About a month ago, I took a tour of the MBTA Orange Line carhouse at Wellington Station with the Boston chapter of the Young Professionals in Transportation. We got to see what goes into keeping the 34-year-old trains running well past their designed lifetime. Have a look at the full Flickr album here.
As a corollary to our guest contributor post on the disappointing improvements and issues with Commonwealth Avenue, we have a few (much delayed) updates about the T's more progressive plans to improve transit along the corridor.
Back in June, I had the pleasure of attending a forum on Green Line issues hosted by the MBTA and facilitated greatly by Senator Brownsberger. The presentation included updates on the primary issues afflicting the Green Line and its dependent riders as outlined by Brian Kane, MBTA Director of Policy, Performance Management & Process Re-Engineering and former budget analyst with the MBTA Advisory Board.
Others present at the meeting included leading MBTA staff that Dr. Scott heralded as subject matter experts to ensure questions could be answered directly by the most appropriate person from the agency. Top MBTA management included:
- Dominick Tribone for questions on information systems
- Bill McClellan, Director of Green Line Operations
- Laura Brelsford, Deputy Director of System-Wide Accessibility
- Melissa Dullea, Director of Planning & Schedules
Mr. Kane broke down the issues into 5 key areas and highlighted the improvements the T is aiming to tackle over the long run.
Nearly a century ago, Commonwealth Avenue from Kenmore Square, heading west to Packard's Corner, was home to over a hundred automobile dealers and associated vendors. For much of the twentieth century, while riding the trolley, you would have passed showroom after showroom, parking lot after parking lot, all calling out for you to buy a car and drive away.
Each of the four Hubway cities -- Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville -- own the stations within their boundaries. Thinks work seamlessly but there are small differences.
About two years ago I wrote on my blog that bike helmets have nothing to do with safety. Things haven't changed much in that department: plastic hats still don't prevent crashes, and helmet propaganda still increases fear of cycling, and car advocates (including most media outlets) still use helmets as a entry into victim blaming after every crash.
On Wednesday night a 26-year-old man was killed trying to cross this highway entrance on Cambridge St in Allston.
California recently announced that it's finally moving away from emphasizing the car-centric metric known as “level of service” in transportation projects, a positive step that will make transit, bike and pedestrian projects easier to plan and implement. While the situation in California was among the worst planning problems, it still happens all the time here.
Eric Jaffe has a good in-depth article at Citylab on the history and use of LOS. Put simply, level of service (LOS) is a metric devised by highway engineers that assigns a letter grade to roads and intersections based on how much delay vehicles experience. LOS fails to differentiate between modes – one bus serving hundreds or more people per trip is treated the same as a car carrying one person – and most importantly, places top priority on speeding car travel. This sentiment could not be in greater conflict with the needs of vibrant, sustainable cities.
Unfortunately we continue suffering from the prioritization of vehicles over people. Despite Mayor Menino’s empty promise, cars are very much still king in Boston. Every time your city or MassDOT engineers tell you “there is no room” for a bike lane, proper sidewalk, bus stop or other need, this is what’s happening. Engineers decide “we need __ lanes” based on the LOS result of computer models, often assuming an arbitrary 1 percent traffic increase to justify their demands and at best they assume current traffic can’t be reduced. Car driving – the least desirable mode – is being prioritized and the rest of us don’t really matter.
For example, when the Charles River Dam (Museum of Science) Bridge was reconstructed, the plan included basic bike lanes. Then we were told we couldn’t have bike lanes until the Longfellow Bridge was done because “temporary” extra capacity was needed for cars. They even put sharrows just to rub it in. When the MBTA ran a shuttle bus route carrying thousands of people over the bridge, the City of Boston angrily refused to allow bus stops at the Museum of Science during rush hours, and they certainly wouldn’t let those thousands of people to bypass the daily gridlock in bus lanes.
Same thing on the Mass Ave Bridge, with hundreds of buses each day and no safe bike path: we "need" those two lanes for cars and all you bikers get is a dangerous 3 feet with cars whizzing by at deadly speeds. On the BU Bridge, the argument was not about whether cyclists should have the right to a small safe space, but whether the compromise design "could accommodate" the expected traffic. Even though the bridge was a single lane per direction for two years and everyone managed just fine.
There are countless other examples. Don't forget the Longfellow Bridge: we're told we won't see a safe bicycle path because "cars might need that space someday... it's an evacuation route." Seriously?
We need to start pushing back against those who insist upon putting cars first. Share your favorite (or most frustrating) examples of pro-car bias in the comments. And next time you hear “there’s no room” you’ll know what to say.