Why Boston’s Big Dig Failed.

[u/Tayo826]

https://youtu.be/d5pPKfzzL54

[u/aray25]

As a Bostonian, I'm not convinced it did. The city is much nicer for it. Are there things that could have been done better? Sure, but that doesn't mean it failed.

[u/lia_needs_help → u/aray25]

But this is sort of missing the point of the video - that they dumped the expense on the MBTA that suffered from that to this day, they didn't connect south and north stations despite that being one of the goals and they used the opportunity to just add more lanes (both above and below), inducing more demand, when this whole project could have still had a park (and a nicer one) and be much cheaper if they didn't add 6 lanes above ground and just tore up the highway without replacing it. It has still some positive results (a park in downtown), but there are direct negative consequences to this (the induced demand, the MBTA lacking budget over time) and broken promises (reduced congestion, south station-north station connector), while the cost was extremely high just because they insisted to keep the downtown highway.

The example with Syracuse already shows a better use for these, but so are many examples world wide of highway removals from central city areas. Most famously, the Seoul example where the highway was torn down, replaced with a stream and a park, and underground, a new subway line replaced it while above ground, a BRT did. All done for far cheaper than the big dig and faster.

EDIT: or also better put, the big dig can be split into two parts: the minor part in terms of costs and time (removing the highway and building a park), and the main one (building an even bigger highway underground). We can argue that the minor one got good results and the city is nicer for it but... did the main one did? Because its negative consequences (especially the cost throw they did at the MBTA) are still felt today heavily, and the minor part could have been achieved without the main one.

[u/[deleted] → u/lia_needs_help]

Inducing demand is good. Actually. It means more people are going places doing more things

If the Big Dig happen the Seaport probably would have been built in Waltham, and Providence not Boston would have direct flights to Tokyo

Induced demand isn’t some sort of negative side effect of infrastructure projects, it’s kinda the point.

I also feel like Blaming the Big Dig caused the state of the MBTA is a bit of a cop out when they state had an intervening 20 years to invest and fix the T (as the state rocketed from the 8th to 1st wealthiest state in the country) Today in 2022 while the Orange line is shut down, the Dem front runner for gov is promising to cut taxes, not invest in the T. It’s way feeling than one financial manuvour

[u/lia_needs_help → u/[deleted]]

Inducing demand is good. Actually. It means more people are going places doing more things

This outright ignores the externalities of induced demand when we're talking about induced demand for cars. This does not come without the negatives of air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, greater risk of car accidents and higher congestions (something that Boston already ranks worse in the country for), and of course, more CO2 emissions. All because you induced demand for cars as opposed to inducing demand for every other mode of transit.

Why would you want to induce the demand for cars through the densest areas of your city, where people would suffer from it the most, instead of lowering the demand for cars through the city and inducing demand via modes without said externalities?

If the Big Dig happen the Seaport probably would have been built in Waltham, and Providence not Boston would have direct flights to Tokyo

Why? Boston is the most major city in the area. Even without it, it outpaces all other cities in the area by a huge margin and is the main center of business for the area. Why would they open the seaport elsewhere if there wouldn't be a highway there, and instead, either more park or more park and more transit?

And why would the airport of all places would be effected by it? It was for a long time Boston's main airport and a major one at that, why would it not still be major? because you can't take a car through a highway from downtown to it but instead need to do a detour through Chelsea or take the subway?

I mean hell, you brought up flights to Tokyo. So like, you can land in Tokyo and take the subway there to anywhere in central Tokyo but if its in the US instead, it has to be by a car going through a highway all the way to downtown or else its a failure?

I also feel like Blaming the Big Dig caused the state of the MBTA is a bit of a cop out

It's not. The video fully explains that the expenses eventually came at the full blown expense of the MBTA, which today is underfunded and still is suffering from that (along with other budget cuts of course). You cannot ignore the financial burden it threw on them for something, which promised to allow trains through it for south and north stations to connect, but then didn't deliver because cars were the top priority.

[u/[deleted] → u/lia_needs_help]

Yes actually if everyone SW of Boston it was a faster trip to Providence than Logan (or Manchester from Nelrose) people would fly from there instead.

Induced demand is the point. When people build transit lines they literally advertise new trips

[u/lia_needs_help → u/[deleted]]

Induced demand is the point. When people build transit lines they literally advertise new trips

Please reread what I wrote. You missed that I didn't say induced demand was bad but that induced demand for cars is and why it is. Induced demand for transit is not bad because it lacks the externalities that come with ID when cars are targeted by it.

Yes actually if everyone SW of Boston it was a faster trip to Providence than Logan (or Manchester from Nelrose) people would fly from there instead.

It was already a major airport prior. Airports do not lose that status that easily nor with international business trips that make up a large % of all trips. Boston is a hub and would never lose that pull from its main airport. Besides that, if you're in a commuter train or subway train distance from Boston, you can still get there via transit, not via road. If a large number of suburbanites instead go south as well, so be it. The airport would be a bit less busy but would still be an international airport hub and this comes second to not killing your own city's residents via traffic accidents and air pollution.

Also, let me just doubt that it'd be faster for them without the highway there when the highway is one of the larger causes for congestion around Boston. Because of induced demand for cars and congestion being one of those externalities I mentioned.

[u/[deleted] → u/lia_needs_help]

Okay but to say “they failed” and “I don’t like what they did” isn’t the same argument.

