Last week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie killed the nation’s largest transit project, saying the state couldn’t afford the potential cost overruns of the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) tunnel. Already under construction, the ARC tunnel would provide a new commuter-rail link to Manhattan, doubling New Jersey Transit service, which currently runs at peak hour capacity. The project was expected to create thousands of jobs, boost property values and support the region’s continued economic growth. The $8.7 billion tunnel had already secured $6 billion in funding, including the highest federal contribution for a transit project in history. Despite the many benefits for New Jersey’s future, Governor Christie decided to kill the tunnel, claiming he was simply looking out for the state’s “long-term fiscal health” by avoiding additional debt. But apparently, Christie is only concerned with saving money when it comes to transit. In the weeks before his final decision to cancel the ARC tunnel project, Christie’s administration borrowed $2 billion for highway widening projects, which have already incurred billions in cost overruns. It’s hard to understand the Governor’s decision to kill this critical transit investment, meanwhile expanding an unsustainable highway system, as anything more than a short-sighted political move. As millions of Americans vote this election day, deciding electoral outcomes that impact the death and life of America’s infrastructure, Christie’s lack of vision and perspective should be a reminder that the future health of our cities and communities is dependent on how well we develop and pursue sustainable long-term solutions now.

Courtesy of Ian Austen of the NY Times

Late last week, the NY Times (via Green Inc.) reported that Montreal’s bike-sharing system is getting picked up by Boston and London. The folks over here at CISC think this is fantastic news and extend congratulations to both of these fine cities. With that said, we have to ask, “what about us, New York!?” Can we push for a sharing program that reaches all five Burroughs? Wouldn’t this fit well with our more general livable streets movement?

It is not clear at this point if the roll-out in Boston — where local officials are mounting a push for more bike lanes as well — will be on the same scale as Montreal’s system, with hundreds of parking stations and thousands of bicycles. (An alternative model would be SmartBike D.C. in Washington, which uses a different docking technology and has only has 10 stations.)

Boston’s Metropolitan Area Planning Council confirmed that it has selected Bixi to put in place a bike-sharing program. But Amanda Linehan, a spokeswoman for the council, said that Boston and other municipalities must now negotiate contracts for the service.

Read full text here.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson recently unveiled the first of 1,100 solar powered bus shelters that will be installed throughout the city between now and 2013. Crowned with a rolling red crest of photovoltaic panels, the shelters will use the sun’s rays to power their intercom, LED lighting, and even wireless routers that will help blanket the city with WiFi goodness. Designed by Lundberg Design and contracted through Clear Channel, the new shelters signal a bright future for solar technology in the Bay Area.

Read the rest

There has been a lot of talk about the ethical conduct of failing firms who gave their fearful leaders bonuses with bail out funds. Between 1 million dollar office make overs and the willingness to forego a big corporate party to Vegas, we have allowed ourselves to get even more shocked by the actions of the people who played some part in creating this mess to begin with. Now, shedding light and exposing this behavior is justified and necessary. But we need to be devoting as much time to moving forward, thinking about the “what now,” rather than the “can you believe the audacity?”. Because if you don’t now, you probably never will.

We need to focus on Americans who are not in shock because their corporate retreat has been cancelled, but rather, they are on hard times, and now they have lost their bus service too.

An article in yesterday’s Times, reports the simultaneous “Surge in Mass, Drop in Transit,” situation that we face from coast to coast.  Funding cuts, fare increases, and reduced services are standard. The problems that the MTA faces are not the exception, people. It is the norm. Highlighting service cuts from Denver to Charlotte, the article touches on the larger implications of transit cuts. In St. Louis, where bus lines are going to be entirely eliminated, people fear their jobs will be lost as they have relied solely on certain bus lines. And these are jobs that might otherwise remain stable in a recession, nurses, cooks, etc. If only there were some pool of money that these transit authorities could tap into…

At a time when everyone, their mother, and the kitchen sink, have their eyes and ears on the federal stimulus package and a buzz word is “shovel ready,”–as in projects that are ready to get going ASAP, transit is post-shovel. It is already there, it is being heavily utilized and it is a fundamental pillar in making us be a bit more responsible (another buzzword) in our lifestyles. Let’s talk about THIS more and corporate retreats less. No, executives and the other brains of the operations who find themselves lining up for government money do not deserve bonuses. But transit certainly does.

Like many other Americans (78% to be exact), I am ready for change. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, whatever your issues, chances are, you are ready for something to be different in D.C., on Wallstreet, in the world. Listening to the news this morning got me a bit welled up. And just looking at the schedule of what is to come today is making me more anxious than a kid at the Christmas dinner table, awaiting his presents–or presence–in this case.

But beyond this excitement, I can’t help but think of the planning ramifications of inauguration day. Why is it that only on special occasions, we close off car traffic and encourage people to take mass transit or become pedestrians? Why is it that only in this extreme instance of adding 2 million people to the urban grid of Washington D.C. do people get sense knocked into them? At the far ends of a spectrum, there are lessons to be learned. If it makes sense today, than it should make sense tomorrow.

We can learn from the extremes and apply them in moderation. No, it might not be entirely appropriate to make the area car free permanently. But we can certainly continue to encourage foot traffic and mass transit, instead of focusing on moving automobiles as fast as possible. Hope, people! Keep it alive.

