By adamg on Thu., 1/31/2019 - 3:56 pm
City Councilor Michelle Wu argues:
Forget fare hikes; let’s seek the sustainable revenue sources to take action on improving service levels, electrifying trains, and speeding up buses.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I love how on certain big
By BB
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 4:20pm
I love how on certain big holidays the T is free. Even though it ends up super crowded, it's a big stress relief to just be able to jump on and off without thought.
If only Wu had tempered her speech. Some things are already free
By anon
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 7:53pm
This blanket statement was either a way to get something published or shows that the Wutrain has pulled out of common-sense land. The Silver Line from Logan is free. Big night time holidays are free. Special events are sometimes free. And specific groups ride for free. She could have gone one step up and pitched say a free-fare zone as seen in Pittsburgh or Salt Lake. with a focus on Boston's colleges. But even that may be too much. Making the East Boston - Logan Silver Line free both ways might be a smaller doable step. And while you're at, take the Silver Bus out of the Seaport tunnel and put T9s in it.
Make it free for college kids
By Sonicyouth
Sat, 02/02/2019 - 11:08am
Make it free for college kids ??!! How about the residents of this city.
Maybe a few free bus routes like Baltimore
By anon
Sun, 02/03/2019 - 4:30pm
But not a free transit zone. No
It’s never been done in a system the size of the T
By Waquiot
Sun, 02/03/2019 - 5:55pm
Tallinn Estonia is the largest system to go fare free, and they are bus and tram only. No heavy rail in their jurisdiction.
well that could work. the
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 02/04/2019 - 1:23pm
well that could work. the silver line is free to get on at the airport. Its packed so tight that fare collection is ridiculous. And I think free airport pickup is a great selling point.
But where else? Apparently Braintree line is packed from the Braintree stop. What about triple ling the parking fee and free from Braintree opening to 9am M-F? I guess you would need to do the same at Alewife. Its just like holiday pricing. Those packed trains are the engine of Boston's economy. It would also help with the suburbs feeling like they are not benefiting from the MBTA that they pay for.
D'oh
By johnmcboston
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 8:12pm
The reason it shouldn't be totally free - they system couldn't handle it....
This seems like an
By ZachAndTired
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 4:20pm
This seems like an interesting idea. I'm really curious about what kinds of alternative funding streams are possibilities.
Tax on short ride-share trips?
By eeka
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 7:13pm
I admittedly use Lyft to go a mile or two home from somewhere I walked or took the T because I'm cold/tired/lazy/hungry/whatever. It's often $2whatever per person to take the T home and $5-$8 to take Lyft home. It's often CHEAPER than the T if you have 3+ people.
If rideshare were, say, $15 to get from Roxbury to either Longwood Medical Area or Tufts instead of the current $5 or so, I would happily pay it if I or a family member were going to the ER or going somewhere carrying something huge or whatever, but wouldn't be paying it for nearby appointments or errands where we really should walk/bike/train. What if rideshare were taxed to make the minimum fare around $10-$15?
It would likely cut down on rideshare pulling over in traffic or in bike lanes; places like hospitals and transit stations where people have a more pressing need to go usually have legal dropoff lanes. The dangerous and illegal dropoff/pickups are likely people taking rideshare somewhere they really should walk or take the T, but take rideshare because it's so cheap, like I do.
whats the current status on ride-share, home-share, meal-share,
By schneidz
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 8:11am
i know technically cabs in the city are legally supposed to have meters and protective glass to protect the driver. drivers are supposed to have c.d.l.'s (background checks) which most ride-shares dont.
are gypsy-cabs still illegal (arent uber/lyft/ryde just gypsy-cabs ?) ?
its hard to compars t pricing against services that still operate in a grey area (like comparing the cost of a movie ticket to the price of bootleg d.v.d.'s in chinatown).
its worse than that
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:43am
Lyft and Uber are paying drivers more than they earn driving. They keep the service artificially cheap because they are getting ready to go public.
That doesn't make sense. They
By anon
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 11:19am
That doesn't make sense. They are actively _losing_ money because they are ready to go public? Why would someone buy stock in a company which loses money on every transaction? That's not a sustainable business model. Companies will burn money to grow, but it's hard pressed to go public while still burning cash
Guessing it goes like this:
By RoseMai
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:30pm
Guessing it goes like this: they keep the service artificially losing money, go public, suddenly stop subsidizing it themselves, now they're making more money, the market is happy, and the stock goes up. They make out like bandits thanks to the increase in value.
https://motherboard.vice.com
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 6:05pm
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9a3vye/...
however that is from 2016.
https://www.epi.org/publication/uber-and-the-labor...
