When it comes to Question 3 — that is, whether to repeal the state’s casino law — I’m a NIBBY voter.

Not In Boston’s Backyard.

Continue reading below

I live in Charlestown, and perhaps geography is destiny when it comes to this issue. As anyone who drives regularly through Sullivan Square knows, the traffic there, long bad, has gotten considerably worse in recent years. But honestly, I was going to keep my neighborhood concerns to myself, column-wise anyway, until I got a call from Fred Salvucci, the former state secretary of transportation whose combination of vision and determination led to the Tip O’Neill and Ted Williams tunnels. For those who don’t know Salvucci, he is to transportation systems what Muhammad Ali was to boxing. What Louis Pasteur was to bacteriology. What August Kekule was to chemical structure. Which is to say, he’s a legendary heavyweight, but someone who also delves into the details. And his crucial point is this: The way to think about Steve Wynn’s Everett casino proposal is not as a tradeoff that would bring more jobs at the cost of more traffic, but rather as a competitor for the same limited highway capacity that other forms of economic development need. Estimates are that the Everett casino would generate 25,000 vehicle trips a day, two-thirds of which would go through Sullivan Square. That extra usage, Salvucci says, will overtax Sullivan Square’s traffic-handling capacity.“Traffic will back up onto I-93 in both directions, and it will also back up traffic to the Assembly Square area, which is essentially working off the same ramps,” said Salvucci. That will obviously hurt the impressive redevelopment already underway in that area. “You will have really undermined the investments that have been made in Assembly Square, and you are also putting up a big obstacle to the further development of the Brickbottom section of Somerville,” he says. THE PODIUM | Fred Salvucci: Proposed Wynn casino will exacerbate Sullivan Square traffic

But it’s not just Somerville and Charlestown that will suffer the consequences. I-93 is already near full capacity, Salvucci notes. That means the added casino traffic will likely slow or clog that crucial transportation artery, particularly if the line of vehicles on the off-ramps stretches back up onto the highway itself.

Every driver knows how a backup of that sort affects traffic across all lanes of a highway. Such slowdowns will have serious time consequences for anyone who depends on I-93, either as part of their commute or for business purposes.

In sum, then, an Everett casino would present a real problem for the entire region.

For my money, that makes the right decision on Question 3 a vote to repeal casino gambling; the way this question is worded, that means a yes vote.

But what about Springfield, where some city leaders consider MGM’s better-fitting casino plan vital to the city’s renaissance? Well, if the law is repealed but Springfield voters weigh in strongly in favor of keeping it, legislators could authorize a single casino for that city. (Both of the major gubernatorial candidates have suggested they would consider such an accommodation.)

As for the Boston area, however, it’s simply not worth gambling away our valuable roadway capacity on an urban casino.

Scot Lehigh can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh.