A Plan for Equitable Transportation Decarbonization in Massachusetts
I. Vision: More reliable, frequent, affordable, and accessible regional rail
o The 2025/2030 CECP transportation strategy outlined the transportation decarbonization goals of getting to 18% reduction by 2025 and 34% reduction by 2030. The plan focused on two major goals for transportation: 1) to achieve reduction in total Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) compared to baseline projections by providing more alternatives to personal vehicles and 2) transitioning most vehicles on the road to Electric Vehicles (EVs).
o While adopting EVs is a critical step to achieve net zero carbon emissions, it is likely to be inevitably slow and unequal. Focusing on reducing VMT through mode shift can be a more effective solution to reduce carbon emission in the short term. Encouraging the mode shift by investing more in public transit enhances equitable access in Massachusetts by providing alternative transportation options for middle- and lower-income residents.
o In achieving mode shift and increasing public transit ridership, regional rail can play a significant role. Through affordable-to-free transfer system, not only innercity ridership will increase but also people will have increased access to the jobs and opportunities. Investing in regional rail will also promote equitable growth in the cities in Massachusetts by growing jobs clustered around transit and rail nodes.
o However, the current Massachusetts commuter rail still operates on the outdated belief that intercity rail primarily service for suburban workers who need to get in and out of the city on traditional 9 to 5 rush hour schedules (Transit Matters, 2018). This approach not only underestimate the potential of regional rail in decarbonizing the transportation system but also ignores how people currently live and work that has only been radically disrupted during the COVID pandemic.
o To increase the ridership of regional rail and make it more attractive alternative for drivers, it needs to be more reliable, frequent, affordable, and accessible.
▪ Transit Matters (2018) suggested a guideline for highly functioning regional rail system which provides useful insights in bettering our rail system. It is mainly comprised of five different components: 1) systemwide electrification and the purchase of high performance electric train, 2) High platforms providing universal access and speeding up boarding for everyone, 3) strategic infrastructure investments to relieve bottlenecks, 4) Frequent service all day every 30 minutes in the suburbs and every 15 minutes in denser neighborhoods, 5) Free transfers between regional trains, subways, and buses, and fare equalization with the subway in the subway’s service area
▪
The ‘Multi-family zoning requirement for MBTA communities’, a recently enacted law in Massachusetts requires an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right (Mass Gov, n.d.). It is a huge step to make regional rail more accessible to Massachusetts residents. A new administration can build
on this effort to provide more affordable housing, especially for low-and middle-income resident, options near rail stations.
II. Long-term Goals and Politically Viable Actions
In this section, five long term goals are suggested and provide politically viable steps to achieve these goals:
• Increase frequency to 15 mins in every station.
• Realize equalized rail fares with the subway in the subway’s service area.
• Integrate inter- and inner-city transportation systems.
• Fully electrify the regional rail system.
• Significantly increase the affordable housing options around rail stations.
3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 years Long term goals
Remove the speed limit.
Provide 30-min frequency on rail lines within Route 128, paralleling subway lines.
Provide 15- or 30min frequency at any key stations in gateway cities like Framingham, Brockton, and Lowell at any time of the day.
Provide 15-min frequency at nearly any station at any time of day.
Increase frequency to 15 mins in every station.
Ensure alternative commuter rail service is free during diversions
Expand Zone 1A fares to cover all commuter rail station served by the subway.
Promote a current transfer program.
Pilot a free transfer from rail to subway for one-way trips
Install bike garage in major rail stations.
Introduce substantial fare discount between local bike sharing system (e.g., blue bike) and public transportation
Rail fares are equalized with the subway in the subway’s service area.
Inter-and inner-city transportation systems are better connected and integrated.
Electrified Commuter Rail at inner core stations
Electrified Commuter Rail at any key stations
Make sure to provide rigorous technical advice for municipalities to increase multifamily housing near rail stations.
Provide incentives to make multifamily housing around T stations more affordable.
Electrified Commuter Rail at nearly any stations
Regional rail system is fully electrified.
Affordable housing options are significantly increased near rail stations.
