MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

BPLange7 said:
I don't think we will see $4 fares anytime soon. I think Subway fares could reasonably rise to $2.25-$2.50 within the next few years, $2 for bus and $85-$90 for a LinkPass. I'd be fine wIth getting them to a sustainable level and then tying increases to a CPI index.

I think they will try to push through bigger changes to the RIDE fare structure. ADA trips are capped by law at 2x the Fixed Route fare, but I don't think there is a cap for the Premium trips. Also - as a Federally mandated program that costs the T around $60M a year - it seems a little tough to count this against them when considering funding levels, fare recovery, etc.
Click to expand...

CharlieTicket/COB subway fares are already $2.65. CharlieCard $2.10.

CharlieTicket/COB bus is $2.10. CharlieCard is $1.60.

Perhaps the CharlieCard gap is getting a bit too cheap.
 
The tipoff that fares can be raised more is that in the period after the last hike, ridership rose. What you're "supposed" to see is fares go up 5% and ridership fall 2% (usually a loss of discretionary trips) and you get (typically) a net 3% increase in revenue.

Instead, fares rose 5% and ridership rose 2% (or something like that), meaning that even at slightly higher fares, "the market" was telling us that the T was underpriced...that if prices stayed this low, people would keep riding the system harder and harder.

So there's evidence that the operating subsidy is a little too big. What we need from a bigger-than-usual fare increase, though, is a stronger-than-usual "lock box" that ensures that the new revenue goes into improved service (more frequent, higher capacity, more reliable) and not just disappearing into the bureaucracy.

This is basically what the legislature is asking for too: spend new money on improvements we can use.

I'd also offer this: Continental Airlines' immediate solution to absenteeism (mid-late 1990s) was to enter everyone with a month's perfect attendance in a drawing for a new car. I think you might have gotten an extra entry if everyone in your work unit were perfect too. Sick days & absenteeism plummeted. While unions freak at disincentives to taking leave, they can't really oppose such plans, and the reality is that attendance-incentives are very cost effective.
 
cc: Matthew, your point nicely illustrated by Steve Koczela

https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/586244489494339584

CCLB2ANWYAA3zdQ.png:large
 
Cool.

Although those bus trip totals seem too small. I believe that I calculated over 300,000 bus trips in the month of February? Maybe he's counting round-trip as a single trip?

BTW, I fully understand your reasoning Arlington, and it's probably right.

But, this past July, the fare increase was enough to tip me personally over the edge. I stopped buying monthly passes. I've only spent $160 on the T since then, substituting my bike most of the time now.
 
Also, it's worth noting that commuter rail fares plus parking are already extremely high. The daily round trip cost is already pushing the limits of what any rational person would consider reasonable. I can't imagine trying to push a substantial increase in fares at this point. Boston commuter rail ridership has been either stagnate or in decline for many years, bucking national commuter rail trends and even mbta own subway ridership trends. I don't know if the decline in ridership is due to substantial increase in the cost to ride or because of reliability issues.

By comparison, I was quite surprised at the much lower commuter fares and parking rates when I rode the much larger Metra commuter rail system in Chicago.
 
Excuse my misquote - public transit isn't inherently insolvent and is absolutely able to pay it's debts (unless it's in Massachusetts because we suck) - brainfart here
 
Arlington said:
The tipoff that fares can be raised more is that in the period after the last hike, ridership rose. What you're "supposed" to see is fares go up 5% and ridership fall 2% (usually a loss of discretionary trips) and you get (typically) a net 3% increase in revenue.

Instead, fares rose 5% and ridership rose 2% (or something like that), meaning that even at slightly higher fares, "the market" was telling us that the T was underpriced...that if prices stayed this low, people would keep riding the system harder and harder.

So there's evidence that the operating subsidy is a little too big. What we need from a bigger-than-usual fare increase, though, is a stronger-than-usual "lock box" that ensures that the new revenue goes into improved service (more frequent, higher capacity, more reliable) and not just disappearing into the bureaucracy.

This is basically what the legislature is asking for too: spend new money on improvements we can use.

I'd also offer this: Continental Airlines' immediate solution to absenteeism (mid-late 1990s) was to enter everyone with a month's perfect attendance in a drawing for a new car. I think you might have gotten an extra entry if everyone in your work unit were perfect too. Sick days & absenteeism plummeted. While unions freak at disincentives to taking leave, they can't really oppose such plans, and the reality is that attendance-incentives are very cost effective.
Click to expand...

Of course this market logic only works if the T is actually running its schedule. After the massive winter fail, the perception of value is going to be very different.
 
commuter guy said:
Also, it's worth noting that commuter rail fares...are already extremely high.
Click to expand...

