A Game of Poker?
By Arshag A. Mazmanian
At the start of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on May 30, 2007, the Chair reminded members that the CAC serves in an advisory role for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) which will make the ultimate decision on Phase 2. I read this as a reminder to CAC members that their comments and recommendations may not be accepted by EOT.
The EOT’s Ned Codd, the project’s point person, made prefatory comments to the effect that current, reliable ridership numbers are not available as yet, and may not be for a while. He further stated that the more dedicated rights of way, the better for the project’s success. Also, while fast trip time is of great importance, this has to be balanced with sufficient local access, in determining the number of stops; fewer stops will improve trip time but may result in fewer passengers.
EOT still plans to seek a 6-month extension for its DEIR/DEIS filing and a notice is expected to be filed and advertised fairly shortly, following which public comments may be submitted to MEPA.
There are three (3) segments to Phase 2. Segment A includes: East Boston (including Logan Airport), Chelsea, Everett, Somerville and Charlestown. Segment B includes: Cambridge, Charles River, Brookline, Boston, Allston (Harvard’s campus) and the Longwood Medical Area (LMA). Segment C includes: Roxbury, Dorchester and South Boston. Currently EOT is presenting nine (9) alternative routes for Phase 2, a rather significant increase in recent months, too complex to describe in this report.
For details, see www.theurbanring.com and navigate through the many links.
Codd and EOT consultant Doyle first gave a Power Point presentation on Segment A, which ran at least an hour. The CAC Chair reminded Codd of the meeting time limitations with both Segments B and C remaining. Codd recognized, with a smile, the great interest in and the great difficulties with Segment B, which he and Doyle quickly presented, then spending even less time on Segment C. CAC members commented during these presentations.
In order to accommodate the traditional public comment and question period, the Chair extended the meeting beyond its scheduled (and customary) 2-hour limit. My focus here is primarily on Segment B, as it impacts Brookline. The good news is that the EOT now appears committed to drop the BU Bridge as part of the Phase 2 route. The bad news is that the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRR) that runs diagonally under the Bridge is to be utilized to cross the Charles River. On the Boston side, the route from the GJRR to Boston, Brookline and eventually to the LMA will depend upon which of the nine (9) alternatives will prevail.
Several of these alternatives would have surface routes that may include Commonwealth Avenue to Kenmore Square or to Essex/Mountfort Streets, Brookline, to Park Drive in Boston and on to the LMA. EOT recognizes the need to coordinate with BU and Brookline and Boston neighborhoods impacted.
EOT recognizes travel time and ridership benefits with tunnels in the LMA area but is of the view that costs of tunnels would be greater than ridership increases. EOT realizes the need for improved surface routes through the LMA. MASCO, the LMA and Fenway residents and institutions cannot accept surface routes because they cannot accommodate adequate dedicated Busways and the current heavy traffic already present. I don’t know if Ned Codd is a poker player, but his body language seemed to give away the EOT’s hand, which is to avoid alternatives with tunnels because of their high costs.
But EOT is not very convincing that surface routes from the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area through Essex/Mountfort Streets in Brookline, Park Drive in Boston to the LMA and its maze of streets will be able to provide the prompt travel times to attract riders to justify Phase 2. In EOT’s summaries for each of the Segments, reference is made to the percentage of “exclusive running way” provided by the various alternatives.
The phrase “exclusive running way” is NOT limited to dedicated “Busways;” rather, “Buslanes” are included. The Silver Line as it operates on Washington Street has “Buslanes” rather than dedicated “Busways;” “Buslanes” are not that different from mixed traffic because of enforcement difficulties in eliminating non-BRT vehicles from the “Buslanes.” I pointed this out in my public comments at the end of the meeting, suggesting that separate percentages be applied to dedicated “Busways” and “Buslanes” for appropriate and fair comparison.
Codd is well aware that the federal funding agency that EOT is relying upon requires a minimum of 50% dedicated “Busways.” Most of the Phase 2 surface routes would not accommodate dedicated “Busways” and lanes for existing vehicular traffic. EOT provided Capital Costs charts for the nine (9) alternatives, showing the contribution of each Segment. The blue color assigned to Segment B for the alternatives with extensive tunnels dominates these costs. In effect, Codd’s body language was saying there will be no tunnels.
This is a display of tunnel vision on EOT’s part as the BRT system cannot properly function in Segment B without tunnels. Codd must keep in mind that EOT is not holding all the cards. Voters may be holding trump cards. Gov. Deval Patrick will have to take notice as the stakes get higher.
The Urban Ring Phase 2 is now his baby.
