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!

Megan Kimble's "City Limits"

 Megan Kimble’s new book, City Limits: Infrastructure, Inequality, and the Future of America’s Highways,  is a welcome addition to the growing literature on the past and future of urban freeways and the opportunity we have to restore the damage they have caused to the urban fabric of American cities.  It’s an especially good introduction to “freeway fighting” for those new to the concept.

Kimble weaves a narrative, based on extensive interviews, around three current freeway projects in Texas: 

• The widening of I-35 through the heart of Austin from 12 lanes to 20 lanes,

• The widening of I-45 in Houston, including expanding the downtown loop, and

• The reconstruction of I-345 in Dallas.

The common thread among these case studies is the impact that these projects have on individuals and neighborhoods – and on sustaining a car-dependent society that ultimately limits personal freedom.  Although many of these stories are depressing (why is Texas destroying its own cities?), she does offer some glimmers of hope for a better future.

Along the way, Kimble also guides the reader through some fascinating history which illuminates the way we ended up with the problematic transportation planning and funding system we live with today.  Perhaps the most interesting historical segment is her account of President Eisenhower’s frustration when he discovered that a huge chunk of funding allocated for his new Interstate highway system was being used by states to fund urban freeway projects rather than the long distance, city-to-city connections he envisioned.  

Ultimately, as Kimble reminds us, stopping and reversing destructive freeway projects involves more than preventing and remediating harm – it opens up possibilities for the future: “Tearing down a highway is just the beginning.”

Riding the MBTA Green Line extension

 Recently I had a chance to ride the Green Line extension in Somerville MA – and I have to give it an excellent rating.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Green Line extension project, which opened in 2022, is a 4-mile, two-branch, six-station $2.2 Billion light rail line, which extends MBTA’s Green Line from Cambridge, through Somerville, to Medford.  The project makes obvious sense, filling in a blank space in Boston’s radial rapid transit network through a densely developed, transit-hungry sector.  In fact the project makes so much sense that it was first talked about a hundred years ago.  And the current project was first programmed nearly a quarter of a century ago.

The ride was very smooth, frequency was excellent (posted times 8 to 13 minutes apart in nonpeak times), station access was easy, and the line was very well utilized.  The smooth ride was especially notable when compared to the jerky, rolling, noisy ride on the older sections of the Green Line.  Wayfinding signage could be better, and local station area maps would be very helpful.

Station locations are typically close to, but not actually at, the node they are serving.  (This is a major drawback of the use-an-existing-right-of-way-and hope-it-passes-near-major-activity-centers approach prevalent in US transit projects.)  Magoun Square station, for instance, is about a 10-minute walk down a residential street from the actual square.  One of the better placements is at Ball Square, where a well designed station layout, with a bike locker area, is right next to the Broadway commercial district.  

I didn’t see a lot of new development along the line, but more may be on the way.  Hopefully we will see more mixed use development, with an emphasis on residential, both at neighborhood centers and along pedestrian corridors connecting them to the stations.  The development process may be boosted by Massachusetts’ MBTA Communities Act, which requires residential upzoning in at least some rapid transit station locations.

Why did it take so long and cost so much money to build a surface light rail line along an existing railroad corridor?  If you want to get into the weeds on this project, you can take a look at a study done by the New York University Transit Costs Project team exploring these issues (here).  The team analyzed a wide array of problems, which they sorted into three categories: project management and delivery, expensive design, and politics.

Sadly, the cost overruns and time delays in the Green Line Extension project are not exceptions.  They are all too common with transportation infrastructure projects in this country.  

Still, we will count the completion of the Green Line Extension as a definite win for the future of transit in the Boston area and a clear benefit for the people of Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and Boston.

Why are we still widening highways?

