The MBTA has released proposals and data for fare increases that could range between 35% and 43%, as well as cuts on all services except the Red, Blue and Orange Lines.
The T estimates the extra money would make up a $161-million deficit and offset revenue lost by people abandoning the T because of the higher fares.
One proposal would sock CharlieTicket riders with even higher increases in an effort to get them to move to CharlieCards. Another would require a $10 minimum for adding value to CharlieCards on buses or on trolleys, not to raise revenue but to speed boarding times on buses.
The T plans a series of 20 hearings over the coming weeks over its proposals.
Neighborhoods:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 MBTA fare statement | 0 bytes |
 List of cuts at other large transit systems (.rtf format) | 0 bytes |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I will agree to these
By Peter
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:41am
I will agree to these increases when the gas tax and tolls are increased by 35% too.
35% would put us in the middle of our region
By ckd
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:54pm
According to the Tax Foundation "Massachusetts' gasoline tax stands at 23.5 cents per gallon, which ranks 26th highest nationally." For comparison, the rest of New England & NY: CT 41.9, ME 31.0, NH 19.6, NY 44.6, RI 33.0, VT 24.5...so we're second lowest regionally, ahead only of "put it all on the property tax" NH.
A 35% bump would make our gas tax 31.7 c/gal (rounding to the tenth-cent), a raise of 8.2 c/gal, and put us right in the middle of the 7-state region.
Imagine if even half of that raise were used to get the Big Dig debt off the MBTA's back and books....
Do you think that just
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:05pm
Do you think that just because someone has to rely on a car to get to work because their place of business isn't accessible via public transportation or because their job involves driving as opposed to just commuting that they should pay an additional 35% to fund your ride which costs more than you are currently paying? If you want to ride the T and you are paying x, but it really costs x + $1 to get you from point A to point B, then you really should be responsible for the actual cost. Times are tough. Just because someone owns a car, doesn't mean they're wealthy and it doesn't mean they can take the T, but just don't feel like it. Think about it.
Start paying for the full costs of your driving habits
By Ron Mexico
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:19pm
... and we will talk.
Your car driving is heavily subsidized - far more so than any public transit. Learn it, know it, deal with it.
THIS
By anon²
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 5:48pm
It costs $150,000 just to pave a 1/4 mile of road. That also doesn't include general infrastructure upkeep, plowing, sanding, and all the services required to police and patrol it.
You really want to argue people should be paying for what they use / externalities?
The gas tax would be go through the roof, and western MA would get a hell of a lot less transportation funding because of their lack of people.
Which is why when western MA bitched about the MBTA, it's laughable. They'd have a lot less roads without the taxpayers of the 413.
Cars are heavily subsidized
By Matthew
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:21pm
Highways and gasoline costs are covered by Federal and State government funds. Don't pull out some kind of victim card here, in the Big Dig state. It's long past time that car subsidies be ended.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-918
http://stageorigin2.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-m...
I don't want a 35% hike in
By Peter
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:39pm
I don't want a 35% hike in gas tax and tolls to fund transit. I want it to self-fund roads and highways and to fund debt service that was dumped on the MBTA. If MBTA must be self funded, why shouldn't roads and highways?
Think about it.
BTW, I've had jobs that required a car to get to. Don't pity party me.
Yes
By Tduds
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:50pm
Yes
An additional 35%? Even if
By ckd
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 5:27pm
An additional 35%? Even if you assume gas is $3/gal, the 8.2 c/gal increase is less than a 3% increase in the pump price, not a 35% increase.
Start Calling Your Reps and Senators
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:43am
http://www.malegislature.gov/ has a handy utility if you don't know them already.
Make sure they know that you are not happy about this, when the deficits and cuts are THEIR FAULT.
Hate to break it to you...
