Exhaustive study shows Hub remains high-octane paradise
by Beth Teitell

Thursday, May 10, 2001

Ha. Ha. I hate to gloat, but the 2001 Urban Mobility Study came out this week, and a certain city - it was New York, but you didn't hear it from me - didn't make the top 10.

Let them have their Broadway and their Yankees and their diminutive neurotic film directors: We still rank seventh in the nation for traffic congestion. From now on, New York, no more whining about how long it takes to get to the Hamptons, OK?

The study found Hub commuters waste an average of 63 gallons of fuel per year stuck in traffic. I don't want to get my hopes up, but if gas prices rise to $2 a gallon, that would be $126 per person.

Like everyone else, I was nervously awaiting the study's release (the Tony nominations were announced, too, but who could focus?), and boy, did I breathe a sigh of relief when Boston held its No. 7 position from 1999, the last time the study was done.

My only fear is that we're going to get complacent. We've got the Big Dig going for us now, but what's going to happen if they actually finish it? Or, banish the thought, if the state ever figures out a way to fix Cape traffic?

Don't get me wrong. I admire what our transportation planners have done - the confusing signage, the construction work scheduled during rush hour, the five lanes merging into one, the roads with multiple names (am I on 93 or 95 or 128?). And the rotaries? Genius, sheer genius!

The Fast Lane pass is great, too. It initially seemed like a threat to our bad name, I admit, but I've been impressed with the fact that it only works if you go really slowly through the tollbooth, and that non-Fast-Lane-passed drivers often end up in the speed lane, mucking things up as they try to make their way to a manned booth.

But it must be noted that mistakes have been made, too. Earlier this month we learned the Boston Transportation Department will stop allowing civilian parking at 200 metered spots on Boylston and Newbury streets weekday mornings. The move is aimed at making it easier for couriers and contractors to park while making deliveries, but it also will - unfortunately - ease congestion in the Back Bay.

That's traffic we can't afford to lose, people. If we're not careful, we're going to end up like Corpus Christi, Texas, anchoring the bottom of the list.

I don't know if you saw the study, but it will come as no surprise that California hogged all the glory. They've already got the power crisis going for them, and now they go and grab not only the top two traffic congestion spots (Los Angeles and San Francisco-Oakland), but No. 6 as well (San Diego). In between are Chicago, Seattle and Washington, which tied for third.

I hate to sound like a sky-is-falling person, but I'm nervous about the future. Yesterday, a woman who recently moved to the suburbs and started commuting by car told me her drive isn't as bad as she expected.

``After all the hype I'm kind of disappointed,'' she said. ``I'm only inconvienced for about 10 minutes a day. I expected more honking, more middle fingers. The traffic thing is a fake.''

For obvious reasons, I can't use her name, but lady, you know who you are: Get some civic pride, or I'm diming you out.