Go Green - Streetcar News and Commentary.

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

2011-08-18T09:00:00.007-04:00

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

2011-02-05T13:00:00.003-05:00

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

2011-01-31T20:00:00.005-05:00

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

2011-01-12T18:45:00.002-05:00

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

2010-10-17T09:00:00.004-04:00

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

2010-10-05T09:00:00.001-04:00

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!

2010-08-25T15:05:00.001-04:00

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

2010-08-10T12:07:00.003-04:00

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.

Arborway Gets RollSign Writeup

2010-07-26T09:00:00.001-04:00

by Franklyn Salimbene

I was glad to see that the most recent issue of Rollsign magazine (Vol. 47, No. 3/4) published an article on the legal action underway to restore Arborway Green Line service to Jamaica Plain. Rollsign is a publication of the Boston Street Railway Association, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year.

Entitled “Arborway Line Suit Dismissal Challenged”, the article noted that electric streetcars are non-polluting at the source and reduce noxious emissions in the community that contribute to asthma and other respiratory diseases, particularly in children.

In addition, the article went on, studies have shown that streetcar service directly from Jamaica Plain into the central Green Line subway would increase public transit ridership, thereby reducing reliance on automobiles and further reducing emissions. The article also pointed to the fact that supporters of streetcar restoration have raised more than $28,000 from Jamaica Plain residents and friends to pay for the legal action.

Some other things that the article did not say, however, are important to keep in mind. As I continue to remind folks, the #39 bus has been a ridership loser since its inception in 1986, as was predicted in the MBTA’s Arborway Study (1987). In fact, over time the transition from streetcar service to bus service has resulted in a daily ridership loss. See related blog post on the Route 39 Bus loss in ridership.

This level of financial assistance indicates a level of community support that is impressive. It’s also right on target with the 21st Century need to promote a healthier environment, combat global warming, and wean all of us off of reliance on the automobile.

Here’s to a greener JP!

More Streetcars in New England - Just Not Boston

2010-07-21T20:58:00.001-04:00

by Tobias Johnson

The online publication The Transport Politic drew our attention this week to a competition right here in New England between two Connecticut cities, Stamford and New Haven, for federal streetcar dollars.

As we've noted before, streetcars are on the resurgence across the nation and actual construction has begun on new and expanded systems in over 20 cities in North America as I write.

You can find the full article here, but in summary, the Obama Administration's push for efficiency and sustainability in urban design has pitted two neighboring cities against one another in the competition for limited transit funding. And they're even using the same consultant, URS! Of course, as we all know from living in a capitalist society, a little dose of competition is healthy. May the best design win! Or better yet, may they both win!

Stamford and New Haven planners are interested in the light rail mode specifically because evidence shows that streetcar systems "induce expanded economic development in inner-city areas and increase public transportation mode share."

Both New Haven and Stamford have for years been studying the possibility of introducing streetcars along roads in their downtown areas, though neither has earmarked specific funds for the purpose. A relatively transit-friendly state administration, already pushing a bus rapid transit project in Hartford and an improved commuter rail line between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts, could play an important role in identifying capital funds for the projects. The State of Connecticut runs the bus system in both cities.

The primary goal of a streetcar would be to connect each respective intercity rail station with both the downtown business district and proposed new development. This fits in with the preferred federal policy of prioritizing intermodal connections in every new transportation project.

Notice how these 21st century plans only become viable because of a "transit-friendly state administration?" Oh, what we couldn't accomplish if only Massachusetts had better political leadership.

Despite the success of the mode and its transformational effect on the urban landscape, there are, of course, detractors. The Stamford Advocate quotes a meeting attendee belittling the proposed light rail line as nothing more than a “cute” “gadget” and worrying about room for cars and drivers. Full article.

Having been to many dozens of meetings over the years in Boston, I've heard all of the same tired arguments before. It's time for drivers to share the road and stop seeing the world exclusively from behind their bug-stained windshields.

Ridership Projections In An Election Year

2010-06-30T21:44:00.004-04:00

by Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic

The Boston Globe Starts and Stops column about the New Bedford commuter rail expansion offers some misleading figures.

Supporters say the sociocultural benefits of restoring rail to a long-struggling region — and the only area within 50 miles of Boston that lacks train service — are myriad, if not entirely quantifiable.

Still, they project that by 2030 the service will inspire enough new development around stations and facilitate commuting to Boston to generate $448 million to $487 million in new annual economic activity, with 3,500 to 3,800 new jobs.