By Bluto
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:07pm
But your Reps and Senators are actually receiving a per diem to travel to ahem, "work" at the State House. The per diem increases with the distance that they have to travel, but even the closest and arguably walkable (Marty Walz, for example) recently claimed about $2500 in per diems.
It's a rigged game. And we are the marks.
significant bus and commuter rail/bus impacts
By toddr4fun
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:48am
http://mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Fare_Proposals_2012/Finance%20Committee%20Presentation%20-%20Fare%20and%20Service%20Proposals%20Overview.pdf
I think the service cuts that they have in mind are a bigger story than the fare structures:
Planned cuts common to both. Pretty significant:
• Ferry: All routes
• Light Rail: No weekend service on
Mattapan and Green Line E Branch
• Commuter Rail: No service after 10pm
and no weekend service
Option 2:
major bus route cuts. We'll see what the specifics look like tomorrow when they release the route-by-route impacts.
This is the next logical step
By Cripes
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:11pm
This is the next logical step toward their goal of ending all service on Huntington Avenue. While that would create greater efficiency in the central subway (at Copley Jct), it's a giant mistake.
As for no commuter rail after 10 ...
Why did they sink all that money into CR if the damn trains don't run!?!?
Cripes.
I think cutting weekend rail
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:19pm
I think cutting weekend rail service entirely is a terrible idea. What happens to people who live in the suburbs and work on weekends? What about families who commute into the city on weekends for Red Sox games, theater, etc? What about Bostonians who take weekend day trips out of town?
I'd be curious to see weekend
By JCK
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:03pm
I'd be curious to see weekend ridership numbers; my guess is that they are extremely low. Is there any reason that folks from the burbs can't drive to Alewife, Riverside, Quincy, etc. for their trip into the city?
Or perhaps it would be possible just have limited commuter rail shuttle service from major park-and-ride locations (Anderson, Rte. 128)?
I'm about as pro-transit as you can get, but I think running empty, (or nearly empty) trains only drives up costs without providing meaningful service, which leads to charges of waste and makes it politically easier not to cut only the unused services, but also useful services.
I'd much rather pay for useful things, like a Red/Blue line connector, rather than empty weekend commuter rail trains.
Ye gods
By M
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:12pm
No weekend commuter rail - I work in Framingham on Saturdays, there goes that job. Yikes.
The reason the trains are nearly empty
By roadman
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:14pm
on weekends is because MBCR runs the same six to ten car trains they use during the week, even though they are only carrying enough passengers per trip to fill up one or two cars at most. Which results in wasted fuel and unnecessary wear and tear on the equipment.
Using diesel-multiple unit (DMU) cars, similar to the old BuddLiner cars the B&M and New Haven ran in commuter service for decades, on weekends would solve this problem. But the "progressive" management at the T and MBCR would rather waste money on the silly "RailRadio" system and mostly useless LED information boards than invest in equipment that would make the service more cost-efficent on weekends.
"Is there any reason that
By tape
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:28pm
"Is there any reason that folks from the burbs can't drive to Alewife, Riverside, Quincy, etc. for their trip into the city?"
The most obvious answer is "they don't have cars". This may surprise you, but not everyone owns a car.
Reverse that
By johnmcboston
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:26pm
Sometimes it's also we carless city folk who'd like to go to the 'burbs for an event or to visit folks.
Sigh
By Ron Mexico
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 3:42pm
Then you buy a car, join ZipCar, or suck it up and do without. We don't have some inalienable right to travel to the suburbs on subsidized transportation. Spending money -- on, for example, a car -- lets you do more of the things you want to do in life. It sucks, but that is how it is.
I live in the city. I have owned a car the entire time I have lived here. It has been costly, but extremely worth it to me. Either put up the cash, or realize that you'll have to make sacrifices.
and for the people who are ineligible for drivers licenses?
By bandit
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:00pm
... they fall into the "suck it up" category, too?
there are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, let alone just those who choose not to. i was unable to legally drive until i was 30 years old, when my epilepsy was controlled to the point that i could safely drive.
using the T, and the commuter rail, was the only way that i could get to work, see my family, etc.
"suck it up" works great when you are physically or mentally able to drive, and have enough money to have options. it doesn't work for the rest of the folks.
Wait a minute
By Lecil
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:07pm
Why do I have to make sacrifices for the "privilege" of not owning an expensive, heavy, and polluting piece of machinery with limited carrying capacity which will also take up space and damage the roads? We already have a better solution for city-dwellers such as myself; mass transit. I am willing to spend more for that, but only if it's actually functioning.
Seems to me like I'm being asked to make sacrifices to fund the Big Dig which is of limited benefit to me, seeing as I don't own a car...
Inalienable right? No. But I pay for the right with my taxes. I fund your roads, you fund my trains. See how that works?
Cry me a river! I'm sure your
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:12pm
Cry me a river! I'm sure your cheap Chinese manufactured Ikea furniture arrived by bike, right? How about those groceries you eat? How do you think they arrived at your local JP hipster-mart? And I'm sure Magical Unicorns personally flew your mac laptop straight into your guilt-free holier-than-thou precious fingertips. Don't bother calling ambulance or fire, since those city services operate mean evil polluting machines!
It's sad that you can't wrap
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:16pm
It's sad that you can't wrap your feeble mind around the basic concept that support for transit does not mean support for eliminating all private cars.
Oh, really?
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:16pm
It's good to hear that you have your own private roads you use to get around town. Roads that you personally pay out-of-pocket to maintain, to plow in winter, to repair potholes on in the spring.
Because there's no inalienable right to travel on public roads built with and maintained with public funds.
Perhaps the T should shut down for an entire week. You'll have plenty of time to ponder your stance as you sit in congestion brought about by the lack of transit.
Supporting transit and supporting roads go hand-in-hand.
Speaking of Private Roads
By anon²
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 5:54pm
Check out this amusing tale of Irene, where some 1%'ers are getting all huffy and puffy at the town for not offering to rebuild their private road to their waterfront McMansions:
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obx-homes-stranded-0...
Guess who they want to foot the bill?
Socialize the losses, privatize the profits. We are the 1%!
Getchyer liberal Faux News here!
By Stevil
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:28pm
I was about to agree with you until I read the story. They are not saying pay for my private road BECAUSE Irene wiped it out. They are saying the actions taken by the government CAUSED Irene to wipe it out and therefore the government is liable. I don't know the specifics or the law - but it sounds like they've at least got a gripe if not a case. I don't know who's right - but since there's no evidence in the story for one side or the other you've obviously spun this pretty far to the left (and there's also no mention of their affluence other than they owned homes on a private road on a beach - they might be comfortable, but could still be far from the rarefied air of the 1% - a lot of roads are private for reasons that have nothing to do with affluence).
I saw that too
By anon²
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:14am
But I've seen this area. It's basically plumb island or places like we have on the cape, glorified sand berms where the rich find it appealing to construct million dollar McMansions where summer shacks used to stand. The houses are valued around the million dollar mark, and most are second summer homes or investment properties. The bible does have some good advice on building a home on sand near the water; don't!
I'm not sure who's right either, but somehow I doubt the government caused this kind of destruction especially considering the severity of the storm and it's effects elsewhere. They just don't want to pay for it, and are looking for scape goats to foot the bill.
Another way to look at it is the government too action to protect the state road. Meanwhile these folks didn't see the need to do the same kind of diligent work for a 100 year storm.
Rich People are always right!
By Udonymous
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:53am
If they claim the government is at fault and should pay, then they have to get their money!
Unlike all those poor bastards in NOLA and rural Mississippi who can prove that government action and inaction caused the loss of housing for hundreds of thousands of people. They deserve their post-apocolyptic towns and neighborhoods because God hates their stupid poor asses.
/Stevilthink
Did anyone mention anything about a house?
