Lost within the hubbub of the major headline-grabbing transportation reform initiatives — abolition of Mass. Turnpike, MBTA health benefits, etc — are a few other less sexy, but still important reforms BMGers would be very interested to know about.
For example, the new MassDOT board of directors will be required to develop green-friendly transportation policies. These include mandates to:
The report also includes a requirement that says at least 75% of money raised in gas tax revenue has to come back to the region it came from. That return is upped to 85% if there is a large number of vehicles with FastPass (read: Metrowest). This kinda echoes one of Gov. Patrick’s reform bill initiatives, although the language came from an amendment filed by Sen. Spilka (who incidentally did not vote for the reform bill in the end.)
Also, before MassDOT can approve any major transportation expansions (train lines, bus lines, interstates, etc) it has to demonstrate not only that it can afford to build the expansion, but also has the money to operate and maintain it. This can be viewed as both good and bad. It’s good in that it will prevent the MBTA from going through another period of tremendous expansion without taking into consideration the fact it couldnt afford to maintain and operate the systems it already had. It’s bad in that it could slow down construction of the Green and Blue Line extensions, as well as the Fall River/New Bedford line.
that’s court ordered.
<
p>I’m curious about this gas tax-back-to-region. What are the regions? Also, is there other road transportation money in addition to gas tax? How is that distributed?
<
p>My instinct is that the road miles per person is much higher in rural areas… how are they going to pay for that on their own?
<
p>The big question is: where is the money to pay down the debt coming from?
The South Coast line is a political boondoggle, so I will be happy if this kills it. Commuter rail capital projects should focus making the system we have (which is actually pretty good) more efficient and effective.
<
p>Commuter trains presently average at best around 30 mph — i.e., if you live in a town that’s 15 miles from downtown, it will take at least 30 min to get there. Granted, this is an average and the train moves faster/slower at different points on the line. But most of the towns that are around 20 miles (e.g., Andover, Natick, Concord, Cohasset, Norwood) from downtown have about a 45 min train ride into Boston. When you add in the home-to-train and train-to-work portions of the commute, you’re over an hour each way. That really is the practical “end of the line” in terms of creating a realistic option for most commuters. I’m not saying we tear up the train tracks beyond that point, but when you’re looking to invest billions of dollars and you’re flat broke anyway, you should at least focus on cost-benefit justified projects. In case you’re curious, New Bedford is 58 miles from downtown according to google maps, so you’re likely talking about a 2-hr trip each way.
<
p>I would rather spend this money on upgrading what we have to speed the trains up, even if it’s just a few minutes for a typical trip, through new signaling and switching equipment, double- and triple-track lines, express trains, etc. This would constitute “expansion” in some sense, as more stations become viable options for day-to-day commuters. It’s just not as sexy for the politicans as a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
<
p>Selected infill projects would also make our system more efficient and would cost much less than a brand new line. The system as presently constituted does have a pretty good geographic reach around metro Boston, but there are gaps. Particularly good targets are places that already have a decent level of density to support new stations. Some of the north shore projects (adding stops in Salem, Peabody, Danvers, etc.) fit this bill. Another good idea is creating transit-oriented-development stations in suitable areas similar to the Westwood Station project. The new Orange Line stop at Assembly Square and the Green Line project at Riverside are similar project on subway lines.
The 30 mph is for routes which have stops all the way to downtown. There’s no reason why a New Bedford line couldn’t latch on to the end of the Middleborough/Lakeville line, perhaps only adding the lone additional stop (or maybe one betwixt; I don’t know the density well enough in that part of the Commonwealth).
<
p>Inbound is 58 minutes. That would add another 10ish (if only one stop added). We’re looking at 1:15 instead of your claim of 2 hours. Now you’ve got to get to/from the station, but you’ve also got to deal with traffic and parking when you drive to Boston/Cambridge. I have no idea what the demand for New Bedford commuter rail is — there’s no point in doing it for 300 riders a day. How many is enough? Again, I don’t know. To discount the project off-hand seems silly. I’m not arguing that we should break ground tomorrow, and I certainly feel that banging down the debt is the most critical task in the immediate time frame.
<
p>As for double and triple track lines, I love it but that costs as much or more than expansion per mile, since you’ll try to find space to add to the right of way closer to the city, where space is at a higher premium and where overpasses, highways, and the like abut the rail line. Again, I’m not arguing that it’s not possible, merely pointing out that it ain’t that easy either.
