When the MBTA was discussing the extension of the Red Line from Harvard Station northwestward to Route 128 in Lexington, as usual there were hearings. One speaker stood up and suggested the T start building the line in Lexington and work its way IN.

When the T was planning the Red Line extension from Quincy southward to Braintree, the then General Manager told us that when the line was to open, the operating speed on the line would be increased from the current 50 mph to 70 mph.

As part of the Central Artery/Tunnel project, an environmental mitigation program was signed between the State and the Conservation Law Foundation to prevent a lawsuit dragging the whole project to a halt. There were a number of commitments made. One was the restoration of the Arborway streetcar line, which in the 1970’s had been ‘temporarily’ bussed because of the lack of equipment. Another was to restore the Greenbush railroad passenger route, which had lost commuter trains in 1959. Even though Greenbush was controversial, it was a commitment, and written into law.

Not all transit commitments, even though officially announced, or made by a contract or even established by law, actually get built or put into force. Why not?

1. Because of perceived budgetary problems,
2. Federal funding fashion changes or
3. Local official support wanes.

Examples: Greenbush is case 1, subject to a hold by the Governor. Arborway is both case 2 and case 3. The feds are not actively supporting street railway development. And also case 3, where local transit officials have an antipathy to in-street streetcars. This in itself should be further explored. ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ developes as a seemingly more flexible, traffic-friendly, lower-cost alternative for heavy-duty applications.

So we have had many series of public meetings on public transportation to

1. Propose projects in a financially unconstrained way,
2. Rank projects for the capital plan and
3. Design and operations meetings about individual projects, where pros and cons are discussed. The Governor or the Secretary of Transportation can change their priorities and the project is put into abeyance.

So, what happened to all the public meetings and hearings? Is this a process, intended or unintended, to degrade or discourage local residents who want improved service and/or transit activists?

Perhaps the way we guarantee that something is going to be done is, as the Lexington supporter above, suggested. Start work on something by irrevocably committing to a project and starting on it in such a way that it would be utterly foolish NOT to complete it, by putting in a facility that is useless unless it is connected in a functional way to the rest of the system.

Even yet, there are cases in other cities where considerable planning and construction has gone into transit or transportation orphans that never have had enough investment or personal or institutional backing to insure they become useful.

In Florida, the legislature passed a law providing for a high-speed railroad passenger line to be built from scratch leading from one end of the state to the other. The Governor killed it. So the voters inserted it into the state constitution, so there would be no wiggle room around the question. But, still the project is not under construction. At least not yet.

The question becomes one of official procedures, i.e. required hearings, meetings, transcripts, reports (sometimes reports with pre-ordained conclusions) versus project managers who may have an engrained antipathy to the project at hand, or officials or political authorities who for various reasons delay or kill projects.

What function does activism play? The Arborway Committee has demonstrated that sometimes, to get a project built, one has to overcome many hurdles. How?

1. By marshalling supporters who can do the many functions of advocacy, including legwork.
2. Using superior intellectual skills to review or re-analyze data used by consultants and official staff people which might be lead to invalid conclusions by
1. An unjustified synthesis of valid data.
2. An unjustified synthesis of inappropriate or erroneous data.
3. Collecting of political support.

All of which requires

4. Dogged determination and energy over the long run.

---

RETURN TO MAIN PAGE

Web site contents & design: Copyright © 2003 Association for Public Transportation, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Car-Free® is a registered trademark of APT.

Last updated: 28 May 2003.