Perhaps the only good thing about tight financial times is that it forces us to carefully examine our priorities.  For the Maine DOT, that financial reality resulted in the practical and smart decision to shelve the Wiscasset Bypass project.  The preferred bypass route, meant to alleviate traffic on Route 1 in Wiscasset, ME, was shaping up to be expensive– upwards of $100 million. In addition, it would have taken decades to complete, and circumvented the charming downtown of Wiscasset, displaced over 30 homes and businesses and taken land from over 70 landowners in the process.  It would also have ended up being the second longest bridge in Maine.  All of this to alleviate the area’s traffic volume, which has actually been decreasing since 2000.

The summer crowds at the popular Red's Eats are a major contributor to the traffic congestion along Route 1 in Wiscasset, ME. (Photo credit: TripAdvisor)

The writing was on the wall in December 2010, when during a Midcoast Bypass Task Force meeting the DOT laid out the financial reality of what the Department was facing. They reported a $3.3 billion shortfall over the next 10 years and major competing needs for existing infrastructure, such as the Kittery Bridge (which requires $200-$300 million in immediate funding) and immediate repairs needed for arterial and collector highways, all competing against the sobering reality of dwindling fuel tax revenues, a lack of political will to increase fuel taxes or generate other funding mechanisms and a big unknown hanging over the federal funding program.

Yesterday, the Maine DOT Commissioner David Bernhardt announced that the ongoing studies examining a bypass route would be cancelled.  This is the second major transportation planning effort to be cancelled by the LePage Administration– the first was the Gateway 1 project that examined land use and transportation plans for 110 miles of Route 1 from Brunswick to Prospect, ME.

The cancellation of the Wiscasset Bypass may be pegged on the Bald Eagle that decided to build a nest right smack in the middle of the preferred corridor (referred to as N8c) for the bypass; but the truth is that the nest merely provided the Department an opportunity to take a step back and carefully evaluate the wisdom of spending upwards of $100 million on a bypass that would alleviate traffic congestion for a mere 6-8 weeks in the summer.  A significant amount of that congestion can be directly attributable to pedestrian and vehicle crossings in lower downtown Wiscasset.  And yet, dating far back as 1958, when the Wiscasset Master Plan– which included a call for a bypass– was first developed, proposals for a major expenditure of funds for highway expansion have been seen as the only way to solve the congestion problem.

Tighter purse strings provide us with a great opportunity here.  Budget conscious alternatives, such as a traffic signal, a pedestrian bridge over Route 1 or a tunnel under Route 1, reconfiguration of parking in Wiscasset’s downtown business community or a traffic control officer directing the flow of pedestrians and cars can now be given the common sense consideration they deserve.

Last week I had the honor of teaching a group of summer camp students enrolled in the University of Maine’s unique Maine Summer Transportation Institute, a two week program for Bangor-area middle school students.

The event is co-sponsored by the Maine Department of Transportation, the UMaine College of Engineering, and the Federal Highway Administration. It is designed to introduce students at an early age to jobs and careers available in Maine’s transportation industry.

I had 20 students in the class. We started off talking about transit options, different ways of getting around and the pros and cons of each option. Who knew that riding a Galapagos tortoise was a form of transportation?  Well, at least the carbon footprint was low on that option, compared to taking a rocket to the mall.

Then, I divided the kids into five teams. They had 10 seconds to give themselves a name, and soon we were off with the “Chickadees,” the “Destructive 4,” the “No Name 4,” “Team 1/Won” and my personal favorite, the “Guinea Pig Ninjas.”  Each team of four got a huge map of the Bangor area, which they huddled around with pieces of string measuring the distance from their school to their neighborhood. Some kids knew right off the bat: “0.8 miles– I know because I have to walk it” and others were surprised (and a little embarrassed) that their parents drove them when they discovered that other kids were biking the same distance. The team that had the overall shortest distance to school and the smallest carbon footprint in the mode of transportation used to get to school won.  Team No Name took first place with an average distance of 1 mile and three of the kids either walking or biking to school.

