Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
You're cherry-picking the $2
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:51am
You're cherry-picking the $2.10/$2.00 cash fare. The MBTA is not running a cash system anymore, cash is the exception. You're "supposed" to use a Charliecard. The Charliecard fare is $1.60 for bus and $2.10 for subway, which is a 220% increase in bus and 180% increase in subway fares since 1990.
That doesn't matter. If, as
By DTP
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 10:25am
That doesn't matter. If, as the original comment I'm responding to says, in 1990 you could get on a bus and drop two quarters in the farebox, and now you have to drop in 8 quarters, that's a 300% increase. And I pointed out the cash fare because the comment I was replying to (which may or may not be you, because anon) specifically said "But the cash bus fare isn't $2."
And even if, with the CharlieCard discount, the bus fare has "only" risen 240% (using the new fare of $1.70, which you keep ignoring), then the original comment's point still stands. Whether T fares have increased 350% or 240%, THAT'S STILL A LARGE INCREASE. It's still MUCH more than the gas tax has increased. It's still much more than average wages have increased.
So many used late night...
By Jeff B
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 8:09pm
They had to give it a $7 per rider subsidy. Yeah, sounds like a sustainable thing in an age of uber that's marginally more, let alone split among people.
In the end for the fare increase. Ultimately you have to start some where. Better to have a solvent system able to operate than the perpetual issues we have now. I just hope they squeeze the union's unsustainable pensions and such at the same time.
Actually, subway service was
By bgl
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:27am
Actually, subway service was more like $3 a rider, but don't let good facts get in your way of talking points. BTW, the entire thing, subsidies and all, cost $10 million a year to run the full amount of time (2:30am last train) - which is chump change. We are now at the middle of the pack for subway service closing times, and bottom of the barrel for bus/transit overall closing.
You don't improve solvency by driving ridership down
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:35am
You don't improve solvency by driving ridership down. And that subsidy is comparable to the cost of most non-rush-hour service. Indeed it's likely less than the subsidy for some parts of the commuter rail. I wonder why we're not cutting that instead. It might have something to do with the geography of Baker's voter base.
See http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2016/02/lets-us...
Also you might consider that at $7/ride, you're not really paying the full cost of that Uber ride (e.g. health care for the driver, retirement, sick days, the full cost of the car, and not to mention road maintenance--all stuff we expect our T fares to cover). Given all of these other costs I would be surprised if prices stayed that low forever.
Even when it was open during
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 7:06am
Even when it was open during those hours the usage was at a level that it wasn't very affordable to keep open. The argument that it should be kept to that time slot even despite the cost is a separate point.
Public good
By Kaz
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 9:06am
The MBTA shouldn't be run at "affordability". It is a public good. We, the state, should be paying the lion's share of every ride through taxes. In an ideal world, the MBTA would be fully free and the riders would pay less per year in taxes than they do for fares and the non-riders would likely become riders or pay a middling amount more in taxes to see their roads improve from less traffic/usage.
I'd be in favor of this, and
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 1:23pm
I'd be in favor of this, and I think it makes good economic sense too since there is really no such thing as a "wasted" transit trip.
It sounds like you didn't
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 1:16pm
It sounds like you didn't read the link I posted. To show that the late night service was not making enough money, the control board compared the subsidy per passenger to the average for the entire week, but it turns out that if you compare late night performance to any random weekday afternoon or any weekend day, the late night service actually performs better.
In other words, if you're going to cut service based on what is the lowest performing time of the day, it doesn't make sense to start with late night service, which actually does pretty well compared to other off-peak times.
What's more, their numbers do not count any additional riders who may have taken the T during normal hours because of the promise that late night service would be available to get them home.
By your logic we should also
By Kinopio
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:52am
By your logic we should also raise the tolls and gas tax and shut down the Mass Pike at night because few people use it during those hours and non drivers are subsidizing it. Would that be cool with you?
And what's the per person subsidy
By roadman
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 11:15am
for Interstate 93? Have they said, we'll shut it down at certian hours because we've decided the subsidy is not sustainable?
Funny how you blame Baker
By merlinmurph
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 8:57am
The MA legislature is almost entirely Democrat, yet the one person you target is the Repub governor? Really?
Patrick tried to modestly raise the gas tax and he got shut down by those people we elected. Yell at them, not the governor.
