Is the Commuter Rail "Inequitable"?

This article will tell you that it is...
https://massinc.org/2022/02/03/for-the- ... -got-away/

The MBTA presented a package of proposed fare reductions to its new governing board late last month. Billed as an effort to increase equity, it’s hard to see how the changes will do anything but prolong and perhaps even amplify current inequities.

If the MBTA were willing to let these low-wage workers on commuter rail coaches with plenty of empty seats, they could cut an hour off their daily commute, the MVRTA could replace Boston-bound buses with much-needed local service, and the MBTA could capture revenue from discounted fares that it’s been passing up for way too long. Under the previous board, the MBTA was moving incrementally toward this win-win-win scenario, but now the agency appears to be backsliding.

Now, part of me thought this article was ridiculous, and the other part of me thought it made a decent point, what are your thoughts? Is this just some more woke whining or are the MASSINC staff onto something? I'll leave it up to you folks to decide for yourselves below.

Are the MVRTA riders paying MBTA taxes?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Yes,
And discounted tickets are better than NO tickets.
The whole point of passenger rail is that it's higher capacity than buses, and faster, as it doesn't have to deal with all the other drivers.
If there is excess capacity on the passenger trains now, use it.
The time saved for the riders could have economic benefits, down the road.

Looks reasonable to me. The T and the state own a lot of passenger train infrastructure. The state owns a lot of congested highways. Local RTAs are running some buses parallel to passenger trains, on those congested highways. It looks like it might be possible to cut fares on certain routes and attract enough additional riders to more than make up for the lower fares, and maybe even allow for expanded rail service that would benefit both existing and new customers.

CR has been run for decades with a low-use, high-price business model. Maybe instead it could work as a high-use, low-price business model.

Trains are all about economies of scale.

And if the state and the T and some of the member towns currently manipulate the fare structure to try to lure people from posh towns onto the train, while pricing potentially larger number of more ordinary people off the trains, that does seem like a potentially unjust use of state resources. I don't think it's whining to point out that the T courts people in Prides Crossing more than it course people in Lawrence or Brockton, when the whole state would be better off if people in those last two had easier access to better jobs AND there are enough potential pax in those last two places to spread out the fixed costs of infrastructure and the semi-variable costs of running any individual train over a much larger number of passengers.

Of course, if you get enough folks switching over from the buses, then DMU/EMU/BMU and S bhan type service needs to be implemented.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 11:34 am I don't think it's whining to point out that the T courts people in Prides Crossing more than it course people in Lawrence or Brockton

I'll point out Prides Crossing has been closed since March 2020.

Putting aside the larger no-fare discussion and assuming fare revenue remains it costs money to operate and maintain the service. It costs more money to run a train 40 miles than it does to run a train 10 miles, and it costs more to maintain 40 miles of track and signals than 10 miles. So the commuter rail pricing largely revolves around distance traveled (cost per mile), though some extensions and changes have thrown some of that out-of-sync and it may need to be re-addressed system-wide, it's still reasonable to charge transportation for distance traveled. Every other mode that isn't "transit" tends to do that (planes, Amtrak, etc.).

But is this equitable? I don't know - everyone pays the same price for the same distance traveled, sounds fair to me.

The reality is the revenue is still needed, and then the T gets a subsidy. So something has to give. If the reduction in fare price doesn't increase ridership enough to offset the loss of revenue of existing ridership that means the T needs more subsidy. For example 10 riders at $10 per ticket is $100. If I cut the fare in half, I've cut my existing revenue in half. I need to now double my ridership to make the same revenue. So 20 riders at $5 per ticket. The trick is to find the right balance in fare reduction and ridership increased to either meet or exceed existing revenue.

I think a better approach is to offer programs or subsidies directly to those communities/individuals to cover part or all of the fare, and then you still retain the revenue for the existing ridership while boosting new reduced fare ridership. In short, expand or overhaul the T's existing reduced fare in terms of commuter rail, and establishing eligibility requirements for it. This in itself could be a hurdle though, because low-income individuals aren't always good at finding these types of programs.

mbrproductions wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:29 am Now, part of me thought this article was ridiculous, and the other part of me thought it made a decent point, what are your thoughts? Is this just some more woke whining or are the MASSINC staff onto something? I'll leave it up to you folks to decide for yourselves below.