It seems that they are paying the drivers less and less, while making it hard for the drivers to figure out how much they are making.
I think it is a pump and dump scenario. Get the public offering price high and then take your profits out while the average stock buyer loses money.
Happens All the Time
By hundel
Sat, 02/02/2019 - 7:49am
At a certain stage a business may prefer market share over profits. Probably true of every startup you’ve ever heard of and some not so startups. That is a big number though. Won’t last forever.
Eeka you know that if Kinipio were King....
By Pete Nice
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:07am
This story would put you on Death Row.
None at least for this
By Stevil
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 8:18pm
Let's get real here folks - while the recent tax cuts were a ridiculous "reform", the Dems want government to confiscate everyone's money.
Federal, state and local spending (at least around here ) totals somewhere in the neighborhood of $20k for every man, woman and child in this city and most communities. There are some transfer fees included in there so perhaps a bit lower - but that's roughly $50k per average 2.5 person household and nationally that makes government about a full third of our economy.
Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax that would make it almost impossible for wealthy people to grow their assets after inflation, AOC wants a 70% marginal tax rate (coupled with local taxes in some states makes it like 80%), our own governor wants to hike transfer fees on real estate. Now I'm hearing Bernie Sanders wants to start taxing estates of $3.5 million which (especially if including a house) does not make you wealthy these days.
If you want to raise taxes to keep debt levels within reason - and pay down some debt, I'm all ears. If it's to fund more progressive wacko free stuff and you want government to grow to half he economy - lots of luck. Capital is highly mobile these days - put in laws like this and even more socialist places start looking awfully good to the wealthy. Any questions how this works - go ask Connecticut that's getting pounded by rich people and companies moving out due to higher and higher taxes.
How in the world can you say
By anon
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 11:23pm
How in the world can you say 3.5 million net worth not make you wealthy “these days�
Because it's what I for a living
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 1:16am
As a financial planner, i work with lots of people that have that kind of money. They are not trust fund babies. They are doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs and people that earned their money and saved and lived below their means to get what they have (and pay full boat to put their kids through college so poorer students get a break) And assuming a house they bought decades ago is worth $1 million now, that leaves them $2.5 million in savings. That means when you retire you can take 3-5% a year out to subsidize your social security giving you a total income annually of $125k-$175k annually, depending on a couple of variables. Take out taxes and around here you can have a comfortable, but far from exotic retirement if all goes well, you might have some left to leave to the kids. The numbers are harsh and unforgiving if you screw up.
If your net worth is >$2.5 million
By erik g
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 7:40am
you should be THRILLED to pay a tax on your assets. Not only are you giving back to the rest of the world who didn't roll all 20's on their character creation sheets like you did, but you can also think of it as a guillotine-protection tax.
?????
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 7:49am
What in God's name are you talking about?
You roll 3d6, not 1d20.
By anon
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 7:54am
You roll 3d6, not 1d20.
Don't you have a sports ball game to watch, normie?
The PHB method is 4d6
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:51am
The PHB method is 4d6
Not even close
By merlinmurph
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 8:22am
$2.5MM is a lot for a retiree? Seriously? Remember, this is someone without a pension and has to live on this for the rest of their lives. stevil's 3-5% withdrawal rate is generous - a more conservative number is just 3%, giving someone $75K/year for the rest of their lives. Keep inflation in mind and that 75K looks pretty measely in 20 years. Medical costs are huge when you're older, nibbling even more of that nestegg away. Plus, they're going to be paying income tax on their 401(k) withdrawls anyway. The last thing someone needs is Bernie taking their retirement money away.
Firecalc says 75K is a pretty
By tofu
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:22am
Firecalc says 75K is a pretty safe withdrawal number with 2.5Mil and 30 year horizon. Even with 100K there's a 95% success rate. Drop it to 2Mil and now you have a 73% success rate at 100K withdrawal.
A ton of people around here live on MUCH less than that, including my family/relatives, but 100K is far from "luxury yacht" or even "boat owner" territory. Things are changing fast.
https://www.firecalc.com/
I weep for your clients
By Old Groucho
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:30am
If my financial planner didn't understand that the proposed 70% tax would be paid in steps based on yearly earnings or that if I made over 10 mil it would not be in cash but in stock options and not fall under the wealth tax but capital gains, I'd fire him immediately.
Seriously, man. Find a new line of work.
Wasn't talking about that
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:21pm
This was in reference to Bernie Sanders dropping the estate tax limits back to 3.5 million.
