“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.

“Fix at Six”: A Transit/Rehab alternative to widening I-94 in Milwaukee

 I was pleased recently to help a coalition of environment and transportation reform groups in Wisconsin advance the fight against the widening of the I-94 freeway in Milwaukee by writing a report outlining a transit-rehab alternative.  

The report - “Fix at Six”: A Sustainable Alternative to Expanding I-94 in Milwaukee” - is available here.  (A good summary news account can be found here, and background on the anti-widening coalition here.)

The backstory is that Wisconsin DOT is attempting to restart a project for widening the east-west freeway in Milwaukee from 3 lanes in each direction to 4.  The project stalled several years ago (I was part of that fight too) due to lack of funding, public opposition, and the fact that the project is generally a horrible idea. It didn’t make any sense then and it makes even less sense now, in an era of “Code Red” climate crisis and increased attention to transportation equity issues.  (My opinion is that we should have a moratorium on federal funding for highway widening projects until these issues are sorted out.)

Fortunately, a transit/rehab option makes a lot of sense here in Milwaukee.  The key elements I have proposed are:

First, rehab the highway, fixing condition and safety issues and downsizing (not upsizing) highway ramps and connections where possible.  As the report says: “The road should be repurposed, redesigned, and rebuilt to perform a new role in advancing the transportation, economic, environmental, and social goals of the 21st century.”

Second, design and build a bus rapid transit (BRT) network.  The county is already using federal funding to build a BRT route on one of the major east-west streets, and the street grid lends itself to further development.  In the report I have laid out a notional network of east-west routes (and north-south connectors) that would efficiently link up major activity centers and neighborhoods.

Third, advance other mobility and accessibility initiatives, including bike lanes, transit-oriented development, commuter rail, and targeted housing and zoning policies.  We need neighborhood-scale as well as corridor-scale projects which will enable people to connect more easily with jobs, schools, shopping, networks of family and friends, and other desired destinations while at the same time improving community fabric.

Putting all these pieces together would promote mobility throughout the east-west corridor, from walkable neighborhoods to convenient rapid transit to longer distance commuter rail, all in a sustainable, equitable way.

Why have these sensible solutions been ignored in favor of putting down an expensive, inequitable, disruptive, ugly, climate-unfriendly river of concrete?  The factors seem to include institutional intransigence at WisDOT, anti-city sentiments among suburban office holders, the ineffectualness of some city politicians and opinion leaders, and a fixed view in WisDOT and the construction industry that pouring concrete (wherever and for whatever reason) is good for the state’s economy.  

There is a better way to do this, folks, and we can make it happen.

New Electric Vehicle “How To” Kit for Towns

DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the MPO for greater Philadelphia) has just published a new “Electric Vehicle Resource Kit for Municipalities” which should become a valuable resource for local elected officials and community activists seeking to promote EV usage.

Although the toolkit (available here) is specifically designed for the New Jersey and Pennsylvania towns that the commission serves, it contains lots of useful information that will be helpful to anyone working at the local level.

Topics covered include how to incorporate EVs into a municipal fleet, where to look for federal and state grants, and how to locate EV chargers.  I especially like the practical advice, such as: “It is important to think carefully about which vehicle in your municipal fleet to replace with your first PEV. If the first vehicle is a success, the path to the second, third, and more will be much easier. You want to do what you can to assure that the first PEV will score high marks with municipal staff, be highly visible to your residents, and make good financial sense to the town council.”

Having been involved in a few of these efforts over the years myself, I give high marks to Rob Graff and company at DVRPC for producing a nifty EV toolkit that is user-friendly, updatable, and implementation-oriented.

 

The Death (and future rebirth?) of Baltimore’s Red Line

Just in case you were getting too cheery about how things are going these days, you should read the recent article in the Washington Post about the death, 5 years ago, of Baltimore’s Red Line transit project at the hands of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (available here).  Seriously, you should read it, because although a major battle was lost then, I for one haven’t given up on the war.

 

As I have repeatedly said, the Red Line is a success story waiting to happen. The proposed east-west rapid transit line would link major employment and residential centers, generate significant economic activity, transform a set of transit lines into a real network that unites the metropolitan area, partly redress the inequities in transit access in the region, and leverage high-quality urban redevelopment. It is not too much to say that the Red Line is the key to Baltimore’s emergence as a vital 21st century city.

 

And yet here we are. 

 

Despite a lot of despair in the air, there is a bunch of stuff that supporters of the Red Line can do, such as:

·      Salt the Red Line into local and regional planning documents (too many missed opportunities for this),

·      Use city planning and zoning powers to orient development around proposed stations,

·      Enlist corporate and public “sponsors” to promote transit-ready development at station sites, and

·      Continue to encourage the Legislature to support transit in general and the Red Line in particular.

 

Many people have pointed out that our country is currently facing a “triple crisis” of Climate Change, an outcry for racial justice, and an economic mini-depression.  The Red Line can help us make progress on all three fronts at once.  We need to get busy! 

Peering deeply into the future

 Scary thought!  On the positive side, 2020 has to end at the regularly scheduled time. But there is always the possibility that the future could get worse!  Or not.

