Equal or Better - Poster

Equal or Better - Join Us April 9, 2012

Please Join us!

Monday April 9, 2012
Connolly Library Auditorium
433 Centre Street, JP 02130
6PM Sharp

In 1987 the Washington Street Elevated train was torn down and community members furiously awaited rapid replacement service between the minority neighborhood of Roxbury and the employment center of Downtown Boston. Fifteen years later the official replacement service, The Silver Line, debuted. It was called 'rapid transit' but looked and acted like a bus.

Equal or Better, the Story of the Silver Line, explores the history of transportation equity in America through the lens of three communities in Boston. It unearths a story of environmental justice, race relations, and probes how tax-dollars are allocated for transportation in this nation.

See trailer for the film here.

Also, check out the original film poster here.

MPO's Draft LRTP Now Available for Comment - Where's the Rail?

by Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic

The Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 25-year Long-RangeTransportation Plan (LRTP) is now out.

The public comment period for the long range plan began Monday, August 15 and will end on Tuesday, September 13.

See the LRTP at the CTPS website.

Unfortunately, the LRTP is abysmal in terms of transit planning. The only rail transit project in the state's 25-year vision is the Somerville/Medford Green line extension, and there is great uncertainty on its funding. As you may know, this project has now been pushed back possibly to 2018.

Is anyone surprised by this delay?!

In the proposed LRTP (chapter 8, page 7), it is noted that about $7 billion of funding is being budgeted for projects in the plan. Of that amount, practically all of the funding is for highways (87%). The only exception is for the Somerville Medford rail extension. This project is now estimated at an unbelievable $1.12 billion for the Somerville portion and another $140 million or so for the Medford part.

Looking at the draft LRTP, that's about it for rail projects. Apparently, there is no money for anything else. The state is arguing forcefully to remove the Red-Blue connector from the list as well. Looking through the document and the criteria for project viability, the state does not consider any other rail projects for funding.

One question I have is: How is it that the costs for the 5.3 mile Green line extension to Somerville/Medford have ballooned from $375 million (2003 PMT) to $1.26 billion?

In February, the MBTA Board of Directors had asked for $95 million for design and planning. Apparently, $22 million was approved..

That's a lot of money just for design. After all, this is just a 5.3 mile project along an existing railway bed. I'm sure there are a million (billion!) reasons that the state uses to explain these costs. But I am skeptical that anything could justify such a massive change in the budget and such a hefty expenditure.

Just look at some other costs of light-rail projects happening nationally. Norfolk's project came in at $43 million per mile and has some similarities to the Somerville/Medford Green line extension, which is now projected to cost about $200 million per mile. How is this possible?

We're in seemingly impossible times right now. How can any new rail project ever get built with such excessive costs being projected for the Somerville/Medford extension? By jacking up the cost of the Green line extension project, and then delaying it practically another decade, the message by the State is unfortunately loud and clear: if it were up to the State, there would be no more rail projects in the foreseeable future.

Winter Transit Blues

by Tobias Johnson

It's painfully ironic that the long-awaited push for efficient transportation systems now being championed by the Obama administration which includes money for both inter-city and intra-city rail systems (specifically streetcars) should dawn just at the time when things look bleakest for metro-Boston's rail network.

Perhaps the federal government will step in and play the role of Boston's White Knight.  Yet the hole our state leaders have dug, over the past several decades, for Massachusetts residents in the arena of public transportation is so deep, that no federal assistance can possibly cure our ills until such time as we get our own fiscal house in order.  Certainly, when year after year, one sees state officials fail to address the systemic funding problems of the MBTA, ignore good ideas that have merit and kick the can down the road, activists and T riders alike have a right to be angry.

Winter can be a difficult time to get around and this winter especially has exposed the vulnerabilities of our public transit infrastructure and the perspective is scary.

Boston Magazine recently dissected the T's safety record, maintenance backlog and debit and posed the question: Is the T Safe To Ride?  As informative as the article is, and as staggering as the T's debt is today, several important financial obligations were missing.  Just to name two, there was no mention of the old commuter rail coach and locomotive stock rapidly approaching its end-of-life.  Also beyond their 14-year-FTA-life-cycle are around 200 buses dating from 1994.

The Boston Globe did pick up on the aging commuter rail fleet in a piece today anticipating a meeting between the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (the operators of the commuter rail network for the MBTA), the state transportation secretary, the MBTA general manager, and the House and Senate chairmen of the legislative transportation committee to discuss poor winter-time performance.

In January, fewer than 73 percent of commuter rail trains arrived at their final destination within five minutes of the scheduled time.  Thousands of trains were delayed by more than 850 hours, and 111 were canceled altogether.  [Possibly because] more than three-quarters of the 80 locomotives and 410 coaches owned by the T are approaching or have exceeded the manufacturer’s suggested life of 25 years.

But what about the courtesy of notifying the passengers standing out in the sub-zero temperatures?  Anyone remember the “real-time” transit information displays which should have been working a decade ago – yet another testament to the T's failed project management.

In short, the T is loosing riders at a time when high fuel costs and consciousness over the health of our planet is attracting people toward public transit.

