On Brookline

Publisher’s note: This article by Archie Mazmanian originally appeared as a comment, but bumped to the pages given its comprehensive recap of the project alternatives on the table.

The big surprise at the EOT public meeting Monday night (Apr. 9th) was that Harvard is now fully out of the closet and has become the big tail wagging the Phase 2 dog. Four (4) preliminary alternatives were presented to a fairly sizable audience that included State Representatives from the Fenway and Roxbury-Dorchester areas. A few Brookline residents were in attendance. There were quite a few from the Fenway, an area that takes care to distinguish itself from the Longwood Medical Area (LMA).

Alternative 1 is a fully surface route that is basically the same one that was discredited in response to the then sponsor MBTA’s 2004 DEIR, except for a few minor changes, but with a major Allston extension to service Harvard’s campus-to-be. This calls for extensive mixed traffic, including in the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area. This alternative remains unacceptable. It is the cheapest and worst proposal currently on the table.

Alternative 2 is also a fully surface route that provides for some buslanes and some dedicated busways; it includes the utilization of a railroad bridge under the BU Bridge that would magically be reconfigured to permit for two (2) dedicated busways to access Commonwealth Avenue at grade into mixed traffic, perhaps by means of “flyway” to Mountfort Sreet. And the Allston tail to Harvard’s new campus-to-be would include some buslanes and dedicated busways. The use of the railroad bridge is a cockamamie scheme, perhaps on a smaller scale than the rejected proposed Scheme Z for the BIG DIG’s crossing of the Charles River. This is also unacceptable. It is more expensive than Alternative 1 and it provides for too much mixed traffic to be successful.

Alternative 3 provides for some short dedicated busway tunnels, in particular to service Allston and Harvard’s new campus-to-be, as well as significant portions of the LMA (which has long had strong connections with Harvard). As with alternative 2, the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge would be reconfigured to provide dedicated surface busways; it is not clear how these busways would be integrated into the tunnel design at the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area. The tunneling of course makes Alternative 3 quite expensive. It is not clear whether such tunnels could be incorporated into Phase 3 with light/heavy rail, assuming there will ever be a Phase 3.

Alternative 4 provides for long busway tunnels, including under the Charles River in the area of the BU Bridge, but mainly one running from the Ruggles Orange Line station through the LMA and Brookline to the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area where it hooks up with another length of tunnel to the west to service Allston and Harvard’s campus-to-be. The tunnel route from the LMA would pass under the Muddy River with a connection at the Green Line’s D Line station at Longwood, and continuing with a connection to the C Line at Beacon and Carlton Streets, and continuing with a connection to the B Line at the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area. These tunnels will be deep bore tunnels. They would be quite expensive.

And it is not clear whether such tunnels could be incorporated into Phase 3, assuming there will ever be a Phase 3. I am curious as to the exact route of this tunnel through Brookline; it just might be the route of old proposed Inner Belt but underground (under Carlton Street?). Deep bore tunnels require surface infrastructures for access and for air shafts. I wonder where these might be located in this residential area?

I have focused on the portions of these Alternatives as they impact upon Brookline residents, whether in their neighborhoods or in commuting by car. There may be problems with other portions of Phase 2 and residents there impacted by such problems should speak up and be heard. Rep. Byron Rushing did this for the Roxbury-Dorchester communities. Residents of the Fenway spoke up; in addition the colleges in the Fenway pointed to how the LMA already impacts their institutions with its continuing dense development.

This is the long tail of Harvard from the LMA to its proposed Allston campus-to-be, and then onward to Harvard Square. Perhaps Phase 2 should be renamed Phase 2-H. I wonder if Harvard will provide from its vast endowment towards the costs of Phase 2 since Harvard appears to be its major beneficiary. The LMA came about years ago as a result of institutional blockbusting that pushed out residents. In more recent years Harvard has again used this technique for its Allston campus-to-be. While others may benefit from this Project, Harvard grabs most of the benefits.

Massachusetts has a new Governor who has named a new Secretary of Transportation. They have to be made aware of this Project and its impacts upon neighborhoods along its route. Funding the current and near future transit requirements in the Greater Boston area continue to be difficult; and these may have a greater priority than Phase 2.

The EOT did not discuss specifics of the funding for the various Alternatives. As noted in an earlier comment, Alternative 1, prior to the addition of the Harvard tail to Allston, was estimated at $741 million; keep in mind that costs seem to escalate from year to year.

Federal funding will be critical for the Project. The EOT would have to compete with other transit systems nationwide for limited federal funds under the New Starts program. This program has a cap of $750 million for an approved project, with the Feds furnishing 50% or less. Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve extensive deep bore tunneling, estimated at $1 billion per mile (based upon the Silver Line tunnel phase). So how can the EOT come up with the funding of Massachusetts’ share? Let’s say Alternative 3 were to cost (estimated) $2.5 billion and EOT satisfies the New Starts program and gets $750 million in federal funding; how will EOT come up with the balance of $1.750 billion with Massachusetts facing a shortfall of $20 billion for transit projects with higher priority?

The EOT may lean towards Alternatives 1 and 2 because of their lower costs, even though the mixed traffic along the Project route may fail to attract riders. After all, the main purpose of the Project is to provide prompt, frequent service so that riders will have less need to use the radial lines. Perhaps Harvard can be induced to belly up to the funding bar for an Alternative that really works. And keep in mind the BIG DIG and what it may end up costing. This Project, if done properly, will not be cheap. And because federal funding for Phase 3’s light/heavy rail may be a fantasy, it is important that Phase 2 be done right.

If not, then immediately go to Phase 3.