Happy Earth Day!

 Yes, I know that the predictions of the climate scientists get scarier and scarier, but there are signs of hope. One that I find encouraging is the huge investment President Biden and Congress have made in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. For more than a decade I have been one of those encouraging government at all levels to invest in EV fast chargers. I have heard the arguments that EV deployment is somehow ineffective or a distraction or elitist, and I am not persuaded. It seems to me that electrifying the transport sector is a critical part of moving fossil fuels toward obsolescence, that deploying EV fast chargers throughout the nation is an essential step in making that happen, and that only massive public investment will get those chargers in place with urgency. Finally, the new federal program looks like it will make that happen.

I am also pleased that the federal program, as enacted by Congress and as implemented by USDOT, is designed to provide multiple benefits, including promoting domestic manufacturing, requiring streamlined customer access, addressing equity challenges, and adopting “comprehensive standards for the installation, operation, or maintenance of EV charging stations” (details in White House factsheet here).

As of now, state plans for spending the federal money have been adopted and initial funds have been apportioned, but we are still waiting to see major results on the ground. Having recently made an electric road trip, I can testify that access to DC fast chargers is still sketchy in much of the country. (Fun fact: there are no DC fast chargers in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, a major East Coast vacation venue.)

So, Happy Earth Day, and keep on electrifying!

Wisconsin is stuck in a freeway hole…and it’s still digging

 The I-94 Milwaukee freeway widening project has taken another lumbering step forward with the close of the comment period on the latest–and perhaps really final–environmental document. 

This awful project has been in an on-and-off mode for years, and I have been involved in the fight throughout. My team and I were pleased to provide technical support to the alliance of environmental, community, and transportation reform groups which submitted extensive comments to the record in opposition (news release with link to the full comments here).

Right now in this space I just want to make a quick note of (1) what is wrong with the Wisconsin DOT widening proposal and (2) what the alternative is.

What’s wrong with the widening proposal? Well, the comments of the anti-widening coalition spell them out in great detail. The defects include disregarding air quality regulatory requirements, failing to consider public transportation options, ignoring the impacts on communities and racial equity, not considering in any detail the changing work and travel patterns initiated by the pandemic, and many others. But what stands out to me is the negligent refusal to see this project in the context of the climate crisis.

It’s amazing to me that any transportation professional could advocate adding through lanes to an urban freeway at this moment in history. We are facing a climate emergency, and those of us in the transportation world should be doing everything possible to find solutions that drive down vehicle miles traveled (VMT) while improving people’s opportunities for accessing desired destinations in safe, modern, sustainable ways. Widening freeways is not one of those solutions. In fact, there is a growing–I would say undeniable–body of evidence that new and expanded freeways induce more VMT, promote sprawl, and discourage transit use, while ultimately failing to move people more rapidly across the landscape.

What is the alternative? As it happens, I was tasked by the anti-widening coalition with putting together a detailed alternative, which was published in 2021 under the title “Fix at Six” (available here). The two main pillars of the alternative are: (1) rehab the existing facility within the current 6-lane footprint (hence “Fix at Six”) and (2) build a robust new east-west transit system, based on Bus Rapid Transit and commuter rail.

The current legacy infrastructure, the I-94 East-West Freeway, is definitely old and worn out, and if we are going to keep it in use it will need work. Wisconsin DOT dismissed the rehab-on-current-alignment approach out of hand, based on its conclusion that it would not get automobiles moving fast enough along the freeway in peak hours in 2050.

Fortunately there are excellent transit opportunities in the east-west corridor, especially for two bus rapid transit lines, which can be located on arterials running parallel to the freeway. One is actually under construction! First-rate bus rapid transit, a possible rail commuter line, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and better land use will provide real, sustainable mobility on the corridor, without the destructive effects of highway widening.

The highway widening vs. fix-it-first debate has now actually been dragged into national partisan politics, with the new majority in the House of Representatives threatening legislative action to roll back the relatively modest attempt of the Biden administration to establish fix-it-first as national transportation policy (story here). This could lead to an actual, straight-up highway widening vs. fix-it-first vote on the floor of the House!

Meanwhile, Wisconsin policymakers, you need to fix this!

