Why You Should Not Vote for Article 32

Article 32 is an authorization to spend $150,000 to plan for the creation of a non-transportation, seasonal linear park.  The reality of this Article and whole project is that the BFRT does not simply impact Sudbury but all towns which this project runs through.  The finance committee is right to not recommend what is clearly now an ill-conceived project.  In light of the hopeless traffic problems on 117 and other area roads, this project needs to evolve from a 1987 "feel good" idea into a real regional transportation solution. 

A Rail WITH Trail corridor would be a real solution that would benefit, seniors, commuters, those without cars AND trail enthusiasts.

While I can understand that many are concerned about trail completion, the issue to me is that exclusive use of these irreplaceable right of ways should never have been dedicated to trail-only use.  The need for more non-auto/road transportation choices is many years, if not decades, overdue.
The fact remains that trail users represent a fraction of the general public and that the currently built trails have done virtually nothing to curb the paralyzing traffic that occurs on all our major roadways *every* single weekday morning
and evening. 

It is clear that highway expansion is not the answer otherwise we would have seen great benefit from the 13 BILLION dollars we spent on the Big Dig and the 300+ million we spent on widening route 3 from NH to Burlington. 

WBZ traffic report tells us every 10 minutes during the weekday commutes how clearly these expensive projects failed to relieve our chronic congestion.

The biggest cause of gridlock (among many) is now all the roads that connect to the highways are overwhelmed and
also need to be expanded.  This now will affect small communities directly  - imagine that route 27 or 117 is expanded to a 4 lane road through so it can accommodate the Route 2, 111, 119, 126, 62 and Route 20 traffic that has been fed from 128 and 495. 

Is this truly practical?

Obviously no.

Again, I can sympathize with the desire to complete these proposed trails but the courage to change the course of a  a project to benefit a vastly greater number of citizens must be found. 

I cite as an example Governor Sargent's remarkable courage and foresight, in 1972, to cancel the I-95 and Route 3 extensions  to inside Route 128 to the also cancelled I-695 inner loop.  These large projects were well under way when cut back to 128 only.  Can you image what our auto congestion would be now if they had been completed as planned?

Check out the following Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Massachusetts#History


The way the trails are currently planned does not allow for a light rail line because the trails are located in the center of the right of way.

What needs to happen is a fast track effort to create a workable Rail with Trail design (and they are workable based on the Rails with Trails  report from the Rails to Trails Conservancy.
 

This plan keeps the trail concept and allows for a regional sea-change in transportation choices for the rest of  the traveling / commuting public.

Here is a great quote from Fred Salvucci concerning Sargent's courage regarding the highway cancellation projects:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_W._Sargent#Anti_Inner_Belt

Frederick P. Salvucci, an engineer, said this of Sargent and the cancellation of the inner belt (I-695 around Greater Boston inside 128):

Yes, of course. In many ways the most thrilling moment in the history of the anti-highway fight was when we won. And then Governor Sargent went on television and said, basically, he had been the public works commissioner who had fought for the inner belt earlier in his career and, as governor he said it was a mistake and "I'm going to admit that mistake and stop the program and we're going to shift towards public transportation." I mean it was thrilling. It was thrilling for us that had worked hard on it, but also, in fairness to Sargent how often do you see a public official who gets up and says, "I was wrong"? I mean it was an incredibly courageous hing for Frank Sargent to do, and I'm a Democrat. I don't say many good things about republicans. But he was a great man. I mean he had worked for this program. He always had an environmentalist bent to him. [A] lot of people do political analysis as to why he did this or that. I think he just believed what he said. "This was a mistake and we're going to go in a different direction." It was a thrilling moment in the history of it.

And then we actually moved in that new direction. I mean we shifted the funds, partly under Governor Sargent, partly under Governor Dukakis. Those monies that were going to go into destroying those neighborhoods or building the highways were shifted into refurbishing the commuter rail system, extending the Red Line, relocating the Orange Line, basically rebuilding the public transportation infrastructure of the city. That came out of that decision and another component of the same decision -- you can go check that speech that Frank Sargent gave -- was that the only highways that would continue to be studied within Route 128 would be the depression and widening of the Central Artery and the extension of I-90 over to Logan in an additional tunnel, the two components that are today called the Big Dig.

Those were really part of that, if you will, anti-highway -- "anti-highway's" probably the wrong name -- pro-city decision that was made by Frank Sargent to shift towards a transportation strategy that would build the city instead of destroying it.

So the Town of Sudbury has the opportunity to show the same sort of courage that Governor Sargent did in the 70's and bring our whole region into the 21st century with an integrated  transportation loop that also allows for recreation.

Some concerns that people always have:

"What about Safety - trains are dangerous!"

Fact: Cars kill far more people than trains every year.  Check out the Rails with Trails study on the RailTrail Conservacy website which addresses the safety record of existing Rail with Trail projects.

"We need to finish this now -it's been so long" 

What is needed now is to redirect scarce public money for planning for our economic and environmental future, not building trails that have no impact on our chronic traffic and auto pollution woes.

"But the other Towns endorse it!"  Really?  Is that what should drive a decision in Sudbury?

"Why are you saying something now instead of years ago?"  I have been promoting this idea for over 10 years to MAPC, MAGIC, Marc Daisen's public meetings, Jamie Eldridge, Jen Benson and other legislators.  The fact that I work full time and have a family means that I can't attend every MAPC / CTPS / MPO meeting to promote this much more inclusive plan, unfortunately.  The above mentioned people and groups seem to think we can pave our way out of our auto congestion.  Do you think it is working?

Vote NO on 32 and make a statement for a real solution for Sudbury and the greater Metro West.

I will post a conceptual map of this idea later.