III. Considerations
1) Cost
- According to the MBTA rail vision scenario (MBTA, 2019), followings are the estimated budget required for increasing frequency and electrifying the rail system.
o Alternative1 ($1.7 billion): A Commuter Rail train more frequently in either direction all day (peak: every 30 mins, off-peak: every 60 mins)
o Alternative2 ($4.5 billion): A Commuter rail train every 15 or 30 mins to any key stations at any time of the day
o Alternative3 ($17.9 billion): Electrified Commuter Rail train every 15 mins at any key station at any time of the day.
o Alternative4 ($8.9 billion): A Commuter Rail train every 15 mins at any inner core station at any time of day.
o Alternative5 ($10.6 billion): An electrified Commuter Rail train every 15 mins at any inner core station at any time of day
o Alternative6 ($28.9 billion): An electrified Commuter Rail train at nearly any station every 15 mins at any time of day
- I would suggest the Alternative5 as an achievable option within the next ten years.
2) Funding
- Based on the alternative 5 scenario, we need to secure $10.6 billion to have an electrified commuter rail train running every 15 mins at any inner core station at any time of the day.
- Challenges of the current financing structure
o The COVID pandemic showed how the fare-dependent system can become vulnerable to the disruptions in our cities in sustainably
managing our transit system. To recover from the trauma of decreased ridership during the pandemic and provide basic quality service, T need sufficient resources. Especially there should be a blueprint to be prepared for the time when federal COVID relief funding is depleted around 2024.
▪
Fare revenues are not projected to rise above 78% of the prepandemic benchmark through the next four years and have contributed about 33% of the total of T operating revenues. That is no longer sustainable, and the Commonwealth needs to find a new, stable, permanent source of operating budget revenues going forward (Aloisi, 2022).
- Federal funding: The following funding sources can be considered for the federal funding.
o Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA): Through TIFIA transit, transit-oriented development projects can borrow up to 49% at the low interest rate with up to 35-year repayment period. New Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allows up to 75 years for some projects.
o Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program (CRISI) funds projects that improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of intercity passenger and freight rail.
o State of Good Repair Grants that provides capital assistance for maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation projects of high-intensity fixed guideway and bus system to help transit agencies maintain assets in a state of good repair.
- Tax-based : It is desirable to have a self-sufficient financing structure to maintain our transportation system that is not dependent on federal funding.
o Transportation-related sources ▪
VMT taxation: MAPC released a report modelling the impacts of different pricing policies on VMT reduction. A straight 25-cent per mile fee turned out to have the largest impact, curbing VMT growth by about 15 percentage points (Gately & Reardon, 2021). ▪
Gas tax: Potentially increasing 19 cents per gallon starting at the end of next year can be a consideration.
▪ Retail delivery fees: Impose a fee on retail deliveries from companies like FedEx, Amazon, GrubHub and Instacart. ▪
Ride sharing apps fee: A roughly 30 cent fees on most rides from apps like Uber and Lyft and 15 cents for electric vehicles can be imposed.
▪
Registration fee for electric vehicles: Consider higher registration fees for electric vehicles, equivalent to a roughly $5 increase starting at the end of the next year, since electric vehicle drivers use the roads but don’t pay gas taxes or fees.
o Non-transportation related sources
▪ Fair Share Amendment: It is projected to raise over $2 billion a year.
▪
Income-tax : Income tax can be considered as a funding source, but it would make much more sense to use transportation-related sources as a primary source.
3) Measures of success
▪
Ridership: How’s the number of regional rail users increased over time? ▪
Quality of Service: How are they satisfied with their experience taking rail? ▪ Mode Shift: Did rail users previously car drivers? ▪
Equity/Access: Are the riders’ demographics and income level diverse? Do lower income residents have enough access to transit service?
4) Potential or likely impacts on broad spectrum of residents and stakeholders
-
Transit users
o Riders of choice: They will be more willing to take rail instead of driving as it becomes more reliable and frequent. They will be more inclined to avoid using cars due to the VMT taxation. However, some people will still need to drive for various reasons. The equity analysis is needed to see who doesn’t have any others choice but to drive.
o Captive riders: They can do more flexible work hours as rail becomes more reliable and frequent in both directions.
- Residents living near transit stations
o Homeowners will advocate for rail improvement as long as their property values can go up. At the same time, homeowners are also likely to own a car, so they will have ambivalent positions about the plan as a package (rail improvement + VMT taxation).
o Tenants will be more concerned about dramatic rent increase or eviction scenarios.
o Potential homebuyers are more interested in buying homes near transit as their property value will likely to go up and are able to use transit
o Potential tenants will include young couples who are commuting to job clusters by transit and looking for affordable housing options. They are more willing to move into the transit-near area (and potentially willing to pay a higher rent) when the rail service is significantly improved.