RIP Jim Florio

 I was saddened to learn of the death of former New Jersey Governor Jim Florio at the age of 85 (see obituary here). Much is made in the obituaries of the major tax increase he engineered at a time of fiscal crisis in the 1980s, which in turn caused a major public backlash (foreshadowing the Tea Party backlash of a couple of decades later). Florio’s move was seen as bold, or reckless, or both at the time. There was a magazine cover (which I can’t locate) depicting a cartoon Florio bungee jumping off a bridge with a broken bungee cord! What is easy to miss, at this distance, is the size of the fiscal problem he faced. The Wall Street crash of 1987 had a devastating effect on New Jersey. In the boom times before the crash those of us in the transportation world (I was at the New Jersey Department of Transportation) were trying to develop new planning tools to cope with runaway suburban sprawl. And we had the resources to do a lot. After the crash we still generated progressive policies, but there was a general belt tightening. Jim Florio was an innovative, activist sort of politician, who wanted to do big things. The hand he was dealt, unfortunately, was the need to cope with what amounted to a severe, localized economic recession.

But I remember Jim Florio best from his later years, when I would run into him at various conferences and meetings and have casual conversations with him. He was always kind, always well informed and involved, and always curious about the latest developments in transportation, land use, and environmental protection.        

We will miss him.

Philly to get a new center city basketball arena!

Good news for Philly sports fans and folks interested in urban redevelopment. The owners of the Philadelphia 76ers have announced plans for a new arena to be built atop the Jefferson (formerly Market East) train station. (Developer website here, ESPN story here.)

For those not familiar with Philadelphia, Jefferson Station is at the heart of center city (i.e., downtown) and every SEPTA regional rail train travels through it. It also connects directly or within a short walk to three rapid transit lines. The current arena is located on South Broad Street, where there is a subway station, but also very good highway access and lots of surface parking. Not surprisingly, many of the comments posted on social media have been complaints that the new facility will aggravate congestion in center city and won’t have enough parking.

In fact, basketball arenas, like baseball stadiums, belong downtown, where they foster neighborhood revitalization, with lots of restaurants, bars, retail, and residential. Take a look, for instance, at the success of the Deer District in Milwaukee (website here) – and they don’t even have rapid transit!  (Good New York Times story on the nationwide phenomenon here.)

FYI, the developer has posted some good goal statements for the project, including “Develop an environmentally sustainable arena,” “Preserve culture and identity of surrounding communities,” and “Preserve and promote affordability.” And they promise no city subsidy needed!

If the plan unfolds as laid out, this should be a big step forward for Philly.

 

How to declare a climate change emergency for transportation

 How do you do a transportation climate change emergency?

UPDATE: OK, so Joe Manchin fooled us and DID let the Senate pass a climate bill. Good news, bad news. The good news is that we have a climate bill -- with lots of support for decarbonizing the transportation system. Bad news: there is nothing in the bill to slow down highway expansion -- which I had suggested as an emergency action -- and little to move us toward more sustainable land use. More work to be done.

How about freezing federal dollars for highway expansion!

Now that Joe Manchin has killed any hope of climate change legislation in the US Senate, attention has turned to what President Biden could accomplish by declaring a climate change emergency. There has been some public discussion about actions that could be taken by executive action to hasten the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but I haven’t seen much about what could be done in the transportation space.

So here’s my top suggestion: issue an executive order effectively stopping the flow of federal transportation dollars to highway widening projects. The rationale is simple: when you find yourself in a hole and want to get out, the first step is to STOP DIGGING. And putting money into highway widening at this moment in time seems to me to be digging the hole deeper in the climate change emergency.

I think that any emergency action should meet two criteria. First, it should have a real, perceptible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions or promoting a mode shift toward transit and active transportation. Second, it should provide some shock value, to demonstrate to decision makers and the public that yes, this is an emergency situation. A freeze on highway capacity increase projects would clearly forestall significant greenhouse gas emissions stemming both directly from those projects and indirectly from the sprawl development they encourage. And boy would it have shock value!

How could a freeze on highway capacity funding be implemented? Well, it wouldn’t be simple, and some careful legal research would be needed to find the best answer. My initial approach would be to direct the Federal Highway Administration to NOT authorize any highway capacity increase project for the next phase of work (Construction, Right-of-way acquisition, Final design) and require a supplemental environmental review on the grounds that any widening project (or new highway) should be assumed to cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental documents (environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, categorical exclusions) for those projects should also be stopped short of approval on the same grounds. I’m pretty sure it would not be feasible to stop the flow of funds to a project phase that had already been authorized. 