FWIW, I have always advocated adding $1 to the gas tax, particularly at a time like now where gas prices are low, as long as the proceeds go to mass transit. And I live out in the sticks and rarely use the T.
Baker? Really?
One guy with the power
By Kaz
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 9:31am
The one guy with the power and the R after his name to take on the D legislature, that always gets off scot free around here, is Baker.
So, yes, his pointing at the fares instead of the gas tax or legislature IS worse than the rest of us ignoring them...it's actively providing them cover from the real issue: Forward Funding.
Yes Baker, really. He is the
By Kinopio
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:55am
Yes Baker, really. He is the one who promised no new fees. He is the one who lied. He is the one who didn't fight for late night T. He is the one who dumped a billion dollars of debt on the T from the Big Dig. He is the one not using all of the funds allocated for the T for service improvement(some $70 million this year). Should we be OK with his lies and mistakes?
OMG $1 billion of debt!!!
By Stevil
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 9:37am
You do realize that the interest on that debt today is probably about $25 million a year and has been cut in half over the last 15 years due to lower interest rates - which I'm hoping has been refinanced by this point. To say nothing of the fact that $1 billion in inflation depreciated money is around $650 million today.
What has the T done with the other $975 million in incremental ANNUAL revenue they have been able to reap?
Stop asking questions and search out your own answers
By Kaz
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 10:34am
Under section 37B of the MBTA budget, it states quite clearly that all revenue has to be spent on operations if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "We, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis, incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there! Black and white, clear as crystal! You STOLE Fizzy-Lifting Drinks! You BUMPED into the ceiling, which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get... NOTHING!!! You lose! GOOD DAY, SIR!
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Fina...
Seek and you shall find
By Stevil
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 11:18am
If you read that document thoroughly and correctly, you will find that it backs up everything I have stated about additional revenues, declining debt service, etc.
Where does it say "operations" doesn't include debt service? Debt service is an integral part of the "operations" of a capital intensive business. In fact they spend virtually all of page 11 on the role of debt service in their operations.
guys dont worry, the new fares will bring in $42 mil
By Scumquistador
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 4:51pm
and that maintenance backlog is only $7bil so eventually,
well eventually fallout 4 happens, probably before the MBTA gets fixed
Note: Stay Out Of The Subway
By BlackKat
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 4:56pm
In Fallout 4, ok in real life too.
depends
By Stevil
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 8:34pm
If they actually use it for capital projects that $42 million can support about $1.5 billion in debt in perpetuity at current rates. However i worry that this will go to wages and pensions like every other dollar they've gotten in the last 15 years which means we'll get what we always get - nada.
The fair hike is going
By bgl
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:30am
The fair hike is going completely to deficit reduction in the operational budget, capital projects are funded completely differently. Even with this hike, we are still running around a $100 million deficit (at least projected for next year).
Cool, whens the gas tax going up?
By spin_o_rama
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 4:51pm
Whens are tolls going up?
When will the Pike be shut down at night because of low usage?
im a doctor, so you can trust me
By Scumquistador
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 4:54pm
when i say that this is the exact mentality we need if we want to improve the T. its a scientific fact that the louder you stomp your feet and point at the other guy, the more reasonable you are seen & more attention your noble cause receives
They give doctorates in basement trolling?
By Jeff F
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:27pm
Who knew!
you should be far less concerned
By Scumquistador
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:29pm
with any perceived trolling and considerably more concerned with the large amount of people that agree with what i say
And smart at the maths too!
By Jeff F
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:23pm
Yes, let us look at the number of people who agree with what you say compared to spin-o-rama - you've got an entire handful and spin has a measly few dozen!
I'm sorry
By spin_o_rama
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:32pm
But your snarky post above this is different how?
You benefit from the roads
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:18pm
You benefit from the roads even if you don't personally use them because of all the services and economic benefits they bring.
You benefit from the T
By spin_o_rama
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:35pm
You benefit from the T even if you don't personally use it because of all the services and economic benefits it brings.
The economic effect of the T
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 7:37pm
The economic effect of the T is very important, but it's smaller measurable factor than the economic effect that the roads bring to users of public transit.