RTFP
What you are hearing is wrong
By Old Groucho
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:19pm
I cant stand Bernie but his proposal is for anything INHERITED over 3.5 million
You're either trolling or a very, very bad financial planner.
Which is it?
?????
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 11:45pm
Do u know what an estate tax is?
Nevermind, I figured it out.
By Old Groucho
Sat, 02/02/2019 - 8:29am
Taxes when you're alive are bad because you are working hard
Taxes when you're dead are bad because you worked hard
Taxes on unearned income is bad because somebody else worked hard
We get it Stevil, you're a Republican, society be damned.
You should disclose your worldview upon meeting new clients.
Actually
By Stevil
Sat, 02/02/2019 - 6:05pm
I'm a big believer in taxes. I've spoken out frequently on this board about what a sham the new tax system is, even though I am a substantial beneficiary. I'm also a big believer in estate taxes. But Bernies vision is a step backwards.
I'd give you an ecomics lesson on what would work, but it might damage your precious worldview.
also real quick
By locke
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 1:32pm
" They are doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs and people that earned their money and saved and lived below their means to get what they have (and pay full boat to put their kids through college so poorer students get a break) And assuming a house they bought decades ago is worth $1 million now, "
this is kind of exactly the problem dude the vast majority of my generation sure as shit can't afford houses and boomers and olds are a huge part of it because there's no scenario where I will ever be able to float 800k for house anywhere in metro boston. my mother on the other hand bought a house in brighton village in 1966 for 30k that sold in 2001 for 750k. there is no scenario where I could ever do anything even remotely similar. and while i'm not saying penalize people for their success, why on earth can't we tax people whose property value has increased a double digit multiplier?
Ummmm, because we do?
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:06pm
Ever hear of property taxes, capital gains taxes, stamp taxes, transfer taxes and the like. It's not like your mom bought the place, went to sleep and woke up with $750k (and something seems out of whack with that number - it doubled in value every 7-8 years? And she didn't renovate and it didn't get upzoned?)
oh im aware of those taxes
By locke
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:41pm
oh im aware of those taxes and I think they all need to be increased for literally this reason. last time i checked bps and the mbta are both critically underfunded and we sure as shit need more revenue streams.
i would feel less extreme about this if it wasn't for all the overpriced vacant/foreign owned luxury property strewn across the city that's fucked up the housing market but yeah if you want to live in or around a major metro you absolutely should be contributing to all kinds of services.
as for the property value i'm sure more than 30k went into the house over 40-50 years but there are zero cases where I, a theoretical first time home buyer in 2019 could theoretically get a 2x return let alone a 10x+ return. the entire problem of my generation is we cannot amass any kind of generational wealth or assets because the older generation more or less made that impossible. any attempt at giving millennials a shot at the market in the way our parents had is decried by GREEDY POLITICIANS STEALING MY MONEY.
my immigrant mom was 25 when she bought that house and she worked full time at like 40 hours. I'm 33 working 50-60 hours a week and i'm barely affording rent let alone a down payment on a house. someday i'd like to be like you and own property and pay for my kids to to go to college but there's absolutely no fucking way to get there from here in 2019 without *gasp* government handouts.
You'd be surprised
By Stevil
Sat, 02/02/2019 - 5:24am
How young many of my clients are. Nobody gave them anything. Saved Maybe 100-200k in their 20s. Now double that for every 10-15 years. They make good money because they've studied and worked hard. Many are immigrants themselves.
The key is they socked away money early by scrimping, invested and now they've done well. They live comfortably but not lavishly. But for some reason they don't deserve it and it should be taken away and literally given to others.
I call BS.
I mean, the roads are, for
By eherot
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 11:37pm
I mean, the roads are, for the most part 100% taxpayer funded. Do those not count as "wacko free stuff?"
Also what if free transit ends up generating more in economic returns than it earns today in fare revenue (by encouraging people to make more trips to places where they spend money)? Does it really make good economic sense then to charge for it? I think this is kind of the same reasoning we use for not charging people to use the roads...
plus, all those sweet FRINGE BENEFITS:
By anon
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 8:51am
free transit encourages people people to take it instead of using their own cars / rideshare cars:
less pollution:
better for climate = savings on remediation, the general apocalypse that's coming
better for people living on busy roads (car traffic relates back to childhood asthma among others) = less healthcare costs, borne out in higher insurance premiums and tax expenditures for the poor
less traffic:
safer for pedestrians, less people getting murdered by bad drivers = healthcare savings
cheaper to maintain roads that aren't trafficked as heavily = MassDOT savings
buses travel faster, (plus now not waiting for people onboarding to pay so EXTRA faster) = buses more appealing = more people taking them as an option = these effects compound
More reliable, more frequent
By tofu
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:26am
More reliable, more frequent routes and better service might result in housing market shifts as well. There's been a lot of demand to live around the Red Line (and spilling into East Arlington as well because 77), pushing prices up. At the same time there are a lot of condos being built near highway exits and interchanges touting easy access for car commuters. Imagine if we could reduce both traffic jams and transit time, this could open up more opportunities for families/buyers.
