If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

Groundbreaking for the Wonderland Parking Garage

Less than five years ago, in response to a CLF lawsuit, Massachusetts committed to building one thousand new “park and ride” parking spaces in the Commonwealth. The idea was to put the parking spaces near public transportation, making it easy for people to ride rather than drive to their destinations. The commitment was intended to reduce the number of cars on the roads and their emissions in order to help the Commonwealth come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Currently, Massachusetts does not meet the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone, a dangerous byproduct of vehicle exhaust that can trigger serious respiratory problems and cause permanent lung damage. Building parking spaces in the right locations, it has been proven, actually helps reduce air pollution.

Originally, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) selected Beverly and Salem as the locations to build the bulk of these spaces with new parking garages near their commuter rail stations.  Although both communities welcomed these facilities with open arms, MassDOT decided last year instead to seek to meet their obligation by counting the “park and ride” spaces already being constructed near the Wonderland MBTA station on the Blue Line.  They feared the Beverly and Salem garages would not be completed on time, but now the Wonderland park and ride spaces are also delayed.

Although it had five years to build the parking spaces, MassDOT announced this summer that it will not meet this obligation by the end of 2011.The Clean Air Act requires the Commonwealth to somehow achieve the same air quality benefits during the period of delay, through a so-called interim offset project or measure.  MassDOT, however, has petitioned the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to delay the completion of this requirement without proposing any such interim offset project or measure.  Why, you ask?

MassDOT is arguing that since the parking garage it chose last year to fulfill the bulk of this requirement is near private parking lots that are $2 to $3 lower in price than what the Commonwealth would have charged for parking in the new garage, the new parking facility would have been underutilized and as such would have no measurable air quality benefits.  Are you kidding me?  This tortured analysis is akin to my asking to get paid for a day that I did not show up at work since I would have been on Facebook all day anyway, had I been in the office.  Hopefully, such bootstrapping will motivate DEP to keep its rubber stamp locked up.

It is difficult to describe the depths of disappointment inspired by  the decision of the President to order the withdrawal of the draft standards for “ground level ozone” – a pollutant that causes massive harm to the public health, causing special harm to the elderly and children.

The public health medical and advocacy communities have slammed this move – with good reason given the very real price in human health of this decision.

It is especially a regrettable decision for New Englanders. Up here in the tailpipe of America we deal with bad air created not just by local pollution but also real harm created by air pollution coming from power plants, factories and cars across the continent, particularly the Midwest.

And while this decision is bad enough the even more chilling possibility is that it might signal the beginning of a general retreat from the Obama Administration’s good efforts on air pollution – a record that, unsurprisingly, was on display the same day as this decision.

This decision marks out a need to continue to maintain pressure on the administration, Congress and to continue to work on the local, state and regional levels to reduce air pollution.  Our health, our environment and our economy will thank us for it.

Thursday, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown sent a letter to Governor Patrick criticizing  the Governor’s mention of a potential state gas tax increase as one of the ways to provide additional revenue for the state’s dangerously underfunded transportation system. Yesterday, in response, 23 individuals and organizations throughout the State, including CLF, sent letters to Senator Brown and Governor Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Murray to urge an open and frank dialogue about what it will take to build and maintain the safe, reliable and affordable 21^st century transportation system Massachusetts needs. The letters also pointed out that, contrary to Senator’s Brown’s statement that “Massachusetts motorists already pay a higher gas tax than the national average,” Massachusetts drivers actually pay 41.9 cents per gallon in combined local, state and federal taxes—about 15 percent lower than the national average of 48.1 cents per gallon.

Getting to the heart of the matter, let’s do the math.  In FY11, the State raised about $2.2 billion for transportation. Those funds came from registry fees ($500 million), motor fuel taxes ($662 million), and the general state sales tax ($1.1 billion). Another $313 million in tolls was collected and more than $451 million in transit fares. Local governments contributed about $150-200 million as local assessments supporting transit (low compared to the national average). Massachusetts qualified for $294 million n federal transit funds and about $600 million in federal highway funds in FY11.

