The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

Courtesy of bradlee9119@flickr. Creative Commons.

The triple bottom line has become both a catch phrase and, increasingly, a realistic goal for everyone from investors to activists and urban developers. But in Massachusetts, aging MBTA trains and infrastructure coupled with proposed fare hikes and service cuts stand in the way of achieving the triple-bottom-line promise of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

TOD projects are generally comprised of mixed-use or mixed-income developments that are situated within a half-mile of a mass transit station. They provide residents with easy access to the places they want to go (jobs, doctors, movie theaters, etc.) and place businesses within reach of employees and consumers along the mass transit system.

One of the advantages of TOD projects is their potential to achieve triple-bottom-line returns, providing economic, environmental, and community benefits simultaneously. By encouraging people to use mass transit and rely less on automobiles, TOD projects help to reduce both noxious auto emissions and climate-altering greenhouse gases. In fact, people in highly walkable neighborhoods drive nearly 40% fewer miles than their counterparts in the least walkable neighborhoods, which can reduce traffic-related emissions by as much as 2,000 grams of CO₂ per person per day. Furthermore, the increased walking (at least 10 minutes daily on average) reduces the risk of obesity, regardless of age, income, or gender.

So TOD opens up new opportunities for growth without requiring the costly, carbon-intensive infrastructure needed for cars, and contributes to healthful, walkable neighborhoods that attract both businesses and residents. Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch. TOD projects rely on the assumption that the transit system is capable of supporting them. Here in Massachusetts, proposed MBTA fare increases and service cuts, as well as our aging transportation infrastructure, may prevent TOD projects from delivering on their promise. This is a bad thing for Massachusetts residents, for our economy, and for our environment.

The MBTA is old. After putting off badly needed maintenance on the Red Line for several years, an entire section has been shut down on weekends for emergency repairs, cutting off access for parts of Cambridge, Somerville, and beyond. And faced with a $161 million budget deficit, the T is now considering drastic fare increases and draconian service cuts, including potential elimination of over 100 bus routes as well as weekend service on the commuter rail and some subway lines.

The MBTA’s proposed fare increases and service cuts are unacceptable for MBTA riders and could prove disastrous for TOD projects, past, present, and future. Discouraging people from taking public transportation—either by eliminating MBTA service or making that service prohibitively expensive for riders—undermines the triple-bottom line goals of TOD. It may sound obvious, but TOD requires a healthy, functioning, financially accessible transit system to realize its full potential.

CLF is asking the state legislature and the governor to find a comprehensive solution to the MBTA’s funding problems, not just a band-aid for the coming year’s operating budget. And CLF Ventures is committed to finding triple-bottom-line solutions, like TOD, where profitable developments can also yield environmental and community benefits. Without continued investments in our transportation infrastructure in Massachusetts and a comprehensive solution to the T’s funding problems, TOD could become a triple-bottom loss for the economy, the environment, and for MBTA riders.

As the public hearings on the MBTA’s proposals for fare hikes and service cuts continue across the Commonwealth, Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Richard Davey is telling the media that he’s hearing that  T riders would rather pay more than have their service cut. Speaking on behalf of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA), CLF staff attorney Rafael Mares said that Secretary Davey’s remarks are disappointing, if not surprising, given the false choice the MBTA has given transit users.

Mares  said, “The MBTA has backed transit users against a wall, asking them to choose between two unacceptable scenarios. A fare increase may seem like the lesser of two evils to those who have a choice. But, what about those who can’t afford the increases and won’t be able to get to their jobs, or school, or a doctor’s appointment because they rely on public transportation? The MBTA has created a false choice between draconian service cuts and drastic fare increases. The reality is it’s a lose-lose situation for transit users and Massachusetts. If Secretary Davey is hearing a chorus of ‘I would rather pay more but not cut the service,’ it wasn’t singing at any of the hearings we’ve been attending.”

Mares continued, “The proposed fare increases and service cuts are unfair and only a band-aid. The MBTA’s proposals give the legislature a free pass, balancing the books solely on the backs of the riders. These proposed measures will push people off the T and into their cars, or leave them without any transportation at all. We need long-term solutions that share the burden of a working transportation system among everyone who benefits from it, which is to say everyone in Massachusetts. T4MA is calling on the legislature and the administration to immediately identify funds to reduce the T’s projected deficit and develop adequate, sustainable funding for transportation so we’re not repeating this conversation again next year.”

To read a copy of the original statement, click here.

