This post is part of a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

Does it seem as though your car is hitting nasty potholes with ever-increasing frequency? That’s because it probably is.

Across the state, our local roads are decaying. Although Massachusetts law, under Chapter 90, reimburses municipalities for road repairs, they aren’t receiving enough. An estimated $562 million is the amount of annual funding required to maintain the streets in a “state of good repair”; cities and towns, however, must make do with only $200 million, or about 36% of the funds that are actually needed. As a result, our roads are suffering, and the safety of our drivers along with them.

Passed in 1973, Chapter 90 compensates cities and towns for expenditures made on maintenance of local roads. In the 40 years since Chapter 90 was passed, the costs of construction have gone up dramatically, essentially reducing the value of Chapter 90 funds and their ability to solve the very problems they were designed to solve. As a result, municipalities are forced to dig into local revenues as well as cut important services, such as salaries for teachers or police officers, in an effort to bridge the funding gap. Less affluent communities are left in the lurch when it comes to maintenance, and are forced to look on helplessly as local infrastructure degrades. This presents the ultimate Catch-22 of the situation: minor cracks in the pavement, when left untended due to budget constraints, soon require far more expensive rehabilitation than a quick patch for communities already unable to afford them.

Massachusetts’s bridges are in a similar state of disrepair. As of January 2013, there were 436 structurally deficient bridges out of a total 4500 owned by municipalities or the state. That means, for every 10 bridges you drive over in the state, at least one of them could be deficient. Ask yourself: does that make you feel safe?

To be fair, “structurally deficient” doesn’t necessarily mean that the bridge is unsound or about to collapse. Once a bridge has deteriorated to a certain degree, an immediate overhaul becomes necessary to avert restrictions on its use. For example, many deficient bridges are subject to weight restrictions, and of these, 38 have degraded to a degree forcing access to be closed off. Since 2008, MassDOT has implemented the Accelerated Bridge Program and has begun the long-overdue process of restoring neglected bridges. Over the last five years, the Program has completed 121 bridges, and expects to restore more than 200 by 2016. Once the Program ends, however, bridges will continue to atrophy and crumble. Without the Program, there would still be upwards of 543 structurally deficient bridges in the state – yet, even with the Program, there will be over 400 deficient bridges left untouched on the day the work ends. Due to the perpetual need for upkeep, Massachusetts really can’t afford to lose initiatives like the Accelerated Bridge Program.

The maintenance backlog precipitates from years of neglect due to underfunding. In order to reverse it, continued investment in programs like the Accelerated Bridge Program is critical. Without devoting resources to infrastructure today, the epidemic of potholes and crumbling bridges will continue its relentless advance.

So the next time you curse out your mayor when next you drive over a particularly treacherous pothole, think twice: that pothole is part of a larger problem. You can be sure people are feeling it in every corner, and every car, of the Bay state.

This post is part of a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

If you have ever tried to get from one place to another in the Bay State, you could get the impression that everyone in Massachusetts must have a car. If you’ve ever tried to ride your bike across the Longfellow Bridge (as currently configured), or walk around Agawam, you know what I’m talking about.

You’d be surprised to find out, however, that one in every eight Massachusetts households does not have a car. Even more interesting is the fact that the percentage of Massachusetts residents of driving age without driver’s licenses has been increasing steadily from 8.67% in 2006 to 13.41% in 2010. Since few people who have a driver’s license tend to give it up, a growing number of young people are deciding not to drive. They’re taking to the streets, en masse, but on foot or on bike.

The number of miles traveled on public transit among sixteen to thirty-four-year olds in the United States increased by 40% between 2001 and 2009. That’s an important trend to be aware of when we decide how to spend our transportation dollars going forward. When we build transportation infrastructure today, it will be used by a generation or two to come. We need to keep their habits in mind when building today or we’ll lose them tomorrow.

Regardless of young people leaving cars behind, there are other important reasons to open up travel options for people. Consider that the average cost of owning a car in the United States is almost $9,000/year for a sedan—money that can be spent in better ways when there are other options to get around. Likewise, to reduce our energy consumption, we have to look to the transportation sector. Transportation consumes roughly 33% of all the energy in Massachusetts – the most of any end-use sector. Emissions from our vehicles accounts for 36% of our entire statewide greenhouse gas emissions – and it is the portion of our emissions that is rising the fastest. Since not all ways of getting around are created equal—e.g., buses during rush hour use much less energy and don’t contribute fewer emissions per passenger per mile than SUVs—we will have to develop our transportation system with the goals of reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change in mind.

As a result, I think it is fair to conclude, it would make little sense to spend money on maintaining our current transportation system without developing it in a way that meets our future needs. Today’s construction builds tomorrow’s infrastructure. If we build like we always have, recent trends suggest that people may not use it. That would be a waste, for our economy, our health, our environment, and our communities.

We all expect our transportation system to work. But what happens when it doesn’t and we don’t fully understand the alternatives? Image: shoothead @ flickr

This post is the first in a series on transportation issues affecting Massachusetts. Look for more from Rafael Mares and Christine Chilingerian in the coming weeks. To stay up to date, visit this www.clf.org/blog/tag/MA4Trans/ or follow the hashtag #MA4TRANS on Twitter.

We all expect our transportation system to work. We get upset when we wait for the bus, drive through a pothole, sit in traffic, or are stuck on the T behind a broken down train. We expect our transportation system to be in place—for roads to be paved, for sidewalks to be built, for bike lanes to be marked, for train track and trains to be available, and for tunnels to be dug and lit. What’s more—we not only expect them to be there, but to also be in good service when we need them: for roads to be smooth and not congested, for buses and trains to be timely, for sidewalks to not be treacherous, and for tunnels to, well, not leak.

As Paul Levy, a distinguished Massachusetts public servant, however, has pointed out, the nature of our democratic system, and the slow deterioration that all infrastructure goes through do not mesh well. Almost two years ago, Mr. Levy wisely called for a cheering section for infrastructure. With legislators on Beacon Hill now finally actively trying to tackle the long-standing, severe underfunding of our transportation system, we believe it’s time to put on the cheerleading uniform, pull out the pom poms, and cheer loudly.

But how can we cheer, if we‘re not armed with important facts about the root of our transportation system’s problems? This blog series attempts to shed light on facts about the Commonwealth’s transportation system that can help us be informed supporters of new revenue for our transportation system, even if it takes a billion dollars a year over the next ten years to solve the problem.

I hope you’ll follow as we post this. They’ll make great reading while you’re waiting for the T.

Government officials, industry representatives, and environmental advocates agree: it’s time to increase the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the road in Massachusetts. EVs emit significantly less carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants into the air we breathe. Yet the market for EVs in Massachusetts is currently small, due largely to higher price tags, lack of incentives and little infrastructure. Thankfully, the enthusiasm at the recent Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Roundtable indicates that we are poised to do more for EVs in Massachusetts.

Earlier this month at the MA EV Roundtable, I described a new idea for encouraging EV purchasing in the Commonwealth that CLF has developed with Sonia Hamel of Hamel Environmental Consulting. The Clean Energy Bundle Incentive would provide purchasers of EVs free renewable electricity for charging their EVs at home. To achieve this, the state would purchase bulk renewable electricity and distribute it to interested customers as free energy. The state could ensure that the renewable energy, or the funds used to purchase the renewable energy, flows from existing Massachusetts renewable programs and efforts like the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS). The state could choose to distribute the energy as either a direct rebate, in the form of a debit card, or as part of a contract. While the amount could be adjusted, we think that $2,000 is in the right ballpark for an amount to distribute per customer.

Bundling free, clean energy with the purchase of an EV stands out as an excellent option to incent EV purchases in Massachusetts. CLF believes that purchasing incentives are key to meaningful deployment of EVs in Massachusetts, and  we favor incentives that set new energy use paradigms, increase market alignment, and are educational for consumers. The Clean Energy Bundle Incentive achieves all three of these goals.

CLF believes the Clean Energy Bundle Incentive will be an effective incentive in the current EV market, and is bolstered by a study by McKinsey and PlanNYC on EVs in New York City. That report found that due to the still-fledgling market of EVs, lack of infrastructure, and small number of potential purchasers, incentives should target “early adopters,” a group committed to investing in green technology and being recognized for their investment. The Clean Energy Bundle Incentive targets these “early adopters” by doubling their investment in green technology, as their EV will run on renewable energy.

While the Clean Energy Bundle Incentive is a new concept for EVs, the idea has been piloted in the realm of natural gas vehicles. Honda is currently offering a $3,000 debit card for use at any Clean Energy brand gas station with the purchase of a Honda Civic Natural Gas, which gives the average owner about three years worth of fuel.

If you are interested in learning more about the Clean Energy Bundle Incentive or joining our advocacy efforts, I encourage you to contact me at jrushlow[at]clf.org.

Last week, CLF co-sponsored the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Roundtable with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Clean Cities. The invitation-only event resulted in 90+ RSVPs from government officials, business and utility representatives, advocates, and others, and was very well attended despite the ever-worsening weather forecast. Opening remarks from Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rick Sullivan and CLF President John Kassell set the tone for a productive day, and clearly established the Patrick Administration’s commitment to promote Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Massachusetts. You can watch their opening remarks here. We were also joined by several environmental and energy agency commissioners: Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Ken Kimmell, Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Mark Sylvia, and Department of Public Utilities Commissioners Dave Cash and Jolette Westbrook. Key staff from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation also attended.

Going into this event, we knew that the stage has been set through strong state clean energy and climate policies, and that the time is right for Massachusetts to affirmatively promote a robust market for EVs. We have only 900 or so EVs registered in our state, so we have a long way to go to catch up to current leaders in this arena, such as California. In fact, Vermont has at least twice as many EVs as MA per capita. It’s not hard to understand why this is the case – while MA is usually a leader in environmental and energy policy initiatives, states like Florida, Georgia, and both Carolinas (and many others!) currently have more incentives for potential EV consumers than we have in Massachusetts. These types of incentives are critical to the success of new energy technologies such as EVs.

Given that electric vehicle deployment will be an important means of achieving our mandatory climate reduction goals in Massachusetts (25% below 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020, a third of which should come from the transportation sector, and 80% by 2050), we cannot afford to wait to do more. Throughout the Roundtable, CLF and other presenters articulated the many policy opportunities, and opportunities for industry and utility stakeholders, to make EVs viable in Massachusetts – from purchasing incentives, to convenience benefits like access to HOV lanes, to time-of-use charging to reduce impacts to the electric grid from increased EV deployment (and reduce charging costs even more).

Overall, the day was very energizing and inspiring, and we expect real outcomes in the near future. We regret that we couldn’t open up the event to the public, but in addition to watching the opening remarks here and below, you can review the agenda and powerpoint presentations from the Roundtable. We look forward to exciting developments coming out of this energizing day, and promise to report back here on our progress.

Since Governor Patrick proposed his plan to raise revenue for transportation and education, a lot of time has been spent on discussing the merits of the revenue sources he has chosen. In comparison, relatively little time has been devoted to how such money should be spent. The great American humorist Evan Esar once wisely said, “The mint makes it first, it is up to you to make it last.”

Transportation for Massachusetts has worked closely with Representatives Tricia Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield, Representative Carl Sciortino of Medford, Senator Katherine Clark of Melrose, and others to draft legislation that addresses this side of the coin. In addition, Transportation for Massachusetts helped develop a bill that could prepare Massachusetts for better ways to raise revenue for transportation in the future. In total there are currently three great bills pending that Transportation for Massachusetts helped develop.

Here they are:

An Act relative to transportation investment, regional fairness, and accountability to state policies (HD 3119 introduced by Rep. Farley-Bouvier, Rep. Sciortino, and S. 1670 by Senator Clark) will guide any transportation investments the legislature and the governor agree on to build a financially stable, safer and more modern transportation system in every corner of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This bill would:

• Eliminate the unsustainable practice of paying for day-to-day operational costs of our highway system by borrowing through state bonds (currently, MassDOT is spending roughly $1.75 for every $1.00 borrowed because of the interest on the bonds);
• Require that an equitable portion of transportation revenue benefit all regions throughout the Commonwealth;
• Set aside funding for Gateway Cities and environmental justice neighborhoods to plan and design projects that are eligible for federal transportation money. This would allow these communities to invest in projects that residents care most about—such as fixing roads and bridges, improving Regional Transit Authorities, and investing in sidewalks, bike lanes, and other projects that promote transit oriented development and affordable housing;
• Require that transportation projects comply with existing policy goals and objectives that reduce pollution, improve public health, improve land-use coordination and meet our mode shift goals;
• Require that transportation investments over $15 million be analyzed for their impact on our economy, environment, public health, low-income communities and communities of color, pedestrian and bike access, and cost of operations;
• Ensure that sufficient money is available for critical maintenance and safety investments; and
• Support the state’s existing mode shift goal to triple trips made on public transportation, biking and walking across the Commonwealth.

An Act relative to contract assistance for Central Artery debt of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (H. 3141 introduced by Rep. Sciortino) proposes a way to address the crippling debt load at the MBTA by paying down the debt related to the Central Artery Project. The legislation would require that the Commonwealth provide contract assistance from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund for the Big Dig debt held by the MBTA. This money couldn’t come out of funds that are already set to support investments at the MBTA or RTAs.

An Act relative to the establishment of a vehicle mileage user fee pilot program by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (H. 3142 introduced by Rep. Farley-Bouvier and Rep. Sciortino) proposes a voluntary vehicle miles traveled pilot program to identify alternatives and supplements to the gas tax. The pilot seeks 1000 volunteers from the entire Commonwealth to evaluate ways to protect data collected, ensure privacy, and vary pricing based on time of driving, type of road, proximity to transit and vehicle fuel in order to help Massachusetts prepare for the future of transportation revenue.

We are grateful to the legislative sponsors of these bills who share our commitment to creating and sustaining a 21st-century transportation system that serves all people in communities across thes state.

You can also find this post on the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) blog.

Vermont keeps working on better ways for people and goods to get where they need to go. The threats from climate change and the high cost of maintaining our travel ways mean we need to be smarter and greener.

In 2011 Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin announced that the Circ Highway – an expensive, polluting and ill-conceived highway project outside Burlington — would not be built as planned. In its place a Task Force would work on solutions that won’t bust the budget or foul our air and water.

Over the past year a good part of that work looked at targeted improvements in the immediate Circ area. The result is a study of the network . With this are recommendations that were just adopted by the Task Force to move forward with making improvements to some existing roadways in and around Williston.

A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 from 7:30 – 9:00 PM at Williston Town Hall, with a presentation of the findings of the study and the recommendations. The meeting is hosted by the Williston Planning Commission. Refreshments will be served.

CLF has been mostly pleased with this work and encouraged that new and more effective solutions are moving forward. As we noted in comments to the group, a bigger role for transit and roundabouts could cut costs and pollution further.

Come learn about new projects and let the transportation officials working on these projects know what you think.

My son’s third grade class is looking for “juicy” adjectives, and I found one.  Again and again, journalists are describing the Massachusetts Governor’s 21st Century Transportation Plan, which proposes to raise revenue for our chronically underfunded transportation system, as “ambitious.” Not the kind of “ambitious” your mother admired in you when you were a college student, but the “ambitious” that implies hubris. As in asking for a lot. Maybe even too much. Insisting that the Governor’s plan is “ambitious” immediately gets people thinking about how they can cut it down to size. So before the knives come out, having carefully reviewed the plan and understanding the real needs of our transportation system well, let’s take a look at what’s really in there:

• The plan proposes to increase Chapter 90 funding for local street maintenance and associated projects from $200 to $300 million per year.  The Massachusetts Municipal Association, however, just recently estimated the actual need to be $562 million per year.
• Likewise, the Governor’s plan only dedicates 23% of the capital to strategic expansion projects, the rest is all maintenance of roads, bridges and transit infrastructure, replacement of old trains and buses, capacity upgrades, and other costs of the current system.
• More importantly, only 4% of the money set aside in the Governor’s plan for operations is related to strategic expansion projects.
• The plan also assumes that good and necessary transportation projects which have long been recommended by transportation planners and economists, such as the Red-Blue Connector and the Urban Ring, would be left unfunded over the next ten years.

I don’t know whether “reasonable” or perhaps “conservative” would be juicy enough adjectives for my son and his friends, but they would surely be a more accurate description of the Governor’s transportation plan.

When Governor Deval Patrick stood before the Legislature and the people of Massachusetts last week to offer a bold proposal to raise $1 billion per year to fund critical investments in transportation, he struck a skillful balance between the pragmatic and the visionary, appealing to us as both taxpayers and investors in a thriving Commonwealth.  The Governor asked his constituents to “Imagine if you could depend on a bus or subway that came on time, was safe and comfortable… if the Green Line ran to Medford and the commuter rail ran to Springfield,” among other improvements. He made sure to emphasize that everyone would benefit from a 21^st century transportation system, whether they drive a car or take public transit, from one end of the state to the other. And he proposed that everyone pay their share, according to their ability.

It’s a good proposal and a badly needed one. The question now is how to get the buy-in we need to make it happen. Not surprisingly, it’s not too hard to find political opponents and citizens of the Commonwealth to speak out against the proposed tax increases. Who wants a tax increase? It’s like asking someone whether they want a root canal. But if you ask a person in that special dental pain whether she would be willing to pay a fair price to make it go away – indeed to be able to enjoy biting into a delicious crunchy apple —she would almost certainly agree that her investment would be worth it.

With Massachusetts’ transportation system so woefully underfunded for many decades, we are all in that special pain. Crumbling bridges, decaying train cars, vanishing bus routes and unfinished projects are daily reminders that we’ve got a problem that needs to be fixed. And we all have our own version of that delicious apple:  our mode of transportation that gets us where we need to go, when we need to go, safely, reliably and affordably. The problem is that people want the pain to go away – indeed, they want the apple! – but, politicians fear, they don’t want to pay for it.

In fact, a MassINC poll conducted last year showed that 62% of people surveyed said that they would be willing to pay more than they are paying now to improve the transportation system – up to a point. So, maybe we should be asking people not whether they agree with the Governor’s proposal to raise taxes, but rather, whether they agree that a working transportation system is a worthwhile investment. More frequent trains. Easy connections between distant parts of the state. Fast access to the airport. And why stop there? What about cleaner air, less congested roads and more vibrant communities with thriving businesses and the jobs they bring? Let’s talk about the benefits, like the Governor started to do, and help the savvy taxpayer see how her investment will pay off – now and in the future. Our legislators need to hear from the transit champions. C’mon…we know you’re out there.