Million Per Metro

Pinning good transit to a metro population level seems like a good idea to me. In India, regions of 1M or more population will now be eligible for 50% federal funding for a metro system if the locals paid the other half. Here in the United States, regions are lucky to get 50% funding for one commuter or light rail line. I think we should go even lower. A region of 750,000 or more should start construction so by the time that other 250,000 moved in they would have options as to where to live along the newly constructed lines.

Imagine if we had metro subways in all of our metro areas over 1 million people as a base for greater transit improvements. Considering between 1990 and 2005 about 45% of new transit trips were made on metro subway systems, it stands to reason that the construction of these networks connecting the major employment and population centers in a regions core will dramatically increase transit ridership. Look what has happened in Washington DC over the last 40 years or so. That is something we should emulate and India gives us a view into how to do it. Where's that type of vision for America?

Begin the Begin

I think Tom Radulovich hits the nail on the head with the basic tenants of this post. Infill stations are a no brainer, especially where suggested and core capacity and operating should be addressed. Don't forget to check all the rosy ridership assumptions at the door. However I don't think we can just sit and rest on our laurels. We need to find ways to build in greater capacity within Oakland, San Francisco and to a certain degree San Jose so people don't rely on thier cars as much. And while there are several BRT lines on the books, that is not going to be enough to deal with the rising tide of need. The longer term needs to be considered right now including that second tube and more urban extensions. Currently the plan calls for that tube, but more and more outward extensions are planned, meaning more and more funding will go to places that shouldn't get it. It's an export of our tax dollars to elsewhere and a practice that should be rectified.

San Francisco should have built a true Metro long ago and I still believe that is one of the major things this city can do to enhance existing service and get people out of thier cars (There are also a million little things that should be happening as we speak) As other cities have shown, 10,000 passengers per mile is possible with greater network connectivity. If we have core rapid transit within San Francisco and Oakland with quality bus and trams as redundancies and networks, there's no reason why we can't get a million more trips a day. Sure that might sound like a daunting number, but we need to look into the future of what is needed.

When my grandmother was born, there were still streetcars in every major city and very little automobile traffic. In her lifetime, there has been a huge change. Systems such as BART and WMATA have been constructed and the region has invested billions in its highway systems. We CAN invest in our future again. There's no reason why another Great Society Subway can't be constructed. And for those who say we don't have the money or that we're asking for the impossible, take a look at yourself and ask why that is.

You can call me a dreamer or an ivory tower thinker. Worse things have happened. But I'd hate to look back and see some kid like me drawing fantasy lines on a map and wishing that we would have invested in his generation, instead of just thinking of ourselves and our own defecits of imagination. If we listened to the same types of people that said no then, we wouldn't have a BART or Muni system to worry about now. Imagine San Francisco without rapid transit at all.

While we might not be able to plan and construct Metros right now, we can start to think about how a better region can emerge from our planning. Just because we don't have money now doesn't mean we should toss out these ideas or shouldn't plan for them. It just means we need to incubate them, for that point in the future when they should bloom.

Setting Up the Switch Hit

Supervisor Alioto Pier who represents Northern San Francisco asked in the July 14th Finance Committee meeting for TA staff to start thinking about an extension of the Central Subway to the Presidio under Lombard Street. (You can watch the video where she makes her request at 54:45 here).

It's an interesting proposal to say the least but how much of this is really driven by a want to kill the Market Street Railway extension for Fort Mason and beyond with its "visually polluting" overhead wires?

The second phase of the extension will take the streetcar down Beach Street, Cervantes and Marina Boulevard. That will involve erecting overhead power lines, putting rail tracks in the street and removing a lane of traffic. Putting overhead power lines down Marina Boulevard is contrary to Section 101.1 (b) (8) of the City Master Plan, City Urban Design Plan Element Policy 1.1, , and is contrary to the City Transportation Plan. Yet the City Planning Department states that it does not have to be involved with these plans!

The Marina Community Association is working with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and taking other steps to require the City Planning Department to accept its responsibility.

The neighborhood suggestion? Bring back the water taxi idea! If she really wanted better commute service to her district, an inexpensive option would be supporting the extension to the Presidio via the MSR extension. However in discussions with folks who live in the area, they want nothing to do with it. "It'll just bring all the tourists and riff raff and the wires are ugly" I've heard before. Again, my lungs don't care about your aesthetic. So what makes the subway expansion different? Well for one thing it's easier to kill than more inexpensive incremental MSR extensions.

