Boston City Councillor Michelle Wu has made clean, equitable transportation her personal mission — from advocating for bicycling to calling for a completely free MBTA. For now, though, she’s opposing the T’s proposed fare increase: You can sign the petition here — it will be delivered to the MBTA at an open meeting tonight 2/27.
Citing the urgency of addressing climate change and our worst-in-the-nation traffic (by some measures), Wu calls for a number of interim steps, short of a total re-imagining of the MBTA:
- Create a single youth pass with free, unlimited, year-round access to the MBTA. Currently, MBTA options for students and youth passes are needlessly complicated and inconsistent, and are turning the next generation of riders against public transportation.
- Extend the same free, unlimited, year-round pass to seniors residing in Massachusetts.
- Provide low-income riders with Charlie Cards and a low-income fare option, distributing these MBTA passes through agencies that administer SNAP and other means-tested benefits.
- Commit to rejecting distance-based bus and subway fares, which have been shown to be regressive, as more residents are being priced out of housing close to job centers.
- Rezone the commuter rail fares so that all of Boston is Zone 1A and no municipality is split between multiple fare zones.
- As the MBTA moves toward a cashless fare collection system, reject plans to spend resources on costly fare vending machines at every bus stop and instead designate the bus routes where riders will depend on cash as fare-free routes.
(via Jamaica Plain News)
In the petition, she also calls for a variety of ways to fund transit:
Finally, we ask that you focus on building a sustainable funding base for public transit:
– Advocate for the Transportation & Climate Initiative.
– Implement smarter tolling and congestion pricing.
– Support increased surcharges for TNCs (such as Uber and Lyft) that encourage shared rides.
– Support legislation to enable regional ballot initiatives that would allow voters to identify and raise revenues for transit priorities.
Baker’s MBTA management has always been short on vision (to say the least). This administration needs some pressure.
SomervilleTom says
We MUST raise use-taxes on highways and vehicles, and use those to pay for public transportation.
It is insane for us to continue to subsidize automobile and truck use while simultaneously expecting public transportation users to pay for the same “privilege”.
petr says
As much as I agree with Wu, and with Charley’s agreement with Wu… and with Charley’s idea that the Baker administration needs some pressure… As much as give all that an ‘amen’ is the impetus with which I ask…
…Where’s Marty?
How is it we’ve gotten this far in the conversation about public transit in the City of Boston and yet the MAYOR has not even been mentioned, for good of for ill?
From a purely political standpoint, a City Councilor is taking up a lot of oxygen and getting a lot of good press. And the actual Mayer is, more or less, an afterthought. I don’t think either Tom Menino, or Kevin White would have let a City Councilor get such good press at their expense… From the standpoint of actually solving the problem, I’m thinking first that pressure from the Mayor is more impactful than pressure from the City Councilor… and, secondly, that the distinct absence of the Mayor serves to mitigate the pressure from the City Councilor.
Charley on the MTA says
Completely agree, and I’ve said this in various fora in the past. It’s a real vacuum of leadership, and it’s just unthinkable.
Christopher says
I’m opposed to any increases in tolls. Highways are a public good and should be treated as such, but then, so are trains IMO.
petr says
If highways are a “public good” that is only because car ownership is seen in the similar light of public benefit. But if autos are in this class of ‘public good’ or otherwise provide an impetus for this type of ‘public good,’ then why doesn’t the government just go the entire way and provide a car for every citizen?
Highways as ‘public good’ is distinctly at odds with ‘public transportation.’ Funding both ends of the candle is no better than burning both ends…
Public transportation is a public good. Highways are a public convenience for private transportation and they should be costed out accordingly.
Christopher says
Disagree in the strongest possible terms. Highways will always be necessary for both business and pleasure and I absolutely do think this is a matter of both/and rather than either/or. Roads for private vehicles have been considered essential internal improvements since just about the beginning of the Republic, but canals and railroads have also been built for as long as technology has allowed. There will always be areas of the state and country where there is not enough demand for mass transit to justify it. Roads ARE ultimately part of the public transportation system.