I'm not sure what you mean about woke whining, you should probably consider another way to describe your meaning. As for my thoughts, it costs the same to operate an empty train as it does to operate a full train. More butts in seats means more revenue, even if some of the tickets are discounted. Airlines have known this for decades, I see no reason why regional rail systems can't follow a similar pricing model. I also like Trinnau's suggestion, of discounted fares being administered through some non-MBTA system, if the T can't handle fingering it out.

Trinnau wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:20 pm
I think a better approach is to offer programs or subsidies directly to those communities/individuals to cover part or all of the fare, and then you still retain the revenue for the existing ridership while boosting new reduced fare ridership. In short, expand or overhaul the T's existing reduced fare in terms of commuter rail, and establishing eligibility requirements for it. This in itself could be a hurdle though, because low-income individuals aren't always good at finding these types of programs.

This discussion makes me want to throw up.

MVRTA Boston bound busses are MCI coachs. Tough to use those on a fixed route. Longer than an average transit bus. I don't think they would fit at their transit centers in Haverhill and Lawrence. Maybe an express Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill route?

If everyone is paying the same fare on the train per their age, it's equitable. I pay the same for an express or a local. That's equitable in that I'm paying for the same distance carried, not the time spent on the train.

Another agency offering a lower & slower bus is simply competition.

If fares were based on your AGI or zip code, that would be inequitable but in the opposite direction of what the author was inferring.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

It's not all about fares as the scheduling plays into the "equity" too. I worked on a number of construction
projects in downtown Boston from the late '90s to about 2005 or so and while this is now ancient history,
the issue is still relevant. As a worker bee (electrician) I had to be on the job at 7 AM or earlier and looked
into riding in from Newburyport but none of the trains arrived early enough to give me the 15-20 minutes
from North Station to the job. The alternative was to drive all the way or get on the T at Wonderland, the
determining factor being the parking situation near the job. It was explained to me at the time that this
was done on purpose so the professional/ office worker crowd wouldn't have to rub elbows with blue
collar workers, forcing the latter onto buses or the subway. The difference in work hours between the two
groups would have mitigated this somewhat, separating the two groups to a degree.

HenryAlan wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:58 pm More butts in seats means more revenue, even if some of the tickets are discounted.

Ay, there's the rub: I can't think of any way you can build a fence around the present fares paid by present passengers boarding at the same station as the new riders getting the discount. How can you distinguish*, and what would the present passengers think of it? Trinnau's point is correct that you'd have to attract enough new passengers at the discounted fare to make up for what you lose from the present passengers.

It seems like a more realistic idea to funnel the discount through local municipalities as suggested, rather than make a transportation entity responsible for distributing social benefits.

* The airlines (and Amtrak) do it by the date the reservation is made; not applicable in a commuter-rail environment.

All these extra trips would seem to require the Post Office additional tracks and what about North station additional tracks? Can any be restored, and would the bridges north of the station need more work?

I'm not sure what you mean about woke whining, you should probably consider another way to describe your meaning.

My choice of wording was in reference to how when Progressive ideas are criticized or outright dismissed, they are usually referred to as woke whining, because the contents of the article are what most people would consider progressive, and has/will likely be labelled as "woke whining" by critics, I decided to use the term as a short and simple way of describing what the critical opposition to it may look like. Basically, I was not claiming that I believed it was "woke whining", I used the term because i knew that is what some people would refer to it as, I myself have no opinion on it (yet) and decided to bring it here to see what people thought.

west point wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:36 pm All these extra trips would seem to require the Post Office additional tracks and what about North station additional tracks? Can any be restored, and would the bridges north of the station need more work?

Another point in favor of a North-South Rail Link, probably requiring four tracks ...