Hey golly gosh, mass transit in America is going great guns!
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) announced today that Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation in 2007, the highest level in 50 years, representing a 2.1% increase over the previous year.
Light rail is rockin'! Commuters are commuting! Subways are subbin' away!
Just not here. For the MBTA, we're down 2.89%. (pdf — definitions here.) Interestingly, the commuter rail is showing decent increases — it's the subway (“heavy rail”) that's getting absolutely hosed: -7.79%. Wonder why?
While we're all having lots of fun with casinos, I'm not seeing any particular political urgency about, you know, people actually being able to get to work. Maybe it's not all that important after all … I feel lucky today!
Funny thing this idea of investing in mass transit versus casinos.
<
p>Building/expanding/maintaining mass transit employs people over the long haul at much higher numbers than a casino that needs to be built once and requires minimal upkeep.
<
p>Improved mass transit (as mentioned) gets people to their jobs faster and more conveniently.
<
p>Investing in mass transit does not create any societal ills (no addiction to rail riding, increased prostitution is generally not associated with incraesed mass transit, etc.)
<
p>Obviously one (transit) requires state monies while the other (casinos) will bring some money in but since the money taken in will require significant expenditures out (social health programs, etc.) isn’t transit a better investment?
<
p>Unlike other “gambles” in state investment such as putting our money in biotech, an investment in transit guarantees jobs here simply because we’re not going to build a rail line in Silicon Valley.
<
p>Casinos have loads of employees — beds don’t make themselves. However, the jobs for the MBTA are much better jobs: more stable, higher paying, more worker’s protections. Some would argue that they’re too good (retirement after 20-something years with full benefits)…
<
p>
<
p>That’s simply not true. NIMBY to the extreme my friend. Want to watch it in action? Go to an Urban Ring community meeting. Everybody wants a stop near them, but they want the vehicle to emit no fumes, noise, or take up any room on the road. They also don’t want any construction inconvenience. So, societal ills like addictions and STDs? Nope. But mass transit can have a detrimental impact on neighborhoods even if it improves society as a whole. To ignore that problem doesn’t make it go away.
<
p>
<
p>That’s not to say I disagree. On the contrary, I want my lege to spend far more on MBTA infrastructure. I want a North/South Rail Link. I want more frequent commuter rail, and I’d like it all the way to Springfield. I want the Green Line to become 4 tracks underground, to allow a Kenmore-Copley-Park-Gov’t Ctr express, freeing up massive congestion on the Green Line. I want the Blue Line to go through Bowdoin and connect to Charles/MGH. I want a Green “A” Line to peel off the B somewhere near BU West, head through Allston, and terminate at the Harvard Square bus and Red Line station. I want the two parts of the Silver Line connected, connecting Southie to Green and Orange Lines, and those between Dudley Square and NEMedCtr to jobs at the Airport. I want better rail to NYC and up to Portland ME… it exists, but I want it to be faster, quieter, and cheaper.
I’ll concede that casinos obviously have jobs. According to the Governor’s report they will pay approx. $45k/year. I have doubts about that number but without better statistics at my fingertips I’ll have to let it stand. You are 100% correct about the T’s retirement/health care plans being a huge problem – they’ve been negotiating with the unions for at least a year now on those issues. That is only one reason our current system is unsustainable.
<
p>Your second point however is apples to oranges. NIMBYism is an entirely different beast than drug addiction, prostitution, gambling addiction, etc.
<
p>I’m also not suggesting that transit be shoved down people’s throats. Most of Medford wants a Green Line extension – they should get it. More importantly, EVERYBODY who rides the T (bus, subway and commuter rail) wants BETTER service. That will require improvements, more buses, better rail, etc.
I know you’ve got an MBTA frustration with grinding axe, and I’ve got MBTA frustration with defensive posture. Having written that…
<
p>
<
p>So my question is: how has the Silver line changed things? After all, if people who now ride the Silver line used to ride a bus to the Red Line [or somesuch] to work each week, then their commute has just reduced their usage of MBTA by 50% according to this analysis. It’s a bit perverse — the T provides a service that people use to reduce the number of “seats” to their destination, and it shows up as a reduction in usage.
<
p>I’m not saying that is what happened here… but the change that matters [based on having large impact on the 2.89%] is heavy rail, and it’s not clear if that includes the Green Line [I suspect not]. So — has the number of people who ride Silver to the airport [instead of red -> blue -> bus (yes that counts)] plus others who can now use the Silver [instead of bus + bus or bus + other] made a substantial difference over the past year? I don’t know… I just caution against making quick analysis.
<
p>P.S. I wonder how the change in population in Boston vs. the other places with transit also impacts the numbers. I also wonder how much of the increase is due to more people using existing infrastructure with modest investment, and how much is due to new mass transit being rolled out and getting huge growth in once city for a single year… such as Denver CO and St Louis MO.
Well, according to the T (see page 19) most people who ride the Silver Line now (39%) were either walking, driving, or did not use the T to commute earlier.
<
p>Says to me that the T’s number the consistently use (approx. 14,000 riders daily) for the Silver Line multiplied by 39% gives us 5,460 new riders. That would seem to say the concern over linked trips in this instance may not hold water.
2. 44% were using bus or subway, an additional 18% didn’t answer. So, that 44-62% very well could be reducing their number of rides from 2-3 to 1.
3. That said, daily ridership is 1.1 million. The Silverline — both parts — make up less than 3%. It’s certainly a stretch to suggest that every Silver Line rider used to take 2+ seats and now only takes 1; I never suggested that the sole reason for the reduction is the Silver Line. Are there other “linked trip” changes? I haven o idea.
4. I merely pointed out that there may be more stories to be told; the 2.89% reduction when compared to a national increase may have more explanations than the Red Line being down [in one direction I’d bet] for an hour on Monday.
39% is never “most.” Not really certain how I got there myself.
<
p>However, if you add the 21% who were taking the 49 bus (that later became known as the Silver Line) then you’ve got 60% – that would qualify as “most.”
<
p>39% voted for Candidate A; 38% voted for Candidate B, and 23% voted for Candidate C.
<
p>Which candidate received the most votes?
got the plurality of votes. In any case, since we were referring to summing subcategories, 39% remains not “most”.
You guys don’t know how lucky you have it
<
p>The MBTA looks like the Ritz compared with the CTA.
<
p>At least the MBTA has a stable short term financial future, at least it runs relatively on time, at least whole lines are not undergoing major repairs, at least its tracks don’t have massive slow zones due to age and atrophying, at least the majority of its stops are open, at least its cheap, at least it reaches most of the city, at least you don’t have to go through downtown and back again to go to a different part of the city. Bostons got it pretty nice. I really miss the Green Line, Chicago could use some light rail trolleys.