I want to be clear about one thing. I have nothing against Deval Patrick. I think he could very well be the next governor of Massachusetts, and president by 2016 (after another two-term Republican exits—yes, it’s that bad for the Democrats). It’s obvious his showing up and unequivocally coming out against the fare hikes and suggesting that, if (he actually said “when”) elected, he would take up the issue, got the issue onto the front page of the papers and forced his opponents to take a stand on it. So, Bravo, Deval.

But it was still pandering. That’s politics. I’m just calling it as I see it. No hard feelings. And I stand by my assessment of his sign-bearing lackeys at the rally, too. Did you see them at the hearing? I didn’t. Which isn’t to say they weren’t there, but if nobody saw them it defeated their purpose in being there a bit, didn’t it? You know, like I said, they couldn’t even stand up for twenty minutes, holding their signs behind the speakers at the rally. They were all schlumped over, looking totally zombie-fied. Is that the energized image of a Devalhead his campaign wants to get out there? I don’t think so. At the very least, STAND UP for your cause, bitches.

Enough said.


As for the Devalcentric press coverage of the MBTA fare hikes: while Deval’s appearance was newsworthy, the press should be encouraged by it to dig deeper into the issue of fare hikes. So far what we have seen is only very cursory coverage of the fare hike proposal. It is not enough to present Dan Grabauskas on the one hand repeating ad nauseam that if the T doesn’t raise fares it will have to cut services, and Deval Patrick on the other saying that at a time when gas prices are high the T should be trying to recruit riders instead of scaring them away with increased fares. It’s a start, but, to be truthful, not a very coherent one.

Let’s talk about some of the very reasonable, detailed objections that attendees to these hearings are bringing up. And let’s start viewing this issue, not as Kerry Healey is—namely as a strictly internal issue for the T to decide—but as the public policy issue it is. As many speakers at the hearing said, the T is not just a nice little service for people who either want to do something nice for the environment by not driving into Boston, or for those unfortunate enough to have no other choice—it is an economic necessity without which Metro Boston could not function.

The most effective refutation to the Healey camp’s insightless observations would have been an Everybody Drive To Work Day. There are approximately 792,600 one-way passenger trips per day, according to the T. If all those people drove solo to work, as most drivers these days do, no one would get anywhere. (Everybody Drive To Work Day is a theoretical argument, not a call to action, by the way.) So Healey, and all those snots who don’t deign to take the T, and feel that it’s a subsidy for the poor that taxpayers should not bear responsibility for, need to understand that Metro Boston would be paralyzed without it. That means it is her business—it is the governor’s business to look into it, and the legislature’s, to make sure that it works for not just the citizens who use it by riding it, but for all those—private institutions, employers, retailers, restaurateurs, even drivers—who benefit from it whether they themselves use it or not.





After Mr. B-I-L-L-I-N-G yielded the mic, a Catherine Pickard, representative of a riders advocacy group focused particularly on The Ride, took the floor. She questioned the fairness of raising the rates (by 33%) on The Ride when the T is still not in full compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). She argued that details of the fare restructuring posed a particular hardship for users of The Ride. They will, for example, have no free transfers and no discounts for monthly passes. She urged the T to do more research on the impact of restructuring for the population using The Ride, and to hold off on fare increases until the entire system was ADA-compliant.

After Ms. Pickard, came Eric Bourassa of MassPIRG who presented a petition with “about 1,400 names” of those in opposition to the fare hikes. He spoke about the environmental impact of decreased ridership on the T due to increased fare prices. Keeping his comments brief he called for “the legislature to adequately fund public transportation so that the T can be more affordable and accessible.”




Several speakers followed with specific service issues (centering mostly on green line trains, the silver line—“The silver line is not rapid transit,” one rider observed to appreciative applause—and buses) which they called on the T to resolve before moving to raise fares.

Terry Russell, from the Conservation Law Foundation, offered an “if…then” scenario for the MBTA to consider. “If we care about traffic, if we care about climate change, if we care about air pollution, if we care about the health of residents of the Commonwealth,” and so on, then, essentially “the MBTA needs to be increasing ridership, not driving it away.” She demanded better service, and urged the T to approach the legislature to increase funding, so that the T will not be charging riders “more for less.”

A Ms. Kruger, from Leominster, asked where riders like her would find the additional funds to pay for increased monthly fares ($52 for her), and related how someone had suggested taking it out of her “entertainment budget”. She concluded that in the short time she has been using the T, fares have increased too many times for services that have not improved.




