Building Highways, Cutting Transit

As you might have read, the FY18 state budget reduced funding for transit (resulting in service cuts) and cut the Springfield-to-Boston rail study entirely. Adding insult to injury, the legislature decided in the same budget to fund a study on building a new exit on the Mass. Pike somewhere between Westfield and Lee, probably around Blandford. As the MassLive article puts it, “[State Representative] Pignatelli argued that a turnpike exit could spark economic development in the hill towns, as well as provide convenience to residents who must currently travel to Lee or Westfield to access I-90.”

blandford exit
Proposed area for a new exit

Cutting funding to transit and rail while funding a study for a new highway exit is a terrible move by the commonwealth for the following reasons:

  1. Environmental Goals: It runs totally counter to well-established state goals. For example, MassDOT went through an intensive process to create a sustainability plan (“GreenDOT”) and established mode shift goals of tripling the amount of biking, walking and transit by 2030. Also, the state has passed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Adding a Mass. Pike exit promotes driving and undermines both goals. 
  2. Land Use Goals: Just like building the highways in the first place resulted in the suburban boom that dominates our metro areas, building this new exit in the Hill Towns is indeed going to “spark economic development.” Land values will go up near the exit, farmers will subdivide and develop new single-family housing, and businesses will follow that new growth into what was once green fields. This runs totally contrary to the land use program goals of the state, which seeks to encourage Smart Growth and Transit-Oriented Development. 

    suburban development
    Big box stores, chain restaurants, and post-war suburban housing around Mass. Pike Exit 7
  3. Economic Goals: The same processes that sucked the Springfield and Holyoke economies dry in the post-war period will still be at work today if an exit is built. When our “Gateway Cities” (smaller regional hubs like Springfield, Holyoke, Fitchburg, etc., that have struggled economically over the past few decades) are finally starting to see a turnaround, it makes no sense for the state to facilitate businesses locating into rural areas.
  4. Equity Goals: And perhaps the most egregious of all, this highway exit is going to overwhelmingly benefit relatively well-to-do white families living in the Hill Towns, while the cuts to transit service disproportionately impacts low-income people of color. This is counter to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in addition to multiple programs run by the MassDOT Office of Diversity and Civil Rights.
Poverty map
Map of poverty in Hampden and Hampshire Counties by Block Group. Note the dark blue of Springfield and Holyoke, and the light blue of Blandford. 

The political argument for the exit is that it will better serve people who live in Blandford, Chester, Russell, etc. And that’s true, it will (at least those who drive). But the people who live in these communities moved there knowing that highway access is not very good. And while their convenience would probably increase, their private benefit is outweighed by the cost to the public.

Not only would the new exit promote more driving, more destruction of farmland and open space, and the relocation of business activity from Springfield to Blandford, but there is also the opportunity cost of building the exit – what else could that money have been used for? (I have a suggestion – fully funding PVTA.)

If the state and the region are serious about climate change, about downtown revitalization, about smart growth, then PVPC and MassDOT must make crystal clear in this legislatively mandated study that the project hurts the public and conflicts with myriad state policy goals.

They say that actions speak louder than words. Massachusetts has some excellent policies on the books regarding climate change, active living, equity, and urban revitalization. Building this new exit would show that those policies are nothing more than just words.

Are Goals to Reduce Car Use Racist?

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a public meeting regarding a project to totally redo Cabot St. in Holyoke, between Race St. and the Willamansett Bridge. This is a major commercial strip with a grocery store, liquor store, and pizza place along it, in addition to numerous apartment buildings. On-street parking lines both sides of the street, and there are no bike lanes.

cabot st
Cabot St looking north; Capri Pizza on the left, C-Town grocery store on the right. Source: Google Maps.

The presentation showed that bike lanes were not going to be added, but rather “bike-accommodating shoulders,” and in other parts just sharrows. They were even narrowing the sidewalks to create more width for these “bike-accommodating shoulders,” but didn’t remove any of the on-street parking.

My blood started to boil, because I had seen it happen too many times before. A roadway improvement project is developed, and bike facilities are left out or inadequately provided for. If we are going to have true Complete Streets, then we must include separated bicycle facilities – all but the most fearless bicyclists refuse to ride in anything that mixes with car traffic.

cabot st vision
An alternative vision for Cabot St: Parking on one side, buffered bike lanes, and plenty of width for sidewalks. Source:

I suggested that we could just eliminate one side of on-street parking to accommodate wider sidewalks and two buffered bike lanes. When I suggested there might be enough off-street parking, I was really surprised at the push-back. The mostly Latino neighborhood residents spoke at length about the importance of parking, and how scarce parking is in the project area. I was told that in other projects in the neighborhood, a furor was sparked when it was suggested that we remove on-street parking.

I stood my ground. I noted that these are the neighborhoods in Holyoke that have the lowest rates of car ownership (between a third and half of all households own zero vehicles), that this is exactly where we need to be steadfast in implementing our Complete Streets Policy.

Number of households with zero cars. Source: 2014 5-year American Community Survey

I noted that this street is never going to be redone in our lifetimes once this project is complete, and whatever decisions we make today will stick around for decades. And, importantly, I noted that ample car parking is not in the recipe for truly great urban spaces, and Holyoke could be a great urban space.

I don’t think I captivated any hearts or minds with my pleas.

“VMT Reduction Goals are Racist”

I remembered a talk that I attended at a transportation conference some years ago (don’t remember which one, but I think it was TRB). There was a panel of experts arguing for and against VMT goals. For those unfamiliar, VMT stands for Vehicle Miles Traveled, and some states and cities have set goals for lowering the amount of driving as measured by VMT. Massachusetts has a goal of tripling biking, walking, and transit use by 2030, though not any explicit VMT reduction goal.

One of the panelists made a bold assertion against VMT reduction goals. He said something to the effect of, “We spent half a century building infrastructure that was too expensive for most minorities to use because they couldn’t afford a car. Now that minority car ownership is rising, we’re starting to tell people that, ‘Oh, no, actually, we need to drive less.’ VMT reduction goals are the very definition of racism!”

I was floored. There are so many negative impacts from the tremendous amount of driving we do as a society, ranging from 40,000 traffic fatalities per year, to feeding the obesity epidemic and asthma rates near highways, to contributing about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. Less driving could only benefit humanity, couldn’t it? How in the world could it be racist?

Aspiring to Driving

I’m reminded of the conventional wisdom that poor people don’t like the idea of soaking the rich through taxes because they, too, could be rich some day (for a more nuanced article on that, see here). At the risk of making too broad an assumption, it makes sense that neighborhood residents at this meeting – even non-driving residents – would defend parking. After all, even if they don’t own a car, they sometimes get rides from people who do, and they hope to own a car as soon as possible.

So of course my pleas would fall on unreceptive ears. From my perspective, I grew up with cars as my primary means of transportation until I was about 18 years old. Cars are nothing special, taken for granted, and so it’s easy for me to eschew them. However, for a kid who grew up riding the bus and was “transportation poor” – always scrounging for a friend or relative to get her to places the bus didn’t go – a car could be an aspirational sign of having “made it” and a crucial part of a safety net.

Maybe some of these residents don’t drive, but they also don’t necessarily identify as “bicyclists” or “pedestrians.” Rather, I wonder if they think of themselves as people who are on foot or on bike until they get a car. And to hear some guy who they’ve never seen before say that not only do we not need more parking, but really they should just give up that goal of car ownership and keep biking and walking and using the bus even though it’s really inconvenient and maybe even embarrassing to boot… well, I can understand if that message might not resonate.

Balancing Fairness and the Public Good

So is it racist to try to reduce driving in a mostly minority neighborhood where residents put cultural and aspirational value on car ownership? Is it projecting my values onto a neighborhood that doesn’t share them? Is it fair?

I’m reminded of a common argument about international climate change agreements (I’m restraining myself from going into a long tirade about the US pulling out of the Paris Accord). Now that industrialized nations have been contributing to climate change for 150 years, we want developing nations to just cut out all the fossil fuel use pronto. We’ve done our polluting, now it’s your turn to pay the price for it.

In the end, though, as with climate change, we all pay the price for our love affair with the car. Hampden County is the least healthy county in Massachusetts, and lack of exercise is one of the reasons why. Economic development does not spring from ubiquitous parking, but rather a vibrant streetscape with pedestrians and businesses and greenery and mixed land uses. And Cabot Street has seen a number of crashes over the years, some of them fatal, some of them with pedestrians and some with bicyclists.

My hope is that as this project rolls forward, we can balance the public good with the values of the neighborhood residents. Ultimately, they must live with the project in a much more immediate way than I (however, I should note that I take Cabot Street every day on my bike trip to/from work). I’m hopeful that as the projects gels, we can find a solution that the neighborhood can embrace, while at the same time creates a vibrant public space conducive to healthy living and solid economic development.


