Urban Ring: Sick [Bus Rapid] Transit Gloria.
By Archie Mazmanian • Aug 18th, 2008 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
This installment to my Urban Ring Phase 2 Series will serve as an introduction to the Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) public meeting of July 28, 2008, including the MA Executive Office of Transportation (“EOT”) presentation, which is available at www.theurbanring.com. Click on “Reference Materials,” then “Current Materials,” and under “CAC #20 July 28, 2008” download “29-Jul-2008 Presentation” for EOT’s Powerpoint slides. I shall be providing further commentary with this installment and urge those interested in the Urban Ring Phase 2 to “bookmark” this installment and check such additional commentary from time to time.
EOT’s Ned Codd pointed out that federal funding for Phase 2 would trail that sought for the MBTA’s higher priorities: the Silver Line’s Phase 3 and the Green Line Extension to Somerville. He also stressed that if a tunnel servicing the Longwood Medical Area (“LMA”) becomes part of Phase 2, its construction would take at least five (5) years from the time that the required approval processes and funding commitments from federal, state and other sources are in place. Perhaps the year 2020 may be considered a (moving) target date for the implementation of Phase 2.
Transportation issues facing MA (and the rest of America) are serious. Improving public transit may improve transportation problems. But other modes of transportation have to be addressed as well, including infrastructure for bridges, highways, rail lines, etc.
The price of oil is serving to increase the use of public transit here in the Boston area (as well as in other major urban areas). (Boston Globe, July 28, 2008, front page!) But without upgrades and major capital improvements (e.g., Silver Line Phase 3, Green Line Extension to Somerville and Phase 2 of the Urban Ring), can public transit accommodate the increases in ridership on the radial lines into the core in downtown Boston? Travel times on public transit are increasing, as are tempers, exacerbated during this Summer’s tourist season in Boston. These radial lines have capacity issues, one of the goals of Phase 2 aimed at relieving such pressures.
Some transit riders (both newcomers and “regulars”) may revert to their cars. But consider the problems with the many bridges in the Boston area that motorists have to maneuver that require major improvements.
Consider the recent revelation that Big Dig costs have soared beyond the humongous $15 billion reported just a year or so ago to $22 billion, with the State having to dig into its own coffers because of federal funding limits.
Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with tunneling servicing the LMA is projected to have a cost of some $2.3 billion (in 2007 dollars); and if the tunneling is expanded to the area of the BU Bridge (more on this in upcoming commentary), this would increase the cost (again in 2007 dollars) to about $3 billion. But current federal funding, assuming Phase 2 passes muster in the national competition for such funding, would cap at $500,000.00 for the project. And the State is not presently in a position to come up with the balance because of other funding requirements not limited to transportation issues. And when actual costs are considered by the time approvals and funding are in place, how will 2007 dollars measure up? Consider that the Big Dig’s original cost was estimated at $2.5 billion compared to actual costs to date of $22 billion.
EOT’s Ned Codd in discussing funding sources and challenges at the recent CAC meeting made reference to the “Magic 8 Ball” – suggesting the “outlook is not good.” Since the tunneling costs for Phase 2 are so high, it appears that EOT will push its “Plan B” (my description, not EOT’s) for surface routes in the interim; but Codd conceded that federal funding might not be available for interim surface routes.
I recommend to those interested in Phase 2 that they review EOT’s Powerpoint presentation with care. I shall provide further commentary with some explanations and some concerns. In the year 2020 we may have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight on Phase 2. But perhaps 20-20 foresight is in order today. If Gov. Patrick doesn’t address and resolve transportation issues, he may not have a second term (assuming he doesn’t join President to-be Obama next year). Patrick’s four predecessors, Republicans all, ignored transportation issues, with of course the cooperation of a heavily Democrat Legislature. If residents of MA wish to hit the road with confidence, perhaps some elected officials should hit the political highway.
