Be a superhero. Take the T.

In his column in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser illustrates that densely developed cities are better for the environment than leafy suburbs. The column correctly states that the average household in Boston’s urban core emits significantly fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per year, in part because people in the city drive less. Unfortunately, the column also states that public transportation “does little to balance the scales”— a statement that could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the use of public transit does little to decrease carbon emissions. In fact, Glaeser’s research that formed the basis for his conclusions indicates that although city dwellers tend to use more public transportation than suburbanites, their carbon footprint is still significantly lower precisely because the emissions from transit are modest relative to the contributions of cars. Travel by public transportation emits about half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile than private vehicles, and uses about half the fuel.

Glaeser’s message is clear. If we’re going to minimize our carbon footprint, we need to not only support denser development in downtown Boston, but also greater investment in our underfunded public transportation system.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and innovative transportation for all New Englanders.

MBTA General Manager Richard Davey likes to say “We’re only as good as our last rush hour,’’ and by that standard the T is not doing very well right now. The long delays throughout system on a recent frigid day have enraged commuters and discouraged new riders from getting onboard, as Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz wrote in an article published in yesterday’s paper.

The T, to its credit, did not pretend it was surprised it gets cold in Boston in January. When it discusses the T’s “aging fleet” the Globe hints at the real reason for these delays:  a long list of necessary repairs to its system that the T estimates will cost at least $2.7 billion to address.  Despite the ingenuity of MBTA’s employees to keep the system running, the only way we can ensure that the T runs smoothly in the future is to raise sufficient revenue to pay for much delayed improvements.  While few in government right now want to talk about raising revenue, investment in public transportation infrastructure, not just for the MBTA, but throughout the state, is critical for encouraging economic development, slashing the greenhouse gas pollution changing our climate, improving air quality, and providing affordable and efficient transportation for everyone.

Boston’s iconic Longfellow Bridge serves as a poster child for public transit. Every few minutes, the bridge transports Red Line commuters between Boston and Cambridge, affording its passengers a breathtaking view of the Charles River and Boston skyline– and the parallel lanes of bumper-to-bumper vehicle traffic that the speeding train leaves in its wake. While that’s a positive situation for MBTA riders, it’s a dangerous one for the rest of the city’s commuters who don’t cross the bridge by car– cyclists and pedestrians.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division had released plans to rebuild the historic bridge as is. In May 2010, CLF advocated for an alternative plan that would make the bridge more bike and pedestrian-friendly. In response to CLF’s call to action, MassDOT created the Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation Task Force, which recently released its recommendations on what alternatives should be included in the project’s Environmental Assessment to submit to the Federal Highway Administration.

Last week, CLF submitted written comments to the Administrator of the Highway Division at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in response to those recommendations. In a letter to MasDOT Highway Division Administrator Luisa Paiewonsky, CLF explained that to comply with federal and state law, MassDOT should include at least one strong alternative plan for presentation and analysis that retains the current structure of the bridge throughout while altering its traffic pattern so that only one lane exists in both directions with a two-lane release into Charles Circle on the Boston side. Such an alternative would uphold the structural and architectural integrity of the bridge, help the state reach its health and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and improve safety for bikers and pedestrians.

Learn more about what CLF is doing the improve transportation alternatives in communities throughout New England.