MBTA proposes fare hikes for July 1

The Globe has the details - starts with a 10-cent increase for a single subway ride.

Neighborhoods: 

    Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

    Comments

    What!?!

    You mean it is going to cost me $2.10 to go from Alewife to Ashmont? Holy Christ. I guess I am going to have to give up nothing.

    up
    22

    Pocket Change

    If you pay in cash you'll give up an extra dollar and get a pocket full of change for your trouble.

    That's change you can believe in.

    up
    33

    It will also cost me $2.10 to

    By on

    It will also cost me $2.10 to get from Broadway to South Station. What's your point?

    up
    21

    I wouldn't mind paying more

    By on

    I wouldn't mind paying more if the service was close to reliable. It isn't.

    up
    25

    Chicken versus egg

    By on

    So, you would rather having fares as is, with deteriorating service?

    I'm not happy about the increase either, but the prices of a lot of things go up to my chagrin. The fact is that without rising fares, things aren't going to get better.

    up
    12

    Fares

    By on

    They should just bite the bullet and do point to point fares like in DC. It costs you about $8 to take the longest rides in DC and something like $3 to take the shortest ones. Its kind of a pain to figure out how much you need for exit fare (if you don' just use the quivalent of a Charlie Card) but on the bright side, our Charlie on the MTA motif would at least have some real world relevance now and then.

    up
    14

    Why?

    How would it work with the green and silver lines? Would people need to swipe their pass when leaving the trolly/bus as well?

    It makes more sense for a system like that in DC where the subway goes further and they don't have much in the way of traditional commuter rail. In Boston the subway lines are shorter but we have the variable fares on the trains when going to the suburbs. (The MBTA serves a much larger area geographically.) Maybe people going to end of the Red and D lines are getting a better deal then someone just going from Kenmore to Park St but the differences aren't large enough to warrant the millions of dollars to retrofit all stations and the inconvenience of paying exit fares.

    There used to be exit fares on some of the red line stops and a stupid pricing system for the D line but they thankfully ditched that when the tokens went away.

    up
    17

    A sensible proposal

    By on

    I don't mind paying a little extra for the service. After all, 9 days out of 10, the MBTA gets me the 4.5 miles to work quicker than it would take me to hop all the way there in a burlap sack.

    up
    67

    Indeed. I've tested the idea

    By on

    Indeed. I've tested the idea of getting in my car and driving in the opposite direction. The MBTA gets me to my destination faster about 80% of the time.

    up
    33

    Again? Didnt they just raise

    By on

    Again? Didnt they just raise the fares?

    Where are the biannual gas tax increases? Biannual toll increases?

    Why is the worlds most expensive tunnel under downtown Boston still free to use?

    up
    41

    I, for one, agree with the

    By on

    I, for one, agree with the gas tax. The petition is to stop it from being chained to the CPI. Understand that this gives our elected politicans an "out" from having to vote to raise a tax. No one wants that on their resume. It's a sneaky thing to do.

    So, it's not the tax thats the issue, its the way it's being implemented - now and for eternity.

    up
    12

    So let me get this straight...

    By on

    Since I live on the Blue Line, I will get to pay MORE for the really great benefit of getting to change trains 232,402,294 times to actually get somewhere? And that's on a day with no service delays... Great idea!

    up
    23

    Toll or fare

    By on

    When there is a way to get to the rest of Boston from East Boston without a toll or a fare, perhaps then people will be more willing to pay a premium to be connected to the rest of the city - something the rest of us get for free.

    up
    10

    Govt center

    By on

    Yes also you get to pay for convenience of gov't center closing for two years, now making it a hassle to change to any train except orange.

    up
    14

    No, as someone who is now

    By on

    No, as someone who is now having to regularly commute from blue through State to orange line southbound, there is no way that transferring to the orange is an exception to the hassle.

    up
    11

    I have a better idea.

