MBTA Winter 2015: Failure and Recovery

[George_Apley]

^ That's not the point though. The point is that the administration used the leaks to prime the public the way they wanted. The public isn't going to read the report. The public is going to hear the first media reports and then tune out. Those leaks got the general public thinking that the MBTA has a management and labor problem; full stop. As far as most residents are concerned the report was scathing, so anyone responding to it needs to acknowledge that.

 

[MBTAddict]

^ That's not the point though. The point is that the administration used the leaks to prime the public the way they wanted. The public isn't going to read the report. The public is going to hear the first media reports and then tune out. Those leaks got the general public thinking that the MBTA has a management and labor problem; full stop. As far as most residents are concerned the report was scathing, so anyone responding to it needs to acknowledge that.

I don't disagree, but there is a difference between responding to it and reporting on it. I think the journalists got played a bit on this one.

 

[George_Apley]

I don't disagree, but there is a difference between responding to it and reporting on it. I think the journalists got played a bit on this one.

Yup. They always do. Journalists are so eager to get the leak and put to print that they don't analyze the leak itself.

 

[kevtron2000]

http://www.wbur.org/2015/04/22/baker-legislation-mbta

"Gov. Charlie Baker will unveil legislation Wednesday to overhaul the MBTA’s oversight, after transportation board resignations and a report from a Baker-appointed advisory panel blasted the T’s management.

On Tuesday, all members of the state transportation board (besides Baker’s transportation secretary) resigned at the request of the governor.

Baker’s legislation follows recommendations earlier this month from the advisory panel, which, among other suggestions, called for the creation of a temporary fiscal control board for the MBTA.

The governor appointed the advisory panel after the winter’s severe weather crippled the transit system.

Baker is set to unveil the legislation at a 1:15 news conference."

 

[George_Apley]

This may well be needed, but I'm worried that revenue isn't even part of the conversation, let alone the legislation.

 

[whighlander]

2 Hrs to go and then there will be something to analyze and perhaps criticize the leaks so far are very minimal

 

[Arlington]

Here's the proposed An Act for a Reliable, Sustainable Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and it includes (on the right sidebar) a link to how it foots with the Gov's panel's recommendations

http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationexecorder/legislation/mbta-legislation.html

 

[Arlington]

This may well be needed, but I'm worried that revenue isn't even part of the conversation, let alone the legislation.

Isn't it pretty clear that the Politicians find taxes/fees too radioactive to lead with, but that given fiscal controls there's generally an understanding that there's going to be more spending?

Baker has already unilaterally and unconditionally asked for a bigger state contribution to the MBTA in his March 22 budget. So they have shown they can spend more money (in the $millions, anyway)

Also, they're lifting the cap on fare increases (which I think is good because recent fare increases have not set back ridership at all, suggesting that prices are too low). I think there's an acknowledgement that riders would be willing to pay more if there's a financial control board making sure it gets spent on improvements to the actual customer experience--make it 5% better for a 10% fare hike (which is only a 5% revenue hike, overall) not just call it a 5% revenue hike and call it lost on inflation (making things 0% better, as has been the practice with hikes)

And part of the "complaint" in the "Whereas" section is that the T has been slow to spend money it has been appropriated

(d) The authority’s capital needs are significant and include more than $6.7 billion in maintenance and modernization required to strengthen, among other things, its rolling stock, track, and signal infrastructure.

(e) Despite these significant capital needs, over the past 5 fiscal years, the authority spent only $2.3 billion of its planned $4.5 billion capital spending for which funds were available.

And note the implicit admission that the T needs $6.7b and has only been permitted $4.5b. So they're up front that money is part of the answer.

Still, we've seen elsewhere the complaints, "Why does transit construction and operation cost so much more in the USA?" We could create more jobs that paid plenty well and had good pensions if we'd also focus on making transit employees and construction actually produce European-standard outputs.

 

[George_Apley]

^ They would be foolish to raise fairs right away, given what the riders have put up with. Political idiocy.

It's easy to say that economically the system can handle higher rates because past hikes haven't caused ridership to decline, but that also places an increasing burden on the poorest riders who rely on transit the most, are most hurt when transit fails, and then have to pay a higher proportion of their income with every increase to ride a system that's just as shitty as it was before the hike.

 

[datadyne007]

I'm sorry, but I find the whole notion of "raise fares until ridership drops" to be absolutely absurd. That's class warfare/income inequality at its finest. Transit isn't just for the elite with buckets of money to blow on getting to work.

