6 ms·

Boston public transport is a mess due to long years of underfunding and neglect. The pandemic and the general crappiness of service has hit rider numbers hard a

Boston public transport is a mess due to long years of underfunding and neglect. The pandemic and the general crappiness of service has hit rider numbers hard and I fear that the Boston subway system is in a death spiral. The new line extension was a rare bit of good news and a welcome addition but having badly laid track is all to common here. I actually rode the tracks in question last month and remarked how smooth they seemed compared to the rest of the green line. I guess that was too good to last.

gottorf 3y ago
> due to long years of underfunding and neglect I'm not sure how much more funding it could possibly get? Even before the pandemic, the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue[0], meaning the other two thirds was paid for by other sources. Notably, operating income wasn't even enough to pay wages and benefits for MBTA employees. The majority of those "other sources" was transfers from the state sales tax[1], meaning people living in Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Chatham were contributing to a system they don't use. Since the pandemic, public transit systems all across the country took a huge hit in ridership, and received federal funding as well, so now you have people living in California, Kansas, and Mississippi all chipping in, too. Now I understand that taxation provides for the common welfare, and everyone subsidizes everybody else at some point, but with Greater Boston having the fifth-highest per capita income of all metros[2], I find it a little strange that the T requires such a great subsidy. [0]: https://www.mbta.com/financials/audited-financials https://www.mbta.com/financials/audited-financials [1]: https://www.mbta.com/financials/mbta-budget https://www.mbta.com/financials/mbta-budget [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/610026/us-metropolitan-areas-with-the-highest-per-capita-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/610026/us-metropolitan-a...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nobodywasishere 3y ago
  The funding for the T has to come from the state due to how it's structured, meaning the only possible way for funding to increase is for it to come out of the state budget. I agree that it should be handled at a city/local level.
  - fader 3y ago
    This is, in fact, a huge part of the problem with the T. A the majority of people that benefit from it -- those outside of Boston who get the gains of its economic benefit without being dependent on it for transit -- are in a position to defund it. It's a microscopic repeat of the US as a whole, where the geographically larger but empty regressive areas can reap the benefits of the more concentrated and productive areas while simultaneously contributing far less but convincing themselves that they're somehow being victimized. Without Boston, Massachusetts would be significantly poorer. But without the rest of Massachusetts, Boston would be significantly richer.
- fader 3y ago
  > the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue This is not a great argument, in that public transit is a public good and should not be expected to fully pay for itself. Public transit enables other economic behavior. Similarly, we don't expect roads to pay for themselves -- they're a public utility that enables other revenue producing behavior. > people living in Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Chatham were contributing to a system they don't use I don't have children but I'm happy to pay taxes that support public schools because I reap the benefits of an educated populace. Boston produces the plurality of state revenue[0], far more than Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, or Chatham. The residents of those towns are happy to take revenue generated in and by Boston to pay for their services, but consistently vote against properly funding the T. Which is shortsighted, because cities with public transportation produce $1.5B more revenue per year[1], meaning those cities would have _lower_ taxes if they supported the T. [0]: http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-8f8f-a51fcddd62c0/ http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-... [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-transit-is-worth-way-more-to-a-city-than-you-might-think https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-tr...
  - landemva 3y ago
    > we don't expect roads to pay for themselves Taxes are included in fuel price at the pump, and some States are finally beginning to charge EV owners for road usage. States around east coast collect ~50 cents per gallon. It's wasted funding and lack of accountability, not lack of funding that roads are not better maintained.
    - fader 3y ago
      Gas taxes pay for less than half of what's required for road maintenance[0]. Again, we don't expect roads to make a profit, but somehow mass transit has to play by other rules. Cars are far, far more subsidized than public transit[1]. (Even these analyses tend to ignore externalities like "free" parking. In what other realm would you ever expect to permanently store your private property on public land without paying and have it protected by the police?) Driving is so incredibly heavily subsidized in the US that people genuinely _believe_ things like paying a miniscule tax at the pump covers the actual cost of driving. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking-the-myth-that-because-of-the-gas-tax-only-drivers-pay-for-roads https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking... [1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportat...