    How about we give each T employee a raise proportional to the amount of effort they put in? For the workers found sleeping, this will equate to a negative raise, or pay reduction. Once the dust settles, the T will see no reason to raise fares.

    up
    22

    MA raised the gas tax 3 cents

    By on

    MA raised the gas tax 3 cents last year, the first time since the 90s, and people freaked out and are proposing a ballot question to stop further increases.
    The state last raised the T fare 2 years ago 30 cents (10x the gas tax increase) and is now raising it 3x the gas increase.
    Its time for drivers to start paying their fare share. A 10 cent increase in the gas tax would be a modest but good start.

    up
    54

    Pay for your own service

    With such thinking, increased airfare ought to pay for other transit modes than flying also! Or should the NYC shuttle flight be subsidized by motorists for reducing traffic driving to NYC? Should the price of pork be raised so the higher costs of beef and fish can be subsidized for consumers? Why not a surcharge on taxi fares (during T hours) to subsidize the inefficient MBTA and reduce traffic on the roads?

    Now for a real suggestion: Raise MBTA fares during peak demand times on overcrowded routes to even out demand. Fewer buses could then be run at peak times, saving energy/staffing with fewer buses while reducing traffic congestion too. Fewer train trips at peak times saves much electricity for the state's biggest electric consumer plus staffing to run the extra trains and maintenance overtime trying to keep as many vehicles as possible running all the time.

    Increasing fuel taxes is hardest on the poor who spend too much of their income on transportation. Increased fuel charges raises the price of everything, because its needed to produce and deliver food, along with deliver most every other product and service.It hurts the economy STATE-WIDE more than asking Boston-Metro MBTA users to pay a little more for the service they get. Its simply unfair to the majority of the state not served by MBTA buses and subways.

    You may want to thank the Conservation Law Foundation for its lawsuit costing you more with added routes including the $1,500,000,000 Green Line Extension. You are also getting a new glass Government Center refurb to pay for, like the one done at Kenmore.

    You have conveniently forgotten about the announced increases in RMV and vehicle inspection fees. Drivers already pay 10 times as much as it costs to deliver the direct service they pay for at the registry. State law doesn't allow for fees to be taxes, but that doesn't stop them. Nor did the state mind robbing the vehicle inspection trust fund for the MBTA, such that they want a big jump in fees, $4 more for the state and $1 more to the inspection stations.

    up
    16

    Hello, are you there?

    By on

    It's the village calling, they want their idiot back. Can you go and help them Mark?

    Okay I have some time to kill while dinner is cooking, so I'll take the bait.

    Now for a real suggestion: Raise MBTA fares during peak demand times on overcrowded routes to even out demand. Fewer buses could then be run at peak times, saving energy/staffing with fewer buses while reducing traffic congestion too. Fewer train trips at peak times saves much electricity for the state's biggest electric consumer plus staffing to run the extra trains and maintenance overtime trying to keep as many vehicles as possible running all the time.

    Great so because I have NO CONTROL over my work hours (other than to get a new job) I should have to PAY more to ride the T. No Thanks.

    You watch businesses flock out of boston so quickly because of this. MANY businesses rely on their MBTA to get their employees to work (regardless if it is late). No parking downtown makes sure the T is your only option. So this will bode well with businesses (NOT). Businesses will leave because of this.

    Yeah real bright...

    Increasing fuel taxes is hardest on the poor who spend too much of their income on transportation.

    So hitting the POOREST people, which is good portion of the MBTA riders, is any better?!? Really?

    Yeah, you're so bright on this I need to put my sunglasses on... *eye roll*

    Its simply unfair to the majority of the state not served by MBTA buses and subways

    No it is not, since a good portion of the state's tax paying citizens live within the 75 town MBTA district. Also did you ever stop to think that areas that aren't served by the MBTA have their OWN bus service funded by the state. Worcester, Lowell, and Springfield come to mind that have their own transit systems (yes its a bus, but it is public transit)

    Once again, real bright.

    You may want to thank the Conservation Law Foundation for its lawsuit costing you more with added routes including the $1,500,000,000 Green Line Extension. You are also getting a new glass Government Center refurb to pay for, like the one done at Kenmore.