Those who ride transit aren't supposed to be the sole contributors to the funding. Putting it on the backs of riders is horrifically wrong. Our tax dollars go to fund roads to nowhere in Western MA. Theirs can go toward our transit.

 

[whighlander]

Busses -- the act [assuming it gets passed mostly as written] gives the Financial Control Board sweeping powers to reform the fare structure and the process of contracting for projects

One thing which should be done is to immediately establish fares to optimize the utilization of the system assets

For example:

• significantly lower fares on evenings [entering the system after 6 PM], coupled with reduced cost to park in lots and garages.
• even lower fares and parking on weekends and holidays
• Adjusting the commute time total cost of taking the CR from some remote suburb to be comparable to the total cost of driving and parking in downtown Boston [in other words R/T + parking should be approximately $25]

 

[Equilibria]

I'm sorry, but I find the whole notion of "raise fares until ridership drops" to be absolutely absurd. That's class warfare/income inequality at its finest. Transit isn't just for the elite with buckets of money to blow on getting to work.

Those who ride transit aren't supposed to be the sole contributors to the funding. Putting it on the backs of riders is horrifically wrong. Our tax dollars go to fund roads to nowhere in Western MA. Theirs can go toward our transit.

I don't thing the sentiment is that one should raise fares until ridership drops. The sentiment is that higher-income people are currently getting an embarrassingly good deal on commuting from places like Newton, Brookline, and Cambridge to the city. Those people can pay more. The people who can't pay more can't, and shouldn't. In fact, they hopefully could pay less.

If you can find a way to implement a scheme that's acceptable to American notions of privacy regarding one's income (and that doesn't penalize lower-income riders by asking them questions that higher-income people don't have to answer), then you can raise revenue without hurting ridership. However, continuing to charge everyone the highest rate that the poorest rider can afford doesn't make economic sense.

Also, I don't think the Governor has proposed cutting the subsidy to the T from statewide tax dollars, be they gas tax or sales tax. Western Massachusetts residents subsidize transportation for the urban and inner-suburban wealthy. They have before, and they will continue to do so. Yet, the T still needs a lot more money to function. Is your argument that we should sock the rest of the state with massive new taxes to cover the $6.7B in maintenance backlog?

 

[George_Apley]

^ Then we just need to implement POP and be done with it. But that will never happen. So what? We end up with some hamfisted "zones" to upcharge certain people over others?

 

[Arlington]

I'm sorry, but I find the whole notion of "raise fares until ridership drops" to be absolutely absurd. That's class warfare/income inequality at its finest. Transit isn't just for the elite with buckets of money to blow on getting to work.

No. Letting price rise (particularly at "office worker" rush hours) is about
(1) allocation of a scarce resource
(2) funding expanded supply of that resource
Users who rely most heavily on the resource actually win the most when its supply is rationalized.

Letting the price of bread rise was key for actually getting bread to post-communist peasants. Price is way better than a ration coupon.

Sorry, no, it is not a class warfare thing, any more than congestion pricing, or variable tolls or a downtown congestion charge would be on the roads.

Allowing price to rise to a market clearing price is basic micro economics, and you know when supply and demand are at equilibrium when you can't raise price without lowering revenues (because you scare off people faster than that you bring dollars in).

However, continuing to charge everyone the highest rate that the poorest rider can afford doesn't make economic sense

You don't know what they can afford, all we know is that people say (with their mouths) they can't afford hikes, while, at the same time with their butts they pay and ride in ever greater numbers--the tipoff that they can afford more.

Frankly, fare hikes scare off the rich (who have alternatives, usually a car) faster than it scare off the poor (who don't...and who would move on less-crowded more reliable vehicles...they win).

Price is not about socking it to the poor, it is about (1) allocating a scarce resource (space on rush hour trains) and (2) funding better/faster/easier/expanded service on those very vehicles

True, for progressives, a rush hour surcharge would be particularly welcome (you're taking richer "office" workers), and you could offset it with a free/reduced hour (say, the first hour of service every day and "post rush" in the evenings)

We should raise fees on any over-subscribed public good (Boston resident parking, MBTA, congested roads, etc.) and re-invest in either capacity or alternatives

 

[Equilibria]

^ Then we just need to implement POP and be done with it. But that will never happen. So what? We end up with some hamfisted "zones" to upcharge certain people over others?

