Reflections on the Big Dig and Current Transportation Challenges

Frederick P. Salvucci, Senior Lecturer,
Center for Transportation and Logistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Silver Line was approved as early as 1963. It is the only chance in the near future that Massachusetts has to get major federal infrastructure construction funding following the Big Dig, whose cost attracted nationwide attention. Other projects are some years down the road. The Silver Line is the only project that is ready for construction. Other transit projects that have been discussed extensively like the Blue Line extension to Lynn and the Urban Ring are still at a preliminary planning stage. Much work needs to be done before the Urban Ring can be put together as a project. With limited funds and available planning attention, dispersing efforts on a multiplicity of projects is not to be recommended.

With the completion of the Silver Line, a very important part of the metropolitan transit system would be completed. It would constitute an independent link, whose function as the epicenter of transit access would be enhanced. There would be no need to complete the loop, which would become redundant.

The strategy is to advance the project for two main reasons: To improve transit capacity and to create construction jobs in the region.

We need to avoid the current situation, which is a circular firing squad: Everyone supporting a transportation project lines up and shoots down the other transportation projects because they are seen as a threat and a competing drain on scarce resources.

We need to consider the true costs of projects. If we build transit and keep 100,000 cars off the road, those car owners will save $300 million per year in expenses. This money flows out of our economy to places like Saudi Arabia. When you apply the multiplier adjusting for how this money would circulate and recirculate in the local economy, the actual loss to the local economy is $600 million.

On the intercity regional scale, an underserved corridor is the Inland Route for high speed rail to New York by way of Worcester and Springfield. This would be my priority if I was still in government. The Shore route has a capacity problem because the fast interstate trains occupy the same trackage as do heavily used commuter rail lines. Only six miles longer, the Inland Route is the best bet to improve railroad passenger transportation. It would also help make Springfield into back-office space to New York. This has already happened with Providence, which benefits tremendously from its rail proximity to New York.

I-93 should be part of a strategy to take people in cars off city streets, and thus to make city streets more functional. The McGrath Highway should be a parkway, but you would never know it.

With the Green Line expanded northwesterly to Somerville and Medford, there would be lots of opportunities for smart growth. It is a worthy project.

Another problem is that of maintaining what we have on a local scale. Most of the bridges across the Charles River are about to fall into the Charles River. On the Longfellow Bridge, you can only walk in single file. There are a lot of opportunities for traffic calming, and we have to consider dropping a vehicle lane if or when we reconstruct the bridge.

With reference to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, compare this to the Ramblas in Barcelona, which was once a historic wall around the city. It is as if the streets—just two lanes wide—are a modest afterthought. It is about the greenway, not the flanking roads. Let's make the greenway really work. The green constituency needs to be at the table and participating. Don't work from the maintenance budget. Private groups won't have the money. Landscaping should be publicly funded. Privatization is wrong. Private groups don't have the money.

How do we maintain Spectacle Island and the Bremen Street Park? Paying for maintenance is seldom discussed. An agency is needed to fund all environmental commitments. We can't do this using privatization schemes. The people of North Adams, in the extreme western part of the state, are paying for the Big Dig in the extreme eastern part of the state through the motor vehicle registration fee. This is not fair. There should be consideration of greater involvement on the part of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which is a regional organization.

The new convergence of the Orange and Green lines at North Station constitutes a terrific opportunity. That the Department of Conservation and Recreation has an excessive budget is the biggest secret.

Regarding the operation and maintenance issue, the system has to be properly maintained. It would be absurd in the extreme not to. The cost of maintaining the highway system on an annual basis is so high it dwarfs the cost of maintaining the parks. If we can provide for a way to ensure maintenance of the tunnels, bridges and roadways, adding the cost of the parks to this would be infinitesimal. This is the way to fund the park maintenance. The Turnpike and Massport should pay for operation and maintenance. Yet none of this is automatic. Things don't happen unless there is an organized constituency.

With regard to the South Boston Waterfront, it represents a unique opportunity for smart growth. High density development would be environmentally benign in this location.

We should take a hard look at the parking supply. One parking space per unit in the Bulfinch triangle is nuts. If we were to reduce parking requirements to no parking, we could get 25% more affordable homes, because the cost of expensive garages boosts the cost of housing so much. If retailers had to pay a surcharge or else an annual tax for each parking space they build around their stores, they certainly would build less parking. Currently there is little incentive to limit the provision of surface parking.

I want to stress that I am a big fan of the history of the city. It still has room for enhancement. Although Boston was the heart of the anti-slavery movement, there is no plaque at Government Center about it. I prefer the Boston Museum project for Parcel 18 because in this area we need to know more about ourselves and our own history.

Even though the Artery Business Committee (ABC) has played a key role—I am not knocking the ABC—there are many other interests. ABC has lobbied against green in the greenway. Buildings more effectively cover ramps than do parks. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) certificate specified that Parcel 18, a ramp parcel, should be a park. The museum idea might be better elsewhere rather than Parcel 18. One should take a look at which parcel works better for which function.

The Greenway should not be a Veterans of Foreign Wars Parkway. It should not be a strip mall of old institutions, such as the Norwegian Home for the Elderly, that are losing their funding basis. One should look more in a non-competitive direction. The Garden under Glass idea of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society seemed like a good idea. A room in the history of the city could be a guiding concept.

There is not enough private money for parks, their maintenance and operations. We need to economize on our use of charity dollars. The public sector should pay for this. One should de-emphasize the competitive approach to parcel disposition.

Notes on Move Massachusetts meetings are provided as a public service and do not represent an official statement of Move Massachusetts.  The Association for Public Transportation is a member of Move Massachusetts.