At the whiteboard. (Photo credit: Sheila Pendse, UMaine)

Then, in a questionable move on my part, I distributed colorful little Sharpie markers (yes, the permanent kind).  The assignment: design a trolley route that will be of most benefit to the residents of Bangor. The airport and urban areas were big factors. The result (after some creative tattoo work with the markers) ranged from a highly efficient four-mile loop to a 22-mile spiral. One route managed to extend 10 miles out of the way. When I dared to question the wisdom of that route, I was set straight with an exasperated, “because we need to pick up my best friend who lives on that street!”  Duh!

It is fantastic that the state can offer this program to generate interest in an area that continues to pose extreme challenges. Just take a gander at Rep. Mica’s federal Transportation Reauthorization Proposal, which seeks to slash 20% from already underfunded programs, including a 25% cut to the Amtrak subsidy that will severely undermine the flow of revenue into Maine.

Overall, this camp is a gem. The students are smart, polite and bursting with enthusiasm. I wish I could have told those kids that by the time they were working adults, they wouldn’t need to spend huge amounts of their income on gas for their cars, because they would have transit options. The fact of the matter is, given the challenges we continue to face in securing decent transportation options for Mainers, we’ll really need some of these kids– and a lot of adults, too– to commit to creating innovative solutions to move past these setbacks so we can give Mainers the transportation future that they need and deserve.

Learn more about CLF’s work to modernize transportation.

Photo credit: DOT

The nation’s debt crisis has been captivating lawmakers in recent weeks, and they are grasping at anything that will help their respective positions, including last month’s bleak jobs report that reflected a creeping rise in unemployment to 9.2%.  Yet against that sobering backdrop is a positive trend that reflects where employers are steadily heading: the green economy.  The green jobs sector is faring better than most nationwide, and Maine in particular is ahead of the growth curve, according to a new report released today by the Brookings Institution.

Governor LePage has been outright dismissive of “green” or “clean” jobs, claiming in May that “The majority of these ‘green jobs’ are temporary.” But the data collected by the Brookings Institution spanned over seven years.  Between 2003 and 2010, Maine added 2,914 clean jobs for a total of 12,212 clean economy jobs in the state, a rate that reflects a 4% annual growth rate in this sector compared to the 3.4% national average.  The average annual wage of a green job in Maine was $36,460, and sample clean economy employers included Ocean Renewable Power Co., LLC, Tom’s of Maine, Inc., Cianbro Corp., Woodard & Curran, Inc., and Hancock Lumber Co., Inc.

Some of the largest segments in the state include jobs related to conservation, waste management and treatment, public mass transit, sustainable forestry products and energy-saving building materials.  The green economy is an important element of the state’s future financial well-being, and the economic activity includes a broad swath of products from wind turbines and solar photovoltiacs to services such as mass transit and regulation.

The trend here in Maine reflects what is happening on a national scale: while almost every other job sector is ratcheting back and waiting for some break in the recession, positions tied to sustainability and renewable energy are taking off.  Nationally, the clean economy employs 2.7 million people, double the 1.2 employed by the fossil fuel industry according to the Pew Center.

Entirely new positions, such as “Chief Sustainability Officers” are being created to ensure that companies are not only environmentally responsible but take advantage of cost-saving mechanisms through energy efficiency.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of job postings containing the keyword “sustainability” more than quadrupled in May of this year.  The number containing “wind” and “solar” more than doubled in the same time period.

For a country that consumes 19 million barrels of oil per day, it is refreshing to see a trend that reflects a critical acknowledgement: business as usual leaves us vulnerable.  A paradigm shift in hiring priorities and business practice gives us hope for economic and environmental sustainability.  And a big “attaboy” to Maine for fiercely trudging along and outpacing the national growth trends.

Photo credit: S1acker, flickr

As you hit the road this holiday weekend, you will be joining millions of others in filling up your gas tank and will watch in consternation as your paycheck pours into your tank. The sad thing is, you are probably driving a vehicle that gets far less than 45 mpg, so you might have to fill that tank more than once to get back home.

