[vjulian]

If only they’d make the T fare free and run more frequently and later into the night. The C line in Brookline has the potential to be extremely convenient, but at present most of the time it’s easier to take an Uber, or drive.

[tapoxi]

It's what, $2.40? I don't think they need to make it fare free.

[vjulian]

Free fares would significantly increase ridership, no?

[bluGill]

Probably not. For most people cost is not the issue of why they don't ride. Free would increase a little, but most people are not riding because the service isn't there. Service can be one of Frequency, speed, or ability to get to the destination.

Transit needs to: Get you from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to go, in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable cost. If you lack any of those things and transit isn't useful. Generally cost is the only part of transit that is reasonable (but not always) and so it isn't something to focus on.

People who ask for free transit are really saying transit is for the poor and "normal people" should just drive.

[bombcar]

Worse, free fares can cause undesirables to cluster and abuse the system.

Transit begin able to be paid with a phone has removed most or all the "friction" arguments, the need is to make it reliable (arrive on time) and frequent (so you don't have to meticulously plan your day).

[AnthonyMouse]

> Transit begin able to be paid with a phone has removed most or all the "friction" arguments

That's the sort of thing that would get many people to avoid using it because of the growing (and accurate) sentiment that anything that requires you to use your phone is using it as a tracking device.

[bluGill]

Transit should accept lots of options. Your credit card, a phone, or a pass. Modern e-readers can read all of the above and are very cheap so there is no reason to refuse any (unless they charge too high of a fee)

If you want to remove friction set a way such that a family has a maximum monthly charge they will pay. It does mean you need to track people, but if you a careful in how this is done it is worth it since cost for frequent travelers could be an objection and you want this peace of mind that your max cost is known.

[potato3732842]

You're not wrong. But the MBTA went to phones because an insane fraction of the cash they handle "goes missing".

[AnthonyMouse]

> Free fares would significantly increase ridership, no?

It's not just about that. Higher transportation costs are heavily regressive. People with less money can't afford to live in the city and have to commute and then anything they pay to commute is independent of their wages, so $100 in fares is $100 whether you make $200k/year or $20k, whereas even the taxes like sales tax labeled as "regressive" would have the former person paying ten times more than the latter.

Moreover, fares are often heavily subsidized to begin with -- in large part because of the above -- but then not zeroing them out requires you to still pay the full cost of the collections infrastructure. Which is actually really expensive, because then you need turnstiles, payment processing equipment, security to prevent theft or card skimming, billing departments to deal with credit card fraud or chargebacks, customer service when people have problems, enforcement against people who skip the fare, etc. None of those costs go away if the fare is even $0.01, but they all disappear when it's actually zero.

And people who have never used it before then wouldn't have to figure out how to set it up, which is a significant source of friction independent of the fare and can cause people to just get an Uber (which they've already set up) or rent a car etc. Which causes people to never even try using mass transit, and then regard it as that thing they never use so why is the government spending money on it, instead of that thing that was convenient to use when their car was in the shop and made them realize that they can get by as a one-car household instead of two, or at least something worth supporting because they remember actually using it.

On top of that, removing the fares is better for privacy because then you're not tying your movement history to your payment card.

[pugworthy]

Speaking generally, free fairs also provide various benefits to a community such as reduced use of cars and easier access for lower income access to jobs and services.

[anthonypasq]

you probably dont live in Boston, because there is no one on the planet that drives into boston rather than taking the T because its too expensive. people drive downtown and pay $40 for parking instead of taking the T.

[AnthonyMouse]

That's assuming there is nothing else on the ledger.

Suppose you have to choose between a suburban house without any convenient access to mass transit (i.e. you're going to have to drive everywhere) or a more expensive unit which is closer to the city and is near a transit stop. Paying $40 for parking is going to offset the cost advantage of the less expensive housing and leave a lot of people near the breakeven point, and then a $100/mo difference in transit fares could be the deciding factor.

[anthonypasq]

theres plenty of essentially free park and ride stations. theres commuter rail access in basically a 1 hour drive radius of the city. nothing about what you said is relevant.

rich people (of which boston has plenty even in the burbs where average house prices are 800k+) pay to avoid existing near poor people. they think they are going to get stabbed on the subway.

if the subway was faster, safer, cleaner, but more expensive, more people would use it.

[chollida1]

Yes, and reduce its revenue that it needs to properly run and upgrade its existing infrastructure.

Why do you think they charge in the first palce?

[pugworthy]

Rider fair is only one way to fund transit. My city (Corvallis, OR) provides free bus service city wide since 2011. The newest addition is free bus service to surrounding cities (up to McMinville and down to Eugene).

It's paid for with state and federal grants, university (OSU) contribution, as well as a utility fee.

[venturecruelty]

Because governments aren't allowed to simply provide services for free anymore. It is inconceivable that something like moving around on mass transit would be free at point of use.

[anthonypasq]

brother the MBTA arleady bleeds money at an astounding rate despite a large budget and fairs.

Why would your solution to be to make the rest of the state pay more for services they cant even use rather than make the people that use it pay the true cost it take to run it?

People that drive cars actually pay most of the cost to upkeep car infrastructure. people that ride the T dont.

[venturecruelty]

Call me crazy, but maybe mass transit doesn't need to make money to be useful. Maybe the entire point of government is to provide services to its citizens. I mean, I don't pay $2.40 every time we drone strike some Yemeni wedding, right? Why should I have to pay to take a train in a city, which is about a thousand times more useful to me?

>People that drive cars actually pay most of the cost to upkeep car infrastructure. people that ride the T dont.

This is... so ridiculously untrue. Most car-dependent infrastructure is funded with federal dollars, the vast majority of which are conjured up out of thin air and vibes.

[mindslight]

I haven't been there in a while. Is one of the four bars in Brookline now open past 8PM or something?

[paleotrope]

There are a few, but they are trying to fix that since no one stays up that late.

[vjulian]

The Abbey is often buzzing until 2am. Food served after midnight, too.

[anthonypasq]

the MBTA already absolutely bleeds an incredible amount of money. No businesses in Boston are even open late, theres no night life. 90% of the young people in the city are nerds doing Phds.

I loved living right on the red line, but its just not worth it unless we figure out how to make it not cost a fortune.

[fragmede]

Why does it have to make money? We don't ever expect the welfare department to suddenly turn a profit, do we?