Boston’s iconic Longfellow Bridge serves as a poster child for public transit. Every few minutes, the bridge transports Red Line commuters between Boston and Cambridge, affording its passengers a breathtaking view of the Charles River and Boston skyline– and the parallel lanes of bumper-to-bumper vehicle traffic that the speeding train leaves in its wake. While that’s a positive situation for MBTA riders, it’s a dangerous one for the rest of the city’s commuters who don’t cross the bridge by car– cyclists and pedestrians.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division had released plans to rebuild the historic bridge as is. In May 2010, CLF advocated for an alternative plan that would make the bridge more bike and pedestrian-friendly. In response to CLF’s call to action, MassDOT created the Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation Task Force, which recently released its recommendations on what alternatives should be included in the project’s Environmental Assessment to submit to the Federal Highway Administration.

Last week, CLF submitted written comments to the Administrator of the Highway Division at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in response to those recommendations. In a letter to MasDOT Highway Division Administrator Luisa Paiewonsky, CLF explained that to comply with federal and state law, MassDOT should include at least one strong alternative plan for presentation and analysis that retains the current structure of the bridge throughout while altering its traffic pattern so that only one lane exists in both directions with a two-lane release into Charles Circle on the Boston side. Such an alternative would uphold the structural and architectural integrity of the bridge, help the state reach its health and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and improve safety for bikers and pedestrians.

Learn more about what CLF is doing the improve transportation alternatives in communities throughout New England.

Regional is the new national. Solutions to the environmental problems that threaten our economy, our security and our health are not coming from Washington. Instead, they’re being forged by energetic and creative problem-solvers like CLF who work in regions and states and strive to create models for the rest of the country. This is CLF’s moment.

But we can’t do it small.

To be truly effective in the face of the unprecedented challenges facing New England, we need a movement behind us. We need neighborhoods standing up for their right to clean air and water, cities and towns demanding better transportation options, and a whole region clamoring for clean energy.

About a year ago, we started work to ensure that our story was clear and compelling and inclusive enough to engage a whole region in our mission. We began by asking employees and board members, partners and adversaries, long-time members and new friends what draws them to CLF. Resoundingly, we heard: “CLF protects my New England.”

This notion of protection is inherent in CLF’s brand: our region’s abundant natural resources, as well as its historic cities and towns, are in peril from the impacts of climate change and other realities of modern life. CLF has a long and successful history protecting New England’s environment – from a landmark lawsuit that prevented oil and gas drilling off of our shores to developing green car insurance that rewards people for driving less. At CLF, protection is not about keeping things the way they were. It anticipates the reality of a changing environment and is on the cutting edge of planning for it, to ensure that our region will continue to thrive. This kind of protection requires pragmatic, science-based approaches, fearless creativity, and a willingness to collaborate to find solutions to our most complex challenges.

To convey the many facets of CLF’s brand, built painstakingly over 44 years, we needed to refine, not redefine, our story. We started with articulating our mission:

CLF protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people.  We use the law, science, and the market to create solutions that preserve our natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy.

And our vision:  A healthy, thriving New England – for generations to come.

Our new logo, with the emphatic red “zing,” is the ultimate distillation of CLF’s brand. It’s at once humble and outspoken, pragmatic and creative, patient and dynamic. And yet, it’s simple. Similarly, our new marketing and communications materials – both digital and print – are designed to let our stories stand out. There is lots of white space, an antidote to our tendency to accumulate. Our new design will discipline us to be economical with our words and keep our messages crisp and clear.

Economy of words is never more important than in a tagline. Our five are the answer to every question about why we do what we do:

For a thriving New England

There is no doubt that our ability to communicate our story effectively is key to achieving our mission. It is the currency with which we develop relationships with our members, with foundations who share our vision, and with influencers in the legislature and the media who help further our cause. With a great story to tell and, now, a great way to tell it, we are ready to seize this moment for CLF and galvanize all who would join us in protecting our New England.

Recent headlines over a strategically thinking Bald Eagle in Wiscasset brought a wry smile to my face because this bird somehow managed to undo what dozens of fiscally prudent Mainers have been unable to do for the last decade: stop the DOT.

