"Getting There" - Gasoline is Too Cheap

  Gasoline is too cheap.

Wait!  Don’t turn the page!  This is not another tree-hugger train-guy rant. Hear me out.

President-elect Biden has made the argument for weaning us off fossil-fuels, mostly for environmental reasons.  Anybody who remotely believes in science or has witnessed the cataclysmic changes in our weather, knows we must do something to stop global warming.

But I still drive a car (albeit a hybrid) and am not ready to give it up for a bicycle or skateboard like some crazed Gen-Z’er.  We need cars to get around in Connecticut despite our meager attempts at mass transit… especially in the time of COVID.

My argument is that price of the fuel we use (gasoline) doesn’t cover the real cost to our environment (or each other) when we drive.  Gasoline is too cheap.

Why does a gallon of gasoline, which moves us 20 – 50 miles (depending on your car’s efficiency), cost less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks?  Enjoying your java doesn’t destroy the ozone layer.

Why does a gallon of gas in the US cost roughly half of what it does in Canada?  Or a third of the price in Europe? 

The answer is taxes.  Other nations put huge taxes on fuel and reinvest the proceeds into mass transit, subsidizing the fares.

OK, so you don’t want to take the train or a bus.  That’s fine. Drive your car and enjoy the crowded highways… and our polluted air.  Those are the cost of cheap fuel too.

Did you know that Connecticut’s air quality is, by many criteria, dirtier than Los Angeles’?  Sure, a lot of that airborne crud is floating our way from New York City, but we’re not helping ourselves by adding to it.  Nor are we aiding our residents who have conditions like asthma.

Caring parents obsess about protecting the health of their kids by buying organic food, but drive to the supermarket to acquire it in SUVs. There seems no incentive for buying a car, truck or SUV that uses less fuel with gas prices so low.

When I visit Europe again (soon, I hope) I won’t see SUVs, but smaller, cleaner, much more fuel efficient cars.  With the higher price of gasoline reflecting the actual cost of driving, European motorists don’t waste fuel the way we do.

The oil companies get it.  That’s why BP (British Petroleum)  is investing in solar and wind, expecting to produce 40% less fossil fuels in the next decade.

Wall Street also understands it, witness the more than quadrupling in the share price of Tesla (maker of electric cars) in the last year.

So why don’t we get it?  Why is gasoline so cheap?

Depending on whom you talk to, we have about 47 years worth of oil left before we run out.  That assumes current consumption levels.  If we use less, it will last longer.  That’s why the price of gasoline should go up so we are incentivized to drive less in smaller cars and make our oil last longer while we transition to renewables, right?

Of course, what do we care?  We won’t be around when the oil runs out.  That, along with the rising sea level and coastal flooding, will be the next generation’s problem.  I’m sure they’ll figure it out. Good luck, kids.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

 

"Getting There" - The Transportation Treasure Hunt

 The headline a few days ago was encouraging:  “CT gets $400K grant to study improvements to Metro-North lines”.   But what’s $400,000 going to tell us that we don’t already know? 

 

Any rider of Metro-North knows the infrastructure is crumbling, the station parking and seating on trains (until COVID) are inadequate and, on the branch lines, the service is terrible.  So why another study?

 

Turns out, this Federal grant is different, as Francis Pickering, the Executive Director of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments (WCOG) explains:  “We know what needs to be fixed.  We just don’t know how to pay for it.”   That’s what this study is going to focus on.  This Federal grant is for a treasure hunt.

 

Remember in 2015 when Governor Malloy rolled out his 30-year, $100 billion “Let’s Go CT” transportation wish list?  Typical of a politician, he wanted credit for the vision but not the blame for paying for it.  So he created yet another “blue ribbon panel” to brainstorm on funding, and their report was filled with unpopular ideas:  raise the sales tax, raise the gasoline tax, raise DMV fees and yes, add highway tolls.

 

I don’t notice anyone campaigning for the legislature this year on those unpopular ideas, so are there alternatives?

 

Focusing specifically on the Danbury and New Canaan branch lines of Metro-North, this new study is looking to other areas’ transit improvements and how they were paid for…  like the expansion of the DC Metro’s Silver Line out to Dulles Airport.  Sure, half of its cost is being paid by tolls on the adjacent highway, but much of the rest is coming from what’s called “Value Capture”.

 

The thinking is, if you expand transit services then the area around stations will grow (remember TOD, transit oriented development?) as new offices and apartments are built.  That means increased property values and more taxes for the town or city.  The “value capture” idea is to get a share of that increased future tax revenue stream and use it to pay for the transit improvements.

 

That seems fair, right?  Only the people who benefit from the improvements (residents, land owners, developers and the towns) help to pay for them.  Layer on top of that the ideas of regional sales taxes or payroll taxes and you’re talking real money.  Of course, none of these funding options are legal in Connecticut… yet.