They expect 8,040 to 9,580 one-way trips a day (representing 4,500 to 5,900 people, most of them taking round-trips), depending on the final route and the speed of the trains, which would take about 75 to 90 minutes to run to New Bedford or Fall River from Boston. And they would remove up to 297,000 vehicle-miles a day from roads and highways, saving fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

I guess I should not be surprised to see this Globe reporter presenting more politically favorable figures for ridership.

I found it curious that Moskowitz reported that New Bedford is the only area within 50 miles of Boston that lacks rail service. First of all, New Bedford is more than 50 miles from Boston. Second, there are many other towns that lack rail service within 50 miles of Boston. One may argue that there are even areas WITHIN Boston that lack adequate rail service, Roxbury and Dorchester for example.

More importantly, other projections I've seen for the New Bedford rail line are much more modest, somewhere on the order of 2000 new riders per day at a cost of over $2 billion.

And another misconstrued piece of this article is the notion that such intense development will occur around commuter rail stations. Unfortunately, commuter rail does not have the frequency of service to result in the level of new growth quoted in the projections. Another reason this does not happen in Massachusetts, with our local control of zoning, is that communities prevent zoning changes that would allow density around stations, as efforts in Kingston proved.

What a poor job at reporting, just when you think that the Globe cannot possibly sink any further!

A Common Question About Arborway Restoration

2010-06-28T19:49:00.004-04:00

by Franklyn Salimbene

I had a recent visitor from the United Kingdom stay with me in Jamaica Plain for a few weeks. She relied heavily on public transit to get around, particularly on days when I was away at the office. She quickly mastered the Charlie Card for both the Orange Line and the #39 bus.

During her visit my visitor became aware of the efforts by the community to restore Green Line streetcar service to the Arborway in place of the #39 bus. She noted the reasonably good level of service to JP provided both by subway and bus and asked what the advantages would be to restoring streetcar service.

Her question was not new. In fact, it has been raised frequently during the many years of public discussion surrounding restoration, discussion, I might add, that led to a decision by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in November 2001 to restore streetcar service. [The failure by the state to implement this decision is now the subject of a legal challenge in the state Appeals Court.]

During the public discussion the facts supporting restoring streetcar service provided the answer to my visitor’s question, an answer that is simple and straightforward. And in 2010, aware as we must be of the adverse environmental impacts of reliance on the automobile, it is important to remember.

Every responsible study that led to the 2001 DEP decision concluded that restoring Arborway Green Line service would increase transit ridership and thereby reduce reliance on the automobile. These studies were supported not only by statistical projections, but more importantly by the facts on the ground. While Green Line ridership throughout the system grew in the 1990s and 2000s, ridership on the #39 bus fell, and fell precipitously according to the MBTA publication Ridership and Service Statistics.

When streetcar service last ran in JP in 1985, ridership on the line was over 40,000 a day as attested by the MBTA’s 1987 Arborway Transit Study. With the suspension of that service and the implementation of the #39 bus service, daily ridership tumbled to 28,000 in 1988; 19,000 in 1997; 17,000 in 2001; and 14,000 today.

Streetcar service would never have seen such an erosion in ridership.

The #39 is a loser. My visitor had her answer.

Boston's truncated E-line gets national attention.

2010-06-16T22:27:00.010-04:00

by Tobias Johnson

Boston resident and Huffingtonpost.com contributor, Greg Selkoe, advocates for the restoration of Boston's Green line. See the quote below. For the full article, click here.

Cities like Boston that were fortunate to have extensive systems built in the first half of the 20th century have basically been coasting... [and] have done little to engage or push the state government who runs the public transit agency in metro Boston to take any action. There has been no increase in urban rail transit in Boston for many decades...

Even more regressive and misguided was the City government's thwarting of a neighborhood's 15 year quest to get the E-line LRV route restored (the one I mentioned earlier in the piece), Boston was fortunate enough to get the Federal Government to require the restoration of this line as part of highway construction mitigation. Amazingly, the city government did everything they could to block this project (one that would not be paid for by the city!), stall, and obfuscate and it was eventually killed by the Feds. The primary issue was the Mayor's belief that street rail would increase traffic and that streetcars were out of date! My hope is that when there is new political leadership in Boston that gets it the restoration of the E-line will be revisited.