These days, Americans spend on average $369 dollars a month on gas. By contrast, the average monthly gas bill in April 2009 was $201. That’s a lot less money that you have to go towards dining out and hotel rooms this holiday weekend. The good news is that the EPA and DOT are currently contemplating raising fuel economy requirements to between 47 to 62 mpg starting with all 2017 model vehicles. That means  getting twice or even three times as far without having to fill up.

You would think that states buckling under the weak economy would rejoice at any effort that would give folks more money to spend. Unfortunately, Governor LePage seems to disagree.

In response to EPA and DOT’s effort, LePage joined a small handful of other governors this week in a signing a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioning them to be  “sensible” about raising fuel economy standards and claiming that “overreaching regulations can be a cost burden on individuals, families and businesses in our state” because the technology used for fuel-efficient vehicles makes them more expensive for consumers.

In other words, we haven’t learned any lessons, we couldn’t care less if our constituents have to spend half their paycheck at the pump and we have no problem with our addiction to foreign oil.

Fuel efficiency standards for 2012-2016 were set in 2007 at 35 mpg. When those standards were about to go into place, there was a remarkably similar wave of national hand-wringing. People were concerned that the new standards would have a negative effect on the auto industry and Americans’ perceived need to have large, affordable vehicles. Yet, the sky didn’t fall. Detroit had been teetering on the brink of survival not because of MPG standards but due to their failure to stay ahead of the innovation curve, like Toyota, in creating fuel efficient vehicles. The success of the Ford Focus speaks for itself.

Opponents to increasing the MPG standards claim that the government needs to stay out of this — market demand will dictate higher fuel efficiency.  But the data doesn’t bear that assertion out.  In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the effects of the CAFE standard. The report concluded that in the absence of fuel economy regulations, motor vehicle fuel consumption would have been approximately 14 percent higher than it actually was in 2002.

Americans are fully capable of stepping up to the plate and developing the affordable technology necessary to bring the higher standard to fruition. They’ve done it before and they can do it again. And here’s the thing– a whopping 78 percent of Americans think they should. According to a recent poll by the Mellman Group, the majority of Americans support efforts by the auto industry to reduce CO2 emissions. And if that also means saving money on gas, then Maine should be embracing the new standards and not trying to slow them down.

Photo credit: christiannealmcneil, flickr

The City of Portland just launched a new website to make it easier for developers to comply with new planning requirements that incentivize alternative commuting strategies through transportation demand management plans, or “TDMs.”  The TDM requirement evolved out of a recognition that a city full of parking garages was not the best use of prime real estate – it isn’t attractive and it only encourages continued reliance on single occupancy vehicle use.  In Maine, 80 percent of employees still drive to work alone every day.  In an effort to shift commuters over to alternatives, such as METRO bus, GoMaine car and van-pooling service, biking and walking, the City of Portland passed a mandatory TDM plan for site plan approval for new developments over 50,000 square feet and for institutions serving more than 100 employees or students. There is also a voluntary TDM plan that companies may want to utilize to help their employees save money at the pump or reduce their overall carbon footprint.

In an effort to navigate the TDM requirements, the City launched a new website, found here at: http://www.tdm2go.info/.  The site is an easy, practical guide that provides a glossary of terms and high-lights case studies.  Four businesses featured on the site include Oak Street Lofts, the Portland International Jetport, St Lawrence Arts Center and Maine Medical Center (MMC).  In the case of MMC, the busy and ever-expanding hospital saw a 15 percent reduction in single occupancy vehicle use in the one year that its “Get On Board” program was implemented.  That impressive result was reached by installing numerous bike racks throughout the MMC campus, offering 50 percent off METRO tickets and providing free parking in the Gilbert St. garage to car-poolers that also had the extra amenity of enjoying the perks of first floor parking, so no stairs, no waiting for elevators, and instant access to the first floor cafe.  Plus, bike lockers and a group tool shed were installed.  These may seem like small perks, but the results speak for themselves – employees like perks!  The efforts by MMC successfully changed the culture of commuting at this major employer and in the process of doing so, they enrolled 734 employees in the program, 221 of those don’t use any carbon emitting vehicle at all – they are biking or walking to work.

