(How’s that for a mixed metaphor?)
Charlie Baker is best understood as a conservative — that is, someone who is risk averse; suspicious of innovation; reluctant to move too quickly. After losing as a Tea Party-esque Angry Conservative in 2010, he sold himself in 2014 as a manager of an existing political consensus, neither an innovator nor a wrecking ball.
The transportation crisis is showing the limits of his conservative temperament. And he’s failing to adjust.
Crises happen because of policy failures — policies that were the result of a previous political consensus (or impasse). A crisis therefore demands leadership — moving away from the previous political “sweet spot”, and establishing a new one through force of will and evidence. It’s risky, but staying put on crumbling ground is no option.
Our policy consensus for the last 20 years has favored suspicion and austerity towards transit. This led to our current crisis of our transit system — which has precipitated a system-wide transportation crisis. Driving, Lyft, and Uber have replaced some trips that might have been otherwise been taken on reliable public transit. And here we are.
Knowing Baker’s temperament, we might have guessed that he would take the slow road in his new transportation proposals. He is not “using the crisis” to bring bold transit ideas to life, like much more frequent and electrified commuter rail service (TransitMatters’ “Regional Rail”). Instead, he is trying to prop up a dismal, dirty, and inequitable status quo.
Chris Dempsey, director of Transportation for Massachusetts, praised many of the recommendations in the report but reacted negatively to the dismissal of congestion pricing approaches he has championed. “When it comes to road pricing, this report falls short,” he said. “The Governor must more aggressively confront congestion by piloting and testing smarter tolling approaches that have worked in other regions and can work here.”
And as Stacy Thompson of the Livable Streets Alliance points out, the sense of urgency is still missing. What are the short-term, “early action items” that could somewhat soften the problem — shoulder bus lanes, e.g.? If you don’t have a governor that takes the T, he’s inclined to think of this crisis as a chronic, manageable condition — as opposed to a series, a lifetime, of acute personal crises and heart-pounding stress for everyone who rides. There are things he could do now; he’s not doing them, instead suggesting more study.
There are grave climate and health impacts at stake: If we are enabling a pervasive car-driving culture into the future, we are locking in years of increased pollution. Ground-level ozone — caused by driving — causes emphysema at a rate comparable to smoking cigarettes. And we have absolutely no time to waste in stopping carbon emissions.
That means we need to do things differently — perhaps radically. We can get people in and out and around Greater Boston, cleanly and efficiently, if we decide to. But Baker’s sense of “fairness” is driven less by social equity, and more by a conservative sensitivity to potential disruption — thereby privileging not the best, fairest solution, but “legacy” modes of transport. Call it the advantage of incumbency: We’ve always done it this way.
But since we’re already disrupted, why not be bold and re-think the whole thing? Why not have “commuter rail” that comes every 15-30 minutes? Why not normalize and expand bike travel with interconnected, dedicated infrastructure on a totally equal footing with car travel — particularly in city centers? Why not charge everyone to drive into the city — just like we charge everyone on the Turnpike, the Tobin Bridge, and the tunnels now; and as has been practiced successfully in a variety of places, including London? And yes, “get the damn [MBTA] working”?
Here’s a guy with sky-high — truly unrealistic — approval ratings. (No one’s that good, folks.) He can move the public opinion needle all by himself. He could be bold and visionary, if he just wanted to, with improvements that would be felt for decades — in equity, in the economy, in people’s physical well-being.
And he’s wasting the crisis. He simply accepts that some things can’t be done. But it’s not an immutable state of nature, an iron decree from the gods above.
It’s just because he won’t do them.
johntmay says
Charlie, you call it a crisis and I am sure that many would agree with you. Personally, I don’t feel much of any crisis in my daily life as it relates to transportation. I live and work in Metro-West and apart from the few times I travel to Tufts Dental School for dental care, I do not “feel the pain” of any crisis.
I am not denying that there is a crisis. I just don’t feel it. My sons feel it as they live in Sommerville and Quincy. I hear about it but only in casual conversation and they seem to have accepted it as part of life.
I would say as well that the wealthier citizens who live in the Greater Boston Area do not feel it as well. If they did, I have no doubt they would be calling Mr. Baker and demanding action.