SomervilleTom says
@ canals and railroads have also been built …:
Let’s be very clear about this, though, and lets include European as well as American experience.
Canals and railroads were frequently funded by government, because government officials saw strategic benefit to the nation even though private companies were not interested.
For example, the Baltimore and Ohio railroad was heavily supported by public funds. One important strategic motivation was to provide a competitive shortcut to the Mississippi River. Prior to the B&O, the raw materials from the west and north were shipped to Chicago and then down the Mississippi to New Orleans, where they were taken by ship around Florida and up to the manufacturing centers of the northeast. The Mississippi river region become so prosperous from the resulting trade that secession was a real economic as well as political threat.
The Erie Canal and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad addressed that threat by providing a compellingly faster shipping route, especially for heavy and bulky manufactured goods.
Passenger transportation by rail has never been profitable, not even in the heyday of passenger service. Railroads viewed passenger service as a marketing and advertising expense during an era where no radio, television, or other media existed (besides newspapers). We collectively killed private passenger rail service by subsidizing highways and introducing radio, television, and now the web — yet insisting that passenger service should somehow pay for itself. It never did and never will.
Europe long ago recognized that passenger rail service is vital to economic health, and subsidizes it accordingly. As an accident of history, railroad right-of-way in Europe is publicly owned (like our roads and highways). Passenger service operates on dedicated passenger-only track. Private companies pay to operate trains on public infrastructure (freight and passenger). Rail passenger service is heavily subsidized.
Every region of every state requires a regional transportation strategy. That transportation strategy must balance highways, rail, water, air, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation needs. An effective regional transportation strategy address all of those.
We have a responsibility to include externalized costs when we investigate transportation alternatives. Moving a given mass (whether a person or an item of freight) faster always requires more energy than moving the same mass slower.
Moving ANYTHING by air is therefore always going to require far more energy than moving the same mass by rail, ship, or vehicle. We have currently evolved a transportation system where it is cheaper to fly from Boston to Chicago than to take a train, and where the cheapest of all is driving. That is insane, from a perspective of energy use and climate impact. Insane!
I think we should revolutionize our federal, state and local transportation strategy so that:
1. Any person can get from any place to any other place in an affordable and safe manner. Owning a vehicle should not be a requirement.
2. Any person who is willing and able to pay a premium for convenience should be able to get from any place to any other place quickly, in exchange for a premium price.
3. The conveyance that offers the shortest travel time should be the most expensive for the passenger.
4. The transportation infrastructure should be designed, funded, and maintained in order to satisfy these constraints.
Christopher says
Your history is sound, but why are you so anti-convenience? IMO our mantra should be the three Cs – cheap, convenient, and clean – and yes, I absolutely believe we are capable of attaining all three.
SomervilleTom says
@ why not convenient?:
Bearing in mind that we are including externalized costs — and therefore including the cost of the carbon footprint, petroleum use, and so on — then it might not be both convenient and cheap to get from Boston to Los Angeles.
Convenience generally requires speed, speed requires energy, and energy will be expensive for the foreseeable future.
Christopher says
Why can’t we double down on cleaner fuels and more efficient use of fuel within our autos and planes? If we transfer all the subsidies we give from fossil fuels to cleaner sources we can cause the costs of cleaner fuels to plummet. To me that should be the focus.
SomervilleTom says
@ double-down:
We could certainly do that. The total cost of transportation is more than just fuel costs, though.
From the data below, doubling down isn’t enough. A plane uses four times as much fuel as train and six times as much fuel as a bus.
Here are some relevant statistics. First, a comparison of fuel costs (expressed as “personal miles per gallon”):
Plane: 54
Minivan: 94
Car (sedan): 113
Train: 190
Bus: 330
Walk: 700 (calculated from calorie expenditure)
Bicycle: 984 (calculated from calorie expenditure)
Traveling by plane already uses twice the fuel as making the same trip by car, almost four times the fuel of making the trip by train.
I’ve ranked the transportation alternatives in order of their relative fuel efficiency. I suggest that a reasonable transportation policy would cause this to also be the ranking by consumer price.