It is only with a modicum of irony that it took the American Bald Eagle, our symbol of freedom, to loosen the shackles of an oppressive, fiscally irresponsible DOT plan to build the Wiscasset Bypass.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wiscasset’s seasonal traffic congestion, let me paint the scene:  let’s say you are “from away” and traveling to Midcoast Maine.  You are heading north on I-295 and you see a sign that says “Coastal Route”, doesn’t that sound charming?  “Let’s take that route!” exclaim the passengers in your car, and so you dutifully exit.  You are cruising along, everything is fine, and you soon approach the town of Wiscasset that declares itself to be “The Prettiest Little Village in Maine.”  Lovely!  You make a few winding turns, catch a glimpse of the water through some Victorian homes, your expectations soar and then suddenly you find yourself in a bit of traffic.  Maybe there was a fender bender, no one is moving.  You inch forward after a few minutes. 17 minutes and 43 seconds go by.  Still stuck.  You move agonizingly slow through this “Pretty Little Village” that seems uglier by the minute because all you can see is a line of brake lights a mile long.  You make one last turn and then the full scope of the traffic is revealed, and it is a brutal scene.  Idling cars are backed up for miles, for no apparent reason other than a bunch of flip-flop clad pedestrians scrambling to cross the road back and forth a zillion times so they can taste for themselves if the lobster rolls at Red’s Eats really are the best in Maine.  It is well known that the summer tourists queuing up for a lobster roll at this well-known eatery, located practically on Route 1 itself, is a significant contributor of the infamous start-and-go pile-ups along Route 1.  By the time you make it through this, everyone in the car is fighting, you have no idea why you thought a vacation to Maine would in any way constitute an “escape”, you are cranky, hungry (because there was no way you were going to contribute to the problem by actually eating at Red’s Eats), and you openly wonder why they don’t just build a pedestrian bridge for crying out loud!?

The truth is, it is a valid question. A pedestrian bridge or tunnel to alleviate the bottleneck at Red’s Eats is such an obvious solution that you really do have to wonder why it doesn’t already exist.  Yes, there are some historical compatibility issues, but it is relatively inexpensive and logical solution.  Yet it was summarily dismissed by the DOT.  So what about the installation of traffic lights at both the intersection of Route 1 and 27?  How about the prohibition of left hand turns in the downtown area?  What about a reconfiguration of parking along Route 1?

Source: Maine DOT

Which of these solutions did the experts agree was a reasonable approach?  None of the above.  Rather, after a decades-long planning process, the alternatives flirted with three bypass options, N8C, N2F and N2A, noted in the diagram above.  All three are wildly expensive, in the $85-$100 million dollar range, (this in a state that lacks funds for even basic road maintenance), all have impacts on environmentally sensitive lands, and all, even the shortest option, double the route.  This will waste travel time, cost drivers more money and burn more dirty fossil fuels.  The negative impacts don’t stop there.  The existing Davey bridge will cease to become a priority and when limited state coffers must choose on repairs, it will be the sacrificial lamb, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.  In addition, let’s think about what the by-pass is actually “by-passing.”  It’s the entire commercial center of Wiscasset.  The charming antique shops: by-passed.  The funky art galleries: by-passed.  The gift shops, well, you get the idea.   All seasonal traffic will be diverted away from the hard working Mainers that rely on tourists for their yearly revenue.

In the wake of the eagle nest discovery, the DOT has indicated that it is “evaluating whether to resubmit an application to support one of remaining alternatives as the preferred option for a bypass.”  But perhaps the evaluation should take a step even further and not start with the assumption that a bypass to alleviate seasonal summer traffic is the only option.  Let’s go back to the drawing board on this one and come up with a solution that reflects our fiscal reality and that can actually be built in under a decade.  The Wiscasset Task Force will meet on December 15 at 6:30 to drill down into these issues and hopefully come up with a sound solution.

A logo is a funny thing. At first, you want to compare it to everything you’ve ever seen before. Ask 10 people and they will all see something different, but will grasp for the familiar in it. But over time, a logo takes on meaning of its own. Even with no words attached to it, we can identify the organization behind it. It says something startling about us that we can process the thousands of visual impressions we take in every day, mix in the messages we hear, and bring all those to mind when we flash on an image as simple as, say, a red line.

In our new logo, we hope you will see both the CLF you’ve come to trust, and the energy we have for tackling the environmental challenges ahead. The red line, or “zing,” as we’ve started calling it around here, is our version of the exclamation point. It says, “And we mean it.”

Our new logo is just one element of a whole new look and feel for CLF’s marketing and communications. We invite you to be among the first to get a glimpse at our brand new website, launched today. We hope you will tell us what you like and what you don’t, and come back often, as we are adding more content every day about our work and ways you can get involved. Starting today, you will also see our new look on Facebook and Twitter and coming soon in our print and digital publications, online communications, advertising and more.

