Hey, there! Log in / Register

Can Bostonians save the T?

Davis
T CFO Davis

Transit and environmental groups will ask local subway riders on Thursday to urge their legislators to support a gas-tax increase that would include money for the T, in a leafletting campaign at Boston T stops - and South Station.

But even as they work to counter rising anger in the western part of the state over alleged money-grubbing by Boston, the groups were failing tonight to get specifics from T officials on just how bad T service cuts could be without extra state funding, which they said will make it harder to convince people to pick up the phone.

At a meeting of the MBTA's Rider Oversight Committee tonight, T CFO Jonathan Davis said it's just too early to discuss specific cuts - even though any cuts would go into effect with a fiscal year that starts July 1. Davis said the only thing he knows for sure is that the T is facing a $160-million deficit. Media reports have cited specific cuts the T is considering - such as the elimination of weekend commuter-rail service, but Davis said the authority has yet to give the state Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) any data with which to plan specific changes. He did acknowledge that without any state aid, the T will be looking at "fairly deep service cuts and fairly significant fare increases" - and for at least two years. He said the T is also waiting on more definitive action from the legislature on the gas tax and other proposals that could affect the authority's $1.6-billion budget.

Transit advocates at the meeting pleaded with Davis for specifics with which to convince T riders of the urgency of pressuring their legislators to approve a gas tax increase with a dedicated set-aside for the T - in an amount that Davis said could cover that projected deficit.

Michelle McMurtry of the T Riders Union said she needs those specifics to counter the sort of reactions she's already getting when telling people about possible fare increases and service cuts: "I've had people swear at me. It's going to be ugly. ... People are not listening because they are in denial."

"The sooner people know realistically what they're facing, the sooner they will be likely to rally," committee member Wig Zamore said.

Committee member Donna Purin said talk of sharp cuts in nighttime and weekend service will especially hit people with no alternatives - people with two jobs or who work late shifts, not to mention students.

Davis said that when the T and CTPS do begin looking at services to cut, they would take such things into account

"We don't like this, we don't want to decimate public transportation," because good public transit is the lifeblood of not just the Boston area, but the whole state, Davis said. "If you want to be a world class city with a world class standing, you need first class transit. ... But we may have no option."

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I like how the western part of the state cops an attitude about paying for the T. The Boston metro area consists of two thirds of the population of the state, so all those state services they use, we pay two-thirds for.

I find it telling that it's not rush hour being threatened...just everything else. That's a great way for the state to say "To us, you're just a tax piggy-bank." Which is why, when I get my graduate degree, I'm leaving. Hmmmm, maybe this has something to do with that "brain drain" I hear so much about.

up
Voting closed 0

Rural areas complain about their taxes subsidizing cities ... yet cities actually require far less expensive infrastructure per taxpayer and urban areas typically generate more tax dollars per person than rural areas.

Like the taxes collected in the Blue States subsidize the Red States by and large, Eastern MA generates more tax revenue than Western MA and that subsidizes Western MA through roads and water systems and state parks and other state-paid stuff like, say, payments to people who live in the middle of nowhere and can't find jobs that support their needs.

up
Voting closed 0

Listen, Folks, I ride the T nearly everyday and I live in the urban core. You have to admit, however, that pretty much ever since Silvio Conte passed on, Western Mass. has been absolutely hosed when it comes to getting attention from the state government. I'll admit it, and I have no real connection to the place.

Places like Lowell have had moderate comebacks because the state has taken an interest in revitalization (e.g., by making the UMass Lowell campus the state university system's tech hub, the sprucing up of the national historical park, etc.). The Springfields, Holyokes and Pittsfields of the Commonwealth are being allowed to wither on the vine because so far as the power brokers in state government are concerned, the world ends at Worcester. Working with CT to make sure the commuter rail extension being worked on there does not end at Hartford or BDL but rather, continues to Springfield and perhaps Amherst/Northampton, would spur all kinds of economic development in the lower CT River valley where it is desperately needed. Similarly, linking Pittsfield to Albany (and thereby, NYC) and ultimately Boston, would do wonders for the mid-county area of the Berkshires. This kind of stuff works - just look at what the moderate investment in Mass MoCA has done for North Adams.

Clearly we need to get more revenue for the T (and the transportation system at large), but lets avoid having the debate descend into a west vs. east internecine battle. I would like Mr. Shays and his rebellion to remain part of history.

up
Voting closed 0

Try living on the side of the state during the 90s when your state highways went to rot (and some bridges even closed outright due to lack of maintenance) because a great deal of what should have been in the maintenance budget went to the Big Dig, and then see how you feel about paying for more projects in that far-off land to the east when you've got your own projects that need funding.