    You're about the ONLY one who doesn't like this project, so speak for yourself. I do, so I cannot wait for it to open, you're alone on this one.

    Also, idiot, the MBTA directly is NOT paying for the GLX construction. The Commonwealth and the Federal Gov't Are. It has been also shown time and time again that GLX will ATTRACT many new riders, and migrate riders from existing bus service (cheaper to ride) to more the expensive-to-ride train service. So the operational cost argument is pretty much a wash.

    And as far as Gov't Center is, the T was sued and LOST. They HAVE to upgrade the station for ADA compliance. There's no if/and/or/buts about it, it HAS to be done whether we like it or not. And guess what, like the GLX, the MBTA is not directly paying for construction, MassDOT and the Fed are paying for it.

    So try your arguments again, fool.

    Adam, I'm still waiting for that block feature...

    up
    40

    DC has peak pricing on the

    By on

    DC has peak pricing on the Metro. and so should the T..... it has nothing to do with your having any control over your hours and everything to do with the extra capacity (expense) the T needs have on hand to to accommodate the rush hour..... if there were no rush hour the T would need fewer trains/buses/employees/maintenance/pensions etc.

    That's DC, not Boston

    By on

    And considering all my DC friends who consistently complain how awful the service is during rush hour, I don't see how this would improve service during rush hour because clearly in DC, it does not. Sure the Metro is a far nicer ride than the T, but it also has its issues much like the T (and many other transit systems in the US).

    However, you are correct that, yes, it would add some revenue, but keep in mind fares only account for a small portion of the T's total revenue (the rest comes from subsides, and other sources) but the increase still wouldn't overall be that much to the total operating budget. Is it worth raising fares and penalizing people for taking public transit during rush hour for just a small increase? As a daily T rider, I can honestly say no. It's not worth it.

    up
    20

    Low blood sugar impairment

    Cybah, you should really wait until your quiche is done and had some to eat before posting crazy shit.

    1. Congestion pricing is an established method for addressing peak capacity shortages.
    2. Lots of poor people throughout the state are not served by public transit and need to drive themselves, their tools, and work materials to job sites.
    3. RTA's (Regional Transit Authorities) like the Worcester Transit Authority have nothing to do with funding black holes of the Metropolitain Boston Transit Authority (MBTA). Even if they use one of those RTA's, the MBTA is still pulling money out of their pockets when they need to drive or buy anything with sales tax, where a portion goes to the MBTA.
    4. I am not the only one against the GLX. The people harmed by it are apposed. That includes people who need affordable housing in Somerville, which MAPC finally reported on as an issue. It includes people who recognize that adding to massive debt to increase greater operational losses is unsustainable. More stress added by CLF while there are massive maintenance backlogs is a recipe for ever worse reliability and service, not better service. The GLX is a bad decision CLF had to force via lawsuit instead of reason.
    5. In the end, taxpayers are paying for everything. Lawsuits just add to that burden with projects of varying legitimacy. What is HubWay doing to accommodate people with disabilities? Where are the mopeds for people who can't pedal a bike??? How about they close for two years to do that?

    Hi - welcome to Boston

    By on

    A major part of the cost for the tunnel for 93 - the road with no tolls and now has a tunnel under the city - was transferred to the MBTA so the fares for the T and the tolls for 90 are paying for the tunnels so that 93 remains tunnel free. They are directly related - the person who posted is paying for their service and for the cars under the city.

    up
    41

    What???

    How can 18 people agree with all these false claims, as unclear as they are?

    up
    11

    You mean your false claims?

    By on

    How many times do you need to be wrong to understand that "what Markkk believes" is not the same as "truth" or "reality" or, even "a good idea"?

    Repeating something that is wrong over and over doesn't make it right - it just makes Markkk look dumb.

    up
    15

    Nope.

    By on

    Nope.

    The supposed Big Dig debt that was transferred to the T was for *MBTA projects* that were part of the Big Dig environmental mitigation agreement, such as the Silver Line and Greenbush commuter rail.

