometime to actually check but right now is not that time.

 

[TheRatmeister]

My curiosity got the better of me. Here are the routes with the lowest maximum load, IE the routes with the fewest people on the bus at any given point in time, averaged by time of day (Weekday AM peak, weekday midday, weekday late nights, Saturdays, Sundays, etc).

Route	Max. Average Load
351 (Bedford Woods Drive - Third Ave)	2.9
558 (Riverside - Newton Corner)	5.9
171 (Logan Airport - Andrew)	7.3
451 (North Beverly - Salem Depot)	7.9
55 (West Fenway - Arlington)	8.1
202 (Fields Corner Loop)	8.2
456 (Salem Depot - Central Sq Lynn)	9.3
553 (Roberts - Newton Corner)	9.4
201 (The other Fields Corner Loop)	10.3
556 (Waltham Highlands - Newton Corner)	10.6
18 (Ashmont - Andrew)	11.1
554 (Waverley - Newton Corner)	12.0
80 (Arlington Ctr - Lechmere)	13.7
85 (Spring Hill - Kendall)	13.7
100 (Wellington - Elm St)	14.0

Based on that it seems like there actually aren't many routes where low avg. load would make fare-free service make sense. The "High Rapid Transit transfers percentage" category seems to be much larger.

 

[JeffDowntown]

My curiosity got the better of me. Here are the routes with the lowest maximum load, IE the routes with the fewest people on the bus at any given point in time, averaged by time of day (Weekday AM peak, weekday midday, weekday late nights, Saturdays, Sundays, etc).

Route	Max. Average Load
351 (Bedford Woods Drive - Third Ave)	2.9
558 (Riverside - Newton Corner)	5.9
171 (Logan Airport - Andrew)	7.3
451 (North Beverly - Salem Depot)	7.9
55 (West Fenway - Arlington)	8.1
202 (Fields Corner Loop)	8.2
456 (Salem Depot - Central Sq Lynn)	9.3
553 (Roberts - Newton Corner)	9.4
201 (The other Fields Corner Loop)	10.3
556 (Waltham Highlands - Newton Corner)	10.6
18 (Ashmont - Andrew)	11.1
554 (Waverley - Newton Corner)	12.0
80 (Arlington Ctr - Lechmere)	13.7
85 (Spring Hill - Kendall)	13.7
100 (Wellington - Elm St)	14.0

Based on that it seems like there actually aren't many routes where low avg. load would make fare-free service make sense. The "High Rapid Transit transfers percentage" category seems to be much larger.

Does anyone know exactly how many fares it takes on a bus to pay for the Cubic infrastructure on a single bus? This is not "one and done" infrastructure; every Cubic device (tap point) has an ongoing service charge for its availability for use, plus a transaction fee on every fare.

 

[RandomWalk]

Has there been any movement on support for Perq passes on the Cubic infrastructure?

 

[FK4]

Free transit is expanding in Europe. Luxembourg has had free transit for almost 5 years. Belgrade recently implemented it. Capitals in the Baltic States have free transit. But you also have to build more transit and offer frequency of service. Maybe through congestion pricing on cars?

Right now fare collection on much of the T is just making Cubic very rich.

Yes, and Europe has a completely different style of government. Which is exactly why these movements in the United States are fucking asinine. Fix our government first and then, and only then, can you implement downstream social safety policies like free trains. Policy won’t fix this issue.

 

[HBH]

But those purple labels are saying the fare gates will be in front of the new bus terminal entrance, which makes exactly zero sense. Either they're placed incorrectly, or the right hand and left hand are truly not speaking to each other.

They've been revised, platform 6/7 is going to be a bottleneck though

 

[JeffDowntown]

View attachment 65886View attachment 65887

They've been revised, platform 6/7 is going to be a bottleneck though

Tell me through two photographs that no one thought about future fare gates when planning the new Bus Terminal/South Station interface.

 

[The EGE]

The bus terminal design is essentially unchanged from the 2016 NPC, which was before fare gates were even in the conversation.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The bus terminal design is essentially unchanged from the 2016 NPC, which was before fare gates were even in the conversation.

Keolis first announced fare gate plans in March 2017, which certainly means SOMEBODY was talking about it before then.

Keolis plans to put up fare gates at 3 stations - CommonWealth Beacon

THE MBTA'S COMMUTER RAIL OPERATOR received the green light on Monday to launch a five-year campaign to cut down on fare evasion and increase ridership,

commonwealthbeacon.org

 

[themissinglink]

The T is cracking down on fare evasion this fall

Starting Sept. 8, MBTA fare engagement representatives will begin issuing warnings and citations for those who have not paid for their ride on the T.

www.nbcboston.com

The fare engagement representatives were first hired and trained in October 2024, so you may have spotted them before. Wearing blue shirts, khaki pants, hats and MBTA identification, they are available to answer questions and clear up confusion about how to pay.

The MBTA said fare collections have already increased by up to 35% at stations where these representatives were on site. In the future, they plan to have them ride buses and trolleys on the Green and Mattapan lines.

Riders who fail to pay their fare will be approached and asked for a government-issued identification, or name and contact information. A first offense will earn a formal, written warning with no fine. A subsequent offense will earn a fine - $50 for the first three citations, and $100 after that.