<
p>I agree it would be nice to shave minutes off of the existing routes, but heck, it’s officially 39 minutes to run the Green B Line from BC to Park Street. That’s what, five miles?
<
p>At the end of the day, by expanding the service area of the MBTA, the T gains a geographically wider net of users. That translates to political support from more legislators and more citizens. That will get translated into more political clout down the line, and that does have real value in creating a 21st century transportation network.
<
p>
<
p>So, none of this is to suggest that I disagree entirely. I too want more efficient service, and even shaving a few minutes really helps. But, expansion to new geographic areas is important to deal with traffic congestion, suffering small city economies, and gaining political support throughout more of the Commonwealth. Ultimately, the reality is that fares cover the cost of service but don’t cover the cost to build nor maintain. The only way to make this work is to (i) reduce the debt to free up some budget, which means (ii) using new revenue sources to fund any and all capital projects for a while.
In FY 2009 the MBTA debt service ($367.8M) was 25% of its total revenue ($1,470.7M), and with an additional $42M deficit for the year the FY 2010 results will be worse. Indeed, the current budget forecasts an annual shortfall of $160M, and achieve a “balanced” budget only through the assumed supplementary revenue from the State. Having used capital maintenance and reserve funds to plug the FY 09 budget hole, and trying to hold fare increase down to not lose ridership, there really is no option other than the bailout by the State. That is why reform is so necessary, or else FY 2011 will further the rate of decline.
… which is really the whole ballgame these days anyway.
<
p>I think you make good points about political capital. I don’t buy the traffic argument because it’s not a heavily commuted trip to begin with and, for reasons below, it won’t attract many people. And I think there are much better social welfare programs for empoverished cities than connecting them to the commuter rail network that very, very few people will use.
<
p>Ok, to be a nitpicker: Middleborough is 58 min on the train (31 miles away, further validating my 30mph theory). According to google maps, New Bedford is 20 miles further away down Rt 105, which looks more or less like a straight shot. So for it to add 10-ish min to the trip, the train would have to a) not stop at all and b) travel at 120mph. Dare to dream. I think realistically we’re talking 40 more minutes.
<
p>I agree 2x and 3x costs more per mile. But because you’re mainly talking about pretty short distances (you wouldn’t do it the whole way), the total cost is lower. Switches and signals are relatively cheap. I feel like you could save five min on the trips just with upgrades right before N and S Stations.
<
p>
At 7am on a Saturday morning, maybe, if you’re lucks. Maybe. If the Green Line is our performance standard, we should just give up. đŸ™‚
<
p>I thought about it more, and I think the MBTA and supporters (myself included) need to look at these decisions in less of top-down way and start making bottom-up decisions. When considering expansion, the goal should be to build more demand in the most efficient way possible. The MBTA can’t control a lot of the variables (local zoning restrictions, e.g.), but this is one thing in their power.
<
p>Why does someone take the commuter rail?
– they get to work faster than they would with a car because of traffic. (this is probably the #1 reason people take the train and it’s worth keeping this in mind; demand really does to a large degree depend on this)
– their commute times would be comparable, but they prefer to save money on tolls and/or parking costs
– their commute times would be comparable, but they prefer to relax / do work on the train
– they are environmental fundamentalists
– they don’t have a car / low-income
– they can’t drive / elderly, student, disabled
<
p>Conversely, why would someone who could logistically take the commuter rail to work not?
– can get their quicker driving and don’t care about cost or stress
– don’t want to deal with being on a schedule
– can’t park near their station unless they get there at dawn
<
p>I’m sure there are more categories, but I think these are the biggies. Decisions should flow more from this perspective. Thus, the easiest thing the T can do to drive marginal riders is cut trip time (whether through fast trains or more stations) and increase departures.
At the risk of getting economic wonky, you can really wrap it all up into quality of service (QoS)
<
p>For transportation, QoS is a function of:
* travel time, both mean and variance
* comfort
* price
* productivity
* stress
<
p>and it’s got to be measured door-to-door. When comparing commuter rail to driving, you’ve got:
* travel time. The perception is that the variance of commuter rail is higher than driving, but I’m not so sure that perception is reality. For mass transit, it includes time to get to station and to get from North/South Station to work, either on subway or foot or both. For drivers, they’ve not just got to get to the city — they’ve got to park the car and walk to their office. This varies widely by person but can be summed up pretty easily in models
* comfort. Sure, the car is more comfortable than the train or the bike. No question. No matter how spacious the seats on the train, it’ll never be as comfortable as riding in your own car.
