(Photo credit: Stephanie Chappe)

In anticipation of a state Joint Transportation Committee hearing on April 12, today, CLF and the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University released two reports to address the financial woes of public transportation in Massachusetts. The reports were based on conclusions gleaned from a blue-ribbon summit that the two groups co-hosted last November, which brought leading transit finance experts from around the country together to explore and develop solutions that can help build sustainable funding mechanisms for transit currently available in Massachusetts and allow expansion of those services over time. In addition, the reports are supplemented by a background paper describing the financial status of public transportation in Massachusetts and a series of options papers discussing the pros and cons of potential solutions to the problem.

Public transportation in Massachusetts is facing a stark financial crisis. The MBTA alone has a backlog of $3 billion of needed repairs and an increasing gap in its operating budget. The fifteen Regional Transit Authorities around the state, on the other hand, are forced to underserve their current customers because they lack a combined $125 million per year required just to meet present demand on existing bus routes.

Despite the fact that over the years they have received a lion’s share of transportation dollars, the state’s roads and bridges are also in desperate need of repairs. A few years ago, the Transportation Finance Commission projected that Massachusetts will have a $15-$19 billion gap in transportation resources over the next 20 years. While the existence and extent of this financial crisis is well documented, few solutions are currently on the table because so many stakeholders and policymakers mistakenly believe that transit finance in Massachusetts is an intractable and overwhelming problem for which no viable solution exists.

The important lessons learned from the summit include that:

• A financially stable public transportation system requires a healthy and diverse portfolio of revenue sources, rather than the current all-eggs-in-one-basket approach. The current funding system relies heavily on a small number of sometimes volatile funding sources, such as the sales tax.  The experts underscored the importance of  identifying brand new streams of revenue.

• With the chronic under-pricing of automobile travel, raising transit fares is not the answer.  Increased fares, at this time, would send the wrong price signals to transportation users and would create more incentive for people to drive, ultimately reducing the great economic, environmental, and social benefits of public transportation.

• Along with new revenue sources, such as vehicle-miles-traveled fees, universal transit pass programs, and increased registry fees, as well as further cost-efficiencies, a change in fare structures, rather than raising fares, and maximizing ridership are key strategies for generating user revenue equitably and affordably.

Read the full reports, background and option papers:

• Blue-Ribbon Summit Summary
• Blue-Ribbon Summit Framework
• Background Paper
• Option Papers

Question: What’s better than a bike share program in Boston? Answer: A bike share program in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline. And according to this article in yesterday’s Globe, a solution may be closer than we think. Local officials in those areas are exploring the feasibility of this the-more-the-merrier approach,  which would expand Boston’s original bike share proposal, first introduced about two years ago, into a regional program that would serve those additional densely-populated communities just outside the city’s core.

An effective bike share program would serve as a complement to the MBTA, increasing access to hard-to-reach areas not currently served by the T, such as Arlington, Medford, Somerville’s Union Square or Cambridge’s Inman Square, reducing stress on the MBTA system at peak times like during rush hour or following major sporting events (if you’ve ever tried to fight your way onto the green line after a Red Sox game, you know what I’m talking about) and providing yet another alternative to driving, reducing congestion on the city’s roadways.

Cities such as Minneapolis, Denver and Washington, DC already have bike share programs in place–and we should join them. CLF supports a regional bike sharing initiative for Boston and other sensible transportation alternatives that get more New Englanders out of their cars and into their communities, whether that’s on foot or by train, bus or bike.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and modernize transportation at clf.org.

Boston has been ranked one of the top 15 major cities for transportation by NRDC’s Smarter Cities project.  The study does not rank the cities, but Boston comes out on top alphabetically before Chicago, New York, Portland, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington–which, in our minds, means it’s number one!

While this is probably extremely hard to believe for Boston commuters who experienced too many delays as a result of the cold weather this winter, we will take a win over New York any way we can get it–particularly as the 2011 Red Sox are about to face the Yankee$ for the first time in the Grapefruit League tonight.

What helped put Boston on top? Among the factors on NRDC’s list were our our heavily-trafficked, far-reaching public transit system, including the planned Green Line extension, a project in which CLF is very involved.

