Overview
Transit authorities like the MBTA need to have open and
transparent decision-making so they can be held accountable to the public.
Historically, the T has been slow to move on environmental and service
improvements. While the T’s hands are often tied when it comes to their
finances, the authority can do numerous things to improve fare equity, service
quality, and address customer input.
With a seat on the MBTA Rider Oversight Committee (TROC)
MASSPIRG has provided T officials with recommendations and responses from
citizens that want a better MBTA.
Fare equity
With each fare increase, riders are paying more for the same
level of service. The most recent fare increase of 2007 has finally outpaced
inflation. But along with high fares, the T’s fare structure also hits some
customers a lot harder.
Beginning in January 2007, the MBTA created a two-tier
system for bus and subway riders. Riders have the choice of purchasing a
CharlieCard, which is a plastic stored value card with a microchip that can be
used as a monthly/weekly pass. Or riders can purchase a CharlieTicket, which is
a paper card that is used for smaller amounts of rides. The difference is that
the CharlieTicket cost $2.00 for a subway and $1.50 for a bus ride, and the
CharlieCard only cost $1.70 for a subway and $1.25 on the bus. The T wants to
encourage use of the microchip CharlieCard because it will decrease boarding
times on the bus and green line. It is critical that riders understand the cost
difference, have adequate access to CharlieCards, that there is improve signage
at bus stops directing riders to where they can get CharliCards. Furthermore,
the T must make sure low-income communities are not being disproportionately charged
the higher fare.
Service quality
MASSPIRG and other transit advocates have successfully moved
the MBTA to implement an Automated Fare Collection system (AFC), a “smart card”
system much like the systems in Washington, D.C. and New
York City. AFC
provides tremendous opportunities for modernizing the MBTA; in addition to
making the system more accountable by enabling real-time ridership counts. For example, the MBTA could employ peak and
off-peak fares, distance-based fares, reduced-price day passes which would make
the system more equitable, all of which, experts agree, contribute to an
improved and more accessible system. AFC has also increased fare recovery and
decreased fare evasion, and could be used to direct resources to parts of the
system with greatest need. But the T must be held accountable to using AFC to
improve service and make sure the fare structure best serves the public
interest.