For a trip from Boston to Chicago, for example, I suggest that a person’s choices should be:
Plane: $925
Car or minivan: $500
Train: $260/$760 (sleeper + meals)
Bus: $150 (current Greyhound fare)
This trip takes about 24 hours by bus and car. This means that for the bus and car, a hotel room and two meals are required.
The current airfare from Boston to Chicago is advertised as comparable to the cited bus fare.
That is, quite literally, insane. Largely because of government subsidies, we have created a market that encourages cost-conscious travelers to use the MOST harmful technology possible.
SomervilleTom says
Just a note about train vs bus pricing. The wear-and-tear on the “guideway” (track for train, road for bus) is significantly higher for a bus than a train. The above numbers are also based on relatively short train lengths (see the cited link for details).
Extra cars can be added to an already-scheduled train. Those cars add a very small amount to the energy required to move them. Each coach adds about 80 seats. Each sleeper adds about 30-40 passengers (depending on the route). In contrast, the marginal cost of each added bus is the same.
More research is needed to get comparable cost-of-ownership numbers for train and bus. When other costs beyond fuel are added (especially maintenance and repair of the guideway), the differential between trains and buses is likely to decrease.
At the end of the day, the physics of steel wheels on steel rails make trains far and away the most energy-efficient mode of transport.
Christopher says
Your suggested plane ticket price is unacceptable. We must find a way to fix that. We must simultaneously make flying much cleaner and cheaper or we risk that becoming the privilege of the rich. Our environmental policies must be more positive and appeal to American ingenuity and optimism. You are preaching way too much gloom/doom and sacrifice for my (and I suspect many voters’) tastes. WA Gov. Jay Inslee just got into the presidential race, more I suspect to spotlight these issues rather than because he’s likely to win, and his announcement video is all about climate change, but in the more positive way I am referring to.
SomervilleTom says
@Make flying much cleaner and cheaper:
You are demanding that we roll back the laws of physics. Flying is and should be a privilege of those who can afford it — because it is expensive and terrible for the environment.
I hate to break this to you, but just because you or we want to fly cheap and clean doesn’t make it possible.
American ingenuity and optimism cannot roll back the laws of physics. It doesn’t matter whether reality tastes good to you (or any voter) or not — reality is what it is, and we must adjust.
A better use of American ingenuity and optimism is to make again become cool, hip, and romantic to travel in ways that don’t destroy the environment. We do have the ability to make it fashionable to live, work, and shop in places we can walk or bike to.
The premise that a cross-country flight is somehow the right of every American is utterly failed. That premise is precisely what has created the climate catastrophe that we now face.
We MUST face the inconvenient truth about the world we live in.
Christopher says
You seem to not even want to try to make flying environmentally palatable. Just as with cars we can use cleaner and less fuel for planes, and that fuel can become inexpensive.
SomervilleTom says
You seem to be in abject denial about the physics.
It is ALWAYS going to be at least four times as expensive to fly as to use some other ground-based transportation, at least so long as we’re talking about fixed-wing aircraft that operate by creating lift from forward velocity created by consuming energy (I’m ignoring, for this discussion, alternatives such as Zeppelins that use helium for lift and perhaps solar power for forward thrust).
It is pointless to try and overcome limitations imposed by basic physics.
Christopher says
But not pointless to try to ameliorate as much as humanly possible (and you don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of my historically rocky relationship with physics!) It does seem we could make lighter aircraft that would require less fuel, certainly use cleaner fuel. Since planes are a form of mass transit I have to assume it does not cost four times per person to fly than it does to drive. Pretty sure most planes hold more people than most busses. I’m fine with trains being cheaper than planes.
SomervilleTom says
@ rocky relationship with physics:
All the things you mentioned are factored into the above “pmpg” figure of merit.
The industry has been striving to make lighter equipment for decades. I think it’s very unlikely that we’ll see an improvement of a factor of four. I also suggest that any such revolutionary materials advance will also be available to trains and buses, even if not automobiles.