What would you do for New York if you were president? My initial thoughts: an MTA bailout–with strings attached–that require the funding stream to come away from volatile real estate taxes, a bit of extra funding to NYSERDA to beef up its city program so that 10 million New Yorkers can take more advantage of energy efficient tax credits and incentives, join the state in suing Exxon-Mobil for their continued Greenpoint nonsense, give Amtrak more money so I don’t have to take the China town bus everywhere, support the former Governor’s initiative to give illegal residents drivers licenses, help us prevent storm water overflows by further incentivizing urban vegetation and green roof projects.

The Center for an Urban Future has gone ahead and made their list of 51 things that Obama can do to help NYC, since he is the only candidate who ever had an urban policy platform at any point during the primary or general election, they are hopeful that he might care. Some of my thoughts seem to cross over with theirs. We both seem to want more Amtrak. Another transportation request on their part is a request for more ferry service. It would be so civilized, wouldn’t it?

View the full report here. See City Room coverage here.

Just this week, the MTA unveiled the draft of their sustainability report, in Washington D.C. of all places. Apparently it is because the new proposals are in line with the President Elect’s transit plans? Perhaps they were just trying to avoid another shoe throwing incident. Different news sources have outlined various aspects of the plans. The Times reports on the voluntary environmental fee, while NY1 has more comprehensive coverage and of course Streetsblog has some preliminary thoughts on it as well.The report does seem ambitious. The MTA hopes to satisfy 80% of their energy demands from renewable sources by 2050. And they hope to consult with developers and move them towards smart growth principles, which means that new developments–commercial and residential–should be in close proximity to transit hubs.

But when we aren’t thinking about how green the MTA is becoming, we are thinking about their financial mess. And related to that, we are wondering when we might hear from the state legislature or the federal government on whether they will give us our very own bail out. According to a poll conducted in August of 2008, Americans overwhelmingly support increasing funding for mass transit development. So, if we don’t get any money from anyone, some politicians need to clean their ears. Or perhaps they just need to hear from us more? Either way, the MTA’s vision sounds good, as long as there is still a system to green. Let’s work on these things simultaneously.

Happy New Year dear readers! I trust that everyone had a hard time making it into work today, assuming that you took the nice long break you deserved. But if you are lucky like me, your commute allowed you to read some headlines, since you weren’t driving.

Yesterday’s Times has a brief editorial on the necessity of shifting federal infrastructure funding from auto friendly to mass transit friendly. The piece states that currently 80% of infrastructure funding goes towards bridges and highways, with only 20% towards mass transit and railroads. In part, this has been aided by the “cost effectiveness clause,” another Bush legacy which essentially resulted in the favoring of highway building over other transit options. Finally the piece points out that the new stimulus package’s transportation clause has $30 billion for highways and bridges and $12 billion for public transit. They think this is a “far healthier mix.”

But is it?

Last year’s gas hikes resulted in massive overflows on public transportation in truck loving places like Colorado. To begin with, gas prices will rise inevitably rise again. And the recent willingness of people to get onto mass transit indicates that when driving is a bit less convenient or economical, other options will suffice. It is true, as the editorial points out, that the automobile is not going anywhere, but infrastructure expenditures reflect the future, not the present. Putting nearly 3 times the amount of money into our auto basket rather than mass transit does not strike me as much to applaud. In comparison to the 80/20 ratio, anything is better. But if we were to track our progress only on relative terms, we would make marginal gains in most areas. We need boldness here. Not relativity. The first new deal built highways, including route 1 in California–a majestic drive that has turned the California coastline into an accessible destination. Now we have our chance for a second less-new deal. Can’t it be about trains and a new destination?

It seems almost surreal that political decisions are made in 3rd floor conference rooms-in secrecy-without votes these days. One would think that this practice would describe the currently contested elections in Zimbabwe. But alas, we are just as opaque here in the Empire State.
Transparent Traffic.

While I am personally disappointed that the plan is now dead-as are most New Yorkers who chose to walk instead of take the slow bus that follows their route-it is inconceivable that this didn’t even go to a vote. Considering that 2 out of 3 New Yorkers supported congestion pricing if the dollars went to mass transit improvements, this might have deserved such attention. New York State politics is often described as 3 men in a room. But all of a sudden Sheldon Silver tells us that “they”-the Assembly Democrats, weren’t for it. Something smells polluted here. Silver’s position has ranged from ardently opposed to minimally embracing. Not to mention the larger structural flaws of the state’s political process. At one of the first public hearings last summer a representative voiced concern that his Rochester constituents might be confused about where the boundary starts, when they come to visit. It might be time to rethink this system.

People can sling mud at Bloomberg and his inability to have built relationships with upstate politicos, as well as criticize the DOT’s commissioner for getting a speeding ticket on her way up there to convince lawmakers of the plan’s merits. Both of these things are problematic, but standard practice in Albany:An inability to build coalitions and a misuse of privilege. But it is the constituents of those mudslingers who don’t have chauffeurs or city vehicles.  We are ultimately the losers.

It was not a tax, it was not elitist, it was a market based solution that charged for use. Simply put, when a resource is limited, it costs more. The real waste of dollars was the commission made to study this plan. Shame on those with power who don’t even honor the most basic democratic practice: A transparent vote.