The Boston Indicators Project
Sector Convening Notes
Transportation Convening
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Brief Project Overview
The Boston Indicators Project is a collaborative project of Greater Boston’s civic community. Recognized for its comprehensive framework and selected by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform the development of national indicators, the project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Its goals are: to democratize access to high quality data and information; to foster informed public discourse, and; to track progress on shared civic goals. Since 2000, the project has released four biennial reports, the last three as a summary in hard copy and a detailed web-based report on the award-winning www.bostonindicators.org. The Boston Foundation is committed to issuing a biennial report through 2030, Boston’s 400^th anniversary. 

To begin to frame the findings of each report, the project hosts a series of convenings in each of the ten sectors it tracks: Civic Health; Cultural Life and the Arts; Economy; Education; Environment and Energy; Public Health; Public Safety; Housing; Technology; and Transportation. Each convening, chaired by stakeholders from within the field, includes a range of perspectives from academic experts, community-based practitioners, public agency and foundation staff, private sector representatives, and consumers. 

The convenings range in size from about 20 to 100 participants, the latter for large, complex sectors such as education, civic health and housing, which are broken into sub-sectors, each with its own co-chairs. Each convening uses the same structured agenda, eliciting views on key long –term trends, major developments and accomplishments of the previous two years, and key remaining challenges. The notes are then compiled, reviewed by the co-chairs for accuracy and completeness, and used to frame and prioritize the findings of the next Boston Indicators Report.  

What follows are the notes from the Transportation convening.

In Attendance:

Co-Chairs: Stephanie Pollack, Senior Research Associate, Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University; Vineet Gupta, Director of Policy and Planning, City of Boston Transportation Department; Richard Dimino, President & CEO, A Better City 

Krystal Beaulieu, Northeastern University
Eugene Benson, Staff Attorney, Alternatives for Community & Environment
Noah Berger, Program Manager, Federal Transit Administration
Doug Brugge, Associate Professor of Public Health and Family Medicine, Tufts University
John Businger
Robin Chase, Founder & CEO, Meadow Networks
Alexandra Delany Danahy, Manager of Urban Design and Planning, A Better City
Dennis DiZoglio, Assistant General Manager for Planning and Real Estate, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Michael Dukakis, Distinguished Professor, Northeastern University
Kate Fichter, Transportation Planner, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
Ann Hershfang, Founder and Board of Director, Walk Boston
Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
Ben Lasley, Save the Harbor Save the Bay
David Luberoff, Executive Director, Rappaport Institute, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Barbara Lucas, Chief Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Anne McKinnon, Director of Municipal and Regional Planning, Howard Stein-Hudson
Bhupesh Patel, Architect, DESIGNTANK
Jim Repass,President & CEO, National Corridors Initiative
David Rosen, Vice President-Public Affairs, Emerson College
Jeff Rosenblum, Executive Director, Livable Streets Alliance
Carrie Russell, Skadden Legal Fellow and Staff Attorney, Massachusetts, Conservation Law Foundation
Mark Sternman, Vice President, Research, MassDevelopment
Michael Widmer, President, Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation
Steve Woelfel, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation 

Welcome and Introductions
The co-chairs welcomed participants to the convening and asked participants to describe the primary indicators that they worked with. 

• Transparency of costs
• Timeline of TOD process online (how long/hard is it?)
• Links between investment in transportation and economic development
• Percent of people using a car to commute to work (down?)
• Subsidy per rider, projections for both current and future projects (breakdown by mode and line so we can see where it’s cost-efficient)
• Cost per rider for both *vehicle* and transit projects
• Number of three-time traffic signals (Roxbury Crossing, Charles, Beacon St.)
• Pedestrian data of all kinds is lacking…how many pedestrians, accidents, fatalities, etc. (“if you’re not counted, you don’t count”)
• Taking a less cramped view of state’s transportation (truly regional rail, must be broader than Boston alone)
• Need to develop a first class rail system in the next decade…need to connect the whole region (esp. areas that are hurting economically)
• Time needed for people to commute to/from work
• Number of discretionary transit trips (not just 9-5 service)
• Cost of transit and vehicular projects versus the economic benefits derived from them
• Mass transit/regional rail ridership
• Percent of inner city (low income neighborhood) buses running on schedule and number that are overcrowded
• Housing and job availability (and affordability) near transit (are people just spending savings from living further away on the drive in?)
• Only 30% of trips into the city are people going Downtown
• Transit service needs
• Taking a longer timeframe on transit problems (need to invest now in future transportation)…compare to other places
• Increase in mobility (80% of people commute)
• Bike-ability of city; bike lines and paths, signal prioritization.
• Impact of climate change on transportation choices
• Usage and ridership of water transport
• Impact of increasing ridership on regional rail (problem not connect North and South stations)
• Air pollution
• Data on injuries (and fatalities); good databases are lacking or not being analyzed (people near major highways having adverse health effects)
• Gentrification and its impact on the changing the nature and amount of investment in transit
• Proxies for urban health