We have some work to do before the zing means:  those people who cleaned up Boston Harbor, or that group that saved the cod, or the ones who made our cars cleaner. We’ll continue solving New England’s toughest environmental problems, and telling you about it here on our blog, on our website, in our publications, and in the media. In time, we hope, when you see the zing, you will say, “CLF: they’re the ones who protect my New England.”

For over 15 years CLF has been incubating an important new concept – car insurance that rewards you for driving less.  We have made it a reality through our affiliate – the Environmental Insurance Agency.

But to move into full scale operation of the concept we needed a full blown academic grade review of hard data to show that when you drive less you get into fewer accidents (yeah, I know it sounds obvious but we really needed to do that).

While the study is done, the results are in.  Read our press release about it. Read more information and the study itself (warning for the mathphobic, it has equations but you can skip them, they will not hurt you).

Or you can read about it on the Boston Globe website:

Pay as you drive car insurance? New study says a good idea

by Beth Daley December 2, 2010 03:11 PM

For several years now, Massachusetts environmentalists have said there is a better way of insuring drivers.

Called pay-as-you-drive, the idea has its roots in a link between miles driven and risk of accidents. Paying a certain amount of cents for each mile driven is a fairer way to insure drivers, many environmentalists say – and at the same time will encourage less driving, therefore emitting fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Now, a new study commissioned by Conservation Law Foundation that looked at $502 million of claims on more than 3 million cars in Massachusetts, found that basing premiums even partially on mileage could end the practice of low-mileage drivers subsidizing higher-mileage ones.

The study estimates that switching all Massachusetts drivers to pure per-mile auto insurance pricing would reduce mileage, accident costs, and fuel consumption by 9.5% and cut two million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Another model with a flat yearly rate, plus per mile pricing after the first 2000 miles, would reduce both figures by about 5%.

The study had some surprises, such as even though suburban and rural car owners tend to drive more than city dwellers, their per-mile charges could be lower than they currently play for traditional insurance if they drive less than the average for their area.

The study, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Joseph Ferreira, Jr. and Eric Minikel, a recent MIT grad, is the first to link real miles driven with actual claims filed – the insurance claims the two examined totaled 34 billion miles.

“We believe that the proven benefits to business, consumers and the environment spelled out in this study make a compelling case for adoption of PAYD in Massachusetts and beyond,” said John Kassel, president of Conservation Law Foundation.

While prior research has shown that risk increases with mileage, CLF officials say the study brings it down to an individual level.

From November 15, 2010 Boston Globe:

There are reasons aerotropolis didn’t get off the ground

The following is a special edition of CLF’s e-News.  To receive this kind of carefully screened (no spam here!)  information and to support CLF join today.

We at CLF watched last Tuesday’s elections with great interest, and in some cases, trepidation. Our ability to be effective in our work is greatly enhanced when there is real leadership on environmental issues at the state level, especially when federal leadership is lacking. With some exceptions, New Englanders chose with their votes to continue the environmental progress we are making in our region. Now that the dust has settled, we are pleased to bring you this special post-election edition of our e-news. Below, you will find a state-by-state forecast of how the election results are likely to help or hinder our and others’ efforts to address the most pressing environmental challenges affecting our region, namely reducing our carbon emissions from energy and transportation, planning for and mitigating the impacts of climate change, supporting clean energy development that creates good, local jobs, and protecting our natural resources – all in the interest of a healthy, thriving New England for everyone.

An overarching challenge that every governor and legislature will face is how to strike a balance between budget pressures and appropriately staffing and supporting environmental protection agencies. Maintaining a balanced budget can lead a state government into making “penny wise and pound foolish decisions,” like underfunding stormwater and sewage infrastructure projects needed to meet federal mandates and protect public health. In a closely related vein, building up jobs and the economy will mean that environmental permitting must be fair and timely; underfunded agencies without adequate staffing and resources will not be able to meet that goal.

Maine

The election of Paul LePage, a Republican who, for the first time in four decades, will be a governor of that party with majorities from his own party in both the Maine House and Senate, is potentially a shift of deep significance. On the campaign trail, Governor-elect LePage questioned the fact of climate change, indicated support for offshore oil and gas exploration and new nuclear power plants, stated that wind power was still too unreliable to focus much attention on and suggested folding the Departments of Environmental Protection, Marine Resources, Conservation and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into the Department of Agriculture.