Yet, highway capital needs for the next five years ($6.16 billion) are more than twice the available resources ($2.5 billion). The 2009 D’Alessandro report, requested by Governor Patrick, estimated that the MBTA state of good repair backlog is $3 billion and will require an annual expenditure of nearly $700 million simply to prevent system deterioration. And, we all know when we put off needed repairs, things only get more expensive to fix later on down the road.  The MBTA carries a debt of $5.5 billion (not including interest), and debt service—interest payments—constitute nearly 22% of the MBTA’s FY12 budget—the agency’s second single largest expense. The bottom line? Massachusetts’ transportation system is broke—and that’s about to get worse, as Washington is poised to cut dramatically transportation funding to states.

What do the numbers add up to? A threat to the State’s—and the region’s—economic competitiveness, quality of life, and environment. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation, and the obvious answer is that we need to increase transportation funding for roads, bridges, transit and pedestrian and bike ways. But that’s not enough. We’ve also got to get much smarter about how we spent those funds.

The people of Massachusetts need better ways to get around, including options that will help reduce global warming pollution, consistent with the States’ own Global Warming Solutions Act mandate. CLF is working to find a solution. Yesterday, CLF joined with more than 20 other organizations throughout the State to formally launch Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA), a coalition dedicated to advocating for alternative financing and improved accountability in building a modern transportation system that works for Massachusetts. T4MA brings together a broad cross-section of groups, from transportation and regional planning interests to affordable housing, public health, environmental justice and smart growth organizations, that all have a stake in reforming transportation in Massachusetts. Learn more about T4MA here.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (“MBTA”) spider-map has been praised and replicated in countries around the world, but it only takes one short look at the transit map to realize one obvious missing link: the Red Line and the Blue Line are the only two of Boston’s rapid transit lines that do not intersect. Six governors, over more than two decades, have legally committed the Commonwealth to fix this obvious problem. Earlier this week, however, the Patrick Administration decided to buck this trend by seeking permission to permanently and completely remove the legal obligation to finish the final design of the Red/Blue Line Connector, without proposing to substitute any other project for it.

The Red/Blue Line Connector was originally supposed to be completed by December 31 of this year. Less than five years ago, the Commonwealth had reaffirmed that it would at least design the connector by the same date. Part way through the design, the Commonwealth is throwing in the towel, stating that it is unrealistic to expect that construction of this project will be funded, although it has never really asked the state legislature or the federal government to fund this critical transit project and has not considered any more affordable options to accomplish the same goal. This is a symptom of the chronic underfunding of our transportation system. Instead of pushing forward and advocating for increased revenue, the State is now entering a dangerous trajectory of just giving up on beneficial projects.

As a result of this missing link, transit riders traveling from points along the Blue Line to the Red Line, or the other way round, must transfer twice by using either the Green or Orange Line, reducing ridership and unnecessarily increasing congestion at downtown Boston stations including Government Center, Park Street, State and Downtown Crossing. The need to transfer twice restricts access to jobs, such as those at the academic and medical institutions along the Red Line, particularly for residents of East Boston, Revere, Winthrop and Lynn, for whom the Blue Line is the only accessible subway route. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) projected that the Red/Blue Line Connector would more than double daily boardings, from 10,050 to 22,390, at the Charles/MGH Station alone.

The absence of a direct connection between the Red and Blue Lines makes travel far more difficult than necessary and often discourages the use of public transit. For example, coming home from Cambridge, an East Boston resident has to wait on three different platforms for three trains. This can take particularly long for people who work at night, as many do, since the MBTA Rapid Transit lines’ arrival and departure times at Park Street, Government Center, Downtown Crossing and State Street are not coordinated and the trains are frequently delayed.  Even if on schedule, at 9:00 p.m. on a weekday, a trip from Harvard Square to Maverick Station involves 28 minutes of waiting time alone. By contrast, the route can be driven in only 16 minutes, resulting in a clear disincentive to use public transportation and contravening the State’s policy, articulated in the Global Warming Solutions Act and elsewhere, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

Many people, however, do not have the choice between driving and taking public transportation. The Blue Line, more than any other MBTA rapid transit line, serves almost exclusively communities where a large percentage of residents depend on mass transit. At the same time, residents of these communities are also in need of greater access to jobs. Likewise, many Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) patients need to travel from Revere, where MGH has a satellite clinic, to the hospital’s main campus in Boston’s West End. Taking public transportation under the current circumstances is not a simple trek for the infirm.