Before this goes any further, I'd really like to know where she stands on the MSR extension already planned for her district and if the idea of a subway extension to the Presidio via Lombard is an honest one. Personally, I like the idea in the long term (Geary subway first ALWAYS) but I question her motives based on previous votes and a lack of understanding from her and her constituents to what transit-first really means. Alioto Pier has been pro commuter transit but not big on the transit "lifestyle".

While she supports the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), and wants more people to ride Muni, she doesn't necessarily feel the City should be encouraging people to get rid of their cars.

No one I know wants people to get rid of their cars, we just want the option of getting around without them. It would be nice to have a subway to the Presidio. I imagine a lot of people would use it, especialy people who come from Marin and want to skip the city drive to downtown. But Geary is first, and the MSR extension is an easy way to expand that direction with dedicated lanes. Let's see where this goes shall we?

Saturday Sacramento Links

It was nice to see everyone at the NJudah shindig last night. I'm in Sacramento for a family reunion this weekend so posting might be light.

Looks like Phoenix is pausing its first extension due to funding issues.
~~~
I think people like Barbara Boxer still don't get the climate, transport, land use connection. I am glad that folks are talking gas tax, but there has to be a better way.
~~~
LA is building an Orange Line extension that connects the Chatsworth Metrolink station to the Warner Center, which is kind of like LA's Tyson's Corner. I think this is a great connection that obviously should be updated as soon as possible. With the Warner Center thinking about densifying, the connection to commuter rail is key.
~~~
I like this quote from Rep. John Mica:

"if you're on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you're a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it's so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it's good for energy, it's good for the environment – and that's why I like it."

~~~
Some interesting information on traction motors in Europe. Kind of continues on our electrification theme of late.

Consummate Salesmen

I don't believe Walter Hook for a second. Any time anyone says their way is the only way for any situation I get skeptical. Case in point:

There is no other solution for American cities. If you look across the globe, the only cities that have actually shifted people from private cars back into public transit are cities that have built bus rapid transit.

The BS detector is huge on this one. Not only is Curitiba losing people to private vehicles because of the crush loaded conditions, the chief of the system has admitted they have to build a subway. Might I also add, there are many cities that aren't in third world countries that have amazing transit systems to emulate. Such as Paris, Berlin, Vienna, London, and Madrid etc....(H/T Frank M) How about a yellow tram that's six segments and comes every minute like in Budapest?



There's way more capacity there than on an articulated bus. 173 feet of tram every minute. And it would certainly do some heavy hauling across Manhattan. Anyone want to take some civic leaders to Budapest with me? As Daneel states:

The big order was for the world's busiest tram line, along the Grand Boulevard (lines 4/6). This is nothing to be proud of, the daily 200,000/hourly max. 10,500 passengers would be in the capacity range of a subway. But an orbital subway was never built, so pairs of "Industrial Articulateds" transport the masses in close succession. So when finally new vehicles were ordered, they were for the world's longest passenger trams (precisely 53.99 m; only the CarGoTram freight trams in Dresden/Germany are longer [59.4 m]). The new series 2000^II got the nickname Óriáshernyó (=giant caterpillar).

But another quip I have with Walter is his flip flopping and misleading statements. In his BRT post on Streetsblog, Hook nonchalantly states that BRT can cost as little as $8 million a mile.

Very good BRT systems have been built for as little as $8 million a mile. With the same capital budget, we could build more than twice as much proper BRT as light rail, probably 5 to 10 times more, with no loss in the quality of service, the capacity, or the speed.

First off he's comparing cheap non-BRT Rapid bus to full LRT. That is hardly an even comparison. The Healthline BRT in Cleveland which is the closest thing we have to that type of BRT on city streets in the United States was $29 million per mile ($200/6.8mi). The Portland Streetcar cost $24m/mi. If we just took lanes from cars and inserted the rails instead of rebuilding whole streets the capital costs would be comparable and operating would be much less. More riders, less drivers.

Look, if you want a big network of Rapid Bus or BRT in a major city go ahead and do it. Los Angeles has been fairly successful when they aren't trying to expand like Krispy Kreme in 2000. That is an excellent model to emulate for routes that need better transit service right away. But let's not pretend that BRT or Rapid Bus works on the corridors that actually need rail or a Subway like Second Street.

