It'll cost more to ride the T in July

Please, pleeease, start cleaning the trains on the Rockport line more than once or twice a year! I've written multiple complaint emails over the years, and get the same old lies back. "We clean it every evening, and then give 'em a good scrubbing on the weekends." BULLSHIT. They are dirtier than most of the subway cars on average. Gross. FU, T.

Um yeah...

By anon
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:58pm

...I'm sure they'll get right on that. Certainly the highest priority amid all the crumbling infrastructure.

They can fix the Saugus draw

By anon
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 11:50pm

They can fix the Saugus draw first, then get to scrubbing.

Tally up the "emergency" funds spent on Ma Nature's wrath

By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:31pm

I really would like to find out how much money was spent in Western MA and in Senator "But I Have Such Expensive Gas" Murray's district to clean up after the various hurricanes and tornadoes we had last year.

Then, we should just mail them a bill and explain how much per constituent the cost is.

If they wan't to play the "payyinnng for the T is noooo faiiiiirrrrr" game, we can play that. Next time, they pay for the disasters all on their lonesome with no help from us in the MBTA service area - you know, the ones with the money?

Or even more immediately

By Matthew
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:38pm

The cost per constituent to maintain the roads out there.

Why can't Northeastern Mass. legislators simply refuse...

By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 10:19pm

... to allow the net transfer of Boston area tax money to the southeast and (especially) west?

The funding formula

By Matthew
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 11:06pm

Is largely determined by the count of center-line miles of existent roadways. I suppose the formula could be changed by the Legislature, but I can only begin to imagine the political impediments to doing so.

I assume the people in the

By April
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 8:58am

I assume the people in the western part of the state pay quite a bit in road taxes for the many miles they commute, not to mention other expenses such as tolls. Are we really going to go this route whereby pitting urban vs. rural? People I work with fill up 3 times a week, that's a lot of gas tax revenue. And, they also sit for hours at a time in traffic and are incovenienced during their communte. And on top of this, the money given to the state in taxes; be it excise, tolls and gas tax - and the roads are crap. How many mufflers, tail pipes and tires have people had to replace due to the number of pot holes? No ones getting a free ride.

When was the gas tax last increased?

By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:17am

And what percentage has transportation related costs (maintenance, building, etc.) gone up since then?

Are you suggesting that there is no net outflow of cash from the greater Boston area towards Western Mass? The "pitting" against Boston is being done by "rural" Mass already -- maybe it is time to threaten payback. It takes two to play nice.

Why should auto travel be subsidized but not public transportation?

Public transportation is

By April
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:43am

Public transportation is subsidized by everyone in this state. And, I would guess alot of that cash generated in the Boston area is thanks to the businesses and employees that travel to the city each day. Many of those employees arrive each day by car, not public transportation.

You want to raise the gas tax? Fine, talk to your legistlature but I think with gas expected to be over $4 for the summer - it will be hard to get done at this time. Just as fare hikes eat into everyones personal budget, so doesn't higher gas prices.

Highways are subsidized by everyone

By Matthew
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 11:34am

Why don't you call on the Legislature to raise the gas tax to help pay for all the roads that you are using that are in such poor shape. $4/gal is not expensive by world standards, it's remarkably cheap. We're just spoiled because about half the funding for roads comes from other sources of revenue.

A twenty cent hike for our economy

By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:16pm

We can't possibly afford that?

Somehow people are giving huge profits away to the gas companies - and $$$ per gallon more to them is somehow not a big deal or more important?

Besides, everybody knows that more demand for gas due to gutted public transit is going to make prices go down ... um, not.

Hike it for all transportation.

T not subsidized?

By merlinmurph
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 11:26am

Why should auto travel be subsidized but not public transportation?

Really? Doesn't the T get ~20% of sales tax revenues?

Doesn't all of that 20% and more....

By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 11:32am

...go right back into paying off state debt transferred to the MBTA (in order to get the big dig debt of the general state books)? Doesn't look like a bona fide subsidy to me.

Less

By Kaz
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:06pm

The debt cost is about the same equivalence to the fares. The sales tax revenue is more than that (by double, if I remember correctly...but I'm hazy on it without looking at a few of the independent reviews like Born Broke again).

Two different issues

By merlinmurph
Fri, 04/06/2012 - 12:39pm

Yes, I think most of us agree that the T got hosed in that respect, and the situation will hopefully be resolved someday. But they are two different issues. When an agency gets 20% of the sales tax revenue, that's a subsidy.