The point is that we currently subsidize the air industry, so that the price of flying is about the same as the price of a bus. I think your assumption that cost is less than the cost of driving is invalid — the physics strongly suggests that the cost of an airplane carrying 100 passengers is surely more, and apparently at least four times more, than the cost of a bus carrying 100 passengers or a train car carrying 100 passengers.
In any case, the “pmpg” numbers I cited already include adjustments for the difference in capacity between planes, buses, and trains.
Christopher says
OK, but by hook or crook I STILL do not want to pay $925 to fly to Chicago!
SomervilleTom says
Well, you have to decide which is more important to you, flying to Chicago or doing something about climate change.
I got to the $925 number based on current pmpg data. If the fuel efficiency of air travel can be improved in comparison to the others, then the ratios will change.
Government subsidies make the current prices lower than the numbers I put up (bearing in mind that these are estimates). We currently have subsidies that make the LEAST efficient mode of transportation have about the same price as the most efficient. That’s wrong.
Similarly, we currently have subsidies that make automobile travel much less expensive than it should be by these standards.
When we maintain an artificially low price, because of government subsidies, we create artificially high demand. A rational transportation strategy would avoid doing that.
Christopher says
I fundamentally reject your premise that I have to choose between flying to Chicago and the environment, or at least that we can’t get there if we put our mind to it. We should absolutely subsidize ways to travel cleanly so that it also won’t be expensive. This is a first world country for crying out loud – the richest the world has ever seen! As an American I want the entire country theoretically accessible to me for recreation, cultural enhancement, etc. We should start with the premise we are able to have nice things. You seem to refuse to even try to make fuel cleaner and more efficient. I do not and will not abide your Debbie Downer attitude.
SomervilleTom says
@ fundamentally reject:
We seem to be going in circles. We established that you “fundamentally reject” actual reality way upthread. The point is that your rejection is based on your opinion and feelings, and has no relationship to actual physics and facts.
Here, as well as there, your objection is that you don’t like it. I showed that, like it or not, it is what it is. I want to suggest, as gently as possible, that your “rocky relationship with physics” is blinding you here.
Extreme wealth does not buy exceptions from basic physics, even in today’s America. Nobody says you can’t have the entire country “theoretically accessible to you”. Instead, the simple reality is that getting from Boston to Chicago is more likely to take 18-24 hours than 2.
Other first-world countries have genuine high-speed rail. Of the ten fastest trains in the world, NONE are in the US.
Here in the US, we chose arguably the WORST segment in the nation to build our only “high-speed” train (the Acela). In so doing, we made in international joke of ourselves. I note that the Acela maxes out at about 150MPH. That’s not “high speed”, even by US standards, never mind Europe. Even in NE corrider, non-Acela equipment easily goes the same speed. Most of the cost of the “Acela upgrade” was, in fact, removing ancient slow-order sections of track so that all trains can go 45 mph instead of 5 mph.
In short, the US has no high-speed trains by first-world standards.
If our research or capital spending for transportation is limited (and presumably it is), then surely it makes more sense to provide a 225 MPH train between Chicago and — your choice — LA, SF, Phoenix, Seattle, or any of the other cities on the other side of the North American prairies than to thrash at reversing the laws of physics for no gain in speed or time at all.
Chicago to LA is about 2,000 miles. It takes about 4.25 hours today by non-stop jet. That’s a “timetable speed” of about 475 mph. A first-world high-speed train could do that trip in something on the order of 10 hours, with a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint.
No bus or car is EVER going to compete with that. No conventional jet will ever come close to that carbon footprint.
Is the difference between 4 hours and 10 hours really worth the environmental sacrifice of air travel?
Rather than continue to attack my “Debbie Downer” attitude, it might be more constructive for you to let go of your attachment to failed and filthy modes of transport that have already done so much damage.
Christopher says
I am trying to dream big here. Politically, you do not tell Americans no, they can’t have something. There’s a reason inspirational and successful Dem campaigns like Deval Patrick’s and Barack Obama’s boiled down to three simple words – Yes, we can! In the schools I teach in I’ve seen a lot of emphasis lately on thinking positive and assuming that just because you struggle now doesn’t mean you always will. Use of the word “can’t” is discouraged and if you must use it punctuate that sentence with the word “yet” implying you will eventually be able to do it. As an example for this discussion we might say, “We can’t fly across the United States both cleanly and cheaply – YET!”
