MBTA Buses & Infrastructure

[Riverside]

Without necessarily weighing in on the merit of the proposal for Blue Hill Ave (or the concerns raised about gentrification), I'll note that Dorchester and Mattapan both have a higher rate of commuting by car than the City average, and that the share of transit commuters -- though slighly above the City average -- is smaller than the share of car commuters. (These two neighborhoods, along with East Boston, also have the longest average commutes -- and by a large margin in the case of Mattapan.)

Now, it's worth noting that those car/transit shares are actually pretty typical for most of the city; they are some pretty exceptional outliers that shift the averages. And I am (unsurprisingly) amenable to the theory that better transit frequencies and travel times would reduce car usage, and even if it doesn't, there are still valid reasons in favor of bus lanes (in general) from an equity perspective.

I'm not necessarily saying that car users should get priority -- but the data certainly suggest that nearly two-thirds of Mattapan commuters commute by car (either solo or carpooling), which is a large constituency from whom objections need to reasonably be handled.

(I also think it's worth looking at the numbers above through an income lens... I don't see much to suggest that higher average income neighborhoods use transit more, but I do see some data that points to higher income being somewhat correlated with reduced driving. If residents feel that they've seen that correlation confirmed anecdotally in their personal lives, that will also raise concern about gentrification, even if it may not be warranted.)

 

[bigeman312]

Without necessarily weighing in on the merit of the proposal for Blue Hill Ave (or the concerns raised about gentrification), I'll note that Dorchester and Mattapan both have a higher rate of commuting by car than the City average, and that the share of transit commuters -- though slighly above the City average -- is smaller than the share of car commuters. (These two neighborhoods, along with East Boston, also have the longest average commutes -- and by a large margin in the case of Mattapan.)

View attachment 28394
View attachment 28395

View attachment 28398

Now, it's worth noting that those car/transit shares are actually pretty typical for most of the city; they are some pretty exceptional outliers that shift the averages. And I am (unsurprisingly) amenable to the theory that better transit frequencies and travel times would reduce car usage, and even if it doesn't, there are still valid reasons in favor of bus lanes (in general) from an equity perspective.

I'm not necessarily saying that car users should get priority -- but the data certainly suggest that nearly two-thirds of Mattapan commuters commute by car (either solo or carpooling), which is a large constituency from whom objections need to reasonably be handled.

(I also think it's worth looking at the numbers above through an income lens... I don't see much to suggest that higher average income neighborhoods use transit more, but I do see some data that points to higher income being somewhat correlated with reduced driving. If residents feel that they've seen that correlation confirmed anecdotally in their personal lives, that will also raise concern about gentrification, even if it may not be warranted.)

That graph appears to show that ~60% of Mattapan residents commute by car (either solo or carpooling), but I think the appropriate follow-up is: what percentage of public transportation space is devoted to automobiles (either moving or storing)? Missing from your analysis is an assessment of the current distribution of public land by mode. It should be plainly obvious that there is an extreme inequity by mode, driven in part by the geometric inefficiency of the automobile. It should also be plainly obvious that the proposed center-running bus lanes do not come close to providing transit users an equitable proportion of space.

 

[Riverside]

That graph appears to show that ~60% of Mattapan residents commute by car (either solo or carpooling), but I think the appropriate follow-up is: what percentage of public transportation space is devoted to automobiles (either moving or storing)? Missing from your analysis is an assessment of the current distribution of public land by mode. It should be plainly obvious that there is an extreme inequity by mode, driven in part by the geometric inefficiency of the automobile. It should also be plainly obvious that the proposed center-running bus lanes do not come close to providing transit users an equitable proportion of space.

To be clear, I’m not advocating any approach in particular — I’m just sharing numbers that I think are relevant to parsing the community response. I personally agree that in general our streets afford too much space to personal automobiles and not nearly enough to mass transit; for a variety of reasons, I don’t want to make strong pronouncements about the Blue Hill Ave project specifically.