This is the third in a series of articles written by Selkoe on the state of transportation nationally. See here for parts one and two of his series titled Grand Theft Auto.

I must say, I could not agree more with Selkoe's commentary. The entire series is enlightening, timely and straight to the point. We need some radical changes in our transportation systems, and we need them sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, due to poor political leadership, Boston did indeed miss a golden opportunity to implement a fabulous urban redesign and renewal project that would have set us apart as cities go and set a new standard for urban transit. Well, if Boston can't be a leader in this area, perhaps a new generation of political leadership, which must happen eventually, will allow us to at least be a follower in a few years by playing catch-up.

Arborway rail restoration, economics, and feasibility

2010-06-03T07:14:00.001-04:00

by Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic

Some have questioned whether it is economically feasible to consider new rail-based transportation projects in the Boston metropolitan region. After all, the MBTA generally runs a deficit and is faced with the important necessity of keeping its current system running in a state of good repair. A recent priority for the MBTA and the City of Boston was to obtain funding for the Silver Line Phase III project which would have created a bus tunnel between the Green line near Boylston Station and the South Station. However, at a cost of over $2.1 billion, this project did not receive favorable recommendations for funding by the Federal Transit Administration. And the current proposal by state officials for extending commuter rail service to New Bedford carries a cost estimate of $1.45 to $1.9 billion. Ridership on the new line is projected between 5300 to 6300 riders per day, of which about 2500 would be new transit riders.

In spite of our current transit funding problems, however, it is still important for our communities to consider and plan for new rail based transit. Many cities around the U.S. have invested in modern light rail systems and have enjoyed significant benefits in terms of providing better mobility. Rail based systems are good for the environment and help reduce oil consumption because they provide an attractive option compared to driving a car. Generally, new rail extensions are also a stimulus to the economy of a region. The question is whether there are good, cost-effective rail transit projects here in the Boston area. What types of potential expansions can be built to our rail-based system at a relatively lower cost but that will stimulate high transit ridership?

State transportation officials should evaluate short-distance, modest cost rail extensions and connections within Boston’s inner neighborhoods. The ability of these types of transit improvements to provide enhanced service within the Route 128 corridor will generate significant ridership and can be built on a fairly low cost per rider basis. For example, creating a Red-Blue line connector will significantly enhance mobility to parts of central Boston and provide a direct connection between two diverse nearby Boston neighborhoods. Extending streetcar service to Jamaica Plain and to Forest Hills would have a similar impact on improving ridership and transportation mobility. More riders would take this service into Boston and elsewhere – probably 6000 new riders compared to the existing bus. Substantial economic benefit would accrue to the businesses in the corridor, which would now have new access to a larger pool of potential customers. And the line could be built for a modest cost – but at a cost that is justified by the number of riders who would benefit from this project.

It is time for our state and city leaders to reconsider how transportation dollars should be spent. Small, cost-effective projects like Arborway rail restoration would be excellent candidates for federal funding and should be prioritized. We need to advocate for projects where we can get the most benefit for our transit dollars, including restoration of rail to Jamaica Plain and along the Arborway corridor.

Bike Consultant Weighs In On Streetcar Compatibility

2010-05-24T08:00:00.013-04:00

by Franklyn Salimbene

The problem of cycling on busy city streets has been raised in many circles, most pointedly by cyclists who know that they are vulnerable to traffic, potholes, and pollution. Recently, I attended a meeting in Jamaica Plain to discuss cycling on Centre and South streets. These streets, as anyone who visits to Jamaica Plain knows, are very busy with auto, bus, and truck traffic as well as pedestrian crossings. The meeting was led by the Boston Transportation Department (BTD), which brought in a consultant to discuss bicycle and roadway markings. The objective is to make it safer to cycle on Centre and South streets. Having been doored once, I can appreciate the sentiment.

As we know, cyclists very much favor alternative means of transportation, that is, alternatives to the private automobile, which has contributed greatly to air pollution and the overall deterioration of life in the city. As I surveyed the meeting room, I noted that most of those present were cycling advocates. I realized, however, that other constituencies that also favor alternatives to the private auto were not present, or if present, were not involved in the meeting dynamic. The most obvious other constituency is public transit users. In fact, it is clear that transit users, while not as vulnerable to the vagaries of street traffic as cyclists, have a huge stake in promoting alternatives to the auto - better access to downtown and the neighborhood, quicker travel times, more convenient service, and a cleaner greener environment. It is also clear that transit users outnumber bicyclists by a large margin in Jamaica Plain and elsewhere throughout the Boston. In fact, for every single cyclist who travels Centre/South on any given day, there are likely several hundred who use public transit on the same streets.