The amount of economic
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 8:30pm
The amount of economic benefit that public transit users get from the roads is quantifiably greater. While public transit is very important, the roads have a bigger economic effect. Public transit users are also participants in the larger economy.
It's the Road Warrior!
By Mjolnir
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 11:18pm
I remember you from the last thread! Yes I'm sure public transit exists for no reason in all these big cities, close down the London Underground folks, the roads are something something unquantifiable.
No one said they don't exist
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 3:56am
No one said they don't exist for any reason, that was not the argument. That other cities have public transit does not mean that people who use it don't also greatly benefit from the roads.
Quick summary of the mini-thread
By Mjolnir
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 6:49am
1) Original news story: transit infrastructure being shut down for excuse of low utilization during certain hours; fare increase
2) Spin-o-rama: Draws sarcastic comparison to the fact that neither would ever happen to the highway system despite the same under-utilizations
3) Road Warrior: just like the last thread, "you benefit from the roads even if you don't use them"
4) Spin: replies, accurately, in kind, just like the last thread
5) Road Warrior: again, repeating the same thing you said last time, "actually, the T isn't as important as the roads by my unquantified metrics for importantness"
Actually, man, public transit is super important for the economy of this region. It's why so many white & blue collar workers take it every day. It's why there are tacit ride subsidies to keep it running during non-peak hours. It's why it has expanded since the Tremont St Subway. It's a crucial point of infrastructure and if it disappeared tomorrow there would be extreme economic impacts.
Inaccurate summary. All the
By anon
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 11:36pm
Inaccurate summary. All the other poster did was make a point which bolsters the argument that economic factors spread across the various method.
Everyone agrees it's all important, no one was suggesting anything else as you keep doing.
How can you possibly compare
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:41am
How can you possibly compare the two? Yes, it's true that we need roads to move goods to market, but nowhere *near* the number and size of roads we currently have. The vast majority of road space is currently taken up by people in cars making trips that would be more efficiently served by mass transit.
But I would argue that in a place like Boston or Cambridge, where our core industries rely mainly on intellectual capital (read: People), transit actually adds far more economic value than the road network. It's a stupid argument, though, because we obviously need both. The question is which one should be funded first.
You set up a false argument
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 3:42am
You set up a false argument to make an unrelated point.
No one is saying that better public transit wouldn't benefit people. However, some people suggest because they use public that they don't benefit from the roads, and that is not true at all.
"transit actually adds far more economic value than the road network"
The roads bring more than public transit, you offer nothing to the contrary to refute this. The go
"It's a stupid argument, though, because we obviously need both."
That wasn't point being made, you just decided to add that in.
You're literally asking for it
By Mjolnir
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:49am
He's not setting up a false argument, you're repeatedly in multiple threads begging the question and getting answered and then fighting about it.
You are right that the roads bring more than personal transit. You are right the roads are important to everyone. AND, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, public transit is very important as well! And brings benefits to those who do not use it! For instance, how quickly do you think items could be shipped for business purposes if rush hour had 10x the cars, 10x the duration, and 10x the spread? 100x? What alleviates the need for every individual person in the metro area to personally drive their sedan on rt 9, a road shared by Wegmans trucks and FedEx trucks and ambulances?
It is not unreasonable to reply to "the roads bring benefits to non-users and are therefore valuable" with "public transit does the exact same thing and that fact is usually less understood by the masses".
It is, in my opinion, a bit unreasonable to then, in a thread about transit being empirically devalued, reply to that second comment with "ah yes, but the roads matter MORE".
In the other thread I pointed out that this seems to be very overtly implying that the utility with greater function therefore deserves more funding at the expense of the other, as that is the situation being discussed. I proposed, therefore, that since water matters more to everyone than the roads do, perhaps every time someone discusses funding the roadways or fixing potholes, I should chime in saying "ah but not everyone benefits from the roads, while EVERYONE benefits from water". Would that be constructive?
Almost nothing you said is in
By anon
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 11:43pm
Almost nothing you said is in disagreement with the original point. However, you keep suggesting that by pointing out that the benefits cross multiple methods, someone is advocating removing something, which is a logical fallacy. Someone posted about the roads in a thread about transit, and that is what the post about everyone benefiting from all types of transit is about and many agree with that.
Let me put it this way:
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 1:21pm
Let me put it this way:
Logistics that *need* to use the roads (e.g. ambulances, delivery truck drivers) benefit from transit because it keeps everyone else off of them.
