On the one hand, it’s been good to have Governor Baker have to respond to constant questions about the MBTA. I like having it in the front of a Governor’s mind.
On the other hand, I shouldn’t be surprised that his administration is following a green-eyeshade bean-counter’s mentality of what the MBTA is supposed to do: Cut service — and make it more difficult to use. Raise fares. No more state revenue, in spite of the T’s obvious utility to both riders and non-riders. Do less, be less, to fewer people. This is “responsible management.”
Glad the Feds noticed, anyway:
Federal officials said the MBTA failed to follow civil rights guidelines that required the agency to fully examine whether the cancellation of late-night T service approved this week would disproportionately hurt minorities and low-income riders.
The MBTA said it began to conduct an analysis and its initial report suggested minorities and low-income riders would suffer from the cuts, but T officials never completed it because they decided that ending the service wasn’t a “major service change’’ that required a review.
The rebuke from the Federal Transit Administration comes as the MBTA’s board prepares to vote Monday to raise fares, a step many have decried as unfair to lower-income riders who are most dependent on the T. The T’s decision to forgo the civil rights analysis of the cutback was blasted by advocates who had argued that late-night service was an important service for riders who needed affordable transportation from night jobs.
The idea that this would disproportionately fall on the least wealthy and powerful either didn’t occur to the board; or it did, and they didn’t care because not enough people showed up at community meetings to complain. Maybe that’s because they were at work. Maybe it’s because these are the folks that have, like, three jobs.
And now we have a 10% fare increase — the first since 2014, so if you index that to inflation it’s not as bad as it sounds. But we don’t index the gas tax — per John and Jane Q. Public.
And the increase takes a huge chunk out of those folks from Lowell, Attleboro, and the like who take the commuter rail: Zone 10 riders are going to pay an extra $435 a year. The T provides a critical lifeline to jobs, and also provides those communities with a way to appeal to people with jobs in Boston who don’t want to live closer in, or can’t afford to.
This is gonna hurt:
T fare survey: Who says they would stop riding the MBTA if fares go up? Depends on the kind of pass you use. pic.twitter.com/NazSzB0rbx
— Steve Koczela (@skoczela) March 7, 2016
Sorry to say it, but so far Governor Baker’s leadership on the T has been small-minded, blinkered. You’ve got to do more than make the numbers add up. You’ve got to serve the public better. That’s what it’s there for. And if you don’t serve the public better, long-term, the numbers will never add up.
The shrinking of the MBTA is no favor, of course, to our gold-plated flagship industries. But particularly with inequality literally segregating the Commonwealth more and more, the T needs to be protected as a common asset — for everyone to use.
jconway says
And there’s shades of Flint with the disregard for minority constituents. Glad the Feds took notice. It’s incumbent that every legislator in the communities the T serves is made to feel the pain the ridership is feeling, and that they feel this until they make a change.
I note that one of my old reps Majorie Decker folded like a house of cards rather than fight for Gov. Patrick’s revenue proposal. And she wasn’t alone among reps for heavy ridership communities in choosing the Speaker over the people.
thegreenmiles says
Note that the Globe article never mentions Charlie Baker. I thought he was the Man In Charge Where The Buck Stops?
merrimackguy says
about the MBTA’s payroll/management practices?
Is it not the wiser choice to figure out where the money’s going prior to being bold? We know there’s a budget problem and some of that is related to an unfair debt burden. Some of it is related to payroll though, and if you want public support for additional state funding they’ve got to give some assurance they’re in control of that.
These problems were years in the making and Gov Patrick was there for eight of them. Gov Baker is just past year one.
jconway says
The Republicans didn’t control the legislature for the past 20 year while we let this jewel of our Commonwealth rust before our eyes. We were the first city to have a subway in the New Workd, surely we can have a world class system in this new century.
Absolutely audit the hell out of the T salaries, proposed construction costs like the GLX, and make sure we cut every ounce of waste fraud and abuse that is there. If we do all that we are still looking at a $7 billion shortfall, something fare increases can’t make up for. Let’s manage the T better and provide it with revenue. Both/and.
merrimackguy says
I assume he’s got to be looking at the optics/politics of this and needs to show some progress on the costs front before looking at the funding side. My guess is that they shift some of the debt back to the state and claim the legislation that but it there in the first place was flawed.
Trickle up says
You mean, reform before revenue?
That doesn’t apply to the poor schmoes who use the service.
dca-bos says
to require that all members of the Legislature who live in the MBTA service area use the T to commute to the State House. Take away all the free parking, close the Ashburton garage, ban them from using campaign funds to pay for parking in downtown Boston and let them buy a T pass pre-tax like many businesses offer to their employees.
