Transportation Troubles

Anger brewed in Copley Square this Monday as hundreds of citizens gathered at a public hearing to protest looming fare hikes and service cuts on the part of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. In a move that many have decried as unfair, the MBTA plans to drastically raise prices and cut service in order to achieve financial stability. Although the painful fare increases are necessary to prevent a dire situation from worsening, we should bear in mind that a large part of the T’s debt is a direct result of the Big Dig project. We believe that the T should be allowed to operate on its own, without having to take responsibility for the mismanagement of others. By absorbing the Big Dig debt that the T unjustly shoulders, state authorities could mitigate the harmful impact of current public transportation restructuring plans on Boston’s residents.

The MBTA is currently saddled with a debt of $5.5 billion and faces a deficit of $161 million. About a third of this debt is the legacy of costs associated with the Big Dig project, incurred to fund expansion efforts that mitigated the negative environmental impact of the development. As the Big Dig primarily benefited commuters from well-to-do suburban areas, it is unfair that Boston’s urban residents—many of them impoverished—must shoulder part of the cost. If the state were to assume this part of the T’s debt, it would provide significant relief for the system’s financial situation. Not only would the overall debt load be slashed, but so would the deficit, as interest payments decreased.

A structural deficit and a lack of revenue are still serious issues, ones the T needs to address. However, it seems to be going about this in a manner that is alarmingly shortsighted. To provide just one example, under current plans, parking fares at public transportation hubs are set to increase by up to 28 percent, while regular subway fares would do so 35 percent or more. This arrangement seems to favor commuters over people who live in the city. Presumably, the average commuter is able to stomach fare increases more than the average inner city dweller. Thus, this arrangement should be reversed.

In addition, financial solutions for the T need not come solely from fare increases or service cuts. One innovative solution would be to introduce a congestion charge for driving in the city center, similar to the one London already has in place. Revenue from this measure could be used to fund the subway and bus systems. The overall effort should be one of redistribution from those able to afford increases to those who will struggle to do so. Another solution would be to redirect revenue temporarily from toll roads, which is currently restricted to use on tolled assets only. This could serve as a short-term solution until the MBTA is able to stand on its own once more.

While the city’s residents are entitled to feel dismay at the pending changes in the T, they would do well to bear in mind that Boston’s transportation system is among the least expensive of its kind. New York City, for instance, charges $2.25 per subway ride; in London, the fares are even higher. Although the T’s service is arguably worse than that provided in other cities, this is partly a result of its relatively low charges. Fare increases, coupled with a brighter fiscal outlook, could pave the way for a better T service. One place to start would be to extend the subway system’s hours of operation, which severely restrict late-night transportation options.

Although the T needs to solve its fiscal woes, its debt stems at least in part from past mismanagement, and should be addressed accordingly. The current plan to endow the MBTA with financial stability will unfairly affect lower income communities. The proposal should be amended to spare the needy as much suffering as possible. We envision a T that is financially independent and capable of equitably providing Boston’s citizens with better service—a T that the city can be proud of and that it deserves.