A Patrick Demsky followed Ms. Kruger, and proclaimed himself a “train-holic.” “I’m assuming many of you are, too,” he added. But I think there were more “complain-holics” than “train-holics” in attendance, truth be known. He then thanked the T, saying “I know you do your best in a job that’s probably pretty thankless.” He might as well have been speaking Swahili. Then, all the sudden he launched into a proposition of his own for funding the T, turning to the audience, and asking, “What makes the most money in Massachusetts?” and answering for us: “The lottery.”

He suggested the MBTA issue scratch tickets. And to prove what a hit it would be he asked if anyone in the audience, “for four thousand dollars, would squawk like a chicken.” A woman in the back of the hall obliged, and he handed her ten scratch tickets, and then asked the T representatives, “when was the last time someone squawked like a chicken to get a train ticket? Ever? When was the last time anybody got excited about riding the T?” (I don’t know about you people, but I don’t squawk like a chicken when I get excited about something, but whatever.) He concluded by urging the assembly: “let’s have some fun in this damn city.” (Again, not quite sure what the connection between squawking like a chicken and having fun would be, but I don’t disagree in principle.)

The Chicken Lady then asked the assembly what exactly she should do with the scratch cards, since she had never played the lottery before. Well, it’s not rocket science, is it? I imagine she was able to figure it out eventually.



After a man suggested the MBTA police force be abolished, it was our own Dani B.'s turn to speak. He spoke for students like him, whom he said were not able to afford the increases. He said the T was "penalizing its best customers." And that the surcharges amounted to "a tax on visitors, tourists, and college students."

Dani B. was followed by Jen Stewart, another blogger, who said she would be willing to pay higher fares for better service.



A young woman by the name of Christine, who was sitting with those crazy socialists, was next at the mic. She said she had been at the fare hearings two years ago and had spoken, and nothing had come of it, and wondered if the same would be the case this time around. One of the socialists had moved to the doorway of the meeting room, ready to make his exit when she finished, and the way he was beaming at her, sort of misty-eyed, made it seem like a true Revolutionary moment, like something out of Reds, or something. I thought, wow, they've got their whole little subculture there. I bet they've all slept with each other. They form mini-alliances, maybe mini-punk bands, have their squabbles, kiss and make up. It's a whole little socialist ecosystem all their own.

As she banged on ("I know the T inside and out! Anyone can quiz me on any line and I know every single one in order, from one end to the other, because I have been to every, single station I don't know how many times!") he drank in her raw courage as if gulping the nectar of the gods, and when finally the crowd applauded her agitprop, he joined them with such conviction I knew this speech would become the stuff of legend among them.



Next came a proposal for elimination of fares altogether, which was greeted with applause by the assembly. But upon reflection, I think a reasonable fare is actually a much better proposal. Can you imagine if it was free? You think the buses and trains are trashed now? People should pay for public transit, but it should be affordable for those who do.

Surcharges for use of the Charlie Ticket were questioned by the next speaker. "Let's not punish riders who don't have access to vending machines."



Then there was a long-winded BC student, who recounted dramatically and in great detail how he had discovered that fares were being raised. He objected to paying for the outbound green line, of course. What was interesting about him was his cadence. Each sentence started...very...slowly...and...deliberately...andendedupallinarushedjumble.

There was another young woman, a bit later, who also, like, had an interesting, like, verbal, like, tick. Like, it was, like, she, like, said "like," like, all the time, like, almost, like, between each, like, word.




Finally, a former State Representative spoke, saying the proceedings reminded him of “the emperor’s new clothes,” because nothing could come of the “self-contained discussion” currently underway. “The MBTA can only do what the outside forces” allow. The “outside forces” were then identified as the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction. A call was issued for representatives of the “parent organization” of the T to step forward. None were in attendance. “That’s the problem!” he said. “They should be out lobbying the legislature for more profits for the MBTA!” Wild applause seemed the thing to do at the moment, and so wild applause ensued.

He then reiterated that “public transportation is a public good, and should be as cheap as possible. Why? To help our economy and environment.”

He concluded: “There’s got to be a greater emphasis on people speaking out on this issue and taking the burden up, because…this discussion is too self-contained…. We have to engage everybody. As Ben Franklin said once, ‘we must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

This worthy comment concluded the second hour of testimony. The MBTA agreed to continue past 6:30, to allow others in attendance to speak. I will sum up the additional half-hour of testimony I stuck around for in a future entry.