The Department of Environmental Protection now gets to decide whether the Commonwealth can proceed to request a revision of the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Let’s hope that someone in the process that lies ahead has the vision to create not only a praiseworthy map but a good underlying public transportation system.

The Union Square area in Somerville is one of the communities that would be served by the Greenline Extension. (Photo credit: dales1, flickr)

Residents of Somerville and Medford, MA, were crushed and angry when on Monday transportation officials announced that the already-delayed Green Line Extension project would most likely not be completed before 2018. The project would extend the MBTA’s Green Line through parts of these two cities just north of Boston, where right now there is no subway service of any kind, but plenty of pollution from I-93 and diesel commuter trains.

The critical project has already suffered several setbacks, and after years of broken promises, the community has had enough. Over 1500 residents, including many who stayed in Somerville or Medford because of the Green Line Extension, signed this petition demanding that the state follow through on the project and that they release a definitive plan to the public on how it intends to do so.

Stand with the residents of Somerville and Medford in support of government accountability and better transportation options for communities that need them. Sign the petition today.

Photo credit: Stephanie Chappe

As budget woes continue to strain the Commonwealth’s ability to maintain its aging transportation system and constrain its vision for the system’s future, more than twenty Bay State organizations have formed Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) to advocate for alternative financing and improved accountability in pursuit of a modern transportation system that works for Massachusetts. T4MA brings together a broad cross-section of historically disconnected organizations in the areas of transportation, regional planning, affordable housing development, public health, environmental advocacy, environmental justice and smart growth that will use their diverse experience and collective influence to bring about a safe, convenient, reliable and affordable transportation system for the people of Massachusetts.

John Walkey, field organizer of T4MA, explained, “On behalf T4MA, we thank Mr. Mullan for his dedicated service and welcome Mr. Davey to his new position. We look forward to working with him to ensure that the Commonwealth will create and maintain a 21^st century transportation system that is at the heart of a thriving economy. The jobs and economic prosperity the State hopes to sustain cannot be built on top of an underfinanced and crumbling transportation system.” More >

Comedian Will Rogers once joked, “Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” He might have been advising the Commonwealth about the cost of inaction on the state’s much-needed public transportation projects. The Commonwealth announced yesterday that the Green Line Extension will be delayed yet again. MassDOT now is projecting that the earliest the Green Line Extension will go into service is in the Fall of 2018, but the moment the residents of Somerville and Medford have been waiting for could be as far away as 2020. That would be six years after the federally mandated deadline and fourteen years since the Big Dig was completed—a long delay considering that the extension of the Green Line was a firm commitment made to counter the air pollution from the Central Artery Project. The year 2020 happens to also be a benchmark year for the Commonwealth’s greenhouse gas reductions goal (25 percent of 1990 levels), which will be hard to reach without the help of transit projects like the Green Line Extension.

Sadly, less than five years after it reaffirmed the promise, MassDOT yesterday also announced that it is seeking permission from the Department of Environmental Protection to abandon its obligation to design another highly beneficial transit project, the connector of the Red Line and Blue Line, citing its increased cost estimate. Part of the reason the costs of the Red/Blue Connector have increased, however, is the Commonwealth’s own repeated delay of this important transit project. Construction projects get more expensive over time.  Likewise, the cost of the Green Line Extension can only be expected to increase as a result of the delay.

Fortunately, the Commonwealth will be required to put in place interim offset projects or measures to achieve the same air quality benefits the Green Line Extension would have during the time period of the delay starting on December 31, 2014. We hope those projects will be located in the areas the Green Line Extension is intended to serve. Although MassDOT has known for more than a year that the Green Line Extension will be delayed, we still do not know what these projects will be. We do know that they will not be free. That points to the fact that it would be a lot cheaper to build the extension than to keep delaying it. And that’s no laughing matter, especially these days.

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.