Potential for MBTA boycott?

Boycott? Yeah, sounds like a great idea for folks out in the posh burbs, but in the real world, the people who are truely dependant upon the T can't afford to boycott it. They have jobs. They don't have cars. Therefore they have no way to get to their jobs.

Therefore, it won't happen. Or maybe the regular Joe's will be able to get a seat on that day at least while the rich are out boycotting on their yachts.

(Yes, I'm overdoing it.)

Believe me or not.....they've said on 7NEWS tonight that the MBTA boycott will start tomorrow all day long and will also be a protest against the proposed fare increases at Copley. So brace yourselves.

Speaking of the boycot I myself am not boycotting (I have no other way to get from Brooline to PO square for work) but I am planning on attending the public hearing at 4:30 at the BPL in Copley Square and would like to encourage everyone who can to go. I'm just curiuos if anyone else here is planning on going?

It looks like I will become a much less frequent rider of the T, but it has nothing to do with fare increases. Today, I biked from my apartment in Boston to my job in Harvard Square. It was a lovely ride along the river and took about the same amount of time as the Red Line.

I think the real issue people have with the fare increase is that we will not get a 30% increase in value for a 30% increase in fares. We'll get a short burst of new signs and pass vending machines, but will we get increased frequencies, more parking at commuter rail lots & subway garages, etc.?

Apparently the tactics of the boycott organizers is changing:

T fare hike protesters to hold rally
Cancel boycott, citing feedback

Mennonno said his push is now focused less on the T and more on the state Legislature, which he said should help the MBTA with its record debt burden and to avoid the fare hike.

That's the most sensible statement from the groups opposed to the fare increase I've heard yet. The T is a public agency, if one has a problem of this magnitude, the real answer is to demand a response from those who ultimately control it, and they're on Beacon Hill, not at 10 Park Plaza.

octr202 wrote:Apparently the tactics of the boycott organizers is changing:

T fare hike protesters to hold rally
Cancel boycott, citing feedback

Mennonno said his push is now focused less on the T and more on the state Legislature, which he said should help the MBTA with its record debt burden and to avoid the fare hike.

That's the most sensible statement from the groups opposed to the fare increase I've heard yet. The T is a public agency, if one has a problem of this magnitude, the real answer is to demand a response from those who ultimately control it, and they're on Beacon Hill, not at 10 Park Plaza.

I'm dissapointed in the Globe for citing t-rage.com in that blurb. I don't pay attention to most of it, but at least for the AFC "info" he has posted is quite misguided and he asks stupid questions that have long been answered.

JS

FatNoah wrote:I think the real issue people have with the fare increase is that we will not get a 30% increase in value for a 30% increase in fares. We'll get a short burst of new signs and pass vending machines, but will we get increased frequencies, more parking at commuter rail lots & subway garages, etc.?

This is always the retort at fare increase time. In the public's opinion, transit fares should be immune from even inflation. What would probably be best would be to have an automatic annual increase tied to inflation or cost of living increases or something like that -- still wouldn't eliminate the need for larger increases from time to time, but it would break this notion that T (or insert name of any transit authority here) fares are supposed to stay put and never increase.

There's an interesting discussion of transit fare politics and economics in the book 722 Miles, a good read on the history of the NYC subway system. A good read for someone interested in the intended and unintended consequences of transit funding.

Inflation isn't the issue. The T's spiral into bankruptcy is. The debt issue is the 800-pound gorilla that activists and politicians alike want to ignore, but without legislative action, it will continue to cripple the T. Not only will the T continue to not expand service regardless of the fare increase, it'll keep selling off assets to keep day-to-day operations afloat. Think about that -- what successful enterprise do you know that burns its capital to cover operating expenses? The T is selling land for a fraction of the income it could reap by leasing out development rights, because it is desperate for money right now, today.

I respect the concerns of activists who rail against fare hikes' impact on the working class, but the argument that the increase should come with an equivalent increase in service is unabashed ignorance of the real problem.

The T spends a greater portion of its revenue on debt service than any transit system in the country, by a huge margin. I posted this link: http://www.livablestreets.info/node/435 a while ago, which generated no discussion, but read the report. It spells out the dire situation here.

There needs to be insightful and visionary leadership at the top levels of state government if the T is to remain a viable alternative for the transit riders in this region. We can't wait until fares are five or even three dollars.

