June 27, 2000
Re: Proposed MBTA fare increase
To the MBTA:
The Alliance, representing residents in neighborhoods throughout Boston, strongly opposes the proposed MBTA fare increases.
Fare increases are regressive public policy, counter to critical environmental and urban planning goals.
- Fare increases will induce many riders with economic
options to switch from transit to private automobiles,
increasing air pollution, road congestion and time lost
in traffic.
- Fare increases will increase garage-building in the
city for the additional drivers, occupying precious
development space needed for productive uses, adding the
cost of parking to housing and to other goods and
services, and concentrating even more traffic in the
over-burdened urban center. And 80% of the 23,000 net new
parking spaces currently the development pipeline in
Boston will be put in the low-income neighborhoods of
Fenway, Mission Hill, Roxbury, and Allston, sited there
for the benefit of suburban commuters to the LMA and BU
medical/university institutions.
- Fare increases will disproportionately burden
transit-dependent urban neighborhoods, especially those
with low car-ownership rates. It is regressive to
penalize those who live in sustainable urban densities
and use environmentally sound transit -- and who already
do pay a higher portion of their transit costs, as a
result of higher use of available capacity.
- Fare increases will discourage transit-dependent
riders from " non-essential" trips, e.g., shopping,
recreation, civic activities, health care, children's
activities, church, volunteer work and other travel that
improves quality of life, community-building, andeconomic
development.
- Fare increases will reduce use of some segments of
the system, "justifying" more service cuts, as the MBTA
is constantly seeking to do, on the basis that "ridership
does not justify T investment" (for example, on
Washington Street, where, according to Planning Director
Dennis DiZoglio, ridership is too low to justify
light-rail replacement service, notwithstanding some of
the heaviest bus ridership in the city).
- Fare increases will subtract important segments of
transit ridership from the transit constituency,
weakening the voice of public transit advocacy.
- Fare increases will establish a precedent for a
privatized user-fee system relying on fare increases, as
"forward funding" mechanisms are continuously
re-calibrated to support only the most basic housekeeping
and maintenance -- the "State of Good Repair."
- Fare increases may ultimately reduce ridership and
overall fare collections, making the T more dependent on
the "creative private partnerships" that appear to be a
linchpin of the MBTA's future funding policy. This shift
in funding will allow further cutbacks of public support,
and will gradually privatize the region's public transit
infrastructure and turn it into a "self-sustaining"
(effectively, a profit-seeking) system, one which is
designed to serve institutional and corporate "funding
partners" (for example, Planning Director Dennis DiZoglio
has stated that the decision to build an Orange Line
station at Somerville's Assembly Square will be based not
on ridership numbers, but on private funding partners).
- Fare increases proposed would raise transit costs substantially -- 20% to 30%. T fare increases will not be "nickels and dimes," as the T has implied. The following chart from the Boston Herald summarizes the true extent of this increase:
Data from "MBTA fare increases punish passengers who pay up front," Boston Herald, June 5, 2000
T fares will rise as follows:
Single subway token: 18%, from $.85 to $1.00 Single bus fare: 25%, from $.60 to $.75 Monthly passes will rise as follows:
Bus pass: 30%, from $20 to $26 Subway pass: 30%, from $27 to $35 Combo pass: 26%, from $46 to $58 Combo plus: 31%, from $ 48 to $63 Commuter Rail will rise as follows:
Zone 1: 33%, from $64 to $85 Zone 2: 30% from $72 to $84 Zone 3: 24%, from $82 to $102 Zone 4: 27%, from $94 to $119 Zone 5: 30%, from $104 to $136 Zone 6: 30%, from $112 to $145 Zone 7: 28%, from $120 to $153 Zone 8: 30%, from $128 to $168 Zone 9/Commuter boat: 30%, from $136 to $177
And we believe this increase is only the beginning. If this raise is passed, it will be used to legitimize the further funding of transit by user fees rather than by public support.
MBTA costs are already relatively high, contrary
to MBTA claims.
It is not true that MBTA fares are the lowest in the
country; this claim is based on individual boarding fare
rates, not on actual usage. Because the MBTA lacks free
transfers, and the system is so fragmented, full trips for
many destinations require multiple subway and bus segments,
resulting in higher fares per trip than in most cities.
This leaves Boston with a relatively high cost per
trip-rider-mile.
Most important, T riders are dependent on an inadequate system, where lines have been cut over time without replacement (primarily in disadvantaged areas); infrastructure and rolling stock are antiquated in technology, maintenance, and capacity, and service is limited in location, frequency, and hours.
The ultimate test of a transit system is whether it supports a population's mobility needs well enough to spare most people the cost of car ownership. The MBTA fails this test. Except for downtown residents who need to access only the city core for work, shopping, education, day care, and daily goods and services, most residents of Boston and the region still need to buy, insure, maintain, park, and fuel private automobiles (often, more than one per family). Before we discuss fare increases, we insist on service improvements to provide a comprehensive and dependable transit system that will truly reduce car dependence.
Before any fare increases are considered, we request:
- A detailed explanation of the expected total income
from and specific proposed uses of
projected new fare revenues, as well as of the projected
revenues from the sales tax and the regional assessed
communities;
- An audit of efficiency of MBTA expenditures; T hiring
and management practices have been sharply criticized,
and riders should not pay the price for poor
administration;
- A study of the implications of the sales tax, which
is a regressive tax, and is vulnerable to economic
downturns, as a funding mechanism;
- A tally of revenue receivable if all currently
assessed communities' contributions remained at current
levels (or increased per inflation), and newly assessed
communities paid commensurately;
- An environmental impact analysis (as required by law)
of shifts in ridership to car use projected due to fare
increases;
A study of alternative ways to raise revenues, by improving service and thus boosting ridership, and by more consistent fare collection methods;
- A study of revenue sources shifting money from car
and highway funds to transit use;
- A report on the compliance of the proposed fare increase with Massachusetts Executive Order 385, which requires all planning and development to consider environmental and social impacts.
We need planning at the MBTA that will calculate the "externalized" costs to our natural environment, to our urban fabric, and to our community life, of any changes in the fare structure and other policy decisions.
Boston is the cradle of American public transit. We should strive to have the best, and yes, the most affordable, transit in America. The race to highest fare recovery rate, or to inflation make-up, is a race to the bottom; it is a self-defeating target. For the "walking city," the lowest national transit fares should be the goal, and a point of pride, showing a progressive and enlightened government. Transit is not a market-driven commodity, but a public good. It is a critical investment in the sustainability -- indeed, the survival -- of our community and our region.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kressel
President, ABN