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)

I was so sad to read that Alexandra Dawson died recently. After working alongside her here at CLF, I’m sure of one thing: she gave whatever illness took her away one hell of a fight. That’s just the kind of person she was.

I was lucky to have worked with Sandra during the formative stages of my legal career. I was a third year night student at Suffolk University Law School in 1977 and had just started volunteering full time at CLF that year. I hadn’t a clue what it meant to be a conservationist as a legal practice but fate landed me for the next two years at the knees of one of the all-time masters in New England: Sandra Dawson.  She came to work every day absolutely on fire with her commitment to the environment,public resources, and the law. I am not alone, either. Sandra influenced the lives of so many lawyers and conservationists that it is barely worth trying to generate a list. The legal services program she designed and directed at CLF from 1972 to 1979 may have been the only one of its kind in the country.  Her legal opinions – whether the topic was wetland protection, the law of public ways, the public trust doctrine, or conservation tax law – were definitive, practical, and clearly written so anyone with an interest could access and work to protect their conservation interests. I can’t imagine how many of the public spaces and wetlands that we take for granted today owe their survival to her fierce and unflinching advocacy.

Although she was surprisingly modest at a personal level, she was a giant as a lawyer. When I saw her last at the celebration of her 80^th birthday organized by the Kestrel Land Trust and MACC, her first action after a smile of recognition and a hug (amazing!) was to grill me on a “just ghastly” municipal development that she was fighting.

Her influence and spirit will continue to live on in me and the thousands of others in New England who she shaped and the people they, in turn, have shaped.  But, at least in my lifetime, there will never be another Sandra Dawson.

Thank you, Alexandra, from the bottom of my heart.

It’s been a great year for CLF — and a great year on CLF Scoop. We’ve had lots of great posts by our advocates, staff and volunteers. See below for the most read 10 blog posts published in 2011.

1. Northern Pass: The 5 million ton elephant in Massachusetts’s climate plan 
By Christophe Courchesne

“The Northern Pass transmission project is being pitched by its developers as a clean energy proposal for New Hampshire. As I’ve pointed out before, Northern Pass is aregional proposal with dubious benefits in the Granite State. Unfortunately, the developers’ hollow promises have found an audience further south, in Massachusetts.”

2. RGGI results good for our climate, economy and consumers 
By N. Jonathan Peress

“If you listen to the word on street, or read the headlines, you’ll have heard that our times are hard times. Joblessness remains stubbornly high, markets remain volatile and credit is tight. Most people agree that what we need is a program to creates jobs, generates money, and reinvests each of those in our communities to make them stable, healthier and happier.”

3. My NY Times letter to editor 
By John Kassel 

“It would be hard to find “a tougher moment over the last 40 years to be a leader in the American environmental movement” only if your sole focus is the national debate. All the rest of us — at the local, state and regional levels — have known for years what the nationals are only now realizing: we’ve got to engage people closer to where they live.”

4. Countdown to Shark Week 2012
by Robin Just

“I really do love our New England sharks. But I also love to surf. And as the water temperature at my favorite break is going down, the great whites are heading south. One less thing to worry about as I struggle with frigid water, thick head-to-toe neoprene, and my own personal resolve to surf all year long.”

5. We Can Get There From Here: Maine Energy Efficiency Ballot Initiative 
by Sean Mahoney 

“Maine has a new motto: We can get there from here… As Washington has failed to advance clean energy legislation, and Governor LePage has expressed open hostility to the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS), I am reminded of that famous quip from Bert and I: “You can’t get they-ah from he-ah.” For Mainers concerned about Maine’s dependence on expensive, dirty fuels, and sincere in their interest in building a sustainable economy for the years to come, this quip has become a frustrating reality – a reality we can change, with your help.”

6. Love That Dirty Water: Massachusetts Lacks Money, Needs Clean Water 
By HHarnett 

“Massachusetts lacks money and needs clean water. This bind – one in which the state found itself following a June report – has forced a discussion policies that are raising the hackles of Massachusetts residents.”

7. Would Northern Pass Swamp the Regional Market for Renewable Projects? 
By Christophe Courchesne

“With the Northern Pass project on the table, as well as other looming projects andinitiatives to increase New England’s imports of Canadian hydroelectric power, the region’s energy future is coming to a crossroads. The choice to rely on new imports will have consequences that endure for decades, so it’s critical the region use the best possible data and analysis to weigh the public costs and benefits of going down this road. To date, there have been almost no objective, professional assessments of the ramifications.”

8. CLF Negotiates Cool Solution to Get Kendall Power Plant Out of Hot Water (And To Get Hot Water Out of Kendall Power Plant)
By Peter Shelley 

“Today marks a new milestone for CLF in our efforts to clean up the lower Charles River. Concluding a five-year negotiation, involving CLF and the other key stakeholders, the EPA issued a new water quality permit for the Kendall (formerly Mirant Kendall) Power Plant, a natural gas cogeneration facility owned by GenOn Energy. The plant is located on the Cambridge side of the Longfellow Bridge.”

9. What the Keystone XL decision should mean for Northern Pass
By Christophe Courchesne 

“Last week, a major disaster for our climate and our nation’s clean energy future was averted – at least for now – when the Obama administrationannounced that it won’t consider approving the Keystone XL pipeline’s border crossing permit before it reconsiders the Keystone XL pipeline’s environmental impacts and the potential alternatives to the proposal on the table.  For all the reasons that my colleague Melissa Hoffer articulated in her post last week, the Keystone XL victory was a resounding, if limited, triumph with important lessons for environmental and climate advocates across the country as we confront, one battle at a time, the seemingly overwhelming challenge of solving the climate crisis.”

10. When it comes to river restoration, haste makes waste
by Anthony Iarrapino

“In their rush to exploit recovery efforts from Tropical Storm Irene, ideologues who perpetually fight against regulation and science and who posture as the defenders of traditional “Yankee” values are forgetting two important rock-ribbed principles.”

The run-up to the holidays is always a busy time of year, and can make us all feel a bit overstretched. That’s certainly true at CLF.

In fact, at times this fall it has felt like we’ve been at a pre-holiday pace since Labor Day. In preparing an internal President’s Report in December, I realized I could only capture a fraction of our accomplishments – the tip of a large iceberg of great work that we love to do.

I worry sometimes, frankly, that we love it too much. My concern for all of us (in CLF and in every cause-driven organization) is that we take care of ourselves as we do what we do. This includes optimizing our efficiency, taking time off to recharge, leaving work at work, and of course selecting work carefully so that we spend our time and energy wisely. These are relatively objective elements of prudent and careful management.

It also includes the more subjective, human-oriented, affective things we all do – as human beings – to feel fulfilled, grounded and happy: asking for, receiving and giving help, supporting our partners and being supported by them, sharing common cause. There is nothing quite so energizing and gratifying as knowing that we’re in it together.

This past year was replete with examples of how we at CLF do this at the inter-organizational level. We partnered with other groups, we led coalitions, we leveraged our work for the benefit of similarly-aligned organizations with complementary skills, we developed strategy in cooperation with others and implemented it jointly. As I said in a recent letter to The New York Times, it’s “a great time to be in the environmental movement.” These partnerships are one of the reasons; they sustain us.

As we round the dark corner of the year and head into the light, I wish you all a wonderful holiday season and a joyous new year.

The Cape Wind offshore wind project moved one big step closer to construction yesterday when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the MA Department of Public Utilities’ (DPU’s) finding that the project’s costs are reasonable in light of the many benefits it will bring.

Massachusetts’s highest court upheld the November 2010 decision of the DPU, which approved a critically important contract between Cape Wind and National Grid in which the electric utility agreed to purchase half of Cape Wind’s output. Cape Wind opponents had appealed the DPU’s decision— the latest in an endless stream of ill-fated maneuvers intended to block the nation-leading clean energy project from being built.

CLF intervened in the appeal proceeding with fellow environmental groups NRDC and Clean Power Now, making the case that the DPU’s extensively-researched decision showed clearly that Cape Wind’s benefits would outweigh its costs. Among these benefits is the project’s close proximity to areas of high electricity demand, which gives it logistical advantages over obtaining power from more distant energy projects that have been proposed.

The High Court’s validation should make it easier for Cape Wind to secure a buyer for the other half of the wind farm’s output and attract project investors to help finance construction. When built, after more than a decade of exhaustive reviews, Cape Wind will be the nation’s first offshore wind project.

Encouraged by yesterday’s decision, Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind, spelled out some of the benefits Massachusetts residents could anticipate when Cape Wind is built, including, “creating up to 1,000 jobs, providing Massachusetts with cleaner air, greater energy independence and a leadership position in offshore wind power.”

We at CLF say, “Bring it on…not a moment too soon!”

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.

A truly gorgeous summer day sailing around Block Island at hull speed is one of my fondest ocean memories. So is battling with a monster striper around midnight on the rocks of Cuttyhunk Island. (Landed and released.) I’ve also been lucky to enjoy any number of days on Buzzard’s Bay either cranking off the miles in a kayak, watching my small daughter catch her first porgie or diving off the fish dock deep into the cool, clean, green water.

I can’t think for a minute what deep shock and dread I’d feel if we had a truly disastrous oil spill such as happened with BP’s Deepwater Horizon. The 2003 spill from a barge collision in Buzzard’s Bay released at least 98,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil and those impacts were astonishing. Imagine the damage from a months long oil geyser such as happened with the Montara blowout that started on August 21 2009 and flowed for 72 days. Or, maybe you haven’t heard about the spill off the coast of Nigeria this week that is likely to extend over 900 square kilometers? Imagine that one hovering along Cape Cod National Seashore and washing up week after week. This spill was caused when oil was simply being pumped from the supposedly safer platform of a large storage tanker to a transfer vessel.

