Tuesday, February 7, 2017
There is often a lot to learn from checking on what our European counterparts are doing.
A report was just released describing how European highway agencies are addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation and it bears looking at by people in the US who are confronting the same issues.
The report, called Acting on Climate Change, was published by the Conference of European Directors of Roads (a sort of European AASHTO) and is available here.
The authors suggest that mitigation and adaptation are “fundamentally different” and suggest a distinctive approach for each.
With respect to mitigation, they argue that new strategies are needed. Business as usual planning just won’t meet national or Europe-wide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of generating typical solutions based on standard forecasting, they recommend using scenario planning and pursuing a wide range of solutions, including more efficient transportation modes, renewable energy, and reduced demand. Building new roads could, in fact, be counterproductive. I was particularly struck by their takeaway from a recent IPCC report warning that “infrastructure developments that lock societies into GHG-intensive emissions pathways may be difficult or very costly to change and that this reinforces the importance of early action for ambitious mitigation.”
With respect to adaptation, the authors appear to feel more comfortable taking a practical, engineering approach. Rather than attempting to put together a theoretical construct, they offer a set of “templates” based on Danish and Swedish experience. These templates are basically checklists to suggest to national road authorities the climate change adaptation issues they may need to confront. The template subjects are Management, Improvement, Prevention, and Cooperation. For each subject they offer a list of topics that should be considered. For instance, under Management they list Incident Management, Information, Clearing up, and Depot equipment. Each of these is further broken down into topics. So Incident management (defined as “How to handle given situations in climate change induced crises, e.g., flooding and landslides.”) includes:
· Incorporating climate (weather) incidents into emergency planning
· Drills that include weather incidents
· Call-out services
The report is also laced with fascinating examples from European experience (Norway is developing “Urban Environment Agreements,” which mandate that all future transportation demand be met by transit, walking, or biking. Sweden has set a goal of having a fossil-free vehicle fleet by 2030.).
Congrats to the CEDR team for a thoughtful approach to providing real-world tools to agencies confronting climate change.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
In the waning days of the Obama Administration, the U. S. Treasury published a report on big infrastructure projects we are not building in this country. The report (40 Proposed U. S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Projects of Major Economic Significance, available here) was a product of the Administration’s Build America Investment Initiative and was presumably intended to bolster the “needs” side of that effort.
The projects selected (there were strict criteria) range from building California High Speed Rail to rebuilding the entire I-10 corridor to completing the Second Avenue Subway in New York. Most are site-specific, although some – such as Positive Train Control and National Traffic Signal Coordination – are nationwide in scope. Each project is given a two-pager of facts and figures.
This report is very effective in demonstrating the sort of projects that other countries are building and we’re not.
Would I have selected the same projects? Some, but not all. There is too much highway widening (more urban freeways will only exacerbate long-term problems) and too much port improvement (why exactly are we subsidizing Asian manufacturing by spending huge amounts of money to accommodate Panamax ships?).
A few nationwide projects I would add:
· Electrify the Interstate system (fast chargers for electric vehicles)
· Double the fixed-guideway rapid transit network
· Fund sustainable neighborhoods (infrastructure “islanding”)
· Advance climate change resilience in the most vulnerable areas
· Design and operate marine highways (a great idea that never advances beyond the concept stage)
The report authors note that the main reason most of these projects aren’t advancing (or are advancing too slowly) is lack of funding. In keeping with the Obama Administration’s stance, they suggest more public-private financing and avoid talking about the obvious need for much greater tax revenue for infrastructure.
Quibbles aside, the authors (including two friends and occasional colleagues of mine, Ray Ellis and Dick Mudge) have done a real service in demonstrating the scale of investment (with real project examples) that we need to thrive in the 21st Century.
Monday, January 23, 2017
I recently commented on the disparity between the remarkable breadth and depth of highway traffic information collected and managed by transportation agencies and the all-too-often paucity of information made available to the customer. On a recent visit to DC, I experienced really good information and really bad information on the transit side of things, on the same Metro line.
As an only-occasional Metro rider, I like to have reassurance that I’m on the right train (this is the voice of experience speaking) and to keep track of when my desired station is approaching. On one trip on the Orange Line, I was in an information black hole. There were two system maps in the car (not near me). There was no line map and no notice of the next stop. The name of the station on the platform couldn’t be made out through the tinted windows if it was on the far side. And the announcements by the operator were totally unintelligible. (Don’t these folks get training?)
The next day I had a ride on one of the newest cars, and it was a real contrast. There were electronic signs displaying the next station, electronic line maps, and very clear recorded announcements!
Information can be a wonderful thing.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
We spend a ton of money on intelligent transportation systems and are rapidly expanding our ability to collect, analyze, and display traffic information. How much of this high-tech stuff reaches the customer? Not enough.
As one example, I recently saw a display of the cool things that folks at the University of Maryland are doing…..
But visiting the Maryland House rest area I saw nothing but a dumb map………….
Smart phones, GPS systems, and satellite radio are putting lots of information into travelers’ hands, but the public sector really needs to become more customer focused too.
Update: On a later visit to Maryland House, I did see a live camera view! So at least some data is making it to the consumer!
Update: On a later visit to Maryland House, I did see a live camera view! So at least some data is making it to the consumer!
Friday, November 18, 2016
As a dark age looms for America, one of the important losses we expect to sustain is a robust climate change policy. Climate change deniers will now control the White House and both houses of Congress and probably the major climate-related agencies.
In the twilight of the Obama years the Administration has launched a “United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization” (available here). Various comments on the document have ranged from “breathtaking” to a “good first step.” The Washington Post (here) notes that the strategy represents where the Obama Administration was headed.
My own reaction is that the vision is bold enough, but the actual strategies to get there are not. On the transportation side, the document lays out the usual list: increase fuel efficiency, develop low-carbon fuels and vehicles, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. No question this is the right list, but how do we do that?
For vehicles, the document states: “To achieve widespread penetration in upcoming decades, clean vehicles and fuels will require cost reductions, performance improvements, improved consumer acceptance, and development of infrastructure for recharging or fueling.” No doubt. What are the policies that will make that happen?
For reducing VMT, it states: “State transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations are taking the first steps to include GHG targets and performance measures as they develop their long-term transportation plans and transportation improvement programs.” If the first steps are being taken, what are the next steps? What is the role of the federal government in encouraging VMT reduction through better land use and transportation planning?
I applaud the Administration for continuing to advance climate change policies until the end. I only wish this farewell document had been bolder. I probably would have salted in some stronger medicine, like advocating that USDOT should initiate legislative and regulatory action to:
· Require state DOTs to incorporate carbon sink planning into projects, roadside maintenance, and environmental reviews,
· Provide Interstate Completion funding for installing Electric Vehicle fast chargers at regular intervals on the Interstate system,
· Set up a planning and funding program to double the number of fixed-guideway transit miles in 15 years, and
· Establish preferential funding ratios for highway projects that are advanced under “blueprint planning” (linked transportation and land use planning).
I only wish this was a dialogue we could have!
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
At long last – after a 3 ½ month shut down of the state’s Transportation Trust Fund – the New Jersey Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed a bill increasing the gas tax by 23 cents a gallon. The tax increase will generate more than $1 Billion in revenue for the Trust Fund, essentially restoring capital funding levels to where they were before the shutdown. Why was such a massive increase necessary? Because nearly 30 years of increasing debt obligations without any new revenue had essentially bankrupted the whole system. As a veteran of the many failed attempts to get the gas tax increased over those years I am happy to see it finally happen, though I have to shake my head that it needed a complete financial meltdown to spur action.
So, it’s all good, right? Well, not quite.
First, I hate to say it, but it’s not enough money. Although it may be stretched to about $1.6 Billion a year through debt financing (which brings it own problems), the huge costs that New Jersey will be facing over the next decade, especially on the transit side (think Hudson River tunnels) will require more resources.
Second, the Trust Fund mainly finances capital costs, so the new bill leaves the operations and maintenance side woefully underfunded. Under New Jersey’s wacky transportation finance system, operations and maintenance costs mainly fall on the state’s general funds, which have been continually squeezed for a generation. The damage caused on the transit side was recently documented in the New York Times (here). On the highway side, routine maintenance is chronically underfunded, so bridges and highways are allowed to deteriorate until they are in bad enough condition to require capital projects. Staff functions which can’t be sheltered under a capital line item are just left undone. This squeeze will actually be made worse by the Trust Fund bill, which cuts general fund revenue sources (sales tax and estate tax) as part of the political price exacted by the Governor.
Third, although a funding bill is a big step forward, it really should be accompanied by significant transportation reform. Some of the issues that need to be addressed on the NJDOT side – in my opinion – include better budget control of project costs, much more emphasis on operations and maintenance (both of these issues related to the transportation finance system), a renewed connection between transportation planning and land use planning (which has waned in recent years), a stronger connection to climate change resilience and other sustainability issues, and a stronger commitment to collaborative and robust planning.