By Stevil
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:36pm
This has nothing to do with houses (very different subject-houses are insurable). This is a about a road. My only point was that Anondeuce went from a story that says "governent action/negilgence possibly led to the destruction of private property and the residents MIGHT be entitled to relief" to "rich one percenters demanding government money that they are not entitled to."
My only points were:
a) these are actually probably not owned by "one percenters" (those look like the kinds of houses my NC nieces and nephews rent with about 100 of their college friends on the weekend - not very fancy but really big with lots of rooms and bathrooms and no big deal if someone throws himself through a wall for kicks). I would agree with anondeuce probably extended family shared weekend houses or more likely investments - that are owned by upper middle class people firmly in the 99% - these things are WAYYYYY too much work and hassle for true one percenters who tend to stick to multi-family housing, development more than management which is where the real money is and if at all possible, commercial properties.
b) there are any number of legal issues at play here - did the government action cause the damage, did they have a choice, could they/should they have known what would happen, is their liability limited by statute in this situation etc. etc. etc.?
I actually think these people may very likely find themselve outta luck. But the conclusion that these are a bunch of one percenters that want to milk the system doesn't follow from the story (they could be, just no evidence to support it).
I have no idea what you are talking about in New Orleans and MS - I'm guessing Katrina aftermath -but again - as far as I know, those houses were in a flood plain and should have been insurable under federal flood insurance regulations (unless the damage was caused by wind - that gets very tricky and the insurance companies have played some games with that blaming storm surge on wind so they don't have to cover damages - I'm guessing the courts are straightening that one out).
THAT is Stevilthink.
Also...
By Kaz
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:04pm
Go look at a map of "Green Lantern Ct" in NC. The "private road" in question is not even 1000 feet of asphalt that glues Rt 12 and about a half dozen driveways together and that's it. The problem is that most of Rt 12 right there (which I assume was/will be repaired) along with the "court" in front of the houses went from about 4 feet above sea level to 4-8 feet below (creating a giant moat) because of a breach of the next door channel used to let the western water and eastern water of their sandbar equilibrate. The claim is that when water started to rush through the trough, it hit sandbags on the east that were setup by the state and that caused the breach to take over the road and their little private asphalt combined driveways. The resulting erosion made a new pond that has to be backfilled before the driveways will be above water again.
Also, one of those 9 homes sold a year ago for about $500k. These aren't $1M McMansions...they are just stuffed together beachfronts built where nobody had any business building. The owners' argument basically boils down to "the government decided not to keep rebuilding this sandbar I built my house on, then it decided to save that part of the sandbar and not mine...so it should pay to rebuild my part now that my part has been reclaimed by the ocean." Personally, if I had sold them the house/land any time in the past 30 years, I would have told them to build it on stilts and learn how to drive a boat to the front door or don't whine when the ocean decides to take back what it gave in the first place.
What he said
By Stevil
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:19pm
I agree with Kaz especially this (and I'll let the courts decide for sure):
and this:
A good omen for 2012 - we can agree on some things. - Happy New Year Kaz!
a)
By anon²
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:38pm
So a second home rental property that takes 100's of kids to rent to make it affordable for the weekend isn't a 1% investment?
/scratches head
These huge McMansion rental and summer properties are all over the shoreline in Ma, the cape and elsewhere. You either have quite a few investors going in on it (in which case the cost are as diluted as the ownership), or you're in the top 15% of income earners.
These aren't summer shacks on the cape (that are still sold for 200k to be raised)
Edit: Read the whole post. I agree. I'm not sure on the town's liability, and am not surprised it's worth a try for the homeowners. I'm just not going to be surprised if the government bends to their will, while the 99% has to fight tooth and nail for the like. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. It's also hypocritical that the whole idea of low taxes is so that bootstrapy rich can live their own way; yet when something goes wrong it's the governments fault, or the governments job to pay for it. One or the other guys.