There are other actions that should also be explored. These would include finding a way to put more money into transit operating expenses, discouraging fund transfers from transit and active transportation programs into highway programs, providing support for “open streets” programs, and finding some way to encourage better housing/transit linkages. But for me, slamming the brakes on highway expansion would be the most precise and powerful action that could be taken.

Obviously, legislation is needed to carry out a comprehensive transportation reform program that really responds to the climate emergency. But if it really is an emergency, we should aggressively explore all the emergency measures that can be taken by executive action.

Freeway to Boulevard advances in Syracuse!

A major freeway-to-boulevard project - replacement of the elevated I-81 freeway in central Syracuse with a “Community Grid Alternative” - has reached the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) stage.  After a brief final review period, the project should be headed for construction later this year.  This is big news for the freeway-to-boulevard movement.  (Although the replacement isn’t exactly a boulevard.)  I think there’s a lot to be learned from the Syracuse project, so it’s worth a close look.

The project in brief: I-81 is carried from the Syracuse University area into downtown Syracuse on a long (about a mile) set of elevated structures (the “viaduct”).  Like most structures built in the 1960s, the viaduct has reached the end of its useful life.  The options: build a new viaduct (destructive, unpopular) or replace the viaduct with at-grade streets and reroute I-81 along the current I-481 bypass route.  As described in the FEIS, the Viaduct Alternative and the Community Grid Alternative turned out to have roughly equivalent costs, traffic projections, and environmental impacts - and the Community Grid Alternative (remarkably!) was chosen by New York State DOT (NYSDOT) and the other key decision makers as the Locally Preferred Alternative.

For more detail, see the news story here or the NYSDOT project website here.

Before making a few observations, a few caveats:  I haven’t been involved in the project or dived deeply enough into the project documents to evaluate how good the data and conclusions are.  I also haven’t researched the advocacy and decision making process that led to this remarkable outcome - and which might have resulted in a better or worse outcome.  So, from looking only at the Final Environmental Impact Statement and a cursory glance at the press, here are some thoughts:

Purpose and Need

Large environmental documents for projects always include a “Purpose and Need” section, which states the “why” of the project.  These text pieces are often stuffed with boilerplate language which, in the case of big highway projects, are often verbose statements that can be reduced to “make the road bigger to make cars go faster.”  The Purpose and Need language for the I-81 project is strikingly different from the typical.  There are two goal statements.  The first statement addresses safety and mobility, but in a broader than usual treatment: “Improve safety and create an efficient regional and local transportation system within and through greater Syracuse.”  The second goal statement establishes a broad context for developing a project concept: “Provide transportation solutions that enhance the livability, visual quality, sustainability, and economic vitality of greater Syracuse.”  There are five “objective” statements, which also set a broad context.  Two are directly oriented to the roadway itself, dealing with structural deficiencies and with geometric and operational deficiencies.  But the other three address access, connectivity, and transit - key concepts for developing a modern, sustainable transportation system.  This is a model that deserves study.  Getting the Purpose and Need right is essential for developing the best solutions.

Equity

The issue of equity is a formidable backdrop for all major freeway project decisions these days, and the I-81 project is no different.  In fact, the equity issue was most likely the key driver in selecting the Community Grid Alternative over the Viaduct Alternative.  As in the history of many cities, the north-south freeway in Syracuse was bulldozed through mainly poor and minority neighborhoods, causing long-term damage to those neighborhoods and the broader urban fabric.  The Community Grid Alternative will benefit these communities by removing what the FEIS calls the “perceived barrier” of the viaduct, by expanding bicycle and pedestrian links, by and reconnecting neighborhoods.  As NYSDOT Commissioner Marie Therese Dominguez said in announcing publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the project “represents a truly historic opportunity to correct a major wrong from the past and create a modern transportation network that benefits the users of the entire transportation system and all the communities in central New York.”  Unfortunately, the FEIS “buries the lede” and does not include the bold or forthright language on equity that I would prefer to see.