- Drivers (commuters): They are impacted by VMT tax and will consider more rail and public transit as a realistic option But there is a psychological barrier for them if they haven’t really used public transit before. Incentives would be helpful to induce these population to increase ridership such as experimenting free transfer for one-way trips.
- Industries such as trucking, hospitality, retail and construction that need driving for their business will likely to be the most unsatisfied parties A genuine conversation and engagement with them with a purpose is necessary.
- Ridesharing company and delivery corporations are the ones that are impacted by direct fee. They will likely transfer those burden to the customers. They might approach this plan politically to mobilize their customers to be against the plan.
- People considering buying electric vehicle: It is hard to predict whether electric vehicle registration fee will deter them from buying electric vehicles, especially when gas tax is implemented at the same time. They will compare the cost of using public transit, having gasoline car and having electric car
5) Mitigation of negative impacts
- Gentrification and displacement
o Work with city governments to enforce tenant protections especially around regional rail stations
o Monitor housing trends and conditions within one-third of a mile radius of the transit improvement. Work with the city governments to support them technically and financially in building new housing
o Come up with the ways to engage transit riders throughout the whole process and make sure to inform them about any decisions
- VMT taxation puts burden on certain population and industries
o Consider reducing tax burden for people who are under certain income levels.
o Engage industries who are likely to be impacted as early as possible including trucking, hospitality, rail and construction industry workers.
IV. Strategies to generate political will and develop consensus across the board
- Send a political message around climate emergency, a need to ensure equitable access in Massachusetts, and a need to promote economic growth. Emphasize that the rail is one of the most underrated and underutilized transportation assets in Massachusetts that has a lot of potential in achieving three goals of environment, social equity, and economic growth at the same time
- Partner with research-based advocacy groups such as Transit Matters as well as state planning and research organizations to generate ideas and data about the real benefits of decarbonization, VMT reduction and increased access of different demographics.
- Champion the experience of the transit users through on-site surveys, interviews in developing the messages around why rail service improvement is necessary.
References
Aloisi, J. (2022a, October 1). A roadmap for fixing the MBTA https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/a-roadmap-for-fixing-the-mbta/ Aloisi, J. (2022b, December 12). An MBTA to-do list for Gov.Healey. CommonWealth. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/an-mbta-to-do-list-for-gov-healey/ Aloisi, J., & Johnson, J. (2018, August 6). The Transportation Equity Conundrum: Improving Mobility Without Displacement. Meeting of the Minds https://meetingoftheminds.org/the-transportation-equity-conundrum-improving-mobilitywithout-displacement-27887
Connelly, A. (2020, January 14). Jim Aloisi and Chris Dempsey Talk Massachusetts Transportation Funding. GBH News. https://www.wgbh.org/news/localnews/2020/01/14/jim-aloisi-and-chris-dempsey-talk-massachusetts-transportationfunding
Gately, C., & Reardon, T. (2021). The Impacts of Land Use and Pricing in Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Transport Emissions in Massachusetts MAPC. https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/vehicle-miles-traveled-emissions/ Kenney, A. (2021a, June 17). Gas and Delivery Fees will increase in 2022 as Colorado
Approves Billions for Transportation. https://www.cpr.org/2021/06/17/transportationfunding-law-gas-delivery-fees-increase/ Kenney, A. (2021b, July 17). Gas And Delivery Fees Will Increase In 2022 As Colorado
Approves Billions For Transportation. CPR News https://www.cpr.org/2021/06/17/transportation-funding-law-gas-delivery-fees-increase/
Mass Gov. (n.d.). Multi-Family Zoning Requirement for MBTA Communities. Retrieved December 7, 2022, from https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoningrequirement-for-mbta-communities
MBTA. (2019). Rail Vision https://www.mbta.com/projects/rail-vision#alternatives Transit Matters. (2018). Regional Rail for Metropolitan Boston https://transitmatters.org/regional-rail-report
Wade, C. (2022, August 19). Baker rebuffs latest congestion pricing plan. https://www.eagletribune.com/news/baker-rebuffs-latest-congestion-pricingplan/article_3cb6544a-1e34-11ed-8c77-db7a8e4877d3.html
Regional Rail is one of the most underutilized transportation assets in Massachusetts, and it can be a grand stepping stone for decarbonization
Jiwon Park
The Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030, released earlier this year, outlined the state-wide transportation decarbonization goals of an 18% reduction by 2025 and a 34% reduction by 2030. One of the two primary pathways outlined in the plan was to reduce the total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) compared to the baseline projections by providing more alternatives to personal vehicles. This is the right path. If VMT growth continues unabated, vehicle emissions could rise even as fuel economy improves, and rapidly increasing vehicle demand for renewable electricity will make it harder to transition to renewables. Prioritizing VMT reduction as a decarbonization strategy also has many other benefits, such as less congestion, more livable communities, and safer streets.