You are correct on that point
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 4:23pm
You are correct on that point. The point was always that everyone benefits from both.
Bigger economic effect, but
By Kinopio
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 11:00am
Bigger economic effect, but in a negative way. Rising sea levels, gas run off polluting rivers, 30,000 killed by drivers every year, billions in medical bills from car crashes, etc
Per the WBUR pie chart,
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 4:56pm
All of the public meetings and soliciting of feedback resulted in over 3,000 comments. 8% of those comments were in favor of a fare hike. What was the point of that exercise? Is there some threshold of negative comments that would prevent this?
State Reps and State Senators
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:33pm
State Reps and State Senators showing up at meetings to say they were against the increase might have had some influence.
Schauprozesse
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:20am
The point of the exercise is basically the same as a show trial. The government lets people think that due process, a fair hearing, whatever, has taken place, then does what it originally planned to do from the outset.
(I'm sure there's a term for this when the government engages in these kinds of charades in the form of public hearings rather than judicial trials, but I can't think of it now. Also compare rubber stamp parliament and Potemkin village.)
The government will always
By roadman
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 1:49pm
Sir Humphrey Appleby - from Yes Minister
Shameful
By cybah
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:14pm
Shameful. This fare increase is very ill timed. Very ill timed. It's clear they don't care about the riders.
And shame on Pollack, and she essentially said the usual "It'll improve service" (source).. because we've heard that before. I think it's said just about every time fares increase, and in return the service does the exact opposite.. it gets worse!
I'm not sure how a measly 42MILLION will help fix a 7BILLION backlog of maintenance, which are the causes of such breakdowns and delays. Plus this is going to the operating budget, not that backlog maintenance. So unless they other things in the works, service will remain the same and the riders are being taken for a ride, so to speak with promises of improved service that will never happen.
Got to raise funds and start
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:49pm
Got to raise funds and start somewhere. 7 billion was not accrued in a day. 42 million is a lot of new signals and switches.
see where
By cybah
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:33pm
see where I wrote
On how that's gonna play out.
If you raise the funds then
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 7:42pm
If you raise the funds then there is at least more money that can be moved to places that need it, as opposed to not bringing in anything additional
I'm not sure you understand
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 10:57pm
I'm not sure you understand the difference between operational dollars and capital (backlog maintenance) dollars.
The system needs to raise
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 3:50am
The system needs to raise funds, more money will help overall.
Budgeting doesn't work that
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:22am
Budgeting doesn't work that way. This money is entirely going to operations. In fact the T already got in trouble recently for paying operational expenses - specifically some of their wages - out of the capital budget in years past.
Providing additional funds to
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 8:34pm
Providing additional funds to the service still provides the ability to improve it.
This money is going to plug
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 10:37am
This money is going to plug an operations budget hole, which is caused by increasing wages and healthcare costs. If the T hadn't raised this money, they simply would have had a bigger deficit in the ops budget. They would not have been allowed to transfer money from capital to ops, so the lack of a fare increase wouldn't've hurt the capital budget. Nor is this fare increase going to give them more revenue than they need to cover ops, so it's not like they can move some of it over to capital improvements (even if they were allowed to do so).
Tonight's train is two cars
By Tazz
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 5:42pm
Tonight's train is two cars short and 25 min late.....have to justify the fare hike...
While it's perfectly
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:21pm
While it's perfectly reasonable that people don't want fares to go up, public transit here has been significantly less expensive than most other cities.
Or at least other comparable
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 6:30pm
Or at least other comparable areas.
Completely false. Let me copy
By bgl
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:42am
Completely false. Let me copy-pasta myself yet again:
Lets see, in the NA we have:
NYC/PATH: $2.75, minus the 11% bonus making it about $2.45
Chicago: $2.25
Philly: $2.25 cash/$1.80 Token
Baltimore: $1.70
Montreal: ~ $2.37 USD
Toronto: ~$2.37 USD (Cash) / $2.11 USD Token
MBTA: $2.65 Ticket/ $2.10 Card
I will admit that the monthlies are reasonably cheap. But, hey, look, we are pretty much right there with a shit system that is falling apart. Do again tell me how we have the cheapest in the country though. You really think we should be charging as much as NYC?
