Zurich and Boston

[Matthew]

Lessons From Zurich's Parking Revolution. Excerpt:

Parking is always a contentious issue and most cities have taken the path of least resistance - facilitating a relentless increase in parking. Ironically, complaints that there is never enough parking seems to grow in direct proportion to the amount of parking supplied. Since the late 1980s, Zurich has developed an alternative that's worth studying because it breaks all the rules of conventional transportation planning, and yet has been vitally important to the success of that city. In contrast, the conventional approach has devastated most American cities, and many in Europe as well.

The essence of Zurich's historic compromise of 1996 was that parking in the core of the city would be capped at the 1990 level, and that any new parking to be built would, on a one-to-one basis, replace the surface parking that blighted most squares in the city at the time. Today, almost all these squares are free of parking and have been converted to tranquil or convivial places for people to enjoy.

Very nicely written article by Chris McCahill, who has done other good research in this area. This quote drew my eye because Boston famously has "parking freezes" as well. While it has helped prevent downtown from being turned into a giant parking lot, it doesn't seem to have had the same level of success that Zurich's policy has. Any ideas?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'd be willing to bet that Zurich's experiencing success where similar tactics fail in places like Boston because Zurich probably understands that parking is only half of the problem.

The other half is your city's mass transit - as someone once put it to me, most people don't have a romantic attachment to their cars. (NIMBY suburbanites excluded, but...) The average person drives because they're not presented with a better alternative - in most cities, they're not presented with any alternative.

A parking freeze without a renewed investment in mass transit only creates a lot of angry drivers who can't park their car, but also can't access the city by non-existent or inadequate mass transit. The end result is devestating, and every bit as devestating as a parking lot-pocalypse that bulldozes the entirety of downtown for surface parking.

I guarantee you that, were it not for the T (even in its current state), Boston's parking freeze would have failed. So, conversely, any parking freeze MUST be combined with renewed investment into mass transit, to take people out of their cars.

 

[deh74]

I'd be willing to bet that Zurich's experiencing success where similar tactics fail in places like Boston because Zurich probably understands that parking is only half of the problem.

The other half is your city's mass transit - as someone once put it to me, most people don't have a romantic attachment to their cars. (NIMBY suburbanites excluded, but...) The average person drives because they're not presented with a better alternative - in most cities, they're not presented with any alternative.

A parking freeze without a renewed investment in mass transit only creates a lot of angry drivers who can't park their car, but also can't access the city by non-existent or inadequate mass transit. The end result is devestating, and every bit as devestating as a parking lot-pocalypse that bulldozes the entirety of downtown for surface parking.

I guarantee you that, were it not for the T (even in its current state), Boston's parking freeze would have failed. So, conversely, any parking freeze MUST be combined with renewed investment into mass transit, to take people out of their cars.

the difference is actually that Boston is in america and zurich is in switzerland

 

[JonFrum]

I'd be willing to bet that Zurich's experiencing success where similar tactics fail in places like Boston because Zurich probably understands that parking is only half of the problem.

The other half is your city's mass transit - as someone once put it to me, most people don't have a romantic attachment to their cars. (NIMBY suburbanites excluded, but...) The average person drives because they're not presented with a better alternative - in most cities, they're not presented with any alternative.

A parking freeze without a renewed investment in mass transit only creates a lot of angry drivers who can't park their car, but also can't access the city by non-existent or inadequate mass transit. The end result is devestating, and every bit as devestating as a parking lot-pocalypse that bulldozes the entirety of downtown for surface parking.

I guarantee you that, were it not for the T (even in its current state), Boston's parking freeze would have failed. So, conversely, any parking freeze MUST be combined with renewed investment into mass transit, to take people out of their cars.

People don't take mass transit for various reasons - many have very good reasons to stay in their cars, and out of public transportation. When I drove from my house in Dedham to UMASS-Boston, I could have walked half a mile, got on a bus near Walcott sq, transferred to the Orange Line at Forest Hills, changed to the Red Line at State st, and then taken the shuttle bus at JFK. Instead, I drove in Hyde Park ave to American Legion Hwy, to Columbia rd, and I was golden. Unless your renewed investment included an express train from the corner of my street to Columbia Point, nothing was getting me out of my car.