    You can keep repeating that incorrect fact, and I'll keep correcting you.

    Mitigation for highway projects is a highway expense

    By on

    Just because that mitigation took the form of a transit project does not make it any less the responsibility of the highway department, to be paid for with highway funding.

    The mitigation of the pollution from the Big Dig should be paid for by the users of the Big Dig -- or at the very least, not transit riders alone.

    up
    13

    I thought things like excise

    By on

    I thought things like excise tax and gas tax were meant for road maintenance, repairs, etc.

    You make it sound like car owners have no costs, that's far from the truth. Imagine what would happen if no one bought gas for one day, the state would surely miss that revenue, no? Face it, our government depends on that money. Can't blame car owners if they're not spending as they should (see lottery/smoking education "funding).

    Partially

    By on

    I thought things like excise tax and gas tax were meant for road maintenance, repairs, etc.

    Partially. You're mixing up issues here though. Excise gasoline taxes have never covered all of road maintenance, repairs, etc -- much less mitigation for pollution. Local roads are mostly maintained using funds derived from municipal property taxes and some Chapter 90 funding from the state. State roads are covered by a mix of general funds (income taxes, sales taxes, etc), as well as state gasoline excise taxes and fees, often rolled into Chapter 90 as well. Interstate highways are supposed to be covered by the Federal Highway Trust Fund but that fund has been going broke for many years now -- Congress routinely infuses general funds into it to keep it afloat. It will run out again this summer if not propped up again. The Federal gas excise tax hasn't been raised in over 20 years.

    Now regarding the Big Dig, a lawsuit settlement required that Massachusetts come up with methods of mitigating the air pollution caused by the increase in motor vehicle travel due to the new tunnel. That's a lawsuit under the Federal Clean Air Act -- not something MA specific.

    Several of the mitigation methods under the settlement involved transit projects that were supposed to help with air quality. According to the settlement, the Big Dig could not proceed unless the State also funded the mitigation projects. However, years later, in 2000, clever legislators found a way to dump the cost of the mitigation projects involving the T onto the T alone. This is widely regarded as unfair because those projects were supposed to be part of the Big Dig, a highway project.

    You make it sound like car owners have no costs, that's far from the truth.

    I never said such a thing. Where does that come from?

    Of course car owners have costs. Everyone has costs. Car owners enjoy a benefit, and they should pay the costs associated with that benefit.

    My only objection tends to come when car owners insist on forcing other people to pay the costs of their car.

    Neglecting the declining purchasing power of the gasoline excise tax is one way that car owners foist the cost of motoring onto the general public.

    I'm open to other ways of funding infrastructure, if you can make a case, but under the current system the gasoline excise tax must be adjusted regularly or else it falls behind.

    Forgot to credit CLF for the added debt and operational costs

    Conservation Law Foundation is the one who sued on the Big Dig project to drive up transportation costs in the form of the Green Line Extension, Silver Line, and southern rail. They had projections of added air pollution and supposed mitigation solutions. Projections are not reality. CLF's plan backfired on them when debt for these rail and bus projects for the MBTA got assigned to the MBTA, but that hasn't stopped them from filing more lawsuits to cost Mass residents millions more dollars.

    Why did CLF sue?

    Because the state was REQUIRED by FEDERAL CONTRACT and FEDERAL LAW to build that infrastructure as part of the BIG DIG.

    If I gave my kid money to buy some groceries, and he came home, demanded more money, and didn't get the groceries that were on the list, there would be consequences.

    You should learn something about federal contracts before you post again. Either that, or maybe pull your head out of the 1960s?

    up
    12

    28 cents for every dollar spent

    That's what you are paying for.

    The rest comes out of general fund money and local tax money - taxes that are paid regardless of whether a person drives.

    The subsidies get even higher for people living in suburban and rural areas - cost per mile of building and maintaining roads doesn't vary much, so when you have fewer people and longer roads, the subsidy is higher.

