The Ride has quadrupled in cost in the past decade

[Digital_Islandboy]

Here's an interesting editorial The Ride (as a privatised entity), has quaduppled in cost in the last decade. Would you be okay paying $8 per train ride in 10 years if the MBTA was privatised?

----
Article: MBTA must put Ride service on firmer financial footing
Date: March 11, 2012
Source: www.Boston.com - Boston Globe

Link:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-...m-fares-transit-services-subway-and-bus-lines

(SNIP)
GREATER BOSTON has one of the most expansive transit services for the disabled in the nation — and it shows in the bottom line. The Ride, the MBTA’s fleet of white-and-yellow cars and vans, is a lifeline for many residents who would otherwise be stranded. But it’s become a financial disaster. The Ride’s costs have quadrupled in a decade, and show no signs of abating. Each trip costs $40. The system carries less than 1 percent of the T’s passengers, but consumes almost 10 percent of its budget. It’s a vital, necessary service, but not sustainable in its current form.
(End SNIP)

 

[BostonUrbEx]

As I've said a few times in the past couple years, The Ride should be ditched by the MBTA, and become it's own agency. And combine it with all other similar programs across the state to trim down and remove management.

Would you be okay paying $8 per train ride in 10 years if the MBTA was privatised?

Sounds a-okay with me. $8 in 2022 would probably be $6 today, or less, and gas will... well... who knows what that will be.

 

[Lurker]

The money wasted on The Ride could have helped expedite the upgrades to the MBTA fleet and stations to make them ADA compliant.

I wouldn't call it an efficient privatized operation either. There are plenty of people abusing the system for a personal livery service and the operators are milking their contracts for all they are worth.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

This is a really tough issue, and not unique to the T.

I spoke with the director of the Manchester Transit Authority (MTA) in NH last year about the state of transit in that city. In response to a question about circuitous routes, he explained that part of the issue was an effort to bring fixed-route service to as much of the city as possible to meet the legal requirement to provide service to residents with disabilities. Since the cost to provide on-demand ADA paratransit is much higher than the cost to run fixed-route service, the MTA runs some long, meandering routes to make sure more residents are close to a bust stop, thus reducing the number of people eligible for paratransit service. Unfortunately, those long routes do a disservice to most riders, and to discourage potential riders who would probably rather walk 1/2 mile and see more direct service.

As the editorial points out, the T is under the same legal requirements. Yet, when I lived in Coolidge Corner, every few mornings I saw a Ride van outside a senior housing tower a few hundred yards from the T stop. I know that many seniors and people with disabilities have trouble walking even that far (or farther on the other end depending on their destination), but it's that sort of inefficiency and duplication of service that is in part to blame for the T's structurally budget problems.

Public transit is in part of a social service, providing the means of transportation for those unable to afford private transportation, but if successful it is much more than that. If the T is to remain a public benefit, economic development tool and an amenity to all residents, it cannot be bogged down as a social service, as many smaller transit systems like the MTA have become. Of course, being more than a social service improves service for those in need by providing greater riders and demand for better, more frequent and extensive service.

This is less an issue in places like Boston and Cambridge than outlying areas served by the T or smaller transit systems like the MTA, but coordinating sustainable fixed-route transit service with development and ensuring that people of all means and abilities can live within that area also reduces the need for additional paratransit service. If more senior citizens and people with disabilities were able to live in urban areas rather than auto-dependent suburbs, most would likely live within a 3/4-mile walk to the grocery store, or bus stop at least. Unfortunately, the editorial ominously warns that the "numbers are only going to grow as Baby Boomers age"--and it those Baby Boomers, more than any other generation, who have chosen auto-dependent suburbs over cities.

If possible and legal, I'd like to see paratransit uncoupled from fixed-route service, and run as an independent social service to those in genuine need and outside of transit service areas. In addition--and probably less likely--I'd really like to see more support for public transit, and greater coordination of public transit and development/planning in urban areas, to ensure that our senior citizens and neighbors in need aren't isolated in auto-dependent areas, and that transit becomes more attractive by offering direct, reliable service between major nodes and along major corridors.

 

[czsz]

This has the potential to drag down mass transit for eons. I'm with those who say decouple it from the T and spend any savings on long-term ADA improvements that could ensure these people can more easily ride mass transit with everyone else.

 

[belmont square]

Since the cost to provide on-demand ADA paratransit is much higher than the cost to run fixed-route service, the MTA runs some long, meandering routes to make sure more residents are close to a bust stop, thus reducing the number of people eligible for paratransit service.

If more senior citizens and people with disabilities were able to live in urban areas rather than auto-dependent suburbs, most would likely live within a 3/4-mile walk to the grocery store, or bus stop at least.

But this doesn't make any sense. The feds require all transit systems to provide "on-demand ADA paratransit" within 3/4 of any local bus route or rapid transit line. If MTA wants to reduce paratransit ridership, it would make more sense to make their route structure as compact as possible. For example, if the MBTA did not provide the route 34 bus service, it would be under no legal obligation from the feds to provide the RIDE in Walpole, Norwood or Westwood.

And if more senior citizens and persons with disabilities lived within 3/4 mile of a bus stop (definitely a good thing), then there'd be MORE people eligible to use services like the RIDE, not less.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

But this doesn't make any sense. The feds require all transit systems to provide "on-demand ADA paratransit" within 3/4 of any local bus route or rapid transit line. If MTA wants to reduce paratransit ridership, it would make more sense to make their route structure as compact as possible. For example, if the MBTA did not provide the route 34 bus service, it would be under no legal obligation from the feds to provide the RIDE in Walpole, Norwood or Westwood.