See for yourself. Check out why else we made the list, and start thinking about how we can help the ruefully underfunded public transportation system in Massachusetts get better.

See what else CLF is doing to build better ways to get around in your community.

(Photo credit: terriseesthings, flickr)

The delays commuters suffered through during the recent cold weather spell have rudely exposed the MBTA’s decaying infrastructure and serious underlying financial problems.  Many of the MBTA’s vehicles are long beyond their useful life. Because of a lack of funding, the MBTA is forced to spend money to hold these vehicles together rather than to invest in new ones, which in the long run is a great waste of resources.

A February 13 editorial in the Boston Globe points to a source of funding that could be used to help address these problems: Logan Airport’s annual parking-fee revenues.  This is a great idea, considering the airport is one of the biggest beneficiaries of both the transit system and the Big Dig, but has only contributed a limited amount of resources so far. The value of transit system to the airport could easily be monetized through determining how many riders on the Blue and Silver Lines, for example, travel to and from the airport.

Maybe we can get a conversation going before the snow melts—our public transportation system is too important for the economic, environmental and social goals of the Commonwealth to endure further delay.

Be a superhero. Take the T.

In his column in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser illustrates that densely developed cities are better for the environment than leafy suburbs. The column correctly states that the average household in Boston’s urban core emits significantly fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per year, in part because people in the city drive less. Unfortunately, the column also states that public transportation “does little to balance the scales”— a statement that could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the use of public transit does little to decrease carbon emissions. In fact, Glaeser’s research that formed the basis for his conclusions indicates that although city dwellers tend to use more public transportation than suburbanites, their carbon footprint is still significantly lower precisely because the emissions from transit are modest relative to the contributions of cars. Travel by public transportation emits about half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile than private vehicles, and uses about half the fuel.

Glaeser’s message is clear. If we’re going to minimize our carbon footprint, we need to not only support denser development in downtown Boston, but also greater investment in our underfunded public transportation system.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and innovative transportation for all New Englanders.

MBTA General Manager Richard Davey likes to say “We’re only as good as our last rush hour,’’ and by that standard the T is not doing very well right now. The long delays throughout system on a recent frigid day have enraged commuters and discouraged new riders from getting onboard, as Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz wrote in an article published in yesterday’s paper.

The T, to its credit, did not pretend it was surprised it gets cold in Boston in January. When it discusses the T’s “aging fleet” the Globe hints at the real reason for these delays:  a long list of necessary repairs to its system that the T estimates will cost at least $2.7 billion to address.  Despite the ingenuity of MBTA’s employees to keep the system running, the only way we can ensure that the T runs smoothly in the future is to raise sufficient revenue to pay for much delayed improvements.  While few in government right now want to talk about raising revenue, investment in public transportation infrastructure, not just for the MBTA, but throughout the state, is critical for encouraging economic development, slashing the greenhouse gas pollution changing our climate, improving air quality, and providing affordable and efficient transportation for everyone.

Boston’s iconic Longfellow Bridge serves as a poster child for public transit. Every few minutes, the bridge transports Red Line commuters between Boston and Cambridge, affording its passengers a breathtaking view of the Charles River and Boston skyline– and the parallel lanes of bumper-to-bumper vehicle traffic that the speeding train leaves in its wake. While that’s a positive situation for MBTA riders, it’s a dangerous one for the rest of the city’s commuters who don’t cross the bridge by car– cyclists and pedestrians.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division had released plans to rebuild the historic bridge as is. In May 2010, CLF advocated for an alternative plan that would make the bridge more bike and pedestrian-friendly. In response to CLF’s call to action, MassDOT created the Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation Task Force, which recently released its recommendations on what alternatives should be included in the project’s Environmental Assessment to submit to the Federal Highway Administration.

Last week, CLF submitted written comments to the Administrator of the Highway Division at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in response to those recommendations. In a letter to MasDOT Highway Division Administrator Luisa Paiewonsky, CLF explained that to comply with federal and state law, MassDOT should include at least one strong alternative plan for presentation and analysis that retains the current structure of the bridge throughout while altering its traffic pattern so that only one lane exists in both directions with a two-lane release into Charles Circle on the Boston side. Such an alternative would uphold the structural and architectural integrity of the bridge, help the state reach its health and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and improve safety for bikers and pedestrians.