gottorf 3y ago

> due to long years of underfunding and neglect I'm not sure how much more funding it could possibly get? Even before the pandemic, the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue[0], meaning the other two thirds was paid for by other sources. Notably, operating income wasn't even enough to pay wages and benefits for MBTA employees. The majority of those "other sources" was transfers from the state sales tax[1], meaning people living in Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Chatham were contributing to a system they don't use. Since the pandemic, public transit systems all across the country took a huge hit in ridership, and received federal funding as well, so now you have people living in California, Kansas, and Mississippi all chipping in, too. Now I understand that taxation provides for the common welfare, and everyone subsidizes everybody else at some point, but with Greater Boston having the fifth-highest per capita income of all metros[2], I find it a little strange that the T requires such a great subsidy. [0]: https://www.mbta.com/financials/audited-financials https://www.mbta.com/financials/audited-financials [1]: https://www.mbta.com/financials/mbta-budget https://www.mbta.com/financials/mbta-budget [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/610026/us-metropolitan-areas-with-the-highest-per-capita-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/610026/us-metropolitan-a...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nobodywasishere 3y ago
The funding for the T has to come from the state due to how it's structured, meaning the only possible way for funding to increase is for it to come out of the state budget. I agree that it should be handled at a city/local level.
- fader 3y ago
  This is, in fact, a huge part of the problem with the T. A the majority of people that benefit from it -- those outside of Boston who get the gains of its economic benefit without being dependent on it for transit -- are in a position to defund it. It's a microscopic repeat of the US as a whole, where the geographically larger but empty regressive areas can reap the benefits of the more concentrated and productive areas while simultaneously contributing far less but convincing themselves that they're somehow being victimized. Without Boston, Massachusetts would be significantly poorer. But without the rest of Massachusetts, Boston would be significantly richer.
fader 3y ago
> the T was only pulling in roughly a third of its operating expenses in revenue This is not a great argument, in that public transit is a public good and should not be expected to fully pay for itself. Public transit enables other economic behavior. Similarly, we don't expect roads to pay for themselves -- they're a public utility that enables other revenue producing behavior. > people living in Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Chatham were contributing to a system they don't use I don't have children but I'm happy to pay taxes that support public schools because I reap the benefits of an educated populace. Boston produces the plurality of state revenue[0], far more than Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, or Chatham. The residents of those towns are happy to take revenue generated in and by Boston to pay for their services, but consistently vote against properly funding the T. Which is shortsighted, because cities with public transportation produce $1.5B more revenue per year[1], meaning those cities would have _lower_ taxes if they supported the T. [0]: http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-8f8f-a51fcddd62c0/ http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cb7ed639-177c-43f0-... [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-transit-is-worth-way-more-to-a-city-than-you-might-think https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/public-tr...
- landemva 3y ago
  > we don't expect roads to pay for themselves Taxes are included in fuel price at the pump, and some States are finally beginning to charge EV owners for road usage. States around east coast collect ~50 cents per gallon. It's wasted funding and lack of accountability, not lack of funding that roads are not better maintained.
  - fader 3y ago
    Gas taxes pay for less than half of what's required for road maintenance[0]. Again, we don't expect roads to make a profit, but somehow mass transit has to play by other rules. Cars are far, far more subsidized than public transit[1]. (Even these analyses tend to ignore externalities like "free" parking. In what other realm would you ever expect to permanently store your private property on public land without paying and have it protected by the police?) Driving is so incredibly heavily subsidized in the US that people genuinely _believe_ things like paying a miniscule tax at the pump covers the actual cost of driving. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking-the-myth-that-because-of-the-gas-tax-only-drivers-pay-for-roads https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunking... [1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportat...