Yesterday, the Globe published a story covering a legislative hearing about MBTA commuter rail service, specifically, reacting to passengers’ dissatisfaction with the system after a particularly harsh winter and increasing number of service interruptions. Department of Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Mullan reported that the combined on-time performance for all commuter rail lines was 72 percent– which may sound like a decent number until your train is one of the 28 percent that sat on the tracks through dinnertime or left you shivering on a platform for the first hour of your daily commute.

The article reports that much of the discussion focused on the woeful fiscal condition of our transportation system. With transportation officials throwing around numbers concerning operating budget deficits, capital needs, and debt, all in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it is easy to lose hope.  Funding transit, however, is not an intractable problem.  At the hearing, while repeating MassDOT’s focus on “reform before revenue,” Secretary Mullan stated that “we won’t be able to cost-cut our way out of the deficit,” and expressed need for a conversation about revenue.

A report released Tuesday by CLF and Northeastern‘s Dukakis Center suggests a framework around which such a conversation could begin. The framework explains the need for diversified transit financing and suggests putting the broadest possible range of revenue sources on the table at the outset. Such solutions could include lower off-peak fares or universal pass programs for students. There’s also the possibility of granting Massachusetts cities and towns the authority to raise additional local revenue in form of fees or taxes to support services like transit. Other states, including Rhode Island, are already deep into this conversation. It is time for Massachusetts to follow suit.

The framework was developed based on conclusions gleaned from a Blue-Ribbon Summit held by the two groups last November. The Summit brought leading transit finance experts from across the country together to explore potential solutions to better fund Massachusetts’ transit system. To learn more about CLF’s work to modernize transportation, go here.

(Photo credit: Stephanie Chappe)

In anticipation of a state Joint Transportation Committee hearing on April 12, today, CLF and the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University released two reports to address the financial woes of public transportation in Massachusetts. The reports were based on conclusions gleaned from a blue-ribbon summit that the two groups co-hosted last November, which brought leading transit finance experts from around the country together to explore and develop solutions that can help build sustainable funding mechanisms for transit currently available in Massachusetts and allow expansion of those services over time. In addition, the reports are supplemented by a background paper describing the financial status of public transportation in Massachusetts and a series of options papers discussing the pros and cons of potential solutions to the problem.

Public transportation in Massachusetts is facing a stark financial crisis. The MBTA alone has a backlog of $3 billion of needed repairs and an increasing gap in its operating budget. The fifteen Regional Transit Authorities around the state, on the other hand, are forced to underserve their current customers because they lack a combined $125 million per year required just to meet present demand on existing bus routes.

Despite the fact that over the years they have received a lion’s share of transportation dollars, the state’s roads and bridges are also in desperate need of repairs. A few years ago, the Transportation Finance Commission projected that Massachusetts will have a $15-$19 billion gap in transportation resources over the next 20 years. While the existence and extent of this financial crisis is well documented, few solutions are currently on the table because so many stakeholders and policymakers mistakenly believe that transit finance in Massachusetts is an intractable and overwhelming problem for which no viable solution exists.

The important lessons learned from the summit include that:

• A financially stable public transportation system requires a healthy and diverse portfolio of revenue sources, rather than the current all-eggs-in-one-basket approach. The current funding system relies heavily on a small number of sometimes volatile funding sources, such as the sales tax.  The experts underscored the importance of  identifying brand new streams of revenue.

• With the chronic under-pricing of automobile travel, raising transit fares is not the answer.  Increased fares, at this time, would send the wrong price signals to transportation users and would create more incentive for people to drive, ultimately reducing the great economic, environmental, and social benefits of public transportation.

• Along with new revenue sources, such as vehicle-miles-traveled fees, universal transit pass programs, and increased registry fees, as well as further cost-efficiencies, a change in fare structures, rather than raising fares, and maximizing ridership are key strategies for generating user revenue equitably and affordably.

Read the full reports, background and option papers:

• Blue-Ribbon Summit Summary
• Blue-Ribbon Summit Framework
• Background Paper
• Option Papers

The Transportation Committee voted unanimously yesterday during a work session on the ZOOM bus bill that the bill “ought not to pass.” The vote, while unfortunate, does not permanently end the ongoing discussion on how to best address Maine’s growing transit needs.  Procedurally, consideration of funding for any expanded ZOOM bus service will be folded into an omnibus bill that will require the Transportation Committee to make difficult decisions on how the Maine Turnpike Authority should spend its money.

Capital expenditures will face increased scrutiny in the wake of the appointment of Interim Executive Director (IED), Peter Mills.  In that budget process, buses will be pitted against bridges.  Mills has made it clear that he needs a clear sense of exactly what is expected from the MTA fiscally and for some serious prioritization to take place. In recent weeks, Mills’ actions have been resonating through the gilded halls of the MTA. He canceled a MTA employee banquet. He donated his “free” company ride to work crews, and he canned all those pricey external lobbyists. In short, he is the antithesis of his predecessor. For those of us advocating for accessible transit options, we can only hope that his new vision extends to how Mainers efficiently move around the state.

Ten years from now, we can’t afford to all be wondering why we can’t get there from here without jumping in our cars. Reliable, cost-effective, accessible transit between the most populated and most productive economic hubs is critical and CLF remains committed to making that happen. Please join us for the ride.

Question: What’s better than a bike share program in Boston? Answer: A bike share program in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline. And according to this article in yesterday’s Globe, a solution may be closer than we think. Local officials in those areas are exploring the feasibility of this the-more-the-merrier approach,  which would expand Boston’s original bike share proposal, first introduced about two years ago, into a regional program that would serve those additional densely-populated communities just outside the city’s core.

An effective bike share program would serve as a complement to the MBTA, increasing access to hard-to-reach areas not currently served by the T, such as Arlington, Medford, Somerville’s Union Square or Cambridge’s Inman Square, reducing stress on the MBTA system at peak times like during rush hour or following major sporting events (if you’ve ever tried to fight your way onto the green line after a Red Sox game, you know what I’m talking about) and providing yet another alternative to driving, reducing congestion on the city’s roadways.

Cities such as Minneapolis, Denver and Washington, DC already have bike share programs in place–and we should join them. CLF supports a regional bike sharing initiative for Boston and other sensible transportation alternatives that get more New Englanders out of their cars and into their communities, whether that’s on foot or by train, bus or bike.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and modernize transportation at clf.org.

Where is Maine’s future going? Regardless, it’s going there on a ZOOM bus. Or at least, that’s the hope of the 26 co-sponsors of LD 673, the bill that proposes to expand the ZOOM bus system to serve additional locations based on rapid growth in demand. The ZOOM bill was the focus of a well-attended press conference held today at the state house in Augusta by the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MAST), the steering committee of which includes CLF’s own Jane West. The press conference featured speeches by three of the bill’s co-sponsors–Rep. Bradley Moulton (R-York), Rep. Ben Chipman (I-Portland) and Sen. Justin Alfond (D-Portland)–as well as other local transportation advocates. More >

ZOOM Press Conference
Tuesday March 22 at 12 p.m.
Welcome Center at the State House, Augusta, ME (map)

CLF and the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MAST) will be hosting a press conference on the new bill to expand the ZOOM commuter bus service between Portland and York County and add new service between Portland and Lewiston and Auburn and between Portland and Augusta to keep up with rising demand.

Those in attendance will include Jane West, CLF staff attorney and steering committee member of MAST; Representatives Bradley Moulton (R-York) and Ben Chipman (I-Portland), both sponsors of the bill; Nicola Wells, communications director and organizer at the Maine League of Young Voters and steering committee member of MAST; and Christian MilNeil, citizen activist. Read the full media alert >

Learn more about ZOOM

Boston has been ranked one of the top 15 major cities for transportation by NRDC’s Smarter Cities project.  The study does not rank the cities, but Boston comes out on top alphabetically before Chicago, New York, Portland, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington–which, in our minds, means it’s number one!

While this is probably extremely hard to believe for Boston commuters who experienced too many delays as a result of the cold weather this winter, we will take a win over New York any way we can get it–particularly as the 2011 Red Sox are about to face the Yankee$ for the first time in the Grapefruit League tonight.

What helped put Boston on top? Among the factors on NRDC’s list were our our heavily-trafficked, far-reaching public transit system, including the planned Green Line extension, a project in which CLF is very involved.

See for yourself. Check out why else we made the list, and start thinking about how we can help the ruefully underfunded public transportation system in Massachusetts get better.

See what else CLF is doing to build better ways to get around in your community.

Be a superhero. Take the T.

In his column in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser illustrates that densely developed cities are better for the environment than leafy suburbs. The column correctly states that the average household in Boston’s urban core emits significantly fewer pounds of carbon dioxide per year, in part because people in the city drive less. Unfortunately, the column also states that public transportation “does little to balance the scales”— a statement that could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the use of public transit does little to decrease carbon emissions. In fact, Glaeser’s research that formed the basis for his conclusions indicates that although city dwellers tend to use more public transportation than suburbanites, their carbon footprint is still significantly lower precisely because the emissions from transit are modest relative to the contributions of cars. Travel by public transportation emits about half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile than private vehicles, and uses about half the fuel.

Glaeser’s message is clear. If we’re going to minimize our carbon footprint, we need to not only support denser development in downtown Boston, but also greater investment in our underfunded public transportation system.

Learn more about CLF’s work to build livable cities and innovative transportation for all New Englanders.

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.