    WONK!

    up
    11

    gas vs. excise taxes

    The gas tax is a mechanism to charge a toll to drive on public roads. When you are already paying that once as on the Mass Pike, you can file for a refund on the double tax for the gas you used traveling on the toll road. Farmers can also get credit for gas taxes they pay plowing their fields instead of driving on roads. Taxi fare, bus fare, plane fare, train fare, ferry fare etc are all the cost of a service, transportation.

    Excise tax is a property tax, that property being vehicles. Property taxes are also charged on land, houses, and utilities infrastructure. They are not related to transportation, its simply a way for cities and towns to collect tax monies.

    We can argue all day over

    By on

    We can argue all day over whose responsibility the transit mitigation projects should be (and I'd actually agree with you).

    But that doesn't make it a "cost for the tunnel". First we have to establish the basic facts, and then we can get into interpretations, opinions, and decisions.

    It was a cost for the project

    The tunnel was one part of the project. It overran the budget, and the state didn't want to pay for the other parts of the project that it had agreed to complete.

    The Federal Government does not like this, as it would never have entered into a contract for building the tunnel if those other projects were not also included in the package.

    That's how it works. Semantics don't change how it works. The tunnel and the transit were a package deal.

    But, hey, can I come to your house and install stuff? I won't install all of it, and come up with some great excuses why I should just buy my tools with money you gave me to install a sink that I think you don't need ...

    up
    10

    Establishing basic facts

    By on

    The project is required by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and fulfills a longstanding commitment of the Central Artery/Tunnel project to increase public transit.

    http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/documents/ev_Assess/Volume_1_T...

    It was a cost of creating the tunnel. Without the creation of the Green Line Extension, modernization of the Blue Line, additional commuter rail parking, and the Fairmount Line (I think that's all of it), there would have been no tunnel allowed. That's called a cost.

    How many times do we have to tell you?

    By on

    You DO NOT want to go there - unless you are willing to pay 10x as much to drive your car as you do now.

    You really are dim, aren't you?

    up
    29

    I'm confused

    By on

    Why have peak prices but run FEWER buses/trains during those times? Many people can't just choose to go into work at a different time to avoid a peak price. What am I missing?

    up
    11

    whoosh

    By on

    You're missing the fact that it is MarkK and your logic is no good here, Mr. Torrence.

    And as long as he's hot on peak pricing: I'm fine if they do it on the T, provided they also implement peak pricing of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax/congestion pricing (a la London) as well.

    up
    19

    Business Cooperation

    The business community needs to have more flexible schedules so that both drivers and MBTA riders can avoid peak congestion hours. Better yet, let more employees use VPN connections over something called the Internet to work from home.

    In case you are unfamiliar with capitalism and economics, when the price asked for a commodity is increased, demand will usually drop, hence MBTA congestion pricing should reduce demand at higher priced times, and thus fewer trips/buses/trains are then needed at these peak times. For people with rigid employers, they might spend more money having food/drink with coworkers or friends while waiting for lower fares and actually stimulate the economy.

    Congestion pricing for the MBTA is fairly easy to implement thanks to Charlie Cards and readers in place, leaving just a small matter of programming to give it a try. The state couldn't possibly screw up a software project, could they?

    up
    11

    Finance

    By on

    Thats the one industry that will give you the finger to your idea because their business requires a 9-5 work day. Ever go to the finance district after 5pm? Yeah its a ghost town.

    Not everyone can work from home, idiot. Some of us, such as myself do a physical job that requires me to be in person. on site. everyday. Are you going to call my company personally and pitch this horrid idea? Yeah I didn't think so because even you know it doesn't work and would probably be told to kiss off by my boss.

    And as I said above to someone else, DC has this, and it doesn't work for them. And no other transit system in the US has this similar pricing structure BECAUSE IT DOES NOT WORK. Distance pricing, yes, congestion pricing no.