* price. The train ain’t cheap, but neither is driving. Assume that folks won’t give up their car altogether, so just add gas, tolls, and parking. You’ll notice that expanded tolls make the train more attractive, as do higher gas taxes. Obviously, keeping fares low helps too. Ultimately, I’m not sure if price matters much more than “the T must be cheaper than driving”. If it’s $5 a week cheaper or $20 a week, I’m not so sure it will drive very many decisions given the other factors
* productivity. In a car, people are free to talk on their phone with abandon, or listen to the news or books on tape. Some productivity, but surely a train is higher… you can read, text, etc. Some use the phone, others don’t like the lack of privacy.
* stress. Surely driving is more stressful. No question. There’s some stress on the train (getting a seat, discomforting neighbors, schedule), but rail rage isn’t a coined term.
<
p>So, the MBTA can win the QoS wars either by reducing QoS for autos (lobby for higher gas tax, more tolls, more HOV lanes thereby reducing capacity for lone drivers, higher parking fees, fewer parking spaces downtown, etc) or by improving the QoS of trains. For the latter, what can they do?
* time. They can improve the mean, the variance, and the P.R. Personally, I think the variance is more important. I don’t mind budgeting 58 minutes each way if I know I’ll leave on time and arrive on time. I’d rather 58 each time than 50:50 chance of 48 or 68. So drive down the frequency and extent of delays, and then shout it from the rooftops. Of course shaving a few minutes on the trip is good too…
* comfort. This is tough because you’ll never beat autos. Cleanliness is about the best you can do, both in the trains and at the stations. Bathrooms are also important. Maybe better food (and beer?) helps too, I’m not sure.
* price. Keep it lower than driving. As long as you do that, I don’t think you have to make it substantially lower. Keep in mind though, people face very different prices for driving because of the wide variety of parking costs.
* productivity. Power outlets and wifi at stations would be a help. Of course more magazine and news stands help too.
* stress. I’m not sure there’s much that can reduce stress for riders; perhaps someone else has ideas.
<
p>
<
p>Ultimately, the train will win on stress and productivity, but could stretch those advantages a bit. They must win on price to win any given rider. Comfort will always be a loss, but the train can minimize the difference with cleanliness. The rubber meets the road with time. The MBTA needs to be reliable first, and then faster as a secondary priority. If people can rely on the schedule, then they’ll ride the MBTA if it’s cheaper and doesn’t lose badly on comfort or travel time.
<
p>So, I agree that more departures would be a big help, but I disagree that trip speed is critical. Instead, I really think trip reliability is critical. Follow two commuters for a year and see if the road or the rail wins in terms of timeliness.
You’ll note that while I wrote 10 minutes, I added 17 to the trip — about 70 mph. If there are no stations or at-grade crossings between New Bedford and Middleborough, than I think 17 minutes is certainly doable, especially on brand new track which would be built with commuter (not freight) traffic in mind.
<
p>
<
p>My point with the green line is that, for reasons that I don’t understand, people are willing to put up with hour+ commutes each way, which is why I think extensions to New Bedford and/or Fall River could be feasible. Again, I don’t know the traffic demand (actually I do, 8500 people from New Bedford daily), but I have no idea what kind of ridership is possible.
<
p>
<
p>As for upgrading equipment, that’s too insider-technical for me to feel like I know how much it could help or what it would cost. There’s another factor too — federal money. The rules for federal money are complex and different kinds of projects net different percentages of federal help. I also don’t know if there are other kinds of funding mechanisms to help out. For example, given that gas tax revenue in MA is about $5.50 per person per cent. New Bedford has 100,000 people. Fall River’s also got almost 100,000. Figure 250,000 in the immediate area. A three cent local options gas tax could generate $4MM per year to help pay for the extension. The extension is about $1B, so that doesn’t help much — given MBTA current debt service rates, it would cost about $66M a year to pay for it. About 8500 people commute from New Bedford to Boston daily; I assume similar numbers from Fall River. How many would take the rail? I don’t know. At the end of the day, I think it’s a project worthwhile to put “on the books” — make sure that every time an infrastructure project is done near the line plans that bridges, roadways, utilities, etc. are built with the project in mind. This helps lower the (inflation adjusted) cost when the money for the project is found… a decade from now.