Image courtesy of Dr. RawheaD @ flickr.

For over a decade the Federal government has allowed transit riders to use pre-tax money to pay for their ride to and from work. A benefit of greatest interest and benefit to commuter rail riders who often pay more over $100 a month for their passes.

Unfortunately, due to congressional inaction, in 2012 the tax code subsidized driving to work over transit by allowing employees to spend up to $230 per month in parking expenses tax-free but only allowing $125 per month for public transportation. Attempts to restore parity between these programs foundered in the choppy seas of Congress.

However, in one of the lesser-known elements of the fiscal cliff deal, the two benefits have now been set at equal levels again ($240/month) for 2012 (retroactively, although there are very few people who will be able to take advantage of this) and 2013.  A welcome change that should encourage employees to make the desirable shift to public transportation.

So transit riders who spend more than $125 per month on public transportation should contact their human resources department right away and hop onboard this new benefit. And it is indeed a benefit – we all gain when folks commuting to work leave their cars at home, reducing the amount of pollution traveling our roads and being emitted into the air.  Solid transit infrastructure and service driving and being driven by regular ridership allows families to live with fewer (or no) cars, saving money, reducing pollution and building cooler and better communities.

Imagine this: the Governor of Massachusetts addresses the people of the state about an important issue. From the television screen he looks us all in the eye and discusses . . . transportation infrastructure. Improbable? How about if this happened back in the days of when Boston had 5 commercial channels and one public TV station and a statewide address by a Governor was a very big deal? It may be hard to believe that a subject that wonky and technical could be the focus of that sort of hot and intense attention. But it happened.

The year was 1970 and the Governor was Frank Sargent, the strong leader who years later served as Chairman of the Board of CLF. In that dramatic 1970 speech Governor Sargent accepted a report from a special task force reviewing plans to build a massive network of highways in and around Boston and launched a planning effort that set the course of transportation planning for decades to come. Memorably, Governor Sargent, a former head of the state agency that built and operated highways (then known as the “Department of Public Works”) confessed: “Nearly everyone was sure that highways were the only answer to transportation problems for years to come. But we were wrong.”

The powerful story of that speech, the events that precipitated it and most importantly the massive planning process that followed it is told in The Roads Not Taken, the core story in Turn Signal, the Winter issue of ArchitectureBoston, the quarterly publication of the Boston Society of Architects. And the rest of the issue is well worth your time – both for the eloquent essays, like the story of the activists who fought off the highways that were threatening their community, and the photo essays that document what was saved when the highways were stopped.

The good folks at ArchitectureBoston have done something very important here. The Boston Transportation Planning Review (the “BTPR”) that grew out of that  very unique moment set a powerful precedent for the nation and charted a course that has literally shaped the face and communities of Greater Boston. CLF has had a front-row seat at the implementation process for the BTPR and dove into that process even deeper, unsurprisingly given the importance of the transportation system to our mission and the unique fact that Governor Sargent served as Chair of CLF’s Board of Trustees after leaving office.

As Stephanie Pollack, who worked here at CLF with great distinction for many years, powerfully describes the challenge going forward in an essay in Turn Signal:

Forty years on, the time has come for the Commonwealth to fulfill three of the most important unkept promises: institutionalizing open and visionary planning, healing the scars still left in neighborhoods cleared for the cancelled highway projects, and completing and funding the state’s public transportation system.

This theme of the need to finish the job of the BTPR by providing needed funding to our transportation system and institutionalizing good planning practices was picked up in a recent Boston Globe Op-Ed by former Governor Michael Dukakis and another elder statesman of Massachusetts government who began his career in the BTPR era, Stephen Crosby. Dukakis and Crosby wrote:

With transportation issues again at the top of the Commonwealth’s political agenda, we should look back at those long-ago events not out of nostalgia, but as a roadmap for the equally momentous decisions we face today. After decades of investment, Massachusetts has a vastly improved transportation system that includes an extensive network of highways, the MBTA, and regional transit systems serving virtually every part of the state. But this system and the people and businesses that depend on it are in trouble. From aging bridges in Springfield to the T’s financial woes, the state is paying the price for neglecting the basic maintenance and financial backing that any transportation system requires.

And we can’t just maintain what we’ve already built. For a first-class economic future, the Commonwealth requires a first-class transportation system. As state transportation officials have already spelled out, this future will rely heavily on public transportation and will focus highway funds on maintenance rather than expansion. Massachusetts needs to expand existing transit and build high-speed rail to serve the entire state. With so many projects awaiting action, the Commonwealth once again needs to set honest and rigorous priorities for transportation investment — and create a long-term financing plan to efficiently implement those priorities.

This is indeed the bottom line: building thriving communities will require vision, careful planning and investing in our transportation system. This is not the most fun message (folks may claim otherwise but no one really enjoys slowing down to plan or paying for investments) but it is a solid truth — if we want to keep moving forward we need to build, maintain and operate the system that literally keeps us moving.

Rafael Mares, staff attorney at Conservation Law Foundation, authored the following letter to the editor of the Boston Herald in response to Charles Chieppo’s op-ed on July 3, entitled “Fast Track to Trouble“.

