Tuesday, May 22, 2018
I visited St. Louis recently and rode the Metrolink light rail and found it to be a nice ride. Pros: connects some major activity centers (ballpark, airport, Union Station, Forest Park, Central West End, etc.), connects Missouri and Illinois, comfortable ride. Cons: not a network (they call it two lines but it’s really one line with branches in the Missouri suburbs), some stations (notably Airport Terminal 2) are a longish walk to the actual activity center.
I was also pleased to see the Ballpark Village development (which I wrote about a few years ago) finally beginning Phase Two. Right now, it’s mainly bars and restaurants across the street from Busch Stadium (photo below), but will soon have extensive residential, office, hotel, and additional retail space (website here). St. Louis is definitely another success story in the downtown ballpark revitalization book!
One of the drawbacks of a transit line running mainly on old railroad right-of-way is that it traverses long stretches of semi-desolate industrial zones and rail yards. But this also provides an opportunity for new infill development. In St. Louis, Metrolink is building an infill station called “Cortex” after the expanding high-tech district it will serve (photo below, story here). Another TIGER grant success story!
For literally years now I have been helping the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and local residents fight to preserve the 200-year-old, one-lane Headquarters Road Bridge in rural upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which PennDOT insists on demolishing and replacing with a new, longer, wider structure. Why have we not been able to resolve this issue, which looks like a textbook case for applying context sensitive design and collaborative planning? It’s a long story (which has not yet ended).
You can watch my presentation at a recent briefing for press and local elected officials here. The news story from the event is here.Photo below (courtesy of Delaware Riverkeeper Network): yours truly on the left, May van Rossum, the Delware Riverkeeper, on the right.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Electrify America – the initiative born of Volkswagen’s restitution for cheating on car pollution tests – is doing just that: electrifying America.
They have now opened their first “ultra-fast” electric vehicle charger at a shopping center in Chicopee, Massachusetts, just off the Mass Pike. This new charger will be able to charge vehicles at an amazing rate of 20 miles of range per minute (story here). Of course, most EVs aren’t yet ready for that kind of fast charging, but they are on the way too. (For an intro to some of the technical issues involved, see my previous blog posting here.) The Chicopee charger is the first of what will be a network of chargers on key corridors throughout the country (see map below). This is a serious ramping up of EV infrastructure. VW may be atoning for past sins, but we should be very grateful to them for doing a lot of the heavy lifting in electrifying America! And quite a coup for Chicopee too (a town I know well)!
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Today 14 new electric Proterra E2 Catalyst buses start rolling in the Washington DC Circulator fleet (story here). Since the Circulators are so visible – to visitors and tourists as well as to residents – this could be a real milestone in the electrification of public transportation in this country. We need to make this work.
Yet another cool thing happening in DC! (See my stories on multimodal transportation at the new Wharf development here, dockless bikes and scooters here.)
Monday, April 30, 2018
Having recently written about multimodal transportation in Washington, DC (here) and dockless bikes and scooters (here), I have to provide an update about where the Venn diagram overlaps!
On a recent walk through Georgetown, I noticed a large number of dockless bikes, scooters, and electric bikes, both in motion and parked (see photos below) in this popular shopping and tourist destination. The District government has just extended its trial “Dockless Demonstration Program” which permits 7 companies to provide limited service. The trial program was extended after the District and the providers were unable to reach an agreement about how a permanent program might be regulated (Washington Post story here, Greater Greater Washington here).
As suggested in my previous story, stay tuned for more developments!
I was saddened to learn of the passing of David Billington, engineering professor emeritus at Princeton (story here). David was an outstanding scholar and teacher and a real gentleman. He was best known for his efforts to encourage the infusion of aesthetic sensibility into structural engineering design, which derived from his work on Swiss designers. He hated what he called “GI bridges” and believed that a piece of long-lived infrastructure such as a bridge should reflect and enrich its natural environment and cultural context. If the subject sounds dry, note that David was one of the most popular lecturers at Princeton and presented his views with humor and grace. If you never thought you would enjoy a lecture on bridge design, please take a look at this lecture at MIT (here).
How much influence did David have? Hard to say. There is still a lot of ugly design out there. Thanks to Jack Lettiere, then president of AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), he gave a lecture at that organization’s 2005 convention, which hopefully started some ripples. And certainly there are some iconic new bridges such as the Swiss-designed Zakim Bridge in Boston, which David references in the MIT lecture. I believe his thinking is still very valuable and I think it will still have an impact well into the future. I know it has influenced me (see poster on my office wall).
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
On a recent visit to San Diego I was pleased to see the Trolley doing well – appearing to be well maintained, running smoothly, and clearly popular. It’s still only a small piece of the transportation picture in a very auto-dominated metro area, but it provides a key mobility alternative, especially for access to a vibrant, revitalized downtown. A ride to the ballpark on the Green Line was smooth, well-utilized (but not crowded), and delivered us to the heart of the entertainment district, a block from the stadium. (Quite a contrast to the ride to Fenway Park on that other Green Line, rocking and rolling along the old tracks in a jam-packed antique car!)
Happily, construction is underway on an 11-mile extension of the Trolley north to the University City area (San Diego’s “second downtown”) near the University of California at San Diego (project information here). Hopefully a connection to the airport will follow soon.
Also encouraging is a recent report (here) that notes the largely unexploited potential for transit-oriented development at current station sites. I hope that bears fruit!
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Dockless bikes and scooters are now quite the rage – and stirring up some rage! – in various cities. They can be very convenient for the user, but maybe not so convenient for someone whose driveway or doorstep is blocked by a dropped bike. Cities where this phenomenon has exploded are awash with angry debates about how to manage it (see background piece in the New York Times here), although apparently Lime Bikes were not actually tossed into the Mississippi River in St. Louis (here). (FYI, Lime Bike is the best known and probably biggest provider at this time.)
On a recent visit to San Diego I was able to get an impression of how the issue is developing in that city (see below: Lime Bike at the beach, “no parking” at the ballpark).
How will this kerfuffle play out? Hard to say, but it’s exciting to see that the appetite for innovative mobility is strong!
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
I had a chance recently to visit Washington DC’s new “The Wharf” mixed use urban development on the city’s southwest waterfront – and was duly impressed! The designers have done a fine job of putting together a package of residences, shops, bars, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment venues that work well together and fit the unusual (for DC) waterfront location. Almost the entire development is new, but they have kept the funky old fish market. The target demographic for the development is not too hard to figure out. “Portugal. The Man” was playing when I visited (note my careful use of punctuation).
Fuller reviews of the development can be found at Greater Greater Washington (here) and CityLab (here). The Wharf development’s own website is here.
Transportation access and circulation is appropriately multimodal and hip and urban. Note below the bikeway, water taxi, and woonerf! (If you don’t know the latter term, Google it and impress your friends.)
Looking forward to watching The Wharf develop!
Monday, March 19, 2018
Climate change folks have been in various states of excitement, anxiety, and disappointment in recent weeks as major “carbon pricing” bills came close to passage but fell short in the Washington and Oregon state legislatures.
This stuff gets very wonkish very quickly, so as close as I can get to a TLDR on carbon pricing is this:
· Climate change experts largely agree that making it more expensive to burn high-carbon fuels (which pump out greenhouse gases, making climate change worse) will encourage reduced use, switching to renewable resources, etc.
· There are two ways of putting an extra price on carbon: directly, through taxes, and indirectly, by setting up a “cap-and-trade” system that auctions off permits to sell carbon content.
· In North America, British Columbia has the only carbon tax, while several jurisdictions, the largest being California, have cap-and-trade systems. Either system can be revenue-neutral (as in BC) or revenue-producing (as in California).
Back to the main story: Washington attempted to enact a carbon tax, Oregon a cap-and-trade system.
The initiatives in both states were backed by Democratic governors and Democratic legislators (yes, this is a partisan issue in those places). Both initiatives also have strong business/labor/environmental/community activist support groups. In both cases, the legislature didn’t quite have the time and/or votes to get the business done in this year’s session.
What does it mean?
There are a couple of good analytical pieces that sort through some of the possibilities. (See the story in The Atlantic here, and Think Progress here.) I would start with a simpler explanation, which is that complicated and controversial bills always take time and effort to push through the legislative process. (The course of true legislation never did run smooth.)
