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!

 

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.