**Author’s Note: I realize I’m diving into a lot of charged issues here, and welcome feedback!

Can Transit Survive the 21st Century?

I had the great pleasure of presenting a session a couple of weeks ago at the National Planning Conference in New York City, the annual planning conference put on by the American Planning Association.

Working with Shannon Greenwell at MassDOT and Patrick Sullivan at the Seaport Transportation Management Association, we put together a discussion asking the audacious and foolhardy question, what will transit look like in the year 2100? Is transit still going to be around? More importantly, should it?

It ended up being a pretty interesting discussion, with a lot of provocative ideas and a good deal of disagreement, which is exactly what we wanted. A transportation expert once said, “All traffic models are wrong, but some are useful.” That’s how we thought about this long-range planning session – we knew we were going to be wrong about our prognostications, but perhaps we could at least be useful.

Transit Barely Survived the 20th Century

The first point is that transit barely survived the 20th century. If you look at transit ridership in America, it peaked in the late 1940s and has been more or less stable, on a per capita basis, at much lower levels since then.

Source: APTA

At the same time that transit took a plunge, car use soared. Today, in any given area except for some of the largest cities, between 75% and 85% of all work trips are made via automobile.

Many urbanists have been rejoicing at a couple of trends since 2005. Per capita car use has been on the decline, and transit ridership has been going up (if you look at the blue line in the chart above, you can see that absolute ridership has been increasing).

But over the past year many transit agencies, including PVTA, have seen year-over-year declines in fixed-route bus service. At the same time, we are starting to see the trend in car use edge back up.

declinin ridership
A slide from the presentation. 

Our presentation explored three key uncertainties over the next century that are going to have an incredible impact on transportation, and the future of public transit:

  • Autonomous Vehicle Technology
  • Climate Change Policy
  • The Aging Population

These certainly aren’t the only three things that will impact our transit systems, but we focused in on them as playing an outsized role.

Autonomous Vehicle Technology

For those of you unfamiliar with Autonomous Vehicle Technology, it has the potential to change our lives, our cities, and our economy as much as automobiles did during the last century. Google, Uber, Tesla, Ford, and a lot of other firms are working on the technology to render drivers obsolete. The tech side could be complete by 2025.

av tech

This matters for transit a whole lot. A rule of thumb is that about 75% of the cost of operating a bus is paying the driver in the seat. If we didn’t have to do that anymore, then we could run buses anywhere, right?

Let’s take it a step further. Why run these buses all over the place when we can have small sedans or vans buzzing around, a la Lyft, just waiting for the next person to request a ride. Would rubber tire bus service become obsolete?

On the other hand, if we follow a private-ownership model, maybe people won’t mind traffic all that much if they get to read the paper or sleep or work on their way into town. Maybe traffic and air pollution and urban sprawl will get even worse because driving suddenly becomes “me” time or “productive” time. Would commuter rail service become obsolete?

Climate Change Policy

Another major trend in the future is climate change policy. Transit stands to benefit a lot if the US and/or the world gets serious about climate change. The energy needed to move transit, on a per capita basis, is a fraction of what it takes to move a person even in a very efficient compact car.

The wild card is whether we will ever get serious about climate change. In 2016, The Pew Center released a poll showing that about half of all Americans don’t think humans are the source of climate change – despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.

climate change

I won’t get into how depressing it is that half of my fellow citizens don’t accept climate change as something that we are causing. But the question becomes at what point, if any, will we actually get serious about climate change? And if the answer is “Never,” then will transit ever be able to compete with the ease and convenience of automobiles? Or self-driving automobiles?

Taking it a step further, it should be noted that in major cities subways are especially susceptible to sea level rise and storm surges. As climate change renders transit systems more and more unreliable (like we saw after super-storm Sandy), will we see riders abandon these systems? Will the subways that have served our cities for decades become unusable, and/or unused?

The Aging Population

Finally, the aging of the population is going to play a key role in what our transit system looks like in the future (full disclosure: this was my section, so I’ll do my best to not over-inflate its importance relative to the prior two).

I am 32 years old now; in one year, I will either be 32 years old – or dead. Those are my options; those are everyone’s options. So the average age of the population is relatively easy to forecast, using some assumptions about mortality rates. And Census Bureau has done that, showing that we’re going to increase from about 40 million people age 65 and over today, to about 80 million in 2050.