Archie Mazmanian is lives in Brookline and is a frequent contributor to On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Archie Mazmanian
JEFF LEVINE, WHERE ARE YOU?
Members of the CAC have been receiving draft chapters of EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS. Members of the public will not get in the loop until the RDEIR/DEIS is filed sometime this November, following which there will be a public comment period.
In the meantime, CAC members have been (and will continue) providing comments on the draft chapters. Take a look at slides 3 through 10 of EOT’s Powerpoint presentation at the July 28th CAC meeting to get an idea of comments of CAC members. Slide 3 tallies the “top 10” CAC member commentators. Note that CAC member Jeff Levine, Brookline’s Director of Planning, is not listed, suggesting that perhaps Brookline officials may not be paying close attention to Phase 2. While only a portion of the currently proposed Phase 2 routes passes through a short edge of Brookline, the impacts on Brookline would present serious and significant transportation issues for Brookline commuters – whether in cars or public transit – as well as upon adjoining Brookline neighborhoods.
Consider traffic in the area of Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge over the past several years with extensive roadwork on Commonwealth Avenue between the BU Bridge and Kenmore Square, as well as the even longer Kenmore Square T station project, and more recent work on the BU Bridge. Just a few weeks ago, University Road (that short street from Commonwealth Avenue near the BU Bridge that provides access to Storrow Drive east) was closed, as a result of which access to Storrow Drive east was available just several blocks past Kenmore Square. This resulted in serious traffic jams. While this was temporary, keep in mind that Boston University, which has CAC membership, has proposed plans for the area that would include closing down University Road to enhance its Charles River Campus. But what’s good for BU is not necessarily (and quite often is not) good for Brookline. Note that on slide 3 BU’s CAC member was #2 in numbers of comments by the “top 10.”
Who’s looking out for Brookline residents at Town Hall? With the exception of comments of K. Brilliant of the Fenway Alliance, the other 9 of the “top 10” are institutional representatives, not representatives of residential neighborhoods. As a member of the public attending CAC meetings, I get in my shots, but only during the limited public comment period. Does anyone believe that BU is really, really concerned with Brookline commuters and impacted Brookline neighborhoods? If so, have I got a bridge to sell you!
EOT categorized CAC comments at slide 5. Note that there is no category that specificallyrelates to the critical and controversial Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area that would significantly impact Brookline commuters and neighborhoods. There were 41 “Allston related comments.” Unfortunately, as of the July 28th CAC meeting “Analysis of Allston is ongoing” (see slide 7). Because Allston would involve the Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area, it would, when resolved, surely impact Brookline commuters and neighborhoods.
Then there is the category “Tunnel related comments” (see slide 8) that primarily addresses the LMA and Fenway, where tunnels are proposed for Phase 2 routes. Such tunnels may benefit Brookline commuters and neighborhoods along Brookline’s borders with the LMA. But as noted in the above column, Phase 2 may end up with surface routes (whether temporary or permanent) through the LMA and Fenway that could result in traffic disasters not only for those areas but also adjoining Brookline, all because of lack of funding for expensive tunnels. I refer to this as EOT’s Plan B. Note that #1 of the “top 10” is S. Hamilton of MASCO (aka LMA) with 161 comments. (BU is #2 with only 36 comments.) Add to this K. Brilliant’s 17 comments on behalf of the Fenway Alliance to get an idea of how concerned institutions and residents in LMA/Fenway are with Phase 2, especially with surface routes.
The Big Dig happened without much public input. With the Urban Ring’s Phase 2 there is an opportunity to be heard, eventually, and hopefully before it’s too late. Brookline commuters and neighborhoods will be seriously impacted if their interests are not adequately addressed and protected. If our Town officials are not interested, why not?