As happened with BP’s disaster, oil field catastrophes often cost human lives. You may not have been able to pick up one of the scarce stories in the US media about the sinking of a drilling rig off of Russia’s Sakahlin Island barely a week ago that has killed at least 50 workers. The rough waves, strong winds and icy waters are similar to the challenges of oil drilling in America’s Arctic sea — and should raise the same concerns. (How many workers are we going to be putting immediately at risk in the Arctic with a potential oil spill when the closest US Coast Guard station is 1000 miles away?) Even the source of last month’s oil spill hundreds of miles off of the coast of Brazil took eight days to locate and they don’t have to deal with icebergs. The list of oil spill disasters is growing so quickly that disasters are now seemingly routine. Yet, the ability to “clean up” hasn’t generally improved since the 1960s. The only real way to prevent a spill is to not drill in the first place.

So, I am giving thanks this weekend for a healthy, oil-free ocean and for my CLF colleagues and our allies who work hard to keep it that way. Like winter itself, the political storms will come and go and it is heartening to know there are dedicated, smart people willing to take on the challenge. The best way to keep our beaches and waters healthy, vibrant and clean is to keep supporting the people and organizations who work for a better future. Thank you all and Happy Holidays.

Protestors at BU Biolab. Courtesy of Steph PS @ flickr. Creative Commons.

There’s a common saying that if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it. Leaders of Boston University’s proposed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) – known as the BU Biolab – in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End, have asked the state to waive required review of their plans to build a lab involving rare and lethal pathogens even though their prior risk assessments were found inadequate multiple times. In other words, they want to build a risk laden facility without accountability to the public. We oppose the grant of this request.

We Support Secretary Sullivan’s Decision in Favor of Thorough Review

Today advocates in the fight against the Biolab filed joint comments with Secretary Sullivan supporting his draft decision which, if adopted as final later this month, will deny BU’s request to begin high level research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. You can read a copy of our comments here, and find the draft decision here.

Background on the Biolab

The facility would focus its research on biological agents used in acts of bioterrorism – a mission the community fears will bring biodefense research on highly contagious pathogens to their densely populated urban neighborhoods.  Members of the Roxbury/South End communities have expressed vocal opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Biocontainment Safety Level ratings, established by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, increase from 1 to 4 based on the danger associated with research on different biological pathogens and mandate increasing levels of physical protection to prevent a public health crisis in the event that a pathogen leaves the lab (e.g. through transmission from an infected lab worker, an escaped animal subject, or an outbreak resulting from a natural disaster or a malevolent act at the lab). BU’s NEIDL would include research in each of the four Biocontainment Safety Levels.

Research in labs designated as Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4), the highest level, includes rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola. According to BU’s waiver application to EOEEA, their BSL-4 research would involve pathogens that “cause diseases that are usually life-threatening” and are spread through the air or “an unknown cause of transmission.” BU has also quoted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as stating that pathogens appropriate for research in BSL-3 laboratories “cause diseases that may have serious or lethal consequences” and are transmitted through the air.

BU’s Multiple Failures

BU has attempted – multiple times – to explain and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Each time, they have failed and been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis.

Their risk assessments (which must satisfy requirements under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act) have been found to be insufficient and not credible by the EOEEA and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as well as the National Research Council. Each of these failures to acknowledge the risks associated with the NEIDL has alienated the community, resulting in a marked distrust of BU.

BU has now partially completed its third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL. This time the risk assessment is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (who provided significant federal funding for the project) and their private consultant, Tetra Tech.

BU’s Request to Limit Review of Risks

Concurrently with their third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL, BU filed a written request asking Secretary Sullivan to waive the legal requirement for EOEEA review of certain research at the lab. BU’s request applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in BSL-4 labs.  CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request. A waiver from full EOEEA review would deny the Commonwealth the opportunity to ensure that the risks to the surrounding environmental justice community from this facility had been fully considered.

On December 2, in his draft waiver decision and Certificate on Notice of Project Change, Secretary Sullivan allowed lower level research (BSL-1 and 2) to proceed but stated that EOEEA is “legally barred from acting on [BU’s] waiver request for BSL-3 level research until I am able to independently review the risk assessment for the contagious pathogens proposed for study by BU at the Biolab.”

Today CLF joined the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Anderson & Kreiger, a law firm representing the Safety Net, a community group led by local activist Klare Allen, and other affected community members, in submitting written comments to Secretary Sullivan calling upon him to finalize his draft decision denying a waiver of EOEEA review for BSL-3 research at the NEIDL, and reminding him of his charge under the EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy to ensure that this review process provides enhanced public participation opportunities.

As we state in our comments, we thank the Secretary for recognizing that the NEIDL will involve “research on extremely contagious biological agents that could pose serious harm to an already compromised Environmental Justice community.”

What You Can Do:

• A final decision from Secretary Sullivan on BU’s waiver request is expected on December 28. Stay tuned for news about that decision here. A final draft of NIH’s risk assessment is expected to be issued by NIH in the next few months.
• 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 date, 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.