I don’t have the answer, but I do have a question: How do we get the folks in the ‘burbs and more importantly, the wealthy citizens of the Commonwealth to feel the pain of this crisis?
scott12mass says
I have first hand experience with the toll road disaster that has been developed in Charlotte NC. Relatives drive it everyday and I just went through it. The left travel lane(s) becomes a toll lane which has a sensor and tags your car (ez pass style), you then travel at a much higher speed than the adjacent lane in the “regular” road separated only by plastic insert poles. The toll for traveling 5 miles in your special lane might be fifty cents, or three dollars, depending on traffic. When you want to exit the highway you have to find a pole free zone where you leave your lane and enter into the fast lane of the “free” road. You then work your way across the two or three lanes of free road and exit the highway like everyone else. It has been a disaster. Occasionally the “free roaders” who are frustrated sitting in bumper to bumper traffic will conspire to not let the “toll roaders” back into the fast lane, if you’ve gone to a Patriots game you see the same thing on Rt1. There have been more accidents, road rage incidents, and everyone is pi***ed. Don’t let it happen in Mass.
SomervilleTom says
The state of Massachusetts owns the existing railroad right-of-way between Worcester and Boston. The same right of way extends uninterrupted all the way to Albany New York. Similarly, existing rail routes parallel I-93 north and south from Boston. That existing rail network is the key to addressing the traffic issues of Massachusetts. North Carolina no longer has a comparable rail network.
Surely the most effective way to address congestion on our highways is to improve commuter rail service so that people choose it over fighting traffic and tolls on a highway.
One thing people don’t realize about the east-west rail link between Worcester and Boston is that the freight handling facilities that used to be in the city of Boston (such as the Allston-Brighton yards) were relocated to the suburbs a decade ago. For example, the intermodal traffic that was handled in Allston-Brighton in the 1970s-1980s was moved to Westborough.
The result is that freight — especially perishables — that was handled by rail as recently as a decade ago is trucked into the city — greatly increasing the volume of large trucks. The impact of increased 18-wheeler volume is devastating for commuters when the same highway must be shared by both.
Charlotte NC (like Western MA) was well-served by electric transit lines in the early 20th century. Like so many other areas, those were abandoned in the rush to build highways. The city does have a regional transit plan — apparently targeting 2030 (a decade from now). The “congestion lane” that you’re describing has been added to I-77. I see no rail transportation planned or proposed anywhere close to it.
The solution to the traffic woes you describe is to reduce the volume of traffic. Convenient, affordable, and safe public rail is the best way to accomplish that.
fredrichlariccia says
The North – South commuter rail linking the one mile between North and South stations to Amtrak would dramatically reduce traffic congestion.
This project has long been the dream of our beloved former Governor Mike Dukakis. And I am proud to share with our BMG community that my dear friend and former Democratic candidate for 3rd district Congress, Alexandra Chandler of Haverhill, has recently joined the North – South Rail Board.
Kudos to all those who are tirelessly working to make this dream a reality.
SomervilleTom says
The Downeaster already operates multiple trains a day between Brunswick Maine and Boston North Station.
I imagine a world where I could live on the Town Common of Brunswick, walk to the Amtrak station literally across the Common, and board a Northeast Regional train that serves ALL the stops between Brunswick and either Norfolk, VA or Roanoke VA. That includes Portland ME, Haverhill MA, Lawrence MA, Boston MA, Providence RI, New Haven CT, New York NY, Philadelphia PA, Wilmington DE, Washington DC, and points south. Roanoke is a lovely town nestled in the Blue Ridge mountains of VA. Norfolk is a busy port and shipyard.
Even better would be to return sleeper service on such a train, so that the 15-16 hour trip could done overnight.
A viable north-south link would make a SIGNIFICANT improvement on the congestion of I-93 both north and south of Boston. It is criminal that it isn’t already in place.
fredrichlariccia says
Joe Biden is the strongest champion of rail infrastructure construction in the country today.
That’s another reason I’m fighting to get him elected.
jconway says
Haverhill is an interesting gateway community that would benefit from becoming a viable commuter suburb for Boston area professionals. I had a lot of fun exploring their downtown and the Bradford area during my summer job canvassing for the MTA. Unfortunately their school district is aggressively anti-union and backsliding. A key reason why we should pass the Promise Act and find the T.