A week ago, <a
href=”http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/23/will_foy_save_the_t/”>Charles
Chieppo had an op-ed in the Globe criticizing plans for MBTA rail
expansion to Medford, Newburyport, Worcester, Plymouth, and Scituate.
It’s actually a swipe at Doug Foy, who is cited as the architect of
such expansion, which was designed as an environmental counterweight to
the Big Dig’s expansion of, well, driving.
I’m not an expert on how public transit is funded vis-a-vis the state’s
budget. (Eisenthal, you out there?) But even I could sense that the
op-ed seemed to be chock-a-block with shabby arguments and false
choices — in particular the needless ad-hominem of calling out a person
(i.e. Foy), and not his ideas. (Yes, we’re sloppy, and indulge in that
on this blog — in any event, that kind of thing should be a warning
that someone doesn’t really want to talk facts.)
So here’s what concerned me:
- Chieppo cites <a
href=”http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/052305_luberoff.htm”>research
that says transit doesn’t really prevent that much pollution: “One
study concluded that it cost over 100 times more to remove VOCs
[smoggy chemicals] from the air via transit investments than by
requiring vapor control
systems on gas pumps.”How is this anything but an apples-and-oranges comparison? Ever tried
to ride a vapor control system to work? (You thought buses were
slow.) Also, CO2 is not mentioned. - “Luberoff demonstrated that the keys to achieving substantial
emissions
reductions have been cleaner cars, auto emissions testing, reformulated
gasoline, and vapor control systems — not new transit lines.”False choice: Again, we should have *both* pollution controls for autos
*and* other, cleaner methods of transport. - “the 2004-25 Greater Boston Transportation Plan already dedicates
about
60 percent of total funding to transit, even though only about 15
percent of area commuters use it.”But everyone benefits from the reduced car traffic, travel
safety,
pollution and parking problems, as well as those who don’t actually
have to buy a car. The economic benefit is widespread — ask the
business owners of Davis Square, or the landlords of East Arlington.<a
href=”http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/052305_luberoff.htm”>Luberoff
mentions that the Green Line extension will save at most 14,000 cars
per day, a miniscule percentage of car traffic in any event. I still
think that’s the wrong way to look at it: The marginal value of any
single transit line is not likely to be large. But the existence of a
comprehensive system has an enormous impact. Should the T not try to
serve new communities? Should we be satisfied with its current size and
scope? Are buses and driving (in Priuses, natch) the future of Boston?
- “With Massachusetts losing population, our economic growth
lagging the
national average and T ridership declining, it defies logic to believe
we can continue to support the nation’s most aggressive transit
expansion program.”With our Masshole traffic and cost of living, and given the factors
Chieppo mentions, how can we not have an aggressive transit
expansion program?
Now, Chieppo makes expansion vs. maintenance sound like a zero-sum
game: i.e. You can have the system you have that works well, or a
bigger system with bigger problems. Again, I don’t know enough about
that funding issue, but it sounds like another false choice. Today in
the letters, <a
href=”http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/12/30/expanding_ts_ridership”>Somerville
Mayor Joseph Curtatone takes issue:
Chieppo would have us believe that this transportation
enhancement
would come at the expense of existing T service or might cause cuts in
state funding for education and health programs. The truth is that the
investment in these transit projects has always been factored into the
state budget (not the MBTA’s).
massmice says
PLEASE- COPY & PASTE THIS NOTE ANYTIME AND ANYWHERE SOMEONE IS STATING IRRATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE GREEN LINE (or other) TROLLEY EXTENSIONS.
<
p>
It is quite simple. The Green Line stop will end just south of High St., thus no crossing issue. The Green Line will be a tremendous improvement to West Medford and many parts of Somerville, because it WILL reduce commuter cars; it will give more travel options to kids and those who can’t afford or don’t want cars; it will bring in more interesting diverse residents; it will greatly benefit stores and restaurants in the West Medford area. Remember, Green Line trains are ELECTRIC. They are NOT that loud. They do NOT create smoke. MBTA stops have NOT hurt and have only helped Brookline, Newton, Cambridge, Quincy, Malden, etc. The T can not make Medford or Somerville MORE congested. Those areas have reached their saturation point anyway. The market and existing geography dictate that. The T will only make these areas more a part of the swing of things, with almost no setbacks. Medford and Somerville have simply been screwed over transportation-wise while places like the Orange Line coridor south of Boston- which got beautifully rebuilt years ago- seem to get heaped on with money by the liberal do-gooder Boston government crowd. Do the people of the ghetto of Roxbury complain that the Orange Line is a detriment to their neighborhood? Are you OUT OF YOUR MINDS??!!! Do the people who live in mansions in Brookline or Newton compromise quality of life by having the Green Line nearby? NO. It is an assett. West Medford should be on it’s knees praising God that the Green Line may come in and do more for their neighborhood than God himself could do even if he had help mfrom Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg. This is an absolute NO BRAINER. Case closed.
sco says
I wonder who paid him to write this.