I should point out that there are some substantive problems common in other states that are not prevalent in New Jersey. One is transit funding. Although transit funding is inadequate, especially on the operations and maintenance side, it’s not because transit is an unwanted houseguest, as it is in many states. New Jersey being a geographically compact and densely populated state, transit is political popular in all regions and in the Legislature. Another problem not prominent in New Jersey is overinvestment in highway capacity increases. Transportation decision makers decided a long time ago (first explicitly stated in the 1989 Transportation Plan) that New Jersey could not “build its way out of congestion” and resources have increasingly focused on system preservation, and especially the bridge program.
A companion bill to the tax bill does, however, offer hope for the future on these unaddressed issues. It creates a Transportation Policy Review Board, to be composed of nine public members, all of whom are supposed to have transportation expertise. The Board is given a broad mandate to “provide independent analysis of the transportation capital program, provide comments on the cost effectiveness of the program, evaluate the condition of the State transportation system, and identify needed infrastructure investments.” The Board is to have its own budget and the ability to conduct its own research and to produce its own reports. (One of the specific tasks spelled out in the legislation is a study of a VMT tax.) If the Board fulfills its statutory charter it will become, in effect, a state transportation commission, something New Jersey has not had since 1948. History instructs us, however, not to assume success (the new Board is legislatively built on the statutory ruins of a previous failed review board).
The companion bill contains various other provisions, but I will mention just two: one very good and one very bad. The very good provision requires that New Jersey DOT set up a monthly online project reporting system – long overdue – which could become the kernel of a New Jersey Grey Notebook (see Washington State DOT). The really bad provision establishes a Capital Program Approval Committee with appointees from the Legislature. The Committee is to assure that “legislative input” is considered in putting together the annual program. The program can’t be adopted until each member of the Committee approves each project!
So two cheers for the Trust Fund bill and on the next challenges!
Friday, September 16, 2016
And, yes, most of it is fun!
I recently posted on Lisbon’s excellent metro system – reflections from a recent visit – but also want to comment on some of the other elements of a varied and robust public transportation system.
Like San Francisco’s cable cars, this electrified streetcar line is part transportation system and part tourist attraction. It is regularly listed as one of the top 10 things to see in Lisbon. The crowded, rickety tram pursues a colorful route through the city, highlighted by a precipitous, winding ride through the narrow lanes of the historic Alfama district. There is often a queue to get on the Number 28, but it’s worth the wait.
Alongside the “antique” trams plying Line 28 and a couple of other routes, Lisbon also uses modern, comfortable trams, notably on Line 15, which efficiently connects the city center with the outlying tourist destination of Belem.
All the buses I saw looked clean and modern. The transit authority uses minibuses to navigate the narrow streets of the Alfama district.
Perhaps nothing speaks to the tourist boom in Lisbon more than the proliferation of tuk-tuks – 3-wheelers that race up and down the streets, serving as taxis and tourmobiles. These appear to be loosely regulated and entrepreneurial, offering travelers a quick and sometimes harrowing ride through the city. They vary widely in size and motive power, so it’s hard to say whether these are a net positive or negative for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. But they are fun!
Lisbon is a very hilly city, and funiculars are practical as well as being fun. Although I don’t like the acceptance of graffiti on the cars, they offer a very picturesque trip!
Elevador Santa Justa
Although generally grouped with the funiculars, the Elevador Santa Justa really is what it says – an elevator! Designed by a student of Gustav Eiffel, the iron structure carries passengers from the lower town to the upper town – with lots of selfies at the top!
Although the streets are all thronged with people, Lisbon is in many ways not an easy city for pedestrians. For one thing, cars (not to mention trams) roar (or rumble) through the narrow streets with pedestrians often walking single file and hugging the walls of the bordering buildings. For another, the beautiful and characteristic pavement tiles (calçada portuguesa – you saw them in Rio during the Olympics) are tough to walk on. As for bikes, I saw very few, whether due to a non-bicycling culture or the challenging terrain. In the newer parts of town, where there are broad boulevards, the city has embarked on a program of reducing auto space and expanding room for bike lanes, pedestrian space, and the always-important sidewalk cafes.
Transit oriented development
There isn’t much TOD in Lisbon – at least that I saw – with the notable exception of the Parque das Nações complex in the north of the city. Originally built for the 1998 World Exhibition, the complex houses an aquarium, a concert hall, a shopping mall, and other attractions, together with housing. The complex is served by a multimodal transit station, designed by Santiago Calatrava, which links the Metro, national and commuter rail, and buses. Although the design and architecture is a bit too concretey and windy for my taste, it is impressive and worth a visit.
All-in-all, Lisbon is an easy and inexpensive city to get around in using public transportation – at least in the center – and a wonderful place to visit. Está bem!