For every problem, there is a solution that is simple and wrong. Boston already has a mass transit system. More of the same isn't worth the money - the best money has already been spent. Congestion is good for cities - in fact, it defines cities. Cities are the crowded places. If you want no congestion, move to Wyoming.

 

[choo]

Congestion is good for cities - in fact, it defines cities. Cities are the crowded places. If you want no congestion, move to Wyoming.

I think density defines cities. Congestion defines a failure in city planning. The difference is between a lot of people doing things vs a lot of people not able to do anything.

In this whole mass-transit vs. car debate people focus on one example, like your drive to UMB. But in reality, the debate is for balance, not replacement. People in Europe still drive! I get on the T at Porter to go to Kendall each day. the time to drive vs. T is currently equivalent. When I get on the T, it is already packed. It could move more people much faster if proper signals and infrastructure were in place.

Most arguments for cars are that they can also move more people faster if proper infrastructure is in place. But lets say in 5 years you need to move 5,000 more people each way between these to spaces. With the limited space, what would be a more efficient and useful distribution of resources. 5,000 more people would be 3 more trains running through or ~4000 cars. What option would be the better financially and quality of life for the city? Where you going to park your 4000 cars. more importantly, where you going to park car 4001? Boston has a strong transit network, but is missing key pieces and critical basic investment that would save everyone overall more time and money and give more space for housing, retail, and office than cars.
Hopefully now that we are at a point that of near-peak congestion and little room for additional lanes, the politicians, taxpayers, and commuters of all types will see value in investing in a quality mass transit system. LIKE ZURICH!

 

[Corey]

In this whole mass-transit vs. car debate people focus on one example, like your drive to UMB. But in reality, the debate is for balance, not replacement. People in Europe still drive!

I appreciate your reminder that mass-transit vs single-occupancy automobiles is not always an either/or choice and that ideally these can both exist where appropriate. People can still choose to live in automobile-dependent areas that don't have transit service, assuming they are wiling and able to pay for the associated costs.

 

[omaja]

People don't take mass transit for various reasons - many have very good reasons to stay in their cars, and out of public transportation. When I drove from my house in Dedham to UMASS-Boston, I could have walked half a mile, got on a bus near Walcott sq, transferred to the Orange Line at Forest Hills, changed to the Red Line at State st, and then taken the shuttle bus at JFK. Instead, I drove in Hyde Park ave to American Legion Hwy, to Columbia rd, and I was golden. Unless your renewed investment included an express train from the corner of my street to Columbia Point, nothing was getting me out of my car.

If anything, your example shows the pitfalls of Boston's hub-and-spoke rapid transit network and its over-reliance on buses where density and demand could be more efficiently served via some sort of rail. Whereas untold billions have been spent on roads to create a level of network connectivity and redundancy, none of that investment has occurred with our public transportation. As a result, our current transit system is relegated to serving a very niche role that could easily have been on par with our European peers.

For every problem, there is a solution that is simple and wrong. Boston already has a mass transit system. More of the same isn't worth the money - the best money has already been spent. Congestion is good for cities - in fact, it defines cities. Cities are the crowded places. If you want no congestion, move to Wyoming.

There are vast areas of the urbanized core that have limited or zero rapid transit service and rely far too much on buses. The MBTA can't even maintain what it has, let alone undertake much needed expansions on all rapid transit lines. To say that what we have is sufficient and doesn't need improvement is just plain silly, congestion or no congestion.

Boston will always be a congested city for cars because there is literally nowhere else you could put them without leveling entire blocks. Meanwhile, there are many gaps in transit coverage that can be filled to better serve local traffic, leaving car trips to more specialized, regional/long-distance commuting/inter-suburban traffic.

 

[belmont square]

Its been 9 years since I was in Zurich, so maybe a lot has changed. But when I was there the urban public transit network consisted of about 15 tram lines and a couple dozen bus lines. Unlike our Green Line, the tram lines didn't feed a central subway network and there was only a short subway section on one line that I encountered. What good would it do to expand the MBTA's rail network by converting bus lines to trams if they're just going to be traveling the same narrow and congested streets the buses currently do?

 

[JonFrum]

There are vast areas of the urbanized core that have limited or zero rapid transit service and rely far too much on buses.