FWIF I'm totally against MA insuring waterfront homes and fixing their sand bar location on the government dime. The insanity of the housing market left to some huge errors in judgment in beachfront property. MA taxpayers should not be on the hook for people not getting these properties properly insured in some form or another.
I forgot to mention
By Ron Mexico
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:18pm
... that the city I live in is Juarez. Such a model of perfect car-enabled living and libertarian values!
Moving to Mogadishu soon!
By Ron Mexico
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:35pm
I can't wait - I won't spend a penny on public transit I can't use or taxes either!
Ummm, no it doesn't surprise
By JCK
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:29am
Ummm, no it doesn't surprise me at all. That's why I'm asking for numbers. How may car-less folks would be stranded by a lack of weekend service? The simple fact is that the vast majority of suburban residents have cars and can drive to T stations in order to get into the city. Many of those without cars probably have other transit options.
My question is really quite simple: How many people would be stranded or meaningfully inconvenienced without weekend commuter rail service? If it's a 100 people and we're spending an additional $2.7m annually for that service, that means that taxpayers are paying $27,000 per rider. Would you consider that a worthwhile expenditure of money? I certainly wouldn't.
But the bottom line is, that without numbers, we cannot answer the question. Simply observing that "they don't have cars" is not enough to make a decision here.
Your argument assumes that if
By Saul
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:37am
Your argument assumes that if someone has a choice between their own car and the commuter rail, that they would always choose their own car. That's a false assumption.
Just because someone owns a car in the suburbs doesn't mean they want to take that car everywhere if they have an alternative, especially into the city, where there will be parking costs.
Shutting the commuter rail on weekends -- the timetables are already thin enough, yet there are plenty of riders, and no, I do not have the ridership figures handy -- sends the message that the T really is just for 9-to-5 commuting. May as well shut down all service by 9 p.m. After all, everyone should already be home from their jobs by 9, right?
In addition, getting back to the owning-a-car argument: Don't forget that there may be households that share a car, and if one member of that household needs to get into town, the car may already be accounted for.
Ridership figures
By Saul
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:43am
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/Bluebo...
In FY2009, there were around 33,000 Saturday and 25,000 Sunday commuter rail riders, vs. 146,000 on weekdays. Not insignificant numbers: the demand is there. And perhaps if the timetables were not so thin, ridership would be even higher on weekends.
The weekend commuter rail also serves seasonal needs, for those in the city to get away: the Wachusett ski train, Crane Beach, and other getaway spots.
When I lived in Lowell, the
By tape
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:42am
When I lived in Lowell, the #1 deterrent to me using the commuter rail to go into Boston instead of driving on weekends was that the weekend commuter rail schedule was a joke.
Wait, I have to stop what I'm doing by 10:00 so I can make the last train home, or be stranded until 8:00 AM? Not good if you wanted to go see some bands play at a club, where shows don't start until 9 and the headliner doesn't play until at least 11:30.
Admittedly, it's slightly better with the current schedule in that the last train now leaves at 11:30 instead of 11:00. But that half hour really makes almost no difference in the schedule's real uselessness.
A lot of people I know who
By same anon as above
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:47pm
A lot of people I know who live in Boston, or just outside it, don't own cars. So it would be very difficult for them to get out of town on weekends. I'd imagine there are at least some people on the commuter rail who also don't own cars, and would have a hard time getting into the city without the commuter rail.
It might make sense to cut weekend service to, say, a handful of runs a day, but not eliminate it altogether.
Although this is anecdotal, the trains are usually quite busy when I ride on weekends. (I take the train to Providence about once a month.) But then again, they only keep a few cars open.
Weekend commuter rail
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:14pm
Weekend commuter rail schedules are already very thin to start with. When you have three-hour headways, there's not much incentive to take the commuter rail.