Finally, there is this:

Hook is hoping it works. He says at least one American city should have a well-designed BRT, one that really does feel like a train.

If you want something that feels like a train, then why not build a train. I'll never understand why cheap is always the best option to some people. You get what you pay for.

The Battle for Salt Lake

Previously we posted videos from the Charlotte effort against repeal. Here are some of the videos the Salt Lake City Chamber was kind enough to post up for us.

The first two I like a lot. Forcing cars on your children is a pretty powerful message. A stuffed up vascular system is a great metaphor as well.



The following are a bit more boring.

How To Get the Feds to Pay for Subway Utility Relocation

Plan transit lines that cross CIA and other secret government black underground cables.

This part happens all the time: A construction crew putting up an office building in the heart of Tysons Corner a few years ago hit a fiber optic cable no one knew was there. This part doesn't: Within moments, three black sport-utility vehicles drove up, a half-dozen men in suits jumped out and one said, "You just hit our line."
...

"These lines are not cheap to move," Georgelas said. "They said, 'You owe us $300,000.' We said, 'Are you nuts?' " The charges just disappeared.

H/T Ryan Avent via Twitter

Sugarhouse Update

Last year we posted on the Sugarhouse Trolley in Salt Lake City. Since I'm going to Salt Lake tomorrow, I thought this update from the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News was appropriate.

What's interesting is that in order to keep costs down, they are going with a single track leaving the option for double track on the abandoned rail ROW between the closest Trax Station and the Sugarhouse district, a denser part of the city. In addition to this gem, there was a hint that mayors would be pushing congress to streamline the funding process for streetcar lines with Salt Lake Mayor Becker taking the charge.

In two weeks, Becker plans to sponsor a resolution at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Providence, R.I., calling on Congress to streamline the funding process for streetcars nationwide. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, already has placed a cash request for the Sugar House project.

"We're hoping," Becker said, "that Congress will accelerate the investments."

Recently Congressman Blumenaeur wrote a letter to Secretary LaHood asking for smaller investments to be made in ready to go streetcar projects around the country. In addition to Boise, I imagine the small Sugarhouse project would be one of the many that could apply for the proposed $25 million grant that would be requested.

Next week, Crapo and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., will send a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking him to designate $300 million in federal stimulus money for streetcar projects like Boise's.

Below is the alternatives analysis map from UTA showing potential development projects on the corridor as well as possible places for crossover sidings where streetcars will be able to pass on the single track.


What will be interesting to see is if they can keep in the $50 million target for the two mile route. If they do, it will hopefully push others to try and keep costs low.

H/T Ed Havens

China Again

Imagine if we were building 46 urban rail lines right now. We'd be China.

"China has risen to be the world's largest urban rail transit construction market," Jiao Tongshan, vice-chief of China Communications and Transportation Association, said at the conference. At present, 14 cities are building 46 urban rail lines, which total 1,212 km, he said.

Perhaps a Trend?

Looks like Arnold has stolen over $5 billion. I know a certain gubernatorial candidate who might fit as a follower to this trend. Seems some pranksters called Where's Gavin? have also called for photos of him riding Muni (not in a cable car). I wonder if these types of comparisons will matter in the general or even primary election?

Who Rides BART?

Update: More from Pedestrianist and Transbay Blog.

Lots of different people! The next question is how do they get to and from BART, and the answer is interesting. BART recently released a that releases data about who uses the system. I picked out some of what I feel is interesting data from the report:

1. The Majority of trips (88%) during peak hours were for work related trips. They break them out for mid day which is more even for other types of trips but certain stations have certain trip patterns such as shopping at Powell or medical at Rockridge and MacArthur.

2. 68% of BART riders have a car available to them and 21% of riders have parking available to them for free at their destination. However 42% of the folks who travel on BART only in the East Bay have access to free parking.

3. 58% of riders have been doing so for over a year.

4. What I found the most interesting, BART which was designed for the Automobile gets a large amount of car trips from home as the origin. Some places have less such as 18th Street which gets 81% of passengers from walking. 12% of people at Ashby bike to the station(Berkeley is full of more bikers to BART in general).