(That said, I would note that 2 bus lanes, plus 2 travel lanes plus 2 parking lanes, would actually yield the vaguely 2-to-1 distribution of street use suggested by the 2-to-1 mode distribution: 67% car and 33% transit. I am guessing you will rightfully point out that they may be an equal distribution, but not necessarily an equitable one, and I would agree with you.)

I guess the vague thesis I’m dancing around here: I think a tempered reaction to community reaction is more productive in this situation (as in most).

 

[bigeman312]

To be clear, I’m not advocating any approach in particular — I’m just sharing numbers that I think are relevant to parsing the community response. I personally agree that in general our streets afford too much space to personal automobiles and not nearly enough to mass transit; for a variety of reasons, I don’t want to make strong pronouncements about the Blue Hill Ave project specifically.

(That said, I would note that 2 bus lanes, plus 2 travel lanes plus 2 parking lanes, would actually yield the vaguely 2-to-1 distribution of street use suggested by the 2-to-1 mode distribution: 67% car and 33% transit. I am guessing you will rightfully point out that they may be an equal distribution, but not necessarily an equitable one, and I would agree with you.)

I guess the vague thesis I’m dancing around here: I think a tempered reaction to community reaction is more productive in this situation (as in most).

You are incorrect about what my response to that would be. I would:

Firstly, continue to point out that you are not accurately sharing the numbers. It appears, from your very own graphic, to be about a 60% mode share of driving. I have to question why you continue to misrepresent your own data. The graph appears to show a breakdown of roughly: 60% car, 34% transit, 6% walk/bike/other/WFH. It may be outdated info, but it shouldn't be misrepresented for no apparent reason.

Secondly, I would then point out that Blue Hill Ave is not equivalent to Mattapan as a whole. If x% of Mattapan trips are taken by transit, giving x% of space on Blue Hill Ave to transit is a far cry from giving x% of space in Mattapan to transit. The fact of the matter is that Blue Hill Ave represents a much larger share of Mattapan's transit trips than Mattapan's trips by other modes. Even if we are just aiming for equitable space, giving Blue Hill Ave x% of Mattapan's transportation space would still be an extreme inequity tilted away from transit users.

I am not saying that equitable space needs to be the goal, I am just striving for a more complete, accurate analysis. Unfortunately, we are not working with enough data. I appreciate you sharing numbers and I agree with your implied goal of pursuing the truth through data.

 

[Riverside]

You are incorrect about what my response to that would be. I would:

Firstly, continue to point out that you are not accurately sharing the numbers. It appears, from your very own graphic, to be about a 60% mode share of driving. I have to question why you continue to misrepresent your own data. The graph appears to show a breakdown of roughly: 60% car, 34% transit, 6% walk/bike/other/WFH. It may be outdated info, but it shouldn't be misrepresented for no apparent reason.

Secondly, I would then point out that Blue Hill Ave is not equivalent to Mattapan as a whole. If x% of Mattapan trips are taken by transit, giving x% of space on Blue Hill Ave to transit is a far cry from giving x% of space in Mattapan to transit. The fact of the matter is that Blue Hill Ave represents a much larger share of Mattapan's transit trips than Mattapan's trips by other modes. Even if we are just aiming for equitable space, giving Blue Hill Ave x% of Mattapan's transportation space would still be an extreme inequity tilted away from transit users.

I am not saying that equitable space needs to be the goal, I am just striving for a more complete, accurate analysis. Unfortunately, we are not working with enough data. I appreciate you sharing numbers and I agree with your implied goal of pursuing the truth through data.

Yeah, these are fair points. Yes, I am oversimplifying the numbers, you are right that the car:transit ratio is actually 6:3.5 (12:7), and not fully 2:1 -- I don't really the 7% makes a huge difference (which is why I simplified for the sake of argument), but you're right that it does end up slightly overstating my case, so my apologies for that.

That's actually a really interesting way to frame the "space on BHA" vs "space in Mattapan" that I hadn't thought of. Given that, yes, I can see the argument that even with the bus lanes the inequity still tilts away from transit users. (Which is usually my default position to begin with!)