They were a package deal

By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 04/06/2012 - 12:45pm

They _shouldn't_ have been -- but they were. Unfortunately, much of the southeastern Mass and western Mass don't agree that there is a problem -- they think it is only "fair" that Boston area MBTA users should have to pay (forever) for the excessess of the Big Dig.

And the problem really can't wait until "someday" to be resolved.

A lot fewer people, lower incomes, more highways

By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:42am

Do the math, dear.

Highways cost a lot to maintain - and there are more miles of them and fewer people outside 495 than within 495.

The Senator from Northhampton chose to play the "we don't wanna pay for your stuff because we pay for all of ours" Big Lie card first. The only rational response is to do the math on how much more taxpayers pay for transport of his constituents on a per-person basis than the T will cost his and offer to let his constituents pay for their own travel - for reals.

Unless the 50-500,000 people (depending on how you set the area of service) who just received $50,000,000 in roadwork after the disasters of 2011 want to pony up the $100-1,000 a piece to "pay for their own transportation" ...

And, hey, if you want to pay the FULL cost of your own travel, dear ... well, send a check for $1000 to me now as a first installment. Driving is much more heavily subsidized than you seem to be aware of - look it up! As a person who drives very little and pays a lot in state taxes, I'm subsidizing YOU and you owe me ... not the other way around.

You are talking about natural

By April
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:55am

You are talking about natural disasters, out of the norm. I would like to think when disasters strike, we pull together - not this. Yes, roadwork was needed. 495, I90 and 290 are major throughways heavily used by the trucking industry - not just commuters. I still don't like the us vs them attitude I see, but that's just me (and I live in metro boston area).

And no, I am not sending you a check for $1000 - must purchase a new muffler for kids car since pot holes ripped it apart as well as two new tires for myself - all caused by poor roads.

Don't like Us vs Them?

By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:10pm

Then start talking to your legislators who are the ones who are playing those us/them cards whenever the subject of MBTA debt arises.

I would much rather see a gas tax raise for a entire-state transit and road maintenance solution. But there won't be one so long as idiots like Therese "I have Such Expensive Gas Already" Murray and her spitefully foolish buddy in NoHo keep running their mouths about how put upon they are. In fact, they might just find themselves with a backlash for their whining.

reality check

By anon walker
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 11:03am

There are many people in the state of MA who are close to retirement age who will soon be living on a fixed income who can barely afford to get to work, pay their rising health care costs, medication, groceries and taxes, let alone save for retirement who DO NOT live near public transportation. This is a reality check for all of the holier than thou haters who think everyone is capable of riding a bike or has the good fortune to take affordable public transportation to their job. Perhaps you forget about these people? Not EVERYONE is as well off as you, DARLING.

And lest you forget, Swirly, you also drive a gas guzzling, polluting, oil sucking automobile. You know what they say about glass houses...

Actually ...

By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:05pm

Do the math on this:

That "gas sucking vehicle" typically carries 4-6 people and is only rarely driven solo.

It also only goes 8,000 miles a year. It is also our only vehicle for four people, three of driving age.

Break even with public transport in the greeness department is between 3-4 people in the vehicle. Look it up.

When that "gas sucking vehicle" went into the city this morning it was carrying FIVE PEOPLE. When it returns this evening it will be carrying SEVEN PEOPLE. That's more efficient than any other mode of transport.

Glass house intact, darling. Nice try.

BTW: How are those elders going to get around when they can't drive because they shouldn't drive? Or will they just take out a tree and solve all the problems? Think about that for a second, DARLING. Maybe, just maybe, subsidizing their roads isn't such a sweet deal ... and subsidizing moving to sustainable places and taking care of transit issues is? Perhaps raising the gas tax to pay for sustainable solutions for this aging state of retirment home is a better idea than whining about ten cents on a huge ball of industry profit that isn't enhancing our economy like public transit does? Hmmmm?

Swirly, "will they just take

By April
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 12:59pm

Swirly,
"will they just take out a tree and solve all the problems?" Wow, I hope you don't mean that.... Many people don't live near public transportation, must get to work, must live. You seem to live close to the city and you can jump on the T most can not. Raising gas tax will affect everything, groceries, you name it. What about the people on fixed incomes? They don't deserve any sympathy? And yes, they are subsidizing your ride on the T on top of paying gas tax, excise tax, sales tax on cars - all which are supposed to be maintaining the roads. Unfortunatly, I'm not sure where that money is going to. You do realize that on every gallon of gas, the winner is the state, oil companies are lucky to make 5 cents off a gallon. On top of that, when the price goes up, oil companies make less - I know I live it every day.

