Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 1
Given how you just called out an entire political party, I'm not quite sure how you can say the problem isn't politics without contradicting yourself...
What would you do to get the T out of its financial mess?
- Thread starter armpitsOFmight
- Start date
Given how you just called out an entire political party, I'm not quite sure how you can say the problem isn't politics without contradicting yourself...
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,261
- Reaction score
- 9,265
"Oh hai guyz! About that Big Dig...my bad its srsly gonna cost moar than I said it wud. Whoops I'm off to Mexico K thx bye!"
massmotorist
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 0
And we have better institutions, less corruption, and better governance than the average state out there. And that has little to do with the political party in charge (take a look at Rhode Island) and a lot to do with our independent political culture and higher incomes.
Romney won over O'Brien because he seemed competent and didn't focus on ideology, and MA voters will take that over a machine Democrat every day and twice on Sundays. And Deval won over Healy and Baker because those two focused too much on divisive ideological issues rather than selling themselves, their experience, and their competence.
You can't just switch in an R in place of a D and expect everything to be better. You need people who are actually interested in the nuts and bolts of governance and making government work well. It's more about the boring, banal specifics than the broad-strokes ideological stuff.
Billy Weld put people in charge of the Big Dig who had no idea what they were doing. Mitt Romney abolished the MDC (great!) and then promptly ignored the complicated issues involved in integrating two completely different organizations. The results weren't good.
That's not to say that there aren't failures in the D column. The point is simply that competence matters - often far more than ideology - and neither party has a monopoly on it.
The problem is ideology- the Republicans have never been the party of "more, better-run public services" (you wouldn't expect them to be), and when it comes to private-sector solutions, the privatized part of the MBTA (MBCR) is just as bad as the rest of it.
This is a situation where the two-party system is failing us.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,212
- Reaction score
- 248
I realize you're trolling, but this is silly. The 5 least corrupt states in the country (received a grade of "B") are 4 blue and 1 red. The 8 most corrupt (got an "F") are 2 blue, 5 red and a toss up.
Replacing a "D" with an "R" won't change the fact that politicians are loathe to cut taxes or reduce service. And unfortunately the MBTA probably needs both.
Nothing like citing a well known lefty outfit to back-up your predictably lefty argument.
Couldn't agree more.
The uber wealthy exurbanites (R) that have zero interest in infrastructure that isn't completely self-serving (aka road miles) are just as much of an issue as the union cronies (D) that want to be paid as much as possible for doing as little as possible. The T is so far gone in a state of disrepair and its issues transcend the perennial R versus D debate; if you can't see that then, well, you're only part of the problem.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Nothing like citing absolutely nothing to back up your argument.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
Back to the subject at hand, it appears that raising fares works as a way of reducing the T's financial mess.
Fares were hiked 23% on average and they expected ridership to fall 5.5%, meaning they expected revenue to go up only about 15% ~ 16%( .945 ridership x 1.23 fares = 1.16 total revs). This is a rough estimate (but likely low, since ridership was up the most on the most expensive modes rapid transit and commuter)
Instead, with ridership up 1% versus last year, revenues will rise 24% (1.012 ridership x 1.23 fares = 1.244). Thats an unexpected extra 8%!
They thought farebox revenues would go from $466m in FY12 to $537m in FY13 (roughly that 15% hike estimated above). Instead, if ridership holds, revenues will rise to $577m...an extra $40m.
You could see this as "riders have already given their fair/fare share", and that it is time for other stakeholders (unions & taxpayers) to chip in more.
I'd see it differently. If ridership doesn't fall, the fare hike wasn't big enough. Sure, I'd like a more flexible efficient workforce (and pensions) but I'd actually support using that $ and possible additional fare hikes to expand the money-making services (e.g. key bus routes)
Fares were hiked 23% on average and they expected ridership to fall 5.5%, meaning they expected revenue to go up only about 15% ~ 16%( .945 ridership x 1.23 fares = 1.16 total revs). This is a rough estimate (but likely low, since ridership was up the most on the most expensive modes rapid transit and commuter)
Instead, with ridership up 1% versus last year, revenues will rise 24% (1.012 ridership x 1.23 fares = 1.244). Thats an unexpected extra 8%!
They thought farebox revenues would go from $466m in FY12 to $537m in FY13 (roughly that 15% hike estimated above). Instead, if ridership holds, revenues will rise to $577m...an extra $40m.
You could see this as "riders have already given their fair/fare share", and that it is time for other stakeholders (unions & taxpayers) to chip in more.
I'd see it differently. If ridership doesn't fall, the fare hike wasn't big enough. Sure, I'd like a more flexible efficient workforce (and pensions) but I'd actually support using that $ and possible additional fare hikes to expand the money-making services (e.g. key bus routes)
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Thanks for the analysis Arlington. Great post.
Really interesting post, Arlington. While it may be true that the fare increase did not decrease ridership, I do think that MBTA must proceed cautiously with upcoming fare hikes. I think that these are likely given the broadening financial gap between money and obligations at the T. Rather than go through these ridiculous processes every five years or so, I would like to see them institute a (modest) annual increase pegged to something like the consumer price index and have an abbreviated process to justify it annually. The utilities and post office have a shorter process to raise rates. It should not take a year of public consternation for the T to increase fares by 25 cents. If done annually, it can be predictable and less painful for all.
Well, two things. The elasticity of people's decision to use the T varies by situation. Some folks have no choice but to use it, some can shift to cars, walking, or bicycling. Raising the fares enough to cause a decline probably means that people in the first category have been shifted into the "unemployed" sector, and some others have shifted into cars. Is that a net benefit to the city?