 

And to make those kinds of changes in Hartford you’ll need to get everybody on board, including the dozens of cities and towns served by those trains.  To sweeten the pot the WCOG folks are looking to expand the Danbury line, adding new stations at Wall Street in downtown Norwalk, Georgetown and points north from Danbury to New Milford.  But that assumes Metro-North is literally on board with the idea.

 

It will take 18 to 24 months to do this new study so there will be lots of opportunity for public input… the hope being if a funding solution works here it might be applied elsewhere in the state.

 

Nothing happens fast in the world of transportation in this state. 

 

I remember watching the diminutive Speaker of the CT House Mora Lyons in 2001, standing next to a stack of studies and reports as tall as she was, saying “enough with the studies… let’s DO something.”

 

Has much really changed in 20 years? 

 

 

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

"Getting There" - A WPA Project for Transportation?

  Here’s a possible solution to Connecticut’s transportation and infrastructure problems and the state’s current unemployment woes:  a WPA style building project.

You do remember the Works Progress Administration, right?  It was FDR’s plan that put millions of unemployed Americans to work building public projects like roads, water mains, firehouses and dams.  Look around you and you’ll still see us benefiting from that investment.

But fast-forward 80 years…

Any reader of this column is all too familiar with the need for transportation investment in our state: our 7000 miles of roads and bridges in “poor condition”, the $4.6 billion needed for wastewater treatment not to mention our rusting railroads.

And everyone in Connecticut is aware of the unemployment crisis brought on by COVID: 8.2% of the state’s labor force is out of work, translating to 153,000 people without jobs, most of them now drawing benefits from our rapidly depleting Unemployment Trust Fund.  Soon the state may be borrowing from Washington to keep those unemployment checks coming.

Mind you, not every unemployed person in Connecticut is ready for manual labor.  It’s not like laid-off bankers can just pick up a shovel and start digging.  But those who are young, able and hungry enough could be candidates… or trained to be.

A few years back General Dynamics’ Electric Boat in Groton needed 4000 welders to build submarines so they turned to the local community colleges to help teach them for jobs starting at $16 an hour.

Could a new New Deal be a win-win solution for Connecticut?

State Representative Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport) and municipal bankruptcy expert Mike Imber from Weston believe a Connecticut WPA would put thousands of people to work savings millions in unemployment checks while tackling our state’s crumbling infrastructure.

They’ve pitched the idea to the Governor’s office but so far haven’t got much of a response. 

The labor unions should be big fans of their idea, as new projects would mean work for their members… maybe even at union wages.  Best of all, Steinberg and Imber don’t think the idea would need legislative approval or state money.  Instead they suggest a P3… a Public Private Partnership.

“There are hundreds of ‘social impact’ investor funds looking to support ideas like this,” says Imber.  “There is no lack of capital.”   Investors put up the money for the projects while receiving a reasonable return over 20 or 30 years and the project remains under state ownership and control.

But there’s the rub.  Who pays the investors and with what money?

Why not the people who benefit from the projects that get built?  Water systems could charge customers for more reliable water supplies.  And the people who drive over new bridges and repaired roadways could also be charged a bit more.  Which brings us to tolls.  Yes, tolls.

“No realistic P3 model doesn’t involve tolls,” says Steinberg, long a supporter of user fees on roads and rails.  “The legislature has been gun shy about discussing tolls,” he says.  “The real question is whether Lamont will be seeking another term as Governor and is willing to invest the next two years fighting this battle (for tolls).”

Will Lamont risk his COVID-inspired high approval ratings to “do the right thing”, tackling unemployment and fix our infrastructure if it means a battle?

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

"Getting There" - The Eye of the Hurricane

  

When it comes to COVID’s impact on transportation in our state, we are in the eye of the hurricane.

That’s been the theme of my recent virtual talk to various Connecticut’s libraries and civic groups, comparing the calm eye of an intense storm to how we’ve become complacent about our transportation future.  We kid ourselves if we think the winds have passed.  The worst is yet to come.

Commuters who’ve returned to the rails tell me ridership is slowly coming back but many still fear for their safety on mass transit, and with good reason.

Metro-North has finally put $50 fines into effect for those refusing to wear face masks on its trains.  But they’re leaving enforcement to the MTA Police who almost never are seen on Connecticut trains.  Anecdotally I’ve heard from many riders who’ve seen non-mask wearing riders and conductors who do nothing to get them to mask up.

We’re talking about public health here.  I think anyone who refuses to wear a mask should be kicked off the train.

The back side of the COVID hurricane may see a second wave of infections, but we will certainly feel the effects of six months of financial losses born by the railroad.  The MTA’s Chairman Patrick Foye says the agency is facing an “existential challenge”… a $16 billion deficit by 2024.