20-year rider Beth DelBono waited in disbelief as a train preparing to make its first trip of the day (the 602, scheduled to leave at 6:45 a.m.) had to be scratched before it could move. An electrical problem in the control car — the lead coach where the engineer operates on inbound trips, while the locomotive is pushing from the rear — forced the rail company to swap that car with the one on the next scheduled train, and to send a crew to repair it on site, resulting in a nearly half-hour delay. 

"It just seemed like a final blow,’’ said DelBono, who works in research at a Boston hospital. 

As a second-generation commuter rail rider, she was once an advocate for the financial and environmental benefits of riding the train.

For those of us who live along the Arborway corridor, chronic overcrowding and aggravatingly long travel times to go short distances like 2 miles are a painful daily reminder of the MBTA's 25-plus-year-long urban disinvestment initiative.

MA Appeals Court Rules on Green Line Restoration

By Tobias Johnson

As Boston transit watchers recall, the Arborway Committee argued our appeal for the restoration of E-Line streetcar service in Boston before the Appeals Court in November.  On Jan 25, 2011 a decision was handed down in our suit against the EOT.  You can find a PDF of the Memorandum and Order online here.

In their written opinion, the three justices who comprised the panel declined to agree with us that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Exec. Office of Transportation (EOTC, parent of the MBTA) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in 1990 had been extended by the Department of Environmental (DEP) environmental regulations (CMR 7.36) promulgated in 1991 which were born out of the MOU through a well understood public process.

They upheld the lower court dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it was not filed in a timely manner - statute of limitations.  Unlike the lower court ruling, however, this opinion made sense, although we certainly don't agree with it.  The Appeals Court decision demonstrated the justices' understanding of the complex case and their competence in writing a clear and concise opinion.

Although the decision is a disappointment and metro-Boston has lost an irreplaceable link to the central subway system in an obvious and egregious pattern of decades of MBTA disinvestment, the goal of restoring Green Line service to Jamaica Plain remains as valid and as good as ever from a policy, transportation, environmental, and energy standpoint.

Our cause is justified.

I'm reminded of the Rule of St Benedict, a copy of which I have with a series of meditations entitled - "Always We Begin Again."  The Arborway Committee now moves to the next stage and the Go Green campaign continues.  We will continue to uphold the principles of equity, energy efficiency, and economy in our advocacy.

Always we begin again.

We will continue to raise public awareness around transportation generally and will set the stage for future efforts that will achieve the restoration of this valuable public transit project.

Once again, T Examining Transit Options in Dorchester-Mattapan-Roxbury

By Franklyn Salimbene

I am continually amazed by the ineptitude of City and MBTA officials when it comes to community transit planning and by the obtuseness of some residents and businesses when it comes to life in the urban core.

The Dorchester Reporter reported on its website last week that the T is planning three community meetings to discuss a study project for transit strategies in the Dorchester-Mattapan-Roxbury corridor. The Reporter posted the following article, which appears below in part, and on its website.

The $291,000 project, which will focus on areas between the Red and Orange Lines on the MBTA that are not within a half-mile walk of stations on either line, comes after state lawmakers representing the three neighborhoods called on transportation officials to pull back on the proposal for an express busway along Blue Hill Ave. Community members raised concerns about the proposal, dubbed “Route 28X,” because they said it would tear up the street for the busway and eliminate parking spaces.

The reason the City and the T are in a fix about what to do in the heavily transit-dependent Blue Hill Avenue corridor is because they did not adequately discuss the options with the residents and businesses when the 28X project was first proposed in 2009.

Further, the City provided no proactive support for the idea of forcing automobiles to share Blue Hill Avenue with a transit right of way. A transit right of way for the Avenue would not be a novelty, however, as there was one in place for streetcars until the late 1950s.

In urban transit planning the T needs to do its homework, the City needs to provide a vision and support for transit projects, and community residents need to consider life in their neighborhoods if there are no attractive transit alternatives to the automobile.

Perhaps the City and the T will get if right this time—although I doubt it.

Immediate Release - Oral Argument Scheduled for Nov. 9

The Appeals Court has set the date of the hearing in the Arborway Committee, Inc. v. Executive Office of Transportation.

Join us for a day in court for the the residents of Boston and the metro-region.

Tuesday, Nov. 9, 9:30 a.m.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

John Adams Courthouse

3 Center Plz # 7

Boston, MA 02108-2003

For directions and handicap accessibility, click here.

Legal Update

On February 13, 2007, the Arborway Committee, Inc., and 12 Jamaica Plain and Mission Hill residents sued the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and the Department of Public Works alleging breach of a written memorandum of understanding requiring restoration of electric streetcar service to Jamaica Plain.

In response to the suit, the state defendants filed s motion for summary judgement contending that the suit was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.  In opposition to that motion, the Arborway Committee contended, among other things, that having utilized the environmental review provisions of the agreement and the regulations to delay restoration, the state defendants legally cannot now claim that the suit was filed too late.