So what do you suggest - adding five more spokes of trains? The cost of the very 'problem' you cite would be Big Dig-worthy. Come back from public transportation fantasy-land. You're never going to provide every citizen with a 10 minute trip to downtown. After a certain level of spending, your improvement/dollar starts going down - dramatically.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

So what do you suggest - adding five more spokes of trains? The cost of the very 'problem' you cite would be Big Dig-worthy. Come back from public transportation fantasy-land. You're never going to provide every citizen with a 10 minute trip to downtown. After a certain level of spending, your improvement/dollar starts going down - dramatically.

Yes, actually, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, what I have suggested, and what I will continue to suggest because my endgame IS pumping another $24B into Boston's mass transit network. I'm certain I'm far from the only one who feels this way.

We can argue all day about where the best investments we can buy with $24B are, but at the end of the day I'm pretty much going to be happy that serious investments were made into our subways and trains even if the end result isn't a picture-perfect system or not all of my 'wish list' proposals get built.

Call it a boondoggle, call it wasteful spending, I don't care. Some things are worth doing even if they don't make fiscal sense.

 

[omaja]

So what do you suggest - adding five more spokes of trains? The cost of the very 'problem' you cite would be Big Dig-worthy. Come back from public transportation fantasy-land. You're never going to provide every citizen with a 10 minute trip to downtown. After a certain level of spending, your improvement/dollar starts going down - dramatically.

You'd get a hell of a lot more than "five more spokes of trains" for the cost of the Big Dig. Even half the amount of the Big Dig would be able to nearly triple the size of our rapid transit network.

And the goal isn't remotely close to providing "every citizen with a 10 minute trip to downtown". You don't need to do it now for the MBTA to have the second highest ridership per mile in the country and you certainly wouldn't need to if the system were expanded (though one result of such expansion would be just that). The network effect of creating multiple routings, expanding operating hours/frequencies and connecting neighborhoods that have not had direct rapid transit connections would more than justify the investment.

Again, whereas Boston has a lot of room for improvement with its transit network, there isn't much "improvement" that could be made to its roads without bulldozing neighborhoods by the block. That in and of itself makes the improvement/dollar dramatically higher than you are suggesting. Plus, the argument that we should be forced to wallow in the lack-of-investment-induced congestion because cities are always congested is patently absurd.

 

[kmp1284]

Call it a boondoggle, call it wasteful spending, I don't care. Some things are worth doing even if they don't make fiscal sense.

In your opinion.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

In your opinion.

People can have differing opinions.

 

[kmp1284]

Yup. As batshit crazy as they may be.

 

[massmotorist]

You'd get a hell of a lot more than "five more spokes of trains" for the cost of the Big Dig. Even half the amount of the Big Dig would be able to nearly triple the size of our rapid transit network.

And the goal isn't remotely close to providing "every citizen with a 10 minute trip to downtown". You don't need to do it now for the MBTA to have the second highest ridership per mile in the country and you certainly wouldn't need to if the system were expanded (though one result of such expansion would be just that). The network effect of creating multiple routings, expanding operating hours/frequencies and connecting neighborhoods that have not had direct rapid transit connections would more than justify the investment.

Again, whereas Boston has a lot of room for improvement with its transit network, there isn't much "improvement" that could be made to its roads without bulldozing neighborhoods by the block. That in and of itself makes the improvement/dollar dramatically higher than you are suggesting. Plus, the argument that we should be forced to wallow in the lack-of-investment-induced congestion because cities are always congested is patently absurd.

As far as your numbers are concerned, you just aren't facing reality. Transit expansion is expensive, and generally far more expensive than highways. $14B would certainly not get you "far more than five spokes of trains", assuming those trains were grade separated (as they really would need to be to attract any reasonable ridership levels).

I would say the same for major new highways within Route 128, for the record, because of the land-taking issue - though probably not for incremental upgrades/expansions of existing highways. Any other position is wishful thinking, whether pro-highway or pro-transit.

Any expansion would almost by definition lower the ridership per mile - you're expanding into less dense areas and areas where current commuting and investment patterns aren't tailored around having a mass transit line in the area.

There are some worthwhile expansion projects, but the majority of worthwhile transit projects in Boston would be the un-sexy upgrade- and incremental-type projects - adding tracks, positive train control, increasing hours of operation, etc.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Yup. As batshit crazy as they may be.