Without federal help he’s predicting layoffs and service cuts to as little as one train every two hours.  Imagine how crowded those trains will be, commuters sitting three abreast among the unmasked.

But on the state level an even greater financial storm is approaching:  The Special Transportation Fund (STF) is going bankrupt faster than previously feared.

It is the STF that funds highway and bridge repairs, subsidizes mass transit and keeps transportation moving.  But it relies on gasoline and sales tax revenues that have been slammed by the virus, so by mid 2022 it will run out of money… maybe sooner.

And if the STF is in the red, nobody on Wall Street will underwrite any of Connecticut’s new bonds… not for schools or sanitation or housing.  Then what do we do?

What really galls me is that nobody is talking about this.

It is an election year (as if you haven’t noticed), but our State lawmakers have disappeared, leaving the governing of the state (by executive order) to Governor Lamont who, by recent polls, is seen as doing a good job.

Some lawmakers have complained that the legislature has been cut out of decision making, but they couldn’t cite which of Lamont’s emergency orders they took issue with.

Aside from their brief summer session when they passed an omnibus police reform package, now receiving criticism after we understand its details, our State Reps and Senators are AWOL.

Oh, they’re campaigning, but not talking about what’s coming in the next session.

Of course they don’t want to tell you now what’s going to be necessary to re-fund the STF:  a combination of tolls, new taxes and higher fares.  They’ll leave that bad news until after they are re-elected.

That’s why all of us must force their hand.  Go to their campaign rallies (fully masked) and upcoming League of Women Voters debates and ask them, on the record, where they stand on tolls and taxes.  And if not those remedies, what are their alternatives?

Then we can all cast an informed vote and decide who’s best to help us weather the storm yet to come.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

"Getting There" - Carless in Connecticut

 When you think of the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, you probably conjure up thoughts of senior discounts, health insurance and retirement.  So it might surprise you to learn that they’re also actively engaged in driver safety and promoting access to mass transit.  The statistics on these issues they shared with me are quite interesting.

By 2025 a quarter of all drivers in the US will be over age 65. And while they are involved in more accidents per capita than younger adults, they are far safer than teens.  But over age 70, traffic fatalities increase with age; by age 85, drivers have probably outlived their ability to drive safely.

Every year some 600,000 adults stop driving.  But because seniors make 90% of their trips in private cars, either driving or as passengers, what happens next?

When seniors stop driving it impacts more than their mobility:  it can also affect their health.

Seniors who stop driving make 15% fewer trips to the doctor.  They can’t get out to shop as much.  They isolate socially, which can lead to depression and a downward spiral in health.

Even before their kids take away their car keys, seniors self-regulate their time behind the wheel.  Maybe they avoid highway driving or traveling at rush hour.  And who likes driving at night?

Living in the suburbs, 80% of seniors have their homes in car-dependent neighborhoods.  Some 53% of those areas don’t have sidewalks and 60% are not within a ten minute walk of a transit stop, assuming they can still walk that distance.

That’s why AARP is making senior mobility a national issue.  And the firm’s Associate State Director for Connecticut, Anna Doroghazi, is becoming a frequent speaker and lobbyist in Hartford.

“We are all going to have to be more involved in transportation issues,” she told me.  And her group’s support for pedestrian safety legislation is just the start.

“We want everyone to think about building ‘livable communities’ where people don’t need a car but can walk or catch a free ride to their nearby services.  And if that’s good for (your mobility) at age 80, it’ll also be good for you at age 8.”

Remember… it’s not just seniors who can be car-less.  Think of those with special needs who can’t drive or low income residents who can’t afford to… not to mention Millennials who are said to have no interest in car ownership.  How do they get around?

The “Carless in Connecticut” are probably familiar with catching Metro-North to go into New York City.  But do they have access to or know anything about local bus service?  Or ParaTransit? Or MicroTransit, on-demand services?

Local social service agencies are doing a better job of giving their clients mobility options.  And the amazing folks at The Kennedy Center have a great “Travel Training” program to help the disabled, both physically and emotionally, build confidence about riding the bus.

It’s not the cost of bus fare that dissuades seniors from riding.  It’s not knowing where the bus stops are, when they run, the lack of a shelter and, yes, probably a fear for their safety. Plus, not all buses kneel making front door access a challenge.

But kudos to the AARP for embracing this issue.  Their advocacy for seniors should bring benefits to us all.

 

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

"Getting There" - Why Does Red Mean Stop and Green Means Go?

 

Do you ever wonder why our stoplights designate red as stop and green as go?  Me too!  In fact, it was my daughter’s question on this very matter that inspired me to do some historic research.

In the 1840s the British railroads adopted a flag, lamp and semaphore signal system where red meant danger, white meant safety and green indicated proceed with caution.  They took their inspiration from early industrialization where factory machines used red to indicate the equipment was off and green when turned on.

