The announcement of a fare increase is never welcome news for transportation users, and Tuesday’s bombshell from the MBTA that it is proposing a hike of between 35% and 43% across the board come July, accompanied by drastic service cuts, made it a very unhappy New Year around the Commonwealth. CLF, along with our fellow members of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) — a diverse coalition of Massachusetts organizations working for an environmentally sustainable, reliable and affordable transportation system — oppose a fare increase that by itself can’t begin to fix the T’s financial problems and is inherently unfair.

T4MA objects to the MBTA’s proposal because it attempts to solve a much larger problem of insufficient funding for public transportation exclusively on the back of transit riders, who are traveling in ways that reduce traffic and benefit the environment. Any fare increase should be part of a comprehensive financial plan that addresses not only the MBTA’s operating deficit for at least the next several years, but also provides the funds needed to address the T’s maintenance and capital needs without further driving up debt service costs.

Moreover, a blanket fare increase affecting the bus, subway, and commuter rail system at the same rate takes into account neither the different needs of different transit users nor the varied costs of providing transit for buses, the subway, and commuter rail. The result would be to disproportionately burden the transit users who can least afford it, particularly bus riders.

And it’s not just public transportation that’s chronically underfunded and nearing collapse. It’s our roads and bridges and the entire transportation system in Massachusetts. Likewise, it is not just public transportation that is supported by state and federal government — the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is heavily subsidized. As both drivers and public transportation users share the benefits of a working transportation system–from easier access to where we need to go to reduced congestion to cleaner air–so must they share the burden of  financing it. Any fare increases must be paired with other revenue-generating mechanisms with a goal of funding a transportation system that works for everyone.

At a MassDOT Board of Directors meeting Wednesday, board members expressed deep concern about the MBTA’s proposal. T and MassDOT officials said that the public’s input will be key in finalizing a plan.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on the MBTA’s proposals in a series of hearings that will be held  around the state from mid-January through March. CLF and other T4MA members will be filing comments and testifying at the hearings to ensure that the interests of our various memberships are addressed in crafting the final proposal. We encourage you to attend a hearing and join us in calling for a plan that pairs any proposed increase with other revenue-generating mechanisms and fairly shares the burden of maintaining and improving our transportation system.

For more on the fare increase and how people are responding, check out some of the media coverage:

Proposed T Service Cuts, Fare Hikes: ‘Not An Easy Choice’ (WBUR)

MBTA Riders Could Face Steep Fare Hikes (AP)

“T” Faces Service Cuts, Fare Hikes (State House News Service)

MBTA Riders Face Fare Hikes as High as 43% (Fox 25 News)

South Station Hubway location. Image courtesy of dravium1 @ Flickr.

Yesterday, November 30, 2011, was the last day of operation for the Hubway until March of 2012, as recently reported by Eric Moskowitz at The Boston Globe. That sad occasion spurs me to reflect on what a great thing it is that bike sharing, bike lanes and a general shift in our transportation culture has come to Boston.

For well over a decade, I rode the rails of the MBTA – Boston’s erratic but generally effective public transit system – with the occasional long walk and requisite car commute sprinkled in. There is a long tradition of staff bicycling to work here at the Conservation Law Foundation‘s office in Boston. Not shocking, I know: through their work, my colleagues are acutely aware of the need to reduce fossil fuel use.. I must confess, however, that until this summer I was never one of our bicyclists. Well over 90% of the time my commutes have been on the MBTA.

And then came Hubway. Since July 31, 2011 I have used that system 54 times, mostly to make a commute in during the morning. During a business trip, I also bought and used a one-day guest pass on the slightly older sister program in Washington DC, the Capital Bikeway. In the last four months, I have ridden my bike to work more than I have in my decade of work at CLF. I know I’m not alone, either: Boston magazine’s Bill Janovitz wrote about his bike commuting habits today, while the new Boston edition of the real estate blog Curbed wrote about the effect of Hubway on property values.

That’s not to say Hubway is not without problems. Anyone who follows me on twitter knows that I have on occasion griped about aspects of the program, but the occasional full rack or difficult to return bicycle does not undermine my appreciation of the. Those complaints aside, the Hubway marks a fundamentally important step towards a city that celebrates diverse and non-motorized ways of getting from one place to another.