Pete wrote:Inflation isn't the issue. The T's spiral into bankruptcy is. The debt issue is the 800-pound gorilla that activists and politicians alike want to ignore, but without legislative action, it will continue to cripple the T. Not only will the T continue to not expand service regardless of the fare increase, it'll keep selling off assets to keep day-to-day operations afloat. Think about that -- what successful enterprise do you know that burns its capital to cover operating expenses? The T is selling land for a fraction of the income it could reap by leasing out development rights, because it is desperate for money right now, today.

I respect the concerns of activists who rail against fare hikes' impact on the working class, but the argument that the increase should come with an equivalent increase in service is unabashed ignorance of the real problem.

The T spends a greater portion of its revenue on debt service than any transit system in the country, by a huge margin. I posted this link: http://www.livablestreets.info/node/435 a while ago, which generated no discussion, but read the report. It spells out the dire situation here.

There needs to be insightful and visionary leadership at the top levels of state government if the T is to remain a viable alternative for the transit riders in this region. We can't wait until fares are five or even three dollars.

Sorry to mislead...the comment about inflation/COLA linked fare increases speaks to a more general issue regarding transit fares, not the specifics of the T's current situation. However, Boston often went for years, nearly decades at a time, when fares were held level, thus leaving much of the public with the idea that transit fares do not increase in the same way that prices for everything else do.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums up the situation well -- the problems the T faces right now are monumental, and can only be solved at the state level. Sadly, just as the federal government would rather use Amtrak as a punching bag than actually make tough descisions about its future, so is how the state government treats the MBTA*. Just listen to the comments of some of the gubenitorial candidates, or the comments of some of the legislators who spoke at the various fare hearings and meetings (atmittedly harder to find). The general feeling I got was that the elected officials see the fare increase debate merely as a chance to rail against the T, so they can be seen as "defeding the people" rather than expressing any desire to bring about a solution to the problem.

*At least the T is hardly alone in this. SEPTA has a nearly 35 year history of being the bastard stepchild of Philadelphia area politics, the Chicago Transit Authority seems locked in regular battles for its financial survival in a city-versus-suburb battle for RTA funding in Illinois...I'm sure we could find many other examples.

theseaandalifesaver wrote:I'LL TAKE THE DIRTY STATIONS AND TRAINS, GIVE ME MY CHEAPER FARE!

Totally. The reason why I don't want to pay extra is because the service is lousy as hell - living in Japan has taught me that. Is it too much to expect trains to actually run ON TIME? (Don't answer that.) Put a time table up in all the stations and STICK TO IT.

Does the T still express trains to Cleveland Circle on the C? That used to drive me nuts. Also only running 1-car trains at peak hours.

I don't know about others, but dirty trains don't bother me that much; I've never seen anything to turn my stomach - unlike here, where business men have been known to barf in trains/stations on the way home from drinking.

savebowdoin wrote:When trains run express on the Green Line, it is to make up lost time in schedules, trying to adhere to the very timetables you say should be adhered to.

Ok, but I don't understand why they're running late in the first place.

The one car train thing is usually related to absences or rerouting, sometimes it can be avoided and sometimes it can't. Repetitive employee absences have been a recent topic of discussion and should remain so.

I wasn't aware of that.

Would you seriously sit down on a train where the floors and seats are littered with trash, newspapers, spilled coffees, bodily fluids, and graffiti? Just look at a Red Line train when it reaches its terminus during the height of rush hour. If trash was not removed throughout the day, the floors and seats would literally be full of trash.

I can remember kicking away cans & papers cups on the floor, and brushing away newspapers from seats. That was on the green line though, I didn't ride the red line all that much.

I am not defending the proposed fare hike, however it bothers me when arguments like these are made. The MBTA has made mistakes, MANY of them, but they have recently begun a *slow* turnaround that might just create a bigger and better system. Improvements take time. ...

Perhaps then, I'm presenting old arguments. I haven't lived in Boston for 6 years now (left in Summer 2000.) Honestly I don't know how the T runs right now so I can only speak from past experience. When I'm in Boston on vacation I usually walk since it's so walkable downtown.

My experience with the T through high school and college was not good; always late, dirty, etc, etc. If they really are turning around and starting to make a change, then more power to them. I wish them the best.