We live in Waltham, a few blocks from the train stop. If we're taking the T into the city, we'll drive to Riverside, less than 15 minutes away. The evening and weekend Fitchburg schedule is too sparse to be practical.
• Reduce all bus service by
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:37pm
Many buses, such as the 70, on which I rely, already go from 15-20-minute headways to 40-minute-or-longer headways after 8:00. A 50% service reduction would essentially make such routes unusable after 8:00.
don't you know?
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:45pm
Nobody leaves for work after 8:30 or comes home after 5:30. Not like people have daycare or school dropoffs and/or want to work what are "normal" hours for most of the US.
Everybody works downtown, too.
Yikes. Pretty much every 66
By Selkiechick
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:19pm
Yikes. Pretty much every 66 bus is packed to the windshiels in the first 2 stops in Harvard Square after 6pm on weeknights as it is.
Infinite revenue!
By Cutriss
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:49am
One proposal would sock CharlieCard riders with even higher increases in an effort to get them to move to CharlieCards.
You mean CharlieTickets for the first instance, yes?
Also, I'm not usually down on the T, but maybe if the infrastructure were there to support CharlieCard system-wide, they could get rid of the tickets?
Yes, CharlieTickets
By adamg
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:59am
Thanks, fixed.
You can't use charlie tickets
By Ashley
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 3:42pm
You can't use charlie tickets on the commuter rail anyway, which is, as far as I know, the only place that doesn't support the charlie card. I think the idea of keeping the tickets is for rare riders who don't need a plastic charlie card for a one day trip.
That's kind of my point
By Cutriss
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 8:02pm
That's pretty much what I'm saying. If CR and ferries supported CharlieCard, then the tickets could go away.
Of course, I guess "getting rid of ferries" is another way to "solve" that particular problem...
CharlieTickets are needed on
By anon
Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:37pm
CharlieTickets are needed on the subway, since the machines don't dispense CharlieCards.
the complete cut list
By toddr4fun
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:03pm
I think I just stumbled upon the unreleased document that has the detailed cuts outlined, methodology:
Fares are pretty cheap here.
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:28pm
The MBTA subway and bus fares are among the cheapest I've seen in the U.S., and abroad. It's amazing that I can get a bus in Burlington to Cambridge, hop on the subway, get on another bus to Weymouth for $1.70.
NYC, Washington DC, Montreal, London. All of these have a far higher fare structure.
I would pay 20% more for better service...
If that was what was being
By Selkiechick
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:22pm
If that was what was being asked, that would be one thing- but a possible 40 percent hike and serious cuts in service... it hard to take.
Quicker, better
By baepp
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 3:23pm
In every other city you mention, this transit happens quicker, and around the clock. I don't want to pay more for worse service.
A fine-print proposed change
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:32pm
A fine-print proposed change to commuter rail tickets:
That would be fine if you could use your CharlieCard on the commuter rail. As an occasional Fitchburg Line rider, I keep an extra ticket or two in my wallet so I don't need to first go to a ticket machine when leaving from North Station. Having the tickets expire after two weeks would force the occasional rider to have to add in enough time to get a ticket before boarding (or face the on-board surcharge).
I just skimmed the Impact
By Cripes
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:32pm
I just skimmed the Impact Analysis (real briefly), and what jumped out is the ferry one.
Can someone explain this to me? Don't ferry operators pay a percentage back to the MBTA at some point?
kinda crazy
By joecab
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:53pm
They're gonna get a lot of POed sports fans and Garden Event attenders if they cut service after 10pm. Seems like it's just the old tactic of asking for too much so you can settle for what you were really looking for.
Can't they do something easier, like, oh, fine anyone clipping their nails on the T, speaking loudly into their cell, or playing music so loud you can still hear it blaring from their earphones? ;)
Frankly, it may be a good
By Peter
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:01pm
Frankly, it may be a good thing to have pissed suburbanites. Otherwise many will just laugh at poor cityfolk.
