MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Riverside]

What this ignores is that while the streetcars were very much imperfect, so are the cars, and in hindsight the system should have been modernized, not eliminated. Go to Beacon St and the streetcars are as popular as ever, mainly because we upgraded the unreliable trolley-wire to overhead catenary, built the stops into something more substantial than a curb with yellow paint so people didn't need to wait literally in the road, got nicer vehicles, fixed up the track to make the ride less bouncy, etc.

This.

 

[FK4]

I mean, look, obviously I think that mass transit makes for better cities, and I believe that mass transit pretty quantifiably moves more people in smaller space than cars do.

But, I also do understand why it seems intuitive and obvious to some people that "removing lanes will just make congestion worse, because you have less space for [the same number of] cars". If you buy a small house, but then have 3 kids and adopt a dog, you need a bigger house so everyone has enough room -- it's a line of thinking that feels like "common sense".

I think the parenthetical in my hypothetical quote above is key: "for the same number of cars". One of the arguments in favor of reallocating public ROWs from private auto use to public mass transit use is that better mass transit gets people out of their cars, reducing the number of cars overall.

In the case of Blue Hill Ave, this rests on a tacit assumption: that some number of people driving on BHA would take transit if it were better -- that the bus lanes will move people out of cars. And there surely must be some people who fall into that category... but is it a lot?

There still definitely are other reasons in favor of reallocating space in the public ROW to mass transit (and to cyclists, and to pedestrians), don't get me wrong! But I definitely can understand the skepticism.

I've given this example before, but take UMass Boston, putatively a "commuter school", a stone's throw from Dorchester. Coming from the Mount Bowdoin neighborhood, 1.6 miles as the crow flies, it's a 13 minute drive (during the evening rush hour!). But by transit, it's 32 minutes, if you are willing to walk 15 minutes to the Red Line, or 39 minutes via a minimal-walking-two-bus journey.

View attachment 58014

Obviously this is just one example, and there are certainly many commutes that will be faster by transit than by car. But it's not like UMass Boston is an obscure destination; if a journey like this is so extraordinarily uncompetitive by car, then it's easy to imagine why people would feel confident that the overall number of cars isn't gonna decrease.

I don't have any great solutions for this. I just think it's important to approach these conversations with as much empathy as possible.

You can’t have it both ways. Have a strong central govt that makes paternalistic plans and executes them well, or don’t. We have come way too far on the wrong side of this and these govt projects try to please too many people. They should have built this years ago and there should be no further ifs ands or buts from local squawkers. But the truth you speak to in your post is the truth that this govt can never deliver decisively on change the way a European govt can. The chnage to get people out of cars is possible, but not without truly visionary investment. These projects are a step but nowhere near enough. And I don’t think it’ll ever change without a major change in the way the federal govt is organized.

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

There should be no further ifs ands or buts from local squawkers. But the truth you speak to in your post is the truth that this govt can never deliver decisively on change the way a European govt can.

If you look at how the power structures are wired, really the "local squawkers" the T and the city are worried about are state legislators. For a variety of reasons -- least of all, the lack of a mass politics at the state and local levels -- a handful of whiners can make enough of a noise that either a) different factions in city politics that they're affiliated with turn against said state legislators/the mayor or b) they convince low-propensity voters to turn out on something of a vibes basis.

So it does make sense what they're doing. But, as you say, "visionary investment" can make a difference because you'd definitionally need to get someone like the governor or the mayor to make their campaign about that, so they can point to a clear mandate from the people to engage in big changes.

 

[ritchiew]

I mean, look, obviously I think that mass transit makes for better cities, and I believe that mass transit pretty quantifiably moves more people in smaller space than cars do.

But, I also do understand why it seems intuitive and obvious to some people that "removing lanes will just make congestion worse, because you have less space for [the same number of] cars". If you buy a small house, but then have 3 kids and adopt a dog, you need a bigger house so everyone has enough room -- it's a line of thinking that feels like "common sense".

I think the parenthetical in my hypothetical quote above is key: "for the same number of cars". One of the arguments in favor of reallocating public ROWs from private auto use to public mass transit use is that better mass transit gets people out of their cars, reducing the number of cars overall.

In the case of Blue Hill Ave, this rests on a tacit assumption: that some number of people driving on BHA would take transit if it were better -- that the bus lanes will move people out of cars. And there surely must be some people who fall into that category... but is it a lot?

There still definitely are other reasons in favor of reallocating space in the public ROW to mass transit (and to cyclists, and to pedestrians), don't get me wrong! But I definitely can understand the skepticism.

I've given this example before, but take UMass Boston, putatively a "commuter school", a stone's throw from Dorchester. Coming from the Mount Bowdoin neighborhood, 1.6 miles as the crow flies, it's a 13 minute drive (during the evening rush hour!). But by transit, it's 32 minutes, if you are willing to walk 15 minutes to the Red Line, or 39 minutes via a minimal-walking-two-bus journey.

View attachment 58014

Obviously this is just one example, and there are certainly many commutes that will be faster by transit than by car. But it's not like UMass Boston is an obscure destination; if a journey like this is so extraordinarily uncompetitive by car, then it's easy to imagine why people would feel confident that the overall number of cars isn't gonna decrease.

I don't have any great solutions for this. I just think it's important to approach these conversations with as much empathy as possible.

I totally agree, a lot of this kind of planning isn't intuitive or obvious to people. None of this was obvious to me until I started diving into it in the past several years. And we should absolutely have these conversations with empathy.

For this article, though, I don't extend a lot of this courtesy to reporters (or likewise politicians or bureaucrats). I really do expect them to do research and get things right. It's literally their job. If someone is saying this redesign will increase carbon monoxide, or slow traffic, or make the street less safe, it really is the reporter's responsibility to then figure out if any of that makes sense. It's a total disservice to readers to just quote peoples' non-expert opinions on things and move on. This is the Globe's chance to inject some facts, nuance, and expertise into the conversation and they're blowing it.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I totally agree, a lot of this kind of planning isn't intuitive or obvious to people. None of this was obvious to me until I started diving into it in the past several years. And we should absolutely have these conversations with empathy.

For this article, though, I don't extend a lot of this courtesy to reporters (or likewise politicians or bureaucrats). I really do expect them to do research and get things right. It's literally their job. If someone is saying this redesign will increase carbon monoxide, or slow traffic, or make the street less safe, it really is the reporter's responsibility to then figure out if any of that makes sense. It's a total disservice to readers to just quote peoples' non-expert opinions on things and move on. This is the Globe's chance to inject some facts, nuance, and expertise into the conversation and they're blowing it.

There is no meat left in reporting at the local, state or national level. "Reporters" are little more than scribes who copy whatever uninformed position is squawked by both sides, and print them as "controversy". There is no attempt to get to facts, just clickbait quotes from "both sides".

 

[Riverside]

For this article, though, I don't extend a lot of this courtesy to reporters (or likewise politicians or bureaucrats). I really do expect them to do research and get things right. It's literally their job. If someone is saying this redesign will increase carbon monoxide, or slow traffic, or make the street less safe, it really is the reporter's responsibility to then figure out if any of that makes sense. It's a total disservice to readers to just quote peoples' non-expert opinions on things and move on. This is the Globe's chance to inject some facts, nuance, and expertise into the conversation and they're blowing it.

Yeah, strong agree here. It's possible to be both empathetic to people and to present knowledge that provides context.