Ridership on the Green Lines servicing Brookline residents has increased significantly in the past several months attributable to high gas prices. Public transit trips are longer, trolleys more crowded, tempers shorter with longer waits. Before public transit gets sicker, we need action – at the State and Federal levels primarily – but also, at the local level, as all politics is local. So get on the phone or the internet to prompt our Town officials to get off their duffs. It doesn’t take 20-20 foresight to know that we can’t wait until 2020, especially with 60-foot articulated BRT buses in mixed traffic for Phase 2.
Stay tuned.
MIXING “AIRHEADS” AND PHASE 2?
The Brookline TAB (8/21/08) features a well-written and well-illustrated article by Neal Simpson on John Rosenthal’s Mega-project – version XV? – in the Kenmore Square area that would include development of air rights over the MA Turnpike extension between Brookline Avenue and Beacon Street, Boston, that, according to Neal, may impact negatively upon traffic in nearby Brookline. Rosenthal’s project started many years ago and has gone through many version, and may go through yet many more before – if ever – it is approved. (Boston’s Mayor Menino wants financing to be in place before project approvals issue in these perilous financial times.)
Like most “AIRHEADS,” Rosenthal tells us that he want to knit communities that had been split by the extension. But like the other “AIRHEADS,” Rosenthal would accomplish this with a high spine. Boston University has its “AIRHEAD” eyes on extension air rights Parcels 1 (Boston, just westerly of the BU Bridge), 2 and 3 (Brookline, with huge footprints) and 4 (Boston, between St. Mary’s and Beacon Streets, also a large footprint),
Add the potential developments of these “AIRHEADS” to the continuing development in the already densely developed LMA as it expands down Brookline Avenue to Brookline Village and consider transportation issues and their impacts upon Brookline commuters – by car and public transit – and adjoining neighborhoods.
Superimpose upon this mix the Urban Ring’s Phase 2. If, because of limited funding, federal in particular, Phase 2 routes through the LMA and Fenway to the Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area will be surface routes (instead of expensive tunneling), much of it in mixed traffic instead of dedicated busways for its 60-foot articulated (BRT) buses, might gridlock be in the cards? These proposed developments would add a lot of vehicle trips to the area, even more if public transit is not improved.
While much of the proposed development would be in Boston, unlike “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” the traffic generated will expand into adjoining Brookline neighborhoods where traffic problems already exist.
I wonder how all this is being coordinated by the powers-to-be in this region of Boston-Brookline-Cambridge. The CAC’s membership is mostly institutional, with very little representation of residential neighborhood impacts of the Urban Ring’s Phase 2. Remember the Big Dig, how long it took, the expense, the inconveniences. It’s time for some grown-ups to be brought in as CAC members are focused upon staking out the interests of their institutional stakeholder employers. What’s good for Harvard, BU, MIT, the LMA, Fenway institutions is not necessarily good for residents in the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor of Boston-Brookline-Cambridge.
Stay tuned.
A WELCOME VOICE FROM THE PAST?
Over the past year or so with Harvard University openly in the Phase 2 sweepstakes of institutional stakeholders following its public disclosures for its Allston campus, CAC meetings have heard from Fred Salvucci, its consultant. Fred has impressive credentials in just about all aspects of the field of transportation, including his experiences in the Boston area as a neighborhood activist and his service during Gov. Mike Dukakis’ terms. In fact, while consulting for Harvard, he still takes the time to address issues facing his Brighton neighborhood with the expansion of Boston College.
Fred usually speaks up during the public comment period at CAC meetings. His comments, concerns and questions are not limited to Harvard (including the LMA, of course). Fred sees the big picture, addressing both current, intermediate and long-term transportation needs to keep the economy in the Boston area growing, to benefit not only area institutions and commercial interests, but also the interests of residential neighborhoods for quality of life.
Fred is a believer in public transit. He understands better than most the needs and benefits of public transit. While I am slightly longer in the tooth than Fred, when he talks, I listen – and so do many other. Despite his consultant service to Harvard, I would expect his professionalism to balance any parochialism. My wife considers Fred a Saint for his service over many decades on transportation issues that have benefited the Boston area and its residents. I don’t go quite that far: I trust but verify.