The reason the origin is interesting is the reason why the destination is interesting as well. The design of the system tells how it is being used. While designed for cars from the burbs, the areas that are urban get more walking trips. And the destinations are walking destinations too meaning that the more places we can connect with BART, the more people will take the line if close to employment. Also, if you have more urban stations, people use them for short trips.

5. BART Customers follow the makeup of the region in terms of income and ethnicity.

So there is much more information in there, but these were what I found most interesting. I think really it teaches us that we need to be intelligent in how we design systems. If we put more stations near destinations, more people will use the system.

Unofficial Gas Tax

This is what you're paying for in other cities around the world:

Prepared by the Emirate’s Department of Transport, with assistance from Mott MacDonald and Steer Davis Gleave, the master plan aims to create a comprehensive public transport network connecting Abu Dhabi island and the international airport with the UAE’s planned new capital city. The main proposals include:

• 590 km of regional high speed railway linking Abu Dhabi with neighbouring emirates and countries;
• 130 km of metro lines linking key areas in Abu Dhabi, including the airport, the new capital city, Yas Island and the central business zone;
• 30 tram projects in Abu Dhabi and Al Ain totalling 340 km;
• highway improvements totalling 1 560 route-km;
• demand management measures to support the infrastructure, including parking management and possible congestion charges.

Your "tax" dollars at work. Why can't we keep it at home?

Why Not the Gas Tax?

Why isn't raising the gas tax the answer? It's not like gas prices aren't going to go up $2 at some point. It's silly to say we're not going to raise gas taxes 10 cents when two dollars will happen in a summer. If there is such a pressing need for transportation money, this should be a viable alternative. The money is going to leave your pocket in either tolls or gas tax money or mileage tax money. Why not leave all options on the table?

Charlotte Leaders Want Money for More Roads

Ughh. Don't they have enough roads already? It's really upsetting to see that knowing what they saw happen along the south corridor, they are still looking to build more roads. What about sidewalks? What about bike lanes? What about real expanded transit. Charlotte itself knows what happens when you invest more in service. You get more riders! But never give a single family developer (who is the chair of this group) an inch, or a few miles of highway, cause they'll take it. From the Transport Politic:

The argument goes something like this: Charlotte approved a 1/2¢ sales tax for transit back in 1998, and the business community helped work successfully against a repeal vote in 2007. Now, though, whatever the needs of the transit system, roads need to be better funded, because the region’s highways are not keeping up with demand. The development community - focused mostly on building single-family houses and office parks entirely designed for the auto-dependent - is adamant in its push for more roads.

Upgrades, No New Transit for Chicago Olympics

So says the bid book for the 2016 Olympics bid:

Chicago’s consolidated and compact venue plan places 21 sports, the Olympic Village and the IBC/MPC along Lake Shore Drive, a magnificent thoroughfare on the shores of Lake Michigan. An additional 4 sports will take place within the Olympic Ring. Venues have been proposed near existing public-transit lines and high capacity roadways, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and eliminating the need for any new lines or roads. Thorough pedestrian and vehicle flow modeling will ensure the safe, efficient movement of all constituent groups.

In addition, the plan is to have a two tiered dedicated road lane system for moving people around and increase headways of existing transit.

Olympic Lanes will connect venues and provide freeflowing, safe transport for Olympic Family vehicles and spectator shuttles on a network of more than 590 km of dedicated roadways.
...
To meet the heightened demand for rail transport, Chicago will increase the frequency of train cars during the Games period.

Now that's not to that using funds to upgrade existing systems in need of serious funding is bad. That is an extreme need Chicago and other legacy systems have needed for a while. The book states that over $1.5 billion would be budgeted for track, signal and terminal facility upgrades of CTA Heavy rail lines, $2.8 billion for Metra Commuter rail upgrades. This is half of what is planned for O'Hare at $8.2 billion dollars. (Update: Payton says that these are already budgeted in regular formula funding, meaning there would be no new expenditures for the Olympics) I would like to see this coincide with a plan and start of high speed rail lines into Chicago from other regions. It would be amazing if a plan was set in place to upgrade infrastructure like this so that it could be in place for the Olympics. Talk about stimulus.