Traffic

Calculating future travel times, delay, and traffic speeds can be complicated and controversial.  In the case of the I-81 project, the Viaduct Alternative is basically a rebuild rather than a major capacity increase, so predicted traffic numbers in that scenario are not much better than No Build.  In fact, what capacity improvement is made would be offset by the predicted phenomenon that some traffic would be drawn off from other roads to the freeway.  The Community Grid Alternative, although it would eliminate multiple freeway through lanes, actually doesn’t do worse than No Build on the various traffic scores because it would “disperse traffic throughout the city grid, using the existing street network.”  When all the numbers are sorted out, the predicted traffic numbers aren’t much different for the Viaduct Alternative and the City Grid Alternative, so the decision to be made looks less like a choice between two solutions with more or less traffic congestion and more like a choice of what sort of future you want.

Transition

How do you transition from a freeway to a city street on the same alignment?  Very carefully!  Between the freeway segment and the city street segment, NYSDOT has chosen to build a transitional segment of limited access highway which will feature such traffic calming measures as reduced posted speed limits, curves, narrow shoulders, curbs, and landscaping.  The transitional segment ends in a roundabout, which leads to a four-lane urban arterial: Almond Street.  How well this transition will work remains to be seen.  Personally, I would prefer to disperse the freeway into a delta of local streets if it were feasible.  This is a design issue which will become more important in the future as freeways are downsized.

Design issues

Just a few further notes on the design concept of the project:

Most of the old I-81 freeway through Syracuse will be kept in place (although no longer designated as an Interstate highway).  Only a mile or so of roadway (the “viaduct”)  will be completely replaced.  In the future, Syracuse will want to think about what comes next for these surviving freeway segments.

The replacement (rebuilt Almond Street) doesn’t look like much of a “boulevard” in the renderings - more like a regular city street.  That’s probably OK, as a “boulevard” can sometimes turn out to be just a multilane, high-speed arterial.

Almond Street does appear to have a protected bike lane through at least part of its length.  I don’t know what the options and arguments were for bike facilities.

Since removal of the viaduct basically puts traffic on the previously hidden street underneath, there isn’t a whole lot of land freed up for redevelopment.  The most significant piece will be opened up by some ramp removals at the former interchange with I-690.  The FEIS suggests “reinstating” several city blocks in the area, which could be redeveloped as a “canal-themed district” near the confluence of the Oswego and Erie canals.

Interstate continuity

What makes this project relatively straightforward (not easy, but not outrageously difficult) is that there is a clear, suitable alternative to carry I-81 through the Syracuse area: the current I-481 bypass highway.  This means that the continuity and connectivity of the Interstate system will be unbroken.  I have found that many advocates of the freeway removal movement really don’t understand how important the principle of Interstate continuity and connectivity is to the broad mainstream of highway engineers and planners.  If you can crack this nut, a lot of other issues can be resolved.  If you can’t, you have to traverse much more difficult terrain.

Transit

Apart from a few mentions of “transit amenities” there is little transit content in the I-81 plan.  Why?  I don’t know.  If I were planning a major infrastructure rebuild on a linear alignment connecting a large student population and  a major sports venue (both Syracuse University) and a large medical complex, with my downtown, I would ask: what kind of high-quality transit can we put there?  Light rail?  Bus rapid transit?  Or at least a dedicated bus lane?  

The Syracuse project could be an important precedent and I hope for its success!

“State DOT head says no room for new roads”

 Exciting new development?  How about New Jersey, 1989!

From the Trenton Times, 13 February 1989:

Commissioner Hazel Gluck: “The automobile - that symbol of freedom - has become a prison entrapping us in endless traffic jams.  Our love affair with the automobile has made us build more and more roadways to meet ever increasing demands.  But, this cannot, and will not, continue.”  

What alternatives were proposed?

One was improving and expanding transit.  A quote from yours truly: “We know that the potential carrying capacity of the transit corridor can be expanded considerably more than the same amount of land can carry when it is devoted to a highway purpose.”  Perhaps not my most fluent statement, but the reporter got the meaning across.

The point here is that the impetus to move away from highway expansion and toward transit, system management, and better land use planning (also a big topic in New Jersey in the 1980s) started a long time ago and has been only slowly advancing.  We did some good stuff in New Jersey in those days (see the 1989 Transportation Plan, Transplan land use legislation, etc.).  Much more still needs to be done - and with the climate emergency upon us it is urgent.