The deep and growing challenge of global warming, a problem inextricably linked to our fossil fuel dependence (and all the pollution and harm that comes with it), means that we need to deploy a very wide range of tools and efforts to change the way in which we use energy. Our frenzied use of energy to move ourselves around in our cars is a major part of the challenge we face.

Urban bicycling is a really pleasant way to begin that shift in a way that provides a little exercise and a chance to really experience and enjoy the city while reducing fossil fuel use and pollution. It can also be very convenient – for some trips across downtown Boston I am absolutely certain that a bike is the fastest way to get from point A to B as even the safest of riders who obeys all the lights can pass many cars stuck in traffic.

Change can be slow in coming. For example, my own town of Brookline may or may not be ready with its own Hubway stations when the system reopens in March. But the runaway success of the Hubway system, and the successful efforts by the City of Boston and so many others to launch the system shows that rapid change for the better is very possible.

Creating a better city, state, region, nation and world where our electricity comes from clean renewable sources and is used efficiently and we travel in a cleaner and saner way relying on our muscles as much as possible using trains, buses, cars and planes only when truly needed is very possible. It starts with giving people options – and having affordable (and subsidized for low-income residents) and high quality bicycles available for use across cities like Boston is definitely a step (and a pedal) in that direction.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (“MBTA”) spider-map has been praised and replicated in countries around the world, but it only takes one short look at the transit map to realize one obvious missing link: the Red Line and the Blue Line are the only two of Boston’s rapid transit lines that do not intersect. Six governors, over more than two decades, have legally committed the Commonwealth to fix this obvious problem. Earlier this week, however, the Patrick Administration decided to buck this trend by seeking permission to permanently and completely remove the legal obligation to finish the final design of the Red/Blue Line Connector, without proposing to substitute any other project for it.

The Red/Blue Line Connector was originally supposed to be completed by December 31 of this year. Less than five years ago, the Commonwealth had reaffirmed that it would at least design the connector by the same date. Part way through the design, the Commonwealth is throwing in the towel, stating that it is unrealistic to expect that construction of this project will be funded, although it has never really asked the state legislature or the federal government to fund this critical transit project and has not considered any more affordable options to accomplish the same goal. This is a symptom of the chronic underfunding of our transportation system. Instead of pushing forward and advocating for increased revenue, the State is now entering a dangerous trajectory of just giving up on beneficial projects.

As a result of this missing link, transit riders traveling from points along the Blue Line to the Red Line, or the other way round, must transfer twice by using either the Green or Orange Line, reducing ridership and unnecessarily increasing congestion at downtown Boston stations including Government Center, Park Street, State and Downtown Crossing. The need to transfer twice restricts access to jobs, such as those at the academic and medical institutions along the Red Line, particularly for residents of East Boston, Revere, Winthrop and Lynn, for whom the Blue Line is the only accessible subway route. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) projected that the Red/Blue Line Connector would more than double daily boardings, from 10,050 to 22,390, at the Charles/MGH Station alone.

The absence of a direct connection between the Red and Blue Lines makes travel far more difficult than necessary and often discourages the use of public transit. For example, coming home from Cambridge, an East Boston resident has to wait on three different platforms for three trains. This can take particularly long for people who work at night, as many do, since the MBTA Rapid Transit lines’ arrival and departure times at Park Street, Government Center, Downtown Crossing and State Street are not coordinated and the trains are frequently delayed.  Even if on schedule, at 9:00 p.m. on a weekday, a trip from Harvard Square to Maverick Station involves 28 minutes of waiting time alone. By contrast, the route can be driven in only 16 minutes, resulting in a clear disincentive to use public transportation and contravening the State’s policy, articulated in the Global Warming Solutions Act and elsewhere, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

Many people, however, do not have the choice between driving and taking public transportation. The Blue Line, more than any other MBTA rapid transit line, serves almost exclusively communities where a large percentage of residents depend on mass transit. At the same time, residents of these communities are also in need of greater access to jobs. Likewise, many Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) patients need to travel from Revere, where MGH has a satellite clinic, to the hospital’s main campus in Boston’s West End. Taking public transportation under the current circumstances is not a simple trek for the infirm.

