City’s Support of Transportation Planning Falls Short
by Joshuah Mello, in Banker and Tradesman
28 October 2002
There is an underreported battle raging on Boston city streets. This war pits transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists against those in automobiles, SUVs and trucks. It is fought everyday from sunrise to sunset, and few politicians will even address it.
The MBTA is thwarted in its efforts to build exclusive bus lanes, Walk Boston is ignored in its efforts to increase pedestrian safety, and bicycle activists are denied bike lanes on newly repaved streets. In the meantime, the Mayor's administration says one thing while doing another.
The Access Boston 2000-2010 plan, completed by the Boston Transportation Department during the last few years, clearly summarizes Bostonians' visions for their transportation system. During several public meetings held in 1999 and 2000, residents called for more restriction of automobiles, increased focus on alternative transportation modes, more pedestrian-friendly street design, and implementation of traffic calming techniques.
These comments were collected, studied, and integrated into the finished plan. This exciting document calls for a "transit-first" policy, more use of traffic calming methods on local streets, recoordination of pedestrian signals to allow easier and faster crossings, and other innovative changes in public policy. After all that work, what do we have to show for it? Nothing.
City Hall fought the MBTA's plans to build transit lanes along Tremont and Washington Street Downtown to serve the new Silver Line, fought against transit priority at the Massachusetts Avenue intersection for the Silver Line, offered lukewarm support for the restoration of the Arborway light rail line, and generally fails to provide an environment for the efficient operation of surface transit vehicles.
Portland, OR and San Francisco, CA have been trailblazers in the area of urban transportation, while Boston has been a poor follower.
Portland has a clear policy regarding all city roadways: pedestrians first, then transit, bicycles and autos. This policy applies to most downtown streets and thoroughfares and is based on two simple and logical concepts: everyone is a pedestrian for part of their trip and transit vehicles move more people than cars in the same amount of roadspace.
Portland has a clear and concise policy regarding the construction of traffic calming devices based on the category of road, average speed, and width of the street. The tools used, including roundabouts, speed humps, and bulbouts,are carefully tailored to the community. Portland actually measures the amount of pedestrian traffic on city streets and studies how efficiently it moves, generating changes to signals and crossings.
The City of Portland even built its own streetcar line, without funding from the transit authority. Clearly, Portland has led the way in encouraging alternative transportation and limiting automobile use and abuse.
San Francisco has been busily expanding its light rail network, with aggressive support from the mayor and city government. A new line is has been built along its waterfront and another line is planned to serve the new baseball park and a low-income community south of downtown. San Francisco has conducted extensive studies of almost all transportation corridors within the city and developed a "tool box" of roadway improvements to speed transit along these urban arteries.
Boston has one purely symbolic bus lane along Washington Street (the Silver Line), that is continually abused by double-parkers and delivery vehicles. This "bus rapid transit" project was foisted upon a community hoping to see the return of rail transit.
Boston transportation officials prefer pedestrian actuated crossing signals that force pedestrians to push a button and wait to cross Downtown streets. Meanwhile, drivers speed through the city, park on crosswalks, and blare their horns. Thousands of bus riders choke in exhaust, waiting at blocked intersections, while single occupant vehicles park in bus stops, double-park in travel lanes and clog the roadways.
Residents of Jamaica Plain receive no support from City Hall in their quest to bring a modern transit line to their congested neighborhood, because a few business owners believe it may jeopardize parking spaces.
Boston's arsenal of traffic calming tools consists of stop signs and a portable radar trailer. In Boston bicyclists are maimed and intimidated by vehicles throughout the day, but City Hall chooses to "crack down" on messengers after one strikes a jaywalker. The city's first bicycle lane along Jamaica Pond has become a parking lot.
Can we not see that our transportation system is broken? We are forced to navigate pothole-laden roads and dodge construction debris, double-parked cars, irate bicyclists, confused drivers, jaywalking pedestrians, and gridlocked buses while following a confusing one-way street network with faded lane markings and missing street signs.
It is high time that we end this raging war and realize that a more balanced transportation system will make life easier for all of us. Bus lanes encourage the use of transit, reducing overall congestion. Reducing pedestrian wait times and better coordination of pedestrian flow will lead to less jaywalking. Making room for bicycles will reduce fear and frustration on the part of riders and lead to less auto-bike conflicts. Lanes need to be painted regularly, signs installed and illegal parking reigned in.
Our current urban transportation system exhibits nothing but anarchy and mismanagement. It is time for Boston to clean up its act. A logical, well-balanced and efficient transportation system can and should be implemented in the City of Boston. Let us join the 21st Century.
Joshuah Mello
Member of WalkBoston
Webmaster Allston.org
Student member of American Planning Association