Photo Credit: waterj2/flickr

In his op-ed, Charles Chieppo accurately states that the “T is a cornerstone of the regional economy and a lifeline for countless people.” (Fast Track to Trouble, July 3, 2012)  Ironically, Mr. Chieppo considers the very transit improvements that help make the T so important “the worst Massachusetts transportation decision of half of the 20th Century.”  To come to this conclusion, he relies on a number of inaccuracies.  The transit projects required to mitigate the Big Dig air pollution were not finalized two decades ago during the Dukakis administration; they have changed over time, most recently during the Romney administration.  The negative impact on air quality from the Big Dig is real and has been confirmed by scientists during both Democratic and Republican administrations.  The commitments obligated the Commonwealth—not the MBTA—to pay for these improvements.  The MBTA was saddled with the debt only in 2000, through Forward Funding legislation, which overestimated the revenue stream it dedicated to the T.  The legislature’s failure to correct this mistake, by providing sufficient funding or relieving the T of the debt, is a better candidate for the worst transportation decision in recent history.

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)

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.

Former MWRA Executive Director Paul Levy (who has worn a lot of really interesting hats in his career) provides, in CommonWealth Magazine, this really interesting take on the Boston Harbor cleanup and lessons learned from that experience can inform decisions about the slow motion implosion of the transit system of Greater Boston.  Very important reading that nicely complements the good words and insights of Peter Shelley on this blog about the Harbor cleanup.

Big questions that hang in the area include:

• Noting that the cleanup has massively improved the harbor – if we did it all over again, would we employ a “big pipe and big plant” solution to the sewage and stormwater problem in Boston or use more local and distributed methods?
• What lessons learned from these case studies can be applied to the electricity system?
• What role does the existence of the massive highway system that spans the nation (and if you want to read a fascinating description of the creation of that system check out “The Big Roads” by Earl Swift) have on our other infrastructure planning and decision making?

Any thoughts on these questions?  The comments section below awaits.

Throughout human history one overarching story has been that as our society became wealthier we traveled more. The reality that our ancestors generally were born, lived and died in the same place with rare opportunities to “see the world” is hard to deny – so is the reality of our world where it is not unusual to find people walking the streets of our cities who woke up that morning on a different continent and rubbing elbows with masses of people who have lived, gone to school and worked in a wide and complex array of places.

But new academic research is suggesting that the upward surge in travel that has become such a feature of our world may have come to an end.

This could be very similar to well documented phenomena of air pollution rising as a society becomes more wealthy but then reaching a point where the relationship between economic activity (or income) flips -   air pollution increasingly declines as wealth/income rises.  This is know as an “inverted U-Shaped Kuznets curve” by economists (who are almost as poetic when they name things as lawyers).  This analysis suggests that as income rises people collectively take action to reduce pollution.  There is some controversy about applying this principle to pollution that is not as visible and obvious – like the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is a major cause of global warming, but some scholars believe that as income and wealth rises that emissions of CO2 drop very suddenly after a critical break point under some conditions.

But the possibility that we may have passed a critical “break point” where travel stops growing would be very good news in terms of slowing and reversing global warming given the critical role of the transportation sector in the emissions of these greenhouse gases – and the major role that travel growth plays in driving (pun intended) such emissions.

These trends are not handed down from above though – whenever we choose to build communities where people can walk, bike or even drive short distances to their offices, schools, stores, friends and families who move our world in a positive direction.  And when we build good transit systems that allow us to move around those communities quickly and cleanly everyone benefits.

(Photo credit: BoostyTSi, flickr)

The good folks at Walk Score have been doing everyone a real service by analyzing neighborhoods on the basis of walkability.  They have on a simple and cool concept: you type in an address and it analyzes that place based on what is close enough to get to by an easy walk (restaurants, stores, coffee shops, banks, etc . . .) and it also generates a “Walk Score” (for example,  CLF’s office in Boston gets a 95 out of 100 which falls into the “Walker’s Paradise” zone) and a Transit Score^TM that rates accessibility and availability of trains and buses (CLF in Boston, in the heart of the city, gets a perfect score of 100 or “Riders Paradise” because of the 75 nearby transit routes).

At the bottom of the main Walk Score page you will notice a button that allows you to check an address against their new beta “Street Smart” Walk Score.  You can get to that directly through a blog post explaining and previewing this new mechanism.

Such tools are not perfect of course.  Anyone who has had to endure a delay ridden ride on the MBTA (the essential and beleaguered transit system serving Boston) might spit out their coffee at the suggestion they are in a “Rider’s Paradise” for example.  However, tools like this illustrate how real neighborhoods offer us, and our families, neighbors and work colleagues a chance to engage in so many of the opportunities to engage in the activities of daily life without driving.

Perhaps it is obvious – but it bears repeating – walkable communities provide us a chance to meet our neighbors and avoid burning gasoline and putting pollution (including greenhouse gases causing global warming) into the atmosphere.  And in dense communities where things are close together when we do drive, we drive less, preserving so many of these benefits.  Building such communities and the transit that supports them, is I note with pride, the mission of CLF’s Healthy Communities and Environmental Justice program and of course you can read all about it in the blog posts about the work in that program.