The west can hold a grudge.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's talk the $1 billion the MBTA can save over the next 20 years if they implement pension reform before we start taxing the bejesus out of people who don't even use the T. Slapping an extra 19c on a gallon of gas for a transportation system that is inaccessible to the western part of the state is beyond absurd. If the MBTA raised the price of Charlie cards to help pay for pothole repair on I-91 the eastern part of the state would be outraged. People out in the 413 are already contributing to the T coffers so some kid at a $50,000/year school can take cheap public transportation. At what point do we say "enough is enough"????

up
Voting closed 0

Obviously, I wasn't being TOTALLY serious in my comment. Twenty cents a gallon, even if it is well overdue, is a pretty drastic increase and I can respect the complaints. I fully expect the compromise will be a lower gas tax and a fare hike, and I'm OK with that: the T is the state service I use the most, and I use it so often my LinkPass more than pays for itself.

That said, this is the state legislature's mess, and "forward funding" was pretty much the direct result of the western part of the state getting all pissed off their tax dollars were "wasted". No free lunch, kids.

up
Voting closed 0

umm how about we just raise fares to the level where they more than cover operating costs? For low-income residents, offer subsidized cards. For the rest of the people using the T, you can afford to pay more, or maybe you don't need that 6 million dollar home in Weston near the Kendall Green station? I live in eastern mass but the T only is useful for people who work in companies in Boston, which because of the high price of office space, is not that many anymore...more jobs are being created in the suburbs (128 and 495 belts), and there is no real public transit there.
If you take the T, good for you. But unless you want to chip some maintenance costs for my car, i'm not subsidizing your ride anymore.

up
Voting closed 0

So move closer to where you work. Drive less. Find a job in Boston or Cambridge. You can't live in the burbs and then complain about driving.

Frankly, urban dwellers are already screwed in terms of infrastructure spending. Infrastructure in low density sprawl is much more costly to build and maintain than in higher density environments.

up
Voting closed 0

If you think that taxpayers aren't subsidizing the cost of your driving, you're not paying attention. As noted above, one of western MA's gripes is getting screwed over by the Big Dig. Which you DRIVE on. Maybe a toll at all highway entrances so driver can cover the costs of their driving is in line?

up
Voting closed 0

Heh.

Besides drivers being subsidized like crazy, public transit relieves some of the demand on the roads, making driving even more pleasant and effective for drivers.

up
Voting closed 0

This:

public transit relieves some of the demand on the roads,

is absolutely spot-on, neilvandyke. Cities such as Albany, NY, Pittsfield, Providence, and a whole host of other cities that don't have a subway train system have much greater congestion on their streets and the highways leading into them due to much more automobile traffic.

up
Voting closed 0

I already subsidize your car by paying for all those road projects. One hand washes the other, unless you'd like me to stop paying for your roads, which I'd be more than happy to do.

up
Voting closed 0

You are paying gas tax and turnpike tolls? thanks!

up
Voting closed 0

How many automobiles are licensed in Massachusetts? What is the total amount of fees collected via excise taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes, in connection with those automobiles? How does that amount compare with the total amount of expenditures in connection with road repair, upkeep, whatever else you'd like to throw in? How much money comes from the Fed to finance both automobile-centric projects and public transit projects? Let's have the stats to back up the assertion.

I personally believe - no stats to back it up, so I'm willing to be educated - that automobile owners more than pay their fair (or fare, if we're talking the T) share of the burden.

Prove me wrong. Don't just say it's a fact. Show me the numbers, please.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Fair request, when I have some time I'll crunch the numbers.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think we are going to get anywhere close to balancing the budget of the T without fare increases, even if they pull more from the sales tax/ income tax. The T is currently one of the cheapest public transit system in the country (I've used public trans in NY/DC/SF), yet the mere mention of raising fares even slightly gets the Riders Union and everyone else up in arms.

If the highway department wants to eventually move to open-road tolling and charge you per miles driven, rather than gallons of gas consumed (which I think is a smart idea), why don't we also implement the same type of system on the subway/light rail lines? in SF you pay by the distance you go by swiping your fare card when you get on and when you get off...couldn't this be done here as well?

Honestly, the main point is that the T funding situation as it exists today is not sustainable, even with all of the new pension reforms...the maintenance costs keep going up but revenue does not. We want them to add new lines, new stations, more trains, but they can barely service their debt now, how can they take on other projects?

up
Voting closed 0

Let's charge drivers for all the costs of driving. The resulting prohibitive cost of driving will cause most people will flock to public transit, causing MTBA fare revenue to skyrocket. As an interim capacity solution, the MBTA can deploy large numbers of buses, which will zip around town quickly, due to the light traffic. :)

up
Voting closed 0

What are they? Give me numbers, please, and not just a list of what they are, i.e., road repairs, sign painting, etc.

