- Do you get MassInc's Commonwealth Magazine? Good read, folks … kind of like BMG, except objective and well-informed. đŸ˜‰ All articles require registration, but the hard copy is even better …
- I neglected to ask Gov. Patrick a central question of economic development: What's the line between creating a business-friendly environment and just straight-up corporate welfare? Bruce Mohl reports that answering that question is not so easy. (We do seem to be actually losing money on our film-industry tax credit.)
Well, if we're investing in companies and industries with tax credits, shouldn't we know what our ROI is? Isn't that kind of important? What is our measure of success or failure?
- An insider's story on the commission on corporate taxation that recommended combined reporting/closing the loopholes. Interesting.
- Our budget is in trouble — structurally, fundamentally. If capital gains crap out (as seems likely), so does the budget. Broaden/diversify the tax base, find out exactly where the hell our Medicaid money is going.
- More luv for UHub, this time from Dan Kennedy.
- I neglected to ask Gov. Patrick a central question of economic development: What's the line between creating a business-friendly environment and just straight-up corporate welfare? Bruce Mohl reports that answering that question is not so easy. (We do seem to be actually losing money on our film-industry tax credit.)
- Living On Earth this morning had a big section on the eco-city Curitiba, Brazil. I remember hearing about Curitiba back in the 90's … sounded kind of idyllic: It's thoroughly planned to be earth-friendly, which is especially meaningful in Brazil, in which some other cities suffer from Dickensian industrial pollution and poverty.
LOE replayed a 1994 story on Curitiba, and followed up with a an interview with Curitiba mayor Jaime Lerner. Here's Lerner on public transit:
LERNER: Having too much money, you don't have creativity. So, it's very easy when you have too much money – it's very easy also to take the wrong decision – everything is possible! So I'm looking, many cities in the world, how much they are wasting. With ideas that, it doesn't work any longer. Many cities, they are trying to build very costly systems of public transport. But it will take 30, 40 years to build one line. And a very good bus system on surface can cost 100 times less expensive per kilometer, and you can do it in two years to three years
CURWOOD: Now you're not talking about the famed 2nd Avenue line in, in Manhattan in New York that was supposed to start back in the 1960's, and has just begun digging now.
LERNER: Yes.
CURWOOD: And that line will cost, what, several billion dollars.
LERNER: 4 billion dollars.
CURWOOD: And if Jaime Lerner were in charge, you would do…?
LERNER: I could save some money for the city.
CURWOOD: Yeah? How exactly?
LERNER: The city of New York, they could transport two million passengers per day, and very, very with comfort, on surface.
CURWOOD: In buses.
LERNER: Buses, right now.
CURWOOD: And your method is high speed bus lanes? People pay for the bus before they get on the bus .
LERNER: Yes.
CURWOOD: And they come – how often do the buses come?
LERNER: You have to propose a good frequency. It has to be a reliable system. So the question is, don't wait more than one minute, you'll have a wonderful system.
CURWOOD: Not wait more than a minute for a bus?
LERNER: Yes.
CURWOOD: In Manhattan?
LERNER: Yes, you can do it.
Now, can you imagine a #1 bus that came by every minute? What about a #326 express bus from Medford Square to downtown that came by every 5 minutes? What about a #66 bus that came every minute, and wasn't a special kind of purgatory? What about a Silver Line that actually was bus rapid transit, and not just another (lame) bus?
We might already have the resources to utterly transform the region, to make buses actually more convenient than driving, while simultaneously making driving more convenient. But we're probably not desperate enough to actually make that change.
peter-porcupine says
Nursing homes.
<
p>This is a huge budget buster, on a greased track to failure.
<
p>Most business health plans do not even offer long term care insurance. People have become ever more sophisticated about transfers, look-backs, etc., so many upper class people are being subsidized. In fact, many come here from states which DO NOT offer Medicaid coverage for nursing home care, but only to where it was originally intended – the poor.
<
p>And because seniors are such a huge voting block, there is zero political will to even talk about this, much less do anything.
lasthorseman says
to medicate the seniors into zombieland thus ensuring the kickbacks to governement in the formulation of Satanic policies targeting said medicated population. The endless perfect circle of greed.
judy-meredith says
nursing home industry fighting for survival in a world that much prefers home care.
stomv says
At least, compared to subways.
<
p>They’re more exposed to the elements, with the exception of the rare underground bus station like that in Harvard Square.
<
p>Their movement is subject to far more things they can’t control, like traffic, traffic signals and intersections, emergency vehicles, and other items competing for surface space.
<
p>They require far more operators per moving vehicle — and since human resource costs are quite high in union cities, that ends up being a pretty large liability.
<
p>Even in good cases, the boarding and disembarking from a bus is more difficult for the handicapped than subways [not streetcars].
<
p>Subway stations are [almost] always more clearly marked than bus stations, both from the street level and from inside the vehicle. This doesn’t matter at all to the commuter, but it makes a big difference for the infrequent local rider or tourist.
<
p>There will always be pressure to poach the dedicated lane — to make it a shared space with autos, taxis, bicycles, a detour during construction, cop cars, etc.
<
p>Because bus routes are flexible, even with dedicated lanes, real estate investors have less faith that the line/station will still be there in 10-20 years. Therefore, they’re far less likely to invest in a large commercial or residential building near a stop. A subway station, on the other hand, will be there for a long time, and therefore is a safer bet for real estate developers.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not arguing against making efforts to make natural bus lines more speedy. I hate that the Silver Line isn’t faster than it is, and I think the MBTA, Boston, and the assorted transit authorities have effectively reneged on their SL promises. But, a subway line is a much stronger commitment, and until we’re willing to really fund buses through the roof each and every year, even in lean years, I’d rather lock the investment in with a subway. There’s far more stability with the line.
syphax says
I highly recommend this video of Lerner in action.