I realize the Big Dig debt was thrown on the MBTA and our elected officials have kicked this can down the road but please, lets not turn on each other.

It's always either car drivers vs. bicycle riders, now public transport vs. auto transport, urbanites vs suburbanites... what they heck is wrong with people?

What needs to be done

By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 3:06pm

... and what you don't know

1. I grew up in rural poverty, so I understand that car access can totally dominate one's ability to survive in some areas

2. I currently support a relative on SS disability, providing housing and some help here and there with stuff that isn't covered - like dental work, etc. I see first hand how important public transit is for people who cannot drive and cannot afford a car.

3. My point wasn't to be mean - my point was that funding highways to make driving cheap is NOT a solution to transport of aging folks on a limited budget BECAUSE many of them cannot drive and even more of them should not be driving.

The solution here is to stop the divisive bullshit -and that point seems to be getting lost here in the but but but ME but GAS PRICES but POTHOLES but but but.

Unfortunately, the lawmakers representing people in suburbia and western MA love to grandstand on how THEY will NOT pay for the MBTA blah blah pooh blah and how its so unfair blah blah sticking it to the cities blah. The problem is that their constituents are more subsidized per person and per mile than T riders are = and they simply refuse to admit that. My state reps are getting fed up with that - and may decide to stop supporting projects in their areas if they really want to play that game.

I would love to see some omnibus funding and some systematic planning for a future when MA turns into a giant rest home and we have elders in communities all over the state who need transit services. I would love to see the benefits of a gas tax raised enough to pay for projects that go way beyond the T. Unfortunately, we have a Governor who thinks that "leadership" is the name of his next yacht and who can't make a stand that might offend his corporate masters. We also have people in Western MA who will whine/bitch/moan that they will NEVER support ANY money going to the T while they continue to shriek GIMME GIMME GIMME.

Western Mass has PVTA:

By anon
Sat, 04/07/2012 - 10:32pm

Western Mass has PVTA: http://www.pvta.com/systemMap.php

I think the PVTA should get

By anon
Tue, 04/10/2012 - 3:13pm

I think the PVTA should get the sales tax money from the area it serves, rather than the MBTA getting it.

I'm going to state the obvious on this one:

By issacg
Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:48am

If you have a commute/driving needs such that you are filling your gas tank three times per week, you are driving the wrong vehicle for your (unsustainable) situation.

Tolls from the west (to 128) are only high when compared to tolls from the north and south. If you want to talk "high" tolls, consider this: on my old commute from Brookline to East Boston, I paid $5 in tolls per day - for ~14 miles worth of driving on the turnpike. Driving from the NYS line to 128 (approx 115 miles) will cost you $2.70. Remember, also that the Pike is now toll-free for intra-western Mass. travel.

Don't get me wrong, I think that western Mass. gets screwed in a lot of ways, but on the transporation front, I think that their screwing comes from having only one train per day to Boston, and from the State dragging its arse on exending the train from Hartford up to Northampton and Amherst - not on road funding.

It's pretty disgusting.

By anon
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 12:10am

So, they're going to increase the MBTA fare without improving the service in any way, huh? This is downright disgusting, as many, many people who reside in Boston and the immediate cities/towns surrounding Boston rely on the T to get to work or wherever.

As for fare hikes, it would be one thing, maybe, if they'd fix the MBTA's problems and improve the service, but I don't see this happening. Frankly, I don't think that the MBTA's fares should be raised until they step up to the plate and fix the problems, and even then, they should be have somebody or other to consult regarding how much of a fare hike they're entitled to.

Tax Harvard & Rollback MBTA Fares

By protestfolk
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 3:34pm

MBTA fares could probably be rolled back if "non-profit" institutions in Massachusetts like Harvard were taxed like other corporations and compelled to pay a fair share of the cost of transporting their employees and students to work and class by the MBTA. Also, if the MBTA debt was cancelled and a progressive income tax and a special tax on all Massachusetts billionaires were established, the MBTA fares could be rolled back. But until then, perhaps the following lyrics should be added to "The MTA Song":
"Oh, the MBTA charges Charley 2 dollars
When he gets on the train today
And its ticket machine tells him `4 more quarters'
Or he can't get onto that train."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU

It'll cost more to ride the T in July

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Boston news