Key Long-Term Trends, Recent Developments and Accomplishments, and Remaining Challenges
The co-chairs then asked participants to brainstorm key long-term trends, recent accomplishments and developments, and remaining challenges.

 Key Long-Term Trends

• Population of the region is aging, changing the breakdown of transportation usage and demand.
• Auto ownership is skyrocketing (as are associated costs, unstaunched by gas taxes or tolls); combined with this trend is an increase in vehicle-miles traveled, and an upward spike in carbon dioxide emissions (global warming).  There are more intersections and road segments with 100,000+ units passing per day.
• While the MBTA is improving existing infrastructure, they aren’t building sufficient new facilities
• Population (by community/region) is moving outwards from the center of the city towards the 495 belt, as is job distribution by community/region (outward migration of employment centers means less density; retail main streetsàmini-mallsàmega strip malls). 
• Travel times are going up marginally, and there is a new breakdown with how people are getting to work (those on transit take twice as long as those driving; rates of change are also important; questions regarding how all this plays with water distribution).
• Rates of telecommuting and flexible work hours have risen.
• Changing perceptions about relationship between transit choice and personal health (e.g., obesity)…we haven’t figured this out yet.
• Concerns over population loss and *who* we’re losing (knowledge workers).  What could they have done/contributed, and how would they have affected transportation?
• Issues around biking (and other alternative transportation) and the bike-accessible environment are also of concern.  What is the government providing here (more people want the stuff we’re not getting…desires diverging from what’s being offered)?  Also have to assume that current usage of low-quality, poorly-maintained bike paths probably isn’t an accurate indicator for how many people *would* use nice, new facilities.
• Fiscal requirements are growing while funding rates remain static…we’re disinvesting in our infrastructure.
• How do federal laws affect us?  More of DC is trying to kill off Amtrak, punish Boston/Mass. for the Big Dig, and are prejudiced against a state with a Democratic Congressional team (under a Republican government).  Washington is not investing sufficiently in transportation (most funding spoken for long before it reaches state level).
• Freight transit is moving away from railways towards trucks (entering mainly in NYC and LA).  Truck traffic will double in next 15 years…railways aren’t investing enough to maintain current freight needs, let alone for 10-15 years from now (need a New England regional rail system).
• A lot of initiative for streetscaping is coming at the grassroots level and very high up…but little is happening at the intermediate level where action must be taken.
• Maintenance of transportationinfrastructure isn’t being sufficiently attended to; conditions/performance of roadways declining…how does this fit with above assertions that we’re focusing on infrastructure maintenance at the expense of new construction? (statewide trend; also not raising gas taxes to fund it).  Condition of roadways has declined.  Not just about how much we’re spending, but about how long it takes to get a job done due to regulations (Cambridge St., 4 years to repave a ¼ mile stretch of road).
• Fewer children now walk or bike to school (schools account for 30% of morning rush hour traffic).  Safe Routes to schools (cones in the street were cheap but effective).
• The cost of parking has risen, as well as the construction cost of new parking spaces (relates to density issues: rate of Greenfield usage?  Average lot size has gone up and household size down).
• The number of 17 year olds with cars is way up (then they’re off transit forever)
• Larger use of technology to collect fares (share covered by riders steady)
• Total emissions from cars is declining slowly (nox will go down in next five years).  Drop in vehicles that fail inspection: this is major, because 50% of auto pollution comes from about 10% of cars w/worst emissions rates.
• Smaller household size: MA is leading the nation…housing affordability also contributes to loss of young people
• No one from AAA or the rail carriers is in on this discussion…need to be more inclusive
• Increased air travel is a potential pro and con.  Logan Environmental Status and Planning Report: 26 million airline passengers traveled through Logan in 2004, and by 2020 the annual flow of passengers is expected to grow to nearly 43 million.  Economically, the region may benefit from increased air travel into and out of Logan, but from an air quality and climate change perspective this is a trend that may be cause for concern.