 Seriously.  Why are we still widening highways, when we know that highway widening projects (1) increase traffic, therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions and running counter to our climate change mitigation goals; (2) don’t relieve congestion in the long run, because new capacity is filled up with new traffic in 5 - 10 years; (3) have major negative social and environmental impacts; and (4) cost a lot of money, draining resources from many alternative projects?  (I say “we know,” but of course not everyone is in agreement with these points – more on that shortly.)  Reason number one is enough for me, but clearly all these factors, and more, are not enough to stop many very large, controversial projects from going forward.

It does seem perplexing, but fortunately there is new research that sheds light on the question.  A recently published PhD dissertation by Amy Lee at the University of California, Davis, addresses just this question.  (“The Policy and Politics of Highway Expansions,” available here.  Read the Abstract and the Conclusions chapter if you don’t feel like wading through all 300+ pages.)

Lee approaches the issue through what I would call a political sociology lens.  She outlines the process by which a set of freeway expansion projects were advanced in California and identifies the key actors involved.  She then interviewed many of these key actors – state DOT officials, MPO staff, local elected officials, etc. – to explore their understanding of the issues and their reasons for advancing these projects.

The key findings for me (I am simplifying and adapting from Amy Lee’s conclusions):

1. Congestion is the main driver of these projects.  Many of the decision makers – especially local elected officials – are eager to do something about congestion, even though they may understand that the benefits of these particular projects will be transitory and insignificant in the long run.  As Lee says:

“So although highway expansion projects do not solve the foundational policy problems – e.g., separated land uses, auto-centric communities, housing unaffordability and segregation, lack of local jobs, or air pollution – they do offer a concrete and immediate avenue for elected officials to demonstrate that they are working for their constituents.”

2. Although most of the actors have at least some understanding of the concept of induced traffic, they tend to view it as a long-term problem, something to be addressed tomorrow.  As one actor put it, “The short-term congestion relief is worth it.”

3. There are still many actors, including the construction industry and building trades, that see benefits in the sheer scale and expense of highway widening projects. 

4. There are also psychological factors at play.  Engineers who have been trained to solve straightforward problems are reluctant to enter the morass of social and environmental issues in the modern transportation realm, tending to fall back to their design manuals.  A quote from one actor is worth showing in full:

“Induced travel is counter to why practitioners became engineers to begin with. They became an engineer to find a problem, with a formula, and a solution, end of story. Induced travel is disturbing to their worldview in some fundamental way. It disturbs their identity and ego. Engineers don’t want to be bothered with messy things like people. They’re used to deciding where huge amounts of money go and getting to be at ribbon cuttings. Unfortunately, it’s not much more complicated than that.”

5. Actors sometimes also believe that expansion projects promote other societal goods, such as access to housing, transportation equity, and economic development.

6. Developers, local elected officials, and various business interests may support highway widenings because they understand that increasing highway capacity promotes land development – notwithstanding the fact that the sprawl development stimulated by these projects works counter to climate change and environmental goals.

So how do we stop the highway widening juggernaut?  Amy Lee has a number of suggestions, many specific to the California context.  California already has a significant head start in this regard in that regional transportation plans must undertake to reduce total traffic (vehicle miles traveled) over time and individual highway widening projects must mitigate any increased traffic they generate.  Obviously these provisions have not been entirely successful, and Lee recommends some practical legislative and administrative steps to enforce them.

On a broader stage, Lee suggests the need for culture change among decision makers: planning for the long term rather than the short term and prioritizing the overarching goal of meeting the climate change challenge.  Not so easy to do.

Many thanks to Amy Lee for wading deep into the weeds of transportation decision making and for illuminating the complicated issues we will need to grapple with to stop the foolhardy practice of major  highway widening.

States Concede Induced Traffic

You may have read about the lawsuit filed by 21 red state attorneys general against the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) seeking to stop implementation of a greenhouse gas rule.  The new rule would require states to measure and report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector as part of the overall highway performance management system.  It would also require states to adopt targets reducing those emissions and to report on progress.  (A good story explaining what’s going on can be found here;  the text of the lawsuit is here.)

