An open letter to Mayor Thomas Menino
The Arborway Committee Responds to the Mayor’s Letter to MEPA on Arborway Green Line Restoration

Franklyn Salimbene, Chair, Arborway Committee

4 June 2003

The Mayor has spoken. He is against the Arborway Green Line project. Or is he? It’s more likely the case that like Jamaica Plain, the Mayor has been victimized by his own Transportation Department (BTD), which speaks like a public transit advocate, yet acts like an automobile lobbyist.

From the beginning, the mantra has been that trolleys will reduce parking, that trolleys will be unsafe for motorists, that trolleys will cause congestion. These are stated as facts, but they have been neither tested nor put in context.

Let’s talk both about the facts and the context of Green Line trolley restoration.

The Mayor’s letter claims: “City agencies have fully participated in the [restoration] process to date.” This is false. City agencies have not fully participated in the process.

Fact #1: The Arborway Rail Restoration Project Advisory Committee (ARRPAC) has met regularly since last August. During that entire period, not one City agency has made a presentation on any substantive issue related to the project. In fact, BTD, which has been repeatedly asked by me and others on ARRPAC to discuss a transportation management plan for Centre/South Street, has continually refused the request.

The letter claims: “To date, many of the issues [City agencies] have raised have not yet been addressed.” This is stated without reference to context.

Context #1: The context is that the project is only at 15% design. Sufficient analysis has not been completed to respond to the issues raised by the City. Further, whatever progress could have been made toward responding to these issues has been stymied by BTD itself, which has intentionally dragged its feet on approving the use of the consultants’ traffic impact computer program. Application of this program would help to answer many of the questions raised by the City.

The letter claims: “The proposed fixed-rail service will jeopardize the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists along the corridor, and the ability of emergency vehicles to navigate the corridor efficiently.” Here, the Transportation Department is simply talking out of its collective hat.

Fact #2: The traffic study, which would shed light on these issues, has not yet been completed. But rather than wait for community process and technological analysis to work their course, BTD simply makes an allegation without any basis in fact. Further, the information that we do already have seems generally to support a conclusion contrary to that of BTD. WalkBoston, which is the primary proponent for walkable communities, supports the project. Philadelphia and Toronto, which have streetcar systems similar to that proposed for Jamaica Plain, report no negative impact on emergency vehicle response times resulting from streetcar operations. Huntington and South Huntington Avenues, where streetcars and automobiles have shared the same road space for a century, demonstrate the compatibility of these modes of travel without harm to motorists. And while bicycling does present some challenges, these can be addressed fairly where good faith and the spirit of compromise prevail.

The letter claims: “Eliminating parking on portions of Centre or South Streets will exacerbate an already difficult situation.” This too is stated without reference to context.

Context #2: The context is that the MBTA, faced with carrying 17,000 daily riders on this line, must provide a high capacity service. Two alternative analyses (1999 and 2001) both concluded that in lieu of streetcar service, the T should adopt a “big bus” strategy, i.e., 800 daily bus trips utilizing 60’ articulated buses. Operating these big buses along Centre and South according to the 2001 analysis would result in the loss of about 40 parking spaces. Further, because big buses are neither invisible nor agile, they would raise many of the very same traffic, parking, and emergency questions that trolley restoration raises, but with barely any of the benefits.

There are other unreliable assertions in the Mayor’s letter. For instance, the letter raises the specter of converting Centre Street to one-way. This is ludicrous. No one does or should take this prospect seriously. The letter complains about already high levels of congestion on Centre Street. Whose fault is this? In the last 10 years, BTD has never invested one cent in conducting a traffic analysis to sort out Jamaica Plain’s traffic issues, issues that will continue to exist irrespective of streetcar service. The letter complains about the threat that streetcars pose to the quality of life in Jamaica Plain. It’s hard to imagine that clean air, zero-emission streetcars are a greater danger to the quality of life in Jamaica Plain than have been 15 years of diesel bus service spewing tons of particulates and carbons into the air that we breathe. The City’s concern is misplaced. Finally, the letter requests more studies of alternatives to trolley service. Where was BTD when the previous alternative analyses were undertaken in 1999 and in 2001? BTD chose not to participate in or even comment on those proposed alternatives, except to criticize one of the MBTA’s bus proposals as potentially increasing congestion downtown-- which raises the question as to whether there is any public transit project that the City will support if it interferes with private automobile travel. Where are Boston’s priorities?

Fortunately for all of us, the City does not make this decision. The Mayor’s voice, while respected, deserves only the amount of credibility that the facts and the truth warrant. BTD has not served the Mayor or the City well. As the restoration process proceeds and reliable data is generated, the extent of any problems will become known, and residents and merchants working in good faith will resolve them.  


Franklyn P. Salimbene, Chair
Arborway Committee
c/o 51 Eliot Street
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts 02130