Abundance

“Abundance” is the buzzword of the day in many progressive intellectual circles – and with good reason.  What the idea of abundance is all about is building more of the good things we need: housing, clean transportation, renewable energy facilities.  Liberals, environmental advocates, and transportation reformers have become so good at stopping bad projects – so the argument goes – that as a nation we can no longer efficiently build good projects.  And we have layered so many requirements on design and construction – all important in their own right – that construction has become prohibitively expensive.

The leading text of what has become known as the “abundance movement” is the book simply called “Abundance,” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (Avid Reader Press).  (For an introduction to the “movement,” see this website.)  Did you ever read a book and say to yourself, “I wish I had written that!”  That was my reaction on reading “Abundance.”  Klein and Thompson lay out, in clear prose, with lots of stories (and statistics and footnotes if you want those) how we got into this mess and why we need to get out of it ASAP (think climate emergency).  

Klein and Thompson analyze in painful detail the failure (at least so far) of California’s High Speed Rail project, what they call “No-Speed Rail.”  This project, managed by the California High Speed Rail Authority, has been beset by every ill that project managers fear: schedule slowdowns, cost overruns, right-of-way disputes, lawsuits, and political infighting on and off since 1982.  The authors summarize the grim reality:

“The project is caught in a strange limbo between political fantasy and physical fact.  The agency doesn’t have anywhere near the money or political capital it would need to complete the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco system Californians actually want.  It doesn’t even have the money to complete the Bakersfield-to-Merced system that [Governor Gavin] Newsom proposed.  It has no line of sight on how it will get that money or that political capital.  But since it has some money and some political capital, it is building anyway, in the hopes that Californians will want to finish what they started.”

My main criticism of Klein and Thompson is that they give too little credit to the Biden Administration, which not only adopted most of the policy direction they are advocating but succeeded in getting Congress (with a razor-thin majority in the Senate) to pass major legislation, backed by billions of dollars, to implement it.  Yes, the pace of implementation was much slower than some of us hoped for, and much of the progress already achieved is being rolled back by the Republicans.  And some of the toughest problems (notably how to break the environmental/productivity/cost bottleneck) were not wrestled to the ground.  But many problems outlined in Abundance were addressed.

One small example is the need for “clean” cement.  As the authors point out, the manufacture of cement – needed in growing amounts for growth around the world – is a major contributor to climate change due to the carbon dioxide released in the manufacturing process.  They call for new efforts to stimulate research and development of new cement production techniques.  What they don’t point out is that the Biden Administration designed and began to implement a program to do just that.  Sadly, that program has come to a screeching halt in the new Republican administration.  In one of the program’s initiatives, for instance, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, the main industry trade group, was in the process of implementing a five-year program, funded by a $9.63 million grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, to “help concrete producers reduce the carbon footprint of concrete by 50% by 2028 from 2014 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.”  That funding has now been stopped.

Kudos to Klein and Thompson for crystalling this very important issue.  If we had had another Biden (or Harris) administration, with working majorities in Congress, we might be making great strides toward abundance today.  But we don’t.  So, time to put our heads down and keep grinding.

Latest Freeways Without Futures Report

 The new 2025 “Freeways without Futures” report is out!

For those of you not familiar with this biennial report published by the Congress for New Urbanism (available here), it features a rogue’s gallery of 10 (or so) freeways or freeway widening projects that are really bad ideas and that are really good candidates for replacing, scaling back, or otherwise being brought into a reasonable relationship with reality.

This year’s report (full disclosure: I was a member of the jury that selected the “winners”) highlights 9 projects from around the country.  I won’t summarize the findings (you should read the report - it’s an easy read), but I will mention a few of my favorites.

Texas – always striving to be the biggest – wins the competition for biggest, most expensive, most ludicrously oversized projects with the proposed I-45 widening in Houston and the I-35 widening in Austin.  These freeways, which run right through the heart of their respective cities, are already way too big and making them even bigger, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, is nothing short of outrageous.  There are, of course, alternatives that would be far more sensible for addressing mobility needs while also addressing climate change, urban redevelopment, accessibility, equity, and so on, but these concepts fall onto rocky, drought-ridden soil in Texas at the moment.    There is lots of opposition to both projects, but the Texas DOT is moving forward relentlessly – until we stop them.

