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.

Image courtesy of epSos.de @ flickr.

New Englanders are driving and emitting more pollution every day. Emissions from New England’s transportation sector – the fastest growing emissions sector — produce about 40% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the region, more than half of which comes from passenger cars. This is a problem for New England’s people, environment and economy.

That is why CLF has been working hard with a coalition of environmental advocacy organizations to support the creation of a Clean Fuels Standard (CFS) in eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. A successful CFS would achieve several mutually reinforcing goals:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through the promotion of alternative fuels (such as electricity, advanced biofuels, and natural gas);
• Drive regional economic growth; and
• Ensure energy security and insulate residents of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states from rising oil prices.

This week, the CFS advocacy coalition – comprised of CLF, PennFuture, Environment Northeast, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment America, and Ceres – welcomed good news regarding litigation in California over the CA Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay sought by the State of California and its co-appellants (including CLF, who is a party to the CA litigation). This decision blocked the injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which prevented CA from enforcing its LCFS regulations while the appeal was pending.

In real terms, as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the LCFS will be alive and well in CA while the Appeals Court considers the merits of the case – a significant victory for California, CLF, and the other appellants, and a positive step toward combating climate change in the transportation sector.

CLF and its partners also made important strides this week toward promoting a regional CFS by standing up against threats from the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a trade association comprised of fossil fuel interests and affiliated with organizations like the American Petroleum Institute. CEA (along with the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, and the Center for North American Energy Security), is an opposing party in the California litigation described above.

Earlier this month, the CEA contacted Attorneys General in all of the states participating in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic CFS program, spreading misinformation about the California litigation and threatening to lodge a similar battle against a CFS program in our region. CLF and its allies responded strongly with a response letter to the Attorneys General, making clear that CEA severely mischaracterized the direction of the CA litigation and its implications for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region. In fact, the CA litigation is not a predictor of the legality of fuel standards still under development in other locations, and resource-specific regional differences between the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region and California undercut CEA’s claims. The Massachusetts version of the letter to the Attorneys General is available here.

CLF believes that a regional CFS is a crucial means of significantly reducing the region’s dependence on oil, transportation costs, and greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time providing consumers more choices. CLF will continue to work with allies to ensure that the CFS program progresses in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

MIT graduate student Zach Youngerman asks an excellent question in an opinion piece in the Boston Globe: Did bad neighborhood design doom Trayvon Martin?

Of course, my lawyerly impulse is to say that clearly urban planning and local culture was not the “proximate cause” of that young man’s death – clearly the man with the gun is the place to look for that.

But Mr. Youngerman makes a very good point – a place that lacks the “eyes on the street” (to use the phrase that he quotes from the great urbanist writer Jane Jacobs), sidewalks and where there are few sidewalks transforms the fundamental human activity of walking into suspicious behavior. As Mr. Youngerman says, “. . . behavior is not simply a matter of character; it is also a matter of setting. Less than 1.2 percent of the population in Sanford walks to work, and the subdivision where the killing took place is designed for driving, so something as human as walking is odd behavior. Suspicious even.”

What does any of this have to do with “low carbon communities”?  Why is this grist for the blog of an environmental group?

Because, among the many tragic consequences (along with the kind of tragic incidents like the one that ended the life of Mr. Martin) of these isolating communities is deep dependence on the automobile.  As Mr. Youngerman concludes, “Maybe with a small convenience store or café in the clubhouse, Zimmerman wouldn’t have gotten into his car to go to Target. Maybe he would have walked to the clubhouse, and simply passed Martin on a sidewalk designed for him to be there.”

The connection between good neighborhood design, smarter growth, reduced driving and lowering greenhouse gas emissions is well documented by government, academics and advocates.  These liveable communities allow all residents to live their lives with a minimum of driving and create a safe place for raising “free-range kids” who can safely walk to the store and back again.  They also allow us to build smarter communities where we are not constantly in our cars producing the emissions that threaten to subject our communities to the constant hazard of extreme weather and other dangerous effects of global warming. Effects which will be especially marked in places like Florida where even inland communities face very real and looming threats to the supply of drinking water as sea levels rise and the porous stone that underlies the states and are home to its vulnerable aquifers face saltwater intrusion.

Can walkable community where there are stores on every corner, a constant flow of pedestrians and those “eyes on the street” guarantee the safety of our children and solve global warming? Of course not – but they are part of the many solutions we will need to embrace to solve these problems. And as we plan and build our future we need to truly protect all of our children and our communities by making smart and well considered decisions about how we build, grow and travel as well as how we treat each other in the dark of night.

RIPTA bus. Source: Wikimedia commons.

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding held its second meeting of the year today. I sit on the Commission, having been appointed to the position by Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport). Other Commission members include three senators, RIDOT Director Michael Lewis, and RIPTA CEO Charles Odimgbe.

CLF is interested in public transit because of our concern about climate change. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and the fastest growing sector. Thus, any serious effort to address climate change must include a focus on transportation.

I am afraid that the Study Commission members are getting bogged down in the minutiae of how RIPTA runs. There was plenty of discussion at today’s session about small matters, such as whether RIPTA made a mistake seven years ago in cancelling one run of the weekend route between Providence and Newport.

At the end of today’s session, I tried to bring Study Commission members back to what the main points are that we need to remember. There are five main points.

First, RIPTA has the highest fares of any comparable transit agency in the country.

Second, we live in a country in which every public transit service is heavily dependent on government subsidies. Every transit system in small cities gets subsidized. Every medium-sized transit system (like RIPTA) gets subsidies. Every big-city transit system (like New York and San Francisco) gets subsidies. But RIPTA gets the lowest subsidies of any peer transit system in the country.

Third, RIPTA has seen substantial ridership increases in every category of rider in every recent year. Part of the reason for this is that gas prices are going up; part of the reason is that RIPTA is getting better. The bottom line is that RIPTA is taking more passengers on more rides than ever before.

Fourth, RIPTA is heavily dependent on the proceeds of the gasoline tax. RIPTA gets about $40 million annually from this source, and this is the largest single source of RIPTA revenue. But gas tax revenue is declining – in fact, the yield per penny of the gas tax decreased by almost 13% in just four years recently.

The fifth point is the most important. The purpose of the Senate Study Commission is to devise new, additional ways to fund transportation in Rhode Island – including RIPTA – sustainably. Our purpose is not to second-guess the agency about the minutiae of internal agency decisions. The Senate leadership charged us with the task of developing new, sustainable funding sources for RIPTA.

That task is especially timely right now. Three years ago the General Assembly charged RIPTA with developing a Five-Year Strategic Plan for service expansions and improvements. RIPTA did a superb job developing that plan – the plan includes new bus rapid transit on RIPTA’s two busiest routes, the #11 (Broad Street) and the # 99 (North Main Street); increasing the number of park-and-rides; and adding new buses on busy routes.

The Senate Study Commission needs to keep in mind why it was created. We were not created to get lost in the weeds and tiny details of a complex agency. We were created to recommend to the General Assembly new, sustainable funding sources for transportation funding in Rhode Island, including RIPTA.