What can other employers throughout the state learn from these successes?  First, brainstorming with employees on how to maximize the best alternative transportation mode is critical.  Second, a full educational campaign that informs employees on what their options are is instrumental in making the switch to alternative modes stick.  Resources on both of these are available on the City’s new site and the GoMaine website: http://gomaine.org/.  The benefits to employee’s pocketbooks and overall morale is worth the investment of some bike racks and educational information on our region’s transit services.

Rural states like Maine struggle with mass transit issues.  With limited federal funds and even more limited state and local funds, getting the requisite amount of money to fund transit infrastructure can be a herculean task.  Maine has 23,142 miles of roads, compare that to New Hampshire – it has less than half the state roads as Maine yet a slightly smaller population (1,318,301 versus NH’s 1,324,575) and the same transportation funding.  The result is that Maine must squeeze every bit of value it can out of each transportation dollar it receives.  So when it comes time to funding expensive, long term transit projects, it can be a tough sell.  Witness the recent reaction of the transportation committee to the ZOOM bus bill.

So how do Mainers cope with rising gas prices and the need to traverse long distances, often around rural or semi-rural areas, just to get to work?  Well, thousands of available seats already exist in vehicles traveling down the very same roads you commute on, every day, going the same way you are going, at the same time you are traveling.  Yep, it’s all those empty car seats right next to you.  Ok, groan if you must about pre-conceived notions about carpooling, but you might be surprised at how easy it is, thanks to GoMaine’s  interactive commuter ride-matching website.

Not ready for a long term commitment?  No problem, GoMaine just launched a single trip carpool finder so you can catch a ride to Camden for a festival, or save on parking by taking one car downtown for a show.  Not sure about the exact address of where you are heading?  The site uses Google maps so you can at least get close.  The ride-matching system on the GoMaine site has a trip planner, a commuter log that tracks your commuting choices and calculates the pollution and financial savings that go with it.  So, let’s talk about those pollution and money saving benefits.

Take a very typical commute – Lewiston to Portland.  Because housing costs are relatively cheaper in Lewiston but more job opportunities  are in Portland, many Mainers find themselves making the 49 mile haul each way, every day.  First, let’s address the environmental impact of that commute.  If you are going solo five days a week, that commute is releasing 20,012 lbs of carbon into the atmosphere every year.  (By comparison, the average CO2 emissions for a single occupancy vehicle in America is 11,634 lbs per year).   If you had just one person sharing that ride with you, you at least bring your commuter carbon emissions down to the national average.

Next, let’s talk about your wallet.  Assuming you never drove anywhere else but to work and back in your 25mpg car, at today’s gas price of $3.97, you are paying $3,890 a year, in gas alone.  Add to that tolls, wear and tear on your car, and you are paying a lot of money just to get to your job.  But say you have 3 people in your car so you all split that cost.  Each of you pays $972.50 a year instead.  What could you do with an extra $2,000 in your wallet?

Collins (left) and Snowe. (Photo credit: Office of Olympia Snowe)

Maine’s “Sister Senators,” Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, should be applauded once again for breaking rank with Republicans and voting in favor of the measure to eliminate billions in tax breaks for the five largest private oil and gas companies. These tax breaks cost the U.S. Treasury $43.6 billion over the last decade. Although Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they needed last night, it’s good to see our Senators acting fiscally responsible. Our sincere thanks also goes out to Sens. Sanders, Leahy, Shaheen, Kerry, Reed, and Whitehouse. Connecticut’s senators Lieberman and Blumenthal also voted against oil subsidies.

Rewarding these companies for continuing to pursue dirty energy options that only end up costing our society more is simply nonsensical – it is quite simply, a double tax. Not only are we directly handing over our tax dollars to the fossil fuel industry to conduct exploratory drilling for yet more dirty fuels, but we also get hit on the backside. We pay for healthcare costs and environmental clean-up and enforcement costs associated with increased pollution.

