If even the secretary of transportation won’t take the train, who will? - The Boston Globe (2024)

Tibbits-Nutt makes the same choice as most commuters in Massachusetts. Nearly 90 percent of households in the state have access to at least one car and most people drive alone to work, according to the most recent US Census survey data.

It’s hard to blame them, or Tibbits-Nutt. Between infrequent, disparate, and erratic service, high costs, or trains that are standing-room only, deciding to drive to work can feel like an easy choice.

Most Massachusetts residents’ choice to get behind the wheel instead of on the train isn’t just an indictment of public transit service, it’s also contributing to congestion that has Boston consistently ranked as one of the most traffic-choked cities in the world.

Having the secretary of transportation drive an electric car sends a message the state wants to promote: EVs are better. But the electricity used to charge EV batteries mostly comes from natural gas, and most drivers in the state drive gas-powered vehicles. Climate change experts warn that unless we significantly reduce the number of miles we drive, we won’t be able to avoid increasingly deadly sea level rise, wildfires, severe storms, drought, and heat.

But if even one of the state’s most vocal transit advocates won’t take the train to work, who will?

Electrification won’t cut it

Transportation emissions, mostly from personal vehicles, are the largest single contributor of greenhouse gasses in the US and Massachusetts, accounting for about one-third of total emissions.

Replacing all gas-powered cars with electric cars increasingly charged by renewable energy will go a long way to reducing emissions, and even EVs charged by fossil fuel sources generate far fewer carbon emissions than gas-powered vehicles. Electric cars produce less than half the carbon emissions of gasoline cars, even when including manufacturing, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. In New England, when factoring in the source of electricity that charges them, the average EV produces the same emissions as a gas vehicle that could attain 117 miles per gallon, by a 2022 estimate, far higher than any gas-powered car.

But electric car uptake has fallen far short of the state’s projections, as drivers remain concerned about access to chargers and electric car prices remain out of reach for many. The state’s climate plan centers around having 300,000 electric cars registered in the state by next year. Right now there are only around 64,000.

Driving less, experts say, is by far the fastest way to reduce emissions. Without drivers shifting to other modes, many of the pitfalls of our current transportation system, including traffic congestion, road deaths, and dangerous pollution — not from tail pipes but from tires kicking up particulate pollution — will also likely worsen, even with electric cars.

“We will need both electrification and mode shift to meet transportation climate targets — full stop,” said Miguel Moravec, a senior associate at RMI, a national sustainability nonprofit. “This is ultimately a policy decision.”

Tibbits-Nutt’s office said she was unavailable to be interviewed for this story. In a statement, MassDOT spokesperson Amelia Aubourg said, “The Secretary is a big believer in commuter rail and in other public transit options. She works every day to deliver a transportation system that strengthens the state’s economy, provides access to employment and housing, and improves the quality of life for all our residents.”

Many of the state’s recent transportation efforts are aimed at trying to get people out of their cars and taking public transit, biking, and walking instead. The MBTA Communities Law requires multifamily housing be built near transit stations in 175 municipalities in Eastern Massachusetts, including near Shirley Station. Center-running bus-only lanes in Boston are meant to make taking the bus faster than driving. And, miles of new bike lanes and sidewalks are meant to make biking and walking safer.

But without a firm target to reduce driving, transit advocates worry that car-dependent transportation will proliferate.

In MassDOT’s federally required long-term transportation planning report slated to be voted on by the agency’s board of directors later this month, MassDOT doesn’t set any concrete goals to reduce driving. Instead, the document offers vague, sweeping statements about investments to “promote significantly more trips” on carbon-free modes.

“It’s not good enough to say we’re going to try but don’t hold us accountable,” said Jarred Johnson, executive director of public transportation advocacy group TransitMatters. “We will fail if we don’t have real goals that we’re holding ourselves accountable to.”

Advocates are urging MassDOT to commit to reducing the number of miles driven per person by 50 percent by 2050 from the 2019 level, which would avoid about 57 million more metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions just from battery charging and tailpipes, the equivalent to preventing yearly pollution from 15 coal power plants, compared to an electrification-only scenario, according to research from RMI.