But the plan lacks imagination for my taste. Especially considering what could happen if they spent $10 billion dollars on dedicated rapid streetcar lanes. That would be 333 miles of new fixed rail infrastructure that would serve the city long after the Olympics. Think about the reduced energy usage, the reduced operations costs per passenger and the increase in value that would be generated by such an ambitious expansion plan. Alas nothing like this is planned and no new transit infrastructure would be built.

So if Chicago is really getting nothing new out of this in terms of transit but the idea of pedestrian ways is something I'm willing to think about. Is there specific bike infrastructure for the city in these ped ways? Will there be consideration to keeping these ped ways after the Olympics are over? The big question is though, is an Olympic bid worth it?

I'm still fuming at Gavin for screwing this up for San Francisco. It would be amazing to have the games here and it surely would have pushed for serious upgrades to infrastructure and a speeding up of long term projects that need to be sped up. That said, its expensive and you have to weight the pros and cons. But being able to live in the city and go see the track events would have been amazing for this former aspiring olympian. I'll get to the Olympics eventually. Hopefully here in San Francisco.

H/T Payton C via FB Status

The Mission

If you choose to accept it, is to only build a transit system for people who can't afford to have a car. If you deviate from said mission, you will be endangering the... eh why should we listen to guys like this?

Once again, UTA has demonstrated that it doesn't have a clear idea of its mission. Should UTA provide sensible, economical public transportation to the Wasatch Front, or should it just build things? Should it try to serve the population that cannot use automobiles, or should it spend public funds in an impossible quest to lure wealthy commuters to mass transit?

In fact yes, public transit should provide quality transportation for those who can not use automobiles. But we shouldn't say you're poor so you can't have quality service. Perhaps we should start saying, you're rich, so why should we subsidize that suburban freeway. You can pay for it. There are many reasons to provide great transit service instead of just adequate including the idea that better transit for those who need it most is better transit that can be used by all. Complaining about it just makes it look like the forces of better transit are winning. Cheers to that.

Muni History - Video of Twin Peaks Tunnel Opening

George B sent this to one of my email lists and if you're from San Francisco you'll appreciate it for sure.

Milwaukie Max Gets into PE

I hope that means that the New Starts Report lists are coming out soon. Can't wait for that data mine. Makes me wonder what other lines made it into Preliminary Engineering. Here's an interesting look though into what happens when transit agencies submit to the FTA.

In applying for preliminary engineering, TriMet sent the transit administration a six-foot stack of documents on the project.

What a waste of paper. I'm sure everyone has a copy.

Calculating Social Justice

I love how the blogosphere works. Someone posts on an older story and makes it relevant again and it screams across the blogs like a meteor. Today STB posted on an older Intermodality post that got to Ryan which I imagine is where it got picked up by Markos of teh big Orange.

Kos' post also brought me to this post at A Future Oakland that put forward some fun stats that drive me crazy every time the social justice folks bring them up, which they do often. The issue I have is with the use of the National Transit database to compare subsidy across different mode types for the sole purpose of saying that one mode is better for poor or minority folks than others. Why they always want to pick this fight is beyond me and its a symptom of thier not being able to connect the different types of modes and thier function to regional job opportunty expansion for lower income job seekers. Check out this chart from Public Advocates dot org, a law firm devoted to social justice.

You can see that the chart doesn't discuss income levels but rather race, I imagine as a proxy for income levels? I'm also not sure what they mean by subsidy but I'm guessing its Capital funding+operating per rider? And as an issue, these lines all perform different services at different distances which affects the costs. No mention that BART and Caltrain riders pay higher fares than AC Transit riders. No mention that per passenger mile (a standard measure across modes), Caltrain and BART are far more efficient than AC Transit. There are a couple of reasons for this and AC's would be better compared to itself if it didn't include the less productive routes or $40 a trip paratransit but those are necessary services.

I want to believe in the social justice movement but they shoot themselves in the foot with dumb charts like this that don't tell me anything except that they don't understand transit operations or regional connectivity to jobs for lower income workers. If I were arguing on the social justice angle, I would start by saying that funding for road expansions is being wasted on suburbs that are leaching tax base and making people spend more of thier hard earned money on transportation. We also shouldn't be saying that AC is more efficient because thats false based on per passenger mile comparison and its operating type. Comparing AC to Caltrain per rider based on 20 mile trip versus a mile or two mile trip is rediculous and doesn't get us anywhere. Based on the 2007 NTD here are the comparisons for operating costs:

Caltrain is 27 cents per passenger mile.
BART is 34 cents per passenger mile
AC is $1.32 per passenger mile.