Both legislatures will very likely re-engage with carbon pricing bills, but probably not until their 2019 sessions. Stay tuned.
But what do these stories mean for the transportation sector?
Transportation fossil fuels would be covered under both the Oregon and Washington bills, meaning the prices at the pump would go up, perhaps by 10 cents a gallon or more.
And would the transportation programs benefit from these revenues? Yes, but it’s unclear how much and how many strings would be attached. Both states have constitutional encumbrances on their motor fuels programs, which would appear to limit the use of whatever money gets funneled into the state’s transportation program. Ideally (in my opinion) funds raised by carbon pricing on transportation fuels should be targeted toward transit, electric vehicle infrastructure, active transportation (bike/ped) infrastructure, and other “clean transportation” uses. No one has explained to me how that will happen in Washington and Oregon.
My takeaway? Transportation folks need to be involved at the beginning of carbon pricing legislative initiatives to make sure that the outcome works to advance the 21st century sustainable transportation system we need.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Dickinson College, in Carlisle PA, has been a leading edge institution on environmental issues for some time, and has now broken ground on an ambitious solar farm that will provide 25% of campus power needs (story here).
The college has entered into an agreement with Tesla, who will own and maintain the 12-acre array. How will they prevent the panels from becoming overgrown? Grazing sheep!
Model developments like these are especially important in Pennsylvania, which for historical (and geological) reasons is more attached to fossil fuels than any other state in the Northeast.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Happy 10th Birthday to the Pennsylvania/New Jersey Smart Transportation Guidebook!
This remarkable document (full disclosure: I was one of its “fathers”) is a citizens guide to linking transportation and Smart Growth. The subtitle says it all: “Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities.”
The guidebook was the product of a remarkable collaboration between PennDOT (led by Al Biehler) and New Jersey DOT (led by Jack Lettiere and later Kris Kolluri), facilitated by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). Both state DOTs had been struggling for several years with the failure of the old model of building new highways as an answer to congestion and had been experimenting with new techniques of multimodal corridor planning, collaborative planning, linking transportation and land use, and environmental stewardship. The Smart Transportation Guidebook was a distillation of that learning experience and was intended to stimulate informed, community-oriented transportation planning.
How well has the Guidebook been implemented in the two states over the past decade? I think the answer has to be a less than enthusiastic “sometimes well, sometimes not so much.”
Are the principles and practices recommended in the Guidebook still relevant and useful? YES. (Feel free to discount my opinion a few points for “parental” favoritism.)
I will give just one extract: the six principles of Smart Transportation:
1. Tailor solutions to the context. In the words of the Guidebook, “Roadways should respect the character of the community, and its current and planned land uses.” The design of a road should “respond to its unique circumstances” and should consider the presence of environmental resources.
2. Tailor the approach. Project team members and stakeholders should tailor their approach to the specific need, type, complexity, and range of solutions of a transportation problem.
3. Plan all projects in collaboration with the community. Collaboration between the state DOT and local stakeholders is critical and should involve “the integration of land use planning with transportation planning, and a focus on the overall transportation network rather than a single roadway.”
4. Plan for alternative transportation modes. Roadway project development should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users where appropriate.
5. Use sound professional judgment. The project team should use its best judgment, considering the “specific circumstances” involved. “The smart solution on some projects may be to seek design exceptions or waivers to allow for true context-based design.”
6. Scale the solution to the size of the problem. The project team should look for a solution that “fits within the context, is affordable, is supported by the communities, and can be implemented in a reasonable time frame.”
Can we please do this all the time?
I’m happy to report that the Smart Transportation Guidebook is still available on the New Jersey DOT website (here) and the DVRPC website (here).
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Ferryboats aren’t very useful in most parts of this country, but where they are, they can be very useful, carrying lots of people (and vehicles) to places that are difficult or impossible to get to by road. One of the problems with ferries (in addition to being slow) is that they are smelly, fossil-fuel hogs. The answer? Electric ferries!