I'm not sure if you were talking to me, because I'm uncertain what proof-of-payment has to do with this. To be honest, I wonder if just having the website where you buy your monthly pass ask you which income bracket you fall in would be enough. You don't need 100% of the people to tell the truth, you need enough people to do it that your revenue goes up appreciably. Personally, I know I wouldn't lie. I don't think many people where I work or that I know would lie. Would some people do it? Sure, but you're still making more money.

It's actually the same as proof-of-payment. If you wanted to enforce it, you could require that people include their CharlieCard number on their MA tax return. Better yet, you could implement an optional (slightly discounted) annual rate that you could pay ON your tax return, giving everyone access to pre-tax transit passes even if their employer doesn't offer it. The trade-off would be that, well, your tax return knows your income. MA does this sort of thing with health insurance already.

Price is not about socking it to the poor, it is about (1) allocating a scarce resource (space on rush hour trains) and (2) funding better/faster/easier/expanded service on those very vehicles.

The problem with that line of thinking is that transit is not a scarce resource that should be allocated to the highest bidder based on capitalist principles. It's a socialist public service that requires, by moral and civic obligation, that it be available without significant hardship to all people in the metro area. Frankly, that benefits everyone, because labor can move freely around the region.

 

[Arlington]

[T]ransit is not a scarce resource that should be allocated to the highest bidder based on capitalist principles. It's a socialist public service that requires, by moral and civic obligation, that it be available without significant hardship to all people in the metro area.

Do you feel this way about roads too?

Transit and Roads are both scarce at rush hour compared to the demand that crushes it (and imposes delay costs) because it is a "free" good.

 

[whighlander]

^ Then we just need to implement POP and be done with it. But that will never happen. So what? We end up with some hamfisted "zones" to upcharge certain people over others?

Buses -- its really quite simple -- back to Charlie on the MTA -- in and out fares deducted from your Charlie Card

• anyone entering the system on one of the existing subway lines or the silver line pays one Intown T Entry Fare when they enter and one T Intown Exit Fare when they exit
  • if they exit on the Fairmont or any other CR station within RT-128 they pay the low Intown CR Exit Fare
  • if they pass beyond Rt-128 on the CR then they pay the higher Suburban CR Exit Fare on exit
• anyone entering the system on one of the CR stations beyond Rt-128 pays the higher Suburban CR Entry Fare when they enter
  • if they exit through the silver line or the regular T they pay the Intown T Exit Fare
  • if they exit on the Fairmont or any other CR station within RT-128 they pay the low Intown CR Exit Fare
  • if they pass beyond Rt-128 on the CR then they pay the higher Suburban CR Exit Fare on exit

The price of each of the fares varies depending on time of day and weekend and holidays

In general Suburban CR Entry in-bound during rush hour will be the high and Intown CR in-bound [Fairmont] line would be substantially cheaper

If necessary the really remote CR stations such as Fitchburg, Worcester, Providence, Newburyport, etc., could be in a maximum price Fare Zone for inbound service in the AM rush and outbound service in the PM rush

 

[Equilibria]

Do you feel this way about roads too?

Transit and Roads are both scarce at rush hour compared to the demand that crushes it (and imposes delay costs) because it is a "free" good.

I do, in the sense that the government should not make it onerous for the poor to utilize high-quality roads. Now, affording a car is another matter.

That's a difference, in my mind, between roads and transit. In the latter case, the public has an obligation to provide the vehicles as well as the facilities.

It's also true that with roads you have the opportunity to create (in some cases) free and tolled facilities in parallel, with the tolled facility and its demand-responsive pricing subsidizing the free one. No one has tried "first class express trains" in cities that have express tracks, and the MBTA has almost none of those.

 

[datadyne007]

The problem with that line of thinking is that transit is not a scarce resource that should be allocated to the highest bidder based on capitalist principles. It's a socialist public service that requires, by moral and civic obligation, that it be available without significant hardship to all people in the metro area. Frankly, that benefits everyone, because labor can move freely around the region.

Bingo. Public transit isn't some free-market commodity to toy with. It is a public service that should be accessible to all (indexed based on the poverty level/inflation) and it should be provided by the government. End of story.

 

[Equilibria]

Bingo. Public transit isn't some free-market commodity to toy with. It is a public service that should be accessible to all (indexed based on the poverty level/inflation) and it should be provided by the government. End of story.

As long as we're clear that people of means can and should pay what it's worth to them, I agree with you. FWIW, there's going to be more and more of those people in coming decades as some of the rich move back into the city.