Buffalo is a hard luck town with some serious problems, but it also has some real assets.  Among these is a park system designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, which includes a beautiful landscaped boulevard through the east side of the city, called Humboldt Parkway.  Correction:  formerly included Humboldt Parkway.  Transportation planners decided 60 years ago or so that that wide landscaped median would be a super place to put an expressway.  So they did.  And today’s generation of planners wants to widen part of the expressway and put it into a tunnel!  In case you haven’t noticed, Buffalo is not growing.  The last thing the city needs is more ugly, overbuilt infrastructure.  This is a perfect time to take down the whole thing and re-establish Buffalo’s “green necklace,” which would be a far better support for a brighter future for the city than an expensive, unneeded, unwanted expressway widening.

Florida enters the list with I-175 in St. Petersburg, a one-mile-long under-utilized, outdated, spur connecting I-275 to downtown but dividing the community.  It is, according to one resident, “the Berlin Wall of St. Pete…. literally just a wall of concrete and earth.”  Fortunately, the Florida DOT is now conducting an alternatives study which seems to be leaning toward replacing the legacy freeway with a modern, at-grade boulevard, which would serve automobile traffic while reconnecting the city’s street grid.  We may be able to chalk this one up as a win for the good guys!

You may have your own favorite after reading the report.  More importantly, you may have a freeway without a future near you.  Are you near a big, ugly, noisy pile of concrete that lies heavily on your neighborhood or town?  Now imagine replacing it with a lively boulevard with a modern tram in the median, connecting you to where you want to go.  Or cheerful neighborhood streets with children playing.  Or a linear park, with fountains and bike lanes.  

The next step is to make the future happen.

Columbus voters support big transit initiative

 Although barely visible within the dark cloud of Election Day, there were a few bright spots for people who support transit, walkable communities, and climate friendly transportation solutions.  The voters in a number of cities and states approved progressive ballot measures, including measures to impose taxes on themselves to support transit systems and related improvements.  Planetizen provides a great summary of these ballot measures here.

The biggest success – in my opinion – was approval by the voters in Columbus, Ohio of a ½ cent sales tax to support a major transit initiative called LinkUS.  (Story here, project link here)  The initiative includes funding for:

• A five-leg Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system;

• A major increase in regular bus service;

• Bus station improvements; and

• New and improved sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and crosswalks.

This strikes me as a really good balance.  The BRT projects – which are relatively far advanced – are the obvious marquee element, but all the other, lower-profile items can also have a major impact in providing sustainable mobility options.

The success of these various ballot measures around the country reinforces what we have already learned, which is that people will vote to tax themselves for transportation improvements, including transit.  The most common formula is a regional  ½ cent sales tax that is tied to a specific program of improvements, as in Columbus.  A carefully crafted program which features high-impact, attractive projects is usually the key to success.

The approval of the Columbus measure also demonstrates that the ballot measure approach can be a successful strategy to fund transit even in a red state with a hostile legislature.  Unfortunately some states prevent local tax initiatives, either by law or by their state constitution.

Good work, Columbus!

St. Louis MetroLink: One good line, with not-so-good stations and urban impact

 I revisited St. Louis not long ago and took the opportunity to ride the MetroLink, which I had not done in a few years.  MetroLink is the region’s one-line (with branches) light rail system, which serves several important destinations, including the airport, the University of Missouri at St. Louis, and downtown St. Louis.  As I was headed to the ballpark, which has its own station, it was especially convenient for me.

The good news is that the line worked fine, with clean cars and a smooth ride.  What was not so good was some of the stations.  And the impact on the surrounding urban fabric was disappointing.  

I’ll mention a few of the stations.

Airport

There may have been an easier way to get there, but I found myself traversing an underground parking garage and going up an elevator which looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in 10 years.  The station platform was spartan and was inhabited by a homeless man who was busy checking out the platform for any usable refuse.  And the headway between trains was 30 minutes, at least twice as long as it should be.  In fairness, the transit agency is no doubt starved for operations and maintenance funding and does the best it can.  (Not good enough, America!)  Photo below.