As the cycling meeting unfolded the consultant identified two cities - San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, as cities where model, bicycle-friendly programs exist. I took note of the cities because as a public transit user as well as a cyclist, I know that those cities have extensive, green streetcar systems. In fact, their systems not only have tracks in the street, but also are expanding to provide greener, more accessible public transit throughout their neighborhoods. And the Obama administration is providing millions of dollars to cities around the country to promote investments in streetcar systems - the wave of the future out of the past.

I wondered how cities with large and expanding streetcar systems also received recognition as being bicycle-friendly? After all, aren't streetcar tracks impediments to cyclists? And being that both cyclists and streetcar advocates believe in effective alternatives to the private auto and an overall greener environment, I anticipated that there was a working together on the part of both groups to promote each other's solution to the transportation conundrum.

So, following the Jamaica Plain meeting, I contacted the consultant to ask him to shed light on how streetcar and cycling advocates work together in these places to assure safe cycling near streetcar tracks. He could not offer information except to say that "streetcar has generally proved to not be very compatible with bikes. No solution has been found for narrowing the gap that works."

That's a missed opportunity to engage in a useful and greener dialogue, isn't it?

FS

Thirty Years of Advocacy

2010-05-21T12:00:00.004-04:00

by Tobias Johnson

Welcome and thanks for stopping by the Arborway Committee's blog.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the work we do, please stop by our website where you'll find information in detail about our transportation advocacy and educational efforts.

As the recently elected Chair of the long-standing Arborway Committee, I have inherited the reins of an organization that has participated in many ups and witnessed many downs in the arena of public and alternative transportation in the Boston-metro region over the last 30 years.

I think it is fair to say that today, however, the national mood towards alternative transportation, if not the local mood, is the most promising it has been in my lifetime. There are many reasons for that and examining them is the impetus for this blog.

So I am proud to take the helm of an organization that has a long history of advocating for cleaner air, reducing our carbon footprints and dependence on foreign oil, promoting livableable streets and smart growth, and calling for equal access to destinations for people who choose not to own a car or cannot afford one. Our advocacy around all of these issues stems from a single principle: transportation should be less about automobiles and more about people.

But of course, these issues impact our lives directly, on our own doorstep. The transportation picture locally is much more of a mixed bag about which, despite lots of good news around cycling in Boston recently, my optimism becomes somewhat tempered. As I see it, budget holes left from the Big Dig, the failure of entrenched politicians to support alternatives, and gross mismanagement by the MBTA for decades, among other factors, all exacerbated by the economic collapse, have placed the region on precarious footing. Our transit system is poorly positioned to take competitive advantage of the pressures that rising fossil fuel prices and poor environmental health, as well as personal health, are exerting on people's choices of how to get around. Increased interest in alternatives can and should be leveraged as a catalyst for transformational change in our transportation systems – a change underpinned by evidence-based transportation.

A perfect example of a project a transit authority failed to leverage into positive and transformational change, (the genesis of our organization) and a project for which we will never cease advocating, remains restoration of the Green Line's E line streetcar. The MBTA, against all evidence, has chosen to truncate this line and in the process, reduce capacity, increase its operating costs, run redundant service (increasing costs even further), reduce ridership and reduce fare-box recoveries. In this age of fiscal and environmental crisis, their decision-making is counter-productive and shocking; not evidence-based, rather politically-based.

Transportation should never be uni-modal. We have seen, post-1950, the gridlock and inequity emergent from an infrastructure hostile to choice – a system where the car was king and all other modes were allocated a few pennies on the dollar. I foresee that those days are coming to an end for the urban core. And when they do, funding necessary for clean, quiet, electric, rapid urban transit will be widely available. A city that wants to remain competitive and attract the best and brightest in the global market place will choose transportation options that support people and community, and that knit together our urban landscape allowing modes to co-exist in complementary fashion.

Streetcars are a significant part of that transportation formula. Dozens of cities across the country are, right now, evaluating the use of above-ground, in-street light rail systems that will transform their urban landscape. They are following the evidence. The transformation has begun. To that end, we will continue to press our local politicians and transportation planners to Go Green, to place us and the environment in which we live at a higher priority than the vehicles that enable our mobility.

Tobias Johnson