As for pursuing the truth through data: ironically, if anything, this is probably the opposite of the point I'm trying to make Perhaps not the "opposite," but definitely a different focus. Maybe a better way to put it is "pursuing empathy through data"?

My point in sharing this data isn't to argue in favor of the "best" proposal, but rather to contextualize some of the (potential) reactions to the proposal, regardless of whether I agree with those reactions or not. And in that data, I see a loose correlation between lower driving rates and higher average income; if that loose correlation is visible -- or even seems to be visible -- in people's lived experiences, then to me that points to a pretty clear reason why there might be an immediate reaction of concern about gentrification -- a reaction that shouldn't be dismissively labeled "kneejerk" or as a cynical powerplay.

Besides, everyone has seen how the Green Line came to town in Somerville and drove up everyone's rent. That makes for a pretty straightforward story: if they build transit, your rent will go up and you'll have to move. I believe people can be convinced to have a more nuanced perspective, but I think it's an understandable starting point, all the more so based on what I see in the above data.

(Sorry for being difficult here -- I'm mostly responding to some comments made upthread.)

 

[as02143]

Using commute data also is problematic for another reason: work commute trips are maybe only 25% of trips that all people make. Even among people who commute to work, it's not unusual to walk to and from buying lunch, or run an errand during the day after work.

 

[as02143]

Besides, everyone has seen how the Green Line came to town in Somerville and drove up everyone's rent. That makes for a pretty straightforward story: if they build transit, your rent will go up and you'll have to move. I believe people can be convinced to have a more nuanced perspective, but I think it's an understandable starting point, all the more so based on what I see in the above data.

(Sorry for being difficult here -- I'm mostly responding to some comments made upthread.)

I know that the common perspective is that the Green Line is the cause of rent and housing price increases, but, i don't think this is nearly as strong a case as the sheer number of jobs that have been added in and around Kendall Square for the last 20 years. Combined with Cambridge's policies that mandate little to no parking, it makes so much more sense that Cambridge employees follow Cambridge's employers. They also have employment that means that they can out bid the previous communities that were there.

 

[Riverside]

^ Again, maybe I should have been a little clear in my subtext... yes, I personally believe that the rent increase etc has more complicated causes than just "GLX raised rent", but my point -- as you say -- is what the common perspective is, and what narratives are thereby readily available to the public.

 

[bigeman312]

Yeah, these are fair points. Yes, I am oversimplifying the numbers, you are right that the car:transit ratio is actually 6:3.5 (12:7), and not fully 2:1 -- I don't really the 7% makes a huge difference (which is why I simplified for the sake of argument), but you're right that it does end up slightly overstating my case, so my apologies for that.

That's actually a really interesting way to frame the "space on BHA" vs "space in Mattapan" that I hadn't thought of. Given that, yes, I can see the argument that even with the bus lanes the inequity still tilts away from transit users. (Which is usually my default position to begin with!)

As for pursuing the truth through data: ironically, if anything, this is probably the opposite of the point I'm trying to make Perhaps not the "opposite," but definitely a different focus. Maybe a better way to put it is "pursuing empathy through data"?

My point in sharing this data isn't to argue in favor of the "best" proposal, but rather to contextualize some of the (potential) reactions to the proposal, regardless of whether I agree with those reactions or not. And in that data, I see a loose correlation between lower driving rates and higher average income; if that loose correlation is visible -- or even seems to be visible -- in people's lived experiences, then to me that points to a pretty clear reason why there might be an immediate reaction of concern about gentrification -- a reaction that shouldn't be dismissively labeled "kneejerk" or as a cynical powerplay.

Besides, everyone has seen how the Green Line came to town in Somerville and drove up everyone's rent. That makes for a pretty straightforward story: if they build transit, your rent will go up and you'll have to move. I believe people can be convinced to have a more nuanced perspective, but I think it's an understandable starting point, all the more so based on what I see in the above data.

