I don't ride the T much, but I am amazed that there is not one single idea to reduce costs. The whole discussion is either more revenue from fare hikes OR less service. How about coming up with at least some, or any, cost reductions from pension changes, efficiencies or other ideas. I know how niave that sounds but you would think they would at least throw the poor rate payers a bone after all the bs about listening at the "meetings" held mid-day so the working stiffs on the trains couldn't attend in huge numbers.

According to the story: "Students and seniors would still pay discounted fares, but their discount would shrink." Very informative. How about some specific information. A beautiful example of a reporting failure.

MBTA fare increase? Cheer up, it's still cheaper than taking a plane.

Not a word about the Big Dig debt our "c----T" legislature dumped on the MBTA and its riders. Just another example of Beacon Hill pols playing games with the budget. It would be useful if the Globe did a bit of analysis on the MBTA budget shortfall and let us know if it is a result of not enough revenue to cover operating expenses and, if not, why are they in such a big hole and how did they get there?

if you have a charlie card its still cheaper than what New Yorkers pay for their subway.

So taking the T from, say, Newton into Boston and back will cost $4? And you are complaining about what? That you don't have to pay $20 bucks to park? That you don't have to sit in a traffic jam twice a day? Get real, people. The T is a bargain. Sometimes it stinks, and is late, but compare the price to other cities.

If I were to drive to Boston every day, the mileage on my car would literally be 5X greater than it is today, adding wear and tear. I would waste hours tied up at the pike/128 interchange, and I would probably have to pay at least $12/day to park. If they increase my commuter rail ticket by $50/month, it's still a bargain. Plus, I can read, check email, and surf the web if I feel like it, which beats fighting other drivers as my morning chore...

the need for a fare increase is untrue and false by the T. There is more than enough savings just from the elimination of mismanagement, fraud and waste . Neither the T or its union has address this significant problem. If the T does not eliminate these needless inefficiencies then all T salaries, fringe, and pensions must be reduced to make up the difference. where's the leadership on this - its a lot easier to tuck it to the riders.

The T is the most mismanged entity ever. Inflated salaries for the management, no accountability; the kiosks for the Charlie Card and the tickets are a big waste of time and money, the cost to repair the machines is huge, the T has wasted money, if it were a regular business it would have been out of business years ago. We have a wuss of a governor who wants to increase the gas tax to pay for the T which is a rather stupid suggestion; but then again, coming from Beacon Hill what would we expect? The people who use the T and the trains and the buses and the commuter boats need someone with some business sense to operate the T and run it like a business. We don't need a Governor to increase the gas tax to pay for the mismanagement of the T. Is there anybody out there who has no political connections who would have the courage to step up to the plate and turn this mismanaged mess around who would show our legislatures how to run a business without always putting their hands in the taxpayers pockets. Probably not, so I guess we have to dig deeper into our pockets to pay for more mismanagement. Are all states like this or just Massachusetts? I don't know about anybody else out there but I'm tired of always having someone in my pockets...the edges are now frayed....

I don't use the T, so I don't have a direct interest in whether the fares go up. But I would prefer to keep fares low and pay a little more in taxes, so that the T could be improved enough so that I would want to use it.

When is the T going to start billing the Conservation Law Foundation for the excess finance charges the MBTA has to pay due to the grubbing ambulance chasers' demands. Imagine, the half-BILLION dollar Greenbush line to shut down on weekends due to the T's money problems. How much of an influence did the CLF have in getting this underused branch of the T's choochoo service constructed. Never mind the Hinghamites who think they are somehow above and beyond the rest of the world, snootier than Weston and Prides Crossing residents ever thought to be? When is the Globe's McGrory going to start banging away at the Hingham snobs again? And when will some lawyer with a conscience and a sense of financial sense take the CLF to court and portray them as the money-grubbin, otherwise unemployable snarks that they are?

Just a word to the posters who think big business would take care of them if it ran the T. YOU MUST HAVE BEEN BORN YESTERDAY. The biggest theft so far has been the printing of phony passes by a PRIVATE COMPANY. Also, for those who would like the employees to work for a daily bowl of rice, or make the lousy job decisions you did, or neglect to learn a skill like you did, PUT A CORK IN IT.

"if it were a regular business it would have been out of business years ago." Yeah, you're right, but for all the wrong reasons. NO ONE can make a profit on local transit, whether by bus or rail. Hundreds of private transit companies have gone into bankruptcy in the last 70 or 80 years, and where transit systems still exist they are invariably run or subsidized by government. You should rid yourself of your private transit fantasies and enter the real world.

It was inevitable that we'd sustain a fare increase and considering MBTA's overhead I think I understand. Between wages and benefits, infrastructure upkeep, and capital equipment costs (i.e., trains), it should be clear how acute the need for cash is. Last month when the acting GM of MBTA was a guest on WBZ Radio Dan Rea's NightSide program, I called in to offer a suggestion: market based fares. Specifically, should the MBTA consider a distance-based fare schedule like the rapid transit system in Washington DC? The response I received was really vapid: flat fares irrespective of distance traveled was what MBTA wanted for the payment simplicity of its riders. Really? I hope MBTA expands to air travel. I'd love to fly to Hawaii for the same price as Cleveland. I stressed that such an equitable change in pricing might pleasantly surprise MBTA's Finance folks and furthermore, that the riders would likely accept it because the practice exists in virtually every other kind of commercial travel service. Once again the response was "thank you but no thank you." And Dan Rea was not exactly a fountain of diplomacy either. In closing, MBTA now has its fare increase and it still has its illogical pricing structure for fares. But to be clear, MBTA must address its inefficiencies with respect to its compensation and benefits costs, at ALL levels of the organization. It MUST begin to think commercially (read "for profit, private sector") and in so doing transform itself like some other famous capital-intense businesses have (GM, Chrysler, Caterpillar) in the wake of the massive financial collapse and subsequent Recession of the past five years. If they can do it why not the T?