If we're going to look at capital and operating per passenger mile, it comes out to this in 2007:

BART: 50.9 cents per passenger mile
Caltrain: 60.3 cents per passenger mile
AC Tranist: $1.57 per passenger mile

Versus a Per Trip operations calculation:

AC Transit is $4.02
BART is $4.21
Caltrain is $7.28

What the argument should be is that expansion funding should stop going to stuff like ebart and expansion freeways and should start going to core expansion of AC Transit, Muni, BART, Caltrain Metro East etc. Put the transit where the riders are and it will be helpful for everyone to connect with job opportunities.

This culture war against rail that takes people to job centers in places like Concord and Walnut Creek needs to stop. Would it be more efficient to run buses? No. First that means more cars on the freeway because less people would be taking transit. It also means that more of downtown Oakland and San Franciso would be parking lots inducing less walking trips overall. But if we didn't look at regional transit systems, we would be allowing the bay area fiefdoms of transit to limit the job opportunities for low income workers. In Portland, the Max lines actually allow workers to reach a greater number of opportunities. This 2006 paper on economic development for the FTA by Strategic Economics shows an interesting chart below. But basically regional connectivity provides more opportunities for jobs that make it possible for upward mobility.

A preliminary analysis of transit ridership by industry and occupation in Portland, Oregon indicates that fixed guideway transit connects to more diverse employment opportunities than local bus. An Entropy Index was used to measure the diversity of incomes for occupations in industries with the highest percentage of transit ridership in the region. Entropy index scores are stated as a decimal and the lower the number, the more concentrated the occupational and income mix within that industry.

As Table 1 shows, industries with high percentages of bus ridership also tend to have low Entropy Index scores for an overall average of 0.54. For the most part, these were industries with a high percentage of low wage jobs. However, industries where workers use fixed guideway transit and/or bus and fixed guideway transit to get to work had a much greater diversity income diversity with an average index score of 0.89. This analysis demonstrates that fixed-guideway transit provides connectivity to jobs with different income opportunities, and possibly greater opportunities for advancement, while bus provides the best connectivity for workers in predominantly low-income industries with little opportunity for advancement.

If anything, the issue of expansion should point to the fact that suburban jurisdictions have too much power in how transportation funds are allocated. If it were equitable towards the core, services such as AC Transit would get more funding for more service, but it wouldn't make them more efficient in moving people. They are still a bus company.

This should tell you that MTC is shafting Oakland and San Francisco by not spending more on more efficient rail and metro type service for trunk lines that would serve hundreds of thousands of people. Compare the expansion of BART to San Jose versus a Geary Subway. A Geary Subway would cost around $3 billion and carry 100,000 riders easy the first day. The BART to San Jose line will not get anywhere close to that ridership number and cost a lot more money. These are the decisions that are being made based on regional politics rather than real expansion needs. The up front costs are more but the efficiency of operations leads to less cuts and better travel times for all riders in the core and connections beyond.

Just because people are poor or of a different race doesn't mean they deserve inferior or just one type of service. A network of service that serves different travel sheds is the best way to get people to thier jobs and open up the region for opportunity for all. The fight against the modes that take people further needs to be better thought out as a regional strategy for improving core service rather than pitting modes against each other, especially operations as efficient as BART or Caltrain. It's not very productive and the way the social justice movement is going now can only fail if they are going to bring data such as the chart above to the game.

Flame on...

The Indigo Line

The Fairmount Line is the only T Commuter rail line that stays within the Boston city limits. It's also been neglected over the years with poor maintenance and limited stations through one of the more challenged neighborhoods in Boston. However there have been recent plans by the CDCs to add five or so stations and make this line a part of the rapid transit network and use the new station construction to get better service on the line as well as more opportunities for affordable housing. Because of the patterns of parcelization and built out nature of the corridor, it would be hard to expect a major renaissance but small progress is to be expected.

Better service would definitely improve the corridor too. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Recent planning and funding put forward by the Patrick administration suggests that this will be done soon but rejoicing should wait until its actually complete. For more information on this corridor, check out the report chapter by Reconnecting America that discusses tools and policies for revitalization. (Warning, 38MB)