E-Mail This Article to a Friend T-easing pollution, continued

In 1985, the MBTA suspended service (supposedly temporarily) in the Arborway Corridor, hoping that riders would switch to the recently revamped Orange Line. "There has not been any significant increase" in Orange Line traffic, said Michael Reiskind, who lives on South Huntington Street. That assertion is supported by MBTA numbers, which show Orange Line ridership hovering around 22,500 per day, and #39 bus ridership steadily declining from more than 27,500 daily in the 1980s (when the bus first replaced the streetcar), to a little more than 14,000 today.

For many, the #39 bus has become an unwelcome stand-in, and the debate over the entire project has become a he-said-she-said argument, with both sides citing surveys and studies that back up their positions.

"The 39 bus is problematic in a number of ways," says Franklyn Salimbene, a JP resident who chairs the Arborway Committee that seeks the trolley’s return. "The only way you can attract people to public transportation is if the service is reliable and if it is run so that it doesn’t require people to make transfers."

The #39 accomplishes neither goal; its schedule is often criticized as erratic, and to take it downtown requires a switch from bus to train. Ridership has dropped significantly on the bus line since it was established, and Salimbene thinks poor service has sent more JP residents to their cars. In the opposite direction, he fears the inconvenience discourages people from visiting JP’s many shops and restaurants.

But arguments against bringing the train back to JP are just as numerous. Business owners have signed petitions fretting about lost parking spaces (parking would be lost completely on one side of the street), residents gripe about increased congestion (which would, incidentally, have negative effects on air quality), and police and fire officials say that cramped traffic flow could impede emergency vehicles.

"Some JP residents think it is a loss, and I understand that," says Jon Truslow, who co-chairs an anti-trolley-restoration group known as Better Transit Without Trolleys. "But we’ve analyzed the situation, and we believe that bringing the trolley back under today’s situation would not improve Jamaica Plain."

In place of a T extension on Centre and South streets, Mayor Thomas Menino’s administration, along with the EOT and many JP residents, advocate an upgrade of the #39 bus service — including traffic signals that give preference to buses, better-paved roads, cleaner buses that use the latest anti-pollution technology, and GPS systems to streamline the route’s scheduling.

At this point, these might be the most realistic hopes for Jamaica Plain transportation advocates.

BUT WILL IT WORK?

Of course, all of these deliberations take for granted the fact that the best way to decrease pollution is through public-transit projects. But in fact, some suggest that such an assumption may be foolhardy.

Train-transit projects, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and achieve modest air-quality benefits, might be less effective than pushing for higher vehicle-emission standards, better fuel efficiency, and various other clean-energy goals.

To get an idea of the scale of the disparity, consider this comparison from Commonwealth magazine. Last spring, David Luberoff, executive director of the Kennedy School’s Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston wrote: "[I]f the state were instead to target cars that do not meet current emissions standards, it could gain the exact same emissions reductions by finding and fixing fewer than 200 cars now on the road that do not comply with current emissions requirements… In fact, the state probably could identify and replace each of those 200 cars with a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle for about $5 million, which is less than one percent of the cost of the three transit projects."

And then there’s the problem of "latent demand," which holds that new cars will always fill holes left by drivers who depart for public transit, says former state secretary of environmental affairs John Bewick, who works today as an environmental consultant in Hingham. "If you take a car off the road, another one takes its place," knowing there’s more room on the roads. This neutralizes the environmental advantage that would have been achieved in the first place. In this day and age, Bewick says, it’s almost impossible to avoid this problem. Yet state-planning officials don’t consider it enough, he says. Using the Greenbush commuter-rail station, which he lives near and opposes, as an example, Bewick blasts projects that "just don’t take enough people off the roads … Noble objectives, with poor analysis, lead to fiscally irresponsible projects."

Another former environmental-affairs secretary — who was in office when the Central Artery projects to reduce pollution were proposed — says the benefits should be measured in more than tons of carbon emissions.

"I think those who question the need for, or the value of, mitigation see the picture through a very narrow lens," says John DeVillars. "It’s not simply about air-quality benefits. It’s also about the livability and quality of life in metropolitan Boston — bringing back neighborhoods, bringing back housing and economic opportunities."

And while DeVillars doesn't mind that state officials are changing some of the recommendations midstream ("what appeared to make sense in 1990 doesn’t necessarily make sense in 2005"), he wishes they would hurry up about it.

"It’s disappointing that they are taking as long as they have to come to fruition," DeVillars says, "And it will be a good while longer until the full measure of those improvements will be realized. There’s no legitimate reason why these projects shouldn’t have begun in the early 1990s. And the fact that we, as a community, are still bickering over them is unfortunate."

Deirdre Fulton can be reached at dfulton[a]phx.com.