At the last CAC meeting, one of the points Fred made was that serious infrastructure problems with key bridges in the Boston area demonstrate a greater need for public transit as vehicular traffic is negatively impacted. Who can disagree with this? Consider in the past few months the BU Bridge. But current Phase 2 plans fail to resolve critical transportation problems, especially with limited Federal – and State! – funding (i.e., no tunnels) that suggests surface routes in mixed traffic along much of Phase 2’s routes.
As I noted in an earlier comment on this post, the “Analysis of Allston is ongoing” (see slide 7 of EOT’s Powerpoint presentation of July 28th). Perhaps when EOT provides more Allston details for Phase 2, we may hear from Fred as Harvard consultant, as that is expected to be critical to the Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area that is already a problem for nearby residential neighborhoods. While Fred’s comments may be specifically Harvard-centered, I expect that his professionalism will be of great interest to all. Phase 2 was complex before Harvard became a stakeholder, and it will be made even more so with the Allston connection.
Phase 2 has to be done right not only for the institutional stakeholders but for residential neighborhoods and commuters (both public transit and auto). Let’s hope that Fred’s public interests persona shines through. Let’s also hope for a few more grown-ups.
PHASE 2 AUTUMNAL EQI-KNOCKS
The next CAC public meeting is scheduled for September 22nd. Since the last CAC meeting (July 28th), presumably diligent CAC members – and there are some – have been reviewing and commenting upon EOT’s further draft chapters of the RDEIR/DEIS scheduled to be filed in November. Unfortunately – or perhaps, fortunately – the public will not have access to such to comment on until the document is filed. But the public may get some idea of the status at the upcoming CAC meeting. Here are some of the anticipated highlights that might be addressed:
1. The Allston-Harvard connection. This may result in an academic catfight between Harvard and Boston University, as most likely the critical Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area portion of Phase 2 routes will be involved. While BU is concerned with the impact upon its Charles River campus, Brookline commuters and nearby residential neighborhoods have to beware of BU’s proposed Charles River “beachfront” accommodation of Phase 2 that might eliminate access to Storrow Drive east that many commuters rely upon. This catfight may be comparable to Boston’s Bean Pot Tourney for control of the Boston side of the Charles River.
2. CSX/GJRL consents. What if any progress will have been made with CSX so that the GJRL under the BU Bridge may be utilized for Phase 2’s Charles River crossing and the Allston-Harvard connection? Or will the BU Bridge, temporarily or permanently, constitute this crossing? Do I hear the sounds of gridlock?
3. Tunnel vision? One of the goals of Phase 2 is to provide convenient connections with the several radial lines into the hub in Downtown Boston. EOT has recently recognized potential problems for convenient connections with the B, C and D branches of the Green Line. Take a look at slides 12 and 13 of EOT’s Powerpoint presentation for the problems with proposed surface routes between the LMA/Fenway tunnel and the BU Bridge. EOT put on the table a tunnel extension (see slide 14) that might better address such connections, although they may not be that convenient. Note that this tunnel extension would run under the MA Turnpike Extension, which itself is quite deep, and continue under Commonwealth Avenue to a portal in the area of BU’s Academy/University Road just east of the BU Bridge. At the July 28th CAC meeting I raised the issue of potentially steep grading that would be required; but this was cavalierly dismissed. I wonder how much deep thought EOT has given this?
4. Plan B? As noted in earlier comments, EOT does not have a formal Plan B for Phase 2. It is clear that tunneling expenses for the LMA/Fenway add significantly to the expense of Phase 2 and that this would be further increased if the tunnel were to be extended as noted above. (See slides 14 and 15.) With significant limits on Federal funding and the dire financial straits of MA, perhaps EOT may be compelled to admit to Plan B: All surface routes, mostly in mixed traffic, for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses – making Bus Rapid Transit an oxymoron.
On September 22nd, night and day will be nearly equal in length; but thereafter, darkness increases. Are dark days ahead for Phase 2?
Stay tuned.
PHASE 2: AUTUMNAL EQUI-KNOCKS (corrected and continued)
In addition to “correcting” above my intended misspelling of EQUINOX in the heading of the preceding comment, I wish to point out that EOT may have to address certain conservation/environmental issues relative to the proposed Phase 2 Charles River crossing route at the September 22nd CAC meeting.
For the past several months the BU Bridge has had a sidewalk and at least one travel lane closed for long overdue serious repairs. The Boston Globe addressed this (August 17, 2008) at its Globe Watch. Apparently delays resulted when the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation realized that CSX, owner of the GJRL below the BU Bridge, was needed to sign off. Presumably the MA and Federal EPAs may have environmental say concerning the impact of such repair work on the Charles River that both the BU Bridge and GJRL cross.
Phase 2’s Charles River crossing plan proposes adding two (2) travel lanes to the GJRL to accommodate dedicated busways for 60-foot articulated BRT buses. This augmentation may impose greater impediments to navigation on the Charles River than the long grandfathered GJRL does at present. This augmentation is not trivial. It would service not only the Phase 2 routes to the LMA/Fenway area but also the connection to Harvard’s Allston campus yet to be proposed by EOT.
How might the quality of the Charles River be impacted, in addition to navigation? Certain size boats cannot pass under the GJRL at present. Surely the proposed augmentation may impact smaller boats presently able to pass under the GJRL. CSX has long been grandfathered with the GJRL but this legal benefit should not extend to the proposed augmentation without seriously addressing conservation/environmental issues associated with the Charles River.
Who can forget the promises of former Gov. Bill Weld, famous for his dive into the Charles River (that may have turned his hair from red to orange) to not only make the Charles River swimmable but also to restore and revive Magazine Beach in Cambridge just westerly of the BU Bridge? Can we expect to hear from conservationists and environmentalists on the Charles River crossing proposed by EOT? We hear less and less honking from the White Geese of Cambridge whose habitats in the area of the BU Bridge continue to be destroyed by the State and the City of Cambridge, which surely the EOT’s proposed Charles River crossing would finish. Perhaps we might consider Aesop’s fable of the goose that laid the golden eggs. Wikipedia lists the morals of this fable as follows:
*”Greed destroys the source of good.”
*”Think before you act.”
*”Those who want too much lose everything.”
Just maybe conservationists and environmentalists can give EOT a goose on its Charles River crossing proposal.
BU BRIDGE BETTING; THE OVER/UNDER
Today’s Boston Globe (8/31/08) features in the City Weekly section “Wary approval of BU Bridge plan” by Christina Pazzanese, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/31/wary_approval_for_bu_bridge_plan/
The picture illustrating this article shows the GJRL under the BU Bridge but does not mention the EOT plan for the Charles River crossing for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring that would add two busway lanes to accommodate 60-foot articulated BRT buses. Note the construction schedule for the BU Bridge work: “late October, with construction starting in the spring.” and the final paragraph:
“’At this juncture, the designers do not have the final cost estimates [shades of the Big Dig!], as aspects of various elements of the design are currently being refined,’ she [Wendy Fox of DCR] said. ‘The construction period is anticipated to extend from 30 to 36 months.’”
Assuming this is on schedule, what might be the construction schedule for the GJRL for Phase 2? How long will commuters in the area of Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge have to endure traffic snarls? And what if Boston University starts its beachfront project on the easterly side of the BU Bridge closing off University Road and access to Storrow Drive east? This may exceed the Big Dig construction schedule. And BU might wish to remove its name from the BU Bridge and have it revert to the Cottage Farm Bridge. No thanks. Perhaps at some future point, someone will come up with a Zakim Bridge type design for crossing the Charles River at this point. Of course, there’s always a tunnel under the Charles that could tie into Kenmore Station.
So who’s in charge of coordinating all these projects?
