Interesting that they keep bringing up the "Howard Street" argument, especially since it doesn't apply in this instance.

Howard Street, like so many shopping districts in cities across America, has been in a decline for decades. Adding the Light Rail hasn't helped or hindered Howard Street's progress, because the cart was put slightly before the horse. Had redevelopment of Howard Street begun before the rail was put in -- it would have improved Howard Street much more.

Boston Street, however, has been redeveloped and is ripe for public transit. Easier access to the east side of the city will only bring in more customers to existing businesses, and open up more potential for new businesses. From an economic development view, it's a win-win.

I do wish the Red Line route included my neighborhood!

Why is MTA so restrictive to light rail and metro rail, why not put in Monorail. Reduced impact to traffic (it would be above), reduced foot print, no claning bells of the light rail, cheaper than going underground.

I think 4C is better than no build, which is what the underground arguments amount to.

I also think that most of the arguments against surface rail on Boston Street are flawed.

As mentioned above, referencing Howard St. is pointless. I also think it is a stretch to reference Portland because that city is admittedly more focused on transit and progressive planning. However, we can look at many other cities who are either planning new LRT or streetcar systems, or have recently put modern systems (unlike the Central Line here) in place, which have seen significant development surround the lines. Many of these cities parallel Baltimore in their post-industrial state, and some are even more car oriented (like some Texas cities).

Nobody can claim that the Red Line will ease congestion on Boston Street. The MTA study says it won't ease traffic, as noted in the objections above. However, it is conveniently left out that without the Red Line, Boston St will be overwhelmed in a number of years anyways. What is safer and better? A gridlocked street with only cars, or a gridlocked street with less cars and a signal prioritized train still moving through traffic? I would choose the latter.

Which gets to the point of crossing train tracks being dangerous. When Boston St. isn't gridlocked, it is a game of frogger. How is taking a lane of unpredictable traffic away, and replacing it with a very obvious and timed train more dangerous? I can't wrap my head around that one.

Finally comes the crime argument. It needn't be addressed, because if people really think the train will bring crime, their minds are made up. You can only throw so many facts at a person to try and change their mind, then you just have to leave them to their ignorance.

Don't get me wrong; I think there are many better options out there. Canton's entire rennaisance was poorly designed and car oriented from the get go. I love the neighborhood, but it's been planned as a car oriented disaster, and a lot of the complaints about traffic and parking come from the very planning that made the area that way. Alt 4C has to contend with that, which is why I think there are many better options out there, including many of Nate's/TRAC's ideas, as well as those that come from Gerald Neily and others.

But arguing against 4C for the reasons outlined on that site is just plain irksome. And asking for a buried line along Boston or Eastern is just the same as advocating for No Build. It just 'aint gonna happen.

Dave,

Monorails are really, really not the right answer, for so many reasons.

Transport Politic did a nice little article on the "Disney Magic" of Monorail culture.

Check it out: http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/07/06/walt-disney-world-monorail-crashes-shattering-dream/

I agree the Howard Street argument is flawed. After all, what about Westport? That seems to be more valuable with light rail access. Same with Mt. Washington.

So a good number of folks in Canton want the Red Line to be buried under Boston Street. Well that seems fine to me. Let’s create a special tax district in Canton and let them pay for it.

Tim's comment is interesting, and I like that angle of thinking...

Tunneling down Boston St. to Du Burns Arena would be exactly one mile (the cheaper alternative to 4D I assume since it is shorter).

Putting concerns of flooded tunnels aside (think Hurricane Isobel), and tunneling in sand (I assume)...that would cost at least $250 million, right?

I cringe thinking what a special tax district funding that would look like...

How is everyone OK with building a tunnel under a dumpy neighborhood like Cooks Lane but so against building under Canton?

Costs of building underground all the way to Conkling Street according to RK&K are under $200 million, of which 50 is for an underground station. If you come up earlier, say by DuBurns, it costs significantly less.

COMMENT: To the people who live along Cooks Lane, it's not dumpy. It's home. The reasons the MTA is looking to a tunnel there is influenced by the narrowness of the street and the hilly topography. Whatever one thinks of the merits of surface light rail, Boston Street is wider and flatter. That Canton is richer is something the MTA can't take into consideration.

