Hi, your last point makes me think that we’re in agreement that it’s not worth making students pay for lunch. As for your other points, without annualizing it’

Hi, your last point makes me think that we’re in agreement that it’s not worth making students pay for lunch. As for your other points, without annualizing it’s actually a fairly significant line item — their budget is about 3 billion. Annualized it’s not as bad, but that is hardly relevant as the fact of the matter is it costed 934 billion. Why did cost that much? My best answer is that a bid was held and cubic transportation systems won. This does not mean that the price was reasonable, only that cubic won. As for the new income, yes, that’s true. Trains will run slightly faster as people can board on many doors above ground (free system also does this). Ridership may increase thanks to tap to pay. I discuss this. But they also have, on numerous occasions, drastically overestimated the new revenue. Newer estimates show that the systems enable more fare evasion than before, cutting into profits. My best guess as to why is mismanagement. After this was approved the MBTA’s management was overhauled for being a circus. If you want to write a data driven counter argument, I would be more than happy to link to it at the top of my piece and offer rebuttals