Boston Globe Article

An interesting op-ed by Fred Salvucci...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... e_big_dig/

The first page talks about the big dig and how Boston has benefited from the balanced transportation plan of Gov. Francis Sargent, that includes both highways and public transportation.

The second page raises the question of what happens if we abandon the plan as the state seems to be doing now (i.e. build expensive highways without complementary public transportation).

What if we don't finish the job? The consequences would be:

Great difficulty in implementing any significant projects. Who, in the future, would trust mitigation commitments in a complex project if the state fails to deliver the necessary complementary transit projects it committed to as a condition of securing approval for the Big Dig, after the highway work is complete? How can the private sector be expected to invest in ''smart growth" if the state reneges on the transit improvements it has promised continuously over the past 15 years?

We will see the reemergence of traffic congestion that will strangle our economic growth, and air quality will worsen.

We will lose billions in federal funds, and thousands of construction jobs.

I have to say, this is one of the most coherent, to-the-point, big-picture arguments against not fulfilling Big Dig mitigation obligations. It's short, sweet, and understandable to the average Joe.

Mr. Salvucci paints the problem as a lack of will and the state's refusal to do what it said it would do, but isn't the real problem here a lack of funding? The Feds do not pay for 100 percent of any new projects - they require states and/or municipalties to come up with a percentage of matching funds. Thanks to the wonderful Big Dig project, however, the commonwealth has had to take on a massive debt load and by all indications this will impair its ability to come up with those matching funds for years to come.

I also believe that the state should be able to reprioritize projects after 15 years (with appropriate public input, of course). The Green Line extension to Somerville and Medford and the Blue Line extension to Lynn will have a far greater impact now than either the Arborway restoration and a Red-Blue connector at Charles, and should receive the necessary funding before those other two projects. A lot can change in 15 years.

Jim

RailBus63 wrote: I also believe that the state should be able to reprioritize projects after 15 years (with appropriate public input, of course). The Green Line extension to Somerville and Medford and the Blue Line extension to Lynn will have a far greater impact now than either the Arborway restoration and a Red-Blue connector at Charles, and should receive the necessary funding before those other two projects. A lot can change in 15 years.

Jim

Under normal circumstances, yes the state can and should reprioritize projects. In this case however, there was a lawsuit which was settled with the T agreeing to do several very specific things. (Red-blue connector, Arborway, Green to W. Meford if memory serves.) When you settle a lawsuit, you can't just change your mind if it suits you. As Salvucci points out, it gives the state zero credibility in the future not to mention additional litigation.



Now that said, I have to agree with Noah. This is a great article that does indeed show why we must go forward with the mitigation.

As for funding, which Jim brings up, a simple solution would be not to roll back taxes for the wealthy. I'd rather put my tax money in transit, than in rich peoples wallets any day.

If you're going to extend the Blue Line to Lynn, you should certainly be extending it the other way to Charles at the same time. Otherwise Lynn does not get the full benefit of the extension, and you overload the Green Line ever further between Park and Government Center.

Ron makes a very good point. The T constantly complains about the lack of capacity on the Central Subway, giving Blue Line riders a direct connect to the Red Line would be more important.

I think one of Fred Salvucci's best points for those who complain about the lack of funding is that failing to follow through could jeopardize federal funding in the future.

Suffice it so say, Fred Salvucci is one of those leaders that "gets it" more than many others of his time or after. Massachusetts was fortunate to have someone of his talents, and we are suffering the consequences of losing that gifted leadership today.

Having heard Mr. Salvucci speak several times, as well as reading this and other pieces written by him, I think the question of "following through" goes beyond a simple analysis of whether there is money to accomplish these projects. He's referring to the very determination of the state and its transportation agencies to want to do these projects. When the movers and shakers in power have no desire to see the actual improvements take shape, there is no way that the funding will ever be found. Finding the specific monies, right now, is not nearly as important as making the transit committments the stated priority of the Commonwealth, rather than trying to find ways to weasel out of one after the other. Yes, it may take a long time to accomplish, but as long as the wizards at 10 Park Plaza have minimizing the cost of transit as their sole priority, its meaningless.

Okay, thanks for reading this far...I'll let someone else ahve a turn on the soapbox.

All I can say about the editorial is: how very eloquent.

Sometimes I think we all need to see the forest through the trees. Yes, we all suffered with the Big Dig, but we're so much better for it. Likewise with all these new transit initiatives, we may have to suffer for a little while, pay a little extra, or be inconvenienced temporarily, but in the end, Boston is a better place.

This is a great city warts and all, but without vision by our leaders to do what's right and not to bend to partisan politics or complaining critics and the like, we'll fall behind.