Currently the mayor of Waterville and general manager of Marden’s, a discount department store, LePage has indicated that his primary focus will be on making it easier to do business in Maine. His generally moderate record in Waterville and the long tradition of bi-partisan consensus around environmental issues in Maine provide some suggestion that forces may be at work that will temper negative campaign rhetoric. But it will be a challenge to advance a science-based agenda in Maine that looks to energy efficiency and clean renewable resources as the building blocks of both environmental protection and economic development.

Maine voters returned its two members to the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Chellie Pingree and Rep. Mike Michaud. Both have solid records as leaders on environmental issues.

For more on Maine’s election results, read CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney’s blog post on CLF Scoop.

Massachusetts

Governor Deval Patrick’s re-election on a platform of clean energy and economic development was a hopeful sign for Massachusetts, with potential for positive reverberations beyond the Commonwealth. The Patrick campaign bucked conventional wisdom by emphasizing the need to make longer term investments, like building Cape Wind and putting in place long-term contracts that use such projects to provide electricity at a stable and predictable price.

The continued efforts to implement legislation enacted over the last two years – including the Massachusetts Green Communities Act, the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act and the Massachusetts Oceans Act – will provide ample opportunities to press forward with that affirmative agenda of building a clean energy economy.

On the federal front, it is notable that the only newly elected member of Congress from Massachusetts (filling a seat to be vacated by retiring Rep. Delahunt), U.S. Representative-elect Bill Keating from the 10^th Congressional District, is a supporter of Cape Wind and received a state-wide award as “Environmental Legislator of the Year” when he was in the Massachusetts State Legislature, primarily for his water pollution work.

New Hampshire

The election resulted in a massive shift in the political landscape in New Hampshire. Prior to Tuesday, Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature and the Executive Council under a Democratic governor. With the exception of Governor Lynch, who retained his office, Republicans swept other areas of the government. In the New Hampshire House and Senate, Republicans not only became the majority, but also achieved veto-proof majorities. In the Executive Council, which confirms nominations to offices in the executive branch and which approves government contracts, a Democratic majority not only was erased, but all five Council members are now Republican.

While it is important not to automatically assume that Republicans will oppose all effective and affirmative action on the environment, it is fair to note that New Hampshire’s Republican party adopted a platform that espouses positions that represent a retreat from state and regional efforts to tackle climate change. Whether there will be a serious attempt to translate these positions into policy remains to be seen.

On the federal level, Kelly Ayotte (R) won the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Judd Gregg. She defeated Democrat Paul Hodes, who vacated the Congressional District 1 seat to run for Senate. While in Congress, Hodes had been a strong ally on a variety of environmental issues. Republican Frank Giunta defeated incumbent Democrat Carol Shea Porter, also a strong ally on environmental issues, for the Congressional District 2 seat. Charlie Bass (R) won New Hampshire’s second Congressional seat (District 1), defeating Democratic candidate Anne McLane Kuster. Rep. Bass has shown leadership around key environmental issues before in Congress, including re-establishing passenger rail in New Hampshire, and has the potential to become an ally on future initiatives, including advancing renewable energy in the state.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island elected Independent Lincoln Chafee as governor. Among the three candidates running for governor, Lincoln Chafee was widely viewed as the candidate who was most likely to understand environmental issues and advance a pro-environmental agenda. Chafee advanced environmental issues as a U.S. senator and as the “new urbanist” mayor of Warwick, RI, where he championed a rail-based vision for development around T.F. Green Airport that is now coming to fruition.

David Cicilline, most recently mayor of Providence, was elected to replace Congressman Patrick Kennedy in the 1^st Congressional District. Cicilline’s strong record on environmentally sound urban development and energy efficiency as mayor of Providence suggests he will be an important voice in Congress. His successor as mayor of Providence, Angel Tavares, is widely expected to provide leadership in that key city that will build on the renaissance of the last decade.

Vermont

Vermont elected Democrat Peter Shumlin to serve as the state’s next governor. For many years, Governor-elect Shumlin served as President pro tempore of the Vermont Senate. As the leader of the State Senate’s majority over the past several years, Mr. Shumlin has led initiatives to address climate change, electric energy efficiency, renewable energy development, and to protect the state’s air, water and forests. However, the Shumlin administration has its work cut out for it to adopt strong environmental and energy policies in the face of record budget deficits.

Vermonters elected Republican Phil Scott, also a former state senator, to serve as the state’s lieutenant governor. While this post holds primarily ministerial responsibilities, Mr. Scott’s views on important environmental issues remain to be seen.

