I’m in my 20’s and have lived in Greater Boston my entire life and am fascinated by the design and decisions that have led to our current highway system. I have several questions and was hoping to get some insight from fellow board members. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you!
How come virtually all of our major transit infrastructure (with the exception being the Big Dig however that was mainly the replacement of a highway rather than an addition) was built in the 1960’s or earlier? How come in spite of a much greater commuting populace in the 5+ decades since, there have been no new highways? Isn’t there more money now than there was back then to support building infrastructure? It seems like back then they were building highways left and right and now it’s a big ordeal to consider widening a highway or replacing a bridge.
How come when researching the Inner Belt, you can tell everything is written in such a biased way against it? Surely there must have been supporters for the project to have lived on for a few decades. There must have been at least some redeeming qualities to the concept.
From what I can see, major opposition to the Inner Belt related to its displacement of residents and destruction of neighborhoods. However from what I can tell, proportionately the number of residents and businesses that would be relocated seems relatively minor for the developed areas the Inner Belt would be serving. The residences affected would be compensated through eminent domain at fair market value to move elsewhere. Is any consideration given to not having the highway and having the residences stay put, but now having to deal with an influx of traffic on local streets during rush hours because highways are not available to take those cars off local streets? High traffic reduces the quality of life and safety for people in the effected neighborhoods, not to mention reduces the value of their property. For example, I have what technically should be a reverse commute, from my apartment in Charlestown to my office in Waltham. However, the most direct route, Route 2, abruptly ends at Alewife, so to get onto (or off of depending on the way) of Route 2, I have to sit in traffic for an hour plus meandering through local roads because the extension of Route 2 through Cambridge was canceled. What results is poor safety and adverse traffic conditions for those who are affected by all this local traffic that wouldn’t be there had the highway had been finished. There’s also now the rest of Route 2 which is left under-utilized and you can fly through at speeds greater than the speed limit during the peak of rush hour while parallel highways that have been completed (the Mass Pike) are at a standstill. Not only does this adversely impact those who live along the local streets which are now seen as necessary cut-throughs, but all the commuters that sit idly in the traffic for hundreds of hours each year and the adverse effect it has on their lives, the economy, and the environment.
With all the opposition to highways and how they will destroy homes, displace the elderly, and tear up neighborhoods, have highways been built that have actually done such a thing? Okay, I know people say the Central Artery did tear up neighborhoods, but that has since been rectified and in a beautiful way. But I’ve never heard someone complain about how the Mass Pike or 128 tore up the neighborhood or some poor persons home and they had no where to go. Is it more a fear of change rather than a clear vision of the desired outcome?
Aren’t constant improvements to infrastructure, including new highways, inevitable? How long can a society survive off of infrastructure designed for the needs of a population in the 1960’s? Isn’t progress by its very nature achieved through change?
I may have more questions
Thank you very much for any feedback you can provide!