The Department of Environmental Protection now gets to decide whether the Commonwealth can proceed to request a revision of the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Let’s hope that someone in the process that lies ahead has the vision to create not only a praiseworthy map but a good underlying public transportation system.

The Union Square area in Somerville is one of the communities that would be served by the Greenline Extension. (Photo credit: dales1, flickr)

Residents of Somerville and Medford, MA, were crushed and angry when on Monday transportation officials announced that the already-delayed Green Line Extension project would most likely not be completed before 2018. The project would extend the MBTA’s Green Line through parts of these two cities just north of Boston, where right now there is no subway service of any kind, but plenty of pollution from I-93 and diesel commuter trains.

The critical project has already suffered several setbacks, and after years of broken promises, the community has had enough. Over 1500 residents, including many who stayed in Somerville or Medford because of the Green Line Extension, signed this petition demanding that the state follow through on the project and that they release a definitive plan to the public on how it intends to do so.

Stand with the residents of Somerville and Medford in support of government accountability and better transportation options for communities that need them. Sign the petition today.

Photo credit: Stephanie Chappe

As budget woes continue to strain the Commonwealth’s ability to maintain its aging transportation system and constrain its vision for the system’s future, more than twenty Bay State organizations have formed Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) to advocate for alternative financing and improved accountability in pursuit of a modern transportation system that works for Massachusetts. T4MA brings together a broad cross-section of historically disconnected organizations in the areas of transportation, regional planning, affordable housing development, public health, environmental advocacy, environmental justice and smart growth that will use their diverse experience and collective influence to bring about a safe, convenient, reliable and affordable transportation system for the people of Massachusetts.

John Walkey, field organizer of T4MA, explained, “On behalf T4MA, we thank Mr. Mullan for his dedicated service and welcome Mr. Davey to his new position. We look forward to working with him to ensure that the Commonwealth will create and maintain a 21^st century transportation system that is at the heart of a thriving economy. The jobs and economic prosperity the State hopes to sustain cannot be built on top of an underfinanced and crumbling transportation system.” More >

Comedian Will Rogers once joked, “Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” He might have been advising the Commonwealth about the cost of inaction on the state’s much-needed public transportation projects. The Commonwealth announced yesterday that the Green Line Extension will be delayed yet again. MassDOT now is projecting that the earliest the Green Line Extension will go into service is in the Fall of 2018, but the moment the residents of Somerville and Medford have been waiting for could be as far away as 2020. That would be six years after the federally mandated deadline and fourteen years since the Big Dig was completed—a long delay considering that the extension of the Green Line was a firm commitment made to counter the air pollution from the Central Artery Project. The year 2020 happens to also be a benchmark year for the Commonwealth’s greenhouse gas reductions goal (25 percent of 1990 levels), which will be hard to reach without the help of transit projects like the Green Line Extension.

Sadly, less than five years after it reaffirmed the promise, MassDOT yesterday also announced that it is seeking permission from the Department of Environmental Protection to abandon its obligation to design another highly beneficial transit project, the connector of the Red Line and Blue Line, citing its increased cost estimate. Part of the reason the costs of the Red/Blue Connector have increased, however, is the Commonwealth’s own repeated delay of this important transit project. Construction projects get more expensive over time.  Likewise, the cost of the Green Line Extension can only be expected to increase as a result of the delay.

Fortunately, the Commonwealth will be required to put in place interim offset projects or measures to achieve the same air quality benefits the Green Line Extension would have during the time period of the delay starting on December 31, 2014. We hope those projects will be located in the areas the Green Line Extension is intended to serve. Although MassDOT has known for more than a year that the Green Line Extension will be delayed, we still do not know what these projects will be. We do know that they will not be free. That points to the fact that it would be a lot cheaper to build the extension than to keep delaying it. And that’s no laughing matter, especially these days.

This Orange Line car is clearly past its expiration date. (Photo credit: Hannah Cabot)

Tuesday morning, CLF Staff Attorney Rafael Mares was testifying at the Massachusetts State House against several bills that seek to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise limit tolls on the state’s highways, which serve as a significant source of transportation revenue. While the sentiment of wanting to decrease commuters’ transportation expenditures was noble, Mares said, “we cannot afford to reduce our already inadequate transportation revenues at this time, given the significant financial and physical challenges facing our state transportation system.” One of those challenges, he said, was the MBTA’s aging subway cars.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the river, there were 447 Red Line commuters on a train between the Porter and Harvard Square stations who knew exactly what he meant. Their six-car train broke down around 9 a.m., leaving its passengers stranded in the dark tunnel for at least two hours before rescue efforts began. The passengers were evacuated on foot, with the last emerging around 12:30 p.m., 3 1/2 hours after the initial breakdown.