Washington State DOT (where ferries really are important, and in fact are considered part of the state highway system) has just announced that they will begin converting their older boats to electric power (story here). They will swap out the old diesel engines – due for overhaul anyway – with modern battery-powered engines.
The Norwegians have been using a prototype electric ferry for a few years, with great results, both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and operational efficiency (story here, video here, picture below). They report that the electric ferry Ampere, which has been in operation for nearly three years, has cut emissions by 95% and operating costs by 80%, compared to conventional boats.
Good luck with your new venture WSDOT!
Thursday, February 8, 2018
The Regional Plan Association, a major non-profit planning group based in New York, has included a recommendation for carbon pricing in its latest regional plan. Publication of the “Fourth Plan” for the New York region – the first was in 1929 – is a big deal in the New York area and its recommendations are bound to be influential with policy makers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. (RPA website with links to the plan here.)
The carbon pricing recommendation – “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a cap-and-trade market modeled after California’s program” – aligns with a growing body of opinion in the Northeast.
Specifically, the recommendation calls for:
· Expanding the existing RGGI (Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) cap-and-trade program to include transportation fuels,
· Using the proceeds to fund low-carbon infrastructure and activities such as transit, electric vehicles, hardening of at-risk facilities, energy rebates for low-income communities, and natural carbon sequestration, and
· Linking up with California, Ontario, Quebec, and future jurisdictions who have similar programs.
Carbon pricing is just one of 61 recommendations in the Fourth Plan, but it’s one that can provide great leverage toward the Plan’s goals of a more sustainable, fairer, healthier, and more prosperous region.
(BTW, first step already taken: New Jersey is back in RGGI! See RPA's story here.)
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Having recently spent a few days meeting with several thousand of my friends and colleagues in transportation (otherwise known as the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board), I wanted to share a few nuggets of information I picked up.
There is a lot of discussion these days in climate change circles about the benefits of “green taxes” (e.g., carbon taxes) for promoting desired behaviors while raising funds for governmental activities. And of course in transportation circles there is always talk about the need for more money. So it is not surprising that people in the overlap of those circles are looking into green taxes for transportation.
So, you might ask, what percentage of the American public would support, for instance, a 10-cent increase in the gas tax, with the revenue “dedicated to transportation projects to reduce global warning”? The answer is 54 percent.
This question is part of an ongoing survey research project which folks at the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University have been carrying out for seven years. (The report can be found here.)
Despite the noise you hear about Americans hating taxes, the research shows that a majority of Americans support gas tax increases when they are dedicated to transportation goals. The gas tax option gaining the highest support – 78 percent – is for a 10-cent increase with revenue “spent on projects to maintain streets, roads, and highways.” And support for gas tax increases has been generally trending up during the seven years for most of the options presented!
A follow-up piece of research (to be published) dug into the data collected over all seven years of survey data to inquire whether there are any demographic characteristics associated with support for green taxes (the “dedicated to global warning” and two related ones). The specific research question was whether support for green taxes was related more to “place” (urban vs. rural) or “people” – other identifiers. The short answer is “people.” The results showed that “it may not matter as much where you live as who you are. No matter where you live, you are likely to support transportation taxes if you are younger, female, Hispanic, and identify as a Democrat.”
And one more research update on taxes from TRB: California has had a remarkable history of successful local sales tax referendums for transportation. These Local Option Sales Taxes (LOSTs!) now generate $4 Billion a year for transportation. In the 40 years since this phenomenon got started, approval rates have been well over 50 percent. And under the rules, a two-thirds supermajority is required for adoption! Thanks to grad students at UCLA we now have a much better understanding of how these things work (to be published). The main takeaways (my interpretation):
· People will support taxing themselves for transportation when the objectives are clear (and popular),
· Approval rates go up over time when the local jurisdiction (counties in California) delivers on the previous program,
· As a matter of practical politics, the mix of projects in successful referendums is tailored to meet local needs (and aspirations), and of course geographical balance,
· People are willing to invest much more in transit, even in places where current transit usage is small,
· Bus transit tends to be a drag on the likelihood of success relative to fixed-guideway, and
· “Maintenance” is a much better draw than “operations.”
Bottom line: There is a broad reservoir of potential public support for “green” taxes that benefit clean transportation.