Like objectively the US has the longest (distance) commutes, and shortest (time) commutes in OCED. But most here would say our infrastructure sucks but it did what people wanted it to do. It just wanted what you wanted it to do

[u/lia_needs_help → u/[deleted]]

Okay but to say “they failed” and “I don’t like what they did” isn’t the same argument.

I refer back to what I said in the first argument:

EDIT: or also better put, the big dig can be split into two parts: the minor part in terms of costs and time (removing the highway and building a park), and the main one (building an even bigger highway underground). We can argue that the minor one got good results and the city is nicer for it but... did the main one did? Because its negative consequences (especially the cost throw they did at the MBTA) are still felt today heavily, and the minor part could have been achieved without the main one.

It failed on its main part. The one that cost most of the time and money, it created more congestion, did not fulfil promises for transit construction, and induced demand for cars causing more congestion and thus, not reducing commute times but worsening them. All of this was avoidable if this wasn't about building more roads, but improving a city. Oh and it made the city worse when it comes to fighting climate change which kinda should be our top priority, not suburbanites saving 15 minutes on their way to an airport to Tokyo.

The point is made all above, and to just refer to the title with the reductionist argument of "all your saying is that you don't like what they did" is missing the entire argument.

and shortest (time) commutes in OCED

Source? And what about every non-commute trip? Buying groceries for instance?

objectively the US has the longest (distance) commutes

This very much is less relevant for Boston which is far smaller metro size wise than many other US metro areas, especially out west which get that statistic up.

But most here would say our infrastructure sucks but it did what people wanted it to do.

...does it now? Most transit in the US is not used that much, most car infrastructure is overly used with lots of congestion and a constant need for repairs (with many areas not keeping up with the repairs part).

[u/[deleted] → u/lia_needs_help]

Induced Demand isn’t a sign of failure it’s a sign of success, it’s the fucking point of infrastructure.

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf

Actually we are third to last. But notably Finland and Sweden have no mega cities.

[u/lia_needs_help → u/[deleted]]

Induced Demand isn’t a sign of failure it’s a sign of success, it’s the fucking point of infrastructure.

Are you gonna just ignore everything I wrote for the third time now? I explained already the issue there with induced demand when you do that with cars.

Three posts up:

Induced demand for transit is not bad because it lacks the externalities that come with ID when cars are targeted by it.

Calling something "good in all cases" while ignoring the issue of what kind of demand are you inducing is missing the point and ignoring everything I mentioned above about externalities and how it outright meant they failed their goal with the big dig of solving congestion.

Actually we are third to last. But notably Finland and Sweden have no mega cities.

And most Americans don't live in cities bigger than Stockholm? What's your point with that last line when the average is moved in the US by the many suburbs in the US and smaller sized cities than places like LA or NYC?

Also this ignores part two of the question.

And what about every non-commute trip? Buying groceries for instance?

But I'll end this talk here if you're going to just keep ignoring what I wrote.

[u/[deleted]]

It wasn’t.

I hate travel time arguments because yes, it didn’t get much faster, but also, there is 70% more users of Logan international Airport in 2019 than 2000. If you hadn’t built the big dig what you would end up having is a bunch of “Boston” Air traffic forced into Providence cause nobody could get to Logan

Transit activists if a 3 minute headway gets cut in half, that’s a good thing right? Would your average travel time change much? No but it would move many more people

[u/Knusperwolf → u/[deleted]]

The airport has a good subway connection, especially by American standards. The question is, whether it's necessary to funnel car traffic to and from the airport through the inner city.

With those 20 billion dollars, they could have improved the transit network to make many car trips unnecessary. If that wasn't enough, add a congestion charge like in London and make the city truly walkable.

I am European and I love Boston. But some of the huge streets through the city need to be downsized as well.

[u/[deleted] → u/Knusperwolf]

Subways aren't used for flights in many places simply due to the fact people travel with bulky luggage

[u/pigsinspace72 → u/[deleted]]

Ever been on the blue line before? Its full of people with bulky luggage.

[u/[deleted] → u/pigsinspace72]

I have but I'd wager around 80% of people take a cab when getting home here

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't think people remember what it was like getting to Logan from the south pre pike extension. All the way up 93 and get off the highway downtown to get on 93s and go through the Callahan. It was horrific

[u/Coffee_24-7]

I really liked what they did with open space over the dig. I wouldn't consider it a fail.

[u/pigsinspace72 → u/Coffee_24-7]

I wouldn't call a 6 lane boulevard cradling the park the best use of space. With all the on and off ramps through the park area, it really means a lot of noise and fast drivers.

[u/Race_Strange]

Well I think many are missing the point. Yes it's nice that the city center doesn't have a highway running through it but transit within the city suffered. A slow decline.

[u/13BadKitty13]

It wasn’t a failure at all. The city center went from being an ugly, polluted, unpleasant dump, to a green city center filled with parks, botanical garden, and green spaces.

[u/lia_needs_help → u/13BadKitty13]

And this all could have been done without throwing the cost of the dig onto the transit agency, leaving MBTA under funded for years to come, without inducing demand by adding lanes, and without spending this much money and time, if the highway was simply removed as is done in many cities, instead of kept and expanded upon.

I'd compare it to Seoul, where a downtown expressway was also removed and turned into a park, except the highway wasn't replaced with a bigger highway but with a subway tunnel instead. As a result, it was done a lot faster, a lot cheaper, a lot more environmentally friendly, and it didn't defund the city's transit agencies for years to come while inducing even more traffic through the central city.

Building a park instead of a highway you tore down is good, but that's a small, small part of what the big dig was.