Contrast Massachusetts’ approach with that of states like Colorado and Minnesota, which are steering transportation funding toward projects based on the ability to get people to choose transit, like bus-only lanes and expanded transit service.

Several states have already set aggressive targets to reduce the number of miles driven per person over the next few decades, according to an analysis from RMI.

In the Massachusetts’ Clean Energy and Climate Plan, published in 2020, the state estimates that the number of miles driven per person will increase 12.4 percent between 2015 and 2050 without new policy interventions. Meanwhile, other states are aiming to significantly decrease miles per person in a shorter time frame. Colorado estimates it will slash the number of miles driven per person by about 11 percent by 2050, Minnesota and Maryland are aiming for 20 percent, and California is targeting about 30 percent, according to an RMI analysis of state goals relative to 2019 figures.

Car is still king

The choice of whether to drive or take transit hinges on many factors, and for most people in Massachusetts, the car wins.

If someone already owns a car or gets free parking, they are much more likely to get behind the wheel, even if, like Tibbits-Nutt, they live very close to a train station, said Eric Bourassa, director of transportation at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

“Auto ownership is incredibly influential,” said Bourassa.

In Tibbits-Nutt’s case, MassDOT provides her an electric car and covers all costs associated with the vehicle, said agency spokesperson Aubourg. And she isn’t always traveling to Boston; often her duties as secretary take her to places the commuter rail doesn’t go.

If Tibbits-Nutt were to take the train to Boston on the days she works from there, she would have to pay for the fare herself, Aubourg said. The price for a round-trip ticket is $24.50, and a monthly pass is $378.

But what about somebody who doesn’t get the free perks? When factoring in gas, parking, maintenance, and insurance, commuting by car isn’t such a bargain.

The 128 Business Council, which provides shuttle connections to transit and is where Tibbits-Nutt formerly served as executive director, has a commuter calculator that shows the cost of commuting from Shirley to Boston and back in a new, 2024 gas-powered Toyota Camry, a popular model in the state, can be about $44 per day, factoring in gas prices, cost per mile of maintenance, tires, insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation, and financing. The calculator uses a gas mileage equivalent for electric vehicles, showing that the commute would cost about $37 per day in a Tesla Model Y.

And that’s not including parking — car commuters should tack on another $30 to $50 depending on the downtown garage.

So, for somebody who commutes 20 days a month and parks in a modestly priced garage, that’s about $378 for the train vs. at least $1,340 to drive.

The math is clear. But now consider what Tibbits-Nutt would have to deal with on the train each day.

To get her rail commute started, she could drive four minutes, bike nine minutes, or walk 39 minutes from her home in Devens to Shirley Station, according to Google Maps estimates.

Fitchburg Line trains come about once an hour during morning and evening commuting times, meaning if she is running even a few minutes late, she risks getting to work or getting home as much as an hour later than planned. For hourly workers, many who have no other option than the train, that can lead to their employer docking their wages. For those with children, that can mean stranded kids at day care.

Then there’s Shirley Station, a far from an ideal place to wait for a train. The station is a wooden structure with a large opening on the side facing the tracks and open windows on the sides, providing little protection from the elements. A small bike rack is affixed directly behind the station, and a row of dozens of free parking spots stretch down streets parallel to the tracks.

It’s also not accessible, meaning people who use mobility devices can’t board the train there, and there are no audio announcements saying when the next train is coming.

Once at North Station, Tibbits-Nutt would need to change to the subway and get off at Park Street for a short walk to MassDOT building downtown. If she nails the timing, figure an hour and 45 minutes door to door. On a bad traffic day and a really good train day, the train could be quicker. But most days, the car is more time efficient.

Consider the alternative

To Tibbits-Nutt’s neighbors who ride the rails, the train is a no-brainer for getting to Boston. Many rail commuters on a recent weekday morning drove to the station or got dropped off there by a family member. Climate change was not one of the top motivators. Convenience was.

All said they preferred to sit back and let the engineer do the driving.

