STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
AMIDST ANOTHER DAY OF CHAOTIC COMMUTES for public transit riders, Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday delivered a forceful defense of proposed MBTA fare hikes as he tried to empathize with the frustration of the riders struggling to navigate through cancelled commuter trains and overcrowded T cars.
Amtrak, which operates the rails that serve commuter train lines in and out of Boston’s South Station, early Thursday lost electronic control of signals and switches that allow trains to enter and exit the transit hub.
Delays and cancellations persisted into the late afternoon and evening as state officials urged riders to use the MBTA to access inner city destinations or make their way to commuter rail stations away from South Station. Amtrak could not guarantee that the problems would be fixed by Friday morning’s commute, according to state offcials.
“Yeah, I’ve been ready to strangle somebody all day. I’m just waiting for somebody who looks like they deserve to be strangled,” Baker said during an afternoon WGBH radio appearance, saying, “Believe me I feel the frustration that people feel with respect to the way the T was disrupted this morning.”
The congestion caused by commuter rail problems was exacerbated by a disabled Red Line train, another in a string of issues with faulty signals and broken-down trains that has further eroded public confidence in the MBTA.
Asked how he could justify raising fares on riders who frequently find MBTA service unreliable, Baker said, “That’s exactly why we should.”
MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board officials are weighing fare hikes of roughly 6 percent to 10 percent, which could increase the cost of a single ride to $2.25 and of a monthly pass to $84.
“You compare this to the New York, Philadelphia, Chicago systems, we will still be far less expensive to the riders than all three of those systems,” Baker said. “We can talk all day about what the right level is with respect to this, but we still are going to be a great deal relative to what people pay to ride other major transit systems in the U.S.”
Baker said the MBTA has suffered from a lack “strategic investment in the core system” for years, but noted how the metropolitan Boston rail system functioned well during the recent cold snap that he said could have been as problematic for an aging transit system as a major snow storm. He called the Amtrak signal problems “just another shot from left field.”
After the morning commute, the T bolstered its off-peak service between the morning and evening rush hours by adding two 6-car trains on both the Red and Orange Lines to meet increased rider demand, according to a T spokesman.
After Amtrak notified the Massachusetts Department of Transportation that the South Station signal tower would not be fixed in time for the evening commute, the MBTA rushed to post new schedules for trains that would depart from alternative stations, including JFK/UMass, Back Bay, Forest Hills, Quincy Center and Braintree.
The only trains leaving South Station on Thursday evening were those servicing the Providence/Attleboro and Stoughton lines, forcing potentially thousands of commuter rail riders to join T riders on the Red and Orange lines.
Amtrak also informed MassDOT that it was unable to determine whether the switching issues would be resolved by Friday morning’s commute, prompting state officials to urge riders to check MBTA.com for schedule updates.
US Rep. James McGovern, who was scheduled to ride the commuter rail from Worcester to South Station on Friday to highlight a permanent increase in the commuter tax benefit for mass transit riders, had to postpone his events in light of the rail issues.
Baker, during his radio appearance, also defended the MBTA’s impending move to end the late-night service pilot program in March even as Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has signaled steps he plans to take to make the city less of an early-to-bed town.
Senate President Stanley Rosenberg has also urged caution as the MBTA considers ending late-night service, pointing to the importance of better serving those who work late or overnight shifts and millennials looking for a more vibrant night-life. Late-night service extends the hours of operation on the T by 90 minutes on Friday and Saturday nights.
“It has very, very low ridership and it’s hugely expensive to operate,” Baker said. “That model is not the answer to whatever late night service we should provide should like. That is not it.”
Baker said he has his own ideas about a new late-night model, but wants to hear other suggestions as well. “We’ll share them with you at some point,” Baker told the Boston Public Radio hosts.
“Baker said the MBTA has suffered from a lack “strategic investment in the core system” for years, but noted how the metropolitan Boston rail system functioned well during the recent cold snap that he said could have been as problematic for an aging transit system as a major snow storm.”
Was I on a different planet than the Governor? He was very lucky that the cold snap hit on a Monday holiday, because there were cracked rails on the Red and Orange Lines and delays because of that. If this had been a normal weekday rush hour, it would have been a disaster.
“[Late night service] has very, very low ridership and it’s hugely expensive to operate,” Baker said. “That model is not the answer to whatever late night service we should provide should like. That is not it.”
The ridership was actually quite high when the program started. Once they cut it back to end before 2 am and with longer headways between trains, the ridership dropped. The Governor is being very disingenuous with these statements. It really makes you wonder what his true motives are for the T.
And what ever happened with the Governor’s promise of no fee increases in 2016? Apparently this doesn’t apply to T riders…
http://www.wbjournal.com/article/20160125/NEWS01/160129967/mbta-fare-increases-contrary-to-no-new-fee-policy
MBTA: $2.65 Cash/Ticket – $2.10 Card
SEPTA (Philly): $2.25 Cash – $1.80 Token
How did that slip by fact checking?