    Do you really think the piggies at the state will funnel the 'congestive pricing' extra income back to those 'high use' hours? No, it's going to go into the main coffers and not be used in that manner. It would be too much accounting work to keep track of what came in during these hours to be reused during these hours. Congestion pricing is one of these ideas that looks great as a theory but does not work in real life.

    Oh yeah one other thing you're forgetting is the pass situation. You do realize that MOST people use passes, so congestive pricing would not work. Only the people that pay cash each time would be paying. And you cannot increase the pass amount because then it's unfair for someone who does not ride during heavy use time to pay more for a service they do not use, only because they get a pass. And the people you will be hurting the most are the people who pay cash, those people often CANNOT afford the $75+ for a month pass. Some people cannot afford to cough up that kind of money once a month all at once, so they buy as the ride, so once again, you're sticking it to the POOR people who use the system the most.

    Sorry you cannot penalize people for NOT driving and taking the subway during peak times. It just is not fair and you are alienating most of your riders and push people back into their cars. Which is what we need. more cars on the road (/sarcasm)

    up
    14

    Side note

    By on

    And as I said above to someone else, DC has this, and it doesn't work for them. And no other transit system in the US has this similar pricing structure BECAUSE IT DOES NOT WORK. Distance pricing, yes, congestion pricing no.

    Most of what you and Henry say is right, and Mark is wrong about the economics of it. Even if we had higher prices at rush hour, there is more than enough demand to require higher service levels at that time.

    Congestion pricing does work. It's not just in theory. It just won't cause the stark drop in demand that Mark envisions. More like a few percent. But sometimes, that's enough. Especially for roads, where the difference between gridlock and free-flow can be 1-2% of cars.

    And it's not just D.C. that does it: both LIRR and MN implement it in NYC. And famously, for roads, Stockholm, Singapore and London have all had varying levels of success.

    I wouldn't be opposed to it in principle, here. But in practice, I just don't see how it could come about. We'd have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to rework the whole fare system (all the deployed equipment, cards, etc) to support the notion of peak pricing. Try to amortize that with peak fares!

    Rework it?

    By on

    It timestamps the transactions and it has an adjustable fare variable. It'd be pretty simple programming to have it require a certain amount between certain hours and a different amount at other times.

    Not so easy, alas

    By on

    There's something weird about the relationship between the T and the company that made all the fare gate technology. Reprogramming is out of the question at the moment. They can't even do simple things like out-of-system transfer for all the people coming from/going to the Blue Line. I learned this by asking the managers who came to talk about the Gov't Center shutdown. Maybe they're making excuses, maybe not.

    The fare structure is set -- the variables can be tweaked to enact fare hikes, is about all, as far as I can tell.

    Since I don't know the internals of the system, I couldn't tell you how much effort it would take to reprogram. Likely certain aspects are more fixed in place than other aspects, and reprogramming might be as easy as sending out a message, or it might require visiting every single fare machine/gate/box and modifying it.

    Assuming there's some way of fixing everything up just the way you want it, you still have to figure out what to do about monthly pass holders. You could have two kinds of monthly passes: one that is all-access, and one that is off-peak-only. Then more reprogramming to deduct a cash differential from the off-peak-only passholders. And do that for weekly/daily passes too. Or get rid of time-based passes and go cash-based only, like BART.

    And don't forget the politics. Changing the fare structure like that is a huge difference to people who have made their lives around the current system. It would take months, maybe years, of public meetings to hammer out the details.

    Meh.

    up
    10

    Two words: inelastic demand

    Look it up Mark, then come back to us with your pretense of understanding economics. Simply put, you are wrong. Note, that doesn't mean peak pricing is a bad idea, it just won't result in lower utilization. And by the way, why would we want that?

    up
    19

    Read my post

    I accounted for inelastic demand. I suggested that some may choose to stimulate the economy by having a drink or food after work until the congestion period ends at night. After previous MBTA price hikes, ridership did dip, so data shows demand is not completely inelastic. There is also some drop in demand for gasoline when prices jump sharply, though it takes unemployment to make a major difference in either MBTA ridership or gas consumption.