This event may serve as the latest and some of the most troubling evidence of the MBTA’s funding deficit, but it certainly doesn’t stand alone.

“All 120 Orange Line cars are well past their intended lifespan,” Mares stated in his testimony. “Manufacturers build subway cars to last 25 years, provided they receive a mid-life overhaul to refurbish or replace major elements such as propulsion systems, brakes, lighting and ventilation. None of the now over 30-year-old Orange Line cars has been overhauled.

“These aging subway cars are challenging the MBTA’s ability to run a full set of trains each day, causing longer waits on platforms and more frequent service interruptions. A similar problem exists with one third of the Red Line cars, which as the Globe reported, ‘were pressed into service during Richard Nixon’s first term, and have not been overhauled for a quarter century.’ Neither their replacement nor the expansive band-aid of $100 million to keep the Orange and Red Line trains running is currently in the MBTA’s Capital Improvement Plan, which covers the next five years.”

However, tolls or no tolls, it’s clear that maintaining and expanding a functional transportation system in Massachusetts will require more funding from a more diverse portfolio of funding sources, and CLF is working with transportation experts, local legislators and community groups as part of the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) coalition to articulate what some of those options would look like. Learn more about CLF’s work on transportation funding here.

Former MWRA Executive Director Paul Levy (who has worn a lot of really interesting hats in his career) provides, in CommonWealth Magazine, this really interesting take on the Boston Harbor cleanup and lessons learned from that experience can inform decisions about the slow motion implosion of the transit system of Greater Boston.  Very important reading that nicely complements the good words and insights of Peter Shelley on this blog about the Harbor cleanup.

Big questions that hang in the area include:

• Noting that the cleanup has massively improved the harbor – if we did it all over again, would we employ a “big pipe and big plant” solution to the sewage and stormwater problem in Boston or use more local and distributed methods?
• What lessons learned from these case studies can be applied to the electricity system?
• What role does the existence of the massive highway system that spans the nation (and if you want to read a fascinating description of the creation of that system check out “The Big Roads” by Earl Swift) have on our other infrastructure planning and decision making?

Any thoughts on these questions?  The comments section below awaits.

Yesterday, the Globe published a story covering a legislative hearing about MBTA commuter rail service, specifically, reacting to passengers’ dissatisfaction with the system after a particularly harsh winter and increasing number of service interruptions. Department of Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Mullan reported that the combined on-time performance for all commuter rail lines was 72 percent– which may sound like a decent number until your train is one of the 28 percent that sat on the tracks through dinnertime or left you shivering on a platform for the first hour of your daily commute.

The article reports that much of the discussion focused on the woeful fiscal condition of our transportation system. With transportation officials throwing around numbers concerning operating budget deficits, capital needs, and debt, all in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it is easy to lose hope.  Funding transit, however, is not an intractable problem.  At the hearing, while repeating MassDOT’s focus on “reform before revenue,” Secretary Mullan stated that “we won’t be able to cost-cut our way out of the deficit,” and expressed need for a conversation about revenue.

A report released Tuesday by CLF and Northeastern‘s Dukakis Center suggests a framework around which such a conversation could begin. The framework explains the need for diversified transit financing and suggests putting the broadest possible range of revenue sources on the table at the outset. Such solutions could include lower off-peak fares or universal pass programs for students. There’s also the possibility of granting Massachusetts cities and towns the authority to raise additional local revenue in form of fees or taxes to support services like transit. Other states, including Rhode Island, are already deep into this conversation. It is time for Massachusetts to follow suit.

The framework was developed based on conclusions gleaned from a Blue-Ribbon Summit held by the two groups last November. The Summit brought leading transit finance experts from across the country together to explore potential solutions to better fund Massachusetts’ transit system. To learn more about CLF’s work to modernize transportation, go here.