(Sorry for being difficult here -- I'm mostly responding to some comments made upthread.)

I see that for sure. I think the local residents aren’t thinking about “what is optimally efficient,” (which my post was about), but rather “how will this effect me?” I was speaking to how much better the road is going to be with center running bus lanes. I also have lived in Egleston Square for seven years and see how transformative the Columbus Ave bus lanes have been.

The reality is that I’m a wealthy White home-owner and my privilege allows me to experience the improvements to my neighborhood. Many in Mattapan don’t have that privilege.

The unfortunate reality is that they are right that some will get pushed out. The least privileged first. This reality is due to the fact that housing has become too expensive for the average family to become homeowners. The housing cost problem is multi-faceted. It’s a microcosm of so much that’s wrong with our society. It’s causes are many, they are nuanced, and they require policy intervention to correct. One cause is our inability to add housing to desirable areas to meet demand.

So, when the area improves, the price will go up due to the I creased demand. To bring the price down, you can either increase supply (build housing) or decrease demand (keep the neighborhood unappealing to those with capital). It is understandable for the residents to recognize that their best bet may be to keep the neighborhood unappealing to white Yuppies like me.

The local residents are recognizing a problem and using the only toolsavailable in a world stacked against them. Many are only there because their parents were forced out of their neighborhoods during the SW Corridor clearing or red lining.This isn’t as different as one might hope. The biggest difference is that highway would have been horrible and this center running busway would be amazing. But if they are being forced from their homes, generation after generation, how can we expect them to be on board?

Ironically, racism may work in their favor here. Black neighborhoods have shown, statistically, time and time again to be slower to gentrify than Hispanic or Asian neighborhoods, all else equal. This is partially because many White people with money don’t want to live around Black people. So, Mattapan may not gentrify as quickly as the residents think it would, ironically.

 

[Riverside]

Yup, big agree all around. (I'm not super familiar with the data on gentrification of Black neighborhoods specifically, so I'll have to take your word on it, but I'd believe it.)

 

[millerm277]

Using commute data also is problematic for another reason: work commute trips are maybe only 25% of trips that all people make. Even among people who commute to work, it's not unusual to walk to and from buying lunch, or run an errand during the day after work.

I suspect you'd find that car mode share is substantially higher for non-commute/off-peak trips, not lower.

Traffic is lighter, parking is easier to find or lower-cost, and MBTA transit service is often far worse.

 

[bigeman312]

Using commute data also is problematic for another reason: work commute trips are maybe only 25% of trips that all people make. Even among people who commute to work, it's not unusual to walk to and from buying lunch, or run an errand during the day after work.

The best data to use would be more precise. For example, a breakdown of percentage of road users by mode on each block of Blue Hill Ave. Short of that, a breakdown of percentage of road users by mode on Blue Hill Ave as a whole.

This can be juxtaposed with our allocation of space and would clearly show that we are bending over backwards to cater to the least geometrically efficient modes of transportation, and doing a disservice to efficient allocation of space.

 

[as02143]

I suspect you'd find that car mode share is substantially higher for non-commute/off-peak trips, not lower.

Traffic is lighter, parking is easier to find or lower-cost, and MBTA transit service is often far worse.

Except in an area like Mattapan Dorchester and Roxbury, car ownership per household is fairly low, typically, 1 car every other household. Even in other richer areas of Boston Cambridge Brookline Somerville and poorer areas in the region like Chelsea Everett and Revere, car ownership is not as common as one would think by the number of cars on the road or parked at the curb.

The people that live in the central areas of Boston deserve transit options that let them travel within their neighborhoods and within their city and region without using their car precisely because many have already forgone their cars. And the ones that do own cars pose many more burdens on their car-free neighbors that have not been addressed.

 

[millerm277]

Except in an area like Mattapan Dorchester and Roxbury, car ownership per household is fairly low, typically, 1 car every other household. Even in other richer areas of Boston Cambridge Brookline Somerville and poorer areas in the region like Chelsea Everett and Revere, car ownership is not as common as one would think by the number of cars on the road or parked at the curb.