Wellston

Missouri’s poorest, nearly all minority town, Wellston is fortunate enough to have a MetroLink

station near the center of town with lots of clear space around it.  What an opportunity for public

investment in mixed-use development that could spur revitalization!  But this is Missouri, so it’s

not happening.  Photo below.

Central West End

Not much to see here at the station, which is in a cut, but a great location convenient to the

vibrant, mixed-use Central West End neighborhood.

Cortex

This is an infill station, built to serve the burgeoning “Cortex Innovation District.”  Great idea,

but couldn’t something be done at the station to make a more appealing pedestrian connection? 

Photo below.

Stadium

Again, pretty basic station in a cut.  The station and neighborhood are very lively during

St. Louis Cardinals game days, perhaps not so much at other times (a nearby sign reminds

people that public urination is illegal).  The area itself – Busch Stadium, Ballpark Village –

still looks good, but I didn’t see signs of urban revitalization spreading very far. 

Photos below.

8th and Pine

This is the central downtown station, as well as one of the main access points via

transit to the Gateway Arch.  I wasn’t in the station itself (now closed for renovation) but

I have to say that the surrounding area is a bit scruffy.  Adjacent to the station is the

Wainwright Building, an architectural gem, which should be the centerpiece of transit

oriented development at this location.  Ideally, that development would include taking

down the ugly 1980s annex, which is fronted by garage doors, and replacing it with a

plaza of some sort.  The Wainwright Building has been occupied by state offices, but the

benighted state leadership has decided to sell off the building and move all 600 state

employees to an exurban office park.  (How much do Missouri Republicans hate cities

and transit?) Fortunately, the building has been purchased, and we can hope for proper

redevelopment (story here).  Photo below.

So, not much visible progress in transit-oriented redevelopment since my last visit a few

years ago.  But the light rail line still purrs right along, there are plans for expansion (good

luck with the funding), and lots of raw opportunity in what was once – and could be again –

one of America’s premier cities

Baltimore’s Red Line: We have light rail, now we need tunnels!

 It was super good news to learn that Maryland Governor Wes Moore decided to move forward with light rail as the preferred technology for Baltimore’s Red Line (story here).  Moore resurrected the Red Line after taking office in 2023.  Former Governor Larry Hogan had cancelled the project in 2015, with disastrous consequences for the city of Baltimore, the regional transit network, transportation equity, and Maryland’s long-term economic development.

I have been an active supporter of the Red Line for years (see, for instance, my blog posting here), so it was very heartening to see the project reborn, especially as a light rail line.  Bus rapid transit – while great in some applications – is not what we need here.  What we need is light rail – and tunnels!

Why tunnels?  If you have ever tried to drive along an east-west route through central Baltimore, you will know that it is very constricted both by the limited street network and by water.  Even if you could carve a dedicated surface route through it, you would be limiting yourself to providing streetcar-type service.  With judicious use of tunneling, you could provide real rapid-transit service.  Realistically, however, comparative costs (very expensive vs. very very expensive) will tend to tug decision-makers toward surface options.  (An overview of the options under consideration can be found on the project web page here.)

So, carry on, Red Line advocates!  More work to be done!

Tim Walz's Transportation Bill

 You have no doubt heard a lot about what Tim Walz and the Democratic legislature havd accomplished once they had a “trifecta” (majorities in both houses and the Governor’s mansion).  But it’s worth doing a quick bullet list of some the high points:

• Free school breakfast and lunch for students;

• Guaranteed paid leave and paid sick days;

• A child tax credit to cut child poverty by a third;

• Expansion of voting rights, including automatic voter registration;

• A guarantee of reproductive freedom;

• Reduced prescription drug costs;

• A plan for 100% clean energy by 2040;

• A $1 Billion investment in affordable housing;

• Legalization of recreational cannabis; and

• New gun safety laws.

Impressive stuff!  And I’m sure you can add to that list.

What hasn’t been talked about much is Governor Walz’s legislative record on transportation.  And that is just as impressive.  In 2023 the legislature enacted an appropriations bill with very robust and innovative transportation provisions.  The advocacy group Move Minnesota, which was active in shaping the bill, said it achieved “nation-leading wins” and Streetsblog USA said it might be “the best statewide transportation bill yet.”

