Follow up to "The lack of high-profile transit advocacy groups"

I turned my post on high-profile transit advocacy groups into a class paper:

 A new group for MBTA advocacy

Andy Likuski
Graduate Student of Tufts Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning
March 15, 2011

The MBTA in Boston is used by a broad group of users of every socio-economic background. The decline of transit over much of the twentieth century has left MBTA riders with relatively little in expectations of the system, even though it is essential to the metro area. Perhaps because of low expectations and the idea that the T is barely “hanging on”, not to mention the problems of dispersed users and interests, there is no strong advocacy group for the MBTA. The only group that I'm aware of is the T Riders Union, who along with groups like MASSPIRG (under the umbrella On The Move coalition), tends to concentrate on stable funding, social justice, and environment. Boston needs a higher profile MBTA advocacy group, especially considering the well-educated population and business interests that rely on the transit network. Where is that group?

When considering advocacy power, one needs to consider two dimensions about the advocates. First, their geographic (or perhaps socio-economic) situation may be dispersed or concentrated, where higher concentration draws more power. Second, power corresponds to the narrowness of the issue: A precise cause for action is easier to support than a broad one. For large metropolitan transit systems, the users tend to be dispersed geographically and socio-economically. But for many who commute with it, the transit system is heavily relied upon for a narrow purpose. Even those who use it more recreationally expect reliability and reasonable frequency, if not a comprehensive network. A successful transit advocacy group would thus need a simple and narrow goal that captured a large percentage of riders’ interests, but it would necessarily be a flavor of solution most appealing to the more politically influential users. I believe that a group that fought for comprehensive expansion and modernization of the rail network would meet those criteria; it would appeal to a wide spectrum of riders but would be important and thrilling enough to win the activism efforts of the more affluent, educated, or passionate users.

More specifically, we need a group narrowly focused on large scale funding increases to the MBTA to upgrade and expand the rail rapid transit and regional rail to modern international standards. Most everyone who uses the system could rally behind upgrading bus lines to subway or light rail that runs on dedicated right-of-way with signal priority, as well as converting the commuter trains into a regional system with frequent and electrified service. A smaller, but still significant number, would agree that the best (and only) source of significant stable funding is through targeting the under-priced cost of car ownership, driving, and parking, which happens to extract enormous amounts of money from the local economy to buy fuel.

The simple manifesto of this new group would thus be the following:

• Modernization and expansion of the MBTA rail network.
• Upgrade of many bus lines to light rail on dedicated right-of-way with signal priority without compromising to bus rapid transit (BRT) solutions.
• Institution of major new, stable funding sources for the MBTA to be extracted from car registration, driving, and parking to convert significant car trips to transit via a double incentive and keep enormous sums of money in the local economy.

My exclusion of BRT is largely due to widespread and justified anger over the Silver Lines, but also because with adequate funding rail is the more appealing mode. The car-based funding mechanism is the most controversial bullet point, so much so that it is often precluded from transit funding discussions in favor of analyzing in minutia how riders might better support the system themselves and how value capture techniques, such as sale of development rights around new stations and assessment fees, might solve the funding problem. User fees should only be a minor part of transit funding and not be set according to the capital and operational needs of the system, but rather by what fee level is most likely to attract riders. In many cases where capacity can always meet demand, the most efficient fare is a high discount multi-use pass or no fare at all. Property assessment fees have some appeal, but that would diminish in poor neighborhoods where little new value can be generated, plus achieving system-wide improvements would dilute property appreciation in individual neighborhoods. For these reasons, car use is the best untapped source of funding for transit.

The group’s goal would not be to appease drivers with shared space solutions, but to present a unified front against driving as the dominant mode in the metro area. Although many potential members of the group would be part-time drivers themselves, the group’s simple message that driving must decrease and transit increase via a funding shift would still capture many part-time drivers who would be happy to drive less if there were alternatives. There is a large group of mixed mode users who would support a funding shift in order to decrease their own driving and that of others--citing stress, unproductive time, expense, and environmental harm as their motivations. Furthermore, the argument that our energy expenses need to stay in the domestic economy is one that straddles the spectrum of political ideologies.

Implementation

To launch a successful MBTA advocacy group with the given manifesto, I would foremost have to determine the best policy approaches for the group and social marketing to build its membership. In terms of policy scope, the group would work primarily at the local and regional level to increase fees for local car registration, parking permits, hourly parking, and eventually road use fees, to create a large transit fund. State-level work would be limited to policies that could target the metropolitan region without alienating disinterested parts of the state. All group members would be alerted to attend local government meetings to advance the group’s agenda, preceded or followed by social events to ensure high attendance. It would be essential to map the group’s manifesto to straightforward policy recommendations that any member could advocate coherently. Members with professional training in planning, policy, law, transportation, or similar skills would inject the group’s policy into government at a more technical level. The exact policy methods to reach the group’s goals would require intense deliberation by the trained members.

To initially market the group, I would have to couple the manifesto with an enticing visualization of the group’s goals. There are already products, such as theFutureMBTA maps, which could serve as a basis for this purpose. An initial large postcard for the group would show a future map with the manifesto and direct people to the group’s web site. It would probably be adequate to have the initial group of members, say interested students of university planning departments, Livable Streets, and Boston Planner’s Network, etc., display the postcards when they ride the T and hand one out to anyone who took and interest. That, coupled with the usual social networking on the Internet, could launch the group.

A sample postcard with a modified map from http://futurembta.com/thefuturemaps/.

Effectiveness

When it comes to improving transit, especially at the expense of cars, the politics are extraordinarily complex. That is why a united group consisting of skilled advocates and riders-at-large is essential to reversing the impasse of transit funding in Boston. A large group armed with a simple, comprehensive message could demonstrate that the funding we need to finance transit expansion must come from cars. The group would present a closed-loop solution to provide steady capital and operational funds to the MBTA that would pass the scrutiny of leaders trying to make an under-financed government work. Without such an effort, the MBTA will remain at the brink of a financial meltdown and do little more than maintain service. We know that the barriers to improving the MBTA are in part financial but mostly political. Less wealthy countries have vastly improved city transit and today successfully extract large fees and taxes from auto users. A high level MBTA advocacy group could bring about a similar outcome here.