There are a couple of big issues involved here.  First, should the states be measuring GHG emissions and adopting plans to reduce them?  In my opinion (apparently not shared by the 21 attorneys general), of course they should.  Second, does FHWA have statutory authority to adopt this requirement?  On this question, I defer to the lawyers.  But what I want to comment on today is neither of these issues, but rather an extraordinary admission that many of these states have made as part of their lawsuit: that expanding highway capacity increases traffic and GHG emissions.  Now that statement might seem obvious to many of us, but in fact many state DOTs argue – especially in environmental documents supporting highway widening projects – that those projects reduce congestion and improve air quality, glossing over the phenomenon of induced traffic.  (“Induced traffic” is the term currently used for the increase in trip making caused by creating more capacity on a highway.)  But in the GHG rule lawsuit, many of these states say the quiet part out loud – projects that increase highway capacity cause induced traffic and more air pollution.

Now the language of most of the lawsuit text is not explicit on this issue.  Concern is expressed that the rule will limit a state’s ability to choose the projects it wants, damaging its ability to advance its own goals, such as economic development (see Paragraphs 163, 164, 166, and 169.)  The good stuff, however, is at the front of the document, where each of the states participating in the lawsuit says why it is joining.  Eleven of the 21 states explicitly state that they can’t be expected to reduce GHGs because the widening projects they are building will increase traffic, thus increasing GHGs.  Typically, the state describes its biggest projects, and why they consider them important, then says that means more traffic and more GHGs on the way.

Here are the key sentences for each of the twelve, with reference to appropriate paragraph in the lawsuit document (see if you can spot some similarities):

Kentucky – “These projects, and similar expansions, will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 3)

South Dakota – “However, some highway investments, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.” (Paragraph 5)

Alabama – “These projects, and similar expansions, will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.” (Paragraph 8)

Idaho – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 19)

Indiana – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 25)

Mississippi – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 30)

Montana – “Some highway investments, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 32)

Nebraska – “And the projects will certainly result in increased traffic and a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 36)

Ohio – “Highway investments, and economic growth, will result in additional greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, and the State of Ohio will continue to make decisions to maximize all the benefits of its highway investments.”  (Paragraph 41)

Utah – “These and other projects will result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 47)

Wyoming – “However, some highway investments and projects, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 58)

Notice some similarities?  Apparently, someone coordinating or coaching these submissions suggested: “Here’s a good argument.  Try this!”

I have no idea where the issue of adopting and implementing a GHG rule for transportation is going.  I do hope at least that people engaged with state DOTs on the issue of highway widenings and induced traffic will press them on this obvious inconsistency.

Traveling on public transport in Italy

Having spent two weeks in Italy recently (Rome, Verona and vicinity, Venice) I couldn’t help but make a few observations on the local transportation options (public and active transportation only – I didn’t rent a car).  As I have the privilege of living in a transit-rich, walkable urban community in the US, (Old Town Alexandria, Virginia) I didn’t experience the culture shock that more suburban Americans might feel.  But I certainly logged plenty of walking “steps” and experienced a pretty wide cross-section of mobility options.  (If you follow me on Twitter you may have already seen some of these comments.)

Rome Metro

Rome is a major world capital with an inadequate Metro network. For a variety of reasons – including historic problems managing large public works projects and the fact that you can’t stick a spade in the ground in the city without major archaeological consequences – there are only two Metro lines.  A third line – Line C – is under construction, and further lines are only distant planning objectives.  The result is that major parts of the city (Trastevere, for instance) are unreachable without a car or slow bus travel. 

When I rode the Metro recently I found the service to be generally efficient, although it was very crowded and somewhat rundown in appearance.  Hopefully the stars will be in alignment at some point in the future to give Rome the Metro system it needs and deserves.

Intercity trains

The intercity Frecciarossa trains, operated by Trenitalia, connect all the major Italian cities with fast, reliable, frequent, comfortable service.  Why would anyone fly instead?  Why can’t we do this in the US?

