I mean, I agree with you in theory. But if we're talking about a major highway rebuilding project like this, this is the most logical opportunity to shrink highway capacity, not after the entire 8 lanes have been built. That reinforces car commuting patterns, is unnecessarily expensive, and does not align with the Commonwealth's transportation and climate goals. Shrinking the number of lanes later, after the highway is rebuilt, seems silly to me. All you could do would be to take away car lanes and add express bus / HOV lanes. My $.02.
Of course higher Pike tolls, congestion pricing in the core, and going forward with the gas tax increase should all be part of this effort as well to discourage driving at all costs.
That's not a coherent argument. "We don't have plausible long-term transit offsets, but because this is short-term decision...chop the nose off your face anyway." No. If you're making that decision, it has to be a setup to the encore that does provide the offsets otherwise you're careening yourself straight into a bottleneck problem. The problem here is there doesn't appear to be any encores that finish the load reduction job if you're chopping Pike capacity with a lane-drop in this spot.
In contrast, that Storrow midsection diet
does have a future offset possibility. By reducing Charlesgate-Public Gardens from 6 parkway lanes to 2-lane slow park access road and sending that redundant load to the Pike, you potentially free up one carriageway's worth of road pack for a transit trade-in in the form of extending Blue Line from Charles MGH to Kenmore that
would offset the same number of commuters on a different mode in the same project area. (We've discussed the situation-specific particulars of that prospect at length before viz-a-viz the Storrow diet, so I recommend board-searching for add'l background rather than re-hashing on a tangent here). And do that offset while additionally...per my last post...reclaiming the
maximum acreage of possible riverfront parkland at the
maximum utilization part of the Esplanade.
Now...let's be clear before there's a thread-derail tangent: Storrow midsection politics are a whole future debate unto themselves. Duly acknowledged. We'll hash-out all the multitude of the pros/cons like gentleperson (and not-so-gentleperson) civic advocates when that time comes. But going STRAIGHT to your logic re: 'throat' options: that
is exactly the definition of a scenario WITH offsets available that's worth debating. "Tear out the extra lanes now and. . . [voice trails off]" isn't, because the future encores for offsets aren't there for the lane-drop you're proposing. Moreover, for that future midsection parkway diet the future debate is
contingent on Pike lanes not being shorted between Newton Corner and 93. Unless you can find similarly robust offset for an outright lane deletion around the 'throat', it's not a proposal that can be offset. It is a straight-up now sacrificing of future considerations.
MassDOT's not saying "NO!" for the lizard-brain reaction of saying "NO!" It's saying that if lane-drops are being proposed
now, there has to be a tangible future offset in the project area. There isn't one--at least not tangible that you could ballpark numbers to--in the project area. Moreover, they know damn well the Storrow midsection is going to be a future debate that DOES have meaty empirical pro/con arguments re: actual offsets, so they are keenly aware of what the no-offset lane-drop request now does to the
plenty-offsets future debate re: Storrow and don't want any part of getting dragged for earth-salting in instant gratification. Because...lest I remind again...hundreds more acres of reclaimed max-utilization park is at-stake with that future Storrow midsection debate than the tapemeasure-to-strip-of-crabgrass debate that we're having over the 'throat' riverfront right now. The conservationist advocates are going to be all over that one in a way that dwarfs their involvement to-date on the 'throat'.
The terms can't be clearer. Either offer something with never-before-considered capacity offsets on their terms, or acknowledge that outright lane deletion isn't going to satisfy the base requirements.