The wildcard is immigration. The Pew Research Center estimates that without immigrants, the US population will plateau at around 338 million people. Furthermore, non-native-born women are much more likely to have kids than native-born women, meaning that the 338 million Americans in a no-immigration scenario will also, on average, be pretty old.


This becomes important because older Americans are more likely to need door-to-door (paratransit) service (think those wheelchair accessible vans you see going around, “The RIDE” in Boston for example). This is due to dementia, vision loss, or any number of other impairments which make driving impossible. But as more people use paratransit service, the budget for regular “big bus” service dwindles.

As some communities become more and more dominated by senior citizens, could we imagine a transit system that only provides door-to-door service? And if the vehicles are self-driving, why not? Will big bus service even exist anymore?

Final Thoughts

I should finish by saying that I’m actually very optimistic about the future of transit. As Jarrett Walker has written about extensively in his blog and book, the simple geometry of cities and cars dictates that transit is a necessary attribute of density (just like transit depends on density, density too depends on transit). In our biggest cities, rail transit will probably never go away nor be replaceable. Cars, even self-driving cars, just take up too much space.

But on the other hand, this is an important discussion to have, especially for those places smaller than our biggest cities. In a very real sense, we as planners must be good stewards of public funding. Put bluntly, what if we build a commuter rail line that no one ever uses because they are in self-driving cars? We will have wasted millions of dollars that could have been better spent.

The discussion didn’t provide too many answers, but it did provide a lot of good questions. And if the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy taught us nothing, it’s that finding the right question can often be the more important than the answer.

Warming Ourselves, Warming the World

Yesterday morning, I woke up to the pounding knock knock knock of our steam radiator’s discontent. After two hours of youtube, random DIY websites, and twisting knobs and pulling levers, I figured out how to clean the water level sight glass (ew) and drain/flush the boiler (also ew). All in the pursuit of warmth.

Daylight is scarce, snow and ice cover the grass, and my wife is perpetually wrapped in blankets; it must be that time of year when I’ve started obsessing again over the windows, doors, the attic, and any other areas where hot air is escaping and cold air creeping in. Part of this is to avoid the kind of shocking triple-digit heating bills that pain my bank account so terribly, but just as important is a matter of climate change.

In case you missed it, the Arctic has been screaming this winter with temperatures up to 60 degrees above average. Sea ice in the Arctic, as a result, is way below the historic average extent.


I already posted about climate change and the contribution that the transportation sector makes to greenhouse gas emissions. However, when combined together, heating and electricity are actually the two largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the Pioneer Valley.


I thought I would take the opportunity of plunging temperatures to look at how we heat our homes in the region, mostly because I was curious, but also as a way to think about how we can transition away from fossil fuels. All of the below maps are taken from the 2015 five-year American Community Survey. 

The History of Heating

My home was built around 1922, and demonstrates the history of using fossil fuels to heat buildings. When it was first built, there was a coal furnace. I know, because I can still see bits of anthracite coal scattered around the side of the house. At some point, it was converted to oil heat – again, I only know this because there were two holes in the side of the house where intake pipes used to be. Finally, the heating oil system was replaced with a natural gas furnace.

I was pretty surprised to find that gas is the most popular heating fuel category for Hampden County – a little under half of all households heat their homes using natural gas.


Looking at the town-level map, it looks like natural gas is a primarily urban amenity. I guess that makes sense, because you need to have the pipe infrastructure delivering the natural gas into people’s houses, and that’s a lot easier when houses are closer together.


Going back a step in time for my house, there are still a lot of homes heated by oil. There are a bunch of reasons why heating oil isn’t very good:

  1. You have to truck the fuel around, making the environmental impact that much worse.
  2. A lot of the heating oil tanks were installed underground and ended up leaking and contaminating the soil, creating brownfields.
  3. On a personal note, the one time I had heating oil I was a broke 20-something living with a bunch of other broke 20-somethings. We would always run out of fuel on a Friday afternoon and were too cheap to pay the extra $20 bucks for a weekend delivery, meaning that we would just be freezing until Monday morning.


Shockingly, there are also a handful of homes still heated using “coal or coke” according to the Census Bureau – talk about old school! The question becomes, where do they even get coal?


The Future of Heating

As we transition away from fossil fuels (because we will, we must), the future of heating must be mostly electric, with geothermal almost certainly mixed in. Holyoke is a great example of what the future of home heating should look like, since 95% of its electricity is generated from renewable sources (hydroelectric and solar primarily).

