A prior blog post described a local community meeting held by officials from the MBTA, Boston's transit authority, to collect feedback from the public about which of two fare and service proposals to proceed with. At that meeting, I shared my views about the situation. Earlier this week, a local community meeting drew a large protest:
I have used the “T” subways for many years to commute from home to work in Boston. While living in the Waltham suburb, I used MBTA commuter rail, express buses, and local buses to commute to work. Other mass transit systems I have used:
- While growing up and working in New York City: its MTA buses and subways,
- During college, the bus system in Rochester (NY),
- During graduate study, the elevated trains in Chicago (IL)
- While vacationing in Germany, both the high-speed intra-city rail system and the subway in Cologne,
- While temporarily working in London, its underground and bus systems, and
- While vacationing in Los Angeles, its subway system.
So, I have had plenty of experience using a variety of mass transit systems. I like using mass transit and prefer it over autos.
I read the Information Booklet (Adobe PDF) the MBTA distributed with its two proposed scenarios. I have several concerns.
First, the brochure did not mention nor address the impact upon local small businesses, jobs, and employment. Most Boston residents use the "T" system to get to work or to school. Many use it to shop a businesses within the city. The local community meeting in Dorchester highlighted the fact that many residents (e.g., students, elders and retirees) don't have cars or an alternate means of transportation. They rely on the MBTA.
The large number of service terminations (e.g., bus routes, ferries, "E" line on weekends) spell a disaster for small and local businesses in those areas, who both hire residents as employees and depend upon those residents as customers.
Commuter rail service terminations after 10 pm will likely affect businesses that operate after 10:00 pm. Not just large businesses like the TD North Garden, but numerous small businesses. At the local community meeting I attended, numerous residents shared their feedback about how bus route terminations (e.g., 101 routes in scenario #2) will affect them. Students (e.g., youth) and residents on fixed incomes -- with no alternate transportation -- will be severly affected. Secondary and higher education are huge industries in the Boston metro area. The MBTA proposals don't and should mention how these industries would be affected by the fare increases and service terminations. When service terminations force students to walk to school, there are additional safety issues.
Consumers frequent businesses they can easily and reliably get to. All of the proposed terminations make it more difficult and unreliable for MBTA users -- employees and customers -- to use the MBTA.
It seems that either the MBTA has not considered the impacts upon local businesses and jobs, or does not wish to discuss them. This is odd because the MBTA developed an impact analysis (Adobe PDF) that projected declining air quality from greater auto usage due to service terminations. This is odd because the Big Dig project considered the needs of local businesses along its construction paths:
"But the state had a new task, one that would become a feature of big infrastructure projects nationwide: “mitigation.” Broadly speaking, mitigation was the state’s promise to alleviate the Big Dig’s impact on Boston, from interrupting business to harming the environment. Mitigation eventually accounted for about one-third of the Big Dig’s cost..."
The MBTA needs to do something similar, since it is integral to the health and efficient functioning of the city.
Will students continue to apply to secondary and higher education schools in the area, or will the fare increases and service terminations negatively affect applications? It would be huge disservice if the solution to the MBTA's fiscal mess happened at the expense of the community. There has to be balance.
Second, the MBTA documents did not present utilization rates of the bus routes scheduled for termination. These facts are critical toward evaluating the service cuts. Residents cannot provide informed feedback about the MBTA's proposals without inputs about utilization, the impacts upon employment, and upon jobs.
So, the MBTA has asked the public to "choose the better option," but has not provided all relevant data for the public to make informed choices. That is unfair.
Third, the $4.5 billion debt level and fare comparisons with other cities (Adobe PDF) suggests that a fare is warranted. However, this doesn't give the MBTA a free pass on transparency. I expect the MBTA to do a better job of being transparent about efforts to wring waste out of your system. The documents provided are insufficient.
I talked with MBTA employees (who requested anonymity), and they told me clearly that:
- The MBTA rents a lot of properties it never uses or under utilizes. These properties should be sold or used to increase revenues.
- Better utilization could include options such as power generation (e.g., wind turbines installed on building rooftops) to generate revenue or lower energy costs.
- There are internal human resource programs that cost a lot and drive questionable results.
- Many highways have "aopted a highway mile" programs. The MBTA has not seemed to consider innovative solutions such as this (e.g., 'adopt a station") or similar programs.
Frankly, I don't believe that the MBTA has wrung all of the waste out of its system. Rather, the MBTA seems to take the easy route: raise revenues by raising fares on customers, many of whom are poor and can least afford the proposed fare increases.
Fourth, your proposed fare increases and service terminations seem woefully short-sighted. What about a year from now? How does this solution avoid the situation where we have to revisit your fiscal concerns in a year or two. What about a long-term focus on being environmentally conscious? The proposed solutions don't address this.
The solution for the MBTA's fiscal mess needs to better balance long-term and short-term needs, fit with the city's need to remain competitive and efficient, and fit with the public's desire to use its mass transit system in environmentally friendly ways. My bottom line: the fiscal “cure” should not be worse than the debt “disease.” The surgery should not kill the patient.
Comments