June 23, 2000
Dennis A. DiZoglio
Director of Planning, MBTA
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3974
Re: Urban Ring Major Investment Study
Dear Mr. DeZoglio:
The Alliance submits the following comments on the Urban Ring Major Investment Study.
- Use rail for Ring transit, not
buses.
The Urban Ring must be a rail system (heavy or light), not a collection of buses. Only rail, permanent, frequent, and fast, will attract riders and anchor development. "Dedicated" bus lanes will eventually be opened to car traffic, as were HOV lanes, miring buses in traffic. Unless buses are used in the same way as rail (inviolable reserved lanes, signal preemption on grade, 3-5 minute headways, high speeds, etc.) they will not be "rapid transit." The Ring study should model the impacts of projected road traffic on the Ring to see the low efficacy of buses. (On your MIS maps, please distinguish dedicated-lane "busway" and shared bus/truck/taxi/shuttlebus lanes from truly grade-separated single-use busways, to show how little of the Ring would actually be permanently out of traffic.) Also, the TSM concept in the study is unclear. If bus service can be improved, why not do so immediately? In any case, bus is not equivalent to rail. The use of fixed-rail modes must never be sacrificed for the sake of cars; we should not settle for buses in order to preserve curbside parking or to keep car traffic moving faster. Bus "flexibility" to make way for cars is not a benefit.
- Connect crosstown residents with crosstown
jobs and other daily destinations
The designation of the hospital/university "core" area for rail reflects a focus on the institutional employment centers of the Ring, rather than its population centers. The main beneficiaries would be suburban employees, rather than urban workers living in the Ring corridor. Associated construction of parking lots for suburbanites at Ring stations would make the Ring an "inner belt" for shuttle buses, doubly punishing urban residents. We need to connect city residents with crosstown jobs, shopping, education, and other daily activities. (Neighborhood fears of dense commercial development stimulated by new transit should be addressed by zoning, rather than by depriving low-car-ownership residents of transit.) To provide all the needed connections, the Ring should be a network of routes as needed, not just a single strand, and should connect to all radial lines. Streetcars can make such a network most efficiently. On the MIS maps, please label all New and Existing Stations, which currently have a symbol but no name, so the public can tell where the connections are planned.
- Provide connections to all major current and
future destinations.
Aside from institutional and commercial/office employment centers, the Ring area includes trip generators that will draw large volumes of regional traffic. These include Logan Airport, Fenway Park, the Crosstown area, and the new Convention Center and Seaport District. The Ring study must estimate future potential transit use for these major destinations. Further, the communities at the north and south arcs of the Ring have enormous development potential, which will only be realized if they receive excellent infrastructure. The new transit ring should provide connections there of quality equal to that of the institutional center. Again, rail is the mode of choice.
- The Ring planning process should be
redirecting local land use planning, not just
accommodating projected riders.
Models for evaluating the Ring's potential benefits should study alternative land use and development patterns that might be supported by new transit, and not only the degree to which the Ring appears to accommodate current municipal plans. Also, use a broader conception of "catchment" and "impact" areas, since these are not limited to a circle around a station but include all the areas up- and down-stream that each station supports. Without this information, the full value of the Ring, and its funding justification, will be underestimated.
- The Ring must not only improve current
transit trips but shift large numbers of drivers to
transit.
It is essential to focus more attention on the goal of reducing automobile use, in addition to the Ring's current focus on optimizing transit-user convenience, in order to achieve the environmental benefits of the Ring. The study should model ridership with alternative land use and parking availability scenarios, to stimulate transportation planning that is actually based on good transportation access. For example, private or public garage construction, whether central or "satellite," will encourage driving and aggravate core and regional traffic problems (further debilitating buses). Further, continued construction of remote commuter parking lots will encourage even more far-flung suburban sprawl. The Ring study provides an opportunity to shape zoning policy toward limiting parking capacity, making transit an attractive alternative to driving. Of course, no garages should be built as part of the Urban Ring itself, nor should the MIS encourage others to build garages, in the city or elsewhere, by depicting Ring stations associated with garages. We must become a transit metropolis, with clean-vehicle collector transit feeding rail lines; the days of parking garages as a transportation solution are over.
- Connect urban dwellers to suburban jobs.
MBTA station parking garages for in-bound commuters do not help car-less urbanites reach suburban job sites. A more fine-grained system of transit vehicles (e.g., electric buses, streetcars, jitneys, special flat-rate taxis), along with extended T schedules, should be planned to distribute reverse-commute transit riders who arrive at suburban stations. This system should also serve to collect suburban commuters and shoppers now parking at stations, so that we do not continue to engulf our towns in ever-growing station parking lots.
- The Ring should replace private bus systems.
The study should estimate the increased ridership that would accrue from incorporating existing private shuttle-bus systems into the MBTA transit structure. Currently, many institutions transport their own employees/clients around the city. Private buses add traffic volume and air pollution to the city, use institutions' resources that should be used to support their missions, use city infrastructure without contributing to its cost, create a socially stratified transportation environment, deprive the MBTA of a huge, powerful constituency for mass transit, and show a vote of no-confidence in the MBTA which is demoralizing to city residents and to funding agencies. The public transit system should be made good enough to meet all the unmet needs that have given rise to private systems .
- Use surface rail when possible rather than
tunnels.
Surface transitways enrich urban settings when properly designed. They allow more closely spaced stops, serving more businesses and residents. They provide more street activity, vitality and security. They allow riders to become familiar with the neighborhoods. And they are less expensive, allowing more routes. Speed can be maintained by signal pre-emption mechanisms. Streetcars in road rights-of-way are the most cost-efficient and service-effective "new" transit -- and they serve to calm traffic as well.
- Do not use fear of gentrification as a reason
not to upgrade transit.
Provide the best possible transit service to low-income, transit-dependent neighborhoods. Fear of "gentrification" that might result when good transit raises the desirability of previously "disconnected" locations has been mentioned in consultant presentations as a reason to keep their transportation inadequate. This is a perverse favor, indeed. These people need transit to take advantage of better work opportunities and improve their quality of life. Let transit help current residents become the "middle-class gentry" of their neighborhoods.
- Do not privatize the transit system
We demand full and adequate public funding for transit. Do not plan on a transit system based on "creative financing" by "private funding partners." Private funding will lead to private policy-making, and for service oriented to private institutional and corporate interests rather than to neighborhood needs. Transit is a public good, providing mobility to all our citizens, in an environmentally sustainable way. Those benefits merit public support. Environmental benefits, and social equity benefits, should be carefully quantified in the MIS. Do not back away from the public service mission, and do not accept a position where all we get from the public sector is funding for housekeeping and maintenance.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kressel
President, ABN
Cc: Peter Calcaterra, MBTA, Urban Ring MIS Project
Manager
Stephanie Pollack, Conservation Law Foundation
Bob Terrell, Federation for Public Transit
John Rumpler, Alternatives for Community and Environment
Todd Fontanella, EOTC
John Deacon, Sierra Club
Karen Wepsic, Arborway Committee
Jane Holtz Kay