Please give me the numbers connected with each so we know exactly what we're talking about here. A comparable list of T numbers would also be welcome.

Until the math is clear and non-arguable here, we're all just blowing hot air.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

I don't actually have numbers for Boston. I'm going on things I read long ago. Thus far, I've considered the question of how much drivers are subsidized to be purely academic, since it's just something we have to accept right now. It's still an academic question to me, but admittedly I shouldn't go making assertions of fact that I don't want to do the work to back up.

If anyone digs up an analysis, one thing I want to add: the costs are not just expenses for building and operating infrastructure. There is air pollution, noise pollution and general disturbing of the peace, the human and monetary cost of auto accidents, and the barriers to civic interaction and getting around on foot from auto traffic dicing up our space.

I think we've been desensitized to all the "externalities" of heavy auto use in town. You can put up a few cafe tables on the sidewalk of Mass. Ave. with 4 lanes of heavy traffic, without even a planting strip, and people brushing past you on the other side as they squeeze past, and we consider it a relaxing getaway from the daily stresses.

up
Voting closed 0

The T is currently carrying $1.7 billion in debt to pay for clean-air improvements the state agreed to in order to get federal money for the Big Dig.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm really, honestly interested in seeing the numbers laid out somewhere. I tried to do a search, just to find the number of autos registered in the state and then do some extrapolation via my own figures for excise, etc., but couldn't find even that seemingly simple number.

The other "costs" mentioned by Neil are useful to consider, also. Quality of life is important.

(Of course, in a perfect world, if we had spent the Big Dig money on public transportation, we could have had the best system in the entire world.)

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Because the State Legislature tells them they have to. The T doesn't WANT to be building a damn thing right now, but they're required to to offset the Big Dig.

up
Voting closed 0

That is not true in SF. The commuter rail from the burbs in SF (BART and CALtrain) you pay by distance, as in Boston and most cities. But MUNI, SF's trolley/bus system, is not pay by distance, its set (when I lived there it was 1.75 I believe.

up
Voting closed 0

Raising fares to that level would mean doubling or tripling them. If you did that, ridership would almost certainly drop by more than half or two-thirds. They wouldn't be in a better situation financially, and they'd be serving a lot fewer people.

up
Voting closed 0

Once again, arguably the most important virtue of public transit to the non-transit riding population is being ignored.

By taking the T and not driving my car to work everyday, I am not in front of you on the road slowing down your commute even more. Now aggregate that effect (the T carries hundreds of thousands of people a day). If you don't think there is any value in me and hundreds of thousands of my closest (and on the Green Line, very close) friends on the T, you should google some of the news stories from when the MTA in New York went on strike a few years ago.

Let's let the T run out of money for a few days so it has to shut down. Let's see what the effect on automobile traffic is. My guess is that the loss in productivity would be so profound that you would very quickly get a vote in the legislature for the $.25 increase in the gas tax many business groups are advocating for.

up
Voting closed 0

I have no problems with affordable mass transit...the problem with the T today is that the hub and spoke design that made sense in the 19th and 20th century does not accurately reflect the commuting patterns of the entire commonwealth. We need to have a far more reaching system that link public transit systems (NOT BUSES) throughout the state and parts beyond to really have both an environmental and quality of life change in Mass.

up
Voting closed 0

Instead of raising the gas tax statewide, why not just raise it in towns or counties that have MBTA service?

Or why not raise it statewide, but use the money from western Mass towns for their transit systems rather than the T? The same could apply for the penny of the sales tax that currently goes to the T.

up
Voting closed 0

They can't run the T right...and now they're proving too inept to even tell us just what they *could* accomplish if they had to operate on an even budget!!

Get Gordon Ramsey in here. Someone needs to tell these stupid donkeys to just SHUT IT DOWN! GET OUT YOU SILLY COWS!

up
Voting closed 0

Buses or subway, your choice.

up
Voting closed 0

"Davis says the authority has yet to give a newly hired consultant any data with which to plan specific changes"

This sort of says it all. Why is there a 160 million dollar deficit? Who is responsible for the decisions leading to the deficit? What changes can be made prior to asking for increased funds through a gas tax? Bringing in a consultant and then not providing data, isnt that another irresponsible wasteful decision?

up
Voting closed 0

It's not a consultant but a state agency, the Central Transportation Planning Staff. My apologies for that; I've corrected the post.

up
Voting closed 0