Marty,

Thanks for that figure, I was looking for it but couldn't find it.

As far as Cooks Lane--the street is a narrow 2 way residential street. No median, no shoulder, no parking. You can't compare it to Boston Street. In case you haven't been there to compare:

Cooks Ln: http://tinyurl.com/cookslane

Boston St: http://tinyurl.com/bostonst

Again, I think there are better options than 4C, but tunneling in Canton is a pipe dream without some other method of financing.

Canton generally doesn't want it under Boston--they'd prefer Eastern, but the GBC, et al want Boston because of the not-really-existant Canton Crossing. If you read the Senator Della letter it lays out the points more clearly.

People don't ride the #11 in Canton. Sure if it were rail and it ran more frequently, it would certianly increase, but it would have to increase by a factor of 100! People ride in Fells Point, but not as soon as the bus gets to Boston St, its virtually empty. Accounts from others and myself attest to that--maybe 1 or 2 people on.

It's not worth building along the waterfront so closely, not even dense New York has a subway following the water a block away.

And the argument against Howard St as an example makes a good point, but doesn't mean it's necessarily correct. Too many autos avoid Howard St because of the train and don't know what's there, and even if they did, there's no place to park. Everyone agrees that curb side parking is important to retail, but severe reduction of auto access has sucked the life from Howard. I believe the CLR was the final nail in the coffin--it displaced more people than it brought in. Boston St has a different dynamic; it's an arterial on a waterfront with low transit potential and a very inconsistent frontage of uses. The issues with LRT there are different.

For $600 million we can extend the Metro to the Travel Plaza and short-circuit most of the impending "traffic doom" much more effectively and more amenably than 4C.

Nate Payer
TRAC

Don't let the word Bus in Bus Rapid Transit fool you. It can handle hills, gets priority at intersections and has first class accommodations at stations - Why not learn from others? http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/

Was the URL SelfishUninformedNIMBYfools.org taken?

Seriously though, the real crux of the Canton NIMBYites argument comes in issue #5 of Hammen and Della's letter:

"...making a difficult situation even worse causing the loss of at least 150 parking spaces along Boston Street."

150 parking spaces. That's what we're talking about here folks that the NIMBYites in Canton want to stop the Red Line cold to preserve. The parking in Canton isn't even that bad by the standards of most major cities.Time for these people to wake up and stop acting so selfish about their cars. Reducing reliance on the automobile in the city is exactly why we're building the Red Line in the first place. Plus people in Canton along Boston Street have the benefit of having terrific access to it. They should be thankful, not obstructionist. These folks are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

TELL THE TRUTH THE PEOPLE OF CANTON ARE WORRIED THE RED LINE WILL BRING PEOPLE TO CANTON THAT ARE NOT RED OR BLUE YOU KNOW THE COLOR THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT. SEMPER FI

Why are these Cantonians so worried about a few light rail wires obstructing their view of the water? It's not even a great spot anyway, unless you enjoy looking at a shipping terminal.

I personally think we should just throw in some BRT lanes. It's the cheapest and fastest solution, and it probably is a little more pleasing to the eye, if that's really a concern for the people on the east side. There are a lot of success stories out there with BRT: Cleveland just put in a 7-mile BRT line that they had a private hospital co-sponsor with the city rapid transit authority. It's brought a lot of economic development all along the line.

I think BRT would probably be the cheapest and easiest solution. I don't know why MTA was even looking at a rail system of any kind. It stays above ground the entire time and there's no expensive underground tunneling project that would take years to complete.

As for the folks in Canton, it's interesting that they weren't making all this ruckus a few years ago, when the plans for the Red Line were first being developed.

I think BRT would be a mistake. It still has the bus feel to it that discourages so many people from ever using public transit. Some of the BRT vehicles might look cool, but they still bump and jerk like a bus. I would also assume that MTA would use the 60 foot models they currently have, which really do still resemble a bus.

That's not to mention the fact that BRT doesn't solve any of the complaints Canton and Edmondson Ave have. You still have large vehicles in above ground traffic.

On a more practical note, BRT 3C is LESS cost effective than Light Rail 4C, meaning it would be less likely to get funded.