I know, legislators will argue that their schedules aren’t conducive to taking the T, but that’s kind of the point. Their constituents who don’t get a free parking spot on Beacon Hill, which is worth at least $350-$400/month or almost $5,000/year these days, also have to get to work, pick up kids from school or daycare, get to medical appointments, etc that aren’t necessarily on a 9-5 schedule.
If members of the General Court got a sense as to how the folks they represent actually deal with the constant breakdowns, service disruptions and delays maybe they would be more amenable to dealing with the real issues facing our transportation system.
JimC says
… say, 9 million times?
OK how about 200 times? One for each legislator.
Take away the Governor’s parking too. Hey, why not convert the lots to affordable housing?
sabutai says
Let’s mandate officials send their students to public schools.
Let’s mandate officials may not drink water from anything other than the tap.
Let’s mandate officials may only take Amtrak outside the state.
Let’s go all out on what we make officials do. That should help. Somehow.
dca-bos says
but we’re already heavily incentivizing them to drive into the city. Free parking, per diems, etc are basically taxpayer subsidies to the Legislature to drive. Maybe I was extreme with the whole forcing them to take the T, but get rid of all of the driving-centric perks and let them make an economic choice about it, just like many of us do every day.
dca-bos says
on the T’s analysis of the fare increases. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen any data on whether they looked at people like me who buy a monthly pass now for the convenience of it but don’t use nearly that amount in fares every month. For example, I buy a Link Pass for $75/month but I rarely ride the T enough to hit $75 a month in fares. With the fare increase, my pass will now cost $84.50/month — or the equivalent of 4+ additional subway trips or 5+ additional bus trips a month.
With that increase, I’m seriously considering dumping the pass and just loading up money on a Charlie Card. If I do this, the T will lose $900/year in guaranteed income. My guess is that I’ll probably spend less than 2/3 of that every year loading up my Charlie Card, so the T just lost $300/year in revenue. And the calculus might be even more extreme for some of the folks who buy the very expensive commuter rail passes.
I’d be curious if anyone saw any analysis of this issue and if others may think the same way.
JimC says
I’ve done both the commuter rail (Zone 4) and the regular T. Of note, the commuter rail is generally much better and more reliable, because delays are more painful maybe.
But there are strong incentives to use monthly passes. The 12 ride passes expire, and even with those the driver has to punch it. The monthly pass is the quickest and easiest. Buying a ticket on the train, which can be done, carries a surcharge if there is a ticket option in the station.
So to your point, a pass rider is (probably) still getting a relative bargain, and is far less likely to switch than a regular T rider. Also, the commuter pass includes the regular T, so that affects the total cost consideration as well.
dca-bos says
As a very infrequent commuter rail rider, I’m not really familiar with the pricing structure of the passes. Sounds like many people will just be forced to pay more.
stomv says
Back in the old days when you had a paper card monthly pass or had to have tokens or coins for the farebox, there was a significant convenience to having a monthly pass even if you didn’t ride enough for it to pencil out.
Since the CharlieCard, that convenience goes away. My CharlieCard has ~$30 on it, and I ride the T when I ride the T. My spouse has a CharlieCard with a monthly fare. You couldn’t tell the two apart by use.
And so, I wonder: why does dca-bos buy a monthly pass when it’s really just as easy to buy $20 in fare at a time? I suspect that very few riders are doing what dca-bos is doing, and therefore the analysis he calls for won’t demonstrate very much revenue difference…
dca-bos says
For the convenience of it. I get it through my employer pre-tax and it’s guaranteed to be there when I need it. I don’t have to try and put wrinkled bills in a fare box on the bus while 10 people stand behind me in the rain. I don’t have to worry about missing a train when I don’t have enough money on my card. And there are some months when it’s probably a good deal for me, just not every month.
Lots of people get T passes through their jobs — maybe I’m unique, but I think there’s more of us out there than you think.
stomv says
Do you get the T pass itself? Most folks with pre-tax transit funding get a debit card that they use to get their monthly passes on the 27th – 31st of the month. Because it’s a $ deduction, you don’t have to get a monthly pass. You could deduct less (say, $50.month) and use it to put $50 on the pay-as-you-go Charlie Card. You wouldn’t get the state income tax deduction, that’s true.
So do you get the actual pass, or something else?
scott12mass says
I’ve used the T maybe twice in ten years and I even avoid the pike when I can. But could the two be tied together at least as far as paying for them. If the ez pass box works for tolls, why not for subways, trains even state parks? Different prices for tolls are handled by the system now.