There’s a pattern with the Baker administration: They refuse to solve problems. They claim their hands are tied; proposed solutions just won’t work; and we’ll just have to muddle along at their own approved pace. They do just enough to look busy without actually helping very much.
So isn’t it refreshing when someone calls all that into question — with receipts. This clip from WGBH’s Greater Boston was bracing — ah, that’s the tingle. It featured Jim Braude talking to Livable Street’s Stacy Thompson and Transportation for MA’s Chris Dempsey, who are having none of the Baker administration’s lack of imagination, urgency, and courage in addressing our transportation crisis:
Is Baker doing everything he can — both for transportation congestion and for the climate? Baker claimed to WCVB’s Janet Wu “I think people will have a winter where the T will be there when it needs to be.” Even since this clip aired, we have some early returns on winter performance, and they are … dispiriting. Today had an Orange Line collapse and Red Line delays; yesterday saw delays, some very significant, on the the Lowell, Newbury/Rockport, Franklin, Providence, Worcester lines. Other than the failures, it was a day of success.
Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln … Dempsey and Thompson point out that the Orange and Red Line projects are behind. Thompson recounts that the old Orange Line car she boarded was literally leaking — an experience with which any T rider can relate.
Dempsey and Thompson also take on Transportation Secretary Pollack on congestion pricing: Does it work? Is it fair? Pollack and Baker have characterized it as “punishment” for drivers who don’t have other choices, but as Dempsey says: Punishment is the status quo. The funding stream from a congestion price can go directly to transit, creating new travel options. And we do need the money right away, for more buses, operators, and dispatchers. Citing London, Seattle, and San Francisco as case studies for congestion pricing, Dempsey and Thompson both note that traffic has decreased, and bus ridership increased. And we could continue to institute new bus lanes, favoring throughput of people, rather than cars.
How arithmetically sound; how impossibly idealistic to this administration. None of this is rocket science. It’s pretty blunt-instrument incentive-setting. But Baker is afraid of that — not because it’s inherently “unfair”, but because it would mean an adjustment for suburban commuters, ie. his base. And … I guess they’d rather suffer, and create massive amounts of pollution in the process, shortening the lifespan of our time on earth.
But it’s not the way things have to be. Unless you insist on it, like Baker and Pollack do.
Christopher says
Roads and rails should be free IMO and it is absolutely true that some will bear the brunt through no fault of their own. Make rail more usable BEFORE even considering more tolling.
jconway says
The political economy of the region has to be entirely transformed in order for this to work. We need progressive taxation so that the wealthy can pay their fair share. Until that happens, I am reluctant to back congestion pricing. I want the Concords and Wellesley’s to pay for the T.
Why should the working families of color priced out to Brockton or Randolph or Stoughton by the Chris Dempsey’s of the world gentrifying Roxbury and Mattapan have to bare the brunt of a service they can no longer rely on or use? Why should my students and their parents who work the night shift have to pay for a T that is never open or on time when they need it?
I get that we live in a society and we should pay for services we do not use, but it should start with the wealthy paying their fair share. If we want to actually make the T a fully funded universal good we should force the rich to pay for it. People are not moving to the suburbs by choice, they are the only affordable options left for a lot of working families and increasingly urban professionals. I cannot afford to be a homeowner on the T with my salary. Full stop. This is increasingly the reality for a lot of people. Congestion pricing is exactly the kind of policy Baker can run against and get away with.
I am open to it as part of a package of new revenue and reform. One that has to include inclusionary zoning so the Brooklines of the world cannot continue to wall themselves off from providing affordable housing and one that has to include progressive taxation. So the people that rely on Uber are still paying for the T.
gmoke says
Greater Boston also did a piece on the Registry of Motor Vehicles where the only criteria for success there seems to have been wait times and “customer service.” Baker is all surface and no depth. Paste over the holes and paint them pretty so the citizens won’t notice that the walls are falling apart.
He’s been a disaster for the solar community in MA and has slowed to a crawl our response to climate issues. Sure he likes offshore wind and wood pelletization but that’s only because it’s “big business” for big companies. Any energy or climate considerations are secondary or even tertiary to that.
As for the Weymouth compressor situation and more natural gas, before the Merrimack Valley blew up the Baker administration was criticized by the Trmp administration (!) for having too few inspectors for our natural gas utilities. I wonder if that situation has been remedied.
Baker is an affable, handsome man with close to nothing at the core. Beyond money and power, that is.