People that do regional planning for a living face a lot of challenges.  It used to be that planners could get away with charting a trend that had been developing over the previous decade or so, taking a straight edge to the trend line, and drawing the trend line into the next decade.  Of course, that methodology didn’t always work out, but at least it had some plausibility to it.  What do you do in today’s crazy world of continually unprecedented events?  (As someone asked recently on Twitter, will we ever get back to “precedented” again?)

Enter “exploratory scenario planning.” 

This is the approach that DVRPC (the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the metropolitan planning organization for the greater Philadelphia region in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) is taking in trying to find a logical framework for its next long-range plan. 

DVRPC has convened a Futures Working Group (full disclosure: I am a member of this outstanding group) to work through all the forces potentially affecting the region’s future and ultimately organizing the possibilities into four broad scenarios.  The goal isn’t so much to predict the future as it is to structure our thinking about the future in ways that allow us to formulate policies and actions that seem to make sense.

DVRPC’s latest report, “Dispatches from Alternate Futures: Exploratory scenarios for Greater Philadelphia” (available here), lays out four possible scenarios in a delightful, easy-to-read format.  Yes, there is some methodology here – forces, focus areas, signposts, collaborative decision making, etc. – which serious planners should read.  The heart of the paper, however, is a collection of “news stories” from the future that vividly illustrate possible outcomes.  Some of the possible future headlines: “Climate Refugees Compound Crisis on Southern Border,” “Hedge Funds Become World’s Largest Landlord,” “Heat-Related Deaths in Philadelphia Reach an All-Time High,” “American Bumblebee Officially Extinct,” and, on a more optimistic note, “Major Legislation Gives Hope against Climate Change” and “Economists Struggling to Adapt Theories to Growing Abundance.” On the transportation side, we have such headlines as “Transit Renaissance Continues as SEPTA Regional Rail Returns to West Chester,” “Robotic ‘Road Butlers’ Coming to Crash-Prone North Philly,” and “Push for Programmable Roads as Carbon Tax Dwindles.”

It’s all good fun, but also very serious.  This approach really helps us to do the thought exercises we need to perform to prepare ourselves for an unpredictable future.

Kudos to DVRPC for grappling with the serious issues and advancing the practice of regional planning.

The “Congestion Con” – Important new report from T4America

T4America is out with an excellent new report which sets out in well-reasoned, documented, and easy-to-read fashion why building new lane-miles of freeway is foolish and counter-productive.  The report – “The Congestion Con: How more lanes and more money equals more traffic” – is available here.

The core of the argument is that adding lane-miles, in addition to being hugely expensive and destructive, is self-defeating, as it only encourages suburban sprawl, longer commutes, and ultimately more congestion.  Now, some of us have known this for a long time (see New Jersey Transportation Plan, 1989), but – remarkably – some state DOTs and others persist in pursuing grandiose new freeway widening projects.  Having been involved in a few of these fights myself (Milwaukee, Maryland, etc.) I never fail to be surprised at how this outdated thinking can drive the potential spending of Billions of dollars on projects of pure folly.

The report argues persuasively that growing the freeway network actually makes congestion worse through stimulating induced demand.  And, even more to the point, focusing on congestion as the problem diverts our attention from what our real goal should be: improving accessibility.  People don’t spend hours stuck in traffic for the fun of it.  They are trying to get somewhere.  If the “somewhere” (work, school, shopping, doctor’s office, etc.) is close by – ideally within walking distance – life gets a lot better.  The land use/transportation relationship is well illustrated with nice graphics.

The report is an easy read, so I won’t attempt to summarize it, but will note briefly the 5 policies it recommends:

1) Reorient our national program around access—connect people to jobs and services,

2) Require that transportation agencies stop favoring new roads over maintenance,

3) Make short trips walkable by making them safe,

4) Remove restrictions on pricing to help manage driving demand, and

5) Reward infill development and make it easier for localities.

Although there is a discussion of the relationship between freeway expansion and sprawl development, the argument is not carried forward to the relationship between sprawl development and the climate crisis.  As I have often pointed out, I feel that the climate crisis by itself justifies a moratorium on Federal funding for all highway expansion.

Ironically, the T4America report was unveiled at about the time the country began shutting down.  Congestion is definitely much less of a problem right now!  There is a lot of speculation about how and when we will come out of the current pandemic and what the long-term effects will be.  The truth is we just don’t know.  What we do know is that we will have an opportunity to examine congestion, accessibility, climate change, and that whole bundle of transportation issues with fresh eyes.  Let’s plan to do it right!

Joe Biden’s – very progressive – transportation program

It’s difficult to remind ourselves that we are in the middle of a critical election year.  But we are.  And when (hopefully) some sort of normalcy is back, we will all need to deal with it.  At any rate, I thought this might be a good time to think a bit about the transportation program of Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  One reason I do this is to respond to the talk that Biden is somehow “not progressive enough,” is too beholden to Wall Street, or something similar.  I believe it is important to note that on transportation issues, his proposals are very progressive indeed.  (For a more general argument that Joe Biden is more progressive than people might think, see Michelle Goldberg’s column here.)