Developments and Accomplishments, 2005-2006

• Growth of private transportation
• MBTA is getting rid of busàrail transfer costs (more equitable fair structure).  Escalators on the T are operating (a little) better, too.  Opening of Silver Line from Logan to S. Station is a plus (ability to get to the airport quickly good, also through the tunnel…usually), as are the replacing of the old, dirty buses (avg. age of fleet went from 14 to 4.5 years).  The T also stopped idling its buses, due to pressure from the EPA.
• More hybrids on the road.
• Progress on Green Bush.
• We’re building less parking, which encourages people to take other transportation.
• Logan modernization…it works less badly now; new terminals open.
• More focus on smart growth—becoming a front-burner agenda item.  Likewise “Fix it First” T strategy (from 70-90% of investment)…recognition of land use’s impact on transportation strategies
• Auto-fare collection has been a positive development.
• More funding is going into the Fairmont-Indigo Line.
• Attitudes are changing such that it’s not problematic or unusual to consider biking or pedestrian issues in design anymore.  Walk signal timing on traffic lights is also more pedestrian-friendly.
• Governor is able to get more control over transportation issues than in the past.  20-year transportation plan is a plus; moving people, not just vehicles.
• More of the Harborwalk is completed
• Emphasis on fix-it first (70-99.1%)
• Relationship between transportation and land use is becoming more collaborative.
• More obesity and asthma awareness is influencing our understanding of the build environment.
• Spectacle Island is open for business (and recommended to us by Gov. Dukakis)…Rose Kennedy Greenway under construction
• A Massachusetts bike and pedestrian board has convened
• Small scale development is happening in the region.
• Water ferry service and usage is up, as is cargo shipments into the port.
• Vacancy rates in Back Bay and Downtown have decreased, and job growth is up
• Improvements in public transportation are becoming more mainstream…T riders are generally happier with their service
• Brockton is an example of a dying city rejuvenated by connection to the rail network.

 Key Remaining Challenges

• Data doesn’t account for nonfatal traffic injuries.  Data is also lacking for air pollution.
• Climate change and pollutants associated with transportation are a major problem (also land use).
• Regional rail needs to make efforts to actually *be* regional
• Big problems (like the tunnel collapse) make the news, but maintenance and little issues get no attention (we’re the world’s worst in highway maintenance; “try following US-20 out of town and see how long before you get lost”).  Signage…a “fix it never” policy.  Need more pro-active asset management.
• Need an actually *seamless* water transport network…until it’s cheaper, people won’t use it.
• Need a transparent tool to assess/measure impact of transit options…need to make visible new info. RE: health impacts of transit options.
• Infrastructure designed to help the disabled often doesn’t work (people can’t get up ramps at the harbor).
• Lack of consensus on some key issues is a problem.
• We need to make the health/safety consequences of transportation visible, and make the dialogue convincing for those beyond this room.
• Debt servicing requirements are undermining long-term plans for transportation infrastructure
• How can we keep transportation affordable?
• Need to convince business and political leaders to connect North and South Stations.  Devil is in the details here, as with many cost-benefit modeling…MBTA used $2/gallon for gas cost estimates in one model for demand, which is laughable (BIP still has a point about the fact that gas has risen from $1.50 to $2 per gallon…laughably out of date). 
• Need to increase service on the commuter rail.
• State level leadership is necessary to sell many of these issues (“selling” a higher natural gas tax in the past was successful; turnpike authority argued for toll increases).  Gaining local cooperation is also important: no one wants density, but we need to gain support for these projects (local government is often misinformed, too).
• No effective transportation reporters at the Globe…need to make them realize it’s important
• We may simply be enabling the system to remain “broken” and avoid major but necessary overhauls.  What projects are the enablers allowing the system to remain broken (transparency needed)?  Some projects aren’t been effectively evaluated in terms of benefit or cost per unit (BIP can/should help us estimate this).  Should evaluate problems on old projects (e.g., Red Line) and use the knowledge to address potential problems on newer projects.  Can’t all be about efficiency, however, since government has to provide transportation.
  • More to it than just transit vs. highway expansion: not considering highway morbidity/mortality rates relative to transit, or health impacts on people living near highways, or CO₂ and global warming impacts, or projections for gas prices at $5 or $10 per gallon…these analyses will lead us to car-independent solutions, which people will be clamoring for in a few years (cheaper to use congestion pricing than any highway expansion).  Is there a "rational" economic analysis that all parties would agree to?
• Need to redefine role of transit agencies for the 21^st century…T as a trip generator: filling the buses and trains, not just running them.
• Land use is critical to transportation; sprawl is biggest threat to MBTA (get land use wrong, and none of our projects will be cost-effective).
• Citizen engagement (awareness and empowerment) is important to transportation, and is low right now…they’re not as excited as the people in this discussion.  How many people are going to keep trying if they don’t feel like their say is valued (“what’s more paralyzing than trying to get through town government”)
• Resident education in the interplay between decisions about density, off-street parking requirements, transit frequency and prices, future trends (climate change and fossil fuel prices), car ownership costs, zoning implications, etc.  TBF could sponsor a large number of these seminars, done in an engaging fashion, for very low cost if we don't fret over them—just do them…the same sessions taught over and over.  Livable Streets could probably do this for a very affordable price per session in public (no rent) locations.  Marketing/announcing is important.
• We need to anticipate the changes wrought by global warming in the next 15-20 years and get ahead of the curve in terms of anticipating the future developments.  The transportation sector is the largest and fastest growing contributor to global warming, so its impact must be addressed (interest is growing, too…“climate change” and “global warming” tripled on GoogleTrends after the Al Gore movie came out).
• There isn’t enough money on the table…we’re barely covering existing costs, how can we talk about ambitious expansion plans? 

Suggestions for Indicators to Highlight
The co-chairs then asked the participants the key 2-4 indicators to highlight in the next report. 

• Percentage of people willing to live in a cheaper area with no parking.
• May be able to use the number of intersections with more than 100,000+ units traveling on them per day as a proxy for health issues in nearby housing.
• Fareboxrecoveryratio
• is a very useful handle to get the public’s attention (more so than issues like density)

Recent Innovations
The participants suggested recent innovations in the transportation sector. 

• Zipcar is still an important innovation in the sector
• Congestion charging in London
• Fuel Cell buses—30 buses in EU powered by hydrogen fuel cells…project shows their viability
• Washington state dept. of transportation has “Cost Validation Assessment Program (CVAP)”—putting them way ahead of us in terms of how they can evaluate costs.Istanbul—traffic counters go down for walking and waiting (you can see how long you have left to walk/wait)…in New Delhi, they count down for cars, which have reduced accidents.
• Hokaido, Japan: a train that transforms to a busFrance: electric and diesel multiple units (more here?)
• Computer-based train control (CBTC) in NYC…expanding signaling mechanism allows more trains in the system without huge overhaul/expansion
• Lowell—no more retail parking requirements (can lease existing municipal spaces instead of building new parking)San Francisco—minimums placed on the number of housing units that must be served by new transit (either makes it accessible for lots of people, or build new housing near it).
• Washington—university ID became a transit pass for students/faculty…people use itCalifornia is or will be prohibiting schools near highways for health reasons
• Variable price telling (Florida, France, San Francisco)…pay as you drive insurance
• Portland, Oregon—incentive-based transportationallowance (people get money for transport…gives incentive to take cheaper routes)
• Laser-run walkways…gets you a walk sign when you walk up
• Let people invest in water transportation technology
• Harvard Square—restaurants can pay money instead of providing parking; cash goes to keep the area in good repair (and for some parking)
• Wireless Boston—If low-cost, ubiquitous wireless access is made available throughout Boston by an entity that also allows for very low usage plans, the following transportation innovations will be financially viable:
  • Real-time variable parking rates for both retail and residential parking, depending on location and time of day
  • Variable congestion pricing should it be desired
  • Real-time information of transit schedules available on individual's cell phones (i.e., you can easily retrieve the information for when the next commuter train is actually arriving at the station from your kitchen table or office desk).
  • Internet access on commuter trains and buses
  • Traffic light override for buses
  • These are all existing applications whose implementation is delayed by high infrastructure and communications costs. The plan for Boston would remove these barriers.