We are writing to oppose the fare increase proposed by the MBTA. We oppose the fare increase because it represents poor policy, especially poor environmental policy. The most important question to ask when making decisions for the MBTA is do we want to encourage people to take public transportation, or do we want to encourage people to drive their cars. The answer is clear: Taking public transportation is preferable. As the MBTA says in its own "Fare Policy Statement, "MBTA’s services constitute an important public good… [that are] key to the long-term economic, social, and cultural vitality of the region." The MBTA statement points out that both well-functioning roadways and clean air are dependent on the "widespread use of mass transit in lieu of private vehicles." The policy statement states that "users and non-users alike benefit from the MBTA’s services and should pay their fair share of the cost of those services….People who do not ride the MBTA should help pay for the public benefits generated by the MBTA…" Every time someone takes public transportation, they help make the air cleaner and the streets less congested. They cut our contribution to global warming and our dependence on foreign (and domestic) oil. They also, by the way, decrease water pollution by leaving less oil and residues from burning gas on the streets where it washes into storm drains and from there into the closest body of water.

How then, if taking public transportation has so many benefits for all of us, including the drivers left on the roads, would the MBTA justify raising fares, which all previous experience has shown decreases ridership and pushes people to drive?

The MBTA is arguing that our fares are low in comparison to other cities that have public transportation systems. Having the lowest fares, if it were true, would be something to be proud of, not something to remedy. However it is not clear that we do have such low fares. We do not provide transfers of any kind which many of the systems used for comparison do. That increases our fares substantially. If you change vehicles twice on your commute, it could triple your fare. So base fares are probably not the appropriate comparison for what cities have the lowest fares.

There is also an issue of equity. The MBTA says that, as a matter of policy, riders least able to pay (those with the lowest incomes), should pay the lowest fares. Yet those most likely to pay multiple fares are people living in low income communities who are served by buses. They are more likely to have to take a bus to the subway or another bus. People in low income communities paying two or three fares to get to work or medical care are paying more per mile and sometimes even more overall than people taking single rides on express buses or the subway/trolley. Moreover, the T should be proud to have low fares if it does. This is not a problem to fix, but an achievement to maintain. We should keep our fares low, so it is clearly cheaper to take public transportation than to drive. We should keep our fares low so that people will and will want to use the subway, the trolley, the buses and the trains. The MBTA is competing for riders, and it needs to win the competition.

The MBTA argues that we have a low "recovery ratio" compared to other cities that have public transportation systems. I suspect that recovery ratios have much more to do with population density than with fares. Has the MBTA made this comparison? Even more importantly, the proper comparison for "recovery ratio" is NOT to other cities, it is to other means of transportation. What is the expected recovery ratio for the Big Dig? For highways and roads throughout the metropolitan area? Just how much of what it costs to build and maintain roads, plow them, clean them, repave them is covered by gas and other user taxes and fees? Why are we providing bigger subsidies for driving than for using public transportation? Recently tolls (fees for driving) were reduced. How can the state justify making it cheaper to drive while making it more expensive to take public transportation? Recently the state agreed to pay an additional $2 billion dollars for the Big Dig which will benefit fewer than 190,000 drivers daily (according to the Massachusetts Highway Department). This overrun is more than two and a half times the annual operating cost of the MBTA which moves 700,000 people a day.

Instead of raising fares, MBTA officials should be fighting for bigger subsidies. Not just subsidies to keep the fares down, but subsidies to improve and expand service. What could the MBTA do with the Big Dig’s $2 billion overrun to improve infrastructure? How much track could be improved? How many bus shelters built? And this is only the overrun on the Big Dig—not its cost.

The MBTA is actually subsidizing the Big Dig. This is outrageous. The state made a deal that it would improve public transportation and provide cleaner buses for Boston in order to mitigate some of the additional pollution that will be caused by the Big Dig. These costs have been billed to the MBTA when, in fact, they should appear as costs of the Big Dig. So public transportation users are effectively subsidizing drivers. This is sleight-of-hand accounting that steals needed funds from public transportation, funds that the MBTA is asking riders to pick up in the form of increased fares. Lay those costs on the Big Dig where they belong and then see if a fare increase is necessary.

It is bad policy to increase subsidies and decrease private costs for driving while decreasing subsidies and increasing private costs for using public transportation.

It is unfair to charge MBTA users for costs generated by the Big Dig.

Everyone pays for private transportation whether they drive or not. Our taxes pay for roads, snow removal, police to enforce traffic laws, etc. Everyone breathes dirtier air; specifically they breathe air with carcinogens generated by automobiles.

Let us compare public subsidies for private transportation to public subsidies for public transportation, subsidies for driving as compared to bus or subway travel. Then we will see clearly that the fare increase is as unfair as it is foolish.

The state can make more funds available for public transportation. We face huge additional costs for the Big Dig and are not increasing fares on the roads. In fact the state is cutting gas taxes, one of the few user fees for driving. Today’s Globe reports that the Big Dig will cost $200,000,000 more than the $2 billion (two thousand million) overrun previously anticipated. Expansion of Route 3 will cost more than double the original estimate of $200,000. That is $425,000,000 more for roads, just for overruns and overruns on overruns. This is more than ten times the $40 million that the fare increase is expected to raise. If the state is picking up all of these overruns on supposedly forward-funded roads, how, then, is it possible to justify increasing fares on the T?

To increase fares at a time when subsidies to the private automobile are not just growing, but metastasizing, and before the T acts to improve service, reduce pollution and address the inequities embodied in its current "no transfer" policy is wrong headed. It is bad public policy. It is bad for the environment, bad for public health and inequitable. Keep the fares down. Improve the system with funds from general revenues. Increase ridership. This will help keep our air and water clean, our planet safer from climatic catastrophes and our traffic moving.