By contrast, continuing to provide subsidies for renewable, clean energy makes sense for society.  Many Republicans have argued that if we eliminate the tax incentives for dirty fossil fuels, we should eliminate them for clean fuels too – after all, isn’t that capitalism at its finest? Eliminate all subsidies and let the best fuel win?  But that argument fails to acknowledge the benefits clean fuels create for our health, our environment, and as a result, ultimately our checkbooks. Those sort of benefits needs to be encouraged on a broad scale. Until the market-driven demand breaks free from the artificially depressed prices of dirty fossil fuels, we will never get on board with clean energy in a meaningful way.  Dangling a carrot for continued development of clean energy in the form of tax incentives while simultaneously scaling back the incentives to dirty energy is the only way to begin to adjust this playing field and get moving in the right direction. What would clean energy in America look like today if we spent $43.6 billion on it every year for the past decade?

Today, the US Senate is poised to vote on legislation that would massively expand oil drilling along each coast of our nation. This new legislation would provide even less regard for oversight and safety than is required now. Click here now to tell your senators that you want our coasts protected from unsafe oil drilling.

Last week was a busy week for the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC).  First, intervention status was granted to CLF and several other organizations in the Highland Wind case, a 39 turbine project located in Somerset county.  In addition, the Commission was presented with a novel legal argument.   The issue revolves around what sort of scenic standard should be applied to “associated facilities” of a grid scale wind power development.  The various components that make up the physical characteristics of a wind development consist of two broad categories: 1) generating facilities (the turbines, towers and transmission lines) and 2) associated facilities (the roads, buildings, generator lead lines, substations, etc…).

Historically, the scenic impact of both sets of facilities were evaluated under the Wind Energy Act (WEA) that seeks to provide meaningful guidance on evaluating scenic impacts by providing a list of 6 criteria that the applicant must adhere to.  However, last week, Commissioners were asked to apply an exception provided for under the WEA statute.  The exception provides that if the Commission “determines that application of the [wind-power-specific standard] to the development may result in unreasonable adverse effects due to the scope, scale, location or other characteristics of the associated facilities” then the Commission can revert to the more general standard when assessing the effect of the associated facilities on the scenic character of the affected area.

One of the issues that the parties and the Commission will be struggling with going forward is how to comprehensively analyze scenic impacts.  Wind energy development, of necessity, includes associated facilities.  How exactly do you go about erecting the turbines without the roads to transport the turbines in the first place? Better yet, once there, how do you collect the power generated without lead lines and substations?  Should the various parts of a single, cohesive development be judged with two very different standards?

LURC was clearly in a difficult position when grappling with whether to apply the exception.  The language of WEA lacked guidance on what sort of fact based criteria should be considered in determining whether the exception applies.  In the end, in a decision of first impression, LURC opted to apply the exception so that associated facilities will be evaluated by a different scenic standard from generating facilities.    The decision was hailed by wind opponents but the ultimate result of the decision has to be determined.  What is needed, by either LURC or the legislature, is clear guidance and a meaningful standard on when the exception should apply so that all parties can move forward with a sense of consistency on what standard will be applied to a project.

The Transportation Committee voted unanimously yesterday during a work session on the ZOOM bus bill that the bill “ought not to pass.” The vote, while unfortunate, does not permanently end the ongoing discussion on how to best address Maine’s growing transit needs.  Procedurally, consideration of funding for any expanded ZOOM bus service will be folded into an omnibus bill that will require the Transportation Committee to make difficult decisions on how the Maine Turnpike Authority should spend its money.

Capital expenditures will face increased scrutiny in the wake of the appointment of Interim Executive Director (IED), Peter Mills.  In that budget process, buses will be pitted against bridges.  Mills has made it clear that he needs a clear sense of exactly what is expected from the MTA fiscally and for some serious prioritization to take place. In recent weeks, Mills’ actions have been resonating through the gilded halls of the MTA. He canceled a MTA employee banquet. He donated his “free” company ride to work crews, and he canned all those pricey external lobbyists. In short, he is the antithesis of his predecessor. For those of us advocating for accessible transit options, we can only hope that his new vision extends to how Mainers efficiently move around the state.

Ten years from now, we can’t afford to all be wondering why we can’t get there from here without jumping in our cars. Reliable, cost-effective, accessible transit between the most populated and most productive economic hubs is critical and CLF remains committed to making that happen. Please join us for the ride.