There needs to be peak pricing. I sometimes ride the Fitchburg Line outbound in the a.m. and it is ABSURDLY under capacity. Usually 25-40% of the coach cars are open to passengers, and the ones that are open, are far from full. Peak trains going in the peak direction are much closer to capacity, and they have to send the train out to come back in (and vice versa), so operationally, the seats are moving whether somebody is in them or not. Why waste the resources by having empty seats?

The way I see it, if 100 people (paying an average of $7) ride a non-peak train with a capacity of 1000, this is MUCH worse than 500 people (paying an average of $3.50) riding this train. The MBTA gets more revenue and more people ride the train that is going to be going in the off peak direction anyways. Heck, even if only 200 people rode the train (paying an average of $3.50), it would be much better! That way there is the exact same amount of fare recovery, but the Commuter Rail is building ridership.

We need peak pricing on Commuter Rail!
 
The commuter rail stagnation in Boston is certainly an anomaly. The Big Dig could help explain why Boston is diverging from National and Local trends. By most accounts, it's a lot easier to get into and out of the city now. This impacts long distance Commuters more than local riders.
 
There was an article the other day about how many T parking garages are full in the morning and people wishing to park there cannot. The T needs to raise the parking prices at these garages. It would help manage the demand and bring in much needed revenue. At lots/garages that are not coming close to filling up, the T should lower the price to entice more people to use it. Why the T isn't doing all it can to make optimal use of its parking, I do not know.
 
cden4 said:
There was an article the other day about how many T parking garages are full in the morning and people wishing to park there cannot. The T needs to raise the parking prices at these garages. It would help manage the demand and bring in much needed revenue. At lots/garages that are not coming close to filling up, the T should lower the price to entice more people to use it. Why the T isn't doing all it can to make optimal use of its parking, I do not know.
Click to expand...

I have a hunch that many former commuter rail passengers who live near rte 128 or inside of 128 and near a subway have transitioned to the subway fleeing high commuter rail fares. For example, I live near 128, my options are take the Framingham CR zone 3 for $14 R/T or $4.20 R/T at riverside on the green line. That savings adds up for a regular commuter. The green line with it's local stops is a few minutes slower, but surprisingly not much slower than the commuter rail. Also, the schedule is not an issue with the green rail running on a frequent basis. Instead of raising parking rates for subway garages, maybe then need to lower commuter rail fares and parking rates using the Fairmont Line pricing model for people who live inside or just around Rte 128. They might lure commuters off of the subway and back to the commuter rails in communties such as Newton, Braintree, Quincy, Winchester, Malden, Melrose, Medford etc.

This approach could increase total ridership. Obviously, mass transit should be encouraged for land use and environmental reasons. The market approach often discussed is that we could raise fares by 50% and lose 25% of the ridership. The argument is the additional revenue offsets the ridership loss. Unfortunately, this approach has serious long term negative consequences for the city and region that are not considered nor quantified, which are beyond the scope of a simple review of the MBTA's balance sheet.
 
We need to make it easier for people to reach commuter rail stations without a car. Subsidizing parking is approximately the worst thing to do. Think about it: you're subsidizing the commute of relatively rich people. Avg income of commuter rail riders is much, much higher than subway and bus.

Luckily there are cheap (even profitable) things that can be done.

1) Make it easier and attractive to bike to the stations. In the Netherlands, they are pushing this quite a bit. Obviously they are very bike friendly over there, but they are also working on making bike-to-train commutes the best way to get from the suburbs to the city.

2) Redevelop the areas around the stations with mixed-use development and significant numbers of residents. The MBTA needs to put its foot down on towns that use snob zoning to exclude residents. They do not deserve to be served with commuter rail if that's how they behave. The Commonwealth needs to start getting serious with these selfish assholes. The MBTA should maintain an ownership stake in the land around its stations and should be able to override local snob zoning laws because it is a state agency. We need Chapter 40B with teeth.

Yeah, politically, those suburban snobs will scream about 'undesirables', 'density', and 'traffic', etc. If Gov Baker wants to have a "Sargent" moment, then he'll tell the snobs to go screw.
 
^ How's the governor going to force municipalities to upzone?
 
Zoning is not natural law. It's a privilege given to municipalities, one that was created by enabling legislation from the General Court, circa about 1955.

Decades-old court cases established that zoning could be abused to violate civil rights. That's how we ended up with Chapter 40B. Unfortunately, it's been relatively ineffective. Perhaps another look at that is in order. Also, it doesn't apply in Boston.
 
I'm not sure I'm quite following. The discussion before have been talking about raising prices when lots get full and lowering them when lots are empty. With some other ideas about fare prices. That doesn't sound problematic to me. Increased utilization of lots for greater ridership is a good thing.

Also, this is the suburbs. If they want to drive to stations, I don't see why not offer that service, I mean that in those full capacity parking lots with additional drivers turned away where adding spots is low costs for easy revenue (so not subsidizing to my understanding).

That is for the stations in open areas. In city centers that some commuter rail stations are at, then yes, upzoning for development is likely the strategy for greater ridership at minimum costs.
 