OK, time for another bullet list.  This is some of what the bill included:

• Pump more money into transportation, including indexing the gas tax to inflation;

• Create a long-term, stable funding stream for transit;

• Create a retail delivery fee, so that Amazon and friends will help pay for the public infrastructure they use;

• Set up a free-fare pilot program;

• Provide increased funding for bus rapid transit, intercity rail, bicycle and pedestrian programs; 

• Create a statewide e-bike tax rebate; and

• (Saving the best for last) require the Minnesota DOT to review state arterial highway expansion projects to determine if they decrease greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled to meet state climate goals, and, if they don’t, either kill the project or provide mitigation measures.

Again, pretty impressive.

This last provision – reviewing highway expansion projects through a climate change lens – is probably the most consequential of all.  (It was amended this year to apply to all state arterial (“trunk”) highway projects, not just capacity increases.  The law becomes effective for capacity increase projects on 1 February 2025, with all projects covered by 2027.  

The law spells out in detail the measures that Minnesota DOT can take to mitigate a project’s shortfall on greenhouse gas emissions or VMT:

1. Transit expansion;

2. Transit service improvements;

3. Active transportation infrastructure;

4. Micromobility infrastructure and service;

5. Transportation demand management;

6. Parking management (including reductions in parking requirements);

7. Land use (increase in residential density, mixed use development, transit oriented development);

8. Infrastructure related to traffic operations (roundabouts, reduced conflict intersections); and

9. Natural systems (prairie restoration, reforestation, urban green space).

Of course, the devil is very much in the details when it comes to implementing such a complicated provision.  But it looks like the agency (Minnesota DOT) is administering it in good faith.  The working group set up to design the process included a representative from Move Minnesota.

We can’t give all the credit for this bill to Governor Walz – the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party majority (Trifecta for the win!) and outside groups like Move Minnesota were essential.  But it happened on his watch and under his leadership, so it should go on his resume!

The Move Minnesota story explaining how this remarkable bill came in to being is available here.

What does a new Labor government mean for transportation?

 So the UK has a new Labor government and a new prime minister, Keir Starmer.  

What will the new government do in the transportation sector?  The environment?  Urban policy?  The short answer is probably “nothing dramatic.”  

Keir Starmer has been steering the Labor party toward a moderate course, and the party has promised to adhere to tight fiscal discipline, limiting the scope of any new policies and projects.

The best guide to a new British government’s likely policies is the party’s election “manifesto” (equivalent to US party platforms), which British politicians take very seriously.  

A few highlights of the Labor party manifesto in the recent election (available here) will give an idea of what may lie ahead:

• Nationalize the passenger railway system – gradually.  Existing services in much of the country are provided by contracts with private operators.  As these contracts expire, they will be taken under “Great British Railways.”  The new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, has said that a bill to make this happen will be considered in the new Parliament.  It will be interesting to see the details.  (For more on her views – including Labor’s modest plans for rail improvement – see the New Statesman article here.)

• Fill an extra one million potholes a year, paid for by terminating one highway bypass project.  Quite a non-inspirational goal!  I’m all in favor of fix-it-first, but this seems like the kind of promise a US state DOT secretary makes at a budget hearing rather than a national vision.

• Develop a ten-year infrastructure strategy.  A good thing to do, but there doesn’t seem to be much money available for it.

• Build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years.  The government will take a “brownfield first” approach, set mandatory housing targets, and adjust (in some way) the local planning system, all while preserving the green belt.  A lot of juggling to be done here.

• Make Britain a “clean energy superpower.”  The government will prioritize renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon capture, upgrading the grid, and lowering consumer energy costs.  These initiatives are intended to deliver cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030.  It’s not entirely clear how all of this will be achieved.

In short, the new Labor government starts with good intentions but limited ambitions.  And even those ambitions are constrained by the need to fit within whatever  resources can be scraped together from savings, efficiencies, and new revenue from hoped-for economic growth.  We’ll keep our fingers crossed!