FUNDING BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE U.S.
For those interested in how Phase 2 of the Urban Ring may be funded, take at look at the following:
http://www.gobrt.org/funding1.html
which also provides links to various funding methods as well as to other aspects of Bus Rapid Transit.
CRY OF THE WHITE GOOSE!
I hadn’t taken a walk along the Charles River for several years. A niece from California visiting with us likes to walk, so we accessed the Charles River through BU’s campus at the Marsh Chapel and the pedestrian bridge over Storrow Drive. We walked down to and crossed the Massachusetts Avenue bridge, noting the “Smoot” distance markings, and then headed westerly towards the BU Bridge.
Since my last perambulation along this route, there have been many changes on the Cambridge side along the Charles. Bushes at the waters’ edge would block views of the white geese who used to “control” much of this bank of the Charles where guests at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, nearby workers and strollers would feed them. I recalled that one had to keep distance from the geese – especially children – as white geese were very protective of their goslings. For the most part, people enjoyed, admired and respected these white geese, especially in an urban environment, providing a valuable life experience especially for children observing and learning respect for nature.
Perhaps these bushes were planted to thwart both the white geese and the people who fed and watched them. Who was accountable for this? Was it the City of Cambridge? BU which had taken over and substantially enlarged a boat house across the Charles from its Boston campus at the easterly Cambridge side of the BU Bridge? The Hyatt Regency Hotel? The Commonwealth? Surely it wasn’t the strollers or the workers at the several rehabbed facilities just across Memorial Drive enjoying lunch breaks on the bank of the Charles and a respite from urban life.
During our walk, I gave my niece a “history” of what has happened in this area since we moved to nearby Brookline in 1973. As we passed the BU boat house, I noticed for the first time a flight of stairs leading down to an open sandy area just back from the River, surrounded by protective vegetation, filled with white geese, their nesting area. We didn’t go down the stairs for a closer look as we did not wish to disturb the white geese; after all, they respect our privacy, don’t they?
This nesting area is just easterly of the GJRL and the BU Bridge it passes under crossing the River. As any commuter in the Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area knows, the Bridge is undergoing extensive, long-needed repairs. But conservation issues have just recently surfaced, involving not only water quality issues but the situation of the white geese and their nesting area. The plan of the Commonwealth may include using the white geese’s nesting area, or a portion, for staging BU Bridge repairs. But what would happen to the white geese community?
The Cambridge Conservation Commission has entered the scene, perhaps goaded (or goosed?), to address conservation issues associated with the Bridge repairs. On the Boston side, there are no white geese issues, only water quality, so that Boston’s Conservation Commission seems to have been silent on conservation issues related to Bridge repairs. The Town of Brookline’s Conservation Commission lacks jurisdiction as its borders stop at the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue. So let’s credit the Cambridge environmental community for goading (or goosing?) the Cambridge Conservation Commission into addressing the white geese who are between the rock (Charles River?) and the hard place (BU Bridge?). But might this Commission cave-in to the priority of Bridge repairs over the white geese?
Phase 2 of the Urban Ring continues to plod ahead with its Charles River crossing route either over or under (GJRL) the BU Bridge, which would affect more than the white geese nesting area along the GJRL in portions of Cambridgeport towards Kendall Square. Perhaps it is time for the Urban Ring project to reconsider the location (and method) for Phase 2’s Charles River crossing. A long traffic bottle-necked Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge area gets worse and worse with BU Bridge repairs proposed to take place over the next three years or more. Adding Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses over – or under (GJRL) – the BU Bridge may get us closer to gridlock as well as destroy the white geese nesting area.
We must listen to the “Cry of the White Geese” variation on the late Frankie Laine’s hit recording of yesteryear: “My heart knows what the white goose knows, I must go where the white goose goes.”
BU BRIDGE TO NOWHERE?
Maybe a federal earmark is necessary to provide Phase 2’s Charles River crossing.