A big problem here is that "Commuter Rail Stations" are always viewed equally. They are not equal. Matthew, I usually agree with you, but I disagree with you on this one. I think different types of commuter rail stations should each be treated in unique ways.

Park and Ride

We need to build large Park and Ride stations where Commuter Rail lines intersect major highways (128, 495). Think Littleton/495. These stations serve the purpose of getting cars off of the highway. They should have direct highway access, with their own dedicated exit(s). As much parking as necessary should be built. Cars would not be accessing these garages from small city/town streets, but rather an interstate.

Parking prices should be as low as possible (basically, if enough parking can be provided to meet commuter's needs, parking prices should approach $0). The benefit: fewer people driving into dense city/town centers, fewer people driving into the big city, fewer people driving long distances on the interstates to commute for work.

Town/Neighborhood Station

Town/neighborhood stations should exist in town centers, and dense neighborhoods. Think Waltham Station. These stations serve the people who live and work near the station. These are the stations where we need to encourage people not to drive, but rather walk/bike/bus to the station. Providing these amenities in a dense transit village encourages ridership and good land use.

Providing parking, or at least plentiful parking, at these stations is a bad idea. This would cause further congestion in the downtowns of Boston suburbs, and crunch already over-capacity streets. This would leave our smaller downtowns (Waltham), with areas dedicated for commuter cars to sit unused during the workday, when the land would be better used to serve residences, offices, etc.

--------

Treating all stations as ones that need parking, or treating all stations as ones that don't need parking is the wrong approach. Parking at Park n' Rides is great to get people to switch from highway commutes to train commutes, and should not be expensive to do so. Parking in city centers' stations is a bad idea, and degrades our urban environment, and should be dis-incentived.
 
You don't disagree with me at all, I think. I was going to write a very similar message.

Basically, parking is not an effective way to create enough ridership to justify the existence of a commuter rail line. A parking spot = probably no more than 1.1 roundtrip riders per day on average. Building hundreds of parking spots is expensive. And we need more than hundreds of riders, we need thousands of riders. Thousands of riders going both ways, not just 9-5 commuters to downtown.

Therefore, most stations should be the centers of urban town development. Most stations should be reachable by many thousands of people on foot or on bicycle.

But of course, you can still have some park-n-ride stations, and they are best situated where motor vehicle capacity is highest -- near highway interchanges.

The problem with the MBTA is that they do park-n-ride EVERYWHERE, and very little encouragement of town development. Park-n-ride makes no sense outside of highway interchanges because the traffic generated is enormous at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and empty otherwise, a huge waste of space when it is in the middle of a town.

If the MBTA is only going to build parking spaces and not encourage development, not have a stake in development, and not make it easy for people to walk/bike to stations, then they should not bother with the trains. It's just a humongous waste of money: You can never possibly charge enough money for parking spaces to make it worthwhile, because people won't be able to afford it.

And if you subsidize the parking spaces, then you're subsidizing the commutes of rich suburban residents while screwing over the needier.
 
davem said:
Same way the feds got all the states to change their drinking age to 21
Click to expand...

Sure, but fantasizing that a sudden desire and willpower will sweep through the halls of Beacon Hill to peel back municipal prerogative won't make it happen.

Just try to take zoning power away from cities and towns. This is New England. No legislator is going put their neck under the guillotine that is local autonomy for the sake of more density along the Commuter Rail. It's a political death sentence to touch that third rail.

Cities and towns freak out over things like that primarily because of how it affects schools. Sure there's a lot of NIMBY stubbornness and provincialism, but most of that is tied up in fears about education: hiring, enrollment, space, construction, etc.
 
It doesn't take a fantasy. It's already happened. In 1969. Seriously, read up on Chapter 40B. Exclusionary zoning is and has been raised to the level of a civil rights issue.

Furthermore, land owned by the MBTA is not subject to local zoning ordinances, because they're a state agency. They usually don't exercise this power because they are too afraid, but it's there. See, for instances, the air rights over the Pike near Hynes Convention Center. MassDOT agreed to work with local neighborhood groups and the city, but that was a choice.

It might be time to play hardball with the recalcitrant towns. Either they play nice with the MBTA, or their station gets bustituted. And by play nice I mean following what bigeman312 basically wrote.

Cities and towns freak out over things like that primarily because of how it affects schools. Sure there's a lot of NIMBY stubbornness and provincialism, but most of that is tied up in fears about education: hiring, enrollment, space, construction, etc.
Click to expand...

You need to be more cynical here. Read between the lines. Whenever you hear a NIMBY whine about those topics, assume that what they really want is to exclude low-income people, unless proven otherwise.

NIMBYs have become quite adept at using the language of aesthetics and traffic-engineering to achieve their real goal, which is the exclusion of people they don't like. It can sometimes get difficult to separate genuine concern from the concern-trolling. Just be wary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top