Regional trains

I found the regional trains in northern Italy to be very efficient, with mostly new trainsets, and very crowded.  Unlike the long-distance trains, the regionals have no assigned seats, so there is a scramble for seating (reminds me of the Amtrak Northeast Regionals!).  On the mainlines, where we were, there is always a choice of train types, and the regionals work great (and of course are cheaper) for shortish trips.

Local buses

I only rode local buses in Verona, but found them to be clean, modern, efficient, and – like all public transport in Italy – crowded!  A simple tap of your credit card will get you a trip, without the need of a pass or ticket.  However, sometimes the card reader wasn’t working, and sometimes it was simply too crowded to get to it!  In any event, the operator doesn’t seem to care.  Farebox recovery doesn’t seem to be a major objective!

Padua tram

I rode the Padua tram which (thanks Rick Steves!) efficiently connects the train station with the city center and the major tourist sites.  The equipment is modern, but the ride is very rough.  Fortunately, funding has been secured for upgrading (and extending) the route.  The most annoying feature is the paucity of signage.  On arriving in Padua at the train station, we had to ask directions to the tram station (why wouldn’t they have prominent signs?).  When we found the station, there was no system map or any indication as to which direction led to the city center.  Asking around at the tram stop (always the fallback when transit maps are not helpful) we were sent in the wrong direction!  As happens all too often, the user interface is terrible.

Venice vaporettos

In Venice, the vaporetto (water bus) is the workhorse of transportation.  It’s dependable (except during a general strike, as we found out in October).  The network is comprehensive, and service is frequent.  And of course it’s crowded.  As with most public transport we experienced, fare collection/enforcement is pretty lax.  I’m not sure there’s much they could do to speed up service.  And as a landlubber I’m always amazed that so many boats in a confined space, operated by Italians (notoriously averse to regulation), avoid frequent collisions.

Bicycles

I saw lots of folks on bicycles in northern Italy – people of all ages and apparent social and economic status.  There were few dedicated bike facilities, and most cyclists avoided the busy main streets.  The smaller streets are jammed with a chaotic mix of pedestrians, cyclists, cars, delivery vehicles, and motorcycles, a free-for-all requiring pedestrians to be vigilant at all times.  And as many of the smaller streets are paved with cobblestones or bricks the walk (or ride or drive) can be pretty daunting.  Nevertheless, bicycles are a prominent feature of the transportation picture.

Pedestrian streets

I experienced some completely pedestrianized streets in my travels, most notably Via Mazzini in Verona, a marble paved street lined with high-end retail that attracts throngs of shoppers and tourists.  More common are narrow, all-purpose streets that (as discussed above) attract all kinds of traffic, but are definitely not suited for through automobile traffic.  One of my favorite streets in this category is the Via della Madonna dei Monti in Rome, near the Roman Forum and Colosseum.  Two thousand years ago this street was called the Argiletum, and linked the Roman Forum to the Subura district.  Although all the buildings and surfaces have changed many times, I think the scale and character of the street is probably much the same.

Some concluding thoughts

Obviously my few tourist trips don’t constitute a comprehensive survey of public transport in central and northern Italy, but I do have a few thoughts:

Public transport in this part of Italy is very well used, which is to say it’s crowded.

Service is frequent.  I’m a believer in the Jarrett Walker maxim “frequency is freedom,” and the frequency of most of the services I encountered really made it possible to move around freely (except of course for intercity trains) without worrying about timetables.

Service providers don’t seem to care much about collecting fares.  Most services can be paid for using a credit card tap, but operators didn’t seem particularly interested, and fare inspectors were rare.

Equipment is generally relatively new and in good repair, although Rome’s metro cars and stations could use some freshening up and better cleaning.

Visiting a place where walking and public transport can get you to almost everywhere you want to go is great!  Makes you wonder why we can’t do more of it in the US!