The gall
By boo_urns
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 10:24am
You asked/accused me once if I was something of a shill to parrot democratic talking points and you have the audacity to say this:
lol if 3.5mil isn't wealthy
By locke
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 1:24pm
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
i've been living paycheck to paycheck for almost 10 years. i graduated college in 2008 with a bs and its only this year that I feel like I can finally climb out of that hole. if you don't think social services are worth funding you have never had to struggle on that level. Did you know that when you call food stamps the hold time is never shorter than 50 minutes and they play the same 26 second hold music clip on repeat the entire time? and they expect you to call every few months to speak to your coordinator and when you work two jobs and are trying to go back to school its damn near impossible to get access to basic social services if you're in that kind of situation. do you know what its like to try to see a therapist on a regular schedule when almost nothing else in your life is?
like i get it you don't want people to become lazy and entitled, but what about the people who are trying to not be forever stuck in poverty? i'm certainly not the only story like this and let's be real. to somebody with 3.5mil in savings $1000 is negligible. For somebody with -$66 in savings (me) $1000 would go INCREDIBLY far.
not only that but despite being check to check I still make a point of donating my money and time towards food banks and stuff like planned parenthood because no matter how poor I am there are people worse off who need more than I need. when I'm above survival wage I doubt this will change.
like i get it you earned your own money and you don't want the government taking it but also we need to fund social services because not everybody gets a chance to live their life like that. nobody wants to STAY poor. nobody wakes up in the morning and WANTS to not have heat, cell phones, electricity or whatever bill you had to delay paying and I don't understand how people can think that droves of people are actively pursuing that lifestyle.
We already spend about 1 in 3 dollars on govt
By Stevil
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 4:12pm
And we can't fix this problem. You think spending every other dollar on govt will fix these things?
We can generate dry ice from
By anon
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 7:52am
We can generate dry ice from the CO2 emissions trapped at the stack by clean coal technology and assign the MA ANG drop it into passing clouds to seed rain showers on demand at peak times for rainbow generation (e.g. 4PM in the summer). We can use a deep learning model to identify pictures of rainbows posted on twitter and use the geolocation metadata tags to triangulate the location of the end of the rainbow. Then we dispatch out-of-work MBTA fare collectors to collect pots of gold from the leprechauns.
Totally sustainable.
Good Point!
By anon
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 4:21pm
Considering the fact that thousands of people refuse to pay their fares everyday.The MBTA spends hundreds of millions of tax payer moneys on fare gates that are about as successful as walls on the Southern border are for stopping illegal entries.
Yes, and ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 6:06pm
How much money is spent chasing how little revenue?
I agree that the fare gates
By BenHav
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 6:12pm
I agree that the fare gates are ineffective, but I'm not sure about your cost figures. (citation?).
Hundreds of millions of
By anon
Thu, 01/31/2019 - 6:24pm
Hundreds of millions of dollars on fare gates? Is that a fact?
Facts bro
By PastaBatman
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 12:21am
https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/11/20/charliecards-...
That $ is over 13 years, and includes operating and maintenance
By Jeff F
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 1:57pm
That $ is over 13 years, and includes operating and maintenance. So simplistically framing it as 'hundreds of millions for fare gates' is a more than a bit misleading.
Admittedly, it's still a lot of money (~$55m/year to handle the entire fare system). But then again, the T is currently taking in about $700m/year from fares, so that's means they'll be spending less than $1 to collect every $8.
And personel costs.
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 9:57am
Collecting fares, even electronically requires staff. The overall cost of running the T would go down if fare collection ended.
Sure, but by far less than it takes in with fares
By Jeff F
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 1:29pm
The amount of revenue taken in by the fare system is many times more than the cost to collect it. So getting rid of fares means we have find ways to make up that very large difference.
To be clear, I'm not saying this is something we shouldn't persue as a commonwealth (we should!), but we need to be clear-headed about it. While fares don't cover the cost of T operations, they still do bring in a significant portion (30-40%). That's a gigantic deficit to make up.
Pages
Add comment