“Would you rather sit on the train and relax or be stuck in traffic?” said Karen Herrnsdorf, 51, who commutes from her home in Lunenburg to downtown twice a week. “She [Tibbits-Nutt] needs to take the train.”

The commuter rail has recovered more of its pre-pandemic ridership than any other MBTA mode. Average weekday ridership in March on the whole T system — commuter rail, subway, bus, paratransit, and ferry — was only about 64 percent of what it was during March of 2019, according to T data. But on the commuter rail, ridership in March was about 85 percent of what it was before the pandemic.

Nick Balatsos, 35, has been taking the train from his home in Shirley to his job as an attorney in downtown Boston since 2021. It’s far more affordable than paying to park his truck downtown, he said, and he can get work done on the train.

He gives himself two hours for the whole trip, one way.

Ken Cutting was the only commuter interviewed who walked to the station from his job at the Bemis Associates Inc. factory in Shirley, where he works the night shift from 11 p.m. to around 7 a.m. In the winter, he said, colleagues complain about the road conditions, but the train usually works fine in the snow.

“It works perfect for me,” said Cutting, 37, who was heading outbound to his home in Fitchburg. “It’s way cheaper than gas.”

By the time the Boston-bound train reached North Station on time at 8:53 a.m., commuters filled nearly every open seat. Some had spent the hour and 15 minute-ride reading books, others had their laptops open, and a few were taking in the scenery with headphones in. From there, they walked to their offices or connected to the T’s subway or bus systems.

A better future

Driving less isn’t only good for the climate. Fewer cars on the road means less traffic for those who need to drive, fewer people dying and getting injured in car crashes each year, and lower household expenses.

If Massachusetts reduced the number of miles driven per person by half by 2050, it would prevent about 5,400 traffic fatalities and more than 82,000 injuries, according to the RMI analysis, and save households at least $3,000 annually.

Unlike switching from gas-powered cars to electric cars, reducing driving requires changing behavior. And in the US, where decades of highway-focused transportation policy means we drive more than twice as much as residents of some other developed countries, that presents a unique challenge.

The required change is possible though, said Britteny Jenkins, vice president for environmental justice at Conservation Law Foundation, who envisions a future where everyone in the state has a zero-emission way to get where they’re going that is affordable, fast, and safe.

“The problem isn’t about the choices one individual makes about how to use a public transit system that is broken,” she said. “We need to think big, we need a new vision for what public transit looks like in this state.”

But right now, the T is draining its coffers just to get back to the baseline, not to think big.

Advocates and former colleagues of Tibbits-Nutt in state government credit her with many of the improvements made to T service and accessibility in recent years, including increased daytime service on the commuter rail and a long-promised reduced fare for low-income riders that the T says will start soon (something most large US transit agencies already have).

But many plans to improve and expand public transit, making it more attractive to drivers, have stalled, as the MBTA’s needs for repairs and day-to-day operations far outpace state funding. Budget proposals from Governor Maura Healey, the state House of Representatives, and the state Senate for the upcoming fiscal year all leave the T hundreds of millions of dollars short of what it needs come July 1. The T plans to drain its rainy day fund to make up the difference.

“We all say we want to see less traffic and people get out of their cars and address climate change, but the way we’ve been funding the T doesn’t seem like we’re actually valuing those things,” said MAPC’s Bourassa.

Making transit, biking, and walking more attractive is just as important as making driving less attractive, said Bourassa, who wants to see employers subsidize transit passes, not free parking, and consideration of fees on driving, such as congestion pricing, that “can encourage people to take other modes.”

“Sticks need to be part of it,” he said.

Healey recently said she has “no plans to propose new taxes or raise existing ones” and shut down an idea floated by Tibbits-Nutt to put tolls at the state’s borders.

Johnson of TransitMatters said making the shift requires stronger state government leadership.

“It’s not enough to nibble at the edges,” he said. “When you see how many lives are saved, how much money is saved, we should do it even if it’s hard.”

Taylor Dolven can be reached at taylor.dolven@globe.com. Follow her @taydolven.