Oil Price Doesn’t Affect Our Mobility, Much
Of course, the price of oil doesn’t just affect those at the gas pump, but the cost of food, services, and goods. So everyone is affected no matter what.
However, I’m struck by how much my husband and I are immured from the direct cost increases of gas. And how this showcases a better way for everyone, if only we had the courage to take it on, I think.
First, I drive a very old car, a Toyota Corolla. It gets maybe 26 or 27 miles to the gallon, so, real high compared to most of the crap people are driving, but certainly not stellar. And yet, its small tank (maybe 10.5 gallons?) gets filled maybe once a week, and the difference between $3/gal and $3.60/gal gas is only $6/week for us.
The bulk of our traveling (between the two of us) is by train - he commutes to Boston for work. It’s not the best of situations…the monthly pass does cost a bit (though, I think we’re now making out ahead on that versus driving due to the high gas) and it’s a looong commute, certainly not great for one’s standard of living (though, he gets lots of reading done!). Once he hits the city, his pass allows him T transit, or he walks. Mostly he walks. It lengthens the commute but also keeps him really healthy. 
I of course work in Lowell, about 3 minutes away from our house. Now that summer is here I’ll probably bike more, and I’m moving my studio/office downtown, so I’ll be within walking distance from a lot of restaurants and other amenities (especially once the Hamilton and JAM developments are underway). I partly chose where I wanted to move my business on that center-of-town convenience.
So that got me thinking - what’s so bad about avoiding commuter traffic, saving gas, and using less fossil fuel? Well, for most people, it’s the fact that public transit doesn’t go where you need to go.
Personally, I think we should consider expanding the rail lines. For instance, connecting the outer “gateway” cities, Haverhill to Lawrence to Lowell to Worcester. Connect the spokes of the hub which is the commuter rail, and suddenly the train becomes a potential alternative to driving (I hate driving to Worcester). Once you get to your city, perhaps an expanded bus route could take you exactly where you needed to be. Unfortunately, the geography between these cities is densely packed, and it would cost a lot to create new rail line, but once created, it could reduce the traffic congestion and our overuse of the highways. What about connecting the inner circle? Reading/Woburn/Lexington/Waltham. In fact, it might be easiest to build new track along the same route as 128 or 495.
That would all be a very ambitious project. And the trend in this country for rail is a decline, not renaissance. However, that’s only because our emphasis is on widening highways and building new ones. Our usage of rail in the Boston area is quite heavy, and I expect many commuters who are frequently stuck on 128 on a daily basis might opt for an alternative if they had it.
It probably wouldn’t cost any more than the Big Dig did, anyway. And it could help save the planet.
Update: In the realm of if-they-can-do-it,-why-not-us, California is contemplating high speed rail Japanese-style.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The price of gasoline is so forefront in everyone’s mind because you don’t even have to buy it to notice the posted price signs everywhere you go. We collectively get more “up in arms” over this result of the failed Bush policies than we do with his errors that cause the problems. Most developed countries have long had higher prices than we, and have used the tax revenue that is a significant component of those high prices to build a better public transportation infrastructure. But John McCain (and Clinton to a lesser degree) tried to get some “mileage” out of the gas tax holiday pandering recently, happily with not too much success.
With a manual transmission and some careful driving I am able to get about 35 mpg, and a 13 gal refill lasts 3-4 weeks, so it is not directly a significant cost for me. But for others it is becoming a financial burden due to long commutes and inadequate gas mileage. It is certainly better to use public transportation when travelling to Boston, but as you point out that is not generally available to other areas.
If the State decided to “connect the spokes” as you have suggested, a possible approach may be to install a monorail type system above the right of way inherent in the medians of the major circulator routes, 495 and 128/95. It would be a big task that would require many local connectors, but without much in the way of land-taking required for the primary routes.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
waitil, what a cool idea! I vote for it.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:52 am
http://www.panamrailways.com/Maps/map.htm
We do have freight rail lines that go throughout eastern Massachusetts. Today, freight trains can go from Haverhill to Lawrence to Lowell to Ayer and then on to Worcester (and down to Providence). Of course, these railroads would need to be upgraded and modified for passenger transportation (not an insignificant cost). The connection between Lawrence and Lowell would take you through Tewksbury at the appropriately named Lowell Junction.
No need for a monorail—we can leave that idea to the only two places in the US where this currently works: Disneyworld and Las Vegas.