(BTW, though science in general has always held the least interest and most difficulty for me my “rocky relationship with physics” is more accurately a rocky relationship with my HS physics teacher, who among other things managed to lose track of homework I and several of my classmates turned in. Thus many of us were knocked off the honor roll for the first time in our lives. I would not have gotten an A in physics otherwise, but at least recording the B I would have truly earned would have been nice.)
SomervilleTom says
@dream big:
We can dream as big as we want, but dreaming of clean and cheap airplanes (in comparison to trains or even buses) is just a lie. You might as well dream of a future without gravity. It’s great science fiction and terrible public policy.
There is some interest in hypersonic air travel. One of the most aggressive programs is from Boston’s own “Spike Aerodynamics”. From their own performance specs, this highly speculative cutting-edge aircraft will have — wait for it — FIFTEEN passenger miles per gallon (56,000 lbs of jet fuel at 6.7 lbs/gallon is 8,358 gallons. 7,134 mile range, 18 passengers. 18 times 7,134 divided by 8,358 = 15.35 pmpg)
That’s neither clean nor cheap, even in comparison to today’s commercial jets. Travel at Mach 1.6 is expensive and dirty.
I think that any big dreams about solving climate change involve big dreams about transportation. I think the big dream about clean and cheap transportation is a dream of trains, lighter-than-air aircraft, and of course a new generation of automobiles and buses.
For example, the cleanest and cheapest way to get an automobile from Boston to LA (especially a self-driving automobile) will be to put it on a high-speed train (with l0ts of other cars). That’s how new cars are delivered today (though today’s trains are not high-speed by European standards).
Similarly, one can imagine a self-driving car equipped with a railroad-compatible wheelset and couplers. A number of such cars could conceivably navigate from a highway to rail interchange point, where they somehow self-assemble into “train” moved by a few of the coupled-together vehicles. That gets the vehicles to the destination at highway/rail speed, and with a minimum of emissions and wear-and-tear on the road/track.
Dreaming big is fine, so long as those dreams are rooted in reality. Dreaming about physical impossibilities is just lying.
America will never again have “good jobs” for people without a college degree that will enable them to buy a 3-BR house and raise two children on one income. “Dreaming” about that is just lying, regardless of the party affiliation of the dreamer.
The same is true for dreaming of “clean and cheap” (where each is in comparison to ground transportation) air travel is even more dishonest.
Dreaming about a future with cheap and convenient anti-gravity technology is a staple of science fiction (along with transporters and travel at multiples of the speed of light). Such dreams are not a suitable foundation for national transportation policy.
Trickle up says
You know, if we built 1970s-era trains from Boston to Chicago, the trip would take a little over 4 hours city center to city center.
That’s quicker than flying if you factor in the trips to the airport and the waits etc.
At greater distances, such as to California, rail does not substitute so readily for air.
SomervilleTom says
It’s probably closer to 6 hours when the route is adjusted to accommodate the terrain — the straight-line distance is about a 1,000 miles (Google says 982), and a high-speed rail line would not be able to go in a straight line because of mountains, rivers, and lakes.
Another factor worth mentioning is that right-of-way acquisition for any new route (highway or rail) is going to be VERY expensive.
Not as expensive as climate change impacts, of course. At this point, Eurostar technology is mature enough that even large investments in right-of-way acquisition for a 200 MPH train are much less risky than research investments in some sort of magically fuel-efficient air travel.
Trickle up says
It would be more accurate to say that transportation infrastructure is a public good. But not all TI is equal. Roads and highways come with great external costs.
I wouldn’t say, Don’t fix that bridge because it will just encourage people to drive. But I do think we can prioritize a better mass transit network over private autos.
And in many communities, big arterials need to be downsized to allow walk-to-work, walk-to shop options to flourish.
johntmay says
I signed on. How about using some of the real estate taxes on properties that will no doubt rise in response to their now having easy access to free transportation?