The other point is that while ridership increased by 1% over AUG-2011, this increase was tempered by the fare hike. It's quite possible that the year-over-year increase could have been 5% for August, as it was last year, if not for the fare hike. So that does represent some decline, if not quite enough to shrink the rider base.
The other point is that while ridership increased by 1% over AUG-2011, this increase was tempered by the fare hike. It's quite possible that the year-over-year increase could have been 5% for August, as it was last year, if not for the fare hike. So that does represent some decline, if not quite enough to shrink the rider base.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,212
- Reaction score
- 248
I originally found the article reporting the findings on Fox Business like 6 months ago. Yesterday I Googled the study and linked to the survey itself (as opposed to someone reporting on the survey). Guess I should have linked to the Fox Business article...
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I don't see growth in ridership (once we're already at record levels) as an obvious good at this point, especially if it is "bought" via low fares. Ridership growth at un-raised fares over the last 20 months has only meant you have crowded vehicles and lack the money to un-crowd them.
And I think they should consolidate more routes, such that there are fewer, more frequent buses that are worth walking to. People walk past a lot of other bus routes to get to the 77. I'd nominate the 80/94/95/96/326 for consolidation--all lose money and all but the 94 were on the chopping block in the dire scenarios) but serve basically the same areas. I think that's fairly telling. Take the same number of buses and make 2 key bus routes and I guarantee revenues and ridership would go up--and it would go up by putting people in seats that are currently cruising the hinterlands (my neighborhood) empty, rather than concentrating on a single viable corridor.
massmotorist
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 0
I like it. My ideas for fares:
Automatic increases
Fares should increase like the IRS tax brackets. There's a dollar amount for each type of fare and pass that is pegged to the CPI, and that number goes up automatically each year. But that number is not what the public sees. The public only sees when that number passes a certain increment - I'd say 25 cents for single rides, and $5 for passes. That simplifies things and adds automaticity, and avoids nickels and dimes where possible. Probably simplifies cash handling too.
CharlieCards and Tickets
- CharlieCards should be available online again. I don't know why they got rid of that option (that's where I got mine, and it was so much easier that way). My guess is a deluge of demand.
- The T should charge for CharlieCards, nominal but enough to cover manufactuting and distribution. If you make them too easy and available, people will see them as disposable.
- Soak the cash payers. If you use a CharlieTicket or cash, you pay double the fare. Simple and effective, and lessens the backup when people pay in cash on buses and the Green Line.
Fare Gates
Replace all fare gates with (properly designed) HEET gates
The Ride
Tighten up eligibility and require in-person interviews. The T provides Ride service outside its federally mandated area in many cases. Eliminate all non-mandated service.
The T needs to recognize it's a transportation agency, and as such its job is to, within the law, transport the greatest number of people possible as efficiently and safely as possible. If the legislature or the Feds mandate certain services, they have to do it. But if it's not mandated, eliminate it, period. Increase Ride fares to the maximum allowed by Federal law. If the legislature wants to chip in money to pay for non-ADA-mandated door-to-door individual service or subsidize it beyond what's required, fine, but it's not the T's job.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
Actually, I don't think fare-beating on the heavy rail is problem enough to warrant this (or to make people feel like stations are prisons).
And actually, going to a barrier-free, proof-of-payment system with inspectors with high fines is better for this simple reason: buses and trolleys (and their drivers) cost too much to sit idle while people do fare transactions onboard.
THe small loss in fares is more than made up for by the increase in speed-of-commute (and ridership gains among the honest) and the better capital efficiency.
The 99%+ of honest riders is today made to suffer through barriers and stops that take too long, just to accomplish a task (ensuring fare payment) that can be carried out in a way that really just inconveniences the dishonest (instead of everyone).
Last edited:
Well I agree that there are probably many opportunities to bring sanity to bus routes. But here's the problem: politics. Each of those bus routes you name has a different origin and destination pair, and they share almost nothing altogether. The 80/94/96 share the corridor around Tufts, which could be considered a "trunk" when combined. But that's a relatively short section. For the rest, you have a few users who would be very unhappy if something were changed, and the unhappy make the loudest noise. Those who would benefit from the change don't know it yet, so they don't say anything.
But honestly, I'm a bit puzzled how you might refactor these routes. What were you thinking?
This. The T will gain much more revenue from efficient passenger boarding and entry/exit than they do by instituting gates that throttle flow.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I'll start by saying that as a general rule bus routes should have a rail stop at both ends, not dangling tendrils. The dangling ends rarely have dense-enough users to really support them.
Second, a lot of dangling ends (like Clarendon Hill) are there because the there was a trolley car house there pre 1950 and ignore the fact that in the last 40 years there are now nearby heavy rail stations (like Alewife) that would make better termini.
Third, for some silly reason outta the 1920s the MBTA avoids running on DCR parkways, like the Ghost of Robert Moses is going to get them if they carve out a bus pad, or, heaven forfend, actually stop and block traffic.
The wasted dangles in the system are the 80 from Boston Ave to Arlington Center, the 94 from Boston Ave to Medford Square and the 96 from Harvard to Davis (which is way better by train), and I'd say the 95 along Playstead.
Triming those gives you high-volume routes like
1) Lechmere-Davis
2) Davis-West Medford-Medford Square-Wellington
3) Davis- U Haul - Clarendon Hill - Alewife
4) Alewife- Medford Square- Sullivan
Things like that
At this point you'd be looking at the wrong people to fix the problem because Boston's fares are now just as expensive (if not more so) than comparable systems in the US. It isn't that they're starved from ticket revenues, but rather from the failed "Forward Funding" paradigm with its paltry sales tax performance et al.