At the federal level, Vermonters voted to send Democrats Congressman Peter Welch and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy back to Washington for another term. Both members of Congress are considered to be pro-environmental and in favor of progressive energy policies, with Rep. Welch serving as a leader in the House on energy efficiency. Senator Leahy has now become Vermont’s longest serving senator and will play a key role in the leadership in Congress.

Lastly, Democrats gained unprecedented majorities in both houses of the Vermont State House, giving Governor-elect Shumlin the opportunity to work with friendly faces on crafting a legislative agenda.

Connecticut

The election of Democrat Dan Malloy, who won by a slim margin, is a cause for great hope and optimism in climate and energy circles. During the campaign, Malloy, the former mayor of the City of Stamford, articulated progressive and powerful ideas about the importance of confronting global warming, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building up both clean energy and broad transportation choices that build walkable and livable communities and presided over an exciting, sophisticated and innovative “microgrid” project.

The federal scene in Connecticut, including the election of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to the Senate, was characterized by preservation of a powerful delegation who will provide a strong voice in Congress for sensible energy policy and for investment in urban neighborhoods, a voice that will be critically needed given the larger makeup of the new Congress.

Sea Change.  Tsunami. Maelstrom.  Take your pick but the results of the mid-term election from an environmental perspective will bring an even more extreme and hostile approach to restoring, protecting and preserving our natural resources.  The change in Maine will be staggering – not once since the first comprehensive environmental statutes were passed in the 1970’s has there been a Republican governor and a Republican controlled Legislature.  And unlike the past leaders of the Republican party in Maine like US Senators Margaret Chase Smith and Bill Cohen or State legislators Horace Hildreth and Harry Richardson, today’s leaders of the Republican party have attempted to revive the old and false dichotomy of “jobs vs. the environment.”  At stake is the work of 40 years to provide a framework that allows Maine’s people and communities to thrive and protects Maine’s natural resources. We are in unchartered territory.

Governor-elect Paul LePage’s rhetoric on the campaign trail was alarmingly anti-environmental.  Beyond staking his election on dismantling Maine’s agencies tasked with safeguarding our environment, he has bluntly expressed support for offshore oil drilling in the wake of the worst oil spill ever experienced by our country.  He supports building wildly expensive new nuclear power plants.  Rather mind-numbing is the fact that he considers climate change to be at the least, subject to scientific debate if not outright denying it.  And he opposes sustainable  wind development.  Even more problematic is a pervasive sense that he simply doesn’t “get it” – doesn’t get the concept of sustainability, doesn’t get the economic value of a strong and vibrant environment and doesn’t get Mainers abiding conviction that ours is a unique state that merits strong efforts to maintain.

Willful ignorance may be trending in Augusta, but thoughtfulness  has a firm place in Maine’s culture. Those who are committed to a sustainable approach to managing our resources to benefit our people must now put the election behind us and focus on holding the line.  Open and active collaboration among Maine’s environmental community will be necessary to that effort.  We need to recognize that a majority of Maine people voted for two candidates who have long and distinguished records as environmental leaders and stewards.  Just as a majority of voters supported additional funding for the Land for Maine’s Future program, a clear sign that we continue to be willing to invest in safeguarding our environment.

The Conservation Law Foundation has always believed that a thriving Maine is the result of strong environmental protections and sound economic principles.  That belief – and CLF’s unique ability to translate it into practical, effective and results-oriented advocacy – will be more important than ever as a new administration attempts to dismantle the environmental protections of the last four decades.  We hope you join us in our collaborative effort to tackle the challenges that lay ahead.

So the 100% biodegradable packaging that PepsiCo uses for its Sun Chips snacks is going away because … well, isn’t it obvious?!

PepsiCo is taking the no-waste, completely compostable, producer-finally-taking-responsibility-for-the- waste-it generates packaging off the shelves because WE complained that the packaging makes too much noise. It is hard to believe that we as consumers would make the conscious effort NOT to buy a product simply because the part of the product that we usually throw away is too loud. The trash trucks barreling down the side streets to pick up garbage (not too loud), the people living near landfills raising their voices to complain about rodents and odors and air quality (not too loud), citizen voices raised in anger to complain about higher taxes to pay for the higher costs associated with disposal of trash (not too loud), but a socially responsible package, designed to reduce our carbon footprint, our trash footprint, our costs …too loud?

It’s time to shut up and make some noise! Be Loud, Be Proud … and, p.s. buy a composter.

Do you care about trash (or lack thereof)? Join CLF’s Trash Talk campaign. Listen for us on  95.5 WBRU or become a fan of the  Trash Talk Landfill on Facebook.