Go after sacred cows
By downtown anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:53pm
Lots of interesting comments to the original post. As to cutting service after 10. If you want to get changes you go after something that has a large vocal/powerful constituency. Get something that might not fly otherwise. On the other hand, the law of unattended consequences can mess things up.
Numbers not Percentages
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:06pm
Back in 2007...
By btmitch
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:58pm
Before the latest fare "increase", a monthly Link pass (then called the Combo) was $71. So you're saying the 35% increase will be not much more than I was paying five years ago. I'm okay with that.
I think the service cuts are much more worth getting in a tizzy over, since they will have the greatest long-term impact, almost all for the worse.
The feared demand destruction will not come to pass.
By issacg
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:10pm
Well, it's a nice day, so I might as well bring the haters out.
Based on my own experience and that of most, if not all, of the people I know well who use the T, even the higher-end scenario for fare increases will not cause the demand destruction that the T fears and that others will scream about for two reasons:
1) The reliability and comfort level on the T have dropped so precipitously over the last few years, that anyone who could flee the T has already done so; and
2) Of the many remaining T riders, few have any economically viable alternative to riding the T (or they would have joined those in group 1, above).
It's not a pleasant thought, but I think that's where we are.
have to disagree
By DaveA
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:42pm
I agree that if fares go up that much, most people will just suck it up and pay to ride, but I disagree about your perception of how bad it is. I have found--as long as I can consult mbtainfo.com to see when the bus is coming--that for the past year, the bus and Orange Line service from Roslindale/West Roxbury has been pretty reliable and I use it instead of the commuter rail. Better to be moving than standing on the platform at Roslindale Village or Back Bay waiting for a delayed commuter rail train.
speaking of taking the T from
By anon
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:28pm
speaking of taking the T from roslindale/west roxbury, does anyone else find it offensive that the fare jumps from $1.70 at forest hills to $4.25 at roslindale village for commuter rail? many rapid transit and "light rail" lines reach far beyond boston city limits, where suburbanites only pay $1.70 one way. why do I have to pay $4.25 for a train ride within boston proper?
Insane commuter rail fare difference
By Mark-
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:54pm
When I first moved here, it cost about 25% more to take commuter rail from Roslindale Village, compared to the bus and subway trip. Now it's more than double the price, for a 5 minute train trip to Forest Hills. That's insane, but what it really shows is that the last couple of rounds of fare increases have been put heavily on the backs of commuter rail riders. As much as I hate to pay more, a subway/bus fare increase has to be expected.
bus-subway transfers
By Saul
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:59pm
Before CharlieCard, there weren't bus<->subway transfers, so that bus->subway trip would have gone down in price with the last fare increase.
It's like Massachusetts has
By tape
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:31pm
It's like Massachusetts has stopped passively suggesting that maaaaaybe I could move somewhere else, and is now jumping up and down, yelling at me and waving it arms trying to tell me to move somewhere else as soon as possible.
I'm right there with you. I
By Where's the E-line
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:43pm
I'm right there with you. I was looking at other cities to move to and better public transportation was one of my major criteria. Way to set the bar low, MBTA!
Ditto
By anon²
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 6:00pm
Boston is looking less and less likely the place to raise a family, and not be scraping by. Fun while it lasted, but it's setting itself up to be a nice FL like city (old / rich - Young / drugged out / poor).
Blah to that.
They should just abolish the T already
By Dan Farnkoff
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:54pm
It's obvious this state really hates the whole idea of public transportation.
In this day and age,
By anon-ymous
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 2:09pm
when it seems like the whole world is trying to reduce carbon emissions and save energy, and when gas prices are so volatile, to increase prices on the T while decreasing service is ridiculous.
Shouldn't we try to encourage public transportation? I'll bet this will have the effect of driving people away from the T and into their cars, worsening traffic and pollution, etc.
Someone should visit another city - like Chicago - to see how a public transport system could be successful.
Pages