Advocates for equitable public transit are urging the Legislature to take action on free buses and low-income fares.

At last week's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Board meeting, officials shared results of a free bus pilot program in Boston, on Route 28.

They reported making the line free boosted ridership, but more than two-thirds of riders did not experience any savings, because they had to transfer to the T or the commuter rail and pay a fare there.

Stacy Thompson, executive director of the LivableStreets Alliance and co-chair of the Transit is Essential Coalition, recommended a low-income fare program, where low-income Commonwealth residents could purchase reduced-cost tickets across the system.

"The Transit is Essential Coalition has been a strong vocal and consistent advocate for systemwide low-income fares being implemented as soon as possible," Thompson asserted.

Thompson emphasized it does not mean Massachusetts should not also separately offer free buses. She argued there are 15 regional transit authorities and some municipalities spending so much on collecting fares it is not worth it to have them.

Some cities, such as New York City, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, have low-income fare programs, and officials have estimated a similar program in Massachusetts could serve up to 70,000 low-income residents, and cost tens of millions annually. Thompson added free buses and low-income fares are often pitted against each other, but they are complementary.

"The 28 pilot in Boston has shown that making buses free reduces the dwell time or waiting time at a bus stop by 20%, increased ridership by 22%, and 5% of those riders were converted car trips, which is a really big deal in the climate sphere," Thompson outlined.

MBTA bus fares have increased by more than 200% since 1991. The Transit is Essential Coalition formed during the pandemic to ensure full MBTA service was restored following cuts. They contended the transit system has long been underfunded, and it is important for the Legislature to step up with additional resources long-term.

Government leaders are acting with urgency to get underserved communities connected with high speed internet but in Minnesota, underground digging for broadband installation is emerging as a safety concern.

This spring, the think tank North Star Policy Action issued a report noting over the past three years, such installations were the leading cause of damage to buried infrastructure in the state.

Aaron Rosenthal, research director for the North Star Policy Action, said telecommunications crews are coming in contact with a maze of electric lines and natural gas pipes, with the drilling averaging more than 1.25 strikes a day.

"That's a level of damage that we think is very concerning," Rosenthal asserted. "It stands out from other industries and we believe needs to be addressed. Minnesotans should not have to choose between high speed internet and their own safety."

The data is from a trade organization and Rosenthal warned because it is provided voluntarily, the full scope of damage is unclear. The authors contended workers receive inadequate training and a bill in the Legislature would beef up standards. Skeptics worry about effects such as derailing progress on broadband goals with a wave of federal funding spurring projects.

But the researchers and labor leaders predicted the accelerated pace of installations will result in more incidents.

Octavio Chung Bustamante, Minnesota and North Dakota field organizer and marketing representative for the Laborers' International Union of North America, said the workers, many of whom are immigrants, are putting their lives at risk without getting a prevailing wage.

"When you talk about underground work -- electric, or gas, or water and sewers -- a lot of those workers, you know, they earn a good living," Bustamante observed. "But it's a different game for broadband work."

The legislative push also includes provisions to set fair wages for broadband installation workers. As for the data, a key state agency notes overall damage from utility excavation has trended downward. The researchers said it is a symptom of reporting requirement issues, underscoring their argument the information is incomplete.

City and county governments are feeling the pinch of rising operating costs but in Wisconsin, federal incentives are driving a range of local projects, taking off some of the pressure in making communities economically viable.

Dane County is no stranger to embracing clean energy and federal aid from policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are spurring more activity.

Joe Parisi, Dane County executive, said there have been past government credits for things like solar installations and the latest approach is more expansive, with a robust list of those who can benefit.

"Everybody -- a business, a nonprofit, a church, a temple, even a government, and a local government -- gets 30% back on renewable energy projects," Parisi pointed out.

For example, a local construction company put solar arrays on several of its facilities. Parisi noted the new credits speed up the pace of reimbursements, creating more energy savings in the near future. Federal officials said demand has been strong for the programs but Parisi said one challenge is creating broader awareness so under-resourced areas can apply.

Locally, the website for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change has posted details about project opportunities and investments. Beyond clean energy, Parisi emphasized the federal government's push for more "Made in America" manufacturing creates opportunities for local plants and regional economies.

"There's money to help retooling to manufacture (products)," Parisi stressed. "Then, there's a stronger market for those components now because they are made in America."

National polling shows Americans are greatly concerned about things like inflation but Parisi argued long-term investments stand to help reduce operating expenses for government agencies and businesses, hopefully keeping local taxes in check and providing savings for consumers.


get more stories like this via email

Two pieces of legislation in Connecticut could bolster public transportation if they make it through the General Assembly.

Senate Bill 277 would restore funding to Shore Line East to increase rail service. Ridership plummeted during the pandemic, though it's been growing modestly since then.

But as more people opt to work from home instead of commute, some question whether there's a need for more rail service.

Jay Stange, coordinator with the Transport Hartford Academy, said state investments can help transit lines attract the riders they need.

"Ridership on the Hartford Line, which has been supported by state investment, is up every year," said Stange. "We also are seeing huge increases on the Waterbury Line in Connecticut, where those service investments have been made. The bottom line is that if you don't have the service, you won't have the riders."

The 2023 budget cut funding for Shore Line East to 44% of what was required for pre-pandemic service.

The bill received wide support at a public hearing, but some residents don't agree that funding cuts cause low ridership.

Stange said restoring this funding would provide economic benefits through growing jobs and tourism.

Another bill incentivizes transit-oriented development.

House Bill 5390 would provide water and sewer funding for land-use planning and other developments, making it easier to build housing where transit and rail services exist.

Stange said it's time for the state to build better.

"Connecticut is starting to see," said Stange. "that the development pattern of the last 70 years - where we build new interstate to green-land development that's mostly single-family homes - is a money-losing proposition, in the long term."

Studies show transit-oriented development reduces air pollution and uses large plots of land to accommodate growing populations.

The bill faced opposition from communities concerned about the need for local control for developing these projects. The new version of the bill allows communities to "opt in" for these incentives instead.




get more stories like this via email