Surprisingly, electric heat is not that that common in the region – no town exceeds about a quarter of households using electric (except Sunderland which is almost 40%!). This could be partly the inertia of past heating systems, or the fear of losing heat in the event of a power outage, or a little bit of both.


In the future, I’m hoping that we can leverage more solar power for passive heating. My house has a giant tree on the south side that substantially diminishes the ability to install solar panels, but that’s not true for a lot of homes. You can see in the map below that very few homes right now have solar heating, but, surprisingly, Holyoke is leading the way!


A Path Forward

Unfortunately, converting heating systems to more efficient or planet-friendly fuel sources can be very costly. Even though a homeowner might save a bunch of money in the long run, the lumpy expense of replacing the heating system can be prohibitive. And unlike the vehicle fleet which, eventually, turns over cars from old dirty ones to newer cleaner ones, houses (and their heating technology) tend to stick around for decades or centuries.

We’ve started looking at converting to more efficient steam heating systems, and I’m also getting interested in a geothermal exchange system. I would also like to convert from natural gas to an electric system and take advantage of all that green electricity Holyoke produces. These are all big expenses, though programs like Mass Save could help.

In the end, any serious climate action must include getting rid of all heating oil-fueled houses and, eventually, natural gas heated homes as well. Even though the federal government is unlikely to do anything about climate change (other than deny it) over the next four years, the future of the planet literally depends on small things like furnace upgrade programs. In the meantime, I’ll look to state governments to lead the way.


It’s pretty hot, which reminds me that the climate is changing

Like most people, climate change is something I prefer not to dwell on. But with multiple days in a row near or above 90 degrees, I’m compelled to remember that the climate is getting warmer, and the number of days above 90 degrees is expected to increase dramatically over the next several decades. According to one estimate, there may be 90 days over 90 degrees in Boston by 2070.

90 degree days

Climate change, and the fear of it, was what inspired me to go into public service to begin with. I still believe it to be the most intractable existential threat to civilization we face today, and perhaps have ever faced before (though the nuclear arms race would be a close second). I decided to focus my career on transportation in particular because it is the largest contributor to climate change of any sector.

transportation ghg
Source: PVPC Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan

We here in the Pioneer Valley are mostly shielded from the rising seas that threaten to eventually flood much of Boston and New York. However, we are susceptible to extreme weather events like flooding from the remnants of Tropical Storm Irene or the tornado that tore through Springfield. And more than that, it is totally possible that increasing numbers of climate refugees, possibly even from inside our country (drought-stricken southwest, flooded Florida, disappearing Louisiana) could relocate to our relatively water-rich, inland oasis.

ma heatin up
The climate in 2070 could be the same as S. Carolina’s climate today – really hot. Source: PVPC Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan 

Of course, the thing that really motivated me to dedicate my career to arresting climate change was this fact: as the winters get warmer, sugar maples aren’t going to be producing maple syrup anymore. The idea of New England without wintertime sugaring is a horrible, wretched thought – and enough to scare anyone to action.

Lighting a Single Candle

Rather than wring my hands harder and harder as I stare into the abyss of a Mad Max-esque future, I thought I would go through a list of three pretty easy things I can try to do to reduce climate change over the next two weeks:

  1. Get a Mass Save home energy audit: Mass Save is a free state program which provides home energy audits and educates home owners about available incentives and credits to make your home more energy efficient. Special bonus – lower utility bills!
  2. Eat less meat: Meat is really resource intensive, mostly from raising all that corn and feeding it to the cows. Plus, it’s not very good for you.
  3. Drive less: OK, I don’t really drive all that much right now, but there’s always room for improvement. Especially now that I have an e-bike, I really don’t have much of an excuse to drive less than three miles.

Some Closing Thoughts

It’s worth pointing out that Massachusetts is a leader in combating climate change, from the Global Warming Solutions Act  to the state’s GreenDOT sustainability initiative. Furthermore, Holyoke is a leader in the state for renewable energy use; only a little over 5% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. A lot of it is thanks to our hydro-power.

holyoke energy
Source: Holyoke Gas and Electric

And nationally there is a growing recognition that climate change is a real problem and one that needs to be addressed. So I have hope that enough people will take a look outside, wince at the oppressive heat, and accept that even more progress needs to happen. If we don’t, we have to ask ourselves seriously – will our children thank us for the decisions we make today? In a New England without maple syrup, my guess is that the answer will be no.