It's not batshit crazy to say that there are other reasons besides money to justify doing something.

 

[kmp1284]

That's all fine and dandy when it's your money but not when it comes to government expenditures.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

That's all fine and dandy when it's your money but not when it comes to government expenditures.

Like I said, people can have differing opinions. Clearly yours and mine are mutually exclusive. That doesn't make either of us wrong, stupid, crazy, or evil. So, we can have a really obnoxious political argument over what precisely the role of government is that ends with both of us leaving here angry having changed exactly nobody's mind, or we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

There are some worthwhile expansion projects, but the majority of worthwhile transit projects in Boston would be the un-sexy upgrade- and incremental-type projects - adding tracks, positive train control, increasing hours of operation, etc.

Yes, yes, and yes.

There are some transit expansions well-studied enough to be worth pursuing under any conditions. We all know what those are...GLX, Red-Blue, Blue-Lynn, etc.

But what does a $24B wad and a fantasy map get you if we don't yet know what the peak-most operating efficiency of the current system is? How well would the Red and Orange Lines distribute people with CBTC signaling and 3 minute headways? How much better would the Green Line perform with surface signal priority + CBTC + 4-car trains + some basic short-turning and alt-routing acumen? How much are the key bus routes improvable...and will we ever get the Key Bus Routes Improvements done? What if they actually did something about Urban Ring Phase I and gave us some of those crosstown express buses on existing streets to route-prime it? What's the growth cap on commuter rail ridership if the northside lines and Worcester had signaling that could do 80 MPH, the Providence Line had equipment that could do 90 MPH, they whacked some nagging speed restrictions, and they had enough level boarding stations and regulation-length platforms to load and unload quickly? What if we actually had stations at 128 on every line instead of Fitchburg and Haverhill skipping right past? What if we applied that Fairmount template to the inner Worcester Line and others with bus connectivity that are isolated from rapid transit? What if Charlie actually worked on every mode and for parking like it was @#$% supposed to? What would the T's utilization look like if its on-time performance were superlative, or if it ranked near the top in transit system customer satisfaction?

Doesn't that dictate where you build next?


We don't know. Because they haven't been studying that with enough attention span. I think there's something wrong with us knowing more about the ridership projections of extensions and stuff on fantasy maps vs. the ridership projections of getting a half-cocked system performing--at no-build--to its inherent capabilities (or even past capabilities on the same exact infrastructure). It's not either/or...pour cement or squeeze blood from stone. That's the wrong way to think about it. Where exactly is the momentum going to come for system expansion when they're being equally passive-aggressive about tightening the bolts on existing ops. Better throughput begets expansion and generates momentum. Jeez...look at what it's doing for Amtrak and all the billions they're sinking into the NEC. They are all about promoting "unsexy improvement X = Y minutes trip savings", again and again and again for every minor little appropriation they get to sink a shovel into ground. They're relentless enough in that advocacy that people are buying what they're pitching, noticing that Regional trip was a few minutes faster and a bit more convenient than the one they took two years ago. In other words: customer satisfaction matters, whodathunk?

This notion that unsexy things don't matter only holds sway when leaders themselves believe they have to bribe certain demographics over others with something shiny or it's not worth doing. That's the prevailing attitude in Massachusetts. It is NOT the prevailing attitude amongst our neighbors who manage to get things meaningful done in an equally hostile funding environment and somehow do find ways to make the next trip a little easier, faster, more reliable than the last.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

A $24B wad probably does get us most of those un-sexy improvements. The system is not exactly small, and system-wide CBTC/PTC for the subways AND the Commuter Rail isn't going to come cheap. Neither is zapping every grade crossing inside the system, or double-tracking wherever single-tracking is left in the network. New rolling stock and converting platforms to high level boarding aren't exactly sexy either, the latter especially not when gauntlet tracks are needed. Electrification is, but I think we're a long way from electrifying Fairmount/Lowell/Haverhill.

There's a lot of work to be done. I do argue for a lot of crap like brand new lines, but bringing what we've got up to 21st century standards instead of 19th century ones will make me just as happy as seeing things like the Urban Ring or Mass Ave Subway get built.