<
p>His best line:
<
p>”The car is like your mother-in-law. You need to have a good relationship with her, but you cannot let her control your life.”
charley-on-the-mta says
Is not some marginal improvement over existing bus lines. It means real dedicated lanes (unlike the Silver Line), privileging buses over other traffic in traffic lights, and so forth.
<
p>Basically, it’s light rail w/o the rail. And you don’t have to dig. I take your point about subways (and I do love subways), but stability = investment = money we don’t have right now. Purely hypothetically (since I’m rooting for it), what could you do w/ buses with the millions we’re getting for the Green Line extension, for instance?
kosta says
is a lot of shoddily run buses.
<
p>I live on a killed-off streetcar corridor (E line) and know whereof I speak.
<
p>Also, BRT is NOT just light rail without tracks. It is also without energy efficient vehicles or long term commitment to routes and infrastructure. This is true even in best case scenarios like Corituba, where things are getting a bit bumpy, by the way.
<
p>While we’re at it, where ARE those millions for the (paltry) Green Line extension? Have they actually been allocated yet?
stomv says
So you put in great buses with dedicated bus lanes and run them ultra-frequently — every minute or two.
<
p>Then, a few buses start to break, and nobody wants to cough up money for new ones or enough replacement parts. Now, you’re down a few runs each day.
<
p>Then, the transit agency, in an effort to cover up poor financial decisions, makes some ghost runs, again reducing the frequency of arrival.
<
p>Then, different groups start eyeing the dedicated lanes, either for temporary use or more permanent. Bicycles, taxis, emergency vehicles, car-poolers, and people who consider themselves more important are a problem. But, so is every time that NStar needs to dig up that part of the road, and every time a developer needs to take the sidewalk and first lane of the road to build a facade for two years.
<
p>Then there’s the problem that buses require more surface width than street cars, which require more width than the virtually none required by subways.
<
p>The reality is this: 1, there’s no way that our car-oriented society is willing to give up 33% of the lanes on our major arterial surface roads to buses, and 2, there’s no way there’s enough political pressure brought on by the lower and lower-middle class bus riders to prevent the erosion of services over time since most of the cost of BRT is variable cost and therefore subject to become budget savings at any time. It’s not that I don’t have faith in the technology; I just don’t have faith in the politics.
trickle-up says
and bus lines that we could afford are better than subways that we can’t.
<
p>(Also, Lerner is talking about real bus rapid transit, a term of art with a specific meaning, though clueless or opportunistic PR flacks attach it promiscuously to any new or marginally improved bus line. BRT has many rail-like characteristics, including accesibility and economic development. But that aside, do you really think we’re going to be building subways any time soon? Where, and with what source of funds?)
jconway says
My brother always thought that if we were to give busses their own above ground line, like the commuter rail, that this would be preferable to subways and cars alike. Good idea, but the problem is in a cramped city like Boston the transaction costs will be ridiculously high-to convert them since space is so limited.
<
p>I feel cities that are newer and have more space could pull this off.
kosta says
Really, it’s just an excuse for low expectations and lazy governance. Find a new chorus for failure, please.
<
p>In this case, perhaps it would be more apt to say “The very good (light rail) is the enemy of the half-assed but politically expedient, and ultimately more expensive and environmentally damaging (BRT).”
<
p>It’s all very well to say that buses work better in dedicated lanes (they do). But they are still less energy efficient (BRT enthusiasts never seem to tout electric vehicles – Hmm…), produce more locally harmful emissions, break down more often, are less effective in producing increased ridership, and have about half the use life as LRV’s.
<
p>So, if you’re springing bond money either way, why not do things right?
trickle-up says
maybe it’s because people are so easily diverted by pie-in-the-sky stuff. To the detriment of all.
<
p>It is good to track all the possible costs and benefits of different theoretical transit systems. (Funny, though, how people never seem to want the terminus of a rail line–which must go somewhere–anyplace near them.)
<
p>If you want to work for a government that builds the very best system, I will cheer (and I will help). That could take a while, though.
<
p>In the meantime, light rail that does not get built entails more cars, and damage to the environment, than BRT that does get built.
stomv says
ensures that the subway that should have been built never does. See: Line, Silver. Hole-in-the-ground is not pie-in-the-sky.
trickle-up says
is not BRT (at least not the part where the people live). See “clueless or opportunistic PR flacks” above.
stomv says
at least not in Boston. You’ll never get the right of way on the roads. You’ll never get the route to run frequently enough given the high costs of labor. You’ll always have the cloud of cutbacks hovering overhead, preventing communities and developers from embracing the line, resulting in increasing density to encourage more investment in the BRT, not less, over time.
<
p>You think that the City Council/Mayor will hand over one lane of Comm Ave for dedicated bus use? One lane of Melina Cass? One lane of Boyleston? Dot Ave? Mass Ave? Huntington? Broadway? Tremont? Dudley? Blue Hill? You think they’ll be willing to change the light timings to give priority to the buses, even though it will result in people getting stuck with double-light cycles far more often?
<
p>Even if the infrastructure improvements, the buses, and the labor were free, you still won’t get right of ways above ground. Without that, you’re digging tunnels, and it doesn’t matter if you’re using traditional rail (red, orange, blue), light rail (green), or bus (silver), if you’ve got a dedicated line underground, you’ve got a subway.