*DC/BART/MUNI/etc not comparable due to distance based fares and BART being a glorified commuter rail, and MUNI being basically buses.
Not false, monthly passes are
By anon
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 7:00am
Not false, monthly passes are less than most other major cities despite being one of the most expensive overall places.
"Do again tell me how we have the cheapest in the country though."
That was not said in the post, it was comparing to other major comparable cities, and the monthly passes are less expensive.
Poor yuppies
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 7:31pm
What about all the poor beautiful people who bought in the "transit oriented" condo developments?
They are too busy using Uber
By anon
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 10:41pm
They are too busy using Uber and complaining about other random crap on Twitter to notice.
What I want I will not pay for
By Anonyme
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 10:46pm
T riders, like car drivers, want a high level of service at a low cost. But it all costs money.
Recently I was in Berlin. Wow, talk about transport fur alle! Buses, subway, commuter rail and rail. Countdown clocks at every station and most bus stops. Even on New Years Day the subway ran every 15 minutes. Their fare system is different, relying on geographic zones and time limits, but even with recent favorable exchange rates, it's more expensive than any system in the US.
But users pay, plus all taxpayers. It works.
Capital Needs: What, exactly, would this SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS pay for? All new signals? New trains? I would really like to know.
Something not addressed, so far as I know: falling gas prices. Shouldn't that be reflected in the T's expenses?
My sense is the T should regroup, reassess, and devote all new revenue to improving the current infrastructure and existing service.
Excellent point
By Waquiot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 12:16am
Car drivers don't want the gas tax to go up. Transit riders don't want fares to go up. Yet the transportation infrastructure needs improvement.
I don't know how I would work this out, but if capital costs on the T could be funded other than from the farebox, the argument against fare increases would be tough. If expenses rose 5%, the options would be a 5% fare hike or service cuts. Then how would people be able to bellyache.
Enough already with the comments about how important roads are
By adamg
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 7:40am
Yes, Mr. Road Fan, we get it: Roads are important. Through the sheer power of your arguments, but mostly through your sheer repetition of same, we now finally understand that many valuable and important goods come to us via trucks, on roads, and that even people who ride the Orange Line benefit from the marvel that is the modern American road system.
So enough, kind sir. You don't have to reply to every. single. comment. about how important roads are. We get it.
Thank you,
The Management.
Anyone see Diane Wilkerson all over social media?
By Pete Nice
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 8:11am
Criticizing Baker for putting in too many white men (in MBTA management positions) who do not understand the concerns of blacks who actually use the T?
I wanted so bad to comment something like "maybe if you bribed these guys you could keep the fares down?" or something to that effect.
(I shouldn't say all over social media, just a few comments to people I know)
I pay $50 a month as a bus
By Chris77
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 7:46am
I pay $50 a month as a bus commuter and don't own a car and I'm getting away with murder, so a fare hike doesn't bother me. If you can afford a smart phone(and seemingly everyone can), you can handle a fare hike.
Thanks for Sharing! Good for you.
By whyaduck
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 8:51am
There is a big difference between a $50 per month bus pass and say a $362 per month Zone 10 (by way of an example) commuter rail pass. And I will let you do the math regarding a 9.3% increase for each (yes, one amount will be much higher). And that increase just might be difficult for someone to absorb at either end of the spectrum.
Aside from that, however, whether or not someone who can "afford a smart phone" can afford this rate hike is not relevant to anything since it is an assumption on your part.
Interesting tidbit about the
By eherot
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 8:53pm
Interesting tidbit about the smart phone market: Even though you mostly hear about apps for the iPhone, the substantial majority of smart phones out there are Androids. Why? Because all of the major carriers will give you one "free" with the purchase of a contract. What's more, a smart phone data plan is typically cheaper than Internet access for one's home, so for some of the poorest people in the country, a smart phone is *the only way* they can get Internet access short of going to a library (not an easy thing to do if you are working 2-3 jobs and taking the bus everywhere). And given that Internet access is now a requirement for accessing some government services that are part of our social safety net, it actually makes zero sense to assume that if someone "can afford a smart phone" then they are not in fact poor.
Wow
By JJ
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 9:07am
So it may now be cheaper for me to actually drive into work and pay parking than take the CR. This is not cool.
Pages
Add comment