Late on Wednesday night residents of Springfield celebrated an important victory in their longstanding fight against a biomass-burning plant that Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) proposes to construct in their community. Acting on the petition of local residents Michaelann Bewsee and Toni and William Keefe,  the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) overturned the two building permits that were issued to PRE last November. Media coverage of the ZBA decision is available here and here.

The ZBA declared the building permits unlawful because, in an attempt to avoid City Council review of the project, PRE had not obtained a special permit that is required for the proposed plant. Responding to convincing presentations from Ms. Bewsee and Attorney Pat Markey, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that because the facility will engage in incineration, the Springfield Zoning Ordinance requires a special permit from the City Council before building permits can issue. CLF has worked closely with Ms. Bewsee, her organization, Arise for Social Justice, Toxics Action Center and the community group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, to protest this proposed power plant, which would bring additional harmful air pollution to Springfield. Siting this project in this location would be particularly inequitable, as Springfield is already a grossly overburdened environmental justice community that suffers disproportionately from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases because of exposure to air pollution.

CLF warmly congratulates the community on this victory, and thanks the Springfield City Council for the important role it played in upholding the integrity of their Zoning Ordinance.

Photo courtesy of John Walkey, Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA)

State law requires the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to balance its budget. The transit authority is facing a budget gap of $161 million for FY2013. In an attempt to address this problem, the MBTA is currently proposing huge fare increases (35% or 43%) and draconian service cuts (including the elimination of 101 weekday bus routes and all commuter rail service after 10pm and on the weekends) as we have described in previous blog entries. This would be a devastating blow to transit in the region, which is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emssions from the transporation sector, improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and provide mobility to people who may not be able to get around in any other way.

State Representative Carl Sciortino recently wrote an excellent article on WickedLocal Somerville calling for a comprehensive solution to our state’s transportation funding problem rather than putting a band-aid on this crisis and making public transportation users suffer.  In his article he encouraged residents to voice their views and we can only second that. “There will be a number of public hearings around the region in the coming weeks. Attend. Speak up. Encourage friends and co-workers to do the same,” he said.

See below for a full list of public meetings. For the MBTA website, and a for more info, click here.

Public Meetings:

Photo Credit: zeldablue/flickr

The MBTA is broke – and, for that matter, broken. According to the MBTA, it is facing a $161 million dollar budget gap. So bad is the MBTA’s financial situation that, last year, it resorted to using hairnets to protect subway motors.

Last week, the MBTA demonstrated its commitment to addressing a chronic lack of funding for public transportation by proposing two scenarios that are as narrow as they are unfair. In its attempt to close its funding gap, the MBTA has painted a bleak future for transportation users – especially bus riders. The public is justifiably upset by this news. Not only is the agency proposing to increase fares, but cut service all around.

One scenario, dubbed Scenario 2, proposes a fare increase of 35% (compared to 43% in Scenario 1) and is accompanied by drastic service cuts to all modes of transportation. (Scenario 1 also involves service cuts, though less drastic.) All ferry routes will be eliminated. Commuter rail service after 10 pm and weekend service will be eliminated. The E line (on the Green line) and Mattapan Trolley will both cease to run on the weekends. The most severe cuts, however, affect bus services.

Richard Davey, Secretary of MassDOT, explains that they “are looking at some underutilized service. [They] have some suburban bus carriers that are not well utilized.” In reality, however, Scenario 2 completely eliminates 101 bus routes. Not just during off-peak hours. These bus routes will cease to exist!

I’m not sure “some” is the best word to describe 101 bus routes, listed and illustrated on the map here from a CTPS Report produced for the MBTA. The routes depicted in red will no longer be served if Scenario 2 is passed. The blue routes, which are sparse in comparison, will be maintained. The bus routes to be eliminated are urban and suburban.

I am shocked to see how many bus routes are proposed to be cut and how pervasive the cuts are.

To be fair, the MBTA’s situation is difficult. As CLF and Transportation for Massachusetts said in a statement last week, “any fare increase should be part of a comprehensive financial plan that addresses not only the MBTA’s operating deficit for at least the next several years, but also provides the funds needed to address the T’s maintenance and capital needs without further driving up debt service costs.” Last year, CLF convened a group of national and local transportation finance experts and they came up with a menu of solutions, the Governor and the Legislature could pick from. We need a plan that solves the whole problem, not one that makes it impossible for people to get to work, school, or the doctor.

Under the current proposals, millions of riders will be forced to drive to work or drive to the nearest transit stop. Others who depend on the bus may be less fortunate. Scenario 2 is predicted to impact 38.1 million riders. Will you be one of them?

The announcement of a fare increase is never welcome news for transportation users, and Tuesday’s bombshell from the MBTA that it is proposing a hike of between 35% and 43% across the board come July, accompanied by drastic service cuts, made it a very unhappy New Year around the Commonwealth. CLF, along with our fellow members of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) — a diverse coalition of Massachusetts organizations working for an environmentally sustainable, reliable and affordable transportation system — oppose a fare increase that by itself can’t begin to fix the T’s financial problems and is inherently unfair.

T4MA objects to the MBTA’s proposal because it attempts to solve a much larger problem of insufficient funding for public transportation exclusively on the back of transit riders, who are traveling in ways that reduce traffic and benefit the environment. Any fare increase should be part of a comprehensive financial plan that addresses not only the MBTA’s operating deficit for at least the next several years, but also provides the funds needed to address the T’s maintenance and capital needs without further driving up debt service costs.

Moreover, a blanket fare increase affecting the bus, subway, and commuter rail system at the same rate takes into account neither the different needs of different transit users nor the varied costs of providing transit for buses, the subway, and commuter rail. The result would be to disproportionately burden the transit users who can least afford it, particularly bus riders.

And it’s not just public transportation that’s chronically underfunded and nearing collapse. It’s our roads and bridges and the entire transportation system in Massachusetts. Likewise, it is not just public transportation that is supported by state and federal government — the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is heavily subsidized. As both drivers and public transportation users share the benefits of a working transportation system–from easier access to where we need to go to reduced congestion to cleaner air–so must they share the burden of  financing it. Any fare increases must be paired with other revenue-generating mechanisms with a goal of funding a transportation system that works for everyone.

At a MassDOT Board of Directors meeting Wednesday, board members expressed deep concern about the MBTA’s proposal. T and MassDOT officials said that the public’s input will be key in finalizing a plan.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on the MBTA’s proposals in a series of hearings that will be held  around the state from mid-January through March. CLF and other T4MA members will be filing comments and testifying at the hearings to ensure that the interests of our various memberships are addressed in crafting the final proposal. We encourage you to attend a hearing and join us in calling for a plan that pairs any proposed increase with other revenue-generating mechanisms and fairly shares the burden of maintaining and improving our transportation system.

For more on the fare increase and how people are responding, check out some of the media coverage:

Proposed T Service Cuts, Fare Hikes: ‘Not An Easy Choice’ (WBUR)

MBTA Riders Could Face Steep Fare Hikes (AP)

“T” Faces Service Cuts, Fare Hikes (State House News Service)

MBTA Riders Face Fare Hikes as High as 43% (Fox 25 News)

While much of Boston was distracted by the approaching holidays, public health and the environmental justice communities of Roxbury / South End scored a victory last Friday, December 23^rd, when Secretary Sullivan issued his final decision to deny BU’s request to begin high level research at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL) until a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA.

This decision brings to a close one chapter in a larger, protracted debate regarding acceptable levels of risk for this project, otherwise known as the BU Biolab. Biodefense research conducted at the lab would bring highly contagious, rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola, to densely populated urban neighborhoods. Members of local communities have expressed strong opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Meanwhile, BU has failed multiple times to assess and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Their assessments have repeatedly been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis. Despite this, BU requested a waiver to proceed with operating the lab – a request that applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4) labs, including BSL-3 research. CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request.

Secretary Sullivan’s final decision denies BU’s request to begin BSL-3 research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. We welcome this decision, and consider it to be a victory for the security of the local community and the integrity of the legal process. As stated in joint comments filed last week, we support this decision for the following reasons:

1) It’s the law. The Secretary’s decision is in line with the Superior Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings that require the EOEEA to fully review risk assessments for BSL-3 and 4 research at the NEIDL.

2) It’s too risky not to understand the risks. Careful review and oversight of this facility is necessary given BU’s poor track record of reporting accidents in a timely manner and communicating with the community on this issue.

3) The public not only should participate – they are required to. The EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy requires enhanced state review and public participation opportunities because of the proposed facility’s location in Roxbury/South End.

What You Can Do:

NIH’s Blue Ribbon Panel will come to Hibernia Hall in Roxbury on February 16^th to hold a public meeting and hear comments on NIH’s draft risk assessment for the NEIDL. CLF will post the time and other details for the public meeting here when they become available. Mark your calendar and join CLF and its partners in seeking to ensure that this facility does not introduce unnecessary risk to an already overburdened environmental justice community.