Actually, the late-night ridership dropped only after the first few months, especially after Summer ended. Being a life-long insomniac/late-night person, I used the service a lot, and noticed this. I also continued to read-up on it throughout the initial one-year trial, and unfortunately saw continued reports saying the numbers were lower than hoped, much to my dismay.
Despite using the service a lot, I personally think that the loss is somewhat overblown—especially since it was only two nights a week. People act like this is a Boston-specific deficiency and constantly rely on the “Puritan” stereotype excuse, but this is not unique to Boston—almost all cities I’ve lived in (Montreal, SF, etc) close their subways around midnight, and most similarly-sized cities also have “bar hours” well beyond “subway hours” because it’s just too expensive to maintain late-night subways. Even NYC’s late-night service is a small subset of normal service, for a metro area of 20+ million. This is why it bugs me when articles try to make the mayor’s attempt to extend last-call depend on late-night T service. Before this late-night trial, the T always closed around 1am (depends on station of last train), while last-call was 2am—so why would the T matter if last-call were 3am or 4am? The two times were never tied together here before (nor almost anywhere else).
That being said, I still don’t understand why they can’t make this work with limited bus service. It’s understandable that keeping the subway open requires keeping the entire infrastructure open, and thus is immensely expensive and why other similarly-sized US cities don’t have late-night service. However, keeping a handful of the larger bus routes open should be a fraction of the cost of the subway. They tried this with the “night owl” service years ago, but it must have been mismanaged.
The night owl service was a disaster and a joke, and showed buses are not the answer. NYC’s 24 hour service is also very comprehensive, by the way. Sure they might only run the local or the express train (vs both local and express), and they might run at reduced head ways, but pretty much every line is getting service unless there is planned maintenance.
As for late night subway service here in Boston – minus revenue it is costing 10 million a year (and that was for the fully extended hours). The T’s budget is 2 billion. That is .005% of the T’s overall budget to have something, like you pointed out, would make Boston stand out/be different than similarly sized cities in the country. To call the extended late night service ‘immensely expensive’ is disingenuous.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m with you on this, but that’s not what I was arguing. I was mainly objecting to the part in the article (like many articles like this) that made the short-sighted connection between bars/resto closing hours and the T’s hours, when it never mattered before over decades when bars closed at 2am and the T closed by 1am, and it never mattered in other cities. This late-night trial is only a recent phenomenon largely funded by a private restaurant association for the first year, yet many writers act like this is the way it has been since the beginning of time. People get home here and other cites fine, and my point about NYC (where I’ve lived twice) is that—even there—people tend to take cabs/uber or walk home later into the morning due to convenience or safety concerns. While late-night subway is certainly preferred, the lack of it doesn’t necessarily mean the lack of a rich late-night culture.
Regarding budgets–unfortunately, that’s not how budgets work. You don’t just take an overall annual budget and say X is only Y% of total Z for the entire year, and ignore the details within. Almost everything seems trivial at an overall, annual level. However, the T’s budget comes out of the state budget, and that $10M added to the T is also $10M removed (or lost potential) from other state services, and not seen as trivial to them. Another $10M for the T may seem like a no-brainer on it’s own, but when pitted against $10M to help a social service for the poor, or to help public schools, it suddenly doesn’t look so hot. The purpose of a budget is to identify specific strengths/weaknesses, and subway budgets are judged based on gains/losses per rider at specific times. Using this measure, the overnight service is viewed by the state as a heavy loss per rider. I’m not saying this is the right way to view the T’s budget—I’m just saying this how it currently works, and you’re realistically not going to win the fight by hiding specific losses in the overall total. Of course, gov’t agencies get away with this all the time, but the T is now under a budgetary microscope, and can’t get away with it like others. To add T services, you need to add revenue sources, rather than take-away from the existing state budget. Note that the first year of late-night service was heavily subsidized by the private sector, which is why it changed from 3am to 2am shortly after.
But again, I’m with you for the end goal–I just have a different approach to reach it. Personally, I’d love to see the city/state take a more aggressive approach to a more car-free urban future, and raise money for public transport by 1) raising the price of city parking (if the governor is using the idea of raising T prices based on prices in other cities, then he (and local mayors) should also look at the price of parking in other cities—Boston is way cheaper than cities like SF); and 2) a city toll system for non-delivery/work vehicles like in London. You then get indirect revenue for the T from these two sources, and even if a lot of people switch commutes from car to T, you then get added T revenue directly because of the uptick in T passes sold. It is also more locally-generated, so we aren’t fighting with western MA, like with a state-wide tax.
So if users need to pay for what they use, why aren’t we raising the gas tax so car users can pay for highway improvements?