But when the red glass lens on one signal lamp dropped out of its socket, showing a white light which caused a rail collision, they opted for yellow instead.

Traditionally red has evoked danger and green, a more calming influence.  But it was optical science that reinforced the choice.

Red has the longest wavelength in the visible spectrum and is less likely to be interfered with by other light sources in what’s known as “light scattering”.  Think of fog or dust in the air. The red light penetrates best.

By the 1860s traffic conditions in London prompted officials to seek a way of controlling horse-drawn carriages with a signal system and opted for the railroad scheme of color-coded semaphores and lights controlled by a policeman, often perched on a raised kiosk in the middle of the intersection.

You can credit American policeman William Potts for the invention of the first traffic lights in Detroit in 1920.  But they were still sequenced by an officer making traffic control expensive.  A timer system was introduced to sequence the flow but there was also a system activated by sound.

A microphone was installed on the light pole and when a car approached it would honk its horn and the light would turn green… but just for ten seconds to allow that one car to get through.  You can see the problem that was going to create.

In 1935 the Federal Highway Administration standardized all national driving rules including a requirement that stop lights include red, yellow and green signals.

Today we use not only timers but some sophisticated measuring devices to sequence traffic lights including inductive loops.  You’ve probably seen signs of  them, buried in the pavement, as you pull up to an intersection,.  They measure the metal in cars as they drive over them, allowing the system to know that a car is there waiting for a green signal.

Even the traffic lights themselves have improved.  They now measure either eight or twelve inches in diameter and must be visible in every lighting condition.  The older incandescent bulbs that illuminated them use to burn at 175 watts and needed constant replacement.  Now they’re being replaced with high endurance LED lamps which give as much light but only require 10 – 25 watts of electricity.

At many Connecticut intersections there are also sensors on the light poles detecting the strobe lights or special radio signals emitted by emergency vehicles, giving them the right of way.

To help the 13 million Americans who are color blind, stoplights are always arranged with red on top and green on the bottom.

Given the sophisticated technology and engineering time spent on designing a stoplight system for an intersection, they’re not cheap.  A fully equipped setup can cost between $250,000 and a half-million with an annual maintenance cost of $8000.

 Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

"Getting There" - Pandemic & Parking

 

There’s another part of our transportation network being seriously affected by COVID-19 beyond our roads and rails:  parking lots.

Parking is something we take for granted, giving us access to rail stations, shopping and offices.  It’s hardly glamorous, but the parking industry represents an $11 billion business nationwide, one third of it privately owned.

In Connecticut most rail station parking is owned by the Connecticut DOT but administered by the local towns, each of which sets its own rates and terms.  The money collected from commuters is supposed to be spent on station upkeep and amenities while the state takes its share.

Pre-COVID, the demand for rail station parking was so high that some Fairfield County towns had five-year waiting lists for annual permits.  Now those lots are as empty as the trains that serve them.

That’s a further strain on already tight Town budgets but a relatively small loss for CDOT compared to their hemorrhaging of money in other areas.

Office parks are similarly impacted, their bucolic but near-empty offices now surrounded by a sea of empty asphalt.  All of which is leading planners to rethink the short and long-term future of parking overall.

To encourage residents to visit downtown restaurants and merchants cities like Stamford offered three hours of free parking at city owned lots in July. But while that helped struggling local merchants, it’s not an offer that can be expected to last forever.

At some Walmarts in New Jersey the megastore chain is offering free drive-in movies in their lots this month.  Some Connecticut towns are doing the same thing locally.

In New York City great swaths of street parking on the city’s 6000 miles of streets have been converted to outdoor dining for nearby restaurants:  great in the summer, but in the fall will we really want to wear parkas and hats to munch on our pizza al fresco?

And according to some estimates, the loss of parking, parking tickets and such will cost NYC government something like $590 million this year.  That’s real money and would pay for a lot of teachers.

At the airports, private lot operators like Parking Spot used their empty spaces to store cargo, construction equipment and unneeded rental cars.

Assuming a vaccine and eventual suppression of the pandemic, most planners think that changing work patterns will mean fewer trips to “the office” and more time spent working at home.  How will that impact parking demand… and pricing?

Given its limited availability (and increasing demand as commuters revert to cars from trains), parking in cities will still be in demand.  Even though only 10% of midtown Manhattan’s workforce is back in their offices, parking in that area still costs about $500 a month.  Some workers are lucky enough to have those costs subsidized by their bosses… but again, for how long?

But all of this pales in comparison to the story of the savvy couple in Park Slope Brooklyn, who in 2005 purchased two “car condo” parking spaces in a nearby garage for $45,000 each.

They used one of the spaces for their family car and rented out the other for $600 a month, pocketing a $310 profit each month.  In 2016 they sold that extra parking space for $285,000. 

It’s all about supply and demand.

 

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media