We have data, that's not true. Dorchester and Mattapan are higher car ownership than the Boston average, not less. Roxbury is the only one of those 3 that's below average.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/f93dc9a5-9285-48d6-a8eb-3f2a3eac8e1c

73% of Mattapan households in 2015 had a motor vehicle, com-
pared to 65% of all Boston households.
• The ratio of vehicles to households in Mattapan was 1.04 in
2015. Compared to the city as a whole 0.91 ratio.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/cf81f002-ca73-4e12-9f37-ce6cbdb865c3

69% of Dorchester households own at least one car, higher than
the city average of 65%.
• The ratio of vehicles to households in Dorchester was 0.98 in
2015, higher than the city ratio of 0.91

----------

The same is also true of the utilization levels of those vehicles:

Dorchester and Mattapan have higher rates of car use, even when near transit, than many other areas of the city.

https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/document-file-03-2017/go_boston_2030_-_3_boston_today_spreads.pdf#page=12

--------

On a related note for the city as a whole: The ratio of cars to households doesn't appear to have moved an inch in the 2000-15 time span, and was higher than in 1990. Maybe it's starting to change in the past couple years (maybe not).

Vehicles per Household in Massachusetts Towns 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2015 | Boston Region MPO

www.ctps.org

---------

The people that live in the central areas of Boston deserve transit options that let them travel within their neighborhoods and within their city and region without using their car precisely because many have already forgone their cars. And the ones that do own cars pose many more burdens on their car-free neighbors that have not been addressed.

Not making any argument about how things would ideally be, just making the point about how they currently are and where you're starting from. I do not think all that community opposition is necessarily just a noisy minority.

I don't commute with my car at all. I use it constantly in the evenings and weekends. Why? Because off-peak T service sucks and while the T covers common commuting routes to major hubs, it doesn't cover the wider metro area where the things I want to do and people I want to see are very well.

 

[FK4]

I think we need a MUCH stronger central government that will break the spines of both resistance to transit improvements and resistance to housing limits. Crush all the forces that prevent 6+ stories as the default height everywhere within 128, more housing gets built, and serious blow dealt to the gentrification risk which ultimately comes down to lack of housing capacity. Likewise, break the opposition to transit expansion and you can handle the increased volume of housing. The community processes we have in this state, while well intentioned, serve to throttle progress and waste money, far more than they actually help the people.

 

[RandomWalk]

I recommend reading Don’t Blame Us: Suburban Liberals and the Transformation of the Democratic Party. It focuses on a selection of towns in the 128 area to make its point, so it has a bunch of insight into how we got into this situation.

 

[bakgwailo]

I think we need a MUCH stronger central government that will break the spines of both resistance to transit improvements and resistance to housing limits. Crush all the forces that prevent 6+ stories as the default height everywhere within 128, more housing gets built, and serious blow dealt to the gentrification risk which ultimately comes down to lack of housing capacity. Likewise, break the opposition to transit expansion and you can handle the increased volume of housing. The community processes we have in this state, while well intentioned, serve to throttle progress and waste money, far more than they actually help the people.

I don't know - just getting 6 stories as the default height inside 128 would be a huge win.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I don't know - just getting 6 stories as the default height inside 128 would be a huge win.

So true. Even on Mass Ave in North Cambridge, a major arterial, a six story building proposal is facing opposition.

 

[FK4]

I recommend reading Don’t Blame Us: Suburban Liberals and the Transformation of the Democratic Party. It focuses on a selection of towns in the 128 area to make its point, so it has a bunch of insight into how we got into this situation.

This looks amazing, thanks.

 

[The EGE]

It doesn't appear to have gotten any publicity - not even a service alert on the T website - but Chinatown Gate (Surface @ Kneeland) seems to have been kept as a Silver Line stop after the Orange Line reopened. It's just about a quarter-mile walking from South Station and Tufts Medical, which is reasonable stop spacing for BRT in the downtown area.

https://www.mbta.com/stops/6555