Learn more about what CLF is doing the improve transportation alternatives in communities throughout New England.

As I sit on the crowded 32 bus for my usual 50-minute-plus journey to get to work, I find myself wondering why no one seems to care that people who ride these buses regularly have to squeeze together as if trying to fit into a human sardine can.

MBTA buses.

The 32, which is almost always packed, worsens traffic on the already congested Hyde Park Avenue. It runs from Wolcott Square in Hyde Park, through Roslindale, to Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain. I’ve been taking the 32 bus my entire life; I lived in Roslindale until I was thirteen, then moved to Hyde Park. However, it hasn’t been until recently that I’ve started questioning the priorities of the MBTA.

Taking the 32 bus to Forest Hills then switching to the orange line to Downtown Crossing is the most convenient way for me to get downtown, where I’ve worked for the past two summers. I could also take the 50 bus to Forest Hills, which is sometimes a longer ride than the 32. The commuter rail, which costs more than twice the amount of the subway, takes only 20 minutes to get to South Station. My other option–taking the 33 or 24 bus to Mattapan Station, then taking the trolley to Ashmont Station, then switching to the red line–requires a little more effort and virtually the same amount of time. No relief.

Many times I have watched the commuter rail speed through Hyde Park Station, breathing in the fumes it leaves behind, trying to catch my breath as I race to catch the 32, and wonder why the people of this area are still cramming into one bus when there is a train that already runs through the neighborhood.

It has become quite apparent to me that the prices for the commuter rail need to be reduced so that common folk like me can afford to take it, otherwise there needs to be an extended train system to accommodate this area. Getting anywhere in Boston through public transit usually requires taking one of the four major lines–red, blue, green, and orange–all of which can only be accessed through a long bus ride from my area.

In an economy that’s stretched thin, like ours is, people have to go to greater lengths just to provide for their basic needs. Now, more than ever, there are so many other factors affecting daily life that to add something as miniscule as transportation to the laundry list is asking way too much for the average person. So instead, many are forced to brave long uncomfortable bus rides with the hope that there is at least one person associated with the MBTA who cares about providing adequate transit for those who need it.

I also cannot help but notice that some slightly more affluent areas of Boston seem to have a far more efficient transportation system than say, Hyde Park. This can only mean that public transportation is not prioritized by areas on a need basis. Don’t let the failing economy fool you; money is still being spent on public transit, just not in logical order. Despite what the MBTA cites as their reasons, the evidence is in the actions.

Maybe when I’m in my thirties they’ll finally get around to it.

Editor’s note: Tiffany Egbuonu is a Posse Scholar and a summer intern at CLF. She is entering her sophomore year at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, PA.

Do you find yourself relating to Tiffany? CLF is working to bring accessible and affordable transportation to ALL people in the Boston metro area and beyond. Read more about CLF’s public transit work  here.

Taking the “T” to the Next Level:
Solutions for Funding Boston’s Public Transit System
Remarks by James A. Aloisi, Jr.
Former Massachusetts Transportation Secretary
Discussion to Follow

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
8:00 AM – Welcome Breakfast
8:30 AM – Presentation begins
Federal Reserve Building
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210

NOTE: you must present photo ID to enter the Federal Reserve Building

A widely accessible, reliable and safe public transportation system is the backbone of a livable city. To meet the changing needs of its population and stimulate economic opportunity across the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation needs to do more than just resuscitate its existing system; it needs to invest in a public transportation system for the 21st century. But where is the money going to come from?

Former Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Aloisi will discuss innovative solutions for funding Boston’s public transit system. These solutions can create sustainable financing for the MBTA while paying enormous environmental dividends.

Come hear Mr. Aloisi’s ideas and weigh in with your own questions and thoughts on how to finance our public transit system for the future in this open community forum.

This event is open to the public. A few seats are still available; if you would like to join us – please RSVP to events@clf.org.