On May 27, 2009, the superior court judge allowed the state defendants’ motion and thereafter dismissed the suit on that basis.  On July 25, the Arborway Committee and the other plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

The Arborway Committee's initial brief on appeal was filed in the Appeals Court on February 12, 2010.  The state defendants’ brief on appeal was filed on May 14, 2010, and the Arborway Committee reply brief was filed in the Appeals Court on June 18, 2010. 

The appeal will not be decided until sometime after a three-judge panel of Appeals Court judges hears oral argument by the attorneys on the issues raised by the briefs.

Those oral argument have now been scheduled by the Appeals Court, see above. 

Please join us on:

Tuesday, Nov. 9, 9:30 a.m.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Mass transit, the Big Dig and the Gubernatorial Race

By David Rohrlich

An unfortunate feature of the current gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts is that mass transit has received very little attention.

In fact by a perverse twist, the one issue which receives a lot of attention and could lead to a broader discussion of transit is never permitted to do so.  The reference here is to the Big Dig, which comes up frequently, but only as a battering ram for use by some of the candidates against others. While it is certainly important to recall the colossal expense and mismanagement of that project, the recollection is incomplete unless we also remember that in making its Big Gift to the highway lobby, the Commonwealth entered into a legally binding agreement to make several much smaller

gifts to the public.

A faithful reader of this blog probably does not need to be reminded that among other things, the agreement obligated the Commonwealth to restore E line service to Jamaica Plain. In any case, here we are twenty years later, and the highway lobby has received everything it wanted and much more while the public has received virtually nothing. The latter half of the story has been largely ignored by the media.

This is not to say that mass transit has been completely ignored in the gubernatorial debates.

For example, residents of the south coast are evidently interested in a rail connection to neighboring towns and the Hub.  Online editions of SouthCoastToday.com and the Sun Chronicle offer a discussion of the proposed commuter rail line to New Bedford.

But it is significant that these articles appeared in local newspapers from southeastern Massachusetts rather than in, say, the Boston Globe.  The assumption seems to be that transit is only of parochial interest:  the E line is of interest only to Jamaica Plain, the Washington Street corridor only to Roxbury, the Green Line extension only to Somerville and Medford.  It may be that particular lines are primarily of local interest, but the issue of mass tranist in general should be of interest not only to Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, Somerville, and Medford but also to Springfield and Pittsfield and Northampton and North Adams.

Why is there no passenger rail service connecting various parts of the state? What contribution could a restoration of trunk lines and light rail make to the state's economy, and how could it improve our environment and help us prepare for an era of petroleum scarcity?

These questions need to be raised in the context of the gubernatorial race.

Don't forget to vote on November 2nd.

A Third Bridge Over the Cape Cod Canal!

by Franklyn Salimbene

On August 22, the Cape Cod Times published an article entitled Breaking the Cape bottleneck.

As one U.S. army general was once quoted as saying - “Nuts!”

The idea of adding a third roadway bridge across the canal is one fraught with disaster.

The roads and byways of Cape Cod were never designed to accommodate the larger volumes of traffic that a 3rd crossing would invite. (Remember - if you build it, they will come.)  Further, the Cape is a fragile environmental and ecological resource. For example, it lives off of one aquifer and is often victim to significant ocean-side erosion.

Some play the terrorist card - that a 3d bridge would be necessary to evacuate the Cape in the instance of a disaster or attack.  That old chestnut has already been tested in Louisiana when Katrina hit.  Everyone took to the roads and everyone went nowhere fast.  In fact, what Katrina proved was that a railway exit would have been more effective in moving people more quickly out of New Orleans than a highway.

Which brings me to my point - the Cape already has a third canal crossing.  It is a railway bridge that is underutilized and pregnant with potential.

As people movers, trains are more energy efficient and environmentally sound than cars. (The same can be said for streetcars, by the way.) As a spur for economic development on the Cape, trains, rather than cars, are consistent with what people who “think Cape Cod” understand the Cape to be—a place to get away from the vagaries of everyday urban/suburban life. Building more roadways, parking lots, and strip malls to accommodate more cars, signals the suburbanization of the Cape.

Is anyone not horrified by that thought? Planners, who are not horrified by such a thought, ought to have their credentials lifted. Developers and chamber of commerce officials who are not horrified by such a thought are just plain stupid.

Streetcars back in Madrid center

by Alan Smith

August , 2010 – Streetcars back in Madrid center; suburban areas get three new light rail lines

Our member, Alan Smith, submitted this note from his recent stay in Madrid.

Three light rail lines (metro ligero) were inaugurated in Madrid in 2007, as a complement to its southern metro (underground) system.

The three lines have a length of 27.55km and have 36 stations. The neighborhoods involved are Sanchinarro and Las Tablas, the district of Fuencarral and Aravaca and Boadilla del Monte and Pozuelo de Alarcón.

In the heart of Madrid, in the Paseo de Recoletos, a new line was installed in 2009.

Some background: The streetcar system in Madrid, once extensive, was eliminated in 1972. But there is evident government and civic interest in the installation of a new light rail system.

And from what I witness in my stay, the residents are excited users of the new transit services.

For more information click here.