I will summarize his program, under the bullet points on his website (here), and add a few comments of my own.

·      “Jump-start the repair of our highways, roads, and bridges.”  Fix-it-first is always a good way to start, and the Biden plan would allocated $50 Billion in the first year toward roadway system preservation.  In a theme repeated in several places, the program promises that a significant portion of these funds would go directly to local governments.  Perhaps this theme emerges from memories of the 2009 Stimulus bill.  He also promises to “expedite permitting.”  Many a brave knight has gone forth to slay that dragon, but none has succeeded.

·      “Make American roads the world’s safest.”  In addition to spending more money on highway safety programs, this element in the program calls for promoting Complete Streets and new technologies, “including ‘smart’ pavement, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, connected intersections, and other infrastructure-related innovations.”

·      “Invest in historically marginalized communities and bring everyone to the table for transportation planning.”  The Biden plan calls for several steps to promote transportation equity, including a “robust public engagement process” and a Community Restoration Fund targeted at frontline communities.

·      “Pair new infrastructure investments with new training programs.”  This item promotes workforce development, including “new Apprenticeship Readiness Programs that specifically target veterans, women, and communities of color.”

·      “Stabilize the Highway Trust Fund.”  The program calls for “new revenues” to stabilize the Trust Fund.  I think this is the right approach, as it confirms the need for more tax revenue without prematurely getting in to the thorny issues of gas taxes vs. VMT taxes and so forth.

·      “Speed the transition to electric vehicles.”  Thank you!  This seems like an obvious point, but we as a country are so far behind where we need to be that it bears emphasis.  Specific measures outlined include restoring EV purchase tax credits, investing $5 Billion in battery research and development, promoting domestic manufacture of EVs, building a national charging network with 500,000 outlets, investing in workforce development for charging station installation, and providing federal funding for demonstration projects.

·      “Launch a new generation of low-carbon trucking, shipping, and aviation technologies.”  These are the toughest parts of the transport sector to decarbonize.  The Biden plan is basically to plow a lot of R&D money into the problem.

·      “Spark the second great railroad revolution.”  This section refers both to passenger and freight rail, which of course share the same infrastructure but are very different beasts.  On the passenger side, the plan is very aggressive, including cutting trip time between DC and New York in half, building a new trans-Hudson tunnel (which is needed under any scenario), extending the Northeast Corridor to the south, and – the most ambitious element – beginning “the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts.”  On the freight side, the plan mentions some specific projects, such as the Chicago-area CREATE improvements.  Unfortunately, the freight sector is controlled by a small oligopoly of companies who own most of the infrastructure and who are resistant to change.

·      “Electrify the rail system.”  The plan actually says “work with Amtrak and private freight rail companies to further electrify the rail system.”  I’m all in favor of it.  I don’t seen the freight rail companies having any interest without major carrots and sticks.

·      “Offer tens of millions of Americans new transportation options.”  This element of the plan would provide major investments to “provide all Americans in municipalities of more than 100,000 people with quality public transportation by 2030.”   This would include investments in light rail, existing transit systems, bike/ped, and microtransit.  There are also land use elements, including creating “a new program that gives rapidly expanding communities the resources to build in public transit options from the start.”

·      “Reduce congestion by working with metropolitan regions to plan smarter growth.”  This bullet covers a lot of territory.  Biden would encourage a synthesis of smart growth, climate friendly, and innovative mobility strategies.  How to do this?  The specifics include: a competitive grant system “to help leaders rethink and redesign regional transportation systems” and a highway funding bonus for states that “embrace smart climate design and pollution reduction.”

·     “Connect workers to jobs.”  The program promises “an additional $10 billion over 10 years specifically for transit projects that serve high-poverty areas with limited transportation options.”·      “Encourage innovation and launch smarter cities.”  The Biden proposal for addressing new auto technologies: “a yearly $1 billion competitive grant program to help five cities pilot new planning strategies and smart-city technologies that can serve as models for the country.”

·      “Invest in freight infrastructure, including inland waterways, freight corridors, freight rail, transfer facilities, and ports.”  Various programs include doubling the size of the program formerly known as TIGER and other discretionary programs and more funding for ports and waterways.

A few comments:

1.     I would call this program “progressive” under most any definition.  It not only supports a transportation reform agenda, but it is explicitly linked to the climate crisis (his climate agenda is outlined elsewhere in his program).

2.     Although definitely progressive, there is plenty here to please mainline transportation agencies: lots more money for system preservation and operating needs!

3.     Biden obviously has very good transportation advisors.  There is nothing here that rings amateurish.

4.     There are lots of signs that the greatest influence on Biden’s thinking is the 2009 Stimulus bill, which I think is a good thing!  (My stimulus thoughts here.)

5.     The program is a laundry list, not a bill.  But I think almost all the pieces are here.

6.     What would I add?  A 10-year moratorium on the use of federal funds for highway capacity expansion.  I think we have to stop that right now in order to reorient the program.

7.     How will the current coronavirus crisis affect the timing and shape of the next big transportation bill?  I have no idea.