Regional rail can play a critical role in reducing VMT and expanding viable alternatives for the everyday commute. Regional rail is not only capable of moving people from one city to another city to get people to work but also can stimulate the improvement of local public transportation. However, to improve our regional rail, it is necessary to understand why people use and don’t use the rail. In fact, our rail system still operates on outdated premises that people get in and out of the city on traditional 9 to 5 rush schedules. This approach not only underestimates the potential of regional rail but also ignores the changed work/commuting patterns of current days.
Under the vision of “reliable, frequent, affordable, and accessible regional rail”, the following goals can be established:
• Increase frequency to 15 mins in every station.
• Equalize rail fares with the subway in the subway’s service area.
• Integrate inter- and inner-city public transportation through a free transfer system.
• Fully electrify the rail system.
• Increase the development of affordable housing near transit and rail stations.
Funding for T should be substantially increased in order to achieve these visions. Based on the MBTA’s rail vision scenario, about $10.6 billion is estimated to be needed to fully electrify the rail and make it run every 15 mins at any inner core station at any time of day. However, the current funding system, overly dependent on fares, cannot get us to that point. Fare revenues, currently contributing about 33% of the total T operating revenues, are not even projected to rise above 78% of the pre-pandemic level through the next four years. Commonwealth should incorporate a variety of funding sources to make it more financially sustainable.
Tax-based sources primarily include transportation-related and non-transportation-related sources. Examples of transportation-related sources include VMT tax, gas tax, retail delivery fees, and ride-sharing apps fee. We can think more progressively about taxing big corporations that are using our roads for free. They have to pay for their fair share when they are clogging our streets and polluting the air. Among other taxations, VMT taxation could be one of the fairest and the most effective measures to realize mode shift as it is purely usage-based. However, the inherent problems of VMT tax are equity issues, that is, rural versus urban, and people who can avoid the congestion fee versus those who cannot. When designing VMT taxation, Commonwealth should engage a broad spectrum of cities and populations to reflect their needs.
Rigorous success measures and ways to mitigate negative impacts should be developed. Success measures can include ridership increase, rider satisfaction with service quality, and the level of mode shift and decarbonization effect. Most importantly, the extent to which equity and accessibility have increased for people of different incomes and race/ethnicities must be addressed.
From an equity standpoint, transportation projects can have intended and unintended negative impacts such as displacement and additional burden put on the certain population through taxing mechanisms. Commonwealth should work in close partnership with cities to enforce rigorous tenant protections around transit nodes and monitor housing trends and conditions near transit improvement. There needs to be more incentive from the State to build more affordable housing around transit stations, furthering recent legislation ‘Multi-family zoning requirement for MBTA communities.’
The vision of stronger regional rail can stimulate transformative discussions around more ecological and equitable regional growth. It is because to make the our rail system sustainable, different pieces – inner city transportation, housing, and jobs - have to work together. But these goals can only be achieved when our political leadership takes the courage to make a bold move
• Improving our regional rail should be the focus of the transportation decarbonization strategy for the incoming Massachusetts Governor @MassAGO
• Reducing vehicular use through mode shift is the most effective solution for carbon reduction. Regional rail has a huge potential to address this goal by providing viable everyday transportation alternatives for Massachusetts residents.
• The key rail visions should include 1) increased frequency to 15 mins in every station, 2) fare equalization with the subway in the subway service area, 3) free transfer between inter- and inner-city public transportation,
• 4) full electrification of regional rail, and 5) increased development of affordable housing near the rail stations.
• It is estimated to cost more than $10.4 billion to realize these goals realistically. However, the pandemic has shown that the current fare-based funding structure is not sustainable. Commonwealth should consider incorporating a variety of funding sources such as VMT tax, gas tax, retail delivery fees, and ride-sharing app fees.
• A rigorous and inclusive public participation needs to be in place to accommodate concerns around equity impacts of transit improvement and taxation.