The op-ed published by The Tufts Daily on Mar 5., written by Kristen Johnson, (LA ‘12), is rife with inaccuracy and ill-thought-out reasoning. While it is true that the MBTA's early closing hours do mean that public transit is inaccessible after 1 a.m., the op-ed fails to supply any evidence that this is connected to a desire on the part of state or local government to police low-income residents. Indeed, a far more logical explanation is the one that Ms. Johnson dismisses: fiscal priorities.
Simply put, the MBTA does not have the money to run late-night service. (In reality, the MBTA does not have the money to run any service, but that is an issue for another op-ed.) Ms. Johnson does not suggest where it might come from, or whether or not such service is worth providing. For reference, the MBTA offered night-owl bus service from 2001 to 2005, where buses traversed the subway routes above-ground. The cost of providing such service came to nearly $8 for each passenger's ride. Providing either this service or any type of rail service would require extensive — and expensive — renegotiations of union contracts, among other costs.
Moreover, nighttime rail service is nearly physically impossible. There are exactly four urban rail systems in America that provide 24-hour service: New York City, Chicago (on two lines only), the PATH system which runs from New Jersey into Manhattan, and the PATCO system crossing the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Camden. New York City, by far the most prominent example of a 24-hour system, is able to run all night because nearly every route has two tracks in each direction — one local and one express. The MBTA possesses no similar infrastructure, except for a very short segment on the northern end of the Orange Line. While New York can perform maintenance on one set of tracks while running service on another, the T has no such recourse, and must therefore stop revenue service at night.
The op-ed piece continues, "Although the T dictates its transportation policies based on its financial capacity, much of the resistance to late-night hours can be summarized in the sentiment ‘crime rides the rail.'" The author provides no factual support for this statement. Despite citing the MBTA's stated reason for not providing late-night service, we never learn why this explanation is illogical in light of the T's crushing debt, and why a desire to police minorities is instead the culprit.
The author goes on to discuss other ways in which the MBTA's infrastructure supposedly discriminates against poor Bostonians, beginning by comparing the Red Line stations downtown with Orange Line stations in Roxbury. Firstly, the Orange Line also goes downtown. Ms. Johnson describes the "dark floors and brown wood panels" as somehow distinguished from stations on other lines. Yes, it is true that the Orange Line's stations on its southern end look different from those on its northern end, or, for that matter, any others in the system. This has everything to do, however, with the method of construction of the Orange Line as well as the time in which these stations were built (1987). Structural similarities are apparent in most stations built in a particular time with a particular construction method, and the op-ed fails to tell readers what is so sinister about "dark floors and brown wood panels."
Furthermore, the MBTA also runs the Blue Line, which services three stations downtown, one little-used station at Logan Airport, as well as serving East Boston and Revere — two areas at least as poor as, or poorer than those served by the Orange Line. And yet, the Blue Line is one of the most modern in the system. The MBTA recently completed a costly renovation project to redo nearly every station on the line, install more modern rail infrastructure and buy a new fleet of cars. To add another example, the T is in the process of renovating a little-used commuter rail line that runs entirely through Boston's under-served Dorchester and Hyde Park neighborhoods; these improvements will add both stations and trains to the line in the hopes of attracting more riders and giving inner-city residents another option to commute within Boston.
Ms. Johnson continues by noting the "small, precarious trolley to Mattapan" as evidence of racial disparity and privilege on the T. In reality, Mattapan residents have something few other Bostonians have: a vintage trolley. Boston once had many trolleys like the Ashmont-Mattapan one, but the MBTA's predecessors ripped them all out in favor of (generally inferior) bus service.
Doubtless, better transit service is necessary, particularly for under-served communities in Boston. It is even reasonable to say that any decision the MBTA makes has a disproportionate impact on low-income populations, given the demographics of its ridership. However, in implying that the MBTA engages in active discrimination through its decisions about service, the op-ed published in the Daily ventures too close to conspiracy theory. Certainly, neighborhoods in Boston have felt the pain of lack of service — the end of E line service from Heath Street to Forest Hills comes to mind, as well as the demolition of the Washington Street Elevated Railway in favor of the Silver Line. Surely the author of Monday's op-ed could have focused on these tangible questions of urban policy, instead of advocating for fiscal impossibilities by casting aspersions on MBTA leadership with no evidence to back it up.
-
John Peter Kaytrosh is a senior majoring in Judaic studies and political science. Seth Rau is a senior majoring in international relations and political science.
