Rush Hour in Copenhagen, photo courtesy of Mikael Colville-Andersen @ flickr

On the afternoon of July 6th, I rode my bike home from work through the streets of Portland, Maine, sharing the lane with car traffic. Parts of my commute could benefit from a bike lane or increased signage, but the prospects for those projects do not look good in the near term. Earlier that day, President Obama had signed a new transportation bill that slashed federal funding for biking and pedestrian infrastructure.

The bill reduces funding for bicycling and pedestrian improvements by about thirty percent. Additionally, it allows those reduced funds allocated for bike and pedestrian projects to be used instead for other transportation work at the discretion of the state. This despite the fact that a 2010 census study showed that the number of people who used a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation increased by 43% in the preceding decade. Even greater gains were seen in cities, where commutes tend to be shorter.

My own bike obsession (my third-floor walk-up houses eight bikes, four of which are mine) began when I spent a semester abroad in Denmark. Its capital city, Copenhagen, is full of wide bike lanes bustling with two-wheeled traffic. The bike lanes are bordered by a curb to separate them from the road and are built so that bikers can safely pass one another within the lane. According to the City of Copenhagen, half of its residents bike to work or school every day. To compare, in Portland, Oregon, the large U.S. city with the most bikers, 6% of residents primarily use their bike to get to work.

Bicycling is contagious. Living in Copenhagen I found that having so many bikes on the roads and such good infrastructure makes it more fun, safer, and easier to ride. Drivers expect cyclists and operate accordingly. Bike racks sit on seemingly every corner. People carry heavy loads of groceries in bike baskets, transport their children around the city in specially-made cargo bikes, and use fenders or even an umbrella to get around in the rain. My memory could be deceiving me, but I still swear that I once saw a man in a business suit eating a sandwich and talking on a cell phone while navigating rush hour bike traffic.

I returned to Portland for law school largely because it is such a wonderful place to live. The city is big enough to have great restaurants and good music, but relatively quiet and geographically small. I own a car, but never drive within the city because biking is cheaper, more fun, and often faster. Traffic is light, speeds are slow, and drivers are generally courteous.

The city has made strides in recent years, adding bike lanes, pursuing federal grant money for further improvements, and even hiring a bike-pedestrian coordinator.  However, more remains to be done. Dangerous intersections, narrow streets, and perilous railroad crossings remain unsafe even for experienced cyclists, and intimidate those who might otherwise choose to commute or recreate on a bike. Greater federal funding would enable Portland to more quickly and completely make its streets safer for all users.

Our country’s transportation system needs help, that much is clear. Many roads and bridges need costly repairs to remain safe. But it is short-sighted to spend huge sums on automotive infrastructure in lieu of making cities more livable for bicyclists and pedestrians. Walking and biking keeps people healthier and happier, all while saving gas and reducing emissions. American cities could be cleaner, more bikeable, more walkable, and less car-dominated if we choose to invest wisely in our biking and walking infrastructure.

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 courtesy of Mark Setchell@flickr

When Vermont’s Governor Shumlin announced last year that the outdated, expensive and ill-conceived Circ Highway would not be built as planned, it opened the door for lower cost and less polluting solutions that would actually help folks get around and not just pave over farmland, forests, and wetlands.

In the first round a number of good solutions are advancing, including the Crescent Connector in Essex Junction which transforms a small downtown with thoughtful design, making it easier and more pleasant to walk, shop, get around and not simply drive in traffic.

Unfortunately, for the next phase, some officials still seem stuck in the dark ages.

When presented with an evaluation by the County’s transportation planning officials that building portions of the old highway would be expensive, have the same environmental problems and opposition as the Circ, and fail to solve congestion problems in the area, town officials still decided to advance this project for further consideration.

The sad part is that being stuck with these outdated non-solutions, keeps real solutions at bay. Any trapeze artist will tell you that you have to let go of one trapeze before you can grab the next one and move forward. If you just keep hanging on to the first trapeze all you will do is swing back and forth in place.

It is time to let go of the old Circ trapeze and move forward with real solutions like fixing the existing roadways and improving transit so everyone can get around more easily and not simply suffer through more traffic and more sprawl.

The Boston Globe yesterday reported on the fact that Silver Line buses between the Airport and South Station will be free starting tomorrow for a period of at least ninety days. You are probably wondering how the MBTA can afford giving away rides. Isn’t the T still staring a $161 million operating budget deficit for FY13 in the eye? Isn’t the MBTA planning to raise fares 23% on July 1st, if the Legislature comes through with some additional help? Won’t it have to cut significant service, if the Legislature does not?

The answer is yes to all of these questions but the idea is simple: Massport has agreed to pay for the lost revenue, since the airport benefits from the congestion relief associated with this bus. Free rides equal more riders to the airport, not only because people like to pay nothing, but also because freeing bus drivers of the logistics of collecting fares will speed up the bus line. While this pilot project does not raise any additional revenue for the MBTA, it does give MassDOT and Massport a chance to assess the feasibility of shifting more responsibility to Massport, i.e., to pay for more of the infrastructure that directly benefits Logan Airport. In particular, it will be important to gain a more complete understanding how airport parking fees would be affected.

As former Transportation Secretary Fred Salvucci recently pointed out in a Boston Globe op-ed, Massport is the biggest single beneficiary of the Big Dig. Approximately half of the $15 billion Big Dig cost paid for the Seaport access road and Ted Williams Tunnel (primarily to access Massport facilities). The Logan parking garages are the largest non-airfield revenue streams for Massport, and they function only because of the access provided by MassDOT. The House members of the Joint Transportation Committee have also recently picked up on this idea, and have included Massport payments to the MBTA and purchases of MBTA property in its legislation to help bridge the T’s funding gap for next year.

Photo Credit: Barbara Krawcowicz @ flickr

They say that passing legislation is like making sausages. That may be true, but sometimes it is more like waiting for the bus.

Almost two months ago, the board of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) approved a balanced operating budget for the coming fiscal year, which includes revenue sources that still need legislative approval. Today, the Boston Globe reported about the continuing lack of a resolution.  How much progress has been made?

Well, if you look closely at your “Where is my bus?” app, you can see that we are slowly getting somewhere.  The house members of the Joint Committee on Transportation succeeded at locating the MBTA operating budget related measures in the Governor’s bill among the long list of corrective changes to the structure of MassDOT, stripped the legislation of all of its non-pressing parts, set aside $6.5 million for the state’s fifteen regional transit authorities (RTAs), which are also cash-strapped, changed some of the revenue sources, added enough funds to make sure the MBTA’s FY13 operating budget is still balanced, and reported the bill out of committee. According to the House Chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation, the full House is likely to vote on the package in the next two weeks.  After that, of course, we still have a good distance to go before the MBTA’s budget is truly balanced. This process cannot take too long, however, since the fare increases and service cuts are supposed to take effect on July 1.

Missing from this timeline, however, despite a number of protests, is a discussion on Beacon Hill on how to protect the MBTA’s most transit-dependent riders from the impending fare increase. The budget assumes a fare increase of 23%, even with the legislature’s help. CLF has proposed a reduced or discounted fare for low-income passengers.  This could help the MBTA ensure that a fare increase is equitable. The MBTA would be following a growing trend in the country. The Chicago Transit Authority, for example, in September of 2011, launched free fare cards for low-income seniors, paired with reduced fares for all seniors. Sun Tran in Tuscan, Arizona all Pima County residents over the age of five who meet low-income requirements are eligible for a reduced fare. C-TRAN in Vancouver, Washington, also has a similar program for low-income residents, as do Iowa City Transit in Iowa City, Iowa and Kitsap Transit in Kitsap County, Washington. We are still waiting for this concept to be added to the legislation.

When can we expect progress on this front? I don’t know, but maybe the MBTA has an app for that.

I received that message this week. It came in two parts. The first part was delivered by a polite and efficient Somerville, MA police officer, in the form of the below ticket. I had blown right through a red light.

The second part was the irony that hit me as his blue lights were flashing: Just last week I posted this blog post, about how far we’ve come in Boston toward a safe and respectful bike commuting environment, in part because cyclists tend to follow the rules far more regularly than they did in the past.

I am guilty. No question about it. It doesn’t matter that the move I made was safe – to me and others – and likely promoted efficiency because I got out of the way of traffic before the waiting cars started moving through the intersection. I violated the rules that we have developed to govern our competing demands on a shared resource: our roadways.

I am blowing the whistle on myself for a few reasons, but principally to make a simple argument: the rule of law is not only necessary, but immensely helpful. We should respect it. Now, to those reasons.

First, the experience gave me the opportunity to reflect on how subjective we all get when using the roads. I bike, and I drive. When biking, I am often amazed at how quickly I fall into the mindset that all drivers are the problem, and when driving how quick I am to note the bad moves of the cyclists on the road.  You may know what I mean.

Test yourself: are you, or is any one, really capable of innately respecting the rights of all users of a shared resource when we are users ourselves?

Which leads to the second point: this is why we have laws. They govern situations that humans are not entirely capable of governing in the absence of law. The rule of law is, in my view, one of the greatest human inventions yet. It is the fundamental underpinning of so much of a civil society, including the rational sharing of scarce, common resources subject to multiple demands, for the greater good of all.

Resources like clean water. Like marine fisheries. Like clean air for all who breathe. Like a healthy economy for the welfare of all. Like justice. And like safe streets and other public investments in transportation.

If we don’t like the rules we should not flaunt them, we should work to change them. Some innovations worth watching are now in the works.  France, for example, appears to be experimenting with new rules that would allow cyclists to go through red lights in some situations, where clearing the intersection of cyclists before cars start up might actually make for safer conditions.

I don’t know if that’s right or wrong. But I do know it was wrong for me to adopt that rule for myself. Civil society, operating under the rule of law, can’t work that way. Open respectful debate, and thoughtful engagement in our democracy and participation in the governing process – that’s how we develop the rules we use to promote the general good of the body politic.

We at CLF are engaged in that sort of work in every one of our states, to promote what we and our members (and many more) believe is the general good of society, and we’re proud to do it. Especially in the election season that is now upon us, we invite all to join in the process on whatever issue excites you. It’s good for all of us, and necessary if we’re going to address the challenges we face effectively, and together. And that’s how it has to be done.

On Wednesday, May 9, House Bill 7581 (the O’Grady Bill) will be heard in the House Finance Committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The O’Grady Bill is a key legislative priority of Rhode Island’s environmental movement. The hearing is at 1:00 PM in Room 35 of the State House (Room 35 is in the basement). The O’Grady Bill would provide vitally needed funding for public transit in Rhode Island.

CLF members and friends are invited to attend the May 9 hearing on the O’Grady bill in order to show support for it.

Here in Rhode Island, as in the rest of New England, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – and the fastest growing. The simple fact is that the climate change emergency cannot (and will not) be addressed until and unless we address transportation emissions. By funding public transit in Rhode Island, the O’Grady Bill would provide an effective means of reducing vehicle miles traveled in private automobiles and an effective means of reducing overall carbon emissions.

That is why the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the coalition of over 80 Rhode Island environmental organizations has made the O’Grady Bill one of its top legislative priorities for 2012.

Another broad coalition, the Coalition for Transportation Choices (CTC) is also supporting the O’Grady Bill. CLF was instrumental in creating the CTC, and, in my capacity as a CLF Staff Attorney, I serve as CTC’s Co-Chair. At the May 9 hearing, I will be presenting to the House Finance Committee letters of support for the O’Grady Bill from a wide range of community organizations, ranging from the Providence Chamber of Commerce to the Transit Workers Union. We are hoping that this broad range of support will translate to legislative support.

Environmentalists in Rhode Island can take a concrete step to address carbon emissions in Rhode Island by coming to the May 9 House Finance Committee hearing (1:00 PM, Room 35) to testify in favor of the O’Grady Bill.

I’ll be there, and I’d be delighted to see you there, too.

Whether its baseball or transit, Boston hates being behind NYC in anything. Unfortunately, the MBTA has yet to crush its debt. Here, Ortiz demonstrates how.

Bostonians hate being behind New York in any standings — a fact I was reminded of when Boston was ranked third, behind our East Coast nemesis and San Francisco, in the Walk Score ranking of public transit access. (This was covered by The Atlantic here.) However, this particular ranking is appalling to most residents of the area in a different way.

Ask anyone who has ever been stuck waiting in the rain for a bus that never arrives, in the snow for the commuter rail, or under a beautiful blue sky for the Red Line and they will tell you that Boston’s third place ranking is a joke.

The problem (beyond the limits of the methodology of the study) is that public transportation in the United States is not world class. Unlike baseball, we are not one of the world leaders in this important category. So Boston’s third place finish is less exciting when we consider the competition.

The MBTA, however, is still leading in debt burden, with 25 percent of its annual operating budget going to debt service. It has been much publicized, but it bears repeating: prior to the fare increases and service cuts, for FY2013 the MBTA was facing an operating budget deficit of $161 million. As it stands, the MBTA budget here still relies on an infusion of $60 million from the legislature which has not been approved yet, or even moved beyond the Joint Transportation Committee. Even if the 23 percent fare increase and planned service cuts go through, they are at best only a temporary fix for a much larger problem. Let’s review:

• The MBTA has estimated that the operating budgets for FY14-FY16 will be $40 million, almost $90 million, and almost $170 million respectively larger than the FY13 funding gap of $161 million.
• The increased fares will not relieve the MBTA of any of its debt burden.
• Likewise, the FY13 budget does not attempt to address the MBTA’s state of good repair problem. The MBTA is currently spending about $580 million per year to prevent its long list of maintenance needs, estimated at $4.5 billion, from growing. However, about $750 million are needed annually to fix the system and buy new equipment.

The MBTA’s assets are deteriorating; old infrastructure is in need of repair and vehicles are long beyond their useful life. For example, all 120 Orange Line subway cars are well past their intended lifespan. Manufacturers build subway cars to last twenty five years, provided they receive a mid-life overhaul to refurbish or replace major elements such as propulsion systems, brakes, lighting, and ventilation. None of the now over thirty-year-old Orange Line cars has been overhauled. A similar problem exists with one third of the Red Line cars, which as the Boston Globe reported “were pressed into service during Richard Nixon’s first term, and have not been overhauled for a quarter century.”

These aging subway cars are challenging the MBTA’s ability to run a full set of trains each day, causing longer waits on platforms and more frequent service interruptions, as well as at least one breakdown that stranded passengers for hours in a tunnel.

A truly well-functioning transit system, promotes a healthy economy and environment and is a crucial investment. If we want a transit system that meets our needs, the state will have to raise sufficient revenue going forward. Once we do so, we can stop watching New York in the rankings, at least when it comes to public transportation.

Does this look like fun? Vermonters are spending more time driving than ever before. We need clean, efficient alternatives. Credit: Little Miss Sunshine.

Are you tired of traffic, taxes and time pollution? I don’t know about you, but spending quality time with my family is not spending it either driving kids around from place to place or being stuck somewhere in a traffic jam.  And it is no surprise to me that others have found that long commutes are harmful to your health and happiness.

With $4 per gallon gasoline and transportation being the biggest source of global warming pollution in Vermont, we need better solutions, solutions that save our environment, our health and our pocketbooks.

With the cancellation of the Circ Highway – an expensive, ill-conceived, outdated and polluting new roadway around Burlington, Vermont – there are good opportunities to invest in better ways to get around:  ways that won’t cause more Moms and Dads to spend more useless hours in a car driving kids from place to place. Progress so far looks promising.

Cancelling the Circ has freed up funds for other, more worthy projects.  In place of the Circ, communities and transportation officials are now moving forward projects like the Crescent Connector in Essex Junction.  This $3,000,000 project near Five Corners will provide the same amount of traffic relief to this area as the Circ at a fraction (one-twentieth) of the cost.

• Nearer to Burlington, a transit hub is being considered that will allow motorists to park nearer the city and the switch to bikes or busses to get into and around the city.
• The Circ Alternative Task Force is considering longer term solutions as well that will likely include improving existing roadways, building new bikeways and transit centers and keeping our transportation dollars closer to our daily activities.

This is all good news for our sanity and for bolstering economic development. Real estate values increase in areas where daily activities are within walking distance.

In place of traffic jams, people have more opportunities to get around and get what they need without using their cars. Waiting for someone or something can include a visit to a restaurant or gym or picking up the groceries or dry cleaning. It’s no longer Mom or Dad sitting solo in the car waiting for the dance lesson to end. It’s reducing air pollution, time pollution, while saving money, our health and our sanity.