    Again, I think you'll find

    By on

    Again, I think you'll find much agreement with the needed raise in the gas tax (remember the one who makes the most profit from a gallon of gas is the government), but chaining it to the CPI is a cowardly thing to do.

    If our politicians want to raise our taxes, I want them to go on record. This bill allows them to not make the tough decisions.
    It must be nice to get a per diem for traveling to work as they do. It's like a "let them eat cake" law that I would think even people that don't pay for gas would find troubling.

    Oh please

    By on

    Do you whine about percentage-based taxes too? "7% of $100 is a tax hike! I only paid $0.70 for that other $10 item!"

    More seriously, there has been no change in the gas tax for two decades, while cost of maintenance has gone up steadily. We tried that whole "be responsible" thing, and proven quite thoroughly that it doesn't work for politicians.

    The gasoline excise tax is a flat, nominal amount per gallon. If it is truly intended to pay for road maintenance and other transportation costs, then it must go up nominally at the same rate that those costs go up.

    Indexing to the CPI (or some kind of maintenance index) should have been done decades ago.

    Your little argument there is tantamount to ducking responsibility for the costs of roads.

    Get over it: gasoline in the USA is extremely cheap by first-world standards. You won't even notice the 2 cents in the general fluctuation of prices. In fact, I read that since the recent gas tax hike, prices have dropped by about ten cents per gallon on average.

    You want to help low income folks? Support public transportation so that it is a real, effective option in as many communities as possible. Being forced to own a car is the real hardship for them.

    up
    10

    Not the issue

    The issue is the state constitution which requires Legislators to vote in tax increases. Making tax per gallon linked to some index without a vote on each increase is what violates the state constitution. The way around this is making gas taxes a fixed percentage like other sales taxes. When the price of gas goes up, the state gets more money. When gas prices fall, the state gets less. The general trend, however has been upward, so you get your increase.

    Get used to it

    By on

    Since the T can only raise fares by 5% every 2 years, they're likely to do it every time. That was the goal, actually, to switch to a regular, predictable system of fare hikes rather than sporadic.

    up
    28

    Something needs to budge

    By on

    So people from HP only need to pay $75 while people from W Rox & Rozie will have to pay $178 in order to take the commuter rail THE SAME DISTANCE (minus Rozie).

    West Rox & Rozie get screwed when it comes to commuting in town! Particularly Rozie which is closer (distance) to S Shit Show than HP.

    White Privalage, am I right......

    up
    18

    Ya

    By on

    Because you take a bus, someone doesn't know Boston or the MBTA system. Outsider....

    up
    11

    O and my commute only takes 20 min

    By on

    Not and hour. So who's the sucker stuck on a bus that takes 20 min to travel a 1/2 mi from the Sq to the Hills. And I bet that over packed orange line must be very nice in the AM.

    up
    11

    Thanks for making my point

    By on

    You pay an additional $100 for the quicker commute. And a premium for a less crowded service (and I wonder why?)

    So, which do you value more, time or money?

    By the way, my inbound commute is 30 minutes from the Square to Back Bay Station, and if I miss a bus, no half hour wait. The bus I usually take? The 37, which stops at all Needham Line stops in Roslindale and West Roxbury.

    2 extra bucks..... Just to

    By on

    2 extra bucks..... Just to have people driving you around with horrendous driving records. May or may not have been fired from the T once, then rehired without having a driving record checked. Go MBTA!

    up
    12

    "single ride with a Charlie

    By on

    "single ride with a Charlie Card on the subway would cost $2.10 and a ticket on the bus would cost $1.60.

    In New York City, the cost of a single-ride subway ticket is $2.75"

    The Globe shouldn't compare the cheapest Boston subway fare with the most expensive NYC fare.

    A better comparison would be $2.10 for Boston versus $2.38 for NYC (the $2.50 Metrocard fare after the 5% bonus for loading $5 or more). Or the proposed $2.65 CharlieTicket fare versus $2.75 with a SingleRide.