And if more senior citizens and persons with disabilities lived within 3/4 mile of a bus stop (definitely a good thing), then there'd be MORE people eligible to use services like the RIDE, not less.

I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I don't think the feds require paratransit within 3/4 mile of local fixed-route transit. I'm not sure how their service area is defined, but I'm assuming it is somehow legally defined as the city limits of Manchester, plus perhaps portions of the surrounding towns that are serviced by fixed-route lines. I don't think it's defined by a 3/4-mile radius around their routes. In fact, if I understand correctly, they are specifically not required to provide paratransit service within 3/4 mile of a fixed-route.

The MTA runs a single, winding and looping route (#6, which you can see in this map) to serve a huge portion of the city's West Side, including some of the densest neighborhoods in the city. I was told that they do this, in part, so that areas like this, which are somewhat isolated due to geography (a steep ridge prevents many streets from continuing through) are within 3/4 mile of a bus route, thereby reducing eligibility of the paratransit service.

Some of the other routes run through much neighborhoods far outside the densest areas of the city center and other areas that could support public transit. So instead of being able to run more frequent, direct service through areas where there would probably be the highest demand, the MTA has to run service to farther flung areas to reduce the costs of the paratransit services.

It sounds like the #34 bus you mentioned could be an example of the same thing at the MBTA, except that the T does not restrict its Ride service to people outside the 3/4-mile federal mandate.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I don't think the feds require paratransit within 3/4 mile of local fixed-route transit. I'm not sure how their service area is defined, but I'm assuming it is somehow legally defined as the city limits of Manchester, plus perhaps portions of the surrounding towns that are serviced by fixed-route lines. I don't think it's defined by a 3/4-mile radius around their routes. In fact, if I understand correctly, they are specifically not required to provide paratransit service within 3/4 mile of a fixed-route.

The MTA runs a single, winding and looping route (#6, which you can see in this map) to serve a huge portion of the city's West Side, including some of the densest neighborhoods in the city. I was told that they do this, in part, so that areas like this, which are somewhat isolated due to geography (a steep ridge prevents many streets from continuing through) are within 3/4 mile of a bus route, thereby reducing eligibility of the paratransit service.

Some of the other routes run through much neighborhoods far outside the densest areas of the city center and other areas that could support public transit. So instead of being able to run more frequent, direct service through areas where there would probably be the highest demand, the MTA has to run service to farther flung areas to reduce the costs of the paratransit services.

It sounds like the #34 bus you mentioned could be an example of the same thing at the MBTA, except that the T does not restrict its Ride service to people outside the 3/4-mile federal mandate.

Hmm. Actually, it looks like you were right, and I was misunderstanding it. The MTA's website confirms your suggestion:

Stepsaver service is limited to the current fixed route service area with a 3/4 mile extension beyond the current route.

In that case, I really don't understand it, unless the city always wants the service to be available as many residents as possible, resulting in the circuitous routes.

 

[Matthew]

The MBTA is legally required to provide RIDE service within 0.75 miles of our fixed route bus service. Today the MBTA typically provides RIDE service beyond this defined area and throughout the entirety any community where we have fixed route service.

http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About..._2012/Jan 3 2012 Finance Committe Remarks.pdf

Survey results indicate that the top four features that can make fixed-route transit attractive to paratransit users are (1) low fares, (2) easy access (i.e., no big roads to cross) to the bus stop, (3) drivers who announce all stops, and (4) no transfers.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_74.pdf

After reading this, I wonder if we might actually save money in the long run by providing free (no fare) fixed-route service to all RIDE-eligible users (and their helpers).

The MBTA is proposing to increase RIDE fares to the maximum Federally-permitted amount: 2x base fare. Instead of that, they could just reduce fares as a incentive to use the fixed-route system wherever possible. Besides lower fare, there is no waiting list, and the user gets to participate in the same system as everyone else.

Now all we need is better access to buses and trains, and better bus stops too. That benefits everyone.

 

[Shepard]

I can't remember where I read this, but some cities are experimenting with a hybrid fixed-route/multi-taxi. The bus moves up and down across a corridor typically aligned with a major road, but instead of staying on the main road will go to residences as they call for pickups (residents call and express the direction they want to go). Drop-offs are similarly at the destination itself, but still moving in order along the corridor. And then, there are transfer points where all buses stop - another bus will pick up passengers who want a destination along a perpendicular corridor.

I think this kind of system could work well with paratransit vans as an addition to fixed route service.

 

[Matthew]

Probably http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/flexible-route-bus-work-better/523/

But as Jarrett Walker points out, these "demand responsive transit" options have been around for decades. They have their own set of problems.

This is his take on them, btw: http://www.humantransit.org/10box.html

 

[FrankLloydMike]

http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About..._2012/Jan 3 2012 Finance Committe Remarks.pdf



http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_74.pdf

After reading this, I wonder if we might actually save money in the long run by providing free (no fare) fixed-route service to all RIDE-eligible users (and their helpers).

The MBTA is proposing to increase RIDE fares to the maximum Federally-permitted amount: 2x base fare. Instead of that, they could just reduce fares as a incentive to use the fixed-route system wherever possible. Besides lower fare, there is no waiting list, and the user gets to participate in the same system as everyone else.

Now all we need is better access to buses and trains, and better bus stops too. That benefits everyone.

The idea of allowing RIDE-eligible users (and their assistants) to ride fixed-route service for free sounds like it could work, while maintaining (perhaps with the proposed fare increases and service reductions) for those in the greatest need. Aside from capacity concerns, I don't see how offering RIDE-eligible users free use of fixed-route service could cost the T more than the current situation.